![](https://csdnimg.cn/release/download_crawler_static/19895327/bg1.jpg)
A PRACTITIONER’S COMPARISON
:
THE
1972 STANFORD-BINET AND THE
WISC-R
PAUL
L.
EVANS AND
BERT
0.
RICHMOND
Professional
Laboratory
Experiences
University
of
Georgia
Athens, Georgia
This
paper compares the 1972
Norms
Edition
of
the Stanford-Binet Intel-
ligence Scale,
Form
LM,
and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale
for
Children,
Revised (1974), froin a practitioner’s viewpoint The strengths and weak-
nesses
of
each instrument are explored in relation to (a) standardization data
given in the manuals, (b) ease
of
administration and interpretation, (c) age-
range limitations and finally, (d) the utility
of
both instruments
as
aids in
prediction
of
academic success.
Over five years ago in a review written for The Seventh Mental Measurements
Yearbook, the ominous fate of the Stanford-Binet was stated quite prophetically:
The Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale
is
an old, old vehicle.
It
has led
a
dis-
tinguished life as a pioneer in the bootstrap operation that is the assessment
enterprise.
Its
time is just about over.
Requiescat
in
pace.
Nothing is eternal,
so
it
goes, but the practitioner’s preoccupation with the im-
mortality of this instrument has not allowed it a peaceful death. On the contrary,
in
1972 the prostrate, crumbling corpse was exhumed and given a “norm transplant”
from
a
somewhat incompatible donor, i.e., the Cognitive Abilities Test. Although
early rejection was feared, the transplant was termed successful and,
in
short,
Binet’s condition remained stable. (In fact, it was even thought that
it
could go
back to work again, soon.)
Meanwhile, in practice, other plans were being made. The WISC-R, an am-
bitious newcomer, had outstanding qualifications for advancement
;
but what
remained to be seen was just how well it compared with the Binet in the field.
The purpose of this paper
is
to
highlight such a comparison in relation to stan-
dardization data, and the ease of administration and interpretation of both instru-
ments. There
is
little doubt that devotees
of
each test will continue to argue for
the instrument of their choice. For some the burial of the Binet was a bit premature.
For
others
it
was an act of mercy.
Standardization
The 1972 standardization program for the Stanford-Binet was undertaken
because
it
seemed likely that the 1937 norms “were no longer completely appro-
priate for the United States population of the 1970s” (Binet manual, 1972, p.
353).
In essence, the renorming of the Binet was based upon scores obtained from the
1970 standardization population for the Cognitive Abilities Test.
For
each age
level on the Binet a representative sample of
100
to
150
subjects was tested. The
principle variable influencing selection of these subjects was their test scores on
the 1970 Cognitive Abilities Test (CAT). That is,
at
each age level the subjects
were stratified to represent
a11
ability levels on the CAT. Furthermore, such
a
categorization was based on the verbal battery of the Cognitive Abilities Test
Requests
for
reprints should be sent to Paul
L.
Evans, Ofice
of
Programs
for
the Handicapped,
South
Carolina State Dept. of Education] Rutledge Office Bldg., Columbia, South Carolina 29201.