This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Watkins, M. W. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Watkins, M. W. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Diagnostic Utility of the WISC-III Developmental Index as a Predictor of Learning Disabilities

Marley W. Watkins, PhD, received his doctorate in school psychology from the University of Nebraska–Lincoln. He is a diplomate in school psychology of the American Board of Professional Psychology and an associate professor of education (school psychology) at Pennsylvania State University. Address: Marley W. Watkins, Department of Educational and School Psychology and Special Education, Pennsylvania State University, 227 CEDAR Building, University Park, PA 16802.

Wechsler's Deterioration Index (WDI) was developed as an indicator of cognitive impairment in adults but has been applied to children, because neuropsychological deficits have often been hypothesized to account for learning difficulties during the development period. Renamed the Wechsler Developmental Index, this measure has been used to discriminate among groups of children with and without learning disabilities. The present study replicated those findings with the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children--Third Edition, but also applied more appropriate diagnostic efficiency statistics to analyze the actual diagnostic utility of the WDI. These analyses revealed that the WDI performed at chance levels when distinguishing 611 students diagnosed with learning disabilities from those diagnosed with emotional disabled (n = 80) or mental retardation (n = 33), as well as from 2,200 simulated random nondisabled cases. It was concluded that mean group differences were not adequate and that ipsative indicators must be definitively validated in experimental environments before they can be applied in practice.

Journal of Learning Disabilities, Vol. 29, No. 3, 305-312 (1996)
DOI: 10.1177/002221949602900309


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. J. Glutting, M. W. Watkins, T. R. Konold, and P. A. McDermott Distinctions Without a Difference: The Utility of Observed Versus Latent Factors From the WISC-IV in Estimating Reading and Math Achievement on the WIAT-II Journal of Special Education, August 1, 2006; 40(2): 103 - 114. [Abstract] [PDF]

				G. D. Sideridis, P. L. Morgan, G. Botsas, S. Padeliadu, and D. Fuchs Predicting LD on the Basis of Motivation, Metacognition, and Psychopathology: An ROC Analysis J Learn Disabil, June 1, 2006; 39(3): 215 - 229. [Abstract] [PDF]

				P. A. McDermott, M. M. Goldberg, M. W. Watkins, J. L. Stanley, and J. J. Glutting A Nationwide Epidemiologic Modeling Study of LD: Risk, Protection, and Unintended Impact J Learn Disabil, June 1, 2006; 39(3): 230 - 251. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. W. Watkins, J. C. Kush, and B. A. Schaefer Diagnostic Utility of the Learning Disability Index J Learn Disabil, March 1, 2002; 35(2): 98 - 103. [Abstract] [PDF]