WAIS/WISC tapes or CDs for administration?

[Eternalstudent2]

Hi,

It's a bit of a long shot, but does anyone know if the test publisher offers official CDs or audio tapes of the WISC/WAIS that can be used for administration in lieu of the assessor reading the questions, particularly for the verbal subtests?

Thanks!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[erg923]

I dont think so. If for some reason one has lost their voice or has a speech problem, they are not going to be able to do the WAIS properly anyway, as one has to be able to initate queeries (on vocab) and provide general clarifications throughout the test (both to the patient and for themselves).

 

[Eternalstudent2]

I dont think so. If for some reason one has lost their voice or has a speech problem, they are not going to be able to do the WAIS properly anyway, as one has to be able to initate queeries (on vocab) and provide general clarifications throughout the test (both to the patient and for themselves).

In this case, articulation of a few specific sounds are the issue. General verbal communication is good and understandable and a vast majority of the items, queries, directions, and prompts can be adequately articulated, so it's not so much a global ability issue as it is specific to a few items.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

In this case, articulation of a few specific sounds are the issue. General verbal communication is good and understandable and a vast majority of the items, queries, directions, and prompts can be adequately articulated, so it's not so much a global ability issue as it is specific to a few items.

The best alternative I could come up with would be to have another person in the clinic record himself/herself reading the necessary questions (or perhaps all questions in that subtest to help keep things consistent). This of course would technically result in an unstandardized administration, and I have absolutely no idea if it would constitute some sort of copyright infringement.

 

[erg923]

Assessments are audiotaped, and often videotaped, in grad school/grad school training clinics as part of training. The students and supervisor are all bound to uphold test security (eg., not pass the tape around to their friends/family), so I dont think you would need to worry about copyright challenges from Pearson so long as one adhered to ethics code.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Assessments are audiotaped, and often videotaped, in grad school/grad school training clinics as part of training. The students and supervisor are all bound to uphold test security (eg., not pass the tape around to their friends/family), so I dont think you would need to worry about copyright challenges from Pearson so long as one adhered to ethics code.

I wouldn't think so, either. However, given that the recording would be for administration rather than supervision/training purposes, I don't know whether that would somehow invoke some arcane, deeply-buried infringement subclause.

 

[Eternalstudent2]

The best alternative I could come up with would be to have another person in the clinic record himself/herself reading the necessary questions (or perhaps all questions in that subtest to help keep things consistent). This of course would technically result in an unstandardized administration, and I have absolutely no idea if it would constitute some sort of copyright infringement

Therein lies the issue--how to accommodate so that validity can be maintained and competency met without violating standardization, hence why an "official," Pearson/PsychCorp-approved recording would be ideal, if unfortunately unlikely.

 

[erg923]

Unstandardized adminstration doesnt necessarily mean validity is compromised. When I see Parkinsons patients I hold the blocks in place once the patient places them so they arent accidentally knocked out of place (by their tremors) when they are trying to place the block that goes next to it. Unstandardized move? Yes. Compromise validity in this case? No.

I fail to see how having two different voices reading the same set of test instructions would, in and of itself, cause a threat to the integrity of the test results.

 

[PsyDetective]

If Pearson thought it could make money from a recording, it would already be on the market (with regularly updated editions). Such recordings (in different languages) do exist for other assessment measures, for example the MMPI, but these are standardized, non-queried items. The necessary interaction and adaptation required when administering the WAIS (and the like) is prohibitive. Therefore, the real question becomes how significant is the psychologists' impairment relative to the necessary and sufficient level of ability required to competently administer the measure?

If you know that you have significant language/articulation problems, you are best advised to seek consultation and refer the individual to another psychologist, if indicated. Per the APA Ethical Principals of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (2010):

Principle B: Fidelity and Responsibility "Psychologists consult with, refer to, or cooperate with other professionals and institutions to the extent needed to serve the best interests of those with whom they work."

2.06 Personal Problems and Conflicts (b) When psychologists become aware of personal problems that may interfere with their performing work-related duties adequately, they take appropriate measures, such as obtaining professional consultation or assistance, and determine whether they should limit, suspend, or terminate their work-related duties.

9.02 Use of Assessments (c) Psychologists use assessment methods that are appropriate to an individual's language preference and competence, unless the use of an alternative language is relevant to the assessment issues.

 

[O Gurl]

I'm with PsyDetective on this one. Why not refer to another psychologist or seek a psychometrist to administer?

 

[Eternalstudent2]

If Pearson thought it could make money from a recording, it would already be on the market (with regularly updated editions). Such recordings (in different languages) do exist for other assessment measures, for example the MMPI, but these are standardized, non-queried items. The necessary interaction and adaptation required when administering the WAIS (and the like) is prohibitive. Therefore, the real question becomes how significant is the psychologists' impairment relative to the necessary and sufficient level of ability required to competently administer the measure?

As mentioned above, the person in question can query and give the directions and most of the items--only a few specific items are problematic. Whether you would call this a global competence issue is, I guess, the crux of the question. Still, there are practicing psychologists out there who are deaf or blind, so I'd guess that there's some precedent for accommodations/modifications out there, but I don't know what that is.

I'm with PsyDetective on this one. Why not refer to another psychologist or seek a psychometrist to administer?

The person is question is a grad student and administering the WISC/WAIS is a program requirement.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

As mentioned above, the person in question can query and give the directions and most of the items--only a few specific items are problematic. Whether you would call this a global competence issue is, I guess, the crux of the question. Still, there are practicing psychologists out there who are deaf or blind, so I'd guess that there's some precedent for accommodations/modifications out there, but I don't know what that is.



The person is question is a grad student and administering the WISC/WAIS is a program requirement.

In our program, from what I've seen in the past, individuals who have difficulty administering certain items from assessment measures (usually due to having strong accents) simply have to "soldier on." The generally must either, through prolonged practice/rehearsal, be able to adequately administer the items themselves, or they must have another student perform the evaluation (or at least that portion of it as they observe to keep track of behavioral observations, problem solving strategies, etc.).