Wais versus wais-r subtest patterns: A problem of generalization

Chelune, Gordon J.; Eversole, Charles; Kane, Mindy; Talbott, Richard E.

doi:10.1080/13854048708520057

Cited by 11 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…With this method, we found that subjects taking different versions of the test differed in terms of their pattern of performance when "uncorrected" scores were compared, which is similar to the findings of Chelune et al (1987) who found differences in pattern of subtest profile of subjects administered both the WAIS and WAIS-R. These differences in pattern of performance disappeared, however, when raw scores were converted into Tscores.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 78%

“…Since the publication of the revised form of the WAIS in 1981, several studies have explored the comparability of the 1955 and the 1981 versions of this instrument (Chelune, Eversole, Kane, & Talbott, 1987;Edwards & Klein, 1984;Kelly, Montgomery, Felleman, & Webb, 1984;Lippold & Claiborn, 1983;Mishra & Brown, 1983;Smith, 1983). Most of these investigations have found differences in IQ scores obtained by subjects administered both tests, with WAIS IQ scores tending to average approximately 7 to 8 points higher than WAIS-R IQ scores.…”

mentioning

confidence: 94%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A comparison of the wais and wais-r using t-score conversions that correct for age, education, and sex

Thompson

Heaton

Grant

et al. 1989

Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A newly developed T score conversion system that corrects Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) and Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised (WAIS-R) subtest and IQ scores for appropriate demographic variables was used to compare subjects' performance on the two versions of the instrument. Using 428 pairs of subjects matched on age, education, and sex, with one person in each pair having taken the WAIS and the other the WAIS-R, we found no significant differences in level or pattern of performance when analyses were performed on the T scores. This was in contrast to highly significant differences when uncorrected scaled scores and IQ values were compared. Therefore, the T score system appears to provide a tool which may help clinicians make more direct comparisons between the results obtained on the WAIS and WAIS-R.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 78%

mentioning

confidence: 94%

A comparison of the wais and wais-r using t-score conversions that correct for age, education, and sex

Thompson

Heaton

Grant

et al. 1989

Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is precisely the problem that had caused consternation after release of the WAIS-R (Bornstein, 1987;Chelune et al, 1987;Reitan & Wolfson, 1990). On the other hand, analysis of patterns from a previous version of the test will also be compromised if the Flynn effect has produced differential increases in the various subtest scores.…”

Section: Old Tests and Old Normsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Flynn effect and its relevance to neuropsychology

Hiscock

2007

Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…While the task of differentiating SDAT from major affective disorder and schizophrenia seems less pressing than that of discriminating among dementias, this diagnostic question does seem to arise from time to time in clinical neuropsychological practices including large numbers of older patients. The value of any study on the Fuld WAIS pattern is also affected by the moderate sensitivity of the profile (estimated at about 33% to about 50% depending on whether one counts untestable subjects) (Fuld, 1987) and by the fact that subtest patterning may be different for the revised WAIS (Chelune, Eversole, Kane, & Talbott, 1987). On average, the subjects described in this study are a little young for the appearance of even mild SDAT.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 92%