Testing-for-Competence-Rather-Than-for-Intelligenc

TestingforCompetenceRatherThanforIntelligenceThetestingmovementintheUnitedStateshasbeenasuccess,ifonejudgessuccessbytheusualAmericancriteriaofsize,influence,andprofitability.Intelligenceandaptitudetestsareusednearlyeverywherebyschools,colleges,andemployers.Itisasignofbackwardnessnottohavetestscoresintheschoolrecordsofchildren.TheEducationalTestingServicealoneemploysabout2,000people,annuallyadministersScholasticAptitudeTeststothousandsofaspirantstocollege,andmakesenoughmoneytosupportalargebasicresearchoperation.Itstestshavetremendouspoweroverthelivesofyoungpeoplebystampingsomeofthemqualifiedandotherslessqualifiedforcollegework.Untilrecentexceptionsweremade(overtheprotestofsome),thetestshaveservedasaveryefficientdeviceforscreeningoutblack,Spanish-speaking,andotherminorityapplicantstocolleges.Admissionsofficershaveprotestedthattheytakeotherqualitiesbesidestestachievementsintoaccountingrantingadmission,butcarefulstudiesbyWingandWallach(1971)andothershaveshownthatthisistrueonlytoaverylimiteddegree.Whyshouldintelligenceoraptitudetestshaveallthispower?Whatjustifiestheuseofsuchtestsinselectingapplicantsforcollegeentranceorjobs?Onwhatassumptionsisthesuccessofthemovementbased?TheydeservecarefulexaminationbeforewegoonratherblindlypromotingtheuseoftestsasinstrumentsofpoweroverthelivesofmanyAmericans.Thekeyissueisobviouslythevalidityofsocalledintelligencetests.Theirusecouldnotbejustifiedunlesstheywerevalid,anditismyconvictionthattheevidencefortheirvalidityisbynomeanssooverwhelmingasmostofus,ratherunthinkingly,hadcometothinkitwas.Inpointoffact,mostofusjustbelievedtheresultsthatthetestersgaveus,withoutsubjectingthemtothekindoffierceskepticismthatgreets,forexample,thelatestattempttoshowthatESPexists.Myobjectivesaretoreviewskepticallythemainlinesofevidenceforthevalidityofintelligenceandaptitudetestsandtodrawsomeinferencesfromthisreviewastonewlinesthattestingmighttakeinthefuture.Letusgrantattheoutsetthatbrain-damagedorretardedpeopledolesswellonintelligenceteststhanotherpeople.Wechsler(19S8)initiallyusedthiscriteriontovalidatehisinstrument,althoughithasanobviousweakness:brain-damagedpeopledolesswellonalmostanytestsothatitishardtoarguethatsomethinguniquecalledlackofintelligenceisresponsibleforthedeficiencyintestscores.Themultimethod,multitraitcriterionhasnotbeenappliedhere.TestsPredictGradesinSchoolThegamespeoplearerequiredtoplayonaptitudetestsaresimilartothegamesteachersrequireintheclassroom.Infact,manyofBinet'soriginaltestsweretakenfromexercisesthatteachersusedinFrenchschools.Soitisscarcelysurprisingthataptitudetestscoresarecorrelatedhighlywithgradesinschool.ThewholeScholasticAptitudeTestingmovementrestsitscaselargelyonthissingleundeniablefact.Defendersofintelligencetesting,likeMcNemar(1964),oftenseemtobesuggestingthatthisistheonlykindofvaliditynecessary.McNemarremarkedthatthemanualoftheDifferentialAptitudeTestofthePsychologicalCorporationcontainsastaggeringtotalof4,096,yesIcounted'em,validitycoefficients.Whatmorecouldyouaskfor,ladiesandgentlemen?ItwasnotuntilIlookedatthemanualmyself(Mc-Nemarcertainlydidnotenlightenme)thatIconfirmedmysuspicionthatalmosteveryoneofthosevaliditycoefficientsinvolvedpredictinggradesincourses—inotherwords,performingonsimilartypesoftests.Sowhataboutgrades?Howvalidaretheyaspredictors?Researchershaveinfacthadgreatdifficultydemonstratingthatgradesinschoolarerelatedtoanyotherbehaviorsofimportance—otherthandoingwellonaptitudetests.Yetthegeneralpublic—includingmanypsychologistsandmostcollegeofficials—simplyhasbeenunabletobelieveoracceptthisfact.Itseemssoself-evidenttoeducatorsthatthosewhodowellintheirclassesmustgoontodobetterinlifethattheysystematicallyhavedisregardedevidencetothecontrarythathasbeenaccumulatingforsometime.Intheearly1950s,acommitteeoftheSocialScienceResearchCouncilofwhichIwaschairmanlookedintothematterandconcludedthatwhilegradelevelattainedseemedrelatedtofuturemeasuresofsuccessinlife,performancewithingradewasrelatedonlyslightly.Inotherwords,beingahighschoolorcollegegraduategaveoneacredentialthatopenedupcertainhigherleveljobs,butthepoorerstudentsinhighschoolorcollegedidaswellinlifeasthetopstudents.Asacollegeteacher,IfoundthishardtobelieveuntilImadeasimplecheck.Itookthetopeightstudentsinaclassinthelate1940satWesleyanUniversitywhereIwasteaching—allstraightAstudents—andcontrastedwhattheyweredoingintheearly1960swithwhateightreallypoorstudentsweredoing—allofwhomweregettingbarelypassingaveragesincollege(C—orbelow).Tomygreatsurprise,Icouldnotdistinguishthetwolistsofmen15-18yearslater.Therewerelawyers,doctors,researchscientists,andcollegeandhighschoolteachersinbothgroups.TheonlydifferenceInotedwasthatthosewithbettergradesgotintobetterlawormedicalschools,butevenwiththissupposedadvantagetheydidnothavenotablymoresuccessfulcareersascomparedwiththepoorerstudentswhohadhadtobesatisfiedwithsecond-ratelawandmedicalschoolsattheoutset.DoubtlesstheC—studentscouldnotgetintoevensecond-ratelawandmedicalschoolsunderthestricteradmissionstestingstandardsoftoday.Isthatanadvantageforsociety?Suchoutcomeshavebeendocume