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

Abstract

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...

Personality Psychology and Economics

“…126 Schmidt and Hunter [1983;], Hartigan and Wigdor [1989] and McHenry, Hough, Toquam et al [1990]. Correlation with other achievement tests; teacher ratings of student achievement 0.80 with grade 4 CAT/2, 0.69 with grade 5 CAT/2, 0.83 with grade 6 CAT/2; 0.67 with teacher ratings Michalko and Saklofske [1996] CAT=California Achievement Test Sources: Feingold [1982], Greene, Sapp and Chissom [1990], Hartlage and Steele [1977], Hunter [1986], Kobrin, Patterson, Shaw et al [2008], Michalko and Saklofske [1996], O'Leary, Rusch and Guastello [1991], Omizo [1980], Rothlisberg [1987], Schmidt, Hunter and Larson [1988], Sticht, Hooke and Caylor [1982], American Council On Education [2007], American Council on Education [2009].…”

Personality Psychology and Economics

“…126 Schmidt and Hunter [1983;, Hartigan and Wigdor [1989] and McHenry, Hough, Toquam et al [1990]. Correlation with other achievement tests; teacher ratings of student achievement 0.80 with grade 4 CAT/2, 0.69 with grade 5 CAT/2, 0.83 with grade 6 CAT/2; 0.67 with teacher ratings Michalko and Saklofske [1996] CAT=California Achievement Test Sources: Feingold [1982], Greene, Sapp and Chissom [1990], Hartlage and Steele [1977], Hunter [1986], Kobrin, Patterson, Shaw et al [2008], Michalko and Saklofske [1996], O 'Leary, Rusch and Guastello [1991], Omizo [1980], Rothlisberg [1987], Schmidt, Hunter and Larson [1988], Sticht, Hooke and Caylor [1982], American Council On Education [2007], American Council on Education [2009].…”

Assessing Intellectual Functioning in Young Adolescents: How do the WISC-IV and SB5 Compare?

“…Despite the significant difference in scores, the FSIQs on the two instruments are significantly correlated. However, the correlation of .58 is lower than the reported correlations of .65 to .88 for earlier versions of the two instruments (Carvajal et al, 1993;Greene et al, 1990;Hollinger & Baldwin, 1990;Lukens, 1990;Lukens & Hurrell, 1996;Prewett & Matavich, 1994;Rust & Lindstrom, 1996;Saklofske et al, 1994;Simpson et al, 2002). Given that both tests provide estimates of g, moderately high to high correlations in the magnitude of .7 to .8 would be expected (Urbina, 2004).…”