The year scale and the point scale yield disparate results and differ in diagnostic accuracy for delinquent populations, per Haines's studies¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 1917 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 1920: tool and model accuracy changes quickly

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Haines reports a disparity between results obtained by the Binet (year) scale and the Point scale, with consequences for diagnosis of delinquent boys and girls. → Kohs 1917

Evidence¶

Kohs 1917¶

Kohs, S. C. (1917). An annotated bibliography of recent literature on the Binet-Simon scale (1913-1917). Part II. The Journal of Educational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0073125

q2 · i? · review · r2

The bibliography's annotation of Haines (1915, Psychol. Rev. 22: 104-109) states there is "a disparity between results obtained by the Binet and the Point scales"; a companion entry (ref. 166) notes the two scales were compared on results, criteria of mental deficiency, and accuracy of diagnosis with one thousand minor delinquents.

"A discussion of the disparity between results obtained by the Binet and the Point scales, and the consequences which are involved."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Modified point and year scales with norms were developed for measuring the intelligence of the blind — related
• Low intelligence test scores alone cannot account for delinquency, since many non-delinquent adolescents show no more intelligence, per Haines — related
• 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
• Large majorities of delinquent and reformatory girls tested with the Binet scale were classified feeble-minded — related
• Scattering is considerably greater on the Stanford-Binet than on the earlier Binet-Simon scales, so conclusions about scattering differ according to the scale used — 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
• Sex differences in scattering reverse across scales: girls scatter more on the 1908 scale, boys on the 1911 and Stanford scales — 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