<p>Whether the SAT is a test of aptitude, as it is officially labeled, or a test of achievement, as is demonstrated by the fact that scores tend to improve with practice, appears to me to be a question that is utterly difficult to answer. I have invariably been of the opinion that the former option is the factual one for I have, without exception, observed students with relatively higher IQs easily outscore those with lower IQs. As a matter of fact, I estimate the following correlation between IQ and SAT scores:</p>
<p>If the assertion that SAT scores correlate strongly with IQ is true and if in addition, IQ is an innate quality that cannot be emiliorated then to what neccessity ought people even care about preparing for the SAT?</p>
<p>Oh brother.
The SAT gets you into COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY. It is a COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY-ENTRANCE EXAM. That’s the value of it, innate and implied.
Therefore, if you would like to get into a good college/university, then I suggest you prepare for it.</p>
<p>I would respectfully disagree. An IQ test can be given to a 5yo and the score will vary little to the test administered at the age of 25. The same can not be said for the SAT. You hear again and again of students that take the SAT without ‘cracking a book’ and getting a baseline score. They then apply a study method for several months and have the potential to raise that score significantly. Certainly students with high IQ’s have the potential to score well on the SAT, however a student with a lower IQ who prepares for the test is not unable to score very high.</p>
<p>I believe to an extent it is a good indicator. However there are too many variables to label a specific correlation. If you ‘studied’ for an specific type of IQ test i’m sure you can also improve your score. However there will be a limit to how much you can improve your score. Or you would need to put in unbelievable amount of work just to make a marginal improvement.</p>
<p>@blueiguana - incorrect. The test administered to said 5 year old would have been very different (Wechsler is a typical IQ test administered to younger children). Childhood IQs can vary by +/- 20 points on average due to the discrepancy in testing pertaining to the child’s age (attention span, etc). Even the 2003 edition of the WISC isn’t perfect, and things such as the Flynn effect interfere with proper scaling.
IQ testing is a very imperfect science AT BEST. Thus, the SAT should be taken at face value.</p>
<p>It’s worth noting that the only correlational study between SAT and IQ that has been done even somewhat recently demonstrated a +.82 correlation (done in 2004).</p>
<p>@Vertigo22H - I’ll take you at your word. It has not been my experience. My kids IQ’s were tested young (for reasons other than curiosity, not ‘bragging rights’…none have been given this #). The tests were repeated later and the scores were very, very close to the original tests. That was simply my experience. My greater point was that the SAT could be raised a certain percentage by preparation. An IQ test is not designed this way.</p>
<p>blueiguana - I had my IQ tested for gifted program purposes. I later researched these things and found out that I had been administered a very different test than what I had previously thought. IQ (just as the SAT/standardized) tests can be prepared for, however. I haven’t done that personally, but it makes sense. There are booklets at the bookstore to help “prepare” one that have been put out by an honorary member of Mensa of some sort. I haven’t gotten my IQ tested again, however, I did score in the 96%-ile on my respective standardized exam, so I conjecture that it’s stayed relatively stable.</p>
<p>Even if the SAT does correlate with IQ, its important to note that IQ tests are much more specific. Rather than just 3 batteries, there can be, say, 20.</p>
<p>Just looking at the results is astounding.</p>
<p>EX: I scored 143 overall on mine (Woodcock Johnson), but my lowest score was 90 (auditory processing) and my highest score was 170 (planning).</p>
<p>I, too, must disagree. In my case, I know a student who has somewhat of a low IQ and still scored a 2280 without study. Yet, our salutatorian (I’m the valedictorian) for our class took the SAT, and only scored around a 1680. Even collegeboard itself said that research between standardized testing and intelligence has come up inconclusive. Nice try to assert yourself, though.</p>
<p>Can you actually provide a source of scientific research that proves your case? An IQ test should determine the natural abilities of your mind. If simple study can improve your SAT scores, it isn’t a valid test.</p>
<p>It’s important to note that the original study used the old SAT. The second study used a more recent version, but was limited to a small number of students at a selective college. And the authors note:
"Currently, the SAT is being revised to shift the focus from general reasoning ability to academic achievement. The objective is to test content knowledge rather than intelligence (Barnes, 2002). After this overhaul of the SAT is completed in 2005, another examination of the relationship between SAT scores and general cognitive ability will be required to determine if the SAT will still be an adequate measure of general intelligence. We expect that it will. "
Here’s another interesting piece on the question.
[Boston.com</a> / News / Boston Globe / Ideas / What does the SAT test?](<a href=“http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2004/07/04/the_sat_tests?pg=full]Boston.com”>http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2004/07/04/the_sat_tests?pg=full)</p>
<p>Of course, IQ tests can be rendered invalid if the test subjects are able to study or receive coaching. However, most of the materials are quite difficult to obtain.
One difficulty in comparing IQ to SAT score is the relative paucity of IQ data. We have, not surprisingly, far fewer valid IQ scores than SAT scores.</p>
<p>Yes, this is good to note. The changes to the two previously existing sections were minor, however; and Writing section scores correlate strongly with both of the other two sections’, so any change in the correlation is likely insignificant. And while the study is not ideal, it is the only one that I have come across that was conducted even somewhat recently.</p>
<p>No - in fact , study 1 of Frey/Detterman uses data from 1979. The SAT then was considerably different. The antonym and analogies sections were, in fact, more like IQ test material (although also ,in the view of some , marred by class-related bias). The math section did not allow use of calculators (heck, a lot of us couldn’t afford them anyway), covered a different curriculum and included a whole different category of questions. It was much shorter as well. It was a very different test in some ways.
The study is far from idea - I’ve not found anything else recent either, and the CB is…hmm… reluctant at best to pursue the point for a variety of reasons.
That SAT scores are related to IQ is not surprising - the more substantive question is the degree. Several factors come into play:
One can,in theory, study for an IQ test, but in practice, this is difficult. Most of the material is closely guarded, and testers , in fact, watch for evidence of coaching. There are very strict limits on retakes of IQ tests as well which help to prevent coaching effects. SATs , on the other hand, can be taken many times, and there is , of course an entire industry devoted to coaching. The material is widely available as well, as we all know.
Cultural bias - there is an uneven history of this for both the SATs and IQ tests. Both have had their more and less biased periods.
Mental pressure affects - studies have shown that for some groups, in some conditions, SAT scores change to a marked degree depending on environment and expectations.
The reason for the troubling lag of American blacks on the SATs is not known. There is no such lag in IQ scores, so clearly there is some problem in attempting to correlate SAT-IQ scores over the the racial divide.
Again, I am not asserting that there is no correlation, but merely that it is not extremely strong,as as Frey/Detterman suggest, of value in estimating pre-morbid IQ and in some forms of research, particularly because the SAT is cheap and easy, when compared to a full IQ work-up. This, in fact, is why some organizations that work with gifted youth (such as JHU’s CTY) use the SATs. It’s not a perfect tool - but it’s the tool at hand.</p>