The Binet-Simon scale is a valuable diagnostic tool for classifying defective children when used by a trained examiner but dangerous in untrained hands¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · theoretical r? · q1
Currency · newest study 1917 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q1 i? The final Binet-Simon revision is of unequalled value in diagnosing and classifying defective children, but is absolutely inapplicable to many cases, especially children with defects as opposed to defective children. → Lewis M. Terman and Clara Harbison Town 1917 q1 i? In less expert hands the scale is a dangerous tool, owing to popular belief in its innate power of detecting the subnormal child. → Lewis M. Terman and Clara Harbison Town 1917

Evidence¶

Lewis M. Terman and Clara Harbison Town 1917¶

Lewis M. Terman and Clara Harbison Town. (1917). Communications and Discussions, The Journal of Educational Psychology. https://www.jstor.org

q1 · i? · theoretical · r?

An expert clinical judgment from the symposium communication, stating the scale is 'a valuable tool when used by an adequately trained person, who knows when to use it and when to lay it aside.' No comparative data are reported in the article.

"In less expert hands, far from being a valuable tool, it is even a dangerous one, owing to the popular belief in its innate and almost uncanny power of detecting the subnormal child."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Scattering on the Binet scales does not support the claim that unequal development is the specific characteristic of the feeble-minded; normal pupils scatter most and imbeciles least — related
• The Binet-Simon scale measured intelligence development from ages seven to eleven with at least 96 per cent efficiency under the study's conditions — related
• The Binet-Simon and Yerkes Point Scale ratings of children run parallel and are practically identical up to age ten — related
• Taylor's Sheffield study suggests the Binet scale is broadly suitable for English children, though tests for ages 6 and 7 seem too easy and tests above 11 seem unsatisfactory. — related
• Applying the Stanford revision to selected children in four California cities, Williams classified 32% feeble-minded, 20% borderline, 22% dull normal, and 26% normal or superior. — related
• In Wallin's St. Louis psycho-educational clinic, of 430 referred cases, 25.9% of 320 boys and 40% of 110 girls were found feeble-minded, with almost twice as many backward and retarded as feeble-minded. — related