P Ps about P's Ps

#2 The next pet peeve is the very idea that we can actually come close to defining intelligence, measure it in a growing child, and sum it up in a number.

IQ scores, I guess, have a place in the world of measurement. But, let's stop saying that they measure intelligence and stop believing that they are at all meaningful in the education of children.

Standardization also has a place in this world and wise people keep it in its place. But, let's stop thinking that there is much true standardization in the measurement of intelligence tests given to children. Their sleep, food, fear, percpetion, earlier interactions, expectations, developmental maturity and much more interacts and makes nonstandard outcomes.

If machines were being tested, they would be oiled properly, adjusted properly, housed properly to make the test valid. But with kids, only the test is the same and it is considered valid.

Dr Dr. Robert J. Sternberg of Yale University's Educational Psychology had his IQ tested early in school and it was deemed that he was of a low sort. Little was expected of him until in 4th grade his teacher told he that she didn't believe that he was stupid and was going to start expecting as much from him as anyone else. He never looked back. He learned the lesson of standardization: standardization doesn't say much about individual performance, but is best at showing data trends.

Now when I am told that a child's IQ is 40, 60, 80 or even 160, I look at the subtests and attempt to see how neuro-processing might have affected it. If you have poor audio processing, both part of the tests are difficult. If you have visual issues, the performance side can be very low. If your laterality or inner hemispheric integration is weak, processing quickly enough can make you look "slow".