APPENDIX A

Intelligence Test Interpretation Research

SCIENTIFIC CONSIDERATIONS Sample Composition AND ASSUMPTIONS I selected both exceptional and nationally repre- ( SEE CHAPTER 17) sentative samples for inclusion.

Differing Interpretations Study Selection ofthe Same Results The majority ofstudies included in Appendix A I favored a "preponderance-of-evidence" crite- were aimed at identifying the latent traits un- rion when alternative interpretations needed to derlying test scores, and profiles are typically be reconciled. In his landmark factor analytic factor analytic. Therefore, criteria for identify- study of nearly 500 data sets, Carroll (1993) ing technically adequate factor analyses had to found that several Stratum I reading, spelling, be addressed. The considerations that I used for and writing abilities loaded with the "gc" (crys- including factor analytic studies were: tallized ability) factor for several data sets. In one large-scale factor analytic investigation, McGrew Sample Size (1997) found a reading/writing factor that dif- I chose primarily large, national standardization fered from a "gc'' factor. I think that Carroll's samples where N equaled approximately 200 or findings represent a preponderance of evidence greater. in comparison to the single study of McGrew

603 604 APPENDIX A INTELLIGENCE TEST INTERPRETATION RESEARCH

(1997). Consequently, I subsume reading and tions when disagreements arise between studies. writing abilities under the Stratum II "gc" ability. When referring to identification of the latent trait assessed by the WISC-III third factor again, Differing Results Given the Same for example, Carroll (1994) asserts that "the Interpretations WISC-III was not designed for factor analysis because the various factors that it may measure- An example of this scenario is as follows. On one at least beyond the Verbal and Performance fac- hand, Cohen (1959) labels the third WISC factor tors-are not represented adequately by the as Freedom from Distractibility; he characterizes multiple measures of those factors" (p. 138). I it so "primarily due to the loadings of subtests agree that the measure ofinattention/distractibility which clearly do not involve memory (Mazes, via the third factor is unsupportable. Drawing con- Picture Arrangement, Object Assembly), but clusions, however, is clouded by scenarios where which it seems reasonable to suppose are quite both positive and negative findings exist. In this vulnerable to the effects ofdistractibility" (p. 288). case I make an arbitrary decision. On the other hand, Blaha and Wallbrown (1996) assign the same label as Cohen to the third factor Exploratory versus Confirmatory Methods with significant loadings only for the Arithmetic and Digit Span subtests. Again, I invoke the pre- Generally speaking, confirmatory factor analytic ponderance-of-evidence rule to make a decision methods have gained considerable popularity regarding the conclusion to be drawn. Most stud- over exploratory methods in modem factor analy- ies have found the Arithmetic and Digit Spans sis. I think that confirmatory methods may also subtests to load on this factor. They have also, result in more scientifically useful tests of factor however, found little evidence that inattention/ structure (see Kamphaus, Benson, Hutchinson, & distractibility is likely to be the central latent trait Platt, 1994, for an example). Therefore, I prefer assessed by this factor (Kamphaus, 1998). such methods over traditional factor analysis.

Types ofEvidence Myopic Research Evidence There is not a clear consensus on the issue of Carroll (1993) makes a compelling argument weighting evidence differentially. Although it that factor analyses oftests such as the WISC-III may seem that factor analytic studies have been are likely to produce noncontributory results be- reified to a special status in the evaluation of cause of the nature of the scale. I try, whenever intelligence test validity, other forms of validity possible, to draw conclusions regarding research may be equally ifnot more important depending that is consistent with findings of other disci- on the issue under study. If, for example, the plines (e.g., cognitive psychology). research question deals with the issue of using an intelligence test for differential diagnosis, Lack ofEvidence then I would weigh research on various diag- nostic groups more heavily than factor analytic I appreciate that some intelligence test interpre- findings. tations are not necessarily invalid in the absence ofresearch. They could be found valid ifthey are studied. Clearly, psychology is no different from The Preponderance ofEvidence medicine and other professions where profes- This premise means that Carroll's multisample sionals have to take action or make nonscientifi- factor analytic work will be proportionally more cally based interpretations in unusual cases and influential than single factor analytic investiga- circumstances. A lack of evidence should not be APPENDIX A INTELLIGENCE TEST INTERPRETATION RESEARCH 605 allowed to limit experimentation. I have and will assume incompleteness and build on the research draw interpretations that are case specific and summarized here with continuing education ac- untested. tivities. Having presented this caveat, it is also clear that some research findings have stood the test of time. One would be hard-pressed, for Theoretical Evidence example, to find new evidence that vocabu- Some test interpretations may be untested, and lary measures are, in fact, measures of spatial yet they may be based on a theory that has some abilities. empirical support. McGrew and Flanagan (1998), for example, provide a comprehensive Applicability ofResearch from test interpretation manual that, of necessity, Previous Editions often theorizes about the fit of intelligence test Fortunately, even the venerable Wechsler scales subtests and scales with Horn's version of"grgc'' are evolving in a manner that precludes auto- theory. They posit, for example, about the Stra- matic generalization ofprevious findings to cur- tum II and Stratum III abilities measured by nu- rent editions. I think that some findings, such as merous tests, including the WAIS-III and the futility of using the PA subtest to measure WPPSI-R. Their speculation about the abilities social judgment, are applicable to the WISC-III measured by the WAIS-III, for example, is es- and WAIS-III. The addition of the Symbol sentially theoretical since the WAIS-III has not Search subtest, however, may make factor ana- been factor analyzed jointly with well-validated lytic evidence for the WISC-R less relevant for measures of Horn's theory. Such theoretical understanding the WISC-III third and fourth propositions are of primary assistance to re- factors. searchers and ofpotential assistance to practition- ers. In fact, speculation based on considerable Definition ofTerms prior research and explicit theory is likely better than speculation based on idiosyncratic theories Intelligence testing research is characterized by or from a poorly articulated theory that is untest- similar sounding terms that are offered without able. Nevertheless, I give theoretical evidence operational definitions. For instance, I do not less weight than the results ofresearch evidence. know the extent to which terms such as Spa- tial:Mechanical, Visualization, Perceptual Organi- zation, and Spatial Organization without Essential Incorporating New Evidence Motor Activity are interchangeable. Moreover, I My summary of extant interpretive research is admit to not having a sound working definition outdated on its date ofpublication. We have the of terms such as integrated brain functioning, good fortune now to be part of the Internet, which precludes me from using such a term for which provides for quicker dissemination and interpretation. Do not make interpretations for updates of findings. Readers of this text should which you do not have a working definition. t?l t'1

> t?l t"' 0 'd 'd > .. 0 z 6 ., n :r: °' °'

for

of

and

well

two- were

the

Scale,

as

from

third

WISC-

factor

5.8,

on

from

the

index

Index

Digit

1994).

not of

the

research

Full

support groups

1995).

7.2,

the

and

appropriate

indicators

but subtypes

Processing

stable deleted

three-factor

age

Organization to

with

Ford,

prior

statistics

IQ

A

as

of were

WPPSI-R,

Freedom

including

&

Verbal

most

summary,

fit

be

indicated

1995).

of

factor,

that cluster

with

Arithmetic,

WISC-III

advanced the

IQs In

corresponding

subtest

present,

to

practical

examination

Thorndike,

as

of

factor,

the

&

the

be

number

and

Perceptual

criteria,

the

end.

supported,

deemed

WISC-R.

analytic

results found

fourth

were

to

(Reynolds

of

Search

Saarnio,

primary that

1996).

third

and than

this

the

(corresponding

was consisting the

the

was

&

appeared (Allen larger

Further,

to

factor

it

five

a

on

of the

comprised

Performance

1991).

extended

enough variety

to therefore

WISC-III

as

contemporary,

lower

Coding

Symbol

showed

a

(Slate

is

and

solution

Further,

study, study, the

(Donders,

being structure

and on

the

discrepancies

study

four-factor data

confirmed

presence

analyses,

points

this

this

utilized

scores

Conclusion

Speed found.

invariance the Span, based 7.5 R In factor solution (Wechsler, In Comprehension Distractibility, factor scores) as the This methodology within confirmatory score significant abnormalities. was Verbal, WISC-Ill With The

The

R

79

not

the

(Allen factor

having

the

115,

the the

the

on

118

as

covariance

(Reynolds

were

WISC- from

tests

257

for for

distributions

of

and

202,

of

and

to

the

was

the

(Wechsler,

without who

based

data

for between

the

disabilities,

WISC-III

of

subtest

60

in

the

identified

1995).

analyzed

analyzed

the

to

factors

frequency and

scores sample sample

comprised

of

WISC-III

subtypes

were

Search

learning

samples

the

was

factor factor administered

the

administered

cross-validation

Index Saarnio,

Comprehension

examined

discrepancies

applied who

of

sample

&

was was was

cluster

1995b).

and

specific Symbol

were

were

retardation,

using

sample

III

score

Organization

tabulated

Verbal 1996).

IQ

normative

the

models (Slate

1994).

with who

standardization standardization

children

The

scores

study

mental

consistency

WISC-III

WISC-

WISC-III

159

Findings

Ford, standard

Thorndike,

1991).

&

respective & national Representative Perceptual earlier. (Donders, Summary investigated including The of children classified structure national standardization and children with Index WPPSI-R WISC-III The The The

This

Research

Test

vs.

WISC-R

Cluster

Index

vs.

III

factor

factor factor

Intelligence

scores

of

Solutions

Two Four

subtypes IQ Three WISC-III WISC-

WISC-III

Table

Summary

Test

WISC-III rJl

t'1 t" 'ti 'ti > C) 0 t"1 C ;:j -..J ("')

> ("') °'

:i: ..

I

of

a

&

a

or

value

of

for

Verbal

1989).

&

to

for

The

of

SES

(Slate,

&

clearly

correlated

analyses

little

9.21

that

attributed

(Continues)

than

from

Barnett,

of

significantly

purposes

proportion

was

be

lower

had

existence

degree

Aichinger, one-factor

form support

Further,

opposed

VIQ,

groups

found

a

Reynolds,

(O'Grady,

can

were

and

as

higher

the

Perceptual

they

the

for

practice

Placket,

sizable

WISC-R,

for

Freedom

counterparts.

was

some short

a

strong

for

three

solution

IQs

(Bolen,

it

and

factor

were

the that

the

that

5.20

upper

verbal,

the

classification that

supported.

(Carlson,

WISC-R

for

but

factor,

that

the

factor

of

support

Design

yielded

FSIQ

1995).

were

support

scores

not

WISC-R

the

(Macmann,

is

for

found as

(Herrera-Graf, Dipert,

WISC-III

third

WISC-R,

factor

data

each

IQ

indicated

on

single

a

intellectual

FSIQs,

all

their

.95

solution

education

was

the

for

between

the

well

7

stronger demonstrateda

indicated

no

1996).

representing

1983).

ability

it

Webster,

to

as

Comprehension

with

than

differences

1991).

&

and

data

data

findings

result,

general

prediction

scores special

a

a

1995).

Organization

related although Conclusion highly two-factor similarity groups Performance lower mean favored, to PIQ, Siler, interpreting Distractibility, IQ Gutkin, As Hall, for for Hinton, Although solution general, performance

The indicated The

The Vocabulary/Block Verbal

the

of

III

&

Full

197

upper

assess

of

subjects

for

parallel

to

&

1991).

described

(O'Grady,

was

both

retardation,

WISC-

by

school

having

normative

R

using

1995). Hinton,

used

for

The

Reynolds,

Hall,

the

estimate

&

Siler,

the

analyses

learning

&

an

public

was

samples

examined

mental

administration

120.

for

(Slate,

WISC-

as

children

in

to

analyzed

sample

was

Vocabulary/Block

with

determined

the

(Carlson,

partial

829

above

Aichinger,

form IQ

analysis

of

the

Barnett,

of

factor

or

administered

disability,

additional

were

WISC-R

of

students

to

11 Scale

children

groups

short

average

was

factor

the

classification

subsequent

(Bolen,

were

(continued)

61

sample

Placket,

for

of

structure

Full

SES

a

equal

1995).

of

learning

standardization

solutions

1983).

·

(Herrera-Graf, Dipert,

years

in

subtest

and

education

3

specific

IQs

the

effectiveness

factor WISC-R

lower

minimum

validity WISC-R

to Findings

no

sample

specific

1996). 1989).

Gutkin,

Scale and from Design and impairments the a 2.5 the Confirmatory or Webster, studied A factorial settings sample WISC-III (Macmann,

special The The

The

Summary

Research

Test

vs.

WISC-R

WISC-III

Index

vs.

(cont.)

factor

factor

factor

scores

oflntelligence

WISC-III

IQ

Solutions Short-form One

WISC-III

One

Two

Table

Summary

Test

WISC-R z 0

g

t'1

t:

t'1 > ij

z ,, 0 !

0-, 0 00 > ,,

.

to

the

the

the

and

had

the

on

as

such

the

factor

scale

for

as

had

test

lent

a

the

involved

for

on

similar

v-s

well

has

three-

sample,

13

long

factor,

tests.

loaded

scales factor,

as

Language that

Each

the factor

American

with

factor

Verbal

was

short-term

confirmatory

two-factor

subtests

as

factor

groups

this

a

R

to

space,

and

on

use

the

1988)

which

children

1995).

arts

in (Verbal

age

Organization,

second

10,

fourth

of

factor

for

R

subtests

groups

spelling.

Spatial

children,

Kaufman's

measure

Wechsler

among

and

WISC-

suggested

the provided

Lam,

yielded

the

loaded

Visual-Spatial

of7,

of

exploratory

to

shapes

were named

Dixon,

&

age

and

applicable

Span

the

the

1992).

language

&

WISC-

or

and

is

Also,

adapted

Visual

study

study

of

study

of

and

used

Language

invariance

Perceptual

from

Chinese on

(Lee

(1)

Coding

cultures

the

neuropsychological

Digit

Distractibility)

factors

the cohorts

and

use

support

this

this

Memory,

this

(v-s).

the

of

tests

on

model

The

hearing-impaired

objects

and

on Schulte,

of

of

of

grammar,

and

mostly

the

Kong

and

Achievement,

group

The

of

from

across

&

cultures

support

(Anderson

for

to

loadings

study,

model

analytic

normed

factors

factor,

results

results

results

loaded

is

Hong

1

this

reading,

that positioning

Conclusion

such consisted highest

as

comprised

across-the-age Attention test particular

differing support three-factor analyses In Academic

and HK-WISC.

previous

Comprehension, structure

(Sullivan Freedom factor factor

solution Comprehension the Organization The

The

The WISC-R.

Arithmetic

&

of

(HK-

test

1986).

sample

the

records

yielded

and

Kong-

batteries

as

to

a

The

of

Halstead-

factor

the

test

models

for

Achievement,

(Sullivan

used

cited

Hong

Battin,

standardization

children

the

Children

battery

&

from

1995).

1988). Memory,

the

was

samples and

for

and

years

analyzed.

factors

and

analyzed

16

scores

Academic

four-factor

to

Scale

confirmatory

to

Bishop,

Dixon,

factor

analysis &.Lam,

6

&

test

and

factor

nonnative

psychiatric

hard-of-hearing

were

(Lee

WISC-Rand

Attention

neuropsychological

from

was

factor

(Sutter,

the

for

(continued)

psychoeducational

compared

R Language,

three-,

and

Luria-Nebraska

the

conducted

age

tests

Intelligence

1992).

of

(Anderson

in

using

The

the

Speed

were

Spatial,

children

deaf

two-,

as

study

WISC-

factors:

Findings

WISC-R

360

368

Reitan.

five

results

characterizing

such Motor

Psychoeducational

of

Visual

respective analyses

Wechsler WISC)

Schulte, the Confirmatory ranging one-,

of samples

This

The Summary

Research

Test

and

Attention

Motor

(Language

(Language,

Achievement,

Spatial,

factor

factor

factor

factor

Intelligence

Memory,

of

Solutions

Speed)

&

Five

Organization)

Comprehension Academic Visual Three

Visual-Spatial Two

Three

Table

Summary

Test ;.. 'C 'C z r 0 r

;.. 5 t'1

;j

z rJl g

n ::r:

0 °' '°

·t!l

as

& a

from

day-

was

third

be

the

Motor

Verbal

more

it

Thus,

that

the

paper

a

the

from

the

a the

ACID

this

solid was

the

may

showed

it

but

Becker, WISC-R

in analysis,

(Continues)

on

tapped

a

on

by

that

Freedom

the

that

was

factor,

it,

using

loaded

this

the

that

Organization

this

not

between

when

significant, on

as

suggested

term

in on being factor Freedom is

fifth

skill

1985).

abilities

for

ADHD-related Distractibility

children

(Cohen,

There

total psychiatric though

subscale one

1986). appears

the

load

significant Distractibility. Scale

was

data measured

suggested

The The

the

it

probably

Thus,

the

speed

from

three

factor

even

only

that

the

subtests

study. tests deficit

for

Perceptual

from

for

more

correlation

Battin,

cognitive study

ability

Rating

this

ADD/H Matthews,

that

found, the only

factors. two

and Coding)

&

motor

Coding

inappropriate

was

in

&

Distractibility

Distractibility

factor

this

in

the

retention.

the

is

Freedom

controlled.

had Further,

indicates

of

indicated

fine present

and

attention

and

various

(e.g.,

1990).

other

negative

Freedom

a

and

from

used

from

correlation

the

Teacher

of

of

Bishop,

patients,

appear

indicated on to

was only

were

(Ownby in

that

results

results

relationship

pencil

finding

not

pattern.

Conclusion Distractibility attention Speed, did closely

clear (Sutter, Arithmetic and related this Distractibility number oversimplifies The factor

expected Freedom The subscales moderate, Comprehension Conners factors WISC-Rand only Freedom Campbell, measure Results

pattern population this hospital deficit

the

68

of

a

of

the

a

and

clinic

for

of

to

Digit

Teacher

526

analysis

Behavior Parent

of on

and

Distractibility

constructs

psychiatric

1990).

to

referred

factor

structure

a

disabilities

Conners

outpatients,

from

it neuropsychological Distractibility,

characteristics

jointly

investigated

sample

at

Conners Problem

a

the

307

the

newly

1985).

factor was

from

for

Information, certain

learning

Campbell,

treated

the (deficits

Freedom

combined

Revised Revised

among

&

comparing

the

and

children

by the the studied

were

(continued)

inpatients,

WISC-R Freedom

5

using

Coding,

underlie

profile

investigated

Matthews,

and

13

was

neurology

the to 151

&

Becker, who

of

Scale, Scale,

of

factor,

study

subtests)

relationship

ACID

Findings

WISC-R

third the believed (Ownby instruments This Summary Rating Checklist, Rating

sample pediatric (Cohen, The factor

Span children

The hospital: Arithmetic, WISC-R

Research

Test

.)

ACID

(Freedom

criterion

&

(cont

validity

factor

factor

factor

Distractibility)

factor

Intelligence

of

Five Solutions

from Third

related

Third

Pattern Third

Table

Summary

Test [/l :Tl

> ... n

tI1 z 0 -

"Cl tI1

tI1 t'1

CJ; tI1

...l n tI1 ..,

tI1 ci r-' r-' z ..

>

> 'd 'd z

>< 0

..

0 "'

...

°'

of

for

that

IQ

(.21)

.81 item

from

ADD

Scale

&

to

each

Block

occur

to

.81

subtest

WISC-R

at

ADD/H

and the

analytic

Full

to

testing

to

.40.

subtest

.21

suggest

or

psychiatric

the

synthetic

remainder

the

were

reliabilities

for

adaptive

an

the to

Mattis,

Design

findings a

and

.78

subtest,

determined

Freedom

edges

by

of

as third

the

from

.21 Performance

relationship

1994).

the

high

Arrangement

ADD

used

psychiatric groups.

seemed

the

IQ,

that

this

was

to

scores

lowest

for subgroups

from

Block

findings

of

well

different

Further,

and

on unreliable

on

IQ

all

also tapped

from

1987). range

as

first

interior

was

the

This

Thus,

strong

Smith,

in

as

mostly

.81.

Picture

a of

predictors

(Greenblatt,

found

and

most

the

different

&

across

ranging

of

years

range

PODQ

loading

impossible

that

and used.

.54.

Verbal

consistently

frequency strategy

Thus,

6

diagnoses a

for

the

sample

,

Performance

equal

groups.

number

of

be

factor

the

to

not

subjects

be

(Spelberg,

.72

found

and

group,

across

had

number

authors

attention

not.

over

with

is

total

IQ,

equal

Narrett,

to

be

The

but

analyses,

the

it

presence

.

.72,

the the

could

only

that

indicated

were

all

median

that

significant

found

1991).

can

specific

the

a

a

about

reliabilities VCDQ

is

found

ADD/H

level,

Verbal

psychiatric

were

it

not

scores

behavior,

(Truscott,

fundamentally

Design

across reliabilities Conclusion

across

the subsample,

The IQ was

between performance although

from strategy

Results problem-solving with

age

have

Distractibility The

the

is Further, suggest as

Trad, factor disorders and

with

if

of

&

(DQ)

the

sample

was

a

of

-R

(PODQ),

reliability

for

(FDDQ) determine

Mattis,

disabled

the

to

1987).

quotients

1994).

WISC

in

period

Comprehension

the

problem-solving varied

test-retest

learning

characteristics

of

Smith,

Organization

deviation

(Greenblatt,

as

children

(Spelberg,

3-year

the

&

Distractibility

Verbal

were

a

770

for

used

synthetic

factor

from

tasks

Stimulus

to

(continued)

patients

adaptation

classified

assessed

Narrett,

Perceptual

were

versus

1991). Design

calculated

study

WISC-R

Dutch

Freedom

WISC-Rover

Findings

children

(VCDQ), and

were

(Truscott,

The

of

the

Block

analytic

Netherlands. strategies This

administered

day-hospital The

Summary

Trad,

Research

Test

ACID

&

Adaptive

&

Subtest

(cont.)

factor

Design

Intelligence

of

Behavior

Solutions

WISC-R

Reliability Block

WISC-R

Patterns

Third

Table

Summary

Test :> t'1 z 0 :> t .. tri Cl t=: t"' z 3 t'1 n (J'J ,.., :,:l "O t'1 :,:l .., 0 z t=: :,:l (J'J t=:

; n ::c

°' - -

to

to

the

and

PIQ,

with

1993).

a with

for

as

86.50,

better,

.27

for

two-

None

= .22 structure

children

factor

scheme

as

that

and

VIQ,

any

91.79,

support (Continues)

construct

ABS-SE

were

of

obtained

losses

stable

the

However,

Daood,

scores

WAIS-R

the typically

students

as

(McKay,

data

the

(range

groups.

the &

on

IQs

some

IQ

were

82.41,

for the

showed

not the

correlated adequate

age

and PIC

that

common intellectual

WISC.

Screening, lent WISC-R

single-factor

readers as Bannatyne's fit

that

a

are

were

significant 1991).

mean

a

the

is scale

the

IQS

the

1985).

was

across

disabilities

analysis

that

of

the

study

of

of

that

were

general

differentiating WISC-Rand (Wielkiewicz

performance

models scores

correlations

respectively,

.

indicating

this

that

in

Anxiety

the

Intellectual scores low-ability

conclusion (Bauman,

IQs cluster

difficulties

of

there

poor

WISC-R

solution

learning

single

use WAIS-R

suggest

indicated 1983)

Retest

87.39

category

1986).

a

the

the

PIC

.

that

FSIQ, Thompson,

the

negative

Scale

the

of

showed

to

of

&

comprehension also

and

Thus, little

multifactor

believed and

The

learning

findings underlies

administration results

fits

FSIQ

of without

Full

belief

Grady,

the

Conclusion

that (Huberty, verbal between Development .49). Modest, Achievement, the Results 85.71. first and 90.14,

the once with Sequential demonstrate VIQ results The and

Neale, was best Results of consists leading (O' The single-factor

a

&

of

nine

the

for

5

the

& 1983).

groups

and

for of

children

subtests

were

scores

to

the

of

Neale,

Adaptive

l

age

(PIC)

validity for

130

the

the

Grady,

(ABS-SE)

whom to (Bauman,

These

WISC

nine

from

subtests

referred

on

analysis

of

with

(O'

R

maximum

the (McKay,

11 AIS-R

the

Conceptual,

(Wielkiewicz

Children

of

W

were

predictive

Edition

for the

some factor

intercorrelations scores

children.

for

the

WISC-

to difficulties

the

the

Spatial,

children

of

correlated

administered

the

education

among

children

179

simultaneous

was

was children,

referred

continued)

.

conducted

( a

All

(1974) of

1985).

Inventory

academic

83 evaluated

categorization

subtests analyzed

1986).

compared

129

confirmatory

special Scale-School

was received

1993)

of

for

the

study,

standardization sample

earlier.

then

study

sample WISC-R

study had

WISC-R

Findings

a

this

the

factors Behavior were Personality (Huberty,

Daood, 1991). The sample receiving

Summary The who continuing years Bannatyne's Sequential

for This

Thompson, In likelihood intercorrelations in WAIS-R among This

Research

Test

.)

(1974)

Adaptive

&

Correlation

Stability

analysis

PIC

Intelligence

factor

of

Solutions Behavior (cont WISC-R

WISC-R

with

WISC-R

Bannatyne's Pattern

One

Cluster

Table

Summary Test

WISC

WAIS-R Summary Table oflntelligence Test Research Findings (continued) .... °'N Test Solutions Summary Conclusion

Cluster analysis (cont.) age groups in the standardization sample and three-factor solutions. Hence, it was (Silverstein, 1985). recommended that for practical reasons, the WAIS-R be regarded as measuring a single, general intellectual factor (Silverstein, 1985). >'d Two factor In this study, WAIS-R scores for 234 The results of this investigation identified two 'd incarcerated persons were factor analyzed factors, Perceptual Organization and Verbal zt,1 (Faulstich, Mcanulty, Gresham, Veitia, Moore, Comprehension. These findings support the 0 Bernard, Waggoner, & Howell, 1986). interpretation of Performance and Verbal IQs on the WAIS-R for incarcerated populations > (Faulstich et al., 1986). z Results of the analyses supported the presence Two factor The standardization samples for the WAIS and t-< the WAIS-R were factor analyzed (Silverstein, of two factors, Verbal Comprehension and t-< 1982c). Perceptual Organization (Silverstein, 1982c). c Two factor In this study, the factor structure of the WAIS The results of this study supported similar two- n IT1 and the WAIS-R was investigated using two factor solutions for both the WAIS and the samples of 198 and 276 neuropsychiatric WAIS-R. Freedom from Distractibility, the third .,V, patients (Warner, Ernst, & Townes, 1986). factor, accounted for only a small portion of the total variances. Further, the composition ofthe third factor was inconsistent between samples, thus showing weak, if any support for the third I:,0 IT1 factor (Warner, Ernst, & Townes, 1986). Two factor In this study, an exploratory principal axis factor Results of this investigation yielded a two-factor ::l analysis was conducted on the WAIS-R solution, one consisting ofVerbal subtests, and :,0 performance of 345 persons receiving the other of Performance subtests (Athanasou, IT1 V, vocational guidance services (Athanasou, 1993). 1993). Two factor This study used data reported in three previous The results of this study indicated strong n factor analytic studies ofthe WAIS-Rfor the support for two factors on the WAIS-Rand ::c purpose offurther studying its factor structure. little evidence to support the presence of a third The researchers used an alternative factor factor (Siegert, Patten, Taylor, & McCormick, analytic technique, FACTOREP, which reduces 1988). the influences ofthe general factor and error variance (Siegert, Patten, Taylor, & McCormick, 1988). t'1 t'1 "1:1 "1 VJ !T1 z "1 > i;i 0 (") >< 'C t'1 ::l VJ :,:, :t (") ....

0-- \;J

in

&

on

the

on

and

this

The

Block

three- the

damage

first

model

those

tasks In

subtests

factors.

the

by

males

the

the

differing (Gutkin,

to

Compre- scores

indicated

Reynolds,

the

of (Continues)

contains

of

two-factor (Atkinson

for

brain

1987).

& by

sex-related

use

Compre-

a

that

subtests.

factor

Gutkin,

also AIS-R.

Organization

to

Organization)

proposed

Verbal

W

regards

subtests Assembly

which

may

nonverbal

ability

division

consists

found

found

Vocabulary,

represented

Verbal

However,

Comprehension, the the

Performance

second

and

Kroeten, unilateral

structures

Results

with McLean,

is

support the

as

(1984)

as

of

males

&

Object

represented

Similarities and

1984).

The

which

Perceptual

pertaining

Perceptual

with is

Assembly

ages.

Quotient,

and

study

factor

verbal

stable

factor

and

as

and

intellectual

the

termed

WAIS-R.

is

Wise,

researchers

researchers

Galvin's

the

the

of

as

Verbal

structure

supported Information,

(Kaufman, redefined

Vocabulary,

factor

Galvin,

solve

across

the

Object

in of subtests.

the

the

patients

verbal

females

&

Quotient, and

Design

end to

the

termed

into

was

differences

in for

Deviation

and

the

Gutkin,

factor

on

(typically

structure

found

1988).

analyses.

results

result,

result,

Black

females

redefined

WAIS-R Block

lower

the

a

a

1991).

findings the Further, and that Conclusion Similarities WAIS-R strategies solution factor hension) Design hension Reynolds, were (typically The Information, Deviation Reynolds, scores performance As Comprehension, (Plake, Cyr, was model, for the factor the As

The

by

(1984)

analytic

factor

Kroeten

persons

Galvin,

orthogonal

Reynolds,

grouped

comparison

&

1987). standard-

and

&

204

analyzed

Wechsler

Galvin

factor

standardization

using

the

by

&

for

samples

on

factor

refine

Gutkin,

complete

confirmatory

Kroeten,

Reynolds,

for

McLean,

to

scores

offered

WAIS-R &

were

Reynolds,

more

Plake,

analyses

investigated

the

1988).

a

by

of

Wise,

muu1m:u

(Gutkin,

was

continued)

a

WAIS-R

(

conducted

Cyr, solutions

(Kaufman,

conducted

factor

Gutkin,

&

provide

found

intelligence

was

race

were

sample Gutkin,

analyses

to

study, and study,

factor

low

WAIS-R

oblique

and Findings

this

this

the

1991).

1984).

Factor and ization sample sex

(1984) of analysis (Atkinson (1981) The solutions (Plake, In

In

Summary with

Research

and

and

Test

(Verbal (Verbal

Organization

Organization

Quotient

Quotient)

Quotient

Quotient)

factor

factor

factor

factor

Intelligence

of

Solutions Two Comprehension Deviation

Deviation

Perceptual Comprehension Two Deviation Deviation Perceptual Two

Three

Table

Summary

Test .i;. >c, .... >c, tTl [/) z > 0'I 0 .., :>< ::l t'1 8 (') .. >

::i:

I

by

and

and

the

and was

the

from

eight

appears

it

the

of

from

Verbal

& (Waller

three-

three-

on

from

for

a

affected (Verbal

a

for

all

WAIS-R

the

.

differences

of

that

on

American

the

Perceptual

American

(Verbal been

and

Comprehension,

Freedom cohorts

Further,

psychiatric

three-factor

1988).

although

1985)

across

Organization Freedom

a

solution

Organization,

Organization,

and

that

to

Matarazzo, the

Horwitz,

depending

WAIS-R

cultural

have

hypotheses

and

that

presence

Distractibility)

on

that

by

the of

Mexican (Verbal

Mexican

Frank,

WAIS-R

may

the

varied

(Beck,

&

orientation

fits

performance

supported

and the

from

structure

Perceptual

the

Memory/Freedom

found

Whitworth,

Perceptual

Perceptual

applicable

suggesting

tasks

of

(Leckliter,

source

three-factor

affected

best

was Distractibility).

for

is &

Comprehension,

concluded

study

solution

and

and

a

1990).

was

Anglo

factor

Parker,

best

1986).

not it

supported Organization,

,

performance

nine-standardization

ability

each from

However,

the

theoretical

populations

the

samples,

(Geary

was

of

(Verbal

the

that

solution solution

robust

study

reviewers

result,

of

bilingualism

a

a

offer

Waldman,

three-factor

Conclusion

Comprehension between & Perceptual factors results factor Distractibility) Distractibility) Comprehension, Freedom the cognitive samples. author's out found Distractibility Seidenberg model studied Comprehension, medical to Silverstein, factor sample Organization, methodology, has As A This Memory/Freedom The

was

to

the

&

(Geary

200

done

medical

and

WAIS-

patients

1985).

WAIS-R

these

for

of

the

vocational

AIS-R

the

AIS-R

the

on

of

adults

Silverstein,

84

(Beck,

W

of

studies W (Waller

of

restricted

general

sample

Frank,

pertaining

additional

&

of

of

samples

the

&

based

the

an

reviewed

confirmatory

200 psychiatric

of

cohorts

of

as

for

of

patients

sample

analytic

American

series 271

sample

structure

were

structure

d)

a

a

that

nine

well

Parker,

e

of

conclusions

structure

to

Matarazzo, as

the factor sample

and

structure

factor

factor

a

using

standardization

multisample

samples

1988).

Mexican

on

procedures

ten

psychiatric

sample

in

the

the

factor

(continu

a

1990).

drawing

200

sample

using

114

standardization Seidenberg,

compared

(Leckliter,

of

and

patient

of

study, article,

WAIS-R

study,

and

examined analytic

analyses

.

dimensional

then

examined

Findings

WAIS-R

the

this

this this

Whitworth,

was

1986)

&

examined factor

the Summary R patients counseling patients Anglo findings Horwitz, purpose factor on normative and In The was

WAIS-R various Waldman, sample

In In

Research

Test

factor

factor

factor factor

oflntelligence

Solutions

Three

Three

Three Three

Table

Summary

Test 'll t'1 'll > z 0

... r<

t'1

z > 5 i n ::c

V,

&

for

the

there

of

groups

a

the

general

three-

with and

were

solution

to

that

factor

age

original

and

Organi- spatial-

(Continues)

1983). good (Fraboni

Strauss,

and

levels

Perceptual

arrangement

Compre-

two-

Distractibility)

akin The

strong the

appropriate

the

Vernon's a

age

three-factor

across

support

to

of

a

that

WAIS-Rand

all

from

of

most

correlations

factor

suggesting

(Verbal

solutions

relatively

from

at

three-factor

Kaufman,

Perceptual sample.

dimension,

(Sherman,

the

structural

that

stable

on

1983).

a

&

Distractibility)

the of

were

1995a).

two-

1995).

group

Organization),

tests

and

analogous

degrees

consisted

model

(v:ed)

Freedom

found concluded

based determined that Comprehension,

that

from

WAIS-R,

found

presented

reasonable

("g"),

(Parker,

and

dimensions

major

was was

was

(Naglieri

factor

the

robust

structure

solutions

a

model

Hunter,

it it

it

varying

(k)

is

1992).

one-

validity

(Verbal

three & for

standardization

Vernon's Thorndike,

AIS-R Perceptual

Comprehension,

indicated

Freedom

&

group

be

W for

on

factor,

result, result,

researchers

result, result,

supported

WAIS-R

a

a

a a

the

Conclusion Organization,

(Allen structure Results As As of three-factor Spellacy, zation, was WISC-III

three-factor construct neuropsychological (Verbal the hension, based found might Saltstone, As ("g") As solutions hierarchical

WAIS-R minor perceptual

The verbal-educational

on

the

Free-

Com-

&

injury

AIS-R

in

models

1995a).

tests

and

W

and

analyzed the

Strauss,

head

for

the Verbal

in

clustering

R

WAIS-Rina

conducted

cohorts

(Fraboni

1983).

Wallbrown,

of

1983).

the

factor

structure

utilized

&

the

the

age

was

of

Thorndike,

factors

in

was

(Sherman,

WAIS-

methods

for

suspected

&

were

sample

factors

of

nine

Organization,

(Parker,

(Blaha

R

the

hierarchical

Kaufman,

with analysis

1995).

stability

tlie

of

&

neuropsychological covariance

cohorts

six

(Allen

abilities

of

WAIS-R

solution

of

the

objective

number

sample

WAIS-

sample

age

with

factor adults

the

six

(continued)

test the

groups

each

Perceptual

the

Hunter,

utilized

similar

Distractibility

nine

1992).

to

260

(Naglieri

of & standardization

for

age

WISC-III

of

study,

study,

the

used

study

from

three-factor

the

compared

nine Findings

this

this

hierarchical

across

In Cross-validation prehension, 1982). standardization dom were sample measuring Spellacy, and determining Saltstone, the In examined methods The was structure This A standardization WAIS-R

Summary

Research

&

Test

Three

Two

and

k)

model

factor

factor

factor

factor

factor

v:ed,

factor,

Intelligence

of

Vernon's

Solutions Three

Three

One factor Three ("g,"

Three

Two

Table

Summary

Test iT1

.., (/) :i:

(/) s

'C b 'C t'1 > °' > - °'

I

of

A

&

only

and

A

from

1943)

(k:m),

level

strategy

marital

IQs not

the

Design

ability

somewhat

validity was

support

is

of sample.

Design,

(Mishra,

a

backward

arrangement

Mandes,

the

Assembly).

single of

and

Freedom

fluid

Block

this

manual

Span

education.

primary

(Cattell,

Performance

attention,

and

factor

a

Block

a

analysis

and

separately.

Verbal

mnemonic

for

and

the

Organization,

subtests

the

of and

(Blaha,

at

Object

also

of"g," Performance

Digit

support and

1987).

on

11

age,

ability

structural

on

consisted

a

general

skills,

but

(VC),

forward

identification

and

all

1982).

and

that

factors:

a

indicated

Joe,

factors

looked

representing

1985).

males

paradigm

on

factor,

&

that

item

Perceptual

measure

AIS-R,

findings

model

components

be

found

(consisting

for

a

loadings

three

occupation,

found

of

W

Verbal

factor

(FD)

yielded

factor

King,

memory, crystallized

state

can

numerical

of

the

was

&

with

of

These

race, loadings

Time

spatial-perceptual-mechanical

Wallbrown, factor

Vernon's

1987).

third

it

speed

(Chastain

of

Arrangement,

yielded

principal

&

A

comprehension

on

general ("g")

high

analyses hierarchical

researchers

and

found

division

WAIS-Ras

measure

Conclusion

Comprehension,

Results

Response Picture performance dexterity Swisher, representing subtests second components a the WAIS-R, subtests status. sequencing, Ferguson, was Conclusions Further, paradigm. based (Blaha Distractibility with use, the

including verbal The The weak The

or

on

scores

subtest

Picture

years

subtests

scores,

R

findings

75

the

Swisher,

relationships

adults'

Span

conducted

&

demographic

age

assessment

from

WAIS-

subtest

was

and

1985).

principal

11

research

on

Digit

standardization

1987).

the

Mandes,

determine

time

using

King,

obtained

major Joe,

individuals

(

on

to analysis

abilities

&

&

WAIS-R

Wechsler

(Blaha,

learning-disabled

factor

scores

response normal

the

the psychoeducational

(continued)

analysis

describes

232

analyzed

of

to to

investigated

time

213

(Chastain

of

Ferguson,

intellectual

was

study,

WAIS-R

of

was

article

effect

Findings

the

this

relation

hierarchical

sample

1987).

scores older response components

between

(Mishra,

The

Summary a pertaining sample on

A in In variables

This

Research

Test

FD)

variables

(cont.)

k)

VC,

model

model

Performance

of

Span

v:ed,

k:m,

oflntelligence

Solutions

("g,"

Speed

Vernon's

("g," Digit

Demographic

Vernon's

Table

Summary

Test 'Cl 'Cl r,, z 0 R > ... t"1 .., > ;J V, ::l

V,

°' ---1

!

a

and

or

it

results

that

an

were

the

cogni-

1992).

&

author's

1990).

be the

scored

supported

two-factor

first

(Continues) sample

three-factor

these analysis

the

produced a

the

a

1991). not

and

more

memory

a different

and

females

was of

men

the

Bohac,

but

attention,

A

Performance,

rural

concluded

Zhong,

and

Fleming,

was

factor

may

Comprehension

clinical

any

and

from significant,

that

that

&

Comprehension

&

the

genders

EIW

time,

was

per

Verbal

Perceptual

Although

(Ryan,

supported

it

solution

for

factor

presented

Verbal,

the

for

measuring

assessing

males

the

both

Harrington,

(Verbal

Gong,

support

showed

on

of

on question

(Verbal

and

for &

study

Freedom

sound

scores.

to

third Thus,

indicating

statistically

Piedmont,

Organization)

(Dai,

into

Distractibility

this

IQs

and

perhaps

study

the

sample

scales

two-factor

supported

Further,

more

Instead

women of

Paolo,

failed

a

were

Organization)

controlling

. solution

ability.

the subtest

from that

Scale representing

was

was

Comprehension,

calling

of

of

1994).

than (Gomez,

nature,

distributions

ambiguous, Ryan,

results

results result,

Perceptual

Full

in

the urban

a

Conclusion analysis conducted

were solution Performance and Organization, The Distractibility) solution Trent, for As (Verbal Results higher WAIS differences and pattern significance. two-factor (Dai, tive Perceptual similar, hypotheses

score appeared The

Freedom numerical

of

the

&

rural

1992).

of

the

. the

factor

was

term

(WAIS-

mainland

China

the

Adultos

results

1990).

the

Bohac,

the urban

Behavior

WAIS-RC with

for

the Wechsler education,

1991)

Adult

third

sample

and

Object

of

para

on

China of gender version, Fleming, of

analysis

the

the

the

retarded

and

&

for (Ryan,

Zhong,

on

for

standardization

&

Adaptive

factor

validity

age

correlated

Wechsler

(n=2,029) (n=992) Spanish

analyzed.The

WAIS, the

Wechsler

-variables

the

Harrington,

conducted the

Design,

investigate

mentally

the

and

the

on

the

&

were Scale-Revised

on

Gong,

Piedmont,

standardization

to

of

from

was

of factor

111

sample sample

and

assess

Block

performance

the

of

Distractibility

(continued)

(Dai,

Scale-Revised

to

Paolo,

scores

on

were

on

analysis

subtests),

matched

Inteligencia

women

(Gomez,

version vocation analysis

WAIS

from

(n=l,406)

1994).

de

scores

Intelligence

(ABS) Ryan,

and

were

and

factor

Findings

principal-components

factor

Arrangement, Assembly conducted A original (EIWA) Escala (WAIS-RC) Summary Trent, Chinese standardization A standardization Adult sample RC) differences (Dai, age, Intelligence this Men Scale individuals WAIS individuals' Freedom

Research

Test

Three

(Freedom

and

Performance

differences

of

factor

factor

factor

Distractibility)

oflntelligence

Speed Solutions (cont.)

Two factor

Two

Gender

from Third

Table

Summary Test

WAIS j

0 z t'1 t'1 t'1

"' t'1 .., t'1 ::r: t'1 "' n z t'1 t'1 'd z t"' z t: n .., "' .., C) "' 0 >< .., ... > > t'1 'd

00 ... °'

A.,

two

can

the

that

Thus,

Full

the

1988).

K-ABC

relevant

these

of the the

children.

subtests

on

of

the

1988).

(Kaufman,

structure

distinct

factors:

of

Parker,

a

cannot

comprising

factor

crystallized

Sequential

20%

factors

&

predict

in

WAIS

two

younger

loaded

Sequential

variance in

factor

and

groups

and

to

1995).

composite,

intercorrelated.

third

the

3).

the

for

the

about

K-ABC

the

the

198

(Strommen,

fluid,

that

of

and

to

yielded

Hunsley, subtests the

WAIS

for

constructs %

interpretation

expected

Achievement)

McLean,

"g,"

predict Processing,

42

Processing

that

race/ethnic

be

&

to

term similar

and

showed

substantially

these

analysis

reliable

J.,

demonstrated

can measures,

making

(Hanson,

are

yielded

questionable

across

(Roszkowski,

IQ

factor results

Achievement

most

indicated

been

expected

Processing, Conclusion Simultaneous

has distinguish manner,

(Simultaneous K-ABC this

Scale criterion Processing, The factors The Results

The approximately be factors Kaufman, appropriate variance

WAIS

The

it

factor

was

to

Ameri-

and

that if

(KAIT)

ABS,

McLean,

61

the

the

K-ABC,

were

&

subtests

WAIS

analyzed

the

to

to

1988).

for

Test

Parker,

severe

analysis

the

attention, J.,

that

African

of

with

only cognitive

the

lower corre-

&

of

of Hanson,

a

procedures

of

factor

WAIS

with

are

the

(n=140)

sample

related

Kaufman

factor

hypothesized

the

have

domain

test

were

the

with

Kaufman,

factor Parker,

above

(Strommen,

(n=l,535),

hypothesis

measure for

Hunsley,

Intelligence

structure

and

the

on

relationship

a

A.,

the

author

administrations

and

the

measures

Hispanics

up

1995).

was

meta-analytic

Adult

of

50

ABS,

general

factor

Whites

test

The

and

1983).

confirmatory

results

strong

(continued)

Tendencies

validities

(Hanson,

standardization

of make

correlated

a

impairment

the

to

and

age

the

correlations

the utilized

Moss,

factor

(Kaufman,

(1988) of

the

the

variety

ofK-ABC

&

that

study,

study,

have

a

WAIS.

with

study

lower

on

(n=226),

third

Findings

samples

this

this

the

1995).

(Hogg Results 1988). intellectual

individuals factors

cans (Roszkowski, analyzed moderately In specifically In used this domains estimate lation across for intelligence investigate Hyperactive have Hunsley Adolescent

Summary of would

This

Research

Test

(Freedom

factor

Distractibility)

factor

factor

factor

oflntelligence

Solutions

(cont.)

from

Subtests One

Two

Two

Third

Table

Summary

Test

KAIT

K-ABC 'd t'1 > 'd ... t'" > t'"

VJ .., t,1

; 0 z VJ n :r:

.... 0'I · '°

s)

of

to

e

the

the

the

the

the

to

of

of

differ-

of

dis-

Allard,

for

De-

learning

and

the

1996).

results

similar

and

children

to for

validity

1995).

Stanford-

White

factor

for

some (Continu

on

children

were

opposed differences

was

the

measures

results of and

supporting structure

structure

Fugate,

These

risk

(Bloom,

as

that

1988).

White scores White

(Elwan,

the on

K-ABC

at

scores

K-ABC Stevens,

of

group

construct

separate 1995).

but

thus

and

Black

Sequential

reexamination

&

a

that

factor

the

factor

groups 8,

the

children K-ABC

issues,

(Keith, that

in those Pfohl,

the

Stanford-Binet

identical

of

K-ABC

of question

the

the &

the

ability

Black

groups to

two

but

for

ethnicities.

Upon

the

found

than

children,

into

creating

that for

that

Reynolds,

that

through

12.

preschoolers

abilities

ability

1995). Shadrach,

Achievement)

was

Egyptian close

that

these

7

lower of

Processing,

&

it

differences

group,

structure

the between

support

higher

Topinka,

and

for the

called

measurement

different the

ages

interpreting

similar

Moss,

is

among

to

of

through

for at

is

indicated for

of American indicated yielded

instead showed

&

suggested

group,

ability 9

Brill,

Thus,

Diamond,

existed Willson,

due

provide

construct

specified

K-ABC

ages

Conclusion

factors (Hogg Results the K-ABC (Simultaneous

Processing, Results

children K-ABC African the also (Fan, Results validity ences children at indistinguishable second Graff, true

Results higher significantly were K-ABC K-ABC Binet. criminate problems Zelko,

of

using

the

factor

of

93 and

addition

children.

Brill,

structure

problems.

on

bias

results

analyses

to

in

(Fan,

White

structure

Stanford-

lower African and

split

analyzed

DeGraff,

1995).

factor

Zelko,

purpose

and

factor

the standardization

Egyptian learning and sample

into

groups

the

factor

construct

the were

confirmatory

the

sample

for

of

and

172

median

Fugate,

for

the two

for Allard,

Stevens,

administered

of

,

(n=486)

1995).

. this

risk

&

per

(n=887) divided

test

with

at

exploratory

1988).

that

children

these

were

to

K-ABC (Keith,

Black

with

1996) to

were

(Bloom

used

methods for and

of

White

groups

multisample

the

congruence

standardization (continued)

L-M

used as

Pfohl,

Reynolds,

investigated

of

Shadrach,

(n=345)

children

& the

&

children

was

(Elwan,

study,

ability study,

groups children

K-ABC Form

conducted compared study

K-ABC

statistical

K-ABC

Findings

samples this

this the

the

Confirmatory

sample This were to were assessing

American four The of across analysis (n=813) Willson, Diamond, In Summary

Binet, preschool Stanford-Binet In higher

These Topinka,

Research

Test

(cont.)

bias

High

factor

factor

factor

vs.

oflntelligence

Solutions Two

Three

Three

Construct

functioning Low

Table

Summary

Test

(")

z

0

:,:l

V, :r

tTl

..,

tTl

r

r

C)

t,1

z

0

'd

>

..

I

N

0

°'

as

by

by

are

&

and

had

those

Per-

K-

scores.

Sequen- K-ABC

seems

support

the

Process-

as

K-ABC

1987).

with

than

the

Snyder,

the

is,

correlation

measured

functioning

actual

tapped

cognitive

left-hemi-

all

K-ABC

of

the

some

Snyder,

by

as

between

achievement,

the

Achievement

WISC-R

SB-IV,

between

That

and

on

the

rather

Bigler,

WISC-R

complex

their

as

(Kline,

Processing

were

left-hemisphere

right-hemisphere

the

of

the

&

as

relative

interpreting

1993).

abilities

and

subtests

Simultaneous

PVIs

relationship

and

of

on

provided

K-ABC

and

and

the

measured

levels

the

all

strong

scale

validity.

variability

Guilmette,

children's

skills

the

correlation

between

the

as

as

correlation

(WISC-R)

(Morris

that

study

the

Sequential

model

the

K-ABC

right-hemisphere

those

achievement

Thus,

positive

not

the

between

achievement IQ

assess

Further,

K-ABC

profile

long

(K-ABC)

as

a

(Kline,

this

Castellanos,

external

and

the

and

to

(WISC-R)

than

as

1992).

between

but

was

the

&

of

the

of

Processing

no

poor

had

achievement

However,

IQ

indicated

given

Verbal

on

academic

discrepancies

functioning

WISC-R.

complex

appear

similar

are

hemispheric

as

result,

correlation

results

WISC-Rand

stronger

PVI

(K-ABC)

Processing

as

Mental

a

a

the

be

Guilmette,

indicating

higher

nonsignificant. predicted

and

variability

well

relationship

the

essentially

between

sphere

functioning

As

tial

functioning, formance

Simultaneous

Conclusion

was

ing

for

Castellanos,

The

The

to

complexity

on

the

scales

ABC

not

Findings

WISC-R.

a

of

&

to

for

for

were

neu-

hemi-

external

mean

WISC-

neuro-

a

abilities

and

child

measure

for

of

of

The

examined

attempt

the

the

a

&

special

1987).

children

WISC-R

an

Guilmette,

each

for

also

and

light

in

K-ABC

Hemispheric

the

neuropsychologi-

for

(PVI),

neurologically

finding

was

the

Snyder,

Bigler,

function.

evaluated

the

79

referred

WISC-Rand

by

and

complexity

in

Snyder,

&

SB-IV,

referred

in

index

studied

was

model.

several

the

146

the

on

of

calculated

was

).

results

between

(Kline,

K-ABC

assessed

ability

(Morris

lateralized

Guilmette,

K-ABC,

children

performance

level

of

1993

(continued)

the

were

1992).

between

was

variability

the

variability,

evaluated

sample

146

by

K-ABC

children

A

(Kline,

specialization

PVIs

of

instrument

given

study

profile

relationship

subtest

comparison

Findings

measures

and

Castellanos,

each

R,

each

IQ

for

validity.

psychological

The

relationship

cal

functioning

performance

interpret

impaired

spheric

ropsychological

Castellanos,

The

measured

services

sample

Summary

This

Research

index

Test

Complexity

variability

oflntelligence

Profile

Solutions

functioning

Hemispheric

Cognitive

Table

Summary Test Summary Table of Intelligence Test Research Findings (continued)

Test Solutions Summary Conclusion

K-ABC and Attention Results of the scores of 52 referred children on As a result, significant interrelationships were the K-ABC and the Continuous Performance found among the K-ABC and the CPT. This Test (CPT) were analyzed to determine the study suggests that since about 25% of the relationship between attention and performance variance in this sample was accounted for by the > on the K-ABC (Gordon, Thomason, & Cooper, CPT, the function of attention in intellectual 'C 'C 1990). ability needs to be further investigated (Gordon, t'1 z Thomason, & Cooper, 1990). 0

DAS DAS&LD In this study, the DAS was administered to 53 As a result, it was found that the General >< children with learning disabilities approximately Conceptual Ability (GCA), Verbal Cluster, and > 3 years after each child had been given the Spatial Cluster scores of the DAS were not

WISC-III. The relationship between the results significantly different from the Full Scale, tr, Verbal, and Performance scores the WISC- t"' of these two tests was analyzed (Dumont, Cruse, of t: Price, & Whelley, 1996). 111. Nonverbal Reasoning Cluster scores 0 The of tr, the DAS were significantly different from the zn Verbal and Performance scores of the WISC- tr, UL In addition, it was found that congruent [J) constructs on the two tests were highly >-l correlated. Further, 96% of the children classified as learning disabled from the WISC- tr, III received an analogous classification on the DAS (Dumont, Cruse, Price, & Whelley, 1996). DAS&LD In this study, the performance characteristics of Results showed that this group of children ::l 83 children classified as learning disabled on the scores low on many subtests of the DAS in DAS were investigated (Shapiro, Buckhalt, & comparison to the normative sample. The valid- Herod, 1995). ity of the DAS scores was also demonstrated by significant correlations with children's past scores on the WISC-Rand achievement tests n (Shapiro, Buckhalt, & Herod, 1995). :i: DAS and core profile In this study, cluster analytic procedures were As a result, seven core profile types described in types used to determine the core ability profiles that terms of ability level, achievement, subtest config- are most representative of the school-age norm uration, and demographic trends were discovered: group from the standardization sample on the high, above average, slightly above average, DAS (Holland & McDermott, 1996). slightly below average with higher verbal, slightly below average with higher spatial, below average, 0-, N and low (Holland & McDermott, 1996). """ (Continues)

:i:

[J)

tTl

'1

[J)

tTl

r

>

t'1

z :><

""' 0

!

'Q

N N

°'

as

it

low

and

Pro-

has

had

19

Writ-

related

to

the

and

factor

writing

the

the

reading,

the

span

and

by

Knopik,

Thus,

Compre-

knowledge

of

had

individual's

WJ-R

on

most

on

performance

Incomplete

of

&

general

problem

life

significantly

subtests

expression

2

cognitive

an

regards

to

general

the

are

Skills

Reasoning

1995).

and

19

low

the

WJ-R.

was

Mathematics

calculation

on

only

that

and

with

subtests

measured

the

intracognitive

measures

Comprehension

had

the

written

Fluid

and

related

vocabulary

as

(McGrew

Processing,

of

mathematics,

that

across

of

on

of

Writing

Closure

2

of

performance

performance

1993).

in

clusters

Murphy,

mathematics

WJTCA-R

processing

suggest

Skills

&

Comprehension-Knowledge,

that

only

that

found

and

Basic

remaining

weaknesses

uniqueness

significant

importance

mathematics

(Listening

clusters

fluency

(Visual

language

Auditory

WJTCA-R

study

of

was

the

of

mental

Knopik,

measures

significantly

applications

The

cognitive

Speed,

high

it

and

the

achievement

&

of

this

Reasoning

by

performance

and/or

(McGrew

to

Further,

was

that

of

indicated

and

indicated

Speed,

of

to

written

Out).

loadings

Mathematics

knowledge

diagnostic

number

result,

Fluid

speed

uniqueness

Expression

measures

a

writing

underachievement

basic

Basic

solving

on

clusters

Results and

(McGrew

Processing

to

and

1996).

ten

measured

appears

mechanics

related

hension-Knowledge, and

Results

cessing

or

WJTCA-R

and/or total

little

Results

strengths

loadings

Cross

medium

low

factor

subtests

Conclusion

Words).

As

of

of

Basic

Short-

Short-

clusters

signifi-

sample

using

the

Reasoning

between

1995).

of

(WJTCA-

clusters

Psycho-

clusters

weaknesses

and general

by

Auditory

standardiza-

Auditory

standard-

mathematics

written

1996).

Basic

the

the

Comprehension-

Comprehension-

(WJ-R)

and

and

Retrieval,

Retrieval,

the

and/or

number

Expression

relationship

relationship

Murphy,

Woodcock-Johnson

cognitive

cognitive

by

from

from

measured

&

Knopik,

relationship

uniqueness

the

the

Mathematics

the

Speed,

the

Speed,

Processing,

Processing,

standardization

as

&

1993).

the

of

the

and

and

strengths

the

Written

"g,gc''

Ability-Revised

Reasoning)

"g,gc''

Reasoning)

subjects

subjects

Visual

Visual

measured

(Long-Term

(Long-Term

Woodcock-Johnson

and

(McGrew

Skills

as

using

Knopik,

seven

Fluid

(continued)

seven

Fluid

Battery-Revised

Processing

(McGrew

Processing

the

investigated

investigated

examined

examined

&

achievement

the

the

Skills

selected

on

Cognitive

sample

achievement

Memory,

WJ-R

Memory,

characteristics

school-age

of

study

study

study

study

intracognitive

sample

WJTCA-R

WJTCA-R

Findings

using

the

achievement

Mathematics

Knowledge,

Processing,

the

between

Term

of (McGrew

This

Writing

Knowledge,

language

Processing,

the

between

tion

2,974

Educational

(scatter)

Term

This

cant

school

This

R)

ization

factor

Tests

This

Summary

Research

on

math

the

Test

&

&

of

scatter

and

Factor

clusters

achievement

clusters

Intelligence

WJ-R

of

achievement

"g,gc"

"g,gc"

writing

the

lntracognitive

Uniqueness

General

Solutions

Characteristics

WJTCA-R

Table

Summary

\\J"-R Test r

N w >-l trl r :r: 'd t'1 n 'd z V, > z ci c 0\ 0 V, :,:,

> E

I

is

for

is

are

for

and

The across

there of

("g")

and

verbal

factor.

it

the

develop

(Bickley,

factor

WJTCA

present

significant

that

provide

(Continues)

level.

speeded

also

one

structure

Three-

the

weak

1995). no

Speed,

solutions

preschool

20-65+,

general

adequate

Thus,

1988).

processing

of

existence and

may

be fourth

support

factors

only

found

reasoning,

an grade

that

the

through

the

sequential

to

achievement

is

ages

the

this

factor

solution

intelligence

intelligence

was

for

on

solution.

WJ-R. Hessler,

three

fluid mental

of

verbal,

of

it

and

two-factor being

O'Neal,

solution

school

&

there

Perceptual

found

of of

findings

a

and/or

the

as are

&

12

increase

indicated

suggest

by

of

the

present was to

that

1995). This

study,

interpretation

loadings

simplest

alternative

it

speed

there mathematics

structure

Ability,

theory

study

as

of Overall,

reasoning,

this

the

to auditory

measures (McGrew

through

and

factor

found

Also,

analyses changes

standardization

that the

clusters

1987).

of

(Kaufman

1

as

the conceptualizing

interpretation

an

Further,

it

Wolfle,

,

in

that

of

suggested

span

Verbal but

&

for

were

perceptual.

meaningful

factors:

related

number

age.

result

life

WJTCA.

a

grades

a

Results Conclusion Reasoning the (McGrew, factor three-stratum Results meaningful adulthood appears knowledge, model four-factor three Reasoning. are the although most Keith, produced questionable, group, changes four-factor more named However for supported visual with As

of

in

factor

ages

using

&

of

also

analyses

span

Cognitive

for

1995).

samples

school

.

life

were

theory

Cognitive

conducted

WJ-R.

analyzed

the

parallel

standardization

of

conducted public sample

(Kaufman

1995)

Wolfle,

confirmatory

the

were

the

&

abilities

factor

by

were

across Tests

addition,

referred

using

standardization

was

Hessler,

Keith,

adulthood analyses

three-stratum

of

In

&

Woodcock-Johnson

n=210)

hierarchical

cognitive

changes

the

_measured

WJ-R

standardization

the

of

(continued)

factor

as

used

1987).

test

the

the through

samples

(Bickley,

school-age

(n=251,

1988).

to

of

(W-J/COG)

(McGrew

(WJTCA).

study,

two the

study

from

structure

Woodcock-Johnson

Findings

this

Battery

data intelligence (McGrew, clusters Developmental Exploratory In the O'Neal, sample the children preschool analysis examined using using This Ability

Summary

of

Research

math

Test

&

theory

(cont.)

factor

abilities

factor

clusters

Intelligence

of

"grgc'' achievement

Solutions cognitive

Three-stratum solutions structure WJTCA

W-J!COG

Table

Summary

Test Summary Table oflntelligence Test Research Findings (continued) N °'.j;. Test Solutions Summary Conclusion

WJ-R Tests of Exploratory factor analysis was conducted to As a result, two factors, as opposed to the sev- Achievement factor examine the factor structure of the Woodcock- eral factors posited by the authors of the WJ-R, structure Johnson-Revised Tests ofAchievement using were found. The major factor, use and compre- the standardization data (Sinnett, Rogg, Benton, hension oflanguage, is thought to represent Downey, & Whitfill, 1993). general intellectual ability. Number skill, the 'Ii second factor, was somewhat small in compari- trl son. Thus, it was concluded that the use of z ..0 discrepancies amongst the WJ-R scores and discrepancies between the WJ-R and intelli- > gence scores is not warranted for evaluating individuals for learning disabilities (Sinnett, Rogg, Benton, Downey, & Whitfill, 1993). SB-IV Factor structure The factor structure of the SB-N was studied As a result of this investigation, it was found that using confirmatory factor analytic procedures the four-factor model as proposed by the au- on a sample of 50 children aged 2-6 years and thors ofthe SB-N was not supported for either 137 children aged 7-11 years who were not a age group. This finding is similar to that found i part of the standardization sample. The factor in earlier factor analyses (e.g., Keith et al., 1988; ij models proposed by the test authors and by Kline, 1989; Ownby & Carmen, 1988; Reynolds Sattler (1988) were tested (Gridley & McIntosh, et al., 1987). The Verbal, Quantitative, 1991). Abstract/Visual, and Memory area scores were I not supported for the children aged 2-6 years. The authors propose that either a two- or three- factor model may better fit the structure of the ::l SB-N for this group. For the children aged 7-11 years, neither the four-factor model pro- (/l posed by the test authors or Sattler's three-factor model fit the structure for this group. However, the authors proposed that a modified four-factor :r: model may better fit this age group, allowing some subtests of the SB-N to load on more than one factor (Gridley & McIntosh, 1991). SB-N factor structure In this study, the factor structure of the SB-N The results of this study indicate that the four- for 3-year-olds was examined for a sample of 50 three-year-old factor model describ"rl by the test authors of the children. Further, the relationship between the SB-N is not accurate for 3-year-old children. In verbal scores on the SB-N and the verbal scores this study, factor analyses identified only verbal "0 "0

> t'1 0 z > t"' i t'1

5 z

[J)

@

N Vt

°'

in

was

the

or

of

the

verbal for

with

the

Scale

On

yet

on

any

the

on

Yaple,

of

little

Test

SB-IV

appears

Full

in

(Continues)

(Kline,

as

be MAT-SF. KTEA-BF

elevation 1992).

it concurrent Profile

although

70)

that correlated,

purpose

and

the diagnosed

is

Further,

range

strongly

predictive have population.

achievement

correlated

the Mathematics,

the

children.

the

subtest

that

on

that

of

this

could

of

of

of this

1992). this Thus,

Area (Molfese,

below

the

found

highly the

diagnostic

in factors

for

WISC-III

examined

than

children

WISC-R.

(IQ

there

correlate

with was

but

achievement

measures. with

moderate

Castellanos, scores

the variability

two MAT-SF

34 were scores

SB-IV

sample it

1994).

validity

same

indicated

supported

do indicated

and

predictor

&

scores

for

Connell,

of lower on

and

the

WISC-R.

validity and

only

the

7

the this

Thus,

&

these

measures

factors,

verbal

no study

SB-IV

study

study

the

diagnosis

value Spelling of had

SB-IV

with give

scores points

only retardation with

shape

K-ABC, Farhney,

scores,

in However,

for

had this intelligence

and

this

this obtained

the

important

and

&

Harris,

9.4

not the

Guilmette,

of

of

of

shape

of

the

specifically,

Composite.

did nonverbal profile mental

of

criterion-related

McCarthy SB-IV, most

intelligence

predictive

were

Conclusion and construction scores the uncertain. Results Helwig, the the any profile properties variability that no the Snyder, Results and Composite Reading, (Prewett More significantly

Results

they WISC-III average, impressions

IQ differences Specifically, Test

with WISC-III

on

&

the

as

any

on

was

is

was

were

the

scores than

students

Helwig,

scatter

calculated

&

(MAT-

the

(Prewett

of

This

profile Matavich,

Educational for

&

SB-IV

were of

Yaple,

Form

of

K-ABC

achievement

Children's

between

children's

and

inner-city

performance

of

validity achievement (KTEA-BF)

children

status

the

Guilmette,

Test

WISC-R.

indices

the

(Prewett

their

and

variability

(Molfese,

Form

Scales

and

academic

1992).

referred

referred

referred

Test-Short

relationship Snyder,

and

WISC-III

predicting

73 and

146 Kaufman

SB-IV

71

whether

continued)

numerical

the

(

studied the to

measures

1992).

for

of

in

K-ABC, the

the

socioeconomic

comparing

Connell,

shape,

(Kline,

McCarthy

1994).

was

SB-IV, by

assess of

&

for

these

study,

Analogies

study, low

study,

the

to

sample

of

the

Findings

SB-IV,

a

this

this

this

from

Harris,

Abilities elevation, In on the Summary done greater information

WISC-R Castellanos,

In SF), assessed Matrix investigated 1994). Achievement-Brief Farhney, administered In having purpose each

Research

&

of

&

Test

(cont.)

MAT-

WISC-

scores

K-ABC

SB-IV

structure

of

validity

the

of

Shape,

factor

SB-IV

with

KTEA

Intelligence

3-year-olds

&

and

of

SB-IV

Solutions for

Elevation,

WISC-Rand Variability

Concurrent SB-IV SF

Comparison

III

Table

Summary

Test

....

5

z

V,

r'

l!j

n

z

;

:><

""'

0

"d "d

I > l!j

>

N

O's

O's

of

SASs

the

a

the

SASs

in

under

that

have

to

an

is

As

1992).

it

to

where

not

Area

until

it

history

Area

mental

taken

Reasoning,

not

a

concluded

to

appears

is

may

cases

four

be

children

closest

intellectual

makes

used

four

it

had

mild

is

in

populations

of

thought

mental

(Wilson,

be

the

Short-Term

all

they

author

has

retardation.

SB-IV

of

SAS

have

as

should

SB-IV

opposed

overall

with

and

populations,

other

the

form

to

person

as

the

1994).

L-M

to

created

among

the

the

of

this

is

mental Abstract/Visual

such

of

assessment

of

any

specifically,

results,

study,

caution

investigation,

score

persons

aggregate

Form

test

SAS

for

that

the

believed

Composite

with

this

floor

this

an

Reasoning,

or

these

SAS

More

for

Matavich,

generalize

of

many

of

are

the

use

profound

discrepancy

&

1996).

reflection

high

of

Reasoning,

a

However,

or

Area

adequate

who

is

result

the

result

5

Composite

;

a

Stanford-Binet

more

recommended

successful

severe

retardation,

that

age inadequate

(Spruill,

Conclusion

representing

lowest

there

Quantitative

(Verbal As

retardation.

the

abilities

accurate

Memory),

SB-IV.

(Prewett

As

necessarily

interpreting

an

1996).

was

in

as

persons

SB-IV

for

the

1992).

SB-IV

ability

(Spruill,

Composite

of

persons

L-M

the

the

119

of

floors

of

(Wilson,

of

Form

the

intellectual

retardation

(SAS)

of

validity

sample

a

Score

the

mental

(continued)

retardation

in

examined

measure

Age

Stanford-Binet

with

study,

study

mental

the

Findings

this

and

with

This

Standard

adequate

persons

investigated

In

Summary

Research

Test

SB-IV

WISC-

scores

of

of

SAS

the

L-M

of

SB-IV

Intelligence

Form

and

of

Solutions

Comparison

and

Composite

III

(cont.)

Comparison

Validity

Table

Summary Test REFERENCES

Ackerman, P. T., Dykman, R. A., & Oglesby, D. M. (1983). American Psychological Association (APA) Committee on Sex and group differences in reading and attention disordered Professional Standards and Committee on Psychological children with and without hyperkinesis. Journal ofLearning Tests and Assessment. (1986). Guidelines for computer-based Disabilities, 16(7), 407-415. tests and interpretatiom. Washington, DC: Author. Ackerman, P. T., Dykman, R. A., & Peters, J.E. (1976). American Psychological Association. (1992). Ethical principles Hierarchal factor patterns on the WISC as related to areas ofpsychologists. Washington, DC: Author. of processing deficit. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 42, 381- 386. Amrine, M. (1965). The 1965 congressional inquiry into test- ing. American Psychologist, 20, 859-861. Alexander, H. B. (1922). A comparison ofranks ofAmerican states in Army Alpha and in social-economic status. School Anastasi, A. (1983). Review ofthe Kaufman Assessment Battery and Society, 16, 388-392. for Children. [Machine-readable data file]. Latham, NY: Burns Review Service. Algozzine, B., Ysseldyke, J., & Shinn, M. (1982). Identifying children with learning disabilities: When is a discrepancy se- Anastasi, A. (1984). The K-ABC in historical and contempo- vere? Journal ofSchool Psychology, 20, 299-305. rary perspective. Journal ofSpecial Education, 18, 357-366. Allen, S. R., & Thorndike, R. M. (1995a). Stability of the Anastasi, A. (1985). Testing the test: Interpreting the scores WAlS-R and WISC-Ill factor structure using cross-valida- from multiscore batteries. Journal ofCounseling and Develop- tion of covariance structures. Journal ofClinical Psychology, ment, 64, 84-86. 51(5), 648-657. . Anastasi, A. (1986). Intelligence as a quality of behavior. In Allen, S. R., & Thorndike, R. M. (1995b). Stability of R.J. Sternberg & D. K. Detterman (Eds.), What is intelligence: the WPPSI-R and WISC-III factor structure using cross- Contemporary viewpoints on its nature and definition. Norwood, validation of covariance structure models. Journal of Psy- NJ: Ablex. pp. 19-21. choeducational Assessment, 13, 3-20. Anastasi, A. (1988). Psychological testing (6th ed.). New York: American Educational Research Association, American Psy- Macmillan. chological Association, and National Council on Measure- ment in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and Anastasi, A. (1989). Review ofthe Stanford-Binet Intelligence psychological testing. Washington, DC: Author. Scales: Fourth Edition. Tenth mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute. American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and sta- tistical manual ofmental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1998). Psychological testing (7th ed). Author. New York: Prentice-Hall. American Psychological Association. (1965). Pickets at APA Anderson, R.J., & Sisco, F. H. (1977). Standardization ofthe headquarters protest psychological tests. American Psycholo- WISC-R Performance scale for deafchildren. Washington, DC: gist, 20, 871-872. Gallaudet University, Office of Demographic Studies. American Psychological Association. (1985). Standards for Anderson, T., & Dixon, W. E.,Jr. (1995). Confirmatory fac- educational andpsychological testing. Washington, DC: Author. tor analysis ofthe Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-

627 628 REFERENCES

Revised with normal and psychiatric adolescents. Journal of In P. L. Ackerman, P. C. Kyllonen, & R. D. Roberts (Eds.), Research on Adolescence, 5(3), 319-332. Learning and individual differences: Process, trait, and content Angoff, W. H. (1988). The nature-nurture debate, aptitudes, determinants (pp. 31-54). Washington, DC: Author. and group differences. American Psychologist, 43, 713-720. Bagnato, S.J., & Neisworth,J. T. (1989). System to plan early Applegate, B., & Kaufman, A. S. (1989). Short form ofK-ABC childhood services. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance sequential and simultaneous processing for research and Service. screening. Journal ofClinical Child Psychology, 18(4), 305-313. Bailey, D. B., Jr., Vandiviere, P., Dellinger, J., & Munn, D. Aram, D. M., & Eisele, J. A. (1994). Intellectual stability in (1987). The Battelle Developmental Inventory: Teacher per- children with unilateral brain lesions. Neuropsychologia, 32, ceptions and implementation data. Journal ofPsychoeducational 85-95. Assessment, 3, 217-226. Aram, D. M., Ekelman, B. L., Rose, D. F., & Whitaker, H. A. Baltes, P. B. (1986). Notes on the concept of intelligence. (l985). Verbal and cognitive sequelae following unilateral In R. J. Sternberg & D. K. Detterman (Eds.), What is intel- lesions acquired in early childhood. Journal of Clinical and ligence? Contemporary viewpoints on its nature and definition Experimental Neuropsychology, 7, 55-78. (pp. 23-27). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Archer, R. P., Maruish, M., Imhof, E. A., & Piotrowski, C. Banich, M. T., Levine, S. C., Kim, H., & Huttenlocher, P. (1991). Psychological test usage with adolescent clients: 1990 (1990). The effects of developmental factors on IQ in hemi- survey findings. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, plegic children. Neuropsychologia, 28, 35-47. 22, 247-252. Bannatyne, A. (1974). Diagnosis: A note on recategorization Ardila, A., & Rosselli, M. (1996). Soft neurological signs in of the WISC scale scores. Journal ofLearning Disabilities, 7, children: A normative study. Developmental Neuropsychology, 272-274. 12, 181-200. Barber, T. X. (1973). Pitfalls in research: Vine investigator Arthur, G. A. (1947). Point Scale ofPeiformance Tests: Form and experimenter effects. In R. M. W. Travers (Ed.), Second IJ(rev.). New York: The Psychological Corporation. handbook ofresearch on teaching (pp. 382-404). Chicago: Rand McNally. Arthur, G. (1950). The ArthurAdaptation ofthe Leiter Interna- tional Performance Scale. Chicago: Stoelting. Bardos, A. N., Naglieri, J. A., & Prewett, P. N. (1992). Gen- der differences on planning, attention, simultaneous, and suc- Athanasou,J. A. (1993). Patterns ofperformance on the Ver- cessive cognitive processing tasks.Journal ofSchool Psychology, bal and Performance subtests of the Wechsler Adult Intel- 30, 293-3-05. ligence Scale-Revised; Some Australian data. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 49(1), 102-108. Bardos, A. N., Softas, B. C., & Petrogiannis, R. K. (1989). Comparison ofthe Goodenough-Harris and Naglieri's Draw- Atkinson, L., & Cyr,].]. (1988). Low IQ samples and WAIS- a-Person scoring systems for Greek children. School Psychology R factor structure. American Journal on Mental Retardation, International, 10, 205-209. 93(3), 278-282. Barkley, R. A. (1988). Attention. In M. Tramontana & Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1971). The control of S. Hooper (Eds.), Issues in child clinical neuropsychology short-term memory. Scientific American, 225, 82-90. (pp. 145-176). New York: Plenum Press. Avery, R. 0., Slate,]. R., & Chovan, W. (1989). A longitudi- Barkley, R. A. (1989). Attention deficit-hyperactivity disor- nal study ofWISC-R and WAIS-R scores with students who der. In E. J. Mash & R. A. Barkley (Eds.), Treatment ofchild- are Educable Mentally Handicapped. Education ofTmining of hood disorders (pp. 39-72). New York: Guilford. the Mentally Retarded, 24(1), 28-31. Barkley, R. A. (1997). Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disor- Aylward, G. P. (1992). Review of the Differential Ability der, self-regulation, and time: Toward a more comprehensive Scales. In J. J. Kramer & J. C. Impara (Eds.), The eleventh theory. Journal ofDevelopmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 18, mentalmeasurementsyearbook (pp. 281-282). Lincoln: Univer- 271-279. sity ofNebraska Press. Barnes, T., & Forness, S. (1982). Learning characteristics of Aylward, G. P., & MacGruder, R. W. (1986). Test Behavior children and adolescents with various psychiatric diagnoses. Checklist (TBC). Brandon, VT: Clinical Psychology Publishing. In R. Rutherford (Ed.), Severe behavior disorders ofchildren and Ayres, R. R., Cooley, E. J., & Severson, H. H. (1988). Edu- youth (pp. 32-41). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. cational translation of the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Barry, B. J. (1983). Validity study ofthe Kaufman Assessment Children: A construct validity study. School Psychology Review, Battery for Children compared to the Stanford-Binet, Form L- 17(1), 113-124. M, in the identification ofgifted nine- and ten-year-olds. Un- Baddeley, A., & Gathercole, S. (1999). Individual differences published master's thesis, National College of Education, in learning and memory: Psychometrics and the single case. Chicago, IL. REFERENCES 629

Barry, B., Klanderman,J., & Stripe, D. (1983). Study number Benson, J. (1998). Developing a strong program ofconstruct one. In A. S. Kaufman & N. L. Kaufman (Eds.), Kaufman validation: A test anxiety example. Educational Measurement: Assessment Battery for Children: Interpretive manual (p. 94). Issues and Practice, 17, 10-22. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service. Benton, A L. (1980). The neuropsychology of facial recog- Batchelor, E. S., & Dean, R. S. (Eds.). (1996). Pediatric neu- nition. American Psychologist, 35, 176-186. ropsychology: Interfacing assessment and treatment for rehabilita- Benton, A. L., Hamsher, K., Varney, N. R., & Spreen, 0. tion. Needham Heights, MA: Simon & Schuster. (1983). Contributions to neuropsychological assessment: A clinical Batchelor, E., Sowles, G., Dean, R. S., & Fischer, W. (1991). manual. New York: Oxford University Press. Construct validity of the Halstead-Reitan Neuropsychologi- Berg, R. A., & Linton, J. C. (1997). Neuropsychological se- cal Battery for Children with learning disorders. Journal of quelae ofchronic medical disorders in children and youth. In Psychoeducational Assessment, 9, 16-3I. C.R. Reynolds & E. Fletcher-Janzen (Eds.), Handbook ofclin- Bauer, ]. ]., & Smith, D. K. (1988, April). Stability of the ical child neuropsychology (2nd ed., pp. 663-687). New York: K-ABC and the S-B:4 with preschool children. Paper presented Plenum Press. at the meeting of the National Association of School Psy- Berk, R. A. (1982). Handbook ofmethods for detecting test bias. chologists, Chicago. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Bauman, E. (1991). Stability ofWISC-Rscores in children with Berninger, V. W., & Abbott, R. D. (1994). Redefining learn- learning difficulties. Psychology in the Schools, 28(2), 95-100. ing disabilities: Moving beyond aptitude-achievement dis- Bayley, N. (1969). Bayley scales of infant development. New crepancies to failure to respond to validated treatment York: Psychological Corporation. protocols. In G. Reid Lyon (Ed.), Frames ofreference for the assessment oflearning disabilities: New views on measurement is- Beardsworth, E., & Harding, L. (1996). Developmental neu- sues. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing. ropsychology and the assessment ofchildren. In L. Harding & ]. R. Beech (Eds.), Assessment in neuropsychology (pp. 16-46). Beutler, L. E., & Davison, E. H. (1995). Whatstandards should New York: Routledge. we use? In S. C. Hayes, V. M. Follette, R. M. Dawes, & K. E. Grady (Eds.), Scientific standards ofpsychologicalpractice: Issues and Beaumont, J. G. (1983). Introductirm to neuropsychology. New recommendations (pp. 11-24). Reno, NV: Context Press. York: Guilford Press. Beutler, L. E., Williams, R. E., Wakefield, P.J., & Entwistle, Beck. F. W., & Lindsey, J. D. (1986). Visually impaired stu- S. R. (1995). Bridging scientist and practitioner perspectives dents' degree of visual acuity and their verbal intelligence in clinical psychology. American Psychologist, 50, 984-994. quotients. Educational and Psychological Research, 6(1), 49-53. Bever, T. G. (1975). Cerebral asymmetries in humans are due Beck, N. C., Horwitz, E., Seidenberg, M., Parker, ]., & to the differentiation oftwo incompatible processes: Holistic Frank, R. (1985). WAIS-R factor structure in psychiatric and and analytic. In D. Aaronson & R. Rieber (Eds.), Develop- general medical patients. Journal of Consulting and Clinical mentalpsycholinguistics and communication disorders. New York: Psychology, 53(3), 402-405. New York Academy ofSciences. Beitchman, J. H., Patterson, P., Gelfand, B., & Minty, G. Bickley, P. G., Keith, T. Z., & Wolfle, L. M. (1995). The (1982). IQ and child psychiatric disorder. Canadian Journal of three-stratum theory ofcognitive abilities: Test ofthe struc- Psychiatry, 27, 23-28. ture of intelligence across the life-span. Intelligence, 20(3), Belmont, J. M. (1989). Cognitive strategies and strategic 309-328. learning: The socio-instructional approach. American Psychol- Bigler, E. D. (1988). The role of neuropsychological assess- ogist, 44, 142-148. ment in relation to other types of assessment with children. Bender, W. N. (1995). Learning disabilities: Characteristics, InM. G. Tramontana & S. R. Hooper (Eds.), Assessment issues identification, and teaching strategies (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & in child neuropsychology (pp. 67-91). New York: Plenum Press. Bacon. Binet, A., & Simon, T. (1905). New methods for the diagno- Bennett, T. L., & Ho, M. R. (1997). The neuropsychology of sis of the intellectual level of subnormals. L'Anne'e Psycho- pediatric epilepsy and antiepileptic drugs. In C. R. Reynolds logique, 11, 191-244. & E. Fletcher-Janzen (Eds.), Handbook ofclinical child neuro- Binet, A., & Simon, T. (1908). The development of intelli- psychology (2nd ed., pp. 517-538). New York: Plenum Press. gence in the child. L'Anee'e Psychologique, 14, 1-90. Bennett, T. L., & Krein, L. K. (1989). The neuropsychology Bing, S., & Bing, J. (1984, April). Relationship between the K- of epilepsy: Psychological and social impact. In C. R. ABC and PPVT-R for preschoolers. Paper presented at the Reynolds and E. Fletcher-Janzen (Eds.), Handbook ofclinical meeting ofthe National Association ofSchool Psychologists, child neuropsychology (pp. 419-441). New York: Plenum Press. Philadelphia, PA 630 REFERENCES

Bing, S. B., & Bing,]. R. (1985, February). Comparison ofthe growth ofreflection in children (pp. 105-144). New York: Aca- Kaufman Assessment Batteryfor Children and the Stanford Early demic Press. School Achievement Test for non-referred kindergarten children. Bouchard, T.J., & McGue, M. (1981). Familial studies ofin- Paper presented at the meeting of the Eastern Educational telligence: A review. Science, 212, 1055-1059. Research Association, Virginia Beach, VA. Bouchard, T. J., Jr., & Segal, N. L. (1985). Environment Bjorklund, D. F. (1989). Children's thinking: Developmental and IQ. In B. B. Wolman (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence: function and individual differences. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/ Theories, measurements, and applications (pp. 391-464). New Cole. York: Wiley. Blaha,]., Mandes, E., & Swisher, C. W. (1987). The hierar- Bourgeois, B. F. D., Prensky, A. L., Palkes, H. S., Talent, chical factor structure of the WAIS-R for learning-disabled B. K., & Busch, S. G. (1983). Intelligence in epilepsy: A pro- adults.Journal ofClinical Psychology, 43(2), 280-286. spective study in children. Annals ofNeurology, 14, 438-444. Blaha,]., & Wallbrown, F. H. (1982). Hierarchical factor Boyle, G. J. (1989). Confirmation of the structural dimen- structure ofthe Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised. sionality of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale (4th ed.). Journal ofConsulting and Clinical Psychology, 50(5), 652---660. Personality and Individual Differences, JO, 709-715. Blaha, J., & Wallbrown, F. H. (1996). Hierarchical factor Bracken, B. A. (1985). A critical review of the Kaufman structure of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children- Assessment Battery for Children (K-ABC). School Psychology 111. Psychological Assessment, 8, 214--218. Review, 14, 21-36. Bloom, A. S., Allard, A. M., Zelko, F. A.]., Brill, W.J., Top- Bracken, B. A. (I987). Limitations of preschool instruments inka, C. W., & Pfohl, W. (1988). Differential validity of the K-ABC for lower functioning preschool children versus those and standards for minimal levels oftechnical adequacy. Jour- of higher ability. American Journal on Mental Retardation, nal ofPsychoeducational Assessment, 5, 313-326. 93(3), 273-277. Bracken, B. A., & Delugach, R. R. (I990, October). Changes Bloom, B. S. (1964). Stability and change in human characteris- improve test. Communique, 21. tics. New York: Wiley. Bracken, B. A., & Fagan, T. K. (1988). Abilities assessed by Bogen, J. E. (I 969). The other side of the brain: Parts I, II, the K-ABC Mental Processing subtests: The perceptions of and I. Bulletin of the Los Angeles Neurological Society, 34, practitioners with varying degrees ofexperience. Psychology in 73-105, 135-162, 191-203. the Schools1 25(1), 22-34. Bogen,]. E., Dezure, R., Tenouten, W., & Marsh,]. (1972). Bracken, B. A., & McCalllum, R. S. (1998). Universal non- The other side ofthe brain: IV. Bulletin ofthe Los Angeles Neu- verbal intelligence test-Examiner's manual. Itasca, IL: rological Society, 37, 49-61. Riverside Publishing. Bolen, L. M., Aichinger, K. S., Hall, C. W., & Webster, Bracken, B. A., Prasse, D. P., & McCallum, R. S. (1984). R. W. (1995). A comparison of the performance of cogni- Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised: An appraisal tively disabled children on the WISC-R and WISC-III.Jour- and review. School Psychology Review, 13, 49-60. nal ofClinical Psychology, 51(1), 89-94. Braden,]. P. (1984a). LPAD applications to deafpopulations. Boll, T.]. (I974). Behavioral correlates ofcerebral damage in In D. S. Martin (Ed.), International symposium on cognition, children aged 9 through 14. In R. M. Reitan & L. A. Davison education, and deafness: Workingpapers. Washington, DC: Gal- (Eds.), Clinical neurnpsychology: Current status and applications laudet College Press. (pp. 91-120). Washington, DC: V. H. Winston & Sons. Braden, J. P. (1984b). The factorial similarity of the WISC- Boll, T. J., & Stanford, L. D. (1997). Pediatric brain injury. R Performance scale in deaf and hearing samples. Personal In C. R. Reynolds & E. Fletcher-Janzen (Eds.), Handbook of Individual Differences, 5(4), 403-410. clinical child neuropsychology (2nd ed., pp. 140-156). New York: Braden,J. P. (1985a). The structure ofnonverbal intelligence Plenum Press. in deafand hearing subjects. American Annals ofthe Deaf, 130, Bolton, B. (1978). Differential ability structure in deaf and 496-501. hearing children. Applied Psychological Measurement, 2, 147- Braden, J. P. (I985b). WISC-R deaf norms reconsidered. 149. Journal ofSchool Psychology, 23, 375-382. Boring, E.G. (I929). A history ofexperimentalpsychology. New Braden,]. P. (1987). A comparison ofregression and standard York: The Century Company. score discrepancy methods for learning disabilities identifica- Borkowski, J. G. (1985). Signs of intelligence: Strategy gen- tion: On racial representation.Journal ofSchool Psychology, 25, eralization and metacognition. In S. R. Yussen (Ed.), The 23-29. REFERENCES 631

Brandt, H. M., & Giebink, J. W. (1968). Concreteness and Butler, R. W., & Copeland, D. R. (1993). Neuropsychologi- congruence in psychologists' reports to teachers. Psychology in cal effects of central nervous system prophylactic treatment the Schools, 5, 87-89. in childhood leukemia: Methodological considerations. Jour- Brody, N. (1985). The validity of tests of intelligence. In nal ofPediatric Psychology, 18, 319-338. B. B. Wolman (Ed.), Handbook ofintelligence (pp. 353-389). Campbell, D. T. (1996). Unresolved issues in measurement New York: Wiley. validity: An autobiographical overview. Psychological Assess- Brouwers, P., Tudor-Williams, G., DeCarli, C., Moss, H. A., ment, 8(4), 363-368. Wolters, P. L., Civitello, L.A., & Pizzo, P.A. (1995). Rela- Canivez, G. L. (1995). Validity ofthe Kaufman Brieflntelli- tion between stage of disease and neurobehavioral measures gence Test: Comparisons with the Wechsler Intelligence in children with symptomatic HIV disease. AIDS, 9, 713-720. Scale for Children-Third Edition. Assessment, 2(2), 101-111. Brown, D. T. (1994). Review ofthe Kaufman Adolescent and Canivez, G. L. (1996). Validity and diagnostic efficiency of Adult Intelligence Test (KAIT). Journal ofSchool Psychology, the Kaufman Brieflntelligence Test in reevaluating students 32, 85-99. with learning disability. Journal ofPsychoeducational Assessment, Brown, G., Chadwich, 0., Shaffer, D., Rutter, M., & Traub, 14, 4-19. M. (1981 ). A prospective study ofchildren with head injuries: Carlson, L., Reynolds, C. R., & Gutkin, T. B. (1983). Con- III. Psychiatric sequelae. Psychological Medicine, 11, 63-78. sistency ofthe factorial validity ofthe WISC-R for upper and Brown, R. T., Buchanan, I., Doepke, K., Eckman, J. R., lower SES groups. Journal of School Psychology, 21(4), 319- Baldwin, K., Goonan, B., & Schoenherr, S. (1993). Cognitive 326. and academic functioning in children with sickle-cell disease. Carroll, J. B.'(1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey offac- Journal ofClinical Child Psychology, 22, 207-218. tor analytic studies. New York: Cambridge University Press. Brown, R. T., Madan-Swain, A., Pais, R., Lambert, R. G., Carroll, J. B. (1994). What abilities are measured by the Baldwin, K., Casey, R., Frank, N., Sexson, S. B., Ragab, A., & WISC-III? Journal ofPsychoeducational Assessment-Monograph, Kamphaus, R. (1992). Cognitive status of children treated 134-143. with central nervous system prophylactic chemotherapy for acute lymphocytic leukemia. Archives ofClinical Neuropsychol- Carroll, J. B. (1995). Review ofJ. P. Das, J. A. Naglieri & ogy, 7, 481-497. J. R. Kirby, Assessment of cognitive processes: The PASS theory ofintelligence. Journal ofPsychoeducational Assessment, Brown, R. T., Madan-Swain, A., Pais, R., Lambert, R. G., 13, 397-409. Sexson, S. B., & Ragab, A. (1992). Chemotherapy for acute lymphocytic leukemia: Cognitive and academic sequelae. Caruso, J. C., & Cliff, N. (1999). The properties of equally Journal ofPediatrics, 121, 885-889. and differentially weighted WAIS-III factor scores. Psycho- logical Assessment, 11 (2), 198-206. Brown, R. T., Sawyer, M. B., Antoniou, G., Toogood, I., Rice, M., Thompson, N., & Madan-Swain, A. (1996). A Carvajal, H., & Pauls, K. K. (1995). Relationships among 3-year follow-up ofthe intellectual and academic functioning graduate record examination scores, Wechsler Adult Intelli- of children receiving central nervous system prophylactic gence Scale-Revised IQs and undergraduate grade point chemotherapy for leukemia. Journal ofDevelopmental and Be- average. College StudentJournal, 29, 414-416. havioral Pediatrics, 17, 392-398. Cassidy, L. C. (1997). The stability ofWISC-III scores: For Bryden, M., & Saxby, L. (1986). Developmental aspects of whom are triennial reevaluations necessary? Dissertation cerebral lateralization. In). E. Obrzut & G. W. Hynd (Eds.), Abstracts, International Section B: The Sciences & Engineering Child neu1·opsychology: Vol. 1. Theory and research (pp. 73-94). Vol. 58(8-B), p. 4514. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Chastain, R. L., & Joe, G. W. (1987). Multidimensional rela- Burchinal, M. R., Campbell, F. A., Bryant, D. M., Wasik, tions between intellectual abilities and demographic vari- B. H., & Ramey, C. T. (1997). Early intervention and medi- ables. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 79(3), 323-325. ating processes in cognitive performance of children of low- Chen, J-Q, & Gardner, H. (1997). Alternative assessment income African American families. Child Development, 68(5), from a multiple intelligences theoretical perspective. In 935-954. D. Flanagan, J. L. Genshaft, & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Burns, 0. K. (1961). Tests in print: A comprehensive bibliography Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues oftests for use in education, psychology, and industry. Highland (pp. 105-121). New York: Guilford. Park, NJ: Gryphon Press. Cicchetti, D. V. (1994). Guidelines, criteria, and rules ofthumb Bush, J. W. (1997). It's time we stuck up for the Boulder for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments model. American Psychologist, 52, 181. in psychology. Psychological Assessment, 6(4), 284-290. 632 REFERENCES

Cleary, T. A., Humphreys, L. G., Kendrick, S. A., & Wes- Dalby, P.R., & Obrzut,]. E. (1991). Epidemiologic charac- man, A. (197 5). Educational uses of tests with disadvantaged teristics and sequelae of closed head-injured children and students. American Psychologist, 30, 15-41. adolescents: A review. Developmental Neuropsychology, 7, 35--f,8. Clinton, J. ]., McCormick, K., & Besteman, J. (1994). En- Daniel, M. H. (1997). Intelligence testing: Status and trends. hancing clinical practice: The role of practice guidelines. American Psychologist, S2, 1038-1045. American Psychologist, 49, 30-33. Das,]. P. (1973). Structure ofcognitive abilities: Evidence for Cohen,]. (1952). A factor-analytically based rationale for the simultaneous and successive processing.JournalofEducational Wechsler-Bellevue. Journal ofConsulting Psychology, 16, 272- Psychology, 6S, 103-108. 277. Das, J.P. (1980). Planning: Theoretical considerations and Cohen, J. (1957). A factor-analytically based rationale for the empirical evidence. Psychological Research, 41, 141-151. Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. Journal ofConsulting Psy- Das,]. P. (1988). Intelligence: A view from neuropsychology. chology, 21, 451-457. The AlbertaJournal ofEducational Research, 34, 76-82. Cohen, J. (1959). The factorial structure ofthe WISC at ages Das,]. P., Kirby,]. R., &Jarman, R. F. (1975). Simultaneous 7--f,, 10-6, and 13--f,.Journal ofConsulting Psychology, 23, 285- and successive synthesis: An alternative model for cognitive 299. abilities. Psychological BuJJetin, 82, 87-103. Cohen, L. G., & Spenciner, L. J. (1998). Assessment ofchildren Das, J. P., Kirby, J. R., & Jarman, R. F. (1979). Simultaneous and youth. New York: Addison Wesley Longman. and successive cognitive processes. New York: Academic Press. Cohen, M., Becker, M. G., & Campbell, R. (1990). Relation- Das, J. P., Mensink, D., & Mishra, R. K. (1990). Cognitive ships among four methods of assessment of children with processes separating good and poor readers when IQ is co- attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder.Journal ofSchool Psy- varied. Learning and Individual Differences, 2, 423-436. chology, 28(3), 189-202. Das, J. P., & Naglieri, J. A. (1997). Cognitive Assessment Sys- Cohen, M. J ., Branch, W. B., McKie, V. C., & Adams, R. J. tem. Chicago: Riverside. (1994). Neuropsychological impairment in children with Das, J. P., Naglieri, J. A., & Kirby, J. R. (1994). Assessment of sickle cell anemia and cerebrovascular accidents. Clinical cognitive processes: The PASS theory of inteJJigence. Needham Pediatrics, 33, 517-524. Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Cohen, M.J., Branch, W. B., Willis, W. G., Weyandt, L. L., Das, J. P., Naglieri, J. A., & Kirby, J. R. (1994). Assessment of & Hynd, G. W. (1992). Childhood. In A. E. Puente & R. J. cognitive processes: The PASS theory ofinteJJigence. Needham McCaffrey (Eds.), Handbook ofneuropsychological assessment: A Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. biopsychosocialperspective (pp. 49-80). New York: Plenum Press. Das, J. P., & Varnhagen, C. K. (1986). Neuropsychological Colombo,]. (1993). Infant cognition: Predicting later inteJJectual functioning and cognitive processing. In J. E. Obrzut & functioning. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. G. W. Hynd (Eds.), Child neuropsychology: Vol. 1. Theory and Copeland, D. R., Dowell, R. E., Fletcher, J. M., Bordeaux, research (pp. 117-140). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. J. D., Sullivan, M. P.,Jaffe, N., Frankel, L. S., Ried, H. L., & Daub, D., & Colarusso, R. P. (1996). The validity of the Cangir A. (1988). Neuropsychological effects of childhood WJ-R, PIAT-R, and DAB-2 reading subtests with students cancer treatment.Journal ofChild Neurology, 3, 53-62. with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Costenbader, V. K., & Adams, J. W. (1991). A review of the Practice, 11(2), 90-95. psychometric and administrative features of the PIAT-R: Dawes, R. M. (1995). Standards of practice. In S. C. Hayes, Implications for the practitioner. Journal ofSchool Psychology, V. M. Follette, R. M. Dawes, & K. E. Grady (Eds.), Scientific 29, 219-228. standards ofpsychological practice: Issues and recommendations Crawford, J. R. (1992). Current and premorbid intelligence (pp. 31-43). Reno, NV: Context Press. measures in neuropsychological assessment. In J. R. Craw- Deary, I. J., & Stough, C. (1996). Intelligence and inspection ford, D. M. Parker, & W.W. McKinlay (Eds.), A handbook of time: Achievements, prospects, and problems. American Psy- neuropsychological assessment (pp. 21-49). Hillsdale, NJ: Law- chologist, SJ, 599--f,08. rence Erlbaum Associates. DeBaun, M. R., Schatz,]., Siegel, M.J., Koby, M., Craft, S., Dai, X., Gong, Y., & Zhong, L. (1990). Factor analysis ofthe Resar, L., Chu, J. Y., Launius, G., Dadash-Zadey, M., Lee, Mainland Chinese version ofthe Wechsler Adult Intelligence .R. B., & Noetzel, M. (1998). Cognitive screening examina- Scale. Psychological Assessment, 2(1), 31-34. tions for silent cerebral infarcts in sickle cell disease. Neurol- Dai, X., Ryan,].]., Paolo, A. M., & Harrington, R. G. (1991). ogy, SO, 1678-1682. Sex differences on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale- Denckla, M. B. (1996). Biological correlates ofleaming and at- Revised for China. Psychological Assessment, 3(2), 282-284. tention: What is relevant to learning disability and attention- REFERENCES 633

deficit hyperactivity disorder? Developme-ntaland Behavioral Pe- Edwards, B. T., & Klein, M. (1984). Comparison of the diatrics, 17, 114-119. WAIS and the WAIS-R with Ss of high intelligence. Journal Dodrill, C. B., & Troupin, A. S. (197 5). Effects ofrepeated ofClinical Psychology, 40, 300-302. administrations ofa comprehensive neuropsychological bat- Elliott, C. D. (1990a). Administration and scoring manual tery among chronic epileptics. Journal ofNervous and Mental for the Differential Ability Scales. New York: Psychological Disease, 161, 185-190. Corporation. Dodrill, C. B., & Troupin, A. S. (1977). Psychotropic effects Elliott, C. D. (1990b). Introductory and technical handbook of carbamazepine in epilepsy: A double-blind comparison for the Differential Ability Scales. New York: Psychological with phenytoin. Neurology, 27, 1023-1028. Corporation. Dodrill, C. B., & Warner, M. H. (1996). Seizure disorders. In Elliott, C. D. (1990c). DifferentialAbility Scales. San Antonio, L. S. Batchelor & R. S. Dean (Eds.), Pediatric neuropsychology TX: Psychological Corporation. (pp. 303-324). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Elliott, C. D. (1990d). The nature and structure ofchildren's Donders, J. (1992). Validity of the Kaufman Assessment abilities: Evidence from the Differential Ability Scales. Jour- Battery for Children when employed with children with nal ofPsychoeducationalAssessment, 8, 376-390. traumatic brain injury.Journal ofClinical Psychology, 48, 225- 230. Elliott, C. D., Daniel, M. H., & Guiton, G. W. (1990). Preschool cognitive assessment with the Differential Ability Donders, J. (1996). Cluster subtypes in the WISC-III stan- Scales. In B. A. Bracken (Ed.), The psychoeducational assessment dardization sample: Analysis offactor index scores. Psycholog- ofpreschool childre-n (pp. 133-153). Needham Heights, MA: ical Assessme-nt, 8(3), 312-318. Allyn & Bacon. Donders, J. (1997). Sensitivity of the WISC-III to injury Elliott, C. D., Murray, D. J., & Pearson, L. S. (1979). British severity in children with traumatic head injury. Assessment, 4, Ability Scales. Windsor, England: National Foundation for 107-109. Educational Research. Dowell, R. E., Copeland, D.R., &Judd, B. W. (1989). Neu- Elliott, R. (1987). Litigating intelligence: IQ tests, special educa- ropsychological effects ofchemotherapeutic agents. Develop- tion, and social science in the courtroom. Dover, MA: Auburn me-ntal Neuropsychology, 5, 17-24. House. Dumont, R., Cruse, C. L., Price, L., & Whelley, P. (1996). Elwan, F. Z. (1996). Factor structure ofthe Kaufman Assess- The relationship between the Differential Ability Scales ment Battery for Children with Egyptian schoolchildren. Psy- (DAS) and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children- chological Reports, 78(1), 99-110. Third Edition (WISC-III) for students with learning disabil- ities. Psychology in the Schools, 33(3), 203-209. Epps, E. G. (1974). Situational effects in testing. In L. P. Miller (Ed.), The testing ofblack stude-nts (pp. 41-51). Engle- Dunn, L. M. (1959). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test. Circle wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Pines, MN: American Guidance Service. Esters, I. G., lttenbach, R. F., & Han, K. (1997). Today's IQ Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1981). Peabody Picture Vocabu- tests: Are they really better than their historical predecessors? lary Test-Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance School Psychology Review, 26, 211-223. Service. Eysenck, H.J. (1988). The concept of 'intelligence': Useful Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1997a). Examiner's manualfor or useless? Intelligence, 12, 1-16. the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Third Edition. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service. Eysenck, H.J., & Kamin, L. (1981). The intelligence contro- versy. NewYork:John Wiley. Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1997b). Norms booklet for the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Third Edition. Circle Pines, Fagan,]. F. (1984). The intelligent infant: Theoretical impli- MN: American Guidance Service. cations. Intelligence, 8, 1-9. Dunn, L. M., Lugo, D. E., Padilla, E. R., & Dunn, L. M. Fagan, J. F., III. (1984). The relationship of novelty prefer- (1986). Test de Vocabulario en Ima genes Peabody. Circle Pines, ences during infancy to later intelligence and later recogni- MN: American Guidance Service. tion memory. Intelligence, 8, 339-346. Dunn, L. M., & Markwardt, F. C. (1970). Peabody Individual Fagan, J. F., Singer, L. T., Montie, J. E., & Shepherd, P. A. Achievement Test. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance (1986). Selective screening device for the early detection of Service. normal or delayed cognitive development in infants at risk for Edelman, S. (1996). A review of the Wechsler Intelligence later mental retardation. Pediatrics, 78, 1021-1026. Scale for Children-Third Edition (WISC-III). Measurement Fan, X., Willson, V. L., & Reynolds, C. R. (1995). Assessing and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 28(4), 219-224. the similarity of the factor structure of the K-ABC for 634 REFERENCES

African-American and white children. Journal ofPsychoeduca- Fish, J. M. (1988). Reinforcement in testing: Research with tional Assessment, 13(2), 120-131. children and adolescents. Professional School Psychology, 3, Farmer, J. E., & Peterson, L. (1995). Pediatric traumatic 203-218. brain injury: Promoting successful school reentry. School Psy- Fish, J. M. (1990). IQ terminology: Modification of current chology Review, 24, 230-243. schemes.Journal ofPsychoeducationalAssessment, 8, 527-530. Farwell, J. R., Dodrill, C. B., & Batzel, L. W. (1985). Neuro- Flanagan, D. P., & Alfonso, V. C. (1995). A critical review of psychological abilities ofchildren with epilepsy. Epilepsia, 26, the technical characteristics of new and recently revised 395-400. American intelligence tests for preschool children. Journal of Faulstich, M., Mcanulty, D., Gresham, F., Veitia, M., Moore, Psychoeducational Assessment, 13, 66-90. J., Bernard, B., Waggoner, C., & Howell, R. (1986). Factor Flanagan, D. P., Alfonso, V. C., & Flanagan, R. (1994). A re- structure of the WAIS-R for an incarcerated population. view ofthe Kau&nan Adolescent and Adult Intelligence Test: Journal ofClinical Psychology, 42(2), 369-371. An advancement in cognitive assessment? School Psychology Felton, R.H., Wood, F. B., Brown, I. S., Campbell, S. K., & Review, 23, 512-525. Harter, R. (1987). Separate verbal memory and naming Flanagan, D. P., Alfonso, V. C., Kaminer, T., & Rader, D. E. deficits in attention deficit disorder and reading disability. (1995). Incidence of basic concepts in the directions of new Brain and Language, 31, 171-184. and recently revised American intelligence tests for preschool Feuerstein, R. (1979). The dynamic assessment ofretarded per- children. School Psychology International, 16, 345-364. sons. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press. Flaugher, R. L. (1974). Some points of confusion in dis- Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., & Hoffman, M. B. (1979). The dy- cussing the testing of black students. In L. P. Miller (Ed.), namic assessment ofretarded performers: The learning potential The testing ofblack students: A symposium (p. 74). New York: -assessment device, theory, instruments, and techniques. Balti- Prentice Hall. more, MD: University Park Press. Flavell, J. H., & Wellman, H. M. (1977). Metamemory. In Field, D., Schaie, K. W., & Leino, E. Z. (1988). Continuity R. V. Kail, Jr. & J. W. Hagen (Eds.), Perspectives on the devel- in intellectual functioning: The role ofself-reported health. opment of memory and cognition (pp. 3-33). Hillsdale, NJ: Aychology andAging, 3, 385-392. Erlbaum. Figueroa, R. A. (1989, May). Using interpreters in assessments. Fletcher,]. M., Francis, D.J., Rourke, B. P., Shaywitz, S. E., NationalAssociation ofSchoo/Psychologists Communique, 19. & Shaywitz, B. A. (1992). The validity of discrepancy-based Figueroa, R. A. (1990). Assessment of linguistic minority definitions ofreading disabilities. Journal ofLearning Disabil- group children. In C.R. Reynolds & R. W. Kamphaus (Eds.), ities, 25(9), 555-561. Handbook ofpsychological and educational assessment ofchildren: Flynn, J. R. (1984). The mean IQ of Americans: Massive Vol. 1. Intelligence and achievement (pp. 671-696). New York: gains 1932 to 1978. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 29-51. Guilford. Flynn, J. R. (1985). Wechsler Intelligence Tests: Do we re- Figueroa, R. A., & Sassenrath, J.M. (1989). A longitudinal ally have a criterion ofmental retardation? American Journal study ofthe predictive validity ofthe System ofMulticultural ofMental Deficiency, 90, 236-244. Pluralistic Assessment (SOMPA). Psychology in the Schools, 26, 1-19. Flynn,J. R. (1987). Massive IQ gains in 14 nations: What IQ tests really measure. Psychological Bulletin, 10l, 171-191. Filipek, P. A., Kennedy, D. N., Caviness, V. S., Rossnick, S. L., Spraggins, T. A., & Starewicz, P. M. (1989). Magnetic Flynn, J. R. (1998). IQ gains over time: Toward finding the resonance imaging-based brain morphometry: Development causes. In U. Neisser (Ed.), The rising curve: Long-term gains and application to normal subjects. Annals ofNeurology, 25, in IQ and related measures (pp. 25-66). Washington, DC: 61-67. American Psychological Association. Finch, A. J., Jr., Blount, R. L., Saylor, C. F., Wolfe, V. V., Follette, V. M., & Naugle, A. E. (1995). Discussion of Beut- Pallmeyer, T. P., McIntosh, J. A., Griffin, J. M., & Careh, ler and Davidson: Psychology's failure to educate. In S. C. D. J. (1988). Intelligence and emotional/behavioral factors as Hayes, V. M. Follette, R. M. Dawes, & K. E. Grady (Eds.), correlates ofachievement in child psychiatric inpatients. Psy- Scientific standards ofpsychological practice: Issues and recommen- chological Reports, 63, 163-170. dations (pp. 25-30). Reno, NV: Context Press. Finegan,]. K., Zucher, K.J., Bradley, S.J., & Doering, R.W. Foorman, B. R., Sadowski, B. R., & Basen,J. A. (1985). Chil- (1982). Pattern of intellectual functioning and spatial ability dren's solutions for figural matrices: Developmental differ- in boys with gender identity disorder. Canadian Journal of ences in strategies and effects of matrix characteristics. Psychiatry, 27, 135-139. Journal of&perimental Child Psychology, 39, 107-130. REFERENCES 635

Forceville, E. J. M., Dekker, M. J. A., Aldenkampt, A. P., Gaitan, F. H. (1978). Hereditary genius. New York: St. Mar- Alpherts, W. C. J., & Schelvis, A. J. (1992). Subtest profiles of tin's. (Original work published 1869) the WISC-Rand WAIS in mentally retarded patients with Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in prac- epilepsy. Journal ofIntellectual Disability Research, 36, 45-59. tice. New York: Basic Books. Fourqurean,J. M. (1987). AK-ABC and WISC-R compari- Gardner, J. F. (1993). The era of optimism, 1850-1870: A son for Latino learning-disabled children of limited English preliminary reappraisal. Mental Retardation, 31, 89-95. proficiency.Journal ofSchool Psychology, 25, 15-21. Garrett, H. E. (1961). A developmental theory of intelli- Fowler, M. G., Whitt, J. K., Lallinger, R. R., Nash, K. B., gence. In]. J. Jenkins & D. G. Paterson (Eds.), Studies in in- Atkinson, S. S., Wells, R. ]., & McMillan, C. (1988). Neu- dividual differences: The search for intelligence (pp. 572-581). ropsychological and academic functioning of children with New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. (Reprinted from The sickle cell anemia. Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 9, American Psychologist, 1946, 1, 372-378). 213-220. Gazzaniga, M. S. (1970). The bisected brain. New York: Fraboni, M., & Saltstone, R. (1992). The WAIS-R number of factors quandary: A cluster analytic approach to construct Appleton-Century-Crofts. validation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52(3), Gazzaniga, M. S. (1974). Cerebral dominance viewed as a 603-613. decision system. In S. Dimond & J. Beaumont (Eds.), Franzen, M. D., Burgess, E.J., & Smith-Seemiller, L. (1997). Hemispheric functions in the human brain. London: Halstead Methods of estimating premorbid functioning. Archives of Press. ClinicalNeuropsychology, 12, 711-738. Gazzaniga, M. S. (1975). Recent research on hemispheric lat- Frederiksen, N. (1986). Toward a broader conception of eralization of the human brain: Review of the split brain. human intelligence. American Psychologist, 41, 445-452. UCLA Educator, 17, 9-12. Freeman, B. J., Lucas, J. C., Forness, S. R., & Ritvo, E. R. Geary, D. C., & Whitworth, R. H. (1988). Dimensional (1985). Cognition processing of high-functioning autistic structure of the WAIS-R: A simultaneous multi-sample children: Comparing the K-ABC and the WISC-R.Journal of analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48(4), PsychoeducationalAssessment, 3, 357-362. 945-956. French, J. L. (1964). Pictorial test of intelligence. Boston: Gellis, S., & Kagan, B. (1976). Current pediatric therapy. Houghton-Mifflin. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders. French, J. L., & Hale, R. L. (1990). A history ofthe develop- Gentry, N., Sapp, G. L., & Daw, J. L. (1995). Scores on the ment of psychological and educational testing. In C. R. Wechsler Individual Achievement Test and the Kaufman Reynolds & R. W. Kamphaus (Eds.), Handbook ofpsychological Test of Educational Achievement-Comprehensive Form and educational assessment ofchildren (pp. 3-28). New York: for emotionally conflicted adolescents. Psychological Reports, Guilford. 76, 607-610. Frick, P. J., Kamphaus, R. W., Lahey, B. B., Loeber, R., Gerken, K. C. (1978). Performance of Mexican American Christ, M. G., Hart, E. L., & Tannenbaum, L. E. (1991). children on intelligence tests. Exceptional Children, 44, 438-443. Academic underachievement and the disruptive behavior Gibbins, S., Ulissi, S. M., & Brice, P. (in press). The use of disorders. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children with the hear- 289-294. ing impaired. American Annals ofthe Deaf Fuller, G. B., Goh, D.S., (1981). Intelligence, achievement, Gibbs, J. T., & Huang, L. N. (1989). Children ofColor. San and visual-motor performance among learning disabled and Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass Publishers. emotionally impaired children. Psychology in the Schools, 18, 261-268. Glasser, A. J ., & Zimmerman, I. L. (1967). Clinical interpreta- tion ofthe Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children. New York: Gaddes, W. H. (1981). An examination of the validity of Grune & Stratton. neuropsychological knowledge in educational diagnosis and remediation. In G. W. Hynd & J. E. Obrzut (Eds.), Neuro- Glaub, V. E., & Kamphaus, R. W. (1991). Construction ofa psychological assessment ofthe school-aged child: Issues and proce- nonverbal adaptation of the Stanford-Binet: Fourth Edition. dures. New York: Grune & Stratton. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51, 231-241. Gaitan, F. (1883). Inquiries into human faculty and its develop- Glaxer, R. (1984). Education and thinking: The role of ment. London: Macmillan. knowledge. American Psychologist, 39(2), 93-104. Gaitan, F. (1952). Hereditary genius: An inquiry into its laws Glutting, J. J. (1986). Potthoff bias analysis of K-ABC MPC and consequences. New York: Horizon Press. and non-verbal scale IQs among Anglo, Black, and Puerto 636 REFERENCES

Rican kindergarten children. Professional School Psychology, 4, Goldstein, S., & Goldstein, M. (1990). Managing attention 225-234. disorders in children: A guide for practitioners. New York: John Wiley. Glutting, J. ]., & Kaplan, D. (1990). Stanford-Binet Intelli- gence Scale: Fourth Edition: Making the case for reasonable Gomez, F. C., Jr., Piedmont, R. L., & Fleming, M. Z. (1992). interpretations. In C. R. Reynolds & R. W. Kamphaus (Eds.), Factor analysis ofthe Spanish version of the WAIS: The Es- Handbook ofpsychological and educational assessment ofchildren cala de Inteligencia Wechsler para Adultos (EIWA). Psycho- (pp. 277-295). New York: Guilford. 1-0gical Assessment, 4(3), 317-321. Glutting, J. ]., & McDermott, P.A. (1990). Principles and Goodenough, F. L. (1926). Measurement of intelligence by problems in learning potential. In C. R. Reynolds & R. W. drawings. New York: Harcourt Brace & World. Kamphaus (Eds.), Handbook ofpsychological and educational Goodman, J. F. (1990). Infant intelligence: Do we, can we, assessment ofchildren (pp. 277-295). New York: Guilford. should we assess it? In C. R. Reynolds & R. W. Kamphaus (Eds.), Handbook ofpsychological and educational assessment of Glutting,J. ]., Oakland, T., & McDermott, P.A. (1989). Ob- children (pp. 183-208). New York: Guilford. serving child behavior during testing: Constructs, validity, and situational generality. Journal of School Psychology, 27, Goonan, B. T., Goonan, L.J., Brown, R. T., Buchanan, I., & 155-164. Eckman,]. R. (1994). Sustained attention and inhibitory con- trol in children with sickle cell syndrome. Archives ofClinical Glutting, J. ]., Youngstrom, E. A., Ward, T., Ward, S., & Neuropsychology, 9, 89-104. Hale, R. L. (1997). Incremental efficacy of WISC-III factor scores in predicting achievement: What do they tell us? Psy- Gordon, M., Thomason, D., & Cooper, S. (1990). To what chological Assessment, 9(3), 295--301. extent does attention affect K-ABC scores? Psychology in the Schools, 27(2), 144-147. Goddard, H. H. (1912). Echelle metrique de !'intelligence de Gorsuch, R. L. (1988). Factor analysis (3rd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Binet-Simon. Annee psycho/., 18, 288-326. Erlbaum Associates. Golden, C.]. (1981). The Luria-Nebraska Children's Battery: Gottfried, A. W. (1973). Intellectual consequences ofperina- Theory and initial formulation. In G. Hynd & S. Obrzut tal anoxia. Psycho!-Ogical Bulletin, 80, 231-242. (Eds.), Neuropsychological assessment and the school age child: Issues and procedures (pp. 277-302). New York: Grune Gottling, S. (1985). Comparison of the reliability of the & Stratton. Goodenough-Harris Draw-a-Man Test with the Naglieri Draw- a-Person: A Quantitative System. Unpublished master's thesis, Golden, C. J. (1997). The Nebraska Neuropsychological Ohio State University. Children's Battery. In C.R. Reynolds & E. Fletcher-Janzen Grace, W. C. (1986). Equivalence of the WISC-R and (Eds.), Handbook of clinical child neuropsychology (2nd ed., WAIS-R in delinquent males. Journal of Psychoeducational pp. 237-251). New York: Plenum Press. Assessment, 4, 155-162. Goldman, Stein, L., & Querry, S. (1983). Psychological J., C. Grady, J. (1980). Opinion. PASE v. Hannon. Federal Supple- methods ofchild assessment. New York: Brunner/Maze!. ment 506, 831-883. Goldstein, D., Parell, G. G., & Sanfilippo-Cohn, S. (1985). Greenblatt, E., Mattis, S., & Trad, P. V. (1991). The ACID Depression and achievement in subgroups of children with pattern and the freedom from distractibility factor in a child learning disabilities. Journal ofAllied Development Psychology, psychiatric population. Developmental Neuropsychology, 7(2), 6, 263-275. 121-130. Goldstein, G. (1990). Comprehensive neuropsychological as- Greene, A. C., Sapp. G. L., & Chisson, B. (1990). Validation sessment batteries. In G. Goldstein & M. Hersen (Eds.), ofthe Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale Fourth Edition with Handbook ofpsychological assessment (2nd ed., pp. 197-227). exceptional black male students. Psychology in the Schools, New York: Pergamon Press. 27(1), 35-41. Goldstein, G. (1992). Historical perspectives. In A. E. Puente Greenfield, P. M. (1998). The cultural evolution of IQ. In & R. J. McCaffrey (Eds.), Handbook ofneuropsychological assess- U. Neiser (Ed.), The rising curve: Long-term gains in IQ and ment: A biopsychosocialperspective (pp. 1-12). NewYork: Plenum related measures (pp. 81-123). Washington, DC: American Press. Psychological Association. Goldstein, G. (1997). The clinical utility of standardized or Gresham, F. M., & Reschly, D.J. (1986). Social skills deficits flexible battery approaches to neuropsychological assessment. and low peer acceptance of mainstreamed learning disabled In G. Goldstein & T. lncagnoli (Eds.), Contemporary ap- children. Learning Disability Quarterly, 9, 23-31. proaches to neuropsychological assessment (pp. 67-91). New York: Gribbin, K., Schaie, K. W., & Parham, I. A. (1975). Cogni- Plenum Press. tive complexity and maintenance ofintellectual abilities. Paper REFERENCES 637

presented at the 10th International Congress of Gerontol- (WAIS-R): An examination of the standardization sample. ogy, J erusalern, Israel. Journal ofSchool Psycholog;y, 22(1), 83-93. Gridley, B. E., & McIntosh, D. E. (1991). Confirmatory fac- Gutterman, J. E., Ward, M., & Genshaft, J. (1985). Cor- tor analysis of the Stanford-Binet: Fourth Edition for a nor- relations of scores of low vision children on the Perkins- mal sample. Journal ofSchool Psycholog;y, 29(3), 237-248. Binet Tests ofIntelligence for the Blind, the WISC-Rand the Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 40I U. S. 424 (I971). WRAT.Journal ofVisual Impairment & Blindness, 79, 55-58. Grossman, H. J. (1983). Classification in mental retardation. Gyurke, J. S. (I991). The assessment of preschool children Washington, DC: American Association ofMental Deficiency. with the Wechsler Preschool Primary Scale oflntelligence- Revised. In B. A. Bracken (Ed.), The psychoeducational assess- Grottfried, A. W. (1973). Intellectual consequences of peri- ment ofpreschool children (2nd ed., pp. 86-106). Needham natal anoxia. Psychological Bulletin, 80, 213-242. Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Guidubaldi, J., & Perry, J. D. (1984). Concurrent and pre- Haddad, F. A. (1986). Concurrent validity ofthe test ofnon- dictive validity of the Battelle Development Inventory at the verbal intelligence with learning disabled children. Psycholog;y first grade level. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 44, in the Schools, 23, 361-364. 977-985. Haensly, P. A., & Torrance, E. P. (1990). Assessment of Guilford, J. P. (I967). The nature ofhuman intelligence. New creativity in children and adolescents. In C. R. Reynolds & York: McGraw-Hill. R. W. Kamphaus (Eds.), Handbook ofpsychological and educa- Guilford, J. P. (I979). Intelligence isn't what it used to be: tional assessment: Children intelligence & achievement (pp. 697- What to do about it. Journal ofResearch and Development in 722). New York: Guilford Press. Education, 12(2), 33-46. Hahn, W. K. (I987). Cerebral lateralization of function: Guilford, J. P. (I985). The structure-of-intellect model. In From infancy through childhood. Psychological Bulletin, 101, B. B. Wolman (Ed.), Handbook ofintelligence (pp. 22 5-266). 376-392. New York: John Wiley. Hales, R. L. (1983). Intellectual assessment. In M. Hersen, Gunderson, V. M., Grant-Webster, K. S., & Fagan,]. F., III. A. Kazdin, & A. Bellack (Eds.), The clinical psycholog;y handbook (I987). Visual recognition memory in high- and low-risk in- (pp. 345-376). New York: Pergamon. fant pigtailed macaques (Macaca Nemestrina). Developmental Psycholog;y, 23, 671-675. Hales, R. L., Landino, S. A. (I981). Utility ofWISC-R sub- test analysis in discriminating among groups of conduct- Gunderson, V. M., Grant-Webster, K. S., & Sackett, G. P. problem, withdrawn, mixed and nonproblern boys. Journal of (1989). Deficits in visual recognition in low birth weight infant Consulting and Clinical Psycholog;y, 49, 91-95. pigtailed monkeys (Macaca Nemestrina). Child Development, 60, 119-127. Hall, G. C. N., Bansal, A., & Lopez, I. R. (1999). Ethnicity and psychopathology: A meta-analytic review of 31 years of Gutkin, T. B. (I978). Some useful statistics for the interpre- comparative MMPI/MMPl-2 research. Psychological Assess- tation of the WISC-R. Journal ofConsulting and Clinical Psy- ment, 11 (2), 186-197. cholog;y, 46, 1561-1563. Hall, L. E., & Kramer, J. R. (1995). Neurological soft signs Gutkin, T. B. (1979). The WISC-R verbal comprehension, in childhood do not predict neuropsychological dysfunction in perceptual organization, and freedom from distractibility adulthood. Developmental Neuropsycholog;y, 11, 223-235. deviation quotients: Data for practitioners. Psycholog;y in the Schools, 16, 359-360. Hall, L. P., & LaDriere, L. (I969). Patterns of performance on WISC Similarities in emotionally disturbed and brain- Gutkin, T. B. (1982). WISC-R deviation quotients vs. tradi- damaged children.Journal ofConsulting and Clinical Psycholog;y, tional IQs: An examination ofthe standardization sample and 33, 357-364. some implications for scores interpretation. Journal ofClini- cal Psycholog;y, 38, 179-182. Hallahan, D. P., Kauffman, J.M., & Lloyd, J. W. (1996). ln- troduction to learning disabilities. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Gutkin, T. B., & Reynolds, C. R. (1980). Factorial similarity of the WISC-R for Anglos and Chicanos referred for psy- Halstead, W. C. (1947). Brain and intelligence: A quantitative chological services. Journal ofSchool Psycholog;y, 18, 34-39. study ofthefrontal lobes. Chicago: University ofChicago Press. Gutkin, T. B., & Reynolds, C.R. (I981). Factorial similarity Harn, S. J. (1985). A validity study ofrecent intelligence tests on a of the WISC-R for white and black children from the stan- deafpopulation. (Available from Sandra J. Ham, School Psy- dardization sample.Journal ofEducational Psycholog;y, 73, 227- chologist, North Dakota School for the Deaf, Devils Lake, 231. ND 58301.) Gutkin, T. B., Reynolds, C. R., Galvin, G. A. (1984). Factor Hammill, D. D. (1990). On defining learning disabilities: An analysis of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised emerging consensus. Journal ofLearning Disabilities, 23, 74-84. 638 REFERENCES

Hammill, D. D., Pearson, N. A., & Wiederholt,]. L. (1997). Hasegawa, C. (1989). The unmentioned minority. In C. J. Examiner's manual: Comprehensive test ofnonverbal intelligence. Maker & S. W. Schiever (Eds.), Defensive programsfor cultural Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. and ethnic minorities (Vol. 2). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Hanson, R. A. (1975). Consistency and stability ofhome en- Haskins, R. (1989). Beyond metaphor: The efficacy of early vironmental measures related to IQ. Child Development, 46, childhood education. American Psychologist, 44, 274-282. 470-480. Hauser, W. A. (1994). The prevalence and incidence ofcon- Hanson, R. K., Hunsley, J., Parker, K. C. H. (1988). The re- vulsive disorders in children. Epilepsia, 35 (Suppl. 2), Sl-S6. lationship between WAIS subtest reliability, "g" loadings, Hayden, D. C., Furlong, M. J., & Linnemeyer, S. (1988). A and meta-analytically derived validity estimates. Journal of comparison ofthe Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children Clinical Psychology, 44(4), 557-563. and the Stanford-Binet IV for the assessment of gifted chil- Hamad, S., Doty, R. W., Goldstein, L., Jaynes, J., & dren. Psychology in the Schools, 22, 13 3-141. Krauthamer, G. (Eds.). (1977). Lateralization in the nervous Hayes, S. C. (1999). Comparison ofthe Kaufman Brieflntel- system. New York: Academic Press. ligence Test and the Matrix Analogies Tes!-Short Form in an adolescent forensic population. Psychological AssesS111ent, Harnqvist, K. (1968). Relative changes in intelligence from 11(1), 108-110. 13 to 18. Scandinavian Journal ofPsychology, 9, 50-64. Hayes, S. P. (1941). Contributions to a psychology ofblindness. Harrison, P. L., Flanagan, D. P., & Genshaft,J. L. (1997). An New York: American Foundation for the Blind. integration and synthesis ofcontemporary theories, tests, and issues in the field of intellectual assessment. In D. P. Flana- Haynes, J.P., & Bensch, M. (1981). The P>V sign on the gan,]. L. Genshaft, & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary in- WISC-R and recidivism in delinquents. Journal ofConsulting tellectual assesS111ent (pp. 533-561). New York: Guilford Press. and Clinical Psychology, 49, 480-481. Harrison, P. L., & Kamphaus, R. W. (1984, April). Compari- Hays, J. R., & Smith, A. L. (1980). Comparison of the son between the K-ABC and Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales. WISC-R and culture-fair intelligence tests for three ethnic groups of juvenile delinquents. 931- Paper presented at the meeting ofthe National Association of Psychological Reports, 46, 934. School Psychologists, Philadelphia, PA. Haywood, H. C. (1986). A transactional approach to intellectual Harrison, P. L., Kaufman, A. S., Hickman,]. A., & Kaufman, and cognitive development. Prepared for presentation at uni- N. L. (1988). A survey of tests used for adult assessment. versity de ,Provence, Aix-en-Provence, France, Conference Journal ofPsychoeducational AssesS111ent, 6, 188-198. on Cognitive Development. Hartlage, L. C., & Hartlage, P. L. (1989). Neuropsychologi- Haywood, H. C., & Switzky, H. N. (1986). The malleability cal aspects of epilepsy: Introduction and overview. In C. R. ofintelligence: Cognitive processes as a function ofpolygenic- Reynolds & E. Fletcher-Janzen (Eds.), Handbook ofclinical experiential interaction. School Psychology Review, 15, 245-255. child neuropsychology (pp. 409-417). New York: Plenum. Haywood, H. C., Tzuriel, D., & Vaught, S. (1992). Psycho- Hartlage, L. C., & Telzrow, C. F. (1981). Neuropsychologi- educational assessment from a transactional perspective. In cal assessment of young children. Clinical Neuropsychology, 3, H. C. Haywood & D. Tzuriel (Eds.), Interactive assesS111ent 41-43. (pp. 38-63). New York: Springer-Verlag. Hartlage, L. C., & Telzrow, C. F. (1983). The neuropsycho- Hebb, D. 0. (1949). The organization ofbehavior. New York: logical basis of educational intervention. Journal ofLearning Wiley. Disabilities, 16, 521-528. Heber, R. (1961). A manual on terminology and classification Hartlage, P. L., & Hartlage, L. C. (1997). The neuropsy- in mental retardation (rev. ed.). American Journal ofMental chology of epilepsy: Overview and psychosocial aspects. In Deficiency, Monograph (Suppl. 64). C.R. Reynolds & E. Fletcher-Janzen (Eds.), Handbook ofclin- Herrera-Graf, M., Dipert, Z. J., & Hinton, R. N. (1996). ical child neuropsychology (2nd ed., pp. 506-516). New York: Exploring the effective use of the vocabulary/block design Plenum Press. short form with a special school population. Educational and Hartwig, S. S., Sapp, G. L., & Clayton, G. A. (1987). Com- Psychological Measurement, 56(3), 522-528. parison of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale: Form L-M Herskowitz,J., & Rosman, N. P. (1982). Pediatrics, neurology, and the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale Fourth Edition. and psychiatry--common ground. New York: Macmillan. Psychological Reports, 60, 1215-1218. Hertzog, C., Schaie, K. W., & Gribbin, K. (1978). Cardio- Harvey, V. S. (1989, March). Eschew obfuscation: Support of vascular disease and changes in intellectual functioning from clear writing. Communique, 12. middle to old age.Journal ofGerontology, 33, 872-883. REFERENCES 639

Hickman, J. A., & Stark, K. D. (1987, April). Relationship be- Horn,]. L., & Noll, J. (1997). Human cognitive capabilities: tween cognitive impulsivity and information processing abilities in Gf-Gc theory. In D. P. Flanagan,]. L. Genshaft, & P. L. Har- children: Implications far training programs. Paper presented at rison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment (pp. 53 - 91). the meeting ofthe National Association ofSchool Psycholo- New York: Guilford Press. gists, New Orleans, LA. Horney, K. (1939). New ways in psychoanalysis. New York: Hilliard, A. G. (1989). Back to Binet: The case against the use Norton. ofIQ tests in the schools. Diagnostique, 2, 125-135. Horowitz, F. D., & O'Brien, M. (1989). A reflective essay on Hinshelwood,J. (1986). A case ofdyslexia: A peculiar form of the state of our knowledge and the challenges before us. word blindness. Lancet, 2, 1451. American Psychologist, 44, 441-445. Hiskey, M. S. (1966). Hiskey-Nebraska Test ofLearning Apti- Hubble, L. M., & Groff, M. (1981). Magnitude and direction tude. Lincoln, NE: Union College Press. of WISC-R Verbal-Performance IQ discrepancies among adjudicated male delinquents. Journal ofYouth andAdolescence, Hobson v. Hansen, 269 F. Supp. 401 (D. C. 1967). 10, 179-184. Ho&nann, R. (1988, May). Comparability of Binet (4th) Full Huberty, T. J. (1986). Relationship ofthe WISC-R factors to Scale and abbreviated IQs. National Association ofSchool Psy- the Adaptive Behavior Scale-School Edition in a referral chologists: Communique, 27. sample. Journal ofSchool Psychology, 24(2), 15 5-162. Hoge, R. D. (1988, October). Issues in the definition and Humphreys, L. G., & Parsons, C. K. (1979). Piagetian tasks construct. Educational Re- measurement of the giftedness measure intelligence and intelligence tests assess cognitive searcher, 12-16. development: A reanalysis. Intelligence, 3, 369-382. Hogg,]., & Moss, S. (1995). The applicability of the Kauf- Hunt, E. (1999a). Intelligence and human resources: Past, man Assessment Battery for Children (K-ABC) with older present, and future. In P. L. Ackerman, P. C. Kyllonen, adults (50+ years) with moderate, severe, and profound intel- & R. D. Roberts (Eds.), Learning and individual differences: lectual impairment. Journal ofIntellectual Disability Research, Process, trait, and content determinants (pp. 3-30). Washington, 39(3), 167-176. DC: Author. Holland, A. M., & McDermott, P. A. (1996). Discovering Hunt, J.M. (1961). Intelligence and experience. New York: core profile types in the school-age standardization sample of Ronald Press. the Differential Ability Scales. Journal of Psychoeducational E., & Schmidt, F. (1976). Critical analysis ofthe Assessment, 14(2), 131-146. Hunter,]. L. statistical ~nd ethical implications of various definitions of Hollenbeck, G. P., & Kau&nan, A. S. (1973). Factor analysis test bias. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 1053-1071. ofthe Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale ofIntelligence Hunter, J. E., Schmidt, F. L., & Rauschenberger, J. (1984). (WPPSI).Journal ofClinical Psychology, 29, 41-45. Methodological, statistical, and ethical issues in the study of Honzik, M. P., Macfarlane, J. W., & Allen, L. (1948). bias in psychological tests. In C. R. Reynolds & R. T. Brown The stability of mental test performance between two and (Eds.), Perspectives on bias in mental testing (pp. 41-99). New eighteen years. Journal ofExperimental Psychology, 17, 309- York: Plenum. 324. Hutchens, T., & Thomas, M. G. (1990). The effects ofvocal Hopkins, K. D., & Glass, G. V. (1978). Basic statistics far the intonation in digit span testing. Journal of Psychoeducational behavioral sciences. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Assessment, 8, 150-154. Hooper, S. R., & Hynd, G. W. (1985). Differential diagnosis Huttenlocher, P. R., Levine, S. C., Huttenlocher, ]., & of subtypes of developmental dyslexia with the Kau&nan Gates, J. (1990). Discrimination of normal and at-risk Assessment Battery for Children (K-ABC). Journal ofClinical preschool children on the basis ofneurological tests. Develop- Child Psychology, 14, 145-152. mental Medicine and Child Neurology, 32, 394-402. Horn,]. L. (1979). The rise and fall ofhuman abilities.Jour- Hynd, G. W. (1988). Neuropsychological assessment in clinical nal ofResearch and Development in Education, 12(2), 59-78. child psychology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Horn, J. L. (1994). Theory of fluid and crystallized intelli- Hynd, G. W., & Obrzut, J. E. (1986). Clinical child neuro- gence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Encyclopedia ofhuman intelli- psychology: Issues and perspectives. In J. E. Obrzut & gence (pp. 443-451). New York: Macmillan. G. W. Hynd (Eds.), Child neuropsychology: Vol. 2. Clinical prac- Horn, J. L., & Cattell, R. B. (1966). Refinement and test of tice (pp. 3-14). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. the theory offluid and crystallized general intelligences. Jour- Hynd, G. W., & Semrud-Clikeman, M . (1989). Dyslexia and nal ofEducational Psychology, 57, 253-270. brain morphology. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 447-482. 640 REFERENCES

Hynd, G. W., & Semrud-Clikeman, M. (1990). Neuropsy- Jensen, A. R. (1982). Reaction time and psychometric g. In chological assessment. In A. S. Kaufman (Ed.), Assessing ad-0- R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), A model for intelligence (pp. 93-132). lescent and adult intelligence (pp. 638-695). Boston, MA: Allyn Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. & Bacon. Jensen, A. R. (1984). The black-white difference on the Hynd, G. W., Semrud-Clikeman, M., Lorys, A. R., Novey, K-ABC: Implications for future tests. The Journal ofSpecial E. S., & Eliopulus, D. (1990). Brain morphology in develop- Education, 18, 377-408. mental dyslexia and attention deficit disorder/hyperactivity. Jensen, A. R. (1986). g: Artifact or reality. Journal ofVocational Archives ofNeurology, 47, 919-926. Behavior, 29, 301-331. Hynd, G. W., & Willis, W. G. (1985). Neurological founda- Jensen, A. R. (1987). Intelligence as a fact ofnature. Zeitschrift tions ofintelligence. In B. B. Wolman (Ed.), Handbook ofin- fur Padagogische Psychologie, 3, 157-169. telligence (pp. 119-158). New York: Wiley. Johnstone, B., Slaughter, J., Schoop, L., McAllister, J., Hynd, G. W., & Willis, W. G. (1988). Pediatric neurapsychol- Schwake, C., & Luebbering, A. (1997). Determining neuro- ogy. Orlando, FL: Grune & Stratton. psychological impairment using estimates of premorbid in- Inclan, J. E., & Herron, D. G. (1989). Puerto Rican adoles- telligence: Comparing methods based on level of education cents. In G. T. Gibbs & L. N. Huang (Eds.), Children ofcolor versus reading scores. Archives ofClinical Neuropsychology, 12, (pp. 251-277). San Francisco:Jossey-Bass Publications. 591-601. Ingram, G., & Hakari, L. (1985). Validity of the Woodcock- Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1984). LISREL VI: Analysis of Johnson Test of Cognitive Ability for Gifted Children: A linear structural relationships by the method ofmaximum likeli- comparison with the WlSC-R.Journalfor the Education ofthe hood: User's guide. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software. Gifted, 9, 11-23. Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1987). Lisrel 6.13: User's ref- Ipsen, S. M., McMillan,]. H., & Fallen, N. H. (1983). Anin- erence guide. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software. vestigation of the reported discrepancy between the Wood- Jorgensen, K., & Christensen, A. (1995). The approach of cock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Ability and the Wechsler A. R. Luria to neuropsychological assessment. In R. L. Mapou Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised. Diagnostique, 9, 32- &J. Spector (Eds.), Clinical neuropsychological assessment: A cog- 44. nitive approach (pp. 217-236). New York: Plenum Press.. Jacklin, C. N. (1989). Female and male: Issues of gender. Juliano,]. M., Haddad, F. A., & Carroll,]. L. (1988). Three American Psychologist, 44, 127-133. year stability of the WISC-R factor scores for black and Jacob, S., & Brantley, J. C. (1987). Ethical-legal problems white, female and male children classified as learning dis- with computer use and suggestions for best practices: A abled. Journal ofSchool Psychology, 26, 317-325. national survey. School Psychology Review, 16, 69-77. Kagan,]., & Klein, R. E. (1973). Cross-cultural perspectives on early development. Jaffe, K. M., Fay, G. C., Polissar, N. L., Martin, K. M., American Psychologist, 28, 947-961. Shurtleff, H., Rivara,]. B., & Winn, H. R. (1992). Severity of Kagan, J., & Salkind, N. J. (1965). Matching familiar figures pediatric traumatic brain injury and early neurobehavioral test. (Available from Jerome Kagan, Harvard University, 33 outcome: A cohort study. Archives ofPhysical Medicine and Re- Kirkland Street, 1510 William James Hall, Cambridge, MA habilitation, 73, 540-547. 02138). Jastrow,]. (1901). Some currents and undercurrents in psy- Kagan, V. E. (1981). Nonprocess autism in children: A com- chology. The Psychological Review, 8, 1-26. parative etiopathogenic study. Soviet Neurology and Psychiatry, 14, 25-30. Jenkins, J. J., & Paterson, D. G. (Eds.). (1961). Studies in in- dividual differences. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Kamin, L. J. (1974). The science and politics ofIQ. Potomac, MD: Lawrence Erlbaurn. Jensen, A. R. (1969). How much can we boost IQ and scholastic achievement? Harvard Educational Review, 39, 1-123. Kamphaus, R. W. (1983, August). The relationship ofthe Kauf- man Assessment Batteryfor Children (K-ABC) to diagnostic mea- Jensen, A. R. (1974). Cumulative deficit: A testable hypothe- sures ofacademic achievement. Paper presented at the meeting sis. Developmental Psychology, 10, 996-1019. ofthe American Psychological Association, Anaheim, CA. Jensen, A. R. (1976). Test bias a~d construct validity. Phi Kamphaus, R. W. (1987). Conceptual and psychometric is- Delta Kappan, 58, 340-346. sues in the assessment ofadaptive behavior. Journal ofSpecial Jensen, A. R. (1977). Cumulative deficit in IQ ofblacks in the Education, 21, 27-36. rural south. Developmental Psychology, 13, 184-191. Karnphaus, R. W. (1990). K-ABC theory in historical and Jensen, A. R. (1980). Bias in mental testing. New York: Free current contexts. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 8, Press. 356-368. REFERENCES 641

Kamphaus, R. W. (1991, October). Multicultural expertise. Kane, R. L., Parsons, 0. A., & Goldstein, G. (1985). Statisti- ChildAssessmerzt News, pp. 1, 8-10. cal relationships and discriminative accuracy ofthe Halstead- Kamphaus, R. W. (1993). Clinical assessmerzt ofchildrerz's intel- Reitan, Luria-Nebraska, and Wechsler IQ scores in the ligerzce. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. identification ofbrain damage. Journal ofClinical and Experi- mental Neuropsychology, 7, 211-223. Kamphaus, R. W. (1995). Review ofthe Slosson Intelligence Kaplan, C. (1992). Ceiling effects in assessing high-IQ chil- Test [1991 Edition]. In]. C. Conoley &J.C. Impara (Eds.), dren with the WPPSI-R. Journal ofClinical Child Psychology, The twelfth merztal measurements yearbook (pp. 954-956). Lin- 21(4), 403-406. coln: University ofNebraska Press. Kaplan, C. (1993). Predicting first-grade achievement from Kamphaus, R. W., Benson,]., Hutchinson, S., & Platt, L. 0. pre-kindergarten WPPSI-R scores. Journal of Psychoeduca- (1994). Identification of factor models for the WISC-III. tionalAssessment, 11, 133-138. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 'i4, 174-186. Kaplan, E. (1988). A process approach to neuropsychological Kamphaus, R. W., Dresden, J., & Kaufman, A. S. (1993). assessment. In T. Boll & B. K. Bryant (Eds.), Clinical neuro- Clinical and psychometric considerations in the assessment of psychology and brain junction: Research, measuremerzt andpractice preschool children. In D.J. Willis &J. L. Culbertson (Eds.), (pp. 125-167). Washington, DC: American Psychological Testing young children. Austin, TX: Pro Ed. Allyn & Bacon. Association. Kamphaus, R. W., & Kaufman, A. S. (1986). Factor analysis Kaplan, R. J., & Klanderman, J. W. (1984, April). Neuropsy- of the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (K-ABC) chological profile ofT.M.H. youngsters assessed with the K-ABC. for separate groups of boys and girls. Journal ofClinical Child Paper presented at the meeting ofthe National Association of Psychology, 3, 210---213. School Psychologists, Philadelphia, PA. Kamphaus, R. W., Kaufman, A. S. & Kaufman, N. L. (1982, Kareken, D. A. (1997). Judgment pitfalls in estimating pre- August). A cross-validation study ofsequential-simultaneous pro- morbid intellectual function. Archives ofClinical Neuropsychol- cessing at 2½ to 12½ using the Kaufman Assessment Battery for ogy, 12, 701-709. Children. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC. Kareken, D. A., & Williams, J.M. (1994). Human judgment and estimation ofpremorbid intellectual function. Psychologi- Kamphaus, R. W., & Lozano, R. (1981). Developing local cal Assessment, 6, 83-91. norms for individually administered tests. School Psychology Review, 13, 491-498. Karnes, F. ,A., Edwards, R. P., & McCallum, R. S. (1986). Normative achievement assessment ofgifted children: Com- Kamphaus, R. W., Morgan, A. W., Cox, M. R., & Powell, paring the K-ABC, WRAT, and CAT. Psychology in the R. M. (1995). Personality and intelligence in the psycho- Schools, 23, 361-364. diagnostic process: The emergence of diagnostic schedules. In D. H. Saklofske & M. Zeidner (Eds.), International hand- Kaufman, A. S. (1972, May). Restriction ofrange: Questions and book ofpersonality and intelligence (pp. 525-544). New York: answers (Test Service Bulletin No. 59). San Antonio, TX: Plenum Press. The Psychological Corporation. Kamphaus, R. W., & Pleiss, K. (1991). Draw-a-person tech- Kaufman, A. S. (1975a). Factor analysis ofthe WISC-Rat 11 niques: Tests in search of a construct. Journal ofSchool Psy- age levels between 6-1/2 and 16-1/2 years. Journal ofConsult- chology, 29, 395-401. ing and Clinical Psychology, 43, 135-147. Kamphaus, R. W., & Reynolds, C. R. (1984). Development Kaufman, A. S. (1975b). Factor structure of the McCarthy and structure of the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Chil- Scales at five age levels between 2-1/2 and 8-1/2. Educational dren. The Journal ofLearning Education, 18 (3), 213-228. and Psychological Measurement, 35, 641--656. Kamphaus, R. W., & Reynolds, C. R. (1987). Clinical and re- Kaufman, A. S. (1976a). Verbal-Performance IQ discrepan- search applications ofthe K-ABC. Circle Pines, MN: American cies on the WISC-R. Journal ofConsulting and Clinical Psy- Guidance Service. chology, 44, 739-744. Kamphaus, R. W., Reynolds, C. R., & Imperato-McCammon, Kaufman, A. S. (1976b). A four-test short form ofthe WISC- C. (1999). Diagnosis and classification in school psychology. R. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 1, 180---196. In C. R. Reynolds & T. B. Gutkin (Eds.), Handbook ofschool Kaufman, A. S. (1977). A McCarthy short form for rapid psychology (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley. screening of preschool, kindergarten, and first-grade chil- Kamphaus, R. W., & Stanton, H. (1988, August). Reliability of dren. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 2, 149-157. the parent rating scale ofthe BehaviorAssessment System for Chil- Kaufman, A. S. (1978). The importance of basic concepts in dren (BASC). Paper presented at the meeting ofthe American the individual assessment of preschool children. Journal of Psychological Association, Atlanta, GA. School Psychology, 16, 207-211. 642 REFERENCES

Kaufman, A. S. (1979a). Cerebral specialization and intelli- Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (1983a). Administration gence testing. Journal ofResearch and Development in Educa- and scoring manualfor the Kaufman Assessment Batteryfor Chil- tion, 12, 96-107. dren. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service. Kaufman, A. S. (1979b). Intelligent testing with the WISC-R. Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (l983b). Interpretive man- New York: Wiley-Interscience. ual for the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children. Circle Kaufman, A. S. (1979c). Role of speed on WISC-R Perfor- Pines, MN: American Guidance Service. mance across the age range. Journal ofConsulting and Clinical Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (1985a). BriefForm man- Psychology, 47, 595-597. ual for the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement. Circle Kaufinan, A. S. (1982). An integrated review ofalmost a decade Pines, MN: American Guidance Service. ofresearch ofthe McCarthy Scales. In T. R. Kratochwill (Ed.), Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (1985b). Compru1ensive Advances in school psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 119-169). Hillsdale, Form manualfor the Kaufman Test ofEducational Achievement. NJ: Erlbaum. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service. Kaufman, A. S. (1983). Some questions and answers about Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (1990). Manual for the the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (K-ABC). Kaufman BriefIntelligence Test. Circle Pines, MN: American Journal ofPsychoeducational Assessment, 1, 205-218. Guidance Service. Kaufinan, A. S. (1984). K-ABC and controversy. The Journal Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (1993). Kaufman Adoles- ofSpecial Education, 18, 409-444. cent and Adult Intelligence Test. Circle Pines, MN: American Kaufman, A. S. (1990). Assessing adolescent and adult intelli- Guidance Service. gence. Needham, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (1997a). BriefForm man- Kaufinan, A. S. (1992). Dr. Wechsler remembered. The School ualfor the Kaufman Test ofEducational Achievement: Normative Psychologist, 46(2), 4-5, 17. update. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service. Kaufman, A. S. (1994). Intelligent testing with the WISC-III. Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (1997b). Comprehensive New York: Wiley. Form manualfor the Kaufman Test ofEducational Achievement: Kaufman, A. S., & Applegate, B. (1988). Short forms of the Normative update. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance K-ABC Mental Processing and Achievement scales at ages 4 Service. to 12-1/2 years for clinical and screening purposes. Journal of Kaufman, A. S., Kaufman, J. C., Chen, T.-H., Kaufinan, Clinical Child Psychology, 17, 359-369. N. L. (1996). Differences on six horn abilities for 14 age Kaufman, A. S., & DiCuio, R. F. (1975). Separate factor groups between 15-16 and 75-94 years. Psychological Assess- analysis ofthe McCarthy Scales for groups ofblack and white ment, 8(2), 161-171. children. Journal ofSchool Psychology, 13, l 0-17. Kaufman, A. S., Kaufman,]. C., & McLean,]. E. (1995). Fac- Kaufman, A. S., & Doppelt, E. (1976). Analysis ofWISC- J. tor structure of the Kaufman Adolescent and Adult Intelli- R standardization data in terms ofthe stratification variables. gence Test (KAlT) for whites, African Americans, and Child Development, 47, 165-171. Hispanics. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55(3), Kaufinan, A. S., & Hollenbeck, G. P. (1973). Factor analysis 365-376. of the standardization edition of the McCarthy Scales. Jour- Kaufman, A. S., Kaufman, N. L., Kamphaus, R. W., Naglieri, nal ofClinical Psychology, 29, 358-362. J. A. (1982). Sequential and simultaneous factors at ages Kaufman, A. S., & Hollenbeck, G. P. (1974). Comparative 3-12-1/2: Developmental changes in neuropsychological structure ofthe WPPSI for blacks and whites.Journal ofClin- dimensions. Clinical Neuropsychology, 4, 74-81. ical Psychology, 13, 10-18. Kaufman, A. S., & Lichtenberger, E. 0. (1999). Essentials of Kaufman, A. S., & Kamphaus, R. W. (1984). Factor analysis WAIS-III assessment, New York:John Wiley & Sons. of the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (K-ABC) for ages 2-1/2 through 12-1/2 years. Journal ofEducational Kaufman, A. S., Long, S. W., & O'Neal, M. R. (1986). Top- Psychology, 76(4), 623-637. ical review of the WISC-R for pediatric neuroclinicians. Journal ofChild Neurology, 1, 89-98. Kaufman, A. S., Kamphaus, R. W., & Kaufman, N. L. (1985). The Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (K-ABC). In Kaufman, A. S., & McLean, J. E. (1986). K-ABC/WISC-R C. S. Newmark (Ed.), Major psychological assessment instru- factor analysis for a learning disabled population. Journal of ments (pp. 249-275). Newton, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Learning Disabilities, 19, 145-153. Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (1977). Clinical evaluation Kaufman, A. S., & McLean, J. E. (1987). Joint factor analysis ofyoung children with the McCarthy Scales. New York: Grune ofthe K-ABC and WISC-R with normal children.Journal of & Stratton. School Psychology, 25 (2), 105-118. REFERENCES 643

Kaufinan, A. S., McLean, J. E., & Reynolds, C. R. (1991). Kellerman, H., & Burry, A. (1981). Handbook ofpsychodiagnos- Analysis of WAIS-R factor patterns by sex and race. Journal tic testing. New York: Grune & Stratton. ofClinical Psychology, 47(4), 548-557. Kelly, M. D., Arceneaux, J. M., Dean, R. S., & Anderson, Kaufinan, A. S., & O'Neal, M. R. (1988). Factor structure of J. L. (1994). Neuropsychological significance ofIQ summary the Woodcock-Johnson cognitive subtests from preschool to scores. InternationalJournal ofNeuroscience, 75, 175-179. adulthood.Journal ofPsychoeducational Assessment, 6(1 ), 35-48. Kelly, R. R., & Tomlinson-Keasey C. (1976). Infonnation Kaufinan, A. S., O'Neal, M. R., Avant, A. H., & Long, S. W. processing ofvisually presented picture and word simulation (1987). Introduction to the Kaufman Assessment Battery for by young hearing-impaired children. Journal ofSpeech Hear- Children (K-ABC) for pediatric neuroclinicians. Journal of ing Resource, 19, 628-638. Child Neurology, 2, 3-16. Kennard, M. (1936). Age and other factors in motor recovery Kaufinan, A. S., Reynolds, C. R., & McLean, J. E. (1989). from precentral lesions in monkeys. Journal ofNeurophysiol- Age and WAIS-R intelligence in a national sample of adults ogy, 1, 447-496. in the 20- to 74-year range: A cross-sectional analysis with education level controlled. Intelligence, 13, 235-253. Kennard, M. (1942). Cortical reorganization of motor func- tion: Studies on series of monkeys of various ages from in- Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (1984). A meta-analysis ofthe fancy to maturity. Archives ofNeurology and Psychiatry, 47, validity ofWechsler Scale profiles and recategorizations: Pat- 227-240. terns or parities. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 7, 136-156. Kennedy, M. H., & Hiltonsmith, R. W. (1988). Relationship Keith, T. Z. (1985). Questioning the K-ABC: What does it among the K-ABC Nonverbal Scale, the Pictorial Test ofln- measure? School Psychology Review, 14, 9-20. telligence, and the Hiskey-Nebraska Test of Learning Apti- Keith, T. Z. (1990). Confirmatory and hierarchical confir- tude for speech- and language-disabled preschool children. matory analysis of the Differential Ability Scales. Journal of Journal ofPsychoeducational Assessment, 6, 49-54. PsychoeducationalAssessment, 8, 391-405. Kinsbourne, M. (1974). Mechanisms ofhemispheric interac- Keith, T. Z. (1994). Intelligence is important, intelligence is tion in man. In M. Kinsbourne & W. L. Smith (Eds.), Hemi- complex. School Psychology Quarterly, 9, 209-221. spheric disconnection and cerebral function (pp. 260-285). Keith, T. Z., & Bolen, L. M. (1980). Factor structure of the Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. McCarthy Scales for children experiencing problems in Kinsbourne, M. (1975). Cerebral dominance, learning, and school. Psychology in the Schools, 17, 320-326. cognition.,In H. R. Myklebust (Ed.), Progress in learning dis- Keith, T. Z., Cool, V. A., Novak, C. G., White, L. ]., & abilitiesv.3 (pp. 201-218). New York: Grune & Stratton. Pottebaum, S. M. (1988). Confirmatory factor analysis ofthe Kinsbourne, M. (1978). Biological determinants offunctional Stanford-Binet Fourth Edition: Testing the theory-test bisymmetry and asymmetry. In M. Kinsbourne (Ed.), Asym- match. Journal ofSchool Psychology, 26, 253-274. metrical function ofthe brain (pp. 3-13). London: Cambridge Keith, T. Z., & Dunbar, S. B. (1984). Hierarchical factor University Press. analysis of the K-ABC: Testing alternate models. Journal of Kinsbourne, M. (1982). Hemispheric specialization and the Special Education, 18 (3), 367-375. growth of human understanding. American Psychologist, 37, Keith, T. Z., Fehrmann, P. G., Harrison, P. L., & Potte- 411-420. baum, S. M. (1986). The relation between adaptive behavior and intelligence: Testing alternative explanations. Journal of Kinsella, G., Prior, M., Sawyer, M., Murtagh, D., Eisenma- School Psychologists, 25, 31-43. jer, R., Anderson, V., Bryan, D., & Klug, G. (1995). Neuro- psychological deficit and academic performance in children Keith, T. Z., Fugate, M. H., DeGraff, M., Diamond, C. M., and adolescents following traumatic brain injury. Journal of Shadrach, E. A., & Stevens, M. L. (1995). Using multi-sam- Pediatric Psychology, 20, 753-767. ple confirmatory factor analysis to test for construct bias: An example using the K-ABC. Journal ofPsychoeducational Assess- Kirk, S. A. (1962). Educating exceptional children. New York: ment, 13(4), 347-364. Houghton Mifflin. Keith, T. z., Hood, C., Eberhart, S., & Pottebaum, S. M. Kirk, S. A., Gallagher, J. ]., & Anastasiow, N. J. (1997). (1985, April). Factor structure ofthe K-ABCfor referred school Educating exceptional children (8th ed.). New York: Houghton children. Paper presented at the meeting ofthe National Asso- Mifflin. ciation of School Psychologists, Las Vegas, NV. Klanderman, J. W., Perney,]., & Kroeschell, Z. B. (1984, Keith, T. z., & Witta, E. L. (1997). Hierarchical and cross- April). Comparisom ofthe K-ABCand WISC-Rfor LD Children. age confirmatory factor analysis ofthe WISC-III: What does Paper presented at the meeting ofthe National Association of it measure? School Psychology Quarterly, 12(2), 89-107. School Psychologists, Philadelphia, PA. 644 REFERENCES

Klanderman, J. W., Perney, J., & Kroeschell, Z. B. (1985a, Koppitz, E. M. (I 963). Psychological evaluation of children 's April). Comparisons ofthe K-ABC and WISC-Rfor LD children. human figure drawings. New York: Grune & Stratton. Paper presented at the meeting ofthe National Association of Korkman, M., Kirk, U., & Kemp, S. (1998). NEPSY: A devel- School Psychologists, Las Vegas, NV. opmental neuropsychological assessment. San Antonio, TX: Psy- Klanderman, J. W., Perney,]., & Kroeschell, Z. B. (I 985b). chological Corporation. Comparisons of the K-ABC and WISC-R for LD children. Kranzler, J. H. (1997). What does the WISC-III measure? Journal ofLearning Disabilities, 18(9), 524-527. Comments on the relationship between intelligence, working Klesges, R. C. (1982). Establishing premorbid levels ofintel- memory capacity, and information processing speed and effi- lectual functioning in children: An empirical investigation. ciency. School Psychology Quarterly, 12(2), 110-116. Clinical Neuropsychology, 4, 15-17. Kranzler, J. H., & Weng, L. (1995a). Factor structure of the Klesges, R. C., Fisher, L., Vasey, M., & Pheley, A. (1985). PASS cognitive tasks: A reexamination of Naglieri et al. Predicting adult premorbid functioning levels: Another look. (I 991).Journal ofSchool Psychology, 33, 143-157. Clinical Neuropsychology, 7, I-3. Kranzler, J. H., & Weng, L. (1995b). Reply to the commen- Klesges, R. C., & Sanchez, V. C. (1981). Cross-validation of tary by Naglieri and Das on the factor structure of a battery an index of premorbid functioning in children. Journal of of PASS cognitive tasks. Journal of School Psychology, 33, Clinical and Consulting Psychology, 49, 141. 169-176. Kline, R. B. (1991). Latent variable path analysis in clinical Krug, D., Dean, R. S., & Anderson, J. L. (1995). Factor research: A beginner's tour guide. Journal ofClinical Psychol- analysis ofthe Halstead-Reitan neuropsychological Test Bat- ogy, 47; 471-484. tery for Older Children. InternationalJournal ofNeuroscience, 83, 131-134. Kline, R. B. (1989). Is the Fourth Edition Stanford-Binet a four-factor test? Confirmatory analysis of alternative models Kunen, S., Overstreet, S., & Salles, C. (1996). Concurrent va- for ages 2 through 23. Journal ofPsychoeducational Assessment, lidity study ofthe Slosson Intelligence Test-Revised in men- pp. 7, 4-13. tal retardation testing. Mental Retardation, 34(6), 380-386. Kline, R. B., Guilmette, S., Snyder, J., & Castellanos, M. Kyllonen, P., & Alluisi, E. (1987). Learning and forgetting (I992). Relative cognitive complexity ofthe Kaufman Assess- facts and skills. In G. Salvendy (Ed.), Handbook ofhuman fac- ment Battery for Children (K-ABC) and the WISC-R.Jour- tors (pp. 124-153). New York:John Wiley & Sons. na/ ofPsychoeducationalAssessment, 10(2), 141-152. Kyllonen,,P. C. (1996). Is working memory capacity Spear- Kline, R. B., Snyder, ]., Guilmette, S., & Castellanos, M. man's g? In Dennis & P. Tapsfield (Eds.) Human abilities: (1992). Relative usefulness ofelevation, variability, and shape Their nature and measurement (pp. 49-75). Mahwah, NJ: information from WISC-R, K-ABC, and Fourth Edition Erlbaum. Stanford-Binet profiles in predicting achievement. Psycholog- LaBuda, M. C., DeFries,J. C., Plomin, R., & Fulker, D. W. ical Assessment, 4(4), 426-432. (1986). Longitudinal stability of cognitive ability from in- Kline, R. B., Snyder, ]., Guilmette, S., & Castellanos, M. fancy to early childhood: Genetic and environmental etiolo- (1993). External validity ofthe profile variability index for the gies. Child Development, 57, 1142-1150. K-ABC, Stanford-Binet, and WISC-R: Another cul-de-sac. Lambert, N. M. (1981). Psychological evidence in Larry P. Journal ofLearning Disabilities, 26(8), 557-567. v. Wilson Riles: An evaluation by a witness for the defense. Knight, R. M., & Bakker, D. J. (1980). Treatment ofhyperac- American Psychologist, 36, 937-952. tive and learning disordered children: Current research. Balti- Lambert, N. M. (1990). Consideration of the Das-Naglieri more: University Park Press. Cognitive Assessment System. Journal of Psychoeducational Kohs, S. C. (I92 3). Intelligence measurement: A psychological Assessment, 8, 338-343. and statistical study based upon the Block-Design Test. New York: Lampley, D. A., & Rust,]. 0. (1986). Validation ofthe Kauf- Macmillan. man Assessment Battery for Children with a sample of Kohs, S. C. (I 927). Intelligence measurement. New York: preschool children. Psychology in the Schools, 23, 131-137. Macmillan. Landers, S. (1986, December). Judge reiterates I.Q. test Kolb, B., & Fancie, B. (1997). Development of the child's ban. Monitor. Washington, DC: American Psychological brain and behavior. In C.R. Reynolds & E. Fletcher-Janzen Association. (Eds.), Handbook of clinical child neuropsychology (2nd ed., Larry P. v. Riles, 495 F. Supp. 926 (N. D. Cal. 1979). pp. 17-41). New York: Plenum Press. Larry P. et al v. Riles. (1979, October). United States District Kolb, B., & Whishaw, I. Q. (1985). Fundamentals ofhuman Court for the Northern District of California, C-71-227O neuropsychology (2nd ed.). S_an Francisco: Freeman. RFP. REFERENCES 645

Larry P. v. Riles. (1986). United States District Count for the Lewandowski, L.]., & de Rienzo, P.]. (1985). WISC-Rand Northern District of California, C-71-2270 RFP. Order K-ABC performances ofhemiplegic children.Journal ofPsy- ModifyingJudgment. choeducational Assessment, 3(3), 215-221. Lavin, C. (1996a). Scores on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale Lewis, M. L., & Johnson, J. J. (1985). Comparison of the for Children-Third Edition and Woodcock-Johnson Test WAIS and WAIS-R IQs from two equivalent college popu- ofAchievement-Revised for a sample ofchildren with emo- lations. Journal ofPsychoeducational Assessment, 3, 55-60. tional handicaps. Psychological Reports, 79, 1291-1295. Lezak, M. (1995). Neuropsychological assessment (3rd ed.). New Lavin, C. (1996b). The relationship between the Wechsler York: Oxford University Press. Intelligence Scales for Children-Third Edition and the Liaw, F., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1994). Cumulative familial Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement. Psychology in the risks and low-birthweight children's cognitive and behav- Schools, 33, 119-123. ioral development. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 23, Leark, R. A., Snyder, T., Grove, T., & Golden, C.]. (1983, 360-372. August). Comparison ofthe K-ABC to standardized neuropsycho- Lidz, C. S. (1983). Issues in assessing preschool children. logical batteries: Preliminary results. Paper presented at the In K. D. Paget & B. A. Bracken (Eds.), The psychoeducational meeting of the American Psychological Association, Ana- assessment ofpreschool children (pp. 17-27). New York: Grune heim, CA. & Stratton. Leckliter, I. N., Matarazzo,]. D., & Silverstein, A. B. (1986). Lidz, C. S., & Mearig, J. S. (1989). A response to Reynolds. A literature review offactor analytic studies of the WAIS-R. Journal ofSchool Psychology, 27, 81-86. Journal ofClinical Psychology, 42(2), 332-342. Lindley, R.H., & Smith, W.R. (1992). Coding tests as mea- Lee, L. P., & Lam, Y. R. (1988). Confirmatory factor analy- sures of IQ: Cognition or motivation? Personality and Indi- ses ofthe Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised vidual Differences, 13(1), 25-29. and the Hong Kong-Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Chil- Linn, R. L. (1983). Pearson selection formulas: Implications dren. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48(4), 895- for studies ofpredictive bias and estimates of educational ef- 903. fects in selected samples. Journal ofEducational Measurement, Lee, S. W. (1995). Review ofthe Woodcock-Johnson Psycho- 20, 1-15. Educational Battery-Revised. In J. C. Conoley & ]. C. Lipsitz, J. D., Dworkin, R. H., & Erlenmeyer-Kimling, L. Impara (Eds.), The twelfth mental measurements yearbook (1993). Wechsler Comprehension and Picture Arrangement (pp. 1116-1117). Lincoln: University ofNebraska Press. subtests arid social adjustment. Psychological Assessment, S, Leiter, R. G. (1979). LeiterInternational Performance Scale: In- 430-437. struction manual. Chicago: Stoelting. Little, A.]., Templer, D. I., Persel, C. S., & Ashley, M. ]. Leiter, R. G., & Arthur, G. (1948). Leiter International Per- (1996). Feasibility ofthe neuropsychological spectrum in pre- formance Scale. Chicago: Stoelting. diction of outcome following head injury. Journal ofClinical Psychology, 52, 455-460. Lennon, R. T. (1985). Group tests of intelligence. In B. B. Wolman (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence: Theories, measure- Little, S. G. (1991, October). Is the WISC-III factor struc- ments, and applications (pp. 825-845). New York: Wiley. ture valid? (Letter to the editor). Communique, 24. Llorente, A. M., LoPresti, C. M., & Satz, P. (1997). Neuro- Levine, A. J., & Marks, L. (1928). Testing intelligence and psychological and neurobehavioral sequelae associated with achievement. New York: MacMillan. pediatric HIV infection. In C. R. Reynolds & E. Fletcher- Levine, E. S. (1974). Psychological tests and practices with Janzen (Eds.), Handbook ofclinical child neuropsychology (2nd the deaf: A survey ofthe state ofthe art. The Volta Review, 76, ed., pp. 634-650). New York: Plenum Press. 298-319. Locurto, C. (1990). The malleability of IQ as judged from Levine, M. D., Busch, B., & Aufsuser, C. (1982). The dimen- adoption studies. Intelligence, 14, 275-292. sion of inattention among children with school problems. Lohman, D. F. (1999). Minding our p's and q's: On finding Pediatrics, 70, 387-395. relationships between learning and intelligence. In P. L. Ack- Levine, S. C., Huttenlock, P., Banich, M. T., & Duda, C. .erman, P. C. Kyllonen, & R. D. Roberts (Eds.), Learning (1987). Factors affecting cognitive functioning in hemiplegic and individual differences: Process, trait, and content determinants children. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 29, (pp. 55-76). Washington, DC: Author. 27-35. Lopez, S. R. (1999). Teaching culturally informed psycho- Levy, ]. (1974). Psychobiological implications of bilateral logical assessment. In R. H. Dana (Ed.), Handbook ofcross- asymmetry. In S. Dimond & G. Beaumont (Eds.), Hemispheric culturallmulticultural personality assessment (pp. 669-687). functioning in the human brain. New York: Halsted Press. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 646 REFERENCES

Lord-Maes, J., & Obrzut, J. E. (1996). Neuropsychological Macmann, G. M., Plasket, C. M., Barnett, D. W., & Siler, consequences of traumatic brain injury in children and ado- R. F. (1991). Factor structure of the WISC-R for children of lescents. Journal ofLearning Disabilities, 29, 609-617. superior intelligence.Journal ofSchool Psychology, 29(1), 19-36. Lowman, M. G., Schwanz, K. A., & Kamphaus, R. W. Madan-Swain, A., & Brown, R. T. (in press). Cognitive and (1997). WISC-III third factor: Critical measurement issues. psychosocial sequelae for children with acute lymphocytic Canadian Journal ofSchool Psychology 12(1), 15-22. leukemia and their families. Clinical Psychology Review, 11, 267-294. Lufi, D., Cohen, A., & Parish-Plass, J. (1990). Identifying attention deficit hyperactivity disorder with the WISC-R Majovski, L. (1984). The K-ABC: Theory and applications and the Stroop Color and Word Test. Psychology in the Schools, for child neuropsychological assessment and research. Journal 27(1), 28-34. ofSpecial Education, 18, 257-268. Lukens,]. (1988). Comparison ofthe Fourth Edition and the Maker, C. J., & Schiever, S. W. (1989). Volume II: Defensible L-M Edition of the Stanford-Binet used with mentally re- programsfor cultural and ethnic minorities. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. tarded persons.Journal ofSchool Psychology, 26, 87-89. Malgady, R. G., & Costantino, G. (1998). Symptom severity Luria, A. R. (1966a). Higher cortical functions in man. New in bilingual Hispanics as a function of clinician ethnicity and York: Basic Books. language of interview. Psychological Assessment, 10(2), 120- 127. Luria, A. R. (1966b). Human brain and psychological processes. New York: Harper & Row. Markwardt, F. C., Jr. (1989). Manual for the Peabody Individ- ual Achievement Test-Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Luria, A. R. (1970). The functional organization ofthe brain. Guidance Service. Scientific American, 222, 66-78. Markwardt, F. C., Jr. (l997). Manualfor the Peabody Individ- Luria, A. R. (1973). The working brain. London: Penguin. ual Achievement Telt-Revised: Normative update. Circle Pines, Luria, A. R. (1980). Higher cortical functions in man (2nd ed.). MN: American Guidance Service. New York: Basic Books. Martin, R. P. (1988). The temperament assessment battery for Luria, A. R., & Majovski, L. V. (1977). Basic approaches used children. Brandon, VT: Clinical Psychology Publishing. in American and Soviet clinical neuropsychology. American Maruish, M. E. (1994). Introduction. In M. E. Maruish Psychologist, 32, 959-968. (Ed.), The use ofpsychological testingfor treatment planning and Lyman, H. (1963). Test scores and what they mean. Englewood outcome assessment (pp. 3-21). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erl- Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. baum Associates. Lynn, R. (1977). The intelligence ofthe Japanese. Bulletin of Mash, E. J., & Barkley, R. A. (Eds.). (1996). Child psycho- the B1·itish Psychological Society, 30, 69-72. pathology. New York: Guilford Press. Lyon, G. Reid (Ed.). (1994). Frames ofreferences for the assess- Matarazzo, J. D. (1972). Wechsler's measurement and appraisal 111ent oflearning disabilities: New views on measurement issues. ofadult intelligence. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing. Matarazzo, J. D. (1990). Psychological assessment versus psy- Lyon, G. Reid (1996). Learning disabilities. In E. J. Mash chological testing: Validation from Binet to the school, clinic, & R. A. Barkley (Eds.), Child psychopathology (pp. 390-435). and courtroom.American Psychologist, 45(9), 999-1017. New York: Guilford Press. Matarazzo, J. D., & Herman, D. 0. (1984). Relationship of Lyon, M. A., & Smith, D. K. (1986). A comparison of at-risk education and IQ in the WAIS-R standardization sample. preschool children's performance on the K-ABC, McCarthy Journal ofConsulting and Clinical Psychology, 52, 631-634. Scales, and Stanford-Binet.Journal ofPsychoeducational Assess- Mather, N. (1984). Performance oflearning disability subjects ment, 4, 35-43. and gifted subjects on the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Mabry, L. (1995). Review of the Wide Range Achievement Battery and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised. Test-3. In J. C. Conoley & J. C. Impara (Eds.), The twelfth Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona, mental measurements yearbook (pp. 1108-1110). Lincoln: Uni- Tucson. versity ofNebraska Press. Matheson, D. W., Mueller, H. H., & Short, R. H. (1984). MacLean, W. E., Noll, R. B., Stehbens,J. A., Kaleita, T. A., The validity of Bannatyne's acquired knowledge category as Schwartz, E., Whitt, K., Cantor, N.J., Waskerwitz, M., Ruy- a separate construct. Journal ofPsychoeducational Assessment, 2, mann, R., Novak, L. J., Woodard, A., & Hammond, D. 279-291. (1995). Neuropsychological effects of cranial irradiation in Max, J.E., Lindgren, S. D., Robin, D. A., Smith, W. L., young children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia 9 months Sato, Y., Mattheis, P. J., Castillo, C. S., & Stierwalt, J. A. after diagnosis. Archives ofNeurology, 52, 156-160. (1997). Traumatic brain injury in children and adolescents: REFERENCES 647

Psychiatric disorders in the second three months. Journal of and Adult Intelligence Test (KAIT). Journal of Educational Nervous rmd Mental Disease, 185, 394-401. Assessment, 14, 208-219. Mayer,). D., & Salovey, P. (1993). The intelligence ofemo- McGrew, K. S., Flanagan, D. F., Keith, T. Z., Vanderwood, tional intelligence. Intelligence, 17, 433-442. M. (1997). Beyond g: The impact ofGf-Gc specific cognitive Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1995). Emotional intelligence abilities research on the future use and interpretation of School Psychology Review, and the construction and regulation of feelings. Applied and intelligence tests in the schools. 26, Preventive Psychology, 4, 197-208. 189-210. Mayes, S. D. (I 994). Questions about the Bayley Scales. Com- McGrew, K. S., & Hessler, G. L. (1995). The relationship between the ½'}-R Gf-Gc cognitive clusters and mathemat- munique, 22(7). ics achievement across the life-span. Journal ofPsychoeduca- McCall, R. B. (1983). A conceptual approach to early mental tional Assessment, 13(1), 21-38. development. In M. Lewis (Ed.), Origins ofintelligence (2nd McGrew, S., & Knapik, S. N. (1993). The relationship ed. pp. 107-133). New York: Plenum. K. between the ½'}-R Gf-Gc cognitive clusters and writing McCallum, R. S., Karnes, F. A., & Edwards, R. P. (1984). achievement across the life-span. School Psychology Review, The test of choice for assessment of gifted children: A com- 22(4), 687-695. parison ofthe K-ABC, WISC-R, and Stanford-Binet.Journal McGrew, K. S., & Knapik, S. N. (1996). The relationship be- ofPsychoeducational Assessment, 2, 57-63. tween intra-cognitive scatter on the Woodcock-Johnson Psy- McCarthy, A. M., Richman, L. C., & Yarbrough, D. (1995). cho-Educational Battery-Revised and school achievement. Memory, attention, and school problems in children with Journal ofSchool Psychology, 34(4), 351-364. seizure disorders. Developmental Neuropsychology, 11, 71-86. McGrew, K. S., & Murphy, S. (1995). Uniqueness and gen- McCarthy, D. (1972). McCarthy Scales ofChildren's Abilities. eral factor characteristics ofthe Woodcock-Johnson Tests of New York: Psychological Corporation. Cognitive Ability-Revised.JournalofSchool Psychology, 33(3), McDermott, P.A., Fantuzzo,). W., & Glutting,).). (1990). 235-245. Just say no to subtest analysis: A critique on Wechsler theory McGrew, K. S., & Pehl, J. (1988). Prediction of future and practice. Journal ofPsychoeducational Assessment, 8, 290- achievement by the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational 302. Battery and the WISC-R. Journal of School Psychology, 26, McDermott, P.A., Fantuzzo,J. W., Glutting,).]., Watkins, 275-281. M. W., & Baggaley, A. R. (1992). Illusions ofmeaning in the McGrew,, K. S., Werder, J. K., & Woodcock, R. W. ipsative assessment of children's ability. Jom-nal of Special (1991). "WJ-R technical manual. Allen, TX: DLM Teaching Education, 25, 504-526. Resources. McDermott, P. A., Glutting, J. J., Jones, J. N., Watkins, McKay, H., Sinisterra, L., McKay, A., Gomez, H., & M. W., & Kush,). (1989). Core profile types in the WISC-R Lloreda, P. (1978). Improving cognitive ability in chronically national sample: Structure, membership, and applications. deprived children. Science, 200, 270-278. Psychological Assessn1ent, 1, 292-299. McKay, M. F., Neale, M. D., & Thompson, G. B. (I 985). McFali, R. M. (1995). Models of training and standards of The predictive validity of Bannatyne's WISC categories for care. In S. C. Hayes, V. M. Follette, R. M. Dawes, & K. E. later reading achievement. British Journal ofEducational Psy- Grady (Eds.), Scientific standards ofpsychological practice: Issues chology, S5(3), 280-287. and recom111endations (pp. 12 5-137). Reno, NV: Context Press. McLean, M., McCormick, K., Baird, S., & Mayfield, P. McGrew, K. S. (1987). Exploratory factor analysis of the (1987). Concurrent validity of the Battelle Developmental \Voodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Ability. Journal of Inventory Screening Test. Diagnostique, 13, 10-20. Psychoeducational Assessment, 5(3), 200-216. McLinden, S. E. (1989). An evaluation ofthe Battelle Devel- McGrew, K. S. (1994). Clinical interpretation ofthe Woodcock- opmental Inventory for determining special education eligi- Johnson Tests ofCognitive Ability (rev. ed.). Needham Heights, bility. Journal ofPsychoeducational Assessment, 7, 66-73. MA: Allyn & Bacon. McLaughlin, C. S., & Ellison, C. L. (1984, April). Compari- McGrew, K. S. (1997). Analysis ofthe major intelligence bat- son ofscores for normal preschool children on the Peabody Picture teries according to a proposed comprehensive Gf-Gc frame- Vocabulary Test-Revised and the Achievement Scale ofthe Kauf- work. In D. P. Flanagan, J. L. Genshaft, & P. L. Harrison man Assessment Battery for Children. Paper presented at the (Eds.), Co11tempor01y intellectual assessment (pp. 151-179). New meeting ofthe National Association ofSchool Psychologists, York: Guilford Press. Philadelphia, PA. McGrew, K. S., & Fbnagan, D. F. (1996). General factor McManis, D. L., Figley, C., Richert, M., & Fabre, T. (1978). and uniqueness characteristics of the Kaufman Adolescent Memory for Designs, Bender Gestalt, Trailmaking Test, and 648 REFERENCES

WISC-R performance of retarded inadequate readers. Per- chological testing for treatment planning and outcome assessment ceptual and Motor Skills, 46, 443-450. (pp. 581-602). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Mealor, D., Livesay, K. K., & Finn, M. H. (1983). Study Morgan, A. W., Sullivan, S. A., Darden, C., & Gregg, N. Number 27. In A. S. Kaufman & N. L. Kaufman (Eds.), (1997). Measuring the intelligence of college students with Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children: Interpretive Manual learning disabilities: A comparison ofresults obtained on the (p. 97). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service. WAIS-Rand the KAIT. Journal ofLearning Disabilities, 30, Mercer, J. R. (1979). The System ofMulticultural Pluralistic 560-565. Assessment: Conceptual and technical manual. New York: Psy- Morra, S. (1994). Issues in working memory measurement: chological Corporation. Testing for M capacity. InternationalJournal ofBehavioral De- Mercer, J. R., & Lewis, J. E. (1978). Adaptive Behavior Inven- velopment, 17, 143-159. tory for Children. New York: Psychological Corporation. Morris, J. D., Evans, J. G., & Pearson, D. D. (1978). The Merrill, K. W., & Shinn, M. R. (1990). Critical variables in WISC-R subtest profile of a sample of severely emotionally the learning disabilities identification process. School Psychol- disturbed children. Psychological Reports, 42, 319-325. ogy Review, 19(1), 74-82. Morris, J.M., & Bigler, E. D. (1985, January). An investiga- Messick, S. (1992). Multiple intelligences or multilevel intel- tion of the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (K-ABC) ligence? Selective emphasis on distinctive parts ofhierarchy: with neurologically impaired children. Paper presented at the On Gardner's Frames ofMind and Sternberg's Beyond IQ in meeting of the International Neuropsychological Society, the context oftheory and research on the structure ofhuman San Diego, CA. abilities. Psychological Inquiry, 3, 365-384. Morris,]. M., & Bigler, E. D. (1987). Hemispheric function- Michael, W. B. (1998). Review of the Woodcock-McGrew- ing and the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children: Werder Mini-Battery of Achievement. In J. C. Impara & Results in the neurologically impaired. Developmental Neuro- B. S. Plake (Eds.), The thirteenth mentalmeasurementsyearbook psychology, 3(1), 67-79. (pp. 1140-1142). Lincoln: University ofNebraska Press. Morris, R., Blashfield, R., & Satz, P. (1986). Developmental Mille, F. (1979). Cultural bias in the WISC. Intelligence, 3, classification of reading-disabled children. Journal ofClinical 149-164. and Experimental Neuropsychology, 8, 371-392. Miller, L. J. (1982). Miller Assessment for Preschoolers. Little- Moss, H. A., Wolters, P. L., Brouwers, P., Hendricks, M. L., ton, CO: Foundation for Knowledge and Development. & Pizzo, P.A. (1996). Impairment of expressive behavior in pediatric HIV-infected patients with evidence of CNS dis- Miller, M. D. (1995). Review of the Kaufman Brief Intelli- ease. Journal ofPediatric Psychology, 21, 379-400. gence Test. In J. C. Conoley & J. C. Impara (Eds.), The twelfth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 53 3-534). Lincoln: Mott, S. E. (1987). Concurrent validity ofthe Battelle Devel- University ofNebraska Press. opmental Inventory for speech and language disordered chil- dren. Psychology in the Schools, 24, 215-220. Miller, T. L., & Reynolds, C. R. (1984). Special issue ... The K-ABC. The Journal of Special Education, 18(3), 207- Murray, A., & Bracken, B. A. (1984). Eleven-month predic- 448. tive validity ofthe Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children. Journal ofPsychoeducationalAssessment, 2, 225-232. Minton, H. L., & Schneider, F. W. (1980). Differential psy- chology. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. Mussman, M. C. (1964). Teacher's evaluations ofpsycholog- ical reports.Journal ofSchool Psychology, 3, 35-37. Mishra, S. P., Ferguson, B. A., & King, P. V. (1985). Re- search with the Wechsler Digit Span subtest: Implications Myklebust, H. R. (1960). The psychology ofdeafness: Sensory depri- for assessment. School Psychology Review, 14(1), 37-47. vation, learning, andadjustment. New York: Grune & Stratton. Misra, G. (1983). Deprivation and development: A review of Naeye, R. L., Diener, M. M., Dellinger, W. S., & Blanc, Indian studies. Indian Educational Review, 12-32. W. A. (1969). Urban poverty: Effect on prenatal nutrition. Science, 166, Molfese, V., Yaple, K., Helwig, S., Harris, L., & Connell, S. 1026. (1992). Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale (Fourth Edition): Nagle, R. J. (1979). The McCarthy Scale of Children's Abil- Factor structure and verbal subscale scores for three-year- ities: Research implications for the assessment ofyoung chil- olds. Journal ofPsychoeducational Assessment, 10(1), 47-58. dren. School Psychology Review, 8, 319-326. Moores, D. F. (1987). Educating the deaf Psychology, principles, Naglieri, J. A. (1981a). Extrapolated developmental indices and practices (3rd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin. for the Bayley Scales of Infant Development. American Jour- Moreland, K. L., Fowler, R. D., & Honaker, L. M. (1994). nal ofMental Deficiencies, 8S, 548-550. Future directions in the use of psychological assessment for Naglieri, J. A. (1981b). Factor structure of the WISC-R for treatment planning and outcome assessment: Predictions and children identified as learning disabled. Psychological Reports, recommendations. In M. E. Maruish (Ed.), The use ofpsy- 49, 891-895. REFERENCES 649

Naglieri, J. A. (1984). Concurrent and predictive validity of Naglieri, J. A., & Haddad, F. (1984). Leaming disabled chil- the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children with a Navajo dren's performance on the Kaufman Assessment Battery for sample. Journal ofSchool Psychology, 22, 373-380. Children: A concurrent validity study. Journal ofPsychoeduca- Naglieri, J. A. (1985a). Use ofthe WISC-Rand K-ABC with tional Assessment, 2, 49-56. learning disabled, borderline mentally retarded, and normal Naglieri, J. A., & Jensen, A. R. (1987). Comparison ofblack- children. Psychology in the Schools, 22, 13 3-141. white differences on the WISC-R and the K-ABC: Spear- Naglieri, J. A. (1985b). Assessment ofmentally retarded chil- man's hypothesis. Intelligence, 11, 21-43. dren with the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children. Naglieri, J. A., & Kamphaus, R. W. (in press). Interpreting American Journal ofMental Deficiency, 89, 367-371. the subtest profile on the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Naglieri, J. A. (1985c). Normal children's performance on Children. Clinical Neuropsychology. the McCarthy Scales, Kaufman Assessment Battery, and Naglieri, J. A., Kamphaus, R. W., & Kaufman, A. S. (1983). Peabody Individual Achievement Test. Journal ofPsychoedu- The Luria-Das simultaneous-successive model applied to the cational Assessment, 3, 12 3-129. WISC-R. Journal ofPsychoeducational Assessment, 1, 25-34. Naglieri, J. A. (1986). WISC-Rand K-ABC comparison for Naglieri, J. A., Kaufman, A. S., Kaufman, N. L., & Kam- matched samples ofblack and white children.Journal ofSchool phaus, R. W. (1981). Cross-validation of Das' simultaneous Psychology, 24, 81-88. and successive processes with novel tasks. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 27, 264-271. Naglieri, J. A. (1988a). Interpreting area score variation on the Fourth Edition of the Stanford-Binet Scale of Intelli- Naglieri, J. A., & Prewett, P. N. (1990). Nonverbal intelli- gence. Journal ofClinical Child Psychology, 17, 224-228. gence measures: A selected review of instruments and their use. In C. R. Reynolds & R. W. Kamphaus (Eds.), Handbook Naglieri,J. A. (1988b). Interpreting the subtest profile on the ofpsychological and educational assessment ofchildren: Intelligence Fourth Edition of the Stanford-Binet Scale of Intelligence. and achievement (pp. 348-370). New York: Guilford. Journal ofClinical Child Psychology, 17, 62-65. Naglieri, J. A., & Wisniewski, J. J. (1988). Clinical use ofthe Naglieri, J. A. (1988c). Draw-a-Person: A quantitative system. WISC-R, MAT-EF, and PPVT-R. Journal of Psychoeduca- New York: Psychological Corporation. tional Assessment, 6, 390-395. Naglieri,J. A., & Anderson, D. F. (1985). Comparison ofthe Narrett, C. M. (in press). Review ofthe Kaufman Assessment WISC-Rand K-ABC with gifted students.Journal ofPsycho- Battery for Children (K-ABC). The Reading Teacher. educational Assessment, 3, 17 5-179. Nass, R., 0& Peterson, H. D. (1989). Differential effects of Naglieri, J. A., & Bardos, A. N. (I987, March). Draw-a-Person congenital left and right brain injury on intelligence. Brain and Matrix Analogies Test cross-culture validity. Paper presented and Cognition, 9, 258-266. at the annual meeting of the National Association of School Psychologists, New Orleans. Nass, R., Peterson, H. D., & Koch, D. (1989). Differential ef- fects of congenital left and right brain injury on intelligence. Naglieri, J. A., & Bardos, A. N. (1988). Canadian children's Brain and Cognition, 9, 258-266. performance on the Matrix Analogies Test. School Psychology International, 9, 309-313. National Association ofSchool Psychologists. (1985). Princi- ples for professional ethics. Silver Springs, MD: Author. Naglieri, J. A., & Das, J.P. (1987). Construct and criterion- related validity ofplanning, simultaneous and successive cog- Naugle, R. I., Chelune, G. J., & Tucker, G. D. (1993). Va- nitive processing tasks.Journal ofPsychoeducationalAssessment, lidity of the Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test. Psychological 4, 353-363. Assessment, 3(2), 182-186. Naglieri, J. A., & Das, J. P. (1988). Planning-arousal-simul- Nebes, R. D. (1974). Hemispheric specialization in com- taneous-successive (PASS): A model for assessment.Journal of misurotomized man. Psychological Bulletin, 81, 1-14. School Psychology, 26, 35-48. Neisser, U. (1967). Cognitive psychology. New York: Appleton- Naglieri, J. A., & Das, J. P. (1990). Planning, attention, si- Century-Crofts. multaneous, and successive (PASS) cognitive processes as a Neisser, U. (1979). The concept of intelligence. Intelligence, model for intelligence. Journal ofPsychoeducational Assessment, 3, 217-227. 8, 303-337. Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard,]. T., Jr., Boykin, A. W., Naglieri, J. A., & Das, J. P. (1997). Das-Naglieri Cognitive Brody, N., Ceci, S.]., Halpern, D. F., Loehlin,J. C., Perloff, Assessment System. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing. R., Sternberg, R. J., & Urbina, S. (1996). Intelligence: Naglieri, J. A., Das, J. P., Stevens, J. ]., & Ledbetter, M. F. Knowns and unknowns. American Psychologist, 51, 77-101. (1991). Confirmatory factor analysis of planning, attention, Neisworth,J. T., & Butler, R.J. (1990). Review ofthe Draw- simultaneous, and successive cognitive processing tasks. Jour- a-Person: A quantitative scoring system. Journal ofPsychoedu- nal ofSchool Psychology, 29, 1-17. cational Assessment, 8, 190-194. 650 REFERENCES

Nelson, R. B., Obrzut, A., & Cummings, J. (1984). Construct ing disabled and mentally retarded. Psychology in the Schools, 4, and predictive validity ofthe K-ABC with EMR children. (Avail- 417-424. able from R. Brett Nelson, Weld County School District #6, Obrzut, J. E., & Hynd, G. W. (1986). Child neuropsychol- Greeley, CO 80631.) ogy: An introduction to theory and research. InJ. E. Obrzut Newborg, ]., Stock, J. R., Wnek, L., Guidubaldi, J., & & G. W. Hynd (Eds.), Child neuropsychology: Vol. 1. Theory and Svinicki, J. (1984). Batte/le Developmental Inventory. Allen, TX: research (pp. 1-12). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. DLMrreaching Resources. Oehler-Stinnett, J. (1989). Review of the Battelle Develop- Newman, I., & Guidubaldi, J. (1981, April). Factor validity mental Inventory. In J. C. Conoley & J. J. Kramer (Eds.). estimate of the Batte/le Developmental Invent01y for three age The tenth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 66-70). Lincoln: grnupings. Paper presented at the meeting of the National University ofNebraska Press. Association of School Psychologists, Houston. O'Grady, K. (1983). A confirmatory maximum likelihood Nihira, K., Foster, R., Shellhaas, M., Leland, H., Lambert, factor analysis ofthe W AIS-R. Journal ofConsulting and Clin- N., & \Vindmiller, M. (1981). AAMDAdaptive Behavior Scale, ical Psychology, 51(6), 826-831. School Edition. Monterey, CA: Publisher's Test Service. O'Grady, K. (1989). Factor structure ofthe \VISC-R. Multi- Nitko, A. (1983). Educational tests and measurement: An intro- variate Behavioral Research, 24(2), 177-193. duction. New York: Harcourt, Brace,Jovanovich. Ornstein, R., Johnstone, J., Herron, ]., & Swencionis, C. Nussbaum, N. L., & Bigler, E. D. (1989). Halstead-Reitan (1980). Differential right hemisphere engagement in visu- Neuropsychological Test Batteries for Children. In C. R. ospatial tasks. Neuropsychologia, 18, 49-64. Reynolds & E. Fletcher-Janzen (Eds.), Handbook of Osborne, A. F. (1963). Applied imagination (3rd ed.). New clinical child neurnp.,ychology (pp. 181-191). New York, NY: York: Scribner. Plenum. Osborne, R. T. (1980). Twins, black and white. Athens, GA: Nussbaum, N. L., & Bigler, E. D. (1997). Halstead-Reitan Foundation for Human Understanding. Neuropsychological Test Batteries for Children. In C. R. Ownby, R. L., & Carmin, C. N. (1988). Confirmatory factor Reynolds & E. Fletcher-Janzen (Eds.), Handbook ofclinical analysis ofthe Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale, Fourth Edi- child neuropsychology (2nd ed., pp. 219-236). New York: tion. Journal ofPsychoeducational Assessment, 331-340. Plenum Press. 6, Ownby, R. L., & Matthews, C. G. (1985). On the meaning of Oakland, T. (1979). Research on the Adaptive Behavior In- the \VISC•R third factor: Relations to selected neuropsycho- ventory for Children and the Estimated Learning Potential. logical measures. Journal ofConsulting and Clinical Psychology, School Psychology Digest, 8, 63-70. 53(4), 531-534. Oakland, T. (1983). Joint use ofadaptive behavior and IQ to Ownby, R. L., & Wallbrown, F. (1986). Improving report predict achievement. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psy- writing in school psychology. In T. R. Kratochwill (Ed.), chology, 51, 298-30I. Advances in school psychology, Vol. V (pp. 7-49). Hillsdale, NJ: Oakland, T., & Dowling, L. (1983). The Draw-a-Person test: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Validity properties for nonbiased assessment. Learning Dis- Paget, K. D. (1983). The individual examining situation: ability Quarterly, 6, 526-534. Basic considerations for preschool children. In K. D. Paget Oakland, T., & Feigenbaum, D. (1979). Multiple sources of & B. A. Bracken (Eds.), The psychoeducational assessment of test bias on the \VISC-R and the Bender-Gestalt Test. Jour- preschool children (pp. 51-61). New York: Grune & Stratton. nal ofConsulting mid Cliniml Psychology, 47, 968-974. Paget, K. D. (1989). Review of the Battelle Developmental Oakman, S., & Wilson, B. (1988). Stability of \VISC-R Inventory. In J. C. Conoley & J.]. Kramer (Eds.). The tenth intelligence scores: Implication for 3-year reevaluations of mental measurementsyearbook (pp. 70-72). Lincoln: University learning disabled students. Psychology in the Schools, 25(2), ofNebraska Press. 118-120. Paramesh, C. R. (1982). Relationship between Quick Test Obringer, S. J. (1988, November). A su17Jey ofperceptions by and \VISC-R and reading ability as used in a juvenile setting. school psychologists ofthe Stanford-Binet IV. Paper presented at Perceptual and Motor Skills, 55, 881-882. the meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Associ- Parker, K. (1983). Factor analysis ofthe WAIS-Rat nine age ation, Louisville, KY. levels between 16 and 74 years. Journal ofConsulting and Clin- Obrzut, A., Nelson, R. B., & Obrzut, J. E. (in press). Con- ical Psychology, 51(2), 302-308. struct validity of the K-ABC with mildly mentally retarded PASE: Parents in Action on Special Education et al, v. Hannon students. Amerimn Journal ofMental Deficien,y. et al. (1980, July). United States District Court for the North- Obrzut, A., Obrzut,J., & Shaw, D. (1984). Construct validity ern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, C-74-3586RFP, of the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children with learn- slip opinion. REFERENCES 651

Payne, J. S., & Patton, J. R. (1981). Mental retardation. Plomin, R. (1989). Environment and genes: Determinants of Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill. behavior. American Psychologist, 44, 105-111. Pearson, K. (1901). On lines and planes of closest fit to sys- Plotkin, L. (1974). Research, education, and public policy: tems of points in space. Philosophical Magazine (Series 6), 2, Heredity v. environment in Negro intelligence. In L. P. 559-572. Miller (Ed.), The testing ofBlack students: A symposium. New York: Prentice Peckham, R. F. (1972). Opinion, Larry P. v. Riles. Federal Sup- Hall. plement 343, 1306-1315. Pommer, L. T. (1986). Seriously emotionally disturbed chil- d;en's performance on the Kaufman Assessment Peckham, R. F. (1979). Opinion, Larry P. v. Riles. Federal Sup- Battery for Children: A concurrent validity study. Journal ofPsychoeduca- plement 495, 926-992. tional Assessment, 4, 155-162. Pellegrino, J. W. (1986). Intelligence: The interaction of Porter, L. J., & Kirby, E. A. (1986). Effects of two instruc- culture and cognitive processes. In R. J. Sternberg & D. K. tional sets on the validity ofthe Kaufman Assessment Battery Detterman (Eds.), What is intelligence? Contemporary view- for Children-Nonverbal Scale with a group of severely points on its nature and definition (pp. 113-116). Norwood, NJ: hearing impaired children. Psychology in the Schools, 23, 1-6. Ablex Publishing. Posner, M. I., Petersen, S. E., Fox, P. T., & Raichle, M. E. Perrine, J. (1989). Situational identification of gifted His- (1988). Localization of cognitive operations in the human panic students. In C.J. Maker & S. W. Schiever (Eds.), Criti- brain. Science, 240, 1627-1631. cal issues in gifted education (Vol. 2), Defensible programs of cultural and ethnic minorities. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Potthoff, R. F. (1966). Statistical aspects ofthe problem ofbiases in psychological tests. (Institute of Statistics Mimeo Series No. Petersen, N. S., Kolen, M.J., & Hoover, H. D. (1989). Scal- 479). Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, Depart- ing, norming, and equating. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational ment ofStatistics. measurement (3rd ed., pp. 221-262). New York: Macmillan. Prewett, P. N. (1992a). The relationship between the Kauf- Phelps, L., Bell, M . C., & Scott, M . J. (1988). Correlations man Brieflntelligence Test (K-BIT) and the WISC-R with between the Stanford-Binet: Fourth Edition and the WISC- incarcerated juvenile delinquents. Educational and Psychological R with a learning disabled population. Psychology in the Schools, Measurement, 52, 977-982. 25, 380-382. Prewett, P. N. (1992b). The relationship between the Kauf- Phelps, & Branyan, L., L. T. (1988). Correlations among the man Brief,lntelligence Test (K-BIT) and the WISC-R with Hiskey, K-ABC Nonverbal Scale, Leiter, and WISC-R Per- referred students. Psychology in the Schools, 29, 25-27. formance scale with public school deaf children. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 6, 354-358. Prewett, P. N. (1995). A comparison of two screening tests (the Matrix Analogies Test-Short Form and the Kaufman Phelps, L., & Rosso, M. (1985). Validity assessment of the Brief Intelligence Test) with the WISC-III. Psychological Woodcock-Johnson Broad Cognitive Ability and scholastic Assessment, 7(1), 69-72. ability cluster scores for behavior-disordered adolescents. Prewett, P. N., Bardos, A. Psychology in the Schools, 22, 398-403. N., & Naglieri, J. A. (1989). As- sessment of mentally retarded children with the Matrix Phelps, L., Rosso, M ., & Falasco, S. L. (1985). Multiple re- Analogies Test-Short Form, Draw-a-Person: A Quantita- gression data using the WISC-Rand the Woodcock-Johnson tive Scoring System, and the Kaufman Test of Educational Tests ofCognitive Ability. Psychology in the Schools, 22, 46-49. Achievement. Psychology in the Schools, 26, 254-260. Pine, D. S., Scott, M. R., Busner, C., Davies, M., Fried, J. A., Prewett, P. N., & Farhney, M. R. (1994). The concurrent va- Parides, M., & Shaffer, D. (1996). Psychometrics of neuro- lidity of the Matrix Analogies Test-Short Form with the logical soft signs.Journal ofthe American Academy ofChild and Stanford-Binet: Fourth Edition and KTEA-BF (Academic Adolescent Psychiatry, 35, 509-515. Achievement). Psychology in the Schools, 31(1), 20-25. Pinmer, R. (1923). Intelligence testing. New York: Henry Holt Prewett, P. N., & Giannuli, M. M. (1991). The relationship and Company. among the reading subtests of the vVJ-R, PIAT-R, K-TEA, Plake, B. S., Gutkin, T. B., Wise, S. L., & Kroeten, T. and WRAT-R. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 9, (1987). Confirmatory factor analysis of the WAIS-R: Com- 166-174. petition of models. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, Prewett, P. N., & Matavich, M.A. (1994). A comparison of 5(3), 267-272. referred students' performance on the WISC-III and the Plomin, R. (1988). The nature and nurture ofcognitive abil- Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale: Fourth Edition. Journal of ities. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of PsychoeducationalAssessment, 12(1), 42-48. human intelligence (Vol. 4, pp. 1-33). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Pribram, K. (1971 ). Language ofthe brain. Englewood Cliffs, Erlbaum. NJ: Prentice-Hall. 652 REFERENCES

Price, J. R., Mount, G. R., & Coles, E. A. (1987, January). Reitan, R. M. (1955). Certain differential effects of left and Evaluating the visually impaired: Neuropsychological tech- right cerebral lesions in human adults. Journal ofComparative niques. Journal ofVisual Impairment & Blindness, 28-30. and Physiological Psychology, 48, 474-477. Psychological Corporation. (1978). The McCarthy Screening Reitan, R. M. (I981). Halstead-Reitan Neuropsychological Test Test. San Antonio, TX: Author. Battery. Tucson, AZ: Reitan Neuropsychological Laboratories. Puente, A. E. (I989). Historical perspectives in the devel- Reitan, R. M. (1994). Ward Halstead's contributions to neu- opment of neuropsychology as a professional psychological ropsychology and the Halstead-Reitan Neuropsychological specialty. In C. R. Reynolds & E. Fletcher-Janzen (Eds.), Test Battery.Journal ofClinical Psychology, 50, 47-70. Handbook ofclinical child neuropsychology (pp. 3-16). New York: Reitan, R. M., & Davison, L. A. (1974). Clinical neuropsychol- Plenum. ogy: Current status and applications. Washington, DC: Winston. Quereshi, M. Y., & McIntire, D. H. (1984). The comparabil- Reschly, ity of the WISC, WISC-R, and WPPSI. Journal ofClinical D. J. (I978). WISC-R factor structures among An- Psychology, 40(4), 1036-1043. glos, Blacks, Chicanos, and Native-American Papagos. Jour- nal ofConsulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 417-422. Rafferty, Y., & Shinn, M. (1991). The impact of homeless- ness on children. American Psychologist, 46, 1170-1179. Reschly, D.J. (1980). Psychological evidence in the Larry P. opinion: A case of right problem-wrong solution? School Raguet, M. L., Campbell, D. A., Berry, D. T. R., Schmitt, Psychology Review, 9, 123-135. F. A., & Smith, T . S. (1996). Stability of intelligence and in- tellectual predictors in older persons. Psychological Assessment, Reschly, D.J. (1987). Marshall v. Georgia. In C.R. Reynolds 8(2), 154-160. & L. Mann (Eds.), Encyclopedia of special education (Vol. 2. pp. 989-992). New York: Wiley-Interscience. Ranganath, V. M., & Ranganath, V. K. (1997). Asian Indian children. In G.Johnson-Powell &]. Yamamoto (Eds.), Trans- Reschly, D.J. (1990). Found: Our intelligences: What do they cultural child development: Psychological assessment and treatment mean? Journal ofPsychoeducationalAssessment, 8, 259-267. (pp. 103-123). New York: Wiley. Reschly, D. J., & Saber, D. L. (1979). Analysis of test bias in Rapaport, D., Gill, M., & Schafer, R. (1945-1946). Diagnostic four groups with the regression definition. Journal ofEduca- psychological testing (2 vols.). Chicago: Year Book Publishers. tional Measurement, 16, 1-9. Ratcliffe, K.J., & Ratcliffe, M. W. (1979). The Leiter Scales: Rethazi, M., & Wilson, A. K. (1988). The Kaufman Assess- A review ofvalidity findings. American Annals ofthe Deaf, 124, ment Batti;ry for Children (K-ABC) in the assessment of 38-45. learning disabled children. Psychology in the Schools, 25(4), Rattan, A. I., Rattan, G., Dean, R. S., & Gray, J. W . (1989). 131-137. . Assessing the commonality ofthe WISC-Rand the Halstead- Reynolds, C.R. (1997). Forward and backward memory span Reitan Neuropsychological Test Battery with learning- should not be combined for clinical analysis. Archives ofClin- disordered children. Journal ofPsychoeducational Assessment, 7, ical Neuropsychology, 12, 29-40. 296-303. Reynolds, C.R. (198 la). Neuropsychological assessment and Raven, J. (1948). Progressive matrices. New York: Psychologi- the habilitation of learning: Considerations in the search for cal Corporation. the aptitude x treatment interaction. School Psychology Review, Raven, J. C. (I947a). Standard progressive matrices. London: 10, 343-349. H.K. Lewis. Reynolds, C.R. (1981 b). The neuropsychological basis ofin- Raven, J. C. (1947b). Coloured progressive matrices. London: telligence. In G. W. Hynd & J. E. Obrzut (Eds.), Neuropsy- H.K. Lewis. chological assessment and the school-age child (pp. 87-124). New Raven, J.C. (1965). Raven's progressive matrices. New York: York: Grune & Stratton. The Psychological Corporation. Reynolds, C.R. (1982a). The importance ofnorms and other Raven, J. C. (I 986). A compendium of North American psychometric concepts to assessment in clinical neuropsy- normative and validity studies. New York: Psychological chological. In R. N. Malatesha & L. C. Hartlage (Eds.), Corporation. Neuropsychology and cognition (Vol. 2, pp. 55-76). The Hague, Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff. Ray, S. (I 979). Wechslff's Intelligence Scales for Children- Revised: For the Deaf Baton Rouge, LA: Author. Reynolds, C. R. (1982b). The problem of bias in psychologi- Reilly, T. P., Drudge, 0. W., Rosen, J. C., Loew, D. E., & cal assessment. In C. R. Reynolds & T. B. Gutkin (Eds.), The Fischer, M. (1985). Concurrent and predictive validity ofthe handbook ofschool psychology (pp. 178-208). New York: Wiley. \NISC-R, McCarthy Scales, Woodcock-Johnson, and aca- Reynolds, C. R. (1984a). Critical measurement issues in demic achievement. Psychology in the Schools, 22, 380-382. learning disabilities.JournalofSpecial Education, 18, 451-476. REFERENCES 653

Reynolds, C. R. (1984b). K-ABC. Special issue ofJournal of Reynolds, C. R., & Gutkin, T. B. (1980c). A regression analy- Special Education, 18, (3). sis of test bias on the WISC-R for Anglos and Chicanos re- Reynolds, C. R. (1986). Transactional models of intellectual ferred to psychological services. Journal ofAbnormal Child Psychology, 8, 237-243. development, yes. Deficit models ofprocess remediation, no. School Psychology Review, 15, 256-260. Reynolds, C. R., & Gutkin, T. B. (1980d). Stability of the WISC-R factor structure across sex at two age levels. Journal Reynolds, C. R. (1987). Playing IQ roulette with the Stan- ofClinical Psychology, 36, 775-777. ford-Binet, 4th edition. Measurement and Evaluation in Coun- seling and Development, 20, 139-141. Reynolds, C. R., Gutkin, T. B., Dappen, L., & Wright, D. (1979). Differential validity ofthe WISC-R for boys and girls Reynolds, C. R. (1990). Conceptual and technical problems referred for psychological services. Perceptual and Motor Skills, in learning disability diagnosis. In C. R. Reynolds & R. W. 48, 868-879. Kamphaus (Eds.), Handbook ofpsychological and educational as- sessment ofchildren (pp. 571-592). New York: Guilford. Reynolds, C. R., & Kaiser, S. (1990). Test bias in psycholog- ical assessment. In C. R. Reynolds & Kamphaus, R. W. Reynolds, C. R. (1997). Measurement and statistical prob- (Eds.), Handbook ofpsychological and educational assessment of lems in neuropsychological assessment of children. In C. R. children (2nd ed., pp. 487-525). New York: Guilford. Reynolds & E. Fletcher-Janzen (Eds.), Handbook ofclinical R., & child neuropsychology (2nd ed., pp. 180-203). NewYork: Plenum Reynolds, C. Kamphaus, R. W., Rosenthal, B. (1988). Factor analysis ofthe Stanford-Binet Fourth Edition for ages Press. 2 through 23. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Reynolds, C. R., Chastain, R. L., Kau&nan, A. S., & McLean, Development, 21, 52-63. ]. E. (1987). Demographic characteristics and IQ among Reynolds, C. R., Kamphaus, R. W., Rosenthal, B. L., & adults: Analysis of the WAIS-R standardization sample as a Hiemenz, J. R. (1997). Applications of the Kau&nan Assess- function of the stratification variables. Journal ofSchool Psy- ment Battery for Children (K-ABC) in neuropsychological chology, 25, 323-342. assessment. In C. R. Reynolds & E. Fletcher-Janzen (Eds.), Reynolds, C.R., & Clark,]. H. (Eds.). (1983). Assessment and Handbook of clinical child neuropsychology (2nd ed., pp. 252- programming for children with low incidence handicaps. New 269). New York: Plenum Press. York: Plenum. Reynolds, C. R., & Kaufman, A. S. (1990). Assessment of Reynolds, C. R., & Clark, J. H. (1984, November). Profile children's intelligence with the Wechsler Intelligence Scale analysis ofstandardized intelligence test peiformance ofhigh IQ for Children-Revised (WISC-R). In C. R. Reynolds & children. Paper presented to the annual meeting of the Na- R. W. Kamphaus (Eds.), Handbook ofpsychological and edu- tional Association for Gifted Children, St. Louis. cational assessment of children: Intelligence and achievement (pp. 127-165). New York: Guilford. Reynolds, C. R., & Clark, J. H. (1985). Profile analysis of standardized intelligence test performance ofvery low func- Reynolds, C.R., & Willson, V. L. (1984, April). Factorial con- tioning individuals.Journal ofSchool Psychology, 23, 277-283. sistency of simultaneous and sequential cognitive processing for whites and blacks ages 3 to 12 112. Paper presented at the meet- Reynolds, C. R., & Clark, H. (1986). Profile analysis of J. ing of the National Council on Measurement in Education, standardized intelligence test performance of very high IQ New Orleans, LA. children. Psychology in the Schools, 23, 5-12. Reynolds, C.R., Willson, V. L., & Chatman, S. P. (1983, Reynolds, C.R., & Ford, L. (1994). Comparative three-fac- March). Relationships between age and raw score increases on the tor solutions of the WISC-III and WISC-Rat 11 age levels Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children. Paper presented at between 6-1/2 and 16-1/2 years. Archives ofClinical Neuropsy- the meeting ofthe National Association ofSchool Psycholo- chology, 9(6), 553-570. gists, Detroit, MI. Reynolds, C. R., & Gutkin, T. B. (1979). Predicting the pre- Reynolds, C.R., Willson, V. L., & Chatman, S. P. (1984). morbid intellectual status of children using demographic Relationships between age and raw score increases on the data. Clinical Neuropsychology, 1, 36-38. Kau&nan Assessment Battery for Children. Psychology in the Reynolds, C. R., & Gutkin, T. B. (1980a). Stability of the Schools, 21, 19-24. WISC-R factor structure across sex at two age levels.Journal Reynolds, C. R., Willson, V. L., & Chatman, S. P. (1985). ofClinical Psychology, 36(3), 775-777. Regression analyses ofbias on the Kau&nan Assessment Bat- Reynolds, C. R., & Gutkin, T. B. (1980b, September). tery for Children. Journal ofSchool Psychology, 23, 195-204. WISC-R pe1fonnance ofblacks and whites matched on four demo- Reynolds, C. R., & Wright, D. (1981). A comparison of the graphic variables. Paper presented at the annual meeting of criterion-related validity (academic achievement ofthe WPPSI the American Psychological Association, Montreal. and the WISC-R). Psychology in the Schools, 18, 20-23. 654 REFERENCES

Riccio, C. A., Cohen,M.J., Hall,)., & Ross, C.M. (1997). The Roszkowski, M. J. (1983). The freedom-from-distractibility third and fourth factors of the WISC-III: What they don't factor: An examination of its adaptive behavior correlates. measure. Journal ofPsychoedu,ational Assessment, 15, 27-39. Journal ofPsychoeducational Assessment, 1(3), 285-297. Riccio, C. A., Hynd, G. W., & Cohen, M. J. (1993). Neu- Rothlisberg, B. A. (1987). Comparing the Stanford-Binet, ropsychology in the schools: Does it belong? School Psychology Fourth Edition to the WISC-R: A concurrent validity study. International, 14, 291-315. Journal ofSchool Psychology, 25, 193-196. Richardson, K., & Bynner, J. M. (1984). Intelligence: Past Rothlisberg, B. A., & McIntosh, D. E. (1991). Performance and furure. InternationalJournal ofPsychology, 19, 499-526. of a referred sample on the Stanford-Binet IV and the K-ABC.Journal ofSchool Psychology, 29, 367-370. Richters, J. E. (1997). The bubble hypothesis and the devel- opmentalist's dilemma. Development and Psychopathology, 9, Rousey, A. (1990). Factor strucrure of the WISC-R Mexi- 193-229. cano. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 50(2), 351- 357. Ricks,). H. (1959). On telling parents about test results. Test Royer, F. L. (1984). Stimulus variables in the Block Design Service Bulletin, 54, 1-4. task: A commentary on Schorr, Bower, and Kiernan. Journal Rie, E. D., & Yeh, J. W. (1982). Block Design and neuro- ofConsulting and Clinical Psychology, 52, 700-704. cognitive impairment in children.Journal ofLearning Disabil- Ruchala, E., Schalt, E., & Bogel, F. (1985). Relations between ities, 15, 28-32. mental performance and reaction time: New aspects ofan old Ripple, C. H., Gilliam, W. S., Chanana, N., & Zigler, E. problem. Intelligence, 9, 189-205. (1999). Will fifty cooks spoil the broth? The debate over Rucker, C. N. (1967). Technical language in the school psy- entrusting Head Start to the states. American Psychologist, chologists' report. Psychology in the Schools, 4, 146-150 54(5), 327-343. Rules and Regulations for Implementing Education tor All Rogers, B. G. (1992). Review of the Peabody Individual Handicapped Children Act of 1975, P.L. 94-142, 42 Fed. Achievement Test-Revised. In J. J. Kramer & J. C. lmpara Reg. 42474 (1977). (Eds.), The eleventh mental measurements yearbook (pp. 652- Rudner, L. M. (1983). Individual assessment accuracy. Jour- 654). Lincoln: University ofNebraska Press. nal ofEducational Measurement, 20(3), 207-219. Raid, G. H. (1986). Computer technology in testing. In B. S. Russell, L. B. (1994). Educated guesses: Makingpolicy about med- Plake,). C. Witt, &J. V. Mitchell,Jr. (Eds.), The future oftest- ical screening tests. Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press. ing: Buros-Nebraska Symposium on Measurement and Testing (pp. 29-69). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Rutter, M. (1978). Diagnosis and definition of childhood autism. Journal of Autism and Childhood Schizophrenia, 8, Raid, G. H. (1990, August). Historical continuity in intelli- 139-161. gence assessment: Goals ofthe WISC-III standardization. In Development ofthe Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-3rd Rutter, M., Chadwick, 0., & Shaffer, D. (1983). Head injury. ed. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the American In M. Rutter (Ed.), Developmental neuropsychiatry (pp. 83- 111). New York: Guilford Press. Psychological Association, Boston. Ryan,J.J., Bohac, D. L., & Trent, D. (1994). Speed of per- Raid, G. H., & Gorsuch, R. L. (1984). Development and formance on the WAIS-R among persons 75 years of age clinical use oftest interpretive programs on microcomputers. and older. Journal ofPsychoeducational Assessment, 12(4), 351- In M. D. Schwartz (Ed.), Using computers in clinical practice: 356. Psychotherapy and mental health applicatiom (pp. 141-149). New York: Haworth Press. Ryan, J. J., Dai, X., & Zheng, L. (1994). Psychological test usage in the People's Republic of China. Journal ofPsychoed- Raid, G. H., & Miller, L. J. (1997). Leiter International Per- ucational Assessment, 12, 324-330. formance Scale-Revised: Examiner's Manual. Wood Dale, IL: Stoelting Co. Ryan, J. J., Nowak, T. J., & Geisser, M. E. (1987). On the comparability of the WAIS and W AIS-R: Review of the re- Rosenthal, B. L., & Kamphaus, R. W. (1988). Interpretive ta- search and implications for clinical practice. Journal ofPsy- bles for test scatter on the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale: choeducational Assessment, 5, 15-30. Fourth Edition. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 6, Ryan, T. V., Lamarche, A., Barth, J. & Boll, T. J. 359-370. J. T., (1996). Neuropsychological consequences and treatment of Ross, G. R. (1989). Some thoughts on the value ofinfanttests pediatric head trauma. In L. S. Batchelor & R. S. Dean for assessing and predicting mental ability. Journal ofDevel- (Eds.), Pediatric neuropsychology (pp. 117-137). Needham opmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, JO, 44-47. Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. REFERENCES 655

Saco-Pollitt, C., Pollitt, E., & Greenfield, D. (1985). The test performance and the attention deficit disorders: Clinical cumulative deficit hypothesis in the light of cross-cultural utility of the Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery- evidence. International Journal ofBehavioral Development, 8, Children's Revision. Journal ofConsulting and Clinical Psychol- 75-97. ogy, 57(1), 112-116. Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1989-90). Emotional intelli- Schinka,J. A., Haley,]. A., Vanderploeg, R. D., & Greblo, P. gence. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 9, 185-211. (1998). Frequency of WISC-III and WAIS-R pairwise sub- Salvia, J., & Hritcko, T. (1984). The K-ABC and ability test differences. Psychological Assessment, 10(2), 171-175. training. Journal ofSpecial Education, 18(3), 345-356. Schinka, J. A., Vanerploeg, R. D., & Curtiss, G. (1997). Sandoval, J. (1979). The WISC-Rand internal evidence of WISC-III subtest scatter as a function of highest subtest test bias with minority groups. Journal ofConsulting and Clin- scaled score. Psychological Assessment, 9(2), 83-88. ical Psychology, 47(5), 919-927. Schock, H. H., & Buck, K. (1995, November). The Bayley Sandoval, J., & Irvin, M. G. (1990). Legal and ethical issues Scales oflnfant Development. Child Assessment News, S(2). in the assessment of children. In C. R. Reynolds & R. W. Schooler, C. (1998). Environmental complexity and the Kamphaus (Eds.), Handbook ofpsychological and educational Flynn effect. In U. Neisser (Ed.), The rising curve: Long-term assessment: Children's intelligence andachievement (pp. 86-104). gains in IQ and related measures (pp. 67-79). Washington, DC: New York: Guilford Press. American Psychological Association. Sandoval, J., & Mille, M. (1979, September). Accuracy judge- Schorr, D., Bower, G. H., & Kiernan, R. (1982). Stimulus ments ofWISC-R item difficulty for minority groups. Paper pre- variables in the block design task. Journal of Consulting and sented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Clinical Psychology, 50, 479-487. Association, New York. Schuerger, J.M., & Witt, A. C. (1989). The temporal stabil- Sarasan, S. B. (1954). The clinical interaction. New York: ity of individually tested intelligence. Journal ofClinical Psy- Harper & Brothers. chology, 45, 294-302. Sattler, J. M. (1988). Assessment of children (3rd ed.). San Schwartz, G. E., Davidson, R. J., & Mear, F. (1975). Right Diego, CA: J. M. Sattler. hemisphere lateralization for emotion in the human brain: Sattler, J. M., & Covin, T. M. (1986). Comparison of the Interactions with cognition. Science, 190, 286-288. Slosson Intelligence Test, Revised Norms and WISC-R for Seashore, H. G. (1951). Differences between verbal and per- children with learning problems and for gifted children. Psy- formance IQ's on the WISC.Journal ofConsulting Psychology, chology in the Schools, 23, 259-264. JS, 62-67: Sattler, J. M., & Ryan, J. J. (1998). Assessment ofchildren: Re- Sechenov, I. (1965). Reflexes of the brain. Cambridge, MA: vised and updated third edition WAIS-Illsupplement. San Diego, MIT Press. (Original work published in 1863.) CA: Author. Segalowitz, S. J., & Gruber, F. A. (Eds.). (1977). Language de- Satz, P., Strauss, E., & Whitaker, H. (1990). The ontogeny of velopment and neurological theory. New York: Academic Press. hemispheric specialization: Some old hypotheses revisited. Seidenberg, M., Giordani, B., Berent, S., & Boll, T.J. (1983). Brain and Language, 38. IQ level and performance on the Halstead-Reitan Neuropsy- Scarr, S. (1981). Social class, race andindividual differences in in- chological Test Battery for older children. Journal ofConsult- telligence. New York: Plenum. ing and Clinical Psychology, 51, 406-413. Scarr, S., & Weinberg, R. A. (1976). IQ test performance of Sellers, A. H., & Nadler, J. D. (1992). A survey of current black children adopted by white families. American Psycholo- neuropsychological assessment procedures used for different gist, 31, 726-739. age groups. Psychotherapy in Private Practice, 11, 47-57. Scarr, S., & Weinberg, R. A. (1978). The influence of"fam- Semrud-Clikeman, M. (1990). Dyslexia and brain morphology: ily background" on intellectual attainment. American Sociolog- Contributions to disturbances in phonological coding, naming, and ical Review, 43, 674-692. reading. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Schaie, K. W., & Hertzog, C. (1983). Fourteen-year cohort- Georgia, Athens, Georgia. sequential analyses of adult intellectual development. Devel- Sexson, S., & Madan-Swain, A. (1995). The chronically ill opmental Psychology, 32, 1118-1120. child in the school. School Psychology Quarterly, JO, 359-368. Schaie, K. W., & Parham, I. A. (1977). Cohort-sequential Sexton, D., McLean, M., Boyd, R. D., Thompson, B., & Mc- analyses ofadult intellectual development. Developmental Psy- Cormick, K. (1988). Criterion-related validity of a new stan- chology, 13, 649-653. dardized developmental measure for use with infants who are Schaughency, E. A., Lahey, B. B., Hynd, G. W., Stone, P.A., handicapped. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Piacentini, J.C., & Frick, P. J. (1989). Neuropsychological Development, 21, 16-24. 656 REFERENCES

Shaffer, D., Schonfeld, R., O'Connor, P. A, Stokrnan, C., Siegel, L. S. (I990). IQ and learning disabilities: R.I.P. In Trautman, P., Shafer, S., & Ng, S. (1985). Neurological soft H. L. Swanson & B. Keogh (Eds.), Learning disabilities: Theo- signs. Archives ofGeneral Psychiatry, 42, 342-351. retical and research issues (pp. 111-128). Hillsdale, NJ: Law- Shah, A., & Holmes, N. (1985). Briefreport: The use of the rence Erlbaum Associates Leiter International Performance Scale with autistic children. Siegel, L. S. (1999). Issues in the definition and diagnosis of Journal ofAutism and Developmental Disorders, 15(2), 195-203. learning disabilities: A perspective on Guckenberger V. Boston Shapiro, E. G., & Dotan, N. (1985, October). Neurological University,Journal ofLearning Disabilities, 32, 304-319. findings and the &ufman Assessment Batteryfar Children. Paper Siegert, R.J., Patten, M . D., Taylor, A.]. W., & McCormick, presented at the National Association ofNeuropsychologists, I. A. (1988). Factor analysis of the WAIS-R using the factor Philadelphia, PA. replication procedure, FACTOREP. Multivariate Behavioral Shapiro, E. G ., & Dotan, N. (1986). Neurological findings Research, 23(4), 481-489. and the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children. Develop- Silverstein, A. B. (1974). A short-short form of the WISC-R mental Neuropsychology, 2(1), 51-64. for screening purposes. Psychological Reports, 35, 81 7-818. Shapiro, S. K., Buckhalt,J A, & Herod, L.A. (1995). Evalu- Silverstein, A. B. (1976). Comparison of two criteria for ation oflearning-disabled students with the Differential Abil- determining the number of factors. Psychological Reports, 41, ity Scales (DAS).Journal ofSchool Psychology, 33(3), 247-263. 387-390. Shaywitz, B. A., & Waxman, S. G. (1987). Dyslexia. New Silverstein, A. B. (1980). Cluster analysis of the Wechsler EnglandJournalofMedicine, 316, 1268-1270. Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised. Educational and Shaywitz, S. E., Shaywitz, B. A., Fletcher, J., & Shupack, H. Psychological Measurement, 40, 51-54. (1986). Evaluation ofschool performance: Dyslexia and atten- Silverstein, A. B. (1981). Reliability and abnormality of test tion deficit disorder. Pediatrician, 13, 96-107. score differences. Journal ofClinical Psychology, 37(2), 392-394. Shellenberger, S., & Lachterman, T. (1976, March). Usabil- Silverstein, A. B. (1982a). Alternative multiple-group solu- ity ofthe McCarthy Scales ofChildren's Abilities in the intellectual tions for the WISC and the WISC-R.Journal ofClinical Psy- assessment of the Puerto Rican child. Paper presented at the chology, 38, 166-168. meeting ofthe National Association ofSchool Psychologists, Silverstein, A. B. (1982b). Pattern analysis as simultaneous Kansas City, Mo. statistical inference. Journal ofConsulting and Clinical Psychol- Shephard, L. A. (1989). Identification of mild handicaps. In ogy, 50, 23't-240. R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed. pp. 545- Silverstein, A. B. (1982c). Factor structure of the Wechsler 572). New York: Macmillan. Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised. Journal ofConsulting and Shephard, L.A., Smith, M. L., & Vojir, C. P. (1983). Char- Clinical Psychology, 50(5), 661-664. acteristics of pupils identified as learning disabled. American Silverstein, A. B. (1983a). Full scale IQ equivalents for a two- Educational Research Journal, 20, 309-331. subtest short form of the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Sherman, E. M . S., Strauss, E., Spellacy, F., & Hunter, M. Scale ofIntelligence and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for (1995). Construct validity ofW AIS-R factors: Neuropsycho- Children-Revised. Psychological Reports, 53, 16-18. logical test correlates in adults referred for evaluation ofpos- Silverstein, A. B. (1983b). Validity ofrandom short forms: III. sible head injury. Psychological Assessment, 7(4), 440-444. Wechsler's intelligence scales. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 56, Sherman, M., & Key, C. V. (1932). The intelligence scores of 572-574. isolated mountain children. Child Development, 3, 279-290. Silverstein, A. B. (1985). Cluster analysis of the Wechsler Shure, G . H., & Halstead, W . C. (1959). Cerebral lateraliza- Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised. Journal ofClinical Psychol- tion ofindividual processes . Psychological Monographs: General ogy, 41(1), 98-100. and Applied 72 , (12). Silverstein, A. B., & Legutki, G. (1982). Direct comparisons Siegel, L. (1992). An evaluation of the discrepancy defini- of the factor structures of the WISC and the WISC-R. Psy- tion of dyslexia. Journal ofLearning Disabilities, 25(10), 618- chology in the Schools, 19, 5- 7. 629. Simon, C. L., & Clopton, J. R. (1984). Comparison of Siegel, L. S. (1979). Infant perceptual, cognitive, and motor WAIS and W AIS-R scores of mildly and moderately men- behaviors as predictors ofsubsequent cognitive and language tally retarded adults. American Journal ofMental Deficiency, development. Canadian Journal ofPsychology, 33, 382-395. 89, 301-303. Siegel, L. S. (1988). Evidence that IQ scores are irrelevant to Sinclair, E., Forness, S. R., & Alexson, J. (1985). Psychiatric the definition and analysis of reading disability. Canadian diagnosis: A study ofits relationship to school needs. Journal Journal ofPsychology, 42, 201-215. ofSpecial Education, 19(3), 333-344. REFERENCES 657

Sinnett, E. R., Rogg, K. L., Benton, S. L., Downey, R. G., & assessing premorbid intelligence. Archives of Clinical Neu- Whitfill,]. M. (1993). The Woodcock-Johnson Revised-Its ropsychology, 12, 739-744. factor structure. Educational and Psychological Measurement, Snyder, T. ]., Leark, R. A., Golden, C. J., Grove, T., & Alli- 53(3), 763-769. son, R. (1983, March). Correlations ofthe K-ABC, WISC-R, Siskind, G. (1967). Fifteen years later: A replication of "a and Luria-Nebraska Children's Battery for Exceptional children. semantic study of concepts of clinical psychologists and psy- Paper presented at the meeting ofthe National Association of chiatrists."Journal ofPsychology, 65, 3-7. School Psychologists, Detroit, Ml. Slate, J. R. (1994). WISC-III correlations with the WIAT. Snyderman, M., & Rothman, S. (1986). Science, politics and Psychology in the Schools, 31, 278-285. the IQ controversy. The Public Interest, 83, 79-97. Slate, J. R. (1995). Discrepancies between IQ and index Snyderman, M., & Rothman, S. (1987). Survey of expert scores for a clinical sample ofstudents: Useful diagnostic in- opinion on intelligence and aptitude testing. American Psy- dicators? Psychology in the Schools, 32(2), 103-108. chologist, 42, 137-144. Slate, J. R., & Chick, D. (1989). WISC-R examiner errors: Sparrow, S. S., Balla, D. A., & Cicchetti, D. V. (1984). Cause for concern. Psychology in the Schools, 26, 78-83. Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales. Circle Pines, MN: Ameri- Slate, J. R., & Saarnio, D. A. (1995). Differences between can Guidance Service. WISC-III and WISC-R IQS: A preliminary investigation. Spearman, C. (1927). The abilities of man. New York: Journal ofPsychoeducationalAssessment, 13(4) 340-346. Macmillan. Slate, R., & Saddler, C. D. (1990, October). Improved but J. Spearman, C., & Jones, L. (1950). Human abilities. London: not perfect. NASP Communique, p. 20. Macmillan. Slosson, R. L. (1963). Slosson Intelligence Test. East Aurora, Spelberg, H. C. L. (1987). Problem-solving strategies on the NY: Slosson Educational Publications. block-design task. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 65(1), 99-104. Slosson, R. L. (1981). Slosson Intelligence Test. East Aurora, Sperry, R. W. (1968). Hemispheric deconnection and unity NY: Slosson Educational Publications. in conscious awareness. American Psychologist, 23, 723-733. Slosson, R. L. (1991a). Manual for the Slosson Intelligence Test-Revised. East Aurora, NY: Slosson Educational Publi- Sperry, R. W. (1970a). Cerebral dominance in perception. In cations. F. A.Young & D. B. Lindsley (Eds.), Early experience and visual informatio'I! processing in perceptual and reading disorders (pp. Slosson, R. L. (1991 b). Norms tables and technical manualfor 167-178). Washington, DC: National Academy ofSciences. the Slosson Intelligence Test-Revised. East Aurora, NY: Slosson Educational Publications. Sperry, R. W. (1970b). Perception in the absence of the neocortical commissures. Research Publication, Association for Smith, C. R. (1983). Learning disabilities: The interaction of Research in Nervous and Mental Diseases (Perception and Its Dis- learner, task, and setting. Boston: Little, Brown. orders), 68, 12 3. Smith, D. K., Klass, P. D., & Stovall, D. L. (1992, August). Sperry, R. W. (1974). Lateral specialization in the surgically Relationship ofthe K-BIT and SIT-Rina gifted sample. Paper separated hemispheres. In F. 0. Schmitt & F. G. Worden presented at the annual meeting of the American Psycholog- (Eds.), The neurosciences: Third study program (pp. 5-9). Cam- ical Association, Washington, DC. bridge, MA: MIT Press. Smith, D. K., Lyon, M. A., Hunter, E., & Boyd, R. (1986, April). Relationship between the K-ABC and WISC-R for Sperry, R. W., Gazzaniga, M. S., & Bogan, J. E. (1969). In- students referred for severe learning disabilities. Journal of terhemispheric relationships: The neocortical commissures: Learning Disabilities, 21 (8), 509-513. Syndromes of hemispheric disconnection. In P. Vinken & G. W. Bruyn (Eds.), Handbook ofclinical neurology (Vol. 4., Smith, M. Minden, D., Netley, Read, S. E., King, L., C., pp. 273-290). New York: Wiley-Interscience. S. M., & Blanchette, V. (1997). Longitudinal investigation of neuropsychological functioning in children and adolescents Spitz, H. H. (1983). Intratest and intertest reliability and sta- with hemophilia and HIV infection. Developmental Neuropsy- bility of the WISC, WISC-R, and WAIS full scale IQS in a chology, 13, 69-85. mentally retarded population. Journal ofSpecial Education, 17, 69-80. Smith, T. D., Smith, B. L., & Smithson, M. M. (1995). The relationship between the WISC-III and the WRAT-3 in a Spitz, H. H. (1986a). The raising ofintelligence. Hillsdale, NJ: sample ofrural referred children. Psychology in the Schools, 32, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 291-295. Spitz, H. H. (1986b). Disparities in mentally retarded per- Smith-Seemiller, L., Franzen, M. D., Burgess, E. ]., & Pri- sons' IQs derived from different intelligence tests. American eto, L. R. (1997). Neuropsychologists' practice patterns in Journal ofMental Deficiency, 90, 588-591. 658 REFERENCES

Spitz, H. H. (1988). Inverse relationship between the WISC- Steinberg, L., Dornbusch, S. M., & Brown, B. B. (1992). R/WAIS-R score disparity and IQ level in the lower range of Ethnic differences in adolescent achievement: An ecological intelligence. AmericanJournal ofMental Deficiency, 92, 376-378. perspective. American Psychologist, 47(6), 725-729. Spreen, 0., Rissell, A. H., & Edgell, D. (1995). Developmen- Stern, W. (1914). The psychological methods for testing intelli- tal neuropsychology. New York: Oxford University Press. gence. Baltimore, MD: Warwick & York. Springer, S. P., & Deutsch, G. (1981). Left brain, right brain. Sternberg, R., Conway, G., Ketron, J., & Bernsetin, M. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman. (1981). People's conceptions of intelligence. Journal ofPer- sonality and Social Psychology, 4, 37-55. Spruill, J. (1988). Two types of tables for use with the Stan- ford-Binet Intelligence Scale: Fourth Edition. Journal ofPsy- Sternberg, R. J. (1984). The Kaufman Assessment Battery for choeducational Assmment, 6, 78-86. Children: An information-processing analysis and critique. Journal ofSpecial Education, 18, 269-279. Spruill, J. (1996). Composite SAS of the Stanford-Binet In- telligence Scale, Fourth Edition: Is it determined by only one Sternberg, R.J. (1985a). Cognitive approaches to intelligence. area SAS? Psychological Assessment, 8(3), 328-330. In B. B. Wolman (Ed.), Handbook ofintelligence (pp. 59-117). New York: Wiley. Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Cognitive processes and the reading problems of learning disabled children: Evaluating the as- Sternberg, R. J. (1985b). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory ofintel- ligence. New York: Cambridge University Press. sumption of specificity. In J. Torgesen & B. Wong (Eds.), Psychological and educational perspectives on learning disabilities Sternberg, R. J. (1987). Synopsis of a triarchic theory of (pp. 87-13 !). New York: Academic Press. human intelligence. In S. H. Irvine & S. E. Newstead (Eds.), Intelligence and cognition: Contemporary frames of reference Stanovich, K. E. (1988). Explaining the differences between (pp. 141-175). Boston: Martinus Nijhoff. the dyslexic and the garden-variety poor reader: The phonological-core variable-difference model. Journal of Sternberg, R. J. (1997). The triarchic theory of intelligence. Learning Disabilities, 21(10), 590-604. In Flanagan, D.P. et al (Eds.). Contemporaiy intellectual assess- ment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 92-104). New York: Guil- Stanovich, K. E. (I991). Discrepancy definitions of reading ford Press 1997. disability: Has intelligence led us astray? Reading Research Quarterly, 26(1), 7-29. Sternberg, R. J., & Detterman, D. K. (1986). What is intelli- gence? Contemporary viewpoints on its nature and definition. Stanovich, K. E. (1993). A model for smdies of reading dis- Norwood, NJ: Ablex. ability. Developmental Review, 13(3), 225-245. Sternberg, R. J., & Kaufman, J. C. (1996). Innovation and Stanovich, K. E., & Siegel, L. S. (1994). Phenotypic per- intelligence testing: The curious case of the dog that didn't fonnance profile ofchildren with reading disabilities: A regres- bark. European Journal ofPsychological Assessment, 12(3), 175- sion-based test of the phonological-core variable-difference 182. model. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 86(1), 24-53. Stevenson, H. W., Stigler, J. W., Lee, S., Lucker, G. W., Starr, R. W. (1983). Split-brain IQ test. Omni, 5(10), 35. Kitamura, S., & Hsu, C. (1985). Cognitive performance and Staton, R. D., Wilson, H., & Brumbach, R. A. (1981). Cog- academic achievement ofJapanese, Chinese, and American nitive improvement associated with tricyclic antidepressant children. Child Development, 56, 718-734. treatment of childhood major depressive illness. Perceptual Strauss, E., Loring, D., Chelune, G., Hunter, M., Hermann, and Motor Skills, 53, 219-234. B., Perrine, K., Westerveld, M., Trenerry, M., & Barr, Stehbens, J. A., Kaleita, T. A., Noll, R. B., Maclean, W. E. W. (1995). Predicting cognitive impairment in epilepsy: & O'Brien, R. T. (1991). CNS prophylaxis of childhood Findings from the Bozeman Epilepsy Consortium. leukemia: What are the long-term, neurological, neuropsy- Journal ofClinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 17, 909- 917. chological, and behavioral effects? Neuropsychology Review, 2, 147-177. Street, R. F. (1931). A gestalt completion test. Contributions to Education, 481, vii-65. New York: Bureau of Publications, Stehbens, J. A., MacLean, W. E., Kaleita, T. A., Noll, R. B., Teachers College, Columbia University. Schwartz, \V., Cantor, N. L., Woodard, A., Whitt, J. K., Waskerwitz, M. J., Ruymann, F. B., & Hammond, G.D. Stricker, G. (1997). Are science and practice commensurable? (1994). Effects of CNS prophylaxis on the neuropsycho- American Psychologist, 52, 442-448. logical performance of children with acute lymphblastic Strommen, E. (1988). Confirmatory factor analysis of the leukemia: Nine months postdiagnosis. Children's Health Care, Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children: A reevaluation. 23, 231-250. Journal ofSchool Psychology, 26(1), 13-23. REFERENCES 659

Stutsman, R. (1931). Merrill-Palmer Scale of Mental Tests. Teare, J. F., & Thompson, R. W. (1982). Concurrent valid- Chicago: Stoelting. ity of the Perkins-Binet Tests of Intelligence for tbe Blind. Sue, S., & Abe, J. (1988). Predictors ofacademic achievement Journal ofVisual Impairment and Blindness, 76, 279-280. amongAsian American and White students (Report No. 88-11). Teeter, P.A. (1984). Cross validation of the factor structure New York: College Entrance Examination Board. ofthe McCarthy Scales for kindergarten children. Psychology Sue, S., & Okazaki, S. (1990). Asian-American educational in the Schools, 21, 158-164. achievements: A phenomena in search of an explanation. Teglasi, H. (1983). Report of a psychological assessment in a American Psychologist, 45, 913-920. school setting. Psychology in the Schools, 20, 466-479. Sullivan, G. S., Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1995). Telzrow, C. F. (1990). Does PASS pass tbe test? A critique of Reasoning and remembering: Coaching students witb learn- the Das-Naglieri Cognitive Assessment System. Journal of ing disabilities to think. Journal of Special Education, 29(3), PsychoeducationalAssessment, 8, 344-355. 310-322. Telzrow, C. F., Century, E., Harris, B., & Redmond, C. Sullivan, P. M., & Burley, S. K. (1990). Mental testing oftbe (1985, April). Relationship between neuropsychological processing hearing-impaired child. In C. R. Reynolds & R. W. Kam- models and dyslexia subtypes. Paper presented at the National phaus (Eds.), Handbook ofpsychological and educational assess- Association ofSchool Psychologists, Las Vegas, NV. ment ofchildren (pp. 761-788). New York: Guilford. Telzrow, C. F., Redmond, C., & Zimmerman, B. (1984, Oc- Sullivan, P. M., & Schulte, L. E. (1992). Factor analysis of tober). Dyslexic subtypes: A comparison ofthe Bannatyne, Boder, WISC-R witb deaf and hard-of-hearing children. Psychologi- and Kaufman models. Paper presented at the meeting of the cal Assessment, 4(4), 53 7-540. National Academy ofNeuropsychologists, San Diego, CA. Sulzbacher, S., Thomson, J., Farwell, J., Temkin, N., & Terman, L. M. (1916). The measurement ofintelligence. Cam- Holubkov, A. (1994). Crossed dominance and its relationship bridge, MA: Riverside Press. to intelligence and academic achievement. Developmental Terman, L. M., & Merrill, M.A. (1960). Stanford-Binet Intel- Neuropsychology, 10, 473-479. ligence Scale. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Sutter, E.G., Bishop, P. C., & Battin, R.R. (1986). Factor Terman, L., & Merrill, M. (1973). Technical manual for the similarities between traditional psychoeducational and neu- Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale: 1972 norms edition. Boston: ropsychological test batteries. Journal ofPsychoeducational As- Houghton Mifflin. sessment, 4(1), 73-82. Tharp, B.' R. (1987). An overview of pediatric seizure disor- Swanson, H. L., Brandenburg-Ayers, S., & Wallace, S. ders and epileptic syndromes. Epilepsia, 28 (Suppl. 1), S36- (1989). Constructvalidity ofthe K-ABC with gifted children. S45. Journal ofSpecial Education, 23(10), 342-352. The National Education Goals Panel. (1998). Principles and Swift, A. V., Cohen, M.J., Hynd, G. W., Wisenbaker,]. M., recommendations for early childhood assessments. Washington, McKie, K. M., Makari, G., & McKie, V. C. (1989). Neuro- DC:Author. psychological impairment in children with sickle cell anemia. Pediatrics, 84, 1077-1085. The Psychological Corporation. (1992). Manualfor the Wech- sler IndividualAchievement Test. San Antonia, TX: Psycholog- Szatmari, P., Offord, D.R., & Boyle, M. H. (1989). Ontario ical Corporation. child health study: Prevalence of attention deficit disorder witb hyperactivity.Journal ofChild Psychology andPsychiatry, 2, The Psychological Corporation. (1997). WAIS-III-WMS-III 219-230. technical manual. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corpora- tion. Tabachnick, B. G. (1979). Test scatter on the WlSC-R.Jour- nal ofLearning Disabilities, 12, 626-628. The Psychological Corporation (1999). Wechsler Abbrevi- ated Scale of Intelligence. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Tallent, N. (1988). Psychological report writing (3rd ed.). En- Corporation. glewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Thorndike, E. Bregman, E. Cobb, M. V., & Wood- Tarnopol, L., & Tarnopol, M. (1977). Introduction to neu- L., 0., yard, E. (1927). The measurement of intelligence. New York: ropsychology. In L. Tarnopol & M. Tarnopol (Eds.), Brain function and reading disabilities (pp. 1-47). Baltimore: Univer- Columbia University, Teachers College. sity Park Press. Thorndike, R. L. (1971). Concepts of culture-fairness. Jour- Taylor, R. L., Slocumb, P. R., & O'Neill, J. (1979). A short nal ofEducational Measurement, 8, 63-70. form of the McCarthy Scales of Children's Abilities: Thorndike, R. L., & Hagen, E. P. (1977). Measurement and Methodological and clinical applications. Psychology in the evaluation in psychology and education (4th ed.). New York: Schools, 16, 347-350. Wiley. 660 REFERENCES

Thorndike, R. L., Hagen, E. P., & Sattler, J. M. (1986). Tech- Tupper, D. E. (Ed.). (1987). Soft neurological signs. Orlando, nical manual for the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale: Fourth FL: Grune & Stratton. Edition. Chicago: Riverside Publishing. Ulissi, S. M., Brice, P.J., & Gibbons, S. (1985, April). The use Thorndike, R. M. (1990). Would the real factors ofthe Stan- ofthe Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children with the hearing ford-Binet Fourth Edition please come forward? Journal of impaired. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Psychoeducational Assessment, 8, 412-435. Association of School Psychologists, Las Vegas, NV. Thorndike, R. M. (1997). The early history of intelligence U.S. Department of Education. (1992). Fourteenth annual re- testing. In D. P. Flanagan, J. L. Genshaft, & P. L. Harrison port to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment (pp. 53-91). New Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author. York: Guilford Press. U.S. Department of Education. (1994). Sixteenth annual re- Thorndike, R. M., & Lohman, D. F. (1990). A century ofabil- port to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with ity testing. Chicago: Riverside. Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author. Thurstone, L. L. (1938). Primary mental abilities. Chicago: U.S. Office of Education. (1992). Definition and criteria for Chicago University Press. defining students as learning disabled. Federal Register, Thurstone, L. L., & Thurstone, T. (1941). The Chicago 57(189). Washington DC: Author. Tests ofPrimmy Mental Abilities. Chicago: Science Research Uzgiris, I. C., & Hunt, J. McV. (1989). Assessment in infancy: Associates. Ordinal scales ofpsychological development. Urbana: University Thurstone, T. W. (1951). Primary mental abilities of chil- ofIllinois. dren. In J. J. Jenkins & D. G. Paterson (Eds.), Studies in indi- Valencia, R. R. (1985). Concurrent validity of the Kaufman vidual differences: The search for intelligence (pp. 527-533). New Assessment Battery for Children in a sample of Mexican- York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. (Reprinted from Educational American children. Educational and Psychological Measurement, and Psychological Measurement, 1941, J, l 05-116). 44, 365-372. Tomlinson-Keasey, C., & Clarkson-Smith, L. (1980, Febru- ary). What develops in hemispheric specialization? Paper presented Valencia, R. R. (1990). Clinical assessment ofyoung children at the meeting of the International Neuropsychological Soci- with the McCarthy Scales of Children's Abilities. In C. R. ety, San Francisco. Reynolds & R. W. Kamphaus (Eds.), Handbook ofpsychological and educational assessment ofchildren: Intelligence and achieve- Torrance, E. P. (1965). Rewarding creative behavior. Engle- ment (pp. 209-258). New York: Guilford. wood Cliffs, NJ Prentice-Hall. Valencia, R. R., & Rankin, R. J. (1985). Evidence ofcontent Tramontana, M. G., & Hooper, S. R. (1988). Assessment issues bias on the McCarthy Scales with Mexican American chil- in child neurnpsychology. New York: Plenum Press. dren: Implications for test translation and nonbiased assess- Tramontana, M. G., & Hooper, S. R. (1989). Neuropsy- ment. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 77, 197-207. chology of child psychopathology. In C. R. Reynolds & Valencia, R. R., & Rankin, R. (1986). Factor analysis of the E. Fletcher-Janzen (Eds.), Handbook ofclinical child neuropsy- K-ABC for groups ofAnglo and Mexican-American children. chology (pp. 87-106). New York: Plenum. Journal ofEducational Measurement, 23, 209-219. Truscott, S. D., Narrett, C. M., & Smith, S. E. (1994). \\1SC-R subtest reliability over time: Implications for prac- Valsiner,J. (1984). Conceptualizing intelligence: From an in- tice and research. Psychological Reports, 74(1), 147-156. ternal static attribution to the study of the process structure of organism-environment relationships. International Journal T ulsky, D. S., Zhu, J ., & Prifitera, A. (1996, August). An in- ofPsychology, 19, 363-389. troduction to the TVechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, Third Edition (WA.IS-III). Paper presented at the annual convention of the Vance, B., & Fuller, G. B. (1995). Relation of scores on the American Psychological Association, Toronto. WISC-III and the WRAT-3 for a sample ofreferred children and youth. Psychological Reports, 76, 371-374. Tuma, J. M., & Elbert, J. C. (1990). Critical issues and cur- rent practice in personality assessment of children. In C. R. Vance, B., Hankins, N., & Brown, N. (1986). The relation- Reynolds & R. \V. Kamphaus (Eds.), Handbook ofpsychological ship among the test of Nonverbal Intelligence, Ammons' and educational assessment ofchildren: Personality, behavior, and Quick Test, and Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children- comext (pp. 3-26). New York: Guilford. Revised. Diagnostique, 12(1), 47-52. Tupper, D. E. (1986). Neuropsychological screening and soft Vance, B., Kitson, D., & Singer, M. (1983). Further investi- signs. In J. E. Obrzut & G. W. Hynd (Eds.), Child neuro- gation of comparability of the WISC-R and PPVT-R for psychology: Vol. 2. Clinical pmctice (pp. 139-186). Orlando, FL: children and youth referred for psychological services. Psy- Academic Press. chology in the Schools, 20, 307-310. REFERENCES 661

Vance, H.B., Fuller, G. B., & Ellis, R. (1983). Discriminant Waller, N. G., & Waldman, I. D. (1990). A reexamination of function analysis ofLD/BD children scores on the WISC-R. the WAIS-R factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 2(2), Journal ofClinical Psychology, 39(5), 749-753. 139-144. Vance, H.B., & Wallbrown, F. H. (1978). The structure of Ward, M. E., & Genshaft, J. (1983, February). The Perkins- intelligence for black children: A hierarchical approach. Psy- Binet Tests: A critique and recommendations for administra- chological Record, 28, 31-39. tion. &ceptional Children, 450-452. Van den Berg, A. R. (1986). The problems ofmeasuring intelli- Warner, M. H., Ernst,)., & Townes, B. D. (1986). Compar- gence in a heterogeneous society and possible solutions to some of ison ofWAIS and WAIS-R factor structure for neuropsychi- these problems. Pretoria: Institute for Psychological and Edu- atric patients. Psychological Reports, 59(2), 715-720. metric Research, Human Sciences Research Council. Watson, B. U. (1983). Test-retest stability of the Hiskey- Vandenberg, S. G ., & Vogler, G. P. (1985). Genetic deter- Nebraska Test of Learning Aptitude in a sample of hearing- minants of intelligence. In B. B. Wolman, (Ed.), Handbook of impaired children and adolescents. Journal of Speech and intelligence: Theories, research and applications (pp. 3-57). New Hearing Disorders, 48, 145-149. York: Wiley. Watson, B. U., & Goldgar, D. E. (1985). A note on the use of Vanderploeg, R. D., Schinka, J. A., Baum, K. M., Tremont, the Hiskey-Nebraska Test of Learning Aptitude with deaf G., & Mittenberg, W. (1998). WISC-III premorbid pre- children. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 16, diction strategies: Demographic and best performance ap- 53-57. proaches. Psychological Assessment, 10(3), 277-284. Watson, T. S. (1995). Review of the Slosson Intelligence Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M ., Sipay, E. R., Small, S. G., Test [1991 Edition]. In]. C. Conoley &J.C. Impara (Eds.), Pratt, A., Chen, R., & Denckla, M. B. (1996). Cognitive pro- The twelfth mental m easurements yearbook (pp. 956-958). Lin- files of difficult to remediate and readily remediated poor coln: University ofNebraska Press. readers: Toward distinguishing between constitutionally and Weschler, D. (1939). The measurement of adult intelligence. experientially based causes of reading disability. Journal of Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins. Educational Psychology, 601-638. 88(4), Wechsler, D. (1952). The range ofhuman capacities. Baltimore: Vernon, P.A. (1985). Individual differences in general cogni- Williams & Wilkins. tive ability. In L. C. Hartlage & C. F. Telzrow (Eds.), The Wechsler, D. (1955). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. New neuropsychology ofindividual differences. New York: Plenum York: Psychological Corporation. Vernon, P. E. (1950). The structure of human abilities. New Wechsler, D. (1958). The measurement and appraisal ofadult York: Wiley. intelligence (4th ed.). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins. Vernon, P. E. (1979). Intelligence: Heredity and environment. Wechsler, D. (1974). Manualfar the Wechsler Intelligence Scale San Francisco: W. H. Freeman. far Children-Revised (WISC-R). New York: Psychological Vernon, P. E. (1984). Intelligence, cognitive styles, and brain Corporation. lateralization. InternationalJournal ofPsychology, 19, 43 5-455. Wechsler, D. (1981). Manual far the Wechsler Adult Intelli- von Mayrhauser, R. T. (1992). The mental testing commu- gence Scale-Revised (WAIS-R). San Antonio, TX: Psycholog- nity and validity. American Psychologist, 47, 244-253. ical Corporation. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. (M. Cole, V. John- Wechsler, D. (1991). Wechsler Intelligence Scale far Children- Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Cambridge, Third Edition: Manual. New York: Psychological Corporation. MA: Harvard University Press. Wechsler, D. (1997a). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Third Wada, J., Clarke, R., & Hamm, A. (1975). Cerebral hemi- Edition. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation. sphere asymmetry in humans. Archives of Neurology, 37, Wechsler, D. (1997b). Wechsler Memory Scale-Third Edition. 234-246. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation. Wallbrown, F., Blaha,]., Wallbrown,]., & Engin, A. (1975). Weiner, P. S. (1971). Stability and validity of two measures The hierarchical factor structure of the Wechsler Intelli- of intelligence used with children whose language develop- gence Scale for Children-Revised. Journal ofPsychology, 89, ment is delayed. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 14, 223-235. 254-261. Wallbrown, F. H., Blaha,]., & Wherry, R.J. (1973). The hi- Weiss, B., & Weisz,]. R. (1986). General cognitive deficits: erarchical factor structure of the \Vechsler Preschool and Mental retardation. In R. T. Brown & C.R. Reynolds (Eds.), Primary Scale ofIntelligence. Journal ofConsulting and Clini- Psychological perspectives on childhood exceptionality (pp. cal Psychology, 41, 356-362. 344-390). New York: Wiley. 662 REFERENCES

Weiss, L. G. (1991, December). WISC-III: The revision of Williams, M.A., & Boll, T. J. (1997). Recent advances in the WISC-R. Child Assessment News, pp. 1, 9. neuropsychological assessment of children. In G. Goldstein Weiss, L. G., Prifitera, A., & Raid, G. (1993). The WISC-III & T. lncagnoli (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to neuropsycho- and the fairness of predicting achievement across ethnic and logical assessment (pp. 231-276). New York: Plenum Press. gender groups [Monograph]. Journal of Psychoeducational Willson, V. L., & Reynolds, C. R. (1984). Regression effects Assessment, Advances in psychoeducational assessment. Bracken, on part scores based on whole-score selected samples. Educa- B. A., McCallum, R. S. (Ed.), Wechsler Intelligence Scale for tional and Psychological Measurement, 44, 95-99. Children: Third Edition, pp. 35-42. Willson, V. L., Reynolds, C.R., Chatman, S. P., & Kaufman, Wesman, A. G. (1968). Intelligent testing. American Psychol- A. S. (1985). Confirmatory analysis ofsimultaneous, sequen- ogist, 23, 267-274. tial, and achievement factors on the K-ABC at 11 age levels West, S. (1982). A smarter test for intelligence? Science, ranging from 2-1/2 to 12-1/2 years. Journal ofSchool Psychol- 823(9), 14. ogy, 23, 261-269. Wherry, R. J., & Wherry, R.)., Jr. (1969). WHEWH pro- Wilson, W. M. (1992). The Stanford-Binet: Fourth Edition gram. In R. J. Wherry (Ed.), Psychology department computer and Form L-M in assessment ofyoung children with mental programs. Columbus: Ohio State University, Department of retardation. Mental Retardation, 30(2), 81-84. Psychology. Winick, M., Meyer, K., & Harris, R. C. (1975). Malnutrition White, R. F., & Rose, F. E. (1997). The Boston process and environmental enrichment by early adoption. Science, approach: A brief history and current practice. In G. Gold- 190, 1173-1175. stein & T. lncagnoli (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to neu- Wisniewski, J. J., & Naglieri, J. A. (1989). Validity of the ropsychological assessment (pp. 171-211). New York: Plenum Draw-a-Person: A quantitative scoring system with the Press. .WISC-R. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 7, 346- Whitehouse, C. C. (1983). Analysis ofWISC-R Coding per- 35l. formance ofnormal and dyslexic readers. Perceptual andMotor Wissler, C. (1901). The correlation of mental and physical Skills, 57, 951-960. tests. Psychological Review Monograph Supplement, 3(6), pp. Whitworth, R. H., & Chrisman, S. B. (1987). Validation of 1-62. the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children comparing Witelson, S. F. (1985). On hemisphere specialization and Anglo and Mexican-American preschoolers. Educational and cerebral plasticity from birth: Mark II. In C. T. Best (Ed.), Psychological Measurement, 47, 695-702. Hemispheric function and collaboration in the child (pp. 33-85). \.Vielkiewicz, R. M., & Daood, C.J. (1993). Correlations be- New Yark: Academic Press, Inc. tween \.VISC-R subtests and scales of the Personality Inven- Witelson, S. F. (1987). Neurobiological aspects of language tory for Children. Psychological Reports, 73(3, Pt 2), 1343- in children. Child Development, 58, 653-688. 1346. Witmer, L. (1911). The special class for backward children. Wiener,). (1985). Teachers' comprehension ofpsychological Philadelphia: Psychological Clinic Press. reports. Psychology in the Schools, 22, 60-64. Witt, J.C., & Gresham, F. M. (1985). Review of Wechsler \Viener, J., & Kohler, S. (1986). Parents' comprehension of Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised. In J. V. Mitchell psychological reports. Psychology in the Schools, 23, 265-270. (Ed.), The ninth mental measurement yearbook: Vol. II (pp. 1715-1716). Lincoln, NE: Buras Institute of Mental \Vilkinson, G. S. (1993). Administration andscoring manualfor Measurements. the Wide Range Achievement Test-3. Wilmington, DE: Jastak Associates. Wittrock, M. C. (1980). The brain and psychology. New York: Academic Press. Williams, J., & Dykman, R. A. (1994). Nonverbal factors de- rived from children's performance on neuropsychological Wolf, T. H. (1961). An individual who made a difference. tests instruments. DevelopmentalNeuropsychology, 10, 19-26. American Psychologist, 16, 245-248. \Villiams, J., Sharp, G., Lange, B., Bates, S., Griebel, M., Wolf, T. H. (1964). Alfred Binet: A time of crisis. American Spence, G. T., & Thomas, P. (1996). The effects of seizure Psychologist, 19, 762-771. type, level ofseizure control and antiepileptic drugs on mem- Wolf, T. H. (1966). Intuition and experiment: Alfred Binet's ory and attention skills in children with epilepsy. Develop- first efforts in child psychology. Journal ofHistory ofBehav- mental Neurnpsychology, 12, 241-253. ioral Sciences, 2, 23 3-239. Williams, K. S., & Williams, J.M. (1996). Childhood med- Wolman, B. (1985). Handbook ofintelligence. NewYork: Wiley- ical conditions impacting on central nervous system func- lnterscience. tion. In L. S. Batchelor & R. S. Dean (Eds.), Pediatric Wolters, P. L., Brouwers, P., & Moss, H. A. (1995). Pediatric 11eurnpsychology (pp. 249-268). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn HIV disease: Effect on cognition, learning, and behavior. & Bacon. School Psychology Quarterly, 10, 305-328. REFERENCES 663

Woodcock, R. W. (1984). A response to some questions raised Wright,). S. (1967). Opinion, Hobson v. Hansen. Federal Sup- about the WOODCOCK-JOHNSON 1. The mean score plement 269, 401-510. Review, 13(3), 342- 354. discrepancy issue. School Psychology Ysseldyke, J. E. (1990). Goodness of fit of the Woodcock- Woodcock, R. W. (1990). Theoretical foundations of the Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery-Revised to the Horn- \VJ-R Measures of Cognitive Ability. Journal ofPsychoeduca- Cattell Gf-Gc theory. Journal ofPsychoeducational Assessment, tional Assessment, 8, 231-258. 8, 268-275. Woodcock, R. W ., & Johnson, M. B. (1977). Woodcock- Zachary, R. A. (1990). Weschler's intelligence scales: Theo- Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery. Allen, TX: DLM Teach- retical and practical considerations. Journal of Psychoeduca- ing Resources. tional Assessment, 8, 276-289. Woodcock, R. W., & Johnson, M. B. (1989a). Woodcock- Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery-Revised. Allen, TX: DLM Zajonc, R. B., & Marcus, G. B. (1975). Birth order and intel- Teaching Resources. lectual development. Psychological Review, 82, 74-88. Woodcock, R. W., & Johnson, M. B. (1989b). Woodcock- Zarantonello, M. M . (1988). Comparability of the WAIS Johnson Tests ofCognitive Ability-Revised. Chicago: Riverside. and W AIS-R: A consideration oflevel ofneuropsychological Woodcock, R. W., & Mather, N. (1989a). \VJ-R Tests of impairment. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 56, Achievement: Examiner's Manual. In R. W. Woodcock & 295-297. M. B.Johnson, Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery- Zimmerman, I. L., & Woo-Sam, J.M. (1967). Reporting Revised. Allen, TX: DLM Teaching Resources. results. In A. J. Glasser & I. L. Zimmerman (Ed.), Clinical Woodcock, R. W., & Mather, N. (1989b). \VJ-R Tests of interpretation of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children Cognitive Ability-Standard and Supplemental Batteries: (WISC) (pp. 20-35). New York: Grune & Stratton. Examiner's manual. In R. W. Woodcock & M. B. Johnson, Zimmerman, I. L., & Woo-Sam,). M. (1985). Clinical applica- Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery-Revised. Allen, tions. In B. B. Wolman (Ed.), Handbook ofintelligence: Theories, TX: DLM Teaching Resources. measurements, andapplications (pp. 873-898). New York: Wiley. Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Werder,J. K. (1994). Woodcock-McGrew-Werder Mini-Battery of Achievement. Zins, J. E., & Barnett, D. W. (1983). The Kaufman Assess- Chicago: Riverside Publishing. ment Battery for Children and school achievement: A valid- ity study. Journal ofPsychoeducational Assessment, I, 235-241. Woodcock, R. W., & Munoz-Sandoval, A. F. (1996). Bateria Woodcock-Munoz-Revisada. Chicago: Riverside Publishing. Zins, J. E., & Barnett, D. W. (1984). A validity study of the Worthington, C. F. (1987). Testing the test: Kaufman Test K-ABC, the WISC-R, and the Stanford-Binet with nonre- ofEducational Achievement, Comprehensive Form and Brief ferred children. Journal ofSchool Psychology, 22, 369-371. Form.Journal ofCounseling and Development, 65, 325-327. Zuckerman, M. (1990). Some dubious premises in research WPPSI-R poll results. (1991, October). Child Assessment and theory on racial differences: Scientific, social, and ethical News, p. 11. issues. American Psychologist, 45, 1297-1303. AUTHOR I N D E X

Abe,]., 163 Beaumont,]. G., 538,539 Brown, E., 565 Cicchetti, D. V., 23, 89, 138, Acherman, P. L., 91 Beck, N. C., 614 Brown, L., 34, 35, 44 580,600 Ackerman, T., 409 Becker, M. G., 132, 609 Brown, R. T., 86, 560, 570, 574, Civitello, L.A., 576 Adams,]. W., 393 Bell, M. C., 234 582 Clarke, R., 264 Adams, R. J., 570, 575 Belmont,]. M., 61 Bruner,]. S., 243 Clayton, G. A., 233, 235 Aichinger, K. S., 607 Bender, L., 246 Bryan, D., 566 Cleary, T. A., 156 Aldenkampt, A. P. 568 Bennett, T. L., 566, 568 Bryant, D . M., 65, 74 Clinton, J.]., 465 Alexander, H. B., 87 Benson,]., 131, 136,137,604 Bryden, M., 546, 547 Clopton, J. R., 295 Allard, A. M., 619 Benton, A. L., 272 Buchanan,!. 570,574 Cobb, M. V., 21 Allen, L., 68 Benton, S. L., 624 Buck, K., 425 Cohen,]., 190,295,466,604 Allen, S. R., 606, 6 I 5 Berg, R. A., 569, 575, 576 Buckhalt, J. A., 621 Cohen, L. G., 368,378, 382 Alluisi, E., 57 Bernard, B., 612 Buchanan, I., 570, 574 Cohen, M., 132, 609 Alpherts, W. C.J., 568 Bernstein, M., 158 Burchinal, M. R., 65, 74 Cohen, M.]., 539,543,563, 570, Amrine, M.,24 Berry, D. T. R., 68 Burgess, E. J ., 548, 551 574,575 Anastasi, A., 3-5, 11, 23, 29, 39, Besteman, ]., 465 Burgmeister, B., 459 Colarusso, R. P., 393 40,42,49,50,63, 77,88,97, Bickley, P. G., 333, 336, 623 Burley, S. K., 2 JO, 456, 581 Cole, M., 59 98, 100, 101, 103, 116, 124, Bigler, E. D., 211,558,620 Buros, 0 . K., 168 Coleman, ]. S., 80 125, 127, 128, 131, 133, 135, Binet, A., 7, 8, 22, 29, 33, 98, 99 Burry, A., 520, 525 Coles, C. D., 86 140, 141, 143, 148,189,239, Bishop, P. C., 608, 609 Burt, C. L., 35 Colombo,]., 427 262,263,433,465,475 Bjorklund, D. F., 56-58 Busch, S. G., 567 Connell, S., 238, 257, 625 Anderson, D. F., 286 Black, M. M., 426 Bush,]. W., 465 Conway, G., 158 Anderson, J. L., 563 Blaha,]., 189,190,604,615,616 Bushkuhl,J., 24 Constantino, G., 160 Anderson, R. ]., 456 Blanc, W. A., 86 Busner, C., 552 Cool, V. A., 237,238,624 Anderson, T., 608 Blanchette, V., 576 Butler, R. W., 569 Cooley, E.,J., 287 Angoff, W. H., 77 Bloom, A. S., 619 Bynner,J. M., 28 Cooper, S., 621 Ankst, 85 Bloom, B. S., 74 Copeland, D . R., 569 Antoniou, G., 560 Blum, L. H., 459 Campbell, D. A., 68 Costantino, G., 83, 84 Applegate, B., 287, 290 Boehm, A. E., 435 Campbell, D. T., 165 Costenbader, V. K., 393 Aram, D. M., 549 Bogel, F., 37 Campbell, E. Q., 80 Cox, T ., 71 Arceneaux,]. M., 563 Bogen,]. E., 211,264 Campbell, F. A., 54, 65, 74 Craft, S., 570 Archer, R. P., 292 Bohac, D. L., 617 Campbell, R.; 132,609 Cruse, C. L., 349, 621 Athanasou,J. A., 612 Bolen, L. M., 268, 432, 607 Campione,]. C., 55 Crawford, J. R., 548, 550, 551 Atkinson, L., 613 Boll, T . J., 548,554, 557-559, Cangir, A., 569 Cronbach, L.]., 231, 433 Atkinson, R. C., 56 561,564-566 Canivez, G. L., 371 Cummins,]. P., 190 Atkinson, S. S., 570, 574 Bolton, B., 452 Cantor, N . ]., 569 Curtis, M. E., 58 Aylward, G. P., 109, 358, 389, Boodoo, G., 65, 84, 85, 538 Cantor, N. L., 569 Curtiss, G., 225 455 Bordeaux, J. D., 569 Carlson, L., 607 Cyr,].]., 613 Ayres, R. R., 287 Boring, E.G., 3, 7, 9 Carmin, C. N., 237,238,624 Borkowski, J. G., 55 Carroll,]. B., I, 35, 36, 43-48, Dadash-Zadey, M., 570 Baddeley, A. D., 49, 192 Bouchard, T.J.,Jr., 65, 74, 80, 53,116,137,192,216,221, Dai, X., 156,293,617 Baggaley, A. R., 328 84-86, 538 292,298,316, 324,328,329, Dalby, P.R., 564 Bailey, D. B., 428 Bourgeois, B. F. D., 567 336,345,363,446,466,476, Daniel, M . H., 26, 62,309,316, Baird, S., 70, 429 Bower, G. H., 202,467 546,603,604 458 Baldwin, A., 69 Boyd, R. D., 429 Carroll, J. L., 190 Daood, C.J., 611 Baldwin, C., 69 Boykin, A. W., 65, 84, 85, 538 Carter, B. D., 261 Dappen, L., 157 Baldwin, K., 570, 574 Bracken, B. A., 267, 268, 435, Carvajal, H., 233, 235, 303 Darden, C., 324 Balla, D. A., 23, 89, 580, 600 439,448,449 Caspi, A., 37, 68 Das,]. P., 190,275,292, Baltes, P. B., 62, 69 Braden, J. P., 594 Cassidy, L. C., 66 543-545 Banich, M. T., 549, 550 Branch, W. B., 539, 543, 570, Castaneda, A., 164 Dasen, P.R., 159, 160 Bannatvne, A., 474 575 Castellanos, M., 269,472, Daub, D., 393 Bansal,"A., I58 Brandt, H. M., 503 475-477,480,620,625 Davies, M., 552 Barber, T. X., 100 Brannigan, G. G., 467 Castillo, C. S., 564 Davis, F. B ., 10, 27, 28, 54 Barkley, R. A., 543 Branyan, L. T., 451 Cattell, R. B., 22, 29, 42, 328 Daw, J. L., 409 Barnett, D. W., 286, 607 Bregman, E. 0., 21 Ceci, S.]., 65, 84, 85,538 Dawes, R. M., 465, 484 Barth,]. T., 564,565 Brentar,J. T., 206 Chadwick, 0., 564-566 Dean, R. S., 263, 554, 558, 562, Batchelor, E. S., 554, 562, 558 Brice, P. J., 457 Chanana, N., 79 563 Bates, S., 567 Brill, W.]., 619 Chastain, R. L., 303, 616, 624 Deary, I.]., 37, 192 Battin, R. R., 608, 609 Brody, N ., 65, 77, 84, 85, 88, Chatman, S. P., 156, 270 DeBaun, M. R., 570 Batzel, L. W., 568 538 Chelune, G. ]., 370 DeCarli, C., 576 Baum, K. M., 137 Brooks-Gunn,]., 87 Chen,J-Q., 51, 70 DeFries, J. C., 75 Bauman, E., 66,611 Brouwers,P.575,576 Chick, D., 194 DeGraff, M., 619 Bayley, N., 422-426, 445,460 Brown, A. L., 55 Childers,]. S., 268 Dekker, M.J."A., 568 Beal, A. L., 155 Brown, B. B., 74 Christensen, A., 541,561 Delaney, E. A., 241,249 Beardsworth, E. 549, 566, 568 Brown, D. T., 317,322,329 Chu,]. Y., 570 Dellinger, J., 428

665 666 AUTHOR INDEX

Dellinger, W. S., 86 Faulstich, M., 612 Goldfarb, L. P., 206 Herman, D. 0., 303 De lugach, R. R., 4.l9 Fay, G . C., 564 Goldgar, D. E., 451 Herod, L. A., 621 De nckla, M. B., 563 Fehrmann, P. G., 89, 90 Goldman,]., 99, 100, I I I Herrera-Graf, M., 607 Dennis, 8., 111, l 12 Feigenbaum, D., 156 Goldstein, G ., 539,554,561,562 Herrnstein, R. J., 24 Dennis, M., 64, 65 Ferguson, B. A., 616 Gomez, F. C., 617 Herron, D. G., 161, 166 Destefano, L., 89, 90, 584 Fergusson, D. M., 65, 88 Gomez, H., 86 Hertzog, C., 69, 70 De tterman, D. K., 38, I83 Feuerstein, R., 78 Goodman,]. F., 66,420,421, Hessler, G. L., 623 Deutsch, G., 202 Field, D., 87 424,427,447 Hetherington, E. M., 69, 90 DeVries, R., 53 Figueroa, R. A., 100, 151, 152, Goonan, B., 570, 574 Hewes, P., 233, 235 Diamond, C. M., 619 160-162, 188 Goonan, B. T., 574 Hickman,]. A., 291 - 293 DiCuio, R. F., 432 Fischer, M., 188 Goonan, L.J., 574 Hilliard, A. G ., 180 Diener, M. M ., 86 Fischer, W. 558 Gong, Y., 617 Hiltonsmich, R. W., 451 DiGregorio, M. 206 Fish,]. M., 102, 520 Gordon, M ., 479, 599, 621 Hinshelwood, J., 592 Dingle, A., 582 Fisher, L., 551 Gorsuch, R.L., 13 5 Hinton, R. N., 607 Di pert, Z. J. 607 Flanagan, D. F., 298, 316, 322 Gottfried, A. W., 86 Hiskey, M. S., 450, 451 DiRienzo, P.J., 281 Flanagan, D. P., 216, 292, 316, Grant-Webster, K. S., 427 Ho, M. R., 566, 568 Dirks,]., 24 31~ 322,323,328,329, Greenblatt, E., 610 Hobson, C. J., 80 Dixnn, R. A., 69 423-426,444,473,605 Greenfield, D., 71 Hoffman, M. B., 78 Dixon, W. E., Jr., 608 Flanagan, R., 260, 318, 322, 323, Greenfield, P. M., 71,243 Hogg,]., 618,619 Dodrill, C. B., 566-568 328,329 Gregg, N., 324 Holland, A. M., 621 Doepke, K., 570, 574 Flavell, ]. H., 57 Gresham, F. M., 66, 183, 229, Hollenbeck, G. P., 156,432 Doll, E. A., 31, 89, 463 Fleming, M. Z., 61 7 612 Holubkov, A., 547 Danders,]., 215,566,606 Flemmer, D. D., 454 Gribbin, K., 69, 70 Honzik, M. P., 68 Dornbusch, S. M ., 74 Fletcher,]. M., 569,599 Gridley, B. E., 238,257, 345, Hood, C., 269, 270 Dotan, N., 211 Flynn,]. R., 73, 74,138,295, 624 Hooper, S. R., 547,553,563 Dowell, R. E., 569 300,324,580 Griebel, M., 567 Hoover, H. D., 132 Downey, R. G., 624 Forcevill, E.J. M., 568 Griffin, H. C., 436 Hopkins, T. F., 241,249 Dreelin, E., 582 Ford, L., 606 Grossman, H . J., 64, 65,579,600 Horn,]. L. , 38, 42, 43, 75, 292, Dresden,]., 97, 99-101 Forness, S. R., 213, 596, 597 Grossman, I., 111, 112 31~ 318,325, 328,32~335 Drudge, 0. W., 188 Fourquean,J. M., 209,213,285 Guidubaldi,J., 418,429,430 Horney, K., 72 Dube, E. F., 33 Fowler, M. G., 570, 574 Guilford,]. P., 22, 27, 29, 50 Horowitz, F. D., 74, 80, 81 Dubois, P.H., 2, 3 Fraboni, M., 615 Guilmette, S., 269, 620, 625 Horwitz, E., 614 Dumont, K., 323 Francis, D.J., 599 Guiton, G . W., 458 Howell, R., 612 Dumont, R., 349, 621 Frank, R., 614 Gunderson, V. M., 427 Horwood, L. J., 65, 88 Dunbar, S. B., 269 Frankel, L. S., 569 Gustafsson, J., 37 Hritcko, T., 263, 286 Dunn, L. M ., 360, 389 Franzen, M. D ., 548,551 Gutkin, T. B., 156,157,551, Hsu, C., 82 Dunst, C. J., 424, 426 Frederiksen, N., 61, 63 582,597,607,613 Huang, L. N., 160, 164, 166 Durham, T. W., 268 French,]. L., 2, 3, 12, 145, 158, Gyurke, J. S., 436 Huberty, T.J., 61 I Dworkin, R. H., 466 165, 166 Humphreys, L. G., 54, 156 Frick, P.J. 2,454,476 Haddad, F. A.,' 190 Hunsley,]., 618 Eberhart, S., 269, 270 Fried,]. A., 552 Hagberg, C., 323 Hunt, E., 28, 78, 89-91 Eckman,]. R., 570, 574 Fugate, M. H., 424-426, 619 Hagen, E. P., 123, 152, 231-241, Hunter, M., 71,615 Edelman, S., 196, 197 Fulker, D. W., 75 248,256,434 Hurnst 85 Edwards, B. T., 295 Fuller, G. B., 381 Hahn, W . K., 546, 547 Hutchens, T., 106 Edwards, R. P., 286 Hale, R. L., 2, 3, 12, 145, 158, Hutchinson, S., 604 Egeland, B., 68 Galton, F., 5 165,166 Huttenlocher,]., 552 Eisenmajer, R., 566 Galvin, G. A., 613 Hall, C. W., 607 Huttenlocher, P., 549,550, 552 Ekelman, B. L., 549 Gardner, H., 51 , 70 Hall, G . C. N., 158 Hynd, G. W., 539, 543, Elbert,]. C., 534 Gardner, J. F., 6, 292 Halpern, D. F., 65, 84, 85, 538 546-548,553, 557,559,562, Eliopoulos, D., 563 Garrett, H. E., 22, 26, 27 Halstead, W. C., 539, 540 563,574,592 Elliot, C. D., 169,292, 307, 344, Gates,]., 552 Ham, S. J., 457 345 , 348- 352, 386,443,444, Gay,]., 59 Hamm, A., 264 Imhof, E. A., 292 45 8 Gazzaniga, M. S., 211 Hammill, D. D., 455, 591 Imperato-McCammon, C., 32 Elliot, R., 25, 28, 147-150 Geary, D. C., 295,614 Hammond, G. D., 569 Inclan,]. E., 161, 166 Elwan, F. Z., 619 Geisser, M. E., 295 Han, K., 292 Irvin,M. G., 146 Engin, A., 189, 190 Genshaft,J. L., 292, 316 Hanson, R. A., 72 Icard 77 Epps, E.G., 100 Gentry, N., 409 Hanson, R. K., 618 Ittenbach, R. F., 292 Erickson, S., 86 Gerber, ]., 23 3, 23 5 Harding, L. 549, 566, 568 Erlenmeyer-J(jmling, L., 466 Gerken, K. C., 209 Harkness, A. R., 32, 37, 68,470 Jacklin, C. N ., 85 Ernst, J. , 612 Giannuli, M. M., 392 Harnqvisc, K., 72 Jaffe, K. M., 564 Esterlv, D. L., 436 Gibbons, S., 457 Harrington, R. G., 617 Jaffe, N., 569 Esters·, I. G., 292 Gibbs,]. T., 160, 164, 166 Harris, L., 238,257,625 Jarman, R. F., 275 Evans, J. R., 466 Giebink,J. W., 503 Harris, R. C., 86 Jencks, C., 90 Eysenck, H.J., 12, 62 Gill, M ., 497,595,597,601 Harrison, P. L. 89, 90,292,316, Jenkins,J.J., 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 27, 99 Gilliam, W. S., 79 291, 293 Jensen, A. R. , 21, 26, 36, 37, 62, Fagan, J. F., 427 Glaser, R., 58, 73 Hartlage, L. C., 558, 567, 568 63, 82, 153, 155,166,264, Falak, A., 86 Glasser, A. J., 99, IOI, 228, 499 Hartlage, P. L., 567,568 269,271,465 Fan, X. , 619 Glaub, V. E., 447 Hartwig, S.S., 233,235 Joe, G. W., 616 Fantie, B., 549, 564 Glick,]., 59 Harvey, V. S., 501, 508 Johnson, J. ]., 295 Fantuzzo,J. W., 328,475,497, Glutting,J.J., 78, 105, 135, 156, Hasegawa, C., I60 Johnson,M.B.,292, 382,399 597,598,601 232,233,237,239,240,328, Haskins, R., 79 Johnstone, B., 548 Farhnev, M. R., 625 475,497,597,598,601 Haywood, H. C., 54, 55, 63, 585 Jorgensen, K. 541,561 Farmer, J. E., 566 Goddard, H.H., 3 Helwig, S., 238, 257, 625 Judd, B. W., 569 Farwell,]. R., 547,568 Golden, C.]., 541,558 Hendricks, M. L., 576 Juliano,J. M., I 90 AUTHOR INDEX 667

Kagan, ]., 272 Klein, M., 295 Lynn, R., 82, 156 Miller, T. L., 262 Kagan, S. L., 444 Klesges, R. C., 550, 551 Lyon, M.A., 432,435, 436 Minden, D., 576 Kaiser, S., 152-157, 166 Klien, R. E., 272 Minton, H. L., 35, 42 Kaleita, T. A., 569 Kline, R. B., 135,136,237,238, MacFarlane,J. W., 68 Mishra, R. K., 545 Kamin, L., 12 269,434,472, 475-477, 480, MacGruder, R. W., 109 Mishra, S. P., 545,616 Kamin, L.J., 148 620,624,625 MacLean, W. E., 569 Mittenberg, W., 137 Kaminer, T., 423,424 Klug, G., 566 Macmann, G. M., 607 Moffitt, T. E., 37, 68 Kamphaus, R. W., 2, 9, 32, 40, Knopik, S. N., 622 McAllister, ]., 548 Molfese, V., 238,257,625 83,89,90,97,99, 100,101, Koby, M., 570 McCall, R. B. , 54 Montie,]. E., 427 132, 138, 139, 154-156,192, Kohlberg, L., 53 McCallum, R. S., 286, 448, 449 Mood, A. M., 80 211,237,238,240,243,249, Kohler, S., 505 McCarthy, A. M., 567 Moore,]., 612 256,257,260,262,264-269, Kohs, S. C., 202,245,273 McCarthy, D., 240,274,418, Morgan, A. W. 324,467 270,273,276-282,285-287, Kolb, B., 549, 564 430,445 Morra, S., 553 289,365,367,384,402,435, Kolen, M. J., 132 McCormick, I. A., 612 Morris,]. M., 211,620 436,447,454,458,465-467, Korkman, M., 558 McCormick,K., 70,429,465 Moss, H. A., 575, 576 472,475,476,481,510,584, Kramer, D. A., 69 McDermott, P.A., 78, 105, 328, Moss, S., 618,619 604 Kranzler, J. H., 192, 193, 546 475,497,597,598,60!,621 Mott, S. E. , 429 Kane, R. L., 562 Krippner, S., 466 McGrew, K. S., 216,298,316, Mueller, H. H ., 474,475 Kaplan, C., 436, 439 Kroeten, T., 613 322, 328, 329, 382,403,404, Munn, D., 428 Kaplan, D., 135,232,233,237, Kunen, S., 366 473,603,605,622,623 Munoz-Sandoval, A. F., 342, 239, 240 Kyllonen, P., 37, 57 McGue, M., 74, 85 399 Kaplan, E., 561 McIntosh, D. E., 238,257, 345, Murphy, S., 622 Kareken, D. A., 551 LaBuda, M. C., 75 624 Murray, A., 268 Karnes, F. A., 286 Lachterman, T., 209 McKay, A., 86 Murray,C., 24 Kaufman, A. S., 22, 23, 31, 40, Lallinger, R.R., 570, 574 McKay, H., 86 Murray, D.J., 344 82,84,88,97,99-101, 108, Lam, Y. R., 608 McKay, M. F., 611 Murragh, D ., 566 111, 112, 129, 133, 134, 136, Lamarche,]. A., 564, 565 McK.ie, K. M., 574 Mussman, M . C., 503 153, 156, 171, 172, 175, 182, Lambert, N. M., 141, 546 McK.ie, V. C., 570, 574, 575 183,185, 188-191, 195-197, Landers, S., 25 McLean, J. E., 136, I90, 270, Nadler,]. D., 561 I99, 200, 203, 206-208, 211, Lange, B., 567 274,276,303,326,613,618, Naeye, R. L., 86 213,2!4,217,225,227-230, Lanius, G., 570 624 Naglieri,J. A., 190,285,286, 233, 236-238, 240, 262, Lavin, C., 399, 404 McLean, M., 70, 429 292,461,475, 543-546,615 264-274,276,279,280,282, Leckliter, I. N ., 295,614 McLinden, S. E., 428, 429 Nania, P. A., 436 283,286,287,289-296,303, Ledbetter, M . F., 545 McMillan, C., 570, 574 Narrett, C. M., 610 307,309,317-320,322-329, Lee, L. P., 608 McPartland, ]., 80 Nash, K. B., 570, 574 367,393,430-433,435,436, Lee, R. B., 570 Madan-Swain, A., 560, 563 Nass, R., 549 438,445,457,473-476,480, Lee, S., 82 Majovsky, L., 263 Naugle, R. I., 370 497, 518-520,581-583,596, Lee, S. W., 404 Makari, G., 574 Neale, M. D., 611 597,600,613,615,6!8,623, Legutki, G., 190 Malgody, R., G., 83, 84, 160 Neiderhiser,]. M., 69, 90 624 Lehr, C. A., 436 Mandes, E., 616 Neisser, U., 24, 33, 65, 73, 74, Kaufman, J. C., 26, 229, 326, Leino, E. Z., 87 Markus, G. B., 85 77, 84, 85, 538 618 Lennon, R. T., 11, 25 Markwardt, F. C ., 389 Netley, C., 576 Kaufman, N. L., 23, 40, 82, 100, Levine, E. S., 456 Martin, K. M., 564 Newborg,]., 418 107,108,133,134,171,172, Levine, S. C., 549, 550, 552 Martin, R. P., 88 Newman, I., 430 175, 189,233,23~23~260, Lewandowski, L.J., 281,479, Maruish, M., 292 Ng, S., 552 262, 264-274, 276, 279, 280, 599 Marzano, P., 24 Nitko, A., 1I 7, 123, 127-129 282,283,286,287,289, Lewin, K., 64 Matarazzo,]. D., 294,295, 303, Noetzel, M., 570 291-293,307,317-320, Lewis, M. L., 295,419,445 464,465,469,472,497,614 Noll,]., 318, 329 322-329,324,367,393,430, Lezak, M., 538,545,553,554, Matavich, M.A., 233, 235, 236, Noll, R. B., 569 435,436,438,457,519,520 556, 561-563 625,626 Novak, C. G ., 237,238,624 Kavale, K.A.,213, 596, 597 Liaw, F., 87 Mather, N., 334 Novak, L.]., 569 Keiser, S., 479, 599 Lidz, C. S., 78, 99, 100 Matheson, D. W., 474,475 Novey, E. S., 563 Keith, T. Z., 89, 90, 192,237, Lilienfeld, S. 0., 32,470 Mattheis, P. J., 564 Nowak, T. J., 295 238,269,270,298,316,333, Lindgren, S. D., 564 Matthews, C. G., 609 Nunnally,]., 136 336,432,619,623,624 Lindley, R. H., 198 Mattis, S., 610 Nussbaum, N. L., 558 Kellerman, H., 520, 525 Linton,]. C., 569, 575, 576 Matula, K., 426 Kelly, M. D., 563 Lipsitz, J. D ., 466 Max,J. E., 564 Oakland, T., 105, 156 Kemp, S., 558 Little, S. G., 191 Mayer,]. D ., 51, 52 Oakman, S., 68 Kendrick, S. A., 156 Lloreda, P ., 86 Mayes, S. D., 425 Oas, P. T., 261 Kennard, M., 549 Loehlin,J. C., 65, 84, 85,538 Mayfield, P., 70, 429 O'Brian, M., 74, 80, 81 Kennedy, M. H., 451 Loevinger, J., 136 Mcanulty,D., 612 Obringer,S. ]., 260 Ketron,]., 158 Loew, D. E., 188 Mearig, J. S., 78 Obrzut,]. E., 539,547,548,553, Kiernan, R., 202, 467 Lohman, D. F., 2 Mednitsky, S., 111, 112 562,564 Kim, H., 549, 550 Lopez, I. R., 158 Mensink, D., 545 O'Connor, P.A., 552 King, P. V., 616 Lopez, S. R., 163 Mercer,]. R., 150, 166 Oehler-Stinnett,]., 429, 430 King, S. M., 576 Lowman, M. G., 192 Merrill, M . A., 344 O'Grady, K., 295, 607, 61 I Kinsborne, M., 264, 546 Lorge, I., 459 Messick, S., 26, 35, 51, 60, 131, Okazaki, S., 82 Kinsella, G., 566 Lorys, A. R., 563 136,465 Oliver, R. R., 243 Kirby, E. A., 457 Lozano, R., 138 Meyer, K., 86 0, Neal, M. R., 623 Kirby,]. R., 275,543 Lucker, G. W., 82 Michael, W. B., 386 O'Neill,]., 433,445 Kirk, S. A., 591 Luebbering, A., 548 Mille, F., 155, 166 Osborne, R. T., 74 Kirk, U., 558 Luria, A. R., 540-543, 561 Mille,M., 155 Overstreet, S., 366 Kitamura, S., 82 Lyman, H.B., 123, 124, 127, Miller, L.J., 452 Ownby, R. L., 237,238,499, Klass, P. D., 366 474,519,520,533 Miller, M. D., 371 500, 536, 609, 624 668 AUTHOR INDEX

Paget, K. D., 100, IOI, 429 Reiss, D., 69, 90 Scharff, L., 111, 112 Smith, I. E., 86 Palkes, IL S., 567 Reitan, R. M., 539, 540, 563 Schatz,)., 570 Smith, M. L., 576 Paolo, A. M., 617 Resar, L., 570 Schelvis, A. J., 568 Smith, S. E., 610 Parham, I. A., 70 Reschly, D.J., 155,335,343,585 Schinka,J. A., 137, 225 Smith, T. D., 381 Parides, M., 552 Rethazi, M., 213 Schmitt, F. A., 68 Smith, T. S., 68 Parker, J., 614 Reynolds, C.R., 32, 83, 139, Schneider, F. W., 35, 42 Smith, W. L., 564 Parker, K. C.H., 615,618 152-157, 166, 183, 189, 190, Schock, H. H., 425 Smith, W.R., 198 Parsons, C. K., 54 193, 196, 197,199,200,203, Schoenherr, S., 570, 574 Smith-Seemiller, L., 548, 551 Parsons, 0. A., 562 206,207,210,211,228,230, Schooler, C., 74 Smithson, M . M., 381 Paterson, D. G., 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 27, 237,238,240,243,256,257, Schoop, L., 548 Snyder,]., 269,472, 475-477, 99 260,262,264-270,273, Schonfeld, R., 552 480,620,625 Patten, M . D., 612 276-282,285,286,289,303, Schorr, D., 202, 467 Snyderrnan, M., 74 Patton,]. R., 586 435,436,458,476,510,519, Schuerger,J. M., 66 Solovitch, S., 91 Pauls, K. K., 303 540, 546, 551,558,562,563, Schulte, L. E., 608 Sowles, G., 558 Payne, J. S., 586 582,594,596,597,600,606, Schwake, C., 548 Sparrow, S.S., 23, 89,580,600 Pearson, K., 13 5 607,613,619, 624 Schwanz, K. A., 192 Spearman, C., 12, 27, 35 Pearson, L. S., 344 Rice, M., 560 Schwartz, E., 569 Spelberg, H. C. L., 610 Pearson, N. A., 455 Richardson, K., 28 Schwartz, W., 569 Spellacy, F., 71,615 Pelligrino,]. W., 28 Richman, L. C., 567 Schwean, V. L., 111, I 12 Spence, G. T., 567 Perloff, R., 65, 84, 85, 538 Richters,]. E., 64 Scott, M. J., 234 Spenciner, L. J., 368, 378, 382 Perry, J. D., 429 Ried, H. L., 569 Scott, M. R., 552 Sperry, R. W., 211, 264 Peterson, H . D., 549 Ripple, C. H., 79 Segal, N. L., 74, 80, 86 Spitz, H. H., 2, 6, 79, 584, 586 Peterson, L., 566 Risser, A.H., 546,547,552 Seguin 77 Spreen, 0 ., 546,547,552 Peterson, N. S. , 132 Rivara,]. B., 564 Seidenburg, M., 614 Springer, S. P., 202 Petoskey, M. D. 467 Robin, D. A., 564 Seifer, R., 69 Spruill, J., 249, 626 P£ohl, W. 619 Rogers, B. G., 393 Sellers, A.H., 561 Stanford, L. D., 564 Pheley, A., 55I Rogg, K. L., 624 Semrud-Clikeman, M., 563,592, Stankov, L., 38 Phelps, L., 234, 451 Roid, G. H., 156,187,452,454 597 Stanovich, K. E., 171,228,464, Piaget, J., 52 Rose, D. F., 549 Severson, H. H., 287 471,476,480,592,595,599 Pianta, R. C., 68 Rose, F. E., 561 Sexson, D., 429 Stehbens,J. A., 569 Piedmont, R. L., 617 Rosen, J. C., 188 Sexson, S., 563 Stein, C. L., 99, 100, 111 Pine, D.S., 552 Rosenthal, B. L., 237,238,240, Shadrach, E. A., 619 Steinberg, L., 74 Pintner, R., 3, 6, 7, 21, 27, 81, 243,249,256,257 Shafer, S., 552 Sternberg, R.J., IO, 26, 27, 51, 82,518 Ross, G. R., 427 Shaffer, D., 552, 564-566 58, 65, 84, 85, 158,210,229, Piotrowski 292 Roszkowski, M.J., 618 Shapiro, E. G., 211 263, 269, 292, 538 Pizzo, P.A., 576 Rothlisberg, B. A., 233, 235 Shapiro, S. K., 621 Stevens, J. J., 545 Plake, B., S., 613 Rothman, S., 74 Sharp, D. W., 59 Stevens, M. L.," 6 I9 Plante, T. G., 206 Rourke, B. P., 599 Sharp, G., 567 Stevenson, H. W., 82 Plasket, C. M., 607 Royer, F. L., 467 Shaywitz, B. A., 592, 599 Stierwalt, J. A., 564 Platt, L. 0. 604 Ruchala, E., 37 Shaywitz, S. E., 599 Stigler, J. W., 82 Platzman, K. A., 86 Rucker, C. N., 503 Shellenberger, S., 209 Stock,). R., 418 Plomin, R., 69, 75-77, 84, 90 Rudner, L. M., 178 Shepard, L., 444 Stokman, C., 552 Plotkin, L., 24 Russell, L.B., 465, 466, 497 Shephard, L.A., 59I, 594 Stough, C., 37 Polissar, N. L., 564 Rutter, M., 564-566 Sherman, E. M. S., 71,615 Stovall, D . L., 366 Pollitt, E., 7I Ruyrnann, F. B., 569 Shiffrin, R. M., 56 Strauss, E., 71,615 Porter, L. J., 457 Ruyrnann, R., 569 Shinn, M., 86 Street, R. F., 273 Pottebaum, S. M., 89, 90,237, Ryan,].)., 293,295,617 Short, R.H., 474,475 Strommen, E., 618 238,269,270,624 Ryan, T. V., 564, 565 Shurtleff, H., 564 Sue, S., 82, 163 Potthoff, R. F., 157 Siegal, L. S., 71,427,471,599 Suen, H. K., 34, 131 Prenskv, A. L., 567 Saamio, D. A., 606 Siegel, M.J., 570 Sullivan, M. P., 569 Prewett, P. N., 233,235,236, Saco-Pollitt, C., 71 Siegert, R. J., 612 Sullivan, M. W., 419, 445 370,392,446,461,625,626 Saddler, C. D., 439 Siler, R. F., 607 Sullivan, P. M., 210,456, 581, Price, L., 349, 621 Saklofske, D. H., Ill, 112,184, Silva, P.A., 37, 68 608 Prieto, L. R., 551 187,215 Silverstein, A. B., 190,214,295, Sullivan, S. A., 324 Prifitera, A., 184,187,215,296, Salles, C., 366 612,614 Sulzbacher, S., 547 299 Salovey, P., 51, 52 Simon, C . L., 295 Sutter, E.G., 608, 609 Prior, M., 566 Saltstone, R., 615 Simon,]. M., 466 Svinicki, J., 418 Salvia,]., 263,286 Simon, T., 7, 8, 22, 29, 33, 98, Swift, A. V., 574 Querrv, S., 99, 100, 111 Sameroff, A., 69 99 Swisher, C. W., 616 Quinn, D., 111, 112 Sanchez, V. C., 551 Singer, L. T., 427 Switzky, H. N., 54, 63 Sandoval,]., 146, 155, 166 Sinisterra, L., 86 Rader, D. E., 423,424 Sapp, G . L, 233,235,409 Sinnett, E. R., 624 Tabachnik, B. G., 597 Rafferty, Y., 86 Sarason, S. B., 94, JOO Sisco, F. H., 456 Talent, B. K., 567 Raguet, M. L., 68 Sassenrath,J. M., 151, 152, 188 Siskind, G., 500 Tallent, N., 499-503, 505, 507, Ramey, C. T., 54, 65, 74, 79 Sato, Y., 564 Skeels, M., 72 509,521 Ramev, S. L., 65, 79 Sattler,]. M., 97, 100, 103, 104, Skodak, M., 72 Taylor, A.J. W., 612 Rand,"Y., 78 110, 123, 231 - 241, 237,238, Slate,]. R., 194, 409, 439, 606, Taylor, L. H., 268 Rankin, R. J., I62 248,256,257,434,474,624 607 Taylor, R. L., 433, 445 Rapaport, D., 497, 595,597,601 Sawyer, M. B., 560, 566 Slaughter, J., 548 Teeter, P.A., 432 Ratcliffe, K. ]., 453 Saxby, L., 546, 547 Slocumb, P.R., 433, 445 Teglasi, H., 499, 505, 524, 525, Ratcliffe, M. W., 453 Scarr, S., 72, 75,420 Slosson, R. L., 363-365 531, 535 Raven, J. C., 460 Schafer, R., 497, 595, 597, 601 Smith, B. L., 381 Telzrow, C. F., 434, 435, 543, Read, S. E., 576 Schaie,K W., 69, 70, 87 Smith, C.R., 591 545,558 Reilly, T. P., 188 Schalt, E., 37 Smith, D. K., 366, 432, 435, 436 Temkin, N ., 547 AUTHOR INDEX 669

Terman, L. M., 9, 10, 29, 344 Valsiner,J., 27, 59-61 Weinberg, R. A., 32, 35, 63, 72, Wise, S. L., 613 Tharp, B. R., 567 Vance, H . B., 156,381 75, 76 Wisenbaker, J.M., 574 Thomas, M. G., 106 Van de Vijver, F., 165 Weiss, B., 578,581,582 Wissler, C., 5, 6 Thomas, P., 567 Van den Berg, A. R., 151, 152, Weiss, L. G., 184, 187, 188, Witt, A. C., 66 Thomason, D., 621 158 215 Win,]. C., 66,183,229 Thompson, B., 429 Vanderberg, S. G., 38, 74, 75, Weisz,]. R., 578,581,582 Wirta, E. L., 192 Thompson, D. S., 89, 90, 584 84,88 Wellman, H. M., 57 Wnek, L., 418 Thompson, G. B., 611 Vanderploeg, R. D., 137,225 Wells, R. J., 570, 574 Wolf, T. H., 8, 10 Thompson, N., 560 Vanderwood, M., 298,316 Weng, L., 546 Wolfie, L. M., 333 , 336,623 Thomson,]., 547 Vandiviere, P., 428 Werder,J. K., 382,403,404 Wolters, P. L., 575, 576 Thorndike, E. L., 21 Van Lingen, G., 455,456 Wesman, A.G., 22, 27, 29, 156, Woodard, A., 569 Thorndike, R. L., 34, 123, 152, Vasey, M., 551 476 Woodcock, R. W., 140,292, 153,231-241,248,256,434 Vaught, S. 55 Weyand, K., 233, 235 332, 335, 337, 338,342,382, Thorndike, R. M., 2, 33, 40, 136, Veitia, M., 612 Weyandt, L. L., 539, 543 399,403,404 241,256,257,293,294,434, Vernon, P.A., 27 Whang, P . A., 153 Woodyard, E., 21 465,606,615 Vernon, P. E., 22, 29, 35, 41, 63, Whelley, P., 349,621 Woo-Sam,]. M., 183, 196, 197, Thurlow, M . L., 436 190,208,232 Wherry, R.J., 156 204,217,506,531, 535 Thurstone, L. L., 42, 63 Vogler, G. P., 38, 74, 75, 84, 88 Wherry, R. J., Jr., 156 Work, R. L., 80 Thuscott, S. D., 610 Von Mayrhauser, T ., 5, 11, 23 Whitaker, H . A., 549 Worrall, W ., 156 Toogood, I., 560 Vygotsky, L. S., 285 White, L.J., 237,238,624 Worthington, C. F., 399 Topinka, C. W., 619 White, R. F., 561 Wright, D ., 88, 157 Torrance, E. P., 50 Wada,]., 264 Whitfill,]. M., 624 Wurtz, E., 444 Townes, B. D., 612 Waggoner, C., 612 Whin,J. K., 569,570,574 Trad, P. V., 610 W a ldman, I. D ., 295,614 Whitworth, R.H., 295,614 Tramontana, M. G., 547,553,563 Wallbrown, F. H ., 156, 189 Wiederholt, ]. L., 455 Yackulic, R. A., Ill, 112 Traub, M., 565 190,499,500,536,604,615, Wielkiewicz, R. M., 611 Yaple, K. , 238,257,625 Trautman, P., 552 616 Wiener,]., 503, 505 Yarbrough, D ., 567 T remont, G., 137 Wallbrown,]., 189, 190 Wilkinson, G. S., 378, 380 Ysseldyke, J. E., 335,336, 343, T rent, D., 617 Waller, N. G., 295,614 Williams,]. M., 551,567,569, 436 Troupin, A. S., 568 Walconen, S., 261 575 , 576 Tucker, G.D., 370 Warner, M. H., 566,567,612 Williams, K. S., 569, 575, Tudor-Williams, G ., 576 Wasik, B. H., 65, 74 576 Zachary, R. A., 294 Tulsky, D.S., 296, 299 Waskerwitz, M.J., 569 Williams, M . A., 548,554, Zajonc, R. B., 85 Tuma,J. M., 534 Watkins, M. W ., 328 55 7-559,561, 564,566 Zarantonello, M. M., 295 Tupper, D. E., 552, 553 Watson, B. U., 451 Willis, W . G ., 539, 543, 546, Zelko, F. A., 261,619 Tzuriel, D., 55 Watson, T. S., 367 548,553 Zheng, L., 293 Waxman, S, G., 592 Willson, V. L., 156,270,619 Zhong,L.,617 Ulissi, S. M., 457 Weaver, K. A., 233, 235 Wilson, A. K., 213 Zhu, J., 296, 299 Urbina, S., 49, 50, 63, 65, 84, 85, Webster, R. W., 607 Wilson, B., 68, Zigler, E., 79 116, 135, 538 Wechsler, D., 22, 33, 104, 105, Wilson, C., 257 Zimmerman, I. L., 99, IOI, 183 , U zgiris, I. C., 53, 63 108, 182, 184-187, 189, 191, Wilson, W . M ., 626 196,197, 204,217,228,499, 195,206,214,217,227, 228, Winfield, F. D., 80 506,531,535 Valencia, R.R., 162, 280, 233,292-297,303-305,309, Winick, M., 86 Zins, J. E., 286 430-433, 444,445 446,456,538,606 Winn, H. R., 564 Zuckerman, M., 83, 160, 161 SUBJECT INDEX

Abbreviations in report writing, stability oftest scores and, K-ABC in, 261-262 instructions for, 505 140 Auditory short-term memory, comprehension of, Ability, 35 test interval and, 65-69 K-ABC and, 269 240-241 achievement and discrepancies test selection and, 175-181 Averages, 117 (see also Central interpretation of, 248-2 50 between, 594 Age differentiation validity, 13 3 tendency) factor analysis and, 256-257 definition of, 35,351 (see also specific tests) in preschool assessment, Ability levels, reliability and, 128 ceiling effects and, 139 433-434 Accommodation, in Piaget's Age equivalents, 124 Background information mean differences with other theory, 52 Agreement, correlation versus, collection of, 95-96 tests and, 233-234 Achievement 127 in report writing, 521, psychometric properties of, ability and, discrepancies Alcohol, fetal exposure to, 86-87 524-525 234-238 between, 476 American Educational Research Battle Developmental Inventory reliability of, 234-235 intelligence as a type of, 477 Association (BDI), administration and report writing and, 250-251 intelligence versus, K-ABC test standards of, 167-175 scoring and, 428-429 standard score scale of, 241 and,264-265 American Psychological Associa- reliability and, 429 standardization sampling and, Acronyms, in report writing, tion Ethnic Principles of standardization and, 429 232-233 505 Psychologists of, 175 validity and, 429-430 strengths of, 258 Activity requirements for, in test standards of, 167-175 Bayley Scales ofInfant subtests of, 244-248 young children, 112-114 Anastasi's theory ofintelligence, Development-Second in abstract/visual reasoning Adaptive behavior, 89 49-50 Edition (BSID-11) area, 245-247 intelligence versus, 584 Anoxia, 86 reliability and, 425 in quantitative reasoning Adaptive behavior scales, mental APA (see American Psychological standardization and, 425 area, 244-245 retardation and, 579-580 Association) validity and, 425-426 in short-term memory area, Adaptive testing, in Binet-4, 240 Approval (see Praise) Behavior 247-248 Adjusted goodness-of-fit index, Architectural system, 55 (in Adaptive (see Adaptive in verbal reasoning area, in confirmatory factor Borkowski's cognitive behavior) 242-244 analysis, 13 5 developmental model) age ofchild and, 99-101 theoretical basis of, 231-232 Administration procedure, Area Scores, Binet-4 and, characteristics of examiner, validity of, 235-238 105-107 (see also specific controversy about, rapport with, 98-10I weaknesses of, 259 tests) 237-238 examples of,,for meaning Wechsler research and, 238 creating interest and Army Alpha, 13-21 clarification in reports, Binet-4 Standard Age Scores, motivation in, 101 Army Beta, 13-21 508-509 normal curve and, 118 cuing responses in, 104 Assessment, purpose of, test examples of, for meaning Binet-Simon scale developments in testing, 292 selection and, 17 5-181 observations of(see breakthrough of, 6-7 general scoring principles, Assessment ethics, I 75 Observations) content validity and, 8 107-108 Assessment procedures, report on-task, reinforcement of, 1905 version of, 7 infants and, 112 writing and, 521 103-104 Binet's test, Piagetian intelligence maintaining on-task behavior Assessment process, 94-115 (see test session, validity of, 105 and, 53 and, 103 also specific assessment young children and, 99-101 Binet Subtest Score, 241 observations and, 108-1 10 instruments: Test entries) Behavioral goals, in triarchic Birth order, intelligence problems in, 110 background information theory, 59 relationship to research rapport establishment with, collection in, 95-96 Bell-shaped curve, 118-119 on,86 98-99 beginning ofsession in, 101-102 Bias, 153-158 (see also Item bias; Birth weight, 86 recording ofresponses, clinical skill acquisition for, Test bias) Brain-behavior relationships 108-109 94-95 selection, 140 (see Neuropsychological standardized, adherence to, general administration Binet, Alfred assessment) 105-106 procedures in, 106-110 biography of, 8 Breaks, during test session, testing the limits and, 107 practical aspects of, 101-104 theory ofintelligence of, 35 97 timing ofassessment and, 97 problems in, 110-111 Binet-4 young children and, 99-101 rapport establishment in, administration and scoring of, Adoption studies, 72-76 98-99 239-241 CAK (Concept assessment Kit- of environmental determinants, testing environment and, case study of, 251-255 Conservation), 54 72-74 96-98 Composite score, normal curve Calculations (see Psychometric ofgenetic effects, 74-76 Assessment results (see Scores) and, 118 principles; specific type) Adults (see also Age) interpretation and, in reporting area scores and, 237-238 minimization of, 469 developments in testing, 292 writing, 525 derived scores in, 241 Canalization,54-55 Age (see Infants; Young children) Assimilation, in Piaget's theory, developmental factors in, Carroll's three stratum theory, floor and ceiling effects and, 52 238 43-49 139 Asymmetrical confidence bands, exceptional children and, Cattell's dichotomy genetic effects and, 74-76 131 236 and KAIT, 317-318, 328 growth and decline of, 69-71 Attention Deficit hyperactivity factor analysis of, 236-238 Cause and effect relationships, rapport establishment and, disorder (ADHD) general intelligence and, inference of, 496 112-114 confounding effects and, 112 231-232, 237 Ceiling effects, 139

670 SUBJECT INDEX 671

Central tendency, measures of, Concordant correlational Criterion variable, predictor subtests of, 346 11 7 (see also Mean) relationship, 74 variable versus, intelligence theory and features of, Cerebral lateralization, 546--547 Concurrent validity, 132 training and, 76-77 344- 345 (see also Hemispheric ofKAIT, 323-325 Crystallized abilities, fluid validity of, 348-349 specialization) ofWAIS-Ill, 300-301 abilities and Cattell's Differential Ability Scales (DAS) Children ofWISC-Ill, 187-188 theory of, 42-43, 70 Nonverbal Scale, 458-459 feedback session with, 53 5 Confidence intervals (confidence Trajectory ofintellectual Differential Ability Scales School rapport with, 98-101 bands), 130-131 development and, Achievement Tests Chi-square statistics, in asymmetrical, 13 1 70-71 (DASACH) confirmatory factor in report writing, 510, 518 Cuing, of responses, 104-105 administration and scoring of, analysis, 135-136 symmetrical, 13 I Cultural differences, 158-165 386-387 China, testing in, 293 Confirmatory factor analysis, (see also Environment; reliability of, 387 Classification systems, in report 135-136 Multicultural assessment) standardization of, 387 writing, 518-520 Confluence model, birth order courts and, 146-150 validity of, 387-389 Clinical assessment, process of and,85-86 culturologic interview, 164 Discordant correlational (see Assessment process) Construct validity, 131-136 problems in constructing relationship, 74 Clinical skill, acquisition of, bias in, 155-156 equivalent test for, Discriminant validity, 132- 134 94-95 Consumer, viewpoint of, about 162-163 Dishabituation, 424-426 Clinician reports, 503-505 scientific studies of, 153-158 Disruptive behavior, 88, 112 adherence of, to standardized Content test bias and, 153-158 Divergent production, 50 procedures, 105-106 process versus, K-ABC and, Cumulative deficits, 71-72, Documentation (see Report attitude of, motivation of child 265 31 writing; Written record) and, 101 in structure ofintellect model, Cumulative family risk, 87 Doing,talking versus, rapport cuing by, 104 50 establishment and, praising by (see Praise) test score differences and, DAS (see Differential Ability 99-101 Coefficient Alpha, 124 140-141 Scales) Drugs Cognition, information verbal versus nonverbal, Data sources, multiple inADHD, 112 processing approach to, 56 WISC-Ill and, I91-193 collection and integration of Dunedin multidisciplinary health Cognitive ability, definition of, Content validity, 131-132 data from, 469-471 and development study, 34 bias in, 154-158 conclusion corroboration with, 68 Cognitive Assessment System Binet-Simon scale and, 8 470 Dynamic assessment models (see (CAS), 543-546 ofK-ABC, 268 Debriefing, 111-112 LPAD) Cognitive deficits, acute Contextual subtheory, of Declarative memory, 57, 63 arguments against, 78 lymphocytic leukemia triarchic theory, 59 Deficits, cumulative, 13 I arguments for, 78-79 and,568-570 Contextualist nature of Depression, confounding effects wne of proximal development Cognitive development intelligence, 58-62 and, 112 and, 61 maternal alcohol use during (see also Environment) Developmental ages (see Mental Dyslexia (see Reading disability) pregnancy and, 86--87 Convergent production, 50 age) Piaget's theory of, 52-54 Convergent validity, I33-134 Development~! disabilities Cognitive-developmental model, Cooperation, IOI (see Mental retardation; Ecology ofintelligence, 60-61 55-56 Correcmess, praise for, praise for specific disabilities), Education (see Schooling) information processing theory effort versus, 103-104 66 WAIS-III and educational and, 56--58 Correlation, 126-127 Developmental, intellectual, attainment, 303 Cognitive tasks, elementary, multiple, 127 trajectory of, 69-71 Education for All Handicapped reaction time and, 36-37 reliable specific variance and, Development status Child Act (PL 94-142), Colleagues, report writing for, 129 assessment of, at all ages, (see IDEA) 510 test score differences and, 420-421 Educational remediation Columbia Mental Maturity Scale 139-140 intelligence versus, in research, K-ABC and, reliability and, 459 with other tests, 132-133 preschool assessment, 286--287 standardization and, 459 Correlation coefficients, 420 Effort, praise for, 102-103 validity and, 459 126--127 Developmental theories of Eisegesis, report writing and, Composite score hypotheses (see in studies ofgenetjc effects intelligence, 52-55 501-502 Interpretation) 74-76 Deviation IQ, 119 (see also Elementary cognitive tasks, Comprehensive Test of Non- problems with, 12 7 Standard score) reaction time and, verbal Intelligence reliability coefficient, normal curve and, 118 36- 37 (CTONI) 127-128 Dianna v. State Board of Emotional Intelligence, 51 - 52 reliability and, 45 5 twin studies, 74 Education, 147-148 Environment (see Socioeconomic standardization and, 45 5 Correlation matrix, in factor Difference scores status (SES) validity and, 45 5 analysis, 13 5 (see also reliability of, 141 context of, in triarchic theory, Concept Assessment Kit- Factor analysis) Differential Ability Scales (DAS) 59 Conservation (CAK), 54 Court cases, 146-150 (see also administration and scoring of, determinants ofintelligence Conclusions, 485 specific case) 346-347 in, 72-74 aposteriori, 481-484 Covariance, correlation case study of, 352-357 ecological theories of, 58-62 apriori, 481-484 coefficients and (see factor analysis of, 349-350 genetics and, in transactional corroboration of, with Correlation coefficients) "g" loadings for, 345 theory, 54-55 multiple data sources, Creod for high intelligence, in preschool assessment, intelligence in, 60-61 469-472, 484-48; transactional theory and, 441-442 specific influences, in, 72-73 failure to draw, 495 54-55,63 interpretation of, 350-352 for testing, 96--97 reliability of, 473-479 Criterion-related validity, nonverbal scale and, 458-459 Epilepsy, 566--568 (see also support of, with research, 132-134 (see also reliability of, 348 Seizure Disorders) 472 specific tests) standardization sampling and, Equivalent tests, construction of validity of, 473-479 of WAIS-III, 301 347-348 problems in, 162-163 672 SUBJECT INDEX

Error variance, 40 Wechsler's view's on, 182-184 Hypothesis testing, apriori, 481-484 difference scores and, 141 "g" (general intelligence) loadings nonstandardized cause and effect relationships reliable specific variance versus, (see specific tests) procedures and, 107 and,496 129 in factor analysis, 39-41 empirical findings in, 472 Ethics Gain scores, reliability of, 141 "In-basket" tests, 62 evidence and, 465-466 assessment, 175 Galton, Sir Francis, 4-5 Individualization, of failure to draw conclusions and, standards of practice and, Gardner's Theory, 51 interpretation, 22-23 495-496 167-175 Gaussian curve, 118, 139 Inductive reasoning, 58 five "easy" steps and, 484-485 Ethnic differences, 81-84 (see also Gender differences, 84 Infants (see Young children) functional impairments and Multicultural assessment) General intelligence ("g") anoxia in, 86 strengths and, 479-481 Etiologies, in report writing, (see "g") assessment of, 66, 422-423 history of, 467-468 509 Genetics assessment process for, individualization of, 22-23 Examiner (see Clinical entries; effects on intelligence of, 112-114 in report writing, 525 Clinician) 74-76 as specialty, 421-422 integrative method of, Examples, use of, in reports, environment and, in birth weight of, 86 468-479 508-509 transactional theory, information processing by, iterative and, 469 Exceptional children (see specific 54-55 426-427 level versus type and, 480 tests) malleability versus, 76-81 tests for, 424-427 multiple data sources and, Identification of rare mild race differences and, 81-84 Information 469-472 handicaps and, 591 Goodness-of-fit index, in Background (see Background neuropsychological theories of, Executive system, 55 (in confirmatory factor information) 539-547 Borkowski's cognitive- analysis, 13 5 identification of, report norm-referenced (see Norm- developmental model) Grade equivalents, 124-125 writing, 521 referenced entries) Exosession validity, 105 Guilford's strncture ofintellect pertinence of, in report writing, referral questions and, 469 Experiential subtheory, in model, 50 505 retesting and, 496 triarchic theory, 59 Information processing theory, Picture Arrangement exemplar Experimental psychology, early Habituation, 426-427 56 and,466-467 developments in, 4 Halstead's Biological Intelligence, cognitive-developmental model psychometrics in, 473-479 Explanatory factor analysis, 134 539-540 of, 55 sample case of, 495 confirmatory analysis versus, Head Start research, 79-82 Kyllonen and Alluisi's model science-based practice and, 135-136 Hemispheric specialization, of, 57 468 546-547 metacognition in, 57 substandard practices and, Factor analysis, 39-41,134-136 Heritability index, 76-77 (see also triarchic theory and, 58-60 464-465 (see also specific tests) Genetics) Instrnctions, comprehension of, theory in, 472-473 ofBinet-4, 236-238 Hiskey-Nebraska Tests of 423-424 untested interpretations and, confirmatory, 13 5-136 Learning aptitude Binet-4 and, 240-241 467 of DAS, 349-350 (HNTLA) Integrative method ofinterpreta- Interviews, results of, in report "g" loadings in, 136-137 reliability and, 451 tion (see Interpretation) writing, 525 ofK-ABC, 269-270 standardization and, 451 Intelligence (sfe Theories) IQ ofKAIT, 325 validity and, 451-452 adaptive behavior versus, concept of, introduction of, 9 TBOG and, 105 History ofintelligence testing 584 demise of, 24-25 of WAIS-III, 301-302 age of theory in, 25-26 definitions of, 27 deviation (see Deviation IQ) of\VISC-R, 189-191 American work in, 5-6 growth and decline of, 69-71 ratio, formula for, 10 of\VISC-III, 191-194 Binet-Simon breakthrough in, low, 77-81 (see also Low Item bias, 153-158 Factor loading, 39-41 6-7 intelligence; Mental K-ABC and, 154-155, 368 Fagan Test oflnfant Intelligence, definitions ofintelligence in, retardation) \VISC-III and, 187 426-427 27 research findings about, Item response theory scaling Fairness in testing, 173-174 demise ofIQ in, 24-25 64-90 (see also research methods, 125-126 Family (see Parents) early development in, 3-4 findings) Items Head Start research and, size experimental psychology and, trainability of, 77-79 content differences in, differ- of, decline in scores with, 4-5 Intelligence quotient (see IQ) ences in scores and, 140 79-81 IDEA and, 25 Intelligence screeners (see sources of, for preschool Feedback session, with child, in 1920s, 12-21 Screeners ofScreening) assessment, 419---420 535 "Intelligent Testing" in, Intelligence testing (see History Fetal alcohol exposure, 86-87 22-23 ofintelligence testing) Jensen's theory of reaction time, Feuerstein's approach to in World War I years, 13-21 scores and (see Scores) 36-37 trainability, 78-79 Larry P. v. Riles and, 25 Intelligent testing, 22-23 Floor effects, 139 Mergers oftheory and Intercorrelation matrix, in factor Kaufman Adolescent and Adult Fluid abilities, crystallized intelligence testing in, analysis, 39, 13 5 Intelligence Test (KAIT) abilities and Cattell's 25-26 Interest, creation of, for test administration of, 326 theory of, 42-43, 63 recent, 24-28 session, 101 Auditory Comprehension trajectory ofintellectual · societal need and, 6 Internal consistency coefficients, subtest of, 319-320 development and, 70-71 tests of the 1800s, 6 124 Definitions subtest of, 318-319 Flynn Effect, 73-74, 138-139 Wechsler's tests in, 21-22 Internet addresses Double Meanings subtest of, Friends, testing of, 113 HIV infection, 575-576 for making recommendations, 320 Frontal lobe, 543-544 Hobson v. Hansen, 146-147 527-531 Famous Faces subtest of, 321 Furniture, in testing room, 96-97 Horn's theory, 42-43 for test publishers, 142 Interpretation of, 327-329 and KAIT, 317-318, 328 for test reviews, 142 Logical Steps subtest of, 319 "g" (general intelligence), 35-36 Hyperactivity (see Attention Interpretation (see specific tests) Memory for Block Designs Cattell's two types, 42-43 Deficit Disorder aposteriori, 481-484 (see also subtest of, 321 factor analysis and, 39-41 (ADHD) Conclusions) Mental Status subtest of, 322 reaction time and, 36-37 Hypotheses, 481-485 (see also application ofpsychological Mystery Codes subtest of, Spearman's theory and, 35-36 Conclusions) science, 468 320 SUBJECT INDEX 673

psychometric properties of, Triangles subtest of, 273-274 Low birth weight, 86 Mode, 117 322-326 validity of, 267-270 Low intelligence (see Mental Morber (see Family; Parents) Rebus Delayed Recall subtest developmental changes in, Retardation) alcohol use by, during of, 320-321 267 "curing," 77-81 pregnancy, 86-87 Rebus Learning subtest of, weaknesses of, 288 LPAD, 78-79 (see also Learning Motivation 319 Work Order subtest of, 274-275 Potential Assessment creation of, for test session, IO 1 reliability of, 323 Device (LAPD)) enhancement of, reinforcement scoring of, 326---327 Kaufman Assessment Battery for Luria's Functional Systems in, l02-I03 standardization of, 322 Children (K-ABC) Non- Model, 543-544 intelligence and, 88 strengths and weaknesses of, Verbal Scale, 288 depiction of, 542 Motor assessment, 554 329-330 Kaufman BriefIntelligence Test PASS model and, 543-546 Multiculmral assessment, structure of, 318 (K-BIT) 158-165 (see also Culmral subtests of, 318-322 administration and scoring of, McCarthy, Dorothea, differences) theoretical foundation of, 367-368 contributions of, 22 multilingual children and, 317-318 reliability of, 367 McCarthy Scales ofChildren's 161-165 validity of, 323 standardization of, 365 Abilities SOMPA and, 150-152 Kaufman Assessment Battery for validity of, 368-371 reliability and, 431-432 Multilingual children, assessment Children (K-ABC) Kaufman Test ofEducational screeners and, 432-433 ot; 161-165 adaptive behavior and, 89 Achievement (K-TEA) standardization and, 431 Multiple correlation, 12 7 in ADHD, 261-262 administration and scoring of, validity and, 432 reliable specific variance and, administration and scoring, 393-395 Malleability 129 270-271 reliability of, 395-396 genetic determination versus, Multiple responses, scoring and, Arithmetic subtest of, 277-278 standardization of, 395 76---77 107-108 behavioral observation of, 283 validity of, 396-399 research on, 76---77 case smdy of, 283-284 Knowledge, 89 Malnutrition, 86 Naps, testing session and, 112 content validity of, 132 Knowledge acquisition Marshall v. Georgia, 149 Namre versus nurmre, 72-74 convergent/discriminant components, in Matrix Analogies Test (see also Environment; validity of, 133-134 triarchic theory, 58-59 reliability and, 461 Genetics) educational remediation Knowledge, metacognitive, standardization and, 461 NCE (normal curve equivalent), research and, 286---287 56---58 validity and, 461 123 exceptional children and, Kyllonen and Alluisi's information Mamrity, social (see Adaptive Negative correlation, 126 284-286 processing model, 57 behavior) Neurological soft signs, 552-553 Expressive Vocabulary subtest Mean, 117 Neuropsychological assessment of, 276---277 Language regression toward (see approachesto,554-562 Face Recognition subtest of, multilingual children and, Regression effects) Children's Memory Scale and, 272 assessment of, 162-163 Mean score differences, culmral 555 Faces & Places subtest of, 277 in report writing, 506 differences and, 15 3 fixed battery approach and, factor analysis of, 269-270 Larry P. v. Riles, 148 Measurement (see Psychometric 556 general intelligence and, 13 6 Latent trait, definition of, 34-35 principles, specific methods flexible battery approach and, Gestalt Closure subtest of, 273 Latent trait scores, 125-126 or measurement issues) 559,561 Hand Movements subtest of, Law (see specific cases; specific Median, 117 general intelligence and, 272 laws) Medication 562-563 interpretation of, 279-284 Learning disabilities (see inADHD, 112 Halstead-Reitan Magic Window subtest of, 271 Exceptional children) Memory, 554 Neuropsychological Matrix Analogies subtest of, ability achievement declarative, 57-63 Battery for Children 275 discrepancies and, 594 procedural, 57, 63 (HRNB-C), and 556-558 Nonverbal scale of, 288, case smdy of, 592 short-term, K-ABC and, 269 HN infection and, 575-576 457-458 composite scores, selection of, working and, 56---57 Leukemia and, 568-570 Number Recall subtest of, 273 594-595 Mental abilities, primary, case smdy of, 571-573 organization of, 265-266 definitions of, 591-592 Thurstone's, 42 Luria-Nebraska Neuro- Photo Series subtest of, 276 dyslexia, 592-593 (see also Mental age, 10 (see also Age psychological Battery- in preschool assessment, Reading Disability) entries) Children's Revision and, 434-436 heterogeneity of, 597 Mental retardation (see 559 psychometric properties of, measurement issues and, Exceptional Children; NEPSY and, 558-560 266-271 597-598 Low intelligence) Neurodevelopmental Reading/Decoding subtest of, profile analysis and, 595-597 adaptive behavior scales and, considerations and, 278 scatter and, 598 579-580 547-551 Reading/Understanding subtest trends in, 598-599 assessment procedures for, 590 ofchildren, 551-562 of, 279 Learning Potential Assessment case smdy of, 586-589 premorbid functioning and, reliability of, 267 Device (LPAD), 78-79 definition of, 578-579 . 548-551 reviews of, 263-264 arguments against, 78 diagnosis of, 579, 586 "hold-don't hold" and, Riddles subtest of, 278 arguments for, 78-79 intelligence and, 579 550-551 short forms of, 287 dynamic assessment and, 78-79 levels of, 580-581 seizure disorders and, 566-568 Spatial Memory subtest of, Leiter International Performance profile research and, 581-582 Sickle Cell Anemia and, 570, 275-276 Scale-Revised (Leiter-R) range ofscores and, 585 574-575 standard score scale of, 266 reliability and, 45 3 regression effects and, 584-585 skills assessed in, 554 standardization sampling and, standardization and, 453 scores and, selection of, 582-583 Test ofMemory and Learning 266-267 validity and, 453-454 Metacognition, 56---58 and, 555 strengths of, 288 Leukemia, cognitive deficits and, Metacomponential processes, traumatic brain injury and, subtests of, 271-279 568-570 in triarchic theory, 58 564-566 supplementary scales in, 266 case smdy of, 571-573 Minority groups (see Culmral Wide Range Assessment of theoretical framework of, Local norms, 138 differences; Multiculmral Memory and Learning 262-265 ' Long-term memory, 56---57 assessment) and,555 674 SUBJECT INDEX

Neuropsychological theory, Planning-Attention-Simultaneous- Range, 117 score reporting in, 509, 539-547 Successive (PASS) model, mental retardation and, 585 520-521 Nonverbal intelligence testing 543-546 Rapport, establishment of with self-test in, 532 construct of, 446-447 Plasticity and intellectual child, 98-101 signatures in, 526 U.S. needs and, 447-448 function, 549-550 with parents and infant, 112 spelling in, 509 Normal curve, 11 7 Polygenetic determination, 76 Raven's Progressive Matrices, suggested practices for, 505-510 Norm-referenced scores, 119 Poor correlation, 127 reliability and, 460 summary in, 525-526 Norms Positive correlation, 126 standardization and, 460 Reporting, oral (see Oral age of, 138- 139 Practicality in test selection, validity and, 460 reporting) local, 138 175-181 Raw scores, 119 (see also Age Representative samples (see Numbers, in reporting writing, Practice effects, 68 differentiation validity) Standardization sampling) 502,506 differences in scores and, 141 Reaction time Research and development, Practice standards of, ethics and, "g" and, 36--38 history of, 2 (see also Observations 167-175 measures of, 36-37 History ofintelligence breaks during test and, 104 Praise, use of, 102-103 Reading disability, 592-593 testing) clinical skill and, 94-95 Predictive validity, 13 3 (see also Record (see Written record) Research findings of testing session, by parents, specific tests) Referral form, 503 on academic achievement and 97-98 bias in, 156--158 student, 504 intelligence, 88-89 recording ofobservations and, ofK-ABC, 268 Referral questions, in report on adaptive behavior and 109-111 ofWISC-III, 188-189 writing, 521 intelligence, 89- 90 in report writing, 525 Pregnancy, alcohol use during, failure to address, 502-503 on bias, 153-158 validity of test session behavior 86-87 Regression effects, 130-130 on birth order and intelligence, and, 105 Problem solving, information intelligence training and, 78 85-86 Obtained score, confidence band processing mental retardation and, on gender differences, 84 for, 130-131 components in, 56--58 584-585 on malleability versus genetic On-task behavior, reinforcement triarchic theory and, 58-59 selection bias and, 140 determination, 76-77 of, 103-104 Procedural memory, 57, 63 Reinforcement on motivation and intelligence, Operations, in structure of Process, content versus, K-ABC ofon-task behavior, 103-104 88 intellect model, 520 and,265 praise in, 102-103 on nature versus nurture, 77-77 Oral reporting, 531, 533- 535 Production use of, in testing, 102 on race differences, 81-84 in child feedback session, 535 convergent, 50 Relational terms, concepts of, on SES and intelligence, 84 in parent conferences, 53 1, divergent, 50 young children and, on stability ofintelligence test 533-534 Products, in structure ofintellect 423-424 scores, 65-72 in teacher conferences, 535 model, 50 Relative functionalism, race support of conclusions with, Otis, Arthur, World War I tests Profile analysis differences explained by, 472 and, 11 learning disabilities and, 82 on temperament and Outcomes (see Scores) 595-597 Reliability, 127-129 (see also intelligence, 88 mental retardation and, specific test; specific type on teratogenic/traumatic Parents (see Family; Mother) 581-582 ofreliability) factors, 86-88 conferences with, 531, Profile types, WISC-III, ofgain/difference scores, 141 Responses 533-534 characteristic, 215 perfect, 12 7 cuing of, 104 interaction with, 534 Psychometric intelligence, test score differences and, age multiple, scoring and, 107-108 presence of, during testing of Piagetian intelligence and, 140-141 recording of, 108 infants, in testing room, versus, 55 variables affecting, 128-129 speed of(see Reaction time) 97-98 Psychometric principles (see Reliability coefficient, 127-128 Retesting and, 496 PASE case, 148- 149 Scores; specific measures internal consistency, 128 Right hemisphere, specialization PASS model, 543-546 or psychometric issues) reliable specific variance and, (see Hemispheric Peabody Individual Achievement correlation, 126-127 129 specialization) Test-Revised (PIAT-R) measures ofcentral tendency, test-retest, 128 Risk, cumulative, 69 administration and scoring of, 117 Reliable specific variance, 129 Rochester longitudinal study, 389-390 measures ofvariability, 117, 119 (see also Subtest 69 reliability of, 391-392 normal curve, 118 specificity) Root mean square residual, in standardization of, 390-391 reliability, 127-129 Report length, 502 confirmatory factor validity of, 392-393 standardization sampling, Report writing (see Written analysis, 13 5 Peabody Picture Vocabulary 137-138 record; specific tests) Test-Third Edition test bias and, 153-158 adaptation to audience and Sampling, standardization (see (PPVT-III) validity, 131-137 serting in, 5I0 Standardization sampling) administration and scoring of, Psychometric standards, case study and, 511-517 Scaled scores (see Latent trait 360-361 167-175 confidence bands in, 510, scores; Standard scores) reliability of, 361 Psychophysical measures (see 517-518 Scatter plot standardization of, 361 History ofintelligence consumer's view of, 503 ofcorrelation coefficients, validity of, 361-363 testing) editing and, 507-508 126-127 Pearson product-moment Public Law 99-457, 419 examples in, 508-509 ofselection bias, 140 correlation coefficient, Public's theory ofintelligence, headings in, 508 Scheduling (see Assessment 126 32-33 internet resources and, procedures) Percentile rank, 123-124 P-values, 139 526--531 School report writing for, conversion table, 120-122 lists in, 508 515-517 normal curve and, 11 7 Questionnaires, background pitfalls of, 500-505 School-age children (see Age) standard score and, 123 information, 95-96 proposed format for, 521-531 rapport establishment with, Performance cornponents, in Questions, for elicitation of psychometric summary in, 531 98-101 triarchic theory, 58- 59 responses, 104 recommendations section in, Schooling, amount of, test scores Piaget's theory ofcognitive 526,531 and, 79-82 development, 55 Race differences, 81-84 (see also score classification schemes in, Score classification systems, in Planning, frontal lobe and, 543 Multicultural assessment) 518-520 report writing, 518-521 SUBJECT INDEX 675

Scores (see specific tests) Single subtest hypotheses, K-ABC interpretation of, 473-478 Test setting, 96-97 birth order and, 85 and,282-283 profile analysis of, for infants, 112 differences in interpretation of, Skills, definition of, 35 de-emphasizing, 473-478 Test standards, 167-175 141 Skodak and Skeels smdy, on shared hypotheses and, 473-478 Theories, 35-62 (see also specific for same child, 138-141 environmental (see also shared subtest theories; Intelligence, interpretation of(see determinants, 72 hypotheses) theories of) Interpretation) Slosson Intelligence Test- Subtest "Scaled Score" (see Therapeutic relationship, rapport mean, test bias and, 15 3 Revised (SIT-R) Standard score) versus, 99 mental retardation and, 585 administration and scoring of, Subtest scatter, WISC-III and, Therapeutic testing, 165 norm-referenced, 119 364-365 214-216, 226 Three-parameter scaling normal distribution of, 11 7 reliability of, 365 Subtest specificity, 129 techniques, 12 5 range of, 117 standardization of, 365 Successive processing (see Thurstone's primary mental reporting of, 520---5 21 validity of, 365-366 Sequential processing) abilities, 42 research and, 79-81 Social approval (see Praise) simultaneous processing versus, Time, concepts of, young stability of, 65 Social mamrity (see Adaptive 262-265 children and, 99-10I test selection and, l 75-18I behavior) Symmetrical confidence bands, Time limits, adherence to, 107 types of, 119-124 (see also Societal need, development of 131 Timing ofassessment, 97 specific type) intelligence testing and, 6 System ofMulticultural Three Stratum Theory verification of, report writing Socioeconomic status (SES) Pluralistic Assessment broad auditory perception and, 509 (see Environment) (SOMPA), 150---151 factor and, 46 Scoring (see Scores; specific as stratification variable, broad cognitive speediness tests) 137-138 Task, child's focus on, main- factor and, 47 general principles of, 107-108 cumulative deficits and, 87 taining, 103 broad retrieval factor and, Screeners or screening, 359-360 Soft signs, 552-553 Teachers, conferences with, 53 5 46-47 DAS ACH and, 386-389 SOMPA (System ofMulticultural Technical problems (see broad visual perception factor diagnostic achievement tests Pluralistic Assessment), Psychometric principles; and,46 versus, 378 150---151 specific problems) crystallized intelligence factor K-BITand, 367-371 Spatial/mechanical intelligence, Temperament, 88 and, 44-45 K-TEAand, 393-399 in Vernon's hierarchy, Temperament Assessment fluid intelligence factor and, MBA and, 382-386 62 Battery for Children 44 in neuropsychological Spearman's theory ofintelligence, (TABC), 88 general memory and learning assessment, 552-553 35-36 Teratogens, 86-88 factor and, 45-46 PPVT-III and, 360--363 Specificity, subtest (see Subtest Terman, Lewis, contributions of, processing speed factor and PIAT-R and, 389-393 specificity) 9-11 47 case study of, 4I 0-4I6 Stability ofscores, 65 Test administration, procedures stratum I and, 43, 49 SIT-Rand, 363-366 Standard deviation, 117-118 for (see Administration stratum II and, 43 ofacademic achievement, age equivalents and, 124 procedures) stratum III and, 43 378-410 normal curve and, 118 Test bias Training, intelligence ofintelligence, 360---378 Standard error ofmeasurement courts and, 146-153 improvement and WASI and, 371-378 (SEM), 129-130 (see also scientific smdies of, 153-158 (see Malleability) WIAT and, 404-410 specific tests) Test content, release of, 96-97 Trait, definition of, 34-35 W]-RACH and, 399-404 ofKAIT, 323 (see also Standards Transactional theory, 55, 63 WRAT-3 and, 378-382 ofWAIS-III, 300 Testing room) Traumatic brain injury, 564- 566 Seating arrangements, for testing ofWISC-III, 187 other people present, 97-98 Triarchic theory, 58 session, 98 Standardization sampling, physical arrangements in, 98 True scores, 131 Seizure disorders, 566-568 137-138 Test interval, stability ofscores T-score, 123 Selection bias, 140 age of norms, 138-139 and,65 normal curve and, 118 SEM (see Standard error of Standardized procedures Test items (see Items) Twin studies, ofgenetic effects on measurement) adherence to; 105-106 Test length Intelligence, 74-74 Sequential processing testing the limits of, I07 differences in scores and, 141 in, Standard score, 119-123 reliability and, 127 hypotheses for differences Universal Nonverbal Intelligence 280---282 conversion table for, 120---122 Test materials, 97 Test(UNIT) K-ABC and, 264-265 percentile rank and, 12 3 Test-retest coefficient, 128 reliability and, 448-449 Standards ofpractice, ethics and, Test-retest reliability, 323 (see simultaneous processing versus, standardization and, 448 167-175 also specific tests ofKAIT) 264-265 validity and, 449 SES (see Socioeconomic stams) Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale, Tests (see specific tests) case studies of, 180-18I U.S. Census Bureau statistics, Setting (see Environment) development of, fourth stratification variables and, Sex differences (see Gender) edition of, 66 correlation between, 139-140 137 Shared variance, 127 Stanines, 123 description of, in report Short-term memory, 56--57, 63 normal curve and, 118 writing, 506-507 Siblings, birth order of, scores Statistics (see Psychometric revisions of, old editions versus, Validation, process of, 136- 13 7 related to, 86 entries; specific measures 138-139 Validity, 130-137 (see also Sickle Cell Anemia and, 570, or issues) selection of, 175-181 specific test; specific type 574-575 Sternberg's triarchic theory, test score differences and, of validity) Significant others, testing of, 58-60 138-141 correlations with other tests 113 Stopwatch, I05-106 Test publishers, internet and, 132-133 Simon and Binet (see Binet- Stratification variables, 137-138 addresses, 142 defined, 131 Simon scale) Stratum I, II, III (see Three Test session (see Assessment factor analysis and, 134-136 Simultaneous processing Stratum Theory) process) (see also Factor analysis) hypotheses for differences in, Structure ofintellect model, 63 breaks during, 97 Valsiner's ecological theory of 280---282 Student referral form, 504 modification of, in keeping Intelligence, 60-61 K-ABC and, 264 Subtests (see specific tests) children on task, 103-104 Variability, measures of, 117 (see sequential processing versus, factor analysis of(see Factor Test session behavior, validity of, also Range; Standard 264-265 analysis) 105 deviation; Variance) 676 SUBJECT INDEX

Variables Letter-Number Sequencing history of, 183-184 WISC-R (see Wechsler affecting reliability, 128-129 subtest of, 309 Information subtest of, Intelligence Scale for Correlations between (see Matrix reasoning subtest of, 307 197-198 Children Revised) Correlation entries) Object Assembly subtest of, interpretation of, 208-227 gender differences and, 84 stratification, 137- 138 309 advanced issues in, 226-227 WISC-III (see Wechsler Variance, error, 40 (see also Error organization of, 296--297 VIP differences in 208-214 Intelligence Scale for variance) Picture Arrangement subtest case studies of, 218-223 Children Third Edition) Verbal/educational intelligence, of, 308 item and subtest development Woodcock-Johnson Psycho- in Vernon's hierarchy, Picture Completion subtest of, in, 185 Educational Battery- 41 305 Mazes subtest of, 207-208 Revised (WJ-R ACH), Vernon's hierarchical model of psychometric properties of, nonverbal assessment and Tests of Achievement Intelligence, 41 299-303 Performance Scale of, administration and scoring of, Spatial/mechanical of, 41 reliability of, 299-300 456-457 400-402 Verbal/educational of, 41 Similarities subtest of, 306 norming of, 185 reliability of, 402-403 Vineland Adaptive Behavior standard error ofmeasurement Object Assembly subtest of, standardization of, 402 Scales, 89 and,300 203-204 validity of, 403-404 Visualization (see Three stratum standardization of, 299 Picture Arrangement subtest Woodcock-Johnson Psycho- theory) strengths and weaknesses of, of, 200 Educational Battery- Vocabulary, report writing and, 316--317 Picture Completion subtest of, Revised (W-J Cog), 500-501 subtests of, 305-309 196--198 Tests of Cognitive Vygotsky's ecological model, Symbol Search subtest of, 308 psychometric properties of, Ability 61-62 validity of, 300-303 186-194 administration of, 336 Vocabulary subtest of, 305-306 reliability of, I86 case study of, 338-342 Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Wechsler Adult Intelligence scatter on, 214-216, 226 interpretation of, 33 7-338 Intelligence (WASI) Scale and, 293-296 scoring of, I94-195 organization of 334-335 2d1ninistration and scoring of, Wechsler Adult Intelligence Similarities subtest of, 199-200 reliability of, 334 372-373 Scale-Revised and, strengths of, 228 scoring of, 336-337 reliability of, 373 -374 293-296 structure of, 184 standardization of, 333-334 standardization ot; 373 Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence subtests of, 195-208 validity of, 334-336 validity of, 374-378 Scale Form I and, 293-295 enhancements of, I85 Woodcock-McGrew-Werder Wechsler Adult Intelligence Wechsler Deviation IQ supplementary procedures Mini-Banery ofAchieve- Scale-Revised (WAIS-R), normal curve and, 118 with, 227 ment (MBA) 60,66,68, 70 Wechsler Individual Achievement for profile analysis, 227 administration and scoring of, and KAIT, comparison of, 324 Test(WIAT) Symbol Search subtest of, 383. triarchic theory and, 60 administration and scoring of, 205-206 reliability of, 384 Wechsler Adult Intelligence 405-406 validity standardization of, 384 Scale-Third Edition reliability of, 406-407 age differentiation and, 187 validity of, 384-385 (WAIS-III) standardization of, 406 concurrent validity and, Word selection, in report writing, administration and scoring of, validity of, 407-410 187-188 500-502 303 Wechsler Intelligence Scale for predictive validity and, "Working memory," 56-57 administration time of, 304 Children-Revised 188-189 WISC-III and, 192-193 computing derived scores of, (WISC-R), 66, 68 Verbal and Performance (VIP) World War I, intelligence testing 304 factor analysis of, I 89-191 scales in, 191-193 duri_ng, 11-12 options, scoring of, 304-305 learning disability and, illusory differences in, WPPSI-R (see Wechsler scoring responses of, 304 596-597 226-227 Preschool and Primary starting and discontinue rules Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Vocabulary subtest of, 203 Scale oflntelligence- of, 304 Children-Third Edition weaknesses of, 228 Revised) subtest sequence of, 303-304 (WISC-III) Wechsler Preschool and Primary Written record (see Report Arithmetic subtest of, 307 administration of, 194 Scale oflntelligence- writing) Block Design subtest of, Arithmetic subtest of, 200--201 Revised (WPPSI-R), in importance of, 108-109 306-307 behavioral observation with, preschool assessment, ofobservations, 108-110 case study of, 310-3 I5 bias in, 187 436-439 Wundt's laboratory, 4 Comprehension subtest of, Block design subtest of, case study of, 441-444 308 202-203 Wechsler's Subtest Scaled Score, developmental trends and, Coding subtest of, 198-199 normal curve and, 118 Young children (see Infants) 295-296 Comprehension subtest of, Wechsler's theory ofintelligence, assessment of, 99-10I differences from prior versions 204-205 182-184 characteristics of, 99-10I issues in assessment of, 99- and,296-297 confidence bands for, 187 Wide Range Achievement Test- 101 Digit Span subtest of, 307-308 development of, I85 3 (WRAT-3) Digit Symbol- Coding subtest Digit Span subtest of, 206-207 administration and scoring of, rapport establishment of, 99-101 of, 306 factor analysis of, 191-194 379 enhancements of, 298-299 factor analysis of reliability of, 379-380 reasons for, 298-299 Freedom from Distractibility standardization of, 379 Zone ofproximal development historv of 292- 296 (FFD) factor and, 132 validity of, 380-382 (ZPD), 61 Information subtest of, 308 Index scores and, I92-194 WISC (see Wechsler Intelligence z score, normal curve and, Interpretation of, 309-316 gain scores and, I86--187 Scale f for Children) 118