While the Fourth Edition of the Stanford-Binet represents many technical advances over the earlier instruments, it is argued that the new test offers an unnecessarily complex means of addressing typical referral questions. Regardless of the sophistication of theory and structure, modern measures of intelligence lack treatment utility and, thus, fail to address the desired outcomes of psychoeducational assessment — potential intervention strategies. The Binet-IV and its contemporaries probably will contribute more to research than to the daily assessment practices of school psychologists.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Canter, A. (1990). Unpublished data.
2.
Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy (1986, May). A nation prepared: Teachers for the 21st century. Report of the Carnegie Task Force on Teaching as a Profession. Washington: Author.
3.
Cronbach, L. (1980). Validity on parole: How can we go straight? In W. B. Schraeder (Ed.), New directions for testing and measurement: Measuring achievement: Progress over a decade (pp. 99-108). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
4.
Deno, S. (1986). Formative evaluation of individual student programs: A new role for school psychologists. School Psychology Review, 15, 358-374.
5.
Fagan, T. (1988). The historical improvement of the school psychology service ratio: Implications for future employment. School Psychology Review, 17, 447-458.
6.
Fuchs, L., & Fuchs, D. (1986). Linking assessment to instructional interventions: An overview. School Psychology Review, 15, 318-323.
7.
Glutting, J. (1989). Introduction to the structure and application of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence scale -Fourth Edition. Journal of School Psychology, 27, 69-80.
8.
Goodlad, J. (1984). A place called school: Prospects for the future. New York: McGraw-Hill.
9.
Howell, K. (1986). Direct assessment of academic performance. School Psychology Review, 15, 324-335.
10.
Kaufman, A. (1979). Intelligent testing with the WISC-R. New York: John Wiley.
11.
Keith, T., Cook, V., Novak, C., White, L., & Pottebaum, S. (1988). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Stanford-Binet-Fourth Edition: Testing the theory-test match. Journal of School Psychology, 26, 253-274.
12.
Lentz, F., & Shapiro, E. (1986). Functional assessment of the academic environment. School Psychology Review, 15, 346-357.
13.
Marston, D. (1989). A curriculum-based measurement approach to assessing academic performance: What it is and why do it. In M. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 18-78). New York: Guilford Press.
14.
McDermott, P. A. (1990). Just say no to subtest analysis: A critique of Wechsler theory and practice. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 8, 290-302.
15.
Myers, J. & Kundert, D. (1988). Process assessment. In J. Graden, J. Zins, & M. Curtis (Eds.), Alternative educational delivery systems: Enhancing instructional options for all students (pp. 173-197). Washington: National Association of School Psychologists.
16.
National Association of School Psychologists. (1985). Position statement: Advocacy for appropriate educational services for all children. Washington: Author.
17.
National Association of School Psychologists. (1986). Rights without labels. Washington: Author.
18.
National Association of School Psychologists. (1989). Position statement: At-risk students and excellence in education: The need for educational restructuring. Washington: Author.
19.
National Governors' Association. (1989). Results in education: 1989. Washington: Author.
20.
Ownby, R., & Carmin, C. (1988). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Stanford-Binet—Fourth Edition. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 6, 331-340.
21.
Reschly, D. (1988). Special education reform: School psychology revolution. School Psychology Review, 17, 459-574.
22.
Reschly, D., Genshaft, J., & Binder, M. (1987). The NASP survey: Comparison of practitioners, NASP leadership, and university faculty on key issues. Washington: National Association of School Psychologists.
23.
Reschly, D., & Grimes, J. (1990). Best practices in intellectual assessment. In A. Thomas &J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (2nd ed., pp. 425-439). Washington: National Association of School Psychologists.
24.
Reynolds, C., Kamphaus, R., & Rosenthal, B. (1988). Factor analysis of the Stanford-Binet-Fourth Edition for ages 2 years through 23 years. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 21, 52-63.
25.
Reynolds, M., Wang, M., & Walberg, H. (1987). The necessary restructuring of special and regular education. Exceptional Children, 53, 391-398.
26.
Rosenfield, S., & Reynolds, M. (1990). Mainstreaming school psychology: A proposal to develop and evaluate alternative assessment methods and intervention strategies. School Psychology Quarterly, 5, 55-56.
27.
Sarason, S. (1975). The unfortunate fate of Alfred Binet and school psychology. Teachers College Record, 77, 579-592.
28.
Sattler, J. (1988). Assessment of children (3rd ed.). San Diego, CA: Author.
29.
Thorndike, R. M. (1990). Would the real factors of the Stanford-Binet Fourth Edition please come forward?Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 8, 412-435.
30.
Will, M. (1986). Educating students with learning problems — a shared responsibility. Washington:Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
31.
Will, M. (1989). The role of school psychology in providing services to all children. Washington: U.S. Department of Special Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
