individual tests outline
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Individual Tests - Outline

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 34

Individual Tests - Outline - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 272 Views
  • Uploaded on

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

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Individual Tests - Outline' - vanida


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
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
Individual Tests - Outline

4. Specific individual tests – young children

  • McCarthy
  • Kaufman

5. Specific individual tests – special populations

  • Columbia
  • Peabody
  • Leiter
  • Porteus
individual tests outline3
Individual Tests - Outline

6. Specific individual tests – learning disabilities

  • Illinois
  • Woodcock-Johnson
ability aptitude achievement
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
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
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
Alternative tests of ability
  • Alternative tests are often useful as a supplement rather than a replacement for major tests.
specific individual ability tests
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
ad