Danish intelligence tests may have led to wrongful removals of bilingual children

New Danish research reveals that a widely used psychological intelligence test—previously abandoned in cases involving Greenlandic children—also produces misleading results for parents from other cultural backgrounds, potentially leading to unjustified forced removals.

The study, published Tuesday in the Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, examined the WAIS-IV test, a standardized IQ assessment adapted to Danish language and cultural norms. Researchers found that the test systematically underestimates the intelligence of bilingual individuals, even those born and raised in Denmark with high academic achievement.

Neuropsychologist Rune Nielsen, the study’s senior author, tested a group of Danish-born professionals—doctors, psychologists, and lawyers—of Arab descent, all with university-educated parents. Despite their qualifications, participants scored an average of 10 points lower than expected.

“Ten points is a significant margin,” Nielsen told DR. “If someone tests near 70 and then scores 10 points lower, they risk being misclassified as intellectually disabled. The consequences can be severe.”

The findings echo earlier criticism of Denmark’s use of culturally biased tests in child removal cases involving Greenlandic families, which prompted UN condemnation and the establishment of a special review unit. Now, lawyers warn that the same flaws may have affected cases involving other immigrant groups.

Jeanette Gjørret, an attorney specializing in child welfare cases, said her clients from diverse backgrounds consistently score abnormally low on such tests. “It’s striking that protections introduced for Greenlandic families don’t extend to others,” she said. “The state may be committing abuses akin to historical cases like the Sprogø girls.”

Anne Sofie Holm Petersen, another lawyer handling removal cases, noted that courts and child welfare agencies often prioritize test results over direct observations, such as supervised visits. “The system relies heavily on these tests, even when they contradict other evidence,” she said.

Gjørret called for a review of past cases, arguing that the new research removes any excuse for inaction. “Politicians must investigate whether children were removed based on flawed assessments,” she said. “We can’t perpetuate injustice just because we lack alternatives.”