Добавил:
Sekretar
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru
t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_27_библиотеки_им_акад_М_И_Перельмана
.pdf
In the early 1900s, hopeful American immigrants were subjected to examinations,
including intelligence tests. Those who failed to pass the test were labeled
“feebleminded” and not allowed to enter the country.
SeM / Contributor/Universal Images Group/Getty Images
Group Aptitude Tests
The Stanford-Binet and the Wechsler scales are used to test one person at a time
and take about an hour to administer. This procedure enables the examiner to
interact with the test taker and observe whether he or she has trouble with
instructions, loses attention, gets frustrated, or gives up too quickly. The disadvantage
is that individualized tests are not practical for quick, large-scale assessment. During
World War I, for example, the U.S. military needed an efficient way to screen recruits
for service. With help from psychologists, two group tests were developed and
administered to 1.7 million men—the Army Alpha Test, given in writing to those who
could read English; and the Army Beta Test, given orally to those who could not
(Lennon, 1985).
Today, group testing is a regular part of our lives. You are no doubt familiar with
the Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT), a national rite of passage that many students
have learned to fear. Sponsored by the College Board and administered by the
Educational Testing Service (ETS), the SAT is a grueling two-and-a-half-hour college
entrance exam taken by more than a million college-bound high school juniors and
seniors every year. The test, which was developed in 1926, was designed to measure
both verbal and mathematical reasoning in a multiple-choice format. As a historical
matter, it’s ironic that the SAT first came into use as a college admissions tool in the
1930s. At the time, Harvard president James Conant was unhappy that Harvard was
a regional college, easy to get into, and filled with privileged young men from New
England boarding schools. Looking to identify and recruit outstanding students from
diverse regions and modest backgrounds, and needing a way to make comparisons
across a national pool of high school seniors, he turned to the SAT. In light of
criticisms today that these tests favor some segments of society over others, the
irony lies in the fact that the SAT was first used for a noble purpose: to level the
playing field for bright students from modest backgrounds (Lemann, 1999).
The newest version of the SAT was launched in 2016. According to David
Coleman, the president and CEO of the College Board, the revisions were created
with the purpose of measuring college readiness instead of how well students can
use “tricks and [try] to eliminate answers” (Gumbrecht, 2014). The SAT is designed to
supplement school grades as an objective predictor of academic performance.
Instead of or in addition to the SAT, many students take the ACT, a rival exam
developed by American College Testing in 1939 that tests abilities in English, math,
reading, and science reasoning. Comparable tests are also used to screen applicants
for advanced education. If you choose to go on to graduate school, you’ll have to take
the Graduate Record Examination, or GRE. For other more specialized professions,
you would take the Medical College Admission Test (MCAT), the Law School
Admission Test (LSAT), or the Graduate Management Admission Test (GMAT).
Are Intelligence Tests Accurate?
https://t.me/medicina_free
Every year, millions of dollars are spent on intelligence testing. But what is the
bottom line? Are the tests “accurate”? To answer this question fully, it’s important to
know that all psychological tests—including those that are designed to measure
intelligence—must have three ingredients: standardization, reliability, and validity
(Anastasi & Urbina, 1997; Groth-Marnat, 2003).
Intelligence tests can be administered online. However, not all intelligence tests
are created equal. It’s important to know which tests are scientifically valid and
reliable.
iStock.com/Rawf8
Standardization means that a test provides a standard of existing norms that can
be used to interpret an individual’s score. Suppose you took a 150-item SAT and then
received a letter indicating that you had correctly answered 115 of the questions. How
would you feel? Would you celebrate your success or lament your failure? As you can
surmise, a raw score does not provide you with enough information. To interpret the
number, you would need to compare it to the performance of others. Standardization
is achieved by administering a test to thousands of people similar to those for whom
the test is designed. For the Wechsler scales, the average was arbitrarily set at 100,
with test scores distributed in a normal, bell-shaped curve where roughly 68 percent
of all scores fall between 85 and 115, 95 percent fall between 70 and 130, and 99
percent fall between 55 and 145. The SAT was first standardized in 1941, using a
sample of more than 10,000 college-bound students. The verbal and math scores
were each put on a scale ranging from 200 to 800, with their averages set at 500. In
any case, regardless of whether a test’s average is set at 100, 500, or 12 million, your
raw score—the sheer number of correct answers—must be converted into a
standardized test score that reflects the distance between your performance and the
norm, as illustrated in Figure 7.16.
standardization. The procedure by which existing norms are used to interpret an
individual’s test score.
The second ingredient is reliability, which refers to the consistency of a test’s
results. Two types of consistency are sought. One is test-retest reliability, the extent
to which a test yields similar results on different occasions. Just as you would not
trust a scale that shows moment-to-moment fluctuations in your weight, psychologists
would not trust an IQ test that shows radical changes from one session to the next.
Intelligence is thought to be a relatively stable trait, not one that varies much over a
short period. To ensure that a scale has test-retest reliability, researchers test the
same subjects on two occasions—say, a month or two apart—and calculate the
correlation between their test and retest scores: the higher the correlation, the more
reliable the scale.
reliability. The extent to which a test yields consistent results over time or using
alternate forms.
test-retest reliability. The degree to which a test yields consistent results when
readministered at a later time.
The second kind of consistency is split-half reliability, the extent to which
different forms of a test produce similar results. If you had two scales of the same
brand and model, you would expect them to provide identical estimates of your
weight. Likewise, alternate forms of an IQ test (often created by dividing it into odd
and even items) should produce similar results. Using the test-retest and split-half
methods, it’s clear that the Stanford-Binet, WAIS, and SAT are reliable measures, all
yielding correlations of about +.90. In fact, a study of 23,000 college seniors applying
for graduate school showed a very high correlation of +.86 between their scores on
https://t.me/medicina_free
the GRE (an exam much like the SAT) and their SAT performances four or more
years earlier (Angoff, 1988).
split-half reliability. The degree to which alternate forms of a test yield consistent
results.
Description
Figure 7.16 Distribution of Scores on the WAIS and SAT
The third essential ingredient is validity, a test’s ability to measure or predict what
it’s supposed to. IQ tests may yield consistent scores, but do they indicate
intelligence? Do college entrance exams measure aptitude? Better yet, are these
tests able to predict academic performance?
validity. The extent to which a test measures or predicts what it is designed to.
If the goal is to assess academic performance, then the tests receive a passing
grade, particularly in the earlier school years. In elementary school, there is a high
correlation among IQ, class grades, and achievement-test scores. There is a
somewhat lower correlation between SAT scores and performance in college, but the
combination of high school grades and SAT scores is highly predictive of a student’s
grade point average (Jensen, 1980; Linn, 1982). As for the GRE, at best it is
predictive of the student’s first-year performance in graduate school, but the
correlation is weak (Miller & Stassun, 2014). Among doctoral candidates in physics
between the years 2000 to 2010, Miller and colleagues (2019) found that GRE and
undergraduate GPA did “not predict completion as effectively as admissions
committees presume” (p. 1). What if the goal is to predict achievement in
nonacademic walks of life? If that is the case, then IQ tests are limited in their validity.
Hence, many psychologists believe that although these tests assess academic
performance, they do not adequately measure the ability to adapt to life outside the
classroom (McClelland, 1998; Sedlacek, 2004; Sternberg, 2000).
https://t.me/medicina_free
Are Intelligence Tests Biased?
Critics charge that intelligence tests are culturally biased, in that they favor some
social groups over others. To the extent that a test calls for specific cultural
knowledge, it is biased. That’s why Terman had to “Americanize” Binet’s French test.
But what about IQ testing in the United States, where Americans don’t all share a
common cultural heritage? Consider an issue that has deeply troubled many
psychologists. Ever since cognitive ability tests were first administered, African
Americans as a group have averaged 15 points lower than Whites on IQ tests, 200
points lower than Whites on the GRE, and 100 points lower on the SAT verbal and
math tests (Miele, 2002; Miller & Stassun, 2014). Nobody disputes the fact that the
difference exists. However, disagreements arise as to what it means and what the
social implications are.
Later, we’ll learn that there are many possible reasons for this difference. But for
now, we’ll examine one criticism in particular: that the question content within the
tests favors the cultural and educational experiences of the White middle class
(Garcia, 1981; Miller-Jones, 1989; Saklofske, van de Vijver, Oakland, Mpofu, &
Suzuki, 2015). If you take the Stanford-Binet or Wechsler test, for example, you may
be asked: What is the color of rubies? What does C.O.D. mean? Who was Thomas
Jefferson? To answer these questions, one needs to have knowledge about the
dominant culture. It’s also important to realize that a person’s racial and ethnic
background may also guide his or her perception of the testing situation,
understanding of the task instructions, motivation to succeed, trust in the examiner,
and other aspects of the experience (Helms, 1992). There are many subtle ways in
which test scores can be influenced by a person’s background—independent of their
intelligence.
Americans differ across cultural heritage, language, and socioeconomic status.
Critics of intelligence tests argue that IQ scores are reflective of the dominant White
middle class and thus are inherently biased.
iStock.com/hyejin kang
Advocates of IQ testing have replied to this criticism in two ways. The first is that
group differences are found even on test items that are deemed “culture-fair”
(illustrated in Figure 7.17)—namely, nonverbal items that do not require extensive
knowledge of a particular culture, tasks such as reciting a series of letters or digits,
classifying objects, forming a pattern with blocks, or putting together the pieces of a
picture puzzle (Cattell, 1949; Raven, Court, & Raven, 1985). One IQ test that is free
from language barriers is the Test of Nonverbal Intelligence (TONI-4; Johnsen, 2017).
The TONI-4 refrains from reliance on written questions and, according to Susan
Johnsen, is “characterized as reliable, valid, relatively free of bias with regard to
gender, race, ethnicity, and other relevant variables” (p. 185). Second, intelligence
and aptitude tests are statistically valid predictors of performance within the schools
of a particular culture, the purpose for which they were designed—regardless of
whether students are African American, White, Latinx, or Asian (Kaplan, 1985).
https://t.me/medicina_free
Description
Figure 7.17 Sample Item From Raven’s “Culture-Fair” Intelligence Test
THE NATURE OF INTELLIGENCE
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
Appreciate the range of intelligences proposed by the field of psychology.
Examine why some psychologists believe intelligence to be one general
ability.
Determine if we can predict a child’s IQ in infancy.
Understand the arguments posed by psychologists who believe that there are
multiple human intelligences.
From the beginning, intelligence tests were constructed for strictly practical
purposes—to identify slow learners in school, assign new military recruits, and select
strong college applicants from modest backgrounds. Unfortunately, the initial
emphasis on tests and measurements may have stunted the growth of theories
concerning the very nature of intelligence—what it is, where it comes from, and how it
is developed. As one psychologist put it, “Intelligence is whatever an intelligence test
measures” (Boring, 1923).
One of the most unsatisfying aspects of IQ tests is that they reduce intelligence to
a single uncomplicated number. But does that number tell a rich enough story about
any one person’s intellect? Think about yourself for a minute. Here you are, taking a
course in psychology, which means you have a desire and capacity to learn complex
material. You can operate your smartphone, learn how to manage and apply a new
app with ease, and live in a world that is constantly demanding adaptation. But can
you solve a Rubik’s Cube, find your way around without GPS, or correctly assemble a
piece of furniture without using the instructions? It’s amazing how a person can feel
so smart and yet so dense all at once. The point is that you have to wonder whether
a person’s intelligence can really be summarized by a single IQ score or even by two
scores, as in the WAIS and SAT.
Crystallized and Fluid Intelligence
For a moment, ponder how much information you have learned across the range
of subjects you have studied throughout your education. Now, how important is it that
you can use that information in various ways to solve problems? Fluid intelligence is
the ability to reason quickly and abstractly, solve problems of logic, detect letter or
https://t.me/medicina_free
number sequences, or learn new information. In contrast, crystallized intelligence
reflects an accumulation of factual knowledge, skill, or expertise—as measured, for
example, by the sheer size of one’s vocabulary or the ability to add and subtract.
Raymond Cattell (1963) and, later, John Horn (1982) distinguished between fluid and
crystallized intelligence. More and more, psychologists find that this distinction helps
us to understand why some intellectual abilities are vulnerable to decline with age,
whereas others are maintained (Baltes, Staudinger, & Lindenberger, 1999; Kaufman,
2001; Zaval, Li, Johnson, & Weber, 2015).
fluid intelligence. A form of intelligence that involves the ability to reason
logically and abstractly.
crystallized intelligence. A form of intelligence that reflects the accumulation of
verbal skills and factual knowledge.
The distinction between fluid and crystallized intelligence is important because,
when both are tested separately, two different developmental patterns are found. In
one large-scale study, for example, K. Warner Schaie and Sherry Willis (1993) tested
more than 1,600 adults in age groups that ranged from 29 to 88 years old. As
predicted, the fluid-intelligence test scores started to decline steadily through middle
and late adulthood, but the measures of crystallized intelligence remained relatively
stable—at least until subjects were in their 70s and 80s.
The distinction between fluid and crystallized intelligence is related to another
developmental change: that people lose mental speed as they get older. Whether a
task involves folding paper, recognizing pictures, solving arithmetic problems or
verbal analogies, proofreading, assembling cubes, or reading a story, we get slower
and slower over the life span (Birren & Fisher, 1995; Salthouse, 1996; Frieske &
Park, 1999). Unfortunately, no one is immune, not even senior university professors
and others who are intellectually active and stimulated (Salthouse, Berish, & Miles,
2002; Shimamura, Berry, Mangels, Rusting, & Jurica, 1995; Zaval et al., 2015).
General Intelligence
Psychologists have long disagreed about whether there is one intelligence or
many. Some theorists can be called “lumpers,” in that they view different aspects of
intelligence as part of a general underlying capacity. Others are “splitters” who divide
intelligence into two or more specific abilities (Weinberg, 1989). Following in Binet’s
footsteps, all test developers make it a point to include many tasks and derive an IQ
score by averaging a subject’s performance on the different items. But is it then
meaningful to calculate an average level of intelligence? Yes, according to the
lumpers, some people are generally smarter and more capable than others,
regardless of whether they are trying to design a web page, memorize a poem, learn
a foreign language, solve a complex equation, or fix a car.
Charles Spearman (1904) was the first to propose that general intelligence
(abbreviated as g) underlies all mental abilities. Spearman noticed that people who
excel at one task—say, verbal analogies—also tend to perform well on mazes, block
designs, and other seemingly unrelated tasks. His administration of different kinds of
tests to subjects led to the discovery that although individuals may be more skilled in
some areas than in others, the intellectual abilities are highly correlated. This pattern
suggests that there is a general intelligence factor, g, which underlies our more
specific abilities. As far as Spearman was concerned—and many others as well—a
person’s intelligence can, at least in a general way, be summarized by a single IQ
score (Eysenck, 1982; Jensen, 1998).
general intelligence (g). A broad intellectual-ability factor used to explain why
performances on different intelligence-test items are often correlated.
Shortly after Spearman uncovered g, Louis Thurstone (1938) administered 56
different tests to college students and concluded that human intelligence consists of
seven factors, which he called primary mental abilities. For Thurstone, a person’s
intellectual profile cannot be captured fully by a single number. Other psychologists
agree with this emphasis on specific abilities but disagree on how many. John Horn
and Raymond Cattell (1966) and Paul Kline (1991) said there are two types of
intelligence. J. P. Guilford (1967) believed that intelligence consists of 120 different
factors—a number he later increased to 150 (Guilford, 1985).
At this point, research provides evidence for both a general intelligence and
specific abilities. Scores on the 14 WAIS subscales are correlated (those who do well
on one subscale tend to do well on others)—evidence for a general intelligence. At
the same time, it’s not unusual for someone to score high on some of the subscales
and low on some others, as correlations are far from perfect (usually in the.30 to.70
range)—evidence of separate mental abilities. So, what does an IQ score tell us
https://t.me/medicina_free
about the nature of intelligence? Think about a few well-known geniuses such as
Omar Khayyam, Albert Einstein, Jane Austen, Mae Jemison, and Nikola Tesla. Now,
consider the intelligence of patented inventors that have transformed our lives, like
Dean Kamen and Hedy Lamarr (both featured in Figure 7.18). Are these people
similarly-abled individuals, or is that like comparing apples, oranges, bananas, and
cherries? Many psychologists now believe that there’s more to intelligence than IQ
scores derived from paper-and-pencil tests. Two theories offer a broader view.
Figure 7.18 Invention Donaldson Collection / Contributor/Michael Ochs
Archives/Getty Images; Kris Connor / Contributor/WireImage/Getty Images
Gardner’s “Frames of Mind”
In his 1983 book, Frames of Mind, Howard Gardner presents provocative
evidence for the existence of multiple intelligences, each linked to a separate and
independent system within the human brain, as illustrated in Figure 7.19. Gardner’s
main point is simple but revolutionary: The word intelligence is too narrowly used to
describe cognitive abilities and does not adequately encompass the kinds of genius
found in great musicians, poets, orators, dancers, athletes, artists, and inspirational
leaders all over the world. When basketball star LeBron James soars gracefully
toward a hoop, evading blockers and shooting with laserlike precision, doesn’t he
exhibit a form of intelligence? Can’t the same be said of Margaret Atwood, the author
of The Handmaid’s Tale, who with her masterful use of language and creativity
started a cultural phenomenon? And what about Martin Luther King, Jr., the civil
rights leader who stirred millions of Americans with his speeches and inspired
massive social change?
multiple intelligences. Gardner’s theory that there are seven types of
intelligence (linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, musical, bodily-kinesthetic,
interpersonal, intrapersonal).
https://t.me/medicina_free
Figure 7.19 Types of Intelligence (a) Tony Vaccaro / Contributor/Archive
Photos/Getty Images; (b) Dia Dipasupil / Staff/Getty Images Entertainment/Getty
Images; (c) Michael Reaves / Stringer/Getty; (d) Bettmann /
Contributor/Bettmann/Getty Images;
Like a detective searching for fingerprints, smoking guns, and other clues,
Gardner used converging lines of evidence to marshal support for his theory. He
studied brain structures, diverse cultures, evolution, child development, and
individuals with exceptional abilities—in other words, not just IQ tests. For example,
the existence of prodigies (children who are typical in general but are highly
precocious in a specific domain) and persons with savant syndrome (applied to
those who are neurodiverse and extraordinarily talented in some way) tells us that it’s
possible to have one kind of intelligence and lack another. Similarly, that patients with
brain damage can lose certain abilities but retain others tells us that different
intelligences can be traced to autonomous systems in the brain. In all, Gardner
initially proposed that there are seven types of intelligence: linguistic, logicalmathematical, spatial, musical, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal.
The first three fit easily within existing conceptions of intelligence. The last four
represent a radical departure from tradition. Gardner (2000) has also proposed that
the list be expanded to include naturalistic intelligence, and perhaps spiritual and
existential intelligences as well.
prodigy. Someone who is highly precocious in a specific domain of endeavor.
savant syndrome. A term used to describe a developmental condition in which a
person is neurodiverse but extraordinarily talented in some ways.
https://t.me/medicina_free
On the game show Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader, an adult contestant
answers questions taken from elementary school textbooks. Along the way,
contestants can get assistance from “classmates” who are school-aged cast
members.
FOX Image Collection/Contributor/Getty Images
Linguistic intelligence. A verbal aptitude that is rooted in the auditory and
speech centers of the brain and consists of the skills involved in speaking,
listening, reading, and writing. Storytellers and poets who are sensitive to shades
of meaning, syntax, sounds, inflections, and rhythm are linguistic geniuses. So
are politicians, evangelists, and successful trial lawyers who know how to use
language for persuasive purposes.
Logical-mathematical intelligence. The abstract reasoning skill necessary
for solving puzzles and equations and programming computers. This form of
intelligence blossoms early in childhood and is often displayed by “human
calculators” who can perform rapid-fire mental arithmetic.
Spatial intelligence. Rooted in the right hemisphere of the brain and
consisting of the ability to visualize objects, find one’s orientation in space, and
navigate from one location to another (if you ever tried to find your way through a
fun-house maze, you’ll know the skill it takes). Great pilots, architects, chess
masters, mechanics, and visual artists exhibit spatial intelligence.
Musical intelligence. An intelligence that is found in all cultures, has existed
throughout history, flowers early in childhood, and involves an ability to
appreciate the tonal qualities of sound, compose music, and play an instrument.
The concept of a “musical IQ” is supported by numerous case studies. The most
prolific musical prodigy of all was Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, who learned to
play a harpsichord at the age of 3, composed at age 4, and performed in public
at age 5.
Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence. The ability to control gross and fine
movements of the body. This kind of ability is rooted in the motor cortex and
probably evolved in humans for running, climbing, swimming, hunting, and
fighting. This form of intelligence can be seen in the figure skater who varies the
timing and speed of her jumps, flips, and spins with clocklike precision, and lands
softly on the blade of her skate. It can also be seen in skilled dancers, athletes,
and surgeons.
Interpersonal intelligence. The ability to understand other people—how
they feel, what motivates them, what they like, and what they don’t like. A person
with these abilities can predict how others will act and, in turn, can interact
smoothly with them. This form of intelligence can be found in successful
politicians, salespersons, psychotherapists, and others with keen social skills.
Intrapersonal intelligence. The ability to have insight into one’s own
thoughts and feelings, to understand the causes and consequences of one’s own
actions, and, as a result, to make effective decisions. Self-insight is a highly
adaptive form of intelligence.
Gardner’s theory is controversial. Some psychologists agree that intelligence
should be defined broadly enough to encompass musical genius, exquisite use of the
body, and personal insight. Others feel that the theory stretches the concept too far.
To his critics, Gardner says that there is nothing magical about the word intelligence
https://t.me/medicina_free
—that to define it narrowly is to place cognitive and academic endeavors on a
pedestal. The point is that all kinds of intelligence should be valued—on tests, in
school, and elsewhere in life.
LEARNING CHECK
Intelligences Testing Test
Now that you have learned about intelligence and how to test it, it is time to test
yourself. Match each term in the left column with the best description in the right
column.
(Answers: 1. f; 2. i; 3. g; 4. b; 5. j; 6. a; 7. e; 8. d; 9. c; 10. h.)
THE GREAT INTELLIGENCE DEBATES
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
Apply the nature versus nurture debate to group variations in intelligence.
Recognize the social impact that intelligence has on resources and
opportunities.
Summarize what research tell us about genetic and environmental influences.
List some group differences researchers have found in test scores.
Intelligence testing is a “numbers game” with profound consequences for real
people. IQ and aptitude scores help to determine which young children in need of
parents are adopted first and which students are accepted into prestigious private
schools. They determine whether a child is labeled as intellectually disabled or
intellectually gifted, whether placed in the “developmental” courses or “advanced”
courses at school. Later, these scores help to determine which students are admitted
into elite colleges, are offered scholarships, and then have the best job prospects. As
Richard Weinberg (1989) put it, “IQ tests play a pivotal role in allocating society’s
resources and opportunities” (p. 100). With the stakes so high, it’s easy to understand
why psychologists who study and measure intelligence find themselves in one
emotional debate after another. In this section, we consider four heated issues:
nature and nurture, racial differences, gender differences, and education.
Nature and Nurture
To what extent is intelligence determined by the forces of nature (genetics) and
nurture (the environment)? How much does each factor contribute, and in what ways
do they interact?
After many years of debate, most experts now agree that intelligence is strongly
influenced—but not entirely determined—by genetic factors (Plomin, Shakeshaft,
Mcmillan, & Trzaskowski, 2014). In support of this conclusion, Figure 7.20
summarizes the results of a meta-analysis that analyzed 11,000 pairs of twins
(Haworth et al., 2010). While increases in intelligence are significant across
development, how much of the similarity within twin pairs is rooted in nature?
https://t.me/medicina_free
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана