New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Test Prep Doesn't Help Raise Intelligence Scores

Scores on standardized tests may go up but a student's ability for abstract and logical thinking may not improve. Christie Nicholson reports

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Young American students take a variety of standardized tests. But the ways that students are educated so that they’ll do well on such tests presents a problem. The preparation increases what’s called crystallized knowledge: that’s factual information, such as ‘the capital of Texas is Austin.’ But the tests do not enhance what is referred to as fluid intelligence: the ability to think logically or theoretically. That’s according to a study in the journal Psychological Science.

Scientists analyzed test scores and IQs of almost 1,400 eighth-graders. They found that schoolwork could significantly raise students’ test scores, while having no effect on the ratings of their fluid intelligence scores…which are better indicators of memory capacity, thinking speed and the ability to solve abstract problems.

It’s been shown that high scores on standardized tests predict success on future exams like the SAT and Advanced Placement tests. But little is known about the effect of improving fluid intelligence. Still, the researchers note that crystallized intelligence is clearly important, since, for example, mathematics and comprehension are critical for later academic and employment success. Systems that increase fluid intelligence would therefore seem to be a good development—logically and theoretically.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


—Christie Nicholson

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe