The Trouble with MI "Quizzes"

Recently, an article was posted to Verywell Mind’s website offering visitors a fast-and-free quiz to “discover which type of multiple intelligence describes you the best.” The quiz asks about the quiztaker’s favorite subject in school, hobbies, favorite genres of TV, but also scenario-based questions, such as:

You’re sitting in the dentist’s office waiting for your appointment. How do you choose to pass the time?

Intrigued, I took the test myself, and after ten questions, was told my intelligence-type is verbal-linguistic intelligence. “You’re an expert at using your words, whether you’re writing or speaking,” my result-summary explained. “Verbal-linguistic folks like you tend to have solid memories, like to tell stories, and enjoy a good debate every now and then.”

While we have no doubt that this article and its author are well-intentioned and simply intrigued by the theory’s potential uses, Howard Gardner himself does not endorse MI quizzes or tests as a sound way to assess a person’s intelligence profile. It’s also important to note that if you see one of these assessments online claiming to be an “official” MI test, Gardner has never developed such a test, nor does he endorse any. The closest he’s come in the past is his role in the creation of Project Spectrum materials, which you can learn more about here.

             Branton Shearer

Many people have developed their own measures to test for multiple intelligences. The best-known instrument is the MIDAS. This test, developed by Branton Shearer (who may be reached at sbranton@kent.edu), has been administered to thousands of people all over the world.

Generally, Gardner’s trouble with tests that purport to assess a person’s intelligence is that most assess interest and preference rather than computational capacities, when only the latter indicates the strength of an intelligence. They also suffer from two major deficiencies:

1) They do not get at actual strengths of an intelligence – you would need performance tasks to determine how musically or spatially intelligent a person is.

2) They assume that the person has good intrapersonal intelligence and knows themself well. But many of us think we know ourselves better than we really do.

Many of these tests are not harmful in and of themselves. In fact, they may provide an interesting data point that leads to further investigation into our own strengths and weaknesses. And it’s understandable that many people, especially policymakers, desire an official instrument for measuring multiple intelligences. However, Gardner believes that optimally, intelligences should be assessed by more than one measure. For example, if individuals rate themselves on their intelligences using such a test, but also obtain ratings from those who know them well (family, friends, present and former teachers), the profile of intelligences would then be more reliable.

But the gold standard for assessing intelligences consists of performance measurements, where you must demonstrate your intelligence and not just testify to it. So, for example, one might:

• Assess interpersonal intelligences by observing how a person handles a conflict situation or motivates others to pursue a certain course of action.

• Assess spatial intelligence by seeing how quickly a person masters an unfamiliar geographical terrain.  

As for actual efforts to assess the range of intelligences in terms of performance, we know of only two examples: "Project Spectrum,” as mentioned above; and the “Explorama” at Danfoss Universe, a site at a Danish amusement-and-science park which allows visitors to profile their own intelligences. Howard briefly describes this in Multiple Intelligences: New Horizons. And in the book, Multiple Intelligences Around the World, there is a fuller description of the Explorama written by Charlotte Sahl-Madsen. 

                           Universe Park in Als, Denmark, where Explorama is located at Danfoss Universe

There is a disclaimer at the bottom of VeryWell Mind’s intelligences quiz results-summary, that reads, “Your results are not the end-all be-all…Consider your result as a fun way to think about your strengths and weaknesses, and the kinds of things you’re interested in.” We agree that these tests may give site visitors a good reason to look further into their own inclinations and abilities, but we also believe that the results of any such test should be taken with a grain of salt.  

Fewer Tests, Not More

Notes by Howard Gardner

On the surface, it could appear as if I were in enthusiastic agreement with John Mayer. After all, he calls for more attention to creativity, and for tests of musical, spatial, and emotional (interpersonal/intrapersonal) intelligence.  Shouldn’t this hymn of praise to psychometrics be music to the ears of an advocate of Multiple Intelligences?

And yet, though I respect Mayer and Salovey’s work on emotional intelligence, I have no enthusiasm whatsoever for his recommendation of ‘more tests, not fewer.’  Already our kids are being over-tested in K-12, and when they don’t do well, rather than try to improve their performance, all too often we just test them again.

Next, Mayer assumes that we have adequate tests for these different strengths, dispositions, or intelligences. But most of the extant tests are simply multiple choice or short answer tests, and we know that such tests heavily tap linguistic and logical-mathematical intelligence. In my one effort to create measures of the various intelligences, my colleagues and I did not create short-answer instruments;  instead, in Project Spectrum, we created environments in which one could observe students as they work with different kinds of materials, what I call ‘intelligence-fair testing.’ So for bodily-kinesthetic intelligence, we look at how students master a new dance or for spatial intelligence, we see how they come to navigate an unfamiliar space.  One shudders to think of how such measures could be deployed on a massive scale.

Also, I identify conceptual problems with Mayer’s recommendations. He favors measuring creativity, but assumes that is the bailiwick of artists and musicians. As a matter of fact, individuals can be creative or non-creating in any domain; there are plenty of creative scientists, and many artists and musicians who are not creative at all.

Finally, let’s think about college admissions. At any selective school, admission officers are already deluged with information about the candidates when they can only admit one out of five, or perhaps even one out of 15! Imagine if they now received scores on several other tests of varying degrees of credibility. This might be a boondoggle for test makers and for those individuals who call themselves ‘college admission counselors’ or ‘coaches’ and charge outlandish fees for their services.  But would the students of colleges be enhanced?  I’d prefer to call for “Fewer Tests” and more trustworthy self-descriptions and letters of recommendations. But I also concede that such calls are unlikely to be heeded in the United States, to everyone’s loss.

To read John Mayer's original Op-Ed click here.