Final answer:
The most accurate statement is that the predictive validity of intelligence tests is not as high as their reliability. Modern intelligence tests have improved in both aspects, yet predictive validity remains a debated issue due to factors such as cultural bias and the influence of socioeconomic status on test results.
Step-by-step explanation:
In addressing the true nature of intelligence tests, it becomes evident that the predictive validity and reliability are key concerns. Predictive validity refers to the extent to which a test forecast a particular outcome, while reliability is the consistency of the test results over time. The statement that the predictive validity of intelligence tests is not as high as their reliability is generally accepted as true. Although intelligence tests are designed to be reliable, ensuring consistent results upon repeated administrations, their ability to predict future success or outcomes (i.e., their predictive validity) is not as well-established. This discrepancy arises because intelligence is multifaceted, and tests might not capture all the dimensions that contribute to success in life. Modern intelligence tests have made strides in both reliability and predictive validity, with the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC) often cited as examples. Yet, the full extent to which these tests can predict one's real-world performance or success remains a topic of debate, suggesting that while reliable, the predictive validity, although improved, still faces limitations.
Other factors such as cultural bias and impacts of socioeconomic status on test results also point to challenges in achieving high predictive validity. Critics argue that some intelligence tests may measure cultural knowledge or access to resources rather than innate cognitive ability, affecting their validity across different groups of people.
Answer: 1) The predictive validity of intelligence tests is not as high as their reliability.