IQ tests are just one piece of the puzzle

It is tempting to think that an IQ test settles the matter of whether a child is gifted or not. Sometimes it does, but often it does not. It is simply one piece of the puzzle.

While an individually administered IQ test will not over estimate intellectual potential, there are many reasons why it might under estimate intelligence, and I believe that is why we should avoid relying solely on IQ tests as an identification tool.

In addition, there is the problem of exactly what level of intelligence qualifies as ‘gifted’. The cut off point varies depending on the circumstances, who is doing the selecting and for which program. As intelligence is a continual scale not and either-or attribute like blue eyes or brown, setting a strict cut off point is highly problematic. A child, who scores just above the nominated gifted cut off point one day, may not do so if tested on another day (or at a less optimal time of day). Conversely a child who just misses out may score within the nominated range on another day. Scores can vary a few points up or down from day to day.

** That is not to say anyone could test within the gifted range. The tests are stardardised rigorously and luck does not play a part in an individually administered IQ test (in a group test where questions are multi choice, chance can play a slightly greater role). So an average ability child could not suddenly score within the gifted range – the variation in scores is simply not that great.

The expected repeatability of a score achieved on an IQ test is indicated by the confidence interval which shows a range within which a person is likely to score, were they to take the test again immediately. It is usually a few points above and a few points below the score calculated from an assessment. A 90% confidence interval (90% chance the scores will be within the indicated range)will encompass a wider range of scores above and below the achieved score than a 95% confidence interval (tighter range). If your score was very close to a nominated cut off point, it could actually be slightly above, or below, the magical 'cut off point' if you were able to take the test again.

If we set a particular, fixed, score as the cut off to the land of giftedness, we would need to be 100% sure that a score on an IQ test is exactly repeatable. This also implies that we are 100% certain that this score is a complete indication of a persons intellectual potential.

I have worked with a lot of children who have IQ test results and this simply is not reasonable.

Giftedness is not an exclusive club – it is meant to be a descriptive tool which helps determine the sort of opportunities which are needed for the child to thrive. Giftedness does not make a person ‘better than’ anyone else, simply ‘better at’ some things (or even many things). (James Delisle elaborates in Barefoot Irreverance, p 31). Wisely used they tell us a lot about the child  but we still need to be sure that the results fit with other information about the child. If not, we need to ask more questions, search for more pieces of the puzzle.

Imagine you had received the results of some regular blood tests and they were quite different to what was expected especially as you don't have the typical risk factors that would accompany such  results. Would you accept them without question? Or would you expect that your doctor would consider them in light of what else he or she knows about your history, ask more questions and if concerned, order more tests? (I know this would be my expectation). Imagine the outcome if interventions were prescribed based on results which turned out to be incorrect because of poor sample taking, contamination or some other as-yet-unidentified issue.

This same thing can happen when IQ tests are taken at face value and not considered in the light of what else we know about a child. IQ tests can tell us a lot about a child, their strengths and relative weaknesses. It can also highlight possible learning problems which are likely to have depressed the scores. If the child is retested once these are identified and addressed, their scores will be likely to be a more complete measure of their intellectual potential. If the original score was accepted without further consideration, opportunities to develop their potential may be barred from them.

Perhaps that sounds a little theoretical without some background on IQ testing and intelligence.

General intelligence or cognitive ability is often thought of as synonymous with abstract reasoning and problem-solving ability. Defining intelligence is complex but it is generally accepted that intelligence is more encompassing that simply intellectual ability.

Psychologist Robert Sternberg is one of many who have grappled with the conundrum of what intelligence actually ‘is’ and he defines it as “the ability to adapt to, select, and shape environments.” This includes not only intellectual ability, but creative and physical aptitude, as well as interpersonal skills including persuasive ability and strong leadership qualities. Francoys Gagne also identifies a number of domains where giftedness may be present as can be seen in his Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT), also including the physical, creative and social domains in addition to intellectual potential.

                     
The most common way to measure cognitive potential is via the use of an IQ (intelligence) test. These are a measure of a person’s ability to learn rather than what they have learned in school. An IQ test is a ‘snap shot’, a sample of behaviour on tasks that measure what we value in a society at that point in time. Current IQ tests have been developed based on the belief that abstract reasoning is synonymous with general ability, and as a result they currently measure reasoning ability, understanding and use of language, processing skills, attention and learning style preferences, providing us with an objective insight into a child’s unique profile of abilities.

A crucial thing to remember is that an IQ test is a sample. It doesn’t measure everything, and it may not give a complete picture of a child’s potential.

As the child needs to come up with their own answers to the questions and tasks on the assessment, an inflated score is not possible. However, many factors can reduce the accuracy of the results. If a child is tired or unwell when assessed, the test may not capture the full extent of their ability. Stress and anxiety and the degree of experience the psychologist has with testing gifted children can also affect the results. Depending on the experience of the assessor and their knowledge of gifted children, other traits in a child such as perfectionism can also have an influence on results. The scores of very young children can also be lowered by their lack of experience in formal, directed test type situations. By about seven or eight years of age, results tend to be stable in this regard but conversely scores can begin to be affected by the child’s level of engagement at school. Consequently IQ test scores should be considered a minimum, showing that your child is at least as capable as the results show.

An IQ test does not tell you how successful a person will be at school or in life in general. It does not tell you about their musical, artistic or physical potential. IQ tests are not designed to measure creative ability, empathy or physical skills, nor do they measure everything a person knows.

So can we use an IQ test to identify giftedness?

Intellectual giftedness, yes. But not giftedness in other domains. A high score on an IQ test is a high score and as I have said earlier, it isn't a fluke. If a child scores in the gifted range (what ever that is determined to be in particular instance) they are gifted.

But there is a good chance that it doesn’t tell the whole story.

It is crucial to consider the results alongside other background information about a child’s development and behaviour. It may be that the child is more gifted than the scores suggest. It could be that despite a high level of potential a child still has some learning difficulties (or differences) that have impacted on the results. Or perhaps the person who assessed them was not experienced testing gifted children, or the child had a bad day, was unwell or overly anxious at the time of testing. If the IQ test results are taken at face value and as complete indication of a child’s potential then many gifted children will be overlooked.

Using an IQ test alone to identify the gifted potentially excludes others who equally deserve opportunities to meet their needs. Several of the most gifted children I have had the privilege to meet would have continued to languish, their needs unmet, if the Full Scale score, had been taken on face value, rather than subtest and other information in the IQ test results .

On the other hand, discounting IQ testing as an identification tool makes it extremely difficult to identify a child’s learning strengths (or weaknesses) and potentially the degree of giftedness, all of which will be extremely important in determining the sort of opportunities which will be needed to assist them to develop their potential to the fullest.

Just as any child should have the opportunity to do.