Running Head: NON-VERBAL ASSESSMENT OF INTELLIGENCE



Running Head: NON-VERBAL ASSESSMENT OF INTELLIGENCENon-Verbal Assessment of Intelligence:A Review of Information Learned Through the Administration of Three Non-Verbal Cognitive AssessmentsSarah PembleEdPsy 533Washington State UniversityApril 13, 2009AbstractThree non-verbal cognitive assessments were administered to establish familiarity with non-verbal cognitive assessment. The Test of Non-verbal Intelligence 3rd Edition (TONI), Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children 2nd Edition (KABC-II), and the Differential Ability Scales (DAS) administered. One student was administered all three tests at different times. At the time of testing, the student was 17 years and 6 months old. The student is male and he identifies himself as African American. He was given a $25 gift card for participating. Data analysis indicates invalid test results due to administration error. The purpose of this assignment is to communicate the valuable information that was learned though the administration of the KABC-II, TONI-3, and the DAS. This will specifically be addressed in sections detailing (a) an introduction to non-verbal assessment, (b) psychometrics, (c) administration, and (d) teacher and student value. Non-Verbal Assessment of IntelligenceNon-verbal assessment of intelligence measures a person’s capacity to act purposefully, to think rationally, and to deal effectively with the environment. Non-verbal assessment does not refer to a person’s non –verbal intelligence, rather it refers to the type of items administered on a test. Intelligence tests with verbal and non-verbal content measures the same domains of general ability as tests that are solely non-verbal. Generally, non-verbal assessments measures a student’s ability to recognize underlying rules and relationship, ability to remember details, ability to see and reproduce conceptual patterns, reasoning skills, and complete sequences. Non-verbal tests deemphasize the role of reading, and minimize language (but is not necessarily eliminated). Language –free tests (to be distinguished from non-verbal tests) are administered in pantomime or gesture and requires no language capacity. Aside from the KABC-II, TONI-3, and the DAS other non-verbal intelligence tests include the Unit, Leiter International Performance Scales, Comprehensive Test of Non-verbal Intelligence (CTON), and Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC) perceptual organization subtests.Non-verbal assessments may be appropriate measures if the person is speech or hearing disabled, an English Language Learner (ELL), illiterate, or when teachers suspect a non-verbal learning disorder. 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. The use of non-verbal cognitive testing has two major criticisms (known to this author). Verbal and communication skills are central to overall intelligence, and non-verbal intelligence testing inadequately asses these qualities. Secondly, non-verbal cognitive assessment inadequately asses the student’s use of verbal mediation to problem solve. The main three theories of non-verbal intelligence include Spearman’s “G” and “S” two factor theory, Cattell’s fluid and crystallized measures, and Thurstone’s primary mental abilities. Spearmans’s “G” and “S” two factor theory was developed in 1927. The “G” factor refers to a general intelligence factor common to all tests and a specific factor that is distinctive in each test. Therefore, the general ability factor will determine how well each student does on any particular assessment. In addition to the general “G” factor, the “S” or specific factor is unique to each test that will also influence the overall assessment outcomes. These two factors equate the intelligence. Thurstone’s primary mental abilities was developed in 1941 and examines verbal abilities such as word relations/vocabulary, number abilities including accuracy and speed, spatial abilities, word fluency through the use of rapid recall of words, memory abilities, and reasoning abilities. These domains comprise intellectual behavior. These domains have also been identified as real world tasks. Lastly, Raymond Cattells’ fluid verses crystallized intelligence was developed in 1963. Fluid intelligence represents a person’s ability to problem solve, to make meaning out of chaos, to draw inferences, and the ability to understand complex and dynamic relationships. Fluid intelligence does not rely on acquired knowledge. Crystallized intelligence is the ability to integrate prior knowledge, experience and skill into a novel situation. It is not necessarily equivalent to knowledge; however the long term memory is an important constituent. DAS IIThe Differential Ability Scales was originally developed from the British Ability Scales in 1990. The DAS II was released in 2007. The DAS is a very complicated test to administer and score. There are 20 subtests in total; 17 cognitive tests and 3 achievement measures yields an overall cognitive and achievement scores. Research indicates that the DAS is valid for children two years and six month old through seventeen years and eleven months old. The General Conceptual Ability (GCA) is the general ability of an individual to perform complex mental processing that involves conceptualization and the transformation of information. The DAS also provides cluster or composite scores. The Figure 1 bellow diagrams the subtests and the general process to achieve the GCA. Figure 1Psychometrics Reliability. The DAS was standardize between 1986 and 1989. A total of 3, 475 students participated. The sample was stratified by age, sex, geographic location, special education, enrollment, across race-ethnicity, and parent education levels. The 1988 census was used to create a representing sample. Interestingly however, the demographics used in this study no longer accurately represent the 2009 US census. In reference to internal reliability, a coefficient alpha of .89 and .90 for Preschool Non-verbal Ability and School-age Non-verbal Reasoning Ability was established, and coefficient alpha of .92 for the Spatial Ability Scores. Some subtests at some ages do not have sufficient reliability for individual interpretation, most notably the Recognition of Pictures subtest for out of level testing (7 and older) and the alternate (untimed) Pattern Construction subtest (12 and older). In reference to Test-retest reliability, there were significant practice-effects in the Non-verbal Subtest. Students were retaining and learning information from the test, and their scores improved. Measures of the Verbal Ability were more stable with fewer practice effects. Validity. In reference to construct validity, the DAS Verbal, Nonverbal, and GCA scores were generally lower than the WPPSI-R Verbal, Performance, and Full Scales. In addition, the DAS Non-verbal Reasoning Score correlated higher with the WISC-R Verbal, than with the Performance. The DAS Spatial cluster correlated highest with the WISC-R. Administration The DAS is a complicated and integrative system of subtests and scoring procedures. The DAS requires much preparation prior to professional administration. The experienced tester will likely need the manual during administration for scoring purposes. The scoring is somewhat subjective on some of the subtests, and the accuracy of the results will largely depend on administrator’s competencies. Like many other tests, there is a basal and discontinue rule. However, unlike other tests, there is no uniform start or end point. An administrator can test out of age. For example, the administrator believes that the starting items are too simple, he or she can move the student to the next starting point (and the reverse is true as well). All subtest include teaching items. The test took much longer than anticipated and this is likely due to the fact that this tester was simply unfamiliar with the DAS administration. Item by item administration and scoring was the most time consuming and relied more on professional judgment. ValueThe DAS presents with several strengths. The DAS separates verbal ability, non-verbal reasoning, and spatial ability into cluster scores for a meaningful interpretation for the student and teachers. Out of level testing may be attractive when testing children with disabilities. The diagnostic subtests prove useful when exploring a student’s strengths and challenges. The accompanying manual is comprehensive and complete, proven to be a necessity for proper administration of the DAS. The manual is especially useful when planning the appropriate assessment of a student. The DAS is very elaborate, and it yields a wealth of information. The DAS has been proven to be the most reliable non-verbal assessment. Although the DAS is complicated to administer, my student seemed to enjoy this test more than any other. Aside from the strengths, the DAS has several apparent weaknesses. It presents as confusing for the new school psychologist. Much practice is needed to be competent in administering and scoring this assessment. If timed procedures are not used, the reliability decreases. The start and stop points are confusing, and rely on administrator judgment. I incorrectly administered the DAS. I missed an entire sub test, which proved to be a good learning experience. During administration, I relied heavility on the manual, which proved to be time consuming and I imagine as I gain familiarity with the DAS the assessment process with go much smoother.KABC-IIThe KABC-II was published in 2004. It’s dual theoretical foundation is based on the Luria neurological model and, the Cattell- Horn-Carroll (CHC) model. The CHC model is designed for students from an industrialized, mainstream culture and language background and thus relies on a student’s crystallized ability. When testing from the CHC model, the KABC-II includes all the scales in the Luria model, but they are scored differently. The Knowledge/Gc Scale is exclusive to the CHC model. The global scores produces the Fluid-Crystallized Index (FCI). The Luria model is designed for the student where his/her crystallized ability is not the best indicator of cognitive ability and therefore excludes verbal components. For example, use the Luria model when the student has a bilingual background, whose cultural background may affect knowledge or verbal development, or when there is a suspected language disorder or hearing impairment. When working from the Luria model, the KABC-II measures learning, sequential, and simultaneous processing and planning abilities and, deemphasizes acquired knowledge. The Luria model yields a global score called the Mental Processing Index (MPI). The KABC-II is designed for students ages three to eighteen years old. There are 18 subtest, and about 12 core subtest (depends on model selected and age of student). The non-verbal subtests include face recognition, story completion, triangles, pattern reasoning, hand movements, and conceptual thinking. PsychometricsThe KABC-II standardization process occurred between September 2001 and January 2003. A total of 3,025 students between the ages of two and eighteen participated. Approximately 125-200 students are represented for every age group. Testing occurred at 127 sites, and in 39 states. The participants in the study matched the 2001 US census pertaining to gender, ethnic group, parental education, geographic region, special-education and gifted placement. Reliability. The KABC-II demonstrates good reliability. Subtest reliability coefficients are .80 to .90. Global/individual scales are .81 to .97 but, coefficients for the non-verbal are the lowest at .90. The stability of the subtests coefficients are .50 to .92. Younger girls scored better then boys on all scales except knowledge. Parent education proved to be an important predictor for all pre-school and knowledge on scales for school age. Validity. The KABC-II demonstrates strong construct validity on the global scales. The KABC-II correlated with the Wechsler with a full scale of 97.3. The full IQ correlation with the WISC and FCI/MPA is .89 and .88. Subscale and index scores correlation are present with IQ scores on the WISC-III, WISC-IV, WPPSI-III, and KAIT.Administration Administration of the KABC-II is much simpler than the DAS. The KABC-II is individually administered. The time it takes to administer the test depends on the model administered. The Luria core battery takes between 25-55 minutes, and the CHC core battery takes about 35-70 minutes to administer. The scoring method will depend on the model chosen, either the Luria Model or the CHC Model. The non-verbal subtests are administered in pantomime and responded to motorically. ValueThe KABC-II identifies a student’s cognitive strengths and weaknesses, and provides useful information to better understand how he/she receives and processes information. Out of level administration is optional and requires administrator judgment. Bi-lingual (Spanish/English) non-verbal scales includes an easel in Spanish translations for teaching and score interpretation. Administrator can record observations about test-taking behaviors for example, fails to sustain attention, reluctant to respond when uncertain, unusually focused, worries about time limit, and verbalizes story ideas. The CHC model is recommended for gifted students, a definite bonus. The KABC-II boasts of exceptional fairness. The subtests are designed to be culturally sensitive and this is achieved through minimal verbal instruction and responses. The KABC-II claims to contain little cultural content. The KABC-II has a dual theoretical model designed to provide the school psychologist with options.TONI-3ValueThe teacher and student need to understand test results in a way that makes sense and directly applies to the student’s ability to learn. Simply restating test scores will most likely be a waste of time as the teacher and certainly the student will not be able to translate that information into the classroom. For 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. The following image is an item from the TONI-3. This is item number 45 from Form A and it is the most complex item. A student must see the patterns formed by the shapes organized in to groups, rotated, and then choose an answer that completes the pattern. In this example, the student has to understand that the shapes form a pattern throughout the two-by-two matrix. The same basic intellectual activity required to solve this problem can be generalized to many academic tasks, regardless of content. For example, understanding a written paragraph requires a student to understand how various pieces of information are connected. Building phonemic awareness often involves seeing patterns in a sequence of letters. Geometry requires the student to recognize the patterns and relationships among concepts and numbers. Because a nonverbal tests measures basic and novel ways of thinking, it helps teachers and school psychologist have a better appreciation of their ability and academic potential. Additionally, because the test items do not require language, the assessment’s cultural loading is minimal (or at least significantly reduced) when compared to the verbal counterpart. Other test 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, test administrators should be cautious and consider a language deviance rather than intellectual deviance when a student’s profile is characterized by normal or above average on non-verbal measures combined with sub-average performance on language-loaded measures. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download