2 ms·
That sounds a lot more like the SAT. That was also supposed to have anti-cheating measures and be resistant to the practice effect. Yet, students who take SAT p
by BitwiseFool 4y ago
That sounds a lot more like the SAT. That was also supposed to have anti-cheating measures and be resistant to the practice effect. Yet, students who take SAT prep often end up scoring higher (but dramatically higher) than those that did not take such prep courses.
It seems perfectly plausible that repeatedly taking IQ tests would likely result in a higher score due to practice and familiarity. Especially if there is a significant financial incentive involved and someone is on the border of qualifying for it.
- torstenvl 4y agoLSAT does this as well, and it's generally accepted as an IQ test rather than a knowledge test. I'm not concerned with trainability. Lots of minimum bars are trainable, like the bar exam, or the Marine Corps PFT/IST. The fact that they're trainable doesn't mean the measures are invalid w/r/t minimum competence as a lawyer, or minimum fitness as a Marine. Similarly, I don't think trainability on tests of logical reasoning, pattern recognition, reading comprehension, memory, etc. necessarily meaningfully reduces the effectiveness of the tests that measure such things. On the contrary, I think it shows that intelligence increases when exercised.