The intercorrelations among the 11 subtests of the DTLA-2 for a portion of the standardization sample were subjected to both factor analysis and cluster analysis. None of the resulting factors or clusters corresponded exactly to any of the eight composites into which the subtests are partitioned, nor did the composites account well for the intercorrelations. Thus the organization of the DTLA-2 does not appear to reflect the actual structure of the instrument.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Baker, H. J. and Leland, B. (1935). Detroit Tests of Learning Aptitude. Bloomington, IL: Public School Publishing.
2.
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT, 20, 37-46.
3.
Hammill, D. D. (1985). Detroit Tests of Learning Aptitude (DTLA-2). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
4.
Humphreys, L. G. and Ilgen, D. R. (1969). Note on a criterion for the number of factors. EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT, 29, 571-578.
5.
Johnson, S. C. (1967). Hierarchical clustering schemes. Psychometrika, 32, 241-254.
6.
Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT, 20, 141-151.
7.
Montanelli, R. G., Jr. and Humphreys, L. G. (1976). Latent roots of random data correlation matrices with squared multiple correlations on the diagonal: A Monte Carlo study. Psychometrika, 41, 341-348.
8.
SAS Institute Inc. (1983). SUGI supplemental library users guide, 1983 edition.Cary, NC: Author.
9.
Shepard, R. M. and Arabie, P. (1979). Additive clustering: Representation of similarities as combinations of discrete overlapping properties. Psychological Review, 86, 87-123.
