Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b6zl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-08T11:53:07.470Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Factor Analysis of the Stanford-Binet at Four Age Levels

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Lyle V. Jones
Lyle V. Jones*
Affiliation:
Stanford University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Standardization scores on the 1937 Revision of the Stanford-Binet are analyzed by the Thurstone centroid factor technique. Correlation matrices at age levels seven, nine, eleven, and thirteen, each based on two hundred subjects, are analyzed. The factors after rotation are interpreted in terms of the items exhibiting high factor saturations. In contrast to the findings of McNemar (1942) no evidence for a general factor in the Stanford-Binet battery is found in the present study. Rather, I.Q. variance can be explained in terms of psychologically meaningful group factors at the various age levels. The results indicate a need for cautious interpretation and use of single score indices of intelligence such as the Stanford-Binet I.Q.

Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 14 , Issue 4 , December 1949 , pp. 299 - 331
Copyright
Copyright © 1949 The Psychometric Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

This study was accomplished in partial fulfillment of requirements for the Master of Science degree at the University of Washington, 1948. The author is greatly indebted to Dr. Lloyd G. Humphreys for suggesting the topic and for his invaluable guidance throughout the project. He is also appreciative of the cooperation of Dr. Quinn McNemar, who generously supplied the initial data and has offered helpful advice in the preparation of this paper.

References

Anastasi, Ann. The nature of psychological “traits.”. Psychol. Rev., 1948, 55, 127–138.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Balinsky, B. An analysis of the mental factors of various age groups from nine to sixty. Genet. Psychol. Monogr., 1941, 23, 191–234.Google Scholar
Burt, C. and John, E. A factorial analysis of Terman-Binet tests, I and II. Brit. J. educ. Psychol., 1942, 12, 117–127.Google Scholar
Garrett, H. E. A developmental theory of intelligence. Amer. Psychol., 1946, 1, 372–378.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guilford, J. P. Factor analysis in a test-development program. Psychol. Rev., 1948, 55, 79–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guilford, J. P. AAF Aviation Psychology Program Research Reports, Report No. 5, Printed Classification Tests, Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1947.Google Scholar
McNemar, Q. The Revision of the Stanford-Binet Scale, Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1942.Google Scholar
Terman, L. M. and Merrill, Maud A. Measuring Intelligence, Cambridge: Houghton-Mifflin, 1937.Google Scholar
Thurstone, L. L. Primary mental abilities, Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 1938.Google Scholar
Thurstone, L. L. Multiple-Factor Analysis, Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 1941.Google Scholar
Wright, Ruth E. A factor analysis of the original Stanford-Binet scale. Psychometrika, 1939, 4, 209–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmerman, W. S. A simple graphical method for orthogonal rotation of axes. Psychometrika, 1946, 11, 51–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed