Should an IQ test be a standard in 'primary care' ?

[TheBiologist]

What do people think about testing IQ in the same we we test children/adolescents/adults in other ways once a year (usually)?

Would it offer any benefit to people or society? what about research?

Pros:
-Provides a baseline in case of head injury or behavioral changes
-Gives people an idea of their cognitive abilities
-Test for disability or giftedness
-Teachers can better provide for different students based off IQ (controversial)
-Better measure how people with different IQs perform in society (controversial)

Cons:
-"Self fulfilling prophecy," people may negatively change their life based off the test
-Validity and applicability of the test
-Cultural and lingual differences have been shown to erroneously skew test scores
-Emphasis on logic instead of human interaction and emotion

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Isoval]

This one gets a hard nope from me.

IQ is the most subjective objective measure out there. I can’t see it providing any useful, highly-correlated data and, additionally, could be argued that it would be invasive.

Edit: misread the thread the first time, vote remains the same.

 

[DrHart]

If someone is a genius, I'm sure they'll figure it out without an IQ test from their physician. If someone is a certified idiot, they'll just run for president.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

IQ tests are essentially useless for myriad reasons, not the least of which being that they are biased towards those with affluent upbringings.

 

[Goro]

What do people think about testing IQ in the same we we test children/adolescents/adults in other ways once a year (usually)?

Would it offer any benefit to people or society? what about research?

Pros:
-Provides a baseline in case of head injury or behavioral changes
-Gives people an idea of their cognitive abilities
-Test for disability or giftedness
-Teachers can better provide for different students based off IQ (controversial)
-Better measure how people with different IQs perform in society (controversial)

Cons:
-"Self fulfilling prophecy," people may negatively change their life based off the test
-Validity and applicability of the test
-Cultural and lingual differences have been shown to erroneously skew test scores
-Emphasis on logic instead of human interaction and emotion

You are Confusing IQ with somehow being a good doctor. Do not fall into the hyperachiever's mindset.

 

[fourandtwo]

NOPE!


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[elitehacker1337]

.

 

[astrostellar]

IQ tests have been proven to be a poor measure of success in adults.

Also, they're racially-biased AF.

 

[Kurk]

Sounds like a pretty meaningless test to be done annually. Most people don't really care as long as they put bread on the table.

 

[Welshman]

Great idea, let's label people as smart or dumb and then reinforce that every year when they see their doctor.

 

[Professional Student]

Sounds like a movement towards Gattaca.

 

[Pagan FutureDoc]

Sounds too close to the eugenics movement in the US

 

[21Rush12]

"According to this test, your child is below average intelligence"

This would do wonders for press ganey...


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

 

[TheBiologist]

You are Confusing IQ with somehow being a good doctor. Do not fall into the hyperachiever's mindset.

no no, I'm not talking about anything having to do with being a doctor, it's more of a public policy question. I suppose it's somewhat related to healthcare

 

[mwsapphire]

I can already hear the angry suburban white moms....

 

[DokterMom]

It's not until you see some completely illogical results for people you know well that you truly understand how utterly inaccurate they are. Boiling strengths and weaknesses down to a single number is a pretty ridiculous concept anyway -- especially for people who are unevenly gifted.

 

[mydogmolly]

I can already hear the angry suburban white moms....

why just the white moms..?

no no, I'm not talking about anything having to do with being a doctor, it's more of a public policy question. I suppose it's somewhat related to healthcare

Knowing more is not always better. There are some things we could measure, but really there is very little good that could come of it (and a whole lot of bad).

 

[Goro]

no no, I'm not talking about anything having to do with being a doctor, it's more of a public policy question. I suppose it's somewhat related to healthcare

Why just Primary Care? Why not Cardiology, or Derm?

The core of the problem with your question is that supposes IQ is actually worth testing, and has relevance to the ability to practice Medicine.

 

[mydogmolly]

Why just Primary Care? Why not Cardiology, or Derm?

The core of the problem with your question is that supposes IQ is actually worth testing, and has relevance to the ability to practice Medicine.

I think OP is asking if we should test pt. IQ

 

[Goro]

I think OP is asking if we should test pt. IQ

I see he changed his OP.

Answer, no.

A mental health would be more useful.

 

[Stagg737]

I'm actually of the camp that IQ tests aren't actually racist/biased in the way people here are assuming, but simply measure a very finite section of intelligence which makes their application to anything that's actually meaningful to be of minimal value. There are some good books out there which have explored the implications of IQ in measuring the general capabilities of those at the extremes of the spectrum, but for the majority of the population IQ isn't really correlative to much worth discussing.

Would it be interesting to see the results? Sure. Would those results actually create greater benefit to society or help us treat patients better? No.

 

[sliceofbread136]

For a screening test to be implemented it needs to both be a good test and for there to be some intervention based on that test that actually makes a difference. An IQ test fulfills neither of those criteria

 

[Cura_te_ipsum]

I see he changed his OP.

Answer, no.

A mental health would be more useful.

Test for Axis II everybody going to medical school. I am convinced that medicine has a boatload of Borderline Personality types. aye caramba

 

[Stagg737]

Test for Axis II everybody going to medical school. I am convinced that medicine has a boatload of Borderline Personality types. aye caramba

Eh, I see a lot more cluster C than B in med school, but I'm also planning to go into psych so I see personality disorders everywhere now...

 

[Cura_te_ipsum]

Eh, I see a lot more cluster C than B in med school, but I'm also planning to go into psych so I see personality disorders everywhere now...

lol...oh dear

a PsyD staff psychologist once told me that everyone has cluster B traits. Then she proceeded to reach for her Nicorette chewing gum, while admitting she never smoked.

 

[Kurk]

Eh, I see a lot more cluster C than B in med school, but I'm also planning to go into psych so I see personality disorders everywhere now...

How do they get through the interview?

 

[Lannister]

How do they get through the interview?

Eh, I feel like most people can fake being a decent, normal human being for an hour or so. Especially the cluster Bs.

 

[Stagg737]

lol...oh dear

a PsyD staff psychologist once told me that everyone has cluster B traits. Then she proceeded to reach for her Nicorette chewing gum, while admitting she never smoked.

I think it just kind of comes with the territory, but some people just like to dig for diagnoses. Heck, I could argue that my dog has cluster A, B, and C traits if I really wanted to.

How do they get through the interview?

Cluster C traits really aren't that hard to hide imo, especially if they're mild. Cluster B on the other hand is usually a lot easier to spot unless they're a really, really good antisocial (have encountered one or two, super interesting cases). Otherwise their emotional lability (or lack thereof) tends to give them away.

 

[Stagg737]

Eh, I feel like most people can fake being a decent, normal human being for an hour or so. Especially the cluster Bs.

The intelligent antisocials yes (probably part of why there's a higher percent of them in medicine than in many other professions), borderlines less so, and definitely NOT histrionics and narcissists. Obviously depends on the severity of the trait, but those with the actual disorder don't hide it very well.

 

[Lannister]

Cluster B on the other hand is usually a lot easier to spot unless they're a really, really good antisocial (have encountered one or two, super interesting cases). Otherwise their emotional lability (or lack thereof) tends to give them away.

Idk man, my ex-roommate hid her BPD pretty well, I thought she was completely normal right up until she tried to kill herself and ended up in a psych hospital for a few weeks.

 

[UBLI-EINSTEIN]

In fact, according to what I know by studying basic psychology, the ability for IQ test to correctly assess humans' intelligence is questionable. So I will vote for NO.

 

[ZedsDed]

What do people think about testing IQ in the same we we test children/adolescents/adults in other ways once a year (usually)?

Would it offer any benefit to people or society? what about research?

Pros:
-Provides a baseline in case of head injury or behavioral changes
-Gives people an idea of their cognitive abilities
-Test for disability or giftedness
-Teachers can better provide for different students based off IQ (controversial)
-Better measure how people with different IQs perform in society (controversial)

Cons:
-"Self fulfilling prophecy," people may negatively change their life based off the test
-Validity and applicability of the test
-Cultural and lingual differences have been shown to erroneously skew test scores
-Emphasis on logic instead of human interaction and emotion

Several problems with this:

-We already have tests that evaluate cognitive ability in patients just fine.
-If society decides it needs these data they should be collected by learning institutions.
-Intelligence tests should only be administered and interpreted by individuals with the appropriate credentials (not physicians.)
-Tested individuals do not need to know their scores. If anything that information would likely do more harm than good.

I vote "no."

 

[altblue]

Pros:
-Provides a baseline in case of head injury or behavioral changes
I don't think a quantitative baseline is necessary for this. I'm sure there are neuropsychological tests that can help ferret out the extent of damage
-Gives people an idea of their cognitive abilities
I don't think you can reduce cognitive abilities to this number. As others have said
-Test for disability or giftedness
They can go to a trained psychologist for this. There are other indicators like teacher or parental feedback that can screen for this
-Teachers can better provide for different students based off IQ (controversial)
See above.
-Better measure how people with different IQs perform in society (controversial)
This would be useful for getting a larger or more representative sample but this benefit is far more limited in scope than what you suggest. This benefit by itself won't directly tell you how these people would perform in society.

I disagree with people discounting IQ though it does have limitations. What IQ attempts to measure and does so with some success, like working memory and processing speed, does matter and helps explain variation in ability to perform at a variety of "brainy" real life tasks. The test nor these abilities however are inclusive of all intellectual ability and things like level of interest, health, and preparation matter too.

Phone post

 

[ODea]

IQ tests are terribly inaccurate so no.

 

[ZedsDed]

*eyeroll*

ITT: people with strong opinions on something they know little about.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

*eyeroll*

ITT: people with strong opinions on something they know little about.

Get into a lot of Facebook arguments, do you?

 

[ZedsDed]

Get into a lot of Facebook arguments, do you?

Lol, no. I deleted that ish a while ago.

Sounds like I touched a nerve. Don't take it personally buddy.

 

[Turkishking]

Lol, no. I deleted that ish a while ago.

Sounds like I touched a nerve. Don't take it personally buddy.

 

[LizzyM]

If the argument is to have a baseline against which to measure head injuries or behavior change, no, but we do have other screening tests/baseline measures for dementia that are quick, cheap, easy and may help to identify early declines in older adults.

IQ tests are neither cheap nor quick to administer and there is really no good reason to suggest that they should be part of an annual physical exam for children and adolescents. Better to ask and document that the child/teen is making age appropriate advances in school and has the cognitive and motor skills to perform age appropriate activities of daily living.

 

[mmmcdowe]

I had an IQ test as a kid as part of my placement into a gifted program but in retrospect it was a stupid criteria because many of the kids had no motivation and did nothing with the program other than use it as an excuse to get out of class for an hour so honestly people who were hard workers with great scholarly drive would have benefitted more from it.

 

[Goro]

If the argument is to have a baseline against which to measure head injuries or behavior change, no, but we do have other screening tests/baseline measures for dementia that are quick, cheap, easy and may help to identify early declines in older adults.

IQ tests are neither cheap nor quick to administer and there is really no good reason to suggest that they should be part of an annual physical exam for children and adolescents. Better to ask and document that the child/teen is making age appropriate advances in school and has the cognitive and motor skills to perform age appropriate activities of daily living.

And in medical school, kids, you learn all this stuff.

 

[Turkishking]

Why just Primary Care? Why not Cardiology, or Derm?

The core of the problem with your question is that supposes IQ is actually worth testing, and has relevance to the ability to practice Medicine.

I agree

 

[PTPoeny]

Impact testing is administered yearly to high school and college athletes specifically for your first point.

It could be interesting to discuss the utility of broader use of baseline impact testing. But no, IQ testing is useless for that purpose, it just doesn't look at the right things.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[WisNeuro]

Impact testing is administered yearly to high school and college athletes specifically for your first point.

It could be interesting to discuss the utility of broader use of baseline impact testing. But no, IQ testing is useless for that purpose, it just doesn't look at the right things.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

To be fair, ImPact testing is next to useless for those purposes as well.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Lol, no. I deleted that ish a while ago.

Sounds like I touched a nerve. Don't take it personally buddy.

I didn't post a strong opinion, nor do I get bothered by comments on an anonymous internet forum. But thanks for the tip.

 

[Mad Jack]

I really hate unnecessary quotation marks. Why do people do this? Quotation marks imply something isn't what it is, so putting them around primary care creates an implication OP doesn't have.

Elements of Style should be required college reading.

 

[septalridge]

What do people think about testing IQ in the same we we test children/adolescents/adults in other ways once a year (usually)?

Would it offer any benefit to people or society? what about research?

Pros:
-Provides a baseline in case of head injury or behavioral changes
-Gives people an idea of their cognitive abilities
-Test for disability or giftedness
-Teachers can better provide for different students based off IQ (controversial)
-Better measure how people with different IQs perform in society (controversial)

Cons:
-"Self fulfilling prophecy," people may negatively change their life based off the test
-Validity and applicability of the test
-Cultural and lingual differences have been shown to erroneously skew test scores
-Emphasis on logic instead of human interaction and emotion

Our society already exists within an assessment-rich environment, and it sure doesn't seem to add much to intellectual/academic vitality, so I would say no.

 

[DokterMom]

I'm actually of the camp that IQ tests aren't actually racist/biased in the way people here are assuming, but simply measure a very finite section of intelligence which makes their application to anything that's actually meaningful to be of minimal value. There are some good books out there which have explored the implications of IQ in measuring the general capabilities of those at the extremes of the spectrum, but for the majority of the population IQ isn't really correlative to much worth discussing.

Would it be interesting to see the results? Sure. Would those results actually create greater benefit to society or help us treat patients better? No.

Perhaps they're not racially biased, but I'll double down on the opinion that they're culturally biased -- and this is a very real problem.

Then there's also the question of intent. Why do we want everyone to have a "score"? (Sorry for the quotes @madjack) Does this mean some people have more intrinsic value than others? That seems to be the implication. What purpose does it serve for us? The most useful information derived from such assessments is in the strengths and weaknesses, and those get obfuscated by the score anyway...

 

[altblue]

Perhaps they're not racially biased, but I'll double down on the opinion that they're culturally biased -- and this is a very real problem.

Then there's also the question of intent. Why do we want everyone to have a "score"? (Sorry for the quotes @madjack) Does this mean some people have more intrinsic value than others? That seems to be the implication. What purpose does it serve for us? The most useful information derived from such assessments is in the strengths and weaknesses, and those get obfuscated by the score anyway...

It's also biased towards those who are educated. It's like do you mean to tell me that a guy on a farm has a similar shot on the Verbal portions as a legal analyst? Which is why while the metric can be useful, the results should be taken with a grain of salt and there probably is moderate variance because of cultural differences. Hell I'd probably perform much better on spatial/visual tasks after my science education, I suppose a "cultural" change of sorts in terms of life standing...

I think its best purpose is as a piece of evidence to support a case for intellectual giftedness or genetic/trauma-derived disability. For instance, a score of 130 could be used along with evidence of work, other test cores, teacher support to formally justify placing a child in a gifted program.... That said, it should be abundantly clear from the other metrics that a child is very bright/dumb, even in particular ways (we generally know if we're better at math vs verbal) so it may not be outright necessary for confirming.

 

[Stagg737]

Perhaps they're not racially biased, but I'll double down on the opinion that they're culturally biased -- and this is a very real problem.

Then there's also the question of intent. Why do we want everyone to have a "score"? (Sorry for the quotes @madjack) Does this mean some people have more intrinsic value than others? That seems to be the implication. What purpose does it serve for us? The most useful information derived from such assessments is in the strengths and weaknesses, and those get obfuscated by the score anyway...

Sure they're culturally biased, but from what I've seen it has less to do with any actual cultural differences and more to do with language barriers and actual understanding of the test itself. I wasn't making any arguments about intent of IQ tests or measuring intrinsic value of individuals (which I think is a completely ridiculous endeavor to even try to justify), and as I stated I don't think they would provide any significantly beneficial purpose to U.S. society as a whole other than finding some interesting correlations.