Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T17:30:12.771Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Identification of Intellectual Disability: Difficulties in Intelligence Testing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 October 2015

Alan Hudson  and
Roland Jauernig
Alan Hudson*
Affiliation:
Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology
Roland Jauernig
Affiliation:
Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology
*
Department of Psychology and Intellectual Disability Studies, Royal Melbouren Institute of Technology, BUNDOORA Vic. 3083, hudson@rmit.edu.au
Get access

Abstract

Educational and Developmental Psychologists are frequently required to assess a person for the presence or absence of an intellectual disability. The assessment is important as the availability of particular services is usually tied to a formal determination that an intellectual disability is present. A key element to deciding on the existence of an intellectual disability is the presence of a level of intelligence below a predetermined level. Although definitions of intellectual disability usually refer only to significant sub-average intellectual functioning, the actual cut-off score used to indicate this level of intellectual functioning has varied over time. Whatever that cut-off level is determined to be, there are technical difficulties that make assessment of intellectual functioning less than straightforward. These difficulties result from (a) standardized tests having different standard deviations, resulting in differing scores for cut-off levels based on standard deviation calculations, (b) different standardized tests giving different scores when administered to the same person, (c) less than perfect test reliability creating uncertainty about whether the measured intelligence corresponds with the actual intelligence of the individual being assessed, and (d) many people having impairments in sight, hearing, or motor function that make the standardized administration of tests impossible. It is recommended that educational psychologists be familiar with these issues so that they can make decisions that satisfy social justice objectives. Furthermore, it is argued that familiarity with these issues will help psychologists to defend their decisions when it is necessary.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Educational and Developmental Psychologist , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , May 1995 , pp. 1 - 7
Copyright
Copyright © Australian Psychological Society 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th edition). Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
Carvajal, H., Gerber, J., Hewes, P., & Weaver, K.A. (1987). Correlations between scores on Stanford Binet IV and Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale- Revised. Psychological Reports, 61 (1), 83–86.Google Scholar
Carvajal, H., Hardy, K., Smith, K.L., & Weaver, K.A. (1988). Relationships between scores on Stanford Binet IV and Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence. Psychology in the Schools, 25 (2), 129–131.Google Scholar
Carvajal, H., & Weyand, K. (1986). Relationships between scores on Stanford Binet IV and Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children & Revised. Psychological Reports, 59 (2, Pt 2), 963–966.Google Scholar
Carvajal, H.H., Parks, J.P., Bays, K.J., Logan, R.A., Lujano, C.I., Page, G.L., & Weaver, K.A. (1991). Relationships between scores on Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence – Revised and Stanford Binet IV. Psychological Reports, 69 (1), 23–26.Google Scholar
Frankenberger, W., & Fronzaglio, K. (1991). States’ definitions and procedures for identifying children with mental retardation: Comparison over nine years. Mental Retardation, 29 (6), 315–321.Google Scholar
Greene, A.C., Sapp, G.L., & Chissom, B. (1990). Validation of the Stanford Binet Intelligence Scale: Fourth Edition with exceptional Black male students. Psychology in the Schools, 27(1), 35–41.Google Scholar
Grossman, H. (Ed.). (1973). Classification in mental retardation. Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Deficiency.Google Scholar
Grossman, H. (Ed.). (1983). Classification in mental retardation. (3rd. rev. ed.). Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Deficiency.Google Scholar
Heber, R. (1961). Modifications in the manual on terminology and classification in mental retardation. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 65, 499–500.Google Scholar
Jenkinson, J. (1993, June). Changing concepts of disability: Implications for testing. Paper presented at the International Test Commission Conference on Test Use with Children and Youth: International Pathways to Progress, St. Hugh’s College, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
Little, S.G. (1992). The WISC-III: Everything old is new again. School Psychology Quarterly, 7(2), 136–142.Google Scholar
Luckasson, D., Coulter, E., Polloway, S., Reiss, R., Schalock, R., Snell, M., Spitalnik, D., & Stark, J. (1992). Mental retardation: Definition, classification, and systems of support (9th ed.). Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Retardation.Google Scholar
Lukens, J. (1990). Stanford-Binet, Fourth Edition and the WISC-R for children in the lower range of intelligence. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 70 (3, Pt 1), 819–822.Google Scholar
Macmillan, D., Gresham, F., & Siperstein, G. (1993). Conceptual and psychometric concerns about the 1992 AAMR definition of mental retardation. American Journal of Mental retardation, 98 (3), 325–335.Google Scholar
McCallum, R.S., & Karnes, F. (1987). Comparison of intelligence tests: Responses of gifted pupils to the Stanford Binet Intelligence Scale (4th edn), the British Ability Scales, and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children – Revised. School Psychology International, 8 (2–3), 133–139.Google Scholar
McCrowell, K.L., & Nagle, R.J. (1994). Comparability of the WPPSI-R and the S-B: IV among preschool children. Journal of Psycho educational Assessment, 12 (2), 126–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phelps, L. (1989). Comparison of scores for intellectually gifted students on the WISC-R and the Fourth Edition of the Stanford Binet. Psychology in the Schools, 26 (2), 125–129.Google Scholar
Phelps, L., Bell, M.C., & Scott, M.J. (1988). Correlations between the Stanford Binet: Fourth Edition and the WISC-R with a learning disabled population. Psychology in the Schools, 25 (4), 380–382.3.0.CO;2-Q>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prewett, P.N., & Matavich, M.A. (1994). A comparison of referred students performance on the WISC-III and the Stanford Binet Intelligence Scale – 4th Edition. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 12(1), 42–48.Google Scholar
Rothlisberg, B.A. (1987). Comparing the Stanford Binet, Fourth Edition to the WISC-R: A concurrent validity study. Journal of School Psychology, 25 (2), 193–196.Google Scholar
Sattler, J.S. (1992). Assessment of children (revised and updated 3rd. ed.). San Diego: Jerome M. Sattler.Google Scholar
Spruill, J. (1991). A comparison of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale & Revised with the Stanford Binet Intelligence Scale (4th Edition) for mentally retarded adults. Psychological Assessment, 3(1), 133–135.Google Scholar
Thorndike, R.L., Hagen, E.P., & Sattler, J.M. (1986). The Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale (4th ed.) technical manual. Chicago: Riverside Publishing Company.Google Scholar