IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/intell/v75y2019icp73-84.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Maximum effort may not be required for valid intelligence test score interpretations

Author

Listed:
  • Gignac, Gilles E.
  • Bartulovich, Asher
  • Salleo, Emilee

Abstract

Intelligence tests are assumed to require maximal effort on the part of the examinee. However, the degree to which undergraduate first-year psychology volunteers, a commonly used source of participants in low-stakes research, may be motivated to complete a battery of intelligence tests has not yet been tested. Furthermore, the assumption implies that the association between test-taking motivation and intelligence test performance is linear – an assumption untested, to date. Consequently, we administered a battery of five intelligence subtests to a sample of 219 undergraduate volunteers within the first 30 min of a low-stakes research setting. We also administered a reading comprehension test near the end of the testing session (55 min). Self-reported test-taking motivation was measured on three occasions: at the beginning (as a trait), immediately after the battery of five intelligence tests (state 1), and immediately after the reading comprehension test (state 2). Six percent of the sample was considered potentially insufficiently motivated to complete the intelligence testing, and 13% insufficiently motivated to complete the later administered reading comprehension test. Furthermore, test-taking motivation correlated positively with general intelligence test performance (r ≈ 0.20). However, the effect was non-linear such that the positive association resided entirely between the low to moderate levels of test-taking motivation. While simultaneously acknowledging the exploratory nature of this investigation, it was concluded that a moderate level of test-taking effort may be all that is necessary to produce intelligence test scores that are valid. However, in low-stakes research settings, cognitive ability testing that exceeds 25 to 30 min may be inadvisable, as test-taking motivational levels decrease to a degree that may be concerning for a non-negligible portion of the sample.

Suggested Citation

  • Gignac, Gilles E. & Bartulovich, Asher & Salleo, Emilee, 2019. "Maximum effort may not be required for valid intelligence test score interpretations," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 73-84.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:intell:v:75:y:2019:i:c:p:73-84
    DOI: 10.1016/j.intell.2019.04.007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289618302290
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lex Borghans & Huub Meijers & Bas Ter Weel, 2008. "The Role Of Noncognitive Skills In Explaining Cognitive Test Scores," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 46(1), pages 2-12, January.
    2. Ren, Xuezhu & Wang, Tengfei & Sun, Sumin & Deng, Mi & Schweizer, Karl, 2018. "Speeded testing in the assessment of intelligence gives rise to a speed factor," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 64-71.
    3. Bonner, Sarah E. & Sprinkle, Geoffrey B., 2002. "The effects of monetary incentives on effort and task performance: theories, evidence, and a framework for research," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 27(4-5), pages 303-345.
    4. Yitzhaki, Shlomo & Schechtman, Edna, 2012. "Identifying monotonic and non-monotonic relationships," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 116(1), pages 23-25.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Intelligence; Motivation; Validity; Testing;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:intell:v:75:y:2019:i:c:p:73-84. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Haili He). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/intelligence .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.