Stupid IQ test

Understanding IQ score differences possibly related to differential CHC content difference coverage.

Interesting article “in press” in Intelligence that compares WAIS and Stanford Binet IQ scores (across different editions except the current SB5 and WAIS-IV) for adults with intellectual disability (ID/MR).  Although the mixing together of scores across different editions makes it impossible to make SB/WAIS-specific edition comparisons, the finding that the WAIS scores were, on the average (mean), almost 17 points higher may surprise many psychologists.  The authors discuss the real-life implications (i.e., Atkins ID death penalty decisions; eligibility for SS benefits, etc.) of different scores from different tests.  As outlined in a prior IAP AP101 special report , differences of this magnitude between different IQ tests should not be surprising.  Silverman, W., Miezejeski, C., Ryan, R., Zigman, W., Krinsky-McHale & Urv, T.

Read the original:
IQ test selection could be life-or-death decision: WAIS v SB score differences in ID/MR sample

[Note.

I should have included the following tables in my original AP101 Brief # 6 report re: my analysis of the CHC content of the FS IQ scores for the various editions of the WISC–WIS-IV/WAIS–WAIS-IV intelligence batteries.

Below is a response to my prior post regarding Wechsler-like scaled score issues.  The response was on the NASP listserv and the authors gave me permission to reproduce it “as is” below.  I’m pleased that they concur with the recommendations at the end of the paper post. Kevin McGrew’s argument can be turned around to show that using subtest score metrics with larger SDs also may lead to misinterpretation if a change of 1 raw score point leads to a change of many standard score points. So, the issue is not as simple as which subtest metric is better (e.g, the Wechsler / Kaufman metric or the WJ metric).

Read the rest here:
Weiss & Daniel respond to "Wechsler-like IQ scaled score metric…" post

A new section has been added to IQs Corner blog. This section is IAP Applied Psychometrics 101 Briefs . It can be found on the blog sidebar

Originally posted here: 
IAP Applied Psychometric 101 Brief reports section added to blog

The following are the first three paragraphs (and a critical figure) of a draft of an IAP Applied Psychometrics 101 Brief Report (#5).

In a prior post I provided access to a special IAP AP101 Report on the standard error of measurement (SEM).  Over at IQ’s Corner sister blog ( ICDP ) a follow-up IAP 101 Brief was published entitled “How likely is each score in an IQ SEM confidence band likely to represent the person’s true IQ?”  Click here to view this report that provides a nifty little SEM probability cheat-sheet.

Originally posted here:
How likely is each score in an IQ SEM confidence band likely to represent the person’s ture IQ? IAP AP101 Brief Report

A new IAP Applied Psychometrics 101 report (#5) is now available.

AP101 # 2 Brief: