Cited by 59Education, Achievement, and GiftednessGrit, Self-Efficacy, and MotivationCognitive Abilities and Testing

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Knowledge or Abilities? How Undergraduates Define Intelligence

Open access

Abstract

Whether students view intelligence as a fixed or malleable trait (i.e., their “mindset”) has significant implications for their responses to failure and academic outcomes. Despite a long history of research on mindset and its growing popularity, recent meta-analyses suggest that mindset does a poor job of predicting academic outcomes for undergraduate populations. Here, we present evidence that these mixed results could be due to ambiguous language on the mindset scale. Specifically, the term “intelligence” is a referent in every item of the mindset scale but is never defined, which could result in differing interpretations and measurement error. Therefore, we conducted an exploratory, qualitative study to characterize how undergraduate students define intelligence and how their definitions may influence how they respond to the mindset scale. We uncovered two distinct ways that undergraduates define intelligence: knowledge and abilities (e.g., ability to learn, solve problems). Additionally, we found that students’ definitions of intelligence can vary across contexts. Finally, we present evidence that students who define intelligence differently also interpret and respond to the items on the mindset scale differently. We discuss implications of these results for the use and interpretation of the mindset scale with undergraduate students.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1187/cbe.19-09-0169

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Recent research (Burgoyne et al., 2018; Limeri et al., 2020) has questioned the assumption that measures of mindset collected before and after an intervention are valid and reliable.

    “Recent research (Burgoyne et al., 2018;Limeri et al., 2020) has questioned this assumption.”

    From Do growth mindset interventions impact students’ academic achievement? A systematic review and meta-analysis with recommendations for best practices. (2023) · cites this paper as Limeri et al., 2020

    The Introduction (page unavailable) questions the validity of the mindset scale for undergraduates, and the Discussion (page unavailable) suggests that differing interpretations of its items may introduce measurement error. The paper does not specifically assess measures collected before and after an intervention or establish that those measures are unreliable; it notes that some studies have reported test–retest reliability. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 40

  1. 2014, Standards for educational and psychological testing
  2. Bandalos D. L., 2018, Measurement theory and applications for the social sciences
  3. Berg C. A., 1985, Developmental Review, 5, 334, 10.1016/0273-2297(85)90017-6 · DOI
  4. Berg C. A., 1992, Psychology and Aging, 7, 221, 10.1037/0882-7974.7.2.221 · DOI
  5. Buckley J., 2019, International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29, 75, 10.1007/s10798-017-9438-8 · DOI
  6. Burkley E., 2017, Personality and Individual Differences, 108, 45, 10.1016/j.paid.2016.11.063 · DOI
  7. Burkley M., 2010, Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 234, 10.1016/j.paid.2009.09.002 · DOI
  8. Burnette J. L., 2020, Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11, 107, 10.1177/1948550619841631 · DOI
  9. Cook D. A., 2017, Medical Education, 51, 1061, 10.1111/medu.13405 · DOI
  10. Costa A., 2018, Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 829, 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00829 · DOI
  11. Dai T., 2014, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39, 233, 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.06.003 · DOI
  12. De Castella K., 2015, European Journal of Psychology of Education, 30, 245, 10.1007/s10212-015-0244-y · DOI
  13. Dommett E. J., 2013, Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 2, 122, 10.1016/j.tine.2013.05.002 · DOI
  14. Dweck C. S., 1999, Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development
  15. Dweck C. S., 1995, Psychological Inquiry, 6, 267, 10.1207/s15327965pli0604_1 · DOI
  16. Fink A., 2018, Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 19, 783, 10.1039/C7RP00244K · DOI
  17. Flanigan A. E., 2017, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 48, 179, 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.10.003 · DOI
  18. Fontana A., 2000, Handbook of qualitative research, 645
  19. Fry P. S., 1984, International Journal of Psychology, 19, 457, 10.1080/00207598408247541 · DOI
  20. Gunderson E. A., 2017, Developmental Psychology, 53, 1188, 10.1037/dev0000282 · DOI
  21. 10.1187/cbe.18-06-0108 · DOI
  22. Hong Y., 1999, Journal of Psychology and Social Psychology, 77, 588
  23. Hsieh H.-F., 2005, Qualitative Health Research, 15, 1277, 10.1177/1049732305276687 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Kinlaw C. R., 2003, Developmental Review, 23, 125, 10.1016/S0273-2297(03)00010-8 · DOI
  25. Levy S. R., 1998, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1421, 10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1421 · DOI
  26. Lim W., 2002, Intelligence, 30, 185, 10.1016/S0160-2896(01)00097-6 · DOI
  27. National Research Council, 2001, Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment
  28. Okagaki L., 1993, Child Development, 64, 36, 10.2307/1131436 · DOI
  29. Orosz G., 2017, Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1, 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00311 · DOI
  30. Scott M. J., 2014, IEEE Transactions on Education, 57, 169, 10.1109/TE.2013.2288700 · DOI
  31. Shively R. L., 2013, Social Psychology of Education, 16, 241, 10.1007/s11218-012-9208-0 · DOI
  32. Smiley P. A., 2016, Motivation and Emotion, 40, 878, 10.1007/s11031-016-9575-5 · DOI
  33. Sriram R., 2014, Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 15, 515, 10.2190/CS.15.4.c · DOI
  34. Sternberg R. J., 1985, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 607, 10.1037/0022-3514.49.3.607 · DOI
  35. Sternberg R. J., 2000, Handbook of intelligence, 3, 10.1017/CBO9780511807947.002 · DOI
  36. Sternberg R. J., 2007, Educational Researcher, 36, 148, 10.3102/0013189X07299881 · DOI
  37. Wang A. Y., 1988, Psychological Record, 38, 533, 10.1007/BF03395045 · DOI
  38. Yeager D. S., 2012, Educational Psychologist, 47, 302, 10.1080/00461520.2012.722805 · DOI · Paper page
  39. Yeager D. S., 2014, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106, 867, 10.1037/a0036335 · DOI · Paper page
  40. Yussen S. R., 1985, The growth of reflection in children, 207

Metadata

Authors
Limeri, L. B., Choe, J., Harper, H. G., Martin, H. R., Benton, A., & Dolan, E. L.
Affiliations
  • University of Georgia (US)
  • Agnes Scott College (US)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Corresponding author
Limeri, Lisa B.
Venue
CBE—Life Sciences Education
Published
2020-03
Volume
19
Issue
1
Pages
ar5
ISSN
1931-7913 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3003421020
Cited by
59
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5
FWCI
7.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-sa
Locations
  • CBE—Life Sciences Education (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1659423)
  • University of Georgia
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Grit, Self-Efficacy, and Motivation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
Keywords
intelligence, growth mindset, fixed mindset, undergraduate students, definition of intelligence, measurement error, scale interpretation, educational outcomes
MeSH terms
Humans, Intelligence, Learning, Terminology as Topic, Students, Universities

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