History of the Stanford-Binet intelligence scales - Essay Example

History of the Stanford-Binet intelligence scales Abstract The Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scales is a test of general intellectual ability, and is a direct descendent of the first test of intelligence, the 1905 Binet scale. It is widely used both for clinical and research purposes. In this paper I will present the Fifth Edition of the Stanford–Binet Scale, its history, background, and psychometric qualities; then, I will disclose important advantages and limitations, possible uses and applications. An individual is influenced by multiple variables, arising from both hereditary and acquired characteristics and these features change over time depending on environmental and developmental considerations. Psychometric tests are used for clinical and research psychological assessments, and are conformed by standardized criterions that are compared between the individual and the rest of the population; among psychological tests, the most widely used are intelligence tests. It is important to know that the different psychological tests require expertise, broad knowledge and training. The most commonly used intelligence tests are Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, Wechsler-Adult Intelligence Scale, and Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children. The Fifth Edition of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales (SB5) is a relatively new revised method, but has a unique history (figure 1). In 1905, Binet and Simon developed the first formal intelligence test, and Louis Terman created the Stanford-Binet Scale in 1916; this final scale was revised in 1937, 1960, 1986, and 2003. The first versions used items to address functional abilities, and were arranged by levels. The Fifth Edition is a standardized intelligence battery that can be administered to people from ages 2 to 85 years. According to Strauss (2006) the main purpose of the revision was “to expand the range of the test, to allow assessment of very low and very high levels of cognitive ability”, and to increase its clinical applications (see table 1). Figure 1. History of the Stanford-Binet. (Strauss, 2006) The SB5 is based on the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory of cognitive functioning, which is considered “one of the well-validated, comprehensive models of cognitive functioning” (Fiorello and Primerano, 2005). Johnson (2007) describes the Stanford-Binet as “a comprehensive, norm-referenced individually administered test of intelligence and cognitive abilities”. The test is consists of five factors, which include Fluid Reasoning, Knowledge, Quantitative Reasoning, Visual-Spatial Processing, and Working Memory; each factor is further divided in verbal and non-verbal subtests (table 2). The Abbreviated Battery IQ scale consists of two routing subtests: one nonverbal (Object Series/Matrices) and one verbal (Vocabulary) (Coolican, J. et al, 2008). The fifth revision retains the routing subtest technique, and routing subsets and functional levels were redesigned. Johnson (2007) further states that a Working Memory factor was added "because it has been shown to be related to both reading and math achievement”. Table 1. Main goals of the Fifth Revision. Restoring the original toys and manipulatives for assessing preschoolers that had been removed in recent versions Increasing clinical utility. Updating materials Increasing non verbal items Increasing the range of domains measured by the test Source: Strauss, E. et al. 2006. Table 2. The Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, 5th ed. Factor Measures Fluid Reasoning The ability to solve nonverbal and verbal problems using reasoning skills Knowledge Fund of general information Quantitative Reasoning Ability to work with numbers and solve numerical problems Visual Spatial Processing Ability to see patterns, relationships, and spatial orientations Working Memory Ability to store, sort and transform information in short-term memory. Source: Coolican, J. et al, 2008. How well a test is standardized provides information about the quality of the sample from which the norms were developed (Lichtenberger, 2005). The SB5 scale was standardized with a sample of 4800 individuals aged 2 to 85 (see table 3). Stratification variables included sex, age, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic level, and geographic region. When considering a particular test, reliability and validity must be thought over carefully. According to Connolly (1993) reliability is the property of the particular instrument, and may be estimated by its reproducibility over time, internal consistency and the agreement between examiners; it is the degree to which an instrument measures the same way each time it is used. According to Kush (2006), internal consistency reliability coefficients ranged from 0.90 to 0.98, and all reliability coefficients were quite high and appropriate. Subtest reliabilities were also strong with an average of 0.84 to 0.89 reported for the 10 individual subtests. Validity relates to truth, and the way to which the tool really measures the construct; it is related to how close the conclusion based on the measurement results are to the truth (Connolly, 1993). While high reliability does not warrant validity, a study cannot achieve validity without reliability. Pomplun & Custer (2005) assessed the validity of the working memory factor, verbal and non-verbal; they demonstrated a parallel between increasing item difficulty and a progression of item characteristics, and provided convergent evidence for construct validity by means of correlation. Table 3. SB5 stratified sample, age. Age Number Young children (ages 2-5) 1,400 Children (ages 6-10) 1,000 Adolescents/young adults (11-20) 1,322 Adults (21-80+). 1,078 Source: Johnson, J., 2007. The SB5 may be used for evaluating learning disabilities; as showed by Roid and Carson (2003), composite scores can be calculated to predict for learning difficulties, slow learners, and intellectually gifted individuals. The same authors present multiple clinical applications, which include Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, and Traumatic Brain Injury. Martinez-Cruz et al (2006) evaluated 187 children who were divided based on their birth weight. The Stanford-Binet was used to determine IQ scores; IQ scores of children born with extremely low birth weight were significantly lower when compared to children born with a higher birth weight. Coolican et al. (2008) tested a total of 63 children with a diagnosis of Autistic Spectrum Disorder. A high percentage of the children demonstrated significantly stronger nonverbal skills; results also indicate that, for the majority of children, the abbreviated battery is representative of the full scale. The SB5 is an excellent tool, where the examiner can choose to administer only the verbal or the nonverbal scale, and each takes about 30 minutes. Moreover, the nonverbal IQ can be used for assessing those with hearing impairments, autism, and communication disorders, among others. Information on how to score each of the subtests is presented in each of the test manuals (Lichtenberger 2005). The test also allows calculating subtest scores, percentile ranks, and confidence intervals. The SB5 may be hand scored, but scoring can be made easier by using a computer program called the SB5 Scoring. Some weaknesses do exist; as Johnson (2006) has mentioned, there needs to be additional research on how the results can be joined to successful interventions. Lichtenberger (2005) adds that “it is not clear why the verbal/nonverbal dichotomy remains”, as it is not consistent with its theoretical support. The SB5 scale may be used in the counseling psychology setting. Although they have plenty of similarities, counseling psychology and clinical psychology differ in some aspects. In a recent study, Ogunfowora and Drapeau (2008) found that counseling psychology makes use of the feminist and multicultural approaches significantly more, and that “counseling practitioners may deal with individuals who do not present with psychopathology but instead are experiencing existential issues that may not require psychotherapy per se”. Counseling psychology deals with a more frequently person-centered approach to therapy (Ogunfowora and Drapeau, 2008). Additionally, practitioners often deal with learning disabilities and higher abilities. The SB5 provides tests to assess all levels of ability in individuals from preschool through old age (Ruf, 2003), rendering an important tool for practice. It may be used when assessing preschoolers, adolescents and adults. The test has a high sensitivity to age-related changes in cognitive ability, and it was ensured that its content was fair in terms of ethnicity and race (Strauss, 2006). The comprehensive cognitive assessment offered by this intelligence scale makes it useful for screening, diagnosis and treatment strategies. The scale might be used at the time parents visits the office for the treatment of their child, and when a colleague refers a family member for assessment. However, it is a tool and must be used cautiously, in concert with a throughout history that includes parent and teacher reports, developmental information, and other tests. A global cognitive score may render a low mark when dealing with specific individuals, but subtests provide their own scoring systems, and should be calculated at the moment practitioners are taking care of particular developmental problems. As mentioned previously, the scale may also help in the diagnosis of a learning disability or mental retardation, and provides a helpful tool for educational planning and placement. Moreover, the scale can be administered for neuropsychological assessment. During standardization, it was also tested in persons with severe medical conditions, severe communication deficit, severe emotional disturbance, and limited language proficiency. Conclusion The Stanford Binet is a valuable tool with a unique history. During the past years, this scale has increased in quality, and significant validity and reliability improvements have been made. It may be catalogued as a comprehensive intelligence scale that aids in the assessment of various clinical entities and individuals from different ages and ethnicities. Being recently revised, the fifth version needs to be applied and studied in different populations. References Becker, K. A. (2003). History of the Stanford-Binet intelligence scales: Content and psychometrics. Stanford Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition Assessment Service Bulletin No. 1. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing. Connolly, K. Grantham-McGregor, S. (1993). Key issues in generating a psychological-testing protocol. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Suppl 57, 317S-8S. Coolican, J. Bryson, S. Zwaigenbaum, L. (2008). Brief Report: Data on the Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scales (5th ed.) in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 38, 190–197. Fiorello, C. Primerano, D. (2005). Research into practice: Cattell-Horn-Carroll Cognitive Assessment in Practice: Eligibility and Program Development Issues. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 525-536. Gregory, R. J. (2007). Psychological testing: History, principles, and applications (5th ed.). Pearson Education, Boston. Johnson, J. (2006). Test review of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition. In K. F. Geisinger, R. A. Spies, J. F. Carlson, & B. S. Plake (Eds.), The sixteenth mental measurements yearbook. [Electronic version]. Retrieved October 24, from the Buros Institute's Test Reviews Online website: http://www.unl.edu/buros Kush, J. (2006). Test review of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition. In K. F. Geisinger, R. A. Spies, J. F. Carlson, & B. S. Plake (Eds.), The sixteenth mental measurements yearbook. [Electronic version]. Retrieved October 24, from the Buros Institute's Test Reviews Online website: http://www.unl.edu/buros Lichtenberger, E. (2005). General Measures of Cognition for the Preschool Child. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 11, 197-208. Martínez-Cruz, C. Poblano, A. Fernandez-Carrocera, L. et al. (2006). Association between Intelligence Quotient Scores and Extremely Low Birth Weight in School-Age Children. Archives of Medical Research, 37, 639–645. Ogunfowora, B. Drapeau, M. (2008). Comparing Counseling and Clinical Psychology Practitioners: Similarities and Differences on Theoretical Orientations Revisited. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 30, 93–103 Pomplun, M. Custer, M. (2005). The Construct Validity of the Stanford-Binet 5 Measures of Working Memory. Assessment, 12, 338-346. Roid, G. H., & Carson, A. D. (2003). Special Composite Scores for the SB5. Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition Assessment Service Bulletin No. 4. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing. Ruf, D. L. (2003). Use of the SB5 in the Assessment of High Abilities. Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition Assessment Service Bulletin No. 3. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing. Strauss, E. Sherman, E. Spreen, O. (2006). A compendium of neuropsychological tests: administration, norms, and commentary (3rd ed.), Oxford University Press. Read More