IQ Scores Fail to Predict Academic Performance in Children W

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 141514.htm

I find this study extremely interesting. Before anyone starts to spout anti-IQ rhetoric - let me say that I realize that the predictive effects of IQ (which are extensively documented in research journals) are only as good as they are simply because most people aren't that psychologically different from each other (owing both to genetic factors and socialization), which will natural reduce the variance in performance due to other factors (and increase the associated variance in performance attributed to IQ). In fact, one of the major findings in the IQ literature is that in the general population, the primary sources of intelligence are highly correlated with each other. Verbal intelligence is correlated with mathematical intelligence, and both of those are are even highly correlated with reaction times. But among people who are autistic, this finding may be less accurate than it is among neurotypicals. Some of us Aspies are exceptionally talented at certain things while simultaneously being incredibly incompetent at other things.

Of course, findings only apply to the population at large and may not apply to specific subsets of people. Most research shows that people who sleep more get higher grades - but this is definitely not true for certain subgroups of people - there are plenty of intelligent people at MIT/Caltech who sleep far less than the average student in a state school. The same logic applies to skipping classes and lower grades (Caltech's classes have notoriously high absence rates since the students there are independent studiers). Similarly, IQ tests (and other assessments normalized to the general population) may not necessarily predict performance among certain subgroups of people, especially those who are non-neurotypical. This logic could apply to GPAs and SAT scores too (I know a mathematical genius with asperger's at UChicago, who only got 600s on his SATs for example). And I also suspect that it may apply to subgroups of people with Attention Deficit Disorder. There's s a good chance that other factors may interfere with IQ, which may increase variance in performance due to other environmental factors (and decrease variance in performance due to autism).And simply increasing the variation in environment will naturally reduce the variation in IQ due to comparatively immalleable factors (early childhood influence is just as immalleable as genetics once you start measuring IQs of older children and teenagers, for example).

I'm still pretty sure that IQ tests will measure *something* in Aspies (as the article says, it's that Aspies tend to have uneven performance that tends to make them stick out). Scores on the individual scales will still say something about the Aspie's range of strengths and weaknesses.


Anyways, I think this topic would be very interesting to this group, since it has a high population of non-neurotypical thinkers. In particular, I'd like to encourage the discussion of other metrics that may predict performance among neurotypicals, but not necessarily among non-neurotypicals.

The sample size was pretty sparse, 30 subjects isn't many at all. The population could easily have statistical errors at that size, but still it's interesting that IQ doesn't have the expected predictive association with academic sucess. I was always considered an "under-acheiver" in school.

I concur with that. My IQ is always above average or better, but I usually underperformed in school.

My IQ score isn't above average and I did pretty well in school in earlier ages when there were little demands in other skills.

Old news.

Average IQ, horrible in school. But after I left school the things I learnt in school and hated I started to get interested in. Now everyone around me seems to be just like the kid I was in school.

I believe that IQ is more strongly correlated with overall success in life. I've certainly seen it in my family. I have a relative who probably has a high IQ, he certainly seems smart. But he was bored with school, got poor grades, and never finished high school. He preferred to play with motorcycles than read Shakespear. Now he owns his own successful motorcycle shop and is starting a family in his custom built dream home. People like this contribute to the generalization cited in this thread.

I think the problem with IQ and academic success is that school can be very boring to smart kids, especially in government schools (at least the American ones) where they continually lower the bar to give the illusion of closing various achievement gaps.

It's also extremely important to not apply statistical generalizations to make conclusions about individuals, including yourself as an individual.

Apparently, my IQ is low, yet I three to four levels above what I'm supposed to read (unless I'm sick; I can't concentrate when I'm sick), and I score high on MSA's...yup, IQ may show something about Aspies, but they don't really predict anything for a comorbid Aspie/ADD patient. (Maybe it was because of the evils of the block puzzles...oh, I despise them.)

IQ tests bug me. They are designed to partition populations based on the assumption that perception, processing and integration of information is relatively uniform across the population. But applying these tests to a population with fundamental neurological differences only tells you how they perform compared to the 'normal' population. A good analogy is the difference between an Intel processor (Windows) and a Motorola processor (older Apples). A set of benchmarks for the Windows machine might give you poor numbers when run on a Mac, but that's because they are different on an architectural level and need different tests.

Another analogy is bisecting a cube with a plane. The results of an IQ test leave a pattern on the plane. Neurotypicals cognitive activity happens largely in the space near that plane and as such much of it is captured in the bisection, leaving a clear pattern. An autistic's cognitive activity happens in regions of the cube further from the bisection and hence leaves little or no patterns on the plane. But it is incorrect to assume that because nothing shows up on the plane, that there is no cognitive activity.

Why should they predict academic performance to any great degree? Autistics have scattered skills. We know this. The skills necessary to take an IQ test are different enough from those required to write an essay or learn spelling words that there really shouldn't be that much difference beyond a very, very general trend.

They don't even predict academic performance that well in NTs.