IQ classification has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: August 29, 2014. (Reviewed version).

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about IQ classification. PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles) The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine. Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Psychology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 180 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4.

A fact from IQ classification appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 2 October 2013. The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that "genius" has not been a term used in IQ classification since 1937? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Did you know archive/2013/October. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/IQ classification.

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect I.Q. test results and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 6#I.Q. test results until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. An anonymous username, not my real name 02:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

its missing the lower half of the average range. Looking at the source, “normal or average” should be 90-110. Not 110

Terman's Stanford–Binet original (1916) classification IQ Range ("ratio IQ") IQ Classification Above 140 "Near" genius or genius

120–140 Very superior intelligence

110–120 Superior intelligence

110 Normal, or average, intelligence

80–90 Dullness, rarely classifiable as feeble-mindedness

70–80 Border-line deficiency, sometimes classifiable as dullness, often as feeble-mindedness

Below 70 Definite feeble-mindedness 68.55.76.245 (talk) 01:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

done, Thanks. Moons of Io (talk) 01:27, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

The third paragraph states that test scores are "approximately the same" across different testing procedures and then states that the scores diverge across different tests; this is confusing! 174.180.41.129 (talk) 07:09, 11 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined.

I'm making this request because I have a conflict of interest: I'm associated with the site below, and that disclosure is noted at User:Baycanemir.

Would an uninvolved editor consider adding the following link to the article's ==External links== section?

• IQ Tests Timeline 1880-2024: 108 Tests Across 5 Eras - a free educational timeline that includes historical classification context and milestone test materials relevant to the article's "Historical IQ classification tables" coverage.

Why I think it may be useful here:

• this article already includes a dedicated section on historical IQ classification tables
• the linked page is not being proposed as a citation for article content, only as a supplementary external resource for readers
• it is educational and non-paywalled, with source notes and archive links

If this is not appropriate under the external links guideline, I understand. Thanks for considering it. Baycanemir (talk) 12:11, 22 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

 Not done. This would not be useful or compliant with WP:ELYES. Katzrockso (talk) 12:12, 22 June 2026 (UTC)Reply