Abstract
TOEFL and IELTS listening tests have been said to be different in terms of theoretical foundations, research background, history and appearance and it has also been proposed that IELTS is more content based, task oriented and authentic (Farhady, 2005; Kiany, 1998). In this study cognitive demands of the two tests were compared by giving 151 language learners an actual TOEFL listening and 117 of the same participants a specimen IELTS listening test. The participants were also given a Multiple Intelligences Development Assessment Scales (MIDAS) questionnaire. The results suggest that despite the differences between IELTS and TOEFL listening tests, scores of each intelligence positively correlate with listening scores of both tests and only linguistic intelligence has a statistically significant correlation with listening proficiency as measured by TOEFL and IELTS. Furthermore, the results of regression analysis show that linguistic intelligence is included as a predictor of TOEFL and IELTS listening scores while other intelligences are excluded. The results provide quantitative evidence that only linguistic intelligence makes a statistically significant contribution to listening proficiency and despite the differences between the two listening tests, they only put a small linguistic demand on the test takers. The article suggests that English language teachers provide further assistance to language learners who might not enjoy a high level of linguistic intelligence.

Keywords: Multiple Intelligences (MI), TOEFL, IELTS, Listening Proficiency, Linguistic Intelligence     

Introduction
Listening comprehension is one the four language skills needed for effective communication in everyday conversational and academic contexts and it is also a source for obtaining the necessary input for language development. However, according to Oxford (1993) for many years the role of listening comprehension in language learning was taken for granted. For example, during the audio-lingual era, language learners had to listen to the teacher and repeat sentences automatically. Perhaps Krashen could be regarded as the most influential scholar in the field who motivated further research into various aspects of listening comprehension by introducing listening as a medium for the acquisition of language through comprehensible input (Krashen, 1987, 1988). Various studies of L2 listening comprehension revealed that listening is a complex process which involves information processing (Anderson, 1985), use of strategies (Thompson and Rubin, 1996; Vandergrift, 1996) and contribution of different factors influencing comprehension such as text, speaker, task and listener (Rubin, 1994). Long (1990) suggested that having the relevant topical knowledge exerts a powerful influence on listening performance.
   Different definitions of listening comprehension and research orientations in this area indicate that phonological perception, imagination of facial expression, gesture, etc, inferencing, parsing, imagination of participants and contexts, awareness of social procedures and utilization of strategies have been the focus of attention. Each of these sources of variability in listening comprehension might be contributed by the intelligence of the learners which is no longer considered as unitary. From among various multidimensional theories of intelligence, the theory of Multiple Intelligences (MI) which was proposed by Gardner (1983) has been most influential and could be utilized to investigate whether learners’ individual differences in terms of intelligence are related to their differential listening comprehension performance. 

Emergence of intelligence tests
Modern attempts to study individual differences were pioneered by the British scientist Galton in 1885. He tried to investigate the relationship between the intellectual ability and skills such as reaction time and sensitivity to physical stimuli. In 1904 Binet was commissioned by the French government to develop techniques to identity those primary school children who lacked the necessary capabilities for succeeding in normal classes and had to be provided with special education (Fancher, 1985). A year later Binet and Simon produced the first intelligence quotient (IQ) test which contained 30 short tasks related to everyday problems of life and were arranged so as to be of increasing difficulty. After the translation of Binet-Simon scale into English and its administration in the US, it was found that the test had to be revised and the inherent shortcomings could be removed. Terman (1916) of Stanford University found that the Paris-developed age norms did not work well for Californian children and therefore by adding some items and modifying others developed the Stanford-Simon test and extended the age range to adulthood. Terman utilized Stern’s (1912) formula to express the relation between an individual’s mental age and chronological age. According to this formula the IQ of an individual is calculated by dividing an individual’s mental age by his/her chronological age and multiplying it by 100. With the outbreak of World War I Yerkes (1915) and his team of experts including Terman who were appointed by the US army developed the Army Alpha and Beta tests, the latter being a version of Alpha which could be used with non-English speaking or illiterate individuals.  Spearman (1927) analyzed the intelligence test data collected mainly for pragmatic purposes prior to his investigation and by doing factor analysis opted for a two-factor theory of intelligence: general and special abilities. However, he was excessively enthusiastic about the general (g) factor and suggested that only individuals with a satisfactory level of general intelligence should be allowed to vote or have offspring. Thurstone (1938) accepted Spearman’s proposal but disputed its importance by arguing that g is in fact a second order factor which is obtained as a result of combining the first-order factors which are related to one another. His identification of 7 types of intelligence which he called “primary mental capabilities” is regarded as the first multi-factor approach to intelligence. Guilford (1967) suggested that there are at least 180 elementary abilities which are made up of three dimensions: operations, contents, and products.  Stenberg (1985, 1988 as cited in Malim and Birch, 1998) defined intelligence as the mental capacity to automatize information processing and to emit contextually appropriate behavior in response to novelty. He proposed a Triachic theory of intelligence which is made up of three sub-theories: componential, contextual, and experimental sub-theories.
   The historical development of intelligence theories is indicative of the fact that IQ tests provide an incomplete picture of individual differences in terms of mental capabilities and the more recent ideas which emphasize the multidimensional nature of intelligence have been supported. From among these ideas, perhaps the theory of Multiple Intelligences has been most influential and its application in education has also been one of the most controversial topics.      
  
Multiple intelligences
According to Gardner (1999a) intelligence is the ability to solve problems, or to create products that are valued within one or more cultural settings. Gardner (1993) noted the traditional IQ tests unfairly measured only logic and language and disregarded other intelligences of the brain. He also added that all humans have these intelligences, but people differ in the strengths and combinations of them. Furthermore, he believed that all of the intelligences could be enhanced through training and practice. At first Gardner introduced 7 intelligences but after a few years added the 8th to the list:

1. Musical intelligence is the ability to perceive, transform, and discriminate between musical forms and includes sensitivity to rhythm, pitch and timber. Those who have a high level of musical-rhythmic intelligence display greater sensitivity to sounds, rhythms, tones, and music.
2. Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence is the ability to solve problems or form products using all or part of one’s body. People in this category often prefer activities which utilize movement. They are generally adept at physical activities such as sports or dance.
3. Logical-mathematical intelligence is the ability to use numbers effectively, manage long chains of reasoning and involves an awareness of logical and numerical patterns. It is also defined as the ability for abstract deductive and inductive reasoning, inferencing and scientific thinking.
4. Spatial intelligence is the ability to form a mental model of the visual-spatial world, and to be able to maneuver the model. It also includes sensitivity to colors, lines, patterns, spaces and forms, and the relationships between them.
5. Linguistic intelligence is the capacity to use words effectively both orally and in writing. It comprises sensitivity to the sounds, meanings and functions of language. In this category, people have high verbal memory and have an ability to manipulate syntax and structure.
6. Interpersonal intelligence is the area which is concerned with interaction with others. It is the ability to understand the feelings, motivations and moods of other people, and respond appropriately to them. People in this category are characterized by their ability to communicate effectively and empathize easily with others 
7. Intrapersonal intelligence is the ability to understand oneself, to assess one’s strengths, weaknesses and emotional states, and act effectively using this knowledge. In this category people are highly aware of their abilities and are capable of understanding their own goals and motivations.
8. Naturalist intelligence designates the human ability to discriminate among living things such as plants and animals, as well as sensitivity to other features of the natural world such as clouds and rock configurations.

   Gardner (1999a) supported his theory of MI by providing evidence for the multiple nature of intelligence. He maintained that damage to a specific area of the brain did not lead to the patient’s failure to do tasks which were controlled by other areas. He argued that evolution of human could not be made possible unless some intelligences could develop before other mental capabilities and noted that under environmental pressure spatial intelligence was perhaps the first intelligence to develop in human beings. Evidence for the support of MI also includes presence of core operations, susceptibility to encoding, a distinct developmental progression, support from experimental psychology, and from psychometric findings.

Listening comprehension 
Different definitions of listening comprehension focused on different aspects of this skill. Clark and Clark (1977) proposed two definitions of listening comprehension.  They suggested listening comprehension in its narrowest definition is the process by which listeners come to an interpretation for a stream of speech and listening comprehension in its broader definition involves the process by which listeners use those interpretations for their intended purpose. Wolvin and Coakley’s (1985) approach to listening was basically cognitive. They defined listening as the process of receiving, attending to and assigning meaning to aural stimuli. Rost (2002) defined listening as a process of receiving what the speaker actually says, constructing and representing meaning, negotiating meaning with the speaker and responding, and creating meaning through involvement, imagination and empathy.
   In the process of listening, first sound waves strike the tympanic membrane and cause vibration. The energy released as a result of vibration is then carried to the central nervous system. In the nervous system the phonemes are identified and syllables and different aspects of intonation such as tone units and pitch should be perceived (Brazil, 1985; Cutler and Butterfield, 1992). According to Rost (2001), research in spoken-language recognition indicates that each language has its own preferred strategies for decoding the aural stimuli. For instance, they suggest that in Japanese which is syllable-timed language stress is located at fixed distances from the boundaries of words while in a stress-timed language such as English the main stress is placed on the utterance’s focal syllable.
   After the recognition of individual words, information about the syntactic structure of the clauses which are known as the units of parsing (Harley, 1995) is made available for semantic analysis. The role of schematic knowledge in listening comprehension has been studied (e.g. Schank & Abelson, 1977; Anderson, 1985) and Harley (1995) discussed how listeners make use of this repertoire for making different types of inferences. Thompson and Rubin (1996) found that more conscious and effective use of strategies increase the chances of success in L2 listening and results of a series of studies conducted to investigate the effect of listening strategy training also showed that metacognitive strategy use increases with learner listening proficiency level.

TOEFL vs. IELTS listening tests
The measurement of listening comprehension has been influenced by various language and testing theories and models. One of the proficiency tests which is widely used around the world is the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) which was first administered in 1963 (Spolsky, 1995). The listening section of TOEFL was developed to measure candidates’ ability to comprehend academic English. The test measures examinees’ English language proficiency in situations and tasks reflective of university life in North America. The listening test measures the test takers’ comprehension of details and facts, vocabulary, main ideas and supporting ideas and finally communicative function of utterances. It also measures abilities such as making inferences about the content and relationships. Listening section of the paper-and-pencil TOEFL is one of the three main sections of the test which is mainly discrete-point in nature. Since 2005 use of the Internet-based TOEFL (iBT) has been increasing in different countries and at present TOEFL iBT is available in most of the countries but the paper and pencil TOEFL is still used in a large number of testing centers (ETS, 2007).  
   In 1980 the British test of the English language appeared by the name the English Language Testing Service (ELTS). The form of the test was no longer multiple choice but had an innovative format which reflected changes and developments in language teaching, learning and testing. ELTS was influenced by developments in ‘communicative’ language learning and ‘English for Specific Purposes’ and was based on analyses of language in real-life language use situations in academic contexts. (IELTS, 2007). The new test was meant to be based on Munby’s (1978) ‘notional functional syllabus’ and later on Canale’s (1988) model of ‘communicative competence’. (Spolsky, 1995). ELTS later underwent some major revisions and finally in 1989 the International English Language Testing System (IELTS) became operational.  At present the listening and speaking sections of IELTS are given to all candidates but candidates can choose to take either the academic or general training reading and writing tests.  The first two sections of the listening comprehension test are related to social needs and the last two sections are concerned with language use in educational or training contexts. Another characteristic of the listening section of IELTS is that various task types such as multiple choice and short-answer questions, sentence completion, note/summary/flow-chart/table completion, labeling a diagram, classification and matching are used (IELTS, 2007).
   Kiany (1998) argued that IELTS in comparison to TOEFL is a more use-oriented and direct test while TOEFL is more usage-oriented and indirect.  Farhady (2005) suggested that in addition to the differences in the appearance, history and theoretical underpinnings, TOEFL and IELTS are different in terms of research background. He argued that TOEFL is the most research-undergone of all foreign language tests but despite having such a strong research background, it has been used with almost the same content, format and fixed quantity. TOEFL has its origins in the psychometric approach to language testing and utilizes objective test techniques to ensure reliable measurement of language ability rather than language use in authentic contexts (Farhady, 2005). Farhady further noted that the kind of language which is used in the listening section of TOEFL is meticulous, articulate, and idealistic but in IELTS listening language use in real-life contexts is preferred.

Multiple intelligences and listening proficiency
The relationship between language proficiency and intelligence was first addressed by Oller (1978). In his words “language proficiency, rather than innate intelligence, may account for the lion’s share of variance in the so-called IQ tests and in achievement tests as well” (p. 1). To equate intelligence with language, Oller provided three pieces of evidence: 1) statistical evidence indicating a close relationship between performance on intelligence tests and measures of language proficiency; 2) striking similarities between IQ tests and language proficiency tests in terms of their content; and 3) neurolinguistic evidence showing overlaps between the areas responsible for language and performance on IQ tests. Another almost similar comment was made by Genesee (1976). Genesee proposed that according to the results of the study those in the highest IQ group perform in a way that it could be said that the IQ profile could predict the reading and language usage test scores. However, Gardner (1983) indicated that language learning, similar to many of human activities, is a complex interaction of a number of intelligences. This model offered a cognitive explanation for the differences in adult second language communicative competence, which the traditional views of intelligence did not.
   With the development of multidimensional theories of intelligence which were intended to more efficiently account for individual differences, it could be argued that several aspects of listening proficiency could be influenced by different intelligences. In the process of listening comprehension, it seems that several aspects interact with Gardner’s 8 intelligences. Sensitivity to tone, intonation and stress can have strong links with the musical intelligence and imagination of facial expression, gesture, posture, and head movements used in communication can be related to bodily-kinesthetic intelligence. Abilities such as inferencing, using analogies and reasoning in the process of listening can be influenced by logical-mathematical intelligence and spatial intelligence may enhance sensitivity to attitudes about personal space and help listeners spatially organize the incoming information. Furthermore, linguistic intelligence seems be required at all stages of processing from sound perception to syntactic parsing and semantic analysis. Since communication does not happen in a vacuum, interpersonal intelligence for understanding the speakers’ intentions, feelings and their social and cultural background might also play a pivotal role. Intrapersonal intelligence could also contribute to effective use of metacognitive strategies and to the amount of anxiety, self-esteem, and affective factors in listening. And finally, recognition of patterns in speech could also be facilitated by naturalist intelligence.
   The theoretical and historical background of TOEFL and IELTS listening tests which have caused differences between the two tests in terms of content, task type, type of language and finally the kind of elicited linguistic behavior might impact test takers’ listening performance. If we assume that the listening section of IELTS is more communicative, content-dependent and authentic and that it is a more direct test of listening proficiency, then we may hypothesize that in addition to linguistic ability, other abilities of the test takers which are relevant to other aspects of language use in authentic contexts should contribute to the listening comprehension performance of IELTS test takers. In other words, IELTS listening test might be more cognitively demanding and require greater contribution of different intelligences.
   Although the role of intelligence in language proficiency has already been investigated, almost no study has been done to tell us which of the Gardner’s 8 intelligences has a greater role in listening proficiency and whether the results confirm the conclusions of previous studies which are based on IQ or aptitude scores.  Besides, given the differences between the listening sections of TOEFL and IELTS, it is not clear whether different intelligences play differential roles in the two tests. Therefore, in the present study the following questions were formulated:

1. Do the 8 intelligences have any roles in listening proficiency as measured by a TOEFL listening test?
2. Do the 8 intelligences have any roles in listening proficiency as measured by an IELTS listening test?
3. Is IELTS listening comprehension a more cognitively demanding test in comparison to the listening section of TOEFL?

Method
Participants
Participants were Iranian male and female students majoring in English Language. 151 of the participants were able to take both MI questionnaire and TOEFL listening test and 117 students of the same population took MI questionnaire and IELTS listening test. Although many of the participants were familiar with TOEFL listening, the majority had not taken IELTS before. Therefore, they were familiarized with the listening section of IELTS by having them answer some sample listening questions and attend to the instructions which were provided in the sample test or by the test administrators.  Among the participants who took both MI questionnaire and TOEFL listening test, 17 (11.2%) were male and 134 (88.7) were female.  Among those learners who performed on MI questionnaire and IELTS listening test, 13 (11.1%) were male and 104 (88.8%) were female.

Instrumentation
For the measurement of MI, MIDAS which is a self report measure of intellectual disposition was used (see Appendix). MIDAS is completed by the person or other individuals such as parents or teachers who have enough information about the person. (Shearer, 1996). The users are asked to read each item and select what they perceive as the best answer at that point in time in their life. There are no right or wrong responses and the respondents are asked to select the option which best describes their characteristics. Research on the reliability and validity of MIDAS has revealed that the MIDAS scales can provide a reasonable estimate of one's MI. (Shearer, 1996). The MIDAS scales have been translated into Spanish and Korean and completed by approximately 10,000 people world-wide. In this study a Persian translation of the questionnaire using a 6-point Likert-type scale was utilized and its reliability with the original MIDAS was calculated. The 119-item Persian MIDAS was completed in 35-45 minutes and was then sent to the instrument developer for scoring. Alpha reliability of the profile scores based on the MIDAS turned out to be as follows:
Musical: .70, Kinesthetic: .76, Logical-Mathematical: .73, Spatial: .67, Linguistic: .85, Interpersonal: .82, Intrapersonal: .78, and Naturalist: .82.
   For the measurement of listening proficiency a retired TOEFL listening test and a specimen IELTS listening test were used. The listening section of TOEFL contained 50 questions and there were 40 questions on the IELTS listening test.

Procedures
In the first phase the MIDAS questionnaire was administered and MI answer sheets were sent to the author of MIDAS for scoring. After a week’s interval TOEFL listening comprehension was given to the students. Based on the number of correct responses, each participant was assigned a score which showed his/her English language proficiency as measured by a TOEFL listening test. One week later participants were given an IELTS listening test and were scored on the basis of the number of correct responses they provided.

Results
Investigation of the role of MI in listening proficiency and comparison of the participants’ performances on two different listening proficiency tests were carried out using correlation and regression analyses.  Descriptive statistics indicates that on average the participants were able to score 16.54 on the TOEFL listening test, out of50 questions and the average IELTS listening score was found to be 16.58, out of 40 questions (see Table 1). Tables 2 and 3 show the performances of the two groups on each set of questions included for the measurement of each intelligence.

                          Table 1. Descriptive statistics of TOEFL and IELTS
                           listening scores

	N	Mean	Std.	Max	Min
TOEFL Listening	151	16.54	4.30	27.00	10.00
IELTS Listening	117	16.58	6.43	35.00	5.00

 

 

   Performances of the participants who took both MIDAS and TOEFL listening test indicated that they performed best on the interpersonal section and obtained the lowest mean score on the naturalist section of MIDAS.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of TOEFL group’s
 MI performance

	N	Mean	Std.	Min.	Max.
Musical	151	47.35	14.45	14	93
Kinesthetic	151	45.45	18.03	6	90
Logical-mathematical	151	49.85	13.46	20	85
Spatial	151	53.81	14.92	20	94
Linguistic	151	51.69	15.93	16	91
Interpersonal	151	62.40	15.05	30	91
Intrapersonal	151	56.57	12.83	30	88
Naturalist	151	40.53	16.95	5	88

Other participants who performed on both MIDAS and IELTS listening test performed similarly on the MI questionnaire. They obtained the highest interpersonal intelligence and the lowest naturalist intelligence mean scores.

Table 3. Descriptive statistics of IELTS group’s
MI performance

	N	Mean	Std.	Min.	Max.
Musical	117	47.73	13.82	14	91
Kinesthetic	117	45.03	18.10	6	90
Logical-mathematical	117	49.95	13.38	21	85
Spatial	117	54.34	15.02	22	94
Linguistic	117	51.86	16.28	16	91
Interpersonal	117	61.92	15.48	30	91
Intrapersonal	117	57.00	13.01	30	88
Naturalist	117	41.97	16.73	11	88

   In order to investigate the relationship between MI scores and performances of the participants on TOEFL and IELTS listening comprehension tests, the correlation coefficient between the participants’ scores on each intelligence and their TOEFL and IELTS listening scores were calculated. The results showed that scores on all the intelligences positively correlate with both TOEFL and IELTS listening scores but only linguistic intelligence makes a statistically significant contribution to performance on the two listening tests. Table below shows that the correlation coefficients of linguistic intelligence with TOEFL and IELTS listening scores are .19 and .21 (P<.05) respectively; however, even such a weak correlation might be very important in educational research (Hatch and Lazaraton, 1991, p. 442).

 Table 4. Correlations of intelligences with TOEFL and
IELTS listening scores

	TOEFL listening	IELTS listening
Musical Kinesthetic Logical-mathematical Spatial Linguistic Interpersonal Intrapersonal Naturalist	.08 .11 .00 .09  .19* .06 .00 .02	.10 .17 .11 .03  .21* .10 .09 .12

Correlation is significant at .05

   Since results of correlation analysis are not always dependable, further investigation of the role of MI in listening proficiency was done by running stepwise regression analysis. The results indicated that from among the 8 intelligences, it is only linguistic intelligence that remains as the best predictor of TOEFL listening comprehension performance accounting for 3% (F=5.60, p<.05) of the variance. The results of the second stepwise regression analysis revealed that linguistic intelligence is also the only predictor of IELTS listening performance explaining 4% (F=5.79, p<.05) of the total variance.

Discussion
The purpose of this study was to quantitatively explore the role of Gardner’s 8 intelligences in listening proficiency and investigate whether differences in theoretical foundations, research background, history and appearance of TOEFL and IELTS listening tests lead to differential contribution of MI. Results of correlation analyses showed that all the intelligences positively contribute to both TOEFL and IELTS listening comprehension performance but from among the 8 intelligences only linguistic intelligence has a statistically significant relationship with the listening proficiencies. Results of stepwise regression analysis also revealed that linguistic intelligence can predict listening performance.
   As it was already discussed, hypothetically all the listening activities contain some musical, kinesthetic, spatial, logical-mathematical, linguistic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalist aspects which might contribute to comprehension; however, the results of the present study suggest that despite the positive contribution of these intelligences, it is only linguistic intelligence that plays a statistically significant role in listening performance. In other words, various aspects of listening comprehension such as the music of language, social relationships of the speakers, imagination of physical environment and movements of the participants, etc could be related to performance on the listening section of both TOEFL and IELTS but none of these variables are cognitively as demanding to the listener as the immediate analysis of incoming linguistic data.
   Furthermore, although it is claimed that IELTS listening is based on the communicative competence theory and is more task-based and authentic, it can not be concluded that these characteristics would lead to a kind of performance which requires processing of totally different aspects of language use to the extent that it would lead to differential contribution of each intelligence to IELTS listening performance.
   The results find support in the research findings of Wu (1998) and Tsui and Fullilove (1998) that what differentiates skilled and unskilled listeners is the ability to cope with linguistic processing suggesting that bottom-up processing is more important than top-down processing in discriminating the listening performance of L2 learners. The results also provide quantitative evidence in support of the idea that students with a high level of linguistic intelligence have highly developed auditory skills and process information through listening (Teele, 2004, p. 15).
   At the end, it can be argued that except for L2 listeners with high linguistic intelligence who might be in an advantageous position in terms of linguistic processing, others are similar as far as the listening outcome is concerned. Therefore, teachers should provide English language learners with low levels of linguistic intelligence with further assistance and support and motivate them to perform more linguistic tasks so that they can better improve their listening skills.

Limitations
No experiment is without its limitations. Results of this study were based on the individuals’ responses to the MIDAS questions and only TOEFL and IELTS listening comprehension tests were used for the measurement of listening proficiency. Although MIDAS has undergone reliability and validity research (Shearer, 1996), problems associated with the use of any questionnaire could also be found in the use of self-rated MIDAS. Moreover, since only TOEFL and IELTS listening tests were utilized for the measurement of the participants’ performance, it can be argued that the results might be different if other listening proficiency tests which are more cognitively demanding were used. Future research might wish to use other sources of obtaining information about the intelligences of the learners and their listening proficiency. And finally, participants’ mean scores on the listening tests indicate that the majority of them were intermediate level English language learners and therefore the results might not be generalizable to the learners who belong to other levels of listening proficiency.

References
Anderson, J. R. (1985). Cognitive psychology and its implications. New York: Freeman.
Brazil, D. (1985). The communicative value of intonation in English. England: English Language Research.
Canale, M. (1988). The measurement of communicative competence. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 8, 67-84.
Clark, H. H., & Clark, E. V. (1977). Psychology of language. New York: Harcourt, Brace Janovich.
Cutler, A. & Butterfield, S. (1992). Rhythmic cues to speech segmentation: Evidence from juncture misperception. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 218-236.

Fancher, R. (1985). The intelligence men: Makers of the IQ controversy. New York:W.W. Norton & Company.

Farhady, H. (2005). The effect of coaching on TOEFL type and task based tests. Pazhuhesh-e Zaban-haye Khareji Journal, 20, 1-10.

Galton, F. (1885). On the anthropometric laboratory of the late international health exhibition. Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 14, 205-221.

Gardner, H. (1999a). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

Genesee, F. (1976). The role of intelligence in second language learning. Language Learning, 26, 267-280.

Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Harley, B. (1995). Second language processing at different ages. Language Learning, 45, 43-71.

Hatch, E. & Lazaraton, A. (1991). Design and statistics for applied linguistics. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.

Kiany, G. R. (1998).  English proficiency and academic achievement in relation to extraversion: A preliminary study. International Journal of Applied Linguistics,8, 113-131.

Krashen,  S. D. (1988). Second language acquisition and second language learning. UK: Prentice-Hall International.

Krashen, S. D. (1987). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. UK: Prentice-Hall International.

Long, D. (1990). What you don’t know can’t help you. An exploratory study of background knowledge and second language listening comprehension. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 65-80.

Malim, T. & Birch, A. (1998). Introductory psychology. Macmillan: Macmillan Press.

Munby, J. (1978). Communicative syllabus design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Oller, J. (1978). How important is language proficiency to IQ and other educational tests? In J.W. Oller& K. Perkins (Eds.), Language in education: Testing the tests (pp. 1-30). Massachusetts:Newbury House.

Oxford, R. (1993). Research update on L2 listening. System,21, 205-11.

Rost, M. (2002). Teaching and researching listening. London: Longman.

Rost, M. (2001). Listening. In R. Cater and D. Nunan (Eds.), Teaching English to speakers of other languages (pp. 7-13). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rubin, J. (1994) A review of second language listening comprehension research. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 199-221.

Schank, R. C. & Abelson, R.P. (1977).Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Shearer, C. B. (1996). Multiple intelligences developmental assessment scales (MINDAS). United States of America: Author.

Spearman, C. (1927). The abilities of man: Their nature and measurement. New York: Macmillan Company.

Spolsky, B. (1995). Measured words: The development of objective language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Stern, W. (1912). The psychological methods of intelligence testing. Baltimore: Warwick and York.

Teele, S. (2004). Overcoming barricades to reading. California: Corwin Press.

Terman, L.M. (1916). The measurement of intelligence: An explanation of and a complete guide for the use of the Stanford revision and extension of the Binet-Simon intelligence scale. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Thompson, I., and Rubin J. (1996). Can strategy instruction improve listening comprehension? Foreign Language Annals, 29, 331-342.

Thurstone, L. L. (1938). Primary mental abilities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Tsui, A. and Fullilove J. (1998). Bottom-up or top-down processing as a discriminator of L2 listening performance. Applied Linguistics, 19, 432-451.

Vandergrift, L (1996). The listening comprehension strategies of core French high school students. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 52, 200-223.

Weir, C. J. (1990). Communicative language testing. London: Prentice Hall.

Wolvin, A., & Coakley, C. (1985). Listening. Dubuque: William C. Brown.

Wu, Y. (1998). What do tests of listening comprehension test? A retrospective study of EFL test-takers performing a multiple-choice task. Language Testing,15, 21-44
Yerkes, R.M., Bridges, J.W., & Hardwick, R.S. (1915). A point scale for measuring mental ability. Baltimore: Warwick & York

Appendix
English version of MIDAS (Multiple Intelligences Development Assessment Scales)

Musical

1. As a child, did you have a strong liking for music or music classes?       
2. Can you sing in tune?
3. Do you drum fingers or sing a song?
4. Do you ever make up songs or write music?

Kinesthetic

5. As a teenager, did you often play sports or other physical activities?
6. Did you ever perform in a school play or study acting or dancing?
7. Are you good with your hands at mechanics, making things, fancy food, and sculpture?

Logical-Mathematical

8. Are you good at playing chess or checkers?
9. How are you at figuring numbers in your head?
10. Are you curious person who likes to figure out WHY or HOW things worked?
11. As a child, did you easily learn math such as addition, multiplication and fractions?

Spatial

12. Can you parallel park a car on the first try?
13. How well can you design things such as arranging, decorating, landscaping or working with flowers etc?
14. How easily do you put things together like toys, puzzles, electronic equipment?
15. Are you good at finding your way around new buildings or city streets?

Linguistic

16. Are you a convincing speaker?
17. Do you enjoy telling stories and talking about favorite movies or books?
18. Do you ever write a story, poetry or words to song?
19. Do you play with the sounds of words like making up jingles or rhythms?

Interpersonal

20. Do you have friendships that lasted for a long time?
21. Do you easily understand the feelings, wishes or needs of other people?
22. Are you a good judge of characters?
23. Do you ever have interest in teaching or coaching or counseling?

Intrapersonal

24. Do you plan and work hard toward personal goals, i.e., at school, work or home?
25. Do you know what you are good at and try to improve your skills?
26. Are you able to find unique and surprising ways to solve a personal problem?
27. Do you choose jobs or projects that match your skills, interests and personality?

Naturalist

28. Have you ever raised pets or other animals?
29. Are you good at growing plants or raising a garden?
30. Do you have any interest in studying science or solving scientific problems?