Intelligent intelligence testing Psychologists are broadening the concept of intelligence and how to test it. Standardized intelligence testing has been called one of psychology’s greatest stanford binet intelligence scale pdf. It is certainly one of the field’s most persistent and widely used inventions.
Since Alfred Binet first used a standardized test to identify learning-impaired Parisian children in the early 1900s, it has become one of the primary tools for identifying children with mental retardation and learning disabilities. Since the 1970s, intelligence researchers have been trying to preserve the usefulness of intelligence tests while addressing those concerns. Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale so they better reflect the abilities of test-takers from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds. As a result, many of the biases identified by critics of intelligence testing have been reduced, and new tests are available that, unlike traditional intelligence tests, are based on modern theories of brain function, says Alan Kaufman, PhD, a clinical professor of psychology at the Yale School of Medicine.
Nonetheless, says Kaufman, there remains a major gap between the theories and tests that have been developed in the past 20 years and the way intelligence tests are actually used. Narrowing that gap remains a major challenge for intelligence researchers as the field approaches its 100th anniversary. Among intelligence tests for children, one test currently dominates the field: the WISC-III, the third revision of psychologist David Wechsler’s classic 1949 test for children, which was modeled after Army intelligence tests developed during World War I. Since the 1970s, says Kaufman, “the field has advanced in terms of incorporating new, more sophisticated methods of interpretation, and it has very much advanced in terms of statistics and methodological sophistication in development and construction of tests. But the field of practice has lagged woefully behind. Nonetheless, people are itching for change, says Jack Naglieri, PhD, a psychologist at George Mason University who has spent the past two decades developing the CAS in collaboration with University of Alberta psychologist J.
Naglieri’s own test, the CAS, is based on the theories of Soviet neuropsychologist A. Unlike traditional intelligence tests, says Naglieri, the CAS helps teachers choose interventions for children with learning problems, identifies children with learning disabilities and attention deficit disorder and fairly assesses children from diverse backgrounds. According to Nadeen Kaufman, that might not be easy to do. She believes that the practice of intelligence testing is divided between those with a neuropsychological bent, who have little interest in the subtleties of new quantitative tests, and those with an educational bent, who are increasingly shifting their interest away from intelligence and toward achievement.
Neither group, in her opinion, is eager to adopt new intelligence tests. For Naglieri, however, it is clear that there is still a great demand for intelligence tests that can help teachers better instruct children with learning problems. The challenge is convincing people that tests such as the CAS–which do not correlate highly with traditional tests–still measure something worth knowing. In fact, Naglieri believes that they measure something even more worth knowing than what the traditional tests measure. But would-be reformers face significant challenges in convincing the testing community that theories that sound great on paper–and may even work well in the laboratory–will fly in the classroom, says Nadeen Kaufman. A lot of these scientists have not been able to operationalize their contributions in a meaningful way for practice,” she explains.