Cinci critici aduse testelor de inteligență (partea I)

26/07/2017

Inteligența – în mod special, testarea inteligenței – este o temă controversată [1, 2], iar atunci când este pusă în relație cu consecințe relevante social (precum educația sau diferențele financiare dintre oameni), iscă reacții pătimașe și opinii ferme, susținute cu multă vigoare, dar adesea bazate pe distorsionarea consensului specialiștilor în domeniu [3].

Prezentul articol abordează în trei părți cele mai importante cinci critici (adesea mituri) ale inteligenței.
 

Critica #1. Nici măcar cercetătorii din domeniul inteligenței nu se pot pune de acord asupra definiției inteligenței.

Inteligența este abilitatea cognitivă generală [4-14] care presupune capacitatea de „a raționa, a planifica, a rezolva probleme, a gândi abstract, a înțelege idei complexe, a învață rapid din experiență”, indiferent de conținut: verbal-lingvistic (de exemplu, analogii), numeric-matematic (de exemplu, descoperirea rației) sau spațial-figural (de exemplu, rotațiile mintale 3D) – astfel o definesc 52 de specialiști reputați [15], precum Hans Eysenck, Robert Thorndike, Raymond Cattell, John Carroll, Edwin Fleishman, Frank Schmidt, Robert Plomin etc. (vezi aici traducerea in limba română a consensului).

Asociația Psihologilor Americani (APA) [16] definește inteligența drept capacitatea de:
• înțelegere a conceptelor complexe;
• adaptare eficientă la mediu;
• învățare din experiență;
• raționament;
• depășire a obstacolelor prin gândire.

Diferiți oameni de știință accentuează componente diferite ale inteligenței. De exemplu, Frank Schmidt, un cercetător eminent în psihologia industrial-organizațională, scoate în evidență capacitatea persoanelor inteligente de a învăța eficient [17]. Robert Sternberg accentuează funcția inteligenței de adaptare eficientă la mediu [18]. Howard Gardner subliniază componenta rezolutivă a inteligenței [19], iar Linda Gottfredson reliefează capacitatea de înțelegere a complexității cognitive [20].

Majoritatea însă sunt de acord că inteligența poate fi și este măsurată în termeni de performanța la sarcini care implică procesare de informații, astfel încât oamenii pot fi ierarhizați în funcție de cât de eficient și/sau rapid rezolvă respectivele sarcini cognitive, fie ele verbale, numerice sau spațiale [15, 16].

Sumarizând, inteligența este abilitatea cognitivă generală de a înțelege și a învăța eficient complexitatea cognitivă și, drept urmare, a rezolva, prin gândire abstractă și raționament, sarcini cognitive cu scopul de adaptare eficientă la mediu.

După cum am punctat anterior, unii experți accentuează mai degrabă componenta de procesare de informații (înțelegerea complexității cognitive și învățarea eficientă), în timp ce alții accentuează mai degrabă finalitatea practică (rezolvarea de probleme și adaptarea la mediu) – cele două sunt evident în strânsă legătură, în sensul că rezolvarea corectă și consecventă a sarcinilor cognitive presupune procesarea eficientă de informații. În ultimă instanță, există un consens puternic între specialiști cu privire la ce înseamnă inteligența sau abilitatea cognitivă generală.

„Îmi pierd repede răbdarea față de articolele care susțin că, din moment ce există aceste diferențe minore de definiție, atunci nu există consens cu privire la ce este inteligența. E o stupizenie.” – Frank Schmidt

Victor Bohuș, MA

Contributor for TestCentral, Scientific Coordinator @ Choice

Partea a II-a și partea a III-a ale articolului, aici și aici.

Referințe:

1. Snyderman, M., & Rothman, S. (1988). The IQ controversy, the media and public policy. Transaction Publishers.
2. Gottfredson, L. S. (2000). Pretending that intelligence doesn’t matter. Cerebrum, 2(3), 75-96.
3. Carroll, J. B. (1997). Psychometrics, intelligence, and public perception. Intelligence, 24(1), 25-52.
4. Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. Cambridge University Press.
5. Carroll, J. B. (1997). Theoretical and technical issues in identifying a factor of general intelligence. In Intelligence, genes, and success (pp. 125-156). Springer New York.
6. Gottfredson, L. S. (1998). The general intelligence factor. Scientific American, Incorporated.
7. Gottfredson, L. S. (2002). g: Highly general and highly practical. The general factor of intelligence: How general is it, 331-380.
8. Gottfredson, L. S. (2002). Where and why g matters: Not a mystery. Human performance, 15(1-2), 25-46.
9. James, M., & Carretta, T. R. (2002). g2k. Human Performance, 15(1-2), 3-23.
10. Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor: The science of mental ability. Westport, CT: Praeger.
11. Jensen, A. R. (2002). Psychometric g: Definition and substantiation. The general factor of intelligence: How general is it, 39-53.
12. McDaniel, M. A., & Banks, G. C. (2010). General cognitive ability. Handbook of Workplace Assessment, 32, 61.
13. Spearman, C. (1904). "General Intelligence," objectively determined and measured. The American Journal of Psychology, 15(2), 201-292.
14. Spearman, C. (1927). The abilities of man: Their nature and measurement. New York: Macmillan.
15. Gottfredson, L. S. (1997). Mainstream science on intelligence: An editorial with 52 signatories, history, and bibliography. Intelligence, 24, 13–23.
16. Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard Jr, T. J., Boykin, A. W., Brody, N., Ceci, S. J., Halpern, D. F., Loehlin, J. C., Perloff, R., Sternberg, R. J., & Urbina, S. (1996). Intelligence: knowns and unknowns. American psychologist, 51(2), 77.
17. Schmidt, F. L. (2002). The role of general cognitive ability and job performance: Why there cannot be a debate. Human performance, 15(1-2), 187-210.
18. Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.). (2000). Handbook of intelligence. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
19. Gardner, H. (1993). The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
20. Gottfredson, L. S. (1997). Why g matters: The complexity of everyday life. Intelligence, 24(1), 79-132.
21. Berry, C. M., & Sackett, P. R. (2009). Individual differences in course choice result in underestimation of the validity of college admissions systems. Psychological Science, 20(7), 822-830.
22. Brand, C. (1987). The importance of general intelligence. In S. Modgil & C. Modgil (Eds.), Arthur Jensen: Consensus and controversy (pp. 251–265). New York: Falmer.
23. Calvin, C. M., Fernandes, C., Smith, P., Visscher, P. M., & Deary, I. J. (2010). Sex, intelligence and educational achievement in a national cohort of over 175,000 11-year-old schoolchildren in England. Intelligence, 38(4), 424-432.
24. Carroll, J. B., & Maxwell, S. E. (1979). Individual differences in cognitive abilities. Annual review of psychology, 30(1), 603-640.
25. Chooi, W. T., Long, H. E., & Thompson, L. A. (2014). The Sternberg Triarchic Abilities Test (Level-H) is a Measure of g. Journal of Intelligence, 2(3), 56-67.
26. Coyle, T. R. (2015). Relations among general intelligence (g), aptitude tests, and GPA: Linear effects dominate. Intelligence, 53, 16-22.
27. Coyle, T. R., & Pillow, D. R. (2008). SAT and ACT predict college GPA after removing g. Intelligence, 36(6), 719-729.
28. Deary, I. J. (2012). Intelligence. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 453-82.
29. Deary, I. J., Batty, G. D., & Gale, C. R. (2008). Bright children become enlightened adults. Psychological science, 19(1), 1-6.
30. Deary, I. J., Strand, S., Smith, P., & Fernandes, C. (2007). Intelligence and educational achievement. Intelligence, 35(1), 13-21.
31. Fagan, J. F., & Holland, C. R. (2009). Culture-fair prediction of academic achievement. Intelligence, 37(1), 62-67.
32. Flanagan, D. P., Alfonso, V. C., Ortiz, S. O., & Dynda, A. M. (2013). 12 Cognitive Assessment: Progress in Psychometric Theories of Intelligence, the Structure of Cognitive Ability Tests, and Interpretive Approaches to Cognitive Test Performance. The Oxford Handbook of Child Psychological Assessment, 239.
33. Frey, M. C., & Detterman, D. K. (2004). Scholastic assessment or g? The relationship between the scholastic assessment test and general cognitive ability. Psychological science, 15(6), 373-378.
34. Gottfredson, L. S. (2002). g: Highly general and highly practical. In R. J. Sternberg, & E. L.Grigorenko (Eds.), The general factor of intelligence: How general is it? (pp. 331–380). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
35. Gottfredson, L. S. (2004). Schools and the g factor. The Wilson Quarterly (1976-), 28(3), 35-45.
36. Herrnstein, R. J., & Murray, C. (1994). The bell curve: The reshaping of American life by differences in intelligence. New York: Free.
37. Iliescu, D., Miron, A. (2011), IST 2000 R: Testul structurii inteligenţei. Manual tehnic, DirectPrint Projects SRL, Cluj‑Napoca.
38. Jensen, A. R. (1989). The relationship between learning and intelligence. Learning and Individual Differences, 1(1), 37-62.
39. Jensen, A. R. (1993). Psychometric g and achievement. In Policy perspectives on educational testing (pp. 117-227). Springer Netherlands.
40. Kaufman, S. B., Reynolds, M. R., Liu, X., Kaufman, A. S., & McGrew, K. S. (2012). Are cognitive g and academic achievement g one and the same g? An exploration on the Woodcock–Johnson and Kaufman tests. Intelligence, 40(2), 123-138.
41. Koenig, K. A., Frey, M. C., & Detterman, D. K. (2008). ACT and general cognitive ability. Intelligence, 36(2), 153-160.
42. Kuncel, N. R., Hezlett, S. A., & Ones, D. S. (2004). Academic performance, career potential, creativity, and job performance: Can one construct predict them all?. Journal of personality and social psychology, 86(1), 148.
43. Lubinski, D. (2000). Scientific and social significance of assessing individual differences:“Sinking shafts at a few critical points”. Annual review of psychology, 51(1), 405-444.
44. Lynn, R., & Vanhanen, T. (2012). National IQs: A review of their educational, cognitive, economic, political, demographic, sociological, epidemiological, geographic and climatic correlates. Intelligence, 40(2), 226-234.
45. McGrew, K. S., & Wendling, B. J. (2010). Cattell–Horn–Carroll cognitive‐achievement relations: What we have learned from the past 20 years of research. Psychology in the Schools, 47(7), 651-675.
46. Naglieri, J. A., & Rojahn, J. (2004). Construct Validity of the PASS Theory and CAS: Correlations With Achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 174.
47. Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T.J., Boykin, A.W., Brody, N., Ceci, S.J., Halpern, D.F., Loehlin, J.C., Perloff, R., Sternberg, R.J., & Urbina, S. (1996). Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. American Psychologist, 5I, 77-101.
47. Poropat, A. E. (2009). A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic performance. Psychological bulletin, 135(2), 322.
48. Postlethwaite, B. E. (2011). Fluid ability, crystallized ability, and performance across multiple domains: a meta-analysis.
49. Rindermann, H. (2007). The g‐factor of international cognitive ability comparisons: The homogeneity of results in PISA, TIMSS, PIRLS and IQ‐tests across nations. European Journal of Personality, 21(5), 667-706.
50. Rohde, T. E., & Thompson, L. A. (2007). Predicting academic achievement with cognitive ability. Intelligence, 35(1), 83-92.
51. Roth, B., Becker, N., Romeyke, S., Schäfer, S., Domnick, F., & Spinath, F. M. (2015). Intelligence and school grades: A meta-analysis. Intelligence, 53, 118-137.
52. Schult, J., & Sparfeldt, J. R. (2016). Do non-g factors of cognitive ability tests align with specific academic achievements? A combined bifactor modeling approach. Intelligence.
53. Spinath, B., Spinath, F. M., Harlaar, N., & Plomin, R. (2006). Predicting school achievement from general cognitive ability, self-perceived ability, and intrinsic value. Intelligence, 34(4), 363-374.
54. Schmidt, F. L., Oh, I. S., & Shaffer, J. A. (2016). The Validity and Utility of Selection Methods in Personnel Psychology: Practical and Theoretical Implications of 100 Years of Research Findings.
55. Von Stumm, S., & Ackerman, P. L. (2013). Investment and intellect: A review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 139(4), 841.
56. Rushton, J. P., & Templer, D. I. (2009). National differences in intelligence, crime, income and skin color. Intelligence, 37, 341–346.
57. Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological review, 108(4), 814.
58. Deary, I. J., Batty, G. D., & Gale, C. R. (2008). Bright children become enlightened adults. Psychological science, 19(1), 1-6.
59. Hodson, G., & Busseri, M. A. (2012). Bright minds and dark attitudes: Lower cognitive ability predicts greater prejudice through right-wing ideology and low intergroup contact. Psychological science, 23(2), 187-195.
60. Kuncel, N. R., & Hezlett, S. A. (2010). Fact and fiction in cognitive ability testing for admissions and hiring decisions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(6), 339-345.
61. Batty, G. D., Deary, I. J., & Gottfredson, L. S. (2007). Premorbid (early life) IQ and later mortality risk: systematic review. Annals of epidemiology, 17(4), 278-288.
62. Deary, I. (2008). Why do intelligent people live longer?. Nature, 456(7219), 175-176.
63. Deary, I. (2009). Introduction to the special issue on cognitive epidemiology. Intelligence 37, 517–519.
64. Čukić, I., Brett, C. E., Calvin, C. M., Batty, G. D., & Deary, I. J. (2017). Childhood IQ and survival to 79: Follow-up of 94% of the Scottish Mental Survey 1947. Intelligence, 63, 45-50.
65. Bouchard, T. J., & McGue, M. (2003). Genetic and environmental influences on human psychological differences. Journal of neurobiology, 54(1), 4-45.
66. Polderman, T. J., Benyamin, B., de Leeuw, C. A., Sullivan, P. F., van Bochoven, A., Visscher, P. M., & Posthuma, D. (2015). Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies. Nature genetics.
67. Plomin, R., & Deary, I. J. (2015). Genetics and intelligence differences: five special findings. Molecular psychiatry, 20(1), 98-108.
68. Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010b). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33 (2–3), 61–83.
69. Deary, I. J., Penke, L., & Johnson, W. (2010). The neuroscience of human intelligence differences. Nature reviews. Neuroscience, 11(3), 201.
70. Gordon, R. A. (1997). Everyday life as an intelligence test: Effects of intelligence and intelligence context. Intelligence, 24(1), 203-320.
71. Sternberg, R. J. (1988). The triarchic mind: a new theory of human intelligence. New York: Viking.
72. Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1993). Tacit knowledge, practical intelligence, general mental ability, and job knowledge. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2(1), 8-9.
73. Brody, N. (2003). Construct validation of the Sternberg Triarchic abilities test: Comment and reanalysis. Intelligence, 31(4), 319-329.
74. Gottfredson, L. S. (2003). Dissecting practical intelligence theory: Its claims and evidence. Intelligence, 31(4), 343-397.
75. Gottfredson, L. S. (2003). On Sternberg's “reply to Gottfredson”. Intelligence, 31(4), 415-424.
76. Chooi, W. T., Long, H. E., & Thompson, L. A. (2014). The Sternberg triarchic abilities test (Level-H) is a measure of g. Journal of Intelligence, 2(3), 56-67.
77. McGrew, K. S. (2009). CHC theory and the human cognitive abilities project: Standing on the shoulders of the giants of psychometric intelligence research. Intelligence, 37(1), 1-10.
78. Newton, J. H., & McGrew, K. S. (2010). Introduction to the special issue: Current research in Cattell–Horn–Carroll–based assessment. Psychology in the Schools, 47(7), 621-634.
79. Ortiz, S. O. (2015). CHC theory of intelligence. In Handbook of Intelligence (pp. 209-227). Springer New York.
80. Schneider, W. J., & McGrew, K. S. (2012). The Cattell-Horn-Carroll model of intelligence. Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and and issues. New York: Guilford Press.
81. Johnson, W., & Bouchard, T. J., Jr. (2005). Constructive replication of the visual–perceptual–image rotation model in Thurstone's (1941) battery of 60 tests of mental ability. Intelligence, 33(4), 417–430.
82. Johnson, W., & Bouchard, T. J., Jr. (2005). The structure of human intelligence: It is verbal, perceptual, and image rotation (VPR), not fluid and crystallized. Intelligence, 33(4), 393–416.
83. Johnson, W., te Nijenhuis, J., & Bouchard, T. J. (2007). Replication of the hierarchical visual-perceptual-image rotation model in de Wolff and Buiten's (1963) battery of 46 tests of mental ability. Intelligence, 35(1), 69-81.
84. Major, J. T., Johnson, W., & Deary, I. J. (2012). Comparing models of intelligence in Project TALENT: The VPR model fits better than the CHC and extended Gf–Gc models. Intelligence, 40(6), 543-559.
85. Visser, B. A., Ashton, M. C., & Vernon, P. A. (2006). Beyond g: Putting multiple intelligences theory to the test. Intelligence, 34(5), 487-502. 

Surse foto: shutterstock_113516374; shutterstock_114723334; shutterstock_105757790.