Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scales
[1] As Binet and Simon indicated, case studies might be more detailed and helpful, but the time required to test many people would be excessive.
Binet and Simon were part of a learned society that opposed the proposal and advocated the creation of remedial tracks in regular schools.
A wide range of children were tested on a broad spectrum of measures in an effort to discover a clear indicator of intelligence.
Failing to find a single identifier of intelligence, Binet and Simon instead compared children in each category by age.
In an effort to simplify the information gained from the Binet–Simon test into a more comprehensible and easier to understand form, German psychologist William Stern created the well known Intelligence Quotient (IQ).
Terman quickly grasped the idea for his Stanford revision with the adjustment of multiplying the ratios by 100 to make them easier to read.
As also discussed by Leslie, in 2000, Terman was another of the main forces in spreading intelligence testing in the United States (Becker, 2003).
While there was significant opposition, many institutions proceeded to adjust students' education based on their IQ scores, often with a heavy influence on future career possibilities (Leslie, 2000).
Over twenty years later, Maud Merrill was accepted into Stanford's education program shortly before Terman became the head of the psychology department.
There were 3,200 examinees, aged one and a half to eighteen years, ranging in different geographic regions as well as socioeconomic levels in attempts to comprise a broader normative sample (Roid & Barram, 2004).
With the help of Elizabeth Hagen and Jerome Sattler, Thorndike produced the fourth edition of the Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scale in 1986.
In an attempt to broaden cognitive ability, the subtests were grouped and resulted in four area scores, which improved flexibility for administration and interpretation (Youngstrom, Glutting, & Watkins, 2003).
Five factors are also incorporated in this scale, which are directly related to Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) hierarchical model of cognitive abilities.
These nonverbal tasks consist of making movement responses such as pointing or assembling manipulatives (Bain & Allin, 2005).
The standardization sample for the SB5 included 4,800 participants varying in age, sex, race/ethnicity, geographic region, and socioeconomic level (Bain & Allin, 2005).
Internal consistency was tested by split-half reliability and was reported to be substantial and comparable to other cognitive batteries (Bain & Allin, 2005).
There have only been a small amount of practice effects and familiarity of testing procedures with retest reliability; however, these have proven to be insignificant.
Readministration of the SB5 can occur in a six-month interval rather than one year due to the small mean differences in reliability (Bain & Allin, 2005).
With an examination of age trends, construct validity was supported along with empirical justification of a more substantial g loading for the SB5 compared to previous editions.
By administering the Stanford–Binet test to large numbers of individuals selected at random from different parts of the United States, it has been found that the scores approximate a normal distribution.
