The question is to what extent intelligence test-batteries prove any kind of empirical reference to common intelligence theories. Of particular interest are conceptualized tests that are of a high psychometric standard--those that fit the Rasch model--and hence are not exposed to fundamental critique. As individualized testing, i.e., a psychologist and a testee face to face, is often preferred by many practitioners, a Wechsler-like test-battery will be dealt with here: The Adaptive Intelligence Diagnosticum (AID 2; [Kubinger, K. D. &, Wurst, E. (2000). "Adaptives Intelligenz Diagnostikum--Version 2.1"(AID 2). ["Adaptive intelligence diagnosticum 2."] Weinheim: Beltz.]). Using the standardization sample, confirmatory factor analyses were performed with respect to intelligence theories and models, respectively, as concerns Spearman, Wechsler, Thurstone, Cattell, Jager, and Carroll. Additionally, a confirmatory factor analysis was performed with respect to a simplified neuropsychological model of specific learning disorders, which proved to fit the data best, even better than the (exploratory) four factor solution as given in the AID 2-manual. This model is based on the three interdependent factors "perception," "retrieval," and "utilization." The answer is that if modern test conceptualizations attempt to fulfill pragmatic purposes they hardly have any relation to pertinent intelligence theories, but rather create their own kind of informal, heuristic model of "intelligence."