Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Critical analysis of Meeker’s structure-of-intellect interpretations of the Wechsler intelligence ccale… Gravelle, Lorna Gail 1974

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1974_A8 G73_8.pdf [ 5.53MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0054531.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0054531-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0054531-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0054531-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0054531-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0054531-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0054531-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0054531-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0054531.ris

Full Text

C R I T I C A L A N A L Y S I S O F M E E K E R ' S S T R U C T U R E - O F - I N T E L L E C T I N T E R P R E T A T I O N S O F T H E W E C H S L E R I N T E L L I G E N C E S C A L E F O R C H I L D R E N A N D T H E S T A N F O R D - B I N E T I N T E L L I G E N C E S C A L E B Y L O R N A G A I L G R A V E L L E B . A . , U n i v e r s i t y o f S a s k a t c h e w a n , 1 9 6 4 A T H E S I S S U B M I T T E D I N P A R T I A L F U L F I L M E N T O F T H E R E Q U I R E M E N T S F O R T H E D E G R E E O F M A S T E R O F A R T S i n t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f E d u c a t i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y W e a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s A a s c o n f o r m i n g t o t h e r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A S e p t e m b e r , 1 9 7 4 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an a d v a n c e d d e g r e e a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , I a g r e e t h a t t h e L i b r a r y s h a l l m a k e i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e a n d s t u d y . I f u r t h e r a g r e e t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may be g r a n t e d by t h e H e a d o f my D e p a r t m e n t o r by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l n o t be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . D e p a r t m e n t o f KJhyarlnnal P s y c h o l o g y The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a V a n c o u v e r 8 , C a n a d a i i A b s t r a c t M e e k e r ( 1 9 6 9 ) p r e s e n t e d a m e t h o d f o r a n a l y z i n g t h e S t a n f o r d - B i n e t I n t e l l i g e n c e S c a l e , 1 9 6 0 a n d t h e W e c h s l e r I n t e l l i g e n c e S c a l e f o r C h i l d r e n , 1 9 4 9 p r o t o c o l s a c c o r d i n g t o G u i l f o r d ' s ( 1 9 6 6 , 1 9 6 7 ) f a c t o r s o f I n t e l l e c t u a l a b i l i t y . B y c l a s s i f y i n g e a c h S t a n f o r d - B i n e t a n d W I S C t e s t i t e m t o G u i l f o r d ' s m o d e l , M e e k e r h a s a t t e m p t e d t o p r e s e n t a m e a n s w h e r e b y a n i n d i v i d u a l ' s s t r e n g t h s a n d w e a k n e s s e s c a n b e d e t e r m i n e d . M e e k e r h a s h o w e v e r a s s i g n e d t e s t i t e m s w i t h a n a u d i t o r y c o m p o n e n t t o a m o d e l d e v e l o p e d f r o m a b a t t e r y o f t e s t s l a c k i n g i n t h i s c o m p o n e n t . S h e h a s a s s i g n e d t e s t i t e m s w h i c h d o n o t m e a s u r e p u r e a b i l i t i e s t o a m o d e l s u b s t a n t i a t e d b y t e s t s w h i c h d o m e a s u r e p u r e a b i l i t i e s . M e e k e r h a s p r e s e n t e d n u m e r o u s i l l o g i c a l , a r b i t r a r y s c o r i n g p r o c e d u r e s a n d i n c o m p l e t e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n p r o c e d u r e s . I f t h e W I S C a n d t h e S t a n f o r d - B i n e t t e s t i t e m s h a v e b e e n c l a s s i f i e d a c c u r a t e l y b y M e e k e r a n d t h e y d o i n f a c t m e a s u r e t h o s e a b i l i t i e s M e e k e r p u r p o r t s t h e y m e a s u r e , c h i l d r e n s h o w i n g s t r e n g t h s o n o n e i n t e l l i g e n c e s c a l e s h o u l d s h o w t h e s a m e s t r e n g t h s o n t h e o t h e r s c a l e . S l m i l a r i l y , c h i l d r e n s h o w i n g w e a k n e s s o n o n e s c a l e s h o u l d s h o w t h e s a m e w e a k n e s s o n t h e o t h e r s c a l e . I f t h e r e a r e s u b s t a n t i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s b e t w e e n t h e W I S C a n d t h e S t a n f o r d - B i n e t c a t e g o r i e s a s M e e k e r h a s c l a s s i f i e d t h e t e s t i t e m s , a n d l o w c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h i n t h e W I S C c a t e g o r i e s a n d w i t h i n t h e S t a n f o r d - B i n e t c a t e g o r i e s , M e e k e r i s j u s t i f i e d i n s t a t i n g t h a t h e r a n a l y s e s p r o v i d e s i n f o r m a t i o n w h i c h , c o u l d b e b e n e f i c i a l t o s t u d e n t s . T h e W I S C a n d t h e S t a n f o r d - B i n e t w e r e e a c h a d m i n i s t e r e d t o 4 6 s u b j e c t s w h o s e c h r o n o l o g i c a l a g e s r a n g e d f r o m f i v e y e a r s t h r e e m o n t h s t o 1 3 y e a r s f o u r m o n t h s . T h e W I S C a n d S t a n f o r d - B i n e t w e r e s c o r e d a c c o r d i n g i i i to Meeker. As Meeker c l a s s i f i e d the tes t items to categories, the twelve categories common to both i n t e l l i g e n c e measures were used i n the analyses and were as follows: memory, cognition, evaluation, convergent production, f i g u r a l , symbolic, semantic, u n i t s , r e l a t i o n s , systems, transformations, and implications. As a r e s u l t of c o r r e l a t i o n a l analyses, the strong p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s between the same WISC and Stanford-Binet test items c l a s s i f i e d to the same category, measure the same a b i l i t y . However the strong p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s between WISC categories and d i f f e r e n t Stanford-Binet categories indicates that t e s t items on the WISC, c l a s s i f i e d to one category, measure the same a b i l i t y as do test items on the Stanford-Binet c l a s s i f i e d i n a d i f f e r e n t category. However, i t cannot be concluded that WISC items c l a s s i f i e d by Meeker to one category measure the same a b i l i t y as do Stanford-Binet items c l a s s i f i e d to a d i f f e r e n t category since every item on the two tests has been c l a s s i f i e d i n at l e a s t three categories. The overlap of tes t items may account f o r the strong r e l a t i o n s h i p between d i f f e r e n t WISC and Stanford-Binet categories. It can be concluded that Meeker has m l s c l a s s l f i e d the Coding 'A' subtest of the WISC. If Meeker's te s t item assignment to Guilford's model i s j u s t i f i e d , Coding 'A' subtest should be c l a s s i f i e d as symbolic, not f i g u r a l as Meeker has done. By c l a s s i f y i n g test items to Guilford's c e l l s Meeker has c l a s s i f i e d every t e s t item to at l e a s t three d i f f e r e n t categories. By removing those items which are common to each p a i r of categories of the WISC and the Stanford-Binet, with the r e s u l t i n g moderate to strong r e l a t i o n s h i p s between categories of the WISC and between categories of i v the Stanford-Binet, i t i s concluded that test items on each scale c l a s s i f i e d to one category measure the same a b i l i t y as do d i f f e r e n t items c l a s s i f i e d to a d i f f e r e n t category. Each WISC and Stanford-Binet t e s t item was not intended to measure a pure a b i l i t y whereas Guilford's model i s substantiated by tests measuring pure a b i l i t i e s . I t can be concluded that the WISC and the Stanford-Binet should not be applied to Guilford's Model as Meeker has done and i n d i v i d u a l strengths and weaknesses cannot be determined from her adaptation of the two i n t e l l i g e n c e scales. V TABLE OF CONTENTS Page L i s t of Tables v i i L i s t of Figures . . . i x L i s t of Appendices x Chapter 1 The Problem and Related Research. 1 The Stanford-Binet I n t e l l i g e n c e Scale, Form L-M . . 2 Wechsler I n t e l l i g e n c e Scale f o r Children. . . . . . . 4 Differences Between the WISC and the Revised Stanford-Binet . 5 Guilford's Structure of I n t e l l e c t 6 Meeker's App l i c a t i o n 8 C r i t i c a l Analysis of Meeker's Adaptation of the WISC and the Stanford-Binet according to Guilford's Model 9 C r i t i c i s m of Item Assignment to SOI C e l l s . . . . . 9 C r i t i c i s m of Scoring 15 C r i t i c i s m of Interpretation Procedures 20 Purpose of This Study 22 2 Methodology 24 Meeker's Scoring Procedures 24 Modification of Meeker's Scoring Procedures . . . . 25 Subjects . 25 Procedure 28 De f i n i t i o n s 28 S t a t i s t i c a l Analysis. 30 3 Results 31 Description of the Ch a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the Categories 32 Co r r e l a t i o n a l Analyses of the WISC Categories and the Stanford-Binet Categories 32 Co r r e l a t i o n a l Analyses of WISC Categories With. WISC Subtest Coding 'A' R e c l a s s i f i e d . . . 44 P a r t i a l C o r r e l a t i o n a l Analyses of the WISC Categories and Stanford-Binet Categories . . . 50 v i 4 Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . 58 Summaries and Conclusions . 58 Scoring Procedures. . . . . 59 Co r r e l a t i o n a l Analyses. 60 Coding 'A' R e c l a s s i f i e d 62 P a r t i a l C o r r e l a t i o n a l Analyses 62 S p e c i f i c Findings 65 Recommendations for Further Research 67 Bibliography 68 Appendices . . . 70 v i i L I S T O F T A B L E S T A B L E T I T L E P A G E I P e r c e n t a g e o f S t a n f o r d - B i n e t I t e m s W i t h i n E a c h D i m e n s i o n 1 4 I I T o t a l N u m b e r o f W I S C a n d S t a n f o r d - B i n e t I t e m s a n d T o t a l P o s s i b l e S c o r e . W h e n T e s t I t e m s C l a s s i f i e d a n d S c o r e d i n E a c h C a t e g o r y b y M e e k e r . . . . . 1 8 I I I D e g r e e o f I t e m O v e r l a p B e t w e e n P a i r s o f S t a n f o r d -B i n e t C a t e g o r i e s W h e n ' M e e k e r S c o r i n g ' W a s A p p l i e d . 1 9 I V M e a n s a n d S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s o f C h r o n o l o g i c a l A g e , S t a n f o r d - B I n e t M e n t a l A g e , S t a n f o r d - B i n e t I Q , W I S C V e r b a l I Q , W I S C P e r f o r m a n c e I Q , a n d W I S C F u l l S c a l e I Q 2 9 V M e a n s a n d S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s o f E a c h . C a t e g o r y W h e n ' M e e k e r S c o r i n g ' a n d ' M o d i f i e d S c o r i n g ' w a s A p p l i e d 3 3 V I C o r r e l a t i o n s B e t w e e n S t a n f o r d - B i n e t C a t e g o r i e s W h e n ' M e e k e r S c o r i n g ' w a s A p p l i e d 3 4 V I I C o r r e l a t i o n s B e t w e e n S t a n f o r d - B i n e t C a t e g o r i e s W h e n ' M o d i f i e d S c o r i n g ' W a s A p p l i e d 3 5 V I I I C o r r e l a t i o n s B e t w e e n W I S C C a t e g o r i e s W h e n ' M e e k e r S c o r i n g ' w a s A p p l i e d . . . 3 6 I X C o r r e l a t i o n s B e t w e e n W I S C C a t e g o r i e s W h e n ' M o d i f i e d S c o r i n g ' w a s A p p l i e d 3 7 X C o r r e l a t i o n s . B e t w e e n W I S C C a t e g o r i e s a n d S t a n f o r d -B i n e t C a t e g o r i e s W h e n ' M e e k e r S c o r i n g ' a n d ' M o d i f i e d S c o r i n g ' a r e A p p l i e d 3 9 X I C o r r e l a t i o n s B e t w e e n W I S C C a t e g o r i e s a n d S t a n f o r d -B i n e t C a t e g o r i e s W h e n ' M e e k e r S c o r i n g ' w a s A p p l i e d 4 1 X I I C o r r e l a t i o n s B e t w e e n W I S C C a t e g o r i e s a n d S t a n f o r d -B i n e t C a t e g o r i e s W h e n ' M o d i f i e d S c o r i n g ' w a s A p p l i e d 4 3 v i i i XIII Correlations Between WISC and Stanford-Binet Categories When WISC Coding 'A' was C l a s s i f i e d as symbolic Rather Than F i g u r a l , using 'Meeker Scoring' 45 XIV Correlations Between WISC and Stanford-Binet Categories When WISC Coding 'A' was C l a s s i f i e d as Symbolic Rather Than F i g u r a l , using 'Modified Scoring' 46 XV Correlations Between WISC Categories When WISC Coding 'A' was C l a s s i f i e d as.Symbolic Rather Than Figural,. using 'Meeker Scoring' 48 XVI Correlations Between WISC Categories When WISC Coding 'A' was C l a s s i f i e d as Symbolic Rather Than F i g u r a l , using 'Modified Scoring' 49 XVII P a r t i a l Correlations Between Stanford-Binet Categories When 'Modified Scoring' was Applied. 52 XVIII P a r t i a l Correlations Between WISC Categories When 'Modified Scoring' was Applied 53 i x LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE TITLE PAGE 1 Structure of I n t e l l e c t 7 2 D i s t r i b u t i o n of Subjects According to Mental Age Assessed by the Stanford-Binet I n t e l l i g e n c e Scale. 26 3 D i s t r i b u t i o n of Subjects According to Chronological Age 27 4 Comparison of Subjects Less Than Eight Years and Eight Years and Older on F i g u r a l and Evaluation Residual Scores 55 5 Comparison of Subjects Less Than Eight Year and Eigh-t Years and Older on F i g u r a l and Units Residual Scores 57 LIST OF APPENDICES x APPENDIX" TITLE PAGE A Meeker*s Mapping Procedure to C l a s s i f y Test Items. . 70 B Meeker's T a l l y Sheet 74 C Test Items and Assigned Item Number 77 D Items C l a s s i f i e d i n Each Category 85 E Degree of Item Overlap Between Pairs of Categories . 89 F Templates 93 G Meeker's D e f i n i t i o n s of Major Dimensions and Categories . 100 H . Selected Scatter Plots .of Residual Scores 103 1 C h a p t e r 1 T h e P r o b l e m a n d R e l a t e d R e s e a r c h O n e o f t h e p r i m a r y f u n c t i o n s o f t h e s c h o o l p s y c h o l o g i s t i s t o i d e n t i f y s o u r c e s o f l e a r n i n g p r o b l e m s w h i c h h a n d i c a p s t u d e n t s . T o d e t e r m i n e t h e n e e d o f t h e s t u d e n t a n d t h e n e c e s s i t y o f a r e m e d i a l p r o g r a m , t h e p s y c h o l o g i s t f r e q u e n t l y u s e s i n d i v i d u a l m e t h o d s o f a p p r a i s a l . A c o m m o n a p p r o a c h f o r a s s e s s m e n t i s b y m e a n s o f s t a n d a r d i z e d i n t e l l i g e n c e m e a s u r e s . T w o o f t h e c o m m o n l y a c c e p t e d i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t s f o r c h i l d r e n a r e t h e S t a n f o r d - B i n e t I n t e l l i g e n c e S c a l e , 1 9 6 0 ( S - B ) a n d t h e W e c h s l e r I n t e l l i g e n c e S c a l e f o r C h i l d r e n 1 9 4 9 ( W I S C ) . C r o n b a c h ( 1 9 7 0 , p . 1 9 7 ) o b s e r v e d " D e s p i t e o c c a s i o n a l o v e r e n t h u s i a s m a n d m i s c o n c e p t i o n s , . . . t h e g e n e r a l m e n t a l t e s t s t a n d s t o d a y a s t h e m o s t I m p o r t a n t t e c h n i c a l c o n t r i b u t i o n p s y c h o l o g y h a s m a d e t o t h e p r a c t i c a l g u i d a n c e o f h u m a n a f f a i r s . " B e l i e v i n g t h a t c u r r e n t i n t e l l i g e n c e s c a l e s c a n p r o v i d e i n f o r m a t i o n b e y o n d a n I Q s c o r e , M a r y M e e k e r p r o p o s e d t h a t s u c h i n f o r m a t i o n n o t b e l o s t i n a g l o b a l I Q s c o r e . M e e k e r ( 1 9 6 9 ) h a s d e v i s e d a m e t h o d f o r a n a l y z i n g s e p a r a t e i n t e l l e c t u a l a b i l i t i e s i n t h e W I S C a n d t h e S t a n f o r d -B i n e t b a s e d u p o n G u i l f o r d ' s ( 1 9 6 6 , 1 9 6 7 ) S t r u c t u r e o f I n t e l l e c t M o d e l . M e e k e r ( 1 9 6 9 ) p r e s e n t e d a m e t h o d f o r a n a l y z i n g S t a n f o r d - B i n e t 1 9 6 0 a n d W I S C 1 9 4 9 p r o t o c o l s a c c o r d i n g t o G u i l f o r d s ' f a c t o r s o f i n t e l l e c t u a l a b i l i t y . M e e k e r c l a i m e d t h a t t h e W I S C a n d t h e S t a n f o r d - B i n e t m e a s u r e G u i l f o r d ' s s t r u c t u r e o f i n t e l l e c t f a c t o r s . B y c l a s s i f y i n g e a c h S t a n f o r d - B i n e t a n d W I S C t e s t i t e m a c c o r d i n g t o G u i l f o r d ' s m o d e l , M e e k e r 2 has attempted to present a means whereby an i n d i v i d u a l ' s i n t e l l e c t u a l strengths and weaknesses can be determined. Meeker has, however, presented numerous i l l o g i c a l and a r b i t r a r y scoring procedures and incomplete i n t e r p r e t a t i o n procedures. For example Meekers' analyses include assignment of t e s t items with an auditory component to a model substantiated by a battery of tests lacking i n this component. In order t o f f u l l y understand Meeker's a p p l i c a t i o n of the WISC and the Stanford-Binet to Guilford's model, i t i s f i r s t necessary to expand upon each of these i n t e l l i g e n c e tests and upon Guilford's model. The Stanford-Binet I n t e l l i g e n c e Scale, Form L-M The Revised Stanford-Binet I n t e l l i g e n c e Scale, 1960 i s a r e s u l t of many years of work. Binet, i n 1905, assembled a series of b r i e f varied tasks defining words, repeating sentences and d i g i t s e r i e s , counting, copying simple figures etc. These items were ordered by d i f f i c u l t y and chosen for s i m p l i c i t y of administration and scoring rather than because t h e i r content contained a p r i o r i d e f i n i t i o n s of p a r t i c u l a r f a c u l t i e s . A sing l e global score based on the number of items passed was taken as a measure of i n t e l l i g e n c e , though Binet did not conceptualize a unitary, l i n e a r dimension of general i n t e l l i g e n c e . In 1908, Binet revised h i s scale, t h i s time grouping together items of s i m i l a r d i f f i c u l t y according to the average age l e v e l of the child r e n who could pass them. This concept of mental age underwent further refinement i n Binet's t h i r d and f i n a l r e v i s i o n of 1911, i n which 3 i t e m s w e r e a l l o c a t e d m o n t h s o f m e n t a l a g e c r e d i t . T h e n u m b e r o f i t e m s a c h i l d p a s s e d w a s t r a n s m i t t e d i n t o a " m e n t a l a g e " s c o r e , c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o t h e a g e o f a t h e o r e t i c a l " a v e r a g e c h i l d " w h o p a s s e d t h e s a m e n u m b e r o f i t e m s . T h e S t a n f o r d - B i n e t r e t a i n e d t h e a g e - s c a l e f o r m a t i n i t s 1 9 3 7 a n d 1 9 6 0 r e v i s i o n s ( T e r m a n a n d M e r r i l l 1 9 3 7 , 1 9 6 0 ) t h o u g h t h e I Q o b t a i n e d o n t h e l a t t e r i s e s s e n t i a l l y a s t a n d a r d s c o r e . . T h e n o r m s f o r t h e R e v i s e d S t a n f o r d - B i n e t I n t e l l i g e n c e S c a i b e , 1 9 6 0 a r e b a s e d u p o n t h e 1 9 3 7 s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n . T h e o r i g i n a l 1 9 3 7 s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n g r o u p c o n s i s t e d o f 3 1 8 4 n a t i v e - b o r n w h i t e s u b j e c t s i n c l u d i n g a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1 0 0 s u b j e c t s a t e a c h h a l f - y e a r i n t e r v a l f r o m 1% t o 5% y e a r s , 2 0 0 a t e a c h a g e f r o m 6 t o 1 4 , a n d 1 0 0 a t e a c h a g e f r o m 1 5 t o 1 8 . E f f o r t s w e r e t a k e n t o s e c u r e a n a d e q u a t e g e o g r a p h i c a l d i s t r i b u t i o n , t e s t i n g i n s e v e n t e e n c o m m u n i t i e s i n 1 1 w i d e l y s e p a r a t e d s t a t e s . T h e v a l i d i t y o f F o r m L - M i s b a s e d u p o n t h e f a c t t h a t t h e s a m e t y p e o f t e s t s a r e u s e d a s i n t h e 1 9 3 7 S c a l e . D u e t o t h e g r e a t a m o u n t o f o v e r l a p a n d t h e c a r e f u l s e l e c t i o n o f s u b t e s t s t o b e u s e d i n t h e 1 9 6 0 r e v i s i o n , t h e p r o b a b i l i t y i s h i g h t h a t t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h e r e v i s i o n w i l l b e a t l e a s t e q u a l t o i f n o t g r e a t e r t h a n t h e 1 9 3 7 r e v i s i o n ( B a l i n s k y , 1 9 6 0 ) . T h e r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s a t a g e s 2 % t o 5h r a n g e f r o m . 8 3 ( f o r I Q s 1 4 0 - 1 4 9 ) t o . 9 1 ( f o r I Q s 6 0 - 6 9 ) ; a t a g e s 6 t o 1 3 t h e r a n g e i s f r o m . 9 1 ( f o r I Q s 1 4 0 - 1 4 9 ) t o . 9 7 ( f o r I Q s 6 0 - 6 9 ) ; a n d a t a g e s 1 4 t o 1 8 , k t h e r a n g e i s f r o m . 9 5 ( f o r I Q s 1 4 0 - 1 4 9 ) t o . 9 8 ( f o r I Q s 6 0 - 6 9 ) . S i n c e t h e 1 9 6 0 S c a l e w a s p r e p a r e d b y s e l e c t i n g t h e b e t t e r i t e m s f r o m b o t h 1 9 3 7 S c a l e s , o n e m a y a n t i c i p a t e t h a t t h e r e l i a b i l i t y o f t h e n e w f o r m i s a t l e a s t a s h i g h a s t h e s e v a l u e s ( T h o r n d i k e a n d H a g e n , 1 9 6 9 , p . 3 1 9 - 3 2 0 ) . " W e c h s l e r I n t e l l i g e n c e S c a l e f o r C h i l d r e n , 1 9 4 9 T h e W e c h s l e r I n t e l l i g e n c e S c a l e f o r C h i l d r e n 1 9 4 9 d e v e l o p e d b y D a v i d W e c h s l e r f r o m h i s o r i g i n a l W e c h s l e r - B e l l e v u e S c a l e , 1 9 3 9 , h a s s e p a r a t e v e r b a l a n d p e r f o r m a n c e s c a l e s w h e r e a v e r b a l I Q , p e r f o r m a n c e I Q a n d f u l l s c a l e I Q a r e d e t e r m i n e d . T h e c o n c e p t o f ' m e n t a l a g e ' i s a b a n d o n e d . W i t h i n e a c h o f t h e v e r b a l a n d p e r f o r m a n c e s c a l e s , t e s t i t e m s a r e a r r a n g e d i n s u b t e s t s a c c o r d i n g t o s i m i l a r i t y . T h e t e s t i t e m s i n e a c h s u b t e s t a r e a r r a n g e d i n i n c r e a s i n g d i f f i c u l t y . T h e p e r f o r m a n c e s u b t e s t s i n v o l v e v i s u a l , v i s u a l - m o t o r , m a n u a l d e x t e r i t y a s w e l l a s a u d i t o r y a n d v e r b a l c o m p o n e n t s . T h e W I S C p e r m i t s a p p r a i s a l o f v e r b a l a n d n o n v e r b a l a s p e c t s o f a b i l i t y a s w e l l a s a g l o b a l a p p r a i s a l . T h e W I S C w a s s t a n d a r d i z e d o n a s a m p l e o f 2 2 0 0 w h i t e c h i l d r e n ( 1 1 0 0 b o y s , 1 1 0 0 g i r l s ) . T h e 2 2 0 0 c h i l d r e n w e r e c o m p o s e d o f 1 0 0 b o y s a n d 1 0 0 g i r l s a t e a c h a g e f r o m f i v e t h r o u g h f i f t e e n y e a r s . T h e s a m p l e s w e r e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e U . S . p o p u l a t i o n a c c o r d i n g t o g e o g r a p h i c a r e a s , r u r a l - u r b a n p o p u l a t i o n a n d p a r e n t a l o c c u p a t i o n . T h e r e l i a b i l i t y o f t h e W I S C i s r e p o r t e d f o r t h r e e a g e l e v e l s 7 % , 1 0 % a n d 1 3 % y e a r s ( n o f 2 0 0 a t e a c h a g e l e v e l ) . T h e V e r b a l s c o r e ( w i t h o u t D i g i t S p a n ) r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r a g e s 7 % , 1 0 % a n d 1 3 % a r e . 8 8 ( S E m e a s i 5 . 1 0 ) , . 9 6 ( S E m e a s - 3 . 0 0 ) a n d . 9 6 ( S E m e a s = 3 . 0 0 ) 5 r e s p e c t i v e l y . T h e P e r f o r m a n c e s c o r e ( w i t h o u t C o d i n g a n d M a z e s ) r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r a g e s 7 % , 1 0 % a n d 1 3 % a r e . 8 6 ( S E m e a s — 5 . 6 1 ) , . 8 9 ( S E m e a s = 4 . 9 8 ) a n d . 9 0 ( S E m e a s = 4 . 7 4 ) r e s p e c t i v e l y . T h e F u l l S c a l e s c o r e ( w i t h o u t D i g i t S p a n , C o d i n g a n d M a z e s ) f o r a g e s 7 % , 1 0 % a n d 1 3 % a r e . 9 2 ( S E m e a s = 4 . 2 5 ) , . 9 5 ( S E m e a s = 3 . 3 6 ) a n d . 9 4 ( S E m e a s = 3 . 6 8 ) r e s p e c t i v e l y . A l l s t a n d a r d e r r o r s o f m e a s u r e m e n t a r e i n I Q u n i t s . D i f f e r e n c e s B e t w e e n t h e W e c h s l e r I n t e l l i g e n c e S c a l e f o r C h i l d r e n a n d t h e  R e v i s e d S t a n f o r d - B i n e t I n t e l l i g e n c e S c a l e , F o r m L - M T h e W I S C h a s b o t h v e r b a l a n d p e r f o r m a n c e s c a l e s w h i c h h a v e e q u a l l y w e i g h t e d s c o r e s t h a t a r e s u m m e d a n d c o n v e r t e d t o a v e r b a l I Q ( u s i n g f i v e s u b t e s t s ) , a p e r f o r m a n c e I Q ( u s i n g a n o t h e r f i v e s u b t e s t s ) a n d a f u l l s c a l e I Q ( u s i n g a l l t e n t e s t s ) . I Q s a r e a c t u a l l y s t a n d a r d s c o r e s . I n c o n t r a s t , t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r o f t h e S t a n f o r d - B i n e t f i r s t d e t e r m i n e s t h e s u b j e c t s b a s a l a g e , o r t h e m e n t a l a g e l e v e l a t w h i c h t h e s u b j e c t c a n p e r f o r m s a t i s f a c t o r i l y a l l t h e t a s k s I n t h a t g r o u p , a n d t h e n a d m i n i s t e r s t h e s u c c e e d i n g t a s k s u n t i l t h e s u b j e c t r e a c h e s a l e v e l a t w h i c h h e f a i l s a l l t h e t a s k s i n t h a t g r o u p . T h e s u b j e c t ' s m e n t a l a g e c a n t h e n b e d e t e r m i n e d c r e d i t i n g h i m f o r a l l t h e t a s k s d o n e c o r r e c t l y . T h e s u b j e c t ' s t o t a l m e n t a l a g e s c o r e i s c o n v e r t e d i n t o a n I Q s c o r e , a l s o a s t a n d a r d s c o r e . T h e S t a n f o r d - B i n e t p r e s c h o o l l e v e l s c o n t a i n m a n y m o t o r m a n i p u l a t i v e i t e m s , b u t t h e s c a l e b e c o m e s p r o g r e s s i v e l y m o r e v e r b a l w i t h a g e u n t i l l i t t l e e l s e i s l e f t a t t h e a d u l t l e v e l s . M o s t I t e m s b e y o n d t h e p r e s c h o o l l e v e l s a r e p r e s e n t e d v e r b a l l y a n d r e q u i r e v e r b a l r e s p o n s e s . 6 Guilford's Structure of I n t e l l e c t The nature of I n t e l l i g e n c e put f o r t h by J.P. Gu i l f o r d (1966, 1967) i s a t h e o r e t i c a l structure of i n t e l l e c t model (SOI), confirmed by factor a n a l y t i c research using young adults' performance on paper and p e n c i l t e s t s . From h i s findings, human mental a b i l i t i e s are c l a s s i f i e d i n three dimensions: the type of content involved, the type of operation employed, and the resultant product. Each dimension i s then further subdivided. The kinds of test content confronting the i n d i v i d u a l include f i g u r a l , symbolic, semantic, or behavioural tasks. The types of mental operations necessary to deal w i t h the various content forms are cognition, memory, convergent thinking, divergent thinking, or evaluation. F i n a l l y , the outcome or products y i e l d e d by the various mental operations applied to the various content forms are u n i t s , classes, r e l a t i o n s , systems, transformations and implications. Each i n t e l l e c t u a l a b i l i t y i s characterized i n terms of the operation employed, the content involved and the resultant product. These three are considered as formally independent so that no combination of operation, content and product i s l o g i c a l l y excluded from the model. The operation categories refers to the things that the organism does with the raw materials of information, while the content and product-categories are more desc r i p t i v e of the properties of observable stimulus or observable response. With four kinds of content, f i v e kinds of operation and s i x kinds of product involved i n mental performances, Gu i l f o r d postulates 120 d i s t i n c t mental a b i l i t i e s i n the Structure of I n t e l l e c t Model (Figure 1). 7 FIGURE 1 STRUCTURE OF INTELLECT 8 Ninety of Guilford's 120 Structure of I n t e l l e c t f a c t o rs have been substantiated by means of factor a n a l y t i c studies (Guilford,1971). The tests used to substantiate the existence of the SOI factors are paper and p e n c i l tests which are presented v i s u a l l y with responses given i n written form. The responses to test items do not involve auditory or o r a l components as do the WISC and the Stanford-Binet. Meeker has applied tests involving multiple modalities to a theory which does not allow for a l l these sensory components. The complexity of the WISC and Stanford-Binet t e s t items are evident as Meeker has c l a s s i f i e d most t e s t items i n more than one G u i l f o r d c e l l . Meeker's App l i c a t i o n Meeker (1965) attempted to categorize the 1960 Stanford-Binet te s t items i n terms of Guilford's f a c t o r s . In this approach three l o g i c a l mapping procedures [Appendix A] were devised i n order to c l a s s i f y items according to l e v e l s of Guilford's three dimensions, operations, product and content. I n i t i a l l y Meeker used the Stanford-Binet as a frame of reference and l a t e r employed the same method of analyzing i n t e l l e c t u a l a b i l i t i e s tested by the WISC. Meeker analyzed each test item according to a "tree" of questions of "yes" or "no" answers which automatically led to a content, product and operation c e l l . This mapping procedure required judgement on the part of an i n d i v i d u a l i n order to assign the test item. In t h i s manner Meeker assigned a l l WISC and Stanford-Binet t e s t items to one or more of G u i l f o r d c e l l s . 9 C r i t i c a l Analysis of Meeker's Adaptation of the WISC and the  Stanford-Binet according to Guilford's Model C r i t i c a l analysis of Meeker's adaptation of the WISC and the Stanford-Binet to Guilford's SOI model i s organized i n three sections: c r i t i c i s m of item assignment to SOI c e l l s , c r i t i c i s m of scoring, and c r i t i c i s m of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of p r o f i l e s . C r i t i c i s m of Item Assignment to SOI C e l l s Meeker's (1965) method of assigning t e s t items to the SOI model was developed because people who may have a knowledge of the Stanford-Binet items may not ne c e s s a r i l y be f a m i l i a r with the SOI model and people with a knowledge of the SOI model may not be f a m i l i a r with the Binet items. By proceeding through the maps i n the d i r e c t i o n s p e c i f i e d by the type of response to each question, a person could a r r i v e at a c e l l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n for each item on the i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t . Although t h i s mapping procedure was l o g i c a l l y developed, there Is no evidence i n p r i n t that suggests children who scored high on Meeker's r e s u l t i n g Stanford-Binet factors also scored p r o p o r t i o n a l l y high on those same factors i n Guilford's t e s t s . Many items i n both the WISC and the Stanford-Binet have been placed i n more than one c e l l Indicating the complexity of the t e s t items and the inadequacy of the mapping procedures The r e s u l t i n g c e l l assignment of test items i s i n question. Meeker i s inconsistent regarding c e l l placement of some tes t Items. As an example, Meeker's placement of Verbal Absurdities II (Stanford-Binet 1960), at the Year IX l e v e l , Is i n Guilford's EMS c e l l 10 (evaluation of semantic systems); while p r e c i s e l y the same t e s t item, but t h i s time appearing at the Year XII l e v e l , has been categorized as EMS and EMR (evaluation of semantic r e l a t i o n s ) . There appears to be no explanation f o r categorizing the same test item i n one c e l l at one year l e v e l and i n two c e l l s at another age l e v e l . Meeker's mapping procedure and assignment of test items posed many problems. Certain items involved only one of Guilford's 1 2 0 factors while others involved one or more f a c t o r s . As a consequence, multiple c e l l s were needed for many te s t items. Meeker imposed c e r t a i n l i m i t a t i o n s on multiple c l a s s i f i c a t i o n which appears to be a r b i t r a r y on her part. Although auditory memory i s involved i n almost every item, i t was c l a s s i f i e d as a memory item only i f the required response was p r i m a r i l y an assessment of r e c a l l a b i l i t y . Even though Meeker acknowledges that motoredexterity may be the s k i l l being tested on an item (S-B, Year XI, item 1 ) she assumes that the memory component of th i s item i s more complex and hence has precedence over the involvement of motor dexterity. There i s no further evidence to support t h i s assumption. Items were not c l a s s i f i e d as v i s u a l or auditory cognition unless t h i s factor represented the major facet of the task for a given item. Guilford's model i s being substantiated by factor analysis of paper and p e n c i l tests (Meeker, 1 9 6 9 ) while Meeker ( 1 9 6 9 ) , again stated that the Stanford-Binet and the WISC have large auditory components. Therefore Meeker, acknowledging that the WISC and the Stanford-Binet have large auditory components, applied two scales with such c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s to a 1 1 m o d e l b a s e d u p o n n o n - a u d i t o r y c o m p o n e n t s . M e e k e r h a s a s s i g n e d t e s t i t e m s o f o n e t y p e t o a m o d e l b a s e d u p o n i t e m s o f a n o t h e r t y p e , a l l t h e w h i l e r e a l i z i n g t h i s i n c o n g r u e n c y . M e e k e r ' s i t e m a s s i g n m e n t i s n o t v e r i f i e d b y f a c t o r a n a l y t i c s t u d i e s . S t o r m e r ( 1 9 6 6 ) , i n a n u n p u b l i s h e d s t u d y o f 4 2 8 f i f t e e n y e a r o l d s t u d e n t s , f o u n d b y a f a c t o r a n a l y s i s o f t h e 1 9 6 0 S t a n f o r d - B i n e t S c a l e t h a t d i v e r g e n t p r o d u c t i o n i s a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r ; m e m o r y a n d s p a t i a l a p t i t u d e s a r e o n l y s l i g h t l y m e a s u r e d a n d t h e m a j o r p o r t i o n o f t h e v a r i a n c e i n t h e B i n e t m e a s u r e s t h e v e r b a l f a c t o r s , o f f l u e n c y , r e a s o n i n g a n d p p r - o d u c t i o n . N o t o n l y i s e m p i r i c a l e v i d e n c e l a c k i n g t o s u p p o r t M e e k e r ' s i t e m a s s i g n m e n t t o c e l l s , t h e r e a l s o i s r e s e a r c h ( O r p e t a n d M e y e r s , i 9 6 6 ; M c C a r t i n a n d M e y e r s , 1 9 6 6 ) t o i n d i c a t e t h a t s o m e W I S C t e s t i t e m s c o n s i s t o f s e v e r a l f a c t o r s w h e r e a s M e e k e r h a s a s s i g n e d t h e m t o s i n g l e c e l l s . O r p e t a n d M e y e r s ( 1 9 6 6 ) f o u n d t h a t i n a p o p u l a t i o n o f 1 0 0 w h i t e , A n g l o -S a x o n c h i l d r e n ( 5 0 m a l e , 5 0 f e m a l e ) a g e s r a n g i n g f r o m . 7 1 t o 7 5 m o n t h s , t h e f o r w a r d d i g i t s p a n s u b t e s t o f t h e W I S C l o a d e d o n t w o f a c t o r s t h e y i d e n t i f i e d a s M F U ( m e m o r y f o r f i g u r a l u n i t s ) , a n d M S U ( m e m o r y f o r s y m b o l i c u n i t s ) . M e e k e r o n t h e o t h e r h a n d h a s a s s i g n e d t h i s s u b t e s t t o t h e M S S ( m e m o r y f o r s y m b o l i c s y s t e m s ) c e l l . O r p e t a n d M e y e r s ( 1 9 6 6 ) f o u n d t h a t t h e d i g i t s b a c k w a r d s s u b t e s t ( W I S C ) w a s n o t l o a d e d o n a n y f a c t o r t h a t w a s h y p o t h e s i z e d b u t w a s s a t u r a t e d w i t h t w o f a c t o r s E F T J ( e v a l u a t i o n o f f i g u r a l u n i t s ) a n d D M U ( d i v e r g e n t p r o d u c t i o n o f s e m a n t i c u n i t s ) . T h e y d i d n o t h y p o t h e s i z e a f a c t o r M S S ( m e m o r y f o r s y m b o l i c s y s t e m s ) w h i c h i s w h e r e M e e k e r c l a s s i f i e d d i g i t s b a c k w a r d . 12 Orpet and Meyers (1966) found that the WISC vocabulary and comprehension subtests both loaded on the same s i n g l e factor NM which the authors c a l l e d convergent semantic production. Meeker has c l a s s i f i e d comprehension as EMI (evaluation of semantic implication) and vocabulary as CMU (cognition of semantic u n i t s ) . A study was conducted by McCartin and Meyers (1966) with 100 s i x year o l d c h i l d r e n using m u l t i f a c t o r analysis on the WISC subtests -vocabulary, information, s i m i l a r i t i e s and comprehension. The r e s u l t s again show that Meeker's placement of many items i s not confirmed by McCartin and Meyers factor a n a l y t i c procedures. Also, items she placed i n one category appear to belong to more than one category. A f t e r graphical r o t a t i o n s , McCartin and Meyers found the information subtest loaded on two factors CMS (cognition of semantic systems) and NMU (convergent production of semantic u n i t s ) . Meeker c l a s s i f i e d f i v e of the 30 items as NMU and none of the items as CMS. McCartin and Meyers found comprehension loaded on NMS (convergent production of semantic systems) while Meeker has c l a s s i f i e d these items as EMI (evaluation of semantic i m p l i c a t i o n s ) . S i m i l a r i t i e s subtest i n McCartin and Meyers' study was loaded on two factors CMS (cognition of semantic systems) and NMS (convergent production of semantic systems). Meeker placed four of the 16 items i n EMR (evaluation of semantic r e l a t i o n s ) , 11 of the 16 items i n CMT (cognition of semantic transformations), and one item i n CSR (cognition of symbolic r e l a t i o n s ) . None of Meeker's placement of S i m i l a r i -t i e s items agree with those found by McCartin and Meyers. 13 A c c o r d i n g t o M c C a r t i n a n d M e y e r s ( 1 9 6 6 ) , v o c a b u l a r y i s l o a d e d o n t w o f a c t o r s C M U ( c o g n i t i o n o f s e m a n t i c u n i t s ) a n d N M S ( c o n v e r g e n t p r o d u c t i o n o f s e m a n t i c s y s t e m s ) . M e e k e r h a s p l a c e d t h e s e i t e m s i n o n l y t h e o n e f a c t o r , C M U ( c o g n i t i o n o f s e m a n t i c u n i t s ) . T h e r e i s a w i d e d i s c r e p a n c y b e t w e e n M e e k e r ' s p l a c e m e n t o f B i n e t i t e m s a n d G u i l f o r d ' s o w n c l a i m a s t o h o w B i n e t i t e m s a r e p o s i t i o n e d i n h i s m o d e l . T a b l e 1 i l l u s t r a t e d t h e c o m p a r i s o n . G u i l f o r d a n d H o e p f n e r ( 1 9 7 1 ) s u g g e s t t h a t t h e S O I p a r a m e t e r s a r e v e r y u n e v e n l y r e p r e s e n t e d i n t h e S t a n f o r d - B i n e t . O f t h e o p e r a t i o n c a t e g o r i e s r e p r e s e n t e d , c o g n i t i o n d o m i n a t e s i n a b o u t 6 6 p e r c e n t o f t h e i t e m s , m e m o r y a b i l i t i e s a r e f e a t u r e d i n 1 7 p e r c e n t o f t h e i t e m s a n d t h e r e m a i n i n g 1 6 p e r c e n t o f t h e i t e m s a r e d i v i d e d a m o n g d i v e r g e n t p r o d u c t i o n , c o n v e r g e n t p r o d u c t i o n a n d e v a l u a t i o n . I n t e r m s o f G u i l f o r d ' s S O I , M e e k e r ' s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f t h e B i n e t i t e m s r e s u l t e d i n c o g n i t i o n r e p r e s e n t i n g o n l y 3 6 p e r c e n t o f t h e o p e r a t i o n c a t e g o r i e s . M e m o r y a b i l i t i e s a r e f e a t u r e d i n 1 6 p e r c e n t , e v a l u a t i o n r e p r e s e n t e d i n 1 5 p e r c e n t , a n d d i v e r g e n t p r o d u c t i o n r e p r e s e n t e d i n 8 p e r c e n t o f o p e r a t i o n c a t e g o r i e s . W i t h i n c o n t e n t , G u i l f o r d a n d H o e p f n e r ( 1 9 7 1 ) s t a t e t h a t a b o u t 6 6 p e r c e n t o f t h e i t e m s a r e i n s e m a n t i c f o r m , 2 5 p e r c e n t a r e v i s u a l f i g u r a l a n d t h e r e m a i n d e r p r e s e n t t a s k s i n s y m b o l i c f o r m , a n u m b e r o f w h i c h a r e m e m o r y - s p a n i t e m s . W i t h i n M e e k e r ' s c o n t e n t a b i l i t i e s , 5 8 p e r c e n t o f t h e i t e m s a r e i n s e m a n t i c f o r m , 2 7 p e r c e n t a r e f i g u r a l a n d 1 5 p e r c e n t a r e i n s y m b o l i c f o r m . G u i l f o r d a n d H o e p f n e r ' s s u r v e y o f t h e i t e m s w i t h r e s p e c t t o k i n d s o f p r o d u c t s o f i n f o r m a t i o n , s t a t e s t h a t a b o u t 5 0 p e r c e n t d e a l w i t h TABLE 1 Percentage of Stanford-Binet Items Within Each Dimension Percentage Dimension G u i l f o r d Meeker Operation Cognition Memory Divergent P. Convergent P. Evaluation Content Semantic V i s u a l F i g u r a l Symbolic F i g u r a l Products Units Systems Relations Implications Transformations! Classes 66 36 17 16 8 16 15 66 58 25 9 15 27 50 26 33 20 18 17 17 12 6 15 u n i t s , 33 percent with systems, and the remainder Is divided among other products. Only one of the items deals with classes. Meeker's items represented by products categories include 26 percent i n u n i t s , 20 percent i n systems, 18 percent r e l a t i o n s , 17 percent i m p l i c a t i o n s , 12 percent transformations and 6 percent classes. Coding 'A' on the WISC, a subtest presented to ch i l d r e n under eight years of age has been c l a s s i f i e d by Meeker as NFU (convergent production of f i g u r a l units) and EFU (evaluation of f i g u r a l u n i t s ) . Coding 'B' i s presented to children eight yearsandolder and has been c l a s s i f i e d by Meeker as NSU (convergent production of symbolic units) and ESU (evaluation of symbolic u n i t s ) . Although the two subtests are si m i l a r i n format and require the same procedure to complete, Coding 'A' involves figures ( s t a r s , c i r c l e s , squares, t r i a n g l e s , crosses) while Coding 'B' involves the numbers from one to nine. Meeker, without an explanation has c l a s s i f i e d Coding 'A' as f i g u r a l and Coding 'B' as symbolic. C r i t i c i s m of Scoring. Meeker provides i n s t r u c t i o n s to score i n d i v i d u a l WISC and Stanford-Binet protocols. By following these i n s t r u c t i o n s the test administrator i s able to obtain a score f o r each category within the three operations, contents and products dimensions. Each category score obtained i s the sum t o t a l of correct responses to items that have been c l a s s i f i e d i n that category. 16 Meeker's c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of the Stanford-Binet and the WISC items r e s u l t s i n many.items placed i n more than one c e l l . For example item 4 (Stanford-Binet) Year VII has been categorized as EMI, DMI, and NMI (evaluation of semantic transformations, divergent production of semantic implications, and convergent production of semantic i m p l i c a t i o n s ) . To score t h i s item, i f c o r r e c t l y answered by a subject, Meeker i n s t r u c t s the examiner to give c r e d i t to each of the evaluation, divergent production and convergent production factors on a t a l l y sheet {Appendix B]. The examiner gives c r e d i t to each of the semantic and implication categories within the evaluation f a c t o r , to each of the semantic and i m p l i c a t i o n categories within the divergent production factor and to each of the semantic and im p l i c a t i o n categories within the convergent production f a c t o r . When a c h i l d ' s t o t a l semantic score on the Stanford-Binet i s determined, the same item (item 3 , Year IV -6 ) has contributed three times to the semantic score. S i m i l a r l l y t h i s same item has been credited three times to the im p l i c a t i o n category but only once to each of evaluation, convergent production and divergent production. There i s no l o g i c a l explanation f o r the same item (item 3 , Year IV - 6 ) to be counted three times i n semantic and implication categories but only once i n convergent production, evaluation and divergent production. Throughout the Stanford-Binet, Meeker has credited the same item twice, three, four and even s i x times (item 3 , Year X) i n one category. Meeker does not give an explanation for following t h i s procedure, and has employed i t as w e l l on many WISC items (information, p i c t u r e completion, p i c t u r e arrangement, object assembly, block design 17 and coding subtests). Appendix C i l l u s t r a t e s the item number given to each t e s t item on each of the WISC and Stanford-Binet and Appendix D l i s t s those items c l a s s i f i e d i n each of the categories, by Meeker. Table II presents the t o t a l number of te s t items c l a s s i f i e d i n each category by Meeker as w e l l as the t o t a l p ossible scores.obtainable. The differ e n c e between the number of test items i n a category and the t o t a l p ossible score i n the same category i s due to some of the items being score more than once i n that category. Item 3 (Stanford-Binet) Year V, c l a s s i f i e d by Meeker as CMU (cognition of semantic units) means that the., same item .contributes to three categories. If a test item.has been c l a s s i f i e d by Meeker i n two or more c e l l s then the same item could be contributing to as many as si x d i f f e r e n t categories. To i l l u s t r a t e the amount of.overlap of te s t Items i n every p a i r of categories as .a r e s u l t of. Meeker's te s t item c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , Table I II presents the percentage of items (Stanford-Binet) within one category .also contained i n each other category. For example, 42 out of a.possible 5 4 score c r e d i t s i n the r e l a t i o n s category or 7 7 . 7 7 percent are also found i n the semantic category. The amount of item overlap In every p a i r of categories i n the Stanford-Binet ranges from 2 . 4 4 percent to 7 7 . 7 7 percent. Appendix E contains the percentage of item overlap found i n the WISC. TABLE II Tota l Number of WISC and Stanford-Binet Items And To t a l Possible Score When Test Items C l a s s i f i e d And Scored i n Each Category by Meeker WISC Stanford-Binet T o t a l T o t a l No. of Possible No. of Possible Category Items Score Items Score Cognition 99 103 79 91 Memory 35 35 33 41 Evaluation 166 166 33 36 Convergent P. 131 131 55 57 Divergent P. 0 0 18 23 F i g u r a l 79 162 39 65 Symbolic 75 130 20 34 Semantic 124 167 83 151 Behavioural 0 0 0 0 Unit 177 276 53 61 Classes 0 0 15 16 Relation 42 57 41 54 Systems 65 65 42 49 Transformation 15 15 23 28 Implication 30 30 33 40 TABLE III Degree of Item Overlap Between Pairs of Stanford-Binet Categories When 'Meeker Scoring' Was Applied Proportion of Items From Category: • Which Are 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Also i n Category: 100 12.08 1 1 . .AT l i : 4 3 24.56 18.46 47.05 9.93 27.86 24.07 42.85 3.57 25.00 1. Memory 26.83 100 SI . A9 5i:42 66.67 40.00 23.52 43.70 67.21 55.55 36.73 71.42 '67.50 2. Cognition 9. 76 21.98 100 17.54 116.92 5.88 17.21 16.39 35.19 22.44 21.42 30.00 3. Evaluation 34.15 15.38 28.57 100 32.30 26.47 25.82 27.86 42.59 44.89 53.57 55.00 4. Convergent Prod. 29.27 28.57 34.29 36.84 100 11.76 5.96 31.14 20.37 42.85 25.00 25.00 5. F i g u r a l 39.02 8.79 5.71 14.03 6.15 100 4.63 23.11 7.40 22.44 32.14 25.00 6. Symbolic 36.59 72.52 74.28 6S.42 58.46 20.58 100 62.29 77.77 51.02 67.85 75.00 7. Semantic 41.46 45.05 29.57 29.82 25.23 23.52 25.16 100 22.22 16.32 10.71 12.50 8. Units 31.71 32.96 51.42 40.35 16.92 11.76 227.81 19.67 100 30.61 14.28 30.00 9. Relations 51.22 19.78 31.42 38.59 32.30 32.35 15.89 13.11 27.77 100 17.85 25.00 10.Systems 2.44 21.97 17.14 26.31 10.76 26.47 12.58 4.91 7.40 10.20 100 32.50 11.Transformations 21.95 29.67 3:4.28 38.59 15.38 29.41 19.86 8.19 22.22 20.40 46.42 100 12.Implications 20 C r i t i c i s m o f I n t e r p r e t a t i o n P r o c e d u r e s M e e k e r ' s d i r e c t i o n s f o r a n a l y s i s a n d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f S t a n f o r d -B i n e t a n d . W I S C p r o f i l e s l e a v e m a n y , q u e s t i o n s u n a n s w e r e d . A c c o r d i n g t o M e e k e r ' s d i r e c t i o n s f o r . a n a l y z i n g . t h e S t a n f o r d - B i n e t , o n e i s t o a d d t h e o b t a i n e d s c o r e s w i t h i n e a c h o p e r a t i o n c a t e g o r y , a n d . t h e n , " A d d t h e m t o t h e n u m b e r o f r e s p o n s e s s h o w n a t - t h e Y e a r b e l o w t h e b a s a l i n T a b l e 9 - 1 C M e e k e r 1 9 6 9 , p . 1 2 4 ) " t o o b t a i n e a c h o p e r a t i o n s c o r e . S i m i l a r t a b l e s o f e x p e c t e d s c o r e s a t e a c h S t a n f o r d - B i n e t a g e l e v e l a r e p r o v i d e d f o r t h e c o n t e n t s ( M e e k e r 1 9 6 9 , p . 1 3 0 ) a n d p r o d u c t s ( M e e k e r 1 9 6 9 , p . 1 3 1 ) d i m e n s i o n s , a n d t h e r e a d e r i s l e f t t o a s s u m e t h a t e a c h c a t e g o r y s c o r e i s t o b e a d d e d t o t h e ' Y e a r b e l o w t h e b a s a l ' a l t h o u g h t h i s i s n o t s t a t e d i n t e x t . M e e k e r d o e s n o t s t a t e t h a t t h e s e a c h i e v e d s c o r e s a r e t o b e c o m p a r e d w i t h t h e e x p e c t e d s c o r e s a t t h e s u b j e c t s c h r o n o l o g i c a l a g e l e v e l , a l t h o u g h t h e r e a d e r i s l e f t t o a s s u m e s o s i n c e t h i s p r o c e d u r e i s s p e c i f i e d i n h e r d i r e c t i o n s f o r s c o r i n g t h e W I S C . O n c e t h e s e s c o r e s a r e o b t a i n e d , M e e k e r d o e s n o t d i s c u s s h o w o n e i s t o i n t e r p r e t t h e s e t o t a l s . D i r e c t i o n s f o r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f W I S C p r o f i l e s a r e a l s o i n c o m p l e t e . T h e r e a d e r i s d i r e c t e d t o d e v e l o p r a t i o s o f c o r r e c t r e s p o n s e s t o e x p e c t e d r e s p o n s e s f o r a p a r t i c u l a r C A i n e a c h c e l l . M e e k e r h a s p r o v i d e d t w o t a b l e s ( M e e k e r . 1 9 6 9 , p . 1 3 7 - 1 3 8 ) d e s i g n a t i n g t h e e x p e c t e d s c o r e f o r e a c h c e l l a t e a c h , s u c c e s s i v e a g e l e v e l ' b u t h a s n e g l e c t e d t o s t a t e t h e a m o u n t o f d i s c r e p a n c y . t h a t s h o u l d . b e p r e s e n t b e f o r e o n e a s s u m e s a w e a k n e s s . M e e k e r p r o v i d e s a . t h i r d . t a b l e . ( M e e k e r 1 9 6 9 , p . 1 3 9 ) r e p r e s e n t i n g a c c u m u l a t e d t o t a l s o f e x p e c t e d s c o r e s b y a g e l e v e l f o r W I S C 21 operations only. She has not provided a table of expected scores f o r contents norpproducts. Meeker does not s p e c i f y the amount of discrepancy that should be present before one assumes weaknesses. G u i l f o r d (1971) states that the Structure of I n t e l l e c t model i s not h i e r a r c h i c a l i n nature but rather a c r o s s - c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of the a b i l i t i e s . "Within each product category there i s a set of 20 a b i l i t i e s which are p a r a l l e l with those i n each of the f i v e other product categories ( G u i l f o r d and Hoepfner, 1971, p. 18)". Although Meeker states that the SOI model "... does not and should not postulate a f i x e d hierarchy of a b i l i t i e s , because to do so may negate the purpose of using a factor a n a l y t i c model for teaching (1969, p. 105)", she, In fa c t i n f e r s a hierarchy i n the products dimension, for i n a sense each subsumes the preceding one (1969, p. 23)". Although Meeker contradicts Guilford's a p p l i c a t i o n of the model, her misinterpretation does not a f f e c t her subsequent scoring procedures. 22 Purpose of t h i s Study Due to the writer's c r i t i c i s m of Meeker's adaptation and in t e r p r e t a t i o n of the WISC and the Stanford-Binet when applied to Guilford's SOI model t h i s study was undertaken. The following outlines the aspects of Meeker's adaptation which are i n question: a. A p p l i c a t i o n of two scales (WISC and Stanford-Binet) which have large auditory components to a model not allowing f o r auditory components. b. I n f e r r i n g a hierarchy i n the products dimension when the G u i l f o r d model s t i p u l a t e s that there i s no hierarchy. c. Scoring procedures which allow some tes t Items to be keyed two or more times i n some categories, but only once i n other t o t a l categories scores. d. Assignment of a test item to one G u i l f o r d SOI c e l l and l a t e r assigning p r e c i s e l y the same tes t item to two c e l l s . e. Incomplete explanation of scoring procedures and in t e r p r e t a t i o n of r e s u l t s . f. Factor a n a l y t i c studies purporting that the items of the two scales consist of several factors whereas Meeker has assigned them to a sing l e c e l l . g. Assignment of tes t items to Guilford's model i s not confirmed by fa c t o r a n a l y t i c studies. To determine i f i t i s f e a s i b l e to analyze the WISC and the Stanford-Binet i n terms of the SOI categories, a c o r r e l a t i o n a l study was undertaken. The r e s u l t i n g patterns within the matrices of i n t e r -c o r r e l a t i o n s w i l l determine i f the WISC and the Stanford-Binet do measure those categories Meeker purports they measure. I f there are s u b s t a n t i a l 23 r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the WISC and Stanford-Binet categories (e.g. WISC memory and Stanford-Binet memory) and low co r r e l a t i o n s within the WISC categories and within the Stanford-Binet categories (e.g. memory and evaluation), then Meeker may be j u s t i f i e d i n s t a t i n g that her analyses provide information which i s h e l p f u l for teachers and psychologists i n determining the needs of students. On the other hand i f the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the WISC and Stanford-Binet and within the WISC and Stanford-Binet do not substantiate Meeker's adaptation, her presentation of remedial exercises (Meeker, 1969; Meeker et a l , 1970) are without foundation. This study w i l l determine by c o r r e l a t i o n a l analysis i f i n f a c t there are s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s between the WISC and the Stanford-Binet categories and within the WISC categories and.within the Stanford-Binet categories, according to Meeker's c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of each test item on the two i n t e l l i g e n c e scales. Meeker has c l a s s i f i e d the Stanford-Binet items i n fourteen categories, omitting only the SOI behavioural category; the WISC has been c l a s s i f i e d to only twelve categories, omitting behavioural, classes and divergent production categories. Those categories common to both i n t e l l i g e n c e scales were included i n the analyses and are as follows: f i g u r a l , symbolic, semantic, cognition, memory, convergent production, evaluation, u n i t s , r e l a t i o n s , systems, transformations and implications. 2k Chapter II Methodology Meeker's Scoring Procedures Meeker (1969) devised templates (['Appendix F] which are to be placed over each page of the WISC and Stanford-Binet protocols to score each test item. The templates designate the c e l l placements of each test item. Using 'minus' (-) f o r in c o r r e c t and 'plus' (+) for correct responses, the t o t a l .correct for each c e l l i s then transferred to the t a l l y sheet .(['Appendix B]. The t a l l y sheet then indicates each subject's t o t a l score on the corresponding category. The same procedure i s followed for both, the WISC and the Stanford-Binet. Any test item which has been c l a s s i f i e d i n more than one SOI c e l l may contribute to a s i n g l e category one-;or more times. For example, Stanford-Binet, Year XI, item 6, i s c l a s s i f i e d as CMT and NMC (cognition of semantic transformations and convergent production of semantic classes) which means Meeker has given t h i s item c r e d i t i n each of cognition, transformations, convergent production and classes, but i t contributes twice to the semantic category. To i l l u s t r a t e the test item number of both scales, a record form for each of the Stanford-Binet and WISC, with the appropriate item number i s contained i n Appendix C. Appendix D contains the category placement of each, item by item number. 25 M o d i f i c a t i o n of Meeker's Scoring Procedures Due to the seeming inappropriateness of many t e s t items to be scored twice or more times i n one category and only once i n others, when c l a s s i f i e d by Meeker i n two or more SOI c e l l s , a second scoring procedure was adapted for t h i s study. This second method of scoring which w i l l be c a l l e d 'Modified Scoring' i s as follows. Any t e s t item i f placed by Meeker i n two or more c e l l s w i l l be scored only once i n each category. For example Stanford-Binet, item 5 , Year XI (test number 77 ) has been c l a s s i f i e d as CMI (cognition of semantic implications) and EMR (evaluation of semantic r e l a t i o n s ) . This test item, i f c o r r e c t l y answered by the subject w i l l be scored once i n each of cognition, semantic, i m p l i c a t i o n s , evaluation and r e l a t i o n . This d i f f e r s from Meeker's method of scoring as she would give c r e d i t once to each of the cognition, implications and evaluation categories but twice to semantic category. Subj ects Subjects f o r study included 4 6 children ( 2 3 male, 2 3 female) from the c i t y of Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia whose chronological ages ranged from f i v e years three months to 1 3 years four months, with a mean age being 9 . 9 4 years. The mental ages, as assessed by the Stanford-Binet  I n t e l l i g e n c e Scale ( 1 9 6 0 ) ranged from f i v e years 0 months to 1 5 years eight months (Figure 2 ) , with the mean mental age being 1 0 . 0 1 6 years. The 46 subjects for the sample were selected to assure a quasi-normal d i s t r i b u t i o n , according to t h e i r Stanford-Binet mental age scores. The d i s t r i b u t i o n of subjects by chronological age i s included i n Figure 3 . 26 FIGURE 2 D i s t r i b u t i o n o f S u b j e c t s A c c o r d i n g t o M e n t a l A g e A s s e s s e d b y T h e S t a n f o r d - B i n e t I n t e l l i g e n c e S c a l e 9 8 7 6 N u m b e r o f S u b j e c t s ^ 3 2 5 f 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 M e n t a l A g e 27 FIGURE 3 D i s t r i b u t i o n o f S u b j e c t s A c c o r d i n g t o C h r o n o l o g i c a l A g e N u m b e r o f S u b j e c t s 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 k 3 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 l l 12 13 C h r o n o l o g i c a l A g e 28 Means and standard deviations of the chronological age, Stanford-Binet mental age, Stanford-Binet IQ, WISC Verbal IQ, WISC performance IQ and WISC F u l l Scale IQ are given i n Table IV. The mean Stanford-Binet IQ and the mean WISC F u l l Scale IQ show the s i m i l a r i t y of the test r e s u l t s and also show the sample to be within the average range. The Stanford-Binet IQ standard deviation of 16.31 i s comparable to the Stanford-Binet standardization sample but the WISC F u l l Scale IQ standard deviation of 11.69 i s le s s than the WISC standardization sample of 15. Procedure The subjects were f i r s t administered the Stanford-Binet  I n t e l l i g e n c e Scale (1960) then the Wechsler I n t e l l i g e n c e Scale for Children (1949) with an i n t e r v a l between administrations ranging from 3 days to 5 months. The i n t e l l i g e n c e tests were administered during the summers of 1970, 1971 and 1972 and the 1972-1973 school year by U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia graduate students enrolled i n the Individual Testing Course. A l l protocols were checked by the course i n s t r u c t o r to ensure accurate scoring procedures. D e f i n i t i o n s Meeker defines the major dimensions operations, contents and products and the categories of the SOI model as outlined i n Appendix E. TABLE IV Means and Standard Deviations of Chronological Age, Stanford-Binet Mental Age, Stanford-Binet IQ, WISC Verbal IQ, WISC Performance IQ, And WISC F u l l Scale IQ. Standard Variable Mean Deviation Chronological Age 108.94 a 23.11 Stanford-Binet M.A. 120.50a 28.03 Stanford-Binet IQ 108.74 16.31 WISC Verbal IQ 106.33 12.81 WISC Performance IQ 109.22 11.86 WISC F u l l Scale IQ 108.54 11.69 M o n t h s at the time of Stanford-Binet administration. 30 S t a t i s t i c a l Analysis To determine the degree of r e l a t i o n s h i p between the WISC categories and the Stanford-Binet categories, product moment co r r e l a t i o n s were calculated. The categories included f i g u r a l , symbolic, semantic, cognition, memory, convergent production, evaluation, u n i t s , r e l a t i o n s , systems, transformations, and implications. The cor r e l a t i o n s between the WISC categories and the Stanford-Binet categories were computed a f t e r the two separate scoring procedures, 'Meeker Scoring' and 'Modified Scoring' were completed. 31 Chapter I I I Results Results of data analyses are organized into four sections i n th i s chapter: a. Description of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the categories. b. C o r r e l a t i o n a l analyses of the WISC categories and the Stanford-Binet categories. c. C o r r e l a t i o n a l analyses of WISC categories and the Stanford-Binet categories with the WISC subtest Coding 'A' r e c l a s s i f i e d . d. P a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n a l analyses of the WISC categories and the Stanford-Binet categories. 32 Description of the C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the Categories Means and standard deviations of each WISC and Stanford-Binet category are included i n Table \#. The differ e n c e i n means when the two scoring procedures were applied shows that, of the 24 categories, f i v e were not d i f f e r e n t , seven had differences of nine or more and of those seven, f i v e were d i f f e r e n t by 18 or moreppoints. I t appears that the two scoring procedures re s u l t e d i n very d i s s i m i l a r mean scores (difference of nine or more) i n only the seven categories: Stanford-Binet cognition, f i g u r a l , and semantic categories, and WISC f i g u r a l , symbolic, semantic, and units categories. C o r r e l a t i o n a l analyses of the WISC Categories and Stanford-Binet  Categories Tables V/ and V/| include the co r r e l a t i o n s of categories within the Stanford-Binet when 'Meeker Scoring' and 'Modified Scoring' are applied. The two scoring procedures show only minute differences with 'Modified Scoring' being s l i g h t l y more p o s i t i v e . The c o r r e l a t i o n matrices are characterized by strong r e l a t i o n s h i p s between categories of the Stanford-Binet. In view of each test item being c l a s s i f i e d i n three categories i f placed i n one SOI c e l l or i n more than three categories i f placed i n multiple SOI c e l l s , the strong p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n -ships are expected, as a l l t e s t Items contributed to three or more d i f f e r e n t categories. Tab l e s \ftil and IX include the co r r e l a t i o n s of categories within the WISC. The two scoring procedures again show only s l i g h t d i f f e r e n c e s . The c o r r e l a t i o n matrices are characterized by strong r e l a t i o n s h i p s T A B L E V M e a n s A n d S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s O f E a c h C a t e g o r y W h e n ' M e e k e r S c o r i n g ' A n d ' M o d i f i e d S c o r i n g ' W a s A p p l i e d C a t e g o r y M e a n S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n M e e k e r M o d i f i e d M e e k e r M o d i f i e d M e m o r y W 1 7 . 0 0 1 7 . 0 0 4 . 4 8 4 . 4 7 M e m o r y B 2 0 . 2 0 1 6 . 4 3 6 . 2 4 4 . 8 2 C o g n i t i o n W 4 8 . 0 2 4 4 . 6 3 1 1 . 9 2 1 1 . 4 0 C o g n i t i o n B 5 2 . 3 5 4 3 . 7 0 7 . 4 7 6 . 7 0 E v a l u a t i o n W 7 6 . 3 5 7 6 . 3 5 1 6 . 7 4 1 6 . 7 4 E v a l u a t i o n B 2 2 . 1 1 2 0 . 5 4 4 . 6 4 3 . 9 6 C o n v e r g e n t P . W 5 1 . 3 5 5 1 . 3 5 1 4 . 0 3 1 4 . 0 3 C o n v e r g e n t P . B 3 2 . 6 7 3 1 . 5 0 5 . 0 4 4 . 8 3 F i g u r a l W 6 1 . 1 3 2 8 . 9 1 2 8 . 5 4 1 4 . 2 1 F i g u r a l B 4 8 . 7 6 3 0 . 8 0 4 . 9 0 3 . 2 9 S y m b o l i c W 6 4 . 5 9 3 7 . 0 4 4 2 . 5 4 2 2 . 5 6 S y m b o l i c B 1 1 . 6 7 8 . 9 3 4 . 8 2 3 . 3 8 S e m a n t i c W 6 7 . 0 4 5 7 . 4 3 1 7 . 3 6 1 5 . 0 2 S e m a n t i c B 7 4 . 2 4 4 4 . 2 0 1 5 . 5 4 9 . 1 8 U n i t s W 1 0 6 . 9 8 7 0 . 2 0 2 6 . 0 7 1 5 . 9 7 U n i t s B 3 6 . 2 2 3 0 . 2 0 5 . 5 1 5 . 4 6 R e l a t i o n s W 3 2 . 5 9 2 4 . 7 6 8 . 4 1 5 . 8 6 R e l a t i o n s B 2 6 . 5 9 2 1 . 5 0 5 . 1 1 4 . 1 8 S y s t e m s W 3 6 . 9 3 3 7 . 4 6 9 . 5 7 8 . 3 0 S y s t e m s B 2 4 . 4 1 2 1 . 6 1 6 . 4 7 5 . 4 7 T r a n s f o r m a t i o n s W 7 . 8 3 7 . 8 3 3 . 1 4 3 . 1 4 T r a n s f o r m a t i o n s B 1 1 . 9 1 1 0 . 7 8 2 . 1 6 2 . 3 7 I m p l i c a t i o n s W 1 4 . 5 4 1 4 . 5 4 4 . 4 0 4 . 4 0 I m p l i c a t i o n s B 2 0 . 6 1 1 6 . 1 7 5 . 3 8 3 . 9 1 W - W e c h s l e r I n t e l l i g e n c e S c a l e f o r C h i l d r e n B - R e v i s e d S t a n f o r d - B i n e t I n t e l l i g e n c e S c a l e TABLE VI Correlations Between Stanford-Binet Categories When 'Meeker Scoring' Was Applied Category Category 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 1. Memory 2. Cognition 88 3. Evaluation 86 93 4. Convergent Prod. 89 95 95 5. F i g u r a l 90 87 86 88 6. Symbolic 92 89 87 92 84 7. Semantic 89 96 97 96 82 87 8. Units 93 94 88 89 84 87 93 9. Relations 88 94 95 95 86 8'7 9.6 87 10. Systems 92 90 93 93 95 87 89 86 90 11. Transformations 82 90 85 89 73 88 91 85 85 77 12. Implications 88 93 95 96 84 91 95 87 92 88 87 Rounded to two places, decimals omitted. T A B L E V I I C o r r e l a t i o n s B e t w e e n S t a n f o r d - B i n e t C a t e g o r i e s W h e n ' M o d i f i e d S c o r i n g ' W a s A p p l i e d C a t e g o r y C a t e g o r y 1 . 2 . 3 . 4 . 5 . 6 . 7 . 8 . 9 . 1 0 . 1 1 . 1 2 . 1 . M e m o r y 2 . C o g n i t i o n 8 8 3 . E v a l u a t i o n 8 7 9 3 4 . C o n v e r g e n t P r o d . 9 0 9 6 9 5 5 . F i g u r a l 9 3 8 7 8 7 8 9 6 . S y m b o l i c 9 4 9 0 8 9 9 2 9 0 7 . S e m a n t i c 8 8 9 7 9 7 9 5 8 5 8 9 8 . U n i t s 9 3 9 4 8 8 9 0 8 7 9 0 9 3 9 . R e l a t i o n s 8 8 9 4 9 5 9 4 8 7 8 9 9 4 8 7 1 0 . S y s t e m s 9 3 9 2 9 4 9 4 9 2 9 1 9 4 7 8 9 4 1 1 . T r a n s f o r m a t i o n s 8 1 8 8 8 8 9 0 7 9 8 9 9 0 8 6 8 6 8 1 1 2 . I m p l i c a t i o n s 8 6 9 4 9 5 9 6 8 6 9 1 9 3 8 6 9 1 9 2 8 5 a R o u n d e d t o t w o p l a c e s , d e c i m a l s o m i t t e d . TABLE VIII Correlations Between WISC Categories When 'Meeker Scoring' Was Applied Category Category 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 1. Memory 2. Cognition 87 3. Evaluation 80 80 4. Convergent Prod. 78 72 97 5. F i g u r a l -39 -26 -09 S08 6. Symbolic 81 72 75 74 -71 7. Semantic 92 95 82 76 -32 74 8. Units 78 76 97 98 -08 74 77 9. Relations 86 86 83 78 -22 70 90 75 10. Systems 88 89 88 82 -22 75 88 82 87 11. Transformations 69 87 64 57 -13 50 83 59 74 74 12. Implications 87 81 78 67 -32 70 87 69 79 82 63 Rounded to two places, decimals omitted. TABLE IX Correlations aBetween WISC Categories When 'Modified Scoring' Was Applied Category Category 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 1. Memory 2. Cognition 88 3. Evaluation 80 80 4. Convergent Prod. 78 71 97 5. F i g u r a l -41 -29 -11 -10 6. Symbolic 83 73 76 75 -71 7. Semantic 92 96 80 74 -34 75 8. Units 81 84 97 96 -14 77 83 9. Relations 88 86 85 80 -25 73 91 81 10. Systems 89 92 88 80 -26 79 87 86 92 11. Transformations 69 86 64 57 -14 52 84 66 76 73 12. Implications 87 82 78 67 -33 72 88 72 80 82 63 aRounded to two places, decimals omitted. 38 between categories of the WISC with the exception of the f i g u r a l category which shows negative c o r r e l a t i o n s w i t h a l l other categories. As i n the Stanford-Binet, each WISC t e s t item was c l a s s i f i e d i n three or more categories and i t i s th i s overlap of Items which i s r e f l e c t e d i n the strong r e l a t i o n s h i p s . The negative r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the f i g u r a l category and a l l other categories i s most unexpected. In Tables Vl and VII, the Stanford-Binet c o r r e l a t i o n s within dimensions are not s u b s t a n t i a l l y d i f f e r e n t from c o r r e l a t i o n s across dimensions, a l l being high and p o s i t i v e . S i m i l a r i l y i n TablesVIII and fX, with the exception of the f i g u r a l category, the WISC cor r e l a t i o n s within dimensions are not s u b s t a n t i a l l y d i f f e r e n t from c o r r e l a t i o n s across dimensions-. One explanation for the co r r e l a t i o n s across and within dimensions to be s i m i l a r i s due to the overlap of items i n categories. Another explanation f o r the s i m i l a r c o r r e l a t i o n s i s that a l l Stanford-Binet and WISC test items are a measure of general i n t e l l i g e n c e . The strong p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s suggest that items c l a s s i f i e d to one category are not measuring a d i f f e r e n t a b i l i t y than are items c l a s s i f i e d to a d i f f e r e n t category. Consequently, the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of items to categories by Meeker i s unjustifed. There i s no empirical advantage to c l a s s i f y i n g items of a general i n t e l l i g e n c e s c a le to categories. Table '% includes the c o r r e l a t i o n s between the WISC and the Stanford-Binet categories, when 'Meeker Scoring' and 'Modified Scoring' were applied. This c o r r e l a t i o n matrix i s characterized by strong p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the categories on the two tests when both scoring methods were applied, w i t h the exception of f i g u r a l which i s 39 T A B L E X C o r r e l a t i o n s B e t w e e n W I S C C a t e g o r i e s A n d S t a n f o r d - B i n e t C a t e g o r i e s When ' M e e k e r S c o r i n g ' A n d ' M o d i f i e d S c o r i n g ' A r e A p p l i e d C a t e g o r y T M e e k e r S c o r i n g M o d i f i e d S c o r i n g M e m o r y . 8 5 7 . 8 6 3 C o g n i t i o n . 8 4 8 . 8 5 5 E v a l u a t i o n . 7 6 5 . 7 7 5 C o n v e r g e n t P r o d . . 7 6 2 . 7 6 5 F i g u r a l - . 3 1 3 - . 3 2 9 S y m b o l i c . 7 3 7 . 7 4 0 S e m a n t i c . 8 8 6 . 8 9 1 U n i t s . 7 0 8 . 7 4 8 R e l a t i o n . 8 1 2 . 8 2 9 S y s t e m s . 7 8 8 . 8 1 6 T r a n s f o r m a t i o n . 7 1 9 . 7 4 1 I m p l i c a t i o n . 8 0 1 . 8 0 5 ko negative. The co r r e l a t i o n s are s l i g h t l y higher when 'Modified Scoring' was applied but are not s u b s t a n t i a l l y higher than the c o r r e l a t i o n s when 'Meeker Scoring' was applied. I t appears that the two methods of scoring make l i t t l e d i f f e r e n c e to the t o t a l category score or to the c o r r e l a t i o n s between the two tests . The strong c o r r e l a t i o n s between the same categories of the two t e s t s , with the exception of f i g u r a l , i ndicates that the o v e r a l l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of items on the two tes t s i s s i m i l a r . I t would appear that s i m i l a r test items on the two tes t s have been c l a s s i f i e d by Meeker i n comparable c e l l p o s i t i o n s . Table X I includes the co r r e l a t i o n s between the twelve WISC categories and the twelve Stanford-Binet categories when 'Meeker Scoring' i s applied. This c o r r e l a t i o n matrix i s characterized by strong r e l a t i o n -ships between the categories of the two t e s t s , with the exception again of f i g u r a l WISC and a l l Stanford-Binet categories which show a mild negative r e l a t i o n s h i p . One explanation f o r the strong r e l a t i o n s h i p between WISC categories within one dimension and Stanford-Binet categories within a d i f f e r e n t dimension, ( i . e . WISC operation categories and Stanford-Binet content categories) i s due to each item of both tests being represented i n a l l three dimensions. Another explanation f o r the strong p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s i s that each category of one test i s measuring the same a b i l i t y as i s each category of the other t e s t . These r e s u l t i n g strong c o r r e l a t i o n s between dimensions i s contrary to Guilford's model and theory that each dimension i s formally independent ( G u i l f o r d and M e r r i f i e l d , 1960, p. 13). These r e s u l t s further i n d i c a t e that the WISC and the TABLE XI Si Correlations Between WISC Categories And Stanford-Binet Categories When 'Meeker Scoring' Was Applied WISC Category Stanford-Binet Category 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 1. Memory 86 78 78 76 -37 76 85 77 79 77 66 79 2. Cognition 86 85 76 72 -26 68 89 74 84 82 76 81 3. Evaluation 82 83 77 72 -27 68 87 72 84 83 76 79 4. Convergent Prod. 85 81 79 76 -30 72 87 76 84 81 74 81 5. F i g u r a l 86 77 76 74 -31 72 82 85 80 78 63 79 6. Symbolic 85 77 81 79 -29 . 74 83 78 81 80 65 80 7. Semantic 83 83 75 71 -31 69 89 .71 83 80 78 78 8. Units 85 82 72 69 -30 68 87 71 81 76 72 77 9. Relations 81 81 77 73 -31 70 87 73 81 79 74 79 10. Systems 86 81 77 75 -32 73 84 74 84 79 69 80 11. Transformations 75 73 70 67 -23 60 80 66 73 74 72 74 12. Implications 85 81 79 76 -32 74 85 75 82 83 68 80 Rounded to two places, decimals omitted. h2 Stanford-Binet test items measure one and the same general a b i l i t y and should not be applied to Guilford's model. Tabled/! includes theccorrelations between the WISC categories and the Stanford-Binet categories when 'Modified Scoring' i s applied. The c o r r e l a t i o n matrix i s characterized by strong r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the categories of the two tests with the exception of f i g u r a l WISC and a l l Stanford-Binet categories. The c o r r e l a t i o n s when 'Modified Scoring' i s applied are only s l i g h t l y more p o s i t i v e than those c o r r e l a t i o n s when 'Meeker Scoring' i s applied. The negative c o r r e l a t i o n s between WISC f i g u r a l and ( i ) a l l other WISC categories and ( i i ) a l l Stanford-Binet categories, when both methods of scoring were applied, was most unexpected and alarming. Due to these r e s u l t s , the next section describes the procedures that were consequently followed. T A B L E X I I C o r r e l a t i o n s B e t w e e n W I S C C a t e g o r i e s A n d S t a n f o r d - B i n e t C a t e g o r i e s W h e n ' M o d i f i e d S c o r i n g ' W a s A p p l i e d S t a n f o r d - B i n e t C a t e g o r y W I S C C a t e g o r y 1 . 2 . 3 . 4 . 5 . 6 . 7 . 8 . 9 . 1 0 . 1 1 . 1 2 . 1 . M e m o r y 8 6 7 9 7 7 7 6 - 3 8 7 7 8 6 7 8 8 1 7 6 6 6 7 9 2 . C o g n i t i o n 8 7 8 5 7 5 7 1 - 2 7 6 9 8 9 7 7 8 4 8 0 7 5 8 1 3 . E v a l u a t i o n 8 2 8 2 7 8 7 3 - 2 9 7 0 8 7 7 5 8 6 8 8 7 6 7 9 4 . C o n v e r g e n t P r o d . 8 7 8 2 7 9 7 7 - 3 0 7 3 8 8 7 8 8 4 7 9 7 4 8 2 5 . F i g u r a l 8 7 8 0 7 7 7 5 - 3 3 7 5 8 4 7 8 8 1 7 8 6 6 7 9 6 . S y m b o l i c 8 5 7 9 8 1 8 0 - 2 9 7 4 8 5 8 0 8 3 7 9 6 8 7 8 7 . S e m a n t i c 8 5 8 4 7 5 7 1 - 3 0 6 9 8 9 7 5 8 5 7 8 8 0 7 8 8 . U n i t s 8 5 8 2 7 2 6 9 - 3 2 6 9 8 8 7 5 8 2 7 5 7 2 7 7 9 . R e l a t i o n s 8 2 8 0 7 8 7 5 - 3 3 7 3 8 6 7 7 8 3 7 6 7 3 7 9 1 0 . S y s t e m s 8 6 8 2 7 9 7 7 - 3 2 7 5 8 6 7 8 8 5 8 2 7 2 8 0 1 1 . T r a n s f o r m a t i o n s 7 6 7 5 7 2 6 9 - 2 4 6 3 8 2 7 0 7 7 6 9 7 4 7 3 1 2 . I m p l i c a t i o n s 8 6 8 0 7 7 7 3 - 3 3 7 5 8 4 7 5 8 3 8 1 6 7 8 0 R o u n d e d t o t w o p l a c e s , d e c i m a l s o m i t t e d . kk C o r r e l a t i o n a l A n a l y s e s o f W I S C C a t e g o r i e s W i t h WISC S u b t e s t  C o d i n g ' A ' R e c l a s s i f i e d T h e f i g u r a l c a t e g o r y o f t h e W I S C c o r r e l a t e s n e g a t i v e l y w i t h S t a n f o r d - B i n e t f i g u r a l a n d e v e r y o t h e r S t a n f o r d - B i n e t c a t e g o r y a n d n e g a t i v e l y w i t h a l l o t h e r c a t e g o r i e s o n t h e W I S C . To d e t e r m i n e t h e r e a s o n f o r s u c h a d e v i a n c e , t h e f i g u r a l i t e m s o n t h e WISC w e r e i n s p e c t e d . I t w a s n o t e d t h a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y o n e h a l f o f t h e f i g u r a l i t e m s w e r e c o m p o s e d o f t h e C o d i n g ' A ' i t e m s . C o d i n g ' A ' , t h e s u b t e s t p r e s e n t e d t o s u b j e c t s u n d e r e i g h t y e a r s o f a g e h a s b e e n c l a s s i f i e d a s f i g u r a l w h i l e C o d i n g ' B ' , t h e s u b t e s t p r e s e n t e d t o s u b j e c t s e i g h t y e a r s o f a g e a n d a b o v e i s c l a s s i f i e d a s s y m b o l i c . M e e k e r d o e s n o t g i v e a n e x p l a n a t i o n f o r c l a s s i f y i n g t h e t w o C o d i n g s u b t e s t s i n t o d i f f e r e n t c a t e g o r i e s . I t c a n b e r e a s o n e d t h a t C o d i n g ' A ' m a d e up o f s t a r s , c i r c l e s , s q u a r e s e t c . a r e p e r c e i v e d b y f i v e , s i x a n d s e v e n y e a r o l d s i n t h e s a m e m a n n e r a s n u m b e r s a r e p e r c e i v e d b y s u b j e c t s e i g h t y e a r s a n d o l d e r . T h e c o n t e n t o f t h e s u b t e s t f o r b o t h a g e l e v e l s i s s y m b o l i c a n d b o t h s u b t e s t s s h o u l d b e c l a s s i f i e d t h e s a m e w a y . S i n c e t h e f i g u r a l c a t e g o r y c o r r e l a t e s n e g a t i v e l y , w i t h a l l o t h e r c a t e g o r i e s , a l l C o d i n g ' A ' s u b t e s t i t e m s w e r e c l a s s i f i e d a s s y m b o l i c r a t h e r t h a n f i g u r a l . T a b l e s XIII a n d X/V i n c l u d e t h e c o r r e l a t i o n s b e t w e e n W I S C f i g u r a l a n d s y m b o l i c c a t e g o r i e s a n d a l l S t a n f o r d - B i n e t c a t e g o r i e s w h e n ' M e e k e r S c o r i n g ' a n d " M o d i f i e d S c o r i n g ' w e r e a p p l i e d . I t i s n o t e d t h a t b y c l a s s i f y i n g C o d i n g ' A ' s u b t e s t o f t h e W I S C a s s y m b o l i c r a t h e r t h a n f i g u r a l , c o r r e l a t i o n s b e t w e e n f i g u r a l W I S C a n d a l l S t a n f o r d - B i n e t c a t e g o r i e s a r e a l l m o d e r a t e l y p o s i t i v e , w h e n b o t h s c o r i n g p r o c e d u r e s a r e TABLE XIII Correlations Between WISC And Stanford-Binet Categories When WISC Coding 'A' Was C l a s s i f i e d As Symbolic Rather Than F i g u r a l , Using 'Meeker Scoring' Stanford-Binet Category WISC Category F i g u r a l Symbolic Memory .497 .711 Cognition .600 .649 Evaluation .612 .641 Convergent Prod. .559 .699 F i g u r a l .552 .686 Symbolic .538 .746 Semantic .565 .630 Units .567 .613 Relations .501 .616 Systems .575 .665 Transformations .448 .600 Implications .590 .699 h6 TABLE XIV Correlations Between WISC And Stanford-Binet Categories When WISC Coding 'A' Was C l a s s i f i e d As Symbolic Rather Than F i g u r a l , Using 'Modified Scoring' Stanford-Binet Category WISC Cateerorv F i g u r a l Symbolic Memory .522 .731 Cognition .625 .673 Evaluation .601 .681 Convergent Prod. .572 .735 F i g u r a l .580 .724 Symbolic .527 .776 Semantic .593 .660 Units .571 .646 Relations .498 .661 Systems .592 .705 Transformations .460 .636 Implications .603 .711 hi applied, as compared to a l l negative c o r r e l a t i o n s i n Meeker's o r i g i n a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . Correlations between symbolic WISC and a l l Stanford-Binet categories are not s u b s t a n t i a l l y d i f f e r e n t from the co r r e l a t i o n s of the o r i g i n a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . Tables Xtf and XV/ include the co r r e l a t i o n s between WISC f i g u r a l and symbolic categories and a l l WISC categories when 'Meeker Scoring' and 'Modified Scoring' were applied. The co r r e l a t i o n s between the f i g u r a l WISC category and a l l other WISC categories are a l l moderately p o s i t i v e (using both scoring procedure) rather than negative as has been shown i n the o r i g i n a l c o r r e l a t i o n s . The co r r e l a t i o n s between symbolic WISC and a l l other WISC categories are not s u b s t a n t i a l l y d i f f e r e n t from the o r i g i n a l c o r r e l a t i o n s . These r e s u l t s suggest that Coding 'A' subtest of the WISC has been m i s c l a s s i f i e d by Meeker and should be categorized as symbolic rather than f i g u r a l . TABLE XV Correlations Between WISC Categories When WISC Coding 'A' Was C l a s s i f i e d As Symbolic Rather Than F i g u r a l , Using 'Meeker Scoring' Category Category F i g u r a l Symbolic Memory .632 .716 Cognition .801 .633 Evaluation .705 .941 Convergent Prod. .593 .980 F i g u r a l 1.000 .489 Symbolic .489 1,000 Semantic .662 .666 Units .612 .975 Relations .787 .662 Sys terns .718 .728 Transformations .637 .487 Implications .580 .629 TABLE XVI Correlations Between WISC Categories When WISC Coding 'A' Was C l a s s i f i e d As Symbolic Rather Than F i g u r a l Using 'Modified Scoring' Category Category F i g u r a l Symbolic Memory .636 .763 Cognition . 790 .666 Evaluation .703 .949 Convergent Prod. .589 .982 F i g u r a l 1.000 .512 Symbolic .512 1.000 Semantic .663 .690 Units .681 .942 Relations .741 .718 Systems .794 .713 Trans formations .630 .513 Implications- .590 .669 50 Partial Correlational Analyses _of.the WISC Categories and Stanford-Binet  Categories Due to the considerable number of test items contributing to more than one category in both the WISC and the Stanford-Binet, the strong positive correlations between the WISC categories and the Stanford-Binet categories was expected. For example item 1 on the WISC, classified by Meeker as MMU (memory of semantic units), was contributing to each of the memory, semantic and units total category score. To see the effects when this overlap of scores was eliminated the following procedures were conducted. To eliminate the overlap of test items in each category pair three new scoring keys, one for each of the Stanford-Binet, WISC subjects under eight years of age, and WISC subjects eight years and older, was developed. A l l test items common to each category pair were eliminated. The new scoring keys list e d only test items not common to each category pair. For example WISC memory contained 35 test items and WISC cognition contained 99 items with 17 items not common to both memory and cognition. Those 17 test items were included in the new scoring key. In this manner the scoring keys facili t a t e d the rescoring of a l l WISC and Stanford-Binet protocols to ta l l y each subjects Individual category score without an overlap of items. Once the rescoring was completed a parti a l correlational analysis was performed. As this procedure has been described i t can be seen that partial correlational analysis for this study included the removal of overlapping items from each of the category pair with the resulting analysis being correlations of residuals only. 51 In t h i s way p a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n s were determined between the WISC categories and between the Stanford-Binet categories. P a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n a l analysis was determined for only 'Modified Scoring' since i t has been shown that the two methods of scoring produced only s l i g h t differences,.in c o r r e l a t i o n a l a n alysis. Table XV//Includes p a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n s between Stanford-Binet categories. Of the 66 p a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n s , one was a low negative, four were low p o s i t i v e , 26 were moderately p o s i t i v e and 36 were strong p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Those p a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n s within the low p o s i t i v e range suggests that items i n each category p a i r measure separate a b i l i t i e s . Those p a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n s within the moderate to strong p o s i t i v e range suggest items i n each category p a i r do not measure separate a b i l i t i e s but one a b i l i t y . P a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n s within dimensions ranged from moderate to strong p o s i t i v e while, c o r r e l a t i o n s across dimensions ranged from low negative to strong p o s i t i v e with the majority being moderate to strong p o s i t i v e . Although the p a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n s across dimensions are more vari e d than are p a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n s within dimensions, they are not su b s t a n t i a l l y d i f f e r e n t . This indicates that items c l a s s i f i e d to one category do not measure a separate a b i l i t y than do d i f f e r e n t items c l a s s i f i e d to a d i f f e r e n t category. This further substantiates the evidence that Stanford-Binet test items are a measure of general i n t e l l i g e n c e and the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of items to categories by Meeker i s u n j u s t i f i e d . Table XVttl includes p a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n s between the WISC categories. Fourteen p a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n s are the same as the o r i g i n a l TABLE XVII P a r t i a l Correlations Between Stanford-Binet Categories When 'Modified Scoring' Was Applied Category Category 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Operations 1. Memory 2. Cognition 70 3. Evaluation 79 69 4. Convergent Prod. 48 50 81 Contents 5. F i g u r a l 59 54 65 64 6. Symbolic 18 71 45 59 75 7. Semantic 35 39 90 94 69 66 Products 8. Units 56 42 79 63 69 55 51 9. Relations 32 47 61 71 62 80 29 65 10. Systems -05 85 47 90 50 44 34 75 54 11. Transformations 80 51 64 82 62 64 25 83 76 79 12. Implications 23 59 57 95 51 58 33 77 66 66 33 aRounded to two places, decimals omitted. TABLE XVIII P a r t i a l Correlations Between WISC Categories When 'Modified Scoring' Was Applied Category Category 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. - 10. 11. 12. Operations 1. Memory 2. Cognition 62 3. Evaluation 80 64 4. Convergent Prod. 64 71 a 96 Contents 5. F i g u r a l -41 a -40 -37 43 66. Symbolic 05 24 42 b 41 -71 a 7. Semantic 29 05 34 20 -34 a 23 Products 8. Units 77 35 70 70 16 46 39 9. Relations 55 74 06 15 -37 72 34 80 10. Systems 34 92 a 52 35 -44 14 40 77 34 11. Transformations 69 a 00 36 57 a -23 52 a] 29 66 a 54 48 12. Implications 34 44 64 67 a -33 a 04 00 72 a 80 a 32 63 a j^ No t e s t items i n common, p a r t i a l correlations same as o r i g i n a l c o r r e l a t i o n s . n=32, subjects age 8 and above. Rounded to two places, decimals omitted. 5^ c o r r e l a t i o n s as there were no items i n common for those two categories. P a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n s within dimensions ranged from strong negative to strong p o s i t i v e and p a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n s across.dimensions ranged.from moderate negative to strong p o s i t i v e . Those p a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n s within the low p o s i t i v e range indicates items i n each category p a i r measure separate a b i l i t i e s . Those p a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n s within the moderate to strong p o s i t i v e range, which included 4 3 of the 66 p a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n s , indicates that items i n each of those category p a i r s do not measure separate a b i l i t i e s but one a b i l i t y . As i n the Stanford-Binet, t h i s indicates that the WISC i s a measure of general i n t e l l i g e n c e and the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of items to categories by Meeker i s u n j u s t i f i e d . Seven p a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n s are stronger i n . i n t e n s i t y than the o r i g i n a l c o r r e l a t i o n s . Of these seven, f i v e p a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n s , f i g u r a l -cognition, f i g u r a l - e v a l u a t i o n , f i g u r a l - r e l a t i o n s , figural-systerns and figural-transformations are strong i n the negative d i r e c t i o n while figural-convergent production and f i g u r a l - u n i t s are stronger i n the p o s i t i v e d i r e c t i o n . An inspection of those factors whose p a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n s were stronger than the o r i g i n a l c o r r e l a t i o n s revealed the seven c o r r e l a t i o n s involved the f i g u r a l category. Each p a i r of categories, with overlapping items removed, were pl o t t e d . For example, Figure 4. i l l u s t r a t e s by means of a scatter p l o t , the d i s t r i b u t i o n of scores for the evaluation and f i g u r a l categories. I t can be seen that the subjects under eight years of age comprise one d i s t i n c t d i s t r i b u t i o n and subjects eight years and older comprise another. FIGURE k C o m p a r i s o n o f S u b j e c t s L e s s T h a n E i g h t Y e a r s A n d E i g h t Y e a r s A n d O l d e r o n F i g u r a l A n d E v a l u a t i o n R e s i d u a l S c o r e s T F i g u r a l ( R aw S c o r e R e s i d u a l s ) v l e s s t h a n e i g h t y e a r s o f a g e . T e i g h t y e a r s a n d o l d e r . 56 Figure 5 i l l u s t r a t e s a s i m i l a r scatter p l o t , t h i s time the d i s t r i b u t i o n of scores for units and f i g u r a l categories. I t i s evident and i n sharp contrast to Figure 4 that the subjects under eight and those eight and older do not form two d i s t r i b u t i o n s . One hypothesis for t h i s r e s u l t i s that the overlap of test items was functioning as a suppressor v a r i a b l e to produce a s i n g l e d i s t r i b u t i o n . Appendix H contains s c a t t e r p l o t s i l l u s t r a t i n g the subject's scores f o r each of f i g u r a l and cognition, f i g u r a l and convergent production, f i g u r a l and systems, f i g u r a l and r e l a t i o n s , and f i g u r a l and transformation categories. 57 FIGURE 5 Comparison of Subjects Less Than Eight Years And Eight Years And Older on F i g u r a l And Units Residual Scores -8 - 6 - 4 - 2 2 k 6 8 10 F i g u r a l (Raw Score Residuals) v l e s s than eight years of age. r eight years and older. 58 Chapter IV Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations Summaries of findings given i n Chapter 3 w i l l be presented here as they r e l a t e to the purpose of t h i s study given i n Chapter 1, with corresponding conclusions. F i n a l l y there w i l l be some recommendations for further research. Summaries and Conclusions The organization of summaries and conclusions w i l l p a r a l l e l the organization of the problem and r e s u l t s presented i n Chapters 1 and 3. In an attempt to present a method whereby i n d i v i d u a l strengths and weaknesses can be ascertained from two i n t e l l i g e n c e s c a l e s , Meeker c l a s s i f i e d each t e s t item of the WISC and the Stanford-Binet i n Guilford's Structure of I n t e l l e c t model. By doing so Meeker claims that i n d i v i d u a l strengths and weaknesses can be i d e n t i f i e d from the two scales which could lead to the remediation of such weaknesses by s p e c i f i c exercises. This method of analysis presented by Meeker i s not without many flaws and a r b i t r a r y decisions. She has applied two i n t e l l i g e n c e measures which have large auditory components to Guilford's model whose c e l l s are confirmed by measures not containing auditory components. Meeker i n f e r s a hierarchy i n thepprdducts dimension when G u i l f o r d states 59 that there i s no h i e r a r c h y . Meeker has assigned tes t items to a s i n g l e c e l l i n the model and l a t e r p r e c i s e l y the same tes t items are assigned to two c e l l s . Her scor ing procedures al low many tes t items to be keyed i n two or more categories and only once i n other categor ies . The i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Meeker's f i n a l category scor ing procedures i s not adequately explained for the reader to make use of the outcoming scores . Factor a n a l y t i c s tudies of the WISC and the Stanford-Binet show that c e l l assignment of tes t items by Meeker i s not confirmed. These c r i t i c i s m s of Meeker's adaptat ion plus her c la im that i n d i v i d u a l strengths and weaknesses on the two measures can be determined, prompted the undertaking of t h i s study to see i f there are s u b s t a n t i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the same WISC and .Stanford-Binet categor ies . Scoring Procedures Meeker's scor ing procedures , when an item was c l a s s i f i e d i n m u l t i p l e c e l l s , involved g i v i n g c r e d i t to each category w i th in a s i n g l e c e l l . As a consequence, a s i n g l e item was given two, three , four and even s i x c r e d i t s w i th in a s ing l e category. The unexplained reason for such a scor ing system prompted the w r i t e r to employ a second scor ing procedure where an item c l a s s i f i e d by Meeker i n m u l t i p l e c e l l s , rece ived c r e d i t only once i n each d i f f e r e n t category. This scor ing method was c a l l e d 'Modi f i ed Scor ing' and Meeker's method of s cor ing was c a l l e d 'Meeker Scor ing ' as both methods were used throughout the study. 60 C o r r e l a t i o n a l Analyses Correlations between Stanford-Binet categories were strong and p o s i t i v e with. 'Modified Scoring' not s u b s t a n t i a l l y higher than 'Meeker Scoring'. Using 'Meeker Scoring' and 'Modified Scoring', the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between WISC categories were strong and p o s i t i v e with the exception of the cor r e l a t i o n s between the f i g u r a l category and a l l other categories which are negative. One explanation f o r those high p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s between the WISC categories and between the Stanford-Binet categories i s the fa c t that each item on both t e s t s i s contributing to at l e a s t three categories. Where a test item i s c l a s s i f i e d i n multiple c e l l s , that test item i s contributing to more than three categories. The strong p o s i t i v e co r r e l a t i o n s also suggest that the categories do not measure separate a b i l i t i e s but one general a b i l i t y and Meeker's c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of t e s t items to Guilford's model i s u n j u s t i f i e d . I t can be further concluded that Meeker's analysis and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of i n d i v i d u a l p r o f i l e s i s without foundation. The negative c o r r e l a t i o n s between the f i g u r a l WISC category and other WISC categories suggests that items c l a s s i f i e d as f i g u r a l on the WISC are grossly d i f f e r e n t from test items c l a s s i f i e d i n other WISC categories. The procedures that were followed as a r e s u l t of these negative c o r r e l a t i o n s are contained i n the next section. Correlations, using 'Modified Scoring' are s l i g h t l y although not s u b s t a n t i a l l y higher than c o r r e l a t i o n s r e s u l t i n g from 'Meeker Scoring'. This suggests that the two scoring procedures produce s i m i l a r r e s u l t s and neither i s more e f f i c i e n t than the other. 61 The c o r r e l a t i o n s between the twelve WISC and Stanford-Binet categories are strong and p o s i t i v e w i t h the exception of the f i g u r a l category which i s negative (using both scoring procedures). The strong p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s suggest that the same categories for the two tests contain s i m i l a r items. The negative f i g u r a l c o r r e l a t i o n s , when both scoring procedures are applied, indicates that the f i g u r a l category on the two tes t s contain very d i s s i m i l a r items. Applying 'Meeker Scoring' and 'Modified Scoring', the co r r e l a t i o n s between the WISC and Stanford-Binet, across dimension, are strong and p o s i t i v e with the exception of f i g u r a l WISC and a l l Stanford-Binet categories which are negative. The strong p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s across dimensions may be due to test items c l a s s i f i e d i n at le a s t one category of one dimension and also c l a s s i f i e d i n at l e a s t one category i n each of the other two dimensions. Another explanation f o r the strong p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s i s that each category of one test i s measuring the same a b i l i t y as i s each category of the other t e s t . These r e s u l t s strongly suggest that the WISC and the Stanford-Binet measure one and the same general a b i l i t y and test items should hot be applied to Guilford's model. The negative c o r r e l a t i o n s between f i g u r a l WISC andtali.sthe Stanford-Binet categories indicates that f i g u r a l WISC contains items which are very d i s s i m i l a r to items contained i n a l l the Stanford-Binet categories. Items contained i n the f i g u r a l WISC category were inspected and found to be mainly Coding 'A' subtest items. This discovery prompted the procedures summarized i n the next section. 62 Coding 'A' R e c l a s s i f i e d C l a s s i f y i n g a l l Coding 'A' subtest items as symbolic rather than Meeker's f i g u r a l category resulted i n the re l a t i o n s h i p s between the f i g u r a l category and ( i ) a l l Stanford-Binet categories and ( i i ) a l l WISC categories to be moderately p o s i t i v e , when both scoring procedures were applied. These cor r e l a t i o n s are s u b s t a n t i a l l y higher than the negative r e l a t i o n s h i p s found i n the o r i g i n a l c o r r e l a t i o n s . The c o r r e l a t i o n s between symbolic WISC and ( i ) a l l Stanford-Binet categories and ( i i ) a l l WISC categories resulted In moderate to strong r e l a t i o n s h i p s . The re l a t i o n s h i p s between symbolic and a l l Stanford-Binet categories are not' s u b s t a n t i a l l y d i f f e r e n t from the f i r s t order c o r r e l a t i o n s before Coding 'A' was c l a s s i f i e d as symbolic. The cor r e l a t i o n s between the symbolic category containing Coding.'A' items and a l l WISC categories vary from s l i g h t l y lower to s u b s t a n t i a l l y higher than the o r i g i n a l c o r r e l a t i o n s . These r e s u l t s strongly suggest that Meeker has m i s c l a s s l f i e d the Coding 'A' subtest which should be placed i n the symbolic category rather than the f i g u r a l category. P a r t i a l C o r r e l a t i o n a l Analyses Each WISC and Stanford-Binet category contained items which were also c l a s s i f i e d i n at least two other categories. This overlapping of te s t items i n every p a i r of categories contributed to the high p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s found between categories of the WISC and between categories of the Stanford-Binet. To determine theccorEelations between every p a i r of categories i n each test without the overlap of items, items common 63 to both categories were removed. The p a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n s between categories on each of the WISC and the Stanford-Binet were computed using 'Modified Scoring'. 'Meeker Scoring' was not applied as i t has been shown the two methods of scoring resulted i n s i m i l a r c o r r e l a t i o n s . The p a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n s between categories of the Stanford-Binet ranged from low p o s i t i v e to strong p o s i t i v e with one c o r r e l a t i o n s l i g h t l y negative. Of the 65 p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s , four were low, 26 were moderate and 35 were strong i n i n t e n s i t y . These r e s u l t s suggest that only those p a i r s of categories which were characterized by low p a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n s measure separate a b i l i t i e s . An explanation f o r the moderate to strong p a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n s i s that those p a i r s of categories do not measure two separate a b i l i t i e s but they measure one a b i l i t y . This means that Meeker's assignment of items to one category, measure the same a b i l i t y as do d i f f e r e n t items assigned to a d i f f e r e n t category. This i s expected as i n d i v i d u a l Stanford-Binet t e s t items were not designed to measure one pure a b i l i t y . Meeker's assignment of Stanford-Binet t e s t items to Guilford's model, whose c e l l s were substantiated by pure items, presupposes that each Stanford-Binet t e s t item measures one pure a b i l i t y . I t can be concluded that the Stanford-Binet t e s t items should hot be c l a s s i f i e d according to Guilford's model as Meeker has done. The p a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n s between WISC categories ranged from moderate negative c o r r e l a t i o n s to strong p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s . The moderate to strong p o s i t i v e p a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n s suggest that those pa i r s of categories do not measure separate a b i l i t i e s . S i m i l a r i l y as i n 6k the Stanford-Binet, items assigned to one category.by Meeker measure the same a b i l i t y as do d i f f e r e n t items assigned to a d i f f e r e n t category. The i n d i v i d u a l WISC items were not developed to measure a si n g l e a b i l i t y . Meeker has implied that the test items measure pure a b i l i t i e s by assigning them to Guilford's model. I t can be concluded that the WISC tes t items, as the Stanford-Binet, should not be c l a s s i f i e d to Guilford's model as Meeker has done. I t can be further concluded that Meeker's claim to determine strengths and weaknesses from the WISC and the Stanford-Binet by her analyses of the test Items i s without foundation. Her presentation of exercises to remediate such weaknesses as a consequence are unfounded. P a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n s of seven p a i r s of WISC categories, r e s u l t e d i n c o r r e l a t i o n s stronger than the f i r s t - o r d e r c o r r e l a t i o n s . The p a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n s of f i g u r a l - c o g n i t i o n , f i g u r a l - e v a l u a t i o n , f i g u r a l - r e l a t i o n s , figural-systerns, and figural-transformations were s t r o n g : i n the negative d i r e c t i o n while figural-c«nvergent production and f i g u r a l - u n i t s were stronger but i n theppositive d i r e c t i o n . The scatte r p l o t s showing the d i s t r i b u t i o n of scores revealed that those p a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n s which were stronger i n the negative d i r e c t i o n than were the o r i g i n a l c o r r e l a t i o n s , each formed two d i s t i n c t d i s t r i b u t i o n s , subjects eight years and older and subjects under eight years of age. The scatte r p l o t s showing scores for the two p a r t i a l c o rrelations that were stronger but i n a p o s i t i v e d i r e c t i o n than the o r i g i n a l c o r r e l a t i o n s , each formed one d i s t r i b u t i o n . The reason f o r seven p a i r s of WISC categories to r e s u l t i n p a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n s stronger than the o r i g i n a l c o r r e l a t i o n s , i s not known u n t i l further research i s completed. One hypothesis i s that the overlap of 65 t e s t items was functioning as a suppressor v a r i a b l e p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the c o r r e l a t i o n s of figural-convergent production and f i g u r a l - u n i t s . I t appears that f o r f i v e p a i r s of categories, the p a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n s , separates the subjects into two groups by age, those under eight years and those eight years and older. Those p a i r s are f i g u r a l - c o g n i t i o n , f i g u r a l - e v a l u a t i o n , f i g u r a l - r e l a t i o n s , figural-systems, and f i g u r a l -transformations. S p e c i f i c Findings Meeker appears to have m i s c l a s s i f i e d the Coding 'A' subtest of the WISC. To be consistent with Meeker's c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of test ^  items to Guilford's model, the Coding 'A' subtest should be c l a s s i f i e d as symbolic rather than f i g u r a l as Meeker has done. The strongppositive c o r r e l a t i o n s between the same WISC and Stanford-Binet categories i n i t i a l l y suggests that Meeker has c l a s s i f i e d s i m i l a r test items of the two scales to the same category. But the strong p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s between WISC categories and d i f f e r e n t Stanford-Binet categories suggests that t e s t items c l a s s i f i e d to one WISC category measures the same a b i l i t y as do Stanford-Binet items c l a s s i f i e d to a d i f f e r e n t category. The WISC and the Stanford-Binet test items are c l a s s i f i e d i n at l e a s t three d i f f e r e n t categories and t h i s overlap of Items on both scales may account for the strong r e l a t i o n -ships between the WISC categories and d i f f e r e n t Stanford-Binet categories. A second hypothesis i s that the WISC and the Stanford-Binet measure one and the same general a b i l i t y . This further suggests that Meeker i s 66 u n j u s t i f i e d i n c l a s s i f y i n g t e s t items to Guilford's categories. I t can be concluded that Meeker's analysis and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of i n d i v i d u a l WISC and Stanford-Binet p r o f i l e s i s without substantiation. By removing those items common to each p a i r of categories of the WISC and the Stanford-Binet, the r e s u l t i n g moderate to strong c o r r e l a t i o n s between WISC categories and between the Stanford-Binet categories, indicates that items c l a s s i f i e d i n one category measure the same a b i l i t y as do d i f f e r e n t items c l a s s i f i e d i n d i f f e r e n t categories. It can be concluded that Meeker's assignment of t e s t items to one category, implying that they measure one si n g l e a b i l i t y , i s f a l s e . I t can be further concluded that Meeker's claim to be able to determine i n d i v i d u a l strengths and weaknesses by using her adaptation of the WISC and the Stanford-Binet to Guilford's model, i s not substantiated. To make use of Meeker's analyses of i n d i v i d u a l t e s t p r o f i l e s i s to make use of a procedure which i s highly suspect. To base a diagnosis and remedial procedures on such adaptation i s to do so on very t e n t a t i v e ground. The high i n t e r c o r r e l a t l o n s of categories or p r o f i l e s as Meeker defines them, mitigates against the e f f e c t i v e use of those p r o f i l e s i n c l i n i c a l s e t t i n g s . I t i s not known u n t i l further research i s completed why seven p a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n s were stronger than the o r i g i n a l c o r r e l a t i o n s . I t appeared that the overlap of tes t items i n the o r i g i n a l c o r r e l a t i o n s was functioning as a suppressor v a r i a b l e . Recommendations for Further Research The following suggestions are made regarding the conduct of research r e l a t e d to the present problem: 1. To determine the r e s u l t s of p a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n a l analysis a f t e r c l a s s i f y i n g WISC Coding 'A' to the symbolic category rather than the f i g u r a l category. 2. Further research to determine why seven pai r s of WISC categories r e s u l t i n p a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n s stronger than the o r i g i n a l c o r r e l a t i o n s . 3 . Factor analysis of co r r e l a t i o n s and p a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n s between WISC categories and between Stanford-Binet categories to determine i f one or more general factors are found. 68 BIBLIOGRAPHY Balinsky, B. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 39, 1960 155-156. Binet, A. Les Idees Modernes Sur Les Enfants, P a r i s : Flammarion, 1911 Cronbach, Lee J . E s s e n t i a l s of Psychological Testing, Harper and Row Publishers, New York, 1970. G u i l f o r d , J.P. " I n t e l l i g e n c e 1965 Model", American Psychologist, 21, 1966, 20-26. Gu i l f o r d , J.P. The Nature of Human I n t e l l i g e n c e , McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1967. G u i l f o r d , J.P. and R. Hoepfner. The Analysis of I n t e l l i g e n c e , McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1971. G u i l f o r d , J.P. and P.R. M e r r i f i e l d . Studies of Aptitudes of High  Level Personnel, Reports from the Psychological Laboratory, the U n i v e r s i t y of Southern C a l i f o r n i a , No. 24, A p r i l 1960. McCartin, Sr. R.A. and C.E. Meyers. "An Exploration of Six Semantic Factors at F i r s t Grade." M u l t i v a r i a t e Behaviora3ilResearch, 1, 1966 74-94. Meeker, M.N. "A Procedure for Relating Stanford-Binet Behavior Samplings to Guilford's Structure of the I n t e l l e c t . " Journal  of School Psychology, 3, 1965, 26-36. Meeker, M.N. The Structure of I n t e l l e c t ; I t s Interpretation and  Uses, Charles E. M e r r i l l Publishing Company, A B e l l and Howell Company, Columbus, Ohio, 1969. Meeker, M.N., K. Sexton and M.0. Richardson. SOI A b i l i t i e s Workbook, Loyola-Marymount Un i v e r s i t y , Los Angeles, C a l i f o r n i a , 1970. Orpet, R.E. and C.E. Meyers. "Six Structure of I n t e l l e c t Hypotheses i n Six Year Old Children." Journal of Educational Psychology, 57, 1966, 341-346. Stormer, G.E. "Dimensions of the I n t e l l e c t Unmeasured By the Stanford-Binet." D i s s e r t a t i o n Abstracts, 27, 1967, 2078-2079. Terman, L.M. and M.A. M e r r i l l . Stanford-Binet I n t e l l i g e n c e Scale, Manual for the Third Revision, Form L-M, Houghton M i f f l i n Company, Boston 1960. 69 Thorndike, R.L. and E. Hagen. Measurement and E v a l u a t i o n i n Psychology  and Education, T h i r d Ed., John Wiley and Sons Inc., New York, 1969. Wechsler, D. Wechsler I n t e l l i g e n c e Scale f o r C h i l d r e n : Manual, The P s y c h o l o g i c a l Corporation, New: York, 1949. Appendix A Meeker's Mapping Procedure To C l a s s i f y Test Items 1 . Operations 2. Contents 3. Products DECISION FL'OW C H A R T Operations Is item simply a repel it ion of presented material? Yes No Docs item involve more than routinized (well practiced) skills? No Yes Does item require retention of presented material (no review permitted)? Yes • Memory Does item require restructuring the presented material? No Yes Would "ideal" answer be complete repetition of presented content? Yes No No Does item require a determinant answer (a single, correct answer) ? No Does item require reorganization or redefinition of function? No Yes Yes Is multiplicity or diversity a positive criterion (better than one answer) ? Yes coNvergent Production No Is examinee required to classify or order presented content? No Yes Is this primarily to test comprehension? Is examinee required to trace implications of meanings or courses of action? No Yes No Yes Is multiplicity or diversity a positive criterion? No Divergent 1 I Yes Production Does item require comparisons with rules or standards (appropriateness) ? Yes • Evaluation Cognition DECISION F L O W C H A R T Contents Is information pre-sented in concrete form (pictures, mazes objects, figures)? Yes Is picture primarily used to represent a meaning rather than a form? No No Does information deal with interpersonal perception? - Behavioral I Yes Yes No Could essential content be recalled in concrete form? Yes Would this give evidence for the answer? Figural Yes No No Does essential content of the item involve letters or symbols? Yes Symbolic No D E C I S I O N F L O W C H A R T Products Does item present a process (as act ually performed or by serial presentation)? No Does item present just one element? No Yes Is examinee to produce an equivalent? TNO Yes Units Does item ask examinee to produce more than one element? Yes No Is examinee asked to identify likenesses and differences? No Is examinee asked to recount or enumerate only? Yes In the order presented? No No - Classes Yes Is examinee asked to identify connections between elements (causal, spatial) ? Yes Are connections merely enumerated] or recounted? No Yes No Relations No Is examinee asked to judge material as to expectations, con-sequences, etc? I No Are the relations those that any (item age) child would know? Systems Yes Yes • Implications Is examinee expected to convert material into any other form or order? Yes - Transformations Appendix B Meeker's T a l l y Sheet Stanford-Binet I n t e l l i g e n c e Scale (S-B) Wechsler I n t e l l i g e n c e Scale f o r Children (WISC) " M " Memory "C" Cognition Adapted by Mary Meeker TALLY SHEET FOR STANFORD-BINET (LM) TEMPLATES STRUCTURE OF INTELLECT PROFILE With a Flow Diagram of the Processes * F S M B u MFU MSU MMU c R MMR S MFS MSS MMS T MFT I MSI F S M B U CFU CMU c CFC CSC CMC R CFR CSR CMR S CFS CSS CMS T CFT CMT I CFI CM I "E" Evaluation . F S M B U ' EFU EMU c R EFR ESR . EMR s' EFS EMS T EMT I EFI 1. Learning takes place first through cognition. 2. Storage of learned material is in memory. 3. Production of learned material may be: Unchanged = convergent "N" encoding or: Reoriented or invented = divergent "D" production. 4. One may or may not evaluate cognized (newly comprehended) material. Note: Digits occasionally load on units, other times on systems. They may be scored in both cells. Child's Name. I.Q.. "D" Divergent Production F s M B u DSU DMU c DFC R DMR s DMS T DST DMT I DMI "N" coNvergentaProduction F . S M • B u NFU NMU c NFC NMC R NFR NSR NMR S NFS NSS NMS T NMT I NFI NSI NMI F = Figural S = Symbol M =seMantic U = Units C = Classes R = Relations S = Systems T = Transformation of material I = Implication T A L L Y S H E E T F O R W I S C T E M P L A T E S " M " Memory — 5 factors F S M B u M M U " c R M M R ' s M S S - ^ M M S " " T I M S I - " ' " C " Cognition — 8 factors F • S M B u C F U - " " C M U " ' c R C F R ^ S C F S ^ C M S ^ T C F T ^ C M T - " I C F L / 4 Adapted by Mary Meeker S T R U C T U R E OF I N T E L L E C T Flow Diagram of the Processes " E " Evaluation — 6 factors F S M B u E F U — ' E S U ^ C R E F R ^ " E M R ^ s E F S ^ T I E M I - ^ 1. Learning takes place first through cognition. , 2. Storage of learned material is in memory. 3. One may or may not evaluate cognized material. 4. Production of learned material may be: Unchanged = " N " convergent encoding or: Reoriented or invented = " D " divergent production. " D " Divergent Production F S M B U c R s T I : ' N " coNvergent Production F S M B u N F U - " N S U - - " N M U - " c R N M R ^ s N M S ^ T I F = Figural S = Symbol M =seMantic U = Units C = Classes R = Relations S = Systems T - Transformation of material I = Implication | Appendix C Test Items and Assigned Item Number Stanford-Binet I n t e l l i g e n c e Scale (S-B) Wechsler I n t e l l i g e n c e Scale f o r Children (WISC) Appendix C i Stanford-Binet I n t e l l i g e n c e Scale (S-B) This test i s copyrighted by Houghton M i f f l i n Company. Their permission i s required for i t s reproduction. ASSIGNED ' ITEM 1 NUMBER Yea r II (6 tests x 1, or 4* tests x 1 Vj) . . . I . F o r m board (1 + ) [ ] a.... b — 2. Delayed response (2+) [ ] a.... b_... c.~. .3..*3. Parts of body (4+) [ ] a....b....C—d—e.._.f... .4-.. 4. Block tower ( ± ) [ ] ...5.* 5. Picture vocabulary (3+) [ ] . . £ . * 6 . Word combinations ( ± ) [ ] A. Ident. obj. by name (5+) [ ] a..._b___.c....d....e Yea r 11-6 (6 tests x 1, or 4* tests x 1 VJ) _7..*1. Ident. obj. by use (3+) [ ) a. b... c d . c f 2. Parts of body (6+) [ ] ..5_.*3. Naming obj. (5+) [ ] a.... b._.. a... d — e.___ f.... .AO.*4. Picture vocabulary (8+) [ ] . .U .*5 . 2 digits (1+) [ ] 47-- 63.- 58__ -.12. 6. Simple commands (2+) [ ] a.... b_..„ c.... A. Form board: rot. (2+) [ ] a.... b.... a... Year III (6 tests x 1, or 4* tests x P A ) J3 . 1. Stringing beads (4+) 2 min. [ ] J.4.*2. Picture vocabulary (10+) [ ] .15.*3. Block bridge ( ± ) [ ] _ife.*4. Picture memories (1 + ) [ ] a~~ b.... ..I7.*5. Copying circle (1 + ) [ ] a.— b—. c . . . ..IS 6. Vertical line ( ± ) [ ] . A. 3 digits (14-) [ ] 641.... 352— 8 3 7 -Yea r 111-6 (6 tests x 1, or 4* tests x 1 Vi) .J.3*1. Comp. balls (3 of 3, or 5 of 6+) [ ] a....b....c..-/d.. -20 2. Patience: pictures (14-) [ ] a.... b — 2J..*3. Discr. animal pictures (44-) [ ] 22. *4. Response to pictures (Level I, 24-) [ ] a.... b.... C... 23. 5. Sorting buttons (2 min.) Errors.— [ ] 2A*6. Comprehension I (14-) [ ] a.— b — A. Comp. sticks (3 of 3, or 5 of 64-) [ ] a....b—c..../d. Yea r IV (6 tests x 1, or 4* tests x 1 Vi) lZ5*l. Picture vocabulary (144-) [ ] 2j&*2. Obj. from memory (2+) [ ] a.... b.... C— Z7*3. Opp. analogies I (24-) [ ] a.... b— c.... d.... e.... 28*4. Pict. ident. (34-) [ ] a.... b— c... d.... e.... f.... 2.9 5. Disciforms (84-) [ ] 3 Q 6. Comprehension II (2+) [ ] a.... b.... A. Sent. mem. I (14-) [ ] a.... b — Year IV-6 (6 tests x 1, or 4* tests x 1 V2) 3.L 1. Aesth.comp. (34-) [ ] a.— b.... C— 32.*2. Opp. analogies I (34-) [ ] 53 . .*3. Pict. sim. & diff. I (3+) [ ] M . 4. Materials (24-) [ ] a . - b.... c... 3.5.*5. 3 commissions (34-) [ ] a.— b— C.... 3<b*6. Comprehension III (14-) [ ] a.... b.... A. Pict. ident. (44-) [ ] VO Year V (6 tests x 1, or 4* tests x 1 V2) 31..*]. Picf. compl.: man (2pts.+ ) [ ] 3 6 2. Folding triangle ( ± ) [ ] 33*3. Definitions (2+) [ ] a.... b__._ C — 4Q.*4. Copying square (1 + ) [ ] a.... b.... c.... 4-1- 5. Pict. sim. & dif. II (9+) [ ] 4Z.*6. Patience: rectangles (2+) [ J a.... b.... c.._. A. Knot ( ± ) [ ] Year VII (6 tests x 2, or 4* tests x 3) A9i 1. Pict. absurd. 1 (44-) [ ] a....b....c....d....e.... 5Q*2. Simil.: 2 (24-) [ ] a.... b.... a... d.... 5A.*3. Copying diamond (14-) [ ] a.... b.... C... 52. *4. Comprehension IV (34-) [ ] a....b....c....d....e...i..-. 53. 5. Opp. analogies III (24-) [ ] a.... b.... c... d.... 54*6. 5 digits (14-) [ ] 31859.-. 48372.... 96183-.. A. 3 dig. rev. (1 + ) [ ] 295— 816.... 4 7 3 -Year VI (6 tests x 2, or 4* tests x 3) 4 3 * i . Vocabulary (6+) [ ] .44*2. Differences (2+) [ ] a.-., b.... a... 4 5 3. Mut. pictures (4+) [ ] a.... b_... c..__ d_... e.... 4Cs>*4. Number concepts (4+) f ] a..._b....C—_d.—e_— .47.*5. Opp. analogies II (3+) [ ] a.... b..._ c... d.... 46 6. Maze (2+) [ ] a.... b.... c... A. Response to pictures (Level II, 2+) [ ] Year VIII (6 tests x 2, or 4* tests x 3) 5§; 1. Vocabulary (84-) [ ] 2. Wet Fall (54-) [ ] a.... b.___ c... d.... e.... f.... 5^*3. Verb, absurd. 1 (34-) [ ] a.... b.... C... d:... .SS"4. Sim. & dif. (3+) [ ] a.... b.... c— d.... 5.^*5. Comprehension IV (44-) [ ] 4 0 6. Days of week (order, 2 checks-!-) [ ] Tu.. . .Th.. . .F.. . A. Prob. sit. 1 (24-) [ ] a.... b.... c.... Yea r IX (6 tests x 2, or 4 * tests x 3) .&>.!. 1. Paper cutting (1 + ) [ ] a.... b.... _&2. 2. Verb, absurd. II (3+) [ ] a.... b„„ c . . . d—. e.... &3.*3. Designs 1 (1+or 2 with >/2 ea.) [ ] a.... b.... (cA.*A. Rhymes: new form (3+) [ ] a.... b—c.... d.... .65*5. Change (2+) [ ] 10-4.- 15-12—25-4— .£>.(?* 6. 4 dig. rev. (1 + ) [ ] 8526— 4937— 3629— A. Rhymes: old form (2+) 30 sec. [ ] a.... b — c . . . Year XII (6 tests x 2, or 4* tests x 3) .73-* 1. Vocabulary (15+) [ ] SQ*2. Verb.absurd.il (4+) [ ] & \ . 3. Pict.absurd.il ( ± ) [ ] &Z 4. 5 dig. rev. (1 + ) [ ] 81379— 69582.... 92518 &b.*5. Abstract words 1 (3+) [ ] J64*6. Minkuscompl. 1 (3+) 5 min. [ ] A. Designs II ( + ) [ ] Yea r X (6 tests x 2, or 4 * tests x 3) .CH* 1. Vocabulary (11 + ) [ ] 2. Block counting (8+) [ ] 03*3. Abstract words 1 (2+) [ ] a.... b — c . . . d.... .IQ 4. Finding reasons 1 (2+) [ ] a.... b—. -~IA.*5. Word naming (28 in 1 m i n . + ) [ j 12*6. 6dig. (1 + ) [ ] 473859.... 529746— 728394— A. Verb, absurd. Ill (2+) [ ] a.... b— a . . . Year XIII (6 tests x 2, or 4* tests x 3) S3.*\. Plan of search ( ± ) [ ] 6.<e>*2. Abstract words II (4+) [ ] S-1 3. Sent. mem. Ill (1 + ) [ ] a.... b— &&*4. Prob. fact. (2+) [ ] a.... b.... a . . . A3*5. Dissect, sent. (2+) 1 min. [ ] a.... b.... a . . . .^C? 6. Bead chain mem. (—) 2 min. [ ] A. Paper cutting (2+) [ ] Yea r XI (6 tests x 2, or 4 * tests x 3) .73-* 1. Designs l'(l>/2 + ) [ ] -14*2. Verb, absurd. IV (2+) [ ] a.... b—a... 75*3. Abstract words II (3+) [ ] a . - b— C— d— e.— ~J(a 4. Sent. mem. II (1 + ) [ ] a.... b.... 7-7. 5. Prob. sit. II ( ± ) [ ] n&*6. Simil.: 3 (3+) [ ] a.... b.... c . . . d— e.... A. Finding reasons II (2+) [ ] a.... b—. Year XIV (6 tests x 2, or 4* tests x 3) 31..*]. Vocabulary (17+) [ ] 3.1*2. Induction ( ± ) [ ] a.-b—c...d....e....f—Rule.... 9-3.*3. Reasoning 1 ( ± ) [ ] %4r*A. Ingenuity 1(1 + ) 3 min. [ ] a.... b.... c.... 3.5. 5. Direction 1 (3+) [ ] a.... b— c.... d— e.... 6. Recon. opp. (2+) [ ] a.... b.... c.... d.... e.... A. Ingenuity II (1 + ) 3 min. [ ] a.— 82 A v e r . A d u l t (8 tes ts x 2, o r 4 * tes ts x 4 ) 9.7.. *1. Vocabulary (20+) [ ,] fjg>.*2. Ingenuity I (2+) 3 min. [ ] <?.<!-*3. Diff. bet. abstract words (2+) [ ] a.... b.... a... iOO 4. Arith. reas. (2+) 1 min. [ ] a.... b__._ c... JO.1. 5. Proverbs I (2+) [ ] a.... b..._ c... iO.Z. 6. Direction II (4+) [ ] a.... b.... c... d.... e.... Jo3"7. Essen, diff. (24-) [ ] a.... b.... c... iO-A 8. Abstract words III (44-) [ ] a.... b c... d.... e.... A. Binet paper cutting (±) | ] S u p e r . A d u l t I (6 tes ts x 4 , o r 4 * tes ts x 6) IQSM. Vocabulary (23+) [ ] i o 4 2. Enclosed boxes (44-) [ ] a.... b.... a... d.... 4o1*3. Minkuscompl. II (2+) 5 min. [ ] 1Q&*4. 6 dig. rev. (1 + ) [ ] 471952.... 583694.... 752618.... l o R * 5 . Sent. bldg. (2+) [ ] a.... b_._. c... U O 6. Essen, simil. (34-) [ ] a.... b.._. c... A. Recon. opp. (44-) [ ] S u p e r . A d u l t II (6 tes ts x 5, o r 4 * tes ts x 7'A) AH-* 1 - Vocabulary (264-) [ ] {VL 2. Finding reasons III (2+) [ ] a.... b.... .U3-*3. Proverbs II (14-) [ ] a.... b.... _U4.*4. Ingenuity I (34-) 3 min. [ ] _U5.*5. Essen, diff. (3+) [ ] -Hie? 6. Passage I: Value of Life (±) [ ] A. Codes (14-or 2 with /2 ea.) 3 min. [ ] a.... b.... S u p e r . A d u l t III (6 tes ts x 6 , o r 4 * tes ts x 9) .1171*1. Vocabulary (304-) [ ] Ufc 2. Proverbs III (24-) [ ] a.... b.._. a... UR.*3. Opp. analogies IV (24-) [ ] a.... b.... a... i 2 0 4. Direction III (24-) [ ] a.... b.... 17LI.*5. Reasoning II 5 min. (±) [ ] .l^ 2*•6. Passage II: Tests (±) [ ] A. Opp. analogies V (24-) [ ] a.... b.... C... Appendix C2 Wechsler I n t e l l i g e n c e Scale f o r Children (WISC) 84 Test Items and Assigned Item Number . .. Wechsler. In t e l l i g e n c e . S.cale If or Children Assigned Item Number WISC Test Item 1 — 30 Information C l - 30) 31 - 44 Comprehension C l - 14) 45 - 60 Arithmetic (1 - 16) 61 - 76 S i m i l a r i t i e s C l _ 16) 77 - 116 Vocabulary C l _ 40) 117 - 136 Picture Completion (1 - 20) 137 - 147 Picture Arrangement (A - D, 148 - 157 Block Design CA - C, 1 - 7) 158 - 161 Object Assembly C l - 4) 162 - 206 Coding A 207 - 261 Coding B Appendix D Items C l a s s i f i e d In Each Category Stanford-Binet I n t e l l i g e n c e Scale Wechsler I n t e l l i g e n c e Scale f or Children 86 APPENDIX DI Stanford--Binet Test Item Number 1 Classified in Each Category Memory 2 11 12 16 26 28 35 45 46 54 56 60* 63 65 66* 70 72 73 76 82* 87 90 93 95 100 102 106' 108* 112 116 120 121 122 Cognition 3 4 5 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 19 20* 21 22 24 25 27 28 29 30 32 33* 34* 36* 37 38 39 41 42* 43 44* 45 47 48 50* 53 55 58* 61 67 68 69 70 75 77 78 79 83 84 85 86 88 91 92 94 95 97 98 99* 100 101 102 103* 104 105 107 109 110 111 112 113 114 115* 116 117 118 119* 120 122 Evaluation 4 16 21 22 24 29 30 31* 33 40 41 47 49 51 52 57 59 61 62 70 74 77 80* 81* 84 88 99 103 107 112 115 121 Divergent Production 27 32 44. 52 59 64 68 70* 71 94* 98* 101 109 112* 113 114* 118 119 Convergent Production 1 4 5 6 7 9 10 13 14 15* 17 18 20 23 25 27 28 32 37 38 40 44 46 51 52 53 58 59 65 68 70 78 84 89* 90 92 93 94 95 96 98 100 101 102 107 110 112 113 114 116 118 119 120 121 122 Figural 1 2 4* 9 13* 15' 16* 17 18 19* 20* 21* 23 26 28 29* 31 33* 37* 38* 40* 41* 42* 44 45 48 51* 61 63 66 68' 73 81 85 90* 95' 102' 106 120' Symbolic 11* 45 46 50 54 61 65* 66 71 72 82* 92* 93 94* 98' 100* 106 108* 114' 121' Semantic 3 5* 6. ..9 10* 12* 14* 20 22* 24* 25* 27' 28* 30* 31 32' 33 34* 35 36* 39 40 43 44' 46 47* 49 50 51 52' 53* 55 56* 57 58' 59' 60* 62 64 67 69 70@ 74* 75 76 77* 78* 79 80* 81 83 84' 86 87 88* 89* 91 93 94 96 97 98 99' 100 101' 103' 104 105 107' 109* 110* 111 112(3 113' 114 115' 116' 117 118' 119 # 112' 87 Units 5* 9* 10* 11 13 14* 15 16* 17 18 20 21 25* 26 28 29 33 37 39 41 43 45 54 55 56 63 66 67 69 70 71 72 73 75 79 82 83 86 91 97 99* 103 104 105 108 109 111 112 115 116 117 119* 122 Classes 3 8 21 22 23 29 33* 41 44 50 68 78 94 98 114 Relations 1 4 6 7 12 19* 22 27* 28 30 31 32* 38 46 47* 53* 56 60 61 64 70 74 77 80 84* 88 89 92 95 99 102 103 107* 109 112' 115 116 119* 120 121 122 Systems 2 4* 11 12 13 15* 27 31 32 35 36 40 42 49 51 57 60 62 65 66 74 76 80 81 82 87 89 90* 92 93 95* 100* 101 102* 106 108 113 116 118 120* 121 122 Transformations 20* 24 34 38 42 44 50 52 58 59 61 78 94* 96 98* 101 103 106 110* 113 114* 115 118 Implications 24 28 30 34 36 37 44* 45 46 48 52* 58* 59* 65 68* 70* 77 81 84 85 88 93 94 98 100 101 106 107 112* 113 114 118 121 *scored twice 'scored three times #scored four times @scored s i x times . . . i n c l u s i v e 88 APPENDIX D2 WISC Test Item Number C l a s s i f i e d i n Each Category Memory 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 13 14 15 16 17 21 23 24 25 26 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Cognition 11 12 18 23 27 28 30 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80. . .136 158* 159* 160* 161* Evaluation 4 6 19 31.. . 44 61 62 63 64 117 118... 161 162.. .206 207.. .261 Convergent Production 9 14 16 17 20 21 22 24 26 29 137... 157 162.. .206 207.. .261 F i g u r a l (H7... 136)* (148.. .157*) (158... 161) ' (162.. .261) Symbolic 7 10 21 45.. .60 76 (207... 261)* Semantic 1 2 3 4* 5 6 8 9* 11 12 13 14* 15 16* 17* 18 19 20 21 22 23* 24* 25 26* 27.. . 75 77.. .116 (137... 147)* Units 1 2 3 11 12 18 20 21 22 23 24* 25... 30 77.. .126 (162.. .206) *(207. 261)* Relations 4* 5 6 9* 13 14* 15 16* 17* 19 23 26 61 62 63 64 76 137... 147 (148... 157)* 158. . .161 Sys terns 7 8 10 21 45.. . 60 117... 161 Transformations 65,, , 75 158.. .161 Implications 31... 60 *scored twice 'scored three times #scored four times @scored s i x times . . . i n c l u s i v e 89 Appendix E Degree of Item Overlap Between Pairs of Categories 1 . Stanford-Binet I n t e l l i g e n c e Scale 2 . Wechsler I n t e l l i g e n c e Scale for Children Appendix E l Degree of Item Overlap Between Pairs of Stanford-Binet Categories When 'Modified Scoring' Was Applied Proportion of Items From Category: 10 11 12 Which Are Also i n Category: 100 33.33 33.33 42.42 36.36 39.39 39.39 51.52 39.39 63.64 3.03 27.27 13.92 100 25.32 17.72 29.11 10.13 73.42 49.37 36.71 22.78 24.05 31.65 12.62 54.55 100 30.30 36.36 6.06 75.76 30.30 54.55 33.33 18.18 36.36 24.45 69.09 18.18 100 36.36 14.55 69.09 30.91 41.82 38.18 27.27 40.00 30.77 58.97 28.21 51.28 100 10.26 97.44 46.15 25.64 38.46 15.38 23.08 65.00 40.00 10.00 45.00 20.00 100 35.00 40.00 20.00 50.00 30.00 50.00 15.66 71.08 30.12 45.78 10.84 8.43 100 38.55 37.35 28.92 21.69 28.92 32.08 73.58 18.87 32.08 33.96 15.09 60.38 100 20.75 15.09 5.66 9.43 31.71 70.73 46.34 56.10 24.39 9.76 75.61 26.83 100 36.59 9.76 24.39 50.00 42.86 26.19 52.38 35.71 23.81 59.52 19.05 35.71 100 11.90 23.81 4.35 82.61] 26.09 65.22 26.09 26.09 82.61 13.04 17.39 21.74 100 56.52 27.27 75.76 36.36 66.67 27.27 30.30 72.73 15.15 30.30 30.30 39.39 100 1. Memory 2. Cognition 3. Evaluation 4. Convergent Prod. 5. F i g u r a l 6. Symbolic 7. Semantic 8. Units 9. Relations 10. Systems 11. Transformations 12. Implications Appendix E2 Degree of Item Overlap Between Pairs of WISC Categories When 'Meeker Scoring' Was Applied Proportion of Items From Category: Which Are 1. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Also In Category: 100 16.50 .60 5.34 0 14.62 19.76 2.90 17.54 30.77 0 53.33 1. Memory 48.57 100 14.46 0 17.28 13.08 44.31 24.28 10.53 61.54 100 53.33 2. Cognition 2.86 23.30 100 92.37 48.77 42.31 19.16 43.48 56.14 69.23 26.67 46.67 3. Evaluation 17.14 0 72.89 100 33.95 43.08 112.57 38.41 45.61 32.31 0 0 4. Convergent Prod. 0 27.18 47.59 41.98 100 0 0 39.86 39.65 52.31 26.67 0 5. F i g u r a l 54.29 16.50 33.13 42.75 0 100 10.18 40.22 1.75 29.23 0 53.33 6. Symbolic 94.29 71.84 19.28 16.03 0 13.08 100 21.01 56.14 44.62 73.33 100 7. Semantic 22.86 65.05 72.29 78.95 67.90 85.38 34.73 100 3.51 32.31 0 0 8. Units 28.57 5.83 16.87 19.85 2.0.99 .77 19.16 .36 100 38.46 26.67 0 9. Relations 57.14 38.83 27.11 16.79 2>7.16 14.62 17.37 .36 19.30 100 26.67 53.33 10. Systems 0 14.56 2.41 0 2.47 0 6.59 0 7.02 6.15 100 0 11. Transformations 45.71 15.53 8.43 0 0 12.31 17.96 0 0 24.62 0 100 12. Implications Degree Of Item Overlap Between Pairs of WISC Categories When 'Modified Scoring' Was Applied Proportion of Items From Category: Which Are 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Also In Category: 100 17.17 .60 5.34 0 25.33 26.61 4.53 23.81 30.77 0 53.33 1. Memory 48.57 100 14.46 0 30.38 22.67 59.68 37.85 14.29 61.54 100 53.55 2. Cognition 2.86 24.24 100 92.37 100 73.33 25.81 67.80 76.19 69.23 26.67 46.67 3. Evaluation 17.14 0 72.89 100 69.62 74.67 16.94 58.89 61.90 32.31 0 0 4. Convergent Prod 0 24.24 47.59 41.98 100 0 0 36.72 33.33 52.31 26.67 0 5. F i g u r a l 54.29 17.17 33.13 42.75 0 100 13.71 31.64 2.38 29.23 0 53.33 6. Symbolic 94.29 74.75 19.28 16.03 0 22.67 100 32.30 64.29 44.62 73.33 100 7. Semantic 22.86 67.68 72.29 78.95 82.28 74.67 45.97 100 4.76 32.31 0 0 8. Units 28.57 6.06 16.87 19.85 30.38 1.33 21.77 .56 100 38.46 26.67 0 9. Relations 57014 40.40 27.11 16079 55.70 25033 23.39 .56 26.19 100 26.67 53.33 10. Systems 0 15.15 2.41 0 5.06 0 8.87 0 9.52 6.15 100 0 11. Transformations 45. 71 16.16 8.43 0 0 21.33 24.19 0 0 24.62 0 100 12. Implications 93 Appendix F Templates 1 . Stanford-Binet I n t e l l i g e n c e Scale 2 . Wechsler I n t e l l i g e n c e Scale f o r C h i l d r e n Appendix F l BINET (LM) T E M P L A T E FOR SOI ANALYSIS, Y E A R S II T O V Year II NFR MFS CMC CFS, EFS, NFR CMU.NMU NMR Alternate: CFU [1-6 NMR CMC CFU, NMU CMU, NMU MSS.MSU CMS, MMR Alternate: NFR, CFT P •• • O-Year III CFS, NFU CMU, NMU CFS, NFS, NFU EFU, MFU NFU NFU Alternate: MSU YearIII-6 CFR.EFR CFT, CFU, NMT CFC, EFU CMC, EMR NFC CMI, EMT Alternate: EFR O" -o Year IV CMU, NMU MFU CMR, NMR, DMS CMI, NMR, MFU CFC, EFU CMI, EMR Alternate: MMS Year IV-6 EMR, EFS CMR, NMR, DMS CFC, CMC, EFU CMI, CMT MMS CMI, CMS Alternate: CMI, NMR, MFU YearV CFU, NFI CFT, NFR CMU EIS.NFU CFC, EFU CFS. CFT Alternate: NFR, CFT BINET (LM) T E M P L A T E FOR SOI ANALYSIS, Y E A R S VI T O XI Year VI CMU CMT, DMI, CFI..NMC CFU, MSI MSI, NMR CMR, EMR CFI Alternate: EMR, CMC Year VII EMS CMT, CSC EFS, NFU EMT, DMI, NMI CMR, NMR MSU Alternate: MSU, MSS O O Year VIII CMU MMR, MMU EMS CMI, CMT, NMI EMT, NMI, DMI MMR.MMS Alternate: EMR, NMI Year IX CFT, ESR EMS MFU DMR NSS, MSI MFU, MSS Alternate: DMR Year X CMU CFI.NFI, DFC CMU MMR, CMI, EMR DMI, DMU, NMR DSU MSU Alternate: EMS, EMR Year XI MFU EMS, EMR CMU MMS CMI CMT, NMC Alternate: CMI, MMR, EMR, DMI 96 BINET (LMJ TEMPLATE FOR SOI ANALYSIS, YEARS XII TO SAIII Year XII. Average Adult CMU EMR, EMS CMU CSC, DMT, NSI. DST EFI, EMS CMU, EMU, CMR MSS, MSU 1 CMU CMS, MSI, NSS CMR, EMR, NMI CMI, NMT, DMS Alternate: MFU Year XIII CFI MFS, NFR, CFS •1-'" i -l--- '•'«• CMU MMS CMU EMR, CMT *".' . - . J ' W i . . . CMI, EMR r • a .-, 'jH • o • .•, ~-' - CMU o EH »3 NMS, NMR . • P .->• . O ,:v-Alternate: CFT MFS, NFS O Alternate: CFT Superior Adult I Year XIV CMU CMU MSS, MSI, M F T -CSS, NSR CMR; EMR, NMI MSS, NMI MSS, MSU CSC, DMT, NSI, DST r CMU, DMR MFS, NFR, CFS NMT CMT, NMT Alternate: Alternate: NMT CSC, DMT, NSI, DST Superior Adult II CMU MMR, CMI, EMR, DMI, DMU, NMR CMI, NMT, DMS CSC, DMT, NSI, DST  CMU, EMR, CMT MMR, CMS, NMU Alternate: CSR.CMR, NSR Superior Adult III CMU CMI, NMT, DMS CMR, CMU, NMR, DMU MFS, NFR, CFS NSS, MSI, ESR MMR, CMS, NMU Alternate: CMR, CMU, NMU, DMU 97 A p p e n d i x F2 WISC T E M P L A T E FOR V E R B A L TESTS, SUBTESTS 1, 2, 3 1. Information i 1. MMU n. CMU 21. MSS CMU 2. MMU 12. CMU 22. NMU 3. MMU 13. MMR | 23. MMR CMU 4. MMR EMR •) 14. MMR NMR 24. MMU NMU 5. MMR JJ 15. MMR fi 25. M M U j 6. EMR 16. MMR NMR '% 26. MMR NMU t 7. MSS •\ 17. MMR NMR 27. CMU 8. MMS 18. CMU S 28. CMU 9. MMR NMR - 19. EMR i' 29. NMU 10. MSS 20. NMU j . 30. CMU two factors such as 4,9,14, 16, 17,21,23,24,26. 2. Comprehension Note: credit is given for the ability (factor) involved for each item, not the quality. Tally total number of items correct rather than the value of each to get total of EMI factors. E M I . M M U MMR MSS MMS EMR NMR CMU NMU 3. Arithmetic Here each item involves both "factors. Total items correct each MSI CMS C U T ! -..CUT,-! WISC T E M P L A T E FOR V E R B A L TESTS, SUBTESTS 4, 5, DIGITS A N D M A Z E S 4. Similarities * EMR 5. CMT . 6. CMT 7. - CMT 8. CMT 9. CMT • H ~> 10. CMT ll'. CMT 12. CMT 13. CMT 14. CMT :J 15. CMT • 16. CSR r, -v Digits Forward Backward © .• O --P O MSS factor MSS factor CUT .OUT MSS Mazes Number of mazes correctly finished outof 5 CFI 5. Vocabulary words correctly defined CMU CSR CMT EMR 99 WISC TEMPLATE FOR VERBAL TESTS, SUBTESTS 6, 7, 8, 9, AND CODING. 6. Picture Completion CFU EFS ;'CTJT.1| 7. Picture Arrangement J % 1 j p- . . '.>'.'..: curour t Count the number correct, not tho F .MR value; two factors involved. N M S C U T O I J T ' " ' ' r *• * Count the number rnirrrr nnt thp R M R value; two factors involved. • • N M R 9. Object Assembly Tally the number correct out of the four tests with a value of 4 or more. » t r„< r C U T O U T ' t1 > < V ' > 1- /• / cm OUT Tally number of designs • outof 10 correctly done. CFR EFR CFS CFT EFR Coding "A," number correct NFU ' EFU Coding "B," number correct . NSU ESU Appendix G Meeker's D e f i n i t i o n s of Maj Dimensions and Categories 101 D e f i n i t i o n s Operations Major kinds of i n t e l l e c t u a l a c t i v i t i e s or processes; things the organism does with the raw materials of information, information being defined as 'that which the organism discriminates'. Cognition (C) Immediate discovery, awareness, rediscovery or recognition of information i n various forms, comprehension or understanding. Memory CM) Retention or storage with some degree of a v a i l -a b i l i t y of information i n the same form i t was committed to storage and i n response to the same cues i n connection with which i t was learned. Evaluation (E) Reaching decisions or making judgements concerning c r i t e r i o n s a t i s f a c t i o n (correctness, s u i t a b i l i t y , adequacy, d e s i r a b i l i t y , etc.) of information. Convergent Production (N) Generation of information from given information, where the emphasis i s upon achieving unique or conventionally accepted best outcomes. I t i s l i k e l y the given information (cue) f u l l y determines the response. Divergent Production (D) Generation of information from given information, where the emphasis i s upon v a r i e t y and q u a l i t y of output from the same source. L i k e l y to involve what has been c a l l e d t r a n s f e r . This operation i s most c l e a r l y involved i n aptitudes of c r e a t i v e p o t e n t i a l . Contents Broad classes or types of information discriminable by the organism. F i g u r a l (F) I f they are f i g u r a l , they may be shown as shapes, forms, or concrete objects etc., and most of them would be cognized or comprehended as v i s u a l . o r k i n e s t h e t i c forms to t o t a l i t i e s . Symbolic (S) If the stimulus material as cognized i n the form of a numeral or a.single l e t t e r , or a note of music or a code symbol. Semantic (M) Refers to words and ideas where an abstract meaning i s so associated i n the i n d i v i d u a l ' s r e p e r t o i r e of knowledge that i t s external referent c a l l s up the i n t e r n a l l y associated stored word. Behavioral (B) Behavior i f both manifestation of a response and a stimulus. 102 Products The organization that information takes i n the organism's processing of i t . Units (U) One f i g u r e or symbol, or a s i n g l e word or idea i s a unit. Figures f o r example, can be processed s i n g l y , i n which case i t i s a u n i t which i s being perceived. Classes (C) There i s a hierarchy i n f e r r e d i n the products dimension, for each subsumes the preceding one. For example classes f o l l o w u n i t s . I t i s supposed that before one can make c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s or perform a c l a s s i f y i n g task, one would have to perceive the units to be c l a s s i f i e d . Relations (R) The i n d i v i d u a l i s asked to process r e l a t i o n s or connections between words or ideas (semantics). Systerns (S) Systems can be composed of f i g u r e s , symbols or semantics. A system can be mathematical as i n arithmetic, or composed of numerals written as words where the subject must comprehend the idea of a sequence of arithmetic operations necessary for solutions. Transformations (T) I f a task requires that r e d e f i n i t i o n s or modifications of the e x i s t i n g information be made into other information, i t means that the person i s i n some way transforming the o r i g i n a l material. This kind of a b i l i t y may demand v i s u a l , auditory, abstract, or motor f l e x i b i l i t y . Implications (I) The a b i l i t y to forsee consequences involved i n f i g u r a l problems can be demonstrated v i s u a l l y , v o c a l l y , or by motor expression. 103 Appendix H Selected Scatter Plots of Residual Scores 1. Figural-Relations 2. Figural-Transformations 3. Figural-Systems 4 . Figural-Cognition 5. Figural-Convergent Production 10k Appendix HI Comparison of Subjects Less Than Eight Years And Eight Years And Older on F i g u r a l And Relations Residual Scores v k 8 12 16 20 2k 28 32 36 F i g u r a l (Raw Score Residuals) v l e s s than eight years of age. • e i g h t years and older. 105 Appendix H2 Comparison of Subjects Less Than Sight Years And E i g h t Years And Older on F i g u r a l And Transformations Residual Scores CO rH CO 3 -a •H 03 « U o o CO CO a o - P o ca § 2 t - i f • •. • • Ty • v v V —f- w -12 - 8 4 8 12 16 20 2 k F i g u r a l (Raw Store Residuals) 28 32 36 v l e s s than eight years of age. v eight years and older. A p p e n d i x H 3 106 C o m p a r i s o n o f S u b j e c t s L e s s T h a n E i g h t Y e a r s A n d E i g h t Y e a r s A n d O l d e r o n F i g u r a l A n d S y s t e m s R e s i d u a l s S c o r e s cu 3 T 3 • H CO (IJ O S cu u o o CO K a - p CO V • V V -16 -12 - 8 - 4 4 8 12 16 20 2k 28 F i g u r a l ( R a w S c o r e R e s i d u a l s ) v l e s s t h a n e i g h t y e a r s o f a g e . • e i g h t y e a r s a n d o l d e r . —1 32 107 Appendix Kh Comparison of Subjects Less Than Eight Years Arid Eight Years And Older on F i g u r a l And Cognition Residual Scores CO rH cd 3 -O •H ID CU K oj u o CJ CO > a a o o o T T • 8 -if k 8 12 16 20 F i g u r a l (Raw Score Residuals) 2**- 28 32 36 • l e s s than eight years of age. a eight years and older. 108 A p p e n d i x H5 C o m p a r i s o n o f S u b j e c t s L e s s T h a n S i g h t T e a r s A n d E i g h t Y e a r s A n d O l d e r o n F i g u r a l A n d C o n v e r g e n t P r o d u c t i o n R e s i d u a l S c o r e s c5 3 TJ •H CO CD « cu u o o CO 3 a o •H -P O P nrj O PL. •P d cu bo u <u > a o o - 6 - 4 - 2 2 4 6 8 F i g u r a l ( R a w S c o r e R e s i d u a l s ) 1 0 • l e s s t h a n e i g h t y e a r s o f a g e . a e i g h t y e a r s a n d o l d e r . 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0054531/manifest

Comment

Related Items