Concurrent Validity of Mental Ability Screening Tools : A Comparison of Normal Students’ Performance on the Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test and the Shipley Institute of Living Scale-Revised

This study compared the Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test (K-BIT), a verbal and nonverbal mental ability screening tool, to the Shipley Institute Living Scale (SILS), a nonverbal screening tool of mental ability, as part of a larger, ongoing study which is examining the effects of orofacial clefts on early career maturity. In terms of general intellectual ability, the K-BIT and the SILS provide descriptive categories, percentile ranks, raw scores, standard error of measurement, standard scores, standardization and norms, subtest scores, and total scores. The K-BIT provides normative curve equivalents and stanines, which the SILS does not. The SILS provides abstract and conceptual quotients, WAIS and WAIS-R full-scale IQ estimates, and t-scores which the K-BIT does not. Forty subject permission forms were distributed at two private schools, two public schools, and two youth groups. Seventeen adolescents (aged 14 to 17) agreed to participate in the study. Subjects completed two measures of mental ability. In addition, all subjects completed a biographical questionnaire. The research question asked was Do the two tests yield similar percentile ranks and descriptive categories when administered to the same individual? Descriptive statistics were utilized to respond to the research question. A comparison was completed to determine if the two tests yielded similar percentile ranks and descriptive categories when administered to the same individual. Comparison of subjects\u27 vocabulary, abstract/matrices, and composite/total percentile ranks and corresponding descriptive categories on the two measures determined that: (a) scores on the vocabulary subtest were more likely to be similar when descriptive categories were used rather than percentile ranks, (b) percentile ranks and descriptive categories across the two tests\u27 abstract/matrices subtests were mixed and inconclusive, and (c) scores on the two tests\u27 composite/total scores were more likely to be similar when descriptive categories were used rather than percentile ranks