Equal weighting vs. differential weighting of subtest scores on short forms of Wechsler's intelligence scales

Silverstein, A. B.

doi:10.1002/1097-4679(198711)43:6<714::aid-jclp2270430612>3.0.co;2-n

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In standardizing his scales, however, Wechsler (1958) assumed that "once a [subtest] was admitted as a suitable measure of intelligence, it was to be accorded the same weight as any of the others" (p. 93). Moreover, the validities (and reliabilities) of short forms vary little from one set of weights to another, so that a strong case can be made for the use of equal weights, which possess the advantages of simplicity and robustness (Silverstein, 1987).…”

Section: Correlation Between the Short Form And The Original Scalementioning

confidence: 99%

Short forms of individual intelligence tests.

Silverstein¹

1990

Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical

Self Cite

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The literature on short forms of individual intelligence tests-Wechsler's scales in particular-is critically reviewed. The review is structured around four choice-points faced by those who study short forms: how to abbreviate the original scale, what kind of subject sample to use, how to estimate IQs on the original scale, and what criteria to apply in evaluating a short form. The review concludes with some reflections based on more than 20 years of research on short forms and the posing of two questions about which little is yet known.Short forms have a long history. Doll (1917) proposed a brief Binet-Simon scale not long after Goddard introduced that scale into the United States and more than 20 years before Wechsler (1939) published the Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale (W-B). In the present article, however, the focus is on short forms of Wechsler's scales, although most of what follows can be generalized to short forms of any intelligence test constructed along similar lines, that is, as a multitest battery. My purpose is to review what we know about such short forms and how we came to know it, for the benefit of both clinical practitioners and clinical investigators, psychologists who use short forms and psychologists who study them. How Wechsler Viewed Short FormsIn discussing the legitimacy of using short forms, Wechsler (1958) made a distinction based on the use to be made of the results. If all the examiner wants is an IQ for screening purposes, Wechsler observed that there are combinations of three subtests, and even some combinations of two subtests, that may suffice. For anything beyond that, he did not recommend short forms. His view was that an intelligence test should and can give the examiner much more than an IQ (e.g., an evaluation of an individual's strengths and weaknesses), and for that purpose the need was for more testing, not less. Later, Wechsler (1967) appeared to adopt a somewhat harder line, stating that "reduction in the number of [subtests] as a time-saving device is unjustifiable and not to be encouraged" (p. 37) and advising those who ask what one is to do when there is not enough time, to "find the time" (p. 37). How Others Have Viewed Short FormsOthers who have examined the literature on short forms have given them rather mixed reviews. Tellegen and Briggs (1967)

show abstract

Section: Correlation Between the Short Form And The Original Scalementioning

confidence: 99%