Intelligence, as measured by grades and/or standardized test scores, plays a principal role in the medical school admissions process in most nations. Yet while sufficient intelligence is necessary to practice medicine effectively, no evidence suggests that surplus intelligence beyond that threshold is correlated with providing higher quality medical care. This paper argues that using perceived measures of intelligence to distinguish between applicants, at levels that exceed the level of intelligence required to practice medicine, is both unfair to applicants and fails to serve the interests of patients.

We examined the trade-off between the cost of response redundancy and the gain in output quality on the popular crowdsourcing platform Mechanical Turk, as a partial replication of Kosinski et al. (2012) who demonstrated a significant improvement in performance by aggregating multiple responses through majority vote. We submitted single items from a validated intelligence test as Human Intelligence Tasks (HITs) and aggregated the responses from “virtual groups” consisting of 1 to 24 workers. While the original study relied on resampling from a relatively small number of responses across a range of experimental conditions, we randomly and independently sampled from a large number of HITs, focusing only on the main effect of group size. We found that – on average – a group of six MTurkers has a collective IQ one standard deviation above the mean for the general population, thus demonstrating a “wisdom of the crowd” effect. The relationship between group size and collective IQ was characterised by diminishing returns, suggesting moderately sized groups provide the best return on investment. We also analysed performance of a smaller subset of workers who had each completed all 60 test items, allowing for a direct comparison between a group’s collective IQ and the individual IQ of its members. This demonstrated that randomly selected groups collectively equalled the performance of the best-performing individual within the group. Our findings support the idea that substantial intellectual capacity can be gained through crowdsourcing, contingent on moderate redundancy built into the task request.

This essay examines the first detailed study of gifted African American youth: Lillian Steele Proctor's master's thesis from the late 1920s on Black children in Washington, DC. Unlike formative research on gifted children by educational psychologists, Proctor's investigation emphasized children's experiences at school, home, and community in determining their abilities, opportunities, and accomplishments. Proctor's work also anticipated African American intellectuals’ critiques of racist claims about intelligence and giftedness that would flourish in the 1930s. In focusing on the nation's capital, her investigation drew from a municipality with a high proportion of African American residents that was segregated by law. Proctor pointed directly to systemic racism as both contributing to the relative invisibility of gifted African American youth and in thwarting opportunities to realize their intellectual potential. In an environment of racial subordination and segregation, these gifted children found themselves excluded from cultural resources and educational opportunities.

The assessment of intellectual ability is a core competency in psychology. The results of intelligence tests have many potential implications and are used frequently as the basis for decisions about educational placements, eligibility for various services, and admission to specific groups. Given the importance of intelligence test scores, accurate test administration and scoring are essential; yet there is evidence of unacceptably high rates of examiner error. This article discusses competency and postgraduate training in intelligence testing and presents a training model for postgraduate psychology students. The model aims to achieve high levels of competency in intelligence testing through a structured method of training, practice and feedback that incorporates peer support, self-reflection and multiple methods for evaluating competency.

The current study examined kinaesthetic acuity and Performance IQ in preprimary children (aged 4-5 years) at risk of Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD; American Psychiatric Association, 1994). Individual assessment of 317 children over four sessions at their pre-primary centre identified 31 children at risk of Developmental Coordination Disorder. These children were matched with 31 control children on age, gender, and Verbal IQ. The two groups were assessed using three Performance IQ subtests of the WPPSI-R and the Kinaesthetic Acuity Test (KAT, Livesey & Parkes, 1995). The results indicate that kinaesthetic acuity and Performance IQ subtests significantly differentiate children at risk of DCD from control children. These results suggest a need to assess the efficacy of kinaesthetic training in young children at risk of DCD. Furthermore, psychologists may be able to assist in the early detection of children at-risk of DCD via the WPPSI-R assessment results routinely obtained for young children.