by sarah pemble lmhc

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


Difficulty in scoringItem by item administration & scoring

Tester’s professional judgment

(book example)


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)


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.


Two Theoretical Models:


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


Plans & Organizes

Behavior(block 3)

Codes and Stores Information

(block 2)

Maintains Arousal(block 1)

Two Theoretical Models (continued):


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:


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


Composed of only those subtests that can be administered in pantomime and responded to

motoricallyFace RecognitionStory completionTrianglesPattern ReasoningHand MovementsConceptual Thinking

Non-Verbal Scales


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:


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


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


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)


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)


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


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)


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


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)


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)


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)


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


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.


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


A10


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


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


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


.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


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


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


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

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


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- Study participants identified as black, white, other

by sarah pemble lmhc

Documents

nonverbal cognitive

preschool nonverbal

nonverbal measure

nonverbal increases

measures of verbal ability

spatial ability scores

general ability

students ability