63. ** ^  ** Sternberg, R.J. & Grigorenko, E.L. (2002). Dynamic testing: The nature and measurement of learning potential. Cambridge: University of Cambridge
64. ** ^  ** Haywood & Lidz 2006  , p.  [ _ page needed   _ ]  .
65. ** ^  ** Feuerstein, R., Feuerstein, S., Falik, L & Rand, Y. (1979; 2002). Dynamic assessments of cognitive modifiability. ICELP Press, Jerusalem: Israel
66. ** ^  ** Dodge, Kenneth A. (2006). Foreword. _Dynamic Assessment in Practice: Clinical And Educational Applications_ . By Haywood, H. Carl; Lidz, Carol S. Cambridge University Press. pp. xiii–xv.
67. ** ^  ** Kozulin, A. (2014). "Dynamic assessment in search of its identity". In Yasnitsky, A.; van der Veer, R.; Ferrari, M. (eds.). _The Cambridge Handbook of Cultural-Historical Psychology_ . Cambridge University Press. pp. 126–147.
68. ** ^  ** Das, J.P.; Kirby, J.; Jarman, R.F. (1975). "Simultaneous and successive synthesis: An alternative model for cognitive abilities". _Psychological Bulletin_ . **82** : 87–103.  doi  "Doi \(identifier\)") :  10.1037/h0076163  .
69. ** ^  ** Das, J.P. (2000). "A better look at intelligence". _Current Directions in Psychological Science_ . **11** : 28–33.  doi  "Doi \(identifier\)") :  10.1111/1467-8721.00162  .  S2CID  "S2CID \(identifier\)")  146129242  .
70. ** ^  ** Naglieri, J.A.; Das, J.P. (2002). "Planning, attention, simultaneous, and successive cognitive processes as a model for assessment". _School Psychology Review_ . **19** (4): 423–442.  doi  "Doi \(identifier\)") :  10.1080/02796015.1990.12087349  .
71. ** ^  ** Urbina 2011  , Table 2.1 Major Examples of Current Intelligence Tests
72. ** ^  ** Flanagan & Harrison 2012  , chapters 8–13, 15–16 (discussing Wechsler, Stanford–Binet, Kaufman, Woodcock–Johnson, DAS, CAS, and RIAS tests)
73. ** ^  ** Stanek, Kevin C.; Ones, Deniz S. (2018),  "Taxonomies and Compendia of Cognitive Ability and Personality Constructs and Measures Relevant to Industrial, Work and Organizational Psychology"  , _The SAGE Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational Psychology: Personnel Psychology and Employee Performance_ , 1 Oliver's Yard, 55 City Road London EC1Y 1SP: SAGE Publications Ltd, pp. 366–407,  doi  "Doi \(identifier\)") :  10.4135/9781473914940.n14  ,  ISBN  "ISBN \(identifier\)")  978-1-4462-0721-5   , retrieved  8 January  2024  ` {{  citation  }} ` : CS1 maint: location (  link  )
74. ** ^  **  "Primary Mental Abilities Test | psychological test"  . _Encyclopædia Britannica_ . Retrieved  26 November  2015  .
75. ** ^  **  "Defining and Measuring Psychological Attributes"  . _homepages.rpi.edu_ . Archived from  the original  on 15 October 2018  . Retrieved  26 November  2015  .
76. ** ^  ** Bain, Sherry K.; Jaspers, Kathryn E. (1 April 2010). "Test Review: Review of Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test, Second Edition Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (2004). Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test, Second Edition. Bloomington, MN: Pearson, Inc". _Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment_ . **28** (2): 167–174.  doi  "Doi \(identifier\)") :  10.1177/0734282909348217  .  ISSN  "ISSN \(identifier\)")  0734-2829  .  S2CID  "S2CID \(identifier\)")  143961429  .
77. ** ^  ** Mussen, Paul Henry (1973).  _Psychology: An Introduction_  . Lexington, MA: Heath. p.  363  .  ISBN  "ISBN \(identifier\)")  978-0-669-61382-7   . " The I.Q. is essentially a rank; there are no true "units" of intellectual ability. "
78. ** ^  ** Truch, Steve (1993). _The WISC-III Companion: A Guide to Interpretation and Educational Intervention_ . Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. p. 35.  ISBN  "ISBN \(identifier\)")  978-0-89079-585-9   . " An IQ score is not an equal-interval score, as is evident in Table A.4 in the WISC-III manual. "
79. ** ^  **  Bartholomew, David J.  (2004).   _Measuring Intelligence: Facts and Fallacies_  . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p.  50  .  ISBN  "ISBN \(identifier\)")  978-0-521-54478-8   . " When we come to quantities like IQ or g, as we are presently able to measure them, we shall see later that we have an even lower level of measurement—an ordinal level. This means that the numbers we assign to individuals can only be used to rank them—the number tells us where the individual comes in the rank order and nothing else. "
80. ** ^  ** Mackintosh 1998  , pp.  30–31  "In the jargon of psychological measurement theory, IQ is an ordinal scale, where we are simply rank-ordering people. ... It is not even appropriate to claim that the 10-point difference between IQ scores of 110 and 100 is the same as the 10-point difference between IQs of 160 and 150"
81. ** ^  **  Stevens, S. S.  (1946). "On the Theory of Scales of Measurement". _ Science  "Science \(journal\)") _ . **103** (2684): 677–680.  Bibcode  "Bibcode \(identifier\)") :  1946Sci...103..677S  .  doi  "Doi \(identifier\)") :  10.1126/science.103.2684.677  .  PMID  "PMID \(identifier\)")  17750512  .  S2CID  "S2CID \(identifier\)")  4667599  .
82. ** ^  ** Kaufman 2009  , Figure 5.1 IQs earned by preadolescents (ages 12–13) who were given three different IQ tests in the early 2000s
83. ** ^  ** Kaufman 2013  , Figure 3.1 "Source:  Kaufman (2009)  . Adapted with permission."
84. ** ^  ** Mackintosh 2011  , p. 169 "after the age of 8–10, IQ scores remain relatively stable: the correlation between IQ scores from age 8 to 18 and IQ at age 40 is over 0.70."
85. ^  _**a** _ _**b** _ _**c** _ _**d** _ _**e** _ _**f** _ Weiten W (2016).  _Psychology: Themes and Variations_  .  Cengage Learning  . p. 281.  ISBN  "ISBN \(identifier\)")  978-1305856127   .
86. ** ^  **  "WISC-V Interpretive Report Sample"  (PDF)  . _Pearson_ . p. 18  . Retrieved  29 September  2020  .
87. ** ^  ** Kaufman, Alan S.; Raiford, Susan Engi; Coalson, Diane L. (2016). _Intelligent testing with the WISC-V_ . Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. pp. 683–702.  ISBN  "ISBN \(identifier\)")  978-1-118-58923-6   . " Reliability estimates in Table 4.1 and standard errors of measurement in Table 4.4 should be considered best-case estimates because they do not consider other major sources of error, such as transient error, administration error, or scoring error (Hanna, Bradley, & Holen, 1981), which influence test scores in clinical assessments. Another factor that must be considered is the extent to which subtest scores reflect portions of true score variance due to a hierarchical general intelligence factor and variance due to specific group factors because these sources of true score variance are conflated. "
88. ** ^  ** Whitaker, Simon (April 2010).  "Error in the estimation of intellectual ability in the low range using the WISC-IV and WAIS-III"  . _Personality and Individual Differences_ . **48** (5): 517–521.  doi  "Doi \(identifier\)") :  10.1016/j.paid.2009.11.017  . Retrieved  22 January  2020  .
89. ** ^  ** Lohman & Foley Nicpon 2012  , p.  [ _ page needed   _ ]  . "The concerns associated with SEMs [standard errors of measurement] are actually substantially worse for scores at the extremes of the distribution, especially when scores approach the maximum possible on a test ... when students answer most of the items correctly. In these cases, errors of measurement for scale scores will increase substantially at the extremes of the distribution. Commonly the SEM is from two to four times larger for very high scores than for scores near the mean (Lord, 1980)."
90. ** ^  ** Urbina 2011  , p. 20 "[Curve-fitting] is just one of the reasons to be suspicious of reported IQ scores much higher than 160"
91. ** ^  ** Gould 1981  , p. 24.  Gould 1996  , p.  56  .
92. ** ^  ** Kaplan, Jonathan Michael; Pigliucci, Massimo; Banta, Joshua Alexander (2015).  "Gould on Morton, Redux: What can the debate reveal about the limits of data?"  (PDF)  . _Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences_ . **30** : 1–10.