The administration of individual intelligence tests has, until recently (Elwood, 1969, 1973), been almost exclusively handled in a one-to-one face situation, as Overton & Scott (1972) have pointed out. While there is much to be said for one-to-one face administration of many tests, it is also of importance that the examiner be free to observe the patient's behavior as he is being tested, a major advantage of computerized testing. A second advantage of automated testing is the increased speed with which a battery can be administered and scored via computers. As Elwood (1972) has noted, reduced costs for automated testing is a third advantage and an important reason to encourage further development and perfection of automated procedures. The present study is an exploration of the similarities and differences between the automated PPVT—form B (Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test) and the manually administered version of the same form. The PPVT is most adaptable to computerization because of its totally visual nature and the lack of necessity for the examiner to affectively and intensively interact with the subject. Further, the PPVT is a widely used instrument with demonstrated reliability (Dunn, 1965). It has been the hope of the current study that the results would support the notion that future tests be designed which could be adaptable for automated presentation.
[1]
D. L. Elwood.
Automated WAIS testing correlated with face-to-face WAIS testing: A validity study
,
1972
.
[2]
Knights Rm,et al.
Automated vs. clinical administration of the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test and the Coloured Progressive Matrices.
,
1973
.
[3]
Scott Kg,et al.
Automated and manual intelligence testing: data on parallel forms of the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test.
,
1972
.
[4]
David L. Elwood,et al.
Automation of psychological testing.
,
1969
.
[5]
David L. Elwood,et al.
Individual Intelligence Testing Without the Examiner: Reliability of an Automated Method.
,
1972
.
[6]
J. L. Gedye,et al.
The automation of psychological assessment
,
1969
.