• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

IQ Tests are Obviously Biased!

Sapphire K

Autistic Demigirl! (She/They/It)
V.I.P Member
Here is an article a friend sent to me a few minutes ago. It's called Intelligence Testing: Accurate or Extremely Biased? It's from neuroethicsblog.com.
----------------------------------------------------------
In the early 1900s, psychologist Charles Spearman noticed that children who did well in one subject in school were likely to do well in other subjects as well, and those who did poorly in one subject were likely to do poorly across all subjects. He concluded that there is a factor, g, which correlates with testing performance (Spearman 1904). The g factor is defined as the measure of the variance of testing performance between individuals and is sometimes called “general intelligence”.

Later on, psychologist Raymond Cattell determined that there are two subsets of g, called fluid intelligence (denoted Gf) and crystallized intelligence (denoted Gc). Fluid intelligence is defined as abstract reasoning or logic; it is an individual’s ability to solve a novel problem or puzzle. Crystalized intelligence is more knowledge based, and is defined as the ability to use one’s learned skills, knowledge, and experience (Cattell 1987). It is important to note that while crystallized intelligence relies on knowledge, it is not a measure of knowledge but rather a measure of the ability to use one’s knowledge.

The first standardized intelligence test was created in 1905 by French Psychologist Albert Binet, as a method to screen for mental retardation in French schoolboys. The test measured intelligence by comparing an individual’s score to the average score of children his own age (Binet 1905). The test was later revised by Lewis Terman of Stanford University and named the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales. The Stanford-Binet is now in its fifth edition and includes five sections: fluid reasoning, knowledge, quantitative reasoning, visual-spatial processing, and working memory.

Since the Stanford-Binet, many other standardized intelligence scales have been developed. One of the most popular modern intelligence tests is the Raven’s Progressive Matrices (RPM) test (Raven, 2003). The test gives individuals a series of boxes, each containing shapes that change from box to box, and a box that is empty. The test taker must recognize the pattern that is shown and correctly identify the shape that should go in the empty box from a collection of options. Unlike the Stanford-Binet, RPM is entirely visual; the test taker does not have to answer written questions, meaning the measured IQ is not dependent on reading comprehension. This allows for better testing that eliminates variables such as native language, age, and possible reading disability.

So what exactly are these IQ tests measuring? The Stanford-Binet measures g through tasks that measure both Gf and Gc. Because RPM is entirely non-verbal and puzzle based, it almost exclusively measures Gf.

Which brings us to the next question; are these tests effectively measuring g?

Since their creation, modern Western intelligence testing has shown a difference in average intelligence, varying from group to group; whites score higher than blacks, the rich score higher than the poor. In some tests, women and men score differently from task to task. Are these differences due to heritable differences in intelligence between race, gender, and socioeconomic status? Or are environment, schooling, and stigma to blame? Or, are the tests themselves flawed?
 
Last edited:

china autie

friend to dogs and frogs and cats
Yes they are. In particular they do a lousy job of testing the intelligence of people who do not talk with their mouths.
 

Sapphire K

Autistic Demigirl! (She/They/It)
V.I.P Member
While intelligence tests claim to be culture-fair, none of the tests created so far are one hundred percent unbiased. As Serpell (1979) found, when asked to reproduce figures from using wire, pencil and paper, and clay, Zambian children performed better in the wire task, while English children performed better in the pencil and paper task. Each group did better in the medium to which they were more accustomed. Pencil and paper IQ tests may be intrinsically biased towards Western culture.

Furthermore, while African-Americans have historically scored lower than white Americans on intelligence testing, this gap as been lessening in recent years (Dickens and Flynn 2006). This could be the result of one of two things; the first possibility is that average intelligence is increasing in the black community at a higher rate than in the white community (measured intelligence has been steadily increasing across all groups due to the Flynn effect). However, it seems more likely that post-segregation, white and black cultures have been merging, and schools have been integrated, meaning that white and black children have a better chance of receiving the same education. If this is the case, IQ tests are either measuring knowledge more than the test creators think they do, or the tests are extremely culturally biased, but this bias is lessening due to assimilation of white and black culture in America.

Not only are intelligence tests culturally biased, but they also seem to be biased in favor of neurotypical individuals. For example, while typically developing individuals generally perform similarly on RPM and the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS), individuals with Autism typically score higher on RPM than on WAIS (Bolte et al. 2009, Mottron 2004). This is because while RPM is a visual task, WAIS is almost entirely verbal. Individuals with autism seem to use visual strategies to solve tasks and therefore have difficulty on tasks that can only be solved verbally (Kunda and Goel 2010). While this phenomenon is typically seen as a cognitive deficit, it is important to note that autistic individuals outperform neurotypical individuals on some visual tasks.

Therefore, by only measuring one specific part of intelligence, some IQ tests portray autistic individuals as having a cognitive deficit. What if some disorders, such as autism, are not actually disorders, but simply a way of thinking that differs from what is considered “normal”?
 

Sapphire K

Autistic Demigirl! (She/They/It)
V.I.P Member
For example, Dr. Temple Grandin, an autistic woman with a PhD in Animal Sciences, uses her incredible visual working memory to design cattle equipment that is much more humane and far less anxiety-inducing than previous models. Grandin says her autism allows her to see the world in pictures; her inner thoughts are entirely devoid of language, she simply thinks in extremely detailed movies. She says her visual memory and sensitivity to details has allowed her to be so good at designing things, because details that neurotypical people gloss over are extremely important to her and end up making a huge difference in the efficiency of the final product.

Autism may not be the only example of a disorder being mischaracterized. Studies have shown that children with ADHD on average have lower IQs than neurotypical children (Kuntsi, 2003). However, in his TEDx talk, Stephen Tonti, a senior at Carnegie Mellon, discusses why he believes ADHD is not a disorder, but simply a difference in cognition. Tonti argues that by viewing ADHD as a disorder implies that it needs to be fixed. He states that his ADHD makes him better at some tasks than neurotypical individuals, and that the world needs a diversity of cognition in order to run smoothly.

Therefore, while IQ tests are intended to measure intelligence, they often only measure one type of intelligence, and are therefore biased against certain groups of people. By trying to fit cognition into a box, IQ testing disvalues cognitive diversity. This may be causing negative impacts. By telling an individual that their intelligence is low when in fact it is simply different, we could not only be holding people back, but we might also be depriving the world of a diverse group of thinkers that could solve problems from a different perspective.

Even if current IQ tests are not fair across all groups, the future of intelligence testing may be brighter; as discussed previously on the Neuroethics Blog, fMRI intelligence testing could eliminate biases in intelligence testing. By observing testers’ thought processes in action, researchers would be able to see which brain pathways a subject recruits to solve a test, and whether he or she uses a visual or verbal approach to the question, thereby observing fluid and crystal intelligence in action.

[ARTICLE ENDS]
 

Sapphire K

Autistic Demigirl! (She/They/It)
V.I.P Member
According to my IEP, my IQ is an 89, but it would most likely be higher than that if I was NT and didn't have ADHD. I'd say 100 to be humble. Obviously, it is biased towards the NT white people.
 

Sapphire K

Autistic Demigirl! (She/They/It)
V.I.P Member
Yes they are. In particular they do a lousy job of testing the intelligence of people who do not talk with their mouths.
Oh, umm, I would recommend waiting for me to copy-paste the entire article here. It was over 10k characters.
 

Pats

Well-Known Member
V.I.P Member
I'm not going to read the whole article. lol I personally don't like the IQ tests and have complained about them on here plenty. :) Working with geriatric patients at the hospital, each morning we had to ask them 10 questions to check their mental status. Date, month, year, day of week and season, then where are we - state, city, county, where you are from city and state. I'd change the questions sometimes - if they didn't live here, does not knowing the county mean they're confused? No, although most nurses would put them down as confused. Also, not working it's easy to lose track of what day it is and if you're in the hospital, it's even easier. So fair? Not at all. You can tell someone is confused when they tell you it's 1965 and Johnson is president, but not if they just can't happen to remember what day today is.
 

Fino

Alex
V.I.P Member
If they'd stop trying to measure "intelligence," and change the names of the test to what they're actually measuring, then it would all be good!

But in the meantime, I think of them the same way I think of video-games and the scores you get on those.
 

sidd851

If I'm not late, I'm not needed.
V.I.P Member
The typical margin of error is about 5 points.
If we double this value, it is still only 2/3 of a standard deviation, 10 points, not a terribly poignant discrepancy.
 

sidd851

If I'm not late, I'm not needed.
V.I.P Member
According to my IEP, my IQ is an 89, but it would most likely be higher than that if I was NT and didn't have ADHD. I'd say 100 to be humble. Obviously, it is biased towards the NT white people.
I am here to tell you, after having debated you(;)), read your posts:))), and generally interacted with you for months:)cool:), 89 is hooey.
My guess would be 110 to 120, without knowing more of your talents and skills.
Then, it would be subject to rising.

Just my opinion.
 

Fino

Alex
V.I.P Member
Perhaps whatever test you took was heavily biased toward a particular type of intelligence.

I don't know what kind of test I took and I remember very little about it, it was about 12 years ago, but the only thing I remember is that I was shown the various scores that were used to find the average and some were below 100 and some were over 140. If I were to take a test that removed the few I excelled in, I would score around 89, as well, I believe.
 

Fino

Alex
V.I.P Member
Dammit, I wanted to take an IQ test one day but it looks like a bad idea now.

I don't think it's necessarily bad, unless you suspect it will seriously affect you, whatever the results are. If you can keep a proper perspective, I think it's fun!
 

Crossbreed

Neur-D Missionary ☝️
V.I.P Member
I don't know what kind of test I took and I remember very little about it, it was about 12 years ago, but the only thing I remember is that I was shown the various scores that were used to find the average and some were below 100 and some were over 140.

That sounds like a Wechsler test. They are made of four sub-tests:
  • processing speed (lowest),
  • verbal IQ,
  • working memory, &
  • non-verbal IQ* (highest).
I had the same low & high sub-scores (in the order given).

*Wechsler's non-verbal IQ portion includes a Ravens-type sub-test.
full
 

Crossbreed

Neur-D Missionary ☝️
V.I.P Member
Dammit, I wanted to take an IQ test one day but it looks like a bad idea now.
Don't give up prematurely. Think of them as puzzles, where you might be better at some than you are at others.

Seeing which puzzles you are better at helps the neurologist better understand your particular neurology.
full


This unofficial Raven's test is pretty reliable and it doesn't disqualify you from taking the real one. Use it as a practice test. Familiarity with it will help you relax if you ever take the real one.
 
Last edited:

MeghanWithAnH

Well-Known Member
The tests themselves are quite flawed. The one I recently took included mathematical reasoning that would be much easier for someone who has practiced doing math in their head recently, one section included questions about random knowledge such as who wrote Sherlock Holmes, everything involving verbal reasoning or working memory only used auditory information which is biased against visual learners (including the math section), and the timed section is biased against people who work carefully and can't help but take the time to make sure they're doing it right. I was excited to get the chance to take one because I wanted to know my IQ and I usually like tests, but after seeing all those problems I don't see how it can be a valid test for anyone. I didn't do badly, and I even did well on some of the sections that I just complained about, but I did much worse than on any other test I've ever taken. Maybe other IQ tests are better, but I suspect that intelligence just isn't something that can be measured very well. You really can't break someone's brain down into its individual processes and measure how each part works and then add up the scores to measure how well the whole thing works. The brain is too interconnected for that. Each process relies on other processes, which are all influenced by the environment. Besides, what really matters is how well the parts all work together. And beyond that, what really, really, matters is how well you learn to use whatever brain you have.
 

Fino

Alex
V.I.P Member
Don't give up prematurely. Think of them as puzzles, where you might be better at some than you are at others.

Seeing which puzzles you are better at helps the neurologist better understand your particular neurology.
full


This unofficial Raven's test is pretty reliable and it doesn't disqualify you from taking the real one. Use it as a practice test. Familiarity with it will help you relax if you ever take the real one.

The link doesn't seem to be working for me. :eek:
 

Fino

Alex
V.I.P Member
The tests themselves are quite flawed. The one I recently took included mathematical reasoning that would be much easier for someone who has practiced doing math in their head recently, one section included questions about random knowledge such as who wrote Sherlock Holmes, everything involving verbal reasoning or working memory only used auditory information which is biased against visual learners (including the math section), and the timed section is biased against people who work carefully and can't help but take the time to make sure they're doing it right. I was excited to get the chance to take one because I wanted to know my IQ and I usually like tests, but after seeing all those problems I don't see how it can be a valid test for anyone. I didn't do badly, and I even did well on some of the sections that I just complained about, but I did much worse than on any other test I've ever taken. Maybe other IQ tests are better, but I suspect that intelligence just isn't something that can be measured very well. You really can't break someone's brain down into its individual processes and measure how each part works and then add up the scores to measure how well the whole thing works. The brain is too interconnected for that. Each process relies on other processes, which are all influenced by the environment. Besides, what really matters is how well the parts all work together. And beyond that, what really, really, matters is how well you learn to use whatever brain you have.

Do you know the name of the test? I'm just curious to know which test is asking about Sherlock Holmes. :eek:
 

New Threads

Top Bottom