Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T09:27:08.796Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reliability and Validity of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale (Fourth Edition) in the Australian Context: A Review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 October 2015

Gregory J. Boyle
Gregory J. Boyle*
Affiliation:
University of Melbourne
*
Institute of Education, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3052
Get access

Extract

The Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale has a long history of successful usage as the foremost psychometric instrument for the assessment of cognitive ability. Early versions of the instrument were concerned primarily with the prediction of school achievement and academic learning on the basis of an overall IQ score. The present fourth edition of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale (Thorndike, Hagen & Sattler, 1986) is greatly advanced in design and construction over the previous Form L-M. It is, in this regard, both exhaustively comprehensive and concomitantly rather tedious and slow to administer, particularly when a detailed assessment is required. While the test authors claim that the full range of subtests takes only 60–90 minutes (no more than 13 of the 15 subtests can be given to any one individual and in practice, probably only six or seven may beadministered in any particular testing situation), the actual testing time may be significantly greater than this, depending on individual circumstances.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Educational and Developmental Psychologist , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , May 1989 , pp. 21 - 23
Copyright
Copyright © Australian Psychological Society 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allen, BP. & Potkay, C.R. (1983). Just as arbitrary as ever: Comments on Zuckerman’s rejoinder. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 1087–1089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyle, G.J. (1983). Critical review of state-trait curiosity test development. Motivation and Emotion, 7, 377–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyle, G.J. (1985). Self-report measures of depression: Some psychometric considerations. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 24, 45–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boyle, G.J. (1986a). Clinical neuropsychological assessment: Abbreviating the Halstead Category Test of brain dysfunction. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 42, 615–625.3.0.CO;2-X>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boyle, G.J. (1986b). Depressed mood effects on processing of high- and low-content structure text in American and Australian college women. Journal of Structural Learning, 9, 77–82.Google Scholar
Cattell, R.B. (1971). Abilities: Their structure, growth and action. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.Google Scholar
Cattell, R.B. (1978). The scientific use of factor analysis in behavioural and life sciences. New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kline, P. (1979). Psychometrics and psychology. London: Academic.Google Scholar
Lachar, D. & Wirt, R.D. (1981). A data-based analysis of the psychometric performance of the Personality Inventory for Children (PIC): An alternative to the Achenbach review. Journal of Personality Assessment, 45, 614–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, R.P. (1981). The dimensionality of tests and items. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 34, 100–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reitan, R.M. & Davison, L.A. (1974). Clinical neuropsychology: Current status and applications. Washington: Winston.Google Scholar
Thorndike, R.L., Hagen, E.P. & Sattler, J.M. (1986). Technical Manual: Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale (Fourth Edition). Chicago: Riverside.Google Scholar
Vallar, G. & Baddeley, A.D. (1982). Short-term forgetting and the articulatory loop. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 34, 53–60.Google Scholar