Relationship of Conceptual Ability and Academic Achievement to Problem-Solving and Experiential Backgrounds of Retardates

A group of 126 Ss was divided into two equal groups of 63 Ss each, so that one group represented “good” performance and one group represented “poor” performance on each of the following measures: (a) Category Test, (b) Tactual Performance Test, (c) Block Design, (d) Wide Range Achievement Test, (e) Vocabulary, and (f) Information. These groups were then compared on measures which define a continuum ranging from tests highly related to problem-solving ability to tests highly related to experiential background. The results were primarily interpreted as support for caution in accepting an “omnibus” IQ as a valid predictor of success or failure in widely varied tasks.