The reviewer finds the tests-and-scales book's intelligence-measurement chapter useful but its least satisfactory part, criticizing the Stanford-Binet treatment and the omission of the National Tests¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · reviewr?·q1
Currency · newest study 1920 · 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.
q1 i? The reviewer judges the chapter on measuring general intelligence a useful innovation but the least satisfactory chapter in the book, criticizing the clumsy treatment of the Stanford-Binet and the omission of the National Tests. → A. I. G 1920
Evidence¶
A. I. G 1920¶
A. I. G. (1920). New Publications. The Journal of Educational Psychology. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=none-in-text
q1 · i? · review · r?
The reviewer's assessment of the reviewed textbook's intelligence chapter, which instructs teachers in using the Trabue Language Scales, the Otis and the Haggerty tests as measures of intelligence. The reviewer calls the chapter a useful innovation yet finds it "the least satisfactory in the book."
"We are surprised that the National Tests were not included, and the treatment of the Stanford-Binet test is clumsy. It is unfortunate that this chapter is the least satisfactory in the book."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- The reviewer judges Goddard's book an optimistic, clear popular account that exaggerates intelligence's influence and omits technical questions such as IQ validity — related
- Group scales allow examining fifty or a hundred children in an hour, whereas individual Binet testing restricts use to special cases — related
- The reviewed tests-and-scales book describes a third stage in which standardized tests are used for diagnosis of individual pupils and for testing the efficiency of teaching methods — related
- The editor predicts NRC group tests will make intelligence testing a routine school measure and open the way for adjusting school work to pupil needs — related
- A National Research Council committee secured a $25,000 General Education Board grant to develop intelligence tests for school children — related
- The National Intelligence Tests, prepared by a committee under National Research Council auspices with $25,000 from the General Education Board, are probably the most reliable group tests — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
intelligence-chapter-least-satisfactory |
title |
The reviewer finds the tests-and-scales book's intelligence-measurement chapter useful but its least satisfactory part, criticizing the Stanford-Binet treatment and the omission of the National Tests |
description |
The reviewer finds the tests-and-scales book's intelligence-measurement chapter useful but its least satisfactory part, criticizing the Stanford-Binet treatment and the omission of the National Tests |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
1920 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-23 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — a-i-g-1920 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.