Historical development of the WISC-III psychometric properties of WlSC-III WlSC-III subtests and subscales. WISC-III and CMS and Clinical Populations Critique of WISC-III and CMS.
BRIEF COGNITIVE ASSESSMENT OF CHILDREN: REVIEW OF INSTRUMENTS
ASSESSMENT WITH THE WOODCOCK-JOHNSON I!I Nancy Mather and Noel Gregg
Achievement Assessment
WECHSLER INDIVIDUAL ACHIEVEMENT TEST Donna Rury Smith
Testing all levels of language skills in reading. Assessment of all levels of written language. A new subtest for oral expression.
The Nature of Mathematical Disability Screening for Early Intervention Definition and Diagnostic Assessment Interventions for Monitoring the Progress of Mathematical Disability. Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery-Revised (WJ-R) The Wide Range Achievement Test-Third Edition (WRAT-3) PAL Test Battery for Math.
Behavior Assessment
Collection of data points Clinical significance of the BASC Other methodological issues Communication between providers Patterns and interpretations of the BASC.
THE ACHENBACH SYSTEM OF EMPIRICALLY BASED ASSESSMENT
Advantages and Disadvantages of ASEBA Advantages of ASEBA Forms and Profiles Advantages of ASEBA ADM Software Disadvantages of ASEBA.
Recent Advances in Psychological and Educational Assessment
Advantages and limitations of neuropsychological assessment. Reliability and validity of neuropsychological assessment options for neuropsychological assessment.
DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT OF LEARNING POTENTIAL David Tzuriel
The authors also discuss the relationship between intellectual functioning and memory, as well as the assessment of memory using the Children's Memory Scale (CMS). The use of short scales is placed in the context of the different assessment phases.
This ability is now included in one test protocol (ie, the Children's Memory Scale [CMS]) and presented to the readers of the manual. Some of the material presented in the manual's chapters nicely illustrates how cultural context shapes the way individuals approach cognitive or behavioral assessment and the culturally indigenous ways in which they respond.
Ability Assessment
Assessing Children's Intelligence and Memory
The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children
Third Edition and The Children's Memory Scale
They claim that the Wechsler scales have strong representation in the Gc (Crystallized Intelligence) and Gv (Visual Processing) domains; in addition, "the WISC-Ill adequately represents the construct of processing speed G s I]" (Flanagan et a]., p. 66). In general, however, the WISC-Ill does not represent all Gf-Gc domains, particularly the Gf (Fluid Intelligence), Ga (Auditory Processing), and Glr (Long-Term Storage and Retrieval) areas.
Psychometric Properties of the WISC-111
2000), on the other hand, have analyzed the fit of the WISC-Ill within contemporary Gf-Gc theory.
WISC-111 Subtests and Subscales
However, a caveat must be noted when interpreting the four factors on the WISC~III. The WISCrlII PI was developed to supplement the standard test administration of the WISC-III (Kaplan et al., 1999).
Psychometric Properties of the CMS
The development of tasks that can be performed within a standardized testing situation (Cohen, 1997). for example, the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for ChildrennThird Edition [WISC-III], the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test [WIAT], and the Otis-Lennon School Ability Test [OLSAT]). Both the WISC~III and the CMS require significant clinical skills to be used most effectively.
Acknowledgment
Search for Coding on the WISC-III: Canadian Normative Tables for Achievement and Full-Scale IQ Scores.
The Das-Naglieri Cognitive Assessment System in
Theory and Practice
P. DAS University of Alberta
The score provides a measure of the child's overall level of cognitive functioning based on the four PASS scales. PASS scale scores (each with an M of 100 and an SD of 15) consist of the sum of the scaled scores on the subtests included in each respective scale. PASS Scale and CAS Full Scale standard scores are obtained by summing the respective scaled subtest scores.
Each PASS scale score (M - 100, SD - 15) is derived from the sum of the appropriate subtest scale scores. The full scale score (M - 100, SD - 15) is obtained from the sum of the scaled subtest scores from the standard or baseline battery.
Step 1
Step 2
The PASS scores in Table 2.2 range from a minimum of 81 in the Planning area to a maximum of 98 on the Attention and Success scales. When compared to this mean and using the values necessary for significance for the standard battery, the planning score is significantly lower than the child's mean. This indicates that the child's planning score is significantly weak relative to the overall performance level.
When there is a significant strength or weakness in the PASS scale profile, the level of performance relative to the standardization test should also be considered. Alternatively, when a child has a statistically significant weakness that falls within the average range (90-110), this should be viewed as a relative weakness because it is low relative to the child's average but still in the average range of normative expectations.
Step 3
A cognitive impairment is a more serious finding because it represents poor performance relative to peers as well as compared to the child's own level. This is determined using the actuarial tables provided in Appendix D of the CAS Administration and Scoring Manual (Naglieri & Das, 1997b). These tables list the frequency of occurrence of all possible intraindividual difference scores in the standardization sample, and they can help determine how typical the PASS profile is.
For example, using the data for Leslie (see Table 2.2), the difference of 10.5 found for the planning scale occurred in about 25% of the CAS standardization sample. The significance of this finding is therefore enhanced by the fact that a weakness of this magnitude is uncommon among those included in the normative group.
Step 4
In this final section, we briefly summarize some of the research evidence regarding PASS and CAS theory. Traditional measures of general intelligence (eg, the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Third Edition [WISC-III]) have failed to detect many of the difficulties experienced by gifted children (Siegel, 1988). Researchers have found that intelligence tests that do not have verbal achievement subtests (eg, K-ABC and CAS) yield smaller racial differences than traditional IQ tests (Naglieri & Ronning, 2000; Wasserman & Becker, 1999).
The operationalization of the PASS theory was then discussed in some detail, when explaining practical aspects of the CAS. Our research into cognitive processes leading to PASS theory began in the 1970s, and was the first major account of the theory.
Assessment with the Differential Ability Scales
However, the raison d'etre of the DAS is not just to be another measure of children's ability or general intelligence. The DAS preschool battery is further divided into an upper and lower preschool level. The core subtests of the upper preschool level consist of all the subtests listed in Table 3.1, with the exception of block building.
The lower preschool level of the DAS consists of four core subtests: Building Blocks, Verbal Comprehension, Picture Similarities, and Vocabulary Naming. The school-age DAS battery consists of the basic subtests described in Table 3.3 and the diagnostic subtests described in Table 3.2.
Reliability
Validity
Elliott (1990c) also provides evidence supporting the convergent and discriminant validity of the DAS cluster scores. Evidence for the concurrent validity of the DAS is provided by studies (Wechsler, 1991; Elliott, 1990c) showing consistently high correlations between the GCA and the composite scores of other cognitive batteries such as the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children – Third Edition (WISC- III; Wechsler, 1991), the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of IntelligencemRevised (WPPSI-R; Wechsler, 1989), and the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale m Fourth Edition (Thorndike et al., 1986). An attractive feature of the DAS is the flexibility given to the clinician in subtest selection by the provision of extended norms for subtests outside their usual age range.
The DAS uses a GCA classification system and cluster scores that are descriptive of the child's functioning rather than using diagnostic-sounding terminology. Another particularly strong feature of the DAS is the excellent support provided to the clinician in the process of interpreting test results by the test manual (Elliott, 1990c).
Special Populations
A major strength of DAS is the comprehensive and clear description of a method for systematic interpretation. The clinical experience of the first author leads us to argue that the DAS is the test of choice for the intellectual assessment of children with developmental delays or mental retardation. So far we have argued for the advantages of DAS in the assessment of preschoolers and children with developmental disabilities.
A disadvantage of the DAS performance battery is the lack of a measure of reading comprehension. Discovery of core profile types in the school-age standardization sample of the differential ability scales.
Brief Cognitive
Assessment of Children
Review of Instruments and Recommendations for
Best Practice
The original version of the SIT (Slossen, 1963) was a short intelligence test for ages 6 months to 27 years. A structural comparison analysis of the Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test and the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale - Revised. Validity and diagnostic effectiveness of the Kaufman Short Intelligence Test in the reassessment of students with learning disabilities.
Comparison of the Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test and the Matrix Analogies Test~Short Form in an adolescent forensic population. A comparison of the Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test (K-BIT) with the Stanford-Binet, a short form with two subtests, and the Short Form Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement (K-TEA).
The WJ III COG has two separate easel books containing the standard and extended battery tests. Like the WJ III COG, the WJ III ACH has two easel books containing the standard and extended battery tests. The WJ III Technical Manual (McGrew & Woodcock, 2001) contains extensive information on the reliability and validity of the WJ III.
It would rarely be necessary to administer all the tests in the WJ III to one person. Unlike the administration procedures, interpretation of the WJ III requires a higher level of knowledge and skill.
Discrepancy Procedures
Special Clinical Clusters
A strong feature of the WJ III is the inclusion of new measures of phonological awareness as well as measures of phoneme/grapheme knowledge. The cognitive and academic fluency clusters of the WJ III will provide a powerful psychometric tool to explore this relationship across the lifespan. Another strength of the WJ III is the use of Gf-Gc theory to explain cognitive abilities.
For example, in the WJ III ACH, the Broad Reading cluster includes one measure of word reading ability (Letter and Word Identification), one measure of Reading Fluency, and one measure of Passage Comprehension. Using the WJ III discrepancy procedures to identify and diagnose learning disabilities (Assessment Service Bulletin No. 3).
Wechsler Individual Achievement Test
For some time, this discrepancy model has been the foundation of the process of determining whether a referred student has a learning disability. Others redefine learning disabilities as the inability to respond to intervention/treatment regardless of ability level (Abbott, Reed, Abbott, & Berninger, 1997). WIAT is currently under revision and the differences between the two editions will be discussed later in this chapter.
First, although a few other achievement tests have been aligned with ability tests (e.g., Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery--Revised (WJPB-R); Woodcock & Johnson, 1989), the WIAT is the only person achievement battery directly linked to The Wechsler scale. Measurement experts (Reynolds, 1990) emphasize the value of using tests normed on the same standardization sample when using a discrepancy model to determine eligibility for a specific learning disability.
