The_Validity_of_a_New_Self-re.pdf

The Validity of a New, Self-report Measure of Multiple
Intelligence

Adrian Furnham

Published online: 16 September 2009
# Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2009

Abstract In all, 187 participants completed a new, self-report measure of eight
multiple intelligences (Haselbauer 2005), a General Knowledge test (Irwing et al.
Personality and Individual Differences 30:857–871, 2001), a measure of Approaches
to Learning Styles (Biggs 1987), a measure of the Big Five personality traits (Costa
and McCrae 1992), as well as gave their own estimated scores on the Gardner (1999)
multiple intelligences. Alpha co-efficients were modest with only three of the eight
test-derived, multiple intelligence scores being over .70. ‘Linguistic’ and Mathemat-
ical intelligence alone were correlated with General Knowledge. Five of the eight
‘intelligences’ were correlated both with Extraversion and Openness. Regressions
indicated that ‘Intrapersonal intelligence’ was closely linked with Stability and
Conscientiousness; ‘Interpersonal intelligence’ with Extraversion; ‘Linguistic intel-
ligence’ with Openness; ‘Mathematical intelligence’ with Agreeableness and
Conscientiousness. Correlations between self-estimated and test-derived emotional
intelligence showed correlations ranging from r=.18 to r=.56 for similar type
‘intelligences’. This study provides modest evidence for the concurrent and construct
validity of this measure. It requires more psychometric evidence of validity before it
is used.

Keywords Multiple intelligences . Self-report . Validity

This study aims to assess the concurrent validity of a new, self-report measure of
Gardner’s (1983, 1999) multiple intelligences by relating scores on this test to

Curr Psychol (2009) 28:225–239
DOI 10.1007/s12144-009-9064-z

A. Furnham (*)
Department of Clinical, Educational, and Health Psychology, University College London, 26 Bedford
Way, London WC1H 0AP, UK
e-mail: [email protected]

measures of personality, approaches to learning as well as crystallized intelligence and
self-estimated scores of those ‘intelligences’. A web and literature search revealed two
things. First, there are a number of different, but similar in design and background,
self-report measures of multiple intelligence on the web. They have high face validity
but no known psychometric properties, particularly reliability as well as construct and
predictive validity. Second, there is no single power or ability test of multiple
intelligence although attempts have been made to form a battery made up of validated
power tests of each of the different intelligences (Visser et al. 2006a, b). This study
will examine the psychometric properties of a self-report measure.

Gardner (1983), in many ways the modern ‘father of multiple intelligence’, defined
intelligence as “the ability to solve problems or to create products that are valued
within one or more cultural settings.” He maintained that linguistic/verbal and logical/
mathematical are those typically valued in schools. and involved sensitivity to spoken
and written language and the ability to learn languages. Logical-mathematical
intelligence, he defined as involving the capacity to analyze problems logically, solve
maths problems and investigate issues scientifically. These two types of intelligence
dominate traditional intelligence tests and have always done so.

Three of Gardner’s (1983) multiple intelligences are particularly apparent in the
arts though useful in many avenues of life: musical intelligence, which refers to skill
in the performance, composition and appreciation of musical patterns; bodily-
kinesthetic intelligence, which is defined as using the whole or parts of the body to
solve problems or fashion products; and spatial intelligence, which is the ability to
recognize and manipulate patterns in space. Gardner (1983) also outlined two
‘personal intelligences’: interpersonal intelligence which is the capacity to
understand the intentions, motivations and desires of other people and work
effectively with them; and intrapersonal intelligence which is the capacity to
understand oneself and to use this information effectively in regulating one’s life.
These have more recently been popularized in the concept of emotional intelligence
(Petrides and Furnham 2003).

Gardner (1999. pp. 33–34) more recently defined intelligence as a “biological
potential to process information that can be activated in a cultural setting to solve
problems or create products that are of value in a culture.” In this book, he
introduced three possible new intelligences though he notes: “The strength of the
evidence for these varies, and whether or not to declare a certain human capacity
another type of intelligence is certainly a judgement call” (p. 47). His new
intelligence is naturalist intelligence which is “expertise in the recognition and
classification of the numerous species—the flora and fauna—of his or her
environment” (p. 43). It is the capacity of taxonomization: to recognize members
of a group, to distinguish among members of a species and to chart out the relations,
formally or informally, among several species. Spiritual intelligence is supposedly
the ability to master a set of diffuse and abstract concepts about being, but also
mastering the craft of altering one’s consciousness in attaining a certain state of
being. It is an “intelligence that explores the nature of existence in its multifarious
guises” (p. 60). Existential intelligence is yet more difficult to define: “the capacity
to locate oneself with respect to the furthest reaches of the cosmos—the infinite and
infinitesimal—and the related capacity to locate oneself with respect to such
existential features of the human condition as the significance of life, the meaning of

226 Curr Psychol (2009) 28:225–239

death, the ultimate fate of the physical and the psychological worlds and such
profound experiences as love of another person or total immersion in a work of art”
(p. 61). It should be pointed out that Gardner rejects both spiritual and existential
intelligence, though others recognize their existence. Gardner (1999) considered,
then rejected spiritual/existential intelligences as a further intelligences because they
did not meet his criteria for being deemed an ‘intelligence’.

There have been extensive and detailed critiques of various multiple intelligence
theories as well as many investigations into lay perceptions of multiple intelligences
(Furnham 2004; Furnham and Petrides 2006). Gottfredson (2003a, b) provided a
devastating attack on the evidence for Sternberg’s multiple intelligence theory
(called Practical Intelligence Theory). There have also been conceptual and
theoretical reviews of Gardner’s theory (Chen 2004; Cuban 2004; Eisner 2004;
Klein 1997; Kallenbach and Viens 2004; Morgan 1996; Shearer 2004), as well as
empirical critiques (Visser et al. 2006a, b). Gardner (2006a, b) has replied to many of
his critiques, though more with argument than data.

There are essentially three major controversies around the concept of multiple
intelligences. First, the extent to which they are inter-correlated to provide evidence
of general intelligence. Second, how they can or should be measured (i.e. whether
preference vs power tests could be used). Third, whether such concepts as inter or
intrapersonal intelligence could justifiably be described as an intelligence as opposed
to a social skill or a personality trait.

There has also been an amazingly increases in the number of multiple intelligences
‘discovered’. Furnham (2005) counted over twenty, including ‘network’, ‘intuitive’
and ‘political’ intelligence. Certainly one of the most controversial issues is about how
to measure some, each or all of the multiple intelligences though specific tests of
abilities akin to these intelligences do exist and have been used (Visser et al. 2006a, b).

Petrides and Furnham (2003) who developed a self-report measure of emotional
intelligence distinguished between trait and ability tests of emotional intelligence.
They have often preferred to call this measure ‘trait emotional self-efficacy’. Some
people would argue that all genuine intelligence tests must be power tests (timed
tests with definite correct answers) in that they measure some ability or
intelligence. That is, they need to be timed tests with correct and incorrect answers to
all questions (Brody 2004). Others have argued that self-report measures are
acceptable, primarily because emotional intelligence is a personality trait and that
emotional perception and regulation are essentially subjective issues not open to
objective testing. Indeed this debate can be seen as a manifestation of the typical vs
maximal distinction. At least in the highly popular area of emotional intelligence
there has been a great deal of effort and energy devoted to devising tests. Indeed
Perez et al. (2004) listed five ability and fifteen trait measures of emotional
intelligence with highly variable, and sometimes very limited, psychometric data in
support of them. There appears to be a considerable emotional intelligence test
‘industry’ but this has not yet spilled over to many of the other intelligences.

While Gardner (1983, 1999, 2006a, b) appears to be less interested in developing
tests to assess his well known 7, 8 or 10 multiple intelligences, Sternberg et al.
(2000) have attempted measurement of his less ambitious trilogy of multiple
intelligence. The satisfactory nature of these measures of tacit intelligence are
however very much in doubt (Gottfredson 2003a, b).

Curr Psychol (2009) 28:225–239 227227

This paper sets out to examine the concurrent and discriminant validity of a self-
report measure of eight of Gardner’s (1999) multiple intelligences. This study
demonstrates how one may begin to validate such a test constructed for people to
self-evaluate their own ‘multiple intelligences’. This study therefore tests a self-
report preference, ‘trait’ measure rather than an ability ‘power’ measure of multiple
intelligence. There is a long history of objective personality test but a far shorter
history of subjective ability tests (Furnham 2008). Whilst many may argue it is more
appropriate to develop and test a power or ability measure of the multiple
intelligences that is another and rather different goal.

This study will use three types of tests to gain some insight into the concurrent
validity of this new test. First, most self-report measures need to establish their
position in personality space (Petrides and Furnham 2006). A great effort by trait
theorists over 50 years has attempted to map personality space. Most personality
theorists believe that it is important for any new measure to evidence its
discriminant validity and uniqueness by establishing itself in that space. Whilst
there yet remain different personality models, this study will attempt to map this
new measure in Big Five Personality space currently the dominant model but of
course not without its critics (Furnham (2008). Hence the multiple intelligence test
scores will be compared to a valid measure of the Big Five (Costa and McCrae
1992). Petrides and Furnham (2003, 2006) have argued that trait emotional
intelligence is a second (level II) trait within the ‘Big Five’. Second, a
measure of crystallized intelligence (namely General Knowledge) will be used to
establish the relationship between all eight ‘multiple intelligences’ and a validated,
power test of “actual” intelligence (Chamorro-Premuzic et al. 2006; Furnham and
Chamorro-Premuzic 2006). Third, because of the way multiple intelligence is
defined and construed it may well be that they are related to learning/thinking
styles which in turn have been shown to be logically related to intelligence. Fourth,
despite well established problems of self-validational assessment this study will
examine the relationship between self-reported behaviours, supposedly measures
of multiple intelligence as well as participants actual self-estimates on the normal
distribution.

The three tests chosen for this concurrent and predictive validity study were
chosen for three reasons. First, to have both ability and preference measures. Second
to have a measure of the Big Five, currently the most widely accepted theoretical
structure for personality researches. Third, to have a learning styles measure given
that multiple intelligence is seen to be a cognitive style or preference variable. In
addition this study compares global self estimates of each of the eight multiple
intelligences with the scores from each section of the questionnaire.

Method

Participants

In total, 187 students (77 male) from three British universities took part in this study.
Their mean age was 21.71 years (SD=2.1 years). They were all fluent in English.
Half were psychology students and half from a wide variety of other disciplines.

228 Curr Psychol (2009) 28:225–239

Materials

Multiple Intelligences Test (Haselbauer 2005) This is a 79-item test where items are
responded to on an eight point scale where 8 = Strongly Agree is 8 and 1 = Strongly
disagree. The author, founder of the International High IQ Society, has constructed
various power tests of particular intelligence (i.e., verbal mathematical, visual,
spatial). To illustrate the nature of the questionnaire, the 13 items making up verbal/
linguistic intelligence they are presented here: “I own a large collection of books;
I enjoy playing with words and puns; Word games such as Scrabble are fun; I
preferred school subjects such as English and Social Studies to Maths or Science; I
enjoy a good debate about daily news items; I am critical of grammatical errors in
others’ writing; I have a voluminous vocabulary and seek to augment it with further
study; I like to impress people with my erudition; I would enjoy writing a grant
proposal, or other lengthy essay to achieve a goal; I love to read; Poetry is highly
rewarding when reading or writing it; I can fluently speak more than one language; I
have received compliments from supervisors regarding the quality of my writing or
speaking efforts”. Examples from the other scales are given below. Musical: “I love
to listen to music”. Logical/Mathematical: “I like to argue with others about facts
and ideas”; “I enjoy mazes and jigsaw puzzles”. Spatial: “I perform better in
geometry than algebra”; “I am good at explaining mental images to other people”.
Interpersonal: “I think of myself as a ‘people person’”; “I love to make others
laugh”. Intrapersonal: “I set realistic goals for myself”; “I take pride in my identity”.
Body Kinesthetic: “I regularly exercise”; “I think better when I pace back and forth”.
Naturalistic: “I love walking outside”; “I intuitively recognise patterns and
similarities.”

The NEO Personality Inventory—Revised (NEO-PI-R; Costa and McCrae 1992)
This 60-item, non-timed questionnaire which measures 5 primary personality factors
(domains), i.e., Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness,
and Conscientiousness. Items involve questions about typical behaviours or
reactions which are answered on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from Strongly
disagree to Strongly agree. The manual shows impressive indices of reliability and
validity.

General Knowledge Test (Irwing et al. 2001) This is a 72 item questionnaire that
measures knowledge of six areas: literature, general science, medicine, games,
fashion and finance. Each area is measured by ten items, and each correct response is
awarded one point (in a few cases, there are two correct responses and not one). The
internal reliability of the test for the present sample was a=.78. Various studies have
shown scores on this test correlate significantly with other validated tests of both
fluid and general intelligence (Chamorro-Premuzic et al. 2006; Furnham and
Chamorro-Premuzic 2006).

Study Process Questionnaire (Biggs 1987) This is a 42-item questionnaire that
yields six scores. There are three approaches and two components. The first
component is learning motive (why students learn): the second learning strategy
(how students learn). The three approaches are surface (a reproduction of what is

Curr Psychol (2009) 28:225–239 229229

taught to meet the minimum requirement), deep (a real understanding of what is
learned), and achieving (designed specifically to maximise grade). Thus there are six
subscales: surface-motive, surface-strategy, deep-motive, deep-strategy, achieving-
motive, achieving-strategy; and each subscale has seven questions relating to it. The
questionnaire has been repeatedly shown to have satisfactory internal reliability,
content, construct and predictive validities. The questionnaire is frequently still used
in many studies in applied, educational and personality psychology.

Self-Assessed Multiple Intelligence (Furnham 2001) This is a simple one page
questionnaire that shows people the IQ bell curve with standard-deviations and
description for various scores. Using the bell curve scores they are then requested to
estimate their own score on overall IQ (general intelligence) as well as the 10
Gardner intelligences that each has a one-line description of that the ‘intelligence’
means. Thus verbal intelligence was described as “the ability to use words”, while
interpersonal intelligence was described as “the ability to understand other people”.
This questionnaire has been used in over 30 studies in the area (Furnham and
Chamorro-Premuzic 2004). They have shown that overall self-assessed intelligence
tends to correlate .30.40 and seven .30