Tests & Measurements

How Binet and other psychologists have defined intelligence

Binet defined intelligence as the ability to:

1. Set goals and pursue them

2. Adapt behavior to reach those goals

3. Evaluate and correct one’s own thinking

He emphasized judgment, attention, and reasoning, not simple sensory or reaction-speed abilities.

Other psychologists’ definitions

• Spearman: Intelligence is the ability to detect relationships and patterns

• Learning-focused views: Ability to learn from experience

• Problem-solving views: Ability to reason, plan, think abstractly, and solve problems

• Broader views: Some include memory, creativity, or personality traits

Overall, intelligence has been defined in multiple ways, which is why measuring it is complex and controversial.

Spearman’s g vs. contemporary gf–gc theory

Spearman’s g

• Intelligence consists of:

  • One general factor (g) that influences all mental tasks

  • Many specific abilities (s) unique to particular tasks

• Based on the positive manifold: people who do well on one cognitive task tend to do well on others

• g represents a kind of general mental energy

• About 50% of score variance across tests can be explained by g

gf–gc theory (modern view)

• Intelligence includes multiple but related abilities

• Two major components:

  • Fluid intelligence (gf): Reasoning, problem-solving, learning new information

  • Crystallized intelligence (gc): Knowledge and skills acquired through experience

• g still exists, but intelligence is hierarchical, not just a single score

Comparison

• Spearman: one dominant general ability

• gf–gc: multiple abilities under a general intelligence structure

• Modern Stanford-Binet blends both ideas

Binet’s two guiding principles of test construction

1. Age differentiation

   • Cognitive abilities increase predictably with age

2. General mental ability

   • Intelligence is a single overall ability, not many isolated skills

These principles guided task selection and scoring.

Age differentiation

Age differentiation is the idea that:

• Older children can perform more complex tasks than younger children

• Tasks can be assigned to age levels based on what most children of that age can do

• A task belongs to an age level if about ⅔–¾ of children at that age can pass it

This allowed intelligence to be measured relative to age-based expectations.

Mental age (MA)

Mental age is:

• The age level at which a child performs intellectually

• Determined by the age-level tasks the child can successfully complete

Example:

• A 6-year-old who performs like the average 9-year-old → MA = 9

• A 10-year-old who performs like the average 5-year-old → MA = 5

Mental age separates intellectual development from chronological age.

Intelligence Quotient (IQ)

Introduced in the 1916 Stanford-Binet.

Formula:

IQ=Mental AgeChronological Age×100IQ=Chronological AgeMental Age​×100

• IQ = 100 → average development

• IQ > 100 → above-average development

• IQ < 100 → below-average development

Limitations

• Assumed mental growth stopped in adolescence

• Could not fairly compare scores across different ages

• Had a ceiling for adults

Deviation IQ

Deviation IQ:

• Expresses how far a person’s score deviates from the average of their age group

• Mean = 100

• Standard deviation = 15 (formerly 16)

Advantages:

• Allows fair comparison across ages

• Fixes problems with uneven score variability

• Scores can be interpreted using percentiles and standard deviations

Introduced in the 1960 Stanford-Binet revision (SB-LM).

Editions of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale

1905 Binet-Simon

• 30-item test

• No clear scoring system or norms

• First attempt to measure intelligence

1908 Binet-Simon

• Introduced age scales

• Introduced mental age

• Mostly verbal, limited balance

1916 Stanford-Binet (Terman)

• Introduced IQ

• Larger standardization sample (but all white, California-based)

1937 Revision

• Two equivalent forms (L and M)

• Expanded age range

• Added nonverbal tasks

• Problems with age-based score variability

1960 Revision (SB-LM)

• Introduced deviation IQ

• Improved scoring consistency

• Later normed on a representative sample

1986 Fourth Edition

• Removed age scale

• Used point scales

• Expanded content but mixed success

2003 Fifth Edition

• Combines age-scale and point-scale approaches

• Based on hierarchical gf–gc model

• Equal verbal and nonverbal weighting

• Strong reliability and validity

• Best interpreted primarily as a general intelligence (g) test

Major motivation for developing the Wechsler scales

The main motivation was Wechsler’s belief that intelligence is more than a single score and that non-intellectual factors (motivation, anxiety, confidence, attitude) strongly affect test performance.

Specifically, Wechsler developed his scales because:

• The Binet tests were child-oriented and worked poorly for adults

• Mental age made little sense for adults

• Heavy emphasis on speed unfairly penalized older adults

• Binet tests focused too much on verbal ability

• Binet produced only one global score, limiting interpretation

Wechsler wanted a test that:

• Worked well for adults

• Measured multiple abilities

• Included nonverbal performance

• Reflected how people function in real life

Point scale and performance scale concepts

Point scale concept

• Each item earns a specific number of points

• Credit is given for every correct response

• Items are grouped by content, not age

• Allows calculation of:

  • Subtest scores

  • Index scores

  • Full-scale IQ

Advantage: Makes it possible to compare strengths and weaknesses across different abilities.

Performance scale concept

• A separate scale measuring nonverbal intelligence

• Uses tasks that require doing rather than talking

• Examples: block design, coding, symbol search

Advantage: Reduces bias related to language, culture, and schooling and allows comparison of verbal vs nonverbal intelligence.

Verbal vs. performance tasks

Verbal tasks

• Require spoken answers

• Depend on language and acquired knowledge

• Examples:

  • Vocabulary

  • Similarities

  • Information

  • Comprehension

• More stable over time and less affected by brain injury or emotional distress

Performance tasks

• Require nonverbal responses (pointing, arranging, copying)

• Measure visual-spatial skills, processing speed, and fluid reasoning

• Examples:

  • Block design

  • Matrix reasoning

  • Digit symbol-coding

  • Symbol search

• More sensitive to attention, motor skills, and neurological problems

How IQ scores are determined on the Wechsler scales

1. Each subtest produces a raw score

2. Raw scores are converted to scaled scores

   • Mean = 10

   • Standard deviation = 3

3. Scaled scores are summed to form index scores

   • Mean = 100

   • Standard deviation = 15

4. Index scores are combined to calculate the Full-Scale IQ (FSIQ)

The Wechsler IQ is a deviation IQ, comparing a person’s performance to others in the same age group.

Reliability of the Wechsler scales

The Wechsler scales have very high reliability.

• FSIQ reliability: ~.98

• Index reliabilities:

  • Verbal comprehension: ~.96

  • Perceptual reasoning: ~.95

  • Working memory: ~.94

  • Processing speed: ~.90

• Test-retest reliability: high

• Interscorer reliability: high

Important point:
Individual subtest reliabilities are lower, so interpreting detailed subtest patterns must be done cautiously.

Validity of the Wechsler scales

The Wechsler scales are among the most valid intelligence tests available.

Evidence includes:

• High correlations with:

  • Earlier Wechsler versions

  • Stanford-Binet tests

• Strong construct validity

• Validity supported across:

  • Age groups

  • Clinical populations

  • Special populations (ADHD, learning disabilities, brain injury)

They are widely accepted as accurate measures of general intelligence (g).

Major advantages and disadvantages of the Wechsler scales

Advantages

• Measures both verbal and nonverbal intelligence

• Uses point scales, allowing detailed ability profiles

• Strong reliability and validity

• Sensitive to neurological and psychological conditions

• Applicable across the lifespan (WPPSI → WISC → WAIS)

Disadvantages

• Subtest pattern analysis is controversial

• Index comparisons can be misleading

• Cultural and educational factors still influence performance

• Administration is time-consuming

• Over-interpretation of scores can lead to diagnostic errors

Advances in testing reflected in the WISC-V and WPPSI-IV

WISC-V advances

• Digital administration using iPads

• Faster, more efficient testing

• Five primary index scores:

  • Verbal comprehension

  • Visual-spatial

  • Fluid reasoning

  • Working memory

  • Processing speed

• Neutral descriptive labels (e.g., extremely high)

• Extensive special-group validation studies

• Improved standardization, reliability, and validity

WPPSI-IV advances

• Flexible testing based on child’s age

• Shorter testing for younger children

• Hierarchical model emphasizing g

• Improved measurement of working memory

• Strong links to adaptive functioning and achievement

• Modern psychometric design grounded in current theory

Major characteristics of a structured personality test

Structured personality tests:

• Use fixed, standardized questions

• Have limited response options (e.g., true/false, yes/no, Likert scale)

• Are objectively scored

• Are usually self-report

• Allow comparison to normative data

• Emphasize reliability, validity, and standardization

They contrast with projective tests, which are unstructured and subjective.

Underlying assumption of the Woodworth Personal Data Sheet (WPDS)

The WPDS assumed that:

• Psychological maladjustment can be detected by asking direct questions

• People will answer honestly about symptoms

• Mental health symptoms exist on a continuum

It treated personality assessment as similar to a medical checklist of symptoms.

Assumptions of early logical-content structured tests

Early logical-content tests assumed:

• Test items have obvious face validity

• The test developer can logically identify items related to a trait

• Respondents understand items as intended

• Individuals will respond truthfully

Weakness: These tests were vulnerable to faking, social desirability, and response bias.

Strategy used to construct the MMPI / MMPI-2

The MMPI used criterion-keying (empirical keying):

• Items were selected based on whether they distinguished clinical groups from normal controls

• Item content did not need to appear logically related to the trait

• If an item differentiated groups, it was kept

This strategy reduced reliance on face validity and improved diagnostic accuracy.

The F and K scales on the MMPI / MMPI-2

F (Infrequency) scale

• Measures unusual or atypical responding

• High scores may indicate:

  • Random responding

  • Exaggeration of symptoms

  • Severe psychopathology

• Low scores may indicate overly cautious responding

K (Correction) scale

• Measures defensiveness

• Detects attempts to present oneself in an overly favorable light

• Moderate K scores suggest good adjustment

• High K scores suggest guardedness or denial

K is also used to correct certain clinical scale scores

Strengths and weaknesses of the MMPI / MMPI-2

Strengths

• Strong empirical foundation

• Excellent reliability and validity

• Extensive research base

• Includes validity scales to detect response distortion

• Widely used in clinical, forensic, and medical settings

Weaknesses

• Very long (567 items for MMPI-2)

• Reading level may be challenging for some

• Cultural bias concerns

• Interpretation requires extensive training

• Some scales show overlap (comorbidity issues)

Using factor analysis to build structured personality tests

Factor analysis is used to:

1. Administer a large pool of items

2. Identify clusters of items that correlate highly

3. Define factors representing underlying personality traits

4. Retain items that load strongly on specific factors

5. Build scales based on these factors

This method reduces redundancy and increases construct validity.

Test construction approach of the NEO Personality Inventory

The NEO uses a theoretical + factor-analytic approach:

• Based on the Five-Factor Model:

  • Neuroticism

  • Extraversion

  • Openness

  • Agreeableness

  • Conscientiousness

• Traits were defined theoretically

• Items were refined using factor analysis

• Produces both domain scores and facet scores

The NEO emphasizes normal personality, not psychopathology.

EPPS and ipsative scoring

Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS)

• Based on Murray’s theory of needs

• Uses forced-choice items

• Designed to reduce social desirability bias

• Measures motivational needs (e.g., achievement, affiliation)

Ipsative scores

• Scores reflect relative strengths within the same person

• Cannot be directly compared to others

• Total score across scales is constant

• Useful for individual profiles, not diagnosis or selection

Define the projective hypothesis

The projective hypothesis states that when people are asked to interpret ambiguous or unstructured stimuli, their responses reflect their own needs, feelings, experiences, conflicts, and thought processes.
Because the stimulus has no clear meaning, the person “projects” aspects of their personality onto it.

Identify five individuals who played a dominant role in the development of the Rorschach

The five key figures who shaped the Rorschach in the U.S. were:

1. Samuel J. Beck – studied patterns in Rorschach responses

2. Marguerite Hertz – promoted systematic research

3. Bruno Klopfer – wrote influential books and expanded clinical use

4. Zygmunt Piotrowski – contributed to interpretation methods

5. David Rapaport – integrated the Rorschach into personality theory

Their disagreements over scoring and interpretation contributed to ongoing controversy.

Describe the Rorschach stimuli

• 10 inkblot cards

• Symmetrical designs on a white background

• 5 black and gray

• 2 black, gray, and red

• 3 multicolored (pastel)

• Designed to be highly ambiguous to encourage projection

Briefly describe Rorschach administration and scoring

Administration

• Given individually

• Examiner asks vague questions (e.g., “What might this be?”)

• Minimal guidance to maintain ambiguity

• Two phases:

  • Free association: subject says what they see

  • Inquiry: examiner asks where and why the response was seen

Scoring
Responses are scored on dimensions such as:

• Location (whole blot, common detail, unusual detail)

• Determinants (shape, movement, color, shading)

• Content (human, animal, nature, etc.)

• Form quality

• Popularity/originality

List the pros and cons of the Rorschach

Pros

• Highly flexible and rich clinical information

• Widely used and taught

• May reveal thought disorder and perceptual disturbances

• Can generate hypotheses for further assessment

Cons

• Poor standardization

• Questionable norms

• Inconsistent reliability and validity

• Overpathologizes healthy individuals

• Strong examiner influence

• Weak links to specific diagnoses

• Ethical concerns in forensic and custody cases

Describe the Holtzman Inkblot Test

The Holtzman Inkblot Test was designed to fix Rorschach problems by:

• Limiting responses to one per card

• Standardizing administration and scoring

• Providing two equivalent forms (A and B)

• Using 45 cards per form

• Scoring on 22 dimensions

Strengths

• Better standardization

• Good reliability

• Norms available

Limitations

• Weak validity evidence

• Rarely used today

• Not clearly superior to the Rorschach

Describe the TAT stimuli

• 30 pictures + 1 blank card

• Pictures show people in social situations

• Different cards for:

  • males/females

  • children/adults

• Less ambiguous than inkblots

• Designed to elicit stories, not perceptions

Briefly describe TAT administration

• Given individually

• Subject tells a story for each picture:

  • what led up to it

  • what is happening

  • what characters feel and think

  • how it ends

• Usually 10–12 cards used

• Responses recorded verbatim

• Interpretation focuses on themes, needs, motives, and outcomes

Identify factors to consider when evaluating the TAT

• Poor standardization of administration

• Many competing scoring systems

• Low test–retest reliability

• Weak criterion-related validity

• Some support for specific constructs (e.g., achievement need)

• Heavy reliance on clinical judgment

• Better for research on personality themes than diagnosis

List similarities and differences between the Rorschach and the TAT

Similarities

• Both are projective tests

• Use ambiguous stimuli

• Rely heavily on clinical interpretation

• Weak psychometric support

• Controversial but widely used

Differences

Rorschach	TAT
Inkblots	Pictures of people
No clear theory	Based on Murray’s needs theory
Focus on perception	Focus on storytelling
Used diagnostically	Designed for personality assessment
Extremely ambiguous	Moderately structured

Health-Care Situations Using Psychological Tests

Psychological tests are used in health care to:

1. Assess cognitive and brain function – after brain injury, stroke, or neurological illness to determine deficits and guide rehabilitation.

2. Evaluate emotional and mental health – screening for depression, anxiety, or stress in primary care to plan treatment.

3. Monitor treatment outcomes or disease progression – e.g., using cognitive tests to track Alzheimer’s progression or quality-of-life measures for chronic illness interventions.

Clinical Neuropsychology

• Definition: Clinical neuropsychology studies the relationship between brain functioning and behavior, focusing on how brain injuries or neurological disorders affect cognition, emotion, and behavior, and how impairments can be treated.

• Combines knowledge from neurology, psychiatry, and psychological testing.

Neuropsychological Instruments in Childhood and Adulthood

Childhood

• Purpose: Detect developmental delays, learning disabilities, or effects of injury.

• Examples:

  • Child Development Inventory, Child Behavior Checklist – assess adaptive skills and behavior.

  • Trail Making Test – attention, sequencing, and executive function.

• Challenges: Brain plasticity can mask deficits; some problems only emerge with complex tasks.

Adulthood

• Purpose: Assess brain injury, neurological disease, or cognitive decline.

• Examples:

  • Halstead-Reitan Battery – quantitative, standardized assessment.

  • Luria-Nebraska Battery – system-based, qualitative assessment.

  • California Verbal Learning Test (CVLT) – evaluates memory performance and strategies.

Halstead-Reitan Test Battery

• Developed by Ward Halstead and Ralph Reitan.

• Purpose: Assess effects of brain injury and localize damage.

• Components: Includes multiple neuropsychological tests, typically 8–12 hours; often paired with MMPI and WAIS.

• Strength: Strong quantitative approach, links specific test performance to brain regions.

• Limitation: Long administration time; modern imaging may provide similar information more quickly.

Luria-Nebraska Test Battery

• Developed from Alexander Luria’s qualitative/system-based approach.

• Purpose: Assess brain function as interconnected systems rather than isolated regions.

• Components: 269 items across 11 subtests; includes pathognomonic scales for brain dysfunction and lateralization (left vs. right hemisphere).

• Strength: Sensitive to subtle or complex deficits, useful for severe disabilities.

• Limitation: Standardization less rigid; historically more subjective, though modern versions are standardized.

Advantages of the California Verbal Learning Test (CVLT)

• Evaluates not only memory accuracy but also learning strategies and error patterns.

• Assesses:

  • Immediate recall, delayed recall, recognition.

  • Learning strategies, consistency across trials, interference effects.

• Helps distinguish among neurological conditions (Alzheimer’s, Huntington’s, Korsakoff’s).

• CVLT-C adapts the test for children (ages 5–16), useful for learning disabilities and attention issues.

Theoretical Orientations Underlying Anxiety Measures

• State vs. trait anxiety (Spielberger):

  • State anxiety: situational, temporary response.

  • Trait anxiety: stable personality characteristic.

• Other orientations:

  • Cognitive theories: focus on maladaptive thoughts that amplify anxiety.

  • Biological/physiological approaches: measure bodily reactions (heart rate, sweat, cortisol).

  • Behavioral approaches: measure avoidance or safety behaviors.

Approaches for Assessing Life Stress

• Self-report checklists (e.g., Life Events Checklist):

  • Strengths: easy to administer, quantifiable.

  • Weaknesses: relies on memory and perception; may miss context.

• Interview-based methods (e.g., Life Stress Interview):

  • Strengths: captures context, severity, and subjective meaning.

  • Weaknesses: time-consuming, requires trained interviewers

Relationship: Coping, Life Stress, and Social Support

• Life stress: challenges or demands that strain resources.

• Coping: strategies used to manage stress (problem-focused vs. emotion-focused).

• Social support: availability of assistance or resources from others.

• Interaction: strong social support can buffer stress, improve coping effectiveness, and reduce negative outcomes.

Psychometric vs. Decision Theory Approaches to Quality-of-Life

• Psychometric approach:

  • Measures multiple dimensions separately (physical, mental, social functioning).

  • Example: Sickness Impact Profile.

• Decision theory approach:

  • Combines dimensions into a single weighted score; considers relative importance of health states.

  • Used for cost-effectiveness or health economics studies.

SF-36

• A widely used health-related quality-of-life measure.

• Covers 8 domains:

  • Physical functioning, physical role limits, bodily pain, general health, vitality, social functioning, emotional role limits, mental health.

• Advantages: reliable, valid, brief, suitable for population studies.

• Limitations: not age-specific, may not capture all relevant aspects of quality of life.

Quality-Adjusted Life-Year (QALY)

• Concept combining quantity and quality of life.

• One year of life in perfect health = 1 QALY.

• Adjusted for health conditions: e.g., a year with half-quality health = 0.5 QALY.

• Useful for comparing interventions and allocating healthcare resources effectively.

Components of Risk Assessment

Risk assessment generally has two main components:

1. Prediction – Estimating the likelihood that someone will commit a violent or criminal act in the future. This involves identifying relevant risk factors.

2. Management – Determining strategies to reduce or control risk, such as treatment, supervision, or environmental modifications.

History of Risk Assessment

• Pre-1960s: Little attention to accuracy; people were labeled “dangerous” or “not dangerous.”

• 1966 Baxstrom study & 1971 Dixon study: Showed experts over-predicted violence; many released patients did not reoffend.

• 1980s: Criticism grew; John Monahan (1981) found clinicians only ~33% accurate in predicting violence.

• Courts (e.g., Barefoot v. Estelle, 1983; R. v. Lyons, 1987) allowed psychiatric testimony despite imperfect predictions.

Role of Risk Assessments in Canada

Civil:

• Civil commitment for mental illness.

• Child protection (removal from homes or termination of parental rights).

• Immigration decisions (risk of violent acts or threat to public welfare).

• Duty to warn: Psychologists must act to prevent foreseeable harm.

Criminal:

• Bail decisions.

• Sentencing and type of custody (minimum, medium, maximum).

• Dangerous offender or long-term offender designations.

• Parole decisions for early or statutory release.

Correct and Incorrect Risk Predictions

• True positive: Predicted violent → actually violent.

• True negative: Predicted non-violent → actually non-violent.

• False positive: Predicted violent → actually non-violent.

• False negative: Predicted non-violent → actually violent.

Methodological issues:

1. Limited number of risk factors studied.

2. Reliance on official records, which may underreport violence.

3. Simplistic definitions of violence (violent vs. non-violent) without severity, type, or context.

4. Base rate problem: Rare events (e.g., school shootings) increase false positives.

5. Ethical constraints: Cannot release high-risk individuals just to test predictive tools.

Approaches to Risk Assessment

• Unstructured Clinical Judgment

  • Relies on clinician experience and intuition.

  • Subjective; high variability between evaluators.

  • Example: Psychiatrist predicting risk based on interview impressions.

• Actuarial Prediction (Mechanical Prediction)

  • Uses statistical models with empirically validated risk factors.

  • Generally more accurate than unstructured judgment.

  • Example instruments: Static-99 (sexual recidivism), VRAG (violent recidivism).

• Structured Professional Judgment (SPJ)

  • Combines research-based risk factors with professional judgment.

  • Allows individualized assessments considering situational factors.

  • Example instruments: HCR-20, LSI-R.

  • Typically involves: identify risk factors → score → combine → estimate risk.

Types of Risk Factors

1. Historical (Static) – Past events that cannot change (e.g., age at first offense, criminal history).

2. Dispositional – Personal traits (e.g., age, gender, psychopathy, pro-criminal attitudes).

3. Clinical – Symptoms of mental disorder or substance use affecting risk.

4. Contextual (Situational) – Environment and current circumstances (e.g., social support, access to weapons, stressors).

Dynamic factors (clinical and contextual) can change over time and may be targeted for intervention.

Current Issues in Risk Assessment

• Theory gap: Most tools predict “what” but not “why” violence occurs. Models like the coping-relapse model link stress, emotional reactions, and criminal behavior.

• Subpopulations: Many tools developed for white male offenders; may not generalize to women, Indigenous offenders, or youth.

  • Women: More likely to have family-directed violence, childhood victimization, or mental health issues.

  • Indigenous offenders: Overrepresented in Canadian justice system; standard tools may predict less accurately.

• Protective factors: Reduce risk, e.g., prosocial involvement, strong family support, stable employment, goal-directed living, intelligence, and positive coping skills.