Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology 1380-3395/02/2403-383$16.

00
2002, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 383405 # Swets & Zeitlinger

From the BinetSimon to the WechslerBellevue:

Tracing the History of Intelligence Testing
Corwin Boake
Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Texas-Houston Medical School and
The Institute for Rehabilitation and Research, Houston, TX, USA

ABSTRACT

The history of David Wechsler's intelligence scales is reviewed by tracing the origins of the subtests in the
1939 WechslerBellevue Intelligence Scale. The subtests originated from tests developed between 1880 and
World War I, and was based on approaches to mental testing including anthropometrics, association
psychology, the BinetSimon scales, language-free performance testing of immigrants and school children,
and group testing of military recruits. Wechsler's subtest selection can be understood partly from his clinical
experiences during World War I. The structure of the WechslerBellevue Scale, which introduced major
innovations in intelligence testing, has remained almost unchanged through later revisions.

When future psychologists look back upon the
practice of psychological testing during the
1900s, they will be struck by the profound inu-
ence of David Wechsler's intelligence scales,
beginning with the publication of the Wechsler
Bellevue Intelligence Scale in 1939. Current sur-
veys of psychologists in the U.S.A. (Camara,
Nathan, & Puente, 2000) demonstrate that the
Wechsler intelligence scales continue to dominate
individual intelligence testing. According to Lezak
(1995), administration of a Wechsler intelligence
scale ``typically constitutes a substantial portion
of the test framework of the neuropsychological
examination'' (p. 688). Yet, the history of the most
popular intelligence tests is unfamiliar to most of
the psychologists who use them. It is timely to
retrace the origins of these scales because they
represent a major chapter in the history of psycho-
logical assessment and because this history might
have implications for future use of the scales.
The method used in this article is to review the
history of the Wechsler intelligence scales by
tracing the origins of the tests that became the
Wechsler subtests. The historical record demon-
strates that the Wechsler subtests represent the
continuation of tests that existed long before 1939
and, in many cases, before 1900. The article
identies the persons who created the tests and
reveals the purposes for which the tests were
developed. Finally, the article discusses implica-
tions of the fact that, in the midst of accelerating
scientic progress, advances from early intelligence
tests to those of today have been relatively minor.
EARLY MENTAL TESTING
Tests for the assessment of cognitive and percep-
tual abilities had been developed well before the
publication of the rst BinetSimon intelligence
scale in 1905 (Peterson, 1925). Form boards were
used during the mid-1800s by the French phy-
sician Edouard Seguin (Pichot, 1948, 1949) for
training cognitively impaired children. The form
board of Halstead's (1947) Tactual Performance
Test was adapted by the American psychologist

Address correspondence to: Corwin Boake, TIRR, 1333 Moursund, Houston, TX 77030-3405, USA. Tel.: 1-713-
797-5913. Fax: 1-713-797-5208. E-mail: corwin.boake@uth.tmc.edu
Accepted for publication: July 31, 2001.
384 CORWIN BOAKE
Henry Goddard from one of Seguin's designs. The
British scientist Francis Galton developed a set of
``anthropometric'' measures, such as line bisection,
that were administered to persons attending the
1884 International Health Exhibition in London
(Galton, 1885). The pioneering American psychol-
ogist James McKeen Cattell, who in 1890 coined
the term mental test, adapted Galton's tests for
research with American college students during
the 1890s. The following examples of the digit span
and substitution tests demonstrate that the Wechs-
ler scales contain mental tests from the period
before the BinetSimon scale and before the con-
cept of psychometric intelligence.
Digit Span
The digit span test was already familiar in
psychology before 1900, having been used in
England during the 1880s in studies by Galton
(1887) and by the cultural historian Joseph Jacobs
(1887). In the article introducing this test of ``the
power of reproducing sounds accurately,'' Jacobs
(1887) noted that the test stimuli had been
switched to digits after it was found that nonsense
syllables, which had been used initially following
the example of Ebbinghaus, were too difcult for
school children. Jacobs (1887) described how the
test instructions were developed:
It was necessary, in the rst place, to adopt
some uniform rate at which the dictation
should be given, as the power of apprehension
varied with the rate of utterance. A sound every
half-second was found to be a convenient rate,
and a little practice with a metronome beating
twice a second gives the experimenter a sense
of the proper interval. If possible, two sets of
the series of sounds should be given, and the
highest number correctly reproduced is to be
regarded as the limit which we wish to nd,
and which we term here the span. The reading
should be in a monotonous tone, so as not to
give any perceptible accent or rhythm, either of
which, it appeared, assists the power of repeti-
tion in a considerable degree. (p. 76)
Addressing ``the question as to what is the exact
power of the mind which is involved in reproduc-
ing these sounds,'' Jacobs (1887) claimed that the
digit span test selectively measured a process that
he termed prehension and that he dened ``as the
mind's power of taking on certain material'' (p.
79). Jacobs concluded that since ``we clearly
cannot take in without rst taking on . . . the men-
tal operation we have been testing thus seems a
necessary preliminary to all obtaining of mental
material,'' and he recommended ``that `span of
prehension' should be an important factor in
determining mental grasp, and its determination
one of the tests of mental capacity'' (1887, p. 79).
Substitution Test
The substitution test, the precursor of the Wechsler
Digit Symbol and Coding subtests, was probably
created around 1900 as an American college
classroom experiment for demonstrating the pro-
cesses involved in learning associations (Dearborn,
1910; Starch, 1911). In his 1911 book of class-
room teaching exercises, Starch reported that the
test had been ``originally devised several years
ago by [Joseph] Jastrow'' of the University of
Wisconsin. The test's rationale was explained in a
1910 compendium of mental tests authored by
Guy Whipple, who described the substitution test
as a measure of ``the rapidity with which associa-
tions are formed by repetition'' (p. 350). Whipple
proposed that ``in theory, an S whose nervous
system is plastic and retentive, who, in other
words, is a quick learner, will make the most
rapid progress'' (p. 350). One version of the
substitution test consisted of ``pages headed
with an imitation typewriter keyboard'' in which
``each letter of the alphabet is enclosed with a
number in a circle'' (Starch, 1911, pp. 47 48).
Below the keyboard diagram was a text passage to
be ``transcribed'' by the subject through ``substi-
tuting the numbers for the letters'' in blank spaces
placed alongside the text (Starch, 1911, p. 48).
The Digit Symbol subtest of the Wechsler intel-
ligence scales probably descended from another
University of Wisconsin substitution test having a
smaller key in which the nine digits were each
paired with a different typographical symbol (e.g.,
equal sign). Revisions of this nine-pair substitu-
tion test were included in early children's bat-
teries (Healy & Fernald, 1911; Pyle, 1913) as
measures of association learning. The version of
the substitution test shown in Figure 1, developed
 HISTORY OF INTELLIGENCE TESTING 385

Fig. 1. Substitution Test. Introduced in a 1911 monograph by Robert Woodworth and Frederic Lyman Wells, the
test was designed to measure the ability to learn new associations. The test was derived from an earlier
substitution test with 20 letter pairs (Kirkpatrick, 1909), by pairing digits with geometric forms in order to
prevent ``easy mnemonics.'' This Substitution Test page also served as a test of rapid naming of geometric
forms. The ve geometric forms were selected because they do not change appearance when rotated, which
allowed the test page to be presented in different orientations.
Note. From ``Association tests. Being a part of the Report of the Committee of the American Psychological
Association on the Standardization of Procedure in Experimental Tests,'' by R.S. Woodworth and F.L.
Wells, 1911, Psychological Monographs, 13 (Whole no. 57), pp. 5253. In the public domain.

by Cattell's students Robert Woodworth and F. L.
Wells (Woodworth & Wells, 1911), is probably
the source of the Coding subtest of the Wechsler
children's scales.
BINET AND SIMON'S MEASURING SCALE
OF INTELLIGENCE
In 1905, the psychologist Alfred Binet and psy-
chiatrist Theodore Simon published a ``measuring
scale of intelligence'' that they had developed for
use with Paris school children (Binet & Simon,
1905). The scale consisted of a series of 30 brief
cognitive tests, arranged in order of difculty,
which could be administered in about 40 min.
The selection of tests included measures of lan-
guage skills (e.g., naming, following commands,
semantic judgments), memory, reasoning, digit
span, and psychophysical judgments. Many of
the tests had been discussed by Binet and Victor
Henri in their 1895 review of ``differential
386 CORWIN BOAKE
psychology.'' The scale included tests developed
by others (e.g., digit span) as well as ones devel-
oped by Binet and his collaborators. Validity of
the scale was demonstrated, as in Jacobs' studies,
by the increase of scores with age and by the
scale's ability to differentiate normal and cogni-
tively impaired children (Peterson, 1925).
In 1908, Binet and Simon made a fundamental
revision of their scale by grouping the tests into
age levels. In this procedure, later known as a year
scale, each test was assigned to the age level at
which most children performed it successfully.
For example, digit span items of different lengths
were administered at various age levels, with
longer spans assigned to older ages. Administra-
tion to an individual child began with the tests at
the child's age level and proceeded to higher or
lower age levels, until nding the age level at
which most tests were failed. The child's
intelligence was quantied in terms of the
intellectual level (later, mental age), dened as
the highest age level at which the child completed
most tests successfully. Although the 1908
revision contained both verbal and non-verbal
tests, the consensus of psychometric opinion was
that the scale overemphasized verbal skills such
as vocabulary and repetition.
The BinetSimon scales have served as both a
model of form and source of content for later
intelligence tests. The basic procedure of combin-
ing different mental tests to yield a composite
score is the foundation of intelligence scales.
Binet emphasized that since ``a particular test
isolated from the rest is of little value'' or even
``signies nothing,'' the important information
contributed by intelligence scales was the sub-
ject's average performance over various tests. He
facetiously wrote that ``one might almost say, `It
matters very little what the tests are so long as
they are numerous.''' (1911/1916, p. 329). In
addition to establishing the basic form that
intelligence tests would take, the BinetSimon
scales contributed items and tests that have been
recycled in later intelligence scales. Table 1
shows tests and items of the 1905 and 1908
BinetSimon scales that have been duplicated in
the Wechsler intelligence scales. For example, the
BinetSimon Unnished pictures item, a drawing
of a face missing a nose, is duplicated as an item of
the Picture Completion subtest of the Wechsler
Bellevue scale and later Wechsler intelligence
scales.
In only a few years, the BinetSimon scale
became widely used in Europe and North
America. Goddard learned of the scale while
traveling in Europe and arranged for its transla-
tion into English. From his position as research
director of the Training School at Vineland, a
residential center in New Jersey for children with
cognitive disorders, Goddard led a drive to
popularize intelligence testing that rapidly led to
the use of the BinetSimon scale in American
institutions (Zenderland, 1998).
Shortly before the U.S.A. entered World War I,
two major revisions of the BinetSimon scale
were produced by American psychologists. The
rst revision, by Robert Yerkes and James Bridges
of the Boston Psychopathic Hospital, restructured
the BinetSimon scale from a year scale into a
point scale termed the YerkesBridges Point
Scale Examination, by grouping items of similar
content into a smaller number of subtests (Yerkes,
Bridges, & Hardwick, 1915). For example, the
Memory Span for Digits subtest of the Yerkes
Bridges scale was formed by consolidating the
digit span items (Repetition of two gures, ve
gures, etc.) that were spread over various Binet
Simon age levels. Point-scale tests were adminis-
tered beginning with the easiest item and
proceeding in order of difculty until completing
the test. The correspondence between the Binet
Simon tests and the YerkesBridges tests is
illustrated in Table 1, where it can be seen that
the titles of the YerkesBridges tests were formed
by abbreviating the BinetSimon titles into
descriptive phrases. The point-scale method
introduced by the YerkesBridges scale was the
model for the tests that evolved into the Wechsler
scales (Thorndike & Lohman, 1990).
The second revision, by Lewis Terman of
Stanford University, extended the age range into
adulthood and, most important, replaced the
mental age with the intelligence quotient (IQ) as
the preferred composite score. In addition, Ter-
man supplemented the BinetSimon tests with
newer tests such as arithmetic reasoning items
developed by Bonser (1910) and a form board
developed by Healy and Fernald (1911). Terman's
Table 1. BinetSimon Tests Duplicated in the WechslerBellevue Scale.
Test in BinetSimon scales
(1905, 1908)
Unnished pictures (1908)
Reply to an abstract question (1905);
Comprehension questions (1908)
Repetition of three gures;
Immediate repetition of gures (1905)
Denitions of abstract terms (1905)
Verbal denition of known objects (1905);
Denition of familiar objects (1908)
Resemblances of several known objects
given from memory (1905)
Making change from 20 sous (1908)
Note. Quotations are from the translation of the BinetSimon tests by Elizabeth S. Kite (Binet, 1905/1916, 1908/1916).
Description/example
Identify missing parts of a
drawing of a face or person.
``When one breaks something
belonging to another what must
one do?'' (p. 224).
Repeat spoken list of digits in
same order.
Dene abstract nouns. Score is
based on abstractness
of denition.
Dene concrete nouns, in terms
of use or superior to use.
Example: ``In what way are a y,
an ant, a buttery, and a ea
alike?'' (p. 61).
Make change when 4 sous are
taken from 20.
Related test in
YerkesBridges Point Scale (1915)
Perception and comparison of
pictures (missing parts)
Comprehension of questions
Memory span for digits
Denition of abstract words
Denitions of concrete terms
Comparison of three pairs
of objects
none
Related test(s) in
StanfordBinet scale (1916)
Finding omissions in pictures
HISTORY OF INTELLIGENCE TESTING
Comprehension
Repeating three digits, etc.;
Repeating three digits reversed,
etc.
Dening abstract words;
Vocabulary
Giving denitions in terms of
use; Giving denitions superior
to use; Vocabulary
Giving similarities
Making change; Arithmetical
reasoning
387
388 CORWIN BOAKE
revision, the StanfordBinet Intelligence Scale
(Terman, 1916), quickly became the dominant
measure in American intelligence testing.
PERFORMANCE TESTS OF INTELLIGENCE
The need for non-verbal measures of intelligence
was felt by clinicians examining subjects with
limited English-language skills, such as hearing-
impaired and foreign-born persons. A 1911
monograph by the psychiatrist William Healy
and psychologist Grace Fernald, of the Chicago
Juvenile Psychopathic Institute, presented a group
of ``practical'' tests designed for use with juvenile
delinquents. In a criticism of the BinetSimon
scale to be repeated by many other authors, Healy
and Fernald complained that the scale ``helps very
little where the language factor is a barrier, either
on account of foreign parentage or insufcient
schooling, and with uneducated deaf and dumb
children'' (1911, p. 5). As a substitute for the
BinetSimon scale, Healy and Fernald claimed
that their tests had been constructed in order ``to
ascertain the mental ability quite apart from the
individual's experience in formal training in
our language, or indeed in any language'' (1911,
p. 4). For example, Healy's (1914, 1921) Pictorial
Completion tests consisted of picture boards of
childhood scenes with empty spaces designed
to be lled by different picture elements. The
subject's task was to select the element that
completed the picture in the most appropriate
way (e.g., placing a ball in the hand of a boy
throwing something). Healy and Fernald
explained that, because their tests were designed
``with the idea of invoking always as much inter-
est as possible in our tests, we have ever had in
mind the development of them in forms resem-
bling games and puzzles, but really involving
points much more open than puzzles to solution
by use of simple reasoning ability'' (1911, p. 7).
This method of measuring intelligence using non-
verbal tasks came to be termed performance
testing.
A seminal event in the history of performance
testing was the assessment program at Ellis
Island, in New York harbor, by U.S. Public
Health Service physicians who were responsible
for screening arriving immigrants for mental and
physical disorders (Knox, 1914b; Yew, 1980).
The task of mental screening was complicated
by the fact that many immigrants spoke no
English and had little or no formal education.
The Ellis Island physicians rejected the Binet
Simon scale as inappropriate for testing immi-
grants, on the rationale that the scale was an
``arbitrary and articial scale that was derived
from experiments performed on French school
children'' (Knox, 1914a) and that it would be
``manifestly absurd to use educational tests in the
case of uneducated persons'' (Knox, 1913). To
substitute for the BinetSimon scale, the Ellis
Island physicians assembled various form board
and puzzle assembly tasks into ``a graduated scale
with performance tests for determining the
intelligence of aliens, and especially illiterates''
(Knox, 1915). Two surviving tests from the Ellis
Island testing program are the feature prole
(Fig. 2) and the cube imitation test (Knox, 1914b).
In the words of Howard Knox, an Ellis Island
physician who may have coined the term
performance tests, the tests required abilities such
as ``a little native ingenuity, constructive imagi-
nation and sense of form and some judgment''
(1915, p. 53), but not any formal education.
Collection of child and adult norms from Italian-,
Spanish-, and German-speaking immigrants
began at Ellis Island during 1914 but was
discontinued when World War I caused immigra-
tion to decline (Mullan, 1917). In an interview
conducted 60 years later, the former Ellis Island
physician Grover Kempf recalled:
The mental examination of immigrants was
usually done in a quiet room it had to be done
with an interpreter present, a man or woman
who was well versed in the language of the
immigrant. Usually two ofcers sat in during
the examination and it was conducted in a
question and answer method, and also mostly
with the board tests, putting blocks back
together and the Knox cube test. And I had
one test there of a face, called the Kempf test,
which required the immigrant to place the
blocks in order to form a human face. How-
ever, none of these tests were standardized.
(U.S. Public Health Service, 1977)
 HISTORY OF INTELLIGENCE TESTING 389

Fig. 2. Feature Prole Test. The test, on display at the Ellis Island Immigration Museum, was designed for mental
screening of arriving immigrants at Ellis Island. It was developed by Grover Kempf and Howard Knox,
Assistant Surgeons of the U.S. Public Health Service. Knox claimed that the test was ``eminently fair
because everyone has seen a human head'' (1914b, p. 744).
Note. Reproduced courtesy of the Ellis Island Immigration Museum.

Following the example of the Ellis Island
testing program, Rudolf Pintner and Donald
Paterson of Ohio State University developed a
performance test battery, the PintnerPaterson
Performance Scale, for assessment of hearing-
impaired school children (Pintner & Paterson,
1917). The rationale of the PintnerPaterson scale
was that the intelligence of these children, like
that of many immigrants, would be underesti-
mated by the verbally weighted BinetSimon
scale. Table 2 shows the tests comprising the
PintnerPaterson scale. Of the 15 tests in the
scale, 4 were newly developed by Pintner and
Paterson, and the majority were existing tests
borrowed from the Ellis Island tests, the Healy
Fernald tests, and other sources. Although the
PintnerPaterson scale is no longer sold as a
battery, some of its component tests are still in use
today. For example, the Pintner Manikin Test is
the beginning item of the Object Assembly
subtest of the Wechsler intelligence scales.
U.S. ARMY INTELLIGENCE TESTING
DURING WORLD WAR I
Probably the most important event in the spread of
intelligence testing was the testing program carried
out in the U.S. Army during the rst world war.
Yerkes, who was president of the American Psy-
chological Association at the time when the United
States declared war, formed a committee of testing
390 CORWIN BOAKE

Table 2. Performance Scales that Preceded the WechslerBellevue Scale.

PintnerPaterson performance Army Performance Point Scale of Performance Ability
test series (Pintner & Paterson, Scale Performance Tests Scale (Cornell & Coxe,
1917) (Yerkes, 1921) (Arthur, 1930) 1934)
Mare & Foal Picture Ship Test Knox Cube Manikin-Prole
Board Manikin & Feature Seguin Form Board Block-Designs
Seguin Form Board Prole Two-Figure Form Board Picture-Arrangement
Five Figure Board Knox Cube Imitation Casuist Form Board Memory-for-Designs
Two Figure Board Cube Construction Manikin; Feature-Prole Digit-Symbol
Casuist Form Board Form Board Mare & Foal Cube-Construction
Triangle Test Memory for Designs Healy Picture Completion I Picture-Completion
Diagonal Test Digit Symbol Test Porteus Maze
Healy Puzzle `A' Porteus Maze Test Kohs Block Design
Manikin Test Picture Arrangement
Feature Prole Test Picture Completion
Ship Test
Picture Completion Test
Substitution Test
Adaptation Board
Knox Cube Test

experts to design tests to determine if Army recruits
were t for military service. The committee, shown
in Figure 3, created a preliminary version of a group
intelligence test in its rst 2-week session. Trials of
the new group test were conducted during July
1917 and the data were analyzed by a statistical unit
at Columbia University headed by Edward Thorn-
dike and assisted by Arthur Otis and Louis Thur-
stone. The history of wartime intelligence testing in
the U.S. Army was later recorded in a 890-page
monograph edited by Yerkes and written partly by
Terman and E. G. Boring (Yerkes, 1921; see also
Yoakum & Yerkes, 1920). The monograph's tech-
nical errors and conclusions about racial and ethnic
differences have been widely criticized (e.g.,
Gould, 1981).
The main Army intelligence tests were Group
Examinations Alpha and Beta, designed to be
administered to groups of recruits by trained
psychological examiners. The transformation
from the pre-war individual intelligence scales
to the group-administered examinations was
made possible by the method of multiple-choice,
which was credited to Otis (Samelson, 1987;
Yerkes, 1921, pp. 299300). Group Examination
Alpha was designed for the assessment of literate
English speakers and Group Examination Beta for
the minority of recruits who were illiterate or non-
procient in English. The complementary mis-
sions of the Alpha and Beta examinations in the
Army testing program paralleled the roles of the
BinetSimon scale and performance tests in
individual intelligence testing. Both the Alpha
and Beta examinations were point scales consist-
ing of a series of subtests that could be ad-
ministered in less than 1 hr. Army records estimate
that, from 1917 to 1919, the Alpha and Beta exam-
inations were administered to 1,726,966 recruits
(Yerkes, 1921, p. 103).
The Army group examinations were a major
source of subtests and items used in the
WechslerBellevue scale, as explicitly stated by
Wechsler (1939) and noted by many authors (e.g.,
Frank, 1983). Table 3 shows the three Alpha
subtests that correspond to WechslerBellevue
verbal subtests. The WechslerBellevue Arith-
metic subtest is virtually an orally administered
short form of the Arithmetical Problems test of
the Alpha examination. Of the 10 Wechsler
Bellevue Arithmetic items, 7 are from the
Arithmetical Problems test, which contained
items adapted from a test for middle-school
students (Bonser, 1910). The WechslerBellevue
Comprehension subtest is largely derived from
the Alpha Practical Judgment test, which itself
borrowed items from the 1905 BinetSimon
scale, Bonser's (1910) Selective Judgment test,
and pre-war tests developed at Stanford Univer-
sity by Terman and his students. The Alpha
Information test, which appears to be the model
 HISTORY OF INTELLIGENCE TESTING 391

Fig. 3. Committee on the Psychological Examination of Recruits, during one of their meetings at the Vineland
Training School between May and July 1917. Front: Edgar Doll, Henry Goddard, and Thomas Haines.
Rear: F.L. Wells, Guy Whipple, Robert Yerkes (chairman), Walter Bingham (secretary), and Lewis Terman.
Initial versions of the Army group and individual tests were developed during meetings of this committee in
summer 1917. Doll, who was Goddard's assistant at the Training School, was invited to join the committee
at later sessions when the individual tests were developed.
Note. Reproduced with permission of the Archives of the History of American Psychology, Henry Goddard
Papers.

Table 3. Alpha Examination Tests Related to WechslerBellevue Subtests.

Test in Alpha examination
Arithmetical Problems
Information
Practical Judgment
Committee member(s) Example of item related to WechslerBellevue scale
responsible for test
Bingham ``If it takes 6 men 3 days to dig a 180-ft drain, how
many men are needed to dig it in half a day?''
[Yerkes, 1921, p. 221]
Wells ``Darwin was most famous in
literature science war politics'' (choose best answer)
[Yerkes, 1921, p. 234]
Goddard ``If you are lost in the forest in the daytime, what is the
Haines thing to do?
hurry to the nearest house you know of
look for something to eat
use the sun or a compass as a guide''
(choose best answer)
[Yerkes, 1921, p. 229]
392 CORWIN BOAKE

for the WechslerBellevue Information subtest,
also appears to be an adaptation of earlier tests
(Healy & Fernald, 1911; von Mayrhauser, 1987).
Three Beta tests are sources of Wechsler
Bellevue performance subtests. The Beta Digit
Symbol test (Yerkes, 1921, p. 254) was simply
duplicated in the WechslerBellevue subtest with
the same title. Although the Beta Digit Symbol
test was credited to Otis, the test appears to be
only a slight modication of the University of
Wisconsin substitution test with nine digit-
symbol pairs. The Beta Picture Completion test
(Yerkes, 1921, pp. 238239, 256) contributed
items to the Picture Completion subtest of the
WechslerBellevue scale. Figure 4 presents an
item from the Beta Picture Completion test that
has been duplicated in the Wechsler intelligence
scales. The Beta Picture Completion test was
modeled on Pintner and Hoops' (1918) `drawing
completion' technique for group administration
of the BinetSimon Unnished pictures test
(Table 1). The Beta Picture Arrangement test
(Yerkes, 1921, pp. 242243), included in a
preliminary version of the Beta examination but
dropped before the nal version, supplied items
to the WechslerBellevue Picture Arrangement
subtest (Wechsler, 1939, p. 90). The Beta Picture
Arrangement test was modeled upon a children's
test from Belgium (Decroly, 1914).
Recruits who failed the group examinations
were assessed with individual intelligence tests
that included the StanfordBinet, the Yerkes
Bridges point scale, and the new Army Perfor-
mance Scale. It was estimated that 83,500 individ-
ual examinations were performed in the Army
testing program (Fig. 5). The Army Individual
Examination, an individual intelligence test devel-
oped for the Army testing program by the same
committee, was to have a particularly strong
inuence on the Wechsler scales.
Army Individual Examination
The Army Individual Examination was a point
scale designed for English-speaking recruits that

Fig. 4. Item in the Picture Completion test of Group Examination Beta. This Beta test, credited to Truman Kelley,
was designed to assess intelligence of U.S. Army recruits who were illiterate or not procient in English.
Group administration was accomplished by asking subjects to draw the missing parts directly onto pictures
printed on the response form.
Note. From `Psychological examining in the United States Army,' edited by R. M. Yerkes, 1921, Memoirs of
the National Academy of Sciences, 15, p. 256. In the public domain.
 HISTORY OF INTELLIGENCE TESTING 393

Fig. 5. Individual administration of the Pintner Manikin Test to a U.S. Army recruit during World War I. Individual
testing was administered to recruits who failed the Alpha and Beta examinations. The test originated with
the PintnerPatterson scale (Pintner & Paterson, 1917) and was included in the Army Performance Scale.
After the war, the test was used in the CornellCoxe Performance Ability Scale (Cornell & Coxe, 1934) and
later in the Object Assembly subtest of the WechslerBellevue scale. The original test is still commercially
available as part of the MerrillPalmer scale (Stutsman, 1931).
Note. From `Psychological examining in the United States Army,' edited by R.M. Yerkes, 1921, Memoirs of
the National Academy of Sciences, 15, p. 91. In the public domain.

consisted of 22 mostly verbal tests taken from the
YerkesBridges point scale or adapted from the
Alpha examination. It is a historical paradox that
the Individual Examination, which was to strongly
inuence intelligence testing in the long run, was
discontinued during its standardization stage and
never came to serve as an individual intelligence
test. The Individual Examination appears to have
been a major source for the Wechsler intelligence
and memory scales, given that some Wechsler
subtests are closely related to the tests in the
Individual Examination. Table 4 presents the three

Table 4. Army Individual Examination Tests Related to WechslerBellevue Subtests.

Test in Individual Examination Committee member(s) Example of item related to WechslerBellevue scale
responsible for test
Arithmetical reasoning Wells ``If a man buys 6 cents worth of postage stamps at the
post ofce and pays a dime, how much change does he
get back?'' (Yerkes, 1921, p. 144)
Comprehension Goddard ``Why are people who are born deaf usually dumb?''
Terman (Yerkes, 1921, p. 143)
Wells
Likenesses and differences Terman ``In what way are the eye and the ear alike?''
(Yerkes, 1921, p. 139)
394 CORWIN BOAKE
Individual Examination tests that correspond to
subtests of the WechslerBellevue scale. Half of
the items in the WechslerBellevue Comprehension
subtest were taken from the Comprehension test of
the Individual Examination.
Army Performance Scale
Like the Beta examination, the Army Perfor-
mance Scale was designed for recruits who per-
formed poorly on the Army group examinations
or who were not procient in English. The com-
position of the Army Performance Scale, shown
in Table 2, corresponded closely to the Pintner
Paterson scale. The WechslerBellevue Picture
Arrangement, Object Assembly, and Digit Sym-
bol subtests correspond to the Army Performance
Scale tests of the same titles. The Army Perfor-
mance Scale can therefore be regarded as a transi-
tional scale that rened available performance tests
into a form leading to the WechslerBellevue
performance scale.
Wechsler as Wartime Psychological Examiner
In 1917 Wechsler, having completed his masters
thesis with Woodworth at Columbia University,
began work at an Army camp on Long Island
where he scored Alpha examination protocols in a
unit supervised by Boring. Wechsler then enlisted
in the U.S. Army and during summer 1918 he
attended the School for Military Psychology in
Georgia for training as a psychological examiner.
Upon graduating with the rank of corporal, he was
assigned to Camp Logan near Houston, Texas,
where he conducted individual psychological
examinations (Edwards, 1974). Army records
estimate that 319 individual examinations were
performed at this base (Yerkes, 1921, p. 80).
Wechsler later recalled how his wartime experi-
ences inspired the intelligence scale he developed
later:
My duties there called mostly for the admin-
istration of individual psychological tests to
soldiers who had failed both the Army Alpha
and Army Beta, and who were being evaluated
for possible discharge, or special labor assign-
ments. My usual examination of subjects
included, in addition to a short interview,
administration of the StanfordBinet or Yerkes
Point Scale, and nearly always one or more of
the available performance tests. It then occur-
red to me that an intelligence scale, combining
verbal and nonverbal tests, would be a useful
addition to the psychometrist's armamentar-
ium (Wechsler, 1979, p. 2).
Wechsler often remarked that he became
convinced of the shortcomings of existing intelli-
gence tests through wartime experiences with
recruits who had functioned normally as civilians
before induction, but who had failed the Army
group examinations and had obtained low mental-
age scores on the StanfordBinet scale. He
attributed these misdiagnoses to the emphasis of
the StanfordBinet scale on verbal skills acquired
through formal education. He recalled that the
rst such subject he encountered was ``a native,
white Oklahoman'' who obtained a Stanford
Binet mental age of 8 years, but who ``before
entering the Army . . . had gotten along very well,
was supporting a family, had been working as a
skilled oil-driller for several years and, at time of
draft, was earning from $60 to $75 per week''
(1935, p. 256). Wechsler claimed that he had
often encountered the type of subject who, like
the Oklahoman,
systematically rates as a mental defective on
mental tests, but, who can in no way be judged
as such, when diagnosed on the basis of con-
crete social standards, i.e., in terms of capacity
to adjust to the normal demands of his social
and economic environment. (1935, p. 256)
The next few years of Wechsler's life were a
kind of brief odyssey that widened his clinical and
scientic perspectives. While still in uniform he
was transferred from the Texas army camp to the
University of London, where he studied with
Charles Spearman and Karl Pearson. Wechsler
then won a 2-year fellowship to study in France,
where he worked with Henri Pieron and other
Paris psychologists researching the psychophysiol-
ogy of emotions. Upon returning to the U.S.A. in
1922, he spent a summer internship with Wells at
the Boston Psychopathic Hospital. During this
internship Wechsler attended teaching conferences
conducted by Healy and the psychologist Augusta
 HISTORY OF INTELLIGENCE TESTING
Bronner (Edwards, 1974). Wechsler then returned
to New York where he completed his dissertation at
Columbia University on physiological measures
of emotion (Wechsler, 1925) and worked as a
psychologist at a child guidance bureau.
Individual Mental Testing in the 1920s and
1930s
For intelligence testing, the postwar decades
were a period of aggressive growth. The Army
testing program had promoted the credibility of
intelligence testing and trained many psycho-
logists in test construction and interpretation.
The Psychological Corporation was founded in
1921 to offer psychological testing services to
industry, using the tests administered to the
Columbia students as well as those developed in
the Army (Sokal, 1981). The publication of new
group intelligence tests dramatically expanded
the application of intelligence testing, especially
in schools.
Development of performance tests increased
during the 1920s and 1930s, probably driven by
concerns about the adequacy of the Stanford
Binet scale. One of the most successful of the new
performance tests was the Block Design test,
developed by Samuel Kohs as a Stanford University
dissertation with Terman (Kohs, 1923). The test's
origin is unusual in that it was adapted from Color
Cubes, a commercially available game in which
children constructed decorative mosaic designs
from a set of 16 painted wooden cubes. The sides
of each cube were painted red, white, blue, yellow,
red-white and blue-yellow. Kohs' instructions
advised that the blocks ``may be secured at any of
the large department stores and at the various
distributing centers of Milton Bradley's'' (1923,
p. 64). Instructions for a later revision of the Block
Design test recommended giving subjects ``extend-
ed practice'' on the initial designs in order ``to
offset in some measure the advantage possessed by
those patients who have had these sets of blocks as
toys'' (Arthur, 1930, p. 30). According to Kohs, the
test required ``rst, the breaking up of each design
presented into logical units, and second, a reasoned
manipulation of the blocks to reconstruct the
original design from these separate parts'' (1923,
p. 271). Kohs proposed that the test's involvement
of both analytic and synthetic thinking would
395
implement the ``combination-method'' that had
been proposed by Ebbinghaus as a fundamental
feature of intelligence tests. Kohs emphasized the
test's value as a measure of intelligence, as demon-
strated by correlations with the StanfordBinet
scale and other indicators of general intelligence,
but did not mention such concepts as visual-spatial
perception.
Some postwar performance scales pursued the
PintnerPaterson strategy of constructing intel-
ligence scales using only nonverbal tests. The
Leiter International Performance Scale was
developed by Russell Leiter and later adapted
by Stanley Porteus of the University of Hawaii for
his research on racial differences (Leiter, 1936).
Table 2 shows the tests comprising CornellCoxe
Performance Ability Scale (Cornell & Coxe,
1934), which includes the immediate precursors
of most WechslerBellevue performance subtests
and of the Wechsler Memory Scale (WMS) Visual
Reproduction subtest. The signicance of the
overlap between the CornellCoxe and the
WechslerBellevue scales will be discussed
below. Grace Arthur's Point Scale of Performance
Tests (Arthur, 1930), also shown in Table 2,
consisted of seven PintnerPaterson tests plus
adaptations of the Porteus maze test and the Kohs
Block Design test. The impact of these tests was
shown by a 19331934 survey of testing practices
in U.S. psychological clinics (Report of Commit-
tee of Clinical Section of American Psychological
Association, 1935, pp. 2327). The survey found
that while the most popular psychological test
was the StanfordBinet scale, 5 of the 9 most
widely used tests were either performance tests
(Healy Pictorial Completion II, Porteus Mazes) or
scales comprised of such tests (Arthur Point
Scale, MerrillPalmer, PintnerPaterson). The
popularity of these performance tests suggests
that many psychologists followed a practice of
supplementing the StanfordBinet scale with one
or more performance measures, out of concern
with using the StanfordBinet scale as the sole
measure of intelligence.
The Psychological Corporation published civil-
ian versions of the Alpha and Beta examinations
designed for educational or industrial testing
(Kellogg & Morton, 1935; Wells, 1932). The
Revised Beta Examination included a substitution
396 CORWIN BOAKE
test that used the stimulus key from the Beta Digit
Symbol subtest but required the subject to
translate symbols into numbers. The Revised
Beta Examination also included a Picture Com-
pletion test that shared some items with the
WechslerBellevue subtest.
WECHSLER AND THE BELLEVUE
INTELLIGENCE EXAMINATION
In 1932 Wechsler became the chief psychologist
at Bellevue Psychiatric Hospital in New York. Of
Wechsler's publications during the 1920s and early
1930s, few concerned intelligence testing and only
one reported primary research on the topic. His
most relevant pre-1939 publication is a 1932 note in
which he suggested that the Army Alpha examina-
tion had the potential advantage, not available with
other intelligence tests, ``of analyzing the subject's
performance on the individual tests which comprise
the examination, in order to discover'' if the subject
had ``any special abilities or disabilities'' (Wechs-
ler, 1932, p. 254). In contrast, prole interpretation
of the StanfordBinet scale depended on proce-
dures that were complicated and unstandardized
(Wells, 1927).
Wechsler later recalled that, in his position at
Bellevue, the ``immediate experience of working
with, and supervising the testing of, the diverse
patient population at the mental hygiene clinic,
and Psychiatric Wards of Bellevue Hospital''
reinforced his ``growing conviction of the need
for an alternate to the Binet tests, and in
particular, of an intelligence scale more suitable
for use with adults'' (1979, p. 3). The chief
rationale that he cited for the new adult intel-
ligence test was statistical in nature. Wechsler
argued that contemporary intelligence tests were
applicable only to children and adolescents
because of the insurmountable statistical artifacts
caused by applying the mental age and ratio IQ to
adults. Repeating the views of Thurstone and
others, Wechsler advocated replacing the ratio IQ
with the deviation score, a method that calculated
IQ by converting the sum of subtest scores into a
standard score, using the mean and standard
deviation at each age level. Basically this method
changed the meaning of the IQ from a mental age-
chronological age ratio score into a standard score
having the same distribution at each age level
(Thorndike & Lohman, 1990).
Wechsler's second major technical innovation
was to incorporate verbal and performance tests
into the same scale, enabling the Wechsler
Bellevue scale to exploit both of the major contem-
porary approaches to intelligence testing. The
`verbal' and `performance' labels of the two
WechslerBellevue scales were already in common
use. One rationale for the verbal-performance
combination was to minimize the over-diagnosing
of feeble-mindedness that was, he believed, caused
by intelligence tests that were too verbal in content.
He viewed verbal and performance tests as equally
valid measures of intelligence and criticized the
labeling of performance tests as measures of
``special abilities'' while reserving for the Binet
Simon scale the property of measuring ``general
intelligence.'' This view, he argued, was ``incorrect
because it not only assumes that there are different
kinds of general intelligence, but because it further
implies that the Performance tests are relatively
unimportant as measures of general intelligence''
(Wechsler, 1939, p. 138).
A further rationale cited by Wechsler in favor
of the verbal-performance combination was that
performance tests might be more sensitive to
``temperamental and personality factors'' such as
``the subject's interest in doing the task set, his
persistence in attacking them and his zest and
desire to succeed'' (Wechsler, 1939, p. 10). He
argued that by including tests to measure such
``capacities that cannot be dened as either purely
cognitive or intellective,'' the relationship of test
results with everyday functioning would be
strengthened. Echoing Terman, he stated that his
scale was ``constructed on the hypothesis that an
individual manifests intelligence by his ability to
do things, as well as by the way he can talk about
them'' (Wechsler, 1939, p. 138). These arguments
suggest that Wechsler intended the performance
subtests to serve not only as measures of intelli-
gence, but also to measure personality traits similar
to what would now be termed executive functions.
Constructing the WechslerBellevue Scale
In retracing Wechsler's rationale for selecting the
WechslerBellevue subtests, a few clues may be
 HISTORY OF INTELLIGENCE TESTING
noted. First, it is obvious that all of the Wechsler
Bellevue subtests except for Block Design were
derived from the Army tests. Even the titles of
several Army tests (i.e., Information, Comprehen-
sion, Vocabulary, Picture Completion, Picture
Arrangement, Digit Symbol) were duplicated as
WechslerBellevue subtest titles. This reliance on
the Army tests is understandable given Wechsler's
wartime experience, the endorsement of these
tests by contemporary testing experts, and their
continued use by Wechsler, Wells, and other
psychologists through the 1930s. Wechsler's con-
struction of his new intelligence scale from old
tests, which contrasts sharply with today's custom
of constructing new scales from new tests, was
standard practice among contemporary test devel-
opers (Frank, 1983). Like the authors of the
performance scales in Table 2, Wechsler expli-
citly identied the sources of all of his subtests.
The reason why he had ``drawn so heavily on the
experience of others,'' he explained, was because
his ``aim was not to produce a set of brand new
tests but to select, from whatever source available,
such a combination of them as would best meet
the requirements of an effective adult scale''
(Wechsler, 1939, p. 78).
A second clue is that Wechsler appears to have
assigned subtests to the verbal and performance
scales in accordance with existing intelligence
scales, rather than on an empirical basis. The
WechslerBellevue verbal scale was constructed
mostly from Army Alpha tests, and the Wechsler
Bellevue performance scale from contemporary
performance tests. While emphasizing that most
of the subtests correlated strongly with the total
score, he drew attention to the fact that some
subtests did not. For example, he commented that
the Object Assembly subtest, despite having
serious statistical weaknesses, ``was included in
our battery only after much hesitation'' because the
subtest provided clinical information about ``one's
mode of perception, the degree to which one relies
on trial and error methods, and the manner in which
one reacts to mistakes'' (1939, p. 100). In light of
the fact that the verbal and performance scales
were based on an a priori classication that was
inconsistent with correlational evidence, it is
understandable that later factor analytic studies
would suggest different composites.
397
Third, the composition of the Wechsler
Bellevue performance scale corresponds closely
with the performance scale developed by Cornell
and Coxe (1934). As seen in Table 2, 4 of the 7
CornellCoxe tests also appear in the Wechsler
Bellevue performance scale. It should be noted
that the CornellCoxe Picture Completion test is
one of the Pictorial Completion tests produced by
Healy (1914, 1921), and not a missing-detail type
of test like the Picture Completion tests in the
Beta examination and Wechsler scales. The
Memory-for-Designs test, 1 of 2 CornellCoxe
tests not represented in the WechslerBellevue
scale, is closely related to the WMS Visual
Reproduction subtest.
Fourth, the initial group of WechslerBellevue
subtests differed from the now-traditional Wechs-
ler subtest prole. At the start of standardization,
there were fewer verbal subtests (Information,
Digit Span, Arithmetic, and Comprehension) than
performance subtests. The performance scale
consisted of the ve traditional subtests plus a
sixth subtest, Cube Analysis, which was based on
the Beta examination subtest of the same title.
Because the standardization data revealed a sex
difference on the Cube Analysis subtest in favor
of males, the subtest was omitted from the pub-
lished scale. Wechsler explained that the Simila-
rities and Vocabulary subtests had been omitted
from the initial subtest selection ``because of the
mistaken belief'' that they ``would be unduly inu-
enced by the language factor'' (1939, p. 87) and
were ``seemingly unfair to illiterates and persons
with foreign language handicap'' (p. 100). These
were the very shortcomings for which he critic-
ized the StanfordBinet scale and which he
was constructing his own scale to overcome. The
time needed to develop items for these subtests
may explain why they were added so late in
standardization. The Vocabulary subtest, the last
subtest added to the scale, acquired a smaller
normative sample of about 400 subjects and was
included in the published scale as an `alternate'
verbal subtest.
Finally, it may be signicant that the Wechsler
Bellevue scale, unlike the StanfordBinet scale
and the performance scales in Table 2, does not
include any memory tests. It is possible that
Wechsler's selection of tests for his intelligence
398 CORWIN BOAKE
scale was inuenced by his development of the
WMS during the same period (Wechsler, 1945).
Indeed, Wechsler's selection of subtests for the
WMS shows some of the same inuences as the
WechslerBellevue scale.
It appears that Wechsler began work on the
new intelligence scale shortly after he came to
Bellevue. In his 1939 book, The measurement of
adult intelligence, he stated that work on the scale
had taken a little more than 7 years, of which the
initial 2 years were spent in trying out tests with
adult subjects. Collection of the standardization
sample was funded by a grant from the Works
Progress Administration (WPA), a federal agency
that funded employment in public works projects.
The entire WechslerBellevue standardization
sample, ranging from 7 to 59 years of age, was
collected in the New York area. The adult sample
was limited to whites who understood and wrote
English. Wechsler noted facetiously that a ``special
source worth mentioning was the Coney Island
beach, where one of our resourceful examiners
went daily throughout a summer'' (Wechsler, 1939,
p. 114). The adult norms were rened by a kind of
stratication technique in which subjects were
selected to match the proportions of the adult
population employed in various occupations,
according to the U.S. Census. Wechsler's use of
occupational stratication was similar to the 1937
StanfordBinet revision, in which children were
selected so that their parents' occupations would
match census data about the proportions of adults in
various occupational categories (Terman & Merrill,
1937).
The WechslerBellevue children's sample was
tested at schools labeled `average' by the Board of
Education of the City of New York. The children's
norms were likewise stratied according to the
proportions of children at each age who were
enrolled in different school grades of the New
York public schools. The normative data for 79-
year-olds were discarded because of oor effects,
leaving a normative sample ranging from 10 to 59
years old.
Wechsler had already brought the scale to
completion when he contracted with the Psycho-
logical Corporation to produce the test materials
(Edwards, 1974). The examiner's manual was
published as an appendix to his 1939 book. Thus,
it appears that Wechsler's 7-year project of
selecting subtests, creating items, supervising a
standardization, and writing an introductory book
and an examiner's manual was basically a one-man
show. The only individual whom Wechsler (1939)
acknowledged for making substantive contribu-
tions was Wells, ``whose continued interest in the
Scales and helpful suggestions were a source of
both inspiration and encouragement'' (p. vii).
AFTERMATH OF THE WECHSLER
BELLEVUE SCALE
In comparison with the StanfordBinet scale and
other contemporary intelligence tests, the advan-
tages of the WechslerBellevue scale were for-
midable. The WechslerBellevue scale was based
on familiar tests that psychologists accepted as
valid. These tests were organized into verbal and
performance scales that could be administered
and interpreted separately. The use of deviation
scores obviated statistical artifacts and provided a
statistical basis for interpreting the subtest prole
and verbal-performance discrepancy. The large
standardization sample, spanning from childhood
to adulthood, had been selected in a principled
and precise manner. By incorporating these tech-
nical innovations into a single scale, Wechsler
accomplished a major advance in the technology
of individual intelligence testing. Published
reviews of the scale drew attention to these
technical advances, while Wechsler's borrowing
of tests was treated as an advantage, if mentioned
at all. For example, Lorge's (1943) review in the
Journal of Consulting Psychology commented
that Wechsler's chief contribution was ``in the
organization of well-known tests into a composite
scale'' (p. 167).
The combination of technical advances was
probably more than sufcient for the Wechsler
Bellevue scale to become the dominant adult
individual intelligence test. However, the impact
of the scale was further magnied because it met
the need created by the rapid growth of clinical
psychology during the 1940s, particularly in adult
psychiatry. As described by Matarazzo, ``over-
night this massive social need teamed up with the
new developments in professional assessment and
 HISTORY OF INTELLIGENCE TESTING
psychotherapy which had been occurring in
relative isolation among the country's few
hundred full time practitioner-psychologists of
the 1930s and early 1940s, and psychology in the
United States found itself fully launched as a
profession'' (1972, p. 11). A measure of this
impact is that Wechsler's book, containing the
manual for the WechslerBellevue scale, went
through three editions between 1939 and 1944.
The second edition (Wechsler, 1941) introduced a
chapter describing how proles of subtest scores
could be used in differential diagnosis, a proce-
dure that shaped the practice of test interpretation
by later clinicians. The scale was selected for the
standard psychological battery recommended by
prominent psychologists at the Menninger Clinic
(Rapaport, Schafer, & Gill, 1944). A 1946 survey
of psychological testing practices (Louttit &
Browne, 1947) found that the WechslerBellevue
scale was one of the most widely used psycho-
logical measures, second only to the 1937
StanfordBinet revision. Research with the scale
increased rapidly and soon comprised a signif-
icant part of research in clinical psychology.
The entry of the U.S.A. into World War II
created the need for new individual intelligence
tests for screening and assigning recruits. An
alternate form of the Bellevue Intelligence Scale
was constructed, termed the Wechsler Mental
Ability Scale (Wechsler, 1946). The scale was
published after the war as Form II of the
WechslerBellevue scale. The Form II manual
reported that the new scale had been standardized
on a sample of 18 to 40 year-old males, but data
from this standardization were not presented.
Instead, Wechsler (1946) instructed the clinician
to obtain IQs and subtest scaled scores using the
1939 norms, by adding a correction constant to the
Form II scores in order to equate the difculty level
between the two forms.
During the war, the Army Individual Test
(Staff, Personnel Research Section, Classication
and Replacement Branch, The Adjutant General's
Ofce, 1944) was developed as an individually
administered IQ test that would imitate the
verbal-performance structure of the Wechsler
Bellevue scale but require less time to administer.
The Trail Making Test was one of the ``nonverbal''
subtests of this scale. After the war, Leiter (1951)
399
published most of the subtests of the Army
Individual Test as the Leiter Adult Intelligence
Scale (LAIS).
The WechslerBellevue scale may have put an
end to the development of separate performance
intelligence tests. A comparison of testing surveys
in 1935 and 1946 (Louttit & Browne, 1947)
revealed a sharp decline in the usage of purely
performance tests during that interval. Two of the
last performance batteries were created by
Halstead (1947) and by Goldstein and Scheerer
(1941) for testing patients with brain disorders.
Both batteries were comprised of performance
tests that required little or no spoken response.
The GoldsteinScheerer Tests of Abstract and
Concrete Thinking (Goldstein & Scheerer, 1941)
included the Kohs Block Design test as a measure
of ``abstract attitude,'' a concept akin to execu-
tive function. In Halstead's battery, 3 of the 10
``neuropsychological indicators'' comprising the
Impairment Index were derived from the Tactual
Performance Test. Halstead's adaptation of this
form board followed the earlier procedure of
administering three trials in order to assess
learning. Administration of the Tactual Perfor-
mance Test was probably based upon a procedure
known as the `tactual form,' used with subjects
older than 10 12 years, in which the subject
performed the test blindfolded and was instructed
after the nal trial to ``try to sketch the positions
of the forms and their shapes'' (Whipple, 1914,
p. 301).
In 1949 a revision of WechslerBellevue Form
II was published as a children's scale, the
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC;
Wechsler, 1949). Wechsler's comment that the
scale had been 5 years in preparation implies that
the children's revision had begun in 1944 or 1945,
before WechslerBellevue Form II was published.
The revision from WechslerBellevue Form II to
the WISC involved few major changes, so that the
children's scale inherited almost all the Wechsler
Bellevue Form II items. In a clarication repeated
in the manual of each WISC revision, Wechsler
(1949) stated that ``most of the items in the WISC
are from Form II of the earlier scales, the main
additions being new items at the easier end of
each test'' (p. 1). The WISC introduced the basic
standardization procedure to be followed by later
400 CORWIN BOAKE
Wechsler intelligence scales. The sample con-
sisted of 100 male and 100 female subjects at each
age from 5 to 15 years. The subjects, who were all
white, were selected to represent the proportions
of the U.S. population residing in four geograph-
ical regions, as well as the proportion of parents
working in various occupations.
The WechslerBellevue scale has undergone
three revisions (Wechsler, 1955, 1981, 1997)
culminating in the current Wechsler Adult Intel-
ligence Scale-III (WAIS-III). These revisions
have been restricted to adults but have provided
improved norms, based on samples of the adult
U.S. population that are considerably larger than
the WechslerBellevue sample and that are geo-
graphically as well as demographically represen-
tative. While successive revisions have raised the
upper end of the age range and have more accu-
rately sampled the U.S. population's racial-ethnic
composition, these revisions have retained the
original subtest structure and many of the original
items. The only change in the subtest prole was
made by the WAIS-III, which substituted an
untimed Matrix Reasoning subtest in place of the
Object Assembly subtest, whose statistical weak-
nesses were discussed by Wechsler (1939). A nal
edition of Wechsler's book about adult intel-
ligence was published in 1958, probably to coin-
cide with the 1955 revision. The last revision of
the book, which Wechsler described as a ``neces-
sary supplementary text'' (1955, p. iv), was pub-
lished almost 30 years ago by Matarazzo (1972).
Several factor analyses have been conducted of
the Wechsler subtests in order to validate their
categorization into verbal and performance
scales. The factors obtained in these studies,
starting with Balinsky's (1941) study of the
WechslerBellevue standardization sample, have
tended to reproduce the historical origins of the
subtests. The verbal factor is dened by subtests
derived from the BinetSimon scale and Alpha
examination, and the `perceptual' factor by
subtests derived from the Army Performance
Scale and the CornellCoxe scale. The Digit Span
and Digit Symbol subtests, which cannot be
assigned to either factor, differ in their historical
origins from the other subtests.
The WISC has undergone two revisions
(Wechsler, 1974, 1991) which, like the adult
revisions of the WechslerBellevue scale, con-
serve the original subtests and many items of
WechslerBellevue Form II. Like the adult
revisions, successive WISC revisions have been
based on standardization samples that are larger
and more racially and ethnically representative.
A Wechsler intelligence scale for preschool chil-
dren was published in 1967, based on the same
verbal-performance structure but with some of the
subtests replaced by ones designed for younger
children.
Wechsler died in 1981. The newest revisions of
his intelligence scales (Wechsler, 1991, 1997),
which were developed long after his death,
continue to list him as sole author. Because the
current revisions of the WISC and WAIS were
published about 16 years after the preceding
versions (Wechsler, 1974, 1981, 1991, 1997), the
WISC-IV could be anticipated in 2007 and the
WAIS-IV in 2013.
CONCLUSIONS
From a historical perspective, the Wechsler
Bellevue Intelligence Scale is a battery of intelli-
gence tests developed between the 1880s and
World War I. In their origins, the Wechsler sub-
tests represent the major preWorld War I
approaches to cognitive assessment. These
approaches (and related subtests) include anthro-
pometrics (Digit Span), association psychology
(Digit Symbol), the BinetSimon tests (Compre-
hension, Similarities, Vocabulary, Picture Com-
pletion), performance testing of immigrants to the
U.S.A. (Object Assembly), and group testing in
American schools and businesses (Arithmetic,
Information). The WechslerBellevue verbal sub-
tests were adapted mostly from the BinetSimon
and YerkesBridges scales and from the Alpha
examination. The WechslerBellevue perfor-
mance subtests were taken from the various tests
developed or popularized by Healy and Fernald,
the Ellis Island physicians, Pintner and Paterson,
Kohs, and Cornell and Coxe. These tests had been
selected by the Army testing program for the
purpose of rapid personnel screening of young,
physically healthy men, and were mostly
designed for testing groups rather than individ-
 HISTORY OF INTELLIGENCE TESTING
uals. These Army tests were transformed directly
into WechslerBellevue subtests with the same
titles and, in some cases, the same content.
Wechsler's recycling of old intelligence tests
was similar to the construction of other intelli-
gence scales of the period. His grouping of
subtests into verbal and performance scales repre-
sented the two major contemporary approaches to
individual intelligence testing. The verbal and
intelligence scales were designed to serve as
different measures of the same construct, that of
general intelligence.
Wechsler's major contributions were not the
subtests themselves but rather the technical in-
novations of deviation scores, combining verbal
and performance tests into a single scale, and
selecting the adult standardization sample by oc-
cupation. These are the features of the Wechsler
Bellevue scale that have been emulated by later
individual intelligence tests. For various reasons,
including statistical innovations and historical
circumstances, the Wechsler intelligence scales
have achieved almost monopoly status in the
eld of individual adult intelligence testing. The
point scale model of intelligence testing, as
adapted by the WechslerBellevue scale, has
replaced the year scale as the preferred model
for children's intelligence tests, most of which
have abandoned the IQ label for their composite
scores.
The history of the Wechsler intelligence scales
presents several paradoxes. First, it is remarkable
that the rate of change in the technology of
individual intelligence testing has been so slow
given the unprecedented pace of scientic pro-
gress in the century since the 1905 BinetSimon
scale. Over the century, advances in psycholog-
ical testing have been signicant albeit far less
radical than in other technologies. Widespread
advances in psychological testing include the use
of factor analysis to guide scale design, selection
of items using item response theory, evaluation of
test-taking motivation, and computerized test
administration. However, the only signicant
innovation incorporated into the Wechsler intel-
ligence scales is the availability of factor scores
for the WAIS-III and WISC-III. The basic
administration procedure used by the Wechsler
scales and other individual intelligence tests, that
401
of an examiner individually testing a subject with
an invariant sequence of items, is not fundamen-
tally different from how the BinetSimon scale
was administered. Therefore, it is paradoxical that
the WechslerBellevue scale, which was a model
of technical innovation in 1939, represents in its
current revision one of the oldest mental tests in
continuous use. The intelligence scale that is
relied upon to make medical, educational, and
legal decisions does not reect advances in
understanding of cognitive functioning during
the past 60 years and contains tests from the
1800s.
While the revisions of the WechslerBellevue
scale have introduced few changes in its basic
structure, clinical interpretation of Wechsler test
results has changed dramatically. Nowadays
clinicians are encouraged to interpret the subtests
not as measures of general intelligence, but rather
as separate measures of specic cognitive abil-
ities. For example, Lezak (1995) described the
Picture Arrangement subtest as a measure of both
``socially appropriate thinking'' and ``sequential
thinking,'' so that the subtest can serve ``as a
nonverbal counterpart of that aspect of Compre-
hension'' (p. 639). To some extent this method of
subtest interpretation is inspired by changes in
Wechsler's own views. Wechsler's earlier view,
expressed in his 1939 book, was that the
important factor underlying most of the subtests
was general intelligence and not special abilities.
For example, Wechsler criticized the view that the
Picture Arrangement subtest measured ``social
intelligence,'' arguing that he did ``not believe in
such an entity'' because ``social intelligence is
just general intelligence applied to social situa-
tions'' (1939, pp. 90 91). However, his 1941
chapter introducing prole interpretation impli-
citly assumed that subtests could be interpreted as
measures of specic abilities, particularly when
testing patients whose mental disorders were
characterized by strengths or impairments in
these abilities. He speculated that ``the good
score frequently obtained by the psychopath on
the Picture Arrangement test'' might occur
because psychopaths ``generally have a grasp of
social situations'' (1941, p. 153), even though
they tend to use this knowledge in an anti-social
way.
402 CORWIN BOAKE
A third paradox is that the Wechsler children's
intelligence scale, now the dominant intelligence
scale administered to school-aged children, is a
downward extension of tests designed for adults.
Thus, the StanfordBinet scale, which was design-
ed for children and based on year-scale develop-
mental norms, was replaced by an adaptation of an
adult scale with neither a developmental rationale
nor sensitivity to developmental stages. Revisions
of the Wechsler children's scale have conserved the
scale's basic structure without introducing major
upgrades to improve its clinical utility.
While the 1940s clinicians probably recogn-
ized the WechslerBellevue subtests as old tests
with familiar origins, currently these subtests are
used without recognition of the psychologists and
physicians who created them. It is paradoxical
that the creators of these subtests were not
individuals of little note, but rather public gures,
such as Terman, who are famed for other
contributions. The most direct way to recognize
the tests' creators would be to rename their tests
in their honor. For example, the Digit Symbol
subtest could be renamed the WisconsinJastrow
Substitution Test. Whether or not the tests are
renamed, which is unlikely, test manuals and
psychology textbooks should properly credit the
persons who created the tests.
Finally, it is curious that the Wechsler scales
have come to play so central a role in neuropsy-
chological assessment, given that the measurement
of cognitive decit does not appear to have been a
major consideration in Wechsler's subtest selec-
tion. Only in the case of the Digit Span subtest did
Wechsler (1939) indicate that the subtest was
selected to measure cognitive decit, in this case as
a measure of `attention' in cognitively impaired
persons. He commented that the Block Design and
Digit Symbol subtests were especially sensitive to
certain brain diseases, but not that these or other
subtests were selected for that purpose. Because the
neuropsychological understanding of intelligence
tests would have been quite limited in 1939, it
would have been difcult to foresee that the use of
the Wechsler intelligence scales as measures of
cognitive decit would be successful. Indeed, it
might have been predicted that intelligence testing
of brain-disordered patients would be more mis-
leading than helpful. Such a warning was given by
the British psychiatrist Andrew Paterson, at the
time a colleague of Oliver Zangwill at the
Edinburgh Brain Injuries Unit in Scotland, in a
1944 address to the Royal Society of Medicine.
Referring to the wartime context in which intelli-
gence tests were introduced into psychiatry and
neurology, Paterson stated:
On the outbreak of war there was a clamour for
tests for intellectual impairment. The academic
psychologists through no fault of their own
were encouraged to produce tests for condi-
tions of which they had little knowledge and no
clinical experience. This is the very opposite of
the clinical approach where close observation
should lead to the formulation of a test. In no
other sphere of clinical science are tests
devised before the phenomena have been stu-
died. Such tests devised a priori tie nature
down to a certain pattern of breakdown and
such an assumption has always hindered pro-
gress. It also leaves out of account the variety
of ways in which interference with cerebral
function may express itself in the eld of
performance. There is more than a danger
that the stereotyping of modes of investigation
will force us to think along those lines only,
and to close our eyes to and cease investigation
of the breakdown which the hard facts of
clinical observation present. (1944, p. 559)
In hindsight, Paterson's warning can be seen as
only partly true. On the one hand, the sensitivity
of the verbal-performance discrepancy to brain
disorders contributed important evidence pointing
to brain-behavior relationships. In a discussion of
his own wartime experiences, Zangwill (1945)
concluded that performance tests ``appear well
adapted to assess the ner grades of constructive
disability'' and had proven ``especially helpful in
studying cases with lesions of the parieto-occipital
region'' (p. 249). On the other hand, years of
inconclusive research on Wechsler subtest proles,
which have produced ``no rm rules'' (Spreen &
Strauss, 1998), were probably caused by reliance
on the Wechsler intelligence scales as the sole
measures of cognition. By breaking away from
what Zangwill (1945), echoing Paterson, called
``premature stereotyping of methods'' (p. 248), the
 HISTORY OF INTELLIGENCE TESTING
invention of new neuropsychological tests has
helped reveal brain-behavior relationships and
has produced a testing technology allowing clinical
neuropsychologists to exploit these discoveries.
The history of the Wechsler intelligence scales
leads to the question of what the scales have to
offer neuropsychological assessment in the new
century. New revisions of the Wechsler scales
offer the benets of updated norms and what
Lezak (1995) termed the ``hard won achievements
of familiarity and experience,'' at the price of
reinvesting in testing technology that is becoming
obsolete. It is reasonable to anticipate that in the
new century, emerging technologies using com-
puterized administration will offer decisive
advantages. Eventually, new tests based on these
technologies will replace the individual intel-
ligence test as we know it. Then it will be the job
of these new tests to carry on the tradition of
mental testing established by the BinetSimon
and WechslerBellevue scales.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
An earlier version of this paper was presented at
the 2000 meeting of the Midwest Neuropsychol-
ogy Group in Madison, Wisconsin. I am grateful
to David Baker, Bill Barr, Kevin Daley, Jeff
Dosik, Janice Goldblum, Chris Grote, Kathy
Hickey, Walter High, Sean Little, Kent Mercer,
Mary Nowak, and Bernie Silver for their help.
John Parascandola and John Wasserman shared
historical materials. The Archives of the History
of American Psychology and National Park Ser-
vice gave permission to reproduce the gures.
REFERENCES
Arthur, G. (1930). A point scale of performance tests.
New York: Commonwealth Fund.
Balinsky, B. (1941). An analysis of the mental factors
of various age groups from nine to sixty. Genetic
Psychology Monographs, 23, 191234.
Binet, A. (1911/1916). New investigations upon the
measure of the intellectual level among school
children. In H.H. Goddard (Ed.), Development
of intelligence in children (the BinetSimon Scale)
(E.S. Kite, Trans., pp. 274328). Baltimore:
Williams & Wilkins.
403
Binet, A., & Henri, V. (1895). La psychologie
individuelle. L'Annee Psychologique, 2, 411465.
Binet, A., & Simon, T. (1905). Methodes nouvelles
pour le diagnostic du niveau intellectuel des
anormaux. L'Annee Psychologique, 11, 191244.
Binet, A., & Simon, T. (1905/1916). New methods for
the diagnosis of the intellectual level of subnormals.
In H.H. Goddard (Ed.), Development of intelligence
in children (the BinetSimon Scale) (E.S. Kite,
Trans., pp. 3790). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.
Binet, A., & Simon, T. (1908). Le developpement de
l'intelligence chez les enfants. L'Annee Psycho-
logique, 14, 190.
Binet, A., & Simon, T. (1908/1916). The development
of intelligence in the child. In H.H. Goddard (Ed.),
Development of intelligence in children (the Binet
Simon Scale) (E.S. Kite, Trans., pp. 182273).
Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.
Bonser, F.G. (1910). The reasoning ability of children
of the fourth, fth, and sixth school grades (Teachers
College Contributions to Education, no. 37). New
York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
Camara, W.J., Nathan, J.S., & Puente, A.E. (2000).
Psychological test usage: Implications in profes-
sional psychology. Professional Psychology:
Research and Practice, 31, 141154.
Cattell, J.M. (1890). Mental tests and measurements.
Mind, 15, 373381.
Cornell, E.L., & Coxe, W.C. (1934). A performance
ability scale. New York: World Book.
Dearborn, W.F. (1910). Experiments in learning.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 1, 373388.
Decroly, O. (1914). Eprouve nouvelle pour l'examen
mental. L'Annee Psychologique, 20, 140 159.
Edwards, A.J. (1974). Introduction. Selected papers of
David Wechsler (pp. 329). New York: Academic
Press.
Frank, G. (1983). The Wechsler enterprise: An assess-
ment of the development, structure, and use of the
Wechsler tests of intelligence. Oxford/New York:
Pergamon Press.
Galton, F. (1885). On the Anthropometric Laboratory
of the late International Health Exhibition. Journal
of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and
Ireland, 14, 205221.
Galton, F. (1887). Supplementary notes on `prehension'
in idiots. Mind, 12, 7982.
Goldstein, K., & Scheerer, M. (1941). Abstract and
concrete behavior. An experimental study with
special tests. Psychological Monographs, 53
(Whole No. 239).
Gould, S.J. (1981). The mismeasure of man. New York:
Norton.
Halstead, W.C. (1947). Brain and intelligence: A
quantitative study of the frontal lobes. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Healy, W. (1914). A pictorial completion test. Psycho-
logical Review, 7, 140143.
404 CORWIN BOAKE
Healy, W. (1921). Pictorial Completion Test II. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 5, 225239.
Healy, W., & Fernald, G.M. (1911). Tests for practical
mental classication. Psychological Monographs,
13 (Whole no. 54).
Jacobs, J. (1887). Experiments on ``prehension''. Mind,
12, 7579.
Kellogg, C.E., & Morton, N.W. (1935). Revised beta
examination. New York: Psychological Corpora-
tion.
Kirkpatrick, E.A. (1909). Studies in development and
learning. Archives of Psychology, 12, 1101.
Knox, H.A. (1913). The moron and the study of alien
defectives. Journal of the American Medical
Association, 60, 105106.
Knox, H.A. (1914a). A scale, based on the work at Ellis
Island, for estimating mental defect. Journal of the
American Medical Association, 62, 741747.
Knox, H.A. (1914b). Mental defectives. New York
Medical Journal, 99, 215222.
Knox, H.A. (1915). Measuring human intelligence. A
progressive series of standardized tests used by the
Public Health Service to protect our racial stock.
Scientic American, 112, 5253, 5758.
Kohs, S.C. (1923). Intelligence measurement: A psycho-
logical and statistical study based upon the block
design tests. New York: Macmillan.
Leiter, R.G. (1936). The Leiter International Perfor-
mance Scale. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Leiter, R.G. (1951). The Leiter Adult Intelligence
Scale. Psychological Service Center Journal, 3.
Lezak, M.D. (1995). Neuropsychological assessment
(3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Lorge, I. (1943). The measurement of adult intelligence
[review]. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 7, 167
168.
Louttit, C.M., & Browne, C.G. (1947). The use of
psychometric instruments in psychological clinics.
Journal of Consulting Psychology, 11, 4954.
Matarazzo, J.D. (1972). Wechsler's measurement and
appraisal of adult intelligence (5th ed.). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Mullan, E.H. (1917). Mentality of the arriving
immigrant (Public Health Bulletin 90). Washington,
DC: Government Printing Ofce.
Paterson, A. (1944). Discussion on disorders of
personality after head injury (Section of Neurology.
May 4, 1944). Proceedings of the Royal Society of
Medicine, 37, 556 561.
Peterson, J. (1925). Early conceptions and tests of
intelligence. Yonkers-on-Hudson, NY: World Book.
Pichot, P. (1948). French pioneers in the eld of mental
deciency. American Journal of Mental Deciency,
53, 128137.
Pichot, P. (1949). Les tests mentaux en psychiatrie, I.
Instruments et methodes. Paris: Presses Universi-
taires de France.
Pintner, R., & Hoops, H.A. (1918). A drawing
completion test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2,
164173.
Pintner, R., & Paterson, D.G. (1917). A scale of
performance tests. New York: Appleton.
Pyle, W.H. (1913). The examination of school children:
A manual of directions and norms. New York:
Macmillan.
Rapaport, D., Schafer, R., & Gill, M. (1944). Manual of
diagnostic psychological testing: 1: Diagnostic
testing of intelligence and concept formation. New
York: Josiah Macy, Jr. Foundation.
Report of Committee of Clinical Section of American
Psychological Association. (1935). Psychological
Clinic, 23.
Samelson, F. (1987). Was early mental testing (a)
Racist inspired, (b) Objective science, (c) A
technology for democracy, (d) The origin of the
multiple-choice exams, (e) None of the above?
(Mark the RIGHT answer). In M.M. Sokal (Ed.),
Psychological testing and American society, 1890
1930 (pp. 113127). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers
University Press.
Sokal, M.M. (1981). The origins of the Psychological
Corporation. Journal of the History of the Beha-
vioral Sciences, 17, 5467.
Spreen, O., & Strauss, E. (1998). A compendium of
neuropsychological tests. Administration, norms,
and commentary (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Staff, Personnel Research Section, Classication and
Replacement Branch, The Adjutant General's Ofce.
(1944). The new Army Individual Test of general
mental ability. Psychological Bulletin, 41, 532538.
Starch, D. (1911). Experiments in educational psychol-
ogy. New York: Macmillan.
Stutsman, R. (1931). Mental measurement of preschool
children with a guide for the administration of the
Merrill-Palmer Scale of Mental Tests. New York:
World Book.
Terman, L.M. (1916). The measurement of intelligence:
An explanation of and a complete guide for the use
of the Stanford Revision and Extension of the Binet
Simon Intelligence Scale. Boston: Houghton Mif-
in.
Terman, L.M., & Merrill, M.A. (1937). Measuring
intelligence: A guide to the administration of the
new revised StanfordBinet tests of intelligence.
Boston: Houghton-Mifin.
Thorndike, R.M., & Lohman, D.F. (1990). A century of
ability testing. Chicago: Riverside.
U.S. Public Health Service. (1977). Interviews with
physicians stationed at Ellis Island in the 1910s and
1920s, by Elizabeth Yew, 19771978. Bethesda,
MD: National Library of Medicine (unpublished
transcript of interview with Grover A. Kempf,
September 11, 1977).
 HISTORY OF INTELLIGENCE TESTING
von Mayrhauser, R.T. (1987). The manager, the medic,
and the mediator: The clash of professional
psychological styles and the wartime origins of
group mental testing. In M.M. Sokal (Ed.), Psycho-
logical testing and American society, 18901930
(pp. 128157). New Brunswick: Rutgers University
Press.
Wechsler, D. (1925). The measurement of emotional
reactions: Researches on the psychogalvanic reex.
Archives of Psychology, 76.
Wechsler, D. (1932). Analytic use of the Army Alpha
examination. Journal of Applied Psychology, 16,
254256.
Wechsler, D. (1935). The concept of mental deciency
in theory and practice. Psychiatric Quarterly, 9,
232236.
Wechsler, D. (1939). The measurement of adult
intelligence. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.
Wechsler, D. (1941). The measurement of adult
intelligence (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Williams &
Wilkins.
Wechsler, D. (1945). A standardized memory scale for
clinical use. Journal of Psychology, 19, 8795.
Wechsler, D. (1946). The WechserBellevue Intelli-
gence Scale. Form II. Manual for administering and
scoring the test. New York: Psychological Corpora-
tion.
Wechsler, D. (1949). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for
Children. Manual. New York: Psychological Cor-
poration.
Wechsler, D. (1955). Manual for the Wechsler Adult
Intelligence Scale. New York: Psychological Cor-
poration.
Wechsler, D. (1958). The measurement and appraisal of
adult intelligence (4th ed.). Baltimore: Williams &
Wilkins.
Wechsler, D. (1967). Wechsler Preschool and Primary
Scale of Intelligence. New York: Psychological
Corporation.
Wechsler, D. (1974). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for
ChildrenRevised. Manual. New York: Psycholog-
ical Corporation.
Wechsler, D. (1979, September). The psychometric
tradition: Developing the Wechsler Adult Intelli-
gence Scale. Paper presented at the 87th Annual
Meeting of the American Psychological Associa-
tion, New York.
405
Wechsler, D. (1981). Wechsler Adult Intelligence
Scale Revised. Manual. New York: Psychological
Corporation.
Wechsler, D. (1991). WISC-III. Wechsler intelligence
scale for children. Manual. San Antonio: Psycholog-
ical Corporation.
Wechsler, D. (1997). Wechsler Adult Intelligence
ScaleThird Edition. Administration and scoring
manual. San Antonio: Psychological Corporation.
Wells, F.L. (1927). Mental tests in clinical practice.
Yonkers, NY: World Book.
Wells, F.L. (1932). Army Alpharevised. Personnel
Journal, 10, 411417.
Whipple, G.M. (1910). Manual of mental and physical
tests. A book of directions compiled with special
reference to the experimental study of school
children in the laboratory or classroom. Baltimore:
Warwick & York.
Whipple, G.M. (1914). Manual of mental and physical
tests. A book of directions compiled with special
reference to the experimental study of school child-
ren in the laboratory or classroom. Part I: Simple
processes (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Warwick & York.
Woodworth, R.S., & Wells, F.L. (1911). Association
tests. Being a part of the Report of the Committee of
the American Psychological Association on the
Standardization of Procedure in Experimental Tests.
Psychological Monographs, 13 (Whole no. 57).
Yerkes, R.M. (Ed.) (1921). Psychological examining in
the United States Army. Memoirs of the National
Academy of Sciences, 15 (Parts 13), Washington
DC: Government Printing Ofce.
Yerkes, R.M., Bridges, J.W., & Hardwick, R.S. (1915).
A point scale for measuring mental ability. Balti-
more: Warwick & York.
Yew, E. (1980). Medical inspection of immigrants at
Ellis Island, 18911924. Bulletin of the New York
Academy of Medicine, 56, 488510.
Yoakum, C.A., & Yerkes, R.M. (1920). Army mental
tests. New York: Holt.
Zangwill, O.L. (1945). A review of psychological work
at the Brain Injuries Unit, Edinburgh, 19411945.
British Medical Journal, 2, 248250.
Zenderland, L. (1998). Measuring minds: Henry
Herbert Goddard and the origins of American
intelligence testing. New York: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.