Fifty-one gifted children, aged 9-17, were tested with the Stanford Binet Intelligence Scale, Fourth Edition, and the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised. Correlations indicated that the Peabody may be of value in screening students being considered for gifted placement. (Author/JDD)

Fifty gifted students, aged 9-17, were tested with the gifted identification battery from Stanford-Binet IV and the SRA Educational Ability Series (EAS). The EAS was found to be a feasible test for screening gifted students. The discrepancies between the standard scores of the two tests were low and favored the EAS. (Author/JDD)

Evaluation of mean score differences between the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale (Fourth Edition) and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (Revised) (WISC-R) for 126 children with academic difficulties found the Stanford-Binet composite score was significantly higher than the WISC-R score at the lower end of the ability continuum but…

Students in a midwestern public school gifted curricula (n=39) were tested using the Stanford-Binet (SB) Intelligence Scale: Fourth Edition. Correlations with scores from the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised and earlier SB scales were studied. Only the correlation between the SB verbal reasoning standard age scores and the Wechsler…

This paper presents a rationale for adopting the new form of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales for use with gifted children, based on its more recent norms, its factorial structure, its less restrictive emphasis on g-factor intelligence and verbal reasoning, and its evenness in content from one age to another. (JDD)

This article maintains that the older Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale (Form L-M) is the best tool for assessing extraordinarily gifted children despite the acknowledged deficits of the scale in comparison with newer instruments. Although the article finds that the Stanford-Binet uses outdated terminology, is highly verbal, has 20-year-old norms,…

Three new tests presented as alternatives to the Wechsler tests for children were described in earlier papers of this session. This discussion reviews the earlier papers and comments on the developed tests: (1) the Woodcock-Johnson test; (2) the new Stanford-Binet; and (3) the K-ABC. The Woodcock-Johnson battery, state-of-the-art applications of…

The Stanford-Binet IV is compared to the original version and criticized for having less power to measure the high end of intelligence and for having norms that discriminate against gifted students. Strengths of the Stanford-Binet L-M are pointed out, and use of both scales for different purposes is recommended. (JDD)

This paper discusses applications of intelligence tests in schools, considering Binet's original warnings that his tests were primarily useful for identifying students needing intervention and inappropriate for classifying normal students. American applications of Binet's work for ranking are seen as stages of shifting from remedial to custodial…

Compared Stanford-Binet (Fourth Edition) and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised as instruments for assessing the intellectual strengths and weaknesses of students (N=35) classified as learning disabled in elementary and secondary grades. Results suggest the tests will yield similar intelligence quotients for the learning disabled…

For 40 gifted students, the mean Full Scale score of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised was 13.52 points higher than the mean composite score of the Stanford-Binet, Fourth Edition (Binet-IV). Between the two instruments, 11 of 15 possible subscale correlations were significant. Use of the Binet-IV might result in placement of…

Black (N=95) and White (N=52) low socioeconomic children assigned to special education classes were initially given the Stanford-Binet and, three years later, the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised (WISC-R). Correlations between Stanford-Binet and WISC-R Full Scale IQs were significant in both ethnic groups, with r=.60 for the total…

A review of the technical data available on the 1972 norms edition of the Stanford-Binet demonstrates how inadequate these data are. The Stanford-Binet should not continue to be used in important decision making processes unless this weakness is corrected. (Author)