Individual tests outline l.jpg
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 34

Individual Tests - Outline PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Individual Tests - Outline. 1. Aptitude, ability, and achievement 2. Alternatives to major tests of abilities 3. Specific individual tests – infants Brazelton Gesell Bayley Cattell. Individual Tests - Outline. 4. Specific individual tests – young children McCarthy Kaufman

Download Presentation

Individual Tests - Outline

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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript

Individual tests outline l.jpg

Individual Tests - Outline

1. Aptitude, ability, and achievement

2. Alternatives to major tests of abilities

3. Specific individual tests – infants

  • Brazelton

  • Gesell

  • Bayley

  • Cattell

Individual tests outline2 l.jpg

Individual Tests - Outline

4. Specific individual tests – young children

  • McCarthy

  • Kaufman

    5. Specific individual tests – special populations

  • Columbia

  • Peabody

  • Leiter

  • Porteus

Individual tests outline3 l.jpg

Individual Tests - Outline

6. Specific individual tests – learning disabilities

  • Illinois

  • Woodcock-Johnson

Ability aptitude achievement l.jpg

Ability, Aptitude, & Achievement

  • Let’s begin by reviewing the distinctions amongst these three related concepts:

    • Ability – refers to general capacity to do things.

    • Aptitude – capacity to carry out a specific function.

    • Achievement – what has been learned.

Alternatives to the major ability tests l.jpg

Alternatives to the major ability tests

  • Major ability tests (e.g., Wechsler scales, Stanford-Binet) are excellent tests with known psychometric properties.

  • However, these tests are not appropriate for use with some of the people we might want to give an ability test.

  • In particular, the major tests require certain kinds of input & output (e.g., vision, speech) that may not be available to some subjects.

Alternative tests of ability l.jpg

Alternative tests of ability

  • Alternative tests tend to be created for special purposes or populations. This results in:

    • fewer people using any given test

    • a smaller resource base for investigating these tests’ psychometric properties.

    • less knowledge about the reliability and validity of these tests.

Alternative tests of ability7 l.jpg

Alternative tests of ability

  • Alternative tests are often useful as a supplement rather than a replacement for major tests.

Specific individual ability tests l.jpg

Specific individual ability tests

  • Infant Scales

    • Brazelton Neonatal Assessment Scale

    • Gesell Developmental Schedules

    • Bayley Scales of Infant Development II

    • Cattell Infant Intelligence Scale

      2. Tests for Young Children

    • McCarthy Scales of Children’s Abilities

    • Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children

Brazelton neonatal assessment scale l.jpg

Brazelton Neonatal Assessment Scale

  • Infants 3 days to 4 weeks old

  • Well-constructed (makes sense conceptually).

  • Widely used in research, especially with at-risk infants.

  • Assesses:

    • Attention and social responsiveness

    • Muscle tone and physical movement

    • Control of alertness

    • Physiological responses to stress

  • Psychometric issues – e.g., no norms

  • good inter-rater reliability; poor test-retest reliability

  • validity: test does not predict later intelligence – in fact, we don’t know what it is measuring

  • but Majnemer & Mazer (1998) say 1995 version of test is better

  • Lundquist & Saber (2000) – detected sex differences among healthy neonates

Gesell developmental schedules l.jpg

Gesell Developmental Schedules

  • Children 21 months to 6 years

  • First published in 1925

  • Original observations provided data on developmental norms

  • Norms for milestones let tester report comparative rate of development for subject

  • Test score based on presence/absence of age-related behaviors

  • Developmental Quotient based on test score

  • Unrepresentative standardization sample

  • Poorly documented reliability & validity

  • Vague instructions.

  • Questionable scoring system

  • Only predicts IQ in lowest range

  • Shepard (1992): GDS should not be used for placement. Issues with inter-judge reliability and predictive validity

Bayley scales of infant development ii l.jpg

Bayley Scales of Infant Development II

  • Infants 1 – 42 months old

  • 40 years in the making

  • Assessments based on normative developmental data.

  • 2 primary scores: mental and motor.

  • Assumes that later mental functions depend upon motor development

  • Psychometric properties:

    • excellent standardization

    • good split-half reliability

    • weakest in youngest age ranges

    • test score does not predict later IQ

    • widely used in research, especially with at-risk infants

Cattell infant intelligence scale l.jpg

Cattell Infant Intelligence Scale

  • Based on normative developmental data

  • Items taken form Gesell & Stanford-Binet

  • Also some new items

  • Arranged in an age scale

  • Standardized on non-representative sample of 274 children

  • Published in 1939, never updated

  • Does not predict IQ in normal range

  • Ricciuti (1994) says it is widely used in research

Mccarthy scales of children s abilities l.jpg

McCarthy Scales of Children’s Abilities

  • Children 2.5 – 8.5 years old.

  • Developed in early 1970s.

  • Carefully constructed

  • General Cognitive Index: composed of scores on 15 of the scales (µ = 100,  = 16)

  • More research support for verbal and perceptual-performance factors

  • Less research support for quantitative, memory, and motor factors.

  • Good reliability for GCI

  • Concurrent validity: good correlations with WPPSI Verbal, Performance, and Full Scale IQs (Karr et al., 1993)

  • Widely used in research, especially with at-risk children.

Kaufman assessment battery for children l.jpg

Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children

  • Children 3-18 years old

  • 18 subtests combined into 5 global scales:

    • sequential processing

    • simultaneous processing

    • learning

    • planning

    • knowledge

  • Grounded in research – but not the most recent research.

  • Consists mostly of nonverbal items that require child to perform various information-processing tasks.

Kaufman assessment battery for children15 l.jpg

Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children

  • mental processing – measures fluid intelligence

    • Sequential processing (problems solved in a step-by-step fashion – e.g. digit span, typical math problems)

    • Simultaneous processing (bits of information organized and integrated to solve a problem – e.g., understanding a paragraph; Ravens Progressive Matrices)

  • achievement – measures crystallized intelligence

    • vocabulary

    • reading comprehension

    • general knowledge

    • arithmetic knowledge

Kaufman assessment battery for children16 l.jpg

Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children

  • Strengths: first 3 items on mental processing subtests can be used to “teach the task.”

  • internal consistency ~ .80 for subtests, ~ .90 for 5 global test scores.

  • Mental Processing composite positively correlated with school achievement; ~ .70 with WISC-R full-scale IQ.

  • some factor analysis studies support distinction between sequential and simultaneous tasks (but Strommer, 1988 doesn’t).

  • produces smaller average differences between African-Americans and whites

  • colorful and interesting items; good norms

Kaufman assessment battery for children17 l.jpg

Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children

  • Weaknesses:

  • Theoretical foundation may be crumbling – as new research makes ideas of Luria, Sperry, Neisser, out of date.

  • Match between tests and theoretical foundation not as clear as we would like.

  • Kahan & Noyman (2001) – K-ABC does not distinguish between ability and achievement (which questions a major claimed virtue)

Specific individual ability tests18 l.jpg

Specific individual ability tests

3. Tests for Handicapped & Special Populations

  • Columbia Mental Maturity Scale III

  • Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test III

  • Leiter International Performance Scale R

  • Porteus Maze Test

    4. Tests for Learning Disabilities

  • Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities

  • Woodcock-Johnson III

Columbia mental maturity scale iii l.jpg

Columbia Mental Maturity Scale III

  • Evaluates ability in normal & variously handicapped children 3-12 years old.

  • Tests general reasoning ability with multiple-choice items.

  • No verbal response needed

  • No fine motor control needed

  • Child indicates which drawing does not belong among 3-5 drawings on a card.

  • 92 cards in 8 age scales

Columbia mental maturity scale iii20 l.jpg

Columbia Mental Maturity Scale III

  • Strengths:

  • Scores relatively independent of reading skill.

  • Easy to administer and score.

  • Untimed (reduces pressure on subject).

  • Good test manual.

  • Good reliability

  • Good standardization sample (n= 2600, stratified by sex, race, region, parents occupn.)

Columbia mental maturity scale iii21 l.jpg

Columbia Mental Maturity Scale III

  • Weaknesses:

  • Scale is very vulnerable to error – that is, scores can be seriously inflated by guessing.

  • Carvajal et al. (1993): weak correlations with WPPSI-R for children 3 years 6 months to 7 years 3 months. Do not use CMMS as substitute for WPPSI-R.

Peabody picture vocabulary test iii l.jpg

Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test III

  • Originally developed by Dunn & Dunn (1981).

  • Updated in 1997.

  • Intended to measure receptive vocabulary, producing a non-verbal estimate of intelligence.

  • Multiple choice items require no reading ability.

  • Subject indicates “Yes” or “No” only

  • Used with ages 2.5 to 90 years.

Peabody picture vocabulary test iii23 l.jpg

Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test III

  • Two forms: IIIA and IIIB.

    • Each has 204 plates

    • Each plate presents 4 numbered pictures.

    • Task: specify which picture best relates to a spoken word

  • Items arranged in increasing order of difficulty

Peabody picture vocabulary test iii24 l.jpg

Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test III

  • Good reliabilities: .86 to .97

  • Validity:

    • reasonable correlations with WISC-III VIQ: .91

    • Ukrainetz & Blomquist (2002): weak, but significant, correlation with NDW, a vocabulary measure

  • Tends to underestimate Wechsler or Binet IQs for children at higher and lower ends of IQ range

  • Only evaluates receptive vocabulary.

Leiter international performance scale r l.jpg

Leiter International Performance Scale R

  • Non-verbal alternative to Stanford-Binet for children 2 to 18 years old.

  • Strictly a performance scale.

  • Updated in 1997.

  • Can be used with deaf and language-disabled subjects.

  • Reasonably good validity

  • Useful as an aid to diagnosis in disabled children

Porteus maze test l.jpg

Porteus Maze Test

  • Popular, non-verbal performance test.

  • First published around 1920.

  • Can be administered without verbal instructions.

  • Not much recent research on this test.

  • Issues:

  • Standardization sample is very old

  • No manual

  • Still used with certain groups (e.g., BD).

Tests of learning disabilities l.jpg

Tests of Learning Disabilities

  • School problems may result from a variety of causes:

    • low IQ

    • emotional difficulty

    • SES

    • Parents’ characteristics (IQ, education)

  • Some children have difficulty learning in the absence of such factors.

Tests of learning disabilities28 l.jpg

Tests of Learning Disabilities

  • Learning disability is usually defined as:

    • A significant difference between IQ and achievement (often a 2  difference, with IQ higher).

    • Only in the presence of such a difference can learning disability be diagnosed.

    • So, thrust of most testing is to compare ability (potential) with achievement (actual)

Illinois test of psycholinguistic abilities l.jpg

Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities

  • Used with children 2 – 10 years old

  • Based on an information-processing model:

    • Failure to respond could result from any of:

      • defective input system

      • defective processing between input and output

      • defective output system

Illinois test of psycholinguistic abilities30 l.jpg

Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities

  • Separate subtests for these different “stages”

    • goal is to isolate the stages where problem lie

Illinois test of psycholinguistic abilities31 l.jpg

Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities

  • Issues:

    • manual gives no information about reliability or validity

    • manual gives little information about norming sample

      • normed only on middle-class children

      • criticized for culturally loaded content

    • Ottem (2002) says test is useful for language-impaired children

Woodcock johnson iii l.jpg

Woodcock-Johnson III

  • Designed as a broad range test for school settings

  • Based on Cattell – Horn – Carroll stratified model of intelligence

  • Assesses

    • g

    • specific cognitive abilities

    • scholastic aptitude

    • oral language

    • achievement.

Woodcock johnson iii33 l.jpg

Woodcock-Johnson III

  • Contains both ability and achievement tests that were normed together – allowing evaluation of presence of discrepancies.

  • Intended to offer precise localization of impaired function, facilitating intervention.

    • Cognitive abilities – 10 tests

    • Extended CAT – 10 more tests

    • Achievement test – 12 tests

    • Extended Ach test – 10 more tests

Woodcock johnson iii34 l.jpg

Woodcock-Johnson III

  • Relatively good psychometric properties

    • standardization sample n > 8800, & sample was representative

    • split-half reliabilities for 38 of 42 tests – medians ~ .80s to .90s

    • Construct validity supported by factor analysis

      • CAT – each test loads on a single factor

      • Ach Test – factorially complex: more than just g

    • Good correlations with other major tests

  • Login