A PROPOSAL FOR ASSESSING COGNITIVE DISABILITY IN SCHOOL BY

PSYCHOLOGISTS AND TEACHER’S QUESTIONNAIRES

Ángela María MUÑOZ SÁNCHEZRemedios PORTILLO CÁRDENAS

University of Malaga

• The need for adequate differentiation between disability and non-disability mental categories, especially for those in the borderline zone, it emerged because of its influence on school decisions when allocating special needs support services.

Reflexiones sobre el diagnóstico de la discapacidad por retraso mental ligero-límite. Apuntes de Psicología, 23, 3, 247-256.

OBJECTIVES

• A simple tool whereby borderline cognitive disability can be assessed, would be of great use in schools to address the special needs of certain students. In order to address this issue, we devised a simple questionnaire capable of measuring general intelligence and cognitive disability, which could be easily administered in schools.

• Our working assumption is that if I find matches between the data of a questionnaire designed for this work and conventional psychometric tests, we consider its usefulness for making decisions about identifying needs.

• So we assessed the validity of our questionnaire, CRITERIA, by comparing

its results with four usually administered standard intelligence

tests.

The Questionnaire was filled in by psychologists (female = 60, male =16, total N = 76).

METHOD(FIRST QUESTIONNAIRE) PARTICIPANTS:

PSYCHOLOGISTS

To design the questionnaire Criteria we have developed an initial document sent to psychologists to inquire about the methodology used by them.

TOTAL

121; 59%

84; 41%

FIRST STAGE

37; 54%

31; 46%

METHOD(SECOND QUESTIONNAIRE) PARTICIPANTS:

STUDENTS

N = 79N = 58

SECOND STAGE

48; 61%

31; 39%

N = 68

THIRD STAGE

36; 62%

22; 38%

boys

gils

N = 205

. This questionnaire collects information on the assessment issues of children with cognitive disability, giving special attention to the methodology used to distinguish between those showing a borderline intelligence from those showing slight mental retardation.

CUESTIONARIO PARA ORIENTADORES DE CENTROS

ESCOLARESNIVEL EDUCACIÓN PRIMARIA

(6-12 AÑOS)

INDICADORES DE ASIGNACIÓN DE ALUMNADO A

GRUPOS DE NECESIDADES EDUCATIVAS ESPECIALES

Evaluación psicopedagógica de la discapacidad intelectual ligera y del retraso límite: elementos y modos de evaluación. Apuntes de Psicología, 25, 2, 111-128 .

INSTRUMENTSFIRST QUESTIONNAIRE: PSYCHOLOGISTS

SECOND INSTRUMENTS QUESTIONNAIRE

It was filled in by teachers that assessed the ability of their students.

This Questionnaire was to collect information from the students including all school areas. This instrument was developed as a Lickert scale, its score ranging from 1 to 10 in each of 41 items (1 = very low level, 5 = average level 10 = very high level).

This Questionnaire assesses the following areas: Oral Expression, Writing, Reading, Mathematical Problems, Calculation, Artistic Expression, Daily Life, Social Relations, Attention, Memory and Global Assessment.

INSTRUMENTS: TESTS

-Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children Revised (WISC-R)- Kaufman Intelligence Test (K-BIT)-Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices (RAVEN)-Test of Nonverbal Intelligence-Second Edition (TONI-2).

PROCEDURE

In 2002-2003 the first Questionnaire was filled in by psychologists and during the academic years 2002-2003 and 2003-2004, the second Questionnaire was filled in by teachers about their children and we have administered standard intelligence tests to the same students.

Discapacidad intelectual y necesidades educativas especiales asociadas: retraso mental ligero frente a retraso límite. Tesis Doctoral. (CD-ROM). Ed. Servicio de Publicaciones Universidad de Málaga.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

FIRST STUDY: CONCLUSIONS OF PSYCHOLOGICAL QUESTIONNAIRE

100% of the professionals have agreed that this should include the components.

1- Global intellectual functioning2- Specific intellectual functioning3- Adaptive behaviour4- Competition curriculum5- Learning potential6- Motivation to learn

100%

7- Family environment 97%

8- Behavioural problems 97.1%

9- Personality traits 85.7%

10- Other factors 44%

There are other components but the agreement is lower in these cases.

THE COMPONENTS THAT DETERMINE THE

INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY ARE…

5

5,5

6

6,5

7

7,5

8

8,5

1 21 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

M D.T

1- Global intellectual functioning

7.74 1.442

2- Specific intellectual functioning

7.66 1.552

3- Adaptive behaviour 6.80 1.762

4- Competition curriculum 7.97 1.468

5- Learning potencial 7.35 1.704

6- Motivation to learn 7.43 2.118

7- Family environment 7.36 1.674

8- Behavioural problems 7.35 1.704

9- Personality traits 6.60 .894

AND THE EMPHASIS ON THE COMPONENTS FOR THE DETERMINATION OF DISABILITY

FORMS OF ASSESSMENT9,0

8,5

8,0

7,5

7,0

6,5

6,0

5,5

  M D.T.

1.- Interview with parents

5.82 2.691

2.- Interview with Professor

7.03 2.007

3.- Observation 7.68 1.821

4.- Tests 8.43 1.2671 2 3 4

1) DIFFERENCES IN USUAL INTELLIGENCE TESTS1) DIFFERENCES IN USUAL INTELLIGENCE TESTS

2) FACTORIAL ANALYSIS ESTABLISHES FIVE UNDERLYING 2) FACTORIAL ANALYSIS ESTABLISHES FIVE UNDERLYING FACTORS IN THE QUESTIONNAIREFACTORS IN THE QUESTIONNAIRE

3) BY GENDER DIFFERENCES IN THE QUESTIONNAIRE 3) BY GENDER DIFFERENCES IN THE QUESTIONNAIRE STUDYSTUDY

4) DIFFERENCES IN 4) DIFFERENCES IN FACTORS OF CRITERIA FACTORS OF CRITERIA QUESTIONNAIREQUESTIONNAIRE-AVERAGE OF TESTS OF INTELLIGENCE IN ALLOCATION TO THE ROLE OF AVERAGE OF TESTS OF INTELLIGENCE IN ALLOCATION TO THE ROLE OF DISABILITYDISABILITY

- DIFFERENCES IN - DIFFERENCES IN FACTORS OF FACTORS OF QUESTIONNAIREQUESTIONNAIRE CRITERIA CRITERIA WITH THE WITH THE ASSIGNMENT OR NOT DISABILITY.ASSIGNMENT OR NOT DISABILITY.

5) ANALYSIS OF CANONICAL CORRELACION.5) ANALYSIS OF CANONICAL CORRELACION.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: SECOND STUDY

1) DIFFERENCES IN USUAL INTELLIGENCE TESTS1) DIFFERENCES IN USUAL INTELLIGENCE TESTS

CI half obtained by intelligence test used:

WISC-R = 1, RAVEN =2, K-BIT = 3 and 4 =TONI-2

1 2 3 4

2) FACTORIAL ANALYSIS ESTABLISHES FIVE UNDERLYING FACTORS IN THE QUESTIONNAIRE

2) Factorial Analysis of 2) Factorial Analysis of Our Our QuestionnaireQuestionnaire

3) BY GENDER DIFFERENCES IN THE 3) BY GENDER DIFFERENCES IN THE QUESTIONNAIRE APPROACHQUESTIONNAIRE APPROACH

Factors

gl t p

Mathematical Logic

181 -2.181 .015

Adaptive Behaviour

181 2.748 .003

Speaking

181 -.724 .235

Artistic Expression

181 .671 .251

Reading Scripture

181 .348 .364

Attention and memory

181 -1.158 .124

3)3) GRAPHIC OF THE DIFFERENCES BY GRAPHIC OF THE DIFFERENCES BY GENDERGENDER

-0,2

-0,15

-0,1

-0,05

0

0,05

0,1

0,15

0,2

0,25A

rtis

tic

Exp

ress

ion

Rea

din

g

Scr

iptu

re

Sp

eak

ing

Att

enti

on

-

Mem

ory

Ad

ap

tive

Beh

avio

ur

Math

emati

cal

Logic

boys

gils

Classics

Results

4- A) AVERAGE OF TESTS OF INTELLIGENCE IN 4- A) AVERAGE OF TESTS OF INTELLIGENCE IN ALLOCATION TO THE ROLE OF DISABILITYALLOCATION TO THE ROLE OF DISABILITY

Tests of Intelligence

4 3 2 1

100

90

80

70

60

50

Assignation to group

with disability

without disability

TONI-2 = 1, RAVEN =2, K-BIT = 3 y WISC-R = 4

The difference between the tests was significant, with a greater difference IQ obtained with the test TONI-2.

[F (3.130) =

6.390]; p<.001]

Est

ima

ted

ma

rgin

al a

vera

ges

4º - B) 4º - B) Differences in Differences in factors of factors of QUESTIONNAIRE CriteriaCriteria

(1 = Attention-memory, 2 = Reading Scripture 3 = Artistic Expression , 4 = Speaking , 5 = Adaptive Behaviour , 6 = Mathematical Logic )

Est

ima

ted

ma

rgin

al a

vera

ges

Assignation to group

without disability

with disability

F (5.119) =4.29; p<.001], which show that the scores on the questionnaire Criteria vary with the assignment or not disability.

• The first canonical correlation analysis showed consistency between standard intelligence tests and teacher’s assessment of students.

5) ANALYSIS OF CANONICAL 5) ANALYSIS OF CANONICAL CORRELATIONSCORRELATIONS

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE QUESTIONNAIRE AND APPROACH RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE QUESTIONNAIRE AND APPROACH THE TESTS OF INTELLIGENCE TO WHICH THE FACTOR VERBALETHE TESTS OF INTELLIGENCE TO WHICH THE FACTOR VERBALE

VARIABLESCANONICAL

VARIABLE

APPROACH VARIABLES

VERBAL- WISCR .69

WISCR-MANIPULATIVO .84

VERBAL- KBIT .76

PREDICT VARIABLES

Mathematical Logic .84

Adaptive Behaviour .43

Expression Scripture .40

Artistic Expression .80

Reading Scripture .76

Attention-memory -.32

• The second canonical correlation analysis showed consistency between both sets of variables except in Speaking Expression, which is coherent, due to the fact that these tests try to measure the non-verbal intelligence.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE QUESTIONNAIRE AND RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE QUESTIONNAIRE AND APPROACH THE TESTS OF INTELIGENCE (TOTAL APPROACH THE TESTS OF INTELIGENCE (TOTAL SCORES ABOUT TESTS (SCORES ABOUT TESTS (PROGRESSIVEPROGRESSIVE MATRICES) MATRICES)

VARIABLESCANONICAL VARIABLE

APPROACH VARIABLES

MATRICES-KBIT .61

RAVEN .74

TONI-2 .88

PREDICT VARIABLES

Mathematical Logic .63

Adaptive Behaviour .47

Speaking Expression -.13

Artistic Expression .65

Reading Scripture .55

Attention-memory -.91

FINALLYFINALLY

• So, with regard to correlations in our Questionnaire Criteria and intelligence tests used in this study, and the other studies has been made, we can say that our test is a good predictor of scores that students would get to implement the different intelligence test most commonly used by psychologists our community.

Autoras: Autoras:

- Ángela Mª Muñoz Sánchez: University of MalagaÁngela Mª Muñoz Sánchez: University of Malaga

- angela@uma.esangela@uma.es

Tfno. 9521312495Tfno. 9521312495

- Remedios Portillo Cárdenas: University of - Remedios Portillo Cárdenas: University of MalagaMalaga

- remediosportillo@uma- remediosportillo@uma

- Tfno. 951293525- Tfno. 951293525

CommentsComments

QuestionsQuestions

ClarificationsClarifications

Suggestions Suggestions Thanks for your attention