(CHC) theory has had a significant impact on the measurement of cognitive abilities and the interpretation of intelligence test performance. The purpose of this chapter is to summarize the most salient ways in which CHC theory has influenced the field of intellectual assessment. The chapter begins with a brief summary of the evolution of CHC theory. Next, the specific ways in which current CHC theory and research have influenced test development are presented. Finally, the CHC cross-battery approach is described as one mechanism through which practitioners in the field of psychoeducational assessment have embraced CHC theory, particularly as it applies to test interpretation.

Research on intelligence is a tale of good and evil—or so the media would have us think. On one side we are presented mean-spirited pseudoscientists who are greasing the slippery slope to oppression and genocide with their elitist, racist ideologies about human differences. On the other side are the earnest souls who would save us from those horrors by exposing the non-scientific and immoral basis of the so-called “science ” of intelligence differences. Even when the science is conceded to be accurate, it is often labeled dangerous and irresponsible (Block & Dworkin, 1974). If not life-imperiling, it at least threatens the foundations of American democracy. In short, we must make the world safe from intelligence research. Perhaps ironically, institutional psychology has itself been busy doing just that for over thirty years. The media can keep repainting its libelous portrait of intelligence research only with the complicity of intelligence’s mother field, psychology. Although intelligence tests are often cited as psychology’s biggest success, psychology often treats researchers who study the origins and consequences of individual and group differences in general intelligence as its biggest embarrassment—the troublesome child or mad uncle whom a socially ambitious family would lock up or have disappear. In doing so, it has undermined the integrity of psychological science, encouraged fiction-driven social policies that continue to disappoint and ratchet up blame, and blinded us to the daily risks and challenges faced by the less able among us. A Case Study in Suppression: Arthur Jensen and the Silenced Majority Psychology is not a single monolith, of course, but is a semi-organized social system governed by regard and reputation, often dispensed (as well as coveted) by official representatives such as journal editors, awards committees, and association officers. It therefore

this paper, both terms are used interchangeably, although test is a more restricted term than assessment, indicating a more standardized and quantitative approach to measurement

The aim of the paper is twofold. First, we try to fill a theoretical gap in evolutionary economics by developing some key elements of an evolutionary theory of social stratification that explicitly link the generation of technological and institutional novelty to the structural evolution of social inequality; as central theoretical connection, an conception of social power as a relative ability to control the evolution of social surroundings is introduced. Second, building on the theoretical framework, we develop a scenario for the specific structural properties of "knowledge societies", where, contrary to the notions of seminal thinkers in evolutionary economics and important branches of sociology, an acceleration in technological and institutional change is integrally connected with a decrease in social mobility and a "hardening" of class differences.

responsive processes with the systems perspective

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Abstract not found

Research accomplished under contract

#1: Understanding global IQ test correlations Despite reported evidence of strong concurrent correlations among IQ tests (concurrent validity), different IQ tests often produce different IQs for the same individual. This may be due to a number of factors. Prior to discussing the various factors, one must first understand the basic language of typical IQ-IQ comparison research. In the first of this series, IQ-IQ test correlations are explained. Statistically significant high correlations between different IQ tests, although providing strong concurrent validity evidence for tests, do not guarantee similar or identical IQs for all individuals tested.

There is uncertainty whether the sexes differ with respect to their mean levels and variabilities in mental ability test scores. Here we describe the cognitive ability distribution in 80,000+ children— almost everyone born in Scotland in 1921—tested at age 11 in 1932. There were no significant mean differences in cognitive test scores between boys and girls, but there was a highly significant difference in their standard deviations ( P <.001). Boys were over-represented at the low and high extremes of cognitive ability. These findings, the first to be presented from a whole population, might in part explain such cognitive outcomes as the slight excess of men achieving first class university degrees, and the excess of males with learning difficulties.