Unfortunately, not all clinicians apply the gold standard when testing a child. When I was in high school, I had a bad experience with a school psychologist who provided the bronze standard.

IQ tests have received much criticism over the years, some warranted and some just plain silly. Criticisms have ranged from the claim that IQ tests are unfair to those who are disadvantaged, to the claim that the test items have changed little over the years, to the charge that IQ tests minimize the importance of creativity, practical intelligence, character, virtue, and morality, to the claim that all IQ test makers believe that intelligence is an immutable property of the brain.

My own views on the utility of IQ testing have softened over the years, even though I still have a healthy dose of skepticism for the tests. I'd like to see creativity better measured and appreciated. Same for unconscious, intuitive modes of thought. I'd like the tests to only help, and never limit. I'm not convinced the type of problems on the tests are as exciting as can be to motivate students to want to solve them. I have other criticisms which I'll save for future posts.

But after spending some years conducting research on intelligence, I have come to realize a few things.

There is no doubt that there are some shoddy test administrators and intelligence researchers who are biased by their prior beliefs and are out of touch with the latest research.

But to the credit to IQ test makers-- the field is rapidly evolving. IQ test constructors have tried to address the critics on many key points. On the whole, they are moving away from a focus on a single IQ score. Instead, they are relying on updated models of intelligence, such as the Cattell-Horn-Carrol (CHC) theory that emphasizes multiple cognitive abilities. In fact, there is a trend now to not even refer to IQ tests as measures of "intelligence" but instead refer to them as tests of "cognitive ability". Some tests are even based on neurological functioning.

Most (but not all) researchers fully admit that IQ tests only measure a piece of the intelligence pie (although they argue it is an important piece). Most intelligence researchers are actually pretty nice, sensitive individuals who sincerely want to help the welfare of children. They want to create tests that help teachers identify students with learning difficulties and then select the right intervention for those students. They are scoring tests using sophisticated statistics and encouraging the use of the intelligent testing approach and the use of cross-battery techniques to increase fairness in measuring the cognitive abilities of those from diverse backgrounds.

So is there any utility to modern IQ tests? This is an important question still open to discussion, but I think past American Psychological Association President Diane Halpern put it quite reasonably when she said:

"We will always need some way of making intelligent decisions about people. We're not all the same; we have different skills and abilities. What's wrong is thinking of intelligence as a fixed, innate ability, instead of something that develops in a context."

My conclusion these days is that while the IQ test certainly has a less than pretty history of abuse and misuse, the test can sometimes--when administered correctly and properly interpreted--be useful. Unfortunately, IQ is often misunderstood, misinterpreted, over interpreted, and over hyped by a number of test administrators, journalists, scientists, and laypeople.

I have particular respect for Alan and Nadeen Kaufman (they are no relation to me), whose tests have been on the forefront of the evolving nature of IQ tests. Alan's intelligent testing approach makes sense to me. It elevates the clinician above the test and enables the test administrator to treat each child as an individual. If we have to use a test, it allows us to use that test usefully-- to go beyond a single IQ score as the clinician observes the child's profile of strengths and weaknesses with the goal of custom tailoring a program to help that particular child.

In honor of Alan's recent book IQ Testing 101, which provides a nice summary of the current state of the field of intelligence testing, I conducted a short interview with him.

Thus, what follows are words from an actual IQ test maker.

What is the main tenet of the intelligent testing approach?

To me, the main tenet is that there is a hierarchy between the IQ test and the clinician who administers and interprets the test--and it is the clinician and not the test that is at the top of the hierarchy. Yes, it is important to use carefully-developed, well-standardized, theory-based tests of intellectual development. But the scores on such tests are meaningless unless they are interpreted by sophisticated clinicians who are totally knowledgeable in pertinent research on child and adult development, cognitive psychology, and neuropsychology, and who are astute observers and interpreters of behaviors (such as the person's approach to problem solving or the degree to which anxiety or distractibility might have compromised the person's test scores). Intelligent testers also must have a healthy respect for what tests cannot do, such as measure two-thirds of Sternberg's triarchic theory of successful intelligence (i.e., practical intelligence and creativity).

In what ways is modern IQ testing misunderstood by the general public?