Here's what I've always wondered-- just in GENERAL terms-- about IQ testing, norming, and yes, the Flynn effect.
aren't most of the children evaluated using such tools probably above the actual population mean?
The bottom line is that norming assumes that the sample evaluated during the validation process is representative of the entire population. I'm pretty sure that is NOT the case.
Most parents of kids who would/should score in the 90-115 range probably see little REASON to submit their kids for testing in the first place, barring other learning disabilities or the suspicion of them.
So yes, I question the validity of modern norming, which depends upon recruitment and modern practices of informed consent (unlike very much older tools which didn't require such stringent parental consent... or, for that matter, 'informing').
