Talk:Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scales

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Psychology (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Highest score[edit]

The article claims: "The highest score ever registered on the Stanford-Binet test was 328, achieved by David hanna from CNCS brihgton." Shouldn't there be some kind of scale in the article? As it stands, it's just a number that means absolutely nothing; is it supposed to be a completely off-scale IQ or what? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sesse (talkcontribs) 18:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

It's an open ended scale, where 100 is the median(?) result. So 328 is theoretically possible as far as I know, though as the other poster says, astoundingly high. Subsolar 20:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

That might be something someone should add. 328 is an astoundingly high score -- you need at last a 132 to get into Mensa's "genius society," so that number is way off the charts as far as what is considered normal goes. Someone should clarify how high that score really is. And on a side note, the article on Michael Kearney says he only got a 325, so one or the other has to be wrong.

328 sounds very off to me... Seeing as the numeric values of IQ tests are weighted according to the population. A score of 328 SD 16 would be waaaaaaaay off the charts - according to this site (, you need to be one in almost 11 BILLION to have an IQ of 202 SD 16... And since there are only ~6.5 billion people on earth, that IQ is impossible - as the score is a comparison between the tested and everyone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Flawed reasoning. Reaching 11 billion population does not guarantee that anyone will have that IQ, and having only 7 billion does not mean that it's impossible. It means that any given individual has a 1 in 11 billion chance of having it. That could be the first person we test, the 1000th, the billionth - or we may test the entire Earth and find two such people. Simpler: The chance of a fair coin that is tossed four times coming up all heads is 1 in 16 (1 / 2^4). You might "get lucky" and do that on the first try, but trying 16 times doesn't guarantee that you'll hit. Extend that: Getting 34 heads in a row has an expected chance of about 1 in 17 billion. (1 / 2^34). But you could do that, too, on the first trial. If everyone on Earth starts tossing coins, there are 7 billion trials each time we all toss. There's certainly a chance that one (or more) persons might hit on the first try. Hope that helps with the concept.
It's been longer than I care to admit since I had Probability and Statistics 101, so anyone please correct the following, all subject to rounding error of the calculator used:
Probability of any one person having the IQ = 1/11,000,000,000, which is a p of about 0.000000000090909
The probablility of any one person *not* having that IQ is 1-p, or about 0..999999999909091
Therefore, the probability that *none* of 7 billion people having it is 0.999999999909091^7,000,000.000
which is about 0.52921387445861, or about 53%. Which means that there is a 47% chance that at least one person on Earth has that IQ. They could be an infant, not yet testable, or a person with Alzheimer's, who no longer can test satisfactorily, but the baby will grow up to have it, and the other person had it at some time before losing mental faculty.
So it's almost a coin toss as to whether such a person exists, and finding one who does is no more unusual than you calling a single coin toss correctly. Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Edit: In terms of "comparison to everyone else", it's known that IQ scores at very high levels are difficult to assess, precisely because of the lack of a sufficient sample size in that general range. They tend to be extrapolated by seeing how much better the person did as compared to a population that has a sufficient sample size, such as 150 IQ. The fact that there may not be someone with 211 or 210 or 213 makes the degree of certainty much lower, but if you outscore the brightest decent-sized sample by a large number of extremely difficult questions... Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

PC and Person-first Language[edit]

I can't edit the first paragraph for some reason, but I really take issue to the phrase "intellectually deficient children." I think it's appropriate to use person-first terminology and not stigmatize disabilities and differences. "Children with intellectual delays and/or difficulties" would be more correct and appropriate. Can this change be made?

I did make one change in the "Development" section. Again, this was a PC issue: the "problem of retardation"? Calling mental retardation a "problem" is a bit harsh. I made it a bit more neutral.

Your feelings should not trump technical terminology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Weak Article[edit]

Article should indicate how widely used (and for what purposes) this test is at present, and describe the nature of the present exam. A surprisingly weak article as it now stands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not a very good article. Also, the Stanford-Binet test is widely criticized for several different (and sometimes mutually exclusive) reasons. Where is this mentioned? Gingermint (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there an intelligence test in the lead?[edit]

I doubt that Victor Henri was born in 1892 if the tests he assisted in the development of were dated to 1896. Or is "assistant" a cute way of saying "experimental subject"? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect material[edit]

I made this [[1]]. It is not in the paper cited, I added the pdf of the paper to the references section. The quote does appear in: Intelligence: The Ability to Learn, or More? A Review of "Handbook ... Editorial Review - ED243065 - Intelligence: The Ability to Learn, or More? A Review of "Handbook of Human Intelligence" by Robert S. Sternberg. [[2]], in reference to "retarded" children.Tstrobaugh (talk) 22:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Items for various ages in the Bimon & Simon test [edit]

3 years olds: (1)on being asked, the child points to eyes,nose and mouth.

             (2)After hearing two(spoken) digits,the child repeats them correctly.
             (3)Identifies objects in a picture.
             (4)On listening six sylables,the child repeats them in sequence.

7 years olds: (1)On being asked,shows right hand and left ear.

             (2)Describes a picture.
             (3)Carries out three commands given simultaneously.
             (4)Counts th value of six coins.

15 year olds: (1)After listening,repeats by speaking 7 digits.

             (2)Finds 3 rhymes for a given word within a minute.
             (3)After listening,repeats a sentence of 26 syllables.
             (4)Interprets a set of given facts  —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC) 

Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to IQ Testing[edit]

I see this article can use a lot of editing. You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 20:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Use of Stanford-Binet by Military[edit]

Even as long ago as 1968, when I underwent Army testing, the Stanford-Binet was not used. Instead, they used a "GT" test, even on draftees, for purposes of assigning MOSes. So the historical "facts" in the article seem a tad iffy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it's your reading of the facts that's "iffy". The article states that the SB was used in developing the Army Alpha and the Army Beta tests, not that the SB was administered by the military. And the Alpha and Beta tests were developed in 1917. So you are referring to the wrong test and you're off by about half a century. Cresix (talk) 00:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
There are no citations at all on that paragraph of the article. I have some sources at hand, and have previously read others, on the development of the Stanford-Binet, on the one hand, and on the development of the World War I Army Alpha and Beta tests, on the other hand. Both sets of tests were plainly influenced by ideas that preceded both in the psychological community. Off hand, I don't recall a specific statement from any reliable source that says "the SB was used in developing the Army Alpha and the Army Beta tests" in exactly those terms. If some editor digs into one of the many sources in my source list on the subject that we can all share in using, or into some other source, and confirms the statement, that would be great. Or if the sources say something a little more nuanced, and article text is revised to match the source, that would be great. The main point is to back up article text with reliable sources, as that is Wikipedia policy. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Good point. There is conflicting information in different Wikipedia articles. Otis-Lennon School Ability Test states that Otis developed Army Alpha and Army Beta. Robert Yerkes states that Yerkes developed those tests. I have some sources at my office that I'll check, but I don't know that they will have info about the army tests. In the mean time, this source states: "The Alpha and Beta tests were the first aptitude tests. They were inspired by the success of the Stanford-Binet and developed by Robert Yerkes for quick large scale assessment of US Army recruits during World War I." In the absence of other sources, I think we should using similar phrasing (i.e., inspired by the SB). Cresix (talk) 02:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Interesting statement. I'll keep an eye on this issue as I scan the historical sections of the sources I have at hand. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 03:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Where are reliable sources for the historical statements here?[edit]

I just tagged one section of the article as dubious, with direction to this talk page section, as the article text is quite plainly wrong, based on sources I have at hand. The "source" now cited there is an amateur website, not a Wikipedia reliable source. Who has sources at hand for editing this article? Many statements in the article text need checking. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I should have enough sources at hand now to begin slogging into revising the article soon. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Questioning Criticism Section Comment[edit]

The criticism in this section seems to be about IQ tests in general. There is nothing specific to the S-B. I added a statement to that effect in the section. As it stands now, I am wondering if the section should even be here. It seems the more general article on intelligence testing is a more appropriate place. There is probably documented criticism about this test in particular. If anyone is aware of this and the sources that contain the information please update the section. If not we should discuss moving it. --Probing Mind (talk) 07:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I came here to post the same thing. Although the section's worded as though it contains criticism of intelligence testing in general, I don't know what the referenced source actually says in regard to the Stanford Binet test. The section is very weak in what it omits, as well. I know that the Stanford Binet test has come under a lot of fire, and the section needs to accurately summarize the criticism that's out there. (talk) 23:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

In particular, this section: "Another criticism of intelligence testing is that the tests do not assess some psychological functions that are equally as important as the cognitive functions. These non-cognitive domains include motivation, empathy, emotion, and others. These domains are an important part of one's mental ability but are not shown in intelligence test..." is rather silly in context. They are criticizing an intelligence measure for not measuring things besides intelligence. That's like criticizing a thermometer for not measuring wind speed because temperature and wind are both a part of weather. I don't expect an MMPI to give me an IQ score, so to expect the opposite is inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Typo or what?[edit]

Article 3.2 Validity of the Modern Scale uses a word 'gloading' which is unknown both to me and to wiktionary. Is it a real word, or just a typo?

That's a typo. Thanks for catching that. I have corrected that place to read "g loading," which is the correct professional term. I fixed some other problems along the way. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scales/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I can't edit the first paragraph for some reason, but I really take issue to the phrase "intellectually deficient children." I think it's appropriate to use person-first language and not stigmatize disabilities and differences. "Children with intellectual delays and/or difficulties" would be more correct and appropriate. Can this change be made?

I did make one change in the "Development" section. Again, this was a PC issue: the "problem of retardation"? I made it a bit more neutral. 01:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 01:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 06:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)