David Wechsler Preschool

Anne’s First Street Preschool is in Beaufort, North Carolina. Anne Street has a Mother’s Morning Out Program. The MMO is everyday 8 to 12, so the mothers and fathers can do what they need for that brief period of time without having to watch over their child. The MMO has two teachers, A and G. They supervise 7 children, 4 girls and 3 boys. The child used for this project is named C and he is almost 2 years old. The other girls named L, B, K, and T. L and B were twins who were 2 years old. K was almost 2. T was almost 3 years old. The boys, not including C, were D and M. D and M were both around the same age, almost 2 years old. The observation took place from 8 to 9:30, when the children went outside to play.

According to the technical manual, Test Validity can be defined as the degree to which empirical evidence and theory support the use and interpretation of the test (Schrank & McGrew, 2001). The main constructs and measures attained by the WJ III are resultant from the Cattell Horn Carrol theory of the cognitive abilities (CHC theory). Content validity, which is how well a test measures the behaviors it was intended to measure, was accompanied through requirement of a master test and cluster-content revision blueprint. Each cluster of the Woodcock- Johnson COG battery was created to heighted the range of validity measurement (Schrank & McGrew, 2001). This was done by providing two qualitatively separate narrow abilities included in the broad ability, as defined by CHC theory. The WJ III ACH was also knowledgeable by CHC theory. In order to strengthen

The Woodcock-Johnson IV Test of Achievement (WJ IV) is used for individual ages two to ninety years old. A major strength of this assessment is that it provides a broad coverage of skills that can be assessed for the child to truly learn their strengths and weaknesses. For English as a Second Language students, the administrator can administer certain clusters of subtests to determine a child’s cognitive-academic language proficiency. Also, the test has many accommodations listed to help when testing English Language Learners, visual impairments, and other disabilities to provide the best testing environment for the student. A weakness of this assessment is that since so many subtests exist, it can become very easy to over

Reliability measures come in the form of interrater reliability, test-retest for subtest high, internal consistency of .80 or higher, and decision consistency of classification (Brooks, Sherman, & Strauss, 2010; Davis & Matthews, 2010). Internal consistency used the split-half and Cronbach's Alpha. Concurrent validity for intellectual functioning used the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fourth Edition (.34-.58), Differential Abilities Scales–Second Edition, and Wechsler Nonverbal Scale of Ability (.53-.64); academic validity used Wechsler Individual Achievement Test–Second Edition (WIAT-II) (Brooks, Sherman, & Strauss, 2010; Davis & Matthews,

Lee, Portnoy, Hill, and Patton (2005) studied the psychological aspect of children with Noonan Syndrome. All of the assessments were conducted in the child’s most natural environment, which was their home setting. The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children- Revised was used to test the children’s overall intelligence. This test is often used in many of these studies to obtain a type of baseline for each child. This is helpful, because then children from multiple studies can be compared as opposed to children from just one particular study. This is due to the fact that the

The Brigance Diagnostic Inventory of Early Development-II was written by Albert H. Brigance & Frances Page Gloscoe. The IED-II was published by Curriculum Associates, Inc. in 1978-2004. The test is administered individually with the age range of birth-7 years old. This test was created to monitor a child’s development. Because it was not a high stakes test, there was more room for error. The IED-II was translated into Spanish. Spanish tests were given to 8.6% of participants but since scores were never compared to the English version of the test, there is no confirmation of reliability or validity (Davis pg 9). Also, the Spanish version of the test is not publicly available. “The purpose of the Brigance Diagnostic IED-II is to determine readiness for school, track developmental progress, provide a range of scores needed for documenting eligibility for special education services, and enable a comparison of children 's skills within and across developmental domains in order to view strengths and weaknesses and to determine entry points for instruction” (Davis 1). It also helps in assisting with program evaluation.

There are a variety of topics that are interesting in life. This interest may then become a point of inquisition, where an individual may formulate a relationship between two variables, which may or may not influence each other. Next, a hypothesis is formed and tested. In this same manner, a school educator was interested in determining the potential relationship between grade point average (GPA) and IQ scores among ninth graders. The educator random sampled 30 ninth graders, ages 14 years old and administered the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth Edition (WISC-IV). This writer will be expanding further on this topic and will formulate the null and alternative hypothesis, describe the four scales of measurement, describe whether if there is a correlation significant (positive, negative, or no correlation) enough between both variables, describe the strength of the relationship, describe what the results reveals about the hypothesis, and what conclusions can be drawn from the results.

This paper discusses the pros and cons of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS-III). First, important definitional, theoretical issues, including the nature of intelligence, a brief history, and pros and cons are discussed. Next, the development, reliability, validity, and assets and limitations of the WAIS-III are examined. This is followed by discussion of the meaning of IQ scores, use of successive level interpretation and cautions and guidelines for administration. Last, subtests, assessing special population groups, short forms, profile forms, and what a

Valid – The test must be shown to measure what it is intended to measure. Unbiased – The test should not place students at a disadvantage because of gender, ethnicity, language, or disability.” Yet, all three requirements for a test to be viable do not apply to standardized testing. Results produced are not consistent, as the day to day lives of students are constantly changing; Issues in the students’ lives may affect their thoughts, emotions, and health that would affect the results of their tests, providing a variety of test scores for one person alone. The validity of the test is also in question as it does not account for differences in students’ backgrounds and personal life so test scores do not accurately measure student’s abilities, but rather, it measures their ability to memorize information and test taking skills. Standardized testing holds a very large amount of bias, as the students of different ethnicities, cultures, and languages, have to confront many biased questions that are present in standardized tests. Therefore, standardized testing, according to Zucker’s analysis of an effective test, should not be used as an effective measure for testing students’ intelligence as it breaks the three requirements that make

“Blacks still score below 75 percent of American whites on most standardized tests” (Jencks and Phillips). The belief that intelligence and aptitude are innate seems to be especially important in discussions of racial differences (Jencks and Phillips 6). White Americans score closer on IQ tests to other white populations across the globe than to the worldwide black average (Saletan 1). An important question that may come to mind is whether intelligence tests biased. Intelligence tests are likely to be culturally biased when a standardized test reflects what is learned through experience in a culture that does not regard to another race as highly (Young). For instance, if a standardized test result represented an ingroup preference exclusively than it may only measure a specific part of intelligence; for example the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, WAIS, is more verbal while the Raven's Progressive Matrices, RPM, is more visual (Young). This may cause a majority of individuals with autism to do better on the RPM due to autistic students connecting with images rather than words. Young has stated that intelligence tests that only focus on certain neurological criterias and are not well indicators of intelligence due to it not equally indicating all types of intellect. Yet a majority of psychologists now agree that intelligence tests measure developed

Construct validity relates the qualities that the measures. It seems to have the appropriate relationship between what we wish to evaluate and what we are testing. Construct validity pursues agreement between a theoretical thought and a particular measuring device or procedure. It is considered to be higher than any other types of validity. The experimental demonstration that a test is measuring the construct it claims to be measuring is traditionally explained as construct validity. A test is said to have construct validity if it describes an association between the test score and the expectation of a theoretical trait. The word “construct” means ability or sub-ability. Intelligent tests is an example of measurement instruments that should

Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-IV; Wechsler, 1949). This seminal intelligence scale assesses a child 's general intellectual ability across four domains, producing four corresponding index scores: (1) the Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI), (2) the Visual Spatial Index (VSI), (3) the Working Memory Index (WMI), and finally (4) the Processing Speed Index (PSI). The VCI measures verbal concept formation, specifically assessing children 's ability to listen to a question, draw upon learned information from both formal and informal education, reason through an answer, and express their thoughts aloud. An example item from this index is similarities, vocabulary, and comprehension. Next, the VSI measures non-verbal and fluid reasoning and assesses children 's ability to examine a problem, draw upon visual-motor and visual-spatial skills, organize their thoughts, create solutions, and then test them. An example item from this index is solving a 3D puzzle. The WMI measures working memory and assesses children 's ability to memorize new information, hold it in short-term memory, concentrate, and manipulate that information to produce some result or reasoning processes; an example item would be letter-number sequencing. This measure is particularly important for higher-order thinking, learning, and achievement. Finally, the PSI measures the speed of information processing and assesses children 's abilities to focus attention and quickly scan, discriminate between, and

Robert F. Bornstein believed in the Process-Focused Model of Test Score Validity. Unlike the traditional approach that validity comes from the outcome of the test in relation to the predictor scores, the process- focused model emphasizes that validity comes from the process not just from the outcome (Bornstein, R . 2011). In the traditional view, validity has been seen as statistics based off of results from an assessment that measures a specific construct. Correlation is the basis of traditional models, while experimental methods are the basis for the process-focused

Assessments have the ability to be tremendously useful in various settings for countless reasons across the globe. This is especially true for the educational setting. School counselors, school psychometrists, and school psychologists will utilize several tests throughout their careers. However, in order for assessments to be valuable and produce meaningful results, the test user has to carefully choose the assessments they provide. It is essential that the individual who selects the tests does research to validate that the tests being administered are appropriate for the situation. The Stanford-Binet caught my interest and I elected to study this particular assessment to expand my knowledge of intelligence tests. The aim of this paper is to be able to explain the purpose of the assessment, the age range of the test, the test make-up and format, the standardization sample used for norming, reliability and validity, as well as other important aspects of the Stanford-Binet.

It has been studied and elaborated upon so much, that what was initially a concise realm of specificity, has – particularly in the area of EI testing – become convoluted by measures of social intelligence and emotional and social competencies (Cherniss, 2010), which while similar to EI do distinctly deviate from the generally accepted Mayer et al. 2000 model of it. Some measures even include tests of cognitive intelligence, the concept with which it is supposedly in direct contrast. This has led to criticism about whether or not measures of EI have construct validity (Cherniss, 2010).