Enneagram Type 5 Board Archive

Re: About the SAT [ Boards: Main, Type4, Type5, Movie, Care, Chat ][ Top 10 ] [ HOME ]

Re: About the SAT

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Type 5 Message Board ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Jason M. on December 01, 2001 at 14:59:15:

In Reply to: About the SAT posted by Jason M. on December 01, 2001 at 14:51:06:

Didn't mean to hit "Enter"

see this link:

http://plaza.powersurfr.com/delajara/GREIQ.html

The old SAT is more accurate in terms of IQ measure than the SAT I. (Mensa does not even accept the SAT I as an admissions test).

The general consensus is that the SAT I is not considered psychometrically valid for IQ for a score beyond 1400 (this is the apparent ceiling), regardless of what that site says.

Both SAT tests are more suited to measure crystallized intelligence than fluid intelligence.

The verbal portions are considered a better measure of crystallized intelligence (the math section is more dependent on specified knowledge, instead of general knowledge).

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:
: Didn't mean to hit "Enter" : see this link: : http://plaza.powersurfr.com/delajara/GREIQ.html : The old SAT is more accurate in terms of IQ measure than the SAT I. (Mensa does not even accept the SAT I as an admissions test). : The general consensus is that the SAT I is not considered psychometrically valid for IQ for a score beyond 1400 (this is the apparent ceiling), regardless of what that site says. : Both SAT tests are more suited to measure crystallized intelligence than fluid intelligence. : The verbal portions are considered a better measure of crystallized intelligence (the math section is more dependent on specified knowledge, instead of general knowledge).

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Type 5 Message Board ] [ FAQ ] type5board/messages/6725.html

Your Ad Here