I have had some lovely things arrive by a courier the other day. Pearson is releasing their iPad based WAIS and WISC and I am one of the people they chose to take part in the Australian trials. So I received two iPads, with accessories, and free access to Q-interactive for a month. My job is to to answer some questions about my experience every week. In the spirit of full disclosure, I need to tell you that I get to keep the iPads and accessories after the end of the trial and my registration to Q-interactive is free till September. I get to pay for assessments after the end of the trial. So yes, I am very happy with all of this, and rather positively disposed towards the trial.
Not that I would not anyway, being rather geeky and enjoying all new gizmos.
I have checked with Pearson, and I am allowed to blog about the trial. The only thing that they ask is that I call their consultant first if I encounter any problems. That sounds very reasonable.
For the first instalment, I am going to summarise my pre-trial opinion about Q-interactive. This is pretty much what I said during last years conference.
1. The iPad version of the tests is essentially the same as the paper version - Pearson are using the same norms, so they could not change much. There are some nice-haves on the iPad, but no major changes. There are some equivalence studies, the info about which is on the Internet. So the bottom line is that you can please yourself in terms of whether you use paper or iPad version.
2. The main difference is going to be price and cash flow. The administration on the iPad does not require an upfront expense of buying the test battery, and with both WISC, WAIS, DKEFS (part, I believe) and CVLT, this is significant. On the other hand, there is the yearly subscription, cost of 2 iPads (and iPad upgrades which are likely to be more frequent than every 10 years). Still, without a doubt, there upfront price is much less. However, there will be a cost per client of administering the tests. It'll need careful arithmetic to calculate the comparative costs.