Reflection Task

Core Learning Outcome 1

Identify the motivation behind the development of Alfred Binet’s first formal test of
intelligence.

The driving force behind the first formal test of intelligence, that is the creation of the
1906’s original Binet-Simon scale (the modern day Binet scale), was the new french
legislation that required children to attend school. As this noticeable shift in policy
meant many schools needed to screen children for learning disabilities, which in turn
enabled the provision of additional supports to children with intellectual difficulties.

Core Learning Outcome 2

Explain the difference between ratio IQ and deviation IQ, and the relevance of these
concepts for modern day intelligence testing.

In 1916, an early revision of the first formal test of intelligence introduced the concept
of a “ratio IQ”, which is the ratio of the test-taker’s mental age, divided by their
chronological age, multiple by 100. Despite having some advantages, the calculation of
IQ in this fashion was not sustainable, given that IQ is not distributed in the same way
across all age groups, and therefore is not how current tests yield IQ. Additionally, as the
age scale concept were not appropriate in application to adults, researchers were highly
motivated to identify and utilise a different way of computing IQ scores (see below).

Instead, the “deviation IQ” has became increasingly popular. Specifically, after the
1960’s revision of the Binet scale, which replaced the problematic mental-age norms
with a point scale (which assigned a creation amount of credits/points to each item
within the measure), using these scores, tests were now able to adopt a derivation IQ
concept. This was allowed as now items could be grouped in relation to there content,
which allowed participants to received points for each item passed. Based on the
assumption that intelligence is normally distributed across the population, tests could
now meaningfully compare an individual’s performance to their age-matched
standardisation sample. Notably, this included the arbitrarily set mean of 100, with a
standard deviation of 15 (with reference to percentiles, z-scores, and t-scores).

Core Learning Outcome 3

Outline the major features of the Stanford-Binet - Fifth Edition (SB5), including its
structure, types of scores, norming, reliability and validity.
The Stanford-Binet Fifth Edition, published in 2003, utilised a large standardisation
sample (aged from 2 years to 85 years of age) to test an individuals level of intelligence.
Specifically, the SB5 method incorporated the aforementioned concept of a hierarchical
model (from the CHC theory of intelligence). That is, a general intelligence (g) is at the
top of the hierarchy and subsumes all lower levels. This is measured by the Full Scale IQ
(FSIQ), which has a mean of 100 and a SD of 15. This is then followed by the five main
factors of intelligence; fluid reasoning (FR) (analogous to CHC model’s fluid
intelligence/Gf), knowledge (KN) (analogous to CHC model’s crystallised knowledge/Gc),
quantitative reasoning (QR) (analogous to CHC model’s quantitative knowledge/Gq),
visual-spatial processing (VS) (analogous to CHC model’s visual processing/Gv), and
working memory (WM) (analogous to CHC model’s short term memory/Gsm). Notably,
each of these factors have equally weighted verbal and nonverbal
components/measures (examiners can devise the overall scaled scores for the verbal
and nonverbal subtests individually). Notably, these five factors also have a mean of 100
and a standard deviation of 15.

On the other hand however, the individual corresponding measures of verbal and
nonverbal intelligence, in which their are 5 each respectively, these subtest scores have
a mean of 10 and a standard deviation of 3. Additionally, examiners can opt to calculate
composite scores for the verbal and nonverbal components, but summing their
respective scores together, which also have a mean of 100 and SD of 15. Finally, the
psychometric properties of the SB5 show great strides. Specifically, as they incorporate
a large standardisation sample size (with 4,800 individuals aged from 2 to 85 years,
which were stratified on age, gender, education, and geographical location according to
the 2005 census), they generally have high external validity. Additionally, their test-
retests, and spit-half reliables also show great promise; as the coefficients for the FSIQ
are either .97 or .98 for each of the 13 age groups, and the coefficients for the five
factors range from .90 to .92. In terms of content validity, the SB5 has shown to
correlate in the low to mid .80’s (including comparison to the WAIS). Overall, the SB5 is
a well developed test, that utilises a rigorous standardisation program (acquiring good
normative data in which clients can be compared).

Core Learning Outcome 4

Describe some of the practical advantages of the Stanford-Binet - Fifth Edition.

Notably, the SB5 utilised the same test which can be administered to both adults and
children. It is more suitable for assessment low functioning clients (e.g., children with
severe intellectual disability are more likely to obtain points on low end items of the
SB5). Finally, the SB5 contains a greater proportion of high-end items, making it
especially useful for the measurement of giftedness. Notably, while the SB5 was normed
on a very large standardisation sample, this is not a unique feature of the SB5 as many
other widely used tests of intelligence include a very large standardisation sample.

Core Learning Outcome 5

Outline some common reasons for administering standardized intelligence tests in
clinical practice.

In clinical practice, it is essential for psychologists to explore one’s presenting

intellectual difficulties to identify their strengths and weaknesses, which are essential
for providing good/useful recommendations regarding their everyday life functioning.
Specifically, these tests help identify intellectual difficulties, which can be compared
among age-matched data to identify the presence of a intellectual disability or
giftedness. Having such information is crucial in clinical settings where psychologists are
interested in assessing intellectual ability, psychoeducational disability, and organic
dysfunction (or giftedness) (quoted from the WAIS-IV aims and goals).

Core Learning Outcome 6

Describe the major features of the WAIS-IV, including its structure, types of scores,
norming, reliability and validity.

Notably, the WAIS also follows a similar structure to the SB5, as it assumes a hierarchical
model, and incorporates the concept of a general intelligence (g). Specifically, under this
overarching concept are 4 Primary Index Scores; Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI),
Working Memory Index (WMI), Perceptual Reasoning Index (PRI), and Processing Speed
Index (PSI). These are calculated using a number of core subtests (and some
supplementary/optional subtests) that are used to assess each index.

Types of scores on the full scale IQ and Primary Index Scores on the WAIS are categories
in certain intervals. These are;
130+ Very Superior
120-129 Superior
110-119 High Average
90-109 Average
80-89 Low Average
70-79 Borderline
69 and below Extremely Low
Notably, FSIQ Scores range from 40 to 160, and Primary Index Scores range from 50 to
150. Both of which have a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. Similarly,
subtests of the individual PIS are also categories and have a mean of 10, with a standard
deviation of 3. Specifically, these are categorised as follows;
16 - 19 Very Superior
14-15 Superior
13 High Average
8-12 Average
7 Low Average
4-6 Borderline
1-3 Extremely Low

In terms of ‘norming’, the WAIS also utilised a large standardisation sample of 2,200
adults aged from 16 to 90 years and 11 months. This provided excellent norming data
for normative comparisons to be made for clients who are administered the test.

Additionally, the ‘reliably’ of this measure is generally quite high as the full scale IQ has a
split half reliability of .98, and a test-retest reliability of .96. This standard of generally
excellent reliability coefficients are consistent across the primary index scores and their
respective individual subtests.

Finally, the ‘validity’ of the WAIS-IV is quite high as the large standardisation sample has
allowed for quite accurate and meaningful generalisation to be made across individuals
of a similar age, gender, and education level (especially as scores are averaged into 13
difference age groups which all have a group of 200 participants each. Note: there is
only 100 participants for those aged 70 and over). Also there is a even number of
females and males among groups, albeit higher number of females in groups over 65 to
represent the population more representatively.

Overall, the WAIS-IV is used to assess intellectual ability in adults; also for assessing
psychoeducational disability and organic dysfunction.

Core Learning Outcome 7

Define the Primary Index Scores of the WAIS-IV, including reference to the constructs
they are designed to measure and the subtests that contribute to each Primary Index
Score.

The ‘Primary Index Scores’ are comprised of 4 major component, these are as follows.
The Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI) assesses ones application of verbal skills and
information to the solution of new problems. It aims to identify ones ability to process
verbal information, to think with words, to demonstrate crystallised knowledge, and to
provide cognitive flexibility (including the ability to shift mental operations). This index
includes the following core subtests;

Subtest Description Abilities tapped

Similarities (SIMS) Client is read two words Verbal concept formation
aloud and asked to explain and reasoning
how they are “alike” Abstract Reasoning
Associative and categorical
thinking
Vocabulary (VOCAB) Client shown (in stimulus Word knowledge and verbal
book) and read aloud a concept formation
series of words and is asked Fund of knowledge
to provide a definition of Learning ability
those word (what do they Auditory comprehension
mean?) and verbal expression
Information (INF) Client asked a series of Ability to acquire, retain,
general knowledge and retrieve general factual
questions knowledge
Long term memory

Perceptual Reasoning Index (PRI) explores ones ability to think in terms of visual images
and manipulate them with fluency. It assesses their cognitive flexibility (including the
ability to shift mental operations), ability to interpret or organise visually perceived
material within a time limit, and ability to form abstract concepts and relationships
without the use of words. This index includes the following core subtests;

Subtest Description Abilities tapped

Block design Client shown a series of 2- Ability to analyze and
dimensional images in synthesize abstract visual
stimulus book and asked to stimuliNon-verbal concept
recreate the pattern with formation and reasoning
blocks (also a timed task) Visual perception and
organization Visual-motor
coordination
Matrix Reasoning The client is shown a series Fluid intelligence
of visual patterns with one Classification and spatial
piece missing. They are ability Knowledge of part-
required to select from five whole relationships
 options, the images that Perceptual organization
competes the pattern
Visual Puzzles Client is shown a completed Ability to analyze and
puzzle, and is asked to synthesize abstract visual
select the 3 pieces from a stimuliVisual perception
selection of 6 that make Spatial visualization and
that puzzle manipulation (mental
rotation)

Working Memory Index (WMI) assesses ones short-term memory, ability to sustain
attention, numerical ability, encoding ability, auditory processing skills, cognitive
flexibility (including the ability to shift mental operations), and ability to self-monitor.
This index includes the following core subtests;

Subtest Description Abilities tapped

Digit Span Client is read a series of Forward: Short-term
numbers (of increasing memory (not working
length) and required to memory); Basic attention,
repeat the numbers in encoding, auditory
differing ways: (a) processing,
Forwards: repeat numbers Backward/Sequencing:
in the same sequence they Working memory,
were read, (b) Backwards: transformation of
repeat numbers in the information, mental
reverse sequence to how manipulation, mental
they were read, and (c) alertness
Sequencing: repeat
numbers in numerical order
Arithmetic Client read aloud (with no Mental manipulation
visual reminders) a series of Concentration Attention
mathematical problems. Numerical reasoning ability
The mathematical Quantitative knowledge
procedures involved are not
complex as the task
designed to tap working
memory

Processing Speed Index (PSI) assesses ones perceptual discrimination, speed of mental
operation, psychomotor speed, concentration, short-term visual memory, and visual-
motor coordination. This index includes the following core subtests;
Subtest Description Abilities tapped
Coding Client uses a key that pairs Mental processing speed
various symbols with Speed and accuracy of
numbers to draw the grapho-motor-processing
correct sequence of Sequencing ability
symbols in an array of
random numbers (this task
is timed and the client is
required to complete as
many items as they can in 2
minutes)
Symbol Search Client is asked to identify Mental processing speed
whether a target design Speed of visual search
(symbol) is present in a
series of designs or
symbols. They simply draw
a line through the correct
box that indicates either
“yes” or “no”. (This task is
timed and clients are
required to complete as
many items as they can in 2
minutes).

Core Learning Outcome 8

Distinguish between normative and ipsative (i.e. personal) comparisons of an
individual’s WAIS-IV performance.

Notably, ‘normative’ comparisons are those in which a client’s performance is compared

and contrasts against a standardisation norm. That is, individuals similar in age, gender,
and education level. On the other hand, ‘ipsative’ comparisons are those made against
ones own performance/characteristics. Specifically, this may involve comparing how a
client’s score in one cognitive domain compare to their performance in other domains
(this is used to assess ones strengths/weaknesses).

Core Learning Outcome 9

Explain the concept of a unitary index score, and how you would determine whether
an index score is non-unitary

A ‘unitary’ index score is one where all the subtest scores that make up that composite
are relatively consistent. We can determine whether or not a score is unitary by
assessing whether or not the difference between the highest and lowest Primary Index
Scores is greater than 22 points (if it is, the score is non-unitary).

To determine if a primary index score is a strength or a weakness, we need to evaluate

weather a discrepancy between index scores of more than 9 points is likely to indicate a
significant difference. Basically, we want to assess whether or not a score is a good
representation of the client’s overall functioning (that is, it is unitary).

Finally, if difference between the highest and lowest subtest within a given index is
greater than 5 points, the index is considered non-unitary, and you would not interpret
or report this index score.

Core Learning Outcome 10

Describe the WAIS-IV hierarchical interpretative strategy, including the key
considerations for each of the six levels of analysis.

Notably, the WAIS involves a lot of scores which are classified into levels of reliability.
These are; full scale IQ (FSIQ) (level 1), factor indexes (VCI, PRI, WMI, PSI) (level 2),
subtest deviations within the composite scores (level 3), inter-subtest score
comparisons (level 4), Intra-subtest Score Comparisons (level 5), and qualitative Analysis
(level 6). Analysis and interpretation proceeds from the most reliable to the least
reliable measures on the test (that is, from level 1 to level 6).

Core Learning Outcome 11

Discuss what is meant by an “integrative approach” to WAIS-IV interpretation, with
reference to an example.

In this case, an ‘interpretive approach’ in one in which the psychologists draws upon
multiple areas of a clients life (e.g., their WAIS primary index scores, their behavioural
presentation/observations, clinical interview, etc). Specifically, this involves the
integration of information from several different subtests and/or the combining of test
score information with other information such as observation of behaviour or clinical
history information.