The reliability of scoring the WISC-R.

Bradley, Fred O.; Hanna, Gerald S.; Lucas, Bert A.

doi:10.1037/0022-006x.48.4.530

Cited by 27 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 4 publications

(4 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is falsely assumed that if a scorer can read and add a column of numbers, scoring errors will not occur (Gregory, 1987). Examiners need to pay heed to past recommendations (e.g., Bradley et al, 1980;Miller & Chansky, 1972) to check over protocols at least twice, possibly more, for mechanical errors. Another idea might be for paraprofessionals or clerical staff to check over protocols for mathematical errors.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Focusing entirely on school psychologists, Bradley, Hanna, and Lucas (1980) studied the scoring reliability of the WISC-R. Both an "easy" and "hard" protocol were scored by 63 members of the National Association of School Psychologists.…”

Section: University Of Southern Mississippimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is essential that examiner errors be eliminated or at least minimized to ensure validity of the test results. Or if this is not feasible, data need to be acquired regarding the SE, for examiner error and cited in test manuals (Bradley et al, 1980).…”

Section: University Of Southern Mississippimentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

WISC-R examiner errors: Cause for concern

Slate

Chick

1989

Psychol. Schs.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While errors on the WISC‐R are conceived primarily in terms of internal consistency and stability over time, examiners make mistakes that contribute to the inaccuracy of test scores. Studies to date mainly have investigated general scoring errors, rather than specific items most prone to error. Investigation of graduate students' test protocols indicated numerous scoring and mechanical errors that influenced the Full Scale IQ scores on two‐thirds of the protocols. Particularly prone to error were Verbal subtests of Vocabulary, Comprehension, and Similarities. More importantly, specific items on subtests in which numerous mistakes occurred were noted, as well as the most likely type of error for each item. These findings have implications for the education and training of assessment specialists.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: University Of Southern Mississippimentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

WISC-R examiner errors: Cause for concern

Slate

Chick

1989

Psychol. Schs.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, verbal subtests have been found to be especially susceptible to errors for both graduate students and clinicians (Babad, Mann, & MarHayim, 1975;Beasley, Lobasher, Henley, & Smith, 1988;Belk, LoBello, Ray, & Zachar, 2002;Bradley, Hanna, & Lucas, 1980;Erdodi, Richard, & Hopwood, 2009;Franklin et al, 1982;LoBello & HoUey, 1999;Loe et al, 2007;Mrazik et al, 2012;Oakland et al, 1975;Plumb, 1955;Ryan & Schnakenberg-Ott, 2003;Sattler, Winget, & Roth, 1969;Slate & Chick, 1989;Slate, Jones, Murray, & Coulter, 1993).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Whose IQ is it?—Assessor bias variance in high-stakes psychological assessment.

McDermott¹,

Watkins²,

Rhoad³

2014

Psychological Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Assessor bias variance exists for a psychological measure when some appreciable portion of the score variation that is assumed to reflect examinees' individual differences (i.e., the relevant phenomena in most psychological assessments) instead reflects differences among the examiners who perform the assessment. Ordinary test reliability estimates and standard errors of measurement do not inherently encompass assessor bias variance. This article reports on the application of multilevel linear modeling to examine the presence and extent of assessor bias in the administration of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth Edition (WISC-IV) for a sample of 2,783 children evaluated by 448 regional school psychologists for high-stakes special education classification purposes. It was found that nearly all WISC-IV scores conveyed significant and nontrivial amounts of variation that had nothing to do with children's actual individual differences and that the Full Scale IQ and Verbal Comprehension Index scores evidenced quite substantial assessor bias. Implications are explored.

show abstract

“…The majority of published studies that examine interscorer agreement of IQs have focused on scoring of only the verbal subtests (i.e., vocabulary and similarities) from the Wechsler scales, which use a three‐point scale (e.g., 0, 1, and 2 points) for scoring items based on sample responses and general criteria (e.g., degree of abstraction) shown in the manuals. Several studies showed that, as a result of differences in how these verbal subtests were scored, the full‐scale IQs could vary by 4–18 points based on who was scoring the protocols (Bradley, Hanna, & Lucas, ; Ryan & Schnakenberg‐Ott, ; Ryan, Prifitera, & Powers, ). Due to examiner errors on the verbal subtests, these studies indicated that there is only a 26–35% overall agreement in full‐scale IQs.…”

Section: Iq Exchangeability and Sources Of Error Variancementioning

confidence: 99%

The exchangeability of brief intelligence tests for children with intellectual giftedness: Illuminating error variance components’ influence on IQs

Irby

Floyd

2017

Psychology in the Schools

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined the exchangeability of total scores (i.e., intelligent quotients [IQs]) from three brief intelligence tests. Tests were administered to 36 children with intellectual giftedness, scored live by one set of primary examiners and later scored by a secondary examiner. For each student, six IQs were calculated, and all 216 values were submitted to a generalizability theory analysis. Despite strong convergent validity and reliability evidence supporting brief IQs, the resulting dependability coefficient was only .80, which indicates relatively low exchangeability across tests and examiners.Although error variance components representing the effects of the examiner, examiner-by-examinee interaction, the examiner-by-test interaction, and the test contributed little to IQ variability, the component representing the test-by-examinee interaction contributed about one-third of the variance in IQs. These findings hold implications for selecting and interpreting brief intelligence tests and general testing for intellectual giftedness.

show abstract

The reliability of scoring the WISC-R.

Cited by 27 publications

References 4 publications

WISC-R examiner errors: Cause for concern

WISC-R examiner errors: Cause for concern

Whose IQ is it?—Assessor bias variance in high-stakes psychological assessment.

The exchangeability of brief intelligence tests for children with intellectual giftedness: Illuminating error variance components’ influence on IQs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About