IQ Metrics
IIF Certified Assessment Start IQ Test
IIF Certified Assessment

Stanford-Binet IQ Test

Scores & Scales

Stanford-Binet IQ Test (SB5): Scores, Subtests and Age Range

The Stanford-Binet IQ test (SB5) covers ages 2 to 85+ with ten subtests, a mean of 100 and SD 15. See its history, how scores and labels work, why older forms used SD 16, how it differs from the Wechsler tests and which societies accept it.

A grid of the ten Stanford-Binet subtests: five factors (fluid reasoning, knowledge, quantitative reasoning, visual-spatial processing and working memory), each measured once with nonverbal tasks and once with verbal tasks.

The Stanford-Binet IQ test, formally the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition (SB5), is an individually administered intelligence test for ages 2 to 85 and over, written by Gale Roid and published in 2003. It has ten subtests: a verbal and a nonverbal test for each of five factors (fluid reasoning, knowledge, quantitative reasoning, visual-spatial processing and working memory). Scores use a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15, so an SB5 result reads on the same scale as a Wechsler score. This guide covers the history from Binet’s 1905 scale, the ten subtests, how scores and labels work, the older standard deviation of 16 and what it does to a printed number, how the SB5 compares with the Wechsler tests, which high-IQ societies accept it, and its limits.

  • Ages: 2 to 85+ in a single battery.
  • Structure: ten subtests; Full Scale, Nonverbal, Verbal and Abbreviated Battery IQs plus five factor indexes.
  • Norms: 4,800 people, matched to US Census figures for 2000.
  • Scale: IQ mean 100, standard deviation 15 (subtests: 10 and 3). Older forms used 16.
  • Range: an Extended IQ scale supports scores below 40 and above 160, up to 225.
  • Time: about 50 minutes for all ten subtests, one to one with a trained examiner.
A grid of the ten Stanford-Binet subtests: five factors (fluid reasoning, knowledge, quantitative reasoning, visual-spatial processing and working memory), each measured once with nonverbal tasks and once with verbal tasks.
A grid of the ten Stanford-Binet subtests: five factors (fluid reasoning, knowledge, quantitative reasoning, visual-spatial processing and working memory), each measured once with nonverbal tasks and once with verbal tasks.

What is the Stanford-Binet test?

The name joins two people. Alfred Binet, a French psychologist, built the first practical intelligence scale with Théodore Simon in 1905. Lewis Terman, at Stanford University, revised it for American children in 1916, and the Stanford-Binet has been revised several times since. The current edition is the SB5. It is sold by PRO-ED as an individually administered kit at test level C, which limits it to trained examiners, and it is used in clinical, school and gifted evaluations. Our overview of professional IQ tests places it beside the Wechsler and Woodcock-Johnson families; the Woodcock-Johnson guide and the news explainers on WAIS index scores and WISC-V index scores cover the other main batteries.

A short history: from Binet to the SB5

Milestones in the Stanford-Binet family
Year Milestone
1905 Binet and Simon publish the first practical intelligence scale in France, revised in 1908 and 1911.
1912 William Stern proposes expressing intelligence as a quotient of mental age and chronological age.
1916 Terman publishes the Stanford revision of the Binet-Simon scale: the first Stanford-Binet.
1937 Terman and Merrill publish a revision in two parallel forms, L and M.
1960 A combined Form L-M brings in deviation IQ scores.
1986 The fourth edition (SB-IV), by Thorndike, Hagen and Sattler.
2003 The fifth edition (SB5), by Gale Roid, published by Riverside and now sold by PRO-ED.
Now PRO-ED’s norming-studies page lists a Sixth Edition (SB-6) for ages 3 to 90 in a normative study; that page gives no release date.

Two threads run through the table. The scoring moved from Stern’s ratio to a deviation score, a change explained in our news piece on deviation IQ versus ratio IQ and in IQ and mental age. And Terman used the test to select the children for his long-running study of the gifted: by 1928 he had 1,528 participants, found through the Stanford-Binet and school recommendations, as Stanford magazine has described. How that study is remembered, and its cut-off, is covered in our guides to an IQ of 135 and the eugenics era of IQ testing; the wider story is in the history of intelligence testing.

The ten SB5 subtests

Every one of the five factors is measured twice, once with little or no spoken response and once with language. Two routing subtests, Object Series/Matrices and Vocabulary, come first; together they form the Abbreviated Battery IQ, a quick estimate of fluid reasoning and crystallised knowledge. The tasks inside a subtest change with the examinee’s level, which is why several rows below list more than one name.

The SB5 subtests by factor
Factor Nonverbal subtest Verbal subtest
Fluid reasoning Object Series/Matrices Early Reasoning, Verbal Absurdities, Verbal Analogies
Knowledge Procedural Knowledge, Picture Absurdities Vocabulary
Quantitative reasoning Nonverbal Quantitative Reasoning Verbal Quantitative Reasoning
Visual-spatial processing Form Board and Form Patterns Position and Direction
Working memory Delayed Response, Block Span Memory for Sentences, Last Word

The five factors map onto the model that most modern batteries share; see our news piece on CHC theory. The nonverbal half is not an add-on: the Nonverbal IQ is built from the five nonverbal subtests and can be used with deaf or hard-of-hearing examinees and with people who have communication disorders, autism or a limited English-language background, according to the publisher’s scoring guide.

How SB5 scores work

The SB5 score types
Score Built from Scale
Full Scale IQ All ten subtests Mean 100, SD 15
Nonverbal IQ The five nonverbal subtests Mean 100, SD 15
Verbal IQ The five verbal subtests Mean 100, SD 15
Abbreviated Battery IQ The two routing subtests Mean 100, SD 15
Five factor indexes Verbal and nonverbal subtests for one factor Mean 100, SD 15
Subtest scaled scores One subtest Mean 10, SD 3
Extended IQ (EXIQ) Extended norms for very low and very high performance Below 40 down to 10; above 160 up to 225

The scoring software also produces change-sensitive scores and age equivalents, which help track progress over time. Scores above 160 come from the extended scale, and our news piece on why scores stop near 160 explains why any test loses precision that high.

Publishers print descriptive labels next to the numbers. The bands below are those reported for the SB5 in Kaufman (2009) and Sattler (2008); check the chart printed with your own report, because other tests draw the bands differently. The percentiles are ours, read from a normal curve with a mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15, and you can check any score with the IQ percentile calculator.

SB5 score labels with the percentile at the lower edge of each band
IQ range Label Percentile at the lower edge
145 to 160 Very gifted or highly advanced 99.9th
130 to 144 Gifted or very advanced 97.7th
120 to 129 Superior 90.9th
110 to 119 High average 74.8th
90 to 109 Average 25.3rd
80 to 89 Low average 9.1st
70 to 79 Borderline impaired or delayed 2.3rd
55 to 69 Mildly impaired or delayed 0.1st
40 to 54 Moderately impaired or delayed 0.003rd

Standard deviation 16 versus 15: what changed

The SB5 reports IQ on a scale with a standard deviation of 15, the same as the Wechsler tests. Form L-M and the fourth edition used 16. The difference does not change where a person stands, but it changes the printed number: the same performance that earns 130 on an SB5 earns 132 on the older forms. That is why American Mensa lists a qualifying score of 132 for the Stanford-Binet and 130 for the Stanford-Binet 5. A score printed under the old scale converts by z-score: subtract 100, multiply by 15 and divide by 16, then add 100.

Old standard deviation 16 scores on the SB5 scale (same standing; our arithmetic)
Score on the old SD 16 scale Same standing on SD 15 Percentile
84 85 15.9th
100 100 50th
116 115 84.1st
132 130 97.7th
148 145 99.9th
164 160 99.997th

Our news piece on standard deviation 15 versus 16 explains why one percentile carries several numbers, and the IQ score converter does the conversion for you.

How reliable and valid is the Stanford-Binet?

The publisher reports average internal-consistency reliabilities of .95 to .98 for the Full Scale, Nonverbal and Verbal IQs, .90 to .92 for the five factor indexes and .84 to .89 for the ten subtests. Validity data were gathered against the SB-IV, Form L-M, the Woodcock-Johnson III, the UNIT, the Bender-Gestalt II, the WPPSI-R, the WAIS-III, the WIAT-II and the WISC-III. High reliability still leaves a margin of error of a few points; see the margin of error in an IQ score.

An independent comparison shows what agreement between batteries looks like in practice. In 40 young people aged 10 to 16 with autism, corresponding SB5 and WISC-IV scores correlated .78 to .88, yet the Full Scale IQs still differed: most participants scored higher on the SB5, with 14% scoring more than one standard deviation higher, and verbal-nonverbal discrepancy classifications matched for only 60% (Baum and colleagues, 2015). Two good tests can agree on the broad picture and still disagree by several points.

Your own number

Where would your own score land?

Take the IIF-certified assessment and get your score with the scale it was measured on, the percentile it corresponds to and the confidence range around it — the three figures most online tests leave out.

Find your IQ score now! →

Secure & encryptedInstant results10–20 minutes

Stanford-Binet versus the Wechsler scales

Where the SB5 differs from the Wechsler batteries
Feature Stanford-Binet 5 Wechsler batteries
Ages 2 to 85+ in one instrument Separate batteries: WPPSI-IV (2:6 to 7:7), WISC-V (6 to 16), WAIS (16 to 90)
Design Five factors, each measured verbally and nonverbally Index scores by domain; a separate Nonverbal index is ancillary
Norms 4,800 people, 2000 US Census WPPSI-IV: 1,700 children, 2010 US Census
Scale SD 15 (older forms 16) SD 15
Top of the range Extended IQ scale up to 225 Composites reported to 160 (see the ceiling article)

The practical draw of the SB5 is a single instrument across the lifespan and a Nonverbal IQ that is a full scale in its own right; the practical draw of the Wechsler batteries is familiarity and, for the preschool version, newer norms. Our guide to the WPPSI-IV covers the Wechsler preschool scale in detail.

Who uses the Stanford-Binet, and for what?

The publisher describes the SB5 as useful for assessing English-language learners, deaf and hard-of-hearing examinees and autistic people, with extensive high-end items for gifted performance and improved low-end items for low functioning. Under the US disability law, the publisher notes, it provides a profile of strengths and weaknesses for children and adults with learning difficulties. Its high ceiling is why it appears in gifted testing (see gifted cutoff scores) and why several high-IQ societies accept it.

Society score requirements for the Stanford-Binet
Society and test Qualifying score
American Mensa, Stanford-Binet 5 130
American Mensa, older Stanford-Binet 132
Triple Nine Society, SB-5 146
Triple Nine Society, SB-IV 149
Triple Nine Society, Form LM (taken 1986 or earlier) 149
Triple Nine Society, Form L or M 151

Triple Nine requires a minimum age of 16 at the test date. The Mensa figures are a 98th-percentile requirement expressed on each scale, as our guides to Mensa score requirements, why the requirement is a percentile and high-IQ societies explain.

Limits worth knowing

  • Dated norms. The SB5 was normed to match the 2000 US Census, so in 2026 its norms are about 26 years old. A meta-analysis of 285 studies found the Flynn effect at about 2.9 IQ points per decade for modern Stanford-Binet and Wechsler tests (95% CI 2.3 to 3.5; Trahan and colleagues, 2014). If that drift held unchanged, a score on 2000 norms could read several points high by now, up to roughly 8 by our arithmetic. The drift has slowed in some wealthy countries (see why IQ norms expire), so treat that as an upper bound.
  • A successor is coming. PRO-ED’s norming page lists an SB-6 for ages 3 to 90, so this edition is unlikely to be the last.
  • Time and access. About 50 minutes one to one with a trained examiner; a report from a qualified professional is the only source of an SB5 score.
  • Scores are ranges. A result is best read with its margin of error and, for children, alongside the story in IQ testing for children.

Can you take the Stanford-Binet IQ test online?

No. The publisher sells the SB5 as an individually administered kit for trained examiners, and the one-to-one format, with an examiner who routes the examinee and records spoken responses, cannot be reproduced by a website. Pages that offer an “online Stanford-Binet” are not the publisher’s test, and their numbers are not SB5 scores. For a self-serve estimate use one of our IQ tests, which are screeners on the same standard-deviation-15 scale, not the SB5, and read what to check before trusting an online score.

Quick answers

  • What does the Stanford-Binet measure? Five factors: fluid reasoning, knowledge, quantitative reasoning, visual-spatial processing and working memory, each verbally and nonverbally.
  • What age range does the Stanford-Binet cover? Ages 2 to 85 and over.
  • What is a good Stanford-Binet score? 90 to 109 is the average band; 130 on the SB5 is the American Mensa requirement (132 on the older forms).
  • Is the Stanford-Binet the same as the Wechsler? No. Both use a mean of 100 and, for the SB5, a standard deviation of 15, but the batteries, subtests and norms differ.
  • Who invented the Stanford-Binet? Alfred Binet and Théodore Simon built the 1905 scale; Lewis Terman at Stanford published the American revision in 1916.
  • Is the Stanford-Binet still used? Yes. The fifth edition, published in 2003, is in current use, and a sixth edition is listed in norming.

The bottom line

The Stanford-Binet is the oldest name in intelligence testing and the SB5 remains a distinctive instrument: one battery from age 2, five factors each tested verbally and nonverbally, a Nonverbal IQ that stands on its own and an extended scale that reaches 225. Read its numbers with the scale in mind (15 on the SB5, 16 on older forms), remember that its norms date from 2000, and treat any single result as a range interpreted by a qualified examiner.

Sources

Share this article

Know someone who keeps seeing these numbers quoted without the scale they were measured on? Send it to them.

Tagged alfred binet, intelligence research, IQ Science, lewis terman, ratio iq and deviation iq, sb5, stanford binet age range, stanford binet mensa, stanford binet scores, stanford binet subtests, stanford binet test, stanford binet vs wechsler, stanford-binet 5, stanford-binet intelligence scales, stanford-binet iq test

Is Intelligence Inherited From Mother or Father?

Research & Evidence

Is Intelligence Inherited From Mother or Father? What the Evidence Shows

Is intelligence inherited from mother or father? From both. A review of 111 family studies found mothers and fathers resemble their children in IQ equally (.41 each). See where the X-chromosome claim came from, why it fails, and how much IQ parents pass on.

Two rows of 23 boxes show that each parent hands on the same 22 numbered chromosomes plus one sex chromosome. The X chromosome is about 5% of the genome and holds about 15% of known intellectual disability genes, yet mothers and fathers resemble their children in IQ equally.

Is intelligence inherited from mother or father? From both. A review of 111 family studies found that mothers’ IQ scores resembled their children’s about as closely as fathers’ did (a correlation of .41 for each), and that sons resembled their fathers as much as their mothers. The claim that intelligence comes mainly from the mother traces to a 1972 X-chromosome hypothesis, a mouse experiment and a misread breastfeeding study, and none of them shows that a normal IQ comes from one parent. This guide covers where the idea started, what the X chromosome really does, what family and DNA studies find, and how much of a child’s IQ you can predict from the parents’ scores.

  • Family data: children reared with their parents resemble mothers and fathers equally, .41 each, across 111 studies (Bouchard and McGue, 1981).
  • The X chromosome: about 5% of the genome but about 15% of the genes known to be associated with intellectual disability, which is where the myth gets its foothold.
  • DNA studies: two large analyses found 205 and 148 genome-wide loci for intelligence, many small effects; the X chromosome is often left out of such scans.
  • Real parent-of-origin effects exist (Prader-Willi and Angelman syndromes) but concern specific disorders, not everyday differences in IQ.
Two rows of 23 boxes show that each parent hands on the same 22 numbered chromosomes plus one sex chromosome. The X chromosome is about 5% of the genome and holds about 15% of known intellectual disability genes, yet mothers and fathers resemble their children in IQ equally.
Two rows of 23 boxes show that each parent hands on the same 22 numbered chromosomes plus one sex chromosome. The X chromosome is about 5% of the genome and holds about 15% of known intellectual disability genes, yet mothers and fathers resemble their children in IQ equally.

Where the claim that intelligence comes from the mother started

The idea has three separate roots, and most retellings blend them together.

  • An X-linkage hypothesis (1972). Lehrke’s paper “A theory of X-linkage of major intellectual traits”, in the American Journal of Mental Deficiency, argued that genes on the X chromosome shape intelligence. A son receives his only X from his mother, so an X-linked trait looks maternal in sons.
  • A mouse experiment (1996). Keverne and colleagues built chimeric embryos from cells carrying either a duplicated maternal genome or a duplicated paternal genome. The maternal-genome cells contributed to the cortex, striatum and hippocampus; the paternal-genome cells contributed to the hypothalamus and not the cortex. It is animal work on brain structure, and it measured no intelligence.
  • A breastfeeding study (2006), misread in 2016. In September 2016 a viral post claimed that a Glasgow study showed children’s IQs track their mothers’ within 15 points. Snopes rated the claim “Unproven”. KQED reported that Geoff Der, a co-author of the Glasgow group’s paper on breastfeeding and intelligence, said the 15-point figure could not have come from that study, which had no data on fathers’ intelligence.

The Glasgow paper (Der, Batty and Deary, BMJ, 2006) used 5,475 children of 3,161 mothers in a US national survey and asked something different: does breastfeeding raise a child’s IQ? It concluded that breastfeeding has little or no effect on intelligence once the mother’s IQ is accounted for. That is a finding about a confounder, not about mothers being the source of intelligence.

What the X chromosome really does

The X-linkage idea is not invented from nothing. The X chromosome makes up only about 5% of the human genome, yet it accounts for about 15% of the genes currently known to be associated with intellectual disability; the number of X-linked intellectual disability genes rose from 72 to 141 in the ten years to 2017 (Neri and colleagues, 2018). X-linked causes account for roughly 5 to 10% of intellectual disability in males (Lubs and colleagues, 2012). Males have a single X, so a harmful variant on it has no second copy to cover for it; Zechner and colleagues (2001) report that the incidence of mental disability is about 30% higher in males than in females. From their count of disability genes by chromosome they proposed that X-linked genes exert a large effect on general intelligence.

Two things stop that from becoming “intelligence comes from your mother”. First, a gene that causes disability when it is broken is not the same as a gene that explains differences in the normal range; those involve very many small effects, covered below. Second, X-linkage makes a testable prediction. A father passes his only X to every daughter and none to his sons, and daughters also receive an X from their mother. If normal differences in intelligence lived on the X, fathers and daughters should resemble each other more than fathers and sons do. Family data can check that.

What family studies show: mothers and fathers resemble their children equally

The largest review of IQ resemblance between relatives pooled 111 studies (Bouchard and McGue, 1981). For children reared with their parents, the weighted mean correlation between a mother’s IQ and her child’s was .41 (25 correlations, 5,660 pairs). For fathers it was also .41 (22 correlations, 5,497 pairs). The reviewers noted that same-sex and opposite-sex pairings gave equivalent averages and that the average mother-offspring correlation matched the father-offspring one.

Parent-child IQ correlations, children reared with their parents (Bouchard and McGue, 1981)
Pairing Correlations (pairs) Median r Weighted mean r
Mother and daughter 10 (1,804) .44 .43
Mother and son 12 (2,802) .37 .39
Father and daughter 10 (1,658) .46 .39
Father and son 14 (2,843) .40 .38
All mother-child pairs 25 (5,660) .38 .41
All father-child pairs 22 (5,497) .43 .41

If intelligence sat on the X, the father-son correlation would be the lowest by a wide margin, because sons get no X from their father. It is .38, against .39 for mother and son. The reviewers concluded that the absence of any demonstrable sex effect fits a polygenic account of inheritance, with no sex linkage. One caution: these children grew up with their parents, so the figures mix the genes parents pass on with the home they provide. Twin studies, which separate the two better, are covered in our news piece on twin studies and IQ heritability and our guide Is IQ genetic?.

What DNA studies show: hundreds of small effects

Genome-wide association studies scan the DNA of very large groups for variants linked to test scores. A 2018 analysis of 269,867 people found 205 genomic loci and 1,016 genes associated with intelligence (Savage and colleagues). Another, of 300,486 people, found 148 independent loci and 709 genes, and polygenic scores built from it predicted up to 4.3% of the variance in general cognitive function in independent samples (Davies and colleagues, 2018). The picture is many small effects spread across the genome, not a handful of genes on one chromosome. Our news piece on embryo screening for low IQ shows how limited such scores are for predicting one person.

The X chromosome is the caveat. It is commonly left out of these scans: a review of GWAS papers published in 2010 and 2011 found that only 33% (242 of 743) reported including it (Wise and colleagues, 2013). So what the scans can say about the X is limited. Studies that do analyse it point to a modest share: across 48 traits in 343,695 UK Biobank participants the X chromosome contributed about 3% of the autosomal heritability (Fu and colleagues, 2025), and across 20 traits its SNP-based heritability averaged 0.63% in men and 0.30% in women (Sidorenko and colleagues, 2019). Those are averages over many traits, not intelligence-specific estimates, so read them as a sense of scale: a real but small role, and nothing that makes intelligence maternal.

Genetic nurture: what parents pass on without passing on DNA

Parents shape a child through the DNA they transmit and through the environment their own genes help create. A study of 21,637 people with at least one genotyped parent found that alleles the parents did not transmit still affected the child’s educational attainment, with an effect 29.9% as large as that of the transmitted alleles (Kong and colleagues, 2018). The authors call it genetic nurture. Paternal and maternal polygenic scores had similar effects on educational attainment, while mothers contributed more than fathers to nutrition- and health-related traits.

That last point is where the mother genuinely stands out, and it is environmental, not a gene for intelligence. She carries the pregnancy: our guides to prenatal smoking and IQ, breastfeeding and IQ and premature birth and IQ cover what that does and does not change. The breastfeeding example is instructive: before adjustment it was associated with about 4 points of mental ability, and after adjusting for the mother’s IQ and other confounders the effect fell to 0.52 points and was not statistically significant (Der and colleagues, 2006). Maternal IQ, not breastfeeding, carried most of the association. See also socioeconomic status and IQ.

Your own number

Where would your own score land?

Take the IIF-certified assessment and get your score with the scale it was measured on, the percentile it corresponds to and the confidence range around it — the three figures most online tests leave out.

Find your IQ score now! →

Secure & encryptedInstant results10–20 minutes

Real parent-of-origin effects: genomic imprinting

A few genes really are switched on from only one parent’s copy, a process called genomic imprinting, and losing that copy has large effects. In Prader-Willi syndrome, most cases (about 70%) arise when a segment of the paternal chromosome 15 is deleted. In Angelman syndrome the maternal copy of the UBE3A gene is lost, leaving no active copy in most parts of the brain (MedlinePlus). Both are specific syndromes, not the ordinary variation that IQ tests measure.

The one human finding that connects imprinting to the X chromosome points the other way. In Turner syndrome a girl has a single X. A 1997 study of 80 females (55 with a maternally derived X, 25 with a paternal one) found the paternal-X group better adjusted, with superior verbal and higher-order executive-function skills, although intelligence is usually normal in Turner syndrome; the proposed locus, for social cognition, was not expressed from the maternal X (Skuse and colleagues, 1997). If anything, that favours the father’s X, and it concerns a social-cognitive trait, not IQ.

How much of a child’s IQ can you predict from the parents’?

Regression to the mean does most of the work. In the same 111-study review, a single parent’s IQ correlated .42 with a child’s and the average of both parents correlated .50; spouses correlated about .33 in that review and about .40 in a later summary (Plomin and Deary, 2015). Combining those numbers in a simple straight-line, bell-curve model gives the expectations below. The table is our arithmetic, not a study result: expected child IQ = 100 + slope × (parents’ IQ − 100), with a slope of .42 for one parent and about .61 for the average of two (the .50 correlation divided by the narrower spread of two-person averages), and a spread of 13 to 14 points around the expectation.

Expected child IQ from parental IQ (our arithmetic from the correlations above)
Parents’ IQ Expected child IQ Range for about two children in three
One parent at 130 113 99 to 126
Both parents at 130 118 105 to 131
Both parents at 115 109 96 to 122
Both parents at 100 100 87 to 113
Both parents at 85 91 78 to 104
Both parents at 70 82 69 to 95

The last column is the point. Even two parents at 130 have children who range from about 105 to about 131, and children of the same parents differ. It also explains why very high or very low scores in one generation are followed by scores nearer 100 in the next: see regression to the mean for the mechanics and assortative mating and IQ for why couples tend to match. Family studies of this kind rely on individually administered tests such as the Stanford-Binet and the Wechsler scales; our guide to the WPPSI-IV covers the preschool version.

Quick answers

  • Is intelligence inherited from the mother or the father? From both. Family studies find equal mother-child and father-child resemblance (.41 each), and most of the DNA involved sits on chromosomes both parents pass on.
  • Do sons inherit intelligence from their mothers? Not more than from their fathers: in the 111-study review the weighted mother-son and father-son correlations were .39 and .38.
  • Do children inherit intelligence from the mother only? No. Snopes rated the claim Unproven, and the X-linkage and mouse-imprinting arguments do not extend to normal IQ.
  • How much of IQ is inherited? Heritability estimates rise from about 20% in infancy to perhaps 80% in later adulthood (Plomin and Deary, 2015). It describes differences across a population, not the share of one person’s IQ that is genetic.
  • Can two bright parents guarantee a bright child? No. Expect a child somewhat closer to average, with a wide range around that expectation.
  • Does the mother matter more? Through pregnancy and the early environment she can, but not through a special intelligence gene.

The bottom line

Intelligence is inherited from both parents. The mother-only story rests on an X-chromosome hypothesis that family data do not support, a mouse study of brain structure, and a breastfeeding paper that was misquoted. The X does carry many disability genes, imprinting does exist, and mothers do shape the prenatal and early environment, but none of that makes a typical IQ maternal. For a child, the practical reading is modest: parents’ scores predict a child’s only partly, and the result regresses toward the average.

Sources

Share this article

Know someone who keeps seeing these numbers quoted without the scale they were measured on? Send it to them.

Tagged genetic nurture, genomic imprinting, heritability of intelligence, intelligence from mother or father, intelligence inherited from mother, intelligence research, iq genetics myths, IQ Science, is intelligence genetic, parent child iq correlation, polygenic scores, Regression to the Mean, twin and family studies, x chromosome intelligence, x-linked intellectual disability

Woodcock-Johnson IQ Test

Scores & Scales

Woodcock-Johnson IQ Test (WJ V): Scores and What They Mean

The Woodcock-Johnson V has 20 cognitive tests, 26 achievement tests on the same norms, and a GIA score with an SD of 15. See what each cluster measures, why the same score can carry different labels on different reports, and how it differs from the WISC-V and WAIS.

Three rows on the Woodcock-Johnson V: 20 cognitive tests and 26 achievement tests on shared norms, a norm sample of 5,837 people aged 3 to 90 and older tested in 2022 and 2023, and fully digital administration by a trained examiner.

The Woodcock-Johnson IQ test is not one test but a family. The current edition, the WJ V (published in February 2025), pairs a battery of 20 cognitive tests with 26 achievement tests, including oral language, all normed on the same people. Its IQ-style score is the General Intellectual Ability (GIA) cluster, reported as a standard score with a standard deviation of 15. It is given one to one by a trained examiner, commonly in school and clinical evaluations. This guide explains what the cognitive tests measure, how Woodcock-Johnson scores and labels work, how the WJ V differs from the WJ IV, the WISC-V and the WAIS, and the limits reviewers have flagged.

  • Ages: the WJ V measures from age 4 through 90+; the WJ IV covered ages 2 to 90+.
  • Norms: 5,837 people aged 3 to 90+, tested from February 2022 to August 2023.
  • Main IQ-style scores: GIA, the Brief Intellectual Ability (BIA) and the Gf-Gc Composite.
  • Where you cannot take it: online, on your own. It is administered by a trained examiner on the publisher’s digital platform.
Three rows on the Woodcock-Johnson V: 20 cognitive tests and 26 achievement tests on shared norms, a norm sample of 5,837 people aged 3 to 90 and older tested in 2022 and 2023, and fully digital administration by a trained examiner.
Three rows on the Woodcock-Johnson V: 20 cognitive tests and 26 achievement tests on shared norms, a norm sample of 5,837 people aged 3 to 90 and older tested in 2022 and 2023, and fully digital administration by a trained examiner.

What is the Woodcock-Johnson test?

The Woodcock-Johnson battery dates from the 1970s and has been revised several times; the fourth edition appeared in 2014 and the fifth in 2025. The WJ V assessment system comprises 60 co-normed tests across cognitive, achievement and language domains, according to Flanagan, Sotelo-Dynega and Alfonso’s 2025 overview. “Co-normed” is the key idea: the same people took the cognitive and the achievement tests, so a child’s reasoning scores and reading or maths scores can be compared against a single reference group. That is why it is a common choice in educational assessment (our overview of professional IQ tests places it beside the Wechsler and Stanford-Binet families), and how it differs from the achievement tests and IQ tests that schools use separately.

What the WJ V cognitive tests measure

The cognitive battery has 20 tests: 14 standard tests, which combine in pairs to form seven broad ability clusters, and 6 extended tests that add single-test measures. The framework is the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) model, explained in our news piece on CHC theory, and the seven broad clusters map onto it directly.

WJ V cognitive clusters at a glance
Cluster What it captures Note
General Intellectual Ability (GIA) An overall estimate of general intelligence (g) Median reliability .97
Brief Intellectual Ability (BIA) A shorter general estimate Median reliability .91
Gf-Gc Composite General ability built on reasoning and knowledge Median reliability .94
Comprehension-Knowledge (Gc) What you have learned: vocabulary and general knowledge Broad cluster
Fluid Reasoning (Gf) Solving new problems with no learned method Broad cluster
Auditory Working Memory Capacity (Gwm) Holding and using information in the moment Broad cluster
Cognitive Processing Speed (Gs) Speed on simple tasks Broad cluster
Retrieval Fluency (Gr) How fluently stored ideas and words come back New broad cluster in the WJ V
Long-Term Storage (Gl) Learning and holding new associations Broad cluster
Visual Processing (Gv) Working with shapes and spatial patterns Broad cluster

Two numbers from the publisher’s technical abstract help you judge the GIA. Its reliability is about .97, which is high for a test score. And it correlates .66 to .85 with the general-intelligence totals of other batteries, such as the WAIS-IV and WISC-V, in the validity studies described there. That is strong agreement, not identity: a child can land a few points apart on two good tests, as our note on the margin of error in an IQ score explains.

How Woodcock-Johnson scores and labels work

WJ V standard scores are standardised so that the expected standard deviation is 15, the same metric as the Wechsler scales. Reports also give percentile ranks, age and grade equivalents and a relative proficiency index, and they carry descriptive labels. The table uses the labels on Riverside’s WJ IV interpretation chart; check the chart printed with your own report if it comes from a different edition.

Woodcock-Johnson descriptive labels (WJ IV chart) with the percentile at the lower edge
Standard score Label Percentile at the lower edge
131 and above Very Superior 98th
121 to 130 Superior 92nd
111 to 120 High Average 77th
90 to 110 Average 25th
80 to 89 Low Average 9th
70 to 79 Low 2nd
69 and below Very Low below the 2nd

The percentiles are ours, read from a normal curve with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15; you can check any score with the IQ percentile calculator. One trap: other publishers draw the average band differently. This chart runs the Average label to 110, while the band on our own IQ classifications page is 90 to 109. The same 110 can be “Average” on one report and “High Average” on another, so compare numbers, not labels. The IQ score converter handles scale differences between tests.

Woodcock-Johnson versus WISC-V, WAIS and Stanford-Binet

Where the Woodcock-Johnson sits among individually administered batteries
Battery Ages What is distinctive
WJ V 4 to 90+ Cognitive, achievement and oral language tests normed together
WJ IV 2 to 90+ Predecessor: 18 cognitive tests, 7,416 people in the norm sample
WISC-V 6 to 16 The most widely used child battery; five index scores
WAIS 16 to 90 The adult Wechsler battery
WPPSI-IV 2 years 6 months to 7 years 7 months The Wechsler preschool battery
Stanford-Binet 5 2 to 85+ Very wide age span in a single instrument

The design difference that matters most is co-norming. Because the WJ V cognitive and achievement tests share norms, it offers 144 comparison procedures: intra-ability comparisons (a child’s strengths against their own average) and ability-to-achievement comparisons, on age norms or grade norms. Whether a gap between ability and achievement is required to qualify for services depends on the rules of the education system where you live, so the score is one input, not a ruling. For a child’s Wechsler report, see WISC-V index scores explained; for how the age bands compare, see IQ testing for children.

What changed from the WJ IV to the WJ V

  • More tests. 20 cognitive tests against 18. Five tests were added and three removed, including measures of Auditory Processing (Ga), according to a published test review.
  • A new cluster. Retrieval Fluency (Gr) is a new broad ability cluster.
  • A different GIA. Auditory Processing was removed from the GIA and its composition was substantially revised, so WJ IV and WJ V GIA scores are not interchangeable.
  • Fully digital. The publisher describes the WJ V as fully digital, with no physical kit; administration and scoring sit on its online platform.
  • Fresh norms. A nationally representative sample tested from February 2022 to August 2023 and aligned to 2020 US Census demographics, so the norms are post-pandemic.
  • A Virtual Test Library. Fifteen specialised tests, including phonological awareness, rapid automatized naming and memory measures used when dyslexia is being evaluated.
  • Alternate forms. Parallel second forms of 27 tests are provided, for use if a speeded test is spoiled by an interruption or when a person is retested.

Fresh norms matter more than they sound. Test norms age, and scores measured against older norms can read high, which is the subject of our news piece on why IQ norms expire.

Your own number

Where would your own score land?

Take the IIF-certified assessment and get your score with the scale it was measured on, the percentile it corresponds to and the confidence range around it — the three figures most online tests leave out.

Find your IQ score now! →

Secure & encryptedInstant results10–20 minutes

Woodcock-Johnson in dyslexia, ADHD and autism evaluations

A Woodcock-Johnson result is one part of a full evaluation and never a diagnosis. The Virtual Test Library’s phonological and rapid-naming measures are aimed at dyslexia; the working-memory and processing-speed clusters are where ADHD-related gaps tend to appear (see our ADHD and IQ guide); and for how a single composite can hide an uneven profile in autism, see autism and IQ. Our general piece on how these conditions change what an IQ test measures covers the test-day mechanisms.

Limits worth knowing

  • Young children. A published review of the WJ V cognitive battery found the evidence less convincing for children under six, and the publisher’s technical abstract says fewer test indicators are available at ages 4 to 5, so one factor analysis was not run for that group.
  • Digital only. The same review notes that some examiners may find the digital requirement limiting, while calling the battery an engaging and psychometrically sound option.
  • Not a self-test. There is no legitimate way to take the WJ V online on your own. For a self-serve estimate use one of our IQ tests, which are screeners and not the same instrument.
  • One sitting. Sleep, anxiety and effort move any score; see test anxiety and IQ scores.

Quick answers

  • Is the Woodcock-Johnson an IQ test? Its cognitive battery yields IQ-style scores (GIA, BIA and Gf-Gc), but the full system also measures achievement and oral language.
  • What is a good Woodcock-Johnson score? On the WJ IV chart, 90 to 110 is Average and 111 and above is High Average or higher; the mean is 100.
  • What is the GIA? General Intellectual Ability: the WJ V’s overall estimate of general intelligence, with a median reliability of about .97.
  • Can I take the Woodcock-Johnson online? No. It is given by a trained examiner.
  • How does it compare with the WISC-V? Both are individually administered; the Woodcock-Johnson is co-normed with achievement tests, the WISC-V is the more widely used child battery.

The bottom line

The Woodcock-Johnson V is best understood as an assessment system, not a single IQ number: 20 cognitive tests with a GIA at the top, 26 achievement tests on the same norms, fresh post-pandemic norms and a fully digital format. Read the cluster scores and the labels together, remember that labels differ between publishers, and treat the result as one part of an evaluation carried out by someone qualified to interpret it.

Sources

Share this article

Know someone who keeps seeing these numbers quoted without the scale they were measured on? Send it to them.

Tagged CHC theory, cognitive assessment, general intellectual ability, gia score, intelligence research, IQ Science, iq test labels, psychoeducational evaluation, standard scores, wj iv, wj v, woodcock johnson scores, woodcock johnson vs wisc, woodcock-johnson iq test, woodcock-johnson v

ADHD and IQ

Understanding IQ

ADHD and IQ: Does ADHD Lower IQ?

ADHD lowers average IQ scores by about 9 points across pooled studies, but the gap sits in working memory and processing speed, not reasoning, and the groups overlap heavily. See the meta-analyses, the index profile and what an IQ test cannot diagnose.

Three studies of ADHD and IQ: a 2004 meta-analysis with a gap of about 9 points, a 2006 meta-analysis of adults with a small difference, and a 2025 WISC-IV study where the gap sits in working memory and processing speed.

On average, ADHD goes with a modestly lower IQ score, but not with lower intelligence in any simple sense. A 2004 meta-analysis found people with ADHD scored about 0.61 standard deviations below healthy comparison participants on Full Scale IQ, roughly 9 points on the usual scale, while a 2006 meta-analysis of adults found a difference the authors called small and not clinically meaningful. The two groups overlap heavily, so no IQ score can diagnose ADHD or rule it out. This guide to ADHD and IQ sets out the meta-analyses, shows where in a Wechsler report the gap actually sits (working memory and processing speed, not reasoning), and explains what the CDC prevalence figures and the newest genetic work do and do not add.

This site publishes tests and explains scores; it is not a clinic, and nothing here is a diagnosis. For how ADHD changes what a test measures on the day, read how ADHD, autism and dyslexia change what an IQ test measures; for the gifted side, read high IQ and ADHD.

  • Pooled studies (2004 meta-analysis): Full Scale IQ gap of d = 0.61, about 9 points.
  • Adults (2006 meta-analysis): lower, but small and not clinically meaningful.
  • Where the gap sits: in a 2025 WISC-IV study, working memory and processing speed, not verbal or perceptual reasoning.
  • How common: 11.4% of US children aged 3 to 17 had ever been diagnosed by 2022.
Three studies of ADHD and IQ: a 2004 meta-analysis with a gap of about 9 points, a 2006 meta-analysis of adults with a small difference, and a 2025 WISC-IV study where the gap sits in working memory and processing speed.
Three studies of ADHD and IQ: a 2004 meta-analysis with a gap of about 9 points, a 2006 meta-analysis of adults with a small difference, and a 2025 WISC-IV study where the gap sits in working memory and processing speed.

Does ADHD lower IQ? What the meta-analyses found

Two large reviews answer the average-difference question. Frazier, Demaree and Youngstrom (2004, Neuropsychology) pooled studies comparing people with ADHD and healthy participants and found a weighted effect size of d = 0.61 on Full Scale IQ between ADHD and healthy participants. On the usual scale, with a standard deviation of 15, that is about nine points. They also found the IQ gap was comparable to the gap on most other intellectual and neuropsychological measures, and smaller than the gaps on spelling and arithmetic achievement tests. Their reading: overall cognitive ability is significantly lower among people with ADHD, and Full Scale IQ shows as large a difference as most other measures.

For adults, Bridgett and Walker (2006, Psychological Assessment) analysed 18 studies covering 1,031 adults with ADHD and 928 comparison adults, all with Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale Full Scale IQ scores or estimates. Adults with ADHD scored lower, but the difference was small and not clinically meaningful. The moderators suggested that only a subset, for example people with comorbid disorders, may have lower general intellectual ability than comparison adults.

ADHD and Full Scale IQ: two meta-analyses
Study Who Result
Frazier et al. 2004 People with ADHD versus healthy participants, studies pooled Weighted d = 0.61, about 9 points on an SD-15 scale
Bridgett and Walker 2006 18 studies: 1,031 adults with ADHD, 928 comparison adults Lower, but small and not clinically meaningful

What does d = 0.61 mean for one person? If both groups are roughly bell-shaped, the two score distributions overlap by about three quarters, and a randomly chosen person without ADHD outscores a randomly chosen person with ADHD about two times in three — so in roughly one pairing in three, the person with ADHD scores higher. (Those figures are our calculation from the effect size under normal-distribution assumptions, not results from the paper.) If the comparison group averages 100, the ADHD average lands near 91, inside the average band, which is why IQ classifications cannot sort people by diagnosis.

Where the gap sits: working memory and processing speed

A Wechsler report breaks the composite into indexes, and the ADHD gap is not spread evenly. A 2025 study in Behavioral Sciences compared 363 children and adolescents with ADHD with 356 controls on the WISC-IV. Working memory averaged 89.9 in the ADHD group against 101.6 in controls (d = 0.85), and processing speed 94.7 against 103.1 (d = 0.63). The Cognitive Proficiency Index, which combines those two, was 90.5 against 102.2 (d = 0.91).

On the reasoning-heavy indexes the ADHD group did not score lower. Perceptual reasoning averaged 105.4 against 102.3, the General Ability Index 107.0 against 103.4, and the Full Scale IQ gap was only about three points (99.9 against 103.0). The authors also report that the working-memory, processing-speed and proficiency gaps were stable across age groups and more pronounced in males.

WISC-IV index means, ADHD group versus controls (2025 study)
Index ADHD group Controls Effect size (d)
Working Memory Index 89.9 101.6 0.85
Processing Speed Index 94.7 103.1 0.63
Cognitive Proficiency Index 90.5 102.2 0.91
Perceptual Reasoning Index 105.4 102.3 0.22 (ADHD higher)
General Ability Index 107.0 103.4 0.25 (ADHD higher)
Full Scale IQ 99.9 103.0 0.23

The pattern is the one usually described for ADHD: a composite that can look ordinary while one or two indexes sit well below the rest. It also shows why the size of an ADHD “IQ gap” depends on the sample: about nine points in the 2004 pooled data, about three in this clinic sample. Our explainers on processing speed and IQ, working memory versus reasoning and full-scale IQ versus index scores show how to read those indexes.

Is it ADHD, or is it the test?

Both readings have support. Some of the gap reflects the abilities that working-memory and speed tasks measure; some reflects how attention behaves during a long, timed, repetitive test. Our companion article separates time pressure, sustained-attention drift and working-memory load. What this article adds is the size of the effect: real on average, modest in most samples, and concentrated where attention and speed carry the most weight.

Genetics adds a related hint. The largest ADHD genome-wide study, by Demontis and colleagues (Nature Genetics, 2023; 38,691 people with ADHD, 186,843 controls and 27 risk loci), found a genetic correlation of −0.55 between ADHD and educational attainment. That means many of the common variants that raise ADHD risk are linked to fewer years of schooling. It is not an IQ figure, and educational attainment reflects motivation, opportunity and behaviour as well as ability. A genetic correlation shows overlap, not direction: it does not say whether ADHD lowers test performance, whether lower ability raises ADHD risk, or whether shared influences drive both. For the wider genetics question, see is IQ genetic?.

How common is ADHD, and can an IQ test diagnose it?

In 2022, 11.4% of US children aged 3 to 17 (7.1 million) had ever been diagnosed with ADHD by a health care provider, according to parent report in the CDC’s analysis of the National Survey of Children’s Health, and 10.5% (6.5 million) currently had it. IQ is not part of the diagnosis, which rests on symptom criteria, history across settings and ruling out other explanations. Because the score distributions overlap by about three quarters, no cut-off separates people with ADHD from those without: an IQ test cannot diagnose ADHD. It can only describe strengths and weaknesses once ADHD is being evaluated.

Your own number

Where would your own score land?

Take the IIF-certified assessment and get your score with the scale it was measured on, the percentile it corresponds to and the confidence range around it — the three figures most online tests leave out.

Find your IQ score now! →

Secure & encryptedInstant results10–20 minutes

Reading an ADHD evaluation: GAI and CPI

Wechsler reports offer two composites that split the profile. The General Ability Index (GAI) combines verbal comprehension and perceptual reasoning; the Cognitive Proficiency Index (CPI) combines working memory and processing speed. In the 2025 study the two pointed in opposite directions for the ADHD group (GAI 107.0, CPI 90.5). A large gap between them is a reason to read the profile, not to distrust the person, and it does not mean that the higher composite is the “real” IQ. Start with how to read an IQ test report, and see the WISC-V index-score explainer.

Which test was used also matters. The Woodcock-Johnson batteries report working-memory and processing-speed clusters separately from the general-ability composite; our Woodcock-Johnson IQ test guide explains that structure, and our guide to autism and IQ shows a different pattern in a different condition.

Quick answers

  • What is the average IQ of someone with ADHD? There is no separate ADHD average. Pooled studies put the gap at about 9 points below healthy comparison groups, and the adult-only meta-analysis shows a small difference.
  • Does ADHD lower IQ? It lowers average scores modestly, mostly through working memory and processing speed, and the groups overlap heavily.
  • Can you have ADHD and a high IQ? Yes. See high IQ and ADHD.
  • Can an IQ test diagnose ADHD? No. Diagnosis rests on symptoms and history, not on a score.
  • Is ADHD linked to low intelligence? Not in a simple way: the adult gap is small and, in the 2025 child and adolescent sample, the gap was concentrated in specific indexes.

The bottom line

ADHD lowers average IQ scores a little, mostly where attention and speed are being measured, and left reasoning-heavy indexes intact in the 2025 sample. That is a statement about groups. For any one person, an ADHD evaluation should read the index profile, not the composite alone, and the label says nothing about how high a person’s ceiling is. If you are looking at a score from a test taken with ADHD, start with the index scores.

Sources

Share this article

Know someone who keeps seeing these numbers quoted without the scale they were measured on? Send it to them.

Tagged adhd and iq, adhd intelligence, adhd iq score, adhd meta-analysis, adhd prevalence, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, average iq adhd, cognitive proficiency index, does adhd lower iq, general ability index, intelligence research, IQ Science, processing speed index, twice exceptional, wisc-iv, working memory index

Autism and IQ

Understanding IQ

Autism and IQ: What the Scores Show and What They Miss

About 40% of 8-year-olds with autism and an IQ score on record had an IQ of 70 or below, and 36% scored above 85. See the CDC figures and their caveats, the Raven’s gap of 30 percentile points, and what an IQ number cannot tell you.

Stacked bar of CDC 2022 data for 8-year-olds with autism and an IQ score on record: 39.6 percent with IQ 70 or below, 24.2 percent with IQ 71 to 85 and 36.1 percent above 85, with IQ on record for 61.4 percent of children.

There is no single IQ for autism. In the CDC’s 2022 surveillance of 8-year-olds, among children with autism and an IQ score on record, 39.6% had an intellectual disability (IQ 70 or below), 24.2% were in the borderline range (71–85) and 36.1% scored above 85. So autism and IQ are related but separate: autism is defined by differences in social communication and by restricted, repetitive behaviour, not by a score, and autistic people are found at every level of measured ability. This article gives the current CDC figures with their caveats, shows how the choice of test can move a score by 30 percentile points, and says what an IQ number does and does not tell you about a person.

A note on scope: this site publishes tests and explains scores. It has no clinical standing, and nothing here is a diagnosis or medical advice.

  • Prevalence, age 8, 2022: 32.2 per 1,000 children (1 in 31) across 16 US sites, 3.4 times as common in boys as in girls.
  • Cognitive data on record: for 61.4% of the 8-year-olds with autism (5,292 of 8,613); the percentages in this article describe that group.
  • Intellectual disability share: 39.6%, but from 24.8% at one site to 80.0% at another.
Stacked bar of CDC 2022 data for 8-year-olds with autism and an IQ score on record: 39.6 percent with IQ 70 or below, 24.2 percent with IQ 71 to 85 and 36.1 percent above 85, with IQ on record for 61.4 percent of children.
Stacked bar of CDC 2022 data for 8-year-olds with autism and an IQ score on record: 39.6 percent with IQ 70 or below, 24.2 percent with IQ 71 to 85 and 36.1 percent above 85, with IQ on record for 61.4 percent of children.

What is the average IQ of an autistic person?

There is no single average worth quoting, because the answer depends on who was tested, with which test and at what age. What the CDC data show is the spread. The table gives the split for children aged 8 with autism and a most-recent IQ score on record across the 16 surveillance sites in 2022.

Autism and IQ: children aged 8 with an IQ score on record (CDC, 2022)
IQ band Share of children Label used in the report
70 or below 39.6% Intellectual disability
71 to 85 24.2% Borderline range
Above 85 36.1% Average or higher

In the report, intellectual disability means an IQ of 70 or below, or an examiner’s statement of intellectual disability, on the child’s most recent IQ test. (Intellectual disability is the term used in the United States; the UK says learning disability.) Two caveats matter. First, data on cognitive ability were available for only 61.4% of children with autism (5,292 of 8,613), from 21.3% at one site to 90.2% at another, so the percentages describe the tested children, who may differ from the untested ones. Second, the share with intellectual disability ranged from 24.8% at one site to 80.0% at another. The report notes that sites differ in where children are identified, how often cognitive and IQ testing is done and how autism is diagnosed, so the spread reflects practice as well as children.

Girls and boys with autism had similar shares of intellectual disability (40.4% and 39.5%). By race and ethnicity the share was 52.8% for Black children and 32.7% for White children. The CDC authors say such differences could be related to social determinants of health, such as low income, housing and food insecurity and transportation barriers, and they list lead poisoning among causes of intellectual disability tied to those conditions (see our piece on lead exposure and IQ).

Who gets identified has changed

A study of CDC surveillance data from 2000 to 2016 (Furnier and colleagues, Autism Research) shows what shifted. Among 8-year-olds, the prevalence of autism with mild, borderline or no significant adaptive challenges rose from 5.1 to 17.6 per 1,000, while autism with moderate to profound challenges dipped slightly, from 1.5 to 1.2 per 1,000. The rise was larger for autism without a co-occurring intellectual disability than with one. The authors read the pattern as improved identification of milder forms of autism, and note that better access to therapies that improve intellectual and adaptive functioning may also have contributed.

In other words, the growth in the headline autism rate has come mostly from children who are easier to miss. That is why a statement such as “most autistic people have an intellectual disability” does not match the current CDC figures (39.6% of tested children). Diagnosis timing follows the same logic: in the 2022 data, children with autism and intellectual disability were identified earlier (median 43 months) than those without (49 months).

Does autism lower IQ? The test matters

It depends on the test, and one study made that vivid. In 2007 Michelle Dawson, Isabelle Soulières, Morton Ann Gernsbacher and Laurent Mottron (Psychological Science) gave 38 autistic children Raven’s Progressive Matrices, a test of fluid reasoning that needs no spoken answers. Their scores were on average 30 percentile points higher, and in some cases more than 70 percentile points higher, than their scores on the Wechsler scales of intelligence. Typically developing control children showed no such gap, and a similar contrast appeared when autistic adults were compared with non-autistic adults. The authors concluded that intelligence has been underestimated in autistic people.

Treat that as a signal, not a rule. It is one study of 38 children, and we would not assume the same gap for every autistic person. What it shows is that the same child can land in different places on two respected tests, because a Wechsler battery includes verbal subtests that need spoken answers while matrices do not. Our explainer on Raven’s Progressive Matrices scores and our comparison of verbal and non-verbal IQ scores show how to read a split like that, and the culture-fair IQ test is built from figures rather than sentences.

Why one IQ number hides so much

A Full Scale IQ averages several indexes, and autistic profiles are often uneven, with verbal and non-verbal scores diverging in either direction. Our companion piece on how ADHD, autism and dyslexia change what an IQ test measures covers the mechanisms (instructions read literally, unfamiliar rooms, timed items). Here the point is arithmetic: a composite of 100 can be a flat line or a 30-point gap between indexes. Ask for the index scores, not only the composite, and read how to read an IQ test report and the WISC-V index-score explainer.

Savant syndrome, the rare pairing of exceptional skill with wider difficulties, is a different question again; it is covered in savant syndrome and IQ tests.

Your own number

Where would your own score land?

Take the IIF-certified assessment and get your score with the scale it was measured on, the percentile it corresponds to and the confidence range around it — the three figures most online tests leave out.

Find your IQ score now! →

Secure & encryptedInstant results10–20 minutes

IQ is not the same as how a person functions day to day

Surveillance studies now use adaptive behaviour — everyday skills such as communicating, self-care and getting around — alongside IQ, because adaptive scores carry information about support needs that an IQ score alone does not (Furnier and colleagues make this point). A person with an IQ in the average range can need substantial support, and a person with an IQ near 70 can live with considerable independence. That is why 70 is a cut-off used with other evidence and not a verdict; see what an IQ of 70 means and our piece on low IQ versus learning disability.

Can an online IQ test tell you anything about autism?

No. An IQ score cannot diagnose or rule out autism, and least of all one from an unproctored online test. Autism is identified through developmental history and structured observation by a qualified clinician, and IQ testing is used alongside that to understand strengths and support needs. If you do take an online test, choose the format that removes the obstacle you know about: an untimed classical test if the clock is the problem, or a culture-fair test if reading load is. Neither is a formal accommodation.

Quick answers

  • Do all autistic people have a low IQ? No. In the 2022 CDC data, 36.1% of tested 8-year-olds with autism scored above 85.
  • What percentage of autistic people have an intellectual disability? 39.6% of the tested 8-year-olds in the CDC 2022 surveillance, with wide variation between sites.
  • Can autism and a high IQ go together? Yes. Autism is not defined by IQ. The twice-exceptional idea is explained in high IQ and ADHD.
  • Is IQ used to diagnose autism? No. Diagnosis rests on behaviour and development; IQ testing helps describe strengths and needs.
  • Does autism affect IQ scores? The test matters: in one study, 38 autistic children scored about 30 percentile points higher on Raven’s than on Wechsler tests.

The bottom line

Autism and IQ overlap without being the same thing. The best recent numbers say that among tested 8-year-olds with autism roughly four in ten have an intellectual disability, roughly a quarter are borderline and a bit over a third score above 85, and that the mix has been changing as milder cases are found. Which test you use can move a score a long way, and no score describes how a person lives. For a condition with a very different intellectual profile, read Down syndrome and IQ; for a condition where the gap sits in specific indexes, read our ADHD and IQ guide.

Sources

Share this article

Know someone who keeps seeing these numbers quoted without the scale they were measured on? Send it to them.

Tagged adaptive behavior, autism and iq, autism intellectual disability, autism iq, autism spectrum disorder, average iq of autistic people, cdc autism prevalence, does autism affect iq, intelligence research, iq and autism statistics, IQ Science, neurodevelopmental conditions, nonverbal intelligence, ravens progressive matrices, wechsler scales