f our early data about IQ.
Now that we are living in more conservative times, the anti-IQ sentiment of the 1970s seems to have lost some of its influence. In an article from American Psychologist refuting claims made by David C. McClelland against IQ tests, Barrett and Depinet make a claim for IQ testing. Their basic argument is that IQ testing works--that it does, in fact, predict later life success. A look at the McClelland's counterclaims will be instructive. In 1973, McClelland noted five major themes of IQ tests, as noted by Barrett and Depinet:
(A.) Grades in school did not predict occupational success, (B.) Intelligence tests and aptitude tests did not predict occupational success or other important life outcomes, (C.) Tests and academic performance only predicted job performance because of an underlying relationship with social status, (D.) Such tests were unfair to minorities, and (E.) "Competencies" would be better able to predict important behaviors than would more traditional tests. (1012)
Barrett and Depinet attempt to refute McClelland's assertions. Several of McClelland's points form the basic argument of this paper. Barrett and Depinet argue that it is possible to design culturally unbiased IQ tests. The IPAT (Institute for Personality and Ability Testing) Culture-Fair Intelligence Test, devised by Raymond Cattell, would be one such example. However, the IPAT test has only been partially successful in providing a measure of innate ability. Other tests aimed at children, such as those which involve manipulatives--stacking blocks, for example, may still be culturally biased. Even nonverbal tasks--non-paper and pencil tasks such as stacking blocks--can be culturally loaded, because more middle-class homes have blocks and other toys than do lower-class homes.
Barrett and Depinet argue that McClelland never presented empirical data to support his contentions ("A" through "E," above). McClelland woul...