WAIS IV Questions

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
M

mikewarner

New Member
7+ Year Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Hi All,

I have a few questions regarding the latest Weschler adult test but the school kits have all been checked out of the library. Could somebody kindly provide information on the following:

1) Number of items in each subtest.

2) Are all subtests of equal value and if so, is that value determined by the number of raw marks available? Is it better to achieve a higher percentage of points on a subtest with more available raw marks, or does it make no difference to the final score?

3) Can a Stanine score be computed as opposed to the standard IQ scale?

Finally, does anyone have a copy of the block design test which they'd be willing to sell?

Many Thanks,

Mike
Members don't see this ad.
 
Just curious, what's the information for?

As for #2, depends on what you mean by "equal value." Equal to their contribution to what? For stanines, the manual does not give them, but I imagine there is a way to do it by hand.

As for selling you a copy, you need some credentials (i.e., license" for that, and anyone who sells it to you without verifying that could be subject to a ethics violation.
 
WisNeuro said:
Just curious, what's the information for?

As for #2, depends on what you mean by "equal value." Equal to their contribution to what? For stanines, the manual does not give them, but I imagine there is a way to do it by hand.

As for selling you a copy, you need some credentials (i.e., license" for that, and anyone who sells it to you without verifying that could be subject to a ethics violation.
Click to expand...

Hi WisNeuro,

At the moment, the information is for pure curiosity, although we will be covering WISC and WAIS in a few months and I guess it can't hurt to get a head start.

By equal value, I mean, do some subtests have a greater effect on the final IQ score?

Oh yes, I was aware that one needed a licence to buy a full kit. However, I only need the blocks - no manual or stimulus cards.

Mike
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Just my take--discussing the specifics of the scoring and composition of specific scales on a publicly-accessible forum, even one for professionals, probably isn't in the best interests of test security.

As for the stanine question, I'm not sure if the computer scoring and/or Advanced Clinical Solutions add-on is able to provide that, but it's likely something you could at least approximate by hand/conversion chart.
 
AcronymAllergy said:
Just my take--discussing the specifics of the scoring and composition of specific scales on a publicly-accessible forum, even one for professionals, probably isn't in the best interests of test security.

As for the stanine question, I'm not sure if the computer scoring and/or Advanced Clinical Solutions add-on is able to provide that, but it's likely something you could at least approximate by hand/conversion chart.
Click to expand...

AA is spot on about the test security concern, so discussing particulars of any assessment should be kept to the classroom/clinic/supervision time.

In regard to converting scores to stanines….it would be of very limited usefulness. Clinicians may vary in how they present and interpret their data, though it is much more common to see the data as %-tile ranks, standard scores, z-scores, etc. Any standardized conversion table can be used to eyeball one score to another.
 
I understand the need to keep test questions/answers secret, but surely knowing the number of items in each subtest would provide no advantage to examinees. I doubt subjects would even know what WAIS is, let alone take the time to investigate the workings of the scoring prior to their test.

M
 
Mt examinees wouldn't. I think what most psychologist's well-founded worries are in test security happen to be unscrupulous attorney's coaching litigation clients to malinger on tests. That's why we hold things so close to the vest.
 
If you are in a doctoral program, the fact that you would need to get this from an public internet forum is suspicious. If this is info is needed, then you should discuss privately with a your research advisor/mentor, or even a elder grad student.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
mikewarner said:
I understand the need to keep test questions/answers secret, but surely knowing the number of items in each subtest would provide no advantage to examinees.
Click to expand...

If someone is trying to scam the system for disability/workers comp/private settlement it can be relevant. If you really want to know this information, you should talk to your mentor, a professor, etc.

mikewarner said:
I doubt subjects would even know what WAIS is, let alone take the time to investigate the workings of the scoring prior to their test.
Click to expand...

There are less than ethical people out there who coach to evaluations (typically for personal injury cases), so it is a very real concern. I've evaluated pts who have memorized answers to screeners and many more who have tried to research various tests in an effort to be viewed as either more or less impaired (depending on the reason for assessment). I had someone last year tell another provider that I administered "the wrong assessments" bc they didn't recognize some/most of what was given; it was a case headed to litigation….
 
Yeah, this is something that our program's first year students learn pretty early in the fall semester. Assuming you're in a doctoral program, doesn't your program have any assigned textbooks about the WAIS-IV?
 
Psychometrically, I love stanines but I never use them, its a shame.

Otherwise, I agree that these questions should be directed within your program. You just need to wait for someone to return the checked out materials.
 
mikewarner said:
Hi All,

I have a few questions regarding the latest Weschler adult test but the school kits have all been checked out of the library. Could somebody kindly provide information on the following:

1) Number of items in each subtest.

2) Are all subtests of equal value and if so, is that value determined by the number of raw marks available? Is it better to achieve a higher percentage of points on a subtest with more available raw marks, or does it make no difference to the final score?

3) Can a Stanine score be computed as opposed to the standard IQ scale?

Finally, does anyone have a copy of the block design test which they'd be willing to sell?

Many Thanks,

Mike
Click to expand...
WHOOOAAAAA. BAD BAD BAD. I'm only my second semester into a master's program but I swear I hear "TEST INTEGRITY" in every class... adult assessment, child assessment, ethics, and my clinic (intelligence testing clinic). I literally can't go anywhere without anyone telling me not to make copies of score reports at Kinko's, don't leave the test kit in your car, etc. It's sort of a really big bad no-no to even think you can buy block design off of someone, your program should have drilled it into you that it's inappropriate to ask, and inappropriate to offer.

Also, how was EVERY WAIS checked out? Do you have a huge cohort? I'd suggest you mention to your professor immediately that there are not enough WAIS' available for students, maybe the school isn't aware of the scenario, and then definitely text a classmate to share theirs tomorrow so you can answer your questions.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
erg923 said:
If you are in a doctoral program, the fact that you would need to get this from an public internet forum is suspicious. If this is info is needed, then you should discuss privately with a your research advisor/mentor, or even a elder grad student.
Click to expand...

I'm not actually in a doctoral program. I'm studying psychology.
LPPSYD said:
I find it odd that you are asking to buy parts of the test.
Click to expand...

What's so odd about that? I'm not asking for the cards or manual - just the blocks. I could make them but why not spare myself the trouble and buy some instead?
modestmousktr said:
Also, how was EVERY WAIS checked out? Do you have a huge cohort? I'd suggest you mention to your professor immediately that there are not enough WAIS' available for students, maybe the school isn't aware of the scenario, and then definitely text a classmate to share theirs tomorrow so you can answer your questions.
Click to expand...

As far as I know, we only have like 4 kits and according to the library administrator, the psychiatry students are always checking them out. As I mentioned earlier in the post, we're not actually studying WAIS yet. This research is purely for my own academic curiosity and interest.
 
...Are you saying any student (i.e., undergraduate) could check out a testing kit at your school? If so, that sounds hugely problematic for test security. I recommend speaking with the person in charge of the test library or a clinical psychologist at your school. If they don't make changes, a call to Pearson may be in order.
 
Well I think they're fairly lax with their rules. I simply went in, showed them my student card (which mentions I study psych), and they told me I'd have to come back some other time but I probably wouldn't have much luck as med students get priority.

It's a small school so I don't think it occurs to them that people would check out the kits with malicious intent.
 
If you are not training to be a psychologist, then you dont need and are not privy to ANY of this information. What gives?

As we have stated, this is test security issue that is explicitly spelled out in out ethics code. http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx?item=12
 
Well, this aint the UK.

And no one here is going to give you protected test info that displays on a public forum, ya dig?
 
erg923 said:
Well, this aint the UK.

And no one here is going to give you protected test info that displays on a public forum, ya dig?
Click to expand...

Sure. I stopped expecting that a while ago.

Perhaps someone would be more willing to discuss this with me in a private message.
 
You are a stranger on a internet forum. Psychologist do not discuss test information with strangers on internet forum in private messages. You could be a work comp lawyer for all we know....
 
erg923 said:
You are a stranger on a internet forum. Psychologist do not discuss test information with strangers on internet forum in private messages. You could be a work comp lawyer for all we know....
Click to expand...

Yeah, I suppose so. It was a long shot. Thanks for your comments.
 
thewesternsky said:
...Are you saying any student (i.e., undergraduate) could check out a testing kit at your school? If so, that sounds hugely problematic for test security. I recommend speaking with the person in charge of the test library or a clinical psychologist at your school. If they don't make changes, a call to Pearson may be in order.
Click to expand...

This actually used to be the case (years and years ago, and certainly before I got there) at my grad school. When the psychologists found out about it, though, the practice was quickly terminated.
 
mikewarner said:
What's so odd about that? I'm not asking for the cards or manual - just the blocks. I could make them but why not spare myself the trouble and buy some instead?
Click to expand...

It indicates you are going to significant lengths. Not to throw out accusations, but why would someone illegally purchase parts of a protected psychological measure unless there was some secondary gain? You have to admit that sounds suspicious.
 
So what if s/he is a lawyer? The questions all seem to concern the test's construction (number of items, equal value of each subtest). The answers can be found in the "Essentials of..." series or the Sattler textbooks. Those sources are freely available through amazon.com or the publisher's website for anyone with a credit card. I've even seen some "Essentials of..." books on the shelf at Barnes and Noble. I can't say the same about trying to buy parts of the test kit or answers from the manual. Those things should be kept secure, but number of items in a subtest, how the scores are calculated are all available in books that are not kept secure. The writers of these books specifically exclude the test questions, primarily because they are copyrighted by the publishers. (And by the way, when they're no longer copyrighted like the Rorschach cards--they're free game).

Indeed, I would say that lawyers and the public should be more informed about reliability, validity, and test construction issues to better represent their clients and to make more informed choices about the value of psychological testing.
 
Jxz said:
So what if s/he is a lawyer? The questions all seem to concern the test's construction (number of items, equal value of each subtest). The answers can be found in the "Essentials of..." series or the Sattler textbooks. Those sources are freely available through amazon.com or the publisher's website for anyone with a credit card. I've even seen some "Essentials of..." books on the shelf at Barnes and Noble. I can't say the same about trying to buy parts of the test kit or answers from the manual. Those things should be kept secure, but number of items in a subtest, how the scores are calculated are all available in books that are not kept secure. The writers of these books specifically exclude the test questions, primarily because they are copyrighted by the publishers. (And by the way, when they're no longer copyrighted like the Rorschach cards--they're free game).

Indeed, I would say that lawyers and the public should be more informed about reliability, validity, and test construction issues to better represent their clients and to make more informed choices about the value of psychological testing.
Click to expand...

In your opinion, does this (the fact that the info is available from various sources that are publically acessable) then relieve the psychologist from Ethics code 9.11. If so, please explain your reasoning. Do you think this reasoning would be well recieved my members of a state licensing board?
 
Jxz said:
Indeed, I would say that lawyers and the public should be more informed about reliability, validity, and test construction issues to better represent their clients and to make more informed choices about the value of psychological testing.
Click to expand...

I know this will come off as snippy, but you obviously do not have much (if any) experience working with forensic assessment, as that is NOT how it works in the real world. Lawyers who work in this area are constantly looking to manipulate testing for the benefit of their client, whether they are on the plaintiff or defendant side.

If the OP is a legitimate student (who knows, as this is the internet), how they are going about trying to secure the requested information is highly questionable, so no one should be encouraging them. The ethics as a psychologist (or psychology trainee) are very clear....and his requests are NOT in line with them.
 
Absolutely, it would relieve you of anything under 9.11. That standard refers only to manuals, instruments, protocols, and test questions or stimuli. The answers to the questions we are talking about can be found in a source other than a manual, instrument, or protocol and they are not test questions or stimuli. They can be found in the chapter "How to Administer the WAIS-IV" in Essentials of WAIS-IV Assessment or comparable chapters in Assessment with the WAIS-IV by Sattler (I have the book but I'm not going to thumb through it right now).

The authors of the Essentials... book are psychologists, Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger & Alan Kaufman. Indeed Dr. Lichtenberger's biography on the back of her book says that she is a "licensed clinical psychologist." After she wrote this book, did someone send in a ethics complaint to APA or her state licensing board? Was it successful?

I would encourage the original poster to purchase these books on Amazon. He or she can do so without proving psychologist credentials at all. For $34.90 at the following address:

http://www.amazon.com/Essentials-WA...8-1&keywords=essentials+of+wais-iv+assessment
 
So, in your opionion, a psychologist who proactively provides this information to a nonpsychologist, is "making reasonable efforts to maintain the integrity and security of test materials and other assessment techniques"?

By the way, you can say yes to my rather rhetorical questions all you want, it doesn't really matter, cause its not up to you in the end. Its up to your peers at APA or a state licesning board. So, if you want to gamble with your license, feel free. But for most of us, our license is out livlihood and we are thus conservative with what may be seen by our peers as a "questionable" practice, behavior, or breach of ethics.

Putting the APA ethics code aside for a moment, one might weigh the potential benefits vs potential risk to you, your profession, and to the other person of providing a nonpsychologist with intimate details about test items or test construction. Who benefits from this transaction? You do not. They do not (unless they are tyring to use said knowledge to manipulate, educate, or coach others about the test....which is not within their perview to do) The profession does not. So, whats the point? Ya dig?
 
Last edited:
Jxz said:
Indeed, I would say that lawyers and the public should be more informed about reliability, validity, and test construction issues to better represent their clients and to make more informed choices about the value of psychological testing.
Click to expand...

I missed this the first time, but have to agree with T4C that this comment demonstrates that you probably haven't had much interaction with psychological testing within the legal system. Lawyers couldnt give 2 ****s about "reliability, validity, and test construction." Ya know why? Cause it ain't their job. Its ours. Lawyers are well aware of the mitigating role psychiatric illness or cognitive/intellectual disability can have on culpability/trial outcome. That's why they use us (both to help their cases and as consultants to refute other expert opinion). And thats why we are the ones the testify under oath about it, not them. Making known our services and what we can provide to them is fine. However, its not our job (and not in our interest) to play professor to them about the fine details.
 
Last edited:
Yes. A psychologist who proactively provides information about how the test works is making reasonable efforts to maintain the integrity and security of test materials and other assessment techniques. As long as you're not giving away the questions and the answers you're fine. I would point out that no one asks me for a copy of my license before I go to workshops on tests, the test publisher gives away a lot of this information themselves on the website, including audio/visual webinars.

There's nothing ethically questionable about it answering a question about how many items make up a particular subtest or whether each subtest is weighed equally in calculation of the Full Scale. I can't imagine hiding behind the Ethical code if I'm asked such questions by some patient or their attorney. I would look silly and insecure if I did that, I would answer the question fully or I would refer them to the book where they can find the answer as I did with the original poster.

I would instead interpret the reluctance to answer the question and the casting of aspersions on members of another profession (attorneys) as emblematic of the insecurity of psychologists with regards to their instruments. In order for attorneys to do their jobs and protect the public and the court from psychologists who don't know how tests work, they have to be well informed about how tests work themselves. So go ahead read the books ---that's why they're there.
 
Reasonable psychologists can disagree but, in my experience, most clinicians I know would NOT agree with your reasoning here. And that really is the point, isnt it? Doesn't really matter what YOU think or how YOU rationalize it. Only matters how other members of the profession, who hold authority over your practice, do. I would never advise any of my students or student trainees to gamble on such a thing where the "benefits," as you seem to have tried to weave into your response, are SO theoretical and frankly, minimal.

I am not sure what your experience level is, but I am struck by how naive you seem to be about how this psychometric information could concievably be used for coaching purposes. I agree the info its "out there" already, but becoming an active participant in facilitating it is quite obviously questionable practice. Again, no real "good" comes from this action. Nonmaleficence and Benevolence, right?
 
Last edited:
1) Number of items in each subtest.

Block Design = 14 items
Similarities = 18 items
Digit Span = 24 items, 8 in Digit Span Forward, 8 in Digit Span Backward, 8 in Digit Span Sequencing
Matrix Reasoning = 26 items
Vocabulary = 30 items
Arithmetic = 22 items
Symbol Search = 60 items
Visual Puzzles = 26 items
Information = 26 items
Coding = 135 items
Letter-Number Sequencing = 10 items, each with 3 trials
Figure Weights = 27 items
Comprehension = 18 items
Cancellation = 2 items
Picture Completion = 24 items
 
Way to fight the man!

Btw, no one really cared about the number of items per test. That's relatively public knowledge. They cared more about the fact that someone wanted stimuli, that's the no-no. The post also sounded suspiciously like a litigation lawyer was posting and no one wanted to do his homework for him.
 
Healthy skepticism is a cornerstone of doctoral training. While providing that one piece of the OPs 6 part question is harmless, the idea that this person simply wants to know some stuff for noble contributions to the field ( education, advocate, etc.) is shortsighted. Wanting to know about stanines? Yea, maybe that's fine too. But the post was weird and made no attempt to reference why the knowledge was needed or how it was to be used. Why would that NOT raise suspicion in a trained clinical scientist?

With all the info asked for, the person could conceivably prep a litigantfor exactly what to expect during the exam, how many items might be a good idea to flunk in each subtext in order to appear impaired, etc.
 
Last edited:
Jxz said:
1) Number of items in each subtest.

Block Design = 14 items
Similarities = 18 items
Digit Span = 24 items, 8 in Digit Span Forward, 8 in Digit Span Backward, 8 in Digit Span Sequencing
Matrix Reasoning = 26 items
Vocabulary = 30 items
Arithmetic = 22 items
Symbol Search = 60 items
Visual Puzzles = 26 items
Information = 26 items
Coding = 135 items
Letter-Number Sequencing = 10 items, each with 3 trials
Figure Weights = 27 items
Comprehension = 18 items
Cancellation = 2 items
Picture Completion = 24 items
Click to expand...

Seriously?? Are you going to sell the blocks to the OP as well? Ugh.
 
Hey, he's just trying to help a brother out, right? I'm sure this lawyer will use it to "educate himself about the value of our services..."
 
All this has me thinking about my favorite Paul Gleason quote:

Sergeant Al Powell: [about McClane] In fact, I think he's a cop. Maybe not LAPD, but he's definitely a badge.
Dwayne T. Robinson: How do you know that?
Sergeant Al Powell: A hunch, things he said. Like being able to spot a phony ID.
Dwayne T. Robinson: Jesus Christ, Powell, he could be a ****ing bartender for all we know!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Jxz said:
The answers can be found in the "Essentials of..." series or the Sattler textbooks. Those sources are freely available through amazon.com or the publisher's website for anyone with a credit card. I've even seen some "Essentials of..." books on the shelf at Barnes and Noble.
Click to expand...

In the healthcare system where I work, we are not permitted to correspond with patients via email. There are a few reasons for this. First, there is the fact that we don't monitor our work email accounts around the clock, and so we don't want to open ourselves up to liability if a patient sends urgent information via email and we're not able to respond in a timely manner. Second, there is the fact that we have no control over the security of the patient's individual email account, and so we have no way to be sure that the person we're emailing is actually the patient, and we don't want to jeopardize the patient's confidentiality.

I would guess that in many cases, I could safely correspond with a patient by email without issue. Some patients really would only use email for scheduling purposes, and wouldn't send sensitive or emergent information. Maybe those patients also use email accounts that are highly protected and at low risk for being hacked, and they're adamant about never allowing anyone else to access their username or password. However, since I can't be certain that a given patient will use email correspondence safely and responsibly, I am not permitted to give out my email address to any patient, ever.

In this case, the ethical issue isn't whether a patient can get hold of my email address. Any google-savvy patient can probably find it fairly easily. Even if they can't find my specific address, they can probably use publically-available data to figure it out, as our whole institution uses the same naming system for email accounts. I can't control that, and I can't prevent the patient from contacting me by email (though I can explain to them in person that I am not permitted to respond). The ethical issue is that there is no legitmate reason for me to be in contact with a patient by email, and so there is no legitimate reason for me to provide them with my address, even if I don't think that they will use it unwisely.

This analogy may be needlessly long-winded, but my understanding is that we do not release specific details about the WAIS to people who do not have a legitmate need for those details. Our responsibility is not lessened by the reality that they have the ability to get those details through other sources.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
To reinforce the awesomeness of Diehard and its humorous application to everyday happenings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

WisNeuro
WAIS-V
Replies
7
Views
932
Therapist4Chnge
T
SeniorPsychDoc
Psych Tests for Sale in Classified Section
Replies
6
Views
956
msc545
M
N
Marking verbal responses on wisc/wais
2
Replies
53
Views
3K
Mojito_15
Mojito_15
awishingstar
WAIS-IV interpretation question...
Replies
14
Views
5K
smalltownpsych
smalltownpsych
F
Waitlist vs. Adler Acceptance?
Replies
13
Views
2K
chicandtoughness
chicandtoughness
Top