User:IntoThinAir/IQ

Many surveys of experts' opinions on intelligence testing have been conducted. Such surveys aim to estimate the existence and degree of consensus among experts in psychology and its subfields regarding the validity of IQ tests and related research in the field of psychometrics.

Surveys

• Snyderman & Rothman's 1987 paper and subsequent 1988 book The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy both surveyed 1,020 members of many different American sociology/education organizations, of whom 661 completed the questionnaires they were sent, for a response rate of 64.8%.
• The Mainstream Science on Intelligence statement was signed by 52 researchers, out of the 131 who were first contacted. A total of 100 of those contacted responded to the questionnaire they were sent, which yields a response rate of 76.3%. Of these 100, 52 signed the statement and 48 didn't. Linda Gottfredson, the author of the statement, identified the 131 researchers to whom she sent the questionnaire by consulting four sources. These were: "(1) lists of individuals elected as fellows (for their distinguished contributions to psychology) by relevant divisions of the American Psychological Association such as educational psychology; school psychology; industrial and organizational psychology; and evaluation, measurement, and statistics; (2) lists of editorial board members of Intelligence; (3) tables of contents of books and journals devoted to the science of intelligence; and (4) suggestions from other people more knowledgeable than I am about some of the subdisciplines in the study of intelligence."
• Pfeiffer et al. (2000) surveyed 354 school psychologists "on the perceived usefulness of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-III", which is often abbreviated the WISC-III. They found that "A total of 89% of the respondents regularly used profile analysis [a multivariate statistical technique] and almost 70% listed it as among the most beneficial feature of the WISC-III. Practitioners rated the WISC-III as very useful for determining diagnosis and educational placement, but less useful for developing instructional strategies and curriculum plans."
• Murphy et al. (2003) surveyed 703 members of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (meaning that 703 people actually completed the entire questionnaire; IDK what the response rate/original sample size was). They reported that among their respondents, "[t]here was consensus that cognitive ability tests are valid and fair, that they provide good but incomplete measures, that different abilities are necessary for different jobs, and that diversity is valuable. Items dealing with the unique status of cognitive ability were most likely to generate polarized opinions."
• Reeve & Charles (2008) surveyed the 25 then-members of the editorial board of Intelligence, all members of the International Society for Intelligence Research (both as of April 2007), and anyone who had published 3 or more papers in Intelligence between 2004 to 2007. Their sample size consisted of a total of 30 respondents, out of the 94 originally contacted. They report a response rate of 38.3%, but this is based on the 36 respondents they initially included, of whom six were not "experts" by Reeve & Charles' standard. As the authors themselves state, however, "Acknowledging that our initial sampling process may have included non-expert individuals (e.g., anyone with an interest in intelligence can join ISIR), we filtered the sample to include only individuals with a doctorate degree, and having at least five career publications on the topic of intelligence or testing. This resulted in a final expert sample of N = 30." Given that their expert sample size was really only 30, this yields a response rate not of 38.3% as they claim, but of 30/94 = 31.9%.
• Rindermann et al. (2016) surveyed experts on the reasons that average cognitive ability test scores are higher in some countries than in others. This survey yielded 71 responses on the questions relevant to the subject, and a response rate of 20%. This same survey is also the basis of the 2017 study described below. Education was rated as the most important factor by respondents, with genes in second place (though there was more variability in ratings of this factor than any other factor).
• Rindermann et al. (2017) surveyed intelligence experts on the cause of the Flynn effect and on what they believed would happen in the future with regard to changes in IQ in different parts of the world. They found that the experts they surveyed "...attributed the secular IQ rise to better health and nutrition, more and better education and rising standards of living." They also found that the experts expected average IQs to rise in currently "low-ability" regions (Latin America, Africa, India, and East Asia), but not in the West, where a stagnation was expected, and especially not in the US, where a slight decline was expected. Their survey was conducted from May 2013 to March 2014, and had a response rate of only 20%. They got a total of 265 experts' responses on their survey, with only 75 experts answering the questions relevant to this study. The authors suggest that "The low response rates may reflect a paucity of experts on the secular rise in cognitive ability. There may be 20 to 50 scientists who study the development of intelligence throughout the world. Based on this estimate, the number of respondents in the current survey (N = 75) may even exceed the number of scientists who study the topic."

Year published	Authors	Number of respondents	Response rate
1987	Snyderman & Rothman	661	64.8%
1994	Gottfredson	100	76.3%
2000	Pfeiffer et al.	354	not sure
2003	Murphy et al.	703	not sure
2008	Reeve & Charles	30	31.9%
2016	Rindermann et al.	71	20%
2017	Rindermann et al.	75	20%