ABS 300 Ashford University Review of WAIS IV & WIAT III Presentation TURNITIN SCORE MUST BE AT OR BELOW 20%…as I will be checking APA FORMAT PLEASE with

ABS 300 Ashford University Review of WAIS IV & WIAT III Presentation TURNITIN SCORE MUST BE AT OR BELOW 20%…as I will be checking

APA FORMAT PLEASE with use of Quotations…citeing accordingly

Prior to beginning work on this assignment, read the required textbook chapters and articles for this week. Select two tests about which to write your review. The first test must be selected from List A and the second test must be selected from List B. Your choice of tests include the following:

List A (Select one test from this list.)

Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Fourth Edition (WAIS–IV)
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children- Fifth Edition (WISC-V)
Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence- Fourth Edition (WPPSI – IV)

List B (Select one test from this list.)

Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development, Third Edition (Bayley-III)
Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children, Second Edition (KABC-II)
Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement, Third Edition (KTEA-3)
Sequential Tests of Educational Progress (STEP)
Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition (SB5)
Wechsler Individual Achievement Test–Third Edition (WIAT- III)
Woodcock-Johnson IV (WJ IV) Tests of Achievement
Woodcock-Johnson IV (WJ IV) Tests of Cognitive Abilities

Create a PowerPoint presentation with 10-12 slides (not including the title and reference slides) entitled Review of [Insert the name of the tests reviewed]. Your presentation must provide at least one slide for each of the required topics and include appropriate citations of your referenced sources. Separate reference slides, which follow APA formatting guidelines for a References page, must be included at the end of the presentation. You must create your own template and organize your presentation in the sequence provided. Do not use a font smaller than 18 pt. You are encouraged to insert relevant figures and graphics. Make sure to appropriately cite any images, tables, figures, or information from the test publisher’s website used. The notes section of each slide must include the text for oral comments you would make while presenting the materials to a live audience.

References must be cited according to APA guidelines as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center. (Links to an external site.) For assistance with creating a visually engaging and readable presentation, you may review Garr Reynolds’s tips for creating presentations. (Links to an external site.)

The presentation must cover each of the following topics in the order presented below. Two tests may be discussed on the same slide using the side-by-side comparison format.
Required topics to be addressed for each test:

Name of the test, author or authors, publisher and publication date
Qualifications of the test user
Common professional uses of the test
Explain what the test is purported to measure along with any reliability and validity evidence that supports the author’s or publisher’s claims.
Describe the appropriate applications of the test in terms of the population(s) on which the test is validated (including age ranges) and any information regarding populations for which the test’s use is not recommended.
Subtest names and brief descriptions
Administration and scoring procedures
Cost and administration time
Your critique of the instrument, including an evaluation of the test’s strengths and weaknesses as a measure of the theoretical constructs of intelligence and/or achievement
Evaluate reviewers’ comments from at least one scholarly, peer-reviewed journal article published in the last 10 years that provides an appraisal of basic measurement issues related to the tests you selected.

The presentation

Must consist of 10 to 12 slides (not including title and reference slides) that are formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center. (Links to an external site.)
Must include a separate title slide with the following:
Title of presentation
Student’s name
Course name and number
Instructor’s name
Date submitted
Must use the assigned chapters in the course text and a minimum of 1 peer-reviewed journal article published within the last 10 years.
Must document all sources in APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center.
Must include separate reference slides formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center.

RESOURCES BELOW:

Donoso, O.A., Bernandez, B., & Horin, E.V (2010). Use of psychological tests within vocational rehabilitation. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation.32, 191-200. Retrieved from http://www.iospress.nl/journal/journal-of-vocation…

The full-text version of this article can be accessed through the EBSCOhost database in the Ashford University Library. The authors present findings from a study in which they examined the testing practices of professionals who conduct psychological assessments for the vocational rehabilitation system.

Salthouse, T.A. (2014). Evaluating the correspondence of different cognitive batteries. Assessment, 21(2), 131-42. Retrieved from http://asm.sagepub.com/

The full-text version of this article can be accessed through the Sage database in the Ashford University Library. The author analyzed data from two cognitive batteries including the WASI-IV to determine the correspondence of ability factors between the two batteries.

TEDx Talks (2014, June 26). Do standardized tests matter? Nathan Kuncel TEDxUMN (Links to an external site.). [Video file]. Retrieved from

Nathan Kuncel discusses the importance of standardized test scores. The presentation includes a discussion of the relationship between scores and both academic and career achievement.

TEDx Talks (2012, December 3). None of the above – Why standardized testing fails: Bob Sternberg at TEDxOStateU (Links to an external site.). [Video file]. Retrieved from

Former American Psychological Association President, Bob Sternberg, discusses the faults in standardized testing and provides recommendations for assessment practices to meet contemporary societal needs.

Blickle, G., Kramer, J., & Mierke, J. (2010). Telephone-administered intelligence testing for research in work and organizational psychology: A comparative assessment study. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 26(3), 154-161. Retrieved from https://us.hogrefe.com/products/journals/ejpa

The full-text version of this article can be accessed through the EBSCOhost database in the Ashford University Library. The authors used the Wonderlic Personnel Test (WPT) to assess the quality of intelligence testing by telephone with a sample of working adults and compared the results with intelligence testing by face-to-face test administration.

Reynolds, G. (2014). Top ten slide tips (Links to an external site.). Retrieved from http://www.garrreynolds.com/preso-tips/design/

The author of this web-based article provides important tips on how to design an engaging slide presentation.

Sternberg, R. J., Bimey, D. P., Stemler, S.E, Otterbach, R., Randi, J., Jarvin, L., Naples, A., Newman, T., Parish, C., & Grigorenko, E.L. (2014). Testing the Theory of Successful Intelligence in teaching grade 4 Language Arts, Mathematics, and Science. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(3), 881-899. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/edu/

The full-text version of this article can be accessed through the EBSCOhost database in the Ashford University Library. The authors presented findings from a study in which they investigated whether prior successes with educational interventions grounded in the theory of successful intelligence could be used as the primary basis for instruction in language arts, mathematics, and science. Journal of Educational Psychology
2014, Vol. 106, No. 3, 881– 899
© 2014 American Psychological Association
0022-0663/14/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0035833
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Testing the Theory of Successful Intelligence in Teaching Grade 4
Language Arts, Mathematics, and Science
Robert J. Sternberg
Linda Jarvin
Cornell University
Paris College of Art
Damian P. Birney
Adam Naples
University of Sydney
Yale University
Steven E. Stemler
Tina Newman
Wesleyan University
Center for Children With Special Needs,
Glastonbury, Connecticut
Renate Otterbach
Carolyn Parish
University of San Francisco
SRA International, Fairfax, Virginia
Judy Randi
Elena L. Grigorenko
University of New Haven
Yale University
This study addressed whether prior successes with educational interventions grounded in the theory of
successful intelligence could be replicated on a larger scale as the primary basis for instruction in language
arts, mathematics, and science. A total of 7,702 4th-grade students in the United States, drawn from 223
elementary school classrooms in 113 schools in 35 towns (14 school districts) located in 9 states, participated
in the program. Students were assigned, by classroom, to receive units of instruction that were based either
upon the theory of successful intelligence (SI; analytical, creative, and practical instruction) or upon teaching
as usual (weak control), memory instruction (strong control), or critical-thinking instruction (strong control).
The amount of instruction was the same across groups. In the 23 comparisons across 10 content units in 3
academic domains, there were only a small number of instances in which students in the SI instructional
groups generally performed statistically better than students in other conditions. There were even fewer
instances where the different control conditions outperformed the SI students. Implications for the future of
SI theory and the scalability of research efforts in general are discussed.
Keywords: successful intelligence, critical thinking, memory, instruction, scalability
Throughout the first decade of the 21st century, educational researchers and policymakers have placed an increased emphasis on the
twin goals of (a) using experimental designs to evaluate educational
interventions and (b) gaining a greater understanding of the issues
related to the scalability of educational interventions. The value
placed on interventions that have been experimentally tested is highlighted by repositories such as the U.S. Department of Education’s
“What Works” clearinghouse (http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/). Projects
related to issues of scalability were funded by the Department of
Education in the early to mid-2000s, and the results of these projects
This article was published Online First April 7, 2014.
Robert J. Sternberg, Department of Human Development, Cornell
University; Linda Jarvin, Paris College of Art; Damian P. Birney,
School of Psychology, University of Sydney; Adam Naples, Child
Development Center, Yale University; Steven E. Stemler, Department
of Psychology, Wesleyan University; Tina Newman, Center for Children With Special Needs, Glastonbury, Connecticut; Renate Otterbach,
Department of General Education, University of San Francisco; Carolyn Parish, SRA International, Fairfax, Virginia; Judy Randi, Department of Education, University of New Haven; Elena L. Grigorenko,
Child Study Center and Department of Psychology, Yale University.
This research was supported primarily by National Science Foundation
Grant REC-9979843 with additional support from the Javits Act Program
(Grant No. R206R000001). We are grateful to Sig Abeles, Jill Citron-Pousty,
William Disch, Tona Donlon, Sarah Duman, Rebecca Felton, PJ Henry, Alex
Isgut, Steve Leinwand, Delci Lev, Donna Macomber, Mari Muri, Nefeli
Misuraca, Paul O’Keefe, Alina Reznitskaya, Robyn Rissman, Morgan Reynolds,
Christina Schwarz, Emma Seppala, Gregory Snortheim, Heidi Soxman, Cheri
Stahl, and Olga Stepanossova for their invaluable assistance on this project.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Robert J.
Sternberg, Department of Human Development, Cornell University, B44
MVR Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853. E-mail: robert.sternberg@cornell.edu
881
STERNBERG ET AL.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
882
are beginning to receive increased attention in the empirical literature
(Constas & Sternberg, 2006; McKenna & Walpole, 2010).
In the present article, we report on a large-scale empirical field
study that also sought to address issues related to scalability. We
examined whether applying the theory of successful intelligence to
instruction and assessment in Grade 4 language arts, mathematics,
and science would result in superior learning outcomes relative to
alternative instructional methods, in particular, memory-based instruction and critical-thinking based instruction (strong comparison/control conditions) and teaching as usual—whatever it happened to be (weak comparison/control condition). The study
involved the participation of 7,702 fourth-grade students in 113
elementary schools and 223 classrooms across the United States in
35 towns (14 school districts) located in nine states (Alabama,
California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Kansas, North
Carolina, South Carolina, and West Virginia), in order to determine whether prior successes with the theory’s instructional application could be replicated at scale.
Background
There is evidence to suggest that teaching and assessment may
be more effective when they are based in part on cognitivepsychological theories that have been applied to education (Bruning, Schraw, & Norby, 2010; Corno, Cronbach, Kupermintz, &
Lohman, 2001). Certainly, this has been a major claim of researchers as well as textbook authors in educational psychology (e.g.,
Ormrod, 2010; Slavin, 2008; Woolfolk, 2009). One such
cognitive-psychological theory is the theory of successful intelligence.
The theory (Sternberg, 1997, 2005, 2010) argues that successful
intelligence is a person’s ability to achieve his or her goals in life,
within his or her sociocultural context, by capitalizing on strengths
and correcting or compensating for weaknesses, in order to adapt
to, shape, and select environments through a combination of analytical, creative, and practical skills (Sternberg, 2003b, 2009;
Sternberg, Grigorenko, & Jarvin, 2007; Sternberg, Jarvin, & Grigorenko, 2009). Different students have different combinations of
these skills. The theory is based on the notion that students learn
in different ways and that they have different strengths in learning
(Sternberg, Grigorenko, & Zhang, 2008a, 2008b), just as teachers
have different strengths in teaching (Spear & Sternberg, 1987).
Our goal is to assist teachers in balancing their teaching in such a
way that each of the abilities can be addressed, exercised, and
given a chance to develop (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2000; Sternberg et al., 2007, 2009).
Teaching for analytical thinking means encouraging students
to (a) analyze, (b) critique, (c) judge, (d) compare and contrast,
(e) evaluate, or (f) assess. When teachers refer to teaching for
“critical thinking,” some of them may mean teaching for analytical thinking. Examples of exercises designed to develop
such skills might ask students to (a) analyze a political speech,
(b) critique a work of art, (c) judge the value of a social
program, (d) compare and contrast two works of literature, (e)
evaluate the conclusions drawn from a scientific experiment, or
(f) assess the rationale for a cultural custom.
Teaching for creative thinking means encouraging students to
(a) create, (b) invent, (c) discover, (d) imagine if . . . , (e) suppose
that . . . , (f) predict . . . , or (g) design. Teaching for creative
thinking requires teachers not only to support and encourage
creativity but also to role-model it and to reward it when it is
displayed (Sternberg & Lubart, 1995; Sternberg & Williams,
1996). Examples of such teaching activities might ask students to
(a) create a work of art, (b) invent an alternative ending for a story
they read, (c) discover the principle behind a natural phenomenon,
(d) imagine what life would be like if global warming continued
unabated, (e) suppose that they grew up alingual— having no
language at all, (f) predict what will happen in the current civil war
in Syria, or (g) design a psychological experiment to test a hypothesis about human behavior.
Teaching for practical thinking means encouraging students to
(a) apply, (b) use, (c) put into practice, (d) implement, (e) employ,
or (f) persuade someone of something. Such teaching must relate
to the real practical needs of the students, not what would be
practical for individuals other than the students (Sternberg et al.,
2000). Examples might include asking students to (a) apply what
they have read in a story to their life, (b) use their knowledge of
mathematics to balance a checkbook, (c) put theory into practice in
exercising defensive driving, (d) implement a plan for losing (or
gaining) weight, (e) employ the rules of haiku and write one, (f) or
persuade someone that an argument is sound.
Measurement Research Support for the Theory of
Successful Intelligence
A number of different studies have been conducted that
validate the premise of the theory of successful intelligence in
the field of assessment and measurement. Here we present them
only selectively and briefly.
First, assessments based on the theory of successful intelligence appear to map onto skills that are relevant, broadly
speaking, to success in life and various indicators of well-being
(e.g., Grigorenko & Sternberg, 2001; Sternberg et al., 2000).
Second, these assessments have demonstrated adequate psychometric properties (e.g., Kornilov, Tan, Elliott, Sternberg, &
Grigorenko, 2012; Sternberg, Castejón, Prieto, Hautamäki, &
Grigorenko, 2001). Third, measurements of different kinds of
skills (analytical, creative, and practical) can be done relatively
independently of each other (e.g., Grigorenko et al., 2009).
Fourth, successful-intelligence assessments can improve prediction of grade-point average as well as prediction of success
in extracurricular and leadership activities; such assessments
also can reduce ethnic-group differences in performance (Sternberg, 2010; Sternberg, Bonney, Gabora, Karelitz, & Coffin,
2010; Sternberg & The Rainbow Project Collaborators, 2006).
Finally, as illustrated in Advanced Placement Psychology, Statistics, and Physics tests, the inclusion of creative and practical
assessments in addition to memory and analytical ones can
reduce ethnic-group differences while increasing construct validity (Stemler, Grigorenko, Jarvin, & Sternberg, 2006; Stemler,
Sternberg, Grigorenko, Jarvin, & Sharpes, 2009).
Thus, there is evidence that assessments based on the theory of
successful intelligence can provide valuable concurrent and predictive information about cognitive functioning at various stages
of the life span and in various settings.
TESTING THE THEORY OF SUCCESSFUL INTELLIGENCE
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Instructional Research Support for the Theory of
Successful Intelligence
A number of instructional studies have been conducted with
students in different age groups and in various subjects to validate
the relevance of the theory of successful intelligence in the classroom (for more detail and other research support for the theory, see
Sternberg, 1985, 1997, 2003b; Sternberg, Jarvin, & Grigorenko,
2011). Here we briefly exemplify two types of relevant studies:
aptitude–treatment interaction (ATI) and main effect studies of the
theory.
An example of the ATI approach is a study (Sternberg, Grigorenko, Ferrari, & Clinkenbeard, 1999) in which the Sternberg
Triarchic Abilities Test (STAT; Sternberg, 2003a) was used to
assess analytical, creative, and practical skills through multiplechoice and essay items. The test was administered to 326 children
around the United States and in some other countries who were
identified by their schools as gifted by any standard whatsoever.
Children were selected for a summer program in (college-level)
psychology if they fell into one of five ability groupings: high
analytical, high creative, high practical, high balanced (high in all
three abilities), or low balanced (low in all three abilities). The
high-school students (n ⫽ 199) who came to Yale were then
divided into four instructional groups. Students in all four instructional groups used the same introductory-psychology textbook, a
preliminary version of Sternberg (1995), and listened to the same
psychology lectures, by a Yale professor teaching the introduction
to psychology course at Yale College. What differed among the
four groups was the type of afternoon discussion section to which
students were randomly assigned. They were assigned to an instructional condition that emphasized memory, analytical, creative,
or practical instruction. The discussion sessions were taught by
qualified instructors with no particular training in, or commitment
to, the theory of successful intelligence. Instructors were assigned
to the instructional conditions at random and were required to use
differential teaching approaches. The instructors were unaware of
students’ patterns of abilities as revealed by the STAT. Consider
examples of instruction. In the memory condition, the participants
might be asked to recall the originator of a major theory of
depression. In the analytical condition, they might be asked to
compare and contrast two theories of depression. In the creative
condition, they might be asked to formulate their own theory of
depression. In the practical condition, they might be asked how
they could use what they had learned about depression to help a
friend who was depressed. Students in all four instructional conditions were evaluated in terms of their performance on homework, a midterm exam, a final exam, and an independent project.
Each type of work was evaluated for analytical, creative, and
practical quality. Thus, all students were evaluated in exactly the
same way. The results indicated the presence of an aptitude–
treatment interaction whereby students who were placed in instructional conditions that better matched their pattern of abilities
outperformed students who were mismatched. For all performance
assessments combined, for better matched versus mismatched
groups, Cohen’s ds were 0.343, 0.195, and 0.255 for analytical,
creative, and practical, respectively. In other words, when students
are taught at least some of the time in a way that fits how they
think, they do better in school. These results suggest that the
negative Cronbach and Snow (1977) results for aptitude–treatment
883
interactions may have been due to lack of theoretical basis for
instruction or of theoretical match between instruction and assessment. Pashler, McDaniel, Rohrer, and Bjork (2008), however,
have argued that there is still only weak evidence for aptitude–
treatment interactions, and the interested reader can refer to Sternberg et al. (2008b) for an alternative point of view.
Subsequently, a main-effect study of the theory (Sternberg,
Torff, & Grigorenko, 1998) examined the learning of social studies
and science by third graders and eighth graders. The 225 third
graders were students in a very low income neighborhood, and the
142 eighth graders were students who were largely middle to upper
middle class. Classroom teachers, and consequently their students,
were assigned to one of three instructional conditions pseudorandomly so as to balance the number of students and classrooms
in each condition. In the first condition, they were taught the
course that they would have learned had there been no intervention
(i.e., the emphasis was on memory). In a second condition, teaching emphasized critical (analytical) thinking. In the third condition,
students were taught in a way that emphasized a balance of
analytical, creative, and practical thinking. All students’ performance was assessed for memory learning through multiple-choice
assessments as well as for analytical, creative, and practical learning through performance assessments. As expected, students in the
successful-intelligence (analytical, creative, practical) condition on
average outperformed the other students in terms of the performance assessments. In particular, third graders from the
successful-intelligence instructional conditions did better in four
out of four comparisons with the standard teaching condition
(mean Cohen’s d ⫽ 1.082 for n ⫽ 4) and in three out of four
comparisons with the critical thinking condition (mean Cohen’s
d ⫽ 0.510 for n ⫽ 3). Eighth graders in the successful-intelligence
condition did better in seven out of seven comparisons with the
standard teaching condition (mean Cohen’s d ⫽ 0.842 for n ⫽ 7)
and in three out of seven comparisons with the critical thinking
condition (mean Cohen’s d ⫽ 1.332 for n ⫽ 3). One could argue
that this result merely reflected the way they were taught. Nevertheless, the result suggested that teaching for these kinds of thinking succeeded. More important, however, was the result that children in the successful-intelligence condition outperformed the
other children even on the multiple-choice memory tests (Cohen’s
ds were 0.289 and 0.383, and 1.283 and 0.833 for standard and
critical thinking instructional conditions in the third- and eighthgrader studies, respectively). In other words, even when the goal is
simply to maximize children’s memory for information, teaching
for successful intelligence is still superior. It enables children to
capitalize on their strengths and to correct or to compensate for
their weaknesses, allowing them to encode material in a variety of
interesting ways.
These results were extended to reading curricula at the middleschool and high-school levels (Grigorenko, Jarvin, & Sternberg,
2002). To illustrate, at the middle-school level (n ⫽ 871), language
arts were taught explicitly for successful intelligence. At the highschool level (n ⫽ 432), successful intelligence instruction for
reading comprehension was infused into instruction in mathematics, physical sciences, social sciences, English, history, foreign
languages, and the arts. As in previous studies, each assignment
contained analytical, creative, and practical tasks. At both middleand high-school levels students who were taught for successful
intelligence outperformed students who were taught in standard
STERNBERG ET AL.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
884
ways (mean Cohen’s d ⫽ 0.483 for middle-school level and mean
Cohen’s d ⫽ 0.238 for high-school level).
Ideally, schools might utilize a uniform broad-based, constructvalid, theoretical model in their instruction and assessment and
even in admissions, where relevant (Sternberg, 2010). Of course,
the model need not be the theory of successful intelligence. Certainly, there are other models (Gardner, 1993, 2006; Mayer, 2011).
The fundamental difference between the current study and the
studies discussed above is its scope and specific characteristics.
Unlike previous …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment