The predictive validity of the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (K-ABC) was investigated for 29 elementary school children (14 females and 15 males) over an eleven-month period. The K-ABC evidenced nearly identical global scale standard scores as the Peabody Individual Achievement Test; correlation coefficients in a moderate (.40-.83) range were noted between the two tests. The K-ABC appears to have acceptable predictive validity for normal elementary-aged children.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bossard, M. D., & Galusha, R. (1979). The utility of the Stanford-Binet in predicting WRAT performance. Psychology in the Schools, 16, 488-490.
2.
Bracken, B. A. (in press). Critical review of the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (K-ABC). School Psychology Review.
3.
Bracken, B. A., McCallum, R. S., & Prasse, D. P. (1984). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test—Revised: An appraisal and review. School Psychology Review, 13, 49-60.
4.
Bracken, B. A., & Murray, A. M. (1984). Stability and predictive validity of the PPVT-R over an eleven month interval. Educational and Psychological Research, 4, 41-44.
5.
Bryant, N. D., & Gokhale, S. (1972). Correcting correlations for restrictions due to selection on an unmeasured variable. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 32, 305-310.
6.
Das, J. P. (1972). Patterns of cognitive ability in nonretarded and retarded children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 77, 6-12.
7.
Das, J. P. (1973). Structure of cognitive abilities: Evidence for simultaneous and successive processing. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 65, 103-108.
8.
Das, J. P., & Heemsbergen, D. B. (1983). Planning as a factor in the assessment of cognitive processes. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 1, 1-15.
9.
Das, J. P., Kirby, J., & Jarman, R. F. (1975). Simultaneous and successive synthesis: An alternative model for cognitive abilities. Psychological Bulletin, 82, 87-103.
10.
Das, J. P., Kirby, J. R., & Jarman, R. F. (1979). Simultaneous and successive cognitive processes. Orlando, Fla.: Academic Press.
11.
Das,J. P., & Molloy, G. N. (1975). Varieties of simultaneous and successive processing in children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 213-220.
12.
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1981). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised. Circle Pines, Minn.: American Guidance Service.
13.
Dunn, L. M., & Markwardt, F. C., Jr. (1970). Peabody Individual Achievement Test. Circle Pines, Minn.: American Guidance Service.
14.
Graham, F. K., & Kendall, B. S. (1960). Memory-for-Designs Test: Revised general manual. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 11, 147-188.
15.
Gunnison, J. A. (1982). Remediation strategies based on the roles of simultaneous and successive processing in reading. Journal of Educational Neuropsychology, 1, 36-69.
16.
Gunnison, J., Kaufman, N. L., & Kaufman, A. S. (1982). Reading remediation based on sequential and simultaneous processing. Academic Therapy, 17, 297-307.
17.
Hartlage, L. C., & Boone, K. E. (1977). Achievement test correlates of Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children and Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 45, 1283-1286.
18.
Hartlage, L. C., & Steele, C. T. (1977). WISC and WISC-R correlates of academic achievement. Psychology in the Schools, 14, 15-18.
19.
Ilg, F. L., & Ames, L. B. (1964). School readiness: Behavior tests used at the Gesell Institute. New York: Harper & Row.
20.
Jarman, R., & Das, J. P. (1977). Simultaneous and successive synthesis and intelligence. Intelligence, 1, 151-169.
21.
Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (1983). Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children. Circle Pines, Minn.: American Guidance Service.
22.
Kirby, J. R., & Das, J. P. (1977). Reading achievement, IQ and simultaneous-successive processing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 564-570.
23.
Monroe, V. (1979). Roles and status of school psychology. In G. D. Phye & D. J. Reschly (Eds.), School psychology perspectives and issues. Orlando, Fla.: Academic Press.
24.
Raven, J. C. (1965). Guide to the Coloured Progressive Matrices. London: H. K. Lewis.
25.
Reynolds, C. R. (1981). Neuropsychological assessment and the habilitation of learning: Considerations in the search for the aptitude X treatment interaction. School Psychology Review, 10, 343-349.
26.
Reynolds, C. R., Wright, D., & Dappen, L. (1981). A comparison of the criterion-related validity (academic achievement) of the WPPSI and WISC-R. Psychology in the Schools, 18, 20-23.
27.
Salvia, J., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (1981). Assessment in special and remedial education (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
28.
Sattler, J. M., & Ryan, J. J. (1981). Relationship between the WISC-R and WRAT in children referred for learning disabilities. Psychology in the Schools, 18, 920-922.
29.
Schwarting, F. G., & Schwarting, K. R. (1977). The relationship of the WISC-R and WRAT: A study based upon a selected population. Psychology in the Schools, 14, 431-433.
30.
Tramill, J. L., Tramill, J. K., Thornthwaite, R., & Anderson, F. (1981). Investigations into the relationships of the WRAT, the PIAT, the SORT, and the WISC-R in low-functioning referrals. Psychology in the Schools, 18, 149-153.
31.
Washington, E. D., & Teska, J. A. (1970). Correlations between the Wide Range Achievement Test, the California Achievement Tests, the Stanford-Binet, and the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities. Psychological Reports, 26, 291-294.
32.
White, T. H. (1979). Correlations among the WISC-R, PIAT, and DAM. Psychology in the Schools, 16, 497-501.
33.
Wikoff, R. L. (1978). Correlational and factor analysis of the Peabody Individual Achievement Test and the WISC-R. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 322-325.
34.
Ysseldyke, J. E., & Mirkin, P. K. (1982). The use of assessment information to plan instructional interventions: A review of the research. In C. R. Reynolds & T. B. Gutkin (Eds.), The handbook of school psychology. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
