FWIW, I don't think false high scores are possible. Many issues can interfere with testing and create false lows, but not false high.
This becomes a much bigger topic, but I have to say that I don't agree with this. Especially in young children, exposure makes a big difference on IQ tests. Kids who have enriched environments are much more likely to test highly on tests of vocabulary, knowledge of social norms and general knowledge, puzzles, etc. All of these make up parts of common well regarded IQ tests such as the WISC.
Ok... interesting point... so the kids who score higher may be those who have had exposure to "acquired knowledge" components. They would score higher than those without the exposure, for sure, but if you separated the acquired knowledge portions from the aptitude portions, then you could isolate the areas in which exposure made a difference. The aptitude portions (forgive my clumsy, non-psychologist terminology, lol) wouldn't be false high scores.
So the question is, just what
is IQ? The old adage of "you can't study for an IQ test" either isn't valid, or the WISC isn't a true "IQ" test.
Am I wrong? This is an area I'm not well versed in.
