Research on the concept and assessment of intelligence clearly indicates that there is no universal consensus. On the contrary, many theories and research have emerged and understanding continues to be studied 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 somewhat different definitions" . Some research suggests it is a single general ability, while others identify a range of skills and abilities. Added to disagreement over what constitutes intelligence is debate over what it is and how precise measurements are possible. Since the first intelligence tests carried out by Alfred Binet and Théodore Simon in France in 1905, which sought to identify students who were not learning effectively in the classroom, theorists and researchers have attempted to design psychometric tests capable of measuring and to effectively quantify cognitive abilities. Over time, the intelligence quotient (IQ) and many similar revised editions of intelligence tests have been used to support key decisions about how children and adults can be differentiated, categorized and supported. There are many types of intelligence tests involving a wide variety of tasks. Some tests consist of only one type of task; others contain a wide range of tasks with different content. This continues to spark debate and controversy over 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 intelligence theories, examine their impact on the particular scenario presented to me, and explain why I would consider the candidate's initial assessment to be unreliable. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essayBritish psychologist Charles Spearman is generally recognized as a major contributor to intelligence testing. He pioneered a way to measure and express intelligence digitally. He proposed the existence of a general intelligence factor “g”. Spearman performed the first formal factor analysis of correlations between various testing tasks. The concept of general ability comes from the “positive variety” (Macgregor & Turner, 2015) observed by Spearman. He observed a trend for all of these tests to correlate positively with each other. Spearman found that a single common factor explained the positive correlations between the tests. He interprets it as the core of human intelligence which influences the success of all cognitive tasks. This interpretation of “g” as a common cause of test performance is still dominant in psychometrics. According to Spearman, the second factor “ ” represented various specific abilities; abstract, verbal and numerical, on each test, “but these only interested him incidentally”. (Tager-Flusberg and Plesa-Skwerer, 2009) Spearman's theory of general intelligence has been much debated by later theorists. Even among proponents of the existence of a “g” factor, there is still no agreement on what it actually means. As Neisser et al (1996) pointed out, this was explained simply by statistical regularity (Thomson, 1939), 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 of Multiple Intelligences (1983), first proposed a theory of multiple intelligences (MI). Gardner was concerned that skills and abilities valued in one culture might not enjoy 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 intelligence elements, then added an eighth in 1988. 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 valued intelligence, based on verbal/mathematical intelligence and the view of fixed intelligence. Gardner's work continues to impact the work of educators and teaching practitioners. The theory of multiple intelligences advocates the implementation of educational approaches adapted to the multiple profiles of students. Gardner's theory has not been without criticism, particularly on its effectiveness in having too many constructs to measure, and on Sternberg's (1985) reference to his MI as talents rather than intelligence. Robert Sternberg (1985) proposed the triarchic model of intelligence. Li (1996, p. 37) argues that it is a “global, more comprehensive theory…. because it takes into account social and contextual factors other than human capabilities. His theory classifies intelligence into three parts: analytical, creative or synthetic, and practical. As Macgregor and Turner (2015) state, Sternberg's theory can be applied to student assessment and teaching and emphasizes matching instruction to an individual's strengths in each area. This is familiar to teaching practitioners in today's classrooms. Over time, the idea of ​​general "g" intelligence evolved into a hierarchy, with "g" at the top. Raymond Cattell's (1971) research led to the concepts of fluid and crystallized intelligence, with the theory developed further with John Horn. The Cattell-Horn theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence holds that intelligence is made up of different abilities that interact to produce overall individual intelligence. Crystallized intelligence refers to knowledge and skills acquired throughout life 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 later in adulthood. Crystallized intelligence, however, is directly linked to learning and experience, which tend to increase as people age. Perhaps the most influential theory in the study of human intelligence is the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory. This combined two theoretical models of intelligence previously established because of their similarities: the theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence (Cattell, 1941; Horn 1965) and Carroll's three strata theory (1993). Further extensions of the CHC model were developed in the 1990s. CHC presents a three-stratum model in which distinct differences in cognitive ability can be classified: Stratum I containing more than 70 narrow abilities, Stratum II with eight broad capacities and the third stratum of capacityglobal general “g”. The CHC ability domains are incorporated into contemporary intelligence batteries and typically represent five to seven of the broad abilities of fluid reasoning, understanding-knowledge, short-term memory, visuo-spatial processing, auditory processing, storage and long-term recovery, cognitive processing. speed, reading and writing and quantitative knowledge. Interestingly, CHC generates much debate about the distinction between ability and skills, including skills and competencies as narrow capabilities. Today, CHC theory provides the general basis for the most widely used intelligence tests. Given the available evidence on the candidate in the scenario presented, it should be fair to assume that her initial assessment was undertaken at a time when Spearman's model of psychometric testing was widely practiced. His intelligence had probably been assessed through a singular conceptual assessment given that it had taken place before the publications of Stenberg, Jardinier and Cattell–Horn–Carroll. His score at that time was most likely considered and reported as a fixed measure of cognitive abilities. It seems unlikely that any overall cognitive profile was considered or developed. As Jenny Webb and Simon Whitaker (British Psychological Society, 2012) argue, “the question is not what a person's IQ is, but whether they can cope, and that depends of what society as a whole would accept as a minimum standard. quality of life. » Questions of reliability and validity should be raised with the original assessment of this candidate. We have no evidence of any test offering standard samples, confidence intervals, or appropriate standardization. Webb and Whitaker (British Psychological Society, 2012) also raise the question of how accurately IQ can be measured in the low range, even using commonly used modern methods (WISC IV and WAIS-IV). There is no indication as to why the tests were conducted, which tests were used, and whether they were reviewed and evaluated as most appropriate for this particular candidate. Was this evaluation part of a hypothesis testing process? As Macgregor and Turner point out (Part 3 p. 24), we should ask whether a test explicitly focuses on aspects of development important for successful learning, rather than only highlighting weaknesses and limitations. In this case, it seems not. Later success in life highlights the unreliability of the concept of fixed intellect in this candidate and would support a fluid, crystallized intelligence that can change over time. It is claimed that her IQ was considered to be of such a low level that she was almost considered unsuitable for mainstream education. As asked by Webb and Whitaker (British Psychological Society, 2012), how useful are intelligence tests in enabling us to make judgments? or predictions about the nature or degree of support people need to achieve a good quality of life? Did the initial assessment demonstrate ecological utility or validity? Birch, Cline, and Gulliford (2015) state that knowing the IQ of a child with MLD or SLD does not provide the teacher with useful information about how the child will learn or have difficulty learning. Therefore, a low IQ score, despite any decision to access mainstream or other education, would have contributed very little to meeting this candidate's needs to develop her potential. In fact, this early labeling may haveeven subjected the candidate to bias in her subsequent learning and teaching experiences and perhaps had a long-term negative impact on her attitudes towards herself and her learning. Adey et al (2007) suggest that offering a low fixed ability score may potentially discourage teachers from trying to develop their potential. One might also ask how the initial score awarded to the examinee might reflect in the current context, given the phenomenon of the "Flynn Effect" whereby average IQs have increased by a full standard variation over the past 50 years, the winning rate can increase. (Neisser et al, 1996). As Webb and Whitaker (British Psychological Society, 2012) explain, “this uncertainty of the Flynn effect means that IQ scores cannot be corrected with confidence and that there is in fact additional random error in the scores of the order of approximately 0.3%. one point per year. » The question 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 prejudice are further highlighted by evidence that society's average IQ increases over time with changes in educational opportunities, alongside the narrowing gap between the IQ scores of blacks and of whites over time with the improvement of the socio-economic conditions of African 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 believed that “language and thought 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 the example of some elementary schools using the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Intelligence Scale, the Standford-Binet Intelligence Scales, and the Otis-Lennon Scholastic Aptitude Test to measure children's intelligence before they can be admitted. to schools. These assessments, however, aim to test the intelligence of four-year-olds in a way that is not affected by the person's socioeconomic conditions and cultural background. Alyeska further explains that administering IQ tests to very young children does not exclude sociocultural influence that can influence test results. There is also no indication as to 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 somewhat lower than those of Whites, in part because Hispanics are often less familiar with English." Coard (1971), mentioned in Macgregor and Turner (2015), claimed that IQ tests were uniquely representative of white, middle-class males because the vocabulary and style of the test were inaccessible to different races and cultures. Another example used by Neisser et al. shows that Californian customers who had no difficulty comparing product values ​​in 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 APA 1996 (cited in Macgregor and Turner (2015) indicates no significant differences between the.”