Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Self-reports of intelligence: are they useful as proxy measures of IQ? Lysy, Daria C. 1997

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1997-0137.pdf [ 2.58MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0099137.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0099137-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0099137-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0099137-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0099137-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0099137-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0099137-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0099137-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0099137.ris

Full Text

SELF-REPORTS OF INTELLIGENCE: ARE THEY USEFUL AS PROXY MEASURES OF IQ? by DARIA C. LYSY B.A., U n i v e r s i t y o f W e s t e r n O n t a r i o , 1993 Hons. B.A., U n i v e r s i t y o f Windsor, 1994 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE  STUDIES  Department o f P s y c h o l o g y We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s as c o n f o r m i n g to the r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA March 1997 © D a r i a C. L y s y ,  1997  In  presenting this  degree at the  thesis  in  University of  partial  fulfilment  of  of  department  this thesis for or  by  his  or  requirements  British Columbia, I agree that the  freely available for reference and study. I further copying  the  representatives.  an advanced  Library shall make it  agree that permission for extensive  scholarly purposes may be her  for  It  is  granted  by the  understood  that  head of copying  my or  publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.  Department The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada  DE-6 (2/88)  Abstract Correlations  between  are  small  rather  improvements employing evaluate  these  indirect Hogan's List,  Claiming  questions  Gough's composite  Trapnell's of  a  measures.  test.  direct the  and  global benefited  with  with  As  cap  {Ns  of  a v a l i d i t y cap  .30  in of  mental  Questionnaire, of about  Paulhus' of  who  predict  our  the  IQ  IQ  The  and  to  scores  two an  both but  college  i t e m s were Aggregation  n o v e l measure,  outperformed a l l other .50.  Over-  tests  competitive  ability;  the  a l s o took  traditional  i n d i r e c t more t h a n d i r e c t m e a s u r e s .  Over-Claiming  compared  administered 326),  four  Check  s e l f - r e p o r t s showed t h a t  most v a l i d  characterizations  = 310,  of  scale,  Behavior  also  were  reliably  be  To  validity  efficiency  shares p r o p e r t i e s  traditional  to  the  measure,  A l l measures  appears  a r u l e , the  We  by  aggregation.  Sternberg's  self-report  i n d i r e c t measures can  validity  sample.  the  Results  Possible  of d i r e c t measures w i t h  scale.  l a r g e samples of undergraduates IQ  (b)  IQ  investigated  compared  scale,  which  samples.  Intellectual  Smart  novel  Questionnaire,  self-report  we  i n t e l l i g e n c e and  were  and  unaggregated versions  Intellect  performance  college  methods  improvements,  measures:  and  in  traditional  indirect  a g g r e g a t e d and  s e l f - r a t i n g s of  (.20-.25)  in  (a)  single  measures  I l l  Table of Contents Abstract List  i i  of Tables .  iv  Introduction  1  Improving T r a d i t i o n a l Four T r a d i t i o n a l A New The  Indirect  S e l f - R e p o r t Measures  o f IQ  2  I n d i r e c t Measures  3  S e l f - R e p o r t Measure  5  Present Study  6  Hypotheses  7  Method  8  S u b j e c t s and P r o c e d u r e  '  8  Instruments  8  Results  12  Descriptive  Statistics  12  Range o f R e s p o n s e s Intercorrelations  13 Among P r e d i c t o r s  Performance of the T r a d i t i o n a l D i r e c t Performance of the T r a d i t i o n a l  14 Measures  14  I n d i r e c t Measures  14  The T w o - F a c t o r C a t e g o r i z a t i o n o f t h e T r a d i t i o n a l  Predictors  A C l o s e r Examination of the T r a d i t i o n a l  Measures:  Empirical  Indirect  Approach  16  A C l o s e r Examination of the T r a d i t i o n a l Theoretical  Indirect  Measures:  Approach  17  P e r f o r m a n c e o f t h e New  I n d i r e c t Measure:  The  OCQ  18  Discussion  19  Performance of the T r a d i t i o n a l  Direct  Performance of the T r a d i t i o n a l  I n d i r e c t Measures  The C o n t e n t o f t h e T r a d i t i o n a l  Indirect  Measures  19  Predictors  The V a l u e o f A g g r e g a t i o n Why  Don't T r a d i t i o n a l  15  S e l f - R e p o r t Measures  P e r f o r m a n c e o f t h e New O t h e r P r o m i s i n g Avenues  I n d i r e c t Measure:  20 . . . .  22 23  Work? The  OCQ  23 25 26  Conclusions  27  Footnotes  28  References  30  Appendices  44  iv  L i s t of 1. A t w o - f a c t o r  Tables  c a t e g o r i z a t i o n of t r a d i t i o n a l  self-report  intelligence  measures  35  2.  Descriptive  statistics  36  3.  I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s among i n d i r e c t  4.  Correlations  5.  R e g r e s s i o n of  6.  Correlations  7.  Top  8.  V a l i d i t i e s of  10  scales  and  of s e l f - r e p o r t p r e d i c t o r s w i t h IQ of  on  four t r a d i t i o n a l  subscales  . .  .38  IQ  indirect  39 predictors  .  four types of t r a d i t i o n a l p r e d i c t o r s w i t h  item v a l i d i t i e s from the the  traditional  traditional indirect  Means w i t h i n c o n t e n t c a t e g o r y  indirect  scales  40  IQ41 42  items: 43  1 S e l f - R e p o r t s of  Intelligence:  A r e T h e y U s e f u l as P r o x y M e a s u r e s o f Can  people  v a l i d l y r a t e t h e i r own  IQ?  intelligence?  Skeptics  argue t h a t such s e l f - r e p o r t s are h o p e l e s s l y contaminated v a r i e t y of d i s t o r t i o n s management, and  i n c l u d i n g s e l f - d e c e p t i o n and  reconstrual.  E v e n p e o p l e who  d i s t o r t i o n s - - t h e most f o r t h r i g h t and find i t difficult elusive  with a  impression  are f r e e of  insightful individuals—can  to e v a l u a t e themselves  a c c u r a t e l y on  this  trait.  Despite  i t s e l u s i v e n e s s , the concept  of i n t e l l i g e n c e p l a y s  central role i n psychological research, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n c o n t e x t s as e d u c a t i o n a l e v a l u a t i o n , p e r s o n n e l development.  To  has been d e v o t e d  facilitate  to developing s e l f - r e p o r t a l t e r n a t i v e s  w e l l beyond a simple request  you  are".  Two  One  i s the use  defensiveness  for a self-rating.  A  second,  determining IQ  tests.  o f IQ t e s t s as t h e c r i t e r i o n f o r i n t e l l i g e n c e r a t i n g s h a s  validities  self-ratings. familiarity,  p a r t i c u l a r l y i n c o l l e g e samples.  a r e somewhat h i g h e r i n o b s e r v e r - r a t i n g s t h a n And  outside observers,  show r e a s o n a b l e  success.  even w i t h Values  1993), by a d o l e s c e n t long-term  f r i e n d s and  acquaintances  i n the range of  solid validities  strangers  .25  spouses (Borkenau,  ( B a i l e y & Hatch,' 1 9 7 9 ) , a n d  discussion-group colleagues  i n the case of spouses,  in  limited  h a v e b e e n f o u n d when t h e j u d g m e n t i s made b y  ( B a i l e y & M e t t e t a l , 1977), by  Except  inevitable  t o i m p r o v e p r e d i c t i o n o f p e r f o r m a n c e on 1  .50  h a v e b e e n recommended.  T h i s r e p o r t e v a l u a t e s t h e s e s t r a t e g i e s by  not y i e l d e d h i g h v a l i d i t i e s ,  to  to  s t r a t e g y , favors m u l t i p l e item over s i n g l e - i t e m  their ability  The  effort  intelligent  of i n d i r e c t assessment to bypass the  t h e aggregation measures.  t o " r a t e how  in particular,  of a d i r e c t request  child  Such approaches have  progressed  strategies,  a  such  s e l e c t i o n and  such r e s e a r c h , c o n s i d e r a b l e  cumbersome IQ t e s t s o f i n t e l l i g e n c e .  Use  such  (Paulhus  & Morgan,  by  1997).  however, the achievement of  these  required aggregation across m u l t i p l e observers.  S e l f - p e r c e p t i o n s t y p i c a l l y p a r a l l e l other-perceptions but,  to  the extent t h a t the t r a i t being e v a l u a t e d i s h i g h l y e v a l u a t i v e (e.g., i n t e l l i g e n c e ) , & Robins,  1993).  the former  are n o t i c e a b l y l e s s v a l i d  (John  S t u d i e s u s i n g IQ as t h e c r i t e r i o n h a v e y i e l d e d  single-item validities  of  .32  (Borkenau & L i e b l e r ,  1993)  and  .41  2 ( R e y n o l d s & G i f f o r d , 1996)  i n broad-band samples.  samples, the v a l i d i t i e s never surpass ( D e N i s i & Shaw, 1 9 7 7 ) , (Sternberg,  is likely  s i z e of little  & Bernstein,  example,  .26  .23  p . 4 9 ) , and  .26  2  that several factors contribute  i n f l u e n c e on  First,  to the  IQ  modest  scores  will  s e l f - p e r c e p t i o n s i f respondents, even  aware of t h e i r c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t i e s ,  consider  change the o r d e r i n g  range of responses to the  top  quality;  those  them i r r e l e v a n t t o  of i n d i v i d u a l s , i t w i l l few  measurement.  Finally,  scale options.  the v a l i d i t i e s  restrict  T h i r d , use  reliability  is  the  s t a r t i n g point  scores.  observed i n c o l l e g e  Improving T r a d i t i o n a l Self-Report The  l i t e r a t u r e contains f o r IQ  tests:  subjects  in  validity  report.  Measures of  IQ  scales, that i s , economical  If valid,  such s c a l e s have  one-by-one i n a t i g h t l y  laboratory s e t t i n g , researchers  can  administer  q u i c k l y to l a r g e groups of s u b j e c t s . questionnaires more l i k e l y  are  less threatening  to e l i c i t  are p o i n t l e s s unless c i t e d above.  An  great  cooperation. validities  tests, that  such  (Wonderlic,  1992).  .90  t h a n IQ Of  t e s t s and  course,  c a n be  f o r the  e m p h a s i s , h o w e v e r , a more a p p r o p r i a t e roughly,  .80-.85  such advantages  1982).  a s s o c i a t i o n seems u n l i k e l y , g i v e n  reliability  tests differ  upper-limit  values  in effect, a  t e s t used i n t h i s  w e l l - v a l i d a t e d IQ  (Thorndike,  therefore  improved over those  Given that standard  c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n two  scales  Moreover, s e l f - r e p o r t  i d e a l proxy s c a l e would represent,  i s , around  Rather  supervised  p a r a l l e l measure showing a v a l i d i t y e q u a l t o the IQ  a  samples  p r a c t i c a l advantages over t h e i r t r a d i t i o n a l counterparts: than running  of  a number o f s e l f - r e p o r t i n s t r u m e n t s  t h a t show p o t e n t i a l as p r o x y IQ substitutes  T h i s modest l e v e l of  f o r the p r e s e n t  the  of  (.20-.26) s u f f e r an a d d i t i o n a l h a n d i c a p - - s e v e r e r e s t r i c t i o n c r i t e r i o n IQ  on  Even i f s e l f - p r e s e n t a t i o n  s i n g l e r a t i n g i t e m v i r t u a l l y g u a r a n t e e s low  range of the  have  Second, s e l f - p r e s e n t a t i o n i s l i k e l y t o o p e r a t e  s e l f - r e p o r t s of such a v a l u e d does not  1981,  i n college  1995).  these s e l f - r e p o r t v a l i d i t i e s .  intelligence.  For  (Paulhus & Morgan, 1997),  Conway, K e t r o n ,  ( R e i l l y & Mulhern, It  .25  .30:  But  is  report  somewhat i n the  t e s t s , that i s ,  Even t h a t l e v e l  of  of  that s e l f - r e p o r t scales  use  3 s u c h a q u a l i t a t i v e l y - d i f f e r e n t mode o f a s s e s s m e n t t h a t be  to  less r e l i a b l e . P o t e n t i a l proxy scales  strategies,  i n the  l i t e r a t u r e h a v e r e l i e d on  i n p a r t i c u l a r , f o r i m p r o v i n g the  r e p o r t measures of evaluation-threat  intelligence. by  v a l i d i t y of  F i r s t i s the  using subtle,  d e s i g n e d t o mask t h e involves  purpose of  aggregating a set  Four T r a d i t i o n a l  Indirect  of  the  test.  The  Intellectual scale, Smart  second  reliability.  Measures "Are  you  intelligent?", indirect  scale, Check  Hogan's I n t e l l e c t  List  format, the  intelligence. rationale  Gough's I n t e l l e c t u a l effort,  personality,  (BCL),  and  Gough  i t e m s assumed to tap intelligence.  (Ie)  (1953) d e v e l o p e d a s e t  a p r o x y measure of  intelligence.  scale.  predicting an  different.  In the  first  of  self-report  He  administered a pool  a s p e c t s of p e r s o n a l i t y  T h o s e 52  composite  A l t h o u g h a l l have  f o r each i s r a t h e r  efficiency  Gough's  Trapnell's  A l l f o u r h a v e shown some v a l i d i t y i n  c r i t e r i o n measures of  test  (Te)  S t e r n b e r g ' s Behavior  indirect  strategy  f o u r such measures were examined:  efficiency  scale.  the  associated  i t e m s c o r r e l a t i n g most h i g h l y  Intellectual  v a l i d a t i o n studies,  efficiency  (Ie)  scale.  such  items f o r  use  of  with w i t h an  i n a sample of h i g h s c h o o l s t u d e n t s were a s s e m b l e d  labeled  The  formats  measures pose q u e s t i o n s about i n t e r e s t s , b e h a v i o r s , In t h i s report,  of  non-obvious q u e s t i o n s .  items to improve  Rather than d i r e c t l y asking etc.  two  self-  reduction  term, i n d i r e c t measures, i s used to d e s c r i b e t e s t  as  tends  and  In four  crossIn  the  f o u r e d u c a t e d s a m p l e s r e p o r t e d i n the- l a t e s t m a n u a l , h o w e v e r ,  the  median v a l i d i t y i s As are  Gough r e p o r t e d a mean v a l i d i t y o f  IQ  .29  (Gough,  1996).  f o r most t e s t s d e r i v e d from c o n t r a s t e d g r o u p s ,  rather  heterogeneous:  neuroticism, skills.  Topics included  intellectual abilities  Thus t h e  they are  less  displays  the  and  indicators  and  Intellectual  efficiency  term i n t e l l e c t a n c e  to denote the  c a u s e s p e o p l e t o be  Ie  items  social  indicators,  that i s ,  intelligence.  l i k e l y to t r i g g e r s e l f - p r e s e n t a t i o n .  Hogan's I n t e l l e c t c o m p o s i t e s c a l e . s t y l e that  interests, of  the  self-confidence,  v a s t m a j o r i t y were s u b t l e  t h e y l a c k e d f a c e - v a l i d i t y as  .47.  As  such  Appendix  A  scale. Welsh  "cognitive  (1975) c o i n e d and  the  interpersonal  p e r c e i v e d as b r i g h t " .  Hogan  and  4 Hogan  (1992, p.  Intellect  followed this peer-perception  i n assembling  r e v e a l e d two to  12)  factors:  a set of items. One  was  notion  A factor analysis  l a b e l e d I n t e l l e c t a n c e : "the  w h i c h a p e r s o n i s p e r c e i v e d as b r i g h t , c r e a t i v e ,  i n t e r e s t e d i n i n t e l l e c t u a l matters". labeled enjoy for  School  Success:  the w o r l d ) , generating  thrill  and  factor  to value  educational  ideas  r e f e r to science a b i l i t y ,  seeking,  was  achievement  Success  s t u d e n t ) , math a b i l i t y , Observers tend "imaginative,  interest  g o o d memory, and  e a s i l y bored  scorers tend  to  p.40).  as  and  be  not  n e e d i n g much  t h e School  " f o r e s i g h t e d , t h o r o u g h , and  s c o r e r s a r e s e e n as  reading.  Intellectance scale  q u i c k - w i t t e d , but  whereas low  and  ( b e i n g a good  enjoyment of  I n c o n t r a s t , h i g h s c o r e r s on  (Hogan & Hogan, 1992,  (about  in culture  concern education  n a r r o w , t o l e r a n t o f boredom, and  s e e n as  whereas low  items  i n v e n t i v e , and  "unimaginative, stimulation".  f l u e n c y ) , and  t o s e e h i g h s c o r e r s on t h e  i n a t t e n t i v e to d e t a i l "  curiosity  i n t e r e s t i n i n t e l l e c t u a l games  (ideational  w h i l e School  scale are  other  and  sake".  I n t e l l e c t a n c e items  items,  The  degree  " t h e d e g r e e t o w h i c h a p e r s o n seems t o  academic a c t i v i t i e s  i t s own  of  Success  painstaking"  "touchy, r e s t l e s s ,  and  Appendix B d i s p l a y s the  impulsive" Intellect  composite s c a l e . Sternberg's  Behavior  Check  List  i n v e s t i g a t i o n into conceptions  analyses Solving  As p a r t o f h i s  3  of i n t e l l i g e n c e ,  p.23 8) d e v e l o p e d t h e Behavior behaviors  (BCL) .  Check  List  Sternberg  (BCL)--a  list  of  that l a y judges a s s o c i a t e d w i t h i n t e l l i g e n c e . i n d i c a t e d t h r e e c l u s t e r s of items (PS),  Verbal  C o r r e l a t i o n s , w i t h an  Ability  (VA),  and  Social  IQ t e s t jumped f r o m  self-perceived intelligence,  to  .52  labeled  recommended t h e BCL  measure of i n t e l l i g e n c e  when e m p l o y i n g full-scale  as a v a l u a b l e  BCL. and  supplementary  f o r a number o f r e a s o n s .  p r o v i d i n g a g l o b a l assessment of t h e i r a b i l i t y ,  Compared t o subjects  l e s s - t h r e a t e n e d by r a t i n g s p e c i f i c b e h a v i o r s  a c c o r d i n g l y , be more a c c u r a t e . these  (SC).  (1989) .  Sternberg  feel  Factor  Problem  T h e s e r e s u l t s w e r e l a t e r r e p l i c a t e d b y C o r n e l i u s , Kenny, Caspi  41  Competence  .24,  w i t h the  (1988,  s p e c i f i c behaviors  Aggregation  should  and,  of a l a r g e s e t  could then y i e l d a maximally v a l i d  of self-  5 report.  Finally,  measured by  IQ.  Trapnell's  t h e BCL  three  scale.  of the  Smart  r e s p o n d i n g can very,  implied  s c a l e i t e m s was  r e d u c e d t h r o u g h the use  of e v a l u a t i o n  from the  to be..." i n p l a c e  of  an  ability  r e c a l l e d and  t h a t can  Smart  sample  be  .33  Smart  scale.  A New  Indirect Self-Report  P a u l h u s ' Over-Claiming Over-Claiming  that  an  IQ  t e s t and  knowledge are 90  general  be  by  assumption  desirable qualifiers  shifting  to others A  objective an  Questionnaire  IQ  (e.g.,  fourth the  "I'm  item  assumption  index of  test in a  mental accurately.  college  Appendix D d i s p l a y s  (OCQ).  and  Designed  intellectual  as  an  objective  measured.  the  to  enhancement,  t e s t because  Thus i t s h a r e s p r o p e r t i e s  a s e l f - r e p o r t measure.  A c a d e m i c and  s y s t e m a t i c a l l y sampled w i t h a s c a l e r a n g i n g from 0  of  everyday  a wide-ranging set  knowledge items to which respondents r a t e  f a m i l i a r i t y on  the  i s a comprehensive s e l f - r a t e d  functions  a c c u r a t e knowledge can  the  content  Measure  Questionnaire  knowledge task  and  self  1996).  measure b o t h i n t e l l e c t u a l a b i l i t y the  The  self-reported fairly  with  (Trapnell & Scratchley,  measures  of extreme  " I am...").  i n d i r e c t but  scale correlated  to  g r a d e s , b a s e d on  that grades provide  scale  List.  descriptive  b a s e d on  i n s e l f - r a t i n g s due  assessed s e l f - r e p o r t e d school  The  Smart  Check  ( T r a p n e l l , 1994).  extremely, exceptionally)  locus  considered  be  i n t e l l i g e n c e not  Behavior  four-item  face v a l i d i t y  that range r e s t r i c t i o n (e.g.,  The  the  i n t e l l i g e n c e v i a simple t r a i t  statements of h i g h of  cover a s p e c t s of  Appendix C d i s p l a y s  Smart  self-appraised  could  of  their  (never h e a r d of  i t ) to  6  (know i t v e r y w e l l ) . Categories  i n c l u d e h i s t o r i c a l names and  poems, a u t h o r s and sciences, four  and  characters,  w i t h i n each category, is,  t h e y do  s o c i a l science  p o p u l a r c u l t u r e names  e x i s t e n t i t e m s , one not  nonexistent  three  out  actually exist.  events, books law,  physical  (see A p p e n d i x E ) . item  o f e v e r y 15 Hence any  For  i s included, items are degree of  k n o w l e d g e a b o u t them c o n s t i t u t e s o v e r c l a i m i n g . for  and  The  every  thus foils,  that  claimed three  each c a t e g o r y were s e l e c t e d t o c l o s e l y r e s e m b l e the  e x i s t e n t i t e m s and  and  foils 12  thus appeared p l a u s i b l e to a non-expert.  In  6 total,  o v e r c l a i m i n g i s p o s s i b l e on 18  v a r i e t y of  items spread across  topics.  S i g n a l d e t e c t i o n a n a l y s i s i s a p p l i e d to the r a t i n g s t o i n d e x Discrimination  (the a b i l i t y  e x i s t e n t from n o n e x i s t e n t items) familiarity). which  a  Relevant  and Bias  familiarity  to  distinguish  (tendency  to overclaim  to the present study i s  Discrimination,  i s i n d e x e d b y t h e number o f h i t s r e l a t i v e t o t h e number o f  false-alarms.  An  accurate individual,  a c h i e v i n g t h e most h i t s ,  b u t t h e one  then,  i s not  the  one  showing t h e most  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n c h o o s i n g b e t w e e n e x i s t e n t and  nonexistent  items. Paulhus OCQ.  and h i s c o l l e a g u e s have examined t h e p r o p e r t i e s o f  Results are reported i n d e t a i l  s c a l e development s t u d i e s , Discrimination response  index range from  index correlates The  Present Are  The  the r e l i a b i l i t i e s  index range from  Bias  i n Paulhus  .44 w i t h  .75 .50  to to  .94  (1992).  of  and  In  the  the those of  .90,'and t h e  the Discrimination  IQ.  Study  s e l f - r e p o r t s of i n t e l l i g e n c e u s e f u l proxy measures of  present study w i l l  validities.  The  examine t h i s q u e s t i o n by c o m p a r i n g  traditional  s e l f - r e p o r t measures d i f f e r  respect to directness (direct vs. indirect) (single-item vs. composites).  (see T a b l e  c a t e g o r y - - s i n g l e - i t e m d i r e c t measures--is "intelligent"  intelligent"  (Sample 1) and  (Sample 2 ) .  The  and  Thus e a c h f a l l s  f o u r c a t e g o r i e s of a 2 x 2 t a b l e adjectives  composite  set of f o u r c o n c e p t u a l l y s i m i l a r items. Check  List  (BCL),  i n t o one  1).  The  their with  of  the  first  r e p r e s e n t e d by  the  "clear-thinking, d i r e c t measure combined a The  four  traditional  and T r a p n e l l ' s Smart  Sternberg's  scales.  evaluate the f o u r t h category of measures--single-item the average item v a l i d i t y  IQ?  aggregation  i n d i r e c t m e a s u r e s w e r e Gough's l e , Hogan's I n t e l l e c t , Behavior  the  f o r each i n d i r e c t measure  To  indirect-was  calculated.  I n s e r t Table W i t h i n the composite interest  1 about  here  i n d i r e c t category, there i s a  i n the comparative  v a l i d i t y of the four  specific  traditional  7 measures.  Although  each s c a l e ,  t h e r e i s some e v i d e n c e  f o r the v a l i d i t y of  t h e y h a v e n e v e r b e e n p i t t e d a g a i n s t one a n o t h e r i n  p r e d i c t i n g a common c r i t e r i o n .  A comparative  validity  study by  n o n - p a r t i s a n r e s e a r c h e r s s h o u l d p r o v i d e much more c o n v i n c i n g evidence Nor  than t h a t o f f e r e d by the authors  of i n d i v i d u a l scales.  h a v e t h e s e m e a s u r e s b e e n c o m p a r e d w i t h t h e new  s e l f - r e p o r t m e a s u r e , t h e Over-Claiming differs  indirect  Questionnaire.  The  latter  f r o m t h e o t h e r s e l f - r e p o r t s i n more c l o s e l y r e s e m b l i n g  objective test. Discrimination  an  Thus c o m p a r i n g t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h e i n d e x o f t h e OCQ w i l l p r o v e q u i t e i n t e r e s t i n g a n d  s h o u l d p r o v i d e some i n s i g h t i n t o t h e n a t u r e a n d p o s s i b l e s i m i l a r i t y between s e l f - r e p o r t s o f i n t e l l i g e n c e and o f knowledge. A l l m e a s u r e s w e r e a d m i n i s t e r e d t o two l a r g e a n d d i v e r s e samples o f undergraduates.  The c r i t e r i o n  s e l f - r e p o r t s was t h e W o n d e r l i c  f o rv a l i d i t y of the  P e r s o n n e l T e s t , a s p e e d e d IQ t e s t  t h a t c o m p a r e s f a v o r a b l y w i t h l o n g e r IQ t e s t s . analyses  f o c u s e d on c o m p a r i n g t h e v a l i d i t i e s  The p r e s e n t of the four  c a t e g o r i e s o f t r a d i t i o n a l m e a s u r e s a n d t h e Discrimination  index  o f t h e OCQ v i a c o r r e l a t i o n a n d r e g r e s s i o n t e c h n i q u e s . these v a l i d i t i e s s c a l e s was a l s o  To p u t a l l  i n p e r s p e c t i v e , the performance of i d e a l  proxy  estimated.  Hypotheses The  f i r s t hypothesis, that aggregation w i l l  traditional  s c a l e s , i s b a s e d on t h e b a s i c p s y c h o m e t r i c  of a g g r e g a t i o n  (e.g., Thorndike,  1982).  from t h e l i t e r a t u r e  suggest  t e n d t o b e more v a l i d of t h e i r  Competing t h e o r i e s  o p p o s i t e outcomes.  argue t h a t the simple, g l o b a l ,  clear  (i.e.,  Many  direct)  (e.g., B u r i s c h , 1984).  researchers questions  On t h e o t h e r h a n d ,  o f t h e i n d i r e c t measures would argue f o r t h e b e n e f i t s  i n d i r e c t scales--and there i s evidence  Accordingly,  principle  Hypotheses about t h e  v a l u e o f i n d i r e c t n e s s a r e more d i f f i c u l t .  the authors  enhance v a l i d i t i e s o f  f o r both.  a c l e a r h y p o t h e s i s about i n d i r e c t n e s s c a n n o t be  voiced. H y p o t h e s i z i n g w h i c h i n d i r e c t measure w i l l p e r f o r m difficult. the  i s also  The h i g h e s t v a l i d i t y r e p o r t e d i n a c o l l e g e s a m p l e i s  .44 f o u n d b y P a u l h u s  index.  best  Therefore,  (1992) u s i n g t h e OCQ  the second hypothesis  show t h e h i g h e s t v a l i d i t y  i n the present  is.that samples.  Discrimination t h e OCQ  will  Method S u b j e c t s and  Procedure  D a t a w e r e c o l l e c t e d f r o m a t o t a l o f 63 6 u n d e r g r a d u a t e at  a large northwestern university.  students  (95 m a l e s ;  208 f e m a l e s ;  Sample 1 c o m p r i s e d 7 d i d not specify)  an i n t r o d u c t o r y p s y c h o l o g y c o u r s e . students  (87 m a l e s ;  2 05 f e m a l e s ;  2 0 percent s c i e n c e or engineering majors,  enrolled i n Approx-  arts  majors,  a n d 15 p e r c e n t b u s i n e s s  A l l p a r t i c i p a t e d f o r e x t r a marks.  For b o t h samples, direct  enrolled i n  34 d i d n o t s p e c i f y )  i m a t e l y 55 p e r c e n t o f t h e b o t h s a m p l e s w e r e l i b e r a l  self-report  310  Sample 2 c o m p r i s e d 32 6  a second year s o c i a l - p e r s o n a l i t y psychology course.  school majors.  students  s u b j e c t s were f i r s t  i n v e n t o r y i n group  asked t o complete  sessions:  s e l f - r a t i n g s of i n t e l l i g e n c e .  a  I t included a l l the  Later, a s e t of i n d i r e c t  m e a s u r e s o f i n t e l l i g e n c e a n d t h e new i n d i r e c t m e a s u r e w e r e d i s t r i b u t e d i n a take-home p a c k a g e , complete  w h i c h s u b j e c t s were a s k e d t o  p r i v a t e l y and r e t u r n f o r e x p e r i m e n t a l c r e d i t s .  Finally,  t h e IQ t e s t was a d m i n i s t e r e d i n a s e p a r a t e , s u p e r v i s e d s e s s i o n . Instruments D i r e c t measures.  A number o f i n t e l l i g e n c e - r e l a t e d  i t e m s were  i n c l u d e d i n the context of a l a r g e r p e r s o n a l i t y i n v e n t o r y . were s e l e c t e d a p r i o r i intelligence.  f o r t h e i r conceptual relevance to  I n Sample 1 t h e y i n c l u d e d t h e f o l l o w i n g  four  items:  "Is intelligent",  smart",  and " I s n o t e x c e p t i o n a l l y g i f t e d a t academic t h i n g s "  (Reverse coded); clear-thinking, clear-cut",  They  " I s i n g e n i o u s , a deep t h i n k e r " , " I s  I n Sample 2 t h e d i r e c t intelligent",  "Is clever,  complicated problems" . 4  items i n c l u d e d :  "Is  "Wants t h i n g s t o be s i m p l e a n d  s h a r p - w i t t e d " , and "Enjoys t h i n k i n g S u b j e c t s were asked t o r a t e  about  their  a g r e e m e n t w i t h t h e s e i t e m s on a s c a l e r a n g i n g f r o m  "1"  strongly")  consideration  t o " 5 " ("Agree s t r o n g l y " ) .  t h e most f a c e - v a l i d i t e m clear-thinking,  For special  ("Is i n t e l l i g e n t "  intelligent"  To e v a l u a t e t h e u t i l i t y  ("Disagree  i n S a m p l e 1;  i n Sample 2) was  "Is  identified.  of aggregating items, the f o u r items  j u d g e d b y t h r e e r a t e r s t o be t h e most f a c e - v a l i d i n d i c a t o r s o f i n t e l l i g e n c e were combined.  Although the s c a l e items  differed  somewhat i n t h e two s a m p l e s ,  the s i m i l a r i t y o f c o r r e l a t e s (see  9 R e s u l t s section) suggests  t h a t t h e two  d i r e c t composites  measured  a similar construct. I n d i r e c t Measures.  Given  the review of the f o u r  measures i n the i n t r o d u c t i o n , provided here.  The  o n l y a f l a v o r o f e a c h one  Intellectual  statements.  The  (Te)  content  r a n g i n g i n content, from b e l i e f s  matter  o f w i l l power") and  seen a  (Gough, 1953)  interests  (e.g.,  (e.g.,  the  i n c l u d e d 52  "Success i s a  "I like' to read  to b i z a r r e items about e x p e r i e n c e s  (e.g.,  " I have never  s u b s c a l e s o f t h e Hogan Personality  (Hogan & Hogan, 1992) factor.  developed  from a p e e r - p e r c e p t i o n view df i n t e l l e c t .  of convenience  A l l items are i n True-False  and  Inventory  were a l s o i n c l u d e d t o r e p r e s e n t  Intellect  space,  t h e s e l e c t i o n was  format  the and For  l i m i t e d t o 15  reasons items  7 items  Success  g o o d a t i n v e n t i n g games,  s u b s c a l e . Examples are  stories,  and  I was  The judges  a l w a y s r e a d i n g " f r o m t h e School Check  List  The  final  41-item  used.  BCL  includes three subscales:  subscale  (e.g.,  Problem  Solving  13-item  Social  others' The  via  c o n s i s t s of s h o r t ,  S u b j e c t s r a t e d from 1 an  subscale Competence  simple t r a i t  'accurate  to 9  Verbal  Ability the  "Makes g o o d d e c i s i o n s " ) ,  subscale  (e.g.,  (high)  self-description'.  articulately"),  15-item and  the  "Responds t h o u g h t f u l l y  1994).  s c a l e measures s e l f - a p p r a i s e d i n t e l l i g e n c e  d e s c r i p t i v e statements The  items are:  s c h o l a r l y person.(3)  I'm  of h i g h face  (1) I'm  e x c e p t i o n a l l y or unusually i n t e l l i g e n t . "brainy",  (low)  (1988,  ideas").  4 - i t e m Smart  (Trapnell,  (e.g.,  lay  (Sternberg et a l . ,  the 13-item  " S p e a k s c l e a r l y and  a  subscale .  v e r s i o n p r o v i d e d by S t e r n b e r g  t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h e a c h i t e m was  "As 5  b e h a v i o r a l d e s c r i p t i o n s o r i g i n a l l y s e l e c t e d by  p p . 2 3 8 - 2 3 9 ) was  to  (BCL)  Success  as p r o t o t y p i c a l of i n t e l l i g e n t p e o p l e  1981).  School  rhymes" from the I n t e l l e c t a n c e s u b s c a l e and  S t e r n b e r g Behavior  specific,  "I'm  from the  were  f r o m t h e J n t e l l e c t a n c e s u b s c a l e and  The  about  vision").  P o r t i o n s o f two  child  be  includes p e r s o n a l i t y — r e l a t e d  items,  history")  will  e f f i c i e n c y subscale of  C a l i f o r n i a Psychological Inventory True-False  indirect  validity  considered (2) I'm  considered a  considered extremely  o r t a l e n t e d a t a c a d e m i c t h i n g s and  (4) My  u s u a l l y been near the top of every  class.  very  "gifted"  s c h o o l grades have  10 The Over-Claiming  Questionnaire.  The OCQ e x p l o i t s a  s o p h i s t i c a t e d m e t h o d o l o g y c a p a b l e o f b e i n g a p r o x y IQ t e s t . Respondents a r e asked t o r a t e t h e i r f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h a wide of p e o p l e , books, comprehensive  e v e n t s , e t c . The 90 i t e m s w e r e c u l l e d  range  from  l i s t s p r o v i d e d b y H i r s c h (1988) i n t h e a p p e n d i x o f  h i s book, C u l t u r a l L i t e r a c y and p a r t i t i o n e d i n t o s i x c a t e g o r i e s (see A p p e n d i x ) .  B e c a u s e 20 p e r c e n t o f t h e i t e m s a r e f i c t i t i o u s ,  signal detection statistics a c c u r a c y from b i a s . one  (Swets,  1964) c a n b e u s e d  I n t h i s approach,  of four categories:  (1) h i t s :  to separate  every response  claiming existent  falls  into  items a r e  familiar,  (2) f a l s e - a l a r m s : c l a i m i n g n o n e x i s t e n t i t e m s a r e  familiar,  (3) m i s s e s : c l a i m i n g e x i s t e n t i t e m s a r e u n f a m i l i a r a n d  (4) c o r r e c t r e j e c t i o n s :  c l a i m i n g nonexistent items a r e  unfamiliar. Signal detection analysis exploits a l l of the data i n the c a l c u l a t i o n o f s e p a r a t e i n d e x e s f o r Discrimination Discrimination  i s i n d e x e d b y t h e number o f h i t s  and  Bias.  relative  to the  number o f f a l s e - a l a r m s , a n d t h u s a h i g h - s c o r e r h a s shown  ability  i n d i s c r i m i n a t i n g between e x i s t e n t and n o n e x i s t e n t i t e m s . c a l c u l a t e t h e f o r m u l a , t h e mean number o f h i t s  To  i s d i v i d e d by the  mean number o f f a l s e a l a r m s p l u s o n e , r e s p e c t i v e l y f o r e a c h category.  Next,  t h e Discrimination  index i s c a l c u l a t e d by  f i n d i n g t h e mean f o r a l l s i x c a t e g o r i e s . Bias adding  t o g e t h e r t h e mean number o f h i t s a n d t h e mean number o f  f a l s e alarms and  t h e n d i v i d i n g b y two, s e p a r a t e l y f o r e a c h  category,  t h e n f i n d i n g t h e mean o f t h e s i x c a t e g o r i e s t o d e t e r m i n e t h e  overall claim rate.  A respondent  i n d i s c r i m i n a n t tendency knowledge.  w i t h a h i g h Bias  t o s a y "Yes",  s c o r e has an  i . e . , claim a l o t of  The p r e s e n t s t u d y i s s o l e l y c o n c e r n e d  Discrimination  with the  index.  Examples o f e x i s t e n t items and f o i l s , are  i s c a l c u l a t e d by  "The D e v i n e  i . e . , nonexistent items,  Comedy" ( e x i s t e n t ) a n d " W i n d e r m e r e W i l d "  ( n o n e x i s t e n t ) f r o m t h e "books a n d poems" c a t e g o r y a n d " C l a r a Barton"  ( e x i s t e n t ) and " E l Puente"  ( n o n e x i s t e n t ) from t h e  "authors and c h a r a c t e r s " c a t e g o r y .  I n a c o l l e g e sample, t h e  Discrimination  .44 w i t h s c o r e s o n a n IQ t e s t  parameter  (Paulhus, 1992). validity  correlated  C o n s i d e r i n g t h a t i t was a c o l l e g e s a m p l e , t h e  i s quite promising.  11 O b j e c t i v e Measure Personnel  (IQ t e s t ) .  T e s t was c h o s e n t o a s s e s s  of g e n e r a l c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y , individual  l e a r n s , understands  (Wonderlic,  speeded t e s t  I t i s a short-form  test  i n s t r u c t i o n s and s o l v e s problems" sampled from v e r b a l ,  Although  a time-limit i s  b e h a v e s more l i k e a p o w e r t e s t t h a n a  because t h e items a r e presented  6  Wonderlic  t h a t i s , "the l e v e l a t which an  and a n a l y t i c domains.  imposed, t h e Wonderlic (McKelvie,  IQ.  1992, p. 5 ) . I n c l u d e d a r e i t e m s  quantitative,  The  The 1 2 - m i n u t e  i n ascending  order  1994).  Wonderlic  i s t h e most p o p u l a r  IQ t e s t i n a p p l i e d s e t t i n g s  b e c a u s e o f i t s e a s e o f a d m i n i s t r a t i o n a n d c o m p r e h e n s i v e norms combined w i t h ample r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y e v i d e n c e . reviews 1989;  have been h i g h l y f a v o r a b l e (see A i k e n ,  Schmidt, 1985; S c h o e n f e l d t , The  .82  Wonderlic  1983; W o n d e r l i c ,  r a n g i n g from  reliabilities.  The f a c t t h a t r e l i a b i l i t y  the time requirement  These  c o l l e g e samples  (1989) r e p o r t e d a h i g h  c o n s i s t e n c y o f .87 ( o d d - e v e n s p l i t - h a l f sample.  1992).  s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s and t h e r e f o r e ,  McKelvie  from  p o p u l a t i o n s , however.  Because o f r e s t r i c t i o n o f range o f a b i l i t y , lower  ranging  1992), and a l t e r n a t e - f o r m  .73 t o .95 ( W o n d e r l i c ,  f i n d i n g s a r e b a s e d on a d u l t w o r k i n g should y i e l d  Hunter,  1985).  shows t e s t - r e t e s t r e l i a b i l i t i e s  t o .94 ( D o d r i l l ,  reliabilities  199 6;  Expert  lower  internal  correlation)  i n a college  i s not increased by r e l a x i n g  ( M c K e l v i e , 1994) i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e t i m e  l i m i t does n o t i n f l a t e t h e e s t i m a t e . In support  of concurrent v a l i d i t y ,  c o r r e l a t i o n s above (Dodrill, 668)  1992).  reported that the Wonderlic  p a r t i c u l a r note  In fact,  Dodrill  S c a l e IQ s c o r e s i n 9 0 % o f t h e c a s e s .  p.  Of  f o r this report i s the fact that correlations are  1992).  abilities  P r e v i o u s s t u d i e s i n c o l l e g e p o p u l a t i o n s have  a l s o shown u s e f u l p r e d i c t i v e v a l i d i t y (McKelvie, 1994), performance t e s t s & Jones,  (1981,  IQ s c o r e s w e r e w i t h i n 10 p o i n t s  h i g h w i t h measures o f b o t h v e r b a l and q u a n i t i t a t i v e (Wonderlic,  shows  .80 w i t h l o n g e r IQ t e s t s s u c h a s t h e WAIS-R  1981; W o n d e r l i c ,  o f t h e WAIS F u l l  the Wonderlic  f o r c o l l e g e grades  (Kennedy, B a l t z l e y ,  1989), and s u p e r v i s o r y r a n k i n g s  (Wonderlic,  Turnage,  1992).  12 Results Descriptive  statistics  Means, s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s , r a n g e s , c o e f f i c i e n t alphas are presented statistics  i n t h e two  v a l u e s f o r the f u l l The  reliability  i n T a b l e 2.  samples are v i r t u a l l y  s c a l e s and  a c c e p t a b l e , r a n g i n g from S a m p l e 2.  and  .61  The  values of  identical.  these  Alpha  subscales are g e n e r a l l y q u i t e  to  .93  i n Sample 1 a n d  .55  to  .92  r e l i a b i l i t y of the s i n g l e - i t e m " i n t e l l i g e n t "  from  the d i r e c t  t h e OCQ  has  here  a 7-point r a t i n g scale,  signal detection  a n a l y s i s r e q u i r e s dichotomous c o d i n g f o r h i t s and Both are accumulated response  items  composite. I n s e r t Table 2 about  Although  false  alarms.  when a s u b j e c t c l a i m s f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h  g r e a t e r than zero.  Because each c a t e g o r y of the  c o n t a i n s 12 e x i s t e n t i t e m s and  3 foils,  any OCQ  i . e . , nonexistent  items,  a s u b j e c t ' s mean h i t p r o p o r t i o n i s t h e mean number o f h i t s e a c h c a t e g o r y d i v i d e d b y t h e number o f p o s s i b l e h i t s , 12;  The  alarms  in  that i s ,  mean f a l s e a l a r m p r o p o r t i o n i s t h e mean number o f  false  i n e a c h c a t e g o r y d i v i d e d b y t h e number o f p o s s i b l e f a l s e  alarms,  t h a t i s , 3.  These s t a t i s t i c s  mean" c o l u m n o f T a b l e 2. presented  i n Appendix  N o t e t h e means and IQ t e s t , w h i c h means  was  7  e s t i m a t e d f r o m t h e mean i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n o f t h e f o u r g l o b a l  in  (25.5,  i n the  Mean i t e m f a m i l i a r i t y r a t i n g s  "item  are  F. s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s (SDs)  are not presented  26.3)  are presented  i n the t a b l e .  f o r the  Wonderlic  Sample 1 and  2  were o n l y s l i g h t l y h i g h e r t h a n t h e manual  norms f o r c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s  ( W o n d e r l i c , 1992,  p.38).  SDs  (4.41,  4 . 7 2 ) , h o w e v e r , w e r e s u b s t a n t i a l l y l o w e r t h a n t h e m a n u a l norms o f 5.73  for college students . 8  For comparison,  note  t h a t t h e norms  c o m p u t e d on a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e a d u l t w o r k i n g p o p u l a t i o n 1992,  p.38)  e x h i b i t e d a s u b s t a n t i a l l y l o w e r o v e r a l l mean  a n d h i g h e r SD The  directly  (21.6)  (7 .1) .  alpha r e l i a b i l i t i e s  two w a y s .  (Wonderlic,  Although not i n our sample  u s e d by M c K e l v i e  9  (1989).  f o r the Wonderlic  ideal,  were c a l c u l a t e d i n  i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y was  w i t h the odd-even s p l i t These v a l u e s were  estimated  half-reliability  .65 a n d  .71.  A  13 second  c a l c u l a t i o n i n v o l v e d e x t r a p o l a t i n g from the a p p r o p r i a t e  reliability  e s t i m a t e s (.90)  (Wonderlic,  1992).  p.124), and  A p p l y i n g the formula from G u l l i k s e n  (1967,  t o t h e r e d u c t i o n i n s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n f r o m 7.12  4.72,  .74 a n d in  t a k e n on t h e b r o a d norm s a m p l e to  4.41  t h e a l p h a s i n the p r e s e n t samples were e s t i m a t e d t o .77.  Using e i t h e r e s t i m a t i o n formula, the  be  reliabilities  t h e p r e s e n t c o l l e g e samples were n o t i c e a b l y l o w e r t h a n i n t h e  p o p u l a t i o n , but c e r t a i n l y w i t h i n the u s e f u l range instruments. turn, w i l l  for research  I t c a n be e x p e c t e d t h a t t h e p r e s e n t v a l i d i t i e s ,  in  be c o r r e s p o n d i n g l y l o w e r .  Range o f R e s p o n s e s In  the i n t r o d u c t i o n ,  respondents  i t was  noted that the s t r o n g tendency  to c l a i m h i g h l e v e l s of i n t e l l i g e n c e tends  restrict  t h e range o f r e s p o n s e s and  (McCrae,  1990;  Thorndike,  1982).  limit potential  to  correlations  N o t e t h a t t h e SDs  shown i n  T a b l e 2 w e r e c a l c u l a t e d on t h e s u b j e c t means, r a t h e r c a l c u l a t i n g t h e means o f t h e i t e m SDs•  for  than  Given that the  latter  f i g u r e s a r e more r e l e v a n t t o w h e t h e r o r n o t s u b j e c t s w e r e u s i n g the e n t i r e range of the r a t i n g - s c a l e s ,  t h e s e were the  figures  calculated. Recall scales: .40,  that the d i r e c t The  .30)  i t e m was  i t e m s w e r e m e a s u r e d on 5 - p o i n t  e x a c t d i s t r i b u t i o n o f r e s p o n s e s was  a c r o s s t h e two o n l y .77 a n d  samples.  .82  The  in-Samples  SD  (Sample 1) a n d  (0, .05,  f o r the s i n g l e  .25, direct  1 a n d 2, r e s p e c t i v e l y .  the f o u r items of the composite d i r e c t s c a l e , .67  rating  .69  the average  were s t i l l  small:  (Sample 2 ) .  the d i r e c t  i t e m s d i d show some r e s t r i c t i o n i n r a n g e .  In  For SDs  short,  F o r t h e i n d i r e c t m e a s u r e s , t h e means o f t h e i t e m s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s a n d r a n g e s w e r e n o t r e l e v a n t f o r t h e two  True-False  scales  Intellect  (Gough's I n t e l l e c t u a l  composite) applies  and were t h e r e f o r e n o t c a l c u l a t e d .  t o t h e OCQ  a l a r m s a r e now responses.  The  The  same a r g u m e n t  because t h e c a l c u l a t i o n o f h i t s and  the s u b j e c t of concern r a t h e r than the o t h e r two  administered i n identical v a r i a t i o n o f t h e Smart t h e Behavior  e f f i c i e n c y a n d Hogan's  Check  List  d e v i a t i o n s w e r e 1.54  traditional  (BCL)  a n d 1.65  items.  original  i n d i r e c t measures were  9-point response  s c a l e i t e m s was  false  format, but  the  n o t i c e a b l y g r e a t e r than The  average  f o r T r a p n e l l ' s Smart  standard scale,  and  .82  14 and  .75 f o r t h e BCL.  s c a l e was f u l l y BCL,  The a v e r a g e r a n g e o f t h e i t e m s  8.00 i n b o t h  o f t h e Smart  samples, h i g h e r than t h a t f o r t h e  4.63 a n d 4.10.  I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s Among P r e d i c t o r s The  m a t r i x o f i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s among t h e t r a d i t i o n a l  scales, Table  s u b s c a l e s , a n d t h e new i n d i r e c t m e a s u r e , i s p r e s e n t e d i n  3.  Note t h a t the f o u r t r a d i t i o n a l  i n c l u d i n g subscales) ranging  from  with correlation  .08 t o .56 (Sample 1) a n d f r o m  Sternberg's  intercorrelate  coefficients  .10 t o .47  (Sample  subscales i n t e r c o r r e l a t e d quite strongly, with  c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s ranging from from  i n d i r e c t measures (not  a n d t h e new i n d i r e c t . m e a s u r e  p o s i t i v e l y but only modestly, 2).  indirect  .67 t o .77 (Sample 1) a n d  .65 t o .68 (Sample 2 ) , w h i l e Hogan's  i n t e r c o r r e l a t e modestly,  subscales  w i t h c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s o f .25  (Sample 1) a n d .35 (Sample 2 ) . I n s e r t Table  3 about here  Performance o f t h e T r a d i t i o n a l D i r e c t Measures Table all  4 contains the v a l i d i t i e s ,  that i s , the correlations of  s e l f - r a t e d i n t e l l i g e n c e m e a s u r e s w i t h IQ.  validity  i s that of the single s e l f - r a t e d i n t e l l i g e n c e  These v a l u e s were corresponding  .20 (Sample 1) a n d .23 (Sample 2 ) .  validities  s l i g h t l y higher:  The  .24 (Sample 1) a n d .26 (Sample 2 ) . 4 about here  T h i s s m a l l i m p r o v e m e n t was d i s a p p o i n t i n g . formula ,  item:  f o r t h e c o m p o s i t e d i r e c t measure were  I n s e r t Table  1 0  The b a s e l i n e  The S p e a r m a n - B r o w n  f o r i n s t a n c e , w o u l d p r e d i c t a v a l u e o f .33 f o r a 4-  i t e m s c a l e o f .23  Apparently,  items d i d not p a r a l l e l Despite the best e f f o r t  the v a l i d i t i e s  those of the o r i g i n a l  of the a d d i t i o n a l item  (intelligent).  to select conceptually similar  items,  a g g r e g a t i o n p r o v i d e d o n l y modest improvements i n t h e v a l i d i t y o f direct  measures.  Performance of the T r a d i t i o n a l The predict  Indirect  a b i l i t y of the four t r a d i t i o n a l  Measures i n d i r e c t measures t o  IQ s c o r e s was e x a m i n e d i n two ways.  First  the v a l i d i t i e s  15 o f e a c h p r e d i c t o r w e r e c a l c u l a t e d a n d compared;  then a r e g r e s s i o n  a n a l y s i s was p e r f o r m e d t o d e t e r m i n e w h i c h o f t h e p r e d i c t o r s made independent  contributions.  Correlations. traditional  indirect  b o t h samples. 1  From T a b l e 4, i t c a n be s e e n t h a t a l l  four  scales achieved s i g n i f i c a n t v a l i d i t i e s i n  A l t h o u g h two IQ o u t l i e r s w e r e r e m o v e d f r o m S a m p l e  (one h i g h ; one l o w ) , t h e p a t t e r n o f v a l i d i t i e s  a c r o s s t h e two  s a m p l e s was r e m a r k a b l y c o n s i s t e n t . . Of t h e f o u r t r a d i t i o n a l Intellectual .20  i n d i r e c t measures,  Gough's  e f f i c i e n c y scale performed best, w i t h v a l i d i t i e s of  (Sample 1) a n d .34 ( S a m p l e ' 2 ) ,  scale, with v a l i d i t i e s  f o l l o w e d by T r a p n e l l ' s  Smart  o f .24 (Sample 1) a n d .25 (Sample 2 ) .  A l t h o u g h n o t as s u c c e s s f u l o v e r a l l ,  t h e o t h e r measures  o f f e r e d a s u c c e s s f u l s u b s c a l e : Hogan's School  Success  each performed  w e l l a t .19 (Sample 1). a n d .27 (Sample 2 ) , a n d s o d i d S t e r n b e r g ' s Verbal  A b i l i t y s u b s c a l e , a t .24 (Sample 1) a n d .18 (Sample 2 ) .  Regression Analyses.  To d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r  the t r a d i t i o n a l  i n d i r e c t m e a s u r e s made i n d e p e n d e n t c o n t r i b u t i o n s  i n predicting  IQ, a r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s was c o n d u c t e d i n e a c h s a m p l e 5).  When IQ s c o r e was r e g r e s s e d o n a l l  scales  four t r a d i t i o n a l  ( f o r c e d e n t r y ) i n b o t h s a m p l e s , Gough's  e f f i c i e n c y s c a l e a n d t h e Smart  (see Table indirect  Intellectual  s c a l e showed s i g n i f i c a n t  weights  a c r o s s b o t h s a m p l e s . Hogan's I n t e l l e c t c o m p o s i t e was a l s o significant  i n one s a m p l e .  by t h e f o u r t r a d i t i o n a l 16%  The r e s u l t i n g v a r i a n c e a c c o u n t e d f o r  i n d i r e c t m e a s u r e s was 1 0 % (Sample 1) a n d  (Sample 2 ) . I n s e r t Table 5 about  here  A f o l l o w - u p s e t o f r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s e s was c o n d u c t e d t o d e t e r m i n e t h e combined p r e d i c t i v e power o f each s e t o f s u b s c a l e s . When t h e t h r e e S t e r n b e r g s u b s c a l e s w e r e f o r c e - e n t e r e d ,  they  accounted f o r a t o t a l o f 6 and 4 p e r c e n t o f t h e v a r i a n c e i n t h e two s a m p l e s .  A s i m i l a r f o r c e d - e n t r y w i t h Hogan's s u b s c a l e s  accounted f o r a t o t a l of samples.  7 percent of the variance i n both  16 The  Two-Factor C a t e g o r i z a t i o n  of the T r a d i t i o n a l  Predictors  T a b l e 6 summarizes t h e k e y d a t a f o r t h i s r e p o r t the  mean v a l i d i t i e s  of the four  categories  measures o f s e l f - r e p o r t i n t e l l i g e n c e . measures c a n e a s i l y be compared w i t h  of t r a d i t i o n a l  The p e r f o r m a n c e o f d i r e c t those o f i n d i r e c t measures  f o r b o t h s i n g l e items and t h e aggregated Insert The  entries  validities 2);  The s i n g l e - i t e m  o f IQ w i t h  the single  ( S t u d y 1) o r " c l e a r - t h i n k i n g ,  The s i n g l e - i t e m  scales.  Table 6 about here  are the correlations  validities  scales.  i n Table 6 a r e as f o l l o w s :  "intelligent"  indirect validities  The a g g r e g a t e d d i r e c t e n t r i e s  validities  intelligent"  F i n a l l y , the aggregated items  effect of  from  (.03-.04) c o n t r a s t  predicted For  the indirect scales, f o raggregation.  across a l l four  .20-. 23  dramatically  validities  .11  t o .20 f o r I n t e l l e c t u a l  from  respectively,  Such m i n i m a l increases  however, T a b l e 6 r e v e a l s  around  a dramatic  (.07) a n d t h e mean o f t h e f o u r  full  aggregation  raised  .05 t o .20, .20 t o .24, .05 t o .08, a n d f r o m efficiency,  Smart,  i n Sample 1 a n d f r o m  .09  t o .13, a n d f r o m  the  t r a d i t i o n a l indirect scales  I n t e l l e c t , and t h e  .07 t o .34, .21 t o .25,  .06 t o .13 i n Sample 2. benefited  In short,  a l l of  from a g g r e g a t i o n .  t h e Spearman-Brown p r e d i c t i o n s  f o r the aggregated  a r e .19, .32, .16, a n d .30 f o r t h e f o u r t r a d i t i o n a l  measures, r e s p e c t i v e l y , S a m p l e 2.  with  B r o k e n down s c a l e b y s c a l e ,  the  Note that  t o .24-. 26.  aggregation  H e r e t h e c o m p a r i s o n i s b e t w e e n t h e mean  t h e 119 i t e m v a l i d i t i e s  validities  indirect  b y t h e Spearman-Brown f o r m u l a .  scale v a l i d i t i e s :  BCL,  of the  i n d i r e c t measures.  boosts the v a l i d i t i e s .30  (Study  traditional indirect  In t h e case o f t h e t r a d i t i o n a l d i r e c t measures, increases  item,  are the v a l i d i t i e s  a r e t h e mean s c a l e v a l i d i t i e s  traditional  direct  a r e mean i t e m  a c r o s s a l l 119 i t e m s o f t h e f o u r  4-item d i r e c t scales.  by d i s p l a y i n g  i n Sample 1 a n d .24, .33, .25, a n d .21 i n  Thus i t a p p e a r s t h a t  scale benefited  only the Intellectual  efficiency  f r o m a g g r e g a t i o n a s much a s , o r more t h a n , t h e  Spearman-Brown f o r m u l a w o u l d p r e d i c t .  The o t h e r t h r e e  scales  17 fell  s h o r t o f t h e p o t e n t i a l a c h i e v a b l e i f each i t e m had been as  v a l i d a s t h e mean i t e m . A Closer Examination of the T r a d i t i o n a l Empirical Top  Measures:  Approach  P e r f o r m i n g Items.  T a b l e 7 p r e s e n t s t h e 10 b e s t p e r f o r m i n g  items from t h e t r a d i t i o n a l  indirect scales,  c o n s i s t e n t l y good v a l i d i t i e s . t h e t o p 10. has  Indirect  as d e f i n e d by  E v e r y measure i s r e p r e s e n t e d i n  The f a c t t h a t t h e I n t e l l e c t u a l  efficiency  (Ie) s c a l e  t h e l a r g e s t number o f r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s p r o b a b l y d e r i v e s f r o m  t h e f a c t t h a t i t c o n t a i n s t h e most i t e m s . the items w i t h the h i g h e s t v a l i d i t i e s a b i l i t y - r e l a t e d ones.  After a l l ,  I t i s noteworthy  are the i n t e l l i g e n c e - or  the rationale behind the  c r e a t i o n o f t h e s e i n d i r e c t m e a s u r e s was t h a t i n d i r e c t should exceed as  t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h e more b l u n t , d i r e c t  "intelligent"  f o u r Smart  made t h e t o p 10. School  Success  items performed w e l l  here  i n b o t h samples,  Check  a n d two that  L i s t b o t h come f r o m t h e  A b i l i t y subscale. t h e c o n t e n t s o f T a b l e 7, t h e n , i t a p p e a r s  top-performing items i n the t r a d i t i o n a l ability  such  s u b s c a l e and b o t h concern r e a d i n g . A l s o note  Summarizing either  items  Note t h a t t h e t o p I n t e l l e c t items a r e from t h e  t h e t o p i t e m s o f t h e Behavior Verbal  items  o r "smart". I n s e r t T a b l e 7 about  All  that  i n d i r e c t s c a l e s were  (a) d i r e c t a b i l i t y - r e l a t e d i t e m s , (i.e.,  behavior.  Smart  scale),  that the  (b) i n d i r e c t  a n d (c) i t e m s a b o u t  items  about  reading  I f t h e s e t e n i t e m s a r e c o m b i n e d i n t o a new " b e s t  items" composite  scale,  t h e c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h IQ i s .34 i n Sample  1 a n d .38 i n Sample 2 . 1 1  A Closer Examination of the T r a d i t i o n a l Theoretical  Indirect  Measures:  Approach  H a v i n g d i s c o v e r e d t h a t t h e b e s t p e r f o r m i n g i t e m s o f t h e Gough, Hogan, a n d S t e r n b e r g s c a l e s w e r e , i n f a c t , ability-related  i t e m s , t h e items o f t h e s e i n d i r e c t measures were  categorized theoretically. considered:  t h e more d i r e c t a n d  mental  Four a p r i o r i  abilities,  c a t e g o r i e s were  personality-related, behaviors,  18 and  interests.  Two  judges  showed 95% a g r e e m e n t  on  classification. F o r e a c h c a t e g o r y , t h e mean v a l i d i t i e s w e r e c a l c u l a t e d p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e 8. and  .12  (Sample 2)  Mean i t e m v a l i d i t i e s w e r e  f o r the a b i l i t y  items.  .14  (personality,  .03  r a n g e - - a l l s u b s t a n t i a l l y lower than the  .06  related  (Sample  Means f o r n e x t  categories to  and 1)  three  i n t e r e s t s , - and b e h a v i o r s ) w e r e i n t h e ability-  items. I n s e r t Table 8 about  Best of a l l , habits:  h o w e v e r , was  here  the s e t of items a d d r e s s i n g r e a d i n g  " I r e a d a t l e a s t t e n books a y e a r " from the l e  Intellect scales,  "As  I n t e l l e c t composite  a child  scale,  I was  and  always  r e a d i n g " from  "Reads w i d e l y " a n d  t i m e f o r r e a d i n g " f r o m t h e BCL.  In fact,  showed e x c e p t i o n a l mean v a l i d i t i e s  of  .19  and Hogan's  "Sets a s i d e  these reading (Sample 1) a n d  items .18  (Sample 2 ) . I n sum,  i t appears  a b i l i t y and  t h a t items d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to  items about r e a d i n g h a b i t s outperformed  i t e m c o n t e n t c a t e g o r i e s i n p r e d i c t i n g IQ. o f i t e m s show p o s i t i v e , b u t low, t h e y c a n be a g g r e g a t e d , a reasonable l e v e l of Performance The  o f t h e New  m i g h t be  I n d i r e c t Measure:  The The  OCQ  S u b j e c t s who  Over-Claiming  clearly This  s h a r e s some  result  resemblance  show t h e most a c c u r a c y i n  d i s c r i m i n a t i n g between e x i s t e n t i t e m s and t h e IQ  reach  OCQ  index of the  g i v e n t h a t t h e OCQ  with objective tests.  to  validity.  a l l o t h e r measures i n b o t h samples.  expected,  other  Nonetheless,  as i n t h e c a s e o f t h e l e s c a l e ,  i s d i s p l a y e d i n T a b l e 4.  outperforms  the  other categories  item v a l i d i t i e s .  v a l i d i t y o f t h e Discrimination  Questionnaire  The  mental  foils  scored higher  on  test.  A t t h e same t i m e , t h e OCQ  i s more l i k e a  self-report.  Therefore,  i t s c o r r e l a t i o n s w i t h other s e l f - r e p o r t s are  of  interest.  I t s modest c o r r e l a t i o n s w i t h t h e t r a d i t i o n a l  indirect  m e a s u r e s w e r e a l r e a d y r e p o r t e d i n T a b l e 3.  The  b e t w e e n t h e OCQ  intelligence  composite  was  and  the d i r e c t ,  a l s o modest:  .23  self-report  i n Sample 1 a n d  correlation .12  i n Sample  2.  19 Out  of i n t e r e s t ' s  including  OCQ  sake,  an a d d i t i o n a l  w i t h the f o u r t r a d i t i o n a l  r e g r e s s i o n was indirect  measures.  S i m p l y p u t , when t h e f i v e p r e d i c t o r s w e r e e n t e r e d , Discrimination In fact,  came o u t as t h e b e s t p r e d i c t o r  performed  OCQ  i n both  samples.  i t o c c l u d e d the o t h e r measures. Discussion  The  present  s t u d y s e t o u t t o e v a l u a t e w h e t h e r IQ c a n  measured by p r o x y .  That i s , can  u s e d as a s u b s t i t u t e validity  the handy s e l f - r e p o r t  f o r a cumbersome IQ t e s t ?  improving v a l i d i t y , Aggregation scales,  aggregated,  present r e s u l t s  of the  d i r e c t measures were t h e most e f f e c t i v e ,  s e c o n d h y p o t h e s i s was highest v a l i d i t y  a l s o supported:  i n the present  baseline, validities studies.  I n two .20  of  OCQ  that  b u t none o f  .30.  indeed  The showed  and  the  Measures  s t u d y began by e s t a b l i s h i n g the v a l i d i t y  that i s , a single  intelligence.  The  for  samples.  Performance of the T r a d i t i o n a l D i r e c t present  proved  traditional  indicate  the t r a d i t i o n a l measures c o u l d c o n s i s t e n t l y exceed  The  not  aggregation.  d i d i n d e e d enhance the v a l i d i t i e s The  be  the  a number o f s t r a t e g i e s  namely, i n d i r e c t n e s s and  as h y p o t h e s i z e d .  format  Because  of a s i n g l e s e l f - r a t i n g of i n t e l l i g e n c e has  adequate, r e s e a r c h e r s have advocated  be  face-valid self-rating  of  the  of  l a r g e s a m p l e s , t h e s i n g l e - i t e m showed .23—values  that are t y p i c a l  of  previous  Some s t u d i e s h a v e r e p o r t e d h i g h e r v a l i d i t i e s  but  most  of t h o s e were h i g h - s c h o o l o r o t h e r samples w i t h a wide range talent. suffer  C o m p e t i t i v e c o l l e g e s a m p l e s s u c h as t h e p r e s e n t from  a r e s t r i c t e d range of a b i l i t y ,  v a l i d i t y values.  I n any  case,  which l i m i t s  of  ones, potential  such modest b a s e l i n e v a l u e s  left  p l e n t y o f room f o r i m p r o v e m e n t v i a a g g r e g a t i o n . The  e m p i r i c a l b e n e f i t s of a g g r e g a t i o n were e v a l u a t e d  pooling  the s i n g l e item w i t h other i n t e l l i g e n c e - r e l a t e d  i n a composite observed  d i r e c t measure.  not g i f t e d . The  The  items  improvement i n v a l i d i t y  w i t h the a d d i t i o n of the 3-4  antonymous t o " i n t e l l i g e n t " , that  An  by 1 2  was  i t e m s most synonymous/  namely, smart,  clever,  simple,  l a c k of improvement beyond f o u r items  and  suggests  f u r t h e r a g g r e g a t i o n a d d e d more n o i s e t h a n v a l i d v a r i a n c e . b a t t e r y of items  contained every conceivable item r e l a t e d  to  20 mental  ability.  B u t few o f t h e s e w e r e a b l e t o c a p t u r e t h a t  of s e l f - p e r c e p t i o n l i n k e d to  facet  IQ.  But even the observed v a l i d i t y of the 4-item composite  (.26)  d i d n o t match t h e v a l i d i t y p r e d i c t e d from t h e Spearman-Brown formula  (.33)  based  "intelligent".  Clearly,  c o n c e p t u a l l y and Performance  on t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h e o r i g i n a l  item  t h a t item p l a y s a s p e c i a l "role,  both  empirically.  of the T r a d i t i o n a l  I n d i r e c t measures promised  Indirect  Measures  to surpass the performance  of  d i r e c t measures by p r o v i d i n g a l e s s t h r e a t e n i n g o r  evaluative,  assessment  the  was  atmosphere.  not f u l f i l l e d  raised different  I n terms  i n this data.  of p r e d i c t i n g  IQ,  promise  Given t h a t each i n d i r e c t  measure  i s s u e s , h o w e v e r , t h e y w i l l be c o n s i d e r e d o n e - b y -  one . Gough I n t e l l e c t u a l s c a l e was  efficiency  (le)  scale.  Recall  that the l e  c o n s t r u c t e d i n a c o n t r a s t e d - g r o u p s f a s h i o n by  selecting  C a l i f o r n i a P s y c h o l o g i c a l I n v e n t o r y i t e m s t h a t c o r r e l a t e d w i t h an IQ t e s t  (Gough, 1 9 5 3 ) .  G i v e n t h a t i t was  developed decades  on C a l i f o r n i a h i g h - s c h o o l s t u d e n t s , i t s s u c c e s s i n a Canadian  c o l l e g e s a m p l e - - v a l i d i t i e s of  considered remarkable.  .20 a n d  Nonetheless a f u l l  ago  contemporary  .3 4 - - m i g h t  be  52 i t e m s w e r e  r e q u i r e d t o a c h i e v e t h o s e f u l l - s c a l e v a l i d i t i e s b e c a u s e t h e mean i t e m v a l i d i t y was  low.  Of c o u r s e , T r u e - F a l s e i t e m s a r e  t o show l o w e r v a l i d i t i e s corresponding Likert  expected  (but f a s t e r a d m i n i s t r a t i o n t i m e s )  than  items.  Contrary to the o r i g i n a l  i n t e n t o f t h e le,  h o w e v e r , i t was  p r i m a r i l y t h e m e n t a l - a b i l i t y i t e m s t h a t c o r r e l a t e d w i t h IQ,  and  t h e s e i t e m s t e n d t o be q u i t e direct  i n nature.  a  number o f c o n f i d e n c e a n d a d j u s t m e n t  items were s e l e c t e d because  t h e y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h IQ. i n the present r e s u l t s . d i r e c t l y on a b i l i t y . validities  Why  Those a s s o c i a t i o n s were n o t s u s t a i n e d The  t o p i t e m s , s e e n i n T a b l e 7,  t h e c o n f i d e n c e and a d j u s t m e n t  d i d not r e p l i c a t e i s d i f f i c u l t  t e s t performance  Originally,  to say.  i s more i n f l u e n c e d b y a d j u s t m e n t  focused item  Perhaps  IQ  i n high-school  than i n c o l l e g e students. Perhaps  t h e f o u r - d e c a d e gap  Even a c r o s s a 10-year  i n c u l t u r e i s somehow r e s p o n s i b l e .  time-span,  Paulhus and L a n d o l t  t h a t r a t h e r d i f f e r e n t p e o p l e were nominated  (1994)  found  when s u b j e c t s w e r e  21 a s k e d "who  i s most i n t e l l i g e n t " .  I t i s suspected  t h a t when  c r i t e r i o n - g r o u p s r a t h e r t h a n r a t i o n a l methods a r e u s e d t o d e v e l o p scales, likely  items  m e a s u r i n g t e m p o r a r y s o c i e t a l i n f l u e n c e s a r e more  to intrude.  Sternberg's  Behavior  Check  List.  o n l y modest p r e d i c t i v e e f f i c a c y . Verbal  One o f t h e  A b i l i t y subscale—was e f f e c t i v e .  f o u n d t h e same p a t t e r n . study  As a u n i t ,  concerning  showed  subscales--the  Sternberg  D e t a i l e d item analyses  r e v e a l e d t h a t the h i g h - v a l i d i t y items  were those  t h e BCL  e t a l . (1981)  i n the present  c a r r y i n g the  m e n t a l - a b i l i t y and items  about  subscale  reading  habits. Although impressive  t h e a b i l i t y o f t h e BCL  t o p r e d i c t IQ was n o t  f o r a 41 L i k e r t - i t e m m e a s u r e , a t t e n t i o n must be  to i t s o r i g i n a l purpose.  Sternberg  intended  t h e BCL,  p r o x y f o r IQ t e s t s , b u t a s a s u p p l e m e n t a r y m e a s u r e :  n o t as a I t was t o b e  administered  a l o n g w i t h a n IQ t e s t t o t a p c o m p o n e n t s o f  intelligence  t h a t IQ t e s t s w e r e n o t c a p a b l e  (Sternberg,  1988, p . 2 3 9 ) .  T h i s p e r s p e c t i v e on t h e BCL  expected .  i s consistent with  of i n t e l l i g e n c e .  b e e n f o l l o w e d up i n w o r k on " n o n - t e s t self-  1996) .  By p a r t i a l i n g  Recently,  Sternberg's  " b e y o n d IQ".  part  t h i s n o t i o n has  intelligence"  (Lysy  &  IQ a n d s e l f - p r e s e n t a t i o n o u t o f  and p e e r - r a t i n g s o f i n t e l l i g e n c e ,  p e e r - r e s i d u a l was is  1 3  p o s i t i o n t h a t IQ t e s t s m e a s u r e o n l y a l i m i t e d  of l a y conceptions Paulhus,  of measuring  From t h i s p e r s p e c t i v e , a h i g h  c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h IQ w o u l d n o t b e longstanding  called  a s e l f - r e s i d u a l and a  formed i n d e x i n g t h a t p a r t o f i n t e l l i g e n c e The r e s i d u a l s w e r e t h e n c o r r e l a t e d w i t h  that  a  b a t t e r y o f p e r s o n a l i t y a n d i n t e r e s t m e a s u r e s . The t o p c o r r e l a t e s of t h e s e l f - r e s i d u a l were s e l f - r a t e d c o n s c i e n t i o u s n e s s openness, s e l f - e s t e e m , Smart  I n t e l l e c t u a l e f f i c i e n c y s c a l e , and t h e  s c a l e , w h i l e t h e t o p c o r r e l a t e s o f t h e p e e r r e s i d u a l were  peer-rated and  and  conscientiousness,  athletic ability.  suggest that  "non-test  dependent i d i o s y n c r a s y .  openness, p h y s i c a l a t t r a c t i v e n e s s  The d i f f e r e n t c o r r e l a t e s o f s e l f a n d p e e r intelligence"  i s largely a perceiver-  T h e r e was, h o w e v e r , a s m a l l  overlapping  component i n d i c a t i n g t h a t s e l f and o t h e r s s y s t e m a t i c a l l y m i s a t t r i b u t e i n t e l l i g e n c e t o t h o s e who a r e c o n s c i e n t i o u s  and  22 open. that  This  component may  i s not  represented  be  t h a t f a c e t of  "true i n t e l l i g e n c e "  i n IQ t e s t s .  Hogan's I n t e l l e c t c o m p o s i t e s c a l e .  As  c o m p o s i t e showed o n l y a m o d e s t a b i l i t y  a whole, the I n t e l l e c t  t o p r e d i c t IQ  O b s c u r e d i n t h i s o v e r a l l f i g u r e , however, i s the two  subscales  that  unconventional, was  was  designed to  c r e a t i v e conception  of  distinction  intellect.  i n t h a t School  p r e d i c t o r of  IQ.  u n d e r e s t i m a t e d by U s i n g the  Success  was  14  a distinctly  e f f i c a c y of the  obtained  .45--better  t h a n any Of  shifting intended,  Smart  scale.  The  (1994) Smart  Subjects  Smart  course,  the  scale i n  scale, performed w e l l . ways:  the  item  and  from s e l f  e n t i r e range of the  It  (1)  the  was  by (2)  by  to others.  s c a l e d i d show a r e d u c e d r a n g e  u t i l i z e d almost the  a  o f t h e mean  newest t r a d i t i o n a l  i m p l i e d l o c u s of e v a l u a t i o n  the  was  added.  the d e s i r a b i l i t y of c l a i m i n g  the  latter  i n the u n l i k e l y event  d e s i g n e d t o r e d u c e r a n g e - r e s t r i c t i o n i n two diminishing  better  the p r e d i c t e d v a l i d i t y of  i n the p r e s e n t data.  e q u a l l y - v a l i d i t e m s c o u l d be  study, Trapnell's  this  employing only a 7-item v e r s i o n .  Spearman-Brown f o r m u l a ,  Trapnell's  School  goal-oriented  Spearman-Brown p r e d i c t i o n w o u l d h o l d o n l y that  Recall  of i n t e l l e c t whereas  present r e s u l t s support  Moreover, the  2 1 - i t e m v e r s i o n w o u l d be validities  The  the  capture  a i m e d a t t h e more c o n v e n t i o n a l  conception  fact that  showed d r a m a t i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t v a l i d i t i e s .  I n t e l l e c t a n c e subscale  Success  scores.  As  restriction:  9-point  n o t i c e a b l y more t h a n t h e r a n g e o f S t e r n b e r g ' s Behavior  scale-Check  List. The  Smart  scale i s certainly efficient,  items to match or even o u t - p e r f o r m the measures. Smart  I t i s now  s c a l e d i d not  composites with etc.)  evident, derive  four items of s i m i l a r content the  success of  (smart,  scale.  the  Direct clever,  Therefore i t s  more l i k e l y a f u n c t i o n o f c o n t e n t r a t h e r t h a n  a  items.  Content of the T r a d i t i o n a l I n d i r e c t P r e d i c t o r s This  the  Smart  four-  traditional indirect  however, t h a t the  s t r a t e g i c c o n t e x t u a l i z i n g of the The  other  from i t s i n d i r e c t n a t u r e .  w o r k e d j u s t as w e l l as  s u c c e s s was  requiring only  scale-by-scale  a n a l y s i s o f s u c c e s s f u l i t e m s has  source of t h e i r success.  A l t h o u g h the  four  clarified  traditional  23 i n v e n t o r i e s d e r i v e d from f o u r d r a m a t i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t domains, s u c c e s s f u l items w i t h i n each were almost related.  Of  course,  ability directly.  But  r a t i o n a l e behind  the f i r s t  validities  of t h i s study's  Out  the  strategies. t h a t the  f o r i n d i r e c t measures r e s u l t e d from  inclusion i n a later test battery administered later the d i r e c t  address  items work b e s t , g i v e n the  f i n d i n g r e f u t e s the p o s s i b i l i t y  overall  to  i n the case of i n d i r e c t measures, i t i s  t h a t the d i r e c t  this  ability-  the d i r e c t measures were d e s i g n e d  certainly ironic Fortunately,  entirely  the  lower  their  than  were  measures.  of a l l remaining  item-content  c o n s i s t e n t l y h i g h v a l i d i t i e s was  areas,  t h e o n l y one  yielding  an i n t e r e s t i n r e a d i n g .  Why  1 4  a  l i f e l o n g enjoyment of r e a d i n g i s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a c h i e v i n g h i g h s c o r e s on  IQ t e s t s i s n o t c l e a r . Many e d u c a t i o n a l p s y c h o l o g i s t s  argue t h a t r e a d i n g behavior permanently boosts mental (Rayner & P o l l a t s e k , course,  1989)  and  i s therefore encouraged.  o t h e r c a u s a l sequences are p o s s i b l e .  m i g h t make r e a d i n g more e n j o y a b l e . social The  Or  c l a s s or openness t o e x p e r i e n c e  Value  of  abilities  High  intelligence  t h i r d v a r i a b l e s such 1 6  might n u r t u r e  both.  is certainly  e f f i c i e n t g i v e n t h e p r a c t i c a l c o s t s o f a d d i n g more i t e m s test battery.  And,  across a l l items administered,  most c o n s i s t e n t l y v a l i d . o n l y up The  Nonetheless,  to f i v e  items.  the items  from a g g r e g a t i o n  suggests  the  traditional  improved  validities scope.  e f f i c i e n c y s c a l e b e n e f i t e d most  that this  strategy aids True-False  I t i s understandable  t h o u g h p o t e n t i a l l y as v a l i d a s L i k e r t  a g g r e g a t i o n because of lower  item  more  that dichtomous i t e m s , r e q u i r e more  reliability.  D o n ' t T r a d i t i o n a l S e l f - R e p o r t M e a s u r e s Work? Can  s e l f - r e p o r t s be u s e d as p r o x y m e a s u r e s o f IQ i n c o l l e g e  samples? not  i t was  l i n k e d t o IQ h a v e a l i m i t e d s e m a n t i c  than L i k e r t - i t e m s c a l e s .  Why  to a  Beyond t h a t , r e t u r n s were m a r g i n a l .  f a c t t h a t the I n t e l l e c t u a l  items,  f o r both  i n d i r e c t measures, a g g r e g a t i o n  Apparently,  as  Aggregation  A d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the s i n g l e item " i n t e l l i g e n t "  d i r e c t and  Of  1 5  The  present data suggest  satisfactory.  Given  t h a t t r a d i t i o n a l measures  t h a t t h e v a l i d i t y o f an  m e a s u r e w o u l d be u p w a r d s o f  .55  17  ideal  i n c o l l e g e samples,  proxy the  are  24 v a l i d i t y cap of  .30.  The  b e s t a v a i l a b l e m e a s u r e s , as w e l l as  most h i g h l y t o u t e d improvement s t r a t e g i e s were t r i e d The t o be  c r i t e r i o n measure, the W o n d e r l i c at fault.  validation  1994;  performance  Wonderlic,  corresponds  I t performed  1992).  Rather  the poor  1989;  than being  IQ i n c o l l e g e s a m p l e s ,  i t s lacklustre  d i r e c t l y t o i t s low s t a n d a r d  no b e t t e r and no w o r s e t h a n a n y  t e s t would have i n t h i s and  deviation standard  correspondence  between the t r a d i t i o n a l  s e l f - p e r c e p t i o n s on i n s i g h t a b o u t t h e same a b i l i t i e s s e l f - r a t i n g s and  The  direct  IQ?  a s s o c i a t i o n c a n be o b s e r v e d u n l e s s p e o p l e h a p p e n t o b a s e t a p p e d b y IQ t e s t s .  IQ  situation.  i n d i r e c t measures of s e l f - r a t e d i n t e l l i g e n c e and  The  appear  P r e v i o u s s t u d i e s h a v e shown d e c e n t c o n s t r u c t  i n a p p r o p r i a t e f o r measuring  So why  does n o t  i n c o l l e g e p o p u l a t i o n s (e.g., Kennedy e t a l . ,  McKelvie,  here.  IQ t e s t ,  out.  No their  that are  d i s y n c h r o n y between the o t h e r  IQ i n c l u d e s m o t i v a t e d and u n m o t i v a t e d  available ignorance.  m o t i v a t e d p o r t i o n i n v o l v e s i n f l a t e d s e l f - p e r c e p t i o n s due  n a r c i s s i s m or s e l f - d e c e p t i o n :  P r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h shows t h a t  c o m p o n e n t c o n t r i b u t e s e v e n more t h a n IQ, p e r h a p s the r e l i a b l e v a r i a n c e (Gabriel, C r i t e l l i , Yik,  & Lysy,  the  1 8  1996).  & Ee,  20 percent 1994;  to this of  Paulhus,  T h i s m o t i v a t e d component a l s o i n c l u d e s  i d i o s y n c r a t i c d e f i n i t i o n s of i n t e l l i g e n c e designed d e f e n s i v e l y to m a t c h t h e i r own intelligent  best a b i l i t i e s  (Dunning  i g n o r a n c e may  demonstrated of range  t h e r e f o r e ensure  & Cohen, 1 9 9 2 ) .  The  (Campbell  & Lavallee,  concern,  insight  The  restriction  c r e a t e d by the use o f c o l l e g e samples i s l i k e l y Thus t h e b a s e l i n e v a l i d i t y  i n s t e a d of t h e cap of  i n s t r u m e n t s , v a l u e s of population.  The  t o have  as a f u n c t i o n o f t h e r e d u c e d v a r i a n c e s  s i n g l e i t e m " i n t e l l i g e n t " would have r e a c h e d Similarly,  of  validities  i n t h i s r e p o r t must be p o i n t e d o u t .  ( s e e C o h e n & Cohen, 1 9 8 3 ) .  normal  or  portion  are  1993).  t h e h a n d i c a p p l a c e d on a l l o f t h e  diminished a l lv a l i d i t i e s  .20-.23.  that they  unmotivated  i n c l u d e a l a c k of i n t e r e s t ,  i n t o such matters Finally,  and  f o r the  .30-.35, i n s t e a d  .30  for  of  aggregated  .40-45 c o u l d h a v e b e e n a c h i e v e d i n t h e l a t t e r v a l u e s appear s t r o n g enough t o  u s e f u l i n research, i f not i n diagnosing  be  individuals.  S e l f - r e p o r t s o f i n t e l l i g e n c e s h o u l d n o t be e v a l u a t e d s o l e l y i n t e r m s o f p o t e n t i a l as p r o x i e s f o r IQ t e s t s .  Lay p e r c e i v e r s are  25  q u i c k t o a r g u e t h a t t h e r e i s more t o i n t e l l i g e n c e Participants  i n the present  their self-ratings sensitivity,  study,  t h e i r musical a b i l i t y , by  conceptions must be  and G a r d n e r h a v e a r g u e d  1996).  of i n t e l l i g e n c e tests.  The  correlate  P e e r - r a t i n g s , f o r one.  that self-report  i s d e t e c t a b l e by  entity.  The  b e t w e e n IQ t e s t s  P e r f o r m a n c e o f t h e New confirmed  cognitive ability. before,  another  been p r o v i d e d  (Lysy & perceptions  o b s e r v e r s but not by  t h e two  measures of  Measure:  The  B e c a u s e i t s v a l i d i t y was  a s a p r o x y m e a s u r e o f IQ.  high  intelligence. general  only evaluated  here provide assurance  I f t h e mean v a l i d i t y o f  disattenuated for r e l i a b i l i t y  the c o r r e l a t i o n  this  OCQ  i t s p r o m i s e as an i n d e x o f  replications  From  to f i n d  and p e r c e p t i o n s o f  Indirect  this  intelligence  IQ m e a s u r e s .  surprising  once  of i t s v a l u e .44  is  reaches  .61.  And,  correcting  f o r r e s t r i c t i o n of range b r i n g s the v a l i d i t y a l l the  way  .76.  up It  to  i s interesting  t h a t t h e OCQ  does not  a s s o c i a t i o n s w i t h the other s e l f - r e p o r t s , indirect.  show s t r o n g either  direct  P e r h a p s t h e o t h e r s a r e more i n t e r c o r r e l a t e d  they are contaminated Discrimination contamination. Discrimination  with self-presentation.  index nor Together,  t h i s p a t t e r n suggests  o b j e c t i v e m e a s u r e o f IQ.  Of  course,  as t h e o t h e r m e a s u r e s i n p r e d i c t i n g intelligence.  or because  Neither  t h e IQ t e s t c a n c o n t a i n  i n d e x does i n d e e d p o s s e s s  IQ  they  would not measure  as p r o x y  correlations has  OCQ  Thus s e l f - r e p o r t  i t w o u l d a c t u a l l y be  self-  measures p r e d i c t p e e r - r a t i n g s  s e l f and  perspective,  OCQ  In  b e s t p a r t of t r a d i t i o n a l measures i s t h a t  have v a l i d i t y beyond t h e i r use  The  to l a y  T h a t i s , some p o r t i o n o f o b s e r v e r s '  with peer-ratings.  "non-test"  that  IQ c o u l d be u s e d t o e v a l u a t e  o f i n t e l l i g e n c e a b o v e and b e y o n d IQ h a s Paulhus,  expert  tied in.  r e p o r t s of i n t e l l i g e n c e ? evidence  A number o f  o f i n t e l l i g e n c e more c l o s e l y  But what c r i t e r i a b e s i d e s report,  have based  or t h e i r s e l f - i n s i g h t - - n o n e  s t a n d a r d IQ t e s t s .  c o m m e n t a t o r s s u c h as S t e r n b e r g conceptions  f o r e x a m p l e , may  IQ.  on t h e i r c r e a t i v i t y , t h e i r i n t e r p e r s o n a l  of which are tapped scientific  than  the  such that  the  c o n s t r u c t v a l i d i t y as  i t may broader  n o t be  as  conceptions  effective of  an  26 The  a b i l i t y o f t h e OCQ  t o i n d e p e n d e n t l y measure  a n d b i a s makes i t a p o t e n t i a l l y v a l u a b l e t o o l settings.  The  OCQ  could replace t r a d i t i o n a l  s i t u a t i o n s where a e v a l u a t i n g a c a n d i d a t e ' s  discrimination  i n a number o f IQ t e s t i n g  in  knowledge i s  cumbersome, f o r e x a m p l e , when a l a r g e number o f t o p i c s m u s t addressed,  and where a d m i n i s t e r i n g o b j e c t i v e p e r f o r m a n c e measures  is difficult. on  F o r e x a m p l e , t h e OCQ  the telephone  addition, on  such  be  c a n be  c o m p l e t e d a t home o r  r a t h e r than under s u p e r v i s e d c o n d i t i o n s .  t h e o v e r c l a i m i n g n o t i o n seems i d e a l  i s s u e s as l i t e r a c y ,  f o r survey  r e c o g n i t i o n of p o l i t i c a l  In research  candidates,  o r r e c o g n i t i o n o f consumer p r o d u c t s . Other Promising Apart  Avenues  f r o m t h e OCQ,  clarifying  s e v e r a l p o t e n t i a l avenues  t h e l i n k s b e t w e e n t e s t p e r f o r m a n c e and  p e r c e p t i o n s of i n t e l l i g e n c e e x i s t . new of  toward  First  self-  i s the development  i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t s t o encompass more o f e v e r d a y "intelligence".  to everyday Wagner a n d  To  Sternberg  corresponds  t h e n a s s o c i a t i o n s s h o u l d be  (1986) h a v e p u r s u e d  and Mayer's  (199 0)  "Emotional  that s h i f t s  the conceptual borders  higher.  t h i s avenue  d e v e l o p i n g o b j e c t i v e measures of p r a c t i c a l  everyday  conceptions  the extent t h a t t e s t content  conceptions,  Intelligence"  by  intelligence. i s another  of i n t e l l i g e n c e  .toward  conceptions.  improving  the other s i d e of the r e l a t i o n s h i p ,  perceptions.  What c u e s a r e p e o p l e  namely, the  u s i n g to judge  intelligence?  The  p r o x i m a l cues,  that i s , objective behaviors (Reynolds  that  & Gifford,  too, are b e i n g examined  self-  in specifying  trigger  and mismatches between s e l f - and p e e r - p e r c e p t i o n s their correlates,  perhaps  their  l e n s model i s p r o v i n g p r o f i t a b l e  a t t r i b u t i o n s of i n t e l l i g e n c e  1996).  Salovey  measure  A s e c o n d avenue f o r f u t u r e r e s e a r c h i s c l a r i f y i n g and  and  of  1996) . of  (Lysy &  Matches  intelligence Paulhus,  T h i s r e s e a r c h should h e l p s p e c i f y the m i s s i n g content  current self-report Finally,  measures.  f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h on t h e t r a d i t i o n a l  indirect  measures  s t u d i e d here i s encouraged.  Their greatest potential asset  never been d i r e c t l y t e s t e d :  That i s , i n d i r e c t measures  outperform conditions.  in  has  may  d i r e c t m e a s u r e s i n more e g o - t h r e a t e n i n g a d m i n i s t r a t i o n Another i s s u e worthy of study i s whether the  direct  27 ability  i t e m s w o r k o n l y when i n t e r s p e r s e d  items..  F i n a l l y , future  T h i s a p p e a r s t o be  a t t r i b u t e of separating  the  OCQ  i s one  i t from the  a v a r i e t y of  research should further  some f o r m o f o b j e c t i v i t y i n s e l f - r e p o r t s validity.  with  the  of  examine whether  i s necessary to  case given that  t h e most o b v i o u s  other available  other  the  achieve  objective  characteristics  measures.  Conclusions The  present report  e x a m i n a t i o n of  constitutes  s e l f - r e p o r t s of  t h e most c o m p r e h e n s i v e  i n t e l l i g e n c e to date.  a v a i l a b l e measures have been o r g a n i z e d i n t o f o u r s e l f - r a t e d i n t e l l i g e n c e to i n v e s t i g a t e i n d i r e c t v e r s u s d i r e c t m e a s u r e s , and on p r e d i c t i n g indirect  objective  large  B o t h d i r e c t and  Direct  r e l i a b l y predict  Administration key  IQ  of  a  new,  of  these  conclusions.  scores.  The  one  Because  i n competitive college  v a l i d i t y l i m i t a p p e a r s t o be  items.  validities  of  p o t e n t i a l p r o x y measures  of  of samples,  .30.  items about g l o b a l mental a b i l i t i e s  indirect  employing  aggregation  addition  s a m p l e s l e a d s t o a few  r e s t r i c t e d range of a b i l i t i e s 2.  e f f e c t s of  of  i n d i r e c t t r a d i t i o n a l s e l f - r e p o r t measures  i n t e l l i g e n c e can however, the  categories  e f f e c t s of  The  available possibilities.  m e a s u r e s t o two 1.  the  intelligence.  s e l f - r e p o r t measure to the  exhausts the  the  The  are  more v a l i d t h a n  c l e a r e x c e p t i o n i s the  high  i n d i r e c t items r e f e r r i n g to enjoyment  of  reading. 3.  A g g r e g a t i o n i s b e n e f i c i a l up  to a point.  With the  exception  of r e a d i n g items, a g g r e g a t i o n doesn't appear to h e l p beyond 5 core items r e f e r r i n g d i r e c t l y to close intelligence 4.  (e.g., smart, c l e v e r ,  Among a v a i l a b l e predictors Equally  of  A new  simple, not  IQ w e r e Gough's l e and  e f f e c t i v e w e r e Hogan's School  Success  .50.  Smart  scale,  scale. and  A b i l i t y scale.  P a u l h u s ' Over-Claiming  the  Questionnaire  i t s v a l i d i t y even i n a r e s t r i c t e d range w i t h about  gifted).  Trapnell's  i n d i r e c t measure o u t p e r f o r m e d a l l of  measures.  of  t r a d i t i o n a l m e a s u r e s , t h e most e f f e c t i v e  S t e r n b e r g ' s Verbal 5.  synonyms/antonyms  4-  available demonstrated  a v a l i d i t y cap  of  28 As a w h o l e , t h e v e r d i c t traditional samples.  i s pessimistic  about t h e u t i l i t y  of the  s e l f - r e p o r t s a s p r o x y m e a s u r e s o f IQ i n c o l l e g e  The v e r d i c t  i s more o p t i m i s t i c a b o u t t h e i r u t i l i t y f o r  a s s e s s i n g i n t e l l i g e n c e as a b r o a d e r concept, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t h e general population.  And f i n a l l y ,  the v e r d i c t  o p t i m i s t i c about the p o t e n t i a l of Paulhus' Questionnaire. scale  i s highly Over-CIaiming  I n a n y c a s e , r e s e a r c h e r s who r e q u i r e  f o r t h e i r research should benefit  have been p r o v i d e d here.  some p r o x y  from t h e g u i d e l i n e s  that  29  Footnotes . 1. The  term,  specific  'validity', criterion.  sole c r i t e r i o n 2. S t r i c t l y educated,  I t s use does not  f o r measuring  speaking, but  i s u s e d t o mean c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h  i m p l y t h a t IQ i s t h e  intelligence.  Sternberg's  t h e i r IQs  a  s u b j e c t s were not a l l c o l l e g e -  a v e r a g e d one  s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n above  t h e p o p u l a t i o n mean. 3 . Note t h a t t h i s  instrument  i s not a c h e c k l i s t  sense of r e q u i r i n g respondents dichotomously.  to check  i n the  strict  off.answers  I n s t e a d , t h e i t e m s a r e r a t e d as  in a  Likert  format. 4. D e s p i t e i t s c o n c e p t u a l not  relevance, the item,  "ingenious"  i n c l u d e d i n Sample 2 b e c a u s e o f c o n f u s i o n t h e i t e m  Apparently,  some s u b j e c t s t h o u g h t  t h e i t e m meant " n o t  was caused. a  genius". 5. Two  o f t h e Intellect-School  of the I n t e l l e c t u a l  Success  items are i d e n t i c a l  e f f i c i e n c y items:  to  two  They were o n l y i n c l u d e d  once. 6. A t r u e s p e e d e d t e s t c o m p r i s e s 7. The  i t e m was  8 .Estimated  "intelligent,  a l l easy q u e s t i o n s .  clear-thinking"  f r o m t h e m a n u a l norms f o r men  a c c o r d i n g t o sex r a t i o  i n our  i n Study  and women  2. weighted  samples.  9. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , a r e t e s t o r a p a r a l l e l  f o r m was  not  administered. 10. The  p r e d i c t i o n f o r m u l a when o n l y one m e a s u r e i s l e n g t h e n e d  p r e s e n t e d by Thorndike  (1982, p . 1 5 3 ) .  number o f e q u a l l y g o o d i t e m s , p r e d i c t an u p p e r l i m i t o f 11. T h e s e v a l u e s a r e l i k e l y  the prophecy formula  infinite would  .48.  t o be  c a p i t a l i z a t i o n on c h a n c e . f r o m one  Even w i t h ' a n  is  overestimates  Unfortunately,  sample t o the o t h e r i s not  because  of  cross-validation  f e a s i b l e because the  items  w e r e c h o s e n on t h e b a s i s o f c o n s i s t e n t p e r f o r m a n c e a c r o s s  both  samples. 12. The  i t e m s were s e l e c t e d by  "intelligent"  (gifted,  t h e i r conceptual  smart,  13.Sternberg(1988)reported to improve i t s v a l i d i t y .  clever,  similarity  to  etc.).  u s i n g d i a g n o s t i c w e i g h t i n g of the With  strict  adherence to  BCL  Sternberg's  30 method, however, P a u l h u s , validity  and Y i k  ( i n press)  school success (Giddan,  no  an i n s t r u m e n t r e c e n t l y d e v e l o p e d c o n t a i n s t h e same two  to  predict  c a t e g o r i e s of p r e d i c t o r s  J u r s , A n d b e r g , & B u n n e l l , 1996) .  acceptance  of "Sports I l l u s t r a t e d f o r K i d s " i n e d u c a t i o n a l  s o f t w a r e i s a good example of t h i s t h i n k i n g . s u c h n o n i n t e l l e c t u a l m a t e r i a l was t h e new  found  improvement.  14.Interestingly,  15. The  Lysy,  Although  traditionally  discouraged,  p h i l o s p h y i s t h a t c h i l d r e n a r e more l i k e l y  t h e m a t e r i a l f o c u s e s on t h e i r 16. A l t h o u g h  addressing c u l t u r a l  imagination,  reading  to read i f  interests. interests,  absorption,  t h i s v a r i a b l e c o r r e l a t e s w i t h IQ  and  (McCrae & C o s t a ,  1985) . 17. T h i s e s t i m a t e i s b a s e d on a d j u s t i n g t h e m e d i a n c o r r e l a t i o n the Wonderlic range  w i t h o t h e r IQ t e s t s  (Cohen & Cohen, 1 9 8 3 ) .  p o p u l a t i o n SD,  (.83)  for restriction  I n s t e a d o f 7.12,  t h e mean SD o f o u r two  the  s a m p l e s was  t h e t a r g e t (an IQ t e s t ) aggregation  here.  I t i s most l i k e l y  of  general only  18. T h i s i s n o t t o i m p l y t h a t a g g r e g a t i o n i s n o t u s e f u l p s y c h o l o g i c a l assessment.  of  4.6.  in  the narrowness of  t h a t c o n s t r a i n e d the v a l u e  of  31 References A i k e n , L.R.  (1996).  ed).  New  York:  Bailey,  R.C,  R.C.,  V.  (1979).  (2nd  I n t e r p e r s o n a l p e r c e p t i o n s of  i n l a t e c h i l d h o o d and  friendships.  functioning  Plenum.  & Hatch,  intelligence Bailey,  Assessment of i n t e l l e c t u a l  The  early  adolescent  J o u r n a l of Genetic Psychology,  & M e t t e t a l , G.W.  in married partners.  (1977).  135,  109-114.  Perceived intelligence  S o c i a l B e h a v i o r and  Personality,  5,137-  141. Borkenau, time: K.H.  P.  (1993).  To p r e d i c t some o f t h e p e o p l e more o f  I n d i v i d u a l t r a i t s and C r a i k , R.  the p r e d i c t i o n of b e h a v i o r .  Hogan, & R.N.  Wolfe  (Eds.), F i f t y years  p e r s o n a l i t y psychology:  P e r s p e c t i v e s on  differences.  Plenum P r e s s ,  Borkenau,  P.,  New  York:  & L i e b l e r , A.  (1993).  r a t i n g s o f p e r s o n a l i t y and partner ratings, P e r s o n a l i t y and B u r i s c h , M.  construction: 39,  of  individual  (pp. 237-249) .  intelligence with  and m e a s u r e d i n t e l l i g e n c e . 65,  self-ratings, J o u r n a l of  546-553.  Approaches to p e r s o n a l i t y i n v e n t o r y  A comparison  of m e r i t s .  American P s y c h o l o g i s t ,  214-227.  Campbell,  J.D.,  & L a v a l l e e , L.F.  (1993).  Who  am  I?  The  role  s e l f - c o n c e p t c o n f u s i o n i n understanding the b e h a v i o r of w i t h low s e l f - e s t e e m . The  In  Convergence of s t r a n g e r  S o c i a l Psychology,  (1984).  the  I n R.F.  p u z z l e of low s e l f - r e g a r d  Cohen, J . , & Cohen, P.  (1983).  Baumeister (pp.3-20).  (Ed.), New  of  people  Self-esteeem:  York:  Plenum.  Applied multivariate  r e g r e s s i o n / c o r r e l a t i a o n f o r the b e h a v i o r a l s c i e n c e s . Hillsdale, Cornelius,  S.W.,  everyday ability  NJ:  Erlbaum. Kenny, S.,  & C a s p i , A.  Academic  i n t e l l i g e n c e i n adulthood: Conceptions tests.  I n J.D.  S i n n o t t (Ed.), Everyday  s o l v i n g : T h e o r y and a p p l i c a t i o n s . D e N i s i , A.S.,  & Shaw, J.B.  (1977).  s e l f - r e p o r t s of a b i l i t i e s . 641-644.  (1989).  New  York:  of s e l f  and and  problemm-  Praeger.  I n v e s t i g a t i o n of the uses  J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d Psychology,  of 62,  32 Dodrill,  C.B.  (1981).  An  e c o n o m i c a l method f o r t h e e v a l u a t i o n  of g e n e r a l i n t e l l i g e n c e i n a d u l t s . Clinical Dodrill,  Psychology,  C.B.  (1983).  Personnel Test. Psychology, D u n n i n g , D. traits  668-673.  Long term r e l i a b i l i t y  51,  and a b i l i t i e s  illusions  (1992).  Clinical  Egocentric definitions  i n s o c i a l judgment.  S o c i a l Psychology,  Critelli,  J.W.,  63,  attractiveness.  341-355.  & Ee, J . S .  (1994).  Journal' of P e r s o n a l i t y ,  Jurs,  S.G., • A n d b e r g , M.,  62,  Narcissistic and  144-155.  & B u n n e l l , P.  (1996).  N o n c o g n i t i v e long-term p r e d i c t i o n of c o l l e g e grades Academic Performance Gough, H.G.  (1953).  Scale.  (1996).  Palo Alto, Gulliksen, Hirsch,  H.  A nonintellectual  T u l s a , OK: (1989).  (1992). The  & Robins,  Wonderlic  the s e l f . K e n n e d y , R.  (1993).  D.  R.,  tests.  Inventory  The  predictor  Psychology. of i n t e r j u d g e  B i g F i v e domain,  the unique p r o p e r t i e s of 61  521-551.  Turnage, J . J . , & Jones,  (1989) . F a c t o r a n a l y s i s and p r e d i c t i v e v a l i d i t y microcomputer-based  Vintage.  Technical report,  Determinants  e v a l u a t i v e n e s s , and  Baltzley,  York:  Wiley.  Systems.  Department of  J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y , S.,  (3rd.ed).  York:  P e r s o n n e l T e s t as a  a g r e e m e n t on p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s : observability,  New  job performance.  R.W.  New  Hogan P e r s o n a l i t y  Hogan A s s e s s m e n t  Michigan State University, O.P.,  tests.  Cultural Literacy.  o f t r a i n i n g s u c c e s s and John,  242-246.  ConsultingPsychologists.  (1988).  J.E.  the  test.  C a l i f o r n i a Psychological Inventory  & Hogan, J .  Manual.  intelligence  17,  (1967) . T h e o r y o f m e n t a l  E.D.  Hogan,. R. Hunter,  CA:  by  A s s e s s m e n t , 3_, 91-9'8.  J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g Psychology, Gough, H.G.  of  J o u r n a l of  i n s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n s of i n t e l l i g e n c e  N.S.,  Wonderlic  316-317.  & Cohen, G.L.  G a b r i e l , M.T.,  of the  J o u r n a l o f C o n s u l t i n g and  P e r s o n a l i t y and  Giddan,  49,  J o u r n a l o f C o n s u l t i n g and  M.  B.  of  P e r c e p t u a l & Motor S k i l l s ,  69,  1059-1074. L o c k a r d , J.S.,  & P a u l h u s , D.L.  a d a p t i v e mechanism? L y s y , D.C.,  (1988) (Eds.) . S e l f - d e c e p t i o n : An  Hillsdale,  & P a u l h u s , D.L.  NJ:  Prentice-Hall.  (1996, A u g u s t ) .  search f o r non-test i n t e l l i g e n c e .  B e y o n d IQ:  The  Poster presented at  the  . 104th meeting  o f the American  ..  33  Psychological Association,  Toronto. M c C r a e , R.R., & C o s t a , P.T. ( 1 9 8 5 ) .  U p d a t i n g Norman's  Taxonomy": I n t e l l i g e n c e a n d p e r s o n a l i t y d i m e n s i o n s language  and i n q u e s t i o n n a i r e s .  S o c i a l Psychology, M c C r a e , R.R. ( 1 9 9 0 ) . Personality,  McKelvie,  S.J.  49, 7 1 0 - 7 2 1 . T r a i t s and t r a i t  names:  (1989).  The W o n d e r l i c  Psychological Reports, S.J.  (1994).  academic s e t t i n g .  V a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y  findings  P e r s o n n e l Test i n an  D.L. ( 1 9 9 2 ) . P e r c e p t i o n s o f c o m p e t e n c e .  a c c e s s i n g concepts o f Canadian  Paper  o f t h e European A s s o c i a t i o n o f Groningen.  D.L. & L a n d o l t , M. (1994,  meeting  f o r an  P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e p o r t s , 75, 907-910.  P e r s o n a l i t y Psychology, in  setting.  65, 161-162.  p r s e s e n t e d a t the meeting Paulhus,  European J o u r n a l  Personnel Test:  e x p e r i m e n t a l s h o r t form o f the W o n d e r l i c Paulhus,  How w e l l i s  4, 119-129.  R e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y i n an academic McKelvie,  i n natural  J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and  Openness r e p r e s e n t e d i n n a t u r a l languages? of  "Adequate  June).  of intelligence.  Differential  processes  Paper p r e s e n t e d a t  Psychological Association, Penticton,  Canada. Paulhus,  D.L., L y s y , D.C., & Y i k , M.S.M. ( i n p r e s s ) .  reports of intelligence: IQ? Paulhus,  A r e they u s e f u l as p r o x y measures o f  Journal of Personality. D.L., & M o r g a n , K.L. ( 1 9 9 7 ) .  intelligence shyness  i n l e a d e r l e s s groups:  and f a m i l i a r i t y .  Psychology., Paulhus,  Self-  Determinants  of perceived  The d y n a m i c e f f e c t s o f  J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l  7 2 , 99-107.  D.L., & R e y n o l d s ,  S.R. ( 1 9 9 5 ) .  Enhancing  target  v a r i a n c e i n p e r s o n a l i t y impressions: H i g h l i g h t i n g the i n person perception. Psychology, Paulhus,  J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l  69, 1233-1242.  D.L., Y i k , M.S.M, & L y s y , D.C.  and p e e r - r a t i n g s o f i n t e l l i g e n c e : presentation? American  person  (1996,  August).  Accuracy o r s e l f -  P o s t e r presented a t t h e 104th meeting  Psychological Association,  Self-  Toronto.  of the  R a y n e r , K., & P o l l a t s e k , A. Englewood C l i f f s , Reilly,  (1989).  The p s y c h o l o g y  of reading.  NJ: P r e n t i c e - H a l l .  J . & Mulhern,G.  (1995).  Gender d i f f e r e n c e s  i n self-  e s t i m a t e d IQ: The n e e d f o r c a r e i n i n t e r p r e t i n g g r o u p d a t a . P e r s o n a l i t y a n d I n d i v i d u a l D i f f e r e n c e s , 18, 1 8 9 - 1 9 2 . Reynolds,  D.,  & Gifford,  intelligence:  R.  (1996).  A Brunswik  n o n v e r b a l cues.  Measured and judged  l e n s a n a l y s i s of v e r b a l and  Manuscript  i n progress, University of  Victoria. Salovey,  P., & M a y e r , J.D. ( 1 9 9 0 ) .  Emotional  I m a g i n a t i o n , C o g n i t i o n , and P e r s o n a l i t y , S c h o e n f e l d t , L.F. (1985).  I n s t i t u t e of Mental  Schmidt, In  F.L. (1985).  J.V. M i t c h e l l  9, 1 8 5 - 2 1 1 .  Review o f Wonderlic  N i n t h M e n t a l Measurements Yearbook Buros  intelligence. Personnel Test.  (pp.1757-58).  Lincoln,  Measurement.  Review o f t h e Wonderlic  Personnel Test.  ( E d . ) , The n i n t h m e n t a l m e a s u r e m e n t s  (pp. 1 7 5 5 - 1 7 5 7 ) . L i n c o l n , NE: B u r o s S t e r n b e r g , R.J. (1988). human i n t e l l i g e n c e .  NE:,  Institute.  The t r i a r c h i c m i n d : New Y o r k :  yearbook  A new t h e o r y o f  Penguin.  S t e r n b e r g , R . J . , Conway, B.E., K e t r o n , J . L . , & B e r n s t e i n , M. (1981).  People's conceptions of i n t e l l i g e n c e .  P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, S w e t s , J.A. ( 1 9 6 4 ) . observers. Thorndike,  Journal of  41, 37-55.  S i g n a l d e t e c t i o n a n d r e c o g n i t i o n b y human  New Y o r k :  R.L. ( 1 9 8 2 ) .  Wiley. Applied psychometrics.  Boston:  Houghton-Mifflin. Trapnell, left  P.D.  turn.  Trapnell,  (1994).  Openness v e r s u s i n t e l l e c t :  European J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y ,  P.D., & S c r a t c h l e y , L. ( 1 9 9 6 ) .  i n t e l l e c t u a l performance. British  a  lexical  £3, 2 7 3 - 2 9 0 .  Predictors of  Unpublished data, U n i v e r s i t y of  Columbia.  Wagner, R.K, & S t e r n b e r g , R . J . ( 1 9 8 6 ) . T a c i t k n o w l e d g e a n d i n t e l l i g e n c e i n the everyday world. Wagner  (Eds.), P r a c t i c a l  I n R . J . S t e r n b e r g & R.K  i n t e l l i g e n c e : Nature  competence i n t h e everyday w o r l d Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s .  (pp.51-83).  and o r i g i n s o f New  York:  35 W e l s h , G.S.  (1975).  approach.  Chapel  Creativity Hill,  NC:  and  intelligence:  Institute  A  f o r Research  personality in  Social  Science. Wonderlic, level  E.F.  (1992).  Wonderlic  exam u s e r ' s m a n u a l .  Personnel Test,  Inc.  P e r s o n n e l T e s t and  L i b e r t y v i l l e , IL:  scholastic  Wonderlic  36 Table A  1.  two-factor categorization  of t r a d i t i o n a l s e l f - r e p o r t  i n t e l l i g e n c e measures  Aggregation Strategy Single  Item  Aggregated  Items  Directness Strategy General r a t i n g of Direct  Composite r a t i n g s  intelligence  Indirect  Individual  item  Indirect  intelligence  from  Full  scales  indirect (Te,  Smart  Je refers refers  to Trapnell's scale;  Hogan's s c a l e ; List.  t o Gough's I n t e l l e c t u a l BCL r e f e r s  scales  Smart,  Intellect,  Note.  of  BCL)  efficiency  scale;  Intellect refers to  t o S t e r n b e r g ' s Behavior  Check  37 Table  2.  Descriptive  statistics  Scale  Intelligence Composite Scale Single-item  Scale  Item  Items  Min-Max  ' Mean'  4  1-5  3 . 66  . 67  3 .75  . 68  3 .24  . 69  3 . 50  . 65  4.02  . 77  4 . 00  .46  d  3 .94  . 82  4 . 00  .39  d  .1  c  52  scale 4  Trapnell's Smart  '  b  Gough's le  #  1-5  22  Intellect  scale  Intellectance School  Success  Sternberg's  15 7 41  Verbal  Problem  Social  1-9  5 . 45  1.54  8 . 00  .86  5.09  1. 65  8.00  .88  OCQ  Hits  6  e  Alarms  e  .72 . 67  False  .58  True-  . 62  False  . 62  True-  .52  False  .48  1-9  6.24  . 82  4.63  .93  6.40  .75  4.10  .92  6.02  .96  5 .15  . 80  6 .12  1. 03  5 .38  . 82  6.26  .92  5.87  . 89  6.42  .80  4 . 13  . 88  6.45  . 84  4.38  .77  6.67  .72  4 .31  .71  1-9  1-9  1-9 0-1  .57  —  0-1  .27 .23  . 73 . 77  —  . 72 .76  —  . 61 . 55  f  —  . 66 6  —  . 59  Discrimination False  —  True-  Competence  Paulhus'  Alpha  . 68  Solving 13  3  False  Ability 15  Range  . 68  BCL 13  a  True-  scale  Hogan's  SD  .90 . 89  —  . 87 . 83  38 Note.  Top r o w o f e a c h c e l l  i s f r o m Sample 1 (N = 262 t o 2 7 9 ) ;  B o t t o m r o w i s f r o m Sample 2 (N = 2 3 9 - t o 2 6 5 ) ( 1 5 4 f o r OCQ Discrimination data, a  i n Sample 2 ) .  i . e . , not every  Standard  Sample s i z e v a r i e d due t o m i s s i n g  subject f i l l e d  out every  d e v i a t i o n s and ranges a r e c a l c u l a t e d  r a t h e r t h a n a c r o s s s u b j e c t means; f o r t h e two T r u e - F a l s e b  Includes  c  "intelligent"  "clear-thinking,  composite. S t a t i s t i c s categories. (see R e s u l t s  i s not relevant items.  intelligent"  f r o m t h e mean o f t h e i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s  among t h e f o u r i n t e l l i g e n c e - r e l a t e d f  i t e m means  and t h r e e c o n c e p t u a l l y s i m i l a r  (Sample 1 ) ;  d  across  s c a l e s these s t a t i s t i c s a r e omitted.  "intelligent"  (Sample 2 ) . E s t i m a t e  Since t h i s  measure.  presented  items comprising  the direct  a r e t h e mean a c r o s s t h e s i x  F o r t h e OCQ t h e i t e m mean i s t h e mean' p r o p o r t i o n section).  39 Table  3.  Intercorrelations  Scale  among i n d i r e c t s c a l e s  1.  2.  --  . 08  .47  2 . Smart  .24  --  3. Intellect  .27  1. Ie  4. .5 .  4.  5.  subscales  6..  7.  8.  9.  .43  . 41  .36  .39  .29  .49  . 33  . 16  .43  .31  10 .  .42  .32  .23  .18  .21  . 48  . 47  .29  --  .90  . 65  .56  .58  .24  .92  --  .25  .51  .50  .49  .38  .22  .25  . 68  .35  --  .36  . 42  .27  .29  .30  .32  .45  . 47  .44  .31  --  .88  .93  . 89  .28  INT  .27  SS  .24  6 . BCL  3.  and  a  a  a  a  •  5  1  7.  VA  .34  .43  .48  .42  .38  . 89  --  . 72  . 67  .34  8.  PS  .29  .50  .43  . 44  .22  .89  . 67  --  . 77  .19  9.  SC  .19  .23  .30  .28  .20  .86  . 65  . 68  --  .24  .34  .10  . 10  . 07  . 11  . 19  .26  . 11  . 13  --  10 .  OCQ Disc  Note. are  Correlation  from Sample 1  from Sample 2 All a  c o e f f i c i e n t s i n the upper (N = 2 7 8 ) ;  c o e f f i c i e n t s i n the lower l e f t  (N = 266,- e x c e p t f o r OCQ  correlations  above  r i g h t of the m a t r i x  Discrimination:  .20 a r e s i g n i f i c a n t , p <  Two i d e n t i c a l i t e m s f r o m b o t h t h e I n t e l l e c t u a l  Intellect-School subsequently, calculations.  Success  scales  t h e Intellect-School  N =  .001,  137).  two-tailed.  efficiency  and  were g i v e n t o t h e I n t e l l e c t , Success  scale  are  f o r these  and  40 T a b l e 4. Correlations  of s e l f - r e p o r t predictors with  # o f Items  Scale Direct  IQ  Sample 1  Sample 2  Measures  Single-item  a  Composite s c a l e Indirect  b  1  .20***  23***  4  24* * *  .26***  52  20* * *  34* * *  4  24* * *  .25***  Measures  Gough l e Trapnell  Smart  Hogan I n t e l l e c t Intellectance School  Success  22  . 15*  15  . 08  22* * *  . 13* 27***  . 19 * *  7  BCL  41  2Q***  .13*  Verbal  Ability  13  24* * *  . 18**  Problem  Solving  15  17 * *  .10  Competence  13  .14*  6  .39***  Sternberg  Social Paulhus'  Note.  OCQ-Disc  * p < .05;  C  ** p < .01,  . 04 4g * * *  *** p < .001, t w o - t a i l e d .  S a m p l e s i z e r a n g e s f r o m 274 t o 301 (Sample 1) a n d f r o m 241 t o 265  (Sample 2)  due  to the subject-matching across the three  (i.e.,  (137 f o r OCQ Discrimination  d i r e c t , i n d i r e c t , and I Q ) .  "clear-thinking, direct,  intelligent"  a  (Sample 2 ) .  b  IQ i n S a m p l e 2)  sources of data  "Intelligent"  intelligence ratings including  conceptually  with  (Sample 1 ) ;  Refers to the  "intelligent"  and  s i m i l a r items. Refers to the 6 categories,  t r e a t e d a s one s c o r e ,  c  b a s e d on e a c h c a t e g o r y ' s 15 i t e m s .  three each  Table  5.  R e g r e s s i o n o f IQ on f o u r t r a d i t i o n a l i n d i r e c t p r e d i c t o r s  Predictor Gough I n t e l l e c t u a l  efficiency  T r a p n e l l Smart .  Hogan  Intellect  S t e r n b e r g Behavior  Note..  N = 275  Check  List  Sample  Beta  SigF  1  . 17  . 02  2  .29  . 00  1  .22  . 00  2  .19  . 00  1  . 01  . 89  2  . 14  . 04  1  . 02  . 84  2  -.12  . 11  (Sample 1) a n d 2 65 (Sample 2 ) .  42 Table  6.  C o r r e l a t i o n s o f f o u r t y p e s o f t r a d i t i o n a l p r e d i c t o r s w i t h IQ  Aggregation Directness  Strategy  S i n g l e Item  Strategy  Aggregated  Items  Sample 1  Sample 2  Sample 1  Sample 2  Direct  .20  .23  .24  .26  Indirect  .07  .07  .18  Note.  Single-item validities  s i n g l e item,  "intelligent"  intelligent"  (Study 2 ) ;  a r e mean i t e m v a l i d i t i e s indirect  scales.  .24  a r e c o r r e l a t i o n s o f IQ w i t h t h e  ( S t u d y 1) o r " c l e a r - t h i n k i n g , The i n d i r e c t s i n g l e - i t e m V a l i d i t i e s  a c r o s s a l l 119 i t e m s o f t h e f o u r  The d i r e c t a g g r e g a t e d  items' v a l i d i t i e s a r e  b a s e d on t h e 4 - i t e m d i r e c t c o m p o s i t e s c a l e . . aggregated  '  items' v a l i d i t i e s  The i n d i r e c t  a r e t h e mean s c a l e v a l i d i t i e s  a c r o s s a l l f o u r i n d i r e c t measures.  43 T a b l e 7. Top 10 i t e m v a l i d i t i e s  Sample 1 27* * *  from the t r a d i t i o n a l  Sample 2  Scale  .32***  BCL  indirect  scales  Item Content reads w i t h  high  comprehension .28***  27 * * *  .26***  BCL  has  .20**  Intellect  As  a good v o c a b u l a r y  a child  I was  always  reading 2 ]_ * * *  2 ]_ * * *  le/  I am q u i t e  a fast  reader  Intellect 23 * * *  . 18**  le/  I read a t l e a s t t e n books a  Intellect 25* * *  .20**  year Is considered a very  Smart  "brainy", 2 ]_ * * *  le  .21***  scholarly  person  I was a s l o w l e a r n e r i n school  25* * *  .20**  considered exceptionally  Smart  unusually .20**  .20**  .  Ie  or  intelligent  I seem t o b e a t l e a s t a s c a p a b l e and smart as most  17 * *  .22***  •Intellect  I would rather  read  than  w a t c h TV  Note.  ** p < .01,  Ie r e f e r s  *** p < .001, t w o - t a i l e d .  t o Gough's I n t e l l e c t u a l  refers  to Trapnell's  scale;  BCL r e f e r s  scale;  N = ( 2 7 5 , 265) .  efficiency scale;  Intellect refers  t o S t e r n b e r g ' s Behavior  Smart  t o Hogan's  Check  List.  44 T a b l e 8. Validities  of t r a d i t i o n a l i n d i r e c t items:  Means w i t h i n  content category  C a t e g o r y o f Items  # Items  3  Sample 1  Sample 2  Ability-related  23  . 14  . 12  Personality-related  51  . 05  . 06  Interest-related  26  . 03  . 06  Non-reading  8  . 05  . 05  Reading  5  . 19  .18  Behavior-related  Note.  N = ( 2 7 5 , 2 6 5 ) . E a c h e n t r y i s t h e mean o f a l l i t e m  validities  f o r each c a t e g o r y .  a  Number o f i t e m s r e f e r s  to the  number o f i t e m v a l i d i t i e s u s e d i n c a l c u l a t i n g t h e mean i t e m validity.  45  Appendix A  46 CPI C i r c l e True  (T) o r F a l s e  -- Ie s c a l e  (F) f o r e a c h s t a t e m e n t a s i t a p p l i e s t o  you.  T  F  1. I h a v e h a d v e r y p e c u l i a r a n d s t r a n g e  T  F  2 . I t o f t e n seems t h a t my l i f e h a s no meaning'.  T  F  3. When someone d o e s me a w r o n g , I f e e l back i f I can,  T  F  experiences.  I should  p a y them  just for the p r i n c i p l e of the thing.  4. A n y j o b i s a l l r i g h t w i t h me, j u s t a s l o n g a s i t p a y s well.  T  F  5. P e o p l e o f t e n e x p e c t t o o much o f me.  T  F  6 . 1 g e t s o r t o f a n n o y e d w i t h w r i t e r s who go o u t o f t h e i r way  t o use strange  and unusual words.  T  F  7. S u c c e s s i s a m a t t e r o f w i l l  T  F  8. When i n a g r o u p o f p e o p l e I h a v e t r o u b l e t h i n k i n g o f t h e right  T  F  things  to talk  power.  about.  9. I t i s more i m p o r t a n t t h a t a f a t h e r b e k i n d t h a n b e successful.  T  F  1 0 . I was a s l o w l e a r n e r i n s c h o o l  T  F  1 1 . I must a d m i t I h a v e no g r e a t  d e s i r e t o l e a r n new  things. T  F  12. My s k i n seems t o b e u n u s a l l y  s e n s i t i v e t o touch.  T  F  1 3 . P a r e n t s a r e much t o o e a s y o n t h e i r c h i l d r e n n o w a d a y s .  T  F  14. I r e a d a t l e a s t t e n b o o k s a y e a r .  47 T  F  1 5 . I h a v e t h e w a n d e r l u s t , a n d am n e v e r h a p p y u n l e s s I am roaming o r t r a v e l i n g  about.  T  F  16. My p a r e n t s h a v e o f t e n d i s a p p r o v e d o f my  T  F  17. T e a c h e r s o f t e n e x p e c t t o o much w o r k f r o m t h e s t u d e n t s .  T  F  18. I am n o t a f r a i d o f p i c k i n g up a d i s e a s e o r germs door  friends.  from  knobs.  T  F  19. I am q u i t e a f a s t r e a d e r .  T  F  2 0. I h a v e h a d more t h a n my s h a r e o f t h i n g s t o w o r r y  T  F  21. I f e e l  T  F  2 2 . I n a g r o u p o f p e o p l e I w o u l d n o t be e m b a r r a s s e d called  about.  l i k e g i v i n g up q u i c k l y when t h i n g s go w r o n g . t o be  upon t o s t a r t a d i s c u s s i o n o r g i v e an o p i n i o n  a b o u t s o m e t h i n g t h a t I know w e l l . T  F  23. I l i k e  t o r e a d about  T  F  24. I n s c h o o l ,  history.  I f i n d i t very hard to t a l k i n front of the  class. T  F  2 5. I d r e a d t h e t h o u g h t o f a n e a r t h q u a k e .  T  F  26. I l i k e  T  F  2 7 . I am b o t h e r e d b y p e o p l e o u t s i d e , on b u s e s , etc.  T  F  science. i n stores,  w a t c h i n g me.  28. I h a v e n e v e r b e e n i n t r o u b l e b e c a u s e  o f my s e x  behavior. T  F  29. I o f t e n g e t f e e l i n g s l i k e or  "going t o sleep"  crawling, burning,  tingling,  i n d i f f e r e n t p a r t s o f my b o d y .  48 T  F  3 0.  I seem t o be others  T  F  31.  I like  T  F  32.  I am  a t l e a s t as c a p a b l e and  around  s m a r t as  most  me.  poetry.  o f t e n not  i n on  the g o s s i p  of the group I b e l o n g  to. T  F  3 3. A w i n d s t o r m t e r r i f i e s  T  F  3 4.  I enjoy a race  T  F  35.  M o s t p e o p l e make f r i e n d s b e c a u s e f r i e n d s a r e be  me.  o r game b e t t e r when I b e t  F  3 6.  I have never seen a  T  F  37.  The  T  F  3 8.  I have had  T  F  39.  I o f t e n f e e l as  T  F  40.  I get p r e t t y discouraged  41.  The  no  difficulty  me.  s t a r t i n g o r h o l d i n g my  i f t h e w o r l d was w i t h the  just passsing l a w when a  o n l y i n t e r e s t i n g p a r t of the newspaper i s  T  F  42.  I gossip a  T  F  43.  At  44.  the  me.  smart  the  cleverness  a t t a c k s where I c o u l d not  control  movements o r s p e e c h , b u t w h e r e I knew what was ' around  by.  little.  t i m e s I h a v e b e e n so e n t e r t a i n e d b y  I have had  me  "sports").  o f a c r o o k t h a t I h a v e h o p e d he w o u l d n o t g e t F  urine.  a criminal off.  " f u n n i e s " .(or t h e  T  to  vision.  f u t u r e seems h o p e l e s s t o  lawyer gets F  likely  u s e f u l t o them.  T  T  on i t .  caught. my going  on  49 T  F  4 5 . I h a v e h a d no d i f f i c u l t y  i n starting or holding  my  b o w e l movement. T  F  46. I l i k e  t o read about s c i e n c e .  T  F  4 7 . I do n o t r e a d e v e r y e d i t o r i a l  i n t h e newspaper  every  day. T  F  48. I f p e o p l e h a d n o t h a d i t i n f o r me, much more  I would have been  successful  T  F  49. I d a y d r e a m v e r y  little.  T  F  50. I h a v e o f t e n b e e n f r i g h t e n e d i n t h e m i d d l e o f t h e night.  T  F  51. I work under a g r e a t d e a l o f t e n s i o n .  T  F  52. I s e l d o m w o r r y a b o u t my  health.  50  Appendix B  51 Hogan C i r c l e True  Intellect  (T) o r F a l s e (F) f o r e a c h s t a t e m e n t  as i t a p p l i e s  you. T  F  1. I  like classical  music.  T  F  2 . I enjoy reading poetry.  T  F  3. I  T  F  4.  T  F  5. I  T  F  6 . I would  T  F  7. I  T  F  8 . I'm  T  F  9. I  T  F  10  I e n j o y t h e e x c i t e m e n t o f t h e unknown.  T  F  11  I'm  known f o r c o m i n g up w i t h g o o d  T  F  12  I'm  not v e r y  T  F  13  I c a n make up s t o r i e s  T  F  14  I'm  T  F  15  I am  T  F  16  I enjoy s o l v i n g  T  F  17  I enjoy working crossword puzzles.  T  F  18 . I l i k e d e t e c t i v e  stories.  T  F  19 . As a c h i l d  always r e a d i n g .  T  F  20 . I w o u l d  f i n d Greek Mythology  I hate opera like  interesting.  singing.  t o t r y new, like  exotic  foods.  a job that requires  l i k e a l o t o f v a r i e t y i n my  life.  n o t a f r a i d t o be t h e f i r s t  l i k e d o i n g t h i n g s no one  travelling.  to t r y something.  e l s e has  done.  ideas.  inventive. quickly.  g o o d a t i n v e n t i n g games, s t o r i e s a n d a quick-witted  I was  person.  riddles.  r a t h e r read than watch  T.V.  rhymes  to  52  Appendix C  53 S t e r n b e r g -W r i t e a number f r o m  BCL  1 t o 9 t o i n d i c a t e d how  f o l l o w i n g i s t r u e of you.  much e a c h o f  Compare y o u r s e l f t o o t h e r  the  UBC  students. Not  at a l l !  I am  Average 2  4  5  6  7  8  True  9  t h e k i n d o f p e r s o n who... 1. r e a s o n s  _—  3  Very  l o g i c a l l y and  well  2.  s p e a k s c l e a r l y and  3.  a c c e p t s o t h e r s f o r what t h e y  4.  i d e n t i f i e s c o n n e c t i o n s among i d e a s  5. a d m i t s  articulately are  mistakes  6.  sees a l l a s p e c t s of a  7.  converses  problem  well  8. d i s p l a y s i n t e r e s t i n t h e w o r l d a t l a r g e 9.  k e e p s an o p e n m i n d  10.  i s knowledgeable about  ( a t l e a s t ) one  11.  i s on t i m e f o r  12.  responds  13.  studies hard  14.  s i z e s up  15.  reads w i t h h i g h comprehension  16.  t h i n k s b e f o r e s p e a k i n g and  17.  gets to the h e a r t of problems  18.  reads  19.  displays curiosity  20.  interprets information accurately  appointments  t h o u g h t f u l l y to others'  situations  well  doing  widely  ideas  special  field  54 21.  deals  effectively with  people  22.  d o e s n o t make s n a p j u d g m e n t s  23.  makes g o o d d e c i s i o n s  24.  w r i t e s down t h o u g h t s  25.  makes f a i r  26.  goes t o o r i g i n a l  27.  sets aside time f o r reading  28.  i s good as a s s e s s i n g t h e r e l e v a n c e  easily  judgments sources  f o rbasic  information  of information to the  problem a t hand 29.  poses problems i n an o p t i m a l  way  30.  has a good  31.  i s s e n s i t i v e t o o t h e r p e o p l e ' s needs and d e s i r e s  32.  i s a good source  33.  accepts  34.  i s f r a n k and honest w i t h s e l f and o t h e r s  35.  perceives  i m p l i e d assumptions and c o n c l u s i o n s  36.  t r i e s new  things  37.  d i s p l a y s i n t e r e s t i n the immediate environment  38.  listens  39.  deals w i t h problems  40.  has a s o c i a l  41.  i s verbally  vocabulary  of ideas  s o c i a l norms  t o a l l s i d e s o f an argument resourcefully.  conscience fluent  55  Appendix D  56 Trapnell  Items  W r i t e a number f r o m 1 t o 9 t o i n d i c a t e d how much e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g i s true of you.  Compare y o u r s e l f t o o t h e r  UBC  students. Not  at a l l 1  Average 2  3  4  I am t h e k i n d o f p e r s o n  5  6  Very 7  8  True  9  who...  is considered unusually "gifted"  o r t a l e n t e d a t academic  things is considered exceptionally or unusually  intelligent  is considered a very  person  "brainy", scholarly  u s u a l l y had grades near the top of every  class  57  Appendix E  58  F A M I L I A R I T Y QUESTIONNAIRE (OCQ 90)  Instructions  P l e a s e r a t e y o u r f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h e a c h i t e m on t h i s questionnaire. 0 Never  Use t h e s c a l e b e l o w as a g u i d e .  1  3  2  4  5  Heard  Very Familiar  Of I t For  example,  Bible",  6  i f the item said  "Bill  Clinton"  o r "Mexico", o r "the  y o u w o u l d p r o b a b l y w r i t e a '6' b e s i d e i t b e c a u s e i t i s  very familiar.  However, i f t h e i t e m s a i d  "Fred Gruneberg"  (my  n e x t d o o r n e i g h b o r ) y o u w o u l d w r i t e a '0' t o i n d i c a t e y o u n e v e r heard o f him. e.g.,  In  6  Bill  Clinton  0  Fred  Gruneberg  o t h e r words, t h e d i f f i c u l t y o f t h e items ranges from easy t o  impossible.  We w a n t t o d e t e r m i n e i f i n d i v i d u a l s who a r e k n o w l e d g e a b l e a b o u t one a r e a a r e a l s o k n o w l e d g e a b l e a b o u t o t h e r  areas.  59 0 1 Never Heard Of I t  Very Familiar  H i s t o r i c a l Names a n d E v e n t s  Physical  Sciences  Napoleon  Manhattan  Robespierre  asteroid  El  nuclear  Puente  Project  fusion  My L a i  cholarine  The L u s i t a n i a  atomic  R o n a l d Reagan  hydroponics  Prince  alloy  The  Lorenzo  Luddites  Neville  Chamberlain  plate  number  tectonics  photon  V i c h y Government  ultra-lipid  Queen  centripetal  Bay o f  Alberta Pigs  plates of p a r a l l a x  Torquemada  nebula  Wounded Knee  particle  Clara  satellite  Barton  force  accelerator  60 0 1 Never Heard Of I t  6 Very Familiar  P o p u l a r C u l t u r e Names  Gail  Brennan  Jackie  Robinson  Houdini Ginger Greta  Books and  Poems  Antigone Murphy's L a s t Catcher  Rogers Garbo  The  i n the  Hiawatha Trapnell's  Scott  Joplin  M e i n Kampf  Rube  Goldberg  The  Dilemma  Aeneid  George Gershwin  Faustus  Mae  The  West  Rye  Koran  Carnegie  Dale  Ride  Boy Who  Cried  Wolf J e s s e Owens  Pygmalion  Sister  H i c k o r y D i c k o r y Dock  Louis  S t . Mark Lapointe  The  D i v i n e Comedy  K i n g Kong  Windermere W i l d  P.T.  The  Barnum  Raven  61 0 1 Never Heard Of I t  Authors  and  6 Very Familiar  Characters  Social  S c i e n c e and  Law  Adonis  yellow journalism  Mephistopheles  existential  Shylock  nationalism  Ancient Doctor  Mariner Fehr  megaphrenia acrophobia pulse  Venus  angst  tax  Romeo a n d  Juliet  pork-barreling  The  Graziano  prejudice  Great  Norman M a i l e r  Christian  Horatio Alger  ombudsman  Charlotte  consumer  Bronte  Science  apparatus  Artemis  superego  Lewis  trust-busting  Carroll  Admiral Mrs.  Broughton  Malaprop  behaviorism Oedipus complex  62  List  H i s t o r i c a l Names a n d E v e n t s :  of F o i l s  E l Puente, P r i n c e Lorenzo,  Queen  Alberta Physical Sciences:  cholarine, ultra-lipid,  p l a t e s of p a r a l l a x  Popular Culture:  G a i l Brennan, S i s t e r  B o o k s a n d Poems:  Murphy's L a s t R i d e , T r a p n e l l s ' Dilemma,  Windermere Authors  S t . Mark, L o u i s  Lapointe  Wild  and C h a r a c t e r s :  Doctor  Fehr,  The G r e a t  Graziano,  Broughton Social  S c i e n c e a n d Law:  apparatus  megaphrenia, p u l s e t a x , consumer  Admiral  63  Appendix F  64  Over-Claiming  Questionnaire  mean i t e m  familiarity  Mean i t e m f a m i l i a r i t y Category Historical  Physical  Popular  Existent  Names a n d E v e n t s  Sciences  Culture  B o o k s a n d Poems  Authors  Social  and Characters  S c i e n c e a n d Law  Overall(of  Note.  a l l 90 i t e m s )  Top r o w o f e a c h c e l l  Bottom row o f each c e l l  items  rating  Foils  1. 97  1. 00  2 .12  .54  4.15  1. 61  4 .16  1.27  2.39  . 49  2 .99  .39  2 .52  .48  2 . 83  .26  2 . 03  . 45  2 . 42  .29  2 . 97  . 68  3 .77  . 77  2 . 67  .79  3 . 05  . 59  i s f r o m Sample 1 {N = 2 7 9 ) ;  i s f r o m Sample 2 {N = 1 5 7 ) .  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0099137/manifest

Comment

Related Items