Comparison of Nominal Recall (Standard) and Multiple-Choice Methods for Administration of WISC—R Information Subtest: A Preliminary Study Indicating a Learning Effect of Multiple-Choice Testing

Many studies document the utility of the Slosson Intelligence Test with “normal” and retarded subjects but few data are available regarding the use of this instrument with learning disabled children. Several investigators have suggested that the Slosson may overestimate IQ for this population. This study compared the intellectual functioning of two groups of 24 children suspected of being learning disabled. Slosson scores exceeded scores on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised by approximately 9 IQ points. In spite of the recent conversion of the Slosson to a deviation IQ, caution appears prudent in interpreting IQ for this population.

Download Full-text

Comparison of Paragraph Comprehension Test Scores with Reading versus Listening-Reading and Multiple-Choice versus Nominal Recall Administration Techniques: Justification for the Bypass Approach

Perceptual and Motor Skills ◽

10.2466/pms.1989.69.3f.1131 ◽

1989 ◽

Vol 69 (3_suppl) ◽

pp. 1131-1135 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

Warren A. Weinberg ◽

Anne McLean ◽

Robert L. Snider ◽

Jeanne W. Rintelmann ◽

Roger A. Brumback

Keyword(s):

Oral Reading ◽

Correct Answer ◽

Multiple Choice ◽

Poor Readers ◽

Good Readers ◽

Test Form ◽

Recall Method ◽

Input Method ◽

Choice Testing ◽

Choice Method

Eight groups of learning disabled children ( N = 100), categorized by the clinical Lexical Paradigm as good readers or poor readers, were individually administered the Gilmore Oral Reading Test, Form D, by one of four input/retrieval methods: (1) the standardized method of administration in which the child reads each paragraph aloud and then answers five questions relating to the paragraph [read/recall method]; (2) the child reads each paragraph aloud and then for each question selects the correct answer from among three choices read by the examiner [read/choice method]; (3) the examiner reads each paragraph aloud and reads each of the five questions to the child to answer [listen/recall method]; and (4) the examiner reads each paragraph aloud and then for each question reads three multiple-choice answers from which the child selects the correct answer [listen/choice method]. The major difference in scores was between the groups tested by the recall versus the orally read multiple-choice methods. This study indicated that poor readers who listened to the material and were tested by orally read multiple-choice format could perform as well as good readers. The performance of good readers was not affected by listening or by the method of testing. The multiple-choice testing improved the performance of poor readers independent of the input method. This supports the arguments made previously that a “bypass approach” to education of poor readers in which testing is accomplished using an orally read multiple-choice format can enhance the child's school performance on reading-related tasks. Using a listening while reading input method may further enhance performance.

Download Full-text

A Preliminary Study of Syntax in the Written Expression of Learning Disabled Children

Journal of Learning Disabilities ◽

10.1177/002221948201500612 ◽

1982 ◽

Vol 15 (6) ◽

pp. 359-362 ◽

Cited By ~ 28

Author(s):

Peggy L. Anderson

Keyword(s):

Learning Disabled ◽

Written Expression ◽

Disabled Children ◽

Preliminary Study

Download Full-text

Comparison of Paragraph Comprehension Test Scores with Reading versus Listening-Reading and Multiple-Choice versus Nominal Recall Administration Techniques: Justification for the Bypass Approach

Perceptual and Motor Skills ◽

10.1177/00315125890693-213 ◽

1989 ◽

Vol 69 (3-2) ◽

pp. 1131-1135

Author(s):

Warren A. Weinberg ◽

Anne McLean ◽

Robert L. Snider ◽

Jeanne W. Rintelmann ◽

Roger A. Brumback

Keyword(s):

Oral Reading ◽

Correct Answer ◽

Multiple Choice ◽

Poor Readers ◽

Good Readers ◽

Test Form ◽

Recall Method ◽

Input Method ◽

Choice Testing ◽

Choice Method

Eight groups of learning disabled children ( N = 100), categorized by the clinical Lexical Paradigm as good readers or poor readers, were individually administered the Gilmore Oral Reading Test, Form D, by one of four input/retrieval methods: (1) the standardized method of administration in which the child reads each paragraph aloud and then answers five questions relating to the paragraph [read/recall method]; (2) the child reads each paragraph aloud and then for each question selects the correct answer from among three choices read by the examiner [read/choice method]; (3) the examiner reads each paragraph aloud and reads each of the five questions to the child to answer [listen/recall method]; and (4) the examiner reads each paragraph aloud and then for each question reads three multiple-choice answers from which the child selects the correct answer [listen/choice method]. The major difference in scores was between the groups tested by the recall versus the orally read multiple-choice methods. This study indicated that poor readers who listened to the material and were tested by orally read multiple-choice format could perform as well as good readers. The performance of good readers was not affected by listening or by the method of testing. The multiple-choice testing improved the performance of poor readers independent of the input method. This supports the arguments made previously that a “bypass approach” to education of poor readers in which testing is accomplished using an orally read multiple-choice format can enhance the child's school performance on reading-related tasks. Using a listening while reading input method may further enhance performance.

Download Full-text

Performance on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children as Related to Salivary Testosterone in Children with Learning Disabilities: A Poststudy Analysis

Perceptual and Motor Skills ◽

10.2466/pms.1994.79.1.577 ◽

1994 ◽

Vol 79 (1) ◽

pp. 577-578E ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Sue W. Kirkpatrick ◽

P. Samuel Campbell ◽

Rhoda E. Wharry ◽

Pamelyn M. MacDonald

Keyword(s):

Learning Disabilities ◽

Standard Deviation ◽

Learning Disabled ◽

Disabled Children ◽

Intelligence Scale ◽

Salivary Testosterone

Reanalysis of testosterone values published in 1993 gave a significantly higher mean and standard deviation for 15 learning-disabled children scoring P > V than those for 10 scoring V > P but not for a matched nonlearning-disabled group. Replication with larger samples would allow a rest of hemispheric integration.

Download Full-text

Intellectual Characteristics of School Labeled Learning Disabled Children

Council review ◽

10.1177/001440297704300603 ◽

1977 ◽

Vol 43 (6) ◽

pp. 352-357 ◽

Cited By ~ 41

Author(s):

Monte D. Smith ◽

J. Michael Coleman ◽

Paul R. Dokecki ◽

Earl E. Davis

Keyword(s):

Normal Level ◽

Learning Disabled ◽

Intellectual Functioning ◽

Disabled Children ◽

Relative Level ◽

Intelligence Scale ◽

Intellectual Characteristics

Over 200 school labeled learning disabled children enrolled in 23 classrooms for the learning disabled were administered the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised (WISC-R). Results indicated that 37% of the children tested did not meet the single most generally agreed upon requisite for learning disabled classification, which is that of a normal level of intellectual functioning. However, regardless of the relative level of intellectual functioning, mean Performance IQ's were significantly greater than mean Verbal IQ's. Moreover, there was marked (and statistically reliable) heterogeneity among mean subtest scaled scores, although children with normal and subnormal intelligence exhibited similar patterns of WISC-R subtest scores.

Download Full-text