>>9750764>Slight tiredness will not result in a significanly lower (i.e. over a standard deviation lower) score.You can expect several deviations just by changing the color of the room, and any large study always involves such, fairly predictably, based on the time of day the tests are administered over time, which some try to compensate for. Unlike some other tests, there are no mechanisms to avoid this effect.
Further, you can also expect several deviations each year the test is administered to the same individual, and not always in the same direction. The best you can get out of an IQ test is a "ballpark" figure.
>IQ tests are randomizedRandomizing the selection of numbers or patterns is not a "randomized test", and as it's an annual test, such variant randomization is meaningless to the subject, unlike the others mentioned, which randomize the type of tests. (Plus, with some IQ test kits, you're looking at 3-12 options on the same part of some tests.)
>Tracking progress defeats the entire purpose of an IQ-test, which is to gauge a person´s ability to solve problems on the spot, without preparation.No, it's to gauge specific processing deficiencies and aptitudes in short order, where a longer term test would give you a more complete and more nuanced picture. Most people have had preparation, as all variants involve tasks commonly employed in education from a young age (though the variants are there to help prevent fraud).
The old reaction tests suffered from a lot of the same issues, and were less nuanced, but all in all, much more objective. There are other tests that provide much more in-depth analysis and avoid many of these issues, but they aren't as easy to apply quickly and on large scales. IQ tests are, however, bottom of the barrel, the "quick and dirty" of intelligence tests.
Sadly, the most objective test I've ever heard of, a neurological test, can only be used on the dead.
