Age-related IQ decline is reduced markedly after adjustment for the Flynn effect
Abstract
Twenty-year-olds outperform 70-year-olds by as much as 2.3 standard deviations (35 IQ points) on subtests of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS). We show that most of the difference can be attributed to an intergenerational rise in IQ known as the Flynn effect. Normative data from different versions of the WAIS enabled us to estimate the degree to which the Flynn effect, rather than age-related decline, contributes to differences between 20- and 70-year-olds. The Flynn effect accounted for 38-67% of the apparent age-related decline on 6 of the 11 subtests. On the other 5 subtests, all of which are categorized as verbal, the Flynn effect was larger than the age-group difference. For these verbal subtests, the Flynn effect masked a modest increase in ability as individuals grow older. Overall, the Flynn effect accounted for at least 85% of the disparity between 20- and 70-year-olds.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Other research has shown that estimates of the size of the Flynn effect based on changes in subtest scores yield values similar to estimates from composite scores.
“However, other research has shown that estimates of the size of the Flynn effect based on changes in subtest scores yield values similar to estimates from the composite scores (Agbayani & Hiscock, 2013; Dickinson & Hiscock, 2010).”
From The Flynn effect: A meta-analysis. (2014) · cites this paper as Dickinson & Hiscock, 2010
The overall Flynn effect of 2.31 produced by this meta-analysis was lower than Flynn's (2009a) value of 3.11, Fletcher et al.'s (2010) value of 2.80, and Dickinson and Hiscock's (2010) estimate of 2.60.
“The overall Flynn effect of 2.31 produced by this meta-analysis was lower than Flynn’s (2009a) value of 3.11 and Fletcher et al.’s (2010) value of 2.80. It also fell below Dickinson and Hiscock’s (2010) estimate of 2.60, which was the average of separate calculations for each of the 11 Wechsler subtests.”
From The Flynn effect: A meta-analysis. (2014) · cites this paper as Dickinson and Hiscock’s (2010)
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Flynn effect: A meta-analysis.
Trahan, L. H., Stuebing, K. K., Fletcher, J. M., & Hiscock, M. (2014) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0037173 · Cited by 364 · see citing works
“Nonetheless, Dickinson and Hiscock (2010) reported a Flynn effect for WAIS Similarities of 4.5 IQ points per decade for WAIS to WAIS–”
BackgroundResultInfluentialSelf-citation
- Authors
- Dickinson, M. D., & Hiscock, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Houston (US)
- Corresponding author
- Hiscock, Merrill
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2010-03-26
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 865-870
- ISSN
- 0165-0475 (ISSN-L)
- 1380-3395
- 1744-411X
- OpenAlex
- W1981182494
- Cited by
- 29
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 3.08
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Aging and Gerontology Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
- Keywords
- Flynn effect, Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, reference values, verbal intelligence, cognitive aging
- MeSH terms
- Age Factors, Aged, Aging, Cognition Disorders, Humans, Intelligence, Intelligence Tests, Neuropsychological Tests, Psychological Theory, Young Adult
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
