Jump to content

Menu

s/o: correlation between IQ and being good at test-taking?


Recommended Posts

I was lying in bed last night thinking about all the recent discussions about genius/giftedness/IQ scores. Doesn't it seem like someone who tests well would do better on an IQ test? So does the test really test IQ or does it test how well you take tests? I also saw someone posted that you could assume an IQ over 130 if you had scored over 1250 on the pre-1994 SAT. But again, isn't that just a matter of testing well?

 

What if someone has a high IQ but doesn't test well? Or someone has an average IQ but does test well? How do we know that we are not just measuring test-taking skills???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dusting off the cobwebs from when I took Ed. Psych in college ...

 

It is my understanding that it depends on how the test is administered. Some IQ tests are pencil and paper tests and this would probably correlate highly to test-taking skills. However, the better IQ tests are administered in a one-on-one setting that is not so "test-like" and would be a better assessment of intelligence and not just test-taking skills. That said, some IQ tests are more achievement tests than intelligence tests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dusting off the cobwebs from when I took Ed. Psych in college ...

 

It is my understanding that it depends on how the test is administered. Some IQ tests are pencil and paper tests and this would probably correlate highly to test-taking skills. However, the better IQ tests are administered in a one-on-one setting that is not so "test-like" and would be a better assessment of intelligence and not just test-taking skills. That said, some IQ tests are more achievement tests than intelligence tests.

 

The testee would have to be comfortable in the one-on-one setting though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love taking tests. I love the challenge of remembering the information, though I must say I don't retain much of the information stuffed in my head. :D I wish I could say I'm gifted, but I don't score in that IQ range. My coursework was okay. My test grades were the key to keeping my GPA to a high 'B'.

 

I scored very low on the SAT. I didn't take the test until 2 years after I graduated from (a very poor) high school. In fact, I'm embarrassed to post my score. The SAT test was a very different test from regular class tests, including the tests I had in college courses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know plenty of bright people who for whatever reason do not do well on standardized tests like the SAT.

 

I can't think of anybody I know who did significantly better on standardized tests than I would've expected based on my opinion of their intelligence.

 

My mom's older sister apparently hid her brains in high school in mid-1960's small-town Ohio. She was a cheerleader and part of the "in" crowd. Everyone was shocked when she got a perfect score on the ACT.

 

However, she went on to be Phi Beta Kappa in college, was one of a handful of women in her MBA class at Columbia, and has had a successful career in banking (she currently holds a senior position at the World Bank).

 

Those who knew my mom's family shouldn't have been surprised that my aunt was brighter than she let on as a teen. Both my grandparents had PhD's from Harvard/Radcliffe, and both of my uncles had attended prestigious boarding schools (Exeter and St. Mark's).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dusting off the cobwebs from when I took Ed. Psych in college ...

 

It is my understanding that it depends on how the test is administered. Some IQ tests are pencil and paper tests and this would probably correlate highly to test-taking skills. However, the better IQ tests are administered in a one-on-one setting that is not so "test-like" and would be a better assessment of intelligence and not just test-taking skills. That said, some IQ tests are more achievement tests than intelligence tests.

 

 

:iagree:This is what I remember from my Psych. Assessment class in college, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's pretty much already been proven that IQ tests don't really measure IQ.

 

For example, if you give a middle easterner an IQ test that is timed, they'll do horrible on it. But if you give the same middle easterner the same test, but UNtimed, they'll do better than many westerners. The reason: middle eastern culture is very against time keeping. It frustrats them and they do not like it, and it is counter to their entire culture of taking time do to things well. So, if you give them a timed test, you completely mess up their concentration.

 

During WWI (I think it was) they tested men coming into the military for their IQ. The black men did worse than the white men. BUT WAIT. It was the SOUTHERN black men who did worse than the NORTHERN white men. When you compared southern against southern (regardless of black or white) they were the same. And northerner against northerner, again--the same. On the whole, all the southerners did worse than all the northerners, regardless of color. It was because the northern schools were better.

 

Which leads to the fact that you can actually raise someone's IQ by preparing them for the test. So, obviously, if you raise the IQ with preparation for the test, you are NOT testing their innate IQ. You're testing how well they test.

 

IQ tests are fallable. And I wish they weren't, because I have a very high score on an IQ test...but I take tests very well. It's just something I can naturally do. I don't have any learning disabilities or ADD or anything. I enjoy sitting quietly listening to lectures. I enjoy taking a test. Therefore, I do well on tests, even IQ tests. So, I try to be very humble about my IQ score, because I suspect that a lot of it has to do with my personality and test taking skills.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that SAT scores have anything to do with IQ. You can be a genius but only take basic math in school. If you don't have the upper level math classes, you will not test well on the SAT math test. That has nothing to do with IQ.

 

Same is true for the IQ test. Someone who has been taught upper level math may have a high SAT score in math, but still have a lower IQ.

 

 

They are two very different tests and measure two different things. There is no correlation between the results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you don't have the upper level math classes, you will not test well on the SAT math test. That has nothing to do with IQ.

 

 

 

Well, as we've discussed on these boards, there are seventh graders every year who have not studied upper level math yet and still do well on the SAT math test. Is that because they have high IQs or because they are good at taking tests? Both? Neither?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, as we've discussed on these boards, there are seventh graders every year who have not studied upper level math yet and still do well on the SAT math test. Is that because they have high IQs or because they are good at taking tests? Both? Neither?

 

Good test takers. DS15 is one of them. He can take a test on material he doesn't know and get a large portion of it correct. He is a good guesser on open ended tests/intuitive tests and will test much higher than his true level. Math is unique, because sometimes you don't have to solve the problem to see if the answer is logical. He is one of those people who just 'gets' numbers. It doesn't have anything to do with his IQ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IQ tests are fallable. And I wish they weren't, because I have a very high score on an IQ test...but I take tests very well. It's just something I can naturally do. I don't have any learning disabilities or ADD or anything. I enjoy sitting quietly listening to lectures. I enjoy taking a test. Therefore, I do well on tests, even IQ tests. So, I try to be very humble about my IQ score, because I suspect that a lot of it has to do with my personality and test taking skills.

:iagree: My IQ is up there, too, but I've never put much stock in it because I read fast and test well. If I had to take a one-on-one test, I would fail miserably, thanks to my social anxiety. There are so many variables that I just don't think we can measure intelligence accurately with the technology available now. And really, I don't much see the point in it, anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How did they determine it?

 

It was the standardized test administered by the military. He also took another towards the end of college with same results. He took the SAT when he was 17 and not very motivated though so that might explain the low score on it. In any case, he is pretty smart. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, as we've discussed on these boards, there are seventh graders every year who have not studied upper level math yet and still do well on the SAT math test. Is that because they have high IQs or because they are good at taking tests? Both? Neither?

 

They do well for 7th/8th graders. They do not do as well as students who are juniors or seniors and have the math.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that SAT scores have anything to do with IQ. You can be a genius but only take basic math in school. If you don't have the upper level math classes, you will not test well on the SAT math test. That has nothing to do with IQ.

 

Same is true for the IQ test. Someone who has been taught upper level math may have a high SAT score in math, but still have a lower IQ.

 

They are two very different tests and measure two different things. There is no correlation between the results.

 

:iagree:

 

For example: That chart did not give my IQ correctly for my SAT score, as it gave me a higher score than I have. I had an excellent education, though, so my SAT was probably higher than most with my same IQ.

 

I can see that the chart gives a rough correlation, maybe, but IQ and SAT measure two different things. Getting an IQ score off of a standardized test or an achievement test is not going to be 100% accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They do well for 7th/8th graders. They do not do as well as students who are juniors or seniors and have the math.

 

 

I took the SAT in 7th grade and scored a 470 on the math. I looked up the average SAT math score for high school students for that year and for girls the average was 478. So I got an average score on the SAT with no higher math at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least in the past (when I was young) most IQ tests were administered to K through 2nd graders. Kids back then usually hadn't developed 'test-taking' skills yet. I think there is sometimes a cluster or overlapping skills, but it doesn't necessarily mean that one causes the other. Kids with high IQ may also happen to have good test taking skills.

 

I think the difference between a kid with an average IQ with good test taking skills vs a high IQ is the ability to learn information quickly. High IQ kids learn things in leaps and bounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good test takers. DS15 is one of them. He can take a test on material he doesn't know and get a large portion of it correct. He is a good guesser on open ended tests/intuitive tests and will test much higher than his true level. Math is unique, because sometimes you don't have to solve the problem to see if the answer is logical. He is one of those people who just 'gets' numbers. It doesn't have anything to do with his IQ.

 

I've been trying to formulate something along these lines.

 

I often hear "so and so is brilliant: he is a mathematical wizard". Yet, in my mind, that doesn't necessarily translate into brilliancy - it translates into one of a couple of things: rote memorization on a very high scale (think: Rain Main counting cards in Vegas) or pattern discernment (as most mathematics is simply patterning, and if one is adept at certain types patterns, one "gets" math).

 

I have met people who are extremely adept at the patterning necessary for languages (polyglots) yet are completely stumped by mathematical patterns. Or people who can "see" mathematical patterns, yet are unable to "see" scientific patterns (that one really baffles me, as I see them as one and the same). Or people who can see music and science, but not math.

 

Does anyone understand what I'm saying?

 

I have encountered the same thing with logic. People who can follow a logic trail in one field but not another. Which makes no sense, as logic is, well, LOGIC. (understanding, of course, that Aristotelian logic and mathematical logic are taught as two different fields).

 

When I hear "so and so is brilliant", my brain thinks of the Richard Feynman's of the world (math, science, music, philosophy - all on a plane that was just... UP there), not of Garry Kasparov (chess), who, while certainly the best at what he did, was, IMO, not that much different than the person who tests well. He did one thing, and he did it very well.

 

JMO

 

 

a

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The IQ tests that Calvin took were one-on-one conversations, not paper-and-pencil tests. It turns out that he is good at test taking, but the IQ assessment was in a different style.

 

Laura

 

That's how kid's test was, conversations, I mean.

 

 

a

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I test well. Always have. It got me some college scholarships which was good, considering my GPA of 2.78. :tongue_smilie:

During the one-on-one part of my IQ test, I failed some things miserably. First, the psychologist told my parents I could do anything I put my mind to, as long as it didn't involve working with my hands. There were these weird blocks, red on two sides, white on two others, and half white half red on the other two. I was given the blocks and pattern cards and told to reproduce the pictures with the blocks. She timed how long it took me to arrive at the answer. My time was so bad on most of them she just stopped me. I have zero spatial skills. Also, she remarked that I had done something she had never seen before: when given a group of cards with pictures that tell a story and asked to put them in logical order, I laid them down vertically instead of horizontally. She didn't know what to make of that. She even said so in her written report.

Again, my score had more to do with the fact that I was a reader than my intelligence. I do words, and my vocabulary got me the gifted label. I don't think, overall, I am that intelligent. You should see me try to do math...shudder...

t.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A bit off topic, maybe.... but my friend's husband was going to be a doctor. He has adult ADD or ADHD... they had a special training session (I am talking a 2 week course) that was specifically designed for people with ADD/ADHD to learn how to take the test to pass your boards. I know that he was going to go into neuroscience, got top marks on all his coursework etc. but could not pass the test. I find it interesting that they acknowledge some people can't do well on the testing and have devised a "method" for helping.

 

He finally gave up because it was torturous for him. He is a HG. I think being able to do well on tests doesn't mean much, except that you can do well on tests. However, the point is that you can always do worse on a test than you are capable, but rarely can you ever do better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I took the SAT in 7th grade and scored a 470 on the math. I looked up the average SAT math score for high school students for that year and for girls the average was 478. So I got an average score on the SAT with no higher math at all.

 

Yes, but what did you get as a high school student? That is the true comparison. The students who take it in 7th grade are not average students, so you cannot compare their scores to the average high school student. A 470 is not doing well (no offense) for a high school student.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A bit off topic, maybe.... but my friend's husband was going to be a doctor. He has adult ADD or ADHD... they had a special training session (I am talking a 2 week course) that was specifically designed for people with ADD/ADHD to learn how to take the test to pass your boards. I know that he was going to go into neuroscience, got top marks on all his coursework etc. but could not pass the test. I find it interesting that they acknowledge some people can't do well on the testing and have devised a "method" for helping.

 

He finally gave up because it was torturous for him. He is a HG. I think being able to do well on tests doesn't mean much, except that you can do well on tests. However, the point is that you can always do worse on a test than you are capable, but rarely can you ever do better.

 

98th percentile in science on my ACT in science, all Cs and Ds in high school science coursework.

 

All As and Bs in mathematics coursework, 48th percentile on ACT.

 

Standardized testing is BS.

 

I'll stick with someone trained to do a neuropsych eval as far as determining relative intelligence. :001_smile:

 

 

a

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Math is unique, because sometimes you don't have to solve the problem to see if the answer is logical. He is one of those people who just 'gets' numbers. It doesn't have anything to do with his IQ."

 

 

I actually believes it has a lot to do with IQ. My youngest just took the ACT. She scored better than her sister who is four years ahead of her in school on one part of the math. It was the part she has never encountered. She scores much better than you would expect with random choices. My kids are all gifted but they all have special talents in different areas. The youngest led her team in Odyssey of Mind to the highest points on the spontaneous problem which was hands-on and dealt with bridge-making.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was lying in bed last night thinking about all the recent discussions about genius/giftedness/IQ scores. Doesn't it seem like someone who tests well would do better on an IQ test? So does the test really test IQ or does it test how well you take tests? I also saw someone posted that you could assume an IQ over 130 if you had scored over 1250 on the pre-1994 SAT. But again, isn't that just a matter of testing well?

 

What if someone has a high IQ but doesn't test well? Or someone has an average IQ but does test well? How do we know that we are not just measuring test-taking skills???

 

IQ tests are administered one on one by professionals. While the professional works to establish rapport before the test, people with anxiety about testing will do worse than people who enjoy the challenge, even with the same innate intelligence. IQ should be somewhat correlated with standardized test scores, but one part--the processing part--is correlated with speed. Speed is a huge advantage in these test situations. You can certainly have a slow processing genius.

 

So it is true that IQ testing reflects environmental exposure to various types of tasks and that anxiety, etc. will affect it. That's always been a subject of debate with IQ testing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have met people who are extremely adept at the patterning necessary for languages (polyglots) yet are completely stumped by mathematical patterns. Or people who can "see" mathematical patterns, yet are unable to "see" scientific patterns (that one really baffles me, as I see them as one and the same). Or people who can see music and science, but not math.

 

Does anyone understand what I'm saying?

 

Yes, I do! I am like that with languages. I even passed a test once given by NSA to determine language aptitude. It had a nonsense language and you had to answer questions based on the information given about the languages rules.

 

Yet math patterns totally stump me. I'm trying to master math as I teach my 7th grader, but sometimes I'm really wracking my brains to figure things out. It makes me feel like an idiot. :tongue_smilie:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I do! I am like that with languages. I even passed a test once given by NSA to determine language aptitude. It had a nonsense language and you had to answer questions based on the information given about the languages rules.

Yet math patterns totally stump me. I'm trying to master math as I teach my 7th grader, but sometimes I'm really wracking my brains to figure things out. It makes me feel like an idiot. :tongue_smilie:

 

I took that test. Well, not at the NSA... I also passed. Wasn't it fascinating?

 

 

a

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I have met people who are extremely adept at the patterning necessary for languages (polyglots) yet are completely stumped by mathematical patterns. Or people who can "see" mathematical patterns, yet are unable to "see" scientific patterns (that one really baffles me, as I see them as one and the same). Or people who can see music and science, but not math.

 

Does anyone understand what I'm saying?

 

 

 

Yes, I have a whole page about it, patterns and learning from a Christian point of view:

 

http://www.thephonicspage.org/Other/onlearning.html

 

I was shocked when I found out that C.S. Lewis was bad at math, his writing and thinking is so analytical and clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...