Recategorized WISC-R Scores of Learning Disabled Children

Abstract

This study assesses the utility o f Bannatyne's recategorization o f subtest scaled scores on the WISC-R (Wechsler 1974). The WISC-R was administered to 208 school-verified learning disabled (L D) children. The obtained subtest scaled scores were recategorized in the manner suggested by Bannatyne (1974) into Spatiol, Conceptual, Sequential, and Acquired Knowledge categories. The mean Spatial score was significantly greater than the mean Conceptual score, which, in turn, exceeded the Sequential and Acquired Knowledge scores. The total sample was also subdivided into high and low IQ subgroups to determine if the SpatiaDConceptuaIXequentia1 pattern was affected by or independent of the level of intellectual functiobing. Relatively high and low IQ subgroups ex.hibited similar patterns o f recategorized scores. The relationship did not hold true, however, when the recategorized scores of children who obtained Full Scale IQs o f 75 or less (N=26) were examined. The implications for educational practice and future research are discussed in a final section.A major barrier t o further inquiry into the nature of learning disabilities (LD) is the lack of reliable and valid instruments that will discriminate the LD child from the larger school population as well as differentiate the child who fails academically for reasons other than LD. While a plethora of tests exists that claims psychoeducational utility in diagnosing LD, most of these have such speculative psychometric properties that the experienced practitioner would be reluctant to employ them for diagnostic evaluation.One exception t o these tests is the Wechsler Intelligence S c a l e f o r Children-Revised (Wechsler 1974). Since its origination in 1949, the WlSC has been subjected t o more rigorous empirical investigation than any other standardized instrument commonly used in educational settings. In studies ranging from predictive validity t o factorial analysis, the WlSC has c o n s i s t e n t l y demonstrated powerful psychometric properties.In 1968, Bannatyne indicated the possible use of WlSC results in determining LD. This paper first reviews research on his suggested recategorization of WlSC subtest scaled scores and then presents an updated assessment of the utility of the recategorization in interpreting the WISC-R. PREVIOUS RESEARCHFor purposes of identifying children with genetic dyslexia, Bannatyne (1968) suggested the recategorization of WlSC scaled scores into Spatial, Conceptual, and Sequential categories.

WISC-R factor scores as predictors of wrat performance: A multivariate analysis

“…In addition, the present results are consistent with previous studies which found that learning disabled students tend to have lower FD factor scores than do adequate achievers (Rugel, 1974;Smith, Coleman, Dokecki, & Davis, 1977), and that the FD factor may tap attentional elements (Bush & Waugh, 1976). However, caution is recommended when interpreting the significant relationship between Arithmetic WRAT scores and the FD factor as due to attentional deficiencies because of potential overlap between predictor and criterion variables (i.e., WISC-R Arithmetic and WRAT Arithmetic subtests).…”

Dyslexia and Visual-Spatial Talents: Compensation vs Deficit Model

“…Relative but not absolute superiority on the WISC-R Performance Scale was also reported by Smith, Coleman, Dokecki, and Davis (1977) for children classified simply as ''learning disabled.'' While we cannot know what type of learning disabilities these children actually had, it is likely that many were dyslexic since dyslexia is the most prevalent form of diagnosed learning disability (Springer & Deutch, 1997).…”

Diagnostic Implications of Bannatyne's Recategorized WISC-R Scores for Identifying Learning Disabled Children

“…Several studies have found the Spat i a l Conceptual > Sequential pattern on a group-wide basis with the recategorized WISC-R scores of LD children (Gutkin 1979, Smith, Coleman, Dokecki, & Davis 1977, Vance & Singer 1979.) The utility of the recategorization hierarchy for identifying LD children on an individual basis has not yet been demonstrated, however.…”