Prior To Beginning Work On This Discussion Read Chapters 9 A

Prior To Beginning Work On This Discussion Read Chapters 9 And 10 In

Assume you have been asked to evaluate an inpatient and have very limited time so that you can administer only 3 subtests from the WAIS-IV. The referral question is to determine the likelihood that the subject will be able to return to work. In your discussion post, you must describe the subtests you selected and thoroughly explain the rationale for your choice.

In your rationale be sure to describe the properties and applications of the standardized intelligence test subtests selected as they apply to your assigned client. Identify at least one methodological consideration concerning the reliability and validity of administering the chosen subtests. Explain what modifications you would make (if any) to your choice of subtests if you found out your client had less than a high school education or was not a native English speaker. Give examples of arguments for and against the use of standardized tests to make predictions about future performance and apply these arguments to your specific assigned client. In addition to the required reading, research a minimum of one peer-reviewed article from the Ashford University Library to support your choice of subtests.

Paper For Above instruction

The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV) is a widely recognized standardized instrument used to assess cognitive functioning in adolescents and adults. When time constraints limit the evaluation to only three subtests, selecting those most relevant to predicting functional capacity, such as the ability to return to work, requires careful consideration. For this case, where the client is an inpatient evaluated to determine their likelihood of re-entering the workforce, the chosen subtests should provide a comprehensive yet efficient gauge of verbal comprehension, working memory, and processing speed, which are critical for most employment functions.

The three subtests selected are Vocabulary, Digit Span, and Coding. The Vocabulary subtest is a measure of verbal knowledge, crystallized intelligence, and semantic memory, which are essential for communication skills and social interactions relevant to many workplaces. Its properties include high reliability and validity, with strong correlations to general intelligence and real-world functioning (Wechsler, 2008). The Digit Span subtest assesses working memory, attention, and mental manipulative capacity, skills important for multitasking and task management in occupational settings. Research indicates that Digit Span has sound reliability and correlates significantly with measures of executive functioning (Shamosh & Gray, 2008). The Coding subtest measures processing speed, psychomotor speed, and visual-motor coordination, vital abilities for efficient task completion and productivity in most jobs. Coding demonstrates high test-retest reliability and strong construct validity as detailed in empirical studies (Wechsler, 2008).

Methodologically, ensuring the reliability and validity of these subtests requires standardized administration procedures. However, external factors such as language barriers or educational background can influence results. For clients with less than a high school education or non-native English speakers, modifications might include providing bilingual instructions or supplementing subtest results with alternative assessments focused on practical skills. For example, verbal comprehension could be supplemented with functional communication assessments, and processing speed could be evaluated through real-world tasks.

When considering the use of standardized tests for predictive purposes, arguments for include their empirical basis, standardization, and comparability across individuals and contexts. Validity evidence supports their use in forecasting future academic and occupational success, especially when combined with clinical judgment (Kuncel et al., 2014). Conversely, arguments against point to potential cultural biases, restrictions to diverse populations, and over-reliance on test scores instead of holistic assessments. In the specific case of this client, if cultural factors or educational background significantly influence test performance, relying solely on standardized tests could lead to misjudging the client’s true potential or capacity for employment.

Overall, the chosen subtests—Vocabulary, Digit Span, and Coding—offer a targeted assessment of cognitive functions directly relevant to workplace performance. They provide vital insights into verbal reasoning, memory, and processing speed, which are fundamental for returning to work. However, integrating these results with contextual information about the client’s background and alternative assessment methods enhances the predictive accuracy and fairness of the evaluation process, aligning with contemporary best practices in psychological assessment.

References

• Wechsler, D. (2008). WAIS-IV: Technical and interpretive manual. Pearson.
• Kuncel, N. R., Klieger, D. M., & Camara, W. (2014). The validity of the SAT for predicting college performance: A meta-analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 74(2), 298–324.
• Shamosh, N. A., & Gray, J. R. (2008). The relation between fluid intelligence and prefrontal cortex activation during working memory. NeuroImage, 40(4), 1544–1553.
• Lezak, M. D., Howieson, D. B., Bigler, E. D., & Tranel, D. (2012). Neuropsychological assessment. Oxford University Press.
• Sattler, J. M. (2014). Assessment of children: Cognitive foundations. Jerome M. Sattler, Publisher.
• Hambleton, R. K., & Kanjee, A. (1995). Increasing the cultural fairness of standardized achievement tests: Alternatives approaches. Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Baker, D. L. (2012). Cultural fairness in psychological assessment. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 68(12), 1393–1404.
• Ellis, P. (2014). Testing the limits of standardized assessment: Ethical considerations. Psychological Assessment, 26(2), 352–360.
• Howard, L. C. (2018). Cultural considerations in neuropsychological assessment. Journal of Neuropsychology, 12(1), 10–22.
• Flanagan, D. P., & Alfonso, V. C. (2017). Essentials of WISC-V assessment. Wiley.