A Comparative Analysis of Practitioners' Errors on WIS C-R and WIS C-III

Klassen, Robert M.; Kishor, Nand

doi:10.1177/082957359601200106

Cited by 17 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous studies have reported that corrected WAIS-R protocols of new examiners have not shown improvement during the first five protocols, except for errors in recording (Slate et al, 1991). Slate and Jones (1990) also found that graduate students did not show a significant error decline over five to ten practice administrations of the WISC-R. Klassen and Kishor (1996) found that the examiner errors did not decline significantly after 18 months of administering the WISC-III. In a study comparing scoring reliability of 19 psychologists and 19 graduate students on two WAIS protocols (Ryan & Schnakenberg-Ott, 2003), the percentages of protocols that fell within 1 SEM of the actual IQs were 89.5% for the psychologists and 76.3% for the students.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Effects of Examiner Error on Neuropsychological Test Results in a Multi-site Study

Kozora

Kongs

Hampton

et al. 2008

The Clinical Neuropsychologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study compared the difference between original and "corrected" neuropsychological test scores at baseline and following 1 year of experience in 17 non-psychology trained examiners. Test protocols were reviewed for errors in instruction, administration, recording, and scoring. Fewer than 3% of the test scaled scores showed a correction of greater than 1 SD. At baseline, individual test scores that changed T-score classification occurred on Digit Symbol, Trails B, and Logical Memory I and II. At one year, significant classification changes remained for Logical Memory I and II (25% and 15%). Scoring of subjective tests remains problematic and centralized re-scoring is recommended.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Effects of Examiner Error on Neuropsychological Test Results in a Multi-site Study

Kozora

Kongs

Hampton

et al. 2008

The Clinical Neuropsychologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We believe that test developers and publishers must address this issue in greater detail. Furthermore, we also concur with Klassen and Kishor (1994) that test manuals should report the scorer reliability of tests that are prone to examiner errors.…”

Section: Test Developers and Publishersmentioning

confidence: 78%

“…These types of errors decrease the reliability and validity of the obtained scores and could result in incorrect eligibility, classification, and placement decisions, which could lead to detrimental outcomes for examinees (Hall & Slate, 1992). Unfortunately, few test developers report a measure of examiner error in the form of scorer reliability (Klassen & Kishor, 1994;Ryan, Prifitera, & Powers, 1983;Slate & Jones, 1988).…”

Section: Scoring Errorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Use of Testing Technicians: Critical Issues for Professional Psychology

Hall

Howerton²,

Bolin³

2005

International Journal of Testing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The controversial practice of using unlicensed individuals to administered psychological tests has been questioned by some psychologists, professional organizations, state and provincial boards of psychology, state governments, departments of education, and third-party health care providers. This article provides an overview of the ethical, legal, and technical issues surrounding the controversy. On the basis of a review of these issues, recommendations are offered that are directed toward state and provincial boards of psychology, developers and publishers of psychological tests, and licensed psychologists. Davidson, 1997;Evers, 1996;Fremer, 1996). Specifically, test misuse and user qualifications have become important concerns for many professional groups and practitioners (Fremer, 1996;Merenda, 1997;Moreland, Eyde, Robertson, Primoff, & Most, 1995;Turner, DeMers, Fox, & Reed, 2001;Watkins & Campbell, 1990). Many fear that allowing inadequately trained individuals to administer psychological tests may harm the public and damage the reputation of the psychologists and other trained professionals who use these instruments (Turner et al., 2001).The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of pertinent standards and guidelines regarding proper test use and user qualifications, with specific attention given to the controversial practice of using testing technicians to administer and score restricted psychological tests. Pertinent standards and guidelines are addressed as well as ethical, legal, and technical issues related to the use of testing technicians by professional psychologists. On the basis of a review of these issues, recommendations are offered that are directed toward state and provincial boards of psychology, developers and publishers of psychological tests, and licensed psychologists. BACKGROUND AND HISTORICAL CONTEXT

show abstract

“…(Klassen & Kishor, 1996). The requirements for the first type of scoring vary by subtest and are covered elsewhere in this chapter; for that reason, they are not described in detail here.…”

Section: Wisc-v Scoringmentioning

confidence: 97%