1930
DOI: 10.1037/h0074069
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The systematic error of Herring-Binet in rating gifted children.

Abstract: There is a general belief that the Herring-Binet is an excellent alternate for the Stanford-Binet. The early statement by Herring that "We are bound to interpret the Pearson r of .991 as meaning that there is very little to choose between the Stanford-Binet and the Herring-Binet as far as reliability and validity are concerned," 1 seems to have been accepted at its face value. The Herring test, using the Stanford as its criterion and composed of very similar material, would appear, without critical examination… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

1932
1932
1992
1992

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The constancy of the I.Q. as derived from the Stanford-Binet has been studied extensively by Cuneo and Terman (93), Terman (10), Stenquist (210,211), Rugg and Colloton (203), Baldwin and Stecher (27,61,62), Poull(187), Garrison (122), Gordon(133), Berry (67), Dickson (4), Johnson (151), Irwin and Marks (6), Madsen (171), Garrison and Robinson (126), Johnson (7), Rugg (204), Hildreth (145), Wentworth (54), Lincoln (164), Randall (190), Freeman, Holzinger, and Mitchell (19), Matthew and Luckey (24), Rogers, Durling, and McBride (25,197), Carroll and Hollingworth (78), Cattell (79), Lamson (46), Brown (77), and Burks, Jensen, and Terman (1). Some of these studies were inadequate in that certain data are not presented.…”
Section: B the Stanfokd-binetmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The constancy of the I.Q. as derived from the Stanford-Binet has been studied extensively by Cuneo and Terman (93), Terman (10), Stenquist (210,211), Rugg and Colloton (203), Baldwin and Stecher (27,61,62), Poull(187), Garrison (122), Gordon(133), Berry (67), Dickson (4), Johnson (151), Irwin and Marks (6), Madsen (171), Garrison and Robinson (126), Johnson (7), Rugg (204), Hildreth (145), Wentworth (54), Lincoln (164), Randall (190), Freeman, Holzinger, and Mitchell (19), Matthew and Luckey (24), Rogers, Durling, and McBride (25,197), Carroll and Hollingworth (78), Cattell (79), Lamson (46), Brown (77), and Burks, Jensen, and Terman (1). Some of these studies were inadequate in that certain data are not presented.…”
Section: B the Stanfokd-binetmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The HerringBinet underpredicted Stanford-Binet IQ by 17 points and underpredicted achievement by a similar amount. Hollingworth concluded that tests based entirely on statistical assumptions were not valid (Carroll & Hollingworth, 1930). Perhaps this report is part of the reason why this form of test development did not flourish.…”
Section: Children With Exceptional Abilitiesmentioning
confidence: 76%
“…S. Hollingworth, 1913, 1917, 1920, 1922a, 1937; Schlapp & Hollingworth, 1914, 1915); specific disabilities (L. S. Hollingworth, 1918, 1919a, 1919b, 1923b); mental testing (Caroll & Hollingworth, 1930; Cobb & Hollingworth, 1925; L. S. Hollingworth, 1916a, 1921, 1925a, 1925b, 1925c, 1933b, 1936; L. S. Hollingworth & Rust, 1937); adolescence (L. S. Hollingworth, 1926a, 1926b, 1928, 1929a, 1931a, 1931b, 1933a); “nervousness” in children (L.…”
Section: The Plight Of Gifted Childrenmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The breadth of Hollingworth's interests is impressive. She was widely acclaimed for her research on mental retardation (L. S. Hollingworth, 1913Hollingworth, , 1917Hollingworth, , 1920Hollingworth, , 1922aHollingworth, , 1937Schlapp & Hollingworth, 1914, 1915; specific disabilities (L. S. Hollingworth, 1918Hollingworth, , 1919aHollingworth, , 1919bHollingworth, , 1923b; mental testing (Caroll & Hollingworth, 1930;Cobb & Hollingworth, 1925;L. S. Hollingworth, 1916aL.…”
Section: The Plight Of Gifted Childrenmentioning
confidence: 99%