Encyclopedia of Clinical Neuropsychology

2018 Edition
| Editors: Jeffrey S. Kreutzer, John DeLuca, Bruce Caplan

Alternate Test Forms

  • Grant L. IversonEmail author
  • Kyle E. Ferguson
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57111-9_1170

Synonyms

Equivalent forms; Parallel forms

Definition

Alternate test forms are designed to avoid or reduce content- or item-specific practice effects that are associated with repeated administrations of the same neuropsychological test(s) (Fastenau et al. 2002). Examination of the manuals for many intellectual and neuropsychological tests illustrates that practice effects are common, especially over brief retest intervals (e.g., days or weeks). Regarding test construction, alternate test forms should include the same number of items, and the items should be of equivalent difficulty. Moreover, the test instructions, time limits, examples, and format should be identical to the original instrument developed during standardization, to reduce measurement error (Jackson 2009). Of course, measurement error can never be eliminated. For example, content-sampling error and time-sampling error – inherent in all test-retest paradigms – are always concerns in developing alternate test forms...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References and Readings

  1. Benedict, R. H. B. (2001). Brief visuospatial memory test – Revised. Odessa: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  2. Brandt, J., & Benedict, R. H. B. (2001). Hopkins verbal learning test-revised. Odessa: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  3. Busch, R. M., Chelune, G. J., & Suchy, Y. (2006). Using norms in neuropsychological assessment. In D. K. Attix & K. A. Welsh-Bohmer (Eds.), Geriatric neuropsychology: Assessment and intervention (pp. 133–157). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  4. Dorans, N. J., & Holland, P. W. (2000). Population invariance and equitability of tests: Basic theory and the linear case. Journal of Educational Measurement, 37, 281–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fastenau, P. S., Hankins, W. T., McGinnis, C. M., Moy, T., & Richard, M. (2002). Effects of alternate forms on retest effects in clinical testing. Journal of International Neuropsychological Society, 7(2), 151.Google Scholar
  6. Jackson, S. L. (2009). Research methods and statistics: A critical thinking approach (3rd ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
  7. Kolen, M. J., & Brennan, R. L. (2004). Test equating, scaling, and linking: Methods and practices (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ormea, D., Reeb, M. J., & Riouxc, P. (2001). Premorbid IQ estimates from a multiple aptitude test battery: Regression vs. equating. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 16, 679–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Petersen, N. S. (2008). A discussion of population invariance of equating. Applied Psychological Measurement, 32, 98–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Petersen, N. S., Kolen, M. J., & Hoover, H. D. (1989). Scaling, norming, and equating. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 221–262). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  11. Salinsky, M. C., Storzbach, D., Dodrill, C. B., & Binder, L. M. (2001). Test-retest bias, reliability, and regression equations for neuropsychological measures repeated over a 12–16-week period. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 7(5), 597–605.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Sattler, J. M. (2001). Assessment of children: Cognitive applications (4th ed.). San Diego: Jerome M. Sattler.Google Scholar
  13. Stern, R. A., & White, T. (2003). Neuropsychological assessment battery. Lutz: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  14. Strauss, E., Sherman, E. M. S., & Spreen, O. (2006). A compendium of neuropsychological tests: Administration, norms, and commentary (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. White, T., & Stern, R. A. (2003). Neuropsychological assessment battery: Psychometric and technical manual. Lutz: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  16. Wilkinson, G. S., & Robertson, G. J. (2006). Wide range achievement test (4th ed.). Lutz: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychiatryBritish Columbia Mental Health and Addictions, University of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  2. 2.University of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada