A refined and extended analysis of variance (ANOVA) approach was used to investigate the pattern of relationships among arithmetic ability, reading ability, and general ability as assessed by teacher ratings and standardized tests. The subjects were 54 educable mentally retarded children who were rated and tested annually for 3 years.The tests proved to have much higher convergent and discriminant validity than the ratings, and to be much less affected by method bias. These differences are seen as reflecting the natural superiority of standardized tests over teacher ratings for most purposes.More than 20 years have passed since Campbell and Fiske (1959) introduced the notion of convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) matrix: a matrix containing the intercorrelations that result when each of several traits is measured by each of several methods. Essentially, their validity criteria were that measures of the same trait involving different methods should not only be substantially correlated, but that they should also correlate more highly than (a) measures of different traits involving different methods or (b) measures of different traits involving the same method. The first criterion is evidence of convergent validity, whereas the second and third provide evidence for discriminant validity. While noting that various statistical treatments for evaluating MTMM matrices might be developed, Campbell and Fiske chose to leave that challenging task to others. Nor have others been slow to take up the challenge; in a recent review of the literature, Schmitt, Coyle, and Saari (1977) illustrated six different approaches to the analysis of MTMM matrices and discussed their relative advantages and disadvantages.The approach employed in the present study is basically one proposed by Kavanagh, MacKinney, and Wolins (1971), following earlier work by Stanley (1961), Wolins (Note 1), and Zyzanski (1962). In this approach, the essential information in an MTMM matrix is expressed in terms of the usual mean squares of a three-way (subjects x traits x methods) factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA). Specifically, the main effect of subjects is taken to represent convergent validity;
The factor structures of the WISC and the WISC-R were compared, using the data for age groups 7.5, 10.5, and 13.5 years in the two standardization samples. The results for three different types of solution-hierarchical, multiple-group, and principal-factor-agreed in demonstrating that the structures of the two scales are as similar as the structure of either scale is for different age groups.
Internal consistency, alternate form, and stability coefficients for the CAK-C were obtained for a sample of 135 educable mentally retarded children. The internal consistency and alternate form coefficients appear to be acceptably high, and the stability coefficients, while appreciably lower, still suggest some degree of consistency over a year's time. The reliability of the CAK-C is judged to be satisfactory for EMR children.
The relations of the CAK‐C to the Stanford‐Binet and the WRAT were explored for a sample of 155 educable mentally retarded children. Correlational analyses indicated that: (a) The CAK‐C is more closely related to MA than to either CA or IQ. (b) Both Reading and Arithmetic are more closely related to MA than to the CAK‐C. The results support the position that Piagetian intelligence is somewhat distinct from psychometric intelligence, but suggest that the latter is the better predictor of academic achievement.
The Henderson Environmental Learning Process Scale (HELPS) was administered to the primary caregivers of 185 elementary school children enrolled in self-contained classes for the learning handicapped. Scores on four annual administrations of the instrument were aggregated, and the data were subjected to a principal-factor analysis. The resulting six factors—Reinforcement, Community Involvement, Intellectual Guidance, Role Playing, Expectations, and Literacy—did not correspond closely to those found by Henderson, Bergan, and Hunt in a previous study.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.