Since the publication of the Peabody Individual Achievement Test, it has become a frequent part of many educational batteries. However, a serious drawback in its evaluation has been the lack of available information on the test's applicability to special populations and its relationship with other standardized tests of achievement. From this review of the literature on the use of the test with normal, retarded, learning disabled, and emotionally disturbed children, the authors conclude that the test can add important diagnostic information in the assessment of handicapped children, although there remain significant areas in which research on the Peabody is still necessary.
BaumD. C.A comparison of the WRAT and PIAT with learning disabled children. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1975, 35, 487–493.
3.
BlyD. H.A study of the validity of the Peabody Individual Achievement Test with third graders. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univer. of South Dakota, 1974.
4.
BrayN. M.EstesR. E.A comparison of the PIAT, CAT, WRAT, and teachers ratings with disabled children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1975, 8, 512–523.
5.
BurnsE.An evaluation of the PIAT with primary age retarded children. Psychology in the Schools, 1975, 12, 11–14.
6.
BurnsE.PetersonD.BauerL.The concurrent validity of the Peabody Individual Achievement Test. Training School Bulletin, 1974, 70, 221–223.
7.
DunnL. M.MarkwardtF. C.Peabody Individual Achievement Test. Circle Pines, Minn.: American Guidance Service, 1970.
8.
FrenchJ. L.Peabody Individual Achievement Test. In BurosO. K. (Ed.), The seventh mental measurements yearbook. Highland Park, N. J.: Gryphon Press, 1972. Pp. 17–18.
9.
KlingerV.HarperS.VaziriH.The Peabody Individual Achievement Test—a validity study with adolescent psychiatric inpatients. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 1974, 2, 133–141.
10.
LamannaJ. A.YsseldykeJ. E.Reliability of the PIAT with first grade children. Psychology in the Schools, 1973, 10, 437–439.
11.
LymanH. B.Peabody Individual Achievement Test. In BurosO. K. (Ed.), The seventh mental measurements yearbook. Highland Park, N. J.: Gryphon Press, 1972. P. 18.
12.
McMahonJ. B.A correlational study of the PIAT with the WRAT. Unpublished Master's thesis, Bowling Green Univer., 1972.
13.
O'DonnellC. R.DeleonJ. L.A contingency program for academic achievement in a correctional setting: gains and time in school. Journal of Community Psychology, 1973, 1, 285–287.
14.
ProgerB. B.Test Review No. 4—Peabody Individual Achievement Test. Journal of Special Education, 1970, 4, 461–467.
15.
RobertsS.Socio-economic status in relation to learning problems of students. Education, 1975, 96, 81–84.
16.
SoetheJ. W.Concurrent validity of the Peabody Individual Achievement Test. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1972, 5, 560–562.
17.
WatsonP. C.Congruent validity of the PIAT as measured by the California Achievement Test with educationally handicapped and mentally retarded children. Unpublished Master's thesis, Univer. of California at Los Angeles, 1972.
18.
WetterJ.FrenchR. W.Comparison of the Peabody Individual Achievement Test and the Wide Range Achievement Test in a learning disability clinic. Psychology in the Schools, 1970, 10, 285–286.
19.
WilsonJ. D.SpanglerP. F.The Peabody Individual Achievement Test as a clinical tool. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1974, 7, 384–387.
20.
YsseldykeJ. E.Aptitude treatment interaction research with learning disabled children. Paper presented at American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, Louisiana, February, 1973.
21.
YsseldykeJ. E.SabatinoD. A.LamannaJ.Convergent and discriminant validity of the Peabody Individual Achievement Test with educable mentally retarded children. Psychology in the Schools, 1973, 10, 200–204.
