Teaching with clarity
Classroom testing
← Return to the topic

AP Psychology · 2.8 · Classroom testing

Practice to take with you.

Intelligence and Achievement. Two low-ink student pages with concept connections, model building, and written application. Student practice is open for classroom testing.

Open student PDF ↗

Download student PDF ↓Letter-size pages. The student PDF includes the model pieces and space to explain your choices.

CLSM / AP PSYCHOLOGY · PRACTICE COMPANION

2.8 / Intelligence and Achievement

Name ___________________________ Date __________________

01 Connect a concept.

Explain each concept in your own words. Add a brief example that shows why the concept fits.

Intelligence
General intelligence factor
Multiple-abilities theories
Historical ratio IQ

02 Build the explanation.

What is the model claiming?. Separate broad constructs, theories, and the historical ratio.

  1. A proposed common factor underlying correlations among cognitive test performances.
  2. A broad construct involving learning, reasoning, problem solving, and adaptation.
  3. A common factor proves all abilities are identical and unchangeable.
  4. An older score calculated from estimated mental age divided by chronological age, multiplied by 100.
  5. Approaches that distinguish several forms or components of intellectual ability.
Intelligence
General intelligence factor
Multiple-abilities theories
Historical ratio IQ
Original CLSM practice · Topic 2.8 · Student page 1 of 2

CLSM / AP PSYCHOLOGY · APPLY & EXPLAIN

Use the idea in a new situation.

03 Make a choice. Give a reason.

1. Two fictional groups average 100 and 103 on a normed scale, and their score distributions overlap substantially. Which statement is justified by these data alone?
  1. The difference proves a genetic cause.
  2. The group means differ by 3 points, but the averages do not determine every individual’s score.
  3. Every member of the second group scored above every member of the first.

My choice: ______   Why it fits:

2. A fictional program checks whether an entry assessment is associated with performance six months later. What evidence is it seeking?
  1. Predictive validity for that later performance outcome.
  2. Proof that the score causes later success.
  3. A complete description of each person’s abilities.

My choice: ______   Why it fits:

04 Bring it together.

Why can a measure be reliable but still fail to support its intended interpretation?

One idea I corrected today: ___________________________________________________
One question I still have: _______________________________________________________