THE EQUIVOCAL I.Q. USE AND ABUSE OF INTELLIGENCE TESTS

Press, Volume XCV, Issue 28253, 15 April 1957, Page 8

THE EQUIVOCAL I.Q. USE AND ABUSE OF INTELLIGENCE TESTS

[Specially written for "The Press” by

Dr. A. CROWTHER

Profewor of

Psychology at Canterbury University College] v

Recent publicity about intelligence and intelligence tests will. I think, have served only to confuse the layman on a topic about which even the teacher and the educator are often confused. Dr. Rogers clearly is engaging in a little playful mischief, for he would never have ventured such statements in a serious publication: but it looks as though the departmental representative who spoke was not himself too clear about the limitations of testing procedures. Psychologists have only themselves to blame for the confusion in the public mind. They spent the 1920’s selling the intelligence test as a panacea for most ills, only to find that the difficulties of selling are nothing to those of persuading people later that the product is not quite as good as it seemed at first sight. One psychologist, discouraged in this second task, was heard to observe recently, “Well, it took a hundred years for phrenology to die.” What Is Tested? The easiest way to express the real nature of the tests is to explain how they came about. They were devised in the first instance to try to predict how well a child would profit from formal education. and they consisted of a selection of questions based on things that the ordinary school child might be expected to know at his particular age. It was shown that tests of this sort, given at, say. the age of eight or 10. did serve, to predict, more or less, the chances of subsequent success and failure at school subjects. The accuracy of prediction was not high, but it was high enough to assist teachers in planning courses for their children. Briefly, it was shown that a sample of what you can do. now is an indication of what you may be able to do later on. What exactly is being tested in this way is still uncertain; but most psychologists agree that the scores on the tests are partly a result of some native capacities (in the plural, as there is probably more than one sort of intelligence) and partly a result of thd child’s background of ence.

not unlikely result of increase familiarity with tests. It may also reflect an Americanisation of New Zealand teaching practices and educational content. No Necessary Meaning One cannot, with an “intelli. gence test” meaningfully compare a New Zealander with an American. for their general experience and knowledge are different. We can never even be sure, using these tests, whether an Auckland child is more or less intelligent than an Australian aborigine, for they have no testable experience in common. As a matter of fact, psychologists are quite uncertain about the general level of intellect of the aborigine. There is no need, therefore, to speculate about the meaning of small differences when we cannot even be sure of the meaning of big ones. A difference in average test scores has no necessary meaning. And now. having indicated that we don’t know the cause of the small score differences between different areas and that they may well be a result of minor differences in experience from one place to another, let me defend the honour of Canterbury and show that, when it comes to irresponsible speculation, we are not backward in this area. Another recent report from Auckland University College shows that the divorce rate follows the same trend as the test scores—highest in Auckland and lowest in Southland. May I. therefore, suggest that this indicates that broken homes tend to raise the intellectual level of the childrea in them? To improve New Zealand’s intelligence then, let ui encourage marital discord by an the means in our power. And now over to our Auckland commentator.

Now the important point to note is that no-one believes that the test scores are directly a measure of native capacities. It is clear that they are not. For instance, the earliest satisfactory test was in French, and if this was administered to New Zealand children, it would seem that they were markedly less “intelligent” than their French friends. It has always been found, as has been mentioned in the press, that country children get on the average scores on the tests than town children; but it not possible to be sure whether this is due to the difference in their experience or in their native ability or both.

The “Dumb” Countryman Certainly there is a marked difference in experience. One is reminded of the teapher who hung a picture of a sheep (perhaps a Wellington departmental one) before some country children and asked, what it was only to be greeted by a puzzled silence. Finally one young lad said, “Well it might be a two-tooth but you’ve got me beat on the breed.’’ It must be remembered that intelligence tests like the sheep are designed as a rule by citydwellers. Whether there is also some difference in native ability we have no sure means of knowing, but we do know that the poor dumb incompetent farmer still manages somehow in his “unintelligent” way to keep us in the cities in the luxury to which we are accustomed. The fact of the matter is that when we try to compare the scores on the tests of children with different backgrounds we are on uncertain ground. Intelligence tests are, like horses, all different; they may look alike but they tend to run differently. Thus, to compare the results of one test at one time in one place with the results of the same or another test at another time and place is asking for trouble. Let us take the example the department quoted. The department implied that because in test A in the 'thirties New Zealand children scored on the average less well than Americans and because on test B in the ’fifties New Zealand scored almost as well as Americans, this meant that there had been some important change in the children. But this is not necessarily true. All that has changed is an ability to score on tests (if that) . and this is a