K-ABC content bias: Comparisons between Mexican American and White children

Content (item) bias on the Mental Processing Scales and the Achievement Scale of the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (K-ABC) was investigated with 100 Mexican American and 100 White fifth- and sixth-grade boys and girls. All children were English-speaking and from similar socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds. An item-group (partial correlation) method that controlled for age, sex, and ability was used to examine bias. On the Mental Processing Scales, 17 (14%) of 120 items were found to be biased—the strong majority against the Mexican American children. On the Achievement Scale, it was observed that 58 (63%) of 92 K-ABC items were biased—all against the Mexican American sample. This latter finding is discussed in the context of possible differences in learning opportunities (language based, SES based, and school segregation) experienced by the two ethnic groups.     

Discrepancies between IQ and index scores for a clinical sample of students: Useful diagnostic indicators?

Discrepancies between IQ and Index scores on the WISC-111 were investigated for a sample of students with SLD (n = 202), with MR (n = 115), and evaluated but not classified (n=159). Mean Verbal and Performance IQ discrepancies, though significantly different for each sample, were smaller than those reported in the WISC-III manual for the normative sample. Similarly, the Index score comparisons indicated differential functioning for the three samples, with the exception of the Verbal Comprehension and Freedom from Distractibility Index discrepancy. Moreover, the Performance IQ was higher than the Verbal IQ for all three samples. Consistent with the WISC-R literature, discrepancies between Verbal and Performance IQs and higher Performance than Verbal IQs are not diagnostic indicators of abnormalities.     

Analyzing and Selecting Instructional Strategies and Tactics

“Formulation of instructional strategy to match subject matter and learner requirements” is an integral part of most instructional design models (Andrews & Goodson, 1980, p.5). Yet the meaning and purpose of instructional strategies in these design models vary considerably. An instructional strategy in traditional design models usually refers to the selection of instructional delivery vehicles (e.g., lecture, demonstration, computer-assisted instruction) and support activities (e.g., practice exercises, tutoring) (cf. Tracey, Flynn, <& Legere, 1970). Contrast those conceptions with the many instructional strategies described in elaboration theory (Reigeluth & Stein, 1983), such as sub-sumptive sequencing, internally consistent orienting structures, synthesizers, summarizers, and cognitive strategy activators. What is obvious from these disparate conceptions is that instructional designers do not share a consistent definition of instructional strategies. Many of the activities that are referred to as instructional strategies are not in fact strategies, but rather are presentation vehicles. In this article, we first define instructional strategies and tactics in the context of an iterative design model. Instructional strategies are then distinguished from instructional tactics, which are the implementation of strategies. We then list the range of instructional strategies and tactics that implement them. Finally, we provide a decision tree for assisting designers to select appropriate instructional tactics.     

WISC-R examiner errors: Cause for concern

While errors on the WISC-R are conceived primarily in terms of internal consistency and stability over time, examiners make mistakes that contribute to the inaccuracy of test scores. Studies to date mainly have investigated general scoring errors, rather than specific items most prone to error. Investigation of graduate students' test protocols indicated numerous scoring and mechanical errors that influenced the Full Scale IQ scores on two-thirds of the protocols. Particularly prone to error were Verbal subtests of Vocabulary, Comprehension, and Similarities. More importantly, specific items on subtests in which numerous mistakes occurred were noted, as well as the most likely type of error for each item. These findings have implications for the education and training of assessment specialists.