![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about StanfordāBinet Intelligence Scales.
|
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? āThe preceding unsigned comment was added by Sesse ( talk ā¢ contribs) 18:54, 27 January 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 ( http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/IQtable.aspx), 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. āPreceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.155.44 ( talk) 18:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
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. ā Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.38.56.240 ( talk) 16:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
No. Down with weasel words. Zezen ( talk) 17:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
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. āPreceding unsigned comment added by 70.225.169.12 ( 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)
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"? ā JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
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 - ed.gov 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)
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 āPreceding unsigned comment added by 110.172.24.10 ( talk) 06:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
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)
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. āPreceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.149.170 ( talk) 17:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
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. 99.57.128.122 ( 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. ā Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.38.56.240 ( talk) 16:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
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?
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:StanfordāBinet 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. 160.39.81.63 01:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 01:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 06:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
This article provides examples of where the Stanford-Binet is used in the present day. However it provides no evidence that this is actually the case. Without any sources this chapter should probably be removed. āĀ Preceding unsigned comment added by Runarberg ( talk ā¢ contribs) 20:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
The Stanford-Binet was not developed by Binet but adapted by Lewis Terman. I don't understand why this does not reference Binet-Simon, assuming we have a page for it, and explain that Terman turned Binet's work on its head. According to the Wikipedia entry on Binet, "Binet was forthright about the limitations of his scale. He stressed the remarkable diversity of intelligence and the subsequent need to study it using qualitative, as opposed to quantitative, measures. " Terman's revision to Stanford-Binet was to produce a linear scale of "unitary intelligence" according to Steven Jay Gould (Mismeasure of Man) and others. It was invented to be a eugenicist's tool. Terman was a eugenicist. I have found no indication that Binet was. Mbaugher ( talk) 19:03, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I am learning to edit wiki-articles on the history of psychology as a part of my Master's Degree Theory and History of Psychology. I noticed that there is not a separate wiki page on the Binet-Simon test in English. I would like to write this! (and perhaps a lot of what was written here in the Binet-Simon test can be transfered to the new page). Would like to hear if you guys think this is a good idea. Emma VDB Wiki Editor ( talk) 13:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about StanfordāBinet Intelligence Scales.
|
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? āThe preceding unsigned comment was added by Sesse ( talk ā¢ contribs) 18:54, 27 January 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 ( http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/IQtable.aspx), 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. āPreceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.155.44 ( talk) 18:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
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. ā Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.38.56.240 ( talk) 16:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
No. Down with weasel words. Zezen ( talk) 17:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
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. āPreceding unsigned comment added by 70.225.169.12 ( 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)
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"? ā JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
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 - ed.gov 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)
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 āPreceding unsigned comment added by 110.172.24.10 ( talk) 06:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
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)
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. āPreceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.149.170 ( talk) 17:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
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. 99.57.128.122 ( 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. ā Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.38.56.240 ( talk) 16:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
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?
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:StanfordāBinet 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. 160.39.81.63 01:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 01:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 06:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
This article provides examples of where the Stanford-Binet is used in the present day. However it provides no evidence that this is actually the case. Without any sources this chapter should probably be removed. āĀ Preceding unsigned comment added by Runarberg ( talk ā¢ contribs) 20:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
The Stanford-Binet was not developed by Binet but adapted by Lewis Terman. I don't understand why this does not reference Binet-Simon, assuming we have a page for it, and explain that Terman turned Binet's work on its head. According to the Wikipedia entry on Binet, "Binet was forthright about the limitations of his scale. He stressed the remarkable diversity of intelligence and the subsequent need to study it using qualitative, as opposed to quantitative, measures. " Terman's revision to Stanford-Binet was to produce a linear scale of "unitary intelligence" according to Steven Jay Gould (Mismeasure of Man) and others. It was invented to be a eugenicist's tool. Terman was a eugenicist. I have found no indication that Binet was. Mbaugher ( talk) 19:03, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I am learning to edit wiki-articles on the history of psychology as a part of my Master's Degree Theory and History of Psychology. I noticed that there is not a separate wiki page on the Binet-Simon test in English. I would like to write this! (and perhaps a lot of what was written here in the Binet-Simon test can be transfered to the new page). Would like to hear if you guys think this is a good idea. Emma VDB Wiki Editor ( talk) 13:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)