Ethical Aspects of Measuring Intelligence: Towards Competence and Fairness

封面

如何引用文章

全文:

详细

The article is focused on the problem of intelligence measurement, with an emphasis on the ethical aspects of developing and using tests. The history of intelligence measurement provides a variety of examples, problematic from an ethical point of view, which have repeatedly led to negative consequences for both individuals and entire communities. The purpose of this article is to describe current ethical issues in the field of intelligence measurement, their background and historical examples. We discuss the ethical issues in terms of: (1) global approaches to operationalizing intelligence; 2) possible human rights violations resulting from the use of intelligence tests; 3) the fairness of intelligence tests for different groups of respondents; and 4) assessment of test quality in test selection. These issues are examined through the prism of the ethical principles of psychologists, such as respect, honesty, competence, and responsibility. Despite the extensive history of measuring intelligence and research in this area, ethical issues raised decades ago have not lost their relevance. Since ethical questions often do not have clear-cut answers, we believe that engaging in discussions about ethical issues in intelligence testing and exploring potential solutions is itself important and warranted. The content and conclusions of this article may be useful for both researchers and practitioners to make informed decisions in the context of intelligence measurement.

作者简介

Tatiana Logvinenko

Sirius University of Science and Technology, The Sirius Federal Territory

编辑信件的主要联系方式.
Email: logvinenkota.spb@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-7430-1963
SPIN 代码: 8068-9856

Research Fellow, Center for Cognitive Sciences

1 Olimpiyskiy Ave., 354340 The Sirius Federal Territory, Russian Federation

Tatiana Kanonir

HSE University

Email: tkanonir@hse.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-5606-8379

Dr. Psych. (PhD), Associate Professor, Institute of Education

20 Myasnitskaya St, 101000 Moscow, Russian Federation

Ekaterina Orel

HSE University

Email: eorel@hse.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-9100-0713

PhD in Psychology, Senior Research Fellow, Institute of Education

20 Myasnitskaya St, 101000 Moscow, Russian Federation

Alena Kulikova

HSE University

Email: aponomareva@hse.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-4296-3521

PhD in Education, Research Fellow, Institute of Education

20 Myasnitskaya St, 101000 Moscow, Russian Federation

参考

  1. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education (1999). Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (1st ed.). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
  2. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education (2014). Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (2014th ed.). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
  3. Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (2007). Psychological testing (7th ed.). Saint Petersburg: Piter. (In Russ.)
  4. Bain, S.K., & Jaspers, K.E. (2010). Test review: Review of Kaufman brief intelligence test, Second edition. Bloomington, MN: Pearson, Inc. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 28(2), 167–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282909348217
  5. Bartram, D., & Hambleton, R.K. (2016). The ITC guidelines: International standards and guidelines relating to tests and testing. In F.T.L. Leong, D. Bartram, F. Cheung, K.F. Geisinger, & D. Iliescu (Eds.). The ITC International Hand- book of Testing and Assessment (pp. 35–46). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/med:psych/9780199356942.003.0004
  6. Berry, J.W. (1976). Cross-cultural research and methodology series: III. Human ecology and cognitive style: Comparative studies in cultural and psychological adaptation. New York: Sage Publications/Halstead Press.
  7. Berry, J.W. (2022). The forgotten field: Contexts for cross-cultural psychology. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 53(7–8), 993–1009. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220221221093810
  8. Block, N.J., & Dworkin, G. (Eds.). (1976). The IQ controversy: Critical readings. New York: Pantheon Books.
  9. Canivez, G.L., McGill, R.J., Dombrowski, S.C., Watkins, M.W., Pritchard, A.E., & Jacobson, L.A. (2020). Construct validity of the WISC-V in clinical cases: Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses of the 10 primary subtests. Assessment, 27(2), 274–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191118811609
  10. Deary, I.J. (2012). Intelligence. Annual Review of Psychology, 63(1), 453–482. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100353
  11. Deary, I.J., Penke, L., & Johnson, W. (2010). The neuroscience of human intelligence diffe- rences. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(3), 201–211. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2793
  12. Dutton, E., van der Linden, D., & Lynn, R. (2016). The negative Flynn Effect: A systematic literature review. Intelligence, 59, 163–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2016.10.002
  13. Filimonenko, Yu. I., & Timofeev, V.I. (2016). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC). Saint Petersburg: IMATON. (In Russ.)
  14. Flynn, J.R. (1984). The mean IQ of Americans: Massive gains 1932 to 1978. Psychological Bulletin, 95(1), 29–51. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.95.1.29
  15. Flynn, J.R. (1987). Massive IQ gains in 14 nations: What IQ tests really measure. Psychological Bulletin, 101(2), 171–191. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.101.2.171
  16. Friedlander Moore, A., McCallum, R.S., & Bracken, B.A. (2017). The universal nonverbal intelligence test: Second edition. In R.S. McCallum (Eds.). Handbook of Nonverbal Assessment (pp. 105–125). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50604-3_7
  17. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
  18. Gerasimova, Yu., & Orel, E. (2022). Measuring a schoolchild: Why we develop and assess social-emotional skills. Psychology. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 19(1), 61–75. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17323/1813-8918-2022-1-61-75
  19. Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books, Inc.
  20. Gottfredson, L.S. (1997). Mainstream science on intelligence: An editorial with 52 signatories, history, and bibliography. Intelligence, 24(1), 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0160-2896(97)90011-8
  21. Gould, S.J. (1981). The Mismeasure of Man. New York: WW Norton.
  22. Gregory, R.J. (2015). Psychological Testing: History, Principles and Applications (7th ed.). Harlow: Pearson.
  23. Grigorenko, E.L., Meier, E., Lipka, J., Mohatt, G., Yanez, E., & Sternberg, R.J. (2004). Academic and practical intelligence: A case study of the Yup’ik in Alaska. Learning and Individual Differences, 14(4), 183–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2004.02.002
  24. Hunter, J.E., & Schmidt, F.L. (1976). Critical analysis of the statistical and ethical implications of various definitions of test bias. Psychological Bulletin, 83(6), 1053–1071. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.83.6.1053
  25. Jensen, A.R. (1980). Bias in Mental Testing. New York: The Free Press.
  26. Jonson, J.L., & Geisinger, K.F. (Eds.). (2022). Fairness in Educational and Psycho- logical Testing: Examining Theoretical, Research, Practice, and Policy Implications of the 2014 Standards. Washington: American Educational Research Association. https://doi.org/10.3102/9780935302967
  27. Kamin, L., & Egerton, J. (1973). The misuse of IQ testing. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 5(8), 40–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.1973.10568572
  28. Kaufman, A.S. (2010). Looking through Flynn’s rose-colored scientific spectacles. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 28(5), 494–505. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282910373573
  29. Kaufman, A.S., & Kaufman, N.L. (1983). Kaufman assessment battery for children (KABC, K-ABC) [Database record]. APA PsycTests. https://doi.org/10.1037/t27677-000
  30. Kholodnaia, M.A. (2004a). Professional illusions resulting from simplified ideas about human intelligence. Psychology. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 1(4), 38–44. (In Russ.)
  31. Kholodnaia, M.A. (2004b). Psychological testing and the right of a person to chose her/his own path of development. Psychology. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 1(2), 66–75. (In Russ.)
  32. Kudryashov, A.F. (Ed.). (1992). Best psychological tests for vocational selection and career guidance: Description and user guide. Petrozavodsk: Petrokom (In Russ.)
  33. Kuncel, N.R., & Sackett, P.R. (2007). Selective citation mars conclusions about test validity and predictive bias. American Psychologist, 62(2), 145–146. https://doi.org/10.1037/003-066x62.2.145
  34. McGrew, K.S. (2010). The Flynn effect and its critics: Rusty linchpins and “lookin’ for g and Gf in some of the wrong places”. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 28(5), 448–468. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282910373347
  35. Meuleman, B., Żółtak, T., Pokropek, A., Davidov, E., Muthén, B., Oberski, D.L., Billiet, J., & Schmidt, P. (2023). Why measurement invariance is important in comparative research. A response to Welzel et al. (2021). Sociological Methods & Research, 52(3), 1401–1419. https://doi.org/10.1177/00491241221091755
  36. Naglieri, J.A. (2015). Hundred years of intelligence testing: Moving from traditional IQ to second-generation intelligence tests. In Goldstein, S., Princiotta, D., Naglieri, J. (Eds.). Handbook of Intelligence (pp. 295–316). New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-1562-0_20
  37. Naglieri, J.A., Das, J.P. (1997). Cognitive assessment system (Vol. 96). Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.
  38. Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T.J., Boykin, A.W., Brody, N., Ceci, S.J., Halpern, D.F., Loehlin, J.C., Perloff, R., Sternberg, R.J., & Urbina, S. (1996). Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. American Psychologist, 51(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.51.2.77
  39. Powers, K.M., Hagans-Murillo, K.S., & Restori, A.F. (2004). Twenty-five years after Larry P.: The California response to overrepresentation of African Americans in special education. The California School Psychologist, 9(1), 145–158. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03340915
  40. Putnick, D.L., & Bornstein, M.H. (2016). Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: The state of the art and future directions for psychological research. Developmental Review, 41, 71–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2016.06.004
  41. Reynolds, C. (1994). Bias in testing. In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.). Encyclopedia of human intelligence (Vol. 1, pp. 175–178). New York: Macmillan.
  42. Reynolds, C.R., & Suzuki, L.A. (2012). Bias in psychological assessment: An empirical review and recommendations. In I. Weiner (Ed.). Handbook of Psychology, 2nd ed. (pp. 82–113). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118133880.hop210004
  43. Roid, G.H., & Koch, C. (2017). Leiter-3: Nonverbal cognitive and neuropsychological assessment. In R. McCallum (Ed.). Handbook of Nonverbal Assessment (pp. 127–150). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50604-3_8
  44. Roth, B., Becker, N., Romeyke, S., Schäfer, S., Domnick, F., & Spinath, F. M. (2015). Intelligence and school grades: A meta-analysis. Intelligence, 53, 118–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2015.09.002
  45. Sattler, J.M. (2008). Assessment of children: Cognitive foundations and applications (5th ed.). La Mesa, CA: Jerome M. Sattler, Publisher, Inc.
  46. Shmelev, A.G. (2004). A test as a weapon. Psychology. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 1(2), 40–53. (In Russ.)
  47. Stanovich, K.E. (2009). What intelligence tests miss: The psychology of rational thought. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. https://doi.org/10.12987/9780300142532
  48. Stanovich, K.E., West, R.F., & Toplak, M.E. (2016). The Rationality Quotient: Toward a Test of Rational Thinking. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262034845.001.0001
  49. Sternberg, R.J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  50. Sternberg, R.J., Glaveanu, V., Karami, S., Kaufman, J.C., Phillipson, S.N., & Preiss, D.D. (2021). Meta-intelligence: Understanding, control, and interactivity between creative, analytical, practical, and wisdom-based approaches in problem solving. Journal of Intelligence, 9(2), 19. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence9020019
  51. Sternberg, R.J., Grigorenko, E., & Bundy, D.A. (2001). The predictive value of IQ. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 47(1), 1–41. https://doi.org/10.1353/mpq.2001.0005
  52. Sternberg, R.J., Preiss, D.D., & Karami, S. (2023). An historical causal-chain theory of conceptions of intelligence. Review of General Psychology, 27(3), 320–335. https://doi.org/10.1177/10892680231158790
  53. Strenze, T. (2007). Intelligence and socioeconomic success: A meta-analytic review of longitudinal research. Intelligence, 35(5), 401–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2006.09.004
  54. Terman, L.M. (1916). The uses of intelligence tests. In The measurement of intelligence (pp. 3–21). Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company. https://doi.org/10.1037/10014-001
  55. Thorndike, E.L. (1920). Intelligence and its uses. Harper's Magazine, 140, 227–235.
  56. Ushakov, D.V. (2004). Intelligence tests, or the bitter taste of self-knowledge. Psychology. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 1(2), 76–93. (In Russ.)
  57. Ushakov, D.V., & Grigoriev, A.A. (2016). Macropsychology of intelligence: through emotions to theoretical depth. Psychology. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 13(4), 629–635. https://doi.org/10.17323/1813-8918-2016-4-629-635
  58. Van de Vijver, F., & Tanzer, N.K. (2004). Bias and equivalence in cross-cultural assess- ment: An overview. European Review of Applied Psychology, 54(2), 119–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2003.12.004
  59. Van de Vijver, F.J.R., & Leung, K. (2021). Methods and Data Analysis for Cross-Cultural Research (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107415188
  60. Van de Vijver, F.J.R., & Poortinga, Y.H. (1997). Towards an integrated analysis of bias in cross-cultural assessment. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 13(1), 29–37. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.13.1.29
  61. Warne, R.T. (2020). In the Know: Debunking 35 Myths about Human Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108593298
  62. Welzel, C., Brunkert, L., Kruse, S., & Inglehart, R.F. (2023). Non-invariance? An overstated problem with misconceived causes. Sociological Methods & Research, 52(3), 1368–1400. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124121995521
  63. Wicherts, J.M. (2016). The importance of measurement invariance in neurocognitive ability testing. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 30(7), 1006–1016. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2016.1205136
  64. Yurevich, A.V., Ushakov, L.V., & Tsapenko, I.P. (2007). Quantitative evaluation of present-day Russian society macropsychological state. Psikhologicheskii zhurnal, 28(4), 23–34. (In Russ.)
  65. Zaboski, B.A.II, Kranzler, J.H., & Gage, N.A. (2018). Meta-analysis of the relationship between academic achievement and broad abilities of the Cattell-Horn-Carroll Theory. Journal of School Psychology, 71, 42–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2018.10.001

补充文件

附件文件
动作
1. JATS XML
下载

Согласие на обработку персональных данных с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика»

1. Я (далее – «Пользователь» или «Субъект персональных данных»), осуществляя использование сайта https://journals.rcsi.science/ (далее – «Сайт»), подтверждая свою полную дееспособность даю согласие на обработку персональных данных с использованием средств автоматизации Оператору - федеральному государственному бюджетному учреждению «Российский центр научной информации» (РЦНИ), далее – «Оператор», расположенному по адресу: 119991, г. Москва, Ленинский просп., д.32А, со следующими условиями.

2. Категории обрабатываемых данных: файлы «cookies» (куки-файлы). Файлы «cookie» – это небольшой текстовый файл, который веб-сервер может хранить в браузере Пользователя. Данные файлы веб-сервер загружает на устройство Пользователя при посещении им Сайта. При каждом следующем посещении Пользователем Сайта «cookie» файлы отправляются на Сайт Оператора. Данные файлы позволяют Сайту распознавать устройство Пользователя. Содержимое такого файла может как относиться, так и не относиться к персональным данным, в зависимости от того, содержит ли такой файл персональные данные или содержит обезличенные технические данные.

3. Цель обработки персональных данных: анализ пользовательской активности с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика».

4. Категории субъектов персональных данных: все Пользователи Сайта, которые дали согласие на обработку файлов «cookie».

5. Способы обработки: сбор, запись, систематизация, накопление, хранение, уточнение (обновление, изменение), извлечение, использование, передача (доступ, предоставление), блокирование, удаление, уничтожение персональных данных.

6. Срок обработки и хранения: до получения от Субъекта персональных данных требования о прекращении обработки/отзыва согласия.

7. Способ отзыва: заявление об отзыве в письменном виде путём его направления на адрес электронной почты Оператора: info@rcsi.science или путем письменного обращения по юридическому адресу: 119991, г. Москва, Ленинский просп., д.32А

8. Субъект персональных данных вправе запретить своему оборудованию прием этих данных или ограничить прием этих данных. При отказе от получения таких данных или при ограничении приема данных некоторые функции Сайта могут работать некорректно. Субъект персональных данных обязуется сам настроить свое оборудование таким способом, чтобы оно обеспечивало адекватный его желаниям режим работы и уровень защиты данных файлов «cookie», Оператор не предоставляет технологических и правовых консультаций на темы подобного характера.

9. Порядок уничтожения персональных данных при достижении цели их обработки или при наступлении иных законных оснований определяется Оператором в соответствии с законодательством Российской Федерации.

10. Я согласен/согласна квалифицировать в качестве своей простой электронной подписи под настоящим Согласием и под Политикой обработки персональных данных выполнение мною следующего действия на сайте: https://journals.rcsi.science/ нажатие мною на интерфейсе с текстом: «Сайт использует сервис «Яндекс.Метрика» (который использует файлы «cookie») на элемент с текстом «Принять и продолжить».