exam 2

• a. intelligence tests; broad range of
• abilities, supposed to tap into capacity, or potential.

• Test: measures
• segments of ability.; still capacity, but in narrowly defined areas,
• sometimes ability and aptitude are used interchangeably.

• a. current level of skill or functioning; measures
• learned info. And abilities.

• i. A
• definition of a concept in terms of the way it is measured, such as,
• intelligence is “what the tests test”

• i. A
• definition that seeks to tell us the true nature of the thing being defined.

• a. Capacity
• to learn from experience

• b. Capacity
• to adapt to the environment

• a.
• Developed the two factor theory of intelligence (g & s factors) general
• intelligence + Specific factors.

• i. General
• Ability (G) required for all mental tests of ability.

• ii. Specific
• Factors (s): special Abilities required for performance on just one.

• first Multi-factor
• approach to assessment of intelligence. Said there are 7 broad factors of
• intelligence.

tests to assess army recruits during WWI.

• Standford-Binet Test. Developed a
• test to included verbal and non-verbal measures. Most used test in adults and
• children.

• a.
• G factor could be further divided: gf
• (fluid
• intelligence. Aptitude, may
• involve drawing inferences, forming concepts, generating and testing hypo.,
• understanding implications, inductive reasoning, and deductive reasoning. .
• nonverbal and heavey depondent on exposure to specific culture.); gc (crystallized
• intelligence. Achievement, solve/learn problems, depended
• upon your culture and life experiences). Developed
• and IQ test that attempted to assess only fluid analytical reasoning skills,
• Cattell Culture Fair intelligence test.

• a.
• Structure
• of the intellect model, expanded thurstone’s theory. 150 factors of
• intelligence falling into categories of contents, products and operations.

• disagreed with Spearman’s G’. prposed idea of multiple
• intelligences included linguistic, musical, logical-mathematical, pscail,
• bodily kinesthetic, interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligence. Emotional intelligence.

• Trarchic
• theory of intelligence. Emphasize pratical intelligence, good memory,
• speed of processing and adaption ability. 1.
• Componential subtheory
• (analytical); metacomponents, performance, knowledge acquisition- strategies to
• enhance performance. 2. Experiential
• subtheory (creative); Novelty-automation- ability to deal with novel
• situations with no previous exposure. 3.
• Contextual subtheory (practical). Adaption, selection, shaping
• appropriate response given the contex

• a. For
• the most part equally agree BUT experts place a greater emphasis on verbal
• skills, and lay ppl on practical problem solving skills.

• a.
• Fairly stable, older the personal the more
• stable iQ, health and living conditons can cause iQ can effect iQ.

• 1)family
• size; those with smaller families score higher. 2) birth order; 1st
• born score higher. 3)SES; kids with lower/working class fam score on average
• 10-20pts. Below the middle and upper class children. 4) ethnicity; Asians score better than whites,
• whites score better than latino & black.

• 1. ?
• Mixed evidence, most decline seen in fluid
• Intelligence.

• Wechsler Preschool
• and primary scale of intelligence. Ages 3-7.5

• WechslerIntelligence Scale for Children
• Ages 6.5-16.5.

i. Score obtained: mean = 100, SD= 15


ii. Subtests:

• 1. Block
• designed

2. Similarities

• 3. Digit
• span

• 4. Picture
• concepts

5. Coding

6. Vocab

• 7. Letter-number
• sequencing

• 8. Matrix
• reasoning

9. Comprehension

• 10. Simple
• search

• 11. //picture
• completion

12. Cancellation

13. Information

14. Arithmetic

• 15. Word
• reasoning

iii. Index score

• 1.
• Verbal comprehension index

• 2.
• Perceptual reasoning index

• 3.
• Working memory index

• 4.
• Processing speed index

• 5.
• *Full Scale IQ (sum of the 10 core subtests)

• a.
• split half and test-retest in .90’s

• b.
• Subtests range from .79 (cancellation &
• symbol search) to .90 (letter-number sequencing), most in high .80’s

• a.
• Many studies to support all 3 types of
• validity

• b. IQ
• average of 3 points lower on WISC-IV than on WISC-III (is typical of new tests)

Wechsler Adult Intelligence scale. Ages 16-91.

• i. 15
• subtests

• 1.
• 10 core tests for FSIQ and 4 Composite
• scores

• 2.
• 5 supplemental subtests

• 3.
• Same scoring as WISC-IV

• 4.
• Slightly different subtests

• 5.
• 2 New Subtests on this version

• Stand; lots of ppl, good
• relia;1.
• Exceptional

• 2.
• Split half .90-.96, .98 for FSIQ

• 3.
• Weaker for subtests scores

• 4.
• SEM and 2.6 for 16/17year olds, 2.1 for
• others

• 5.
• 8 point band of error!!!

• val; 1.
• Content- very good

• 2.
• CRV- correlates
• very highly w/ other IQ tests

• 3.
• Construct-
• Much research done, highly supportive.

• i. 5
• factors of intelligence: fluid reasoning, knowledge, quantitative reasoning,
• visual-spatial reasoning, working memory.

• ii. Two
• Domains: verbal & nonverbal

• iii. M=
• 100 SD=16

• iv. 3
• iQ scores given: FSIQ, VIQ, PIQ

• Good at testing individuals at the extreme
• ends of IQ

• Ages
• 6-17

16scores,

a lot It has more composite scores than subtests, resulting in overlap.

• §
• Ages 3-18

• §
• Goal of reducing influence of culture/ethnicity
• on scores

• §
• Has a non-verbal index

• §
• M= 100 SD= 15

• §
• No FSIQ, but rather gives over all scored based
• on different
• model

• ·
• Luria: mental processing index

• ·
• CHC:
• fluid-crystallized index

• §
• Screening test

• §
• Ages 4-90

• §
• Subtests

• ·
• Verbal (crystalized 2)

• ·
• Nonberbal (fluid-matrices)

• ·
• Composite score (overall)

• §
• Overestimate iQ by 5+

• o
• See what the person has learned

• o
• Asses for learning problems

• o
• Age 4.5-25.

• o
• Screening tool as well, up to 90 yrs old

• o
• 8 subtests with 4 areas

• §
• Reading, math, written language, oral language.

• o
• 3 composite sores

• §
• Reading

• §
• Math

• §
• Written language

• §
• total battery composite score

• §
• useful for qualitative analysis of error

• §
• can check if tests fits with school curriculum

• o
• Look for severe discrepancy (1SD) between
• intelligence and achievement in 1 or 7 areas

• o
• some ppl screw up all over the place on different
• tests

• o
• different states use diff criteria

• o
• Diff tests produce diff scores.

• ·
• Id a weakness in 1+ area alongside strengths in
• several areas

• ·
• Trace discrepancy to central nervous system or
• info-processing problems

• ·
• Evaluate relevance of psychosocial skills,
• physical abilities/ sensory abilities to the disability

• ·
• Rule out alt explanations

• ·
• Determine if kid passes 1-4 meet criteria.

• o
• Multi choice

• o
• Objective scoring

• o
• Group administration

• o
• Screening
• purposes

• o
• Huge standardize populations

• o
• +large amount of takers

• o
• +cheap and easy

• o
• +objectively scored

• o
• –score low due to motivation or direction issues

• o
• –Dependent
• on reading abilities

• o
• – cant differentiate test takers as finely as
• individual tests

• o
• –invalid scores may not be recognized

• o
• Original
• use: measure intellectual
• deterioration

• o
• actual
• Use: measure of general intellectual functioning in edu, counseling,
• personnel, and research settings.

• o
• Subtests: vocabulary and abs traction OR vocab &
• block patterns

• o
• Scores
• Obtained: added both subtests, M=
• 100 SD=15

• o
• Factors
• affecting performance: heavily dependent on verbal ability. Not appropriate
• for: non-native English speakers, individuals with difficulty reading.
• Abstraction score affected by motivation/attention, and working memory.

• o
• Psychometric
• properties: has improved since it
• first came out, good diverse standardized population.

• o
• Because it is used for screening, research, and
• career counseling, not so much Aptitude.

• o Culture fair intelligence test and raven’s
• progressive matrices different from other group tests of intelligence(ability)?
• Tests non-verbal skills

• o Cool approach: CFIT removed crystalized iQ,
• free of culture bias. RPM: removed language.

• o
• Career placement

• o
• Uses: intended
• for student assessment battery to determine suitability of work or choice of
• college major.

• o
• Subtests
• range: 8 subtests, well take 3
• hours to complete.

• o
• Scores: gives
• tests taker a cool visual profile.

• o Psychometric properties: good
• reliability (.80-.90), Vr + NA has good ability to predict college grades
• (.70-.80). lacking gin prediction of job performance.

that its good, but high school record is better.

• o
• GRE
• good/Mcat poor/LSAT ok/ = Aptitude
• tests.

• o
• Bc they only can tests those that get into the
• school, its not a big rich sample of ppl.

• o
• Whether tests differences reflect actual group
• differences or a bias that favors certain groups over others

• o
• Test Bias Hypothesis: tested are fucked
• up towards minorities, test are normed on middle class whites.

• §
• Response: test now attempt to make tests
• culture free. Modern tests show low bias, difference could be due to motivation
• and the value placed on rapid performance on tests.

• o
• Genetic Hypo: some groups re genetically
• smarter than others.

• §
• Response: no reliable research to support
• this hypo., studies found that we are more alike than we are different.

• o
• Environmental Hypothesis: IQ influences
• our iQ., those raised in impoverished environments develop low iQ’s.

• §
• Response: supported by studies. Tie in
• motivation and valued placed on testing.

• o
• Is a test differentially valid for different
• groups.

• Subjective vales state a test a test is fair in the
• way it is used to make decisions

• o
• Content validity, does the tests include what we
• need.

• o
• Biase in content validity occurs when an
• item/subscale of the test is harder for one group and not the other. even
• though general ability of the two groups is similar.

• o
• Determined whether we can predict our criterion
• equally well for members of different groups, if so, tests is not bias.

• §
• If test does not meet criteria of homogeneous
• regression (graph with a precition line and if groups score under or above
• the line.)then test is bias.

• o
• Do the test work well in predictive power, WIS
• predicts school achievement equally well for whites/blacks/mex.

• o
• Construct validity is whether a test is shown to
• measure different hypothetical traits or measure the same trait but with
• different degrees of accuracy.

• §
• Example, ESL kids taking a math word problem
• tests. This measures English and math for ESL kids, but only math for native
• Eng. Speakers.

• o
• Unqualified individualism. –we use any
• and all valid predictor variables (sex/race/ect.)

• o
• Qualified Individualism: selection should
• be based off of tested abilities with out any other considerations.

• o
• Quotas: selection done to reflect the
• population.

• o
• Shorter attention spans

• o
• Lack of reading and writing abilities

• §
• Individually tested

• o
• Lack of motivation

• o
• iD developmental delay or brain damage

• o
• early intervention, leads to better prognosis

• o
• not intended for prediction

• o
• General
• Purpose: give parents feedback about babies’ uniqueness, and anticipate
• responses. Ex) baby cries when held to long, baby is overly stimulated and
• needs space.

• o
• Age
• range: 2 months, usually first week of life.

• §
• Low test reliability/ interrater agreement.

• o
• Test
• usage: provides most comprehensive measure of developmental status in
• infants. tests uses sights, sounds, movements and props to attract babies.

• o
• age: 0-3.5 years

• o
• results
• you get: core 5 scales

• §
• 1-3 scales, cognitive, motor, language

• §
• 4-5 scales, parents questionnaires

• ·
• Social-emotional/adaptive behavior.

• o
• Psychometric
• properties

• §
• Test-retst
• reliability: .76

• §
• Inter-rater
• reliability: .75

§ Split-half: .81-.93 (increase with age)

• § good
• concurrent validity for identifiying
• at risk kids and extent of developmental delays.

• o
• Tests are different

• §
• Primarily Sensorimotor
• vs. Primarily Verbal

• o
• Concurrent
• validity

• § we
• are looking for agreement across multiple assessments modalities. (tests/paretns/teachers
• assessment. Ect.)

• § these
• test lack predictive validity

• o
• General
• Purpose: measures short term memory,
• speed of info processing, used for clinical analysis only

• o
• Background:
• reliability good for preschoolers

• o Age: 2.5- 18 years old. (3 overlapping
• batteries)

o 2.5-7years old

• o
• What
• results do you get: screening instrument to assess healthy and at risk kids
• 0-6yrs old.

• o
• Age
• ranges. 0-6yrs old

• o
• Scores: series
• of pass and fail items. 4 areas: personal-social, fine motor, language, gross
• motor.

• §
• Results

• ·
• Normal
• passes each evaluated area

• ·
• Questionable
• one deley in any evaluated area

• ·
• Abnormal
• two or more delays in any evaluated area

• o Psychometric properties: normed on over
• 2,000 kids Colorado (south park).

• § Excellent
• intterscoring reliability

• § Test
• re-test reliability .90

• ·
• Test is good at finding salient issues with
• kids, subtle issues may go undetected.

• o
• Includes home observation/parent interview
• provides a measure of physical and social enviro

• o
• 3 forms

• §
• Infant/toddler, early childhood, middle
• childhood

• o
• Bill of rights disabled people.

• §
• Outlawed discrimination

• o
• Education for all handicapped children act

• §
• Disabled students must receive appropriate
• assessment and educational opportunities.

• o
• Psychologist mandated to assess for disabilities
• using appropriate measures.

• o
• With appropriate measures.

• o
• Good for ppl w language impairments.

• o
• Nonverbal intelligence tests, culture-reduced
• exams.

leiter-internation performance scales - revised

• o
• Cant read, issues with speech, motor issues

• o
• Use non-visual stimuli. Verbal and non verbal
• items.

• o
• Give
• traditional tests used sign language

• §
• Wechsler performance subtests ex.

• o
• Characterized by significant limitations both in
• intellectual functioning and in adaptive behavior as expressed in conceptual,
• social, and practical adaptive skills.

• §
• 3 PARTS. 1. Prior to 18 years old. 2. iQ under
• 70., 3. Deficits in adaptive behaviors.

• o
• using different scales

• §
• independent behavior-revised

• §
• independent living behavior checklist

• §
• inventory for client and agency planning

• §
• to measure personal and social skills used for
• everyday living

o Age 5+

• o
• Scales
• M and SD same as regular IQ

• o
• Scores.

• o
• Psychometric
• properties: standardization on a ton of ppl

• §
• High tests retest reliability (.80-.90)

• §
• Good concurrent validity. Correlates with WISC-R
• ( .47-.70)

• o
• How is
• composed

• §
• 5 domains of VABS

• ·
• Communication

• ·
• Daily living skills

• ·
• Socialization

• ·
• Motor skills