I just stumbled across a relatively new video covering the history and several major issues regarding intelligence testing and IQ scores. Two scholars that I respect (Dr. Cecil Reynolds; Dr. Stuart Ritchie) are featured in the video. I did see some spelling errors in the subtitles (Dr. Ian Dearie instead of Dr. Ian Deary; Benet instead of Binet; using capital G when referencing Spearman's concept of general intelligence, which is always noted with an italic font small g; etc) and heard several statements that made me cringe slightly.
Also, it left the impression that fluid and crystallized intelligence (and a lessor extent quantitative ability) are the primary recognized broad cognitive abilities measured by intelligence tests. It did not acknowledge contemporary CHC theory as the consensus taxonomy of human cognitive abilities. Also, it left the impression that IQ tests are "bubble in" multiple choice tests. This may be true for group tests, but it is not the case with individually administered intelligence tests.
Overall, it is a reasonable video to share with others as an introduction, possibly in college courses where the concept of intelligence and IQ testing is being introduced. It did a good job of covering the historical bad uses of IQ tests (e.g., discrimination; cultural bias, eugenics movement, etc.)
The complete video is approximately 35 minutes. It did freeze up for me at the 17 minute mark when it was going to display an ad....but I simply restarted the video and quickly moved to that point and then it continued.
An oldie but goodie! This is a 19+ minute narrated video (sit down with your favorite beverage and enjoy) where I explain how intelligence (IQ) or cognitive ability testing should be better understood in the context of a larger ecological systems model perspective (Bronfenbrenner).
I first posted the video in 2015—-9 years ago! So be gentle…I’m much better with these videos now :) Thus, some of my COI statements/disclaimers/affiliations are no longer accurte (and updated version can be found a theMindHub.com—Under About IAP: The Director: Disclosures & Bio).
If all works well, just click the start arrow on the video screen…and tap the enlarge icon in the lower right corner. This video is now hosted on YouTube, so it may be possible that you may first encounter 1-2 very brief adds that you can skip within the first 15-10 seconds. It is possible (it seems to vary everytime) that you might be asked to “sign in” to show you are not a bot. All you need to do is press the message, or if images of muliptle videos appear, press the first one…if you only get the message you may need to back up and try link again (no signing in….I hate having lost control of how these work by using YouTube 9 years ago…as now the starting has these mild annoyances..but it is the price for a free service). Be aware that some of the first 4-5 slides may have minimal or no narration and you can skip ahead to the beginning…it is the first slide shown immediately below before the video. Given the caveats above, it is possible the video might not deploy exactly how I describe…the platform seems to be a bit tempormental, at least for me. Enjoy.
Understanding intelligence testing in the context of Bronfrenbrenner's ecological systems model--is COVID seriously damaging, rearranging, decoupling, etc. the major proximal and distal sources of influence on a child's learning, resulting in a need to look closer at non-cognitive (conative) variables...beyond IQ?
This morning I revisited one of my favorite videos (of those I have posted), first posted in 2015, where I explained how intelligence testing needed to be understood in the context of distal and proximal influences in a child's environment. I believe that a "big picture" understanding of the wide range of variables that influence school learning requires a "humbling" of the status of intelligence testing, a field where I have spent the majority of my professional career. After one finishes the video, think about the "big picture" ecological systems model that is described. IMHO, COVID may be seriously impacting that the primary distal and proximal variables that influence (both positively and negatively) school learning (national educational policy; school systems and local community sources of formal and informal support; individual schools; the lack of in class learning; parents working from home or being unemployed), as well as peer interactions in a child's neighborhood (due to social distancing). Stare at the final big picture figure and reflect on how COVID is disrupting all the primary sets of variables that influence school learning. The range of disrupted causal influences is staggering.
The end result, for many children, is learning via distance learning methods, often with the aid of parents who are not educators. Although intelligence is very important, and may be more important as children must use their abilities to learn more independently, it strikes me that at this point in our countries (global) current crises, it may be the non-cognitive variables that might need better understanding and enhancement. That is, the conative (aka., noncognitive) "beyond IQ" variables of motivation and self-regulated learning (aka., a part of volition) may be more important today than ever. To engage in independent, loosely (dis)organized instruction, students who have strong motivation and independent self-regulation learning strategies may have a distinct advantage--those who do not, may be at a serious disadvantage. Jack Carroll's seminal model of school learning, that spawned decades of research on models of school learning, reminds us, in elegant terms, that aside from key student individual difference variables, the quantity (opportunity for instruction) and quality of instruction are key variables in school learning. Both of these are being seriously impacted due to COVID.
COVID appears to be a high level all encompassing distal variable (wielding impact at the global, national, community, and school system levels) that is rearranging the the relative importance of variables in school learning. Students now, and in the future, may need more assistance in acquiring critical non-cognitive motivational dispositions and independent self-regulated learning strategies in order to maximize what they can from their repertoire of cognitive abilities in order to continue and maintain academic growth. If may be necessary to revise the degree of influence of distal and proximal school learning influence variables as per Bronfrenbreener's ecological systems model.
Research that falls under the breadth of the topic of human intelligence is extensive.
For decades I have attempted to keep abreast with intelligence-related research, particularly research that would help with the development, analysis, and interpretation of applied intelligence tests. I frequently struggled with integrating research that focused on brain-behavior relations or networks, neural efficiency, etc. I then rediscovered a simple three-level categorization of intelligence research by Earl Hunt. I modified it into a four-level model, and the model is represented in the figure above.
In this "intelligent" testing series, primary emphasis will be on harnessing information from the top "psychometric level" of research to aid in test interpretation. However, given the increased impact of cognitive neuropsychological research on test development, often one must turn to level 2 (information processing) to understand how to interpret specific tests.
This series will draw primarily from the first two levels, although there may be times were I import knowledge from the two brain-related levels.
To better understand this framework, and put the forthcoming information in this series in proper perspective, I would urge you to view the "connecting the dots" video PPT that I previously posted at this blog.
Here it is. The next post will start into the psychometric level information that serves as the primary foundation of "intelligent" intelligence testing.
Today I am launching a new series called "Intelligent" testing with the WJ IV Tests of Cognitive Ability (credit goes to Dr. Alan Kaufman for coining this term and approach to clinical intelligence test interpretation).
Since the WJ IV was published in 2014, after spending more than a year traveling the country introducing the WJ IV battery to various professional groups, it has become clear that users are hungry for more advanced interpretation material, particularly for the cognitive ability tests.
I have been busy the past 6 months completing all kinds of new analyses, reading literature, and revisiting the information in the technical manual. As a result, I have developed some new advanced interpretation material for the cognitive (and related oral language) tests. I will be presenting a large portion of this material at my half-day workshop at NASP in New Orleans in February.
Before presenting the new material, I first believe it is important that individuals have a proper "big picture" perspective on the strengths and limitations of intelligence testing. I have presented this big picture material in a brief YouTube video I posted previously. It is provided (again) below. There will be one more additional "big picture" post prior to delving into the WJ IV specific information.
Stay tuned. The scheduling of these posts will be on a "as I have time" basis.
I am pleased to announce the availability of my second video-PPT at IQ's Corner YouTube Channel. The first video can be found here. The current video is 20 minutes. You can skip the first three minutes if you don't want background "front matter" material regarding me (the narrator), etc.
This presentation places the power and value of intelligence testing into a big picture perspective which recognizes the strengths and limitations of intelligence testing. The goal is to encourage users and consumers of intelligence tests to better understand what these measures can and cannot do, and, more importantly, recognize the other personal and environmental characteristics that influence an individual's learning and development.
Be gentle. I am not a professional video producer and I do not have the time to edit out pauses, minor mistakes, etc.---- hey...this is FREE quality information. :)
Update 02-27-15. Thanks to Rueben Lopez for making the suggestion that I reduce the 3 minutes of the introductory "front matter." I have taken his advice (which I will incorporate into future videos) and have now posted the identical video with the very brief introduction. It can be accessed here.
RTI and cognitive assessment are not mutually exclusive and both are necessary for diagnosis and treatment of SLD. While debates between RTI-only advocates and cognitive assessment advocates will continue, neither side has strong enough evidence to convince us to abandon the other. In her Guest Lecture, Dawn Flanagan will present a theory- and research-based definition of SLD that integrates data from multiple sources and methods via a tiered service delivery model which will aid in differential diagnosis (i.e., distinguishing SLD from other disabilities and conditions).
In addition to our online Guest Lecture Series offerings, the Wiley Faculty Network is a complete instructor resource for technology training and tutorials, live workshops, and peer-to-peer consulting, all designed to encourage the sharing of experiences, ideas, and resources.
Don't miss this great opportunity! We're looking forward to having you join us!
Thanks to Mind Hacks for the link to the very powerful video apparently created by a young woman with autism...a video where she "translates" from her world of environmental interaction to the more "typical" world of speech and perception imposed upon her by the rest of the world. Very powerful.
