Assessment of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale

Overview of the Stanford-Binet

In the United States, between the years of 1890 and 1915, laws were changed regarding child labor and an emphasis was placed on education, this transition caused a significant increase of students enrolled in primary education (Chapman, 1988). Educators were faced with the difficult task of teaching students at varying educational levels, at a time when there was no way to access their learning abilities. During the same period, in an effort to assist educators, the French government employed Psychologist, Alfred Binet, to create an assessment tool for intelligence that could then be administered to school age children to calculate their individual intellect. The creation of Binet’s test was intended to assist school officials in identifying children with learning deficients and facilitate their placement in special education programs. Binet’s original assessment of 1896 failed and provided minimal data due to the author’s lack of research and quantity of available participants.

Binet continued his research of intelligence assessments and partnered with physician, Theodore Simone. Together they focused their attentions to assessing children with mental retardation within a population of male students. Based on their findings, they created the Binet-Simon test in 1905. The Binet-Simon scale contained 20 questions, graded either by a pass or fail score, and encompassed topics such as; word problems, repeating sentences and digits, paper-cutting tasks, and comparing blocks by placing them in order by weight (Wolf, 1969). The questions increased in difficulty and were able to measure the client’s attention, verbal skills, and memory. The authors also established age-graded norms and this, in combination with the increasingly difficult questions, was able to decipher between individuals functioning at a “normal” level and those with mental deficiencies. The creation of this test was a breakthrough in the psychology field. Prior to this, all measures of intelligence were calculated with laboratory equipment and “included visual perception, reaction time, hearing acuity, and other physical measurements” (Roid & Barram, 5). This test was also the first to employ detailed instructions for administration and scoring. Binet and Simon revised their test two more times, once in 1908 and again 1911, to include scales that could score adults as well as children. The final revision of this test allowed for assessment of: language, auditory and visual processing, learning, memory, judgment, and problem solving.

“Researchers in the United States, such as Goddard and Terman, quickly saw the theoretical and practical value of Binet’s work and began to adapt the work to American context,” (Roid & Barram, 4) in an attempt to deal with the influx of children with varying learning abilities into the school system. Terman conducted his own research based on the Simon-Binet test, gathering normative data on more than 2,300 children and adolescents, and altered the Binet’s “normal” age levels of functioning. In 1916, Terman’s revision of the Binet-Simon test was published and his intelligence quotient (IQ), the ratio between chronological age and mental age, became the new standard for the assessment of intelligence, (Roid & Barram, 2004). Additionally, Terman’s version included ninety tests and sixteen alternatives, whereby the previous Binet-Simon test only consisted of fifty-four. Terman’s revision was more appropriate for use within the United States, where unlike its predecessors who had been focused on diagnosing mental deficients, Terman’s test was more “concerned with generating test scores that would be normally distributed. With a normal distribution of IQ scores, it would be feasible to make specific educational placements based on where in the distribution a child's score was located,” (Milton, 1998). The IQ tests and their normative data were then available for use in placing children in appropriate grade levels as well as facilitating decisions regarding advancement or school transfers of the tested child. Terman’s revision was renamed the Stanford-Binet test and emerged as the most widely used individually-administered test of intelligence ability until the 1940’s, when the Wechsler Intelligence scales were published.

Terman died in 1956, but had continued to test and revise his assessment since it’s original publishing date. Since that time, one revision was made, but by the 1950’s the items on the test had become out-of-date and after World War II the toys used for testing were difficult to obtain. Terman realizing this, had formulated the 3rd revision, which was published after his death. This 3rd edition was also tested on a normative sample and appropriate for use with clients aged 2 – adult, and now included items appropriate for testing African Americans and Hispanics.

The test then underwent two more revisions before reaching its current state. In 1986, Thorndike, Hagen, and Sattler revised the Stanford-Binet and the look of the test changed. The Stanford-Binet 4th edition (SB4) “was based on a four-factor, hierarchical model with general ability (g) as the overarching summary score. The most significant change from the previous editions was the use of point scales for all subtests rather than the developmental age levels used in previous forms” (Roid & Barram, 9). Although the SB4 appeared comprehensive, continuing research was performed and the fifth edition was published in 2003.

The Stanford-Binet 5th edition, SB5, incorporated aspects of the earlier additions while making improvements in the artwork, content, and psychometric design. Further, it added another factor, for a total of five (Fluid Reasoning, Knowledge, Quantitative Reasoning, Visual-Spatial Processing, and Working Memory). This revision sought to incorporate modern intelligence theories such as the Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory. Thereby providing practitioners with “more than 60 years of accumulated research and clinical experience in the assessment and interpretation of intellectual abilities” (Roid, p.8). The SB5 is a standardized test, “ meaning that norms were established during the design phase of the test by administering the test to a large representative sample of the test population. Both tests follow a uniform testing protocol, or procedure (i.e., test instructions, test conditions, and scoring procedures) and their scores can be interpreted in relation to established norms” (Ford-Martin, 2006). The normative sample for the SB5 was a group of individuals aged 2-85+ years of age, a group that closely resembled the 2000 U.S. Census. In addition to the normative, 3,000 participants were screened from special populations (e.g. gifted, MR, developmental delay, LD, ADHA, Speech/Language problems, Deaf). “Bias reviews were conducted on all items for the following variables: gender, ethnicity, cultural, religion, region, and socio-economic status” (Roid, p.10). In addition, the SB5 scored high is reliability, ranging from .90 to .98, as well as in concurrent and criterion validity when correlated to other intelligence tests, such as: Woodcock-Johnson III, Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test, and the Wechsler tests. The SB5 now contains a nonverbal mode of testing, which encompasses all five of the assessment factors. Point-scales format each of the subtests which allow for measurement of behavior at every age, including elderly clients, and the range of scales were extended in order to better measure both higher and lower areas of performance. Additionally, two routing subtests identify the developmental starting points of the examinee, and the items can be tailored to cognitive level, resulting in greater precision in measurement. The SB5 has been found appropriate for use with individuals aged two through late adulthood, and is designed to measure a range of intelligence, from “individuals at the highest level of gifted performance and individuals who are younger, low-functioning, or adults with mental impairment” (Ward, n.d.). Additionally, the SB5 is useful in neuropsychological assessment, early childhood assessment, psycho-educational evaluations, and adult social security and worker’s compensation evaluations (Roid, 2003). And although, the original purpose of the Binet test was to identify children with mental retardation, the SB5 is “the best single tool available to measure the full extent of giftedness in the very highest ranges, in children under thirteen years of age” (Kearney, 2006).

Assessment Procedure

The Binet Assessment was the first test to employ detailed instructions for administration and scoring, and has since maintained an extensive training manual for the presentation, interpretation and scoring of each item on the test. Roid & Barram (2004) warn, “the most important considerations in testing with the SB5 is to follow the standardized directions exactly,” (p.19). The counselor should be aware that the assessment procedure begins even prior to presenting the client the test itself. The technical manual advises for physical arrangements and rapport building with the client before beginning a test, both factors that are claimed to have a significant impact on score potential. A client’s background information, including known or perceived disabilities, language barriers, and/or significant cultural influences should be known to the counselor prior to administration, so as that special accommodations (set forth in the SB5 technical manual can be made). “Testing is begun with two routing subtests (Object Series-Matrices and Vocabulary) to determine the starting point for the remaining subtests” (Hood & Johnson, 60). Then based on the results of these initial subtests, the client is given one of five developmental levels on each of the remaining eight tests. The testing process then continues until the client has missed at least three out of four items. The results of the test can then be interpreted and scored by the counselor, either by hand, or through use of Windows-based Scoring Pro, a computer based program which then calculates the client’s score.

Stanford Binet in comparison to other Intelligence Assessments

Binet’s original assessment remained the main intelligence measure, until the creation of the Wechsler Scales of Intelligence. David Wechsler, noting that the Stanford-Binet tests were intended mainly for use with children, found a need for a tool designed to assess intelligence assessment in adults, therefore with the adult population in mind, he created the Wechsler Bellevue Intelligence Scale in 1939. The Wechsler tests were designed to have similar scores to the Stanford-Binet but to test a wider range of skills and abilities. Wechsler was also concerned that the Stanford-Binet relied too heavily on verbal aptitude and therefore created nonverbal measures of intelligence. The Wechsler assessments of intelligence (WAIS) is an incorporation of several subtests designed specifically for age appropriate use, whereas the SB5 is one test, appropriate for use amongst all age groups, which increases difficulty gradually to allow for increased intelligence. Normative data for the WAIS was gathered from 2,450 individuals, representative of the population of those aged 16-89 years of age. “A stratified, census-based sampling plan ensured that the standardization samples included representative proportions of adults according to each selected demographic variable. The variables used for stratification were age, sex, race/ethnicity, education level, and geographic region” (Zohrab, 2007). Furthermore, the WAIS-III, WMS-III Technical Manual (1997), finds that the interscorer agreement is high, averaging in the upper .90s, is high in test-rest reliability, as well as receiving high scores in both concurrent criterion-related and content validity, whereby the WAIS-III correlates with the SB5 with a score of .88 (Hess & Rogers, 1997). Furthermore, criterion-related validity was confirmed through moderate to high correlations, ranging between .40 to .90, observed between examiner’s scores on the WAID and their scores on other measures of cognitive ability, such as; Stanford-Binet VI and Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Ability, (Sink, Eppler & Vacca, 2005). Both the SB5 and the Wechsler Scale for children (WISC- IV) are frequently used for assessment of children aged 6-16 years, and provided correlation results. Hood and Johnson (2007) find that the WISC-IV is a useful instrument in diagnosing children with mental and learning disabilities, and retardation. One major benefit of the Wechsler tests is that they do not rely wholly upon verbal problems and many of the sub-tests on the WAIS and WISC tests are based on non-verbal, or performance skills. The WISC provides a measure of general intellectual functioning, as well as four index scores of: perceptual reasoning, verbal comprehension, working memory, and processing speed. It is comprised of 14 subtests, seven of which are verbal and the other seven which measure performance, or nonverbal scales. Similar to the SB5, the Wechsler tests use factors, such as; vocabulary, similarities, picture completion, block design, matrix reasoning, letter-number sequencing, digit span, digit symbol-coding, and symbol search, in obtaining one’s IQ score. Additionally, like the SB5, the WAIS produces an overall IQ and area IQs, which have a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. Furthermore, the SB5 and the WAIS are both standardized and produce IQ scores, which are compared to a normative group. Numerous studies have been conducted comparing the results, validity and reliability of both the SB5 and the WAIS and it has been found both are suitable measures for the identification of giftedness as well as those with low intellectual ability (Simpson, et. all, 2002). It has been suggested that the Wechsler scales may be most appropriate for use with adults while, the Stanford- Binet may present itself as a more accurate tool for assessing children. This may be due to the fact that “the Stanford-Binet has a higher ceiling than any of the other tests currently on the market, and gives more opportunity than the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-R) for gifted children to display their fluency, imagination, unusual or advanced concepts, and complex linguistic usage" (Vernon, 256). The Wechsler scales are reportedly the most frequently used assessments by school counselors (Hood & Johnson, 2007) and other professionals, because each of the Wechsler tests cover a narrow age range and is therefore easier to use.

In the early 1980s, the Kaufmans developed an alternative to the WISC and Stanford-Binet. The Kaufman tests were designed in an attempt to reduce cultural bias and to separately assess crystallized and fluid intelligence. This grouping included several tests, two of which are the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (K-ABC), used with clients aged 3-18 and the Kaufman Adolescent and Adult Intelligence Test (KAIT). The KAIT normative information was based on the United States standardization samples and included 2000 individuals, in 13 age groups, ranging in age from 11–75+. These groups were then divided according to geographical area, race ethnic group, and examinee or parental education level (Dumont & Hagberg, 1994). Findings found that “reliabilities for the KAIT are generally outstanding. Each of the 3 IQ scales has an internal consistency reliability that averages .95. The six core subtests have an average reliability of .90. Test-retest reliability for the Crystallized, Fluid, and Composite IQs were .94, .87, and .94, respectively” (p. 191). The KAIT also received high scores in construct validity and correlational validity when compared to other intelligence tests. “In general the KAIT was found to have high correlations, and thus, substantial variance overlap with the Wechsler tests and the Stanford Binet” (p.192) obtaining correlational scores in the high .80s within this comparison, (Ackerman, Ford & Turk, 1993). In comparing these with other assessment tools, the Kaufman test instructions, state that “the WISC-R focuses on the content of intelligence (i.e. verbal and performance), whereas the K-ABC is primarily directed at mental processes involved in problem-solving activities (i.e. sequential and simultaneous operations)” (Meesters, et. all, 1054). Unlike, the Wechsler tests and the Stanford-Binet, The K-ABC does not provide for use of part score analysis, but does allow for some a priori decision-making on the part of the evaluator.

It has been shown that all three measures of intellect, the Stanford-Binet, Wechsler, and Kaufman assessments all receive scores high in reliability, validity, and cultural sensitivity. Additionally, studies have shown that all three tests are appropriate for use with individuals regardless of age, education, language abilities, culture, ethnicity, race, and/or gender. The Stanford-Binet, however, remains to be touted as the still best tool available to measure the full extent of giftedness in the very highest ranges, in children under thirteen years of age (Kearney, 2006) because it allows for higher potentials in scoring than any of the other tests currently on the market, and gives more opportunity than the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-R) "for gifted children to display their fluency, imagination, unusual or advanced concepts, and complex linguistic usage" (Vernon, 256).

Appropriate Use of the Stanford-Binet – 5

The fifth edition of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales were “designed to meet the needs of educators and psychologists working with special education, preschool assessment, evaluation of individuals with mental retardation, gifted assessment, and other applications of previous editions of the Stanford-Binet tests” further “a new emphasis was placed on assessment for adults and the elderly by extending the normative age range above 85 years,” (Roid & Barram, 98). In addition this tool shows great strength in that it includes factors that will allow for testing under both verbal and nonverbal categories, has one of the largest standardization samples amongst all intelligence tests, with its’ normative sample demonstrating an exact match to the socioeconomic and ethnic characteristics of the United States population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, as reported in Roid, 2004), and “was one of the first tests to undergo extensive fairness reviews by experts from various religious perspectives as well as those from representative ethnic, gender, and disability groups” (Roid & Barram, 99). Furthermore, the SB5 used a method of item classification, graduating difficulty levels, and routing subtests in order to present the examiner with initial estimates of the examinee’s verbal ability, all which are used to progress him or her to the appropriate testing level for the remainder of the assessment, “e.g. into the level in Item Books 2 and 3 that matched the estimated ability score and the difficulty of the items located in that level” (Roid & Barram 101). In addition, the SB5 has scored high in reliability, as well as in concurrent and criterion validity when correlated to other intelligence and achievement tests. Therefore with this recent revision, the SB5 would appear to be an all-encompassing measure of intellect, and suitable for use in a variety of settings. It is important to note however, that this form of assessment appears to be most appropriate for use with youths in determining their current level of intellect and diagnosing possible deficits and learning disabilities, allowing for proper placement in special education programs.

As with any tool, regardless of it’s strength, there are always weaknesses and availability for improvement, in this the Stanford-Binet is no exception. The problem with intelligence assessments, in general, lies in its method. Currently, the only way to assess intelligence is through the test itself, additionally, the only correlation construct for intelligence is also tests. Furthermore, intellectual assessments are only able to measure verbal ability and abstract reasoning, both of which are important for success in school, but are less predictive of success in the real world (Kail & Cavanaugh, 212). While the Stanford-Binet test does focus on areas of linguistic, logical-mathematical, and spatial intelligence, it fails to consider other areas of intelligence related to creativity, emotional, or bodily intelligence. And although, extensive bias reviews have been conducted on the SB5 and corrections made regarding these findings, it has been argued that all intelligence tests are to some extent culturally bound, and are reflective of Western views of intelligence. Furthermore, administration of the Standford-Binet is expensive and requires extensive training and credentials for processing and interpreting the results. As result, counselors often refer their client’s to other, more qualified and specialized professionals, but in this process, it can be assumed that much information about the client and their results can be lost.

Even in light of its’ weaknesses, the Stanford-Binet remains one of the most popular intelligence tests in the world, one to which all other intelligence assessments are validated against (Hood & Johnson, 2007). Studies have found the SB5 is appropriate for use with individuals aged two through late adulthood, and is designed to measure a range of intelligence, from “individuals at the highest level of gifted performance and individuals who are younger, low-functioning, or adults with mental impairment” (Ward, n.d.). Additionally, the SB5 is useful in neuropsychological assessment, psycho-educational evaluations, adult social security, and worker’s compensation evaluations (Roid, 2003). A common use of intelligence testing is to evaluate and provide early predictions of learning disabilities (LD) in children. “Research by Roid (2003) and Roid and Pomplum (2004) showed that the SB5 Working Memory and Knowledge were predictive of reading achievement, while Working Memory and Quantitative Reasoning were predictive of mathematics achievement. This research promises to provide a method of predicting risk for LD with the SB5 alone, instead of waiting for reading skills to develop,” (Roid & Barram, 116) thus allowing for an early IEP or a special education plan to be developed for the client, advantageous because this knowledge will be gained prior to these deficiencies developing and presenting themselves in elementary school. And although, the original purpose of the Binet test was to identify children with mental retardation, the SB5 is “the best single tool available to measure the full extent of giftedness in the very highest ranges, in children under thirteen years of age” (Kearney, 2006).

Applying ACA Ethical Standards to the Use of the Stanford-Binet 5

It is essential that ethical standards set forth by the American Counseling Association (ACA) be considered and strategically followed when considering a course of treatment or assessment of a client. When employing the use of the SB5, or any other assessment, a counselor must consider these factors, listed below relevant to sections “E” of the code.

ACA section, E.1. General, finds that assessment tools are imperative in diagnosing individuals with disorders, while aiding counselors’ understanding of their client, their psychological needs, and course of treatment, it is essential however that counselors use these tools in a safe and ethical manner for their clients. They must also consider their clients’ welfare and right to have this information protected from misuse. In addition, they must respect and provide to the client, at his or her request, access to data, interpretations, conclusions, and any recommendations (E.1.b Client Welfare).

Section, E.2.Competence to Use and Interpret Assessment Instruments, states that prior to administering any assessment tool, a counselor must have knowledge of and been properly trained in the use of such a tool. The Stanford-Binet requires that it be administered, by an individual, who has obtained graduate or professional-level training in psychological assessment. It would, therefore, be highly unethical for this test to be administered or interpreted without first receiving the proper credentials and training.

Section E.3. Informed Consent in Assessment – The ACA reminds that it is essential that the client have full knowledge and understanding of the process, purpose, and intended usage of results obtained by any assessment tool they may be administered. This complete understanding is necessary to ensure that the client feels comfortable with the process, thereby providing data and/or answers that are true and accurate representations of their intellectual abilities.

Section E.4. Release of Data to Qualified Professionals, warns that clients should have a full understanding of the issues related to confidentially and be informed that their data can only be released to parties of which they have consented to. This is especially important when employing the use of the SB5, as the client is often referred to an outside professional for the administration of the test, interpretation, and scoring. Once the results are calculated, they are then shared with interested parties, such as; school officials, physicians, courts, and employers.

Regarding section E.6. Instrument Selection, the ACA advises that, when considering any assessment tool, the counselor should evaluate it for validity, reliability, and also consider its’ limitations. This is important to ensure the results will be applicable and are representative of the client and their needs (E.6.a.). It is the counselor’s responsibility to ensure that the SB5 is the appropriate test for use with their client based on his or her overall situation. Thus one must consider any and all factors that could adversely affect the results of the test, such as: age, culture, language, and disability and if possible, make the appropriate accommodations.

In section E.7. Conditions of Assessment Administration, the ACA states that it is important for the counselor to understand and administer assessments under the same conditions in which they were established under their standardization. The SB5 examiner’s manual, offers a detailed outline of the settings, layout, process, and method by which the test should be administered. In addition, it allows for and suggests accommodations that should be made for individuals with disabilities. While, it is important to retain the basic construct validity of test by using it in accordance to the standardization process, one must remember that ethical guidelines require that professionals respond to the unique needs of their client.

ACA section E.8. Multicultural Issues/ Diversity in Assessment, finds that a counselor must evaluate the appropriateness of any instrument based on their cultural reliably, as all populations are not equal. An assessment that may be deemed reliable and suitable for a client of Caucasian decent, may not be appropriate for one who is of Latino decent and vise versa. This must be always be considered, as intelligence has been shown to vary by cultural or environmental differences. This will be discussed further in the following section.
Stanford-Binet’s appropriateness for use with Special Populations

“The typical intelligence test administered in the United States assumes a relatively common cultural background found in contemporary society and English as the native language” (Hood & Johnson, 67). This has subsequently caused many to question whether intelligence tests can provide unbiased results, particularly with individuals from lower socioeconomic status, ESL (English as a second language), and those of differing cultural or ethnic backgrounds. Hood & Johnson (2007) state that there are three ways in which intelligence tests may be culturally biased; (1) they may include items, illustrations, or vocabulary which favor one group over another, (2) they may produce test related factors of bias, such as the anxiety or motivational issues, and (3) a bias may come from the usage of test results in the selection of employees or college admissions, whereas one group score scores higher than another, thus obtaining the desired position. With this is mind, the SB5 has undergone “extensive fairness reviews by experts from various religious perspectives as well as those from representative ethnic, gender, and disability groups” (Roid & Barram, 99) These reviews considered the items, illustrations, and procedures of the SB5 and were conducted by assessment professionals representing religions, to include: Buddhism, Christianity (both conservative and liberal denominations), Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism. “Ethnic perspectives were addressed by reviewers representing African American, Asian American or Pacific Islander, Hispanic American, and Native American or Alaskan Native populations” (Roid & Barram, 99). However, even with all attempts at removing biased materials, it has been shown that, “as a group, African Americans score approximately 1 standard deviation below White Americans on most standardized tests of cognitive ability” (Hood & Johnson, 213), results which are not unlike those of other cultural or ethnic groups. With this data in mind, it is imperative that a counselor understands section E.8. Multicultural Issues/ Diversity in Assessment, of the ACA ethical standards when considering and interpreting the results of the SB5. While it remains that there are cultural and ethnic differences in the scores derived from the SB5, the biases have been drastically reduced, and are minimal. In some cases, counselors have chosen to remove items that can be considered potentially biased, but “studies show that the removal of biased items does not affect the overall test scores and that many cognitive tests continue to provide mostly accurate predictions for most minority clients” (Hood & Johnson, 217). As result, the SB5 should be considered a valid and reliable measure of intelligence among individuals of varying cultures, ethnicity, and/or gender.

Conclusion

The Stanford-Binet has proven that it can be a useful tool in many areas concerned with assessing intellect. Over the course of the last 100 years, this tool has undergone multiple revisions each increasing its generalizabilty and usefulness in the clinical setting. The current version, the SB5, has obtained high scores in validity and reliability, while extensive studies have shown that it remains appropriate for use with individuals regardless of age, education, language abilities, culture or ethnicity, race, and/or gender. It has been said that the Stanford-Binet, however, remains to be one of the best tools available in assessing school age children, as well as the school’s overall performance. However, as previously shown, the Stanford-Binet test scores of these children are directly correlated to their school performance and so she wonders about the validity of this test. As Hood & Johnson (2007) state, in all measures of validity, the real question is: does this test contribute more than we already know or could predict without them, and she feels the answer to this would be no. The intent of this test is to determine which children are in need of special education programs, but couldn’t this realization be made without the test itself, and instead determined by on the child’s performance in school? Furthermore, the Stanford-Binet test is only useful is predicting school achievement, but fails to be applicable once the child graduates and enters the “real world.” Lastly, this test fails to consider some important aspects of intelligence related to creativity, emotional, or bodily intellect, all worthy of notation, as not all individuals are created equal, and shouldn’t we harness these abilities? This learner feels that it is important to take all of these facts into consideration before labeling or classifying a child based on an irrelevant IQ score, which could stigmatize them throughout their lifetime.




References
ACA Code of Ethics (2005). American Counseling Association. Retrieved on February 14, 2008 from http://ibol.idaho.gov/COU/Documents/2005_ACA_Code_of_Ethics.pdf

Ackerman, P.L., Ford, L. & Turk, K. (1993). Kaufman Survey of Early Academic and Language Skills. Mental Measures Yearbook, 12. Retrieved on March 3, 2008 from http://ezproxy.library.capella.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=loh&AN=12011448&site=ehost-live

American Psychiatric Association. (2002). Ethical principals of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 57, 1060-1073.

Chapman, P.D. (1988). Schools as sorters: Lewis M. Terman, applied psychology, and the intelligence movement, 1890-1930. New York: New York. University Press.

Dumont, R. & Hagberg, C. (1994) Kaufman Adolescent and Adult Intelligence Test (KAIT): Test Review Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 12, 2, 190-196. Retrieved on March 1, 2008 from http://alpha.fdu.edu/psychology/kait.htm

Ford-Martin, P.A. (2006). Stanford-Binet intelligence scales. Gale encyclopedia of medicine. Retrieved on February 1, 2008 from http://www.healthatoz.com/healthatoz/Atoz/common/standard/transform.jsp?requestURI=/healthatoz/Atoz/ency/stanford-binet_intelligence_scales.jsp

Hess, A.K & Rogers, B.G. (1997). Wechsler Asult Intelligence Scale- Third Edition. Mental Measures Yearbook, 14. Retrieved on March 3, 2008 from http://ezproxy.library.capella.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=loh&AN=14072125&site=ehost-live

Hood, A. B., & Johnson, R. W. (2007). Assessment in counseling: A guide to the use of psychological assessment procedures (4th ed.). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association

Kaufman, A. S. & Lichtenberger, E. O. (1999). Essentials of WAIS-III Assessment. New York:Wiley.

Kearney, K. (2006) The 10 most commonly asked questions about highly gifted children. Hoagies’ Gifted Education Page. Retrieved on February 29, 2008 from http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/10_highly_gifted.htm

Meesters, C., Van Gastel, N., Ghys, A. & Merckelbach, H. (1998). Factor analyses of WISC-R and K-ABC in a Dutch sample of children referred for learning disabilities. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 54 (8), 1053-1061. Retrieved on March 1, 2008 from http://web.ebscohost.com.library.capella.edu/ehost/detail?vid=33&hid=116&sid=fd9881e2-49ad-49c3-86a5-bb74f4a50a57%40sessionmgr109

Milton, H.L. (1998). Introduction to; “The uses of intelligence tests” Lewis M. Terman (1916). Classics in the History of Psychology. Retrieved on February 6, 2008 from http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Terman/intro.htm

Roid, G.H. (2003). Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition, Technical Manual. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.

Roid, G.H. & Barram, R.A. (2004). Essentials of stanford-binet intelligence scales (SB5) assessment. Hoboken, NJ. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Simpson, M., Carone, D.A., Burns, W.J., Seidman, T., Montgomery, D. & Sellers, A. (2002). Assessing giftedness with the WISC-III and the SB-IV. Psychology in the Schools, 39(5), 515-524. Retrieved on February 29, 2008 from http://web.ebscohost.com.library.capella.edu/ehost/pdf?vid=27&hid=116&sid=fd9881e2-49ad-49c3-86a5-bb74f4a50a57%40sessionmgr109

Sink, C.A., Eppler, C. & Vacca, J.J. (2005). Stanford-Binet Intelligance Scales for Early Childhood, Fifth edition. Mental Measures Yearbook. 17. Retrieved on March 3, 2008 from http://ezproxy.library.capella.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=loh&AN=17073217&site=ehost-live

Vernon, P. E. (1987). The demise of the Stanford-Binet scale. Canadian Psychology, 28 (3), 251-258.

Ward, K. (n.d.). Stanford-Binet intelligence scales and the perceptions of school psychologists. Retrieved on February 17, 2008 from http://www.bsu.edu/web/keward2/edpsy600-sb%20and%20perceptions.htm

WAIS-III WMS-III Technical Manual. Retrieved on March 1, 2008 from http://harcourtassessment.com/

Wolf, T.H. (1973). Alfred Binet. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Zohrab, P. (2007). The Invalidity of the Wechsler adult intelligence scale –III. New Zealand Equality Education Foundation. Retrieved on March 2, 2008 from http://nzmera.orcon.net.nz/waisinvl.html

Stephanie Lowrance-Henckel