Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition

Assessment Service Bulletin Number 1

History of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales:

Content and Psychometrics
Kirk A. Becker

The 2003 publication of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence

Scales, Fifth Edition represents the latest in a series of
innovations in the assessment of intelligence and abilities.
Using qualitative and quantitative methods, this bulletin
examines the similarities and differences between the different
editions of the Stanford-Binet published over the past century.
It discusses the development and integration of age-scale and
point-scale formats for subtests, the theoretical structure of the
test (single versus hierarchical, use of Nonverbal and Verbal
domains, and links to the Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory), and
changes in item content related to this theoretical structure.
The new edition provides greater differentiation in the
measurement of abilities, the precursors of which were
nevertheless present in earlier editions.
Copyright © 2003 by The Riverside Publishing Company. All rights reserved. Permission is hereby granted to
photocopy the pages of this booklet. These copies may not be sold and further distribution is expressly
prohibited. Except as authorized above, prior written permission must be obtained from the Riverside Publishing
Company to reproduce or transmit this work or portions thereof, in any other form or by any other electronic or
mechanical means, including any information storage or retrieval system, unless such copying is expressly
permitted by federal copyright law. Address inquiries to Contracts and Permissions Department, The Riverside
Publishing Company, 425 Spring Lake Drive, Itasca, IL 60143-2079.

Printed in the United States of America.

Reference Citation
■ To cite this document, use:
Becker, K. A. (2003). History of the Stanford-Binet intelligence scales: Content and psychometrics.
(Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition Assessment Service Bulletin No. 1). Itasca, IL:
Riverside Publishing.
For technical information, please call 1.800.323.9540, visit our website at www.stanford-binet.com, or e-mail us
at [email protected]

1 2 3 4 5 6 – XBS – 06 05 04 03
History of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales:
Content and Psychometrics

Overview
The study of the history of major psychological assessment instruments is hardly
an active field. Most professionals view assessment instruments simply as
practical tools of little interest beyond their immediate applied use. Nevertheless,
when authors begin a revision of such an instrument, particularly when the
instrument has already undergone a number of revisions, they are wise to
examine the history of that assessment to provide continuity of measurement, to
improve on the features, and to overcome limitations of earlier versions. In
addition, understanding the history of a test may help the clinician compare the
scores on the newest edition of the test to the scores on an earlier edition of the
test with which they are familiar.
The history of assessment instruments may also be of interest to historians of
education, psychology, and science. Such interest would probably focus on an
original approach to assessment and the subsequent development of that
approach. Truly original assessment tools are rare. Such instruments, and their
attendant theories, may have a sufficiently large impact on the field as to
essentially spur a revolution in theory and application, along the lines of Kuhn’s
(1970) discussion of paradigm shifts in the history of science. A new assessment
paradigm would begin with revolutionary fervor but would cool over time into
“normal science.” The history of intelligence measurement, and particularly
Binet’s major contribution, almost certainly qualifies as an original approach to
assessment. As with other scientific revolutions described by Kuhn, Binet’s initial
contribution led to a period of revolutionary science followed by a drawn-out
period of normal science, during which the original brilliant insight was improved
gradually over time with steady and practical enhancements. Kuhn noted that
although revolutionary science tends to grab the attention and the spotlight,
normal science is what tends to be responsible for real progress, in both basic
science and its applications. One can probably say the same for the history of
intelligence tests and intelligence testing.
This bulletin provides a history of the Stanford-Binet, beginning with its
precursors in the work of Alfred Binet and Theodore Simon at the turn of the
20th century. It focuses on its five American editions, from the first version, which
was published in 1916, to the most recent version, the Stanford-Binet Intelligence
Scales, Fifth Edition (SB5) (Roid, 2003a), published in 2003. Although the purpose
of this bulletin is to describe the similarities and differences across the five
American editions, readers with a broader interest in the history of assessment
instruments may also find the discussion of interest, although it is not the
primary goal of this bulletin to provide the full history of intelligence testing in
terms of a Kuhnian scientific revolution.

1
 History of the Stanford-Binet
At a conference in Rome in April 1905, Dr. Henri Beaunis read a paper prepared
by Alfred Binet and Theodore Simon that announced the development of an
objective measure capable of diagnosing different degrees of mental retardation
(Wolf, 1973). This announcement was followed 2 months later by the publication
of the Binet-Simon Intelligence Test in L’Anée Psychologique (Binet & Simon,
1905). The original form of this test was expanded and revised, leading to new
versions in 1908 and 1911. The new forms were the result of extensive research
and testing involving “normal” as well as mentally retarded examinees.
In 1916, Lewis Terman authored The Measurement of Intelligence: An
Explanation of and a Complete Guide for the Use of the Stanford Revision and
Extension of the Binet-Simon Intelligence Scale (Terman, 1916). This manual
presented translations and adaptations of the French items, as well as new items
that Terman had developed and tested between 1904 and 1915. Although there
were other translations of the Binet-Simon available around this time (Binet &
Simon, 1916; Kuhlmann, 1912; Melville, 1917; Herring, 1922), Terman’s normative
studies and his methodical approach are credited with the success of the
Stanford-Binet (Minton, 1988).
Over the two decades following the initial publication of the Stanford-Binet,
Terman continued his research and development of the test. Working with Maud
Merrill, first his student and later a fellow professor and research collaborator at
Stanford University, Terman created two parallel forms of the Stanford-Binet.
These forms used many of the items from the original Stanford revision and added
a substantial number of new items. With regard to this revision, Terman and
Merrill wrote that they had “provided two scales instead of one, have extended
them so as to afford a more adequate sampling of abilities at the upper and lower
levels, have defined still more meticulously the procedures for administration and
scoring, and have based the standardization upon larger and more representative
populations” (Terman & Merrill, 1937, p. ix). These parallel forms were published
as Form L (for Lewis) and Form M (for Maud) of the Stanford-Binet.
In the 1950s, Merrill took the lead in revising the Stanford-Binet, selecting the
best items from Forms L and M to include in a new version of the test. The two
forms from 1937 were combined to create the Form L-M. This form was published
in 1960 (Terman & Merrill, 1960) and was later renormed in 1973 (Terman &
Merrill, 1973). This form added alternate items at all levels, but otherwise, the
format remained similar to the 1937 forms.
The Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale: Fourth Edition (Thorndike, Hagen, &
Sattler, 1986) moved from the age-scale format introduced by Binet to a point-scale
format (the section on “Test Structure” that follows provides details on the
characteristics of age and point scales). Many of the items and item-types from the
prior editions were included in the Fourth Edition, and extended scales were created
using the same types of items and activities. In the Absurdities test, for example,
four classic items were used in addition to 28 new items. Also, several completely
new subtests, such as Matrices and Equation Building, were created. Besides the
new and expanded tests, the Fourth Edition provided several factors (Verbal
Reasoning, Abstract/Visual Reasoning, Quantitative Reasoning, and Short-Term
Memory) in addition to IQ. Although the prior versions had items that related to

2
these four areas (McNemar, 1942; Sattler, 1965), the published test had never
offered scores for these factors. The Fourth Edition also formalized the practice of
multi-stage testing, in which performance on the Vocabulary scale determines the
starting point for subsequent tests. While some examiners used the vocabulary test
for routing on earlier editions of the test, this was not official practice.
In 2003, the Fifth Edition (Roid, 2003a) was published. This edition attempts to
carry on the tradition of the prior editions while taking advantage of current
research in measurement and cognitive abilities. Like the Fourth Edition, the
SB5 includes multiple factors. These factors are modified from those on the
Fourth Edition, but represent abilities assessed by all former versions of the test.
The use of routing subtests continues, with a nonverbal routing test added to
complement vocabulary. The Fifth Edition reintroduces the age-scale format for
the body of the test, presenting a variety of items at each level of the test. The
age-scale is intended to provide a variety of content to keep examinees involved
in the testing experience and to allow for the introduction of developmentally
distinct items across levels.

Test Structure
The Stanford-Binet is one of the first examples of an adaptive test (Reckase,
1989). Examiners use the information they have about an examinee to determine
where to begin testing and administer only those items that are appropriate for
that examinee. This format reduces the time required to obtain reliable
information from a test and decreases the frustration examinees experience when
presented with items that are too hard or too easy. The use of multiple possible
starting points, along with basal and ceiling rules, limits the time required to
administer the test and maximizes the information obtained from each item.
One element of test structure that appears throughout the history of the
Stanford-Binet is that of point scales and age scales. A point scale is the currently
widespread arrangement of tests into subtests, with all items of a given type
administered together. Age scales, long a part of the Stanford-Binet format, may
not be familiar to the current generation of examiners. Initially, this format was
used to provide a direct translation of the child’s performance to mental age.
Psychometric as well as developmental information was used to place items on
the test. Examinees experienced a variety of items that changed both
quantitatively and qualitatively. Definitions, for example, went from concrete
words to abstract words to the comparison of abstract words. The argument has
often been made that this format is more engaging and provides a richer
opportunity for the examiner to observe the examinee’s performance. Although
this perspective guided the development of the Fifth Edition, it is not without its
detractors. With the publication of the 1916 edition, Robert Yerkes began a series
of debates with Lewis Terman on the appropriateness of the age scale (Yerkes,
1917). While Terman’s methods prevailed at the time, the structure of many
current tests (e.g., Wechsler, 1991) shows the popularity of the point-scale subtest.
Throughout most of its history, the Stanford-Binet maintained a hybrid structure,
combining point-scale and age-scale formats. Terman presented two parallel
vocabulary scales in 1916, and every version of the Stanford-Binet except Form M
has included a vocabulary scale. In 1986, the Fourth Edition provided a standard

3
 method for using Vocabulary as a routing test to determine where to begin testing.
Although this was the first formal mention of routing in a Stanford-Binet manual,
using vocabulary for this purpose had been the unofficial practice of many
examiners for decades. The Fifth Edition includes a nonverbal routing test in
addition to Vocabulary, and it uses performance on these subtests to route to the
Nonverbal and Verbal age scales. Table 1 provides a summary of the structure and
features of the different editions of the Stanford-Binet.

Table 1
Test Structure of the Stanford-Binet: 1916 to 2003
Edition Structure Abilities Measured
1916 ■ Parallel vocabulary tests ■ General intelligence
■ Single age scale
1937 ■ Form L vocabulary test ■ General intelligence
■ Parallel age scales
1960/1973 ■ Vocabulary test ■ General intelligence
■ Single age scale
1986 ■ Vocabulary routing test ■ General intelligence
■ Subtest point scales ■ Verbal Reasoning
■ Abstract/Visual Reasoning
■ Quantitative Reasoning
■ Short-Term Memory
2003 ■ Hybrid structure ■ General intelligence
■ Verbal routing test ■ Knowledge
■ Nonverbal routing test ■ Fluid Reasoning
■ Verbal and nonverbal age scales ■ Quantitative Reasoning
■ Visual-Spatial Processing
■ Working Memory
■ Nonverbal IQ
■ Verbal IQ

Verbal and Nonverbal Content

The verbal content of the Stanford-Binet has been of concern since the first
publication in 1916, in which verbal items predominated. Subsequent revisions
have attempted to better balance the verbal and nonverbal items, and McNemar
reports that attempts were made to create a parallel nonverbal form in 1937
(McNemar, 1942). During the 1986 revision, the authors tried to create a
nonverbal routing test using Matrices; however, sufficient low-end items were not
created. While several nonverbal forms were recommended for different editions of
the Stanford-Binet (e.g., McNemar, 1942; Delaney & Hopkins, 1987; Glaub &
Kamphaus, 1991), the test never had a published nonverbal form prior to 2003.
The Fifth Edition provides an equal balance of verbal and nonverbal content
within each factor. Norms are provided for Verbal IQ (VIQ) and Nonverbal IQ
(NVIQ) scores as well as for Full Scale IQ (FSIQ), and the correlations between
these scores range from .94 to .97 across the age range of the test. Tables 2 and 3
present the nonverbal content of all editions of the Stanford-Binet. Table 4
compares the VIQ and NVIQ of the Fifth Edition with FSIQ.

4
Table 2
Nonverbal Items on the Stanford-Binet: 1916 to 1973
Level 1916 Form L Form M Form L-M
2-0 n/a 2 2 3
2-6 n/a 1 2 1
3-0 0 5 3 6
3-6 n/a 2 5 5
4-0 3 2 2 1
4-6 n/a 2 3 2
5 3 4 4 6
6 0 5 2 2
7 2 2 1 2
8 1 0 0 0
9 1 2 1 1
10 2 1 0 0
11 n/a 1 1 1
12 1 0 2 2
13 n/a 3 1 3
14 0 1 1 0
AA 0 0 1 1
SAI 1 0 0 0
SAII n/a 0 0 0
SAIII n/a 1 0 0
Total NV items 14 34 31 36
Total items 90 129 129 142
Total percent 16% 26% 24% 25%

Note. The 1916 edition did not have all of the levels that later editions had, so the levels not applicable to that
edition are marked n/a.
Abbreviations: AA = average adult, SAI = superior adult I, SAII = superior adult II, SAIII = superior adult III,
NV = nonverbal

Brief/Abbreviated Forms
Testing time and examinee fatigue have always been important issues for
psychological assessment practitioners. Recognizing that testing time might need
to be reduced, Lewis Terman included instructions for a minimal level of lenience
in establishing basal and ceiling performance (Terman, 1916). An examinee, he
reasoned, could miss one item at an age level and still have a basal. Later, in
1937, instructions were included with the Stanford-Binet for the administration

Table 3
Nonverbal Content of the Fourth and Fifth Editions of the
Stanford-Binet
SB IV SB5
Bead Memory Nonverbal Fluid Reasoning (Object Series/Matrices)
Pattern Analysis Nonverbal Knowledge (Procedural Knowledge, Picture Absurdities)
Absurdities Nonverbal Quantitative Reasoning (Quantitative Reasoning)
Copying Nonverbal Visual-Spatial Processing (Form Board, Form Patterns)
Memory for Objects Nonverbal Working Memory (Delayed Response, Block Span)
Matrices
Paper Folding and Cutting

5
 Table 4
Correlations of Verbal IQ (VIQ) and Nonverbal IQ (NVIQ) With Full
Scale IQ (FSIQ)
2-0 to 5-11 6-0 to 10-11 11-0 to 16-11 17-0 to 50-11 51 to 85+ 2 to 85+
VIQ/FSIQ .96 .96 .96 .97 .97 .96
NVIQ/FSIQ .94 .95 .96 .97 .97 .96

Note. From Roid, 2003a.

of an abbreviated test battery (Terman & Merrill, 1937). With little loss of
reliability, designated items could be omitted from the test to conserve time.
Remaining items administered in this fashion were given more weight in the
calculation of IQ. This feature was retained in the 1960/1973 edition where, for
instance, an examiner could omit Memory for Sentences and Copying a Bead
Chain from Memory at age 13. The Fourth Edition also allowed for an
abbreviated administration through its flexible selection of subtests. Different
combinations of subtests were recommended for different purposes, including a
four-test screening battery and a six-test screening battery. While these screeners
do not allow for a good measure of an individual’s pattern of abilities, they
provide a quick measure of IQ (Thorndike, Hagen, & Sattler, 1986). A similar
method is used in the Fifth Edition, with Vocabulary and Object-Series/Matrices
providing the Abbreviated Battery IQ (ABIQ). The ABIQ, like the FSIQ, is equally
weighted in terms of verbal and nonverbal content. Table 5 summarizes the
different methods for abbreviated test administration over time.

Table 5
Summary of Stanford-Binet Abbreviated Forms
Edition Abbreviated Form
1916 Leniency in basal/ceiling rules to save time
1937 Selected items omitted
1960/1973 Selected items omitted
1986 4- and 6-subtest abbreviated batteries recommended
2003 2-subtest Abbreviated Battery IQ available

Reviews of the Stanford-Binet

Along with the extensive research literature on the Stanford-Binet, reviews of the
test have been available since before the first Mental Measurement Yearbook was
published (Buros, 1938; Pratt, 1917). The content of these reviews has been
distilled where possible in Table 6 to offer a summary of the advantages and
possible limitations of the different versions of the test. The 1916 edition of the
Stanford-Binet provided continuity with the Binet-Simon test, while at the same
time expanding the range of items and providing a large research sample. The
test offered only limited nonverbal content, provided only sparse instructions on
scoring some items, and was not an adequate measure of adult intelligence. The
1937 editions again extended the range of items, provided a set of toys and
objects to engage young children, and added more nonverbal content,
predominantly at the lower end of the scale. This edition also improved the
psychometric characteristics of the test by introducing a parallel form and more

6
Table 6
Features and Possible Limitations of the Stanford-Binet Over Time
Year Advantages Limitations
1916 ■ Contains alternate items at most age levels ■ Inadequately measures adult mental capacity
■ Shares items to maintain continuity with earlier versions ■ Has inadequate scoring and administrative procedures
■ Emphasizes abstraction and novel problem solving at some points
■ Extends range of items relative to Binet-Simon ■ Measures only single factor (g)
■ Based on extensive research literature ■ Has nonuniform IQ standard deviation
■ Extensive standardization performed ■ Has single test form
■ Is verbally loaded
1937 ■ Contains alternate items at most levels ■ Some items have ambiguous scoring rules
■ Shares items to maintain continuity with earlier versions ■ Form M lacks vocabulary
■ Extends range of items ■ Has longer administration time than 1916 version
■ Based on extensive research literature ■ Measures only single factor (g)
■ Contains more performance tests at earlier age levels ■ Has nonuniform IQ standard deviation
■ Contains more representative norms ■ IQs not comparable across ages
■ Includes parallel form ■ Sample had higher SES and higher percentage of urban
■ Uses toys to make test more engaging for young children children than general population
■ Verbal items allow subjects to display fluency, imagination, ■ Has unequal coverage of different abilities at
unusual or advanced concepts, and complex linguistic usage different levels
■ Is verbally loaded
1960/1973 ■ Administers several varied tests to each examinee to keep ■ Has inadequate ceiling for adolescents and highly
children interested gifted examinees
■ Retains best items from Forms L and M ■ Measures only single factor (g)
■ Has better layout than previous versions ■ Separates scoring standards from items
■ Manual presents clear scoring rules ■ Is verbally loaded
■ Contains alternate items at each age level
■ Shares items to maintain continuity with earlier versions
■ Eliminates items that are no longer appropriate
■ Based on extensive research literature
■ Presents stimulus material in spiral-bound book
■ Has uniform IQ standard deviation
■ Uses toys to make test more engaging for young children
1986 ■ Contains both a general composite score and several ■ Less gamelike than earlier versions; yields less
factor scores information from styles and strategies due to decreased
■ Shares items to maintain continuity with earlier versions examiner/examinee interaction
■ Easel format with directions, scoring criteria, and stimuli ■ Contains no toys
makes administration easier ■ Norming sample overrepresents managerial/professional
■ Emphasizes abstraction and novel problem solving; and college-educated adults and their children
emphasizes verbal reasoning less compared with prior versions ■ Has possible lack of comparability in the content of area
■ Technical Manual reports extensive validity studies scores at different ages due to variability of subtests
■ Has flexible administration procedures used in their computation
■ Contains higher ceilings for advanced adolescents than ■ Has psychometric rather than developmental emphasis
Form L-M ■ Has standard deviation of 16 rather than 15 for
■ Number of basic concepts in preschool level tests compares composite scores; M = 50, SD = 8 for subtests
favorably with other tests for that age range ■ Contains subjectivity (examiner preference) when
■ Contains understandable age-level instructions for young determining subtests used to compute composite score
children ■ Unable to diagnose mild retardation before age 4 and
■ Uses adaptive testing (routing) to economize on moderate retardation before age 5
administration time and reduce examinee frustration
■ Uses explicit theoretical framework as guide for item
development and alignment of subtests within modeled hierarchy
■ Has wider age range than prior versions (2-0 through 23)
■ Creatively extends many classic item types

7
Table 6 (Continued)
Features and Possible Limitations of the Stanford-Binet Over Time
Year Advantages
2003 ■ More gamelike than earlier versions with colorful artwork, toys, and manipulatives
■ Matches norms to 2000 U.S. Census
■ Contains nonverbal as well as verbal routing test
■ Contains both a general composite score and several factor scores
■ Shares items to maintain continuity with earlier versions
■ Covers age range of 2-0 through 85+
■ Change-sensitive scores allow for evaluation of extreme performance
■ Has easel format with directions, scoring criteria, and stimuli, for easy administration
■ Has equal balance of verbal and nonverbal content in all factors
■ Contains Nonverbal IQ
■ Has standard deviation of 15 for composite scores, allowing easy comparison with other tests; M = 10, SD = 3 for subtests
■ Uses adaptive testing (routing) to economize on administration time and reduce examinee frustration
■ Uses explicit theoretical framework as guide for item development and alignment of subtests within modeled hierarchy
■ Extends low-end items, allowing earlier identification of individuals with delays or cognitive difficulties
■ Extends high-end items to measure gifted adolescents and adults

Note. Because the 2003 measure was just published, a discussion of possible limitations does not yet exist in the literature. (See discussion in text.)

representative norms. While better than the 1916 edition, Forms L and M were
still criticized for the quality of the scoring rules, the paucity of nonverbal content
at the upper levels of the test, and the nonuniform standard deviation of IQ that
led to different interpretations of IQ at different ages. This last point was
corrected with the publication of the Form L-M, which provided tables to correct
for this. Not only were the best items from the parallel 1937 forms used to create
Form L-M, but also the ambiguities in scoring were cleared up, and the stimulus
materials were presented in a much more convenient bound format. Some
reviewers suggested that the format could be further improved by providing the
scoring standards alongside the items in a single book. The test was also
criticized for remaining heavily weighted with verbal materials, having what was
perceived as an inadequate ceiling for adolescents and highly gifted examinees,
and continuing to provide only a single measure of general intelligence.
The Fourth Edition attempted to address many concerns that had been raised
with prior versions of the test, while maintaining the same types of tasks and
items. In particular, this version of the test offered several factor scores based on
an explicit theoretical framework. This test introduced the easel format to the
Stanford-Binet, providing both administration and scoring information as well as
stimulus material in one place. The test featured higher ceilings for adolescents
and over five times as many nonverbal items as the previous edition. Although
the test provided for flexible administration, such a degree of flexibility can also
lead to unneeded complexity. The test introduced creative extensions of classic
items, but it lacked many of the toys and other interesting stimuli from the
earlier editions. The continued use of a standard deviation of 16 was also
criticized, as was the sample weighting done to approximate the characteristics of
the general population.
The Fifth Edition is too new at this point to provide a list of possible
limitations collected from the literature. Attempts were made to address the
limitations of prior versions, while maintaining the advantages. Artwork and

8
 manipulatives have been improved, and toys and gamelike materials were
included. The SB5 does not allow for as many administrative options as the
Fourth Edition; this makes for a more straightforward testing session. The Fifth
Edition covers the widest age range of any Stanford-Binet (2 through 85+ years)
and addresses the criticism about verbal content, norms, and the standard
deviation. (The Fifth Edition uses a standard deviation of 15 for its IQ scales.)

Score/Test Comparability
With any newly revised test, questions arise about the relationship between
scores and interpretations of the new version relative to the research and
use of the prior editions. With the research tradition of the Stanford-Binet
(as of 2003, over 2,200 articles), it is especially important to provide these
comparisons. The comparability of new and old forms, as well as the validity
evidence reported in the Technical Manual for the Fifth Edition (Roid, 2003b),
provide the initial evidence for appropriate use of the test until independent
research is published. Table 7 shows the correlations between general ability
on the last three editions of the Stanford-Binet, while Table 8 shows the
correlations between factors on the Fourth and Fifth editions.

Table 7
Correlations of FSIQ for the SB Form L-M, SB IV, and SB5
Test Correlations (Corrected for
Restriction or Expansion of Variance) Test Correlations (Uncorrected)
SB5 SB IV SB5 SB IV
SB IV 0.90 0.83
Form L-M 0.85 0.80 0.80 0.81

Note. N = 104 for SB5 and SB IV, N = 80 for SB5 and SB L-M, N = 139 for SB IV and SB Form L-M

Table 8
SB IV and SB5 Factor Correlations
Factor Correlations (Corrected for
Restriction or Expansion of Variance) Factor Correlations (Uncorrected)
SB IV Scores SB IV Scores
SB5 Scores VR A/VR QR STM VR A/VR QR STM M SD
KN .73 .57 108.64 9.85
FR .54 .48 106.96 12.93
VS .69 .64 107.90 13.20
QR .77 .73 107.37 13.34
WM .64 .55 104.33 11.76
M 110.71 111.96 112.11 106.66 110.71 111.96 112.11 106.66
SD 12.71 14.24 14.90 13.27 12.71 14.24 14.90 13.27

Note. N = 104. SB IV scores include Verbal Reasoning (VR), Abstract/Visual Reasoning (A/VR), Quantitative Reasoning
(QR), and Short-Term Memory (STM). SB5 scores include Knowledge (KN), Fluid Reasoning (FR), Visual-Spatial
Processing (VS), Quantitative Reasoning (QR), and Working Memory (WM).

9
 Test Comparability
In addition to the correlations between the SB5, the SB IV, and Form L-M,
estimated equating tables were developed to show the relationship between scores
on these editions of the Stanford-Binet. The SB5 was administered in
counterbalanced order to two samples; one sample was also administered the
SB IV and the other Form L-M. Angoff’s (1984) design II.A.1 was used to equate
the different forms of the test. Tables 9 and 10 show the results of these analyses,
with the range of SB5 scores expected for given IQs from the SB IV and Form L-M.

Table 9
Estimated Equating Table: Expected
SB5 Full Scale IQ Ranges for Selected
SB IV Composite SAS Scores
SB IV SB5
Composite SAS Score FSIQ
55 52–60
70 67–73
85 82–85
100 96–99
115 106–113
130 122–128
145 135–143

Abbreviation: FSIQ = SB5 Full Scale IQ Score.

Table 10
Estimated Equating Table: Expected
SB5 Full Scale IQ Ranges for Selected
SB Form L-M IQ Scores
SB Form L-M SB5
IQ Scores FSIQ
55 63–74
70 75–82
85 86–91
100 96–100
115 105–110
130 114–121
145 122–133

Shared Test Content

Comparisons between the exact content shared in the 1916 through 1973 versions
of the Stanford-Binet are somewhat difficult to quantify due to the occurrence of
items at multiple levels (with different passing criteria). Moreover, many items on
the earlier forms of the test were grouped into testlets, and in some cases only
parts of a testlet are shared across forms. To present a parsimonious description
of shared items over time, the percent of content shared with other forms is
presented for the SB IV and SB5, both of which present individual items rather

10
than groups of items. Interested readers are referred to the Form L-M manual for
a complete content map of the 1937 and 1960/1973 forms of the test (Terman &
Merrill, 1973). For both the Fourth and Fifth Editions, all test items were placed
in a spreadsheet. Each item was checked against the content of all prior editions,
and matching items were marked. Once all items were coded, the total number of
items in each edition, as well as the total number of shared items overall, were
counted. Table 11 shows the results of this process.

Table 11
Percent of SB IV and SB5 Items Appearing in Other Versions of
the Stanford-Binet
SB5 SB IV L-M L M 1916 Binet Total
SB5
Shared Items 42 27 19 20 11 2 69*
Total Items 284 284 284 284 284 284 284
Percent 14.8% 9.5% 6.7% 7.0% 3.9% 0.7% 24.3%

SB IV
Shared Items 42 32 28 14 14 0 75*
Total Items 460 460 460 460 460 460 460
Percent 9.1% 7.0% 6.1% 3.0% 3.0% 0.0% 16.3%

Note. *The total number of shared items is the number of unique items coming from prior editions. All items
shared with the SB Form L-M, for example, would also have appeared on Form L and/or Form M.

Test Structure
While early versions of the Stanford-Binet yielded only a general intelligence
score, the items included a diverse mix of mental abilities. For example, items for
age 4 of the 1916 edition contained visual-spatial (copying a square), quantitative
(counting 4 pennies), knowledge (comprehension), and memory (repeating 4 digits)
items. Although the types of items at any level of the 1916 to 1973 versions varied,
almost all items on these forms relate to knowledge, fluid reasoning, visual-spatial
processing, quantitative reasoning, or short-term/working memory. The Fourth
Edition separated the diverse types of items found on prior editions into subtests
and factors, grouping Visual-Spatial Processing and Fluid Reasoning together into
an Abstract/Visual Reasoning factor. The Fifth Edition also maintains these five
predominant areas of mental ability with a factor structure that keeps Fluid
Reasoning items separate from Visual-Spatial Processing items. The Fifth Edition
also places more emphasis on working memory compared with short-term memory.
While working memory was present to some extent on earlier editions, it was
limited to Memory for Digits Reversed, with all other memory tasks involving
short-term memory.
Table 12 presents a count of the types of items (using the Fifth Edition
categories) that appeared on prior versions of the Stanford-Binet. These
classifications are based on a content analysis of prior editions as well as on
empirical studies (e.g., Woodcock, 1990). Of course, content analysis does not
necessarily ensure that an item will load on a particular factor in a factor
analysis, or that all practitioners will agree on the classifications given.

11
 Additionally, a number of items and subtests fall across factors (for example,
Knowledge and Visual-Spatial Processing contribute to Mutilated Pictures in the
Form L-M). For the purpose of Table 12, items with multiple possible
classifications are counted in both classes.

Table 12
Item Content on the 1916 to 1973 Editions of the Stanford-Binet
SB5 SB IV Form L-M Form L Form M 1916
Knowledge 26% 27% 40% 41% 38% 38%
Fluid Reasoning 17% 14%* 20% 17% 21% 17%
Visual-Spatial Processing 18% 17% 18% 16% 15% 11%
Quantitative Reasoning 21% 17% 6% 6% 6% 8%
Working Memory 12% 2% 4% 3% 4% 9%
Short-Term Memory 6% 22% 9% 13% 11% 11%
Other** 0% 0% 4% 3% 5% 6%

Note. *Verbal Relations is counted in Fluid Reasoning as well as Knowledge. Number Series is counted in Fluid
Reasoning as well as Quantitative Reasoning.
**These items cover such abilities as auditory processing, long-term retrieval, and judgements of weights.

Conclusions
The Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition represents the latest in a
series of enhancements derived from the tradition of intelligence testing
originated in 1905 by Alfred Binet and Theodore Simon. However, as Kuhn (1970)
points out, the real progress in a science, and certainly the real progress in the
fruits of a science, lies not in the revolutionary period but rather in the periods of
normal science that follow it. According to Kuhn, “the results gained in normal
research are significant because they add to the scope and precision with which
the paradigm can be applied” (p. 36). The SB5 incorporates many insights
implicitly designed into the early editions of the measure as implemented by
Binet, Simon, Terman, and Merrill, but presents them in a way that provides vast
practical improvements in the areas of content coverage and psychometric
characteristics. In this way, the revolutionary work of the earlier authors has
shaped the more recent enhancements and advancement of the test under
Thorndike, Hagen, and Sattler, and most recently, Roid.

12
References
Angoff, W. H. (1984). Scales, norms, and equivalent scores. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing
Service.
Binet, A., & Simon, T. (1905). Méthodes nouvelles pour le diagnostic du niveau intellectual des
anormaux. L’Année psychologique, 11, 191–336.
Binet, A., & Simon, T. (1916). The development of intelligence in children (E. Kit, Trans.). Baltimore,
MD: Williams & Wilkins.
Buros, O. K. (1938). The 1938 mental measurements yearbook. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers
University Press.
Delaney, E. A., & Hopkins, T. F. (1987). Examiner’s handbook: An expanded guide for fourth edition
users. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.
Glaub, V. E., & Kamphaus, R. W. (1991). Construction of a nonverbal adaptation of the Stanford-
Binet Fourth Edition. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 51, 231–241.
Herring, J. P. (1922). Herring revision of the Binet-Simon tests and verbal and abstract elements in
intelligence examinations. New York: World Book Co.
Kuhlmann, F. (1912). A revision of the Binet-Simon system for measuring the intelligence of
children. Faribault, MN: Minnesota School for Feeble-Minded and Colony for Epileptics.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
McNemar, Q. (1942). The revision of the Stanford-Binet Scale: An analysis of the standardization
data. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Melville, N. J. (1917). Testing juvenile mentality. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company.
Minton, H. L. (1988). Lewis M. Terman: Pioneer in psychological testing. New York: New York
University Press.
Pratt, C. C. (1917). Book review: The measurement of intelligence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1,
191–192.
Reckase, M. D. (1989). Adaptive testing: The evolution of a good idea. Educational Measurement:
Issues & Practice, 8, 11–15.
Roid, G. H. (2003a). Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition. Itasca, IL: Riverside
Publishing.
Roid, G. H. (2003b). Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition: Technical Manual. Itasca, IL:
Riverside Publishing.
Sattler, J. M. (1965). Analysis of functions of the 1960 Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale, Form L-M.
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 21, 173–179.
Terman, L. M. (1916). The measurement of intelligence: An explanation of and a complete guide for
the use of the Stanford revision and extension of the Binet-Simon Intelligence Scale. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.
Terman, L. M., & Merrill, M. A. (1937). Measuring intelligence. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Terman, L. M., & Merrill, M. A. (1960). Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale: Manual for the Third
Revision Form L-M. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

13
Terman, L. M., & Merrill, M. A. (1973). Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale: Manual for the Third
Revision Form L-M (1972 Norm Tables by R. L. Thorndike). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Thorndike, R. L., Hagen, E. P., & Sattler, J. M. (1986). Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale: Fourth
Edition. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.
Wechsler, D. (1991). The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Third Edition. San Antonio, TX:
Psychological Corporation.
Wolf, T. H. (1973). Alfred Binet. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Woodcock, R. W. (1990). Theoretical foundations of the WJ-R measures of cognitive ability. Journal
of Psychoeducational Assessment, 8, 231–258.
Yerkes, R. M. (1917). The Binet versus the point scale method of measuring intelligence. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 1, 111–122.

425 Spring Lake Drive

Itasca, IL 60143-2079

1.800.323.9540
www.stanford-binet.com

9-96306