The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test and the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised were compared for 3 I gifted children. The sample mean for the PPVT-R was significantly lower than for the PPVT. In addition, the PPVT and PPVT-R correlated to a significant degree, yielding a standard score correlation coefficient of .83.
The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT, Dunn, 1959) has long been a popular screening tool used to assess the receptive vocabulary of preschool and school-aged children (Bochner, 1978;. As a screening instrument, the test is easily administered, requires no vocalization from the person being tested, is applicable to a wide range of ages, and requires a minimal amount of testing time-approximately 20 minutes. Because of these factors, the PPVT has been a valuable screening instrument.
Despite these advantages, the PPVT has been criticized for a number of technical reasons (Bracken & McCallum, in press; Bracken & Prasse, in press). One problem was that the PPVT norming sample was not representative of the children with whom the test was used; the norms were compiled from an all-white sample living in and around Nashville, Tennessee. In addition, the stimulus pictures in the test underscore traditional racial and sex-role stereotypes. Girls in the pictures are typically shown performing or modelling domestic chores, and only one black person appears in the test and he is depicted as a train station porter. Furthermore, many of the line drawings are outdated and uninteresting. Dress patterns depicted in the PPVT are no longer relevant to children of the present day.
The revision of the PPVT (PPVT-R, Dunn & Dunn, 1981) appears to have remedied most of these shortcomings. The norming sample for the PPVT-R was derived from a geographically representative group based on the 1970 U.S. Census. The quality of the line drawings has been improved, and the new carousel-like booklet which now displays only one item at a time alleviates the distraction that was created when two stimulus plates were presented simultaneously. People of many racial and ethnic backgrounds are now depicted in the drawings, and most sex-role stereotyping appears to have been eliminated.
Because of the previously mentioned advantages of the PPVT, it would appear that the instrument would be useful for screening children for gifted programs. Since the PPVT-R was designed to replace its predecessor, examiners will need to know how the tests compare when screening children for gifted programs and evaluating gifted programs. Bracken and Prasse (in press) found that for 114 school-age mentally retarded children, the mean PPVT-R standard score was lower than the PPVT IQ by more than a full standard deviation. In another related study, Bracken and McCallum (in press) tested 72 preschoolers and found their mean PPVT-R score to be lower by a lesser, though still significant, degree. A mean difference of about 10 points was found between PPVT IQ and the PPVT-R standard score for the sample of normal preschool children.
Previous studies indicate that differences between the PPVT and PPVT-R exist for both preschool and EMR children. The purpose of this investigation was to explore Requests for reprints should be sent to Bruce A . Bracken