Brief report: data on the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales (5th ed.) in children with autism spectrum disorder.
The SB5 short form usually works for kids with autism, but double-check with the full test if the stakes are high.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Coolican et al. (2008) gave the Stanford-Binet 5 to the kids with autism.
They compared the full test with the short version that many clinics use.
Kids ranged from 3 to 16 years old.
What they found
Most kids scored higher on nonverbal tasks than on verbal ones.
The short test usually matched the full IQ score, but not always.
In a few cases the short test missed the child’s real ability level.
How this fits with other research
Fyfe et al. (2007) saw the same nonverbal > verbal pattern in preschoolers with autism.
Their work came first and used different tools, so Jamesie’s team shows the pattern holds on the SB5 too.
Freeth et al. (2019) found that test format can skew scores in minimally verbal kids.
Together, these papers warn that both short batteries and verbal load can mislead you.
Why it matters
If you use the SB5 short form for an autism evaluation, expect nonverbal scores to top verbal scores.
Always run the full battery before big decisions like classroom placement or funding.
A quick check can save time, but a full test protects the child from being under- or over-placed.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Run the full SB5 battery on any child whose short-form score feels off or will decide placement.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
The Fifth Edition of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales (SB5; Roid, G. H. (2003). Stanford Binet intelligence scales (5th ed.). Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing) is relatively new, with minimal published research on general populations and none with special populations. The present study provides information on the cognitive profiles of children with ASD (N=63) and on the whether the abbreviated battery is representative of the full scale. A high percentage of the children had significantly stronger nonverbal (vs. verbal) skills. This pattern was not related to Full Scale IQ, age or diagnostic subgroup. IQs derived from the abbreviated battery accounted for a large proportion of the variance in FSIQ relative to comparable abbreviated batteries. However, caution is warranted when using the abbreviated battery, as it misrepresents actual ability in a small percentage of cases.
Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 2008 · doi:10.1007/s10803-007-0368-2