In this article we describe the origins of the subtests that appear on the modern Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales (SB5), Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence (WPPSI-IV), Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-V), and Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS-IV). We found that the majority of these subtest formats were first created in 1908 or earlier and that only three have been created since 1980. We discuss the implications of this findings, which are that (1) many subtests have lengthy research histories that support their use in measuring intelligence; (2) many subtests have formats that predate modern theories of test creation, cognitive psychology, and intelligence; and (3) the history of many subtests is more complex than psychologists probably realize.

In this article we describe the origins of the subtests that appear on the modern Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales (SB5), Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence (WPPSI-IV), Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-V), and Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS-IV). We found that the majority of these subtest formats were first created in 1908 or earlier and that only three have been created since 1980. We discuss the implications of this findings, which are that (1) many subtests have lengthy research histories that support their use in measuring intelligence; (2) many subtests have formats that predate modern theories of test creation, cognitive psychology, and intelligence; and (3) the history of many subtests is more complex than psychologists probably realize.

: In The Mismeasure of Man, Stephen Jay Gould argued that the preconceived beliefs and biases of scientists influence their methods and conclusions. To show the potential consequences of this, Gould used examples from the early days of psychometrics and allied fields, arguing that inappropriate assumptions and an elitist desire to rank individuals and/or groups produced incorrect results. In this article, we investigate a section of The Mismeasure of Man in which Gould evaluated the Army Beta intelligence test for illiterate American draftees in World War I. We evaluated Gould’s arguments that the Army Beta (a) had inappropriate content, (b) had unsuitable administration conditions, (c) suffered from short time limits, and (d) could not have measured intelligence. By consulting the historical record and conducting a pre-registered replication of Gould’s administration of the test to a sample of college students, we show that Gould mischaracterized the Army Beta in a number of ways. Instead, the Army Beta was a well-designed test by the standards of the time, and all evidence indicates that it measured intelligence a century ago and can, to some extent, do so today.