Intelligence

Definition
 Better score in IQ test?
 Adjust in new situation?
 Presence of mind in new situation?
 Intelligence test and IQ concept is different, IQ concept come after IQ test.
 France gov decided to introduce lower level & higher level curriculum
 Gave this task to university prof
History
 1905 Binet introduce first intelligence test
 1908 Simon who was working research under Binet and gave the concept of
mantel age
 MA ------ how much your brain can think
 1912 Willim Stern gave first time IQ formula
 IQ formula IQ=MA/CA
 1916 Improvement & revision in test and formula
 Terman do this and gave new formula
 IQ formula IQ=MA/CA*100 standardized formula
 MA=CA, IQ will be 100 ...............for normal people
 MA>CA, IQ>100.................Above average
 MA<CA, IQ<100..................Below average
 IQ used to access reasoning, comprehension, working memory, & process
speed
 It used in different setting
 Education Selection Counselling Clinical work etc
 The concept of IQ famous in USA
 They did many people IQ test and collect data

Name
Bell shape curve
Distribution of IQ score
Stanford-Binet IQ graph
Terman IQ chart
I.Q Term
145 & Above Genius
120-144 Exceptional
110-119 High Average
90-109 Avg
80-89 Dull normal
70-79 Mild disability
50-69 Sever disability
20-49 Profound disability
Below 20

Factors affecting IQ score

Heredity
 Twin study
 Fraternal twins
 Identical twins
 Take identical twins
 0.75 correlation b/w both twins IQ level after 10 year
 Environment
 SES
 0.25 difference
Flynn effect
James Flynn presented this concept
IQ is increasing day by day

Binet Test of intelligence

The Stanford-Binet test is a examination meant to gauge intelligence through five
factors of cognitive ability. Both verbal and nonverbal responses are measured.
Each of the five factors is given a weight and the combined score is often reduced
to a ratio known commonly as the intelligence quotient, or IQ.
What Binet test measure
 Knowledge
 Fluid reasoning
 Quantitative reasoning
 Visual reasoning
 Working memory
Wechsler Intelligence Scales (WAIS)

Building on the Stanford-Binet test, American psychologist David

Wechsler created a new measurement instrument. Much like Binet,
Wechsler believed that intelligence involved different mental
abilities. Dissatisfied with the limitations of the Stanford-Binet, he
published his new intelligence test, known as the Wechsler Adult
Intelligence Scale (WAIS), in 1955.

Wechsler also developed two different tests specifically for use

with children: the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children
(WISC) and the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of
Intelligence (WPPSI). The adult version of the test has been
 revised since its original publication and is now known as the
WAIS-IV.

WAIS-IV
The WAIS-IV contains 10 subtests along with five supplemental tests. The test
provides scores in four major areas of intelligence: a Verbal Comprehension Scale,
a Perceptual Reasoning Scale, a Working Memory Scale, and a Processing Speed
Scale. The test also provides two broad scores that can be used as a summary of
overall intelligence: a Full-Scale IQ score that combines performance on all four
index scores and a General Ability Index based on six subtest scores.

Subtest scores on the WAIS-IV can be useful in identifying learning disabilities,

such as cases where a low score in some areas combined with a high score in other
areas may indicate that the individual has a specific learning difficulty.
I.Q Category
130 & over Exceptional
120-129 Superior
110-119 High Avg
90-109 Avg
80-89 Low Avg
70-79 Border line
20-49 Extremely low

Personality Test
1. Self-Report/ Non-Projective
 It also called subjective or direct measurement
 Change according to situation
 These are three main types of Non-Projective techniques

1. Observation
 Situational test
 Give situation and ask what you will do or how you handle this
situation.
E.g. Check persons leadership skills, intelligence, honesty etc.
 Observation
Observation can take place in two situations

Participate Non- Participate

Observation Observation

2. Self-Expression
 Auto biography
 Questionnaire
 Interview

3. Opinion
Biography
Case history
Rating Scale
Socio-metric technique
All define with example..................

Some non-projective personality tests are given below

 MMPI
 MMPI-2
 MMPI-A
 MMPI-2- RF
 NEO-PI
 EPQ
 16PF
 Each test details.

Projective techniques
 Projective techniques are indirect methods used in qualitative research.
 These techniques allow researchers to tap into respondent' deep
motivations, beliefs, values, hidden emotions, attitudes, desires, and internal
conflicts etc through words or pictures
 Some projective techniques are given below

 Rorschach inkblot test

 Word association test
 Thematic apperception test (TAT)
 Sentence completion test
I like to.......................
My childhood has been.................
I often dream of....................
I am worried over....................
My hero is...................

Faking is a process in which applicant distort their responses in order to

appear more favorable & to increase their chance of being
Worldwide, a considerable number of organizations use personality tests for
testing and selecting applicants (e.g., Di Milia, 2004; Diekmann & König, in
press; König, Klehe, Berchtold, & Kleinmann, 2010; Zibarras & Woods,
2010), and meta-analytic research supports the use of personality measures
(e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991; Ones, Dilchert, Viswesvaran, & Judge, 2007;
Shaffer & Postlethwaite, 2012). At the same time, many practitioners worry
that applicants fake when they complete a personality test (cf. Christiansen,
Rozek, & Burns, 2010) and that faking undermines the predictive validity of
personality testing. Although not all researchers share this negative view of
faking (e.g., Hogan, Barrett, & Hogan, 2007), many remain skeptical, and
faking continues to attract considerable research attention (e.g., Galić &
Jerneić, 2013; Donovan, Dwight, & Schneider, 2013; Fan et al., 2012;
König, Merz, & Trauffer, 2012; Sliter & Christiansen, 2012; Van Hooft &
Born, 2012; Walmsley & Sackett, 2013). Several models have been
proposed to explain faking (e.g., Ellingson & McFarland, 2011; Goffin &
 Boyd, 2009; Marcus, 2009; McFarland & Ryan, 2000; Snell, Sydell, &
Lueke, 1999), and a central variable in all of them is the motivation to fake
Applicant faking behavior is a collective term for all behaviors during selection
procedures that contain intentional responses to a self-reported personality measure
which do not correspond to the true self-image. This definition of AFB accounts
for several important findings.
First, faking is described as a behavior and not as a trait according to previous
definitions (e.g., MacCann, Ziegler, & Roberts, 2011).
Second, the behavior is described as being intentional, which we do not suggest to
be the same as conscious or rational (according to Griffith, Lee, Peterson, &
Zickar, 2011), whereas it is distinct from random errors and other unsystematic
deviations.
Third, regarding correspondence to the true self-image the definition makes no
assumption on the direction of the deviation.
Usually, faking applicants try to give a more favorable impression, but some
contributions suggest that faking behavior can also end up in worse scores than the
true self-image would imply (Griffith et al., 2007; Griffith et al., 2011).
Finally, the scope of AFB is limited to selection procedures and self-reported
personality tests. This separates it from faking concepts in interviews or in clinical
settings.
Faking Good
fake good” by choosing answers that create a favorable impression,
as may occur, for example, when an individual is applying for a
job or admission to an educational institution
Ziegler et al. (2012) defined faking as an intentional and deliberate
behavior that helps an individual achieve personal goals.
Specifically, fake-good behavior involves presenting the self in a
more positive manner, relative to honest self-evaluation
(Maricuţoiu and Sârbescu, 2016).
 Faking Bad
(Goffin & Boyd, 2009) describe that some applicants may fake bad
on purpose (or “malinger”, e.g., Hall & Hall, 2011). Disregard by
researchers of possible attempts by test takers to fake bad may lead
to an incomplete picture of faking predictors. Goffin and Boyd use
the example of testing for military placement, where some recruits
may fake bad to avoid hazardous work. Another situation in which
faking bad might occur is when the unemployment benefit system
requires unemployed people to apply for a certain number of jobs
even when some of these individuals may actually prefer to receive
the unemployment benefits rather than taking a job

Prevention of Faking
Prevention
 Faking creates problems for those using personality assessment
information in a selection process.
 Faking can affect the fairness of a selection process, the
measurement properties of assessments, as well as their predictive
validity
 Several methods have been advocated to assist in deterring faking
happening in the first place and these are:
 Warnings about the fact measures can detect faking
 Instructions and warnings to be honest and provide accurate
answers
 Honesty contracts where the individual agrees they will answer
honestly
 Empirical keying test construction – items validated this way are
harder to fake - read more...
 Ipsative question formats (forced choice) which are harder to
manipulate

Once faking has occurred then there are a couple of methods that can try to
correct the result:

 Retesting once faking has occurred and asking the individual to

respond more candidly the second time
 Corrections for faking in a profile – however these corrections have
some downsides and often make the profile less valid

 However, if you are stuck with a profile you suspect is faked you have
several options on how to handle this in a selection situation.What to
do with Faked results

1. Remove the candidate from the selection process as the results have
questionable validity
2. Ignore the assessment results and verify candidate fit by other sources
3. Interpret the results with the appropriate cautions regarding their dubious
validity