Comparison of the fourth edition and the L-M edition of the Stanford-Binet used with mentally retarded persons

Lukens, John

doi:10.1016/0022-4405(88)90035-0

Cited by 11 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Generally, these studies have addressed several of the methodological shortcomings of the studies reported in the Technical Manual . Although there were a few exceptions (Carvajal & Weyand, 1986; Goh & Cordoni, 1989; Lukens, 1988; Richardson, 1988), most used a counterbalanced design and administered tests within a few days or weeks of one another…”

Section: The Sb:fe and Other Measures Of Intelligence: An Examination...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Three (Hayden, Furlong, & Linnemeyer, 1988; Phelps, Bell, & Scott, 1988; Smith, St. Martin, & Lyon, 1989) used samples whose ages fell within the middle of the range covered by the tests, thus providing adequate floor and ceiling items. The other study (Lukens, 1988) used an older sample (mean age = 16 years) of individuals with moderate mental retardation. The high validity coefficient suggests that both the SB:FE and SB:LM provide a sufficient number of floor items to assess the cognitive abilities of low-functioning young adults.…”

Section: The Sb:fe and Other Measures Of Intelligence: An Examination...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Review of validity research on the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale: Fourth Edition.

Laurent

Swerdlik²,

Ryburn³

1992

Psychological Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale: Fourth Edition (SB:FE; Thorndike, Hagen, & Saltier, 1986) represents a significant departure from earlier versions of the scale. In the 5 years since its introduction into the field of intellectual assessment, a number of validity studies have been conducted with the SB:FE. The results from these construct and criterion-related validity studies suggest that the SB:FE provides as valid a measure of general mental ability as existing tests. Support for the 4 factors hypothesized by the authors of the SB:FE is weaker. Research suggests that the SB:FE is a 2-factor test (Verbal, Nonverbal) for ages 2 through 6 years and a 3-factor test (Verbal, Nonverbal, Memory) for ages 7 years and older. Studies also suggest that the SB:FE can distinguish between groups of youngsters with differing intellectual abilities (e.g., mentally handicapped, gifted, neurologically impaired) and that the test correlates highly with scores on achievement tests. On the basis of validity information, recommendations for the use of the SB:FE are made. In its various revisions since 1916 the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale has been a mainstay of assessors for decades. It was the first published intelligence test to provide specific administration and scoring procedures. It was also the first American test to use the concept of the intelligence quotient (IQ). As time has passed, revisions in the Wechsler scales and the advent of new measures of intelligence (e.g.

show abstract

Section: The Sb:fe and Other Measures Of Intelligence: An Examination...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Sb:fe and Other Measures Of Intelligence: An Examination...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Review of validity research on the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale: Fourth Edition.

Laurent

Swerdlik²,

Ryburn³

1992

Psychological Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other studies compared SBIV scores with Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence IQs (Carvajal, Hardy, Smith, & Weaver, 1988), Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised IQs (Carvajal, Gerber, Hewes, & Weaver, 1987), Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised, Columbia Mental Maturity Test, and Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test scores (Carvajal, McVey, Sellers, Weyand, and McKnab, 1987), StanfordBinet L-M scores (Hartwig, Sapp, & Clayton, 1987;Lukens, 1988), and the K-ABC (Hayden, Furlong, & Linnemeyer, 1988;Smith, St. Martin, & Lyon, 1987). These studies tended to support the utility of the SBIV and suggested that it is an appropriate substitute for the tests against which it was being validated.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Validation of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale: Fourth edition with exceptional black male students

Greene¹,

Sapp

Chissom

1990

Psychol. Schs.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard Age Scores on the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale: Fourth Edition (SBIV) and WISC-R IQs of 51 urban black males receiving special education services were compared. Correlations between the SBIV Composite scores and WISC-R Verbal, Performance, and Full Scale IQs were 303, .826, and 3 7 respectively. Correlations between all combinations of scales ranged from .612 to .888, median r = .723. SBIV Composite mean scores did not differ significantly from the mean WISC-R Full Scale, Verbal, and Performance 1Qs. Regression analysis of the three subgroups (BD, LD, and EMR) indicated that the SBIV possesses differential validity for each group. Tabular comparison of precision of classification between the SBIV and the WISC-R yielded a 78% agreement. These data suggest that the SBIV possesses utility for assessing the intelligence of black students classified as BD and EMR. However, the use of the scale with LD students is unsupported. Since the publication of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale: Fourth Edition (SBIV) (Thorndike, Hagen, & Sattler, 1986a), a limited number of independent validation studies have appeared in the literature. One of the earliest studies (Livesay, 1986) compared SBIV Composite Standard Age Scores (SAS) and WISC-R IQs of 166 gifted white elementary children. The means were significantly different (MWISC-R = 123.33, MSBIV = 120.63), and correlations between the various scales were .55 (WISC-R vs. Composite), 3 8 (WISC-R vs. Verbal Reasoning), .28 (WISC-R vs. Abstract/Visual Reasoning), .38 (WISC-R vs. Quantitative Reasoning), and .31 (WISC-R vs. Short-Term Memory). Livesay found that SBIV SAS were slightly lower than WISC-R IQs and indicated that while the SBIV is an acceptable alternative to the WISC-R, use of the SBIV in evaluation of the gifted would reduce the number of students meeting eligibility requirements.A second study (Carvajal & Weyand, 1986) reported a correlation of .78 between SBIV SAS and WISC-R IQs for 23 third-grade children. Further, there was no significant difference between the SBIV Composite mean (1 13.3) and the WISC-R Full Scale mean (1 15). These outcomes prompted the authors to conclude that the SBIV, particularly the "General Purpose Abbreviated Battery," should serve as an acceptable alternative evaluation instrument.Contrary to Carvajal and Weyand's finding, Rothlisberg (1987), using a sample of 32 first and second graders, obtained a significant difference between the WISC-R Full Scale mean (112.53) and the SBIV mean (105.53). However, the magnitude of the correlation between the SBIV SAS and WISC-R IQs was similar ( r = .77). In a study with children receiving special education services, Phelps, Bell, and Scott (1988) compared SBIV SAS and WISC-R IQs for 35 LD students. They found a close correspondence Requests for reprints should be sent to between the respective means (MWISC-R = 95.6, M~B I V = 93.92) and a significant correlation between the various SBIV and WISC-R scale scores. They concluded that, for LD students, the SBIV should yield IQ scores si...

show abstract

“…of Educational Psychology, Teachers their assistance in this study. College 509, Ball State University, Muncie, IN 47306. jal, Hardy, Harmon, Sellers, & Holmes, 1987;Carvajal, Hardy, Smith, & Weaver, 1988;Carvajal & Weyand, 1986;Lukens, 1988;Rothlisberg, 1987) and has shown the SBIV's promise, particularly with regard to its Composite score. However, the line of investigation addressing the factor structure of the measure and the utility and stability of the area scores has been less than supportive of the instrument's model.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The relation of the Stanford-Binet: Fourth edition to measures of achievement: A Concurrent validity study

Rothlisberg

1990

Psychol. Schs.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The relation of performance on the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale: Fourth Edition (SBIV) to performance on the Wide Range Achievement Test-Revised (WRAT-R) and Woodcock-Johnson Psychoeducational Battery: Tests of Achievement (WJTA) was evaluated for a sample of 31 normal, elementary-aged students using both the area score and Sattler's factor score approaches. Qualitative comparison of the two approaches' association to achievement is made.

show abstract

Comparison of the fourth edition and the L-M edition of the Stanford-Binet used with mentally retarded persons

Cited by 11 publications

References 2 publications

Review of validity research on the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale: Fourth Edition.

Review of validity research on the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale: Fourth Edition.

Validation of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale: Fourth edition with exceptional black male students

The relation of the Stanford-Binet: Fourth edition to measures of achievement: A Concurrent validity study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About