Abstract
Two replication studies were reported and costs were compared for automated WAIS testing versus face to face WAIS testing. Experiment I replicated the Elwood & Griffin (in press) study. Two sessions of automated WAIS testing indicated high test retest reliabilities for intelligence measures (VIQ 0.94, PIQ 0.95 and FSIQ 0.97), and moderately high rs for some non-IQ measures of WAIS responses. The study was interpreted as a successful replication of the Elwood & Griffin (in press) experiment. Experiment II was interpreted as a successful replication of the Coons & Peacock (1959) study. Two sessions of face to face WAIS testing resulted in these test retest rs: VIQ 0·98, PIQ 0·94 and FSIQ 0·97. An analysis of the salary levels and manhours required for testing indicated that for each dollar spent for face to face WAIS testing by a Phi) psychologist, the same testing could be performed by a BA level technician for $0·51 and that a technician and clerk typist working together could administer and score the automated WAIS for $0·42.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
