University of Massachusetts Amherst

ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst
Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014

1-1-1983

New Slosson Intelligence Test norms : implication

for special education.
James C. Bradley
University of Massachusetts Amherst

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1

Recommended Citation
Bradley, James C., "New Slosson Intelligence Test norms : implication for special education." (1983). Doctoral Dissertations 1896 -
February 2014. 3863.
https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1/3863

This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in
Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014 by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact
scholarworks@library.umass.edu.
 NEW SLOSSON INTELLIGENCE TEST NORMS:

IMPLICATION FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION

A Dissertation Presented

by

JAMES C. BRADLEY

Submitted to the Graduate School of the

University of Massachusetts in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

September 1983

School of Education
James Charles Bradley

All Rights Reserved

ii
 NEW SLOSSON INTELLIGENCE TEST NORMS:

IMPLICATION FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION

A Dissertation Presented

by

JAMES C. BRADLEY

Approved as to style and content by:

Dr. Arthur W. Eve, Chairperson of Conimitte

Dr. Madeleine Wheeler, M^ber

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author wishes to acknowledge a few of the many people who

contributed to the successful completion of his doctoral program.

First, I would like to thank Dr. Arthur W. Eve who provided me

with the necessary support and faith throughout my graduate program.

Second, I would like to thank Drs. Armstrong and Jenson who provided

me with the technical and statistical assistance required to analyze

the data. In addition to their technical expertise I am indebted to

them for their availa±)ility and willingness to share their knowledge.

Third, I would like to thank Dr. Eve, Dr. Wheeler, Dr. Daniels, and

Dr. Maloy for their valuable suggestions which contributed to the

completion of this dissertation. Finally, I would like to thank the

personnel of the various school systems who administered, scored, and

returned the tests used in this study. Without them it would not have

been possible to complete this dissertation.

IV
 .

ABSTRACT

New Slosson Intelligence Test Norms;

Inplication for Special Education

September 1983

James C. Bradley, B.S., Salem State College

M.Ed., Salem State College, Ed.D. , University of Massachusetts

Directed by: Professor Arthur W. Eve

The purpose of this study was to determine if the new Slosson

Intelligence Test (SIT, 1981) scores are comparable to Wechsler Intelli-

gence Test for Children-Revised (WISC-R, 1974) scores (Verbal and Full

Scale)

The study sample included 336 students ranging in ages 6-15 from

twenty communities in Massachusetts. Sxibstudies were carried out by

examinee sex and age level, by examiner e^^ertise, by order of adminis-

tration of the instr\iments and by time interval between the two test

administrations. The following is a summary of the findings.

1. The correlations across the entire sample and for each of the

subgroups were positive and significemtly different from zero.

The overall correlations between the revised (1981) SIT and

1974 WISC-R (Verbal and Full Scale) were .89 and .83.

2. The correlations across the entire sample between IQ's

obtained from the revised SIT (1981) and the WISC-R (Verbal

and Full Scale) were significantly larger than the correla-

tions relating the old SIT IQ's (1961) and the WISC-R IQ's

(Verbal cind Full Scale) .

V
 .

In sum, the new SIT (1981) scores are comparable to WISC-R

(1974) scores (Verbal and Full Scale)

VI
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ^

Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM 1

Statement of the Problem 4

Purpose 7
Limitations 9
Definition of Terms 9
References 17

II. RELATED RESEARCH 18

SIT and the SB 19

SIT and the SB-R 29
SIT-R and the SB-R 33
SIT and the WISC 35
SIT-R and the WISC-R 37
References 43

III. PROCEDURES 46

Restatement of the Purpose 46

Design 47
Hypotheses to be Tested 50
Sample 51
Data Collection 52
Statistical Analyses 53
Summary 55
References 56

IV. RESULTS OF THE STUDY 57

References 68

V. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH .... 69

Summary
Future Research

BIBLIOGRAPHY

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX B

vii
 LIST OF TABLES

1. 1961 Slosson Concurrent Validity Study 20

2. 1961 Slosson Concurrent Validity Study,
Independent Experimental Study 21
3. Armstrong and Jensen 1970 Study 24
4. Armstrong, Mooney and Jensen 1971 Study 25
5. Chimera Review of 18 Research Studies
Concerning the SIT and the SB 27
6. Armstrong and Jensen 1981 Study, Differences
Between Unrevised Stcinford-Binet and
Unrevised Slosson IQ's by Levels of
Chronological Age and Intelligence 30
7. Armstrong and Jensen 1981 Study, Differences
Between Revised Stanford-Binet amd Unre-
vised Slosson IQ's by Levels of Chrono-
logical Age and Intelligence 31
8. Armstrong and Jensen 1981 Study, Differences
Between Revised Stanford-Binet amd Revised
Slosson IQ's by Levels of Chronological
Age and Intelligence 34
9. Armstrong, Jensen and Reynolds 1974 Study, Means,
Standard Deviations, and Correlations Among
the Variables {N=198). Corellations Above
the Diagonal are Corrected for Restriction
of Range 1961 Slosson and 1941 WISC 36

10. Armstrong, Jensen and Reynolds 1974 Study, Mean

Absolute IQ Differences Slosson and WISC 37
11. Chimera Review of the 17 Research Studies Con-
cerning the SIT and WISC
12. Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations and
Mean Absolute IQ Differences (MAD) of the
New SIT and WISC-R Tests 59
13. Correlations of the New SIT with the WISC-R
Tests
14. Improvement of the Correlations of the SIT
IQ's with WISC-R IQ's
15. Mean Absolute Differences (MAD) of the New
SIT with the WISC-R Tests
16. Improvement Upon the Mean Absolute IQ Differ-
56
ences (MAD) Between the SIT and WISC-R

viii
 CHAPTER I

OVERVIEW AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Introduction to the Problem

Results from a recently administered test of intelligence are fre-

quently used as one of the criteria for initial assessment of children

with special needs, as well as for periodic reassessment to determine

the appropriateness of the program for each child. Chapter 766 re-

quires a comprehensive individual psychological examination for stu-

dents who are recommended for a full team evaluation.^ The law also

states that each child placed in a special needs program shall be re-

evaluated no less than every three years , or sooner if it is recom-

mended by any member of the evaluation team. Re-evaluation includes

the same areas as the initial screening assessment.

Chapter 766 does not require the inclusion of intelligence test

scores for all psychological assessments, nor does it require the use

of individual intelligence tests when they are a part of the psycholog-

ical evaluation component.

In September, 1980, the writer conducted an informal survey con-

cerning these two issues. Twenty Directors of Special Education were

asked to respond to three questions: (1) To what extent are intelli-

assessment com-
gence test scores incorporated into the psychological
than group
ponent; (2) To what extent are individual tests used, rather

The in-
tests; and (3) Are group tests or individual tests preferred.

assessments ranged
clusion of intelligence test scores in psychological

1
 ^

from 75% to 95%, with 15 of the 20 directors estimating they are in-

cluded more than 85% of the time. Also, the directors stated that

individual tests are used at least 70% (70% to 100%) of the time, and

that they would prefer to use individual tests for all cases. Appendix

A contains a list of the 20 coitmninities involved in this survey. In

sum, the psychological assessment component usually includes the re-

sults of an individually administered intelligence test such as the

2
Wechsler Intelligence Test for Children - Revised (WISC-R) or the

Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale (SB) , Form L-M.

Unfortunately, individual intelligence tests such as the WISC-R

and SB require specialized training in their administration, scoring

and interpretation — usually amounting to a full semester course for

each test. They are also time consuming in that they require an aver-

age administration time of one hour. Thus, there is a need for a valid

individual test of mental ability which can be quickly administered

and easily scored. Such a test could be used as a screening and/or

re-testing instrument.

In 1961, Richard Slosson published the Slosson Intelligence Test

(SIT) The author's purpose was to develop a "mini" Stanford-Binet

that is — an individual intelligence test which: (1) did not require

specialized training of its administrators; (2) took only 15 to 20

minutes to administer and score; and (3) would yield IQ scores compar-

able to the SB. The SB (1960) was used by Slosson as the criterion for

establishing the validity of the SIT.^ The norming sample included 701

cases , ages 4-18+ (adult) . Pearson-Product Moment correlations were

 3

confuted separately for ages 4—18+ (adult) , resulting in concurrent

validity correlations ranging from .90 to .98. Slosson concluded that

the SIT correlated with the SB as well as the SB correlated with

itself.

During the years 1964-1970, numerous concurrent validity studies

were conducted, foremost of which were the Armstrong and Jensen studies.

In their 1970 study (1) , involving 490 students, they reported:

(1) an overall correlation between the SB and the SIT of .93; and

(2) correlations ranging from .89 to .96 for various sub-categories

such as age, sex, order of administration, time between testing and

examiner training. A particularly interesting finding was a correla-

tion coefficient of .94 when the SB was administered by a certified SB

examiner or WISC examiner, and the SIT by a non-certified examiner.

The researchers also found an overall mean absolute IQ difference (MAD)

of 5.64, which is approximately the same as the standard error of

measurement of five IQ score points for the SB.

Armstrong and Jensen concluded that: (1) the SIT could be used as

a valid screening and retesting substitute for the SB; and (2) non-

certified SB and WISC examiners could be easily trained (in approxi-

mately 30 minutes) to be competent SIT examiners. They also noted that

the average administration time for the SB was 64 minutes, compared

with 17 minutes for the SIT.

similar
In a 1974 study, Armstrong, Jensen and Reynolds reported

findings for WISC and SIT scores.^ The correlations between the SIT

and WISC Verbal (W-V) , and the SIT and WISC Full Scale (W-FS) scores

were .93 and .90 respectively. Although the correlation between the
 4

SIT and WISC Performance (W-P) was considerably lower

(.72) , the

correlation between the W-V and W-P was only .75. Mean absolute IQ

differences (MAD) were: 5.03 for W-V and SIT; 5.42 for W-FS and SIT;

4.24 for W-V and W-FS; 8.79 for SIT and W-P; and 8.51 for W-V and

W-P.

Statement of the Problem

Just when it appeared there was sufficient evidence that SIT IQ

scores could be used with as much confidence as SB, W-V and W-FS IQ

scores, both the WISC (1949) and SB (1960) were revised. The SB was

revised in 1972 and the WISC (now WISC-R) in 1974.^

The 1972 SB revision did not include the addition or deletion of

test items. Item revision was limited to two items. At the two year

old level, children are shown the picture of a child and asked to

identify (point or touch) various parts of the body, e.g., hair, eyes,

mouth, etc. On this item, the clothing worn by the child in the pic-

ture was updated. At the seven year old level, examinees are asked to

state the similarity between the words "wood" and "coal." In this

instance, the word "charcoal" can be substituted for coal. Thus, the

1972 SB revision was restricted to score renorming, or changing the 10

values for obtained scores. On the other hand, the 1974 WISC revision

(now WISC-R) included major item changes; (1) addition of new items;

(2) deletion of items; and (3) modifications in wording and/or the

interpretation of some items which were kept.

Studies conducted by Armstrong and Jensen, Sattler, and Thorndike

show that the differences between the 1960 SB scores and the new 1972
 5

8
SB scores are considerable.
.

In almost all cases, the SB scores have

been lowered, which means that the current SIT scores are inflated.

The score differences range generally from 0 to 15 IQ points, with

about half the scores revealing changes of greater than 9 points. The

changes in IQ score differences varied greatly from age group to age

group and for IQ levels within age groups. As a result, no simple for-

mula could be used to align SIT scores with the new SB scores.

Until recently little or nothing had been done to revise or re-

align the SIT with the new SB. This is unfortunate, since many people

are still using the SIT but not obtaining comparable SB (1972) scores.

As stated previously, the differences are considerable in most cases.

Fortxinately , Armstrong and Jensen have recently completed a SIT norm

revision, using calibration techniques similar to those used by Thom-

9
dike for the SB in 1972. The new SIT norms, which were published in

1981, once again ensure that the SIT and SB scores are comparable.

Unfortunately, no extensive research has been conducted to deter-

mine the relationship between WISC and WISC-R scores, or between WISC-

R and SIT scores. The few studies that have been conducted to determine

the relationship of WISC-R and 1961 SIT scores have shown major depar-

tures from the original findings between the WISC and the 1961 SIT.

In addition, these studies have been extremely limited in terms of:

(1) the sample size — usually between 25 to 40; and (2) the restricted

composition of the samples (e.g., low IQ scores, high IQ scores, spe-

In a small
cific handicaps, specific age or grade levels, etc.).
the WISC-R and
study, Wechsler reported that the correlation between

the correlation between

the new SB (1972) was approximately the same as
 6

the Wise and the 1960 SB.^^ Simply stated, the comparability of 1961

SIT scores with WISC-R scores no longer holds true.

The research findings cited previously, as well as other major

studies, reveal the following concerning the SIT, SB (1960), SB (1972),

Wise, and WISe-R.

1. There is a need for a valid individual intelligence test that:

(1) requires no specialized training of its administrators;

(2) can be quickly administered and scored; and (3) yields IQ

scores comparable to the Stanford-Binet and Wechsler tests.

Such a test would provide testing specialists an opportunity

to administer more individual tests themselves, as well as

provide an invaluable source of additional test administrators.

2. In the early 1970 's there was sufficient evidence that 1961

SIT IQ scores could be used with as much confidence as 1960

SB and WISC (V and FS) scores. Unfortunately, the WISC and

SB were revised. There is sufficient evidence that 1961 SIT

scores are no longer comparable to the new WISC-R or the new

SB (1972) scores.

3. Until recently no norm revision of the 1961 SIT has been

attempted.

4. The new 1981 SIT norms once again align SIT scores with the

1972 SB scores.

5. There is evidence that the correlation between the WISC-R and

the 1972 SB is approximately the same as that reported

for

the WISC and the 1960 SB.

 7

6. To date, no extensive research has been conducted

concerning
the WISC-R scores with the 1971 SIT scores. The results from

the limited research that has been conducted show major

de-

partures from the findings between the Wise and the 1961 SIT,

similar to those between the 1972 SB and the 1961 SIT.

7. There is a need to determine if the relationship between the

WISC-R and the new SIT is comparable to the previous relation-

ship of the Wise to the 1961 SIT.

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to determine if the new SIT scores

are comparable to WISC-R scores (Verbal and Full Scale) . In other

words, can the new SIT scores be used with as much confidence as WISC-R

scores — to the extent that the old SIT (1961) scores could be used with

the unrevised WISC scores.

The results of this study will provide valuable information to

WISC-R administrators, especially Directors of Special Education, con-

cerning the use of the 1961 SIT and new SIT. If the results are favor-

able, Directors of Special Education will be able to:

1. administer an individual test of intelligence rather than a

group test, for screening or retesting even when an individual

test is not required;

2. use the SIT instead of the WISC-R for screening and retesting

when an individual test is required;

 .

3. increase their test administration staff at minimal cost,

since the SIT does not require specialized training.

Each of the following areas will be examined in terms of correla-

tion and mean absolute IQ difference.

I. Overall - for all examinees;

2.-4. Age levels - 6-8, 9-11, 12-15;

5. Female - all female examinees;

6. Male - all male examinees;

7. Same Administrator - for both tests;

10.

8. Different Administrator - for each test;

9. Certified Both WISC-R - Both test administrators were WISC-R

certified, but not necessarily the same administrator;

Certified WISC-R Only - certified administrator for the

WISC-R and a non-certified WISC-R administrator for the

SIT;

II. Order WISC-R First;

12. Order SIT First;

13. Same Day - when both tests were administered on the same day;

14.-16. Different Day - When the administration of the second test

was completed within the following time intervals: 1-14 days,

15-60 days ; 2 months to 18 months

It should be noted here that at the time the study was implemented,

the new SIT norms were completed, but not on the market. However, the

writer obtained permission from the authors (Armstrong and Jensen) to

purposes in
use an advanced copy of the new SIT norm tables for scoring

this study. (Note: The new SIT was published in November, 1982.)
 .

Limitations

1. The sample on which the study was based could not be drawn

at random from the country as a whole or even from New England.

Nevertheless, the participating communities were selected to provide a

balanced variety of urban and suburban settings, and as heterogeneous

a sample as possible. However, results here reported may differ from

those obtained in other samples drawn from other parts of the country.

Technically, the results of the study will apply only to Massachusetts.

2. Subjects for the study were those for whom a WISC-R test was

administered as part of a core evaluation, with many of them being

actual recipients of special education services. In any event, they

will represent only potential or actual recipients of special educa-

tion services.

Definition of Terins

General Terms

1. Director of Special Education ; Refers to the administrator

responsible for all programs concerning children with special

needs

2. IQ High ! For purposes of this study, it refers to scores

eJDOve 110.

3. IQ Low ; For purposes of this study, it refers to scores

below 90.

4. Public Law 94-142 ; Refers to a comprehensive federal law

regarding children with special needs.

 10

5- SB: Refers to the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Test, Form

B~M . SB 1960 and SB 1972 refer specifically to the 1960 and

1972 editions of this test.

6. SIT ; Refers to the Slosson Intelligence Test . The terms

"old" or "original" SIT imply the 1961 edition, and the term

"new" SIT refers to the 1981 norms.

7. WISC ; Refers to the 1949 edition of the Wechsler Intelligence

Test for Children , whereas WISC-R implies the 1974 edition of

the same test.

Statistical terms

1. Arithmetic Mean ; A common measure of the average of a set of

numbers. Obtained by summing the scores and dividing by the

number of scores. Frequently referred to simply as mean.

2. Average ; One of several measures of central tendency. The

most common measures are the median, the arithmetic mean, and

the mode. The term average is often used as a synonym for

arithmetic mean.

3. Central Tendency ; A measure of average, the typical score,

or the score around which the scores in a set tend to cluster.

4. Coefficient of Correlation ; A measure of the degree of rela-

tionship or "going- togetherness" between two sets of measures

for the same group of individuals. The correlation coefficient

roost frequently used in test development and educational re-

search is that known as the Pearson or product-moment r.

 11

Correlation coefficients range from .00, denoting a complete

absence of relation, to +1.00 and to -1.00, indicating per-

fect positive or perfect negative correspondence, respectively.

5. Concurrent Validity : A type of empirical (criterion related)

validity in which a test is validated by correlating scores

on it with scores from a test generally accepted or known to

be valid.

6. Construct Validity ; A form of logical validity established

by showing the relationship between test scores and a con-

struct, a logical criterion, established by analysis of rela-

tionships expected on logical grounds. If one or more fac-

tors, such as age, sex, or scholastic achievement, were logi-

cally related to the development of a skill, evidence of con-

struct validity of a test might include data and reasoning

about the relationship of these factors to the test scores.

7. Criterion ; A standard by which a test may be judged or eval-

uated; a set of scores, ratings, etc., that a test is designed

to measure, to predict, or to correlate with. See Validity.

8. Deviation IQ ; A standard score on an intelligence test based

on the deviation between an individual's score for persons of

that age. Deviation IQ's have a normal distribution with a

mean of 100 and usually a standard deviation of 15 or 16.

9. Dispersion; The extent to which scores in a set tend to be

spread out or to vary about an average.

 .

12

Group Test ; A test that can be administered by one person

to more than one examinee at a time.

Test ; A test that can be administered to only one

person at a time because of the nature of the test and/or

the maturity level of the examinees.

12- Intelligence Quotient (IQ) : Originally the ratio of mental

age to chronological age, multiplied by 100. The average IQ

is 100. Developed as a means of ej^ressing rate of mental

development or brightness. (See also Deviation IQ)

13. Intelligence Test ; A test designed to measure general mental

ability. Now frequently comprised of svibtests of different

types of materials (for example, verbal and nonverbal).

14. Item ; A single question or exercise on a test.

15. Mean Absolute IQ Difference (MAD) ; Refers to what an exam-

iner may ejq^ect in terms of the deviation in scores yielded

by both instruments, that is, by how many points on the aver-

age an examinee's scores will differ having been given both

instruments

16. Mental Age (MA) : The age for which a given score on a mental

ability test is average or normal. If the average score made

by an unselected group of children 6 years, 10 months of age

is 55, then a child making a score of 55 is said to have a

mental age of 6-10. Since the mental age unit shrinks with

increasing (chronological) age, MA's do not have a uniform

interpretation throughout all ages. They are therefore most

 13

appropriately used at the early age levels where mental growth

is relatively rapid.

17. N; The symbol commonly used to represent the niimber of cases

in a group.

18. Norms ; Statistics that supply a frame of reference by which

meaning may be given to obtain test scores. Norms are based

upon the actual performance of pupils of various grades or

ages in the standardization group for the test. Since they

represent average or typical performance, they should not be

regarded as standards or as universally desirable levels of

attainment. The most common types of norms are deviation IQ,

percentile rank, grade equivalent, and stanine. Reference

groups are usually those of specified age or grade.

19. Norm- Referenced Test ; A test that is interpreted by compar-

ing an individual's score with the scores of other individu-

als in a group defined by some characteristic such as age or

grade in school.

20. Performance Test ; A test involving some motor or manual

response on the examinee's part, generally a manipulation of

concrete equipment or materials. Usually not a paper-and-

pencil test. For example, a "performance" test of mental

ability is one in which the role of language is excluded or

minimized, and ability is assessed by what the examinee does

rather than by what he says (or writes). Mazes, form boards,

picture completion, and other types of items may be used.

 14

Examples include certain Stanford-Binet tasks, the Perfor-

mance Scale of Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children,

Arthur Point Scale of Performance Tests, Raven's Progressive

Matrices.

21- Random Sample ; A sample drawn in such a way that every mem-

ber of the population from which it is drawn has an equal

and independent chance of being included, thus eliminating

bias from methods of selection.

22. Range ; For some specified group, the difference between the

highest and the lowest obtained score on a test; thus a very

rough measure of spread or variability, since it is based

upon only two extreme scores. Range is also used in refer-

ence to the possible spread of measurement a test provides,

which in most instances is the number of items in the test.

23. Ratio IQ : See Intelligence Quotient.

24. Reliability ; The consistency of measurement. The accuracy

with which a test measures whatever it measures . Expressed

in the form of a coefficient of correlation or the standard

error of measurement.

25. Representative Sample ; A sample drawn in such a way as to

ensure that the population is represented with regard to

certain characteristics. Often, a sample stratified with

respect to particular criteria such as geographic region or

socioeconomic level.
 15

26- Standard Deviation : A measure of the dispersion of scores

around the average of the set. Based on the difference be-

tween each score and the mean. The greater the dispersion of

scores, the larger the standard deviation, and vice versa.

27. Standard Error of Measurement (SEM) ; An estimate of the

magnitude of errors likely to be present in scores obtained

from a test. It can be estimated from the standard deviation

of the test and its reliability coefficient. In approximate-

ly two- thirds of the cases, the obtained scores would not

differ from the true scores by more than one standard error

of measurement.

28. Standard Score : A derived score expressed on a known scale.

Standard scores are expressed in terms of the deviation of

the raw scores from the mean in units of the standard devia-

tion of the distribution, hence, the name standard score.

Examples: Z-scores, sigma scores, and T-scores.

29. Standardized Test : A test designed to provide a systematic

sample of individual performance, administered according to

prescribed directions, scored in conformance with definite

rules, and interpreted in reference to certain normative in-

formation. Some would further restrict the usage of the term

"standardized" to those tests for which the items have been

chosen on the basis of experimental evaluation, and for which

data on reliability and validity are provided.

 16

30. Validity ; The extent to which a test measures all of what it

is intended to measure and nothing else. The value of a test

for a specific purpose — selecting students who will succeed

in a vocational program or the extent to which a test consti-

tutes an adequate measure of the objectives and content of

a course.

31. Variability : The dispersion of scores around the average of

the set. The heterogeneity of a set of measures.

32. Variance : A measure of the dispersion of a set of scores

about the mean of the set that is equal to the square of the

standard deviation. A technical term not to be confused

with variability.
 ,

FOOTNOTES

Massachusetts Department of Education. Chapter 766 Regulations,

July 1981.

2
Wechsler, D. "Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children
, -
Revised." Psychological Corporation, 1974.

3
Thorndike, R. Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale, 1972 Norms
,

Tcibles . Houghton Mifflin Company, 1972.

Slosson, R. "Slosson Intelligence Test."

, Slosson Educational
Publications, 1963.

^Terman, L.M. and Merrill, M.A., Stanford-Binet Intelligence

,

Scale Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1960; Slosson, R.

. "Slosson ,

Intelligence Test." Slosson Educational Publications, 1963.

g
Armstrong, R. Jensen, J.; and Reynolds, J., "A Comparison of
;

Individual Intelligence Tests Used for Special Class Placement,"

Slosson Intelligence Test Manual Spring, 1974. ,

7
Terman, L. and Merrill, M. Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale,
, ,

Manual Houghton Mifflin Company, 1972; Thorndike, R. Stanford-

. ,

Binet Intelligence Scale, 1972 Norms Tables Houghton Mifflin Com- .

pany, 1972; Wechsler, D. "Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children -

,

Revised." Psychological Corporation, 1974.

^Armstrong, R. and Jensen J., "The Slosson Intelligence Test

,

1981 Norms Tables: Application and Development." Chelmsford, MA:

Metrics Press, Inc., Fall, 1981; Sattler, J. "Assessment of Child- ,

ren's Intelligence." W.B. Saunders Company, 1979; Thorndike, R.

Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale, 1972 Noms Tables Houghton .

Mifflin Company, 1972.

^Armstrong, R. and Jensen, J., "The Slosson Intelligence Test

,

1981 Norms Tables: Application and Development." Chelmsford, MA:

Metrics Press, Inc., Fall, 1981; Thorndike, R. Stanford-Binet ,

Intelligence Scale, 1972 Norms Tables Houghton Mifflin Company, .

1972.

^*^Wechsler, D. Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children:

,

Manual. New York: Psychological Corporation, 1949.

17
 ;

CHAPTER II
RELATED RESEARCH

The purpose of Chapter II is to report the findings of related

research studies concerning the Slosson Intelligence Test with the

Stanford-Binet and the Wechsler Intelligence Tests. The following

abbreviations will be used to identify the specific version or edition

of the three tests.

SIT; 1961 Slosson Intelligence Test

SB: 1960 Stanford-Binet Intelligence Test

WISC: 1949 Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children

SIT-R: 1981 Slosson Intelligence Test

SB-R; 1972 Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale

Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children -

WISC-R: 1974

Revised.

The research studies are presented under the following five

headings

1. SIT and the SB

2. SIT and the SB-R

3. SIT--R and the SB-R

4. SIT and the WISC

5. SIT and the WISC-R

18
 19

1. SIT and the SB

The SIT was published by Richard L, Slosson in 1961.^ His stated

purpose for constructing the SIT was to provide a test which
would re-
quire minimal training to administrate, took approximately 20
minutes
to administer and score, and yielded IQ scores which were close
approx-

imations to the SB IQ.

Slosson used the SB as the criterion in establishing the validity

of the SIT. Table 1 reports the concurrent validity data obtained by

Slosson in his sample of 701 persons ranging in age from four years to

18+ years. It can be seen in Table 1 that the concurrent validity

. . 2
coefficients ranged from .90 to .98. Slosson concluded that the SIT

correlated with its criterion, the SB, as well as the SB correlated

with itself.

Table 1 also shows that the mean absolute IQ difference (MAD)

ranged from 4.4 to 6.7, approximately the same as the Standard Error of

Measurement (SEM) of the SB. When the distributions for the variables

in question are normal and have equal means and standard deviations,

the value of MAD is approximately 1.1284 times the SEM.^

Slosson administered both tests to 560 of the 701 examinees in the

original validity study shown in Table 1. In order to avoid any bias,

an independent testing experiment was utilized for the remaining 141

examinees. For this experiment, Slosson administered the SB and the

SIT tests were administered by a group of untrained SB examiners. It

can be seen in Table 2 that the results were comparable; .92 concurrent

validity coefficient, and a 6.1 MAD.

 20

TABLE 1

1961 SLOSSON CONCURRENT VALIDITY STUDY

Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations and Mean Absolute
IQ Score Point Differences (MAD) of the S-B and
SIT Intelligence Tests

Means Standard Deviations

Age N r SB SIT SB SIT MAD

Overall 701 .96 98.9 98.9 21.7 22.0 5.7

4 27 .90 116.6 114.6 19.7 18.7 6.7

5 23 .93 102.1 101.5 20.7 18.0 5.6

6 61 .98 100.7 101.3 20.7 20.2 4.4

7 71 .98 98.9 98.4 23.5 20.9 5.9

8 44 .94 95.5 95.5 17.6 17.0 5.3

9 45 .97 100.7 100.6 25.1 23.7 5.1

10 40 .94 96.1 97.2 23.9 24.6 6.1

11 51 .96 93.1 92.6 21.4 22.0 4.9

12 36 .97 94.0 94.1 22.4 24.6 4.6

13 57 .96 96.3 97.0 23.4 24.9 5.0

14 66 .97 92.7 92.4 20.4 21.5 4.4

15 56 .94 92.7 91.7 18.8 18.2 5.1

16 39 .96 97.6 97.5 23.7 24.0 4.7

17 23 .94 106.0 106.6 16.9 16.7 5.0

18+ 62 .97 101.7 102.5 31.8 31.2 5.9

 21

TABLE 2

1961 SLOSSON CONCURRENT VALIDITY STUDY

INDEPENDENT EXPERIMENTAL STUDY
Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations and Mean Absolute
IQ Score Point Differences (MAD) of the S-B and
SIT Intelligence Tests

Means Standard Deviations

Age N r SB SIT SB SIT MAD

4-19 141 .92 107.7 107.2 20.2 19.9 6.1

Studies conducted in the late 1960 's and early 1970 's largely con-

firmed what Slosson had concluded in 1961. The two foremost studies
4
were undertaken by Armstrong and Jensen in 1970 and Armstrong, Mooney

5
and Jensen in 1971.

The 1970 Armstrong and Jensen study used for its testing sample

490 students (ages 6 to 14) enrolled in 10 public school systems in

Northeastern Massachusetts. Each student was administered both a SIT

and SB within a two week period of time. In order to obtain compara-

tive results and also to avoid bias, the tests were administered using

various combinations of personnel. The personnel or administrators

were classified in three ways, namely, professionals, trainees and

teachers. For the purpose of the study: (1) professionals were defined

as highly trained and experienced personnel in the

field of testing

(limited to three in the study); (2) trainees were defined as part-

time graduate students (mostly teachers) who were

enrolled in a course

the SB and who

concerned with administering, scoring and interpreting
before administering
had administered numerous SB's under supervision
 ;

22

any tests in this study; and (3) teachers were defined as personnel

with no knowledge concerning the administration of the SB.

Using the Pearson-Product Moment formula, a coefficient of correla

tion was computed separately for each of the following 21 categories.

1. Overall - for all 490 testees;

2.-10. Age Levels - for each age level separately (6-14)

11. Male - all male testees;

12. Female - all female testees;

13. Same Administrator - for both tests;

14. Different Administrator - for both tests, but not

necessarily the same administrator;

15. Professional Administrator - for both tests, but not

necessarily the same administrator;

16. Trainee Administrator - for both tests , but not

necessarily the same administrator;

17. Professional and Teacher Administrators - SB by a profes-

sional and the SIT by a teacher, neither was aware the other

test was given or was going to be given;

18. SB Administered First;

19. SIT Administered First;

20. Same Day - when both tests were administered on the same

day;

21. Different Day - when the administration of the second test

was completed between one and fourteen days after the first

administration.
 23

Additionally, the mean absolute difference (MAD) between IQ scores

from the two scales was computed for each of the preceding categories.

Table 3 reveals that the overall study Pearson-Product Moment cor-

relation between the SB and the SIT was .93. Also, the range of corre-

lation for the 20 subcategories was from .89 (ages 8 and 9) to .96

(age 13). All correlations were significant beyond the .001 probabili-

ty level. Table 3 also reveals that the mean absolute IQ score point

difference (MAD) between the two tests was 5.64 which is approximately

the same as the standard error of measurement of 5 IQ score points of

the SB. The range of average IQ score point differences for the 20

subcategories was from 4.03 (professional and teacher) to 6.15 (age

10) . These average score point differences present further evidence of

the comparability of the scores of these two tests.

The researchers concluded that for this study, consisting of 490

testees, the SIT appears to be measuring the same thing as the SB,

that is, SIT and SB scores are comparable. No test could correlate so

closely with another, and not be a good measure of it. Thus, the find-

ings suggest that the SIT can be used as a valid screening and retest-

ing substitute for the SB and provide: (1) an opportunity for more in-

dividual intelligence tests to be given; (2) a source of additional

test administrators; and (3) specialized personnel with more time for

their other responsibilities.

Most studies concerning the validity of the SIT used heterogeneous

populations. It was the purpose of the 1971 Armstrong, Mooney, and

findings to a
Jensen study^ to determine the applicability of earlier
low IQ
restricted, homogeneous population of special class or
 24

TfncO'O’vOmooooocNtNrorocNvo^ncN^cxsrH
+J
c
vDiHvD<Ti03rHroiniDHmro<Nr'^OOir)OOrno3
*H invOLni/3ir)vDLnin^Lnmi/3Lnir)mvD^ir)Lninm
o

0)
>H
o
« cn O rH 03 03 rH CN CD
03 03 00 00 03 03 03 CJ3
n cn rH cn CVJ CN cn rH •cr CN CN cn CN
CTi 03 03 03 03 03 03 <33 03 <33 03 03 03
O 03
W) 4J
03
O! 03
H Eh
CN r' 00 'O' rH 'O' m m n CN cn n- 00 00 cn rH 00 C" m <33
0) 03 CD rn CN 03 03 rH CD CN CD 00 03 CN in 03 03 CD iH 'T '3'
P O
P C
iH
w o
CN
r' r' C" Ch 00 rH o o o
00 03 00 03 00 00 r' 00 00 03
rH rH rH rH rH CN CN CN CN rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH CN iH rH
O
03
O O' o
03 -H o
03 03
Eh c +J O rH 03 CD 'O' CD n 'O' CD O'- rH in cn "O' rH 03 03 in m 'T £
cn m C CD 00 CN in O 03 03 in 03 03 03 00 CN fH r' '3' m o '3' •P
03 H
o s <T>00 CD CD 00 03 00 03 03 r' 00 00 CD in 03 00 r' <33 00 00 'O
Eh rH iH rH rH iH rH iH rH rH rH rH iH fH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH c
CTi T3 H o
C W >1
(0 03

n z TJ XI
u 03 C
w c (0 o 00 rH "O' cn iH 03 o o o cn cn o o in iH r' 00 rH 4-3

2 o CD o 03 00 o 'O' CD o 'O' CN C" r' cn "O' CD cn rr cn o c

a W p n
•H m
1-3 cn ID o
CN CD CD CD 00 00 CD 00 r' 03 cn rH rH 00 00 O'- CD '3'
o o o o
o
o o o o
I

s w
(0 o o rH iH
rH iH rH iH rH rH
O O O O o O o
rH rH fH iH rH rH rH
rH fH
rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH
•H
C
tr
o O in CD n rH CD 00 o
CD 03 rH CN CD
m
CD rH 'f CD o -H
CD m o CN 03 rH CD in 'O' 'O' cn CD 03 CD CD cn 'T CD 03

CD o m in in
03 C" CD CD 00 cn o 03 03 CD p" m fH 03
O o o iH o o o o O O o O O O o O O O o o rH P
rH rH rH rH iH fH iH rH rH fH rH rH rH rH iH rH rH rH
rH (H rH (0

03
+J
o o 03 00 m 00 00 o o CO cn 'O' CD CN CD CN m in o o C
in
(J3 in in in m in m m m m in "O' 'O' in 00 in
CN CN cn rH iH CN
03 03 00 rH
CN iH CN CN
03
•H
o
•H
Oh
ip
c cn <u
•p >1 0
E (TJ h u
-o Q Q
• < c
p G CU '3' 0
P E •p
p0 e
•H rH
0) <o 1 p
\c rp\c
cn
<0 -o x: <0

p sC • u rH
+J c CCJ <u
rH 'H
</) Q) 0 0 p
o •H m E Eh •p •p p
cr> C c '9 +J p +J +J 0
03
p
(0
u

o rH (N n ^
HrrtvOr^00O3iHrHrHrHrH 03 O
rH O
U 03
03030303030303030303rH£2
> triCT'CTitT'CT'IT'CJ'tT'Cr'ig 03
stvitlPutB (Trtblp 4). Thp ehlMfPU In tl\P Mtu«ty rp«>up»t in pvjp rmw m (o

14 yppru. Tliplr 8U 1 Q*b «"flngp«1 fi-om 4!i to MM, with « i«Pan of 72, Thp

Btvhty Mctmpl** OOMMiMtPtl of 147 l4t\lt1PI\tM who WPfP PVplnfliPtl for t^XtHihl**

elrtMH vUpo«?mpnt. Krtch Mtvulpnt w^m nlwtpi'p*! hotlt thp 8TT am*! SM

within two-w»*Pk t'wri'irt of timp. tn or*1pr to ohtpln o»w\t'flrrthlP rPHultw

rtiul to rtvoiii bipM, thp oi‘<lpr of <4*1mlniBtrrttion of thp InMtrntnpntH wpb

, 1ptprml n^vl ^t r«n\<1oi«. Using thp I'p^rson-brodnet M»M«pnt foimils, a eo«

pffleiont of eorrslrttion wss t'orntnit hptwppn thP SM ^inl StT tQ seores.

Also, thp tnpsn shsolutp IQ soors ^>olnt Uiffprsnop (MAU) wss <'t<n\j.intp«1,

TAMt4« 4

AMMJJTKONU, MtkINKY ANU UKNMKN 1V>71 8TUl)Y

Mpsms, Stsiulsrd Usvistions, V'ssrson-l'rodvict MtM«snt

CorrsUtion, sjvd Mpsn Absoluts IQ 8oors Oiffpipnos (MAU)
for thp 8tsnf©rd-Minst {8-M) snd Slosson (8iT)
lntp4ligst\op Tost Seorps

itsnford-Minst Slosson
8-8 SIT

N 147 147

X 72.07 73.0M

8U 10. Ml 10.05

r .Ml

w* .oi

Mppi\ Absoluts IQ Uiffprsnos (MAU) 4.4M

*Adiusts(1 for rsstrietion of rsngs.

 26

It can be seen in Table 4, the Pearson— Product Moment correlation

between SB and the SIT scores was .85. Although this was slightly lower

than the results reported for validity studies of heterogeneous samples

(approximately .90) , it is impressive considering that the sample from

which these data were drawn showed rather severe restriction in varia-

bility. The adjusted or estimated correlation for a similar sample with-

out restriction of range was .93. The mean absolute IQ score difference

(MAD) between the two instruments was 4.48.

The average administration time for the SB was 64 minutes, com-

pared to 17 minutes for the SIT. Therefore, on an average, the SB took

approximately four times longer to administer.

The researchers concluded, that for these students, scores obtained

from the SIT could have been used with as much confidence as scores ob-

tained from the SB for special class placement. The results suggest that

one of Slosson's purposes in constructing the test — to develop an abbre-

viated test that could be used as a valid screening and retesting in-

strxament —was achieved.

7
In a 1980 review of the literature. Chimera reported the findings

of 18 major studies concerning the SIT and the SB. The range of corre-

lations was from .60 to .98 with a median concurrent validity coefficient

of .90. The 18 studies involved 3,253 examinees, with an average of 181

examinees per study. Table 5 contains a summary of the studies.

 )

27

TABLE 5

CHIMERA REVIEW OF 18 RESEARCH STUDIES CONCERNING

THE SIT AND THE SB

Sample Size
Author ( s SB SIT & Subject
& Year r Mean SD Mean SD Typology

Slosson .96 98.90 21.75 98.98 22.00 701 Aged 4 to 18

1961 and over

Slosson .92 107.2 19.9 107.7 20.2 141 Aged 4 to 19

1961

Poissant .89 69.3 9.7 68.0 8.7 30 Aged 4 to 50

1967

DeLapa .60 66.37 8.94 68.86 9.24 57 Educable re-

1968 tarded Aged 8
to 12

DeLapa .90 103.97 13.72 99.92 13.20 60 Students Aged

1968 8 to 12

Keany .84 * 14.4 it

11.1 32 Sixth Grade
1968 Children

Hill .84 68.0 8.64 66.37 7.29 30 Aged 7 to 12

1969 "adjusted curric.
(IQ 50 to 80)

Jongeward .76 71.70 7.68 69.30 8.08 30 Educable Spec-

1969 ial Class Pupils
Aged 7 to 10

.93 107.6 20.42 106.6 19.60 490 Public School

Armstrong
Students Aged 6
& Jensen
to 14
1970

.91 19.19 16.78 21.13 15.78 122 Profound &

Carlisle
Severe Retardates
(6 year
interval)

Data not available.

 28

Tcible 5 (cont.)

Sample Size
Author (s) & SB SIT & Subject
Year r Mean SD Me am SD Typology

Armstrong .94 101.30 18.19 100.90 15.24 204 Public School

& Mooney 108.65 17.91 109.51 18.58 Pupils Aged 6 to
1971 14

Armstrong .85 73.08 10.03 77.07 10.81 147 Special Class

Mooney & Pupils Aged 8 to
Jensen 14
1971

Johnson & .79 85.76 13.80 87.86 13.65 29 Head Start

Johnson Children
1971

Stewart, .94 79.4 19.6 79.1 18.9 81 Special Educa-

et al. tion Referrals
1971 Aged 6 to 15

Armstrong .92 107.28 19.23 106.44 18.20 724 Students Aged

& Jensen 6 to 14
1972

Lamp & .75 91.8 12.7 231 Disadvantaged

Traxler Head Start & 1st
1973 Graders

.92 99.9 15.74 95.3 14.05 44 Students Aged

Ritter
4 to 13
1973

84 60.37 17.58 61.22 16.58 100 Special Class

Stewart .

1974
Students Aged 6
to 16
(4 year interval)

*
Data not availcible.
 29

2. SIT and the SB-R

The value of the SIT in accurately estimating the corresponding SB

IQ was firmly established nearly ten years ago. Studies cited in the

previous sections showed that the SIT was exceptionally reliable and

valid as an estimate of a person's SB 10 (Armstrong and Jensen, 1970,

1973) . The creator of the SIT, Richard L. Slosson, managed to capture

the essential qualities of the SB in a much shorter and less expensive

SIT. Since the SIT could be administered accurately by persons who had

only a modest background in intelligence testing, and could be adminis-

tered and scored in about twenty minutes, its popularity as a screening

device was easily understood.

While the bulk of the research which showed the accuracy and utility

of the SIT as an estimate of the SB was being conducted, the SB was it-

self undergoing an extensive renorming. While the SIT had been an ex-

cellent estimate of the 1960 norms for the SB, the extensive changes

introduced in the 1972 SB-R norms meant that the old relationship between

the SIT and the SB no longer held. As a result of the SB-R, differences

of 10 or even 15 IQ points were being yielded by the two instr\aments in

measuring the same individual.^ Prior to the 1972 SB-R, such differen-

ces were virtually unheard of. While the scores for most examinees

given by the SB-R and the SIT were still close, it was clear that the

1972 SB-R norms had distorted the parallelism which had characterized

both instrioments until that time.

Tables 6 and 7 reveal the results of a 1980 study conducted by

in 1981.
Armstrong and Jensen as part of their renorming of the SIT
 30

TABLE 6

ARMSTRONG AND JENSEN 1981 STUDY

Differences Between Unrevised Stemford-Binet and Unrevised
Slosson IQ's by Levels of Chronological Age and Intelligence

Chronological
SB IQ Group
Age Group in
Years -Months Below 84 84 - 116 Above 116 Row Total

6-6 and Mean - 2.64 - 1.38 2.22 - 0.67

Below SD 4.82 7.23 8.47 7.38
N 22 69 32 123

6-7 to Mean - 2.95 - 1.48 1.90 - 1.23

10-6 SD 5.40 6.88 8.34 7.02
N 86 283 70 439

10-7 to Mean - 0.03 - 0.82 - 1.81 - 0.79

13-6 SD 4.94 6.89 8.47 6.77
N 73 195 48 316

13-7 and Mean 0.49 - 0.46 1.65 0.20

Above SD 5.92 6.32 7.10 6.32
N 85 112 34 231

Mean - 1.02 - 1.10 0.94 - 0.74

Column
Totals SD 5.60 6.83 8.28 6.86
N 266 659 184 1109
 31

TABLE 7

ARMSTRONG AND JENSEN 1981 STUDY

Differences Between Revised Stcinford-Binet and Unrevised
Slosson IQ's by Levels of Chronological Age and Intelligence

Chronological SB IQ Group
Age Group in
Years-Months Below 84 84 - 116 Above 116 Row Total

6-6 and Mean - 8.82 - 8.91 - 6.50 - 8.27

Below SD 5.96 7.96 8.41 7.78
N 22 69 32 123

6-7 to Mean - 4.37 - 4.36 - 3.09 - 4.16

10-6 SD 5.54 6.86 8.23 6.87
N 86 283 70 439

10-7 to Mean - 1.44 - 3.24 - 5.08 - 3.10

13-6 SD 4.98 6.92 8.67 6.90
N 73 195 48 316

13-7 and Mean - 1.34 - 4.17 - 3.82 - 3.08

Above SD 6.07 6.52 7.00 6.54
N 85 112 34 231

Column Mean - 2.97 - 4.47 - 4.34 - 4.09

Totals SD 6.01 7.11 8.20 7.08
N 266 659 184 1109
 32

These tables illustrate dramatically both the adequacy of the SIT as an

estimate of the corresponding SB IQ prior to the renorming of the SB and

the extent to which the SB-R served to undermine the usefulness of the

SIT. Both tables present N's, means and standard deviations for IQ dif-

ferences observed in combinations of age level and SB 10 level. The

columns of each tcible divide the total group into three levels for IQ.

A low group was formed consisting of all subjects who scored more than

one standard deviation below the mean on the SB. A corresponding high

group included subjects who scored more than one standard deviation above

the mean on the SB. Subjects who scored between 84 and 116 on the SB

constituted a middle, "average" group.

Table 6 shows that overall, the SIT and SB averaged less than one

IQ point difference in the IQ's they yielded prior to the renorming of

the SB. The marginal entries also show good correspondence between the

two instruments for different age levels and for the three IQ groups,

the largest differences observed being on the order of one IQ point.

Since the cell entries are formed by subtracting the SIT IQ from the

corresponding SB IQ, the negative entries mean that the SIT was over-

estimating the SB. It may be seen that there was a tendency for the SIT

to give slightly inflated estimates of the SB IQ's which it was estima-

ting in most of the age and IQ categories, though that tendency was not

marked or apparently serious.

claims
The results which appear in Taible 6 serve to justify the

estimating
which were made in years past that the SIT did a good job of

SB IQ's. Table 7 presents corresponding results after the SB had been

to
renormed (SB-R) . These results show quite clearly why the SIT needed
 33

normed as well. Note that the overall IQ difference in Table 7 is

-4.09 points. This means that following the SB's renorming, the SIT

was clearly overestimating the SB-R. Without exception, the marginals

and the cells show negative entries indicating a systematic error which

had become attached to SIT IQ's. Though the SIT was systematically

overestimating corresponding SB-R IQ's, it should be emphasized that

the amount of the overestimation varied as a function both of chrono-

logical age and IQ level. Note that the errors were most serious for

young children and for bright examinees. Least affected were the older

children and adults who were in the low IQ group, yet there was a ten-

dency for their SB-R IQ's to be overestimated as well. Quite clearly,

something had to be done to realign SIT IQ's with the renormed SB-R

IQ's if the SIT were to continue to be used as an estimate of the cor-

responding SB-R IQ's.

3. SIT-R and the SB-R

10
In 1981, Armstrong and Jensen published the 1981 SIT-R norms.

Table 8 presents the results which bear upon the success of the norming

procedures. Table 8 shows that, as a result of the norming procedures,

the average difference between IQ's generated by the two instruments

has been reduced from 4.09 points (with the SIT systematically overesti-

mating the SB-R) to four hundredths (.04) of an IQ point. In the same

essentially
vein, IQ differences attributable to chronological age have

of one-half
disappeared, the largest difference noted being on the order

(.5) an IQ point. These differences are clearly due to minor sampling

 34

TABLE 8

ARMSTRONG AND JENSEN 1981 STUDY

Between Revised Stanford— Binet and Revised
Slosson IQ's by Levels of Chronological Age
and Intelligence

Chronological SB IQ Group
Age Group in
Years-Months Below 84 84 - 116 Above 116 Row Total

6-6 and Mean - 0.45 - 1.52 2.00 - 0.41

Below SD 5.45 6.69 8.25 7.04
N 22 69 32 123

6-7 to Mean - 1.21 - 0.12 1.60 - 0.06

10-6 SD 5.10 6.63 7.84 6.61
N 86 283 70 439

10-7 to Mean - 1.33 0.66 3.25 0.59

13-6 SD 4.29 5.84 7.52 5.97
N 73 195 48 316

13-7 and Mean - 1.41 - 1.10 2.62 - 0.67

Above SD 5.39 5.69 6.19 5.80
N 85 112 34 231

Column Mean - 1.24 - 0.20 2.29 - 0.04

Totals SD 5.00 6.29 7.52 6.33
N 266 659 184 1109
 35

error. In Siam, it is once again the case that the SIT-R may
be used

with confidence in estimating corresponding SB-R IQ's.

4. SIT and the WISC

Although the SIT was developed to seirve as an abbreviated or short

form SB, numerous studies were conducted to detennine the relationship

of the SIT to the WISC. Again, the most comprehensive study was con-

ducted by Arinstrong, Jensen and Reynolds in 1974.^^ As a result, this

section will follow the same reporting format as the "SIT and the SB"

section; a detailed report of the Armstrong and Jensen finding, fol-

lowed by a summary of other pertinent studies.

The purpose of the 1974 Armstrong, Jensen and Reynolds study was

to deterTTiine if the SIT could be used with as much confidence as the

WISC for special class placement. The sample consisted of 198 elemen-

tary school students in a Northeastern Massachusetts community who were

evaluated for special class placement. Each student was administered

both the SIT and the WISC within a two week period of time. Correla-

tions among the variables were coirputed and, since the saunple from

which the data were drawn showed rather severe restriction in variadail-

ity, correlations were also estimated for the corresponding unrestric-

ted sample. In addition, the mean absolute difference (MAD) in IQ

across all 198 subjects was determined for each pair of variables.

As shown in Table 9, the means and standard deviations of the SIT

cind Wise-Full Scale (W-FS) scores were very nearly the same (and not

significantly different) in this sample. None of the variables differed

significantly from any of the others with respect to variance, but

b«eflUHo of Hip Urrjp niirtil.ar of siihjpof.s omplf^yofl, ql| ruMni.qr I Hf.rm aJom.j

tnppns wprp Bl.jr.lrloflr.h nt fho . 0^ IpvpI, wHIi Mip p|K,vp-not p. 1 PKnapMon

of <:hp oofn|.)prl pohi

'rAhi,r. '

AMMJiTMONU, .IKNUfilN ANIJ MI'lYNOUJfl r-»74

Mpptis , Sfpttdprrl iJpvl pti OOP prifl Cottpl qf Ions Awnti'j fhp
,

Vptlphlpp (N^l'^M), CortplphloriH Ahovp hhp iJlptjrjfipl pro

Corroetofl for Mophrlefloft of Uprujo
iVfil SloPHon pn*l WtHC

Topt K B BIT W-V W-P W-PB

BIT 0.74 1 . 00 .01 .75 .00

W-V 70. 10 M.20 .75 1 .00 .72 .01
W-P 71. 5M 12.57 .02 .50 1 . 00 .00

W-fB 00 20. 10.00 .70 .Ml .01 1.00

Corrolpfelonp botwoon flip StT Phfl WfHC^Vorbpl (W“V) pml W-lr'B pooroo

wpfp fpl rly ptiljp tpfihip 1 oohpldof Iny tlio rpphflel o»1 vpf Ipbl 1 tfy In tho

Hpinplp pft*1, wlion pptl/npfcpp wofp nip*lo of Mip oot-folpflonp to bo oxpootorl

lf» Rpmi-'lop liMfoptrletod in vprlpbiltty, Sl'l' peotop woro vory ptrongly

rolptorl to W“V pnti poerop (poo TpJjIo , ^iIjp fjoin|.>pfpbn 1 ty of

poorop on tliP HfT Pnd W-fH wpp diip Iprfjoly to tho olopo flyroomont bo-

Kwpon tho HTT pnd W«V poofop, WlhG-hofforrtipnop (W-h) poorop wofo not

4P woll pptlmptod by HIT pootop op woro W-V pnd W-f'h poorop.

l»'of tlip roptrlefiod spmpl»» tho mopn pbpohbo dlfforoneo In 10

peofpp ylpipiiod by tfio stT pnd w-V or W-Ph (poo TpJ»)o KJ) wpp only

pllghtly Iprqof (lipn I ho ptpndprd orror of moppuromont for fhopo

 37

instruments. The researchers concluded that the evidence from this

study indicates that the SIT, W-V and W-FS are indeed good estimates

of each other.

TABLE 10

ARMSTRONG, JENSEN AND REYNOLDS 1974 STUDY

Mean Absolute IQ Differences
Slosson and WISC

Test SIT W-V W-P W-FS

SIT 0.00
W-V 5.03 0.00
W-P 8.79 8.51 0.00
W-FS 5.42 4.24 5.77 0.00

12
In Qiimera's 1980 review of the literature concerning the SIT

and SB, he also cited the findings of 17 studies concerning the SIT and

WISC. The median correlations of the SIT with the WISC-V, P and FS

were .82, .62 and .75 respectively. The studies included 1,785 examin-

ees with an average of 88 per study. Table 11 presents a summary of

the studies.

5. SIT-R and the WISC-R

Just when it appeared that SIT IQ scores could be used with as much

confidence as WISC-V and WISC-FS IQ scores, the WISC was revised (now

WISC-R). The 1974 WISC-R includes the same subtests, but major changes

Unfortunate-
were made in the content or items of the various subtests.

ly, no extensive research has been conducted

to determine the relation-

and SIT scores.

ship between WISC and WISC-R scores, or between WISC-R
 38

TABLE 11

CHIMERA REVIEW OF THE 17 RESEARCH STUDIES

CONCERNING THE SIT AND WISC

Wise SIT Sample Size

Author (s) and Subject
StYear Criterion r Meeui SD Mean SD Typology

Houston WISC-FS+ .60 104.60 13.21 104.23 11.03 56 School

SiOtto WISC-V .91 Children Aged
196813 WISC-P .62 7 to 14, Avg.
to Above Avg.
Intelligence

Jongeward WISC-FS .54 61.20 7.11 64.90 8.16 30 Educable

19691"^ WISC-V .85 Special Class
WISC-P Pupils Aged
12-15

Meissler WISC-FS .82 80.4 16.0 81.9 15.0 200 Referred

197015 WISC-V .83 Pupils from
WISC-P .70 Grades 1 to 8

79.5 78.0 * 100 Suggested

Pate WISC-FS .84 ic

197o16 WISC-V .87 Mental Retard-

WISC-P .68 ates Aged 6-15

Swanson Si WISC-FS .44 110.0 12.6 106.0 12.1 64 Second

Jacobson WISC-V .64 Graders with
1970^ WISC-P .10 Learning Prob-
lems

Lessler Si WISC-FS .67 All IQ's Below 85 135 Referred

Galinsky WISC-V .68 Pupils Aged
8 7-18
I 974 I WISC-P .57

''’fS = Full Scale; V = Verbal; P = Performance.

Data not available.

 ,

39

Table 11 (Cont.)

Wise Sample Size

Author (a) SIT
and Subject
& Year Criterion Meem SD Mean SD Typology
Maxwell WISC-FS .88 105.2 21.27 102.2 17.14 60 6th Grade
1971 WISC-V .93 and Special Ed-
WISC-P .73 ucation Stu-
dents Aged 11-
14

Stewart, WISC-FS .94 75.3 11.7 70.2 12.7 76 Special

et al. WISC-V .76 Class Pupils
197120 WISC-P .51 Aged 6-13

Jerrolds WISC-FS .74 100.25 15.15 95.29 13.48 51 Students Re-

et al. WISC-V .76 ferred for Read-
197221 WISC-P .51 ing Problems
Aged 6-14

Machen WISC-FS .44 151.23 11.85 133.33 10.44 75 Gifted

197222 WISC-V .52 Children Aged
WISC-P .27 9-11

Lanp & WISC-FS .74 91.8 12.7 * * 231 Disadvan-

Traxler taged Head
197323 Start & 1st
Grade Children

Pikulski WISC-FS .75 104.6 16.3 101.2 11.9 59 Referred to

197324 WISC-V .73 Reading Clinic
WISC-P .59 Aged 7.5-14.6

Sinco WISC-FS .94 89.4 20.2 86.8 18.6 80 Referred

197325 WISC-V .94 Children Aged
WISC-P .84 6-15

*
Data not available.
 .

40

Table 11 (Cent.)

WISC Sample Size

Author (s) SIT
and Subject
& Year Criterion r Mean SD Mean SD Typology

Armstrong WISC-FS .76 68.95 9.74 69.26 10.09 198 Special

& Jensen .90** Class Pupils
1974 WISC-V .75
.93**
WISC-P .62
.75**

Stewart & WISC-FS .83 69.53 13.46 71.17 13.04 128 Special
Myers WISC-V .79 (2 1/2 year interval) Class Students
197427 WISC-P .72 Aged 6-16

Covin WISC-FS .60 75.44 11.16 70.83 9.23 65 Low Achiev-

197728 WISC-V .69 ers
WISC-P .58

Martin & WISC-FS .79 it * * it

33 Public
Ki dwell School Students
197729 Aged 12.3-14.1

*
Data not available.
it it

Recalculated for restricted range of scores (Jensen & Armstrong,

1974)

The few studies that have been conducted to determine the relationship

of the WISC-R and SIT scores have shown major departures from the orig-

inal findings between WISC and SIT scores. In addition, these studies

have been extremely limited in terms of sample size and the restricted

composition of the sample.

In a small study, Wechsler^^ reported that the correlations between

be-
the WISC-R and SB-R are approximately the same as the correlations

tween the WISC and SB. Armstrong and Jensen^^ reported that the corre-

as the
lations between the SIT-R and SB-R is approximately the same
 .. .

41

correlations between the SIT and the SB. Now, there is a need to de-

termine if the SIT-R correlates with the WISC-R the way the SIT cor-

related with the Wise.

The following is a summary of the research findings cited pre-

viously concerning the SIT, SB, WISC, SIT-R and WISC-R:

1. There is a need for a valid individual intelligence test

that (1) requires no specialized training of its adminis-

trators; (2) can be quickly administered and scored; and

(3) yields IQ scores comparable to the SB and Wechsler

tests. Such a test would provide testing specialists an

opportunity to administer more individual tests themselves,

as well as provide an invaluable source of additional test

administrators

2. In the early 1970 's there was sufficient evidence that SIT

IQ scores could be used with as much confidence as SB and

WISC (V and FS) scores. Unfortunately, the WISC and SB

were revised. There is sufficient evidence that SIT scores

are no longer comparable to the new WISC-R or the SB-R

scores

3. Until recently no norm revision of the SIT had been attempted.

4. The new SIT-R norms have aligned the SIT-R scores with SB-R

scores
 42

5. There is evidence that the correlation between the WISC-R

and the SB-R is approximately the same as that reported for

the Wise and the SB.

6. To date, no extensive research has been conducted concern-

ing the WISC-R scores with the SIT scores. The results

from the limited research that has been conducted show

major departures from the findings between the WISC and

the SIT, similar to those between the SB-R and the SIT.

7. There is a need to determine if the relationship between

the WISC-R and the SIT-R is comparable to the previous

relationship of the WISC to the SIT.

 "

FOOTNOTES

Slosson, R. "Slosson Intelligence Test" (East Aurora, NY:

,

Slosson Educational Publications) 1961. ,

^Ibid.

3
Armstrong, R. Jensen, J. and Reynolds, J.
, , "A Comparison of ,

Individual Intelligence Tests Used for Special Class Placement,"

Slosson Intelligence Test Manual 1974. ,

4
Armstrong, R. and Jensen J. "Can Scores Obtained from the
,

Slosson Intelligence Test be Used with as Much Confidence as Scores

Obtained from the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale?" (East Aurora,
NY: Slosson Educational Publications), 1970.

5
Armstrong, R. Mooney, R. and Jensen, J.
, , "Testing Low IQ ,

Children," Slosson Intelligence Manual (East Aurora, NY; Slosson

Educational Publications) 1971. ,

^Ibid.

^Chimera, Joseph, "Findings Based on Literature Research

Studies" (unpublished) 1980. ,

^Armstrong, R. and Jensen, J. , "The Slosson Intelligence Test:

1981 Norms Tables: Application and Development" (Chelmsford, MA:
Metrics Press, Inc.), 1981; Sattler, J., Assessment of Children's
Intelligence (W.B. Saunders Company) 1979. ,

9
Ibid.

^^Armstrong, R. and Jensen, J., 1970.

^^Armstrong, R. , Jensen, J. , and Reynolds, J., 1974.

^^Chimera, Joseph, "Findings Based on Literatxire Research

.
Studies

^^Houston, C. and Otto, W. "Poor Reader's Functioning on the

,

Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Slosson Intelligence Test

Research 62 (1968) :157-159.
and Quick Test," Journal of Educational

43
 44

Jongeward, P.A., "A Validity Study of the Slosson Intelligence

Test for Use with Educable Mentally Retarded Students" (Doctoral
dissertation, University of Oregon, 1969). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 30, 3323A, University Microfilm No. 70-25, 12.

15 .

Meissler, G.R. "A Correlation of the Slosson Intelligence

,

Test and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale when Administered to

Atypical Children" (Doctoral dissertation. Catholic University of
America) 1970.
,

16
Pate, R.H. Jr., and Nichols, W.R.
, "The Slosson Intelligence
,

Test Used as a Screening Device: A Validity Study" (American Psycho-

logical Association, Catalog of Abstracts Experimental Publication
,

System) 1970.
,

17
Swanson, M.S. and Jabodson, A., "Evaluation of the Slosson
Intelligence Test for Screening Children with Learning Disabilities,"
Journal of Learning Disabilities 3 (1970) 318-320.
:

18
Lessler, K. and Galinsky, M.D. "Relationship Between the
,

Slosson Intelligence Test and Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children

Scores in Special Education Candidates " Psychology in the Schools 8
,

(1971) :341-344.

19
Maxwell, M.T., "The Relationship Between the Wechsler Intelli-
gence Scale for Children and the Slosson Intelligence Scale,"
Child Study Journal 1 (1971) :164-171.

20
Stewart, K.D., Wood, D.Z., and Gallman, W.A. "Concurrent
,

Validity of the Slosson Intelligence Test," Journal of Clinical

Psychology 27 (1971) :218-220.

^^Jerrolds, R.W. Callaway, R. and Gwaltney W.K.

, , ,
"Comparison
,

of the Slosson Intelligence Test and WISC Scores of Subjects Referred

Clinic," Psychology in the Schools 9 (1972) :409-410.
to a Reading

^^Machen, L.H., "A Validity and Reliability Study of the Slosson

Intelligence Test with an Atypical Population: Gifted Children"
(Doctoral dissertation. Catholic University) 1972. ,

Slosson
^^Lamp, R.E. and Traxler, A.J., "The Validity of the
with Disadvantaged Head Start and First
Intelligence Test for Use
of Communit y Psychology 1 (1973):
Grade School Children," Journal
27-30.
 .

45

Pikulski, J,J., "Validity of Three Brief Measures of Intelli-

gence for Disabled Readers," Journal of Educational Research 67
(1973) :67-68.

25 .

Sinco, H.J., "A Concurrent Validity Study of the Slosson

Intelligence Test and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children"
(Master's thesis, Marywood College, Scranton, PA), 1973.

26
Armstrong, R. Jensen, J.
, ,and Reynolds, J., "A Comparison
of Individual Intelligence Tests Used for Special Class Placement,"
Slosson Intelligence Test Manual (East Aurora, NY: Slosson Educational
Publications) 1974.
,

27
Stewart, K.D. and Myers, D.G., "Long Term Validity of the
Slosson Intelligence Test," Journal of Clinical Psychology 30
(1974) ;180-181.

28
Covin, T.M. "Comparison of SIT and WISC-R IQ's Among Special
,

Educational Candidates," Psychology in the Schools 14 (1977) :20-23.

29
Martin, John D. and Kidwell, Jane, C. ,
"Intercorrelations of
the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children- Revised, the Slosson
Intelligence Test, and the National Educational Developmental Test,"
Educational and Psychological Measurement (Winter 1977)

^^Wechsler, D. Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised

,

(Psychological Corporation) 1974.

,

^^Armstrong, R. and Jensen, J. ,"The Slosson Intelligence Test:

1981 Norms Tables: Application and Development" (Chelmsford, MA:
Metrics Press, Inc.), 1981.
 ; —

CHAPTER III
PROCEDURES

Restatement of the Purpose

At this point, a restatement of the purpose of the study is in

order before the study procedures are detailed. The overall purpose of

this study was to determine if the new 1981 SIT scores are comparable

to 1974 WISC-R scores (Verbal and Full Scale) . In other words, can

the new SIT scores be used with as much confidence as WISC-R scores

to the extent that the old SIT (1961) scores could be used with the

unrevised WISC scores.

The intent of the study was to provide valuable information to

WISC-R administrators, especially Directors of Special Education, con-

cerning the use of the 1961 and new 1981 SIT. In other words, if the

results were favorable. Directors of Special Education would be able

to

1. administer an individual test of intelligence, rather than

a group test, for screening or retesting even when an

individual test is not required;

2. use the SIT instead of the WISC-R for screening and re-

testing when an individual test is required;

3. increase their test administration staff, since the SIT

does not require specialized training.

46
 47

Design

The study was designed to assess the validity of the new

1981 SIT

in relation to the WISC-R (Verbal and Full Scale) where the latter
,

instrument served as the criterion. As has been stated previously,

abundant evidence exists which shows the 1981 SIT to have had high con-

current and construct validity as regards the 1960 SB, Similar evidence

now exists for the revised 1972 SB.^ This evidence was obtained re-

cently in response to the renorming of the SB in 1972.^ Since the WISC

was revised, little fresh evidence of the validity of the 1961 SIT in

relation to the WISC-R has been produced. That which has been pro-

duced was based upon rather small samples, and showed a substantial

decrease in the relationship that the 1961 SIT had with the 1949 WISC.

Hence, the need for a thorough validity study of the new 1981 SIT in

relation to the WISC-R.

Validity may be viewed in several ways depending upon the purpose

for which the test in question is to be used. Where the instrument is

to be validated for use in place of the criterion test, its concurrent

validity is of importance. But since in the present case both instru-

ments also purport to measure the same, or quite similar constructs,

construct validity is also of importance. The principal statistic

ordinarily used to establish the concurrent or construct validity of a

measuring instrument is Pearson's Product Moment correlation coefficient.

The type of validity of principal interest in this study is concurrent,

since the practical outcome of greatest interest was to determine

whether the new 1981 SIT can be used in place of the WISC-R for initial
 48

screening or for retesting of persons being evaluated as potential

or

continuing recipients of special education services. To whatever ex-

tent the concurrent validity of the new SIT in relation to the WISC-P

can be established, its construct validity will also be established

since both approaches to validation require high degrees of correla-

tion. Thus, Pearson's r calculated for pairs of scores on the two

instruments across a large sample in a variety of settings will give

evidence concerning both types of validity. As a result, the study

relied heavily on correlation techniques.

The methodology used borrows from that used previously in the

Armstrong, Jensen, Mooney and Reynolds studies of .the validity of the

1961 SIT in relation to the 1962 SB and in relation to the xanrevised

WISC.^ These studies used the Pearson r as the statistic of principal

interest. They also employed a simple, but straightforward and easy

to understand statistic — the mean absolute IQ difference (MAD) . This

latter statistic shows what an examiner may expect in terms of the

deviation in scores yielded by both instruments, that is, by how many

points on the average an examinee's score will differ having been given

both instruments. Therefore, the mean absolute IQ difference (MAD)

provides information which appeals to the common sense of the examiner

in the field. Thus, as a technique of proven value, the mean absolute

IQ difference (MAD) was also used in this study.

The study also emulates the previously cited studies of the 1961

SIT in relation to the 1960 SB in that it brealcs down the overall sample

the WISC-
to study the relative validity of the new SIT in relation to

R for different demographic groups and for varying

administrative
 49

arrangements under which the two instruments were given . Substudies

were carried out by examinee sex and age level, by exciminer expertise,

by order of administration of the instruments, by time interval between

the two test administrations, etc. The following is a breakdown of

the sxibstudies conducted;

1. Overall - for all examinees;

2.-4. Age Levels - 6-8, 9-11, 12-15;

5. Female - all female examinees;

6. Male - all male examinees;

7. Same Administrator - for both tests;

8. Different Administrator - for each test;

9. Certified Both WISC-R - both test administrators were WISC-R

certified, but not necessarily the same administrator;

10. Certified WISC-R Only - certified administrator for the WISC-R

and a non-certified WISC-R administrator for the SIT;

11. Order WISC-R First;

12. Order SIT First;

13. Same Day - when both tests were administered on the same day;

14.-16. Different Day - when the administration of the second test

was completed within the following time intervals: 1-14 days,

15-60 days, 2 months to 18 months.

An additional aspect of the proposed study did not borrow from pre

vious research. The 1961 SIT was developed to be a short but accurate

estimate of the corresponding 1960 SB IQ, not necessarily of the corres

ponding WISC (unrevised) IQ. Research previously cited has shown that

unrevised SB
the lanrevised SIT (1961) was an excellent estimate of the
 50

(1960) , and more recently that the revised SIT is an excellent estimate

of the revised SB (1972) . Indeed, the revised SIT has now been ex-

pl^citly equated to the 1972 SB, its old ratio IQ having been abandoned.

Also, the unrevised SIT (1961) was a good, if not excellent estimate of

the unrevised WISC. However, the WISC-R (1974) represents a much more

extensive revision of the instrument itself than was true for the re-

normed SB (1972) which remains virtually unchanged, it only having been

renormed. Therefore, it was unclear whether the old SIT IQ or the new

SIT IQ would provide the better estimate of the corresponding WISC-R

IQ. To be sure, it was expected that the new SIT IQ's would do a bet-

ter job of estimating WISC-R IQ's. Thus, an additional aspect of the

study was directed at obtaining an explicit answer to this question.

Hypotheses to be Tested

As a validity study, it was e^qaected that the observed correlations

between the revised SIT and the WISC-R would be sizeable and certainly

significantly different from zero. Therefore, to state hypotheses con-

cerning whether observed correlations will depart significantly from

zero is probably trivial. Nevertheless, they are given in the interests

of completeness.

Part A

Al.Ho: The correlations observed across the entire sample and

for each of its several subgroups between IQ's obtained

from the revised SIT and the WISC-R will not differ

significantly from zero.

 51

A2.nai The correlations obsorvod across the entire sairijilo and

for each of its sovoral subgroups between IQ's obtained

from the revised SIT and the WISC-R will bo positive

and significantly different from zero.

A second sot of hypotheses wore offered to test whether the re-

vised SIT IQ's (1981) are a better estimate of the WISC-R than wore

the unrevised SIT IQ's (1961).

Part D

Bl.Ho: The correlations obsorvod across the entire sample be-

tween IQ's obtained from the revised SIT and the WISC-R

(V & FS) will not differ significantly from corresponding

correlations relating the unrevisod SIT IQ's (1961) and

WISC-R IQ's.

B2.Ha: The correlations observed across the entire sample be-

tween IQ's obtained from the revised SIT and the WISC-R

will bo significantly larger than correlations relating

the unrevisod SIT IQ's (1961) and WISC-R IQ's.

Sample

Given that the proposed study will attemi’t to provide stable es-

timates of tho correlation between the SIT and the WISC-R for several

demographic groups and administrative arrangements, the sample upon

which it is based must bo quite large and representative of the popula

tion to which generalizations will be made. The actual Bami>lo size

included 336 students ranging in ages 6-15. For the most part, those
 .

52

students were administered the WISC-R as part of a core

evaluation,
with many of them being actual recipients of special education
services.

They were drawn from several commimities in Massachusetts to ensure

that all relevant demographic characteristics were adequately repre-

sented.

The sample could not be drawn at random from the country as a

whole or even from New England. Nevertheless, the participating com-

munities were selected to provide a balanced variety of urban and

suburban settings, and as heterogeneous a sample as possible.

Data Collection

Each child who was a participant in the study was administered a

SIT and a WISC-R. Additional data concerning the conditions of admin-

istration for both testing sessions was obtained as well to provide

bases upon which to classify svibjects into various subgroups for

analysis

Consistent with the requirements of confidentiality, demographic

information concerning the subject's sex, age, grade level, community

setting, etc. , were gathered as well. These data were obtained via a

data recording instrument completed by the person (s) examining each

subject. A copy of the data collection instrument and cover letter is

included in Appendix B.
 53

Statistical Analyses

Data for each subject were keyed to a machine readable medium.

The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was used for

ij^itial file construction and for all subseguent analyses.

Following initial file construction, N's, means, standard devia-

tions and frequency distributions for each variable were obtained

using subprogram FREQUENCIES utilizing the entire data set. This was

done so that errant data could be identified and either corrected or

discarded as unusable.

When data cleaning was accomplished, the proposed analyses were

carried out. Hypotheses A1 through B2 required that the data set be

broken down into subgroups for separate analyses. The s\abgroups were

formed and the analyses carried out using subprograuns BREAKDOV'/N and

PEARSON CORR.

Tests of statistical significance between correlation coefficients

were performed by hand calculation based upon the descriptive statistics

output in prior stages of analysis since SPSS does not directly provide

significance tests for differences observed between correlation coeffic-

ients. The significance of difference from zero for all correlations

produced were tested using subprogram PEARSON CORR.

Hypotheses stated in Part B required that differences in correla-

tion coefficients be tested for statistical significance. The signifi-

cance tests implied in hypotheses Bl were performed as recommended by

Guilford.
 54

The mean absolute IQ difference (MAD) is a statistic which has

been shown to be of use in similar validity studies. In this con-

text, it is simply the average of the absolute differences between IQ's

generated for all persons tested.

Examiners in the field need to know what the "margin for error"

is if one instrximent is to be used in place of another. The MAD sta-

tistic provides an examiner the needed information. For example, if

MAD for a given subgroup equals 5 IQ points , then an examiner knows

that the average amount by which IQ's gotten from either instriament

will differ in a like sample of individuals is 5 IQ points. Some will

differ more, some less, but the average "margin for error" will be 5

points for persons in the subgroup.

The standard error of measurement (SEM) indicates much of the same

thing as the MAD statistic, though it often appears to be more esoteric.

In fact, it has been shown that the mean absolute difference between

all possible pairs of a person's scores on an infinite number of par-

allel forms of the same test is equal to roughly 1.1 times the standard

error of measurement. Though this relationship holds for parallel

forms of an instrument, the SIT and the WISC-R may be parallel, but as

entities they are probably not parallel. Thus, MAD and SEM in the con-

text of the proposed study should not be regarded as directly or simply

related.

However, the MAD statistic does speak directly to the concerns of

practitioners in the field. For this reason it was reported along with

the other statistics previously described. The relative size of MAD

easily understood
for different subgroups of the data set provides an
 55

"benchmark" for interpretation of anticipated differences between

measxores from the two instruments in question.

Summary

Chapter III described the overall procedural steps of this study,

including; design, sample, hypotheses to be tested, data collection,

and statistical analyses. The study results are reported in Chapter

IV.
 FOOTNOTES

Armstrong, R. and Jensen, J. "The Slosson Intelligence Test

,

1981 Norms Tables: Application and Development" (Chelmsford, MA:

Metrics Press, Inc.), 1981.

^Ibid.

3
Armstrong, R. and Jensen, J. "Can Scores Obtained from the
,

Slosson Intelligence Test be Used with as Much Confidence as Scores

Obtained from the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale," Slosson Intelli-
gence Manual (East Aurora, NY: Slosson Educational Publications),
1970; Armstrong, R. and Jensen, J. "Testing Low IQ Children," Slosson
,

Intelligence Manual (East Aurora, NY: Slosson Educational Publications),

1971; Armstrong, R. and Jensen, J. "An Abbreviated Stanford-Binet:
,

Is It Valid," Journal of Educational Psychology and Measurement

(June 1972); Armstrong, R. Jensen, J., and Reynolds, J.
, "A Comparison
,

of Individual Intelligence Tests Used for Special Class Placement,"

Slosson Intelligence Test Manual (East Aurora, NY: Slosson Educa-
tional Publications) 1974; Armstrong, R. and Mooney, R.
,
"The Slosson
,

Intelligence Test: Implications for Reading Specialists," The Reading

Teacher (January 1971); Armstrong, R. and Mooney, R. "A Short,
,

Reliable, Easy to Administer Individual Intelligence Test for Special

Class Placement," Child Study Journal (Spring 1971); Armstrong, R. and
Mooney R. , "The Use of Individual Intelligence Tests for Special Class
Placement," Slosson Intelligence Test Manual (East Aurora, NY: Slosson
Educational Publications) ,1974.

"^Nie,Hull, Jenkins, Steinbrenner Berel, Statistical Package

,

for the Social Sciences, 2nd edition (McGraw-Hill), 1976.

^Guilford, J.P., Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and

Education , 4th edition (McGraw-Hill) 1965. ,

^Armstrong, R. Jensen, J. and Reynolds, J., "A Comparison of

, ,

Individual Intelligence Tests Used for Special Class Placement,"

Slosson Intelligence Test Manual (East Aurora, NY: Slosson Educational
Publications) 1974.
,

56
 . ;

CHAPTER IV
RESULTS OF THE STUDY

The pxorpose of this chapter is to report the findings of this

study, as prescribed in Chapter III. The format of the chapter will be

to restate each of the hypotheses presented in Chapter III, followed by

the study findings.

Since many of the categories in the tables are coded, a decription

of each is in order.

1. Overall - for all examinees

2.-4. Age Levels - 6-8, 9-11, 12-15;

5. Female - all female examinees;

6 Male - all male examinees;

7. Same Administrator - for both tests;

8. Different Administrator - for each test;

9. Certified Both WISC-R - both test administrators were WISC-R

certified, but not necessarily the same administrator;

10. Certified WISC-R Only - certified administrator for the WISC-R

and a non-certified WISC-R administrator for the SIT:

11. Order WISC-R First;

12. Order SIT First;

13. Same Day - when both tests were administered on the same day;

14.-16. Different Day - when the administration of the second test

was completed within the following time intervals: 1-14 days,

15-60 days, 2 months to 18 months.

57
 58

The first set of hypotheses addresses the question, are the corre-

lations between the new/revised SIT 1 and WISC-R IQ's 2 positive and

significantly different from zero?

Part A

Al.Ho; The correlations observed across the entire sample and for

each of its several subgroups between IQ's obtained from

the revised SIT (1981) and the WISC-R (Verbal and Full

Scale) will not differ significantly from zero.

A2.Ha; The correlations observed across the entire sample and

for each of its several subgroups between IQ's obtained

from the revised SIT (1981) and the WISC-R (Verbal and

Full Scale) will be positive and significantly different

from zero.

Table 12 reports means, standard deviations, correlations and mean

absolute IQ differences (MAD) for the new/revised (1981) SIT and the

WISC-R tests. The design, as stated in Chapter III, delimited the study

to a comparison of the SIT and the WISC-R Verbal subtest and Full Scale

scores. However, the WISC-R Performance subtest was included in the

interest of completeness.

Using the Pearson-Product Moment method, a coefficient of correla-

tion was computed separately between the new/revised SIT and the WISC-R

(Verbal, Performance, Full Scale) IQ's for sixteen subgroups of the

and
data. Since it was expected that the correlations would be positive

significance
significantly different from zero, a one tailed test of
SIT
was utilized. Table 12 reveals that all correlations between the
 1 1

59

in
.02 .62 .54 60* .63 00 o .22 .20 .39 .38 .06 o ,99
49
00 03 50 11 01 56 45 64 18
CD
11 r' r'
12 00 CD 11 m 11, r' cd’ 10. in 12. r' CD* 12. CD 11. CO

*
u SSS£SgSS?S!3g§§gSS§gC;SSSS
IQ
I

u
w
H
ABSOLUTE

TESTS
S

level).

MEAN CD
Eh 8T* .27 .32 .32 00 47 57
WISC-R
H ,76

CO 17,
.001
16 16 13 16. 15. 16. 14.

AND

AND
the

SIT C4 o cn 00 <p
1 CD 00 cn oc cn
U • beyoncJ
CORRELATIONS

CO o r— iH ro iH cn
NEW M o o o O o o
s nH iH rH rH iH rH

THE

00
CN
(P
O
ro
CD
00 CP
CN
CP
ro
O
rH
OF significant

Eh • • • .

H o CD 00 00 0^ rH CN
CO o
1—
O (P CP CT' o O
'ej*

CP
DEVIATIONS,
rH rH rH
(MAD)

are

0)
U co co CO CO CO CO CO CO
CO to > fa>CL,CL,>(l,Pn>(i,Cn>(i<P4>(iifa>pjPL,> a> h
o
STANDARD
DIFFERENCES
S CO

coefficients

CD 00 CD o CD CD (P 00
ro
ro
00 O
iH
ro 00 CN
rH rH rH CN rH

MEANS,

u
o
4J
to correlation

p
o p +j
CP 0 01
<u 4J •H
p to c
to p •H
u V e
in (all
*H <
C
rH -15 'H +j
00 rH e c
rH 1 1 CN -o 0) .001

rH CD CP rH 0)
rH
< p
tcj 0)
P in in cn to 0) CD >4H
Cl) 0) 0) cu e rH e 14H V
> tp Cp CP 0) to (0 •iH
O < < rt; s in Q He
 I

60

00
CM
.26 .19 9T* .62 .85 .57 .62 .55 .62 .22 .22 ,37 16 96 54 80 65 89 33 CM 03 30
00
in r' CD VD
11 11 11 in 11, r' in 11. CO CD 12. 00 D 11. r' in 11. r'

00
* .90 .57 .83 .88 .58 .82 00 .55 .81 06* .65 .85 .91 .61 .85 .83 .43 ,75 ,87 59 D 54 79

'^v^cocNvOvoounomror^cN KO O (N rH iH ro o CO 00 00 iH
Cr'CDiHvO^rHCOiHTj'rHOOCOCyi
Deviations
I

U
in <ji CTi 00 CM rH C^ rH CM o
CO '^ftninvoinvOLnininininmin minoo^^voinm^
H rHrHr-liHiHr-IrHrHrHiHiHi—li—
s
VO CM rH level).

G\
Eh
H VD CD 0 CM ro 0
Standard

CO in vO in in VO
rH rH rH iH rH rH rH .001

oi the
I

u o;®OrHrH^inocNcriiH'<a'i£>cMvDoorHrocricy>r^[^'5i<v£)
CO
H
s beyond

Means

0 CM <y\ 0 CD m r'
Eh CO in 00 00 CD CM oc
H • • • •
CO 00 iH
0
00 Oc m n rn m
<Ti
rH
OC 0 0 0 0 oc
rH rH rH rH significant

n3
Eh
K
I

u
CO
are

0 rH 00 0 'd' in 00
rH
rH
0 in CD c^ rH
CM CM rH
coefficients

cn
x: cn
P >1 cn
>1 C nj rH
(0 0 Q (0
Q s Q
00
0
CD 'a'
6 rH 1 rH
C4 rH (0 1 in 1

1 rH CO CM rH
U a
correlation

CO 0 4J c c c c
>1 H m 0 0 0 0
!h s Pi •rl •rl •rl •H
0 1 •iH 4J P P) P P
Cn D! u b cn nj (0 fO (0
0 4J CO iH P P p p
+J 0 H Pi •rl +J -P p 4J (all
rO m s 1 Ph cn cn cn cn
U u H •H •H •H
TJ CO Eh c c C c
0 0) H H •P •rl
•H
MH
•r) S CO
rQ
e
'3
E .001

Mh 'U
•H
4J
H
4J
u U < < < <
0) d)
73 TJ 'C3 V
0) (U C c c c
U u 0 0 CM CN CM CN *
 61

and WISC-R IQ's were significant beyond the .001 probability

level. As

a result, the null hypothesis that the correlations observed across the

entire sample and for each of its several subgroups between IQ's ob-

tained from the new/revised SIT (1981) and the WISC-R would not differ

significantly from zero was rejected. Given this, the alternative

hypotheses that the correlations observed across the entire sample and

for each of its several sx±)groups between IQ's obtained from the new/

revised SIT (1981) and the WISC-R would be positive and significantly

different from zero was accepted.

Table 13 summarizes the correlations reported in Table 12 in a

more manageable way. The overall correlation between the SIT and Verbal

subtest was .89. The range of SIT/Verbal correlations was from .83

(2 months to 18 months) to .93 (ages 12-15) , with five correlations of

.90 and above. Although these correlations were impressive, they were

not xanexpected since the SIT is a highly verbal test.

The overall correlation between the SIT and the Performance sub-

test was .58, with the range of correlations from .48 (2 months to 18

months) to .68 (female) . Although these correlations were substantially

lower than those for the Verbal siibtest, they were not unexpected since

verbal tests usually do not correlate as highly with performance tests

as do verbal tests with verbal tests. It should also be noted that

these correlations were not part of the original design. They were in-

cluded since the WISC-R has a performance component.

The overall correlation between the SIT and the WISC-R Full Scale

IQ's was .83. The range of correlations was from .75 (2 months to 18

months) to .88 (ages 12-15), with 12 of the 16 correlations above .80.

 62

TABLE 13

CORRELATIONS OF THE NEW SIT WITH THE WISC-R TESTS

WISC-R*
Category WV WP WFS

Overall .89 .58 .83

Ages 6-8 .87 .63 .82
Ages 9-12 .85 .53 .79
Ages 12-15 .93 .63 .88
Female .90 .68 .86
Male .89 .51 .80
Same Administrator .89 .57 .83
Different Administrator .85 .54 .78
Certified Both WISC-R .90 .57 .83
Certified WISC-R Only .88 .58 .82
Order WISC-R First .88 .53 .81
Order SIT First .90 .65 .85
2nd Administration Same Day .91 .61 .85
2nd Administration 1-14 Days .87 .59 .84
2nd Administration 15-60 Days .86 .54 .79
2nd Administration 2-18 Months .83 .48 .75

*
.001 (all correlations are significant beyond the .001 level).

These correlations are particularly iinpressive considering that the

WISC-R ^ull Scale score is the combination of an individual's Verbal

and Performance scores. In other words, a certain amount of deteriora-

tion from the SIT/WISC-R Verbal correlations was expected when compared

with the correlation between SIT and the WISC-R Full Scale scores.

Table 14 contains the results which pertain to the second set of

hypotheses. Are the new/revised SIT IQ's (1981) a better estimate of

3
the WISC-R IQ's than were the old/unrevised SIT IQ's (1961).
 .

63

TABLE 14

IMPROVEMENT OF THE CORRELATION OF THE

SIT IQ'S WITH WISC-R IQ’S
N = 336

WISC-R
SIT WV WP WFS

Old/Unrevised SIT .875 .569 .815

Ratio IQ

New/Revised SIT .890 .577 .825

Deviation IQ

< .01 NS <.05

Part B

Bl.Ho: The correlations observed across the entire sairple be-

tween IQ's obtained from the revised SIT (1981) and

the WISC-R (Verbal and Full Scale) will not differ

significantly from corresponding correlations relating

the unrevised SIT IQ's (1961) and WISC-R IQ's (Verbal

and Full Scale)

B2.Ha: The correlations observed across the entire sample be-

tween IQ's obtained from the revised SIT (1981) and

the WISC-R (Verbal and Full Scale) will be significantly

larger than correlations relating the unrevised SIT IQ

s

(1961) and WISC-R IQ's (Verbal and Full Scale).

 64

Although the original design was delimited to the WISC-R Verbal

and Full Scale, the Performance subtest was included in the interest of

completeness. In order to test the null hypothesis, SIT ratio IQ's,

SIT deviation IQ's and WISC-R IQ's were determined for all members of

the sample. Then Pearson correlations were calculated for both SIT

IQ's in relation to WISC-R IQ's. A two tailed test of significance

was utilized.

Taible 14 reveals that the correlation between the new/revised SIT

IQ's and WISC-R IQ's increased in all three areas, and that the differ-

ences were significant for the Verbal subtest (<.01) and the overall

test or Full Scale score («c-. 05) . Although the correlation between the

new SIT and WISC-R Performance subtest increased, the difference was

not significant. Thus, the null hypotheses that the correlations

across the entire sample between IQ's obtained from the revised SIT

(1981) and the WISC-R (Verbal and Full Scale) would not differ signifi-

cantly from corresponding correlations relating the unrevised SIT IQ's

(1961) and the WISC-R IQ's (Verbal and Full Scale) was rejected. In-

stead, the alternative hypotheses that the correlations observed across

the entire sample between IQ's obtained from the revised SIT (1981)

and the WISC-R (Verbal and Full Scale) would be significantly larger

than correlations relating the unrevised SIT IQ's (1961) and WISC-R

IQ's (Verbal and Full Scale) was accepted.

The mean absolute IQ difference (MAD) is a statistic which has been

shown to be of use in similar validity studies. In this context, it is

IQ's generated for

siitply the average of the absolute differences between

IQ
all persons tested. For example, if MAD for a given subgroup equals 7
 .

65

points, then an examiner knows that the average amount by which IQ's

gotten from either instrument will differ in a like sample of individu-

als is 7 IQ points. Some will differ more, some less, but the average

"margin of error" will be 7 points for persons in the subgroup.

Table 12 contains the MAD statistics for each of the groups in-

volved in the study. Table 15 summarizes the MAD statistics in a more

manageable way. The overall MAD statistics were 6.02 (Verbal) , 11.62

(Performance) and 7.54 (Full Scale). The results are similar to those

reported for correlations in Table 13. That is, the best results were

for the Verbal, the worst for Performance, with Full Scale showing a

small degree of deterioration from the Verbal.

The MAD ranges were: Verbal - 5.37 (2nd Administration, Same Day)

to 7.09 (Ages 6-8); Performance - 10.99 (Female) to 12.63 (Ages 6-8);

Full Scale - 7.06 (Ages 12-15) to 8.84 (Ages 6-8) Examination of

Table 12 shows very little fluctuation in any of the subgroups from the

overall MAD statistics.

Table 16 reveals an additional comparison of the SIT with the

WISC-R. Did the now SIT norms improve upon the mean absolute IQ differ-

ences (MAD) between the SIT and the WISC-R? In order to determine this,

SIT ratio, ^ SIT deviation, and WISC-R IQ's were found for all members of

the sample. Then, the mean absolute IQ differences (MAD) were calcu-

lated for both SIT IQ's with WISC-R IQ's.

 66

TABLE 15

MEAN ABSOLUTE DIFFERENCES (MAD) OF THE

NEW SIT WITH THE WISC-R TESTS

MAD
Category WV WP WFS

Overall 6.02 11.62 7.54

Ages 6-8 7.09 12.63 8.84
Ages 9-12 6.07 11.22 7.20
Ages 12-15 5.39 11.38 7.06
Female 6.05 10.99 7.49
Male 5.87 12.03 7.50
Same Administrator 6.11 12.01 7.56
Different Administrator 6.45 11.64 8.18
Certified Both WISC-R 5.26 11.78 7.19
Certified WISC-R Only 6.16 11.62 7.85
Order WISC-R First 6.57 11.62 7.55
Order SIT First 5.62 11.22 7.22
2nd Administration Same Day 5.37 11.12 6.91
2nd Administration 1-14 Days 5.82 11.03 7.30
2nd Administration 15-60 Days 6.65 11.89 7.33
2nd Administration 2-18 Months 6.96 12.54 8.80

TABLE 16

IMPROVEMENT UPON THE MEAN ABSOLUTE IQ DIFFERENCES (MAD)

BETWEEN THE SIT AND WISC-R
N = 336

WISC-R
SIT WV WP WFS

Old/Unrevised SIT 7.05 12.15 8.29

Ratio IQ

New/Revised SIT 6.02 11.62 7.54

Deviation of IQ
 67

It can be seen in Table 16 that the mean eibsolute IQ differences

(MAD) between the new SIT and the WISC-R were lower in all three areas.

The MAD decreases or improvements were 1.03 (WV) , .52 (WP) , and .75

(WFS) . In other words, the new SIT norms did improve upon the mean

absolute differences (MAD) between the SIT and the WISC-R.

 ,

FOOTNOTES

Armstrong, R.J. and Jensen, J.A., "The Slosson Intelligence Tost

1981 Norms Tables; Application and Development" (Chelmsford, MAi Metrics
Press, Inc. ) 1981.

2
Wechsler, D. Manual for the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for
,

Children - Revised (New York; Psychological Corporation), 1974.

^Slosson, R.L., Slosson Intelligence Test for Children and

Adults (East Aurora, NY; Slosson Educational Publications), 1961.

4
Armstrong, R.J. and Jensen, J.A., "The Slosson Intelligence Test
1981 Norms Tables; Application and Development" (Chelmsford, MA;
Metrics Press, Inc.), 1981; Slosson, R.L., Slosson Intelligence Test
for Children and Adults (East Aurora, NY; Slosson Educational Publica-
tions) 1961; Slosson, R.L., Slosson Intelligence Test for Children
,

and Adults 2nd edition (East Aurora, NY; Slosson Educational Publica-
,

tions) 1981.
,

68
 CHAPTER V

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Summary

Results from a recently ac3ministered test of intelligence are fre-

quently used as one of the criteria for initial assessment of children

with special needs, as well as for periodic re-assessment to determine

the appropriateness of the program for each child. The psychological

assessment component usxially includes the results of an individually

administered intelligence test such as the Wechsler Intelligence Test

for Children - Revised (WISC-R) or the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale

(SB) , Form L-M .

Unfortunately, individual intelligence tests such as the WISC-R

and SB require specialized training in their administration, scoring

and interpretation — usually amounting to a full semester course for each

test. They are also time consuming in that they require an average ad-

ministration time of one hour. Thus, there is a need for a valid indi-

vidual test of mental ability which can be quickly administered and

easily scored. Such a test could be used as a screening and/or retest-

ing instr\iment.

In 1961, Richard Slosson published the Slosson Intelligence Test

(SIT). The author's purpose was to develop a "mini" Stanford-Binet,

that is, an individual intelligence test which: (1) did not require

specialized training of its administrators; (2) took only 15 to 20

69
 70

minutes to administer and score; and (3) would yield IQ scores compar-

able to the SB.

Just when it appeared there was sufficient evidence that SIT IQ

scores could be used with as much confidence as SB, W-v and W-FS IQ

scores, both the WISC (1949) and SB (1960) were revised. The SB was

revised in 1972 and the WISC (now WISC-R) in 1974.

The following is a summary of the research findings concerning the

SIT (1961), SIT (1981), SB (1960), SB (1972), WISC and WISC-R.

1. There is a need for valid individual intelligence tests that:

(1) requires no specialized training of its administrators;

(2) can be quickly administered and scored; and (3) yields

IQ scores comparable to the Stanford-Binet and Wechsler

tests. Such a test would provide testing specialists with

an opportunity to administer more individual tests them-

selves, as well as provide an invaluable source of addition-

al test administrators.

2. In the early 1970' s, there was sufficient evidence that 1961

SIT IQ scores could be used with as much confidence as 1960

SB and WISC (V and FS) scores. Unfortunately, the WISC and

SB were revised. During the late 1970' s, there was sufficient

evidence that 1961 SIT scores were no longer comparable to

the new WISC-R or the new SB (1972) scores.

3. The new SIT norms (1981) once again aligned SIT scores with

the 1972 SB scores.

 71

4. There is evidence that the correlation between the

WISC-R
and the 1972 SB is approximately the same as that reported

for the Wise and the 1960 SB.

5. To date, no extensive research has been conducted concerning

the WISC-R scores with the 1981 SIT scores. The results from

the limited research that has been conducted show major de-

partures from the findings between the WISC and the 1961

SIT, similar findings between the WISC and the 1961 SIT,

similar to those between the 1972 SB and the 1961 SIT.

The purpose of this study was to determine if the new SIT (1981)

scores are comparable to WISC-R scores (Verbal and Full Scale) . In

other words, can the new SIT (1981) scores be used with as much confi-

dence as WISC-R scores — to the extent that the old SIT (1961) scores

could be used with the unrevised WISC scores.

The study sample included 336 students ranging in ages 6-15 years

from twenty communities in Massachusetts. The participating communities

were selected to provide a balanced variety of urban and suburban set-

tings, and as heterogeneous a Scimple as possible. For the most part,

these students were administered the WISC-R as part of a team evalua-

tion, with many of them being actual recipients of special education

services.

Substudies were carried out by examinee sex and age level, by ex-

aminer expertise, by order of administration of the instruments, by

time interval between the two test administrations, etc. The following

is a breakdown of the siibstudies conducted.

 72

1. Overall - for all examinees;

2.-4. Age Levels - 6-8, 9-11. 12-15;

5. Female - all female examinees;

6. Male - all male examinees;

7. Same Administrator - for both tests;

8. Different Administrator - for each test;

9. Certified Both WISC-R - both test administrators were WISC-R

certified, but not necessarily the same administrator;

10. Certified WISC-R Only - certified administrator for the

WISC-R and a non-certified WISC-R administrator for the

SIT;

11. Order WISC-R First;

12. Order SIT First;

13. Same Day - When both tests were administered on the same day;

14.-16. Different Day - when the administration of the second test

was completed within the following time intervals: 1-14

days, 15-60 days, 2 months to 18 months.

Data analysis addressed the following three questions:

1. Across the entire sample and for each of its several subgroups,

are IQ's obtained from the revised SIT (1981) and the WISC-R

(Verbal and Full Scale) positive and significantly different

from zero?

2. Are the correlations across the entire sample between IQ's

obtained from the revised SIT (1981) and the WISC-R (Verbal
correlations
and Full Scale) significantly larger than the
 : ? .

73

relating the unrevised SIT IQ's (1961) and the WISC-R IQ's

(Verbal and Full Scale)

3. Did the new SIT norms (1981) improve upon or decrease the

mean absolute difference (MAD) between the SIT and the

WISC-R (SIT 1961 versus SIT 1981)?

The design, as stated in Chapter III, delimited the study to a

comparison of the SIT and the WISC-R Verbal subtest and Full Scale

scores. However, the Performance subtest was included in the interest

of completeness.

The following is a summary of the study findings reported in

Chapter IV

1. The correlations across the entire seimple and for each of

the subgroups were positive and significantly different

from zero. The overall correlations between the SIT and

WISC-R Verbal, Performance and Full Scale were .89, .58,

and .83 (Tables 12 and 13).

2. The correlations across the entire sample between IQ's

obtained from the revised SIT (1981) and the WISC-R

(Verbal, Performance and Full Scale) were larger than the

correlations relating the unrevised SIT IQ's (1961) and

the WISC-R IQ's (Verbal, Performance and Full Scale). Also,

the score differences were significant for the Verbal sub-

test and the overall or Full Scale (Table 14)

3. The new SIT norms (1981) improved upon or decreased the

mean absolute IQ difference (MAD) between the SIT and the

(Tables 15 and 16) The

WISC-R (SIT 1961 versus SIT 1981) .
 .

74

overall MAD statistics were 6.02 (Verbal), 11.62 (Performance)

and 7.54 (Full Scale) . The MAD decreases or improvements

were 1.03 (WV) , .52 (WP) and .75 (WFS)

It was also noted in Chapter IV that the difference between the

correlations and MAD statistics for the numerous subgroup comparisons

were minimal. For example, the SIT and WISC-R Verbal correlations for

female and male were .90 and .89, with mean absolute 10 differences

(MAD) of 6.05 and 5.87 respectively. However, there were two important

findings that need to be discussed.

The first area concerns the time between test administrations.

In this study there were four time interval categories; same day, 1-14

days, 15-60 days and 2-18 months. One would expect that same day test-

retest results would be better than test-retest results with a time in-

terval between them, such as 2 weeks, 2 months or 1 year.

The deterioration from Scime day test-retest is usually caused by a

combination of factors, such as: (1) a different environment; (2) a

different administrator; (3) the attitudinal, emotional and physical

characteristics of the examinee (and/or examiners) on two different

occasions; and (4) the efforts of the learning process (etc.) when an

extended period of time occurs between two test administrations, e.g.,

one year.

The results reported below for this study are no different than

would be expected for WISC-R Verbal and Full Scale scores. Perhaps the

most important question of this study is whether the results of the SIT,

in a given situation, are comparable to the WISC-R Verbal

and Full

Scale results, had they been administered. The same day findings of
 75

this study provide sufficient evidence that SIT scores can be

used as

estimates of the WISC~R Verbal and Full Scale scores, had they been

administered.

WV FS
r MZU) r MAD

Same Day .91 5.37 .85 6.91

1-14 Days .87 5.82 .84 7.30
15-60 Days .86 6.65 .75 7.33
2-18 Months .83 6.96 .75 8.80

The second area of siibgroups that needs to be discussed is the

certification status of the test examiners. It can be seen below that

there was very little difference in the results when the SIT was admin-

istered by a non-certified WISC-R examiner or a certified WISC-R exam-

iner. In other words. Directors of Special Education can use the re-

sults of a SIT administration when the SIT is administered by a non-

certified WISC-R examiner with as much confidence as when the SIT is

administered by a certified WISC-R examiner.

WV FS

r MAD r MAD

Both Certified
WISC-R Administrators .90 5.26 .83 7.19

SIT Administrator
Not WISC-R Certified .88 6.16 .82 7.85
 .

76

In svun, the new SIT (1981) scores are coitparable to WISC-R scores

(Verbal and Full Scale). In other words, the new SIT (1981) scores can

be used with as much confidence as WISC-R scores — as the old SIT (1981)

scores could be used with the unrevised WISC scores. In fact, the

findings show an improvement in the relationship between the two tests

Directors of Special Education should feel confident to: (1) use

the new SIT (1981) instead of the WISC-R for screening and retesting,

and (2) use the results of the SIT administered by a non-certified WISC-

R examiner. In many cases, the use of the SIT will result in an in-

crease in the test administration staff, since the SIT does not require

specialized training.

Future Research

The following are examples of needed research concerning the

Slosson Intelligence Test.

1.-3. The current study was delimited to students who were

administered the WISC-R as part of a core evaluation.

Thus, there is a need to determine the relationship

between the SIT and the WISC-R in terms of:

1) Low 10;
2) Gifted;

3) Full Range.

4.-7. What is the relationship between the new SIT and the

Wechsler Pre-School Primary Scale (WPPSI)?

4) Low IQ;
5) Gifted;
 . . ; ? ;

77

6) Full Range;
7) Special Needs.

8.-11. What is the relationship between the new SIT and the

Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised (WAIS-R)?

8) Low IQ;
9) Gifted;
10) Full Range;
11) Special Needs.

12.-22. Repetition of studies 1-11 but also including the 1972

Stanford-Binet (SB)

23.-25. What is the relationship between the new SIT and

various college entrance tests such as:

23) Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT)

24) Preliminary Scholastic Aptitude Test (PSAT)
25) American College Test (ACT)

26. What is the relationship between the new SIT and various

group tests of intelligence such as the Otis-Lennon

School Ability Test?

27. What is the relationship between the new SIT and the

various standardized achievement tests , such as the

Metropolitan?

28. What is the relationship between the new SIT and the

Differential Aptitude Battery Test (DAT)

29. Is the new SIT a better predicter of standardized

achievement test scores (e.g.. Metropolitan) than

group intelligence tests (e.g., Otis-Lennon)?

 ? ,

78

30. What is the relationship between the new SIT and other

individual pre-school/primary/elementary tests of ability

such as the McCarthy Scales, Peabody Picture Vocabulary,

ITPA, etc.?

31. What is the relationship between the new SIT and the

various tests used in special education?

32. Can the new SIT be used (or modified to be used) with

people who have special handicaps (e.g. blind, deaf,

etc. )

33. What is the relationship between the new SIT and the

various graduate level aptitude tests such as the GRE

and LSAT?
 . . . "

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ames, L.B. "Academic Progress in Negro Schools." Journal of Learning

Disabilities 1 (1968) 570-77 :

Armstrong, R. and Jensen, J.

, "Can scores obtained from the Slosson
Intelligence Test be used with as much confidence as scores ob-
tained from the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale?" East Aurora,
NY: Slosson Educational Publications, 1970.

Armstrong, R. Mooney, R. and Jensen, J.

; ; "Testing Low IQ Children."
Slosson Intelligence Manual Slosson Educational Publication,
.

September, 1971.

Armstrong, R. Mooney, R. and Jensen, J.

; ; "The Slosson Intelligence
Test: Implications for Reading Specialists." The Reading Teacher
24 (1971) :336-40.

Armstrong, R. and Jensen, J.

, "Validity of an Abbreviated Form of the
Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale, Form L-M." Educational and
Psychological Measurements 32 (1972) :463-67.

Armstrong, R. Jensen, J. and Reynolds J.

; ; "A Comparison of Individual
Intelligence Tests Used for Special Class Placement." Slosson
Intelligence Test Manual Spring, 1974.
,

Armstrong, R.; Mooney, R. and Jensen, J.

; "The Use of Individual
Intelligence Tests for Special Class Placement." East Aurora,
NY: Slosson Educational Publications, 1972.

Armstrong, R. and Jensen J.

,
"The Slosson Intelligence Test: 1981
Norms Tables: Application and Development." Chelmsford, MA:
Metrics Press, Inc., Fall, 1981.

Armstrong, R. Mooney, R. and Jensen, J.

; ;
"A Short, Reliable, Easy to
Administer Individual Intelligence Test for Special Class Place-
ment." Child Study Journal 1 (1971) 156-63 :

Baum, Dale D. and Kelly, Thomas J.

,
"The Validity of the Slosson
Intelligence Test with Learning Disabled Kindergartners.
Journal of Learning Disabilities (April 1979)

Bloom, A.S.; Raskin, L.M. and Resse, A.H.

;
"A Comparison of the WISC-R
and Stanford-Binet Intelligence Classifications of Developmentally
Disabled Children." Psychology in the Schools 13 (1976) :288-90.

Bonfield, J.R. "Predictors of Achievement for Educable Mentally Re-

Pennsylvania
tarded Children." Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
State University, 1968.
79
 .

80

Boyd, J.E. "Use of the Slosson Intelligence Test in Reading Diagnosis."

Academic Therapy 9 (1974) :441-44.

Burns, L.M. "The Slosson Intelligence Test as a Pre-screening Instru-

ment with Potentially Gifted Children." Unpublished master's
thesis, Sacramento State College, 1968.

Carlisle, A.; Shinedling, M. and Weaver, R.

; "Note on the Use of the
Slosson Intelligence Test with Mentally Retarded Residents."
Psychological Reports 26 (1970) :865-66.

Carney, F.L., and Karfgin, L. "Using the Slosson Intelligence Test

with a Criminal Population." Personal Communication, 1973.

Charlton, N.W. "An Investigation of Selected Visual-Perceptual and

Motor Parameters of Young Trainable Mentally Retarded Children."
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Houston, 1970.

Chimera, Joseph. "Findings Based on Literature Research Studies."

Unpublished, 1980.

Covin, T.M. "Comparison of SIT and WISC-R IQ's Among Special Educa-
tion Candidates." Psychology in the Schools 14 (1977) 20-23
:

Covin, T.M. "Relationship of the SIT and PPVT to the WISC-R."

Journal of School Psychology 9 (1977) ;259-60.

Datta, Lois-Ellen. "Review of Slosson Intelligence Test." In

Pediatric Screening Tests, edited by William K. Frankenburg and
Bonnie Camp. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, Publisher,
1975.

DeLapa, G. "Correlates of Slosson Intelligence Test, Binet, Form L-M,

and Achievement Indices." Unpublished doctoral dissertation. West
Virginia University, 1967.

DeLapa, G. "The Slosson Intelligence Test: A Screening and Retesting

Technique for Slow Learners." Jom^tiQ’l of School Psychology 6
(1968) :224-25.

"A Study of the Relation Between the Slosson Reading

and
Duggan, M.D.
Intelligence Tests and Other Standardized Tests at the Second
Grade Level." Unpublished master's thesis. Cardinal Stritch
College, 1968.

"Review of Slosson Intelligence Test. In

Eichorn, Dorothy H.
edited by William K. Frankenburg and
Pediatric Screening Tests,
Charles Thomas, Publisher, 1975.
Bonnie Camp. Springfield, IL:
 .

81

Fagert, C.M. "The Relationship Between the Slosson Intelligence Test

and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children. " Unpublished
master's thesis, Kent State University, 1968.

Fudala, Janet B. "Differential Evaluation of Students with the SIT."

Academic Therapy 15 (1979)

Garrison, M. Jr., and Hammil, D.

, "Who Are the Retarded?" Exceptional
Children 38 (1971) :13-20.

Gellespie, P.H. "A Study of the Performance of Dyslexic and Normal

Readers on the Slosson Intelligence Test for Children and Adults."
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. West Virginia University, 1970.

Guilford, J.P. Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education .

4th ed. McGraw-Hill, 1965.

Hammill, D. "The Slosson Intelligence Test as a Quick Estimate of

Mental Ability." Journal of School Psychology 7 (1968-69) 33-37.:

Hammill, D. Crandel, J.M. Jr.; and Colarusso, R.

; , "The Slosson
Intelligence Test Adapted for Visually Limited Children."
Exceptional Children 36 (1970) :535-536.

Hatcher, Catherine W. et al.

, "A Comparison of Various Measures of
Intelligence with the WISC Among Disabled Readers." Paper pre-
sented at the annual meeting of the International Reading Associ-
ation, New York City, NY: May 13-16, 1975.

Hedl, J.J., Jr. "An Evaluation of a Computer-based Intelligence Test."

Office of Naval Research, Washington, D.C. Personnel and Training
Research Programs Office, 1971.

Hedl, J. J. Jr.
,
"Computer-based Intelligence Testing." Paper presented
at annual meeting of the American Education Research Association,
New York, NY, 1971.

Hedl, J.J., Jr.; O'Neil, H.F., Jr. and Hansen, D.N.

;
"Affective
Nature of Computer-based Testing Procedures." Abstract, Pro-
ceedings of the 79th Annual Convention of the American Psychologi-
cal Association 6 (1971) 535-36.
:

Hill, C. "Prediction of Slosson Intelligence Test Scores from Stanford-

Binet Form L-M Test Scores." Unpublished master's thesis. Univer-
sity of Toledo, 1969.

Houston, C., and Otto, W. "Poor Reader's Functioning on the Wechsler

and
Intelligence Scale for Children, Slosson Intelligence Test
Educational Research 62 (1968) :157-59.
Quick Test." Journal of
 . . .

82

Hunt, J.V. "Review of Slosson Intelligence Test (SIT)." In The

Seventh Mental Measurements Yearboolc Edited by Oscar yT.
.

Buros. Highland Park, NY: The Gryphon Press, 1972.

Hutton, J.B. "Practice Effects on Intelligence and School Readiness

Tests for Pre-school Children." Training School Bulletin 65
(1969) :130-34.

Hutton, J.B. "Relationships Between Preschool Screening Test Data and

First Grade Academic Performance for Head Start Children."
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Houston, 1970.

Hutton, J.B. "Relationships Between Teacher Judgement, Screening

Test Data and Academic Performance for Disadvantaged Children."
Training School Bulletin 68 (1972) 197-201
:

Jerrolds, R.W.; Callaway, R.; and Gwaltney, W.K. "Comparison of the

Slosson Intelligence Test and WISC Scores of Subjects Referred
to a Reading Clinic." Psychology in the Schools 9 (1972):
409-410.

John, J.L. "An Informal Item Analysis for the Slosson Intelligence
Test." Minnesota Reading Quarterly 19 (1975) 164-67
:

Johnson, D.L., and Johnson, C.A. "Comparison of Four Intelligence

Tests Used with Culturally Disadvantaged Children." Psychological
Reports 28 (1971) :209-10.

Johnson, D.L. and Shinedling, M.M.

,
"Comparison of Columbia Mental
Maturity Scale, Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test and Slosson
Intelligence Test with Mentally Retarded Children." Psychological
Reports 34 (1974) 367-70.
:

Johnson, D.L. "A Comparison of Three Intelligence Tests in Assessing

the Mental Abilities of Mentally Retarded Children." Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Brigham Young University, 1972.

Jongeward, P.A. "A Validity Study of the Slosson Intelligence Test for
disserta-
Use with Educable Mentally Retarded Students." Doctoral
Dissertation Abstracts I nter-
tion, University of Oregon, 1969.
national 30, 3323A (University Microfilm No. 70-25, 12).
,

Kapel, M.B., and Kapel, D.E. "Hebrew English Reading Achievement in a

and
Jewish Day School: A Comparison Among Reading Achievements
Education 40 (1970).
Attitudes Toward the Two Languages." Jewish
23-32.

"Comparison of the SIT with

Karnes, Frances A., and Brown, K. Eliot.
in the Schools_ 16
the WISC-R for Gifted Students." Psycholog y
(1979)
 .

83

^ H*^ 3.nd Ivsnoff ^J '*Th 0 Slosson Int 0 llig 0 ncG T 0 st 0 s

.
ci
Scr 00 ning Instrum0 nt with a R0habilitation Population."
Excaptional Childron 35 (1969) :745.

Koany, M. "A Study of tha Ralation Batwaan tha Slosson Raading and
Intalliganca Tasts and Othar Standardizad Tasts at tha Sixth
Grada Laval." Unpublishad mastar's thasis, Cardinal Stritch
Collaga, 1968.

Kilduff, C.T. "A Study of tha Ralation Batwaan tha Slosson Raading
and Intalliganca Tasts and Othar Standardizad Tasts at tha
Fourth Grada Laval." Unpublishad mastar's thasis, Cardinal
Stritch Collaga, 1969.

Klain, Alica E. "Tha Raliability and Pradictiva Validity of tha

Slosson Intalliganca Tast for Pra-Kindargartan Pupils."
Education and Psychological Maasuramant 38 (1978) 1211-17 :

Lamp, R.E., and Traxlar, A.J. "Tha Validity of tha Slosson Intalli-
ganca Tast for Usa with Disadvantagad Haad Start and First Grada
School Children. " Journal of Community Psychology 1 (1973):
27-30.

Lamp, R.E.; Traxlar, A. J. and Gustafson, P.P.

; "Predicting Academic
Achievement of Disadvantaged Fourth Grade Children Using the
Slosson Intelligence Test." Journal of Community Psychology 1
(1973) :339-44.

Lessler, K. and Galinsky, M.D.

,
"Relationship Between the Slosson
Intelligence Test and Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children
Scores in Special Education Candidates." Psychology in the
Schools 8 (1971) :341-44.

Lowrance, D. and Anderson, H.N.

,
"A Comparison of the Slosson
Intelligence Test and the WISC-R with Elementary School
Children." Psychology in the Schools 16 (1979).

Machen, L.H. "A Validity and Reliability Study of the Slosson

Intelligence Test with an Atypical Population; Gifted Children."
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Catholic University, 1972.

MacKinnon, R.C. and Elliott, C.

,
"A Comparison of an Achievement
Battery with Two Tests of Ability and Educable Mental Retardates."
Final Report. Office of Education (DHEW) Washington, D.C.,
,

Bureau of Education for the Handicapped, 1969.

Martin, John D. and Kiewell, Jane C.

,
"Intercorrelations of the
- Revised, the Slosson
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children
Development Test."
Intelligence Test and the National Educational
Educational and Psychological Measurement (Winter 1977).
 84

Massachusetts Department of Education. Chapter 766 ReoulationR

July 1981. '

Maxwell, M.T. "The Relationship Between the Wechsler Intelligence

Scale for Children and the Slosson Intelligence Test."
Child
'
Study Journal 1 (1971) 164-71.
:

McRae, J. "A Comparison of the Wechsler Preschool and Primary

Scale
of Intelligence with the Slosson Intelligence Test."
Unpublished
master's thesis. Eastern Washington State College, 1968.

Meissler, G.R. "A Correlation of the Slosson Intelligence Test and

the Wechsler Intelligence Scale when Administered to Atypical
Children.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Catholic Univer-
sity of America, 1970.

Mesinger, J.F. "An Intelligence Test to Assess Compensatory Education

Programs for Disadvantaged Youth." University of Virginia
Research 7 (1969) :52-58.

Miller, C.K. "Conservation in Blind Children." Education of the

Visually Handicapped 1 (1969) :101-5.

Miller, W.D. "Usefulness of the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test and

the Slosson Intelligence Test in a Teacher Training Progrcim."
Southern Journal of Educational Research 6 (1972) :71-78.

Miller, W.D. "Predicting Reading and Interpreting IQ Differences."

Southern Journal of Educational Research 71 (1973) 31-39.
:

Mize, John M. ;Callaway, Bryon; and Smith, Janie Wooten. "Comparison

of Reading Disabled Children's Scores on the WISC-R, Peabody
Picture Vocabulary Test and the Slosson Intelligence Test."
Psychology in the Schools 16 (1979) :356-58.

Nash, M.S. "The Development of Depth Perception in Intermediate Age

Children." Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of
Kentucky, 1969.

Nicholson, C.L. "The Use of Four Screening Instruments. In selected

Papers on Learning Disabilities of the Sixth Annual International
Conference of the Association for Children with Learning Disabili-
ties, 1969, San Rafael, California." Academic Therapy (1969):
101-7.

Nie; Hull; Jenkins; Steinbrenner and Berel.

;
Statistical Package for
the Social Sciences. 2nd Edition. McGraw-Hill, 1976.
 .

85

Nicholson, C.L. "Analysis of the Functions of the Slosson Intelligence

Test." Perceptual and Motor Skills 31 (1970) ;627-31.

O'Keefe, S.L, "An Inquiry into the Use of the Slosson Intelligence
Test with Fast Learners." Unpublished master's thesis, Ohio
State University, 1967.

O Neill, H.D. Partial Validation of the Slosson Intelligence Test."

Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Oklahoma, 1969.

Pate, R.H., Jr., and Nichols, W.R, "The Slosson Intelligence Test
Used as a Screening Device: A Validity Study." American Psycho-
logical Association. Catalog of Abstracts. Experimental Publica-
tion System, 1970:9.

Pikulski, J.J. "Validity of Three Brief Measures of Intelligence for

Disabled Readers." Journal of Educational Research 67 (1973):
67-68.

Poissant, P.A. "A Product Moment Correlation Between the Stanford-

Binet and Slosson Intelligence Tests with Slow Learners."
School Psychological Newsletter 12 (1) (1967)

Poole, M.J. "The Development of a Spanish Version of the Slosson

Intelligence Test." Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
University of Rochester, 1974.

Raskin, L.M.; Offenbach, S.I.; and Black, K.N. "Relationship Between

the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test and the Slosson Intelligence
Test in Preschool and Third Grade Children." Psychology in the
Schools 11 (1974) :66-68.

Reynolds, William M. "A Caution Against the Use of the Slosson Intelli-
gence Test in the Diagnosis of Mental Retardation." Psychology
in the Schools 16 (1979) :77-79.

Ritter, David; Duffey, James; and Fischman, Ronald. "Comparability of

the Slosson and S-B Estimates of Intelligence." Journal of
School Psychology 11 (1973) 224-27.
:

Sattler, J. Assessment of Children's Intelligence . W.B. Saunders

Company, 1979.

Schooler, Douglas L. and Anderson, Robert L.

,
"Race Differences on
the Developmental Test of Visual Motor Integration, the Slosson
Intelligence Test, and the ABC Inventory." Psychology in the
Schools 16 (1979) :453-56.

"A Comparison of the WISC and WISC-R." Psychology

Schwarting, F.G.
in the Schools 13 (1976) :139-41.
 . .

86

Shepher, C.W., Jr. "Childhood Chronic Illness and Visual Perceptual

Development." Exceptional Children 36 (1969) 39-42
;

Sinco, H.J. "A Concurrent Validity Study of the Slosson Intelligence

Test and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children." Master’s
thesis, Marywood College, Scranton, PA, 1973.

Slosson, R. "Slosson Intelligence Test." East Aurora, NY: Slosson

Educational Publications, 1961.

Slosson, R.L. Slosson Intelligence Test for Children and Adults. 2nd
edition. East Aurora, NY: Slosson Educational Publications, 1981.

Smith, L.L. "Comparison of Reading Expectancy Sets as Determined from

Sele-ted Intelligence Measures." Unpublished doctoral disserta-
tion, University of Illinois, 1972.

Stewart, Kenneth D. , and Jones, Elivis C. "Validity of the Slosson

Intelligence Test: A Ten Yecir Review." Psychology in the Schools
(October 1976)

Stewart, K.D., and Myers, D.G. "Long Term Validity of the Slosson
Intelligence Test." Journal of Clinical Psychology 30 (1974):
180-81.

Stewart, K.D.; Wood, D.Z.; and Gallman, W.A. "Concurrent Validity of

the Slosson Intelligence Test." Journal of Clinical Psychology
27 (1971) :218-20.

Stone, Mark. "An Interpretive Profile for the Slosson Intelligence

Test." Psychology in the Schools (July 1975) 330-33. :

Stuhler, A.M. "An Experimental Study of the Relation Between the

Slosson Reading and Intelligence Tests and Other Standardized
Tests at the First Grade Level." Unpxiblished Master's thesis.
Cardinal Stritch College, 1970.

Swanson, M.S., and Jabodson, A. "Evaluation of the Slosson Intelligence

Test for Screening Children with Learning Disabilities. Journal
of Learning Disabilities 3 (1970) :318-20.

Terman, L.M. and Merrill, M.A. Stanford-Binet Intelligen ce Scale.

,

Boston: Houghton-Miff lin 1960.

,

Terman, L.M. and Merrill, M. Stanford-Binet Intel ligence Scale, Manual

,

Boston, Houghton-Miff lin, 1973.

1972 Norms Tables.

Thorndike R. Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale,
,

Boston: Houghton— Miff lin Company, 1973.

 . ,

87

Trivedi, A. "A Comparison of Three Intelligence Tests for the Assess-

ment of Mental Retardates." Journal of Mental Deficiency Re-
search (December 1977)

Watson, C.G., and Klett, W.G. "The Henmon-Nelson, Cardall-Miles

Slosson and Quick Tests as Predictors of WAIS IQ." Journal of
Clinical Psychology 31 (1975) 310-13.
:

Wechsler, D. Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children: Manual .

New York; Psychological Corporation, 1949.

Wechsler, D. Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children; Revised .

New York; Psychological Corporation, 1974.

Whitacre, R.L. "Use of the Slosson Intelligence Test with the

Stanford-Binet, L-M as a Screening Device for Slow Learner
Placement." Unpublished master's thesis. Bowling Green
State University, 1968.
APPENDIX A
 89

SCHOOL SYSTEMS SURVEYED

To Determine the Feasability of Conducting Research
P®^taining to the Use of the Slosson Intelligence
Test (Revised) in Place of the Wechsler
Intelligence Test for Children-Revised

Ayer Public Schools Methuen Public Schools

Antietman Street 75 Pleasant Street
Ayer, MA 01432 Methuen, MA 01844

Beverly Public Schools N. Middlesex School District

4 Colon Street P.O. Box 501
Beverly, MA 01915 Townsend, MA 01469

Chelsea Public Schools North Reading Public Schools

Walnut Street Sherman Road
Chelsea, MA 02150 North Reading, MA 01864

Dracut Public Schools Peabody Public Schools

1540 Lakeview Avenue 210 Washington Street
Dracut, MA 01826 Peabody, MA 01960

Ipswich Public Schools Revere Public Schools

One Lord's Square 101 School Street
Ipswich, MA 01938 Revere, MA 02151

Lawrence Public Schools Saugus Public Schools

58 Lawrence Street 25 Main Street
Lawrence MA 01840
, Saugus MA 01906
,

Lowell Pxablic Schools Stoneham Public Schools

57 Tenth Street 101 Central Street
Lowell, MA 01854 Stoneham, MA 01280

Lynn Public Schools Wakefield Public Schools

42 Franklin Street 525 Main Street
Lynn, MA 01905 Wakefield, MA 01880

Marblehead Pioblic Schools Woburn Public Schools

2 Humphrey Street Elm Street
Marblehead, MA 01945 Woburn, MA 01801

Marlboro Pioblic Schools Worcester Public Schools

Bolton Street 20 Irving Street
Marlboro, MA 01752 Worcester, MA 01609
 .

90

Educational
Specialists
a//ociate/ 160 Pleo/ont Street ftortft RncJover fTlfl 0IW5 617-685*0111

Dear Director of Special Education:

In anticipation of completing my doctorate this coming

year, I need some direct assistance from you in gathering
data. I have spoken to some of you individually about this
project, bat not to all the Directors I had hoped to. My
dissertation hopefully will benefit all of us so that any
imposition at this time will ultimately be rewarded in the
future

Specifically, I am attempting to validate the Slosson

Intelligence Test in relation to the WISC-R. Doctors Armstrong
and Jensen have re-normed the Slosson Intelligence Test in
relationship to the revised Stanford-Binet (1972) Since .

the V7ISC was revised, little evidence of the validity of

the SIT in relation to the WISC-R has been produced. Therefore,
I am attempting to provide the validity between the re-normed
SIT and the WISC-R.

Individual intelligence tests such as the WISC-R and

S-B require specialized training in their administration,
scoring and interpretation. They are also time consuming in
that they require an average administration time of one hour.
Thus, there is a need for a valid individual test of mental
ability which is quickly administered and easily scored. Such
a test could be used as a screening and/or retesting instrument.

I have taken the liberty of enclosing materials that are

needed to gather the required data. Naturally the larger
the sample the more accurate the results, so there is not a
specific number of student data requested from you. I will
gratefully accept any information you can provide.

I am asking that the Slosson Intelligence Test be

administered to any student who has had, or will have, a
WISC-R administered between March 1, 1980 and June 26, 1981.
The sample will include ages 5 through 16.
 . , :

To be returned to me are (without identity of student)

1. The Slosson score sheet

2. A copy of the front page WISC-R

3. The questionnaire for each administration of the

Slosson

If you need more copies, please make additional copies or

contact me at 683-0111 and I will provide what you need.

The results of this study have national significance

besides my personal needs.

Drs. Armstrong and Jensen have agreed to let me report

back to you, if you desire, any student's IQ as indicated on
the re-normed Slosson Intelligence Test. Just use your own
code number on the yellow sheet and I will give you the IQ
for the code number.

Thank you in advance for your help and participation in

this project. If there is any question please call me at
683-0111.

Sincerely

James C. Bradley

JCB/ct

Enclosure

IMPORTANT; Each individual student's material should be

stapled together.
 ,

92

GducQtionQl
Specialists
o//ociQte/ 160 PteoAant Street OortfS findover fTlfi OIM5 617-683-ail

February 27, 1981

To Directors of Special Education:

This is follow-up to the packaqe that was sent to you

a
on Dccen)l)er 1980 containing data sheets, etc. for my
1,
dissertation - Slosson Intelligence Test compared to the
WISC-R, The response to date has been positive, however I
still need more data sets to complete my study. If you have
started tl:e test, please send me whatever you have at this
time, and any further tests at a later date.

I would like to suggest that you find students who have

had the WISC-R since a year ago (March 1, 1980) and administer
the Slosson to some of them. Also, many of the initial responses
received were found in student files where both tests had been
previously administered. Re-evaluations art taking place and
this may be the time you choose to complete my request.

Iwould appreciate any help you can give me, even though
it is an imposition on you and your staff. If I could get an
average of 15 per system, enough data would be generated to
start data analysis.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation. If you have

misplaced the material, have any questions, or need more material
please call me at 683-0111.

I plan to he at the March 4 Directors meeting if you have

any results or questions.

Sincerely

:)CD/ct
1

y
 93

REQUEST FOR PARENTAL PERMISSION

I am conducting a doctoral study relating to the comparison of two

tests generally given to students who are referred to Special Needs.
They are the WISC-R and the Slosson Intelligence Test.

Your child has already been administered the WISC-R in the past
by school personnel. I would like your permission to have them
administer the Slosson Test. The Slosson Test is very short and easily
given .

I require names for identifying information about you or your

child, just the two test results.

This study will be compiled with results from many other cities
and towns and will have national significance in the identifying and
subsequent helping of special needs students.

If you give permission to have your child participate in this

study, thank you. Please fill out the bottom part of this permission
slip.

Thank you.

James C. Bradley

I give permission for my child

(name of child)

results
to have the Slosson Intelligence Test administered and the

only given to Mr. James Bradley.

APPENDIX B
 95

S LOS SON/WE CHS LER TEST DATA FORM

TEST ADMINISTRATOR INFORMATION

Wechsler Admi nistrator Slosson Administrator (if different)

Last Name First Last Name ^First

Position/Title Position/Title

School System School System

SLOSSON (SIT) ADMINISTRATOR

Yes No Have you administered Slosson Intelligence Tests prior

to participating in this research study?

Yes No Do you feel you are a competent Slosson Intelligence

Test administrator? If no, please specify reason:

Yes No Do you consider the results from this Slosson Intelligence

Test administration to be valid? If no, please specify
reason (e.g. student was restless, too many interruptions)

Yes No Are you certified to administer the Wechsler?

Yes No Are you certified to administer the Stanford-Binet?

WECHSLER (WISC-R) ADMINISTRATOR

Yes No Did you also administer the Slosson to these students as

part of this research study?

Yes No Do you consider the results from this administration of

the Wechsler to be valid? If no, please specify reason
(e.g. student was restless, too many interruptions, etc.)

Yes No Are you certified to administer the Stanford-Binet?

 .

96

STUDENT INFORMATION

SEX : Female Male Grade Level Student Prototype

Number (if applicable)

Please specify any student handicaps:

TEST ADMINISTRATION DATA

Slosson Data

Date of Test: yr. mo. day

Chronological Age: yr. mo. day
Mental Age :
yr mo. day
Ratio IQ: yr. mo. day

Wechsler Data

Date of Test: yr. mo .

day
Chronological Age; yr. mo .
^day

Verbal IQ:
Performance IQ:
Full Scale IQ:

Administration Order: Wechsler First Slosson First

Time Between Test Administrations

^same day 15-29 days If more than 60 days

30-44 days please specify days
^1-7 days
8-14 days 45-60 days

Testing Time: Administration and Scoring Only DO —

NOT Include Initial^
Time
Rapport Establishment Time as Part of Administration

Administration Time Scoring Time Total Time

Test
Hr(s) mins. Hr(s) mins.
Wechsler Hr(s) mins.

Hr (s) mins. Hr(s) mins.

Slosson Hr(s) mins.

FRONT PAGE OF THE WECHSLER RECORD

PLEASE BE SURE TO ATTACH A COPY OF THE
ASK THAT STUDENT NAMES BE
form and the SLOSSON SCORE SHEET. WE ALSO
INKED OUT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
 1 5 —

97

s couK siii:i:t
SI.OSSON INTEI.LI CllNCE TEST (SIT)
CA
Fon
IQ s MA X 100 MA
CHIIDBEN AND ADULTS CA V r Alt MON IMt
IQ
Cupyrlqiit © 1963. Richard L. Sloison. M.A.

Niimo
Present time
LAST FIRST Ml OOL TTB “Tnnrrn
C
~nnv
Add rnss Dirth elate
VCAn MON IM ~B.V
School Grade

tlxainiiinr
Age or CA

f
•<6n I

Plndlng the MA Finding the IQ

Basal ace
IJUl
Added months CA 00 (HA in monthsi
IB

*
Thr CA never
exceed! tS yeert
MA or 102 month!.

CONVERTING 1-12 . 4 - 48 7 - 84 lQ-120 13-156 16-192 19-228 22-264 25- 300

YEARS 2-21 5-60 8-96 11-132 14-168 17-204 20 - 240 23-276 26-312
TO MONTHS: 3-30 0-72 9-108 1 2-144 15-180 18-216 21-252 24- 288 27 - 324

1/2 MONTH' S CREDIT 1 MOUTH'S CREDIT 2 MONTH'S CREDIT 3 MONTH' S CREDIT

Years and mon tlis Years and months Yoars and months Years and months

0-0. 5
0-1.0
1-0.0
1-0.5
0
2-1
1 4^ 4-1
ho
5-2
9-0
9-2
13-0
13-2
10-8
16-3
2M
U-JL
0-1. S 1-1.0 4-2 5-4 9-4 13-4 10-6 22-6
o o 1-1. 5 2-3 4-3 5-6 9-6 13-6 16-9 22-0
0-2.5 1-2.0 ird Jti 9-8 13-8 17-0 23-0
0-3.1 1-2.5 2-5 4-5 5-10 9-10 13- 10 17-3 23-3
0-3. 5 1-3.0 2-6 4-0 6-0 10-0 14-0 17-6 23-6
0-A. 0 1-3. 5 2-7 4-7 6-2 10-2 14-2 17-9 23-9
0-4.5 1-4.0 _2;8 ±1 ±Ji 10-4 H-4 LSlO ilia
0 -r.. 0 1-4. 5 2-9 1*9 6-0 10-0 14-6 10-3 itJ
0-5. 5 1-5.0 2- 10 4-10 6-8 10-8 14-8 18-6 24-6

0-f.. 0 1-5. 5 2-11 vn 6- 10 10-10 M-iq 18-9

19-0
ilia
25-0
0-B. 5 1-C.O 3-0 7-0 n-9 ISlS
0-7. 0 1-0. 5 3-1 7-2 11-2 15-2 19-3 25-3
0-7. 5 1-7.0 :i-2 7-4 11-4 15-4 19-6 25-0

O-P.O 1-7. .5 3-3 7-6 11-6 15-g 19-9 2.5-9

0-H. 5 1-8.0 3-4 7-8 11-8 15-0 20-0 26-0

0-9.0
0-9. 5
1-8.
1-9.0
.5 3-5
iJi
7- 10
8-0 bi 11-10 15-10 20-3
20-6
26-3
20-6

0- 10.0 1-9.5 3-7 8-2 12-2 20-9 3(5:1

0-10. 1- 10.0 3-8 8-4 .121.1

21-0 27-0

0-11.0 1-10. !) 3-9 8-6 ll!-0 21-3

1-11.0 8-8 12-0 21-8
OJi-S. 2-_ia
1-11.5 8- 10 12- 10 21-9
;L'JLi 1

- 2 X - 3 X_ -
1/2 X 1 X _

Sl.l)SS()N •MlfJNAt. ft mi ICA IONS. INf

I

f.t). Il.i> .’so. f:;!.! Ntw V.iik IJ:l.l2

r H I II 1 fi I U . 5 . A .
 6

98

3-'J, l-O. •l-jl. fi-O (Dnielns AiiplOH) (llnclrcle the nuaibers of all
arltliantlc pmliluas os you co«e
to so that the person
thcoi
belnc
10- tested con look at then
while fonaiilatini; on answer.)

9-8 2a

8 45V U
11 10 36

3- 1 cook In for me Triel I. Trial 2. 12-2

i\
s< 654
like this."
12-8 504

13-0 13

14-0 404 104

14-0 804 2 04
(lUviMd repdai 19T0

14-6 12 20 6:00
3' “Which of these squares
14-10 504 Mi 6
is smaUer?"

15-6 9 12

16-0 S5.00 754 304

16-0 $10.00 SI. SO 604

(RavlMd reprlat 1977)

16-9 300 5 1

19-0 3/5 2/3 5/8

19-9 1 40

5~ 2 "Draw a block for me Trial I. Trial 2.

20-3 $40,000 5 3
like this."

20-9 5 40 8

21-9 10 2 3

22-3 216

22-9 1000 107. 5%

Trial I. Trial 2. 23-3 $1000 8 12

24-0 2, 4, 12. 48.

24-3
 1

99

NAME ACE SEX

RECORD
1

::
t, ADDRESS
w 'j y li'u FORM
PARENT'S NAME

SCHOOL GRADE
Wo<h>l«r Inlolligunco Scalo
for Chitdron— Rovutd PLACE OF TESTING TESTED BY

REFERRED BY

WISC-R PROFILE Yoor Monlli Day

wirh lo drow o prolilo iKoijId firtt tronrfbr Iho child't %coUtl icurof to tho row of boaoi
who
Ciioicirint
briow. Then inork on X on the doi corresponding lo iho icoirrd Koro for eoch Icit, and dio w o tine
connecting Iho X'l.'
Dole Tbtled
Dole of Birth
D
VERBAL TESTS PERFORMANCE TESTS Ao«

Row Scoled
Score Score
si “

—
s r VERBAL TESTS
2 3 e

aana
t
.X o t O
Infnrmnlinn _
Senind

—
Srolerl
Scorn it: krur. Similoriliei

19
IB
17
16
IS
19
18
17
16
IS
19
18

17
16
IS
Arilhmelic

Vocobulory
r ninprrhcntiAfi
(Digil SponI (

Verbol Score
)
—
—
1 1

14 14
14
13 13 13 PERFORMANCE TESTS
12 12 Picture Completion
12
11 11
1

10

—
10 10
Block Design
9 9
9 Object Assembly _
8
e 8
7 Coding
7 7
'

6 6 (MozesI ( 1 )

6
5 S Performonco Score
5
4
4 4
3
Scoled
3
3 lO
Score
2 2
2 •
1
Verbol Score
1
1 •
Performonce Score
monuol for o ditev on cf tho irgnificonc renett bolwoon icorot on I

*S«:« CScpIcr i in Iho

Full Seole Score
‘Prorolod Irorn 4 losll. nocoiiory.
NOTES If

r.cchninolrol tornororl.n.
Coorrithi 41 1071. I07C k» Iho

N. po.l ol Ihit rn.nrO lor.. ...» ••v »**P*f« **4

Mll'’n’.r!l,«l I"’o!.li€.rl.n
«l,l. .I...C4
^ In'

‘-r"*- 74-1 0.1 Ar. 0 000334

rr::' \ iFfc. M.r. 100I7
U« Cw^****!!***. Ilp-w