running head: non-verbal assessment of...

Non-Verbal Assessment 1

Running Head: NON-VERBAL ASSESSMENT OF INTELLIGENCE

Non-Verbal Assessment of Intelligence:

A Review of Information Learned Through the Administration of Three Non-Verbal Cognitive

Assessments

Sarah Pemble

EdPsy 533

Washington State University

April 13, 2009


Abstract

Three non-verbal cognitive assessments were administered to establish familiarity with non-

verbal cognitive assessment. The Test of Non-verbal Intelligence 3rd Edition (TONI), Kaufman

Assessment Battery for Children 2nd Edition (KABC-II), and the Differential Ability Scales

(DAS) administered. One student was administered all three tests at different times. At the time

of testing, the student was 17 years and 6 months old. The student is male and he identifies

himself as African American. He was given a $25 gift card for participating. Data analysis

indicates invalid test results due to administration error.

The purpose of this assignment is to communicate the valuable information that was learned

though the administration of the KABC-II, TONI-3, and the DAS. This will specifically be

addressed in sections detailing (a) an introduction to non-verbal assessment, (b) psychometrics,

(c) administration, and (d) teacher and student value.


Non-Verbal Assessment of Intelligence

Non-verbal assessment of intelligence measures a person’s capacity to act purposefully,

to think rationally, and to deal effectively with the environment. Non-verbal assessment does not

refer to a person’s non –verbal intelligence, rather it refers to the type of items administered on a

test. Intelligence tests with verbal and non-verbal content measures the same domains of general

ability as tests that are solely non-verbal. Generally, non-verbal assessments measures a student’s

ability to recognize underlying rules and relationship, ability to remember details, ability to see

and reproduce conceptual patterns, reasoning skills, and complete sequences. Non-verbal tests

deemphasize the role of reading, and minimize language (but is not necessarily eliminated).

Language –free tests (to be distinguished from non-verbal tests) are administered in pantomime

or gesture and requires no language capacity. Aside from the KABC-II, TONI-3, and the DAS

other non-verbal intelligence tests include the Unit, Leiter International Performance Scales,

Comprehensive Test of Non-verbal Intelligence (CTON), and Wechsler Intelligence Scale for

Children (WISC) perceptual organization subtests.

Non-verbal assessments may be appropriate measures if the person is speech or hearing

disabled, an English Language Learner (ELL), illiterate, or when teachers suspect a non-verbal

learning disorder. Other tests or activities that are loaded with spoken or written language tasks

could be helpful in estimating the potential of students who are nonverbal, illiterate, or non-

English speaking.

The use of non-verbal cognitive testing has two major criticisms (known to this author).

Verbal and communication skills are central to overall intelligence, and non-verbal intelligence

testing inadequately asses these qualities. Secondly, non-verbal cognitive assessment

inadequately asses the student’s use of verbal mediation to problem solve.


The main three theories of non-verbal intelligence include Spearman’s “G” and “S” two

factor theory, Cattell’s fluid and crystallized measures, and Thurstone’s primary mental abilities.

Spearmans’s “G” and “S” two factor theory was developed in 1927. The “G” factor refers to a

general intelligence factor common to all tests and a specific factor that is distinctive in each test.

Therefore, the general ability factor will determine how well each student does on any particular

assessment. In addition to the general “G” factor, the “S” or specific factor is unique to each test

that will also influence the overall assessment outcomes. These two factors equate the

intelligence.

Thurstone’s primary mental abilities was developed in 1941 and examines verbal abilities

such as word relations/vocabulary, number abilities including accuracy and speed, spatial

abilities, word fluency through the use of rapid recall of words, memory abilities, and reasoning

abilities. These domains comprise intellectual behavior. These domains have also been identified

as real world tasks.

Lastly, Raymond Cattells’ fluid verses crystallized intelligence was developed in 1963.

Fluid intelligence represents a person’s ability to problem solve, to make meaning out of chaos,

to draw inferences, and the ability to understand complex and dynamic relationships. Fluid

intelligence does not rely on acquired knowledge. Crystallized intelligence is the ability to

integrate prior knowledge, experience and skill into a novel situation. It is not necessarily

equivalent to knowledge; however the long term memory is an important constituent.

DAS II

The Differential Ability Scales was originally developed from the British Ability Scales

in 1990. The DAS II was released in 2007. The DAS is a very complicated test to administer


and score. There are 20 subtests in total; 17 cognitive tests and 3 achievement measures yields an

overall cognitive and achievement scores. Research indicates that the DAS is valid for children

two years and six month old through seventeen years and eleven months old. The General

Conceptual Ability (GCA) is the general ability of an individual to perform complex mental

processing that involves conceptualization and the transformation of information. The DAS also

provides cluster or composite scores. The Figure 1 bellow diagrams the subtests and the general

process to achieve the GCA.

Figure 1

Psychometrics

Reliability. The DAS was standardize between 1986 and 1989. A total of 3, 475 students

participated. The sample was stratified by age, sex, geographic location, special education,

enrollment, across race-ethnicity, and parent education levels. The 1988 census was used to


create a representing sample. Interestingly however, the demographics used in this study no

longer accurately represent the 2009 US census.

In reference to internal reliability, a coefficient alpha of .89 and .90 for Preschool Non-

verbal Ability and School-age Non-verbal Reasoning Ability was established, and coefficient

alpha of .92 for the Spatial Ability Scores. Some subtests at some ages do not have sufficient

reliability for individual interpretation, most notably the Recognition of Pictures subtest for out

of level testing (7 and older) and the alternate (untimed) Pattern Construction subtest (12 and

older).

In reference to Test-retest reliability, there were significant practice-effects in the Non-

verbal Subtest. Students were retaining and learning information from the test, and their scores

improved. Measures of the Verbal Ability were more stable with fewer practice effects.

Validity. In reference to construct validity, the DAS Verbal, Nonverbal, and GCA scores

were generally lower than the WPPSI-R Verbal, Performance, and Full Scales. In addition, the

DAS Non-verbal Reasoning Score correlated higher with the WISC-R Verbal, than with the

Performance. The DAS Spatial cluster correlated highest with the WISC-R.

Administration

The DAS is a complicated and integrative system of subtests and scoring procedures. The

DAS requires much preparation prior to professional administration. The experienced tester will

likely need the manual during administration for scoring purposes. The scoring is somewhat

subjective on some of the subtests, and the accuracy of the results will largely depend on

administrator’s competencies. Like many other tests, there is a basal and discontinue rule.

However, unlike other tests, there is no uniform start or end point. An administrator can test out

of age. For example, the administrator believes that the starting items are too simple, he or she


can move the student to the next starting point (and the reverse is true as well). All subtest

include teaching items. The test took much longer than anticipated and this is likely due to the

fact that this tester was simply unfamiliar with the DAS administration. Item by item

administration and scoring was the most time consuming and relied more on professional

judgment.

Value

The DAS presents with several strengths. The DAS separates verbal ability, non-verbal

reasoning, and spatial ability into cluster scores for a meaningful interpretation for the student

and teachers. Out of level testing may be attractive when testing children with disabilities. The

diagnostic subtests prove useful when exploring a student’s strengths and challenges. The

accompanying manual is comprehensive and complete, proven to be a necessity for proper

administration of the DAS. The manual is especially useful when planning the appropriate

assessment of a student. The DAS is very elaborate, and it yields a wealth of information. The

DAS has been proven to be the most reliable non-verbal assessment. Although the DAS is

complicated to administer, my student seemed to enjoy this test more than any other.

Aside from the strengths, the DAS has several apparent weaknesses. It presents as

confusing for the new school psychologist. Much practice is needed to be competent in

administering and scoring this assessment. If timed procedures are not used, the reliability

decreases. The start and stop points are confusing, and rely on administrator judgment.

I incorrectly administered the DAS. I missed an entire sub test, which proved to be a

good learning experience. During administration, I relied heavility on the manual, which proved

to be time consuming and I imagine as I gain familiarity with the DAS the assessment process

with go much smoother.


KABC-II

The KABC-II was published in 2004. It’s dual theoretical foundation is based on the

Luria neurological model and, the Cattell- Horn-Carroll (CHC) model. The CHC model is

designed for students from an industrialized, mainstream culture and language background and

thus relies on a student’s crystallized ability. When testing from the CHC model, the KABC-II

includes all the scales in the Luria model, but they are scored differently. The Knowledge/Gc

Scale is exclusive to the CHC model. The global scores produces the Fluid-Crystallized Index

(FCI).

The Luria model is designed for the student where his/her crystallized ability is not the

best indicator of cognitive ability and therefore excludes verbal components. For example, use

the Luria model when the student has a bilingual background, whose cultural background may

affect knowledge or verbal development, or when there is a suspected language disorder or

hearing impairment. When working from the Luria model, the KABC-II measures learning,

sequential, and simultaneous processing and planning abilities and, deemphasizes acquired

knowledge. The Luria model yields a global score called the Mental Processing Index (MPI).

The KABC-II is designed for students ages three to eighteen years old. There are 18

subtest, and about 12 core subtest (depends on model selected and age of student). The non-

verbal subtests include face recognition, story completion, triangles, pattern reasoning, hand

movements, and conceptual thinking.

Psychometrics


The KABC-II standardization process occurred between September 2001 and January

2003. A total of 3,025 students between the ages of two and eighteen participated.

Approximately 125-200 students are represented for every age group. Testing occurred at 127

sites, and in 39 states. The participants in the study matched the 2001 US census pertaining to

gender, ethnic group, parental education, geographic region, special-education and gifted

placement.

Reliability. The KABC-II demonstrates good reliability. Subtest reliability coefficients

are .80 to .90. Global/individual scales are .81 to .97 but, coefficients for the non-verbal are the

lowest at .90. The stability of the subtests coefficients are .50 to .92. Younger girls scored better

then boys on all scales except knowledge. Parent education proved to be an important predictor

for all pre-school and knowledge on scales for school age.

Validity. The KABC-II demonstrates strong construct validity on the global scales. The

KABC-II correlated with the Wechsler with a full scale of 97.3. The full IQ correlation with the

WISC and FCI/MPA is .89 and .88. Subscale and index scores correlation are present with IQ

scores on the WISC-III, WISC-IV, WPPSI-III, and KAIT.

Administration

Administration of the KABC-II is much simpler than the DAS. The KABC-II is

individually administered. The time it takes to administer the test depends on the model

administered. The Luria core battery takes between 25-55 minutes, and the CHC core battery

takes about 35-70 minutes to administer. The scoring method will depend on the model chosen,

either the Luria Model or the CHC Model. The non-verbal subtests are administered in

pantomime and responded to motorically.


Value

The KABC-II identifies a student’s cognitive strengths and weaknesses, and provides

useful information to better understand how he/she receives and processes information. Out of

level administration is optional and requires administrator judgment. Bi-lingual

(Spanish/English) non-verbal scales includes an easel in Spanish translations for teaching and

score interpretation. Administrator can record observations about test-taking behaviors for

example, fails to sustain attention, reluctant to respond when uncertain, unusually focused,

worries about time limit, and verbalizes story ideas. The CHC model is recommended for gifted

students, a definite bonus. The KABC-II boasts of exceptional fairness. The subtests are

designed to be culturally sensitive and this is achieved through minimal verbal instruction and

responses. The KABC-II claims to contain little cultural content. The KABC-II has a dual

theoretical model designed to provide the school psychologist with options.

TONI-3

Value

The teacher and student need to understand test results in a way that makes sense and

directly applies to the student’s ability to learn. Simply restating test scores will most likely be a

waste of time as the teacher and certainly the student will not be able to translate that information

into the classroom. For example, Jonny’s raw score of 22 was converted to a quotient of 98 and


to a percentile rank of 45 which indicates that he is performing in the average range when

compared with other students who took the test.

The following image is an item from the TONI-3. This is item number 45 from Form A

and it is the most complex item. A student must see the patterns formed by the shapes organized

in to groups, rotated, and then choose an answer that completes the pattern. In this example, the

student has to understand that the shapes form a pattern throughout the two-by-two matrix.

The same basic intellectual activity required to solve this problem can be generalized to

many academic tasks, regardless of content. For example, understanding a written paragraph

requires a student to understand how various pieces of information are connected. Building

phonemic awareness often involves seeing patterns in a sequence of letters. Geometry requires

the student to recognize the patterns and relationships among concepts and numbers.


Because a nonverbal tests measures basic and novel ways of thinking, it helps teachers

and school psychologist have a better appreciation of their ability and academic potential.

Additionally, because the test items do not require language, the assessment’s cultural loading is

minimal (or at least significantly reduced) when compared to the verbal counterpart. Other test or

activities that are loaded with spoken or written language tasks could be helpful in estimating the

potential of students who are nonverbal, illiterate, or non-English speaking. However, test

administrators should be cautious and consider a language deviance rather than intellectual

deviance when a student’s profile is characterized by normal or above average on non-verbal

measures combined with sub-average performance on language-loaded measures.

running head: non-verbal assessment of...

Documents