Competence in Intelligence Testing : A Training Model for Postgraduate Psychology Students

The assessment of intellectual ability is a core competency in psychology. The results of intelligence tests have many potential implications and are used frequently as the basis for decisions about educational placements, eligibility for various services, and admission to specific groups. Given the importance of intelligence test scores, accurate test administration and scoring are essential; yet there is evidence of unacceptably high rates of examiner error. This paper discusses competency and postgraduate training in intelligence testing and presents a training model for postgraduate psychology students. The model aims to achieve high levels of competency in intelligence testing through a structured method of training, practice and feedback that incorporates peer support, self-reflection and multiple methods for evaluating competency.

Assessing intellectual functioning in young adolescents : how do the WISC-IV and SB5 compare?

The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children – Fourth Edition (WISC-IV) and the Stanford-Binet – Fifth Edition (SB5) are two of the most commonly used intelligence tests for children and adolescents. No comparative studies of the WISC-IV and SB5 have yet been published. In the current study the WISC-IV and SB5 were administered in counterbalanced order to 30 typically-developing 12- to 14-year-old adolescents. There was a significant difference between Full Scale IQs on the two measures, with scores being higher on the WISC-IV. A significant difference was also found between Verbal IQs and there were large score differences for some participants. The paper concludes that the WISC-IV and SB5 cannot be presumed to be interchangeable measures of intelligence.

Psycho-educational assessment of specific learning disabilities: Views and practices of Australian psychologists and guidance counsellors

This paper reports an investigation of the views and practices of 203 Australian psychologists and guidance counsellors with respect to psycho-educational assessment of students with Specific Learning Disabilities (SLDs). Results from an online survey indicated that practitioners draw upon a wide-range of theoretical perspectives when conceptualising and identifying SLDs, including both response to intervention and IQ – achievement discrepancy models. Intelligence tests (particularly the Wechsler scales) are commonly employed, with the main stated reasons for their use being ‘traditional’ perspectives (including IQ-achievement discrepancy-based definitions of SLDs), to exclude a diagnosis of intellectual disability, and to guide further assessment and intervention. In contrast participants reported using measures of academic achievement and tests of specific cognitive deficits known to predict SLDs (e.g., phonological awareness) relatively infrequently.

The role of emotional intelligence in moral judgement

In this study we investigated the potential role of emotional intelligence (EI) in moral reasoning (MR). A sample of 131 undergraduate students completed a battery of psychological tests, which included measures of EI, MR and the Big Five dimensions of personality. Results revealed support for a proposed model of the relationship between emotional intelligence, personality and moral reasoning. Specifically, emotional intelligence was found to be a significant predictor of four of the Big Five personality dimensions (extraversion, openness, neuroticism, agreeableness), which in turn were significant predictors of moral reasoning. These results have important implications in regards to our current understanding of the relationships between EI, moral reasoning and personality. We emphasise the need to incorporate the constructs of EI and moral reasoning into a broader, explanatory personality framework.

An examination of the relationship between emotional intelligence, leadership style and perceived leadership outcomes in Australian educational institutions

In the field of leadership studies transformational leadership theory (e.g., Bass, 1985; Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1995) has received much attention from researchers in recent years (Hughes, Ginnet, & Curphy, 2009; Hunt, 1999). Many previous studies have found that transformational leadership is related to positive outcomes such as the satisfaction, motivation and performance of followers in organisations (Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996), including in educational institutions (Chin, 2007; Leithwoood & Jantzi, 2005). Hence, it is important to explore constructs that may predict leadership style in order to identify potential transformational leaders in leadership assessment and selection procedures. Several researchers have proposed that emotional intelligence (EI) is one construct that may account for hitherto unexplained variance in transformational leadership (Mayer, 2001; Watkin, 2000). Different models of EI exist (e.g., Goleman, 1995, 2001; Bar-On, 1997; Mayer & Salovey, 1997) but momentum is growing for the Mayer and Salovey (1997) model to be considered the most useful (Ashkanasy & Daus, 2005; Daus & Ashkanasy, 2005). Studies in non-educational settings claim to have found that EI is a useful predictor of leadership style and leader effectiveness (Harms & Crede, 2010; Mills, 2009) but there is a paucity of studies which have examined the Mayer and Salovey (1997) model of EI in educational settings. Furthermore, other predictor variables have rarely been controlled in previous studies and only self-ratings of leadership behaviours, rather than multiple ratings, have usually been obtained. Therefore, more research is required in educational settings to answer the question: to what extent is the Mayer and Salovey (1997) model of EI a useful predictor of leadership style and leadership outcomes? This project, set in Australian educational institutions, was designed to move research in the field forward by: using valid and reliable instruments, controlling for other predictors, obtaining an adequately sized sample of real leaders as participants and obtaining multiple ratings of leadership behaviours. Other variables commonly used to predict leadership behaviours (personality factors and general mental ability) were assessed and controlled in the project. Additionally, integrity was included as another potential predictor of leadership behaviours as it has previously been found to be related to transformational leadership (Parry & Proctor-Thomson, 2002). Multiple ratings of leadership behaviours were obtained from each leader and their supervisors, peers and followers. The following valid and reliable psychological tests were used to operationalise the variables of interest: leadership styles and perceived leadership outcomes (Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Avolio et al., 1995), EI (Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test, Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2002), personality factors (The Big Five Inventory, John, Donahue, & Kentle, 1991), general mental ability (Wonderlic Personnel Test-Quicktest, Wonderlic, 2003) and integrity (Integrity Express, Vangent, 2002). A Pilot Study (N = 25 leaders and 75 raters) made a preliminary examination of the relationship between the variables included in the project. Total EI, the experiential area, and the managing emotions and perceiving emotions branches of EI, were found to be related to transformational leadership which indicated that further research was warranted. In the Main Study, 144 leaders and 432 raters were recruited as participants to assess the discriminant validity of the instruments and examine the usefulness of EI as a predictor of leadership style and perceived leadership outcomes. Scores for each leadership scale across the four rating levels (leaders, supervisors, peers and followers) were aggregated with the exception of the management-by-exception active scale of transactional leadership which had an inadequate level of interrater agreement. In the descriptive and measurement component of the Main Study, the instruments were found to demonstrate adequate discriminant validity. The impact of role and gender on leadership style and EI were also examined, and females were found to be more transformational as leaders than males. Females also engaged in more contingent reward (transactional leadership) behaviours than males, whilst males engaged in more passive/avoidant leadership behaviours than females. In the inferential component of the Main Study, multiple regression procedures were used to examine the usefulness of EI as a predictor of leadership style and perceived leadership outcomes. None of the EI branches were found to be related to transformational leadership or the perceived leadership outcomes variables included in the study. Openness, emotional stability (the inverse of neuroticism) and general mental ability (inversely) each predicted a small amount of variance in transformational leadership. Passive/avoidant leadership was inversely predicted by the understanding emotions branch of EI. Overall, EI was not found to be a useful predictor of leadership style and leadership outcomes in the Main Study of this project. Implications for researchers and human resource practitioners are discussed.

Can different measures of intelligence be used interchangeably? A comparison of the Wechsler and Stanford-Binet scales

The Wechsler and Stanford Binet scales are among the most commonly used tests of intelligence. In clinical practice, they often seem to be used interchangeably. This paper reports the results of two studies that compared the most recent editions of two Wechsler scales (WPPSI-III and WISC-IV) with the Stanford-Binet Fifth Edition (SB5). The participants in the first study were 36 typically developing 4-year-old children who completed the WPPSI-III and SB5 in counter-balanced order. Although correlations of composite scores ranged from r = .59 to r = .82 and were similar to those reported for earlier versions of the two instruments, more than half the sample had a score discrepancy greater than 10 points across the two instruments. In the second study, the WISC-IV and SB5 were administered to 30 children aged 12-14 years. There was a significant difference between Full Scale IQs on the two measures, with scores being higher on the WISC-IV. Differences between the two verbal scales were also significant and favoured the WISC-IV. There were moderate correlations of Full Scale IQs (r = .58) and Nonverbal IQs (r = .54) but the relationship between the two Verbal scales was not significant. For some children, notable score differences led to different categorisations of their level of intellectual ability The findings suggest that the Wechsler and Stanford Binet scales cannot be presumed to be interchangeable. The discussion focuses on how psychologists might reconcile large differences in test scores and the need for caution when interpreting and comparing test results.

A framework for analyzing system intelligence of the building control system : a study of the integrated building management system

The lack of satisfactory consensus for characterizing the system intelligence and structured analytical decision models has inhibited the developers and practitioners to understand and configure optimum intelligent building systems in a fully informed manner. So far, little research has been conducted in this aspect. This research is designed to identify the key intelligent indicators, and develop analytical models for computing the system intelligence score of smart building system in the intelligent building. The integrated building management system (IBMS) was used as an illustrative example to present a framework. The models presented in this study applied the system intelligence theory, and the conceptual analytical framework. A total of 16 key intelligent indicators were first identified from a general survey. Then, two multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) approaches, the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and analytic network process (ANP), were employed to develop the system intelligence analytical models. Top intelligence indicators of IBMS include: self-diagnostic of operation deviations; adaptive limiting control algorithm; and, year-round time schedule performance. The developed conceptual framework was then transformed to the practical model. The effectiveness of the practical model was evaluated by means of expert validation. The main contribution of this research is to promote understanding of the intelligent indicators, and to set the foundation for a systemic framework that provide developers and building stakeholders a consolidated inclusive tool for the system intelligence evaluation of the proposed components design configurations.