The Silver Lining of Intelligence: A New Construct to Test Intelligence Through Practical Intelligence Instead of Academic Intelligence
Ashlyn Dupree, Camille Miller, Baily Stephens, Zoe Knijn, Taylor Jacobs and Zachary Musgrove
The University of Louisiana at Monroe
A New Construct to Test Intelligence Through Practical Intelligence Instead of Academic Intelligence
With psychological measurements, understanding the process of conducting psychological tests is what helps researchers discover the reasons for the world’s current mindsets and find ways to overcome mental health disorders. Over the years, psychologists have developed multiple tests to examine intelligence, depression, anxiety, and other factors that affect people’s lives. This paper will discuss a new construct to test intelligence through practical intelligence, or common sense, instead of academic intelligence. This paper will examine the process of determining this test through reliability and validity as well as determine factors like scales of measurements, response biases, test biases, effect size, and sample size. This new construct will better provide a new way to test people’s intelligence based on their practical intelligence and compare this to other intelligence research journals that tested based on academic intelligence. This test would see the effects of practical intelligence has in getting a real job compared to academic intelligence
The History of Intelligence Testing
To understand the importance of this new construct on an intelligence test, the history of intelligence testing must be looked at. The first intelligence test was created by Alfred Binet and Theodore Simon in 1905 (University of Washington Information School, 2017). Paris school administration had difficulty distinguishing between students who needed more assistance in school and those who did not (University of Washington Information School, 2017). Binet and Simon created a 30 question test to determine intelligence called the Binet-Simon Scale (University of Washington Information School, 2017).
Soon, this scale was beginning to be used even in America. In 1908, psychologist Henry Goddard translated the Binet-Simon test and started using it at schools in Vineland, New Jersey (Benjamin, 2009). Because of Goddard, the test spread rapidly throughout the United States and by 1911 it was being used in public schools. However, with the Binet-Simon test and many other intelligence tests, they only really used tasks involving book smarts like naming body parts, defining words, and repeating simple sentences and not street smarts (Fancher, 1985). Even with the Binet-Simon test, Binet realized the limitations of the test and said that it was too broad to make it with a single number (White, 2000). With this newly constructed test, it creates a way to include not only practical intelligence but the concepts easier to narrow down.
A New Construct to Intelligence Testing
Instead of basing intelligence tests just on academic intelligence, this test examines the effects practical intelligence plays on someone’s intelligence and if this affects getting a job more than academic intelligence. For most of the IQ tests, academic intelligence is focused on rather than practical intelligence because most intelligence tests ask questions based on numbers or facts (Gershaw, 1995). However, this test would be developed to create questions that focus more on everyday issues rather than textbook-style questions. With IQ tests they can only find the variance in 4% of real-life job performance (Gershaw, 1995). This is a low number and discovering if practical intelligence has more of an effect on getting hired than academic intelligence would be more beneficial for employees and employers. This test will still resemble the format of a typical IQ test, but it would be more accurate in determining the entirety of the person’s intelligence and how this plays a role in getting a job. So, let’s go over the features of the test like scales of measurement, effect size, sample size and ways to conduct the test and factors to consider when conducting the test.
Scales of Measurement
With this class, there have been many discussions throughout the book on the different types of scales of measurement- ratio, nominal, ordinal, and interval. For the test about practical intelligence, the experiment would use the scales of ratio and nominal. The reason nominal was chosen as the scale is because it uses identity (Furr, 2018). With the nominal scale, the experiment can ask questions that involve gender, eye and hair color, and type of housing. This can helps the researchers put this into categories once all the data has been collected and see if there is a correlation between gender and practical intelligence or type of housing and practical intelligence.
For the experiment, the ratio was also chosen. The reason for a ratio scale is because it helps identify not only identity but also order and quantity (Furr, 2018). The experimenters could ask questions about age, years of education, number of children, and income. This could also help to see if there is a correlation between years of education and practical intelligence or any of the other ratio examples.
Effect Size
For the effect size, the experiment would have an experimental group that would take the practical intelligence test that the experimenters would create for them. Once the scores were given back, each person would apply for a more hands-on job and see if those who scored better on the practical intelligence would get the job over those who scored lower. The point of the experiment is to see the difference between those who have better practical intelligence than academic intelligence and see if this affects getting a job (Furr, 2018). The effect size value will show if practical intelligence has a small, medium, or large effect on getting a job (Furr, 2018).
Sample size
For the experiment, the experimenters would use the sample size formula to discover how many people to use for this experiment. First off, this test would have a larger population size because the researchers would use United States males and females from different races, ethnicities, income, and housing as well as other factors. This test would have a confidence level of 90% and a margin of error of 5%. Also, this test would use a standard deviation of .05. Based on the sample size formula, the sample size would be around 330 people.
Ways to Conduct the Practical Intelligence Test and Factors to Consider
Multiple factors need to be considered when conducting this test. The experimental test must have variables, a developed hypothesis, background research, experimental design, procedures, and participants. These factors will each impact the experiment in some way so they must be considered closely.
Variables
Since the test is measuring practical intelligence, the test must show the impact practical intelligence has on getting a job. Defining the direction of the variable is important to understand what the variable means (Furr, 2018). The direction of the variables is unknown now, but the experiment is hoping to show a positive and direct association (Furr, 2018). In simpler terms, the experiment would hopefully find that practical intelligence is correlated with getting a job. Defining what the experimenters mean by practical intelligence and getting a job is important in maintaining control over the experiment. In this experiment, practical intelligence is the intelligence that you receive through life experiences and problems. For this experiment, getting a job is a full-time, hands-on job that a person would maintain over a long period rather than just babysitting or raking the yard for money.
Another part of variables to think about is the magnitude of the association (Furr, 2018). Experimenters must consider if the association between getting a job and practical intelligence is strong (Furr, 2018). The experiment would show if practical intelligence affects getting a job. If it does but someone in the experiment gets a hands-on job without much practical intelligence, the experimenters can check to see if maybe the association is just not perfect or if there is something else there (Furr, 2018).
A Developed Hypothesis
The test’s null hypothesis would be people who have practical intelligence will get hand-on jobs easier than people who have academic intelligence. This experiment and the null hypothesis are based on the Fullerton Longitudinal Study and Gottfried’s study (Gottfrieds et al, 2006). In this study, the Gottfried's found that kids who scored higher on measures of academic intrinsic motivation (enjoying to learn for their own sake) at a young age performed better in school and took more challenging courses and also earned more advanced degrees than their peers (Gottfrieds et al, 2006). This helped base the hypothesis for this experiment. The alternative hypothesis is anything that is the opposite of the null hypothesis or proves the null hypothesis wrong.
Background Research
Like it has been stated multiple times in this research paper, the background research that has been picked to help understand this test better experiments like Fullerton, Gottfrieds, Binet-Simon, and Standford-Binet. With the Standford-Binet test, the experiment would use the aspect of the multidimensional tests with correlated dimensions (Furr, 2018). Not only this, but the test would also include groups of questions that assess different psychological attributes (Furr, 2018). Binet-Simon, Fullerton, and Gottfrieds all used methods to test intelligence which is similar to what this test would do.
An Experimental Design
The design of the experiment would be pre-experimental (Pre-Experimental Designs, n.d.). The experimenters would use a single group of participants to test and see if those with higher scores of practical intelligence got a hands-on job easier than those who scored lower. No control group would be needed because everyone would take the test. Specifically, the researchers would use a one-shot case study design (Pre-Experimental Designs, n.d.). This would observe a single group and see if practical intelligence affects getting a job similar to what a one-shot case study design (Pre-Experimental Designs, n.d.).
Procedures
The research procedures would include that the test conditions are all the same. So the test questions would be the same, the test would be given in the same classroom-like environment for participants and each person would apply for the same position at the same job. This will provide the test to come to the same conclusion which will give accuracy to the research.
Participants
When choosing the 330 participants, the experiment would use the simple random sample (Furr, 2018). This would allow a representative sample of all races, ethnicities, backgrounds, and different incomes to come into play with this experiment. Since this is an easier experiment, the test would use this sample because other samples would be beyond the scope of the experimenters (Furr, 2018).
The Advantages and Disadvantages of This Experiment
With every experiment, there are advantages and disadvantages. To make sure that this test can provide the best information, the experimenters must check reliability and validity. This will provide ways to improve the test and what can be done to make sure that the data collected is accurate and that there is a correlation between getting a hands-on job and practical intelligence.
Reliability
With the experiment, the researchers should compare this test to other IQ tests. Based on other articles, the majority of IQ rests have estimations and corrections in them making them less valid and reliable (Richardson et al, 2015). Not only that, but the IQ tests examined for different variables which made the test inconsistently given (Richardson et al, 2015). To make this experiment reliable, the experimenters have to make sure that the data is airtight and the measurements are correct. To make sure reliability is key and so that other psychologists will accept the hypothesis, the experimenters must make sure to take multiple measurements and minimize the chances of malfunctions.
What the experimenters don’t want to happen is what happened in the Bandura Bobo Doll Experiment. Once this experiment was performed, many other scientists began to do follow up experiments and refine the experiment to see if they got the same results. However, when they tried to do this experiment again they found that the response was less defined than the initial experiment (Shuttleworth, 2008). This new practical intelligence test would need to base off what they learned from the Bobo Doll Experiment and make sure that their measurements and calculations are correct as well as consistent. This will allow for more psychologists to test the experiment for themselves and then accept the hypothesis.
Validity
In regards to validity, most of these studies reported small nonsignificant correlations as well as small margins of validity (Richardson et al, 2015). For this new practical intelligence test, the experimenters need to make sure that content validity, criterion-related validity, and construct validity are correctly portrayed. First, let’s check content validity.
Content Validity
Content validity deals with the actual content of a test and the content that should be included in the test (Furr, 2018). In regards to this practical intelligence test, the researchers need to make sure that the questions of the test are relevant in content (Furr, 2018). Asking questions regarding academic intelligence instead of practical intelligence would have no validity. Also, asking other experts' opinions on the test would make sure that the test is content valid.
Criterion-Related Validity
For criterion-related validity, the experimenters want to make sure that the outcomes properly predict the criteria of the test to satisfy those who need it (Furr, 2018). The experimenters can do this by predicting that those with more practical intelligence can impress employers for a hands-on job than those with less practical intelligence. This can help employers pick the best candidate for a hands-on job.
Construct Validity
Lastly, the experimenters must consider the construct validity. Construct validity measures the degree to which test scores can be interpreted as reflecting a particular psychological construct (Furr, 2018). With the construct validity the experimenters can make sure that the questions that are asked help to measure what they want to measure. So, in this case, the researchers want to measure practical intelligence, and to do that they must make sure that the questions asked in the experiment are questions related to practical intelligence.
Advantages of the Practical Intelligence Test
In this new practical intelligence test, the experimenters will be able to provide information that may not be known about it. Not only this but like it has been stated before, IQ tests only account for 4% of real-life job performance (Gershaw, 1995). By having this new practical test, the test will provide information about practical intelligence and its role in real-life performance. It can also lead us to better understand where people stand in practical intelligence and if this has a big impact on getting a job. If it does, the experimenters can help come up with ways to help those who have less practical intelligence learn how to use their practical intelligence better. Hopefully, this experiment will lead to something more and even more research on practical intelligence.
Disadvantages of the Practical Intelligence Test
Now, the disadvantages of practical intelligence are unknown but based on what society knows on academic intelligence and IQ tests, practical intelligence testing can end in a bust. Similar to an academic IQ test, one problem with the test is that it can cause a self-fulfilling prophecy (Robinson, n.d.). People may feel like because they have lower practical intelligence, they’ll never be able to get a job which may not be true if they are better in academic intelligence. Also, based on the information from IQ tests, practical intelligence may only measure a small part of someone’s entire intelligence (Robinson, n.d.) That’s why it is important to make sure the practical intelligence questions are well-rounded.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the new psychological test would explain practical intelligence since most experiments only involve academic intelligence. It would help explain if practical intelligence has an effect on getting a hands-on job and if it plays a role in getting a real-life job. The test would use sample size, effect size and other ways to conduct the test to explain practical intelligence and its role in getting a job. Also, reliability and validity would be a major concern of the experimenters because these two factors would impact the test and results. In the end, this test would provide logical information that the psychology community has never seen before.
References
Pre-Experimental Designs. (n.d.). Retrieved November 14, 2019, from https://www.researchconnections.org/childcare/datamethods/preexperimental.jsp
University of Washington Information School. (2017, December 18). Alfred Binet's IQ Test. Retrieved from https://ischool.uw.edu/podcasts/dtctw/alfred-binets-iq-test.
Benjamin, L. T. (2009). The Birth of American Intelligence Testing. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/monitor/2009/01/assessment.
Fancher, R. E. (1985). The intelligence men: Makers of the IQ controversy. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Furr, R. M. (2018). Psychometrics: an introduction. Los Angeles: Sage.
Gottfried, A. W., Gottfried, A. E., & Guerin, D. W. (2006). The Fullerton Longitudinal Study: A Long-Term Investigation of Intellectual and Motivational Giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29(4), 430–450. doi: 10.4219/jeg-2006-244
Richardson, K., & Norgate, S. H. (2015). Does IQ Really Predict Job Performance? Applied Developmental Science, 19(3), 153–169. https://doi- org.ulm.idm.oclc.org/10.1080/10888691.2014.983635
Robinson, Nick. “What are the positive & negatives of IQ testing?” Seattle Pi. Retrieved from: https://education.seattlepi.com/positive-negatives-iq-testing-3073.html
Shuttleworth, Martyn (Mar 26, 2008). Bobo Doll Experiment. Retrieved Nov 09, 2019 from Snakk Om Mobbing: https://explorable.com/bobo-doll-experiment
White, S. (2000). Conceptual foundations of IQ testing. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6(1), 33-43.
ns 15.158.61.6da2
