Assessing Intelligence in A Cultural Context: Lisa A. Suzuki, Samar Naqvi, and Jill S. Hill

Chapter 13
Assessing Intelligence in a
Cultural Context
Lisa A. Suzuki, Samar Naqvi, and Jill S. Hill
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
Standardized intelligence testing has been identified emotional, practical, cultural, and successful intelli-
as “one of psychology’s greatest successes” of the gences. We also address the theory of multiple intel-
past century (Benson, 2003, p. 48). Measures of IQ ligences that includes a combination of both
and aptitude are some of the most widely used cognitive and noncognitive abilities.
inventions of the discipline of psychology. The U.S. In psychology, intelligence has often been defined
public has been enamored with the construct of by the numerous tests designed to measure it (Boring,
intelligence and its measurement. High scores on IQ 1923). Historically, Binet, the “father of cognitive
tests are often equated with personal characteristics and intellectual assessment” (Wasserman & Tulsky,
such as being smart. Intelligence and the construct 2005, p. 6) worked with his colleague Simon to
of IQ in the U.S. vernacular have attained widespread develop the Binet-Simon Scale (1908, cited in Mac
public usage, and entire texts devoted to the subject Kintosh, 2011) to identify children with mental
can be found in the self-improvement and psychol- retardation for the French Ministry of Education.
ogy aisles of major bookstores. The term intelligence Goddard, Terman, and Yerkes (as cited in MacKintosh,
has been used to describe an ever-increasing set of 2011) later developed the Army Alpha and Beta tests
abilities. Indeed, as we note in this chapter, numer- used to screen 1.75 million draftees in World War I
ous intelligences have been identified in the literature quickly and efficiently on the basis of obtained scores.
that are often categorized as focusing on cognitive Today, intelligence tests are a regular part of com-
and noncognitive abilities. “Cognitive skills refer to prehensive psychological evaluations, in particular
various dimensions of intelligence, such as an indi- those focusing on classification, diagnosis, placement,
vidual’s verbal fluency or their ability to solve new and psychological intervention.
problems, whereas non-cognitive skills comprise Although many intelligence tests were primarily
personality traits, such as openness to experience or developed for a clinical purpose (e.g., placement,
emotional stability” (Anger, 2011 p. 2). Anger (2011) diagnosis), the need for theoretical grounding has
noted that noncognitive skills are different from led to the development of additional tests such as
those assessed by typical intelligence measures. the Woodcock–Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Abili-
However, she clarified this point, indicating that ties (Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001), based
personality traits are not necessarily void of cognitive on the Cattell–Horn–Cattell (CHC) theory of cogni-
content. Thus, cognitive forms of intelligence are tive abilities combining the fluid–crystallized (Gf-Gc)
those that are measured more traditionally by IQ theory and three-stratum theory, and the Cognitive
measures. In this chapter, we include attention to Assessment System (Naglieri & Das, 1997, cited in
more noncognitive forms of intelligence, including Naglieri & Das, 2005), founded on the planning,
those that focus on socioemotional abilities such attention, simultaneous and successive processes
as social (e.g., intrapersonal and interpersonal), (PASS) model. More information regarding these
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/14189-013
APA Handbook of Multicultural Psychology: Vol. 1. Theory and Research, F. T. L. Leong (Editor-in-Chief)
247
Copyright © 2014 by the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.
Suzuki, Naqvi, and Hill
measures and their underlying theoretical foundations Sternberg and Kaufman (1998) noted, the cultural
are provided in the Cognitive Measures of Intelli- group with which one identifies often determines
gence section of this chapter. what is considered “intelligent” or smart behavior in
Despite the popularity of intelligence tests, criti- that particular context. Being adaptive to one’s envi-
cisms have arisen regarding the use of these instru- ronment and operating in accordance with cultural
ments with members of marginalized and oppressed norms is critical. In this section, we highlight differ-
racial/ethnic groups (e.g., Valencia & Suzuki, 2001). ent definitions of what constitutes intelligence among
Higher scores on intelligence tests have been linked varying racial/ethnic groups. Regardless of these dif-
to specific racial/ethnic groups (e.g., Asian, Jewish) ferences in behavioral (e.g., cognitive skills) and
and to groups attaining higher socioeconomic status social “manifestations across the cultures” (Stern-
(SES). In addition, studies have linked intelligence berg & Kaufman, 1998, p. 497), some cognitive
disparities between racial/ethnic groups to environ- dimensions underlying intelligence are still compa-
mental context, including differences in home envi- rable across cultures. At the same time, “cultures
ronment (Valencia & Suzuki, 2001). Controversies designate as ‘intelligent’ the cognitive, social and
have been further spurred by literature such as The behavioral attributes that they value as adaptive to
Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in Ameri- the requirements of living in those cultures” (Stern-
can Life (Herrnstein & Murray, 1994) that has pro- berg & Kaufman, 1998, p. 497).
moted the notion of a class structure with particular Many definitions and theories of intelligence have
groups making up the cognitive elite in relation to evolved over time. In 1994, the Wall Street Journal
other groups assessed with deficient abilities. For published a statement, “Mainstream Science on
example, Herrnstein and Murray (1994) cited over- Intelligence” (Arvey et al., 1994), to “promote a
representation of particular racial/ethnic minority more reasoned discussion of the vexing phenomenon
groups in relation to special education classifications, that the research has revealed in recent decades”
unemployment, and lower socioeconomic classes as (p. A18). Fifty-two professors who were identified
the outcome of lower cognitive abilities. as experts in the field endorsed the statement. By
Given these challenges and the continued use their definition, intelligence is “a very general mental
of IQ tests with diverse racial/ethnic groups, it is capability that, among other things, involves the
imperative that a multicultural lens be applied to ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think
understanding the measurement of intelligence. abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly
One’s IQ must be understood in a cultural context. and learn from experience” (p. A18). The article
Without attending to cultural implications, chal- went on to state that intelligence can be measured
lenges will continue to threaten the validity of and intelligence tests are “not culturally biased
assessment tools as well as the construct of intelli- against American Black or other native-born, Eng-
gence itself. In this chapter, we highlight relevant lish speaking peoples in the U.S. Rather IQ scores
issues pertaining to the measurement of intelligence predict equally accurately for all such Americans,
in a multicultural context, focusing on cultural per- regardless of race or social class” (p. A18). Their
spectives on intelligence, noncognitive forms of justification centered on the notion of prediction by
intelligence and their measurement, cognitive mea- various criteria associated with intelligence such as
sures of intelligence, contemporary issues in multi- indicators of educational achievement (e.g., grade
cultural assessment of intelligence, and uses of point average, other achievement test scores).
intelligence test scores in educational placement. Challenges have arisen over the years regarding the
credibility of these criteria given that they too may
be affected by cultural factors (e.g., bias in educa-
CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES ON
tional settings).
INTELLIGENCE
Most intelligence measures reflect the complexities
Several studies have examined the question of how of a Western-based definition and have been applied to
intelligence is perceived in different cultures. As individuals from diverse cultural backgrounds.
248
Assessing Intelligence in a Cultural Context
This practice raises concerns for those whose back- predicting important life outcomes has led theorists
ground does not fit conventional Western character- and researchers to expand their definitions of intelli-
istics. For example, the “Mainstream Science” gent behavior” (p. ix). These noncognitive aptitudes
definition in the preceding paragraph emphasizes include social intelligence, emotional intelligence,
learning quickly. Other cultures may value depth practical intelligence, cultural intelligence, and suc-
and meticulousness rather than speed. Work by cessful intelligence. In the following sections, we
Yang and Sternberg (1997) noted differences highlight definitions of each type of intelligence and
between Western conceptions of effective learning discuss implications of the application of these con-
in comparison to cultures adhering to a more Taoist structs and their respective measures in light of
tradition, which emphasizes the importance of cultural issues whenever possible.
humility, knowledge of oneself, and external condi-
tions and thereby emphasizes a more thoughtful and Social Intelligence
personalized approach to learning without focusing Early and Ang (2003) defined social intelligence as
on time constraints. Ruzgis and Grigorenko (1994) “the ability to get along with people, knowledge of
noted that African conceptions of intelligence involve social matters, ease with others, empathy for others,
facilitation and maintenance of stable and harmonious and insights concerning others” (p. 2). Goleman
relationships. The Yuruba Tribe in Africa believes in (2006) identified two broad categories that form the
the importance of depth and listening rather than foundation of social intelligence—social awareness
talking and in being able to see all aspects of an (“what we sense about others”) and social facility
issue in context (Durojaiye, 1993). Srivastava, Sibia, (“what we do with that awareness”; p. 84).
and Misra (2008) cited Das (1994), noting that The cultural component of social intelligence is
mainstream Indian culture emphasizes “determina- apparent given the emphasis placed on relation-
tion, mental effort, and even feelings and opinions ships. “While the specifics vary from culture to cul-
in addition to such intellectual processes as knowl- ture, all people everywhere deem warm connections
edge, discrimination, and decision-making” (p. 387). with others to be the core feature of ‘optimal human
Within this mainstream Indian cultural context, existence’” (Goleman, 2006, p. 312)
according to Srivastava et al., an intelligent individ- Several domains of assessment have evolved to
ual is thought to “be capable of knowing the inten- address the various facets of social intelligence.
tion of others, is polite, refrains from self-praise, and These domains include social insight, social judg-
shows initiative, interest in work, and lacks rigidity” ment, social sensitivity, and social communication
(p. 387). In India, ancient cultures emphasized (e.g., social problem solving; Mathias & Nettel-
moral and social aspects of intelligence, characterizing beck, 1992). Tasks used to assess these areas
good intelligence as leading to “happiness, pleasure, include role taking, interviews, video dilemmas,
prosperity” and being constructive and bad intelli- cartoons, tape recordings, photographs, and draw-
gence as being destructive and leading to unhappi- ings. Comprehensive measures of social intelli-
ness (Srivastava & Misra, 1999, cited in Srivastava gence include The George Washington Social
et al., 2008, p. 139). Intelligence Test (Hunt, 1928, cited in Kihlstrom
& Cantor, 2011), which contained the following
subtests: Judgment in Social Situations, Memory
NONCOGNITIVE FORMS OF INTELLIGENCE
for Names and Faces, Observation of Human
AND THEIR MEASUREMENT
Behavior, and Recognition of the Mental States
Over the years, several alternative forms of intelli- Behind Words. In addition, Guilford’s Structure of
gence have been proposed in the literature as being Intellect model contained 30 social factors
important indicators of future success. Emmerling, (O’Sullivan, Guilford, & DeMille, 1965, cited in
Shanwal, and Mandal (2008) noted that “growing Taylor, 1990). Kihlstrom and Cantor (2011) cited
recognition that traditional measures of intelligence literature indicating that the Guilford Tests of
have left much to be desired when it comes to Social Intelligence addressed behavioral operations
249
or cognitions enabling the individual to judge oth- Thus, according to this definition, emotional intelli-
ers on the basis of psychological dispositions (e.g., gence pertains to an individualized experience,
feelings, motives, thoughts) affecting social behav- whereas social intelligence is demonstrated through
ior. The information regarding use of these instru- negotiation and one’s ability to operate successfully
ments cross-culturally is limited. For example, the in the environment with others (Ashley, 2009).
Chapin Social Insight Test (Chapin, 1993, cited in Examining the impact of culture and the assess-
Conoley & Castillo, 2005) evaluates how accu- ment of emotional intelligence, Gangopadhyay and
rately one perceives others and predicts what they Mandal (2008) indicated that emotional intelligence
will say and do using social scenarios. Conoley and has been studied primarily in Western countries
Castillo (2005) noted that these scenarios were that emphasize an individualistic perspective and
written from a European American perspective and noted the need for researchers to validate this con-
challenged the use of this measure with members struct in the East, reflecting a collectivistic orienta-
from diverse cultural communities. tion. From a cultural perspective, “basic emotions
are perceived similarly across the world but display

Emotional Intelligence rules governing emotional expression vary from cul-
Social intelligence is often associated with emotional ture to culture” (p. 115). For example, emotions that
intelligence, and authors often discuss these constructs are considered to be more common across cultures,
together (Goleman, 2006). Social interactions often such as anger, have reflected differences in expres-
contain an emotional component. For example, sion and behavior across cultures. These differences
Early and Ang (2003) wrote, are due to varying beliefs across cultures about the
particular meanings of emotions as well as what are
People having a high social or emotional
considered appropriate and inappropriate expres-
intelligence are thought to be relatively
sions of such emotions in specific sociocultural con-
more able to empathize, work with,
texts (Ellsworth, 1994). This sociocultural focus
direct, and interact with other people. In
counters the notion of universal experience of basic
essence, high social intelligence reflects
emotions traditionally emphasized by Western-ori-
a person’s capacity to perform actions
ented explorations of the theory of emotional intel-
(such as problem solving) with and
ligence. Additionally, it challenges researchers in
through others. (pp. 2–3)
this area to broaden their conceptualizations of
However, the separation between emotional and emotional intelligence to include knowledge of cul-
social intelligence remains debatable (Goleman, tural nuances and differences in emotional expres-
2006). sion and behavior as guided by more culturally
Despite this overlap in the scholarly discourse, specific display rules. Display rules refer to the ways
emotional intelligence has come to be viewed as a in which cultural norms affect the acceptable ways
unique form of intelligence. Numerous definitions in which emotions are expressed. Emotions are
and scales have been developed to assess this con- shaped by social, cultural, and linguistic processes
struct. Emotional intelligence has been operation- and are also learned through these experiences
alized according to four distinct emotional (Kitayama & Markus, 1994). Therefore, emotions
abilities—that is, and emotional abilities must be understood specifi-
cally within a particular sociocultural context.
the ability to accurately identify and Among the many emotional intelligence tests that
express emotions, the ability to gener- are based on self-report, the major ability-based mea-
ate emotions and use them to help you sure in this area developed to assess the processing
think, the ability to understand emotions of emotion-based information is the Mayer–Salovey–
and their causes, and the ability to man- Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT;
age emotions so that they inform your Mayer, Salovey, Caruso, & Sitarenios, 2003). The
decision making. (Caruso, 2008, p. 7) MSCEIT assesses the four skill areas identified in
250
Mayer and Salovey’s (1997) model: (a) perceiving Practical Intelligence

emotion accurately, (b) using emotion to facilitate Practical intelligence has been identified as one of
thought, (c) understanding emotion, and (d) manag- the two types of everyday nonacademic intelligence
ing emotion (emphasizing the importance of prob- (the other being social intelligence). It is described
lem solving). Studies of the MSCEIT have indicated as relating to an understanding of physical objects
“reasonable reliability and confirmatory factor analy- and processes (Yalon-Chamovitz & Greenspan, 2005)
sis supported theoretical models” (Mayer et al., and refers to the cognitive underpinning of everyday
2003, p. 97). A study examining cross-cultural functioning. For example, “the ability to think about
research on the reliability and validity of the and understand mechanical, physical and technical
MSCEIT (Karim & Weisz, 2010) revealed factorial problems in everyday settings” requires the individ-
invariance across samples of participants from ual to differentiate “the underlying processes of
Pakistan (Eastern collectivistic culture) and France problem identification, insight and problem solving”
(Western individualistic culture). French partici- (Greenspan & Driscoll, 1997, cited in Yalon-
pants had higher scores than Pakistani participants, Chamovitz & Greenspan, 2005, p. 220). Therefore,
leading Karim and Weisz (2010) to conclude that practical intelligence serves to identify the underly-
individuals from “individualistic societies are better ing cognitive components that contribute to compe-
at perceiving, understanding, expressing, and regu- tence (Yalon-Chamovitz & Greenspan, 2005).
lating emotions” (p. 395), a finding consistent with Frederiksen (1986, cited in Wagner, 2011) defined
other studies. Thus, these authors concluded that on practical intelligence as being reflected in people’s
the basis of their examination of the MSCEIT’s dis- cognitive responses to most things that happen out-
criminant validity, emotional intelligence is unique side the school setting. Wagner (2011) highlighted
from other intelligences and personality traits. How- the distinction, given that problems found outside of
ever, whether Karim and Weisz took into account the classroom setting are different from the ones
culturally specific display rules in their interpreta- found in school settings because the former type
tion of the results is not clear. Moreover, it does not
(1) Are ill-defined; (2) require for-
appear that knowledge of cultural nuances or differ-
mulation by the problem solver; (3)
ences in emotional behavior and emotional expres-
have missing information that must be
sion were prioritized in this reliability and validity
acquired; (4) have multiple solutions,
study. Concluding that individualistic societies are
each with liabilities as well as assets; (5)
more adept in these areas appears overly reduction-
have multiple methods for achieving
ist and simply inaccurate in the face of culturally ori-
solutions; and (6) are related to everyday
ented explanations. Comparing individualist and
experience. (p. 551)
collectivist societies on a measure that has yet to
establish cultural let alone communal validity misses Thus, practical intelligence is characteristically dis-
the greater point. For instance, collectivist societies tinct from academic forms of intelligence (Sternberg
may consider emotion in a relational context instead et al., 2000).
of as emanating from an isolated core self. To truly Cross-cultural studies have suggested that practi-
examine that would possibly entail looking at the cal intelligence manifests in practical know-how
reciprocal interactions within human emotional (e.g., finding improvised solutions, repair-type work)
expression and receptivity to these expressions. on the basis of previous experiences as opposed to
Measuring characteristics of emotional intelligence technical manuals, formal training, or education.
that prioritize the individual disadvantages those For example, a form of practical know-how is tacit
from collectivist cultures whose sense of being is knowledge, which is knowledge that is experience
dependent on relations with others. Potential gender based and usually not taught directly (Wagner &
discrepancies were also identified given differential Sternberg, 1985, as cited in Wagner, 2011).
scoring patterns for men and women in the two cul- Yalon-Chamovitz and Greenspan (2005)
tures (Karim & Weisz, 2010). developed an instrument consisting of videotaped
251
scenes of instrumental activities of daily living. pattern of relationships among factors. Ang and Van
Tasks are shown with three practical problems or Dyne concluded that the Cultural Intelligence Scale
errors encountered in the process of task perfor- has “implications for self-awareness, cross-cultural
mance in each scene to assess the participants’ abil- interactions, corporate selection, training and devel-
ity to identify that a problem has occurred, to opment, employee motivations, adjustment, well-
demonstrate insight or provide an explanation as to being, and performance” (p. 36). In addition, the
the nature of the problem, and to generate hypothet- measure yields important information regarding the
ical solutions to the problem. Total scores are potential effectiveness of individuals working in cul-
regarded as a measure of participants’ practical intel- turally diverse international and domestic settings.
ligence, with a higher score indicating a higher level
of practical intelligence. Successful Intelligence
In an effort to bridge conventional or traditional def-
Cultural Intelligence initions with more real-world applications and inter-
Cultural intelligence (CQ) refers to skills that enable pretations of intelligence, Sternberg (1985, 1997)
an individual to operate socially in multiple cultural developed the theory of successful intelligence. Tri-
contexts, transferring the skills learned in one con- archic in nature, the theory includes three subtheo-
text to other contexts effectively (Brislin, Worthley, ries that examine the components of intelligence,
& Macnab, 2006). Early and Ang (2003) noted the the ability to cope with novelty and the automatiza-
important impact of cultural adjustment “as a per- tion of information processing, and processes of
son’s adaptation and shaping of novel cultural envi- adaptation, shaping, and selection within one’s
ronments so as to perform a given set of duties” sociocultural context (Sternberg, 2003).
(p. 97). Thus, their conceptualization of CQ con- Successful intelligence is what emerges out of
sisted of metacognitive, cognitive, motivational, and mastering most forms of intelligence, balancing aca-
behavioral factors. Metacognitive CQ refers to “an demic brilliance with social skills (Sternberg, 1997).
individual’s level of conscious cultural awareness The concept involves analytic, creative, and practi-
during cross-cultural interactions” (Ang, Van Dyne, cal skills, with successful intelligence described as a
& Tan, 2011, p. 584). Cognitive CQ is the “knowl- combination of academic intelligence, which is hard
edge of norms, practices, and conventions in differ- study and sound learning; emotional/social intelli-
ent cultures acquired from education and personal gence, a blend of intuition, creativity, innovation,
experiences” (p. 584), including cultural universals and mature-quality connection; and actionable intel-
and cultural differences. Motivational CQ is the ligence, the art of leadership, self-discipline, and
“capacity to direct attention and energy toward execution.
learning about and functioning in culturally diverse Sternberg (2003) first postulated that intelligence
situations” (p. 585). Behavioral CQ highlights an consists of one’s ability to successfully achieve
“individual’s capability to exhibit appropriate verbal according to one’s own standards and sociocultural
and nonverbal actions when interacting with people context. One’s ability to succeed through capitaliza-
from different cultures” (p. 585). tion of strengths and correction of or compensation
Ang and Van Dyne (2008) developed the Cultural for weaknesses and how well one is able to balance
Intelligence Scale, a self-report measure assessing one’s abilities in terms of adapting to, shaping, and
these four theoretical factors. A corresponding peer- selecting one’s environments are critical compo-
report version is also available. The scale was nents of successful intelligence. Sternberg (2003)
administered in the United States and Singapore, also noted that a balance of analytical, creative, and
and results indicated that it has “a clear, robust, and practical abilities leads to success.
meaningful four factor structure” (Ang & Van Dyne, More recently, Sternberg and colleagues have
2008, p. 34) that was found to be consistent across expanded their framework to include an augmented
samples, time, and countries. The self-report and theory of intelligence, wisdom, intelligence, creativity,
peer-report versions were found to yield the same synthesized (Sternberg, 2010). They added to the
252
theory the component of wisdom, defined as the c onsidered to be complementary, providing an

“intersection of highly developed knowledge, advantage especially to schools in identification of
advanced cognitive processing, creativity, and a gifted performers, taking into account not only the
well-developed capacity for social, emotional, and conventional understanding of intelligence but also
moral reasoning” (Birney & Sternberg, 2011, p. 370). the less traditional, less formally appreciated cre-
Sternberg (2010) suggested that “the application of ative and practical skills that may be present as well
intelligence, creativity, and knowledge for the com- (Sternberg, 2010). Currently, the Aurora battery is
mon good, [can be accomplished] by balancing undergoing study for translation and cultural adap-
intrapersonal, interpersonal, and extra-personal tation in other countries.
interests, over the long and short terms, through the
infusion of positive ethical values” (p. 327). The
MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES AND THEIR
demonstration of wisdom involves a deliberate con-
MEASUREMENT
sideration of multiple, often competing interests and
perspectives in a given situation, with the goal of The theory of multiple intelligences is based on “rig-
mutually benefiting each interest; the emphasis is orous critical review of empirical work in disciplines
on the common good (Birney & Sternberg, 2011; ranging from neurobiology and developmental psy-
Sternberg, 2010). Although this theory is a great chology to cultural anthropology” (Gardner, 1993,
improvement over more conventional theories of as cited in Chen & Gardner, 2005, p. 89). Gardner
intelligence, it seems prudent to consider how con- (1983) recognized that multiple intelligences are
cepts such as success and wisdom are culturally based on skills and abilities that are valued in differ-
embedded and understood across various sociocul- ent cultures. One culture may be focused on perfor-
tural contexts. For example, some cultural groups mance measured by tests, and another could focus
value a spiritual awareness that cannot be captured on creativity (Troman, Jeffrey, & Raggl, 2007, as
by cognitive or moral constructs. This type of aware- cited in Chen, Moran, & Gardner, 2009). Intelli-
ness allows individuals and groups to release them- gence, therefore, is “the capacity to solve problems
selves to the flow of life that is often filled with or fashion products that are valued in one or more
paradoxes and contradictions that cannot be fully cultural settings” (Gardner & Hatch 1989, p. 433).
understood. Moreover, a unitary awareness (Rob- Gardner (1999) originally identified eight forms of
bins, Hong, & Jennings, 2012), or the capacity to intelligence: (a) linguistic intelligence, dealing with
transcend immediate worries and experience the words, spoken or written; (b) logical–mathematical
interconnections among all things, has not been pri- intelligence, catering to logic, reasoning, numbers,
oritized in Western society, which has historically and abstractions; (c) musical intelligence, being the
emphasized becoming rather than being. These capability to recognize and compose musical
forms of intelligence, or ways of knowing, are pitches, tones, and rhythms; (d) spatial intelligence,
accessed through more spiritual methods in particu- encompassing the ability to manipulate and create
lar sociocultural contexts. images to solve problems; (e) bodily kinesthetic
The Aurora Assessment Battery was developed intelligence, being the capacity to use one’s mental
using the theory of successful intelligence as its abilities to coordinate one’s own bodily movements;
foundation. Designed to assess giftedness in chil- (f) naturalistic intelligence, being the capacity to see
dren between ages approximately 9 and 12 years, patterns in nature and relating information to one’s
the battery is made up of two parts: (a) an aug- natural environment; (g) interpersonal intelligence,
mented part, the Aurora-a/Aurora-a battery, which being the ability to understand and discern feelings
measures skills in analytical, creative, and practical and intentions of others; and (h) intrapersonal intel-
domains, and (b) what is considered a more conven- ligence, marking the capacity to understand and
tional, general intelligence part, the Aurora-g/ interpret one’s own feelings, fears, and motivations.
Aurora-g battery (Chart, Grigorenko, & Sternberg, We should note that interpersonal and intrapersonal
2008; Sternberg, 2010). These two sections are intelligences are conceptually linked because they are
253
forms of personal intelligence. Gardner also consid- suggest alternative routes to the achievement of
ered the inclusion of other intelligences such as important educational goals” (Chen & Gardner,
spiritual, existential, and moral intelligence yet did 2005, p. 96). At the preschool level, the assessment
not include them as part of the eight multiple intelli- activity areas include movement, language, mathe-
gences identified in this theory. matics, visual arts, music, social understanding,
Gardner (2004) discussed higher order abilities, natural science, and mechanical science. Davis,
defined as including such things as abstract reason- Christodoulou, Seider, and Gardner (2011) noted
ing, mental representation, problem solving, and that the assessment of multiple intelligences involves
decision making. He further expanded these abilities sampling a range of intelligences and domains;
to involve mathematical intelligence, pattern detec- identifying strengths; giving meaningful feedback to
tion, deductive reasoning, and logical thinking along students on tasks with which the students are famil-
with linguistic intelligence. With respect to linguis- iar; deriving scores on a number of tasks and across
tic intelligence, he believed control of language domains; and presenting problem-solving informa-
would enable the individual to effectively manipu- tion in ways that are useful to teachers.
late, express, remember, and quote information
(Gardner, 1983, 2004). Although these cognitive
COGNITIVE MEASURES OF INTELLIGENCE
aspects of the theory of multiple intelligences are
measurable, Gardner (2004) realized that the non- Despite the growing number of noncognitive forms
cognitive forms of intelligence attached to the the- of intelligence, the greatest number of measures
ory, such as musical, naturalistic, interpersonal, and address traditional cognitive abilities. In their
intrapersonal intelligence, are more difficult to review, Valencia and Suzuki (2001) found that these
assess using traditional measures. measures fell within the following categories: multi-
The multiple intelligences theory allows for a dimensional batteries (including verbal, nonverbal,
broader understanding of what constitutes intelli- and memory subtests), nonverbal measures, devel-
gence in various cultural contexts. In cross-cultural opmental measures, memory and learning scales,
interactions not only intelligences “but also the qualitative measures (e.g., interviews, self-reports,
meaning and value of those intelligences may differ” and rating scales), and neuropsychological test bat-
(Moran, 2009, p. 369). For example, countries with teries. Some of the most often cited comprehensive
a Spanish heritage may emphasize artistic, musical, multidimensional scales include the Wechsler Scales
and kinesthetic abilities, supporting the importance (Wechsler, 2002, 2003, 2008), Stanford–Binet Intel-
of understanding multiple intelligences in this cul- ligence Scale (5th ed.; Roid, 2003, as cited in Roid &
tural context. Pomplun, 2005), Woodcock–Johnson III Tests of
Culture is a process, and multiple intelligences Cognitive Abilities (Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather,
create a broader horizon to aim for, offering a range 2001), and the Cognitive Assessment System (Nagl-
of opportunities for everyone, allowing people to ieri & Das, 1997, as cited in Naglieri & Das, 2005).
collaborate with others who are dissimilar but com- Nonverbal ability tests are also used when the exam-
plementary rather than absolutely “like-minded iner is concerned with the impact of language on
copy cats: a saxophone and piano playing in har- test performance. These tests include measures such
mony is more provocative than two violins in uni- as the Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test
son” (Moran, 2009, p. 372). (Bracken & McCallum, 1998).
Gardner and Feldman (n.d.) highlighted an alter- As noted earlier, these measures are based on
native approach to assessment of multiple intelli- emergent alternative theories of intelligence, includ-
gences for the preschool and early primary years in ing three-stratum, Gf–Gc, and CHC theories and the
Project Spectrum. The goal of assessment is to “help PASS model. The three-stratum theory is based on
create environments that foster the development of Carroll’s (1993) reanalysis of correlational studies of
individual as well as group potential, promote mental test data supporting the existence of narrow,
deep understanding of disciplinary knowledge, and broad, and general abilities. The Gf–Gc theory,
254
based on the work of Cattell and Horn (as cited in gender, SES (e.g., parental occupation), geographic
Willis, Dumont, & Kaufman, 2011) proposed the region, urban and rural residence, and education
existence of fluid abilities (Gf) measured by “non- (Valencia & Suzuki, 2001).
verbal, relatively culture-free stimuli” that “require With regard to validity, one notable finding is the
an integration of verbal and nonverbal thinking” reliance on correlations with long-standing measures
and crystallized abilities (Gc) measured by tasks in the establishment of a newer test’s validity. Valen-
involving the “application of acquired knowledge cia and Suzuki (2001) noted that of the 59 measures
and learned skills” (p. 44). These theories were inte- reviewed in their text, 66% (n = 39) cited validity
grated in the CHC theory that forms the foundation of studies using one or more of the Wechsler scales.
the Woodcock–Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery— Surveys of clinicians engaging in psychological
Revised (Woodcock & Johnson, 1989). The PASS assessment practices have indicated that the most
theory (i.e., planning, attention, simultaneous, and frequently used intelligence tests have been and
successive) emphasizes three processing units on continue to be the Wechsler scales (Ochoa, Powell, &
the basis of brain functioning—conscious arousal Robles-Piiia, 1996; Valencia & Suzuki, 2001).
and direction of attention (associated with the brain Though challenges regarding the use of these mea-
stem, diencephalon, and medial cortical regions); sures with individuals from diverse racial/ethnic
simultaneous and successive, the holistic and serial backgrounds have arisen over the years, their cre-
organization and processing of information (associ- ator, David Wechsler, suggested that the group dif-
ated with the occipital, parietal, and posterior tem- ferences in IQ scores are not indicative of lower
poral lobes); and planning, generating, and selecting intelligence but instead reflect “differences in our
problem-solving strategies and evaluation (associ- society and how variations in social, economic,
ated with the frontal lobes; Das, Naglieri, & Kirby, political, and medical opportunities have an impact
1994). PASS is the theoretical framework for the on intellectual abilities” (as cited in Weiss, 2003,
Cognitive Assessment System (Naglieri & Das, 1997). p. 50). Despite the need to specifically address these
In the area of information processing, research by opportunities to understand an individual’s test per-
Verney, Granholm, Marshall, Malcarne, and Sacuzzo formance in context, growing demands for these
(2005) has suggested a relationship between culture, cognitive measures have led to the Wechsler scales’
information processing efficiency, and general cog- being transported and restandardized in numerous
nitive capacities in their comparison of Mexican international communities. For example, the Wechsler
American and Caucasian college students. They Intelligence Scale for Children—III was adapted,
concluded that understanding the impact of renormed, and restandardized in Canada, the United
information processing and psychophysiological Kingdom, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Ger-
approaches will be helpful in developing more many, Austria, Switzerland, Sweden, Lithuania,
culture-fair cognitive ability measures. Slovenia, Greece, Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea
Valencia and Suzuki (2001) also noted the (Georgas, Weiss, van de Vijer, & Saklofske, 2003).
diverse ability areas addressed by these measures, Though greater attention to variables related to
such as crystallized abilities, auditory and visual cultural indicators is evident with respect to most
memory, quantitative reasoning, conceptual and published measures, serious and justified concerns
abstract reasoning, perceptual and motor process- remain regarding the limited information that is
ing, sequential reasoning, attention and focus, com- provided to assist the examiner in selecting appro-
munication skills, emotional coping and social priate measures that will provide results that are not
skills, and learning. only reliable and valid but also equitable (Edwards,
All state-of-the-art intelligence measures are 2006; Valencia & Suzuki, 2001). For example, many
based on census-based norming and reliability and test manuals do not provide data regarding how var-
validity studies pertaining to racial/ethnic group ious racial/ethnic groups score with respect to vari-
representation. In addition, many other relevant ous subtests and overall scaled scores. However, not
demographic characteristics are addressed, including providing such information makes it more difficult
255
for test users to know with certainty which tests are impact of genes and environment will change
unbiased or result in minimum mean score differ- (Rushton & Jensen, 2005, p. 239).
ences between racial/ethnic groups (Edwards, 2006). Two philosophical perspectives (biological and
environmental) are used to describe group differ-
ences in cognitive ability test performance, with
CONTEMPORARY ISSUES IN
each approach having some cultural explanation
MULTICULTURAL ASSESSMENT OF
of the variation in average performance between
INTELLIGENCE
groups, even when definitions of culture differ
Over the years, many factors have been identified (Helms, 1992). Helms (1992) also suggested that
that have a potential impact on the measurement of neither perspective uses actual culture-specific
intelligence. In the following sections, we highlight models, principles, or definitions that can be
these factors, beginning with an acknowledgment applied to the examination of the influence of cul-
of one of the most controversial debates regarding ture on the content of a cognitive ability test and in
racial/ethnic group differences with respect to heri- the performance of test takers. She proposed, there-
tability and genetics. We then address other factors fore, the application of the culturalist perspective,
that have been linked to intelligence test perfor- which promotes the idea that many cultures can
mance, that is, stereotype threat; home environ- exist within one environment, suggesting that
ment, SES, and geographic residence; acculturation racial/ethnic group differences in cognitive ability
and language; attitudes, test-taking formats, and testing performance may reflect actual cultural dif-
response sets; cultural bias and cultural loading; ferences. Greenfield (1997) augmented Helms’s
and cultural equivalence. argument, noting that tests of intelligence are repre-
sentations of symbolic culture. Culture involves
Heritability and Genetics “sharing or agreement, that is, social convention” in
According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary terms of values, knowledge, and communication
(n.d.), heritability is defined as the “proportion of (Greenfield, 1997, p. 1115). Intelligence tests reflect
observed variation in a particular trait that can be “cultural genres” and are based on these social
attributed to inherited genetic factors in contrast to conventions.
environmental ones” (para. 2). Rushton and Jensen Lynn (2006) presented data in support of the
(2005) quoted two models accounting for differ- Rushton and Jensen (2005) view of racial/ethnic
ences in Black–White mean IQ, the culture-only group differences in IQ (50% genetic–50% environ-
model (0% genetic–100% environmental) and the mental), suggesting that half of the IQ deficit of
hereditarian model (50% genetic–50% environmen- Third World races is the result of inadequate nutri-
tal). Rushton and Jensen argued that the genetic tion and the other half is racially genetic because
contribution to the differences in IQ is substantial Africans living in Africa have an average IQ of 67,
(50% in the United States), and others such as Nis- whereas African Americans living in the United
bett (2009) argued that the genetic contribution to States have an average IQ of 80. The claim that a sig-
the difference is not substantial and that the gap is nificant portion of the IQ gap, with White students
purely environmental. scoring better than Black students, has a genetic ori-
The intersection of heritability (composed of gin has been advanced by psychologists such as
genetics), culture, and environment is what guides Rushton and Jensen (2005) and Lynn (1991a,
debates about intelligence’s origin in current times. 1991b). Sternberg, Grigorenko, and Kidd (2005)
Heritability describes what the genetic contribution have criticized research into race and intelligence,
to individual differences is in a particular population arguing that “no gene has yet been conclusively
at a particular time, not what could be. If either the linked to intelligence, so attempts to provide a com-
genetic or the environmental influences change pelling genetic link of race to intelligence are not
(e.g., because of migration, greater educational feasible at this time” and “heritability, a behavior-
opportunity, better nutrition), then the relative genetic concept, is inadequate in regard to providing
256
such a link” (p. 46). The nature versus nurture argu- resources available to perform a task (Kit et al., 2008).
ment thus continues as researchers attempt to quan- One other possible mechanism underlying this effect
tify the factors affecting test performance. is motivation—activation of stereotype threat leads
to a decrease in one’s persistence while increasing
Stereotype Threat behaviors associated with giving up (Hollis-Sawyer
The theory underlying stereotype threat postulates & Sawyer, 2008; Nussbaum & Steele, 2007). More
that anxiety with regard to one’s performance on a investigations are needed, however, to clarify how
specific test or task or within a certain domain is these possible underlying mechanisms operate in
based on negative stereotypes associated with one’s real-world situations to reduce the effects of stereo-
reference group (Aronson, 2002; Steele & Aronson, type threat on members of stigmatized groups.
1995; Suzuki & Aronson, 2005). Activation of the
negative stereotype can have disastrous effects on Home Environment, Socioeconomic
the stigmatized group member’s test performance, Status, and Geographic Residence
based not on one’s actual ability but on the experi- Valencia and Suzuki (2001) reviewed studies related
ence of fears and threatening feelings, thereby lead- to learning experiences in the home environment
ing to confirmation of the stereotype (Kit, Tuokko, & and intelligence. The environmental variables focus
Mateer, 2008). The anxiety associated with possibly on learning experiences provided by the family or in
confirming or being judged by the negative stereotype the home, including “ways in which intellectual
about one’s reference group leads to impairment in stimulation is provided in the home (e.g., parent
performance. reading to child, play materials made available to
For nearly 2 decades, research on the phenome- child), parents’ academic aspirations for children,
non of stereotype threat has demonstrated empirical and parents serving as language models” (Valencia &
support for the theory (Aronson, 2002). Earlier Suzuki, 2001, p. 82). They indicated that in minority
studies sought to demonstrate the effect with certain families there is a positive relationship between
groups (e.g., African Americans, women, and older home environment and children’s intelligence.
adult populations) for whom negative stereotypes There may, however, be “variations in home envi-
exist in particular domains (Kit et al., 2008) within ronment across racial/ethnic groups” that have an
specific sociocultural contexts. Results of these impact on these overall findings (p. 110). Valencia
investigations revealed significant evidence of stereo- and Suzuki suggested that measures of home envi-
type threat for members of targeted reference groups. ronment more accurately predict measured intelli-
These results suggest that stereotype threat may at gence than SES. In particular, they noted that
least partially “explain why any group alleged to be “families in each SES stratum differ considerably in
inferior may underperform groups thought to be the ways in which the home intellectual climate is
superior” (Suzuki & Aronson, 2005, p. 324). structured and in the amounts of stimulation pro-
More recently, researchers have begun to investi- vided” (p. 109).
gate the mechanisms underlying stereotype threat. SES has been related to measured intelligence
When a member of a particular target group is because higher scores are associated with higher SES
exposed to a situation that activates a personally levels. The linkage, however, is moderated by envi-
relevant negative stereotype (e.g., testing), she or ronmental factors. For example, Sattler (2008)
he may experience a heightened sense of anxiety noted that the dire effects of poverty can be offset by
because of fear of being judged by that stereotype or satisfactory nutrition and home environment. Chil-
confirming it. This increase in anxiety ultimately dren living in poverty are often exposed to “low
interferes with the individual’s test performance. level parenting education, poor nutrition and health
Another theory explaining stereotype threat con- care, substandard housing, family disorganization,
cerns impaired divided attention, in which one may inconsistent discipline, diminished sense of personal
be overwhelmed with thoughts of confirming a neg- worth, low expectations, frustrated aspirations,
ative stereotype, thereby reducing the cognitive physical violence in their neighborhoods, and other
257
environmental pressures” (Sattler, 2008, p. 137), intellect between individuals as it is of an environ-

which may contribute to intellectual differences. mentally caused one (Rushton & Jensen, 2005).
Kaufman (1990) highlighted the salient impact Individuals with more years of education obtain
of education and parenting on test performance. A higher scores on intelligence tests. It is not clear,
child from a high-SES, stable home environment however, whether individuals stay in school longer
with consistent positive schooling tends to perform because they are more intelligent or whether they
better on tests than one from a low-SES, unstable score higher on intelligence tests because they are in
home environment and poor, inconsistent schooling. school longer (Kaufman, 1990). In addition, a recip-
Nisbett (2009) highlighted environmental factors rocal relationship may exist between intelligence
linked to poverty that have been associated with low and education, making both salient and intersecting.
intelligence. These factors include the presence of
lead (e.g., in substandard housing), use of alcohol Acculturation and Language
by pregnant women, health concerns leading to Acculturation is “a dynamic process of change and
impediments in learning, health issues (e.g., poor adaptation that individuals undergo as a result of
dental health, higher number of asthma cases, contact with members of different cultures” (Rivera,
poorer vision, poorer hearing), more exposure to 2008, p. 76). The process involves taking into con-
smoke and pollution, mothers less likely to breast- sideration the characteristics of the environment
feed, poorer medical care, less exposure to reading and the individual. Acculturation has an impact on
material, and less exposure to language (i.e., fewer attitudes, beliefs, values, and behavior. Moreover,
words spoken to them by parents). The list goes on Greenfield (1997) noted that “developing intelli-
to include those experiencing a lack of resources, gence as defined in this society is then correctly seen
including vitamin and mineral deficiencies, emo- as an acculturation process that requires giving up
tional trauma, poor schools, poor neighborhoods, a the ancestral definition of an intelligent human
less desirable peer group, frequent moving, and dis- being” (p. 1117). Razani, Murcia, Tabares, and
ruption of education (Nisbett, 2009). Wong (2007) noted that acculturation accounted for
Sameroff, Seifer, Barocas, Zax, and Greenspan a significant amount of variance on a verbal measure
(1987) concluded in their study of environmental of intelligence among an ethnically diverse sample.
risk factors and their impact on 4-year-old children’s Some researchers have suggested that “level of
verbal IQ scores that environmental stressors, acculturation . . . is one of the most important vari-
resources available to cope with that stress, number ables that affects test performance” (Mpofu & Ortiz,
of children sharing those resources, and parents’ 2009, p. 60). As such, a failure to recognize the
understanding and dealing with situations all play ubiquity of a variety of cultures and the differences
a role in the child’s intellectual and social in each will result in flawed or biased tests that will
competencies. disallow fair assessment.
Children living in isolated communities may Acculturation is linked to contextual variables
obtain lower scores on intelligence tests as a result such as language proficiency and familiarity with a
of lack of familiarity with the test materials and lack testing situation, which in turn influence performance
of understanding of test-taking strategies. It is on tests (Mpofu & Ortiz, 2009). It is important to
important to note, however, that the urban versus note issues of language in the assessment process.
rural and regional differences in intelligence have Fluency in English may affect verbal test scores
decreased over time. Access to technology, input because familiarity with the dominant culture on
from the media, and improved educational practices which the test is based affects performance. Large
appear to account for this change (Kaufman, 1990). discrepancies are seen between children with limited
Quality of life and exposure and access to English proficiency and those who have mastery of
knowledge are factors that affect test performance, English (Puente & Puente, 2009). Herrnstein and
although some have argued that better performance on Murray (1994) noted with caution that results of the
tests is as much indicative of an inherent difference in National Longitudinal Survey of Youth indicated
258
that IQ test scores appear to increase as individuals react to various test formats (Lonner, 1985). For
become more acculturated. Overall, IQ scores of example, “individuals from some cultures may
participants who were born abroad were lower than acquiesce (agree with nearly any statement), per-
those of participants born in the United States, haps out of politeness” (Lonner, 1985, p. 606).
although closer examination revealed that this Greenfield (1997) noted that in certain cultures, use
pattern varies by group. For example, of a multiple-choice format in which sets of alterna-
tives are provided may not be appropriate because
foreign-born blacks score about five IQ
“participants in many cultures will assume that the
points higher than native-born blacks,
communicator is presenting an ensemble of infor-
for reasons we do not know. Latino
mation relevant to the goal of solving the problem”
immigrants have mean scores more than
(p. 1120). Thus, the multiple-choice format should
seven points lower than native-born Lati-
be used with groups that have “considerable formal
nos and more than a standard deviation
education” (p. 1121).
below the overall national native-born

mean. (p. 360)
Cultural Bias
Herrnstein and Murray (1994) noted that issues of Cultural bias in testing, when considered a scientific
language may account in part for these differences issue, refers to whether systematic error exists “in
in the Latino community. the measurement of a psychological attribute as a
function of membership in one or another cultural
Attitudes, Test-Taking Formats, and or racial subgroup” (Reynolds & Lowe, 2009, p. 333).
Response Sets Several different forms of bias have been identified
Lonner (1985) noted that “differences among test in the literature: content bias, item bias, construct
scores that may have resulted from less than optimal bias, bias related to the internal structure of the test,
opportunities to present oneself fully (for example, method bias, and selection bias (van de Vijver &
cultural differences in the use of time, cooperative- Tanzer, 2004; Walsh & Betz, 1995). Content bias
ness, familiarity with tests, or in following instruc- “refers to a test that contains content more familiar
tions) could invalidate test results” (p. 606). to White middle-class examinees than to members
Attitudes toward the test can also have an impact on of other racial or socioeconomic groups” (Walsh &
performance, and acknowledging the important role Betz, 1995, p. 409). Item bias exists when distortions
of the individual administering the test is critical. exist at the item level of an instrument, most likely
Examiner bias has been addressed in studies focus- resulting from differences in psychological meanings
ing on ethnic and racial matching between examiner attributed to items across cultures. When a measured
and examinee. In a review of 29 studies examining construct is not identical across cultures, construct
the impact of European American examiners on bias exists (van de Vijver & Tanzer, 2004). Van de
intelligence test scores of African American chil- Vijver and Tanzer (2004) also identified three forms
dren, 25 of the studies indicated no significant of method bias: sample bias, instrument bias, and
relationship between race of the examiner and test administration bias. Sample bias is present when
scores (Sattler & Gwynne, 1982). The relationship “incomparability of samples on aspects other than
as such may be based more on specific characteristics the target variable” exists (van de Vijver & Tanzer,
of the examinee and the test. Frisby (1999) reported 2004, p. 120). For example, racial/ethnic group dif-
that examiner familiarity was most positive for Afri- ferences in educational background and opportunities
can American participants from low-SES backgrounds may confound performance on cognitive measures.
in comparison with Whites, especially when the tests Instrument bias is the result of problems related
were difficult and the examiner had known the exam- directly to characteristics of the instruments (e.g.,
inee for a substantial period of time. stimulus familiarity). Bias may also be evident in the
Response sets affect test performance because administration of the test (e.g., miscommunication
they influence how test takers interpret items and between examiner and examinee because of language
259
and cultural differences). Selection bias is present (i.e., item information is familiar across groups; the
when a measure has differential predictive validity concept means the same thing in various cultures);
across groups (Walsh & Betz, 1995). When a mea- (c) metric (i.e., the scale measures the same behav-
sure has predictive validity for one racial or ethnic ioral qualities or characteristics in different cultures;
group, it cannot be assumed to also apply to other the instrument has similar psychometric properties
groups. across various cultures); and (d) scalar (i.e., mean
Although the history of mental measurement has score differences reflect the same degree, intensity,
been plagued with questions of bias in assessment, or magnitude for different cultural groups (Butcher
the area of intelligence testing has received the most & Han, 1996, p. 48; Lonner, 1985). Helms (1992)
criticism in this regard (Reynolds & Lowe, 2009). cited additional forms of equivalence on the basis of
Controversies in the field, initially contained within her review: (a) linguistic (i.e., language used has
the scholarly literature, continue to rage, not only similar meaning across groups); (b) psychometric
there but also in the popular literature. Many of the (i.e., the test measures the same constructs at the
most frequently used IQ tests (e.g., Wechsler scales) same levels across groups); (c) testing conditions
have been the subject of bias studies. An examiner (i.e., testing procedures are equally familiar to dif-
using a particular measure of intelligence needs to ferent groups); (d) contextual (i.e., the cognitive
be aware of the potential biases of that instrument ability is valued and evaluated similarly in different
for the individual or group being assessed. This environmental contexts); and (e) sampling (i.e.,
information can prove critical in providing an accu- samples on which the test is based are comparable
rate interpretation of test results for that person. across groups). These nine forms of equivalence
A concept often linked to cultural bias is cultural serve as examples of the various forms of equiva-
loading, which refers to the degree of cultural speci- lence noted in the literature that can be related to
ficity found on a particular measure. All tests are to assessment of intelligence. Scalar equivalence is the
some degree culturally loaded to the extent that “most stringent kind of equivalence” and the most
they reflect information that is relevant and valued difficult to achieve (Butcher & Han, 1996, p. 48).
within a cultural context. As Sattler (2008) empha- Butcher and Han (1996) noted that scalar equiva-
sized, “The test content and materials, the language lence can only be established when mean score
in which the questions are phrased, the test directions, differences can be attributed to “true cultural differ-
the categories for classifying the responses, the scor- ences” (p. 48). For example, two individuals who
ing criteria, and the validity criteria are all culture obtain the same score on an IQ test are deemed
bound” (pp. 169–170). equally intelligent within their respective cultural
contexts. Thus, in the case of a translated measure,
Cultural Equivalence scores on the test must indicate that the measure is
Understanding issues of equivalence are critical “operating properly in the new culture” (Butcher &
because this concept addresses whether the proce- Han, 1996, p. 48). Most IQ tests have not attained a
dures of assessment, results, and interpretations are level of scalar equivalence in the comparison of IQ
similar and equally familiar across different popula- scores across racial/ethnic groups. Attention to
tions. Equivalence as defined by Poortinga (1983) is issues of equivalence must be present throughout
“the problem of whether, on the basis of measure- the assessment process and have particular impact
ments and observation, inferences in terms of some on conceptualizing and selecting appropriate
common psychological dimensions can be made in measures.
different groups of subjects” (p. 238). The forms of
equivalence include (a) functional (i.e., the construct
EDUCATIONAL USES OF INTELLIGENCE
occurs with equal frequency across groups and
TESTS
meaning related to the scores is consistent; the func-
tion or meaning of the behavior is consistent with the There is no doubt that intelligence tests play a major
behavior found in another culture); (b) conceptual role in U.S. society. Use of these measures has
260
important implications because they represent the more likely to receive special education services
primary tools to provide information about general for emotional disturbance than all other racial/
cognitive functioning. In this section, we focus on ethnic groups combined
one of the major consumers of intelligence tests in ■■ Hispanic students were 1.1 times more likely to
the United States, the educational system, which receive special education and related services for
routinely uses these measures to determine student specific learning disabilities than all other racial/
eligibility for special services (e.g., determination of ethnic groups combined.
intellectual disabilities and giftedness).
In addition to these cognitive disabilities, intelli-
Intellectual disabilities are “characterized by sig-
gence tests are also used to indicate giftedness. Gift-
nificant limitations both in intellectual functioning
edness refers to individuals who “give evidence of
and in adaptive behavior” present before age 18
high achievement capability in areas such as intel-
(American Association of Intellectual and Develop-
lectual, creative, artistic, or leadership capacity or in
mental Disabilities, n.d., para. 1). Limitations are
specific academic fields” (National Association for

defined in part by IQ test scores “of approximately
Gifted Children, 2005, Federal Definition). IQ tests
70 or below,” taking into consideration the standard
can be used to identify forms of intellectual gifted-
error of measurement. Significant limitations in
ness. Terman (1926, as cited in Esquivel & Houtz,
adaptive behavior skills must also be noted. Intelli-
2000) defined gifted individuals as those who make
gence tests are also used in diagnosing specific
up the “top 1% level in general intellectual ability”
learning disabilities because many states continue to
(p. 62). He equated giftedness with IQ scores higher
rely on a “severe discrepancy between intellectual
than 135. Different cultural groups vary in how gift-
ability and achievement” (Learning Disabilities
edness is defined (Sternberg, 2007). In addition, the
Association of America, n.d., para. 5). Intelligence
National Association for Gifted Children also noted
test scores are often used as an indication of the
the limitations of intelligence tests because they do
individual’s potential. Thus, a significant discrep-
not assess important aspects of giftedness including
ancy between potential and achievement may indi-
artistic ability, creativity, or leadership.
cate the presence of a learning disability in the
absence of other factors (e.g., environmental or
cultural deprivation).
CONCLUSION
Concerns regarding the use of intelligence tests
in the determination of intellectual deficiencies and Intelligence tests are a central part of many compre-
learning problems have been raised given the promi- hensive psychological evaluations and are used as
nent differences across various racial/ethnic groups gatekeeping mechanisms for classifications and
identified historically in these categories. According diagnosis (e.g., special education), educational
to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights’ (2007) placements (e.g., gifted programs), and psychologi-
briefing report titled Minorities in Special Education, cal interventions. It is critical to use a cultural lens
the following disproportionate classifications were to understand those aspects of intelligence that are
noted (pp. 29–30): more universal as well as those features that are cul-
turally bound.
■■ American Indian/Alaska Native students were Intelligence testing has grown beyond what is
1.8 times more likely to receive special education measured by traditional IQ tests. Scholars have broad-
services for specific learning disabilities and 3.6 ened conceptualizations, and measures have evolved
times more likely to receive special education to include noncognitive forms of intelligence such as
and related services for developmental delay than emotional, social, cultural, and practical. Theories of
all other racial/ethnic groups combined successful and multiple intelligences combine aspects
■■ African American students were 3.0 times more of both cognitive and noncognitive intelligences.
likely to receive special education and related The promise of intelligence testing, however,
services for mental retardation and 2.3 times has yet to be realized. The notion of obtaining an
261
estimate of an individual’s potential aptitude in a Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., & Tan, M. L. (2011). Cultural
matter of 1 or 2 hours was enticing to early test intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg & S. B. Kaufman
(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of intelligence (pp.
developers burdened with large numbers of indi- 582–602). New York, NY: Cambridge University
viduals in need of placement (e.g., military recruits, Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511977244.030
students). The global reach of these measures is Anger, S. (2011). The intergenerational transmission of
extensive because intelligence tests developed in cognitive and non-cognitive skills during adolescence
the United States have been transported overseas. and young adulthood (Institute for the Study of Labor
Discussion Paper Number 5749). Retrieved from
The challenges of this testing enterprise have never http://ftp.iza.org/dp5749.pdf
been greater in terms of application to diverse cul-
Aronson, J. (2002). Stereotype threat: Contending and
tural communities. Although theorists and test coping with unnerving expectations. In J. Aronson
developers have acknowledged the importance of (Ed.), Improving academic achievement: Impact of
exploring culture as it affects test performance, the psychological factors on education (pp. 279–301).
San Diego, CA: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/B978-
tools of the trade are limited by the sheer complex-
012064455-1/50017-8
ity of issues that must be addressed to understand
Arvey, R. D., Bouchard, T. L., Jr., Carroll, J. B., Cattell,
an individual’s potential within a specific cultural R. B., Cohen, D. B., Dawis, R. V., . . . Willerman, L.
context. (1994, December 13). Mainstream science on intel-
As a profession, psychology has struggled to ligence. Wall Street Journal, p. A18.
understand the persistent IQ differences found Ashley, S. (2009). Social intelligence, emotional intelligence,
between racial/ethnic groups regardless of the mea- and leadership—Daniel Goleman. Retrieved from
http://www.managerleadershipcoaching.com/2009/10/
sure selected. Psychologists’ efforts have led to social-intelligence-emotional-intelligence-and-
greater understanding of the factors that influence leadership-%E2%80%93-daniel-goleman
test performance. Although heritability and genetic Benson, E. (2003). Intelligent intelligence testing. APA
arguments continue to be cited as explanatory, evi- Monitor, 34(2), 48.
dence has been found for a multitude of factors that Birney, D. P., & Sternberg, R. J. (2011). The development
affect intelligence assessment, including stereotype of cognitive abilities. In M. H. Bornstein & M. E. Lamb
threat, home environment, SES, geographic resi- (Eds.), Cognitive development: An advanced textbook
(pp. 369–404). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
dence, acculturation and language, attitudes, test-
Boring, E. G. (1923, June). Intelligence as the tests test it.
taking formats and response sets, cultural biases, New Republic, pp. 35–37.
and cultural equivalence. The profession has also
Bracken, B. A., & McCallum, R. S. (1998). Universal
expanded its focus to include information process- Nonverbal Intelligence Test. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
ing and other ways of understanding the expression Brislin, R., Worthley, R., & Macnab, B. (2006). Cultural
of intellectual abilities. intelligence: Understanding behaviors that serve
The purpose of this chapter was to highlight the people’s goals. Group and Organization Management,
myriad issues and challenges that inform current 31, 40–55. doi:10.1177/1059601105275262
conceptualizations of intelligence. It is critical that Butcher, J. N., & Han, K. (1996). Methods of establishing
cross-cultural equivalence. In J. N. Butcher (Ed.),
professionals attend to a culturally informed dis- International adaptations of the MMPI–2: Research
course in this critical area of assessment. and clinical applications (pp. 44–63). Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
References Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey
American Association of Intellectual and Developmental of factor-analytic studies. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
Disabilities. (n.d.). Definition of intellectual disability. University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511571312
Retrieved from http://www.aamr.org/content_100. Caruso, D. R. (2008). Emotions and the ability model
cfm?navID=21 of emotional intelligence. In R. J. Emmerling, V. K.
Ang, S., & Van Dyne, L. (2008). Development and valida- Shanwal, & M. K. Mandal (Eds.), Emotional intel-
tion of the Cultural Intelligence Scale. In S. Ang & ligence: Theoretical and cultural perspectives (pp.
L. Van Dyne (Eds.), Handbook of cultural intelligence: 1–16). New York, NY: Nova.
Theory, measurement, and applications (pp. 16–38). Chart, H., Grigorenko, E. L., & Sternberg, R. J. (2008).
New York, NY: M. Sharpe. Identification: The Aurora Battery. In J. A. Plucker &
262
C. M. Callahan (Eds.), Critical issues and practices in c onstruct. In R. J. Emmerling, V. K. Shanwal, &
gifted education (pp. 281–301). Waco, TX: Prufrock. M. K. Mandal (Eds.), Emotional intelligence: Theoretical
Chen, J., & Gardner, H. (2005). Assessment based on and cultural perspectives (pp. 115–134). New York,
multiple-intelligences theory. In D. P. Flanagan & NY: Nova.
P. L. Harrison (Eds.). Contemporary intellectual Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple
assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (2nd ed., pp. intelligences. New York, NY: Basic Books.
77–102). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intel-
Chen, J., Moran, S., & Gardner, H. (2009). Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York, NY: Basic
ligences around the world. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Books.
Bass. Gardner, H. (2004). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple
Conoley, C. W., & Castillo, L. G. (2005). A review of intelligences (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Basic Books.
the Chapin Social Insight Test. In R. A. Spies & Gardner, H., & Feldman, D. H. (n.d.). Project Spectrum.
B. S. Plake (Eds.), The sixteenth mental measurements Retrieved from http://pzweb.harvard.edu/research/
yearbook. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental spectrum.htm
Measurements.
Gardner, H., & Hatch, T. (1989). Multiple intelligences

Das, J. P., Naglieri, J. A., & Kirby, J. R. (1994). Assessment go to school: Educational implications of the theory
of cognitive processes: The PASS theory of intelligence. of multiple intelligences. Educational Researcher, 18,
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. 4–9. doi:10.2307/1176460
Davis, K., Christodoulou, J., Seider, S., & Gardner, H. Georgas, J., Weiss, L. G., van de Vijver, F. J. R., &
(2011). The theory of multiple intelligences. In Saklofske, D. H. (Eds.). (2003). Culture and children’s
R. J. Sternberg & S. B. Kaufman (Eds.), The Cambridge intelligence: Cross-cultural analysis of the WISC–III.
handbook of intelligence (pp. 485–503). New York, New York, NY: Academic Press.
NY: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/
Goleman, D. (2006). Social intelligence: The new science of
CBO9780511977244.025
human relationships. New York, NY: Bantam Books.
Durojaiye, M. O. A. (1993). Indigenous psychology
Greenfield, P. M. (1997). You can’t take it with you: Why
in Africa: The search for meaning. In U. Kim &
ability assessments don’t cross cultures. American
J. W. Berry (Eds.), Indigenous psychologies: Research
Psychologist, 52, 1115–1124. doi:10.1037/0003-
and experience in cultural context (pp. 211–220).
066X.52.10.1115
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Helms, J. E. (1992). Why is there no study of cul-
Early, P. C., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence: tural equivalence in standardized cognitive abil-
Individual interactions across cultures. Stanford, CA: ity testing? American Psychologist, 47, 1083–1101.
Stanford University Press. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.47.9.1083
Edwards, O. W. (2006). Special education disproportion- Herrnstein, R. J., & Murray, C. (1994). The bell curve:
ality and the influence of intelligence test selection. Intelligence and class structure in American life. New
Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, York, NY: Free Press.
31, 246–248. doi:10.1080/13668250600999178
Hollis-Sawyer, L. A., & Sawyer, T. P. (2008). Potential
Ellsworth, P. C. (1994). Sense, culture, and sensibility. stereotype threat and face validity effects of
In S. Kitayama & M. R. Markus (Eds.), Emotion and cognitive-based test performance in the class-
culture: Empirical studies of mutual influence (pp. room. Educational Psychology, 28, 291–304.
23–50). Washington, DC: American Psychological doi:10.1080/01443410701532313
Association. doi:10.1037/10152-001
Karim, J., & Weisz, R. (2010). Cross-cultural research
Emmerling, R. J., Shanwal, V. K., & Mandal, M. K. on the reliability and validity of the Mayer–
(2008). Introduction. In R. J. Emmerling, V. Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test
K. Shanwal, & M. K. Mandal (Eds.), Emotional (MSCEIT). Cross-Cultural Research, 44, 374–404.
intelligence: Theoretical and cultural perspectives doi:10.1177/1069397110377603
(pp. ix–xiv). New York, NY: Nova Science.
Kaufman, A. S. (1990). Assessing adolescent and adult
Esquivel, G. B., & Houtz, J. (2000). Creativity and gift- intelligence. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
edness in culturally diverse students. Cresskill, NJ:
Hampton Press. Kihlstrom, J. F., & Cantor, N. (2011). Social intelli-
gence. In R. J. Sternberg & S. B. Kaufman (Eds.),
Frisby, C. (1999). Culture and test session behavior: The Cambridge handbook of intelligence (pp. 564–
Part II. School Psychology Quarterly, 14, 281–303. 581). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
doi:10.1037/h0089010 doi:10.1017/CBO9780511977244.029
Gangopadhyay, M., & Mandal, M. K. (2008). Emotional Kit, K. A., Tuokka, H. A., & Mateer, C. A. (2008).
intelligence: A universal or a culture specific A review of stereotype threat literature and
263
its application to a neurological population. Naglieri, J. A., & Das, J. P. (2005). Planning, attention,
Neuropsychology Review, 18, 132–148. doi:10.1007/ simultaneous, successive (PASS) theory: A revision
s11065-008-9059-9 of the concept of intelligence. In D. P. Flanagan
Kitayama, S., & Markus, H. R. (1994). Introduction & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual
to cultural psychology and emotion research. In assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (2nd ed., pp.
S. Kitayama & H. R. Markus (Eds.), Emotions and 120–135). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
culture: Empirical studies of mutual influences (pp. National Association for Gifted Children. (2005). What is
1–19). Washington, DC: American Psychological gifted? Retrieved from http://www.nagc.org/index2.
Association. doi:10.1037/10152-010 aspxid=548
Learning Disabilities Association of America. (n.d.). Nisbett, R. (2009). Intelligence and how to get it: Why
Eligibility: Determining whether a child is eligible for schools and cultures count. New York, NY: Norton.
special education services. Retrieved from http://www. Nussbaum, A. D., & Steele, C. M. (2007). Situational
ldaamerica.org/aboutld/parents/special_ed/eligibility.asp disengagement and persistence in the face of adver-
Lonner, W. J. (1985). Issues in testing and assessment in sity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43,
cross-cultural counseling. Counseling Psychologist, 127–134. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2005.12.007
13, 599–614. doi:10.1177/0011000085134004 Ochoa, S. H., Powell, M. P., & Robles-Piiia, R. (1996).
Lynn, R. (1991a). The evolution of racial differences in School psychologists’ assessment practices with
intelligence. Mankind Quarterly, 32, 99 121. bilingual and limited-English-proficient students.
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 14, 250–275.
Lynn, R. (1991b). Race differences in intelligence: A
doi:10.1177/073428299601400306
global perspective. Mankind Quarterly, 32, 225–296.
Poortinga, Y. H. (1983). Psychometric approaches to
Lynn, R. (2006). Race differences in intelligence: An evolu-
intergroup comparison: The problem of equivalence.
tionary analysis. Augusta, GA: Washington Summit.
In S. H. Irvine & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Human assess-
MacKintosh, N. J. (2011). History of theories and ment and cultural factors (pp. 237–258). New York,
measurement of intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg NY: Plenum Press.
& S. B. Kaufman (Eds.), The Cambridge hand-
Puente, A. E., & Puente, A. N. (2009). The challenge of
book of intelligence (pp. 3–19). New York, NY:
measuring abilities and competencies in Hispanics/
Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/
Latinos. In E. L. Grigorenko (Ed.), Multicultural psy-
CBO9780511977244.002
choeducational assessment (pp. 417–441). New York,
Mathias, J. L., & Nettelbeck, T. (1992). Reliability of NY: Springer.
seven measures of social intelligence in a sample Razani, J., Murcia, G., Tabares, J., & Wong, J. (2007). The
of adolescents with mental retardation. Research effects of culture on WASI test performance in ethni-
in Developmental Disabilities, 13, 131–143. cally diverse individuals. Clinical Neuropsychologist,
doi:10.1016/0891-4222(92)90020-7 21, 776–788. doi:10.1080/13854040701437481
Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional Reynolds, C. R., & Lowe, P. A. (2009). The problem of
intelligence? In J. D. Mayer & P. Salovey (Eds.), bias in psychological assessment. In T. B. Gutkin
Emotional development and emotional intelligence: & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), The handbook of school
Educational implications (pp. 3–34). New York, NY: psychology (4th ed., pp. 332–374). Hoboken, NJ:
Basic Books. Wiley.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D. R., & Sitarenios, Rivera, L. (2008). Acculturation and multicultural assess-
G. (2003). Measuring emotional intelligence ment: Issues, trends, and practice. In L. A. Suzuki
with the MSCEIT V2.0. Emotion, 3, 97–105. & J. G. Ponterotto (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural
doi:10.1037/1528-3542.3.1.97 assessment: Clinical, psychological, and educational
Merriam-Webster Online. (n.d.). Heritability. Retrieved applications (3rd ed., pp. 73–91). San Francisco, CA:
from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ Jossey-Bass.
heritability Robbins, R. R., Hong, J., & Jennings, M. (2012). In
Moran, S. (2009). Why multiple intelligences? In Q. Chen, the pause and listening to the little people: A folk
S. Moran, & H. Gardner (Eds.), Multiple intelligences healer’s journey. Counseling Psychologist, 40, 93–132.
around the world (pp. 365–373). San Francisco, CA: doi:10.1177/0011000011410892
Jossey-Bass. Roid, G. H., & Pomplun, M. (2005). Interpreting the
Mpofu, E., & Ortiz, S. O. (2009). Equitable assessment Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales. In D. P. Flanagan
practices in diverse contexts. In E. L. Grigorenko & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual
(Ed.), Multicultural psychoeducational assessment assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (5th ed., pp.
(pp. 41–76). New York, NY: Springer. 325–343). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
264
Rushton, J. P., & Jensen, A. R. (2005). Thirty years of Sternberg, R. J., & Kaufman, J. C. (1998). Human
research on race differences in cognitive ability. abilities. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 479–502.
Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 235–294. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.479
Ruzgis, P., & Grigorenko, E. L. (1994). Cultural mean- Suzuki, L., & Aronson, J. (2005). The cultural malleabil-
ing systems, intelligence, and personality. In R. J. ity of intelligence and its impact on the racial/ethnic
Sternberg & P. Ruzgis (Eds.), Personality and intel- hierarchy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11,
ligence (pp. 248–270). New York, NY: Cambridge 320–327. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.11.2.320
University Press. Taylor, E. H. (1990). The assessment of social intel-
Sameroff, A. J., Seifer, R., Barocas, R., Zax, M., & ligence. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice,
Greenspan, S. (1987). Intelligence quotient scores of Training, 27, 445–457. doi:10.1037/0033-
4-year-old children: Social-environmental risk fac- 3204.27.3.445
tors. Pediatrics, 79, 343–350. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. (2007). Minorities in
Sattler, J. M. (2008). Assessment of children: Cognitive special education (Briefing Report). Washington, DC:
foundations (5th ed.). San Diego, CA: Jerome M. Author. Retrieved from http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/
Sattler. MinoritiesinSpecialEducation.pdf
Sattler, J. M., & Gwynne, J. (1982). White examiners Valencia, R. R., & Suzuki, L. A. (2001). Intelligence test-
generally do not impede the intelligence test perfor- ing and minority students: Foundations, Performance
mance of Black children: To debunk a myth. Journal Factors, and Assessment Issues. Thousand Oaks,
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50, 196–208. Calif.: Sage Publications.
doi:10.1037/0022-006X.50.2.196 van de Vijver, F., & Tanzer, N. K. (2004). Bias and equiva-
Srivastava, A. K., Sibia, A., & Misra, G. (2008). Research lence in cross-cultural assessment: An overview. Revue
on emotional intelligence: The Indian experience. Européenne de Psychologie Appliquée, 54, 119–135.
In R. J. Emmerling, V. K. Shanwal, & M. K. Mandal Verney, S. P., Granholm, E., Marshall, S. P., Malcarne,
(Eds.), Emotional intelligence: Theoretical and cultural V. L., & Sacuzzo, D. P. (2005). Culture-fair cogni-
perspectives (pp. 135–150). New York, NY: Nova. tive ability assessment: Information processing and
Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat psychophysiological approaches. Assessment, 12,
and the intellectual test performance of African 303–319.
Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Wagner, R. (2011). Practical intelligence. In R. J.
Psychology, 69, 797–811. doi:10.1037/0022- Sternberg & S. B. Kaufman (Eds.), The Cambridge
3514.69.5.797 handbook of intelligence (pp. 550–563). New York,
Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory NY: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/
of human intelligence. New York, NY: Cambridge CBO9780511977244.028
University Press. Walsh, W. B., & Betz, N. E. (1995). Tests and assessment
Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Successful intelligence. New York, (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
NY: Plume. Wasserman, J. D., & Tulsky, D. S. (2005). A history
Sternberg, R. J. (2003). A broad view of intelligence: of intelligence testing. In D. P. Flanagan & P. L.
The theory of successful intelligence. Consulting Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assess-
Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 55, 139– ment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 3–22). New York,
154. doi:10.1037/1061-4087.55.3.139 NY: Guilford Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (2007). Cultural concepts of giftedness. Roeper Wechsler, D. (2002). Wechsler Primary Preschool Scale of
Review, 29, 160–165. doi:10.1080/02783190709554404 Intelligence—III. San Antonio, TX: Pearson.
Sternberg, R. J. (2010). Assessment of gifted students for Wechsler, D. (2003). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for
identification purposes: New techniques for a new Children—IV. San Antonio, TX: Pearson.
millennium. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, Wechsler, D. (2008). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—
327–336. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2009.08.003 IV. San Antonio, TX: Pearson.
Sternberg, R. J., Forsythe, G. B., Hedlund, J., Horvath, J. Weiss, L. G. (2003). United States. In J. Georgas, L. G.
A., Wagner, R. K., Williams, W. M., . . . Grigorenko, Weiss, F. J. R. van de Vijver, & D. H. Saklofske
E. (2000). Practical intelligence in everyday life. New (Eds.), Culture and children’s intelligence: Cross-
York, NY: Cambridge University Press. cultural analysis of the WISC–III (pp. 41–59). New
Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E. L., & Kidd, K. K. York, NY: Academic Press.
(2005). Intelligence, race, and genetics. American Willis, J. O., Dumont, R., & Kaufman, A. S. (2011).
Psychologist, 60, 46–59. doi:10.1037/0003- Factor-analytic models of intelligence. In R. J.
066X.60.1.46 Sternberg & S. B. Kaufman (Eds.), The Cambridge
265
handbook of intelligence (pp. 39–57). New York, Yalon-Chamovitz, S., & Greenspan, S. (2005). Ability
NY: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/ to identify, explain and solve problems in every-
CBO9780511977244.004 day tasks: Preliminary validation of a direct
video measure of practical intelligence. Research
Woodcock, R. W., & Johnson, M. B. C. (1989). Woodcock– in Developmental Disabilities, 26, 219–230.
Johnson Psychoeducational Battery—Revised. Itasca, doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2004.08.002
IL: Riverside.
Yang, S.-Y., & Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Conceptions
Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). of intelligence in Chinese philosophy. Journal of
Woodcock–Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Abilities. Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 17, 101–
Itasca, IL: Riverside. 119. doi:10.1037/h0091164
266

Assessing Intelligence in A Cultural Context: Lisa A. Suzuki, Samar Naqvi, and Jill S. Hill

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assessing Intelligence in A Cultural Context: Lisa A. Suzuki, Samar Naqvi, and Jill S. Hill

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assessing Intelligence in A Cultural Context: Lisa A. Suzuki, Samar Naqvi, and Jill S. Hill

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 13

are perceived similarly across the world but display

Mayer and Salovey’s (1997) model: (a) perceiving Practical Intelligence

theory the component of wisdom, defined as the c onsidered to be complementary, providing an

environmental pressures” (Sattler, 2008, p. 137), intellect between individuals as it is of an environ-

below the overall national native-born

specific academic fields” (National Association for

Gardner, H., & Hatch, T. (1989). Multiple intelligences

You might also like

Assessing Intelligence in A Cultural Context: Lisa A. Suzuki, Samar Naqvi, and Jill S. Hill

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assessing Intelligence in A Cultural Context: Lisa A. Suzuki, Samar Naqvi, and Jill S. Hill

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assessing Intelligence in A Cultural Context: Lisa A. Suzuki, Samar Naqvi, and Jill S. Hill

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 13

are perceived similarly across the world but display

Mayer and Salovey’s (1997) model: (a) perceiving Practical Intelligence

theory the component of wisdom, defined as the c­ onsidered to be complementary, providing an

environmental pressures” (Sattler, 2008, p. 137), intellect between individuals as it is of an environ-

below the overall national native-born

specific academic fields” (National Association for

Gardner, H., & Hatch, T. (1989). Multiple intelligences

You might also like

theory the component of wisdom, defined as the c onsidered to be complementary, providing an