Psychological Testing and Adolescents Paper
Introduction
Created over a century ago, intelligence tests are still used today to measure the mental agility and ability of an individual. Stanford-Binet intelligence scale and Wechsler scales are the widely used intelligence tests. According to (Ronald, 2017), these tests help to assess and diagnose different aged people for cognitive disorders and disorders that affect learning, such as mental retardation, learning disabilities, and intellectual giftedness. In this paper, the significance of intelligence testing in educational settings will be explained.
Explanation of the Significance of Intelligence Tests
Testing compares: In the sector of education, intelligence tests provide a range of cognitive skills and knowledge that education counselors can use to compare the performance of a child against the other learners with similar demographic attributes. According to (Bartholomew, 2004), a comparison of a child allows the assessor to form an accurate understanding of the child’s ability to compete or perform on academic work. In select instances, for example, under suspected intellectual impairment, understanding the cognitive ability of the child compared to the rest enables the school counselor to create an educational plan that encourages the child to attain academic growth.
Testing provides valuable insights: In a classroom setting, exceptional pupils bring about instructional difficulties. A combination of intelligence tests with observation and proper interpretation yields insightful information into the learner’s pattern of strengths and weaknesses, assisting the assessor in understanding the causes behind the child’s poor performance. According to (Elliott & Resing, 2015), intelligence tests provide the school counselor, teachers, and parents with adequate information to form sound decisions on when to issue specialized instruction where disability cases arise. Nonetheless, understanding the child’s level of academic giftedness assists the teacher in developing instruction that steers the end-result of giftedness.
Prevents stereotyping: According to (Williams, 2000), the administration of intelligence tests is better known to prevent stereotyping than the alternatives. Using the right intelligence test dispels the stereotype that most people have on disabled children. Also, children born with limited mobility and without speech ability are stereotyped to be slow learners. Thus, choosing the best intelligence test removes such stereotypes since the teacher, counselor, or parents can clearly understand the intelligence level of the child without issues of minority culture biases and other diverse cultural beliefs towards disability.
Attributes of Intelligence Tests
The main characteristics of intelligence tests include normative culture, standardization, reliability, and validity.
Normative culture: Psychologists apply norms when scoring intelligence tests. According to (Ronald, 2017), norms give information about how an individual’s test score compares with the other test-takers’ scores. Besides, the raw test scores of an individual are easily converted into percentile scores using norms. In testing, stereotypes associated with limited mobility and speech disability have cultural roots whose impact on percentile scores cannot be ignored. Testing stereotypes are against Section E of the ACA Code of Ethics.
Standardization: According to (Elliott & Resing, 2015), clinicians create norms by attaching tests to a standardization sample. Under this attribute, psychologists are bound to apply uniform testing procedures when administering and scoring the tests. Standardization sample represents the whole population of potential IQ test-takers, whose test results are used to make decisions on matters learning. Besides, psychologists have to ensure that all test takers can understand the language used in tests administration.
Validity and reliability: Intelligence tests must be valid and reliable. The validity of a test implies that the test can measure what it is meant to measure. Reliability, on the other hand, implies that the test must be able to provide similar results when issued at different periods to people exposed within a similar environment (Bartholomew, 2004).
Example of when it could be appropriate to administer an intelligence test and why
In a classroom setting, children perform differently. Thus, it could be appropriate for a psychologist to administer an intelligence test in a classroom setting. According to (Williams, 2000), there are slow learners and fast learners. On a formal IQ test, slow learners score between 70 and 85, and this is termed as borderline intellectual disability. In such an environment, a qualified psychologist would be able to diagnose a child with cognitive impairment based on a consistent drop in performance or inability to improve performance when the other children are improving their academic performance (Ronald, 2017). This implies that psychologists should administer a similar/ standardized test to all children in the same environment, to test their IQ levels.
Conclusion
Intelligence testing plays a significant role in the field of education. Different learners have different IQ levels. Thus, administering intelligence tests allows psychologists to gain valuable insights, avoid stereotypes, and compare cognitive ability levels for different children or learners. In testing and assessment, psychologists ensure standardization, norming, validity, and reliability of the testing instrument in order to acquire appropriate results for diagnosis and treatment.
References
Bartholomew, D. J. (2004). Measuring intelligence: Facts and fallacies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Elliott, J. G., & Resing, W. (2015). Can intelligence testing inform educational intervention for children with reading disability? Journal of Intelligence, 3(4), 137-157.
Ronald, J. C. (2017). Psychological Testing and Assessment (7th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
Williams, W. M. (2000). Perspectives on intelligence testing, affirmative action, and educational policy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6(1), 5.