How big is the gain in IQ?
How big is the gain in IQ?
I've got a question about the Jaeggi-Buschkuehl n-back paper which I'm hoping that someone with some expertise in these things can answer.
The question is, how big is the observed increase in fluid intelligence in the study measured according to a conventional IQ scale? (In an IQ scale I understand that the average IQ is 100, standard deviation 15 or so). The paper seems to be using a different scale of some kind, so I'm not sure how the gains they observe translate into IQ points.
I would be really interested in the answer to this to help understand how impressive (or otherwise) the apparent gains in general intelligence are.
The question is, how big is the observed increase in fluid intelligence in the study measured according to a conventional IQ scale? (In an IQ scale I understand that the average IQ is 100, standard deviation 15 or so). The paper seems to be using a different scale of some kind, so I'm not sure how the gains they observe translate into IQ points.
I would be really interested in the answer to this to help understand how impressive (or otherwise) the apparent gains in general intelligence are.
TimM | 3 years ago
Reply
I believe they gave everyone in the study a Ravens Progressive Matrices (the standard for culture free IQ) test before and after the n-back training. The supposedly, the more the n-back training, the more the improvement for RPM as well. I'm not sure how big the differences were though.
Rivelli | 3 years ago
Reply
According to the paper, the test used for most of the people in the study was not the Raven's Progressive Matrices test. Instead, the Bochumer Matrizen-Test (BOMAT), a similar test to the Raven's matrices was used (The Raven's test was used on one sub-sample, but only those who got a short amount of training where the results aren't so interesting).
There are a couple of graphs in the paper. One shows "Performance scores" rising from about 9.5 pre test to 10.75 post test. The other shows the "training gain on intelligence" as a function of training time, rising from less than one after eight days training to nearly five after 19 days training. So you get a training gain of five "somethings" after training, but I'm not sure whether these are IQ points or something else.
There are a couple of graphs in the paper. One shows "Performance scores" rising from about 9.5 pre test to 10.75 post test. The other shows the "training gain on intelligence" as a function of training time, rising from less than one after eight days training to nearly five after 19 days training. So you get a training gain of five "somethings" after training, but I'm not sure whether these are IQ points or something else.
TimM | 3 years ago
Reply
This seems like bad testing procedure since the dual n-back looks enough like the matrices in the RPM to at least tempt the explanation: the more you practice dual n-back, the better you get at mentally manipulating matrices. I'd be more impressed if they had used a cultural (rather not non-cultural) IQ test.
Whoopska | 3 years ago
Reply
As a group, we should put together a set of questions and send them off to Dr Jaeggi or Dr Buschkuehl - this could then constitute a semi-official FAQ to guide future dual n-backnauts.
The IQ thing could be one of them.
Good idea? If so, who wants to start it off?
The IQ thing could be one of them.
Good idea? If so, who wants to start it off?
cevapcici | 3 years ago
Reply
? | 3 years ago
Reply
? | 2 years ago
Reply
Riiiight. Let's make sense of that one.
IQ start = 100
IQ end = 104
% increase: 4%
Gf? 4% increase overall, factoring 40% Gf increase means: 100->101.6
But I'm giving a charitable interpretation for that. The other one would imply that Gf would have to be really low...
IQ start = 100
IQ end = 104
% increase: 4%
Gf? 4% increase overall, factoring 40% Gf increase means: 100->101.6
But I'm giving a charitable interpretation for that. The other one would imply that Gf would have to be really low...
? | 2 years ago
Reply
