Showing posts with label intellectual assessment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label intellectual assessment. Show all posts

Monday, July 27, 2026

Combining multiple intelligence test scores (IQs) into a grand psychometrically sound estimate. Joel Schneider’s free on-line web app.

In an earlier post in March, I alerted readers to a new journal publication that presented a psychometrically sound rational and method for combining multiple intelligence test scores into a single grand estimate.  Below is the formal APA reference:  Go to link above for more info.

Schneider, W. J., Reynolds, C. R., McGrew, K. S., & Salekin, K. L. (2026). Life-and-death psychometrics: Generalizable best methods for combining scores in intellectual disability and other diagnostic assessments. Journal of Pediatric Neuropsychology, 12(2), 47–65.

I’m pleased to report that Dr. Joel Schneider has developed a free on-line web app that allows users to implement the recommended method.  Thanks to Joel.


Click on image to enlarge for easy reading



Thursday, March 12, 2026

Research alert: Life-and-death psychometrics: Generalizable best methods for combing scores in intellectual disability and other diagnostic assessments - #pschometrics #Atkins #SCOTUS #IQ #intelligence #ID #intellectualdisability #AAIDD

Click on image to enlarge for better viewing 



Click here for the Journal of Pediatric Neuropsychology article page.


Abstract

A diagnosis of intellectual disability is a momentous event that can determine eligibility for special services and supportive sources of income, and in the criminal arena, it can be a matter of life and death. For criminal defendants who might otherwise face capital punishment, it is a matter of life and death. Individuals evaluated for intellectual disability often have been given multiple intelligence tests, sometimes with results falling on both sides of the diagnostic threshold. In all cases, the diagnostic decision must be based on a rigorous examination of the totality of evidence in the context of systematic clinical judgment. When multiple IQ results are relevant and comparable, they can be combined into a properly computed composite score to assist the clinician charged with diagnostic responsibility in determining if Prong 1, deficits in intellectual functioning, of the three-prong criteria necessary for an intellectual disability diagnosis has been met. Best psychometrically grounded methods for these calculations are presented along with a discussion of inappropriate approaches for accurately combining multiple scores. To make these methods accessible to professionals outside the discipline of psychology, all calculations are fully explained in the context of foundational concepts. 

Thursday, September 25, 2025

IQs Corner. In what way are #intelligence testing (#IQ) and the US Supreme Court (#SCOTUS) alike?—SCOTUS will be hearing important case addressing #multiple IQ scores and #intellectualdisability #Dx in fall 2025 term

This fall 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will be hearing a case related to intelligence testing in the context of Atkins intellectual disability (ID) death penalty cases. The case is Hamm v Smith.

The question before SCOTUS is :  Whether and how courts may consider the cumulative effect of multiple IQ scores in assessing Atkins claims (in the context of diagnosis ID in death penalty cases)?

Note.  In order to save space and time, instead of writing “general intelligence” or “general intellectual functioning” every time, I use the abbreviation “IQ”.

The respondent (Joseph Smith) has five IQ test scores from comprehensive IQ tests.  He obtained two scores of 75 and 74 during the developmental period (before age 22), and three scores of 72, 78, and 74 between the ages of 28 and 46.  

This case is important for assessment professionals who conduct intelligence testing in general, and potential ID diagnostic cases (Atkins cases in particular).  I find this SCOTUS case particularly interesting given that in 2021, after the 2021 release of the latest official AAIDD manual (Intellectual disability: Definition, diagnosis, classification, and systems of supports), I published a critique where I specifically stated, as one weakness of the new AAIDD manual that “…many high-stakes ID cases often include case files that include multiple IQ scores across time or from different IQ tests. Some form of guidance, at minimum in a passing reference, to the issues of the convergence of indicators and IQ score exchangeability would have been useful. Users will need to go beyond the AAIDD manual for guidance (see Floyd et al., 2021; McGrew, 2015; and Watson, 2015)” (click here to download and read this critique).

All official petitioner and respondent legal briefs (and amicus briefs) have now been published at the SCOTUS blog as of yesterday.  The number of documents posted on the SCOTUS docket are many.  To help the reader better determine which documents are most critical (the final briefs), instead of clicking away on the various links at the SCOUTUS blog, I’ve organized the petitioner and respondent brief links below.

If you prefer to not wade through all the briefs (it is not for everyone), I would encourage practicing assessment professionals read the three respondent-related briefs.  The points made are relevant to all who conduct intellectual assessments.  As a potential conflict of interest notice, I (Dr. Kevin McGrew), together with Dr. Joel Schneider and Dr. Cecil Reynolds (as noted on page three for the APA amicus brief), were consultants to APA in the drafting of that brief.  This work was performed pro bono. I, at a minimum, suggest reading all the respondent briefs.  If time permits, I would also suggest reading the petitioner’s Alabama brief and the US Justice Department Solicitor General’s brief to better understand the petitioner and respondent positions re Hamm v Smith. 

Petitioner briefs
  • The state of Alabama brief.  Alabama is the petitioner.  That is, if you want to read why the State of Alabama asked SCOTUS to hear this case, click on the link provided.
    • The Alabama brief also includes a very long appendix for those who want to read the prior courts related testimony from the state and various experts. This is a very long read and is not necessary for readers who only want to understand the legal and professional issues. 
  • Supporting amicus brief from the US Justice Department Solicitor General.
  • Two supporting briefs from legal groups—the American Legal Foundation and the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation.
  • Supporting amicus briefs from other states (Idaho et al.; Kentucky)

Respondent briefs
Final comment.  Those from school psychology should make note that we three consultants involved in drafting the APA/ApA,AL-APA brief all had our original educational roots in the profession of school psychology.  Furthermore, SP professionals should note the significant number of authoritative references to publications authored by school psychologists in the respondents briefs, as well as in some of the petitioners briefs.  I’ve been doing expert consultation, writing declarations, and testifying in court re: Atkins ID cases since 2009.  Joel Schneider and Cecil Reynolds have also been active in a similar capacity.  There are more psychologists who come from, or are affiliated with, the field of school psychology who have been prominent consultants/experts to lawyers and the courts re Atkins cases.  

Perhaps some of these briefs should be assigned readings (in intellectual assessment courses or special topic seminars) for graduate students being trained in the art and science of intelligence testing and interpretation.




Wednesday, April 23, 2025

On #factoranalysis of #IQ tests—impact of software choice—plus comments about art+science of factor analysis in #intelligence test research—#schoolpsychology



Contributing to the reproducibility crisis in Psychology: The role of statistical software choice on factor analysis.  Journal of School Psychology.  Stefan C. Dombrowski.  Click here to view article source and abstract.

This is an important article for those who conduct (and also those who consume) factor analysis results of intelligence or cognitive ability tests.  

Abstract (note - bold font in abstract has been added by me)

A potentially overlooked contributor to the reproducibility crisis in psychology is the choice of statistical application software used for factor analysis. Although the open science movement promotes transparency by advocating for open access to data and statistical methods, this approach alone is insufficient to address the reproducibility crisis. It is commonly assumed that different statistical software applications produce equivalent results when conducting the same statistical analysis. However, this is not necessarily the case. Statistical programs often yield disparate outcomes, even when using identical data and factor analytic procedures, which can lead to inconsistent interpretation of results. This study examines this phenomenon by conducting exploratory factor analyses on two tests of cognitive ability—the WISC-V and the MEZURE—using four different statistical programs/applications. Factor analysis plays a critical role in determining the underlying theory of cognitive ability instruments, and guides how those instruments should be scored and interpreted. However, psychology is grappling with a reproducibility crisis in this area, as independent researchers and test publishers frequently report divergent factor analytic results. The outcome of this study revealed significant variations in structural outcomes among the statistical software programs/applications. These findings highlight the importance of using multiple statistical programs, ensuring transparency with analysis code, and recognizing the potential for varied outcomes when interpreting results from factor analytic procedures. Addressing these issues is important for advancing scientific integrity and mitigating the reproducibility crisis in psychology particularly in relation to cognitive ability structural validity.

My additional comments

The recommendation that multiple factor analysis software programs be used when analyzing the structural validity of cognitive abilities tests makes sense.  Kudos to Dr. Dombrowski for demonstrating this need.

Along these lines, it is also important to recognize that the use and interpretation of any factor analysis software is highly dependent on the statistical and substantive expertise and skills of the researcher.  I made these points (based on the writings and personal conversations with Jack Carroll) in a recent article (McGrew, 2023; open access so you can download and read) in the Journal of Intelligence.  The salient material is reproduced below.  This article can be accessed either a the journal website or via the Research and Reports section of my MindHub web page (McGrew, 2023)


(Note - Bold font in text below, extracted from McGrew (2023), is not in the original published article)

“I was fortunate to learn important tacit EFA and CFA knowledge during my 17 years of interactions with Carroll, and particularly my private one-to-one tutelage with Carroll in May 2003. Anyone who reads Chapter 3 (Survey and Analysis of Correlational and Factor-Analytic Research on Cognitive Abilities: Methodology) of Carroll's 1993 book, as well as his self-critique of his seminal work (Carroll 1998) and other select method-focused post-1993 publications (Carroll 1995, 1997), should conclude what is obvious—to Carroll, factor analyses were a blend of art and science. As articulated by some of his peers (see footnote #2), his research reflected the work of an expert with broad and deep substantive knowledge of research and theories in intelligence, cognitive psychology, and factor analysis methods. 

In 2003, after Carroll had been using CFA to augment his initial EFA analyses for at least a decade, Carroll expressed (to me during our May 2003 work week) that he was often concerned with the quality of some reported factor analyses (both EFA and CFA) of popular clinical IQ tests or other collections of cognitive ability measures (Carroll 1978, 1991, 1995, 2003). Carroll's characteristic positive skepticism regarding certain reported factor analyses was first articulated (as far as I know) in the late 1970's, when he stated “despite its many virtues, factor analysis is a very tricky technique; in some ways it depends more on art than science, that is, more on intuition and judgment than on formal rules of procedure. People who do factor analysis by uncritical use of programs in computer packages run the risk of making fools of themselves” (Carroll 1978, p. 91; emphasis added). It is my opinion that Carroll would still be dismayed by some of the EFA and CFA studies of intelligence tests published during the past two decades that often used narrow or restricted forms of factor analysis methods and rigid formal statistical rules for decision-making, with little attempt to integrate contemporary substantive research or theory to guide the analysis and interpretation of the results (e.g., see Decker 2021; Decker et al. 2021; McGrew et al. 2023). 

Carroll's unease was prescient of recently articulated concerns regarding two aspects of the theory crises in structural psychological research—the conflation of statistical (primarily factor analysis) models with theoretical models and the use of narrow forms of factor analysis methods (Fried 2020; McGrew et al. 2023). First, many intelligence test batteries only report CFA studies in their technical manuals. EFA results, which often produce findings that vary from CFA findings, are frequently omitted. This often leads to debates between independent researchers and test authors (or test publishers) regarding the validity of the interpretation of composite or cluster scores, leaving test users confused regarding the psychometric integrity of composite score interpretations. McGrew et al. (2023) recently recommended that intelligence test manuals, as well as research reports by independent researchers, include both EFA and CFA (viz., bifactor g, hierarchical g, and Horn no-g models), as well as psychometric network analysis (PNA) and possibly multidimensional scaling analyses (MDSs; McGrew et al. 2014; Meyer and Reynolds 2022). As stated by McGrew et al. (2023), “such an ecumenical approach would require researchers to present results from the major classes of IQ test structural research methods (including PNA) and clearly articulate the theoretical basis for the model(s) the author's support. Such an approach would also gently nudge IQ test structural researchers to minimize the frequent conflation of theoretical and psychometric g constructs. Such multiple-methods research in test manuals and journal publications can better inform users of the strengths and limitations of IQ test interpretations based on whatever conceptualization of psychometric general intelligence (including models with no such construct) underlies each type of dimensional analysis” (p. 24).”


Thursday, December 12, 2024

#Intelligence (#IQ) #cognitive testing in perspective: An #ecological systems brief video explanation—useful for #schoolpsychology


Click on image to enlarge for easy reading



An oldie but goodie!  This is a 19+ minute narrated video (sit down with your favorite beverage and enjoy) where I explain how intelligence (IQ) or cognitive ability testing should be better understood in the context of a larger ecological systems model perspective (Bronfenbrenner).  

I first posted the video in 2015—-9 years ago! So be gentle…I’m much better with these videos now :) Thus, some of my COI statements/disclaimers/affiliations are no longer accurte (and updated version can be found a theMindHub.com—Under About IAP: The Director: Disclosures & Bio).

If all works well, just click the start arrow on the video screen…and tap the enlarge icon in the lower right corner.  This video is now hosted on YouTube, so it may be possible that you may first encounter 1-2 very brief adds that you can skip within the first 15-10 seconds.  It is possible (it seems to vary everytime) that you might be asked to “sign in” to show you are not a bot.  All you need to do is press the message, or if images of muliptle videos appear, press the first one…if you only get the message you may need to back up and try link again (no signing in….I hate having lost control of how these work by using YouTube 9 years ago…as now the starting has these mild annoyances..but it is the price for a free service).  Be aware that some of the first 4-5 slides may have minimal or no narration and you can skip ahead to the beginning…it is the first slide shown immediately below before the video. Given the caveats above, it is possible the video might not deploy exactly how I describe…the platform seems to be a bit tempormental, at least for me.  Enjoy.





Saturday, March 17, 2018

The importance of differential psychology for school learning: 90% of school achievement variance is due to student characteristics

This is why the study of individual differences/differential psychology is so important. If you don’t want to read the article you can watch a video of Dr. Detterman where he summarizes his thinking and this paper.

Education and Intelligence: Pity the Poor Teacher because Student Characteristics are more Significant than Teachers or Schools. Article link.

Douglas K. Detterman

Case Western Reserve University (USA)

Abstract

Education has not changed from the beginning of recorded history. The problem is that focus has been on schools and teachers and not students. Here is a simple thought experiment with two conditions: 1) 50 teachers are assigned by their teaching quality to randomly composed classes of 20 students, 2) 50 classes of 20 each are composed by selecting the most able students to fill each class in order and teachers are assigned randomly to classes. In condition 1, teaching ability of each teacher and in condition 2, mean ability level of students in each class is correlated with average gain over the course of instruction. Educational gain will be best predicted by student abilities (up to r = 0.95) and much less by teachers' skill (up to r = 0.32). I argue that seemingly immutable education will not change until we fully understand students and particularly human intelligence. Over the last 50 years in developed countries, evidence has accumulated that only about 10% of school achievement can be attributed to schools and teachers while the remaining 90% is due to characteristics associated with students. Teachers account for from 1% to 7% of total variance at every level of education. For students, intelligence accounts for much of the 90% of variance associated with learning gains. This evidence is reviewed


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Monday, October 23, 2017

The Evolution of the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) Theory of Intelligence: Schneider & McGrew 2018 summary


The Evolution of the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) Theory of Intelligence: Schneider & McGrew 2018 summary from Kevin McGrew

This presentation includes a portion of key material to be published in a forthcoming CHC update/revision chapter--In D. P. Flanagan & Erin M .McDonough (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests and issues (4thed.,) New York: Guilford Press.

This is only a small amount of the chapter. Also, I have inserted some new material related to test interpretation that is not included in the to-be-published chapter. The tentative date for publication of the Flanagan book is spring 2018. The majority, but not all, of this SlideShare presentation was originally presented at the 2017 NYASP conference October 19,2017.

Wednesday, May 04, 2016

"Intelligent" intelligence testing with the WJ IV Tests of Cognitive Ability #4: Evaluating within-CHC domain test score differences


Recently the following was posted to the CHC listerv.

"While working on an assessment this morning, I found another example of Verbal Attention as a measure of Gwm being discordant from other measures of short-term and working memory: 
18 year old with high functioning autism and LD:
WAIS IV FSIQ = 84; WJ IV GIA = 81
WJ IV Verbal Attn - 91, Story Recall - 91, Vis Aud Learning - 76;
(Gc-73, Gf-94, Gv-121, Ga- 61, Gs-82)
WAIS-IV DSF-3, DSB - 7, DSS - 6, Arith - 4
CTOPP 2 Phonol Memory - 70; Rapid Naming - 52  
Thoughts on the Verbal Attention score of 91?"

A number of members provided some good responses.  I have been working on a response, and this is installment #1.  The rest of the response, which gets into substantive hypotheses about why Verbal Attention may differ from other Gwm test scores, is almost done and will be posted (hopefully) by the end of this week.

I apologize for not continuing my "Intelligent" intelligence testing series...it has been a long time since the last post in that series.  Just busy busy busy.

Enjoy

PS.   By clicking on the "in" icon in the lower right corner of the control pane, one can reach a site to download the slides.  For those who want a crisp clear set of the slides in PDF, click on this link.



Friday, January 22, 2016

"Intelligent" testing with the WJ IV Tests of Cognitive Ability: #1: The big picture perspective

Today I am launching a new series called "Intelligent" testing with the WJ IV Tests of Cognitive Ability (credit goes to Dr. Alan Kaufman for coining this term and approach to clinical intelligence test interpretation).

Since the WJ IV was published in 2014, after spending more than a year traveling the country introducing the WJ IV battery to various professional groups, it has become clear that users are hungry for more advanced interpretation material, particularly for the cognitive ability tests.

I have been busy the past 6 months completing all kinds of new analyses, reading literature, and revisiting the information in the technical manual.  As a result, I have developed some new advanced interpretation material for the cognitive (and related oral language) tests.  I will be presenting a large portion of this material at my half-day workshop at NASP in New Orleans in February.

Before presenting the new material, I first believe it is important that individuals have a proper "big picture" perspective on the strengths and limitations of intelligence testing.  I have presented this big picture material in a brief YouTube video I posted previously.  It is provided (again) below.  There will be one more additional "big picture" post prior to delving into the WJ IV specific information.

Stay tuned.  The scheduling of these posts will be on a "as I have time" basis.


Monday, June 15, 2015

AAIDD chapters on intellectual functioning and the Flynn effect - overdue post

I just made this post over at the Intellectual Competence and Death Penalty blog and am repeating it here for interested readers.

(Click on image to enlarge)




It has been along time since I've been able to devote time to any of my three professional blogs.  I have been unbelievably busy with travel and professional presentations.  In fact, I have been so busy that I failed to feature two of my own recent Atkin's death penalty related book chapters that appeared in the new AAIDD book "Determining Intellectual Disability in the courts: Focus on capital cases." I have made these two chapters available via the MindHub web portal but do not believe I featured them at this blog (or at IQ's Corner).  One chapter deals with assessment of intellectual functioning issues and the other IQ test norm obsolescence (aka., the Flynn Effect).  The references (with links) are below.

McGrew, K. (2015a). Intellectual functioning. In Polloway, E. (Ed.), Determining Intellectual Disability in the courts: Focus on capital cases (pp. 85-111). Washington, DC: American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.

McGrew, K. (2015b). Norm obsolescence: The Flynn Effect. In Polloway, E. (Ed.), Determining Intellectual Disability in the courts: Focus on capital cases (pp. 155-169). Washington, DC: American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

Wednesday, February 25, 2015

Intelligence Testing in Proper Perspective: The Big Picture - a MindHub video-PPT show

I am pleased to announce the availability of my second video-PPT at IQ's Corner YouTube Channel.  The first video can be found here.  The current video is 20 minutes.  You can skip the first three minutes if you don't want background "front matter" material regarding me (the narrator), etc.

The new video-PPT  is called "Intelligence Testing in Proper Perspective:  The Big Picture"

This presentation places the power and value of intelligence testing into a big picture perspective which recognizes the strengths and limitations of intelligence testing.  The goal is to encourage users and consumers of intelligence tests to better understand what these measures can and cannot do, and, more importantly, recognize the other personal and environmental characteristics that influence an individual's learning and development.

Be gentle.  I am not a professional video producer and I do not have the time to edit out pauses, minor mistakes, etc.---- hey...this is FREE quality information. :)

Update 02-27-15.  Thanks to Rueben Lopez for making the suggestion that I reduce the 3 minutes of the introductory "front matter."  I have taken his advice (which I will incorporate into future videos) and have now posted the identical video with the very brief introduction.  It can be accessed here.





Thursday, January 08, 2015

AAIDD "Death Penalty and Intellectual Disability" A Guide" is now available at AAIDD website!



The AAIDD ID and death penalty guide is now available at the AAIDD webpage!  Although the title is focused on the death penalty and ID (Atkins cases), having written two of the chapters (Flynn effect; Intellectual functioning), I believe all professionals in the field of psychological, assessment and ID should have this reference book--it presents recommendations for ID practice that go well beyond the official AAIDD classification book (the Green book) and are relevant to ID assessment practices in general.

Description of the guide at the AAIDD webpage.

  • In the 2002 landmark decision Atkins v. Virginia 536 U.S. 304, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that executing a person with intellectual disability is a violation of the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits “cruel and unusual punishment,” but left states to determine their own criteria for intellectual disability. AAIDD has always advocated against the death penalty for people with intellectual disability and has long provided amicus curiae briefs in Supreme Court cases. Thus, in this comprehensive new book published by AAIDD, notable authors in the field of intellectual disability discuss all aspects of the issues, with a particular focus on foundational considerations, assessment factors and issues, and professional concerns in Atkins assessments.

Sunday, May 26, 2013

"Intelligent" test interpretation - We are the instrument

A quote that has often  been attributed to me, based on some comments I made on a Listserv many years ago and on a  slide I often use when presenting at workshops is...."we are the instrument"...with re: to the art and science of "intelligent" intelligence testing and interpretation by psychologists. It reminded me of a quote that captures a good portion of the variance of my "we are the instrument" mantra. It is reproduced below. The source is also listed.

Meyer et al. (2001). Psychological testing and psychological assessment. American Psychologist, February
  • "Tests do not think for themselves, nor do they directly communicate with patients. Like a stethoscope, a blood pressure gauge, or an MRI scan, a psychological test is a dumb tool, and the worth of the tool cannot be separated from the sophistication of the clinician who draws inferences from it and then communicates with patients and professionals”

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Thinking..fast and slow: Dual process models of cognition/intelligence--hot topic

Dual cognitive process (sometimes called Type I/II processing) have increased in prominence the past five years.  Within the past few weeks the long anticipated book "Thinking, Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kaneham was released, and it is already near the top of most non-fiction best selling books.  I can't wait to get my copy, as it will put Malcom Gladwell's "Blink" in it's proper place.  This will give the layperson, and many professionals, a better understanding of these two general classes of cognitive processes.

My thinking about applied intelligence test development and interpretation has been incorporated this general dichotomy in the form of a working (evolving) test development/interpretation framework (see summary figure below).
[Double click on images to enlarge]

The most recent journal to devote a special issue to dual process models is Developmental Review.  Below are the key articles and a few intriguing model figures.















Generated by: Tag Generator

Friday, August 19, 2011

One of the best texts on intellectual assessment has been revised: Flanagan & Harrison's Contemporary Intellectual Assessment

Just in time for your XMAS shopping!!!! One of the best texts on intellectual assessment and theories related to the practice of intellectual assessment.

The publisher has given me permission to post this information. The text below does not show all the formatting in the original document sent to me, so if you want a nicer PDF version to share with others, click here.


Conflict of interest disclosure: I have coauthored a chapter in the book and will be splitting an honorarium check (not big, trust me) and will be receiving a free copy. But, I get no royalties (I wish I did).


Kudos to Dr. Flanagan and Harrison for revising what I consider one of the best texts on intellectual assessment.





NEW FROM THE GUILFORD PRESS (​Revised and Expanded!)

Contemporary Intellectual Assessment, Third Edition
Theories, Tests, and Issues
Edited by Dawn P. Flanagan, PhD, Department of Psychology, St. John's University; and
Patti L. Harrison, PhD, Department of Educational Studies in Psychology, Research Methodology, and Counseling, University of Alabama

Available to Ship: December 2011
Copyright: 2012
Pages: 926
Size: 7" x 10"
Hardcover: ISBN 978-1-60918-995-2
Hardcover Price: $95.00 tentative/short discount
Prior edition copyright: 2005
Prior edition cloth ISBN: 978-1-59385-125-5
Website Category: EDUCATION: Educational Psychology; School Psychology. PSYCHOLOGY: School Psychology; Neuropsychology & Neuroscience; Child/Adolescent Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry.
Subject Areas/Keywords: adults, assessment instruments, batteries, children, cognitive assessments, developmental, educational psychology, evaluations, intellectual assessments, intellectual disabilities, intelligence testing, learning disabilities, response to intervention, RTI, tests
Internal Code: F
Date Issued: August 15, 2011

CRITICAL ACCLAIM
"This is the most comprehensive, authoritative, and up-to-date text on intellectual assessment available. It covers current theories of intelligence, methods of intelligence testing, and their applications to special populations. The chapters are all written by leading scholars and combine clear research summaries with practical advice, making this a valuable book for graduate students and professionals interested in both research and practice."—Paul J. Frick, PhD, University Distinguished Professor and Chair, Department of Psychology, University of New Orleans

"A single source for essential, detailed information on the past, present, and future of intellectual and cognitive assessment practices. The table of contents provides an objective sweep of all major theories, tests, and evaluation procedures at a glance; the expertise of the chapter authors results in a work that is consistently outstanding. The third edition reflects the latest efforts in clinical inquiry that explore cognitive abilities and processes as they relate to the real world. It emphasizes cross-cultural issues in assessment and incorporates new approaches and instruments related to learning and developmental problems. This is an essential text for graduate-level assessment courses."
—Elaine Fletcher-Janzen, EdD, Department of School Psychology, Chicago School of Professional Psychology

"This updated volume is a valuable addition to the field of intellectual and psychological assessment. The editors have assembled the leaders in the field to present the most up-to-date information available. Many of the chapters are written by the test authors and theory creators themselves; readers will benefit from the firsthand approach to test and theory interpretation. The book is written in a way that will appeal to both experienced practitioners and graduate students just starting out in the field."—Andrew S. Davis, PhD, Department of Educational Psychology, Ball State University

"A superb theoretical and clinical overview....The standards of theoretical and methodological rigor, comprehensive topical coverage, balanced and objective critical analysis, life span cognitive evaluation, and advocacy for special populations...are beautifully balanced. One could not ask for more from a review and critical evaluation of this extensive, rich, and complex literature."—PsycCRITIQUES

"Should be required reading in all intelligence testing courses and by anyone involved in the assessment of human and cognitive abilities."—Psychotherapy in Private Practice

DESCRIPTION
In one volume, this authoritative reference presents a current, comprehensive overview of intellectual and cognitive assessment, with a focus on practical applications. Leaders in the field describe major theories of intelligence and provide the knowledge needed to use the latest measures of cognitive abilities with individuals of all ages, from toddlers to adults. Evidence-based approaches to test interpretation, and their relevance for intervention, are described. The book addresses critical issues in assessing particular populations—including culturally and linguistically diverse students, gifted students, and those with learning difficulties and disabilities—in today's educational settings.

New to This Edition
*Incorporates major research advances and legislative and policy changes.
*Covers recent test revisions plus additional tests: the NEPSY-II and the WNV.
*Expanded coverage of specific populations: chapters on autism spectrum disorders, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, sensory and physical disabilities and traumatic brain injury, and intellectual disabilities.
*Chapters on neuropsychological approaches, assessment of executive functions, and multi-tiered service delivery models in schools.

KEY POINTS
> An authoritative reference, revised and expanded: features 11 new chapters.
> Comprehensive and current: covers all major tests and how they relate to educational services and policy.
> Chapters are written by the test developers themselves.
> A successful practitioner handbook and graduate-level text.

AUDIENCE
Practitioners, students, and researchers in school, educational, cognitive, and child clinical psychology.

COURSE USE
Serves as a primary text in graduate-level intellectual/cognitive assessment courses.

CONTENTS
I. The Origins of Intellectual Assessment
1. A History of Intelligence Assessment: The Unfinished Tapestry, John D. Wasserman
2. A History of Intelligence Test Interpretation, Randy W. Kamphaus, Anne Pierce Winsor, Ellen W. Rowe, and Sangwon Kim
II. Contemporary Theoretical Perspectives
3. Foundations for Better Understanding of Cognitive Abilities, John L. Horn and Nayena Blankson
4. The Cattell–Horn–Carroll (CHC) Model of Intelligence, W. Joel Schneider and Kevin S. McGrew
5. Assessment of Intellectual Profile: A Perspective from Multiple-Intelligences Theory, Jie-Qi Chen and Howard Gardner
6. The Triarchic Theory of Successful Intelligence, Robert J. Sternberg
7. Planning, Attention, Simultaneous, Successive (PASS): A Cognitive Processing–Based Theory of Intelligence, Jack A. Naglieri, J. P. Das, and Sam Goldstein
III. Contemporary Intelligence, Cognitive, and Neuropsychological Batteries (and Associated Achievement Tests)
8. The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV) and the Wechsler Memory Scale–Fourth Edition (WMS-IV), Lisa Whipple Drozdick, Dustin Wahlstrom, Jianjun Zhu, and Lawrence G. Weiss
9. The Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence–Third Edition (WPPSI–III), the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fourth Edition (WISC–IV), and the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test–Third Edition (WIAT–III), Dustin Wahlstrom, Kristina C. Breaux, Jianjun Zhu, and Lawrence G. Weiss
10. The Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition (SB5), Gale H. Roid and Mark Pomplun
11. The Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children–Second Edition (KABC-II) and the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement–Second Edition (KTEA-II), Jennie Kaufman Singer, Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger, James C. Kaufman, Alan S. Kaufman, and Nadeen L. Kaufman
12. The Woodcock–Johnson III Normative Update (WJ III NU): Tests of Cognitive Abilities and Tests of Achievement, Fredrick A. Schrank and Barbara J. Wendling
13. The Differential Ability Scales–Second Edition (DAS-II), Colin D. Elliott
14. The Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test (UNIT): A Multidimensional Nonverbal Alternative for Cognitive Assessment, R. Steve McCallum and Bruce A. Bracken
15. The Cognitive Assessment System (CAS): From Theory to Practice, Jack A. Naglieri and Tulio M. Otero
16. The Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales (RIAS) and the Reynolds Intellectual Screening Test (RIST), Cecil R. Reynolds, Randy W. Kamphaus, and Tara C. Raines
17. The NEPSY-II, Robb N. Matthews, Cynthia A. Riccio, and John L. Davis
18. The Wechsler Nonverbal Scale of Ability (WNV): Assessment of Diverse Populations, Jack A. Naglieri and Tulio M. Otero
IV. Contemporary Interpretive Approaches and Their Relevance for Intervention
19. The Cross-Battery Assessment (XBA) Approach: An Overview, Historical Perspective, and Current Directions, Dawn P. Flanagan, Vincent C. Alfonso, and Samuel O. Ortiz
20. Cognitive Hypothesis Testing (CHT): Linking Test Results to the Real World, Catherine A. Fiorello, James B. Hale, and Kirby L. Wycoff
21. Processing Approaches to Interpreting Information from Cognitive Ability Tests: A Critical Review, Randy G. Floyd and John H. Kranzler
22. Testing with Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Populations: Moving beyond the Verbal–Performance Dichotomy into Evidence-Based Practice, Samuel O. Ortiz, Salvador Hector Ochoa, and Agnieszka M. Dynda
23. Linking Cognitive Abilities to Academic Interventions for Students with Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD), Nancy Mather and Barbara J. Wendling
V. Assessment of Intelligence and Cognitive Functioning in Different Populations
24. Cognitive Assessment in Early Childhood: Theoretical and Practical Perspectives, Laurie Ford, Michelle L. Kozey, and Juliana Negreiros
25. Use of Intelligence Tests in the Identification of Giftedness, David E. McIntosh, Felicia A. Dixon, and Eric E. Pierson
26. Use of Ability Tests in the Identification of Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD) within the Context of an Operational Definition, Dawn P. Flanagan, Vincent C. Alfonso, Jennifer T. Mascolo, and Marlene Sotelo-Dynega
27. Assessment of Intellectual Functioning in Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), Laura Grofer Klinger, Sarah E. O’Kelley, Joanna L. Mussey, Sam Goldstein, and Melissa DeVries
28. Cognitive and Neuropsychological Assessment of ADHD: Redefining a Disruptive Behavior Disorder, James B. Hale, Megan Yim, Andrea N. Schneider, Gabrielle Wilcox, Julie N. Henzel, and Shauna G. Dixon
29. Intellectual and Neuropsychological Assessment of Individuals with Sensory and Physical Disabilities and Traumatic Brain Injury, Scott L. Decker, Julia A. Englund, and Alycia M. Roberts
30. Use of Intelligence Tests in the Identification of Children with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (IDD), Kathleen Armstrong, Jason Hangauer, and Joshua Nadeau
VI. Contemporary and Emerging Issues in Intellectual Assessment
31. Using Joint Test Standards to Evaluate the Validity Evidence for Intelligence Tests, Jeffery P. Braden and Bradley C. Niebling
32. Using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to Aid in Understanding the Constructs Measured by Intelligence Tests, Timothy Z. Keith and Matthew R. Reynolds
33: The Emergence of Neuropsychological Constructs into Tests of Intelligence and Cognitive Abilities, Daniel C. Miller and Denise E. Maricle
34. The Role of Cognitive and Intelligence Tests in the Assessment of Executive Functions, Denise E. Maricle and Erin Avirett
35. Intelligence Tests in the Context of Emerging Assessment Practices: Problem-Solving Applications, Rachel Brown-Chidsey and Kristina J. Andren
36. Intellectual, Cognitive, and Neuropsychological Assessment in Three-Tier Service Delivery Practices in Schools, George McCloskey, James Whitaker, Ryan Murphy, and Jane Rogers
Appendix. The Three-Stratum Theory of Cognitive Abilities, John B. Carroll

CONTRIBUTORS
Dynda Agnieszka, PsyD, Department of Psychology, St. John’s University, Jamaica, New York
Vincent C. Alfonso, PhD, Graduate School of Education, Fordham University, New York, New York
Kristina J. Andren, PsyD, School Psychology Program, University of Southern Maine, Gorham, Maine
Kathleen Armstrong, PhD, Department of Pediatrics, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida
Erin Avirett, BA, Department of Psychology and Philosophy, Texas Women’s University, Denton, Texas
Nayena Blankson, PhD, Department of Psychology, Spelman College, Atlanta, Georgia
Bruce A. Bracken, PhD, School of Education, The College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia
Jeffery P. Braden, PhD, Department of Psychology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina
Kristina C. Breaux, PhD, The Psychological Corporation, San Antonio, Texas
Rachel Brown-Chidsey, PhD, School Psychology Program, University of Southern Maine, Gorham, Maine
John B. Carroll, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Psychology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
Jie-Qi Chen, PhD, Erikson Institute, Chicago, Illinois
J. P. Das, PhD, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
John L. Davis, MA, Department of Educational Psychology, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas
Scott L. Decker, PhD, Department of Psychology, Barnwell College, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina
Melissa DeVries, PhD, Neurology, Learning, and Behavior Center, Salt Lake City, Utah
Felicia A. Dixon, PhD, Department of Educational Psychology, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana
Shauna G. Dixon, MS, Graduate School of Education, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Lisa Whipple Drozdick, PhD, The Psychological Corporation, San Antonio, Texas
Agnieszka M. Dynda, PsyD, Department of Psychology, St. John’s University, Jamaica, New York
Colin D. Elliot, PhD, The Gervitz School of Education, University of California, Santa Barbara, California
Julia A. Englund, BA, Department of Psychology, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina
Catherine A. Fiorello, PhD, NCSP, School Psychology Program and Department of Psychological Studies in Education, College of Education, Temple University, Philadelphia, Philadelphia
Dawn P. Flanagan, PhD, Department of Psychology, St. John’s University, Jamaica, New York
Randy G. Floyd, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee
Laurie Ford, PhD, Department of Educational and Counseling Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Howard Gardner, PhD, Graduate School of Education, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Sam Goldstein, PhD, Neurology, Learning, and Behavior Center, Salt Lake City, Utah
James B. Hale, PhD, School Psychology Program, Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine, Philadelphia, Philadelphia
Jason Hangauer, EdS, Department of Pediatrics, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida
Julie N. Henzel, PsyD, The Nisonger Center, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
John L. Horn, PhD (deceased), Department of Psychology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California
Randy W. Kamphaus, PhD, College of Education, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia
Alan S. Kaufman, PhD, Child Study Center, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut
James C. Kaufman, PhD, Department of Psychology, California State University, San Bernardino, California
Nadeen L. Kaufman, PhD, Child Study Center, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut
Timothy Z. Keith, PhD, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas
Sangwon Kim, PhD, Graduate School of Education, Fordham University, New York, New York
Laura Grofer Klinger, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama
Michelle L. Kozey, MA, Department of Educational and Counseling Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
John H. Kranzler, PhD, Special Education Program, College of Education, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida
Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger, PhD, private practice, Carlsbad, California
Denise E. Maricle, PhD, Department of Psychology and Philosophy, Texas Women’s University, Denton, Texas
Jennifer T. Mascolo, PsyD, Department of Psychology, St. John’s University, Jamaica, New York
Nancy Mather, PhD, Department of Disability and Psychoeducational Studies, College of Education, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona
Robb N. Matthews, MA, Department of Educational Psychology, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas
R. Steve McCallum, PhD, Department of Educational Psychology and Counseling, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee
George McCloskey, PhD, Department of Psychology, Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Kevin S. McGrew, PhD, Institute for Applied Psychometrics, St. Cloud, Minnesota
David E. McIntosh, PhD, Department of Educational Psychology, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana
Daniel C. Miller, PhD, Department of Psychology and Philosophy, Texas Women’s University, Denton, Texas
Ryan Murphy, EdS, Department of School Psychology, Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Joanna L. Mussey, MA, Department of Psychology, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama
Joshua Nadeau, MS, Department of Pediatrics, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida
Jack A. Naglieri, PhD, ABAP, Department of Psychology, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia
Juliana Negreiros, MA, Department of Educational and Counseling Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Bradley C. Niebling, PhD, Midwest Instructional Leadership Council, Urbandale, Iowa
Salvador Hector Ochoa, PhD, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Texas–Pan American, Edinburg, Texas
Sarah E. O’Kelly, PhD, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neurobiology, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama
Samuel O. Ortiz, PhD, Department of Psychology, St. John’s University, Jamaica, New York
Tulio M. Otero, PhD, School Psychology Program, Chicago School of Professional Psychology, Chicago, Illinois
Eric E. Pierson, PhD, NCSP, HSPP, Department of Educational Psychology, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana
Mark Pomplun, PhD, Riverside Publishing, Itasca, Illinois
Tara C. Raines, PsyS, Gwinnett County Public Schools, Gwinnett County, Georgia
Cecil R. Reynolds, PhD, Department of Educational Psychology, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas
Matthew R. Reynolds, PhD, Department of Psychology and Research in Education, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas
Cynthia A. Riccio, PhD, Department of Educational Psychology, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas
Alycia M. Roberts, BA, Department of Psychology, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina
Jane Rogers, PsyD, Department of Psychology, Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Gale H. Roid, PhD, Department of Institutional Research, Warner Pacific College, Portland, Oregon
Ellen W. Rowe, PhD, Center for Psychological Services, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia
Andrea N. Schneider, BA, Department of Psychology, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
W. Joel Schneider, PhD, Department of Psychology, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois
Fredrick A. Schrank, PhD, Woodcock–Munoz Foundation, Olympia, Washington
Jennie Kaufman Singer, PhD, College of Health and Human Services, Sacramento State University, Sacramento, California
Marlene Sotelo-Dynega, PhD, Department of Psychology, St. John’s University, Jamaica, New York
Robert J. Sternberg, PhD, Provost, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma
Dustin Wahlstrom, PhD, The Psychological Corporation, San Antonio, Texas
John D. Wasserman, PhD, Department of Psychology, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia
Lawrence G. Weiss, PhD, The Psychological Corporation, San Antonio, Texas
Barbara J. Wendling, MA, Consulting Services, Dallas, Texas
James Whitaker, PsyD, Department of Psychology, Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Gabrielle Wilcox, PsyD, Department of School Psychology, Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Anne Pierce Winsor, PhD, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia
Kirby L. Wycoff, EdM, NCSP, Graduate School of Applied and Professional Psychology, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, New Jersey
Megan Yim, BA, Department of Psychology, Victoria Island University, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
Jianjun Zhu, PhD, The Psychological Corporation, San Antonio, Texas

GUILFORD PUBLICATIONS, INC.
72 Spring Street, New York, NY 10012
Tel: (212) 431-9800​Toll Free: (800) 365-7006
Fax: (212) 966-6708​E-mail: info@guilford.com
Visit our website: www.guilford.com


- iPost using BlogPress from Kevin McGrew's iPad


Generated by: Tag Generator