<p>What I mean by meaningless is whether or not they lose their predictive power outside of the specific test employed to evaluate some facet of cognition.  </p>

<p>I don't study the cognitive sciences, but the most credible online source (in my shoddy estimation) of such tests that I found online was this site:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.cambridgebrainsciences.com/" rel="noreferrer">http://www.cambridgebrainsciences.com/</a></p>

<p>So to clarify, if a test subject were to take the various tests on this website, which of them would still yield meaningful results if the subject took them multiple times. That is, would subjects likely only get better at that specific task, or would they also improve their general ability in the domain of intelligence that that test is supposed to evaluate. </p>

<p>The one I'm most sceptical (in terms of its utility for training) is <a href="http://www.cambridgebrainsciences.com/browse/reasoning/test/oddoneout" rel="noreferrer">"Odd One Out"</a></p>

<p>The site says that it's suitable for training due to problems being generated instead of taken from a small set which could be memorized. I have my doubts on this because, though the actual problems don't repeat, the types of differences do. So I would guess you would soon just be training yourself to spot the specific differences within this test and would not be getting any better in spotting general discrepancies and patterns.</p>

<p>In general, am I right in assuming that the least trainable facet of cognition is reasoning, whereas planning, concentration and memory are less fixed.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-06-29T08:42:40.333Z
Do you know if those 10IQ points translate to reasoning outside of the tests themselves?
user2724917
<intelligence><brain-training>
Are results of various cognitive tests meaningless if the subject has achieved them through training?
user2724917
# Are results of various cognitive tests meaningless if the subject has achieved them through training?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2015-06-27)

What I mean by meaningless is whether or not they lose their predictive power outside of the specific test employed to evaluate some facet of cognition.

I don't study the cognitive sciences, but the most credible online source (in my shoddy estimation) of such tests that I found online was this site:

<http://www.cambridgebrainsciences.com/>

So to clarify, if a test subject were to take the various tests on this website, which of them would still yield meaningful results if the subject took them multiple times. That is, would subjects likely only get better at that specific task, or would they also improve their general ability in the domain of intelligence that that test is supposed to evaluate.

The one I'm most sceptical (in terms of its utility for training) is ["Odd One Out"](http://www.cambridgebrainsciences.com/browse/reasoning/test/oddoneout)

The site says that it's suitable for training due to problems being generated instead of taken from a small set which could be memorized. I have my doubts on this because, though the actual problems don't repeat, the types of differences do. So I would guess you would soon just be training yourself to spot the specific differences within this test and would not be getting any better in spotting general discrepancies and patterns.

In general, am I right in assuming that the least trainable facet of cognition is reasoning, whereas planning, concentration and memory are less fixed.

**Tags:** intelligence, brain-training

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Do you know if those 10IQ points translate to reasoning outside of the tests themselves?  

---

## 0 answers

