CERTIFICATION OF AUTHORSHIP

(Fill out and attach this form to each written assignment for this course. It is recommended that students put a copy of this on disk so that they can easily use it for each assignment.)

St. Thomas University

Course: EEX 501-ASSESSMENT OF EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

Submitted To: Dr.Margaret Faringer

Student Name: Marie Michelle Glemaud

Student E-Mail Address: Marglema9@aol.com

Date of Submission: May 27,2006

Title of Assignment: WISC-IV and Stanford-Binet

CERTIFICATION OF AUTHORSHIP: I certify that I am the author of this paper and that any assistance I received in its preparation is fully acknowledged and disclosed in the paper. I have also cited any sources from which I used data, ideas or words, either quoted directly or paraphrased in standard APA format. I also certify that this paper was prepared by me specifically for this course.

Student's Signature: Marie Michelle GLemaud

ST. THOMAS UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

EEX 501-ASSESSMENT OF EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

SCORING RUBRIC FOR COMPARE WISC-III/STANFORD BINET PAPER – Assignment # 1

Student’s name Marie Michelle Glemaud Date: May 27, 2006

Instructor’s name Dr.Margaret Faringer Date:_____________

Reader’s name _____________________________ Date: _______________________________

(Circle the appropriate scores in the columns above.)

Student’s Total Score: __________________________________

WISC-IV and Stanfor-Binet

Marie Michelle Glemaud

St. Thomas University

You have been tested since the moment you were born. When you were just a few minutes old, the person who delivered you calculated an Apgar score, a number between 0 and 10 that assesses a newborn’s general health. Some months later, a pediatrician probably assessed your motor and cognitive development with a screening test. Several years after that, you may have been tested when you were about to start kindergarten. The testing intensified once you entered school. Some of us are being tested on the basic of our intelligence. Intelligence is an abstract concept that is difficult to define. While many psychologists equate intelligence with verbal ability and problem-solving skills, others prefer to define it as the individual’s ability to learn and adapt to the experiences of every day life (Santrock, 1995). Already in the early 1920s, the journalist Walter Lippmann maintained that IQ tests were nothing but a series of stunts. “We cannot measure intelligence when we have not defined it,” he said (Armstrong, 1987). Intelligence includes a wide range of cognitive skills, including perception, learning, memory, problems solving, and reasoning (Santrock, 1995). According to Locurto (1991), intelligence can be defined as the ability to master the information and skills needed to succeed within a particular culture. In the following lines, we will examine the history of intelligence testing and will focus our attention on the two most popular tests of intellectual skills, the Stanford-Binet and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children – IV (WISCH- IV). We will compare and contrast these two intelligence tests and demonstrate their validity and reliability.

It was known that the first formal intelligence tests were administered in China as early as 2200 B.C. The testing apparently went on for days, and test takers occasionally died because of the intense strain (Cohen, Swerdlik & Smith, 1992). However, in the English-speaking world, the first major contribution to intelligence testing was the British psychologist Sir Francis Galton, also known for the statistical procedure he developed. Galton collected measurements on more than 9,000 men and women at the 1884 International Health Exhibition in London. These measures include head size, visual acuity, and reaction time. Galton’s most important contribution to psychology was not his specific measurement techniques, but the idea that individual differences in intelligence could be assessed (Allen, 2002).

The French psychologist Alfred Binet constructed the first forerunner on modern intelligence tests (Santrock, 1995). Binet had been appointed to design a test to identify slower learners in the Paris school system, so that they could receive special instruction. In 1904, Paris school officials asked Alfred Binet and his colleague, Theodore Simon, to identify students in special education. Binet was a fervent believer in the power of education, and he agreed to the project because he saw an opportunity to improve school services for slow learners. He tested students on a variety of tasks, including counting money, classification, and choosing “pretty” faces drawn on cards. Binet’s procedure was empirical; that is, he did not start from a theory of intelligence, rather he experimented with an array of tasks until he was satisfied that he could derive a “mental level that would indicate a child’s potential for school achievement (Santrock, 1995). Because of the high priority placed by schools on verbal skills, items on Binet’s original test emphasized language-based cognitive skills This accent on language skills as a primary indicator of intelligence persists in intelligence quotient (IQ) test today (Santrock, 1995).

During middle childhood, educators rely heavily on intelligence tests for assessing individual differences in mental development. Around age six, IQ becomes more stable than is at earlier ages, and it correlates well with academic achievement. Because IQ predicts school performance, it often enters into educational decisions. Originally, the term intelligence quotient was an arithmetical quotient, based on the child’s mental age divided by the child’s chronological age. The result was multiplied by 100 to eliminate an awkward decimal point. However, this method created problems. For example, it does not make sense for adults, whose mental-age test scores remains stable even though their chronological age is increasing. An intelligence quotient is no longer really a quotient. Instead, an intelligence quotient, or IQ, is currently calculated by consulting norms that assign a score of 100 to a person whose performance is exactly average for a particular age group; higher and lower IQs are assigned based on where a person’s score falls in comparison to the average. If mental age is the same as the chronological age, then the child’s IQ is 100; if mental age is above chronological age, the IQ is more than 100; if mental age is below chronological age, the IQ is less than 100 (Santrock, 1995). Most IQ tests are designed so that the standard deviation of the distribution is established as 15 points. An IQ of 115 means that a person scored exactly one standard deviation above the mean (100+15) (Armstrong, 1987).

Interestingly, Binet’s intelligence scales were greeted with more enthusiasm in the United State than in Binet’s own country. Lewis Terman, working at Stanford University, found that the norm developed in Paris did not apply well to California children. Terman’s revised version is called Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale. Like all major tests, the Stanford has been revised many times. The test soon became so popular that Robert Yerkes, the president of the American Psychological Association, decided to use the test to develop the Army Alpha and Army Beta tests, which helped classify recruits. (Fancher, 1985).

The Stanford intelligence scale as noted earlier, is derived from Alfred Binet’s test. It was developed in 1916 to measure intelligence and knowledge. It is a standardized test that assesses intelligence and cognitive abilities in children and adults aged two to 23. That means it must be administered under uniform conditions. The Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale is used as a tool in school placement, in determining the presence of a learning disability or a developmental delay, and in tracking intellectual development. It is generally administered in a school or clinical (Fancher, 1985).

After several subsequent revisions, the Stanford-Binet Scale became the foundation of intelligence quotient testing. The Stanford-Binet was the first test to use the concept of intelligence quotient (IQ). It is now in its fifth edition and reports intelligence with the measuring of four factors: Verbal reasoning, quantitative reasoning, spatial reasoning, and short-term memory. Within those factors are 15 subtests that include vocabulary, comprehension, verbal absurdities, pattern analysis, matrices, paper folding and cutting, copying, quantitative, number series, equation building, memory for sentences, memory for digits, memory for objects, and bead memory. These subtests permit a detailed analysis of each child’s mental abilities. The verbal and quantitative factors emphasize cultural loaded, fact-oriented information, such knowledge of vocabulary and sentence comprehension. The spatial factor is believed to be less culturally biased because it requires little in the way of specific information. (Wodrich, 1997).

The 15 subtests are grouped into the four area scores. Not all subtests are administered to each age group; but six subtests are administered to all age levels. These subtests are: Vocabulary, Comprehension, Pattern Analysis, Quantitative, Bead Memory, and Memory for Sentences. The number of tests administered and general test difficulty is adjusted based on the test taker's age and performance on the sub-test that measures word knowledge. The subtest measuring word knowledge is given to all test takers and is the first subtest administered. (Sattler, Jerome, 1992).

The following is a review of the specific cognitive abilities that the four area scores measure (Sattler, Jerome, 1992).

The Verbal Reasoning area score measures verbal knowledge and understanding obtained from the school and home learning environment and reflects the ability to apply verbal skills to new situations. Examples of subtests comprising this factor measure skills, which include: word knowledge, social judgment and awareness, ability to isolate the inappropriate feature in visual material and social intelligence, and the ability to differentiate essential from non-essential detail.

The Abstract/Visual Reasoning area score examines the ability to interpret and perform mathematic operations, the ability to visualize patterns, visual/motor skills, and problem-solving skills through the use of reasoning. An example of a subtest which determines the Abstract/Visual Reasoning score is a timed test that involves tasks such as completing a basic puzzle and replicating black and white cube designs.

The Quantitative Reasoning area score measures: numerical reasoning, concentration, and knowledge and application of numerical concepts. The Quantitative Reasoning area is combined with the Abstract/Visual Reasoning area score to create an Abstract/Visual Reasoning Factor Score.

The Short-Term Memory score measures concentration skills, short-term memory, and sequencing skills. Subtests comprising this area score measure visual short-term memory and auditory short-term memory involving both sentences and number sequences. In one subtest that measures visual short-term memory, the participant is presented with pictures of a bead design, and asked to replicate it from memory.

The Stanford-Binet Scale provides comprehension coverage of five factors of cognitive ability (Wodrich, 1997)

· Fluid Reasoning

· Knowledge

· Quantitative Processing

· Visual-Spatial Process

· Working Memory

It may be used to diagnose a wide variety of developmental disabilities and exceptionalities and may be useful in:

· Clinical and neuropsychological assessment

· Early childhood assessment

· Psycho-educational evaluations for special education placements

· Adult workers compensation evaluations

· Providing information for interventions such as IFPs, IEPs, career assessment, industrial selection, and adult neuropsychological treatment

· A variety of forensic contexts

· Research on abilities and aptitudes

The Composite Score of the Stanford Binet has excellent reliability. Internal consistency reliabilities for the Composite Score range from .95 to .99 over the 17 age groups. The median Composite Score reliability is .97. The median subtest reliabilities range from a low of .73 for Memory, for Objects to a high of .94 for Paper Folding and Cutting. Subtest reliabilities differ somewhat according to age group, ranging from a low of .66 for Memory for Objects at age 10 years to a high of .96 for Pattern Analysis at ages 18-23. (Salvia & ysseldyke, 2007)

The Technical Manual for the Stanford-Binet presents, several studies investigating the Scale’s criterion validity. In the 13 studies reported in the manual, correlations between the Sanford-Binet fourth edition (SB: FE) and these criterion measures ranged from a low of .27 to a high of .91 (Mdn r = .80). The median r of .80 supports the concurrent validity of the SB: FE (salvia & ysseldyke, 2007).

The test has been criticized for not being comparable for all age ranges. This is because different age ranges are administered different subtests. Additionally, for very young preschoolers, it is not uncommon to receive a score of zero due to test difficulty or the child's unwillingness to cooperate. Consequently, it is difficult to discriminate abilities in this age group among the lower scorers (Keith & all, 1988).

The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-IV) is the fourth edition of a widely used test for 6- through 16-year-olds. It is the most recent edition of the most widely used children's intellectual test. It was developed by David Wechsler, who believed that intelligence has a global quality that reflects a variety of measurable skills. It measures intellectual abilities in both verbal and performance areas. The verbal, which consist of six subtests primarily measure the child's ability to solve verbal problems using verbal and auditory skills. That is, the child must use primarily auditory skills to understand the instructions, and must use primarily verbal skills to give the answers. The performance, which has five subtests primarily measure the child's ability to solve visual and constructional problems using non-verbal or only verbal skills. That is, the child must use primarily visual skills to understand the instructions, which the examiner demonstrates while giving a brief verbal description. Likewise, the child must give the answer using his or her hands to assemble, construct, or mark on paper. The performance and the verbal subtest provide one of t first means through which non-English-speaking children with speech and language disorders could demonstrate their intellectually strengths. The WISC-IV requires no reading, except for some advanced math problems. The test does not require writing words, but two subtests require writing a symbol or checking yes/no alternatives. It was the first test to be standardized on children representing the total population of the United States, including ethnic minorities. It has been adapted for and standardized in Canada, where both English and French versions are available (Atkinson, 1992).

The WISC-IV consists of four of the following composition scores: Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI): Requires verbal conceptualization, stored knowledge access and oral expression. Orally presented questions that assess common-sense reasoning, reasoning out or retrieving word associations, and the ability to describe the nature or meaning of words. Knowledge acquired from one's environment. Verbal expression required (length of response varies), one of the best predictors of overall intelligence (Atkinson, 1992).

1. Similarities
2. Vocabulary
3. Comprehension
4. (Information)
5. (Word Reasoning)

Perceptual Reasoning Index (PRI): Requires visual perception, organization and reasoning with visually presented, nonverbal material to solve the kinds of problems that are NOT school taught.

The Block design also requires spatial processing, visual-motor coordination and the ability to apply all skills in a quick, efficient manner. The highest scores reflect both accurate and very quick responses.
Picture Concepts score may differ from these other subtest because of the effect of language on the performance.

1. Block Design
2. Picture Concepts
3. Matrix Reasoning
4. (Picture Completion)

Working Memory Index (WMI): Requires working memory processes applied to the manipulation of orally presented verbal sequences. The ability to temporarily retain information in memory, by performing some operation or manipulation with it, and produce a result. Involves attention, concentration, mental control, and reasoning. Essential component of other cognitive higher order progresses. Closely related to achievement and learning (LD students frequently affected).

1. Digit Span
2. Letter-Number Sequencing
3. (Arithmetic)

Processing Speed Index (PSI): Requires visual perception and organization, visual scanning, and the efficient production of multiple motor responses. These tasks require executive control of attention and sustained effort for a 2-minute period of time while working with simple visual material as quickly as possible. Performance on Coding is also dependent on paired-associative learning.

1. Coding
2. Symbol Search
3. (Cancellation)

The WISC-IV has 15 subtests, 10 are retained from the WISC-III
These are the five new subtests:

• Word Reasoning - measures reasoning with verbal material; child identifies underlying concept given successive clues.
• Matrix Reasoning - measures fluid reasoning- The child is presented with a partially filled grid and asked to select the item that properly completes the matrix.
• Picture Concepts - measures fluid reasoning, perceptual organization, and categorization (requires categorical reasoning without a verbal response); from each of two or three rows of objects, child selects objects that go together based on an underlying concept.
• Letter-Number Sequencing - measures working memory. The child is presented with a mixed series of numbers and letters and repeats them numbers first (in numerical order), then letters (in alphabetical order).
• Cancellation - measures processing speed using random and structured animal target forms (foils are common non-animal objects) (Atkinson, 1992).

On the WISC-IV all the reliabilities estimates differ by subtests and age level. The verbal subtest reliabilities range from .71 to .91, while performance subtest reliabilities range from .61 to .92. Stabilities for the WISC-IV are reported at three age levels for all subtest and range from .54 to .89 (Salvia & yesseldyke 2007).

The problem with all of the Weschesler tests and the Stanford-Binet is that they were designed to test IQs between 70 and 130. They were never designed to assess IQs as high as most gifted children have; their designer never intended them for that purpose. Additionally, the performance of a gifted or even highly gifted child emerges as a lower IQ on the Wechesler tests than their actual IQ as measured on the Stanford-Binet Scale test. For example, a child scoring 160 on the 1960 norms of the Stanford-Binet (L-M) would score approximately 129 on the WISCH-IV.” Another issue is that the various types of questions used in IQ tests are presented in mixed order, unliked the Wechesler tests in which test of a given type (for example” Digit Span” or “Picture Arrangement”) are posed repeatedly until the child gets a given successive number wrong. Boredom is more like to set in with the repetition method of the Wechesler, especially for pre-school and primary aged children and more especially for gifted children, for whom the questions are boring easy anyway. The varied presentation of the Standard Binet holds the child’s interest better, the more so for younger children (Wodrich, 1997).

Virtually these two intelligence tests provide an overall score, which represents general intelligence or reasoning ability along with an array of separate scores measuring specific mental abilities. These intelligence tests are administered individually and demand that the examiner have considerable training and experience. The examiner not only considers the child’s answers but also observes the child’s behavior, noting such responses as attentiveness to and interest in the tasks of the adult. These tests are often used to identify highly intelligence and diagnose those with leaning problems. They are comprised of a series of subtests (about 12) divided into Verbal and Non-Verbal categories (Wodrich, 1997).

We have learned that these two intelligence tests can provide a lot of information about a child’s level of intelligence. The fact is that the Stanford Binet was specifically designed, among other things, to identify the gifted and highly gifted, while the Wechsler tests were, as quoted above, specifically not designed to do that. All experts worldwide on gifted and highly gifted (G/HG) children agree that the Stanford Binet is the test that should be used to assess a gifted child. In general, they are both intended to assess intellectual and academic development. Despite the weakness in these intelligence tests, evidence demonstrates that they remain a popular assessment of intelligence.

References

Allen, G. (2002). The measure of a Victorian polumath: Pulling together the strands of Francis Galton’s legacy to moderm biology. Nature, 145 (3), 19-20.

Armstrong, T., In their Own Way: Discovering and Encouraging Your Child’s Personal Learning Style (Los Nagesles: Jeremy P. Tarcher, Inc., 1987).

Atkinson, L., (1992). Mental retardation and WAIR scatter analysis Journal of Intelligence Disabilities research, 36,443-448.

Cohen, R. J., Swerdlik, M. E., & Smith, D. K. (1992). Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction to test and measurement (2^nd ed.). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.

Fancher, R. (1985). The Intelligence Men: Makers of the IQ Controversy. New York: W. W. Nortan & Company.

Keith, T. Z., Cool. V. A., Novak, C. G., White, L. J., Pottenbaum, S. M., (1988). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Stanford-Binet fourth edition: Test the theory-test match. The journal School Psychology, 20, 253-274.

Locurto, C. (1991). Sense and nonsense about IQ: The case of uniqueness. New York: Praeger.

Salvia, J., & Yesseldyke, J. E. (2007). Assessment (10^th edition). Boston: Houghton Muffin.

Santrock, John (1995), Life –Span Development (5^th edition). Brown & Benchmark Publishers Texas, Dallas.

Sattler, Jerome (1992). Assessment of Children. 3rd Edition. San Diego, CA, Jerome Sattler, Publisher Inc.

Wodrich, David L. (1997). Children’s psychological Testing a Guide for Nonpsychologists. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.