Claims

Exceptional Binet-Simon test outcomes were rare (4 per cent) and mostly attributable to error in adult judgments rather than the scale

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 1914 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i? Of 194 cases, thirty were exceptional; nineteen were placed by the principal in the group the tests indicated, corroborating the scale. → Carl C. Brigham 1914

Evidence

Carl C. Brigham 1914

Carl C. Brigham. (1914). An Experimental Critique of the Binet-Simon Scale. The Journal of Educational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0071183

q2 · i? · associational · r1

Individual-case analysis of the 194 teacher-judged cases: thirty exceptional cases were identified, of which nineteen were re-graded by the principal in the direction the tests indicated, three were under-age for grade, and the remaining eight — "4 per cent, of all the 194 cases" — had no obvious explanation and were attributed to judgment error.

"They constitute 4 per cent, of all the 194 cases treated above. Since the judgments of the teachers and the principal did not coin- cide within two groups in 9 per cent, of the cases, and since their judgments actually coincided in only 41 per cent, of the eases, the assumption is legitimate that the error of 4 per cent. is on the part of the judgment of the teacher and principal, and not the Binet-Simon scale."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
type claim
id binet-simon-exceptional-cases-4-percent
title Exceptional Binet-Simon test outcomes were rare (4 per cent) and mostly attributable to error in adult judgments rather than the scale
description Exceptional Binet-Simon test outcomes were rare (4 per cent) and mostly attributable to error in adult judgments rather than the scale
status review
evidence_strength weak
newest_evidence 1914
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-24
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
sources 1 — carl-c-brigham-1914

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.