Does Cognitive testing and training work?

[CFLarsen]

Gladly though it's readily searchable and is likely even in intro to psych texts now.

Before I bother, what types of evidence would make you stop asking two word questions?

Just present your evidence.

From the handbook of aging and cognition, edited by FIM Craik and Tim Salthouse-- Craik is likely one of the top 100 psychologists of the century (a paper he had in the 70s was cited as the most influential paper in psych for that decade); Salthouse was the editor of psych and aging and is very famous in the field for his work on general slowing and age. I've met both of them, though they wouldn't know me from adam.

They don't do psychometric IQ research per se; they are cognitive psychologists. Their handbook is an authoritative summary of the state of the art in cognitive aging.

That's nice, but why then is that evidence of IQ scores change t/o the lifespan, but rank is stable?

 

[fuelair]

My son has been struggling in school. We thought he might have ADD since his older stepbrother does have ADD. The testing showed he was not an ADD candidate.

The Doctor recommended we get additional testing here

http://www.learningrx.com/default.htm

which we did and the results were detailed and interesting showing both good and bad areas.

My question to those knowledgeable about education, is this valid? Or is this just woo land?

I'm skeptical because logically wouldn't it make sense to give a Cognitive test to each kid at the beginning of the school year and then put the visual learning kids with a visual teacher and auditory learning kids with an auditory teacher and so on?

Also is there any reason not to put your kid in a 504 program at school?

Re: visual/auditory/ etc. yes, it would make sense to place students who learn best in a particular way and teachers who teach best in that way together. When school systems bother to mention this the phrases "not justified, not economically feasable, numbers do not justify" and similar tend to come up. Some of us have been advocating that for a number of years for at least two ways of arranging students for the greatest chance of learning well.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Some of these might be useful:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_styles#Evidence_or_lack_of_evidence.3F

http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,5500,1495588,00.html

http://education.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4915499-48826,00.html

And:

There is substantial evidence for the existence of modality-specific strengths and weaknesses (for example in visual, auditory or kinaesthetic processing) in people with various types of learning difficulty (Rourke et al. 2002). However, it has not been established that matching instruction to individual sensory or perceptual strengths and weaknesses is more effective than designing instruction to include, for all learners, content-appropriate forms of presentation and response, which may or may not be multi-sensory. Indeed, Constantinidou and Baker (2002) found that pictorial presentation was advantageous for all adults tested in a simple item-recall task, irrespective of a high or low learning-style preference for imagery, and was especially advantageous for those with a strong preference for verbal processing.​

https://www.lsneducation.org.uk/user/order.aspx?code=041543&src=xoweb​

​

​

​

 

[bpesta22]

JC-- no, I am not familiar with it. So, if the OP perceives my posts as an unwanted thread derail, let me know / my apologies, I will desist!

Claus: From the Neisser article that gets cited lots here (i.e., the APA task force article):

Stability. Intelligence test scores are fairly stable during development. When Jones and Bayley (1941) tested a sample of children annually throughout childhood and adolescence, for example, scores obtained at age 18 were correlated r=.77 with scores that had been obtained at age 6, r=.89 with scores from age 12. When scores were averaged across several successive tests to remove short-term fluctuations, the correlations were even higher. The mean for ages 17 and 18 was correlated r=.86 with the mean for ages 5, 6 and 7, r=.96 with the mean for ages 11, 12 and 13. (For comparable findings in a more recent study, see Moffitt, Caspi, Harkness, & Silva, 1993.) Nevertheless, IQ scores do change over time. In the same study (Jones & Bayley, 1941), the average change between age 12 and age 17 was 7.1 IQ points; some individuals changed as much as 18 points...

It is important to understand what remains stable and what changes in the development of intelligence. A child whose IQ score remains the same from age 6 to age 18 does not exhibit the same performance throughout that period. On the contrary, steady gains in general knowledge vocabulary, reasoning ability, etc. will be apparent. What does not change is his or her score in comparison to that of other individuals of the same age.

 

[CFLarsen]

JC-- no, I am not familiar with it. So, if the OP perceives my posts as an unwanted thread derail, let me know / my apologies, I will desist!

Claus: From the Neisser article that gets cited lots here (i.e., the APA task force article):

Stability. Intelligence test scores are fairly stable during development. When Jones and Bayley (1941) tested a sample of children annually throughout childhood and adolescence, for example, scores obtained at age 18 were correlated r=.77 with scores that had been obtained at age 6, r=.89 with scores from age 12. When scores were averaged across several successive tests to remove short-term fluctuations, the correlations were even higher. The mean for ages 17 and 18 was correlated r=.86 with the mean for ages 5, 6 and 7, r=.96 with the mean for ages 11, 12 and 13. (For comparable findings in a more recent study, see Moffitt, Caspi, Harkness, & Silva, 1993.) Nevertheless, IQ scores do change over time. In the same study (Jones & Bayley, 1941), the average change between age 12 and age 17 was 7.1 IQ points; some individuals changed as much as 18 points...

It is important to understand what remains stable and what changes in the development of intelligence. A child whose IQ score remains the same from age 6 to age 18 does not exhibit the same performance throughout that period. On the contrary, steady gains in general knowledge vocabulary, reasoning ability, etc. will be apparent. What does not change is his or her score in comparison to that of other individuals of the same age.

"IQ scores do change over time."

How can rank be stable if IQ scores change over time? That would mean that IQ scores change the same way for everyone: Either everyone gets smarter, or everyone gets dumber.

Which kinda takes the wind out of the whole IQ idea.

 

[bpesta22]

"IQ scores do change over time."

How can rank be stable if IQ scores change over time? That would mean that IQ scores change the same way for everyone: Either everyone gets smarter, or everyone gets dumber.

Which kinda takes the wind out of the whole IQ idea.

Think of athletic ability as an analogy.

Suppose we followed 100 boys in the same small town from birth to old age.

We tested them many times-- in grade school; high school; 20's, 40's, 60's etc.

Pick whichever battery of tests you think best represent athletic ability.

Within person, scores would certainly change-- little johnie ran the 40 in 8 seconds as a 10 year old; 5 seconds in high school and 5 minutes when he was 85.

Scores change throughout the lifespan.

Little bobbie ran the 40 in 12 seconds as a 10 year old; 9 seconds in high school and 6 minutes when he was 85.

Although the scores changed across the lifespan, little bobbie's athletic rank relative to little johnie did not.

Back to IQ, it's not the case (or it's very rare) that the highest scoring SAT kid bombs the GRE 4 years later; or that the 2nd grade smartie becomes below average in highschool; or the guy at the 45% in 8th grade graduates high school at the head of his class.

We can search for counter examples, and you would likely find them. But, they do nothing to falsify the correlation at the group level.

 

[dann]

Think of athletic ability as an analogy.

If you remember, Claus, we already did, and as you can see the whole point of this idea is that if the understimulated, (educationally) neglected child from a poor background does not usually become a doctor of medicine, for instance, that is proof positive that nature never meant it to be!
And it goes (almost) without saying that "counter examples (...) do nothing to falsify the correlation at the group level".

 

[bpesta22]

If you remember, Claus, we already did, and as you can see the whole point of this idea is that if the understimulated, (educationally) neglected child from a poor background does not usually become a doctor of medicine, for instance, that is proof positive that nature never meant it to be!
And it goes (almost) without saying that "counter examples (...) do nothing to falsify the correlation at the group level".

that's purely a statistical argument-- it has nothing to do with IQ research per se.

Unless the correlation is perfect, there will be residuals (errors in prediction-- counterexamples as I've called them).

That's just the math of it. The fact that you can find an error in one's prediction of y given x in no way invalidates the population correlation between y and x.

I'm not talking about the kid locked in the closet for 4 years either; nor have I ever claimed IQ was the only thing that mattered. I have said though that if you needed to pick one thing that explains the biggest piece of any important pie, it'd be iq.

 

[CFLarsen]

Think of athletic ability as an analogy.

Suppose we followed 100 boys in the same small town from birth to old age.

We tested them many times-- in grade school; high school; 20's, 40's, 60's etc.

Pick whichever battery of tests you think best represent athletic ability.

Within person, scores would certainly change-- little johnie ran the 40 in 8 seconds as a 10 year old; 5 seconds in high school and 5 minutes when he was 85.

Scores change throughout the lifespan.

Little bobbie ran the 40 in 12 seconds as a 10 year old; 9 seconds in high school and 6 minutes when he was 85.

Although the scores changed across the lifespan, little bobbie's athletic rank relative to little johnie did not.

Back to IQ, it's not the case (or it's very rare) that the highest scoring SAT kid bombs the GRE 4 years later; or that the 2nd grade smartie becomes below average in highschool; or the guy at the 45% in 8th grade graduates high school at the head of his class.

Look, you want it both ways. Either rank is constant, or IQ changes.

If rank doesn't change, then you can teach people to have a higher IQ - provided you teach everyone to raise their IQ.

But that goes against the whole idea of IQ: That it isn't possible to teach everyone to a higher IQ. Apart from the white crows, whose number is unknown...

So, which is it? Is rank constant, or does IQ change?

If you remember, Claus, we already did, and as you can see the whole point of this idea is that if the understimulated, (educationally) neglected child from a poor background does not usually become a doctor of medicine, for instance, that is proof positive that nature never meant it to be!
And it goes (almost) without saying that "counter examples (...) do nothing to falsify the correlation at the group level".

That's the whole problem with IQ testing:

If IQ is constant over the years, there is no reason to educate the dumb. They won't benefit anyway, and neither will society. Into the Delta and Epsilon groups with those.

If IQ can change - maybe even dramatically - over the years, it is unfair to delegate a child to a certain type of education (auto shop instead of chemistry class), just because at some point he got a lesser score.

Could you test people over the years to see how they do? Sure, but it wouldn't change anything. At some point - e.g. when determining what line of education a person should be in - we have to decide. We can't throw Joe, who has been in autoshop for 3 years, in a college chemistry class, just because he this time juuuust makes it above the line.

 

[Fiona]

Even if IQ were generally as you suppose, Bpesta22 ( and I do not accept that, let me make it clear) then what? You have said that you do believe that some few are wrongly categorised because of life circumstances or whatever, I think. So what is the point of it? Labelling people at an early age is rather self-fulfilling for reasons both of self-esteem/self perception, and also because of overt decisions about education and opportunity which follow from it. If even a few are wrongly labelled this is surely a bad thing. What benefits do you see that outweigh the negatives?

 

[Daylight]

Re: visual/auditory/ etc. yes, it would make sense to place students who learn best in a particular way and teachers who teach best in that way together. When school systems bother to mention this the phrases "not justified, not economically feasable, numbers do not justify" and similar tend to come up. Some of us have been advocating that for a number of years for at least two ways of arranging students for the greatest chance of learning well.

Actually 504 makes it justified and economically feasable.

In your opinion do you feel the LearningRX tests are valid?

FYI everyone, we have an appointment with the LearningRX psychologist Monday March 24 to discuss the test results. You all have given me some good questions to ask. I'll report back.

 

[fuelair]

Actually 504 makes it justified and economically feasable.

In your opinion do you feel the LearningRX tests are valid?

FYI everyone, we have an appointment with the LearningRX psychologist Monday March 24 to discuss the test results. You all have given me some good questions to ask. I'll report back.

I am leery of almost anything ADD and related that I can't find reputable work with no private group funding on. This is because I have been teaching and having some students with the various difficulties in my classes and have found - with only minor abberation that most were in one of two groups: Those who actually had a learning disability we could work with and those who may or may not have had one but refused to do enough work in class that any determination could be made (The highest and lowest grades in my IS class one year were made by students with learning disabilities. Young lady with severe reading problems made 112 (of 100) average for the year, young gentleman (skateboard competitor in outside world) made 48 average for the year (turned in almost nothing, but 59 was lowest grade we could give if something was turned in.) Both were in programs and neither was given special treatment (by me) outside of their specific learning plan requirements. The boy's real problem (besides no interest in school) was a "mothering" style ESE teacher (who actually helped kids she worked with cheat on tests (and I am not talking extra time - which I have no problem with) by just flat giving them the answers (which led to my frequently giving her an answer key with wrong answers on it - since she helpfully graded the tests taken with he for us)).
A good ESE teacher is a wonderful thing - do your best to get one at the school (the ones who "mother" instead of teach/work with/push you do not want for your son if you want him to learn - they are fine if you want him to be just given good grades - which will cause him to do very poorly in high school.)

I am sorry but I do not have any information on the quality/appropriateness of the test you mention.

 

[fuelair]

Suggested to check:

http://lizditz.typepad.com/i_speak_of_dreams/2006/04/more_quack_trea.html

http://www.ldonline.org/xarbb/topic/14566 (page looks empty when it pops up- you have to scroll down to get to the discussion of PACE/Learning RX.)

 

[Professor Yaffle]

From a bit of reading around, I personally would be wary - especially if it is going to mean a significant financial investment from you. There doesn't seem to be any research showing improvements compared to control groups. The set up (if not the content of the programme) reminds me very much of the DORE programme: Improvements on their own tests that don't always seem to translate to improvements in the real world. Money back guarantees that are extremely difficult to qualify for. No decent research demontrating efficacy.

I'm not saying it doesn't work, but this rings alarm bells for me.

ETA: Have asked about this elsewhere, as it is the sort of thing someone I know on a different forum might have some info about.

 

[Jeff Corey]

I have to agree with Prof. Y. A lot of those old speed reading courses showed improvement on their own tests because they gave the comprehension tests so many times that students eventually could pass a test without reading the material.
Also, if I were you, I'd look up this psychologists to see if s/he is certified in your state. I know that you can do it of the state website in NY.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

This is the reply I got from the person I asked. Unfortunately she hadn't heard of this specific programme (I don't think it has made it across the pond), but here's what she thought just from having a look at their website.

There doesn't seem to be that much info available on what the actual programmes are, & I've not heard of this before.

The 'ReadRx' bit looks to be basically synthetic phonics, which is good though nothing new.

The rest of it, like training memory, attention etc - is theoretically plausible, but somewhat on the far end of current research. I'm most familiar with working-memory training, where there are a few (usually computer-based) programmes which have some evidence supporting them, and which can produce some transference to other skills (declaration of interest - one of my lecturers has been involved in producing one such programme, & I've been a guinea-pig for a few of the studies). Can bung you some papers if helpful.

Explicitly teaching basic cognitive skills is quite possibly worth a try, for children who are struggling despite good teaching & no other obvious problems. There's some evidence base for what they are doing, though it's more at the theoretical level as yet & I'd not be too comfortable with claiming that it's 'proved' to work.

The biggest thing I'd want to check is if they are doing any sort of assessment on people before they start their programmes, to see if they actually have difficulty with the skills being trained, and to check for other causes like hearing impairment. Since it seems to be delivered by tutors, I'd also be wondering about how they are trained.

If it's not too expensive it might be worth a try, but I'd not put too much faith in their claims for dramatic cures. The anti-medication for ADHD stuff is also a bit worrying, though ADHD seems to be diagnosed much more (overdiagnosed?) in the US.

Overall non-nuts, but in some places probably getting rather ahead of what the research justifies, and making rather too extravagant claims.

Note if you're going to post / refer to this anywhere else - I am not studying for a qualification allowing me to practice as an Educational Psychologist, or otherwise treat or give professional advice.

 

[bpesta22]

Look, you want it both ways. Either rank is constant, or IQ changes.

If rank doesn't change, then you can teach people to have a higher IQ - provided you teach everyone to raise their IQ.

But that goes against the whole idea of IQ: That it isn't possible to teach everyone to a higher IQ. Apart from the white crows, whose number is unknown...

So, which is it? Is rank constant, or does IQ change?



That's the whole problem with IQ testing:

If IQ is constant over the years, there is no reason to educate the dumb. They won't benefit anyway, and neither will society. Into the Delta and Epsilon groups with those.

If IQ can change - maybe even dramatically - over the years, it is unfair to delegate a child to a certain type of education (auto shop instead of chemistry class), just because at some point he got a lesser score.

Could you test people over the years to see how they do? Sure, but it wouldn't change anything. At some point - e.g. when determining what line of education a person should be in - we have to decide. We can't throw Joe, who has been in autoshop for 3 years, in a college chemistry class, just because he this time juuuust makes it above the line.

To the OP-- good luck with the program. While I am skeptical, I wouldn't be against trying it for my son if it didn't cost lots.

Claus: I think you're just frankly not grasping the argument.

scores can change but rank can be relatively stable. That's possible, and happens (even in the APA task force article I cited above; that's exactly what they conclude).

You are also dichotomizing this unfairly. I've never claimed that people fall in one of two categories: dumb/uneducable; smart/worthy of education. I think everyone deserves equal access to education, but I think variance in what one learns (and how fast he/she will learn it) is largely caused by variance in g. I think the all people are equally capable of learning idea is squarely falsified.

You're saying: Mrs. Jones we've identified a gene for cancer in you; it's highly probable you will get the disease 40 years from now, so therefore we're going to kill you now.

I'm saying, let's rely on the science of cognitive ability to tell us how best to educate people of all ability levels and to better understand the nature of intelligence, even if the conclusions seem politically incorrect. Suppose there are genetically determined race differences in IQ (for example). The only way to address it / understand it (in a way that's rational and works) would be with the scientific method.

Also, though I am a big IQ fan, I've never claimed it's the only thing that matters. Motivation helps. I think you can be dumb and motivated and be ok. I think you can be smart and unmotivated and be ok. Dumb and unmotivated, though, and you're done (using dumb and smart here as shorthand for high and low scoring IQ).

 

[bpesta22]

Even if IQ were generally as you suppose, Bpesta22 ( and I do not accept that, let me make it clear) then what? You have said that you do believe that some few are wrongly categorised because of life circumstances or whatever, I think. So what is the point of it? Labelling people at an early age is rather self-fulfilling for reasons both of self-esteem/self perception, and also because of overt decisions about education and opportunity which follow from it. If even a few are wrongly labelled this is surely a bad thing. What benefits do you see that outweigh the negatives?

The practical utility of using an IQ test is staggering (just ask the military). Discovering g and using it for prediction in the real world, in my opinion, has been psychology's only real contribution to humanity. Certainly, anything else pales in comparison to what IQ testing has done.

That said; I agree with you. I don't like labeling people, and I don't think kids should wear their IQ scores on their shirts. I think at the individual level, people should be given the chance to achieve whatever it is they want to achieve. I'd rather use IQ tests more to help students move up (by identifying, perhaps, gifted children who might benefit from a different approach to education) than to force them down (by excluding a kid from some educational program because of his / her score). That's at the individual level.

Unfortunately, get lots of people with low iqs and compare them to lots of people with high iqs. At the group level, the conclusions and outcomes are foregone.

It's an important dilemma-- at least to me. groups of people who differ in iq also differ markedly in just about any measure of success. But, some within those groups will defy the group pattern and succeed when they should have failed, or fail when they should have succeeded. Suggests to me that the causality is strong but imperfect. So, where does that leave us when considering any single kids IQ score. I don't know.

I honestly believe I am a skeptic, and I would certainly seriously consider data that threatens my world view. If am I wrong; I will admit it, but I need the data first. I've been interested in IQ all my life, but only started collecting data on it about two years ago, and primarily because of debates about it here. I don't think anyone else here has ever been able to produce peer-reviewed data motivated by (and supporting) arguments made on the jref.

 

[dann]

At this stage you might be looking for this quotation, Claus:

"The height of a person is a natural attribute of a real object. If I average the heights of ten people, that average is not an attribute of any real object. There is no such person with such a height, nor does it characterize the height of the collection of individuals since a collection of people does not have a height. The average is not even a height. It is simply the sum of a lot of measurements divided by the number of measurements. It is a mental construction. To assert that it is a real attribute of a real thing is an act of reification (indeed, double reification!)"
Richard Lewontin, The Inferiority Complex, from his collection of essays/reviews It Ain't Necessarily So.
(It is possible to use the Look-inside-this-book function to read the first couple of pages of The Inferiority Complex, a brilliant essay about IQ theory.)

 

[CFLarsen]

To the OP-- good luck with the program. While I am skeptical, I wouldn't be against trying it for my son if it didn't cost lots.

Isn't that Pascal's Wager?

Claus: I think you're just frankly not grasping the argument.

scores can change but rank can be relatively stable. That's possible, and happens (even in the APA task force article I cited above; that's exactly what they conclude).

Claus Spots a Moving of Goal Posts.

Relatively, all of a sudden?

What you gave me was an argument based on what you "think". You pulled out some definitions of "intelligence" from...somewhere, you pointed to "debatable" evidence, you used words like "likely", "pretty much", "some view", "I see", "indirect", "reasonable", "to me". To top it off, you were very uncertain of what IQ measurements actually measure.

Ain't gonna work with me. You know me better than that.

You are also dichotomizing this unfairly.

I am not. I am going with what you said. I am going with your claims.

I've never claimed that people fall in one of two categories: dumb/uneducable; smart/worthy of education. I think everyone deserves equal access to education, but I think variance in what one learns (and how fast he/she will learn it) is largely caused by variance in g. I think the all people are equally capable of learning idea is squarely falsified.

No, I don't think you are saying that not all people are equally capable of learning. I think you are saying that all people are not equally capable of learning the same, but that people can learn to improve themselves, to some degree.

Isn't that true? Because if you are saying that not all people are equally capable of learning, then I cannot understand how you can advocate that the dumb are educated in any way.

You're saying: Mrs. Jones we've identified a gene for cancer in you; it's highly probable you will get the disease 40 years from now, so therefore we're going to kill you now.

No, I am not. I am saying that IF the theory of IQ is true, THEN we have no reason to educate the dumb. It has nothing to do with offing those with a higher risk of a certain disease.

I'm saying, let's rely on the science of cognitive ability to tell us how best to educate people of all ability levels and to better understand the nature of intelligence, even if the conclusions seem politically incorrect. Suppose there are genetically determined race differences in IQ (for example). The only way to address it / understand it (in a way that's rational and works) would be with the scientific method.

What do you think of "The Mismeasure of Man"? You're at odds with one of the greatest skeptical minds here. You better whip out your best arguments.

Also, though I am a big IQ fan, I've never claimed it's the only thing that matters. Motivation helps. I think you can be dumb and motivated and be ok. I think you can be smart and unmotivated and be ok. Dumb and unmotivated, though, and you're done (using dumb and smart here as shorthand for high and low scoring IQ).

But it isn't a case of being merely "ok", is it? If IQ determines your abilities, now and until you die, you are judged by your IQ, which in turn determines your whole life.

You can be an Epsilon or an Alpha. But don't think that Epsilons can be Alphas just like that.