Posted: November 24th, 2023

Assessing Intelligence and Achievement

Assignment Content
1.
• Access the Mental Measurements Yearbook, located in the University Library.
• Select two assessments of intelligence and two achievement tests.
• Prepare a 12- to 15-slide presentation about your selected instruments. In your analysis, address the following: (must include detailed speaker notes)
o Critique the major definitions of intelligence. Determine which theory of intelligence best fits your selected instruments. Explain how the definition and the measures are related.
o Evaluate the measures of intelligence you selected for reliability, validity, normative procedures, and bias.
o Your selected intelligence and achievement assessments. How are the goals of the tests similar and different? How are the tests used? What are the purposes of giving these differing tests

******Select two assessments of intelligence and two achievement tests. Also, DO NOT Choose an “emotional” intelligence test. We are looking at the typical intelligence test that gives a standard score and IQ.******** (view attachments for example tests)

Part 2
Answer each questions using 175 words
Discussion 1
In everyday living, mental abilities tend to operate in unison rather than in isolation. How useful is it, therefore, to attempt to isolate and measure “primary mental abilities”? What is factor Advanced Certified analysis? What are the theories that relate to it in regards to intelligence? What about information processing theories? How are they different?

Discussion 2
Thanks for your post. My preferred theory of intelligence is Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligence. I think it is absolutely true that everyone has intelligence but there are many different areas or types of intelligence.
How does Gardner’s theory compare and contrast to Sternberg’s theory?
How can these be related to the learning environment?

Assessing Intelligence and Achievement
Introduction
This paper will analyze four assessments – two measures of intelligence and two achievement tests. It will evaluate the tests based on reliability, validity, norming procedures and potential bias. Connections between intelligence definitions, theories and the selected tests will also be explored. Finally, similarities and differences between intelligence and achievement assessments will be discussed.
Selected Tests
For intelligence tests, the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS-IV; Wechsler, 2008) and Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales (SB-5; Roid, 2003) were chosen. Both are individually administered and provide a Full Scale IQ score.
For achievement tests, the Woodcock-Johnson IV Tests of Achievement (WJ IV; Schrank et al., 2014) and Kaufman Tests of Educational Achievement (KTEA-3; Kaufman & Kaufman, 2014) were selected. They measure academic skills in reading, math and writing.
Intelligence Theories and Definitions
Traditional definitions of intelligence focus on mental abilities involved in abstract reasoning, problem-solving, and learning from experience (Neisser et al., 1996). Spearman’s (1904) general intelligence theory (“g”) proposed positive correlations among diverse cognitive tasks can be explained by an underlying general ability. More recently, Carroll (1993) identified three stratum model of intelligence with general (“g”), broad, and narrow abilities.
The WAIS-IV and SB-5 operationalize these definitions and theories well. They provide composite scores of verbal comprehension, perceptual reasoning, working memory and processing speed (WAIS-IV) or fluid reasoning, knowledge, quantitative reasoning, visual-spatial processing and working memory (SB-5), in addition to a Full Scale IQ score (FSIQ). Both tests have strong psychometric properties.
Reliability, Validity and Norming
The WAIS-IV and SB-5 demonstrate high test-retest reliability and internal consistency of composite scores (Wechsler, 2008; Roid, 2003). Content, criterion and construct validity have also been well-established through correlations with other intelligence tests and academic/life outcomes (Watkins et al., 2006; Canivez & Watkins, 2010).
Representative norming samples ensure accurate interpretation of scores. The WAIS-IV was normed on a sample of 2,200 individuals aged 16–90, balancing for variables like age, gender, education and ethnicity based on the U.S. Census (Wechsler, 2008). The SB-5 standardization involved 4,800 individuals from birth to 85 years (Roid, 2003).
The WJ IV and KTEA-3 also have strong reliability and validity evidence (Schrank et al., 2014; Kaufman & Kaufman, 2014). Large, demographically diverse standardization samples allow for interpretation of achievement relative to age or grade-level peers.
Potential Bias
While the tests demonstrate sound psychometric properties overall, it is important to consider potential bias. For intelligence tests, the Flynn effect describes rising scores over time, suggesting tests may underestimate abilities in more recent norming samples (Flynn, 1984). Socioeconomic status and culture can also impact performance (Nisbett et al., 2012).
Achievement tests are more directly influenced by variables like prior instruction, language proficiency and test-taking skills (Flanagan et al., 2013). To minimize bias, the WJ IV and KTEA-3 provide supplemental norms for specific clinical or special groups. Continuous review and revision of tests help address bias concerns.
Intelligence vs. Achievement Assessments
Intelligence tests aim to measure innate cognitive capabilities through tasks requiring abstract reasoning, whereas achievement tests evaluate skills learned in an educational context. Intelligence tests are less dependent on acquired knowledge and more reflective of potential. Achievement tests indicate current performance levels relative to curriculum standards.
Intelligence tests are often used for diagnostic purposes to identify learning disabilities, intellectual disabilities or giftedness. Achievement tests monitor progress, identify skill deficits, and help determine appropriate instructional levels. Both provide valuable yet distinct information to guide educational and clinical decision making (Flanagan & Harrison, 2012).
Discussion Questions
In response to the first discussion question, attempting to isolate primary abilities through factor analysis, as in Carroll’s (1993) model, has been useful to better understand the structure of intelligence. It recognizes both the general ability measured by “g” as well as specific cognitive processes like short-term memory or fluid reasoning. Information processing theories complement this view by proposing underlying mental mechanisms involved in cognition (Sternberg, 1985).
Regarding the second discussion, Gardner’s (1983) theory of multiple intelligences presents a valid alternative perspective that intelligence involves diverse strengths beyond academic abilities alone. It aligns well with recognizing individual differences and learning styles. Sternberg’s (1985) triarchic theory of intelligence also emphasizes the importance of applying knowledge in practical contexts. Both theories argue for considering students’ varied profiles and allowing multiple pathways for demonstrating skills.
Conclusion
In summary, this paper analyzed the WAIS-IV, SB-5, WJ IV and KTEA-3 assessments in the context of intelligence definitions, theories and the distinction between intelligence and achievement testing. Overall the selected tests demonstrate strong psychometric properties while also recognizing potential limitations and bias concerns. Evaluating assessments from multiple perspectives can provide valuable insights into cognitive abilities and academic skills.

Order | Check Discount

Tags: Assessing Intelligence and Achievement