The Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition
Intelligence Testing
The Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition
Introduction
Practitioners including educators and therapists and individuals are constantly faced with the need to assess the intellectual capacity of individuals to determine their functioning levels (Reynolds & Clark, 1985). Negligible number of tests can utilize sufficient scores to establish a detailed analysis of the intra-individual differences in performance (American Psychological Association, 2012). Standardized intelligence testing is one of the most widely used instruments available to psychologists and individuals. Intelligence testing has become greatly controversial as allegations of stereotyping, cultural bias, and the newfound concept of multiple intelligence types dominate debates. For the purpose of the concept of intelligence testing, this paper focuses on the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition. The paper describes the test, its purpose and measures, including the limitations. In addition, the validity and reliability of the instrument is discussed, as well as how the performance of the test, in combination with modern, advanced instruments. Just as any other psychological tool, the potential for misuse and manipulation of the test is substantial, and the issue will also be discussed.
Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition
The Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition (SB5) is the latest edition of an instrument that was first introduced through a conference paper in Rome by Alfred Binet and Theodore Simon, in 1905 (Becker, 2003). The fifth edition was designed in 2003 with the purpose to evaluate a subject’s cognitive abilities, memory retention, and general intelligence. The administration of the test is conducted individually rather than in group settings, and the time it takes to complete varies depending on which sections of the tool are being utilized. The fifth edition makes use of non-verbal intelligence scales, as well as the original, popular forms of intelligence tests. The instrument is composed of five different levels and utilizes a pretest to establish the level, at which the subject is to begin the tests. The SB5 is among the first few models of adaptive tests. Evaluators use information about an examinee to establish the level at which to begin testing. Depending on that initial examination, the examiner only administers the items that are appropriate for the individual examinee. This structure reduces the time needed to establish reliable information from a test and minimizes the frustration experienced by examinees when provided with items that are too hard or easy. The test uses multiple potential starting points, as well as basal and ceiling rules, which limits the amount of time required for administration and maximizes the information obtained.
The SB5 has the capacity to utilize different scales that test nonverbal knowledge, nonverbal visual spatial processing, procedural knowledge, nonverbal quantitative reasoning, form patterns, delayed response, and nonverbal working memory (Becker, 2003). In addition to the advantages of the instrument, SB5 can be administered to subjects 2 to 85 years of age (Ibid). In ordinary circumstances, the test usually takes, on average, five minutes for each sub-test. This makes it one of the most versatile instruments used in psychometric tests. The pioneer Stanford-Binet Intelligence Test is the basis for the IQ scoring used by psychologists and individuals today. The IQ score is derived by dividing the subject’s mental age by the chronological age, and then multiplying by 100(Johnson & D’Amato, 2005).
In relation to reliability and validity, the SB5 is one of the most reliable instruments whose results are highly valid (Becker, 2003). Bright Hub Education reviewed the reliability of the tool and found that the SB5 measurement reflected a reliability coefficient range of 0.85 to 0.89 in nonverbal sub-tests (Johnson & D’Amato, 2005). According to the evaluation, its reliability coefficient falls within a range of 0.84 to 0.89 as regards the verbal sub-tests. Johnson & D’Amato (2005) evaluated SB5 for validity studies. The test’s validity as positive, with significant improvement compared earlier editions.
In terms of the limitations, the tool has a few limitations relating to measurement and validity of results in some contexts (Becker, 2003). The SB5 is the standard by which intelligence instruments are gauged. Cultural bias is not the issue with SB5, as with the other measures of intelligence. The other methods of measuring intelligence only apply to the American population and cannot provide measurements for individuals from populations and cultures from outside America (American Psychological Association, 2012). In spite of the popularity and the wide use, the Stanford-Binet has some concerns. For instance, in some cultures, intelligence may be perceived as the ability to know when to express intelligence and when to be reserved. In the context of such cultures, the subject of intelligence testing with SB5 is likely not to perform as well as an individual from the westernized cultures, which encourage self expression, in terms of the knowledge one has. Furthermore, subjects may score high in one sub-test of intelligence, but in other sub-tests. For instance, persons who suffer from certain psychological or mental disorders, depending on the severity of symptoms, are likely to attain an inaccurate score on intelligence testing (Becker, 2003).
Intelligence Testing: Personal Evaluation
Rating individuals by intelligence level, as represented by intelligence scores, may be detrimental and demoralizing (American Psychological Association, 2012). It may have consequences on emotional performance of individuals who obtain a relative score that is low compared to their peers. In relation to this, therefore, I do not feel it is essential to use intelligence scores to influence life decisions, particularly for persons that do not express cognitive deficiencies. Showing someone a number and informing them that it represents a low rank of intelligence compared to peers may not impress a child, and certainly not an adult person. Persons who attain a low intelligence score are likely to retain that implied perception of self-worth throughout life, dictating the kind of decisions one makes as regards the effort put in education, choice of profession; it may even influence the selection of a life partner.
In experience, I have observed intelligence testing in action and evaluated its relevance to life. With seven and eight years of age respectively, the younger and older of my nephews were tested for intelligence. The younger boy is naturally intelligent, coming through elementary and middle school with ease. He took intelligence test in third grade and in line with the high score, admitted to a special program. The older boy took the tests but scored lower than his younger brother, hence enrolled in regular classes, where she excelled. The boys are now a sophomore and a senior in high school. The younger boy, who had scored highly in the intelligence examination and was placed in excelled classes, but currently performs poorly. He exhibits less self-discipline and little common sense compared to his elder brother.
Although the younger son scores higher on intelligence scores than his elder brother, his brother, in reality, performs better in the classroom and exhibits better adaptation to life expectations. The poor initial score on intelligence challenged the older boy, who found motivation in it. He makes changes and works hard in education and other aspects of life. The younger boy failed to learn how to study efficiently, and, although, he scores higher in intelligence tests than the brother, his practical application of intelligence is poor. Obviously, knowing the intelligence scores demoralized both the child and the parent. The comparison implied that the younger son was more intelligent than the older son. The older boy had to deal with the defeating fact of having to attend a regular school while his brother attends a special program. However, the current performance is creating a balance and rejuvenating the emotional strength of the older son. They have the same level of the capacity to excel, bringing down the difference to hard work and discipline. As notable through observation of the two sons, the difference is that the younger son excels at taking tests while the other freezes up during examinations.
However, having expressed my personal dissatisfaction of the implications of intelligence testing, I would like to state that intelligence is relevant to life situations. Standardized intelligence testing is useful in situations involving persons with cognitive defects. In relation to academics, intelligence testing provides a basis, on which the expectations persons form expectations for performance, with the right input of self-discipline and habits that make a person holistic. The Stanford-Binet is the most standard and widely used measure of intelligence. However, if used wrongly, the information obtained from these tests can be detrimental to emotional and mental health. The most appropriate method of intelligence testing would be a method that determines how persons learn so that, regardless of intelligence levels, the natural capacity of a person can be utilized efficiently. In conclusion, the SB5 method allows for a complete analysis and interpretation of performance that can lead to improved educational and therapeutic programming.
Current Research
In developing the current version of the SB Intelligence scales, analysis of the past editions was done. The fifth version of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales took seven years to design and develop. Analysis of the SB Intelligence scales, fourth edition found out that the instrument could be reliable only in a negligible portion of the population, particularly children and persons in early adulthood. This, however, was not the case with application to the older population sections. The review process took this limitation into consideration and expansion of the age coverage of the tool hence became the priority for the fifth version. In addition, the SB5 incorporates a wider variety of sub-tests than earlier versions. The sub-tests are streamlined so that persons with short attention span can obtain a valid result. There is a potential for overuse of the tool. The use of SB5 intelligence scales to diagnose mental illnesses is inappropriate. Mental retardation is a state of mind that is different from mental illness. Therefore, the method can only be limited to the evaluation mental retardation.
The development of the previous versions of the SB intelligence scales does not show uniformity, in terms of the period taken before revision. In addition, no information is available as regards the development of the next version of the test. In the period that the fifth edition has been in existence, the use of intelligence testing has come under scrutiny, owing to cultural and socioeconomic bias. In addition, its use to measure intelligence in children has been put to question as regards the accuracy and potential harm due to a wrong intelligence score (Johnson & D’Amato, 2005). Of significant interest, is the fact that Alfred Binet, who created the SB intelligence scales, embraced the idea that intelligence consists of a combination of skills shaped by several diverse factors.
Binet’s purpose for developing the instrument was to assist educators to adapt their methods of teaching to individual student’s specific abilities, paying attention to areas where the student has difficulties (American Psychological Association, 2012). This was the original idea of the tool until the test was narrowed down to a number, but after almost a century, scientists have begun to embrace Binet’s idea. In Binet’s view, intelligence testing has a general use with its application in programming education rather than as labels for individuals.
Conclusion
The SB intelligence scales, fifth edition is an instrument designed for measuring intelligence, in terms of the general intelligence, cognition, and information retention. Alfred Binet and Theodore Simon designed the tool for educators, in a bid to help them streamline their teaching methods in line with individual student needs. The test is dynamic and versions have been developed depending on the development of the definition of intelligence and context of application. Over the last century, the tool has undergone transformation leading to the latest version developed in 2003 i.e. the fifth edition. The latest version i.e. the SB 5 is very comprehensive and incorporates multiple sub-tests to measure intelligence in verbal and nonverbal aspects. The tool also allows a wide range for age to cover 2 to 85 years of age.
In spite of the popularity and successes of the SB5, the practice of intelligence testing has come under scrutiny. There have been allegations of cultural bias and misuse, some of which have been addressed. The developers of the instrument acknowledged the limitation of the instrument and endeavored to resolve the issues. In relation to validity and reliability, the fifth edition has very high coefficient scores. The tool is the benchmark for other measures of intelligence; therefore, comparison to other students is not viable. Because of this, there is potential for misuse and overuse. I believe that there is currently an overuse of intelligence testing, and the potential for misuse is high. The use of intelligence testing should be limited to relevant functions. Overall, the SB5 is an appropriate tool for identifying the developmental needs of individuals which is helpful in education and health.
References
American Psychological Association. (2012). “Intelligence and achievement testing: Is the half-full glass getting fuller?” Www.apa.org/research/action/intelligence-testing.aspx
Becker, K. (2003). “History of the Stanford-Binet intelligence scales: content and psychometrics”. Assessment Service Bulletin No. 1. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.
Johnson, J., & D’Amato, R. (2005). “Review of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales: Fifth Edition”. In: R. Spies & B. Plake (Eds.). “The sixteenth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 976–979)”. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.
Is this your assignment or some part of it?
We can do it for you! Click to Order!
