Many practitioners and researchers in the learning disability field work under the basic assumption that the various assessment instruments commonly used with learning disabled populations exhibit the same reliability when used with learning disabled students as when used with a more normative population. The purpose of this study was to test this assumption by examining the reliabilities of several tests of intellectual, academic, and affective assessment when administered to learning disabled students.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
SmithM.D.WISC-R subtest scatter for standardization sample and learning disabled children: Random or systematic variance?Manuscript submitted for publication, 1978.
2.
AmesL.B.A low intelligence quotient often not recognized as the chief cause of many learning difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1968, 1, 45–58.
3.
AnastasiA.Psychological testing (Second ed.). New York: MacMillan, 1961.
4.
BannatyneA.Diagnosing learning disabilities and writing remedial prescription. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1968, 1, 242–249.
5.
BannatyneA.Language, reading, and learning disabilities. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, 1971.
6.
BannatyneA.Diagnosis: A note on recategorization of the WISC scaled scores. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1974, 7, 272–273.
7.
BlackF.W.The word explosion in learning disabilities: A notation of literature trends, 1962–1972. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1974, 7, 323–324.
8.
BryanT.H.Learning disabilities: A new stereotype. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1974, 7, 304–309.
9.
DurostW.N.BixlerH.H.WrightstoneJ.M.PrescottG.A.BalowI.H.Metropolitan achievement tests (Primary I and Primary II). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1971.
10.
EgelandB.WeinbergR.A.The matching familiar figures test: A look at its psychometric credibility. Child Development, 1976, 47, 483–491.
11.
GoodsteinH.A.KahnH.Pattern of achievement among children with learning difficulties. Exceptional Children, 1974, 41, 47–49.
12.
GuilfordJ.P.Psychometric methods. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1954, p. 393.
13.
HammillD.D.LarsenS.C.The effectiveness of psycholinguistic training. Exceptional Children, 1974, 41, 4–14.
14.
HaywoodH.C.DobbsV.Motivation and anxiety in high school boys. Journal of Personality, 1964, 32 (2), 371–379.
15.
HaywoodH.C.WachsT.D.Size-discrimination learning as a function of motivation-hygiene orientation in adolescents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1966, 57(5), 279–286.
16.
HaywoodH.C.WeaverS.J.Differential effect of motivational orientations and incentive conditions on motor performance in institutionalized retardates. American Journal of Mental Deficiencies, 1967, 72(3), 459–467.
17.
HuelsmanC.B.Jr.The WISC subtest syndrome for disabled readers. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1970, 30, 535–550.
18.
JohnsonD.M.Application of the standard-score IQ to social statistics. Journal of Social Psychology, 1948, 27, 217–227.
19.
KaganJ.RosmannB.L.DayD.AlbertJ.PhillipsW.Information processing in the child: Significance of analytic and reflective attitudes. Psychological Monographs, 1964, 78, (1, Whole No. 578).
20.
KuncaD.F.HaywoodN.P.The measurement of motivational orientation in low mental age subjects. Peabody Papers in Human Development, 1967, 7, No. 2.
21.
MandelR.McLeodP.A longitudinal investigation of stability of IQ's on the PPVT with high and low SES children. Exceptional Children, 1970, 37, 300–301.
22.
McNemarQ.The revision of the Stanford-Binet scale. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1942.
23.
MesserS.B.Reflection-impulsivity: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 1976, 83, 1026–1052.
24.
Metropolitan achievement test special report. Reliability estimates and standard errors of measurement (Report No. 10). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1971.
25.
NunnallyJ.C.Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.
26.
PiersE.V.Manual for the Piers-Harris children's self-concept scale. Nashville, Tennessee: Counselor Recordings and Tests, 1969.
27.
RobinsonJ.P.ShaverP.R.Measures of social psychological attitudes (Revised Edition). Ann Arbor, Michigan: Institute for Social Research, 1973.
28.
RugelR.P.WISC subtest scores of disabled readers: A review with respect to Bannatyne's recategorization. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1974, 7, 57–64.
29.
SattlerJ.M.Assessment of children's intelligence (Revised Reprint). Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders, 1974.
30.
ShavelsonR.J.HubnerJ.J.StantonG.C.Self-concept: Validation of construct interpretations. Review of Educational Research, 1976, 46, 407–441.
31.
SmithM.D.Stability of WISC-R subtest profiles for learning disabled children. Psychology in the Schools, 1978, 15, 4–7.
SmithM.D.ColemanJ.M.DokeckiP.R.DavisE.E.Recategorized WISC-R subtest scores of school-verified learning disabled children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1977, 10, 437–443. (b).
34.
SmithM.D.ZingaleS.A.ColemanJ.M.The influence of adult expectancy/child performance discrepancies upon children's self-concepts. American Educational Research Journal, 1978, 15, 259–265.
35.
StrangL.SmithM.D.RogersC.M.Social comparison, multiple reference groups, and the self-concepts of academically handicapped children before and after mainstreaming. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1978, 70, 487–497.
36.
WarnerW.L.MeekerM.EelsK.W.Social class in America. Chicago: Science Research Associates, 1949.
37.
WechslerD.Manual for the Wechsler intelligence scale for children-Revised. New York: The Psychological Corporation, 1974.
38.
WepmanJ.M.CruickshankW.M.DeutschC.P.MorencyA.StrotherC.R.Learning disabilities. In HobbsN. (Eds.), Issues in the classification of children (Vol. 1). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1975.
39.
WylieR.C.The self-concept: A review of methodological considerations (Revised Edition; Vol. 1). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1974.
