Cited by 19Psychometric Methodologies and TestingCognitive Abilities and TestingPsychological Testing and Assessment

IQ Scores Should Be Corrected for the Flynn Effect in High-Stakes Decisions

Fletcher, Jack M., Stuebing, Karla K., Hughes, Lisa C.·2010·Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment

Abstract

IQ test scores should be corrected for high stakes decisions that employ these assessments, including capital offense cases. If scores are not corrected, then diagnostic standards must change with each generation. Arguments against corrections, based on standards of practice, information present and absent in test manuals, and related issues, ignore expert consensus about the assessment of intellectual disabilities and the acceptance of the Flynn effect in the field. Most psychometric concerns about correction are based on validity studies with small subgroups and do not reflect sufficient effort to estimate the precision of the Flynn estimate. We computed a confidence interval for the Wechsler PIQ across four validity studies that shows a SEM of about 1 around a mean of about 3 points per decade. A meta-analytic weighted mean of the 14 studies in Flynn (2009) is 2.80 (2.50, 3.09), close to Flynn’s (2009) unweighted average (2.99). More psychometric research would be helpful, but this level of precision supports the Flynn adjustment of 3 points per decade.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0734282910373341

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • 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 Fletcher et al.’s (2010)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fletcher, J. M., Stuebing, K. K., & Hughes, L. C.
Affiliations
University of Houston (US)
Corresponding author
Fletcher, Jack M.
Venue
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment
Published
2010-07-07
Volume
28
Issue
5
Pages
469-473
ISSN
  • 0734-2829 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-5144
OpenAlex
W2124351129
Cited by
19
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 2
FWCI
2.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
Keywords
Flynn effect, intellectual disability assessment, high-stakes decision making, validity studies, standard error of measurement, confidence intervals

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