Practice and Coaching on IQ Tests: Quite a Lot of g

Abstract

In the present research two studies are used to investigate the relation between g loading of tests and practice (test-retest) and coaching (active teaching) effects. The data on practice do not support the hypothesis that the higher a test's g loading, the less susceptible it is to preparation, but the data on coaching support the hypothesis. There is evidence that practice and coaching reduce the g-loadedness of a collection of tests. The implications of these results for predictive validity, practical usability of the tests, the relevance of traditional intelligence taxonomies, and for future research are discussed.

Score gains on g-loaded tests: No g

“…Therefore, the gains were largest on the least cognitively complex tests. In the second study, te Nijenhuis et al (2001) found a small correlation of − .08 for test practice, and large negative correlations of − .87 for both of their two test coaching conditions. Jensen carried out a factor analysis of the various GATB score gains and found two large factors that did not correlate with the g factor extracted from the GATB.…”

“…Components of the mediation training used by Skuy et al (2002) are similar to the test training used in te Nijenhuis et al (2001). Both the Dutch training and the South African training took 3 h, but whereas in the Dutch training the focus was on two different test formats, the South African training dealt only with one test format.…”

How to get really smart: Modeling retest and training effects in ability testing using computer-generated figural matrix items

“…There is considerable evidence that retest gains are not related to a real increase in the latent ability, suggesting the first explanation to be invalid, at least for the more complex cognitive task types investigated so far (Anastasi, 1981;Jensen, 1998;te Nijenhuis, van Vianen, & van der Flier, 2007;te Nijenhuis, Voskuijl, & Schijve, 2001). Instead, they are often attributed to other factors, such as test-wiseness and -familiarity, motivation, increased self-confidence, or reduced stress and anxiety (e.g., Matton, Vautier, & Raufaste, 2009).…”

Thirty years of research on race differences in cognitive ability.

“…Both experimental groups improved over the baseline compared with their respective control groups, with significantly greater improvement for the African group (IQ score gains of 83 to 97 in Africans; 103 to 107 in non-Africans). The question remains, however, whether such intervention procedures only increase performance through mastery of subject-specific knowledge or whether they increase g-like problem-solving ability that generalizes to other tests as well (te Nijenhuis, Voskuijl, & Schijve, 2001).Some argue that African students are less interested, more anxious, work less efficiently, or give up sooner on items they find difficult, perhaps because the problems have less meaning for them (e.g., Nell, 2000). Four findings argue against these hypotheses.…”