Hubbry Logo
IQ classificationIQ classificationMain
Open search
IQ classification
Community hub
IQ classification
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
IQ classification
IQ classification
IQ classification
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Chart of IQ Distributions on 1916 Stanford–Binet Test
Score distribution chart for sample of 905 children tested on 1916 Stanford–Binet Test

IQ classification is the practice of categorizing human intelligence, as measured by intelligence quotient (IQ) tests, into categories such as "superior" and "average".[1][2][3][4]

With the usual IQ scoring methods, an IQ score of 100 means that the test-taker's performance on the test is of average performance in the sample of test-takers of about the same age as was used to norm the test. An IQ score of 115 means performance one standard deviation above the mean, while a score of 85 means performance one standard deviation below the mean, and so on.[5] This "deviation IQ" method is used for standard scoring of all IQ tests in large part because they allow a consistent definition of IQ for both children and adults. By the existing "deviation IQ" definition of IQ test standard scores, about two-thirds of all test-takers obtain scores from 85 to 115, and about 5 percent of the population scores above 125 (i.e. normal distribution).[6]

When IQ testing was first created, Lewis Terman and other early developers of IQ tests noticed that most child IQ scores come out to approximately the same number regardless of testing procedure. Variability in scores can occur when the same individual takes the same test more than once.[7][8] Further, a minor divergence in scores can be observed when an individual takes tests provided by different publishers at the same age.[9] There is no standard naming or definition scheme employed universally by all test publishers for IQ score classifications.

Even before IQ tests were invented, there were attempts to classify people into intelligence categories by observing their behavior in daily life.[10][11] Those other forms of behavioral observation were historically important for validating classifications based primarily on IQ test scores. Some early intelligence classifications by IQ testing depended on the definition of "intelligence" used in a particular case. Contemporary IQ test publishers take into account reliability and error of estimation in the classification procedure.

Differences in individual IQ classification

[edit]
IQ scores can differ to some degree for the same person on different IQ tests, so a person does not always belong to the same IQ score range each time the person is tested (IQ score table data and pupil pseudonyms adapted from description of KABC-II norming study cited in Kaufman 2009).[12][13]
Pupil KABC-II WISC-III WJ-III
Asher 90 95 111
Brianna 125 110 105
Colin 100 93 101
Danica 116 127 118
Elpha 93 105 93
Fritz 106 105 105
Georgi 95 100 90
Hector 112 113 103
Imelda 104 96 97
Jose 101 99 86
Keoku 81 78 75
Leo 116 124 102

IQ tests generally are reliable enough that most people 10 years of age and older have similar IQ scores throughout life.[14] Still, some individuals score very differently when taking the same test at different times or when taking more than one kind of IQ test at the same age.[15] About 42% of children change their score by 5 or more points when re-tested.[16]

For example, many children in the famous longitudinal Genetic Studies of Genius begun in 1921 by Lewis Terman showed declines in IQ as they grew up. Terman recruited school pupils based on referrals from teachers, and gave them his Stanford–Binet IQ test. Children with an IQ above 140 by that test were included in the study. There were 643 children in the main study group. When the students who could be contacted again (503 students) were retested at high school age, they were found to have dropped 9 IQ points on average in Stanford–Binet IQ. Some children dropped by 15 IQ points or by 25 points or more. Yet parents of those children thought that the children were still as bright as ever, or even brighter.[17]

Because all IQ tests have error of measurement in the test-taker's IQ score, a test-giver should always inform the test-taker of the confidence interval around the score obtained on a given occasion of taking each test.[18] IQ scores are ordinal scores and are not expressed in an interval measurement unit.[19][20][21][22][23] Besides the reported error interval around IQ test scores, an IQ score could be misleading if a test-giver failed to follow standardized administration and scoring procedures. In cases of test-giver mistakes, the usual result is that tests are scored too leniently, giving the test-taker a higher IQ score than the test-taker's performance justifies. On the other hand, some test-givers err by showing a "halo effect", with low-IQ individuals receiving IQ scores even lower than if standardized procedures were followed, while high-IQ individuals receive inflated IQ scores.[24]

The categories of IQ vary between IQ test publishers as the category labels for IQ score ranges are specific to each brand of test. The test publishers do not have a uniform practice of labeling IQ score ranges, nor do they have a consistent practice of dividing up IQ score ranges into categories of the same size or with the same boundary scores.[25] Thus psychologists should specify which test was given when reporting a test-taker's IQ category if not reporting the raw IQ score.[26] Psychologists and IQ test authors recommend that psychologists adopt the terminology of each test publisher when reporting IQ score ranges.[27][28]

IQ classifications from IQ testing are not the last word on how a test-taker will do in life, nor are they the only information to be considered for placement in school or job-training programs. There is still a dearth of information about how behavior differs between people with differing IQ scores.[29] For placement in school programs, for medical diagnosis, and for career advising, factors other than IQ can be part of an individual assessment as well.

The lesson here is that classification systems are necessarily arbitrary and change at the whim of test authors, government bodies, or professional organizations. They are statistical concepts and do not correspond in any real sense to the specific capabilities of any particular person with a given IQ. The classification systems provide descriptive labels that may be useful for communication purposes in a case report or conference, and nothing more.[30]

— Alan S. Kaufman and Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger, Assessing Adolescent and Adult Intelligence (2006)

IQ classification tables

[edit]

There are a variety of individually administered IQ tests in use.[31][32] Not all report test results as "IQ", but most report a standard score with a mean score level of 100. When a test-taker scores higher or lower than the median score, the score is indicated as 15 standard score points higher or lower for each standard deviation difference higher or lower in the test-taker's performance on the test item content.

Wechsler Intelligence Scales

[edit]
Main article: Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale
See also: Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children and Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence

The Wechsler intelligence scales were developed from earlier intelligence scales by David Wechsler. David Wechsler, using the clinical and statistical skills he gained under Charles Spearman and as a World War I psychology examiner, crafted a series of intelligence tests. These eventually surpassed other such measures, becoming the most widely used and popular intelligence assessment tools for many years. The first Wechsler test published was the Wechsler–Bellevue Scale in 1939.[33] The Wechsler IQ tests for children and for adults are the most frequently used individual IQ tests in the English-speaking world[34] and in their translated versions are perhaps the most widely used IQ tests worldwide.[35] The Wechsler tests have long been regarded as the "gold standard" in IQ testing.[36] The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—Fourth Edition (WAIS–IV) was published in 2008 by The Psychological Corporation.[31] The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children—Fifth Edition (WISC–V) was published in 2014 by The Psychological Corporation, and the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence—Fourth Edition (WPPSI–IV) was published in 2012 by The Psychological Corporation. Like all contemporary IQ tests, the Wechsler tests report a "deviation IQ" as the standard score for the full-scale IQ, with the norming sample mean raw score defined as IQ 100 and a score one standard deviation higher defined as IQ 115 (and one deviation lower defined as IQ 85).

During the First World War in 1917, adult intelligence testing gained prominence as an instrument for assessing drafted soldiers in the United States. Robert Yerkes, an American psychologist, was assigned to devise psychometric tools to allocate recruits to different levels of military service, leading to the development of the Army Alpha and Army Beta group-based tests. The collective efforts of Binet, Simon, Terman, and Yerkes laid the groundwork for modern intelligence test series.[37]

Wechsler (WAIS–IV, WPPSI–IV) IQ classification
IQ Range ("deviation IQ") IQ Classification[38][39]
130 and above Very Superior
120–129 Superior
110–119 High Average
90–109 Average
80–89 Low Average
70–79 Borderline
69 and below Extremely Low
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fifth Edition (WISC-V) IQ classification
IQ Range ("deviation IQ") IQ Classification[40]
130 and above Extremely High
120–129 Very High
110–119 High Average
90–109 Average
80–89 Low Average
70–79 Very Low
69 and below Extremely Low

Psychologists have proposed alternative language for Wechsler IQ classifications.[41][42] The term "borderline", which implies being very close to being intellectually disabled (defined as IQ under 70), is replaced in the alternative system by a term that doesn't imply a medical diagnosis.

Alternate Wechsler IQ Classifications (after Groth-Marnat 2009)[43]
Corresponding IQ Range Classifications More value-neutral terms
130 and above Very superior Upper extreme
120–129 Superior Well above average
110–119 High average High average
90–109 Average Average
80–89 Low average Below average
70–79 Borderline Well below average
69 and below Extremely low Lower extreme

Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scale Fifth Edition

[edit]
Main article: Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scales

The fifth edition of the Stanford–Binet scales (SB5) was developed by Gale H. Roid and published in 2003 by Riverside Publishing.[31] Unlike scoring on previous versions of the Stanford–Binet test, SB5 IQ scoring is deviation scoring in which each standard deviation up or down from the norming sample median score is 15 points from the median score, IQ 100, just like the standard scoring on the Wechsler tests.

Stanford–Binet Fifth Edition (SB5) classification[39][44]
IQ Range ("deviation IQ") IQ Classification
140 and above Very gifted or highly advanced
130–139 Gifted or very advanced
120–129 Superior
110–119 High average
90–109 Average
80–89 Low average
70–79 Borderline impaired or delayed
55–69 Mildly impaired or delayed
40–54 Moderately impaired or delayed
19-39 Profound mental retardation

Woodcock–Johnson Test of Cognitive Abilities

[edit]
Main article: Woodcock–Johnson Tests of Cognitive Abilities

The Woodcock–Johnson a III NU Tests of Cognitive Abilities (WJ III NU) was developed by Richard W. Woodcock, Kevin S. McGrew and Nancy Mather and published in 2007 by Riverside.[31] The WJ III classification terms are not applied.

Woodcock–Johnson R
IQ Score WJ III Classification[45]
131 and above Very superior
121 to 130 Superior
111 to 120 High Average
90 to 110 Average
80 to 89 Low Average
70 to 79 Low
69 and below Very Low

Kaufman Tests

[edit]

The Kaufman Adolescent and Adult Intelligence Test was developed by Alan S. Kaufman and Nadeen L. Kaufman and published in 1993 by American Guidance Service.[31] Kaufman test scores "are classified in a symmetrical, nonevaluative fashion",[46] in other words the score ranges for classification are just as wide above the mean as below the mean, and the classification labels do not purport to assess individuals.

KAIT 1993 IQ classification
130 and above Upper Extreme
120–129 Well Above Average
110–119 Above average
90–109 Average
80–89 Below Average
70–79 Well Below Average
69 and below Lower Extreme
Main article: Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children

The Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children, Second Edition was developed by Alan S. Kaufman and Nadeen L. Kaufman and published in 2004 by American Guidance Service.[31]

KABC-II 2004 Descriptive Categories[47][48]
Range of Standard Scores Name of Category
131–160 Upper Extreme
116–130 Above Average
85–115 Average Range
70–84 Below Average
40–69 Lower Extreme

Cognitive Assessment System

[edit]
Main article: Cognitive Assessment System

The Das-Naglieri Cognitive Assessment System test was developed by Jack Naglieri and J. P. Das and published in 1997 by Riverside.[31]

Cognitive Assessment System 1997 full scale score classification[49]
Standard Scores Classification
130 and above Very Superior
120–129 Superior
110–119 High Average
90–109 Average
80–89 Low Average
70–79 Below Average
69 and below Well Below Average

Differential Ability Scales

[edit]
Main article: Differential Ability Scales

The Differential Ability Scales Second Edition (DAS–II) was developed by Colin D. Elliott and published in 2007 by Psychological Corporation.[31] The DAS-II is a test battery given individually to children, normed for children from ages two years and six months through seventeen years and eleven months.[50] It was normed on 3,480 noninstitutionalized, English-speaking children in that age range.[51] The DAS-II yields a General Conceptual Ability (GCA) score scaled like an IQ score with the mean standard score set at 100 and 15 standard score points for each standard deviation up or down from the mean. The lowest possible GCA score on DAS–II is 30, and the highest is 170.[52]

DAS-II 2007 GCA classification[39][53]
GCA General Conceptual Ability Classification
≥ 130 Very high
120–129 High
110–119 Above average
90–109 Average
80–89 Below average
70–79 Low
≤ 69 Very low

Reynolds Intellectual Ability Scales

[edit]

Reynolds Intellectual Ability Scales (RIAS) were developed by Cecil Reynolds and Randy Kamphaus. The RIAS was published in 2003 by Psychological Assessment Resources.[31]

RIAS 2003 Scheme of Verbal Descriptors of Intelligence Test Performance[54]
Intelligence test score range Verbal descriptor
≥ 130 Significantly above average
120–129 Moderately above average
110–119 Above average
90–109 Average
80–89 Below average
70–79 Moderately below average
≤ 69 Significantly below average

Historical IQ classification tables

[edit]
Reproduction of an item from the 1908 Binet–Simon intelligence scale, showing three pairs of pictures, about which the tested child was asked, "Which of these two faces is the prettier?" Reproduced from the article "A Practical Guide for Administering the Binet–Simon Scale for Measuring Intelligence" by J. E. Wallace Wallin in the March 1911 issue of the journal The Psychological Clinic (volume 5 number 1), public domain.

Lewis Terman, developer of the Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scales, based his English-language Stanford–Binet IQ test on the French-language Binet–Simon test developed by Alfred Binet. Terman believed his test measured the "general intelligence" construct advocated by Charles Spearman (1904).[55][56] Terman differed from Binet in reporting scores on his test in the form of intelligence quotient ("mental age" divided by chronological age) scores after the 1912 suggestion of German psychologist William Stern. Terman chose the category names for score levels on the Stanford–Binet test. When he first chose classification for score levels, he relied partly on the usage of earlier authors who wrote, before the existence of IQ tests, on topics such as individuals unable to care for themselves in independent adult life. Terman's first version of the Stanford–Binet was based on norming samples that included only white, American-born subjects, mostly from California, Nevada, and Oregon.[57]

Terman's Stanford–Binet original (1916) classification[58][59]
IQ Range ("ratio IQ") IQ Classification
Above 140 "Near" genius or genius
120–140 Very superior intelligence
110–120 Superior intelligence
90–110 Normal, or average, intelligence
80–90 Dullness, rarely classifiable as feeble-mindedness
70–80 Borderline deficiency, sometimes classifiable as dullness, often as feeble-mindedness
69 and below Definite feeble-mindedness

Rudolph Pintner proposed a set of classification terms in his 1923 book Intelligence Testing: Methods and Results.[4] Pintner commented that psychologists of his era, including Terman, went about "the measurement of an individual's general ability without waiting for an adequate psychological definition."[60] Pintner retained these terms in the 1931 second edition of his book.[61]

Pintner 1923 IQ classification[4]
IQ Range ("ratio IQ") IQ Classification
130 and above Very Superior
120–129 Very Bright
110–119 Bright
90–109 Normal
80–89 Backward
70–79 Borderline

Albert Julius Levine and Louis Marks proposed a broader set of categories in their 1928 book Testing Intelligence and Achievement.[62][63] Some of the entries came from contemporary terms for people with intellectual disability.

Levine and Marks 1928 IQ classification[62][63]
IQ Range ("ratio IQ") IQ Classification
175 and over Precocious
150–174 Very superior
125–149 Superior
115–124 Very bright
105–114 Bright
95–104 Average
85–94 Dull
75–84 Borderline
50–74 Morons
25–49 Imbeciles
0–24 Idiots

The second revision (1937) of the Stanford–Binet test retained "quotient IQ" scoring, despite earlier criticism of that method of reporting IQ test standard scores.[64] The term "genius" was no longer used for any IQ score range.[65] The second revision was normed only on children and adolescents (no adults), and only "American-born white children".[66]

Terman's Stanford–Binet Second Revision (1937) classification[65]
IQ Range ("ratio IQ") IQ Classification
140 and above Very superior
120–139 Superior
110–119 High average
90–109 Normal or average
80–89 Low average
70–79 Borderline defective
69 and below Mentally defective

A data table published later as part of the manual for the 1960 Third Revision (Form L-M) of the Stanford–Binet test reported score distributions from the 1937 second revision standardization group.

Score Distribution of Stanford–Binet 1937 Standardization Group[65]
IQ Range ("ratio IQ") Percent of Group
160–169 0.03
150–159 0.2
140–149 1.1
130–139 3.1
120–129 8.2
110–119 18.1
100–109 23.5
90–99 23.0
80–89 14.5
70–79 5.6
60–69 2.0
50–59 0.4
40–49 0.2
30–39 0.03

David Wechsler, developer of the Wechsler–Bellevue Scale of 1939 (which was later developed into the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale) popularized the use of "deviation IQs" as standard scores of IQ tests rather than the "quotient IQs" ("mental age" divided by "chronological age") then used for the Stanford–Binet test.[67] He devoted a whole chapter in his book The Measurement of Adult Intelligence to the topic of IQ classification and proposed different category names from those used by Lewis Terman. Wechsler also criticized the practice of earlier authors who published IQ classification tables without specifying which IQ test was used to obtain the scores reported in the tables.[68]

Wechsler–Bellevue 1939 IQ classification
IQ Range ("deviation IQ") IQ Classification Percent Included
128 and over Very Superior 2.2
120–127 Superior 6.7
111–119 Bright Normal 16.1
91–110 Average 50.0
80–90 Dull normal 16.1
66–79 Borderline 6.7
65 and below Defective 2.2

In 1958, Wechsler published another edition of his book Measurement and Appraisal of Adult Intelligence. He revised his chapter on the topic of IQ classification and commented that "mental age" scores were not a more valid way to score intelligence tests than IQ scores.[69] He continued to use the same classification terms.

Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales 1958 Classification[70]
IQ Range ("deviation IQ") IQ Classification (Theoretical) Percent Included
128 and over Very Superior 2.2
120–127 Superior 6.7
111–119 Bright Normal 16.1
91–110 Average 50.0
80–90 Dull normal 16.1
66–79 Borderline 6.7
65 and below Defective 2.2

The third revision (Form L-M) in 1960 of the Stanford–Binet IQ test used the deviation scoring pioneered by David Wechsler. For rough comparability of scores between the second and third revision of the Stanford–Binet test, scoring table author Samuel Pinneau set 100 for the median standard score level and 16 standard score points for each standard deviation above or below that level. The highest score obtainable by direct look-up from the standard scoring tables (based on norms from the 1930s) was IQ 171 at various chronological ages from three years six months (with a test raw score "mental age" of six years and two months) up to age six years and three months (with a test raw score "mental age" of ten years and three months).[71] The classification for Stanford–Binet L-M scores does not include terms such as "exceptionally gifted" and "profoundly gifted" in the test manual itself. David Freides, reviewing the Stanford–Binet Third Revision in 1970 for the Buros Seventh Mental Measurements Yearbook (published in 1972), commented that the test was obsolete by that year.[72]

Terman's Stanford–Binet Third Revision (Form L-M) classification[44]
IQ Range ("deviation IQ") IQ Classification
140 and above Very superior
120–139 Superior
110–119 High average
90–109 Normal or average
80–89 Low average
70–79 Borderline defective
69 and below Mentally defective

The first edition of the Woodcock–Johnson Tests of Cognitive Abilities was published by Riverside in 1977. The classifications used by the WJ-R Cog were "modern in that they describe levels of performance as opposed to offering a diagnosis."[45]

Woodcock–Johnson R
IQ Score WJ-R Cog 1977 Classification[45]
131 and above Very superior
121 to 130 Superior
111 to 120 High Average
90 to 110 Average
80 to 89 Low Average
70 to 79 Low
69 and below Very Low

The revised version of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (the WAIS-R) was developed by David Wechsler and published by Psychological Corporation in 1981. Wechsler changed a few of the boundaries for classification categories and a few of their names compared to the 1958 version of the test. The test's manual included information about how the actual percentage of people in the norming sample scoring at various levels compared to theoretical expectations.

Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales 1981 Classification[73]
IQ Range ("deviation IQ") IQ Classification Actual Percent Included Theoretical Percent Included
130 and above Very Superior 2.6 2.2
120–129 Superior 6.9 6.7
110–119 High Average 16.6 16.1
90–109 Average 49.1 50.0
80–89 Low Average 16.1 16.1
70–79 Borderline 6.4 6.7
69 and below Mentally Retarded 2.3 2.2

The Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (K-ABC) was developed by Alan S. Kaufman and Nadeen L. Kaufman and published in 1983 by American Guidance Service.

K-ABC 1983 Ability Classifications[73]
Range of Standard Scores Name of Category Percent of Norm Sample Theoretical Percent Included
130 and above Upper Extreme 2.3 2.2
120–129 Well Above Average 7.4 6.7
110–119 Above Average 16.7 16.1
90–109 Average 49.5 50.0
80–89 Below Average 16.1 16.1
70–79 Well Below Average 6.1 6.7
69 and below Lower Extreme 2.1 2.2

The fourth revision of the Stanford–Binet scales (S-B IV) was developed by Thorndike, Hagen, and Sattler and published by Riverside Publishing in 1986. It retained the deviation scoring of the third revision with each standard deviation from the mean being defined as a 16 IQ point difference. The S-B IV adopted new classification terminology. After this test was published, psychologist Nathan Brody lamented that IQ tests had still not caught up with advances in research on human intelligence during the twentieth century.[74]

Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scale, Fourth Edition (S-B IV) 1986 classification[75][76]
IQ Range ("deviation IQ") IQ Classification
132 and above Very superior
121–131 Superior
111–120 High average
89–110 Average
79–88 Low average
68–78 Slow learner
67 or below Mentally retarded

The third edition of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS-III) used different classification terminology from the earliest versions of Wechsler tests.

Wechsler (WAIS–III) 1997 IQ test classification
IQ Range ("deviation IQ") IQ Classification
130 and above Very superior
120–129 Superior
110–119 High average
90–109 Average
80–89 Low average
70–79 Borderline
69 and below Extremely low

Classification of low IQ

[edit]
Main article: Intellectual disability
See also: Borderline intellectual functioning

The earliest terms for classifying individuals of low intelligence were medical or legal terms that preceded the development of IQ testing.[10][11] The legal system recognized a concept of some individuals being so cognitively impaired that they were not responsible for criminal behavior. Medical doctors sometimes encountered adult patients who could not live independently, being unable to take care of their own daily living needs. Various terms were used to attempt to classify individuals with varying degrees of intellectual disability. Many of the earliest terms are now considered extremely offensive.

In modern medical diagnosis, IQ scores alone are not conclusive for a finding of intellectual disability. Recently adopted diagnostic standards place the major emphasis on the adaptive behavior of each individual, with IQ score a factor in diagnosis in addition to adaptive behavior scales. Some advocate for no category of intellectual disability to be defined primarily by IQ scores.[77] Psychologists point out that evidence from IQ testing should always be used with other assessment evidence in mind: "In the end, any and all interpretations of test performance gain diagnostic meaning when they are corroborated by other data sources and when they are empirically or logically related to the area or areas of difficulty specified in the referral."[78]

In the United States, the Supreme Court ruled in the case Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) that states could not impose capital punishment on people with "mental retardation", defined in subsequent cases as people with IQ scores below 70.[citation needed] This legal standard continues to be actively litigated in capital cases.[79]

Historical

[edit]

Historically, terms for intellectual disability eventually became perceived as an insult, in a process commonly known as the euphemism treadmill.[80][81][82] The terms mental retardation and mentally retarded became popular in the middle of the 20th century to replace the previous set of terms, which included "imbecile", "idiot", "feeble-minded", and "moron",[83] among others. By the end of the 20th century, retardation and retard became widely seen as disparaging and politically incorrect, although they are still used in some clinical contexts.[84]

The long-defunct American Association for the Study of the Feeble-minded divided adults with intellectual deficits into three categories in 1916: Idiot indicated the greatest degree of intellectual disability in which a person's mental age is below three years. Imbecile indicated an intellectual disability less severe than idiocy and a mental age between three and seven years. Moron was defined as someone a mental age between eight and twelve.[85] Alternative definitions of these terms based on IQ were also used.[citation needed]

Mongolism and Mongoloid idiot were terms used to identify someone with Down syndrome, as the doctor who first described the syndrome, John Langdon Down, believed that children with Down syndrome shared facial similarities with the now-obsolete category of "Mongolian race". The Mongolian People's Republic requested that the medical community cease the use of the term; in 1960, the World Health Organization agreed the term should cease being used.[86]

Retarded comes from the Latin retardare, 'to make slow, delay, keep back, or hinder', so mental retardation meant the same as mentally delayed. The first record of retarded in relation to being mentally slow was in 1895. The term mentally retarded was used to replace terms like idiot, moron, and imbecile because retarded was not then a derogatory term. By the 1960s, however, the term had taken on a partially derogatory meaning. The noun retard is particularly seen as pejorative; a BBC survey in 2003 ranked it as the most offensive disability-related word.[87] The terms mentally retarded and mental retardation are still fairly common, but organizations such as the Special Olympics and Best Buddies are striving to eliminate their use and often refer to retard and its variants as the "r-word". These efforts resulted in U.S. federal legislation, known as Rosa's Law, which replaced the term mentally retarded with the term intellectual disability in federal law.[88][89]

Classification of high IQ

[edit]

Genius

[edit]
Main article: Genius
Galton in his later years

Francis Galton (1822–1911) was a pioneer in investigating both eminent human achievement and mental testing. In his book Hereditary Genius, written before the development of IQ testing, he proposed that hereditary influences on eminent achievement are strong, and that eminence is rare in the general population. Lewis Terman chose "'near' genius or genius" as the classification label for the highest classification on his 1916 version of the Stanford–Binet test.[58] By 1926, Terman began publishing about a longitudinal study of California schoolchildren who were referred for IQ testing by their schoolteachers, called Genetic Studies of Genius, which he conducted for the rest of his life. Catherine M. Cox, a colleague of Terman's, wrote a whole book, The Early Mental Traits of 300 Geniuses, published as volume 2 of The Genetic Studies of Genius book series, in which she analyzed biographical data about historic geniuses. Although her estimates of childhood IQ scores of historical figures who never took IQ tests have been criticized on methodological grounds,[90][91][92] Cox's study was thorough in finding out what else matters besides IQ in becoming a genius.[93] By the 1937 second revision of the Stanford–Binet test, Terman no longer used the term "genius" as an IQ classification, nor has any subsequent IQ test.[65][94] In 1939, Wechsler wrote "we are rather hesitant about calling a person a genius on the basis of a single intelligence test score."[95]

The Terman longitudinal study in California eventually provided historical evidence on how genius is related to IQ scores.[96] Many California pupils were recommended for the study by schoolteachers. Two pupils who were tested but rejected for inclusion in the study because their IQ scores were too low, grew up to be Nobel Prize winners in physics: William Shockley[97][98] and Luis Walter Alvarez.[99][100] Based on the historical findings of the Terman study and on biographical examples such as Richard Feynman, who had an IQ of 125 and went on to win the Nobel Prize in physics and become widely known as a genius,[101][102] the view of psychologists and other scholars[who?] of genius is that a minimum IQ, about 125, is strictly necessary for genius,[citation needed] but that IQ is sufficient for the development of genius only when combined with the other influences identified by Cox's biographical study: an opportunity for talent development along with the characteristics of drive and persistence. Charles Spearman, bearing in mind the influential theory that he originated—that intelligence comprises both a "general factor" and "special factors" more specific to particular mental tasks—wrote in 1927, "Every normal man, woman, and child is, then, a genius at something, as well as an idiot at something."[103]

Giftedness

[edit]
Main article: Intellectual giftedness

A major point of consensus among all scholars of intellectual giftedness is that there is no generally agreed upon definition of giftedness.[104] Although there is no scholarly agreement about identifying gifted learners, there is a de facto reliance on IQ scores for identifying participants in school gifted education programs. In practice, many school districts in the United States use an IQ score of 130, including roughly the upper 2 to 3 percent of the national population as a cut-off score for inclusion in school gifted programs.[105]

Five levels of giftedness have been suggested to differentiate the vast difference in abilities that exists between children on varying ends of the gifted spectrum.[106] Although there is no strong consensus on the validity of these quantifiers, they are accepted by many experts of gifted children.

Levels of Giftedness (M.U. Gross)[106]
Classification IQ Range σ Prevalence
Mildly gifted 115–129 +1.00–+1.99 1:6–1:44
Moderately gifted 130–144 +2.00–+2.99 1:44–1:1,000
Highly gifted 145–159 +3.00–+3.99 1:1,000–1:10,000
Exceptionally gifted 160–179 +4.00–+5.33 1:10,000–1:1,000,000
Profoundly gifted 180– +5.33– < 1:1,000,000

As long ago as 1937, Lewis Terman pointed out that error of estimation in IQ scoring increases as IQ score increases, so that there is less and less certainty about assigning a test-taker to one band of scores or another as one looks at higher bands.[107] Modern IQ tests also have large error bands for high IQ scores.[108] As an underlying reality, such distinctions as those between "exceptionally gifted" and "profoundly gifted" have never been well established. All longitudinal studies of IQ have shown that test-takers can bounce up and down in score, and thus switch up and down in rank order as compared to one another, over the course of childhood. IQ classification categories such as "profoundly gifted" are those based on the obsolete Stanford–Binet Third Revision (Form L-M) test.[109] The highest reported standard score for most IQ tests is IQ 160, approximately the 99.997th percentile.[110] IQ scores above this level have wider error ranges as there are fewer normative cases at this level of intelligence.[111][112] Moreover, there has never been any validation of the Stanford–Binet L-M on adult populations, and there is no trace of such terminology in the writings of Lewis Terman. Although two contemporary tests attempt to provide "extended norms" that allow for classification of different levels of giftedness, those norms are not based on well validated data.[113]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Bibliography

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

IQ classification

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
IQ classification categorizes cognitive ability levels derived from standardized intelligence tests, yielding an (IQ) score with a population of 100 and standard deviation of 15, typically grouping scores into bands such as very superior (130 and above), superior (120–129), (90–109), and intellectually (below 70). Pioneered by through his 1916 adaptation of the Binet-Simon scale into the Stanford-Binet test, which computed IQ as the ratio of to chronological age multiplied by 100, the framework shifted to deviation scoring under David Wechsler in to address limitations in assessing adults and higher ranges. This system underpins applications in education, , and for diagnosing intellectual or , bolstered by the extraction of a general intelligence factor (g) from factor analyses of diverse cognitive tasks, which explains 40–50% of variance in test performance. IQ scores demonstrate robust , correlating 0.3–0.5 with , job performance, and , while twin studies yield estimates rising to 50–80% in adulthood, though debates persist on environmental influences, test fairness across cultures, and the causal mechanisms underlying group differences.

Definition and Conceptual Foundations

Core Definition and Measurement

The (IQ) is a numerical score derived from a battery of standardized psychometric tests designed to assess an individual's cognitive abilities, including reasoning, problem-solving, memory, and processing speed, relative to a normative . These tests aim to quantify general intelligence, often denoted as the g-factor, which represents the common variance underlying performance across diverse cognitive tasks. In contemporary usage, IQ scores are normed to follow a normal (Gaussian) distribution with a of 100 and standard deviation of 15, such that approximately 68% of scores fall between 85 and 115, and 95% between 70 and 130. Measurement of IQ employs the deviation method, where raw performance on test items is first scaled against age-appropriate norms established through large, of the population (typically thousands of participants across demographics). The individual's z-score is computed as (raw score minus normative mean) divided by the normative standard deviation, then transformed to an IQ score via the IQ = 100 + 15 × z-score. This approach ensures comparability across ages and test versions by emphasizing relative standing rather than absolute developmental milestones. Subtests contribute to full-scale IQ via weighted composites, with reliability coefficients often exceeding 0.90 for test-retest stability in adults. This deviation-based scoring supplanted the original ratio IQ formula—(mental age / chronological age) × 100—developed by William Stern in 1912, which proved inadequate for adults whose cognitive growth plateaus while chronological age continues. Empirical validation of IQ measurement includes strong for outcomes such as (correlations of 0.5–0.8) and job performance (correlations around 0.5–0.6), derived from meta-analyses of longitudinal data, though scores can vary by 5–10 points across test administrations due to factors like fatigue or practice effects.

Historical Origins and Evolution

![Francis Galton2.jpg][float-right] The measurement of intelligence traces its psychometric origins to in the late , who pioneered quantifiable assessments through sensory discrimination tasks, reaction times, and anthropometric measures such as head size, positing that innate ability correlated with physiological traits and . Galton's work emphasized statistical methods like the to study individual differences, influencing later developments in intelligence testing despite limited success in directly gauging higher cognitive faculties. In 1905, French psychologists and Théodore Simon developed the Binet-Simon scale, the first practical intelligence test, commissioned by the French Ministry of Education to identify schoolchildren requiring special assistance due to intellectual delays. The scale assigned a mental age based on performance across age-normed tasks assessing reasoning, memory, and judgment, without initially employing a quotient formula or categorical labels beyond broad educational needs. This approach marked a shift from Galton's sensory focus to practical cognitive evaluation, prioritizing predictive utility for scholastic aptitude over innate capacity debates. American psychologist Henry Goddard imported and adapted the Binet-Simon test in 1908, applying it to classify levels of mental deficiency at institutions like the Vineland Training School. Goddard formalized clinical categories in 1910: for IQ equivalents below 25, for 25-50, and moron for 51-70, terms intended as scientific descriptors for hereditary feeblemindedness to inform eugenic policies, though later criticized for overemphasizing without environmental controls. These labels derived from ratio approximations but gained traction in U.S. psychological and legal contexts, influencing screening and sterilization advocacy. Lewis Terman at Stanford University revised the Binet-Simon scale in 1916 as the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale, standardizing it on over 1,000 American children and introducing the intelligence quotient (IQ) formula: (mental age / chronological age) × 100, enabling ratio-based scoring applicable primarily to youth. Terman's version included detailed classifications, such as "near genius or genius" above 140, "very superior" 120-140, down to "definite feeble-mindedness" below 70, with subdivisions like "total idiot" under 20, reflecting a normal distribution assumption as depicted in his era's score charts. This adaptation popularized IQ testing in education and clinical settings, though its ratio method inflated scores for younger children and plateaued for adults, prompting refinements. The limitations of ratio IQ—particularly its inapplicability to adults whose does not proportionally advance—led to the deviation IQ model's adoption in the 1930s. Pioneered by David Wechsler in his 1939 Wechsler-Bellevue Scale, deviation IQ expresses scores as standard deviations from a population of 100 (SD=15 for adults), assuming a Gaussian distribution and enabling age-independent comparisons. This evolution facilitated broader norming across lifespan stages, refined classifications to descriptive bands like "superior" (120-129) and "borderline" (70-79), and diminished reliance on outdated clinical terms, aligning assessments with statistical rigor over ratio artifacts. Subsequent revisions, such as the 1937 Stanford-Binet Third Revision, incorporated hybrid elements but fully transitioned to deviation scoring by mid-century, enhancing reliability for diverse applications while preserving the core aim of quantifying cognitive variance.

Theoretical Underpinnings

The g-Factor and Hierarchical Models of Intelligence

The g factor, denoting general intelligence, emerges as the dominant common factor in psychometric analyses of batteries, capturing the shared variance across diverse mental abilities. introduced the concept in 1904, observing a consistent positive —termed the positive manifold—among schoolchildren's performances on unrelated tasks like sensory discrimination, word knowledge, and mathematical reasoning, which attributed to an underlying general ability rather than independent specifics. This g explains 40-50% of individual differences in test scores, with the remainder attributable to group-specific (s) factors or test-unique variance, as confirmed in hierarchical factor extractions from large datasets. Hierarchical models position g at the apex of intelligence structure, subordinating lower-level abilities that contribute to but do not fully encompass overall cognitive performance. Spearman's two-factor theory (general g plus specific s factors) laid the foundation, evolving through Louis Thurstone's 1930s identification of primary mental abilities (e.g., verbal comprehension, perceptual speed), which subsequent analyses revealed loaded onto a superordinate g. Empirical support derives from principal components or bifactor analyses of batteries like the Wechsler scales, where g loadings predict real-world outcomes—such as academic achievement and job performance—more robustly than isolated factors, with correlations often exceeding 0.5. The Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory represents the prevailing hierarchical framework, integrating g with Raymond Cattell's 1940s fluid (Gf, novel problem-solving) versus crystallized (Gc, acquired knowledge) dichotomy, John Horn's expansions into 10+ broad abilities, and John Carroll's 1993 reanalysis of 460+ datasets yielding a three-stratum model. Stratum III comprises singular g; Stratum II features 10-16 broad factors (e.g., Gf, Gc, visual-spatial Gv, short-term memory Gsm); Stratum I includes 70+ narrow skills. This taxonomy, validated through cross-battery factor analyses, underpins contemporary IQ test design while preserving g's primacy, as g saturations remain high (0.6-0.8) across strata. Despite critiques questioning g's causal status versus statistical artifact, its persistence in diverse populations and predictive utility affirm its empirical reality over purely modular alternatives.

Heritability Estimates and Genetic Influences

Heritability in the context of IQ refers to the proportion of observed variance in scores within a population attributable to genetic differences among individuals, estimated primarily through behavioral genetic methods such as twin and studies. These methods compare resemblances between monozygotic (identical) twins, who share nearly 100% of their genes, and dizygotic (fraternal) twins, who share about 50%, controlling for shared environments. Meta-analyses of such studies, encompassing thousands of twin pairs, yield estimates for general cognitive ability averaging around 50% across the lifespan, with genetic factors accounting for half or more of individual differences in IQ. Heritability estimates rise substantially from childhood to adulthood, a pattern known as the Wilson effect, reflecting diminishing shared environmental influences as individuals age and select environments correlated with their genotypes. In childhood (around age 9), heritability is approximately 41%, increasing to 55% by adolescence (age 12), 66% by late adolescence (age 16), and reaching 80% or higher in adulthood (ages 18-20 and beyond). This trend holds across multiple datasets, including longitudinal twin studies, where stable genetic factors explain nearly 90% of IQ stability in later life. Adoption studies reinforce these findings, showing IQ correlations between biological relatives higher than with adoptive ones, and fading environmental effects over time. Despite institutional tendencies in academia to emphasize nurture over nature—potentially influenced by ideological biases favoring environmental explanations—empirical data from diverse, large-scale twin registries consistently support these high genetic contributions. At the molecular level, genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified as highly polygenic, involving thousands of genetic variants with small individual effects rather than a few major genes. Polygenic scores, which aggregate these variants' effects, currently predict 7-10% of IQ variance in European-descent populations, representing direct genetic evidence that aligns with but falls short of twin-study due to limitations like incomplete genomic coverage and population-specific effects. Recent meta-analyses of polygenic scores from the largest GWAS datasets confirm their for cognitive traits, with potential for higher accuracy as sample sizes grow and methods improve. These findings underscore causal genetic influences on IQ, independent of environmental confounds, though shared environment explains more variance in before genetic effects dominate. Ongoing , including in non-European samples, aims to refine these estimates amid debates over generalizability, but the polygenic remains robustly supported.

Major IQ Tests and Standardization

Wechsler Intelligence Scales

The Wechsler Intelligence Scales, developed by psychologist David Wechsler, represent a family of standardized tests designed to assess cognitive abilities across age groups, yielding deviation IQ scores with a mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15. Wechsler introduced the Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale in 1939 as an adult measure, emphasizing a profile of verbal and performance abilities rather than a singular global score, which departed from earlier ratio-based IQ methods by incorporating age-normed deviation scoring. This approach facilitated more precise classification of intellectual functioning, with full-scale IQ (FSIQ) scores typically ranging from 40 to 160, enabling differentiation of abilities from profound impairment to exceptional giftedness. Subsequent revisions expanded the scales' applicability and refined subtest structures. The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) followed in 1955, with updates including the WAIS-R (1981) for refreshed norms, WAIS-III (1997) introducing four index scores (Verbal Comprehension, Perceptual Organization, Working Memory, Processing Speed), and WAIS-IV (2008) standardizing on 2,200 U.S. individuals aged 16-90 to enhance cultural fairness and predictive validity for real-world outcomes like academic and occupational success. Parallel child-focused scales include the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC), first published in 1949 for ages 5-15 and updated to WISC-V (2014) with 10 core subtests yielding five primary indices and FSIQ, and the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence (WPPSI), originating in 1967 for ages 2.5-7 and revised to WPPSI-IV (2012) with FSIQ ranges of 41-160. These scales classify IQ through composite scores: subtest scaled scores (mean 10, SD 3) aggregate into index scores (mean 100, SD 15), which combine for FSIQ, supporting diagnostic thresholds such as FSIQ below 70-75 for intellectual disability when paired with adaptive deficits. In IQ classification, Wechsler scales prioritize empirical norming over theoretical constructs, with samples stratified by age, , race/ethnicity, , and to reflect population distributions. High reliability (e.g., >0.95 for WAIS-IV FSIQ) and validity coefficients correlating 0.8+ with underpin their use in categorizing ranges: 90-109 average, 110-119 high average, 120-129 superior, and 130+ very superior, though interpretations account for confidence intervals (typically ±5 points at 95%) and cultural loading in subtests. Critics note potential overemphasis on crystallized knowledge in verbal indices, which may disadvantage non-native speakers, yet longitudinal data affirm the scales' stability, with test-retest correlations exceeding 0.90 across versions. Overall, Wechsler-derived classifications inform educational placements, clinical diagnoses, and research on cognitive hierarchies, emphasizing multifaceted profiles over unidimensional IQ.

Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales

The Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales originated from the 1905 Binet-Simon scale developed in by and Théodore Simon to identify children needing educational assistance. In 1916, at revised and standardized it for American use, introducing the (IQ) formula: IQ = ( / chronological age) × 100, which allowed classification based on ratio scores relative to age peers. This version emphasized verbal tasks and was normed on children, enabling early identifications of (IQ below 70-75) and high ability (IQ above 130). Subsequent revisions addressed limitations in the ratio IQ, which became unreliable for adults and older children due to ceiling effects. The 1937 Form L-M revision extended the age range and improved item gradients. By 1960, the test shifted to deviation IQ scores, derived from standardized norms with a of 100 and standard deviation of 16 initially, aligning classifications more stably across ages: for example, scores below 70 indicated significant impairment, while 120-140 denoted superior . Further updates in 1972 and 1986 (SB-IV) refined norms and added nonverbal components to mitigate language biases. The current fifth edition (SB5), published in 2003, assesses individuals aged 2 to 85+ years through 10 subtests measuring five cognitive factors: fluid reasoning, knowledge, quantitative reasoning, visual-spatial processing, and , with both verbal and nonverbal formats. It yields a IQ (FSIQ), Verbal and Nonverbal IQs, and factor index scores, all standardized with 100 and SD 15, facilitating classifications such as average (90-109), gifted (130+), or (70-). Normed on a stratified U.S. sample of over 4,800 participants, the SB5 supports diagnostic decisions in clinical and educational settings. Reliability is high, with internal consistency coefficients exceeding 0.95 for FSIQ, and test-retest stability around 0.90, indicating consistent measurement of cognitive abilities. Validity evidence includes correlations of 0.70-0.80 with other IQ tests like Wechsler scales and predictive utility for , though scores may underestimate in populations with cultural or linguistic differences due to verbal emphasis in earlier versions—lessened in SB5 but persisting as a noted limitation. Critics, often from equity-focused perspectives, highlight historical misuse in eugenics-era policies and potential socioeconomic biases in norms, yet empirical data affirm its utility in capturing general (g) variance, with heritability-aligned predictions outperforming environmental-only models.

Woodcock-Johnson Tests and Other Comprehensive Batteries

The Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Abilities, first developed in 1977 by Richard Woodcock and Mary E. Bonner Johnson, form a comprehensive battery assessing a wide range of cognitive functions grounded in the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory of intelligence. The latest edition, the Woodcock-Johnson IV (WJ IV), released in 2014, includes 18 subtests in its cognitive battery, measuring broad abilities such as comprehension-knowledge (Gc), fluid reasoning (Gf), short-term memory (Gsm), cognitive processing speed (Gs), auditory processing (Ga), long-term retrieval (Glr), and visual processing (Gv), alongside narrower skills. The General Intellectual Ability (GIA) score, serving as the primary indicator of overall intellectual functioning akin to a full-scale IQ, is derived from seven core subtests including Oral Vocabulary, Number Series, Verbal Attention, Letter-Pattern Matching, Phonological Processing, Story Recall, and Visualization. Standard scores on the WJ IV are normed with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15, enabling classification into descriptive ranges that align with empirical distributions of cognitive ability. These include Very Superior (131 and above, corresponding to the 98th to 99.9th percentile), Superior (121-130, 92nd to 97th percentile), High Average (111-120), Average (90-110), Low Average (80-89), Low (70-79), and Very Low (69 and below). The battery's extended norms and Rasch-derived W scores allow for precise measurement across ages 2 to 90+, facilitating comparisons of relative strengths and weaknesses in cognitive profiles for diagnostic and educational purposes. Other comprehensive batteries, such as the Differential Ability Scales-Second Edition (DAS-II), provide multidimensional assessments of intellectual functioning with a General Conceptual Ability (GCA) score analogous to IQ, comprising verbal, nonverbal, and spatial clusters normed to mean 100 and SD 15, suitable for ages 2:6 to 17:11. The Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children-Second Edition (KABC-II) emphasizes processing-dependent abilities through sequential and simultaneous scales, yielding a Fluid-Crystallized Index (FCI) as its global measure, with norms enabling similar percentile-based classifications for children and adolescents up to age 18. The Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales-Second Edition (RIAS-2) offers a streamlined yet comprehensive evaluation with Composite Intelligence Index (CIX) scores, incorporating verbal and nonverbal components for rapid screening across ages 3 to 94, also using standard scores for ability range delineation. These instruments collectively extend beyond unidimensional IQ estimates by quantifying hierarchical cognitive factors, supporting nuanced classifications in clinical and research contexts.

Classification Systems and Ranges

Standard Deviation-Based Ranges and Labels

Modern IQ tests, such as the Wechsler scales, are standardized on representative samples to yield a mean score of 100 with a standard deviation (SD) of 15 points, assuming a normal (Gaussian) distribution. This normalization allows scores to be interpreted relative to the population via standard deviations from the mean, facilitating consistent classification across tests despite variations in content or norms. Under this framework, approximately 68% of scores fall within one SD of the mean (IQ 85–115), 95% within two SDs (IQ 70–130), and 99.7% within three SDs (IQ 55–145), reflecting the empirical rule for normal distributions. These bands delineate broad population strata: scores two or more SDs below the mean (IQ ≤70) indicate rarity in cognitive ability, often overlapping with clinical thresholds for intellectual disability when paired with adaptive functioning deficits, while scores two or more SDs above (IQ ≥130) denote exceptional ability. Common labels derive from these SD intervals, as codified in Wechsler test manuals and adopted widely in psychological assessment. The following table summarizes standard classifications for full-scale IQ scores on scales like the WAIS-IV and WISC-V:
IQ RangeSD from ClassificationApproximate
130++2 or moreVery Superior98+
120–129+1.33 to +2Superior91–97
110–119+0.67 to +1.33High Average75–90
90–109-0.67 to +0.67Average25–75
80–89-1.33 to -0.67Low Average9–24
70–79-2 to -1.33Borderline3–8
<70-2 or moreExtremely Low<3
These descriptors emphasize relative standing rather than absolute ability, with "Average" encompassing the central 50% of the population and outer bands highlighting deviations warranting specialized consideration. Broader classifications aggregate these into categories with approximate theoretical population percentages based on the normal distribution: below average (IQ <90, ~25%), average (90–109, ~50%), high average (110–119, ~16%), superior (120–129, ~7%), and brilliant or very superior (130+, ~2%), where "brilliant" is an informal term commonly referring to the top ~2%. Variations exist across tests (e.g., some use SD 16), but the 15-point SD prevails in Wechsler-derived systems, influencing clinical, educational, and research applications.

Test-Specific Variations and Norms

The norms for IQ tests are established through standardization processes involving large, representative samples to define age-specific performance benchmarks, enabling the derivation of deviation IQ scores with a mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15 across most modern instruments. However, test-specific differences in sample composition, stratification criteria, and computational methods for composite scores introduce variations that can affect individual classifications, even when group-level correlations between tests exceed 0.80. These discrepancies arise because norms reflect the unique test content, subtest weighting, and demographic matching of the standardization cohort, precluding direct score equivalency without validated conversion tables or empirical bridging studies. The Wechsler scales, including the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV) and Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fifth Edition (WISC-V), utilize stratified norming samples approximating U.S. Census demographics, incorporating variables such as age, sex, race/ethnicity, parental education, and geographic region to minimize bias. The WISC-V, for example, draws from a sample exceeding 2,000 children aged 6 to 16, yielding full-scale IQ (FSIQ) scores that integrate verbal comprehension, perceptual reasoning, working memory, and processing speed indices, with norms updated periodically to address secular score inflation via the . This structure supports classifications like "superior" (FSIQ 120-129) but may yield higher overall scores compared to other batteries due to broader subtest coverage and verbal emphasis, influencing borderline cases near classification thresholds. In contrast, the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales-Fifth Edition (SB5) employs a norming sample of approximately 4,800 participants spanning ages 2 to over 85, stratified similarly but emphasizing five factor areas: fluid reasoning, knowledge, quantitative reasoning, visual-spatial processing, and working memory. Its FSIQ computation aggregates verbal and nonverbal domain scores, potentially resulting in lower composites than Wechsler equivalents—empirical comparisons show WAIS FSIQ exceeding SB5 by an average of 16.7 points in clinical samples—altering classifications for high-ability or low-functioning individuals. Historical iterations of the Stanford-Binet used ratio IQ methods with varying standard deviations (approaching 16), but modern editions align to deviation scoring, though residual differences in nonverbal weighting can shift norms for diverse populations. The Woodcock-Johnson IV Tests of Cognitive Abilities (WJ IV COG) features extended norms derived from over 7,400 individuals aged 2 to 90+, co-normed with achievement measures to facilitate discrepancy analyses under models like Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory. This battery's 14 subtests yield cluster scores for broad abilities (e.g., comprehension-knowledge, fluid reasoning), with FSIQ equivalents standardized to 100/15 but offering percentile extensions beyond typical ranges for precise gifted or impaired classifications. Unlike Wechsler or SB5, WJ IV norms incorporate post-pandemic adjustments in recent updates, reflecting environmental impacts on cognitive performance, which may elevate scores in contemporary samples relative to older standardizations. Such test-specific norming ensures tailored validity but underscores the need for profession-specific selection in diagnostic contexts, as inter-test score variances can exceed one standard deviation in 28-36% of cases when accounting for confidence intervals.

Classifications of Low IQ

Diagnostic Criteria for Intellectual Disability

Intellectual disability, also known as intellectual developmental disorder, is diagnosed based on three core criteria across major classification systems: significant limitations in intellectual functioning, concurrent deficits in adaptive behavior, and onset during the developmental period prior to age 18 or 22 depending on the framework. Intellectual functioning is typically assessed via standardized IQ tests, with scores approximately two standard deviations below the population mean—around 70 or below—indicating significant impairment, though clinical judgment allows flexibility beyond strict numerical cutoffs to account for test limitations and cultural factors. Adaptive behavior encompasses conceptual skills (e.g., language, reading, money concepts), social skills (e.g., interpersonal interactions, leisure), and practical skills (e.g., self-care, occupational tasks), requiring deficits in at least two of these domains as measured by standardized instruments like the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, also approximately two standard deviations below the mean. The DSM-5, published by the American Psychiatric Association in 2013, specifies deficits in intellectual functions such as reasoning, problem-solving, planning, abstract thinking, judgment, academic learning, and learning from experience, corroborated by both clinical evaluation and IQ testing. It emphasizes that while IQ scores of 70–75 serve as a guideline, diagnosis should not hinge solely on them, prioritizing the severity of adaptive functioning impairments to classify levels as mild, moderate, severe, or profound. Similarly, the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD) in its 2010 definition (reaffirmed in later editions) requires IQ scores around 70–75 alongside adaptive limitations originating before age 18, with supports intensity guiding intervention rather than rigid IQ bands. In the ICD-11, effective from 2022 by the , intellectual developmental disorders involve marked impairments in core cognitive functions and adaptive behaviors emerging during development, with IQ serving as a proxy rather than a standalone criterion; severity levels align roughly with IQ ranges such as mild (50–69), moderate (35–49), severe (20–34), and profound (below 20). Historical thresholds have evolved, with pre-1973 definitions sometimes using higher IQ cutoffs up to 85 before standardization settled around 70–75 to reflect empirical distributions and reduce over-diagnosis. These criteria integrate IQ as a quantifiable measure of cognitive capacity, validated through longitudinal studies showing its predictive validity for real-world functioning, though adaptive assessments address cases where IQ alone underestimates disability due to environmental or comorbid factors. Diagnosis requires comprehensive evaluation by qualified professionals, often involving multiple informants and repeated testing to confirm stability.

Historical and Evolving Thresholds

Early classifications of intellectual impairment predated modern IQ testing and relied on mental age equivalents from the Binet-Simon scale, introduced in 1905, where "idiocy" corresponded to mental ages below 2 years (approximating IQs under 25), "imbecility" to 3-7 years (IQs 25-50), and "moronity" to 8-12 years (IQs 50-70). These terms, adapted by in the 1916 Stanford-Binet revision, formalized low IQ thresholds based on ratio IQ (mental age divided by chronological age times 100), with overall mental retardation encompassing IQs below 70. By the mid-20th century, the American Association on Mental Deficiency (AAMD, predecessor to AAIDD) in its 1959 manual defined mental retardation as IQs approximately one standard deviation below the mean (below 85), incorporating a broader "mild" category that included many with IQs 70-84 alongside adaptive deficits. This threshold reflected deviation IQ norms from scales like Wechsler (1939 onward), where standard deviation equaled 15 points, positioning 85 as -1 SD. Sublevels included mild (IQ 50-85, adjusted over time), moderate (35-50), severe (20-35), and profound (below 20). In 1973, the AAMD revised its manual, lowering the IQ cutoff to two standard deviations below the mean (approximately 70) to align with empirical evidence of significant impairment prevalence and exclude borderline cases, a change critics attributed partly to deinstitutionalization pressures that "cured" millions via redefinition rather than intervention. Subsequent updates introduced flexibility: the 1992 AAMR definition allowed clinical judgment for IQs 70-75, accounting for test measurement error (typically ±5 points), while retaining adaptive behavior as co-requisite. Modern criteria, as in the AAIDD's 2010 manual and DSM-5 (2013), maintain an approximate IQ threshold of 70-75 but de-emphasize rigid cutoffs, prioritizing comprehensive assessment of intellectual functioning two or more SD below norms alongside adaptive deficits manifesting before age 18; DSM-5 explicitly avoids fixed scores to incorporate contextual factors like cultural norms and test reliability. This evolution reflects growing recognition that IQ alone underpredicts real-world impairment without adaptive criteria, though empirical data continue to correlate IQ below 70 with high dependency rates across populations.

Classifications of High IQ

Criteria for Giftedness and High Ability

Giftedness is psychometrically defined as an IQ score of 130 or higher on standardized tests with a mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15, placing individuals in approximately the top 2 percent of the population. This threshold corresponds to two standard deviations above the mean and is widely used in educational and psychological classifications for identifying superior cognitive ability. On Wechsler scales such as the WISC or WPPSI, this equates to the 98th percentile or above, while the Stanford-Binet requires scores around 132 or higher due to slight norm differences. Historically, Lewis Terman established early criteria in the 1920s through his longitudinal study of high-IQ children, selecting participants with IQs of 135 or above on the Stanford-Binet, representing roughly the top 1 percent. Terman's approach emphasized general intellectual ability as measured by IQ, countering prior views that equated high intelligence with eccentricity or maladjustment, and his work influenced modern thresholds by linking giftedness to empirical selection from the upper tail of the distribution. High ability is often distinguished by even rarer scores, such as 145 or above (top 0.1 percent, or three standard deviations), termed "highly gifted," though some classifications extend "gifted" to moderately high ranges like 115-129 for advanced learners without full gifted criteria. Extreme theoretical scores, such as an IQ of 200, correspond to approximately 6.67 standard deviations above the mean, illustrating the exponential rarity beyond thresholds like 130 (2 SD) or 145 (3 SD). These IQ-based cutoffs prioritize predictive validity for academic and professional achievement over multifaceted models that incorporate creativity or motivation, as pure cognitive thresholds better align with g-factor correlations observed in factor analysis. While educational programs may supplement IQ with achievement tests or teacher observations to mitigate test-specific variances, IQ remains the core quantitative criterion due to its high reliability (test-retest coefficients exceeding 0.90) and heritability estimates around 0.80 in adulthood.

Concepts of Genius and Exceptional Performance

Francis Galton, in his 1869 book Hereditary Genius, conceptualized genius as an extreme manifestation of natural ability, primarily hereditary, demonstrated through eminence in fields like science, literature, and leadership. He analyzed biographical data from eminent families, estimating that true genius occurred rarely, with rates approximating 1 in 4,000 individuals, and emphasized its clustering in lineages suggesting genetic transmission over environmental factors alone. Lewis Terman, building on Galton's ideas, launched the Genetic Studies of Genius in 1921, tracking 1,528 children with IQ scores above 135 on the Stanford-Binet scale, expecting them to exhibit prodigious adult achievements. However, longitudinal follow-ups revealed that while the group outperformed averages in education, income, and health— with average IQ around 150—few achieved world-class eminence, such as Nobel Prizes, with Terman noting that genius proper required IQs exceeding 180, a threshold met by only a handful in his sample. This underscored a threshold hypothesis: high IQ (typically above 130-140) enables exceptional performance but does not guarantee it, as creativity, motivation, and opportunity play causal roles. In psychometric classifications, "genius" labels often apply to IQs above 140 or 160, depending on the scale, with scores over 180 deemed profoundly gifted. Retrospective estimates of historical figures' IQs, such as Isaac Newton's at 190-200 or Albert Einstein's at 160-190, align with this, derived from biographical analyses like Catharine Cox's in Terman's study, though such imputations rely on incomplete data and assume modern IQ constructs retroactively. Empirical correlations support IQ's necessity for elite achievement: meta-analyses indicate IQ predicts scientific output and innovation, with eminent scientists averaging estimated IQs of 150-170, but variance increases at extremes, where non-cognitive traits differentiate performers. Exceptional performance thus integrates IQ as a foundational cognitive enabler—facilitating rapid learning and problem-solving—with domain-specific expertise and perseverance, as evidenced by Terman's "Termites" attaining leadership roles but rarely revolutionary breakthroughs. Low base rates of genius (e.g., Nobel winners at ~1 in millions) amplify selection challenges, explaining why even high-IQ cohorts underperform expectations in raw output of immortals. Causal realism attributes this to IQ's g-factor loading on abstract reasoning, essential yet insufficient without applied effort, countering overemphasis on environment in biased academic narratives that downplay heritability.

Empirical Validity and Predictive Power

Correlations with Life Outcomes

Intelligence quotient (IQ) scores exhibit robust positive correlations with multiple domains of life outcomes, including educational attainment, occupational success, income, health, and longevity, while showing negative associations with criminality and adverse behaviors. Meta-analytic evidence indicates that a one standard deviation increase in IQ (approximately 15 points) predicts substantial variance in these outcomes, often outperforming socioeconomic background as a predictor after controlling for parental status. These patterns hold across longitudinal studies spanning decades and diverse populations, underscoring IQ's predictive validity beyond environmental confounds. In education, higher IQ strongly forecasts years of schooling completed and academic performance. Longitudinal data reveal correlations between childhood IQ and adult educational attainment ranging from 0.5 to 0.7, with higher scores enabling persistence through advanced degrees. For instance, individuals with IQs above 120 are disproportionately represented among college graduates, while those below 85 rarely complete secondary education. Although education can modestly raise IQ (1-5 points per additional year), the primary directionality flows from innate cognitive ability to attainment, as evidenced by twin studies disentangling genetic from shared environmental effects. Occupational attainment and job performance likewise correlate positively with IQ, with meta-analyses reporting validity coefficients of 0.5-0.6 for general cognitive ability in predicting supervisor-rated performance across complex roles. Higher IQ facilitates mastery of cognitively demanding tasks, explaining why professionals in fields like engineering or medicine average IQs of 120-130. Income trajectories mirror this, with mid-career correlations around 0.4; a standard deviation IQ advantage yields roughly 10-20% higher earnings, plateauing at upper income levels due to non-cognitive factors. Health outcomes and longevity benefit from elevated IQ, as higher scores predict lower incidence of chronic diseases and extended lifespan. A one standard deviation IQ increment associates with a 24% reduction in all-cause mortality risk, mediated partly by healthier behaviors and better medical decision-making. Meta-analyses confirm lower IQ as a risk factor for conditions like schizophrenia, depression, diabetes, and dementia, with hazard ratios indicating 20-30% elevated odds per standard deviation decrement. This link persists into late adulthood, where intelligence in youth correlates with survival advantages of several years. Conversely, low IQ correlates negatively with criminal involvement, with coefficients around -0.2 across offenses. Population-level data show states with higher average IQs exhibit lower rates of violent and property crimes, while individual studies link IQs below 90 to elevated perpetration risks, including violence. This association withstands controls for socioeconomic status, suggesting cognitive deficits impair impulse control and foresight in rule-breaking scenarios.
Outcome DomainApproximate Correlation (r) with IQKey Predictor Strength
Educational Attainment0.5-0.7High; explains ~25-50% variance
Job Performance0.5-0.6Moderate-high; strongest for complex jobs
Income0.4Moderate; cumulative over career
Longevity/Mortality Risk-0.2 to -0.3 (inverse)Moderate; 24% risk reduction per SD
Criminality-0.2Moderate; consistent across offense types

Reliability Across Populations and Contexts

IQ tests exhibit high internal consistency and test-retest reliability across diverse populations, with coefficients typically ranging from 0.90 to 0.95 for major instruments like the . This stability holds in samples varying by socioeconomic status (SES), where retest correlations remain robust despite environmental differences, as evidenced by meta-analytic reviews of longitudinal data showing consistent score variance over time. Such reliability metrics indicate that measurement error does not systematically inflate across SES strata, allowing for comparable classification of cognitive ability levels. The general factor of intelligence, g, demonstrates invariance in factor structure across cultural and ethnic groups, emerging as the dominant common variance in batteries of diverse cognitive tasks worldwide. Cross-cultural factor analyses, including those in non-Western populations, consistently extract a large g component alongside primary mental abilities, underscoring the test's capacity to measure a core, biologically grounded construct rather than culture-specific knowledge. In racial comparisons, such as between White, Black, Asian, and Hispanic samples, strong measurement invariance is often tenable for IQ batteries when evaluating item response and factor loadings, though partial scalar invariance may require adjustments for mean differences. Predictive reliability extends to life outcomes across contexts, with IQ correlations to educational attainment, job performance, and income holding similarly for majority and minority groups, including within lower-SES environments where environmental confounds are pronounced. For example, g-loaded tests maintain equivalent validity coefficients (around 0.5-0.6 for occupational success) irrespective of racial or cultural background, countering claims of differential unreliability by demonstrating causal consistency in forecasting real-world criteria. Culturally adapted versions of tests, such as , further affirm this by yielding reliable scores in non-industrialized settings, though persistent group mean disparities highlight that reliability does not preclude substantive differences in underlying ability distributions. Mainstream critiques of cultural bias often overlook these psychometric invariants, which empirical factor analytic evidence prioritizes over anecdotal fairness concerns.

Controversies and Debates

Claims of Cultural Bias and Counter-Evidence

Critics have long asserted that IQ tests exhibit cultural bias by incorporating items reliant on Western educational experiences, language familiarity, and socioeconomic norms, thereby disadvantaging non-Western or minority groups and inflating score disparities unrelated to innate cognitive ability. For instance, vocabulary or analogy questions may presuppose exposure to specific cultural knowledge, leading to claims that such tests measure acculturation rather than intelligence. These arguments, prominent in mid-20th-century critiques, posit that equalizing cultural exposure would eliminate group differences. Counter-evidence challenges this view by demonstrating that culture-reduced tests, such as (RPM), which rely on abstract visual pattern recognition without verbal or cultural content, yield similar group score patterns and high correlations (r ≈ 0.7–0.8) with full-scale IQ measures. RPM's cross-cultural validity has been affirmed in diverse populations, including non-Western samples, where it predicts educational and occupational outcomes comparably to verbal tests, indicating measurement of a culture-transcendent general factor (g). Transracial adoption studies provide further rebuttal, as black children reared from infancy in affluent white families—minimizing cultural deprivation—still averaged IQs of 89 at age 17, compared to 106 for white adoptees and 99 for biological white children of adoptive parents in the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study (1976–1992 follow-up). This persisted despite equivalent socioeconomic environments, with no convergence in scores over time, contradicting pure cultural bias explanations. Empirical tests of bias, including item response analysis and predictive validity across ethnic groups, reveal minimal differential item functioning in modern IQ batteries, where score differences align with real-world criteria like academic achievement and job performance regardless of cultural background. Internationally, IQ correlates strongly (r > 0.6) with national outcomes such as GDP and rates, even after controlling for cultural variables, underscoring tests' validity beyond Western contexts. While some item-level biases exist, they do not undermine the overall g-loading or utility of IQ as a predictor, as evidenced by consistent estimates (0.5–0.8) in diverse samples.

Group Differences: Racial, Ethnic, and Sex-Based

Studies of IQ test performance reveal consistent average differences between sexes, with males and females exhibiting mean scores of approximately 100 on standardized scales such as the (WAIS). No significant overall mean disparity exists, though males demonstrate greater variability, resulting in disproportionate representation at both high and low extremes of the distribution. This pattern holds in large-scale samples, including Scottish population surveys of children, where male IQ distributions showed wider spreads even above modal levels around 105. Greater male variance aligns with observed sex ratios in intellectual achievements and disabilities, such as higher male prevalence among Nobel laureates and individuals with intellectual impairment. Racial and ethnic group differences in average IQ scores are well-documented in meta-analyses of standardized tests. , East Asians average 105-106, 100, Hispanics 90, and Blacks 85, corresponding to gaps of about 0.3-0.7 standard deviations (SD) for Asians and Hispanics relative to , and 1 SD (15 points) for Blacks. These patterns persist across cognitive batteries like the WAIS-IV (Black-White gap 14.5 points) and WISC-V (11.6-14.5 points), with minimal closure over decades despite socioeconomic controls reducing gaps by only 3-5 points.
Racial/Ethnic GroupAverage IQ (US Norms)
East Asians105-106
100
Hispanics90
Blacks85
Data compiled from meta-analyses of major IQ tests; gaps relative to White mean of 100. Ashkenazi Jews exhibit the highest averages among studied groups, ranging 110-115 or 0.75-1 SD above European norms, with strengths in verbal and mathematical domains but relative weaknesses in visuospatial abilities. This profile contrasts with non-Ashkenazi Jewish groups, such as Oriental Jews in Israel, who average 14 points lower. Transracial adoption studies underscore the stability of these differences. In the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study, Black children adopted into White families scored 89-97 by adolescence, regressing toward the Black population mean despite enriched environments, while East Asian adoptees averaged over 120. Globally, sub-Saharan African averages hover around 70, further highlighting persistent disparities not fully attributable to test bias or transient factors. Mainstream interpretations often emphasize environmental causes, yet empirical persistence across controls and interventions supports a substantial genetic component, as critiqued in hereditarian analyses scoring cultural models low on explanatory power. Academic sources favoring environmental determinism, prevalent in institutions with documented ideological biases, frequently understate such evidence in favor of unverified equalization potentials.

Environmental Determinism vs. Genetic Realism

The debate centers on the relative contributions of environmental factors versus genetic influences to individual and group differences in IQ scores. Proponents of environmental determinism argue that disparities in intelligence primarily arise from modifiable external conditions such as socioeconomic status, education quality, nutrition, and cultural exposure, positing that equitable interventions could substantially narrow gaps. This view draws support from the Flynn effect, wherein average IQ scores have risen by approximately 3 points per decade across many populations since the early 20th century, attributed to improvements in health, schooling, and abstract reasoning demands of modern life. However, such generational shifts in mean performance do not negate the observed stability of relative rankings within cohorts, as heritability estimates—derived from comparing variances explained by shared versus unique environments—remain robust even amid these secular gains. In contrast, genetic realism emphasizes indicating that genetic factors account for a substantial portion of IQ variance, particularly in adulthood. Twin and studies consistently yield estimates of 50% in childhood, rising to 70-80% by late and beyond, based on meta-analyses of over 11,000 twin pairs and millions of participants across diverse datasets. These figures reflect the proportion of phenotypic variance attributable to genetic differences within studied populations, with monozygotic twins reared apart showing IQ correlations of 0.70-0.80, far exceeding those of fraternal twins or unrelated individuals in similar environments. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) further substantiate this by identifying thousands of genetic variants associated with , enabling polygenic scores that predict 10-16% of IQ variance in independent samples, with predictive power increasing as sample sizes exceed 1 million genomes. Critiques of strict highlight its failure to account for persistent IQ differences despite interventions aimed at equalization. For instance, transracial adoption studies, such as those tracking children raised in middle-class families, reveal IQs averaging 89 at age 17—above norms but below adoptees' 106—suggesting incomplete of gaps. Correlations between IQ and , often cited as causal evidence for environmental primacy, weaken when controlling for genetic confounds, as parental IQ (a heritable proxy) explains much of the transmission. While academia and media frequently amplify environmental explanations—potentially influenced by ideological preferences for malleability over innateness—behavioral genetic data indicate a wherein broad environmental upgrades elevate means without eroding the genetic of individual differences. Thus, genetic influences predominate in explaining why, within relatively uniform modern environments, IQ distributions maintain their shape and for outcomes like and .

Applications and Societal Implications

Educational and Clinical Uses

In educational contexts, IQ tests such as the (WISC) and Stanford-Binet are routinely administered to identify students eligible for gifted and talented programs, typically requiring scores at or above the 98th , corresponding to an IQ of approximately 130 or higher. These assessments measure general cognitive ability ("g") and help schools allocate resources for accelerated curricula, enrichment activities, or specialized instruction, as evidenced by state-level guidelines in places like and that incorporate such tests for superior cognitive ability identification. Empirical data indicate that high IQ scores predict stronger academic performance and problem-solving skills, enabling tailored interventions that enhance outcomes for high-ability learners. IQ testing also informs special education placement, particularly under frameworks like the (IDEA) in the United States, where scores contribute to evaluating intellectual disabilities or discrepancies between ability and achievement for conditions like specific learning disorders. For instance, low IQ scores, when combined with adaptive functioning deficits, support eligibility determinations, though modern practices increasingly integrate response-to-intervention models alongside IQ data to avoid over-reliance on static metrics. Studies affirm the tests' utility in pinpointing processing strengths and weaknesses, facilitating individualized education programs (IEPs) that adapt teaching strategies to cognitive profiles and improve learning trajectories. Clinically, IQ assessments form a core component of diagnosing developmental disorders (IDD), as outlined in the , where deficits in intellectual functions—manifested as reasoning, problem-solving, and abstract thinking impairments approximately two standard deviations below the mean (IQ around 70 or lower)—must co-occur with limitations in adaptive behaviors across conceptual, social, and practical domains. While the eschews rigid IQ cutoffs to account for cultural and measurement variability, scores below 70-75 remain a benchmark for severity (mild to profound), guiding therapeutic planning and support services. In neuropsychological evaluations, these tests detect declines associated with , , or other organic conditions by tracking changes in cognitive baselines, with standardized instruments providing quantifiable metrics for intervention efficacy and . Beyond IDD, clinical applications extend to forensic and evaluations, such as assessments, where IQ results below established thresholds substantiate claims of functional impairment precluding substantial gainful activity. Reliability concerns, including effects in severe cases that limit sensitivity to small gains, are mitigated by pairing IQ data with scales, ensuring diagnoses reflect holistic functioning rather than isolated scores. Overall, these uses leverage IQ's established for real-world adaptation, though clinicians emphasize multidimensional assessment to counter potential overinterpretation of scores alone.

Policy and Workforce Considerations

General cognitive ability, as measured by IQ tests or proxies, exhibits a corrected of approximately 0.51 with job across occupational groups, according to meta-analytic reviews of personnel selection validity. This predictive power increases to 0.58 for professional and managerial roles, underscoring IQ's role as the strongest single predictor of individual output differences in complex work environments. In military contexts, such as the U.S. (ASVAB), cognitive subtests correlate with training success and operational , informing enlistment classifications since the 1970s. U.S. employment policy, governed by Title VII of the and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidelines, permits cognitive ability testing provided it is job-related and consistent with business necessity, yet imposes scrutiny for on protected groups. The 1971 decision in Griggs v. Duke Power Co. established that neutral criteria, including high school diplomas and aptitude tests akin to IQ assessments, violate if they disproportionately exclude minorities without demonstrable job relevance, even absent intent. This precedent has deterred widespread adoption of IQ-based hiring, as employers face litigation risks despite empirical validity, leading some analyses to argue it hampers productivity by prioritizing demographic parity over merit. In contrast, Singapore's meritocratic framework integrates exam-based selection—strongly correlated with IQ—into recruitment and education streaming, contributing to sustained averaging 7% annually from 1965 to 2010 through optimization. Policies emphasize cognitive metrics over equity adjustments, with entry requiring high on rigorous tests, fostering a workforce adapted to knowledge-intensive industries. Such approaches highlight trade-offs: while U.S.-style regulations mitigate group disparities, they may constrain selection , as meta-analyses indicate general mental accounts for up to 25% of variance when unmoderated by legal constraints. Workforce implications extend to innovation and national competitiveness, where selecting for higher average cognitive ability correlates with GDP gains; nations underutilizing IQ in allocation risk output losses equivalent to forgoing the top predictors in other domains. Empirical data refute claims of obsolescence, affirming IQ's enduring utility amid , though integration with job-specific assessments enhances overall validity without diluting cognitive primacy.

Recent Advances and Future Directions

Digital Adaptations and CHC Theory Integration

Modern IQ classification has increasingly incorporated digital platforms for test administration, scoring, and adaptive item selection, enhancing , accessibility, and data precision compared to traditional paper-based formats. Computerized adaptive testing (), which adjusts question difficulty based on real-time responses to optimize while minimizing test duration, has been integrated into cognitive assessments aligned with constructs. For instance, platforms like Pearson's Q-interactive, launched for Wechsler scales such as the WISC-V, support tablet-based delivery and demonstrate psychometric equivalence to in-person, manual methods, with remote administration yielding comparable full-scale IQ scores (mean differences <2 points). These adaptations reduce examiner burden and enable broader application in clinical and educational settings, though they require validation for specific populations to ensure cultural and technological fairness. The Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory, an empirically derived model synthesizing fluid-crystallized distinctions with Carroll's three-stratum hierarchy of abilities (general intelligence at the apex, broad factors like fluid reasoning [Gf] and processing speed [Gs] at the middle, and narrow skills below), underpins the structure of most contemporary comprehensive IQ batteries. Since the late 1990s, CHC has served explicitly or implicitly as the blueprint for test development in instruments like the Woodcock-Johnson IV and Differential Ability Scales-II, organizing subtests to map onto broad CHC domains for multifaceted profiling beyond global IQ scores. This integration allows for nuanced interpretation of cognitive strengths and weaknesses, supported by factor-analytic evidence confirming CHC's hierarchical validity across diverse samples. Digital adaptations synergize with CHC by enabling dynamic assessment of its broad abilities through CAT frameworks tailored to specific factors. Research has developed CHC-aligned CAT prototypes targeting key domains like Gf, short-term memory (Gsm), and visual processing (Gv), which predict academic and occupational outcomes more granularly than g-loaded composites alone; for example, a 2021 screening tool prototype demonstrated feasibility for brief, targeted evaluations with item banks calibrated to CHC definitions. Similarly, multidimensional CATs like the MID-CAT measure process aspects of Gf, adapting across fluid reasoning facets to yield reliable classifications with fewer items (e.g., 20-30 versus 50+ in fixed formats). These advancements leverage for precision, though ongoing validation is needed to confirm stability across age groups and to address potential digital divides in access or familiarity. By embedding CHC's causal-realist emphasis on distinct, heritable abilities into adaptive algorithms, digital IQ tools facilitate causal inferences about cognitive profiles, informing interventions without over-relying on unitary g metrics.

Genomic Insights and Reversing Flynn Effect

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified thousands of genetic variants associated with , confirming its highly polygenic nature, where each variant contributes small effects to overall cognitive ability. Polygenic scores derived from these studies, aggregating the effects of such variants, predict up to 10-20% of variance in IQ and within populations, with demonstrated in meta-analyses of large cohorts. estimates from twin and family studies place the genetic contribution to individual differences in at around 50%, while SNP-based from GWAS accounts for a growing portion, reaching approximately 20% in recent analyses, underscoring the causal role of inherited DNA differences. These genomic insights reveal that intelligence differences arise from the cumulative impact of many common variants rather than rare mutations, enabling predictions from birth that outperform earlier methods and challenging purely environmental explanations for cognitive disparities. The , characterized by generational rises in IQ scores averaging 3 points per decade through much of the , has reversed in multiple developed nations, with evidence of declines emerging since the . In , standardized IQ tests showed a drop of about 7 points per generation among cohorts born after 1975, based on military conscript spanning decades. A U.S. study analyzing large samples from 2006 to 2018 found decreases in reasoning and matrix reasoning abilities, alongside declines in quantitative reasoning, though verbal comprehension scores rose slightly, indicating domain-specific reversals rather than uniform gains. Similar patterns appear in high-security populations, where neuropsychological over six decades reveal increasing cognitive dysfunction in recent admissions compared to earlier ones. Genomic tools provide a lens to evaluate potential causes of this , as polygenic scores remain stable across generations while observed IQ declines suggest dysgenic selection or environmental factors diluting genetic potential. Unlike the Flynn effect's putative environmental drivers like improved and , the reversal correlates with fertility patterns favoring lower-IQ individuals in high-income societies, where polygenic scores for education predict negative selection pressures. Critics attributing declines solely to test artifacts overlook replicated findings across diverse measures and populations, though some studies caution that evolving test formats may confound trends without adjusting for latent ability changes. These insights highlight the interplay of and selection, with ongoing GWAS expansions poised to quantify how much of the reversal stems from heritable versus non-heritable influences.

References

  1. https://arizonaforensics.com/wechsler-adult-intelligence-scale-iv-wais-iv/
  2. http://www.assessmentpsychology.com/iqclassifications.htm
  3. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2006-10213-053
  4. https://www.verywellmind.com/history-of-intelligence-testing-2795581
  5. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1041608002000742
  6. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7433699/
  7. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4557354/
  8. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9242404/
  9. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289619301904
  10. https://dictionary.apa.org/iq
  11. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/health-and-medicine/intelligence-quotient-iq-and-measuring-intelligence
  12. https://www.cogn-iq.org/learn/theory/deviation-iq/
  13. https://www.riotiq.com/articles/how-to-calculate-iq
  14. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/intelligence-quotient
  15. https://www.cogn-iq.org/learn/history/francis-galton/
  16. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09593543211017671
  17. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/psychology/binet-simon-test
  18. https://ed.ted.com/lessons/the-dark-history-of-iq-tests-stefan-c-dombrowski
  19. https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/henry-herbert-goddard-1866-1957
  20. https://newlearningonline.com/new-learning/chapter-6/supporting-material/goddard-on-iq
  21. https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2014/02/10/267561895/it-took-a-eugenicist-to-come-up-with-moron
  22. https://stanfordmag.org/contents/the-vexing-legacy-of-lewis-terman
  23. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001691823002305
  24. https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-general-intelligence-2795210
  25. https://www.cogn-iq.org/learn/theory/g-factor/
  26. https://cogsci.ecs.soton.ac.uk/cgi/psyc/newpsy?intelligence-g-factor.1
  27. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/9781118660584.ese0431
  28. https://www.cogn-iq.org/learn/theory/chc-theory/
  29. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9959556/
  30. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2889158/
  31. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/twin-research-and-human-genetics/article/wilson-effect-the-increase-in-heritability-of-iq-with-age/FF406CC4CF286D78AF72C9E7EF9B5E3F
  32. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25985137/
  33. https://www.nature.com/articles/mp2014105
  34. https://gwern.net/doc/iq/2013-bouchard.pdf
  35. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01067188
  36. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289621000635
  37. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5985927/
  38. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39635948/
  39. https://di.aerzteblatt.de/int/archive/article/242633
  40. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289624000655
  41. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2005634117
  42. https://www.verywellmind.com/the-wechsler-adult-intelligence-scale-2795283
  43. https://www.cogn-iq.org/learn/history/david-wechsler/
  44. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/wechsler-intelligence-scale
  45. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-lifespandevelopment/chapter/measuring-intelligence-standardization-and-the-intelligence-quotient/
  46. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/nursing-and-health-professions/wechsler-intelligence-scale
  47. https://methods.sagepub.com/ency/edvol/download/sage-encyclopedia-of-educational-research-measurement-evaluation/chpt/wechsler-intelligence-scales.pdf
  48. http://www.iapsych.com/iqmr/wechslerssreport2.pdf
  49. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289619301850
  50. https://epublications.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=gjcp
  51. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/psychology/stanford-binet-intelligence-scales
  52. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/health-and-medicine/stanford-binet-test
  53. https://www.parinc.com/products/SB5
  54. https://www.cogn-iq.org/learn/tests/stanford-binet/
  55. https://www.proedinc.com/Products/13290/stanfordbinet-intelligence-scalesfifth-edition-sb5-complete-test-kit-with-carrying-case.aspx
  56. https://www.stanfordbinettest.com/all-about-stanford-binet-test/how-reliable-stanford-binet-test
  57. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305467002_Reliability_and_Validity_of_the_Stanford-Binet_Intelligence_Scale_Fourth_Edition_in_the_Australian_Context_A_Review
  58. https://psychology.town/psychodiagnostics/stanford-binet-intelligence-scales-overview/
  59. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10301777/
  60. https://osf.io/zpshx/download/?format=pdf
  61. https://reachoutandread.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/WJ-Test-Summary.pdf
  62. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8293399/
  63. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/psychology/general-intellectual-ability
  64. https://www.cogn-iq.org/learn/tests/woodcock-johnson/
  65. https://www.pearsonassessments.com/en-us/Store/Professional-Assessments/Cognition-%2526-Neuro/Differential-Ability-Scales-II/p/100000468
  66. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/kaufman-assessment-battery-for-children
  67. https://www.proedinc.com/Products/14451/reynolds-intellectual-assessment-scalessecond-edition-rias2.aspx
  68. https://www.davidsongifted.org/gifted-blog/iq-and-educational-needs/
  69. https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-a-genius-iq-score-2795585
  70. https://www.kutestkids.com/blog/what-is-the-average-iq
  71. https://www.123test.com/interpretation-of-an-iq-score/
  72. https://www.verywellmind.com/how-are-scores-on-iq-tests-calculated-2795584
  73. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022440521000571
  74. https://www.apa.org/monitor/feb03/intelligent
  75. https://www.pearsonassessments.com/content/dam/school/global/clinical/us/assets/wisc-v/wisc-v-interpretive-report.pdf
  76. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2854585/
  77. https://quizlet.com/explanations/questions/how-do-the-stanford-binet-and-wechsler-tests-differ-6804563b-7595-4f84-9dcf-f147b7baedd7
  78. https://riversideinsights.com/clinical-assessments/wjiv
  79. https://www.testingmom.com/tests/woodcock-johnson/how-is-the-woodcock-johnson-scored/
  80. https://riversideinsights.com/clinical-assessments/wj-v
  81. https://www.aaidd.org/intellectual-disability/definition
  82. https://www.psychiatry.org/getmedia/497935b7-4543-4343-af1e-797063c22191/APA-DSM5TR-IntellectualDisability.pdf
  83. https://www.mentalhealth.com/library/dsm-5-criteria-intellectual-disabilities
  84. https://www.aaidd.org/intellectual-disability/definition/adaptive-behavior
  85. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK332877/
  86. https://www.h2hhc.com/blog/dsm-5-intellectual-disability
  87. https://www.aaidd.org/docs/default-source/default-document-library/definition-diagnosis-classification-and-systems-of-supports-%2812e%29.pdf?sfvrsn=4ea93b21_0
  88. https://icd.who.int/
  89. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4822711/
  90. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0074775007340019
  91. https://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/ustat/ustat0301-01.htm
  92. https://www.ets.org/disabilities/documentation/intellectual-disabilities.html
  93. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED473010.pdf
  94. https://mn.gov/mnddc/parallels2/two/002.html
  95. https://mn.gov/mnddc/parallels2/two/004.html
  96. https://edge.sagepub.com/gargiulo5e/student-resources/chapter-6/chapter-summaries
  97. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-lifespandevelopment/chapter/extremes-of-intelligence-intellectual-disability-and-giftedness/
  98. https://www.aaegt.net.au/giftedness-testing-and-levels-of-giftedness
  99. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9680488/
  100. https://www.rxteach.com/the-nurture-of-intelligence/
  101. https://russellwarne.com/2020/10/19/10-little-know-facts-about-the-terman-longitudinal-study-of-the-gifted/
  102. http://web.troy.k12.oh.us/depts/gifted/Gifted_Services/What_is_Giftedness/levels_of_giftedness.htm
  103. https://www.davidsongifted.org/gifted-blog/understanding-giftedness-levels/
  104. https://eleanormunsonphd.com/2011/01/the-five-levels-of-giftedness/
  105. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Hereditary-Genius
  106. https://research.birmingham.ac.uk/en/publications/francis-galtons-hereditary-genius-1869-amp-1892
  107. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ781688.pdf
  108. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1984-20504-001
  109. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289620300660
  110. https://gwern.net/doc/iq/high/2020-simonton.pdf
  111. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289615001269
  112. https://www.verywellmind.com/lewis-terman-biography-2795523
  113. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-349-12206-6_5
  114. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222868304_Intelligence_and_Socioeconomic_Success_A_Meta-Analytic_Review_of_Longitudinal_Research
  115. https://humanvarieties.org/2016/01/31/iq-and-permanent-income-sizing-up-the-iq-paradox/
  116. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-44605-6
  117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2006.02.001
  118. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6088505/
  119. https://openpsych.net/files/papers/Zimmer_2023a.pdf
  120. https://dspace.cuni.cz/bitstream/handle/20.500.11956/185024/130372694.pdf?sequence=1
  121. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3147066/
  122. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40360713/
  123. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289623000193
  124. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886909005169
  125. https://www.encyclopedia.com/law/legal-and-political-magazines/intelligence-and-crime
  126. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S016028961500077X
  127. https://www.quora.com/How-reliable-are-IQ-tests-when-comparing-intelligence-across-different-countries-and-what-should-we-keep-in-mind-when-looking-at-these-rankings
  128. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11626988/
  129. https://arthurjensen.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/The-g-factor-the-science-of-mental-ability-Arthur-R.-Jensen.pdf
  130. https://arthurjensen.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/The-g-Factor-Psychometrics-and-Biology-With-Added-Discussion-2000-by-Arthur-Robert-Jensen.pdf
  131. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227674177_Measurement_Invariance_in_Confirmatory_Factor_Analysis_An_Illustration_Using_IQ_Test_Performance_of_Minorities
  132. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886920301513
  133. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289623000326
  134. https://fiveable.me/key-terms/cognitive-psychology/cultural-bias-in-iq-tests
  135. https://blogs.psico-smart.com/blog-cultural-bias-in-intelligence-tests-implications-for-test-design-and-fairness-172557
  136. https://nrcgt.media.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/953/2015/04/rm04204.pdf
  137. https://psychology.town/psychodiagnostics/analyzing-ravens-progressive-matrices/
  138. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/psychology/ravens-progressive-matrices
  139. https://cognitiveresearchjournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s41235-021-00350-w
  140. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016028969290028P
  141. https://reasonwithoutrestraint.com/quantifying-the-genetic-component-of-the-black-white-iq-gap/
  142. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6526420/
  143. https://humanvarieties.org/2023/01/02/fair-and-square-a-conclusion-on-iq-test-bias/
  144. https://www.econlib.org/archives/2017/04/iq_with_conscie.html
  145. https://case.edu/schubertcenter/sites/default/files/2020-04/fagan_brieffinal.pdf
  146. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26158978/
  147. https://reasonwithoutrestraint.com/the-scope-of-racial-disparities-in-test-scores-in-the-united-states/
  148. https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf
  149. https://web.mit.edu/fustflum/documents/papers/AshkenaziIQ.jbiosocsci.pdf
  150. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/heritability-estimates-versus-large-environmental-effects-the-iq-paradox-resolved/
  151. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5754247/
  152. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1718793115
  153. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/curiosity-code/202510/are-some-destined-to-be-smart
  154. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8280022/
  155. https://russellwarne.com/2020/05/11/forty-years-squandered-by-iq-environmentalists/
  156. https://www.davidsongifted.org/prospective-families/gifted-testing-and-assessment/
  157. https://www.nagc.org/assessments-and-tests
  158. https://www.cde.state.co.us/gt/matrix-of-commonly-used-assessments-gifted-education
  159. https://education.ohio.gov/topics/other-resources/gifted-education/gifted-screening-and-identification
  160. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9782628/
  161. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6963477/
  162. https://www.pearsonassessments.com/content/dam/school/global/clinical/us/assets/wisc-iv/defining-the-role.pdf
  163. https://blogs.psico-smart.com/blog-how-can-intelligence-tests-be-used-to-enhance-educational-outcomes-for-students-with-diverse-learning-needs-121844
  164. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK547654/
  165. https://psychology.town/psychodiagnostics/clinical-applications-intelligence-tests/
  166. https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0424583055
  167. https://jneurodevdisorders.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1866-1955-6-16
  168. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1997-43291-003
  169. https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/employment-tests-and-selection-procedures
  170. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/401/424/
  171. https://www.naacpldf.org/case-issue/griggs-v-duke-power-co/
  172. https://hbr.org/2005/11/hiring-for-smarts
  173. https://academic.oup.com/book/43898/chapter/370989237
  174. https://web2-bschool.nus.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/media_rp/publications/TCats1593653482.pdf
  175. https://home.ubalt.edu/tmitch/645/session%25204/Schmidt%2520&%2520Oh%2520validity%2520and%2520util%2520100%2520yrs%2520of%2520research%2520Wk%2520PPR%25202016.pdf
  176. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank-Schmidt-2/publication/232446415_Intelligence_and_job_performance_Economic_and_Social_Implications/links/542231f30cf238c6ea678adb/Intelligence-and-job-performance-Economic-and-Social-Implications.pdf
  177. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7919628/
  178. https://doi.apa.org/fulltext/2020-54568-001.html
  179. http://www.iapsych.com/articles/chcbrief.pdf
  180. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9865475/
  181. https://bridges.monash.edu/articles/thesis/Advancing_the_measurement_of_cognitive_ability_Developing_a_Cattell-Horn-Carroll_computer_adaptive_screening_test/14079914
  182. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/10731911241236351
  183. https://assess.com/computerized-adaptive-testing/
  184. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-021-01348-y
  185. https://mindmatters.ai/2025/06/is-the-reverse-flynn-effect-declining-intelligence-real/
  186. https://www.pressenza.com/2025/07/the-decline-of-the-intelligence-quotient-in-the-digital-age-cognitive-reconfiguration-and-global-trends/
  187. https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2023/03/americans-iq-scores-are-lower-in-some-areas-higher-in-one
  188. https://paloaltou.edu/resources/translating-research-into-practice-blog/a-reverse-flynn-effect-trends-in-six-decades-of-neuropsychological-data-in-a-uk-high-security-population
  189. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-021-01027-y
  190. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4270739/
  191. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289625000121
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.