Correlates of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, the Slosson Intelligence Test, Act Scores and Grade Point Averages

Martin, John D.; Rudolph, Linda B.

doi:10.1177/001316447203200226

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Slosson (1963) reported a concurrent validity coefficient of .92 between scores on the SIT and those on the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Test, Form L-M (Terman and Merrill, 1937). In a study that appears representative of several in the literature, Martin and Rudolph (1972) found that the SIT was correlated highly with the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) (Wechsler, 1968(Wechsler, -1969, when administered to an adult population. They obtained correlation coefficients of .73 between the scores on the SIT and those on the WAIS Verbal scale, .49 between the scores on the SIT and those on the WAIS Performance scale, and .70 between SIT scores and the WAIS Full Scale scores.…”

mentioning

confidence: 89%

Intercorrelations among the Slosson Intelligence Test, the Shipley-Institute of Living Scale, and the Intellectual Efficiency Scale of the California Psychological Inventory

Martin

Blair

Sadowski

et al. 1981

Educational and Psychological Measurement

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The California Psychological Inventory (CPI), the Slosson Intelligence Test (SIT), and the Shipley-Institute of Living Scale (SILS) were administered to 43 undergraduates enrolled in psychology classes at Austin Peay State University, Clarksville, Tennessee. The Intellectual Efficiency ( Ie ) scale scores were correlated .52 with the SIT scores and .39 with the SILS scores. The coefficients were significant at the .01 and .05 levels, respectively. The correlation of .49 between SIT and SILS scores was significant at the .01 level. No significance was obtained when the SILS Abstraction scores were correlated with the CPI-Ie or with the SIT scores. EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT 1981, 41 IN 1956, Harrison Gough published the full eighteen-scale California Psychological Inventory (CPI). The Intellectual Efficiency (Ie) scale of the CPI was developed to &dquo;indicate the degree of personal and intellectual efficiency which the individual has attained&dquo; (Gough, 1975, p. 11). Items for the scale were selected by comparing high school students who scored in the upper with those who scored in the lower 25% on conventional intelligence tests. The items which significantly differentiated the two groups were retained (Gough, 1975).Reynolds and Nichols (1977) studied the validity of 16 of the 18 scales of the CPI. Using data obtained from a sample of 861 National Merit Scholarship recipients, they found that the 16 scales which were considered showed substantially strong relationships with criterion variables.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 89%

Intercorrelations among the Slosson Intelligence Test, the Shipley-Institute of Living Scale, and the Intellectual Efficiency Scale of the California Psychological Inventory

Martin

Blair

Sadowski

et al. 1981

Educational and Psychological Measurement

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Validity of the Slosson Intelligence Test: A ten-year review

Stewart

Jones

1976

Psychol. Schs.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ten years of validity research concerning the Slosson Intelligence Test (SIT) is reviewed. The equivalence of the SIT to the Stanford-Binet and the Wechsler Scales is examined and the relationship of the SIT to achievement measures is described. The importance of supplementing correlational findings with regression analysis, mean difference data, and information on misclassification is emphasized by the reviewers. Declsions concerning individuals based on SIT I& scores are viewed as particularly risky in situations involving groups of subjects characterized by a relatively narrow range of I& scores.The last decade has seen an increasing use of the Slosson Intelligence Test (SIT) in a variety of professional and educational settings. In some situations, the SIT is accepted as a valid individual intelligence test and is used for such purposes as special class placement. More and more in the last few years the SIT is being used for retesting purposes where individual intelligence test results are needed or required. In view of these developments, a review and evaluation of validity research concerning the SIT should prove useful t o psychologists, counselors, and educators.The validity of the SIT will be examined within three contexts: (a) comparability or equivalence of the SIT to the Stanford-Binet and Wechsler Scales as an index of general intelligence; (b) usefulness of the SIT in predicting achievement; and (c) comparative usefulness of the SIT for assessment or clinical interpretation purposes. Table 1 presents a summary of SIT-S-B validity results. Of 12 reported correlations, 8 are in the .9Os range. The correlations in the .60 to upper .?Os range all are based on samples of subjects characterized by a restricted range of I& scores (note the standard deviations). The median correlation between the SIT and the S-B is .91 for this group of studies. Thus, the overall correlational picture suggests that with groups of subjects in which the range of scores is not restricted, the SIT relates t o the S-B to such a high degree that one can be confident that subjects are being ranked very nearly in the same order by the two tests. Further, only two of the 14 groups compared in these studies showed more than a two I& point difference between SIT mean IQ and Stanford-Binet mean I&. I n spite of these impressive findings, caution should be used in individual diagnosis and in decision-making in situations where the decisions are in a restricted I& range context, such as identifying an individual as a "slow learner" vs. "mildly retarded," or distinguishing between mild vs. moderate levels of retardation. Even in the above studies where the correlation between the SIT and the StanfordBinet was very high, substantial differences in I& could be observed for a significant percentage of the subjects. For example, in the Stewart, et al., (1971) study, 16% of their subjects had SIT IQs which were 10 or more points different from their Requests for re rints should be sent to Kenneth D. COMPARABILITY OF THE SIT TO THE STANFORD-BINET

show abstract

Graduate Record Examinations Aptitude Test Scores as a Predictor of Graduate Grade Point Average

Hebert

Holmes

1979

Educational and Psychological Measurement

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A literature review was carried out to determine existing knowledge regarding the relationship of Graduate Record Examinations Aptitude Test (GRE) scores and graduate grade point average (GGPA). Building upon this information, a study was undertaken in which data were gathered for 67 M.Ed. candidates admitted into and graduating from the University of New Hampshire Department of Education during a given three year period. Nonparametric measures of association and of difference were employed. The findings supported the conclusion that a significant correlation exists between GRE-Verbal scores and GGPA for the sample studied. A significant difference in GGPA was supported, as well, for those within the sample earning scores categorized as high, middle, and low on the GRE-Verbal measure. The results were discussed, and conclusions were drawn.

show abstract

Correlates of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, the Slosson Intelligence Test, Act Scores and Grade Point Averages

Cited by 4 publications

References 1 publication

Intercorrelations among the Slosson Intelligence Test, the Shipley-Institute of Living Scale, and the Intellectual Efficiency Scale of the California Psychological Inventory

Intercorrelations among the Slosson Intelligence Test, the Shipley-Institute of Living Scale, and the Intellectual Efficiency Scale of the California Psychological Inventory

Validity of the Slosson Intelligence Test: A ten-year review

Graduate Record Examinations Aptitude Test Scores as a Predictor of Graduate Grade Point Average

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About