K-ABC and Controversy
- 1 October 1984
- journal article
- Published by SAGE Publications in The Journal of Special Education
- Vol. 18 (3) , 409-444
- https://doi.org/10.1177/002246698401800317
Abstract
This article represents an integrated response to the 13 invited articles on the K-ABC, all of which were written by experts in diverse domains of research, theory, and applications of intelligence tests; altogether, this invited response and the 13 papers constitute a special issue of the Journal of Special Education devoted to the K-ABC. This paper is organized by topic and treats the following seven areas: validity of the K-ABC, theory underlying the intelligence portion of the battery, role of the clinician in intellectual assessment, distinction between ability and achievement in the K-ABC, evaluation of alternate models, remedial applications of the sequential-simultaneous processing dichotomy, and understanding black-white differences on the K-ABC.Keywords
This publication has 17 references indexed in Scilit:
- Cognitive Profile of Children Referred to a Clinic for Reading DisabilitiesJournal of Learning Disabilities, 1984
- Some Questions and Answers About the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (K-Abc)Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 1983
- Planning as a Factor in the Assessment of Cognitive ProcessesJournal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 1983
- Race, social class and ability patterns on the WISC-RPersonality and Individual Differences, 1982
- Simultaneous and successive synthesis: An alternative model for cognitive abilities.Psychological Bulletin, 1975
- Hemispheric lateralization of singing after intracarotid sodium amylobarbitoneJournal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, 1974
- Hemispheric differences in serial versus parallel processing.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1973
- Hemispheric differences in a letter classification taskPerception & Psychophysics, 1972
- Parallel and serial stages in matching.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1970
- Recommendations for APA test standards regarding construct, trait, or discriminant validity.American Psychologist, 1960