A practitioner's comparison: The 1972 Stanford-Binet and the WISC-R

This paper compares the 1972 Norms Edition of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale, Form LM, and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Revised (1974), from a practitioner's viewpoint The strengths and weaknesses 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.     

A comparison between the WISC and WISC-R among educable mentally retarded students

The study compared differences and similarities between WISC and WISC-R scores for 48 ten- and thirteen-year-old EMR students, who were matched according to sex and race. The WISC-R yielded significantly lower VS, PS, and FS IQ scores than the WISC for this predominantly rural Georgia population. The FS IQ scores from the WISC-R averaged 7.5 points lower than the WISC FS IQs, with similar differences noted for VS and PS scores. There was no significant difference in FS IQs between the two age groups. Results suggest that many children classified as “Borderline” or slightly above by the WISC will be classified as “Mentally Deficient” by the WISC-R.     

Suitability of the California Abbreviated WISC for WISC-R subtests with mentally retarded and slow learner children

This study was undertaken to determine the suitability of the California Abbreviated WISC—Form 1 (CAW-1) for use with WISC-R subtests. Subjects were drawn from the files of previously evaluated students from two southern mountain communities. Examination of WISC records within the age and IQ ranges of the CAW-1 (CA 8-0 to 13-6, IQ 50 to 80) indicated that our sample was not significantly different from the CAW-1 noim group (N = 148, r = .85 between CAW-1 & WISC Full Scale IQ). WISC-R recods (N = 178) for the same ranges were examined and were found to be more highly predictive of Full Scale IQs (r = .91, FSIQ = .98 CAWIQ + 2.2). Extensions of the age range from 6-0 to 16-11 and of the IQ range from 40 to 100 were attempted. Final results (N = 284) indicated the CAW-1 could be used with the WISC-R over the full age range and for IQs ⩽ 100 with minor alteration (r = .96, FSIQ = 1.09 CAWIQ - 5.4). The second sample served for cross validation of these results. Using the alteration, results were consistent with original findings (N = 202, r = .93, FSIQ = .98 CAWIQ + 2.2). It was concluded that the CAW-1 was suitable for use with WISC-R subtests with minor alterations.     

A comparison of WISC and WISC-R results of urban educable mentally retarded students

Twenty urban EMR students' WISC-R scores were compared with their previously administered WISC scores. The average interval between administrations was approximately three years. Significant coefficients of correlation were obtained between five corresponding subtests and between Performance IQs and Full Scale IQs. Results from t tests for correlated data indicated that mean WISC-R Verbal, Performance, and Full Scale IQ scores were not significantly lower than their corresponding WISC scores. The results of this study indicated that WISC-R scores in comparison to WISC scores appeared to be more stable in the lower IQ ranges and less vulnerable to cultural bias.     

A comparison of the WISC and WISC-R

So as to compare the results of the WISC and WISC-R, both instruments were administered to 58 children randomly selected from a school population of 583. All administration and scoring was performed by the same psychologist, with a two-month interval separating the administrations for each child. All IQs were significantly higher (p <.01) on the WISC, with the Performance difference being greater than the verbal difference. Also, 8 of the 10 required subtest scaled scores were significantly greater (p <.05) on the older instrument. Regression equations were obtained to predict WISC-R IQs from WISC scores.     

A comparison of the Stanford-Binet IV and the WISC-III with mildly retarded children

The Stanford-Binet IV and the WISC-III were administered in counterbalanced order to 31 subjects, aged 11 to 17 years, who were previously identified as functioning in the range of mild mental retardation. The correlations among the scores on the two tests were significant, but the Stanford-Binet IV Composite IQ was higher than the WISC-III Full Scale IQ for 29 of 31 subjects. The results suggest that children identified as functioning in the range of mental retardation on the WISC-III could be identified as functioning at a higher level if the Stanford-Binet IV were used. The consistency of the results points to the need for the use of multiple criteria in making decisions regarding educational accommodation. © 1996 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.     

Matched pair comparison of WISC and WISC-R scores

Both the WISC and the WISC-R were administered to 54 children, with one half taking the WISC first and the other 27 taking the WISC-R first. Differences between mean subtest scaled scores and mean IQs were found to be influenced by the sequence of the tests, although all mean scores were higher on the second test when the WISC-R was given first. Data were presented suggesting the WISC-R given first tends to raise WISC scores, and WISC given first yields scores on the WISC-R which are essentially similar, effectively counsteracting the more “difficult” scoring for the WISC-R.     

Deficits in bannatyne's sequencing ability on the WISC and WISC-R for mildly retarded and borderline functioning children over time

The WISC and WISC-R protocols of 94 special education students (51 white males, 5 black males, 30 white females, and 8 black females) who tested in the mildly retarded and borderline range of abilities (IQs of 50–78) were examined. Their test performance was then followed longitudinally for two additional WISC and WISC-R assessments. Mean age of subjects was 8 years at Test 1, 10.75 years at Test 2, and 14.9 years at Test 3. As predicted, subjects had lower IQ equivalent scores on Bannatyne's Sequencing Ability category than their IQ equivalent scores on the Verbal Comprehension or Perceptual Organization factors of the WISC and WISC-R for all three testings. Results were interpreted as supporting the notion that mildly retarded children and learning disabled children have qualitatively similar learning patterns.     

A longitudinal comparison of the WISC and WISC-R with special education pupils

The purpose of this study was to determine the degree of comparability between the WISC and the WISC-R over time. Hypotheses were tested using a sample of 276 mildly mentally handicapped children enrolled in special education classes who had received a WISC (Trial 1) and a WISC or WISC-R (Trial 2) after an interval of approximately three years. The sample was grouped on the basis of test administered in Trial 2. Group I contained those children who received the WISC on Trial 2 and included 183 children, of whom 121 were males and 62 were females. Mean age at time of initial testing was 8–10; mean age at second testing was 11–8. Group II was composed of 93 children who had been posttested on the WISC-R and included 72 males and 21 females. Mean age at initial testing was 9–5; mean age at posttest was 13–0. The study was conducted in five school districts and one county department of education. Verbal IQ, Performance IQ, and Full Scale IQ for both instruments administered were transcribed from the special education folders of the children. The design used to test hypotheses was repeated measures analysis of variance. Data analysis resulted in rejection of the hypotheses that the WISC-R yields mean Verbal, Performance, and Full Scale IQ scores greater than or equal to the corresponding mean IQ scores of the WISC. It was concluded that the WISC-R may unfairly penalize special education children who are reevaluated with this instrument. Fluctuations in IQ scores due to the instrument of measurement must be recognized, and appropriate action should be taken to insure that children are evaluated for special class placement on comparable bases.     

A comparison of factor structures of the WISC and WISC-R

The present study compared two- and three-factor solutions for the 12 subtests of both the WISC and WISC-R for a sample of 164 black, white, and Latino children aged 7 to 15 referred to school psychologists because of concerns about their intellectual ability. The results indicated that the factor structures of the WISC and WISC-R for the same group of subjects are quite similar. They are almost identical in the factors of verbal comprehension and perceptual organization. However, a difference was noted in the third factor of freedom from distractibility.     

The Stanford-Binet mental age and the WISC-R test age: A comparison study

The Stanford-Binet and WISC-R were administered to 100 students (CA—6 to 15 years) to determine the comparability of the age equivalent scores obtained from each test. The limited range of test age (TA) values in the WISC-R Manual required the use of extrapolated values for some subjects. The results indicated that, for subjects whose WISC-R scores fell within the TA table, the Binet MAs and WISC-R TAs were comparable (p>.05). However, when the use of extrapolated TAs was required, the scores were not comparable (p<.05). Implications for test age and mental age equivalency were discussed.     

Sex differences on the WISC-R for retarded children and youth

This study investigated sex differences on the WISC-R subtests for retarded males and females who were matched in terms of WISC-R Full Scale IQs. The sample consisted of 126 children and youth (63 females, 63 males) ranging in chronological age from 7–3 to 8–3, with a mean CA of 7–8. Each subject was matched in terms of Full Scale IQ score. A 2 × 10 analysis of variance with repeated measures on a single factor was used to analyze the data. Students' T and Fisher's F ratios were calculated, and differences between subtest means were analyzed by Newman-Keuls test for sample effects. Evidence from the investigation indicated that a significant interaction effect existed between sex and subtest scores.     

A comparison between the WISC and WISC-R among a clinical referred population

This study compared the three scales of the WISC and the WISC-R for degree of intercorrelation. The differences among scores and among variances were also computed for the two tests. Fifty-eight subjects from a clinical referred population were studied, including children classified as EMR, Learning Disabled, Emotionally Disturbed, and children in regular classrooms. Results included significant correlations in all cases, no systematic changes in variance, and significantly lower IQs on the WISC-R for all children in this sample, except the EMRs.     

Comparability of the WISC and the WISC-R in normal children of divergent socioeconomic backgrounds

WISC and WISC-R IQs of two groups of normal ten-year-old children from divergent socioeconomic backgrounds (N = 36) were compared in a counterbalanced research design. Generally, all WISC mean IQs were higher than the WISC-R mean IQs for both groups of children. Significantly higher WISC IQs were obtained on the Verbal and Full Scales of the low socioeconomic group and on the Performance and Full Scales of the high socioeconomic group. Correlations between tests for Verbal, Performance, and Full Scale IQs were.95,.79, and.91 for the low socioeconomic group, and.84,.57, and.87 for the high socioeconomic group. Although practice effects did not appear to significantly affect IQs of the low socioeconomic group, various practice effects were observed in the high socioeconomic group. Negative effects were observed for both WISC and WISC-R on the Verbal Scale, whereas positive effects were observed on both Performance and Full Scales in this group. Analysis of simple effects reveals that WISC and WISC-R IQs did not differ significantly upon first administration, but were significantly different upon second administration. Conclusions were drawn that while WISC-R yields a lower IQ estimate than WISC for children of lower ability, results were not so clear for the children of higher ability, due to practice effects which disproportionately favor increases on WISC IQs upon second administration. The greater practice effects found on the WISC have implications for comparisons of the two tests in counterbalanced research designs. Simple randomized or treatment-by-levels design may be more useful in comparisons of the WISC and the WISC-R because of the bias introduced by counterbalanced designs.     

A comparison of the WPPSI and Stanford-Binet intelligence scale (1972) among lower SES black children

The study compared the performance of 35 lower SES black kindergarten children on the WPPSI and the 1972 Norm Edition of the Stanford-Binet, Contrary to the findings of previous investigations before the restandardization of the Binet, the WPPSI was found to yield a significantly higer mean IQ than the Binet. While there were no sex differences. significant age-related differences were found. Results were interpreted as suggesting that the WPPSI might be a more appropriate measure of cognitive ability for black children of lower socioeconomic status.     

A longitudinal study of the Stanford-Binet and WISC-R with special education students

A group of 95 black and 52 white low socioeconimic children assigned to special education calsses were initially given the Stanford-Binet (1972 norms) and three years later the WISC-R. Correlations between the Stanford-Binet and WISC-R Full Scale IQs were significant in both ethnic groups, with r=.60 for the total group. Correlations between the Stanford-Binet and WISC-R subtests also were generally signiificant (rs between .29 and .52 for the total group). Stanford-Binet and WISC-R Full Scale IQs did not differ significantly. For this sample of special education children, the Stanford-Binet was found to have satisfactory predictive validity.     

Stability of WISC-R subtest profiles for learning disabled children

Stability of the WISC-R subtest profile for 161 learning disabled (LD) children over a 7-month test-retest interval was examined. A unique subtest profile reported earlier (Smith, Coleman, Dokecki, & Davis, 1977a) was replicated. Performance IQ was significantly greater than Verbal IQ at both testing occasions. A mean test-retest increase was observed for Performance IQ, but not for Verbal IQ.