The extent to which we can generalise the results of a research study to people, settings, times, measures, and characteristics other than those used in the study
Facevalidity
Whether a test or measure looks as though it measures what it is supposed to.
Construct validity
Whether a test or measure is valid by seeing how it matches up with theoretical ideas about what it is supposed to be measuring
How often are these tests used around the world?
Saklofske and colleagues (2015): Looked at the top ten tests that were used with children and youth among the 77 reporting countries in 2012
#1 Wechsler intelligence scales (children)
#2 Raven’s Progressive Matrices
Should they be? Thinking about what we know already…
Stanford-Binet Scale:
Adapted from French test and validated in American sample
Not enough
Wechsler tests of intelligence
The Wechsler scales have been translated and renormed in ‘several’ countries
But still based on western conceptions of intelligence.
Raven’s Progressive Matrices:
Argued to be ‘free from cultural influence’
But still based on western conceptions of intelligence.
Review of the use of the Wechsler IQ tests in other countries/cultures.
Factor structure is similar across cultures (i.e., test itself can be used across cultures).
Norms are not similar (i.e., standardised scores must be made against culturally relevant norms)
BUT → How best to create these norms?
Focusing on South Africa → Population based norms are not meaningful for subgroups in a population
Looked at 206 children (aged 6-14) from Mali attending French language private schools.
Assessed intelligence using Raven’s Progressive Matrices
Children had lower standardised scores on the Raven’s Progressive Matrices BUT this was not associated with lower academic performance or adaptive living skills.
I.e., IQ test not showing concurrent/predictive validity → Not a good measure
Children in these cultures be simply be less familiar with the types of tasks and questions used in these types of IQ tests.