This article is a commentary on McGill et al.'s (2020) article "Use of Translated and Adapted Versions of the WISC-V: Caveat Emptor." McGill et al. use caveat emptor in their title to indicate that the buyer of an assessment must be careful about the product being purchased, presumably because the seller of the assessment is not being…

Weiss, Keith, Zhu, and Chen (2013a) and Weiss, Keith, Zhu, and Chen (2013b), this issue, report examinations of the factor structure of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV) and Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth Edition (WISC-IV), respectively; comparing Wechsler Hierarchical Model (W-HM) and…

This discussion article addresses issues related to expansion of the Wechsler model from four to five factors; multiple broad CHC abilities measured by the Arithmetic subtest; advantages and disadvantages of including complex tasks requiring integration of multiple broad abilities when measuring intelligence; limitations of factor analysis, which…

Reacts to previous arguments regarding verbal and performance constructs of Wechsler Scales. Contends that general factor model is more plausible representation of data for these scales. Suggests issue is moot when considered in regards to practical applications. Supports analysis of needed skills and instructional environments in educational…

Six points of view regarding the future of intelligence testing are considered, and a "prototypical" point of view is presented. The past history and present status of intelligence testing and research are considered. Their future is discussed in terms of assessment of various kinds of components of intelligence. (Author/RD)

Offers alternative analyses and interpretations of Macmann and Barnett's research data and results. Contends that intelligence is complex and that intelligence testing is important component of school psychological practice. Discusses relation and frequent inconsistency between research and practice. (CRR)

The author presents intelligence and learning as theoretically and empirically separate concepts. Examining Spearman's "g" factor and the evolution, phylogeny and psychometrics of intelligence, he concludes that "g" is of dominant importance in scholastic learning. He notes some implications for equal educational opportunity.…

Because they used an inappropriate statistical procedure, J. H. Kranzler and A. R. Jensen (1991) have not demonstrated that a factor of general intelligence ("g") depends on several independent factors. A factorial reanalysis of their data suggests that speed and efficiency of information processing are important in "g." (SLD)

The hypothetical idea of a perfectly pure psychometric "g" is empirically unattainable. Because the unity of "g" cannot be proved or disproved by factor analysis, the unitary "g" hypothesis represents a parsimonious assumption. J. B. Carroll's (1991) analysis demonstrates the relationship between psychometric and…

Critiques ideas expressed by Gould in "The Mismeasure of Man." Agrees with Gould that many scientists who studied human intelligence were racist, but disagrees that their work must therefore necessarily be dismissed. Disputes Gould's claim that factor analysts who study human intelligence have reified their factors and that factor…

Responds to "The Bell Curve" by arguing that IQ is merely a statistical fiction, an artificial construct not corresponding to any real entity. Discusses the "seductive statistical trap of factor analysis" as it relates to IQ tests, multiple intelligences, content and bias of IQ tests, lack of validity of IQ tests for individual…

Relationships among Piagetian reasoning assessments and standard measures of intelligence and achievement were determined in 1972 by Stephens, McLaughlin, Miller, and Glass (EJ 055 112). The data were reanalyzed by Humphreys and Parsons in 1979 (EJ 218 642). In reply, Glass and Stephens note fallacies in Humphreys' and Parsons' reasoning.…

Stephens et al. (EJ 055 112) committed a serious methodological error in holding chronological age constant in their IQ measures and allowing it to vary in their Piagetian developmental measures. This error is unrelated to differences in factor rotation methods used by these authors and was not answered in their reply. (CTM)

These authors cite their own study of the relationship between traditional measures of intelligence and Piagetian measures of cognitive development in support of Glass and Stephens' contention that there are important qualitative differences. They question Humphreys' and Parsons' conclusions on both substantive and factor theoretical grounds. (CTM)