Why wouldn't you buy a WPPSI?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:are the WPPSI tests effective at capturing actual "IQ"?

That's a subject open to lots of debate. I got interested in it a few months ago, and read about 5-6 academic studies of that question (and abstracts for about 10-15 more studies). After all that, my best sense is that WPPSI and similar tests are moderately accurate in predictions. At the low end, some studies suggest they're only about 25-40% reliable. But other studies suggest they're closer to 60-80% reliable (especially if you focus on the verbal scores rather than the performance scores). Most studies I read seem to fall in that (admittedly broad) range.

On one hand, this anything less than 50% seems pretty unreliable when you're thinking about a particular kid, because you might only have a 50/50 view of how the kid might score as she gets older. But on the other hand, it's pretty amazing that you can look at how a three-year-old scored on a test, and accurately predict about 50% of the time how she's going to score on a similar test 10 years later. That's especially amazing when you think of all the variation in environment/nurture that these kids will experience over the next 10 years.

If you're interested in this kind of stuff, the studies are pretty fascinating.

Interesting. I've read several very recent studies that indicate that they are way more accurate than what you are saying - particularly the vocabulary part, which is more accurate a predictor of academic success than the other part. I recall reading closer to 80 percent.

What exact studies are you referring to? Please reference them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:are the WPPSI tests effective at capturing actual "IQ"?

That's a subject open to lots of debate. I got interested in it a few months ago, and read about 5-6 academic studies of that question (and abstracts for about 10-15 more studies). After all that, my best sense is that WPPSI and similar tests are moderately accurate in predictions. At the low end, some studies suggest they're only about 25-40% reliable. But other studies suggest they're closer to 60-80% reliable (especially if you focus on the verbal scores rather than the performance scores). Most studies I read seem to fall in that (admittedly broad) range.

On one hand, this anything less than 50% seems pretty unreliable when you're thinking about a particular kid, because you might only have a 50/50 view of how the kid might score as she gets older. But on the other hand, it's pretty amazing that you can look at how a three-year-old scored on a test, and accurately predict about 50% of the time how she's going to score on a similar test 10 years later. That's especially amazing when you think of all the variation in environment/nurture that these kids will experience over the next 10 years.

If you're interested in this kind of stuff, the studies are pretty fascinating.

What do you think of the following recent study that found that the verbal portion of the WPPSI is an accurate predictor of academic success up to at least the end of third grade (when they ended the study)? Here is the abstract.



Predictive validity of the WPPSI-R: A four year follow-up study
Charles Kaplan *
University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, North Carolina
*Correspondence to Charles Kaplan, Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC 28223

ABSTRACT
Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence-Revised (WPPSI-R) scores obtained prior to enrollment in kindergarten are used to predict academic achievement scores on the Comprehensive Testing Program III at the end of grades 1, 2, and 3. Correlations between achievement and Verbal IQ are significant at all three grade levels, with measures of vocabulary, general knowledge, and verbal concept formation (Similarities) being the most consistent verbal predictors of academic achievement. Performance IQ is a poor predictor of academic achievement, with only 3 out of 16 correlations with achievement reaching significance. The Full Scale IQ's correlations with achievement appear to be due to the contributions of the verbal scale. Results are discussed in terms of their generalizability for this middle- and upper-middle-class sample engaged in a demanding academically-oriented curriculum.
Received: 3 January 1996; Revised: 28 February 1996; Accepted: 30 May 1996
DIGITAL OBJECT IDENTIFIER (DOI)

10.1002/(SICI)1520-6807(199607)33:3<211::AID-PITS4>3.0.CO;2-S About DOI

[Anonymous]

The Kaplan article is from 1996, not exactly recent, but it was a peer-reviewed article.

[Anonymous]

15:41 here. I think I did see that Kaplan artcile, or at least I remember one from NC with similar results (and I assume there can't be many that meet those two criteria). Anyway, I count that within the portion that say there is high reliability if focused on verbal scores. Like I said, there are many articles that suggest a high correlation, but there also are several that suggest a low correlation. IMO, it's hard to decide which are most applicable because many of them focus on different populations, over different time frames, and examine other elements that might not (or might) be applicable to certain kids.

I don't have links to any articles here, but I think I saved some in a file at work. I can post them next week. As I recall, effective search terms were "WPPSI predict scores correlation."

[Anonymous]

Is there a difference between WPPSI-R and WPPSI-III?

[Anonymous]

I actually have some statistics training, which is why I raised the point about the 50% figure.

Anywho I have another question about other factors that may be at play here, specifically socio-economic background and parents' education. I wonder if the study controlled for socio-economic background (I'll look forward to the article links).

Specifically, a kid with high verbal ability is likely to have more highly educated parents. Not sure how "verbal ability" is measured, but if part of it is the size of the kid's vocabulary, then this is certainly related to socio-economic background. Also, probably the ability to parse sentences is at least somewhat related to how much the parents talk to the kid, at least for 3- and 4-year-olds, who aren't being asked to analyze Shakespeare after all. If the studies don't control for family socio-economic status and parental education, then this would be a problem because these things tend to contribute to scholastic success in so many ways through a kid's school years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I actually have some statistics training, which is why I raised the point about the 50% figure.

Anywho I have another question about other factors that may be at play here, specifically socio-economic background and parents' education. I wonder if the study controlled for socio-economic background (I'll look forward to the article links).

Specifically, a kid with high verbal ability is likely to have more highly educated parents. Not sure how "verbal ability" is measured, but if part of it is the size of the kid's vocabulary, then this is certainly related to socio-economic background. Also, probably the ability to parse sentences is at least somewhat related to how much the parents talk to the kid, at least for 3- and 4-year-olds, who aren't being asked to analyze Shakespeare after all. If the studies don't control for family socio-economic status and parental education, then this would be a problem because these things tend to contribute to scholastic success in so many ways through a kid's school years.

I believe that all the studies are adjusted for socio-economic factors.

[Anonymous]

What 13:19 said. It's cheating. I'm competitive, but I don't cheat. Ever. That would take the fun out of doing well. I expect my kids to do the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anywho I have another question about other factors that may be at play here, specifically socio-economic background and parents' education. I wonder if the study controlled for socio-economic background (I'll look forward to the article links).

15:41 again. As I recall, some of the studies do look at SES issues. But often that's the focus of the study. For example, a study might look at whether WPPSI is a good predictor or not for low-SES kids. Or a study might look at whether WPPSI is a good predictor or not for extremely low scores (and control for SES). I don't recall reading any studies specifically focused on whether WPPSI is a good predictor for high-SES kids.

[Anonymous]

Here are a few articles/studies that are generally on-topic:
http://www2.udec.cl/~erhetz/privada/Tecnicas/Intelligence_testing.pdf
http://www.public.asu.edu/~mwwatkin/Papers/FSIQvariability%282007%29.pdf
http://eiu.edu/~cfglc/Adobe%20pdf/Publications-Papers/Freberg%20et%20al%20%282008%29%20AN.pdf
http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/theses/available/etd-03122008-104332/unrestricted/etd.pdf
http://faculty.education.uiowa.edu/dlohman/pdf/Gifted_Today.pdf
http://faculty.education.uiowa.edu/dlohman/pdf/Understanding_and_predicting_regression.pdf
http://uir.unisa.ac.za/dspace/bitstream/10500/531/1/dissertation.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is there a difference between WPPSI-R and WPPSI-III?

Yes. WPPSRI-III is the most recent version of the test. There are some significant differences between the two versions. Only the WPPSI-III is administered now.

[Anonymous]

What does a super high score on the performance section (ie, not reaching ceilings on all sub-parts) indicate about the way a child learns / does it have predictive value? for example, does it indicate that they will have an easier time in math, etc? similarly, does a low spatial or performance score indicate some subjects will be harder?

[Anonymous]

I'm curious to know - is there anybody wiling to 'fess up that they "prepped" their kid (in a major sense) and ended up with a 99%? These threads keep suggesting that this is common practice, but I really can't see how you could take an 80% kid and turn them into a 99% kid. Am I missing something?

Try a good night sleep and a full belly the morning of to do wonders for a poor past performance.

[Anonymous]

I am stunned by what I'm not seeing in this post. One word ETHICS. I never cheated in my life, not because i was afraid of getting caught, but because it is WRONG!!!!!

If my child scored a 70 percentile on the WPSSI. And I traced the mechanism to a deficit in exposure....

I would try a remediate this performance by working with him in the areas of reading, writing, arithematic, puzzles, fine and gross motor skills, and critical problem solving exercises. I would "actively" engage in these activities, particularly if we had not exposed the child to these activities and the child was at home as opposed to pre schools like many of the posters.

I would be cheating my child and an unethical parent if I did not start remediation in my 4 year old.

Teaching and mentoring a child is the least I can do as a parent. Screw the WPPSI. This is the approach for my child's future. This will prepare the child for the WPSSI, the ERB, the SSAT, the ISEE, the SAT, the ACT, the GRE or any academic exam in future. This approach is not cheating. It is not unethical. It is not immoral. Those who think so are inane, foolish and plain stupid.

I would encourage all parents to prepare and intellectually nurture their children in the 21 st century context.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I am stunned by what I'm not seeing in this post. One word ETHICS. I never cheated in my life, not because i was afraid of getting caught, but because it is WRONG!!!!!

If my child scored a 70 percentile on the WPSSI. And I traced the mechanism to a deficit in exposure....

I would try a remediate this performance by working with him in the areas of reading, writing, arithematic, puzzles, fine and gross motor skills, and critical problem solving exercises. I would "actively" engage in these activities, particularly if we had not exposed the child to these activities and the child was at home as opposed to pre schools like many of the posters.

I would be cheating my child and an unethical parent if I did not start remediation in my 4 year old.

Teaching and mentoring a child is the least I can do as a parent. Screw the WPPSI. This is the approach for my child's future. This will prepare the child for the WPSSI, the ERB, the SSAT, the ISEE, the SAT, the ACT, the GRE or any academic exam in future. This approach is not cheating. It is not unethical. It is not immoral. Those who think so are inane, foolish and plain stupid.

I would encourage all parents to prepare and intellectually nurture their children in the 21 st century context.

Yes, yes, yes! Best to deal with any deficit(s) early than to try and prep when problems become glaringly clear in 5th grade.