Estimating major sources of measurement error in individual intelligences scales: Taking our heads out of the sand

Hanna, Gerald S.; Bradley, Fred O.; Holen, Michael C.

doi:10.1016/0022-4405(81)90031-5

Cited by 15 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…First, the degree of unreliability reported above addresses only the issue of scoring precision. Problems with poor test administration (Moon, Blakey, Gorsuch, & Fantuzzo, 1991), the examinee's physical and emotional state during testing (Hanna, Bradley, & Holen, 1981), and examiner-examinee characteristics (Slate & Hunnicutt, 1988) were not studied. Because so many uncontrolled variables contribute to reduced-test reliability, it is essential to report individual WAIS-III IQs and indexes in conjunction with a confidence interval based on either the SEM or standard error of estimate (SEE), whichever is appropriate to the testing situation (Sattler, 2001).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scoring Reliability on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Third Edition (WAIS-III)

Ryan

Schnakenberg-Ott

2003

Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nineteen psychologists and 19 graduate students scored two Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Third Edition patient protocols. Mean IQs and indexes were similar across groups, but the ranges for Verbal IQ (VIQ), Performance IQ (PIQ), and Full Scale IQ (FSIQ) on one protocol were 25, 22, and 11 points, respectively. For both protocols taken together, percentages of agreement with the "actual" IQs for psychologists were only 26.3 for VIQ, 36.8 for PIQ, and 42.1 for FSIQ. For students, percentages were 15.8 for VIQ, 23.7 for PIQ, and 31.6 for FSIQ. The percentages of FSIQs that fell within +/- 1 standard error of measurement of the actual IQs were 89.5 for psychologists and 76.3 for students. Scoring error also had a negative impact on index scores. Both groups were confident about their scoring accuracy.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scoring Reliability on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Third Edition (WAIS-III)

Ryan

Schnakenberg-Ott

2003

Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Th ese are expected fi ndings according to true score theory, and refl ect the power of aggregate scores that contain less error variance. Assessing temporal stability is important as it addresses one of the major sources of error variance in intelligence tests not addressed by the internal consistency estimate (Hanna, Bradley, & Holen, 1981). Hanna et al also noted the importance of assessing intelligence test measurement error related to scoring and administration errors.…”

Section: Global Score Psychometric Supportmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Invariably, intelligence test subtests typically have lower internal consistency estimates than composite scores (Bracken & McCallum, 1998b;Elliott, 2007b;Glutting et al, 2000b;Kaufman & Kaufman, 1983, 2004a, 2004bNaglieri & Das, 1997b;Psychological Corporation, 1999;Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2003;Roid, 2003b;Wechsler, 2002Wechsler, , 2003Wechsler, , 2008bWechsler & Naglieri, 2006;Woodcock et al, 2001). Importantly, internal consistency estimates provide the highest estimates of intelligence subtest reliability because they do not consider important sources of error such as temporal stability, scoring errors, or administration errors (Hanna et al, 1981). In examining the long-term stability of WISC-III scores, Canivez and Watkins (1998) found the stability coeffi cients for subtests ranged from .55 to .75; thus, none showed acceptable stability for individual clinical decision-making.…”

Section: Subtest Psychometric Supportmentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychometric Versus Actuarial Interpretation of Intelligence and Related Aptitude Batteries

Canivez

2013

Oxford Handbooks Online

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interpretation of intelligence tests involves making various inferences about the individual based on their performance. Because there are many different scores within intelligence tests reflecting different levels (Full Scale, factors, subtests) and there are many different comparisons provided in test manuals and the extant literature, there is a multitude of possible inferences. This chapter is concerned with reviewing the various available scores and comparisons with suggested interpretations and a review of the empirical investigations of their psychometric fitness (reliability, validity, utility). Differentiation of psychometric interpretation versus actuarial interpretation methods is presented, as well as a review of research related to each. Most intelligence test interpretation methods are considered psychometric in nature, and most lack sufficient reliability, validity, or utility for individual clinical use; improvements in the clinical assessment of intelligence may result from greater development and use of actuarial approaches.

show abstract

“…4. Competent administration of standardized tests is the most rudimentary assessment skill (Hanna, Bradley, & Holen, 1981) Fantuzzo, Sisemore, and Spradlin (1983) demonstrated that the model could be used effectively to bring graduate students in 31 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Teaching WAIS—R administration skills: Comparison of the {mastery} model to other existing clinical training modalities.

Moon¹,

Fantuzzo²,

Gorsuch³

1986

Professional Psychology: Research and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The final report from the American Psychological Association Task Force on Evaluation of Education, Training, and Service in Psychology (1983) strongly attests to the fact that the best hope for clinical psychology to overcome current legal and economic challenges may lie in the profession's ability to fortify itself with more objective competency-based training and evaluation procedures. The MASTERY model, a competency-based training paradigm, was used in this investigation to bring 20 graduate students in clinical psychology to criterion level for competent administration of the revised edition of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS-R). This model was then compared to some existing training models, employed by internship settings, in terms of training effects, cost, and verification. In all comparisons, significant and important differences favored the competency-based approach. The practical and research implications of the MASTERY training model for clinical psychology are discussed.

show abstract

Estimating major sources of measurement error in individual intelligences scales: Taking our heads out of the sand

Cited by 15 publications

References 5 publications

Scoring Reliability on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Third Edition (WAIS-III)

Scoring Reliability on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Third Edition (WAIS-III)

Psychometric Versus Actuarial Interpretation of Intelligence and Related Aptitude Batteries

Teaching WAIS—R administration skills: Comparison of the {mastery} model to other existing clinical training modalities.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About