Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment OnlineFirst, published on September 1, 2009 as doi:10.

1177/0734282909344416

Journal of Psychoeducational
Assessment
Effects of Parental Education XX(X) xx­–xx
© The Author(s) 2009

Level on Fluid Intelligence of Reprints and permission: http://www.

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Philippine Public School Students

DOI: 10.1177/0734282909344416
http://jpa.sagepub.com

Alvin D.Vista1 and Tarek C. Grantham1

Abstract
This study examines the effect of parental education levels (PELs) on the fluid intelligence of Filipino
public school students. The data were drawn from a normative study of a nonverbal intelligence
test involving more than 2,700 students sampled across the country. As expected, PELs have a
significant impact on fluid intelligence as measured through a nonverbal intelligence test. The results
indicate that PELs account for an increase of roughly three IQ points for every increment in PEL.
Students with college-graduate parents scored significantly higher (d ratio = .66) compared to
those with parents who never graduated from elementary. However, a comparison of mean scores
between PELs that are adjacent (i.e., high school graduate vs. college graduate) shows relatively small
differences (d ratio = .23 to .25).

Keywords
intelligence, nonverbal assessment, parental education level, Philippine students, fluid intelligence

Studies on the effects of parental education level (PEL) on various educational predictor outcomes
for the children engage a diverse set of issues and have been substantial in number, especially on the
causes and implications of the link between parental education and children’s educational outcomes
(e.g., Behrman & Rosenzweig, 2002; Currie & Moretti, 2003). PEL, like any demographic variable,
does not stand on its own but is rather influenced by other variables. At least two variables (which
are themselves interrelated) can have a significant impact and influence on PEL. One is the socioeco-
nomic situation of the parents before or during their school-age years. It has long been established in
the United States that children from low socioeconomic status families have lower academic perfor-
mance compared to middle-class children (Coleman et al., 1966). Research by Campbell and Ramey
(1994) showed that early intervention has an important effect on future academic achievement and
that poverty does limit one’s academic development and chances of success. In fact, poverty is not
just confined as a person- or family-specific variable. Even the socioeconomic status of peers
among the school population (Caldas & Bankston, 1997) and school spending at the district level

1
University of Georgia, Athens

Corresponding Author:
Alvin D.Vista, Assessment Research Centre, University of Melbourne,Victoria, Australia
Email: a.vista@pgrad.unimelb.edu.au

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 8, 2016

2 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment XX(X)

(Wenglinsky, 1997) have been found to affect individual academic achievement. A second variable
would be the general mental ability itself of the parent. In Schmidt and Hunter’s (1998) meta-analysis
of 85 years of personnel assessment research, they validated the predictive utility of general mental
ability, of which g is the underlying latent factor. One of the main reasons why g-loaded IQ tests are
so pervasive in the school and workplace settings is that they predict, to some extent, academic and
overall job performance and even income levels (e.g., Kuncel, Hezlett, & Ones, 2004; Schmidt &
Hunter, 1998).
Regardless of what set of factors influences PEL, this study was mainly concerned with whether
or not PEL affects the cognitive development of children as based on their performance on a nonver-
bal intelligence test and with quantifying the magnitude of the effect if there is one. The focus of this
article is to answer two questions: (a) Is there a significant difference in intelligence test scores
among children of different PELs? and (b) How significant is the association of PEL and school size
with intelligence test scores of the children?

Nonverbal Intelligence Tests and Fluid Intelligence

When Alfred Binet and Théodore Simon developed the first intelligence tests, they assumed a gen-
eral component that is independent of pedagogical influence and designed the tests so that “it is
simply the level of his natural intelligence that is taken into account” (Binet & Simon, 1980, p. 42).
It was Spearman (1932) who labeled this “general” component as g, which would be one of the two
components of cognitive ability (the other being the specific components) and which is, according to
his research, the main factor for the covariance among intelligence test scores.
Fluid intelligence (Gf) was first put forward as one of two (the other being crystallized or Gc)
general factors of intelligence more than 60 years ago by Cattell (1941, 1963). This would be the
basis for what eventually evolved into Cattell–Horn–Carroll (CHC) theory, which is currently
expanded to 10 cognitive abilities (Alfonso, Flanagan, & Radwan, 2005).
Cattell (1940), along with Raven (1938), was also one of the first who developed culture-free
intelligence tests that measure fluid intelligence or Gf. We can view PEL as representing a form
of crystallized intelligence, and this study investigates the link between fluid and crystallized
intelligence (Gf and Gc in the CHC framework), across a single generation. There is significant
neurobiological support for Gf that performance in a high-level cognitive task is related to fluid intel-
ligence, with prefrontal cortex activity (especially lateral PFC) as the mediator of the link between
the two (Gray, Chabris, & Braver, 2003). Fluid intelligence, an important ability that is crucial to
academic and real-world achievements, along with working memory, predicts multitasking perfor-
mance (König, Bühner, & Mürling, 2005).1
Nonverbal intelligence tests are often considered a standard measure of general fluid intelligence
and are routinely used in neural research on fluid intelligence (e.g., Duncan et al., 2000; Gray et al.,
2003). For example, Raven’s Progressive Matrices is usually regarded as among the most g-loaded
tests available (Cherkes-Julkowski, Stolzenberg, & Segal, 1990). Despite its purely visual presenta-
tion, researchers have shown that a nonverbal instrument is not limited to testing spatial reasoning
(Saccuzzo, Johnson, & Guertin, 1994). A limitation of using a single intelligence test to measure g is
its inability to assess the whole range of CHC abilities or even just the broad ability Gf (Alfonso et al.,
2005). Nevertheless, nonverbal tests provide an alternative measure that is less dependent on aca-
demic knowledge and language (Naglieri & Ronning, 2000). The latter is especially important because
the Philippines tends to rely on Western-developed intelligence tests. Nonverbal tests also are less
affected by bias (Sandoval, 1992) that affects traditional intelligence tests when applied to non-native
English speakers (e.g., such as performance IQ [PIQ] vs. verbal IQ [VIQ] discrepancy). For example,
Naglieri and Ronning (2000) showed that when a nonverbal instrument is used, ethnic minority groups
did not differ as much compared to Caucasians as would have been expected on traditional IQ tests.

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 8, 2016

Vista and Grantham 3

More specific to the Philippine setting, in research that examined the variation in VIQ and PIQ of
several ethnic groups, it was found that Filipino children at environmental risk (e.g., excessive
absences because of home responsibilities or working to support the family) have greater PIQ–VIQ
discrepancy, with PIQ more likely to be higher than VIQ (Saccuzzo, Johnson, & Russell, 1992).

Parental Influence: Educational Attainment and Intelligence

The main aim of this study is to look into the intergenerational influence of parental education on
the child’s fluid intelligence. Because fluid intelligence here was measured using nonverbal tests
that are less dependent on traditional forms of academic knowledge, this study departs from research
on intergenerational transfer of learning that focuses on academic achievement (e.g., Chevalier,
Harmon, O’Sullivan, & Walker, 2005; Oreopoulos & Page, 2006). The effects of intelligence (in
particular, genetically inherited intelligence) on socioeconomic factors, and vice versa, have been
under intense debate. Although there is no clear consensus regarding the magnitude of these effects,
it appears that intelligence has a positive influence on socioeconomic and educational outcomes
(see Fischer et al., 1996; Herrnstein & Murray, 1994; Plomin & Bergeman, 1991). Genetic studies
put the heritability of IQ between 0.4 and 0.8 (Plomin & Petrill, 1997), whereas IQ correlation of
parent to offspring (living together) and reared-together siblings is around 0.45 (Rowe, Vesterdal,
& Rodgers, 1999). Looking into the influence of hereditary genetic factors on education, the large-
scale research by Rowe et al. (1999) showed a correlation of .63 between IQ and education, with
68% attributed to genetic influence. Research investigating the influence of maternal education on
achievement outcomes of offspring found that an additional year of schooling for the mother relates
to about 5 percentage points in the child’s test scores (Carneiro, Meghir, & Parey, 2007). Results
from Carneiro et al. (2007) showed that each year of maternal schooling also positively affects her
spouse’s education level by as much as 0.66 years, thus having an additional effect on the child’s
cognitive environment.
The effect of PEL is persistent throughout the child’s academic life as PEL significantly affects
the chances of a student leaving school early, with maternal PEL having a stronger influence than
paternal and a stronger effect on boys than girls (Chevalier et al., 2005). A U.S. study on the impact
of PEL on the child’s educational outcome found that an increase in the education of parents increases
the chances that the child does not repeat a grade level (2 to 7 percentage point reduction in the prob-
ability of retention for every year of increase in PEL) and decreases the chances of dropping out
among older teens (Oreopoulos & Page, 2006). In parallel, the effect of PEL on the child’s biological
development and the consequences on cognitive development later on also need to be considered.
In a large-scale study on PEL and birth weight, first-time parents who attended school less than
3 years were found to have between twice (for mothers) and three times (for fathers) the risk of
having low-birth-weight offspring (Lekea, Tzoumaka, Matsaniotis, & Lekea-Karanika, 1999).
Because maternal education levels may be closely related to maternal intelligence, Wachs and
McCabe (2001) looked into the effects of both on the child’s nutritional intake. Their results indi-
cated that although maternal intelligence and educational levels both significantly predicted the
child’s dietary quality, educational level was a better predictor for school-age children.
The Philippines is an archipelago in Southeast Asia consisting of three major island groups—
Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao. The basic education in the country is 6 years of elementary school
and 4 years of secondary school; most are enrolled in the public schools (∼93% of elementary stu-
dents and ∼80% of secondary students; Republic of the Philippines Department of Education, 2006).
The PELs in these island groups are roughly similar, with approximately 13% of the population
having finished college (see Table 1), although Visayas has a relatively higher number of parents
who did not finish the elementary level—30.8% compared to the national average of 20.3% (National
Statistics Office, 2003).

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 8, 2016

4 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment XX(X)

Table 1. Comparison of Parental Education Level Grouped by Region

Luzon (n = 1,397) Visayas (n = 600) Mindanao (n = 760)

TP (%) S (%) TP (%) S (%) TP (%) S (%)

Parental education level

Elementary level 12.5 5.9 30.8 11.5 24.2 1.7
Elementary graduate 29.4 26.8 25.3 21.1 30.1 17.1
High school graduate 45.2 36.0 30.5 36.5 32.8 37.0
College graduate 13.0 31.3 13.4 30.9 12.7 44.1
Source: National Statistical Coordination Board (2000).
Note: TP = total population; S = sample. These statistical data are based on administrative regions.

If there is a positive (and rather large) correlation between IQ and education and a significant cor-
relation of IQ between parent and offspring, this study intended to quantify the strength of the
influence of PEL on the offspring’s intelligence test scores. In a country where there is wide regional
variance in a number of socioeconomic variables and educational attainment (National Statistical
Coordination Board, 2000), it is educationally relevant to investigate how much the varying levels of
parental education affect the child’s intelligence because doing so would provide results with impli-
cations on future social and educational interventions.

Method
Participants

The data were taken from a normative study of the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT) for Fili-
pino public school students, where 2,761 sixth grade students (age range = 11 to 12) were tested from
29 school sites sampled across the country (Vista, 2006). The sample sizes of the original data reflected
the proportion of the population among the major island groups of Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao—
the major geographic divisions corresponding to northern, central, and southern Philippines, respectively.
Although the norming study collected variables concerning (a) geographic region,2 (b) gender, (c) self-
reported PEL,3 (d) school size,4 and (e) self-reported poverty level,5 the present study focused only on
PEL and school size. There were less than 5% of student records with errors (inconsistencies, missing
values, etc.), which the authors eliminated on an analysis-by-analysis basis (i.e., cases with missing
values are excluded only for analyses that require the particular values).
Table 2 compares the demographic characteristics of the sample to the national characteristics of
the Philippine population. Table 1 provides more detail in comparing the PEL to the statistical data
within the regions by showing the percentages for each respective subgroup. The percentages on the
sample are comparable to the general population in terms of the demographic variables presented,
with the exception of those below the poverty level and those whose PEL is the elementary level
(PEL 1). In both instances, the norming sample has a lower percentage than the national population.
It has to be noted that the percentages for the national population refer to the total population and
include individuals who are not public school students and that the Philippine public schools have a
participation rate of only around 82% for the elementary level (National Statistical Coordination
Board, 2006).6
The administration of the test was done by the local teachers with the supervision and aid of the
first author’s colleagues in the country. The NNAT administration manual was followed throughout
the testing, although some supplementary instructions were added to obtain research-specific data

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 8, 2016

Vista and Grantham 5

Table 2. Demographic Characteristics of the Norming Sample

Percentage of Total Population Percentage of Students in Sample

Gender
Male (n = 1,185) 50.7a 43.0
Female (n = 1,572) 49.3a 57.0
Age range
Younger than 11 (n = 129) 4.7
11 (n = 1,688) 61.2
12 (n = 940) 34.1
Geographic region
Luzon (n = 1,397) 56.0 50.7
Visayas (n = 600) 20.0 21.8
Mindanao (n = 760) 24.0 27.6
Socioeconomic status
Above poverty line 83.3b 91.6
Below poverty line 16.7b 8.4
Source: National Statistics Office, 2000 Census of Population and Housing.
a. Statistics for the 10 to 14 age group.
b. Incidence of families below the per capita food or subsistence threshold in 2000. This threshold corresponds to the
global $1 per day in purchasing power parity threshold of poverty as defined by the World Bank (2006).

not included in the original manual. The whole test administration was the extent of researcher–
participant interaction. There was no follow-up after the administration, and no personally identifiable
data were left on the answer documents.

Instrument
Nonverbal instruments are either individual or group administered. A group-administered test was
chosen for this large-scale testing study simply for practical purposes. The NNAT (Naglieri, 1997a)
is one of the more commonly used group-administered nonverbal tests of intelligence within the
United States.
The NNAT is based on the Matrix Analogies Test–Short Form (Naglieri, 1985a) and Matrix
Analogies Test–Expanded Form (Naglieri, 1985b) and uses a matrix format similar to the Raven’s
Progressive Matrices (Raven, 1938). These tests share the format in which patterns are arranged in a
matrix and set in a series of progressive difficulty. Each of the matrices has a missing piece, and the
examinee must choose among the six to eight alternatives to complete the pattern. The NNAT was
constructed using items that are least influenced by color-impaired vision and was standardized
using an extensive and nationally representative sample of 89,600 students from kindergarten through
12th grade in its first publication (Naglieri & Ronning, 2000). It had been renormed several times
since then, with 2003 as the most recent year for its normative sample on the individually adminis-
tered form (Naglieri, 2003). The statistical data of the NNAT are adequate and psychometrically
sound (England, 2004). The psychometric properties of the test have been researched considerably,
as have the psychometric properties of the precursor tests, which have been validated by numerous
researchers (Naglieri & Ford, 2003). It is moderately correlated with academic achievement, compa-
rable in correlation to the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (Naglieri & Ronning, 2000) and the
Stanford Achievement Test Series–9th Edition (Maller & Mowery, 2000). It has been criticized,
however, because of inadequate validity research, especially on evidence regarding concurrent valid-
ity (Maller & Mowery, 2000), and a lack of studies focusing on convergent validity and special
populations (McCallum, Bracken, & Wasserman, 2001).

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 8, 2016

6 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment XX(X)

Table 3. Grade-Based Kuder–Richardson Reliability Coefficients for Filipino and U.S. Normative Samples

Kuder–Richardson Reliability Coefficient

Number of Philippine Sample Luzon Visayas Mindanao U.S. Normative

NNAT Items (n = 2,757)a (n = 1,397)a (n = 600)a (n = 760)a Sample (n = 2,323)b

Level E, Grade 6 38 .84 .81 .82 .87 .86

Note: NNAT = Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (Naglieri, 1997b).
a.Vista (2006).
b. KR20 reliability coefficients for Level E, Grade 6, fall norms.

Machine-scorable answer sheets, which were then scanned and coded into meaningful variables,
were used. Two main forms of test scores were used: the raw score and a Nonverbal Ability Index
(NAI) score, which may correspond to the traditional IQ score, based on the conversion scale from
the NNAT Fall Norms. The NAI is a normalized standard score, with a mean of 100 and a standard
deviation of 15, that is converted from the raw score through an intermediary and uniform (across all
levels, regardless of grade and age) value called a scaled score (Naglieri, 1997b).

Data Analysis and Results

Reliability

The reliability of the instrument in its use on Filipino samples was established in the normative study
of the NNAT on Filipino public school students (Vista, 2006). The internal reliability coefficients for
the Filipino samples were computed using the Kuder–Richardson formula, which is equivalent to
Cronbach’s alpha for dichotomous items (Nitko, 2004). The result of the reliability analysis indi-
cated that the Filipino sample showed an acceptable reliability coefficient of .84, comparable to the
reliability coefficient based on the instrument’s main U.S. normative sample for sixth graders. The
reliability coefficients on a geographical region basis, for Luzon (r = .81), Visayas (r = .82), and
Mindanao (r = .87), were also similar. Table 3 presents the internal reliability coefficients for Filipino
and U.S. normative samples.

Factors Affecting Nonverbal Intelligence Test Scores

Among the variables analyzed in this study, the initial analysis showed that gender, F(1, 2608) = .04,
p = .84, and geographic region, F(1, 2608) = 2.46, p = .09, did not have a significant effect on test
scores. To evaluate the effects of PEL and school size on NAI scores, a 4 × 2 ANOVA was conducted
for four levels of PEL and two levels of school size. To check if the assumptions for ANOVA were
met, a Levene’s test of equality of error variances was conducted, which showed nonsignificant dif-
ferences in error variance among the variables (p = .07). The results for the ANOVA showed a
significant main effect for PEL, F(3, 2676) = 32.94, p < .01, partial η2 = .04, a significant effect for
school size, F(1, 2676) = 14.9, p < .01, partial η2 < .01, and a nonsignificant interaction between the
two variables, F(3, 471) = 0.33, p = .8. Table 4 presents the mean score differences among the four
PELs using NAI scores as the dependent variable. Because all mean score differences are statistically
significant, a measure of effect size can help interpret the magnitude of mean differences (Glass &
Hopkins, 1996). Becker (1991) recommended that standardized mean differences, or d ratios, be
used to provide a more adequate indicator of the size of the difference. Unadjusted d was reported
here because the upward bias of d should be negligible (Becker, 1991) given the large sample sizes.
When the scores from one PEL are compared to those of another level immediately next to them, the

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 8, 2016

Vista and Grantham 7

Table 4. Mean Nonverbal Ability Index Score Differences and d Ratios Among Parental Education Levels
(PELs)

(a) PEL (b) PEL Mean Difference (a – b) SE p d Ratio

1 2 -3.31* 1.23 .04 -.23

3 -6.67* 1.18 < .01 -.46
4 -9.88* 1.18 < .01 -.66
2 3 -3.36* 0.72 < .01 -.25
4 -6.57* 0.73 < .01 -.47
3 4 -3.21* 0.64 < .01 -.23
Note: Based on observed means.
*Mean difference significant at the .05 level.

Table 5. Mean Nonverbal Ability Index Scores Grouped by Parental Education Level (PEL) and School Size

PEL School Size M SD SE

1 (n = 163) Small 90.42 16.82 1.71

Large 92.42 14.01 1.41
2 (n = 602) Small 92.33 13.74 0.99
Large 96.21 13.14 0.7
3 (n = 978) Small 96.12 14.0 0.85
Large 99.1 13.29 0.52
4 (n = 941) Small 99.65 15.77 0.92
Large 102.09 14.17 0.52

effect sizes can be considered small based on Cohen’s (1988) suggestion of .2, .5, and .8 as small,
medium, and large, respectively. When the comparison is between PELs that are two or three levels
apart, the effect sizes can be considered medium.
Table 5 compares the mean scores among the four PELs with an additional grouping by school
size to show the additional effect of a student’s school size on test scores. In this aspect, school size
(comparing schools with fewer than 200 students to schools with more than 1,000) was used as a
loose proxy for school quality to explore findings in the literature that academic achievement is sig-
nificantly affected by school and teacher quality, particularly in poor countries (Heyneman & Loxley,
1983). Results showed that school size had an added, albeit small, effect. Contrast analysis showed
that the mean NAI score for large schools was 2.82 points higher compared to small schools (95%
confidence interval = 1.39, 4.25, p < .01). Within each PEL, the effect size of school size is small
(d = .13 to .29), ranging from a low of .13 for PEL 1 to a high of .29 for PEL 2. Figure 1 presents the
graphical representations of the mean NAI scores according to respective PELs.

Discussion
The results indicate that PEL accounts for an increase of roughly 3 NAI points for every increment
in PEL and that students from large schools tend to have better scores than those from small schools,
by slightly less than 3 NAI points (see Table 4). Although not the focus of this study, it is interesting
to compare these results to the results from research on intergenerational IQ gains by Colom, Lluis-
Font, and Andrés-Pueyo (2005), which showed a gain in IQ from 1970 to 1999 of 9.7 points,
corresponding to a d ratio of .65. With this comparison, it appears that the mean score difference
between children with PEL 1 and those with PEL 4 (9.88 points, d = .66; see Table 4) is similar to the

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 8, 2016

8 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment XX(X)

102.00 101.49

100.00

98.28
98.00
Mean NAI score

96.00
94.92

94.00

92.00 91.61

90.00

1 2 3 4
Parental Education Level

Figure 1. Mean Nonverbal Ability Index (NAI) score according to parental education levels

intergenerational gains in IQ for 30 years. The difference between adjacent PELs (3.21 to 3.36) also
appears to correspond remarkably to the average gain of 3 IQ points per decade, commonly known
as the Flynn effect (Flynn, 1998; Neisser et al., 1996). Although the authors do not intend to specu-
late that there is a link between PEL and IQ gains attributed to the Flynn effect (Flynn, 1998), it is
nevertheless curious how an improvement in PEL appears to correspond in a magnitude similar to
the Flynn effect. These IQ gains have been used as important evidence in arguing for a larger envi-
ronmental effect on IQ variability (Dickens & Flynn, 2001; Flynn, 1999). The authors believe that
parental education is indeed an important component of the child’s environment—perhaps not as
large, on its own, as the genetic component, but still a significant influence. Going back to the com-
parison on the intergenerational gains attributed to the Flynn effect (Flynn, 1998), it is relevant to
note that if PEL improves by one step, the mean increase in scores is roughly the same as the increase
from a decade of globally rising scores.
Although exploratory, the results reflect the findings on the effect of limited exposure to academic
resources on mental ability (Ford & Grantham, 2003; Kaufman, 1994) and extend them to an inter-
generational effect. The results show an expected significant disadvantage that low parental education
brings to the student. Among the groups, students from small schools whose parents never graduated
from elementary school were the ones who had the lowest scores. A light of hope can be glimpsed
by the fact that mean score differences among these groups were relatively small, with differences
in scores between the two most extreme groups of less than one standard deviation. A gap of one

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 8, 2016

Vista and Grantham 9

standard deviation is not uncommon, especially between widely diverse groups such as those sepa-
rated by socioeconomic status (Hedges & Nowell, 1999).
Logistical and financial limitations restricted the sampling scope of this normative study. The study
was also limited in the process of gathering additional demographic variables that might improve the
representativeness of the sample. The authors acknowledge the limitations from the overrepresenta-
tion of advantaged groups based on the differences between national and sample percentages for cases
with college-graduate parents (PEL 4) and those in large schools (see Tables 1 and 2).
Because public school size reflect the population size of the area being served, it is possible that
smaller schools in the Philippines are relatively lacking in resources or diversity compared to the
schools with larger population size and density. This is supported by the data from one of the more
comprehensive studies of school quality in the Philippines. In a nationwide study looking into the
quality of secondary school physics education, Orleans (2007) reported that there were statistically
significant differences in school-related and teacher-related factors between urban and rural schools.
For example, 51% of physics teachers in urban schools had access to professional mentoring, whereas
only 38% of teachers in rural schools had the same access. And although 39% of urban physics teach-
ers could be considered qualified, only 24% of the rural teachers had the same qualifications (Orleans,
2007).7 Orleans’s study focused only on secondary physics education, but it did reflect on the general
condition of Philippine schools. The authors hope that the initial findings in this area will encourage
more research in the future.
This study investigated the effects of PEL on intelligence among Filipino students as measured by
a nonverbal intelligence test. The results showed a statistically significant, although relatively small,
effect of parental education on the offspring’s fluid intelligence; an increase in PEL corresponds to
an increase of 3 IQ points in a nonverbal intelligence test. There is substantial support in the literature
(e.g., Chevalier et al., 2005; Lekea et al., 1999; Oreopoulos & Page, 2006; Wachs & McCabe, 2001)
for the position that PEL is an important factor in the child’s biological and cognitive development,
and with other socioeconomic factors, it remains influential for future academic success. This article
did not attempt to explain the causes of such an effect because numerous factors are involved in the
link between parental education and the child’s cognitive development, most of which are beyond the
scope of the present study. However, results based on the comparison of mean scores among different
levels of parental education and other socioeconomic and geographic factors can help quantify the
relationship between PEL and IQ as based on performance on a nonverbal assessment. In addition,
they can provide an impetus to look further into reasons why smaller schools might contribute to a
marginalized cognitive development that could result in lower intelligence test scores. These find-
ings have implications for educational policy that deals with school retention, early childhood
education, and improving educational access in small schools. Because it would be easier and more
practical to collect data on PEL than on parental IQ, data on the PELs of students can be utilized by
teachers, administrators, and policy makers as a guide in providing targeted help to students, espe-
cially during the early school-age years when the development of fluid intelligence is critical. Further
research in this direction can also substantially extend the literature regarding the implication of
nonverbal intelligence tests on identification, assessment, and possibly even future social and educa-
tional intervention strategies for students of diverse backgrounds.

Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank Dr. Jack Naglieri and Harcourt Assessment for providing the test instruments used in
the normative study.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 8, 2016

10 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment XX(X)

Financial Disclosure/Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research and/or authorship of this
article: The first author is a recipient of the Fulbright scholarship grant administered through the Philippine-
American Educational Foundation.

Notes
1. In mathematics performance, for example, visuo-spatial working memory and fluid intelligence are two
major contributors to achievement (Kyttälä & Lehto, 2008).
2. Luzon, Visayas, or Mindanao.
3. Highest educational attainment of parents: 1 = did not finish basic education (did not graduate from elemen-
tary level), 2 = elementary graduate but did not graduate from high school, 3 = high school graduate but did
not graduate from college, 4 = college level graduate.
4. School population: small ≤ 200 students; large ≥ 1,000 students. Public schools generally reflect the popula-
tion size of the area being served.
5. Above or below an income threshold for poverty, based on estimated family income. The threshold used here
is a more conservative $1 per day income level rather than the more moderate threshold of $2 per day.
6. Data are based on the 2003-2004 school year. Participation rate is defined as the ratio between the enrollment
in the school-age range to the total population of that age range (Republic of the Philippines Department of
Education, 2006).
7. Defined as having a degree with specialization in physics.

References
Alfonso, V. C., Flanagan, D. P., & Radwan, S. (2005). The impact of the Cattell–Horn–Carroll theory on test
development and interpretation of cognitive and academic abilities. In D. P. Flanagan & P. L. Harrison
(Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment, second edition: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 185-202).
New York: Guilford.
Becker, G. (1991). Alternative methods of reporting research results. American Psychologist, 46(6), 654-655.
Behrman, J., & Rosenzweig, M. (2002), Does increasing women’s schooling raise the schooling of the next
generation. American Economic Review, 92, 323-334.
Binet, A., & Simon, T. (1980). The development of intelligence in children. Baltimore, MD: Williams and
Wilkins.
Caldas, S., & Bankston, C., III. (1997). Effect of school population socioeconomic status on individual aca-
demic achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 90(5), 269-277.
Campbell, F., & Ramey, C. (1994). Effects of early intervention on intellectual and academic achievement: A
follow-up study of children from low-income families. Child Development, 65, 684-698.
Carneiro, P., Meghir, C., & Parey, M. (2007). Maternal education, home environments and the development of
children and adolescents (IZA Discussion Paper 3072). Retrieved on Nov. 18, 2006 from http://ssrn.com/
abstract=1026888
Cattell, R. B. (1940). A culture-free intelligence test: Part I. Journal of Educational Psychology, 31,
1961-1979.
Cattell, R. B. (1941). Some theoretical issues in adult intelligence testing. Psychological Bulletin, 38, 592.
Cattell, R. B. (1963). Theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence: A critical experiment. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 54, 1-22.
Cherkes-Julkowski, M., Stolzenberg, J., & Segal, L. (1990). Prompted cognitive testing as diagnostic com-
pensation for attention deficits: The Raven Standard Progressive Matrices and attention deficit disorder.
Learning Disabilities, 2, 1-7.

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 8, 2016

Vista and Grantham 11

Chevalier, A., Harmon, C., O’Sullivan, V., & Walker, I. (2005). The impact of parental income and education
on the schooling of their children (IZA Discussion Paper 1496). Retrieved on Nov. 18, 2006 from http://ssrn.
com/abstract=673407
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.
Coleman, J., Campbell, E., Hobson, C., McPartland, J., Mood, A., Weinfield, F., & York, R. (1966). Equality
and educational equity. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Colom, R., Lluis-Font, J., & Andrés-Pueyo, A. (2005). The generational intelligence gains are caused by
decreasing variance in the lower half of the distribution: Supporting evidence for the nutrition hypothesis.
Intelligence, 33, 83-91.
Currie, J., & Moretti, E. (2003), Mother’s education and the intergenerational transmission of human capital.
Evidence from college openings and longitudinal data. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118, 1495-1532.
Dickens, W. T., & Flynn, J. R. (2001). Heritability estimates versus large environmental effects: The IQ paradox
resolved. Psychological Review, 108, 346-369.
Duncan, J., Seitz, R., Kolodny, J., Bor, D., Herzog, H., Ahmed, A., et al. (2000). A neural basis for general intel-
ligence. Science, 289, 457-460.
England, C. (2004). Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test–Individual Administration [Review of the Naglieri
Nonverbal Ability Test-Individual Administration]. In Mental measurements yearbook (Vol. 16). Lincoln,
NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.
Fischer, C. S., Hout, M., Jankowski, M. S., Lucas, S. R., Swidler, A., & Voss, K. (1996). Inequality by design:
Cracking the bell curve myth. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Flynn, J. R. (1998). IQ gains over time: Towards finding the causes. In U. Neisser (Ed.), The rising curve
(pp. 25-66). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Flynn, J. R. (1999). Searching for justice: The discovery of IQ gains over time. American Psychologist, 54, 5-20.
Ford, D. Y., & Grantham, T. C. (2003). Providing access for culturally diverse gifted students: From deficit to
dynamic thinking. Theory Into Practice, 42(3), 217-225.
Glass, G., & Hopkins, K. (1996). Statistical methods in education and psychology. Needham Heights, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.
Gray, J., Chabris, C., & Braver, T. (2003). Neural mechanisms of general fluid intelligence. Nature Neuroscience,
6(3), 316-322.
Hedges, L. V., & Nowell, A. (1999). Changes in the Black-White gap in achievement test scores. Sociology of
Education, 72(2), 111-135.
Herrnstein, R. J., & Murray, C. (1994). The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in American life. New
York: Free Press.
Heyneman, S., & Loxley, W. (1983). The effect of primary-school quality on academic achievement across
twenty-nine high- and low-income countries. American Journal of Sociology, 88(6), 1162-1194.
Kaufman, A. S. (1994). Intelligent testing with the WISC-III. New York: John Wiley.
König, C. J., Bühner, M., & Mürling, G. (2005). Working memory, fluid intelligence, and attention are predic-
tors of multitasking performance, but polychronicity and extraversion are not. Human Performance, 18(3),
243-266.
Kuncel, N. R., Hezlett, S. A., & Ones, D. S. (2004). Academic performance, career potential, creativity, and
job performance: Can one construct predict them all? Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 86(1),
148-161.
Kyttälä, M., & Lehto, J. E. (2008). Some factors underlying mathematical performance: The role of visuo-
spatial working memory and non-verbal intelligence. European Journal of Psychology of Education,
23(1), 77-94.
Lekea, K., Tzoumaka, B., Matsaniotis, N., & Lekea-Karanika, V. (1999). Sociodemographic determinants of
low birthweight in Greece: A population study. Paediatric & Perinatal Epidemiology, 13(1), 65-77.

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 8, 2016

12 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment XX(X)

Maller, S., & Mowery, D. (2000). Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test review. Journal of Psychoeducational
Assessment, 18, 275-280.
McCallum, S., Bracken, B., & Wasserman, J. (2001). Essentials of nonverbal assessment. New York: John
Wiley.
Naglieri, J. A. (1985a). Matrix Analogies Test–Expanded Form. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Naglieri, J. A. (1985b). Matrix Analogies Test–Short Form. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Naglieri, J. A. (1997a). Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Brace.
Naglieri, J. A. (1997b). NNAT multilevel technical manual. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Brace.
Naglieri, J. A. (2003). Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test—Individual administration manual. San Antonio, TX:
Harcourt Assessment.
Naglieri, J. A., & Ford, D. Y. (2003). Addressing underrepresentation of gifted minority children using the
Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT). Gifted Child Quarterly, 47(2), 155.
Naglieri, J. A., & Ronning, M. E. (2000). Comparison of White, African American, Hispanic, and Asian children
on the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test. Psychological Assessment, 12(3), 328-334.
National Statistical Coordination Board. (2000). Poverty statistics. Retrieved April 23, 2006, from http://www.
nscb.gov.ph/poverty/2000/00povin1.asp
National Statistical Coordination Board. (2006). NSCB—StatDev Philippines 2004—Chapter 10—Investing in
education and training. Retrieved November 18, 2006, from http://www.nscb.gov.ph/stats/statdev/ch10.asp
National Statistics Office. (2003). 2003 Functional Literacy, Education and Mass Media Survey. Retrieved
August 6, 2006, from http://www.census.gov.ph/data/sectordata/2003/fl03tabA.htm
Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T., Boykin, A., Brody, N., Ceci, S., et al. (1996). Intelligence: Knowns and
unknowns. American Psychologist, 51(2), 77-101.
Nitko, A. (2004). Educational assessment of students (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Oreopoulos, P., & Page, M. (2006). The intergenerational effects of compulsory schooling. Journal of Labor
Economics, 24(4), 729-760.
Orleans, A. (2007). The condition of secondary school physics education in the Philippines: Recent develop-
ments and remaining challenges for substantive improvements. Australian Educational Researcher, 34,
33-54.
Plomin, R., & Bergeman, C. S. (1991). The nature of nurture: Genetic influence on “environmental” measures.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14, 373-427.
Plomin, R., & Petrill, S. (1997). Genetics and intelligence: What’s new? Intelligence, 24(1), 53-77.
Raven, J. C. (1938). Standard progressive matrices: Sets A, B, C, D and E. London: H. K. Lewis.
Republic of the Philippines Department of Education. (2006). Fact sheet: Basic education statistics. Retrieved
April 28, 2006, from http://www.deped.gov.ph/cpanel/uploads/issuanceImg/factsheet2006(Mar15).pdf
Rowe, D., Vesterdal, W., & Rodgers, J. (1999). Herrnstein’s syllogism: Genetic and shared environmental influ-
ences on IQ, education, and income. Intelligence, 26(4), 405-423.
Saccuzzo, D., Johnson, N., & Guertin, T. (1994). Use of the Raven Progressive Matrices Test in an ethnically
diverse gifted population. San Diego, CA: San Diego State University.
Saccuzzo, D. P., Johnson, N. E., & Russell, G. (1992). Verbal versus performance IQs for gifted African-
American, Caucasian, Filipino, and Hispanic children. Psychological Assessment, 4(2), 239-244.
Sandoval, J. (1992). Using the DAS with multi-cultural populations: Issues of test bias. Journal of
Psychoeducational Assessment, 10, 88-91.
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology:
Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262-274.
Spearman, C. (1932). The abilities of man. London: Macmillan.
Vista, A. (2006). Transferability of norms: Norming the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT) in the Philippine
public schools. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Georgia, Athens.
Wachs, T. D., & McCabe, G. (2001). Relation of maternal intelligence and schooling to offspring nutritional
intake. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 25(5), 444-449.

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 8, 2016

Vista and Grantham 13

Wenglinsky, H. (1997). How money matters: The effect of school district spending on academic achievement.
Sociology of Education, 70(3), 221-237.
World Bank. (2006). International Comparison Program—Poverty PPPs. Retrieved November 6, 2006, from
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/DATASTATISTICS/ICPEXT/0,,contentMDK:20975195
~pagePK:60002244~piPK:62002388~theSitePK:270065,00.html

Bios
Alvin Vista is a postgraduate student at the University of Melbourne.

Tarek Grantham is an associate professor and Gifted and Creative Education Program Coordinator at the Uni-
versity of Georgia.

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 8, 2016