Introduction
To be labeled as being “intelligent” makes one feels positive, encourages one’s self-esteem and sense of worth (Pal, Pal & Tourani, 2004). However, there is no one true definition to intelligence, and according to the implicit theory, different people has different beliefs about what intelligence is (Garcia-Cepero & McCoach, 2008). Despite the multitude of different views, many psychologists share the similar idea that intelligence is a facet of mind underlying our capacity to think, solve novel problems, acquire and apply knowledge and reason logically, having cognitive capacities that enable us to adapt to the environment and think abstractly (Cohen, Swerdlik & Sturman, 2013). According to Boring (1923), intelligence is what is measured by intelligence tests – a method for assessing one’s mental aptitudes, such as reasoning, comprehension and judgment, and comparing them with others using numerical scores.

Francis Galton believed that the most intelligent people were those equipped with the best sensory abilities, such as reaction time and grip strength, and intelligence was a matter of having the right genes (Cohen et al., 2013). He reasoned that intelligence is a result of superior physical development of brain and body and tried to measure intelligence scientifically, with tests of visual acuity or hearing ability. However, Alfred Binet criticized Galton’s approach to intellectual assessment and approached more complex measurements of intellectual ability. He viewed intelligence as inseparable abilities with different aspects such as reasoning, judgment and memory that interact to produce solution to a particular problem requiring complex measurements instead of distinct processes that could be assessed only by individual tests (Cohen et al., 2013).

The Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) Model of cognitive abilities proposed by McGrew (1997) is an important theory that guided the development of many recent intelligence tests, including the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, specifically the fourth (SB:FE) and fifth (SB-5) edition, which this paper aims to explore. Rather than using a single general ability (g) factor, which lacks utility in psychoeducational evaluations, it makes use of broad cognitive abilities and narrow abilities, which is deemed to allow better clarification of an individual’s cognitive strengths and weaknesses (Reynolds & Fletcher-Janzen, 2007). Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales

SB:FE and SB-5 are the more recent editions of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales. With laws requiring all French children to attend school, it was important to identify children with developmental disabilities, who required specialized assistance in Paris schools. Therefore, Binet was approached by the French government to develop a test to screen for c...

-100 -310 -5 -51 /cd.45 /developmental/the-importance-of-intelligence-testing-in-society#slide=1 /dx.doi.org/10.14303/er.2011.481 /homepage/class/psy301/salinas/09intelligence.htm /images/stories/infocentre/smith_stanfordbinet5.pdf /news/singapore/singapores-smartest-kid /special-ed-learning-disorders/13503-when-is-the-stanford-binet-intelligence-scale-not-valid/ 10.1002 100 142 15 16 1905 1916 1923 1950 1986 1990 1997 1999 2 2002 2003 2004 2005 2007 2008 2012 2013 2014 2015 23 295 3 42 5 8 85 87 8th 96 abil abstract academ accord acquir across acuiti adapt administ administr administrat adolesc adopt adult advantag affect age aim ainsworth al alfr align allow also alter altern alway among analysi analyt anoth answer appeal appli applic approach approxim aptitud area ascertain ashman asia aspect assess assist associ attend attent aw aw-yeong await b base basi basic becom belief believ bempechat best better binet binet-simon bodi bore boston boulay brain bright broad built c cal calcul call capac carrol cateogori cater cattel cattell-horn cattell-horn-carrol ceil cepero challeng chang characterist chc child children christensen chronolog clarif class clinic co co-oper cognit cohen coin colman communic compar comparison complex composit comprehens compris concentr concept concern conclus condit constant contain content contrast contribut could creat critic crucial crystal d david decis deem definit degre delay delinqu depend deriv descent describ design desir despit determain determin develop development deveop deviat diagnos differ difficulti diffulti direct disabl disord display distinct divid doi domain doubt drastic due dunn dunn-rankin e earli earlier easi eclect ed edit educ effect effici emphasi employ enabl encourag encyclopedia environ equal equip equival especi esteem estim et evalu even evolv examin exampl except expans experienc explicit explor extend extraordinari f facet factor fe feebl feeble-mind feel field fifth first fit five flaw fletcher fletcher-janzen fluid focus formal four fourth framework franci free french full full-scal function fundament furthermor g gai galton gamelik garcia garcia-cepero gear gene general get gift gifted glut go govern grade grasp grip group guid health hear help hierarchi high hill hoboken homepage.psy.utexas.edu homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/class/psy301/salinas/09intelligence.htm homogen horn houghton howev http hub idea identif identifi ii illiter impari implicit import improv includ incorpor index individu inform insensit insepar instead instrument intellectu intellig interact intern introduc introduct invalid iq issu item iv j janzen jimenez john journal judgment key kid kirst kirst-ashman knezek knowledg l label lack languag lankford larg latest law learn less level lewi limit logic low m made make mani markus match matric matter may mccoach mcgraw mcgraw-hil mcgrew mean measur memori mental method mexican mifflin might mind ministri model moe moral multi multi-level multipl multipli multitud n n.d n.j narrow need new news.asiaone.com news.asiaone.com/news/singapore/singapores-smartest-kid non non-verb noncommun northridg novel nsw nswagtc.org.au nswagtc.org.au/images/stories/infocentre/smith_stanfordbinet5.pdf numer obtain offer older one oper organ origin other outcom overal p pal paper pari particular pattern peopl perceptu perform person phillip physic piotrowski place placement point poor posit posses possibl potenti prefer preschool presenc present previous prior problem process produc program proper propos provid psych.answers.com psych.answers.com/developmental/the-importance-of-intelligence-testing-in-society#slide=1 psychoeduc psycholog psychologica psychologist publish qualiti quantit quihui quotient r rang rankin rapport rather ratio reaction read reason recent reduc refer reflect regist regular relationship releas relev reli reliabitiy remain remedi render replac repres requir research result retard retent retriev reynold right rout sampl sb scale scales-fifth school scientif score screen see self self-esteem sens sensori sent set sever share short short-term show similar simon singapor singl skill smartest smith societi sole solut solv sometim son spatial special specif specifi speed standard stanford stanford-binet state still strategi strength student studi sturman style substitut subtest success summari superior swerdlik take talent task teach teacher term terman test testtak texa theodor theoret theori therefor think third though three thus time today togeth took tool tourani toy track tri true two tyler tyler-wood unabl under understand unif univers universita unlik unusu unwil us use user util valid variabl various verbal vernon version view visual visual-spati vocabulari vocat wai wais-iv watkin weak weaknesess wechsler well whilst whole wide wider wiley wisc within wood work world worth write www.brighthubeducation.com www.brighthubeducation.com/special-ed-learning-disorders/13503-when-is-the-stanford-binet-intelligence-scale-not-valid/ yeong york youngstrom zastrow