First Nationwide IQ/EQ Survey Among 2-15 Year Olds

[george]

First nationwide IQ/EQ survey among 2-15 year olds

BANGKOK: -- Thailand's Department of Mental Health survey over 8,400 primary and secondary students nationwide to determine the median levels of their intelligence quotients (IQ) and emotional quotients (EQ), according to the agency's chief.

Dr ML Somchai Chakraphand, director-general of the Mental Health Department, told reporters that the survey was prompted by concerns about the academic achievements of children aged 6-12 years old.

Sample IQ test results taken in 2002 suggested that the average IQ level in that age group is slipping, compared with earlier results in 1996-1997, he said.

Meanwhile, another worrisome trend emerged from previous EQ surveys. It was found that young people between the age of 10-18 scored lowest in terms of creativity, analytical and ethical thinking.

Over 8,400 students aged between 2-15 from schools in 15 provinces nationwide including Bangkok, Chiang Mai, Nakorn Ratchasima and Songkhla will be sampled this time.

According to Dr Somchai, the findings, when finalised in March next year, will contribute to a better understanding of the intellectual and emotional development of young people in Thailand.

"This is not a one-off attempt. We will conduct an IQ/EQ survey at regular intervals to ensure that Thai children can compete with those overseas," director-general said.

Meanwhile, ABAC Poll survey results published on Tuesday showed that nearly half of over 1,500 respondants in the Greater Bangkok region said they do not know what IQ means. When asked to fill in the questionaire, they could not answer. At the same time, over 60 per cent of the interviewees said they did not understand the term EQ.

--TNA 2006-11-29

[Scott]

Considering the overall state of education in the country, these results are not surprising. In addition to education, parents need to provide a home environment that is intellectually stimulating. It is so sad when you hear 16-17 year old kids say their favorite pastime is sleeping--and mean it!

[Tony Clifton]

It would be interesting to see the test given to the teachers of these same students.

Aren't they caught in a vicious circle? The teachers are the product of the same education system as these students.

[konangrit]

The target population of the new survey is toddlers between three and five years of age and primary-school students aged six to 11 throughout the country, said Abac Poll Research Centre director Noppadon Kannika.

He said unlike previous surveys, which only studied about 400 samples per group, the new survey would be based on the number in the target population.

For example, young children make up 1.7 million of the population, while primary-school students account for 5.7 million. As a result, the new survey will study 3,469 and 4,913 samples, respectively.

The Nation

Surely if the new survey is based on the number in the population then the numbers surveyed in the 3-5 group should be 3,400, with the numbers surveyed in the 6-11 group being 11,400 i.e. 0.002%. Or 3,400 is considered enough to be statistically significant and that is the numbers surveyed for both groups. How on Earth do the come up with such bizarre random numbers? What hope is there for the children if the people giving them the survey don't even seem to have any logic?

[chownah]

Konangrit,

Edit:OOOPS, I just read the quote to which you refer again and I now see what you are saying....it seems that the educators are the ones I should address my comments to......sorry about that. Chownah

The size of a sample (in this case the number of students tested) does not need to be proportional to the population being studied (in this case the entire population of children).

A simple example. There are two big bins filled with red marbles and green marbles. One bin has one million marbles in it and one bin has one thousand marbles in it. Both bins are thoroughly stirred. How many marbles must you randomly select (eyes closed) to estimate the percentage of red marbles (or green ones for that matter).

If you pick 10 marbles from each bin and in both cases 5 are red then you will have an estimate (50%) of the percent of red marbles in the bins and it will be just as good of an estimate for both bins since the bins are thoroughly stirred. If you pick 100 marbles from each bin and in both cases 50 are red then you will have a better estimate (50%) of each bin but the degree of accuracy of your estimate will be about the same for both bins since they are thoroughly stirred. The more you select the better your esitmate will be but this is independent of the size of the bin so long as the bins are stirred.

This stirring process for the bins translates to finding a good cross section of kids to test and is not related to the number of kids in the population being tested.

I believe this is what they taught us when I took statistics long long ago.

Chownah

Edited November 29, 2006 by chownah

[steveromagnino]

Surely if the new survey is based on the number in the population then the numbers surveyed in the 3-5 group should be 3,400, with the numbers surveyed in the 6-11 group being 11,400 i.e. 0.002%. Or 3,400 is considered enough to be statistically significant and that is the numbers surveyed for both groups. How on Earth do the come up with such bizarre random numbers? What hope is there for the children if the people giving them the survey don't even seem to have any logic?

I don't know how much logic they have...I do however hope to god though you never work in statistics or anything to do with calculating anything using statistics .

My guess is they are running a confidence interval set at around around +/-2-2.5%, 99% confidence, and on a population of aruond 1.7m from memory that requries sample size of 3469 about.

For a population of 5.7m, you need a sample size only marginally bigger, perhaps 3800 or thereabouts. my guess is there is going to be some subset analysis, and once exceeding the minimum sample size, then for the population that is fine; for some proportion of the population it may be important to maintain a certain size so that analysis of subsets of the population also provide statistically significant results.

The reason is that once you get into fairly big numbers, since it is a normal distribution, the additional benefit from additional surveys completed doesn't really help reduce the error term. Yes, I think I explained that well enough, for instance, with standard marketing style acceptable error of +/- 5% and confidence of 95%, we would run a survey of around 384 people, whether the population of whoever (e.g. lesbian mothers for Christ, lawyers who marry lawyers, all men, every person in the world, all ghosts) was 5000 or 5,000,000,000 people. Once it gets lower than about 5000, then things change a bit, as the sample size starts to form a higher and higher proportion of the population, to the point that the entire population is being sampled e.g. All the presidents of USA still alive; the people known as The Rolling Stones, etc. but of course, doing subset analysis will reduce the sample size, and increase the potential for type 1 and type 2 error.

It is ironic that TV, magazines and newspaper articles are written by people who usually are neither good with numbers nor capable of interpreting them, and yet these are the statistics most often quoted. If you want to see some decent number analysis, read Marketing Science or any of the 'real academic subjects' engineering, physics, chemistry, medicine, economics. Good way to learn how sample sizing works and reasons behind it. I'll stick to not using my brain and doing marketing and other moronic stuff.

[konangrit]

Surely if the new survey is based on the number in the population then the numbers surveyed in the 3-5 group should be 3,400, with the numbers surveyed in the 6-11 group being 11,400 i.e. 0.002%. Or 3,400 is considered enough to be statistically significant and that is the numbers surveyed for both groups. How on Earth do the come up with such bizarre random numbers? What hope is there for the children if the people giving them the survey don't even seem to have any logic?

I don't know how much logic they have...I do however hope to god though you never work in statistics or anything to do with calculating anything using statistics .

My guess is they are running a confidence interval set at around around +/-2-2.5%, 99% confidence, and on a population of aruond 1.7m from memory that requries sample size of 3469 about.

For a population of 5.7m, you need a sample size only marginally bigger, perhaps 3800 or thereabouts. my guess is there is going to be some subset analysis, and once exceeding the minimum sample size, then for the population that is fine; for some proportion of the population it may be important to maintain a certain size so that analysis of subsets of the population also provide statistically significant results.

The reason is that once you get into fairly big numbers, since it is a normal distribution, the additional benefit from additional surveys completed doesn't really help reduce the error term. Yes, I think I explained that well enough, for instance, with standard marketing style acceptable error of +/- 5% and confidence of 95%, we would run a survey of around 384 people, whether the population of whoever (e.g. lesbian mothers for Christ, lawyers who marry lawyers, all men, every person in the world, all ghosts) was 5000 or 5,000,000,000 people. Once it gets lower than about 5000, then things change a bit, as the sample size starts to form a higher and higher proportion of the population, to the point that the entire population is being sampled e.g. All the presidents of USA still alive; the people known as The Rolling Stones, etc. but of course, doing subset analysis will reduce the sample size, and increase the potential for type 1 and type 2 error.

It is ironic that TV, magazines and newspaper articles are written by people who usually are neither good with numbers nor capable of interpreting them, and yet these are the statistics most often quoted. If you want to see some decent number analysis, read Marketing Science or any of the 'real academic subjects' engineering, physics, chemistry, medicine, economics. Good way to learn how sample sizing works and reasons behind it. I'll stick to not using my brain and doing marketing and other moronic stuff.

Yeah, I take your point, about needing only a marginally bigger sample size, my bad, they actually have a logical formula behind it. I take it back. At least they won't be surveying me.

[steveromagnino]

Yeah, I take your point, about needing only a marginally bigger sample size, my bad, they actually have a logical formula behind it. I take it back. At least they won't be surveying me.

AFter most of the drivel about stats in Thai newspapers (actually, ANY newspapers) I understand your skepticism about logic and statistics.

Mai Dtong bpen huang, I am confident there will be plenty of very illogical parts within the study for sure :-) Let's wait to see the results and have some laughs

[PeaceBlondie]

I'm not Thai, and I never heard of EQ before I became a teacher in Thailand. How do you measure maturity - whether Satakit stops playing Ragnarok when he runs out of spare change, or until he spends the entire week's lunch money, too?

If emotional quotient relates to critical thinking and advanced analysis, or problem solving, may Buddha bless all of Thailand real good.

[Khutan]

If I remember correctly, EQ is a broader rating than an IQ. The supporters of the EQ ratings claim its more accurate and IQ is now obsolete.

I know with IQ tests they have to be made to suit the local language and culture. This therfore means that you can't really sit a Thai down to do a Test from the USA or Australia. It also opens the door duting the "Localisation" process to manipulate the result.

Of course a better way of improving the IQ results 10 or so years hence would be to allow more Iodene into the babies and young children's diets.

On normalised results the correct amount of dietary Iodene shows a significant improvement in IQ results.

[Scott]

I think one of the things that is important to remember here is that this whole process is flawed and is of interest only as a general trend. IQ tests must be individually administered, they are expensive and very time consuming (and yes they have to be tailored to each culture/country). The IQ test would have a standard score of 100--so even if the whole nation was retarded, the score would be 100 because that is how they are calibrated.

There are a number of tests that are given to students that have a strong correlation to IQ and these are probably what are being used to show an increase/decrease.

The difficulty is that educational institutions tend to lag behind the necessary knowledge for future success. 20 + years ago, kids loved computer stuff, but were punished and discouraged from it. Those same kids became the foundation for the information technology revolution.

The point is that children need to be given some leeway in doing what they like and what they are good at. School can provide basics and foundations, but in the end we need motivation to succeed.

[PeaceBlondie]

Strictly on an individual basis, a skilled psychometrist with at least an MA in her field could administer a culture-free test to an Inuit [Eskimo] in the morning, and another similar test to a Lhasa sheepherder in the afternoon, charging 200 pounds for the day's work. That ain't happening in Thailand. The ministry of health or education has stated the IQ in Thailand has slipped below 89, which would be scandalous if anybody seriously believed it.

How can an emotional quotient (even if perfectly designed, administered, and evaluated) possibly replace an intelligence quotient? Those are very different things, and one does not replace the other. Matayom 6 kids still think fart jokes are very funny. Look at the TV shows for slapstick or vaudeville comedy stunts that were out of fashion in the West by the 1960's. How mature was your Thai girlfriend when she was 22? C'mon.

[chownah]

Over 8,400 students aged between 2-15 from schools in 15 provinces nationwide including Bangkok, Chiang Mai, Nakorn Ratchasima and Songkhla will be sampled this time.

Does this mean that they are going to give IQ and EQ tests to 2 year olds?

Chownah

[Vespa]

The IQ test would have a standard score of 100--so even if the whole nation was retarded, the score would be 100 because that is how they are calibrated

I thought that was quite funny .

The IQ's here may actually be very high

Edited November 29, 2006 by Vespa

[Briggsy]

Nature or nurture; confidence or cleverness?

Why do ethnic Chinese pretty much always come across as smarter than ethnic Thais in any of the one million ( that's an exaggeration) classes I've taught? Has anyone else shared my experience?

[Scott]

Yes, the ethnic Chinese often come across as smarter, but lets remember that many of them start taking things like English when they are 3 years old. (I have 3 year olds in my starter classes). I also have kids that have taken all the courses available. Some go to school every Sat. and Sun.

For quite a few of these kids, it's not actual intelligence that makes the difference, but the extreme exposure and the pressure by parents. When they get older, they certainly have a work ethic that is close to unsurpassed. They often aren't particularly happy people, but they are hard workers.

Remember, this is just a slice of the Chinese community. There are some that are pretty useless as well!

[steveromagnino]

Yes, the ethnic Chinese often come across as smarter, but lets remember that many of them start taking things like English when they are 3 years old. (I have 3 year olds in my starter classes). I also have kids that have taken all the courses available. Some go to school every Sat. and Sun.

For quite a few of these kids, it's not actual intelligence that makes the difference, but the extreme exposure and the pressure by parents. When they get older, they certainly have a work ethic that is close to unsurpassed. They often aren't particularly happy people, but they are hard workers.

Remember, this is just a slice of the Chinese community. There are some that are pretty useless as well!

education is considered pretty high priority among many Chinese. Plus you have the immigrant factor; people willing to up and move thousands of miles under their own steam tend to be a fair bit more focused and hardworking than people who just sit around doing nothing; that's why you tend to see higher performance from many immigrant groups around the world with some exceptions; e.g. Chinese Kiwi average income in USA/NZ tends to exceed the national average; whereas in NZ the Pacific Islanders were only brought in to do manual labour, given the worst places to live and so on, so they tend to be near the bottom. Jewish people tend to be near the top of many stats including wealth, education achievements, number of lawyers, number of pornographers etc in many countries as well.

And that's a bit like the Philipines; for sure any person willing to go to the effort of studying hard enough to get a job out here or somewhere else (bar girl immigration notwithstanding) tends to be a whole lot harder working; hence the popular belief that Philipino people are very industrious and hard working (which the immigrant ones tend to be). Go to the Philipines itself, and you will discover what happens when you skim the top 5% of the population off; the rest of the place turns to poo.

If you were to pin down one major factor in many western country's success, it has been successfully offering something of value to the top 5% of many countries e.g. India to persuade those people to immigrate away, and this leaves the developing country in a difficult cycle, as every dollar spent in creating a true genius through the education system (and in the case of India, they paid a lot for it in borrowed money) ends up not benefiting the developing country, but instead benefits USA or somewhere else, and raises that country's IQ.

As far as some MA constructing a culturally neutral test; there is AFAIK so much research to suggest that it is actually very tough to create a culturally neutral test; I'd be interested to hear more about how exactly that is done; certainly in marketing research the emic/etic approach leans heavily in favour of inability to construct culturally neutral anything in tests; maybe there is some universal education quotient?! Tell me more PB!! (PeaceBlondie ) I w...i...ll..... r...e...s....i...s..t....d....e...s....i...r..e.....t....o....m.a...k..e...s..n.

i..d..e.....c..o..m...m..e..n..t..s.......a.....b....o....u....t..........m.....

....d.e....g....r....e....e...

There are broken elements in the Thai education system. That is pretty obvious. You don't need some test to see that.

[Tornado]

I would like to see the IQ results of the university grads and the master degree bunch.. Im not being inpolite here, I just think that a masters degree in Thailand must be equivilant to a high school certificate, as many who I work with and meet with socially are not very smart, both socially and worldly. Good people though.

some might say, the pot calling the kettle black..............

Edited November 30, 2006 by Tornado

[chownah]

I think giving a math test or a vocabulary test will tell you more about the effectiveness of an educational system than giving an IQ test....just a personal opinion.....but then if someone wants to evaluate the effectiveness of an educational system then that someone should start by defining what the goals are for that system. This might seem like the goals would be obvious but really it is not so straight forward. Didn't one Thai educator indicate that instilling his views on virtue were the main goal? Did you know that the first free compulsory public education in the US (and maybe the world) was approved and funded for the purpose of removing roving gangs of criminal youths off of the street of New York?

Chownah

Edited November 30, 2006 by chownah

[PeaceBlondie]

Taking up steveromagnino's (sp) challenge about culture free IQ tests, I did some updated research since I first heard the phrase in 1971, and realized that I don't know what intelligence is, and I doubt anybody else does, either. I did find this point, off the website of the APA (American Psychological Association):

"Some cultural differences in intelligence play out on a global scale. In "The Geography of Thought" (Free Press, 2003), Richard Nisbett, PhD, co-director of the Culture and Cognition Program at the University of Michigan, argues that East Asian and Western cultures have developed cognitive styles that differ in fundamental ways, including in how intelligence is understood.

People in Western cultures, he suggests, tend to view intelligence as a means for individuals to devise categories and to engage in rational debate, while people in Eastern cultures see it as a way for members of a community to recognize contradiction and complexity and to play their social roles successfully."