Talk:Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Psychology (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Medicine (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that this article follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Comment[edit]

There are 14 subtests to the WAIS-III, Can I change it on the main page? - PSYCH 09:10, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page needs professional updating. Upon reflection, what professional would consult this page? BrainDoc 01:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

removal of breakdown[edit]

I removed:

"16-17, 18-19, 20-24, 25-34, ..., 70-74 yrs"

from the page, as it specifically mentions 9 different age groups, and there's no information on how to expand the ... -- I tried adding 35-44, 45-54 and realized that was dumb and wasn't going to work. Anybody with information, please enlighten exactly what the 9 are. --Storkk 11:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

This change didn't work- right now it says the test is appropriate for use with anyone 74 years of age or older. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueeyedmaiden (talkcontribs) 01:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

diagram of the structure[edit]

I love the look of the diagram of the WAIS-III structure but it is no longer relevant. Should we just get rid of the whole section or should it be updated to the WAIS-IV structure?--Vannin (talk) 18:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I adjusted some wording in that section so it's a little more obvious that the WAIS-III is not current anymore. It would be nice if someone could put together a picture representing the new structure...until then, I'd say there probably nothing wrong with keeping the old one up. Tim D (talk) 06:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
The truth is that it may not be in use in the USA; but in many other countries due to translations and validation issues it will be in use for some years. It might be a good idea to leave all info on Wais-III in a subarticle for historical reasons. Bests. --Garrondo (talk) 07:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Right, that's a good point. I wonder if it would be best to keep everything together across different sections of WAIS, or have separate articles for each in order to avoid confusion? Tim D (talk) 01:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
How about creating a subsection for each of the versions in the same article?--Garrondo (talk) 08:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Just saw the major revisions that you took the time to do - they look great! I think that this organization works quite well. Tim D (talk) 04:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
It would be great if somebody could simplify the structure of WAIS-III since it has too many subsections and sub-subsections.--Garrondo (talk) 08:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Time[edit]

How long does this test usually take to administer? Including this in the article would be very useful. --1000Faces (talk) 15:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Usually 2-3 hours, but you can check with the vendor probably. It depends on which subtests are given, and if all the optional subtests are administered. You'll need to find a citation regardless. -kslays (talkcontribs) 23:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


under Working Memory[edit]

Letter-number sequencing is shows as supplemental, when it is not...and Arithmetic is shown as mandatory, when it is actually the supplemental one. This same "supplemental category error" is repeated in other sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.2.221.36 (talk) 09:14, 9 January 2010

I know this is an old comment, but in case anyone is wondering, the Arithmetic subtest is not supplemental. This differs from the WISC-IV, which may have caused the confusion. --Tim D (talk) 14:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

History[edit]

A section outlining the history and development of this scale would be useful. There have been at least 4 major revisions. There is a reference to the Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale, but I can't find a corresponding article for it. It would be interesting to outline the major differences between the revisions, and the developments. 60.240.207.146 (talk) 03:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to IQ Testing[edit]

You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It should be possible to start updating this article soon, based on the sources accumulated in the source list noted here. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Possible wrong citation[edit]

I have moved a comment from an ip editor from main space to here:

The page number for reference 4 is not correct. Correct page number is 3.

Reference ip refers to is: Wechsler, David (1939). The Measurement of Adult Intelligence. Baltimore (MD): Williams & Witkins. p. 229. I have also added a template to verify source.--Garrondo (talk) 09:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Weschler Face Test?[edit]

I could find no mention of this test in this article or in the Wikipedia as a whole. Am I doing something wrong? I didn't just imagine that such a tests exists - it appears to be a central feature of this published journal paper from only a few years ago: https://webfiles.uci.edu/eloftus/Morgan_SurvivalEyewitness_IJPL07.pdf?uniq=-a86nxb Accuracy of Eyewitness Identification is significantly associated with performance on a standardized test of face recognition Charles A. Morgan III a,b,⁎, Gary Hazlett c, Madelon Baranoski b, Anthony Doran d, Steven Southwick a,b, Elizabeth Loftus e International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 30 (2007) 213–223. What I want to know is how does it compare with the CFMT? Is the WFT a cheat-proof test? Does it include visual details that are not only faces, such as hair or body or background? Are the skin colours and race and gender standardized in the test, or are they mixed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.93.49 (talk) 11:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Chart deleted and reverted[edit]

I see that there has been a deletion and a reversion of the deletion of a chart in the recent article edit history. I wonder, about that chart, how editors who do not have access to the test manual could verify it. I also wonder, as a matter of due weight on major issues in describing the test, if this is the most important information to put in an article that is now so brief and reflects so little of the vast literature on the Wechsler tests. I raise this question, not expressing any opinion on resolution of the question, so that we can discuss this collegially here on the article talk page. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Problem is not of verification according to the discussion pointed in the first edit summary, but of the possibility of synthesis and or undue weight. Maybe somebody with access to the manual could give some info on what is the data given in it to from which the image has been created, and we could decide if it really is synthesis. --Garrondo (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
I made the graph. It's simply a graphical representation of the FSIQ data in Table 4.3 (p. 118) in the book WAIS-IV Clinical Use and Interpretation. I've presented the full numerical data in the image description.[1]--Victor Chmara (talk) 20:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
So, if I understand correctly only takes into account mean and SD and creates the corresponding normal distributions?--Garrondo (talk) 22:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
I see I have local electronic access to that book. I would definitely want to check what the surrounding text says about the import of the data in the data table. I'll check in a few days and ponder this issue further. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 00:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it's based only on the means and SDs. Presenting IQ scores as normally distributed is uncontroversial because that's how test makers scale the standardized scores, regardless of whether the raw scores or underlying abilities are normally distributed.--Victor Chmara (talk) 08:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Victor, you built a chart out of data that were presented in tabular form, right? Have you ever read Edward Tufte's books about visual display of quantitative data? He writes about the trade-offs of differing forms of data presentation. I may have more of an opinion (or perhaps not) about display of the Wechsler reference manual data after I look at the book, which may be as soon as a few hours from now in my time zone. I definitely urge consideration of how the authors themselves introduce the data in the book to establish context for how to present the data here, if at all. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
I've now had opportunity to review the source data for the chart. I agree with the editors who deleted the chart that the chart doesn't belong in this article as it now is, an article rated as "start class" by two different Wikipedia projects. However, the chapter of a practitioner's manual in which a data table on which the chart was based appears is indeed a good source for revisions of this article, so I thank the editor who drew our attention to that reliable source. If we look at the source together, we may be able to do just what the authors of that chapter urge--reporting the score differences found among different norming group subpopulations with nuance and context, such as the context that they themselves provide in their chapter with pages of text and other data tables. I have the full chapter at hand now for future edits of this article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
WBB, you haven't actually offered any rationale for why the graph should be deleted. And of course the data are from a table of data, where else? You could use a table to present the data here, too, but that would be much less reader-friendly.
I originally made the graph for use in Race and intelligence, when someone there suggested that it would be useful to have a visual presentation of up-to-date racial/ethnic IQ data in the article, but in the end it was never used there. I added it here because it's a suitable illustration for the WAIS-IV section.--Victor Chmara (talk) 11:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)