Current practice and future directions in the assessment of intelligence in schools around the world: Comment, with a focus on research methodology

The questions provided enough structure and enough leeway to make for a fascinating series of snapshots from each country. Like snapshots, they are written (taken) from the perspective of those writing the article (taking the picture). But like snapshots, they also provide a nice sense for outsiders of the use, challenges, and future of intelligence test use for children and youth from each locale. Here I will note some of the common topics that struck me as I read these articles. I will follow this brief listing with what seem to me to be some common research challenges for the development and use of intelligence tests, along with some thoughts on research methodology appropriate for addressing these questions. Neither the listing of questions nor the suggestions for methodology are comprehensive. As noted by Kranzler (this issue) in the introduction to the series, “The measurement of intelligence is viewed by many to be one of psychology’s greatest contributions to society” (Nisbett et al., 2012). I certainly agree with the sentiment, and it was nice to see the implicit agreement with the importance of intelligence and intelligence testing by most of the other authors. A few of the commentators noted a historic deemphasis in the importance of intelligence and intelligence tests in their country, but all writers seemed to agree on its importance in some form or another. Perhaps this is because the articles were written by experts in the field who would not be studying a topic they did not think was important, but it is still good to see this agreement. Intelligence is an important predictor of, and likely an important influence on, a host of outcomes. For this reason alone, it is important to measure intelligence (Gottfredson, 2002; Keith, 1994; Schneider & Newman, 2015). A common line of historical development of IQ tests runs through most of the articles. The progression is something like this. First, tests—such as the Binet or the Wechsler scales—are used without regard to changing the norms or content of the tests (referred to as imported tests in the discussion of researchmethodology below). Second, the imported tests may be revised to reflect the local culture and renormed in the country using them (adapted tests). This process is itself a continuum, with someminor changes versus complete redevelopment. I suspect some renorming is completed on local convenience samples versus others in which efforts are made to gather national, representative samples. My sense from reading the articles is that the more complex efforts are often undertaken by the test publisher. Pearson, the publisher of the Wechsler Scales, appears quite active in this regard. Third, through the efforts of professional organizations, governments, or an interested individual, country-specific measures are developed (new tests). Different countries are on different places in this possible continuum, or often at multiple places at once. The articles were a fascinating mix of factual information about the countries and the opinions of