Pub Date : 2025-02-07DOI: 10.1016/j.intell.2024.101892
Jeffrey M. Cucina
Cognitive ability tests that measure general mental ability (g-tests) are among the best predictors of academic, training, and job performance. One disadvantage of g-tests is the potential for adverse impact due to subgroup differences on general mental ability (g). For many years, psychologists have searched for high-validity low-adverse impact alternatives to traditional g-loaded cognitive ability tests (g-tests). This paper explores the mathematical possibility of developing such a test based on the known characteristics of g-tests. It was discovered that superior replacements to g-tests cannot mathematically exist. This is due to the fact that adverse impact and subgroup differences occur primarily on g rather than the specific factors and unique variance that cognitive ability tests measure. The reliable non-g variance in most g-tests is too small to offset the subgroup differences in g-test scores that is attributable to g.
{"title":"Reconsidering the search for alternatives to general mental ability tests","authors":"Jeffrey M. Cucina","doi":"10.1016/j.intell.2024.101892","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.intell.2024.101892","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Cognitive ability tests that measure general mental ability (<em>g</em>-tests) are among the best predictors of academic, training, and job performance. One disadvantage of <em>g</em>-tests is the potential for adverse impact due to subgroup differences on general mental ability (<em>g</em>). For many years, psychologists have searched for high-validity low-adverse impact alternatives to traditional <em>g</em>-loaded cognitive ability tests (<em>g</em>-tests). This paper explores the mathematical possibility of developing such a test based on the known characteristics of <em>g</em>-tests. It was discovered that superior replacements to <em>g</em>-tests cannot mathematically exist. This is due to the fact that adverse impact and subgroup differences occur primarily on <em>g</em> rather than the specific factors and unique variance that cognitive ability tests measure. The reliable non-<em>g</em> variance in most <em>g</em>-tests is too small to offset the subgroup differences in <em>g</em>-test scores that is attributable to <em>g</em>.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":13862,"journal":{"name":"Intelligence","volume":"109 ","pages":"Article 101892"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2025-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143350088","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-01-27DOI: 10.1016/j.intell.2024.101897
Joseph Lee Rodgers , Linda Wänström , Siew Ang
Previous research has demonstrated the existence of a Flynn effect in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth Children (NLSYC) responses to the PIAT-Math instrument. The PIAT-Math is at least partially linked to fluid intelligence, whereas other scales in the NLSYC – PIAT-Reading Recognition, PIAT-Reading Comprehension, the PPVT, and Digit Span – are primarily based on crystallized intelligence; these scales showed little or no Flynn effect in the NLSYC. We put the 84 PIAT-Math items “under the microscope” by evaluating the Flynn effect in relation to each item, and measured the Flynn effect by computing a slope across birth-year cohorts, using nine different age replications. Following, we use expert ratings of the items on eight different features – visual matching, recall/memory, computation/estimation, spatial visualization, real-world reasoning, manipulation of geometry, solving algebra, and counting – to identify what features are important in producing the Flynn effect. The highest correlations obtain for the links between the Flynn effect and the features real-world reasoning, counting and computation/estimation. There is a negative correlation between item-level Flynn effects and the features manipulation of geometry, solving algebra, and recall/memory. These results support previous findings ephasizing the role that fluid intelligence plays in relation to the Flynn effect.
{"title":"Putting the Flynn effect under the microscope: Item-level patterns in NLSYC PIAT-math scores, 1986–2004","authors":"Joseph Lee Rodgers , Linda Wänström , Siew Ang","doi":"10.1016/j.intell.2024.101897","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.intell.2024.101897","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Previous research has demonstrated the existence of a Flynn effect in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth Children (NLSYC) responses to the PIAT-Math instrument. The PIAT-Math is at least partially linked to fluid intelligence, whereas other scales in the NLSYC – PIAT-Reading Recognition, PIAT-Reading Comprehension, the PPVT, and Digit Span – are primarily based on crystallized intelligence; these scales showed little or no Flynn effect in the NLSYC. We put the 84 PIAT-Math items “under the microscope” by evaluating the Flynn effect in relation to each item, and measured the Flynn effect by computing a slope across birth-year cohorts, using nine different age replications. Following, we use expert ratings of the items on eight different features – visual matching, recall/memory, computation/estimation, spatial visualization, real-world reasoning, manipulation of geometry, solving algebra, and counting – to identify what features are important in producing the Flynn effect. The highest correlations obtain for the links between the Flynn effect and the features real-world reasoning, counting and computation/estimation. There is a negative correlation between item-level Flynn effects and the features manipulation of geometry, solving algebra, and recall/memory. These results support previous findings ephasizing the role that fluid intelligence plays in relation to the Flynn effect.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":13862,"journal":{"name":"Intelligence","volume":"109 ","pages":"Article 101897"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2025-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143130567","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-01-01DOI: 10.1016/j.intell.2024.101880
Gilles E. Gignac
The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI), including large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and Mistral, along with specialized tools such as Google DeepMind's AlphaFold 3, is transforming the scientific discovery process. These advancements raise questions about attribution in scientific research, challenging traditional notions about the origins of discovery and the roles of human and machine collaboration. Anonymous surveys indicate that 50 to 70% of academics involved in research use AI tools. Yet, an analysis of 568 articles from three psychology Elsevier journals revealed that approximately 3.5% of these articles published since mid-2023 included an AI declaration. The reluctance of researchers to use or acknowledge AI tools can hinder scientific progress by promoting a culture wary of AI, slowing tool adoption, and limiting shared learning about their uses and limitations. Researchers are encouraged to use AI tools responsibly and detail such use in their acknowledgements to help foster a culture of transparency and innovation in scientific research.
{"title":"The AI attribution gap: Encouraging transparent acknowledgment in the age of AI","authors":"Gilles E. Gignac","doi":"10.1016/j.intell.2024.101880","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.intell.2024.101880","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI), including large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and Mistral, along with specialized tools such as Google DeepMind's AlphaFold 3, is transforming the scientific discovery process. These advancements raise questions about attribution in scientific research, challenging traditional notions about the origins of discovery and the roles of human and machine collaboration. Anonymous surveys indicate that 50 to 70% of academics involved in research use AI tools. Yet, an analysis of 568 articles from three psychology Elsevier journals revealed that approximately 3.5% of these articles published since mid-2023 included an AI declaration. The reluctance of researchers to use or acknowledge AI tools can hinder scientific progress by promoting a culture wary of AI, slowing tool adoption, and limiting shared learning about their uses and limitations. Researchers are encouraged to use AI tools responsibly and detail such use in their acknowledgements to help foster a culture of transparency and innovation in scientific research.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":13862,"journal":{"name":"Intelligence","volume":"108 ","pages":"Article 101880"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143180143","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-01-01DOI: 10.1016/j.intell.2024.101879
Michael A. Woodley of Menie , Mateo Peñaherrera-Aguirre , Aurelio-José Figueredo , Geoffrey F. Miller , Thomas R. Coyle , Noah Carl , Fróði Debes , Craig L. Frisby , Federico R. Léon , Guy Madison , Heiner Rindermann
We make the case that Bird, Jackson Jr., and Winston's (BJ&W; 2024) policy proposals boil down to a rejection of Merton's (1942) traditional scientific norms of communality, universalism, disinterestedness, and organized skepticism, and a demand for anti-Mertonian norms to be imposed, top down, upon psychological science. Their anti-Mertonian norms (specifically secrecy, particularism, interestedness, and organized dogmatism) are at odds with the scientific ethos. We highlight problems with their argument that Racial Hereditarian Research (RHR) is uniquely "socially pernicious". We then discuss adverse effects that their imposition of anti-Mertonian norms would likely cause in relation to: 1) instances of research on racial and ethnic differences that have produced findings agreeable to egalitarianism, and which would be proscribed under their framework; 2) the fomenting of genuinely scientifically racist beliefs that are empirically at odds with RHR; and 3) the chilling effect on other areas of science whose findings have also been misused, including “mainstream human genetics”. Ultimately, we observe that BJ&W's anti-Mertonian policy prescriptions are unworkable in practice, and would be highly damaging to psychological science if widely enforced.
{"title":"Anti-Mertonian norms undermine the scientific ethos: A critique of Bird, Jackson Jr., and Winston's policy proposals and associated justification","authors":"Michael A. Woodley of Menie , Mateo Peñaherrera-Aguirre , Aurelio-José Figueredo , Geoffrey F. Miller , Thomas R. Coyle , Noah Carl , Fróði Debes , Craig L. Frisby , Federico R. Léon , Guy Madison , Heiner Rindermann","doi":"10.1016/j.intell.2024.101879","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.intell.2024.101879","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>We make the case that Bird, Jackson Jr., and Winston's (BJ&W; 2024) policy proposals boil down to a rejection of Merton's (1942) traditional scientific norms of communality, universalism, disinterestedness, and organized skepticism, and a demand for anti-Mertonian norms to be imposed, top down, upon psychological science. Their anti-Mertonian norms (specifically secrecy, particularism, interestedness, and organized dogmatism) are at odds with the scientific ethos. We highlight problems with their argument that Racial Hereditarian Research (RHR) is uniquely \"socially pernicious\". We then discuss adverse effects that their imposition of anti-Mertonian norms would likely cause in relation to: 1) instances of research on racial and ethnic differences that have produced findings agreeable to egalitarianism, and which would be proscribed under their framework; 2) the fomenting of genuinely scientifically racist beliefs that are empirically at odds with RHR; and 3) the chilling effect on other areas of science whose findings have also been misused, including “mainstream human genetics”. Ultimately, we observe that BJ&W's anti-Mertonian policy prescriptions are unworkable in practice, and would be highly damaging to psychological science if widely enforced.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":13862,"journal":{"name":"Intelligence","volume":"108 ","pages":"Article 101879"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143180676","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-01-01DOI: 10.1016/j.intell.2024.101876
Tobias Edwards , Christopher T. Dawes , Emily A. Willoughby , Matt McGue , James J. Lee
Measures of intelligence predict socio-political attitudes and behaviors, such as liberalism, religiosity, and voter turnout. Little, however, is known about which cognitive abilities are responsible for these relationships. Employing several cohorts from the Minnesota Center for Twin and Family Research, we test the predictive performance of different broad abilities. Using multiple regression to compare verbal and performance IQ from Wechsler intelligence tests, we find verbal IQ more strongly predicts voter turnout, civic engagement, traditionalism, and measures of ideology. On average, the correlation between verbal IQ and our socio-political attitudes is twice as large as that of performance IQ. The same pattern appears after controlling for education and after performing the analysis within sibling pairs. This implies that the relationship cannot be entirely mediated through education, nor entirely confounded by upbringing. Positive and negative controls are employed to test the validity of our methodology. Importantly, we find verbal and performance IQ to be equally predictive of the ICAR-16, a distinct measure of general intelligence. The results imply that variation in cognitive abilities, which are orthogonal to general intelligence, influence socio-political attitudes and behaviors. The role of verbal ability in influencing attitudes may help to explain the ideological leanings of specific occupations. Its association with turnout and civic engagement suggests that those with a verbal tilt may have greater influence over politics and society.
智力指标可以预测社会政治态度和行为，如自由主义、宗教信仰和选民投票率。然而，对于哪些认知能力导致了这些关系，我们知之甚少。我们从明尼苏达双胞胎和家庭研究中心（Minnesota Center for Twin and Family Research）招募了几个队列，测试了不同广义能力的预测性能。通过多元回归比较韦氏智力测验的语言智商和表现智商，我们发现语言智商更能预测选民投票率、公民参与度、传统主义和意识形态。平均而言，语言智商和我们的社会政治态度之间的相关性是表现智商的两倍。在控制了受教育程度和对兄弟姐妹进行分析之后，同样的模式出现了。这意味着这种关系不能完全通过教育来调解，也不能完全被教养所混淆。采用正对照和负对照来检验我们方法的有效性。重要的是，我们发现语言和表现智商同样可以预测ICAR-16，这是一种独特的一般智力衡量标准。结果表明，认知能力的变化（与一般智力正交）影响社会政治态度和行为。语言能力在影响态度中的作用可能有助于解释特定职业的意识形态倾向。它与投票率和公民参与的关系表明，那些口头倾向的人可能对政治和社会有更大的影响力。
{"title":"More than g: Verbal and performance IQ as predictors of socio-political attitudes","authors":"Tobias Edwards , Christopher T. Dawes , Emily A. Willoughby , Matt McGue , James J. Lee","doi":"10.1016/j.intell.2024.101876","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.intell.2024.101876","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Measures of intelligence predict socio-political attitudes and behaviors, such as liberalism, religiosity, and voter turnout. Little, however, is known about which cognitive abilities are responsible for these relationships. Employing several cohorts from the Minnesota Center for Twin and Family Research, we test the predictive performance of different broad abilities. Using multiple regression to compare verbal and performance IQ from Wechsler intelligence tests, we find verbal IQ more strongly predicts voter turnout, civic engagement, traditionalism, and measures of ideology. On average, the correlation between verbal IQ and our socio-political attitudes is twice as large as that of performance IQ. The same pattern appears after controlling for education and after performing the analysis within sibling pairs. This implies that the relationship cannot be entirely mediated through education, nor entirely confounded by upbringing. Positive and negative controls are employed to test the validity of our methodology. Importantly, we find verbal and performance IQ to be equally predictive of the ICAR-16, a distinct measure of general intelligence. The results imply that variation in cognitive abilities, which are orthogonal to general intelligence, influence socio-political attitudes and behaviors. The role of verbal ability in influencing attitudes may help to explain the ideological leanings of specific occupations. Its association with turnout and civic engagement suggests that those with a verbal tilt may have greater influence over politics and society.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":13862,"journal":{"name":"Intelligence","volume":"108 ","pages":"Article 101876"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143180677","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-01-01DOI: 10.1016/j.intell.2024.101878
Michael A. Woodley of Menie , Mateo Peñaherrera-Aguirre , Aurelio-José Figueredo , Geoffrey F. Miller , Thomas R. Coyle , Noah Carl , Fróði Debes , Craig L. Frisby , Federico R. Léon , Guy Madison , Heiner Rindermann
Bird, Jackson Jr., and Winston (BJ&W; 2024) argue that a “racial hereditarian research” (RHR) program exists, is prominently represented in academic literature, and is socially harmful as it supports “scientific racism” and emboldens the far-right. Consequently, drastic steps should be taken by the American Psychological Association to curb its production. They support these claims with a bibliography of alleged RHR publications and other outputs appearing from 2012 on. To determine the validity of their claims, we conducted a content meta-analysis of the 268 peer-reviewed articles (excluding editorials, book reviews, etc.) listed in Section 1 of their bibliography. These were independently rated using the following dimensions (as explicated by BJ&W): (1) use of “folk” racial categories; (2) biological race realism; (3) claims that differences between “races” are due to selection and/or genetic factors - these being the core of BJ&W's definition of RHR. Additional criteria were: (4) discussion of racial “proxy” categories (e.g., nations); and (5) degree of interest shown in the articles by one White nationalist publication. Inter-rater reliability was acceptable (ICC3,k = 0.711, 95% CI = 0.633, 0.773). A Content factor was identified among the averaged ratings exhibiting strong positive loadings for 1, 2, and 3 (indicating an RHR program), but a significant negative loading for 4 (indicating that nations, etc. tend not to be employed as racial proxies, but are typically used rather than race in such studies), and a null loading for 5. The last result (along with consideration of data presented elsewhere in the bibliography) counteracts the idea that RHR constitutes “scientific racism”, or supports White nationalism. Only 23 % of the publications unambiguously (based on 100 % convergence between raters for 1, 2, and 3) qualify as RHR, with the plurality (37 %) appearing in one niche journal, consistent with strong scientific taboos against RHR. Moreover, 30% of the publications unambiguously had nothing to do with RHR. BJ&W's characterisation of their bibliography as evidencing wide scale “scientific racism” is therefore not compellingly supported by its contents.
伯德、小杰克逊和温斯顿(BJ&；W；2024年)认为，“种族遗传研究”（RHR）项目存在，在学术文献中占有突出地位，并且对社会有害，因为它支持“科学种族主义”并鼓励极右翼。因此，美国心理协会应该采取严厉措施来遏制其产生。他们提供了一份从2012年起出现的所谓RHR出版物和其他产出的参考书目来支持这些说法。为了确定他们观点的有效性，我们对参考书目第一节中列出的268篇同行评议文章（不包括社论、书评等）进行了内容荟萃分析。使用以下维度（如BJ&；W所解释）对这些进行独立评级：(1)使用“民间”种族类别；(2)生物种族现实主义；(3)声称“种族”之间的差异是由于选择和/或遗传因素造成的——这些是BJ&；W对RHR定义的核心。其他标准有：(4)讨论种族“代理”类别（如国家）；(5)一份白人民族主义出版物的文章所显示的兴趣程度。评估间信度可接受（ICC3,k = 0.711, 95% CI = 0.633, 0.773）。在1、2和3的平均评分中发现了一个内容因子，显示出强烈的正负载（表明RHR计划），但在4的平均评分中发现了一个显著的负负载（表明国家等倾向于不被用作种族代理，但通常在此类研究中使用而不是种族），而在5的平均评分中发现了零负载。最后一个结果（连同参考书目中其他地方提供的数据）抵消了RHR构成“科学种族主义”或支持白人民族主义的观点。只有23%的出版物明确地（基于1、2和3评分者之间100%的趋同）符合RHR，其中多数（37%）出现在一个小众期刊上，与反对RHR的强烈科学禁忌相一致。此外，30%的出版物明确表示与RHR无关。bj&&w将其参考书目描述为大规模“科学种族主义”的证据，因此其内容无法令人信服地支持。
{"title":"Content meta-analysis of a racial hereditarian research “bibliography” reveals minimal support for Bird, Jackson Jr., and Winston's model of “scientific racism”","authors":"Michael A. Woodley of Menie , Mateo Peñaherrera-Aguirre , Aurelio-José Figueredo , Geoffrey F. Miller , Thomas R. Coyle , Noah Carl , Fróði Debes , Craig L. Frisby , Federico R. Léon , Guy Madison , Heiner Rindermann","doi":"10.1016/j.intell.2024.101878","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.intell.2024.101878","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Bird, Jackson Jr., and Winston (BJ&W; 2024) argue that a “racial hereditarian research” (RHR) program exists, is prominently represented in academic literature, and is socially harmful as it supports “scientific racism” and emboldens the far-right. Consequently, drastic steps should be taken by the American Psychological Association to curb its production. They support these claims with a bibliography of alleged RHR publications and other outputs appearing from 2012 on. To determine the validity of their claims, we conducted a content meta-analysis of the 268 peer-reviewed articles (excluding editorials, book reviews, etc.) listed in Section 1 of their bibliography. These were independently rated using the following dimensions (as explicated by BJ&W): (1) use of “folk” racial categories; (2) biological race realism; (3) claims that differences between “races” are due to selection and/or genetic factors - these being the core of BJ&W's definition of RHR. Additional criteria were: (4) discussion of racial “proxy” categories (e.g., nations); and (5) degree of interest shown in the articles by one White nationalist publication. Inter-rater reliability was acceptable (<em>ICC</em><sub><em>3,k</em></sub> = 0.711, 95% CI = 0.633, 0.773). A <em>Content factor</em> was identified among the averaged ratings exhibiting strong positive loadings for 1, 2, and 3 (indicating an RHR program), but a significant negative loading for 4 (indicating that nations, etc. tend not to be employed as racial proxies, but are typically used rather than race in such studies), and a null loading for 5. The last result (along with consideration of data presented elsewhere in the bibliography) counteracts the idea that RHR constitutes “scientific racism”, or supports White nationalism. Only 23 % of the publications unambiguously (based on 100 % convergence between raters for 1, 2, and 3) qualify as RHR, with the plurality (37 %) appearing in one niche journal, consistent with strong scientific taboos against RHR. Moreover, 30% of the publications unambiguously had nothing to do with RHR. BJ&W's characterisation of their bibliography as evidencing wide scale “scientific racism” is therefore not compellingly supported by its contents.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":13862,"journal":{"name":"Intelligence","volume":"108 ","pages":"Article 101878"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143180679","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-01-01DOI: 10.1016/j.intell.2024.101893
Markus Sommer , Martin E. Arendasy , Joachim Fritz Punter , Martina Feldhammer-Kahr , Anita Rieder
The finding that admission test performance correlates with parents' level of educational attainment raised concerns regarding their fair and valid use. Critics argued that this relationship may partly reflect socio-economic differences in test preparation. Using data from three cohorts of medical school applicants we directly tested the postulated mediation hypothesis. Latent class analysis was used to identify four classes of test-takers differing in their use of various test preparation methods. Mediation analyses revealed that although latent test preparation classes differed in admission test performance, test preparation was virtually unrelated to parents' level of educational attainment. This disconfirms the mediation hypothesis. The results were further corroborated by measurement invariance analyses indicating that although test preparation-based score gains were confined to the specific narrower traits, SES-related differences in subtest performance were fully explained by SES-related differences in higher-order traits. This pattern of finding is inconsistent with the hypothesis that SES-related differences in admission test performance largely reflect SES-related differences in the access to test preparation. However, it is consistent with theoretical accounts that attribute SES-related differences in admission test performance to processes that operate from infancy to adulthood, which eventually lead to actual knowledge and intelligence differences at the time-point of admission testing.
{"title":"Does test preparation mediate the effect of parents' level of educational attainment on medical school admission test performance?","authors":"Markus Sommer , Martin E. Arendasy , Joachim Fritz Punter , Martina Feldhammer-Kahr , Anita Rieder","doi":"10.1016/j.intell.2024.101893","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.intell.2024.101893","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The finding that admission test performance correlates with parents' level of educational attainment raised concerns regarding their fair and valid use. Critics argued that this relationship may partly reflect socio-economic differences in test preparation. Using data from three cohorts of medical school applicants we directly tested the postulated mediation hypothesis. Latent class analysis was used to identify four classes of test-takers differing in their use of various test preparation methods. Mediation analyses revealed that although latent test preparation classes differed in admission test performance, test preparation was virtually unrelated to parents' level of educational attainment. This disconfirms the mediation hypothesis. The results were further corroborated by measurement invariance analyses indicating that although test preparation-based score gains were confined to the specific narrower traits, SES-related differences in subtest performance were fully explained by SES-related differences in higher-order traits. This pattern of finding is inconsistent with the hypothesis that SES-related differences in admission test performance largely reflect SES-related differences in the access to test preparation. However, it is consistent with theoretical accounts that attribute SES-related differences in admission test performance to processes that operate from infancy to adulthood, which eventually lead to actual knowledge and intelligence differences at the time-point of admission testing.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":13862,"journal":{"name":"Intelligence","volume":"108 ","pages":"Article 101893"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143180297","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-01-01DOI: 10.1016/j.intell.2024.101894
April Bleske-Rechek
The Advanced Placement (AP) program was originally designed to provide advanced coursework to intellectually able students while still in high school. Given the attention paid to AP participation and performance in college admission decisions, it is important to consider sex and race/ethnicity differences in those measures. Here, I report on participation and performance for 19 different AP exams for even-numbered years from 1996 to 2022. Females are consistently overrepresented among examinees in many and in the most common AP exams. At the same time, for many exams, females are overrepresented among those scoring at the lower tail and underrepresented at the upper tail. Since 1996, Whites have been consistently overrepresented in some exams (e.g., Psychology) and underrepresented in others (e.g., Spanish Language) relative to their representation among U.S. high school students; Asians have become increasingly overrepresented in most, but especially STEM, exams; Hispanics have been consistently underrepresented except in Spanish Language and Spanish Literature; and Blacks have continued to be substantially underrepresented in all exams. For most courses and most years, the majority of White and Asian students earned a qualifying score while the majority of Hispanic and Black students did not. In the context of previous research showing that group disparities in AP participation and performance are greatly diminished after accounting for group disparities in intelligence, I discuss the future of AP.
{"title":"The pursuit of equity and excellence: Advanced placement exam participation and performance by sex and by race/ethnicity, 1996–2022","authors":"April Bleske-Rechek","doi":"10.1016/j.intell.2024.101894","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.intell.2024.101894","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The Advanced Placement (AP) program was originally designed to provide advanced coursework to intellectually able students while still in high school. Given the attention paid to AP participation and performance in college admission decisions, it is important to consider sex and race/ethnicity differences in those measures. Here, I report on participation and performance for 19 different AP exams for even-numbered years from 1996 to 2022. Females are consistently overrepresented among examinees in many and in the most common AP exams. At the same time, for many exams, females are overrepresented among those scoring at the lower tail and underrepresented at the upper tail. Since 1996, Whites have been consistently overrepresented in some exams (e.g., Psychology) and underrepresented in others (e.g., Spanish Language) relative to their representation among U.S. high school students; Asians have become increasingly overrepresented in most, but especially STEM, exams; Hispanics have been consistently underrepresented except in Spanish Language and Spanish Literature; and Blacks have continued to be substantially underrepresented in all exams. For most courses and most years, the majority of White and Asian students earned a qualifying score while the majority of Hispanic and Black students did not. In the context of previous research showing that group disparities in AP participation and performance are greatly diminished after accounting for group disparities in intelligence, I discuss the future of AP.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":13862,"journal":{"name":"Intelligence","volume":"108 ","pages":"Article 101894"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143180675","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Storytelling played a crucial role in human evolution. To this day, through stories humans gain declarative and procedural knowledge, and learn the skills that support learning itself. Research shows that reading stories to children enhances their reading and language skills. Does it also enhance their intelligence? To answer this question, we conducted three (N = 626, 254, 195) longitudinal, cluster-randomized control trials in Italian elementary and middle schools. Over a 4-month period, for half of the participants 1 h/day of standard, active language instructional activities were substituted with reading-aloud of stories by a teacher. Compared to those who kept doing language instructional activities, read-aloud condition children showed a stronger increase on two measures of intelligence focusing on knowing things and thinking skills. This result, which emerged in three independent trials conducted in different regions of Italy, suggests avenues for easily scalable interventions to improve children's intelligence.
{"title":"Shared reading aloud fosters intelligence: Three cluster-randomized control trials in elementary and middle school","authors":"Federico Batini , Marco Bartolucci , Giulia Toti , Emanuele Castano","doi":"10.1016/j.intell.2024.101896","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.intell.2024.101896","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Storytelling played a crucial role in human evolution. To this day, through stories humans gain declarative and procedural knowledge, and learn the skills that support learning itself. Research shows that reading stories to children enhances their reading and language skills. Does it also enhance their intelligence? To answer this question, we conducted three (<em>N</em> = 626, 254, 195) longitudinal, cluster-randomized control trials in Italian elementary and middle schools. Over a 4-month period, for half of the participants 1 h/day of standard, active language instructional activities were substituted with reading-aloud of stories by a teacher. Compared to those who kept doing language instructional activities, read-aloud condition children showed a stronger increase on two measures of intelligence focusing on knowing things and thinking skills. This result, which emerged in three independent trials conducted in different regions of Italy, suggests avenues for easily scalable interventions to improve children's intelligence.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":13862,"journal":{"name":"Intelligence","volume":"108 ","pages":"Article 101896"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143180673","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-01-01DOI: 10.1016/j.intell.2024.101881
David Lubinski
Author's Note. This piece was initially prepared as a Foreword to Testing and the Paradoxes of Fairness by Howard Wainer and Daniel Robinson. However, in explicating the importance of that volume, and how further considerations only amplify its powerful argument, the amount of text required to do so became prohibitive. I am grateful to Wainer and Robinson for inspiring me to write this piece and especially to Richard Haier, Editor-in-Chief of Intelligence, who encouraged me to publish this piece in full in Intelligence.
{"title":"Education, intelligence, placement, and selection: A discussion of paradoxes and fairness","authors":"David Lubinski","doi":"10.1016/j.intell.2024.101881","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.intell.2024.101881","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Author's Note. This piece was initially prepared as a Foreword to <em>Testing and the Paradoxes of Fairness</em> by Howard Wainer and Daniel Robinson. However, in explicating the importance of that volume, and how further considerations only amplify its powerful argument, the amount of text required to do so became prohibitive. I am grateful to Wainer and Robinson for inspiring me to write this piece and especially to Richard Haier, Editor-in-Chief of <em>Intelligence,</em> who encouraged me to publish this piece in full in <em>Intelligence.</em></div></div>","PeriodicalId":13862,"journal":{"name":"Intelligence","volume":"108 ","pages":"Article 101881"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143180723","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号