IQ Tests Are in Common

IQ tests are in common usage in the United States, in the education system. There have been many criticisms of the reliance on IQ tests as a measure of intelligence, in part deriving from the overreliance and misuse of such measures. IQ tests typically include knowledge, problem solving and adaptive skills. Their strength as a measure of intelligence is that the skills an IQ test does measure, it measures well. The tests typically focus on cognition -- skills such as recognition, categorization, thinking and memory.

Students who perform well on IQ tests tend to have a high level of general knowledge, arithmetic ability and vocabulary (Shiraev & Levy, n.d.). IQ tests also reflect only a segment of intelligence - the cognitive. They do not measure areas of intelligence such as creativity or wisdom. Even within the cognitive, there are a number of weaknesses in IQ tests. The first is that they are often viewed as having a cultural bias. IQ tests, for example, do not reflect between cognitive ability and cognitive potential.

Potential is inherent in a person, but ability derives from a combination of potential and interaction with a cultural environment. As a result, IQ tests are said to reflect the cultural language, content and motivations of the group that wrote the test (Shiraev & Levy, n.d.). It is, therefore, from the interaction of cognitive potential and experiential operationalization of that potential that one's IQ test is likely to derive. Malda, van de Vijnver and Temane (2010) illustrate this point with a study of South Africans.

In their study, they used two different studies, one designed for Afrikaners (with sports questions based on rugby) and one for Tswana (with sports questions based on soccer). They found that the groups scored better on the tests that-based reflected their own culture. The superior performance was noted on the culturally complex working memory and the figural fluid reasoning tests.

The authors note that Spearman's hypothesis holds that "cross-cultural differences relate to the cognitive complexity of tests." Therefore, tests with a higher cognitive complexity have higher difference in outcomes for people of different groups. The implication of this hypothesis, and research into the subject in general, shows that test outcomes do reflect at least in part cultural factors. There are "cultural differences in valued and therefore trained strategies to solve certain cognitive tasks" as well (Ibid).

That these differences have been identified within cognitive science illustrates that cultural bias does not simply reflect differences in cognitive potential among members of certain groups, but rather that it reflects differences in the ways that cognitive potential is operationalized. Shiraev and Levy (n.d.) argue this case further. They cite research that shows that people adapt the way that they operationalize their intelligence to their local setting.

They cite the examples of an Indian chess master, who uses the same psychological mechanisms in playing chess as a farmer would use to secure a deal on a new tractor. The example is apt -- chess-like problem solving strategies are found on IQ tests while bargaining is not usually found on some tests.

In contrast to the many studies that have identified clearly the difference between cognitive potential and the way that potential manifests on a test, there are few studies that provide clear evidence of broad-based biological differences in intelligence.