The IQ Score That Was Not an Answer
Anjali, 14, studies in Class IX at a government school near Alappuzha where the medium of instruction is Malayalam. A district-level 'scholastic aptitude test' - a group test in English, normed on urban English-medium students - reports her IQ as 88, with a verbal score of 79 and a performance score of 102. Her class teacher, who has never seen her work in English, recommends that she be moved to the remedial stream and dropped from the school's art elective. In Malayalam, Anjali writes long, well-organised stories; her drawings won a district-level prize last year; and she is the person classmates go to when a teacher's instructions are confusing. Her marks in Malayalam and social science are around 70%, but her English marks are around 35%. She was tested on a Monday morning after a school function, in a hall with poor acoustics.
1. Should the IQ score of 88 be used to place Anjali in the remedial stream? Analyse the score using the verbal-performance discrepancy and the conditions under which it was obtained.
Read the worked answer
No - not on this evidence.
- The total score hides more than it shows. An IQ of 88 is a normative score, roughly one standard deviation below the mean of 100 (SD 15), and falls in the low-average range, not in the range associated with intellectual disability. More importantly, the 23-point gap between verbal (79) and performance (102) is itself a warning: averaging the two produces a number that describes neither set of skills.
- The verbal score is confounded with language. The verbal subtests were administered in English to a Malayalam-medium student whose English marks are around 35%. A low verbal score here is evidence about her English, not a clean estimate of verbal reasoning.
- The norms do not fit her. The test was standardised on urban English-medium students; scores are always relative to the comparison group, so the norm sample partly determines the result.
- Testing conditions were poor (post-function fatigue, poor acoustics, group administration), which lowers scores and adds error. A single administration should be read with a confidence interval, not as a fixed trait.
- Other data contradict the label. Her Malayalam writing, prize-winning drawing and interpersonal skill are exactly the kind of evidence that should be weighed against a single test score. Placement in a remedial stream is an intervention with real consequences - stigma, a self-fulfilling expectation, and loss of the art elective.
The defensible decision is to treat 88 as a flag for reassessment, not a verdict: arrange an individual assessment in Malayalam, gather teacher ratings and work samples, and provide targeted English support without removing her strengths.
2. How would Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences describe Anjali's profile, and what is one serious limitation of using that theory as a basis for assessment decisions?
Read the worked answer
Gardner would not rank Anjali on a single general factor. He would describe her profile in terms of relatively independent intelligences:
- Linguistic intelligence - visible in her Malayalam storytelling and structured writing.
- Spatial intelligence - visible in her prize-winning drawing.
- Interpersonal intelligence - visible in classmates coming to her to decode confusing instructions.
The theory's practical value here is that it blocks the inference 'low verbal score, therefore low ability', and it points to using her strengths as routes into the areas where she is weak - for example, using drawing and Malayalam explanation to support English learning.
Limitation: multiple intelligences is not a psychometric theory with well-validated, standardised tests for each intelligence. The eight intelligences are not cleanly separable in empirical data, and there are no widely accepted norms or cut-offs. It is therefore useful as a descriptive and instructional framework, but it cannot supply the reliable, comparable scores that a placement decision requires. It would be equally wrong to use MI rhetoric to deny that Anjali has a genuine English-language deficit that needs explicit teaching.
3. Distinguish aptitude from achievement, and state which kind of evidence the school should actually use before deciding whether Anjali should continue with the art elective.
Read the worked answer
Aptitude refers to a person's potential to acquire a skill or to profit from training in a domain; an aptitude test tries to predict future performance. Achievement refers to what a person has already learned or attained, usually assessed through tests and products of work in a defined curriculum.
The district test was labelled an aptitude test, but what it actually measured was largely English-loaded verbal reasoning, so it is a poor predictor of artistic potential. For the art elective, the relevant evidence is:
- Achievement evidence - her district-level prize and her portfolio of drawings.
- Interest and persistence - how much time she spends drawing, whether she sustains projects.
- Aptitude evidence specific to the domain - for example, a judged portfolio task or a drawing-from-observation exercise, not a general verbal group test.
- Teacher judgement in the relevant medium - her art teacher's assessment in Malayalam.
The general IQ score should carry little weight in this particular decision, because the decision concerns a domain the test did not sample. Using a global score to close an elective is a category error: it treats a broad, language-loaded measure as if it were a domain-specific aptitude measure.