Thesis (M.A.)--University of Detroit, 1954. / "August 1954." Includes bibliographical references (p. 60-63).

Thesis (M.A.)--University of Detroit, 1953. / "February 1953." Includes bibliographical references (p. 29-34).

Thesis (Ed. D.)--West Virginia University, 1999. / Title from document title page. Document formatted into pages; contains xi, 182 p. : ill. Vita. Includes abstract. Includes bibliographical references (p. 139-143).

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

This study investigated the results of administering two intelligence tests, the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children -Third Edition (WISC-111), and the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale - Fourth Edition, to each of 33 Australian children with an intellectual disability. The experiment used a counterbalanced design in which the tests, order of presentation of the tests, the gender of the subjects, and the gender of the test administrators were factors. The 33 volunteer subjects, 14 males and 19 females, aged between 6 and 16 years, and known to have an intellectual disability, were allocated randomly for the assessments. The test administrators were students in the Clinical and Organisational Masters Program from the University of South Australia. It was hypothesised that; there would be a difference between the IQs on the two tests; that on average the WISC-111 FSIQ would be lower than the SB-1V TC; and that there would be a positive relationship between the WISC-111 FSIQ and the SB-1 V TC Statistical analysis of the data found the two tests' overall scores to be significantly different, while the counterbalanced factors and their interactions did not reach significance. There was a significant 4 point difference found between the mean WISC-111 FSIQs and SB-1V TCs. The results of a Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient revealed a strong positive correlation (r = .83). between the WISC-111 FSIQ and SB-1V TC. This finding supported the concurrent validity of the tests in this special population sample. It was suggested that while the two tests measured similar theoretical constructs of intelligence, the two tests were not identical and therefore the results were not interchangeable. Variable patterns of results were found among subtest scores from the two tests, and the implications for field work discussed. The differences between raw WISC-111 FSIQ and SB-1V TC scores were calculated, and a z transformation was applied to the difference scores. The resulting difference distribution and cumulative percentages were then suggested as a reference table for practitioners. Studies that examined clerical errors in scoring intelligence test protocols were reviewed. The manually scored test protocols in this study were rescored using a computer scoring programme and 27 errors were found and corrected. From the results of the experiment several suggestions were made; that agencies using large numbers of intelligence tests, or which test the same child over time, should make a decision to use the same test, wherever possible, for comparison; that all intelligence test protocols be computer scored as a checking mechanism; and that all professional staff should be aware of the possible differences which can occur between intelligence scores, resulting from norming and other differences. / thesis (MSocSc)--University of South Australia, 1999.

The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised (PPVT-R) and Slosson Intelligence Test (SIT) were designed, at least in part, to provide a quick estimate of scores which might be obtained on the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale, Form L -M, without requiring extensive technical training by the examiner. Both the PPVT-R and SIT are frequently used as screening instruments to identify children for possible placement in special education programs, remedial reading groups, speech and language therapy, gifted programs, or "tracks." This study investigated the value of the PPVT-R and SIT as screening instruments for the Fourth Edition Stanford-Binet.Fifty students, grades kindergarten through fifth, were randomly selected to participate in the study. All subjects were involved in regular education at least part-time. Subjects were administered the PPVT R, SIT, and Fourth Edition Binet by a single licensed school psychologist. The administration order of the instruments was randomized. Participants were tested on consecutive school days (10) until all subjects had been administered the three instruments.Correlation coefficients were determined for the Standard Score of the PPVT-R and each Standard Age Score of the Binet (four area scores and one total test score), as well as for the SIT IQ score and each Standard Age Score of the Binet. All correlations were positive and significant beyond the p<.Ol level except between the PPVT-R and Binet Quantitative Reasoning.Analyses of Variance were used to determine mean differences of scores obtained on the three instruments. Significant differences (p<.05) were found between scores on the PPVT-R and Abstract/Visual Reasoning, SIT and Verbal Reasoning, SIT and Short-Term Memory, SIT and Abstract/Visual Reasoning, and SIT and Total Test Composite.Results indicated that, in general, the SIT is a better predictor of Fourth Edition Binet scores than the PPVT R, however frequently yielded significantly different scores. It was concluded that neither the PPVT R nor SIT should be used as a substitute for more comprehensive measures of intellectual functioning, and caution should be used when interpreting their results. Much more research is needed to clarify the diagnostic value of the Fourth Edition Stanford-Binet as a psychometric instrument.

Individual differences in human intellectual abilities and the measurement of those differences have been of great interest to the field of school psychology. As such, different theoretical perspectives and corresponding test batteries have evolved over the years as a way to explain and measure these abilities. A growing interest in the field of school psychology has been to use more than one intelligence test in a "cross-battery" assessment in hopes of measuring a wider range (or a more in-depth but selective range) of cognitive abilities. Additionally, interest in assessing intelligence began to focus on preschool-aged children because of initiatives to intervene early with at-risk children. The purpose of this study was to examine the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition (SB-V) and Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children, Second Edition (KABC-II) in relation to the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory of intelligence using a population of 200 preschool children. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) were conducted with these two tests individually as well as in conjunction with one another. Different variations of the CHC model were examined to determine which provided the best representation of the underlying CHC constructs measured by these tests. Results of the CFAs with the SBV revealed that it was best interpreted from a two-stratum model, although results with the KABC-II indicated that the three-stratum CHC model was the best overall design. Finally, results from the joint CFA did not provide support for a cross-battery assessment with these two particular tests.3 / Department of Educational Psychology

At the same time that research has raised questions about the efficiency, cost effectiveness and overall value of triennial reevaluation in special education programs, school psychologists have expressed a desire to spend less time in psychometric testing. This study examined the effects of using the General Purpose Abbreviated Battery of the Stanford-Binet: Fourth Edition (Binet GP) in the triennial reevaluation of learning disabled students.The Binet GP, Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised (WISC-R) and the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement-Brief Form (Kaufman BF) were given concurrently to 50 learning disabled students during triennial reevaluation. Intelligence/ achievement discrepancy scores were calculated by subtracting Kaufman BF achievement subtest scores from achievement levels predicted by performance on the Binet GP and WISC-R intelligence scales. These discrepancy scores were compared to determine how use of the Binet GP might effect eligibility for placement in a learning disabilities program. Cognitive scores derived from the Binet GP and the WISC-R were also compared.Descriptive statistics and univariate correlations were computed. The correlational relationship between intelligence scores on the Binet GP and the WISC-R was significant, positive and substantial. The relationship between discrepancy scores was significant, positive and high. A repeated measures analysis of mean differences between Binet GP and WISC-R scores was nonsignificant as was a comparison of the variances and mean discrepancy scores. A chi-square and a coefficient of level of classification (Kappa) were used to test agreement in classification as projected by Binet GP and WISC-R discrepancy scores. Agreement in classification and level of classification was significant with 86% of the subjects classified the same by both cognitive measures. It appears that, used judiciously and in like context, the Binet GP might be a time efficient and valid addition to reevaluation. / Department of Educational Psychology