• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

斯隆森智力测验与低龄学习障碍儿童:一项比较研究。

The Slosson Intelligence Test and young learning-disabled children: a comparative study.

作者信息

Jeffrey T B, Jeffrey L K, Yetter J G

出版信息

J Clin Psychol. 1984 Sep;40(5):1255-6. doi: 10.1002/1097-4679(198409)40:5<1255::aid-jclp2270400523>3.0.co;2-3.

DOI:10.1002/1097-4679(198409)40:5<1255::aid-jclp2270400523>3.0.co;2-3
PMID:6490924
Abstract

Evaluated 26 children independently diagnosed as learning disabled in a counterbalanced design with the deviation IQ form of the Slosson Intelligence Test and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised (WISC-R). Moderate to good correlations were obtained between the Slosson and the WISC-R Full Scale (r = .91), Verbal (r = .94) and Performance (r = .60) IQ scores. The Slosson correctly predicted functioning level to within 10 IQ points of WISC-R Full Scale scores for 88% of the Ss. These data suggest that the recent revision of the Slosson has corrected the tendency of earlier versions of this instrument to inflate the estimated IQs of young learning-disabled children.

摘要

采用平衡设计,使用斯洛森智力测验的离差智商形式和韦氏儿童智力量表修订版(WISC - R)对26名独立诊断为学习障碍的儿童进行评估。斯洛森测验与WISC - R全量表(r = 0.91)、言语量表(r = 0.94)和操作量表(r = 0.60)智商得分之间获得了中度到良好的相关性。对于88%的受测者,斯洛森测验正确预测的功能水平与WISC - R全量表得分的智商分数相差在10分以内。这些数据表明,斯洛森测验最近的修订已经纠正了该工具早期版本高估年轻学习障碍儿童估计智商的倾向。

相似文献

1
The Slosson Intelligence Test and young learning-disabled children: a comparative study.斯隆森智力测验与低龄学习障碍儿童:一项比较研究。
J Clin Psychol. 1984 Sep;40(5):1255-6. doi: 10.1002/1097-4679(198409)40:5<1255::aid-jclp2270400523>3.0.co;2-3.
2
A comparison between WISC-III and WISC-R scores for learning disabilities reevaluations.韦氏儿童智力量表第三版(WISC-III)与韦氏儿童智力量表修订版(WISC-R)在学习障碍重新评估中的分数比较。
J Learn Disabil. 1995 Apr;28(4):253-5. doi: 10.1177/002221949502800407.
3
Relationship of scores on PPVT-R and WISC-R with special education children and youth.皮博迪图片词汇测验修订版(PPVT-R)和韦氏儿童智力量表修订版(WISC-R)得分与特殊教育儿童及青少年的关系。
Percept Mot Skills. 1986 Apr;62(2):417-8. doi: 10.2466/pms.1986.62.2.417.
4
WISC-R stability and re-evaluation of learning-disabled students.
J Clin Psychol. 1989 Nov;45(6):941-4. doi: 10.1002/1097-4679(198911)45:6<941::aid-jclp2270450619>3.0.co;2-p.
5
Variations in WISC-R patterns of learning disabled children.学习障碍儿童韦氏儿童智力量表修订版(WISC-R)模式的差异。
Percept Mot Skills. 1984 Oct;59(2):415-21. doi: 10.2466/pms.1984.59.2.415.
6
IQ discrepancies between the Binet and WISC-R in children with developmental problems.发育问题儿童中比内智力量表和韦氏儿童智力量表修订版(WISC-R)之间的智商差异。
J Clin Psychol. 1983 Jul;39(4):600-3. doi: 10.1002/1097-4679(198307)39:4<600::aid-jclp2270390424>3.0.co;2-b.
7
The WISC-R as a predictor of Woodcock-Johnson achievement cluster scores for learning-disabled students.韦氏儿童智力量表修订版作为学习障碍学生伍德科克-约翰逊成就簇分数的预测指标。
J Clin Psychol. 1985 May;41(3):410-4. doi: 10.1002/1097-4679(198505)41:3<410::aid-jclp2270410318>3.0.co;2-k.
8
Differential performance of learning disabled and non-learning disabled children on the McCarthy scales, WISC-R, and WRAT.学习障碍儿童与非学习障碍儿童在麦卡锡儿童能力量表、韦氏儿童智力量表修订版和韦氏个别阅读测验中的表现差异。
J Clin Psychol. 1980 Oct;36(4):960-3. doi: 10.1002/1097-4679(198010)36:4<960::aid-jclp2270360424>3.0.co;2-l.
9
Prediction of Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised Full Scale IQ from the Quick Test of Intelligence and the Test of Nonverbal Intelligence for a referred sample of children and youth.从针对儿童和青少年的转介样本的快速智力测验和非言语智力测验预测韦氏儿童智力量表修订版全量表智商。
J Clin Psychol. 1988 Sep;44(5):793-4. doi: 10.1002/1097-4679(198809)44:5<793::aid-jclp2270440522>3.0.co;2-b.
10
A comparison of the performance of cognitively disabled children on the WISC-R and WISC-III.认知障碍儿童在韦氏儿童智力量表修订版(WISC-R)和韦氏儿童智力量表第三版(WISC-III)上表现的比较。
J Clin Psychol. 1995 Jan;51(1):89-94. doi: 10.1002/1097-4679(199501)51:1<89::aid-jclp2270510114>3.0.co;2-l.