Administered the Slosson Intelligence Test (SIT) to 92 preschool children. Administered the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale to a sample of the group, and the results were compared to the results from the SIT. Results indicated the SIT overestimated the performance of average preschool children. (Author)

Discrepancies between the mental age (MA) scores and the mean performance of chronological age (CA) groups in the latest revision of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale are noted. A table is presented for converting published Stanford-Binet MA scores into MA scores that are congruent with the above definition. (Author)

Sattler's standard deviation technique for interpreting strengths and weaknesses on the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale has been simplified by Kaufman and Waterstreet in the form of an easy-to-use table. A refinement of their table is presented, with an example to demonstrate its use. (Author/CTM)

The validity of the fourth edition of the Stanford-Binet (S-B IV) test was studied with 30 linguistically precocious children at ages 20, 24, and 30 months. Validity at 24 months was questionable. Problems in using the test with very young children are discussed. (SLD)

Administered the Stanford-Binet and Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (Revised) to 121 children with developmental problems. Results showed 28 children received absolute differences of 12 points or greater between the Binet and the WISC-R. There were 10 instances of complete incongruence between the Binet and all the WISC-R IQs. (JAC)

To reemphasize the dangers inherent in the misuse of testing instruments, a study of language and cognitive development in poverty preschoolers investigated 1) whether the interpretation of Peabody scores could be applied to this population, and 2) the contribution of the linguistic form of the Peabody to performance. (MS)

This article maintains that the older Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale (Form L-M) is the best tool for assessing extraordinarily gifted children despite the acknowledged deficits of the scale in comparison with newer instruments. Although the article finds that the Stanford-Binet uses outdated terminology, is highly verbal, has 20-year-old norms,…

FOLLOWUP STUDIES WERE MADE ON 312 NEGRO CHILDREN, APPROXIMATELY ONE FIFTH OF A SAMPLE OF 1800 STUDENTS TESTED IN A PREVIOUS STUDY. THEY REPRESENTED A STRATIFIED RANDOM SAMPLE OF RURAL, URBAN, AND METROPOLITAN AREAS OF A SOUTHERN STATE. INSTRUMENTS USED FOR SCORING INCLUDED THE STANFORD-BINET, THE CALIFORNIA ACHIEVEMENT TEST, AND THE GOODENOUGH…

Results of the study indicate that the race of the examiner is not a critical variable in test performance relating to Negro students. (KG)

Examined whether scoring of Stanford-Binet test items might be influenced by the examiner's prior knowledge of subjects' ethnicity and IQ. Stanford-Binet protocols (N=36) of subjects from five to eight years old were divided into four groups and assigned four groups of examiners. Results suggested no bias. (Author/JAC)

The Stanford-Binet IV is compared to the original version and criticized for having less power to measure the high end of intelligence and for having norms that discriminate against gifted students. Strengths of the Stanford-Binet L-M are pointed out, and use of both scales for different purposes is recommended. (JDD)

For 40 gifted students, the mean Full Scale score of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised was 13.52 points higher than the mean composite score of the Stanford-Binet, Fourth Edition (Binet-IV). Between the two instruments, 11 of 15 possible subscale correlations were significant. Use of the Binet-IV might result in placement of…

A review of the technical data available on the 1972 norms edition of the Stanford-Binet demonstrates how inadequate these data are. The Stanford-Binet should not continue to be used in important decision making processes unless this weakness is corrected. (Author)

WISC-Rs and Stanford-Binets were administered to 50 children with developmental disabilities referred for comprehensive evaluations. Fifty-four percent of the children received different classifications using the two instruments. Different classifications of intellectual level may be derived for the same child depending upon which test is used.…