Concurrent validity of the WISC-R using deaf norms and the Hiskey-Nebraska

Using a sample of 49 prelingually deaf youths, test results of the Hiskey-Nebraska Test of Learning Aptitude (H-NTLA) and the WISC-R Performance Scales for Deaf Children were compared. The H-NTLA was administered using the standard demonstration and/or pantomine instructions, while a total communication directional set was used with the WISC-R. A Pearson product-moment correlation of .913 between the two instruments demonstrated overwhelming commonality and supported the hypothesis that the WISC-R Performance IQ may provide a conveneint alternative to the Hiskey-Nebraska when the score is computed using the Anderson and Sisco deaf norms and a total communication approach for administration.     

Validation of self-report measures of physical activity: a case study using the New Zealand Physical Activity Questionnaire

Accurate measurement of physical activity is fundamentally important in epidemiological research of physical activity behavior A widely used telephone-based physical activity questionnaire was compared with other methods of administration and objective measures (pedometers and accelerometers) among 80 adults (43 women). The telephone questionnaire was comparable to both the self-administered form and international telephone-administered equivalent. Although moderate correlation coefficients with objective measures supported the use of the questionnaire, wide prediction intervals generated using Bland Altman methods highlighted large discrepancies between the measures, particularly in the moderate intensity category. These findings illustrate the limitations of correlation coefficients in validation studies and the inaccuracy of self-report questionnaires in measuring physical activity.     

A comparison of WISC-R and stanford-binet intelligence scale classifications of developmentally disabled children

WISC-Rs and Stanford-Binets were administered to 50 children with developmental disabilities referred for comprehensive evaluations. Although the two IQs correlated highly and significantly, it was found that 54% of the children received different classifications using the two instruments. Thus, testers should be aware that different classifications of intellectual level may be derived for the same child depending upon which test is used.