Talk:Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Psychology (Rated C-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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Medicine (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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: 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 (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)

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)