![]() ![]() The clinician must have sufficient clinical skill in first identifying the constructs being measured and then comparing performance across subtests measuring comparable constructs within the WISC-III and between the WISC-III and the CMS. For example, the WISC-III subtests themselves assess multiple constructs. These instruments are complex and multidimensional and do not lend themselves readily to direct interpretation. The WISC-III has proven to be a reliable and valid instrument for these purposes.īoth the WISC-III and the CMS require considerable clinical skill in order to be utilized most effectively. Although the development of interventions is based upon both quantitative and qualitative information, funding and placement decisions continue to be based upon IQ and achievement composite scores. The WISC-III continues to provide the basis for diagnostic decision making for example, a diagnosis of a learning disability is predicated upon a significant discrepancy between aptitude (e.g., IQ score) and achievement. An analysis of processing strengths and weaknesses is more amenable to skill remediation than the mere description of subtest scores. These criticisms have, in part, been addressed by the reconceptualization of the WISC-III as a process instrument. However, the diagnostic utility has been hampered in the past by the limitations regarding direct treatment outcomes. The diagnostic strength of these two instruments lies in the comparisons that can be drawn between the intellectual and memory components of cognitive processing. The WISC-III and the CMS represent two measures in the assessment of cognitive processing that have been subjected to intense study and review. ![]() LEDBETTER, in Handbook of Psychoeducational Assessment, 2001 CRITIQUE OF THE WISC-III AND THE CMS Therefore, psychologists are encouraged to understand the empirical limits of the WISC-V and focus on the WISC-V’s utility in aiding with prediction, prescription, and process.ĭENISE K. The manual also points users towards alternative theories of intelligence as a framework for interpreting the WISC-V. For example, subtests on the WISC-V can be arranged and analyzed using Cattell–Horn–Carroll (CHC) theory. The manual also argues that this is not accurate because many theoretical perspectives can be applied to the WISC-V post hoc ( Wechsler et al., 2014). The WISC-V technical manual notes that the Wechsler series of tests are typically considered “atheoretical” by observers because no consistent underlying theory is put forth. Additionally, the WISC-V added other subtests because they are sensitive to learning difficulties, not because they are part of a theory of intelligence. To measure these additional abilities, the WISC-V eliminated word reasoning and picture completion from the WISC-IV and added figure weights, visual puzzles and picture span as primary subtests. For example, the WISC-V purports to measure five primary abilities instead of four on the WISC-IV or three on the WISC-R or two on the WISC. The early disconnect between theory and test continues to this day as modern editions of the WISC have updated the foundation Wechsler originally developed. Instead, Wechsler defined his construct and combined verbal and performance tests from earlier intelligence tests into a single test. During the original development of his tests, Wechsler did not first define the construct and then select tests that closely matched his definition. David Wechsler’s working definition of intelligence for his tests was “intelligence is the overall capacity of an individual to understand and cope with the world around him” ( Wechsler, 1974). However, the general decision to maintain much of Wechsler’s tradition weakens the overall utility of the test. According to manual, the WISC-V was updated to (1) increase the breadth of construct coverage (e.g., develop a new fluid reasoning subtest), (2) increase user friendliness (e.g., paper and electronic administration reduce number of subtests required for FSIQ), (3) increase developmental appropriateness (e.g., reduce vocabulary level), (4) improve psychometric properties (e.g., update item and subtest scoring rules), and (5) enhance clinical utility (e.g., add subtests related to learning difficulties). The WISC-V is an individually administered intelligence test for school-age children and adolescents. Freeman, Yen-Ling Chen, in Handbook of Psychological Assessment (Fourth Edition), 2019 Theory
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |