Related Experiment Videos
False conclusions about Vineland standard scores: Silverstein's type I errors and other artifacts
American Journal of Mental Deficiency
|July 1, 1986
Summary
This study refutes concerns about the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, finding statistical criticisms invalid. The analysis shows that criticisms regarding age-group variations in means and standard deviations are unfounded.
Area of Science:
- Psychometrics
- Biostatistics
Background:
- Concerns were raised regarding variability in Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales (VABS) means and standard deviations (SDs) across age groups.
- These variations were suggested to compromise measurement accuracy, domain analysis, and pairwise comparisons.
Purpose of the Study:
- To invalidate criticisms of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales based on statistical reasoning.
- To demonstrate that concerns about VABS psychometric properties are unfounded due to flawed statistical analysis.
Main Methods:
- Re-analysis of statistical comparisons made by Silverstein regarding VABS means and SDs.
- Evaluation of the statistical methodology used to assess VABS standardization sample data.
Main Results:
- Silverstein's reasoning regarding VABS variability and its impact on assessments was found to be invalid.
- The criticisms failed to control for Type I error in comparing sample statistics to population parameters.
Conclusions:
- The concerns raised about the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales are based on invalid biostatistical arguments.
- Users should disregard criticisms stemming from flawed statistical reasoning regarding VABS psychometric properties.