normative congruence between 1967 and 2002 adaptations

Research Paper

The International Journal of Indian Psychology ISSN 2348-5396 (e) | ISSN: 2349-3429 (p) Volume 7, Issue 4, DIP: 18.01.067/20190704 DOI: 10.25215/0704.067 http://www.ijip.in | October- December, 2019

© 2019, I K Gopalkrishnan & S Venkatesan; licensee IJIP. This is an Open Access Research distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any Medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Normative congruence between 1967 and 2002 adaptations of age

scale for Indian urban children

Iyer Kamlam Gopalkrishnan1*, Srinivasan Venkatesan

2

ABSTRACT

Standardized psychometric instruments used in clinical settings require periodic revalidation

and recalibration of its norm to prevent obsolescence. The original Indian adaptation for

Bombay-Karnatak Version of Binet-Simon Intelligence Scales on Dharwad children,

developed in the 1930s, revalidated in the 1960s, was again reappraised in 2002 only. The

time is ripe for undertaking another round of relook into this continually popular instrument

for the assessment of intelligence in Indian children. This study seeks to undertake a

contemporary appraisal of 1967 vis-a-vis its 2002 version of the age scale for its stability or

power for intellectual estimation item analysis, inter-correlation between Basal Age (BA),

Terminal Age (TA), Mental Age (MA) and Intelligence Quotient (IQ) measures. A random

sample of 42 primary school children from private schools in the age group of 6 to 8 years

(Mean Age: 6.7 years; SD: 0.51) from Urban, High Socio-Economic (HSE) family

background in Bangalore, Karnataka, India, were enlisted. The results depict a shift in sample

Mean IQ derived from the present sample using Bombay-Karnatak Intelligence Scale (1967)

norms as compared to that of (2002) norms. Further, the trend in the scores depicts similar

direction, pointing to the resilience of this instrument even after decades of use. A major

limitation of this study is the small sample size. A try-out on a larger heterogenous group of

children for item analysis would make this scale a more robust measure of intelligence for

our population.

Keywords: Binet-Kamat Test of Intelligence, Children, Intelligence Quotient, Bombay-

Karnatak Intelligence Scale, Age Scales, Urban Indian

Psychological assessment and testing continue to remain important in the field of applied

psychology (Embertson, 1996). A broad range of standardized tests may be needed for

regular use with children and adolescents in our country. In that, Intelligence tests continue to

hold the flagship, in the hands of a child psychologist at any setting such as school,

rehabilitative units, pediatric clinics, and hospitals. Although re-validation, re-appraisal, re-

standardization, and re-calibration of norms is a continually happening process for all

1Research Scholar, DOS in Psychology, University of Mysore, Mysuru, Karnataka, India.

2HOD & Prof, Dept of Clinical Psychology, All India Institute of Speech & Hearing, Manasagangotri, Mysuru,

Karnataka, India.

*Responding Author

Received: October 22, 2019; Revision Received: December 21, 2019; Accepted: December 25, 2019

mailto:[email protected]

Normative Congruence Between 1967 and 2002 Adaptations of Age Scale for Indian Urban Children

© The International Journal of Indian Psychology, ISSN 2348-5396 (e)| ISSN: 2349-3429 (p) | 580

psychometric devices abroad to prevent obsolescence, this situation is, at once, alarming as

well as deplorable in our country (Venkatesan, 1991; 1994; Venkatesan & Choudhury, 1995).

Very few tests of intelligence are exclusively developed and standardized for use on children

in India. Available tools are mostly adaptations of western tools with minimum changes in

appearance, content, or procedures of administration, scoring, and interpretation. Almost all

these tests indicate either slower or faster rates of performance by the Indian subjects, thereby

suggesting different norms in local scenario. Owing to the wide heterogeneity of the

country’s diaspora concerning region, religion, caste, creed, opportunities, and language, the

norms for the given test vary widely even for the same age groups of children (Venkatesan,

2010). Some commonly used tests of intelligence in our country are: Battery of Performance

Tests of Intelligence (Bhatia, 1955), Binet Kamat Intelligence Scale (Kamat, 1934; 1967),

Draw-a-Person Scale (Phatak, 1961; 1962; 1984), Intelligence Scale for Indian Children

(Malin, 1969), Binet-Kulshrestha, Intelligence Scale (Kulshrestha, 1971), Gesell’s Drawing

Test (Venkatesan, 2002; 2009), Seguin Form Board (Venkatesan, 2019), and others.

The scientific world is much indebted to Binet and Simon for their pioneering efforts to the

field of psychology and psychometry (Schmitt, 1912). The recent version of Stanford-Binet

Intelligence Scale, 5th

edition, (SB5; Roid & Barram, 2004) has a new format, test items, and

scoring system developed on a large representative sample of 4800 individuals between ages

2 to 85 + years and provides scores in ten sub-tests covering verbal and non-verbal domains

by following a hierarchical model of cognitive abilities. These factors include fluid reasoning,

knowledge, quantitative reasoning, visuospatial processing, and working memory (Bain &

Allin, 2005). Many of the picture cards remain although with modern artwork and item

content. Percentile ranks, age equivalents, and a change -sensitive score, extended IQ scores,

and gifted composite scores are available with SB5. Scores can be now obtained

electronically through the use of computers (Ruf, 2003). The sample varied in age, sex,

race/ethnicity, geographic region, and socioeconomic level (Bain & Allin, 2005). If we have

to compare and contrast this with our Bombay-Karnatak version of Binet Simon Intelligence

Scales (BKIS) (popularly called as Binet Kamat Test of Intelligence-BKT), we find that it

was developed first on a sample of school children of 1934. The next re-evaluation took place

almost three decades later in 1967. After this, the next re-adaptation and revalidation were

carried out on a limited age range of typical (but mostly economically disadvantaged)

children attending part-time day-care Hindi-medium schools (Charwaha Vidyalayas) around

Patna, Bihar (Venkatesan, 2002), almost three and a half decades later.

By and large, many critical decisions on levels of intellectual functioning or diagnostic

inferences on child clinical populations are even today based on antediluvian yardsticks. This

happens in spite of new millennial developments of cyberspace technology (Venkatesan,

2009). Against this scenario, it would be apt to investigate how far the norms for mental/

intellectual comparisons developed or standardized about decades ago stand the test of time.

In the previous evaluation, some changes were highlighted (Venkatesan, 2002). In this

inquiry, some more observations are given. For example, the 3-4 years old preschool children

in contemporary Indian urban Tier I & II cities appear to be adept at naming or identifying

colors, and counting or reciting numbers. This may be due to their early and excess exposure

to electronic media that is prevalent in all homes of today (Dunckley, 2015). Hence, one

cannot rest content with norms of an earlier smoke signal technology of antiquated decades

(Venkatesan, 2002).



It was the aim of this study to undertake a contemporary appraisal of BKT (BKIS 1967) vis-

à-vis its 2002 version (Venkatesan, 2002). This was to be carried out for its stability or power

for intellectual estimation, item analysis, inter-correlation between basal age, terminal age,

mental age, as well as intelligence quotient measures on a sample of children in the age group

of 6-8 years and hailing from the upper socio-economic class and urban areas. The stated

objectives of the study are:

1. To administer the BKIS (1967) and BKIS (2002) on a contemporary sample of

primary school children; and,

2. To correlate basal age (BA), terminal age (TA), mental age (MA) and intelligence

quotients (IQs) derived from BKIS (1964) and BKIS (2002) on a contemporary

sample of primary school children.

3. To understand how many children from the present sample, are “at age,” “below age,”

and “above age.”

METHODOLOGY

Sample

The study was carried out on a sample of 42 children in the age group of 6 to 8 years (Mean

Age: 6.7 years; SD: 0.51) chosen at random from upper socio-economic families and private

schools in Bangalore City, Karnataka. The purposive sample was homogenous about their

family socioeconomic status. The educational levels of the children varied from “Grade I-III”

from English medium schools.

Instruments

Two measures were used in this study,

1. NIMH Socio-Economic Scale (Venkatesan, 2015): This is a scale to assess the

Socio-economic Status. This scale has been shown to have a 2-week-test retest

reliability coefficient of 0.94 and concurrent validity coefficient against

‘Kuppuswamy Socio-Economic Classification’ (1962) at 0.95 respectively. In this

study, we have taken an inclusion criterion of score 16 and above.

2. Bombay-Karnatak Test of Intelligence (Kamat, 1967): This is an age-scale where

in the tests are grouped into age levels extending from 3 years to superior adult level.

Each age level consists of six tests with alternate items as well which can be

substituted for regular test. B-K test include both verbal and performance tests. It is

both power and speed test since some of the test items are timed. The test provides an

estimate of MA & IQ from 3-22 yrs. Binet–Kamat test items are scored on an all-or-

none basis. The basal age, i.e. the highest age level below which all test items are

passed and ‘ceiling age’ at which all items are failed. Mental Age (MA) has been

calculated by adding partial credits to the basal age for every test passed beyond basal

level. Credit of 2 months is given for each item passed between 3-10 years; 4 months

for 12, 14 and 16 years; and 6 months for 19- and 22-year levels. The Intelligence

Quotient (IQ) will be computed by the ratio of MA over CA multiplied by 100. The

reliability of the Binet – Kamat test of intelligence is reportedly above 0.7 and the

validity of this test for normal children against estimation of intelligence quotient by

teachers is 0.5.

Procedure

Informed consent was taken from parents. The chronological ages given by the parents was

as on April 1st, 2019. It was the same year when the study was carried out. The actual testing

and administration of intelligence scales were carried out in their respective home setting by



the author with an RCI approved pre-doctoral qualification in clinical psychology. An

investigator prepared, computer coded, and amenable data record sheet is used in this study to

cluster homogenous test items and facilitate ease of scoring and administration of the scale.

The testing followed the procedure of test administration and guidelines as laid down in the

manual (Kamat, 1934). The test-retest validity on nine children, chosen at random, conducted

independently after about 10-weeks from initial assessment.

RESULTS

A perusal of the sample characteristics (Table 1) shows the range of their Chronological Age

(CA) is between 6-8 years (Mean Age: 6.7 years; SD: 0.51). The sample included 27 boys

(Mean Age: 6.66 years; SD: 0.54) and 15 girls (Mean Age: 6.77 years; SD: 0.44). Most of the

children of this sample were in Grade II (Mean Grade: 2.64; SD: 0.73).

Table No. 1 Descriptive Statistics of the sample

Variables N Mean SD

Age 42 6.70 0.51

Boys 27 6.66 0.54

Girls 15 6.77 0.46

NIMH SES Scores 42 20.00 0.47

Grades 42 2.64 0.73

The distribution of Mean MA (in years), IQ and their Standard Deviation (SD) consistently

shows slightly higher scores estimated for children on BKIS 2002 than 1967 version of this

scale (Table 2).

Table No. 2 Distribution of Mean BA, TA, MA and IQ of the sample using both the BKIS

norms BKIS Mean BA (in years) Mean TA (in years) Mean MA (in years) Mean IQ

1967 5.90 10.83 7.6 113

2002 6.78 13.69 8.5 125

(BA: Basal Age; TA: Terminal Age; MA: Mental Age; IQ: Intelligence Quotient)

The results of inter-correlation coefficients derived between the respective BA, TA, MA and,

IQ for the children on BKIS 2002 than 1967 version of this scale show highly significant

values (Table 3).

Table No. 3 Inter-correlation Matrix 2002 BKIS Norms

1967 BKIS Norms BA TA MA IQ

BA 0.736**

TA 0.490**

MA 0.873**

IQ 0.882**

(BA: Basal Age; TA: Terminal Age; MA: Mental Age; IQ: Intelligence Quotient; **p<0.01)

A 10-week test-retest reliability exercise was undertaken on a sub-sample of 9 children

chosen randomly from the overall sample shows a reliability coefficient of 0.97 (p < 0.001;

Table 4).



Table No. 4 10-Week Test-Retest Reliability

IQ at week 1

IQ at week 10

r = 0.97**

** Significant at p<0.001

An item analysis on the performance of the sample on individual test items of BKIS

according to the 2002 norms showed the trends as given above (Table 5).

Table No. 5 Item Analysis of the performance of the sample based on BKIS 2002 norms

Chronological Age of BKIS Test Items III

%

IV

%

V

%

VI

%

VII

%

VIII

%

IX

%

X

%

XII

%

XIV

%

XVI

%

XXI

%

Points to body

parts (3.1)

100

Names familiar

objects (3.2)

100

Two digits

forward (3.3)

100

Pictures

(Nominal)(3.4)

100

Syllable

repetition (6-7)

(3.5)

100

Comparison of

lines (3.6)

100

Three digits

forward (4.1)

100

Discriminates

forms (4.2)

100

Comprehension

(Ist degree)

(4.3)

100

Syllable

repetition (12-

13) (4.4)

100

Compares two

weights* (4.5)

100

Copying square

(4.6)

100

Aesthetic

comparison

(5.1)

100

Define words

in use (5.2)

100

Three

commissions

(5.3)

100

Left-Right

discrimination

(5.4)

100



Test Items III

%

IV

%

V

%

VI

%

VII

%

VIII

%

IX

%

X

%

XII

%

XIV

%

XVI

%

XXI

%

Naming 4 coins

(5.5)

98

Counts 13

paisa (5.6)

98

Four digits

forward (6.1)

100

Comprehension

(2nd degree)

(6.2)

95

Divided Card

(6.3)

91

Gives number

of figures (6.4)

98

Picture

(descriptive)

(6.5)

93

Missing

features (6.6)

95

Syllable

repetition (14-

18) (7.1)

98

Copying

Diamond (7.2)

95

Three digits

backward (7.3)

95

Days of the

week (7.4)

88

Counting 20 to

1 (7.5)

95

Differences

from memory

(7.6)

91

Values of coins

(8.1)

57

Five digits

forward (8.2)

64

Comprehension

(3rd degree)

(8.3)

45

Define words

superior (8.4)

88

Tying a slip

knot * (8.5)

43

Read & report

(8.6)

67

Four digits

backward (9.1)

57

Making change

(9.2)

33



Test Items III

%

IV

%

V

%

VI

%

VII

%

VIII

%

IX

%

X

%

XII

%

XIV

%

XVI

%

XXI

%

Similarities

(9.3)

45

Use in sentence

(9.4)

38

Read & Report

(9.5)

29

Free

Association

(9.6)

40

Arranging five

weights (10.1)

43

Syllable

repetition (20-

22) (10.2)

33

Months in year

(10.3)

40

Draw designs

from memory

Half correct

Full correct

(10.4)

33

26

Find Rhymes

(10.5)

12

Read & Report

(Level III)

(10.6)

12

Absurdities

(12.1)

7

Healey’s puzzle

(12.2)

12

Defining

abstract words

(12.3)

2

Five digits

backward (12.4)

0

Interpret fables

(12.5)

2

Pictures

(interpretative)

(12.6)

0

Induction Test

(14.1)

0

Dissected

Sentences

(14.2)

0

Arithmetical

Reasoning

(14.3)

0

Problems of 0



Test Items III

%

IV

%

V

%

VI

%

VII

%

VIII

%

IX

%

X

%

XII

%

XIV

%

XVI

%

XXI

%

Enclosed Boxes

(14.4)

Giving

similarities

(14.5)

2

Ball & Field

(14.6)

2

Interpretation of

Fables (16.1)

0

Reversing the

hands of the

clock (16.2)

0

Differences

between Patil &

Kulkarni (16.3)

0

Six digits

reversed (16.4)

0

Problem

Questions

(16.5)

2

Repeating

seven digits

(16.6)

0

Using a Code

(21.1)

0

Ingenuity Test

(21.2)

0

Differences

between

Abstract terms

(21.3)

0

Binet’s Paper

Cutting Test

(21.4)

0

Repeating 30

syllables (21.5)

0

Reversing

Triangle in

Imagination

(21.6)

0

Adapted from Venkatesan (2002); II to XXI = Chronological Age of Children; = the

percentage of the sample who were able to achieve the test item successfully; Alternative

items were not used in this sample; *indicates changed items (Venkatesan, 2002).

Based on the distribution of calculated MA percentages, children were classified into three

categories of mental ages: “Below Age,” “At Age,” and “Above Age” respectively. Results

show that most of the children in this sample are performing above their CA as assessed on

the BKIS 2002 version (Table 6).



Table No. 6 Percentage distribution of Mental Ages

Age

N

Mental Age (As per BKIS

2002 version)

Below Age % At Age % Above Age %

6-7 years 26 30.76 7.69 61.54

7-8 years 16 0 6.25 93.75

Adapted from Schmitt (1912)

DISCUSSION

The resilience of the very old BKIS, which is often used by clinical psychologists of our

country, has been persistently raised (Roopesh & Kumble, 2016). A comprehensive study

was conducted on re-modifying the scale with updated norms about a decade-and-half ago

(Venkatesan, 2002). Sadly, no attempts for further revalidation of the tool has been attempted

since then. Therefore, this study sought to determine the congruence between the norms of

BKIS (1967) and norms of BKIS (2002) versions in the age groups of 6 to 8-year-old school-

going children of urban India.

Studies depicting normative congruence across tests developed by various authors on similar

variables at diverse places, between cultures or at different points of time in history, has been

necessarily undertaken as revalidation exercises (Kline, 2015). Such re-validation exercises

help update test norms, prevent obsolescence and render the tool appropriate for the target

population on whom it is intended (Weiner, 2003; pp. 109). A good congruence of

psychometric properties between the same tests over time and place, highlight its strength,

power, and resilience (Adali & Golbeck, 2012; Shreman, Nave & Funder, 2012; Bayanova,

Tsi Vilskaya, Bayramyan & Chulyukin, 2016). Following these lines, this study has shown

that the mean BA, TA, and MA are consistently higher when scored according to the 2002

norms of BKIS in comparison to its 1967 norms. This denotes that the MA of this sample is

being overestimated as per the BKIS 2002 norms. By doing so, if the mean IQ of BKIS

(1967) is 113, the same score by BKIS (2002) version would be 125. Why is there such a

shift in these scores by over ten points across the board in the present sample? Is it a genuine

increase in the intelligence levels of children in the contemporary generation compared to

their same-age peers over a decade or above? Or, is it because this sample of children are

recruited mostly from elite schools and they belong to high SES? Von stumm & Plomin

(2015) used a latent growth curve model to assess associations between SES and individual

differences in intelligence starting point and, in the rate, and direction of change in scores

from infancy through adolescence. SES was significantly associated with intelligence growth

factors. It has also been posited that the IQ gains reflect genuine gains in intelligence owing

to cultural changes, better schools, increased test sophistication or improved diet and health

(Neisser, 1998). Or, could it all be explained by the Flynn effect? (Hagan, Drogin &

Guilmette, 2008; Nijenhuis & van der Flir, 2013).

The resiliency, reliability, stability, and the internal validity of the BKIS (between its 1967

and 2002 versions) is demonstrated in this study by use of the 10-week test-retest reliability

exercise undertaken on a sub-sample of 9 children chosen randomly from overall sample. On

repeat assessment of the children, though their MA is increased, the simultaneous increase in

CA has contributed to the stable IQ over the period of time (Chadha, 2009; pp. 149). An item

analysis of results shows that several test items are to be reallocated further over and above a

similar exercise already attempted in the BKIS-2002 version. For example, the items like

“copying a diamond” and “picture description” have to be moved higher on the CA scale,



while items such as “4-digit forward,” and “comparing 2 weights” have to be moved down.

Note that immediate recall of seven-digits forward might not be tough for a contemporary 8-

year old considering that many of them now use “chunking” techniques to recall 10-digit

mobile phone numbers with ease. Items related to coins and lower denominations of currency

needs to be discarded since their demonetization or are out of circulation. The items related to

explaining the differences between village heads given in earlier versions or the use of

achromatic picture cards to elicit nominal, descriptive, and/or interpretative responses,

require change. The assessment of psychological functions and processes underlying these

test items is needed and justified, there needs to be considerable revision on the form and

content of these test items to make it relevant and contemporary. In this regard, the 15-item

glossary on cognitive-behavior test tasks (mostly drawn from BKIS-2002) and recommended

for use in adults with borderline intellectual functioning may prove useful (Venkatesan,

2017).

Based on a simplistic trichotomy the percentage of children under three categories of “above

mental age”, “at mental age” and “below mental age” (Schmitt, 1912) was attempted to

notice that more than half of this sample have attained an MA of “above” category. No child

fell in the category of “below MA” in this 7-8-year group, although 31% of them fell in

“below MA” category. This trend could be because the test items under the CA of five years

are actually more appropriate for most contemporary 3-year old. Similarly, the test items of

above six years are seemingly more appropriate for contemporary children above 10-12

years. It is noted that only around 14% of the children have attained ma equivalent of their

CA on this random sample. the significance of these findings can be best ascertained only

after a try-out on a larger representative sample covering a wider range of age-groups.

The findings of this study highlight:

1. A shift in the sample Mean IQs is derived in the present sample using BKIS

(1967) norms as compared to sample Mean IQs on BKIS (2002) norms; and

2. The trend of the BKIS (1967) and BKIS (2002) are in the same direction, which

points to the resilience of this instrument even after several decades of its use.

It is further recommended that the study be extended to a larger heterogeneous sample

covering all age levels of intellectual functioning in children and adolescents.

REFERENCES

Adali, S., & Golbeck, J. (2012, August). Predicting the personality with social behavior. In 2012

IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and

Mining (pp. 302-309). IEEE.

Bain, S. K., & Allin, J. D. (2005). Book review: Stanford-binet intelligence scales. Journal of

Psychoeducational Assessment, 23(1), 87-95

Bayanova, L. F., Tsivilskaya, E. A., Bayramyan, R. M., & Chulyukin, K. S. (2016). A cultural

congruence test for primary school students. Psychology in Russia, 9(4), 101.

Bhatia, CM, (1955) Performance tests of intelligence under Indian conditions. Bombay: Oxford

University Press.

Chadha, N. K. (2009). Applied Psychometry. New Delhi: Sage. Pp. 149.

Embretson, S. E. (1996). The new rules of measurement. Psychological assessment, 8(4), 341-

349.

Hagan, L. D., Drogin, E. Y., & Guilmette, T. J. (2008). Adjusting IQ scores for the Flynn effect:

Consistent with the standard of practice? Professional Psychology: Research and

Practice, 39(6), 619-625.



Kamat, V.V. (1934). Measuring Intelligence of Indian children. First Edition. Bombay: Oxford

University Press.

Kamat, V.V. (1967). Measuring intelligence of Indian children. Bombay: Oxford University

Press.

Kline, P. (2015). A handbook of test construction (psychology revivals): Introduction to

psychometric design. London: Routledge.

Kulshrestha, S.K. (1971). Stanford Binet international scale. Hindi adaptation of the third revision

1960 form L-M manual. Allahabad: Serva Sansthan.

Malin, A.J. (1969). Malin’s International Scale for Indian Children Manual. Nagpur: Child

Guidance Clinic.

Neisser, U. (Ed.). (1998). The rising curve: long term gains in IQ and related measures.

Washington, DC: American Psychological Associates.

Nijenhuis, J., & van der Flir, H. (2013). Is the Flynn effect on g? a meta-analysis. Intelligence, 41,

6, 802-807.

Pasricha, S., & Pagedar, R.M. (1963). Adaptation of WAIS to the Gujarati population. Journal of

Vocational and Educational Guidance, 9, 174-184.

Pershad, D., & Verma, S.K. (1978). A preliminary report on the adaptation of WAIS in Hindi.

ISPT Journal of Research, 2(2), 81-91.

Pershad, D., Verma, S.K., & Randhawa, A. (1979). Preliminary report on a performance test of

intelligence on 4-8 years old children. Indian Journal of Educational Psychology, 6, 125-

130.

Phatak, P. (1961). Comparative study of the revised draw a man scale (Harris) and Phatak draw a

man scale for Indian children. Psychological Studies, 6(2), 12-17.

Phatak, P. (1962). Calculation of norms in Phatak’s draw-a-man scale for Indian children in

Gujarat. Journal of the Maharaja SayajiRao University of Baroda, 1, 131-137.

Phatak, P. (1984). Revision and extension of Phatak draw a man scale for Indian children of age

groups 2 1/2 to 16 1/2 years. Psychological Studies, 29, 34-46.

Ramalingaswamy, P. (1975). Measurement of intelligence among adult Indians. Delhi: National

Council of Educational Research and Training.

Roid, G. & Barram, R. (2004). Essentials of Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scales (SB5)

Assessment. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Roopesh, B.N & Kumble, C. N. (2016). Binet Kamat Test of Intelligence -- Issues with scoring

and interpretation [ Letter to the Editor]. Indian Mental Health, 3(4), 504-505. Retrieved

from https://indianmentalhealth.com/pdf/2016/vol3-issue4/Binet_Kamat_Test.pdf

Ruf, D. L. (2003). Use of the SB5 in the Assessment of High Abilities. Itasca, IL: Riverside

Publishing Company.

Schmitt, C. (1912). The Binet-Simon Tests of Mental Ability. Discussion and Criticism. The

Pedagogical Seminary, 19(2), 186-200.

Sherman RA, Nave CS, Funder DC (2012). Properties of persons and situations related to overall

and distinctive personality-behavior congruence. Journal of Research in Personality,

46(1), 87-101.

Venkatesan, S. (1991). Psychological assessment of individuals with mental retardation: Some

perspectives and problems. The Creative Psychologist, 3(2), 65-75.

Venkatesan, S. (1994). Recent trends and issues in behavioral assessment of individuals with

mental handicap in India. The Creative Psychologist, 6(1), 1-7.

Venkatesan, S. (2002). Extension and validation of Gesell’s drawing test of intelligence in a

group of children with communication disorders. Indian Journal of Clinical Psychology,

29(2), 173-177.



Venkatesan, S. (2002). Reappraisal of Bombay-Karnataka Version of Binet Simon Intelligence

Scales (1964). Indian Journal of Clinical Psychology, 29(1), 72-78.

Venkatesan, S. (2009). Gessel's Drawing Test of Intelligence. Bangalore: Psychotronics.

Venkatesan, S. (2009). Psycho Oration Award Address: A pilgrim's progress. Indian Journal of

Clinical Psychology, 36(1), 4-9.

Venkatesan, S. (2010). Cultural factors in clinical assessment: The Indian perspective. Indian

Journal of Clinical Psychology, 37(1), 75-85.

Venkatesan, S. (2010). Indian scales and inventories: Revisiting clinometry through IJP. Indian

Journal of Psychiatry, 52, 378-385. doi: 10.4103/0019-5545.69273

Venkatesan, S. (2015). Readapted Version for 2016: NIMH Socio-economic Status Scale.

Secunderabad: National Institute Mentally Handicapped Currently National Institute for

Empowerment of Persons with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.

Venkatesan, S. (2017). Demographic, cognitive, and psychosocial profile of adults with

borderline intellectual functioning. Journal of Contemporary Psychological Research,

4(1), 1-12.

Venkatesan, S. (2019). Seguin form board test of intelligence: an updated manual. Bangalore:

Psychotronics.

Venkatesan, S., & Choudhury, S. (1995). Psychodiagnostic assessment of rural children with

mental handicaps in India: Some problems and issues. The Creative Psychologist, 7(1 &

2), 1-9.

Von Stumm, S., & Plomin, R. (2015). Socioeconomic status and the growth of intelligence from

infancy through adolescence. Intelligence, 48, 30-36.

Weiner, I. B. (Ed.). (2003). Handbook of psychology. Volume 10. Assessment of Psychology.

Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Pp. 109.

Acknowledgements

To the Director, AIISH, Mysore, the authors are grateful for the permission, as well as to the

friends and colleagues of the Department of Clinical Psychology, AIISH, Mysore, and

Department of Studies in Psychology, University of Mysore, Mysuru, for their critical

reviews and comments during the in-house presentations of the contents in this article. A

special note of thanks to the parents and the participant children, without whose cooperation

this study could not have been completed.

Conflict of Interest

The author declared no conflict of interests.

How to cite this article: I K Gopalkrishnan & S Venkatesan (2019). normative congruence

between 1967 and 2002 adaptations of age scale for Indian urban children. International Journal

of Indian Psychology, 7(4), 579-590. DIP:18.01.067/20190704, DOI:10.25215/0704.067

normative congruence between 1967 and 2002 adaptations

Documents