Standardized test administration: Why bother?

Journal of Forensic Neuropsychology

Volumn 3, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 55-81

  Lee, Donghyung ^a   Reynolds, Cecil R ^a   Willson, Victor L ^a  

^a TEXAS A AND M UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Daubert; Standardization; Testimony

Indexed keywords

ANALYTICAL ERROR; COGNITION; COURT; DECISION MAKING; DISABILITY; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; EXPERT WITNESS; FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY; HUMAN; MEDICAL PRACTICE; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TEST; PSYCHOLOGIC TEST; RELIABILITY; REVIEW; SCORING SYSTEM; STANDARD; UNITED STATES; VALIDATION PROCESS;

EID: 0344444834     PISSN: 15211029     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1300/J151v03n03_04     Document Type: Review

References (87)

1. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
2. Arnett, J. A., & Labovitz, S. S. (1995). Effect of physical layout in performance of the Trail Making Test. Psychological Assessment, 7, 220-221.
3. Baddeley, A., & Lewis, V. (1984). When does rapid presentation enhance digit span? Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 22, 403-405.
4. Baldwin, R. S., Murfin, P. R., Ross, G., & Seidel, J. (1990). Effects of extending administration time on standardized reading achievement tests. Reading Research & Instruction, 29, 33-38.
5. Barncord, S. W., & Wanlass, R. L. (1999). Paper or plastic: Another ecological consideration in neuropsychological assessment. Applied Neuropsychology, 6, 121-122.
6. Beattie, S., Grise, P., & Algozzine, B. (1983). Effects of test modifications on the minimum competency performance of learning disabled students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 6, 75-77.
7. Beaumont, J. G. (1985). The effect of microcomputer presentation and response medium on digit span performance. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 22, 11-18.
8. Berger, S. G., Chibnall, J. T., & Gfeller, J. D. (1994). The Category Test: A comparison of computerized and standard versions. Assessment, 1, 255-258.
9. Berger, S. G., Chibnall, J. T., & Gfeller, J. D. (1997). Construct validity of the computerized version of the Category Test. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 53, 723-726.
10. Berry, D. T., & Carpenter, G. S. (1992). Effect of four different delay periods on recall of the Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure by older persons. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 6, 80-84.
11. Binder, L. M., & Johnson-Greene, D. (1995). Observer effects on neuropsychological performance: A case report. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 9, 74-78.
12. Braun, J. R., & Calandro, P. A. (1974). Effect of different instructions on consistency of personality inventory responses. Journal of Personality Assessment, 38, 459-461.
13. Brown, J.I., Bennett, J. M., & Hanna, G. (1981). Nelson-Denny Reading Test Forms E and F. Chicago: Riverside.
14. Burhenne, D. P., Kaschak, E., & Schwebel, A. I. (1973). The effect of altering the administration procedure on four WAIS subtests. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 33, 663-668.
15. Butcher, J. N., Dahlstrom, W. G., Graham, J. R., Tellegen, A., & Kaemmer, B. (1989). MMPI-2: Manual for Administration and Scoring. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
16. Butcher, J. N., Williams, C. L., Graham, J. R., Archer, R. P., Tellegen, A., Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Kaemmer, B. (1992). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-Adolescent (MMPI-A): Manual for Administration, Scoring, and Interpretation. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
17. Carlson, D. A. (2001). Computerized vs. written administration of the MMPI-A in clinical and non-clinical settings. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences & Engineering, 62(2-B), 1130.
18. Centra, J. A. (1986). Handicapped student performance on the Scholastic Aptitude Test. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19, 324-327.
19. Chavez, E. L., Schwartz, M. M., & Brandon, A. (1982). Effects of sex of subject and method of block presentation on the Tactual Performance Test. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50, 600-601.
20. Choca, J., & Morris, J. (1992). Administering the Category Test by computer: Equivalence of results. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 6, 9-15.
21. Derogatis, L. R., Lipman, R. S., & Rickels, K. (1974). The Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL): A self-report symptom inventory. Behavioral Science, 19, 1-15.
22. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993). 509 US S.Ct.
23. Derr-Minneci, T. F. (1990). A behavioral evaluation of curriculum-based assessment for reading: Tester, setting, and task demand effects on high-level vs. low-level readers. Dissertation Abstracts International, 51, 0105.
24. Dillon, R. F. (1981). Analogical reasoning under different methods of test administration. Applied Psychological Measurement, 5, 341-347.
25. Dixon, L., & Gill, B. (2002). Changes in the standards for admitting expert evidence in Federal civil cases since the Daubert decision. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 8, 251-308.
26. Dunn, G., Gaudia, L., Lowenherz, J., & Barnes, M. (1990). Effects of reversing digits forward and digits backward and strategy use on digit span performance. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 8, 22-33.
27. Edwards, A. L. (1966). Edwards Personality Inventory. Chicago: Science Research Association.
28. Elliott, S. N., & Braden, J. P. (2000). Educational Assessment and Accountability of All Students. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction.
29. Elliott, S. N., Kratochwill, T. R., & McKevitt, B. C. (2000). Experimental analysis of the effects of testing accommodations on the scores of students with and without disabilities. Journal of School Psychology, 39, 3-24.
30. Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1975). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. Hodder and Stoughton.
31. Finger, M. S., & Ones, D. S. (1999). Psychometric equivalence of the computer and booklet forms of the MMPI: A meta-analysis. Psychological Assessment, 11, 58-66.
32. Galbraith, G., Ott, J., & Johnson, C. M. (1986). The effects of token reinforcement on WISC-R performance of low-socioeconomic Hispanic second-graders. Behavioral Assessment, 8, 191-194.
33. Gaudette, M. D., & Smith, J. A. (1998). Process-oriented administration of the Picture Arrangement Test does not affect the quantitative outcome. Applied Neuropsychology, 5, 154-158.
34. Hagen, R. L., Durham, T., & Shannon, D. (1977). Administration of Digit Span in the Wechsler and Binet: Differences that matter. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 33, 480-482.
35. Halstead, W. C. (1947). Brain and Intelligence: A Quantitative Study of the Frontal Lobes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
36. Harker, J. K., & Feldt, L. (1993). A comparison of achievement test performance of nondisabled students under silent reading and reading plus listening modes of administration. Applied Measurement in Education, 6, 307-320.
37. Harris, G. S. (1992). Assessing problem-solving skills on selected questions from the Scholastic Aptitude Test. Dissertation Abstracts International, 53(6-B), 3203.
38. Heaton, R. K., Chelune, G. J., Talley, J. L., Kay, G. G., & Curtiss, G. (1993). Wisconsin Card Sorting Test Manual: Revised and Expanded. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
39. Hollenbeck, K. (2002). Determining when test alterations are valid accommodations or modification for large-scale assessment. In G. Tindal & T. M. Haladyna (Eds.), Large-Scale Assessment Program for All Students (pp. 395-425). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
40. Hollenbeck, K., Rozek-Tedesco, M., Tindal, G., & Glasgow, A. (2000). An exploratory study of student-paced versus teacher-paced accommodations for large-scale math tests. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15, 29-38.
41. Homan, S. P., Hall, B. W., & Topping, M. (1986). Does teacher oral reading of test items affect the performance of students of varying reading ability? Journal of Educational Research, 79, 363-365.
42. Joiner v. General Electric Corp. (1997). 522 US S. Ct.
43. Joncas, J., & Standing, L. (1998). How much do accurate instructions raise scores on a timed test? Perceptual and Motor Skills, 86, 1257-1258.
44. Jurich, J., & Holt, R. R. (1987). Effects of modified instructions on the Washington University Sentence Completion Test of Ego Development. Journal of Personality Assessment, 51, 186-193.
45. Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (1983). Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
46. Kehrer, C. A. (1999). The effects of a significant-other observer on neuropsychological test performance. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences & Engineering, 59 (9-B), 5167.
47. Kerr, A. S., & Meunier, C. P. (1981). Administration and socioeconomic level effects on auditory discrimination of elementary school children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 14, 591-593.
48. Kirk, S., McCarthy, J., & Kirk, W. (1968). Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
49. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael. (1999). 526 US S. Ct.
50. Levin, J., & Montag, I. (1988). The effect of testing instructions for handling social desirability on the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, 8, 163-167.
51. Lewis, R. F. (1995). Digit Vigilance Test. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
52. Loevinger, J., & Wessler, R. (1970). Measuring Ego Development: 1. Construction and Use of a Sentence Completion Test. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
53. Lundy, A. (1988). Instructional set and Thematic Apperception Test validity. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52, 309-320.
54. Martin, T. A., & Wilcox, K. L. (1989). HyperCard administration of a block-design task. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 21, 312-315.
55. McCaffrey, R. J., Fisher, J. M., Gold, B. A., & Lynch, J. K. (1996). Presence of third parties during neuropsychological evaluations: Who is evaluating whom? The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 10, 435-449.
56. McCarthy, D. (1972). Manual for the McCarthy Scales of Children's Abilities. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
57. Meyers, J. E., & Meyers, K. R. (1995). Rey Complex Figure Test and Recognition Trial. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
58. Mishra, S. P. (1983). Intelligence test scores as a function of variation in test administration procedure. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 39, 603-607.
59. Moum, T. (1998). Mode of administration and interview effects in self-reported symptoms of anxiety and depression. Social Indicators Research, 45, 279-318.
60. Murray, H. A. (1943). Thematic Apperception Test: Manual. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
61. National Academy of Neuropsychology (2000). Presence of third party observers during neuropsychological testing. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 15, 379-380.
62. Perry, W., Potterat, E. G., & Braff, D. L. (2001). Self-monitoring enhances Wisconsin Card Sorting Test performance in patients with schizophrenia: Performance is improved by simply asking patients to verbalize their sorting strategy. Journal of International Neuropsychological Society, 7, 344-352.
63. Pinsoneault, T. B. (1996). Equivalence of computer-assisted and paper-and-pencil administered versions of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2. Computers in Human Behavior, 12, 291-300.
64. Raven, J. C., Court, J. H., & Raven, J. (1985). Manual for Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices and Vocabulary Scales: General Overview. London, UK: H. K. Lewis & Co.
65. Reitan, R. M. (1992). Trail Making Test: Manual for Administration and Scoring. Tucson, AZ; Reitan Neuropsychology Laboratory.
66. Reitan, R. M., & Davison, L. A. (1974). Clinical Neuropsychology: Current Status and Applications. Washington, DC: Winston & Sons.
67. Ruffolo, J.S., Javorsky, D.J., Tremont, G, Westervelt, H.J.,& Stern, R.A. (2001). A comparison of administration procedures for the Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure: Flowcharts versus pen switching. Psychological Assessment, 13, 299-305.
68. Shum, D.H.K., Murray, R.A., & Eadie, K. (1997). Effect of speed of presentation on administration of the Logical Memory Subtest of the Wechsler Memory Scale-Revised. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 11, 188-191.
69. Slick, D., Hopp, G., Strauss, E., Fox, D., Pinch, D., & Stickgold, K. (1996). Effects of prior testing with the WAIS-R NI on subsequent retest with the WAIS-R. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 11, 123-130.
70. Smith, A. (1982). Symbol Digit Modalities Test-Revised Edition. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.
71. Stoneman, Z., & Gibson, S. (1978). Exceptional Children, Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services. 44, 166-169.
72. Stratta, P., Mancini, F., Mattei, P., Daneluzzo, E., Bustini, M., Cassachia, M., & Rosso, A. (1997). Remediation of Wisconsin Card Sorting Test performance in schizophrenia. Psychopathology, 30, 59-66.
73. Thompson, A. P, & Bulow, C. A. (1994). Administration error in presenting the WAIS-R blocks: Approximating the impact of scrambled presentations. Professional Psychology-Research and Practice, 25, 89-91.
74. Thurlow, M. L., Ysseldyke, J. E., & Silverstein, B. (1993). Testing Accommodations for Students with Disabilities: A Review of the Literature (Synthesis Report 4). Mineapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
75. Tindal, G., & Fuchs, L. (1999). A Summary of Research on Test Accommodations: What We Know So Far. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky, Mid-South Regional Resource Center.
76. Tindal, G., Hollenbeck, K., Heath, W., & Almond, P. (1997). The Effect of Using Computers as an Accomodation in a Statewide Writing Test (Technical Research Report). Eugene, OR: University of Oregon, Behavioral Research and Teaching.
77. Trenerry, M.R., Crosson, B., DeBoe, J., & Leber, W.R. (1990). Visual Search and Attention Test. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
78. Watson, C. G., Thomas, D., & Anderson, P.E.D. (1992). Do computer-administered Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventories underestimate booklet-based scores? Journal of Clinical Psychology, 48, 744-748.
79. Wechsler, D. (1958). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
80. Wechsler, D. (1974). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
81. Wechsler, D. (1981). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
82. Wechsler, D. (1987). Wechsler Memory Scale-Revised. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
83. Wechsler, D. (1997). Weschler Adult Intelligence Scale-III. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
84. Weinberg, W. A., McLean, A., Snider, R.L., & Rintelmann, J. W. (1989). Comparison of nominal recall (standard) and multiple-choice methods for administration of WISC-R Information subtest: A preliminary study indicating a learning effect of multiple-choice testing. Psychological Reports, 64, 659-665.
85. Wepman, J. (1958). Auditory Discrimination Test. Chicago, IL: Language Research Associates.
86. Wise, S. L., Duncan, A. L., & Plake, B. S. (1985). The effect of introducing third graders to the use of separate answer sheets on the ITBS. Journal of Educational Research, 78, 306-309.
87. Wise, S. L., Plake, B. S., Eastman, L. A., & Novak, C. D. (1987). Introduction and training of students to use separate answer sheets: Effects on standardized test scores. Psychology in the Schools, 24, 285-288.