ADVERTISEMENTS:
The theories of intelligence have been developed epically by employing factor analysis intelligent of identify the structure of intelligence. Most popular theories have been discussed here.
1. Thompson’s Sampling Theory:
According to Thompson, mind consists of various independent powers. A test measures only a few of these powers. If two tests measure the same power, then some common factor exists the two. The theory is, therefore, also known as common factor theory.
Diagrammatically, theory can be presented as follows A, B, C are the tests, ‘g’ denote the general ability and ‘c’ denotes common factor between the tests A & B, also A & E.
Holizinger’s and Hart Man:
Bi-factor theory (group) they call the bi-factor pattern, there is general factor running through all the tests, four different group factors and specifies. It is usually adequate for representing the results of test’s abilities.
2. Holizinger’s Bi-Factor Theory:
Most recently Spearman and his adherents have realized that those tests which do not satisfy the criterion of proportionality and which Spearman has termed “disturbers” may be retained in the correlation matrix if it is recognized that some of the tests may have a factor common, in addition to the general factor that is not common to all of the tests. These factors, common to groups of tests, are termed group factors. Holizingers bi-factor method, which is a variation of two-factor methods, obtains a general and one or more group factors.
3. Vernon- Burt’s Hierarchical Structure Theory:
Burt’s theory uses the concepts of general, group as well as common factors-
i. Group factors.
ii. Common factor.
He believes in a hierarchy of mental organization with many levels:
Intelligence is the integrative capacity of the mind and so it manifests itself at each level its quality and quantity differs at each level.
S = Sensation,
M = Movements,
P = Perception
C = Cordination movement,
M = Memory
H = Habit formation,
R = Apprehension of relation
Integrative capacity-
The hierarchical level includes such factor as generalization, logic, abstraction, thought process, etc. The R2 include aesthetic, creative activity.
Hierarchical Group Factor Theory:
P.E. Vernon (1950) found ‘g’ after eight analyses to cover more than twice as much variance as all group factors combined.
After the removal of ‘g’ tests and tends to fall into two main groups:
a. Verbal-Numerical Education (v : ed) factors and
b. Practical-Mechanical-Spatial-Physical (k : m) factors.
The types themselves subdivide (v : ed) into verbal and numerical factors and (k : m) splits into spatial and manual sub-factors.
The represented by Spearman’s British tradition if investigation, exemplified by P.E. Vernon (1950) structure of human abilities in which human mental abilities are arranged in a hierarchy with a broad general factor (g) and split into two major ‘group’ factors, one distinguished by verbal and educational abilities (v: ed) and the other by practical or performance abilities (k : m). Each of these major group factor is then differentiated into more specific factors like Thurston’s verbal, number and space. These finally break into factors found in specific types of test. Thus, any mental performance can be described as involving percentages of g. (v : ed), verbal and others until all the factors needed to account for the performance have been determined.
General Occupational Abilities:
Numerous studies have shown better validity for (v : ed) tests in work of a clerical verbal of theoretical nature; (k : m) tests have obtained relatively higher validities in work of a practical nature, though (v : ed) tests have been useful there also. At the same time, however, good battery of tests validity vary far from perfect, indicating the presence of the additional factor for factors in jobs.
Thus, the structure of job abilities appears parallels closely that educational abilities and may be represented in following diagram:
G, X and verbal together make up general occupational ability; this may be partially split into verbal, mechanical practical and possible other types which themselves sub-divided indefinitely.
Conclusions for Vocational and Educational Abilities:
Now, we may hope to cover the ground in the prediction of vocational and educational suitability by means of spatial, perceptual manual, rote memory, attention and other types of test than we do already with g, (v : ed) and (k : m) tests. Certainly, it is worthwhile exploring the relevance of the established test factors of jobs. Psychologists giving guidance are justified in making the fullest possible use of g, (v : ed) and (k : m) tests and x (general motivation) is more important for jobs consideration.
Importance of Structure of Vocational and Educational Guidance:
The following are the advantages of structure of human abilities:
i. The specific aptitude and its identification is helpful in making the guidance and counselling programme economical and effective by specifying the aptitude of an individual. The types of analysis make the guidance service more scientific.
ii. Differential Aptitude Tests (DAT) can be devised only when the knowledge and underlying structure of vocational and educational abilities is available.
iii. It helps in development of definite and pre-use types of hypothesis for the purpose of educational abilities are available.
iv. It helps to develop a sound theory of test, pre supposes and underlying structure of abilities for the purpose of educational, vocational guidance is useful in the sense that proper tool is used scientific guidance.
v. The diagnosis is difficult to the cognitive area, but it can also be facilitated by the knowledge of structure of human abilities.
vi. The inter-relationship of psychological behaviour can be best appreciable only when scientific analysis of the underlying structure of abilities is available.
vii. More reliable and valid structure and aptitude test for the purpose of guidance can be constructed by knowledge of structure of human abilities.
viii. More scientific and objective guidance facility can be provided with the help of structure of abilities.
Behaviour Underlying Facts:
a. Behaviour is in known direction.
b. Behaviour is specific.
c. Behaviour has specific factors.
d. Behaviour is integrating whole of factor ability, as a factor does not operate in isolation.
4. Guilford- Structure of Intellect Theory (SI) Model:
As work in factor analysis has continued, however, more and more factors have been found. French (1951) and (1953) made a thorough review of the literature in factor analysis, summarizing the result in two publications. One listed some fifty-nine factors which had been identified in the area of aptitude and achievement, and the other describes sixty-two different factors found in attitude and personality measurement.
At the same time, Guilford has argued that if psychologists are ever to understand that nature of intellect, more attention should be given to the superior human adult. Thus, rather than working with school children as Thurston has done, Guilford has carried out studies with Air Force Cadets and high level naval personnel. As a result, over forty different intellective factors have now been satisfactorily identified.
Further, in (1956), J.P. Guilford presented a first attempt at a systematization of the many factors observed. Guilford represents the organization of intellectual traits in three dimensions (given in the figure). Along one dimension represented the second are the different contents with which the operations can be performed and along the third axis are listed the different products which can result when the various operations are performed with one or more of the contents.
Basically Guilford identified five major operations:
i. Cognition:
Becoming aware of the existence of something.
ii. Memory:
Simply remembering what was once known.
iii. Convergent Thinking:
The operations of organizing, by reasoning, or other processes, the contents in such a way as to result in useful solutions to problems.
iv. Divergent Thinking:
Divergent thinking is that which leads to a variety of answers of possible solutions.
v. Evaluation:
The operation of making judgements and decisions.
J.F. Guilford has explained the Structure of Intellect (SI) with the help of three dimensional diagrams as shown operations (5), production (6) and content (4) to form a cube. The cube has been divided into 5 × 6 × 4= 120 small cubes as 120 abilities. The divergent thinking form 6 × 4 = 24 abilities related to creativity.
Structure of Mental Intellect:
Guilford’s concept of the structure of the Intellect:
Contents:
Contents with which these different operations can be performed are listed as four aspects-
i. Semantic- Convents having to do with language.
ii. Symbolic- Contents having to do with numerical ideas and concepts.
iii. Figural- Contents related to visual, auditory etc., Patterns.
iv. Behavioural- Contents related to the way in which persons and animals behave.
Finally Guilford divides the Products:
i. Elements (Units)- Bits of information.
ii. Classes- Grouping of elements.
iii. Relation- Similarities, difference and contingencies among the classes.
iv. System Theories- Or Relationships.
v. Transformations- Concepts of how things change.
vi. Implications- Projections of the theories to events which have not yet been observed or thought about.
Five Operations:
It involves five operations:
i. Evaluation
ii. Convergent Thinking
iii. Divergent Thinking
iv. Memory
v. Cognition
On the basis of operations or the kind of process performed, distinguishes among five major groups of operations- factors, cognition, memory, evaluation, convergent and divergent thinking convergent thinking is the type in which information leads to one good or right or best answer.
Divergent thinking is that which leads to a variety of answers or possible solutions. Cognition refers to the discovery or recognition of knowledge, and memory to its retention. Evaluation is reaching on a decision as to the goodness or adequacy of what is known done, remembered.
On the basis of contents or the kind of material used, Guilford describes four categories or abilities- figural, symbolic, semantic and behavioural. Figural or concrete content is that perceived through the sense. Symbolic content is that composed by conventional signs. Such as the letters of the alphabet or a number system. Semantic content takes the form of verbal meaning or ideas.
Behavioural content is of a social nature. When any of the mental operations are applied to any of these kinds of content, Guilford suggests that six kinds of the products might result. These are identified as units (such as word meaning)-(a) Classes of words or objects, (b) Relations, (c) Systems, (d) Transformations, or Changes of various kinds and implications, and (e) Appreciation (Here, then, are six more bases for the classification of mental factors.)
When mental abilities are classified according to content, (Guilford notes a rough distinction among) four kinds of structure emerges. The abilities which involve figural content may be thought constitute concrete structure. Those involving symbolic material constitute a type of abstract intelligence (which is used in learning to recognize and spell out words of work with numbers.)
Abilities pertaining to semantic content constitute another type of abstract thinking, such as that used in learning facts and understanding ideas. Finally the abilities which involve behavioural material constitutes (what Guilford hesitatingly calls) social intelligence. Although these four (or three if the two types of abstract are not separated) kinds of intelligence may be (of Thorndike’s grouping) Guildford’s entire system is essentially an elaboration and refinement of Thurston’s theory of primary mental abilities.
The multifactor theory of divides intelligence into (4 × 5 × 6 = 120) 120 abilities of independent composition of mental intellect.
If we look at the abilities which Guilford classifies as content, we seen that describes four kinds of intelligence:
i. The use of Figural Intelligence—and ability of mechanics, artists and musicians—may be regarded as concrete intelligence.
ii. Symbolic Intelligence involves the use of words and numbers. It may be regarded as abstract intelligence.
iii. Semantic Intelligence helps us to acquire ideas and facts.
iv. Social Intelligence which is largely non-verbal in character, governs our behaviour.
5. Fluid and Crystallized Intelligence Theory—R.B. Cattle:
The terms fluid and crystallized intelligence were first introduced by R.B. Cattell about 30 years ago and since developed into a well-knit theory of intelligence.
In its present form it question the notion of general intelligence and considers it as an amalgam of two components; Fluid (Gf), and Crystallized (Gc) intelligence.
The Gf represents the influence of biological factors on intellectual development, whereas Gc is the result of skills and concepts, which have become established through cultural pressures, education and experience. Both these abilities involve performances commonly said to indicate intelligence and as such, each is regarded worthy of the name “intelligence”.
The operationally defined concepts of Gf and Gc resembles somewhat Hebb’s (1949) and Vernon’s (1969) concepts of A and B intelligence and Burt’s (1949) and Vernon’s (1950) distinction between general-verbal educational (v : ed) and general practical mechanical (k : m) abilities.
In Piaget’s (1950) terminology Gc can be compared with ‘Schema’, which has become independent of the neurons after the completion of its synthesis, whereas, Gf, is the innate potentiality for forming, retaining, and recombining ‘Schemata’. The concepts of Gf and Gc can as well be compared with Ferguson’s (1956) use of ‘ability’ and ‘learning set’, and Newland’s (1962) use of ‘process’ and ‘product’ respectively. The resemblance is, however, superficial, since they differ from these concepts with respect to both—(a) specification of the abilities which go into the major dimensions and (b) the development of abilities in childhood and adult years.
Thurston’s (1944) acceptance of more than one second general factor obtained from the inter-correlations of primary abilities also fits well in the framework of the theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence. Almost the same kind of distinction in mental abilities was made when Baboock (1930), Hunt (1943), Shipley (1940), Wechsler (1944) referred to ‘Hold’ and ‘Don’t Hold’ tests to indicate the level of mental deterioration. Traces of this idea in its rudimentary form can be seen in the works of Ferguson 1920, Healy and Fernald 1911, Pinter and Peterson 1917, Seguin 1907, Stutsman 1931. When they advocated the use of performance tests of intelligence in preference to verbal tests of intelligence.
In verbal terms, Horn and Cattell (1966 b) define fluid intelligence as an ability “that involves the processes of perceiving relations, reducing correlates and maintaining span of immediate awareness in concept formation and attainment, reasoning and abstracting.” As such, it is quite similar to Spearman’s concept of ‘G’. Cattell (1963) maintains that it can best be assessed by tests in which problems tend to be either novel for all subjects or else extremely common, over learned elements of these subjects.
Crystallized intelligence, too, has been defined as intellectual ability “involving the processes of education and perception of relations, reasoning, and abstracting, etc.” But unlike if it is measured by more conventional intelligence tests based on comprehension and manipulation of learned materials, especially verbal.
More recently Horn and Cattell (1966a) have suggested additional second order factors or generalized aspects of performance in mental tests, these includes General Visualization (Gv), General Fluency (F), General Speediness (Gs), and Carefulness (C). Both Gf and Gv are often assessed by spatial tasks but they appear separately in factor analytic research and the thus independent functions.
The General Speediness factor Gs and Carefulness (C) are attributes of test-taking and produce variance in the intellectual tasks indirectly. The factor C was first identified by Fruchter (1950, 1953) and was regarded as a dimension of unwillingness to give an incorrect answer to ability test problems. Logically it would appear to be the inverse of the speediness function but researches by Horn (1965), Howie (1962) suggest that the two factors are quite independent.
Evidence from recent researches also indicates that ability to recall quickly elements of language, viz., words into immediate awareness, i.e., factor F, is largely independent of comprehension of concept as represented in Gc. Surprisingly, it is also independent of the Gs and C factors. Inspite of the fact that Gc and F are different abilities, they are very much associated with the subjects familiarity with languages.
From the above discussion it follows that factors Gv, Gs, F and C are only one-intellectual influence in performance in intelligence tests.
The two aspects of intelligence Gf and Gc cooperate and are difficult to separate, particularly among children. In the period of childhood both the abilities develop rapidly. The growth of Gf is influenced by the rapid rate of neural maturation, whereas Gc grows through the interaction of neural maturation and intense acculturation processes. The rate of development of Gf allows to a stop at a point where neural maturation ceases.
This limit, in general, is attained by the age of the later teens or early twenties. In the case of Gc, this slowing occurs at the age of 28 or beyond, depending upon the cultural learning period for the given sub-culture. Moreover, the decline, when it sets in, is much faster for Gf than for Gc.
The decline, probably, is due to irreversible damage to the central nervous system (CNS) and other physiological structures which support intellectual functioning. There are innumerable ways in which damage to the CNS could occur, for example, carbon monoxide poisoning, high fever, blow to the head, anoxia resulting from a wide variety of causes, etc. This process is slow but accumulative. Its impact is felt most directly in the development of Gf and somewhat more indirectly in the development of Gc.
Moreover, in the case of Gc its impact is masked by the growth of this ability in adulthood through acculturation influences. This accounts for the rapid decline in Gf and comparatively slow decline in Gc. It also explains why the gap in Gf and Gc increase with age particularly after the early twenties when Gf has reached its peak.
Evidence also suggests that the variability as denoted by the standard deviation of I.Q. is about 24 of Gf measures and 12 to 16 points on Gc measures. The small standard deviation of Gc is the result of suppressing the intelligent and promoting the dull children through formal or informal education towards average performance.
Such a squeezing of individual differences is not possible in the case of the Gf being physiologically determined. The fact that the nature-nature ratio is higher for Gf than for Gc also supports the assertion that Gf is physiologically determined whereas Gc is dominantly a product of environmental influences.
It has also been hypothesize that the reversible moderate moment-to-moment fluctuation in the cortical functioning of the subject will have greater effect on Gf than on Gc. Investigations by Hundal and Gupta (1967). Singh (1960) support this hypothesis. They induced reversible changes by administering stimulant (Dexedrine) and depressant (Phenobarbitone) drugs in the first experiment and through hard physical exercise in the second experiment.
Evidence also suggests that the effect of general brain damage is more pronounced in Gf and Gc.
The theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence as outlined above may be regarded as an extension of Spearman’s theory of general factor. It breaks the single general factor into two general factors, Gf and Gc, and its more general than Spearman’s original theory, since it based on inter-correlation between factors.
However, Humphreys (1967) does not regard Gf and Gc as general factors because their factorial structures do not confirm to the conventional criteria of a general factor. The theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence also questions Guilford’s (1950, 1967) arguments to ‘splinter’ the intellectual domain into a very large number of narrow, slightly, distinct abilities.
A review of the literature concerned with the relationship of mental abilities and the learning tasks suggests that serial learning and paired associate learning tasks correlate high with Gf and Gc respectively.
The writer agree with Vernon (1969) who maintains that Cattell’s theory of Gf and Gc is a well-integrated theory of mental development and is helpful in the understanding of complex and hitherto somewhat chaotic results of factorial research, that Cattell’s oblique second order factors of Gf and Gc are physiologically more intelligible than a group factors.
There has been no attempt to review the theories of intelligence which have been formulated so far. Certain theories consider general trends and their statements have evidence for disparity in their opinions, as must be expected in an area of considerable consequence where final truth are not known. Some familiarity with varying ideas makes possible and open mind towards alternatives and firmer ground for selecting an operational basis by the individual. The teachers have some notion of theoretical concepts of intelligence in order to independent and utilize current measures of the intelligence.
More important for the teachers is that differences exist among the-behaviours of students. These differences are due to their intelligence. The students vary in both quantity of their intelligence. Three broad categories have been identified by P.E. Vernon in school children when they are to enter in secondary school.
(a) General intelligence,
(b) Verbal intelligence (including v : ed factors), and
(c) Practical and spatial intelligence (including k : m factors.)
Variations in these three kinds of intelligence are sufficient to make possible allocation of school children. It is also possible to distinguish within general intelligence between memory and reasoning abilities.
It was suggested that two things come out from the review of the theories of intelligence:
i. First, teachers should obtain and insight into the structure of mental life or the nature of intelligence.
ii. Second, is the knowledge of mental differences that distinguishes among student?
The individual differences among students are used to provide educational and vocational guidance to them. The mental structure is used in organizing teaching-learning situations in the classroom.
Origin of Mental Measurement:
Since the time of San Francis Galton who was the person to study the innate psychological qualities that different people possess, the empirical study of individual difference has been conducted hand to hand with the formulations of theories about the patterns of mind, temperaments and emotions.
We can put it as follows—collection of data about individual abilities intelligences, attainments, aptitude, personality traits yield two types of information’s:
(i) The typical individual, the range and variety of individuals,
(ii) Underlying mental structure.
The second type information is obtained by comparing individuals, apart from the ancient faculty psychology become possible only after Galton and Pearson had given the concept of ‘correlation’ to social scientists. Most of the theories of intelligence have been formulated by employing ‘Factor Analysis’ as statistical technique which is the extension of correlation technique. There are various technique of “Factor analysis” developed by psychometrician. This statistical technique is also used for studying structure of personality, aptitude, temperament and emotional makeup.
Various types of test have been designed and constructed for measuring intelligence, and other variables. The test-scores are used for calculating correlating coefficient which are used for preparing correlation matrix which are used as basic elements for factor-analysis technique. Thus, the process of measurement is essential to understand the nature of intelligence as well as for individual differences among students.