|
On May 25 2012 06:53 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2012 06:18 Cattivik wrote:
They use that area as average cause it's within one SD.
I don't know why you mention a test comparison.
Also, using reliability alone to predict another test score is insufficient.Reliability is a quality criterium to indicate the measuring precision of a test.It doesn't even say anything about what's being measured, while that would be a more important criterium to predict another test score.
I will learn about the quality criteria in detail in test construction lessons, so i would like to keep them out of the discussion as of now.
I can think of a few methods for calculating part of the reliability right now, but what role does it even play??
We're discussing cut-off values for the interpretation of scores.
I brought it up because you said something that's factually untrue. You said: Show nested quote +Since 115 equivals to a percentile rank of 84 (you scored better or same as 84 % of the sample) it's still considered average cause you might have scored the same. If you meant that a person might score both 115 and 100 on equivalent tests that's wrong. If you believe that happens somewhat often (and worse, that it's somehow connected to the fact that SD=15 for most tests), there's a serious hole in your understanding. If you don't trust me ask someone who has a background in statistics. This is completely unrelated to the discussion of what IQ tests measure or what is the effect of IQ on "life success", which are interesting questions in their own right.
Excuse me, but how do i state that two equivalent tests result in different scores?
Ah i see.
When you read 'the same' you think i meant 'the latter' (average).
No, same refers to the statement in parentheses: better or same than/as 84%.
'It's still considered average' means that being on the score 115 equivaling to a percentile rank of about 84 %, which means you scored the same or better than/as 84 % of the sample doesn't make you significantly better and above average than the rest of the sample.
Just a plain misunderstanding.I didn't state that 100 and 115 are the same (but they are both average, 100 being the norms MA).
Also, average isn't automatically MA. Average is the whole area MA +- 1SD.
|
Meh.
IQ is just a way of saying "this dude has X skill solving linguistic, mathematical and logical problems".
PERIOD.
The big problem with the WAIS test is that it isn't validated for every geographical region or population. In my country, if you apply a Weschler test to a sample of 25 years old the median of that test is around 90; not because Chileans are dumber, but rather because of the poor education.
I myself have an IQ of 178 and I don't find it that big of a deal. I'm a pretty shy dude and sometimes I'm not the most socially smart guy around. IQ does not measure intelligence, it's merely a measuring tool of how good you are understanding things and solving problems, provided you've recieved good education.
|
My problem with IQ tests is that they attempt to assign a numerical value to "intelligence" which I feel is not possible...how can you quantify something with units in that awkward of a manner. Yes, it's comparative ability to solve certain problems compared to age groups, but it's still very awkward to have a number. And I also feel it's very awkward, since it is supposed indicate implicitly superiority in many respects, and whether or not people are prideful about IQ, it's still a very specific number that supposedly quantifies how much better a person's ability to figure things out is, and even that I feel can be extremely varied, no matter how wide a test attempts to be.
@umbraaeternus, I'm not too familiar with IQ tests/how they work, but afaik an IQ of 178 *supposed* to be well past genius level...like....Einstein level  just saying. That's pretty scary ><
|
Not when you find out he took the test online by googling 'free iq test'. I get anywhere above 145 on those, no consistency
|
I've never taken these tests before.
|
I don't think everything can be quantified, but it seems modern society is obsessed with that. Qualitative assessment just seems more appropriate when gauging things such as intelligence and emotion.
|
On May 25 2012 07:22 UmbraaeternuS wrote:
Meh.
IQ is just a way of saying "this dude has X skill solving linguistic, mathematical and logical problems".
PERIOD.
The big problem with the WAIS test is that it isn't validated for every geographical region or population. In my country, if you apply a Weschler test to a sample of 25 years old the median of that test is around 90; not because Chileans are dumber, but rather because of the poor education.
I myself have an IQ of 178 and I don't find it that big of a deal. I'm a pretty shy dude and sometimes I'm not the most socially smart guy around. IQ does not measure intelligence, it's merely a measuring tool of how good you are understanding things and solving problems, provided you've recieved good education.
Let's laugh for a moment at that ridiculous number.
|
On May 26 2012 04:38 Otolia wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2012 07:22 UmbraaeternuS wrote:
Meh.
IQ is just a way of saying "this dude has X skill solving linguistic, mathematical and logical problems".
PERIOD.
The big problem with the WAIS test is that it isn't validated for every geographical region or population. In my country, if you apply a Weschler test to a sample of 25 years old the median of that test is around 90; not because Chileans are dumber, but rather because of the poor education.
I myself have an IQ of 178 and I don't find it that big of a deal. I'm a pretty shy dude and sometimes I'm not the most socially smart guy around. IQ does not measure intelligence, it's merely a measuring tool of how good you are understanding things and solving problems, provided you've recieved good education. Let's laugh for a moment at that ridiculous number.
Of course, let's.
I was given a rather old version of the Stanford-Binet variant test at age 18, which gives IQs over 170 provided you correct it by age. Nowadays that is impossible, no matter what adjustment you give to the test (regarding age, ethnicity, geographical location, etc). Taking a standarized, modern Weschler test, I score around 140.
Still, as I stated, that does not implicate a single fucking thing. It is just a number. I believe emotional inteligence and social skills should play a role in a more complete attempt of measuring intelligence as a whole, but still, giving EI a number is incredibly difficult thing to do. How in hell do you measure emotional inteligence or social skills in a standarized scale? ._.
|
On May 26 2012 10:11 UmbraaeternuS wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2012 04:38 Otolia wrote:On May 25 2012 07:22 UmbraaeternuS wrote:
Meh.
IQ is just a way of saying "this dude has X skill solving linguistic, mathematical and logical problems".
PERIOD.
The big problem with the WAIS test is that it isn't validated for every geographical region or population. In my country, if you apply a Weschler test to a sample of 25 years old the median of that test is around 90; not because Chileans are dumber, but rather because of the poor education.
I myself have an IQ of 178 and I don't find it that big of a deal. I'm a pretty shy dude and sometimes I'm not the most socially smart guy around. IQ does not measure intelligence, it's merely a measuring tool of how good you are understanding things and solving problems, provided you've recieved good education. Let's laugh for a moment at that ridiculous number. Of course, let's. I was given a rather old version of the Stanford-Binet variant test at age 18, which gives IQs over 170 provided you correct it by age. Nowadays that is impossible, no matter what adjustment you give to the test (regarding age, ethnicity, geographical location, etc). Taking a standarized, modern Weschler test, I score around 140. Still, as I stated, that does not implicate a single fucking thing. It is just a number. I believe emotional inteligence and social skills should play a role in a more complete attempt of measuring intelligence as a whole, but still, giving EI a number is incredibly difficult thing to do. How in hell do you measure emotional inteligence or social skills in a standarized scale? ._.
I don't know how exactly your score has been corrected by age.
In the tests i applied so far you had tables for respective age groups with the corresponding raw value and score expressed by a certain norm.
I wrote that in practice you can't reach values like 55 and 145 cause you would have to reach a value of z=+-3 on the standardized scale (55=100 - 3 * 15;145=100 + 3 * 15).
A value of 178 equivals to a z of (178-100)/15 = 5.2
Now imagine where you would be on this:
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8c/Standard_deviation_diagram.svg/400px-Standard_deviation_diagram.svg.png)
It isn't entirely impossible for very old tests cause they had samples from other centuries where education wasn't as widely available.Also, intelligence worldwide keeps increasing, referred to as Rosenthal effect.
But 'in practice', you can't use such old tests and expect the score to be valid.
The score of 140 on the recent test is possible instead.
It might be just a number, but look at the used tests and their items for obtaining it.
They might involve anything from handling complicated figural bodies, solving mathematical problems, reading comprehension to memory capacity.
So they tell how good you are at such types of tasks. If you can put them to use outside of the test is another thing that the tests cannot determine, and that's where social skills might come into play.
Regarding the validity of the items:
They usually measure something predicted or explained in a theory. Almost every test has a theory of intelligence used for deciding about the items.
Some of the most popular tests didn't even start from an own theory, the mental processes were obtained with a statistical procedure, the factor analysis.
What this does (simplified): It checks how items are related and assigns all related items to certain categories independent from each other.
In this way, Thurstone obtained the factors:
S (space)
P (perceptual speed)
N (numerical ability)
M (memory)
R (reasoning)
W (word fluency)
V (verbal relations)
There is methodological criticism for this theory cause he seems to have used a factor analysis method which made all of these factors lightly correlated.
But there are theories that state that there is one common factor underlying all of these to explain that correlation, the g-factor.
It does make sense to me. I doubt you will find someone scoring 60 one one item and 140 on another unless you're looking at savants.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
