ASDs and intelligence & IQ

Post Reply New Topic

I have an IQ of 156. I'm particularly good at understanding patterns, and an IQ test hits none of my weak points (such as talking). But I think that the test doesn't work particularly well on autistic people (can be high, but not necesarily, and doesn't mean one of us who gets a low score is stupid)

That's the thing, though the IQ test results were very average, I did extremely good academically in languages. I suppose the test hit my weak points.

Based on my IQ score, I'm smarter than 86% of the population but doesn't account for the cognitive difficulties I have experienced otherwise. The examiner thought I would have scored higher and wasn't applying myself. I was 18 when I was tested. I personally feel like a complete idiot in many areas so it's hard to figure. I have a photographic memory and maybe had some influence on test results. I would love to be smart but don't feel that I am in ways that matter most.

After long study of the phenomenon here, I've determined that people with ASDs are just as likely, if not even more likely, to believe that the manifold and diverse wonders of intelligence can be adequately represented by a number as anyone else is.

As a quasi-mathematician, I say the greatest misuse of mathematics and the greatest disrespect towards mathematical beauty is when people try to represent things that weren't meant to be quantified with a single number.

If IQ tests don't work on autistics then why is an IQ test a part of my testing for aspergers next month???

It would be nice if Phonic elaborated.

Because psychologists are addicted to IQ tests and will IQ-test anything that holds still long enough. The other day I saw a psychologist attempting to conduct an IQ test on a passing flock of geese. It must be some sort of compulsion for them.

Seriously, though, the IQ test isn't altogether useless. The overall number won't mean much; and the whole thing will be skewed by factors like literal thinking, communication issues, ability to sustain effort, and executive control. But you can still gain some insight into your own strengths and weaknesses by looking at the subtest scores, which allows you to learn about what you found easy and what was hard for you. For example, if you did very well on defining vocabulary words, but struggled to put together puzzles, you might conclude that you are good at understanding words, but find it hard to analyze spatial information. If you can., get a complete report that includes those subtest scores. It'll tell you more useful stuff than the overall number, especially if your sub-tests are scattered around a lot.

Definitely agree with Callista. I'm starting to become a fan. That's the real usefulness of IQ tests, as a diagnostic tool. You guys can safely believe that any mental health professional who has been trained to administer these tests, and isn't a quack, knows how to use them. The correlations between sub-tests have been mapped out for a long time and knowing these they can detect strengths and weaknesses pretty accurately by examining inter and intra sub-test and index disparities. The only people that give a crap about high FSIQ are people who need a security blanket. The professionals are looking at what matters, the differences. You can learn a lot about yourself if you take the time to learn what these tests are actually for.

I agree that cognitive assessment can be very useful in identifying strengths and weaknesses, and in looking for those patterns that can help benefit learning. Cognitive tests are not the "be all, end all" of identifying intelligence, however, and they certainly don't predict success by a mere number. There are many extremely successful people falling just before the Average range, and many unsuccessful people in the Superior range. There is so much more to intelligence than what is measured on a cognitive test, but it's a place to get some information that, when interpreted accurately, can be helpful.

All cognitive test results should be read with caution, but that is especially so for certain populations-- particularly English Language Learners and those on the spectrum, to name a few. In the case of a child on the spectrum, a rigidity and inflexibility in responding to questions may lead to a different response that can't be counted as correct for the purposes of the test, but may actually be accurate. When my son was assessed and was asked how many things make a dozen, he said 10 +2. When questioned again, he said 6+6. Both answers are correct if you follow his logic, but the answer is 12, and his responses were technically incorrect, according to the standardization instructions. On another subtest, when asked about advantages to something, he couldn't flex his thinking to move past the one word he didn't know (advantages) to answer the question, as many children will do. If it said "what are the advantages of getting to work on time?" many children would be able to come up with a reasonably correct answer without understanding the word "advantages," but my son could not get past the word he didn't know. He declined to answer, as he didn't know that particular word.

I agree with those who said the number isn't as important as the patterns shown on the various areas, and the numbers should be read within the confidence intervals. No one can be identified by a simple number, and a lot of what can be gained from cognitive assessment relies on the ability of the assessor to interpret the results. This interpretation includes not only the actual scores on subtests and indices/clusters, but also on the approach taken by the subject, and observations of the subject at work. A lot can be learned about someone by watching how they do what they do. There is no effective cookie cutter approach to comprehensive cognitive test interpretation, so much relies on the skill of the assessor.