RUDN Journal of Psychology and PedagogicsRUDN Journal of Psychology and PedagogicsВестник Российского университета дружбы народов. Серия: Психология и педагогика2313-16832313-1705Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia named after Patrice Lumumba (RUDN University)4566310.22363/2313-1683-2024-21-2-657-682MCKAAYCURRENT TRENDS IN PERSONALITY RESEARCHСОВРЕМЕННЫЕ ТЕНДЕНЦИИ РАЗВИТИЯ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЙ ЛИЧНОСТИResearch ArticleEthical Aspects of Measuring Intelligence: Towards Competence and FairnessЭтические аспекты измерения интеллекта: навстречу компетентности и справедливостиhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-7430-19638068-9856LogvinenkoTatiana I.ЛогвиненкоТатьяна Игоревна

Research Fellow, Center for Cognitive Sciences

старший специалист, Научный центр когнитивных исследований

logvinenkota.spb@gmail.comhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-5606-8379KanonirTatiana N.КанонирТатьяна Николаевна

Dr. Psych. (PhD), Associate Professor, Institute of Education

Dr.Psych. (PhD), доцент, Институт образования

tkanonir@hse.ruhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-9100-0713OrelEkaterina A.ОрелЕкатерина Алексеевна

PhD in Psychology, Senior Research Fellow, Institute of Education

кандидат психологических наук, PhD, старший научный сотрудник, Институт образования

eorel@hse.ruhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-4296-3521KulikovaAlena A.КуликоваАлена Александровна

PhD in Education, Research Fellow, Institute of Education

кандидат наук об образовании, приглашенный преподаватель, Институт образования

aponomareva@hse.ruSirius University of Science and Technology, The Sirius Federal TerritoryНаучно-технологический университет «Сириус»HSE UniversityНациональный исследовательский университет «Высшая школа экономики»15122024212VOL 21, NO2 (2024)ТОМ 21, №2 (2024)65768228082025Copyright ©; 2024, Logvinenko T.I., Kanonir T.N., Orel E.A., Kulikova A.A.Copyright ©; 2024, Логвиненко Т.И., Канонир Т.Н., Орел Е.А., Куликова А.А.2024Logvinenko T.I., Kanonir T.N., Orel E.A., Kulikova A.A.Логвиненко Т.И., Канонир Т.Н., Орел Е.А., Куликова А.А.https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0https://journals.rudn.ru/psychology-pedagogics/article/view/45663

The article is focused on the problem of intelligence measurement, with an emphasis on the ethical aspects of developing and using tests. The history of intelligence measurement provides a variety of examples, problematic from an ethical point of view, which have repeatedly led to negative consequences for both individuals and entire communities. The purpose of this article is to describe current ethical issues in the field of intelligence measurement, their background and historical examples. We discuss the ethical issues in terms of: (1) global approaches to operationalizing intelligence; 2) possible human rights violations resulting from the use of intelligence tests; 3) the fairness of intelligence tests for different groups of respondents; and 4) assessment of test quality in test selection. These issues are examined through the prism of the ethical principles of psychologists, such as respect, honesty, competence, and responsibility. Despite the extensive history of measuring intelligence and research in this area, ethical issues raised decades ago have not lost their relevance. Since ethical questions often do not have clear-cut answers, we believe that engaging in discussions about ethical issues in intelligence testing and exploring potential solutions is itself important and warranted. The content and conclusions of this article may be useful for both researchers and practitioners to make informed decisions in the context of intelligence measurement.

Настоящая статья посвящена проблеме измерения интеллекта с акцентом на этический аспект разработки и применения тестов. История психодиагностики интеллекта дает разнообразные примеры, проблемные с точки зрения этики, которые не раз приводили к негативным последствиям как на уровне отдельных индивидов, так и для целых сообществ. Цель данной статьи - описать актуальные этические проблемы в сфере измерения интеллекта, их предпосылки и исторические примеры. Мы обсуждаем этические проблемы, касающиеся: 1) глобальных подходов к операционализации интеллекта; 2) возможных нарушений прав человека в результате применения тестов интеллектов; 3) справедливости тестов интеллекта для различных групп респондентов; 4) оценки качества и выбора тестового инструментария. Данные вопросы мы рассматриваем через призму этических принципов психолога, таких как уважение, честность, компетентность и ответственность. Несмотря на богатую историю измерения интеллекта и исследований в этой области, этические проблемы, поднятые десятилетия назад, не потеряли свою актуальность. Так как этические вопросы часто не имеют однозначно верного ответа, важным является само существование такой дискуссии и обсуждение истоков этических проблем тестирования интеллекта, широкого контекста, в которых они существуют, и предлагаемых сообществом решений. Материалы и выводы данной статьи могут быть полезны как исследователям, так и практикам для принятия информированных решений в контексте измерения интеллекта.

IQintelligenceIQintelligence testpsychodiagnosticspsychological assessmentethical principlesethics codeинтеллекттесты интеллектапсиходиагностикапсихологическая оценкаэтические принципыэтика психологаИсследование выполнено за счет гранта Российского научного фонда (проект № 23-28-01399).The study was supported by a grant from the Russian Science Foundation (project No. 23-28-01399).American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education (1999). Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (1st ed.). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Анастази А., Урбина С. Психологическое тестирование. 7-е междунар. изд. СПб.: Питер, 2007. 687 с.American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education (2014). Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (2014th ed.). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Герасимова Ю.О., Орел Е.А. Измеряя школьника: зачем мы развиваем и оцениваем социально-эмоциональные навыки // Психология. Журнал Высшей школы экономики. 2022. Т. 19. № 1. С. 61-75. https://doi.org/10.17323/1813-8918-2022-1-61-75Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (2007). Psychological testing (7th ed.). Saint Petersburg: Piter. (In Russ.)Лучшие психологические тесты для профотбора и профориентации: Описание и руководство к использованию / отв. ред. А.Ф. Кудряшов. Петрозаводск: Петроком, 1992. 318 с.Bain, S.K., & Jaspers, K.E. (2010). Test review: Review of Kaufman brief intelligence test, Second edition. Bloomington, MN: Pearson, Inc. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 28(2), 167–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282909348217Ушаков Д.В. Тесты интеллекта, или Горечь самопознания // Психология. Журнал высшей школы экономики. 2004. Т. 1. № 2. С. 76-93.Bartram, D., & Hambleton, R.K. (2016). The ITC guidelines: International standards and guidelines relating to tests and testing. In F.T.L. Leong, D. Bartram, F. Cheung, K.F. Geisinger, & D. Iliescu (Eds.). The ITC International Hand- book of Testing and Assessment (pp. 35–46). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/med:psych/9780199356942.003.0004Филимоненко Ю.И., Тимофеев В.И. Тест Д. Векслера: Диагностика структуры интеллекта (детский вариант): методическое руководство. СПб.: ИМАТОН, 2016. 106 с.Berry, J.W. (1976). Cross-cultural research and methodology series: III. Human ecology and cognitive style: Comparative studies in cultural and psychological adaptation. New York: Sage Publications/Halstead Press.Холодная М.А. Профессиональные иллюзии как следствие упрощенных представлений о человеческом интеллекте // Психология. Журнал Высшей школы экономики. 2004а. Т. 1. № 4. С. 38-44.Berry, J.W. (2022). The forgotten field: Contexts for cross-cultural psychology. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 53(7–8), 993–1009. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220221221093810Холодная М.А. Психологическое тестирование и право личности на собственный вариант развития // Психология. Журнал Высшей школы экономики. 2004b. Т. 1. № 2. С. 66-75.Block, N.J., & Dworkin, G. (Eds.). (1976). The IQ controversy: Critical readings. New York: Pantheon Books.Шмелев А.Г. Тест как оружие // Психология. Журнал Высшей школы экономики. 2004. Т. 1. № 2. С. 40-53.Canivez, G.L., McGill, R.J., Dombrowski, S.C., Watkins, M.W., Pritchard, A.E., & Jacobson, L.A. (2020). Construct validity of the WISC-V in clinical cases: Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses of the 10 primary subtests. Assessment, 27(2), 274–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191118811609Юревич А.В., Ушаков Д.В., Цапенко И.П. Количественная оценка макропсихологического состояния современного российского общества // Психологический журнал. 2007. Т. 28. № 4. С. 23-34.Deary, I.J. (2012). Intelligence. Annual Review of Psychology, 63(1), 453–482. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100353American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education. Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (1st ed.). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association, 1999. 194 p.Deary, I.J., Penke, L., & Johnson, W. (2010). The neuroscience of human intelligence diffe- rences. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(3), 201–211. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2793American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education. Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (2014th ed.). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association, 2014. 230 p.Dutton, E., van der Linden, D., & Lynn, R. (2016). The negative Flynn Effect: A systematic literature review. Intelligence, 59, 163–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2016.10.002Bain S.K., Jaspers K.E. Test review: Review of Kaufman brief intelligence test, Second edition. Bloomington, MN: Pearson, Inc. // Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment. 2010. Vol. 28. No 2. Pp. 167-174. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282909348217Filimonenko, Yu. I., & Timofeev, V.I. (2016). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC). Saint Petersburg: IMATON. (In Russ.)Bartram D., Hambleton R.K. The ITC guidelines: International standards and guidelines relating to tests and testing // The ITC International Handbook of Testing and Assessment / Ed. by F.T.L. Leong, D. Bartram, F. Cheung, K.F. Geisinger, D. Iliescu. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. Pp. 35-46. https://doi.org/10.1093/med:psych/9780199356942.003.0004Flynn, J.R. (1984). The mean IQ of Americans: Massive gains 1932 to 1978. Psychological Bulletin, 95(1), 29–51. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.95.1.29Berry J.W. Cross-cultural research and methodology series: III. Human ecology and cognitive style: Comparative studies in cultural and psychological adaptation. New York: Sage Publications/Halstead Press, 1976. 242 p.Flynn, J.R. (1987). Massive IQ gains in 14 nations: What IQ tests really measure. Psychological Bulletin, 101(2), 171–191. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.101.2.171Berry J.W. The forgotten field: Contexts for cross-cultural psychology // Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 2022. Vol. 53. No 7-8. Pp. 993-1009. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220221221093810Friedlander Moore, A., McCallum, R.S., & Bracken, B.A. (2017). The universal nonverbal intelligence test: Second edition. In R.S. McCallum (Eds.). Handbook of Nonverbal Assessment (pp. 105–125). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50604-3_7Canivez G.L., McGill R.J., Dombrowski S.C., Watkins M.W., Pritchard A.E., Jacobson L.A. Construct validity of the WISC-V in clinical cases: Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses of the 10 primary subtests // Assessment. 2020. Vol. 27. No 2. Pp. 274-296. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191118811609Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.Deary I.J. Intelligence // Annual Review of Psychology. 2012. Vol. 63. No 1. Pp. 453-482. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100353Gerasimova, Yu., & Orel, E. (2022). Measuring a schoolchild: Why we develop and assess social-emotional skills. Psychology. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 19(1), 61–75. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17323/1813-8918-2022-1-61-75Deary I.J., Penke L., Johnson W. The neuroscience of human intelligence differences // Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 2010. Vol. 11. No 3. Pp. 201-211. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2793Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books, Inc.Dutton E., van der Linden D., Lynn R. The negative Flynn Effect: A systematic literature review // Intelligence. 2016. Vol. 59. Pp. 163-169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2016.10.002Gottfredson, L.S. (1997). Mainstream science on intelligence: An editorial with 52 signatories, history, and bibliography. Intelligence, 24(1), 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0160-2896(97)90011-8Fairness in Educational and Psychological Testing: Examining Theoretical, Research, Practice, and Policy Implications of the 2014 Standards / Ed. by J.L. Jonson, K.F. Geisinger. Washington: American Educational Research Association, 2022. 466 p. https://doi.org/10.3102/9780935302967Gould, S.J. (1981). The Mismeasure of Man. New York: WW Norton.Flynn J.R. Massive IQ gains in 14 nations: What IQ tests really measure // Psychological Bulletin. 1987. Vol. 101. No 2. Pp. 171-191. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.101.2.171Gregory, R.J. (2015). Psychological Testing: History, Principles and Applications (7th ed.). Harlow: Pearson.Flynn J.R. The mean IQ of Americans: Massive gains 1932 to 1978 // Psychological Bulletin. 1984. Vol. 95. No 1. Pp. 29-51. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.95.1.29Grigorenko, E.L., Meier, E., Lipka, J., Mohatt, G., Yanez, E., & Sternberg, R.J. (2004). Academic and practical intelligence: A case study of the Yup’ik in Alaska. Learning and Individual Differences, 14(4), 183–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2004.02.002Friedlander Moore A., McCallum R.S., Bracken B.A. The universal nonverbal intelligence test: Second edition // Handbook of Nonverbal Assessment / Ed. by R.S. McCallum. Cham: Springer, 2017. Pp. 105-125. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50604-3_7Hunter, J.E., & Schmidt, F.L. (1976). Critical analysis of the statistical and ethical implications of various definitions of test bias. Psychological Bulletin, 83(6), 1053–1071. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.83.6.1053Gardner H. Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books, 1983. 440 p.Jensen, A.R. (1980). Bias in Mental Testing. New York: The Free Press.Goleman D. Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books, Inc., 1995. 352 p.Jonson, J.L., & Geisinger, K.F. (Eds.). (2022). Fairness in Educational and Psycho- logical Testing: Examining Theoretical, Research, Practice, and Policy Implications of the 2014 Standards. Washington: American Educational Research Association. https://doi.org/10.3102/9780935302967Gottfredson L.S. Mainstream science on intelligence: An editorial with 52 signatories, history, and bibliography // Intelligence. 1997. Vol. 24. No 1. Pp. 13-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0160-2896(97)90011-8Kamin, L., & Egerton, J. (1973). The misuse of IQ testing. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 5(8), 40–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.1973.10568572Gould S.J. The Mismeasure of Man. New York: WW Norton, 1981. 352 p.Kaufman, A.S. (2010). Looking through Flynn’s rose-colored scientific spectacles. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 28(5), 494–505. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282910373573Gregory R.J. Psychological Testing: History, Principles and Applications (7th ed.). Harlow: Pearson, 2015. 589 p.Kaufman, A.S., & Kaufman, N.L. (1983). Kaufman assessment battery for children (KABC, K-ABC) [Database record]. APA PsycTests. https://doi.org/10.1037/t27677-000Grigorenko E.L., Meier E., Lipka J., Mohatt G., Yanez E., Sternberg R.J. Academic and practical intelligence: A case study of the Yup’ik in Alaska // Learning and Individual Differences. 2004. Vol. 14. No 4. Pp. 183-207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2004.02.002Kholodnaia, M.A. (2004a). Professional illusions resulting from simplified ideas about human intelligence. Psychology. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 1(4), 38–44. (In Russ.)Hunter J.E., Schmidt F.L. Critical analysis of the statistical and ethical implications of various definitions of test bias // Psychological Bulletin. 1976. Vol. 83. No 6. Pp. 1053-1071. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.83.6.1053Kholodnaia, M.A. (2004b). Psychological testing and the right of a person to chose her/his own path of development. Psychology. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 1(2), 66–75. (In Russ.)Jensen A.R. Bias in Mental Testing. New York: The Free Press, 1980. 786 p.Kudryashov, A.F. (Ed.). (1992). Best psychological tests for vocational selection and career guidance: Description and user guide. Petrozavodsk: Petrokom (In Russ.)Kamin L., Egerton J. The misuse of IQ testing // Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning. 1973. Vol. 5. No 8. Pp. 40-43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.1973.10568572Kuncel, N.R., & Sackett, P.R. (2007). Selective citation mars conclusions about test validity and predictive bias. American Psychologist, 62(2), 145–146. https://doi.org/10.1037/003-066x62.2.145Kaufman A.S. Looking through Flynn’s rose-colored scientific spectacles // Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment. 2010. Vol. 28. No 5. Pp. 494-505. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282910373573McGrew, K.S. (2010). The Flynn effect and its critics: Rusty linchpins and “lookin’ for g and Gf in some of the wrong places”. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 28(5), 448–468. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282910373347Kaufman A.S., Kaufman N.L. Kaufman assessment battery for children (KABC, K-ABC) [Database record] // APA PsycTests. 1983. https://doi.org/10.1037/t27677-000Meuleman, B., Żółtak, T., Pokropek, A., Davidov, E., Muthén, B., Oberski, D.L., Billiet, J., & Schmidt, P. (2023). Why measurement invariance is important in comparative research. A response to Welzel et al. (2021). Sociological Methods & Research, 52(3), 1401–1419. https://doi.org/10.1177/00491241221091755Kuncel N.R., Sackett P.R. Selective citation mars conclusions about test validity and predictive bias // American Psychologist. 2007. Vol. 62. No 2. Pp. 145-146. https://doi.org/10.1037/003-066x62.2.145Naglieri, J.A. (2015). Hundred years of intelligence testing: Moving from traditional IQ to second-generation intelligence tests. In Goldstein, S., Princiotta, D., Naglieri, J. (Eds.). Handbook of Intelligence (pp. 295–316). New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-1562-0_20McGrew K.S. The Flynn effect and its critics: Rusty linchpins and “lookin’ for g and Gf in some of the wrong places” // Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment. 2010. Vol. 28. No 5. Pp. 448-468. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282910373347Naglieri, J.A., Das, J.P. (1997). Cognitive assessment system (Vol. 96). Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.Meuleman B., Żółtak T., Pokropek A., Davidov E., Muthén B., Oberski D.L., Billiet J., Schmidt P. Why measurement invariance is important in comparative research. A response to Welzel et al. (2021) // Sociological Methods & Research. 2023. Vol. 52. No 3. Pp. 1401-1419. https://doi.org/10.1177/00491241221091755Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T.J., Boykin, A.W., Brody, N., Ceci, S.J., Halpern, D.F., Loehlin, J.C., Perloff, R., Sternberg, R.J., & Urbina, S. (1996). Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. American Psychologist, 51(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.51.2.77Naglieri J.A. Hundred years of intelligence testing: Moving from traditional IQ to second-generation intelligence tests // Handbook of Intelligence / Ed. by S. Goldstein, D. Princiotta, J. Naglieri. New York: Springer, 2015. Pp. 295-316. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-1562-0_20Powers, K.M., Hagans-Murillo, K.S., & Restori, A.F. (2004). Twenty-five years after Larry P.: The California response to overrepresentation of African Americans in special education. The California School Psychologist, 9(1), 145–158. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03340915Naglieri J.A., Das J.P. Cognitive assessment system (Vol. 96). Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing, 1997.Putnick, D.L., & Bornstein, M.H. (2016). Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: The state of the art and future directions for psychological research. Developmental Review, 41, 71–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2016.06.004Neisser U., Boodoo G., Bouchard T.J., Boykin A.W., Brody N., Ceci S.J., Halpern D.F., Loehlin J.C., Perloff R., Sternberg R.J., Urbina S. Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns // American Psychologist. 1996. Vol. 51. No 2. Pp. 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.51.2.77Reynolds, C. (1994). Bias in testing. In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.). Encyclopedia of human intelligence (Vol. 1, pp. 175–178). New York: Macmillan.Powers K.M., Hagans-Murillo K.S., Restori A.F. Twenty-five years after Larry P.: The California response to overrepresentation of African Americans in special education // The California School Psychologist. 2004. Vol. 9. No 1. Pp. 145-158. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03340915Reynolds, C.R., & Suzuki, L.A. (2012). Bias in psychological assessment: An empirical review and recommendations. In I. Weiner (Ed.). Handbook of Psychology, 2nd ed. (pp. 82–113). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118133880.hop210004Putnick D.L., Bornstein M.H. Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: The state of the art and future directions for psychological research // Developmental Review. 2016. Vol. 41. Pp. 71-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2016.06.004Roid, G.H., & Koch, C. (2017). Leiter-3: Nonverbal cognitive and neuropsychological assessment. In R. McCallum (Ed.). Handbook of Nonverbal Assessment (pp. 127–150). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50604-3_8Reynolds C. Bias in testing // Encyclopedia of human intelligence / Ed. by R.J. Sternberg. New York: Macmillan, 1994. Vol. 1. Pp. 175-178.Roth, B., Becker, N., Romeyke, S., Schäfer, S., Domnick, F., & Spinath, F. M. (2015). Intelligence and school grades: A meta-analysis. Intelligence, 53, 118–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2015.09.002Reynolds C.R., Suzuki L.A. Bias in psychological assessment: An empirical review and recommendations // Handbook of Psychology. 2nd ed. / Ed. by I. Weiner. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2012. Pp. 82-113. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118133880.hop210004Sattler, J.M. (2008). Assessment of children: Cognitive foundations and applications (5th ed.). La Mesa, CA: Jerome M. Sattler, Publisher, Inc.Roid G.H., Koch C. Leiter-3: Nonverbal cognitive and neuropsychological assessment // Handbook of Nonverbal Assessment / Ed. by R. McCallum. Cham: Springer, 2017. Pp. 127-150. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50604-3_8Shmelev, A.G. (2004). A test as a weapon. Psychology. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 1(2), 40–53. (In Russ.)Roth B., Becker N., Romeyke S., Schäfer S., Domnick F., Spinath F. M. Intelligence and school grades: A meta-analysis // Intelligence. 2015. Vol. 53. Pp. 118-137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2015.09.002Stanovich, K.E. (2009). What intelligence tests miss: The psychology of rational thought. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. https://doi.org/10.12987/9780300142532Sattler J.M. Assessment of children: Cognitive foundations and applications. 5th ed. La Mesa, CA: Jerome M. Sattler, Publisher, Inc., 2008. 790 p.Stanovich, K.E., West, R.F., & Toplak, M.E. (2016). The Rationality Quotient: Toward a Test of Rational Thinking. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262034845.001.0001Stanovich K.E. What intelligence tests miss: The psychology of rational thought. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2009. 308 p. https://doi.org/10.12987/9780300142532Sternberg, R.J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Stanovich K.E., West R.F., Toplak M.E. The Rationality Quotient: Toward a Test of Rational Thinking. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2016. 480 p. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262034845.001.0001Sternberg, R.J., Glaveanu, V., Karami, S., Kaufman, J.C., Phillipson, S.N., & Preiss, D.D. (2021). Meta-intelligence: Understanding, control, and interactivity between creative, analytical, practical, and wisdom-based approaches in problem solving. Journal of Intelligence, 9(2), 19. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence9020019Sternberg R.J., Glaveanu V., Karami S., Kaufman J.C., Phillipson S.N., Preiss D.D. Meta-intelligence: Understanding, control, and interactivity between creative, analytical, practical, and wisdom-based approaches in problem solving // Journal of Intelligence. 2021. Vol. 9. No 2. P. 19. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence9020019Sternberg, R.J., Grigorenko, E., & Bundy, D.A. (2001). The predictive value of IQ. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 47(1), 1–41. https://doi.org/10.1353/mpq.2001.0005Sternberg R.J., Grigorenko E., Bundy D.A. The predictive value of IQ // Merrill-Palmer Quarterly. 2001. Vol. 47. No 1. Pp. 1-41. https://doi.org/10.1353/mpq.2001.0005Sternberg, R.J., Preiss, D.D., & Karami, S. (2023). An historical causal-chain theory of conceptions of intelligence. Review of General Psychology, 27(3), 320–335. https://doi.org/10.1177/10892680231158790Sternberg R.J., Preiss D.D., Karami S. An historical causal-chain theory of conceptions of intelligence // Review of General Psychology. 2023. Vol. 27. No 3. Pp. 320-335. https://doi.org/10.1177/10892680231158790Strenze, T. (2007). Intelligence and socioeconomic success: A meta-analytic review of longitudinal research. Intelligence, 35(5), 401–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2006.09.004Sternberg, R.J. Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press., 1985. 432 p.Terman, L.M. (1916). The uses of intelligence tests. In The measurement of intelligence (pp. 3–21). Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company. https://doi.org/10.1037/10014-001Strenze T. Intelligence and socioeconomic success: A meta-analytic review of longitudinal research // Intelligence. 2007. Vol. 35. No 5. Pp. 401-426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2006.09.004Thorndike, E.L. (1920). Intelligence and its uses. Harper's Magazine, 140, 227–235.Terman L.M. The uses of intelligence tests // The measurement of intelligence. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1916. Pp. 3-21. https://doi.org/10.1037/10014-001Ushakov, D.V. (2004). Intelligence tests, or the bitter taste of self-knowledge. Psychology. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 1(2), 76–93. (In Russ.)The IQ controversy: Critical readings / Ed. by N.J. Block, G. Dworkin. New York: Pantheon Books, 1976. 557 p.Ushakov, D.V., & Grigoriev, A.A. (2016). Macropsychology of intelligence: through emotions to theoretical depth. Psychology. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 13(4), 629–635. https://doi.org/10.17323/1813-8918-2016-4-629-635Thorndike E.L. Intelligence and its uses // Harper's Magazine. 1920. Vol. 140. Pp. 227-235.Van de Vijver, F., & Tanzer, N.K. (2004). Bias and equivalence in cross-cultural assess- ment: An overview. European Review of Applied Psychology, 54(2), 119–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2003.12.004Ushakov D.V., Grigoriev A.A. Macropsychology of intelligence: through emotions to theoretical depth // Психология. Журнал Высшей школы экономики. 2016. Т. 13. № 4. С. 629-635. https://doi.org/10.17323/1813-8918-2016-4-629-635Van de Vijver, F.J.R., & Leung, K. (2021). Methods and Data Analysis for Cross-Cultural Research (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107415188Van de Vijver F., Tanzer N.K. Bias and equivalence in cross-cultural assessment: An overview // European Review of Applied Psychology. 2004. Vol. 54. No 2. Pp. 119-135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2003.12.004Van de Vijver, F.J.R., & Poortinga, Y.H. (1997). Towards an integrated analysis of bias in cross-cultural assessment. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 13(1), 29–37. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.13.1.29Van de Vijver F.J.R., Leung K. Methods and Data Analysis for Cross-Cultural Research. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107415188Warne, R.T. (2020). In the Know: Debunking 35 Myths about Human Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108593298Van de Vijver F.J.R., Poortinga Y.H. Towards an integrated analysis of bias in cross-cultural assessment // European Journal of Psychological Assessment. 1997. Vol. 13. No 1. Pp. 29-37. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.13.1.29Welzel, C., Brunkert, L., Kruse, S., & Inglehart, R.F. (2023). Non-invariance? An overstated problem with misconceived causes. Sociological Methods & Research, 52(3), 1368–1400. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124121995521Warne R.T. In the Know: Debunking 35 Myths about Human Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020. 434 p. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108593298Wicherts, J.M. (2016). The importance of measurement invariance in neurocognitive ability testing. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 30(7), 1006–1016. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2016.1205136Welzel C., Brunkert L., Kruse S., Inglehart R.F. Non-invariance? An overstated problem with misconceived causes // Sociological Methods & Research. 2023. Vol. 52. No 3. Pp. 1368-1400. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124121995521Yurevich, A.V., Ushakov, L.V., & Tsapenko, I.P. (2007). Quantitative evaluation of present-day Russian society macropsychological state. Psikhologicheskii zhurnal, 28(4), 23–34. (In Russ.)Wicherts J.M. The importance of measurement invariance in neurocognitive ability testing // The Clinical Neuropsychologist. 2016. Vol. 30. No 7. Pp. 1006-1016. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2016.1205136Zaboski, B.A.II, Kranzler, J.H., & Gage, N.A. (2018). Meta-analysis of the relationship between academic achievement and broad abilities of the Cattell-Horn-Carroll Theory. Journal of School Psychology, 71, 42–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2018.10.001Zaboski B.A.II, Kranzler J.H., Gage N.A. Meta-analysis of the relationship between academic achievement and broad abilities of the Cattell-Horn-Carroll Theory // Journal of School Psychology. 2018. Vol. 71. Pp. 42-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2018.10.001