Research Standards

Our sourcing principles

Intelligence is a field where confident-sounding myths circulate widely. To avoid spreading them, we hold every factual claim on this site to a clear sourcing hierarchy. We prefer the strongest available evidence and are explicit when the evidence is mixed or limited.

• Peer-reviewed journal articles and meta-analyses in psychometrics, cognitive psychology, and behavioral genetics are our primary sources.
• Standard reference works and test manuals from established assessment publishers are used for definitions and conventions.
• Authoritative bodies and consensus statements are cited where a field-wide position exists.
• Secondary reporting and popular articles are used only to point readers toward primary sources, never as the basis for a claim.

Preference for peer-reviewed psychometrics

When we describe how intelligence is structured, how it is measured, how stable it is, or how it relates to outcomes, we lean on the peer-reviewed psychometric literature. We favor replicated findings and meta-analyses over single studies, and we are cautious with results that are striking but not yet well established.

Where the science is genuinely unsettled or contested, we say so plainly rather than picking the most dramatic interpretation. 'The evidence is mixed' is an acceptable and often honest conclusion.

How claims are vetted

Before a substantive claim is published, it goes through a basic vetting process:

• We trace the claim back to its primary source rather than repeating a secondhand summary.
• We check that the source actually supports the strength of the claim — distinguishing correlation from causation and effect size from statistical significance.
• We confirm the finding is not contradicted by larger or more recent work.
• Claims about measurement and scoring are reviewed by our psychometrics reviewers for technical accuracy.

Distinguishing evidence from opinion

We separate three things clearly in our writing: established findings, reasonable interpretation, and our own product positioning. When we express a view that goes beyond what the literature settles, we frame it as our view rather than as scientific consensus.

Correction policy

We will get things wrong sometimes, and when we do we want to fix it visibly. Our correction policy is simple:

• Substantive errors are corrected promptly once verified.
• When a correction materially changes the meaning of a page, we note that the page was updated and carry a revised 'last updated' date.
• Readers can report a suspected error or a missing citation at any time by emailing hello@iqcognify.com.

Transparency about mistakes is part of being trustworthy, not a threat to it.