This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Glutting, J. J. Articles by McDermott, P. A. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Glutting, J. J. Articles by McDermott, P. A. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Taxonomy and Validity of Subtest Profiles on the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children

Elizabeth A. McGrath

University of Delaware

Randy W. Kamphaus

University of Georgia

Paul A. McDermott

University of Pennsylvania

This paper presents three studies. The first developed a normative taxonomy to show the most common subtest patterns on the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (K-ABC) (Kaufman & Kaufman, 1983a, 1983b). The benefit of such a core profile taxonomy is that it provides necessary contrasts for testing hypotheses about score configurations believed to be unusual or clinically relevant. The taxonomy was based on the school-age segment of the K-ABC's standardization sample (i.e., 1,300 children between 6 years, 0 months and 12 years, 6 months). Q methodology (cluster analysis) resulted in eight core profile types, which were subjected to preliminary validation tests against multiple criteria. The second study used the core types to examine whether children with learning disabilities (n = 224), emotional disturbance (n = 43), educable mental retardation (n = 85), and trainable mental retardation (n = 38) showed unusual subtest patterns more often than the general population. By contrast, the third study began by using the core types to identify children from both regular education and special education who possessed unusual patterns (N = 1,346). Thereafter, Q methodology was applied to search for homogeneous groups among these children. Results from the second and third studies mitigate against the diagnostic application of subtest analysis Recommendations are provided for future practice in the profiling of children's abilities.

The Journal of Special Education, Vol. 26, No. 1, 85-115 (1992)
DOI: 10.1177/002246699202600106


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				E. R. Borsuk, M. W. Watkins, and G. L. Canivez Long-Term Stability of Membership in a Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Third Edition (WISC-III) Subtest Core Profile Taxonomy Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, March 1, 2006; 24(1): 52 - 68. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. Y. Kahana, E. A. Youngstrom, and J. J. Glutting Factor and Subtest Discrepancies on the Differential Ability Scales: Examining Prevalence and Validity in PredictingAcademic Achievement Assessment, March 1, 2002; 9(1): 82 - 93. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. M. Holland and P. A. McDermott Discovering Core Profile Types in the School-Age Standardization Sample of the Differential Ability Scales Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, June 1, 1996; 14(2): 131 - 146. [Abstract] [PDF]