theory of multiple intelligence
According to Howard Gardner, individuals are often not conceived with the knowledge that they will possess. The perspective is against the primary beliefs that there exists a general type of intelligence among people as the only type of knowledge (Smith, 2002). For people to have a deeper understanding, Gardner theorizes various capabilities such as musical, interpersonal, verbal-linguistic, spatial-visual, logical-mathematical, naturalistic, bodily, and intrapersonal. The tool to measure intelligence by Howard is, Gardner’s multiple intelligence inventory.
Challenges related to assessing individual adolescents and young adults aged 16-25 and ethical/cultural concerns.
Various cultures address the ideas of knowledge and intelligence differently from one another. It is not easy for people to know things that they have never interacted with. Commonly, engineers are supposed to deal with electrical materials and not diagnose patients while doctors cannot be found fixing car problems for clients but treat patients in the hospitals (Gregory, 2014). The people above are knowledgeable, but they work in different fields; however, their intelligence doesn’t remain fixed in one person’s life following neuroplasticity. The daily interactions, culture, and environment impact the level of intelligence.
Evidence from validation studies supporting and opposing the use of the instruments
The evidence of applying Gardner’s tool rests on its simple use and the fact that it can help to show the pros and cons of a test (Smith, 2017). However, little research has been undertaken to prove the validity of the instrument.
Support for the utilization of Piaget’s tools is to measure reasoning and verbal skills while breaking knowledge into various subsets (Huitt & Hummel, 2018). The critique of the tools is that intelligence does revolve around reasoning and verbal skills alone.
Pros and Cons of individual versus group assessment of ability
The environment, experiences, and culture describe the pros and cons of individual versus group assessments. When testing groups, it is vital as it seeks the average to quickly calculate the costs in a given area at low costs. The results will end being biased because as not everyone is average, and thus a given culture may be focused more than the other in the long run (Gregory, 2014). Individual assessments are practical as they focus solely on the person making it easier to observe the weak and potent abilities. The spoken language and culture are factors that sometimes makes individual assessments inaccurate.
Implications of labeling and mislabeling individuals as a result of testing and assessment
There are significant outcomes of labeling and mislabeling, which are often negative. They include discrimination from the group, stigmas, and reduction of self-esteem. The labels originating from assessment tend to be lifelong. These labels determine the employability of an individual in the job market.