There is a difference in the purpose of different forms of intelligence tests. One purpose is to predict future likelihood that a person will succeed at a course of training, the original purpose of intelligence tests starting with Alfred Binet. The second purpose that developed later was the use of the assessment to diagnose problems and develop a course of treatment, such as the PASS system. The people who advocated the first purpose often said that intelligence was genetic, which was translated as intelligence was unchanging. The people who advocated the second purpose believed that people could be trained to increase their intelligence.
My purview of the results indicated that intelligence as it is used to define success in school is Alfred Binet and his successors described it. You can train people to perform better on some things, but they rarely generalize these strategies to other tasks as people who were assessed as higher functioning do from the start. But it often happens that outside school these people perform well because the world does not restrict how they solve a problem, as school might, but only are concerned with the results. "Old fashioned" intellectual assessments might not give much credit to creativity and new ways to solutions. Moreover, it is assessing a collection of abilities, whereas, the PASS theory seeks to zero in on strengths to be used to overcome weaknesses. I think both approaches are necessary. You can use traditional tests to lok at the factors of the PASS system, but often the difference between a regular school psychological evaluation and a neuropsychological evaluation underscore these differences.