ASSESSMENT WITH THE WISC - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

ASSESSMENT WITH THE WISC– V AND WPPSI– IV

2016

JEROME M. SATTLER

Copyright © 2016 Jerome M. Sattler, Publisher, Inc.Slide2

Opening Poem Reflecting ChildhoodPut Something In“Draw a crazy picture, Write a nutty poem,Sing a mumble-gumble song,Whistle through your comb. Do a loony-goony dance 'Cross the kitchen floor,

Put something silly in the world

That

ain't

been there before.”

―

Shel Silverstein

Slide3

Controversy of Intelligencehttps://youtu.be/9xTz3QjcloISlide4

Thoughts about Intelligence“Intelligence is important in psychology for two reasons. First, it is one of the most scientifically developed corners of the subject, giving the student as complete a view as is possible anywhere of the way scientific method can be applied to psychological problems. Secondly, it is of immense practical importance, educationally, socially, and in regard to physiology and genetics.” — Raymond CattellSlide5

Thoughts about Intelligence“Our purpose is to be able to measure the intellectual capacity of a child who is brought to us in order to know whether he is normal or retarded. ... We do not attempt to establish or prepare a prognosis and we leave unanswered the question of whether this retardation is curable, or even improveable. We shall limit ourselves to ascertaining the truth in regard to his present mental state.” — Alfred BinetSlide6

Life Outcomes and Intelligence [1](not in text)Research shows a strong relationship between intelligence test scores and life outcomes such as economic and social competence (see Sattler, 2008 for studies and for most cited research in this section).ExamplesAnnual income of 32-year-olds in 1993 in U.S. dollars was $5,000 for individuals with IQs below 75, $20,000 for individuals with IQs of 90 to 110, and $36,000 for individuals with IQs above 125 125 (Murray, 1998).Slide7

Life Outcomes and Intelligence [2](not in text)Examples (Cont.)Measures of general intelligence predict occupational level and job performance “better than any other ability, trait, or disposition and better than job experience” (Schmidt & Hunter, 2004, p. 162).

There is a moderate relationship between IQs obtained in childhood (as early as 3 years of age) and later occupational level and job performance, with an overall correlation of about

r

= .50 (Schmidt & Hunter, 2004).Slide8

Life Outcomes and Intelligence [3](not in text)Examples (Cont.)General intelligence predicts job performance better in more complex jobs (about r = .80) than in less complex jobs (about r = .20; Gottfredson

, 2003).

Intelligence is related to health and longevity (

Gottfredson

&

Deary

, 2004).

IQs in childhood predict substantial differences in adult morbidity and mortality, including deaths from cancers and cardiovascular disease

Gottfredson

&

Deary

, 2004). Slide9

Life Outcomes and Intelligence [4](not in text)Examples (Cont.)Children obtaining high scores on intelligence tests at ages 7, 9, and 11 (N = 11,103) had fewer adult hospitalizations for unintentional injuries than those who obtained lower scores (Lawlor et al., 2007).

Those with higher intelligence test scores probably had more education, which in turn likely increased their ability to process information and assess risks Slide10

Life Outcomes and Intelligence [5](not in text)Examples (Cont.)Youth identified before age 13 (N = 320) as having profound mathematical or verbal reasoning abilities (top 1 in 10,000 on SAT) were tracked for

three decades (

Kell

et al., 2013):

At age 38 many have leadership positions in business, health care, law, higher education, science, technology, engineering, and

mathematics. Results

mirror those of Galton (1869

)Slide11

Life Outcomes and Intelligence [6](not in text)Examples (Cont.)(Gifted, Kell et al., 2013; Continued):

To

identify individuals with profound human potential requires assessing multiple cognitive abilities and using atypical measurement procedures.

These individuals hold extraordinary potential for enriching society by contributing creative products

and competing

in global economiesSlide12

Life Outcomes and Intelligence [7](not in text)SourceKell, H. J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2013). Who rises to the top? Early indicators. Psychological Science, 24(5), 648–659.

doi

: 10.1177/0956797612457784Slide13

US Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights [1](not in text)Dear Colleague letter, July 26, 2016Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability and requires school districts to provide an equal educational opportunity to students with disabilitiesSlide14

US Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights [2](not in text)Dear Colleague letter, July 26, 2016Deficiencies of SchoolsStudents are not being referred or identified as needing an evaluation to determine whether they have a disability and need

special education or related

services

Students

not being evaluated in a timely manner once identified as needing an

evaluation

School districts are conducting

inadequate evaluations of

studentsSlide15

US Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights [3](not in text)Dear Colleague letter, July 26, 2016Responsibilities of SchoolsSchool districts must conduct individualized evaluations of students who, because of disability, including ADHD, need or are believed to need special education or related servicesMust

ensure that qualified students with disabilities receive appropriate services that are based on specific needs, not cost Slide16

US Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights [4](not in text)Dear Colleague letter, July 26, 2016Aim of “Dear Colleague” letterHelp school districts properly evaluate and provide timely and appropriate services to students with ADHDSlide17

US Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights [5](not in text)Dept of Ed Resource Guide ADHD & 504Evaluation ConsiderationsA school district must evaluate students who are suspected of having a disability in all related or all specific areas of educational need

An

evaluation

must

consist of more than

IQ tests

An evaluation must

measure specific areas of educational need, such as speech

processing,

inability to concentrate, and behavioral

concerns Slide18

US Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights [6](not in text)Dept of Ed Resource Guide ADHD & 504Evaluation Considerations (Cont.)Tests must be selected and administered so that the

results accurately reflect the student’s aptitude or achievement or other

factors

being

measured

Test results should not

reflect the student’s disability, except where those are the factors being

measuredSlide19

US Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights [7](not in text)Dept of Ed Resource Guide ADHD & 504Evaluation Considerations (Cont.)Tests and other evaluation materials are validated for the specific purpose for which they are used

Tests

are appropriately administered by trained personnel Slide20

US Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights [8](not in text)Dept of Ed Resource Guide ADHD & 504Evaluations Must be TimelyIntervention strategies must not deny or delay evaluation of students suspected of having a disability School districts violate Section

504

when

they deny or delay conducting an evaluation of a student when a disability, and the resulting need for special education or related services, is suspected Slide21

US Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights [9](not in text)Dept of Ed Resource Guide ADHD & 504Evaluations Must be Timely (Cont.)School districts run afoul of Section

504

when they

Rigidly

insist on first implementing interventions before conducting an evaluation

Insist that

each tier of a multi-tiered model of intervention must be implemented

first

Categorically require that data from an intervention strategy must be collected and incorporated as a necessary element of an

evaluationSlide22

US Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights [10](not in text)Dept of Ed Resource Guide ADHD & 504SummarySection 504 requires a school district to identify and conduct an evaluation of any student who needs or is believed to need special education or related services because

of a

disabilitySlide23

US Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights [11](not in text)Dept of Ed Resource Guide ADHD & 504Summary (Cont.)A school district must evaluate students who are suspected of having any kind

of disability

in all specific or all related areas of educational need, even if

the students

do not fit into one suspected disability category or fit into

multiple disability

categoriesSlide24

US Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights [12](not in text)Dept of Ed Resource Guide ADHD & 504Summary (Cont.)Students who achieve satisfactory, or even demonstrate above-average, academic performance may still have a disability that substantially limits a major

life activity

and be eligible for special education or related aids and services

because the

school district is not meeting their needs as adequately as the needs

of nondisabled

students are metSlide25

US Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights [13](not in text)Dept of Ed Resource Guide ADHD & 504Summary (Cont.)Implementation of intervention strategies, such as interventions contained within a

school’s RTI program, must not be used to delay or deny the Section

504 evaluation

of a student suspected of having a disability and needing regular

or special

education and related aids and services as a result of that disabilitySlide26

US Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights [14](not in text)Source:U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. (2016). Students with ADHD and Section504: A Resource Guide. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201607-504-adhd.pdfSlide27

Court Case Showing Need of a Thorough Evaluation [1](not in text)In Phyllene W. v. Huntsville City (AL) Bd. of Ed. (11th Cir. 2015) the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the decision of a Hearing Officer and of a U. S. District Court and ruled in favor of the parent and child. The Court explained that: Slide28

Court Case Showing Need of a Thorough Evaluation [2](not in text)"[T]he Board violated . . . IDEA by failing to evaluate M.W. when faced with evidence that she suffered from a suspected hearing impairment. As a result of its failure to obtain necessary medical information regarding M.W.'s hearing, the Board further failed to provide her with a FAPE. Slide29

Court Case Showing Need of a Thorough Evaluation [3](not in text)The lack of medical information rendered the accomplishment of the IDEA's goals impossible because no meaningful IEP was developed, and the IEPs put into place lacked necessary elements with respect to the services that M.W. should have been provided. In short, the Board's failure to evaluate M.W. with respect to her hearing loss deprived M.W. of the opportunity to benefit educationally from an appropriate IEP."Slide30

Overview of Assessment of Children: WISC–V and WPPSI–IV Contents: pp. iv to vList of Tables: pp. vi to ixList of Exhibits and Figures: p. x

Appendixes A, B, and C: pp. 473 to 517

References, Name Index, and Subject Index: pp. 519 to 529

Tables BC-1, BC-2, BC-3, BC-4: Inside back coverSlide31

Study Suggestions [1]Before you read a chapterRead summary at the end of the chapterLook at key terms, concepts, and names at the end of the chapter (Note that each of these terms, concepts, and names have a page number)Look at the study questions Slide32

Study Suggestions [2]After you read a chapterRead summary at the end of the chapterLook at key terms, concepts, and names at the end of the chapter and define each one (Note that each of these terms, concepts, and names have a page number)Look at the study questions

If you can’t define a term, concept, or name or answer the study questions, go back and read the material againSlide33

Chapter 1Role of the Evaluator in the Assessment ProcessSlide34

Chapter 1 Major Heads[1]Evaluator CharacteristicsPreparing for the First MeetingEstablishing RapportObserving Children General Suggestions for Administering Tests

Administering Tests to Children with Special Needs

Computer‑Based Administration, Scoring, and

InterpretationSlide35

Chapter 1 Major Heads[2]Accounting for Poor Test Performance Strategies for Becoming an Effective EvaluatorConfidentiality of Assessment Findings and RecordsConcluding Comment on the Role of the Evaluator in the Assessment Process

Thinking Through the Issues

Summary

Key Terms, Concepts, and Names

Study QuestionsSlide36

Chapter 2Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–V (WISC–V): DescriptionSlide37

Goals & Objectives (p. 55) Chapter designed to enable you to:

Evaluate psychometric

properties of

the WISC–V

Administer

the WISC–V competently

and professionally

Evaluate

and select short forms of the

WISC–V

Choose

between the WISC–V and the WPPSI–IV

at the

overlapping

ages

Choose

between the WISC–V and the WAIS–IV

at the overlapping agesSlide38

History of the WISC–V (not in text)Revisions of the WISC

*David Wechsler, the original author, died in 1982.

*Slide39

WISC–V StructureFor information about the structure of the WISC–V review:

Table 2-1 (p. 56)

Figs. 2-1 and 2-2 (p. 59)

Fig. 2-3 (p. 60)

Fig. 2-4 (p. 61)Slide40

Subtests in the WISC–V [1](pp. 56–58)Block DesignSimilarities

Matrix Reasoning

Digit Span

Coding

Vocabulary

Figure Weights

Visual Puzzles

Picture Span

Symbol

Search

Information

Picture Concepts

Letter-Number Sequencing

CancellationSlide41

Subtests in the WISC–V [2](pp. 56–58)Naming Speed LiteracyNaming Speed Quantity

Immediate Symbol Translation

Comprehension

Arithmetic

Delayed Symbol Translation

Recognition Symbol Translation

Exhibit 2-1 (pp. 57 and 58) presents items similar to those on the WISC–V subtestsSlide42

Definition of Cognitive Proficiency Index (not in text)Definition of the word “Cognitive”“of or relating to the mental processes of perception, memory, judgment, and reasoning, as contrasted with emotional and volitional processes.”From: dictionary.com

Definition of the word “Proficiency”

“a high degree of competence or skill; expertise”

From: google.com Slide43

Definition of General Ability Index (not in text)Definition of the term “General Ability” “a term that is used to describe the measurable ability believed to underlie skill in handling all types of intellectual tasks.”“Our general ability is the skill underlying all tasks.”

From: psychologydictionary.orgSlide44

Diagnostic Utility of GAI and CPI (WISC–IV) [1] (not in text)Devena and Watkins (2012) reported the following:Study sample: 5 groups of children (hospital sample with ADHD = 78, nondiagnosed hospital sample = 66, school sample with ADHD = 196, school matched comparison sample = 196, simulated standardization sample = 2,200)

A discrepancy analysis between the GAI and CPI was found to have “low accuracy in identifying children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.” (p. 133)Slide45

Diagnostic Utility of GAI and CPI (WISC–IV) [2] (not in text)Source:Devena, S. E., & Watkins, M. W. (2012). Diagnostic utility of WISC–IV General Abilities Index and Cognitive Proficiency Index difference scores among children with ADHD. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 28(2), 133–154.

doi

: 10.1080/15377903.2012.669743 Slide46

Predictive Ability of GAI vs FSIQ (WISC–IV) [1] (not in text)Rowe, Kingsley, and Thompson (2010) reported the following:Study sample = 88 children tested for gifted programmingBoth the FSIQ and GAI significantly predicted reading and math scoresHowever, the FSIQ explained more of the variance than the GAISlide47

Predictive Ability of GAI vs FSIQ (WISC–IV) [2] (not in text)Conclusion Working memory and verbal comprehension explained significant, unique variance in reading and math Processing speed and perceptual reasoning did not account for significant amounts of variance over and above working memory and verbal comprehensionWorking memory in the FSIQ was the main difference between FSIQ and GAISlide48

Predictive Ability of GAI vs FSIQ (WISC–IV) [3] (not in text)Source:Rowe, E. W., Kingsley, J. M., & Thompson, D. F. (2010). Predictive ability of the General Ability Index (GAI) versus the Full Scale IQ among gifted referrals. School Psychology Quarterly, 25(2), 119–128. doi:10.1037/a0020148 Slide49

FSIQ vs GAI in Intellectual Disability (WISC–IV) [1] (not in text)Koriakin et al. (2013) reported the following:Study sample: 543 males and 290 femalesFewer children were identified as having intellectual disability using the GAI (n

= 159) than when using the FSIQ (

n

= 196)

“The use of GAI for intellectual disability diagnostic decision-making may be of limited value.” (p. 840)Slide50

FSIQ vs GAI in Intellectual Disability (WISC–IV) [2] (not in text)Source:Koriakin, T. A., McCurdy, M. D., Papazoglou, A., Pritchard, A. E., Zabel, T. A., Mahone

, E. M., & Jacobson, L. A. (2013). Classification of intellectual disability using the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children: Full Scale IQ or General Abilities Index?

Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 55

(9), 840-845.

doi

: 10.1111/dmcn.12201 Slide51

Items Similar to Those on the WISC–V (pp. 57–58)See Exhibit 2-1Slide52

Same Subtests Used to Derived Several Index Scores (p. 61)Overlap of subtests means that these ancillary indexes are not independent.Slide53

Available Manuals and Technical Reports [1] (p. 61)At present, there are 7 publications related to the WISC–V4 WISC–V Manuals4 WISC–V Technical ReportsThe website for obtaining 3 of the 4 Technical Reports can be found in the page 61 of the text. Slide54

Available Manuals and Technical Reports [2] (not in text)The reference for the 4th Technical Report is as follows: Raiford, S. E., Zhang, O., Drozdick, L. W., Getz, K., Wahlstrom, D., Gabel, A., Holdnack

, J. A., & Daniel, M. (2016).

WISC–V

Coding and Symbol Search in digital format: Reliability, validity, special group studies, and

interpretation

.

Technical Report #12.

Retrieved from

http://images.pearsonclinical.com/images/Assets/WISC-V/Qi-Processing-Speed-Tech-Report.pdf

Slide55

Useful Psychometric TablesDemographic characteristics (Table 2-2; p. 62)Various types of reliability (Table 2-3; pp. 63–71)Criterion validity studies (Table 2-7; pp. 72–73)Slide56

Concurrent Validity of WISC–V Subtests and KTEA–3 Composite[1]SubtestAcademic Skills Battery

Similarities

.66

Vocabulary

.70

Information

.66

Comprehension

.58

Block Design

.52

Visual Puzzles

.41

Matrix Reasoning

.51

Figure Weights

.54Slide57

Concurrent Validity of WISC–V Subtests and KTEA–3 Composite[2]SubtestAcademic Skills Battery

Picture Concepts

.44

Arithmetic

.68

Digit Span

.59

Picture Span

.42

Letter-Number Seq.

.55

Coding

.23

Symbol Search

.34

Cancellation

.11Slide58

Concurrent Validity of WISC–V Subtests and WIAT–3 Composite[1]SubtestTotal Achievement

Similarities

.65

Vocabulary

.63

Information

.57

Comprehension

.52

Block Design

.43

Visual Puzzles

.37

Matrix Reasoning

.35

Figure Weights

.33Slide59

Concurrent Validity of WISC–V Subtests and WIAT–3 Composite[2]SubtestTotal Achievement

Picture Concepts

.34

Arithmetic

.64

Digit Span

.65

Picture Span

.45

Letter-Number Seq.

.62

Coding

.34

Symbol Search

.28

Cancellation

.05Slide60

Source: Slide: Concurrent Validity of WISC–V Subtests and KTEA–3 Composite (Wechsler, 2014c)Slide: Concurrent Validity of WISC–V Subtests and WIAT–3 Composite (Wechsler, 2014c)Slide61

Concurrent Validity of WISC–V VCI, VECI, FRI, and EFI [1] (not in text)

Criterion WIAT–III

VCI

VECI

FRI

EFI

Oral Language

.78

.80

.33

.55

Total Reading

.65

.70

.32

.50

Basic Reading

.53

.60

.30

.45

Reading Comprehension and Fluency

.65

.65

.25

.45

Written Expression

.60

.60

.33

.55

Mathematics

.53

.55

.45

.65

Math Fluency

.36

--

.31

.55

Total Achievement

.74

.80

.40

.65Slide62

Concurrent Validity of WISC-V VCI, VECI, FRI, and EFI [2] Abbreviations:VCI = Verbal Comprehension IndexVECI = Verbal Expanded Crystallized IndexFRI = Fluid Reasoning IndexEFI = Expanded Fluid Index

Sources:

Raiford

,

Drozdick

, Zhang, & Zhou (2015)

Wechsler (2014c)Slide63

Relationship of Complementary Indexes and FSIQ to WIAT–III Total Achievement (not in text)

WISC–V Index

WIAT–III Total Achievement

Naming Speed Index (NSI)

.29

Symbol Translation Index (STI)

.39

Storage and Retrieval Index (SRI)

.45

FSIQ

.81

See Table 5.14 on p. 104 of the Technical and Interpretive ManualSlide64

Age Equivalents (p. 63)Table A.9 in the Administration and Scoring Manual (pp. 337–340) provides age equivalents for all the subtests and some process scores (see left column p. 63 in text for discussion)No validity data are provided in any of the WISC–V manuals for age equivalentsRecommend that they only be used in an informal mannerSlide65

Special Group Studies with WISC– V (pp. 75–76)13 special groups compared across the primary index scales (Table 2-8; p. 75)VCIVSI

FRI

WMI

PSISlide66

Standardization of the WISC–V (pp. 61–62)Standardized on 2,200 children who were selected to represent the school-age population in the United States in 2012

Used a stratified sample based on demographic characteristics of age, sex, ethnicity, geographic region, and parental education (as a measure of socioeconomic status)Slide67

WISC-V FSIQs for 5 Ethnic Groups (1) [not in text]Ethnic Group

FSIQ

European American

103.5

African

American

91.9

Hispanic American

94.4

Asian American

108.6

Other

100.4Slide68

WISC-V FSIQs for 5 Ethnic Groups (2) [not in text]Note: Adapted from Table 5.3 (p. 157) in Weiss et al (2016)Source: Weiss, L. G., Locke, V., Pan, T., Harris, J. G., Saklofske, D. H., & Prifitera, A. (2016). WISC–V use in societal context. In L. G. Weiss, D. H. Saklofske

, J. A.,

Holdnack

, & A.

Prifitera

(Eds.),

WISC–V assessment and interpretation: Scientist-practitioner perspectives

(pp. 123–185). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Slide69

Descriptive Statistics for the WISC–V (pp. 62–76)The WISC-V uses:Standard scores (M = 100, SD

= 15) for each of the primary, ancillary, and complementary index scores and for the FSIQ

Scaled scores (

M

= 10,

SD

= 3) for the 16 primary and secondary subtests

Standard scores (

M

= 100,

SD

= 15) for the five complementary subtests (

Note that the complementary subtests have standard scores, not scaled scores

)Slide70

Confidence Intervals [1](p. 71)Table A-1 (pp. 372–373) shows confidence intervals based on the obtained score and the SEM for 68%85%

90%

95%

99%

Confidence intervals are shown for the VCI, VSI, FRI, WMI, PSI, and the FSIQSlide71

Confidence Intervals [2](p. 71)Table A-2 (pp. 374–375) shows confidence intervals for the 7 ancillary indexes and 3 complementary indexesThese confidence intervals are based on the child’s obtained score, whereas those in the Administration and Scoring Manual are obtained on the child’s estimated true scoreSlide72

Description of the Five Factors [1](pp. 76–81; based on Sattler et al., 2016)Verbal ComprehensionMeasures

verbal knowledge and understanding obtained primarily through both formal and informal education and reflects the application of verbal skills to new

situationsSlide73

Description of the Five Factors [2](pp. 76–81; based on Sattler et al., 2016)Visual Spatial/Fluid Reasoning

Measures

the ability to interpret and organize visually perceive material, the ability to perform nonverbal inductive reasoning, and the ability to analyze and solve novel problems involving conceptual thinkingSlide74

Description of the Five Factors [3](pp. 76–81; based on Sattler et al., 2016)

Working Memory

Measures

the ability to hold and manipulate information

as

well as the ability to pay attention and concentrate on tasks at

handSlide75

Description of the Five Factors [4](pp. 76–81; based on Sattler et al., 2016)Processing Speed

Measures

the ability to process visually perceived nonverbal information quickly, with concentration and rapid eye-hand coordination being important

componentsSlide76

Description of the Five Factors [5](pp. 76–81; based on Sattler et al., 2016)Unknown Factor

Has

only one subtest in the total group with a high loading:

Cancellation

We

advise that this factor not be used in interpreting the

WISC–VSlide77

Measurement of g (p. 81)Slide78

WISC–V Subtests as Measures of g (p. 82)Table 2-12Verbal Comprehension and Working Memory subtests (the exception is Picture Span) are good measures of g

Visual Spatial and Fluid Reasoning subtests are fair measures of

g

Processing Speed subtests are poor measures of

g

(Note: Average loading of

g

for Cancellation is .24—the poorest measure of

g

in the WISC–V) Slide79

Amount of Specificity in WISC–V Subtests (p. 83)Table 2-13Most subtests have ample or adequate specificity at all agesThe three exceptions where specificity is inadequate are

Vocabulary at ages 8 and 10

Information at age 11

Symbol Search at ages 12 and 13Slide80

WISC–V Factor Structure [1]Research StudiesThe Technical and Interpretive Manual (Wechsler, 2014c) performed a confirmatory factor analysis on the WISC–V on the standardization sample for 16 subtests and reported 5 factors:Verbal Comprehension

Visual Spatial

Fluid reasoning

Working Memory

Processing SpeedSlide81

WISC–V Factor Structure [2]Research Studies (Cont.)Sattler et al. (2016; p.76 in text) performed an exploratory factor analysis of the WISC–V standardization sample for the 16 subtests and found a set of 5 factors that differed from those Wechsler (2014c)Slide82

WISC–V Factor Structure [3]Research Studies (Cont.)Canivez et al. (2016a) performed an exploratory factor analysis of the WISC–V standardization sample for the 16 subtests and found that

g

accounts for most of the variance Slide83

WISC–V Factor Structure [4]Research Studies (Cont.)However, some minimal support was found

for a 4-factor model:

Verbal Comprehension

: Similarities, Vocabulary, Information, and Comprehension

Working Memory

: Arithmetic, Digit Span, Picture Span, and Letter–Number Sequencing

Perceptual Reasoning

: Block Design, Visual Puzzles, Matrix Reasoning, and Figure Weights

Processing Speed

: Coding, Symbol Search, and Cancellation

Picture Concepts did not load on any

factorSlide84

WISC–V Factor Structure [5]Research Studies (Cont.)Canivez et al. (2016b) also performed a confirmatory factor analysis of the WISC standardization sample for 16 subtests and reported that the g factor was more dominant than any other factors

Dombrowski

et al. (

2105)

performed an exploratory

bifactor

analysis of the WISC–V standardization sample for the 16 subtests and

reported

that

the

g

factor accounted for

the largest

portions of the total and common subtest

varianceSlide85

WISC–V Factor Structure [6]Sources:Canivez, G. L., Watkins, M. W., & Dombrowski, S. C. (2016a). Factor structure of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fifth Edition: Exploratory factor analyses with the 16 primary and secondary subtests. Psychological Assessment

.

Psychological Assessment, 28

(8)

, 

975–986.

doi:10.1037/pas0000238Slide86

WISC–V Factor Structure [7]Sources: (Cont.)Canivez, G. L., Watkins, M. W., &

Dombrowski

, S. C. (2016b, July 21). Structural validity of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fifth Edition: Confirmatory factor analyses with the 16 primary and secondary subtests. 

Psychological Assessment

. Advance online publication.

doi

:

10.1037/pas0000358Slide87

WISC–V Factor Structure [8]Sources: (Cont.)Dombrowski, S. C., 

Canivez

, G. L., Watkins, M. W., &

Beaujean

, A. (2015).  Exploratory

bifactor

analysis of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fifth Edition with the 16 primary and secondary subtests. 

Intelligence, 53,

 194–201. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2015.10.009Slide88

Scaled Score Ranges forWISC–V Subtests [1] (p. 84)Table 2-1414 of the 16 subtests have a scaled score range of 1 to 19Picture Concepts has a range of

1 to 19 at ages 6-0 to 16-11

2 to 19 at ages 6-0 to 6-3Slide89

Scaled Score Ranges forWISC–V Subtests [2] (p. 84)Table 2-14 (Cont.)Letter-Number Sequencing has a range of

1 to 19 at ages 7-4 to 16-11

2 to 19 at ages 7-0 to 7-3

3 to 19 at ages 6-4 to 6-11

4 to 19 at ages 6-0 to 6-3

This means that you

can’t automatically

compare Letter-Number Sequencing scores at ages 6-0 to 7-3 with those of older agesSlide90

Range of Index Scores (p. 84)Table 2-15All primary index scales have a range of 45 to 155The FSIQ has a range of 40 to 160

Ancillary index scores have ranges of 40 to 160 and 45 to 155

Complementary index scores have a range of 45 to 155Slide91

Guidelines for Computing Index Scores and FSIQs (pp. 84–85)Study the guidelines for computing the following index scores on p. 85Primary index scoresFSIQ

Ancillary index scores

Complementary index scoresSlide92

Test Administration Guidelines [1](pp. 85–88)Use suitable testing locationMaintain good rapport Be flexible

Be alert to the child’s mood and needs

Be professional

Follow standardization process

Maintain steady pace Slide93

Test Administration Guidelines[2](pp. 85–88)

Make smooth transitions

Be organized

Shield your writing

Take breaks, as needed between, not during, subtests

Praise effort

Empathize and encourage

Use the exact wording of the directions, questions, and itemsSlide94

Test Administration Guidelines [3](pp. 85–88)Observe the child’s performance carefully throughout the testRecord responses correctly using (Q) for queries

(P) for prompts

(R) for repeated instructions

Score each item after the child answers so that you know when to use a reverse procedure and when to discontinue the subtestSlide95

Supplementary Instructions for Administration (pp. 86–87)Exhibit 2-2Study carefully the supplementary instructions for administering the WISC–VThe instructions cover the following areas:

Preparing to administer the WISC–V

Administering the WISC–V

Scoring

Record Form

General guidelines for completing the Record Form

Miscellaneous information and suggestionsSlide96

Subtest Sequence (p. 89)The primary subtests that make up the Full Scale are administered in the following order:Slide97

Administration Issues [1](pp. 89–94)Specific guidelines are provided in the WISC–V Administration and Scoring Manual for:QueriesPrompts

Instructions

Repeating items

Additional help

Waiting time

Start pointSlide98

Administration Issues [2](pp. 89–94)Specific guidelines are provided in the WISC–V Administration and Scoring Manual for: (Cont.)Reverse Sequence ruleStart-Point scoring rule

Discontinue-Point scoring rule

Discontinue criterion

ScoringSlide99

Administration Issues [3](pp. 89–94)Specific guidelines are provided in the WISC–V Administration and Scoring Manual for: (Cont.)

Perfect scores

Points for items not administered

Spoiled responses

Subtest substitution

ProrationSlide100

Subtest Substitution in the WISC–V (p. 93)Only substitute a subtest if absolutely necessaryWhen you substitute, Psychometric properties of the FSIQ may change

Reliabilities and validities

of the FSIQ may

change

Confidence intervals

of the FSIQ may

change

No empirical data for substitutions

No empirical data for number of substitutions

Follow the subtest substitution guidelines on p. 93Slide101

Substitution, Proration, and Retest on the WPPSI–IV [1] (not in text)Zhu et al. (2016) using the standardization data reported that substituting, prorating, and retesting resulted in An increase of the FSIQ SEM by .61 to 1.92 points, a 20% to 64% increaseWider confidence intervals by 1.2 to 3.8 IQ pointsMisclassifications as high as 22%

Conclusion: Substitution, proration, or retesting introduces additional measurement errorSlide102

Substitution, Proration, and Retest on the WPPSI–IV [1] (not in text)Source:Zhu, J., Cayton, T. G., & Chen, H. (2016). Substitution, proration, or a retest? The optimal strategy when standard administration of the WPPSI–IV is infeasible. Psychological Assessment. Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/pas0000272

Original paper was given at the American Psychological Association, July 2013 in Honolulu, HI (Zhu and

Cayton

, 2013; reference in text)Slide103

Potential Problems in Administering the WISC–V (pp. 94–97) [1]Potential problems (see Table 2-17, pp. 95–96) include difficulties in :

Establishing rapport

Administering test items

Scoring test items

Completing the Record FormSlide104

Potential Problems in Administering the WISC–V (pp. 94–97) [2]McDermott et al. (2014) pointed out that: Compromised administration and scoring is not unique to cognitive testsIt is endemic to psychological assessment in general and affects a broad collection of measuring devices

Characteristics of the examiner, examinee, or

examiner–examinee

relationship also affect the test results

They cite

Terman

(1918) who said that “there are innumerable sources of error in giving and scoring mental tests of whatever kind” (p. 33

)Slide105

Potential Problems in Administering the WISC–V (pp. 94–97) [3]Sources:McDermott, P. A., Watkins, M. W., & Rhoad, A. M. (2014). Whose IQ is it? Assessor bias variance in high-stakes psychological assessment. Psychological Assessment, 26

(1)

,

207–214.

doi:10.1037/a0034832

Terman

, L. M. (1918). Errors in scoring

Binet

tests.

Psychological

Clinic, 12

,

33–39.Slide106

Using Portfolios to Teach Test-Scoring Skills [1] (not in text)Egan et al. (2003) reported that students Who maintained a portfolio with completed protocols And reviewed them prior to each practice administration Made fewer errors than the control groupSlide107

Using Portfolios to Teach Test-Scoring Skills [2] (not in text)Source:Egan, P., McCabe, P., Semenchuk, D., & Butler, J. (2003). Using portfolios to teach test scoring skills: A preliminary investigation. Teaching of Psychology, 30(3), 233–235. doi:10.1207/S15328023TOP3003_08Slide108

Short Forms of WISC–V (pp. 97–98) See Table A-5 in Appendix A (pp. 387–388) for short form reliability and validity coefficientsSee Tables A-7, A-8, A-9, A-10 and A-11 in Appendix A (pp. 391–401) for 2-, 3-, 4-, 5-, and 6-subtest short formsSlide109

Reliable and Unusual Scaled-Score Ranges (pp. 389–390) See Table A-6 for reliable and unusual scaled-score ranges for 2-, 3-, 4-, 5-, 6-, 7-, 10-, and 16-subtest combinationsFor the FSIQ, a reliable range is 5 points (statistically significant at .05 level)For the FSIQ, an unusual range is 9 points (occurs in less than 10% of the population)Slide110

Choosing Between the WISC–V and the WPPSI–IV or the WAIS–IV (p. 98)Slide111

Administering the WISC–V toChildren with Disabilities (pp. 98–100)Chapter 1 (pp. 36–39) provides general suggestions for administering tests to children with special needs, while Chapter 2 (pp

.

98–100) focuses on the WISC–V

Prior to making any modifications in administration procedures

Evaluate the sensory-motor abilities of children with disabilities

Closely examine how suitable the subtests are for a child with special needsSlide112

Strengths of WISC–V (p. 100)Excellent standardizationGood overall psychometric properties

Useful diagnostic information

Good administration procedures

Good manuals and interesting test materials

Helpful scoring criteria

Usefulness for children with some disabilitiesSlide113

Limitations of WISC–V [1](pp. 100–101)

Limited

breadth of coverage of the

FSIQ

Failure to provide conversion tables when substitutions are made

Failure to provide a psychometric basis for requiring raw scores of 1 in order to compute FSIQ

Limited range of

scores

for extremely low or high

functioning children

Limited criterion validity studies

Possible difficulties in scoring responsesSlide114

Limitations of WISC–V [2](pp. 100–101)

Somewhat large practice effects

Occasional confusing guidelines

Poor quality of some test materialsSlide115

How Am I Going to Score These?Question: What are 12, 14, and 16?Answer: That’s easy; MTV, Fox, and Cartoon network.Question: What is celebrated on Thanksgiving Day?

Answer: My cousin’s birthday.

Question: What is the capital of Greece?

Answer: G.Slide116

How Am I Going to Score These?Biology question: List three examples of marine lifeAnswer: Marching, Barracks inspection, running the obstacle course.Astronomy question: Where is the milky way located?

Answer: In the checkout aisle next to the rest of the candy bars.Slide117

How Am I Going to Score These?Question: What does imitate mean?Answer: What does imitate mean?

Question: What would you do if you were lost in the woods?

Answer: I’d use my cell phone, pager, or my global positioning satellite device.Slide118

How Am I Going to Score These?Question: What ended in 1945?Answer: 1944 Question: Where was the American Declaration of Independence signed?

Answer: At the bottom

Question: How do you change centimeters to meters?

Answer: Take out

centi

Slide119

How Am I Going to Score These?Question: Explain the phrase “free press.”Answer: When your mom irons trousers for youQuestion: What is a fibula?

Answer: A little lie

Question: What is a stand alone computer system?

Answer: It does not come with a chair Slide120

Reflections on Intelligence and Childhood“Too often we give children answers to remember rather than problems to solve.”—Roger LewinSlide121

Chapter 3WISC–V SubtestsSlide122

Goals & Objectives (p. 107)Chapter designed to enable you to: Critically evaluate the 21 WISC–V primary, secondary, and complementary

subtests

Understand

the

rationales,

factor analytic

findings,

reliability and correlational

highlights, administration guidelines,

and

interpretive suggestions

for the

21 WISC–V subtestsSlide123

Skills a Child Needs to be Successful on the WISC–V (p. 108)Slide124

Scoring WISC–V Items (p. 108)Important considerations in scoring:Score each item as it is administered

Do not

to discontinue administering a subtest prematurely

This is particularly important when you are unsure how to score a response immediately

Better to administer more items in a subtest, even though some may not be counted in the final score

You do not want to short-change the child by discontinuing the subtest too soonSlide125

Evaluating and Interpreting a Child’s Performance [1](p. 108)Consider:

Child’s scores and responses

Quality of child’s responses

Child’s response style, motivation, and effort

How child handles frustration

Child’s problem-solving approach

Child’s fine-motor skills

Child’s pattern of successes and failuresSlide126

Evaluating and Interpreting a Child’s Performance [2](p. 108)Consider: (Cont.)

How child handles test materials

How child handles tasks of each subtest

Responding to difficult items

Responding to time limitsSlide127

Block Design [1](pp. 109–113)Primary Visual Spatial subtestKey areas of measurement:Nonverbal reasoning

Visual-spatial organization

Other areas of measurement: See page 109Slide128

Block Design [2](pp. 109–113)Other ConsiderationsFair

measure of

g

Contributes moderately to the visual

spatial/fluid

reasoning

factor

A

reliable

subtest

Somewhat

difficult to administer and

scoreSlide129

Similarities [1](pp. 113–116)Primary Verbal Comprehension subtestKey area of measurement: Verbal concept formation

Other areas of measurement: See page 113Slide130

Similarities [2](pp. 113–116)Other Considerations

Good

measure of

g

Contributes substantially to the verbal comprehension

factor

A

reliable

subtest

Relatively

easy to administer, but some responses may be difficult to

scoreSlide131

Matrix Reasoning [1](pp. 116–118)Primary Fluid Reasoning subtestKey area of measurement:Visual-perceptual analogic reasoning ability without a speed component

Other areas of measurement: See page 116Slide132

Matrix Reasoning [2](pp. 116–118)Other Considerations

Fair measure of

g

Contributes substantially to the visual spatial/fluid reasoning factor

A reliable subtest

Relatively easy to administer and scoreSlide133

Digit Span [1](pp. 118–122)Primary Working Memory subtestKey areas of measurement:Auditory short-term memory

Auditory sequential processing

Other areas of measurement: See page 118 Slide134

Digit Span [2](pp. 118–122)Other Considerations

Good

measure of

g

Contributes substantially to the working memory

factor

A

highly reliable

subtest

Relatively

easy to administer and scoreSlide135

Coding [1](pp. 122–125)Primary Processing Speed subtestKey area of measurement:Ability to learn an unfamiliar task involving speed of mental operation and graphomotor speed

Other areas of measurement: See page 122Slide136

Coding [2](pp. 122–125)Other Considerations

Poor measure of

g

Contributes substantially to the processing speed factor

A reliable subtest

Relatively easy to administer and scoreSlide137

Vocabulary [1](pp. 125–129)Primary Verbal Comprehension subtestKey area of measurement:Knowledge of words

Other areas of measurement: See page 125Slide138

Vocabulary [2](pp. 125–129)Other Considerations

Best measure of

g

in the WISC–V

Contributes substantially to the verbal comprehension factor

A reliable subtest

Relatively easy to administer but some responses may be difficult to scoreSlide139

Figure Weights [1](pp. 129–131)Primary Fluid Reasoning subtest

Key area of measurement:

Visual-perceptual quantitative

reasoning

Other areas of measurement: See page

129Slide140

Figure Weights [2](pp. 129–131)Other ConsiderationsFair measure of

g

Contributes substantially to the visual spatial/fluid reasoning factor

A highly reliable subtest

Relatively easy to administer and scoreSlide141

Visual Puzzles [1](pp. 131–134)Primary Visual Spatial subtest

Key area of measurement:

Visual-perceptual reasoning

Other areas of measurement: See page

131Slide142

Visual Puzzles [2](pp. 131–134)Other Considerations Fair measure of

g

Contributes substantially to the visual spatial/fluid reasoning factor

A reliable subtest

Relatively easy to administer and scoreSlide143

Picture Span [1](pp. 134–136)Primary Working Memory subtest

Key area of measurement:

Short-term

memory

Other areas of measurement: See page

134Slide144

Picture Span [2](pp. 134–136)Other Considerations

Fair measure of

g

Contributes substantially to the working memory factor

A reliable subtest

Relatively easy to administer and scoreSlide145

Symbol Search [1](pp. 136–140)Primary Processing Speed subtestKey area of measurement:

Processing speed

Other areas of measurement: See page 136Slide146

Symbol Search [2](pp. 136–140)Other ConsiderationsPoor

measure of

g

Contributes

substantially to the processing speed

factor

A

reliable

subtest

Relatively

easy to administer and scoreSlide147

Information [1](pp. 140–142)Secondary Verbal Comprehension subtestKey area of measurement:Long-term memory for factual information

Other areas of measurement: See page 140Slide148

Information [2](pp. 140–142)Other ConsiderationsGood

measure of

g

Contributes

substantially to the verbal comprehension

factor

A

reliable

subtest

Easy

to administer and scoreSlide149

Picture Concepts [1](pp. 142–145)Secondary Fluid Reasoning subtest

Key area of measurement:

Abstract, categorical reasoning based on visual-perceptual recognition process

Other areas of measurement: See

page 142Slide150

Picture Concepts [2](pp. 142–145)Other ConsiderationsFair measure of

g

Contributes moderately to the visual spatial/fluid reasoning factor

A reliable subtest

Relatively easy to administer and scoreSlide151

Letter-Number Sequencing[1](pp. 145–147)Secondary Working Memory subtest

Key areas of measurement:

Short-term working memory

Auditory sequential processing

Other areas of measurement: See page 145Slide152

Letter-Number Sequencing[2](pp. 145–147)Other Considerations

Good

measure of

g

Contributes

substantially to the working memory

factor

A reliable subtest

Relatively

easy to administer and scoreSlide153

Cancellation [1](pp. 147–150)Secondary Working Memory subtest

Key areas of measurement:

Visual-perceptual recognition

Speed of visual processing

Other areas of measurement: See page

147Slide154

Cancellation [2](pp. 147–150)Other ConsiderationsPoorest measure of

g

Contributes

minimally to the processing speed factor

A reliable subtest

Relatively easy to administer and scoreSlide155

Naming Speed Literacy[1](pp. 150–153)Complementary subtestKey areas of measurement:

Processing speed

Naming fluency

Other areas of measurement: See page 150Slide156

Naming Speed Literacy[2](pp. 150–153)Other Considerations

Considered to be a measure of

Processing

Speed

Long-Term Storage and Retrieval

Combines

with Naming Speed Quantity to form the Naming Speed Index

A reliable subtest

Easy to administer and scoreSlide157

Naming Speed Quantity[1](pp. 153–156)Complementary subtestKey areas of measurement:

Processing speed

Naming fluency involving quantities

Other areas of measurement: See page 153Slide158

Naming Speed Quantity[2](pp. 153–156)Other Considerations

Considered to be a measure of

Processing

Speed

Long-Term Storage and Retrieval

Combines with Naming Speed Literacy to form the Naming Speed Index

A reliable subtest

Relatively easy to administer and easy to scoreSlide159

Immediate Symbol Translation [1](pp. 156–158)Complementary subtestKey area of measurement:

Short-term memory

Other areas of measurement: See page 156Slide160

Immediate Symbol Translation [2](pp. 156–158)Other Considerations

Considered to be a measure of

Long-Term Storage and

Retrieval

Short-Term

Memory

Visual Processing

A reliable subtest

Relatively easy to score, but somewhat difficult to administerSlide161

Comprehension [1](pp. 158–160)Secondary Verbal Comprehension subtestKey areas of measurement:Practical reasoning

Judgment in social situations

Other areas of measurement: See page 158Slide162

Comprehension [2](pp. 158–160)Other ConsiderationsFair measure of g

Contributes substantially to the verbal comprehension factor

A reliable subtest

Relatively easy to administer, but somewhat difficult to scoreSlide163

Arithmetic [1](pp. 160–163)Secondary Fluid Reasoning subtestKey area of measurement:Numerical reasoning

Other areas of measurement: See page 160Slide164

Arithmetic [2](pp. 160–163)Other ConsiderationsGood measure of g

Contributes moderately to the working memory factor

A highly reliable subtest

Relatively easy to administer and scoreSlide165

Delayed Symbol Translation [1](pp. 163–165)Complementary subtestKey area of measurement:

Delayed visual recall

Other areas of measurement: See pages 163–164Slide166

Delayed Symbol Translation [2](pp. 163–165)Other Considerations

Considered to be a measure of Long-Term Storage and

Retrieval

A reliable subtest

Relatively easy to administer and scoreSlide167

Recognition Symbol Translation [1](pp. 165–167)Complementary subtestKey area of measurement:

Delayed visual recall

Other areas of measurement: See page 165Slide168

Recognition Symbol Translation [2](pp. 165–167)Other Considerations

Considered to be a measure of Long-Term Storage and Retrieval

A reliable subtest

Relatively easy to administer and scoreSlide169

Reflections on Intelligence and Childhood“Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge without integrity is dangerous and dreadful.”— Samuel Johnson“Intelligence without ambition is a bird without wings.” — Salvador Dali

“You might be poor, your shoes might be broken, but your mind is a palace.”

—Frank McCourtSlide170

Chapter 4Interpreting the WISC–VSlide171

Goals & Objectives (p. 171)Chapter designed to enable you to:Describe profile analysis for the

WISC–V

Analyze

and evaluate WISC–V scores from

multiple perspectives

Develop

hypotheses about WISC–V scores

and responses

Report

WISC–V

findings

to parents and

othersSlide172

What does the WISC–IV IQ Represent? [1](not in the text)McDermott et al. (2014) reported that WISC–IV FSIQs: Are associated with the assessor’s bias (multilevel linear modeling)Sample size: N = 2,783 children evaluated by 448 regional school psychologists for possible special education placementsSlide173

What does the WISC–IV IQ Represent? [2](not in the text)Chen et al. (2016), in contrast, reported that WISC–IV FSIQs: Are valid measures of children’s intellectual abilities and are not related to the assessor’s bias (hierarchical linear modeling) Sample size: N = 2,200 in the standardization sampleThe only subtest that showed some assessor

bias was ComprehensionSlide174

What does the WISC–IV IQ Represent? [3](not in the text)Source: McDermott, P. A., Watkins, M. W., & Rhoad, A. M. (2014). Whose IQ is it? Assessor bias variance in high-stakes psychological assessment. Psychological Assessment, 26(1), 207–214. doi:10.1037/a0034832 Chen, H., Pan, T., & Zhu, J. (2016). It is the examinee’s IQ.

Psychological Assessment

. Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/pas0000298Slide175

Factors to Consider in Interpreting the WISC–V [1](p. 172)Perform a profile analysisDetermine whether the five primary index scores differ significantly from each other

Determine whether the subtest scaled scores differ significantly from each other

Obtain base rates for differences between the index scores

Obtain base rates for differences between some of the subtest scaled scoresSlide176

Factors to Consider in Interpreting the WISC–V [2](p. 172)Determine base rates for intersubtest scatter

Develop hypotheses and interpretationsSlide177

Full Scale IQ [1](p. 172)Includes measures of:Verbal comprehension

Visual

spatial reasoning

Fluid

reasoning

Working

memory

Processing

speedSlide178

Full Scale IQ [2](p. 172)Slide179

Verbal Comprehension Index [1](p. 172)Measures:

Verbal comprehension

Application

of verbal skills and information to

the solution

of new

problems

Ability

to process verbal

information

Retrieval

of information from long-term

memory

Crystallized knowledge

Conceptual reasoning ability

Language

developmentSlide180

Verbal Comprehension Index [2](p. 172)Slide181

Visual Spatial Index [1](pp. 172–173)Measures:Ability to think in visual images and manipulate them with fluency and speed

Ability to interpret or organize visually perceived material quickly

Nonverbal reasoning

Visual-perceptual discrimination

Visual spatial reasoning abilitySlide182

Visual Spatial Index [2](pp. 172–173)Slide183

Fluid Reasoning Index [1](p. 173)Measures:Fluid reasoning ability

Visual-perceptual reasoning and organization

Ability to think in visual images and manipulate them with fluency and relative speed

Ability to interpret or organize visually perceived material quickly

Nonverbal reasoning

Visual-perceptual discriminationSlide184

Fluid Reasoning Index [2](p. 173)Slide185

Working Memory Index [1](p. 173)Short-term memoryVisual processing Working memory

Memory span

Visual spatial memory

Rote memory

Immediate visual memory

Attention

Concentration

Measures:Slide186

Working Memory Index [2](p. 173)Slide187

Processing Speed Index [1](p. 173)Processing speed

Perceptual speed

Visual-motor

coordination and

dexterity

Speed

of mental

operation

Scanning ability

Psychomotor speed

Short-term

visual

memory

Visual-perceptual discrimination

Attention

Concentration

Measures:Slide188

Processing Speed Index [2](p. 173)Slide189

Ancillary Indexes (pp. 173–175)Seven Ancillary Indexes Quantitative Reasoning Index

Auditory Working Memory

Index

Nonverbal

Index

General Ability

Index

Cognitive Proficiency

Index

Verbal (Expanded Crystallized)

Index

Expanded Fluid

IndexSlide190

Quantitative Reasoning Index (p. 173)Provides additional information regarding a child’s reasoning skills, specifically those involving numeric information Slide191

Auditory Working Memory Index (p. 173)Provides additional information regarding a child’s memory skills. Slide192

Nonverbal Index (p. 174)Provides additional information about thinking abilities that do not require expressive responses and an estimate of intellectual ability, with reduced demands on verbal comprehension abilitiesSlide193

General Ability Index (p. 174)May be useful when a means of estimating intellectual ability is needed that places reduced demands on working memory and processing speedSlide194

Cognitive Proficiency Index (p. 174)May be useful when a means of estimating intellectual ability is needed that places reduced demands on verbal comprehension, visual spatial, or fluid reasoning abilitiesSlide195

Verbal (Expanded Crystallized) Index [1](p. 174)Verbal comprehensionReceptive

and expressive

language

Application

of verbal skills and information to

the solution

of new

problems

Verbal concept formation

Fund of information

Range

of

factual knowledge

Logical reasoning

Cognitive

flexibility (including the ability to shift mental

operations)

Ability

to

self-monitor

Measures:Slide196

Verbal (Expanded Crystallized) Index [2](p. 174)Subtests draw on a child’s accumulated experienceSlide197

Expanded Fluid Index [1](pp. 174–175)Perceptual reasoningAbility

to think in terms of visual images and

manipulate them

with

fluency

Cognitive

flexibility (

including the

ability to shift

mental operations)

Nonverbal ability

Mental computation

Conceptual thinking

Ability

to form abstract concepts and relationships without the use of

words

Fluid reasoning

Attention

Concentration

Ability

to

self-monitor

Measures:Slide198

Expanded Fluid Index [2](pp. 174–175)Index requires nonverbal problem-solving ability with use of previously acquired skills to solve a novel set of problemsSlide199

Complementary Indexes (p. 175)The three Complementary Indexes areNaming Speed Index

Symbol Translation

Index

Storage and

Retrieval IndexSlide200

Naming Speed Index [1](p. 175)Processing speedLong-term storage and

retrieval

Naming facility

Perceptual speed

Rate

of test

taking

Visual-perceptual discrimination

Scanning ability

Number sense

Ability

to identify size, color, letters, and

numbers

Automaticity

in visual-verbal

associations

Attention

Concentration

Measures:Slide201

Naming Speed Index [2](p. 175)Slide202

Symbol Translation Index [1] (p. 175)Long-term storage and retrieval

Short-term memory

Visual processing

Associative memory

Working memory

Visualization

Visual memory

Visual-perceptual discrimination

Learning

ability

Scanning ability

Recognition memory

Rote learning

Measures:Slide203

Symbol Translation Index [2] (p. 175)Slide204

Storage and Retrieval Index [1](p. 175)Naming facility

Processing speed

Perceptual speed

Rate

of test

taking

Visual processing

Visualization

Associative memory

Long-term

storage and

retrieval

Short-term memory

Working memory

Visual memory

Visual-perceptual discrimination

Learning ability

Measures:Slide205

Storage and Retrieval Index [2](p. 175)Scanning ability

Number sense

Ability

to identify size, color, letters, and

numbers

Automaticity

of visual-verbal

associations

Recognition memory

Retrieval speed

Immediate

and delayed visual recall

skills

Paired-associates learning

Attention

and

concentration

Measures: (

Cont.

)Slide206

Storage and Retrieval Index [3](p. 175)Slide207

Rapid Automatized Naming (RAN) [1](not in text)Review of LiteratureNorton and Wolf (2012) reviewed the literature on Rapid Automatized Naming (RAN) and reading fluency. They concluded the following: RAN provides an index of one’s abilities to integrate multiple neural processes RAN and phonological awareness are both robust early predictors of reading ability, and one or both are often impaired in people with dyslexiaSlide208

Rapid Automatized Naming (RAN) [2](not in text)Fluent reading can be conceptualized as a complex ability that depends on automaticity across all levels of cognitive and linguistic processing involved in reading, allowing the individual time and thought to be devoted to comprehensionSlide209

Rapid Automatized Naming (RAN) [3](not in text)Successful intervention depends on accurate assessment of both accuracy and speed across all levels of readingBest interventions involve multicomponential

intervention programs

that target phonology and multiple levels of language,

including: Slide210

Rapid Automatized Naming (RAN) [4](not in text)Best interventions: (Cont.)Orthography—study of letters and spelling of wordsMorphology—study of how words are formedSyntax—study

how

words are ordered to form logical, meaningful sentences

Semantics—study of the meaning and interpretation of wordsSlide211

Rapid Automatized Naming (RAN) [5](not in text)Example of ResearchWillburger et al. (2008) reported the following:Sample size: N = 267 childrenChildren with dyslexia had a deficit in rapid naming of items

Children with dyscalculia had a deficit in rapid naming of

quantities

Children

with both dyslexia and dyscalculia had deficits in both rapid naming of items and rapid naming of quantitiesSlide212

Rapid Automatized Naming (RAN) [6](not in text)Sources: Norton, E. S., & Wolf, M. (2012). Rapid Automatized Naming (RAN) and Reading Fluency: Implications for understanding and treatment of reading disabilities. Annual Review Psychology, 63, 427–452. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100431Slide213

Rapid Automatized Naming (RAN) [7](not in text)Willburger, E., Fussenegger, B., Moll, K., Wood, G., & Landerl, K. (2008). Naming speed in dyslexia and dyscalculia. Learning and Individual Differences, 18(2), 224–236. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2008.01.003Slide214

Profile Analysis [1](p. 175)Aims of Profile AnalysisTo look at a child’s unique ability pattern (including strengths and

weaknesses), going beyond the information contained

in the

FSIQ or the index

scores

To

help in formulating teaching

strategies, accommodations, and

other types of

interventionsSlide215

Profile Analysis [2](p. 175)Cannot reliably be used to arrived at a clinical or psychoeducational diagnosisResults on any one test should never be used as the sole basis for a clinical or psychoeducational diagnosisSlide216

Profile Analysis [3](p. 176)Goal of Profile AnalysisTo generate hypotheses about a child’s abilities, which then need to be verified using other scores and information about the childSlide217

Profile Analysis [4](p. 176)Relatively Large Intersubtest Variability May Indicate

Special aptitudes or weaknesses

Acquired deficits or disease processes

Temporary inefficiencies

Motivational difficulties

Vision or hearing problems

Concentration difficulties

RebelliousnessSlide218

Profile Analysis [5](pp. 176)Relatively Large Intersubtest Variability May Indicate (

Cont.

)

Learning disabilities

Particular school or home experiencesSlide219

Profile Analysis [6](p. 176)Scaled Scores13 to 19 always indicate a strength (84

th

to 99

th

percentile rank)

8 to 12

always

indicate average ability (25

th

to 75

th

percentile rank)

1 to 7

always

indicate a weakness (1

st

to 16

th

percentile rank)Slide220

Profile Analysis [7](p. 178)Base RatesDetermining the frequency with which the differences between scores occurred in the normative sample

Base rate approach

Probability-of-occurrence approachSlide221

Profile Analysis [8](pp. 179–198)Methods of Profile AnalysisCompare the primary index scores—VCI, VSI, FRI, WMI

, and PSI—with each

other

Compare

each primary index score with the mean of

the child’s

primary index scores and/or the FSIQ, using

critical values

and base

rates

Compare each primary index subtest scaled score

with the

child’s mean scaled score on the primary index

subtests (MSS-P

) and/or the FSIQ subtests (MSS-F),

using critical

values and base ratesSlide222

Profile Analysis [9](pp. 179–198)Methods of Profile Analysis (Cont.)Compare sets of individual primary and secondary

subtest scaled scores

Compare

the range of subtest scaled scores with the

base rate

found in the normative

sample

Compare

the Cancellation Random and

Cancellation Structured

process scores and other process

scoresSlide223

Profile Analysis [10](pp. 179–198)Methods of Profile Analysis (Cont.)Compare the GAI and the

CPI

Compare

the VECI and the

EFI

Compare

the NSI and the

STI

Compare

sets of individual complementary subtest

standard scoresSlide224

A Successive Level of Approach to Test Interpretation (pp. 198–200)The use of a successive-level approach to test interpretation can help you better understand a child’s performance on the WISC–V (see Figure 4-1, p. 199) by providingQuantitative and qualitative data

An analysis of both general and specific areas of intellectual functioningSlide225

Steps in Analyzing a Protocol (pp. 199–200)See pages 199–200Slide226

Estimated Percentile Ranks and Age Equivalents (p. 200)Estimated percentile ranks can be obtained for the FSIQ, index scores, and subtest scaled scoresAge equivalents cam be obtained for the total raw scores

Qualitative descriptions of the index scores and FSIQ can be found on p. 200Slide227

Profile Variability [1] (p. 201)Research StudiesIs the FSIQ valid when the index scores show extreme variability? Two research reports shed light on this questionDaniel (2007) used stimulation methodology to investigate the effect of index score “scatter” on the construct validity on the WISC–IV FSIQ

He found that the FSIQ was “equally valid at all levels of scatter, supporting the interpretability of the FSIQ in populations characterized by variable index-score profiles” (p.291)Slide228

Profile Variability [2] (p. 201)Research Studies (Cont.)Watkins, Glutting, and Lei (2007) showed that WISC–III and WISC–IV FSIQs have robust correlations with measures of reading and math, even when test profiles have at least one statistically significant difference in factor or index

scores:

82% to 85% of the 4,044 children in

study

had at least one statistically significant difference in factor or index

scoresSlide229

Profile Variability [3] (p. 201)CommentThe above studies argue against the position of Fiorello et al. (2007) and Hale et al. (2007) who contended that the WISC–IV FSIQ should not be interpreted for children with disabilities when index scores are diverseSlide230

Profile Variability [4] (p. 201)Sources:Daniel, M. H. (2007). ‘Scatter’ and the construct validity of FSIQ: Comment on Fiorello et al. (2007). Applied Neuropsychology, 14(4), 291–295.

Fiorello

, C. A., Hale, J. B.,

Holdnack

, J. A., Kavanagh, J. A., Terrell, J., & Long, L. (2007). Interpreting intelligence test results for children with disabilities: Is global intelligence relevant?

Applied Neuropsychology, 14

(1), 2–12. Slide231

Profile Variability [5] (p. 201)Sources: (Cont.)Hale, J. B., Fiorello, C. A., Kavanagh, J. A., Holdnack

, J. A., & Aloe, A. M. (2007). Is the demise of IQ interpretation justified? A response to special issue authors.

Applied Neuropsychology, 14

(1)

,

37–51

.

Watkins, M. W., Glutting, J. J., & Lei, P. W. (2007). Validity of the

Full-Scale

IQ when there is a significant variability among WISC–III and WISC–IV factor scores.

Applied Neuropsychology,

14

(1), 13–20.Slide232

Reflection on Intelligence and Childhood“It takes a long time to grow young.”—Pablo Picasso“I not only use all the brains that I have, but all I can borrow.” —Woodrow WilsonSlide233

Remembering and Forgettinghttps://youtu.be/HVWbrNls-KwSlide234

Chapter 5Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence–Fourth Edition (WPPSI–IV): DescriptionSlide235

Goals & Objectives (p. 207) Chapter designed to enable you to:Evaluate the psychometric properties of

the WPPSI–IV

Administer

the WPPSI–IV competently

and professionally

Evaluate

and select short forms of the WPPSI–IV

Choose

between the WPPSI–IV and the WISC–V

at the

overlapping agesSlide236

History of the WPPSI–IV (not in text)Revisions of the WPPSI

*

David Wechsler, the original author, died 1982.

*Slide237

WPPSI–IV Structure (pp. 208–212) See:Table 5-1 (p. 208)Figs. 5-1 and 5-2 (p. 209)

Figs. 5-3 and 5-4 (p. 210)

Fig. 5-5 (p. 211)

Fig. 5-6 (p. 212)Slide238

Standardization of WPPSI–IV (p. 213)Standardized on 1,700 children selected to represent preschool and young school-age population in the US between 2010 and 2012 (see Table 5-2, p. 213)Obtained a stratified sample using demographic characteristics of age, sex, ethnicity, geographic region, and parental education (used as a measure of socioeconomic status)Slide239

Descriptive Statistics for the WPPSI–IV (pp. 214–218)The WPPSI–IV uses:

Standard scores

(

M

= 100,

SD

= 15) for each of the primary and ancillary index scores and for the FSIQ

Scaled scores

(

M

= 10,

SD

= 3) for the 15 subtests and 2 process scoresSlide240

Reliability (pp. 214–218)Internal consistency reliabilities for subtests, process scores, and index scales:See Table 5-3 (pp. 215–216)Test-retest reliabilities for index scores and FSIQ:See Table 5-5 (pp. 217–218)

Test-retest point gains for subtests and process scores

See Table 5-6 (p. 219)Slide241

Validity [1] (pp. 218–232)Criterion validity, see Table 5-7 (pp. 220–221)Special group studies, see Table 5-8 (p. 222)Subtest and index score correlations, ages 2-6 to 3-11, see Table 5-9 (p. 223)Picture Naming, highest with FSIQ .66

Information, next highest with FSIQ .63

Receptive Vocabulary, next highest with FSIQ .61Slide242

Validity [2] (pp. 218–232)Subtest, process score, and index score correlations ages 4-0 to 7-7, see Table 5-10 (p. 224)Vocabulary, highest with FSIQ .67Information and Similarities, next highest with FSIQ .64Slide243

Description of the Factors [1](pp. 225, 228)Three factors at ages 2‑6 to 3‑11 (see Table 5-11, p. 225):

Verbal Comprehension

:

measures

verbal knowledge and

understanding obtained

through informal education and reflects the

application of

verbal skills to new

situations

Visual Spatial

:

measures the ability to interpret and organize visually

perceived material

and to generate and test hypotheses

related to

problem

solutionsSlide244

Description of the Factors [2](p. 228)Three factors at ages 2‑6 to 3‑11 (see Table 5-11, p. 225): (Cont.)

Working Memory

:

measures the ability to hold and manipulate information in the mind as well as the ability to pay attention and concentrate on tasks at

handSlide245

Description of the Factors [3](p. 228)Five factors at ages 4-0 to

7-7 (see Table 5-12, pp.226

–

228):

Verbal Comprehension

: measures verbal knowledge and understanding obtained primarily through both formal and informal education and reflects the application of verbal skills to new situations

Visual Spatial

: measures the ability to interpret and organize visually perceived material and to generate and test hypotheses related to problem solutionsSlide246

Description of the Factors [4](p. 228)Five factors at ages 4-0 to 7-7 (see Table 5-12, pp.226–228):

(

Cont.

)

Fluid Reasoning

: measures nonverbal ability, inductive reasoning ability, and the ability to analyze and solve novel problems

Working Memory

:

measures the ability to hold and manipulate information in the mind as well as the ability to pay attention and concentrate on tasks at handSlide247

Description of the Factors [5](p. 229)Five factors at ages 4-0 to 7-7 (see Table 5-12, pp.226–228):

(

Cont.

)

Processing Speed

: measures the ability to process visually perceived nonverbal information quickly, with concentration and rapid eye-hand coordination being important componentsSlide248

Subtest Loadings of .30 or Higher (p. 229)See Table 5-13 (p. 229)Ages 2-6 to 3-11, subtests differ in their loadings on the three scales at different agesAges 4-0 to 7-7, subtests differ in their loadings on the five scales at different agesSlide249

Measures of g at Ages 2-6 to 3-11 (see Table 5-14, pp. 230–231)Slide250

Measures of g at Ages 4-0 to 7-7 (see Table 5-14, pp. 230–231)Slide251

Amount of Specificity (p. 232)Nine Age Groups and Total GroupSee Table 5-15 (p. 232)Overall subtest specificity adequate

Exceptions are (inadequate)

Picture Naming at ages 7-0 to 7-7

Animal Coding at ages 5-0 to 5-5Slide252

Subtest Scaled-Score Ranges (p. 233)See Table 5-16 (p. 233)Ranges 1 to 19 for 9 subtests

Ranges 1 to 18 for 1 subtest

Variable ranges for 7 subtests

Use caution in comparing subtests and evaluating developmental changes when subtests have different rangesSlide253

Computing Index Scores and FSIQs (pp. 232–233)Follow special guidelines for ages 2-6 to 3-11 and ages 4-0 to 7-7 on p. 233Slide254

Index Score Ranges (p. 234)See Table 5-17 (p. 234)Ages 2-6 to 3-11, FSIQ extensive ranges49-160 at ages 2-6 to 2-8

46-160 at ages 2-9 to 2-11

44-160 at ages 3-0 to 3-2

40-160 at ages 3-3 to 3-11

Ages 4-0 to 7-7, FSIQ minimal ranges

40-160 at ages 4-0 to 6-7

40-159 at ages 6-8 to

7-7Slide255

Supplementary Instructions for Administration (pp. 235–237)Exhibit 5-1Study carefully the supplementary instructions for administering the WPPSI–IV

The instructions cover the following areas:

Preparing to administer the WPPSI–IV

Administering the WPPSI–V

Scoring

Record Form for ages 2-6 to 3-11 and 4-0 to 7-7

General guidelines for completing the Record Form

Miscellaneous information and suggestionsSlide256

Overall Guidelines for Test Administration [1](pp. 237–238)Use a suitable testing locationMaintain good rapport

Be flexible

Be alert to the child’s mood and needs

Be professional

Follow standard order of subtest administration

Maintain steady pace

Make smooth transitionsSlide257

Overall Guidelines for Test Administration [2](pp. 237–238)Shield your writing

Take short breaks, as needed between, not during, subtests

Praise effort

Empathize and encourage the child

Use the exact wording of the directions, questions, and items

Be sure to observe the child’s performance carefully throughout the testSlide258

Overall Guidelines for Test Administration [3](pp. 237–238)Be sure to record responses correctly using (Q) for queries(P) for prompts

(R) for repeated instructions

Score each item after the child answers so that you know when to use a reverse procedure and when to discontinue a subtestSlide259

Subtest Sequence [1](p. 238)At ages 2‑6 to 3‑11, the core subtests for the Full Scale are administered in the following order:Slide260

Subtest Sequence [2](p. 238)At ages 4‑0 to 7‑7, the core subtests for the Full Scale are administered in the following order:Slide261

Administration Issues [1](pp. 238–243)Administration and Scoring Manual provides specific guidelines for:Queries

Prompts

Repeating instructions

Repeating items

Additional help

Waiting time

Start pointSlide262

Administration Issues [2](pp. 238–243)Administration and Scoring Manual provides specific guidelines for : (Cont.)

Reverse sequence rule

Start-point scoring rule

Discontinue-point

scoring rule

Discontinue

criterion

Scoring

Perfect

scoresSlide263

Administration Issues [3](pp. 238–243)Administration and Scoring Manual provides specific guidelines for : (Cont.)Points for items not administered

Spoiled responses

Subtest substitution

ProrationSlide264

Perfect Scores (p.241)See Table 5-18 (p. 241)Perfect scores varyPay careful attention to perfect scores on each subtestPerfect scores usually are 1 or 2 points

But, on Object Assembly, perfect scores can range from 1 to 5 pointsSlide265

Subtest Substitution Guidelines (p. 242)See page 242Guidelines differ at ages 2-6 to 3-11 and at ages 4-0 to 7-7Slide266

Potential Problems in Administering the WPPSI–IV (p. 243)Study potential problems in administering the WISC–V in Chapter 2 (pp. 94–97)Make videos of your test administration

Become thoroughly familiar with the administrative and scoring guidelines

Learn from your mistakes and from other’s feedbackSlide267

Short Forms (pp. 243–244)See Tables B-6 (p. 437) and B-7 (p. 438) in Appendix B for a list of short formsSlide268

Subtest Scatter [1] (p. 245)See Table B-8 (p. 439) for ages 2-6 to 3-11 for reliable and unusual scaled-score ranges for 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 subtests For 6 subtestsReliable scaled-score range is 5Unusual scaled-score range is 8Slide269

Subtest Scatter [2] (p. 245)See Table B-9 (pp 440–441) for ages 4-0 to 7-7 for reliable and unusual scaled-score ranges for 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 10 subtestsFor 6 subtestsReliable scaled-score range is 5Unusual scaled-score range is

9Slide270

Choosing Between the WPPSI–IV and the WISC–V [1](p. 245)The WPPSI–IV, because of its lower floor, should be used with three specific groups of children 6‑0 to 7‑7 years of age:

Children who may have below-average cognitive ability

Children who are English language learners

Children with language handicapsSlide271

Choosing Between the WPPSI–IV and the WISC–V [2](p. 245)The WISC–V, because of its higher ceiling, should be used with children 6‑0 to 7‑7 years of age who, based on clinical judgment, are suspected to have above-average cognitive ability

Either the WPPSI–IV or the WISC–V can be used with children 6‑0 to 7‑7 years of age who, based on clinical judgment, are suspected to have average cognitive abilitySlide272

Administering the WPPSI–IV toChildren with Disabilities (pp. 245–246)See Chapter 1 for general suggestions for administering tests to children with special needs

Prior to making any modifications, evaluate the sensory-motor abilities of children with special needs

Closely examine how suitable the subtests are for a child with special needsSlide273

Strengths of WPPSI–IV (pp. 246–247)Excellent standardization

Good overall psychometric properties

Useful diagnostic information

Inclusion of process scores

Good administration procedures

Good manuals and interesting test materials

Helpful scoring criteria

Usefulness for children with some disabilitiesSlide274

Limitations of WPPSI–IV [1](p. 247)Limited breadth of coverage of the FSIQFailure to provide conversion tables

Failure to provide a psychometric basis for requiring a certain number raw scores of 1 in order to compute FSIQ

Limited range of score for children who are extremely low or high functioning

Variable ranges of subtest scaled scores at ages 4‑0 to 7‑7

Limited criterion validity studiesSlide275

Limitations of WPPSI–IV [2](p. 247)Possible difficulties in scoring responses

Somewhat large practice effects

Occasional confusing guidelinesSlide276

Reflection on Intelligence and Childhood“Just think of the tragedy of teaching children not to doubt.”― Clarence DarrowSlide277

Chapter 6WPPSI–IV SubtestsSlide278

Goals & Objectives (p. 253)Chapter designed to enable you to:Critically evaluate the 15 WPPSI–IV

core, supplemental,

and optional

subtests

Understand

the

rationales,

factor

analytic findings, reliability

and correlational

highlights, and administration

and interpretive considerations

for the

15 WPPSI–IV subtestsSlide279

Skills Needed to be successful on the WPPSI–IV (p. 254)A

child must be able

to:

Some

subtests also require motor

skills

Although several subtests have time

limits,

none provide additional points for

speedSlide280

Scoring WPPSI–IV Items (p. 254)Important considerations in scoring:

Score each item as it is administered

Do not to discontinue administering a subtest prematurely

This is particularly important when you are unsure how to score a response immediately

Better to administer more items in a subtest, even though some may not be counted in the final score

You do not want to short-change the child by discontinuing the subtest too soonSlide281

Evaluating and Interpreting a Child’s Performance [1](p. 254)Consider:

Child’s scores and responses

Quality of child’s responses

Child’s response style, motivation, and effort

How child handles frustration

Child’s problem-solving approach

Child’s fine-motor skills

Child’s pattern of successes and failuresSlide282

Evaluating and Interpreting a Child’s Performance [2](p. 254)Consider: (Cont.)

How child handles test materials

How child handles tasks of each subtest

Responding to difficult items

Responding to time limitsSlide283

Block Design [1](pp. 254–259)Core Visual Spatial subtest at all ages of the testRequires reproducing designs with colored blocksKey areas of measurement:

Nonverbal reasoning

Visual-spatial organization

Other areas of measurement: See page 255Slide284

Block Design [2](pp. 254–259)Other ConsiderationsFair measure of

g

Contributes moderately to the visual spatial factor

A reliable subtest

Somewhat difficult to administer and

scoreSlide285

Information [1](pp. 259–262)Core Verbal Comprehension subtest at all agesRequires answering questions about different topics, such as body parts, uses of common objects, and calendar information.Key area of measurement:

Long-term memory for factual information

Other areas of measurement: See pages 259–260Slide286

Information [2](pp. 259–262)Other ConsiderationsGood measure of g

Contributes substantially to the verbal comprehension factor

A reliable subtest

Easy to administer and scoreSlide287

Matrix Reasoning [1](pp. 262–264)Core Fluid Reasoning subtest for ages 4-0 to 7-7 Not administered at ages 2-6 to 3-11Key area of measurement:

Visual-perceptual analogic reasoning ability without a speed component

Other areas of measurement: See page 262Slide288

Matrix Reasoning [2](pp. 262–264)Other ConsiderationsFair measure of

g

Contributes minimally to the fluid reasoning factor

A highly reliable subtest

Relatively easy to administer and scoreSlide289

Bug Search [1](pp. 264–266)Core Processing Speed subtest for ages 4-0 to 7-7 Not administered at ages 2-6 to 3-11Key area of measurement:

Visual-perceptual discrimination and scanning

Other areas of measurement: See page 264Slide290

Bug Search [2](pp. 264–266)Other ConsiderationsFair measure of g

Contributes substantially to the processing speed factor

A reliable subtest

Relatively easy to administer and to scoreSlide291

Picture Memory [1](pp. 266–268)Core Working Memory subtest at all agesRequires identifying one or more previously shown objectsKey area of measurement:

Visual short-term memory

Other areas of measurement: See page 267Slide292

Picture Memory [2](pp. 266–268)Other ConsiderationsFair measure of g

Contributes either minimally (at ages 2-6 to 3-11) or moderately (at ages 4-0 to 7-7) to the working memory factor

A highly reliable subtest

Easy to administer and scoreSlide293

Similarities [1](pp. 268–271)Core Verbal Comprehension subtest for ages 4-0 to 7-7Not administered at ages 2-6 to 3-11Key area of measurement:

Verbal concept formation

Other areas of measurement: See page 269Slide294

Similarities [2](pp. 268–271)Other ConsiderationsGood measure of

g

Contributes substantially to the verbal comprehension factor

A reliable subtest

Relatively easy to administer, but some responses may be difficult to scoreSlide295

Picture Concepts [1](pp. 271–274)Supplemental Fluid Reasoning subtest for ages 4-0 to 7-7Not administered at ages 2-6 to 3-11Key area of measurement:

Abstract, categorical reasoning based on visual-perceptual recognition processes

Other areas of measurement: See page 272Slide296

Picture Concepts [2](pp. 271–274)Other ConsiderationsFair measure of g

Contributes moderately to the visual spatial factor

A reliable subtest

Relatively easy to administer and scoreSlide297

Cancellation [1](pp. 274–276)Supplemental Processing Speed subtest for ages 4-0 to 7-7Not administered at ages 2-6 to 3-11Key areas of measurement:

Visual-perceptual recognition

Speed of visual processing

Other areas of measurement: See page 274Slide298

Cancellation [2](pp. 274–276)Other ConsiderationsFair (but the poorest) measure of g

Contributes substantially to the processing speed factor

A reliable subtest

Relatively easy to administer and scoreSlide299

Zoo Locations [1](pp. 276–278)Supplemental Working Memory subtest for all ages of the test Key area of measurement:Short-term visual memory

Other areas of measurement: See page 276Slide300

Zoo Locations [2](pp. 276–278)Other ConsiderationsFair measure of g

Contributes substantially to the working memory factor

A reliable subtest

Somewhat difficult to administer but relatively easy to scoreSlide301

Object Assembly [1](pp. 278–281)Core Visual Spatial subtest for ages 2-6 to 3-11 Supplemental

subtest for ages 4-0 to 7-7

Requires

assembling puzzle pieces to form common objects

Key area of measurement:

Visual-perceptual

organization

Other areas of measurement: See

page278Slide302

Object Assembly [2](pp. 278–281)Other ConsiderationsFair measure of g

Contributes either substantially (at ages 2-6 to 3-11) or moderately (at ages 4-0 to 7-7) to the visual spatial factor

A reliable subtest

Somewhat difficult to administer and scoreSlide303

Vocabulary [1](pp. 281–284)Optional subtest for ages 4-0 to 7-7Not administered at children ages 2-6 to 3-11Key area of measurement:Knowledge of words

Other areas of measurement: See page 281Slide304

Vocabulary [2](pp. 281–284)Other ConsiderationsGood measure of g

Contributes substantially to the verbal comprehension factor

A reliable subtest

Relatively easy to administer but some responses may be difficult to scoreSlide305

Animal Coding [1](pp. 284–286)Optional subtest for ages 4-0 to 7-7Not administered at

ages 2-6 to 3-11

Key area of measurement:

Ability to learn an unfamiliar task involving speed of mental operation and psychomotor

speed

Other areas of measurement: See

page 284Slide306

Animal Coding [2](pp. 284–286)Other ConsiderationsFair measure of g

Contributes substantially to the processing speed factor

A reliable subtest

Relatively easy to administer and scoreSlide307

Comprehension [1](pp. 286–288)Optional subtest for ages 4-0 to 7-7Not administered at ages 2-6 to 3-11

Key area of measurement:

Practical social reasoning and

judgment in social situations

Other areas of measurement: See

page 286Slide308

Comprehension [2](pp. 286–288)Other ConsiderationsGood measure of g

Contributes substantially to the verbal comprehension factor

A highly reliable subtest

Relatively easy to

administer but

somewhat difficult to

scoreSlide309

Receptive Vocabulary [1](pp. 289–291)Core Verbal Comprehension subtest for ages 2-6 to 3-11Optional subtest for ages 4-0 to 7-7Key area of measurement:Word knowledge

Other areas of measurement: See page 289Slide310

Receptive Vocabulary [2](pp. 289–291)Other ConsiderationsGood measure of g

Contributes either substantially (at ages 2-6 to 3-11) or moderately (at ages 4-0 to 7-7) to the verbal comprehension factor

A highly reliable subtest

Easy to administer and scoreSlide311

Picture Naming [1](pp. 291–293)Supplemental subtest at all agesKey area of measurement:

Knowledge of

words

Other areas of measurement: See

page 291Slide312

Picture Naming [2](pp. 291–293)Other ConsiderationsGood measure of g

Contributes substantially to the verbal comprehension factor

A reliable subtest

Easy to administer and scoreSlide313

Reflection on Intelligence and Childhood“The soul is healed by being with children.” —Fyodor DostoyevskySlide314

Chapter 7Interpreting the WPPSI–IVSlide315

Goals & Objectives (p. 297)Chapter designed to enable you to:Describe profile analysis for the

WPPSI

–

IV

Analyze

and evaluate

WPPSI

–

IV

scores from

multiple perspectives

Develop

hypotheses about

WPPSI

–

IV

scores

and responses

Report WPPSI

–

IV findings

to parents and

othersSlide316

Steps in Interpreting the WPPSI–IV [1](p. 298)Perform a profile analysis

Determine whether the three primary index scores at ages 2-6 to 3-11

or

the five primary index scores at ages 4-0 to 7-7 differ significantly from each other

Determine whether the subtest scaled scores differ significantly from each other

Obtain base rates for differences between the index scores

Obtain base rates for differences between some of the subtest scaled scoresSlide317

Steps in Interpreting the WPPSI–IV [2](p. 298)Determine base rates for intersubtest scatter

Develop hypotheses and interpretationsSlide318

Full Scale IQ [1](p. 298)At ages 2-6 to 3-11, it includes measures of:Verbal comprehension

Visual spatial reasoning

Working memory

At ages 4-0 to 7-7, it includes measures of:

Verbal comprehension

Visual spatial reasoning

Fluid reasoning

Working memory

Processing speedSlide319

Full Scale IQ [2](p. 298)Slide320

Full Scale IQ [3](p. 298)Slide321

Verbal Comprehension Index [1](p. 298)Measures:

Verbal comprehension

Application of verbal skills and information to the solution of new problems

Ability to process verbal information

Retrieval of information from long-term memory

Crystallized knowledge

Conceptual reasoning ability

Language

developmentSlide322

Verbal Comprehension Index [2](p. 298)Slide323

Verbal Comprehension Index [3](p. 298)Slide324

Visual Spatial Index [1](p. 298)Measures:

Ability to think in visual images and manipulate them with fluency and speed

Ability to interpret or organize visually perceived material quickly

Nonverbal reasoning

Visual-perceptual discrimination

Visual spatial reasoning abilitySlide325

Visual Spatial Index [2](p. 298)Slide326

Fluid Reasoning Index [1](p. 299)Measures:Fluid reasoning ability

Visual-perceptual reasoning and organization

Ability to think in visual images and manipulate them with fluency and relative speed

Ability to interpret or organize visually perceived material quickly

Nonverbal reasoning

Visual-perceptual

discriminationSlide327

Fluid Reasoning Index [2](p. 299)Slide328

Working Memory Index [1](p. 299)Measures:Short-term memory

Visual processing

Working memory

Memory span

Visual spatial memory

Rote memory

Immediate visual memory

Attention

ConcentrationSlide329

Working Memory Index [2](p. 299)Slide330

Processing Speed Index [1](p. 299)Measures:Processing speed

Perceptual speed

Visual-motor coordination and dexterity

Speed of mental operation

Scanning ability

Psychomotor speed

Short-term visual memory

Visual-perceptual discrimination

Attention and concentrationSlide331

Processing Speed Index [2](p. 299)Slide332

Vocabulary Acquisition Index [1](p. 299)Measures:

Crystallized knowledge

Language development

Word knowledge

Verbal comprehension

Fund of information

Long-term memory

Perception of meaningful stimuli

Visual memory

Receptive and expressive languageSlide333

Vocabulary Acquisition Index [2](p. 299)Slide334

Nonverbal Index [1](pp. 299–300)Measures:

Fluid reasoning ability

Visual processing

Processing speed

Short-term memory

Visual-perceptual analogic reasoning

Speed of mental operation

Symbol-associative skills

Analysis and synthesis

Scanning ability Slide335

Nonverbal Index [2](pp. 299–300)Measures: (Cont.)

Attention

ConcentrationSlide336

Nonverbal Index [3](pp. 299–300)Slide337

Nonverbal Index [4](pp. 299–300)Slide338

General Ability Index [1](p. 300)Measures:Crystallized knowledge

Fluid reasoning ability

Visual processing

Language development

Lexical knowledge

Visualization

Induction

Verbal concept formationSlide339

General Ability Index [2](p. 300)Measures: (Cont.)

Nonverbal reasoning

Visual-perceptual discrimination

Attention

ConcentrationSlide340

General Ability Index [3](p. 300)Slide341

General Ability Index [4](p. 300)Slide342

Cognitive Proficiency Index [1](p. 300)Measures:

Short-term memory

Processing speed

Visual processing

Working memory

Memory span

Visualization

Visual memory

Visual-perceptual discrimination

Speed of mental processingSlide343

Cognitive Proficiency Index [2](p. 300)Measures: (Cont.)

Scanning ability

Attention

ConcentrationSlide344

Cognitive Proficiency Index [3](p. 300)Slide345

Profile Analysis [1](pp. 300–301)Aims of Profile AnalysisTo look at a child’s unique ability pattern (including strengths and

weaknesses), going beyond the information contained

in the

FSIQ or the index

scores

To

help in formulating teaching

strategies, accommodations, and

other types of

interventionsSlide346

Profile Analysis [2](p. 300)Cannot reliably be used to arrived at a clinical or psychoeducational diagnosisResults on any one test should never be used as the sole basis for a clinical or psychoeducational diagnosisSlide347

Profile Analysis [3](p. 301)Goal of Profile AnalysisTo generate hypotheses about a child’s abilities, which then need to be verified using other scores and information about the childSlide348

Profile Analysis [4](p. 301)Relatively Large Intersubtest VariabilitySpecial aptitudes or weaknesses

Acquired deficits or disease processes

Temporary inefficiencies

Motivational difficulties

Vision or hearing problems

Concentration difficulties

RebelliousnessSlide349

Profile Analysis [5](p. 301)Relatively Large Intersubtest Variability (Cont.)

Learning disabilities

Particular school or home experiencesSlide350

Profile Analysis [6](p. 301)Scaled Scores13 to 19 always indicate a strength (84

th

to 99

th

percentile rank)

8 to 12

always

indicate average ability (25

th

to 75

th

percentile rank)

1 to 7

always

indicate a weakness (1

st

to 16

th

percentile rank)Slide351

Profile Analysis [7](p. 303)Base RatesDetermining the frequency with which the differences between scores occurred in the normative sample

Base rate approach

Probability-of-occurrence approachSlide352

Profile Analysis [8](pp. 303–318)Methods of Profile AnalysisCompare the primary index scores—VCI, VSI, FRI, WMI

, and PSI—with each

other

Compare

each primary index score with the mean of

the child’s

primary index scores and/or the FSIQ, using

critical values

and base

rates

Compare each primary index subtest scaled score

with the

child’s mean scaled score on the primary index

subtests and/or

the FSIQ

subtests, using critical

values and base ratesSlide353

Profile Analysis [9](pp. 303–318)Methods of Profile Analysis (Cont.)Compare sets of individual

subtest scaled scores

Compare

the range of subtest scaled scores with the

base rate

found in the normative

sample

Compare

the Cancellation Random and

Cancellation Structured

process

scores

Compare the GAI and the CPISlide354

A Successive Level Of Approach To Test Interpretation (pp. 319–320)Slide355

Reflection on Intelligence and Childhood“There is in every child at every stage a new miracle of vigorous unfolding.” — Erik Erikson Slide356

Chapter 8 Report Writing Slide357

Goals & Objectives (p. 325) Chapter designed to enable you to: Understand the purposes of a psychological report

Understand the sections of a psychological report

Develop appropriate skills for communicating findings and making recommendations in a report

Write a psychological report Slide358

Potential Sources of Report Information [1](p. 326)Psychological testsInterviews with the child, his or her parents, teachers, and othersQuestionnaires and rating forms completed by a parent, teacher, and/or evaluator

Self-monitoring forms completed by the child

Systematic behavioral observations

School records

Prior psychological or psychiatric reportsSlide359

Potential Sources of Report Information [2](p. 326)Medical reportsOther relevant sources Slide360

Qualities of a Good Report (p. 326)A report should be:Well organized

Objective

Unbiased

B

ased upon all of the assessment data you gatheredSlide361

Purposes of a Report [1](pp. 326–331)To provide accurate and understandable assessment-related information to the referral source and othersTo serve as a basis for clinical hypotheses, appropriate interventions, and information for program evaluation and researchSlide362

Purposes of a Report [2](pp. 326–331)To furnish meaningful baseline information For evaluating the child’s progress after interventions have been implemented

For changes in the child that have occurred over time

To serve as a legal documentSlide363

Formulating the Report [1](p. 331)Four considerations:Who will be the primary audiences for the report?

After reading the report, what new understanding will the readers have?

What new action will the readers take?

C

onsider the circumstances under which the assessment took placeSlide364

Formulating the Report [2](p. 331)Four considerations: (Cont.)Include examples to illustrate or document selected statements you make in the report

Make your recommendations with an appreciation of the needs and values of the child, the family, and the extended family; the family’s resources; the child’s ethnic and cultural group; the school; and the communitySlide365

Other Considerations (p. 331)Subjective Elements in the ReportAlthough you should strive for objectivity and accuracy in writing a report, remember that no report can be completely objectiveEvery report has elements of subjectivityPromptness in Writing the Report

Write the report as soon as possible after you complete the assessment to ensure that you record all important details and do not forget anySlide366

Sections of a Report (pp. 332–339)Report TitleIdentifying Information Assessment Instruments

Reason for Referral

Background Information

Observations During Assessment

Assessment Results

Clinical Impressions

Recommendations

Summary

Signature Slide367

22 Principles of Report Writing [1](pp. 339–364)The 22 principles cover:How to organize, interpret, and present the assessment findings

Exercises are included to help you apply some of the principlesSlide368

22 Principles of Report Writing [2](pp. 339–364)Slide369

22 Principles of Report Writing [3](pp. 339–364)Slide370

22 Principles of Report Writing [4](pp. 339–364)Slide371

22 Principles of Report Writing [5](pp. 339–364)Slide372

22 Principles of Report Writing [6](pp. 339–364)Slide373

22 Principles of Report Writing [7](pp. 339–364)Slide374

22 Principles of Report Writing [8](pp. 339–364)Slide375

22 Principles of Report Writing [9](pp. 339–364)Slide376

22 Principles of Report Writing [10](pp. 339–364)Slide377

22 Principles of Report Writing [11](pp. 339–364)Slide378

22 Principles of Report Writing [12](pp. 339–364)Slide379

Checklist (p. 363)See Table 8-3 (p. 363) for a checklist for evaluating accuracy, quality, and completeness of the first draft of your assessment report Slide380

A Good Report (p. 364)Is understandable and interesting to readPresents information in a logical mannerInterprets test results accurately and explains them clearly Answers specific referral questions

Provides recommendations that are realistic and feasible

Provides a useful summary

Is concise yet thoroughSlide381

Reflections on Intelligence and Childhood“You might be poor, your shoes might be broken, but your mind is a palace.” —Frank McCourtSlide382

Reflections on DevelopmentThe Little Boy and the Old ManSaid the little boy, "Sometimes I drop my spoon."Said the old man, "I do that too."The little boy whispered, "I wet my pants."I do that too," laughed the little old man.Said the little boy, "I often cry."The old man nodded, "So do I."But worst of all," said the boy, "it seems

Grown-ups don't pay attention to me."

And he felt the warmth of a wrinkled old hand.

I know what you mean," said the little old man.”

―

Shel Silverstein