Is multiple intelligences theory valid? Gardner’s 8 intelligences and MI tests

Multiple intelligences theory was first set out by Howard Gardner in his 1983 book Frames of Mind. It criticises the standard view that there is a single intelligence, adequately measured by IQ or other short-answer tests, and claims instead that human beings have a number of relatively discrete intellectual capacities (MI Oasis, n.d.-a). Gardner compares them to several relatively independent computers: strength in one does not predict strength or weakness in the others (Gardner, n.d.).

Basing his case in significant measure on studies of the effects of brain damage, Gardner argued that human beings have at least seven forms of cognition: linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal and intrapersonal. The only intelligence he says he has confirmed since is a naturalist intelligence (Gardner, 2025), which is why people usually speak of “eight intelligences”. Naturalist intelligence is the ability to make consequential distinctions in nature, such as between one plant or cloud formation and another; interpersonal intelligence is the ability to interact effectively with others and sense their moods, feelings, temperaments and motivations (it is sometimes called social intelligence); intrapersonal intelligence is sensitivity to one’s own feelings, goals and anxieties and the capacity to plan and act in light of one’s own traits (MI Oasis, n.d.-b).

For an ability to count as an intelligence, Gardner says it has to meet the eight criteria laid out in chapter 4 of Frames of Mind (Gardner, n.d.): identifiable brain systems, an evolutionary history, a core set of operations, meaning encoded in a symbol system, a distinct developmental history, savants, prodigies and other exceptional people, evidence from experimental psychology, and psychometric findings (Shearer, 2018). Gardner has also speculated about an existential intelligence, the intelligence of “big questions”, and a pedagogical intelligence for passing knowledge or skills on to others (Gardner, n.d.), but he says he no longer decides rigorously whether a candidate counts, so their case remains in limbo, and he does not believe there is a spiritual intelligence (Gardner, 2020). He has estimated that human beings have 7 to 10 distinct intelligences (Gardner, 2013).

This guide sets out how research has examined these claims and how to read the multiple intelligences tests people may come across at school or in counselling. What follows is research on the theory, not a way to judge any one person’s abilities. mind.io has no multiple intelligences test.

Gardner says MI is not an experimental theory: no experiment, or even a sheaf of experiments, can prove it right or wrong (Gardner, 2026). His official site describes it as a synthesis of studies from psychology, brain science, anthropology, genetics and other fields (MI Oasis, n.d.-c), and Gardner acknowledges that people working in standard psychometrics are almost always critical of it (Gardner, n.d.). In 2006 the debate played out in one journal. A critical review of multiple intelligences, the Mozart effect and emotional intelligence argued that, despite their wide currency in education, these theories lack adequate empirical support and should not be the basis for educational practice (Waterhouse, 2006a); Gardner and Moran replied that the critic misunderstands and oversimplifies MI theory (Gardner & Moran, 2006); and the critic answered that their reply offered no validating evidence for multiple intelligences (Waterhouse, 2006b). All three were read as abstracts.

Whether the intelligences really work separately can be checked with ability tests. In a study that gave 200 participants two tests for each of the eight areas, all the tests of purely cognitive abilities correlated significantly with a measure of general cognitive ability, whereas the musical and bodily-kinesthetic measures and one of the intrapersonal measures did not. Contrary to what the theory would seem to predict, the tests correlated positively with one another and a factor analysis showed a large general intelligence factor (Visser, 2005). This result was read in the master’s thesis abstract. In the 2006 paper that analysed 200 people’s scores on the eight intelligences, the authors wrote that the results contradict Gardner’s assertion that there are at least eight independent intelligence domains (Visser et al., 2006, as cited in Waterhouse, 2023).

Gardner objected that the intelligences correlated only because the measures relied on two of them, linguistic and logical-mathematical intelligence; the authors replied that the correlations depended on how individual differences in task performance go together, not on whether an item used language or reasoning. Both arguments are known here only from a critic’s summary (Waterhouse, 2023).

Studies of children point the same way. When 294 children aged 5 to 7 took a traditional intelligence battery and a battery of multiple intelligence tasks, there was no common general factor across both batteries; instead two general factors appeared, each gathering one battery’s tests, with a moderate correlation between them. The MI tasks went together as one general factor of their own, and the authors saw the results as a challenge to Gardner’s original refusal of a general factor of intelligence (Almeida et al., 2010). This study was read as an abstract. Another study of Project Spectrum activities found that no model fitted the data fully, and the best-fitting one had intercorrelated intelligences along with some individuation (Castejón et al., 2010, as cited in Waterhouse, 2023).

Not a direct test of Gardner’s theory, but a meta-analysis comparing people-centred with thing-centred abilities sums up early intelligence research in its introduction: correlations near zero would have argued for independent, multiple intelligences, whereas the average correlations were closer to .30 to .50. Corrected for unreliability, the correlations the meta-analysis itself pooled from 87 studies with 2,322 effect sizes were .43 among people-centred abilities such as personal, emotional and social intelligence, .74 among thing-centred abilities such as visuospatial and quantitative knowledge, and .29 between the two groups. In the model of intelligence the study builds on, general intelligence (g) sits at the top with broad abilities beneath it (Bryan & Mayer, 2021). Abilities are neither one single thing nor fully separate. For what general intelligence is, see the IQ test guide.

Gardner does not deny that general intelligence (g) exists. His official site says MI theory questions not the existence but the province and explanatory power of g, and that because g denotes the overlap among different tests, its power depends on which tests are included (MI Oasis, n.d.-c). In Gardner’s view, IQ tests assess linguistic and logical-mathematical intelligence, sometimes spatial intelligence too, and are a reasonably good predictor of who will do well in a 20th-century (not necessarily a 21st-century) secular school (MI Oasis, n.d.-a).

The possibility of losing one ability on its own after brain damage is one of the eight criteria Gardner set for an intelligence (Rousseau, 2021). In 2017 Shearer, who developed an MI test, and Karanian reviewed 318 studies of brain regions, reported that the functions of brain regions aligned with those proposed for each of the eight intelligences, and called this “robust evidence” that each intelligence has its own unique neural architecture (Shearer & Karanian, 2017, as cited in Waterhouse, 2023). Shearer declares an interest as the creator and publisher of the MIDAS, an MI test (Shearer, 2018).

A critic points out that such alignment studies do not measure the brain while people are engaged in activities that characterise a particular intelligence, so they are not true validity studies and cannot show that the intelligences have dedicated neural networks. The critic adds that the selection of the 318 studies was not adequately described, and that the eight regions listed for linguistic intelligence alone comprise nearly the entire brain. Most important, in the critic’s view, no researcher has directly looked for a brain basis for the intelligences (Waterhouse, 2023).

In a 2025 post that presents new neuroscience as evidence for MI, Gardner wrote that important tasks are not necessarily associated with specific neural substrates, and that cortical systems can carry out abstract computations that apply across disparate domains of knowledge (Gardner, 2025). The critic argues that it is time for MI theory to be rejected and for educators to turn to evidence-based teaching (Waterhouse, 2023), while another commentary still regards it as a plausible, legitimate scientific theory and locates the neuromyth in the claim that matching teaching to a pupil’s intelligence profile promotes learning (Rousseau, 2021). In short, there is as yet no direct brain evidence for multiple intelligences, and views differ on what that means for the theory as a whole.

Asked whether there is a test for multiple intelligences, Gardner answers: “Not one that I endorse”. One reason he moved away from creating such measures is that they may lead to new forms of labelling and stigmatisation; the intelligences, he says, should help people learn important content, not be used to categorise them. Tests such as Shearer’s MIDAS, which he calls probably the best known, typically give a rough-and-ready sense of people’s interests and preferences; they do not actually measure strengths, which would take performance tasks of musical, spatial or interpersonal ability (Gardner, n.d.).

Self-report tests assume that the person has good intrapersonal intelligence, that is, knows themselves well, but Gardner notes that many of us think we know ourselves better than we really do. Liking to use an intelligence is also not the same as being strong in it: someone might love music yet have only mediocre musical intelligence (Gardner, n.d.). Not about MI tests specifically, but in a meta-analysis of 154 effect sizes from 41 studies, self-estimated and measured cognitive ability correlated r = .33 (Freund & Kasten, 2012). Among 200 participants who rated themselves on each of the eight intelligences and took two performance tests of each, most tended to overestimate their ability in most domains, and their self-estimates were generally only modestly related to their measured levels of the same ability and tended to be about as strongly related to personality (Visser et al., 2008). Both studies were read as abstracts.

The MIDAS is presented by its developer as a research-based self-report measure of “intellectual disposition”. The developer has described applying it in career counselling (Shearer & Luzzo, 2009) and, comparing 82 students in a career exploration course at a large US university with typical students, reported low intrapersonal intelligence scores as a significant characteristic of students with moderate and high career confusion (Shearer, 2009). Both papers were read as abstracts. Gardner adds that Shearer has begun to accumulate evidence that MIDAS performance correlates with abilities in certain areas as determined by other indexes, which suggests some validity (Gardner, n.d.). All of this evidence is the developer’s own work, and the developer describes this validation work as showing “promise” (Shearer, 2018). While writing this guide we could not find MIDAS reliability or test-retest figures.

In Korea, a Korean diagnostic scale of multiple intelligences with five versions, from kindergarten to high school, was validated. To avoid problems with Shearer’s test and follow Gardner’s suggestions, it mixes multiple-choice items on achievement, true-or-false items on ability and self-report Likert items on ability and interest, and it sampled 5,585 people by age, sex and region. The authors reported that the correlations between sub-scales supported the assumption that the intelligences are independent and that MI was broadly related to the career track chosen, but noted as a limitation that the test had too few items for a factor analysis or for correlating the different item formats (Moon & Yoo, 2009). A review of 29 Korean studies developing MI measures found that most tools for young children aimed to measure achievement and that observation was the most common assessment method (Kim et al., 2013). A self-report test for university students, given as 102 items to 513 students, had reliabilities of .758 to .885, and when 61 of them also took another adult MI test, the two correlated highly in seven areas, all except spatial intelligence (Tae et al., 2024). That compares the test with another MI test, not with ability measured by performance tasks. All three studies were read as abstracts.

So it is best to read an MI test result lightly, as a summary of the areas you enjoy and feel confident in. Gardner says we can only learn about a person’s intelligences by actually measuring how well they perform on tasks that draw on them (Gardner, n.d.), and that multiple-choice tests cannot tap the different intelligences effectively. Especially when people are young, their intelligences are quite changeable, and a game may show what a child likes but not necessarily what the child does well (Gardner, 2020).

Gardner wrote that one unanticipated consequence of his theory drove him to distraction: the tendency of many people to credit him with the notion of “learning styles” or to collapse multiple intelligences with learning styles (Gardner, 2013). In his account, style and intelligence are fundamentally different psychological constructs. A style is the customary way someone approaches a range of materials, for example playfully or with a plan (Gardner, n.d.), and his official site states plainly that an intelligence is not a style (MI Oasis, n.d.-c). He objected strenuously to talk of “visual” intelligence or “visual” learners, which in his view confuses intelligences with sensory systems (Gardner, 2025).

What research questions is the matching claim: that tailoring teaching to each pupil’s intelligence profile promotes learning. One commentary explains that this claim is considered a neuromyth because there is no compelling evidence for it, mainly because measures of MI profiles are unsatisfactory, and that MI theory implies only two non-prescriptive teaching practices, individualising and pluralising (Rousseau, 2021). The official site describes pluralisation as teaching ideas, concepts, theories and skills in several different ways (MI Oasis, n.d.-a). The point is to explain things to everyone in several ways, not to sort pupils into types.

The experiments that tested whether teaching matched to learning styles actually improves learning are covered in the learning styles guide.

Three meta-analyses of MI-based teaching, including the 2021 review below, all reported many studies with positive results (Waterhouse, 2023). A meta-analysis of experimental studies carried out in Turkey, built on 75 postgraduate theses and dissertations, reported a large effect on academic achievement (d = 1.077) (Baş, 2016), and another meta-analysis selected 63 studies (Batdı, 2017). Both were read as abstracts.

The 2021 systematic review and meta-analysis, which admitted only studies with a pre-post design and a control group, looked at the quality of the studies. Its 39 articles, with data from 3,009 students from preschool to high school in 14 countries, had important methodological flaws such as small samples or no active control group (a comparison group doing another activity), reported too little about key elements such as the outcome measures or the activities used, and showed signs of publication or reporting bias, all of which impeded a valid evaluation of MI teaching in the classroom. As the paper’s title puts it, a valid evaluation of the theory of multiple intelligences is not yet possible (Ferrero et al., 2021). This study, too, was read as an abstract. The large effect above should be read with these limits in mind, and none of this shows that MI teaching does harm: its effect simply cannot be judged yet.

The idea of teaching to multiple intelligences is widespread among teachers. A commentary that brings together surveys of educators’ neuromyth beliefs with an MI item (Rousseau, 2021) shows that 68% of 972 in-service teachers in Quebec somewhat or strongly agreed that “students have a predominant intelligence profile, for example logico-mathematical, musical, or interpersonal, which must be considered in teaching” (Blanchette Sarrasin et al., 2019); that among 253 in-service teachers in Canada and the US, 24.9% correctly answered “true” to the statement that basing instructional strategies on multiple intelligences is not supported by research (Craig et al., 2021); and that 90% of 129 pre-service special education teachers in the US would probably or definitely use teaching to multiple intelligences (Ruhaak & Cook, 2018). These three figures were read in that commentary. Among 200 education professionals in Luxembourg, 71.5% answered wrongly on an item saying that the theory of multiple intelligences must be considered in identifying giftedness (Schmitt et al., 2023). The items and samples differ, so the figures cannot be compared directly. Since the idea is common among teachers and education professionals, there is nothing to be embarrassed about if you believed it.

None of this makes the theory useless. Gardner sums up his contribution as opening people’s eyes to the strong likelihood that the usual definitions and measures of intelligence are too narrow (Gardner, 2020), and says that no scientific theory can be translated directly into educational practice, because education is suffused with values (Gardner, n.d.). Pluralisation, explaining important ideas in several ways, is something teachers can do without sorting pupils into types (MI Oasis, n.d.-a).

Myth 1: An MI test can tell you your career or aptitude. The official site says that knowledge of one’s intelligences does not dictate life trajectory, that career choices should not be predicted from someone’s intelligences, and that inferring intelligences from fingerprints is unfounded (MI Oasis, n.d.-c). Self-report tests are closer to interests and preferences (Gardner, n.d.), and the link with career track reported for the Korean test was an association with the career track chosen at the time of the survey, not a prediction of future careers (Moon & Yoo, 2009). How interest tests and strengths tests differ is covered in RIASEC and strengths tests compared.

Myth 2: Find a child’s strongest intelligence and develop only that. Gardner says the intelligences should not be used to categorise people, and that anyone can strengthen an intelligence if well motivated, if the surrounding culture values it and if there are ample human and material resources, such as texts and computer programs, to draw on (Gardner, n.d.). Especially when people are young, their intelligences are quite changeable (Gardner, 2020). One reason Gardner was reluctant to create tests, a commentary notes, was not wanting a new kind of strait jacket that marks a child as good at music but poor at space (Rousseau, 2021).

Myth 3: IQ is wrong because it measures only one thing. In a meta-analysis of 87 studies, too, different abilities correlated positively, and that study places general intelligence (g) at the top with broad abilities beneath it (Bryan & Mayer, 2021). Gardner himself questions not the existence of g but its province and explanatory power (MI Oasis, n.d.-c). MI and IQ are less a case of one being right and the other wrong than two views on how broadly to define intelligence.

Myth 4: Brain science has confirmed multiple intelligences. The review of brain studies was co-written by a test developer (Shearer, 2018), and a critic points out that it did not measure the brain while people used an intelligence, so it cannot serve as a validity study, and that no researcher has directly looked for a brain basis for the intelligences (Waterhouse, 2023). Gardner also wrote in 2025 that important tasks are not necessarily associated with specific neural substrates, though he presented this as a new strand of evidence for the theory (Gardner, 2025).

Myth 5: Everyone belongs to one of eight intelligence types. MI theory does not sort people into a single intelligence type, and Gardner says the intelligences should not be used to categorise people (Gardner, n.d.). In ability tests, too, the intelligences tended to rise and fall together rather than move separately (Visser, 2005). Calling yourself “a musical-intelligence type” fits neither the theory nor the research.

Q. How should I read my MI test result? A. Lightly, as a summary of the areas you enjoy and feel confident in. Gardner says such tests give a rough-and-ready sense of interests and preferences but do not measure actual strengths (Gardner, n.d.). In a meta-analysis of 41 studies on cognitive ability in general, not MI tests specifically, self-estimated and measured ability correlated r = .33 (Freund & Kasten, 2012). Do not use the result to decide a career or to type a child.

Q. Which intelligence is my child strong in, and should they be tested? A. Questionnaires and games cannot really tell. Gardner says intelligences can only be known by actually measuring how well someone performs on tasks (Gardner, n.d.), that young children’s intelligences are quite changeable, and that a game may show what a child likes but not necessarily what the child does well (Gardner, 2020). It is best not to fix a child into one type on the basis of a test result.

Q. Is there a ninth, existential intelligence? A. It is not an intelligence Gardner has confirmed. Gardner has speculated about an existential intelligence of “big questions” (Gardner, n.d.), but says he no longer decides rigorously whether a candidate counts, so its case remains in limbo (Gardner, 2020).

Q. Did EQ (emotional intelligence) come from multiple intelligences? A. That is hard to say. Gardner says “Emotional Intelligence” is not his term and was popularised by Daniel Goleman’s book, while noting that social intelligence is similar to his interpersonal intelligence and that there are similarities between emotional and intrapersonal intelligence (Gardner, n.d.). A framework for emotional intelligence, as a set of skills hypothesised to contribute to the accurate appraisal and expression of emotion in oneself and others, was set out by Salovey and Mayer in 1990 (Salovey & Mayer, 1990). This paper was read as an abstract. How emotional intelligence relates to grades is covered in the IQ test guide. The emotional intelligence guide covers the models of emotional intelligence and how accurate EQ tests are.

Q. How do multiple intelligences differ from IQ? A. In Gardner’s view, IQ tests assess linguistic and logical-mathematical intelligence, sometimes spatial intelligence too (MI Oasis, n.d.-a), and MI theory argues for a broader view of intelligence. In ability tests of the eight areas, however, scores tended to rise and fall together (Visser, 2005), and a meta-analysis of correlations between abilities, though not a direct test of Gardner’s theory, also found that abilities are related (Bryan & Mayer, 2021).

Q. So is multiple intelligences theory useless? A. Whether the theory is right and whether MI teaching works are separate questions. One commentary still regards the theory as a plausible scientific theory (Rousseau, 2021) and a critic says it should be rejected (Waterhouse, 2023), while the effect of MI teaching cannot yet be validly evaluated because of the quality of the studies (Ferrero et al., 2021). Using it as a reminder to explain important ideas in several ways is a reasonable use.

References: MI Oasis (n.d.-a), A beginner’s guide to the theory of multiple intelligences (MI), https://www.multipleintelligencesoasis.org/a-beginners-guide-to-mi (retrieved 28 October 2026); Gardner, H. (n.d.), FAQ [PDF], https://www.howardgardner.com/s/FAQ.pdf (retrieved 28 October 2026); Gardner, H. (2025, September 9), Multiple intelligences: New strands of evidence from neuroscience [blog post], MI Oasis, https://www.multipleintelligencesoasis.org/blog/2025/9/4/multiple-intelligences-new-strands-of-evidence-from-neuroscience; MI Oasis (n.d.-b), The components of MI, https://www.multipleintelligencesoasis.org/the-components-of-mi (retrieved 28 October 2026); Shearer, B. (2018), Multiple intelligences in teaching and education: Lessons learned from neuroscience, Journal of Intelligence, 6(3), 38, https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence6030038; Gardner, H. (2020), Questions [web page], MI Oasis, https://www.multipleintelligencesoasis.org/questions (retrieved 28 October 2026); Gardner, H. (2013, October 16), Multiple intelligences are not learning styles, Harvard Graduate School of Education (first published in The Washington Post), https://www.gse.harvard.edu/ideas/news/13/10/multiple-intelligences-are-not-learning-styles; Gardner, H. (2026, March 19), Multiple intelligences in 2026: Responses to questions posed by a scholar from China [blog post], MI Oasis, https://www.multipleintelligencesoasis.org/blog/2026/2/12/multiple-intelligences-question-and-answer; MI Oasis (n.d.-c), Malpractices, https://www.multipleintelligencesoasis.org/malpractices (retrieved 28 October 2026); Waterhouse, L. (2006a), Multiple intelligences, the Mozart effect, and emotional intelligence: A critical review, Educational Psychologist, 41(4), 207-225, https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4104_1; Gardner, H., & Moran, S. (2006), The science of multiple intelligences theory: A response to Lynn Waterhouse, Educational Psychologist, 41(4), 227-232, https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4104_2; Waterhouse, L. (2006b), Inadequate evidence for multiple intelligences, Mozart effect, and emotional intelligence theories, Educational Psychologist, 41(4), 247-255, https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4104_5; Visser, B. (2005), Beyond g: Putting multiple intelligences theory to the test [master’s thesis, Brock University], http://hdl.handle.net/10464/2327; Waterhouse, L. (2023), Why multiple intelligences theory is a neuromyth, Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1217288, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1217288; Almeida, L. S., Prieto, M. D., Ferreira, A. I., Bermejo, M. R., Ferrando, M., & Ferrándiz, C. (2010), Intelligence assessment: Gardner multiple intelligence theory as an alternative, Learning and Individual Differences, 20(3), 225-230, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2009.12.010; Bryan, V. M., & Mayer, J. D. (2021), Are people-centered intelligences psychometrically distinct from thing-centered intelligences? A meta-analysis, Journal of Intelligence, 9(4), 48, https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence9040048; Rousseau, L. (2021), “Neuromyths” and multiple intelligences (MI) theory: A comment on Gardner, 2020, Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 720706, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.720706; Freund, P. A., & Kasten, N. (2012), How smart do you think you are? A meta-analysis on the validity of self-estimates of cognitive ability, Psychological Bulletin, 138(2), 296-321, https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026556; Visser, B. A., Ashton, M. C., & Vernon, P. A. (2008), What makes you think you’re so smart? Measured abilities, personality, and sex differences as correlates of self-estimates of multiple intelligences, Journal of Individual Differences, 29(1), 35-44, https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001.29.1.35; Shearer, C. B., & Luzzo, D. A. (2009), Exploring the application of multiple intelligences theory to career counseling, The Career Development Quarterly, 58(1), 3-13, https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.2009.tb00169.x; Shearer, C. B. (2009), Exploring the relationship between intrapersonal intelligence and university students’ career confusion: Implications for counseling, academic success, and school-to-career transition, Journal of Employment Counseling, 46(2), 52-61, https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1920.2009.tb00067.x; Moon, Y.-L., & Yoo, K.-J. (2009), Validation of Korean diagnostic scale of multiple intelligence [in Korean], Korean Journal of Educational Psychology, 23(3), 645-663, https://www.kci.go.kr/kciportal/ci/sereArticleSearch/ciSereArtiView.kci?sereArticleSearchBean.artiId=ART001379769; Kim, D.-i., Lee, Y., Nam, J. E., Oh, J.-W., Lee, Y., Lee, S. G., & Kim, M. C. (2013), Trends in the development of multiple intelligences assessment tools: Specifically for young children [in Korean], The Journal of Yeolin Education, 21(4), 395-416, https://www.kci.go.kr/kciportal/ci/sereArticleSearch/ciSereArtiView.kci?sereArticleSearchBean.artiId=ART001821824; Tae, J., Park, S., Park, H., & Lee, J. (2024), Development and validation of multiple intelligence test for university students [in Korean], The Journal of Creativity Education, 24(4), 95-114, https://doi.org/10.36358/JCE.2024.24.4.95; Baş, G. (2016), The effect of multiple intelligences theory-based education on academic achievement: A meta-analytic review, Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2016.6.0015; Batdı, V. (2017), The effect of multiple intelligences on academic achievement: A meta-analytic and thematic study, Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2017.6.0104; Ferrero, M., Vadillo, M. A., & León, S. P. (2021), A valid evaluation of the theory of multiple intelligences is not yet possible: Problems of methodological quality for intervention studies, Intelligence, 88, 101566, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2021.101566; Blanchette Sarrasin, J., Riopel, M., & Masson, S. (2019), Neuromyths and their origin among teachers in Quebec, Mind, Brain, and Education, 13(2), 100-109, https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12193; Craig, H. L., Wilcox, G., Makarenko, E. M., & MacMaster, F. P. (2021), Continued educational neuromyth belief in pre- and in-service teachers: A call for de-implementation action for school psychologists, Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 36(2), 127-141, https://doi.org/10.1177/0829573520979605; Ruhaak, A. E., & Cook, B. G. (2018), The prevalence of educational neuromyths among pre-service special education teachers, Mind, Brain, and Education, 12(3), 155-161, https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12181; Schmitt, A., Wollschläger, R., Blanchette Sarrasin, J., Masson, S., Fischbach, A., & Schiltz, C. (2023), Neuromyths and knowledge about intellectual giftedness in a highly educated multilingual country, Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1252239, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1252239; Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990), Emotional intelligence, Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9(3), 185-211, https://doi.org/10.2190/DUGG-P24E-52WK-6CDG