ArticleJournal of Intelligence2026
Metric Quality of Intelligence Tests in Spain: Evidence from 13 National Test Commission Reviews.
Article in Journal of Intelligence, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intelligence test scores underpin high-stakes educational, clinical, and occupational decisions, which makes the metric quality of these instruments a central concern for professional practice. This study aimed to evaluate the psychometric and documentary quality of intelligence tests reviewed by the Spanish National Test Commission, compare this quality with that of tests measuring other psychological constructs, and examine the influence of publisher and evaluation cohort on quality. To this end, 37 intelligence tests and 78 tests of other constructs, reviewed across 13 editions (2010-2026) of the project, were coded using the Revised Test Review Questionnaire (CET-R), which comprises 14 quality characteristics grouped into four dimensions: General, Validity, Reliability, and Norms. Intelligence tests did not report more information than tests of other constructs, showing similar omission rates. However, when information was reported, intelligence tests obtained higher scores on the General, Validity, and Norms dimensions, with no differences in Reliability. Publisher accounted for a substantial share of the variance in quality, whereas the evaluation cohort showed no significant influence on any psychometric characteristic once corrected for multiple comparisons (FDR). Item bias analyses and item-response-theory-based reliability remained the most consistently underreported forms of evidence across the manuals of all tests analyzed. These findings underscore the need to uphold high, transparent standards in the documentation of intelligence tests and provide empirical criteria to support the responsible selection of instruments by practitioners.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.