Advertisement

Journal of Psycholinguistic Research

, Volume 47, Issue 4, pp 833–840 | Cite as

Examining the Utility of the New Raney Vocabulary Measure Alongside the WAIS-III

  • Ryan J. Ferguson
  • Annie Roy-Charland
  • Joël Dickinson
Article

Abstract

Psychometric tests related to vocabulary assessments are, for the most part, restricted in their use by trained professionals and/or are costly. These restrictions limit their use, especially for research purposes. To circumvent these limitations, the Raney Vocabulary Measure was created for assessing vocabulary proficiency, specifically for research purposes. The measure consists of 30 questions where participants were instructed to choose the best definition of each word. The purpose of the study was to examine the utility of the new measure using the highly standardized but protected Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. Results from the linear combination of the subscales revealed the significant prediction of the Raney Vocabulary Measure, with the Vocabulary subtest contributing most to the unique variance. These results support that the test examines vocabulary ability. The current results are promising as the test would allow for greater accessibility for researchers who do not have access to restricted psychometric tests.

Keywords

Vocabulary Intelligence Psychometrics Research 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

Author’s declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in the current study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the educational institution research ethics board (REB).

Informed Consent

As the current study used human participants, informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. They were given permission to leave the study at any time.

References

  1. American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 57(12), 1060–1073.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.57.12.1060.
  2. Campbell, S. J., & Raney, G. E. (2016). A 25-year replication of Katz et al.’s (1988) metaphor norms. Behavior Research Methods, 48(1), 330–340.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0575-2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Canadian Psychological Association. (1987). Guidelines for educational and psychological testing. Ottawa: Canadian Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  4. Hergenhahn, B. R., & Henley, T. B. (2014). An introduction to the history of psychology. Toronto: Nelson Education.Google Scholar
  5. Killgore, W. D., Glahn, D. C., & Casasanto, D. J. (2005). Development and validation of the Design Organization Test (DOT): A rapid screening instrument for assessing visuospatial ability. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 27(4), 449–459.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13803390490520436.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Lichtwark, I., Starkey, N., & Barker-Collo, S. (2013). Further validation of the New Zealand Test of Adult Reading (NZART) as a measure of premorbid IQ in a New Zealand sample. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 42(3), 75–84.Google Scholar
  7. Loring, D. W., & Bauer, R. M. (2010). Testing the limits: Cautions and concerns regarding the new Wechsler IQ and memory scales. Neurology, 74(8), 685–690.  https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.0b013e3181d0cd12.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Minkoff, S. R., & Raney, G. E. (2000). Letter-detection errors in the word the: Word frequency versus syntactic structure. Scientific Studies of Reading, 4(1), 55–76.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0401_5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Nelson, P. A., Dial, J. G., & Joyce, A. (2002). Validation of the cognitive test for the blind as an assessment of intellectual functioning. Rehabilitation Psychology, 47(2), 184–193.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0090-5550.47.2.184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Silverman, W., Miezejeski, C., Ryan, R., Zigman, W., Krinsky-Mchale, S., & Urv, T. (2010). Stanford-Binet and WAIS IQ differences and their implications for adults with intellectual disability (aka mental retardation). Intelligence, 38(2), 242–248.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2009.12.005.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Terman, L. M., & Merrill, M. A. (1937). Measuring intelligence: A guide to the administration of the new revised Stanford-Binet tests of intelligence. Boston: Houghton.Google Scholar
  12. Therriault, D. J., & Raney, G. E. (2007). Processing and representing temporal information in narrative text. Discourse Processes, 43(2), 173–200.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530709336897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Wechsler, D. (2002). WAIS-III: Administration and scoring manual: Wechsler adult intelligence scale (3rd ed.). San Antonio: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
  14. Wechsler, D. (2008). Wechsler adult intelligence scale (4th ed.). San Antonio, TX: Pearson.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ryan J. Ferguson
    • 1
  • Annie Roy-Charland
    • 2
  • Joël Dickinson
    • 3
  1. 1.School of PsychologyUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada
  2. 2.École de psychologieUniversité de MonctonMonctonCanada
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyLaurentian UniversitySudburyCanada

Personalised recommendations