Premium
Concurrent validity of the Stanford‐Binet: Fourth edition and Kaufman assessment battery for children with learning‐disabled students
Author(s) -
Knight B. C.,
Baker E. H.,
Minder C. C.
Publication year - 1990
Publication title -
psychology in the schools
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.738
H-Index - 75
eISSN - 1520-6807
pISSN - 0033-3085
DOI - 10.1002/1520-6807(199004)27:2<116::aid-pits2310270204>3.0.co;2-s
Subject(s) - psychology , concurrent validity , test (biology) , scale (ratio) , intelligence quotient , predictive validity , test validity , developmental psychology , clinical psychology , cognition , psychometrics , psychiatry , paleontology , physics , quantum mechanics , internal consistency , biology
This study examined the concurrent validity of the composite and area scores of the Stanford‐Binet Intelligence Scale: Fourth Edition (SBIV) and the Mental Processing Composite and global scale scores of the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (K‐ABC). The tenability of interpreting the SBIV using the fluid/crystallized model, as suggested by the authors, was also considered. The subjects were 30 Black, learning‐disabled elementary school students. Results of a t test indicated that the Mental Processing Composite score of the K‐ABC was significantly higher than the SBIV Composite score. Moderate to high correlations were obtained when SBIV composite and area scores were compared to K‐ABC composite and scale scores, reflecting a positive relationship between the two tests. The measures of fluid abilities (K‐ABC Composite score; SBIV Abstract/Visual Reasoning) were highly correlated. The results of a multiple regression analysis indicated a moderate degree of correlation among the measures of crystallized ability (K‐ABC Achievement; SBIV Verbal Reasoning and Quantitative Reasoning). The findings of this study demonstrated adequate concurrent validity for the SBIV. In addition, the results provided limited support for describing test results utilizing the fluid/crystallized interpretation model. Further research is suggested in order to examine other validity issues, such as classification of special education students and the SBIV's relationship to other similar instruments.