Relative usefulness of elevation, variability, and shape information from WISC—R, K-ABC, and Fourth Edition Stanford-Binet profiles in predicting achievement.

Kline, Rex B.; Snyder, Joseph F.; Guilmette, Sylvie; Castellanos, María Clara

doi:10.1037/1040-3590.4.4.426

Cited by 14 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results reported by Watkins and Glutting (2000) comport closely with those reported by Hale and Saxe (1983) and Kline et al (1992). Beyond two robust, but somewhat uninformative profiles, WISC-III subtest profile scatter and shape information had inconsequential incremental validity for predicting reading and math achievement for students with and without exceptionalities.…”

Section: Modal Wisc-lll Profilessupporting

confidence: 74%

“…Systematic examination of ACID and SCAD profiles in addition to the Developmental Index and the Profile Variability Index demonstrated that they were little better than chance when used to differentiate children with exceptionalities (Watkins, 1996, 1999; Watkins, Kush, & Glutting, 1997a, b). Beyond diagnosis, cognitive profiles have not provided substantial incremental validity for prediction of academic achievement (Glutting, Youngstrom, Ward, Ward, & Hale, 1997; Hale & Saxe, 1983; Kline, Snyder, Guilmette, & Castellanos, 1992; Watkins & Glutting, 2000; Youngstrom, Kogos, & Glutting, 1999) and have not beneficially contributed via hypothetico-deductive approaches to interpretation (Kramer et al, 1987). A particularly blunt appraisal of the research literature was provided by Kavale and Forness (1984), who concluded that “profile and scatter analysis is not defensible” (p. 136).…”

Section: Existing Evidence Regarding Profile Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Cognitive profile analysis: A shared professional myth.

Watkins¹

2000

School Psychology Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interpretation of cognitive test profiles is popular in school psychological training and practice but is not supported by research evidence. This special issue contains four studies that provide additional data regarding cognitive test profiles. Consistent with the largely negative research literature, detailed analysis found all four cognitive profile reports lacking reliability, validity, or diagnostic utility; even cognitive profiles composed of composites were psychometrically weak. These results were not surprising because ipsative methods are inferior to normative methods in cognitive assessment. Given this consistent failure of empirical validation, belief in the utility of cognitive test profile interpretations was likened to a shared professional myth and it was recommended that psychologists eschew the application of cognitive test profiles for differential diagnosis and remediation. Approximately 74% of school psychology training programs place moderate to great emphasis on the use of subtest scores in their individual cognitive assessment courses (Alfonso, Oakland, LaRocca, & Spanakos, 2000) and school psychologists frequently analyze cognitive subtest profiles (Pfeiffer, Reddy, Kletzel, Schmelzer, & Boyer, 2000). Among their sample of practitioners, for example, Pfeiffer et al. (2000) found that almost 70% reported factor scores or profile analysis to be a useful feature of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Third Edition (WISC-III) and 29% reported that they derived specific value from individual WISC-III subtests. Based on their survey results, Pfeiffer et al. (2000) suggested that critics of cognitive subtest analysis "extend an invitation to the practitioner to learn why practitioners-operating in the complexity of the clinical world-find considerable value in using clinical interpretative techniques such as profile analysis" (p. 384). However, personal explanations are an umeliable validation strategy (Ruscio, 1998) and neither popularity nor longevity of a clinical practice necessarily speaks to its verity. In medicine, for example, practices widespread for centuries were later recognized to have little or no curative effect. Medicine, therefore, provides dramatic examples "of the inadequacies of clinical observation when compared to scientific method" (Ziskin, 1995, p. 53

show abstract

Section: Modal Wisc-lll Profilessupporting

confidence: 74%

Section: Existing Evidence Regarding Profile Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Cognitive profile analysis: A shared professional myth.

Watkins¹

2000

School Psychology Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Review of the literature on subtest analysis validity and utility (Watkins, 2003;Watkins, Glutting, & Youngstrom, 2005) showed that subtest scores, patterns, and analyses were unable to adequately identify global neurocognitive or neuropsychological defi cits presumably related to learning disability (Watkins, 1996), nor were they related to or valid for diagnosis of learning disabilities (Daley & Nagle, 1996;Glutting, McGrath, Kamphaus, & McDermott, 1992;Hale & Raymond, 1981;Hale & Saxe, 1983;Kahana et al, 2002;Kavale & Forness, 1984;Kline, Snyder, Guilmette, & Castellanos, 1992;Livingston et al, 2003;Maller & McDermott, 1997;Mayes, Calhoun, & Crowell, 1998;McDermott, Goldberg, Watkins, Stanley, & Glutting, 2006;McGrew & Knopik, 1996;Mueller, Dennis, & Short, 1986;Ree & Carretta, 1997;Smith & Watkins, 2004;Th orndike, 1986;Ward, Ward, Hatt, Young, & Mollner, 1995;Watkins, 1999Watkins, , 2000Watkins, , 2003Watkins, , 2005Watkins & Glutting, 2000;Watkins & Kush, 1994;Watkins, Kush, & Glutting, 1997a, 1997bWatkins, Kush, & Schaefer, 2002;Watkins & Worrell, 2000). Furthermore, subtest analyses were not valid in the classifi cation of behavioral, social, or emotional problems (Beebe, Pfi ff ner, & McBurnett, 2000;…”

Section: Ipsative Subtest Comparisonsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychometric Versus Actuarial Interpretation of Intelligence and Related Aptitude Batteries

Canivez

2013

Oxford Handbooks Online

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interpretation of intelligence tests involves making various inferences about the individual based on their performance. Because there are many different scores within intelligence tests reflecting different levels (Full Scale, factors, subtests) and there are many different comparisons provided in test manuals and the extant literature, there is a multitude of possible inferences. This chapter is concerned with reviewing the various available scores and comparisons with suggested interpretations and a review of the empirical investigations of their psychometric fitness (reliability, validity, utility). Differentiation of psychometric interpretation versus actuarial interpretation methods is presented, as well as a review of research related to each. Most intelligence test interpretation methods are considered psychometric in nature, and most lack sufficient reliability, validity, or utility for individual clinical use; improvements in the clinical assessment of intelligence may result from greater development and use of actuarial approaches.

show abstract

“…Although the eight core profile types differed significantly across external measures of achievement and receptive vocabulary, most of the explained variance was due to differences in elevation and not shape (i.e., sequential versus simultaneous). Results of other studies conducted with much smaller samples of normal, referred, or learning disabled children (Das & Mensink, 1989;Kempa, Humphries, & Kerschner, 1988;Kline, Snyder, Guilmette, & Castellanos, 1992, 1993McRae, 1986) indicate a similar conclusion: The shapes of children's K-ABC profiles are not strongly related to levels of scholastic achievement.…”

Section: Lessons From the K-abc's Interpretive Modelmentioning

confidence: 79%

“…poor school performance (e.g., Kline et al, 1992;Richman & Lindgren, 1980), but this observation is hardly a revelation: School success obviously requires adequate language-related skills.…”

Section: Broader Lessons From the K-abc's Ability-achievement Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lessons from the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (K-ABC): Toward a new cognitive assessment model.

Kline

Snyder²,

Castellanos³

1996

Psychological Assessment

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (K-ABC; A. S. Kaufman & N. L. Kaufman, 1983a, 1983b) was published just over 10 years ago, it had many unique features, including its information processing model and specific recommendations for educational remediation. Although the test has received much attention because of these characteristics, the K-ABC has also been the subject of much controversy. Through consideration of some of these arguments, lessons that researchers in the field of child assessment may learn from the K-ABC and their implications for future directions are identified. Based in part on lessons learned from the K-ABC, an alternative assessment model for the evaluation of children with reading problems is proposed at the end of this article. The state of child cognitive assessment just over a decade ago was one of both stagnation and altercation. From a scientific perspective, there had been few fundamental changes in either theory or tests since the turn of the century. For instance, thencontemporary IQ tests such as the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised (WISC-R; Wechsler, 1974) and Form L-M of the Stanford-Binet (SB-LM; Terman & Merrill, 1973) had basically the same formats and subtests as their respective progenitors, Binet's original 1905 scale and the 1939 Wechsler-Bellevue (e.g., Sternberg, 1992). From a social perspective, the use of IQ tests for the special education placement of minority children was the subject of many court cases (e.g., Reschley, 1990). It was against this troubled background that the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (K-ABC; ages 2 '/,-12 '/ 2 years; Kaufman & Kaufman, 1983a, 1983b) was published. At the time, many of the K-ABC's features seemed to be direct rejoinders to some of these controversies. For instance, some K-ABC subtests were quite novel compared to those that make up the WISC-R or the SB-LM. Also, the K-ABC is based on specific theoretical models, the application of which are intended to provide more pure estimates of ability versus achievement, identify children who have particular types of information processing deficits, and help psychologists make specific recommendations for educational remediation. None of the aforementioned characteristics were unique in the early 1980s. Other tests were organized according to specific conceptual models (e.g., Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Ability; Kirk, McCarthy, & Kirk, 1968) or were intended to assess reasoning rather than acquired knowledge (e.g., Raven's Stan

show abstract

Relative usefulness of elevation, variability, and shape information from WISC—R, K-ABC, and Fourth Edition Stanford-Binet profiles in predicting achievement.

Cited by 14 publications

References 22 publications

Cognitive profile analysis: A shared professional myth.

Cognitive profile analysis: A shared professional myth.

Psychometric Versus Actuarial Interpretation of Intelligence and Related Aptitude Batteries

Lessons from the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (K-ABC): Toward a new cognitive assessment model.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About