BA 1 Semester2 / Psychology/ Intelligence –Unit 4

INTELLIGENCE
CONCEPT, THEORIES, MEASUREMENT OF INTELLIGENCE

John Stuart Mill began to study Greek classics at age three, algebra at eight, and philosophy at twelve.
Charles Dickens wrote a tragedy before he was seven. Einstein discovered the paradox from which his
theory of relativity was developed at the age sixteen. Laymen and scientists alike believe that it is
intellectual capacity that distinguishes these men from others.

Definitions

In 1921, the editors of the Journal of Educational Psychology asked contributors to a symposium
“Intelligence and measurement” to give their views on the nature of intelligence. Some definitions thus
generated were:
1. E.L. Thorndike: The power of good responses from the point of view of truth or facts.
2. L.M. Terman: The ability to carry on abstract thinking.
3. W.F. Dearborn: The capacity to learn or to profit by experience.
4. R. Pinter: The ability to adapt one-self adequately to relatively new situations in life.
5. H. Woodrow: The capacity to acquire capacity.

Such was the diversity of opinions then prevailing that in an article in the New Republic, E.G. Boring
(1923) proposed that ‘Intelligence is what the tests test”. Boring was not so naïve as to believe that this
operational definition was the end of the line for understanding intelligence. On the contrary, he saw it as
a narrow definition, but a point of departure for a rigorous discussion “until further scientific discussion
allows us to extend it”.

The father of intelligence, testing, Alfred Binet (1910) held, “Comprehension, invention, direction, and
censorship; intelligence lies in these four words”. David Wechsler (1958) holds that “Intelligence is the
aggregate or global capacity of the individual to act purposefully, think rationally, and deal effectively
with his environment”. Sternberg (1988), a contemporary researcher in this area, defines intelligence as
“consisting of those mental functions purposively employed for purposes of adaptation to, and shaping,
and selection of, real-world environments”, in his book Metaphors of Mind. Fernald and Fernald (1999)
hold that “today intelligence is defined as the capacity to learn from experience and to adapt to new
situations”. Based on the views of a distinguished panel of experts (Neisser et al., 1996), Baron (2001)
defines intelligence as “the individuals’ abilities to understand complex ideas, to adapt effectively to the
environment, to learn from experience, to engage in various forms of reasoning, to overcome obstacles by
careful thought”.
BA 1 Semester2 / Psychology/ Intelligence –Unit 4

Viewpoints regarding intelligence

Psychologists working in the area of intelligence are usually consensual in labelling a person intelligent or
otherwise, but they seldom agree on what his intelligence exactly implies. There are a variety of
viewpoints regarding intelligence. Sternberg (1988) talks of seven “metaphors of mind” or theoretical
views of intelligence currently prevalent in the area:

1. The geographic metaphor seeks to generate a map of the mind using factor analysis. Trying to
uncover the structure of intelligence, psychometric theories have ranged from Spearman’s two-factor
theory to Guilford’s 150 abilities inherent in the Structure of Intellect model. Attempts have been
made to systematize the structure through hierarchical models proposed by Cattell and Vernon.

2. The computational metaphor views the brain as a computer and focuses on the processes involved in
intelligent behavior. Hunt holds that verbal efficiency is basic to intelligence, whereas Sternberg
distinguishes three kinds of information processing components.
 Metacomponents: Higher order processes used for planning, monitoring, and evaluation of one’s
performance.
 Performance components: Lower order processes used in the execution of various strategies for
task performance.
 Knowledge acquisition components: Processes involved in learning new information and storing
it in memory.

3. The biological metaphor focuses on the anatomy and physiology of the brain and the other parts of
the central nervous system, which accounts for intelligent thought. Jensen holds that intelligence is
related to the speed of neural transmission, whereas Eysenck relates it to accuracy of neural
transmission. Levy has suggested that two factors determine performance on a task: dominance of
either hemisphere of the brain; and capacity of a hemisphere to perform a task. This suggests that,
whether the subject is intelligent or otherwise varies with the demands of the task on the hemispheres
involved.

4. The epistemological metaphor is concerned with the structure and processes of mind through which
knowledge and mental processes are organized. Piaget holds that intellectual competence is acquired
in a series of stages through an active interaction with the environment. This interaction involves
both assimilation (changing the object to take it into the self-structure) and accommodation (changing
the self-structure to incorporate a new object).
BA 1 Semester2 / Psychology/ Intelligence –Unit 4

5. The sociological metaphor is concerned with the social processes that influence intellectual
development. The Russian psychologist, Vygotsky, holds that as children grow up they internalize the
social processes they observe in the environment. The potential development of a child’s intellect is
determined not only by his independent problem solving but also problem solving under adult
guidance or in collaboration with peers. The Israeli psychologist, Feuerstein emphasizes the role of
mediating agents, parents, siblings etc. in the acquisition of intellect.

6. The anthropological metaphor focuses on the culture specific nature of intelligence. Berry and Irvine
(1985) suggest that cultural context shapes intelligence, thus the obtained IQ may not be a reliable
index of intelligence. Cole (1986) suggests that similarities across cultures may be found in
intellectual performance simply because cultures are similar or because cultures interact with each
other. Sinha (1983) holds that to assess a person on intelligence one must go beyond strictly cognitive
indices and observe how the non-cognitive aspects of a culture operate.

7. The systems metaphor is an attempt to bring together various other metaphors by viewing intelligence
in terms of a complex interaction of various cognitive and other systems. Gardner (1994) posits
multiple intelligences, independent of each other, yet interacting to determine performance. To the
readily recognizable aspects of intelligence such as verbal, mathematical, and spatial, Gardner adds
components such as musical intelligence, bodily – kinesthetic intelligence, and personal intelligence.
Sternberg’s triarchic theory of intelligence (1985) proposes three aspects of intelligence –
componential, experiential, and contextual. In both cases, the internal and external aspects of
intelligence are integrated.

Indian view of intelligence

In a review article, Srivastava and Misra (1996) hold that the perspectives regarding intelligence are
changing. The field of intelligence is no longer dominated by the geographical metaphor. There is an
increasing realization of the fact that intelligence extends beyond the cognitive domain. With growing
interest in concepts such as Wisdom (Sternberg, 1990), Prudence (Haslam, 1991); Social Intelligence
(Cantor and Harlow, 1994) and Emotional Intelligence (Goleman, 1995; Salovey and Mayer, 1994),
attention is being paid to many neglected aspects of intelligence. Nonintellectual factors such as
persistence, goal awareness, and a concern with social values are increasingly emphasized as parts of our
intellectual functioning. Indian philosophy, with its multidimensional view, can contribute to lot to this
expanded notion of intelligence.
BA 1 Semester2 / Psychology/ Intelligence –Unit 4

Indian philosophy conceptualizes intelligence as Buddhi – a state, a process, and an entity – the
realization of which depends upon one’s own effort, persistence, and motivation. As Das (1994) noted
“Buddhi includes such things as determination, mental effort, and even feelings and opinions, in addition
to such intellectual processes as knowledge, discrimination, and decision – making”. Thus an intelligent
person is thought to be capable of knowing the intention of others, is polite, refrains from self-praise,
shows initiative, is interested in work, and lacks rigidity. His keen observations are sharp enough to
decipher even the intention of animals and birds. He becomes alert even before an emergency arises and
is not disturbed by difficult situations. He is ready to fight for the right cause. Thus Buddhi is
characterized by practical understanding in real life regarding self, others objects, and the total habitat of a
person. Another indigenous view considers Vivek (experiential intelligence) as the biggest asset in the
three worlds that could lead to happiness and prosperity. It derives from perceptual analysis, inference,
analogical reasoning, and knowledge acquired from books and authorities (Das, 1994). Our concept of
intelligence also includes Pratibha, which literally means a flash or light, a revelation, characterized by
immediacy and freshness. It is equivalent to the concept of talent and intuition in the western system
(Kaviraj, 1966). An intelligent human being having realized higher order knowledge has been
characterized as Mahakarta (great worker) and Mahabhokta (great experiencer). This limited review of
the Indian thought suggests the multidimensional, holistic view of intelligence, which could fruitfully
complement or even displace western views of intelligence.

Factors in intelligence: Heredity vs. environment

It was Francis Galton who first emphasized the role of heredity in intelligence. Indeed he is the founder of
the science of eugenics, and aimed to use the principles of genetics to improve the human race.

As early as 1940, Tryon sought to demonstrate that genetic traits often did, in fact, contribute to behavior.
To do so, Tryon created an experiment that tested the proficiency of successive generations of rats in
completing a maze. He initiated the experiment by exposing a genetically diverse group of rats to the
maze, labeling those who made the fewest errors “bright” and those with the most errors “dull”. Tryon
then mated the “bright” males with “bright” females, and “dull” males with “dull” females. After their
children matured, Tryon repeated the maze test with them, and again separated the “bright” and the
“dull”, again breeding “bright” with “bright” and “dull” with “dull”. Tryon continued this process for
seven generations, creating two distinct breeds of “bright” and “dull” rats. Such studies are not possible
with human beings.
BA 1 Semester2 / Psychology/ Intelligence –Unit 4

However, hereditary influences in human beings may be studied by comparing correlations among people
with different amount of genetic similarity. A study by Erlenmeyer-Kimling and Jarvik (1963) shows the
following correlation coefficients for various groups:

Group studied Median correlation

Unrelated persons reared apart -.01
Unrelated persons reared together +.23
Foster parent and child +.20
Parent-child +.50
Siblings reared apart +.40
Sibling reared together +.49
Fraternal twins of opposite sex +.53
Fraternal twins of same sex +.53
Monozygotic twins reared apart +.75
Monozygotic twins reared together +.87

Such evidence shows that intelligence is greatly influenced by heredity. In some instances inheritance
leaves a defective brain at birth, as in the unusually small brain of the microcephalic person. The
development of the cerebrum stops at an early age, and the retardation can be profound. Another form of
genetic retardation occurs in phenylketonuria, or PKU, transmitted by a recessive gene in both parents.

However, even in identical twins, the correlation is not perfect. Heredity is obviously not the only factor
in intelligence. Environment is also important. The socioeconomic status of the child is often considered
the best predictor of his intelligence. Extremely poor environments are associated with low IQ and
retardation, whereas enriched, stimulating environments are associated with higher IQs (Skeels, 1966).
The emotionally disturbed individual sometimes cannot even speak, read, or do simple numerical
calculations, and minor emotional problems may prevent a person from achieving his or her full
intellectual potential. The importance of emotional factors in lowering test performance was illustrated
when Hutt (1947) modified the procedure for administering the Stanford Binet, inserting an easy test item
in the sequence whenever a child failed to answer correctly. This procedure raised the IQ of disturbed
children by more than 10 points, whereas it increased the performance of normal children only slightly.

Studies of Feral children [A feral child (also called wild child) is a human child who has lived isolated
from human contact from a very young age, and has little or no experience of human care, behavior, or,
crucially, of human language] reared in extreme environments such as the wolf-children (Wild boy of
Aveyron, Amla-Kamla etc.) and Genie also show how environmental deprivation leads to retarded
development.
BA 1 Semester2 / Psychology/ Intelligence –Unit 4

Example of Feral Children – Amla and Kamla: Kamala was 8 years old and Amala was said to be 1 ½ when they
were found in 1920. Both girls had spent most of their lives abandoned and alone. The two were found in
Midnapore, India in a wolves’ den. Despite being found together, those who investigated the case believe that the
two were not sisters but were simply abandoned around the same time or taken by wolves. The girls slept curled
together, growled, tore off their clothing, ate nothing but raw meat, howled, and were physically deformed. The
tendons and joints in their arms and legs shortened, making it impossible to walk upright. The two also had no
interest in interacting with humans. Some say that their senses were impeccable, especially when it came to hearing
and seeing, but even their sense of smell was sharp. Amala eventually died due to a sickness, which then caused
Kamala to go into a long-stage of mourning. Singh thought she would die but she did not and he started a
rehabilitation program to help heal her- she eventually learned to walk upright and say a few words. She died of
kidney failure in 1929.

The impact of a stimulating environment on the intelligence of the child can also be assessed by studies of
family size. The larger the family, the lower is the average IQ of the children. Furthermore, the older
children in any family on the average have a higher IQ than the younger children. The explanation in
both cases focuses upon the quality of the intellectual environment. When there are only a few children
in the family, they can receive considerable intellectual stimulation from the parents. As the number
grows, particularly when there are more than four children, the parents become less able to provide
opportunities for the mental growth of each child. But spacing can make a difference, for significantly
older children can help the younger ones (Zajonc and Markus, 1975; Pfouts, 1980).

Current researchers believe that both heredity and environment have an effect on intelligence. Intelligent
parents not only bequeath their genes to their children, but also provide a stimulating, enriched
environment. Children who are genetically superior seek, select and structure stimulating environments
for themselves. Thus it is futile to ask whether one is more powerful than the other. Upholding the
interaction principle, scientists believe that our genes define a reaction range – a range of possible
intellectual levels that we may attain depending on the nature and quality of the environment into which
we are born and within which we mature. Heredity sets the limits, but the environment determines the
actual level of intellect shown. Both factors are always present and operative for everyone.
BA 1 Semester2 / Psychology/ Intelligence –Unit 4

Individual differences in intelligence

The normal distribution of IQs for a test with a standard deviation of 15 is as follows (Wechsler, 1955):
IQ Description
140 + Gifted
130-139 Very Superior
120 -129 Superior
110-119 Above Average
90-109 Average
80-89 Low Average
70-79 Border line
55-69 Mildly mentally retarded
40-54 Moderately mentally retarded
25-39 Severely mentally retarded

As with many other psychological traits, intelligence is also normally distributed. It means that very few
persons are very superior and very few people are profoundly retarded. Most of the people are in the
middle i.e. average. The polygon formed by the data is bell shaped and scores are distributed normally
such that only a few people have very high or very low scores. Most people fall in the middle range.

People are regarded mentally retarded if they attain IQs below 70 and their adaptive skills are inadequate
to cope with daily tasks. Mental retardation may be physiological or sociocultural (cultural-familial).
Low intelligence can also be caused by some physical damage or disease. These health problems include
intoxication, brain injury, and malnutrition, and when a treatment is available, it is essentially medical.
Malnutrition can be prevented by proper diet, and drugs are available for use against many types of
infectious diseases. One such disorder is cretinism, in which the individual is characteristically dwarfed,
over weight, and lethargic, with in IQ that usually does not exceed 50. This problem may be related to
underactivity of the thyroid glands in the mother or to nutritional deficiencies her diet.

However, cultural deprivation contributes significantly to mental retardation in most cases. Orphanage
children left unattended and isolated for most of their childhood showed significantly less mental ability
in adulthood than did a comparison group of children who, living in an institution with many older
women received considerable attention, stimulation, learning opportunities (Skeels, 1966). Today we
realize that children can appear retarded and can become retarded from being reared in deprived
circumstances.
BA 1 Semester2 / Psychology/ Intelligence –Unit 4

Nevertheless, many mildly retarded individuals are able to blend into the society and to function
independently. The slow learner, who is able to profit from carefully paced classroom instruction, is not
considered mentally retarded. Today the accent is on the positive. Insofar as possible the terms used to
refer to retardation stress development, not deficit, and there are three levels: educable, trainable, and
totally dependent. The mentally retarded child who is educable is unable to profit from regular schooling,
but he or she can learn academic, social, and occupational skills at a minimum level, to the point of total
partial independence as an adult. The trainable child is not educable in the sense of achieving significant
academic skills or social and occupational independence. This child can learn self-help skills, however,
and can make limited contribution to work around the home. For the totally dependent person, custodial
care is required to fulfill personal needs and for survival.

In the current approach towards treatment and rehabilitation, called mainstreaming, the trend is away
from complete separation of these children and toward the provision of extra resources in the typical
classroom setting. These provisions include a slower rate of presentation of new material greater
structure in the learning tasks, and the use of concrete rather than abstract materials (Salend, 1984). The
general trend today is toward training parents to help retarded children control their own heavier through
systems of rewards and punishments. The aim is to enable them to help themselves and to enable the
retarded adult to function in an open community rather than in an institutional setting (Matson, 1981;
Matson, DiLorenzo, and Esveldt-Dawson, 1981).

At the upper end of the IQ distribution, are the mentally gifted – those who have IQs above 120 or 140. A
child who is moderately bright is likely to be one of the “stars”, but a youngster with an extraordinarily
high IQ may often be a misfit. During the nineteenth century, physicians and educational theorists had
turned against precocious children. They were considered abnormal, nervous, and, if they survived
adolescence, perhaps headed for insanity. They were considered to be misfits who burnt out, over taxed
their brains and died young. They were generally observed to be bespectacled, stoop shouldered, pale and
headed for adult stupidity. The advice to parents was to protect their offspring from intellectual
overstimulation and to discourage outright any tendency toward premature cleverness.

Determined to establish these allegations as myth or fact, Terman by 1921 had identified over 1,000
school children with IQ’s ranging from 135 to 200. this group of boys and girls, affectionately known as
“Termites”, ranged from 3 to 19 years of age at the time. By using tests, interviews, school reports,
questionnaires, direct observations, and other sources, Terman hoped to identify the mental physical and
personality characteristics of intellectually gifted children. Another purpose of this study was to observe
human development throughout the life span. The Termites were examined several times as children;
then they were investigated when they were around 30 years of age; and altogether they have been studied
intermittently for six decades. This research has even included their children and some grandchildren.
BA 1 Semester2 / Psychology/ Intelligence –Unit 4

The oldest of life-span research, this continuing research program has been significant for developmental
psychology and also for our understanding of gifted persons. Termites were distinctly higher in
leadership, self-confidence, and sense of humor. They were also above average in popularity,
cheerfulness, generosity, and fondness for being with large groups of people. The deviation from the
norm was upward in nearly all instances and in striking contrast to the popular stereotype of the socially
inept child prodigy. Thus Terman (1925) found children with IQs above 140 to be well adjusted but
Hollingsworth (1942) found children with IQs above 180 to be very poorly adjusted – under-achievers,
unhappy, even suicidal. However, as children mature, the picture grows brighter. Gifted adults appear to
be happier and better adjusted than most other people (Terman and Oden, 1912).

Collectively, the result left no doubt. There is no law of compensation whereby intellectual superiority is
offset by nonintellectual inferiorities. At 30 years of age, the group’s intellectual performance was again
in the upper 2 percent of the population, as much above the general adult level as it had been above the
general child level earlier. Success in education and employment also was much greater than one would
expect in a random sample of adults of that same age. (Terman,1954). In the most recent follow-up, the
males in the group were at an average age of 62 and approaching retirement. They were asked to look
back on their lives and to evaluate their satisfaction with respect to occupation, family, friends, and
service to the community. Generally, they rated themselves as well satisfied in the vocational sense,
perhaps because they had the capacities that permit considerable autonomy in on achieving satisfaction
through family life (Sears, 1977).

Programs for the gifted generally involve enrichment, acceleration, or special classes. In enrichment the
child is encouraged to engage in additional schoolwork in related areas, beyond the usual assignments; in
acceleration the child progress to higher grades as rapidly as possible, according to mental age, not
chronological age; and in special classes the gifted child follows a curriculum that is faster in pace and
less structured than that for the average child. Since intelligence is multifaceted, the problems
compounded by the fact that even the gifted student are advanced in some abilities but not in others.
Many specialists therefore agree that the best possibility is to allow gifted students to work together some
of the time. This temporary grouping must occur on a multi-grade basis, for students may differ by two
or three years in chronological age yet possess comparable special abilities (Trezise, 1976).
BA 1 Semester2 / Psychology/ Intelligence –Unit 4

Group differences in intelligence

Group differences are seldom as large as individual differences, however, they do occur.

1. Gender differences: The overall IQs of males and females at any age are virtually the same. There is
no significant difference between the sexes in global intellectual capacity. However, girls show an
early and increasing superiority in verbal behavior. Differences in abilities increase in adolescence,
girls being better on verbal expression and fluency, boys being better or spatial, numerical and many
mechanical tasks. It is not yet known whether these minimal findings reflect cultural influences or
innate differences in cognitive functioning (Hyde, 1981; Majeres, 1983). Lynn and Irwing (2004)
published a meta-analysis of 57 studies of sex differences on the Progressive Matrices in which they
showed that there is no difference among children aged 6–14 years, but that males obtain higher
means from the age of 15 through to old age, and that among adults, the male advantage is 5 IQ
points.

2. Social class differences: In India, Misra et al (1980) found a positive relationship between
socioeconomic background and intelligence. Das and Pandey (1968) studied rich and poor Brahmin
and Harijan children to find that poor Harijan children scored lower in cognitive tests in comparison
to children of all other groups. Rich Harijan children performed better than poor Harijan children but
they still scored lower than Brahmin children. Similar studies comparing Brahmins, Harijans and
Adivasis of Orissa also found Harijans to be the most disadvantaged. Low-and middle-income
countries are particularly at risk for lack of school readiness primarily because of poverty, nutritional
deficiencies, and inadequate learning opportunities (Engle et al., 2007; Grantham-McGregor et al.,
2007).

3. Racial differences: African Americans currently score lower than European Americans on
vocabulary, reading, and mathematics tests, as well as on tests that claim to measure scholastic
aptitude and intelligence. This gap appears before children enter kindergarten and it persists into
adulthood. It has narrowed since 1970, but the typical American black still scores below 75 percent of
American whites on most standardized tests. On some tests the typical American black scores below
more than 85 percent of whites?. Jensen (1969) suggested that this might be due to genetic causes. It
is true that the gap shrinks only a little when black and white children attend the same schools. It is
also true that the gap shrinks only a little when black and white families have the same amount of
schooling, the same income, and the same wealth. Most researchers, however, believe historical
sociocultural factors to be important in this racial difference. The Minnesota trans-racial adoption
study (1976, 1992) showed that when black or mixed-race children are raised in white rather than
black homes, their preadolescent test scores rise dramatically.
BA 1 Semester2 / Psychology/ Intelligence –Unit 4

4. Cultural differences: Lynn (1987) found Japanese children to be superior on performance IQ but
lower on verbal IQ as compared to US children. Strauss (1987) found that Sri Lankan college
students score higher than their US counterparts in an IQ test, though it was in English. The higher
score of Sri Lankans is attributed to the higher emphasis on verbal achievement in Sri Lanka. In the
late 1970s, Lynn wrote that he found a higher average IQ in East Asians compared to "Europeans" (6
points higher in his meta-analysis), and Europeans to be about 2 standard deviations (or 30 points)
higher than Sub-Saharan Africans.

It is well to remember that an individual in any group can be much above or below the group norm. It is
wrong to estimate the IQ of any individual simply on the basis of the group to which he/she belongs.

Intellectual Maturity / Development of intelligence

Early efforts to answer the question about the appearance of maximum mental ability followed the cross-
sectional method, in which subjects of different age levels are tested at the same time. Some subjects
might be 30 years of age, others 40, others 50, and so forth. A cross section of the population is
represented at each age level, and comparisons are made among these age groups. An extensive cross-
sectional investigation (Schaie, 1958) in the 1950s included 500 subjects and covered a span from 23 to
63 years of age. It yielded results for several different mental abilities, and the average performance in all
categories was found to decline markedly at the upper age levels, usually after age 33. The decrease was
sooner and more pronounced for some functions than for others, but the general pattern was confirmed.
But gradually, certain limitations in the cross-sectional method became apparent. First, there is a loss of
subjects at older age levels. Second, younger subjects receive better education than the older ones due to
steady cultural improvements. In a rapidly changing society, it is impossible to obtain matched samples at
different age levels.

In another research approach, the longitudinal method, the same subjects are tested and retested at
different age levels. They are studied regularly as they grow older. Longitudinal investigations begun 25
to 50 years ago are yielding significant results today, and they have indicated a pattern quite different
from that found in the cross-sectional approach. Follow-up studies of 768 Termites in adulthood have
shows that they, and their bright but generally less gifted spouses, experience continuous growth in a
number of areas of abstract thinking, even up to age 50 (Bayley and Oden, 1955). However, longitudinal
studies are not without defect either, as a closer look shows. Ideally, the only difference between a
longitudinal subject at a younger and older age occurs from the general impact of aging per se, but
subjects at the older ages are benefiting from our expanding fund of knowledge and vastly improved
BA 1 Semester2 / Psychology/ Intelligence –Unit 4

methods of disseminating it. Their increased intellectual capacity may be attributable to the greater
availability of knowledge within the culture. In short, cultures develop just as people do, and cultural
advances can influence the results of longitudinal studies, as well.

One way of dealing with this problem is the use of control subjects that are the same age as were the
longitudinal subjects at the time of their first testing. This is called the cross-sequential design. The
difference in performance, if any, between the longitudinal subjects at their first testing and the control
subjects at this same age represents the amount of cultural change. When this amount is subtracted from
adult performance at any point, it serves as a correction for cultural improvements. This procedure was
used in a longitudinal study of 96 male students who were tested as freshmen in 1919, then again as
alumni in 1950, and once more in 1961, at which time 101 male freshmen at the same university were
also tested. The apparent gains of the alumni, after intervals of 31 and 42 years, were adjusted by using
the score for cultural change, and overall there was still a gradual gain in total ability. Verbal ability,
particularly, increased markedly, apparently remaining high at least through age 50. The idea of an
inevitable intellectual decline beginning in early adulthood was a myth, at least for these college-educated
people (Owens, 1966). Another investigation suggested that general intelligence does not each its highest
point until about 60 yeas (Maxwell, 1961). Numerical ability shows a gradual decline, and tests
emphasizing speed show the most rapid decrement. But the overall peak performance certainly does not
occur anywhere near adolescence or young adulthood (Honzik and MacFarlane, 1973).

THEORIES OF INTELLIGENCE

Broadly speaking, there are two general approaches to intelligence – those that focus on the content and
structure of intelligence and those that are oriented towards the processes involved in intellectual
activities.

STRUCTURAL APPROACHES TO INTELLIGENCE:

This approach tries to understand intelligence in terms of its basic elements. It asks – what does
intelligence consist of? It searches for the number, quality and pattern of the components of intelligence.
A major concern is whether intelligence is general or specific. Laymen, generally adhere to the monarchic
theory of intelligence, and hold that intelligence is a single entity that reins supreme across a variety of
tasks. The oligarchic theory holds that a small number of faculties collectively constitute intelligence.
The anarchic theory proposed by Thorndike (1885) holds that intellect is the sum of specific S-R
connections built up in different specific situations.
BA 1 Semester2 / Psychology/ Intelligence –Unit 4

Spearman’s Two-factor Theory

Spearman (1927) proposed the two-factor theory of intelligence. Based on factor analysis, the theory
posits a general factor common to all intellectual tasks and a specific factor unique to each different type
of task. Note that the name of the theory is a misnomer. Spearman is not claiming the existence of two
factors - general and specific, rather he is proposing two kinds of factors. The general factor is indeed a
single one, but there are as many different specific factors as there are tests to measure mental abilities,
and each specific factor is uncorrelated with every other. As an example, we may consider two tests - a
vocabulary test and an arithmetic test. Both tests draw upon the common general ability ‘g’ and are hence
positively correlated. However, the correlation is not perfect because the vocabulary test draws upon a
specific verbal ability (S1) whereas the arithmetic test draws upon a specific numerical ability (S2). Both
these are independent of each other and have nothing in common.

Let ellipses V and A represent the vocabulary and arithmetic tests, respectively. Because the tests are
correlated, ellipses overlap. The area of overlap represents ‘g’. The areas of independence represent s1
and s2. Spearman’s theory is able to explain the observed fact children who show ability in one
intellectual area also show ability along other lines (on the basis of ‘g’). Because specific abilities are held
to be independent of ‘g’ and of each other, the theory also allows for the observed fact that individuals do
show differences in their more specialized aptitudes. Also highly specific aptitudes may be well
developed in persons of generally low overall ability or may be poorly developed in individuals of
relatively high general intelligence.

All mental activities are mainly dependent upon and are an expression of his g factor. He defined the g
factor as mental energy that is required in all mental tasks and that is possessed by all individuals to
varying degrees (because people differ in their mental activity). He believed ‘g’ is the ability to grasp
relationship quickly and to use them effectively. To quote Spearman (1927), the g factor “is so named
because, although varying freely from individual to individual, it remains the same for any one individual
BA 1 Semester2 / Psychology/ Intelligence –Unit 4

in respect of all the correlated abilities”. A positive correlation between two or more than two functions
indicates the presence of the g factor. Another factor called the s factor, is a specific factor underlying a
particular type of mental activity. Such a factor is unique to the activity itself. To quote Spearman (1927)
again, “it not only varies from individual to individual, but even for any one individual from each ability
to another”. A low correlation between two or more than two functions indicates the presence of the s
factor. Of the two, the g factor is more important because it is an important measure of intelligence.
Spearman proposed that the aim of any intelligence test should be to measure the amount of g factor of
each person because it provides the most important basis of predicting a person’s behavior in different
situations. It is, relatively, of little use to measure the s factor because it is unique to a specific activity.
Tests that measure abstract relations such as the Raven Progressive Matrices and the Cattell Culture Fair
Intelligence Test are good measures of the g factor.

Although both these factors occur in every intellectual task, they are not equally influential in all. ‘g’ has
much greater relative influence or weight in some tasks than in others. E.g. in the talent for classics, the
influence of ‘g’ to ‘s’ was rated to be as much as 15 to 1, whereas in the talent for music, the ratio was 1
to 4. In his original (1927) work Spearman gave overriding importance to ‘g’, holding that, far from being
confined to some small set of abilities, ‘g’ may enter in all abilities whatsoever. He suggested, “All
branches of intellectual activity have in common one fundamental function (or group of functions),
whereas the remaining or specific elements of the activity seem in every case to be wholly different from
that in all the others” (Spearman, 1927). He further emphasized the practical utility of g to assess an
individual by asserting that if we can determine the magnitude of his g it “will tell us nearly everything
about some of his abilities and something about nearly all of them”. However, in the light of further
studies, Spearman revised this earlier position in the following ways:

1. He discovered that tests of mental abilities that are highly similar correlate to a greater extent that can
be accounted for on the basis of their common overlap with ‘g’. As a result, he acknowledged the
possibility of group factors such as verbal ability and spatial ability. However, he did not abandon his
original position with regard to ‘g’ and ‘s’. The new group factors are conceived to be intermediate in
scope, while ‘g’ remains the overall factor of greatest importance.

2. He proposed the existence of additional general factors, p, o and w, which stand for perseveration,
oscillation and will, respectively. Perseveration represents the tendency to continue a task once
started depending on the individual’s supply of mental energy; and oscillation, the extent to which it
fluctuates from time to time. Will is a motivational personality factor that enters into the taking of all
tests including intelligence tests.
BA 1 Semester2 / Psychology/ Intelligence –Unit 4

Thurstone’s Group Factor Theory

Later theorists disagreed with Spearman’s insistence on ‘g’ as an overall factor of greatest importance.
Holzinger (1929) and Kelley (1929) emphasized the importance of group factors in intelligence. It was
Thurstone (1931) who sounded the death knell of ‘g’. Thurstone conceives of mental organization in
terms of group factors of intermediate scope. Thurstone (1938), and Thurstone and Thurstone (1943)
were the first persons to define intelligence as a conglomeration of several independent factors. Their
theory is popularly known as the group-factor theory or multiple-factor theory of intelligence. They are of
the opinion that intelligence is not an expression of the general factor as postulated by Spearman, rather it
is an expression of the combination of groups of traits or factors. Such factors are intermediate factors,
not so universal and common as the g factor nor so truly specific as the factor s. Thurstone held that these
factors were revealed by correlation clusters occurring among similar tests, which in turn are drawing
upon certain primary mental abilities. Eg. if a group of individuals are given variety of tests like verbal,
arithmetic, spatial, etc. If all the tests are intercorrelated, the results will be appearance of clusters of tests
that are highly correlated among themselves but show a low correlation between clusters.

According to the group-factor theory, some common mental activities have a primary factor, another set
of mental activities have another primary factor, and so on. In this way, there are a number of groups of
mental abilities (or factors), each of which has its own primary factors. On the basis of extensive factor-
analytic research, Thurstone and Thurstone (1943) postulated the following seven group factors, which
they designated as the Primary Mental Abilities or PMA. These primary mental abilities do not
incorporate the entire range of human abilities. They are specially found in abstract intelligence and in
academic learning.

1. Verbal comprehension: The ability to understand and utilize verbal ideas effectively: measured by
tests of vocabulary and reading comprehension.
2. Verbal fluency: The ability to rapidly produce words, sentences, and other verbal material. It may be
related to personality variables as well as to intellectual factors.
3. Number: The ability involved in rapid and accurate arithmetic computation such as addition
subtraction, multiplication, and division.
4. Memory: The ability to learn and retain information.
5. Perceptual speed: The ability to note visual details rapidly and to identify objects quickly and
accurately as required in proof reading or map work.
6. Reasoning: The ability to perceive and utilize abstract relationships. It requires generalization and
putting together past experiences to solve a new problem. It is found in tasks that require the subject
to discover a rule or principle involved in series or groups of letters.
BA 1 Semester2 / Psychology/ Intelligence –Unit 4

7. Spatial visualization: The ability to deal with objects in space and spatial relationships such as fitting
the pieces of a puzzle, rotating geometric forms etc.

Thurstone thus replaced ‘g’ with these seven primary mental abilities. Thurstone undertook a program of
test construction for developing more refined measures of PMA as he held traditional method of finding
overall IQ score is wrong. Instead a testee’s standing on each of primary mental abilities is reported in
terms of percentiles. His techniques also revealed that various tests show different “factor loadings” or
varying degree of relationship with several correlation clusters. Eg Test A might correlate .76 with a
verbal factor, .10 with numerical factor and .06 with a perceptual factor. In this case, the test is drawing
upon verbal ability. Originally, each of these primary mental abilities were thought to be an independent
one but later, positive and significant correlations were demonstrated among these factors. The range of
correlation was from .13 to .59. This meant that the primary factors or abilities were not the only factors
in the operation of those mental activities, which are assessed by various tests. Thus Thurstone and his
coworkers postulated that there must be some factors other than the primary factors or abilities to account
for the positive correlations between those psychological tests which measure the above seven factors;
they named these factors the second-order general factors. In the words of Thurstone (1941), “It (the
general factor) makes its appearance not as a separate factor, but a factor inherent in the primaries and
their correlations… it may sustain Spearman’s contention that there exists a general intellective factor.”
To this extent they supported Spearman’s viewpoint regarding generality in the concept of intelligence.

Thus, it was concluded that intelligence is, to some extent, the expression of the combination of different
factors (Thurstone) and, to some extent, the expression of some general factors (Spearman). Thereafter,
the focus of intelligence theorists was to postulate theories that incorporated g as well as s. Also it became
necessary to organize and classify the myriad of s factors, given by the many enthusiasts of factor
analyses after Thurstone.

Among the early efforts to resolve the general vs. specific debate was the differentiation hypothesis
inherent in the Developmental theory of intelligence by Garrett (1946). He felt that with increasing
maturity “intelligence changes in its organization from a fairly unified and general ability to a loosely
organized group of abilities or factors”. In the course of mental development, a marked specialization of
mental abilities occurs due to various extrinsic and intrinsic factors. As children grow up, simpler
functions mature earlier than the more complex ones. Also there is an increasing divergence in training,
interests, and incentives. The adaptive behaviors of young children are more amorphous and alike as
compared to adults. Achievements, particularly in school depend to a greater degree on facility and
understanding in reading, which is of the same level in all children. Correlations among abilities are also
reduced in college samples because we are generally dealing with highly selected groups with a reduced
range of ability. Thus Garrett holds that measurement of intelligence must perforce change in its methods
BA 1 Semester2 / Psychology/ Intelligence –Unit 4

and objectives with increasing age. Tests of g may be useful in childhood, but at high school and college
levels, when “general ability dissolves into more specialized talents or group factors” (Garrett, 1946), it
would be more useful to study the various factors, rather than a single overall score.

GUILFORD’S STRUCTURE OF INTELLECT MODEL

Guilford (1950) proposed an a priori theory of intelligence that classified various abilities along three
dimensions of his Structure of Intellect model. The three dimensions are:

1. Operations: Operations refer to the intellectual activities or mental processes used by persons. The
five operations are Cognition, Memory, Divergent thinking, Convergent thinking, and Evaluation.
C Cognition: It includes discovery, rediscovery, and recognition of information or some
understanding.
M Memory: It includes person’s ability to recall or recognize previously learnt information.
D Divergent Production: It refers to the ability to search for multiple, creative or novel solutions to a
problem.
E Evaluation: It means placing a value judgment on knowledge and thought.
N Convergent Production: It includes verbal meanings or ideas.

2. Contents: Contents are the various kinds of information that exist in the environment, and on which
the operations are carried out. According to a revision proposed by Guilford (1985), there are five
contents instead of the four given earlier. The five contents are Visual, Auditory, Symbolic, Semantic,
and Behavioral. (Earlier the contents were Figural, Symbolic, Semantic, and Behavioural).
BA 1 Semester2 / Psychology/ Intelligence –Unit 4

V Visual: It includes concrete visual material.

A Auditory: It includes the nature and characteristics of sounds perceived.
S Symbolic: It includes letters, words, digits, and other similar signs.
M Semantic: It includes verbal meanings or ideas.
B Behavioral: It includes knowledge regarding other persons.

3. Products: Products are the result of operating on the contents. They are the bits of knowledge we
acquire after processing the environmental stimuli. They refer to the form of thought produced by
individuals. The six types of products are Units, Classes, Relations, Systems, Transformations, and
Implications.
U Units: It refers to the production of a single word, definition or isolated bit o information.
C Classes: It refers to the production of a concept.
R Relations; It refers to the production of any form of relationship such as an analogy, an opposite
etc.
S Systems: It refers to the production of an internally consistent set of classifications of various
forms.
T Transformation: It refers to the production of changes in meaning, organization or arrangements.
I Implications: It refers to the production of information beyond the data presented. It implies
foresight and extrapolation.

Since these three dimensions are completely crossed with each other, there are 5  5  6 = 150 abilities. In
the model, each cell in the cube is identified by a three-letter code that refers to an operation, a content,
and a product in that order. Thus, each ability is identified by its unique position on each of three
dimensions. For example, CVU is cognition of visual units. Like-wise, three other cubes are EBU
(Evaluation of Behavioural Units), EBI (Evaluation of Behavioural implications) and CBI (Cognition of
Behavioural Implication).
BA 1 Semester2 / Psychology/ Intelligence –Unit 4

One may illustrate the use of the model with a few examples. MSC - Memory for Symbolic Classes. An
example of test used to measure this ability is the memory for name and word classes. The subject is
presented a set of names such as IRIS, IRVING, IRENE, etc. The subject is then required to determine in
a recognition test whether certain words do or do not belong to the class presented to him. The subject
might be presented with words IRA, IDA, etc and would be required to recognize that IRA belongs to the
class not IDA. The test thus involves operation of memory and the stimulus the subject deals with is
symbolic in form and product is a class concept.

Another example can be, suppose a little child is asked to locate the day of the week on a particular date
in a calendar. This task obviously involves operations like Memory (M), Cognition(C) and Convergent
thinking (N). In carrying out these operations he will be making use of the contents like Semantics (M),
that is, reading and understanding the printed words and figures that may indicate the date and day of the
particular month. By carrying out these mental operations with the help of contents the child will arrive at
the products. The day of the week to which the date in question refers represents the factor known as
Relations.

Divergent Production of Semantic Units (DMU)

– List all the items that you can think of that are round and hard (30 seconds).

Divergent Production of Semantic Relations (DMR)

– Provide the missing word for the sentence
• The fog is as ______ as sponge (heavy, damp, full).

Guilford feels that this model is a useful heuristic device for future investigations of learning, memory,
problem solving, invention, decision making, etc. The model has stimulated a lot of research, particularly
in areas such as divergent thinking and social intelligence. The major implication for the assessment of
intelligence is that to know an individual’s intellect, we need a surprisingly large number of scores.
Guilford also suggests that every factor represents an educational goal, to be achieved through appropriate
training. However, critics argue that Guilford has simply gone too far. The large numbers of abilities have
been criticized as impractical and unwieldy. Garrett (1950) suggested that it is not a model of intellect,
but that it is rather “scatterbrained”.

Guilford’s theory is a morphological model i.e., a classification system across categories. In contrast,
Vernon (1950) proposed a hierarchical model of intelligence i.e., a classification system within categories.
He postulates a general factor at the top of the hierarchy, then two major group factors (Verbal-numerical-
BA 1 Semester2 / Psychology/ Intelligence –Unit 4

educational and practical-mechanical-spatial-physical), then multiple minor group factors, and then
numerous specific factors.

Unlike Spearman, Thurstone, Vernon, Cattell, Guilford does not deal with higher order or more general
factors. He insists that the factors discovered in the structure of intellect model are independent of each
other. Guilford’s theory has an advantage of breadth and can better account for creativity than traditional
theories. However, practically it would appear difficult to measure many different combinations of mental
contents and functions.

CATTELL’s THEORY OF INTELLIGENCE

Cattell (1957) defines intelligence as a “general relation educing capacity”. He holds that general ability
or intelligence is one of the sixteen source factors of personality. Indeed he feels that many other source
traits may contribute to intelligence as traditionally conceptualized. On the other hand, g contributes to a
number of purely personality manifestations, such as breadth of interests, conscientiousness, memory,
wit, general information etc.

Cattell (1963, 1987) tried to resolve the general vs. multiple intelligence issue. Cattell (1957) wrote, “the
general and the primaries are two aspects of the same structure”. He thus took an integrated position.

He held that general intelligence or g is of two

major types – fluid and crystallized.
Note that both are types of general ability.
Whenever a measure of general ability rather
than primaries is required, he advocates the
use of two tests, separately for fluid and
crystallized ability.

Fluid ability, symbolized gf is “a general relation perceiving capacity which operates in all fields”. It is
the capacity for insight into complex relationships. In other words, it is the capacity for acquiring new
concepts and demonstrating general “brightness” and adaptability into novel situations. Consequently it
is relatively independent of education, and tests that measure it minimize scholastic training and cultural
factors. It is measured by relation and correlate eduction of a complexity appropriate to the subjects, in
any field where acquired skills are not differentiating.
 BA 1 Semester2 / Psychology/ Intelligence –Unit 4

Crystallized ability, symbolized gc is a “sum of particular relation perceiving skills acquired in specific
fields”. Thus, it is a combination of acquired knowledge and developed intellectual skills. It must be
measured on the basis of a careful cultural sampling of test items.

Fluid intelligence is a general capacity to acquire new knowledge and solve new problems, crystallized
intelligence reflects the ability to apply and use previously acquired knowledge. In fact crystallized
intelligence results from the application of fluid intelligence. Cattell holds that it takes the form of a
general factor not because of any functional unity, but due to its growth under the influence of the unitary
fluid ability. It has more historical than functional unity. Also, Cattell has made reliable tests for the
measurement of fluid and crystallized intelligence.

The differences between fluid and crystallized intelligence may be summarized as follows:

FLUID INTELLIGENCE CRYSTALLIZED INTELLIGENCE

1 Innate; depends on genetic factors. 1 Acquired; sensitive to environmental experiences.

2 Depends on the mass of association cortex. 2 Related to specific association areas in the cortex.

3 Effect of brain damage is to reduce total performance 3 There is some total loss due to brain damage, but more
importantly, the loss is uneven, i.e., it is greater in some
functions without a comparable loss in other areas. E.g. there
may be a loss of mechanical skill, but no loss in verbal skills.

4 Will fluctuate more from day to day with 4 Will show less diurnal fluctuations, because it consists of
physiological influences, health, etc., being rooted acquired habit systems, determined more by specific cerebral
more in efficiency of cerebral function. efficiencies and recencies of activation.

5 Reaches a peak early (14 yrs.) and declines after about 5 Reaches a maximum later (20 yrs?) and shows no age decline.
20 years of age. Age of reaching plateau partly determined by school-leaving age.
Thus it grows with fluid intelligence but does not decline.
Relatively constant throughout the life of the individual and may
even rise a little.

6 Shows a less steep age increment over the growing 6 Shows a more steep age increment over the growing years in
years, in terms of sigma units (of individual terms of sigma units (of individual difference) from the
difference) from the population at any one age level. population at any one age level. Consequently the S.D. of the
Consequently the S.D. of the I.Q. is large – 25 or more I.Q. is smaller – 16 to 19 points - but will vary with culture and
– but constant from culture to culture. period, because the age increment is a function of cultural
pressure and school curricula.

7 More highly correlated with speed of learning in a 7 Less related to speed of learning.
new area

8 Shows itself best in novel or culture free material 8 Manifested in acquired, complex, familiar, cultural activities and
skills.
9 Assessed by culture-fair tests of general relation 9 Measured by tests of specific knowledge and skills.
educing capacity.

10 Measured by speeded tests, and a score expressing 10 Measured by untimed power tests, and specifically by freedom
speed of solution. from error.
BA 1 Semester2 / Psychology/ Intelligence –Unit 4

PROCESS ORIENTED THEORIES OF INTELLIGENCE:

This approach focuses on the process of intellectual activity. It holds that intelligence is an adaptive
response to the demands of the environment. It tries to explain how we gather information for problem
solving and acquiring knowledge.

The pioneer process-oriented theorist was Piaget. Piaget (1957) holds that cognitive development occurs
during a child’s active interaction with the environment. This interaction results in organization (orderly
intake of information) and adaptation (assimilation or accommodation). Assimilation implies adding new
information to an already existing cognitive structure. Accommodation implies changing an existing
cognitive structure to fit a new item of information. Assimilation and accommodation are complementary
processes in the individual’s search for equilibration. Equilibration is the goal of all intellectual
processes. These intellectual processes are shown in a universal invariant stage sequence of four stages of
cognitive development:

1. Sensorimotor stage.
2. Preoperational stage.
3. Concrete operations.
4. Formal operations.

Bruner (1973) emphasizes the growing reliance on internal representation in intellectual development.
He holds that babies have an action-oriented intelligence, young children rely on perceptual
characteristics of objects and events, whereas adolescents know things internally and symbolically.

Sternberg (1985) takes an information processing view of intelligence. His triarchic theory of
intelligence proposes that intelligence has three attributes: componential, experiential, and contextual.
BA 1 Semester2 / Psychology/ Intelligence –Unit 4

1. Componential intelligence, the first

attribute, emphasizes superior, effective
information processing by the use of
components (bits of information) and
metacomponents (skills of information
processing).

2. Experiential intelligence, the second

attribute, comes from experience. It implies
insight and practical knowledge.

3. Contextual intelligence, the third attribute is

the ability to adapt to the sociocultural
environment in which the individual exists.

Sternberg (1989) suggests that in the appraisal of intellect we must consider intellectual styles, the
way each person uses the three kinds of intellect and his personality as he interacts with the
environment. It appears that with Sternberg we are closing the gap between content and process-
oriented theories of intelligence. However, the real test of a theory is empirical research. To be
generally accepted, his theory requires additional research findings.

Perhaps it is better to retain a multidimensional eclectic view of intelligence because it best reflects the
complexity of intelligence.

MEASUREMENT OF INTELLIGENCE

Brief history of intelligence tests

The roots of testing are lost in antiquity. Ancient Greeks used tests to assess the mastery of physical as
well as intellectual skills. In China, the system of civil services examination prevailed for about three
thousand years. In India, the concept of pariksha has been with us at least since the Vedic period.

Tests of intelligence originated in the nineteenth century from an interest in the classification and training
of the mentally retarded. The French physician, Esquirol (1838) who first distinguished between the
insane and the retarded, held that the individual’s use of language provides the most dependable criterion
BA 1 Semester2 / Psychology/ Intelligence –Unit 4

of his or her intellectual level. On the other hand Seguin another French physician, emphasized motor
performance in the mentally retarded. In 1837, he established the first school devoted to the education of
mentally retarded children and originated many sense-training and muscle-training techniques. Some of
these procedures were eventually incorporated into the performance or non-verbal tests of intelligence
such as the Seguin Form Board in which the individual is required to insert variously shaped blocks into
corresponding recesses as quickly as possible. However, it was the English biologist Sir Francis Galton,
who was primarily responsible for launching the testing movement. Intensely interested in individual
differences, Galton devised many simple tests of physical traits – sensory and motor – that still exist in
their original or modified form. Galton believed that sensory discrimination could serve as a means of
gauging a person’s intellect. He noted that extreme mental retardates tend to be defective in the ability to
discriminate heat, cold, and pain – an observation that further strengthened his conviction that “sensory
discriminative capacity would on the whole be highest among the intellectually ablest” (Galton, 1883).

Alfred Binet is credited with being the father of intelligence testing. A French psychologist, Binet was
appointed by the Ministry of Public Instruction to a commission in 1904 to study procedures for the
education of retarded children. To fulfill this objective, a reliable measure of intelligence was needed.
Thus, in collaboration with Theophile Simon, Binet prepared and published the first intelligence test –
The Binet Simon Scale. This scale, known as the 1905 scale, consisted of 30 problems or tests arranged in
ascending order of difficulty. The test included sensory, perceptual, and verbal items with special
emphasis on judgment, comprehension, and reasoning, which Binet regarded as essential components of
intelligence. In the second or 1908 scale, the number of tests was increased, some unsatisfactory tests
from the earlier scale were eliminated, and all tests were grouped into age levels on the basis of the
performance of about 300 normal children between the ages of 3 and 13 years. Thus all tests passed by
80 to 90% of normal 3-year- olds were placed in the 3-year level; all tests similarly passed by normal 4-
year-olds were placed in the 4-year level; and so on to age 13. The testee’s score on the entire test could
then be expressed as a “mental level” corresponding to the age of normal children whose performance he
or she equaled. In the various translations and adaptations on the Binet scales, the term mental age was
commonly substituted for mental level. A third revision of the Binet-Simon Scale appeared in 1911, the
year of Binet’s untimely, death. No fundamental changes were introduced, but the scale was extended to
the adult level.

The Binet Simon tests attracted wide attention among psychologists throughout the world. In America, a
number of different revisions were prepared. The first important American revision of the Binet-Simon
scale that gained prominence was by Terman and his associates at Stanford University in 1916. In this
revision, known as the Stanford – Binet (Terman, 1916), the Binet-Simon scale was given almost a new
look. More than one-third of the items were new and the entire scale was standardized on an American
sample of 1400 in which 1000 were children and 400 were adults. It was in this test that the Intelligence
BA 1 Semester2 / Psychology/ Intelligence –Unit 4

Quotient (IQ), the ratio between mental age and chronological age was first used; though William Stern
first proposed the concept in 1912.

IQ = MA  100 where MA is mental age

CA CA is chronological age
The ratio MA/CA is multiplied by 100 to eliminate decimals. The Ratio IQ, as this is called, makes good
logical sense, and has been very popular in measuring intelligence, it has some important shortcomings.

1. It is a known fact that after 18 or 19 the mental age of a person tends to stabilize with a few rare
exceptions. In most cases, the chronological age continues to increase and the mental age remains
more or less static. In other words, the numerator of the IQ equation remains constant while the
denominator continues to inflate. The natural outcome of this will be that a person seems to be less
and less intelligent as he or she grows older in age, as measured by Ratio IQ. To circumvent this
problem, the chronological age is always taken to be 16 for adults beyond the age 16,. Thus a child of
8 who passes items typically passed by 10-year olds has an IQ of 10/8  100 = 125. An adult of 20
who passes items typically passed by 15-year olds has an IQ of 15/16  100 = 93.75. The concept of
mental age in adults – say a mental age of 21 or 37 – is meaningless. A ratio IQ is therefore not very
useful with adults.

2. The variability in IQ score from one test to another is not the same. The IQ score of different tests is
not directly comparable.

3. The variability in the IQ scores for the different age levels on the same test is not the same. In other
words, the standard deviations of the IQ score would be a misleading index because this would
indicate that a person’s IQ score varies as he grows older though his position compared to his age-
mates remains the same. Thus a 10 year old child’s IQ score of 120 (where SD is 12) may mean a
different thing when it is compared with a 7-year old child’s IQ score of 120 (where SD is 9). Thus,
meaning of the same IQ score of 120 at the two age levels with different standard deviations would
not be identical (whereas it should be).

The concept of Deviation IQ is perhaps more valid. The deviation IQ score and traditional IQ score
(called the ratio IQ score found by dividing the mental age by the chronological age) have no similarity
beyond their names. The meaning of these two terms should not be confused. Deviation IQ is not really
IQ (rather it is a normalized standard score), nor is it calculated in a manner in which the ratio IQ is
calculated. As a matter of fact, many experts object to the term “deviation IQ” because it is a misleading
one. The Deviation IQ is the individual’s performance on an intellectual test relative to that of persons of
BA 1 Semester2 / Psychology/ Intelligence –Unit 4

the same age. It facilitates comparison with other individuals of the same age group, as well as across
tests. David Wechsler devised the Deviation IQ with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. This
fixed mean and SD remain constant through all the age levels (for which the test is meant) and for all
levels of a single test. If a child’s score is one SD above the mean his DIQ score would be 100 + 15 or 16
= 115 or 116, which would indicate that his DIQ lies above the average of his age-mates. Likewise, if his
score is one SD below the mean, his DIQ score would be 84 or 85, which would indicate that his DIQ
falls below the average age of age-mates. Nowadays most of the intelligence tests, including the current
Stanford-Binet Scales use the deviation IQ score rather than the ratio IQ score in order to circumvent the
problems posed by the latter. The first test to express scores in terms of deviation IQ was the Wechsler
Adult Intelligence Scale with a mean of 100 and SD of 15.

Wechsler developed a family of tests for people at various age levels:

 WAIS – Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale,
 WPPSI – Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence; and
 WISC – Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children.

Wechsler felt that the items in the Binet-Simon Scale and other similar tests were of little interest to adults
as they were originally designed for children and adapted for adult use by adding more difficult items of
the same kind. Also very few adults had been included in the standardization sample. So he designed a
scale specifically for adults. The first form of the Wechsler Scales, known as the Wechsler Bellevue
Intelligence Scale was published in 1939. It was replaced by the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale in
1955. It consists of eleven subtests, comprising six for the verbal scale and five for the performance scale.
The standardization sample of 1880 cases ranging from 17 to 74 years age was chosen with special care to
ensure its representativeness. Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children was prepared as a downward
extension of the original Wechsler-Bellevue. Many items were taken directly from the adult test, and
easier items of the same type were added to each test. A revised edition WISC-R was published in 1974.
It consists of 12 subtests of which two are used as alternates or supplementary tests if time permits. The
verbal and performance scales each include five subtests. The standardization sample included 100 boys
and 100 girls at each age year from 6½ to 16½, with a total of 2200 cases. The Wechsler Preschool and
Primary Scale of Intelligence is designed for ages 4 to 6 ½ years. It also includes 11 subtests only 10 of
which are used to find the IQ, five comprising the verbal scale and five comprising the performance scale.
The WPPSI-R was published in 1989.

The Binet scales as well as Wechsler’s tests are individual scales, in the sense that they can be
administered to only one person at a time. Many tests require oral responses, manipulation of materials,
and timing of responses. They also require a highly trained examiner. They are essentially clinical
BA 1 Semester2 / Psychology/ Intelligence –Unit 4

instruments, suited to the intensive study of individual cases. Wechsler’s tests yield three different
deviation IQs, one for the verbal tests, another for the performance tests, and a third full-scale IQ.

Group tests were developed by the Army during the World War I so that the recruits could be classified
rapidly according to their general intellectual level. The Army psychologists drew on all available test
materials, especially on an unpublished group intelligence test prepared by Arthur. S. Otis, a student in
one of Terman’s graduate courses. He introduced “objective” items of the multiple-choice type that could
be administered and scored quickly. The tests finally developed by the Army psychologists came to be
known as the Army Alpha and the Army Beta. Army Alpha was designed for general routine testing;
Army Beta was a non-language scale employed with illiterates and foreign – born recruits who were
unable to take a test in English. Both were suitable for administration to large groups. They were revised
several times and also served as models for other group intelligence tests. After the war, they were
released for civilian use. These tests not only permitted simultaneous testing of large groups, but also
simplified instructions, administration and scoring procedures, requiring only minimal training of the
examiners. Moreover, group tests provided better-established norms gathered from very large samples.
They soon became very popular. School teachers, colleges, industrial houses, and other agencies starting
using them extensively. The general public became IQ conscious.

Since they were so easy to administer and score, group tests were applied indiscriminately. However,
their application far exceeded their technical improvement; often the tests failed to meet expectations.
Group tests could not predict individual performance as accurately as individual tests. The examiner has
no opportunity to establish rapport. Temporary conditions such as illness, fatigue, worry, or anxiety
cannot be detected. Persons unaccustomed to testing, emotionally disturbed children, brilliant original
thinkers – all fare worse on group tests. Group tests also lack flexibility. Every examinee is tested on all
items generating boredom from working on too easy items and frustration from working on items beyond
one’s ability. Individual tests avoid this by allowing the examiner to choose items on the basis of the
examinee’s prior responses. When intelligence scores did not predict all sorts of performance and
achievements, the result was hostility towards all tests.

One attempt to enhance the predictive power of intelligence was to get multiple scores instead of a single
measure of intelligence. Psychologists realized that intelligence is not a single general ability, rather it is
a combination of various relatively independent abilities, especially at adult levels. Thus tests specifically
designed for the purpose of differential aptitude analysis were constructed. These aptitude tests yielded
separate scores on various abilities instead of a total score or IQ. Based on the profile of scores, more
accurate predictions could be made regarding the individual’s performance on intellectual tasks.
BA 1 Semester2 / Psychology/ Intelligence –Unit 4

Types of intelligence tests

The intelligence tests currently in use can be classified in various ways:

Individual tests vs. Group tests: An individual intelligence test, as its name implies, can be administered
to one person at a time. The first individual intelligence test was the Binet-Simon scale. A group
intelligence test is one that can be administered to more than one person at a time. That is, it can be
administered to a group. The individual test and the group test may be compared on the following points:

1. The individual test requires a highly skilled and experienced test administrator. He must have a
specialized knowledge of testing procedures and test administration. The group test, on the other
hand, being mostly self-explanatory in nature, does not require a very trained and skilled
administrator. Persons having a moderate experience with testing procedures can do well in the case
of administration of the group test.

2. Individual tests are mostly applied in clinical settings whereas the group tests are mostly applied in
educational settings, industries, the civil services and military services. A person who is discouraged,
withdrawn and has a strong sense of inferiority and guilt cannot be tested properly in a group.
However, in an individual session with an experienced administrator he can be readily diagnosed with
the help of the appropriate test.

3. Individual tests are most suitable for very young children whereas group tests are most suitable for
adolescents and adults. Only individual tests can be administered to children of pre-school ages. No
group test can be successfully administered to them. There are two reasons for this. First, the
children of pre-school age are distracted very easily. If they are asked to sit in a group, they will be
even more distracted. The only solution is to test them individually where the test administrator can
have a better control over the distraction of a child. Second, such children cannot be motivated to do
well in group tests. The administrator cannot encourage and motivate each child of a group to the
extent he deserves. In an individual session, this task becomes easier for him.

4. Individual tests are usually more difficult to construct than group tests. The construction of an
individual test is a time-consuming process and an expensive job. Preparing test items for individual
tests, standardizing those items on a suitable representative sample, and then finding the proper
instructions, time limits, methods of scoring are definitely an arduous, non-economical and the time-
consuming process. This is so specially because the entire process of test construction is to be carried
out in an individual session. Individual test construction should not be undertaken unless the test
constructor is ready to expend a considerable amount of money and time in test construction.
BA 1 Semester2 / Psychology/ Intelligence –Unit 4

5. In group tests the administrator has a very little opportunity to establish rapport and motivate the
examinees and this is specially true when the group is large. Not only this, in the group test the
administrator cannot readily recognize those examinees who are being influenced by some transient
conditions like headache, fatigue, worry, etc. In individual tests the administrator has a better chance
to detect the influence of transient conditions upon examinees and he is also better able to establish
rapport and obtain co-operation from the examinee.

6. The norms of group tests are more dependable and established than the norms of individual tests.
Because of ease in data collection, the norms of group tests can be based upon a very large sample but
in case of the individual tests norms cannot be based upon a very large sample because of the difficult
and the time-consuming nature of data collection.

To summarize, only a trained investigator can administer the individual tests to individuals, because they
require close, careful monitoring. They allow the investigator to choose items on the basis of the testee’s
prior response. They take a long time for administration and are also difficult to score. Generally they
are used for clinical purposes. Examples of individual scales are the Binet Scales and Wechsler’s scales.
Group tests can be administered by practically anybody with a minimum amount of training. They can
even be self-administered by groups. They generally involve objective, multiple-choice items that can be
done in a short duration of time and can be easily scored. Generally they also provide better-established
norms because a large number of people can be tested quickly. Usually they are used for
educational/vocational guidance, selection and research purposes. Examples are Raven’s Standard
Progressive Matrices or Jalota’s Group Intelligence Test. The disadvantages of group testing involve lack
of rapport and close interaction, which precludes the detection of temporary conditions such as worry,
fatigue, anxiety, etc. and the causes of atypical, original performance.

Verbal tests vs. Non-verbal tests: Verbal tests of intelligence make an extensive use of language,
frequently having items based on linguistic, culture-specific, acquired knowledge. As such they are
applicable only to educated, normal adults. Examples are Stanford-Binet Scales, Jalota’s Test of
Intelligence etc. Non-verbal tests require innate psychomotor abilities and abstract intelligence, are
“culture-free” and thus can be done by illiterates and sub-normal populations as well. They may be
performance tests such as the Wechsler Performance Scale or paper-and-pencil tests such as Raven’s
SPM. A performance test is one where language is used only to impart instruction and items are
manipulative in nature. The examinee is required to answer by manipulating the given test materials. No
written language is needed to answer the items. Thus a performance test is not a paper-and-pencil test. It
can be administered to literates as well as illiterates, speech defectives, preschool children who cannot use
language, and on the culturally deprived, etc. In non-verbal paper and pencil tests, the use of paper and
BA 1 Semester2 / Psychology/ Intelligence –Unit 4

pencil is limited to making only non-linguistic marks. The examinee uses the paper and pencil only to
underline or cross out the items, which do not require any ability to read or write. Such tests are usually
group tests and are often given when the examinees are incapable of being tested with the usual tests of
intelligence. One of the biggest advantages of a non-language test is that it can be administered to persons
belonging to different cultures. Hence, it is also sometimes known as culture-free or culture-fair or cross-
cultural or culture-reduced test of intelligence. But strictly speaking, these tests are not free from cultural
influences. As a matter of fact, no one has fully succeeded in constructing a culture-free test in the true
sense of the term. The only thing that can be said in favor of these tests is that they share the maximum
experience common to a large number of cultures. Hence, according to Singh (1997), “the more
appropriate name for them would be Culture-Common or Culture-General tests rather than culture-free
tests”.

Speed tests vs. Power tests: In speed tests, the score depends on the latency or speed of response. Greater
the speed of response, greater is the score. E.g. in Alexander’s Pass-along test, greater scores are awarded
for greater speed of response. In power tests, the score depends on the accuracy of response or the
difficulty level of the item that is passed by the testee. Examples are Stanford-Binet Scales, Raven’s SPM
etc.

Tests of general ability vs. Tests of specific abilities: Tests of general ability assume that intelligence
consists of an innate general ability ‘g’. The items are generally culture-free or culture fair and yield a
single score or IQ used for clinical and research purposes. Examples are Raven’s SPM or Cattell’s
Culture-fair tests. Tests of specific abilities assume that intelligence consists of several independent
specific abilities. Every ability is measured by a relatively homogenous sub-test, the full battery yielding
a profile of scores used for guidance for educational and vocational purposes. Examples are Thurstone’s
Tests of Primary Mental Abilities, Guilford’s Aptitude Tests etc.

Some famous intelligence tests are:

Individual Verbal tests

1. Binet–Simon Scale: With Simon’s assistance Binet developed and published a scale in 1905, known
as the Binet Simon scale. In this scale, some 30 tasks, from the simplest to the most complex, were
presented in a serial order. The first revised scale was published in 1908. From the success of the
revision, psychologists of other countries created intelligence tests suitable to the environment of their
own countries. Among them Burt’s London Revision and Terman’s Stanford Revision are quite
famous. The test assesses intelligence and cognitive abilities in children and adults aged two to 23.
Scores are generated in 4 areas based on 15 subtests
BA 1 Semester2 / Psychology/ Intelligence –Unit 4

The most serious criticism of the Stanford-Binet scale is that it is more useful for children than for
adults. Binet and Simon originally constructed the scale mainly for children and this attribute has
been retained through all its subsequent revisions. Not only this, the scoring of the scale has become
too complicated for adult levels.

2. Terman Merrill Scale: In the Terman Merrill scale, which was a revision of the Stanford Binet scale,
some more subjects, were included. It now became useful for the age range of 2 to 18 years. In this
scale, there were provisions for two types of tests, yearly and half yearly, for children belonging to
the age group of two to four years. Many other subtests were included for the adult people. For
every age group, there were six to eight subtests. In this scale there are tests that enable the examiner
to examine the intelligence of individuals in a very short time.

3. Hindi Revision of the Terman-Merrill Scale: The Central Bureau of Psychology of Uttar Pradesh has
made a Hindi version of the Terman Merrill Scale. The revision includes a variety of material from
solid objects to difficult questions. The activities in the beginning are simple like constructing a
bridge or a tower of books or fitting in irregular wooden blocks in their proper place supplied for
them. At the same time, at the end of the tests there are difficult questions, which need considerable
thinking. This test is divided into numerous age groups. The items for higher age groups use
language to a considerable extent.

Individual Non-Verbal Intelligence Tests

All paper and pencil tests used with groups can be administered individually. Generally however,
performance tests are used in clinical practice. According to Munn, “The word performance is usually
BA 1 Semester2 / Psychology/ Intelligence –Unit 4

applied to tests which require a minimum use of understanding and language”. Thus these tests make
minimal use of items requiring verbal responses and language and can be applied to children, illiterates,
feeble minded individuals as well as to foreigners. However they are all individual tests requiring close
monitoring. The various Performance Intelligence Tests are:

1. Pintner-Patterson Performance Scale: One example of the performance intelligence tests is the
Pintner-Patterson Performance Scale. It was evolved by Pintner and Patterson in 1917. In this scale
there are 15 types of tests, such as form board, picture completion, memory span, picture puzzles, and
imitation etc.

2. Porteus Maze Tests: Another example of the non-verbal intelligence tests is the Porteus Maze test.
Paper and pencil mazes are used in this test. However they require individual administration. For his
test, Porteus created mazes for the children from 3 to 14 years. It gets difficult corresponding to the
increase in age. The subject is allowed two chances and if he fails in the second attempt then the
conclusion is that his intelligence is not of that age level. Children of 12 to 14 years are given four
opportunities. These tests designed by Porteus not only measure intelligence, but they also reflect at
the same time the nature of the individual. It studies non-intellectual aspects ignored by tests such as
the Stanford Binet.

3. Form Board Test: A comparatively simple example of the performance intelligence test is the form
board test. Among them the tests of Seguin and Goddard deserve special mention. In the form board
test, there are numerous blocks and a board in which there are holes corresponding to blocks. The
subject has to fit the blocks in these corresponding holes in the board, the time taken and mistakes
committed being noted from which the score of the test is calculated.

4. Bhatia’s Battery of Performance Tests: The description of performance intelligence tests, would be
incomplete without a mention of Bhatia’s battery of performance tests. It is the battery created by the
former director of Uttar Pradesh psychological laboratory, Dr. Chandra Mohan Bhatia. It has the
following 5 subtests:

 Koh’s Block Design Tests: 9 items out of the Koh’s block design test have been included in the
battery. On every card is depicted a colour design. The subject or the examinee sees this design
and makes a similar one out of the blocks provided. These designs become gradually more and
more complex, having been simple at the start.
 Alexander Pass Along test: Here too there are some designs depicting red and blue blocks in trays
with red and blue edges. Each tray is presented to the subject with the red blocks near the blue
edge and the blue blocks near the red edges. The subject has to look at the designs on each card,
BA 1 Semester2 / Psychology/ Intelligence –Unit 4

and pass the blocks. Without picking up the blocks, he has to bring the blue blocks to the blue
edge, and the red blocks to the red edge, as quickly as possible.
 Pattern Drawing Test: Dr. Bhatia created this test. In this there are eight cards on which of which
there is a one-line figure. The subject draws a particular figure of pattern after seeing this figure.
 Immediate Memory Test: Some digits are recited, which are immediately repeated by the subject,
throwing some light on the immediate memory of the subject.
 Picture construction Test: In this subtest there are five tests, in which pictures relating to Indian
rural life are fragmented into 2,4,6.8 and 12 pieces respectively. At one time, pieces of one
picture are placed before the subject who puts them in order and constructs the picture.

An Individual Verbal as well as Non Verbal Test: Wechsler’s Scales:

The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale or WAIS, consists of 11 subtests, of which six are verbal scales
and five are non-verbal or performance scales. The WAIS is used with persons aged 16 and above (up to
64 years) and takes about an hour in its complete administration.

The previous versions of the Wechsler Scales would yield a Verbal IQ (VIQ) and Performance IQ (PIQ)
which have now been replaced by the VCI, WMI, POI and PSI as depicted below:

Verbal Comprehension Index: This includes 4 subtests

1. Similarities: Abstract verbal reasoning

(e.g., "In what way are an apple and a pear alike?")
2. Vocabulary: The degree to which one has learned, been able to comprehend and verbally express
vocabulary
BA 1 Semester2 / Psychology/ Intelligence –Unit 4

(e.g., "What is a guitar?")

3. Information : Degree of general information acquired from culture
(e.g., "Who is the president of Russia?")
4. Comprehension [Supplemental]: Ability to deal with abstract social conventions, rules and
expressions
(e.g., "What does Kill 2 birds with 1 stone metaphorically mean?")

Working Memory Index:

1. Digit span: attention, concentration, mental control

(e.g., Repeat the numbers 1-2-3 in reverse sequence)
2. Arithmetic: Concentration while manipulating mental mathematical problems
(e.g., "How many 45-cent stamps can you buy for a dollar?")
3. Letter-Number Sequencing [Supplemental]: attention and working memory
(e.g., Repeat the sequence Q-1-B-3-J-2, but place the numbers in numerical order
and then the letters in alphabetical order)

Perceptual Reasoning Index: Comprises five tests

1. Block Design: Intends to measure the ability to analyze the complex whole. It is an adaptation
of the Koh’s Block Design test and has blocks, which have red, while and red-and-white sides
and has seven designs only. The examinee is required to produce a given design with the help
of the blocks. Measures spatial perception, visual abstract processing & problem solving
2. Matrix Reasoning: Nonverbal abstract problem solving, inductive reasoning, spatial reasoning
3. Visual Puzzles: non-verbal reasoning
4. Picture Completion [Supplemental]: Ability to quickly perceive visual details. Intends to
measure the ability to analyze parts from the whole. It is contains 21 cards, each contains
picture from which something is missing. The testee is to fill in the missing part.
5. Figure Weights [Supplemental]: quantitative and analogical reasoning

Processing Speed Index:

1. Symbol Search: Visual perception, speed

2. Coding: Visual-motor coordination, motor and mental speed
BA 1 Semester2 / Psychology/ Intelligence –Unit 4

3. Cancellation [Supplemental]: Cancellation is a supplemental subtest that requires that subjects

scan a structured arrangement of colored shapes and mark the targets and avoid the distracters.
Measures visual-perceptual speed

For measuring the intelligence of children aged 5 to 15 Wechsler developed another test known as the
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children or WISC in 1949. It is very similar to the WAIS except that the
items have been remodeled to suit the children’s interest. The WISC takes about an hour to administer
and comprises 12 subsets of which two are used as alternative or supplementary tests provided time
permits. The WISC –IV was published in 2003. It abandons the Verbal IQ and Performance IQ scores
which were obtained on previous versions of the WISC and yields scores on 4 index scores which are
based on a number of subtests.

The Indian Adaptation of the WISC is known as Malin Inteligence Scale for Indian Children. It was done
by Dr. Arthur Malin in 1969. Being a revision of the older version of WISC, the test yields a separate IQ
for the verbal test by adding the scores on all the six subtests and a separate IQ for the performance test
by adding scores on all the five subtests.

Verbal scale Performance scale

General information Picture completion
General comprehension Picture arrangement.
Arithmetic Block design
Similarities Object assembly
BA 1 Semester2 / Psychology/ Intelligence –Unit 4

Vocabulary Coding
Digit span (an alternative if any of the Mazes (may be used as an alternative for coding)
above test is not usable)

A Full-scale score is obtained by adding the scaled scores on all the 11 subtests and on the basis of the
full scale score, the Full scale IQ is computed. Subsequently, these standard scores are expressed in the
form of Deviation IQ with a mean of 100, and SD of 15.

Wechsler has also developed a separate intelligence scale, which measures the intelligence of preschool
children between the ages of 4 and 6.5 years. The scale is known as the Wechsler Preschool and Primary
Scale of Intelligence (WPPSI). Items are very similar to WISC and have been adapted to suit children of
the said age group. The method of computing IQ is similar to WISC. The scale roughly takes 50 to 75
minutes in its administration, has 11 subsets, of which six are verbal scales and five are performance
scales. Eight subtests have been adapted from WISC and three are new entrants, which have replaced the
Digit span, the Picture arrangement, the Object assembly and the coding on the WISC. The three new
subtests are the Sentences, the Animal House and the Geometric design. The 11 subtests of WPPSI are:

Verbal scale Performance

scale
Information Animal House
Vocabulary Mazes
Arithmetic Picture
completion
Similarities Geometric
design
Comprehension Block design
Sentences (supplementary)

Verbal Group Intelligence Tests

1. Army Alpha Tests: An excellent example of group intelligence tests is afforded by the Army alpha
and beta tests, which were evolved during the World War I in order to test the American soldiers.
Army Alpha was a verbal group test. It revealed separately the feebleminded, men capable of
becoming skilled specialists, men capable of becoming officers, men needing some training, etc.
BA 1 Semester2 / Psychology/ Intelligence –Unit 4

2. Naval and Army General Classification Tests: Due to the success of tests in the World War I, some
group tests for classification of naval and army soldiers were evolved during the World War II. Out of
these, two particular forms deserve mention - the Naval General Classification Tests and the Army
General Classification Tests. With the help of calculations made by Cruze, some one billion people
were tested by the military general classification tests during the years 1941 to 1946. Each of them
has three subtests.

3. Dr. Sohan Lal’s Intelligence Tests: Dr.Sohan Lal evolved tests for 11-year-old children. Tests were
later also designed for 13,14,15 year old children and for adults. These verbal group intelligence tests
examine reasoning, power of comparing and contrasting, sense of direction, ability in numerals and
language, of the individuals who constitute the group.

4. Jalota’s test of General Mental Ability: It contains 100 objective type items to be answered by the
subjects in 25 minutes. A strip-key is used for scoring. The score can be further converted into
centiles, percentiles, or IQ.

Non verbal Group Intelligence Tests

For the Groups, the nonverbal tests are generally of the paper and pencil type, because the close
monitoring required by performance tests is impossible in a group. Some such Paper and pencil tests are:

1. Raven’s Progressive Matrices: Designed by J.C. Raven, the complete series includes Colored
Progressive Matrices for children and retarded adults, Standard Progressive Matrices for normal adult
population, and Advanced Progressive Matrices for superior adults. All these are measures of g, the
most recent revision having been published in 1987. All test items involve a design in which a block
is missing. The answer is to be identified from among the given alternatives. The Ravens’ Scales are
culture-free measures of intelligence and considered one of the best measures of fluid intelligence
(innate cognitive ability).

2. Culture-fair intelligence Tests: The tests were developed by R.B. Cattell and published by IPAT
(Institute for Personality and Ability Testing) in 1961-63. There are three scales administered to both
children and adults. The Scale 1 is meant for 4 to 8 years, the Scale II for 8 to 15, and Scale III for 15
and above. The test takes about to 30 to 60 minutes to administer and measures the general
intelligence factor which is manifested through adaptive mental behavior in situations in which
previously learnt skills do not help in guiding such behavior. The test is said to be independent of
school achievement, social advantages and environmental influences. The test, as claimed by Cattell,
BA 1 Semester2 / Psychology/ Intelligence –Unit 4

is free from cultural bias but evidences for its being free from cultural bias are mixed (Tuckman,
1975). It consists of 4 subtests that require inductive reasoning based on a geometric material.

 Series
 Classifications
 Matrices
 Conditions

The test has been adapted in Indian conditions and has been published by the Psycho-Centre, New
Delhi.

A Verbal as well as Non Verbal Group Intelligence Test:

1. Lorge-Thorndike Intelligence Test: This test is meant for the primary school children and the high
school children graded into five different levels. For each level the test has alternate forms and
intends to measure verbal comprehension, numerical skills and reasoning abilities. Thus, the test
has both the verbal and the non-verbal items for the examinee. However, for the lower levels the
test has only non-verbal items consisting mainly of design and figures, which provide an
additional advantage in the sense that these items become the appropriate and pure measure of the
abstract ability of small children at the said levels. The test takes about 30 minutes in its
administration.

FLYNN EFFECT

The Flynn effect is the substantial and long-sustained increase in both fluid and crystallized intelligence test
scores measured in many parts of the world from roughly 1930 to the present day. The Flynn effect is named
for James R. Flynn, who did much to document it and promote awareness of its implications.
Research shows that IQ gains have been mixed for different countries. In general, countries have seen
generational increases between 5 and 25 points. The largest gains appear to occur on tests that measure fluid
intelligence (Gf) rather than crystallized intelligence (Gc).
BA 1 Semester2 / Psychology/ Intelligence –Unit 4

What are possible causes for the Flynn Effect?

1. Education a cause of IQ gains?

In many countries the level of education of the general public is increasing. People are spending a
larger amount of their time learning and being examined in formal educational settings.
In some cases IQ gains are highly correlated to increased years spent in formal education. Again,
several scholars point at the increase in culture-free tests as evidence against an educational cause.

2. Societal changes causing IQ gains?

People in our society have learned to work better within a limited time frame. This societal trend
allows later generations to score better on timed tests because they make intelligent guesses and don't
waste time trying to get every test item correct. Although this hypothesis seemed promising, there has
been research that contradicts its fundamental assumptions (Flynn, 1994)

3. Better nutrition a cause of IQ gains?

It has also been hypothesized that IQ gains are the results of better world wide nutrition. The idea behind
this hypothesis is that better nourished brains would allow subjects to perform better on IQ tests as well as
in everyday activities. Experimental data trying to prove this theory are also mixed leading one to believe
that nutrition, though a possible contributing cause, cannot account entirely for the massive gains in IQ
measured around the world (Flynn, 1994).

CONCLUSION

Problems and issues in intelligence testing

Everyone agrees that some sort of test of intellect is needed for practical purposes but there is a great deal
of disagreement over the actual use of intelligence tests. Some such questions are:
1. How can a test, which is only a sample of behavior at a particular time, assess the complexity of
intellect shown by the individual throughout his life?
2. Are the testing conditions uniform and fair for all examines?
3. Is the scoring and interpretation easy and objective?
4. Once the IQ score is obtained, how stable is it? Is IQ stable over a lifetime? Can we predict adult IQ
on the basis of a score obtained in school?
5. Can and should intelligence be measured independently of factors such as education, economic
background, social class? How is IQ affected by such environmental factors?
BA 1 Semester2 / Psychology/ Intelligence –Unit 4

6. How can the intelligence of special groups such as infants, preschoolers, the elderly, the retardates
etc. be measured?
7. Should intelligence tests be culture-fair, culture-free or culture-specific?
8. Should intelligence tests use language? Is linguistic ability an intrinsic aspect of intellect?
9. Should we test general intelligence or specific abilities?
10. How can we reflect the slight increase in intelligence from one generation to another in the norms?
11. Is intelligence only a cognitive ability to does it including social intelligence and emotional stability
as well?
12. Is goal-directedness an essential part of intelligence?
13. Is creativity a part of intelligence?
14. Should intelligence tests be used at all for selection and placement in academic courses, jobs, careers
etc.?
15. Can IQ predict success or happiness in life?

It is well to remember that all psychological tests are essentially tools. Like all other tools, their
effectiveness depends on the knowledge, skill, and integrity of the user.