Not exactly. There may be some correlation, but there are certainly people who can get in via an aptitude test who would not be able to get in using an IQ test. The testing methods are completely different.
There is so much correlation that the correlation of an aptitude test with an IQ test is basically equal to the correlation of one IQ test with another IQ test. (Around 0.8) By any definition other than "it can't be an IQ test unless that's part of its name", the aptitude tests are IQ tests. They do not differ in function.
That's simply not true. The form and function of the tests are fundamentally different. The biggest difference is that you can study for one, but studying for the other is considered cheating. You can see my other comment for further clarification.
You can respond to facts by saying "that's simply not true", but it's not going to be an effective way of convincing anyone else or of developing a coherent model of the world. The facts are that aptitude tests are psychometrically identical to IQ tests. They have the same characteristics and reveal the same information. Someone's score on an aptitude test as is predictive of their score on an IQ test as their score on an IQ test is.
What you claim is counter to the intended uses of the tests and their very definitions. One measures innate flgeneral intelligence, whereas the other measures skill or acquired knowledge in a specific area.
Then show me some sources to support your argument, because repeating false statements doesn't further your point either.
>The many different kinds of IQ tests include a wide variety of item content. Some test items are visual, while many are verbal. Test items vary from being based on abstract-reasoning problems to concentrating on arithmetic, vocabulary, or general knowledge.
The SAT tests abstract reasoning (read a story and answer questions), arithmetic, vocabulary... It's an IQ test.
A person can improve an aptitude test score with some appropriate training, but a higher IQ person will tend to score proportionally higher given the same training/experience.
Yes, but the tests don't account for a similar amount of training, and so do not provide an adequate comparison. The whole point of IQ tests are to present problems which the test taker sould not have previously encountered, thus measuring their ability to quickly devise a solution, and indicating their intelligence on a standard distribution vs the population in general.
