Here are all the problems I found on the article, and this isn't even looking at the research, because...
1. The research paper is not linked to the article. You would think, given the fact that the research paper is the driving force behind the article, that linking the research would have been a good idea.
2. "In fact, the researchers say that no single test - at least none that has been devised already - can give an accurate assessment of all types of intelligence" - The article never defines "types of intelligence", and if they're referring to things like 'emotional intelligence', those are not valid intelligence denominations.
3. "The test also included a survey that asked about participants' background and lifestyle" - This is not relevant to measuring I.Q.
4. They object to the I.Q. research on the basis of that "performance" could be attributed to "a wide variety of factors," yet these factors (reasoning and short-term memory) *are* parts of measuring I.Q. They even state that one of the components of I.Q. is "reasoning", and then they complain about it being measured LOL.
5. Finally, their main objection to I.Q. tests is that they are not holistic. Yes, some don't measure every facet of intelligence. That's like saying, "Well, our car is only running on 3 cylinders, therefore we can't drive it". Not to mention that when multiple tests are conducted, there is sufficient overlap to account for any facet missed on a particular test.