WISC-R examiner errors: Cause for concern

Slate, John R.; Chick, David

doi:10.1002/1520-6807(198901)26:1<78::aid-pits2310260111>3.0.co;2-5

Cited by 38 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Most literature has identified facets of scoring involving subjective judgment as a greater source of error than mechanical or arithmetic operations (Boehm, Duker, Haesloop, & White, 197 4;Miller & Chansky, 1972;Slate & Chick, 1989;Slate & Jones, 1990;Slate, Jones, & Murray, 1991 ). Accordingly, corrective suggestions focus primarily on the subjective elements, such as practice or special training and instructor feedback programs designed to ensure more uniformity in scoring (Blakey, Fantuzzo, Gorsuch, & Moon, 1987;Boehm et al, 1974;Connor & Woodall, 1983;Slate et al, 1991 ).…”

Section: III Scoring Error On Cognitive Testsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Additionally, various researchers, who have studied scorer training programs have concluded that errors persist because of "carelessness," especially in clerical operations (Miller & Chansky, 1972;Slate & Chick, 1989;Slate, et al, 1991 ). Researchers, stymied by their efforts to rectify careless errors, have suggested using computer scoring programs (Johnson & Candler, 1985) or double-checking scoring (Miller & Chansky, 1972;Slate & Hunnicutt, Jr., 1988).…”

Section: Iiill Review Of Scoring Error Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Errors in Scoring Objective Personality Tests

Allard¹,

Faust

2000

Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scoring objective personality tests is considered clerical, and presumably, straightforward in nature. This may be the reason that few studies, if any, have investigated the impact of scoring error on widely used tests, such as the MMPI or 801. Errors, even if infrequent (e.g. as few as 1 % of tests), may adversely affect many hundreds or thousands of tests administered annually, however. In a study of three popular tests taken from three independent settings, this study found that the interpretation of popular tests are vulnerable even to small errors (i.e., 1 or 2 misscored items per test). This study explored the influence of two factors, scoring procedure complexity and commitment to scoring accuracy, hypothesized to be related to the occurence of scoring error with fewer errors occuring when higher commitment to accuracy and lower scoring procedure complexity are present. The scoring procedure complexity effect was predicted to be subordinate to the commitment to accuracy effect. Three popular tests were sampled from three different settings and rescored to check for accuracy.Twenty-one percent of tests scored with low commitment to accruacy were erroneous, while tests scored with full commitment to accuracy had 1 % errors.Scoring procedure complexity, categorized as high and low, yielded 29% and 14% erroneous tests, respectively, in the less than full commitment to accuracy sample, and 0 and 4% in the full commitment to accuracy sample. The results provide strong support for the factors as major predictors of scoring error, as well as the interaction effect anticipated. Other risk factors, such as commercial computer scoring errors and lack of agreement on test scoring stand~rds , were II also found to distort scores. The frequency and severity of erroneous findings in this study, the author argues, are unlikely to be specific to this study, but instead more general. The author shows how awareness of the two factors, as well as other sources of error, can be used to reduce the risk of scoring error and offers practical recommendations to improve scoring accuracy.iii Acknowledgments

show abstract

Section: III Scoring Error On Cognitive Testsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Iiill Review Of Scoring Error Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Errors in Scoring Objective Personality Tests

Allard¹,

Faust

2000

Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Secondly, this study did not evaluate the relative ''difference'' in scores obtained by the RSCs versus the NOCL. Although scoring errors were not reported to significantly impact overall scores (Belk et al, 2002;Van Noord & Prevatt, 2002), corrected scores altered final scores in over 75% of the tests evaluated to date (Belk et al, 2002;Slate & Chick, 1989;Slate & Jones, 1990;Slate, Jones, & Murray, 1991;Slate, Jones, Murray, & Coulter, 1993). A majority of these studies did not find ''significant'' clinical interpretation changes related to the altered scores, but continued analysis of overall change is recommended.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Training and Management of a Multisite Neuropsychological Testing Protocol for the Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Evaluating on- and Off-pump Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Procedures

Kozora

Kongs

Box

et al. 2007

The Clinical Neuropsychologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research study coordinators from 17 sites participating in a cardiac surgery study were trained to administer and score a brief neuropsychological test battery. Results were sent to the study's centralized laboratory for review and feedback. The average examiner errors on the first six protocols were compared with the average errors on the last six protocols over 12 months for each site. Overall, errors for the first six protocols were 4.42, and errors for the last six protocols were 1.83, representing a significant overall decline. Errors for instruction, administration, and recording showed a significant decrease over time. Despite ongoing feedback to examiners, scoring errors did not decline significantly overall; this suggests that a review of all protocols is necessary to achieve reliable scoring. However, when examiners' number of protocols completed was compared with number of scoring errors per protocol, there was a trend for examiners who had completed more protocols to show more improvement in scoring.

show abstract

“…These findings have revealed that the Vocabulary, Comprehension, and Similarities subtests appear to be especially difficult for in-training graduate student examiners to interpret and score. According to Slate and Chick (1989), incorrect point assignment on these three subtests was a frequent error as was inappropriate questioning. Another common error was a failure to record the examinee's response in a verbatim manner.…”

Section: Scoring Errorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Use of Testing Technicians: Critical Issues for Professional Psychology

Hall

Howerton²,

Bolin³

2005

International Journal of Testing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The controversial practice of using unlicensed individuals to administered psychological tests has been questioned by some psychologists, professional organizations, state and provincial boards of psychology, state governments, departments of education, and third-party health care providers. This article provides an overview of the ethical, legal, and technical issues surrounding the controversy. On the basis of a review of these issues, recommendations are offered that are directed toward state and provincial boards of psychology, developers and publishers of psychological tests, and licensed psychologists. Davidson, 1997;Evers, 1996;Fremer, 1996). Specifically, test misuse and user qualifications have become important concerns for many professional groups and practitioners (Fremer, 1996;Merenda, 1997;Moreland, Eyde, Robertson, Primoff, & Most, 1995;Turner, DeMers, Fox, & Reed, 2001;Watkins & Campbell, 1990). Many fear that allowing inadequately trained individuals to administer psychological tests may harm the public and damage the reputation of the psychologists and other trained professionals who use these instruments (Turner et al., 2001).The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of pertinent standards and guidelines regarding proper test use and user qualifications, with specific attention given to the controversial practice of using testing technicians to administer and score restricted psychological tests. Pertinent standards and guidelines are addressed as well as ethical, legal, and technical issues related to the use of testing technicians by professional psychologists. On the basis of a review of these issues, recommendations are offered that are directed toward state and provincial boards of psychology, developers and publishers of psychological tests, and licensed psychologists. BACKGROUND AND HISTORICAL CONTEXT

show abstract

WISC-R examiner errors: Cause for concern

Cited by 38 publications

References 10 publications

Errors in Scoring Objective Personality Tests

Errors in Scoring Objective Personality Tests

Training and Management of a Multisite Neuropsychological Testing Protocol for the Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Evaluating on- and Off-pump Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Procedures

The Use of Testing Technicians: Critical Issues for Professional Psychology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About