Research on the concept and assessment of intelligence clearly indicates that there is no universal consensus. Instead, many theories and research have emerged as understanding continues to be investigated and debated. Despite the breadth and depth of research, there is still no standard definition of intelligence. As cited by Neisser et al (1996), Stemberg and Detterman (1986) found that “when two dozen prominent theorists were recently asked to define intelligence, they gave two dozen quite different definitions.” Some research suggests it is a single general skill, while other research identifies a range of skills and aptitudes. In addition to disagreement about what constitutes intelligence, there is debate about it and how accurate measurements are possible. Since the first intelligence tests by Alfred Binet and Theodore Simon in France in 1905, which sought to identify those pupils who were not learning effectively in the school environment, theorists and researchers have attempted to design psychometric tests that can effectively measure and quantify cognitive abilities. Over time the intelligent quotient (IQ) and numerous similar revised editions of intelligence tests have been used to support key decisions about how to differentiate, classify and support children and adults. There are many different types of intelligence tests that use a wide variety of tasks. Some tests consist of a single type of task; others contain a large collection of activities with diverse content. This continues to spur debate and controversy about the use of intelligence tests, cultural biases, influences on intelligence, and even the very way we define intelligence. I propose to explain some of the common theories of intelligence, consider how these impact the particular scenario presented to me, and discuss why I would consider the candidate's original assessment to be unreliable. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original EssayBritish psychologist Charles Spearman is generally recognized as a major contributor to intelligence testing. It pioneered a means of measuring and numerically expressing intelligence. He proposed the existence of a general intelligence factor "g". Spearman performed the first formal factor analysis of correlations between various test tasks. The concept of general ability derives from the “positive variety” (Macgregor & Turner, 2015) observed by Spearman. He observed a tendency for all of these tests to correlate positively with each other. Spearman found that a single common factor explains the positive correlations between tests. He interpreted it as the core of human intelligence that influences success in all cognitive tasks. This interpretation of "g" as a common cause of test performance is still dominant in psychometrics. According to Spearman, the second "s" factor represented various specific abilities; abstract, verbal and numerical, in each test, "but these were of only incidental interest to him". (Tager-Flusberg & Plesa-Skwerer, 2009) Spearman's theory of general intelligence has been much debated by subsequent theorists. Even among those who support the existence of the “g” factor, there is still no agreement on what it actually means. As stated by Neisser et al (1996), it has been explained simply as statistical regularity (Thomson, 1939), mental energy (Spearman, 1927), abstract reasoning ability (Gustafsson, 1984) and an index measure of neural processing speed (Reed & Jensen, 1972). Howard Gardner's book Frames of Mind: The Theory ofMultiple Intelligences (1983) first proposed a theory of Multiple Intelligences (MI). Gardner was concerned that skills and abilities valued in one culture may not receive the same status in another society. His focus was not so much on whether a person is intelligent, but rather on how intelligent they are. Gardner initially identified seven different bits of intelligence, later adding an eighth in 1988. His intelligence can be identified as verbal/linguistic, musical, logical/mathematical, visual/spatial, bodily/kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalistic. This broader range of intelligence has challenged the traditionally dominant value intelligence based on verbal/mathematical intelligence and the view of a fixed intelligence. Gardner's work continues to impact the work of educators and teaching professionals. The theory of multiple intelligences supports the need to implement teaching approaches suited to the multiple profiles of students. Gardner's theory has not been without criticism, including its effectiveness in having too many constructs to measure, and Sternberg (1985) defined his MI as talents rather than intelligence. Robert Sternberg (1985) proposed the triarchic model of intelligence. Li (1996, p.37) argues that this is “a comprehensive, more comprehensive theory…. because it takes into account social and contextual factors in addition to human capabilities." His theory classifies intelligence into three parts: analytical, creative or synthetic, and practical. As indicated by Macgregor and Turner (2015), Sternberg's theory can be applied to assessing and teaching pupils and focuses on matching instruction to an individual's strengths in each area. This is familiar to teaching professionals in today's classrooms. Over time the idea of ​​general intelligence "g" evolved into a hierarchy, with "g" at the top. Raymond Cattell's research (1971) led to the concepts of fluid and crystallized intelligence, a theory further developed with John Horn. The Cattell-Horn theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence holds that intelligence is composed of different abilities that interact to produce overall individual intelligence. Crystallized intelligence refers to knowledge and skills acquired over a lifetime with fluid intelligence, the ability to reason, solve problems, and make sense of abstract information. Fluid intelligence is considered independent of learning and tends to decline in later adulthood. Crystallized intelligence, however, is directly related to learning and experience which tends to increase as people age. Probably the most influential theory in the study of human intelligence is the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory. This combined two previously established theoretical models of intelligence due to their similarities: the fluid and crystallized theory of intelligence (Cattell, 1941; Horn 1965) and Carroll's (1993) three-layer theory. Further expansions of the CHC model were developed in the 1990s. CHC presents a three-layer model by which distinct differences in cognitive ability can be classified: layer I containing over 70 narrow abilities, layer II with eight broad abilities, and the third layer of overall general ability “g”. CHC skill domains are incorporated into contemporary intelligence batteries and generally represent five to seven of the broad abilities of fluid reasoning, understanding-knowledge, short-term memory, visuospatial processing, auditory processing, long-term storage and retrieval, cognitive processing. speed, reading and writing and quantitative knowledge. ANDInterestingly, the CHC sparks much debate about the distinction between abilities and outcomes, with its inclusion of outcomes and abilities as narrow abilities. Today, CHC theory has developed as a broad basis for the most widely used intelligence tests. Given the available evidence about the candidate in the scenario presented, it should be fair to assume that his original assessment was undertaken at a time when Spearman's psychometric model tests were widely practiced. It is likely that his intelligence was assessed using a singular construct, given that this occurred before the publications of Stenberg, Gardener, and Cattell-Horn-Carroll. His score at that time was most likely considered and reported as a fixed measure of cognitive level. It seems unlikely that an overall cognitive profile was considered or compiled. As argued by Jenny Webb and Simon Whitaker (British Psychological Society, 2012), “the question is not what someone's IQ is, but whether they can cope, and this comes down to what society as a whole would accept as minimum standard". quality of life". Questions of reliability and validity must be raised with the original evaluation of this candidate. We have no evidence of a test that offered normal samples, confidence intervals, or appropriate standardization. Webb and Whitaker (British Psychological Society, 2012), also raise the question of how accurately IQ can be measured at the low end even using the commonly used modern ones (WISC IV and WAIS-IV). There is no indication as to why the test was taken, which test was used and whether it was reviewed and rated as the most appropriate for this particular candidate. Was this assessment part of a hypothesis testing process? As indicated by Macgregor and Turner (Strand 3 p. 24) we should ask whether a test focuses explicitly on aspects of development important for successful learning, rather than just emphasizing weaknesses and limitations. In this case it would seem not. Subsequent success in life highlights the unreliability of the concept of fixed intellect with this candidate and would support a fluid, crystallized intelligence that can change over time. It is stated that her IQ was considered to be of such a low level that she was almost considered unsuitable for mainstream education. As questioned by Webb and Whitaker (British Psychological Society, 2012), how useful are intelligence tests in allowing us to make judgments or predictions about the nature or degree of supports that people need to achieve a good quality of life? Did the original evaluation demonstrate ecological utility or validity? According to Birch, Cline & Gulliford (2015), knowing the IQ of a child with MLD or ASD does not offer the teacher useful information about the ways in which the child will learn or have difficulty learning. Thus, a low IQ score, despite any decision about entering mainstream education or otherwise, would have offered little in supporting this candidate's needs to develop his potential. Indeed, this early labeling may even have subjected the candidate to bias in subsequent learning and teaching experiences and perhaps have a long-term negative impact on his or her attitude towards himself and his learning. Adey et al (2007) propose that offering a low and early fixed ability score may discourage teachers from seeking to develop potential. One might also wonder how the original score assigned to the candidate might be reflected in today's context, keeping in mind the phenomenon of the "Flynn effect", whereby the average IQ has increased by one full standard change over the last 50 years with the rate ofearnings that could increase. (Neisser et al, 1996). As discussed by Webb and Whitaker (British Psychological Society, 2012), “this uncertainty of the Flynn effect means that IQ scores cannot be corrected with confidence and that in effect there is additional random error in scores on the order of approximately 0.3 of a point per year.”The issue of bias and fairness needs to be further questioned in relation to the scenario presented. Macgregor and Turner (2015) use Cleary's (1968) definition which “argues that tests are biased if they predict performance on a criterion measure differently for different groups; what is commonly called differential validity”. Concerns about bias are further highlighted by evidence of increases in social average IQ over time with changes in educational opportunities along with narrowing gaps between black and white IQ scores over time with improving socioeconomic conditions for Africans -Americans. (Neisser et al, 1995). The Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky (1985) argued that intelligence is social in origin and has the potential to develop throughout life. He thought that “language and thinking first appear in early interactions with parents and continue to develop through contact with teachers and others” (Neisser et al., 1996, p. 80). Alyeska (2010, p.1) cites an example of some elementary schools using the Wechsler Pre-school and Primary Scale of Intelligence, the Standford-Binet Intelligence Scales, and the Otis-Lennon School Ability Test to measure children's intelligence before they can be admitted to schools. These assessments, however, are intended to test the intelligence of four-year-olds so that it is not influenced by the person's socioeconomic conditions and cultural background. Alyeska further explains that administering IQ tests to very young children does not exclude the influence of socio-cultural influences that can influence the test results. There is also no indication whether the candidate spoke English as a first language or as an additional language, which would also impact decisions on appropriate assessment. Neisser et al (1996, p.96) note that "the average intelligence test scores of Hispanic Americans are slightly lower than those of whites, in part because Hispanics are often less familiar with English." Coard (1971), as cited in Macgregor and Turner (2015), stated that IQ tests were uniquely representative of white, middle-class males, as the vocabulary and style of the test were inaccessible to different races and cultures. Another example used by Neisser et al highlights that female shoppers in California who had no difficulty comparing product values ​​at the supermarket were unable to perform the same mathematical operations in paper-and-pencil tasks (Lave, 1998). We know that the candidate is a woman, and although the 1996 APA (cited in Macgregor and Turner (2015)) did not indicate major sex differences, substantial differences appear for specific abilities. Since there is no evidence on the tests administered, it may be possible that the assessment focused on visual-spatial skills and mathematical skills, typically rated higher by males. Although the socio-economic and/or cultural background of the candidate is not indicated, it should be considered that the test originally administered may have been inaccessible to males. male subjects. and did not provide an accurate representation of her intelligence or abilities. At the time of the assessment, the candidate indicated that she was experiencing significant stress at home cited by MacGregor and Turner (2015), Thorndike concluded in his.”