DearNader, according to how i see it, it is important to know whatyou want to find out.

There are

Emotional Intelligence

Practical Intelligence

Esthetical Intelligence

besides the cognitive intelligence which you may be want to find out by using test to get the socalled IQ.

Besides the theory of Louis Leon Thurstone defining primary mental abilities with seven parts:

S (space), P (perceptual speed), N (numerical ability) M (memory), R (reasoning),

W (word fluency), V (verbal relations)

there are many more mutidimensional models, showing that it is not that simplistic any more to assess human intelligence. So you can test the IQ but with whatever test you choose you must be very much aware of its limits.

DearNader, according to how i see it, it is important to know whatyou want to find out.

There are

Emotional Intelligence

Practical Intelligence

Esthetical Intelligence

besides the cognitive intelligence which you may be want to find out by using test to get the socalled IQ.

Besides the theory of Louis Leon Thurstone defining primary mental abilities with seven parts:

S (space), P (perceptual speed), N (numerical ability) M (memory), R (reasoning),

W (word fluency), V (verbal relations)

there are many more mutidimensional models, showing that it is not that simplistic any more to assess human intelligence. So you can test the IQ but with whatever test you choose you must be very much aware of its limits.

... and besides in the future we will have to find ot if there are still more forms of "intelligence" (perceiving the world) like the spiritual one or precognitive one and others.

I hope you do not mind if i share your interesting question.

Dear Nader Aghakhani,

I found interesting links.

http://www.webmd.com/brain/news/20121218/iq-test-really-measure-intelligence#1

https://www.quora.com/Are-IQ-tests-effective-at-measuring-intelligence

Regards, Shafagat

I agree with Thomas...there is a lot of variation in intelligence which wholly depends on our perception. A Young boy Aum Amin achieved a score of 162 - the highest possible for someone under 18, and two points higher than geniuses Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking, but does that mean that he can do what Einstein or Stephen Hawking has done? In my opinion intelligence is dynamic because of neuroplasticity.

IQ test measures learnt intelligence but does not measures intelligence to develop in future of the same person which is more important.

If the test person has an IQ much higher then the creator of the test, the test will surely fail. Imagine, if a dog create an IQ test ... most likely the dog will consider all human behavior meaningless.

So we need to know the ntelligence of the creator of the test (regarding the form of intelligence to be tested) and then we need to define the range where the test could be valid (+/- 10% or maybe +/- 20%). Outside the range we need a new test made by another test maker ... It seems to be very difficult to define intelligence properly.

Only one fact we can point out: If one can solve his problems his IQ is high enough...

Best Regards

Intelligebnce is relative to the time spent on the object in consideration by the intelligence

interested details

I feel IQ test offers & ample opportunity to a candidate for the preparation by expanding his knowledge under various study materials ,magazines, visiting library & making an opportunity to go for the discussion in their groups & in this line it is likely that IQ test makes a good scope for enlargement of his knowledge with a successful career.

IQ test , it offers certainly where deserve in the impression for his knowledge but it is not an end in itself ,as we know that Knowledge is power  it cannot be measure ,it cannot be defined , & knowledge is just as vast ocean where intellectual souls can direct & peep in the ocean .

This is my personal opinion 

Thank you for your valuable answers.

I know there are several dimensions of intelligence, but  the world is changing and I think we need new items in IQ test. If we don not modify it, some results may be incorrect and we do mistake about our clients.

I agree with Dr. Stoica. We can not judge people with a higher IQ than others. The results depend on many items even  the physical conditions that the test is carried out.

Dear Andreas,

You wrote " If one can solve his problems his IQ is high enough...".

But you should know some problems are very simple and a person with an usual IQ can solve it and some problems are so difficult to be solved by even the most intelligent persons!

All of the above answers seem to me very interesting. Nevertheless, regardless of the definition of intelligence I think it is impossible to measure intelligence in absolute terms. However, it seems possible to measure the intelligence of people of the same socio-cultural environment in relative terms (comparatively) in both space and time. As the measures are "relative" (ie a subject, of a certain age, it is more or less intelligent than one or more person of the same age and of the same socio-cultural environment) any IQ test might be properly functioning.

It is known that the great Newton gave the impression on others as a blunt fellow. I think he would not have survived the modern IQ test. Great Einstein said that in his youth he did not understand a lot that for his peers it were quite clear. So, the IQ test can not assess the intelligence of geniuses.

interested details

I think that It is better to modify IQ test every year based on new changes in socio- cultural and psychological environment around human!

It will be interesting that we assess Newton's IQ again based on new scientific information and  developments in the world and compare it with new Newtons of the world that may be more intelligent than him!

I think the very term: Intelligence Quotient  is a concatenation of two words which are more politically motivated than what it intends to tell. Intelligence is  a natural capacity of all thinking creatures, to reason, imagine and view  problems of varying complexities and come up with a would be solution(survival attests it, as those who are weak in intelligence mostly disappears),  while the actual words are used to measure a learnt, informed and retained information which simply is called knowledge. There are several people who scored high marks on this test (because of retained information and in fact practice ) but barely can reason and even understand things outside of what they are experienced and know. That is not intelligence but retained information  test of knowledge. I remember some years ago, there were pop ups on the page of my computer that I was scanning, which asks to take an IQ test, just for fun. I took the test just for curiosity and answered all the questions correctly. Most questions  were more of knowledge questions than intelligence questions. I propose instead that the term should change its name:  IQ---> KQ (knowledge Quotient). Albert Einstein said, all creatures are intelligent but to ask a fish to climb a tree is not a  question of intelligence.  

There were cases in which students with no proper educational materials and no proper school system (no well trained teachers, no library, nothing but simply going from grade to grade)  and the other group are students who have all well trained teachers for each subjects, well established library and available resources, computers, even parents resources to buy things they needed) are given this tests and said the two groups of students  had different intelligence.  This is not only an academic dishonesty and hoax but a politically motivated scheme to put self in upper level shelves  of a store, because you owned the store. 

Dear Dr. Lakew,

I think. for having  valid results, IQ test should be done for persons in nearly equal education opportunities and economic conditions.

An IQ test taken by people of different age, education, professional and life experiences hardly mean much. IQ tests to be reliable and meaningful require certain discrimination in who prepared the test, what is the test goal, what is the test audience, and what is the test statistical analysis. If properly done, it may provide useful information as to how a certain skill(s) is distributed over the group of having been tested.

I would say, no.  I lead groups filled with ‘IQ’ people, some as high as 190 (on multiple tests), and write for Langan’s group blog each six days, he is IQ 200 (confirmed a great many times).  These tests do define a certain personality type, from my observations.  They are a good indicator for thinking speed, how fast one processes information.  Rapid, accurate thought, and memory.  The scores are however, inversely proportional to stability of personality, in many cases.  On social media I can quickly tell an IQ type, particularly one in the 150+ range, as they will respond in huge torrents of perfectly typed argument, and argument is the key word.  If you go to join the Prometheus society (164+), look at the guidelines on the net!  Others are referred to as ‘the opponent.’   Although many (but not by any means all) of these folks lack a PhD, they are continuously posturing in superiority, which is simply wrong. (There are exceptions, but in general what I say is true).  I am an autodidact, one of these ‘gifted’ people who learns easily, and be sure I am not superior to any man with a better education.  Hardly.  Arrogance is insecurity itself!  Anyone who brags about their IQ is not very bright.  It is what one does with one’s potential that matters. 

How fast one solves a problem…this is not the final measure of intellectual worth, level or value!  It may be useful information in many cases, a valuable test, but it is not a real measure of the full plethora of intelligence.  What have you accomplished to better the race of man?  This matters, not how fast one gets an answer.  Depth, is not measured on these tests!  How FAST, one comes up with an answer is.  Depth, and the PRODUCT of one’s labors; the kind aspects and quality of your personality matter, not your ability to argue and insult in a flash…I stress again KINDNESS and a real functional result… this alone, is the full measure of intelligence.  That is my personal opinion. 

Please do understand that many of my friends are from these circles, and there are some very fine people with high scores. Ed Close is a fine man, and Langan has been kind to me as well.  The above comments are by way of generalization from having worked with groups of people with high scores.  

Thank you again.What is your opinion about the role of ( gender) in IQ test?

All of us know that the man and woman differ from together anatomically and physiologically.

Do you think that the IQ test should be different in each sex?

.....and what is spiritual wellbeing role in the result of IQ?

 We are a lot of different abilities. These capabilities are different from each other, but may stimulate some other capacity are heading for a catalyst or activates genes responsible for intelligence.

It is known that the great Newton gave the impression on others as a blunt fellow. I think he would not have survived the modern IQ test. Great Einstein said that in his youth he did not understand a lot that for his peers it were quite clear. So, the IQ test can not assess the intelligence of geniuses. In other words, the IQ test does not work just in that range of parameters where it could be of the most interest. But it is interesting to assess intelligence where is clearly a lot of it, but not where is clearly a little bit.

Dear Dr. Sawicka,

learning from books, narrow academic skills, or solving skills tests can effect on the results of IQ test. But in my opinion, written tests are not very suitable and I think it is better to test IQ in practical and real situations and make a new IQ test based on this idea!

Dear Nader

Thank you to invite me to this question, intelligence tests have some of the highest reported reliability and validity estimates of all psychological assessments, with reliability and validity well above .90. That basically means that IQ tests are extremely accurate at measuring the psychological construct of intelligence

Regards 

ِDear Dr. Heise,

Can we add spiritual intelligence to

Emotional Intelligence

Practical Intelligence

Esthetic Intelligence?

Or it can be a subcategory of them?

Dear @Thomas, thanks for sharing @Nader's question. My contribution after so many answers will be to bring some related research questions to this one, where I have taken part in discussion. There are many good answers, as well as many resources available to researchers interested in this topic.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Scientists_and_researchers_are_almost_always_have_high_IQ_Do_they_also_have_a_high_EQ_to_communicate_share_and_inspire_people_positively

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Intelligence_Vs_Creativity

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_the_intelligence_be_improved

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_aptitude_and_intelligence_the_same_things

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_intelligence2

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_intellectual_capacity

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_are_your_views_on_emotional_intelligence

How will one test a layman who has shown his/her intelligence in his way of life? What questionnaire should be prepared for them? Intelligence is cognitive and subjective too. I want to quote an example, a maistry/mason who is not educated will be able to translate building plans done on a neat A1 size drawing sheet by a qualified Engineer to the ground with pin-point accuracy. How does this happen. It is good enough for a human being to be intelligent in his/her domain so as to perform with utmost efficiency and clarity. Therefore, intelligence ( a cognitive capability) comes through experiential learning. Why do we need to measure this? Any questionnaire will not be holy. In stead we can measure the efficiency of a person/human being in performing a particular task a priory.

No - because it allows to answer using the "hit and miss" method, so the final result also depends on the luck of the tested person.

We should have a comprehensive I Q test based on all of human genetic and acquired characteristics dimension that can be used in real and practical situation without any bias.

Dear Nader Aghakhani,

I think IQ test can give us a level of Intelligence, but for real we can not depend wholly on the measurement of Intelligence. IQ can be developed to cover several categories of science but not all of them. 

Best regards

Musab Tr

 IQ test may offer a sign of common intelligence, it can't calculate the whole difficulty of the human thought process. Originality, emotional sensitivity, social understanding, and various acquired skills such as music or art, are excluded from test’s measurements of intelligence.

A new version of IQ test is needed!

How we can do it?

Well for measuring intelligence IQ is not sufficient. To be able to think and implement the work in an efficient way so that it could be useful for the people can also be intelligence. Well doing such work with which people will get benefited is also good work which many intelligent people don't do, so what is the fun of having intelligence which is not useful for benefit of people?

interested comments

OK.

For example:

If IQ score in a person is 100 and in other person is 100, Can we tell their IQ are (really) equal?

The personal combination of the talents and abilities are always different like there cannot be found a second ice crystal of the same form.

LUCKILY

It is better to divide IQ test to some parts and tell a person get this mark in this item and his/her mean score is 100 that is equal to another person's score with100, but in different parts, they are different from each other and only their scores are similar.

Dear All,

All assessments may have errors. Are there any reliable method to decrease errors in assessing IQ?

Dear All,

Who can decide what talents/abilities should be assessed as IQ?

All of us know that IQ test is incomplete test, but  at present, it's the best test for this purpose! It should be modified based on new conditions.

Howard Gardner proposed the theory of multiple intelligence that differentiates intelligence into specific (primarily sensory) 'modalities', rather than seeing intelligence as dominated by a single general ability. He  chose eight abilities that he held to meet these criteria:[ musical-rhythmic, visual-spatial, verbal-linguistic, logical-mathematical, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalistic. He later suggested that existential and moral intelligence may also be worthy of inclusion.

You know that the theory of multiple intelligence was proposed, but its spectrum is wide and complex and its scoring is difficult and  it is affected by affected by external variants like culture, previous education and etc.... A holistic and comprehensive test is needed .

Dear Nader:

This is not my area of expertise, but at the present level of development of social sciences we can be certain that psychological and sociological phenomena are measurable and can be analyzed using quantitative techniques. An index such as IQ may have weaknesses, but I have no doubts that it could be improved if necessary. 

Dear Nader Aghakhani

The IQ test instrument is valid and reliable only to measure Cognitive Intelligence, but as you discuss it, there are other types of intelligence, such as the Emotional and Social Intelligence proposed by Daniel Goleman, the Intelligence to Solve Practical Problems involving various skills and Howard Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences, to the latter I will refer in more detail:

• Howard Gardner in his work "Structures of the mind: The theory of the multiple intelligences" proposed a different conception of the cognitive phenomena (first version of 1983 and revision updated in 1993). Intelligence is not one but multiple: linguistic, musical, logical and mathematical, spatial, corporeal and personal. He mentions that these act in harmonic form but that each one of them are relatively autonomous.

Howard Gardner. Structures of the Mind. The theory of multiple intelligences. Edit.FCE (2nd edition) Mexico 1994.

See summary in link:

Https://psicologiaymente.net/inteligencia/teoria-inteligencias-multiples-gardner#!

• Later Howard Gardner makes a new update of his theory in the book "The reformulated intelligence, the multiple intelligences of the 21st century" changes in virtue of the great revolution that has brought his theory in the education and development of the human being. Establishes two new facets of multiple intelligence, Existential Intelligence and Naturalistic Intelligence.

Howard Gardner. Reformulated intelligence. The Multiple Intelligences of the 21st Century. Editorial Paidós (1st edition) Spain 2010.

Summary in the following link:

Https://books.google.com/books/about/Reflective_intelligence.html?id=DXBTygAACAAJ&redir_esc=y&hl=en

regards

Jose Luis

Estimado Nader Aghakhani

El instrumento de prueba IQ es válido y confiable sólo para medir la Inteligencia Cognitiva, pero como usted lo comenta, hay otro tipo de inteligencias, como la Inteligencia Emocional y Social propuesta por Daniel Goleman, la Inteligencia para Resolver Problemas Prácticos que implican varias destrezas y la Teoría de la Inteligencias Múltiples de Howard Gardner, a ésta última me referiré con mayor detalle:

• Howard Gardner en su obra "Estructuras de la mente: La teoría de las inteligencias múltiples" propuso una concepción distinta de los fenómenos cognitivos (primera versión de 1983 y revisión actualizada en 1993). La inteligencia no es una sino múltiple: lingüística, musical, lógica y matemática, espacial, corporal y personal. Menciona que éstas actúan en forma armónica pero que cada una de ellas son relativamente autónomas.

Howard Gardner. Estructuras de la Mente. La teoría de las inteligencias múltiples. Edit.FCE (2a edición) México 1994.

Ver resumen en vínculo: 

https://psicologiaymente.net/inteligencia/teoria-inteligencias-multiples-gardner#!

• Posteriormente Howard Gardner hace una nueva actualización de su teoría en la obra "La inteligencia reformulada. Las inteligencias múltiples del siglo XXI." Cambios en virtud de la gran revolución que ha traído su teoría en la educación y el desarrollo del ser humano. En esta obra establece dos nuevas facetas de la inteligencia múltiple, La Inteligencia Existencial y la Inteligencia Naturalista.

Howard Gardner. La inteligencia reformulada. Las inteligencias múltiples del siglo XXI. Editorial Paidós (1er edición) España 2010.

Resumen en el siguiente vínculo:

https://books.google.com.mx/books/about/La_inteligencia_reformulada.html?id=DXBTygAACAAJ&redir_esc=y&hl=es

Saludos

José Luis

In don't think that IQ test is the best questionnaire to measure intelligence of a person.

I think that Multiple Intelligence Test is a better instrument to know about the differents kinds of intelligence.

Have a look at this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattell–Horn–Carroll_theory

JP

Define precisely the construct you want to assess

Be cautious on suggestions and comments reflecting mainly personal preferences or personal opinions.

A review of interest : Intelligence (Elsevier)

Thanks of all.

Are intelligent persons more successful than other people in their life?

if yes, why?

See papers by Deary et al...

Screen: General mental Ability (GMA) and health, GMA and carreer success (Timothyy Judge), GMA and Job performance (Frank Schmidt, In Sue Oh)... among many others...

Have a look at a paper by Salgado et al. (2003) on my Research Gate Account.

Screen Intelligence (or GMA) and academic success...

Go fo Franck L. Schmidt   Researchgate account and download:

Working Paper: The Validity and Utility of Selection Methods in Personnel Psychology: Practical and Theoretical Implications of 100 Years of Research Findings

Frank L. Schmidt

Full-text available · Working Paper · Oct 2016

interested information

Download:

http://www.timothy-judge.com/Judge,%20Higgins,%20Thoresen,%20&%20Barrick%20PPsych.pdf

Open access paper:

Intelligence in youth and mental health at age 50

Christina Wrawa,  Ian J. Deary, Geoff Derb,  Catharine R. Galea,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2016.06.005

Childhood intelligence predicts premature mortality: Results from a 40-year population-based longitudinal study

Marius Wrulicha, , , Gertraud Stadlerb, Martin Brunnerc, d, Ulrich Kellera, Romain Martina

Journal of Research in Personality

Volume 58, October 2015, Pages 6–10

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2015.06.003

Intelligence

Volume 40, Issue 5, September–October 2012, Pages 490–498

Does cognitive ability predict mortality in the ninth decade? The Lothian Birth Cohort 1921

Catherine Murraya,

Alison Pattiea,

John M. Starrb, c,

Ian J. Dearya, c, ,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2012.05.003

Trends in Neuroscience and Education

Volume 5, Issue 4, December 2016, Pages 178–185

Research paper

Separate contributions of general intelligence and right prefrontal neurocognitive functions to academic achievement at university level

Graham Pluck, ,

Carlos B. Ruales-Chieruzzi ,

Edgar J. Paucar-Guerra ,

M. Victoria Andrade-Guimaraes ,

Ana F. Trueba

 Show more

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tine.2016.07.002

Get rights and content

Abstract

It is hypothesized that performance on frontal-lobe neuropsychological tests and intelligence tests may independently contribute to variation in academic achievement in higher education. We examined the ability of an IQ test (the WAIS-IV) to predict grade point averages (GPA) in a sample of 64 undergraduate students. We also included a battery of five neuropsychological assessments of frontal-lobe functions, all known to be unrelated to general intelligence and linked to right-prefrontal function. Regression analysis with stepwise entry of variables revealed separate contributions to the variation in GPA scores explained by general intelligence and two different measures of response inhibition (Stop-signal and Hayling). The addition of the inhibition measures more than doubled the amount of variance in GPA explained by general intelligence alone, from adjusted R2=.115 to adjusted R2=.239, suggesting an important role of right prefrontal-mediated response inhibition in high-level academic achievement. This contrasts with the mainly left-hemisphere contribution from general intelligence.

Intelligence

Volume 53, November–December 2015, Pages 118–137

Intelligence and school grades: A meta-analysis

Bettina Roth, 1, ,

Nicolas Becker1,

Sara Romeyke,

Sarah Schäfer,

Florian Domnick,

Frank M. Spinath

 Show more

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2015.09.002

Intelligence is considered as the strongest predictor of scholastic achievement. Research as well as educational policy and the society as a whole are deeply interested in its role as a prerequisite for scholastic success. The present study investigated the population correlation between standardized intelligence tests and school grades employing psychometric meta-analysis (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004). The analyses involved 240 independent samples with 105,185 participants overall. After correcting for sampling error, error of measurement, and range restriction in the independent variable, we found a population correlation of ρ = .54. Moderator analyses pointed to a variation of the relationship between g and school grades depending on different school subject domains, grade levels, the type of intelligence test used in the primary study, as well as the year of publication, whereas gender had no effect on the magnitude of the relationship.

Do you think we should consider IQ test as cognitive intelligence scale  based on other items like Emotional Intelligence, Practical Intelligence and Esthetical Intelligence and it will not useful alone?

Dear Barbara,

You wrote" These are not only learning from These are not only learning from books, narrow academic skills, or solving skills tests.".

OK. But I think These are not only learning from books, narrow academic skills, or solving skills tests can promote IQ scores.

Emotional Intelligence is not General Mental Ability.

If you want to assess cognitive capacities (I.Q. or GMA, or such constructs described in CHC theory) you must use cognitive tests.

But hoe can we isolate cognitive results from other domain?

By assessing, and controlling these "other domains"...

For instance:

J Appl Psychol. 2015 Mar;100(2):298-342. doi: 10.1037/a0037681. Epub 2014 Sep 22.

Why does self-reported emotional intelligence predict job performance? A meta-analytic investigation of mixed EI.

Joseph DL1, Jin J2, Newman DA2, O'Boyle EH3.

Author information

Abstract

Recent empirical reviews have claimed a surprisingly strong relationship between job performance and self-reported emotional intelligence (also commonly called trait EI or mixed EI), suggesting self-reported/mixed EI is one of the best known predictors of job performance (e.g., ρ = .47; Joseph & Newman, 2010b). Results further suggest mixed EI can robustly predict job performance beyond cognitive ability and Big Five personality traits (Joseph & Newman, 2010b; O'Boyle, Humphrey, Pollack, Hawver, & Story, 2011). These criterion-related validity results are problematic, given the paucity of evidence and the questionable construct validity of mixed EI measures themselves. In the current research, we update and reevaluate existing evidence for mixed EI, in light of prior work regarding the content of mixed EI measures. Results of the current meta-analysis demonstrate that (a) the content of mixed EI measures strongly overlaps with a set of well-known psychological constructs (i.e., ability EI, self-efficacy, and self-rated performance, in addition to Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, Extraversion, and general mental ability; multiple R = .79), (b) an updated estimate of the meta-analytic correlation between mixed EI and supervisor-rated job performance is ρ = .29, and (c) the mixed EI-job performance relationship becomes nil (β = -.02) after controlling for the set of covariates listed above. Findings help to establish the construct validity of mixed EI measures and further support an intuitive theoretical explanation for the uncommonly high association between mixed EI and job performance--mixed EI instruments assess a combination of ability EI and self-perceptions, in addition to personality and cognitive ability.

PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved.

"The mixed EI-job performance relationship becomes nil (β = -.02) after controlling for the set of covariates listed above".

Neat results...

Front Psychol. 2015 Feb 10;6:72. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00072. eCollection 2015.

EI competencies as a related but different characteristic than intelligence.

Boyatzis RE1, Batista-Foguet JM2, Fernández-I-Marín X2, Truninger M2.

Author information

Abstract

Amid the swarm of debate about emotional intelligence (EI) among academics are claims that cognitive intelligence, or general mental ability (g), is a stronger predictor of life and work outcomes as well as the counter claims that EI is their strongest predictor. Nested within the tempest in a teapot are scientific questions as to what the relationship is between g and EI. Using a behavioral approach to EI, we examined the relationship of a parametric measure of g as the person's GMAT scores and collected observations from others who live and work with the person as to the frequency of his or her EI behavior, as well as the person's self-assessment. The results show that EI, as seen by others, is slightly related to g, especially for males with assessment from professional relations. Further, we found that cognitive competencies are more strongly related to GMAT than EI competencies. For observations from personal relationships or self-assessment, there is no relationship between EI and GMAT. Observations from professional relations reveal a positive relationship between cognitive competencies and GMAT and EI and GMAT for males, but a negative relationship between EI and GMAT for females.

cognitive ability; cognitive competency; emotional intelligence; emotional intelligence competency; social intelligence competency

PMID:

25713545

PMCID:

PMC4322617

DOI:

10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00072

good comments

Human Resource Management Review

March 2015, Vol.25(1):12–27, doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2014.09.004

Intelligence is multidimensional: Theoretical review and implications of specific cognitive abilities

W. Joel SchneiderDaniel A. Newman

Show more

Abstract

Human resource management researchers typically treat cognitive ability as a unidimensional construct. The current paper reviews possible rationales for this choice, including practical convenience, the parsimony of Spearman's theory of general mental ability (g), positive manifold among cognitive tests, and empirical evidence of only modest incremental validity of specific cognitive abilities for predicting job and training performance over and above g. In contrast to HR researchers' dominant practice of treating cognitive ability as unidimensional, we recommend a renewed interest in narrower, second-stratum cognitive abilities. The renewed focus on multiple dimensions of intelligence is supported by several arguments, including superior empirical fit of hierarchical and oblique multifactor models over unidimensional models of cognitive test data, the Cattell–Horn–Carroll theoretical model and Carroll's large-scale empirical support for a hierarchical model of intelligence with several second-stratum factors (i.e., specific cognitive abilities), empirical evidence of modest incremental validity (typically at or above 2%) of specific cognitive abilities predicting job performance beyond g, the notion of a compatibility principle of the cognitive ability–job performance relationship in which specific abilities should predict specific criteria but not broad criteria, application of bifactor and relative importance methodologies to predict job performance via g and specific abilities simultaneously, evidence that adverse impact in hiring can be partly curtailed by differentially weighting specific cognitive abilities, and theoretical models of reciprocal causation among specific cognitive abilities which can explain positive manifold in the absence of g. After arguing for multidimensional models of intelligence, we review a variety of second-stratum cognitive abilities that have been described under the Cattell–Horn–Carroll model, highlighting similarities and differences among specific abilities.

http://www.iapsych.com/kmpubs/newton2010.pdf

A review, by Deary:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21943169

very useful links

If we accept the IQ test for cognitive aspects of human, isn't it better that it be up to date every  year  based on new information that is created in the world?

IQ is about processing informations.

I agree with the answer of Dr. Thomas Heise. IQ should not be relied on without limits.

Regards

SM Najim

To take into account limitations of I.Q. measures is obvious. Limitations are  --obviously-- to be taken into account for any measure of any construct in any field... 

Questioners which usually prepare to assess one’s intelligence should include many aspects of human capability. For some of us, high IQ may mean something which could lead to high performance and success in theoretical physics or biochemistry but for others, this may seem meaningless. Just to say, I don’t believe  IQ questioners measure intelligence since they are pretty common and can be practiced and memorized. Each human being has a certain level of intelligence in a given area, but we see some people are very good in many things. The bottom line is IQ test should include many many aspects of human talents, skills etc. and is assisted by bio-instrument for neurological inputs.

If we accept the IQ test for cognitive aspect  of IQ, isn't it better that it be up to date every year based on new information and scientific data that  are created in the world?

Yes, I think Q test should cover some aspects of human talents

Guys... CH-C model covers a wide range of human cognitive abilities. It is designed in this perspective. [This is my last message here]... 

To be ,or not to be. That is the question!

Is it possible to update the tests like IQ test or beck's depression scale inventory and etc....?

Intelligence of a object depends on how much time you have spent on it

I think this test should be done for the first time for everybody before he/ she practice and learn how to answer its questions.

It is important to learn and practice this test

Yes, a person's general ability to solve problems, think abstract (apart from learned skills) can be crystallised into an IQ score which is turn linked with person's life expectancy, income level and happiness. Source: www.worldwide-iq-test.com

Its results may be effected by the culture and previous experiences of the person that is studied.