Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
69 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
What were some criticisms of the Binet scale by Weschler?
|
1. Single score represented intelligence
2. Didn't take external factors into account 3. "Adult" test was merely test for children adapted to adults 4. Did not account for decline of cognitive skill with age 5. Too much emphasis on speed and timed portions |
|
|
Why is the inclusion of the point scale (first to Weschler, then Binet in 1986)so much better?
|
Allows for better data: points are assigned to each item, and individuals gain points for each question passed. Items can be grouped, which allows for analysis of individual's performance in a variety of areas.
|
|
|
Verbal Comprehension Index
|
Part of the WAIS. Measures crystallized intelligence and verbal reasoning
|
|
|
Verbal Subtests
|
Vocabulary: vocab level
Similarities: abstract thinking Information: basic knowledge Letter-number sequencing: freedom from distractability Arithmetic: concentration Digit Span: immediate memory, anxiety Comprehension: judgment |
|
|
Perceptual Organization Index
|
Measures fluid intelligence and attention to details (nonverbal)
|
|
|
Nonverbal Subtests
|
Picture Completion: Alertness to detail
Digit Symbol-Coding: Visual-Motor functioning Block Design: Nonverbal reasoning Picture Arrangement: Planning ability Matrix Reasoning: Inductive reasoning Symbol search: Information processing speed Object Assembly: Analysis of part-whole relationships |
|
|
Number of WAIS subtests
|
14
|
|
|
Three overall WAIS intelligence scores
|
Full-scale IQ (FSIQ), Verbal IQ (VIQ), and Performance IQ (PIQ)
|
|
|
Working Memory Index (WMI) subtests
|
Arithmetic, digit span, letter-number sequencing
|
|
|
Processing Speed Index (PSI) subtests
|
digital symbol coding, symbol search
|
|
|
Vocabulary Comprehension Index subtests
|
Vocabulary, Similarities, Information
|
|
|
Perceptual Organization Index Subtests
|
Picture completion, block design, matrix reasoning
|
|
|
Mean, SD, and range for Scale Score (how well you do on a subtest)
|
mean: 10
SD: 3 range: 1-19 |
|
|
mean, sd, and range for Standard Scores
|
mean: 100, SD: 15, Range: 45-155
|
|
|
meand, sd, and range for Index Scores
|
mean: 100, sd: 15, range: 50-150
|
|
|
How is the WAIS VIQ calculated?
|
Five raw verbal subtest scores are converted into an age-corrected scale scores, which are summed and compared with the standardization sample
|
|
|
How is the WAIS PIQ calculated?
|
The five raw performance subtest scores are converted into an age-corrected scale scores, which are summed and compared with the standardization sample
|
|
|
How is the WAIS FSIQ calculated?
|
Age-correlated scores from VIQ and PIQ are summed and compared against standardization sample
|
|
|
pattern analysis
|
analysis and evaluation of large differences between subtest scaled scores. Wechsler reasoned that certain emotional problems would cause unique score patterns
|
|
|
concerns with pattern analysis
|
results can be inconclusive and contradictory. Should be used to generate HYPOTHESES only, which should be corroborated with other data
|
|
|
Tests most sensitive to cerebral dysfunction
|
Verbal: similarities
Performance: Block design and matrix reasoning |
|
|
Where traditional intelligence tests fail in the study of "normal" abilities
|
Relative normality and Baseline scores; also leaves people affected by disabilities in the dust
|
|
|
Disadvantages of alternative intelligence tests compared to Binet and Wechsler
|
less stable, poorly standardized, less validity documentation, limitations in test manual, not as psychometrically sound, IQ scores not interchangeable
|
|
|
ADVANTAGES of alternative tests compared to Binet and Wechsler
|
can be used for specific populations and purposes, shorter
|
|
|
Brazelton Neonatal Assessment Scale
|
measures "newborn competence", interactive, for ages 3 days to 4 weeks, 47 scores for reflexes and behavior rather than one score. HOWEVER, there are no norms, has poor test-retest reliability, and does not predict later IQ
|
|
|
Bayley scales of infant development
|
measures mental and motor skills from 1-42 months, great standardization and psychometrics. Extremely low scores predict MR later in life. HOWEVER: does not predict IQ.
|
|
|
Sensitivity
|
accuracy of a test in catching people who have a certain symptom
|
|
|
Specificity
|
accuracy of a test in NOT giving false positives
|
|
|
Acceptable sensitivity and specificity levels for developmental screening tests
|
70-80%
|
|
|
Woodcock Johnson-III
|
Cognitive IQ and achievement batteries, most testers use ONLY achievement. Used to define learning disabilities based on IQ discrepancy.
|
|
|
Good interviewer skills
|
remain in control, set the tone, provide a relaxed and safe environment
|
|
|
Interview/Testing similarities
|
methods for gathering data, used to make future predictions, can be evaluated in terms of reliability and validity, defined purpose
|
|
|
Bad statement types for interviewers
|
Judgmental
Evaluative (emotionally charged words) Probing (demanding explanations) Hostile (direct anger towards interviewee) False reassurances Closed-ended questions |
|
|
Active listening techniques
|
transitional phrases
verbatim playback paraphrasing clarification response empathy and understanding |
|
|
When to use direct questions
|
towards end of interview; when data can't be obtained any other way, if the interviewer won't cooperate, with children
|
|
|
structured clinical interviews
|
everyone gets the same questions in the same order, sacrifice flexibility for reliability. Requires cooperation and interviewer assumptions being met
|
|
|
Mental status examination
|
used to evaluate and screen psychosis, brain damage, other major psychiatric and neurological difficulties. Includes appearance, emotion, thought process, attention, sensory factors
|
|
|
standoutishness
|
source of interview error, people judge based on one characteristic, (quasimodo example)
|
|
|
reliability in structured v. unstructured interviews
|
twice as high in structured interviews
|
|
|
Social facilitation
|
tend to act like models around us
|
|
|
3 facilities where Binet believed intelligence was expressed
|
Judgement, Attenuation, and Reasoning
|
|
|
2 major concepts that guided Binet
|
Age differentiation, mental ability
|
|
|
Binet wanted tasks that could be completed by what percentage of a particular age group?
|
66.7 and 75; also wanted smaller percentages in younger children and higher percentages in older ones
|
|
|
What statistical method did Spearman develop to support his notion of g?
|
factor analysis; half the variance in a set of mental ability tests is represented by the g factor
|
|
|
Gf-Gc theory
|
there are 2 types of intelligence: crystallized and fluid
|
|
|
calculate IQ using mental age and chronological age
|
IQ=mental age/chronological age
|
|
|
Basal
|
level at which minimum criterion number of correct responses is obtained
|
|
|
Ceiling
|
number of incorrect responses indicates the items are too difficult; test continues until examinee reaches ceiling
|
|
|
Where did intelligence testing originate?
|
formal intelligence testing: in 1904, French minister appointed a commission to identify "subnormal children"
|
|
|
Validity
|
The extent to which a test measures the qualities it purports to measure. Validity is used to determine the effectiveness of the test at measuring the construct and its generalizability to the general population. It is also the evidence for inferences made about a test score. There are three types of evidence: construct related, criterion related, and content related.
|
|
|
Face Validity
|
The extent to which items on a test appear to be meaningful and relevant. Actually NOT evidence for validity because face validity is not a basis of inference (unlike other types of validity). It assumes that measures have meaning themselves, and that no other generalizations are necessary. A test has face validity if the items seem to be reasonably related to the perceived purpose of the test.
|
|
|
Content Validity
|
Adequacy of representation of the conceptual domain the test is designed to cover. This is the greatest concern for academic testing: does a test fairly measure a student’s course knowledge? Measured by CVR ratios and also by factor analysis to see if the answers group into conceptual domains properly.
|
|
|
3 subtypes of criterion-related validity
|
Predictive validity: forecasting function of tests; for example, how SAT scores compare to college GPA
Concurrent validity: comes from assessments of the simultaneous relationship between the test and the criterion (like learning disability tests and current school performance) Postdictive Validity: accuracy to which test predicts previous criteria (like a test of antisocial behavior to predict a delinquent past) |
|
|
Validity coefficient
|
The relationship between a test and the criterion, or the extent to which the test is valid in making statements about the criterion. Validity coefficient squared is the percentage of variation in the criterion we can expect to know in advance because of our knowledge of the test scores (so how much of college GPA can we predict knowing a person’s SAT score).
|
|
|
2 types of evidence in construct validity
|
Convergent: a demonstration of similarity; measures of the same construct converge around the same ideas, so meaning is defined by associated variables. Can be measured by comparing similarities to other tests or by outlining expected behaviors if the test is doing its job.
Divergent/Discriminant: demonstration of uniqueness. Should be low correlation with measures of unrelated constructs so the measure doesn’t represent a construct other than the one it’s supposed to. |
|
|
Reliability/Validity relationship
|
In theory, a test cannot correlate more highly with any variable than itself, so observed validity coefficient will ALWAYS be lower than the reliability of EITHER variable
|
|
|
Mother of all validities
|
Ultimately, all validity links back to construct validity. If a test is perfectly related to the constructs, it should be able to account for all the variation and therefore measure exactly what it purports to measure.
|
|
|
relationship between examiner race and test performance
|
Paraprofessionals show a race effect, but not psychologists. The common finding is that there is no significant effect for African American or white children. HOWEVER, the effects of a hostile, hurried, or inquisitive environment do still play a role, and culturally-relevant feedback can boost test scores.
|
|
|
Advantages to computer-administered tests
|
: students may be more honest at a computer, excellent standardization, individually tailored administration, precision of timing responses, requires less manpower, test taker not rushed, control of bias, objectivity
|
|
|
Disadvantages to computer-administered tests
|
computer-generated reports can leave out some info, hard to detect errors or if validation is adequate, people let computers do too much of the thinking for them, lack of personal interaction
|
|
|
Reactivity
|
an administrative effect, the reaction to being checked by another; accuracy and inter-rater agreement decrease when they aren’t being observed or checked
|
|
|
Halo Effect
|
Ascribing positive attributes independent of observed behavior. (For instance, “That man is wearing a nice suit” becomes “that man is professional, put-together, and intelligent)
|
|
|
1905 Binet Scale
|
first major measure of intell.; 30 items presented in increasing difficulty. Normed on 50 children. insufficient classifications
|
|
|
Binet Scale revision 1
|
items grouped according to age level, performance compared with average individuals in a specific chronological age group
WEAKNESSES: only one score, strongly verbal, age scales make cross-task performance comparisons difficult |
|
|
1916 stanford-binet (revision 2)
|
used only white Californian children as standardization, concept of IQ introduced
|
|
|
stanford-binet Revision 3
|
Deviation IQ based on standard score principle, standardized to compare across different tasks
|
|
|
stanford-binet revision 4 (current)
|
age-scale based subtests, uses basal and ceiling, determines start and stop points. 10 subtests have scaled scores
|
|
|
WPPSI-III
|
Preschool and Primary scale of intelligence, for kids 2 years 6 mo. to 7 years, 3 mon.
|
|
|
WISC-IV
|
Intelligence Scale for Children, ages 6-16.6; abandons VIQ-PIQ dichotomy and instead uses 4 major indexes, as does WAIS-IV
|
