Measuring Intelligence in Children — The Pros and Cons

Intelligence is a highly debated topic among both laymen and psychological clinicians and academics. Throughout the history of psychology, theorists have struggled to formulate an accurate and meaningful definition of this complex concept. Early attempts to measure the construct were centered around developing a classification system to segregate children in schools based on their learning abilities (Santrock, 2002).

Despite the practical intention of this pursuit, it has spawned great debates regarding the validity of measuring a broad and comprehensive concept such as this with an instrument so narrowly focused upon single specific ability (i.e., verbal or mathematical skills). In a broader sense, this debate addresses the question of whether intelligence is a single defining characteristic or rather a set of multiple abilities (Carlson, Martin & Buskist, 2004).

Currently, the most widely accepted measure of intelligence, the Stanford-Binet test, is administered to children as young as 2 years old and typically re-administered throughout their school years. Beyond debates regarding the highly contested fairness of the actual content of the test, the problem inherent in this practice is not so much the testing of children at these ages, but rather in how the results are utilized. Specifically, allowing or prohibiting access to resources or programs based on test scores can impede rather than enhance development. When used ethically, these testing practices can appropriately target children for individualized educational experiences. When misused, they are discriminatory. Often there is a fine line between these two extremes.

Most psychologists agree that intelligence levels result from a complex interaction of heredity and environment (Santrock, 2002). Like many psychological phenomena, the distribution of intelligence (at least as measured by current psychometrics) falls along a distribution in the population that resembles the normal curve (Santrock, 2002; Carlson, Martin & Buskist, 2004). At the extreme ends of these curves (and thus posited to exist in only a relatively small proportion of the population) are categories of mental retardation (low intelligence — IQs below 70) and giftedness (high intelligence IQs above 120) (Santrock, 2002).

While it is often a generally accepted belief that individuals at either of these extremes are more likely to exhibit adjustment difficulties and problems adapting to ‘normal’ life this conclusion may be more of a contrived reflection of society’s judgment of the individuals than an inherent aspect of their status. Simply put, most of the mechanisms of day-to-day life are geared toward the largest segment of the population (i.e., the ‘average’ person).

Beyond the acknowledgement of society’s role in the degree of assimilation of individuals with extreme IQs, there are physical and contextual causes of or contributor to these conditions. Organic retardation stems from brain damage or genetic abnormalities and results in lower than normal levels of functioning. Furthermore, evidence exists for the contribution of environment in both extremes. This is manifested in cases of cultural-familial retardation springing from deprived environment and gifted children emerging from enriched environments.

While no amount of environmental enrichment can completely counteract organic retardation, it can provide the direction and nurturing necessary for these individuals to achieve their highest level of functioning. Conversely, individuals with a very high IQ need a safe and stimulating environment to properly develop their natural talents and abilities.

References

Carlson, N. R., Martin, G. N. & Buskist, W. (2004). Psychology, 2e. New York, NY: Pearson.

Santrock, J. W. (2002). Life-span development, 8e. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.