A Comparison of the SB5 and the CAS in Educational Psychology Practice

J. Berman, Ian Price
{"title":"A Comparison of the SB5 and the CAS in Educational Psychology Practice","authors":"J. Berman, Ian Price","doi":"10.1017/jgc.2012.18","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Two tests of intellectual ability were compared in terms of quantitative measures and professional utility in the context of 41 students who were referred for psychoeducational investigation of their learning. Full-scale, Composite, and Factor scores from The Stanford Binet Intelligence Scales — Fifth Edition (SB5) and the Das Naglieri Cognitive Assessment System (CAS) were compared and individual profiles were examined. The SB5 is the latest version of a traditional test referenced to the Cattell-Horn-Carroll factor model of intelligence, while the CAS was developed from an information processing theory of intelligence. Full-scale measures of intellectual ability were found to differ significantly, with the SB5 approximately 8 points higher than the CAS. Analysis of the profiles assisted in understanding specific learning abilities and guided interventions. The implications of this for the relative utility of the two instruments, their interchangeablity, the meaningful interpretation of results, and their complementary contribution to practice are discussed.","PeriodicalId":102318,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling","volume":"1999 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/jgc.2012.18","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Two tests of intellectual ability were compared in terms of quantitative measures and professional utility in the context of 41 students who were referred for psychoeducational investigation of their learning. Full-scale, Composite, and Factor scores from The Stanford Binet Intelligence Scales — Fifth Edition (SB5) and the Das Naglieri Cognitive Assessment System (CAS) were compared and individual profiles were examined. The SB5 is the latest version of a traditional test referenced to the Cattell-Horn-Carroll factor model of intelligence, while the CAS was developed from an information processing theory of intelligence. Full-scale measures of intellectual ability were found to differ significantly, with the SB5 approximately 8 points higher than the CAS. Analysis of the profiles assisted in understanding specific learning abilities and guided interventions. The implications of this for the relative utility of the two instruments, their interchangeablity, the meaningful interpretation of results, and their complementary contribution to practice are discussed.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
SB5与CAS在教育心理学实践中的比较
本文对41名接受学习心理教育调查的学生进行了两项智力测验的定量测量和专业效用比较。比较了斯坦福比奈智力量表第五版(SB5)和Das Naglieri认知评估系统(CAS)的全面、综合和因子得分,并检查了个人概况。SB5是参考卡特尔-霍恩-卡罗尔智力因素模型的传统测验的最新版本,而CAS是从智力的信息处理理论发展而来的。智力的全面测量被发现有显著差异,SB5比CAS大约高8分。对档案的分析有助于理解特定的学习能力和指导干预措施。讨论了这两种工具的相对效用,它们的互换性,结果的有意义的解释以及它们对实践的补充贡献的含义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Who Struggles Most in Making a Career Choice and Why? Findings from a Cross-Sectional Survey of Australian High-School Students. Ethical Practice in Applied Psychology Christopher Boyle and Nicholas Gamble (2014). South Melbourne: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780195523102 ADHD and Adaptability: The Roles of Cognitive, Behavioural, and Emotional Regulation JGC volume 24 issue 2 Cover and Back matter JGC volume 24 issue 2 Cover and Front matter
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1