Since 2002, 4 million visitors plus:
hit counters
search engine optimization service

  Appletcollection Vertical Menu java applet, Copyright 2003 GD

Differential Ability Scales (DAS)


Step-by-step Analysis

Ipsative analysis of Kate's subtests provides further help in understanding Kate's performance on the DAS. Identifying each subtest as being either statistically higher or lower than the mean of the test allows the interpreter to develop hypotheses regarding shared abilities. Each of her subtest scores was compared to the mean of her core subtests. Three of her core subtests differed significantly from the mean (SQR, RDes, and PCon) with SQR being lower while RDes and PCon were both significantly above the mean. Additionally, two of her diagnostic subtests (RDig and SIP) were found to be significantly depressed when compared to her overall mean.

Figure-8 SUBTEST ANALYSIS

MEAN CORE T SCORE:

50

Critical

Difference from

T Score

Value

Mean Core T

High/ Low (H / L)

Word Definitions (WDef) :

49

10

-1

-

Similarities (Sim) :

56

11

6

+

Matrices (Mat) :

43

11

-7

-

Seq. & Quant. Reasoning (SQR) :

32

10

-18

L

Recall of Designs (RDes) :

60

10

10

H

Pattern Construction (PCon) :

60

8

10

H

Recall of Digits (RDig) :

30

11

-20

L

Recall of Objects - Immed. (RObj-I) :

55

14

5

+

Speed of Infor. Process. (SIP) :

35

9

-15

L

Recall of Objects - Delay (RObj-D) :

61

14

11

+

(RObj-I) vs (RObj-D) :

14

6

No Significant difference

Recall of Digits vs. Objects:

12

25

Digits / Objects Higher

The comparisons between the Immediate and the Delayed trials of the Recall of Objects subtest showed no significant difference [Examiners should not interpret these two measures separately unless the difference between them is at least 14 points.], so the interpretation focuses on the Immediate trial only. There was a difference noted between the Recall of Digits and the Recall of Objects subtest, with the score on the Objects being 25 points higher than the score on the Digits.

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

Case Study, p.  6