Procedural, situational, and interpersonal variables in individual intelligence testing.

Abstract

A number of conclusions emerge from the review of research in the field of individual intelligence testing, Departures from standard procedures are more likely to affect specialized groups than normal groups. Susceptibility to situational variables, especially discouragement, appears more frequently with younger than with older Ss. Rapport is an important variable in the E-S relationship. E differences occasionally appear, but reasons for the differences are not clear. E's experience is usually not a critical variable. White Es may have some subtle deleterious effect on Negro Ss' scores, but the evidence is not definitive. Inadequate research designs characterize many studies on E differences. A combination of man and machine test administration may solve some of the problems encountered in intelligence testing, but many questions remain unanswered.

Theory and Techniques of Personality Measurement

“…Expectan cies can also affect interpretations (207). Examiner effects appear to be more likely on free-response tests but are not limited to them (164) , and can oc cur in indi vidual testing of intelligence (188 ).…”

The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, Stanford-Binet, and the Modified Stanford-Binet with Normal and Cerebral Palsied Preschool Children

“…In samples of cerebral palsied children, ranging in age from 3 to 14, correlations of .82 (Saslow, 1961) and .71 (Saslow & Larsen, 1963) (Sattler & Theye, 1967;Sattler & Tozier, 1971).…”

Learning and individual differences: An ability/information-processing framework for skill acquisition.

“…The instructions to test administrators often emphasize the importance of adequate rapport between the administrator and the test-taker. Such an emphasis is explicit acknowledgement (supported by some empirical investigations, e.g., Gordon & Durea, 1948; see review by Sattler & Theye, 1967) that the motivation for performing well on an intelligence test is a critical ingredient for accurate measurement of maximal performance. However, as numerous investigators have demonstrated, both the physical state of the test-taker (e.g., time-of-day, arousal level; see Revelle, Humphreys, Simon, & Gilliland, 1980) and the psychological state of the test-taker (presence or absence of debilitating anxiety, incentives, motivation to succeed or fail, degree of interest in the testing situation) may significantly impact the level of test performance (Quereshi.…”