11 Historical and Contemporary Conceptions of Intelligence: Limitations and Biases

Early 20th century Testing Origins

 A Tale of Two Tests: Binet and Wechsler

Alfred Binet

In 1905, Alfred Binet and Théodore Simon published a scale aimed at measuring intelligence in the French journal L’Année psychologique (Binet & Simon, 1905), a highly influential moment in intelligence testing that provided a model and source of content that influenced many later tests (Boake, 2002). Prior, the likes of Frances Galton and James McKeen Cattell had both aimed at assessing intelligence through the means of correlating anthropometric measures and sensory response tests to intelligence. Unfortunately, these methods didn’t prove fruitful (White & Hall, 1980). Cattell’s work at Columbia University starting in 1894 eventually showed no correlation between his sensory/mental tests and student academic performance, and thus he abandoned this approach to mental testing (D. Alards-Tomalin, personal communication).

However, despite its failures, Galton’s anthropometric approach to studying individuals through standardized tests interested Binet and influenced his career in the field of mental testing (Britannica, 2022). Eventually because of this career, in 1904, the Public Minister of Instruction in France would ask Binet to create a procedure to help select children with deficits for placement in special education classes, which he would publish in 1905 (White & Hall, 1980). It should be noted that Binet saw this test as a means for a general classification of children as a component of a clinical examination, and not a tool for refined psychological measurement (White & Hall, 1980).

After the Binet-Simon scale (and intelligence testing in general) had gained popularity in America through the work of psychologists such as Henry Goddard (Zenderland, 1998), the test would eventually be updated and adapted by Lewis Terman at Stanford University in 1916, being renamed to the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale, and quickly becoming the most popular measure of intelligence in America (Boake, 2002).

David Wechsler

After completing his masters thesis at Columbia University in 1917, David Wechsler became a wartime psychological examiner, spending much of his time individually testing soldiers who had failed previous group administered tests and who could possibly be discharged (Boake, 2002). Wechsler became convinced of the short comings of the Stanford-Binet and other similar tests due to their misdiagnosing of soldiers as mentally defective, despite them previously functioning normally in their civilian lives (Boake, 2002). He attributed this to the overreliance of these kinds of tests on verbal abilities needing to be obtained through formal education (Boake, 2002).

In 1939 Wechsler published his first intelligence test that would later become known as the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS). Other than statistical innovations, Wechsler’s main accomplishment with his WAIS scale involved combining both verbal and nonverbal based skill tests (taken from many prior scales) into a single scale, which he hoped would reduce the over diagnosing of intellectual deficits that he experienced during his army examiner years (Boake, 2002). This scale and its revisions would become one of the most used intelligence tests in the history of psychology, with it still being in use today.

• – WAIS took many of its items from the Stanford-Binet and Army tests (alpha/beta group tests, individual examination test, also Yerkes-Bridges and Stanford-Binet scales)
  • o Army individual test has its roots in the Yerkes-Bridges point scale and beta test
• – Mention criticisms over their lack of theoretical backing of these tests and transition to newer theories

Mid 20th Century and Contemporary Theories

Categorizing Intelligence: General vs multiple

Theories of General Intelligence: Spearman and Cattell

In the early 1900s Charles Spearman proposed the two-factor theory of intelligence, favoring a a more unidimensional view of intelligence as a general factor (g) that you could extract specific intellectual factors (s’s) out of, focusing more on the commonalities shared between different intellectual abilities rather than their differences (White & Hall, 1980). It should be noted, Spearman’s original conception of g was limited as it was built upon a narrow set of skills consisting of Victorian values and lack of inclusion of skills important to other cultures and socioeconomic backgrounds (D. Alards-Tomalin, personal communication).

In the 1940s, a former student of Spearman, Raymond Cattell, amended his theory of a general intelligence factor by splitting up g further into two distinct factors: crystalized intelligence (gc) and fluid intelligence (g­f). Crystalized intelligence derives from past learning and knowledge that aid one in current situations where they can be reapplied, while fluid intelligence refers to information processing abilities that show up more so on novel problems and tasks where prior learning and knowledge is less useful (Cattell, 1963).

• Additionally, C-H-S theory would take g and put it in a hierarchy model … (Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory (hierarchical model of intelligence)

• • • Influential towards current IQ tests

Theories of Multiple Intelligences: Sternberg and Gardener

While Spearman decided to take a more unidimensional approach, and Cattell looked to distinguish general intelligence derived from processing abilities versus prior learning, Stephen J. Sternberg triarchic theory views intelligence as having 3 components: Analytical, practical, and creative (Sternberg et al., 2001; Sternberg et al., 2005).

• – Analytical intelligence involving executive functioning processes (xyz), performance ability(?), and learning ability.
• – Creative intelligence: creation of solutions to novel problems/situations
• – Practical (contextual) intelligence: adaptation and an ability to create beneficial outcomes in real world environments
  • o (Sternberg et al., 2001;Sternberg, 2005)

Beyond theories of a few major components, there is Howard Gardener and his multiple intelligences theory, including 8 main kinds of intelligences: …

• Doesn’t really believe in a general intelligence
  • o (Carroll vs Gardener opposite ends of the spectrum theoretically point)

Revaluating Intelligence: Applied and Within Context

• – Intelligence as having not only an ability component, but also attitudinal component
  • o Sternberg argues attitudinal component “at least as important” as the ability component
    • “Many of the problems we face in the world stem not from a lack of intelligence as an ability, but rather from a lack of an intelligent attitude
    • (Sternberg, 2022)
  • – Culturally bound behavioural output aspect of intelligence
    • o Triarchic theory à “According to this theory, the processes of human intelligence are universal but their instantiations in behavior are contextually bound.”
    • o ‘cognitive processes underlying intelligent thought are the same across individuals and cultures, but the way in which these processes are expressed through behavior may vary depending on the context in which they are applied
      • (Sternberg, 1999)

• – Adaptive intelligence à perspective of intelligence not as a fixed trait, but a process of interactions
  • o Implications à person may be intelligent in one situation but not in another, and that intelligence is not a fixed characteristic of an individual.
  • o (Sternberg, 2021)

Impact of Intelligence on Minorities

Having looked in depth at the history of intelligence testing as well as the impact these tests have on neurodivergent individuals, it is also important to investigate how the construct of intelligence impacts minorities and other marginalized groups. This section aims to investigate the impact these tests can have on minority individuals, as well as looks into what can be done to combat this overall bias narrative.

Strong and Garth

In 1913 Strong conducted the first, reported study of Caucasian-African American differences in intelligence as measured by the Binet-Simon Scale. The participants included 225 Caucasian and 125 African American children. Strong, who was a graduate student at the time, concluded that “colored children are mentally younger than the Caucasian [children]” (Valencia & Suzuki, 2000, p.9). One of the biggest areas of interest that preoccupied the scholars who were studying race psychology, was the intellectual performance of Caucasian youth compared to their peers of color. Another strong proponent of this idea was Thomas R. Garth, a professor at The University of Texas. Garth was a hereditarian and held the belief that the Caucasian race was mentally superior (this is something he would change his mind about later on). Garth’s first research publication focused on 19 different racial groups. These racial groups included African Americans, Indians, Chinese, Italian, Portuguese, Mexican, and Japanese. At the time his conclusion was that, after testing these groups, the Caucasian race was mentally superior. From 1924 to 1929 Garth repeated his studies but with a larger sample of participants (36,882). In 1930 Garth published his second review in which he conceded that the “hypothesis of racial inequality” was losing ground to the “hypothesis of racial equality”. It was during this time that there was a rapid change in the narrative and views on Caucasian superiority in regard to intelligence started to decline. The final individual that was important in the development of this field and further propagated the narrative of Caucasian superiority within the field of intelligence testing was Charles Spearman. Spearman was the first to come up with the concept of “g” factor. He imagined the g factor to be akin to mental energy, which allows for various cognitive functions to work. These cognitive functions include memory, deduction, induction, grasping abstract relationships, rule inference, and finding similarities and dissimilarities, and can be thought of as a measure of general intelligence (hence g). In 1927 Spearman suggested that “the average black–white difference on diverse mental tests may be interpreted as chiefly a difference in g, rather than as a difference in the more specific sources of test score variance associated with any particular informational content, scholastic knowledge, specific acquired skill, or type of test” (Jensen, 2010). What this is suggesting is that the variance between African American and Caucasians scores on the test is directly related to general intelligence rather than socioeconomic background or a mismatch of cultural environment.

Statistical relevance

Looking next at the relevant statistical information, the Bender Visual-Motor Gestalt Test is a test that is used to assess visual-motor functioning, developmental disorders, and neurological impairments in children who are ages 3 and older. A study by Strait et al. (2019) looked at the differences in scores between Caucasian and African Americans. Mostly, it was found that there were no discernible differences between the two groups with the exception of a statistic that returned a p value of 0.000, which could indicate that this metric warrants further investigation. It was stipulated that despite the statistical significance of this finding, there was no theoretical explanation as to why this occurred, as well as there being no evidence to support a strong connection. There are many different factors that could impact the results of an IQ test in relation to race. For example, stereotype threat is the idea that preconceived notions about your membership to a particular group can increase cognitive load and ultimately lead to reduced performance on a cognitive test. Steele and Aronson (1995) looked at how stereotype threat impacted the test performance of African Americans. It was found that holding a negative stereotype about one’s own group could in fact cause a cognitive decline. “Study 4 showed that mere salience of the stereotype could impair Blacks’ performance even when the test was not ability diagnostic” (Steele & Aronson, 1995). One of the biggest counter arguments to the narrative of Caucasians being mentally superior to African Americans (based on statistics) has to do with the fact that these results are not biologically based, but rather based on socioeconomic status of the individuals taking the test. A study conducted by Boone and Adesso (1974) found race and culture can impact the scores on intelligence tests and found that cultural bias has an impact. Essentially, the individuals that were taking the test scored higher if the test contained content that was specific to their own cultural environment. This is a very strong hypothesis and taken at face seems to be reasonable.

Having discussed some of the relevant background dealing with race and intelligence testing, the biggest takeaway is that there are many different aspects that can impact the score on an intelligence test (stereotype threat, socio-economic status, etc.) and attempting to chalk it up to genetic superiority seems to fall flat. This viewpoint became outdated as early as the 1930’s and does not seem to hold any inherent value.

Intelligence and Learning Disabilities

“It takes something more than intelligence to act intelligently” (Funke, 2021).

We as humans have decided that we need to find a way to define intelligence. This stems from the need to understand everything, the need to know all and the need for opulence. Therefore, over time, specific individuals have defined what intelligence is and what one needs to be capable of to be defined as intelligent. The people that decided on the definition also had a way to assess if an individual did indeed fulfill the definition/was actually intelligent. Unfortunately, (as Marshall noted, I assume you will touch on defining it- restate instead of reference), intelligence testing (IQ tests) has been defined in ways that limit people’s true potential. Especially people that are not experts at Westernized stereotypical types/fields of intelligence. These tests leave little room for alternative forms of intelligence. As well as, not viewing the person as a whole, just viewing them as their ability to perform a certain academic skill (calculation, reading comprehension, and even the ability to speak English; which is just so unfair/not a way to assess someone’s intelligence).

We can see how this would unfairly restrict certain people and inaccurately rate their intelligence. This can also negatively impact individuals’ self-esteem along with giving them an overall skewed perception of their ability/capability in life. It can affect any marginalized group or even someone that may not have been able to efficiently master a certain so-called ‘normal’ life skill for a variety of reasons. This work will mainly focus on how the bias/limitations of IQ testing has/can impact people with learning disabilities. It will provide insight on how people with dyslexia may be limited by IQ tests (since I have this myself and I can relate to having an inaccurate perception of what I was capable of just because I was so bad at reading for so long) but it will also focus on gaining an understanding of what other people with learning disability (Dyslexia, Dyscalculia, Dysgraphia, ADHD) go through because of these IQ tests.

IQ tests do show cognitive progress over decades, but they are not the reason for the cognitive progress, just a way to measure some basic aspects in the general population. But, Jensen (1998) believed they were ‘hollow’ and did not hold significant value in the real world (Princiotta & Goldstein, 2015). This demonstrates why it is important to not just judge someone on one basic assessment, but instead, intend to understand the person in all their aspects.

The way IQ test results are used and perceived is one of the most limiting factors of these tests. If used in the correct way (taking into account that there are other skills a person has that may not be represented through the IQ test, etc…) these tests can provide useful information. However, this had a huge dependence on who is administering the test, for what reasons, and in what way they will interpret individuals’ test results. In the study by Kranzler, et al (2020) they investigate exactly how school psychologists/practitioners interpret intelligence tests, specifically looking into how these tests may benefit or unfairly disadvantage students with learning disabilities.

-I will go more into depth on this paper for the full OER

The article by Miciak, and Fletcher, (2020) provides excellent insight into how people with dyslexia process information and function on an academic level. Miciak and Fletcher note that IQ tests can indeed be helpful in the diagnosis of dyslexia, but should only be one step of the diagnostic system when it comes to learning disabilities (in this case, especially for dyslexia). The paper notes that ‘hybrid’ methods should be used when investigating and trying to identify an individual’s specific learning disabilities (LD) (Miciak, J., & Fletcher,2020)

-I will add more on the diagnostic element for the OER

Miciak, and Fletcher also cover treatment methods in their paper. They suggest that a multitier system of support (MTSS) is ideal. This is because it includes ample information regarding the individual as well as looking into them through a holistic lens.

References

Binet, A., & Simon, T. (1905). Méthodes nouvelles pour le diagnostic du niveau intellectual des anormaux. L’Année psychologique, 11, 191–336.

Boake, C. (2002). From the Binet-Simon to the Wechsler-Bellevue: tracing the history of intelligence testing. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 24(3), 383–405. https://doi-org.ezproxy.capilanou.ca/10.1076/jcen.24.3.383.981

Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopaedia (2022, October 14). Alfred Binet. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Alfred-Binet

Cattell, R. B. (1963). Theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence: A critical experiment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 54(1), 1–22. https://doi-org.ezproxy.capilanou.ca/10.1037/h0046743

Franzen M.D. (2000). The Wechsler Intelligence Scales for Children—the WISC-R, WISC-III, and WPPSI-R. In: Reliability and Validity in Neuropsychological Assessment. Critical Issues in Neuropsychology. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-3224-5_7

Funke, J. (2021). It requires more than intelligence to solve consequential world problems. Journal of Intelligence, 9(3), 38.

Jensen, Arthur R 2000. Black-white differences on various psychometric tests: Spearman’s hypothesis tested on American armed services veterans. Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 28, Issue. 3, p. 593″, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00122-1

Kranzler, J. H., Maki, K. E., Benson, N. F., Eckert, T. L., Floyd, R. G., & Fefer, S. A. (2020). How do school psychologists interpret intelligence tests for the identification of specific learning disabilities?. Contemporary School Psychology, 24, 445-456.

Miciak, J., & Fletcher, J. M. (2020). The critical role of instructional response for identifying dyslexia and other learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 53(5), 343-353.

Princiotta, D., & Goldstein, S. (2015). AR Luria and intelligence defined as a neuropsychological construct. Handbook of intelligence: Evolutionary theory, historical perspective, and current concepts, 181-192.

Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 797–811. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.797

Sternberg, R. J. (1999). Successful intelligence: finding a balance. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3(11), 436–442. https://doi-org.ezproxy.capilanou.ca/10.1016/S1364-6613(99)01391-1

Sternberg, R. J. (2021). Adaptive Intelligence: Intelligence Is Not a Personal Trait but Rather a Person × Task × Situation Interaction. Journal of Intelligence, 9.

Sternberg, R. J. (2022). The Intelligent Attitude: What Is Missing from Intelligence Tests. Journal of Intelligence, 10(4). https://doi-org.ezproxy.capilanou.ca/10.3390/jintelligence10040116

Sternberg, R. J., Castejón, J. L., Prieto, M. D., Hautamäki, J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2001). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Sternberg Triarchic Abilities Test in three international samples: An empirical test of the triarchic theory of intelligence. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 17(1), 1–16. https://doi-org.ezproxy.capilanou.ca/10.1027//1015-5759.17.1.1

Strait, J. E., Wright, E. K. C., & Decker, S. L. (2019). Bender‐Gestalt II differential item functioning across Caucasian and African American examinees. Psychology in the Schools, 56(1), 148–158. https://doi-org.ezproxy.capilanou.ca/10.1002/pits.22181

Valencia, R. R., & Suzuki, L. A. (2000). Intelligence testing and minority students: Foundations, performance factors, and assessment issues (Vol. 3). Sage.

White, M. B., & Hall, A. E. (1980). An overview of intelligence testing. Educational Horizons, 58(4), 210–216.