Ten Questions, One Number: What an IQ Critique Asks You to Check

You see an IQ challenge online. Ten questions, a clock, a score at the end. Before you trust that number, it helps to know what the people who build the real tests argue about. One of the sharper arguments comes from a 2020 feature that says a century of intelligence testing needs a rethink.

Where the critique comes from

The piece is called 100 years of intelligence tests: We can do better. Jack A. Naglieri wrote it in 2020 for The Score, the APA Division 5 publication. He points out that the Binet and Wechsler tests are widely used in the U.S. and elsewhere, and that they have played a pivotal role in nearly all aspects of psychology and education.

He does not say throw them out. He notes that some people have argued for abandoning IQ tests. His own ask is different: take a more realistic view of the most widely used tests, and redefine both the construct and how it is measured. His larger claim is that traditional tests are outdated and should give way to tests based on brain function.

One caution. This is a single author's opinion piece, not a neutral review. It leans on other studies for its key claims. Read it as one expert's position, not the final word.

A short history of the scores

Binet's 1905 edition gave one score. That was it. Later designs got more complicated. The Army Mental Tests came out in 1920, from Yoakum and Yerkes, and the Wechsler scales, first published in 1939, were largely based on them, according to the article.

The first Wechsler test produced a Verbal IQ and a Performance IQ. It also produced a Full Scale score meant to represent general ability, usually written as g. That split into several scores is the background for the whole fight. If the extra scores tell you nothing new, why keep them?

What the author says traditional tests measure

Here is the blunt claim. Citing Benson et al. (2018) and Canivez et al. (2017), the author says traditional intelligence tests measure general ability, g, and little more. Those studies are only referenced in the piece, not reproduced, so you are taking his account of them.

He then lists six weaknesses:

• The tests were not first built on a theory of intelligence.
• Verbal and quantitative items are hard to tell apart from achievement test questions.
• Knowledge-based subtests cause trouble for students with limited opportunity to learn, and can amplify race and ethnic differences.
• Added subscales fail to explain variance beyond general ability.
• Subtest profiles for students with specific learning problems have not been validated.
• Subtest scores have little or no relevance to instruction.

Interestingly, the article quotes Kaufman (2006) saying Wechsler saw his Verbal and Performance scales as different ways to reach g. He did not treat verbal or nonverbal intelligence as something separate from it.

Questions worth asking of any IQ-style test

You can turn the critique into a checklist. It works on a formal test and on a ten-question web quiz alike.

1. Does the score reflect a theory of intelligence, and does the test say what that theory is?
2. Are the verbal or quantitative items really different from school achievement questions?
3. Do knowledge-based items punish people who never had a chance to learn that material?
4. Do the subscale scores add anything beyond one general number?
5. Do subtest scores help anyone teach better?

Most quick online challenges will fail the first question on sight. That does not make them useless as puzzles. It means the number at the end is entertainment, not a measurement with a documented purpose.

What the source leaves unanswered

Plenty. The article does not name or describe the brain-function tests it recommends, so you cannot judge the alternative from this text. It gives no reliability, validity, or score-interpretation data for any specific test. It says nothing about what online or daily IQ challenges measure, how their scores compare with formal tests, what a formal assessment costs, or where to get one.

The available text also stops mid-sentence, just as it starts to explain a vague term psychologists borrowed in the early 1900s. So the full argument is not on the page. Treat the critique as a good set of questions, not a finished answer.