wavefreak58 wrote:
The more I learn about autism the more suspicious I become of the applicability of standard IQ tests.
I remember being tested about 30 years ago and during the test I had to give similarities between things. So dog and cat? Both have fur. Cars and boats? Both move people. One question was water and air. My brain locked up and I swear I couldn't think of anything. Actually, what came to mind was instant but I couldn't verbalize it. After probably 30 seconds of ums and confusion, I finally blurted out "they both obey the same equations of fluid dynamics". I think I even started to explain that air was compressible so it wasn't exactly then same. The psychologist was visibly taken aback. I flipped him out a few times during the test. But autism was not a diagnosis applied to adults back then. I'll bet he was scratching his head over me.
The point is, that the entire test was probing a part of me (standard behaviors) that wasn't relevant to where my thoughts reside. It's like that one question managed to penetrate to another layer.
I've read so many posts here that corroborate these types of experiences. IQ tests are only a snap shot of a particular set of abilities relative to the population at large. They are useful predictors of some things, but utterly useless at others.
Autism is a neurological variant. It is illogical to expect a test designed for "normal" neurology would be fully valid on a variant.
I've never taken an IQ test and wasn't allowed to observe my daughter's IQ test (which she did at 7.) Her score was so low that her neurologist was taken aback and wanted to do a little "off the cuff" testing in her office. It wouldn't be anything that could go on her medical record. She was just curious and wanted to know because it would help her help my daughter better if she had more of a clue, even if an unofficial clue. So she brought out some test materials appropriate for a 7 year old. The materials consisted of panel pictures where you would try to match a picture to a statement or answer a question about a picture. My daughter's answers revealed a profound lack of information about social culture outside her own family- something the test assumed any "smart" kid would know. And also a profound ability to create plausible scenarios for the pictures using only her own family and an isolated sped classroom as reference.
It became clear that the testers were making unfounded assumptions about what "all" children know if they have a certain degree of intelligence. They were assuming that a child her age would be deeply immersed in school culture and neighborhood culture and would have a working knowledge of how people predictably interacted. She "failed" a number of the "what is the mom in the picture doing" and "what are these kids doing" questions because her dearth of playdates and large group kid interactions meant that the only mom she was familiar with was me and the only kids she was familiar with were the other kids in her sped class, none of whom regularly did the activities in the pictures. I realized with some outrage that she was being tested on her social knowledge- of which she had little- and the assumption was that if she didn't know that stuff, she didn't know
anything. IQ tests make inference assumptions. They assume that if you know this, you must also know that. And if you don't know this, you also don't know that.
She took an IQ test designed for kids who are 7 and verbal but not literate. So there were no written questions. It was clearly meant to separate dyslexia from mental retardation. I'm sure it does a fine job of that. But it didn't help her any.
It did, however, help the neurologist. She concluded that my daughter would thrive best in an educational enviroment that was highly individualized to her narrow focus. And that if I wanted her to know
anything about the social world I would have to teach it explicitly, and she needed a school that would also help with that. Within about a year of that, we were able to change schools.
So her low score is in part a function of the test she took. It was meant for verbal yet illiterate schoolchildren. It's certainly different than the test taken by many here. And also different from the test (Raven's) that non-verbal people do best on. When your IQ score is a function of the test you take, the problem is the test.
For one of the querstions she got "wrong" in the picture panel the neurologist showed her, I didn't know whether to laugh or cry or be depressed. From among an array of people, she was supposed to "pick the picture of the mom". She passed over the pictures of men and children, of course. She also passed over the picture of the sprightly 28 year old who was "the mom" and chose the woman who might be 50 as "the mom". The neurologist chuckled and said that it was not the "correct" answer given in the answer key but she could see why she chose it and the answer was right for her. It made me want to punch an IQ test designer for assuming that the moms of 7 year olds are (or look) 28(ish) and also that I should change my hairstyle because it looked too "grandma". (I didn't change my hairstyle- my daughter needs that to be consistent, even if it looks apparently matronly). But honestly? What does any of that have to do with IQ? It's like those questions from the 20's that scored black children low because they didn't recognize a tea set.
Last edited by Janissy on 29 Jun 2011, 11:02 am, edited 2 times in total.
29 Jun 2011, 10:28 am
