THE EFFECTIVENESS OF FOUR READINESS TESTS 11

readiness tests, letter knowledge is the most predictive of actual first grade achieve- ment, and that teacher predictions are quite efficient and can complement formal tests.

Windsor Separate School Board 1485 Janette Ave. Windsor, Ontario, N8X 122 Canada

REFERENCES AHR, E. A. Screening test of academic readiness. Skokie, Ill. : Priority Innovations, 1966. BOLIG, J. R. and FLETCHER, G. 0. The MRT vs. ratings of kindergarten teachers as predictors of

GRAY, W. S. Gray Oral Reading Test. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1963. HILDRRTH, G. H., GRIFFITHS, K. L., and MCGAUVRAN, M. R. Metropolitan Readiness Test (Form

JAsTAK, J. F., BIJOU, S. W., and JASTAK, S. R. Wide Range Achievement Test. Delaware: Guidance

PATE, J. E., and WEBB, W. W. First Grade Screenirig Test. Circle Pines, Minn.: American Guidance

SILBERBERG, M., IVERSKN, I., and SILBERBERG, M. The predictive efficiency of the Gates Reading

SILBERBERG, N., SILBERBERG, M., and IVERSON, I. The effects of kindergarten instruction in alpha-

TELEGDY, G. A. A factor analysis of four school readiness tests. Psychology in the Schools, 1974,

success in first grade. Educational Leadership, 1973, SO, 637-639.

A . ) . New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1965.

Associates, revised edition, 1965.

Service, 1966.

Readiness Tests. Elementary School Journal, 1968, 68, 213-218.

bet and numbers on first grade reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1972, 5, 254-261.

9. 127-133. (a). . , TELEQDY, G. A. The relationship between socioeconomic status and school readiness. Psychology

in the Schools, 1974, 11, 351-356. (b).

AN EVALUATION OF THE PEABODY INDIVIDUAL ACHIEVEMENT TEST WITH PRIMARY AGE RETARDED CHILDREN

EDWARD BURNS

Ohio University

Individually administered wide range achievement instruments can provide a practical and efficient means for determining the academic progress of retarded persons. Though one cannot ignore the superficiality which characterizes such tests, their use with retarded individuals can often be justified as an initial step in assessing the extent of academic achievement.

A recent contribution to this area of testing, in addition to the much used Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT) (Jastak and Jastak, 1965), is the Peabody Individual Achievement Test (PI AT) (Dunn and Markwardt, 1970). Several investigators, (Burns, Peterson and Bauer, 1974; Sitlington, 1965; Soethe, 1972; Wetter and French, 1973; Yssledyke, Sabatino and Lamanna, 1973) have found satisfactory correlations between PIAT subtests and their WRAT counterparts. Yssledyke, Sabatino and Lamanna (1973) reported that at least two PIAT sub- tests, Mathematics and Reading Recognition, exhibit adequate convergent and discriminant validity.

12 EDWARD BURNS

The purpose of the present study was to further clarify the validity of the PIAT when used with primary age children classified as educable mentally re- tarded (EMR).

METHOD Subjects

Fifty-five children (34 males, 21 females) were randomly selected from nine EMR classes in southeastern Ohio. 8s’ ages ranged between 8.0 years and 12.0 years (M = 10.2, SD = 1.2). The mean I&, as determined from the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT) (Dunn, 1965), was 72.4 (SD = 10.3).

Procedure All children were administered the PIAT, WRAT, and the PPVT within a

12 week period by trained graduate students. The PPVT was included so as to assess the validity of PIAT General Information. All data reported in the present paper are in terms of raw scores.

RESULTS Table 1 presents the partial correlations (with CA held constant), means,

standard deviations, and zero-order correlations with CA of PIAT, WRAT, and PPVT raw scores. With respect to PIAT Reading Comprehension (M = 23.4, SD = 6.7), the correlations are approximately of the same order, though somewhat smaller, as PIAT Reading Recognition scores. Since the first 18 items of Reading Comprehension are actually carried over from the first 18 items of Reading Recog- nition, and since the items which appear only on the Reading Comprehension subtest were obviously too difficult for the primary EMRs sampled in the present study, this subtest was excluded from all analyses.

Adequate convergent validity (i.e., high correlations between different measure- ment procedures which assess a single construct) was found for PIAT Mathematics, Reading Recognition and Spelling subtests (validity coefficients are in parentheses in Table 1) . The correlation between PIAT General Information and PPVT raw scores (.51) was low in contrast to a correlation of .60 reported by Burns, Peterson and Bauer (1974), and the correlations of .64 (first grade children), .72 (third grade children), and .76 (fifth grade children) reported by Dunn and Markwardt (1970).

With the exception of Reading Recognition, the discriminant validity (i.e., low correlations between tests measuring different constructs) of the PIAT was poor. This is indicated by the following correlations : PIAT Mathematics-PIAT Reading Recognition, .75; PI A T Mathematics-WRAT Reading, .76; PI AT Spelling- PIAT Reading Recognition, 235; PIAT Spelling-WRAT Reading, 3 7 . The cor- relations between PIAT General Information and PIAT Mathematics (.61), Reading Recognition (.58), Spelling ( .52) , and WRAT Reading (.58) suggests that with primary EMRs this measure is deficient in both convergent and discriminant validity.

DISCUSSION The basic area measured by the PIAT when used with primary EMRs appears

to be familiarity with alphameric characters and auditory vocabulary. This is demonstrated by the high intercorrelations between PIAT Mathematics, PIAT

TA

BL

E 1.

PA

RT

IAL

C

OR

REL

ATI

ON

S B

ET

WE

EN

VA

RIA

BLE

S AND

MEA

NS,

STA

ND

AR

D

DEV

IATI

ON

S AND

ZER

O-OR

DER C

OR

REL

ATI

ON

S W

ITH

C

A

PIA

T

Tes

t M

at

ReR

SP

e G

eI

WR

AT

Ari

Rea

SP

e M

ean

SD

r

Mat

23

.4

11.0

.3

6 R

eR

.75

23.7

6

.9

.45

SPe

.57

.85

24.2

8

.3

.52

GeI

.6

1 .5

8 .5

2 19

.0

9.1

.43

Ari

(.72

) .6

5 .5

9 .4

0 23

.5

5.5

.5

6 R

ea

.76

(.93

) .8

7 .5

8 .6

7 37

.0

12.6

.4

7

SPe

.66

.86

(.a)

.44

.61

.92

26.2

7.

6 .4

8 PP

VT

.5

6 .3

9 .3

0 (.

51)

.37

.45

.35

62.0

8.

1 .5

5

PIA

T:

Mat

= m

athe

mat

ics,

ReR

= r

eadi

ng r

ecog

nitio

n, S

pe =

spe

lling

, GeI

= g

ener

al in

form

atio

n.

WR

AT

: A

ri =

ari

thm

etic

, Rea

= r

eadi

ng, S

pe =

spe

lling

.

s fd

M * td 0 tr 4 h fr!

i-i M

14 EDWARD BURNS

Reading Recognition, PI A T Spelling, WRAT Reading, and WRAT Spelling. Unlike the findings of Yssledyke, Sabatino and Lamanna (1973), PIAT Mathe- matics did not emerge as a distinct subtest. PIAT General Information, as men- tioned before, exhibited low convergent and discriminant validity.

Although PIAT Reading Comprehension was not evaluated in the present study, one note concerning this subtest seems appropriate. Of the children ex- amined, only 30 Ss were able to achieve a score based on Reading Comprehension items. The authors state that, “. . . while understanding the meaning of individual words is important, comprehending passages is more representative of practical reading ability . . .” This may be true for a child of normal intelligence, but for many primary EMRs the Reading Comprehension subtest of the PIAT overlooks a potential source of reading achievement. If the PIAT is used, a more suitable reading vocabulary test might be substituted for Reading Comprehension.

With respect to norms, one serious problem arises when the PIAT is used with primary EMRs. In many instances, percentiles, and thus normalized standard scores, did not extend low enough. The user of the PIAT should be aware that a collection of indices will not always be forthcoming when this instrument is used with primary EMRs. This is an extremely important point since the multiple choice format (with the exception of General Information) severely limits a “con- tent” interpretation of the PIAT.

SUMMARY Fifty-five primary age children classified as educable mentally retarded

were administered the PIAT, WRAT, and PPVT. Convergent validity was found for PIAT Mathematics, Reading Recognition, and Spelling subtests. However, discriminant validity for PIAT Mathematics and Spelling subtests was not demon- strated. Poor convergent and discriminant validity was found for PIAT General Information. The interpretation of PIAT subtests was discussed.

Ohio University Athens, Ohio 45701

REFERENCES BURNS, E., PETERSON, D., and BAUER, L. The concurrent validity of the Peabody Individual

CAMPBELL, D., and FISKE, D. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multi-

DUNN, L. Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test. Circle Pines, Minn. : American Guidance Service, 196.5. DUNN, L. and MARKWARDT, F. Peabody Individual Achievement Test. Circle Pines, Minn.: Ameri-

can Guidance Service, 1970. JASTAK, J., and JASTAK, S. Wide Range Achievement Test. Wilmington, Del.: Guidance Associates,

1965. SITLINGTON, P. L. Validity of the Peabody Individual Achievement Test with educable mentally

retarded adolescents. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Hawaii, 1970. In L. M. Dunn and F. C. Markwardt, Peabody Individual Achievement Test. Circle Pines, Minn. : American Guidance Service, 1970.

SOETHIC, J. Concurrent validity of the Peabody Individual Achievement Test. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1972, 6, 560-562.

WICTTICR, J., and FRENCH, R. Comparison of the Peabody Individual Achievement Test and the Wide Range Achievement Test in a learning disability clinic. Psychology in the Schools, 1973,

YSSLI~CDYKIC, J., SABATINO, D., and LAMANNA, J. Convergent and discriminant validity of the Pea- Psychology an

Achievement Test. Training School Bulletin, 1974, 10, 221-223.

method matrix. PsychologicaZ Bulletin, 1959, 66, 81-105.

10, 285-286.

body Individual Achievement Test with educable mentally retarded children. the Schools, 1973, 10, 200-204.