Examiner scoring of ambiguous WISC-R responses

Fabricated test protocols were used to study how effectively examiners agree in scoring ambiguous WISC-R responses. Clinical and school psychologists (N = 62) and graduate students (N = 48) scored WISC-R Similarities, Comprehension, and Vocabulary responses obtained in a group administration procedure. From over 15,000 responses obtained, only unusual, atypical, or ambiguous responses were selected; 726 responses were scored, with 11 groups of 10 raters each scoring 66 responses. Considerable scoring disagreement occurred. Unanimous agreement (within each group of 10 raters) was found on only 13% of the responses, while 80% of the raters agreed on 44% of the responses. Rates of scoring agreement were not related to level of rater experience, but were related to specific subtests. Higher rates of agreement were found on the Similarities and Comprehension subtests than on the Vocabulary subtest for both experienced and inexperienced raters. The results suggest that even with the improved WISC-R manual, scoring remains a difficult and challenging task.     

Self-concept as a function of intelligence and creativity in gifted Israeli children

The relationship of creativity and intelligence to self-concept was examined in Israeli children (N = 159) of superior intelligence (mean WISC IQ = 140) across a wide age range (Grades 4–8). The instruments were the Wallach & Kogan Creativity battery, a group intelligence test and the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale. It was concluded that for children of superior intelligence, differences in creativity level were far more implicated in personal-social adjustment than were differences in intelligence level.     

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.