Verbal intelligence or word snobbery
I recently participated in a psychology study on social problem solving and communication which was designed to collect normative data for comparison with an ASD population. The goal was to delineate the nature of social deficits in adults with ASD which would highlight the specific domains to target for intervention programs. The study also assessed verbal intelligence using the WAIS to ensure that the two populations were related on this factor since verbal skills could impact performance on both of the tasks in the study.
After reading the textbook chapter on bias, particularly related to culture, I reflected on this experience and on the TA’s lecture about the WAIS. When we were discussing similarities in class, one of the prompts involved ‘horse’ and ‘dog.’ I remember answering “four-legged mammal” which received a score of 1 rather than 2 which would have been rectified by the use of the word ‘quadruped.’ Obviously the terms ‘four-legged’ and ‘quadruped’ are equivalent, the only difference being that the latter reflects knowledge of a scientific term that is produced by the examinee but otherwise unnecessary in a completely accurate response to the question.
It is important to note the difference here between assessing one’s comprehension of the word ‘quadruped’ and requiring the production of this word for full marks on an item like those in the similarities portion of the WAIS. The first situation involves measuring verbal intelligence (structural vocabulary) while the second is simply nit-picking someone’s way of speaking (functional vocabulary).
When considering the issue of cultural bias, particularly relevant in intelligence testing where reliable differences can be observed between ethnic groups, I find this to be strong evidence in favour of the cultural bias hypothesis. Firstly, the vocabulary that someone uses does not necessarily reflect their intelligence at all. Secondly, regardless of someone’s level of education, the disparity in socioeconomic status that is seen between ethnic groups likely places individuals of ethnic minority in lower-income neighbourhoods. The social environments that these individuals are in (and consequently, verbal environments) could necessitate a reduced level of sophistication in verbal diction so as to facilitate communication. Despite an equivalent or even elevated level of intelligence, individuals in these types of environments are penalized by the scoring methods on test items such as this one.
Although I am examining just one example, I am sure there are other test items where the same logic applies. This is something that should be investigated and rectified in my opinion in order to produce a more valid reflection of verbal intelligence.
