WISC-R subtest differences for male and female LD children and youth
- 1 October 1980
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in Journal of Clinical Psychology
- Vol. 36 (4) , 953-957
- https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679(198010)36:4<953::aid-jclp2270360422>3.0.co;2-j
Abstract
Investigated the performance on the WISC-R of 98 learning disabled children and youth (69 males/29 females), who ranged in age from 6-3 to 13-6 to determine whether there were any significant subtest scale score differences between sexes. A 2 × 10 analysis of variance was used to analyzed these data. Differences between the individual subtest means were analyzed by using Newman Keuls test for simple effects. Results indicated that males obtained higher (but not significant) scores on the six verbal subtests. Females scored significantly higher on coding than did their counterparts. In addition, the Verbal vs. Performance IQ dichotomy did not appear as useful evidence in the diagnosis of learning disabilities. Evidence from the investigation did not indicate that a significant interaction effect existed between sexes and WISC-R subtest scores.This publication has 9 references indexed in Scilit:
- WISC-R Research: Implications for InterpretationSchool Psychology Review, 1979
- Sex differences on the WISC-R for retarded children and youthPsychology in the Schools, 1979
- Recategorized WISC-R Scores of Learning Disabled ChildrenJournal of Learning Disabilities, 1977
- Verbal-performance IQ discrepancies on the WISC-R.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1976
- Analysis of cognitive abilities for learning disabled childrenPsychology in the Schools, 1976
- The Word Explosion in Learning Disabilities: A Notation of Literature Trends 1962–1972Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1974
- programs, materials and techniquesJournal of Learning Disabilities, 1974
- Diagnosing Learning Disabilities and Writing Remedial PrescriptionsJournal of Learning Disabilities, 1968
- The Measurement and Appraisal of Adult Intelligence (4th ed.).Published by American Psychological Association (APA) ,1958