The intelligence quotient (IQ) measures the
ratio of a person's intellectual age to
his/her chronological age. Most adult
intelligence tests are designed for people
who are at least 16 years old. For this
reason, if you are younger than 16, your
Tickle IQ score might be slightly lower than
your "true" IQ.
One of the first scientific investigations
into the concept of intelligence, came from
nineteenth-century British scientist, Sir
Francis Galton. Galton believed that mental
traits, like physical traits, could be
inherited. He published his ideas on
hereditary intelligence in his book,
Hereditary Genius.
Meanwhile in France, psychologist Alfred
Binet was exploring ways of measuring
children's' intelligence. Like Galton, Binet
was passionate about testing and measuring
human capabilities. Binet worked with two
groups of children - those who were average
students, and those who were less mentally
capable. He discovered that average students
could complete certain tasks that less
mentally capable students could not. Based
on those findings, Binet calculated the
"normal" abilities for students within
different age groups. From there he could
estimate how many years above or below the
norm a student's mental age was.
Just before WWI, German psychologist Wilhelm
Stern came up with an alternative to mental
age for measuring people's intelligence. He
suggested that a more accurate method for
assessing someone's intelligence was to
measure their capabilities given their
chronological age. He proposed that for a
true estimate of someone's intelligence,
researchers needed to calculate a ratio
between the subject's mental age and their
chronological age. Since the resulting
numbers were represented by decimals,
scientists decided to multiply this
"quotient" by 100 to get rid of the decimal
places. Thus, the formula for an IQ is: IQ =
Mental Age/Chronological Age x 100.
Based on the ratio that Stern created, Lewis
Terman, an American psychologist at Stanford
University, coined the term Intelligence
Quotient for Stern's Binet test scoring
system.
IQ tests serve as a useful tool for
institutions such as public schools and the
military, where great numbers of people must
be processed quickly and efficiently, and
placed in appropriated classes or positions.
In the United States, kindergarten-aged
children are often given IQ tests to
evaluate whether they need special attention
or services. For example, children scoring
130 or over are often considered "gifted"
and placed in programs accordingly. However,
in most institutional uses of the test
nowadays, the importance placed on the
actual IQ score has changed.
A widely-cited
example of possible cultural bias
appeared in the Scholastic Aptitude
Test in the early 90s:
Runner: marathon
A) Envoy: embassy
B) Martyr: massacre
C) Oarsman: regatta
D) Referee: tournament
E) Horse: stable.
(Herrnstein and Murray, 1994)
According to many, the answer, C),
is more likely to be answered
correctly by upper class children
(predominantly white) because they
are more inclined to know the
definition of regatta.
|
The military tends to use IQ test results to
assess which field a recruit might be best
suited to. Instead of relying solely on the
intelligence rating, the IQ score, the
military will now look at the kinds of
questions a recruit answered correctly. Once
they know that, they have a better idea of
what innate skills the recruit can bring to
specific assignments and duties.
And as far as the business world goes, uses
of such tests for employment purposes was
declared illegal — except in rare
circumstances — by the Supreme Court in
1971.
In social life, the IQ test is only really
applicable if you're specifically joining an
organization based on IQ scores like Mensa,
a society founded in 1964 for people who
score in the top 2% of the IQ test. But, in
general, there are still some misconceptions
about the importance of test results.
Chances are, people you know are more likely
to be judgmental about a high or low score
than most institutions are. Luckily, this is
usually just a case of misinformation and is
easily remedied.
|
Robert Jordan, an applicant to the
New Haven, CT police force sued the
department in 1997 after he was
refused entry on grounds that his IQ
test score was "too high." A
spokesperson for the police
department was quoted as saying
people with too high of an IQ "tire
of police work and leave not long
after undergoing costly academy
training."
|
Much debate circulates around the different
IQ tests that are administered throughout
the country. Many researchers claim that the
tests measure cultural knowledge and
understanding, not innate intelligence.
Critics suggest that both IQ and
standardized tests are racially and
culturally biased.
According to a 1996 report by the American
Psychological Association, "Intelligence
scores partially predict individual
differences in school achievement, such as
grade point average and number of years of
education that individuals complete.
Nevertheless, population levels of school
achievement are not determined solely or
even primarily by intelligence or any other
individual-difference variable. Many
differences can be attributed primarily to
differences in culture and schooling rather
than in abilities measured by intelligence
tests."
Outside factors, such as where you grow up,
what kind of school you attend, and how much
school you attend contribute substantially
to the development of intelligences.
However, it is not yet clearly understood
what those factors are, or how they work. It
is widely agreed that standardized tests,
like an IQ test, do not accurately reflect
all forms of intelligence.
Obviously, cultural knowledge, creativity,
wisdom, common sense and social sensitivity
are not measured in IQ tests, but they
certainly contribute to a person's
intelligence.
Still, there are some people who feel
strongly that IQ tests are the best way to
predict future performance at work and in
school. They feel that IQ tests are better
predictors of future success than even
trained personnel experts.
Experts have numerous theories when it comes
to explaining, defining and predicting
intelligence. Some claim that intelligence
is innate and fixed and can be measured with
clearly defined statistical methods. Others
claim that experience and environment affect
intelligence - that intelligence is the
composite of many different talents and
abilities which continue to improve over
time.
Three researchers have made significant
advances in this field in recent years:
1. Robert Sternberg - Has proposed
three sub-theories of intelligence: context,
experience, and the cognitive components of
information processing. In short,
intelligence involves either adapting to
your environment, moving to another more
appropriate environment or changing your
environment. Your level of experience with
the activities or knowledge being tested
gets reduced to intelligence, but
intelligence is best measured out of context
— when you perform unfamiliar tasks.
2. Howard Gardner - Has proposed his
"Theory of Multiple Intelligences" where
there are seven independent but related
intelligences: logical-mathematical,
linguistic, musical, spatial,
bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal and
intrapersonal. Gardner is one of the biggest
proponents for developing new methods for
testing intelligence. He speculates that
intelligence is culturally and
experientially based. One's experience will
influence how much each of these can be
expressed.
3. John Horn - Horn had proposed that
there are two factors to intelligence: fluid
intelligence and crystallized intelligence.
Fluid intelligence is one's ability to
reason and solve problems in novel or
unfamiliar situations. Crystallized
intelligence is the extent to which an
individual has attained knowledge of her
culture.
In general, recent research has focused on
intelligence as something that can be
changed — not as something that is fixed in
childhood and as something culturally and
experientially based. Most current
researchers agree that there are multiple
forms of intelligence, although there is no
consensus on how many. |
 |
|
|
 |
Over the last two years, Tickle's
psychologists developed this IQ test using
proven, high-quality IQ test questions such
as those in the Mensa Workout tests and the
Shipley Institute of Living Scale — an
intelligence test that focuses on both
vocabulary and verbal abstract reasoning.
Those are the skills that are associated
with problem-solving ability and social
comprehension/judgment.
Once we built the Tickle IQ test, Tickle
performed a large-scale study to compare the
results of people who had taken both the
Tickle IQ test and the established Shipley
Institute of Living Scale (by Walter C.
Shipley). The Shipley test has been used for
more than 50 years to assess facets of
intelligence. We did this to ensure that the
way we constructed our test would yield
reliable and valid IQ results.
We used scores calculated by the Shipley
test as a basis for calibrating Tickle's IQ
test. That ensured a high association
between the two tests and, because of that,
the validity of our IQ scores. In fact, the
Tickle IQ test is highly reliable—the
Chronbach's alpha is .81. In other words,
the questions on Tickle's IQ test are
internally consistent and they all measure
intelligence accurately.
In the past, researchers who have
constructed IQ tests have discovered
additional patterns that relate to the
categories of questions a particular
test-taker answered correctly — categories
such as mathematical, visual, verbal and
logical. When these researchers analyzed
peoples' results, they found that, for
instance, a test-taker might have answered
the math-oriented and verbal questions
correctly, yet tended to answer the logical
questions incorrectly. From such patterns,
experts were able to define some internal
scales of intelligence to the overall IQ
test. Thus, using those internal scales,
they could offer an actual IQ score, such as
105, as well as a measurement of how well
the test-taker did within each question
category.
After 1 million people took the Tickle IQ
test, we ran what is called a "factor
analysis" on the answers those people gave.
This statistical analysis identified the
similarity between groups of questions in
our test. The analysis demonstrated that
this particular IQ test accurately measured
four underlying dimensions of intelligence:
mathematical, visual-spatial, linguistic and
logical.
Each of the questions in the Tickle IQ test
relates to one dimension of intelligence.
How reliable are these dimensions? Well, for
the scientists and statisticians out there,
their reliability coefficients were .85,
.84, .81 and .50, respectively. The gist of
all of that is that Tickle's scales of
intelligence are highly valid and we can
accurately tell you how high you scored on
each of those scales relative to the other
test-takers—thus yielding an accurate
intellectual type. |
 |
|
|
 |
Over 30 million people have taken Tickle's
Classic IQ Test. Here's a look at the
average Tickle IQ scores, broken out by
state.
|
State |
Average Tickle IQ Score |
|
Mississippi |
110 |
|
West Virginia |
110 |
|
Alabama |
111 |
|
Arkansas |
111 |
|
Kentucky |
111 |
|
Louisiana |
111 |
|
Florida |
112 |
|
Georgia |
112 |
|
Indiana |
112 |
|
Maine |
112 |
|
Michigan |
112 |
|
Missouri |
112 |
|
Nevada |
112 |
|
New Mexico |
112 |
|
North Carolina |
112 |
|
North Dakota |
112 |
|
Ohio |
112 |
|
Oklahoma |
112 |
|
Rhode Island |
112 |
|
South Carolina |
112 |
|
South Dakota |
112 |
|
Tennessee |
112 |
|
Texas |
112 |
|
Wyoming |
112 |
|
Alaska |
113 |
|
Arizona |
113 |
|
California |
113 |
|
Connecticut |
113 |
|
Delaware |
113 |
|
Hawaii |
113 |
|
Idaho |
113 |
|
Illinois |
113 |
|
Iowa |
113 |
|
Kansas |
113 |
|
Maryland |
113 |
|
Montana |
113 |
|
Nebraska |
113 |
|
New Hampshire |
113 |
|
New Jersey |
113 |
|
New York |
113 |
|
Pennsylvania |
113 |
|
Vermont |
113 |
|
Virginia |
113 |
|
Wisconsin |
113 |
|
Colorado |
114 |
|
Massachusetts |
114 |
|
Minnesota |
114 |
|
Oregon |
114 |
|
Utah |
114 |
|
Washington |
114 |
|
District of Columbia |
115 |
|
 |
| |
|
Armstrong, T. (1993). 7 Kinds of Smart:
Identifying and Developing Your Many
Intelligences. NY: Plume (The Penguin
Group).
Bonthous, J. (1995). "Understanding
intelligence across cultures." Competitive
Intelligence Review, Summer/Fall: 12-19.
Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of Mind: The
Theory of Multiple Intelligences (10th
Anniversary Edition). NY: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1992). Multiple Intelligences:
The Theory in Practice. NY: Basic Books.
Gardner, H.. (1985). The Mind's New Science.
NY: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. and Hatch, T. (1989). "Multiple
Intelligences Go to School: Educational
Implications of the Theory of Multiple
Intelligences." Educational Researcher
18(8): 4-9.
Gardner, H., Kornhaber, M.L., and Wake, W.K.
(1996). Intelligence: Multiple Perspectives.
NY: Harcourt, Brace.
Horn, J.L. (1989). "Cognitive diversity: A
framework for learning." Pp. 61-116 in P.L.
Ackerman, R.J. Sternberg, and R. Glaser
(Eds.), Learning and Individual differences:
Advances in theory and research. New York,
NY: W.H. Freeman and Co.
Jensen, A. R. (1969). "How much can we boost
I.Q. and scholastic achievement?" Harvard
Educational Review 39:1-123.
Lohman, D.F. (1989). "Human intelligence: An
introduction to advances in theory and
research." Review of Educational Research
59(4):333-374.
Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T. J.,
Jr., 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, 77-101.
Ree, M. J., & Earles, J. A. (1992).
"Intelligence is the best predictor of job
performance." Current Directions in
Psychological Science 1:86-89.
Robbins, D. (1996). The Philosophy of
Intelligence: An Outline of Theories.
Psychology Department, University of
Calgary.
Sternberg, R. J., & Kaufman, J. C. (1998).
"Human abilities." Annual Review of
Psychology 49:479-502.
Sternberg, R. J., Wagner, R. K., Williams,
W. M., & Horvath, J. A. (1995). "Testing
common sense." American Psychologist
50:912-927.
Sternberg, R.J. (1991). "Death, taxes, and
bad intelligence tests." Intelligence
15(3):257-269.
Sternberg, R.J. (1992). "Ability tests,
measurements, and markets." Journal of
Educational Psychology 84(2):134-140. |
|