Clerical Errors in the Scoring of the WISC-R.

Abstract

The nature, frequency and effect of clerical errors in the scoring of the WISC-R were examined. The most frequent errors were those associated with addition tasks and in the calculation of the subject's age at the time of assessment. Some errors, whether occurring singly or in a compounding effect, significantly distorted Full Scale IQ.

Evaluating the prevalence and impact of examiner errors on the Wechsler scales of intelligence: A meta-analysis.

“…However, a systematic meta-analysis of the literature is needed to consolidate and organize what we know and do not know about these types of mistakes. Synthesizing the results of the examiner error literature is particularly important due to the substantial variation across studies in: (a) the rate of test protocols reported to contain examiner errors (e.g., Alper, 2012; Alfonso et al, 1998; Beasley et al, 1988; Klassen & Kishor, 1996; Loe et al, 2007; Mrazik, Janzen, Dombrowski, Barford, & Krawchuk, 2012), (b) the mean number of errors recorded per protocol (e.g., Alper, 2012; Gilbert, 1992; Whitten et al, 1994), (c) the rate of index and FSIQ scores that change when errors on protocols are corrected as well as the degree to which examiners tend to overestimate or underestimate these scores (e.g., Alper, 2012; Hajzler, 1987; Patterson, Slate, Jones, & Steger, 1995), and (d) the mean difference in the standard score points between corrected and uncorrected protocols on FSIQ scores (e.g., Alper, 2012; Klassen & Kishor, 1996).…”

“…Principally, different types of examiner errors have been investigated across studies (e.g., Beasley et al, 1988; Belk et al, 2002; Legris, 2003). For example, some authors restricted their investigation to clerical errors only because these types of mistakes can directly impact test scores (e.g., calculating the sum of raw scores incorrectly; Alper, 2012; Beasley et al, 1988; Hajzler, 1987). Others investigated clerical errors as well as scoring errors (e.g., giving too much or too little credit for a response) and administration errors (e.g., failure to adhere to basal/ceiling rules; Alfonso et al, 1998; Belk et al, 2002; Gurley, 2008; Legris, 2003).…”

Evaluation of a checking procedure for reducing clerical and computational errors on the WAIS-R.

“…Protocols completed during the testing phase were examined to determine frequency and type of clerical and computational errors. Ten error categories, similar to those applied by Hajzler (1987) and Moscato and Cummings (1982), were defined as follows:Age - an incorrect calculation of test age.Raw Score - an incorrect total for item scores on a subtest.Transfer - an incorrect transfer of a raw score total to the summary area on the record form.Scaled Score - an incorrect scaled score for a subtest.Verbal Score - an incorrect scaled score total for the Verbal subtests.Performance Score - an incorrect scaled score total for the Performance subtests.Full Scale Score - an incorrect Full Scale total score.Verbal IQ - an incorrect Verbal IQPerformance IQ - an incorrect Performance IQ.Full Scale IQ - an incorrect Full Scale IQ…”

“…For example, a scaled score error could arise from an incorrect raw score total or a mistake in reading raw score total to scaled score equivalents. For this reason, errors within the ten categories were also classified as initial or consequent errors (Hajzler, 1987). An initial error was a clerical or computational mistake by the subject.…”

“…Simple mistakes in addition of raw and scaled scores have been found to occur frequently (Sherrets, Gard, & Langner, 1979; Slate & Chick, 1989). Arithmetic errors also occur in the calculation of chronological age (Hajzler, 1987; Slate et al, 1993). Several studies have found examiners made clerical errors converting raw scores to scaled scores, and deriving IQ scores from tables in the manual (Beasley et al, 1988; Sherrets et al, 1979; Slate et al, 1993).…”