Upload
elden
View
49
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
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. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
by Sarah PembleLMHC
Assessment of Nonverbal
Cognitive Ability
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 AssessmentTheories of Nonverbal Intelligence
Spearman’s “G” and “S” factors
Cattell’s fluid and crystallized measures
Thurstone’s mental abilities
Nonverbal Assessment
Use a Nonverbal measure when:
Speech or hearing disabledStudent has writing limitationsStaff suspects a nonverbal learning disability
Student is an ELL learner
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
Nonverbal Assessment DAS
• Recall of Designs• Pattern Construction• Copying
• Matrices• Sequential
& Quantitative• Reasoning
Nonverbal
Reasoning ability
Spatial Ability
General Conceptual Ability
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.
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 validityDAS 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.
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
Nonverbal Assessment (DAS)
Difficulty in scoringItem by item administration & scoring
Tester’s professional judgment
(book example)
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)
Nonverbal Assessment (DAS)
SCORINGQualitative information can be added Includes raw scores, standardized , T scores and
percentile rankingT score points can actually be given for no
successes-this complicates interpretation Interpretation should proceed from general to
specificRelationship of scores more important than an
individual scoreStatistically significant differences
Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children, 2nd Edition
KABC-II
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
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
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.
Nonverbal Assessment KABC-II
Two Theoretical Models:
Nonverbal Assessment KABC-II
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
The Three Blocks of Luria’s Neuropsychogical Theory
Nonverbal Assessment KABC-II
Plans & Organizes
Behavior(block 3)
Codes and Stores Information
(block 2)
Maintains Arousal(block 1)
Two Theoretical Models (continued):
Nonverbal Assessment KABC-II
B.
Cattell-Horn- Carroll (CHC) is a hierarchical organization of broad and narrow cognitiveabilities.
The (FCI) Fluid-Crystallized Index measure five broad abilities and general cognitive ability
Recommended for gifted/talented
How to Choose:
Nonverbal Assessment KABC-II
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)
Non-Verbal Subtest
Nonverbal Assessment KABC-II
Composed of only those subtests that can be administered in pantomime and responded to
motoricallyFace RecognitionStory completionTrianglesPattern ReasoningHand MovementsConceptual Thinking
Non-Verbal Scales
Nonverbal Assessment KABC-II
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.
Qualitative Indicators:
Nonverbal Assessment KABC-II
Each subtests has indicators to record observations that may be relevant forinterpretation such as:
fails to sustain attention reluctant to respond when uncertain unusually focused worries about time limit verbalizes story ideas
Standardization
Nonverbal Assessment KABC-II
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
Reliability
Nonverbal Assessment KABC-II
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.
Reliability (continued)
Nonverbal Assessment KABC-II
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.
Reliability (continued)
Nonverbal Assessment KABC-II
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
Validity
Nonverbal Assessment KABC-II
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
Validity (continued)
Nonverbal Assessment KABC-II
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
VALUE
Nonverbal Assessment KABC-II
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
VALUE (continued)
Nonverbal Assessment KABC-II
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.
VALUE (continued)
Nonverbal Assessment KABC-II
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)
VALUE (continued)
Nonverbal Assessment KABC-II
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
Test of Nonverbal Intelligence 3rd Edition
TONI-3
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.
Test of Nonverbal Intelligence 3rd Edition (continued)
TONI-3
Each item presents a novel problemsNo wordNo numbersNo familiar picturesNo familiar symbolsDesigned to be culturally sensitivePotential bias insignificant
Psychometrics- Norming
TONI-3
Normed in 1995 & 1996 by two data collection procedures
1) 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.
Psychometrics- Norming
TONI-3
Normed in 1995 & 1996 by two data collection procedures (continued)
2) 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
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.
TONI-3
Psychometrics- Reliability
TONI-3
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.
Psychometrics- Reliability
TONI-3
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
Psychometrics- Validity
TONI-3
Correlation between the TONI-3 & the CTONI, WISC-III, & WAIS-R
Criterion Tests TONI-3
Form A Form BCTONI (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 7264 6476 74
59 5356 5863 63
57 5175 7673 71
Administration
TONI-3
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
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
TONI-3
Nonverbal Assessment TONI
A1
Nonverbal Assessment TONI
A10
Nonverbal Assessment TONI
A45
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.
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.
TONI-3
Interpreting Scores (continued)
TONI-3
Two types of normative scores:1. Percentile Quotients
• Mean of 100 • SD of 15
2. Percentile Ranks
Percentile Deviation Descriptions % Included Ranks Quotients
>98 >130 Very Superior 2.391-98 121-130 Superior 6.8774-97 74-97 Above Average 16.1225-73 90-110 Average 49.519-24 80-89 Below Average 16.122-8 70-79 Poor 6.87<2 <70 Very Poor 2.34
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.
Interpreting Scores (continued)
TONI-3
Raw scores are converted to:
Deviation
Quotients
Percentile
Ranks
Age Equivalents
Value
TONI-3
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
Value (continued)
TONI-3
Test is useful in determining a persons ability to :organize information identify missing data
to identify and exclude irrelevant information
to perceive a greater number of common elements
efficiently and systematically problem solve
adopt alternative strategies
anticipate sequence
Review- TONI-3 Norming
DAS, KABC- II, & TONI-3
Administered to 2,060 in 1995 and again in 1996 to 1,391-smaller sites selected randomly by contacting 67 professionals (who purchase 2nd edition) and they tested 20 people = 3,251 people residing in 29 states
Representative sample of the US with regards to geographic region, gender, race, urban/rural, ethnicity, disabling conditions, SES and Ed. of adults and parents
Major standardization sites from each of the four geographic regions designated by the census bureau.
Deviation quotients – mean of 100 and SD of 15
Review- KABC-II Norming
DAS, KABC- II, & TONI-3
Nationally representative of 3,205, ages 3-18 in 30 states/127 sites over a 16-month period. Norms mirror 2001 U.S. census
Randon sampling for target sample – then each age matched for sex, ethnic group, ed of parents, geographic region, Sp.ed or gifted
Subtest score distribution: mean 10 & SD 3;
combined/scaled to mean 100 & SD 15
Review- DAS Norming
DAS, KABC- II, & TONI-3
Standardized on 3,475 U.S. children, 175-200 per age group.
Stratified for age, gender, race/ethnicity, parent ed.,, geographic region, preschool enrollment & sp ed., 1988 census figures
Discussion- Reliability
DAS, KABC- II, & TONI-3
.70-.92
.90-.95
.81-.94Pre:.56-.94School age:.53-.97
DAS
.80-.90
.81-.97
.77-.88Luria/CHC: .77-.88;Gc.90; MPIFCI-.87-.92
KABC II
.89-.97
.93
.92-.96
.89-.94
.99
TONI-3
Internal/subcompositeNonverbalTest-retest
Interscorer
Discussion- Content Validity
DAS, KABC- II, & TONI-3
Inter-correlation of subtests and composites by age ranges were 100.3 and 99.7 for GCA, and SNV for ages 2:6 –3:5, 99.6 and 99.8 for ages 3:6-5:11
DAS
Comprehensive & appropriate, intratest relationship and structure all strongly support the expected outcomes of the test.
KABC II
Items not biased to groups & little or no bias for characteristics of the seven groups
TONI-3
Discussion- Criterion Validity
DAS, KABC- II, & TONI-3
Correlates w/WPPSI-R .72-.89; Stanford- Binet.69-.77; K-ABC.63-.68. DAS and WISC-R NV Reasoning score correlated higher with WISC-R Verbal than w/Performance (.77 vs. .57).
DAS
Correlates w/WISC, 2 pts higher than full scale of 97.3;Full IQ correlates w/ WISC & MPI/FCI .89-.88;Subscale & index score correlation are present w/IQ scores on the WISC-III, WISC-IV, WPSSI-III, KAIT, Cog-WJIII
KABC II
It correlates w/CTONI, WISC-III - high,WAIS- mod-highWISC-R & WJ- most robustNonverbal strongest
TONI-3
Discussion- Construct Validity
DAS, KABC- II, & TONI-3
Average correlations between all subtests and the GCA range from .18 to .81. Intercorrelations support the DAS as a measure of General Mental Ability
DAS
Clinical Studies:LD: Reading, math, written, MF ADHD all statistically significant;Small ethnic group differences not entirely achieved;Socio-cultural norms absent
KABC II
Age correlates:*6-0,17-11strong after 17 flat, age 60 decline*School achievement: .55-78, all tests significantly high *Group diffentiation:i.e. MR, gifted, ethnicity, LD, gender- all supportive
TONI-3
Discussion
DAS, KABC- II, & TONI-3
DAS KABC II TONI-3
Most Complicated Least Complicated
Most reliableStart/stop point
confusingRequires much practiceIf you don’t use timed procedures, reliability
decreasesOut of level testing
challenges
Model is most complete
Story completion is not culturally sensitive Intended more for the
modernized and industrialized society
Has an excellent qualitative section
BriefOnce piece of
intelligence Easy to administer
Easy to learnQuick administration
Strong reliability
Round Table Discussion
DAS, KABC- II, & TONI-3
Social Economic Status
Cultural Biases
Major limit of all nonverbal tests of intelligence: verbal and communication skills are central to overall intelligence.
Assumptions about internal processes
Subjectivity
We never know to what extent the child is using verbal medication to problem solve
Quality testing experience level
Use of information- Real life application
How do you know when you’re really assessing ability or testing other things?
Are the skills that can be testing nonverbally an adequate assessment?
Round Table Discussion
DAS, KABC- II, & TONI-3
DAS- Study participants identified as black, white, other