Testing intelligence and testing knowledge differ in purpose, processes, and what they reveal about learners. Intelligence tests are designed to measure cognitive abilities such as abstract reasoning, problem-solving, memory, and processing speed—abilities that help individuals learn new information rather than recall what they already know. These tests aim to provide insight into a person’s general mental capacity or “g,” a concept highlighted by Spearman (1904). Knowledge tests, on the other hand, assess what students have already learned through instruction, experience, or exposure, such as vocabulary, math procedures, or factual information. Intelligence testing is most appropriate when educators need to understand learning needs, identify cognitive strengths and weaknesses, or provide support for learners who may require special interventions. However, it becomes inappropriate when results are used to label students, limit opportunities, or ignore cultural and socio-economic factors that may influence performance (Neisser et al., 1996). Knowledge testing works well for evaluating classroom learning, mastery of skills, or curriculum effectiveness, but it can be inappropriate when students have unequal access to educational resources, making comparisons unfair.

An example of an intelligence test is Raven’s Progressive Matrices, developed by John C. Raven in 1938. This non-verbal test presents a series of geometric patterns with one part missing; the test-taker selects the correct piece that completes the pattern from several choices. It measures fluid intelligence, or the ability to reason and solve new problems, independent of language or learned knowledge (Raven, 2000). Its strengths include cultural fairness, minimal language demand, and strong validity for measuring abstract reasoning. It is widely used in education and psychology because it avoids biases tied to schooling or language proficiency. However, the test also has weaknesses: it focuses mainly on one type of intelligence—visual-spatial reasoning—while ignoring other important domains such as verbal ability, creativity, or practical intelligence (Gardner, 2011). In addition, students with visual processing difficulties may perform poorly even if their overall cognitive abilities are strong. Despite its limitations, Raven’s test remains a valuable tool when used appropriately and interpreted with care alongside other forms of assessment.

References
Gardner, H. (2011). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. Basic Books.
Neisser, U., et al. (1996). Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. American Psychologist, 51(2), 77–101.
Raven, J. (2000). The Raven’s Progressive Matrices: Change and stability over culture and time. Cognitive Psychology, 41(1), 1–48.
Spearman, C. (1904). “General intelligence,” objectively determined and measured. The American Journal of Psychology, 15(2), 201–293.