Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

A comparison of the reliability and validity of the standard MFF and MFF20 with learning-disabled children

A comparison of the reliability and validity of the standard MFF and MFF20 with learning-disabled... A direct comparison was made of the reliability and validity of the standard Matching Familiar Figures Test (MFF) to a recent longer version of the task (MFF20). Subjects comprised two samples of learning-disabled children, matched on age, sex, IQ, and SES. The Salkind and Wright (1977) formulation was used to generate continuous data, and IQ was statistically controlled. Internal reliability estimates showed the MFF20 to be more consistent that the standard version on both error and latency scores. Validity was addressed by comparing the two versions of the task in their ability to predict cognitive and behavioral skills of conceptual relevance to impulsivity. Results indicated that the MFF20 is a more sensitive predictor of academic achievement and attention as observed in a natural setting than is the standard version of the task. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology Springer Journals

A comparison of the reliability and validity of the standard MFF and MFF20 with learning-disabled children

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/a-comparison-of-the-reliability-and-validity-of-the-standard-mff-and-pXeom0mszZ

References (17)

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright
Subject
Psychology; Child and School Psychology; Neurosciences; Public Health
ISSN
0091-0627
eISSN
1573-2835
DOI
10.1007/BF00916381
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

A direct comparison was made of the reliability and validity of the standard Matching Familiar Figures Test (MFF) to a recent longer version of the task (MFF20). Subjects comprised two samples of learning-disabled children, matched on age, sex, IQ, and SES. The Salkind and Wright (1977) formulation was used to generate continuous data, and IQ was statistically controlled. Internal reliability estimates showed the MFF20 to be more consistent that the standard version on both error and latency scores. Validity was addressed by comparing the two versions of the task in their ability to predict cognitive and behavioral skills of conceptual relevance to impulsivity. Results indicated that the MFF20 is a more sensitive predictor of academic achievement and attention as observed in a natural setting than is the standard version of the task.

Journal

Journal of Abnormal Child PsychologySpringer Journals

Published: Dec 16, 2004

There are no references for this article.