This paper describes how a program of research on examiner familiarity grew out of the author's own testing experience as a staff psychologist at a special education preschool program. These related investigations have spanned 7 years and involved hundreds of handicapped and nonhandicapped as well as preschool- and school-age children. Findings from the research program are presented and implications are discussed for practicing examiners, examiner-trainers, and the theory that firmly, albeit implicitly, guides most assessment and evaluation activity in schools, clinics, and educational research.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ayllon, T., & Kelly, K. (1972). Effects of reinforcement on standardized test performance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 5, 477–484.
2.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1974). Standards for educational and psychological tests. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
3.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1983, February). Draft: Joint technical standards for educational and psychological testing. (Available from American Psychological Association, Office for Scientific Affairs, 1200 17th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20036).
4.
Babad, E.Y., Mann, M., & Mar-Hayim, M. (1975). Bias in the scoring of the WISC subtests. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, 268.
5.
Bernstein, R.J. (1976). The restructuring of social and political theory. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
6.
Cronbach, L.J. (1971). Test validation. In R.L. Thorndike (Ed.), Educational measurement (pp. 443–507). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
7.
Exner, J.E. (1966). Variations in WISC performances as influenced by differences in pre-test rapport. Journal of General Psychology, 74, 299–306.
8.
Fuchs, D. (1981, April). Differential responses of preschool language-handicapped children and familiar and unfamiliar testers as a function of task complexity, length of acquaintanceship, and sex of child. In V. Shipman (Chair), Client identification and issues of validity: The influence of situational variables on children's cognitive performance. Symposium presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Los Angeles.
9.
Fuchs, D., Featherstone, N., Garwick, D.R., & Fuchs, L.S. (1984). Effects of examiner familiarity and task characteristics on speech and language-impaired children's performance. Measurement and Evaluation in Guidance, 16, 198–204.
10.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L.S. (1986). Test procedure bias: A meta-analysis of examiner familiarity effects. Review of Educational Research, 56, 243–262.
11.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., Benowitz, S.A., & Barringer, K. (in press). Norm-referenced tests: Are they valid for use with handicapped students? Exceptional Children.
12.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., & Blaisdell, M.L. (1986). Psychosocial characteristics of handicapped children who perform suboptimally during assessment. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 18, 176–184.
13.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., Dailey, A.M., & Power, M.H. (1985). The effects of examiners' personal familiarity and professional experience on handicapped children's test performance. Journal of Educational Research, 78, 141–146.
14.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., Garwick, D.R., & Featherstone, N. (1983). Test performance of language handicapped children with familiar and unfamiliar examiners. Journal of Psychology, 114, 37–46.
15.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., & Power, M.H. (in press). Effects of examiner familiarity on LD and MR students' language performance. Remedial and Special Education.
16.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., Power, M.H., & Dailey, A.M. (1983). Systematic bias in the assessment of handicapped children (Research Report No. 134). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 236 202).
17.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., Power, M.H., & Dailey, A.M. (1985). Bias in the assessment of handicapped children. American Educational Research Journal, 22, 185–198.
18.
Fuchs, D., Zern, D.S., & Fuchs, L.S. (1983). A microanalysis of participants' behavior in familiar and unfamiliar test conditions. Exceptional Children, 50, 75–77.
19.
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (1984). Examiner accuracy during protocol completion. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 2, 101–108.
20.
Goodnow, J. (1976). The nature of intelligent behavior: Questions raised by cross-cultural research. In L.B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 169–188). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
21.
Horne, L.V., & Garty, M.K. (1981, April). What the test score really reflects: Observations of teacher behavior during standardized achievement test administration. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Los Angeles.
22.
Masling, J.M. (1957). The effects of warm and cold interaction on the interpretation of a projective protocol. Journal of Projective Techniques, 21, 377–383.
23.
McCarthy, M.M. (1983). The application of competency testing mandates to handicapped children. Harvard Educational Review, 53, 146–164.
24.
Mehan, H. (1978). Structuring school structure. Harvard Educational Review, 48, 32–64.
25.
Sarason, I.G. (Ed). (1980). Test anxiety: Theory, research, and applications. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
26.
Sarnacki, R.E. (1979). An examination of test-wiseness in the cognitive test domain. Review of Educational Research, 49, 252–279.
27.
Seitz, V., Abelson, W.D., Levine, E., & Zigler, E. (1975). Effects of place of testing on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test scores of disadvantaged Head Start and non-Head Start children. Child Development, 46, 481–486.
28.
Thompson, R.H., White, K.R., & Morgan, D.P. (1982). Teacher-student interaction patterns in classrooms with mainstreamed mildly handicapped students. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 220–236.
29.
Zigler, E., & Butterfield, E. (1968). Motivational aspects of changes in IQ test performances of culturally deprived nursery school children. Child Development, 39, 1–14.
30.
Arthur, G. (1949). The Arthur adaptation of the Leiter International Performance Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 5)(4), 345--349.
31.
Baker, H.J., & Leland, B. (1967). Detroit tests of learning aptitude. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
32.
Burgemeister, B.B., Blum, L.H., & Lorge, I. (1972). Columbia mental maturity scale. New York: Harcourt-Brace-Jovanovich.
33.
Carrow, E. (1974). Carrow elicited language inventory. Austin, TX: Learning Concepts.
34.
Carrow, E. (1973). Test for auditory comprehension of language. Austin, TX: Learning Concepts.
35.
Dunn, L., & Dunn, L.M. (1981). Peabody picture vocabulary test (Rev. ed.). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
36.
Foster, R., Gidden, J., & Stark, J. (1973). Assessment of children's language comprehension. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
37.
French, J.L. (1964). Pictorial test of intelligence. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
38.
Gardner, M.F. (1979). Expressive one word picture vocabulary test. Novato, CA: Academic Therapy Publications.
39.
Goldman, R., & Fristoe, M. (1972). Goldman-Fristoe test of articulation. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
40.
Hannah, E., & Gardner, J. (1979). Hannah-Gardner test of verbal and nonverbal language functioning. Northridge, CA: Lingua Press.
41.
Hiskey, M.S. (1966). Hiskey-Nebraska test of learning aptitude. Lincoln, NE: Union College Press.
42.
McCarthy, D. (1972). McCarthy scales of children's abilities. New York: Psychological Corp.
43.
Meecham, M., Jex, J., & Jones, J. (1967). Utah test of language development. Salt Lake City, UT: Communication Research Association.
44.
Newcomer, P., & Hammill, D. (1977). Test of language development. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
