Testing has become a normal part of student life and has been for many decades. In order to discover where students need to be placed in regards to their skill level it is important to realize which areas they excel in and which they still need help. To divide students into their necessary cohorts it is necessary to perform standard tests that are devised by well-respected and qualified individuals. More important than those in charge of designing and administering the test however is the fact that it must be valid and applicable to students.
In the article by Braden (1995), the test in question is the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Third Edition, or WISC-III. This test is considered much more accurate than its predecessor, the WISC-R, in that it takes into account a far wider student base and offers more well-defined limits for subtests. In a sense it is still the WISC-R, but with a definite and very much needed upgrade. It’s validity and usefulness still required checking however. As such the test was put under close scrutiny so as to ascertain its usefulness and accuracy. To date it has done quite well, boasting numbers that are quite impressive in its first few years.
The methodology used to validate this test was rather standard. It was put through
several paces and evaluated in terms of how it would seek to determine the level of a student’s
intelligence, and how effective it would be at forecasting where the students would fit in and be
most effective. To be certain that the test was not seriously flawed or in any way lacking the
proper material it was necessary to test its validity on several levels. Those particular tests were
conducted to measure the WASC-III by factorial, predictive, clinical, bias, and theory-expected measures in order to see how it was designed with regards to the student and their continuing development.
The WASC-III was found to have its strengths after the testing. For instance, it was
described as much easier to administer and far easier to score. There is little if any bias within the test, and it is not based upon outdated material that can otherwise hinder the learning of contemporary-age students. It also sets a very high standard among tests in that its validity was proven to be quite strong. It even allows a well-defined identification between aptitude and achievement.
Its weaknesses however are also well noted. The subtests are unreliable and likely worse than the WASC-R, and the test itself it is much more difficult to learn how to administer. The test provides an advantage, and many concerns in its first few years eventually became minor and easily solved. The more serious disputes such as restricting the test to meet the requirements of everyone and the very definition of what intelligence is still remain unresolved. Though it is unbiased and seeks only to quantify the effects of testing upon individuals, the WASC-III is, despite being an upgraded version of its predecessor, a work in progress. Should it find a means by which to incorporate real-world learning along with qualitative test results it would be sure to find a solid base as reliable and valid measure of intelligence.
Overall the WASC-III is a new and improved test, and will likely remain as a standard
among testing. While the methodology that was used to test its validity was sound enough, it
was not quite comprehensive enough in terms of defining intelligence. In order to test
intelligence a real-world test is far more effective, as the differences between students are better
observed and understood. Simply structuring a test off of recorded averages gives results, not the
reasons and causes for those results. To give a better representation of intelligence it is often necessary to witness it firsthand. In restructuring the test it might be better served to create a
real world example that might better study the validity and outcome of the test. A real world
application would likely give better results.
References
Braden, J.P. (1995). Review of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Third Edition. In
J.C. Conoley & J.C. Impara (Eds.). The Twelfth Mental Measurements Yearbook: 1098-1103.
