1 / 175

Part III

Part III. Assessment of Abilities. Assessment of Abilities. One of the hallmarks of educational and psychological assessment is the measurement of an individual’s abilities.

kinsey
Download Presentation

Part III

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. Part III Assessment of Abilities

  2. Assessment of Abilities • One of the hallmarks of educational and psychological assessment is the measurement of an individual’s abilities. • Ability assessment involves the measurement of hypothetical constructs and is distinguished from the assessment of achievement. • The abilities and their subsequent assessment are intelligence, adaptive behavior, emotional/behavioral status, and language. • Evaluation of these areas are important to help make eligibility decisions. • These types of tests can also be used to provide information about a student’s strengths and weaknesses in each of the areas. • They might also be used to identify general educational goals for the student and to identify areas that require further assessment. • They are frequently used to make assumptions about an individual’s underlying abilities.

  3. Chapter 7 Assessment of Intelligence

  4. Assessment of Intelligence • Intelligence testing is one of the most debated issues in special education. • Intelligence has been an enigmatic concept, historically. • Intelligence tests have been the focus of considerable debate because of their alleged bias against ethnic minority students. • Perhaps educators should be less concerned about whether a test is biased and more concerned about the uses of test data for discriminatory purposes. • Intelligence tests have been criticized because incorrect or inappropriate decisions have been made from intelligence test data. • Intelligence tests measure performance, not potential. • Several alternatives to traditional intelligence testing have been receiving more and more attention.

  5. Alternatives to Traditional Tests • Traditional intelligence testing has been referred to as static assessment: it measures what students have already learned, not the extent to which they would profit from instruction. • Three arguments for moving away from traditional intelligence testing are: • Traditional assessment is more concerned with products rather than processes of learning. • Traditional assessment does not address the responsiveness of the individual to instruction. • Traditional assessment does not provide prescriptive information that would be helpful for effective instruction. • These criticisms have led to a number of attempts to devise alternative techniques for measuring learning potential.

  6. Alternatives to Traditional Tests • Most alternative approaches are usually referred to as dynamic assessment. • Dynamic assessment is characterized by: use of a test-teach-test paradigm, emphasis on assessment of process not product, attempts to specify obstacles to more effective learning, attempts to specify conditions that will allow more effective performance, and attempts to distinguish between performance and potential. • Recently, computer-assisted dynamic assessment has shown to be effective and systematic. • There are limitations to dynamic assessment, such as variation in definitions, theoretical foundations, and procedural requirements, large amount of time necessary and limited reliability.

  7. Alternatives to Traditional Tests Learning Potential Assessment Strategy: • Budoff was one of the first to use a test-train-retest paradigm to measure an individual’s ability to learn from teaching. • The procedure was developed initially for adolescents classified as having educable mental retardation. • Using nonverbal measures, he pretested the subjects, trained or coached the subjects on problem-solving strategies, and posttested the subjects twice over a one-month period. • He then classified the subjects as high scores, gainers, and nongainers. • Budoff used this model to identify those students who have educational as opposed to mental retardation.

  8. Alternatives to Traditional Tests Learning Potential Assessment Device (Feurstein, Haywood, Rand, Hoffman, & Jensen, 1984): • The Learning Potential Assessment Device (LPAD) consists of four non-verbal tasks. • Feurstein encourages the examiner to interact constantly with the examinee to maximize the probability of solving the problem. Paired-Associate Learning: • Paired-associate learning requires a subject to learn a novel set of associated items. • Typically, the number of trials necessary for the subject to complete the associations is used as the measure of learning. • This technique only measures rote memory.

  9. Alternatives to Traditional Tests Chronometric Techniques: • Chronometric techniques such as reaction time and speed of information processing have also been suggested as measures of intelligence. • Such approaches place no emphasis on previous learning or acquired knowledge yet are strongly correlated with standardized intelligence measures.

  10. Intelligence Tests: General Purpose and Description • Intelligence tests should be used by school psychologists and guidance personnel for: • Screening and identification • Decisions about eligibility and program placement. • Intelligence tests fall into two major categories: group administered and individually administered. • Group administered intelligence tests usually have different levels that are used with individuals in certain grades. • They typically include some combination of measures of language ability, memory skills, comprehension, analogical reasoning, and reading and mathematics aptitude. • Perhaps the two most widely used group intelligence tests are the Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT) and the Otis-Lennon School Ability Test, Eighth Edition (OLSAT 8).

  11. Intelligence Tests: General Purpose and Description • 2. Individually administered intelligence tests vary tremendously in their format and content. • a. Until recently, individual intelligence testing has been a crucial, even mandatory component in the formal assessment process. • b. It is still required to determine eligibility for special education in the vast majority of states.

  12. Intelligence Tests: General Purpose and Description Detroit Tests of Learning Aptitude-4 (DTLA-4) • The DTLA-4 takes approximately one to two hours to administer, depending on the age and ability level of the examinee. • Basal and ceiling rules are used to minimize administration time. • Description of Subtests: • Word Opposites: the examinee is asked to give the opposite of vocabulary words • Design Sequences: the student is shown a card with a series of pictures, and then the student is shown another card with the same pictures in a different order and is asked to put them in the same order as before. • Sentence Imitation: sentences are read to the examinee, who must repeat them exactly.

  13. Intelligence Tests: General Purpose and Description • Description of Subtests, cont. • Reversed Letters: a series of 2 to 8 letters are read to the student who must write them in reverse order. • Letter Sequences: the student is briefly shown a card with a series of letters printed on it and is asked to write them down in the exact order. • Story Construction: the student is asked to look at a picture and make up a story about it. • Design Reproduction: the examinee is shown a geometric figure for 5 seconds and then asked to draw it from memory. • Basic Information: the student is asked a basic question and must give an oral answer.

  14. Intelligence Tests: General Purpose and Description • Description of Subtests, cont. • Symbolic Relations: this subtest requires the student to use visual reasoning to solve a series of problems in which a series of pictures or designs forms a pattern that would lead to a correct answer to complete the pattern. • Word Sequences: the student is asked to repeat a series of words. • Story Sequences: the student is shown a series of 4 to 8 pictures and must put them in the correct sequence to tell a story.

  15. Intelligence Tests: General Purpose and Description • Interpretation of Results: • Raw scores from each individual subtest can be converted to standard scores, percentile ranks, and age equivalents. • In addition, several composite scores are available in three major domains: Linguistic, Attentional, and Motoric. • A General Mental Ability Quotients (GMAQ) consists of all eleven subtests in combination. • An Optimal Mental Ability Score is determined by using the four highest subtest scores. • Theoretical Composite scores include the subtests most highly associated with various theoretical models of intelligence. • Results from the DRLA-4 can be plotted on a profile sheet for visual interpretation.

  16. Intelligence Tests: General Purpose and Description • Technical Characteristics • Normative Sample: • A stratified sample of more than 2, 500 students from 36 states were included in the standardization. • Reliability: • Test-retest reliability coefficients ranged from .71 to .96 for the subtests and .92 to.99 for the composites. • Internal consistency ranged from .79 to .93 for the subtests and .91 to .95 for the composite scores. • Interscorer reliability was high with all coefficients .95 or higher.

  17. Intelligence Tests: General Purpose and Description • Validity: • Arguments for content and construct validity are presented in the manual. • The DTLA-4 subtest coefficients were low to moderate, wheras the composite coefficients were moderate. • The correlations between the GMAQ and the global IQs from the other tests were in the .70s to .80s range. • Review of Relevant Research • No research on the DTLA-4 was located. • Research on the DTLA-4 is necessary.

  18. Intelligence Tests: General Purpose and Description Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale-Fifth Edition: • The fifth edition of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale (SBIS-5) retained many of the characteristics of the earlier versions yet made some significant changes. • The SBIS-5 includes ten subtests that measure both the verbal and nonverbal domains of five factors. • The five factors are Fluid Reasoning, Knowledge, Quantitative Reasoning, Visual-Spatial Processing, and Working Memory • The instrument uses a verbal and nonverbal routing subtest to estimate the student’s ability and subsequently route him or her to the remaining subtests at the most efficient level of difficulty.

  19. Intelligence Tests: General Purpose and Description • Interpretation of Results • Standard scores are available for each subtest, for each of the five factor indexes, and for four intelligence composites. • The Abbreviated Battery consists of the two routing subtests. • Age equivalents and percentile ranks are also available. • One unique feature is the use of criterion-referenced information called Change-Sensitive Scores that allows comparison of changes in an individual’s ability level over time regardless of the IQ that is determined.

  20. Intelligence Tests: General Purpose and Description • Technical Characteristics: • Normative Sample • This included 4,800 individuals ages 2 to 85+ • The sample was representative of the 2000 U.S. census • Reliability • The internal consistency reliability coefficients were very high ranging from .91 to .98 • The reliability coefficients for the five factor indexes ranged from .90 to .92; for the subtests the coefficients ranged from .84 to .89

  21. Intelligence Tests: General Purpose and Description • Validity: • Several studies were conducted to investigate the criterion-related validity of the SBIS-5. • Correlations were generally in the high .70 to mid .80 range for appropriate comparative scores. • Review of Relevant Research: • Because of the relative recency of publication of the SBIS-5, no research was located. • However, the SBIS-4 was widely researched. • The majority of that research focused on its relationship with other instruments and its use with special populations such as preschool and gifted. • There is some question whether this research will be relevant for the new edition because of the changes that were made.

  22. Intelligence Tests: General Purpose and Description Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth Edition: • The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-IV (WISC-IV) is one of three scales developed by Wechsler. • It is the most widely used intelligence test in the schools, covering the age range of 6 through 16 years. • The WISC-IV provides a Full Scale IQ as well as Index scores for 4 composites: Verbal Comprehension, Perceptual Reasoning, Working Memory, and Processing Speed. • Description: • The WISC-IV includes 10 required subtests and 5 optional supplementary subtests.

  23. Intelligence Tests: General Purpose and Description • Verbal Comprehension • Similarities • Vocabulary • Comprehension • Information (optional) • Word Reasoning (optional) • Perceptual Reasoning • Matrix Reasoning • Block Design • Picture Concepts • Picture Completion (optional)

  24. Intelligence Tests: General Purpose and Description • Working Memory • Letter-Number Sequencing • Digit Span • Arithmetic (optional) • Processing Speed • Symbol Search • Coding • Cancellation (optional) • Interpretation of Results: • Each subtest raw score is converted to a scaled score with a mean of 10 and a standard deviation of 3. • The WISC-IV also yields a Full Scale IQ and Index scores in the areas of verbal comprehension, perceptual reasoning, working memory, and processing speed, with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15.

  25. Intelligence Tests: General Purpose and Description • Technical Characteristics: • Normative Sample • The WISC-IV used a nationally representative sample of 2,200. • Reliability • Split-half reliability coefficients ranged from approximately .80 to .90. • The average coefficient for Full Scale IQ was .97 • Average coefficients of .95 and above were reported for the Index scores. • Validity • Construct validity of the WISC-IV was established using factor analysis and intecorrelations of the subtests and scales. • Review of Relevant Research: • No research was located on the WISC-IV, but it is anticipated that this research will be forthcoming. • The earlier versions of the WISC-IV have been researched more than perhaps any instrument used in special education.

  26. Additional Instruments • There are several other less frequently used instruments that provide measures of intelligence. • Some have more limited use, others are a shorter version of a comprehensive instrument, or have limited amount of research done. Das-Naglieri Cognitive Assessment System (CAS): • Age level: 5 to 18 years • Individually administered • Good standardization, reliability, and validity. • Yields scaled scores, standard scores, percentile ranks, and age equivalents. • The CAS is based on a cognitive theory called PASS (Planning, Attention, Simultaneous, and Successive). • The authors claim that the CAS is more appropriate than other measures with minority students.

  27. Additional Instruments Goodenough-Harris Drawing Test: • Age level: 5 to 15 years • Individual or group administration • Very limited technical adequacy. • Yields standard scores • It is an instrument that requires the child to draw a picture of a man, a woman, and himself or herself. • The scoring is somewhat objective. • This test should not be considered as a measure of intelligence.

  28. Additional Instruments Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test-II (KBIT-II): • Age level: 4 to 90 years • Individual administration • Good standardization and reliability, adequate validity. • It is a brief screening instrument that uses two subtests. • One subtest measures crystallized intelligence and the other subtest measures fluid intelligence. • The KBIT-II can be used confidently as a brief screener of verbal and nonverbal intelligence. • Research on the KBIT-II needs to be conducted.

  29. Additional Instruments McCarthy Scales of Children’s Abilities: • Age level: 2 ½ to 8 ½ years • Individual administration • Good standardization (outdated norms), adequate reliability (low reliability for motor index), and validity. • Yields general cognitive index, scaled scores, percentile ranks, and mental ages. • It is a well-constructed, but outdated instrument for use with young children.

  30. Additional Instruments McCarthy Scales of Children’s Abilities, cont. • It includes 18 subtests that measure Verbal, Quantitative, Memory, Perceptual Performance, and Motor areas. • It measures a number of areas associated with cognitive abilities of young children. • The instrument should be used primarily to identify strengths and weaknesses and to a lesser extent to determine eligibility for special education.

  31. Additional Instruments Slosson Full-Range Intelligence Test: • Age level: 5 to 21 years • Individual administration • Adequate reliability and validity • Yields standard scores, percentile ranks, stanines, cognitive-age levels. • It was designed to measure the Stanford-Binet 4. • Its advantage is a short administration time. • The test can be used confidently as a screening instrument.

  32. Additional Instruments Slosson Intelligence Test-Revised 3: • Age level: 4 to 65 years • Individual administration • Adequate standardization, limited reliability, adequate validity. • Yields deviation IQ, percentiles, total standard score. • It gives a quick estimate of a person’s intelligence. • The majority of items are highly verbal, measuring six cognitive domains. • It should be used for screening only.

  33. Chapter 8 Assessment of Adaptive Behavior

  34. Assessment of Adaptive Behavior • In its broadest sense, adaptive behavior has to do with a person’s ability to deal effectively with personal and social demands and expectations. • Five elements of adaptive behavior that make it difficult to define: • It is developmental. • It involves many domains. • It must be viewed within cultural norms and expectations. • It must be viewed as specific to different situations. • It includes both ability and performance.

  35. Assessment of Adaptive Behavior • Adaptive behavior instruments can be used for three purposes: • to help make eligibility decisions. • for developing and evaluating specific teaching programs. • for screening, and to help identify general goals. • The technical characteristics of many adaptive-behavior scales have been questioned. • Many adaptive behavior scales lack appropriate validity and reliability. • The format of adaptive-behavior scales has also been scrutinized. • Some scales allow for direct observation, whereas others require an interview.

  36. Adaptive Behavior Instruments • Adaptive Behavior Instruments are used by teachers, staff members, social workers, and school psychologists for: • screening and identification • documentation of educational need • decisions about eligibility and program placement • development and evaluation of IEPs. Adaptive Behavior Inventory: • The Adaptive Behavior Inventory (ABI) is an individually administered instrument used with individuals ages 6 to 18. • It is designed to be completed by the classroom teacher and is relatively simple to score.

  37. Adaptive Behavior Instruments Adaptive Behavior Inventory, cont. • The primary use of the ABI is to aid in eligibility decisions regarding mental retardation and to determine general strengths and weaknesses in various adaptive behavior areas. • Description: • Self-Care Skills • Communication Skills • Social Skills • Academic Skills • Occupational Skills

  38. Adaptive Behavior Instruments Adaptive Behavior Inventory, cont. • Interpretation of Results: • For each of the five scales, percentile ranks and standard scores are available. • A composite quotient is also available. • Technical Characteristics: • Normative Sample • The ABI was standardized on both a sample of students with mental retardation and a sample of children with normal intelligence.

  39. Adaptive Behavior Instruments Adaptive Behavior Inventory, cont. • Reliability • Internal consistency was generally good for all the age ranges for all five scales. • Test-retest reliability coefficients were above .90 • Validity • The ABI is generally lacking evidence of validity • Review of Relevant Research: • No empirical studies were found, but there were a few reviews which were generally positive.

  40. Adaptive Behavior Instruments AAMR Adaptive Behavior Scale-Second Edition (AAMR ABS-2): Residential and Community Edition; School Edition • There are two separate editions of the AAMR ABS-2 • The Residential and Community Edition is designed for use with individuals ages 6 to 79 who live in residential and community settings. • The School Edition is to be used with students ages 6 to 21 who are receiving services in public schools. • Both scales are used with individuals who have mental retardation, emotional problems, and other disabilities. • The ABS-2 consists of two parts: • Part One deals primarily with personal independence in daily living skills • Part Two concerns the measurement of maladaptive behavior.

  41. Adaptive Behavior Instruments • AAMR Adaptive Behavior Scale-Second Edition, cont. • Description: • Part One: • This part includes ten domains assessing the degree of independence in daily living skills. • Independent Functioning • Physical Development • Economic Activity • Language Development • Numbers and Time • Domestic Activity • Prevocational/Vocational Activity • Self-Direction • Responsibility • Socialization

  42. Adaptive Behavior Instruments AAMR Adaptive Behavior Scale-Second Edition, cont. • Part Two: • This part includes eight domains measuring he degree of an individual’s maladaptive behavior. • Social Behavior • Conformity • Trustworthiness • Stereotyped and Hyperactive Behavior • Sexual Behavior • Self-Abusive Behavior • Social Engagement • Disturbing Interpersonal Behavior

  43. Adaptive Behavior Instruments AAMR Adaptive Behavior Scale-Second Edition, cont. • Interpretation of Results: • Scores for all the items in a given domain are added together to obtain a raw score for that domain. • Raw scores for various factors can also be obtained. • The domain and factor raw scores can be converted to percentile ranks and standard scores. • For the most part, there are too few items in a given domain to provide adequate information for specific educational programming.

  44. Adaptive Behavior Instruments AAMR Adaptive Behavior Scale-Second Edition, cont. • Technical Characteristics: • Normative Sample • The RC:2 sample consisted of more than 4,000 persons with developmental disabilities who reside in residential or community settings. • The S:2 sample consisted of more than 1,000 students without disabilities and more than 2,000 students with mental retardation. • Reliability • In general, the coefficients for the various domains approach or exceed .80 across ages. • Validity • Validity for each version of the ABS-2 was examined in various ways. • Validity is adequate for Part One and questionable for Part Two

  45. Adaptive Behavior Instruments AAMR Adaptive Behavior Scale-Second Edition, cont. • Review of Relevant Research: • Very little research was located on the second edition of AAMR ABS. • A study of the construct validity found that the test reflects two major factors: personal independence and social behavior • The revised school edition is an improvement over previous editions, particularly regarding the standardization and technical characteristics. • The second edition is similar in format to its predecessors, so a review of research on the earlier instruments may be of value. • These studies supported the use of the ABS to identify groups of individuals according to diagnostic category.

  46. Adaptive Behavior Instruments Assessment of Adaptive Areas (AAA): • The AAA is a recategorization of the items from Part One of the AAMR ABS-RC:2 and the AAMR ABS-S:2, to provide for the ten adaptive areas in the 1992 AAMR definition of mental retardation. • Description: • Communication • Self-Care • Home Living • Social Skills • Community Use • Self-Direction • Health and Safety • Functional Academics • Leisure • Work

  47. Adaptive Behavior Instruments Assessment of Adaptive Areas, cont. • Interpretation of Results: • For each of the ten areas, it is possible to obtain standard scores, percentile ranks, and age equivalents. • Technical Characteristics: • Normative Sample • The normative sample is the same as the one for the AAMR ABS. • Reliability • Internal consistency reliability coefficients for each area were primarily in the .80s and .90s for the sample without mental retardation and in the .90s for the sample with mental retardation. • Test-retest coefficients were also primarily in the .80s and .90s range. • Validity • Validity is acceptable, but more validity data is necessary • Review of Relevant Research: • No research other than that provided in the manual was located.

  48. Adaptive Behavior Instruments Scales of Independent Behavior-Revised (SIB-R) • The SIB-R is an individually administered instrument designed for use with a wide age range, 3 months to 44 years. • The SIB-R uses a structured, multiple-choice format. • The SIB-R has 14 subscales that can be grouped into four larger clusters. • Description: • Motor Skills Cluster • Gross Motor • Fine Motor

  49. Adaptive Behavior Instruments Scales of Independent Behavior-Revised, cont. • Social Interaction and Communication Cluster • Social Interaction • Language Comprehension • Language Expression • Personal Living Skills Cluster • Eating • Toileting • Dressing • Personal Self-Care • Domestic Skills • Community Living Skills Cluster • Time and Punctuality • Money and Value • Work Skills • Home/Community Orientation

  50. Adaptive Behavior Instruments Scales of Independent Behavior-Revised, cont. • Interpretation of Results: • A variety of derived scores are available for each of the four clusters as well as Broad Independence. • Scores for these areas include age equivalents, standard scores, percentile ranks, and normal curve equivalents. • Overall, the SIB-R is easy to administer. • An automated computer scoring program is available. • Technical Characteristics: • Normative Sample • More than 2,100 individuals were included.

More Related