<p>beruah, You are right. I find it a little bit frightening that the Wisc III and IV cannot be compared, and I believe on the Wisc IV the average subject will have a 5 point lower IQ than on the wisc III. I am sure that some must have 30 point+ variances between the 2 tests as well, and yet these tests cannot be compared. So does this mean the student with an IQ of 85 on one test and IQ of 115 on another test has suddenly become less or more intelligent?</p>
<p>This is untrue NEM. I have used both measures and the IQ scores are very comparable. Some of the subtests are exactly the same, just in new domains, and the issues with timed tests and processing speed have been sorted out on the new test. </p>
<p>There just isn’t that variability you describe, or at least not that I have witnessed or experienced.</p>
<p><a href=“http://alpha.fdu.edu/psychology/melissa_farrall_WISCIV.htm[/url]”>http://alpha.fdu.edu/psychology/melissa_farrall_WISCIV.htm</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Allmusic-
This probably is off topic, but have you used the GAI to compare the WISC-IV scores to a predicted IQ using only VC and PR subtests? It is very helpful, especially for kids who may have trouble with PS and WM (these are composite score category acronyms, folks, sorry for any confusion)</p>
<p>
I would bet you money that a plumber knows more about physics than the average college graduate. Plumbers don’t just unclog toilets. They design & install HVAC systems. They often run their own businesses & must have all the skills necessary to handle (or effectively delegate) office management, accounting/taxes, & municipal code compliance. They have to constantly keep abreast of developments in their field. In short, stupid people do not become plumbers. A mechancially inclined bright kid who has an independent streak & an aversion to a desk job could do very well & be very challenged by a plumbing career.</p>
<p>StickerShock~</p>
<p>I totally agree with you. My least academic kid (by school standards) is my most mechanical, and from the time he was five or six years old, he was ALWAYS the one who hooked up all of our electronics and solved mechanical issues around here. There are many different kinds of intelligence, something which is not particularly acknowledged or fostered by the school system in its rather one-dimensional definition of intelligence. ~berurah</p>
<p>I will amend my post to NEM, because I was not thinking of full scale score, which yes, is highly influenced (and can thus be lower as a result of the two composites JYM mentions). </p>
<p>I was thinking more of individual test scores, or total Verbal and total Perceptual Reasoning, because I think they are more diagnostic.</p>
<p>So yes, overall IQ could be lower on the WISC-IV, because of the four composites, as opposed to two, but the actual subtest scores don’t differ greatly, which means the kid isn’t any smarter or dumber on the new test. I hope that makes sense.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sorta. But of course it makes a huge difference to kids who no longer make the cut off to a gifted program because they took the WISC-IV instead of the WISC-III. (Not a problem in our district because they use much sillier methods to identify gifted kids.)</p>
<p>Take off a weekend and look how far behind you get. </p>
<p>LHOD just (or so it seems) wrote
</p>
<p>Then there’s the old joke. A doctor calls the plumbre, who comes in, fixes the problem in 15 minutes and hands the doctor a bill for $ 75.00.</p>
<p>The doctor: $ 75 for fifteen minutes work! That’s $ 300 an hour! I’m a doctor, and I don’t make that much!</p>
<p>The plumber: I know, doc. I know. When I was a doctor I didn’t make that much either.</p>
<p>dadofsam (and lefthandofdog)-
I suspect you meant physician, not physicist. Physicsts make even less than most MDs, but both, thanks to the era of managed care and dreadful insruance reimbursement, look up to the plumbers and other practitioners whose incomes aren’t controlled by outside forces. As my plumber once said to me, “if my taxes go up, I just raise my rates and pass the cost on to the customer”. Swell.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What we do know is that IQ tests do a good job of predicting school and job success, particularly those areas requiring complex analysis, in countries such as the US or Britain. We don’t know how extreme poverty would affect IQ in the Third World, or under brutal dictatorships.</p>
<p>I agree that misuse of IQ testing is a problem, but I must say that popular media is partly responsible for not putting the research data out there impartially. I don’t know what they are afraid of.</p>
<p>I don’t see the problem in terms of right vs wrong. My understanding of science is that its focus is on the building of theories, supported by empirical evidence, that have the power to explain natural phenomena. We are looking for theories that are simple and elegant, with good explanatory power, and predictive of future events. If better ones come along, the old ones will be discarded. It is this constant ability to “rejuvenate” itself, and not searching for a higher authority that I find appealing.</p>
<p>My problem with the nay side is that they have failed to come up with experimental evidence that would buttress their position. As a liberal, I would welcome it with open arms. </p>
<p>When I was a teenager, I saw on TV some psychologists vowing to come up with an IQ test that treat everybody equally. 40 years later, I am still waiting.</p>
<p>Right. What IS an “intelligence quotient” anyway?</p>
<p>A kid might not do well on such a test, even when administered by a professional, because he/she has not had good home training. IIRC, an IQ test has open-ended short answers that the testee has to come up with. Well, if no one has ever advised them not to be flippant, or taught them to answer in complete sentences, they would come off as being not as smart as someone who has. After a few weeks of cultural coaching, I bet so-called IQs could be raised.</p>
<p>And that doesn’t even begin to get into the different kinds of smarts and talent that can’t be tested in this type of setting. And the disadvantages experienced by kids who don’t have any books in their home & were never read to.</p>
<p>Now, if the tests were used to identify kids who NEED help instead of consigning them to slow learner classes, we might have gotten somewhere after all this time.</p>
<p>mommusic,</p>
<p>Your concerns are not new, and they have been largely addressed. There are, for example, different types of IQ test and they do not all require cultural knowledge such as vocabulary- Raven’s Progressive Matrices comes to mind. Yes, they all tap into the same intelligence, or more properly known as the “g” factor.</p>
<p>If the “testee” is being flippant and deliberately giving wrong answers, I have no doubt a professional can catch it very quickly. I have seen tests where dummy items are embedded for the purpose of catching this type of behavior. In my area, they even use the term “malingering” for it.</p>
<p>IQ tests do not measure things such as physical capabilities, experience, special aptitude and the like. Then again, they are not designed for that purpose.</p>
<p>In the schools that I have seen, IQ testing is only one of many data points used to gain a better understanding of a given child. No one in the know would base a decision on one test alone. Furthermore, I have not seen any school that would test every student in its care; a complete educational assessment is only done when everything else has failed. It is time-consuming and expensive.</p>
<p>I think it is professionally irresponsible to use the WISC in isolation, without it being part of a broader, more comprehensive battery. And, MM, a multi-disciplinary battery absolutely does “identify kids who NEED help”; the information is exceptionally useful educationally. </p>
<p>The main problem is that administering a full battery of tests is extremely expensive, which is why some professionals and school personnel do not do a thorough enough job when doing evaluations. So often it boils down to time and money.</p>
<p>But a good evaluation is worth its weight in gold.</p>
<p>My psychology class have cleared up all the misconceptions about IQ and IQ tests. They can’t and won’t ever be able to tell a person what sort of job a person will have. There are way to many other factors that come into play.
The biggest factor is motivation. If a student trully wants something they can do it.
I don’t know what my IQ is because I have never been tested and I don’t ever want it to be tested. Because I know there are different types of intelligence that that test won’t be able to test. I’m horrible at writing but when it comes to science I love it. I have several profs who tell me I am a social learner and will be best working with others in the future. That IQ test will never be able to test for social skills. Also many IQ test measure knowledge instead of potential to learn which are two greatly different things, the latter being a better indicator.
Also can someone say that basketball aren’t smarter then a math teacher. Most people forget that they require two different types of intelligence, but both are important. </p>
<p>That teacher needs to go and watch the “Pursuit of Happiness” because that true story is all about being motivated.</p>
<p>tmagirl~</p>
<p>Thank you for your post! Your psych prof was much more on the ball than my D’s English teacher, no doubt. You sound like a go-getter who will do very well throughout her life! I wish you all the best! ~berurah</p>
<p>allmusic,</p>
<p>Yes, I agree with your last post completely. If testing is worth doing, it is worth doing well.</p>
<p>tmacgirl,</p>
<p>I think it is more accurate to say that success in any endeavor requires a combination of natural ability, hard work, and opportunity. I wanted to be a hockey player at one time, but came to realize very quickly that kids with my level of athletic skills are a dime a dozen. I personally know quite a few kids wanting to be the next Steve Nash and are working hard to fulfill this dream. I have yet to see, however, the ice-cold nerves needed to make the clutch shot, or the court sense to find the open man.</p>
<p>Maybe we should approach careers like we do college applications: some reach schools, some good fits, and some safeties.</p>
<p>Canuckguy~</p>
<p>I have a couple of questions for you…</p>
<p>1.) Do you personally subscribe to the notion that there are essential racial differences in intelligence?</p>
<p>2.) Are you comfortable with Linda Gottfredson’s sponsorship by the Pioneer Fund and her findings being utilized by eugenics groups?</p>
<p>3.) Do you consider the possibility of cultural bias in the accepted measures of general intelligence?</p>
<p>Just wonderin’… ~berurah</p>
<p>'My psychology class have cleared up all the misconceptions about IQ and IQ tests. They can’t and won’t ever be able to tell a person what sort of job a person will have. There are way to many other factors that come into play.
The biggest factor is motivation. If a student trully wants something they can do it."</p>
<p>While motivation is important, that combined with intelligence and talent is what determines what one can do.</p>
<p>For example, people with subnormal intelligence may work very hard – far harder than most people – but they still aren’t going to become doctors, lawyers, etc.</p>
<p>In addition, the psychologist Donald Clifton found that people’s skills develop most when they’re given instruction in things that they are naturally good at. This is the opposite of what most people think is true. If you take someone who’s naturally good at a subject or a skill area and someone who’s struggling in that area, give both instruction, the one who will improve the most is the one who’s naturally good at the subject.</p>
<p>In addition, people tend to like most the things that they are good at. Consequently, people who are highly motivated to learn something are also likely to be naturally very good at it.</p>
<p>I see this all of the time even around my house. I have just above average ability at learning foreign languages. I have often worked very hard at learning languages because I have spent time abroad and wanted to speak the language. I could literally immerse myself in the language. spend lots of time studying, take classes, etc. and my husband – who is cleary highly gifted at languages – could do next to nothing, but still have skills that were far above mine.</p>
<p>Yup, motivation is certainly powerful, but it isn’t going to turn me into a math whiz, or an Olympic skater, no matter how dedicated I am. </p>
<p>The old adage that people can “do anything they set their minds to” is only true to a certain extent. People really can’t do <em>anything</em> they set their minds to, unless they are blessed with a modicum of proclivity in the first place.</p>