1 / 61

by Sarah Pemble LMHC

Assessment of Nonverbal Cognitive Ability. by Sarah Pemble LMHC. What is Nonverbal Cognitive Assessment?. Measures a student’s ability to: Recognize underlying rules and relationships Remember details See and copy conceptual patterns Reason Complete sequences. Nonverbal Assessment.

kitra
Download Presentation

by Sarah Pemble LMHC

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Assessment of Nonverbal Cognitive Ability by Sarah PembleLMHC

  2. What is Nonverbal Cognitive Assessment? • Measures a student’s ability to: • Recognize underlying rules and • relationships • Remember details • See and copy conceptual patterns • Reason • Complete sequences

  3. Nonverbal Assessment • Theories of Nonverbal Intelligence • Spearman’s “G” and “S” factors • Cattell’s fluid and crystallized measures • Thurstone’s mental abilities

  4. Nonverbal Assessment • Use a Nonverbal measure when: • Speech or hearing disabled • Student has writing limitations • Staff suspects a nonverbal learning • disability • Student is an ELL learner

  5. Differential Ability Scales (DAS) • Entire test: 20 subtests—17 cognitive and 3 achievement s measures yields overall cognitive and achievement scores. • Valid for children 2.6-17.11 years old • GCA is the general ability of an individual to perform complex mental processing that involves conceptualization and the transformation of information. • Also provides composite or cluster score; diverse-specific ability measures; diagnostic subtests for school-aged children, and achievement screening tests in word reading, basic number skills and spelling • Developed from the British Ability Scales in 1990. DAS II version released • in 2007

  6. Nonverbal Assessment DAS General Conceptual Ability • Matrices • Sequential • & Quantitative • Reasoning • Nonverbal • Reasoning ability Spatial Ability • Recall of • Designs • Pattern • Construction • Copying

  7. Nonverbal Assessment (DAS) • PARAMETRICS- RELIABILITY • The DAS was standardized from 1986-1989 on 3,475 children and adolescents with approximately 175 at each age level. The sample was stratified by age and sex, geographic location, special education enrollment, across race-ethnicity, and parent educational levels, and proved very similar to 1988 census populations (which have changed significantly in the last 20 years). • Internal Reliability .89 and .90 for Preschool Nonverbal ability and School-Age Nonverbal Reasoning ability, and .92 for the Spatial ability scores. • Test-retest increase in scores: Nonverbal increases measured from 3.3 to 6.6, and the Spatial from 4.7 to 7.6 points. Measures of Verbal ability were somewhat more stable and showed smaller practice-effect gains than both the Nonverbal and Spatial abilities.

  8. Nonverbal Assessment (DAS) VALIDITY Inter-correlation validity: Average correlations between the 17 individual subtests (excluding achievement subtests) and the GCA range from .22 to .82. Construct validity DAS Verbal, Nonverbal, and GCA scores were generally lower than the WPPSI-R Verbal, Performance, and Full Scales DAS Nonverbal Reasoning score correlated higher with the WISC-R Verbal than with the Performance (.77 vs. .57). The DAS Spatial cluster correlated highest with the WISC-R Performance scale (.69). • **Alternate method of determining reliability had to be used due to non-uniform starting point.

  9. Nonverbal Assessment (DAS) • ADMINSTRATION • Requires preparation –Some feel the complexity of administration and testing limits its’ effectiveness • Accuracy of results strongly impacted by skill of the tester • Basal/discontinue rules but no uniform start/end point • All subtests include teaching items • Test took much longer to give than predicted

  10. Nonverbal Assessment (DAS) • Difficulty in scoring • Item by item administration & scoring • Tester’s professional judgment • (book example)

  11. Nonverbal Assessment (DAS) • VALUE • Are verbal and communication skills central to intelligence? • Can Intelligence be tested apart from culture? (Cole & Cole, 1993) • Considerable caution should be exercised in the interpretation of these tests • Use of nonverbal IQ has been widely-criticized • (Kaufman, 2001)

  12. Nonverbal Assessment (DAS) • SCORING • Qualitative information can be added • Includes raw scores, standardized , T scores and percentile ranking • T score points can actually be given for no successes-this complicates interpretation • Interpretation should proceed from general to specific • Relationship of scores more important than an individual score • Statistically significant differences

  13. KABC-II Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children, 2nd Edition • Measures the processing & cognitive ability of children & adolescents, 3-18 • Individually administered • Time: sub-test 90 minutes (took me three hours) • Non-verbal scales for hearing impaired, speech-language disorders, non-English

  14. Nonverbal Assessment KABC-II Features: • Measures sequential and simultaneous processing, learning, reasoning and crystallized ability • Records score differences between ethnic and cultural groups • Uses two theoretical models- Cattel-Horn Carroll (CHC) and Luria’s processing theory • Option for assessing without measuring acquired knowledge • Non-Verbal scale can be pantomimed and responded to motorically

  15. Nonverbal Assessment KABC-II Features (continued): • Can be administered out-of level • Ensures that no child will do poorly because they do not understand. • Bi-lingual (Spanish/English) Non-Verbal scales Includes easels in Spanish translations for teaching and scoring. • Quantitative indicators for each subtest, so examiner can record observations about test-taking behaviors that may be relevant.

  16. Nonverbal Assessment KABC-II Two Theoretical Models: • A. Luria’s neuropsychological model, which features • three functional units. • focuses on general mental processing ability and deemphasizes acquired knowledge (language proficiency or general information) • yields a global score called the Mental Processing Index (MPI) • measures learning, sequential & simultaneous processing & planning abilities

  17. Nonverbal Assessment KABC-II The Three Blocks of Luria’s Neuropsychogical Theory

  18. Nonverbal Assessment KABC-II Two Theoretical Models (continued): B. • Cattell-Horn- Carroll (CHC) is a hierarchical • organization of broad and narrow cognitive • abilities. • The (FCI) Fluid-Crystallized Index measure five broad abilities and general cognitive ability • Recommended for gifted/talented

  19. Nonverbal Assessment KABC-II How to Choose: • The CHC is the model of choice, except where acquired knowledge/crystallized ability would compromise choice. • Luria is preferred when child has bilingual background; whose cultural background may affect knowledge or verbal development; known or suspected language disorders; autism; or hearing impaired • Non-Verbal, hearingloss, limited English, limited Cognitive abilities (Do Luria instead if you want Learning Subtest)

  20. Nonverbal Assessment KABC-II Non-Verbal Subtest • Composed of only those subtests that can be administered in pantomime and responded to motorically • Face Recognition • Story completion • Triangles • Pattern Reasoning • Hand Movements • Conceptual Thinking

  21. Nonverbal Assessment KABC-II Non-Verbal Scales • Pantomimed or responded motorically • NVS has reliability and validity coefficients that are not substantially lower. • NVS for language related disabilities or ESL • Not used to replace MPI or FCI for shy or mild speech/ language issues • Not be given to bilingual unless grasp of English is limited and would be penalized for language demands.

  22. Nonverbal Assessment KABC-II Qualitative Indicators: • Each subtests has indicators to record • observations that may be relevant for • interpretation such as: • fails to sustain attention • reluctant to respond when uncertain • unusually focused • worries about time limit • verbalizes story ideas

  23. Nonverbal Assessment KABC-II Standardization • Nationally representation of 3,205 ages 3-18 in 39 states/127 sites over 16-month period • Random sampling for target sample- then each age match for sex, ethnic group, ed of parents, geog. region, Sp.ed. or gifted • Norms- mirror 2001 U.S. Census data • Subtest score distributions: mean- 10 & SD - 3, combined/scaled to mean - 100 & SD - 15

  24. Nonverbal Assessment KABC-II Reliability • Subtest reliability coefficients are .80 -.90 for younger children below.70 • Global/individual scales .81-.97 but coefficients for NV are the lowest .90 • Subtest stability coefficients are .50-.92 • Global/individual scales are .72-.95 with NV being the lowest.

  25. Nonverbal Assessment KABC-II Reliability (continued) • Younger girls scored better then boys all scales except knowledge: means by gender was 3pts or less • Parent education important predictor for all pre-school and knowledge only scales for school age • Ethnic differences – parent education does not control for SES, controlling for SES doesn’t remove variables that are differentially distributed by ethnicity.

  26. Nonverbal Assessment KABC-II Reliability (continued) • Ethnic difference are modest compared to parent education; largest variance on the knowledge scale. • Ethnicity on global scales accounts for 2% of variance for preschoolers and 5% for older • Each ethnic group was reviewed but low influences

  27. Nonverbal Assessment KABC-II Validity • Strong support for the construct validity of the KABC global scales • Correlation with Wechsler two points higher than full scale at 97.3 • Full IQ correlation with WISC and FCI/MPA .89 &.88. • Subscale & Index score correlation are present with IQ scores on the WISC-III, WISC-IV, WPPSI-III, KAIT, Cog-WJIII

  28. Nonverbal Assessment KABC-II Validity (continued) • Clinical studies- ID process with “exceptional” kids: • LD/reading: SS, -11.3-14.6 greatest on Learning Index. NV on both MPI/FCI was 16 points. • LD/math: SS -14.5 -15.0 greatest on Planning • LD/written: SS, -11.9—14.8 greatest on learning • MR: SS, -29.9—37.4, greatest on Simultaneous & Planning, similar on MPI/FCI/NV • ADHD: SS, -5.9—10, greatest difference simultaneous. • Smaller ethnic group differences: substantial details provided for time bias and mean group difference, it’s claim of a reduction in ethnic group differences is not entirely achieved • Socio- cultural norms are absent from the KABC-II

  29. Nonverbal Assessment KABC-II VALUE • Interesting subtests & reduced emphasis on prior learning- better technical characteristics • Improvement on original i.e. norms for older, representation at all ages • New subtest strength psychometrics • Clear and psychometrically defensible procedures for indentifying individual strengths /weakness • Somewhat smaller score differences between ethnic groups • Teaching exercises • Nice soft-sided case- material fit

  30. Nonverbal Assessment KABC-II VALUE (continued) • Absence of direct evidence to support how a single test can measure two distinct constructs (you can’t assume sub-standard leads to processing information differently) • Two interpretive models does not magically reflect two different ways of processing just because examinee might lack education or ESL • Culturally bias- even non-verbal (Story Comp.) • Bonus for timing (places burden on examiner) • Complete lack of evidence to support the use of test data for guiding educational or psychological interventions.

  31. Nonverbal Assessment KABC-II VALUE (continued) • Do not let child see your marks (feedback) • Each core subtest begins with a playful/ interesting & non-threatening subtest that does not need verbalization. • Subtest that are similar are not administered in order (needs familiarity & practice) • Rules must be internalized to ensure proper administration (practice for reliability) • Establish/maintain rapport- praise for effort not correctness (hard-child wanted to know how doing)

  32. Nonverbal Assessment KABC-II VALUE (continued) • Start points vary with each age • Each subtest has a rule when to stop • Most subtests include teaching time • 3 types of timing: (hard to remember) • *timing of stimulus • *timing of responses for time limits • *timing of responses for extra points

  33. TONI-3 Test of Nonverbal Intelligence 3rd Edition • Measures a single intelligent behavior- a person’s ability to solve novel & abstract problem • Designed for persons ages 6:0- 89:11 • 45 questions • All testers start at item 1 • Two equivalent forms (A & B) • Individually administered • Useful for those who are nonverbal, illiterate, non-English speaking, culturally different, or otherwise have some kind of linguistic difficulties.

  34. TONI-3 Test of Nonverbal Intelligence 3rd Edition (continued) • Each item presents a novel problems • No word • No numbers • No familiar pictures • No familiar symbols • Designed to be culturally sensitive • Potential bias insignificant

  35. Normed in 1995 & 1996 by two data collection procedures • Major standardization sites were selected in each of the four geographic regions per U.S. Bureau of Census (NY, South Dakota, Kansas, Texas, Arizona, & Washington) • Sample of 3,451 people residing in 28 states participated • All children in the sample attended school in general education & children with disabilities who were enrolled in these classes were included in the sample, too. • Smaller test sites were selected randomly by contacting professionals who had purchased the TONI -2 . A total of 67 experienced testers from 22 states volunteered to for the purpose of norming the TONI-3. • An additional 1,391 students participated TONI-3 Psychometrics- Norming • Normed in 1995 & 1996 by two data collection procedures • Major standardization sites were selected in each of the four geographic regions per U.S. Bureau of Census (NY, South Dakota, Kansas, Texas, Arizona, & Washington) • Sample of 3,451 people residing in 28 states participated • All children in the sample attended school in general education & children with disabilities who were enrolled in these classes were included in the sample, too.

  36. Normed in 1995 & 1996 by two data collection procedures • Major standardization sites were selected in each of the four geographic regions per U.S. Bureau of Census (NY, South Dakota, Kansas, Texas, Arizona, & Washington) • Sample of 3,451 people residing in 28 states participated • All children in the sample attended school in general education & children with disabilities who were enrolled in these classes were included in the sample, too. • Smaller test sites were selected randomly by contacting professionals who had purchased the TONI -2 . A total of 67 experienced testers from 22 states volunteered to for the purpose of norming the TONI-3. • An additional 1,391 students participated TONI-3 Psychometrics- Norming • Normed in 1995 & 1996 by two data collection procedures (continued) • Smaller test sites were selected randomly by contacting professionals who had purchased the TONI -2 . A total of 67 experienced testers from 22 states volunteered to for the purpose of norming the TONI-3. • An additional 1,391 students participated for a total of 3,451 participants

  37. Normed in 1995 & 1996 by two data collection procedures • Major standardization sites were selected in each of the four geographic regions per U.S. Bureau of Census (NY, South Dakota, Kansas, Texas, Arizona, & Washington) • Sample of 3,451 people residing in 28 states participated • All children in the sample attended school in general education & children with disabilities who were enrolled in these classes were included in the sample, too. • Smaller test sites were selected randomly by contacting professionals who had purchased the TONI -2 . A total of 67 experienced testers from 22 states volunteered to for the purpose of norming the TONI-3. • An additional 1,391 students participated TONI-3 Psychometrics- Reliability Coefficients Alpha ranges from: • .89 (6 yr. interval) • .97 (80-89 yr interval).  Standard Error of Measurement (SEM) average is 4 points (3-5 points) across all ages. NOTE: Coefficeints Alpha demonstrate the extent to which test items correlate with one another.

  38. Normed in 1995 & 1996 by two data collection procedures • Major standardization sites were selected in each of the four geographic regions per U.S. Bureau of Census (NY, South Dakota, Kansas, Texas, Arizona, & Washington) • Sample of 3,451 people residing in 28 states participated • All children in the sample attended school in general education & children with disabilities who were enrolled in these classes were included in the sample, too. • Smaller test sites were selected randomly by contacting professionals who had purchased the TONI -2 . A total of 67 experienced testers from 22 states volunteered to for the purpose of norming the TONI-3. • An additional 1,391 students participated TONI-3 Psychometrics- Reliability • The stability of the TONI-3 was studied using the test-retest method. • ages 13 years, 15 years, 19-40 years • time lapse between the two testing (form A & B) was 1 week. • Test-retest coefficients were greater than .90 for both forms. • Contains little or no time sampling error.

  39. Normed in 1995 & 1996 by two data collection procedures • Major standardization sites were selected in each of the four geographic regions per U.S. Bureau of Census (NY, South Dakota, Kansas, Texas, Arizona, & Washington) • Sample of 3,451 people residing in 28 states participated • All children in the sample attended school in general education & children with disabilities who were enrolled in these classes were included in the sample, too. • Smaller test sites were selected randomly by contacting professionals who had purchased the TONI -2 . A total of 67 experienced testers from 22 states volunteered to for the purpose of norming the TONI-3. • An additional 1,391 students participated TONI-3 Psychometrics- Reliability • Immediate Alternate Forms Reliability: • Both forms of the test are given during one testing session. • The means and standard deviations for Forms A and B are virtually • Identical at every age interval. • Time Sampling: • Administer Form A, administer Form B one week later = .90 coefficient.  • Scorer Differences: • Coefficients were .99 for both Form A and Form B= high interscorer reliability

  40. Normed in 1995 & 1996 by two data collection procedures • Major standardization sites were selected in each of the four geographic regions per U.S. Bureau of Census (NY, South Dakota, Kansas, Texas, Arizona, & Washington) • Sample of 3,451 people residing in 28 states participated • All children in the sample attended school in general education & children with disabilities who were enrolled in these classes were included in the sample, too. • Smaller test sites were selected randomly by contacting professionals who had purchased the TONI -2 . A total of 67 experienced testers from 22 states volunteered to for the purpose of norming the TONI-3. • An additional 1,391 students participated TONI-3 Psychometrics- Validity • Correlation between the TONI-3 & the CTONI, WISC-III, & WAIS-R Criterion Tests TONI-3 Form A Form B CTONI (high correlation) Pictorial Nonverbal IQ……………………………… Geometric nonverbal IQ……………………………... Overall Nonverbal IQ………………………………… WISC-III (moderate to high) Verbal Scales IQ……………………………………… Performance Scales IQ……………………………… Full Scale IQ………………………………………….. WAIL-R (moderate to high) Verbal Scale IQ……………………………………….. Performance Scale IQ……………………………….. Full Scale IQ………………………………………….. 74 72 64 64 76 74 59 53 56 58 63 63 57 51 75 76 73 71

  41. TONI-3 Administration • Instructions are pantomimed and do not required the subject to read or listen to instructions • Five practice items & provisions are made for repeating the practice items if the tester does not comprehend what is required • 20-30 minutes to administer • Discontinue after 3 incorrect responses • The test is not timed

  42. TONI-3 Administration (continued) On the Answer & Record Form space is provided to document: • Anecdotal comments • Administration conditions • Interpretation and recommendations In addition, there is an Administration and scoring instructions section

  43. NonverbalAssessment TONI A1

  44. NonverbalAssessment TONI A10

  45. NonverbalAssessment TONI A45

  46. TONI-3 Creating a Comprehensive Profile TONI-3 scores are only one piece of the puzzle, a comprehensive profile requires additional testing, observations, interview, & consultation. Alone, the TONI-3 provides some useful information, however best practice indicates a need for comparable data.

  47. TONI-3 Sharing the Results Special Consideration: Other tests or activities that are loaded with spoken or written language tasks could be helpful in estimating the potential of students who are nonverbal, illiterate, or non-English speaking. However, consider language deviance rather than intellectual deviance when a student’s profile is characterized by normal or above average on non-verbal measures combined with subaverage performance on language-loaded measures.

  48. Normed in 1995 & 1996 by two data collection procedures • Major standardization sites were selected in each of the four geographic regions per U.S. Bureau of Census (NY, South Dakota, Kansas, Texas, Arizona, & Washington) • Sample of 3,451 people residing in 28 states participated • All children in the sample attended school in general education & children with disabilities who were enrolled in these classes were included in the sample, too. • Smaller test sites were selected randomly by contacting professionals who had purchased the TONI -2 . A total of 67 experienced testers from 22 states volunteered to for the purpose of norming the TONI-3. • An additional 1,391 students participated TONI-3 Interpreting Scores (continued) EXAMPLE: Jonny’s raw score of 22 was converted to a quotient of 98 and to a percentile rank of 45 which indicates that he is performing in the average range when compared with other students who took the test. --OR— Jonny performed better than 45% of the other 11 year old students. • Two types of normative scores: • Percentile Quotients • Mean of 100 • SD of 15 • Percentile Ranks • Two types of normative scores are reported: • Deviation Quotients • Percentile Ranks Percentile Deviation Descriptions % Included Ranks Quotients >98 >130 Very Superior 2.3 91-98 121-130 Superior 6.87 74-97 74-97 Above Average 16.12 25-73 90-110 Average 49.51 9-24 80-89 Below Average 16.12 2-8 70-79 Poor 6.87 <2 <70 Very Poor 2.34

  49. Normed in 1995 & 1996 by two data collection procedures • Major standardization sites were selected in each of the four geographic regions per U.S. Bureau of Census (NY, South Dakota, Kansas, Texas, Arizona, & Washington) • Sample of 3,451 people residing in 28 states participated • All children in the sample attended school in general education & children with disabilities who were enrolled in these classes were included in the sample, too. • Smaller test sites were selected randomly by contacting professionals who had purchased the TONI -2 . A total of 67 experienced testers from 22 states volunteered to for the purpose of norming the TONI-3. • An additional 1,391 students participated TONI-3 Interpreting Scores (continued) Raw scores are converted to: • Two types of normative scores are reported: • Deviation Quotients • Percentile Ranks

  50. TONI-3 Value • Intelligence is a complex and multidimensional construct, and the TONI-3 measures only one component of that construct. • Be cautious not to over-generalize TONI-3 results. • TONI-3 is easy to administer • Quick administration • Fairly engaging for the test taker • Scoring is simple • Two equivalent forms good for test-retest reliability • High reliability with a coefficient alpha ranging from 89 (6 yr. old) to 97 (80-89 yr. old) • High correlation between the CTONI and the WAIS-R

More Related