“Running Strong Since 1858” 143 rd Annual Meeting of APH October 13-15, 2011 Louisville, Kentucky

1. “Running Strong • Since 1858” • 143rd Annual Meeting of APH • October 13-15, 2011 • Louisville, Kentucky

2. IQ Testing: • Trifecta Winners are Collaboration, • Caution, and Icing on the Cake! • Marnee Loftin, M.A., School Psychologist, TSBVI • Debbie Willis, M.A., Director of Accessible Tests, APH

3. Copies of this Power Point presentation may be produced and disseminated free of charge as long as use is for educational purposes and appropriate credit is given to authors and sponsoring organization.

4. INTELLIGENCE TESTING OF INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE BLIND OR VISUALLY IMPAIRED: • A Position Paper

5. THE BEGINNING… • APH established a task force in January, 2007 • Asked question of task force: • “Do IQ tests provide meaningful information for individuals with visual impairment?”

6. THE ANSWER… • The Task Force responded that : • “IQ tests can provide meaningful information for • the individual, as well as their instructors, families, and decision-makers.”

7. HOWEVER, IT IS IMPORTANT: • “…that all tests be administered in accordance with key points that reflect the uniqueness of the population, as well as appropriate cautions.”

8. THE TASK FORCE STARTS: • The Task Force developed a position paper and key points that reflect: • Appropriate preparation for administration • Cautions in administration • Cautions in interpretation

9. CONTENTS OF POSITION PAPER CONSIST OF: • PREPARATION • Administration • Specialized Training Needed • Reasons for Evaluation • Collaboration between Disciplines • Eye Conditions and Developmental History

10. (Continued) • ADMINISTRATION • Adaptations • Tactile and Symbolic Representation

11. (Continued) • INTERPRETATION • Qualitative interpretation • Reporting Results

12. POSITION STATEMENT • When appropriate practices • are followed, cognitive or • intelligence testing of • individuals who are blind or VI • provides useful and valuable • information to test-takers, their • families, instructors, and other • decision makers.

13. ISSUE 1: ADMINISTERING INTELLIGENCE TESTS • GUIDELINE 1: • Intelligence test results yield • valuable information about • an individual and increase the • usefulness of the overall • evaluation.

14. PRIOR TO ADMINISTRATION THE EVALUATOR MUST: • Ensure completion of • Functional Vision/Learning • Media Assessment (FV/LMA) • by a TVI or O&M Specialist

15. ( Continued) • Understand information contained in the FV/LMA and ways to use it in testing: • FV discusses ways to present materials for individual’s use of vision • LMA discusses best media for different tasks

16. (Continued) • Understand the impact of adaptations and modifications upon test results • Understand the importance of making tests accessible without change of content • Support of collaborative evaluations for ensuring the highest quality

17. SUGGESTED RESOURCE • Functional Vision • and Learning Media • Assessment (FVLMA) • FVLMA Kit: 7-96151-00 $67.00 • (Grades K-12; pre-academic or academic) • American Printing House for the Blind

18. ISSUE 2: SPECIALIZED TRAINING • Guideline 2: • Those administering tests need • specialized training in theory of • assessment and test • construction as well as child • development and • communication methods of • individuals who are blind or VI.

19. Professional Preparation of Evaluator must include: • Constructs of intelligence • Theory of tests and measurement • Typical and atypical child development • Test administration with general and special populations • Understanding of collaborative evaluations

20. The Professional Evaluator must: • Accept the concept of collaborative evaluation • Incorporate expertise of VI professionals in the evaluation process • Collaborate in all phases from preparation for testing to report writing

21. SUGGESTED RESOURCE • Collaborative Assessment: Working with Students who are Blind or Visually Impaired Including Those with Additional Disabilities • American Foundation for the Blind

22. ISSUE 3: REASONS FOR EVALUATION • Guideline 3: • The reason for the evaluation, • and the resulting specific • clinical judgments and • recommendations, should be • clearly documented in each • individual’s report.

23. The Evaluator must: • Request information about specific reasons for evaluation • Avoid accepting reasons that relate only to regulations

24. Specificity of these requests will: • Improve test selection • Answer referral questions • Minimize simple reporting of scores • Increase applicability of results

25. The Recommendations should: • Be clear to all stakeholders • Avoid professional jargon • Explain technical terms • Make recommendations that apply to real-life situations • Focus on increasing independence and self-advocacy

26. The Evaluation should not be used as the sole determinant of: • Cognitive abilities • Presence of additional disabilities • Eligibility for special programs

27. SUGGESTED RESOURCE • Making Evaluation Meaningful: Determining Additional Eligibilities and Appropriate Instructional Strategies • Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired

28. ISSUE 4: COLLABORATION • Guideline 4: • The visual impairment and/or • rehabilitation professional, • classroom teacher, family, and • individual must be involved during • the planning, evaluation, and • report writing process.

29. COLLABORATIVE EVALUATIONS WILL ALWAYS: • Gather information from all individuals • Actively solicit and discuss information • View collaboration as an on-going process • Reflect the professional expertise of all

30. ISSUE 5: EYE CONDITION AND DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY • Guideline 5: • The evaluator should be aware of • the individual’s medical and • developmental history, as well as • the implications of the eye condition • on the tasks to be performed (and • implementation of recommendations)

31. Specific necessary information includes understanding of: • Medical history • Developmental patterns and relationship to vision • Early intervention • Congenital vs. Adventitious vision loss • Neurological vs. Ocular vision problems

32. ISSUE 6: ADAPTATIONS • Guideline 6: • Adaptations, which include • accommodations that do not change • the concepts tested nor the difficulty • level of the test materials, should be • planned in advance in collaboration • with the visual impairment and/or • rehabilitation professional and the • test developer, and be well- • documented in the final report.

33. SUGGESTED RESOURCE • Developmental Guidelines for Infants with Visual Impairments: A Guidebook for Early Intervention, 2nd Edition • Print with CD-ROM: 8-50701-00 $95.00 • American Printing House for the Blind

34. ACCOMMODATIONS SHOULD BE: • Made only to provide access to the test taker • Planned in advance • Made in such a manner that DOES NOT affect the basic concept or difficulty of item • Documented in final report

35. ACCOMMODATION OR MODIFICATION? • Accommodations do not affect basic concept or difficulty, e.g. braille or LP • Modifications affect basic concept or difficulty, e.g. use of calculator • Either change increases the need for caution in interpretation of results

36. ISSUE 7: TACTILE AND SYMBOLIC REPRESENTATIONS • Guideline 7: • Symbols, tactile graphics, and • miniature objects must be • carefully considered and used • with caution to represent pictorial • or graphical information. Real • objects should be used whenever • feasible.

37. Visual stimuli must be carefully analyzed to determine • Relevance to the concept being assessed • Stimuli that can be made accessible • Any changes or eliminations • Appropriate use of miniature objects unless familiarity is ensured

38. ISSUE 8: DIRECT OBSERVATION • Guideline 8: • The assessment should include • direct observation in multiple • situations.

39. Suggested behaviors for observation include: • Visual efficiency • Visual fatigue • Organizational abilities required in problem-solving • Application of O&M skills in new environments • Presence of self-stimulatory behaviors

40. Additional information should include: • Social integration with peers • Independent initiation of activities • Organization of tasks for successful management and completion • Self-advocacy skills • Self-management of technology

41. ISSUE 9: QUALITATIVE INTERPRETATION • Guideline 9: • When visual-spatial items or tests • are administered, these results • should be used only for clinical • purposes and to identify • appropriate modifications of • educational or vocational materials • and instructional methods. • (continued )

42. Guideline 9 (continued) • Results obtained from visual- • spatial evaluations must never be • reported as scores or used to • determine the presence of other • disabilities. Important exceptions • to this guideline exist, and are • documented below.

43. Visual-Spatial items or tests may be administered if: • The individual uses vision for learning • The FV and LMA support the presence of adequate vision for specific items • Both the VI professional and Evaluator agree that results provide meaningful information AND support the referral question

44. Accommodations made to Visual-Spatial items/test must be: • Supported by the FV/LMA • Endorsed by both vision professional and evaluator • Noted in the final report • Include such things as extending time and use of CCTV during administration

45. Results of performance on Visual-Spatial items or tests should be: • Reported qualitatively rather than a score • Used as a source to determine learning strengths • Used to plan meaningful accommodations in different environments

46. ISSUE 10: REPORTING RESULTS • Guideline 10: • Reports of assessments of • individuals with visual impairments • need to be expanded to include an • explanation of the procedures • followed, changes in standardized • administration, and the description • of performance observed.

47. GENERAL CAUTIONS • All reports should reflect that tests represent an estimate of abilities • Standardization of most-frequently administered tests did not include persons with visual impairments

48. Test results should be reported with the Evaluator specifying: • Intervals around the obtained score as well as specific score • Confidence intervals at 90% level • Specific concerns relating to validity of scores • (continued )

49. (Continued) • Any adaptations in procedures and/or materials • Lack of norms for individual who is blind or visually impaired and corresponding cautions • Accommodations to provide access are specified

50. REPORTING RESULTS OF VISUAL SPATIAL TESTS • Extreme caution must be used in reporting scores on visual spatial tests • Generally these must be reported qualitatively: i.e. as strengths and weaknesses