First publication of subtests in the Stanford-Binet 5, WAIS-IV, WISC-V, and WPPSI-IV

Gibbons, Aisa; Warne, Russell T.

doi:10.1016/j.intell.2019.02.005

Cited by 15 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Wechsler scales are among the most frequently used intelligence tests (Carr, 2015; Gibbons & Warne, 2019). Since the first versions, the Wechsler scales have been revised several times.…”

Section: Wppsi and Nepsy In The Assessment Of Mono‐ And Bilingual Chi...mentioning

confidence: 99%

WPPSI‐IV and NEPSY‐II performance in mono‐ and bilingual 5–6‐year‐old children: Findings from The FinSwed Study

Korpinen

Slama

Rosenqvist

et al. 2023

Scandinavian J Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Children's language background relates to their neurocognitive development. Knowledge of this relationship is important as bilingualism is common. However, research regarding language background in relation to performance on cognitive tests such as the WPPSI‐IV and NEPSY‐II is scarce. The present study compared WPPSI‐IV and NEPSY‐II performances between 5‐ and 6‐year‐old Swedish‐speaking monolingual (n = 45) and Swedish‐Finnish‐speaking simultaneous bilingual (n = 34) children in Finland. The participants were gathered by stratified sampling and were assessed with the Swedish versions of the tests. In profile analyses, a significant monolingual advantage was found in some WPPSI‐IV subtests and indexes requiring expressive vocabulary (Vocabulary, Similarities, Picture Naming, and Vocabulary Acquisition Index) and visuospatial skills (Object Assembly and Visual Spatial Index). No group differences were found between mono‐ and bilingual children in receptive language, visual memory, or fluid intelligence. Additionally, no differences were found on the Full Scale IQ. The performance on the WPPSI‐IV Similarities subtest improved in a subgroup of bilinguals when answers in both Swedish and Finnish were accounted for, instead of accepting only answers in Swedish. No significant differences were found between mono‐ and bilinguals on the language and memory tasks of NEPSY‐II. These findings highlight the importance of considering the child's language background when assessing expressive language in young children, as well as the benefits of assessing bilinguals in both of their languages.

show abstract

Section: Wppsi and Nepsy In The Assessment Of Mono‐ And Bilingual Chi...mentioning

confidence: 99%

WPPSI‐IV and NEPSY‐II performance in mono‐ and bilingual 5–6‐year‐old children: Findings from The FinSwed Study

Korpinen

Slama

Rosenqvist

et al. 2023

Scandinavian J Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Good vocabulary knowledge is not only at the core of linguistic skills such as reading, writing, listening and speaking (Mezynski, 1983;Perfetti & Hart, 2002;Cromley & Azevedo, 2007;Binder et al, 2017), it is also a predictor of academic achievement (Seashore, 1948;Treffers-Daller & Milton, 2013) and it is a core element of IQ tests. The first IQ test, published by Binet and Simon (1907), included questions about words (Gibbons & Warne, 2019), and when Terman adapted the test to English, he was quick to notice the usefulness of a vocabulary test. Terman et al (1918) reported that a vocabulary test consisting of 100 words randomly selected from a dictionary of 18,000 words correlated r ≈ .9 with performance on the Stanford-Binet IQ test in school children from grade 1 to the first year of high school (participants had to explain the meaning of the words).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Validated tests for language research with university students whose native language is English: Tests of vocabulary, general knowledge, author recognition, and reading comprehension

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present five studies aimed at developing an L1 vocabulary test for English-speaking university students. Such a test is useful as an indicator of crystallized intelligence and because vocabulary size correlates well with reading comprehension. In the first study, we tested 100 written words with four answer alternatives, based on Nation's Vocabulary Size Test. Analysis suggested two factors, which we interpreted as the possible existence of two types of difficult words: unknown words for general knowledge and unknown words for specialized knowledge. In Study 2, we attempted to develop a vocabulary test for each type of word, and these tests were then validated in Study 3. Since the test for general words proved too easy for the target population, we improved it in a fourth study by creating and testing more difficult items. Finally, a fifth study was conducted to validate the new test. Unexpectedly, Study 5 found a high correlation (r = .82) between the general knowledge vocabulary test and the specialized knowledge vocabulary test, suggesting that they measure the same latent factor, contrary to our initial assumption. Both tests have high reliability (r > .85) and correlate well (r > .4) with general knowledge, author recognition, and reading comprehension. In addition, a collection of other language tests was used and improved to verify the validity of the vocabulary tests. An exploratory factor analysis of all tests identified three factors (text comprehension, crystallized intelligence, and reading speed), with the vocabulary tests loading on the factor crystallized intelligence, which in turn correlates with reading comprehension. Structural equation modeling confirmed the interpretation.

show abstract

“…The items on the ICAR test are typical for written intelligence tests. All item types have appeared on intelligence tests for at least 50 years and are well established methods for measuring intelligence in examinees [ 79 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factor structure of intelligence and divergent thinking subtests: A registered report

Warne

Golightly²,

Black³

2022

PLoS ONE

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Psychologists have investigated creativity for 70 years, and it is now seen as being an important construct, both scientifically and because of its practical value to society. However, several fundamental unresolved problems persist, including a suitable definition of creativity and the ability of psychometric tests to measure divergent thinking—an important component of creativity—in a way that aligns with theory. It is this latter point that this registered report is designed to address. We administered two divergent thinking tests (the verbal and figural versions of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking; TTCT) with an intelligence test (the International Cognitive Ability Resource test; ICAR). We then subjected the subscores from these tests to confirmatory factor analysis to examine which of nine theoretically plausible models best fits the data. Results show that none of the pre-registered models fit the data well, an ambiguous result that leaves unanswered the question of whether intelligence and divergent thinking tests measure the same construct. Exploratory (i.e., not pre-registered) measurement models of each test separately shows that the TTCT-F may not measure a coherent, unitary construct—leading to model misspecification when TTCT-F subtests were included in larger models. This study was conducted in accordance with all open science practices, including pre-registration, open data and syntax, and open materials (with the exception of copyrighted and confidential test stimuli). Materials are available at https://osf.io/8rpfz/.

show abstract

First publication of subtests in the Stanford-Binet 5, WAIS-IV, WISC-V, and WPPSI-IV

Cited by 15 publications

References 36 publications

WPPSI‐IV and NEPSY‐II performance in mono‐ and bilingual 5–6‐year‐old children: Findings from The FinSwed Study

WPPSI‐IV and NEPSY‐II performance in mono‐ and bilingual 5–6‐year‐old children: Findings from The FinSwed Study

Validated tests for language research with university students whose native language is English: Tests of vocabulary, general knowledge, author recognition, and reading comprehension

Factor structure of intelligence and divergent thinking subtests: A registered report

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About