Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Flynn effect" in English language version.
Indeed, this effect, now called the 'Flynn effect', is well established. Nations, almost without exception, have shown gains of about 20 IQ points per generation (30 years). These gains are highest for IQ tests that are most related to reasoning and the capacity to figure out novel problems (this is often called 'fluid intelligence', see Chapter 5); and least related to knowledge, which arises from better educational opportunity, a history of persistence and good motivation for learning (this is often called 'crystallized intelligence', see Chapter 5).
A strange new phenomenon has been growing since about 1950, called the 'Flynn Effect' after Professor James Flynn of the University of Otago, New Zealand. In his book What is Intelligence ?, Flynn describes a year-on-year rise in measured intelligence, about three IQ points a decade.
The overall conclusion of the present paper is that factorial invariance with respect to cohorts is not tenable . . . . The fact that the gains cannot be explained solely by increases at the level of the latent variables (common factors), which IQ tests purport to measure, should not sit well with explanations that appeal solely to changes at the level of the latent variables.
It appears therefore that the nature of the Flynn effect is qualitatively different from the nature of B–W differences in the United States. Each comparison of groups should be investigated separately. IQ gaps between cohorts do not teach us anything about IQ gaps between contemporary groups, except that each IQ gap should not be confused with real (i.e., latent) differences in intelligence.
The overall conclusion of the present paper is that factorial invariance with respect to cohorts is not tenable . . . . The fact that the gains cannot be explained solely by increases at the level of the latent variables (common factors), which IQ tests purport to measure, should not sit well with explanations that appeal solely to changes at the level of the latent variables.
The overall conclusion of the present paper is that factorial invariance with respect to cohorts is not tenable . . . . The fact that the gains cannot be explained solely by increases at the level of the latent variables (common factors), which IQ tests purport to measure, should not sit well with explanations that appeal solely to changes at the level of the latent variables.
The overall conclusion of the present paper is that factorial invariance with respect to cohorts is not tenable . . . . The fact that the gains cannot be explained solely by increases at the level of the latent variables (common factors), which IQ tests purport to measure, should not sit well with explanations that appeal solely to changes at the level of the latent variables.
