COMPARISON OF THE WAIS AND THE WAIS-R

IN A HIGH SCHOOL POPULATION

by

CHERYL L. SIMON, B.A.

A DISSERTATION

IN

PSYCHOLOGY

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Approved

Accepted

May, 1986

No.^'^ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

1 am deeply indebted to my chairman. Dr. James

Clopton. His consistent support, guidance,

encouragement, and experimental expertise are in large

measure responsible for the success of this research

project. I would also like to acknowledge the helpful

input of Drs. George, Locke, Maddux, Stoltenberg, and

Wysocki. I am grateful to Bill Hoke, Laura Farrell,

Debbie Shanks, and George Simon for thier patience and

diligence in testing subjects. Finally, I wish to thank

the Lubbock Independent School District administrators

for their cooperation with this project and the high

school principals and counselors at Coronado, Estacado,

and Monterey for their patience and helpfulness in the

execution of this study.

11

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii

LIST OF TABLES v

LIST OF FIGURES vii

I. INTRODUCTION 1

Overview 1

Developmental History of the Wechsler Scales 3

Organizational Differences

between the WAIS and WAIS-R . . . . 11

General Testing Considerations lA

Source of WAIS-R Items 17

Reliability 32

Validity 39

Standardization of the WAIS

and WAIS-R Al

Factor Analysis 44

Studies Comparing WAIS and

WAIS-R Scores 47

Race-IQ Controversy 55

Examiner Effects 60

Rationale for Present Study 65

II. METHOD 71

Subjects 71

Procedure 72

Formal Hypotheses 73 1 1 1

III. RESULTS 77

Subject Characteristics 78

Main Data Analyses 78

Supplementary Data Analyses 93

IV. DISCUSSION 104

Results and Implications of

Hypothesis Testing 104

Limitations of the Present Study . . . 123

Suggestions for Future Research . . . . 123

REFERENCES 125

APPENDIX: CONSENT FORM 134

IV

LIST OF TABLES

1. Comparative Order of WAIS and WAIS-R Subtests . . . 12

2. WAIS and WAIS-R Classifications of Intelligence 15

3. Changes in Item Content from the V/AIS to the WAIS-R 18

4. Mean Reliability Coefficients and Standard Errors of Measurement across Age Groups for WAIS and WAIS-R Subtest and IQ Scores 34

5. Demographic Information for 70 Subjects Included in U'AIS/WAIS-R Comparisons: Race, Age, Sex, School 79

6. WAIS and WAIS-R Range and Mean IQ Scores 80

7. F Values Denoting Main and Interaction Effects in Test x Order x Race Analysis of Variance with WAIS and WAIS-R Counterbalanced for Order of Administration 81

8. Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations for WAIS and WAIS-R Scores 83

9. Main Effects of Test within Order and Order within Test for the Six Subtest and Three IQ Scores with Significant Test x Order Interactions (Tukey's Method) 88

10. Comparison of WAIS and WAIS-R Subtest and IQ Means for 70 High School Students: Breakdown of Naive Subjects 90

11. Scheffe Test of Multiple Comparisons for Mean White, Black, and Mexican-American Subtest and IQ Scores on WAIS and WAIS-R Combined 92

12. F Values for Examiner Main Effect and Examiner Interactions with Test and Order 96

13. WAIS and WAIS-R Mean IQ Differences in Three IQ Categories 101

14. Comparison of WAIS and WAIS-R Verbal, Performance, and Full Scale Mean IQ Scores for White, Black, and Mexican-American Subjects 114

15. Percentage of Correct Responses for Armstrong and King Items on the WAIS-R 117

VI

LIST OF FIGURES

1. Test x Order Interaction for V/AIS and WAIS-R Verbal IQ Scores 84

2. Test X Order Interaction for WAIS and WAIS-R Performance IQ Scores 85

3. Test X Order Interaction for WAIS and WAIS-R Full Scale IQ Scores 86

4. Race x Test Interaction for WAIS and WAIS-R Performance IQ Scores 94

5. Test X Order x Examiner Interaction (Order 1) for WAIS and WAIS-R Digit Symbol Subtest . . . . 98

6. Test X Order x Examiner Interaction (Order 2) for WAIS and WAIS-R Digit Symbol Subtest . . . . 99

7. Frequency Distribution of WAIS-R FSIQ Scores for the Three Racial Groups 103

V l l

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Overvie w

In 1981, the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale

(WAIS; Wechsler, 1955) was revised and published as the

Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised (WAIS-R;

Wechsler, 1981). This revision sought to update the WAIS

content and to provide new norms based upon the scores

obtained from more recent samples of the population. Due

to the many differences between the two tests (revised

instructions, updated test items, altered sequence of

subtest administration, altered scoring of test items,

and updated norms), it is important to determine whether

the two scales provide comparable scores.

Previous studies comparing the two tests have found

significant differences between many of the subtest and

IQ scores. In most cases, WAIS scores have been higher

than WAIS-R scores (Kelly, Montgomery, Felleman, & Webb,

1984; Lippold & Claiborn, 1983; Mishra & Brown, 1983;

Prifitera & Ryan, 1983; Rabourn, 1983; Smith, 1983;

Urbina, Golden, & Ariel, 1983; Wechsler, 1981). However,

Simon and Clopton (1984) found that WAIS-R scores were

higher than WAIS scores in a sample of mentally retarded

individuals. Edwards and Klein (1984) used a sample of

1

gifted subjects and found no significant difference

between WAIS and WAIS-R scores. The present study will

determine whether differences exist between the two tests

in a sample of high school students.

This study will also compare the performance of

three racial groups (White, Black, and Mexican-American)

on the WAIS and the WAIS-R. Since V/echsler made several

changes in the content of the WAIS-R to make it a more

culture-fair test, it will be informative to compare the

two tests to determine whether the significant

discrepancy found between racial groups on the WAIS

persists on the WAIS-R. Order of administration and

examiner effects are also examined to determine whether

these variables significantly influence WAIS and V/AIS-R

scores. Finally, statistical tests are performed to

determine whether differences between the WAIS and WAIS-R

vary according to the subject's IQ.

As an introduction to the research, the

developmental history of the Wechsler scales is

presented. This brief historical summary deals with some

of the trends in the intelligence testing movement which

led to the development of the WAIS and the WAIS-R. The

differences between these two tests are discussed in some

detail. Specifically, differences in WAIS and WAIS-R

test organization, item content, reliability, validity,

and factor analysis are surveyed. A review of studies

comparing the WAIS and WAIS-R is also included to define

the general direction of current research findings.

This general comparison of the WAIS and WAIS-R is

followed by a section which summarizes the historical

events surrounding the development of the race-IQ

controversy in the United States. The literature

concerning racial differences on standardized

intelligence tests is surveyed.

The next section includes a review of the different

types of examiner effects found when administering

standardized intelligence tests. Relevant literature is

also summarized.

A rationale for the present study is discussed. The

methodology, specific hypotheses, and results of the data

analyses are presented. Finally, the results are

discussed as they relate to previous findings.

Limitations of the study are outlined as well as

suggestions for future reearch in this area.

Developmental History of the Wechsler Scales

Interest in human intelligence and its assessment

emerged in the latter part of the nineteenth century.

The first attempts to understand "mental" concepts were

directed toward the measurement of human perception and

discrimination. It was during this time that E. H. Weber

(1795-1887) and G. T. Fechner (1801-1887) were developing

new methods of psychophysical measurement. Weber had

postulated that as the magnitude of any perceptual

stimulus increases, so does the size of change required

for discrimination to occur. Successful discrimination

of a change in stimulus intensity was termed a "just

noticeable difference" (JND). Fechner attempted to

determine the relationship between stimulus intensity and

perceived intensity by developing a scale that indirectly

measured the subjective impression of stimulus intensity.

Sir Francis Galton, an English biologist, was the

first to engage in research directed toward the

assessment of "intelligence." He conducted several

statistical studies of individual sensory and psychomotor

responses. Galton believed that the measurement of these

responses provides an index of a person's intellectual

functioning. He wrote:

The only information that reaches us concerning outward events appears to pass through the avenue of our senses; and the more perceptive the senses are of difference, the larger is the field upon which our judgment and intelligence can act. (Galton, 1883, p. 27)

James Cattell, a prominent American psychologist in

the 1800's, shared Galton's view that a measure of

intellectual functioning could best be obtained through

tests of sensory discrimination and reaction time.

Cattell developed a series of measures that he termed

"mental tests." These tests were administered

individually and consisted of measures of muscular

strength, sensitivity to pain, visual and auditory

acuity, weight discrimination, speed of movement, and

memory (Anastasi, 1968, p. 9 ) . Other psychologists

developed similar procedures. For example, Jastrow set

up an exhibit at the Columbian Exposition held in

Chicago in 1893 and invited visitors to take tests of

sensory, motor, and other simple perceptual processes

and then compare their performance with the performance

of other people.

Several European psychologists of this period had

devised tests which attempted to measure more complex

intellectual functions. In 1895, Kraeplin compiled

tests to measure practice effects, memory, and

susceptibility to fatigue and distraction. He

considered these to be "the basic factors in the

characterization of an individual" (Anastasi, 1968,

p. 9 ) . Ebbinghaus used tests of arithmetic computation,

memory span, and sentence completion to measure the

scholastic achievement of children. The Italian

psychologist, Ferrari, devised a series of tests that

included motor response measures and picture

interpretation tasks. In 1895, Binet and Henri

criticized most of the available tests for relying too

heavily on sensory input and simple, discrete abilities.

They proposed a series of tests that assessed such

functions as memory, attention, imagination,

suggestibility, and comprehension. These tests were the

forerunners to the Binet intelligence scales.

Although Alfred Binet had devoted many years of

research toward the assessment of intelligence, it was

not until 1905 that he and his associate, Theodore

Simon, developed the first objective and practical scale

to assess intellectual behavior. The Binet-Simon scale

was used to determine which children in Paris were fully

educable, educable with special help in the schools, or

retarded to the point of being unable to benefit from

public education (Matarazzo, 1972). In 1908, Binet and

Simon made improvements in their scale and developed the

concept of mental age. This concept relates the

performance of an individual to the performance of other

persons within a particular age group. For example, a

child whose performance equals that of an average 7-year-

old is given the mental age 7. L. M. Terman, a

professor residing at Stanford University, revised the

Binet-Simon scale and popularized the test in the United

States. The revised scale became known as the

Stanford-Binet (Terman, 1916) and provided a ratio of

mental age to chronological age. This ratio was labeled

"intelligence quotient" or I. Q. The Stanford-Binet

remained the major intelligence test in America for 21

years. In 1937, the 1916 form v/as revised, divided into

two equivalent forms (L and M), and restandardized on a

sample of 3,184 Americans (Anastasi, 1968).

Although the Stanford-Binet was fairly popular, much

clinical evidence suggested that the scale was unsuitable

for use with adults (Zimmerman & Woo-Sam, 1973). The

test was originally developed for use with children and

lacked face validity for most adults. Wechsler (1939)

expressed this view:

Asking the ordinary housewife to furnish you with a rhyme to the words "day," "cat," and "mill," or an ex-army sergeant to give you a sentence with the words "boy," "river," or "ball," is not apt to evoke either interest or respect, (p. 17)

David Wechsler, in an attempt to design an

intelligence test for adults that was not merely an

extension of a children's test, developed the

Wechsler-Bellevue (W-B I) in 1939. This scale differed

from previous tests in several ways. It contained

8

material more suitable for adults, included more adults

in the standardization sample, de-emphasized the

importance of speed, and omitted the relatively routine

manipulation of words (e.g., rhyming words, using words

in a sentence) used in the earlier tests. The W-B I was

divided into Verbal and Performance subtests, with items

grouped by type rather than age level. The Verbal

section consisted of five subtests: Information,

Comprehension, Arithmetic, Similarities, and Digit Span.

Vocabulary was added as an alternate subtest. The

Performance scale also had five subtests: Picture

Completion, Block Design, Picture Arrangement, Object

Assembly, and Digit Symbol.

Wechsler (1939) introduced the concept of the

deviation IQ score when he developed the Wechsler

Bellevue I. The deviation IQ score defines an

individual's level of intelligence by comparing the

performance of the individual with the scores attained

by members of his or her own age group. A fixed mean

(100) and standard deviation (15) allows an individual's

IQ to have the same basic meaning regardless of the

subject's age. For example, an IQ of 100 obtained by a

50-year-old and by a 20-year-old would reflect the same

relative standing among the individual's age group. The

deviation IQ score has replaced the mental age concept

in modern intelligence tests.

The Wechsler Bellevue II (W-B II) was developed as

an alternate form for situations in which subjects who

had completed the Wechsler Bellevue I later needed to be

retested. The W-B II was used primarily for

intellectual assessment of military personnel, but was

never as readily accepted as the first version of the

test (Matarazzo, 1972). However, Wechsler adapted and

modified items from the W-B II and used them in the

construction of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for

Children (WISC; 1949). The WISC was developed as an

intelligence test for children between the ages of six

and sixteen.

Sixteen years after the publication of the W-B I,

Wechsler published the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale

(WAIS; 1955). He had the support of the Psychological

Corporation in his efforts to obtain a national sample

of test results for use in standardization of the WAIS.

The WAIS was designed specifically for adults and older

adolescents aged sixteen and above. Soon after its

introduction, the WAIS became one of the most frequently

used psychological tests in the country (Matarazzo,

1972).

10

The WAIS is composed of 11 subtests. Six of these

subtests are grouped into the Verbal Scale, i.e.,

Information, Comprehension, Arithmetic, Similarities,

Digit Span, and Vocabulary. The scaled scores of these

subtests are combined to yield a Verbal IQ (VIQ). The

remaining five subtests make up the Performance Scale,

i.e., Digit Symbol, Picture Completion, Block Design,

Picture Arrangement, and Object Assembly. These scaled

scores are combined to give a Performance IQ (PIQ). All

11 subtests contribute to a Full Scale IQ (FSIQ).

In 1981, Wechsler issued a revised and

restandardized version of the WAIS. This new edition is

known as the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised

(WAIS-R; 1981). Wechsler's (1981) main objective for

revising and restandardizing the 1955 WAIS was to insure

its continued validity and effectiveness as a test of

intelligence. The WAIS-R contains many improvements

over the WAIS. These improvements include clarification

of administration and scoring procedures, modification

of outdated or biased item content, and use of a larger

and more up-to-date standardization sample. These

changes will be described in the following sections.

Even though these improvements have been made,

Wechsler's (1981) views on the nature and function of an

11

intelligence test have not undergone any major changes.

Therefore, it is clear that Wechsler intended for the

WAIS-R to measure the same intellectual factors as the

WAIS.

Organizational Differences between the WAIS and WAIS-R

The WAIS-R is composed of the same 11 subtests as

the WAIS, although there is a difference in order of

administration. In the WAIS, all of the Verbal subtests

are presented first, followed by all of the Performance

subtests. The relative positions of the subtests have

been changed, and Verbal and Performance subtests are

presented alternately. Table 1 lists the order of

presentation of subtests on the two scales. Wechsler

(1981) believed that alternating the Verbal and

Performance subtests on the WAIS-R would help maintain

the subject's interest, but would not affect IQ scores.

The method of obtaining IQ scores is similar for both

tests. The raw scores for each of the subtests are

converted into scaled scores. The scaled scores for

each of the 11 subtests are based on a reference group

which consisted of 500 subjects in the standardization

sample between the ages of 20 and 34. These scaled

scores range from 1 to 19 with a mean of 10 and a

Table 1

Comparative Order of V/AIS and WAIS-R Subtests

12

WAIS Subtests

Information

Comprehension

Arithmetic

Similarities

Digit Span

Vocabulary

Digit Symbol

Picture Completion

Block Design

Picture Arrangement

Object Assembly

WAIS-R Subtests

Information

Picture Completion

Digit Span

Picture Arrangement

Vocabulary

Block Design

Arithmetic

Object Assembly

Comprehension

Digit Symbol

Similarities

Note. WAIS = Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale; WAIS-R = WAIS-Revised.

13

standard deviation of 3. The sum of the scaled scores

obtained on the Verbal subtests is converted to a VIQ

score, and the sum of the scaled scores obtained on the

Performance subtests is converted to a PIQ score. An

FSIQ score is then derived from the sum of the Verbal

and Performance scaled scores. The conversion of scaled

score to IQ score is based on age norms. The WAIS has

norms for ten age groups ranging from 16 years, 0

months, to 75 years and over, i.e., 16-17, 18-19, 20-24,

25-34. 35-44, 45-54, 55-64. 65-69, 70-74, 75+. The

WAIS-R provides norms for nine age groups ranging from

16 years, 0 months to 74 years, 11 months. These age

groups are similar to those used for WAIS

standardization, except that the last age group (75+) is

omitted. Although this sample is lacking in the WAIS-R,

it is common practice to use the norms for the 70 year

to 74 year group for those individuals who are 75 years

and older. This, of course, should be done with

caution.

The WAIS-R, like the WAIS, has a mean IQ score of

100 and a standard deviation of 15. However, the WAIS-R

has a more restricted range of possible IQ scores. WAIS

IQ scores range from 41 to 167 for the VIQ score, from

35 to 185 for the PIQ score, and from 41 to 179 for the

14

FSIQ score. The WAIS-R IQ's range from 46 to 150 for

the VIQ score, 47 to 150 for the PIQ score, and 46 to

150 for the FSIQ score. The most striking difference in

the IQ score range is the ceiling of 150 on all WAIS-R

IQ scores. Wechsler (1981) explained this change:

The WAIS-R is not intended to make fine discriminations among adults of extremely high ability because it has a natural ceiling, like measures of all aptitudes, beyond which it no longer measures what it was originally designed to appraise. For this reason, IQ's above 150 - a point more than three standard deviations above the population mean - are not provided for in the IQ tables of this Manual, (p. 5)

The WAIS-R classifies individual intellectual

levels on the basis of the same IQ score categories as

the V/AIS. Table 2 presents these categories, along with

the name assigned to each category for the WAIS and the

WAIS-R. Changes from the WAIS include the use of the

terms High Average and Low Average in place of Bright

Normal and Dull Normal. The category label of Mentally

Retarded also replaces the term Mentally Defective.

General Testing Considerations

It is important for the examiner to be aware of the

changes in the administration and scoring of the WAIS-R.

Some of the more general modifications will be discussed

briefly in this section, whereas others will be

discussed in more detail under the headings of specific

15

Table 2

WAIS and WAIS-R Classifications of Intelligence

IQ Score WAIS

Classification WAIS-R

Classification

130 and above 120-129 110-119 90-109 80- 89 70- 79

69 and below

Very Superior Superior Bright Normal Average Dull Normal Borderline Mental Defective

Very Superior Superior High Average (Bright) Average Low Average (Dull) Borderline Mentally Retarded

Note. WAIS = Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale; WAIS-R WAIS-Revised. The information for this table was obtained from the WAIS and WAIS-R manuals.

16

subtests.

Instructions on scoring are clarified throughout

the WAIS-R manual. For example, the WAIS Similarities

and Vocabulary subtests do not include instructions for

questioning ambiguous responses in order to better

determine whether the response is worth 2, 1, or 0

points. This is changed in these two subtests of the

WAIS-R, with a specific notation, (Q), written after

responses that should be more thoroughly questioned.

The WAIS-R manual also lists specific principles to

guide the scoring of multiple responses. For example,

if a subject gives a response that is intended to

replace an earlier response, the earlier response is

ignored and the later one is scored. The WAIS manual

does not provide such specific guidelines. Instructions

for starting and discontinuing subtests are clarified in

the WAIS-R manual. For example, a score of 0 is given

to items passed after the criteria for discontinuing

have been met. These criteria are explained in the

introduction of each subtest. Upon comparison, it may

be seen that the WAIS-R manual is much more explicit

than the WAIS manual in its rules for administration and

scoring.

Both manuals discuss the issues of appropriate

17

testing conditions, maintaining rapport, and prorating

the IQ scores when a subtest is not administered. Each

manual treats these issues in a similar fashion,

although the WAIS-R manual tends to include more

specific information on these topics. The record form

itself has been modified, with more space provided for

recording responses and observations. To make this

additional space available, the record form was expanded

from the original four pages of the WAIS to six pages.

The front page of the WAIS-R protocol no longer contains

the Information subtest. Therefore, it can be used as a

summary page for test scores without revealing any of

the raw data.

Source of WAIS-R Items

The WAIS-R retains not only the same subtests and

general characteristics of the V/AIS, but also many of

the same items. Approximately 80% of the WAIS-R items

are retained from the WAIS, either in identical form or

with slight modifications. However, some of the items

which appeared dated were revised or omitted, and some

new items were added. Table 3 summarizes the changes in

item content on the WAIS-R.

Of the 258 items on the WAIS-R, 227 appeared on the

WAIS. Of these 227 items from the WAIS, 134 originated

18

Table 3

Changes in Item Content from the WAIS to the WAIS-R

Test

Verbal Scale

Number of items in the WAIS-R

Total WAIS-R Items

I terns From WAIS*

Modified WAIS

Items** New

Items

Information (29)a Digit Span (14) Vocabulary (40) Arithmetic (14) Comprehension (14) Similarities (13)

29 14 35 14 16 14

20 14 33 12 12 10

0 0 0 1 0 1

9 0 2 1 4 3

Performance Scale

Picture Completion (21) Picture Arrangement (8) Block Design (10) Object Assembly (4) Digit Symbol (90)

20 10 9 4 93

14 6 9 4

90

1 0 0 0 0

5 4 0 0 3

Note. (a) - The number of items in the 1955 WAIS is shown in the parentheses following the subtest name.This table was adapted from information obtained in the WAIS-R manual. * Items same as WAIS or slightly modified by rewording or redrawing. ** Items from WAIS substantially modified.

19

on the 1939 W-B I and 93 appeared as new items on the

1955 WAIS. Thus, 87.9% of the items on the WAIS-R are

from previous Wechsler scales (WAIS or W-B I), and only

12,1% of the items on the WAIS-R are new. Due to the

high degree of item overlap between the two Scales,

WAIS-R scores will certainly be expected to correlate

highly with previous Wechsler Scales. Furthermore, any

sizable differences found between scores on the scales

must reflect more than changes in content alone.

Wechsler (1981) summarized the changes in content,

administration, and scoring for each subtest of the

WAIS-R. Smith (1982) elaborated somewhat on these

changes and discussed possible effects that these

subtest differences could have on resulting WAIS-R

scores. A survey of the changes made in WAIS-R subtest

content, administration, and scoring may help in

determining the source of WAIS and WAIS-R score

differences.

WAIS-R Verbal Subtests

Information. The Information subtest is a series

of questions that tap knowledge commonly attained in an

educational setting. The Information subtest of the

WAIS-R is composed of 29 items just as it is on the

WAIS. Nine of these WAIS-R items are from the W-B I, 11

20

originated on the WAIS, and nine items are completely

new. Items which changed over time were updated, e.g.,

"What is the population of the United States?" Also, new

items replaced questions judged to be culturally biased.

These new items relate to women (Marie Curie, Amelia

Earhart), minorities (Louis Armstrong, Martin Luther

King), and information of more recent historical

interest (theory of relativity, Presidents of the

U. S. since 1950).

The only change in the administration of the

Information subtest has to do with the presentation of

the first six items. The examiner still begins with

item 5, but now items 1-4 are given if either item 5 or

6 is missed. On the WAIS, both items 5 and 6 had to be

missed in order to go back to the first four items. The

subtest is still discontinued after five consecutive

failures. Credit for items 1-4 is given if items 5 and

6 are passed .

The updating of individual subtest questions should

increase the likelihood that subjects will be familiar

with the material. The changes in administration of the

first six items should also have the effect of

increasing variability at the lower end of the scale.

Digit Span. The Digit Span subtest requires the

21

subject to listen to several series of digits and

memorize the sequence of digits in each series. On the

first seven sets of digits, the subject is instructed to

repeat the series verbatim. The last seven series are

to be repeated in reverse order. The WAIS-R retains the

same digits as the WAIS, and each item has two trials.

On the WAIS, the second trial of a series is

administered to the subject only if the first trial is

failed. The WAIS-R manual, on the other hand, instructs

that both trials are to be administered even if the

first trial is passed. The subtest is discontinued when

both trials of an item are missed.

The method of scoring the Digit Span subtest has

also been modified. On the WAIS, the score for the

Digit Span subtest equals the number of digits in the

longest forward series repeated correctly, plus the

number of digits in the longest backward series repeated

correctly. On the WAIS-R Digit Span, each item is

assigned a value of 2, 1, or 0 points, depending on the

number of trials passed. This raises the maximum

possible score from 17 to 28, thus increasing the

sensitivity of measurement for this particular subtest.

Unfortunately, the administration of this subtest now

takes more time due to the increased number of trials.

22

Vocabulary. The Vocabulary subtest requires the

subject to define a series of words. The WAIS-R

Vocabulary list contains 35 words, compared with the 40

words used in the WAIS. Seven of the WAIS words have

been dropped and two new words added. Besides word

changes, the order of words has also been rearranged to

reflect the current level of item difficulty. Several

items were omitted either because they were too

difficult to define (i.e., travesty) or too difficult to

score (i.e., slice). Wechsler (1981) also wanted to

shorten the subtest.

There has been no change in the administration

procedures of the Vocabulary subtest. Examiners begin

with word 4 and give words 1-3 if any word from 4-8 is

failed. The subtest is still discontinued after five

consecutive failures. The scoring of words 1-3 has been

changed. Whereas these items are scored 2 or 0 on the

WAIS, they are now given scores of 2, 1, or 0. These

changes in scoring should increase variability slightly

at the extreme lower end of functioning, but should have

no other major effects. Administration time may be

shortened slightly since there are five fewer items to

be defined and the words have been rearranged according

to item difficulty.

23

Arithmetic. The Arithmetic subtest requires

subjects to mentally compute several math word problems.

This subtest consists of 14 items, the same number as

the WAIS. There are five items retained from the W-B I,

eight items that originated on the IMIS, and one new

item. Although several of these items have been

reworded in an effort to update them, the computations

are nearly identical to those on the WAIS. Several

items were reworded in an attempt to remove references

to the male gender, to reflect current prices, and to

update cultural material. These changes should serve to

increase the face validity of the subtest.

The administration of the subtest remains

unchanged. The examiner starts with item 3, giving

items 1-2 only if items 3 and 4 are both missed. The

subtest is discontinued after four consecutive failures.

The rules for allowing bonus points for rapid, correct

solutions have been altered slightly. On the WAIS-R,

bonus points are awarded for five items instead of the

four items which include bonus points on the WAIS.

Therefore, the maximum score is increased from 18 to 19.

Comprehension. The Comprehension subtest requires

the subject to answer questions that measure their

ability to make practical judgments. This subtest is

24

composed of 16 items. Two WAIS items have been dropped

from the WAIS-R and four new items have been added.

Comprehension now contains eight items from the W-B I

and four from the WAIS. The order of item difficulty

has been rearranged. For example, all of the proverbs

are now placed toward the end of the subtest. There has

also been some clarification in the wording of several

items .

There have been several changes in the

administration and scoring of the Comprehension subtest.

The examiner now starts with the first item for all

subjects, instead of with item 3 as on the WAIS. The

examiner is also allowed to give help on the first item

if the subject fails to give a 2-point response to the

question, whereas there was no assistance allowed on the

WAIS. For those items requiring two ideas for full

credit, subjects giving only one idea are now asked for

a second response. The maximum score is 32 instead of

28 as on the WAIS.

These changes in administration and scoring should

help the subject better understand the nature of the

required response. The changes also increase the

variability at the lower end of the scale.

Similarities. The Similarities subtest requires

25

the subject to tell how two objects or concepts are

alike. This subtest now contains 14 items as compared

to the 13 items on the WAIS. One item from the WAIS was

modified to remove a specific gender reference, e.g.,

Coat-Dress changed to Coat-Suit. Of the 14 items, nine

originated on the W-B I, two on the WAIS, and three

items are new.

Administration of the Similarities subtest remains

the same as the WAIS. The examiner starts the test with

item 1 and discontinues after four consecutive failures.

However, the examiner may now give help by supplying the

subject with the correct answer on item 1 if the subject

fails to give a 2-point response. On the V/AIS, help was

given on item 1 only if it was failed completely.

Scoring of the items remains the same, with each answer

being assigned a score of 2, 1, or 0. All of the

changes mentioned above increase the maximum score from

26 on the WAIS to 28 on the WAIS-R. Changes should also

clarify for the subject the type of response that is

expected.

WAIS-R Performance Subtests

Picture Completion. The Picture Completion subtest

requires subjects to find the most important detail

missing in a series of pictures. There are now 20 items

26

on this subtest as compared to the 21 items on the WAIS

Picture Completion. Six items from the WAIS were

dropped and five new ones added. The subtest contains

eight items from the W-B I and seven items that

originated on the WAIS. Several of the items have been

redrawn in order to improve clarity, to modernize the

content, to include minorities, and to lessen regional

bias. For example, one item from the WAIS was

substantially modified, i.e., a snow scene was changed

to a beach scene.

Administration of the WAIS-R Picture Completion

remains very similar to the WAIS. However, there have

been a few minor changes. For example, every WAIS item

was introduced with the question, "Now what is missing

in this picture?" On the WAIS-R, however, it is

permissible to modify or omit this phrase once it is

clear that the subject understands the instructions. On

both versions, the subject begins with item 1 and

discontinues after five consecutive failures. The

examiner is now allowed to give help on the first and

second item failed. On the WAIS, help is given on the

second item only if the first item is failed. There is

still a 20 second time limit for each picture, and the

subject is questioned only the first time an unimportant

27

missing part is named. One point is given for each

correct answer. This yields a maximum score of 20

instead of 21 as on the WAIS.

These changes should have no major effect on the

scores obtained on the WAIS-R. The added flexibility

given to the examiner in helping the subject may be of

some benefit to those individuals functioning at a lower

level of intelligence.

Picture Arrangement. The Picture Arrangement

subtest requires the subject to arrange several sets of

pictures in the correct order so that they tell a story

that makes sense. There are now ten Picture Arrange-er.t

items on the WAIS-R as compared to the eight items on

the WAIS. Two WAIS items were eliminated and four new

ones added. One item (Nest) was eliminated because it

was too easy and the other (Hold-up) was eliminated

because it proved to be ambiguous. One WAIS item

(Enter) was modified and slightly redrawn. New items

and modifications of former items have improved clarity,

and now represent people of both sexes and different

races .

There have been several changes made in the

administration and scoring of the WAIS-R Picture

Arrangement subtest. First of all, testing on the WAIS

28

subtest continues if either item 1 or 2 is passed. If

both trials of items 1 and 2 are failed, testing is

discontinued. Rather than allowing for two trials on

items 1-2, the WAIS-R only allows two trials on item 1.

Testing is continued even if both trials of item 1 are

failed, and it is only discontinued after 4 consecutive

failures. Two points are awarded for a correct

arrangement and one point for an acceptable variation.

Time bonuses are no longer awarded on the WAIS-R,

reducing the maximum score from 36 to 20 points.

The provision for discontinuing may make this

subtest less frustrating for those subjects functioning

at the lower level of intelligence since there is only

one trial on item 2. This change should also shorten

administration time.

Block Design. The Block Design subtest requires

the subject to reproduce several designs using either

four or nine blocks. All of the blocks are identical,

with some sides being all red, some sides all white, and

some sides half red and half white. There are nine

Block Design items on the WAIS-R instead of the original

ten on the WAIS. One simple item was eliminated and no

new items were added. The item dropped was too similar

in difficulty to other items to be of discriminative

29

value. The WAIS-R subtest contains seven items from the

W-B I and two items that originated on the WAIS.

The administration procedures of the WAIS-R Block

Design remain the same. The examiner begins with item

1, allows two trials if needed on items 1 and 2, and

discontinues after three consecutive items are failed.

However, the scoring on the WAIS-R has been changed

substantially. The value of the first two items has

been reduced from 4, 2, or 0 points to 2, 1, or 0

points. The number of items which include bonus points

for speed has been increased from four to seven and the

number of bonus points that can be earned has increased

on five items from 2 to 3 points. Therefore, even

though the length of the subtest has been reduced by one

item, the maximum score has increased from 48 on the

WAIS to 51 on the WAIS-R.

These changes should result in more score

variability in the middle and upper ranges of

functioning. The increase in credit for rapid

performance may differentially affect some subgroups of

the population.

Object Assembly. The Object Assembly subtest

requires subjects to put together puzzle pieces to make

different objects. The WAIS-R Object Assembly subtest

30

is composed of the same four items that are found on the

WAIS, i.e., Manikin, Profile, Hand, Elephant. The only

change in the items themselves involves some minor

modernization of the manikin. The reverse sides of the

puzzle pieces are now gray in color instead of being the

same biege color on both sides as they are on the WAIS.

All four of the items are administered to each

subject, and the object pieces are presented to the

subject in the same pattern as on the WAIS. On the WAIS

and WAIS-R, one point is awarded for each joint that is

correctly assembled within the time limit. The subject

can earn up to three bonus points for rapid, perfect

completion of each item. However, even though there are

three categories of bonus points on each test (based on

the number of seconds it takes for the subject to

complete the task), the WAIS-R makes these points more

difficult to obtain by requiring faster completion of

the object. The highest number of points that may be

earned on items 2, 3, and 4 has been decreased by one

point each on the WAIS-R. Therefore, the total possible

score is now 41 as opposed to 44 on the WAIS.

It is quite probable that these changes will have

no major effect on Object Assembly scores. Variability

should not be changed since decreasing the scores on the

31

last three items was accomplished by eliminating a

one-point gap that existed on the WAIS between the score

for perfect completion and the first time bonus. Of

course, the coloring of the reverse side of each object

piece should eliminate the problem of subjects turning

the pieces over by mistake since they should now

immediately recognize their error.

Digit Symbol. On the Digit Symbol subtest,

subjects are required to associate geometric symbols

with the numbers 1-9. The subject is asked to reproduce

the numbers beneath their paired symbol in a timed

paper-and-pencil task. There are no significant changes

made in this subtest. The same nine number-symbol

pairings used on the W-B I and the V/AIS are now used in

the WAIS-R. The total number of items has been

increased by three by simply reducing the number of

sample items by three. There are 93 WAIS-R items

instead of the 90 items on the WAIS. The order of items

on the first row has been changed slightly because of

the shift in the starting point. The subject is still

given 90 seconds to complete as many items as possible.

The additional three items included in the WAIS-R should

increase the variability somewhat among higher

functioning individuals.

Reliability

Split-Half Reliability

Wechs le r (1955) computed r e l i a t o i l i l t y ccoDsffffikciLfflTtts

f o r WAIS IQ and s u b t e s t s c o r e s (witBn ttBne exccffiipttiLaaii ooff

D i g i t Span and D i g i t Symbol) u s i n g tBne syliltt-ftiEfillff

c o r r e l a t i o n a l t e c h n i q u e . T h i s i n v o l v e d (ccBraigDailtiimg tdhee

c o r r e l a t i o n between s c o r e s on odd amd ewem dittejns anxil

c o r r e c t i n g t h e c o e f f i c i e n t f o r t h e f m l l Iffimgttlh ooff ttltfis

t e s t w i t h t h e Spearman-Brown fo r i au l a - Im ttlhffi ccfflffiee coff

D i g i t Span , where t h e two h a l v e s of tine Iteslt mHi;y tixe

c o n s i d e r e d s e p a r a t e t e s t s , t h e c o r r e l a t i o m ffooir IMgiLtts

Forward and D i g i t s Backward s c o r e s was caDirirsccttffidl fiosr td te

f u l l l e n g t h of t h e t e s t . A s e p a r a t e stimciy wi"as dlccmfe toe

e s t i m a t e t h e r e l i a b i l i t y of t h e D i g i t Symife(a)l smlbiiftstt

s i n c e t h e s p l i t - h a l f t e c h n i q u e i s iiiiaf)f)B-<5)5)a-i*it* feoQ: ttiinit^ii

t e s t s . R e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s v©r% e iHifjUiit di g'cfcrr tth^fi^^

age g r o u p s i n t h e s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n sasif)!^:: l -=-ll9 ,, S ^ - ^ . ,

and 4 5 - 5 4 .

I n W e c h s l e r ' s (1955) s t u d y , F u l l S(£al% 10)''% 5yii%ll4j^

r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s of .97 i n a l l %fe5-%% %^% %%!W^1^..

V e r b a l I Q ' s had i d e n t i c a l r e l i t b i l i t 4 % S Q.f s % 4% %lili

t h r e e g r o u p s , and Pe r fo rminee 1Q'§ hQi<l t%ii%lbi4itt3i%!% ctft

. 9 3 and . 9 4 . T h e r e f o r e , i t may be §fe^9i %!?!%% %44 i t te%^

I Q ' s have a h i g h deg ree of I n t e r n a l <e;'aft%tS%%%(€J -. I^TT^

33

i n d i v i d u a l s u b t e s t s y i e l d e d lower r e l i a M l J t l t i ® s irsiiigjinig

from some c o e f f i c i e n t s in t h e .60*8 fasimniKi wdlltlb IMglLtt

Span , P i c t u r e Ar rangemen t , and O b j e c t A»»emilt)]Ly„ tt®

c o e f f i c i e n t s a s h igh a s .96 f o r Vocatounlairy.

Wechs le r (1981) a l s o employed a split—Hoalff g)irGDccffidluJii«

t o d e t e r m i n e t h e r e l i a b i l i t y of t h e ¥ A I S - 1 I(® semcH asoilbttffiffitt

s c o r e s . As on t h e WAIS, d i f f e r e n t procecimrffiffi wffiirffi uisasdd

t o o b t a i n c o e f f i c i e n t s fo r t h e D i g i t Spam fflmdl Diggitt

Symbol s u b t e s t s . The r e l i a b i l i t i e s f©r tHae itlfaireEeE IQUSB sBxree

ve ry h i g h a c r o s s a l l n i n e age g r o u p s . Tine aweiragg®

c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r t h e VIQ, PIQ, and FSI(£J acnroBffis ag© iramgees

were . 9 7 , . 9 3 , and . 9 7 , r e s p e c t i v e l y . Coefffficciffinitts ffcDir

t h e i n d i v i d u a l s u b t e s t s r anged from , 5 2 f o r ®lt)jj®<cit

Assembly t o .96 fo r V o c a b u l a r y .

Ryan, P r i f i t e r a , and La r sen (1982) couKfiuufEit cii a stturfijy

c o n c e r n i n g t h e s p l i t - h a l f r e l i a b i l i t y ®f tlhe WAIS--8? ffojn- s&

mixed sample of p s y c h i a t r i c and n e n i n a l o g i c a l 5)aiti%mtt%..

S p l i t - h a l f r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s rasng^ci t -cfemi .."^2 fftwr

t h e A r i t h m e t i c s u b t e s t to .92 f o r VocafetalaJry ^Bii MojctHc

D e s i g n . The r e s u l t s of t h i s s t u d y ar© e^as i s t^ ih i t *4itlh

W e c h s l e r ' s (1981) c o n c l u s i o n s and deia©ast?-at% ^lh%t it^h*

WAIS-R i s a r e l i a b l e i n s t r u m e n t .

A compar i son of t h e WAIS and \vAIS-K ¥%lt%Miitt3y 4l%tt%

a s computed by Wechsler (1955» 1981) i a f aM% 4 %ii%^%%tt%

3^

T a b l e 4

Mean R e l i a b i l i t y C o e f f i c i e n t s amd Sltamcflfflirdi ffiinrccrrs of Measurement Across Age Grouaps ffoBir VHMS>

and WAIS-R S u b t e s t amd 1<^ Scoires

MAIS WMLS-ffv

T e s t r SEm ir Sffim

Information Digit Span Vocabulary Arithmetic Comprehension Similarities

Picture Completion Picture Arrangement Block Design Object Assembly Digit Symbol

Verbal IQ Performance IQ Full Scale IQ

N o t e . The s t a n d a r d e r r o r s of ©easwiremiemit aB-% im stall^cii s c o r e u n i t s f o r t h e s u b t e s t s and i n I(^ st£(air* umitt* ffctir t h e V e r b a l , P e r f o r m a n c e , and F u l l S c a l e IQ} S(£Q)1J-%S.. TUhLi* t a b l e c o n t a i n s r e l i a b i l i t y and staiiii(iatt-(i ^iftoas- Qjff measurement d a t a o b t a i n e d from t h e WAIS auifi IW^lS-^v m a n u a l s .

. 9 1

. 68

. 9 5

. 8 2

. 7 8

. 8 6

. 8 3

. 6 7

. 8 4

. 68

. 9 2

. 9 6

. 9 3

. 9 7

0 . 8 7 1 . 7 1 0 . 6 S 1 . 3 2 1 . 4 3 1 . 1 9

1 . 1 6 1 . 6 1 1.2® 1 . 6 3 0 . 8 5

3 .0® 3 . 8 7 2 . 6 ®

-ffi® - S 3 -®ffi -SM -®4+

^m. -8811 .774+ -S77 -®® . ® 2

^m ^m ^m

QD..99G3 n..2222 QD..6&II ii. .n3 n..2aa) 11..2M

I1..225 Il..^Il QD..9effi ]1. .S!6 ll . .2ffi

Ti..nu, u,.,w. 2..533

33

s l i g h t bu t i n c o n s i s t e n t i n c r e a s e s im r e l i f f l M l i l t y ffcsar ttlte

WAIS-R. The WAIS-R's i n t e r n a l coms i s t emcy <C(5J®ffffii(EiL«nnttffi

a r e s l i g h t l y lower f o r t h r e e s u b t e s t s : Imffomn^ttiaDin,,

S i m i l a r i t i e s , and P i c t u r e C o m p l e t i o n . TBne ireraiffliLmiiing EBILXC

s u b t e s t s ( e x c l u d i n g D i g i t Span and B i g i t SyraiBDODll)) slbccw

e i t h e r i d e n t i c a l or s l i g h t l y h i g h e r split—Boffllff

c o r r e l a t i o n s f o r t h e WAIS-R. The i m c r e a s e im ttlh©

s e n s i t i v i t y of measurement f o r t h e MAIS—E Digi t t SgjsBin

a p p e a r s t o have produced an i n c r e a s e inn reliaBDiliLttg^ ffooir

t h a t s u b t e s t . T h e r e f o r e , even thongin MecBnsleir ((IL®8BIL))

c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e WAIS-R i s more r e l i a l s l e ttoffim Itlh® WAUIS,,

i t would seem more a p p r o p r i a t e t o s ay t h a t tHa®

r e l i a b i l i t y of t h e WAIS-R i s comparals le t® tike WAIS amdl

t h a t b o t h have h i g h l y r e l i a b l e s c o r e s .

The s t a n d a r d e r r o r of measurememt (|]SEmi)) i s amQ)ttlh®ir

way t o d e t e r m i n e t h e p r e s e n c e of e r r o r waariaMlLittS'.. TDlms

measurement d e s c r i b e s t h e band of e r r o r storircaminKfiim^ am

i n d i v i d u a l ' s t h e o r e t i c a l " t r u e " s c o r e onn t&ialt tt^stt.. Tlltffitt

i s , t h e SEm e s t i m a t e s t h e s t a n d a r d (ieviati«»m Q&ff am

i n d i v i d u a l ' s s c o r e s on a t e s t i f t h e persssm w^a-fe 4%%tt^ ^

l a r g e number of t i m e s , and t h e r e v e r e m® elhaoi^fe* tui

s c o r e s due t o t h e r e p e a t e d t e s t i n g . Tafele 4 5)S-%%%ihit% ttthfe

a v e r a g e s t a n d a r d e r r o r of measurment f®r WMS ^Hitii WJ^lS-Ji?

s c o r e s . The re a p p e a r s t o be a tendleiacy it©^at(fi %li^lhttlL3y

36

lower SEm's on the WAIS-R. However, four subtests show

an increase in variability on the WAIS-R: Information,

Similarities, Picture Completion, and Digit Symbol.

Compared to the WAIS, the WAIS-R has an SEm that is lower

for VIQ and FSIQ scores and higher for PIQ scores.

Test-Retest Reliability

There have been several test-retest studies

conducted using the WAIS-R (Ryan, Georgemiller, Geisser,

& Randall, 1985; Wechsler, 1981). The WAIS-R manual

(1981) reported the results of two test-retest studies

for two separate age groups, i.e., 25- to 30-year-olds and

45- to 54-year-olds. Correlations for the 25- to 34-year-

old group's VIQ, PIQ, and FSIQ scores were .94, .89, and

.95, respectively. For the 45- to 54-year-old group the

VIQ, PIQ and FSIQ correlational values were .97, .90, and

-96. Using intertest intervals of 2-5 weeks in the 25-34

age group and 2-7 weeks in the 45-54 age group, Wechsler

(1981) obtained comparable increases in the mean IQ

scores for the younger group (VIQ = 3.3, PIQ = 8.9, and

FSIQ = 6.6) and the older group (VIQ = 3.1, PIQ = 7.7,

and FSIQ = 5.7). Ryan et al. (1985) also obtained highly

significant correlation coefficients on the WAIS-R using

a sample of 21 psychiatric and neurologically impaired

patients (r's = .79, .88, and .86 for VIQ, PIQ, and FSIQ,

37

respectively). There was a mean IQ gain on retest of

2.91 points for VIQ, 4.52 points for PIQ, and 3.86 points

for FSIQ. Of course, these practice effects are somewhat

less than those found by Wechsler (1981) in his

test-retest studies. Ryan et al. (1985) suggested that

test-retest changes may vary according to the population

studied.

The significant correlations achieved in the three

WAIS-R reliability studies are consistent with the

results of a WAIS test-retest study conducted by Coons

and Peacock (1959). They found that VIQ, PIQ, and FSIQ

scores correlated about .96 in a sample of psychiatric

patients. This study also revealed that WAIS IQ scores

increased on retest, with VIQ, PIQ, and FSIQ score

increases averaging 2.6, 8.6, and 5.0 points. It may be

concluded on the basis of the highly significant

correlation coefficients that the WAIS and the WAIS-R

have excellent test-retest reliability. However, there

is a consistent practice effect for the two tests which

leads to significantly increased scores on retest,

particularly for the Performance IQ score.

38

Scoring Reliability

Scoring reliability on the WAIS has been of concern

to examiners for many years (Cohen, 1965; Sattler,

Winget, & Roth, 1969; Schwartz, 1966; Walker, Hunt, &

Schwartz, 1965). Guertin, Ladd, Frank, Rabin, and

Hiester (1971) reviewed the literature concerning scoring

reliability and concluded that even minor changes in test

procedures can affect individual scores. They also noted

that differences in the test scores obtained by different

examiners are often found, but that little is known about

the factors that contribute to these differences.

Research indicates that certain subtests (Comprehension,

Similarities, and Vocabulary) require a great deal of

examiner judgment, and that examiners often assign

different scores to identical responses. One variable

that does not appear to be a factor involved in the

ability to score tests reliably is the examiner's level

of experience (Schwartz, 1966). These researchers found

that less experienced examiners had the same level of

scoring disagreement as more skilled clinicians.

To date, there is only one study published

concerning scoring reliability on the WAIS-R. Ryan

(1983) employed 19 psychologists and 20 graduate students

to score WAIS-R protocols from two vocational counseling

39

clients. He found that mechanical scoring error produced

IQ scores that differed by between 4 and 18 points,

regardless of the examiner's level of experience. For

both protocols and both groups of examiners, scoring

agreement with the actual Full Scale IQ scores ranged

from 32% to 35%. However, over 77% of the scores were

within one standard error of measurement of the true

scores. The results of this study suggest that the

improvements made in the WAIS-R scoring procedures did

not produce greater consistency in scoring among

examiners. The WAIS-R still allows the judgment of the

examiner to enter into the scoring process, especially on

the subtests of Comprehension, Vocabulary, and

Similarities.

Validity

Wechsler did not present validity data in either the

WAIS or the WAIS-R manual. In fact, he appears to assume

that intelligence is whatever it is that the Wechsler

Scales measure. Wechsler (1981) concluded that since the

WAIS-R measures the same abilities as the WAIS and the

W-B I, and also overlaps considerably in test content

with the earlier forms of the Wechsler Adult Scales, then

any validity studies with the WAIS and the W-B I may be

considered relevant to the WAIS-R.

There has been a great deal of researcto t&at

examines the validity of the WAIS. Matarazz® 11912}

surveyed studies that correlated the WAIS witBn acsdemiicc

success (r = .50) and years of educational experie:nr.ce; ((ff

= .70). Matarazzo (1972) also reviewed mamy Gsttfeer

articles concerning the concurrent validitsr af thie W,'i.IS

in an attempt to determine the relatioosliips EDetweenn

different variables and the WAIS. Zimmerniaii and WGECZ—Ssir.

(1973) concluded that the strength of the relatianstrip;

between WAIS IQs and other criteria of imtelligernce is

dependent on the reliability of the other criteria. Fccrr

example, if the reliability of the coniparatiTe criteiriGEini

is low, the relationship between that specific crrteirlair.

and the WAIS will be weakened.

To date, there has been only one valieiitj stu:d;y

published for the WAIS-R. Ryan and Rosenberg C19S2)

found a significant relationship between the Ver&aL an-.d:

Full Scale IQ scores of the WAIS-R and the tBnree

achievement standard scores (Reading, Spellings Katlt)' (sff

the Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT). These fimdiimjs

support the concurrent validity of the WAIS-R. KGrw werr,,

further research is needed, comparing the ¥AIS-E witfr.

other types of achievement and intelligence tests.. (Jivi-ti

the great similarity between the structure and cG?nit(*ir.t (eff

41

the WAIS and the WAIS-R, Ryan and Rosenberg's (1983)

study supports Wechsler's (1981) assumption that the

WAIS-R is as valid a measure of intellectual functioning

as the WAIS.

Standardization of the WAIS and WAIS-R

The WAIS-R manual is more complete than the WAIS

manual in presenting statistical information related to

standardization samples. Upon comparison, it may be seen

that the WAIS-R used a slightly larger standardization

sample (N = 1880) than did the WAIS (N = 1700). Both of

these tests were standardized on a national sample, and

both attempted to include representative proportions of

the following variables: age, sex, race, geographic

region, occupation, education, and urban-rural residence.

The WAIS sample was derived in an attempt to approximate

the proportion of these variables as represented in the

1950 census. The normative sample for the WAIS-R was

derived from the same variables in the 1970 census.

Comparing the proportions of these variables in the

WAIS and WAIS-R samples should reflect changes in the

general population from 1950 to 1970 and suggest ways

that WAIS-R scores may differ from WAIS scores. However,

only four of these variables seem to have changed

significantly over time. These variables are discussed

42

below.

Geographic Region

In the WAIS-R standardization sample, there has been

a slight shift from the Northeast and North Central to

the Western region of the United States. Approxixately

18% of the standardization sample is now frorn the ' 'ester-

region as compared with the 12% of the WAIS

standardization sample.

Urban-Rural Residence

WAIS and WAIS-R samples reveal a significant shift

from rural to urban residence between standardizations.

This shift is best demonstrated in the 20-24 year age

group. When the WAIS was being standardized, 65% of this

group lived in urban areas, whereas 78.8% of this group

lived in urban regions when the V/AIS-R standardization

sample was being established (1970 census).

Occupation

The standardization sample of the WAIS-R was

stratified across six occupational groups derived from

the census categories of working and non-working

individuals. The division of occupational categories is

different in the WAIS standardization sample, with

individuals stratified across 13 categories, so it is

43

difficult to directly compare the occupational

stratification for the two tests. Another problem that

makes it difficult to compare the two tests is that the

young student population (ages 16-19) is not clearly

represented in the WAIS-R manual as being part of the

standardization sample. However, there has been a

dramatic increase in the number of women included in the

labor force for the WAIS-R sample. In the 1950 census, a

majority of women in every age group, except 18-19, were

homemakers. This changed in the 1970 census, with many

women moving to administrative, managerial, and clerical

positions.

Education

Educational attainment was divided into five levels

according to the number of years of school completed,

i.e., 8 years or less, 9-11 years, 12 years (high school

graduate), 13-15 years, 16 years or more (college

graduate). These categories were the same for the WAIS

and the WAIS-R. Separate educational distributions were

determined for each sex and for every age group. In

general, there has been a trend toward increased

educational attainment since the 1950 census was

conducted. For example, only about 18% of the 25-34 year

age group used in the WAIS sample had graduated from

44

college, as compared with 23.7% of the 25-34 age group in

the WAIS-R sample.

Factor Analysis

The WAIS and WAIS-R have both been factor analyzed

to determine the major dimensions of the scales.

Wechsler (1955) performed the first factor analysis of

WAIS subtest scores. Three major factors were identified

in this study: a general factor in which all of the

subtests clustered, a verbal factor, and a performance

factor. Many of the factor analyses conducted on the

WAIS since that time have derived the same three factors,

with only slight variations related to the type of

statistical procedure utilized (see Matarazzo, 1976, for

a complete discussion). Cohen (1957a, 1957b) conducted a

factor analysis of the WAIS with intercorrelations of

subtests obtained for four of the age groups in the

standardization sample. He found the presence of a

single factor common to all 11 subtests. In addition,

however, three major group factors were identified. One

was a Verbal Comprehension factor, with large weights for

the Vocabulary, Information, Comprehension, and

Similarities subtests. A Perceptual Organization factor

was found with loadings mainly for the Block Design and

Object Assembly subtests. Finally, the third major group

45

factor was described as a Memory factor (Freedom from

Distractibility) . This factor loaded primarily on the

Arithmetic and Digit Span subtests. Several other

studies also support the presence of Cohen's (1957a,

1957b) three group factors (e.g., Berger, Bernstein,

Klein, Cohen, & Lucas, 1964; Denerll, Broeder, & Sokolov,

1964).

There have been several factor analytic studies

conducted on the scores obtained by the subjects in the

WAIS-R standardization sample (Beck, 1985; Blaha &

Wallbrown, 1982; Gutkin, Reynolds, & Galvin, 1984;

Naglieri & Kaufman, 1983; O'Grady, 1983; Parker, 1983;

Plake, Gutkin, & Kroetin, 1984; Silverstein, 1982, 1985).

Each of these studies employed different types of

analyses (e.g., principal factor, multifactor,

orthogonal, oblique, maximum likelihood confirmatory

analysis, cluster analysis), which affected the number of

factors found as well as the different subtests which

loaded into each factor. For example, Silverstein (1982)

conducted a principal factor analysis on the

standardization data for the WAIS and the WAIS-R. He

identified two stable factors in both tests, i.e., Verbal

Comprehension and Perceptual Organization. He also found

a general factor (g) that accounted for a majority of the

46

variance in the two tests. These results were confirmed

in a more recent factor analytic study performed on

WAIS-R scores obtained from a sample of psychiatric and

medical patients (Ryan, Rosenberg, & DeWolfe, 1984).

Parker (1983) also found Verbal and Performance factors

which loaded onto the WAIS-R. However, using a

three-factor analysis, Parker (1983) found evidence of

another discrete factor which he labeled Freedom from

Distractibility. This three-factor model was confirmed

in a later study which analyzed the WAIS-R scores of

psychiatric and medical patients (Beck, 1985). In

contrast, O'Grady (1983) concluded that the WAIS-R

contains a general intellectual factor (g) and that the

other factors play only a small role in influencing

WAIS-R subtest scores. To determine which factor model

was most appropriate, Silverstein (1985) conducted a

cluster analysis of WAIS-R subtests used in the

standardization sample. Although he found evidence for

three major clusters of subtests (Verbal Comprehension,

Perceptual Organization, and Freedom from

Distractibility), he concluded that the choice between

two and three factor solutions is academic and that for

all practical purposes, the WAIS-R measures nothing but

47

Besides the factor of general intelligence, two

factors have appeared consistently in the majority of the

WAIS and V/AIS-R factor analytic studies: Verbal

Comprehension and Perceptual Organization. A third

factor described either as Memory or Freedom from

Distractibility was also frequently found. Research

supports the use of Full Scale IQ scores due to the large

general factor in the test scores. However, the presence

of the third Freedom from Distractibility factor does not

lend support to the grouping of the subtests into Verbal

and Performance scales. In conclusion, there are no

major differences between the factor structures of the

WAIS and the WAIS-R, although there may be variation in

how WAIS and WAIS-R subtests load on the factors.

Studies Comparing WAIS and WAIS-R Scores

Since the publication of the WAIS-R, several studies

have been conducted to determine the equivalency of WAIS

and WAIS-R scores. The results of these WAIS/WAIS-R

comparisons will be reviewed to determine the magnitude

and source of these differences.

Wechsler (1981) conducted the first comparison of

WAIS and WAIS-R scores, administering the two tests in a

counterbalanced order to a sample of 72 adults between

the ages of 35 and 44. There was an intertest interval

48

of 3 to 6 weeks. In this sample, the Verbal,

Performance, and Full Scale WAIS IQ scores were

approximately 7, 8. and 8 points higher, respectively,

than corresponding IQ scores on the WAIS-R. However,

correlations between WAIS and WAIS-R IQ scores were very

high, i.e., ( = .91, .79, and .88, for VIQ, PIQ, and

FSIQ scores, respectively).

For all eleven subtests, WAIS scores were higher

than WAIS-R scores. Wechsler (1981) did not report

significance levels for these scores, but subtests with

the largest differences included Similarities (2.2 point

difference), Vocabulary (1.8 point difference).

Comprehension (1.8 point difference). Picture Completion

(1.8 point difference), and Digit Symbol (1.8 point

difference). Digit Span had the smallest difference

between subtest scores (0.6 point difference). There

were clear practice effects; individuals tended to do

somewhat better on the second test taken.

Studies have been conducted to determine whether

differences in WAIS and WAIS-R scores exist for various

groups of test subjects. For example, Lippold and

Claiborn (1983) used a combined version of the WAIS and

the WAIS-R, with items which are identical for the two

tests administered only once, and tested 30 veterans who

49

had been referred for neuropsychological evaluation.

This procedure led to the assignment of identical scores

to those items that were the same for both tests. As in

Wechsler's (1981) study, WAIS IQ scores were

significantly higher than WAIS-R IQ scores. There was a

7.6 point difference in VIQ scores, an 8.6 point

difference in PIQ scores, and an 8.4 point difference in

FSIQ scores. Unfortunately, Lippold and Claiborn (1983)

did not report subtest score comparisons.

Rabourn (1983) administered the same combined form

of the WAIS and WAIS-R to 52 subjects from the University

of California Counseling Center. As in the Lippold and

Claiborn (1983) study, this particular format was used to

eliminate the practice effects common in the usual

test-retest methods of administration. Rabourn (1983)

found that subjects scored significantly higher on the

WAIS than on the WAIS-R. WAIS Verbal, Performance, and

Full Scale IQ scores were 6.2, 7.6, and 6.7 points

higher, respectively, than corresponding WAIS-R IQ

scores. All WAIS subtest scores with the exception of

Information were significantly higher than corresponding

WAIS-R subtest scores.

Kelly, Montgomery, Felleman, and Webb (1984)

compared WAIS and WAIS-R IQ scores obtained from two

50

groups of neurologically impaired patients (N = 114).

One group was administered the WAIS and the other was

administered the WAIS-R. Results of this comparison

showed that all three WAIS IQ scores were significantly

higher than corresponding WAIS-R IQ scores.

Prifitera and Ryan (1983) conducted a WAIS/WAIS-R

comparison using 32 psychiatric and vocational counseling

patients. Subjects were administered both tests in a

counterbalanced order. WAIS-R VIQ, PIQ, and FSIQ scores

were 7.59, 7.06, and 7.77 points lower than corresponding

WAIS IQ scores. Differential practice effects were also

found such that the order of administration affected the

score differences between the two tests.

Smith (1983) administered the WAIS and WAIS-R in a

counterbalanced order to 70 college students. WAIS VIQ,

PIQ, and FSIQ scores were significantly higher than

corresponding scores on the WAIS-R by 8, 9, and 9 points,

respectively. Eight of the 11 subtest scores showed a

significant difference with scores higher on the WAIS.

For the other three subtests. Similarities, Picture

Arrangement, and Block Design, scores were either higher

or equal on the WAIS, even though no significant

differences were found. The correlations between WAIS

and WAIS-R were somewhat lower than the values found in

51

Wechsler's (1981) study, with the coefficients for

Picture Arrangement ir_ = .15) and Object Assembly (r =

.14) not reaching statistical significance. Smith (1983)

also found significant Test x Order interactions for nine

of the 11 subtests and all three IQ scores such that the

order of administration affected the difference between

WAIS and WAIS-R scores.

Urbina, Golden, and Ariel (1983) administered the

WAIS and WAIS-R to 35 females and 33 males ranging in age

from 16 to 74 years. Forty-nine of the subjects were

labeled "normal," whereas 19 were psychiatric patients in

various diagnostic categories. The order of test

administration was not counterbalanced; i.e., 72% of the

subjects took the WAIS before the WAIS-R. The intertest

interval was from 1 day to 7 months. WAIS subtest and IQ

scores were significantly higher than corresponding

WAIS-R scores, except for the Digit Span subtest. For

all three of the IQ scores, there was a 5 point

difference between the two tests. Correlations between

respective V/AIS and WAIS-R scores were also highly

significant, ranging from an correlation of .57 for

Object Assembly to a correlation of -95 for VIQ and

Vocabulary. The differences in WAIS and V/AIS-R scores

were related to the age of the subject and order of test

52

administration. For example, Urbina et al. (1983) noted

that the updated content of the WAIS-R may pose greater

difficulties for older than for younger people. This

would explain their finding that older subjects had

significantly higher WAIS Verbal and Full Scale IQ

scores. Also, those subjects who took the WAIS after the

WAIS-R scored higher on the WAIS.

Mishra and Brown (1983) examined the comparability

of the WAIS and WAIS-R by administering the two scales to

a sample of 88 predominately college-aged subjects in a

counterbalanced order. As in the studies previously

reviewed, WAIS scores were significantly higher than

WAIS-R scores, with the exception of Picture Arrangement.

WAIS Verbal, Performance, and Full Scale IQ scores were

approximately 5 to 6 points higher than the corresponding

WAIS-R IQs. All of the correlations obtained from the

scores of the two tests were significant, ranging from

.51 for Object Assembly and Picture Completion to .85 for

Vocabulary. The only statistically significant main

effect for order was for the Picture Arrangement subtest.

Mishra and Brown (1983) do not provide separate subtest

means for each order of test administration. Therefore,

it is not possible to determine whether the order effect

found for the Picture Arrangement subtest is responsible

53

for the lack of a significant difference between WAIS and

WAIS-R Picture Arrangement scores.

In a counterbalanced design, Simon and Clopton

(1984) administered both the WAIS and WAIS-R to 29 mildly

and moderately retarded adults. Significant differences

between the WAIS and WAIS-R were found for two of the IQ

scores and for five of the 11 subtest scores. In

contrast to the results of previous comparison studies,

WAIS-R Full Scale IQ and Verbal IQ scores were

significantly higher than corresponding WAIS IQ scores.

For the Arithmetic and Vocabulary subtests, WAIS-R scores

were also significantly higher than WAIS scores.

However, for the Digit Symbol, Picture Completion, and

Object Assembly subtests, WAIS scores were significantly

higher than WAIS-R scores. No significant order main

effects were found, but a significant Test x Order

interaction was found for the Block Design subtest.

Significant correlations were also obtained for each of

the corresponding WAIS and WAIS-R scores.

Edwards and Klein (1984) compared the performance of

38 highly intelligent Mensa members on the WAIS and

WAIS-R. The two tests were administered in a

counterbalanced order with an intertest interval of

approximately three weeks. The author found no

54

significant differences between initial WAIS and WAIS-R

IQ scores. WAIS Verbal, Performance, and Full Scale IQ

scores were only 3.5, 2.5, and 1.7 points higher than

corresponding WAIS-R IQ scores. Subtest differences were

not reported. Edwards and Klein (1984) found that the

order of test administration affected the difference

between WAIS and WAIS-R test scores. Subjects who took

the WAIS followed by the WAIS-R gained a mean of 3 Full

Scale points upon retesting, in contrast to an average

9-point gain for subjects who took the WAIS-R followed by

the WAIS. Results of this study indicate that

individuals in the Superior and Very Superior range of

intelligence tend to earn fairly equivalent WAIS and

WAIS-R scores.

In summary, the WAIS/WAIS-R comparisons using

subjects of fairly average intelligence found WAIS scores

to be significantly higher than WAIS-R scores. However,

there were two studies which did not find WAIS scores to

be higher than WAIS-R scores. Simon and Clopton (1984)

found V/AIS-R scores to be significantly higher than WAIS

scores when testing individuals in a mentally retarded

population. Edwards and Klein (1984) found no

significant differences in initial WAIS and WAIS-R scores

when they administered both tests to gifted individuals.

55

This is an indication that the subject's level of

functioning may be a factor determining the difference in

the scores he or she receives on the two tests. Another

common finding in most of the studies is the presence of

high correlation coefficients for the scores on the two

tests. However, there is one subtest, Object Assembly,

that consistently correlates lower than the other

subtests. This may be partially explained by the low

reliability of this subtest. Because the WAIS and WAIS-R

Object Assembly subtests have lower reliability than the

other subtests, they cannot be expected to correlate

highly with each other.

Race-IQ Controversy

The issue of cultural differences in IQ scores first

became controversial after the American development of

mass testing for intelligence in World War I. Yerkes,

Otis, and other psychologists developed the Army Alpha

(largely verbal and quantitative) and the Army Beta

(nonverbal) group tests and applied them to almost two

million men in 1917-1918. After the war, Yerkes (1921)

published comparisons between Blacks and Whites and

between different White immigrant groups. This report

concluded that there was a significant difference in IQ

scores obtained by Blacks and Whites. The publication

56

also concluded that draftees from English-speaking

countries or Scandinavia scored relatively high, while

those from Latin or Slavic backgrounds scored low. Even

though Yerkes found a relationship between IQ and length

of stay in the United States, he did not emphasize the

fact that many of his "minority subjects" were less

acculturated than the White, English-speaking subjects.

The Lippmann-Terman debate in the early 1920's was

symbolic of the controversy surrounding comparative

testing of racial groups. Underlying the controversy

then, as now, were the issues of whether certain races

are inherently less intelligent than others (hereditarian

position) and whether equality of opportunity would be

denied to minorities by the way authorities use findings

of test differences. Walter Lippmann, a noted

journalist, took an environmentalist position and

attacked the IQ tests and their interpretations. He

believed that socioeconomic as well as other cultural and

environmental differences were responsible for the IQ

discrepancies between Blacks and Whites. Terman, on the

other hand, defended psychological tests and took a

hereditarian position. He believed that Blacks were

lower in measured IQ than Whites as a result of a variety

of inherited, genetic traits.

57

A similar controversy developed in the early 1970's

in reaction to Arthur Jensen's publication in the 1969

Harvard Educational Review, which questioned the benefits

of Head Start programs and implied that Blacks were

hereditarily inferior (see Block and Dworkin, 1976, for a

summary of the controversy created by Jensen's article).

The Civil Rights movement in the 1960's and 70's

contributed to an increasingly hostile attitude toward

any procedures that segregated racial groups in

educational and work settings. Psychological tests,

especially IQ measures, became the target of many groups

trying to prevent black children from being stereotyped

and limited to taking classes for slow learners.

Even though there has been a major movement toward

racial equality in the last twenty years, the issue of

cultural differences in intelligence continues to be a

topic surrounded by controversy. There are hundreds of

studies dealing with the cultural applications of

intelligence tests. Researchers such as Jensen (1980),

Matarazzo (1972), and Oakland (1977) have written

extensively on this subject. It is interesting to note

that most of the data cited on both sides of the heredity

vs. environment debate may by interpreted as supporting

either perspective (Matarazzo, 1972). Loehlin, Lindzey,

58

and Spuhler (1975) reviewed the literature on race

differences in IQ and suggested three possible causes:

test inadequacies, environmental and cultural

differences, and genetic differences.

Within the United States, many studies have found

Black-White group differences in IQ scores of

approximately one standard deviation (15 Wechsler

points), but these differences appear to be influenced by

factors such as the socioeconomic conditions and

educational attainment of Blacks and Whites. According

to Matarazzo and Pankratz (1980), this average difference

in racial IQ scores is only an empirical finding and does

not mean that Black individuals are any less intelligent

than Whites. Rather, they conclude that research in this

area has only served to correlate scores on particular

tests with skin color. The same authors also note that

an IQ score may be viewed as a measure of social

conditions, not just a biological inevitability. They

proposed that if nutrition, home experience, and the

school environment were similar for Black and White

individuals, then racial differences in IQ scores would

decrease.

The Wechsler scales and other standardized

intelligence tests have been used extensively to compare

59

IQ scores for children and adults of different races

(i.e., Dreger & Miller, 1968; Oakland & Feigenbaum, 1979;

Sandoval, 1979; Shuey, 1966; Vance & Engin, 1978). Each

of these studies found rather large mean differences

between Blacks and Whites on these standardized

intelligence tests. However, in most of these studies

the distribution of individuals' scores overlapped

considerably, with many Blacks earning IQ scores above

the mean of the White sample. Other variables such as

socioeconomic class, education, sex, family size, and

prenatal care have been found to influence IQ scores and

confound direct correlations that have been made between

race and IQ (Matarazzo, 1972). For example, Baughman and

Dahlstrom (1968) found that the White children in their

study earned a mean IQ score that was 13 points higher

than the Black children. However, the parents of the

White children had approximately 2 more years of

education, earned a substantially higher income, and were

working in higher occupational categories. It may be

concluded that it is not possible to predict an

individual's IQ score solely on the basis of his race.

Other evironmental factors must also be taken into

consideration.

60

Examiner Effects

Several researchers have found that examiner

characteristics influence scores on the Wechsler scales,

Studies have investigated such topics as examiner

expectancy-effects, as well as the impact of the

examiner's experience, sex, and race on test scores.

Expectancy Effects

Pretest information plays a role in the performance

of individuals on intelligence tests (Egeland, 1969;

Masling, 1959; Sattler, Hillix, & Neher, 1970; Sattler &

Winget, 1970; Schroeder & Kleinsasser, 1972; Simon,

1969). Examinees who were positively presented were

rated significantly higher than negatively presented

examinees (Sattler & Winget, 1970). When confederates

were coached to give certain test responses on the WAIS

which included several ambiguous responses, subjects

received significantly more credit on the ambiguous items

when they produced an overall superior WAIS record

(Sattler, Hillix, & Neher, 1970). In one study,

confederate examinees played "cold" and "warm" roles when

tested by unsuspecting experimenters (Masling, 1959).

The warm role enhanced the score in three

ways: experimenters used more reinforcing comments, gave

more opportunity to clarify and correct answers, and used

61

more lenient scoring on the protocols of the warm

subjects. In contrast, Simon (1969) pointed out that the

existence of expectancies regarding an examinee's

probable level of performance does not mean that scoring

bias will necessarily occur. Therefore, although results

indicate that the expectancies of the examiner do not

automatically lead to scoring bias, it is important for

examiners to take this factor into consideration when

interpreting test scores. Of course, eliminating halo

effects in the administration and scoring of intelligence

tests is a difficult goal. One possible approach would

be to have examiners administer tests without prior

knowledge of the examinee's abilities (Schroeder &

Kleinsasser, 1972). However, even if this procedure were

followed, the examiner would undoubtedly begin to develop

expectancies after administering the first few subtests

of a scale- Sattler (1974) noted that it is probably

impossible to eliminate the examiner's positive or

negative evaluations of the individual being tested.

However, it is possible for the examiner to become more

aware of his bias and minimize the effect of his

reactions on his rating of the individual's test

responses.

62

Examiner Experience

Studies that have evaluated the examiner's

experience as a variable that may affect scores on the

Wechsler tests report nonsignificant findings (Davis,

Peacock, Fitzpatrick, & Mulhern, 1969; Kaspar, Throne, &

Schulman, 1968, Masling, 1959; Plumb & Charles, 1955;

Schwartz, 1966). Overall, the studies indicate that the

examiner's experience is not of critical importance in

affecting test scores. Once a certain level of

proficiency is reached, the variable of experience as a

factor that affects test procedures or the examinee's

performance is no longer important (Sattler, 1974).

Examiner Sex

Few studies of examiner effects have systematically

evaluated the role of the examiner's sex. Those that

have done so indicate that, although the examiner's sex

may interact with the examinee's sex in affecting

performance on selected tests or subtests, no consistent

trends have emerged. For example, in one study female

examiners obtained higher WISC Arithmetic subtest scores

from female examinees than from male examinees, whereas

male examiners tended to obtain higher scores from male

examinees than from female examinees (Pedersen,

Shinedling, & Johnson, 1968). However, another study

63

failed to find significant examiner sex effects for the

WISC Arithmetic subtest, but found that the examiner's

sex was a significant factor influencing results on other

WISC subtests (Quereshi, 1968b).

Examiner Race

Many researchers have found that racial differences

affect the examiner-examinee relationship (Anastasi,

1968; Deutsch, Fishman, Kogan, North, & Whiteman, 1964).

According to the research. Black examinees who are given

intelligence tests by White examiners may display

behaviors that reflect their discomfort in the test

situation. For example, they may be more hesitant to

answer questions or have unnatural reactions to the test.

However, results of research on racial differences

suggest that the examiner's race does not usually affect

the actual performance of Black or White subjects on

individual intelligence tests (Graziano, Varca, & Levy,

1982; Sattler & Gwynne, 1982; Shuey, 1966). Unfortu­

nately, there have been only a few studies undertaken

which examine these variables, and most of the studies

are not well designed. For example, several of the

studies reviewed used only a small number of examiners

and neglected to control for the examiner's race.

Therefore, more research is needed in this area to better

64

determine the effect of the examiner's race on the

examinee's test performance.

General Examiner Studies

The research literature conclusively shows that

examiners differ in their scoring of unclear responses.

Using ambiguous responses, examiner differences have been

found in many studies using the Wechsler scales (Mahan,

1963; Massey, 1964; Miller & Chanskey, 1972; Miller,

Chansky, & Gredler, 1970; Plumb & Charles, 1955; Sattler,

Winget, & Roth, 19.69; Schwartz, 1966; Walker, Hunt, &

Schwartz, 1965). Because of this variability in the

scores that examiners give to ambiguous responses, it may

be concluded that the subjects' IQ scores are dependent,

in part, on the particular examiner performing the

evaluation .

Other studies of the Wechsler scales yield

conflicting results regarding examiner differences. Even

though many of these studies have flaws in their

methodology, there is some support for the idea that

examiners occasionally differ in the subtest and IQ

scores they obtain. However, these differences are not

large or pervasive. Although reasons for examiner

differences are not usually known, Thomas, Hertzig,

Dryman, and Fernandez (1971) indicated that one examiner

65

who obtained higher scores in his study (a) used more

positive terms in her reports to describe the

examiner-child interaction and the child's behavior, (b)

spent more time getting to know the child and

establishing rapport, and (c) always encouraged the child

to try to answer the test questions. The research does

not indicate that there will be significant differences

found among every group of examiners. However,

researchers conclude that examiners should attempt to

achieve the highest level of competence and skill.

Rationale for Present Study

There are two related issues to be addressed in this

study. The first issue has to do with the equivalence of

the WAIS and WAIS-R in a sample of 70 high school

students. It will be important to determine whether

corresponding WAIS and WAIS-R subtest and IQ scores are

similar and whether the two tests are significantly

correlated with one another in this population. The

second area of research deals with the comparable

performance of three different racial groups (White,

Black, and Mexican-American) on the WAIS and WAIS-R.

This research will determine whether differences between

these three racial groups are the same for both tests.

This study will also compare scores obtained by the three

66

racial groups on the WAIS-R, a supposedly more

culture-fair test than the WAIS, and see how these

differences compare with the commonly found 10-15 IQ

point gap between white and minority individuals on the

WAIS (Dreger & Miller, 1968; Shuey, 1966).

In addition to these major issues of interest, a

supplementary examination of examiner effects will also

be made to determine whether examiner characteristics

differentially influenced test scores. Simon and Clopton

(1984) included an analysis of examiner effects in their

comparison of WAIS and V/AIS-R scores. They found

significant Examiner x Test interactions for two

subtests. Digit Span and Block Design. Earlier research

with the WAIS demonstrated that examiner variables often

lead to differences in test scores (for review, see

Guertin, Ladd, Frank, Rabin, & Hiester, 1971).

With regard to the equivalence of the two tests,

There have been several comparisons made between the WAIS

and WAIS-R using different populations (Edwards & Klein,

1984; Kelly, Montgomery, Felleman, & Webb, 1984; Lippold

& Claiborn, 1983; Mishra & Brown, 1983; Prifitera & Ryan,

1983; Rabourn, 1983; Simon & Clopton, 1984; Smith, 1983;

Urbina, Golden, & Ariel, 1983; Wechsler, 1981). Of

course, since the normative sample of the WAIS-R is more

67

up-to-date and was carefully selected to ensure its

representativeness, the WAIS-R is usually preferred over

its predecessor, the WAIS, for measuring adult

intelligence. However, there are several reasons why it

is important to know whether these two scales provide

comparable measures of intelligence. First of all, there

are situations in which it would be important to know

whether the scores could be treated as interchangeable.

In developmental studies, for example, previous data is

often collected with the WAIS, in which case it would be

necessary to know whether changes in intelligence test

scores were meaningful or were merely due to differences

between the two scales. Second, results on the WAIS may

have been used to categorize individuals in certain

settings, i.e., treatment centers for the mentally

retarded, educationally gifted programs, or special

education classes for the learning disabled. When these

same individuals are tested later with the WAIS-R,

discrepancies could result in different decisions

regarding placement.

It is the purpose of the present study to compare

the WAIS and the WAIS-R using a sample of high school

students. In most school systems, assignment of students

to special education classes is based on the discrepancy

68

between intelligence and achievement scores. The present

study will utilize a sample of high school students to

determine whether they obtain significantly different

scores on the V/AIS and the WAIS-R. If, as predicted,

these students obtain significantly lower scores on the

WAIS-R than on the WAIS, this has serious implications

regarding their ability to qualify for remedial

educational placement. In fact, it would be much more

difficult for students who are tested with the WAIS-R to

meet the criteria for assignment of the handicapping

condition of a learning disability. Therefore, it is

necessary to determine the magnitude of the differences

between the WAIS and V/AIS-R in this population so that

standards of placement may be adjusted accordingly.

One of the most important reasons for obtaining this

sample of high school students has to do with the wide

range of IQ scores expected in this population. Most of

the previous WAIS/WAIS-R comparisons, with the exception

of Wechsler (1981), have utilized samples with a fairly

narrow range of IQs. Several studies used college

students with generally above average IQ scores (Mishra &

Brown, 1983; Rabourn, 1983; Smith, 1983). Two studies

compared the two tests in a population of neurologically

impaired individuals (Kelly, Montgomery, Felleman, &

69

Webb, 1984; Lippold and Claiborn, 1983). Edwards and

Klein (1984) used intellectually gifted individuals in

their comparison. The population of normal high school

students used in this study should represent a more

varied sample with regard to IQ scores.

It is necessary to examine differential effects of

administration order (WAIS followed by WAIS-R vs. WAIS-R

followed by WAIS). Since each subject is given both the

WAIS and the WAIS-R in counterbalanced order, it is

important to rule out the possibility of differential

practice effects. Although the results of this analysis

will have limited clinical value since there will

obviously not be many cases when the two tests are

administered in a short period of time, it is expected

that order will differentially affect the magnitude of

test differences as in Smith's (1983) study- Therefore,

Order effects will be examined in relationship to

WAIS/WAIS-R test scores.

This study will also examine the performance of

three different racial groups on the WAIS and the WAIS-R.

Earlier studies conducted using the Wechsler scales have

documented major discrepancies between IQ means of

different racial groups (Jensen, 1980; Shuey, 1966;

Winter, 1968; Wysocki & Wysocki, 1969). However, there

70

have been no studies to date analyzing racial differences

in WAIS-R scores or comparing the IQ differences between

the WAIS and the WAIS-R for different racial groups. The

present study proposes to determine whether the same

differences between racial groups exist on the WAIS-R as

on the WAIS.

CHAPTER II

METHOD

Sub jects

The original subjects included in this study were 75

high school students (41 males, 34 females) between the

ages of 16 and 19. These students were enrolled in

regular classes at three high schools in the Lubbock

Independent School District: Coronado High School,

Estacado High School, and Monterey High School.

Prospective subjects were chosen randomly by school

counselors and principals. Involvement in the study was

on a voluntary basis, with no reward for participation.

Those subjects under the age of 18 who were willing to

participate in the study were required to have their

parents sign a consent form (See Appendix A). Subjects

who were 18 years old, or older, signed the consent form

themselves.

Although 75 subjects had volunteered to participate

in this study, complete WAIS and WAIS-R protocols were

obtained from only 70 subjects. Five potential subjects

dropped out of the study after the first round of

testing. One potential subject moved out of town, one

subject ran away from home, one subject transferred out

of a study hall and did not wish to be tested during a

71

72

regular class, one subject refused to be retested because

she was studying for final exams, and one subject could

not be contacted by the examiner.

Procedure

Each subject was randomly assigned to one of two

groups, resulting in 38 subjects in the first group and

37 subjects in the second group. It was the intention of

the author that the 38 subjects in the first group (Order

1) would be tested initially with the WAIS and then with

the WAIS-R. The 37 subjects in the second group (Order

2) were to be tested first with the WAIS-R, then with the

WAIS. However, of the five subjects who dropped out of

the study after the first test, one was in Order 1 and

four were in Order 2. This resulted in an unequal number

of subjects being assigned to each order (Order 1 = 37

subjects, Order 2 = 33 subjects).

There was an interval of 30 to 60 days between

administration of the two tests. All of the subjects

except for one were tested while school was in session,

at an isolated testing area located in the school

building. The remaining subject was given her second

test in her home several days after school was out for

the summer.

The WAIS and WAIS-R were administered and scored

73

according to Wechsler's (1955, 1981) instructions. Five

students enrolled in the Clinical Psychology graduate

program at Texas Tech University administered and scored

the tests, and the scoring of each protocol was checked

by the author. Two of the examiners were male and three

were female. All of the examiners were Caucasian. Each

examiner was proficient in the use of the WAIS and the

WAIS-R. Proficiency on the WAIS was achieved through

individualized instruction by the author, whereas

proficiency on the WAIS-R had been determined in a

graduate course on intelligence testing.

Initially, each examiner was randomly assigned 15

subjects to test. However, two of the examiners (exs. 3

and 4) were able to complete testing on only 13 subjects

apiece, and one examiner (ex. 5) completed testing on

only 12 subjects. Therefore, Examiner 2 tested two extra

subjects (n = 17) using the WAIS and the WAIS-R to ensure

complete data for 70 subjects.

Subjects were informed that test results would be

available to them when they completed both tests.

Formal Hypotheses

1. It is hypothesized that WAIS IQ scores will be

significantly higher than corresponding WAIS-R IQ scores.

This prediction is based on the fact that, with only two

7^

e x c e p t i o n s (Edwards & K l e i n , 1984; S±m©n & Cl©ptt©ffl,

1 9 8 4 ) , a l l s t u d i e s compar ing WAIS and MAIS-f ®c©re§ tea*'©

found WAIS s c o r e s t o be h i g h e r t h a n MAIS-I s c a r e s , M s © ,

p r e v i o u s WISC and WISC-R c o o p a r i s c m s have gfe®wffii th^t WI§C

IQ s c o r e s a r e s i g n i f i c a n t l y liiglhier ttosio WISC-S s e o r ^ s

( B e r r y & S h e r r e t s , 1975 ; B r o o k s , 1977 ; © o f p s l t & E imfiro ffii,

1977; L a r r a b e e & H a l r o y d , 1976; Scfewartimg, 1976; g©l ly„

1977 ; S w e r d l i k , 1977; Weiner S Xatifinisffli, 1979)*

F l y n n ' s (1984) r ev i ew •d€iDonstrste(i t l i s t ^v^ff

S t a n f o r d - B i n e t amd Wechsler stanisJisr^izati-®® s^fflipl^ tfr^ifP

1932 t o 1978 e s t a t e l i s i i e d t&m-g'heT aaorrni® t t e ® i t t s

p r e d e c e s s o r . T h i s p a t t e r m of inacressjflagly rnicpye ^mH-e-W-l-t-

norms was i n t e r p r e t e d t o mean t h a t , du r l i ig ttto^lt pefficgicS <§>£

46 y e a r s , t h e a v e r a g e IQ of Aro^ricsus ir®^® ft)^' slinvs)^^ 14

p o i n t s ( n e a r l y one f u l l s t a n d a r d dfiyiati(S)fliJ.. I t e ^ *

c h a n g e s i n s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n sa.-myles sery-s lt(© expl^iisi w^^

i n d i v i d u a l s per form b e l t e r on t:b« .WAIS t i s i c <s>iin ttlte

WAIS-R. The s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n sa-mple iii^e-d It® s s t s M i s l b

norms f o r t h e VlIS-iR perfor-mfiiil a t a lhii.gHD«Br J«w«l -ifti m ttHd*

sample used t© e s t a b l i s i norms i ^ r ltlh« WM3^ 11h«ff tfcS)ff*„

when an i n d i i ^ i d u a l ' s pe r fo rmance i s co.uijpsr-sil ^^ifli^ti; ttHii#

two s e t s of no rms , he i s go ing t© £i:'or^ i h i ^ t e r \»*#m

compared t o t h e " e a s i e r " WAIB norms t.ii^n •*'?h«n:i (psm^ff^ tJkP

t h e more -d i f f l - cu l t WAIS-.l? n c r m s -

75

2. It is hypothesized that there will be

significant Test x Order interactions, such that the

difference between WAIS and WAIS-R IQ scores will be

affected by the order in which the tests are

administered. In studies where both tests are given to

each subject (Edwards & Klein, 1984; Simon & Clopton,

1984; Smith, 1983), WAIS vs. WAIS-R differences are

dependent on the order in which the tests are

administered.

3. It is hypothesized that White subjects will have

significantly higher WAIS and WAIS-R IQ scores than Black

or Mexican-American subjects. This prediction is based

on earlier studies (Baughman & Dahlstrom, 1968; Dreger &

Miller, 1968; Jensen, 1980; Oakland & Feigenbaum, 1979;

Sandoval, 1979; Shuey, 1966; Vance & Engin, 1978) that

found 10-12 point differences in IQ scores when Black and

White subjects were compared on standardized intelligence

tests.

4. It is predicted that there will be significant

Test X Race interactions such that the difference between

WAIS and WAIS-R scores will be affected by the race of

the subject. Wechsler changed several items when

revising the WAIS in an attempt to make it a more

culture-fair test. New questions were added on the

76

Information subtest about Martin Luther King and Louis

Armstrong. Several of the pictures in the Picture

Completion and Picture Arrangement subtests were also

changed to depict Black individuals. Therefore, it is

hypothesized that the discrepancy found between White and

Black IQ scores on the WAIS should not be as large on the

WAIS-R, with Blacks performing relatively better on the

WAIS-R. However, Black IQ scores are still expected to

be lower than the IQ scores of White subjects on the

WAIS-R.

5. It is hypothesized that WAIS subtest and IQ

scores will correlate significantly with corresponding

WAIS-R scores. This prediction is based on previous WAIS

and WAIS-R studies that found high correlations between

WAIS scores and corresponding WAIS-R scores (Mishra &

Brown, 1983; Simon & Clopton, 1984; Smith, 1983; Urbina,

Golden, & Ariel, 1983; Wechsler, 1981).

Due to the large number of statistical comparisons,

the alpha level is set at £ < .01 for all statistical

tests to provide a more conservative measure of

significant results.

CHAPTER III

RESULTS

This chapter will include a description of the 70

subjects whose test scores were analyzed. Results of

main and supplementary analyses performed on the research

data will be presented. The main analyses tested the

first four hypotheses:

1. A significant main effect for Test was predicted

such that WAIS subtest and IQ scores would be higher than

corresponding WAIS-R scores.

2. A significant Test x Order interaction was

predicted such that the difference between WAIS and

WAIS-R scores would be affected by the order in which the

tests were administered (Order 1 vs. Order 2).

3. A significant main effect for Race was predicted

such that White subjects would score higher than Black or

Mexican-American subjects on the WAIS and the WAIS-R.

4. A significant Test x Race interaction was

predicted such that the race of the subjects would affect

their differential performance on the WAIS and WAIS-R.

Supplementary analyses were performed to determine

the significance of WAIS/WAIS-R correlations, and to

determine whether there were significant differences

between the scores for each examiner. An additional

77

78

analysis was also performed to investigate the

relationship between WAIS and WAIS-R differences and the

subject's IQ.

Subject Characteristics

Table 5 presents information about the race, age,

sex, and school for the 70 subjects who completed both

the WAIS and WAIS-R. Full Scale IQ scores for subjects

on the WAIS ranged from 80 to 136, with a mean Full Scale

IQ of 105.27. The Full Scale IQ scores for subjects on

the WAIS-R ranged from 74 to 143, with a mean Full Scale

IQ of 100.67. Verbal, Performance, and Full Scale IQ

ranges and means are presented in Table 6.

Main Data Analyses

A 2 X 2 X 3 analysis of variance with one within-

(Test) and two between-subjects (Order, Race) variables

was performed on each of the 11 subtest scaled scores and

three IQ scores of the WAIS and V/AIS-R. Table 7 gives F_

values for the main effects of Test, Order, and Race and

for interactions among these three variables.

Hypotheses 1 and 2

Significant differences were found between WAIS and

WAIS-R scores for ten of the 11 subtests and for all

three IQ scores. In each case, WAIS scores were

79

Table 5

Demographic Information for 70 Subjects Included in WAIS/WAIS-R Comparison:

Race, Age, Sex, School

Race

Caucasian

Black

Mexican-American

Age

16

17

18

19

Sex

Male

Female

School

Coronado

Estacado

Monterey

N_

34

20

16

I 39

16

13

2

N_

40

30

N

21

24

25

80

Table 6

WAIS and WAIS-R Range and Mean IQ Scores

WAIS WAIS-R

Range H Range M

Verbal IQ 78 - 139 101.34 71 - 143 97.86

Performance IQ 83 - 142 109.73 69 - 139 104.87

Full Scale IQ 80 - 136 105.27 74 - 143 100.67

CO

u a>

<4-l

w

c o

• H J-l u 03 I i 0) 4->

c

c OJ CO

T3 a> a c CO

. - I CO

O l-c (U

m J-) • H c CO a >> o

CO

c oi <C I

CO

u CO

c o

CO

4-1

m

e •a <:

3 o

< w I S

n M

s o M H CJ)

< OS

H

M

>- i

< I

CN

00 c

• H 4-1 O c 0)

m <u a

C9

>

X c CO

u Q) cn

o :s

4 J

0)

•a

o o

14-1

u m

n

U3 OS X o X

H

OS

X

H

X I

OS

X

o

CO

o X

J2

o CO

OS

CO

u

•o

o

00 CM ^ r^ O O o 00 m r^ -vi- CM

1^ o in tM -* o VO ^ n -tf

C S O t - c O O O C M ^ O O O

ON r- 00 m -* ^

00 CO O 00 t-H l>»

CO CM O O O CM

•-I ON o in en n CM O ^ CM SJ- 00

CO cs 1^ -* ^ o en O -* O O <-< •—I CM

00 en -ij- in O en .-I c^ rsi

* *

ON vO in r»- o^ o o ^ o ON en CM

O O O 00 en en

* * * * * Ijf :i: :i: St: Sii ijf

4: # # #: # ^ o CM in in 00 \o vo 00 00 m en -o-in CM tn en 00 in

ON •fl' en 00 o o^ in 00 en CN en CM

* * * ^ jje ^ ilic s i : in «-< ON m T>»

•tf \ o «-i o cn

o CM in o f 1-H f-H 1-4 i—I - . i^ '

* * * *

* * * * I-H \o en r^ -I—( CM en o^ 00 en

o in 00 in en

c? DO in -^ in 1—I CM - ^ .—f r ^

O O O ^ O O O O ^ O - *

O 1^ o r^ in in

3j;

\0 O ^

ON CM i n

O in -<3-

O in o CM O - ^

O O O O O — I O O O O — I o o o

* * * * * f ^ - H O o ON so

o -* -* —I r~ in

* * * * * * * * * - * -i^ \D —< ON O

® en r>-CM —( CM

CM ON i n - H CM CM

O CM 1-H

(0 4-1 0] (U

H

0} 4J n (U 4-) X3 3

TO

« * :$:

* *

\D CM m t^

00 1-H

c o

- H 4J to s )-< o

VM c

4-1

.—1 1—4

c o

TH

03 c (U x : (U in

<-H »-H

* * * * O ^ cjN i n

m CM r«-

o - H 4-1 <u E x :

a. 4J Fl O

- H U

CJN

m OJ

•H C 4J to

* * * .-H i n

en ON

>, u

- H C to J-< CO to

^ 4J T 4 -r4 £ oo

•rH - f - l

f-t

=) X I to u o

O -< W Q >

* * * * * * * # iii ^ Jlf lii vO O O N 0 0 r^ en en 1 ^ r^ CD

CM ^4 i n vO so

3

letion

3 1

ngement

bly

2

•.H n. c to e O S oo iH tu

X I O •<-( i.4 ffl S C) M -< ffl >. <u -<

W 0) O tt) ^ H 4J

4J 3 Jsi 3 y •H j j y 4J tt) oo U O U " ^

- H MH -rH -H -XI O O i CQ O H O

* * * *-H so

t ^ CM

* * * * * * CM —< •<f ON

—< i n e n si-

j - H c y 4-H

i) V jy

© • £ : • ' - < 4-H

i - H

to X I u tl)

to « £ y i H « )

o I M -r^ u->-i a> 3

i > o- fc

u I—I

ffl

SJ

y to

i2£

y

C

U

o

as I

y y

O

« j y

-TN) — H

II o

y s j

y * y * u

o o c tc u

II •<-! J.4

jj y

« e

C

- y

V j y

S O *

y o

i s

V

m

s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r tJiaiia corregjxsjfflcfilfflg ^At^^W- §(&(§>f&§.

T a b l e 8 d e p i c t s n e a n s u b t e s t SffliJ Kg sCi§>ir^g £(§>$• rt^ WM§

a n d MAIS-R. A r i t h e e t i c w a s the <s>mtf Sisi&t^^t tfti^ft (^i-S iPcPtf

j i e l d s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e i a t t $(C(5)ff"e§ f(§)ff tfti^ t\W(§) tf:^^tt^..

EoMCver , MAIS A r i t h i m e t i c SBttBsitestt S(C(6)ff ^ *'^ff* ^fl^i-U

s l i g h t l y h i g h e r (M = 9 . 2 6 ) timm W M ^ E ^cccpff^^ ffi =? ^..77(5)^..

T h e r e was a s i g r o i f i c a i i l t imteff^cticPfli li)*tt\w^#iP (S^d^^i^ (§>£

a d m i i m i s t r a t i o i n i ( O r i e r 1 w s , ©BTffier 2)) SiPcS 'ff^^tt ^lW^J§

T S - MAIS-ffi) f©r s i x ®ff tftie 1 1 siuBoite^lt^ ^iPdi tfcftff" * J J tflhir^^

IQ s c o r e s ( S e e Tsfele 7 , Coluuimm 4^5.. f i ^o i i r ^^ i „ 2 , , SiPdi :?

i l l m s t r s t t e t h e T e s t x (D)Br(Seff ili»tt®ff«(eti:i-(SWi tfcPff i t t te W^ifib^lL,,

Perfforimaimce, fflnnd Fuull S e a l ® I ^ SiCcSff*^,, ff^^ip^cfttiw^ei^.. 'Mi#

(flifffferenace BBetweem WAIS suicfi W/M^ff (ecs ff ^ i ^ rsu«3h iJ^ff^iSir

^witBn \K1IS s c o r e s tolglbeff- ttHn m \\^^I^-fi? ^(fkPir*^)) fiip (fe-dter ^

ffls c®mi5)aire(fl t® ©rcfier 1 f(S)ff a l l itlbff"«# I(§) ^cftSff*^.. 'fflii^

WAIS-K im ©rcfier 1 dlcpes mcpit * J w * y ^ ^ y i ^ M Mg*«f f \JM;A; II 4FV

S(E(B)ir£s„ Ibmt (5)ft)tffli-«iiiBg jpffSffttitS* IbstfcPff-* t3:^^&P$ t t l te UvA lIS iiifi

Ifflirg^ir dUi cCfir pSflKei!-®^ tt)«tt\W«*rti i t l te tt;KP tf^^tt^..

iDui® 1t(5) t t t e S i ^ i f i c C S i P t t iintt«ff*tf:ti::a<Piti lJj#tfe*«^fi l i ^ t t ^tUi

ipircsxc^didiirte tfcpff fflHliJtti55J# (f(ftflT[P*ff:tf cPrP^ lb*tti».^E» rtP^ftf^ \*<^

aittiiUiJ-««di ttoP ^^apunirP^ ^iiffjpfi^ rfl ii-rti «tftf«3:tt^ few i T ^ a t vMitGiUifi

83

Table 8

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations for WAIS and WAIS-R Scores

Subtest

Information Comprehension Arithmetic Similarities Digit Span Vocabulary

Digit Symbol Picture Completion block Design Picture Arrangement Object Assembly

Verbal IQ Performance IQ Full Scale IQ

w Mean

8.26 9.96 9.26 10.66 9.57 8.96

11.78 10.58 11.54 10.78 11.67

101.34 109.73 105.27

AIS

SD

2.44 3.24 2.59 2.47 2.76 2.38

2.71 2.24 3.04 2.31 2.84

12.30 12.12 11.83

WAIS-R

Mean

7.37 8.67 8.70 8.33 8.91 7.47

10.41 9.03 10.66 10.08 10.08

97.86 104.87 100.67

SD

2.23 2.74 2.34 2.45 2.38 2.10

2.52 2.33 3.20 2.50 3.02

13.56 16.00 14.60

r

.86***

.73***

.75***

.64***

.68***

.89***

.73***

.48***

.74***

.44*^*

.32*

.91***

.61***

.82***

Note. Subtest means are in scaled score points and Verbal IQ, Performance IQ, and Full Scale IQ means are in IQ points. *£ < .01; *** £ < .0001

VIQ

84

110

109

108

107

106

105

104

103

102

101

100

99 98 97 96

103.03

WAIS

WAIS-R

O r d e r of A d m i n i s t r a t i o n

F i g u r e 1

Test X Order Interaction for WAIS and WAIS-R Verbal IQ Scores

PIQ

85

114 ••

113 ••

112 •

111 •

110 •

109 •

108 •

107 •

106 -

105 -

104 -

103 -

102 •

101 •

100 -•

99 -

98 -.

97 •

96 •

WAIS

110.57

106 .59

13 .24

WAIS-R

O r d e r o f A d m i n i s t r a t i o n

F i g u r e 2

Test X Order Interaction for WAIS and WAIS-R Performance IQ Scores

86

FSIQ

113--

112--

111--

no--109-

108 -

107 •-

1 0 6 ••

105--

104--

1 0 3 -

102--

1 0 1 -

100 •-99- .

9 8 ••

9 7 -9 6 -

WAIS-R 97.27

Order of Administration

Figure 3

Test X Order Interaction for WAIS and WAIS-R Full Scale IQ Scores

87

Order 1 and Order 2, and simple effects for Order within

Test. Table 9 presents these results for the six

subtests and three IQ scores with significant Test x

Order interactions.

When the WAIS-R followed the WAIS in Order 1 (Table

9, Column 1 vs. 2), the WAIS produced a significantly

higher score on only one subtest. Similarities. The

WAIS-R produced a significantly higher Performance IQ

score by 3.98 points. All other test differences were

non-significant.

When the WAIS followed the WAIS-R in Order 2 (Table

9, Column 3 vs. 4), the WAIS resulted in significantly

higher scores on all six of the subtests. The WAIS also

produced a higher Verbal IQ by 5.61 points. Performance

IQ by 14.76 points, and Full Scale IQ by 10.58 points.

WAIS scores were compared in Order 1 and Order 2

(WAIS first vs. WAIS second). When the WAIS was the

second scale administered (Table 9, Column 3 vs. 1),

significantly higher scaled scores resulted on

Similarities, Digit Symbol, Picture Completion, and

Object Assembly. All three of the IQ scores were

significantly higher when the WAIS was administered as

the second scale (VIQ, 3.19 points; PIQ, 6.65 points;

FSIQ, 4.88 points). WAIS-R scores were also compared in

88

Table 9

Main Effects of Test within Order and Order v/ithin Test for the Six Subtest and Three IQ Scores with

Significant Test x Order Interactions (Tukey's Method)

Ord

WAIS Subtest (1)

SIM

DSYM

PC

BD

PA

OA

9.73

11.46

9.89

11.30

10.54

10.78

er 1

WAIS-R (2)

8.30

10.94

9.35

11.27

10.81

11.32

Order 2

WAIS (3)

11.70

12.15

11.36

11.82

11.06

12.67

WAIS-R (4)

8.36

9.82

8.67

9.97

9.27

8.70

Diff. of T w/in 0

1-2

1.43*

0.52

0.54

0.03

-0.27

-0.54

3-4

3.34*

2.33*

2.69*

1.85*

1.79*

3.97*

Diff. of 0 w/in T

3-1

1.97*

0.69*

1.47*

0.52

0.52

1.89*

2-4

-0.06

1.12*

0.68

1.30*

1.54*

2.62*

VIQ 99.84 98.24 103.03 97.42 1.60 5.61* 3.19* 0.82

PIQ 106.59 110.57 113.24 98.48 -3.98* 14.76* 6.65* 12.09*

FSIQ 102.97 103.70 107.85 97.27 -0.73 10.58* 4.88* 6.43*

Order 1 = WAIS followed by WAIS-R; Order 2 = WAIS-R followed by WAIS.

Subtest means are in scaled score points and Verbal IQ, Performance IQ, and Full Scale IQ means are in IQ points,

SIM = Similarities; DSYM = Digit Symbol; PC = Picture Completion; BD = Block Design; PA = Picture Arrangement; OA = Object Assembly; VIQ = Verbal IQ; PIQ = Performance IQ; FSIQ = Full Scale IQ.

*£ < .01.

89

Order 1 and Order 2 (Table 9, Column 2 vs. 4). When the

WAIS-R was administered as the second scale (Order 1),

four of the six subtests (Digit Symbol, Block Design,

Picture Arrangement, Object Assembly) and tv/o of the IQ

scores (PIQ, 12.09 points; FSIQ, 6.43 points) were

significantly higher than when the WAIS-R was

administered as the first scale.

Even though it is important to ascertain the effect

that order of administration has on test results,

differential practice effects make it difficult to

determine actual test differences. Therefore, a

between-groups comparison of subjects taking their first

Wechsler scale was made. Table 10 presents differences

between means for these "naive" subjects. WAIS scores

were significantly higher than WAIS-R scores for the

following subtests: Similarities, Vocabulary, and Object

Assembly. Performance IQ scores and Full Scale IQ scores

were significantly higher on the WAIS than on the WAIS-R.

Hypotheses 3 and 4

The three racial groups (White, Black,

Mexican-American) obtained significantly different scores

for 10 of the 11 subtests and for all three IQ scores

(see Table 7).

The Scheffe method of multiple comparisons between

90

Table 10

Comparison of WAIS and WAIS-R Subtest and IQ Means for 70 High School Students:

Breakdown of Naive Subjects

Subtest

Information Comprehension Arithmetic Similarities Digit Span Vocabulary

Digit Symbol Picture Completion Block Design Picture Arrangement Object Assembly

Verbal IQ Performance IQ Full Scale IQ

WAIS (N

M

8.16 9.35 9.30 9.73 9.49 8.92

11.46 9.89 11.30 10.54 10.78

99.84 106.59 102.97

= 37)

SD

2.23 3.42 2.72 2.47 3.23 2.67

2.05 2.00 3.25 1.73 2.52

12.97 10.31 11.27

WAIS-R (N

M

7.27 9.09 8.79 8.36 8.58 7.18

9.82 8.67 9.97 9.27 8.70

97.42 98.48 97.27

= 33)

SD

2.15 2.47 2.33 2.29 2.17 1.69

2.69 2.15 3.25 2.04 2.72

12.10 13.96 12.41

Difference

0.89 0.26 0.51 1.37* 0.91 1.74*

1.64 1.22 1.33 1.18 2.08**

2.41 8.11** 5.70*

points

91

means was used to determine whether White subjects scored

significantly higher on the WAIS and the WAIS-R than

Blacks and Mexican-American subjects. The subtest and IQ

means for White subjects were compared with those of

Black and Mexican-American subjects separately as well as

with the combined means of Black and Mexican-American

subjects. Table 11 presents the mean subtest and IQ

scores for the three racial groups along with F values

for the three comparisons examined.

Although White subjects scored higher than Black

subjects on all subtests and IQ scores, significant

differences were found for only three subtests:

Information, Arithmetic, and Vocabulary. White subjects

also scored significantly higher than Black subjects on

the Verbal and Full Scale IQ scores.

White subjects scored higher than Mexican-American

subjects on all subtests and IQ scores, with

significantly higher scores on the Comprehension and

Similarities subtests. White subjects also obtained

significantly higher Verbal and Full Scale IQ scores than

Mexican-American subjects.

When subtest and IQ scores of the White subjects

were compared with the combined scores of Black and

Mexican-American subjects, White subjects scored

92

u to

•—1

1-H

y 1-H

X I

CO

H

c to i)

s ) H

o 14H

CO

c o CO

• H

u to D,

E O

u

<u 1-H

a. •H 4.)

1-H

3

^ HH

c to o

• H Ul

CU

E <

1

c to u

• H

X tu

' ' • ^

T 3

c CO

., ^ o CO

1-H

O CQ

4-)

to CU

H

.. y 4-1 • H

x ; y 12

MH MH

<U JZ o

CO

CO I-H

< ^ c o

CO y SH

o u

CO

o* hH

T 3

C CO

j - J

to y 4-1

X I

3 W

T 3

y

c • H

X 3

B O

!J)

OS 1

CO hH < 3

X )

c to

to c o to

• H

M

to

-> to y 3

a , i - H

E O

CJ

c to y

^

to > IJH

>

to y i-i

o u

CO

c t3 y

S

en ">

CM

to >

I - H

en

CO

> 1-H

CM

CO

> 1—1

< 1

^

^ o to

i H /V^

y 4J

•H x : 13

to 4-1 to y 4-1

X I

3 C/D

/—\ u

\^^

y—s

^ N

/ — S

to N . - ^

-\ en s_^

CM

^ -

• - s

1-H

—/

* en CM

en 1—1

1 ^

NO

00

CM

cn •

1-H

1-H

i n 1 ^

NO

o o-

^

i n 1-H

* * NO 0 0 NO c n

CM en 1-H 1-H

* O l NO

<r en

O CO 1—1

* CM NO NO 0 0

• • 0 0 1-1

1—(

CN < r

* * -<r 00 00 1 ^ eN4 o

CM NO en 1-H 1-H

<t- r^ T~~ CO < t NO

o cn 00 1—1

* i n > * CM en r-H o . . .

CO NO .-H 1-H

C7N NO ON NO cjN o i n 1-H

1 ^ i ^

CM 0 0 ON < r

t^ r^

en in c^ cn

ON o o

ion

4-1

to E u o

14H

c I-H

1-H r-H

nsion

ic

y 4J

jz y y e iH x ; D . 4-1

E -H O H

u <

00 CO l~^

CM 00 O < r C3N ON

00 f ^ NO

0 0 i-H r ^

r^ en ^

O O ON 1-H t—(

to y

•H a >,

4-1 CO ^1 • H CU CO i-l C/: I-H

CO 3 r H 4-1 X I

•H -H to E 00 U

•H -H O CO Q >

i n 1—1 -o -

1—1 en CM

O i n en

VO NO 1-H CM C7N l~^

CM o en in

CM 0 0

m o CM c n

O en en o 00

en r-H NO

o o in • • •

O -<I- .-H

CM en CM r^ O r^

r ^ 1-H

i n i~~-• •

•vl- -3-

CM < • NO •<!•

O ON O O CJN 1-H 1-H

o CM m I-H O NO

--H CJN CO ,—1

00 en CM CM NO r~

1-H O CM I-H 1-H I-H

mbol

Completion

sign

> . y CO y o

u 4J 3 ^ •H 4-1 u oo u o

• H - H i H

n PL, pa

1-H

i n 00 CM o

CJN o I - H

<f on o o

I-H CM 1-H I-H

4-1

Arrangemen

ssembly

< tu U 4-1

3 U 4-1 01

y - - - i • H X I

a, o

•^ •^ -^ CM c n NO ON o i n

. . . c n o 1-H CM I-H CNl

* * i n ~d- CM O < t < t

• • • vo in cn t-H 1—t

<} <t r^ C3N CjN 1-H

. . . O N ON CJN I-H r-H

ON NO r -I-H O <!•

• • • CM en NO ON o c^

I - H

CM O CM

on osi m • • • o ON on

C3N CTN CJN

~S- NO ON

in o in . . .

00 < t r-H O I-H I-H I-H 1-H I-H

Q nee IQ

le IQ

M CO CO

E U r H ^1 CO CO O

j:> U-t r-i i-l I H i H y y 3

> PH fe

cr > y 4J

• H

j r 3

II

u

. . c CO y

•H u y E < 1

C

CO

u • H

X y

s •

to

> y • 4-1 - a •H y j r c S -H

^ II E

O xa u

• - to ^ y y u to O

i H u oa to

• c to to

= White V

can-Americ

CO - H 1-H

X O y •

• S y 4-1

o 2

V •a c c4 CO *

93

significantly higher on all of the Verbal subtests with

the exception of Digit Span and all three of the IQ

scores. None of the Performance subtest scores were

significantly different from one another.

The predicted Test x Race interaction was found to

be significant only for Performance IQ scores. This was

an indication that the race of the subject significantly

affected their differential performance on the WAIS and

WAIS-R Performance IQ scores (see Table 7). Figure 4

illustrates this interaction. For the Performance IQ

score, WAIS scores were higher than WAIS-R scores for

each racial group. The WAIS vs. WAIS-R difference in PIQ

scores for Black subjects was significantly larger than

the WAIS vs. WAIS-R difference in PIQ scores for White

and Mexican-American subjects.

Tukey's procedure was used to compare mean PIQ

scores for each racial group on the WAIS and the WAIS-R.

Results indicate that significant differences between the

PIQ scores of Whites vs. Blacks and Mexican-Americans

exist on both the WAIS and the WAIS-R.

Supplementary Data Analyses

Hypothesis 5

It was predicted that WAIS subtest and IQ scores

would be significantly correlated with corresponding

94

PIQ

116

115

114

113

112

111 110

109

108

107

106

105

104

103

102

101

100

99

98

97

96

95

94

93

92

115.76

White

112.35

102.90 M-A

Black

95.50

WAIS WAIS-R

F i g u r e 4

Race X T e s t I n t e r a c t i o n f o r WAIS and WAIS-R P e r f o r m a n c e IQ S c o r e s

95

WAIS-R scores. Table 8 presents the correlation

coefficients for WAIS and WAIS-R subtest and IQ scores.

All correlations were statistically significant.

The three WAIS IQ scores were significantly

correlated with correspomdiBg MAIS-R IQ scores. There

was a tendency for Verbal subtest and IQ scores to have

higher correlation coefficieets than Performance scores.

The subtests whose correlations had the greatest

magnitude were Vocabulary (r = 0.89), Information (r_ =

0.86), and Arithmetic iT_ = 0.75). These subtests

contributed to a highly positive relationship between the

Verbal IQ scores on the WAIS and WAIS-R (r = 0.91).

Conversely, the subtests with the lowest magnitude of

correlation between the two tests were Object Assembly (r

= 0.32), Picture Arrangement (r_ = 0.44), and Picture

Completion (r = 0.48). These lower correlations

contributed to a lower correlation between the

Performance IQ scores of the two tests (jr = 0.61).

Test X Order x Examiner

A 2 X 2 X 5 analysis of variance with one within-

(Test) and two between-subjects (Order, Examiner)

variables was performed as a supplementary test to

determine whether examiners assigned significantly

different test scores from one another. Table 12

Table 12

_F Values for Examiner Main Effect and Examiner Interactions with Test and Order

96

Subtests

Information Comprehension Arithmetic Similarities Digit Span Vocabulary

Digit Symbol Picture Completion Block Design Picture Arrangement Object Assembly

Verbal IQ Performance IQ Full Scale IQ

E x a m i n e r

0 . 7 0 1 .01 0 . 6 4 1 .36 0 . 5 6 1 .85

0 . 4 8 1 .94 1 .04 0 . 2 8 1 .40

1 .08 1 .22

T X E

1 .02 0 . 5 1 1 . 0 5 3 . 3 7 2 . 8 8 0 . 6 6

2 . 0 9 1 .90 0 . 5 6 0 . 2 0 1 .60

1 . 8 3 1 . 9 5

0 T X 0 X E

1.10 1.82

0.00 0.12 0.99 0.45 1.38 0.75

0.56 0.85 0.88 1.00 0.60

0.45 0.77 0.46

25 20

0.35 1.56 0.92 0.68

4.35* 2.04 0.48 2.27 0.45

2.25 2.80 3.37

Note £. < .01.

T = Test; 0 = Order; E = Examiner

97

presents F_ values for the Examiner main effect and

Examiner interactions with Test and Order of

administration.

According to these results, there were no

significant differences between examiner scores for any

of the subtest or IQ scores. There were also no

significant Test x Examiner interactions, indicating that

the examiner was not a factor affecting WAIS/WAIS-R test

differences for any of the subtest or IQ scores.

However, there was a significant Test x Order x Examiner

interaction found for one subtest. Digit Symbol. There

were no significant interactions found for any of the IQ

scores.

Figures 5 and 6 illustrate the interaction within

Order 1 and 2, respectively, for the Digit Symbol

subtest. In Order 1, all of the examiners with the

exception of Examiner 3 achieved higher WAIS than WAIS-R

scores. In contrast, Examiner 3 tested subjects whose

WAIS-R mean scores were higher than WAIS mean scores. It

should also be noted that Examiner 4 obtained a larger

difference between WAIS and WAIS-R Digit Symbol scores in

Order 1 than the other examiners. In Order 2, all

examiners tested subjects whose mean scores were higher

on the WAIS than on the WAIS-R Digit Symbol subtest.

98

D i g i t Symbol

1 2 . 4

1 2 . 2

1 2 . 0

1 1 . 8

1 1 . 6 •

1 1 . 4

1 1 . 2

1 1 . 0 •

1 0 . 8 •

1 0 . 6 •

1 0 . 4

1 0 . 2

1 0 . 0 •

9 . 8

9 . 6 •

9 . 4

9 . 2

9 . 0

8 . 8

Ex. 3

Ex. 5

4- 4-WAIS WAIS-R

Figure 5

Test X Order x Examiner Interaction (Order 1) for WAIS and WAIS-R Digit Symbol Subtest

99 Digit Symbol

WAIS WAIS-R

Figure 6

Test X Order x Examiner Interaction (Order 2) for WAIS and WAIS-R Digit Symbol Subtest

100

However, differences between WAIS and VJAIS-R scores were

much larger in Order 2 than in Order 1 for all examiners

except Examiner 5. Examiner 5 tested subjects whose mean

scores were only 0.1 scaled point higher on the WAIS than

the WAIS-R Digit Symbol subtest.

Test Differences and IQ Categories

Differences between WAIS and WAIS-R Performance and

Full Scale IQ scores varied significantly according to

the IQ category of the individuals tested. WAIS-R Full

Scale IQ scores were used to define three categories:

Below Average (IQ < 90), Average (89 < IQ < 110), and

Above Average (IQ > 109). For Performance IQ scores, the

discrepancy between the two tests was significantly

different for the Above Average group as compared to the

Average and Below Average groups (see Table 13). Mean

WAIS PIQ scores were 3.89 points lower than WAIS-R scores

in the Above Average group. In contrast, mean WAIS PIQ

scores were 6.89 points higher than WAIS-R PIQ scores in

the Average group and 11.07 points higher than WAIS-R PIQ

scores in the Below Average group.

For Full Scale IQ scores, significant differences

between WAIS and WAIS-R scores were also found for the

Above Average as compared to the Average and Below

Average groups (see Table 13). Mean WAIS-R FSIQ scores

101

Table 13

WAIS and WAIS-R Mean IQ Differences in Three IQ Categories

VIQ Difference PIQ Difference FSIQ Difference

Average IQ (90-109)

1

NO

N

O

NO

on on

on

Mean

3.69 6.89 5.78

S^

5.46 11.15 6.97

VIQ Difference PIQ Difference FSIQ Difference

Below Average IQ (69-89)

I 15 15 15

Mean

6.40 11.07 9.53

1 3.29 7.90 4.00

Above Average IQ (110-143)

N Mean SD

VIQ Difference 19 PIQ Difference 19 FSIQ Difference 19

0, -3, -1,

.79

.89

.53

6. 15, 10,

.07

.06

.18

Note. Each difference score is computed by subtracting the mean WAIS-R score from the mean WAIS score. IQ categories are defined by WAIS-R scores.

102

were 1.53 points higher than WAIS FSIQ scores in the

Above Average range. This is compared to the Average and

Below Average groups in which WAIS FSIQ scores were 9.53

and 5.78 points higher than WAIS-R FSIQ scores,

respectively.

A limitation inherent to this comparison of IQ

categories is that the Below Average group was composed

almost entirely of minorities (see Figure 7). Further,

there is only one minority subject included in the Above

Average group. However, the significant difference that

was found between test scores in the Average and Above

Average categories in the overall analysis was also found

in an analysis of the data taken from White subjects

only. As there was only one White subject in the Below

Average group, it was not possible to compare Below

Average with Above Average categories in this sample.

103

-L ^

I

r~ 00 oo

II • en

y CJN oo c II

OS X

*

NO

o I

NO i-^in

>3-II •

O QJCJN 00 C II to osix

* *

*

X

* *

*

*_

V 'I* '1^

*

c (0

u •H i-i y 1 ^ u

•H X 0)

r:

* * * * *

« «

*

*

* *

* * * 1 . *

|X ^ « *

* * * * *

u >;= to

r-H CQ

*

y 4J •H

on

00 00 r~- cn

II ON O

y 1-H CO c: II to

OS I X

CM - J -

t-H

I-H

CM on r - H

fi • - H

?9 r - H

O CN

^ I - H

?:! 1-H

• R r - H

00 t-H r - H

\o ^ H t-H

«-H t - H

<N <-H I - H

o I - H

8 I - H

8 1-H

s * H

s • — '

Q I - H

»

«

3 S 8 88 «

a S S S NO r--rJ

CO CU I-I O

u CO

cr M CC C/J CH IJ-i 3

O DS IH

1 CJ3 CO hH i H < 03 32 -H

U I ^ <4H CD

O OS y

u c y 3 o y 00 -H Ui

•H 4-1 X !

fo 3 H X I •H y i-i x ; 4-1 4J

•H U Q O

IJH

u c y 3

cr y

s-< |JH

CHAPTER IV

DISCUSSION

This section will begin with a general discussion of

the findings for the principal hypotheses. Following the

general discussion, the limitations of the present study

are outlined. Finally, suggestions are presented for

future research.

Results and Implications of Hypothesis Testing

Test Differences

Hypothesis 1 predicted that WAIS subtest and IQ

scores would be significantly higher than corresponding

WAIS-R scores when these tests were administered to a

sample of 70 high school students. This hypothesis was

confirmed for 10 of the 11 subtests (with the exception

of the Arithmetic subtest) and all three IQ scores.

These results are comparable to earlier VMIS/WAIS-R

comparisons, in which investigators found that WAIS IQs

were significantly higher than WAIS-R IQs (e.g., Kelly,

Montgomery, Felleman, & Webb, 1984; Lippold & Claiborn,

1983; Mishra & Brown, 1983; Prifitera & Ryan, 1983;

Rabourn, 1983; Smith, 1983; Urbina, Golden, & Ariel,

1983; Wechsler, 1981).

In the present study, WAIS VIQ, PIQ, and FSIQ scores

104

105

were higher than corresponding scores on the WAIS-R by

3.48, 4.86, and 4.60 points, respectively. These IQ

differences are somewhat lower than the 7-9 point

differences found in several of the previous studies that

sampled other populations (e.g., Prifitera & Ryan, 1983;

Lippold & Claiborn, 1983; Rabourn, 1983; Smith, 1983;

Wechsler, 1981). However, research data would suggest

that these differences are nonetheless meaningful.

Wechsler (1981) reported average standard errors of

measurement for Verbal, Performance, and Full Scale IQ

scores of 2.74, 4.14, and 2.53 points, respectively

(p. 33). WAIS and WAIS-R IQ scores would be considered

roughly equivalent if the differences between

corresponding scores fell within this predicted range.

However, differences between WAIS and VJAIS-R IQ scores in

the present study exceeded this expected margin. This is

further evidence that the scores betv/een the tv;o tests

were significantly different.

There are several possible explanations for the

higher scores usually obtained on the WAIS as compared to

the WAIS-R. Flynn (1984) noted that since 1932 it has

been necessary to establish increasingly more difficult

norms for intelligence tests to compensate for the

improved test performance of the standardization sample.

106

He concluded that, as a result of the increasing

difficulty level of the tests, subjects who are tested

with two different intelligence tests nearly always score

higher on the test that was standardized earlier.

There are significant differences between the

general characteristics of the WAIS and WAIS-R

standardization samples. The WAIS standardization sample

was tested in the early 1950's, prior to the impact of

television and mass media, and before the prominence of

child-development movements that stress the importance of

early stimulation for young children. The WAIS-R sample

was tested in the late 1970's and had the benefits of

mass media, more enlightened and better educated parents,

and therefore greater cultural advantages. Not

surprisingly, the individuals in the WAIS-R sample

performed better than did their WAIS counterparts on the

types of tasks included in a Wechsler test.

There are several differences between the WAIS and

WAIS-R which may contribute to the improved performance

by the WAIS-R standardization sample. Rabourn (1983)

cites specific changes on the WAIS-R which could

potentially account for higher scoring by the

standardization sample. For example, the WAIS-R manual

instructs examiners to ask for a second response on items

107

needing two answers on the Comprehension subtest.

Further, there have been changes in directions, scoring,

timing, and wording for subtests which may account for

some of the differences. These changes could have

facilitated higher scoring in the WAIS-R standardization

group, resulting in a set of WAIS-R norms that are more

difficult than the WAIS norms. Therefore, when today's

adults are compared to their contemporaries in the WAIS-R

normative group, their scores will not be as high as when

they are compared to their age counterparts of just one

generation ago in the WAIS standardization sample.

The fact that individuals generally tend to obtain

significantly lower scores on the WAIS-R as compared to

the WAIS has implications regarding academic placement.

For example, discrepancies between achievement and

intellectual ability for students referred for a possible

learning disorder will tend to be smaller when the V/AIS-R

is used instead of the WAIS. This will make it less

likely that students taking the WAIS-R will qualify for

remedial placement based on a learning disability.

Examiners should keep the discrepancy between the two

scores in mind when assessing the presence of learning

disabilities and recommending appropriate academic

placement. Past WISC/WISC-R comparisons have shown that

108

mainstreaming decisions may be contingent on which scale

is included in the assessment battery (cf. Swerdlik,

1977).

Hypothesis 2 predicted that the difference between

WAIS and WAIS-R scores would be affected by the order in

which the two tests were administered. This hypothesis

was confirmed for six subtests (Similarities, Digit

Symbol, Picture Completion, Block Design, Picture

Arrangement, Object Assembly) and all three IQ scores.

These results confirm earlier research in this area which

indicates that the order of test administration

differentially affects WAIS/WAIS-R test scores (Edwards &

Klein, 1984; Simon & Clopton, 1984; Smith, 1983). The

six WAIS and WAIS-R subtests and three IQ scores for

which significant Test x Order interactions were found

were compared within Order 1 and Order 2 (see Table 9).

The WAIS subtest and IQ scores were significantly higher

than corresponding WAIS-R scores when individuals took

the WAIS-R first (Order 2). These same practice effects

did not take place in Order 1 except for the Performance

IQ score, which was significantly higher on the WAIS-R.

Generally, therefore, when the WAIS was given first, the

practice effect served to mask the real difference

between the scores for the two tests (i.e., the two tests

109

approached equivalence). However, obtaining practice on

the WAIS-R before taking the WAIS (which is usually

higher than the WAIS-R anyway) magnifies the difference

between the tests.

It is interesting to note that all five of the

Performance subtest differences were affected by order of

administration, suggesting that the performance subtests

are more susceptible to practice effects than the verbal

subtests. This may be becamse the performance subtests

were novel to many suntojects, miiilike the verbal tasks

which were similar to academiic material. It is probable

that the intertest interval of 30 to 60 days in the

present study contributetfi to tfee differential practice

effects, particularly on tine PerforBance subtests. It is

unlikely that an individual womld be retested after such

a short length of time in a clinical setting, thus

decreasing the likelihood that practice on an earlier

test would affect test scores. Therefore, although it is

important to be aware of how these factors influence test

scores in the present research, these findings have

limited clinical implications.

Racial Differences

Hypothesis 3 predicted that White subjects would

score significantly higher than Black and Mexican-

no

American subjects on the WAIS and the WAIS-R subtest and

IQ scores. This hypothesis received some support in the

present study (see Table 11). White subjects received

significantly higher Verbal, Performance, and Full Scale

IQ scores than the two minority groups combined (see

Table 11). In addition, White subjects scored

significantly higher than Blacks and Mexican-Americans

(combined) on the Verbal subtests of Information,

Comprehension, Arithmetic, Similarities, and Vocabulary.

White subjects scored slightly higher on the remaining

Verbal subtest as well as on all of the Performance

subtests. However, these differences were not

significant.

These results are in agreement with past studies

that have compared White and minority IQ scores on

standardized intelligence tests (Holtzman, Diaz-Guerrero,

& Swartz, 1975; Jensen, 1980; Matarazzo, 1972; Sattler,

1974; Winter, 1968). In the United States, Black-White

group differences of between 10 and 15 Wechsler points

are not uncommon (for review, see Sundberg & Gonzales,

1981). In the present study, the differences between

mean IQ scores of White and Black subjects were 18.22

points on VIQ, 14.86 on PIQ, and 18.07 on FSIQ. The

differences between mean IQ scores of White and

Ill

Mexican-American subjects were somewhat lower, with a

16.35 point difference on VIQ, 11.00 point difference on

PIQ, and 15.12 point difference on FSIQ.

The significant differences found between White and

Black students occurred on Verbal subtests which measure

academic abilities: Information, Arithmetic, and

Vocabulary. One possible explanation for these results

is that, due to cultural differences. Black individuals

may have a more difficult time learning material in a

classroom setting than do White individuals. Black

individuals may have developed unique verbal skills

(i.e.. Black Dialect) that are not measured by

conventional tests or accepted in a classroom setting

(Williams, 1970). Motivational factors may also

contribute to this discrepancy between scores. Blacks

and other minority group individuals may respond with "I

don't know" more quickly to terminate the unpleasantness

of interacting with a demanding adult. Studies have

suggested that minority group individuals, in comparison

with middle class individuals, are more wary of adults,

less motivated to be correct for the sake of correctness

alone, and often willing to settle for lower levels of

achievement and success (Zigler & Butterfield, 1968).

In the present study. White subjects did not score

112

significantly higher than either Black or

Mexican-American subjects on any of the Performance

subtests. Black and Mexican-American mean scores on

Performance subtests were 1-4 points higher overall than

their scores on Verbal subtests, contributing to the

decreased discrepancy between racial groups on

Performance IQ scores (see Table 11). Since verbal tasks

consistently produce racial differences, several

individuals have attempted to produce more "culture-fair"

tests by eliminating the language factor (e.g.. The

Leiter International Performance Scale, 1966; The

Progressive Matrices, 1960). However, these types of

non-verbal tests have not been shown to have greater

predictive validity than verbal tests with minority

groups (Anastasi, 1976).

Several researchers (e.g., Loehlin, Lindzey, &

Spuhler, 1975; Matarazzo & Pankratz, 1980) have addressed

the rather consistent finding that minority groups score

lower on standardized intelligence tests than do White

subjects. Some of the explanations offered include

environmental deprivation, educational deficits, lower

socioeconomic status, genetic differences, and/or test

inadequacies. The present study did not attempt to

determine the causal factors underlying differences in IQ

113

scores between various racial groups. However, results

do suggest that IQ score differences between minority

groups and White individuals continue to be significant.

Hypothesis 4 predicted that the race of the subject

would affect differential performance on the WAIS and the

WAIS-R. However, a significant Race x Test interaction

was found for only the Performance IQ (see Table 7). In

other words, there were no significant differences

between the WAIS and the WAIS-R due to racial factors on

any of the subtest or IQ scores other than Performance

IQ. As expected, White, Black, and Mexican-American

groups all scored several points higher on the three WAIS

IQ scores as compared to corresponding WAIS-R IQ scores

(see Table 14). However, the difference between

WAIS/V/AIS-R Performance IQ scores of Black subjects was

7.40 points as compared to a difference of 3.41 points

for Whites and 4.75 for Mexican-Americans. Therefore,

even though Black PIQ scores tend to be lower than PIQ

scores earned by the other two racial groups on both

tests, the discrepancy between WAIS and WAIS-R PIQ scores

is significantly greater for the Black as compared to the

White racial group (see Figure 4).

Significant differences in the Performance IQ scores

of White and minority groups continue to exist on the

114

Table 14

Comparison of WAIS and WAIS-R Verbal, Performance, and Full Scale Mean IQ Scores for White,

Black, and Mexican-American Subjects

White Black

WAIS

VIQ

PIQ

FSIQ

WAIS-R

VIQ

PIQ

FSIQ

110.03

115.76

113.29

107.06

112.35

109.88

92.15

102.90

96.60

88.50

95.50

90.45

Mexican-American

94.38

105.44

99.06

90.00

100.69

93.88

Note. VIQ = Verbal IQ, PIQ = Performance IQ, FSIQ Full Scale IQ.

115

WAIS-R (see Figure 4). There were no significant Race x

Test interactions found for the Verbal or Full Scale IQ

scores, although the Full Scale Test x Race interaction

approached significance (2. < .013). The fact that

minority groups scored significantly lower than White

subjects on the WAIS-R Performance scale but not on the

Verbal scale suggests that, contrary to clinical lore,

performance items are no more culture fair than verbal

items on the WAIS-R. One might assume that, since the

WAIS-R was revised in several areas to make it a more

culture-fair test, racial IQ differences might decline on

the WAIS-R when compared with the WAIS. However, it

appears that WAIS-R revisions did not lessen the IQ score

differences between White and minority group subjects.

Wechsler made several changes in the WAIS-R in an

attempt to improve the face validity of the test. He

included several pictures of Black individuals in the

Picture Completion and Picture Arrangement subtests and

added questions about Louis Armstrong and Martin Luther

King in the Information subtest. In an effort to

determine whether changing and/or adding any of these

items on the WAIS-R led to improved scores for minority

group individuals, three-dimensional chi square analysis

(item X race x right/wrong) were performed on two of the

116

Information items that were added (Armstrong, King).

Responses of individuals from each racial group were

compared on the identified item as well as on the two

items of similar difficulty on either side of the

identified item. Table 15 presents the results of these

analyses in terms of the percentage of correct responses

given for each item by the three racial groups. For the

Armstrong item, a significant Race x Item interaction was

found, indicating that the race of the subject

differentially affected their response to the compared

items. Black subjects answered the Armstrong item

correctly more often than the other items of similar

difficulty. This may be contrasted with the differential

performance of the White subjects, as they tended to give

a higher percentage of incorrect responses to the

Armstrong item as compared to the items of similar

difficulty. Therefore, it may be concluded that Black

subjects found the Armstrong item relatively easier than

the other items of supposedly similar difficulty, whereas

White subjects found the Armstrong item much more

difficult than the other items.

Analysis of the King item revealed that the race of

the subject did not differentially affect their

performance on the King item as compared to two items of

117

Table 15

Percentage of Correct Responses for Armstrong and King Items on the WAIS-R

Armstrong item

Other 2 items*

White Black Mexican-American

2 6 . 5

7 1 . 0

5 5 . 0

4 0 . 0

2 5 . 0

3 4 . 0

King item 91.0

Other 2 items* 47.0

70.0

23.0

50.0

25.0

Note - The other 2 items refer to the questions immediately preceding and following the Armstrong and King items. These items are supposedly at similar levels of difficulty.

118

similar difficulty. However, there was a significant

main effect for Race such that White subjects tended to

answer all three items correctly more often than Black or

Mexican-American subjects. There was also a significant

main effect for item, which indicates that there is a

difference in the difficulty level of the three items.

All subjects found the two comparison items more

difficult than the King item. Overall, the inclusion of

the King and Armstrong items appears to add only to the

face validity of the WAIS-R and did not serve to

significantly lessen the discrepancy between White and

minority group IQ scores.

Supplementary Findings

Correlational data. Even though significant

differences exist between the WAIS and WAIS-R IQ scores,

additional evidence supports the idea that there is a

close relationship between the basic abilities tapped by

the two tests. Factor analyses conducted on the WAIS and

WAIS-R show no significant differences between the factor

structures of the tests (cf. Blaha & Wallbrown, 1982;

Gutkin, Reynolds, & Galvin, 1984; Parker, 1983;

Silverstein, 1982). Basically, there are three major

factors which are found to load consistently into each

scale. These include a general factor common to all

119

subtests, a Verbal Comprehension factor, and a Perceptual

Organization factor. Several studies also identified an

additional factor in both tests labeled Freedom from

Distractibility.

Numerous studies have found strong correlations

between WAIS and WAIS-R IQ scores (e.g., Edwards & Klein,

1983; Mishra & Brown, 1983; Simon & Clopton, 1984; Smith,

1983; Urbina, Golden, & Ariel, 1983; Wechsler, 1981). As

predicted, the correlational results of the present study

(T_ = .91, .61, and .82 for VIQ, PIQ, and FSIQ,

respectively) are similar to those in Wechsler's (1981)

study (£ = .91, .79, and .88 for VIQ, PIQ, and FSIQ,

respectively). These highly positive correlations are

not surprising in view of the large overlap in item

content on the WAIS and the WAIS-R. However, these

results also indicate that the WAIS and the WAIS-R

measure similar abilities. Since the two tests also

appear to be measuring similar constructs of

intelligence, it is suggested that the subtest and IQ

score discrepancies on the two tests are a result of a

difference in standardization norms.

Examiner variable. A Test x Order x Examiner

analysis of variance was performed to determine whether

the five examiners produced significantly different

120

scores from one another. There were no significant

examiner main effects found for any of the subtest or IQ

scores. However, there was one Test x Order x Examiner

interaction found for the Digit Symbol subtest. This

interaction was unexpected as the instructions for this

particular subtest are specific, a precise time limit of

90 seconds is given on both the WAIS and WAIS-R, and

there is no subjectivity involved in scoring. Despite

this one specific instance of examiner variance, overall

the results indicate that the examiners in this study did

not produce significantly different scores.

IQ category differences. An analysis of WAIS and

WAIS-R differences in three different IQ categories

suggests that differences between the two tests are

affected by the IQ of the subject. Individuals in the

Above Average group (IQ > 109) obtained slightly higher

scores on WAIS-R PIQ and FSIQ as compared to

corresponding scores on the WAIS. However, subjects in

the Average (89 < IQ < 110) and Below Average (IQ < 90)

groups earned significantly higher PIQ and FSIQ scores on

the WAIS as compared to the WAIS-R (see Table 13).

Flynn (1984) noted that it has been necessary to

establish increasingly stringent norms for intelligence

tests in the past 44 years. More stringent norms

121

translate into lower test scores obtained on the most

recently derived tests, e.g., WAIS-R. Flynn (1984)

attributed this discrepancy in test norms to the fact

that people have been getting smarter over the years.

However, the results of the present study suggest that

these differences in norms do not exist across all ranges

of intelligence. For example, it is true that subjects

of Below Average and Average intelligence tend to score

significantly higher on the WAIS than on the WAIS-R

(Kelly, Motgomery, Felleman, & Webb, 1984; Lippold &

Claiborn, 1983; Mishra & Brown, 1983; Prifitera & Ryan,

1983; Rabourn, 1983; Smith, 1983; Urbina, Golden, &

Ariel, 1983; Wechsler, 1983). In contrast, however, the

present study shows that individuals in the High Average

category did not obtain the expected discrepancy between

WAIS and WAIS-R scores. In fact, WAIS-R scores were

slightly higher than WAIS scores for this group. Thus,

the current results suggest that, while the norms have

become more difficult for individuals of Average

intelligence, they have not changed as much for

individuals of Above Average intelligence. Edwards &

Klein (1984) also found that highly intelligent adults

did not perform significantly better on the WAIS as

compared to the WAIS-R. Further, a comparison of the

122

WAIS and WAIS-R in a mentally retarded sample (Simon &

Clopton, 1984) failed to support Flynn's (1984)

conclusion that overall IQ scores in the United States

are rising. Therefore, although Flynn's (1984)

assumptions about increased IQ may be true in the more

normal ranges of intelligence, it should be emphasized

that individuals in the extreme upper and lower ranges of

intelligence do not appear to be exhibiting these same

increases.

To further understand these test differences as they

relate to IQ category, the difference between variance

scores on the WAIS and the WAIS-R was examined. The

WAIS-R variance is larger than that obtained on the WAIS

in this study as well as in Wechsler's (1981) original

WAIS/WAIS-R comparison. These variance differences can

explain why WAIS-R scores are artificially inflated in

the Above Average ranges of intelligence, minimizing the

difference between WAIS and WAIS-R test scores. This may

also explain why the difference between the V/AIS and the

WAIS-R is much greater for people in the Below Average

range of intelligence. Therefore, it is important for

researchers to take the variance of test scores into

consideration when examining test differences rather than

looking solely at differences between test means.

123

Limitations of the Present Study

The present research was performed in a specific

population of 70 high school students between the ages of

16 and 19. Therefore, generalizing the results of this

study to other groups should be done with caution. It is

also interesting that the subjects were enrolled in a

school district that was segregated in the recent past.

In fact, one of the schools used still has a very large

number of minority as compared to white students. It is

possible that these factors contributed to the

significant differences between the IQ scores of the

three racial groups tested.

The design of the present study originally called

for each examiner to test the same number of subjects

with both tests. However, it became necessary for

examiners to test an unequal number of subjects. There

was also an unequal number of subjects assigned to each

order of administration due to differential subject

dropout. However, these minor deviations in the research

design do not appear to present as a significant

limitation due to the strength of the major findings.

Suggestions for Future Research

Further research is needed to compare scores

obtained on the WAIS-R and the WISC-R. A great deal of

124

effort has been expended comparing the two forms of the

Wechsler adult scale, but there has been limited research

examining the transition of scores from the WISC-R to the

WAIS-R. Another standardized test of intellectual

achievement that is becoming very popular in the academic

setting is the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children

(K-ABC; 1983). It will be important for researchers to

determine whether these two tests provide comparable

scores, particularly since the K-ABC also provides

standardized scores in several areas of academic

achievement.

Several of the WAIS/WAIS-R comparison studies

suggest that the discrepancy between the scores on the

two tests varies according to the general IQ of the

population tested. For example, mentally retarded

subjects tend to score higher on the WAIS-R as compared

to the WAIS. This is completely opposite from research

findings with other populations in which WAIS scores are

significantly higher. It would be interesting for future

studies to examine the WAIS-R norms to determine the

reasons for this discrepancy.

REFERENCES

Anastasi, A. (1968). Psychological testing (3rd ed.). London: MacMillan and Company.

Baughman, E. E., & Dahlstrom, W. G. (1968). Negro and white children: A psychological study in the rural south. New York: Academic Press.

Beck, N. C. (1985). WAIS-R factor structure in psychiatric and general medical patients. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 402-405.

Berger, L., Bernstein, A., Klein, E., Cohen, J., & Lucas, G. (1964). Effects of aging and pathology on the factorial structure of intelligence. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 28, 199-207.

Berry, K., & Sherrets, S. (1975). A comparison of the WISC and WISC-R for special education students. Pediatric Psychology, _3, 14.

Blaha, J., & Wallbrown, F. H. (1982). Hierarchical factor structure of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 50, 652-660.

Block, N. J., & Dworkin, G. (Eds.). (1976). The IQ controversy. New York: Pantheon Press.

Brooks, C. R. (1977). WISC. WISC-R, S-B L & M, WRAT: Relationships and trends among children ages six to ten referred for psychological evaluation. Psychology in the Schools, 14, 30-33.

Cohen, E. (1965). Examiner differences with individual intelligence tests. Perceptual and Motor Skills, ^ , 1324.

Cohen, J. (1957a). A factor-analytically based rationale for the WAIS. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21, 451-457.

Cohen. J. (1957b). The factorial structure of the WAIS between early adulthood and old age. Journal of Consulting Psychology. 21, 283-290.

Coons, W. H.. & Peacock, E. P. (1959). Inter-examiner reliability of the WAIS with mental hospital patients. Ortho-Psychiatric Association Quarterly, 22., 33-37.

125

126

Davis, W. E., Peacock, W., Fitzpatrick, P., & Mulhern, M. (1969). Examiner differences, prior failure, and subjects' WAIS arithmetic scores. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 25, 178-180.

Denerll, R. D., Broeder, J., & Sokolov, S. L. (1964). WISC and WAIS factors in children and adults with epilepsy. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 20, 236-240.

Deutsch, M., Fishman, J. A., Kogan, L., North, R., & Whiteman, M. (1964). Guidelines for testing minority children. Journal of Social Issues, 20, 129-145.

Doppelt, J. E., & Kaufman, A. S. (1977). Estimation of the differences between WISC-R and WISC IQs. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 37, 417-424.

Dreger, R. M., & Miller, F. S. (1968). Comparative psychological studies of negroes and whites in the United States: 1959-1965. Psychological Bulletin, W, 1-58.

Edwards, B. T., & Klein, M. (1984). Comparison of the WAIS and WAIS-R with subjects of high intelligence. Journal of Clinical Psychology. 40, 300-302.

Egeland, B. (1969). Examiner expectancy: Effects on the scoring of the WISC. Psychology in the Schools, 6^, 313-315.

Flynn, J. R. (1984). The mean IQ gain of Americans: Massive gains 1932 to 1978. Psychological Bulletin, 2^, 29-51.

Galton, F. (1883). Inquiries into human faculty and its development. London: Macmillan and Company.

Graziano, W. G., Varca, P. E., & Levy. J. C. (1982). Race of examiner effects and the validity of intelligence tests. Review of Educational Research, .52., 469-497.

Guertin, W. H., Ladd, C. E., Frank, G. H., Rabin, A. I., & Hiester. D. S. (1971). Research with the Wechsler Intelligence Scales for adults: 1965-1970. The Psychological Record, 21, 289-339.

127

Gutkin, T. B., Reynolds. C. R., & Galvin, G. A. (1984). Factor analysis of the Wechlser Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised (WAIS-R): An examination of the standardization sample. Journal of School Psychology. 22, 83-93.

Holtzman, W. H., Diaz-Guerrero, R.. & Swartz. J. D. (1975). Personality development in two cultures: A cross-cultural longitudinal study of school children in Mexico and the United States. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Jensen. A. R. (1980). Bias in mental testing. New York: Free Press.

Kaspar, J. C , Throne, F. M., & Schulman, J. L. (1968). A study of the inter-judge reliability in scoring the responses of a group of mentally retarded boys to three WISC subscales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 28, 469-477.

Kaufman, A. S.. & Kaufman, N. L. (1983). Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children: Administration and scoring manual. Circle Pines. Minnesota: American Guidance Service.

Kelly, M. P., Montgomery, M. L., Felleman, E. S., & Webb, W. W. (1984). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale and Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised in a neurologically impaired population. Journal of Clinical Psychologv. 40, 788-791.

Larrabee, G. H., & Halroyd, R. G. (1976). Comparison of Wise and WISC-R using a sample of highly intelligent children. Psychological Reports, 38, 1077-1080.

Leiter, R. G, (1966). Manual for the Leiter International Performance Scale; Parts I and II. Beverly Hills. California; Services.

Western Psychological

Lippold. S., & Claiborn, J. M. (1983). Comparison of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale and the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 315.

Loehlin. J. C , Lindzey. G., & Spuhler. J. N. (1975). Race differences in intelligence. San Francisco: W"i H. Freeman and Company.

128

Mahan. T. W. (1963). Diagnostic consistency and prediction: A note on graduate student skills. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 42, 364-367.

Masling, J. M. (1959). The effects of warm and cold interaction on the administration and scoring of an intelligence test. Journal of Consulting Psychology. 23_, 336-341.

Massey, J. 0. (1964). WISC scoring criteria. Palo Alto, California: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Matarazzo. J. D. (1972). Wechsler's measurement and appraisal of adult intelligence (5th ed.), Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins.

Matarazzo, J. D., & Pankratz, L. D. (1980). Intelligence. In R. H. Woody (Ed.), Encyclopedia of clinical assessment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Miller, C. K., & Chansky, N. M. (1972). Psychologists' scoring of WISC protocols. Psychology in the Schools, 9, 144-152.

Miller, C. K., Chansky, N. M., & Gredler, G. R. (1970). Rater agreement on WISC protocols. Psychology in the Schools, 1_, 190-193.

Mishra, S. P., & Brown, K. H. (1983). The comparability of WAIS and WAIS-R IQs and subtest scores. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 39. 754-757.

Naglieri, J. A., & Kaufman, A. S. (1983). How many factors underlie the WAIS-R? Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, J , 113-119.

Oakland, T. (Ed.). (1977). Psychological and educational assessment of minority children. New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Oakland, T., & Feigenbaum, D. (1979). Multiple sources of test bias on the V/ISC-R and Bender-Gestalt test. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 47, 968-974.

O'Grady, K. E. (1983). A confirmatory maximum likelihood factor analysis of the WAIS-R. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 51, 826-831.

129

Parker, K. (1983). Factor analysis of the WAIS-R at nine age levels between 16 and 74 years. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 51 , 302-308.

/Pedersen, D. M., Shinedling, M, M., & Johnson, D. L. (1968). Effects of sex of examiner and subject on children's quantitative test performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10. 251-254.

Plake, B. S.. Gutkin, T. B., & Kroetin, T. (1984). Confirmatory factor analysis of the WAIS-R: Plausibility of models. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 2^, 273-277.

Plumb, G. R., & Charles, D. C. (1955). Scoring difficulty of Wechsler Comprehension responses. Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 179-183.

Prifitera, A., & Ryan, J. J. (1983). WAIS/WAIS-R comparisons in a clinical sample. Clinical Neuropsychology, 5_, 97-99.

Quereshi, M. Y. (1968). Intelligence test scores as a function of sex of experimenter and sex of subject Journal of Psychology. 69. 277-284.

Rabourn. R. E. (1983). The WAIS and WAIS-R: A comparison and a caution. Professional Psychology Research and Practice• 14, 357-361.

Raven, J. C. (1960). Guide to the Standard Progressive Matrices. London: Lewis and Company.

Ryan, J. J. (1983). Scoring reliability on the WAIS-R. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51 , 149-150.

Ryan, J. J., Georgemiller, R. J., Geisser, M. E., & Randall. D. M. (1985). Test-retest stability of the WAIS-R in a clinical sample. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 41. 552-555.

Ryan. J. J.. Prifitera. A., & Larsen, J- (1982). Reliability of the WAIS-R with a mixed patient sample. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 55, 1277-1278.

130

Ryan, J. J., & Rosenberg, S. J. (1983). Relationship between the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised and the Wide Range Achievement Test a sample of mixed patients. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 56, 623-626.

in

Ryan, J. J., Rosenberg, S. J., & DeWolfe, A. S. (1984). Generalization of the WAIS-R factor structure with a vocational rehabilitation sample. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 52, 311-312.

Sandoval, J. (1979). The WISC-R and internal evidence of test bias with minority groups. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47, 919-927.

Sattler, J. M. (1969). Effects of cues and examiner influence on two Wechsler subtests. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33, 716-721.

Sattler, J. M. (1974). Assessment of children's intelligence. Company.

Philadelphia: V/. B. Saunders

Sattler, J. M., & Gwynne, J. (1982). White examiners generally do not impede the intelligence test performance of Black children: To debunk a myth. Journal of Counseling and Clinical Psychology. 50, 196-208.

Sattler, J. M., Hillix, W. A., & Neher, L. A. (1970). Halo effect in examiner scoring of intelligence test responses. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 34, 172-176.

Sattler, J. M., & Winget. B. M. (1970). Intelligence testing procedures as affected by expectancy and IQ. Journal of Clinical Psychology. 26, 446-448.

Sattler, J. M., Winget, B. M., & Roth, R. J. (1969). Scoring difficulty of WAIS and WISC C, S, and V responses. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 25, 175-177.

Schroeder, H. E., & Kleinsasser, L. D. (1972). Examiner bias: A determinant of children's verbal behavior on the WISC. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 19. 451-454.

Schwarting, F. G. (1976). A comparison of the WISC and WISC-R. Psychology in the Schools, 13. 139-141.

131

Schwartz, M. L. (1966). The scoring of WAIS C responses by experienced and inexperienced judges. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 17^, kl5-kll.

Shuey, A. M. (1966). The testing of negro intelligence (2nd ed.). New York: Social Science Press.

Silverstein. A. B. (1982). Factor structure of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50, 661-664.

Silverstein. A. B. (1985). Cluster analysis of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised. Journal of Clinical Psychology. 41. 98-100.

Simon. W. E. (1969). Expectancy effects in the scoring of vocabulary items: A study of scorer bias. Journal of Educational Measurement, ^, 159-164.

Simon, C. L., & Clopton, J. R. (1984). Comparison of WAIS and WAIS-R scores of mildly and moderately mentally retarded adults. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 89, 301-303.

Smith, R. S. (1982). A comparison study of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) and the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised (WAIS-R) in a college population. (Doctoral dissertation, Biola University. 1981). Dissertation Abstracts International, 43, 886B.

Smith. R. S. (1983). A comparison of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale and the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised in a college population. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 51, 414-419.

Solly, D. C. (1977). Comparison of WISC and WISC-R scores of mentally retarded and gifted children. Journal of School Psychology. 15. 255-258.

Sundberg, N. D., & Gonzales, L. R. (1981). Cross-cultural and cross-ethnic assessment: Overview and issues. In P. McReynolds (Ed.), Advances in psychological assessment, Vol. 5, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

132

Swerdlik, M. E. (1977). The question of the comparability of the WISC and WISC-R: Review of the research and implications for school psychologists. Psychology in the Schools, 14, 260-270.

Terman, L. M. (1916). The measurement of intelligence. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Thomas, A., Hertzig, M. E., Dryman, I., & Fernandez, P. (1971). Examiner effect in IQ testing of Puerto Rican working-class children. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 41, 809-821.

Urbina, S. P., Golden, C. J., & Ariel, R. N. (1983). WAIS/WAIS-R: Initial comparisons. Clinical Neuropsychology, 4_, 145-146.

Vance, H. B., & Engin, A. (1978). Analysis of cognitive abilities of black children's performance on the WISC-R. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 34, 452-456.

Walker, R. E.. Hunt, W. A., & Schwartz, M. L. (1965). The difficulty of WAIS C scoring. Journal of Clinical Psychology. 21. 427-429.

Wechsler, D. (1939). Measurement of adult intelligence (1st ed.). Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins.

Wechsler, D. (1949). Manual for the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children. New York: The Psychological Corporation.

Wechsler, D. (1955). Manual for the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. New York: The Psychological Corporation.

Wechsler, D. (1958). The measurement and appraisal of adult intelligence (4th ed.). Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins.

Wechsler, D. (1981). WAIS-R manual: Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised. New York: The Psychological Corporation.

Weiner, S. G., & Kaufman, A. S. (1979). WISC-R vs WISC for black children suspected of learning or behavioral disorders. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 12, 100-104.

133

Williams. R. L. (1970). Black pride, academic relevance, and individual achievement. Counseling Psychologist, 2^, 18-22.

Winter, G. D. (1968). Intelligence, interest, and personality characteristics of a selected group of students: A description and comparison of white and negro students in a vocational rehabilitation administration program in Bassick and Harding high schools, Bridgeport, Connecticut. Dissertation Abstracts. 28, 4920-4921.

Wysocki, B. A., & Wysocki, A. C. (1969). Cultural differences as reflected in Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence (WBII) Test. Psychological Reports, 15., 95-101.

Yerkes, R. M. (Ed.). (1921). Psychological examining in the U. S. army. Memoirs of the National Academy of Science, 15, 890.

Zimmerman, I. L., & Woo-Sam, J. M. (1973). Clinical interpretation of the VJechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. New York: Grune and Stratton.

APPENDIX: CONSENT FORM

This research is being conducted by a graduate student in the Department of Psychology at Texas Tech University. In order to have your child participate in this study, it is necessary that you be informed as to the nature of the research. By signing this form, you give your consent for your son or daughter to participate in this study.

The purpose of this study is to compare the scores obtained on two intelligence tests, the V/echsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) and the V/echsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised (V/AIS-R). Each student will be given both tests with a time interval of 30-45 days between administrations. Testing will be conducted at the high school with the cooperation of both the principal and the counselor. Each test should take approximately 90 minutes to administer, and no testing will be done at times when a student is taking a test in a class. The WAIS and the WAIS-R will be administered by graduate students in the Texas Tech Psychology Department who are proficient in the use of each test.

After all students have completed both tests, I will be happy to meet with you and discuss test results. However, it will not be possible to reveal IQ scores obtained on either test. This information will be used only for research purposes. Results of this study should be helpful in determining whether large differences exist between these tests.

Dr. James Clopton, who is in charge of this project, has agreed to answer any questions you may have concerning this research. He can be reached by calling 742-3703. Dr. Clopton has also informed me that you may contact the Texas Tech University Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects by writing them in care of the Office of Research Services, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas 79409, or by calling 748-3884.

If this project causes any physical injury to participants, treatment is not necessarily available at Texas Tech University or the Student Health Center, nor is there necessarily any insurance carried by the University or its personnel applicable to cover such injury. Financial compensation for any such injury must be provided through the participant's own insurance program. Further information may be obtained from Dr. J. Knox Jones, Jr., Vice President for Research and

134

135

Graduate Studies, 742-2153, Room 118, Administration Building. Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas 79409.

I have read the above and give my consent for my son or daughter to participate.

Signature of Student Signature of Witness

Signature of Guardian