Introduction

Multiple Intelligence Profile Questionnaire (MIPQ, Tirri & Komulainen, 2002) is a five-point Likert scale self-rating questionnaire that is based on Howard Gardner’s Multiple Intelligence (MI) theory (1983; 1991; 1995; 1999). MIPQ is aimed to assist both learners in their self-reflection and teachers to understand their student’s strengths. First version of the MIPQ (Tirri, K., Komulainen, Nokelainen & Tirri, H, 2002, 2003) operationalised seven MI dimensions with 28 items: (1) Linguistic, (2) Logical-mathematical, (3) Musical, (4) Spatial, (5) Bodily-kinesthetic, (6) Interpersonal and (7) Intrapersonal intelligence. Eighth dimension, spiritual intelligence, was added to the second, 32-item version of MIPQ (Tirri, Nokelainen & Ubani, 2006). Spiritual intelligence dimension was based on Spiritual Sensitivity Scale (SSS) influenced by Hay’s (1998) and Bradford’s (1995) definitions of spirituality.

Major goal of this paper is to present the third, 35-item version of MIPQ that contains the ninth dimension, Environmental Intelligence (EnI), and to test its psychometric properties with an empirical sample (N=496) containing preadolescents (N=181), adolescents (N=86) and adults (N=227).

Theoretical framework

Howard Gardner (2006, 50) thinks of the intelligences as “raw, biological potentials, which can be seen in pure form only in individuals who are, in the technical sense, freaks”. He lists seven intelligences (IQ) that meet his criteria for intelligence. These intelligences are (1) Linguistic, (2) Logical-mathematical, (3) Musical, (4) Spatial, (5), Bodily-kinesthetic, (6) Interpersonal and (7) Intrapersonal (Gardner, 1983, xi). The first version of MIPQ operationalised these seven intelligences and validated their psychometric properties with an empirical sample of Finnish university students (Tirri et al., 2002; 2003).

Gardner bases his MI theory upon neurological, evolutionary, and cross-cultural evidence (Gardner, 1983, xii). In his newest edition of the MI theory, Gardner emphasizes more cultural and contextual factors in the development of seven intelligences (Gardner, 1999). According to him (1999, 52), especially the naturalistic intelligence merits the addition to the list of the original seven intelligences. He relates this intelligence to the ability to understand and work effectively in the natural world — like biologist, ornithologist, farmers and even chefs do. Naturalist intelligence deals with sensing patterns in and making connections to elements in nature (Wilson, 1998). “Nature smart” people seem to be aware of their surroundings and even small changes in their environment.

We call the version of naturalistic intelligence presented here “environmental sensitivity” and operationalize it into Environmental Sensitivity Scale (EnSS). The EnSS consists of three categories: (1) Love for nature, (2) Nature conservation and (3) Environment-friendly consumer habits.

First category, ”Love for nature”, aims to capture our appreciation of being in the nature, even just like sitting quietly and noticing the subtle differences in the world of nature, and making observations about natural changes, interconnections and patterns (Wilson, 1998). Second category, ”Protection of animal rights and nature”, aims to capture our love for the animals and passion to know and remember things about them. Third category, ”Environment friendly consumption”, aims to capture our talent for ecological sensibility, i.e. understanding the fact that “human beings and all the other creatures are interconnected within a complex ecosphere” (Morris, 2004, 164).

Method

The sample was collected with the five–point Likert–scale 48–item MIPQ in 2003. The theoretical structure of the questionnaire was analysed with a sample (N = 496) that consists of Finnish preadolescents (n = 183), adolescents (n = 86) and adults (n = 227).

Statistical analyses were conducted in three phases. First, we analysed the psychometric properties of the 16 EnSS items with correlation (Spearman rank-order) reliability analysis (Cronbach’s alpha). Second, we reduced the total number of items in the scale to nine with Bayesian Dependence Modeling (BDM). Third, we created the three-item EnI sub scale for the MIPQ with BDM. Fourth, we validated the two scales (EnSS and EnI) developed in this study with confirmatory factor analysis for categorical indicators.

Results

Reliability analysis showed that the nine-item solution was better than the 11-item version to present the EnSS. Both MIPQ and EnI had .65 - .82 reliability coefficients in all three sub samples. Results of BDM showed that the EnSS consisted of suggested three dimensions in all three sub samples. The results of CFA showed that both scales fitted all three sub samples fairly well.

Conclusions

Firstly, our major motivation, when operationalizing Gardner’s MI theory into the MIPQ, is to provide both learners and their supervisors practical tools for meaningful self-reflection regarding each one’s potentials.

Secondly, we are interested in the outcome aspect that is strongly present in the MI theory suggesting that academic intelligence alone is not enough. We need to recognize that success in life and career depends also on social and practical and environmental intelligence. Sad to say, but there is a hidden curriculum of how to make the best out of one’s abilities, to be in the right place in the right moment.

Thirdly, we need to understand that the world does not revolve around human beings. We are not here alone but one of many. Environmental sensitivity is needed. Our wish is that the MIPQ will help to promote discussion around above-mentioned topics.