A clinical study of the automated assessment of intelligence by the Mill Hill Vocabulary test and the Standard Progressive Matrices test.
As part of the Leicester/DHSS project on microcomputer-aided assessment, 274 patients at five clinical sites were assessed with either a computerized version or the standard version of the Mill Hill Vocabulary (Synonyms) test. Of this group, 178 were retested on the alternative version of the test. Similarly, 184 patients were tested with either a computerized version or the standard version of the Standard Progressive Matrices test, of whom 129 were retested on the alternative test form. High correlations were found between the standard and computerized versions for both tests. For the Mill Hill Vocabulary test, no significant difference was found between test versions for first administration, and the vast majority of retested subjects had very similar scores on each version. On the Standard Progressive Matrices, however, subjects obtained significantly lower scores on the computerized test. It is concluded that whereas the computerized Mill Hill Vocabulary test could be used in place of the standard version of clinical settings, the computerized Standard Progressive Matrices test could not be used.
French
C C
CC
Department of Psychology, University of London Goldsmiths' College, New Cross, UK.
Beaumont
J G
JG
D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D003196:Computer Graphics; D004193:Discrimination Learning; D005260:Female; D005556:Form Perception; D006801:Humans; D008607:Intellectual Disability / Q000523:psychology; D007361:Intelligence Tests / Q000295:instrumentation*; D008297:Male; D001523:Mental Disorders / Q000523:psychology; D008838:Microcomputers; D008875:Middle Aged; D019965:Neurocognitive Disorders / Q000523:psychology; D010364:Pattern Recognition, Visual; D011340:Problem Solving; D011594:Psychometrics; D012984:Software; D014825:Vocabulary