The SAT's Evolutionary Dance with Intelligence: A Historical Overview and Analysis


The Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT), from its nascent stages, has occupied a central position in the American educational milieu. This article traverses the labyrinthine history of the SAT, elucidating its origination, the noteworthy and ineluctable association with intelligence quotient (IQ), and the perpetually evolving nature of the examination. Originally conceived as an apparatus to gauge aptitude for academic undertakings, the SAT's confluence with IQ is neither serendipitous nor superficial. Indeed, the intertwined relationship between the two constructs has long informed both pedagogical methodologies and educational policies. However, as with all instruments of assessment and metrics of cognition, the SAT has not remained impervious to scrutiny or change. Its trajectory, informed by a myriad of sociocultural and pedagogical inputs, mirrors not just the chronicle of an exam, but the ongoing quest to fathom human intellect and capability. This study endeavors to provide a panoramic view of this complex mosaic, balancing reverence for its historical import with a critical eye towards its evolutionary journey.

SAT, IQ, standardized testing, intelligence, educational policy, sociocultural bias, pedagogical critiques, socio-economic impact, educational practices


The domain of educational evaluation has perpetually wrestled with the challenge of appraising human cognition with both clarity and equity. The early 20th century, influenced by the nascent fields of psychometrics and experimental psychology, saw standardized testing rise as a beacon of empirical educational assessment. Such tests, by virtue of their uniform administration and scoring paradigms, offered a semblance of objectivity in an arena often clouded by subjectivity (Messick, 1988).

Historical treatises, invoking insights from luminaries like Quintilian, emphasized the import of comprehensive evaluative mechanisms in education. However, the infusion of statistical methodologies, catalyzed by figures like Spearman (1904) and socio-political imperatives of the age, fortified the stature of standardized testing (Frey, 2018). Central to this philosophy is the notion that by administering consistent tests under uniform conditions, scores are derived which elucidate both an individual's comparative stance and academic strengths or areas for development (Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 2017).

But, like many evaluative instruments, standardized testing has its critics. Detractors pinpoint its potential for reductionism, challenging the premise of a single metric capturing the vastness of human intellect (Nisbett et al., 2012). Yet, the pragmatic allure of standardized metrics, given the complexities of large-scale educational assessment, is undeniable.

Within the arena of these tests, the Scholastic Assessment Test, or SAT, stands out prominently. Its origins trace back to the early 20th century with an aim to instill meritocracy in elite institution admissions, thereby mitigating entrenched educational disparities (Lemann, 1999). Its significance has expanded over time, evolving into a pivotal instrument for a vast array of higher education institutions in the U.S (Zwick, 2004). Beyond its storied history, the SAT's predictive capabilities for academic success in higher education have been validated through numerous longitudinal studies (Camara & Echternacht, 2000; Kobrin et al., 2008). In the nuanced realm of admissions, the SAT offers a semblance of uniformity, a metric to benchmark aspirants (Atkinson & Geiser, 2009).

Yet, the SAT's footprint extends beyond college gates. It has permeated societal consciousness, often seen as a barometer not only of academic prowess but broader intellectual capability (Crouse & Trusheim, 1988). In myriad sectors, from academia to industry, SAT scores often serve as heuristics for discerning cognitive capability.

The interrelation between the SAT and intelligence quotient (IQ) ventures beyond academic curiosity, invoking a deep examination into human cognition's nature. Echoing thoughts from Locke to Kant, the quest to fathom and quantify intellect is unending (Kant, 1781/1998). Herein, the SAT and IQ serve as contemporary touchpoints, their relationship pivotal for both education and psychology.

This linkage is hardly coincidental. The SAT's inception, under the aegis of Carl Brigham, drew inspiration from the evolving field of psychometrics and contemporary intelligence theories (Brigham, 1923). Designed as an aptitude test, it sought to reflect facets inherent in traditional IQ assessments (Frey & Detterman, 2004). Empirical evidence has since validated the strong correlation between SAT scores and general intelligence indicators, underscoring the SAT's potential as an indirect measure of cognitive capability (Frey, & Detterman, 2004).

These intersections have implications. They offer educators and psychologists insights into cognitive patterns, academic inclinations, and the delicate interplay between genetics and environment in intellectual evolution (Neisser et al., 1996). Moreover, they foster a dialogue on educational justice, highlighting possible biases in standardized testing (Herrnstein & Murray, 1994).

Historical Roots and Early Development of the SAT

The Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) marks a significant juncture in the chronicle of educational evaluations, originating within the early 20th-century socio-political landscape characterized by intense deliberations on meritocracy and intellectual potential. Within this setting, the SAT was conceived as a response to a pressing dilemma: the objective and egalitarian identification of academic capability amidst a rapidly expanding cohort of university applicants (Lemann, 1999).

The College Board, the institution responsible for the SAT's birth, aimed to design a measure free from the socio-economic and cultural prejudices pervasive in educational appraisals of that time. Their overarching goal was to democratize access to elite educational institutions, emphasizing merit over legacy or wealth (Lemann, 1999). Far from being just another tool for assessing rote learning or curriculum comprehension, the SAT was designed to evaluate deeper cognitive faculties, providing a standardized benchmark universally comprehensible despite the disparate educational curricula and grading standards of various high schools (Brigham, 1923).

Drawing parallels from ancient literature, as scholars often reference the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle, understanding the SAT requires a deep dive into its foundational psychometric and cognitive theories. From its nascent stage, the SAT was shaped by the emerging domain of intelligence testing, an endeavor pioneered by luminaries like Alfred Binet to quantify cognitive capacities (Ayres, 1911). This movement was primarily driven by a desire to pinpoint both strengths and potential areas for growth in individuals, particularly within educational contexts (Sternberg, 2003).

Carl Brigham, a prominent architect of the SAT, embraced these psychometric approaches. Contrary to examinations of his time that predominantly leaned towards rote learning, Brigham envisioned a test tapping into more profound cognitive faculties, emphasizing analytical and reasoning capabilities deemed more predictive of academic prowess and success at university (Brigham, 1923). Central to the SAT's philosophy was the principle of "test fairness," a commitment to an evaluation system unaffected by socio-economic or cultural disparities, epitomizing an Enlightenment-driven pursuit of untarnished knowledge and comprehension (Frey & Detterman, 2004).

Yet, ideals often face the rigorous test of reality. While the SAT's principles were commendable in theory, they became focal points of debate and scrutiny as the test navigated its path through educational history. One can discern a palpable interconnection between the SAT and the intelligence (IQ) testing paradigm of the early 20th century. Carl Brigham, a vital link in this association, initially contributed to the Army Alpha and Beta tests – early endeavors to assess the intellectual capabilities of World War I conscripts (Brigham, 1923). Grounded in the conviction that cognitive potential could be both measured and ranked objectively, Brigham subsequently integrated this ethos into the SAT, crafting it as an instrument reflecting innate learning capacities rather than mere accumulated knowledge (Frey & Detterman, 2004).

However, this alignment was not without its share of controversies. Despite the accolades IQ tests garnered for their claimed objectivity, they faced critiques over potential cultural biases and an undue emphasis on specific cognitive domains (Neisser et al., 1996). As the SAT bore resemblance to these tests in its intellectual framework, it too was ensnared in parallel critiques, especially regarding its purportedly universal and unbiased nature.

SAT and IQ: A Deep Dive

The relationship between the Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) and intelligence quotient (IQ) measures is deeply embedded in a historical context, drawing roots from Carl Brigham's foundational work and subsequent psychometric theories (Brigham, 1923). These early deliberations established the platform upon which contemporary scholars could discern the intricate dynamics between these two assessments.

Indeed, a multitude of studies corroborate the robust correlation between SAT scores and general intelligence (g). Frey and Detterman's (2004) meta-analysis, for instance, highlighted that both verbal and mathematical SAT scores possessed significant associations with g, with correlations often surpassing .70. This pattern of results underscores that individuals excelling in IQ tests are similarly poised to perform well on the SAT. Parallel findings were observed in studies comparing SAT outcomes with renowned intelligence scales like the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) (Wechsler, 1955) and the Raven's Progressive Matrices (RPM) (Raven et al., 2008).

Further insights into the SAT's cognitive domains were offered by Jouve (2023). When the SAT was juxtaposed with the Jouve-Cerebrals Test of Induction (JCTI) – an instrument gauging inductive reasoning – salient correlations emerged, emphasizing the test's alignment with abstract reasoning capabilities. For instance, correlations of .79 and .84 were observed between the SAT Composite and SAT Mathematical Reasoning with the JCTI, respectively (Jouve, 2023a). Additionally, a potent correlation of .73 was noted between the SAT and the verbal ability test "I Am a Word" (IAW) (Jouve, 2023b).

Exploring this further, the SAT, when compared with the Jouve Cerebrals Crystallized Educational Scale (JCCES) Crystallized Educational Index (CEI) – strong proxy to a "verbal" IQ  –, demonstrated profound associations, especially post-2005, with correlations reaching .86 (Jouve, 2010). This relationship further underscores the SAT's alignment with general reasoning capacities.

The interplay between SAT and IQ isn't confined solely to contemporary measures. A seminal study by Deary et al. (2007) illustrated that adolescent SAT scores could predict intelligence metrics even in older age, providing intriguing insights into the enduring stability of cognitive abilities. Such revelations push us to delve deeper, pondering the shared foundational components between the SAT and IQ constructs. Perhaps the SAT, in evaluating mathematical, verbal, and reasoning faculties, mirrors the elemental constituents of general intelligence. Sternberg (2006) offers another perspective, suggesting that the SAT predominantly gauges analytical intelligence, a facet that significantly overlaps with conventional IQ measures.

Historically, the SAT's inception during a fervent period of psychometric and intelligence research deeply influenced its structure (Lemann, 1999). Given this historical backdrop, it's evident that the SAT's questions, constructs, and cognitive requirements resonate strongly with traditional intelligence assessments. The central role of 'g' or general intelligence in this discussion cannot be understated (Spearman, 1904). Both the SAT and IQ assessments, albeit with distinct content and objectives, necessitate the engagement of 'g' for adept navigation. Consequently, high 'g' not only facilitates SAT success but also correlates with proficiency in IQ evaluations (Deary et al., 2007).

An added layer to consider involves the rigorous preparatory regimes that students often undergo for the SAT. Such training, sharpening mathematical reasoning and verbal acumen, inadvertently refines cognitive faculties also assessed by IQ tests, thus reinforcing the observed link between SAT and IQ scores (Neisser et al., 1996).

Yet, any assertion deeming the SAT a surrogate IQ test demands scrupulous evaluation. Several foundational constructs within cognitive psychology, such as the structuralist paradigm, emphasize the common cognitive processes underpinning both the SAT and IQ tests (Fodor, 1983). Similarly, Cattell's (1971) notions of fluid and crystallized intelligence provide another compelling frame. The SAT's diverse array of questions effectively taps into both these realms, akin to holistic IQ evaluations. Nonetheless, Bourdieu's (1986) post-structuralist critique merits attention, suggesting that the SAT might also reflect socio-cultural capital, especially within the American educational framework.

Peeling back another layer, the underlying philosophies of these tests differ substantially. The SAT is fundamentally an achievement assessment, calibrated to gauge college readiness. In contrast, IQ tests endeavor to quantify an individual's innate cognitive prowess (Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 2017). This nuanced distinction is pivotal when interpreting the results of either assessment.

The intertwined narratives of SAT scores and intelligence have significantly impacted educational policies. Rooted in the early 20th-century belief in the objectivity of intelligence evaluation, the SAT emerged as a tool to democratize higher education access (Lemann, 1999). However, equating SAT outcomes with inherent intellect can cloud the broader aims of education, emphasizing the cultivation of well-rounded, critically-minded citizens (Dewey, 1916). In essence, the SAT and IQ's complex dance underscores the broader challenges and opportunities inherent in educational assessment and policy formulation.

Controversies and Criticisms: Winds of Change

The intricate nexus of standardized testing is deeply entwined with sociocultural influences - namely, bias, socio-economic disparities, and the constructs of cultural capital. This multifaceted realm, imbued with nuance and contention, is underpinned by the complex interplay of these variables.

Historically, the ontological roots of bias in standardized testing can be traced to early psychometricians, like Ebbinghaus (1885), whose work, albeit groundbreaking in the realm of memory, inadvertently fostered a Eurocentric lens on cognitive processes. Such a perspective, though unintentional, propagated a cultural bias in subsequent test designs. Vygotsky (1978), through his exploration of culture and cognition, further elucidated that intelligence constructs cannot be extricated from their sociocultural contexts.

The impact of socio-economic variables is equally profound. Disparities in access to preparatory resources, both tangible and intangible, consistently fuel debate. Bourdieu's (1986) exposition on forms of capital elucidates how economic capital profoundly influences the acquisition of cultural and symbolic capital, shaping test outcomes. Indeed, the persistent educational inequities exacerbated by socio-economic divides, as detailed by Coleman et al. (1966), epitomize the structural challenges confronting underprivileged test-takers.

Bourdieu and Passeron (1977) introduced the transformative concept of cultural capital, which underscores how standardized tests, often inadvertently, tend to favor individuals rooted in dominant cultural paradigms. This inclination not only marginalizes those outside these prevailing paradigms but also fortifies societal hierarchies and ingrained power dynamics. Consequently, a thorough grasp of standardized testing's sociocultural criticisms demands that we navigate the intricate interstices of bias, socio-economic discrepancies, and dominant constructs of cultural capital. This endeavor is crucial, enabling the academic community to ensure assessments are both rigorous and equitable.

Turning to the pedagogical implications, the ascendancy of standardized tests as primary academic indicators has inadvertently fashioned an educational environment where curricula are often delineated by test parameters (Popham, 2001). Within such confines, educators grapple with balancing test-specific content and fostering broader cognitive and affective capacities. This skewed focus can stymie creativity (Robinson, 2001) and attenuate deeper conceptual grasp (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987). In tandem, there's a burgeoning call for holistic student assessments that honor not only cognitive dimensions but also affective, interpersonal, and moral competencies, echoing Stoic sentiments espoused by philosophers like Seneca (Long & Sedley, 1987).

In delving deeper into the cognitive landscape, the validity of standardized tests as definitive measures of intelligence or academic prowess is rigorously contested. Illuminating critiques, reflecting insights from thought leaders ranging from John Stuart Mill to Jean Piaget, emphasize that intelligence is multifaceted, and its vast expanse cannot be wholly encapsulated by a singular metric. Sternberg's (1985) triarchic theory exemplifies this by highlighting analytical, creative, and practical intelligence dimensions, with standardized tests predominantly gauging the analytical sphere. Similarly, Gardner's (1983) theory of multiple intelligences proposes a broad spectrum of cognitive abilities, many of which remain underrepresented in traditional testing paradigms.

To conclude, the holistic essence of education, as expounded by luminaries like Aristotle in his "Nicomachean Ethics," transcends mere cognitive proficiency, encompassing ethical virtues, resilience, and interpersonal skills (Kraut, 1989). An undue emphasis on standardized tests risks neglecting this comprehensive educational vision.

SAT’s Evolution: Responding without Bowing

The SAT has undergone numerous modifications reflecting the multifaceted influences of educational trends, societal demands, and evolving scientific understandings over the decades. As we navigate its intricate chronicle, patterns of its responsiveness to these external forces become evident (Lemann, 1999).

Originating in 1926, the SAT was deeply rooted in the IQ testing movement of the early 20th century. Comprising math and verbal components, it aspired to be an unbiased arbiter of academic potential. Yet, vestiges of cognitive biases, remnants of its antecedent IQ tests, remained (Lemann, 1999).

By the late 20th century, the SAT underwent significant revisions emblematic of the period's ethos. For instance, the 1994 elimination of antonym questions, notorious for their dubious predictive validity, in favor of passage-based ones marked a pivot towards evaluating contextual comprehension (Camara & Kimmel, 2005). A decade later, the introduction of the writing section in 2005 spotlighted the increasing value attributed to articulate communication in academia (Zwick, 2004). Yet, by 2016, the writing component's optional status emerged, spurred by concerns over its relevance and correlation with college achievement.

The mathematical component too witnessed adaptations. While its foundational focus - arithmetic, algebra, and geometry - persisted, the integration of data interpretation and advanced topics such as trigonometry highlighted the SAT's attempts to remain aligned with high school curricula (Santelices & Wilson, 2010). Concurrently, the scoring architecture, once expanded to 2400 points, reverted to the traditional 1600-point scale in 2016, with the essay scored distinctly.

In contextualizing these transformations, one must acknowledge the interplay of societal, institutional, and pedagogical forces. Notably, the College Board, steward of the SAT, consistently strived to broaden higher education access, evident in its 2014 collaboration with Khan Academy to democratize test preparation (Balf, 2014). The profound influence of the civil rights and feminist movements, spotlighting potential ethnic, racial, and gender biases in testing (Freedle, 2003; Rosser, 1989), undoubtedly precipitated significant SAT revisions.

Pedagogically, emerging conceptions of intelligence, notably Gardner's (1983) theory of multiple intelligences, catalyzed the SAT's diversification away from mere rote learning. Competition too played its role; the SAT’s periodic updates can be attributed in part to the growing prominence of rival tests like the ACT, especially in regions like the Midwest (Soares, 2012).

Criticisms of the Criticisms

The dynamic terrain of academia brims with debates and counterarguments, with the SAT persistently in the crucible of discussion. To unravel the truths of these criticisms, one must meticulously parse them through empirical evidence and logical coherence.

A prominent critique of the SAT centers on its perceived cultural and socio-economic biases. Critics assert that the SAT may inadvertently advantage particular demographic groups, especially those from affluent socio-economic strata or specific cultural backgrounds (Lemann, 1999). Nevertheless, standardized tests like the SAT are crafted through extensive calibration to safeguard construct validity and curtail biases (Jensen, 1980). The College Board, responsible for the SAT, perpetually refines the test in harmony with the ever-changing educational landscape.

Another contention is the SAT's purported lack of predictive validity, particularly in forecasting collegiate success post-freshman year (Atkinson & Geiser, 2009). Contrarily, myriad empirical studies have robustly demonstrated the SAT's capability in predicting not only initial academic performance but also subsequent educational trajectories (Camara & Echternacht, 2000).

Some argue the SAT's inherent reductionism, insinuating it simplifies the diverse fabric of human potential into a mere numerical score. However, it's pivotal to comprehend the SAT's intent. No single metric can holistically encapsulate human capability. The SAT aspires to be a reliable gauge within its stipulated purview and has received ample empirical endorsement in this regard (Kobrin et al., 2008).

As skepticism of the SAT's limitations burgeons, so does the advocacy for innovative assessment methods, from portfolio evaluations to character skill appraisals. Embracing diversification in assessment is commendable, yet one must tread cautiously, critically assessing these alternatives for potential shortcomings.

Portfolio assessments, wherein students present a collection of their academic and extracurricular endeavors, are gaining momentum among educational progressives (Wiggins, 1993). While they offer a more rounded view of students, these assessments grapple with standardization issues. The subjectivity in appraising varied submissions could reintroduce biases, ironically the very concern they aim to address.

Character skill appraisals, rooted in the burgeoning realm of positive psychology, aim to measure non-cognitive facets like resilience and conscientiousness (Duckworth & Yeager, 2015). Although these traits are undeniably vital in life trajectories, translating them into assessments presents challenges. The fluidity of these traits across developmental stages and cultural contexts cautions against their wholesale incorporation into educational evaluation.

Subject-specific assessments, whether in mathematics or literature, while shedding light on specialized proficiency, could inadvertently foster a narrow perspective, sidelining the importance of interdisciplinary learning, a vital component of modern academia (Berlin, 1992).

Evoking the mythological figure, Epimetheus, we're reminded of the dangers of hasty actions devoid of foresight. In our enthusiasm for reform, vigilance is needed to ensure proposed solutions don't inadvertently spawn novel issues.

Critiques, though often well-founded, can inadvertently drift into the realm of over-generalization. Such sweeping critiques, particularly of the SAT - a cornerstone of educational evaluation for over a century - might miss the nuances of the topic. Geary (2005) noted that cognitive processes, though globally similar, are distinctly influenced by socio-cultural nuances. Therefore, biases identified for one demographic in the SAT may be irrelevant or even beneficial for another, highlighting the dangers of undue extrapolation.

The SAT, an ever-evolving instrument, periodically adapts to mirror pedagogical shifts and socio-cultural dynamics. Hence, critiques rooted in past iterations may falter when appraising its current form, resonating with Heraclitus's profound observation: one doesn't encounter the same river twice.

Distinguishing between normative and descriptive criticisms is essential for a balanced evaluation of the SAT. For instance, while the descriptive criticism might emphasize a perceived gender disparity in SAT outcomes (Halpern, 2000), the normative critique delves into the ethical implications.


The historical evolution of the Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) is inexorably intertwined with the construct of the intelligence quotient (IQ). This interconnection was not born out of mere happenstance; rather, it emanated from the psychometric ideologies of the early 20th-century that sought to decode human cognitive abilities. However, the relationships between SAT scores and general intelligence (g) are complex and deeply rooted in foundational principles. This linkage offers not just an academic exploration but a deeper insight into cognitive assessment and its broader implications for societal progression.

The integrated narratives of the SAT and IQ transcend mere metrics or scores. They encapsulate broader reflections on human potential, its diverse manifestations, and the mechanisms society employs to gauge and nurture it. Nevertheless, understanding the constructs of intelligence and academic aptitude requires epistemic humility. These concepts are imbued with intricacies, and any reductionist attempt to encapsulate them in single metrics demands a judicious approach.

The passage of time, accompanied by shifts in knowledge paradigms and educational innovations, mandates continuous evolution in our cognitive and academic assessment tools. Taking a cue from the ancient Greek aphorism, panta rhei, which signifies the fluidity of all constructs, one must recognize that evaluative tools like the SAT cannot remain stagnant. They must resonate with the dynamism of academic curricula, evolving socio-cultural landscapes, and our expanding understanding of diverse cognitive profiles. Central to this is ensuring that such instruments, including the SAT, adhere to principles of equity, and access.

The debate surrounding the SAT in the academic sphere underscores the intricate challenge of appreciating its strengths while concurrently recognizing its limitations. As scholars, we must neither indiscriminately criticize nor blindly laud. Instead, it is incumbent upon us to view the SAT as a multifaceted instrument shaped by a nexus of historical, psychological, and pedagogical determinants. Much like historical tools such as the astrolabe and abacus, the SAT, though not above critique, holds value and is a product of its time. This perspective aligns with the Aristotelian concept of hexis, where virtues coexist with limitations.

Ultimately, any scrutiny of the SAT should be driven by constructive inquiry. A holistic and balanced approach will engender a discourse that, while discerning, remains grounded in respect, comprehension, and an enduring pursuit of academic excellence.


Atkinson, R. C., & Geiser, S. (2009). Reflections on a century of college admissions tests. Educational Researcher, 38(9), 665-676.

 Ayres L. P. (1911). The Binet-Simon Measuring Scale for Intelligence: Some Criticisms and Suggestions. The Psychological clinic, 5(6), 187–196.

Balf, T. (2014). The story behind the SAT overhaul. The New York Times Magazine.

Berlin, I. (1992). The crooked timber of humanity: Chapters in the history of ideas. Princeton University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.) Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (pp. 241-258). New York: Greenwood.

Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (1977). Reproduction in education, society and culture. Sage.

Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Brigham, C. C. (1923). A study of American intelligence. Princeton University Press.

Camara, W. J., & Echternacht, G. (2000). The SAT I and high school grades: Utility in predicting success in college. The College Board Research Report No. 2000-1. College Entrance Examination Board.

Camara, W. J., & Kimmel, E. W. (Eds.). (2005). Choosing students: Higher education admissions tools for the 21st century. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Cattell, R. B. (1971). Abilities: Their structure, growth, and action. Houghton Mifflin.

Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., McPartland, F., Mood, A. M., Weinfeld, F. D., & York, R. L. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. US Government Printing Office.

Crouse, J., & Trusheim, D. (1988). The case against the SAT. The University of Chicago Press.

Coyle, T. R., & Pillow, D. R. (2008). SAT and ACT predict college GPA after removing g. Intelligence, 36(6), 719-729.

Deary, I. J., Strand, S., Smith, P., & Fernandes, C. (2007). Intelligence and educational achievement. Intelligence, 35(1), 13-21.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. Macmillan.

Duckworth, A. L., & Yeager, D. S. (2015). Measurement matters: Assessing personal qualities other than cognitive ability for educational purposes. Educational Researcher, 44(4), 237-251.

Ebbinghaus, H. (1885). Memory: A contribution to experimental psychology. Dover.

Fodor, J. A. (1983). The modularity of mind: An essay on faculty psychology. MIT Press.

Freedle, R. (2003). Correcting the SAT's ethnic and social-class bias: A method for reestimating SAT scores. Harvard Educational Review, 73(1), 1–43.

Frey, B. B. (2018). Modern Classroom Assessment. SAGE Publications.

Frey, M. C., & Detterman, D. K. (2004). Scholastic assessment or g? The relationship between the Scholastic Assessment Test and general cognitive ability. Psychological Science, 15(6), 373-378.

Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. Basic Books.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. Basic Books.

Geary, D. C. (2005). The origin of mind: Evolution of brain, cognition, and general intelligence. American Psychological Association.

Gould, S. J. (1981). The mismeasure of man. Norton & Company.

Halpern, D. F. (2000). Sex differences in cognitive abilities (3rd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Herrnstein, R. J., & Murray, C. (1994). The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in American life. Free Press.

Jouve, X. (2023a). Reliability and concurrent validity of the Jouve-Cerebrals Test of Induction: A correlational study with SAT and RIST.

Jouve, X. (2023b). I am a word test: An open-ended and untimed approach to verbal ability assessment.

Jouve, X. (2010). Relationship between Jouve Cerebrals Crystallized Educational Scale (JCCES) Crystallized Educational Index (CEI) and Cognitive and Academic Measures.

Kant, I. (1998). Critique of Pure Reason (The Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant) (P. Guyer & A. Wood, Eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kaplan, R. M., & Saccuzzo, D. P. (2017). Psychological testing: Principles, applications, and issues. Cengage Learning.

Kobrin, J. L., Patterson, B. F., Shaw, E. J., Mattern, K. D., & Barbuti, S. M. (2008). Validity of the SAT for predicting first-year college grade point average. The College Board Research Report No. 2008-5. College Entrance Examination Board.

Kraut, R. (1989). Aristotle on the human good. Princeton University Press.

Lemann, N. (1999). The big test: The secret history of the American meritocracy. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Long, A. A., & Sedley, D. N. (1987). The Hellenistic philosophers: Translations of the principal sources with philosophical commentary. Cambridge University Press.

Messick, S. (1988). The once and future issues of validity: Assessing the meaning and consequences of measurement. In H. Wainer & H. I. Braun (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 33–48). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform. The Elementary School Journal, 84(2), 113–130.

Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T. J., Boykin, A., Brody, N., Ceci, S. J., ... & Urbina, S. (1996). Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. American psychologist, 51(2), 77.

Nisbett, R. E., Aronson, J., Blair, C., Dickens, W., Flynn, J., Halpern, D. F., & Turkheimer, E. (2012). Intelligence: New findings and theoretical developments. American Psychologist, 67(2), 130-159.

Popham, W. J. (2001). Teaching to the test. Educational Leadership, 58(6), 16-20.

Raven, J., Raven, J. C., & Court, J. H. (1998). Raven Manual: Section 4, Advanced Progressive Matrices, 1998 Edition. Oxford Psychologists Press.

Robinson, K. (2001). Out of our minds: Learning to be creative. Capstone.

Rosser, P. (1989). The SAT Gender Gap: Identifying the Causes. Center for Women Policy Studies.

Spearman, C. (1904). "General Intelligence," Objectively Determined and Measured. American Journal of Psychology, 15, 201-292.

Santelices, M. V., & Wilson, M. (2010). Unfair treatment? The case of Freedle, the SAT, and the standardization approach to differential item functioning. Harvard Educational Review, 80(1), 106-133.

Soares, J. A. (2007). The Power of Privilege: Yale and America's Elite Colleges. Stanford University Press.

Sternberg, R. J. (2006). The nature of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 18(1), 87-98.

Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Wisdom, intelligence, and creativity synthesized. Cambridge University Press.

Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. Cambridge University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

Wechsler, D. (1955). Manual for the Wechsler adult intelligence scale. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.

Wiggins, G. (1993). Assessing student performance: Exploring the purpose and limits of testing. Jossey-Bass.

Zwick, R. (2004). Rethinking the SAT: The future of standardized testing in university admissions. Routledge.

Author: Jouve, X.
Publication: 2023