Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
The Journal of Special Education
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sternberg, R. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Sternberg, R. J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

The Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children: an Information-Processing Analysis and Critique

Robert J. Sternberg, Ph. D.

Yale University

The Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children is reviewed from an information-processing point of view. The article points out five major positive features of the test: its (a) attempt to provide a theoretical basis for intelligence testing, (b) assessment of the ability to deal with novelty, (c) attempt to integrate psychometric and information-processing paradigms, (d) attempt to achieve culture-fairness and norm representation, and (e) attempts to ensure examinees' comprehension of tasks. The article also points out major negative features of the test: its (a) misrepresentation of support for the theory underlying the test, (b) noncorrespondence between definition and measurement of intelligence, (c) inadequate aptitude-achievement distinction, (d) overemphasis on rote learning, and (e) questionable empirical support in studies directly testing the construct validity of the test. On balance, the assessment is unfavorable, and it is not recommended that the test be used in place of its major competitors, the WISC-R and the Stanford-Binet.

The Journal of Special Education, Vol. 18, No. 3, 269-279 (1984)
DOI: 10.1177/002246698401800308
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Journal of Psychoeducational AssessmentHome page
R. W. Kamphaus
K-ABC Theory in Historical and Current Contexts
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, September 1, 1990; 8(3): 356 - 368.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Remedial and Special EducationHome page
L. Brown and B. R. Bryant
Focus on Appraisal
Remedial and Special Education, July 1, 1986; 7(4): 58 - 61.
[Abstract] [PDF]