The I.Q test that is now most commonly used is known as the Wechsler Intelligence Scales for children, or the WISC. The most frequently used test used by psychologists is the third revision of the Wechsler Intelligence Scales known as the WISC-III. David Wechsler originally developed the test, which was series of ten different problems that ranged from very easy to extremely difficult; these ten problems were also divided into two subgroups. The verbal scale that involved tasks measuring vocabulary, understanding of similarities between objects and general knowledge. The other subgroup was the performance scale, which involved non-verbal tasks such as arranging pictures in to orders, or copying patterns using coloured blocks. Many psychologists find that this definition of verbal and non-verbal tasks helpful as different between the two skills can identify particular kinds of learning difficulties, i.e. dyslexia.
However, ever since the I.Q tests were introduced there have been criticisms about them. Before 1937, the mean score of women using the Stanford-Binet test was on average ten points lower than the average score for men. Although at first it was generally suggested that this was because women were not as intelligent as men, it was later suggested that the questions were more directed towards ‘male’ dominated areas of questioning than women, for example relating questions in terms of cars, card games, mechanics, etc. which at the time was made oriented. Therefore, it was decided to eliminate this discrepancy by modifying the questions to ensure that both males and females would archive around the same average score. According to Heather, (1976) this makes the test less efficient because there may be a ‘natural’ difference between the intelligence levels of men and women through out different points of history, however, by using the new these differences may not be picked up. For example if the I.Q scores were not created to produce approximately the same scores for both males and females we may be able to see why females are currently doing better academically than males.
Therefore, this could limit the efficiency of I.Q testing through either historically suggesting that women were inferior to men through their lower I.Q. scores, or through influencing the tests to create equal results for both males and females. It is difficult to say whether the tests were gender bias or whether the psychologists behind the changes to the tests did this to provide unbiased results through positive discrimination towards women.
Another criticism of the I.Q. tests that there is an average 10-15 point difference between the ‘White European’ average and the ‘Afro- Caribbean’ average, (Brody, (1992) Fagan & Singer (1983) Peoples, Fagan & Drotar, 1995); (Neisser et al 1996) Heather, (1976) suggests that this difference can be reduced through changing the questions to suit a more mixed ethnic group of participants. However, it was suggested that this would affect the test’s ‘Predictive Validity’. By changing the tests to reduce the racial differences, but without changing the social inequalities within our society would only create a more ineffective test. In order to reduce the ethnic I.Q. score difference, society must first change their attitudes towards other cultures, especially within education/ training and jobs.
How ever, Jensen, (1969) published an article called “How much can we boost I.Q. and schooling achievement?” within which he made a controversial suggestion that “Genetic factors are strongly implicated in the average negro-white intelligence differences. The preponderance of the evidence is, in my opinion, less consistent with a strictly environmental hypothesis than with a genetic hypothesis…”
Other psychologists including Eysenck (1971) and Herrnstein (1971) agree with Jensn. Jensen suggests that 80% of the difference between ‘blacks’ and ‘whites’ is due to the blacks ‘genetic inferiority’ and 20% due to environmental factors. However, Jensen does not have the biological evidence to back up his claim; he also used a bias sample to carry out his study that was a mainly ‘white’ population.
Segall et al (1999) disagreed with Jensen’s theory suggesting that environmental factors could account for the majority of the difference including the bias “against, blacks and other minorities” used within the tests. According to Gross (1999) the “cultural background differ from that of the test’s normative sample (whites).”
There is however, a strong correlation between individual differences in I.Q. or within-group differences and genetic factors. Where as group differences or between group differences seem to be largely a result of environmental factors.
Jensen’s response to this suggestion is to “appeal to the studies in which environmental factors are controlled.” An example of this is a study carried out by Shuey (1966) compared the I.Q. results of working-class and middle-class “blacks” and “whites.” His results suggested that the same gap of 15- points difference was present within both classes. He suggested that this shows that genetic factors are more consequential than environmental factors.
However, Bodmer (1972) pointed out that environmental factors do not purely consist of class, (as class merely consists of occupation and income), he also pointed out that ‘black people, have a history of slavery and continued prejudge and discrimination within the past and present. Therefore, their experiences of life regardless of class cannot be considered equivalent to that of their white counterparts. “Measuring the environment only by standard socioeconomic parameters is…like trying to assess the character of an individual by his height, weight and eye colour” (Bodmer, 1972)
Brody’s research (1992) suggested that the environment in which African children are typically raised differs significantly from that of white European children. Brody’s statistics suggest that African children are more likely to have a lower birth weight, have higher levels of poor nutrition and higher blood levels of lead. They are also less likely to be read or to receive intellectual stimulation; these factors are well-known characteristics linked to low I.Q scores.
However, research carried out by the mixed-race adoption studies (Scarr & Weinberg, 198) Weinberg, Scarr and Waldman (1992) suggest that African children adopted shortly after birth have only a slightly lower I.Q. score than ‘white ‘ children adopted into the same family. They suggested that it is the teaching of children that affects their I.Q. scores. Schools are designed to teach children a particular form of intellectual activities, where are minority cultures including African raise their children with emphasis on different type of intellectual activities not covered in I.Q. tests.
Stevenson and Lee (1990) suggest that it is the cultural beliefs that affect I.Q scores. Within Asian cultures, they do not believe in innate abilities, but focusing on encouragement and hard work. They suggest this is the reason why Asians achieve better I.Q. scores that cultures that focus more on natural abilities.
Although the I.Q. tests seem to favour the ‘white Europeans’ over other ethnic minorities, it is actually the Chinese and Japanese children who consistently perform better on I.Q. tests. (Geary, Bow-Thomas, Fan & Siegler (1993) Stevenson et al, (1990): sue & Okazaki, 1990)
Therefore, there is evidence that I.Q. test do not cater for children who are brought up in ethnic minority cultures, especially Africans.
