An analysis of the range of testing and scattering among retarded children on Form M of the Revised Stanford-Binet Scale.

Berger, Arthur; Speevack, Morris

doi:10.1037/h0061529

Cited by 5 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Since Terman and Merrill (53) do not offer either a definition of intelligence 4 or a discussion of the theoretical basis of test selection, it is necessary to use item content to understand their conception of the nature of intelligence. No particular definition of intelligence advocated by the authors is discernible from a survey of test content as such.…”

Section: Description Of the Scalesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Revised Stanford-Binet Tests of Intelligence.

Watson¹

The Clinical Method in Psychology.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IBISiaJ3J3I5fii!I515J5JHfGy^The 1937 revision of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale developed by Terman and Merrill is a modification of the 1916 Stanford-Binet, which in turn was an extension and adaptation of the scales developed previously in France by Binet. The earlier Stanford-Binet, certain aspects of which will be discussed later, was for many years the standard psychometric instrument, and all other instruments were relegated to positions of lesser importance. It is no exaggeration to say that at one time the major task of the psychometrician was to administer the Stanford-Binet. In all probability no other individually administered test was given so often, as it was used extensively both in clinical practice and in research here and abroad. In fact, it was paid the compliment of being the standard against which newly developed scales were validated. 2 It is not surprising, then, that the 1937 revision was met with enthusiasm and immediately became widely used. The high correlation, repeatedly found, between scores on this new scale, as well as the older revision, and ability in schoolwork has particularly recommended it in working with children of

show abstract

Section: Description Of the Scalesmentioning

confidence: 99%