1

Practical Record

A Manuscript Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the completion of the course

PSYCHODIAGNOSTIC LAB -I (MPS 251)

Masters in
in
Clinical Psychology

By

Pallavi Chopra
Reg. No. 2239336

Under the Supervision of

Dr Sherin Antony

Department of Psychology
CHRIST (Deemed to be University)
Bengaluru, India

April 2023

Requirements for the Award of the Degree of

 2

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the record submitted by Pallavi Chopra (Reg. No 2239336) is a record

of work done by her during the academic year 2022-2023 under my supervision.

Pallavi Chopra has satisfactorily completed the Course in PSYCHODIAGNOSTIC LAB-I

(MPS 251) in partial fulfilment of the Masters in Clinical Psychology as prescribed by the

Department of Psychology, CHRIST (Deemed to be University), Bengaluru Yeshwantpur

Campus in the academic year 2022-2023.

This work has not been submitted for the award of any degree, diploma, associateship,

fellowship or other title. I hereby confirm the originality of the work and that there is no

plagiarism in any part of the document.

Place: Bengaluru

Date: ………………… Supervisor Name Dr Sherin Anton

Department of Psychology

CHRIST (Deemed to be University)

Bengaluru, Yeshwanthpur Campus

Name Pallavi Chopra

Reg No. 2239336
Department of Psychology
CHRIST (Deemed to be University)
Bengaluru, Yeshwanthpur campus
 3

Index
Domain Test Name Page Number

Personality The 16 Personality Factor (16PF) 4

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality 16

Inventory (MMPI)
36
The Weshsler Memory Scale (WMS)
Memory

46
Intelligence Standard Progressive Matrices (SPM)

Bhatia’s Battery of Performance Test of

Intelligence 53

The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for 74

Children (WISC)
87
Binet Kamat Test of Intelligence
 4

16 PF Report

Background

The term "personality" refers to the persistent traits, interests, motivations, values,
self-concept, abilities, and emotional patterns that make up a person's particular way of
adjusting to life. Although different theories have varied explanations for the formation and
organization of personality, they all concur that personality influences behavior. (APA, n.d.).

Personality also influences cognition and the risk of age-based cognitive changes.
This occurs as personality impacts the way people react to stress, their engagement in health
behaviors, and cognitively stimulating activities (Simon, et al., 2020). The study of
personality can be traced back to the 18th-century study called Phrenology, in which people
measured bumps on the skull to assess mental faculties and personality traits.

Psychologists have put forward several theories of personality and each of them
provides a unique perspective on how it develops, what shapes it, and how it influences
behavior.

Sigmund Freud developed the psychoanalytic theory which states that personality
consists of three elements:e Id, Ego, and Superego. By working together, these three elements
shape our character. Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers came up with the Humanistic Theory
of Personality. It talked about how a person’s desire to be their best version frames
personality. The Trait Theory was given by Gordon Allport and described personality as traits
that become stable over time. The biological perspective by Hans Eysenck concentrates on
genes and how they influence and shape personality. Albert Bandura emphasized social
learning as a basis of personality, called the Social Cognitive theory. The Behaviorist Theory
by John Watson argues that a person’s environment, reinforcements, and consequences
influence their personality.

The first contemporary cognitive theory personality called the “Theory of Personal
Constructs” is widely credited to George A. Kelly. He proposed that people should be
considered "scientists" as they build views about themselves and the world based on their
 5

observations. The works of Heider and attribution scholars partly influenced his theory.
These observations are arranged into personal conceptions that resemble the current concept
of cognitive schemata, which is defined as organized groups of related data. Kelly claims that
people base their predictions and interpretations of their experiences on these personal
constructions, and they make an effort to act in ways that are consistent with those
conceptions.

More recently, Yuichi Shoda and their colleagues have been building a theory called
“Cognitive-Affective Personality System”. The theory establishes a relationship between
personal variables such as self-efficacy beliefs, personal goals, and situational factors. This
approach takes into account that people don't focus on the same aspect of a situation and they
encode elements differently. It highlights how situational factors, memory processes, beliefs,
and expectations interact in a mutually influential dynamic. This theory is currently the most
comprehensive cognitive theory of personality as recognizes that a person’s cognitive
existence cannot be understood in isolation from their present situation, past experience, and
future expectations. (Shoda & Smith, 2004)

Ancient greeks believed in the concept of personality types and Hippocrates came up
with four temperaments i:e Anguine (upbeat and social), choleric (active and quick-
tempered), melancholy (analytical and contemplative), and phlegmatic (relaxed and
peaceful). Galen further added a fifth temperament, Supine, and connected each temperament
to a particular mix of body fluids, or "humors." Modern personality assessments can be traced
back to the 20th century when the Rorschach inkblot which is a projective test. Then came
the self-report questionnaires and objective tests that measured specific traits and behaviors.
The earliest personality test is the Myers-Briggs Type indicator based on Carl Jung’s theory
of psychological types. The Big Five Personality Traits was developed in the 1980s and
assesses a person’s Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and
Neuroticism (OCEAN).
 6

The 16 PF personality test was developed by Raymond Cattell. It is an assessment

tool that measures 16 primary personality traits. It provides an extensive and comprehensive
report of a person’s personality including their strengths and weaknesses. It is based on the
Lexical Hypothesis, which proposes that any important individual variation, such as a key
personality feature, will be encoded into the lexicon or the vocabulary of natural languages,
meaning that a word to describe it will exist in any or all of the world's languages.

The test consists of Primary Factors and Second-order factors. The Primary Factors
are labeled as:

“A” in which high scores indicate emotional expressiveness, warmth, participation,

easygoing nature, and adaptability and low scores indicate being cool, aloof, reserved,
impersonal, detached, and formal.

“B” in which high scores abstract and quick thinking, quick learning, and higher
intelligence while low scores indicate concrete thinking, slower learning, and grasping.

”C” in which high scores indicate emotional stability, maturity, realistic perspective,
and calmness while low scores indicate fickle emotional stability, stronger emotional
reactions, and low frustration tolerance.

”E” in which high scores indicate dominance, assertiveness, aggressiveness,

stubbornness, competitiveness, and being bossy, while low scores indicate a humble, mild,
accommodating, and docile nature.

”F” in which high scores indicate enthusiasm, spontaneity, expressiveness,

heedlessness, and cheerfulness, and low scores indicate being sober, restrained and taciturn,
serious and prudent.

”G” in which high scores indicate conscientiousness, conformity, being moralistic and
rule-bound, while low scores indicate being self-indulgent, expedient, and unsteady in
purpose.
 7

“H” in which high scores indicate boldness, risk-taking, being uninhibited and thick-
skinned, while low scores indicate shyness, sensitivity to threat, hesitance, intimidation, and
being timid.

“I” in which high scores indicate tended-mindedness, sensitivity, overprotectiveness,

intuitiveness, and refinement, while low scores indicate toughmindedness, self-reliance,
independence, and cynicism.

“L” in which high scores indicate suspicion, mistrust, skepticism, and being elf-
opinionated, while low scores indicate trust, acceptance, cheerfulness, and being
uncompetitive.

“M” in which high scores indicate being imaginative, impractical, unconventionality,

and self-motivation, while low scores indicate practicality, steadiness, attention to detail, and
unimaginativeness.

“N” in which high scores indicate being shrewd, polished, socially aware, diplomatic,
and calculating, while low scores indicate openness, being forthright, genuine, unpretentious,
and artlessness.

“O” in which high scores indicate apprehension, self-blame, guilt-prone, insecurity,

and worrying, while low scores indicate self-assurance, security, being untroubled, and self-
satisfaction.

“Q1” in which high scores indicate an experimenting, liberal, critical, and changing
nature, while low scores indicate being conservative, traditional, and cautious.

“Q2” in which high scores indicate self-sufficiency, resourcefulness, decision-

making, and independence, while low scores indicate group orientation, dependence, and a
need for group support.

“Q3” in which high scores indicate a strong control of emotions, social precision and
awareness, and compulsive behavior, while low scores indicate being undisciplined, lack of
consideration for social demands, and carelessness.

“Q4” in which high scores indicate being tense, restless, fretfulness, and fatigued,
while low scores indicate being relaxed, tranquil, unfrustrated, and low drive.
 8

The Second-order factors include:

“Extraversion” in which high scores indicate being socially outgoing, uninhibited, and
good at forming and maintaining social relationships. Low scores indicate “Introversion”, in
which a person tends to be shy, self-sufficient, and inhibited by interpersonal contact.

“Anxiety” in which high scores indicate high anxiety, maladjustments such as

dissatisfaction with achievements, and feeling unable to meet the demands of life. Low scores
indicate “low anxiety” and have generally satisfying lives, though extremely low scores could
be indicative of a lack of motivation for difficult tasks.

“Tough Poise” in which high scores indicate that participants are more influenced by
facts, are bold, decisive, and enterprising, but often insensitive to others. Low scores indicate
“Emotional sensitivity”, and a strong influence on emotions. Low-scoring participants are
generally gentle, slow to decisive action, but thoughtful.

“Independence” in which high scores indicate “High control” of the superego, which
points to conformity to expectations, rigidity, and moralistic behavior. Low scores indicate
“Low control” and nonconformity to others, values or a sense of duty, impulsive behavior,
and flexibility.

Factor analysis was used by Cattell and his colleagues which aimed to reduce the
huge list of traits by finding common patterns among them. The analysis identified traits from
a set of behavioral observations. The subsequent analysis further found 5 factors that underlie
the 16 factors and Cattell called them ‘global factors’.

Internal consistency reliability is 0.76 for the primary scale and a range of 0.68-0.87
for all scales. The mean test-retest reliability for the primary factor scale over two months is
0.70.
 9

16 PF can be used in clinical, counseling, career development, and research settings.

Demographic Details

Name: S

Age: 21

Sex: Female

Educational Background: Pursuing M. Sc

Occupation: Student

Family Type: Nuclear

Purpose of Test

The test was to understand different factors of the participant's personality.

Behavioral Observation

The person taking the test was initially comfortable but seemed to become
disinterested as they reached the final sections of the questionnaire. This could be due to the
lengthh of the test. They showed signs of being easily distracted, as they were fidgeting with
their hands and pen. Their level of restlessness increased and they became less focused as the
test went on. Additionally, they took a long time to answer the questions, even though they
were instructed to choose the most appropriate answer based on their first impressions.
Despite these issues, the participant was ultimately able to finish the questionnaire without
significant difficulty and had no problems comprehending the questions.
Test Results
Table 1
First orders scores in 16 PF questionnaire
 10

Factor Raw Score Sten Score Description

A 12 9 High score

B 5 6 Average score

C 5 4 Low score

E 5 6 Average score

F 9 7 High Score

G 6 5 Average Score

H 7 6 Average Score

I 10 8 High Score

L 6 6 Average Score

M 4 4 Low Score

N 4 5 Average Score

O 10 7 High Score

Q1 3 3 Low Score

Q2 4 6 Average Score

Q3 8 6 Average Score

Q4 8 6 Average Score

The 16 PF test developed by Raymond Cattell comprises of primary and secondary

scales that measure different aspects of personalities with scores ranging from 1 to 10. The
raw scores are then converted to standard ten i:e Sten scores. These sten scores help to
categorize personality factors, whether high, average, or low.
 11

The participant scored high(sten score=9) on Factor A measures Warmth. High scores
indicate that they are outgoing, easy-going, eager to participate, and have empathy for others.
They have a genuine interest in social relationships and are approachable.

In Factor B, which measures reasoning capabilities, the participant scored average

(Sten Score=6). This indicates that they have an intermediate level of intelligence. They can
think abstractly in some but not all areas. They may have good learning abilities but require
more effort.

The participant scored average in Factor C (Sten Score=5) meaning that they have a
moderate level of emotional stability, which implies that they occasionally feel stress and
emotional reactivity but are able to handle it using healthy coping mechanisms. They may
have occasional mood and temperament swings, but they might not have difficulty recovering
from setbacks and responding calmly to challenging situations.

In Factor E (Dominance), the participant scored average (Sten Score=6), which

indicates that they may exhibit dominance in some areas but are also not excessively
domineering. They have the capacity to compromise and collaborate to get the job done.
They are assertive but do not mind being passive if the situation requires it.

On Factor F (Liveliness), the participant scored high (Sten Score=7), which indicates
that they are happy-go-lucky, lively, and enthusiastic. They may also show signs of
impulsiveness.

The participant scored average (Sten Score=5) on Factor G(Rule-Consciousness). The

average score can be interpreted as the participant having tendencies to break rules that seem
illogical to them. They might also disregard societal norms and tend to follow their own set
of rules. They may follow rules if they deem that they are important or just.

Factor H measures Social Boldness and the participant scored average(Sten Score=6)
in this. Average scores indicate that the participant is an accommodating person. They may
feel shy and timid in front of new people. But once they get more familiar, Their
 12

spontaneous side would be visible. They may behave socially boldly when in the company of
people they are comfortable with.

The participant scored high (Sten Score=8) on Factor I which measures Sensitivity.
High scores indicate that they are sensitive to the needs of others. They may be very
empathetic and forgive easily. They are dependent or overprotected and may have trouble
with taking up responsibilities.

On Factor L(Vigilance), the participant scored average (Sten Score=6), meaning that
they are trusting but have a cautious outlook towards life. They are also not easy to fool.
They do not assume honesty in others and may be skeptical of others' motives. On the other
hand, they are also very accommodating people.

The participant scored low (Sten Score=4) on Factor M which measures

abstractedness. The low scores indicate that the person is pragmatic and down to earth. They
rely on methods that have been tried and tested before. Rather than making predictions they
use existing data to interpolate.

Factor N measures Privateness and the participant scored average(Sten Score=5).

Average scores mean that they are emotionally expressive but also like to keep some things
to themselves. They may share some aspects of their lives but also believe in dealing with
problems alone. They are genuine and socially aware.

Factor O measures Apprehension and the participant scored high (Sten Score=7).
High scores indicate that they are apprehensive, depressed, and troubled. They may be prone
to rumination and self-blame. Low self-esteem and insecurity can hamper how they function.

The participant scored low(Sten Score=3) in Factor Q1 which measures openness to

change. Low scores indicate that the participant prefers routine and stability. They may tend
towards conservative and established ideas. They may face trouble getting out of their
comfort zone and instead thrive in it.
 13

Factor Q2 measures Self-reliance and the participant scored average (Sten Score=6).
Average scores indicate that they are self-sufficient, prefer their own decisions, and are
resourceful. They take responsibility for their decisions and make contingency plans.
Although when faced with an extremely difficult decision, they may turn to others for help.

The participant score average (Sten Score=6) in Factor Q3 which measures

Perfectionism. Average scores indicate that they have the need to be perfect in areas of work,
relationships, etc. They may find it hard to relax and instead focus on what could have been
better. They are also prone to burnout and stress. They may appear laid-back and have
problems with discipline.

On Factor Q4 which measures Tension, the participant scored average (Sten

Score=6). Average scores on factor Q4 indicate that they have trouble with letting go. They
may also become nervous about change but have instances where they appear easygoing.

Table 2

Second Order Scores in 16 PF Questionnaire

Factor Absolute Score Sten Score Description

Extraversion 3 1 Low

Anxiety 3 1 Low

Tough Poise 2 1 Low

Independence 2 1 Low

Superego/Control 5.4 2 Moderate

The second order factors are also called global factors. These scores were calculated
using the primary factor scores.
 14

The participant scored low on “Extraversion” which indicates that they are an
introvert. They like to spend time alone. They are also socially inhibited and shy.

In the factor “Anxiety”, the participant scored low which indicates that the participant
is not very anxious and may experience generally satisfying lives, and are able to achieve
their goals. Although extremely low scores could be indicative of a lack of motivation for
difficult tasks.

The score on “Tough Poise” is low which can be interpreted as the participant is
emotionally sensitive, and emotions have a strong influence on the decisions they make. They
are gentle and thoughtful. Moreover, they are also open-minded and receptive to others’
feelings. This makes them very empathetic. It is likely that the participant is artistic or has
cultured interests as they are in touch with their emotions.

The participant scored low on “Independence”. This indicates that the participant is
accommodating as they are eager to help people or change their plans to fit others’. They are
agreeable but also passive. They may want support from others like their co-workers or
family as they tend to be more group dependent.

The participant scored moderately on “Superego/control”. They may conform to rules

that they deem important and are not hesitant to bend rules. They have their own set of
morals and values which they abide by. Although they may conform to the expectations
others have of them.

Interpretations and Impressions

Various aspects of the participant’s personality were measured using first and second-
order factors. The participant is warm and easygoing. They are introverts but not afraid of
social interactions. Even though they are eager to participate they can be held back due to
their group dependency. Moreover, they stick to the tried and tested methods. They are
 15

emotionally stable and have empathy for others. They are extremely sensitive to the needs of
others and forgive people easily. They may take their decisions based on their feelings. They
are not domineering and may even change their plans to accommodate others. They may
come off as passive due to this behavior. They experience healthy levels of anxiety and have
satisfying lives as they are also happy-go-lucky, lively, and enthusiastic. Though they have
problems with rumination and depressive symptoms. They may act impulsively and bend
rules due to the non-conforming aspect of their personality. They disregard societal norms,
create their own norms, and follow them by using personal discipline. Additionally, they
appreciate daily routine and stability.

References

Conceptualizing personality as a cognitive-affective processing system: A framework for models of

maladaptive behavior patterns and change. (2006, March 2). In Conceptualizing personality as
a cognitive-affective processing system: A framework for models of maladaptive behavior
patterns and change - ScienceDirect. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7894(04)80009-1
 16

WMS Report

Introduction

While there have been many speculations about memory, and how it operates,

presently it is defined as a system that encodes, stores and retrieves information. It is

necessary for a person to have gone through the three major steps of memory—encoding,

storage, and retrieval—to “remember” a piece of information. Encoding is the process

through which information derived from the stimuli in the environment is encrypted into the

mind. The second part is storage, where the encoded information is accumulated. The third

part of the process is retrieval, which depends on the two earlier parts of the process; if there

is an issue in encoding or storing the information, the individual might have a harder time

retrieving the information (Frankland et al. 2019).

Atkinson and Shiffrin proposed a multi-modal memory system which consisted of

sensory memory, short-term memory, and long-term memory (Atkinson & Shiffrin, 1968).

The structural model is presented in a way where stimuli are registered in the sensory

memory and reach the short-term memory before finally reaching the long-term memory. The

sensory memory holds the information for the shortest period of time—just the briefest

period to register the stimuli. There are three types of sensory memory: iconic memory

(visual representation), Echoic Memory (auditory representation), and Haptic memory (sense

of touch). However, not all of the information from stimuli makes it into one’s storage area or

even gets encoded into one’s brain. The existence of more than one stimulus forces the brain

to manage, and prioritize which information gets encoded or stored; this is known as selective

attention. Some of the early selection models provide evidence that the “filter” of selective

attention lies just right after the brain detects the stimuli, while the late-selection models

suggest that the information is filtered after one recognises its meaning, and thus decides if it
 17

is important enough to get stored (Alperin et al. 2013). Once it gets stored in short-term

memory, with the help of recall and rehearsal, information reaches long-term memory.

Working Memory

However, thinking the existing model is rudimentary, Braddley and Hitch published

the Working Memory—a revised model of Atkison and Shriffin’s short-term memory, which

viewed it as a space to retain information (Baddeley & Hitch, 1974). The revised model,

however, views short-term memory as a system which has many different parts that work

together to both retain and process information instead of just functioning as a storage

system. These elaborated parts are the central executive system, episodic buffer, the

phonological loop and the visuospatial sketch pad. The phonological loop consists of two

components: the phonological store and the auditory control process. The phonological store

(inner ear) functions as a storage and recall area for speech-based information and the

auditory control process (inner voice) allows the constant rehearsing of information of the

store to prevent decay.

The visual-spatial sketchpad functions in a similar way to the phonological loop but is

involved in visual information. It contains a visual cache which deals with information

regarding colour and form, and a component called a visual scribe which focuses on spatial

information. The episodic buffer integrates information from these components and fixes

them into a particular sequence which is sensitive to time into an “episode”. Finally, the

central executive system manages three of these major components and allocates attention

accordingly depending on the action being performed.

It is noted that item strengths such as familiarity of the information, frequency,

intelligence, medical and mental conditions, emotions, etc. affect the working memory

capacity (Blasiman & Was 2018).

 18

Wechsler Memory Scale (WMS)

The Wechsler Memory Scale WMS is a widely-used neuropsychological assessment

tool designed to evaluate an individual's memory abilities. This test is designed to assess

various aspects of memory, including immediate memory, working memory, and delayed

memory, as well as recognition and recall abilities. WMS is used in clinical, rehabilitation

and research settings to assess memory functioning in psychiatric, neurological and

neurosurgical conditions.

The WMS is considered to be one of the most comprehensive and reliable memory

assessment tools available and has been used extensively in both clinical and research

settings. It is frequently used by neuropsychologists, psychologists, and other healthcare

professionals to diagnose and assess memory impairment in individuals with a variety of

neurological and psychiatric conditions, including Alzheimer's disease, traumatic brain

injury, and stroke. The WMS includes 11 subtests that assess different aspects of memory

function, including verbal and visual memory, working memory, immediate and delayed

recall, and recognition. The test is designed to be used with individuals aged 16 years and

older, and it takes approximately 60-90 minutes to administer.

History of WMS

David Wechsler first developed the original version of WMS in 1945 after noticing that

memory capability was an important component of psychological evaluation in psychiatric

hospitals. WMS-I included seven subtests including, a visual memory subtest, several

auditory memory tests and as well as attention tasks. The aim of WMS-I according to

Wechsler was to provide a rapid, simple and practical memory evaluation. It would take only

15-20 minutes to complete the test and it would give you a single score which was called

memory quotient (Dzikon, 2020).

 19

There were a lot of criticisms for WMS-I as the norms were considered inadequate.

Critics also felt that due to the nature of memory, the test was unable to extrapolate norms for

younger and older patients. Other criticisms include that the test gave too much weight to

verbal material and made it difficult to distinguish between problems with visual memory and

visuomotor skills. The single memory quotient number, in the opinion of many psychologists,

failed to adequately reflect the real nature and complexity of memory functioning (Dzikon,

2020).

During the 1960s- 70s, memory and its components were extensively studied. New

research revealed a number of memory subcomponents, including verbal and visual memory,

and indicated that the various types were localized to various regions of the brain. Numerous

investigations also demonstrated the existence of both short-term and long-term memory.

Elbert Russell, a neuropsychologist developed a new test called the WMS-R where he

included two original subtests: a story recall, and a visual recall of information. Additionally,

he added a "delay condition" that assessed how much knowledge was retained after 30

minutes of delivering the first test (Russell,1975).

Weschler’s second edition, WMS- II included eight subtests, including tests to

measure delayed recollection. Additional tests were added to measure visual memory and a

concentration test. Additionally, the scoring system was modified to provide more precise

criteria and to enable the computation of scores for each memory component rather than just

a single memory quotient, which increased the test's reliability across examiners. Criticisms

for WMS-II included that a number of the visual memory tests seemed to involve several

cognitive processes, and some were observed to test attention rather than visual memory. The

test was also criticized as it may not have been able to accurately reflect how high or low

some individuals could have scored because it was difficult to distinguish between people at
 20

the extreme ends of the scoring range. Additionally, critics pointed out that the exam did not

evaluate recognition memory (Dzikon, 2020).

WMS-III

The third edition of WMS was published in 1997 and was called WMS-III. This

version included several optional tests the examiner could use when more information was

required, as well as six subtests that took about 45 minutes to give. As the scoring system

developed, it became possible to calculate working memory, total memory, immediate and

delayed memory, and recognition of both auditory and visual material. Additionally, you

could calculate scores that represented the quantity of information retained from a first trial

and the learning slope (Dzikon, 2020).

The scores could be interpreted by comparing them to the normative data which was

gathered from over 1000 individuals with ages ranging from 16-89. In order to compare

various cognitive skills, the normative sample for the WMS-III was also the sample used for

the third version of the Wechsler Scale of Intelligence. WMS-III has been praised for its

improved reliability and for the inclusion of subtests that made it possible to distinguish

between problems with psychomotor and visual memory and the addition of more visual

memory tasks. By differentiating between encoding and retrieval impairments, the ability to

evaluate recognition improved treatment planning (Dzikon, 2020).

WMS-III was published after a lot of revision. Abstract visual designs were removed

and replaced with common stimuli like pictures of faces (Faces subtest) and pictures of a

family doing various activities (Family Pictures subtest). WMS-III also added a subtest to

measure delayed recognition memory. These changes increased the ecological validity of the

test. WMS-III also incorporated process scores and reconceptualized attention and

concentration factors in the working memory index. Eight main index scores, three global
 21

composite scores (working memory, general memory (delayed recall), and immediate

memory), and five additional index scores (assessing auditory and visual immediate and

delayed memory, as well as auditory recognition) were all included in the WMS-III (Dzikon,

2020).

Criticism

Criticisms in the WMS-III were revealed after extensive use of the test in. It was

found that while one of the visual subtests was sensitive to individuals with social awareness

deficits, it was insufficient for evaluating visual memory in other individuals. Another visual

subtest frequently left older people perplexed and seemed prejudiced against particular

cultural groups. Since the sample was completing both the WMS and the WAIS, concerns

about fatigue emerged, leading to criticism of the norms as well. There were also worries that

the sample might have included individuals with undiagnosed dementia, which would have

decreased the test's sensitivity to identify memory impairment (Dzikon, 2020).

Scoring

Five of the 11 subtests in the WMS-III are optional and does not affect any of the

index results. The subtests assess working memory, auditory memory (immediate and

delayed), visual memory (immediate and delayed), and delayed recollection and recognition.

Each subtest is administered in its entirety, except for spatial span and letter-number

sequencing which follow a discontinuity rule, where the test is stopped after two or three

consecutive failures of a single trial. The main subtests take 30-35 minutes to administer,

while the supplemental subtests take 15-20 minutes. Age-adjusted scaled scores are created

from raw scores, using the scoring manual. These scores are then added to produce Index

scores and percentile ratings (Chlebowski, 2011).

 22

WMS- Indian Adaptation

The Indian edition of the WMS, called the Wechsler Memory Scale - Indian

Adaptation (WMS-IA), was developed by Dr Pushpalatha Gurappa of the Department of

Mental Health and Social Psychology at the National Institute of Mental Health and

Neurosciences (NIMHANS), Bangalore, India in collaboration with Pearson Clinical and

Talent Assessment. The WMS-IA has been standardized on a sample of Indian individuals,

and it is used by clinicians and researchers in India to assess memory function in a range of

settings, including clinical and forensic contexts. Adaptation changes were made to 6 of the

11 subtests including Faces and Family Pictures. Indian norms are also presented in the form

of percentile ranks. New reliability coefficients were also developed based on Indian

normative data. Several verbal subtests have translations available in Indian languages

(Pearson, 2009).

Clinical Application

The WMS-III can be applied in a variety of contexts to evaluate memory and its

different aspects in clinically significant ways. It can be used as part of a comprehensive

neuropsychological assessment to identify and localize cerebral dysfunction as well as to help

identify dementias and neurodegenerative diseases. WMS-III can also be used in educational

environments to identify how memory deficiencies could contribute to academic challenges

and learning disorders. The WMS-III is also useful in rehabilitation settings for identifying

areas of weakness that need to be addressed through interventions and those spared memory

functions that can be used for compensation. Furthermore, it can also be used to monitor

development and evaluate the effectiveness of treatments (Chlebowski, 2011).

 23

The WMS-III has been used extensively in clinical research settings. It has been used

to identify neuropsychological profiles of dementia which then helps in distinguishing

between patients who have Lewy body dementia and Alzheimer's disease. An accurate

diagnosis helps in understanding cognitive decline and aids treatment. WMS-III has also been

used to understand the learning deficits that people with schizophrenia face. Additionally,

WMS-III has also been effective in identifying malingering. The primary indices of WMS-III

can also accurately identify neurocognitive dysfunction and malingering in patients with mild

Traumatic Brain Injury (Chlebowski, 2011).

Test description

WMS-III is an individually administered measure of memory that uses:

- Verbal and Figural stimuli

- Meaningful and Abstract stimuli

- Delayed and Immediate recall

There are 8 memory indices that are included in test

1. Auditory immediate memory

The auditory immediate memory is the ability to listen to oral information and be able

to repeat it immediately.

2. Auditory delayed memory

The auditory delayed memory is the ability to listen to oral information and be able to

recall it after time has passed since the initial presentation of the stimulus.
 24

3. Auditory Recognition

auditory recognition memory is the ability to listen to oral information and be able to

recognise it when presented with it usually after some time has passed.

4. Visual immediate memory

visual immediate memory is the ability to remember visual information in the context

of its spatial location immediately after the visual stimulus is presented. It includes the

ability to relate the visual information and the relationship among the elements of the

visual information within the spatial context.

5. Visual delayed memory

The visual delayed memory is the ability to remember visual information in the

context of its spatial location after some time has passed since the initial presentation

of the stimulus. It includes the ability to relate the visual information and the

relationship among the elements of the visual stimulus within the spatial context it is

presented in after a significant amount of time has passed.

6. Immediate Memory

The immediate memory is the ability to recall both auditory and visual information

immediately after the stimuli have been presented while delayed memory is the ability

to recall both visual and auditory information after a significant amount of time has

passed since the first presentation of the stimulus.

 25

7. General Memory

The general memory is the ability to remember general details in life that are helpful in daily

functioning like the days of the week.

8. Working memory

There are two main components of working memory that have been assessed in

WMS. The auditory working memory is the ability to temporarily store and

manipulate auditory information. The visual working memory is the ability to

temporarily store and manipulate visual information and the spatial locations.

WMS uses 11 subtests:

1. Information and orientation-

This includes taking basic demographic information from the client, including name,

age, date of birth, and questions regarding their mental status and orientation

including asking them to name the prime minister of their country.

2. Logical memory

There are two components for this subtest: Logical Memory I and Logical Memory II.

The first subtest includes a narration of story A and B and then the participant is asked

to repeat the stories with as much detail as possible one after another. This component

is used to measure narrative memory using a free-recall method. Narrative memory is

part of episodic and semantic memory that allow for an individual to remember the

details in a narrative format.

 26

The second component of the subtest is administered 20-25 minutes after the first test

and the participant is asked to recall the story A and B with as much detail as possible

without being presented the story again. This is meant to measure long-term narrative

memory. After this, the participant is given the details of the test and is asked to

respond in positive or negative and this tests their recognition abilities.

3. Verbal Paired Associates

This subtest aims to measure auditory memory and auditory recognition. It has 2

parts, VPA-I and VPA-II. It involves narrating a list of eight word pairs, and asking

the client to recall the word pair after being asked for one of the words. The same list

of word pairs is repeated over four trials but in different sequences and the response

for each of them are noted. VPA-II includes both recall and recognition and is done

after 25-35 minutes after the administration of VPA-I. In the recall condition the

client is asked to recall the word pairs after the first word is given and in the

recognition condition a list of 24 word pairs are narrated to the client and they are

asked to recognise the first eight word pairs that were practiced over four trials in

VPA-I.

4. Faces

This subtest is also done in two parts. The first part involves showing the client 24

pictures of human faces for two seconds and asking them to remember the face. After

which you show the client a set of 48 pictures and ask them to recognise the faces

from the first set of 24 pictures that were shown. The subtest is scored based on

whether the client is able to correctly identify the faces or not. The subtest measures

visual immediate memory, visual delayed memory, and general memory. Faces-II is a
 27

recognition condition where the client is shown a set of 48 faces and is asked to

recognise the set of 24 faces from them that were shown earlier and asked to

remember.

5. Family Pictures

Family pictures subtest also includes two parts and is used to assess visual immediate

memory, visual delayed memory and general memory. Family picture includes

introducing the client to a family by showing them a picture with all of the family

members including parents, grandparents, children and a pet. The client is then shown

four different scenes consecutively involving various family members involved in

different activities. The client is asked to remember as much of the scene as possible.

After this the client is asked to remember all the four different scenes and identify the

characters in them, their location in the scene as well as the activity that they were

performing. The client’s responses are recorded verbatim and scored based on how

accurately they were able to remember the entire scene, including all the accurate

characters, their locations and the activities they were performing.

Family Pictures-II is a delayed recall condition and is administered after 25-35

minutes after the administration of Family Pictures-I. Here the client is asked to recall

all the four scenes from the first trial and asked to name the characters involved, their

location and the activity they were performing.

6. Word Lists

Word list is an optional test in WMS-III that measures general and working memory

in the client. This subtest involves two lists of words of 12 words each. List A is
 28

narrated to the client and then in Trial 1 they are asked to recall all the words that they

can in any order and the responses are noted. After this List A is repeated again and

the client is asked to repeat as many words as they can in any order. There are a total

of 4 trials that are done with List A.

After this another list of words of 12 words each, List B is narrated immediately after

the first four trials of List A. The client is asked to recall as many words as they can

from the new list and repeat them back in any order. After this is done, the client is

asked to remember the words from List A without narrating the list again and asked to

repeat as many words as they can from List A in any order. The test aims to measure

any latency and recency effects of short-term memory.

Word list-II has both recall and recognition conditions and is administered after 25-35

minutes after Word List-I. First the client is asked to recall words from List A and

repeat as many as they can in any order. After which a recognition condition is there

where the client is presented with a list of 24 words one by one and is asked to

recognise words from List A and identify them accurately.

7. Visual Reproduction

This subtest is used to assess spatial memory for unfamiliar non-verbal visual stimuli

namely immediate and delayed visual-spatial memory. It includes two components:

Visual Reproduction I and Visual Reproduction II. During the first component, a set

of designs are shown for 10 seconds and the participant is asked to recreate the

drawing without aid. This is meant to assess the immediate visual-spatial memory.

Once the test is administered, the participant is informed that they are going to be

asked to recall them later.

 29

During the delayed condition, the participant is asked to draw the figures from the

immediate condition in any order. Later, to assess recognition, the participant is

shown a set of six designs and is asked to choose the right design that has been shown

during the immediate condition.

8. Letter Number Sequencing

This subtest is used as a part of measuring working memory capacity. It contains 7

items with 7 trials each. The participant is orally presented with a list of letters and

numbers jumbled together and is asked to repeat the sequence with the letters in the

alphabetical order and the numbers in ascending numerical order. The subtest

increases in difficulty with the sequence growing longer as the test progresses. This

subtest allows for measuring the visual-spatial and auditory working memory,

especially language, and the ability to manipulate data more than digit span.

9. Spatial Span

This subtest is administered to measure working memory mainly visuo-spatial

memory and the implicit visual-spatial learning abilities of an individual. It is often

considered to be the non-verbal equivalent of the digit span test. In this test, there is a

set of blocks which are tapped in a specific order by the examiner, and the participant

is expected to tap the blocks in the same order after each trial. The difficulty is

increased as the test progresses with the increase of the number of blocks used.

10. Digit Span

 30

This optional subtest is administered to assess working memory capacity mainly

auditory and visual-spatial working memory. It contains two components–forward

and backward Digit Span. In the Forward Digit Span, the participant is orally

presented with 8 items containing two trials each. Each item contains a set of numbers

with the first item containing 2 digits while the last item containing 9 digits. The

participant is expected to repeat the numbers in the sequence they are presented with.

In the Backward Digit Span, the participant is once again presented with 7 items

containing 2 trials each, and the participant is dictated to a sequence of digits and then

they are expected to recall the numbers in a backward sequence.

11. Mental Control

The subtest includes 8 trials in which the participant is asked to count from 1 to 20,

say the alphabet from A to Z, report the days in order from Sunday to Saturday, and

say the months from January to December in their correct order. After this, the same

trails are repeated but the participant is expected to do them in the reverse order–count

from 20 to 1, say the alphabet backwards, relay the days from Saturday to Sunday and

recall the months from December to January. The mental control of the participant is

assessed through the number of errors and their accuracy.

Reliability and Validity

A stratified representative group of 1,250 people between the ages of 16 and 89 was

used to norm the WMS-III. The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) was co-normed

with WMS-III which allows for meaningful comparisons between intellectual ability and

memory functioning. For WMS-III subtest results across age groups, the average reliability

coefficients vary from 0.74 to 0.93, with a median reliability of 0.81. The Primary Indexes'
 31

average reliability coefficients vary from 0.74 to 0.93, with 0.87 serving as the median

reliability.

All of the subtests had excellent inter-rater reliability, averaging over 0.90. WMS-III

has strong associations with other tests, such as the WMS-R, Children's Memory Scale

(CMS), and the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (WIAT), which provides evidence of

its concurrent validity (Chlebowski, 2011).

Demographic Details

Name: MM

Age: 23

Sex: Female

Educational Background: MSc Clinical Psychology

Occupation: Student

Family Type: Joint

Purpose of Test

This test was administered to assess the participants' current cognitive and memory functions.

It was conducted solely for academic purposes only.

Behavioural Observation

The participant seemed enthusiastic about performing the tasks and wasn’t stressed about

them. She seemed to prefer the tasks which involved the use of her immediate memory and
 32

had issues with the tasks that involved delayed memory. This was observed by her fidgeting

and twitching of her facial muscles.

Test Results

Table 1

Index Score

Scale Sum of Index Percentile Confidence Range

Scores
Scaled Scores Interval

Auditory Immediate 32 138 99 130-141 Superior

Very

Visual Immediate
Index 23 109 73 97-118 Average
High

Immediate Memory 38 96 39 90-103 Average

Auditory Delayed 30 132 98 119-137 Superior

Very

Visual Delayed 20 100 50 90-110 Average

Auditory
Recognition 13 115 84 100-122 Average
High
Delayed

50 100 50 92-108 Average

Memory
General
 33

Working Memory 25 115 84 104-122 Average

High

The capacity to temporarily store knowledge in mind for a little amount of time,
typically just a few seconds or less, is known as immediate or short-term memory. It is
important for performing daily tasks like memorising a phone number or paying attention to
directions. In contrast, storing information for a longer length of time—typically 20 minutes
or longer—is what is meant by general, delayed, or long-term memory. Personal experiences,
general knowledge, and skills are just a few examples of the information that can be stored
and retrieved from this sort of memory over the course of a lifetime. In the Auditory
Immediate memory index, the participant performed better than 99% in her age group and
was in the range of very superior in tasks that required her to remember information after a
single auditory presentation. The participant scored better than 73% of individuals in her age
group in the Visual Immediate memory index and was in the high average category in tasks
that required her to remember information after a single visual presentation. However, her
Immediate Memory score is above only 39% of individuals in her age group and was in the
average category.

For Auditory Delayed Memory, her index score falls in the superior range and she is
better than 98% of people in her age group in tasks that required her to recall recently learned
auditory information after a 25- to 35-minute delay. In Visual Delayed Memory, the
participant fell in the average category and is above 50% of those in her age group. The task
involved the retrieval of visual information that was acquired after a delay of 25-35 minutes
from the initial presentation.

The participant’s Auditory Recognition Delayed percentile was 84% which is

impressive and she fell in the high average category for a task that required her to recognize
information 20-25 minutes after it was recently obtained auditory information.

The participant is better than 50% of those in her age group in General Memory and
falls under the average category on tasks that measured her diverse auditory and visual
memory abilities. On Working Memory the participant is better than 84% of those in her age
group and falls under the high average category in tasks that required her to manage
multitasking demands using visual information.
 34

The participant’s auditory immediate memory is 29 points more than the visual
immediate and her auditory delayed is 32 points more than the visual delayed. It can be
inferred that the participant’s ability to store and retrieve auditory information is better than
visual information, in both short and long-term memory. Clinicians can use auditory-
memory strategies such as mnemonic devices to help the participant grasp visual information
better. Good auditory memory is very beneficial to professionals like telephone operators.
customer service representatives as they need to process and recall information which they
receive via the phone.

The difference between the participant’s visual immediate and visual delayed index
scores is 9 points and 6 points between auditory immediate and auditory delayed. This
difference suggests that the participant’s short-term retention of auditory and visual
information is better than long-term memory retention. This ability can be advantageous in
professions where quick decision-making and multi-tasking are required such as emergency
response, sales, etc.

The participant’s working memory score is 19 points more than her immediate
memory and 15 points more than her general memory. This implies that she can multitask
better than learning information after a single presentation of the material. Working memory
is also better than immediate and general memory. Working memory is a predictor of
academic success, and working memory deficiencies have been connected to a variety of
neuropsychological problems like ADHD, dyslexia, and schizophrenia. Therefore, this has
clinical implications.
 35

References

Alperin, B. R., Haring, A. E., Zhuravleva, T. Y., Holcomb, P. J., Rentz, D. M., & Daffner, K.

R. (2013). The dissociation between early and late selection in older adults. Journal of

Cognitive Neuroscience, 25(12), 2189–2206. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00456

Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its

control processes. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 89–195.

https://doi.org/10.1016/s0079-7421(08)60422-3

Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. Psychology of Learning and

Motivation, 47–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0079-7421(08)60452-1

Blasiman, R. N., & Was, C. A. (2018). Why Is Working Memory Performance Unstable? A

Review of 21 Factors. Europe’s journal of psychology, 14(1), 188–231.

https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v14i1.1472

Chlebowski, C. (2011). Wechsler Memory Scale All Versions. Encyclopedia of Clinical

Neuropsychology, 2688–2690. https://doi:/10.1007/978-0-387-79948-3_1163

Dzikon, C. (2020). The Wechsler Memory Scale (WMS‐IV). The Wiley Encyclopedia of

Personality and Individual Differences, 529–532.

https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119547167.ch159 10.1002/9781119547167.ch15

Frankland, P. W., Josselyn, S. A., & Köhler, S. (2019). The neurobiological foundation of

memory retrieval. Nature neuroscience, 22(10), 1576–1585.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-019-0493-1
 36

MMPI Report

Personality Introduction

The term personality refers to the persistent traits, interests, motivations, values, self-
concept, abilities, and emotional patterns that make up a person's particular way of adjusting
to life. Although different theories have varied explanations for the formation and
organisation of personality, they all concur that personality influences behaviour. The term
personality originates from the Latin word "persona," which denoted a mask worn by actors
in the theatre to portray various characters or conceal their true identities. There are several
factors that can impact a person's personality, and explanations may vary. Some of these
factors may include genetic influences, as well as the impact of the environment and
experiences that shape an individual's personality.

Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)

The MMPI is a clinical assessment tool that has been extensively studied and is

widely used by mental health professionals to evaluate traits of personality and

psychopathology and diagnose mental health conditions. However, it has also found

applications in other areas beyond clinical psychology (Cherry, 2022). The MMPI-2 is the

most widely used version of the MMPI. It is a self-report inventory, consisting of 567 true

and false items, that aims to assess one’s psychological state. The various questions are

designed to disclose the person's feelings about taking the test, and whether they are being

honest while answering the test questions, or either over/under-reporting in an attempt to

influence the results. The test takes nearly around 60 to 90 minutes to finish, and the

responses aid mental health professionals in seeing if there are any signs of a personality

disorder or mental illness (Joy, 2020).

The MMPI has in-built clinical scales, which define an individual’s emotional

processes and response to stress. There are 10 clinical scales in the MMPI-2, which overlap

and specify various psychological conditions, with higher scale scores pointing to an

increased risk of having a mental health illness (Lamoreux, 2022). The first scale is

Hypochondriasis, which is designed to measure a phobic worry over a person’s health, with
 37

items concerning their well-being and bodily symptoms. The second scale is Depression,

which aims to identify features pertaining to clinical depression, with questions concerning

life dissatisfaction, no hope for future, and poor self-esteem and confidence. Next, the third

scale is Hysteria, which is intended to detect features like headaches, low physical health,

neuroticism, distrust, and suspicion, in a person. The fourth scale is Psychopathic Deviate,

which was designed to identify people who are psychopathic, measuring the absence of

acceptance of authority, and societal deviation. Moving on, the fifth scale, which is

Masculinity-Femininity, aims to assess homosexual tendencies and stereotypical gender

roles, while the sixth scale is that of Paranoia, which is considered to recognize personality

aspects like suspicion, grandiosity, rigidity, and sensitivity. The seventh scale is

Psychasthenia, which measures compulsions, obsessions, extreme doubts, and irrational fears,

and describes symptoms that reflect disorders like OCD, depression, and anxiety.

Furthermore, scale eight is Schizophrenia, which identifies aspects like social alienation,

bizarre thoughts, impulse and concentration difficulties, poor relations, and experiencing

hallucinations and delusions, whereas the ninth scale, that is Hypomania, identifies features

like grandiosity, irritability, hallucinations, quicker speech and motor movement, and

delusions. Lastly, the tenth scale is that of Social Introversion, with items focusing on

shyness, lack of social skills, and inclination to pull out from social contacts and duties.

The MMPI also includes validity scales that are specifically designed to detect

whether a person attempted to present a false or distorted self-image while taking the test.

These scales help assess whether the person's responses accurately reflect their true

personality or if they were intentionally trying to manipulate the results.

1. L scale (Lie scale)- measures whether the individual is deliberately trying to

present themselves in an overly positive light

 38

2. F scale (Infrequency scale)- Detects whether the individual is answering

randomly or in a way that suggests they are exaggerating or faking symptoms

3. K scale (Defensiveness scale)- Assesses whether the individual is trying to

deny or downplay psychological symptoms.

4. VRIN scale (Variable Response Inconsistency Scale)- Measures whether the

individual is giving inconsistent responses or contradicting themselves.

5. TRIN scale (True Response Inconsistency Scale): Assesses whether the

individual is consistently answering questions in a true or false pattern.

History and Development of the Test

In 1937, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), a psychological

assessment tool, was created by Starke R. Hathaway, a clinical psychologist, and J. Charnley

McKinley, a neuropsychiatrist, while they were working at the University of Minnesota

(Drayton, 2009). Their aim was to design an objective measure that could evaluate various

mental health disorders and their level of severity. Originally, the test was intended for use

within the university's Department of Psychology.

Initially, the test questions were chosen based on the responses provided by

individuals who had been diagnosed with various mental health disorders. Over time, the test

gained immense popularity and became widely used in different settings such as psychology

clinics, hospitals, correctional facilities, and pre-employment screenings (Cherry, 2022).

Currently, it is the most commonly utilized clinical assessment tool and one of the most

extensively researched psychological tests in existence.

After its first release in 1943, the test has undergone numerous revisions to enhance

its precision and eliminate biases related to gender and race. During the updating process,

some of the original questions were removed or rephrased, while new ones were added to
 39

improve the test's overall accuracy. Furthermore, new validity scales were incorporated into

the modified version of the test (Joy, 2020). There are several types of the MMPI that are in

general use today:

· The MMPI-2 is the adult version of the assessment that has been commonly used as a

standard since it was initially released in 1989. It has undergone several revisions since then,

including in 2001, 2003, and 2009, to make it more culturally sensitive and inclusive. Despite

these changes, it remains the most widely used clinical assessment tool, comprising 567

true/false questions that can take between 60 to 90 minutes to complete.

• The MMPI-2-Retracted Form is a condensed version of the MMPI-2 designed for

adults, released in 2008. It includes 338 true/false items, which makes it significantly

shorter than the MMPI-2 and takes about half the time to complete, typically taking

around 40 to 50 minutes.

• In 1992, the MMPI-Adolescent was introduced as a version of the test specifically

designed for adolescents aged 14 to 18 years old. This test includes 478 items and

typically takes around 60 minutes to complete.

• In 2016, just like the MMPI-2-RF, the MMPI-A-Retracted Form was released as a

shorter version of the MMPI-A designed for adolescents and comprises of only 241

questions, which take between 25 to 45 minutes to complete.

• The most recent version of the MMPI, the MMPI-3, was released in 2020 and

includes updated items, scales, and norms. It consists of 335 items and typically takes

between 25 to 50 minutes to complete. The MMPI-3 is available in three languages:

English, Spanish, and French.

Psychometric Properties of the Test

 40

An analysis was conducted on a selection of MMPI research published between 1970

and 1981 to determine the reliability and stability estimates for the various MMPI scales.

Consistent with previous research, the results showed that all scales had moderately high

levels of reliability and stability. Reliability values ranged from .71 to .84, while stability

values ranged from .63 to .86. The study included thousands of adult participants from

various populations, including college students, psychiatric patients, medical patients,

individuals in alcohol or drug rehabilitation programs, and prison residents (Drayton, 2009).

The validity figures for the MMPI vary depending on the specific clinical scales being

assessed, as well as the population being tested. The MMPI’s test-rest reliability is recorded

as .50 to .80 where the first scale, Hypochondriasis, has the highest reliability.

Demographic Details

Name: P

Age: 23

Sex: Female

Educational Background: MSc Clinical Psychology

Occupation: Student

Family Type: Nuclear

Purpose of Test
The test was done to understand aspects of personality and the existence of
components of psychopathology for academic purposes.

Behavioural Observation:
 41

The participant was eager to perform the test in the beginning but as the questions
progressed they seemed to lose interest. They started to fidget, lose focus and began showing
signs of tiredness. This could be due to the excessive number of items in the test and can
impact the accuracy of their responses.

Test Results

Table 1

Validity Scales

Scales Raw Scores T Score

Frequency 1 41

Back Frequency 6 66

Infrequent Psychopathology 0 41

Lie 1 38

Correction 6 30

Superlative Self Preservation 16 39

The Infrequency T-score is 41. This implies that the participant accurately described their
psychological functioning. The Back Frequency T-score implies that the participant did not
fake the responses and there were no changes in the responses either. The Infrequency-
Psychopathology T-score suggests that the participant accurately described their current
mental health status. The T-score of the Lie scale can be interpreted as the participant
accepting their shortcomings and did not deliberately try to present themselves in the most
positive way possible. The T-score of the Correction scale suggests that the participant may
be faking bad, but there are no elevations in the Infrequency scales. Therefore the
 42

interpretation of the Correction scale T-score is not warranted. The Superlative Self
Preservation T-score is valid and there are no signs of defensiveness.

Table 2

Raw Scores T Score

VRIN 7 58

TRIN 10 58T

VRIN T-Score is 58 and the TRIN T-score is 58F. These scores imply that the profile of the
participant is valid. The participant was able to understand and respond to the items in a
consistent manner.

Table 3

Clinical Scales

Scales Raw Scores T Score

Hypochondriasis (Hs) 14 67

Depression (D) 28 66

Hysteria (Hy) 25 56

Psychopathic Deviate (Pd) 15 47

 43

Masculinity-Feminity (Mf) 40 40

Paranoia (Pa) 13 59

Psychasthemia (Pt) 19 58

Schizophrenia (Sc) 24 66

Hypomania (Ma) 19 55

Social Introversion (Si) 26 49

The T-score on the Hypochondriases is high level. The participant may have general or vague
somatic complaints. They may be preoccupied with health problems and develop somatic
symptoms in times of stress. The Depression scale had a T-score level of high. This suggests
that the participant is dysphoric, meaning that they are unhappy, uneasy and dissatisfied with
life situations. They may lack the energy to carry out everyday tasks and have somatic
complaints. They are anxious and introverted. Their interests may be restricted and they lack
self-confidence. The participant has a moderate level of hysteria meaning they have somatic
complaints. They may be in denial and act immaturely. The participant may come off as self-
centred and demanding. They are also suggestible and affiliative i:e they desire to form
emotional bonds. Although they may get easily swayed by these bonds. The T-score level on
the Masculinity-Femininity is low indicating that although the participant may have
traditional feminine interests they are not exclusive. The participant may be androgynous
meaning they have both feminine and masculine traits. The T-score level on the Paranoia
scale is moderate meaning that the participant is overly sensitive and guarded. They may
have issues with trusting people and may act angry and resentful. A moderate level on the
Psychasthenia T-score indicates that they are anxious, tense, uncomfortable, insecure and
lacking in self-confidence. Though they are meticulous, they are also indecisive. The
participant may be shy and introverted. The participant has a high-level T-score on the
Schizophrenia scale suggesting that the participant has unusual beliefs. They may exhibit
eccentric behaviours and may withdraw socially. The participant may also indulge in
excessive daydreaming or fantasies. They have generalized fear, and anxiety, and may feel
 44

sad. The participant may also have somatic complaints. A moderate T-score on the
Hypomania scale suggests that the participant is energetic, gregarious, extroverted, rebellious,
and seeks excitement. They are also creative and enterprising.

Impressions

The participant accurately described their psychological functioning and mental health status.
They present general or vague somatic complaints and are preoccupied with health problems.
They exhibit somatic symptoms in times of stress. Moreover, they experience dysphoria,
anxiety and are overly sensitive. They have low self-confidence, are in denial about some of
their symptoms and act immaturely. They can come off as self-centred and demanding. The
participant has the desire to form emotional bonds but is also easily swayed by them. Both
feminine and masculine traits are present but they have feminine interests. They are guarded
and distrustful of people. Although they are meticulous in the tasks they are performing, they
also show signs of indecisiveness. They indulge in excessive daydreaming and have
fantasies. Eccentric behaviours and unusual beliefs are present. Often, they withdraw
socially. They do have days where they are extroverted, energetic, rebellious and seek
excitement. The participant is creative and resourceful.
 45

References

American Psychological Association. (n.d.). Personality.

https://www.apa.org/topics/personality#:~:text=Personality%20refers%20to%20the
%20enduring,%2C%20abilities%2C%20and%20emotional%20patterns.
Cherry, K. (2022, November 18). What Is the MMPI Test? Verywell Mind.
https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-the-minnesota-multiphasic-personality-
inventory-2795582
Drayton, M. (2009). The Minnesota Multiphasic personality inventory-2 (MMPI-2).
Occupational Medicine, 59(2), 135-136. https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqn182
Joy, R. (2020, April 20). What to Know About the MMPI Test. Healthline.
https://www.healthline.com/health/mmpi-test
Lamoreux, K. (2022, April 29). All About the MMPI Personality Test. Psych Central.
https://psychcentral.com/lib/minnesota-multiphasic-personality-inventory-
mmpi#clinical-scales
Statistics Solutions. (2022, June 27). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) -
Statistics Solutions. https://www.statisticssolutions.com/free-resources/directory-of-
survey-instruments/minnesota-multiphasic-personality-inventory-mmpi/
 46

SPM Report

Introduction

Intelligence is a complex trait that has been studied by psychologists for decades.
Intelligence tests are commonly used to measure a person's intellectual ability. Intelligence
tests are used in a variety of settings, including educational, occupational, and clinical
settings, to assess individuals’ intellectual strengths and weaknesses (Kaufman et al., 2016).
Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices (SPM) test is one of the most widely used intelligence
tests. The SPM measures abstract reasoning and assesses individuals’ general intelligence.

History

John C. Raven, a British psychologist, developed Raven's SPM test in the early 1900s.
The test was initially used to assess soldiers' intellectual abilities during World War I. The
first edition of the test consisted of 60 multiple-choice questions that were divided into five
sets, with each set containing 12 questions. Raven continued to revise the test over the years,
with the most recent edition being Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices (APM), which
was published in 1998 (Flanagan & Dixon, 2019).

Variations of SPM

Over the years, various versions of the Standard Progressive Matrices (SPM) have
been developed to cater to different age groups and cultural backgrounds. The variations in
these versions can be seen in the content, format, and difficulty levels of the matrices.

One of the most widely used variations is the Coloured Progressive Matrices (CPM), which
was developed by J.C. Raven and J.H. Court in 1988. As the name suggests, this version uses
coloured images instead of black and white images to enhance visual appeal, particularly for
younger age groups. The CPM is typically administered to children aged 5-11 years old and
has been found to have good reliability and validity (Raven, Raven, & Court, 1998).

Another variation is the Advanced Progressive Matrices (APM), which was developed to
cater to individuals with higher cognitive abilities. The APM comprises of 36 items that
increase in difficulty as the test progresses and is typically administered to individuals aged
16 years or older. This version has been found to have good reliability and validity in
measuring fluid intelligence (Raven, Raven, & Court, 1998).
 47

In addition to these variations, there are also culture-specific versions of the SPM, such as the
Standard Progressive Matrices - Plus (SPM+), which was developed to measure the cognitive
abilities of Chinese individuals (Tan, Yang, Ruan, & Zhang, 2011). The SPM+ consists of 60
items and has been found to have good reliability and validity in measuring fluid intelligence
in Chinese university students.

Overall, these variations of the Standard Progressive Matrices allow for a more tailored and
targeted assessment of cognitive abilities in different populations. However, it is important to
note that these variations have been developed for specific purposes and should be chosen
based on the population being tested and the cognitive abilities being measured.

Purpose

The Raven's SPM test is administered to assess an individual's nonverbal, abstract

reasoning ability, or fluid intelligence. Fluid intelligence is solving novel problems, thinking
abstractly, and adapting to new situations. Unlike crystallized intelligence, which is
knowledge accumulated over time, fluid intelligence is more innate and not influenced by
environmental factors (Jaeggi, Buschkuehl, Jonides, & Perrig, 2008). The test is often used
for educational, clinical, and occupational purposes, such as screening job applicants or
identifying children who may benefit from gifted programs.

Nature of the Test

The Raven's SPM test is comprised of multiple-choice questions that assess an

individual's ability to reason and solve problems without relying on language or mathematical
skills. The questions are presented in a matrix format, with one or more missing elements in
each matrix. The individual must identify the missing element or pattern by selecting one of
six or eight options provided.

The test consists of 60 questions that are divided into five sets of 12 questions each.
Each set becomes progressively more difficult, and the questions become more complex as
the individual progresses through the test (Raven, 2000). Each set of test has a time limit,
with the first set allowing 20 minutes, the second set 25 minutes, and the remaining sets 30
minutes each.

Administration
 48

The Raven's SPM test is administered individually or in a group setting, and it can be
administered to individuals aged 6 and above. The test administrator reads the instructions
aloud and ensures that the individual understands them before beginning the test. The
individual is then given a booklet containing the test questions and a separate answer sheet.
The test administrator sets a timer for each set of the test, and the individual is instructed to
complete as many questions as possible in the allotted time. The test typically takes around
40-60 minutes to complete, depending on the edition and the individual's ability (Flanagan &
Dixon, 2019).

Reliability and Validity

The reliability of the SPM test has been extensively investigated across various populations
and age groups. A study by Benson and colleagues (2008) reported high test-retest reliability
for the SPM test, with a coefficient of .87 over a four-year period. Another study by Lohman
and Hagen (2001) found similarly high reliability for the SPM test, with a coefficient of .90
over a three-year period. These findings suggest that the SPM test is a reliable measure of
fluid intelligence over time.

The validity of the SPM test has also been extensively studied. The SPM test is designed to
be a culture-free measure of fluid intelligence, meaning that it should be equally effective in
measuring intellectual functioning across different cultures and language groups. A meta-
analysis by Carpenter, Just, and Shell (1990) reported that the SPM test has a high level of
cross-cultural validity, with no significant differences in performance across different ethnic
or language groups. Similarly, a study by Tan and colleagues (2011) found that the SPM test
was a valid measure of fluid intelligence in a sample of Chinese university students.

The convergent validity of the SPM test has also been investigated by comparing its scores
with those of other intelligence tests. A study by Jensen (2006) reported a high correlation
between the SPM test and other measures of nonverbal intelligence, such as the Wechsler
Intelligence Scale for Children and the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children. Another
study by Kaufman and Kaufman (2004) found that the SPM test had a strong correlation with
the Raven's Colored Progressive Matrices test, which is a variant of the SPM test.

Furthermore, the predictive validity of the SPM test has been investigated by examining its
relationship with academic and professional outcomes. A study by Heggestad and colleagues
(2006) found that SPM test scores were significantly related to job performance in a sample
 49

of military personnel. Similarly, a study by Lubinski and colleagues (2006) found that SPM
test scores predicted academic performance in a sample of gifted high school students.

Name: P
Age: 23 years 11 months
Gender: Female
Education: Graduate

Brief History
Schooling was done in the CBSE board, High school in the Maharashtra board, Graduation in
Nagpur University and Masters at Christ University. The medium of instruction was English.

Purpose of Testing
The test measures intellectual development and logical thinking levels.

Behavioural Observation
The participant was comfortably seated and rapport could be established easily. She was alert
and responsive and was motivated for the testing. She completed sets A, B & C easily. She
took longer to complete sets D & E. While attempting to solve set E, the participant appeared
stressed. This could be due to the increasing difficulty of the sets.
 50

Test Finding

Total Score 55

Percentile Range 95

Grade I

Interpretation Intellectually Superior

SPM was designed to evaluate Spearman’s educative Ability. Educative ability entails
the ability to make sense of ambiguity; to develop mostly nonverbal structures that make
dealing with complexity and to see beyond the obvious. SPM tests the intellect level of both
youngsters and adults. SPM is divided into five sets (A, B, C, D and E) each of which has 12
items for a total of 60.

The experiment was done on a 23-year-old female student. The time taken for
completion increased gradually. The result suggests that subject P has a raw score of 55 with
scores of 12, 12, 12, 11 and 9 in each respective set. The total score of the subject is 55 and
the percentile for this is 95 with a grade of I. From the scores, it can be interpreted that the
participant is intellectually superior. This implies that the individual is capable of abstract
thinking, reasoning, comprehending complex ideas, and problem-solving. Moreover, they
also have the ability to perceive and think clearly, make meaning out of confusion, and
formulate new concepts when faced with novel information. The participant could do well in
academics and might be quick to learn from past experiences.

Conclusion
The participant has superior intellectual ability.
 51

References:

Benson, N. F., Hulac, D. M., & Kranzler, J. H. (2008). Independent examination of the Wechsler
Adult Intelligence Scale—Third Edition (WAIS-III) and the Kaufman Adolescent and Adult
Intelligence Test (KAIT) using a sample of psychometricians. Psychological Assessment,
20(3), 284–288. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.20.3.284

Carpenter, P. A., Just, M. A., & Shell, P. (1990). What one intelligence test measures: A theoretical
account of the processing in the Raven Progressive Matrices Test. Psychological Review,
97(3), 404–431. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.97.3.404

Heggestad, E. D., Morrison, M., Reeve, C. L., & McCloy, R. A. (2006). Relations of three cognitive
intelligence tests to job performance. Personnel Psychology, 59(3), 639–672.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00049.x

Jaeggi, S. M., Buschkuehl, M., Jonides, J., & Perrig, W. J. (2008). Improving fluid intelligence with
training on working memory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(19),
6829-6833.

Jensen, A. R. (2006). Clocking the Mind: Mental Chronometry and Individual Differences. Elsevier.

Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (2004). Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children. John Wiley
& Sons, Inc.

Lohman, D. F., & Hagen, E. P. (2001). Raven's Progressive Matrices: A review of standardization
and normative studies conducted in the United States. Journal of Psychoeducational
Assessment, 19(4), 353–369. https://doi.org/10.1177/073428290101900404

Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P., Webb, R. M., & Bleske-Rechek, A. (2006). Tracking exceptional
human capital over two decades. Psychological Science, 17(3), 194–199.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01677.x

Raven, J., Raven, J. C., & Court, J. H. (1998). Manual for Raven's Progressive Matrices and
Vocabulary Scales: Section 1: General Overview. Oxford Psychologists Press.
 52

Raven, J. C. (2000). The Raven's progressive matrices: Change and stability over culture and time.
Cognitive Psychology, 41(1), 1-48.

Tan, Q., Yang, H., Ruan, M., & Zhang, Y. (2011). Psychometric properties of Raven’s Progressive
Matrices Test in Chinese university students. Psychological Reports, 108(3), 759–768.
https://doi.org/10.2466/09.07.15.PR0.108.3.759-768
 53

Bhatia’s Battery of Intelligence Test Report

Intelligence

Intelligence is a cognition comprising sensory, perceptual associative, and relational

knowledge. It is the total of all cognitive processes including coding information, planning,
attention, and arousal. Before Binet, in 1895, intelligence was a philosophical concept and
could not be estimated. To study how individuals differed from each other, Binet proposed
testing for intelligence differences. The test was designed to determine qualitatively the
mental ability at which a child functions. Binet stressed that intelligence consists of memory,
imagery, comprehension, and judgment. Binet’s complex qualities include:

· The appreciation of a problem and the direction of the mind toward its execution.

· The capacity for adaptation to reach a definite end.

· The power of self-criticism: Judge well, understand well, & reason well, with attention
and adaptation.

Note: The Intelligence Quotient was devised by William Stern in 1912.

Binet and Simon (1905) defined intelligence as “the ability to judge, comprehend, and
reason well.” And Wechsler defined it as “the global capacity of an individual to think
rationally, act purposefully, and cope effectively with the environment.”

Theories of intelligence

There are different theories of intelligence, none of which agree with each other. Every
thinking approach comes with a variety of perspectives and assumptions, often contradicting
earlier theories. Some of the popular theories include:

Ø One factor/UNI factor theory: It reduces all abilities to a single capacity of general
intelligence or ‘common sense’. This would imply that they are all perfectly correlated,
and would not allow for uneven abilities along different lines. Since it stands against the
 54

common observation that “an individual possesses varying levels of different abilities and
does not shine equally in all directions”, it has no ground to stand on.
Ø Spearman’s two-factor theory: It was developed in 1904 by an English psychologist,
Charles Spearman, who proposed that intellectual abilities were comprised of two factors:
one general ability or common ability known as the ‘G’ factor and the other a group of
specific abilities known as the 'S' factor. The ‘G’ factor is a universal inborn ability. An
increased ‘G’ in an individual leads to life success. The ‘S’ factor is acquired from the
environment. It varies from activity to activity for the same individual.
Ø Thorndike’s multifactor theory: Thorndike believed there was nothing like General
Ability. Mental activities require different abilities. He distinguished the following four
attributes of intelligence: (a) Level-the difficulty of a task that can be solved. (b) Range—
refers to several tasks at any given degree of difficulty. (c) Area—means the total number
of situations at each level to which the individual can respond. (d) The speed at which we
respond to items.
Ø Thurstone’s theory: Primarily mental abilities/Group factor theory: States that Intelligent
Activities are not an expression of innumerable highly specific factors, as Thorndike
claimed. Nor is it the most important expression of a general factor that pervades all
psychological activities. It is the essence of intelligence, Spearman said. Instead, the
analysis of Spearman and others' interpretation led them to conclude that ‘certain’ mental
operations have in common an 'essential' factor that gives them psychological and
functional unity and that differentiates them from other mental operations. These mental
operations constitute a group. A second group of mental operations has its unifying
primary factor, and so on. In other words, there are several groups of mental abilities,
each with a dominant factor, giving the group functional unity and cohesiveness. Each of
these primary factors is relatively independent of the others. Thurstone has given the
following six primary factors: (i) The Number Factor (N)—Ability to do Numerical
Calculations rapidly and accurately. (ii) The Verbal Factor (V)—Found in Verbal
Comprehension tests. (iii) The Space Factor (S)—Involved in any task in which the
subject manipulates an imaginary object in space. (iv) Memory (M) - Capacity to recall
information quickly. (v) The Word Fluency Factor (W)—Involved whenever the subject
is asked to think of isolated words quickly. (vi) The Reasoning Factor (R)—Found in
tasks that require a subject to discover a rule or principle involved in a series or group of
letters.
 55

Ø Eysenck’s structural theory: Eysenck discovered intelligence's neurological correlates. He

identified three correlates of intelligence, namely reaction time, inspection time, and
average evoked potential. The first two are observed behaviors. The third behavior
describes mental waves. Bright people take little time to respond. They show less
variation in their reaction time. Their inspection time is also shorter than less intelligent
people. The average evoked potential is often measured by electroencephalogram
wavelength and waveform complexity. He found that intelligent individuals are complex
waves.

About the test

Bhatia's Battery of Performance Tests of Intelligence, commonly known as Bhatia's
Intelligence Test or Bhatia's Battery, is a widely used intelligence test on the Indian
subcontinent. Bhatia's Battery of Performance Tests of Intelligence, constructed by C. M.
Bhatia in 1955, was an adaptation of the performance test of WAIS. The battery was
standardized for Indian boys between 11 and 16 in the 1950s. There are five subtests in the
test battery:
1. Koh's Block Design Test: The subject is required to construct a design using blocks based
on the images shown.
2. Alexander Pass-along Test: The subject is required to move blocks inside the board and
align them with the line that is the same colour as the blocks. This task is to be done
without taking the blocks out of the board.
3. Pattern Drawing Test: This test includes eight cards. Every card has a pattern and the
subject must draw it in one go without lifting the pencil.
4. Immediate Memory: This test has two parts: digit span forward and digit span backward.
The test taker must repeat the examiner's numbers. The number of digits increases with
every trial. Backward recall repeats numbers in reverse order, from the last to the first.
5. Picture Construction Test: This test requires the subject to construct a picture given in
parts. The parts must be meaningfully combined to construct the picture.
The battery yields the overall Intelligence Quotient (IQ) based on all 5 subtests and
Performance Quotient (PQ) based on the 4 performance tests (BD, PA, PD, and PC). IQ and
PQ range from 69 to 131 on the test. It is probably one of the pioneering IQ tests that dealt
mainly with performance subtests/items.
 56

Limitations and Advantages

The battery was standardized more than half a century ago, and it was standardized mostly on
boys. It provides an IQ only between 69 and 131, hence making it redundant to use when
Intellectual Disability is suspected.

However, it is a performance test and hence can be administered to people with

language incompatibility, and poor verbal abilities. It can be used in some cases for children
suspected of Specific Learning Disability (SLD) when the examiner is sure that the child has
average intelligence, but (the examiner) wants to objectively prove that the child’s
intelligence is average It takes a relatively short time, approximately 30 to 45 minutes. It has
a separate set of norms for literates and illiterates, which seems reasonable, given the
illiteracy rates in the country. This is appealing to many professionals. It is easy to administer
and score.

In addition to the above, one of the important aspects of the test administration is that,
during the administration, if the subject is unable to complete the task (not successful), within
the time limit, on any of the levels, in the four performance subtests (BD, PA, PD, and PC),
the examiner illustrates the appropriate procedure for doing it, before proceeding to the next
item of the test. This can be considered one of the most effective methods for determining a
person's ability and how well he learns and utilizes information.

Standardization of the Test

The standardization of the test was done by factorial analysis, carried out on the battery of
tests using the Stanford-Binet scale (Revised 1933 - Scale L), and Thurstone's Centroid
Method with orthogonal axes was used. The test standards were found to be as follows:

- For the literate population, the mean was 98.73, and the standard deviation was 15.09
I.Q. points.

- For an illiterate population, the mean was 99.37, and the standard deviation was 14.62
points of intelligence.

Reliability and Validity

 57

To obtain two equivalent parts of the "test", the scores were equated on the odd and
equal subtests within each test of the battery. The tests are graded for difficulty. The odd
items are generally easier than the even ones. For the Literate group a Pearson correlation
coefficient of r << 0.851 and for the Illiterate group, a Pearson correlation coefficient of r =
0.841.

For Literates, the test was validated against teachers' opinions obtained on a five-point
scale of Very Superior, Superior, Average, Inferior, and Very Inferior, with the
corresponding I.Q. intervals being Above 130, 110-189, 90-109, 70-89 and Below 70. This
gives a Pearson Correlation Coefficient of r = +0.705. For Illiterates, the test was validated
against the general opinion about the boy's intelligence. This was obtained on a five-point
scale of Very Superior
(i.e. Very Bright), Superior (i.e. Bright), Average (i.e. Ordinary), Inferior (i.e. Dull), and
Very Inferior (i.e. Very Dull). It was not difficult to get such a rating from the village folk. It
was pointed out that the I.Q.s are those obtained based on the Illiterate group's performance
alone. This gives a Pearson correlation coefficient of r = 0.71.

Demographic Details

Name: S

Age: 22

Education: Graduate

Gender: Female

Purpose of Testing

The test is used to evaluate the participant’s Intelligence Quotient and it is administered for
purely academic purposes.
 58

Test Findings

Sr. no Test Score

1 Koh’s Block Design 12

2 Alexander Pass along Test 9

3 Pattern Drawing 14

4 Immediate Memory Test 17

5 Picture Construction Test 14

Total 66

IQ 116

IQ - High average intellectual level

Koh’s Block Design Test

It took the subject 17 minutes and 10 seconds to finish the entire test. The subject completed
the 4-block problems on average in 48.4 seconds, the 9-block problems on average in 2
minutes, and the 16-block problems on average in 3 minutes.
 59

Alexander’s Pass along Test

The entire exam was finished by the subject in 5 minutes, 16 seconds. The subject KB
completed the first four items (1,2,3,4) in the set on average in 13.25 seconds, and the next
four things (5,6,7,8) in the set on average in 4 minutes.

Pattern Drawing

The entire test was completed by the subject in 8 minutes, 9 seconds. The subject completed
the first four items (1,2,3,4) in the set on average in 4 seconds, and the next four things
(5,6,7,8) in the set on average in 4 minutes.

Immediate Memory Test

The entire test for the subject took 10 minutes to complete. In the direct order series, the
subject correctly identified 7 out of 8, and in the reverse order series, 6 out of 6. In both direct
and indirect order series, the test subject received a score of 14 out of 20.

Picture Construction Test

The entire test was completed by the subject in 6 minutes and 10 seconds. The time it took
the subject to finish the picture with two pieces was three seconds, it took fifteen seconds
with four pieces, five minutes and seventeen seconds with six pieces, two minutes and eighty
seconds with eight pieces, and one minute and forty seconds with twelve pieces. The subject
received a total score of 66 out of 95 on the subtests. The IQ score calculated by the
interpretation manual is 116. The subject has a high average level of intellectual functioning,
according to her IQ test. It appears that the participant has achieved a level of performance
above average in the majority of subtests. The participant outperforms 16% of the population,
regarding cognitive and mental ability.

Impression

The subject scored 116 on the Bhatia's Battery of Performance Test of Intelligence, which
corresponds to a High Average Level of Intellectual Functioning. Strong problem-solving
abilities, sound thinking, and a firm understanding of both verbal and nonverbal concepts are
typically connected with high-average results.
 60

References

Bhatia, C. M. (1955). Performance tests of intelligence under Indian conditions. Oxford University
Press. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1957-00598-000
Gardner, H. Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligence. New York: Basic Books 1983.

Goleman, D. Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam, 1995. 7.

Guilford, J. P. The Nature of Human Intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co, 1957.

Pal, H.R., Pal, A., & Tourani, P. (2005). Theories of Intelligence.

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Theories-of-Intelligence-Pal-Pal
Roopesh, Bangalore. (2020). Bhatia's Battery of Performance Tests of Intelligence: A Critical
Appraisal. Indian Journal of Mental Health. 7. 289-306.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350678999_Bhatia's_Battery_of_Performance_Tests_
of_Intelligence_A_Critical_Appraisal

Spearman, C. (1904). 'General intelligence,' is objectively determined and measured. The American
Journal of Psychology, 15(2), 201–293. https://doi.org/10.2307/1412107

Thomson, O. H. (1923): The Nature of Intelligence and Ability, Brit. J. Psychoi., 14, 231-233.
 61

Vineland Adaptive Behavioral Scale (VABS)

Introduction

Adaptive behaviour is defined as "the effectiveness and degrees to which the

individual meets the standards of personal independence and social responsibilities." The
construct contains the abilities that a person needs in order to meet their own requirements as
well as the expectations of their environment, both social and natural. Ditterline et al. (2008)
noted that these abilities specifically include the capacity to independently care for one's
personal health and safety, dress and bathe, communicate, behave in a socially acceptable
manner, effectively engage in academic skills, recreation, and work, and engage in a
community lifestyle. the routine execution of duties necessary for an individual to execute
traditional roles in society, such as retaining independence and living up to cultural
expectations of one's personal and social responsibilities. Self-help, mobility, health care,
communication, home skills, consumer skills, community use, practical academic skills, and
vocational skills are some of the specific categories in which adaptive behaviour is typically
evaluated.
Adaptive behaviours are learned actions that demonstrate a person's social and
practical ability to deal with the demands of daily life. Infants learn to use a spoon to feed,
walk, and talk. Older kids are taught how to go to the store, cross the street, and follow a lot
of social conventions including when to say please and thank you. Independence is
encouraged at home, school, and in the community via good adaptive behaviour. Maladaptive
behaviours or behaviour difficulties are defined as undesirable or socially unacceptable
behaviours that obstruct learning desired skills and carrying out daily tasks. Maladaptive
behavior interferes with the child's independence achievement because the child requires
more supervision and assistance to learn how to behave appropriately.
Adaptive behavior is the collection of conceptual, social, and practical skills that all
people learn to function in their daily lives:
• Conceptual skills: literacy; self-direction; and concepts of numbers, money, and time
• Social skills: interpersonal skills, social responsibility, self-esteem, gullibility, naïveté
(i.e., wariness), social problem-solving, following rules, obeying laws, and avoiding
being victimized
 62

• Practical skills: activities of daily living (personal care), occupational skills, use of
money, safety, health care, travel/transportation, schedules/routines, and use of the
telephone

Problems in developing adaptive skills can occur in children of any age. For example,
difficulties can develop in mastering basic functional skills (such as talking, walking, or
toileting), learning academic skills and concepts, or making social and vocational
adjustments. Adaptive behavior scales are evaluation tools designed to help care providers
improve their assessments of the abilities and needs of infants and children who have
disabilities or are at risk for developmental delays.

Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale (VABS)

One of the many assessment instruments that can aid in identifying and assessing the
particular requirements of children is the Vineland Adaptive Behaviour Scale (VABS). This
particular test focuses on assessing adaptive behaviours, such as how well a person can deal
with environmental changes, pick up new abilities, and show independence. The Vineland
Adaptive Behavior Scales can be administered to parents, teachers, and other caretakers using
survey interview and rating forms.
The major goal of the VABS is to evaluate a person's social skills between the ages of
preschool and 18. The findings consistently provide key data for the diagnosis of a number of
disorders, such as autism, Asperger syndrome, mental retardation, and speech impediment.
The VABS provides useful data for creating educational and therapy strategies in addition to
helping with the diagnosis.

Since adaptive behavior is a composite of various dimensions, the test measures five
domains:
1. Communication: This domain evaluates the child's receptive, expressive, and written
communication skills.
• Receptive: How the individual listens and pays attention and what they understand.
• Expressive: What the individual says, how they use words and sentences to gather and
provide information.
 63

• Written: What the individual understands about how letters make words and what
they read and write.

2. Daily Living Skills: It measures personal behavior and domestic and community
interaction skills.
• Personal: How the individual eats, dresses, and practices personal hygiene. Domestic:
What household tasks the individual performs?
• Community: How the individual use time, money, the telephone, the computer, and
job skills.

3. Socialisation: This domain covers play and leisure time, interpersonal relationships,
and various coping skills
• Interpersonal Relationships: How the individual interacts with others.
• Play and Leisure Time: How the individual plays and uses leisure time.
• Coping skills: How the individual demonstrates responsibility and sensitivity to
others.

4. Motor Skills: This domain measures gross and fine motor skills.
• Gross Motor: How the individual uses arms and legs for movement and coordination.
• Fine Motor: How the individual uses hands and fingers to manipulate objects.

5. Maladaptive Behavior: This is an optional part of the assessment test. It is used when
measuring obvious undesirable behaviors.
• Maladaptive Behavior Index: A composite of Internalizing, Externalizing, and other
types of undesirable behavior that may interfere with the individual’s adaptive
functioning.
 64

• Maladaptive Behavior Critical Items: More severe maladaptive behaviors that may
provide clinically important information. Adaptive Behavior Composite: A composite
of the communication, daily living skills, socialization, and motor skills domains.

In whatever setting of work, e.g., education, social services, health care, criminal
justice, or the military, the VABS helps to perform a variety of tasks: 1) Support diagnosis of
intellectual and developmental disabilities, autism, and developmental delays, 2) Determine
eligibility or qualification for special services 3) Plan rehabilitation or intervention programs
4) Track and report progress.

With the VABS, one can measure the adaptive behavior of individuals with 1)
Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 2) autism spectrum disorders (ASDs), 3) ADHD,
4) Post-traumatic brain injury, 5) Hearing impairment, and 6) Dementia/Alzheimer’s disease.

History
The Vineland Scales were created as an adaptation of Edgar Doll's Vineland Social
Maturity Scale, which was initially published in 1953 and was intended to evaluate social
competence in areas like communication, socialisation, and self-help. The Vineland was first
published in 1984 (Sparrow, Balla, & Cicchetti, 1984) and has been widely utilised in clinical
treatment and research with people who have ASDs. A Survey Interview Form, an Expanded
Interview Form, and the Classroom Edition were all included in the initial edition. The
Vineland's second edition, released in 2005, was modified to meet more recent societal
standards and was based on more recent US Census data. The second version introduced two
major innovations: the parent/caregiver rating form and the instructor rating form.

Latest version
The latest version of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales (Sparrow, Cicchetti, &
Saulnier, 2016) is the third edition, published in 2016. The VABS-3 is a revision of the
previous edition, the VABS-II, and includes updates to the assessment content, administration
procedures, and scoring guidelines. The three administration formats of Vineland-3 help
describe each client’s profile from a different and important point of view: a) The Interview
 65

Form (for ages 0–90+), The Parent/ Caregiver form (for ages 0–90+) and The Teacher form
(for ages 3–21 years) .
Some of the changes in the VABS-3 include the addition of new domains, such as coping
skills and maladaptive behavior, and expanding the socialization domain to include more
detailed assessments of social communication and interaction. The VABS-3 also includes
updated item content and norms, administration procedures, including a new computerized
scoring system for more efficient and accurate scoring.

Scoring
The VABS is scored using a norm-referenced system that compares an individual's
performance to that of a representative sample of individuals of the same age and gender. The
scores are reported as standard scores, with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15.
The VABS provides three types of scores: raw scores, standard scores, and adaptive levels.
Raw scores are the actual number of items completed correctly in each domain. Standard
scores are based on the individual's raw score and are used to compare the individual's
performance to that of the normative sample. Adaptive levels provide a descriptive label for
the individual's overall adaptive behavior, ranging from "very low" to "very high."
In addition to the standard scores and adaptive levels, the VABS also provides
subdomain scores, which provide more detailed information about an individual's strengths
and weaknesses within each domain.

Psychometric Properties
Reliability
The internal consistency of Comprehensive Interview Form - coefficient alpha overall
averages are: Adaptive Behaviour Composite: .98, Communication: .95, Daily Living Skills
.94, Socialization .96, Motor Skills .90 (Sparrow et al., 2016). The test-retest reliability for
the Comprehensive Interview Form: Means for domains is .73 to .92, and for the Adaptive
Behaviour Composite, it is .80 to .92 (N = 248) (Sparrow et al., 2016). The interrater
reliability for Comprehensive Interview Form: when correlations between two different
interviews for domains os .70 to .81; and for Adaptive Behaviour Composite is .79 (N = 96)
(Sparrow et al., 2016).
 66

VABS 3 provides a standard score mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15,
equivalent to other tests. It even provides percentile ranks, stanines, adaptive levels, and age
equivalents (Beail, 2003).

Validity
VABS 3 shows correlations between Domain and Subdomain scores by age. Evidence
ensures construct validity (Sparrow et al., 2016). It shows concurrent validity between VABS
3 and other adaptive scales, including Vineland II (Survey Interview Form, Parent/Caregiver
Rating Form, Teacher Rating Form), Bayley III, and ABAS 3 (Sparrow et al., 2016). Further,
the content is extensively described in the manual.

Application
The Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales (VABS) is a commonly used assessment tool
in clinical practice, particularly in the fields of psychology, psychiatry, and developmental
disabilities. The VABS can be used to assess an individual's adaptive behavior across several
domains, including communication, daily living skills, socialization, and motor skills.
The VABS can be used in several clinical applications, such as:
• Diagnosis and treatment planning: The VABS can help clinicians identify areas of
strength and weakness in an individual's adaptive behavior, which can inform
treatment planning and interventions.
• Monitoring progress: The VABS can track an individual's progress over time,
particularly in response to interventions or treatments.
• Eligibility determination: The VABS can determine eligibility for services or support,
such as special education services, vocational rehabilitation, or disability benefits.
• Research: The VABS is also used in research studies to evaluate interventions’
effectiveness or better understand the adaptive behavior of individuals with
developmental disabilities.

Overall, the VABS is a valuable tool in clinical practice for assessing an individual's
adaptive behavior and can provide critical information for treatment planning, progress
monitoring, and eligibility determination. However, using the VABS in conjunction with
 67

other assessments and clinical observations is essential to provide a comprehensive

evaluation of an individual's adaptive behavior.

Criticism
Like any assessment tool, the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales (VABS) is not
without its criticisms. Some of the criticisms of the VABS include:

Limited scope: While the VABS assesses an individual's adaptive behavior across several
domains, it may not comprehensively assess an individual's overall functioning. Other
factors, such as cognitive ability, emotional regulation, and sensory processing, may also be
essential in understanding an individual's functioning.
Cultural bias: Some critics argue that the VABS may be culturally biased and may not
accurately assess the adaptive behavior of individuals from different cultural backgrounds.
Limited normative sample: The normative sample used to develop the VABS may not be
representative of the entire population, which may limit the generalizability of the assessment
results.
Reliance on caregiver reports: The VABS relies on caregiver reports to assess an
individual's adaptive behaviour, which may introduce bias or inaccuracies in the assessment
results. Caregivers may have different perceptions of an individual's behaviour, and their
beliefs and attitudes may influence their responses.
Lack of sensitivity to change: Some critics argue that the VABS may not be sensitive
enough to detect small changes in an individual's adaptive behaviour over time, particularly
in response to interventions or treatments.

It is essential to consider these criticisms when using the VABS in clinical practice
and to use the assessment results in conjunction with other assessments and clinical
observations to comprehensively evaluate an individual's functioning.

Demographic Details
Name: A
Age: 36
Education: Graduate
 68

Gender: Female

Purpose of Testing

This test is used to evaluate the Adaptive behaviour composite and it is administered for
purely academic purposes.

Test Administered

Vineland Adaptive Behaviour Scale

Behavioural Observation

The participant cooperated and paid close attention during the test. They completed the test
and were able to understand the test's instructions.

Test Findings

ABC Standard scores (SS) Percentile Rank

Adaptive Behaviour Composite 85 16

DOMAINS

Communication (COM) 84 14

Daily Living Skills (DLS) 96 39

Socialization (SOC) 85 16
 69

Sub-Domain Score Summary

Sub-Domains Raw Scores V-Scale scores

Communication Domain 38

Receptive (rec) 60 8

Expressive (exp) 86 8

Written (wrn) 74 22

Daily living skills Domain 43

Personal (per) 81 9

Domestic (dom) 60 21

Community (cmm) 56 13

Socialization Domain 37

Interpersonal relationships (ipr) 65 10

Play and leisure (pla) 62 14

Coping skills (49) 49 13

Adaptive Behaviour
 70

The subject BHR's adaptive functioning is fully summarised by adaptive behaviour

competence. BHR's score of 85 and percentile ranking of 16 indicates that he outperformed
16% of people in his age group. These results fell in the lower category.

Communication Domain
The communication domain measures how effectively BHR communicates with others. His
percentile ranking is 14, and his communication domain standard score is 84.
These three subdomains' ratings form the basis of BHR's communication domain standard
score. The Receptive subdomain assesses the ability to pay attention to, comprehend, and
respond properly to information coming from others. BHR's expressive score is demonstrated
by the words and sentences he uses. The Written subdomain score measures how well a
person uses their reading and writing abilities.
The v-scale scores for BHR are 22 for writing, 8 for expressive, and 8 for receptive. When
the subdomain scores are compared, it becomes clear that BHR performed best in the written
subdomain, while his scores in the receptive and expressive subdomains are same and under
the written score.

Daily Living Skills Domain

The daily living skills domain assesses BHR's ability to carry out age-appropriate practical,
daily chores of living. His percentile rank is 39, while his standard score is 96.
Based on his results on these three subdomains, BHR's daily living skills domain standard
score was calculated. The personal subdomain assesses his level of independence in tasks
including dressing, washing, taking care of his health, and maintaining personal hygiene. The
results of BHR's domestic responsibilities, such as chores and self-cleaning, are reflected in
his scores. The community subdomain uses money, travel, rights and duties, safety, and other
factors to assess how people behave in the outside world.
BHR scored 9 on the personal scale, 21 on the home scale, and 13 on the community scale.
The subdomain scores' comparative scores demonstrate that BHR has the greatest domestic
score, the second-highest community score, and the lowest personal score.

Socialization Domain
 71

The socialisation domain assesses BHR's performance in social contexts. His standard rank is
16, and his standard score is 85.
These three domains' scores form the basis of BHR's socialisation domain standard score.
Interpersonal relationships assess a person's responses and interactions with others, including
their level of concern, social appropriateness, conversation skills, and friendships. BHR's
performance in play and enjoyable activities with others is reflected in his play and leisure
score. The final category, coping skills, assesses how effectively he exhibits behavioural and
emotional restraint in various scenarios involving other people.
The v-scale scores for BHR are 10, 14, and 13 respectively for coping skills, play and leisure,
and interpersonal interactions. According to the subdomain comparison scores, BHR
performed best in play and leisure, then coping skill scores, and finally, lowest in
interpersonal relationship scores.

Domain Level Strengths and Weaknesses

To identify potential areas of strength and weakness, the four domain-level scores from the
BHR were compared to the mean domain standard score of 88.33. The findings show that
BHR's communication abilities are a relative deficit and that their daily life skills are a
relative strength.
Pairwise Difference Comparison
The score for everyday life abilities is much higher than for communication. The daily living
skill and socialisation scores are much higher than the communication scores. The everyday
living skill score is much higher than the socialisation score.

Subdomain Level Strengths and Weaknesses

BHR's 11 subdomain v-scale scores were compared to his mean subdomain score of 10.7 in a
subdomain-level strength/weakness analysis. According to the findings, written, domestic,
community, interpersonal relationships, play and leisure, and coping skills are relative
strengths, whereas personal, receptive, and expressive abilities are relative weaknesses.

Summary and Impression Management

BHR was evaluated using the Vineland-3 extensive interview. The form was filled by the
administrator and BHR's father was interviewed.
 72

BHR's overall level of adaptive functioning is indicated by the ABC scores or adaptive
behavioural competence. His score of 85 is considerably lower than the normative mean of
100. This overall score has a percentile rating of 16, which means.
The outcomes of the communication, socialisation, and everyday living skills tests are used to
calculate the ABC score. The mean and standard deviation of the domain standard scores are
100 and 15, respectively.
BHR's talents in speaking, reading, and writing, as well as his listening and comprehending
skills, are assessed in the communication domain. His communication skills score is 84. The
percentile rank for this is 14. Comparatively speaking, BHR did poorly in this area.
The Daily Living Skills domain assesses BHR's capacity to carry out age-appropriate, useful
daily tasks. His daily life skills average score is 96, which places him in the 39th percentile.
BHR's socialisation domain score reflects how he interacts with others. The cutoff point for
his socialisation is 85 and the percentile rank is 16.
 73

References

Adaptive Behavior Scales for Infants and Early Childhood - Definition, Purpose, Description,
Risks. (n.d.). Adaptive Behavior Scales for Infants and Early Childhood - Definition,
Purpose, Description, Risks. http://www.healthofchildren.com/A/Adaptive-Behavior-
Scales-for-Infants-and-Early-Childhood.html

APA Dictionary of Psychology. (n.d.). APA Dictionary of Psychology.

https://dictionary.apa.org/

Beail, N. (2003). Utility of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales in diagnosis and research
with adults who have mental retardation. Mental Retardation, 41(4), 286-289.

Cicchetti, D.V., Carter, A.S., Gray, S.A.O. (2013). Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales. In:
Volkmar, F.R. (eds) Encyclopedia of Autism Spectrum Disorders. Springer, New York,
NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1698-3_255

Sparrow, S. S., & Cicchetti, D. V. (1989). The Vineland adaptive behavior scales. Allyn &
Bacon.
 74

Weschler Intelligence Scale for Children

Intelligence

A universally accepted definition of intelligence has not been agreed upon yet. Still,

intelligence may be defined as a multifaceted capacity that manifests in several different

ways over the lifespan, such as acquiring and applying knowledge, planning, inferring, and

adapting to one’s environment (Swerdlik et al., 2012).

Many psychologists, such as Charles Spearman, Alfred Binet, Francis Galton and

David Weschler, have proposed their conceptualisation of intelligence. According to

Wschler, “intelligence is the aggregate or global capacity to act purposefully, to think

rationally and deal effectively with the environment” (Weschler, 1958).

Several diverse theories of intelligence exist, the most popular ones being

psychometric and cognitive-contextual theories. Psychometric theories assess an individual’s

performance on various tests of intelligence to identify the underlying structures that are

fundamental to human intelligence and focus on individual differences in

performance. Cognitive-contextual theories adopt a biological perspective and examine how

the environment and social context of the individual determine the development of specific

skills. They also focus on the overall process that underlies intelligence (Bray & Kehle,

2012).

Theories of intelligence

Psychometric Theories

Spearman’s Two Factor Theory

This was the earliest theory put forward by Charles Spearman. He postulated that there exists

a general intelligence factor (g factor) that is at least partially involved in all tasks of

intelligence. The second factor is specific to particular tests, therefore called the s factor.
 75

Primary Mental Abilities

Thurstone identified seven factors that made up the core of one’s intellectual capacity. They

were verbal comprehension, verbal fluency, number facility, spatial visualisation, associative

memory, perceptual speed and reasoning.

Fluid and crystallized Intelligence

Given by Raymond Catell, this is a hierarchical theory that suggests that Spearman’s g factor

can be further subdivided into fluid and crystallized intelligence. Fluid intelligence refers to

nonverbal and culture-free abilities that do not require specific instructions. Crystallised

intelligence, on the other hand, consists of acquired skills and knowledge obtained through

formal and informal education.

Structure of Intellect

Paul Guilford postulated that an individual’s performance on intelligence tests could be

traced to their underlying mental abilities. He came up with 120 such abilities that were

divided under 3 dimensions- five types of operations, four kinds of content and six types of

products.

Three Stratum Model of Intelligence

This was proposed by John Carroll (1993) based on factor analytic studies. The first stratum

or the top level, is the g factor. The second stratum involves eight abilities and processes. A

few of them are crystallised intelligence, general memory and learning and broad auditory

perception. The final stratum comprises of the speed, level and rate factors of the abilities in

the second level.

The CHC Model

The Cattell-Horn and Carroll model is a synthesis of the previous theories of intelligence.

Similar to the three-stratum model, this theory states that there are three hierarchical strata.
 76

Stratum I included narrow abilities, Stratum II, broad abilities, and Stratum III included

general abilities.

Cognitive- Contextual theories

Sternberg’s Triarchic Theory

This theory is also known as the Information Processing Theory of Intelligence. Robert

Sternberg proposed that intelligence consists of three different kinds of skills- creative,

analytical and practical. These aspects can be quantified and improve the prediction of

academic performance in university settings. Cite.

Theory of Multiple Intelligences

Howard Garnder states that intelligence is not unitary. He argues that there are multiple

intelligences and theories 7 such types- linguistic, logical-mathematical, visual-spatial,

musical, bodily-kinesthetic, intrapersonal, and interpersonal intelligence.

History and Development of the WISC-IV

The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children was developed in 1949 by Weschler.

Popularly 3 Wechsler scales are used: the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS), the

Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC), and the Wechsler Preschool and Primary

Scale of Intelligence (WPPSI). WISC, the first version, was constructed for the 5-15 year age

group and adapted from the Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale (1939)(Kezer & Arik,

2012), with WISC being an abbreviated version of the Wechsler-Bellevue Scale.

WISC was revised in 1974 after first being formed in 1949 as WISC-R. WISC-R was

to be administered to the 6-16 year age range. The third revision led toWISC-III in 1991,

which specified months along with years for the age range, which was 6 years and 0 months

to 16 years and 11 months(Kezer & Arik, 2012). The major takeaway from the revision of

WISC-R to WISC-III was to be sensitized to gender and racial discrimination and to

 77

"reconstitute norms (Kezer & Arik, 2012)". Further, WISC-III "promised to improve the

WISC-R through contemporary and representative norms, better floors and ceilings for

subtests, new artwork and items sensitive to multicultural and gender concerns and improved

clarity of factor structure while maintaining the basic content and structure of WISC-R

(Kezer & Arik, 2012)". WISC-III primarily focused on calculating verbal and numeric scores

(Baron, 2005; Kezer & Arik, 2012). WISC-III limitation was rectified through the 2003

revision leading to WISC-IV, where items of mazes, object assembly, picture arrangement,

and interpretation from WISC-III have been dropped. The newest and latest revision of

WISC-V was done in 2014, the Indian intelligence scale

The Indian scale has been adapted from the WISC-V (developed by Dr. David

Wescler) into what is commonly referred to as Malin's Intelligence Scale for Indian Children

(MISC) by Dr. Arthur J. Malin from the University of Nagpur, Mumbai. It is also known as

the Indian Intelligence Scale for Children (ISIC). Besides English, the scale has also been

translated into Hindi and Marathi. Since cultural context and norms play an essential role, the

entirety of the scale was revised to suit the Indian diaspora.

MISC or ISIC, the Indian adaptation of the WISC-IV scale, is administered to

children aged 6 years 0 months to 15 years 11 months. The total duration for administering

the test is 120 - 150 minutes. The scale consists of 2 subscales: the Verbal and Performance

Scale, with 5 subsets each. Therefore, the MISC battery consists of a total of 10 subsets.

MISC has a test-retest validity of 0.91 for Full Scale IQ and concurrent ( established

comparing for upper age level: with an adapted version of California short-form test for

mental maturity; and lower age level: good enough Draw a Man test (2022)) and congruent

validity of 0.63 coefficient (2022).

WISC-IV
 78

WISC-IV is an intelligence measuring tool administered to the same age range as

WISC-III, 6 years 0 months - 16 years 11 months. Instead of verbal and numeric scores

(WISC-III), WISC-IV measures full-scale scores and four indexes through 15 subtests, of

which 10 form the core battery tests and 5 additional form tests for the indexes measured.

The indexes are:

1. Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI)

2. Perceptual Reasoning Index (PRI)

3. Working Memory Index (WMI)

4. Processing Speed Index (PSI)

Each index in WISC-IV has evidenced a better method to assess intelligence when

compared to the methodology used in the previous versions. Prior to WISC-IV, more

importance was given to bonuses based on time. Additionally, WISC-IV has better norms;

some subtests have improved floor and ceiling effects (Baron, 2005; Kezer & Arik, 2012) and

better reliability and validity. WISC-IV has been revised to capture elements of "fluid

reasoning, working memory, and processing speed." Further, the psychomotor ability is

tested by the symbol search and coding subtests. Psychomotor ability testing by WISC-IV

implies its sensitivity to children's neurodevelopmental conditions, which have a robust

psychomotor underpinning. Therefore, including time and testing writing efficiency coupled

with the verbal reasoning and comprehension components can help assess a child's reasoning

strengths and weaknesses (Baron, 2005; Kezer & Arik, 2012). However, psychomotor ability

testing for younger ages could be more reliable, especially for the letter number sequencing

task. Interpretation and impression need to be done, keeping in mind modality specificities.

Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children is a well-known intelligence testing tool

commonly used to assess learning disabilities. WISC-IV Battery consists of 15 subtests

compared to the older versions. It has eliminated Performance IQ and Verbal IQ scores,
 79

replaced by four domain index scores and a total composite score. The 15 subtests in the

WISC-IV test for children consist of 10 core battery subtests and 5 optional subtests.

The 10 core battery subtests are:

1. Block Design - Children are given red and white blocks and asked to arrange them as

the experimenter does. Unlike WISC for adults (WAIS), no pattern card is provided

during the test. Additionally, bonus points are provided when the difficulty level of

the subtest increases. Subtest is discontinued after 3 consecutive scores of 0.

2. Similarities - The subtest measures the association capacity of the child. Two words

are presented to the child and asked how they are similar. For example, Red-Blue, the

similarity is they are colors. Like the Vineland Adaptive Behaviour Scale (VABS),

reverse administration occurs to attain 2 perfect consecutive scores. The subtest is

discontinued after 5 consecutive scores of 0.

3. Digit Span - The experimenter reads out numbers orally that children need to hear and

reproduce in the reverse and ascending order. The subtest has both a forward

component and a backward component. The subtest is discontinued when scores

obtained are 0 on both trials of an item. There are a total of 8 items with 2 trials each.

4. Picture Concepts - Children are given a series of pictures presented in rows. They are

then asked which of them go together. This subtest is similar to the similarities subtest

but differs through visual association. Items are administered in a revered order till

two perfect consecutive scores are obtained.

5. Coding - The subtest has a time-based discontinuation rule (2 minutes). Children

under 8, according to a code, mark rows of shapes with different lines, while children

above 8 are given the task of transcribing a digit-symbol code with the help of a key.
 80

6. Vocabulary - The child is asked to define the meaning of a word provided. As in the

cases mentioned above, reverse administration is followed, and the discontinuation

rule of 5 consecutive 0 scores is adhered to.

7. Letter-Number Sequencing - A series of numbers and letters are provided to the

children, which are to be stated and reproduced in a predetermined manner. The

subtest is discontinued after 0 on 3 consecutive or qualifying items.

8. Matrix Reasoning - An array with a missing square is presented to the child to ask

them to identify the missing array. Reverse administration for two perfect consecutive

scores is followed, and the subtest is discontinued after 4 scores of 0 or 4 scores of 0

on 5 consecutive items.

9. Comprehension - Children in the subtest are provided with questions about social and

everyday situations and concepts. Reverse administration to establish basal age and

subtest is discontinued after 4 consecutive scores of 0.

10. Symbol Search - Children are provided with rows of symbols and target symbols. The

children are then asked to mark whether the target symbols appear in a row. The

subtest is time-bound (2 minutes) and is discontinued after the time limit.

5 optional subtests:

1. Picture Completion - The subtest is built like a puzzle. Children are given rows and

columns of pictures that, when put together, make a larger image. Reverse scoring is

followed, and the subtest is time-bound (2 minutes). The subtest also has a

discontinuation rule of 6 consecutive 0's.

2. Cancellation - Pictures are provided in the subtest, wherein the children are told to

scan for random and structured arrangements marking specific target pictures in a

time-bound manner (45 seconds). The subtest measures processing speed using

random and structured animal targets (2020).

 81

3. Information - The child is asked general knowledge questions regarding self and

contextual information. Reverse administration to gain basal age and discontinuation

rule of 5 consecutive scores of 0 is followed.

4. Arithmetic - A timed (30 seconds) subtest in arithmetic, mathematical problems are

orally administered to the child. Reverse administration is followed, and the

discontinuation rule of 4 consecutive scores of 0 is followed.

5. Word Reasoning - Statements are given in the subtest where the items are clues, and a

response is elicited from the child. Reasoning with verbal material is assessed (2020).

Example: This is an animal that goes "bow-wow"; the expected response is "dog."

Reverse administration is followed, and the discoloration rule of 5 consecutive scores

of 0 is adhered to.

WISC-IV subtests measure four index scores: Verbal comprehension, Perceptual Reasoning,

Working Memory, and Processing Speed. The 5 optional subtests in the battery can

supplement the core battery subtests in the following combination: "information and word

reassigning for verbal comprehension, picture completion for perceptual reasoning,

arithmetic for working memory, and cancellation for processing speed. Matrix reasoning and

letter-number sequencing in the children's intelligence battery are similar to Wechsler's adult

intelligence scale - III."

The raw scores, when converted to scale scores and summed in a set manner to measure Full-

scale IQ and index scores of:

• Verbal Comprehension

• Similarities

• Vocabulary

• Comprehension

• Information
 82

• Word Reasoning

• Perceptual Reasoning

• Block Design

• Picture Concepts

• Matrix Reasoning

• Picture Completion

• Working Memory

• Digit Span

• Letter-Number Sequencing

• Arithmetic

• Processing Speed

• Coding

• Symbol Search

• Cancellation

In addition to the four indexes measured, Full Scale Intelligence Quotient is also measured.

The scaled scores are then converted into composite scores, which are tallied to percentile

rank and % confidence interval and recorded to gain a holistic measure of intelligence.

WISC-IV discriminating criteria from the other WISC scales is the clinical analysis

available to WISC-IV test scores and their interpretation. However, compared to the previous

versions of WISC, WISC-III, and WISC-IV have generally looked at subscale and total scale

relationships, thereby increasing and bettering reliability as opposed to the initial WISC

versions. A significant limitation of all WISC versions is that they have not been grounded in

a "contemporary theory and research base" (Kezer & Arik, 2012). Weschler has time and

again proven its reliability, validity, and importance in the field of intelligence testing, where

their pros and strengths vastly outweigh any criticisms

 83

Deficits

• WMI relies heavily on two components only - audio and verbal subtests which can

lead to an oversimplification in understanding and, therefore, an error in reporting

impairment in working memory

• Clinical interpretation for some subtests needs to be clarified.

• Empirical data for the significance of the ability to discriminate between structured

and random trials is absent.

WISC-IV Indian Adaptation

The WISC scale is the gold standard for intelligence testing in children. The Indian

adaptation of WISC, i.e., WISC , has been tailored to include new versions of WISC,
INDIA

including representation and Indian norms (2020).

Key features (2020), according to Pearson for WISC , include:

INDIA

• Cultural appropriateness

• Norms for Indian Children

• Increased

• Developmentally appropriate

• Composite score emphasis

• Working memory and processing speed scrutiny

• It is user-friendly

• Captures theoretical and practical dimensions of child intelligence assessments

 84

Psychometric properties of the test

WISC-IV has significant and improved clinical validity and scale reliability; the scale

can capture dimensions of intelligence that were not included in previous versions: WISC,

WISC-R, and WISC-III. For establishing reliability and validity for the scale, a sample of

2,200 children in the age group of 6 - 16 years, where for each of the 11 age groups, 200

children were selected.

Reliability and validity

Split-half reliability ranged from 0.70 - 0.90. Test-retest reliability ranged from 0.72 -

0.93. As mentioned previously, subscale and total scale relationships play an essential role in

determining their reliability as evidenced by the average internal consistency coefficient for

each index at "0.94 for Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI); 0.92 for Perceptual Reasoning

Index (PRI); 0.92 for Working Memory Index (WMI); 0.88 for Processing Speed Index

(PSI); 0.97 for Full Scale Intelligence Quotient (FS-IQ)" (Kezer & Arik, 2012).

Predictive validity for WISC-IV is relatively high, "r=0.97 for the Full Scale IQ and

r= 0.87-94 for specific intelligence indices (Gygi et al., 2017)."

Clinical Applications

WISC-IV, when administered to children in age groups 6 - 7, performs better in

coding and symbol search, while ages 8 - 16 perform and score better in picture completion

(Kezer & Arik, 2012). WISC-IV can be used to assess levels of intellectual disability,

language disorders and their specificity, disruptive behavior, language impairment, autism

spectrum disorder without language impairment, ADHD(Thaler et al., 2012), and traumatic

brain injuries in children.

 85

References

Wechsler, D. (1958). The Measurement and Appraisal of Adult Intelligence. The Williams &

Wilkins Company, Baltimore. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/11167-000

Malin, A. J. (1964). An Indian adaptation of the WISC. Journal of Vocational & Educational Psychology,

10(4), 128–131.

Human intelligence | Definition, Types, Test, Theories, & Facts. (1998, July 20). Encyclopedia

Britannica.https://www.britannica.com/science/human-intelligence-

psychology/Psychometric-theories

Reviewer: Ida Sue Baron PhD, ABPP (2005) Test Review: Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth Edition

(WISC-IV), Child Neuropsychology: A Journal on Normal and Abnormal Development in Childhood and

Adolescence, 11:5, 471-475, DOI:10.1080/09297040590951587

Bray, M. A., & Kehle, T. J. (2012). The Oxford handbook of school psychology. In Oxford

University Press eBooks. Oxford University Press.

https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195369809.001.0001

Kaufmann, Alan & Lichtenberger, Elisabeth. (2012). Essentials of WISC-III and WPPSI-R

assessment. Essentials of psychological assessment series.

Kezer, F., & Arik, R. S. (2012). An examination and comparison of the revisions of the Wechsler

Intelligence Scale for Children. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 2104–2110.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.436

Swerdlik, M. E., Professor, E. D. S., & Cohen, R. J. (2012). Psychological Testing and Assessment:

An Introduction to Tests and Measurement. McGraw-Hill Education.

Thaler, N. S., Bello, D. T., & Etcoff, L. M. (2012). WISC-IV profiles are associated with differences

in symptomatology and outcome in children with ADHD. Journal of Attention Disorders,

17(4), 291–301. https://doi.org/10.1177/1087054711428806

 86

Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children® - fourth edition ( WISC-IV ) india complete kit. Pearson

Clinical. (2020, October 29). Retrieved April 26, 2023, from

https://pearsonclinical.in/solutions/wisc-iv-india-complete-kit/

Gygi, J. T., Hagmann-von Arx, P., Schweizer, F., & Grob, A. (2017). The predictive validity of four

intelligence tests for school grades: A Small Sample Longitudinal Study. Frontiers in

Psychology, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00375

Nikita. (2022, January 17). Malins Intelligence Scale for Indian Children (MISC). PsychicMotivator.

Retrieved April 24, 2023, from https://psychicmotivator.in/malins-intelligence-scale-for-

indian-children-

misic/#:~:text=Malin%27s%20has%20been%20adapted%20from,Arthur%20J.
 87

Binet Kamat Test of Intelligence

According to the American Psychological Association, intelligence is defined as,

“the ability to derive information, learn from experience, adapt to the environment,
understand, and correctly utilize thought and reason.” According to this definition,
intelligence is viewed as a general term that includes a range of cognitive skills.
The "g-factor" theory, which holds that a generic component, or "g," underlying all
cognitive abilities, is a well-known explanation of intelligence (Jensen, 1998). According to
this theory, people who perform well on one cognitive test are probably going to perform well
on other cognitive tasks as well because they have a high level of general intelligence.
Other theories, on the other hand, suggest various components or varieties of
intelligence. For instance, according to Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences,
there are at least eight different types of intelligence, including linguistic, logical-
mathematical, musical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalist
intelligences (Gardner, 1999).
The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC) and the Binet-Kamat
Intelligence Scale (BKT) are two examples of the numerous tests and measures of
intelligence that psychologists have created. In these psychometric assessments, a variety of
tasks are often used to measure various cognitive capacities, including verbal comprehension,
perceptual reasoning, working memory, and processing speed.
According to research, intelligence is linked to a number of outcomes, including
scholastic accomplishment, work performance, and general success in life (Gottfredson,
2003). The type of intelligence being measured and the environment in which it is being
measured can both affect the nature and degree of these associations.
In conclusion, intelligence has been extensively researched in psychology. It is a
complicated and varied construct. Despite the fact that there are numerous theories and models
of intelligence, the majority of them concur that intelligence includes the capacity to learn,
solve problems, and adapt to novel circumstances.
A standardized assessment used to gauge children's and adolescents' intellect is the
Binet-Kamat test, commonly referred to as the Binet-Kamat Intelligence Scale. One of the
more classic intelligence tests still in use in India is the Bombay-Karnataka variant of the
Binet-Simon Intelligence Scale, sometimes known as the Binet Kamat Test or simply BKT
 88

(Roopesh, 2020). Alfred Binet and Theodore Simon created the original Binet-Simon
Intelligence Scale in France
in the early 1900s. Binet and Simon believed that intelligence is not a fixed entity, but rather
a malleable ability that can be developed and improved with the right kind of training and
instruction (Binet & Simon, 1948). This scale is an adaptation from India by V.V. Kamat
was created in 1934, standardized in South India (Bombay-Karnataka region) in 1964, and
then updated in 1967. It was used on normal people between the ages of three and ten. This
age-graded IQ scale ranges from three to 10 years, followed by twelve, fourteen, sixteen,
nineteen, and twenty-two years, respectively (Kamat, 1967)

Clinical Perspective

The results of the Binet-Kamat test are typically reported as an IQ score, which is
derived from comparing a person's performance on the test to that of a representative sample
of the population. A score of 100 is considered average, with scores above or below that
indicating above or below average intelligence, respectively (Kamat, 2004).
The Binet-Kamat test can be used clinically to evaluate a person's intellectual
capacity and highlight any cognitive strengths or deficiencies (Kamat, 2004). Clinical
psychologists or neuropsychologists frequently conduct the test as a component of a thorough
evaluation to identify and treat disorders like learning impairments, ADHD, and
developmental delays (Binet & Simon, 1916). A person's performance on the test may also
be influenced by other factors, including motivation, cultural background, and environmental
variables. In order to have a holistic insight into a person's strengths and needs, clinicians
should use the test in conjunction with other evaluation methods and clinical observations.

Psychometric Structure

The theory of multiple intelligences, which contends that intelligence is not a single
thing but rather a collection of various skills, forms the basis of the psychometric structure of
the Binet-Kamat exam. The test yields scores for each of the various areas of intelligence—
verbal, numerical, spatial, and memory—as well as an overall intelligence quotient (IQ) score.
The IQ (Intelligence Quotient) evaluation, which is based on a ratio calculation, is one of the
main elements of the Binet-Kamat Test. The American Psychological Association (APA)
defines an individual's IQ as "a measure of intelligence obtained by dividing an individual's
 89

mental age score, obtained by administering an intelligence test, by the individual's

chronological age and multiplying the quotient by 100" (APA, 2020, p. 646). In the Binet-
Kamat Test, the IQ evaluation is based on the child's mental age, which is assessed by the
test-related tasks they can successfully complete. After dividing the child's chronological age
by their mental age, the quotient is multiplied by 100 to determine the child's IQ score
(Kapoor & Kapoor, 2019). If a 10-year-old child, for instance, has a mental age of 13, their
IQ score would be determined as follows:
IQ= (Mental Age/ Chronological Age) x100

= (13/10) x100

= 130

A child's cognitive skills and likelihood of academic success are indicated by their
IQ score. The Binet-Kamat Test is only one of the numerous intelligence tests that are
currently accessible, and IQ results should be interpreted in conjunction with other
assessments of cognitive functioning and contextual factors (APA, 2020).

Theoretical Perspective of the Test

This test's theoretical underpinnings are founded on the idea that intelligence is a
multidimensional construct that encompasses a range of cognitive skills including memory,
attention, language, and problem-solving ability (Binet & Simon, 1948). By including a
variety of activities that evaluate several facets of cognitive functioning, such as verbal and
nonverbal reasoning, memory, and processing speed, the Binet-Kamat test expands on the
method. The test is made to be culturally fair, which means that it does not favour any certain
ethnic or cultural group. The Binet-Kamat test's theoretical foundation is in line with current
perceptions of intelligence as a complex, multifaceted concept involving a range of cognitive
capacities. Researchers now understand that intelligence is a set of cognitive abilities that
operate together to help people think, reason, and solve issues effectively rather than a single,
monolithic thing (Kamat, 1967).

Introduction of the Test

The test scale consists of twenty one alternate items and seventy eight main test items.
At each age group, there are one to three alternative test items for every one of the six test
items.
 90

Each subject must get an individual administration of this exam as each age group's test items
are tailored to that group. The test is administered starting at the age level of three years and
ends when the person fails all of the test items at that specific age level (superior adult).
As some of the test items are timed, it is both a power and speed test. The exam gives
an estimate of MA and IQ for ages 3 to 22. Items from the Binet-Kamat test are graded on an
all-or-none basis. The basal age, often known as the "ceiling age," is the oldest age level below
which all test items are passed. The Mental Age (MA) was determined by adding fractional
credits to the base age for each exam that was passed after the base level. The ratio of MA to
CA multiplied by 100 will be used to calculate the Intelligence Quotient (IQ) (Gopalkrishnan
& Venkatesan, 2019; Kamat, 1967).

Components

Binet-Kamat Test of Intelligence items are divided into six main categories based on
their functions: 1. Language (L), 2. Memory (M) including Meaningful Memory (Mm) and
Non-Meaningful Memory (NMm), 3. Conceptual Thinking (CT), 4. Reasoning (R) including
Non-Verbal Reasoning (NVR), Verbal Reasoning (VR), and Numerical Reasoning (NR), 5.
Visual-motor (VM), and 6. Social Intelligence (SI) (Kamat, 1967).

Validity and Reliability Norms

The validity of the Binet-Kamat test of intelligence for normal children against
teacher estimates of intelligence quotient is allegedly 0.5, while its reliability is reportedly
over 0.7. (Kamat, 1967).

Advantages

The Binet-Kamat assessment is standardized, guaranteeing uniformity between various

test administrations and examiners. It has been demonstrated to be legitimate and reliable,
consistently assessing the things it is meant to measure and delivering consistent outcomes
across time. On the basis of their cognitive abilities, it can also be used to identify children
who might require special schooling or other interventions. The test is also broadly relevant
because it may be given to children from a variety of backgrounds and does not require
linguistic or cultural expertise.
 91

Limitations

The Binet-Kamat exam only assesses a constrained set of cognitive skills, and it
might not give an accurate picture of a child's total cognitive development. Additionally, it
has come under scrutiny for having cultural prejudices that might disadvantage certain
children. Additionally, administering, scoring, and interpreting it might take a lot of time,
which might make it less useful in some contexts. Finally, the test does not evaluate non-
cognitive elements that could affect learning, such as emotional intelligence, motivation,
and self-esteem.
 92

References

American Psychological Association. (2020). Intelligence. In APA dictionary of psychology

(2nd ed.). https://doi.org/10.1037/12002-028

Binet, A., & Simon, T. (1916). The Development of Intelligence in Children: (the Binet-
Simon Scale). Binet, A., & Simon, T. (1948). The development of the Binet-Simon
Scale, 1905-1908. Appleton-Century-Crofts EBooks, 412–424.
https://doi.org/10.1037/11304-047

Gopalkrishnan, I., & Venkatesan, S. (2019). Normative congruence between 1967 and 2002
adaptations of age scale for Indian urban children. International Journal of Indian
Psychology, 7(4). https://doi.org/10.25215/0704.067

Gottfredson, L. S. (2003). The challenge and promise of cognitive career assessment. Journal
of Career Assessment, 11(2), 115-135.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072703011002001

Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor: The science of mental ability. Praeger.

Kamat, A. M. (2004). Binet-Kamat test of intelligence. In W. I.B. & C. W.E. (Eds.), The
Corsini encyclopedia of Psychology (4th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 215–216). Wiley.
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2010-03839-000

Kamat, V. V. (1967). Measuring Intelligence of Indian Children.

Roopesh, B. N. (2020). Review Article: Binet Kamat Test of Intelligence: Administration,

Scoring and Interpretation- An In - Depth Appraisal. Indian Journal of Mental Health,
7(3), 180. https://doi.org/10.30877/ijmh.7.3.2020.180-201