↓ Skip to main content

Assessment of a model for achieving competency in administration and scoring of the WAIS-IV in post-graduate psychology students

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Assessment of a model for achieving competency in administration and scoring of the WAIS-IV in post-graduate psychology students
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, May 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00641
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rachel M. Roberts, Melissa C. Davis

Abstract

There is a need for an evidence-based approach to training professional psychologists in the administration and scoring of standardized tests such as the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) due to substantial evidence that these tasks are associated with numerous errors that have the potential to significantly impact clients' lives. Twenty three post-graduate psychology students underwent training in using the WAIS-IV according to a best-practice teaching model that involved didactic teaching, independent study of the test manual, and in-class practice with teacher supervision and feedback. Video recordings and test protocols from a role-played test administration were analyzed for errors according to a comprehensive checklist with self, peer, and faculty member reviews. 91.3% of students were rated as having demonstrated competency in administration and scoring. All students were found to make errors, with substantially more errors being detected by the faculty member than by self or peers. Across all subtests, the most frequent errors related to failure to deliver standardized instructions verbatim from the manual. The failure of peer and self-reviews to detect the majority of the errors suggests that novice feedback (self or peers) may be ineffective to eliminate errors and the use of more senior peers may be preferable. It is suggested that involving senior trainees, recent graduates and/or experienced practitioners in the training of post-graduate students may have benefits for both parties, promoting a peer-learning and continuous professional development approach to the development and maintenance of skills in psychological assessment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 2%
Unknown 45 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 17%
Student > Master 8 17%
Student > Postgraduate 6 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Other 10 22%
Unknown 7 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 21 46%
Social Sciences 6 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 10 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 May 2015.
All research outputs
#17,756,606
of 22,805,349 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#20,411
of 29,717 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#179,370
of 265,512 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#395
of 510 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,805,349 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,717 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 265,512 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 510 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.