Several studies have demonstrated the impact technological advancement in scoring and administration procedures of standardized assessments. Present studies exploring changes to WISC scoring and administration software have examined errors made by graduate level students on the scoring of the WISC-IV (Loe, Kadlubek, & Marks, 2007). To demonstrate improvements in scoring accuracy and error recognition, the WISC-III and WISC-IV assessments were compared (Loe et al., 2007). Results indicated that the most common errors in scoring the WISC-III were; “failure to query verbal responses, assigning too many points to an answer, and failure to record an examinee’s response on the test protocol” (Loe et al., 2007, p. 237). Study results also indicated
…show more content…
Results of this comparison study illustrate the overall efficacy of the WISC 3 and 4 in identifying and reporting ADHD symptomatology through deficits found in working memory, processing speed and distractibility (Mayes & Calhoun, 2006). Research findings demonstrate the increased sensitivity in the WISC-IV’s evaluation of working memory and processing speed tasks compared to the WISC-III (Mayes & Calhoun, 2006). Study results suggest that WISC-IV measurements of cognitive deficits may be more helpful in diagnosing ADHD, due to greater index sensitivity than the WISC-III (Mayes & Calhoun, 2006). This current study demonstrates how changes in technology account for diagnostic improvements in the WISC-IV assessment (Mayes & Calhoun, 2006). New methods of computer-based administration and scoring techniques provide increased accuracy and sensitivity for this test (Mayes & Calhoun, 2006). Technology has greatly changed the delivery of the WISC-IV instrument, reducing scoring time and data entry errors (Mayes & Calhoun, 2006). These technological advancements have greatly increased the overall efficacy of the WISC-IV in its assessment of cognitive ability (Mayes & Calhoun, 2006). In summary, both studies provide support for the WISC-IV. Technological changes have greatly improved the delivery and interpretation of the WISC-IV on multiple
Results of this comparison study illustrate the overall efficacy of the WISC 3 and 4 in identifying and reporting ADHD symptomatology through deficits found in working memory, processing speed and distractibility (Mayes & Calhoun, 2006). Research findings demonstrate the increased sensitivity in the WISC-IV’s evaluation of working memory and processing speed tasks compared to the WISC-III (Mayes & Calhoun, 2006). Study results suggest that WISC-IV measurements of cognitive deficits may be more helpful in diagnosing ADHD, due to greater index sensitivity than the WISC-III (Mayes & Calhoun, 2006). This current study demonstrates how changes in technology account for diagnostic improvements in the WISC-IV assessment (Mayes & Calhoun, 2006). New methods of computer-based administration and scoring techniques provide increased accuracy and sensitivity for this test (Mayes & Calhoun, 2006). Technology has greatly changed the delivery of the WISC-IV instrument, reducing scoring time and data entry errors (Mayes & Calhoun, 2006). These technological advancements have greatly increased the overall efficacy of the WISC-IV in its assessment of cognitive ability (Mayes & Calhoun, 2006). In summary, both studies provide support for the WISC-IV. Technological changes have greatly improved the delivery and interpretation of the WISC-IV on multiple