Name of Test:



At-a-Glance Test Review: Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test –III (PPVT-III)

|Name of Test: Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test –III (PPVT-III) |

|Author(s): Dunn, Lloyd .M. and Dunn, Leota. M. |

|Publisher/Year: 1959, 1981, and 1997 |

|Forms: A and B |

|Age Range: 2 years, 6 months to 90+ years |

|Norming Sample: The sample was collected in 1995 and 1996. |

|Total Number: 2, 725, Number and Age: 25 age groups took part (ages 2 years, 6 months to range 61-90+ years) with 100 participants in each age group. 6-month intervals from 2 years, 6 months to |

|6 years, 11 months were used, 12 month intervals from 7 years, 0 months to 16 years were used, and multi-year intervals were used for adult ages. Location: 240 sites nationwide, Demographics: |

|Authors used a stratified sample in each age group, by gender, race/ethnicity, geographic region, and SES by parent education level. Rural/Urban: The sample was “balanced across central cities, |

|suburban and small town communities, and rural areas” (Dunn & Dunn, 1997, p. 41). SES: by parent education level, Other: The special education category included: learning disabled, speech |

|impaired, mentally retarded, hearing impaired, and gifted in comparable percentages to the U.S. population. |

|Summary Prepared By (Name and Date): Eleanor Stewart May 2007 |

|Purpose of Test: The purpose of this test is to screen verbal ability (Dunn & Dunn, 1997, p. x) and assess receptive vocabulary knowledge and comprehension of spoken English. The authors clearly|

|state that the test can only measure one aspect of linguistic function so test scores should not be over-interpreted. Theory: The authors do not provide a specific theoretical perspective but |

|rather summarize how vocabulary knowledge has been used in intelligence testing. Areas Tested: receptive vocabulary. Who can Administer: No professional group is identified. Administration |

|Time: Administration time is estimated to be 11 to 12 minutes, “however time requirements will vary among examinees” (p. 7). |

|Test Administration (General and Subtests): Administration and scoring of PPVT is straightforward and has remained unchanged since the initial version in 1959. Four training items are provided |

|to orient the examinee to the task. The examiner is encouraged to teach the examinee how to respond and is free to do so in whatever manner is suitable for the situation in order to ensure that |

|the examinee is prepared. Start points and basal and ceiling sets are specified. Allowable verbal instructions are listed: “Put your finger on ___., Show me ____, and Find _____.” There are four|

|black and white line drawings per page. The examiner says aloud the stimulus word that the examinee identifies by pointing or saying the number of the test plate. Responses are marked by the |

|test plate number. Target responses are printed in the test form. This newest edition has changed the rules for calculating the raw score in order to reduce errors. The authors state that the |

|new rules are “more generous than those used in previous PPVT editions” (Dunn & Dunn, 1997, p. 19). |

|Test Interpretation: A raw score is converted to standardized scores. Examples of each type of standardized score are provided. SEMs and confidence bands are discussed along with the equations |

|needed. The examiner’s manual does not provide any other type of discussion relating to interpreting the results. |

|Standardization: Age equivalent scores* Grade equivalent scores Percentiles Standard scores Stanines |

|Other Normal curve equivalent (*The authors of the technical manual point out that age equivalent scores are only useful during the period of vocabulary growth that extends to age 22 years.) |

|***Comment: I consulted the technical manual for the following information regarding reliability and validity (Williams & Wang , 1997). |

|Reliability: |

|Internal consistency of items: High reliabilities (.90 and above) are reported for the 25 age groups of the norm sample for both forms with a median reliability of .95. SEMs are reported based |

|on alternate forms reliability, “list an SEM of about 4 standard score units across the age range for the 68 percent level, based on a median reliability of .94. For the 90 and 95 percent level,|

|the values are 7 and 8 standard score units, respectively, across the age range” (Williams & Wang , 1997, p. 24). |

|Split half reliability: Results indicate reliabilities ranging from .86 to .97 for the standardization age groups for both forms. The authors state that the split-half reliabilities were |

|“slightly lower than the alphas. This might indicate that the spurious effects introduced in the procedure for deriving the alpha reliabilities were not introduced in the Rasch split-half |

|procedure” (Williams & Wang , 1997, p. 21). |

|Test-retest: 226 randomly selected participants in four age groups were retested: 2 years, 6 months to 5 years, 11 months (n=67), 6 years, 0 months to 10 years, 11 months (n=70), 12 years, 0 |

|months to 17years, 11 months (n=51), and 26 years, 0 months to 57 years, 11 months (n=38). The interval ranged from 8 to 203 days with an average interval of 42 days. Characteristics of the |

|sample are described by gender, race/ethnicity, SES, and region. The authors state, “Almost all retesting was done by the examiner who had administered the PPVT-III the first time” (p. 22). |

|Corrected coefficients were reported between .91 to .94 “with very little or no difference in magnitude between the two forms.” Additionally, the average values “suggest little or no practice |

|effect” (Williams & Wang , 1997, p. 23). |

|Inter-rater: no information in technical manual. |

|Other: Between the alternate forms: Both test forms were administered to participants in the standardization sample. The results demonstrate high correlations ranging from .88 to .96 with a |

|median correlation of .94. Thus, the forms are considered to be parallel. |

| |

|Chapter 5, “Equivalency” addresses the equivalence of the PPVT-R and PPVT-III and the two forms, IIIA and IIIB. The authors provide this information as they acknowledge that the test is used |

|extensively in longitudinal research. The evidence for equivalence of the forms is also presented. |

| |

|In terms of relative difficulty, the authors addressed the issue by performing additional analyses. Parallel content was also addressed in the technical manual. The content areas, all twenty of |

|them, are presented for both forms of the PPVT-III to show comparable numbers in each content area. |

|Validity: |

|Content: Item development information is provided in Chapters 1 and 2 of the technical manual. In the section on content validity in Chapter 6, “Validity”, the authors briefly state that the |

|stimulus words were selected to avoid any word that tapped specialized knowledge (i.e., homonyms, words derived from another language). Distractor words were limited to those that would not |

|confuse the examinee (e.g., avoiding words that sound alike). |

|Criterion Prediction Validity: Four studies were conducted during the standardization process. |

|Correlations with Cognitive Ability: WISC-III, Kaufman Adolescent and Adult Intelligence Test, Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test: Global scores also evidenced strong correlations as follows: .90 |

|and .90 for WISC-III Full Scale IQ, .85 and .91 for KAIT Composite IQ, and lower for K-BIT at .78 and .76. The authors report that these results are similar to those previously obtained from |

|comparisons made with the PPVT-R Forms L and M. |

|Correlations with Oral Language: The special population sample was matched with the norm sample for age, gender, race/ethnicity, SES, education level, and region. T-tests for paired samples were|

|used to compare test results. Various examiners across the U.S. collected test data. Special populations included: speech impairment, language delay, language impairment, mental retardation, |

|learning disability, hearing impairment, and gifted. Results across these populations were as expected. |

|Construct Identification Validity: The authors provide an historical perspective on vocabulary testing beginning with reference to Binet at the turn of the 20th century, noting the strong link |

|to measurement of intelligence throughout the evolution of vocabulary testing. |

|Differential Item Functioning: No information is provided. |

|Other: |

|Summary/Conclusions/Observations: This is a classic test as indicated by its extensive history and research base. Studies of the PPVT (various editions) are summarized in the technical |

|reference manual. |

|Clinical/Diagnostic Usefulness: |

|This test is not used often. At one time, the PPVT was commonly used as part of a standard battery for assessing preschool children. I think that it has fallen out of favour because it measures |

|only a single construct. Other measures, such as the CELF-P2, incorporate shorter vocabulary subtests. For efficiency, many clinicians will choose a test that addresses a number of language |

|skills rather than have to administer several tests to obtain the information. The PPVT might be selected if student vocabulary appeared severely restricted due to a specific impairment such as |

|TBI. The PPVT can be used with the EVT to identify word retrieval difficulties. |

References

Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1997). Examiner’s Manual for the PPVT-III: Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test Third Edition. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

Williams, K. T., & Wang, J. (1997). Technical references to the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test- Third Edition (PPVT-III). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

To cite this document:

Hayward, D. V., Stewart, G. E., Phillips, L. M., Norris, S. P., & Lovell, M. A. (2008). At-a-glance test review: Peabody picture vocabulary test –III (PPVT-III). Language, Phonological Awareness, and Reading Test Directory (pp. 1-4). Edmonton, AB: Canadian Centre for Research on Literacy. Retrieved [insert date] from .

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download