If you do IQ test again, e fit raise your score?

Na Table 2 get these results. The first comparison include 122 studies and 153,185 participants; the later comparisons get smaller groups. No treat dem like na one group learning curve, and no extend the pattern forever. The result na standardised mean change across different cognitive tests; e no directly predict wetin your next IQ report go show. Scharfen et al., 2018

Wetin fit improve when you do the test again?

Knowing the instructions, the kind of questions, strategies and the test setting fit affect how person perform. The review of retesting look at different factors because how big the gains be depend on the procedure and the time between tests. Better result the second time no show which process change, and e no prove say general intelligence increase. Scharfen et al., 2018

Matrix questions show the matter: to solve dem, you need discover and join rules together. If you know the kind of task or remember one question, e fit change wetin the next test measure. Carpenter and the other researchers analyse the reasoning work wey these questions require, while Raven review stress say the right norms matter. Carpenter et al., 1990 Raven, 2000

I fit remove one fixed amount for practice?

No general correction for one person come from the combined effect. If you use group average for one person, you no consider say tests, exposure and retest conditions fit differ. Guidance for using tests say make dem interpret results to fit the actual test and how dem use am; just remove one fixed amount anyhow no prove say the result valid. International Test Commission, 2001

Why e risky to turn the effect to IQ points

If you multiply one standardised effect by 15, e fit look easy, but the review combine different cognitive results and use its own way to standardise dem. The common IQ rule of mean 100 and SD 15 no mean say every effect for every study na the same as one person's IQ-point change. Keep the effect measure; no make up one exact gain. Scharfen et al., 2018 Neisser et al., 1996

A score report wey dem properly prepare still get measurement uncertainty. Make you interpret the difference between two reported scores with the test rules, the time between tests and the confidence information, no be only by comparing their labels. Pearson, 2020

If score dey stable, e solve the matter?

Reliability and practice na two different things. One task fit get consistent score change when person repeat am but still keep people's ranking, or individual differences fit get plenty noise even when the average effect strong. Research on the reliability paradox remind us say dem need show these measurement qualities one by one. Hedge et al., 2017

Wider research on thinking ability also separate different parts of performance. One set of familiar matrix questions no test every part of thinking, so doing better for one task no prove equal change for memory, verbal ability and reasoning. Hampshire et al., 2012

Wetin realistic if you dey track progress?

Write down the tests wey you don see before, the test version and the time between tests. If the assessment go affect important decisions, follow the rules of the person wey dey run the test. For informal games, describe the improvement as better performance for those tasks, and keep repeated or memorised material separate from new material. This way, you fit recognise the useful skill gain without claiming more than wetin e show. International Test Commission, 2001 Scharfen et al., 2018

IQ still dey compare person with others for the same age group, with 100 as the age-group norm; retesting no change that rule. The question na whether one new score really measure the ability wey dem intend, under the conditions wey dem use give the test. Neisser et al., 1996 Pearson, 2020