This study reports the development of a normative profile typology for showing what types of score patterns are commonplace in the standardization sample of the McCarthy Scales of Childien's Abilities (McCarthy, 1972). The benefit of such a core profile typology is that it provides necessary contrasts for testing hypotheses that children's profiles are descriptively or clinically unique. Standard scores from the battery's primary scales were grouped according to similar shape and level using sequential minimum-variance cluster analysis with independent replications. A final solution of five core profile types met all formal heuristic and statistical criteria, including (a) satisfactory internal cohesion, (b) external isolation, (c) replicability, and (d) full coverage of the sample. The five core types are described according to their score configurations and by members' age, gender, race, parental education, and family occupation levels. Typological findings for the McCarthy Scales then are related to core profile types identified previously for the three Wechsler scales. Finally, three methods are presented for testing whether a given child's profile is unique in comparison to subjects in the McCarthy Scales standardization sample.
Anastasi, A. (1988). Psychological testing (6th ed.). New York: Macmillan.
3.
Bayne, R., Beauchamp, J., Begovich, C., & Kane, V.E. (1980). Monte Carlo comparisons of selected clustering procedures. Pattern Recognition, 12, 51–62.
4.
Blashfield, R.K. (1976). Mixture model tests of cluster analysis: Accuracy of four agglomerative hierarchical methods. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 377–388.
5.
Blashfield, R.K., & Aldenderfer, M.S. (1988). The methods and problems of cluster analysis. In J.R. Nesselroade & R.B. Cattell (Eds.), Handbook of multivariate experimental psychology (2nd ed., pp. 447–473). New York: Plenum Press.
Cattell, R.B. (1949). rp and other coefficients of pattern similarity. Psychometrika, 14, 279–298.
8.
Clemans, W.V. (1965). An analytical and empirical examination of some properties of ipsative measures. Psychometric Monographs (No. 14), pp. 1–56.
9.
Cormack, R.M. (1971). A review of classification. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (Series A), 134, 321–367.
10.
Edelbrock, C. (1979). Comparing the accuracy of hierarchical clustering algorithms: The problem of classifying everybody. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 14, 367–384.
Ferguson, G.A. (1981). Statistical analysis in psychology and education (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
13.
Fleiss, J.L. (1971). Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 378–382.
14.
Garfield, S.L. (1978). Research problems in childhood diagnosis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 596–601.
15.
Glutting, J.J., & McDermott, P.A. (1989). Patterns and prevalence of core profile types in the WPPSI standardization sample. Manuscript submitted for publication.
16.
Hicks, L.E. (1970). Some properties of ipsative, normative, and forced normative measures. Psychological Bulletin, 74, 167–184.
17.
Kaufman, A.S., & Kaufman, N.L. (1977). Clinical evaluation of young children with the McCarthy scales. New York: Grune & Stratton.
18.
Kaufman, A.S., & Kaufman, N.L. (1983). K-ABC: Kaufman assessment battery for children. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
19.
Kuiper, F., & Fisher, L. (1975). A Monte Carlo comparison of six clustering procedures. Biometrics, 31, 777–783.
20.
McCarthy, D. (1972). McCarthy scales of children's abilities. New York: Psychological Corp.
21.
McDermott, P.A. (1980). Prevalence and constituency of behavioral disturbance taxonomies in the regular school population. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 8, 323–336.
22.
McDermott, P.A. (1988). Agreement among diagnosticians or observers: Its importance and determination. Professional School Psychology, 3, 225–240.
23.
McDermott, P.A., Glutting, J.J., Jones, J.N., & Noonan, J.V. (1989). Typology and prevailing composition of core profiles in the WAIS-R standardization sample. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1, 118–125.
24.
McDermott, P.A., Glutting, J.J., Jones, J.N., Watkins, M.W., & Kush, J. (in press). Identification and membership of core profile types in the WISC-R national standardization sample. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology.
25.
McDermott, P.A., & Watkins, M.W. (1987). McDermott multidimensional assessment of children. New York: Psychological Corp.
26.
Milligan, G.W. (1980). An examination of the effect of six types of error perturbation of fifteen clustering algorithms. Psychometrika, 45, 325–342.
27.
Milligan, G.W. (1989). A study of the betaflexible clustering method. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 24, 163–176.
Milligan, G.W., & Sokal, L.M. (1980). A two-stage clustering algorithm with robust recovery characteristics. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 40, 755–759.
30.
Mojena, R. (1977). Hierarchical grouping methods and stopping rules: An evaluation. Computer Journal, 20, 359–363.
31.
Morris, R.D. (1988). Classification of learning disabilities: Old problems and new approaches. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 739–794.
Rourke, B.P. (1985). Overview of learning disability subtypes. In B.P. Rourke (Ed.), Neuropsychology of learning disabilities (pp. 3–14). New York: Guilford Press.
35.
Scheibler, D., & Schneider, W. (1985). Monte Carlo tests of the accuracy of cluster analysis algorithms---A comparison of hierarchical and nonhierarchical methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 20, 283–304.
36.
Smith, L.E. (1965). A critique of ipsative measures with special reference to the Navy activities preference blank. (Technical Bulletin STB 65--16). San Diego, CA: U.S. Naval Personnel Research Activity.
37.
Spreen, O. (1988). Prognosis of learning disability. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 836–842.
38.
Stevens, J. (1986). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
39.
Tatsuoka, M.M. (1974). Classification procedures: Profile similarity. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.
