1 / 13

Critical Review of the Cognitive Abilities Test

Critical Review of the Cognitive Abilities Test. By Marisol Baquerizo Richard Caster Julie Engelhardt. Brief Description of Purpose and Nature of Test.

jolanta
Download Presentation

Critical Review of the Cognitive Abilities Test

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Critical Review of the Cognitive Abilities Test By Marisol Baquerizo Richard Caster Julie Engelhardt

  2. Brief Description of Purpose and Nature of Test • General purpose of testis to test the cognitive abilities of K-12 students relating to verbal,quantitative, and nonverbal reasoning and problem solving. • Primary Battery (K-2) • Multilevel (3-12)

  3. Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT) • Published by Riverside Publishing, 1954 (Mulit-level Test); 1986 (K-2 Test) • Costs $76 for 25 Multilevel Tests • Time required to administer • K-2 unlimited time • 3-12 three 90 minutes sessions

  4. PURPOSE • Used to identify students who need help in developing general cognitive abilities, aid in the diagnosis of learning disabilities, and plan IEP’s.

  5. Description of content and appropriateness of assessment • Contains 200 items. • A verbal battery assessing sentence completion, verbal classification, and analogies. • A quantitative battery assessing quantitative relations, number series, and equation building. • A nonverbal battery measuring figure classification, figure analogies, and figure analysis.

  6. TECHNICAL EVALUATION • Type -Raw scores, standard age score, age percentile rank, age stanine, grade percentile rank, and grade stanine. • Standardization sample –160,000 K-12 students from public, Catholic, and private non-Catholic schools • Standard setting procedures were carefully conducted for content and ethnic sensitivity; however, no technical manual was available to provide specifics.

  7. Reliability • Results of K-R 20 reliabilities of .81-.93 for Primary Battery 1-2. • Results of K-R 20 reliabilities of .92-.95 for Multilevel Tests A-H. • The tests show internal consistency, but no data to show reliability over time.

  8. Validity • Correlations between K-12 student CogAT scores with their scores on one of three achievement tests concurrently standardized with it (ITBS, ITED, and Tests of Achievement and Proficiency) are strong. • Correlations of .70 and .71 for the nonverbal battery and .83 and .84 for the verbal battery with the same tests mentioned above.

  9. Summary of M.M.Y. Reviewer’s Comments • Reviewed by Bert A. Goldman, professor, School of Education, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, NC Stephen H. Ivens, vice president, research and development, Touchstone Applied Science Associates, Brewster, NY • Lack reliability and validity data over time, but what is presented supports the use of the test. The information just needs to be collected. • Well-known & respected for measuring general and specific cognitive abilities.

  10. Summary of M.M.Y. Reviewer’s Comments • The manual entitled “Interpretive Guide for School Administrator” greatly helps understand the development the test and analysis of scores. • Reviewers seem very impressed with the test designers’ manuals to interpret scores and the integrity of score information. • Works as a stand-alone document and coupled with the ITBS. • Excellent. Easy-to-use. • Can reliably compare a student’s aptitude with his/her achievement.

  11. Critique of the InstrumentStrengths • Gives modifications for students with IEP’s • Very clear instructions • Student answer sheets can be marked by test administrators for identification of certain sub-groups. • Challenging upper-end questions on all tests • Younger (primary) children write in the booklet, older students use an answer sheets. (less confusing)

  12. Critique of the InstrumentWeaknesses • Unclear which form is for which grade. (Labeled as A-H) • Student performance relates only norming sample. • Norm group selection is unclear (acceptance rate of schools invited may not have been reflective of U.S. sub-groups). • Lacks reliability and validity over time.

  13. Critique of the InstrumentOverall • The test is a useful tool for assessing student’s cognitive development. • It is an old standard which is often cited in professional journals.

More Related