The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Self‐Report Measures of Intelligence: Are They Useful as Proxy IQ Tests?
Abstract
Correlations between single‐item self‐reports of intelligence and IQ scores are rather low (.20–.25) in college samples. The literature suggested that self‐reports could be improved by three strategies: (1) aggregation, (2)item weighting, and (3) use of indirect, rather than direct, questions. To evaluate these strategies, we compared the validity of aggregated and unaggregated versions of direct measures with four indirect measures (Gough’s Intellectual efficiency scale, Hogan’s Intellect composite scale, Sternberg’s Behavior Check List, and Trapnell’s Smart scale). All measures were administered to two large samples of undergraduates (N s = 310, 326), who also took an IQ test. Although results showed some success for both direct and indirect measures, the failure of their validities to exceed .30 impugns their utility as IQ proxies in competitive college samples. The content of the most valid items referred to global mental abilities or reading involvement. Aggregation benefited indirect more than direct measures, but prototype‐weighting contributed little.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Intelligence, personality, and interests: Evidence for overlapping traits
Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.121.2.219 · Cited by 1,829 · cited 1×
“Even that level of validity seems unlikely for proxy tests, given that they emphasize typical performance as opposed to the maximal performance tapped by IQ tests (Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997; Paulhus & Martin, 1987).”
BackgroundNarcissistic Illusions in Self‐Evaluations of Intelligence and Attractiveness
Gabriel, M. T., Critelli, J. W., & Ee, J. S. (1994) · Journal of Personality · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1994.tb00798.x · Cited by 478
Egocentric definitions of traits and abilities in social judgment
Dunning, D., & Cohen, G. L. (1992) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.63.3.341 · Cited by 196
Cited by
A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains
Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B. (2003) · Journal of Research in Personality · doi:10.1016/s0092-6566(03)00046-1 · Cited by 8,307
Human abilities: emotional intelligence
Mayer, J. D., Roberts, R. D., & Barsade, S. G. (2008) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093646 · Cited by 2,170
Convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity of competing measures of emotional intelligence
Brackett, M. A., & Mayer, J. D. (2003) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167203254596 · Cited by 1,351
Müllensiefen, D., Gingras, B., Musil, J., & Stewart, L. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0089642 · Cited by 1,155
Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2003) · European Journal of Personality · doi:10.1002/per.466 · Cited by 1,109
Metadata
- Venue
- Journal of Personality
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1998-08
- Volume
- 66
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 525-554
- ISSN
- 0022-3506 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-6494
- OpenAlex
- W1981419775
- Cited by
- 348
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 6.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Self‐Report Measures of Intelligence: Are They Useful as Proxy IQ Tests? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/1467-6494.00023
- The paper
- Self‐Report Measures of Intelligence: Are They Useful as Proxy IQ Tests? (1998). Journal of Personality. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.00023
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
