Raw-score equivalence of computer-assisted and paper versions of WISC–V.

Daniel, Mark; Wahlstrom, Dustin

doi:10.1037/ser0000295

Cited by 22 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Many studies have reported on the psychometric equivalence of administering tests via paper-and-pencil and computer formats using an in-person administration (e.g., Daniel & Wahlstrom, 2019;Daniel et al, 2014;Finger & Ones, 1999;Forbey & Ben-Porath, 2007;Menton et al, 2019;Pinsoneault, 1996;Roper et al, 1995). Fewer studies have focused on the comparison between in-person vs remote administration formats of psychological tests, particularly with respect to performance tasks (e.g., Brearly et al, 2017;Chuah et al, 2006;Marra et al, 2020;Wright, 2018).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can the Rorschach be Administered Remotely? A Review of Options and a Pilot Study Using a Newly Developed R-PAS App

Ales

Meyer

Mihura

et al. 2022

Psychol. Inj. and Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has required psychologists to adopt measures like physical distancing and mask wearing, though other safety procedures such as travel restrictions or prohibitions on in-person practice and research have fostered the use of tele-health tools. In this article, we review options for using the Rorschach task via videoconference and provide preliminary data from using a new electronic app for remote R-PAS administration to determine whether the remote administration in an electronic form yields different information than in-person administration with the cards in hand. As a pilot study, our focus is on the “first factor” of all Rorschach scores, i.e., complexity. Data were collected from 60 adult Italian community volunteers, and statistical analyses evaluated the extent to which the average complexity score significantly departed from R-PAS normative expectations (SS = 100), accompanied by Bayesian likelihoods for supporting the null hypothesis. Results suggest that the general level of complexity shown by the test-takers when administered the Rorschach remotely with the new R-PAS app closely resembles that previously observed using “standard” in-person procedures. Tentative analyses of other R-PAS scores suggested normative departures that could be due to the effects of the app, testing at home, or responses to the pandemic. We offer recommendations for future research and discuss practical implications.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can the Rorschach be Administered Remotely? A Review of Options and a Pilot Study Using a Newly Developed R-PAS App

Ales

Meyer

Mihura

et al. 2022

Psychol. Inj. and Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Given that raw scores of the tablet-administered K-RBANS have limitations using the norm sample of paper-administered K-RBANS because it would be easily affected by age, education, and gender, raw scores would be more sensitive to the format effect. However, it needs to be refined carefully so that the equivalence of raw scores can reduce potential threats to the adaptation of psychological tests [ 6 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Study on Verification of Equivalence and Effectiveness of Non-Pharmacologic Dementia Prevention and Early Detection Contents : Non-Randomly Equivalent Design

Jeong

Kim

Koo

et al. 2022

J Korean Neurosurg Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to verify the equivalence and effectiveness of the tablet-administered Korean Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (K-RBANS) for the prevention and early detection of dementia. Methods : Data from 88 psychiatry and neurology patient samples were examined to evaluate the equivalence between tablet and paper administrations of the K-RBANS using a non-randomly equivalent group design. We calculated the prediction scores of the tablet-administered K-RBANS based on demographics and covariate-test scores for focal tests using norm samples and tested format effects. In addition, we compared the receiver operating characteristic curves to confirm the effectiveness of the K-RBANS for preventing and detecting dementia. Results : In the analysis of raw scores, line orientation showed a significant difference (t=-2.94, p<0.001), and subtests showed small to large effect sizes (0.04-0.86) between paper-and tablet-administered K-RBANS. To investigate the format effect, we compared the predicted scaled scores of the tablet sample to the scaled scores of the norm sample. Consequently, a small effect size (d≤0.20) was observed in most of the subtests, except word list and story recall, which showed a medium effect size (d=0.21), while picture naming and subtests of delayed memory showed significant differences in the one-sample t-test. In addition, the area under the curve of the total scale index (TSI) (0.827; 95% confidence interval, 0.738-0.916) was higher than that of the five indices, ranging from 0.688 to 0.820. The sensitivity and specificity of TSI were 80% and 76%, respectively. Conclusion :The overall results of this study suggest that the tablet-administered K-RBANS showed significant equivalence to the norm sample, although some subtests showed format effects, and it may be used as a valid tool for the brief screening of patients with neuropsychological disorders in Korea.

show abstract

“…Among the available studies directly assessing the equivalence of scores obtained from cognitive and achievement assessments through virtual and in-person formats among children and youth, the results generally suggested that the mode of administration did not impact examinees' performance on the tests (Daniel & Wahlstrom, 2019;Harder et al, 2020;Wright, 2018a). However, not all subtests showed equivalent scores across administration methods.…”

Section: Research On Tele-assessmentmentioning

confidence: 98%

Assessment During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Ethical, Legal, and Safety Considerations Moving Forward

Stifel

Feinberg

Zhang

et al. 2020

School Psychology Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The COVID-19 crisis and the subsequent social distancing measures have imposed numerous challenges on school psychologists balancing public health and students' right to a free and appropriate education. This article addresses one of the most contentious issues for school psychologists during the pandemic: how to ethically conduct valid psychoeducational assessments without placing anyone's health at risk. Legal guidance and regulations pertaining to special education evaluations during the pandemic are first delineated, followed by a discussion of the feasibility of tele-assessment from ethical, legal, and implementational perspectives. Lastly, based on the epidemiological knowledge of COVID-19 transmission and practices implemented in other countries, a protocol for special education assessment is introduced that aims at assisting school psychologists to conduct necessary assessments in face of the ongoing pandemic. IMPACT STATEMENTWith limitations in current online assessment options, lack of certainty with regard to a vaccine solution, and the mounting number of assessments that will befall school psychologists, this article offers an assessment protocol in light of what is currently known about the epidemiological nature of COVID-19.

show abstract

Raw-score equivalence of computer-assisted and paper versions of WISC–V.

Cited by 22 publications

References 15 publications

Can the Rorschach be Administered Remotely? A Review of Options and a Pilot Study Using a Newly Developed R-PAS App

Can the Rorschach be Administered Remotely? A Review of Options and a Pilot Study Using a Newly Developed R-PAS App

A Study on Verification of Equivalence and Effectiveness of Non-Pharmacologic Dementia Prevention and Early Detection Contents : Non-Randomly Equivalent Design

Assessment During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Ethical, Legal, and Safety Considerations Moving Forward

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About