Talk:Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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)

Mean vs. Median[edit]

The "standardization"section says "The median Full Scale IQ is centered at 100, with a standard deviation of 15.[9] In a normal distribution, the IQ range of one standard deviation above and below the mean (i.e., between 85 and 115) is where approximately 68% of all adults would fall."

It would be an odd coincidence if both sentences were true, i.e., that the mean and the median are exactly the same (100). If that is actually the case, the main article should be edited to state that explicitly. Otherwise, someone who knows what they're doing should either change median to mean in the first sentence, or mean to median in the second. Xrlq (talk) 20:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

It's actually expected that the mean and the median would be the same score level if IQ test item content scores are distributed in a normal distribution (as they essentially are). The usual way to resolve a problem like this in a typical Wikipedia article is simply to go to the sources and use the language of the sources. That works a little less well in editing articles on IQ testing as to the statistical fine points, because many psychologists who are otherwise authors of excellent books on IQ testing are in over their heads when they write about fine points of statistics. But I'll check what the current, reliable sources say on this as editing of the article goes forward. Thanks for your attention to detail. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Now that I've seen the context in which that passage occurs, I've chopped it out, as the "deviation IQ" scoring of this test (an innovation that David Wechsler championed) needs more discussion in the article from better sources (and higher up in the article) anyhow. You can find some of the sources already cited in IQ classification, an article I expanded last year. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Reporting Misuse of the Content of this Article[edit]

The content of this article has been copied to The page attributes the text to wikipedia, but the website claims exclusive copyright over the content it hosts. I looked for somewhere to formally report this misuse to someone within the authority of Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation who could act on it, but I could not find an appropriate channel. I decided to leave this where the contributors would find it. I figure that the misuse is of significance because it is an out of date version of this article with only two sources cited and because it is the second result on a google search for "WAIS R" an as such web users will come across two versions of the same article within the first two results.OdBockor (talk) 18:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—Fourth Edition (WAIS–IV) by David Wechsler, Statistics Solutions[edit]

Used as a general test the intelligence, the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale –Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV) was developed to assess cognitive ability for adults. This instruments aids in examining the relationship between intellectual functional and memory. A common purpose for the WAIS is for educational planning and placement with older adolescents and adults.

The test includes 11 subtests with various types of format. Approximately 60 to 90 minutes is required for completion.

Reliability and Validity[edit]

The Wechsler Adult Intelligence is a well-established scale and it has fairly high consistency. Over a two to twelve week time period, the test-retest reliabilities ranged from 0.70 (7 subscales) to 0.90 (2 subscales). Inter-scorer coefficients were very high, all being above 0.90. According to the test manual, the instrument targets three are – psychoeducational disability, neuropsychiatic and organic dysfunction, and giftedness. The WAIS correlated highly with the Stanford-Binet IV test (0.88) and had high concordance with various measures: memory, language, dexterity, motor speed, attention, and cognitive ability.

Obtaining the WAIS-IV[edit]

Pearson Assessments

Administration, Analysis and Reporting[edit]

Statistics Solutions consists of a team of professional methodologists and statisticians that can assist the student or professional researcher in administering the survey instrument, collecting the data, conducting the analyses and explaining the results.

Dissertations Using the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale[edit]

Below is a list of dissertations that use the WAIS-IV. The full version of these dissertations can be found using ProQuest.

Hershberger, K. A. (1997). The relationship between conceptually similar subtests of the wechsler adult intelligence scale-revised and the career ability placement survey with a vocational rehabilitation sample. University of Cincinnati.

Meyer, M. P. (2000). Use of the wechsler abbreviated scale of intelligence in a vocational rehabilitation sample. University of Cincinnati.