Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

2 results

  • 4 - How Is Wisdom Measured?

  • Robert J. Sternberg, Cornell University, New York, Judith Glück
  • Book:
    Wisdom
    Published online:
    07 October 2021
    Print publication:
    28 October 2021, pp 83-99

  • Summary

    This chapter reviews the methods that psychologists have devised for measuring wisdom. There are two classical types of measures: self-report scales, where people rate themselves with respect to characteristics of wisdom, and performance measures, where people respond to descriptions of problems that require wisdom. Both types of measures have their problems. Self-report wisdom scales are susceptible to both unintentional distortions, if participants have inaccurate views of themselves, and intentional distortions, if participants want to present themselves as wiser than they are. Performance measures require a lot of effort for administration and scoring, and they measure what participants theoretically think about a problem, which is not necessarily what they would do if they were faced with that problem in real life. New approaches have tried to move the measurement of wisdom closer to real life. Some researchers ask people about difficult events from their own life. Other researchers use videos instead of real-life conflicts and written problem descriptions. There is still a lot of room for improvement of our wisdom measures.

  • Naturalistic Action Performance Distinguishes Amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment from Healthy Aging

  • David A. Gold, Norman W. Park, Kelly J. Murphy, Angela K. Troyer
  • Journal:
    Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society / Volume 21 / Issue 6 / July 2015
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    06 July 2015, pp. 419-428

  • Individuals with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI) show minor decrements in their instrumental activities of daily living (IADL). Sensitive measures of IADL performance are needed to capture the mild difficulties observed in aMCI groups. Routine naturalistic actions (NAs) are familiar IADL-type activities that require individuals to enact everyday tasks such as preparing coffee. In the current study we examined the extent to which NAs could be used to help facilitate differential diagnosis of aMCI relative to composite measures of episodic memory, semantic knowledge, and executive function. Healthy older adults (n=24) and individuals with aMCI (n=24) enacted two highly familiar NAs and completed tests of episodic memory, semantic knowledge, and executive function. Binary logistic regression was used to predict group membership (aMCI vs. control participants). The regression analyses indicated that NA performance could reliably predict group membership, over and above measures of cognitive functioning. These findings indicated that NA performance can be used to help facilitate differential diagnosis of healthy aging and aMCI and used as an outcome measure in intervention studies. (JINS, 2015, 21, 419–428)