ZeePedia

THE ASSESSMENT OF INTELLIGENCE:RELIABILTY AND VALIDITY, CATTELL’S THEORY

<< THE CLINICAL INTERVIEW:The intake / admission interview, Structured interview
INTELLIGENCE TESTS:PURPOSE, COMMON PROCEDURES, PURPOSE >>
img
Clinical Psychology­ (PSY401)
VU
LESSON 17
THE ASSESSMENT OF INTELLIGENCE
The history of clinical psychology is inextricably tied to the assessment of intelligence. Without the
success in this and related assessment enterprises, there might not have been a field of clinical
psychology. As the years passed, however; clinicians became increasingly interested in the more
"glamorous" aspects of the profession, such as therapy. Assessment began to take a back seat, and
technicians started to become the assessors, as they had been prior to World War II. However; all this is
beginning to change. Not only is the value of assessment being rediscovered, but intelligence tests in
particular remain prominent in the clinician's arsenal of assessment devices.
THE CONCEPT OF INTELLIGENCE
The concept of intelligence has presented clinical psychology with one of its greatest dilemmas. On the
one hand, psychologists have been pressured for almost 100 years to quantify individual differences in
intellectual functioning. On the other hand, intelligence has remained one of the most difficult and
controversial psychological construct to define and measure. The impetus to define and quantify
intelligence comes from both practical and scientific forces. The practical significance lies in the
potential use of measures of intelligence in predicting academic and work potential and achievement.
From a scientific perspective, precise understanding of how to measure intelligence can contribute to
our comprehension of an important aspect of human behavior and functioning.
Two issues that have plagued psychologists from the beginning are still not resolved. First, exactly what
is meant by the term intelligence? Second, how do we develop valid instruments for measuring it? We
will address both questions. But first we need to review the psychometric concepts of reliability and
validity.
RELIABILTY AND VALIDITY
RELIABILITY
With regard to psychological tests, reliability refers to the consistency with which individuals respond to
test stimuli. There are several ways of evaluating reliability.
First, there is test-retest reliability-the extent to which an individual makes similar responses to the same
test stimuli on repeated occasions. If each time we test a person we get different responses, the test data
may not be very useful. In some instances, clients may remember on the second occasion their responses
from the first time. Or they may develop a kind of "test-wiseness" from the first test that influences
their scores the second time around. In still other cases, clients may rehearse between testing occasions
or show practice effects. For all these reasons, another gauge of reliability is sometimes used-
equivalent-forms reliability. Here, equivalent or parallel forms of a test are developed to avoid the
preceding problems.
Sometimes it is too expensive (in time or money) to develop an equivalent form or it is difficult or
impossible to be sure the forms are really equivalent. Under such circumstances, or when retesting is not
practical, assessing split-half reliability is a possibility. This means that a test is divided into halves
(usually odd-numbered items versus even-numbered items), and participants' scores on the two halves
are compared. Split-half reliability also serves as one possible index of a test's internal consistency: Do
the items on the test appear to be measuring the same thing? That is, are the items highly correlated with
each other? The preferred method of assessing internal consistency reliability involves computing the
aver-age of all possible split-half correlations for a given test.
134
img
Clinical Psychology­ (PSY401)
VU
Another aspect of reliability, inter-rater or inter-judge reliability is the index of the degree of agreement
between two or more raters or judgers as to the level of a trait that is present or the presence/absence of
a features or diagnosis.
VALIDITY
In general, validity refers to the extent to which as assessment technique measures what it is supposed to
measure. There are several forms of validity.
Content Validity indicates the degree to which a group of test items actually covers the various aspects
of the variable under study.
Predictive Validity is demonstrated when test scores accurately predict some behavior or event in the
future.
Concurrent Validity involves relating today's test scores to a concurrent criterion.
Finally, Construct Validity is shown when test scores relate to other measures or behaviors in a logical,
theoretically expected fashion.
DEFINITION OF INTELLIGENCE
Intelligence is a hypothetical construct; that is, intelligence is a concept that exists only in the way that
psychologists and the public chose to define it. You cannot touch intelligence nor can you directly
observe it. You can only observe the consequences of intelligence as they are reflected in the behavior
and performance of individual.
There is no universally accepted definition of intelligence. However, over the years, most have fallen
into one of three classes:
1.
Definitions that emphasize adjustment or adaptation to the environment-adaptability to new
situations, the capacity to deal with a range of situations.
2.
Definitions that focus on the ability to learn-on educability in the broad sense of the terms.
3.
Definitions that emphasize abstract thinking the ability to use a wide range of symbols and
concepts, the ability to use both verbal and numerical symbols.
To illustrate a little of the long-standing diversity of definitions, consider the following examples:
Intelligence is the aggregate or global capacity of the individual to act purpose-fully, to think rationally,
and to deal effectively with his environment. (Wechsler, 1939)
As a concept, intelligence refers to the whole class of cognitive behaviors which reflects an individual's
capacity to solve problems with insight, to adapt himself to new situations, to think abstractly, and to
profit from his experience. (Robinson & Robinson, 1965)
Intelligence is expressed in terms of adaptive, goal-directed behavior the subset of such behavior that is
labeled "intelligent" seems to be determined in large part by cultural or societal norms. (Sternberg &
Salter, 1982)
Intelligence is a very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason,
plan, solve problems, and think has very few traits in common-they resemble the prototype along
135
img
Clinical Psychology­ (PSY401)
VU
different dimensions. Thus, there is no such thing as chariness - resemblance is an external fact and not
an internal essence. There can be no process-based definition of intelligence, because it is not a unitary
quality. It is a resemblance between two individuals, one real and the other prototypical. (Spearman)
THEORIES OF INTELLIGENCE
There have been many theoretical approaches to the understanding of intelligence. These include
psychometric theories, developmental theories, neuropsychological theories, and information-processing
theories. We present only a brief overview of several leading theories here.
FACTOR ANALYTICAL APPROACHES
Spearman (1927), the father of factor analysis, posited the existence of a g factor (general intelligence)
and S factors (specific intelligence). The elements that tests have in common are represented by g,
whereas the elements unique to a given test are S factors. Basically, however, Spearman's message,
buttressed by factor analytic evidence, was that intelligence is a broad, generalized entity.
A number of individuals took issue with Spearman's contentions, including E. L. Thorndike and L. L.
Thurstone. For example, Thurstone (1938) presented evidence (based on a factor analysis of 57 separate
tests that had been administered to 240 participants) for a series of "group" factors rather than the
almighty g factor. Ultimately, Thurstone described seven group factors which he labeled number, word
fluency, verbal meaning, perceptual speed, space, reasoning, and memory.
CATTELL'S THEORY
The work of R. B. Cattell (1987) emphasizes the centrality of g. At the same time, Cattell has offered a
tentative list of 17 primary ability concepts. He has described two important second-order factors that
seem to represent a partitioning of Spearman's & into two components: fluid ability (the person's geneti-
cally based intellectual capacity) and crystallized ability (the capacities, tapped by the usual
standardized intelligence test that can be attributed to culture-based learning). Essentially, Cattell's
approach might be described as a hierarchical model of intelligence.
GUILFORD'S THEORY: The views of Guilford (1967) were quite different from those of Cattell,
Spearman, Thurstone, and most other psychometricians. Guilford proposed a Structure of the Intellect (S
01) model and then used a variety of statistical and factor analytic techniques to test it. Whereas other
psychometric approaches generally attempted to infer a model, Guilford used the model as a guide in
generating data.
Guilford reasoned that the components of intelligence could be organized into three dimensions:
operations, contents, and products. The operations are cognition, memory, divergent production
(constructing logical alternatives), Convergent production (constructing logic-tight arguments), and
evaluation. The content dimension involves the areas of information in which the operations are
performed: figural, symbolic, semantic, and behavioral. Finally, when a particular mental operation is
applied to a specific type of content, there are six possible products: units, classes, systems, relations,
transformations, and implications. If we contemplate all possible combinations, we arrive at 120
separate intellectual abilities. Perhaps the most widely held reservation about Guilford's approach is that
it is taxonomy or classification rather than a theory.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS:Traditionally, intelligence tests have been constructed to assess what
we know or can do. Recent approaches, however, have begun to take on a highly cognitive or in-
formation-processing look. For example, some researchers try to describe a person's moment-by-
moment attempts to solve a problem-from the moment a stimulus registers to the person's verbal or
motor response.. This is a more dynamic  view of intelligence than the older theories of mental
components.
136
img
Clinical Psychology­ (PSY401)
VU
Some of these researchers have focused on speed of information processing and others on strategies of
processing. A number of levels of processing have been studied, including speed of processing, speed in
making choices in response to stimuli, and speed with which individuals can extract various aspects of
language from their long-term memory. But many problems and questions remain (Gardner, 1983). Is
there a central processing mechanism for information? How do the processing elements change as the
person develops? Are there general problem-solving skills or merely skills specific to certain ability
areas? Perhaps time will tell.
Gardner (1983) has described a theory of multiple intelligences. Human intellectual competence
involves a set of problem-solving skills that enable the person to resolve problems or difficulties.
Sometimes this results in the potential for acquiring new information. Gardner suggests that there is a
family of six intelligences: linguistic, musical, logical-mathematical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, and
personal. For example, the personal refers both to access to one's own feeling life and to the ability to
notice and make distinctions among other individuals. A major criticism of Gardner's theory is that
some of his proposed "intelligences" may be better conceptualized as "talents" than as forms of
intelligence. Nevertheless, Gardner's views have attracted a great deal of attention from psychologists
and educators alike.
To cite another example of a theory of multiple forms of intelligence, Sternberg (1985, 1991) has
proposed a triarchic theory of intelligence. He maintains that people function on the basis of three
aspects of intelligence: componential, experiential, and contextual.
This approach deemphasizes speed and accuracy of performance. Instead, the emphasis is on planning
responses and monitoring them. The componential aspect refers to analytical thinking; high scores
would characterize the person who is a good test-taker. The experiential aspect relates to creative
thinking and characterizes the person who can take separate elements of experience and combine them
insightfully. Finally, the contextual aspect is seen in the person who is "street smart"-one who knows
how to play the game and can successfully manipulate the environment.
According to Sternberg, a person's performance is governed by these three aspects of intelligence. Other
investigators are particularly interested in social competence as an aspect of intelligence (Sternberg &
Wagner, 1986). However, whether all the foregoing can account for individual differences or is just a
theory of cognition is debatable.
Although Spearman, Thurstone, and others may seem to have given way to Cattell, Guilford, Gardner,
or Sternberg, clinicians' day-to-day use of tests suggests that they have not really outgrown the g factor
of Spearman or the group factors of Thurstone. The whole notion of a single IQ score that can represent
the individual's intelligence strongly implies that we are trying to discover how much g the person has.
At the same time, however, most current intelligence tests are composed of subtests, so that the total IQ
represents some average of subtest scores.
This implies that, to some extent at least, we have also accepted Turnstone's group factors. We seem to
want to identify and quantify how much intelligence the person has, yet we cannot escape the belief that
intelligence is somehow patterned-that two people may have the same overall IQ score and still differ in
specific abilities. Thus, it would appear that practicing clinicians think more in line with Spearman or
Thurstone and are as yet little affected by the recent information processing developments.
HISTORY OF INTELLIGENCE TESTING
Two important historical developments in the latter half of the nineteenth century greatly influenced the
ultimate introduction of measures of intelligence (Thorndike, 1997). First, compulsory education in the
United States and other countries resulted in a very diverse student body. Many students came from
"uneducated" families or families that did not speak the native tongue. As a result, the failure rate in
137
img
Clinical Psychology­ (PSY401)
VU
schools shot up dramatically. In order to preserve resources, there was pressure to identify those most
likely to succeed in school. Second, psychological scientists believed, and ultimately demonstrated, that
mental abilities could be measured. Although early attempts focused primarily on measures of sensory
acuity and reaction time (for example, Francis Galton, James McKeen Cattell), the groundwork was laid
in place.
Alfred Binet and his collaborator, Theodore Simon, became leaders in the intelligence testing movement
when they devised the Binet-Simon test to identify individual differences in mental functioning. Binet's
original purpose was to develop an objective method of identifying those truly lacking in academic
ability (as opposed to those with behavior problems). Like others of the day, Binet and Simon regarded
intelligence as a "faculty" that was inherited, although they also spoke of it as affected by training and
opportunity. With the interest in quantifying intellectual performance and with the continuing growth of
compulsory education in Europe and North America, intelligence testing became firmly entrenched
(Thorndike, 1997).
Institutions such as schools, industries, military forces, and governments were, by their nature,
interested in individual differences (such as levels of intelligence) that might affect performance in those
settings; therefore, intelligence testing prospered (Herrnstein & Murray, 1994).For many years, the
critical importance and widespread use of intelligence tests went largely unchallenged. However, by the
end of the 1960s, everyone seemed to be attacking the validity of these tests. Basically, the argument
was that such tests discriminate through the inclusion of unfair items.
As a result of a lengthy civil rights suit (Larvy P v. Wilson Riles) begun in 1971, the California State
Board of Education in 1975 imposed a moratorium on the use of intelligence tests to assess disabilities
in African Americans. The court held that IQ testing is prejudicial to African American children and
tends to place them, without real justification, in allegedly stigmatizing programs for cognitively
impaired individuals.
Others (for example, N. Lambert, 1981) have disputed the court's judgment, however. Some African
Americans contemplated a court challenge of the ruling, claiming it assumed that African Americans
would do poorly on the tests. Still others argued that IQ testing is not a social evil but the principal
means by which we can right the wrongs imposed upon minorities by a devastating environment.
The most widely used intelligence tests in the United States are those originally developed by
psychologist David Wechsler during the 1940's and 1950's.building on existing tests of the day--
including the Standford-Binet the Army Alpha and Beta tests, and the Bellevue intelligence scale--
Wechsler first developed an individual test in intelligence for adults. Followed by a similarly structured
test for school-age children to age 16, and finally, a test for pre-school-age children.
These tests were influenced by Wechsler's belief that there is a total or global level of intellectual
capacity that can be measured-thus; these tests yield a score that represents the person's overall
intelligence. the tests developed by Wechsler also reflect the geographic metaphor of intelligence
described by Sternberg(1990).Wechsler's tests more than any others have shaped psychologist's
perception of intellectual functioning as comprised of separate but related verbal and performance(non-
verbal abilities).
Wechsler (1939) emphasized that an IQ test measures functional intelligence, not intelligence it self.
Functional intelligence is influenced by nonintellectual factors including motivation, configuration of
specific abilities, and emotional adjustment. According to Wechsler score on an IQ test is a reflection of
what one has learned, and which is a function of the opportunities to which one has been exposed and
one's ability to take advantage of those opportunities. The subsets on Wechsler's test represent samples
of behavior but they are not exhaustive.
138
img
Clinical Psychology­ (PSY401)
VU
The need for continued adaptation of intelligence testing is represented in the history of the Wechsler
scales, because all three versions have undergone substantial revisions since their inception and even
after Wechsler's death. These changes have taken two forms: changes in the items of the tests to make
them more current and appropriate for new generations, and the testing of new normative samples to
provide up-to-date sources for normative comparison in generating scores.
CONCLUSION
There is little question that intelligence tests have been misused at times in ways that have penalized
minorities. There is also little doubt that some tests have contained certain items that have adversely
affected the performance of some minorities. We should, therefore, do everything we can to develop
better tests and to administer and interpret them in a sensitive fashion. However, banning tests seems an
inappropriate cure that may ultimately harm the very people who need help.
139
Table of Contents:
  1. MENTAL HEALTH TODAY: A QUICK LOOK OF THE PICTURE:PARA-PROFESSIONALS
  2. THE SKILLS & ACTIVITIES OF A CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST:THE INTERNSHIP
  3. HOW A CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST THINKS:Brian’s Case; an example, PREDICTION
  4. HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY:THE GREEK PERIOD
  5. HISTORY OF CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY:Research, Assessment, CONCLUSION
  6. HOW CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGISTS BECAME INVOLVED IN TREATMENT
  7. MODELS OF TRAINING IN CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY:PROFESSIONAL SCHOOLS
  8. CURRENT ISSUES IN CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY:CERTIFICATION, LICENSING
  9. ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGISTS:PREAMBLE
  10. THE ROLE OF RESEARCH IN CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY:LIMITATION
  11. THE RESEARCH PROCESS:GENERATING HYPOTHESES, RESEARCH METHODS
  12. THE CONCEPT OF ABNORMAL BEHAVIOR & MENTAL ILLNESS
  13. CAUSES OF MENTAL ILLNESOVERVIEW OF ETIOLOGY:PANDAS
  14. THE PROCESS OF DIAGNOSIS:ADVANTAGES OF DIAGNOSIS, DESCRIPTION
  15. THE CONCEPT OF PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT IN CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY
  16. THE CLINICAL INTERVIEW:The intake / admission interview, Structured interview
  17. THE ASSESSMENT OF INTELLIGENCE:RELIABILTY AND VALIDITY, CATTELL’S THEORY
  18. INTELLIGENCE TESTS:PURPOSE, COMMON PROCEDURES, PURPOSE
  19. THE USE AND ABUSE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING:PERSONALITY
  20. THE PROJECTIVE PERSONALITY TESTS:THE RORSCHACH
  21. THE OBSERVATIONAL ASSESSMENT AND ITS TYPES:Home Observation
  22. THE BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENT THROUGH INTERVIEWS, INVENTORIES AND CHECK LISTS
  23. THE PROCESS AND ACCURACY OF CLINICAL JUDGEMENT:Comparison Studies
  24. METHODS OF IMPROVING INTERPRETATION AND JUDGMENT
  25. PSYCHOLOGICAL INTERVENTIONS AND THEIR GOALS:THE EXPERT ROLE
  26. IMPORTANCE OF PSYCHOTHERAPY:ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
  27. COURSE OF NEW CLINICAL INTERVENTIONS:IMPLEMENTING TREATMENT
  28. NATURE OF SPECIFIC THERAPEUTIC VARIABLES:CLIENT’S MOTIVATION
  29. THE BEGINNING OF PSYCHOANALYSIS:THE CASE OF ANNA, THE INSTINCTS
  30. PSYCHOANALYTIC ALTERNATIVES:EGO ANALYSIS, CURATIVE FACTORS
  31. CLIENT CENTERED THERAPY:PURPOSE, BACKGROUND, PROCESS
  32. GESTALT THERAPY METHODS AND PROCEDURES:SELF-DIALOGUE
  33. ORIGINS AND TRADITIONAL TECHNIQUES OF BEHAVIOR THERAPY
  34. COGNITIVE BEHAVIORAL THERAPY:MODELING, RATIONAL RESTRUCTURING
  35. GROUP THERAPY: METHODS AND PROCEDURES:CURATIVE FACTORS
  36. FAMILY AND COUPLES THERAPY:POSSIBLE RISKS
  37. INTRODUCTION AND HISTORY OF COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGY:THE ENVIRONMENT
  38. METHODS OF INTERVENTION AND CHANGE IN COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGY
  39. INTRODUCTION AND HISTORY OF HEALTH PSYCHOLOGY
  40. APPLICATIONS OF HEALTH PSYCHOLOGY:OBESITY, HEALTH CARE TRENDS
  41. NEUROPSYCHOLOGY PERSPECTIVES AND HISTORY:STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION
  42. METHODS OF NEUROLOGICAL ASSESSMENT:Level Of Performance, Pattern Analysis
  43. FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY:Qualification, Testifying, Cross Examination, Criminal Cases
  44. PEDIATRIC AND CHILD PSYCHOLOGY: HISTORY AND PERSPECTIVE
  45. INTERVENTIONS & TRAINING IN PEDIATRIC AND CLINICAL CHILD PSYCHOLOGY