Accuracy of Feelings of Correctness on the WAIS and Binet

Rust, James O.; Oster, Gérald

doi:10.2466/pr0.1977.41.3f.1275

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is unclear what the influence of continuous praise, knowledge of results in addition to praise, or encouragement might be when examinees are aware of their success and failure. There is evidence that examinees attend to their performance during testing (Rust & Oster, 1977), and they may block or refuse to respond if there is a conflict between response quality and examiner feedback (Sattler, 1982).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reinforcement in testing: Research with children and adolescents.

Fish¹

1988

Professional School Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Data from reinforcement-in-testing research conducted with children and adolescents was compiled and reviewed in an attempt to isolate consistent trends. The findings do not support a reinforcement effect, although there is evidence that reinforcers enhance the performance of some examinees. This article includes an analysis of theoretical issues related to a standard test approach, validity and reliability of test scores, and the role of reinforcement. Various methodological problems are discussed and recommendations presented to expand the reinforcement-in-testing model. A discussion of the implication of this research for school psychologists is presented.In an early article on the measurement of intelligence, Thorndike (1924) stated that the testing context presupposed that an individual's motivational set was optimum. He also suggested that in scientific testing it was theoretically possible to "arrange a system of incentives such that each person put forth approximately his maximum effort . . ." (p. 228), noting, however, that in actual practice it was difficult to know if a person had shown as much effort as possible. Klugman (1944) first attempted to apply this concept by administering a reward to influence children's performance on an individually administered intelligence test.This review compiles the reinforcement-in-testing literature, provides a framework for analysis of results, and isolates consistent findings that can be applied. This area of research is viewed as one aspect of a larger literature that focuses on conditions of test administration, including rapport and examiner-examinee relationships.An assumption of reinforcement-in-testing researchers is that a subject's performance can be changed by enhancing motivation. A distinction is thus drawn between performance and competence, which leads to questions about the accuracy of test scores and ultimately points to a motivational component as an important aspect of the testing process. This latter issue has been discussed in general by Wechsler (1950Wechsler ( , 1975, but more directly by Zigler and Butter field (1968) and Scarr (1981), who emphasized that an individual's motivational history is an important aspect of testing and should be considered.The issue of using extrinsic sources of motivation as part of the testing process is important, because one goal during the examination process is to maintain an examinee's motivation to perform. It is necessary to know that performance represents ability, so attained scores, which are needed for various purposes in schools, are accurate. The notion of using rewards during testing also challenges what is considered Requests for reprints should be sent to Joseph Fish,

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%