Terman and Knollin indicate the Stanford revision is more accurate than the Vineland revision in estimating dullness, borderlinity and feeble-mindedness.¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r? · q2
Currency · newest study 1917 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? The Stanford revision outperformed the Vineland revision in estimating dullness, borderlinity and feeble-mindedness, per the Terman and Knollin annotation. → Kohs 1917

Evidence¶

Kohs 1917¶

Kohs, Samuel C. (1917). An Annotated Bibliography of Recent Literature on the Binet-Simon Scale (1913-1917), Part IV. The Journal of Educational Psychology. https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Annotated+Bibliography+of+Recent+Literature+on+the+Binet-Simon+Scale%22+Kohs

q2 · i? · review · r?

Bibliography entry 389, annotating Terman and Knollin's 1915 Journal of Psycho-Asthenics article, states the authors "Indicated that the Stanford revision is more accurate than the Vineland revi- sion" for the three named estimations. No statistics are given in the annotation.

"Indicated that the Stanford revision is more accurate than the Vineland revi- sion in estimating dullness, borderlinity and feeble-mindedness."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Application of the Stanford Revision to 1000 non-selected children found the intelligence quotient a valid expression of intelligence, practically no sex differences, and social status not a disturbing influence on mental-age estimates. — 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
• Woolley found 25.5% of 18-year-old industrial workers feeble-minded on the point scale and advised changing the definition of feeble-mindedness so tested deficiency better matched common-sense opinion. — related