Can any one tell me whether or not the scoring systems are the same world over? I mean, if you get 130 in USA is that the same as getting 130 in Hong Kong? I am specifically referring to those tests administered by psychologists, not internet dealies who's authority I have already called into question.
it depends on the questions asked - i score much higher if a test is weighted towards visual/linguistic problems than if it is weighted towards more mathematical ones.
Also some tests give you a a certain amount of time before automatically moving you on to the next question and then I lose out on the maths questions - if there is a set time for the whole test then i can use extra time on the maths and rattle through the visual/linguistic stuff ....
Well Mrs. Shewolf: You Texas girls sure know how to throw a barbeque! Make it seem like a MENSA hoot! Rub yer big ol IQ's in the boys faces! Quote Teresa Heinz's latest unprintable epithet! **** Howdy!
Have't had this much fun since the pigs ate the last Republican!
dauer, a 20 point difference between verbal and performance I.Q.s on the most widely used, individually administered, intelligence test (WAIS III) is statistically significant. It does indicate relatively poorer cognitive functioning in non verbal areas, which could be due to a whole host of factors. As has already been pointed out, if you are still in the Superior range in terms of non-verbal functioning, you have very little to worry about.
fortune, I.Q. tests are constructed to yield a normal curve (a bell shaped distribution) on the assumption that intelligence is normally distributed in the population. Most people will score in the middle of that distribution, because that is how the test is standardized.
Absolute score matters less than where you fall in the distribution of all scores. Your score is interpreted by how close to the mean (center of the distribution) you are. If your score deviates from the mean by a certain amount, you will be considered Bright Average, Superior or Very Superior, or Low Average, Borderline, or Extremely Low. In other words, your intelligence is measured relative to the scores of all other people, so the range you fall into matters more than absolute numbers. Most people will be Average.
Intelligence tests are rather culture specific, because you are evaluating people in terms of how they compare with others in their own cultural group. So, tests used in the U.S., for instance, are standardized on a U.S. population, and would really be valid only for that group. An I.Q. of 130 on a U.S. test might, or might not equate with a score of 130 on an I.Q. test used elsewhere. For one thing, the tests might be very different.
Intelligence tests do not just measure innate ability. A great deal of what is measured is learned behavior. That's why these tests are culture specific.
Any group test, including those you find on the internet, is considerably less valid and reliable than a test which is individually administered and scored by a psychologist. Take internet test results with a grain of salt, for fun and amusement.
Okie dokie. As I was a small child at the time, I have difficulty in remembering the details of the test which was administered to me (actually all I can remember is reciting strings of numbers backwards) I had therefor not considered the cultural specificness of the test, thanks much for the info.
Very well stated, firefly!
IQ tests from/in different countries can be compared, if they are done under the same 'rules' = same kind of tests.
Let me clarify. I do have a learning disability. This is one of the few things I do remember from results to a test I had when I was about 12. The results weren't always discussed with me.
They told me that if the scores were to be divided up further, that is performance into 7 or so scores and verbal into 7 or so scores that most of my performance scores would be quite high but that a few would be in the 90s or perhaps lower.
So I've been passively looking on and off for the full results for a while now. What I really want to know is how this particular LD might be effecting my performance so that I can put more effort into that area as it pertains to my day-to-day activities.
I doubt anyone can help me with info this limited, but I'm putting it out there anyway. At least it's an example of a less seen scoring in test results.
Dauer
dauer, if you did have a LD you would likely be already aware of how it affected your functioning in certain areas. The fact that you aren't aware of a "disability" in any areas of functioning really suggests that any relative weaknesses you might have really don't influence your overall abilities to any great extent.
Even if you were to find a copy of your old test results and ask a psychologist to explain your scores to you, I'm not sure you would gain any meaningful information. Let's suppose you were relatively weak in areas of non-verbal spatial reasoning at the age of twelve. You might or might not show that same weakness at this point in your life.
While overall intellectual functioning, as measured by individually administered I.Q. tests, tends to be fairly reliable over time (meaning that retesting generally shows full scale I.Q. within the same range as was previously obtained), that does not necessarily hold true for the individual sub-test scores which make up the full scale sore. The individual sub-test scores can show much more variability over time. An attention deficit, for instance, might affect scores on timed tests when one is young, but, at a later point in that person's life, that deficit might no longer be present and the test scores might be higher.
I wouldn't worry about trying to put extra effort into certain areas of your life to try to compensate for those past lower test scores. I.Q. tests are useful for schools who must plan remedial programs for students with learning disabilities who might require alternate methods of instruction or different classroom settings. But these same scores really aren't useful to the individuals involved, since potential improvement might not occur as the result of increased practice in certain areas, and it might never occur at all, depending on the underlying causal factors for the cognitive deficit.
Actually, I don't think you should be concerned about your I.Q. score at all. We all have strengths and weaknesses in every area of our functioning, and not just cognitive areas. A great swimmer might not be a very good baseball player, a great novelist might have problems with math.
No one is perfect. Don't knock yourself out demanding perfection from yourself in all areas. Be proud of what you can do well and accept the fact you might not be terrific at everything. We live in very complex social environments. Far more than certain I.Q. scores are necessary for success and happiness and satisfaction. An I.Q. score is nothing more than a score on a particular test given on a particular day in a person's life. It shouldn't really mean any more than that to the person who takes the test.
I have no idea what my I.Q. score is, and I couldn't care less. I know I am much better at some things than other things, and I can learn and understand some types of things much better than others. Knowing my I.Q. test scores wouldn't alter my life, or my self perception, at all.
If you are really still concerned about those old test scores, Dauer, make an appointment with a psychologist and have the test repeated. That might, or might not, answer your questions, but at least you could discuss the current results with a psychologist and get a better understanding of what they mean.
Thanks for taking the time to type that, firefly. That was helpful.
IQ scores can be subjective to many things, as are people. You have to be IN THE MOOD to take the test and we have to keep in mind some of our brightest people don't test well either.
I will say my curiosity managed to get the better of me about four years ago and I took an online test. I didn't trust the results. On that test I scored a 142--which I thought was too high to be truthful. No, I'm not dumb, but that's a pretty good score by any standard. I thought it was a fluke. So I contacted a professor at a local college and requested how a regular IQ test could be administered. He was gracious and had me come in with another group they were testing. I'll tell you it worried me to pieces. Then those results were even higher, a 156.
Afterwards, I gave it some thought and realized that it doesn't really matter WHAT your score is. You have to live with yourself day in and day out. Your cognitive skills are what help you navigate this world. Some breeze through it without any struggles and it doesn't take an enormous IQ to do it. Most with a good sense of self and commonsense manage better than the gifted.
I think finding the right balance it best. I wish we all could find that.
Good post, I cheerfully agree, AWaves.
