Investigation into whether intelligence can be measured

Even though a batch of old ages have pass since the first clip the issue of intelligence was brought in the nucleus of attending, still all these old ages were n’t plenty to take to an overall acceptable definition and to an understanding between the research workers, whether IQ trials could give replies underpinning intelligence or whether there are merely measurement tools developed by experts in the field, based on people ‘s beliefs, with non much impact on intelligence itself. Therefore, the chief inquiry sing if intelligence is measureable remains unreciprocated. One of the chief grounds there is a failing to reason to a by and large acceptable definition and to the measurings of intelligence is due to the cultural differences and to a figure of other factors that seem to act upon intelligence and the consequences of an IQ trial. Besides the theories developed for intelligence, every bit good as the IQ trials wider even more the dissension in the field. The theories were divided in two, the 1s who believed in a general ability and those who believed in multiple intelligences. Equally far as it concerns IQ trials, sentiments were divided here every bit good since on the one manus were those who supported IQ trials and on the other the 1s who questioned their significance. Furthermore, the relation between dyslexia and intelligence is another problematic issue since there are conflicting thoughts whether IQ should be included or non in the definition of dyslexia. Either manner, all these are considered issues that occupy until nowadays a big figure of research workers who still try to make to some replies.

For several old ages now, intelligence remains one of the most problematic issues since there seem to be so much unsolved inquiries refering the definition and measurings of intelligence. These inquiries concern issues such as what truly is intelligence? Can we mensurate it? If yes, how? If non, why? Even recent surveies were unable to measure and mensurate it in a manner that would be accepted by everyone. Although these inquiries still remain unresolved, there have been some efforts over the old ages by a figure of ‘daring ‘ research workers who tried to specify and mensurate intelligence.

McNemar ( 1964 ) , reported that intelligence has been an issue for thousand old ages before and that any efforts made to mensurate intelligence were based on the observation that persons do non portion the same “ rational abilities ” ( p.871 ) . Besides Weinberg ( 1989 ) , claimed that the wider apprehension of intelligence has been a major issue for psychologists every bit good, for many old ages. However, surveies ( Eysenck, 1998 ) showed that the contentions sing the definition and the steps of intelligence remained sustained even when the IQ trials had their introduction old ages before.

Even though the definition of intelligence remains controversial, there seems to be an overall credence for some of the features some experts ‘charged ‘ on intelligence. Hence, research workers seem to hold that intelligence is partially “ an ability to understand complex thoughts, to accommodate efficaciously to the environment, to larn from experience, [ and ] to prosecute in assorted signifiers of concluding to get the better of obstructions by taking idea ” ( Neisser et al. , 1996, p.77 ) .

In add-on, attending is given to how intelligence is defined in different civilizations ( Earley and Ang, 2003 ; Sternberg and Grigorenko, 2006 ) and besides between persons and experts in the field. Specifically Sternberg ( 1982,1990 ) , mentioned that people normally have different beliefs about intelligence than most experts. Furthermore, the civilization background of an single seems specifying towards their thought about “ cognition and intelligence ” ( Ruisel, 1993, 1996 ; Wober, 1973 ) . For illustration, the Western position for intelligence is wholly distinguished from the Eastern point of position ( Yang and Sternberg, 1997a ) . This different points of positions are better explained by the general thought of Implicit Theories that Sternberg ( 1990:54 ) pointed out, in which persons rely on their beliefs in order to “ measure their ain and others intelligence ” ( e.g. Dweck, 1999 ; Faria and Fontaine, 1997 ; Flugel, 1947 ; Furnham,2001 ; Shipstone and Burt, 1973 ; Sternberg, 1985 ) .

Besides, cross-cultural surveies indicated that there is a favoritism between states about intelligence ( Swami et al. , 2008 ) . For illustration in Africa, intelligence is related with all right “ practical accomplishments for the care of intra and inter group relation ” ( Ruzgis and Grigorenko, 1994 ) . At the contrary, in East Asiatic states intelligence is evaluated in footings of societal facets ( e.g. Azuma and Kashiwagi, 1987 ; Gill and Keats, 1980 ; Lutz, 1985 ; Nevo and Khader, 1995 ; Poole, 1985 ; White, 1985 ) and specifically the abilities an single utilises in certain occasions ( Yang and Sternberg, 1997b ) . Furthermore, surveies contacted in Kenya ( Grigorenko et al. , 2001 ) showed that person ‘s beliefs about intelligence refer to four chief features – “ cognition and accomplishments ” , “ regard ” , “ comprehension of how to manage life jobs ” and “ inaugural ” . The of import is that merely one of these features – cognition and accomplishments – is considered portion of the construct of intelligence in Western states ( Sternberg, Conway, Ketron and Bernstrein, 1981 ) . These cross-cultural surveies indicate the diverse points of position states have refering intelligence and besides the hard portion on behalf of the research workers to reason to an overall acceptable definition and besides to the appropriate measuring of intelligence since any tool used to measure intelligence could take to deceptive consequences due to these cultural differences.

The field of intelligence continues to segregate sentiments since a figure of beliing theories underpinning constructs about intelligence developed over the old ages. Some of these theories were overwhelmed received by many experts where others created contention in the field. The major contention concerns that some research workers support the being of one general intelligence where others the being of multiple intelligences.

Spearman ‘s ( 1904 ) theory about the being of a general ability in people known as ‘G ‘ factor, gained the involvement of a figure of experts. This theory underlies the being of an ‘S ‘ factor as good, which refers to the specific abilities an single acquires. However, these two factors are discriminated by the fact that G factor it is heritable and S factor is the consequence of environmental impacts ( Pal, Pal, Tourani, 2004 ) . The being of Spearman ‘s ‘G ‘ grounded largely in “ Western-European-North American civilizations ” ( Nettelbeck and Wilson, 2005, p.615 ) indicating that Western states largely value intelligence on the footing of a general ability.

In add-on, some theoreticians supported Spearman ‘s g factor ( e.g. Jensen, 1980 ) as basic for intelligence although they preferred concentrating on the strengths and failings of a scholars profile ( Neisser et al. 1996 ) . For illustration, Carroll ( 1993 ) presented the most elaborate hierarchal theoretical account refering the constructions underpinning intelligence ( Nettelbeck and Wilson, 2005 ) . Harmonizing to Carroll ‘s ( 1993 ) theoretical account, a factor analysis lead to the visual aspect of 69 specific abilities which are ensuing from 9 broader abilities which are related with a general factor equivalent with the g factor proposed by Spearman ( Nettelbeck and Wilson, 2005 ) . This elaborate theoretical account was widely accepted by most of the theoreticians, although statements sing its significance have been underlined by others ( Ceci,1990 ) .

Furthermore, the theory of fluid and crystallised intelligence proposed by Cattell, it is besides based on the theories of one general intelligence although here the general factor is divided in two. The unstable intelligence is a capacity based on familial factors where crystallized intelligence is the consequence of already obtained cognition, current cognition and environment ( Pal, Pal and Tourani, 2004, p.183 ) .

At the contrary, Gardner ( 1983,1999 ) argued that cognitive abilities are “ independent signifiers of intelligence ” ( p.615 ) and suggested the being of multiple intelligences. Besides, he disputed the efficaciousness of psychometric trials since they normally study “ linguistic communication, spacial and logical problem-solving activities ” ( p.615 ) and hence do non take into history all the human abilities ( Nettelbeck and Wilson, 2005 ) . Hence, Gardner ‘s ( 1983 ) theory proposed that there seem to be 8 different types of intelligences, viz. “ lingual, logical, spacial, musical, motor ability, interpersonal, intrapersonal and realistic intelligence ” ( Pal, Pal and Tourani, 2004, p.184 ) and that the encephalon ‘s constructions are responsible for each one of these types ( Nettelbeck and Wilson, 2005 ) . This 8 types resulted from the fact that Gardner believed that the thoughts underpinning intelligence should be evaluated non merely by “ typically normal ” persons but besides by talented individuals and persons who had encephalon amendss ( Neisser et al.,1996 ) .

Gardner ‘s theory of Multiple Intelligences is based on old theories developed by Thorndike ( 1926 ) and Thurstone ( 1938 ) old ages before ( Nettelbeck and Wilson, 2005 ) . Thorndike ‘s theory is opposed to Spearman ‘s theory refering the general ability since the former believed that every activity is ensuing from a combination of abilities therefore the being of a general mental ability would non function any intent ( Pal, Pal and Tourani, 2004 ) . At the contrary, Thurstone supported the general ability introduced by Spearman. His Group Factor Theory indicates that mental abilities are been organized in groups where each group has a primary factor which is responsible for the “ psychological and functional integrity ” ( p.182 ) these abilities have and besides “ differentiates them from all the other mental abilities ” ( Pal, Pal and Tourani, 2004, p.182 ) . Harmonizing to Thurstone, these primary factors concern the figure, the infinite and the verbal factor, memory, the word eloquence and the logical thinking factor ( Pal, Pal and Tourani, 2004 ) .

Both of these early developed multifactor theories, are the result of the attempt made to develop the profile of a scholar refering strengths and failings and hence to continue to “ practical intercessions ” ( p.615 ) something that the public presentation of a scholar in an IQ trial could non supply ( Nettelbeck and Wilson, 2005 ) . In general, even though some of these theories are beliing they somehow seek to function the same intent, to give to persons with different culturally beliefs about intelligence a theoretical background which will show them the most whether they believe to the being of one or the being of multiple intelligences.

Furthermore, Sternberg ( 1985 ) took a measure frontward and developed a theory which takes into history “ constructs about intelligence beyond the academic accomplishment ” ( p.617 ) as the theory proposed from Gardner, although Sternberg attempted to analyze intelligence in “ footings of psychological procedures ” ( Nettelbeck and Wilson, 2005, p.617 ) . Sternberg ( 1985 ) through the ‘Triarchic theory of human intelligence ‘ proposed the being of 3 types of intelligence: the analytic, the originative and the practical intelligence. Chiefly, the analytic intelligence refers to the processs underpinning the academic abilities ( Nettelbeck and Wilson, 2005 ) . It ‘s the ability of an person to “ work out jobs and get new cognition ” ( Pal, Pal, and Tourani, 2004, p.184 ) . Most of the Western universe states emphasise on these abilities as of import facets of intelligence. Besides, the originative intelligence points out that persons have the ability to “ get by with fresh state of affairss ” ( Pal, Pal, and Tourani, 2004, p.184 ) due to old experiences. This ability to link familiar with new state of affairss ( Pal, Pal and Tourani, 2004 ) enables persons to develop automaticity due to over-learning, hence any old demanding “ witting control ” ( p.618 ) state of affairss stop to be ( Nettelbeck and Wilson, 2005 ) . However, one might oppugn himself, since dyslexics have severe jobs with automaticity they do non posses this intelligence? The last constituent of Sternberg ‘s theory refers to the practical intelligence which is applicable to every- twenty-four hours state of affairss. It emphasises on the thought of accommodation and specifically on how persons “ adjust on the demands of their environment ” ( Pal, Pal and Tourani, 2004, p.184 ) .

Even though the intelligence theories created statements between the experts in the field, the visual aspect of the IQ trials and in general the whole thought underpinning the psychometries of intelligence, wider even more the dissension between the research workers. Therefore, some experts highlighted that IQ trials are applicable in many scenes and therefore should be considered important for mensurating intelligence where others disputed there public-service corporation and the cogency of their consequences. Either manner, an IQ mark can act upon the life of an person enormously since its public presentation in a measurement tool such as an IQ trial, as being widely accepted by many as a step of intelligence is cardinal.

However, over the old ages a figure of research workers opposed to the general thought of IQ since they believed that it “ had no utile intent, could do injury, and should be abandoned ” ( Strydom and Du Plessis, 2000, p.609 ) . At the reverse, some others supported that IQ trial can be utile since is considered a short clip procedure which gives the examiner information refering the strengths and failing of a scholar. ( Nettelbeck and Wilson, 2005 ) . All these deviating sentiments have been the consequence of long-run statements which do non look resolved even in presents.

In general, the first IQ trial was developed by Binet as the tool for the designation of scholars who displayed larning jobs in school scenes. Its ability to “ foretell academic public presentation ” ( p.611 ) made IQ a successful tool for academic intents ( Nettelbeck and Wilson, 2005 ) . However, some research workers seemed really cautious since the mark in an IQ trial could take to favoritism between those with mean and those with above norm public presentations ( Nettelbeck and Wilson, 2005 ) . Besides, even though the IQ testing could enable the examiner to measure the learning capacities of an person, the existent public presentation of a pupil in the trial could non be considered plenty to supply any solutions refering the redress procedure ( Nettelbeck and Wilson, 2005 ) .

Either manner, the IQ trials began to go even more wider. Person could state that Binet ‘s IQ trials have been the existent ground for the development of a figure of psychometric tools which are used for “ choice, diagnosing and rating ” intents ( Neisser et al. 1996, p.78 ) . However, Nettelbeck and Wilson ( 2005 ) clearly pointed out that IQ even though it provides information about the general ability of a scholar and the degree of success it should non be considered as a “ pure step of intelligence ” ( p.610 ) . In add-on, it is deserving adverting that a great figure of these psychometric instruments are non purposed to mensurate intelligence as a whole but merely some related facets ( Neisser et al. , 1996 ) .

Therefore, even though IQ trials gained the involvement since they could foretell school accomplishment, nevertheless they were non considered good steps for foretelling ‘life accomplishment ‘ neither ( McClelland, 1973 ) . Hence, this enlarged the contentions in the field since this findings are bespeaking of the fact that intelligence trials are limited to mensurate merely some elements of intelligence ( Weinberg, 1989 ) . It seems that there is a figure of factors which can act upon a consequence of the trial such as the cultural differences mentioned before, plus that IQ trials measure some of the constituents of intelligence seems adequate for the IQ trial oppositions to differ with their efficaciousness.

Therefore, IQ scores seem to be the consequence of a figure of factors, hence the public presentation of a scholar in an IQ trial is capable to these factors. Some of these, refer to the fact that even though the psychometries evaluate the school public presentation and the cognition of the course of study, these can non be charged merely to intelligence as it is non considered the lone manner to success ( Neisser et al. , 1996 ) . Specifically, Neisser et Al. ( 1996 ) , suggested that “ continuity, involvement in school and willingness to analyze ” ( p.81 ) are besides really of import towards the academic accomplishment.

In add-on, surveies showed that there is a positive correlativity between IQ trials and old ages of instruction. Surveies, showed that scholars that are more possible to make a higher educational degree are those with higher tonss on these trials ( Neisser et al. 1996 ) . This is due to many grounds. As Rehberg and Rosenthal ( 1978 ) stated, these high marking scholars might happen the “ instruction rewarding ” ( p.82 ) where low marking kids do n’t, hence their attempts to win are bigger. Besides, school in general as Neisser et Al. ( 1996 ) reported, seems to be related with intelligence every bit good, since school affects the mental abilities which are normally evaluated in IQ trials. Therefore, the fact that IQ trials are widely accepted as tools for foretelling school accomplishment is based on that they measure these abilities which are developed or improved during the academic old ages of a scholar ( Neisser et al. , 1996 ) .

In add-on, the societal position and the income could be a defining factor of intelligence. However, similar tonss in IQ trials by different persons does non foretell the same societal and economic success ( Neisser et al. , 1996 ) . Besides, kids raised in households with high societal position seemed more possible to derive better societal position than kids from hapless households ( Neisser et al. , 1996 ) . Particularly, Siegel and Himel ( 1998 ) reported that the low socioeconomic degree of some kids ‘s households can act upon them negatively, hence their hapless background could take to their exclusion from being dyslexics and hence would lose any chance for redress.

If person consider all these factors will likely happen himself confronting the same initial inquiries sing intelligence and IQ. Even if we accept that these factors influence intelligence and that are taken into history in most of the IQ trials, person might differ that these factors are of import plenty for measuring the intelligence degree of a scholar.

Particularly Wechsler ( 1975 ) , in his attempt to find the public-service corporation of this measuring he pointed out that intelligence or IQ trials were developed to analyze the rational abilities of an person during systematic observation in a controlled undertaking in order to avoid any mistakes and to enable the comparing of single differences ( Weinberg, 1989 ) . This statement about IQ trials, indicates that a great portion of research workers avoided to separate Intelligence from IQ since the chief ground IQ trials were developed for, was to measure the rational abilities of a scholar and therefore can be considered as crossed footings.

However, attempts have been made in order to find where IQ and intelligence are the same or if they portion some every bit of import constituents which make the research workers have troubles separating them. Nettelbeck and Wilson ( 2005 ) clearly pointed out that IQ and intelligence should non be considered the same for two of import grounds. Those who question the public-service corporation of IQ trials would likely hold with this statement since if intelligence and IQ have non the same significance so how can we utilize IQ tonss to mensurate and find the degree of intelligence of an person?

Particularly Nettelbeck and Wilson ( 2005 ) , concluded into two of import factors which distinguish intelligence and IQ. Primarily, they reported that intelligence has a figure of spheres where each of them is being settled in a hierarchal order harmonizing to “ the degree of commonalty among and the degree of specificity between these spheres ” ( p. 613 ) where IQ provides the general image of the relation these spheres portion ( Nettelbeck and Wilson, 2005, p.613 ) . Second harmonizing to Flynn ( 1999 ) , the single IQ remains stable over the old ages. At the contrary, intelligence is considered the consequence of “ congenital encephalon capacities ” ( p.613 ) which develop and change over the old ages where IQ is merely “ influenced from version ” hence IQ and intelligence are non the same ( Nettelbeck and Wilson, 2005, p.613 ) .

Besides, one of the most of import finds in the field is the fact that the public presentation in IQ trial seems to lift over the old ages. The “ Flynn Effect ” ( Flynn, 1984, 1987 ) studies that of all time since IQ trials were developed, the public presentation of persons advancements over the old ages. Due to this advancement, IQ trials are being “ re-standardized ” ( p.89 ) over the old ages in order to be able to analyze this advancement and fulfill the demands of each epoch. Therefore, since IQ trials evaluate the rational abilities of an person and since a individual continues to develop mental abilities through the old ages, its public presentation in an IQ trial can alter.

All these arguments about if we can mensurate intelligence through IQ trials or non, still remain in the nucleus of attending since the contention between the experts every bit far as it concerns the public-service corporation of IQ trials as step of intelligence has non yet lead to any consequences. There seems to be great trouble to reason since on the one manus the protagonists of IQ trials focus on the advantages where the oppositions concentrate on the disadvantages of these tools towards intelligence. Therefore, one might state that in order to reason to whether these tools really measure or non intelligence is capable to personal sentiment.

The relation between IQ and dyslexia is besides an issue unfastened to treatment which has occupied the research workers over the old ages since there is a argument refering if IQ should be included in the definition of dyslexia or non. Particularly, Gustafson and Samuelson ( 1999 ) pointed out that an person can be identified as a dyslexic if s/he has low reading abilities, s/he has normal IQ degrees and if there is a disagreement between his already obtained abilities in reading and his possible abilities.

Surveies, have besides showed that IQ is the 1 that influences reading and non the antonym ( Gustafson and Samuelson,1999 ) . However, surveies besides showed that some reading damages can act upon the verbal IQ, hence a causal relation might be underlined here every bit good ( Stanovich, 1986 ; van de Bos, 1989 ) . This leads to the premise that even though some persons might non hold any IQ impairments the fact that they display troubles in reading might be an of import ground for their low mark in an IQ trial ( Gustafson and Samuelson, 1999 ) .

Therefore, even though there might be persons with low IQ public presentations that are excluded from dyslexics is it hence possible for person to be a dyslexic and still hold low IQ? ( Gustafson and Samuelson, 1999 ) .

Gustafson and Samuelson ( 1999 ) besides pointed out, that in order to give the proper attending to the importance of IQ in dyslexia, “ different degrees of intelligence should be associated with different forms of reading troubles ” ( p.130 ) . Studies, indicated that low or high IQ does non look to distinguish hapless readers troubles in phonological ( Ellis et al. , 1996 ; Felton and Wood, 1992 ; Fletcher et al. , 1994 ; Fredman and Stevenson, 1988 ; Hurford et al. , 1994 ; Siegel, 1988, 1992 ; Stanovich and Siegel, 1994 ) and orthographic processing ( Fredman and Stevenson, 1988 ; Siegel, 1992 ; Stanovich and Siegel, 1994 ) . Therefore, IQ here does non look to plays any of import function, hence should it be excluded from the definition of dyslexia or as portion of the rating of a pupil identified with dyslexia? This is another unsolved issue that causes great confusion and arguments in the field. The writers ( Gustafson and Samuelson, 1999 ) concluded that possibly is better to chiefly concentrate on the causes of reading troubles before we begin doing premises based on the IQ tonss.

One of the issues refering dyslexia every bit good seems to be the general impression that dyslexia is an damage largely found in males than females. In add-on, Neisser et Al. ( 1996 ) listed a figure of factors which differentiate males from females in IQ trials – factors which might be considered as of import and for the favoritism made in dyslexia between the two sexes.

Even if we accept that IQ trial can mensurate intelligence, their consequences are due to some factors which need to be taken into history. Specifically, surveies found that males seem to hold greater visual-spatial abilities ( Law, Pellegrino and Hunt, 1993 ; Linn and Petersen, 1985 ) hence their public presentation in “ motion related and visual-spatial trials ” ( p.91 ) is much better than the public presentation of females ( Jardine and Martin, 1983 ) . Furthermore, they besides seem to hold improved abilities in undertakings refering “ relative and mechanical logical thinking ” ( Meehan, 1984 ; Stanley, Benbow, Brody, Dauber and Lupkowski, 1992, in Neisser et al. , 1996, p.91 ) and better consequences in undertakings that demand mathematical applications ( Benbow, 1988 ; Halpem, 1992 in Neisser et Al, 1996 ) . At the contrary, females seem much better in quantitative undertakings particularly in early old ages ( Hyde, Fennema and Lamon, 1990 ) , although there ‘quantitative high quality ‘ does non last long as in males who keep their public presentation high plenty through later old ages ( Neisser et al. , 1996 ) .

In general, females have better public presentation on verbal undertakings, particularly refering “ synonym coevals and verbal eloquence ” ( Gordon and Lee, 1986 ; Hines, 1990, in Neisser et al. , 1996, p.91 ) . Besides, a great figure of females demonstrate better academic public presentation in higher instruction scenes than males, particularly in reading and spelling trials ( Neisser et al. , 1996 ) . These grounds might be regarded as the cause of the impression that dyslexia is found largely in males than females due to the fact that the formers seem to hold lower abilities in some of the undertakings that are used to measure and place dyslexia.

All these factors support the general impression that IQ trials tend to analyze a broad scope of abilities instead than intelligence itself even though all the abilities evaluated are considered elements of the general construct of intelligence.

To sum up, IQ tests seem to hold on the one manus some protagonists and on the other manus some research workers oppugning their efficaciousness. Particularly, some of the statements found in the field concern the grounds that can act upon the consequences of a tool like IQ. Primarily, the anterior experience of the examiner and s/he ‘s cognition of the procedure is an of import factor towards the concluding consequence of an person ‘s public presentation in an IQ trial, since a misapplication or non to be given the proper attending to such an of import testing is unacceptable, since is consider by many as a ‘strong grounds tool ‘ towards intelligence.

Besides, the fact that the consequences might be biased for grounds such as the “ socioeconomic criterions or the cultural minorities ” ( Weinberg, 1989, p.100 ) is besides a affair of great importance. Therefore, each IQ trial has to be re-standardised in the footing of the civilizations beliefs.

Furthermore, some others support that the trial tonss could take to ulterior favoritism among the society ( Kaplan, 1985 ; Oakland and Parmelee, 1985 ) . As mentioned before, the consequence in an IQ trial has important importance to the ulterior life of an single since great attending is given from the society and from other contexts to the existent consequence. In add-on, Zigler and Seitz ( 1982 ) pointed out that person ‘s public presentation in an IQ trial could be influenced by “ motivational and personality ” factors ( Weinberg, 1989, p.100 ) , hence the consequence might non be representative.

On the other manus, the protagonists of IQ trials refer to a figure of advantages IQ trials have. One of the most of import advantage this protagonists ‘charge ‘ on IQ trials is that it can be used as a anterior – school tool to foretell the public presentation of a scholar, particularly in older ages. This underpins its of import as a tool which can sort a “ extremely stable single feature ” ( Nettelbeck and Wilson, 2005, p.612 ) . Furthermore, IQ tests seem to trust on the one manus on “ complex learned job work outing techniques ” and on the other manus with “ simple speeded undertakings which do non demand much anterior cognition or acquired accomplishments ” ( Deary, 2000 in Nettelbeck and Wilson, 2005, p.612 ) , therefore one could state that they cover a broad scope of abilities and therefore IQ trials should be considered important if non as measurings of intelligence, at least as steps of the general abilities an single posses. Besides, protagonists emphasise on the IQ ‘s cogency since a figure of considerations have been taken over the old ages, such as the possibility of “ misapplication or the labelling of a scholar on the footing of s/he ‘s IQ mark ” ( Nettelbeck and Wilson, 2005, p.610 ) . Therefore, one might state that since IQ trials demonstrate high degrees of cogency and since they consider so many factors which could act upon the consequence why non be related with intelligence?

To sum up, the arguments whether intelligence can be measured or non hold non lead to any decisions. However, these statements in the field has non stop IQ trials from being widely used by many research workers in different scenes as a step of intelligence. Besides, efforts have been made over the old ages to place those factors that might act upon the consequences of an IQ trial. Furthermore, the theories developed over the old ages besides show the great differences in sentiments underpinning intelligence. For what is seems neither the theories nor the IQ trials were able to devour the dissensions. Therefore, the inquiry remains – Is intelligence a mensurable construct based on the consequences of an IQ trial or is it a construct to be measured based on single criterions? The research to follow might supply us with an reply.