Essentials of WNV Assessment

Brunnert Naglieri Hardy-Braz

Psychology

Quickly acquire the knowledge and skills you need to confidently administer, score, and interpret the WNV™

E

of WNV ™ Assessment provides practitioners with the practical, step-by-step advice needed to administer, score, and interpret the Wechsler Nonverbal Scale of Ability (WNV™), a nonverbal assessment of general ability used to assess a wide variety of individuals. The test is especially well suited for those who are not proficient in English, such as young children, recent immigrants, English language learners, and the deaf and hard of hearing. Like all the volumes in the Essentials of Psychological Assessment series, this book is designed to help busy mental health professionals quickly acquire the knowledge and skills they need to make optimal use of a major psychological assessment instrument. Each concise chapter features numerous callout boxes highlighting key concepts, bulleted points, and extensive illustrative material, as well as test questions that help you gauge and reinforce your grasp of the information covered.

KIMBERLY A. BRUNNERT, PHD, is a Senior Research Scientist in Educational Assessment at Pearson, where she has worked with Jack Naglieri on the development of the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test, Individual Administration; Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test, Second Edition; and the Wechsler Nonverbal Scale of Ability. JACK A. NAGLIERI, PHD, is Professor of Psychology at George Mason University, Senior Research Scientist at the Devereux Foundation, a Fellow of APA Division 16—School Psychology, and recipient of that division’s Senior Scientist Award. In addition, he has published a number of research papers, books, and tests. STEVEN T. HARDY-BRAZ, PSYS, NCSP, is a past president of the North Carolina School Psychology Association. He has worked with residential schools for deaf students, the U.S. Department of the Defense, and public school systems. In addition to providing state, regional, and national training in assessment and diagnosis, especially in evaluations with students with learning disabilities, he consulted on the development of the WNV™.

TM

Essentials of WNV ™ Assessment is the best source of information on the test, providing you with illuminating case reports, expert assessment of the test’s relative strengths and weaknesses, and valuable advice on its clinical applications. Authoritative and insightful coverage is presented for the assessment of examinees from diverse social, linguistic, and cultural backgrounds. You will learn the fundamentals of administration and interpretation, as well as advanced tips for application of the WNV™.

Essentials of WNV Assessment

TM WNVssentials

Essentials of

WNV Assessment TM

Complete coverage of administration, scoring, interpretation, and reporting Expert advice on avoiding common pitfalls Conveniently formatted for rapid reference

Other titles in the Essentials of Psychological Assessment series: Essentials of Assessment Report Writing Essentials of WISC®-IV Assessment Essentials of Cross-Battery Assessment, Second Edition Essentials of WJ III™ Tests of Achievement Assessment Essentials of WJ III™ Cognitive Abilities Assessment

Essentials of Stanford-Binet Intellegence Scales (SB5) Assessment Essentials of School Neuropsychological Assessment Essentials of Processing Assessment Essentials of DAS-II® Assessment Essentials of Evidence-Based Academic Interventions

Visit us on the Web at: www.wiley.com/psychology

Kimberly A. Brunnert Jack A. Naglieri Steven T. Hardy-Braz Alan S. Kaufman & Nadeen L. Kaufman, Series Editors

FM_1

10/09/2008

3

FM_1

10/14/2008

1

FM_1

10/14/2008

2

FM_1

10/09/2008

3

Essentials of WNVTM Assessment

FM_1

10/08/2008

4

Essentials of Psychological Assessment Series Series Editors, Alan S. Kaufman and Nadeen L. Kaufman Essentials of WAIS1-III Assessment byAlan S. Kaufman and Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger Essentials of CASAssessment byJack A. Naglieri Essentials of Forensic Psychological Assessment by MarcJ. Ackerman Essentials of Bayley Scales of Infant Development^II Assessment by Maureen M. Black and Kathleen Matula Essentials of Myers-BriggsType Indicator1 Assessment by Naomi Quenk Essentials of WISC-III1 and WPPSI-R1 Assessment byAlan S. Kaufman and Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger Essentials of Rorschach1 Assessment byTara Rose, Nancy Kaser-Boyd, and Michael P. Maloney Essentials of Career Interest Assessment byJeffrey P. Prince and LisaJ. Heiser Essentials of Cross-Battery Assessment by Dawn P. Flanagan and Samuel O. Ortiz Essentials of Cognitive Assessment with KAITand Other Kaufman Measures by Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger, Debra Broadbooks, and Alan S. Kaufman Essentials of Nonverbal Assessment by Steve McCallum, Bruce Bracken, andJohn Wasserman Essentials of MMPI-2TM Assessment by David S. Nichols Essentials of NEPSY1Assessment by Sally L. Kemp, Ursula Kirk, and Marit Korkman Essentials of Individual Achievement Assessment by Douglas K. Smith Essentials of TATand Other StorytellingTechniques Assessment by HedwigTeglasi Essentials of WJ III1 Tests of Achievement Assessment by Nancy Mather, BarbaraJ.Wendling, and RichardW. Woodcock Essentials of WJ III1 Cognitive Abilities Assessment by Fredrick A. Schrank, Dawn P. Flanagan, RichardW. Woodcock, andJenniferT. Mascolo Essentials of WMS1-III Assessment by Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger, Alan S. Kaufman, and Zona C. Lai Essentials of MMPI-ATM Assessment by Robert P. Archer and Radhika Krishnamurthy

Essentials of Neuropsychological Assessment by Nancy Hebben and William Milberg Essentials of Behavioral Assessment by Michael C. Ramsay, Cecil R. Reynolds, and R.W. Kamphaus Essentials of Millon Inventories Assessment, Second Edition by Stephen N. Strack Essentials of PAI1 Assessment by Leslie C. Morey Essentials of16 PF1Assessment by Heather E.-P. Cattell andJames M. Schuerger Essentials of WPPSI TM-III Assessment by Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger and Alan S. Kaufman Essentials of Assessment Report Writing by Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger, Nancy Mather, Nadeen L. Kaufman, and Alan S. Kaufman Essentials of Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales (SB5) Assessment by Gale H. Roid and R. Andrew Barram Essentials of WISC-IV1Assessment by Dawn P. Flanagan and Alan S. Kaufman Essentials of KABC-II Assessment byAlan S. Kaufman, Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger, Elaine Fletcher-Janzen, and Nadeen L. Kaufman Essentials of Processing Assessment by MiltonJ. Dehn Essentials of WIAT1-II and KTEA-II Assessment by Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger and Donna R. Smith Essentials of Assessment with Brief IntelligenceTests by Susan R. Homack and Cecil R. Reynolds Essentials of School Neuropsychological Assessment by Daniel C. Miller Essentials of MillonTM Inventories Assessment,Third Edition by Stephen Strack Essentials of Creativity Assessment byJames C. Kaufman, Jonathan A. Plucker, and John Baer Essentials of DAS-II1 Assessment by Ron Dumont, John O.Willis, and Colin D. Elliott Essentials of WNVTM Assessment by KimberlyJ. Brunnert, Jack A. Naglieri, and StevenT. Hardy-Braz Essentials of WRAML2 and TOMAL-2 Assessment by Wayne Adams and Cecil R. Reynolds Essentials of Evidence-Based Academic Interventions by BarbaraJ.Wendling and Nancy Mather

FM_1

10/09/2008

5

Essentials of WNVTM Assessment Kimberly A. Brunnert Jack A. Naglieri Steven T. Hardy-Braz

John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

FM_1

10/08/2008

6

Copyright # 2009 byJohn Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved. Published byJohn Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NewJersey. Published simultaneously in Canada. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior written permission of the Publisher, or authorization through payment of the appropriate per-copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, (978) 750-8400, fax (978) 646-8600, or on the web at www.copyright.com. Requests to the Publisher for permission should be addressed to the Permissions Department, JohnWiley & Sons, Inc.,111River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, (201) 748-6011, fax (201) 748-6008. Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author have used their best efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives or written sales materials.The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation.You should consult with a professional where appropriate. Neither the publisher nor author shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. If legal, accounting, medical, psychological or any other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional person should be sought. Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks. In all instances whereJohnWiley & Sons, Inc. is aware of a claim, the product names appear in initial capital or all capital letters. Readers, however, should contact the appropriate companies for more complete information regarding trademarks and registration. For general information on our other products and services please contact our Customer Care Department within the U.S. at (800) 762-2974, outside the United States at (317) 572-3993 or fax (317) 572-4002. Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic books. For more information about Wiley products, visit our website at www.wiley.com. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data: Brunnert, KimberlyA. Essentials of WNVassessment/by KimberlyA. Brunnert, Jack A. Naglieri, StevenT. Hardy-Braz. p. cm. ^ (Essentials psychological assessment series) Includes bibliographical references (p. 195) and index. ISBN 978-0-470-28467-4 (pbk.) 1.Wechsler Nonverbal Scale of Ability. I. Naglieri, Jack A. II. Hardy-Braz, StevenT. III.Title. BF432.5.W423B78 2009 153.903^dc22 2008026310 Printed in the United States of America 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

FM_1

10/08/2008

7

Thank you to my family, whose support and encouragement made this possible. Kimberly A. Brunnert I dedicate this work to all those like my grandparents whose contribution and integration into American society is influenced by limited education and English-language skills and for whom a nonverbal test ofability nowsuggests a more promising future. Jack A. Naglieri To the numerous Deafand deaf/blind individuals in differentcountries who havetaughtand shared with me your wonderful sign languages, histories, and cultures, and to the families who seek appropriate psychological assessments. StevenT. Hardy-Braz

FM_1

10/08/2008

8

FM_1

10/08/2008

9

CONTENTS

Series Preface

xi

One

Introduction and Overview

1

Two

How to Administer the WNV

13

How to Score the WNV

33

Four

Interpretation of the WNV

53

Five

Strengths and Weaknesses

73

Clinical Applications of the WNV

85

Illustrative Case Reports

99

Three

Six Seven

References

191

Annotated Bibliography

195

Index

197

About the Authors

203

ix

FM_1

10/08/2008

10

FM_1

10/08/2008

11

SERIES PREFACE

I

n the Essentialsof Psychological Assessment series, our goal is to provide the reader with books that deliver key practical information in the most e⁄cient and accessible style.The series features instruments in a variety of domains, such as cognition, personality, education, and neuropsychology. For the experienced clinician, books in the series o¡er a concise yet thorough way to master the continuously evolving supply of new and revised instruments, as well as a convenient method for keeping up to date on the tried-and-true measures. The novice will ¢nd here a prioritized assembly of all the information and techniques that must be at one’s ¢ngertips to begin the complicated process of individual psychological diagnosis.Wherever feasible, visual shortcuts to highlight key points are utilized alongside systematic, step-by-step guidelines. Chapters are focused and succinct.Topics are targeted for an easy understanding of the essentials of administration, scoring, interpretation, and clinical application.Theory and research are continually woven into the fabric of each book, but always to enhance clinical inference, never to sidetrack or overwhelm.We have long been advocates of ‘‘intelligent’’ testingthe notion that a pro¢le of test scores is meaningless unless it is brought to life by the clinical observations and astute detective work of knowledgeable examiners. Test pro¢les must be used to make a di¡erence in the child’s or adult’s life, or why bother to test? We want this series to help our readers become the best intelligent testers they can be. A triad of assessment professionals o¡er insight into theWNV test in Essentials of WNVAssessment: Kim Brunnert is the Research Director at Pearson (formerly Harcourt) who speci¢ed the methodology and oversaw the details of the development and production of the WNV; Jack Naglieri is one of the authors of the WNV who is also a respected leader in the assessment ¢eld; and Steven Hardy-Braz made important contributions throughout the development xi

FM_1

10/08/2008

12

xii SERIES PREFACE

of the WNV and is a practitioner in and respected partner of the deaf and hearing-impaired community. The authors o¡er readers an authoritative and insightful look at this new testing alternative for the assessment of examinees from diverse social, linguistic, and cultural backgrounds. The goal of this volume is to provide both beginning users and those familiar with the instrument with the fundamentals of administration and interpretation, as well as advanced tips for application of theWNV.

Alan S. Kaufman, Ph.D., and Nadeen L. Kaufman, Ed.D., Series Editors Yale University School of Medicine

FM_1

10/09/2008

13

Essentials of WNVTM Assessment

FM_1

10/08/2008

14

c01_1

10/08/2008

1

One INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

INTRODUCTION

The use of standardized psychological testing instruments to measure ability using nonverbal tests provides an organized way to collect a great deal of information regarding an examinee’s cognitive ability in an e⁄cient manner. An appropriate assessment using a well-developed instrument administered by a well-trained examiner can reveal much about an examinee’s abilities. These results, when integrated with other information, can be instructive and can be used for identi¢cation and treatment purposes. Naglieri and Chambers (in press) argue, however, that examiners must use well-developed tests standardized on representative samples and for which test authors provide adequate technical and interpretive manuals. Although this applies to all testing areas, it is most important in the assessment of intelligence testing, which is marred by problems for the Deaf, those whose native language is other than English, or those who may not be able to speak clearly, if at all. For examples of this, see IQ:ASmart History of a Failed Idea by Murdoch (2007) and Unspeakable:The Story of Junius Wilson by Burch andJoyner (2007). Measures of intelligence must be created with attention to detail for special populations and circumstances as well as evidence of reliability and validity, expert reviews, standardization, and the collection of a representative normative sample. The Wechsler Nonverbal Scale of Ability (WNV) builds upon a rich history, goes beyond decades of use of Wechsler’s performance tasks, and adds an explicitcommitment to fairness and accurate assessment of a wide variety of individuals. The purpose behind the development of WNV at each stage was fairness for 

Following culturally appropriate practices we have attempted to use the capitalized‘‘Deaf’’to refer to cultural practices and members of the Deaf population and the lower case‘‘deaf: torefer to the condition of deafness or the larger group of individuals who do not identify themselves with members of this culture. 1

c01_1

10/08/2008

2

2 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

various populations: to be able to administer the test nonverbally or in a manner that uses minimal language. By minimizing the language demands of the administration of the subtests and providing unique pictorial directions for the administration, the WNV has established a new, patent-pending method of administration as a means to ensure the comprehension of the required tasks by the examinee and a new standard for multilingual administration directions. HISTORY OF ABILITY AND ABILITY TESTING

There has been mention of people who were noteworthy in society (e.g., Aristotle, Euclid, Leonardo daVinci, Albert Einstein) ever since written records have been kept. With discussions from thousands of years ago about ability and intellect, it seems that there should be a universal de¢nition. However, there are many diverse de¢nitions of intelligence, including the de¢nitions in the dictionaries. Dictionary.com de¢nes intelligence ¢rst as the ‘‘capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.’’; whereas Merriam-Webster de¢nes intelligence ¢rst as ‘‘the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations.’’ Regardless of how intelligence is de¢ned, there is considerable support for the utility of measuring intelligence. Alfred Binet compiled the ¢rsttest batterybased on tasks that teachers identi¢ed as relevant; quickly identifying those students who needed additional help or different educational interventions (see Rapid Reference 1.1 for the chronology of Binet’s testing instruments). Other educators, such as Itard and Montessori, used a variety of tasks to assist them in formulating educational programming for their

Rapid Reference 1.1

.................................................................................................... Over a Century of Stanford-Binet Scales 1905 1908 1916 1937 1960 1972 1986 2004

Binet-Simon Binet-Simon–Revised Stanford Revision and Extension of the Binet-Simon scales Stanford-Binet Stanford-Binet–Second Edition Stanford-Binet L–M Stanford-Binet–Fourth Edition Stanford-Binet–Fifth Edition

c01_1

10/08/2008

3

INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW 3

Rapid Reference 1.2

.................................................................................................... Nearly 70 Years of Wechsler Scales 1939 1946 1949 1955 1967 1974 1981 1989 1991 1997 2003 2004 2005 2006 2008

Wechsler-Bellevue, Form I Wechsler-Bellevue, Form II Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC) Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence (WPPSI) WISC–Revised WAIS–Revised WPPSI–Revised WISC—III WAIS—III WISC—IV WISC—IV Integrated WISC—IV Spanish Wechsler Nonverbal Scale of Ability (WNV) WAIS—IV

students.Whether or not Boring’s 1923 statement that intelligence is what the tests test was accurate, it does follow that the measurement of ability or intelligence is more easily quanti¢ed by using tests than by any other method. The concept and de¢nition of general intelligence gained visibility and momentum with Charles Spearman’s (1904) article entitled ‘‘General Intelligence’’: Objectively Determined and Measured. Spearman proposed the theory that all mental tests can be described as having a factor speci¢c to each test and a general factor, designated as g. David Wechsler created the Wechsler scales, called the Wechsler-Bellevue Scales (Wechsler, 1939), to re£ect this dichotomysubtest-speci¢c scores and an overall composite score. All of Wechsler’s scales and revisions published since, including the WNV, re£ect this (see Rapid Reference 1.2 for the chronology of Wechsler’s scales). The purpose of theWNV (Wechsler & Naglieri, 2006a) is to provide a nonverbal measure of general ability for assessing the general cognitive ability of examinees ages 4 through 21using questions that do not contain verbal content and to do so using subtests that vary in their format and requirements. This is in contrast to previous versions of the Wechsler Scales that have measured general ability using verbal, arithmetic, and nonverbal tests. The WNV

c01_1

10/08/2008

4

4 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

provides a measure of general ability using only nonverbal tasks, which .................................................. provides a way to measure general The Wechsler Nonverbal Scale of ability while minimizing language Ability is a measure of general ability that requires the examinee to solve and math skills. This is also in conproblems that do not require verbal trast to tests like the Naglieri Nonverbal expression or knowledge of words. Ability TestIndividual Administration (NNATI); (Naglieri, 2003a) thatonly use one item type to assess general ability nonverbally.

DON’T FORGET

BENEFITS OF NONVERBAL TESTING

The essentialbene¢tofanonverbaltestisthatitmeasuresanexaminee’sgeneralability in£uencedminimallybyknowledge.Forexample,averbaltestofgeneralabilitymight askthe examinee to explain howabee and a coware the same.To answer thatquestion demands knowledge of these two words, what each of the objects these words represent are, and what they share. In contrast, solving nonverbal test items involves minimal knowledge beyond recognizing a letter or number or being able to see the di¡erence between a circle and a square. Essentially, nonverbal tests provide a means of measuring general ability without the confounding in£uence of verbal and quantitative knowledge and related skills such as reading, math, and verbal expression. This makes a nonverbal test like theWNV particularly appropriate for assessment of examinees who have limited knowledge of English, weak academic histories, communication challenges, and neurological impairments. Using a nonverbal test can circumvent those variables that may interfere with the accurate measurement of general ability. DEVELOPMENT OF THE WNV

The Wechsler Nonverbal Scale of Ability was created with many goals, all the while adhering to the highest standards set forth by previous Wechsler and Naglieri products. These goals included the following. 



Create an ability test that can be used across cultures and languages. Create an ability test that can be used for all people (e.g., various

DON’T FORGET

.................................................. Historically, Wechsler tests have grouped subtests into nonverbal and verbal composites or categories. These composite or category names indicated the types of skills required to complete items and did not indicate a type of ability. A nonverbal test of ability is one that does not require the examinee to speak or understand the language that the test was published in or the primary language of the examiner.

c01_1

10/08/2008

5

INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW 5

 

ability levels, motor skills, speaking and hearing levels) Create an ability test that is of reasonable length. Create a test that will be interesting and engaging for examinees.

The development of the WNV included many innovations, arguably the most important of which was the creation of the pictorial directions (patent pending). The pictorial directions are visual representations not only of what the examinee will see and do during the administration of each subtest, but also sometimes of what the examinee might be thinking to answer correctly. For example, in the pictorial directions for Matrices, in Figure1.1, the examiner points to the stimulus part of the item, and the examinee looks at (and thinks about) the stimulus. In the second frame, the examiner sweeps his or her hand across the answer options, and the examinee looks at (and thinks about) the answer options. In the ¢nal frame, the examinee thinks about and then points to the correct answer. These pictorial directions are combined with standardized directions, which include simple sentences. Once the examiner completesthe standardized portion of the directions he or she can continue to provide help to aid the examinee in understanding the demands of the tasks.This approach, both with the pictorial directions and the £exible supplement to the directions, makes the WNV an excellent ability measure for examinees from diverse cultures who may speak languages that the examiner cannot. Additionally, during development the subtests, pictorial directions, and standardized directions were all subjected to scrutiny by professionals who work with those from multicultural backgrounds and/or who work with individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing. Changes were made to the pictorial directions and to the directions for the examiner based on feedback from these reviewers. The next goal that was met during development of theWNV was creating an ability test that could be used with all kinds of people. The items of the WNV can be administered to examinees with all types of color blindness except

Figure 1.1. Matrices Pictorial Directions

c01_1

10/08/2008

6

6 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

tritanopia (blue-yellow color blindness) or achromatopsia (an inability to perceive color), each of which have a prevalence of less than .01% of the population. Examinees with all other types of color blindness should not perceive any of the items in a di¡erent way than examinees with color vision. The WNVcan be administered to examinees who have trouble with motor skills by administering the 2-subtest battery or by not administering Coding and prorating the 4-subtest battery.The choice for which subtests to administer would be determined by the examiner based on the examinee’s unique skill set. The WNV can be administered to examinees suspected of having low or high ability levels. TheWNVcan be administered to hard-of-hearing or deaf examinees regardless of how they communicate. In fact, great care was taken during the development of the WNV to create an instrument that can be used with deaf or hard-of-hearing individuals in the same way it is used with hearing individuals. As previously noted, the subtests, pictorial directions, and standardized directions were all subjected to scrutiny by professionals who work with multicultural examinees and/or who work with deaf or hard-of-hearing examinees. Changes were made to the pictorial directions and to the directions for the examiner based on feedback from these reviewers (e.g., pictures were altered to conform to nonverbal facial markers of signed language). Additionally, the WNV was administered to deaf individuals who use di¡erent communication systems and languages during the pilot, tryout, and standardization phases. A translation and blind back-translation was done with all of the verbal directions for standardization. The ¢nal translation was then ¢lmed of a deaf model using a native sign language. This translation was used in the collection of the normative data and the clinical validity studies in the standardization phase of development. The collection of data for the validity studies for using the WNV with deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals was unique for more than thatreason.TheWNVwasthe ¢rsttestto collectdata on deafand hard-of-hearing individuals in coordination with Gallaudet University’s annual demographic survey of tens of thousands of deaf and hard-of-hearing students. The WNV became the ¢rst published test to report the demographic variables that are unique to these populations. Furthermore, it is also the ¢rst and only ability test to report separate validity studies for hard-of-hearing and deaf individuals. Great care went into the development of the instrument at every stage and the data from the validity studies re£ect that, as displayed in the Technical and Interpretive Manual (Wechsler & Naglieri, 2006c). Besides meeting the goals described previously, theWNV is also a reasonable length, interesting, and engaging to administer.

c01_1

10/08/2008

7

INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW 7

DESCRIPTION OF THE WNV

TheWNV was standardized simultaneously in the United States and in Canada. The standardization samples included reliability and validity studies, which were collected in the United States. For details about the WNV, including the standardization sample information for both countries, seeTable 1.1.

Table 1.1. General Information Authors

David Wechsler (d. 1981) Jack A. Naglieri

Publication Date

2006

Age Range

4:0^21:11

AdministrationTime for Examinees in the Normative Sample Ages 4:0^7:11 (50%/90%)

4-Subtest Battery: 37/55 mins 2-Subtest Battery: 10/17 mins

AdministrationTime for Examinees in the Normative Sample Ages 8:0^21:11 (50%/90%)

4-Subtest Battery: 34/51 mins 2-Subtest Battery: 14/29 mins

Quali¢cation of Examiners

Graduate- or professional-level training in psychological assessment

Publisher

Pearson (formerly Harcourt Assessment, and The Psychological Corporation) 19500 Bulverde Road San Antonio, Texas 78259 Ordering Phone No. 800-211-8378 http://HarcourtAssessment.com Score Information

Composite Score for General Ability

Full Scale Score: 4-Subtest Battery and Full Scale Score: 2-Subtest Battery

Available Scores

Raw Scores for Items and Subtests T Scores for Subtests Full Scale Score: 4-Subtest Battery (with CIs) Full Scale Score: 2-Subtest Battery (with CIs) Percentile Ranks Age Equivalent

Range of Full Scale Scores

30 to 170 (ages 4:0^21:11) (continued )

c01_1

10/08/2008

8

8 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT Table 1.1. (continued) Norming Information U.S. Standardization Sample Size

1,350

Canadian Standardization Sample Size

875

Sample Collection Dates (both U.S. and Canadian samples)

July 2005 to May 2006

Sample Size per Age Interval for U.S. Sample

100

Range of Sample Sizes per Age Interval for Canadian Sample

50^100

Age Blocks in Norm Table (both for U.S. and Canadian norms)

3 month (4:0^5:11) 4 month (6:0^16:11) 3 year (17:0^19:11) 2 year (20:0^21:11)

U.S. DemographicVariables

Age Gender (Male, Female) Geographic Region (West, North Central, South, and Northeast) Race/ethnicity (White, African American, Hispanic, Asian, Other) Parent Education (¢ve levels)

Canadian DemographicVariables

Age Gender (Male, Female) Geographic Region (West, Central, and East) Race/ethnicity (Caucasian, Asian, First Nations, Other) Parent Education (four levels)

ValidityTest Studies

WPPSIIII WISCIV WISCIV Spanish WAISIII NNATI UNIT WIATII

Special Group Studies

Gifted Mild Mental Retardation Moderate Mental Retardation

c01_1

10/08/2008

9

INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW 9

Reading and Written Expression Learning Disorders Language Disorders English-Language Learners Deaf Hard-of-Hearing

STRUCTURE OF THE WNV

The WNV has both a 4- and 2-subtest battery, as described in Chapter 2. Both versions have good reliability, so the decision about which version to administer should be based on the reasons for testing, the testing constraints (e.g., time), or characteristics of the examinee (e.g., problems with motor skills). In other words, the 4-subtest battery should be the battery of choice because it o¡ers greater diversity with the additional subtests. However, if time is short, if the examinee has a motor skills de¢cit, or if there are other exceptional circumstances, the 2-subtest battery is the better choice. Table 1.2 provides subtest descriptions of the WNV.

Table 1.2. WNV Subtest Descriptions Subtest (Abbreviation)

Origin

Description

Matrices (MA)

Adapted from NNATI

The examinee looks at an incomplete ¢gural matrix and selects the missing portion from four or ¢ve response options.

Coding (CD)

Adapted from WISCIV

The examinee copies symbols that are paired with simple geometric shapes or numbers. Using a key, the examinee writes each symbol in its corresponding box within a speci¢ed time limit.

Object Assembly (OA)

Adapted from WPPSIIII, WISCIII, and one new item

The examinee is presented with prearranged puzzle pieces and ¢ts the pieces together to form a meaningful whole within a speci¢ed time limit. (continued )

c01_1

10/08/2008

10

10 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT Table 1.2. (continued) Subtest (Abbreviation)

Origin

Description

Recognition (RG)

New Subtest

The examinee looks at a geometric design for 3 seconds and identi¢es which of four or ¢ve response options matches the viewed stimulus.

Spatial Span (SSp)

Adapted from WMSIII

The examinee taps a series of blocks as demonstrated by the examiner. For Spatial Span Forward, the examinee repeats a sequence of tapped blocks in the same order as demonstrated by the examiner. For Spatial Span Backward, the examinee repeats a sequence of tapped blocks in the reverse order of that demonstrated by the examiner.

Picture Arrangement (PA)

Adapted from WAISIII and a research version of the WISCIV Integrated

The examinee reorders a prearranged set of picture cards to tell a logical story within a speci¢ed time limit.

CONCLUSION

TheWNV was developed, constructed, and tested with great attention paid to details around special populations. The WNV is an excellent assessment that demonstrates the highest level of fairness and accuracy for diverse groups of examiners and examinees. It is an instrument that can be used to overcome language barriers that may exist between an examiner and examinee and provide needed information regarding an examinee’s cognitive ability. The WNV builds on David Wechsler’s historic dedication to clinical assessments and Jack Naglieri’s strong commitment to such assessments being done in a culturally fair fashion.

c01_1

10/10/2008

11

INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW 11

Test Yourself

.................................................................................................... 1. Which of the following statements is true about the Recognition subtest?

(a) The Recognition subtest requires examinees to put together puzzles. (b) The Recognition subtest requires examinees to point to a geometric pattern that they were previously shown. (c) The Recognition subtest requires examinees to point to raised boxes that the examiner tapped. (d) The Recognition subtest requires examinees to complete a geometric pattern. 2. In what year was the first Wechsler scale published?

(a) 1950 (b) 1939 (c) 1979 (d) 1899 3. Which of the following statements is true about the Spatial Span subtest?

(a) The Spatial Span subtest requires examinees to put together puzzles. (b) The Spatial Span subtest requires examinees to point to a geometric pattern that they were previously shown. (c) The Spatial Span subtest requires examinees to point to raised boxes that the examiner tapped in a specified order. (d) The Spatial Span subtest requires examinees to complete a geometric pattern. 4. Which special studies were included with the standardization of the WNV?

(a) Gifted and Talented, Mild Mental Retardation, Moderate Mental Retardation, Deaf, and Hard-of-Hearing (b) Language Disorders and English-Language Learners (c) Reading and Written Expression Learning Disorders (d) All of the above 5. What test was the Recognition subtest adapted from?

(a) The WAIS—III (b) The Recognition subtest is new and was not adapted from another test. (c) The NNAT—I (d) The WIAT—II 6. Who wrote the (1904) article entitled ‘‘General Intelligence’’: Objectively Determined and Measured?

(a) Charles Spearman (b) Lev Vygotsky (c) Alfred Binet (d) Theodore Simon

c01_1

10/08/2008

12

12 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

7. What test was the Coding subtest adapted from?

(a) The WAIS—III (b) The Coding subtest is new and was not adapted from another test. (c) The WISC—IV (d) The WIAT—II 8. Which is the correct way to describe the WNV?

(a) A nonverbally administered test of ability (b) A test of nonverbal ability (c) An ability test (d) a and c 9. In which countries was the WNV simultaneously standardized?

(a) The United States and Canada (b) The United States and China (c) The United States and Great Britain (d) The United States and South Africa 10. Which demographic variables were used when collecting the U.S. standardization sample?

(a) Age, Race/ethnicity, Parent Education, Geographic Region, and Gender (b) Age, Grade, Race/ethnicity, Parent Education, and Gender (c) Grade, Race/ethnicity, Geographic Region, and Gender (d) Grade, Race/ethnicity, Socioeconomic Status, Geographic Region, and Gender Answers: 1. b; 2. b; 3. c; 4. d; 5. b; 6. a; 7. c; 8. d; 9. a; 10. a

c02_1

10/08/2008

13

Two HOW TO ADMINISTER THE WNV

APPROPRIATE TESTING CONDITIONS

TheWNV, like any standardized test, must be administered and scored as it was standardized and described in the manual (Wechsler Nonverbal Scaleof AbilityAdministration and Scoring Manual, Wechsler & Naglieri, 2006b). Although it is the obligation of the examiner to ensure that the administration procedures are consistent with applicable professional standards, it is also assumed that examiners will create an appropriate environment for administering the standardized test and document any administration alterations. Development and maintenance of rapport, for example, are critical to obtaining good data. Similarly, the importance of following directions precisely is crucial. For a description ofgood testing practice ingeneral, see, for example, Sattler (2001).The discussion that follows addresses some issues speci¢c to the WNV. Proper administration of theWNVis facilitated if the examiner iswithin reach of the examinee’s working surface and can closelyobserve the examinee’s actions. Sitting directly across a small or moderately sized table, or across the corner of a table, is ideal. GUIDELINES FOR ADMINISTRATION AGES 4:0–7:11 AND 8:0–21:11

The subtests used for ages 4:0 through 7:11are Matrices, Coding, Object Assembly, and Recognition. The subtests used for ages 8:0 through 21:11 are Matrices, Coding, Spatial Span, and Picture Arrangement. Rapid Reference 2.1 provides a summary of subtest inclusion by battery and age band.

13

c02_1

10/08/2008

14

14 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

Rapid Reference 2.1

.................................................................................................... Subtest Inclusion by Battery and Age Band Age Band Subtests 4:0–7:11

8:0–21:11

4-Subtest Battery 2-Subtest Battery

Matrices Coding Object Assembly Recognition

X X X X

X

Matrices Coding Spatial Span Picture Arrangement

X X X X

X

X

X

4- and 2-Subtest Batteries

There are 4-subtest and 2-subtest batteries for each age group. Examinees between 4:0 and 7:11 would only be administered Matrices and Recognition for the 2-subtest battery. Likewise, examinees between 8:0 and 21:11 would only be administered Matrices and Spatial Span. The4-subtestbattery providesthe mostthorough examination ofgeneral ability as well as some other psychometric advantages (see theTechnical and Interpretive Manual) over the 2-subtest battery. However, there are some instances when the goals of the assessment are such that the 2-subtest battery is preferable. One example of this is when time is critical.The 2-subtest battery takes approximately 20 minutesto complete,whereas the 4-subtestbattery takes approximately 45 minutes to administer. Start Points

Start points vary across subtests and are noted with an arrow in a circle (see Figure 2.1), both on or in the subtest header on the Record Form and at the actual start point within the subtest, with the corresponding ages. Details about subtest-speci¢c start points can be found in the Administration and Scoring Manual as well as on the Record Form. All examinees will be administered the demonstration and sample items regardless of their age.When testing an examinee suspected of low general ability the examiner should start at Item 1, regardless of the examinee’s age.

c02_1

10/08/2008

15

HOW TO ADMINISTER THE WNV 15

Figure 2.1. Start Point Icon

For ages 4:0 through 7:11, Matrices, Object Assembly, and Recognition have start points that vary across this age group for each subtest. For Coding, all examinees aged 4:0 through 7:11take Coding Form A. For ages 8:0 through 21:11, Matrices is the only subtest that has a variable start point across the age group. All examinees ages 8:0 through 21:11are administered Coding Form B, and all examinees aged 8:0 through 21:11 start at item 1 for Spatial Span (Forward and Backward) and Picture Arrangement. Reverse Rules

Reverse rules exist to help establish the £oor of a subtest and are only found on subtests with age-speci¢c start points. The WNV has only one reverse rule. An examinee will rarely incorrectly complete the ¢rst two items. To obtain the most accurate score for an examinee who does not receive full credit for either or both of the ¢rst two items, the examiner should administer preceding items in reverse order until two consecutive perfect scores are obtained. Reverse rules are noted in the subtest header on the Record Form, with an upward-pointing, U-shaped arrow (see Figure 2.2). Matrices, Object Assembly, and Recognition are the only subtests that contain reverse rules.

Figure 2.2. Reverse Icon

c02_1

10/08/2008

16

16 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

The examiner should award full credit for all prior unadministered items. For examinees that do not The examiner should award full credit reverse (most examinees) this will for all prior unadministered items once the reverse rule has been met. be all unadministered items prior to the start point.The examiner should carefully score cases when the examinee has reversed.‘‘Regardless of the examinee’s performance on items preceding the age-speci¢c start point, full credit is awarded for preceding items if perfect scores are obtained on the age-speci¢c start points and subsequent items’’ (Wechsler & Naglieri, 2006b, p. 22).

DON’T FORGET ..................................................

Discontinue Rules

Discontinue rules are used to determine when tostop administration of a subtest. Every subtest has a discontinue rule. The discontinue rule for each subtest is noted in the subtest header with a symbol of a hand inside an octagon (see Figure 2.3). Coding is the only subtest that uses time in the discontinue rule. Matrices, Object Assembly, Recognition, Spatial Span, and Picture Arrangement all have discontinue rules that follow the format of a speci¢ed number of 0 scores on consecutive items. On Matrices and Recognition examinees are discontinued after they receive 0 scores on 4 out of 5 itemsthis includes examinees who receive 4 scores of 0 in a row. On Spatial Span, the subtest administration should be discontinued after the examinee receives 0 scores on both trials of an item (i.e., the item score is 0). After administration of Spatial Span Forward is discontinued, Spatial Span Backward is still administered. Rapid Reference 2.2 provides a summary of the discontinue rules for each subtest. Items that were administered while meeting the reverse rule should be counted in the discontinue rule. An example of this is shown in Figure 2.4, in which A is the notation for the start of the reverse rule, B is the notation for the completion of the discontinue rule, C is the notation for the completion

Figure 2.3. Discontinue Icon

c02_1

10/08/2008

17

HOW TO ADMINISTER THE WNV 17

Rapid Reference 2.2

.................................................................................................... Discontinue Rules by Each Subtest Subtest Matrices Coding Object Assembly Recognition Spatial Span Picture Arrangement

Discontinue Rule 4 scores of 0 on 5 consecutive items After 120 seconds After 2 consecutive scores of 0 4 scores of 0 on 5 consecutive items After scores of 0 on both trials of an item After 4 consecutive scores of 0

of the reverse rule, and D is the notation for the points that were awarded after the reverse rule was completed. Adiscontinue rule thatis incorrectlyapplied will a¡ectthe examinee’s score on that subtest. Examiners must not discontinue administration too soon. If examiners are unsure if the discontinue rule has been met, they must continue subtest administration until they can be sure. If examiners administered items beyond the discontinue rule,‘‘award nopointsbeyond thecorrectdiscontinuepoint, even iftheexaminee’s response ordinarily would have earned credit’’ (Wechsler & Naglieri, 2006b, p. 23).

Figure 2.4. Discontinue Rule Example

c02_1

10/08/2008

18

18 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

Timing

Speci¢c time limits are found on Coding, Object Assembly, and PictureArrangement; Recognition has a speci¢c exposure time for the stimulus.These are noted on each subtest header with a stopwatch symbol. Completion times for Coding, Object Assembly, and Picture Arrangement are recorded in seconds on the Record Form in the corresponding completion time box. Rates of Presentation

Recognition requires the examiner to present the stimuli for exactly 3 seconds. On all of the subtests, the examinee should begin responding within approximately 30 seconds. If the examinee does not begin responding within about 30 seconds, the examiner should encourage him or her to respond. Thirty seconds is an approximation; the exact time an examinee is allowed to study an item or think about a response is at the examiner’s discretion. Spoiled Subtest

It is possible, although highly unlikely, that a subtest becomes spoiled. In this instance the examiner can use prorating to obtain a 4-subtest battery Full Scale score. This score is available in Table A.4 in the Administration and Scoring Manual. Also, the prorated sum of T scores can be calculated by multiplying the sums of T scores for three subtests by 4/3. If the subtest that was spoiled is not one of the two subtests included in the 2-subtest battery, then the 2-subtest battery Full Scale score can be used. Demonstration and Sample Items

Demonstration and sample items are provided alongwith the pictorialdirections for each subtest.They are a mandatory part of administering each subtest.The examiner may provide additional help with the demonstration and sample items. COMPLETING THE RECORD FORM

The WNVrecord form has four sections: summary information page (page 1), analysis page (page 2),

DON’T FORGET

.................................................. The examiner should always administer the demonstration and sample items at the start of each subtest.

c02_1

10/08/2008

19

HOW TO ADMINISTER THE WNV 19

subtest administration information (pages 3^7), and a behavioral observations page (page 8).There is one record form that is used for either of the 2- or 4-subtest batteries. Similarly, the WNV record form is used with examinees from either age band (4:0^7:11 and 8:0^21:11). Summary Information Page

The Summary Information Page of the record form (page1) can serve as a quick reference for all of the student’s general information. This includes the student’s demographic information, which subtest battery was administered (see A on Figure 2.5), the raw scores for all administered subtests, and theT scores shown both numerically (see B on Figure 2.5) and graphically (see C on Figure 2.5). When administering theWNV, the examiner should record all of the student’s demographic information and check the box for the subtest battery that he or she will be administering (either the 4-subtest battery or the 2-subtest battery). Once the examiner completes this portion, he or she should compute the student’s age at testing. This age will be used to determine which set of subtests will be administered. Computing the Student’s Age atTesting The student’s age at testing is computed by subtracting the student’s date of birth from the date of testing (see D on Figure 2.5). The examiner should assume that each month has 30 days. If the testing session spanned more than 1 day, the examiner should use the ¢rst date of testing for this calculation. The examiner should not round up (e.g., 11 years, 2 months, and 26 days is considered 11 years and 2 months). The remainder of the Summary Page will be completed after administration, during the scoring of the test. Details about these steps are found in Chapter 3‘‘How to Score the WNV.’’ Analysis Page

TheAnalysis Page (page 2) includes information about how the examinee performs on each subtest in relation to his or her overall performance (e.g., Subtest Strengths and Weaknesses section, see A on Figure 2.6; Spatial Span Optional Analysis section, see B on Figure 2.6).This information is particularly useful if the examinee performs very well or very poorly on any single subtest, or if his or her performance seems inconsistent across subtests.

c02_1

10/08/2008

20

20 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

Figure 2.5. Summary Information Page Example

Information on how to complete the Analysis Page is located in the chapter on scoring. Subtest Administration Information Pages

The majorityof the pages (pages 3 through 7) of the Record Form contain subtestspeci¢c information that is used during administration (e.g., Discontinue Rules, see A on Figure 2.7). The speci¢c details for subtest administration that correspond to the subtest pages are found in theWNVAdministration and Scoring Manual.

c02_1

10/08/2008

21

HOW TO ADMINISTER THE WNV 21

Figure 2.6. Analysis Page Example

Behavioral Observations Page

The Behavioral Observations Page (page 8) can be used to record additional information about the examinee (see A on Figure 2.8).This section is particularly useful when the examinee has special traits, skills, or circumstances. Some examples are if the examinee’s primary language is not English, if the examinee is distracted

Figure 2.7. Subtest Specific Page Example

c02_1

10/08/2008

22

22 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

Figure 2.8. Behavioral Observations Page Example

or listless, or if the examinee is on medications that might in£uence his or her performance on the WNV. The Behavioral Observations page also includes a ¢gure with a normal curve, shaded and labeled bycategory.This can be used as a supplement to the Summary Page (see B on Figure 2.8). GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DIRECTIONS Before Administration

Once theWNV is set up for proper administration and the examinee is ready to begin testing, the examiner will brie£y introduce theWNVwith a few sentences. These sentences tell the examinee that he or she needs to look at the pictorial

c02_1

10/08/2008

23

HOW TO ADMINISTER THE WNV 23

directions and that he or she can ask the examiner questions. Like the other spoken text of theWNV, these sentences are provided in English, French, Spanish, Chinese, German, and Dutch for bilingual examiners or for monolingual examiners and their interpreters. Administration Directions

The WNV administration procedure was carefully developed to ensure that the directions would be completely understood by all examinees. There are three steps to the administration directions: In Step 1, standard directions are provided; in Step 2, there are additional extended directions, if necessary; and in Step 3, the examiner is given an opportunity to provide additional help if needed.The standard directions in Step1include pictorial directions with standardized nonverbal gesturing and minimal verbalizations. Extended directions, Step 2, include simple statements the examiner reads to the examinee. Should additional assistance be needed, Step 3 gives examiners the opportunity to provide additional help in a way that is most appropriate for the examinee. Table 2.1provides an overview of these steps, and the following sections provide further explanation. Step1:StandardDirections.The ¢rststepusesthestandardizeddirectionsthat are always administered and should never be changed.These directions must be administered to every examinee, including the series of gestures that correspond to the pictorial directions. Pictorial directions are used at Step 1to provide a standardized method of communicating the demands of the task.These pictorial directions (see Figure 2.9) show a scene like the one the examinee is currently in.The frames of the directions show the progression of an examinee being presented with the question, then thinking about the item, and ¢nally, choosing the correct solution. Table 2.1. Summary of Steps in Administration Directions Step

Name

Flexible

Description

1

Standard Directions

No

Pictorial directions, standardized gestures, and minimal verbal directions

2

Extended Directions

No

Standardized simple sentences in several languages

3

Providing Help

Yes

Flexibility for the examiner to provide additional help as deemed necessary

c02_1

10/08/2008

24

24 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

Figure 2.9. Matrices Pictorial Directions

DuringStep1itisvery importantthatthe examiner’s actions carefully follow the instructions to maximize the likelihood that the examinee understands the correspondence between the materials and the task. For example, when stimuli are presented, the examiner must point to the top of the stimulus page when ¢rst presenting the demonstration item (see Figure 2.9), just as shown in the Pictorial Directions. Gestures are used to direct the examinee’s attention to speci¢c portions of the pictorial directions and to the stimulus materials and sometimes to demonstrate the task itself. Sometimes simple statements are also included because they convey the importance of both time and accuracy to the examinee. Step 2: Extended Directions.The second step of theWNVadministration directions are only used after the standard directions are provided. These instructions must be followed exactly.The directions in Step 2 are givenwhen an examinee is unclear about what he or she isbeing asked to do.These directions include standardized simple sentences and gestures for communicating the requirements of the task to the examinee.These verbal directions provide another way to ensure that the examinee understands the demands of the tasks.The verbal statements are provided in English as well as Spanish, German, French, Chinese, and Dutch.These translations are only to be used when the following two conditions are both met: (1) the WNV is being administered to an examinee who speaks one of the languages; and (2) the examiner or a professional interpreter speaks the language. Following is an example of the Step 2 directions in the Matrices subtest. ‘‘If the examinee does not respond or appears confused, prompt by saying, ‘Which one of these [sweep your hand along the response options in numerical order] goes here [point to the question mark]?’’’

c02_1

10/08/2008

25

HOW TO ADMINISTER THE WNV 25

Step 3: Providing Help.The third step is an opportunity to .................................................. provide help, but these direcSteps 1 and 2 of the administration tions are only used after the directions are NOT flexible (i.e., they must be followed exactly). previous two steps have been administered. This is the only step of administration that gives the examiner £exibility.When providing help the examiner may use any gestures that illustrate the task or show the correct response.The examiner may sayor sign additional instructions or questions. Examiners are given the opportunity to communicate inwhatever manner they think will best explain the task based on their judgment of the examinee’s needs.This could include restating or revising the verbal directions, providing further explanation or demonstration of the task, or using additional words to describe the requirements of the task. At no time, however, is the examiner allowed to teach the examinee how to solve the items. The purpose of the Step 3 instructions is to provide additional help to ensure that the examinee understands the demands of the task. Do not show the examinee how to solve the taskor teach speci¢c ways to solve the items. It is important to keep in mind that the amount of help provided and the determination about when to stop can only be based on professional judgment.

DON’T FORGET

Gestures Used During Administration

Throughoutthe ¢rsttwo steps of the administration the examiner is instructed to use three speci¢c gestures that correspond to the directions. These simple gestures are described inTable 2.2. During Step 3, examiners are not limited to using only the gestures listed in the table when providing additional help, but rather may use any additional type of communication that is appropriate to the examinee’s age, gender, and culture. It is imperative that examiners be familiar with the culture of the examinee so that o¡ensive gestures may not be accidentally used. An interpreter may be used to facilitate communication prior to and during administration. It is important that the interpreter have guidelines and training about what is and what is not permitted.This person should translate a general explanation of the testing situation for the examinee and especially the introductory paragraph at the beginning of Chapter 3 in the WNVAdministration and Scoring Manual before administration begins. The main task of the interpreter,

c02_1

10/08/2008

26

26 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT Table 2.2. Gestures Used in the Administration Directions De¢nition1

Gesture Sweep your hand

Glide your hand, with your palm upward, in a line just above the item(s) being indicated.

Drag your ¢nger

Move your ¢nger along the page.

Point

Brie£y touch or hold your ¢nger above the indicated item.

1 From the Wechsler Nonverbal Scale of Ability Administration and Scoring Manual, Wechsler & Naglieri, 2006b

however, is to interpret any verbal directions provided in the administration directions, given by the examiner, and to interpret all comments and replies made by the examinee. Interpreters should familiarize themselves with the instructions and read from a separate copy of the WNVAdministration and Scoring Manual. It is important, of course, that the interpreter recognize the boundaries of his or her role in administration. For example, although it is appropriate for the interpreter to translate the examiner’s responses to an examinee’s response to a sample item, it is not acceptable for the interpreter to make additional statements unless instructed to do so. Importantly, at no time should the interpreter communicate any information that could in£uence the examinee’s scores. Testing Using a Signed Language

If the examiner is not trained in working with deaf people and not £uent in sign language, numerous issues may present themselves with an examinee who communicates in American (or another native) Sign Language (i.e., the examinee is deaf or hard-of-hearing). Not all profoundly deaf or hardof-hearing individuals use a native sign language or Signed English, but the examiner may ¢nd the following tips bene¢cial even when working with these examinees. Additional information can be found in the ‘‘Testing ChildrenWho Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing’’section in the WISC-IV Integrated Administration and Scoring Manual (Wechsler et al., 2004b, pp. 19^27) or Sattler and Hardy-Braz (2002). The examiner should also be aware that, whenever a sign language interpreter must be used, that interpreter must meet the IDEA and ADA requirements for being a quali¢ed interpreter. Additionally, the interpreter mustbe su⁄ciently skilled in the examinee’s primary mode(s) of communication and knowledgeable

c02_1

10/08/2008

27

HOW TO ADMINISTER THE WNV 27

about the psychological assessment process as well as theWNV instrument.The unique pictorially basedWNVadministration directions were designed to minimize the need for any linguistic explanation of the subtest tasks, but the brief verbal prompts may need to be interpreted into sign language or cued speech. Thus, a professional sign language interpreter may still be necessary. The use of an interpreter will also enhance the rapport between the examiner and examinee, allow for greater interactions, and result in a better interpretation by the examiner of the obtained assessment results. Ultimately, it is the examiner who is responsible for ensuring accessibility to the assessment session while maintaining the validity of the test administration. The examiner must remain cognizant that the presence and use of an interpreter inserts another complex variable and is a potential source of error in the assessment process in all phases.The examiner should never assume that examinees are knowledgeable about the role of and the e¡ective use of an interpreter; the examiner may need to introduce and explain the interpreter’s role and function. The examiner needs to be aware that the presence of another person in the room may alter the examinee’s performance and a¡ect the rapport with the examinee and that the communication of conversations, critical terms, directions, or phrases may be altered or modi¢ed.The examiner should also be aware that a skilled interpreter might sometimes request clari¢cation of administration instructions in order to facilitate the communication process. A skilled interpreter should match the examinee’s level and signs; any alterations in signs need to be noted.The use of an interpreter should always be noted on the Record Form and in the Assessment Report. The quality of the communication process and overall rapport can be increased whenworking with a sign language interpreter by realizing thatcommunication occurs on a visual, rather than auditory, plane and by implementing the following suggestions.The examiner should: 



Includeboththe interpreter and the examinee in a discussion aboutthebest physical location for the interpreter. It is recommended to have the interpreter sit slightly behind and to one side of the examiner to establish and maintain rapport and visually based communication, and to maintain clear roles and boundaries.The dominant hand of the interpreter may also determine onwhich side of the examiner the interpreter should sitor stand. There may be times in which the interpreter may need to lean over in order to place his or her signs close to the Stimulus Book or Response Booklet. Be aware of light sources thatmay interfere withvisual communication and signs.

c02_1

10/08/2008

28

28 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT 





Permit time for the examinee to become familiar with the interpreter and the communication process before beginning test administration.The examiner should keep in mind thatthe examinee may not have ever worked with an interpreter before. Always attempt to face and make eye contact with the examinee as well as address direct questions and comments to him or her and not to the interpreter.The examiner should avoid saying,‘‘Ask him . . . ’’or ‘‘Tell her . . . ’’ Conduct a postsession discussion with the interpreter once the testing session is complete, and the examinee is no longer present, to gather any additional information about the testing session.

KEY POINTS FOR ACCURATE ADMINISTRATION

It is important to consider certain issues when administering each of the WNV subtests. Some issues are common across two or more subtests. These issues are brie£y described here. The most important key point across all subtests is that the examiner must administer the demonstration item and all sample items for each subtest exactly as detailed in the Administration and Scoring Manual. There are two sentences that can be used if the examinee interferes with the standard administration procedure. The ¢rst is ‘‘wait until I’m ¢nished’’ and can be used if the examinee starts responding before the examinee ¢nished presenting the instructions.The second is ‘‘don’t turn the book’’and can be used if the examinee attempts to turn the book at any time during the administration. Many of the subtests do not have precise timing involved. However, it is not reasonable to allow the examinee an unlimited amount of time to answer each item.Therefore, a guideline is that the examiner should encourage a response after approximately 30 seconds (or other seemingly reasonable amount of time). The examinee should be encouraged to provide an answer even if the examinee is unsure. If the examinee provides more than one response, it is appropriate to ask which one is the answer. Matrices

Examiners should alwaysbe aware of possible behavioral responses thatmaysuggest concern. Although the Matrices subtest is one of the most straightforward subtests to administer on theWNV, it is a subtest inwhich errant behaviors might be easy to recognize. For example, if a student is bored or has a lackof motivation,

c02_1

10/08/2008

29

HOW TO ADMINISTER THE WNV 29

he or she might select answers in the same location for each item (e.g., always choose number 4 as the answer). Impulsive examinees may respond rapidly and choose an answer that is only partially correct. These observations may be important when interpretation of a low score is necessary. Coding

The examiner should ensure thatthe examinee receives a pencil without an eraser touse for the Codingsubtest.The examinee shouldbe allowed to correctmistakes by crossing out the incorrect symbol and writing his or her response next to it. If the examinee makes an error and looks to the examiner or asks the examiner whatto do, the examiner should encourage the examinee to continue by pointing to the next item. Some examinees willtry to ¢nish the Codingsheetbyskippingboxes and ¢lling in all of the items with the same stimuli.This is not allowed.The examiner should ensure that the examinee works from left to right and from top to bottom. Some examinees will meticulously replicate the stimuli symbols, taking a lot of time for each one. The examiner should ensure that the examinee knows that he or she should work as quicklyas possible.The examinee’s speed in£uences their score. Object Assembly

The examiner should always set up the puzzle pieces on the same side of the Stimulus Book as the examinee’s dominant hand. The examiner must remove the Stimulus Book before administering the sample item. If the examinee is taking his or her time working on the puzzle, the examiner should ensure that the examinee realizes that he or she should work as quickly as possible. If the examinee is in the midst of completing a puzzle when the time limit expires, the examiner should place his or her hand over the puzzle to stop the examinee’s progress and record the examinee’s answer. If the examinee seems upset that he or she was stopped while completing the puzzle, the examiner should allow the examinee to ¢nish. The examiner should not consider any additional workby the examinee for scoring purposes. Suchwork maybe helpful in interpreting the results of the assessment, however, and is thus worth noting in the evaluation report.

c02_1

10/08/2008

30

30 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

Recognition

Examiners must be sure to closely control the delivery of the stimulus pages. Some examineeswill wantto turnthe page tothe answers immediatelyafter viewing the stimuli. It is important to follow the directions and expose the stimuli page for exactly 3 seconds before turning to the answer page. Spatial Span

The numbers on the Spatial Span Board must face the examiner. The Spatial Span Board mustbe placed so thatthe examinee can easilyreach all cubes on the board. The examiner should always setthe Spatial Span Board on the same side of the Stimulus Book as the examinee’s dominant hand. The examiner must always administer both Spatial Span Forward and Spatial Span Backward, regardless of the examinee’s performance on Spatial Span Forward. The examiner must always administer both trials of an item regardless of the examinee’s performance on the ¢rst trial. The examiner musttap the cubesata rate ofone cube per second.The examiner should practice doing this, particularlywith the longsequences,before the examinee is present. The examiner must raise his or her hand approximately one foot above the Spatial Span Board between each cube-tap.The examiner should practice doing this before the examinee is present. If the examinee does not respond after the examiner taps a sequence, the examiner can say ‘‘it’s your turn.’’ Picture Arrangement

The examiner should always place the Picture Arrangement Cards on the same side of the Stimulus Book as the examinee’s dominant hand. The examiner must remove the Stimulus Book before administering the sample item. If the examinee is taking his or her time working on the story, the examiner should ensure that the examinee realizes that he or she should work as quickly as possible. Ifthe examinee is inthe midstofcompletingastorywhenthe time limitexpires, the examiner should place his or her hand over the story to stop the examinee’s progress and then record the examinee’s answer. If the examinee seems upset that he or she was stopped while completing the story, the examiner should

c02_1

10/10/2008

31

HOW TO ADMINISTER THE WNV 31

allow the examinee to ¢nish. However, the examiner should not consider any additional work by the examinee for scoring purposes. If the examinee appears to place the cards such that the story is in exactly the opposite order of the key, the examiner should ask the examinee ‘‘Where does it start?’’

TEST YOURSELF

.................................................................................................... 1. The age range for the WNV is

(a) 4 years to 16 years, 11 months. (b) 5 years to 21 years, 11 months. (c) 5 years to 17 years, 11 months. (d) 4 years to 21 years, 11 months. 2. The subtests included in the 4-subtest battery for the younger age band are

(a) Matrices, (b) Matrices, (c) Matrices, (d) Matrices,

Coding, Coding, Coding, Coding,

Object Assembly, and Picture Arrangement. Object Assembly, and Recognition. Spatial Span, and Picture Arrangement. Spatial Span, and Recognition.

3. Which part of the administration directions is not flexible?

(a) Step 1: Standard Directions (b) Step 2: Extended Directions (c) Step 3: Providing Help (d) Steps 1 and 2 4. Which subtests include a reverse rule?

(a) Matrices, Recognition, and Picture Arrangement (b) Matrices, Object Assembly, and Picture Arrangement (c) Matrices, Object Assembly, and Recognition (d) Object Assembly, Recognition, and Picture Arrangement 5. Which step of the administration directions includes pictorial directions?

(a) Step (b) Step (c) Step (d) Step

1 2 3 4

6. When using a sign language interpreter in an assessment using the WNV, you should:

(a) be aware that IDEA and ADA require you to use a qualified interpreter. (b) make sure that the interpreter’s skills match the sign language used by the examinee.

c02_1

10/08/2008

32

32 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

(c) document the use of an interpreter in the assessment report. (d) all of the above 7. What should the examiner do if the examinee appears upset about being stopped before he or she finishes an Object Assembly puzzle?

(a) Move on to the next item. (b) Note exactly what work the examinee had completed at the time limit and let the examinee finish the puzzle. (c) Allow the examinee to complete the puzzle and note the completion time on the Record Form. (d) Move on to the next subtest. 8. Which side of the Stimulus Book should the examiner arrange the Object Assembly puzzle pieces?

(a) whichever side is the most convenient for the examiner (b) the examiner’s right side (c) the side that corresponds to the handedness of the examinee (d) the examinee’s right side 9. How many seconds must the examiner wait on the Recognition subtest before turning the page between the stimulus and the answer options?

(a) 3 (b) 4 (c) 30 (d)10 10. When is it appropriate to stop administration of Spatial Span Backward?

(a) after the examinee incorrectly taps one trial (b) after the examinee incorrectly taps two subsequent trials (c) after the examinee incorrectly taps both trials within an item (d) never; the examiner must administer all trials Answers: 1. d; 2. b; 3. d; 4. c; 5. a; 6. d; 7. b; 8. c; 9. a; 10. c

c03_1

10/08/2008

33

Three HOW TO SCORE THE WNV

T

his chapter will detail how to score each individual subtest, how to complete the Record Form Summary Page (e.g., how to locateTscores), and how to complete the Record Form Analysis Page (e.g., how to determine strengths and weaknesses). The examinee’s age at testing should be calculated before beginning administration. This age will be referenced throughout the chapter. Additionally, the battery (4-subtest or 2-subtest) for administration should be selected and the corresponding box on the Summary Page of the Record Form checked before administration. Note thatthere are separate tables with normative information based either on the United States standardization sample or on the Canadian standardization sample. Only one set of tables is presented in a given manual (U.S. or Canadian). The table numbers are identical, but the sample is noted as being from Canada in the title, if the Canadian standardization sample was used. The ¢gures in this chapter show the U.S. normative tables.

SCORING EACH SUBTEST

The total raw score for each subtest is calculated by adding the total number of points the examinee earned on the items of that subtest.The start point, reverse rule, and discontinue rule can all a¡ect the total raw scores on some subtests and therefore must be accounted for in the total raw score. Explicit directions for these administration rules and for each subtest are as follows. Administration Rules

The administration rules: start points, reverse rules, and discontinue rules can alter the traditional method of

DON’T FORGET

.................................................. Don’t forget to pay close attention to scoring when there is a start point, reverse rule, and/or discontinue rule. 33

c03_1

10/08/2008

34

34 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

scoring an item (i.e., awarding credit for the examinee’s performance on an item). Start Points As noted in Chapter 2, all subtests except Coding, Picture Arrangement, and Spatial Span use start points. Award full credit to all items not administered before the start point if an examinee starts at an item other than number 1 and does not reverse. Reverse Rule Award full credit to all items not administered before the reverse rule was met. Award the earned score on all administered items. Discontinue Rule As noted in Chapter 2, items that were administered while meeting the reverse rule should be counted in the discontinue rule. An example of this is shown in Figure 2.4, where A is the notation for the start of the reverse rule, B is the notation for the completion of the discontinue rule, C is the notation for the completion of the reverse rule, and D is the notation for the points that were awarded after the reverse rule was completed. Matrices 



The Matrices total raw score is obtained by adding the values in the score column. The maximum value is 41. The total raw score is then transferred to the Matrices Total Raw Score box on the Summary Page of the Record Form.

Coding 





The ScoringTemplate that corresponds to the Coding Form that was administered (A or B) should be used to calculate the number of responses that the examinee drew correctly. Each symbol drawn correctly within the time limit receives 1 point.This includes symbols thatare drawn correctly after a spontaneous CAUTION! correction by the examinee. .................................................. This value should be recorded Ensure that the examiner enters the Matrices and Coding Total Raw Scores in the CodingTotal Raw Score in the boxes corresponding to the box in the Coding section (on correct age band. page 3) of the Record Form

c03_1

10/08/2008

35

HOW TO SCORE THE WNV 35

and on the Summary Page (page 1) that corresponds to the examinee’s age. Object Assembly 



There are two steps to scoring Object Assembly.The ¢rst step requires making certain that each item has a total score. For items 1 through 7 the item total score is the number of correct junctions, which will be circled during the subtest administration. (For ease of counting, if the examinee is 6 or 7 years old, the examiner could circle the total number of correct junctures for any of the items that they did not attempt due to the start and reverse rules.) For items 8 and 10, the item total score is a combination of accuracy and time.There is a formula provided on the Record Form for straightforward calculation of the item total score: the number of correct junctures plus any time bonus. For example, if the number of junctures correctly completed on item 8 is six and the examinee completed the item in 65 seconds, then the examinee’s score for this item would be: 6 þ 1 (time bonus for 65 seconds) ¼ 7 points



For items 9 and11, the item total score is also a combination of accuracy and time. However, there are two formulas that are required to calculate the item totalscore. Like the formulas for items 8 and10, the formula for items 9 and11 are on the Record Form.The calculations for these items include both using this formula (i.e., the division of the number of correct junctures by 2) and then roundingthis number up. Once thisvalue hasbeen calculated,any time bonus is added to ¢nd the item total score. For example, if the number of junctures correctly completed on item 9 is seven, and the examinee completed the item in 45 seconds, then the examinee’s score for this item would be: 7=2 ¼ 3:5 (rounded up to) 4 þ 2 (time bonus for 45 seconds) ¼ 6





Once the item total scores have been circled and/or calculated, they are summed for the Object AssemblyTotal Raw Score.The maximum value is 56. This value is then transferred to the Object Assembly Raw Score boxon the Summary Page of the Record Form.

c03_1

10/08/2008

36

36 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

Recognition 



DON’T FORGET

.................................................. The RecognitionTotal Raw Object assembly has a time bonus for Score is obtained by adding the items 8 through 11. values in the score column.The maximum value is 21. The total raw score is then transferred to the RecognitionTotal Raw Score box on the Summary Page of the Record Form.

Spatial Span 















The score for each item is atotal of the scores from the two trials within each item.The score for each item should re£ect the sum of the two trials.This is true for both Spatial Span Forward (SSpF) and Spatial Span Backward (SSpB). The SSpF Total Raw Score is obtained by adding the item scores for Spatial Span Forward.This value should then be entered in the correspondingbox atthebottom of page 6 onthe Record Form and inthe Spatial Span Forward Raw Score box in the Optional Analysis section on theAnalysis Page of the Record Form.The maximum value is 16. The longest forward span the examinee completed should be recorded in the LSSpF box in the bottom of page 6 on the Record Form and in the Longest Spatial Span Forward box in the Optional Analysis section of the Analysis Page of the Record Form.The maximum value is 9. The SSpBTotal Raw Score is obtained byadding the item scores for Spatial Span Backward.This value should then be entered in the corresponding box on page 7 on the Record Form and in the Spatial Span Forward Raw Score box in the Optional Analysis section on the Analysis Page of the Record Form.The maximum value is 16. The longestbackward span the examinee completed should be recorded in the LSSpB box on page 7 of the Record Form and in the Longest Spatial Span Backward box in the Optional Analysis section of the Analysis Page of the Record Form.The maximum value is 9. Sum the SSpFandSSpB totals and record thisvalue inthe Spatial SpanTotal Raw Score box on page 7 of the Record Form.The maximum value is 32. Last, this total value is transferred to the Spatial SpanTotal Raw Score box on the Summary Page (page 1) of the Record Form. Optional Spatial Span analysis can also be performed by performing the steps of the Optional Analysis found in the Completing the Analysis Page of the Record Form section of this chapter.

c03_1

10/08/2008

37

HOW TO SCORE THE WNV 37

Picture Arrangement 



Add the values in the score column to get the Picture Arrangement Total Raw Score.The maximum value is 26. Transfer this value to the Picture Arrangement Raw Score box on the Summary Page of the Record Form.

COMPLETING THE SUMMARY PAGE ON THE RECORD FORM

Once each of the administered subtest scores have been totaled, they should have been transferred to the Total Raw Score toT Score Conversions section (see B on Figure 3.1) on the Summary Page of the Record Form. The next step is to complete the Total Raw Score to T Score Conversions section, the Sum of T Scores to Full Scale Score Conversion section, the Subtest T Score Pro¢le section, and the Full Scale Score Plot to complete the Summary Page (page 1) of the Record Form.

Figure 3.1. Mock-up of a Completed Record Form Summary Page

c03_1

10/08/2008

38

38 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

Figure 3.2. Using Table A.1

Total Raw Score to T Score Conversions

There are two levels to completing theTotal Raw Score toT Score Conversions section of the Summary Page of the Record Form: converting each Raw Score to aTscore and then adding theTscores and recording the Sum of Tscores. Use Table A.1 in the Administration and Scoring Manual to ¢nd theT scores that correspond to the subtest raw scores by completing the following four steps. First, locate the page of Table A.1 that corresponds to the examinee’s Age at Testing (located on the top right of the Record Form Summary Pagesee A on Figure 3.1and below the table title inTable A.1see A on Figure 3.2). Second, locate the raw score the examinee earned under the subtest initials (see B on Figure 3.2 for the Object Assembly Raw Score of 34). Third, follow the row of the corresponding raw score to the T score column on the left (see C on Figure 3.2 for the Object Assembly corresponding T score of 59). Fourth, record this earned Tscore in the correspondingTscore boxes on the Summary Page (see C1 and C2 on Figure 3.1). Repeat these steps for each subtest that was administered. Next, add theTscores and record the result in the Sum of T Scores box below the Total Raw Score toT Score Conversions section (see D1 on Figure 3.1), as well as in the corresponding box in the Sum of T Scores to Full Scale Score Conversion section (see D2 on Figure 3.1). If a subtest was spoiled,Table A.4 in the Administration and Scoring Manual can be used to obtain a T score sum. This table indicates what the prorated sum of

c03_1

10/08/2008

39

HOW TO SCORE THE WNV 39

Figure 3.3. Using Table A.4

four subtestswouldbe, giventhe examinee’s scores earned onthe remaining three subtests.To use this table, locate the sum of the threeTscores in the column entitled ‘‘Sum of 3 T Scores’’ (see A on Figure 3.3) and then note the Prorated Score in the column with the same name (see B on Figure 3.3). Record this prorated Sum of Tscores for the 4-subtest battery in the Sum of T Scores box below the Total Raw Score toT Score Conversions section (see D1 on Figure 3.1), as well as in the corresponding box in the Sum of T Scores to Full Scale Score Conversion section (see D2 on Figure 3.1). Sum of T Scores to Full Scale Score Conversion

To complete the Sum of T Scores to Full Scale Score Conversion section, refer to Table A.2 or A.3 in the Administration and Scoring Manual to locate the Full Scale score, percentile rank, and con¢dence interval that corresponds to the Sum of T scores for the 4- or 2-subtest battery. Use Table A.2 if the 4-subtest battery was administered and Table A.3 if the 2-subtest battery was administered. After locating the page that corresponds to the examinee’s age at testing, locate the sum of T scores in the Sum of T Scores column on the left (see A on Figure 3.4). Next, record the values for the Full Scale score (see B on Figure 3.4 and E1 and E2 on Figure 3.1) and percentile rank (see C on Figure 3.4 and see F on Figure 3.1) that are in the same row as the sum of Tscores in the corresponding boxes on the Summary Page of the Record Form. Last, select the con¢dence interval to reference (either 90 or 95%), circle the corresponding number in the Sum of T Scores to Full Scale Score Conversion section of the Record Form (see G on Figure 3.1), and then record the corresponding con¢dence interval fromTable A.2 (see D on Figure 3.4 and H on Figure 3.1).

c03_1

10/08/2008

40

40 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

Figure 3.4. Using Table A.2

Subtest T Score Profile

To complete the Subtest T Score Pro¢le, graph theTscores for each subtest that was administered (see I on Figure 3.1). The values for this pro¢le should have been noted after converting the subtest total raw scores toTscores in theTotal Raw Score toT Score Conversions section. Full Scale Score Plot

To complete the Full Scale Score Plot, plot the point that corresponds to the Full Scale score the examinee earned (see J on Figure 3.1). This value should have been recorded after converting the Sum of T Scores to Full Scale score in the Sum of T Scores to Full Scale Score Conversion section. Age Equivalents

Age-equivalent scores have the greatest value in explaining test results to parents and teachers in simple terms. For example, an examinee’s test performance could be described as being comparable to the median 7-year-old. This means that the examinee earned the same raw score as the 7-year-olds who earned Tscores of 50. However, it does not mean that the examinee can perform like a 7-yearold on all types of tasks; this value is speci¢c only for the subtest that was referenced. To use the age-equivalent table (Table A.5 in the Administration and CAUTION! Scoring Manual ), reference the total .................................................. Age-equivalent scores should be raw score the examinee earned on a interpreted with considerable caution. subtest under the column for the

c03_1

10/08/2008

41

HOW TO SCORE THE WNV 41

corresponding subtest. Follow the row across to theTest Age for the age equivalent at that total raw score for this examinee on this subtest. COMPLETING THE ANALYSIS PAGE ON THE RECORD FORM

TheAnalysis Page of the Record Form (page 2) has ¢ve sections.The sections correspond to the age of the examinee and the battery that was administered, so no more than three of these sections will ever be completed for an examinee. Following is a step-by-step guide through how to complete the Subtest Strengths andWeaknesses section (when the examiner administered the 4-subtest battery), how to complete the Subtest Comparison section (when the examiner administered the 2-subtest battery), and how to complete the Optional Analysis section (when the examiner administered Spatial Span and wishes to gather additional information about the examinee’s performance on this subtest). Subtest Strengths and Weaknesses

First, transfer the 4-subtest Tscores from the Summary Page to the corresponding boxes on the Analysis Page (page 2) of the Record Form (see A on Figure 3.5). Next, calculate the mean of the subtest T scores by adding the 4 subtest T scores together and dividing this number by 4.Write the meanTscore in the corresponding ¢ve Mean T score ovals (see B1 and B2 on Figure 3.5). Calculate

Figure 3.5. Mock-up of a Completed Subtests Strengths and Weaknesses Section

c03_1

10/08/2008

42

42 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

the di¡erence between each subtest Tscore and the MeanTscore and record each value in the corresponding box in the Di¡erence from Mean column (see C on Figure 3.5). Next, select the signi¢cance level (i.e., .15 or .05) and circle this at the top of the Critical Value column (see D on Figure 3.5). Reference that signi¢cance level along with the examinee’s age at testing and the subtest in Table B.1 of the Administration and Scoring Manual. (Note, however, a more precise table of the di¡erences required for signi¢cance is located in Chapter 4.) For example, at a signi¢cance level of .05, for an examinee who is 6:3, the critical value for Object Assembly is 9.6. Record the value that corresponds to all three in the corresponding box in the Critical Value column (see E on Figure 3.5). Repeat this step for each subtest. If the absolute value of the di¡erence is greater than or equal to the critical value, then the di¡erence is signi¢cant and the S (i.e., Strength) orW (i.e.,Weakness) indicator in the Strength or Weakness column (see F on Figure 3.5) should be circled. The di¡erence is a signi¢cant strength if it is both signi¢cant and positive; the di¡erence is a signi¢cant weakness if it is both signi¢cant and negative. One additional table (Table B.2 of the Administration and Scoring Manual ) should be referenced if the examinee’s .................................................. Do not forget to use the column that scores indicated a signi¢cant strength corresponds to the direction of the or weakness. There is a base rate that difference when looking up base rates. describes the cumulative percentage of the normative sample that obtained the same di¡erence (or greater) between the subtest Tscore and the MeanTscore. Each column is based on the direction of the di¡erence (i.e., positive or negative); see A on Figure 3.6, and see G on Figure 3.5.

DON’T FORGET

Figure 3.6. Using Table B.2

c03_1

10/08/2008

43

HOW TO SCORE THE WNV 43

Figure 3.7. Mock-up of a Completed Subtest Comparison Section

Subtest Comparison

To compare the subtests, ¢rst transfer both subtest Tscores from the Summary Page to the corresponding boxes on the Analysis Page (page 2) of the Record Form (see A on Figure 3.7). Next, calculate the di¡erence between the subtest T scores and record this value in the corresponding Di¡erence box (see B on Figure 3.7). Select the significance level (i.e., .15 or .05) and circle this at the top of the Critical Value column (see C on Figure 3.7). Reference that signi¢cance level in Table B.3 of the Administration and Scoring Manual by looking above the diagonal for the .15 signi¢cance level and below the diagonal for the .05 signi¢cance level while locating the Matrices and Recognition subtests (see A on Figure 3.8). Record this value in the corresponding box (see D on Figure 3.7). If the absolute value of the di¡erence is greater than or equal to the critical value, then the di¡erence is signi¢cant. Circle theYor N, indicating this signi¢cance (see E on Figure 3.7). If the di¡erence was signi¢cant, reference one additional tableTable B.4 of the Administration and Scoring Manual. The numbers in Table B.4 provide the base rate that describes the cumulative percentage of the normative sample that obtained the same di¡erence (or greater).The examiner should pay careful attention to which column is the appropriate column to reference. Each column is

Figure 3.8. Using Table B.3

c03_1

10/08/2008

44

44 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

Figure 3.9. Using Table B.4

based on the direction of the di¡erence (i.e., positive or negative); see A on Figure 3.9, and see F on Figure 3.7. Completing the Optional Analysis Section of the Analysis Page

The optional Spatial Span analysis can be completed by using the ¢ve tables in Appendix C of the Administration and Scoring Manual.There are seven steps to completing the Optional Analysis section at the bottom of the Analysis Page of the Record Form (page 2) in the grey shading. 1. If the two Spatial Span raw scores (one each for SSpF and SSpB) are not already recorded in the corresponding boxes in the Optional Analysis section on the Analysis Page (page 2) of the Record Form (see A on Figure 3.10), do so now. 2. Likewise, if the two Longest Spatial Span values (one for each SSpF and SSpB) are not already recorded in the corresponding boxes in the Optional Analysis section on the Analysis Page of the Record Form (see B on Figure 3.10), do so now. Also, record these same values in the

c03_1

10/08/2008

45

HOW TO SCORE THE WNV 45

Figure 3.10. Mock-up of a Completed Optional Analysis Section

corresponding boxes in the Raw Score Comparison section in the optional analysis section of the Analysis Page of the Record Form (see C on Figure 3.10). 3. Next, locate the correspondingTscore for the SSpF and SSpB raw scores using the page of Table C.1 in the Administration and Scoring Manual that corresponds to the examinee’s age at testing (see A on Figure 3.11); locate the examinee’s Raw Score for SSpF (looking down the column, see B on Figure 3.11); and then locate the correspondingTscore to the left in the same row (see C on Figure 3.11). Next, enter these (a) in the corresponding boxes on theTotal Raw Score toT Score Conversions section on the Summary Page (page 1) of the Record Form; (b) in the corresponding boxes on theTotal Raw Score toT Score Conversions section in the Optional Analysis section on the Analysis Page of the Record Form (page 2; see D1on Figure 3.10); and (c) in the corresponding boxes on the Tscore Comparisons section in the Optional Analysis section on the Analysis Page of the Record Form (see D2 on Figure 3.10). 4. Calculate theTscore di¡erence and record this value in the corresponding box in theT Score Comparison section on the Analysis Page of the Record Form (see E on Figure 3.10). Select a signi¢cance level and circle that level in the Critical Value section of the Optional Analysis section on page 2 of the Record Form (see F on Figure 3.10). Locate the di¡erence required at that signi¢cance level usingTable C.2, found in the AdministrationandScoringManual (see A on Figure 3.12), and record it in the corresponding box in the T Score Comparison section of the Optional Analysis section (see G on Figure 3.10).

c03_1

10/08/2008

46

46 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

Figure 3.11. Using Table C.1

5. Determine the signi¢cance of theTscore di¡erence by following the rule that if the absolute value of the di¡erence is greater than or equal to the value listed inTable C.2 then that di¡erence is signi¢cant. Note this by circling theY in the Signi¢cant Di¡erence box. If the value is less than

Figure 3.12. Using Table C.2

c03_1

10/08/2008

47

HOW TO SCORE THE WNV 47

noted inTable C.2, then the examiner should circle the N in .................................................. the Signi¢cant Di¡erence box Remember to use the absolute value of (see H on Figure 3.10). the difference when determining significance. 6. To determine if a signi¢cant difference is meaningful, reference Table C.3 in the Administration and Scoring Manual and locate the base rate for the di¡erence between theTscores of the two directions (see A on Figure 3.13). The base rates are listed in two columns, one for each direction of the di¡erence. Transfer the value from this table to the Base Rate box in the T score Comparison section of the Optional Analysis section of the Analysis Page on the Record Form (see I on Figure 3.10). 7. This same procedure can be used for ¢nding the base rates for the Longest Spans, usingTable C.4 in the Administration and Scoring Manual. This procedure can also be used when there is a meaningful di¡erence

CAUTION!

Figure 3.13. Using Table C.3

c03_1

10/08/2008

48

48 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

between the longest spans for Spatial Span Forward (LSSpF) .................................................. and Spatial Span Backwards The examiner should always check to (LSSpB). First, calculate the make certain that the column being referenced corresponds to the di¡erence between the two direction of the difference. longest spans and record this value in the Raw Score Comparison Section (seeJon Figure 3.10).Then, use Table C.5 in the Administration and Scoring Manual, referencing the age-appropriate section, and locate the di¡erence in the column that corresponds to the direction of the di¡erence and the absolute value of the di¡erence between the LSSpF and LSSpB (see A on Figure 3.14).Then record thisvalue in the corresponding Base Rate box in the Raw Score Comparison section of the Optional Analysis section of the Record Form (see K on Figure 3.10).

CAUTION!

USING THE SCORING ASSISTANT

The Scoring Assistant can be used to compute the T scores and Full Scale score. This is a good tool for practitioners who prefer computer printouts for their ¢les, who want an electronic record of an examinee’s performance, who have other PsychCorp Center products and want to have consistency across reports, or who want the added e⁄ciency of using the computer for all look-ups. A sample graph and tables from a Scoring Assistant printout are shown in Figures 3.15 and 3.16, respectively. Note that the Scoring Assistant has an alphabetical default and so the norms set will default to Canada; users in the United States must be certain to change this when installing the program.

Figure 3.14. Using Table C.5

c03_1

10/08/2008

49

HOW TO SCORE THE WNV 49

Figure 3.15. Sample Scoring Assistant Graph and Table for Subtests for the Younger Age Band

Figure 3.16. Sample Scoring Assistant Tables for Subtests for the Younger Age Band

c03_1

10/10/2008

50

50 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

TEST YOURSELF

.................................................................................................... 1. The only subtests that have a start point are

(a) Matrices, Object Assembly, Coding, and Recognition. (b) Matrices, Object Assembly, Coding, Recognition, and Picture Arrangement. (c) Matrices, Object Assembly, and Recognition. (d) Matrices, Picture Arrangement, and Recognition. 2. Each symbol correctly drawn in the Coding subtests gets awarded this many points:

(a) one (b) two (c) one for Coding A and two for Coding B (d) none of the above 3. Which Object Assembly items have time bonuses?

(a) all of them (b) none of them (c) 5 through 11 (d) 8 through 11 4. What should be done if the formula for an Object Assembly item yields a score with a decimal?

(a) round the value up before adding any time bonus points (b) round the value down before adding any time bonus points (c) round the value up after adding any time bonus points (d) round the value down after adding any time bonus points 5. Which table in the Administration and Scoring Manual is used to convert raw scores to T scores?

(a) Table 1 (b) Table B.5 (c) Table 5 (d) Table A.1 6. What is page 2 of the Record Form referred to as?

(a) Summary Page (b) Analysis Page (c) Behavioral Observations Page (d) Subtest Comparisons Page 7. What Section would be completed to determine whether a subtest difference on the 4-subtest battery was significant for a 6:8 year-old?

(a) Optional Analysis (b) Subtest Comparison

c03_1

10/08/2008

51

HOW TO SCORE THE WNV 51

(c) Subtest Strengths and Weaknesses (d) Total Raw Score to T score Conversions 8. What should be done if the mean for 4 subtests yields a value with a decimal?

(a) round the value up to the nearest whole number (b) round the value down to the nearest whole number (c) round the value up to the nearest number divisible by four (d) round the value down to the nearest number divisible by four 9. When is the base rate important?

(a) when the difference exceeds the critical value (b) when the difference is less than the critical value (c) when the difference equals the critical value (d) a and c (e) b and c 10. When is the Longest Spatial Span Forward value used?

(a) when determining if the difference between the Spatial Span Forward and Spatial Span Backward T scores is significant (b) when determining if the difference between the Longest Spatial Span Forward and Longest Spatial Span Backward is significant (c) when determining if the difference between the Spatial Span Forward and Spatial Span Backward raw scores is significant (d) Never Answers: 1. c; 2. a; 3. d; 4. a; 5. d; 6. b; 7. c; 8. a; 9. d; 10. b

c03_1

10/08/2008

52

c04_1

10/08/2008

53

Four INTERPRETATION OF THE WNV

INTRODUCTION

Test interpretation is most useful when understood within the greater context of the person who is being evaluated. Results should be compared using accepted psychometric methods and interpreted with consideration of the characteristics of the examinee (e.g., primary language spoken in the home, educational history of parents, educational history of the examinee), observations made during testing (e.g., impulsive, engaged in the tasks, tired, bored, overactive), any medical conditions (e.g., ill, motoric or sensorylimitations, taking medications), academic skills (e.g., evidence ofachievementsuccesses and failures), educational history, and other test scores. This chapter includes step-by-step instruction for WNV interpretation, with information on reporting scores and performing analysis of the scores. The question ‘‘What does the WNV measure’’ will be addressed before addressing the interpretation of scores. General Ability

Tests of general ability (often signi¢ed by the letter g) have been used since the early 1900s and contain a variety of content types. Importantly, the division of items by content was not based on a theory of verbal, quantitative, and nonverbal ‘‘intelligences’’; the division was a practical one, as noted byYoakum and Yerkes (1920). They wrote that the Army Beta (nonverbal) tests were used because it was known that a person with high ability could fail the Army Alpha (verbal and quantitative) tests due to limited skills in English and little educational experiences. Tests of di¡erent content were used to measure general ability without a theoretical framework or even a clear de¢nition of the construct. This lack of theoretical basis was noted by Pintner, who wrote,‘‘we did not start with a clear 53

c04_1

10/08/2008

54

54 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

de¢nition of general intelligence . . . [but] borrowed from every-day life a vague term implying all-round ability and . . . we [are] still attempting to de¢ne it more sharply and endow it with a stricter scienti¢c connotation’’ (1923, p. 53).The result has been that our tests are often used to de¢ne the theory of intelligence the test is intended to measure. Despite the vagaries of the concept of general ability, IQ has been measured using verbal, quantitative, and nonverbal questions ever since the tests were initially formulated.These tests provided useful and e⁄cient ways to measure general ability and there is considerable support for the concept (see Jensen, 1998, for a review). The problems associated with the use of these tests for those who have limited opportunity to learn or do not speak English very well have become more apparent in recent years (Suzuki & Valencia, 1997). It is as logical today as it was in the early1900s that limited academic skills and knowledge of English interferes with the measurement of general ability when verbal and quantitative tests are used (Naglieri, 2008b). If a student has not had the opportunity to acquire verbal and quantitative skills due to limited educational experiences or exposure to the English language, verbal questions as well as math word problems become less e¡ective measures of general ability, even though they may be good predictors of current academic performance. The assessment of general ability can, however, be achieved with or without verbal and quantitative testsbecause the methods used to measure general ability do not de¢ne constructs of ability, but rather ways of measuring g. Wechsler’s view of intelligence was not that his test measured verbal and nonverbal types of intelligence, even though his tests providedVerbal and Performance (nonverbal) IQ scores. In fact, Wechsler argued that nonverbal tests help to ‘‘minimize the over-diagnosing of feeble-mindedness that was, he believed, causedby intelligence teststhatwere tooverbal in content. . . . Heviewedverbal and performance tests as equally valid measures of intelligence and criticized the labeling of performance [nonverbal] tests as measures of special abilities’’ (Boake, 2002, p. 396). In the Foreword to the WNVAdministration and Scoring Manual, Kaufman (2006) further explained Wechsler’s view by stating: Wechsler remained a ¢rm believer in Spearman’s g theory throughout his lifetime. He believed that his Verbal and Performance Scales represented di¡erent ways to accessg. He saw the Performance Scale as the most sensible way to measure the general intelligence of people with hearing impairments, language disorders, or limited pro¢ciency in English. And that is precisely what the WNV is intended to do. (Wechsler & Naglieri, 2006a, p. iv).

c04_1

10/08/2008

55

INTERPRETATION OF THE WNV 55

Finally, Wechsler wrote that ‘‘ . . . the attributes and factors of .................................................. intelligence, like the elementary The WNV measures general ability particles in physics, have at once nonverbally. It is not intended to be a measure of nonverbal ability. collective and individual properties’’ (1975, p. 138). Similarly, Naglieri (2003a) further clari¢ed that ‘‘the term nonverbal refers to the content of the test, not a type of ability’’ (p. 2). In other words, even though a test mayhave questions that are verbal, quantitative, or nonverbal, the questions can be combined under the concept of general ability.

DON’T FORGET

What Does the WNV Measure?

The WNV measures general ability nonverbally. The nonverbal label applies to the test items that do not contain verbal and quantitative content. The items can be described as being spatial (e.g., Matrices, Object Assembly), involving sequencing (e.g., Picture Arrangement, Spatial Span), requiring memory (e.g., Recognition, Spatial Span), and using symbol associations (e.g., Coding). This does not mean that the methods the examinee uses to solve the problems will not involve words; rather, it means that words are not included in the questions the examinee must solve.The WNVmeasures general ability nonverbally using questions that vary in their cognitive demands. We can conceptualize general ability as the underlying base for learning, as suggested by Naglieri, Brulles, and Lansdowne (2008). If the foundation is strong, then knowledge and skills are acquired at a fast pace and to an extraordinary depth. If general ability is low, learning is di⁄cult and the rate of acquiring new information is slow. General ability allows us to understand verbal as well as mathematical concepts, remember facts, work with sequences of information, and so forth. The content of the questions may be visual or verbal, requiring memory or recognition. But general ability is the foundation of all items.

INTERPRETATION OF THE WNV SCORES

Detailed descriptions of the score types and descriptive categories can be found in the WNV Technical and Interpretive Manual.The essential elements are as follows. 

Raw scores are calculated at the subtest level and are generally sums of the number of items correct. Subtest-speci¢c calculation directions were described in the scoring chapter (Chapter 3) in this book.

c04_1

10/08/2008

56

56 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT 







Tscores are standardized transformations of the raw scores with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10.Tscores are recorded for each subtest administered.Tscores enable practitioners to compare an examinee’s performance on a subtesttohis or her performance on other subtestswithinthe scale, as well as to performance of same-age peers on the same subtest. Note that theTscore (as opposed to a traditional scaled score with a mean of 10 and SD of 3) was selected for two reasons. First, the individual subtests on theWNV had su⁄cient range of rawscores, allowing for the use of Tscores, which have a greater range than scaled scores:The WNV Tscores range from 10 to 90, yielding 81 possible di¡erent scores, whereas a scaled score typically ranges from 3 to 20, yielding only 18 di¡erent scores. Second, the use of theT score provides greater variability and more precision on each subtest, allowing for higher reliability coe⁄cients of the Full Scale score. Full Scale scores are standard scores with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of15. Full Scale scores are available for both the 4- and 2-subtest batteries and provide an estimate of general ability in relation to the norm sample. Con¢dence intervals are o¡ered around the Full Scale scores. Because the con¢dence interval is based upon the estimated true score, the range of scores that will be obtained are only symmetrical around the obtained score when the Full Scale score is at or very close to the mean (100).The further away from the mean the more asymmetrical the con¢dence interval is around the obtained score. For example, aWNV Full Scale score of 132 has a con¢dence interval of 122 to 136, which is not equidistant from the obtained score.The 122 is 10 points lower, and the 136 is 4 points higher than the obtained score. Percentile ranks provide the examinee’s rank, or relative standing, compared to the examinees inthe nationalstandardizationsample oftheWNV. Percentile ranks are not standardized and cannot be compared across examinees of di¡erent ages.There are three major limitations to percentile ranks: First, they are based on the normal curve and most examinees will fall near the mean. So, a minimal change in Full Scale score could result in aseeminglylarge change inpercentilerank.Second,the percentileranks are not equal units of measurement and should not be used to compare examineesexceptrelativerelationshipsbetweenthem(e.g.,itisappropriate to say ‘‘Johnny has a higher percentile rank than Susie’’).Third, percentile ranks are commonly confused with percent correct and thus need to be carefully explained and interpreted. A comprehensive list of corresponding Full Scale scores,Tscores, and percentile ranks is inTable 4.1.

c04_1

10/08/2008

57

Table 4.1. Full Scale Score and T Score Correspondence to Percentile Ranks Full Scale Score

Percentile Rank

T Score

Full Scale Score

Percentile Rank

>160 160 159 157 156 154 153 151 150 148 147 145 144 142 141 139 138 136 135 133 132 130 129 127 126 124 123 121 120 118 117 115 114 112 111

>99.9 >99.9 >99.9 >99.9 >99.9 >99.9 >99.9 >99.9 >99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.8 99.7 99.7 99.5 99 99 99 99 98 98 97 96 96 95 94 92 91 88 87 84 82 79 77

 90 89 88 87 86 85 84 83 82 81 80 79 78 77 76 75 74 73 72 71 70 69 68 67 66 65 64 63 62 61 60 59 58 57

99 97 96 94 93 91 90 88 87 85 84 82 81 79 78 76 75 73 72 70 69 67 66 64 63 61 60 58 57 55 54 52 51 49 48

47 42 39 34 32 27 25 21 19 16 14 12 10 8 7 5 5 4 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 <.01 <.01

T Score 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 (continued )

c04_1

10/08/2008

58

58 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT Table 4.1. (continued) Full Scale Score

Percentile Rank

T Score

Full Scale Score

Percentile Rank

T Score

109 108 106 105 103 102 100

73 70 66 63 58 55 50

56 55 54 53 52 51 50

46 45 43 42 40 <40

<.01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01

14 13 12 11 10 





Descriptive categories are qualitative classi¢cations that are given to examinees at various ranges of standard scores (i.e., Full Scale scores and Tscores). Test age equivalents can be used to describe an examinee’s performance relative to usual scores of examinees of a certain age.

The Full Scale score obtained on the WNV provides an estimate of that person’s true score, which is comprised of true ability plus measurement error. Each examinee’s score should be expressed as the obtained score along with a con¢dence interval to recognize the range of scores in which the true score is likely to fall. Reporting con¢dence intervals around the Full Scale score is recommended so as to ensure greater accuracy of interpretation.The Full Scale score and con¢dence interval should be described in a manner similar to the following example. David obtained aWNV Full Scale score of 103, which is ranked at the 58th percentile and means he did as well as or better on the WNV than 58% of examinees his age in the normative sample. There is a 90% chance that his true Full Scale score falls within the range of 96 to 109. GENERAL INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES

Test results should always be interpreted with consideration of the many factors that can in£uence performance. In particular, this includes (a) observations during testing, (b) reason for referral, and (c) background information from the parents, teachers, and any other reliable sources including behavioral, grooming, physiological, and psychological/emotionalobservations. Ofthe scores obtained on theWNV, the Full Scale score is the most reliable and stable estimate ofgeneral

c04_1

10/08/2008

59

INTERPRETATION OF THE WNV 59

ability and therefore should be the focus of interpretation.The Full Scale score should be reported with corresponding con¢dence intervals, percentile ranks, and classi¢cation. 4-Subtest Battery Interpretation Details

Examination of the four WNV subtests must be conducted with caution and consideration that the individual .................................................. Compare each of the four WNV subtests have both shared (i.e., they subtests to the examinee’s mean (Table all are nonverbal measures of general 4.2 and 4.3) when using the 4-subtest ability) and unique (i.e., some also battery. Use pairwise comparisons (Table involve remembering information, 4.5) for the 2-subtest battery. some have spatial demands, some involve abstract designs or images of ordinary objects) attributes. Additionally, it is important to recognize that variability across the subtests can be expected and, therefore, statistical guidelines should be followed to ensure that any di¡erences interpreted are beyond those that could be expected by chance.When signi¢cant variability is found, the unique contributions of each subtest should be related to other ¢ndings and interpreted accordingly. The values shown in Tables 4.2 through 4.5 are required when comparing a WNV subtest for an examinee to that examinee’s mean T score. The scores

DON’T FORGET

Table 4.2. Differences Required for Significance When Comparing Each WNV Subtest for the 2-Subtest Battery T Scores to the Examinee’s Average Subtest T Score for the U.S. Standardization Sample by Age for Ages 4 through 7 Age

p-value

MA

CD

OA

RG

4

.10 .05

7.0 7.9

7.9 8.8

8.6 9.6

8.8 9.8

5

.10 .05

8.1 9.0

7.9 8.8

8.1 9.0

8.8 9.8

6

.10 .05

7.1 8.0

7.8 8.7

8.3 9.2

8.4 9.4

7

.10 .05

7.3 8.2

8.0 8.9

9.8 11.0

8.5 9.4

4^7

.10 .05

7.4 8.3

7.9 8.8

8.7 9.7

8.6 9.6

c04_1

10/08/2008

60

60 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT Table 4.3. Differences Required for Significance When Comparing Each WNV Subtest for the 2-Subtest Battery T Scores to the Examinee’s Average Subtest T Score for the U.S. Standardization Sample by Age for Ages 8 through 21 Age

p-value

MA

CD

SSp

PA

8

.10 .05

7.0 7.8

9.4 10.5

7.3 8.2

9.7 10.8

9

.10 .05

7.5 8.4

9.4 10.5

7.8 8.7

8.9 9.9

10

.10 .05

7.1 7.9

9.5 10.6

7.7 8.6

9.9 11.0

11

.10 .05

7.9 8.8

9.6 10.7

8.8 9.8

9.5 10.5

12

.10 .05

7.4 8.2

9.5 10.6

7.7 8.6

9.5 10.6

13

.10 .05

7.3 8.1

8.2 9.2

7.6 8.5

9.6 10.7

14

.10 .05

6.0 6.7

8.0 8.9

7.2 8.0

8.6 9.6

15

.10 .05

6.4 7.1

8.1 9.0

7.3 8.1

9.3 10.3

16^17

.10 .05

6.4 7.1

8.1 9.0

7.1 7.9

9.5 10.6

18^19

.10 .05

5.8 6.5

8.0 8.9

6.8 7.6

9.0 10.1

20^21

.10 .05

5.9 6.6

8.1 9.0

7.6 8.5

9.1 10.1

8^21

.10 .05

6.8 7.6

8.7 9.7

7.5 8.4

9.3 10.4

were computed utilizing Davis’s (1959) formula for the di¡erence between the average of several scores obtained by one examinee and each of his or her scores included in the average. Silverstein’s (1982, 1982) modi¢cation of this procedure was applied to correct the z values used to compute the di¡erences needed for

c04_1

10/08/2008

61

INTERPRETATION OF THE WNV 61

Table 4.4. Differences Required for Significance When Comparing Each WNV Subtest T Score to the Examinee’s Average Subtest T Score for the Canadian Standardization Sample Age

p-value

MA

CD

OA

RG

4

.10 .05

7.7 8.6

7.8 8.7

8.2 9.1

8.3 9.3

5

.10 .05

7.9 8.9

8.3 9.2

10.4 11.6

9.8 10.9

6

.10 .05

7.7 8.6

7.9 8.8

8.3 9.3

8.5 9.5

7

.10 .05

8.9 10.0

8.0 9.0

9.5 10.6

7.7 8.6

4^7

.10 .05

8.1 9.0

8.0 8.9

9.1 10.1

8.6 9.6

signi¢cance based on the number of comparisons made to the mean. For example, when four WNV subtest Tscores are compared with the mean of the four Tscores, a z value corresponding to a .025 level of signi¢cance (.10 divided by 4; a z value of 2.24) was used to obtain di¡erences needed for signi¢cance (a z value of 2.49 was used for the .05 level). The standard errors of measurement for the WNV subtest Tscores of the U.S. and Canadian samples were obtained from the WNV Technical and Interpretive Manual (Wechsler & Naglieri, 2006c; Table 4.4 & 4.5) and were used for these calculations. The following formulawasused to compute the di¡erencebetween individual subtest Tscores and the mean subtest Tscore required for signi¢cance: D ¼ CR  Sm½ðT=mÞZ : In this formula, D is the deviation from the average subtest Tscore, CR is the critical ratio z value (using the correction for the number of comparisons), and Sm½ðT/mÞ  z is the standard error of measurement of the di¡erence between an average subtest Tscore and the subtest Tscore included in that average (see Silverstein,1982, for more information, and Naglieri & Paolitto, 2005, for values for the WISCIV). For example, if a10-year-old from the United States obtained Tscores of 56 on Matrices, 44 on Coding, 39 on Spatial Span, and 52 on Picture Arrangement, the meanTscore would be 47.8. Using the .10 level of signi¢cance and the values inTable 4.3, Matrices would be considered a relative strength for this examinee

c04_1

10/08/2008

62

62 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT Table 4.5. Differences Required for Significance When Comparing Each WNV Subtest T Score to the Examinee’s Average Subtest T Score for the Canadian Standardization Sample Age

p-value

MA

CD

SSp

PA

8

.10 .05

9.5 10.6

9.7 10.8

6.8 7.6

10.4 11.6

9

.10 .05

7.2 8.0

9.5 10.5

7.0 7.8

10.0 11.1

10

.10 .05

8.1 9.0

9.5 10.6

7.6 8.5

9.5 10.6

11

.10 .05

6.8 7.5

9.5 10.6

8.1 9.0

10.3 11.5

12

.10 .05

6.2 7.0

9.3 10.4

6.8 7.6

9.2 10.2

13

.10 .05

6.0 6.7

8.0 8.9

7.0 7.8

8.6 9.6

14

.10 .05

6.8 7.6

8.2 9.1

7.5 8.4

9.5 10.5

15

.10 .05

6.8 7.6

8.3 9.2

8.0 8.9

10.2 11.4

16^17

.10 .05

5.9 6.6

8.1 9.0

7.7 8.6

8.8 9.8

18^19

.10 .05

5.9 6.6

8.1 9.0

7.4 8.3

9.1 10.1

20^21

.10 .05

5.6 6.2

8.1 9.1

7.7 8.5

9.8 10.9

8^21

.10 .05

6.8 7.6

8.7 9.7

7.4 8.3

9.6 10.7

(56  47:8 ¼ 8:3, which exceeds the critical value of 7.1for the .10 level of signi¢cance). TheTscore for Spatial Span was signi¢cantly lower than the examinee’s meanTscore (39  47:8 ¼ 8:8, which exceeds the critical value of 7.8 for the .10 level of con¢dence), and would be considered a relative weakness. Rapid Reference 4.1 provides the steps for comparing subtest scores to mean scores.

c04_1

10/08/2008

63

INTERPRETATION OF THE WNV 63

The interpretation of the di¡erences between a single subtest Tscore and the examinee’s meanTscore provides a method for examining variability in subtest scores that should be combined with and/or related to other data to help determine relative strengths and weaknesses in performance. Di¡erences between subtest T scores may suggest that further examination using a multidimensional measure of abilitysuch as the CognitiveAssessment System (see Naglieri, 1999) could be appropriate. Subtest di¡erences that are signi¢cant should be described (in addition to the Full Scale score) in a manner similar to the following example. David obtained aWNV Full Scale score of 103, which is ranked at the 58th percentile and means that he performed as well as or better than 58% of examinees his age in the normative sample. David’s Full Scale score of 103 falls within the Average classi¢cation, and there is a 90% chance that his true Full Scale score falls within the range of 96 to 109. His scores on the individual WNV subtest scores varied signi¢cantly, suggesting a relative strength on Matricesa subtest requiring reasoning with spatial designsand a relative weakness on Spatial Spana subtest requiring recall of a spatial sequence of actions. When signi¢cant WNV subtest variability is found, it will also be important to determine if a weakness that is relative to the examinee’s overall mean is also su⁄ciently below the average range.Whereas determining if an examinee

Rapid Reference 4.1

.................................................................................................... Comparing Subtest Scores to Mean Scores Follow these steps to compare each of the four subtest T scores to the mean subtest T score: 1. Calculate the mean of the four subtest T scores. 2. Calculate the difference between each subtest T score and the mean. To do so, subtract the mean from each of the subtest T scores (retain the sign). 3. Find the value needed for significance using the examinee’s age and the desired significance level in the WNV Administration and Scoring Manual Table B.1. 4. If the absolute value of the difference is equal to or greater than the value in the table, the result is statistically significant. 5. If the subtest difference from the mean is lower than the mean, then the difference is a weakness; if the subtest difference from the mean is greater than the mean, then the difference is a strength.

c04_1

10/08/2008

64

64 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

has signi¢cant variability relative to his or her own average score is a useful way to determine relative strengths and weaknesses, Naglieri (1999) and Flanagan and Kaufman (2004) note that a relative weakness can be signi¢cantly below the examinee’s mean but still within the average range.To ensure that a subtest score has both relative and normative implications, Naglieri (1999) recommends that it should also fall well below the average range to be considered a weakness (e.g., < 1 SD below the mean). For example, a Spatial Span T score of 39 with a mean WNV subtest T score of 47.8 would be signi¢cantly lower than the examinee’s mean (using the .10 level of signi¢cance) and would be considered a weakness from the child’s mean and a normative perspective. This would strengthen the level of concern about this ¢nding and more strongly suggest additional investigation and assessment. 2-Subtest Battery Interpretation Details

Analysis of the di¡erence between the two subtests by age for the U.S. and Canadian samples is accomplished using the values found in Table 4.6. The di¡erences required for statistical signi¢cance at the .10 and .05 levels of con¢dence for every pair of WNVsubtests are provided.This can be used, for example, to determine if aTscore di¡erence of11points between Matrices and Recognition is signi¢cant for an examinee who is 7 years old. Additional information about the di¡erences between the T scores for Matrices and Recognition (ages 4:0^7:11) and Matrices and Spatial Span (ages 8:0^21:11) is reported in Table B.4 of the WNVAdministration and Scoring Manual.This table provides the base rates of subtest T score di¡erences by the direction of the di¡erence. For example, in Table B.4, about 11% of examinees aged 8:0 through 21:11 obtained T scores for Matrices that were 14 or more points higher than theirTscores for Spatial Span, whereas only about 9% obtained Tscores for Spatial Span 14 or more points higher than theirTscores for Matrices.This information can be used to augment the interpretation of the signi¢cance of the di¡erence between the scales. The Full Scale score should be reported with the corresponding con¢dence interval, percentile rank, and classi¢cation, and the subtest Tscores should be described with the associated percentile rank. The Full Scale and subtest Tscores could be described in a manner similar to the following example. David obtained a WNV Full Scale score of 103, which falls in the Average range and is ranked at the 58th percentile. This means he did as well as or better than 58% of examinees his age in the normative sample on this nonverbal measure of general ability. There is a 90% chance that his true Full Scale score falls within the range of 96 to 109. There was signi¢cant

.05

Canadian .10

.05

U.S. .10

p

RG SSp

RG SSp

RG SSp

RG SSp

11.4 

9.6 

11.3 

4 9.4 

12.6 

10.5 

12.2 

5 10.2 

11.6 

9.7 

11.1 

6 9.3 

11.8 

9.8 

10.9 

7 9.1 

 11.1

 9.3

 6.2

8  5.2

 9.0

 7.5

 7.1

9  5.9

 10.6

 8.8

 6.2

10  5.2

 9.6

 8.0

 7.3

11  6.1

 8.1

 6.8

 6.8

12  5.7

 8.5

 7.1

 6.8

13  5.7

Age Groups (in years)

 9.6

 8.0

 5.2

14  4.3

 9.8

 8.2

 5.5

15  4.6

 9.2

 7.7

 5.5

16^17  4.6

 8.8

 7.3

 4.8

18^19  4.0

 8.5

 7.1

 4.8

20^21  4.0

11.0 9.7

9.2 8.1

11.8 6.3

Avg 9.9 5.3

10/08/2008

Table 4.6. Differences Required for Significance when Comparing Recognition or Spatial Span to Matrices on the WNV 2-Subtest Battery for U.S. and Canadian Standardization Samples by Age

c04_1 65

65

c04_1

10/08/2008

66

66 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

variabilitybetween the two subtests thatcomprise theWNV. He performed signi¢cantly better on a subtest requiring reasoning with geometric designs (Matrices) than he did on a subtest requiring recall of a sequence of movements arranged in a spatial array (Spatial Span). This di¡erence is somewhat unusual, with only 4.3% of the population obtaining di¡erences this large or larger. Spatial Span Interpretation Details

An in-depth examination on the WNV Spatial Span subtest can be obtained by examining Forward and Backward scores, particularlywhen interpreting anydifferences within the greater context of a comprehensive assessment. The sizes of the di¡erences required for statistical signi¢cance by age and for the U.S. and Canadian samples are provided inTable 4.7. The frequency with which such a di¡erence occurred in the normative sample is provided in the WNVAdministration and Scoring Manual:Table C.1 provides theTscore equivalents for Spatial Span Forward and Spatial Span Backward, and Table C.3 presents the base rate data for the T score di¡erences for the U.S. sample.The tables provide the base rate data by the direction of the di¡erence. For example, about 24% of examinees obtained Spatial Span Forward scores 7 or more points higher than their Spatial Span Backward scores, whereas about 25% obtained Spatial Span Backward scores 7 or more points higher than their Spatial Span Forward scores. Comparison of theTscore di¡erences between Spatial Span Forward and Backward could help clarify performance on this subtest and particularly within the greater context of a comprehensive assessment. For example, if a Spatial Span Table 4.7. Differences Required for Significance when Comparing Spatial Span Forward and Backward for U.S. and Canadian Standardization Samples by Age 8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16^17

18^19

20^21

Avg

U.S. .10 .05

11 13

11 13

11 13

12 14

11 13

10 12

10 12

10 12

10 12

10 12

11 13

11 13

Canadian .10 .05

10 12

9 11

11 13

10 13

9 11

10 12

11 13

13 15

10 12

10 12

12 14

10 13

p

c04_1

10/08/2008

67

INTERPRETATION OF THE WNV 67

Forward Tscore is 14 points higher than the Spatial Span Backward Tscore for a 13-year-old U.S. examinee, this di¡erence is signi¢cant (a di¡erence of 12 is needed at the .05 level using Table C.2), and the di¡erence only occurs in only 9.0% of the normative sample (obtained from WNV Administration and Scoring Manual Table C.3). This information should be related to other relevant ¢ndings to help determine what factors might have in£uenced these scores. For example, further examination of related data (e.g., Digit Span Forward versus Digit Span Backward) and a low score on the Planning Scale of the Cognitive Assessment System (see Naglieri, 1999) might suggest that the examinee has di⁄culty with strategies for the reordering of information arranged in a speci¢c sequence. Possible Instructional Implications

The WNV, like other tests, can be used to develop hypotheses about characteristics of the student that may have implications for instruction.These hypotheses should be corroborated by other evidence and, when possible, tested to see if a positive response to instruction occurs. It is possible that an examinee’s performance on a WNV subtest could suggest avenues for further investigation. In the previous example, the Spatial Span Forward Tscore that is signi¢cantly higher than the Spatial Span Backward T score could suggest that there could be a weakness with Planning, as de¢ned by Naglieri (2008a).When this evidence is corroborated by a weakness in Planning as measured by the Cognitive Assessment System (Naglieri & Das,1997) and, for example, math or reading problems are found, the application of methods described by Naglieri and Pickering (2003) for teaching strategy use in these academic areas should be attempted. There is a sizable amount of research that illustrates the value of teaching children to be strategic and the positive in£uence this instruction has on math and reading comprehension (see Naglieri, 2008a, for a summary). Other subtest patterns on the WNVmay also suggest a weakness on tests of general ability that require recall of information. For example, if an examinee has aTscore of 35 on Recognition and an overall subtest mean of 49, the examiner may suspect that there is some di⁄culty with recall of information. Once corroborated with other test data and if accompanied by academic problems in tasks that require recall of information, it would be useful to teach the examinee strategies for remembering. For example, it may be useful to teach chunking or other mnemonic methods for recall of information, particularly because there is considerable evidence that these techniques are e¡ective (see Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2006; Minsko¡ & Allsopp, 2003). Naglieri and Pickering (2003) also o¡er instructional handouts that provide information

c04_1

10/08/2008

68

68 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

about memory techniques that parents and teachers can use.The WNVcould, therefore, help develop possible explanations for problems associated with dif¢culty in the classroom. Ability–Achievement Comparisons

The WNV Technical and Interpretive Manual provides two methods for comparing WNV Full Scale scores with scores from the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test^Second Edition (WIATII) (Pearson, 2005): the predicted-di¡erence and simple-di¡erence.The selection of which method to use may be in£uenced by state laws or practitioner preference. The predicted-di¡erence method takes into account the reliabilities and the correlations between the two measures and, therefore, has some psychometric advantages. In this method, the ability score is used to predict an .................................................. Differences between WNV Full Scale achievement score, and the predicted and achievement that are both reliable and observed achievement scores and unusual are more important than are compared. Tables B.1 through reliable differences that are not unusual. B.7 in theWNV TechnicalandInterpretive Manual provide the values needed for signi¢cance when conducting an ability^achievement analysis. These data werebased on calculations obtained from theWNVandWIATIIdata collected during the WNV U.S. standardization. Tables B.8 through B.14 are based on theWNVCanadian normative sample reliabilities and predicted ability^achievement correlations with the WIATII (see the WNV Technical and Interpretive Manual for more details). The predicted- and simple-di¡erence methods compare the ability and achievement scores to determine if the two di¡er beyond what would be expected on the basis of errors of measurement. Regardless of which method is used, the examiner can augment those ¢ndings with the base rates provided inTables B.1through B.14 of the WNV Technical and Interpretive Manual for the WIATII. Simple di¡erences between the WNV 2- and 4-subtest Full Scale standard scores with other achievement tests are also provided in Tables 4.8 and 4.9. These tables include the di¡erences needed at .05 and .10 levels of signi¢cance and should be used as a guide when comparing WNV scores with achievement test scores.The values were obtained using the same formula used for the simple di¡erences between the WNV and WIATII based upon the standard errors of measurement provided by the publishers. The achievement tests include the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement^Second Edition (KTEA-II) (Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004), Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement^Third Edition (WJ-III)

DON’T FORGET

c04_1

10/08/2008

69

INTERPRETATION OF THE WNV 69

Table 4.8. Differences Between WNV Full Scale Scores and Subtest and Total Scores on KTEA-II and WJ-III Using the Simple Difference Method .05

KTEA-II

WJ-III

.10

WNV 2

WNV 4

WNV 2

WNV 4

Letter & Word Recognition

10

10

9

9

Reading Comprehension Reading Composite Math Concepts & Apps Math Computation Math Composite Written Expression Spelling Written Language Listening Comprehension Oral Expression Oral Language Composite

12 10 12 12 11 14 12 12 15 16 14

12 10 12 11 11 14 11 11 14 16 14

10 9 10 10 9 12 10 10 12 14 12

10 9 10 10 9 12 10 10 12 14 12

Standard Battery Total Achievement Oral Language ^Std Broad Reading Broad Math Broad Written Language Academic Skills Academic Fluency Academic Applications

10 14 12 11 12 11 12 11

10 14 11 11 11 11 12 11

8 12 10 9 10 9 10 9

8 12 10 9 10 9 10 9

Extended Battery Oral Language ^Ext Oral Expression Listening Comprehension Basic Reading Skills Math Calculation Skills Math Reasoning Basic Writing Skills Written Expression Ph/Gr Knowledge

12 15 13 11 13 11 12 13 13

12 14 13 11 13 11 11 13 13

10 12 11 9 11 9 10 11 11

10 12 11 9 10 9 10 10 11

Notes: All reliabilities used were from respective manuals based on overall age-based values. pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi Formula: Z  SDð15Þ 2  r1  r2 or Z SEMA2 þ SEMB2

c04_1

10/08/2008

70

70 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT Table 4.9 Differences Between WNV Full Scale Scores and Subtest and Total Scores on DAB-3 and WRAT-4 Using the Simple Difference Method .05

DAB-3

Listening Speaking Reading Writing Mathematics Spoken Language Written Language Total Achievement

WRAT-4

Blue Word Reading Sentence Comprehension Reading Composite Spelling Math Computation Green Word Reading Sentence Comprehension Reading Composite Spelling Math Computation

.10

WNV 2

WNV 4

WNV 2

WNV 4

11 13 11 11 13 11 10 10

11 13 11 11 13 11 10 10

9 11 9 9 11 9 9 8

9 11 9 9 11 9 9 8

12 12

12 12

10 10

10 10

11 13 13

11 13 13

9 11 11

9 10 11

12 12

12 12

10 10

10 10

11 13 14

11 13 14

9 11 12

9 11 12

Notes: All reliabilities used were from respective manuals based on overall age-based values. pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi Formula: Z  SDð15Þ 2  r1  r2 or Z SEMA2 þ SEMB2

(Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001a), Diagnostic Achievement Battery^Third Edition (DAB-3) (Newcomer, 2001), and the Wide Range Achievement Test^Fourth Edition (WRAT-4) (Wilkinson & Robertson, 2006). SUMMARY

This chapter provided speci¢c methods for comparing the WNV scores so that interpretation is guided by well-established psychometric guidelines. These

c04_1

10/10/2008

71

INTERPRETATION OF THE WNV 71

¢ndings can be used to answer a speci¢c question (e.g., does the examinee have su⁄cient ability to qualify for a gifted program?) or integrated with other information and test scores. The goal should be to use the WNVresults within the context of the reason for referral, following psychometric guidelines. The WNV is a tool that is used to better understand the examinee. As Matarazzo stated: ‘‘Psychological assessment is a clinical activity that employs test scores, but only as one of the sources from which an astute clinician develops a wellintegrated and comprehensive psychological portrait of the adult or child examined’’ (Wechsler, 1991, p. iii). Scores from any test are best used within the context of the complete person following the psychometric guidelines provided in this chapter.

TEST YOURSELF

.................................................................................................... 1. What scale metric is used for the WNV subtests?

(a) Mean of 10 and SD of 3 (b) Mean of 100 and SD of 15 (c) Mean of 50 and SD of 10 (d) Mean of 100 and SD of 16 2. What is the theoretical basis of the WNV?

(a) Theory of nonverbal intelligence (b) General ability (i.e., g) (c) Jensen’s memory and reasoning concepts (d) PASS theory of cognitive processing 3. The directions for administration are provided in which languages?

(a) English, French, Spanish, Chinese, German, and Dutch (b) English, Italian, Japanese, Russian, German, and Chinese (c) English, German, French, Japanese, Chinese, and Spanish (d) English, Spanish, Japanese, Chinese, German, and Hindi 4. The label nonverbal refers to the

(a) content of the test questions. (b) the theoretical construct being measured. (c) the manner in which the instructions are given. (d) the processing needed to solve the problems. 5. Wechsler’s view of ability was that

(a) verbal and nonverbal abilities should be measured. (b) verbal and performance scales represented different abilities.

c04_1

10/08/2008

72

72 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

(c) each subtest measures its own specific ability. (d) Spearmen’s g theory applied to his tests. 6. The WNV measures

(a) general ability nonverbally. (b) nonverbal ability. (c) many different abilities. (d) the combination of ability and achievement. 7. WNV confidence intervals are

(a) centered around the estimated true score. (b) centered around the obtained score. (c) more asymmetrical as the score gets closer to 100. (d) based on the standard error of the mean. 8. All the WNV subtests measure

(a) general ability. (b) specific abilities. (c) general ability, and they have specific requirements. (d) general ability and processes based on their content. 9. To determine if the WNV Full Scale score is different from an achievement test score, use

(a) the rule of 1 SD difference. (b) the tabled values for the simple difference method. (c) the nonoverlapping SEMs method. (d) all of the above 10. Comparison of Spatial Span Forward and Backward T scores

(a) cannot be accomplished. (b) can provide some information about strategy use. (c) should be related to other findings. (d) b and c Answers: 1. c; 2. b; 3. a; 4. a; 5. d; 6. a; 7. a; 8. c; 9. b; 10. d

c05_1

10/08/2008

73

Five STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES

A

n appropriate assessment using a well-developed instrument that is administered by a well-trained examiner can reveal the status and development of an examinee’s cognitive ability. All tests, however, have strengths and weaknesses. In this chapter we will discuss the strengths and weaknesses or the advantages and disadvantages of theWNV, using a data-based method for evaluating these attributes. We will rely on information such as reliability and validity, but expand on this by including WNV standardization research that examines the utility of this instrument for a wide variety of individuals. STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE WNV RELIABILITY

One of the strengths of theWNV is the amount of information in theTechnicaland Interpretive Manual concerning reliability. This includes internal consistency by age, by subtest, and Full Scale score for the U.S. and the Canadian normative samples. Reliability coe⁄cients are also provided for special groups, and test/ retest results are provided by age. The results for both the U.S. and Canadian normative samples indicate good internal reliability across all ages, across all subtests, and for the Full Scale scores. In fact, the overall average reliability for the U.S. normative sample for both the 4- and 2-subtest battery Full Scale scores is .91. The overall average reliability for the Canadian normative sample is .90 for the 4-subtest battery Full Scale score and .91 for the 2-subtest battery Full Scale score. The overall average subtest reliabilities across all ages range from .74 (Picture Arrangement) to .91 (Matrices) for the U.S. samples and .73 (Picture Arrangement) to .90 (Matrices) for the Canadian samples. Reliability studies were conducted for examinees who were classi¢ed as being gifted or talented, having Mild Mental Retardation, having Moderate Mental Retardation, having Reading and Written Expression Learning 73

c05_1

10/08/2008

74

74 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

Disorder, having a language disorder, those who are English-Language Learners, Deaf, and Hard of Hearing.The results for these special populations were consistent with the reliability estimates for the normative samples. The subtest reliabilities varied from .82 (Picture Arrangement) to.96 (Matrices), indicating that the WNV subtests can be reliably used across this variety of populations. The WNV also has good stability. The expectation for test/retest studies is change in scores if the same test is given twice in a short period of time.The studies reported in the WNV Technical and Interpretive Manual had a test/retest interval of 10 to 31 days for ages 4 through 7 years and 10 to 52 days for ages 8 through 21 years.The results are graphically displayed in Figure 5.1 for both age groups. The ¢gure indicates that the greatest change found for the 4- through 7-yearolds was for Object Assembly (an e¡ect size of .46), followed by Coding (e¡ect size of .36), while Matrices and Recognition showed negligible di¡erences (e¡ect sizes of .19 and .10, respectively). The greatest change for the 8- through 21-year-olds was for Picture Arrangement (an e¡ect size of .64), followed by Coding (e¡ect size of.34), butMatrices andSpatial Spanshowed negligible di¡erences (e¡ect sizes of .18 and .20, respectively). These ¢ndings are consistent with the view that once examinees have some experience with Object Assembly and Picture Arrangement they may recall aspects of the task that allow them to complete the items more readily each successive time they are administered to them. The combination of subtests that show di¡erential improvement over

Figure 5.1. Test/Retest Results by Age Band for All Subtests of the WNV.

c05_1

10/08/2008

75

STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES 75

Figure 5.2. 4- and 2-Subtest Battery Test/Retest Results by Age Band.

time provides important information about the stability of the 4- and 2-subtest batteries of the WNV. There are important di¡erences in the stability of the 4- and 2-subtest batteries of the WNV for both the 4 through 7 and 8 through 21 age bandsthe 2-subtest batteries show greater stability than the 4-subtest batteries. Figure 5.2 shows the test/retest results for the subtests by age band.The reason for this di¡erence is that the 4-subtest battery for the 4- through 7-year-olds includes Object Assembly and Coding, which show the greatest change over time. Whereas the 2-subtest battery for the 4- through 7-year-olds includes Matrices and Recognition, which are the most stable subtests at that age. Similarly, the 4-subtest battery for 8- through 21-year-olds adds Picture Arrangement and Coding (the least stable) to Matrices and Spatial Span (the most stable). These ¢ndings suggestthat slight increases in scores can be expected for some of the subtests and small increases for other subtests.TheWNV 2-subtest battery is the most stable. Overall, these ¢ndings indicate that theWNV is stable and reliable across the ages for which it is intended.

c05_1

10/08/2008

76

76 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF WNV VALIDITY

One of the strengths of theWNV is that there is a sizable amount of information presented in theTechnical and Interpretive Manual that supports the use of this new nonverbal measure ofgeneral ability. In this sectionwe will consider implications of the ¢ndings provided in theTechnicalandInterpretiveManual.The reported results include studies with the WPPSIIII, WISCIV, WISCIV Spanish, WAISIII, NNATIndividual, UNIT, andWIATII.These studies and their results help gauge the similaritiesbetween theWNVand these other instruments. An important consideration for any test is how well it can assess examinees in the groups it was speci¢cally created to measure.The WNV was created to nonverbally measure general ability for everyone ages 4 through 21.The special populations in the WNV standardization are examinees who are classi¢ed as gifted or talented, those who may have various levels of Mental Retardation, as well as those who are English-Language Learners, Deaf, and Hard of Hearing. Correlations with Other Ability Tests

The examination of the similarity of scores obtained from the WNVand other tests of general ability provides some understanding of how the WNVcan be used and of the strength of conclusions that might be reached. The mean Full Scale scores obtained from theWNVthat are included in theWNVAdministration and Scoring Manual indicate that this test compares well with other ability tests, both those intended for general use and those that are speci¢cally designed to measure ability nonverbally. The di¡erences between the Full Scale scores obtained from the WPPSIIII, WISCIV, WISCIV Spanish, WAISIII, NNATIndividual, and UNITare summarized inTable 5.1.This table provides the di¡erence between theWNV 4- and 2-subtest batteries with these six validity study tests. The di¡erences are expressed as e¡ect sizes, which were calculated using the di¡erence between the two means, divided by the square root of the pooled variance (Cohen, 1996) using the formula: ðX1  X2 Þ d-ratio ¼ sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ðn1  SD12 þ n2  SD22 Þ n 1 þ n2 This statistic provides a di¡erence score that is standardized across the studies.The term standard di¡erence refers to Cohen’s d-ratio, which is the basis for e¡ect size interpretation (Cohen,1988).Values that are less than .20 are considered negligible;.20to.49aresmall;.50to.79are moderate;and.80orgreaterarereported as large.

c05_1

10/08/2008

77

STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES 77

Table 5.1. Differences between WNV and Ability Tests Full Scale Standard Scores Expressed As Effect Sizes WNV 4-Subtest

2-Subtest

.20 .16 .07 .01

.15 .07 .13 .01

NNATI UNIT

.06 .07

.11 .13

Average across studies

.07

.01

WPPSIIII WISCIV WAISIII WISCIV Spanish

The comparison of WNV Full Scale scores to other tests of general ability indicates that the di¡erences were quite small. The mean scores earned di¡ered verylittle between the NNATIandUNITand only slightlygreater on the other Wechsler scales. These negligible di¡erences provide evidence of the strength of theWNVas an ability measure, particularly as a nonverbal measure of general ability.This evidence is further strengthened by the fact that theWNV Full Scale scores are similar to the scores from other tests of general ability that have test questions that vary along the verbal, quantitative, and nonverbal dimensions. These positive ¢ndings are further illustrated through an examination of the correlations between the WNVand tests of ability and achievement. Correlations with Ability and Achievement

A strength of theWNV is its strong correlation with other nonverbal measures of ability (average r ¼ :76 for the 4-subtest battery Full Scale score correlations with the NNATI and the UNIT) as well as with other measures of ability that contain verbal and nonverbal scales (average r ¼ :83 for the 4-subtest battery Full Scale score correlations with the WPPSIIII, WISCIV, WAISIII, and the WISCIV Spanish).The values inTable 5.2 provide evidence that the WNV is a good test of general ability even though it does not containverbal and quantitative subtests. Importantly, the correlations between the WNVand the other Wechsler tests are very similar to the correlations between theWNVand the other two nonverbal tests of general ability.These ¢ndings illustrate the strength of theWNVas a nonverbal test of general ability and as a general measure of ability. The strong correlation (.66) between achievement (i.e.,WIATII) and the WNV is another strength. Importantly, the correlations between the WNV

c05_1

10/08/2008

78

78 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT Table 5.2. Obtained and Corrected Correlations between the WNV 4- and 2-Subtest Batteries with Measures of Ability and Achievement WNV Obtained

Corrected

4-Subtest

2-Subtest

4-Subtest

2-Subtest

WPPSIIII WISCIV WAISIII WISCIV Spanish

.71 .76 .72 .82

.67 .58 .57 .67

.82 .82 .84 .83

.79 .66 .72 .68

Avg withWechslerTests

.75

.62

.83

.71

NNATI UNIT

.73 .73

.71 .62

.73 .79

.71 .69

Avg with Nonverbal Tests

.73 .60

.67 .43

.76 .66

.70 .49

WIATII

Note:The correlations were corrected for restriction in range.

and the WIATII are consistent with published ¢ndings on the relationships between ability and achievement, which have correlated about .6 (Naglieri, 1999). Previous research with other nonverbal tests of general ability such as the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test^Multilevel Version (NNAT) (ML) (Naglieri, 1997), has shown a correlation of .5 to .6 for large samples of children in grades K through 12 (see Naglieri & Ronning, 2000). The results illustrate that the 4subtest battery Full Scale score is an e¡ective predictor of academic achievement. The advantage of having a test of general ability that does not contain verbal and arithmetic items is that it provides an e¡ective way of measuring ability for examinees who have limited verbal achievement, and in particular, limited English-language skills.This is particularly relevant for the growing populations of minorities in the United States and for those with learning problems and sensorylimitations (see Naglieri, 2008b; Naglieri & Ford, 2003, 2005).Thus, another strength of the WNV is that it provides a way to measure general ability that is correlated with traditional measures of abilityand achievement for a wide variety of examinees. Use with Individuals with Language Limitations Yet another strength of the WNV is that it yields accurate scores for examinees who have limitations in either their knowledge or use of the English language.

c05_1

10/08/2008

79

STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES 79

TheTechnicalandInterpretiveManual provides additional evidence of the utilityof the WNVwith special populations. In particular, there are three studies that include examinees who have English-language limitations and hearing problems and have limited ability to acquire information, especially information presented auditorily. The ¢rst study included examinees whose native language was not English, the primary language they spoke was not English, a language other than English was spoken at home, and their parents resided in the United States for less than 6 years. The students were administered the WNV and compared to a group from the normative sample matched on basic demographics.The results shown in Table 5.3 indicate that the examinees learning English earned essentially the same score as the matched control of English-speaking examinees in the normative group (e¡ect sizes for the 4- and 2-subtest batteries were .03 and .04, respectively).While these results suggested that theWNVmeasures general ability e¡ectively and fairly for those with limited English-language skills, when combined with the studies involving students with hearing limitations the strength of this instrument is more clearly understood. TheWNV Full Scale scores are also very similar for both the study with deaf examinees matched to hearing examinees in the normative sample with the same demographic characteristics and the study with hearing-impaired examinees matched to hearing examinees in the normative sample with the same demographic characteristics.The deaf sample of examinees lacked ever having heard spoken language; they had never heard tones after the age of 18 months. Table 5.3. Differences Between WNV Full Scale Scores Earned by Special Populations and Comparison Groups. WNV Battery

E¡ect Size

English-Language Learners

4 2

.03 .04

Deaf

4 2

.14 .20

Hard-of-Hearing

4 2

.25 .29

Average

.16 ðX X Þ

1 2 Note: Effect Size ¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

ðn1 SD12 þn2 SD22 Þ n1 þn2

c05_1

10/08/2008

80

80 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

They could not lip read or use cued speech and were classi¢ed as having severe to profound deafness. The hard-of-hearing sample had exposure to spoken language, either through hearing or lip reading, and could have a unilateral or bilateral hearing loss or deafness.Their inability to hear could have occurred at any age, and they could have cochlear implants. Additionally, these groups of examinees had no disability, diagnosis, or impairment other than being deaf or hard-of-hearing. These two groups, like the sample of examinees with English-language limitations, earned WNV Full Scale scores that were well within the average range and were very similar to the matched control group. The e¡ect sizes are considered negligible and small. Taken as a whole, these studies suggest that language has a negligible e¡ect on the WNV Full Scale score (average e¡ect size of .16). This ¢nding further illustrates the strength of this instrument for assessment of individuals with hearing as well as language limitations. Implications for Identi¢cation of Giftedness The underrepresentation of minority children in classes for the gifted has been andcontinuestobe one ofthe mostimportantproblems facingeducatorsofgifted students (Ford, 1998; Naglieri & Ford, 2005). One solution to this problem has been to use nonverbal tests of general ability as a part of the identi¢cation procedure, particularly for children whose primary language is not English. Naglieri (2008b) amply documents the empirical support for this approach, and the evidence summarized earlier in this chapter further supports the view that the WNVis an e¡ective measure to use to nonverballyassessgeneral ability. Many traditional measures ofability include teststhatrequireknowledge of Englishwords and the use of language even when questions involving mathematics are used. AsSuzuki andValencia(1997)argue, theseverbal and quantitative questions interfere with the accurate assessment of minority children, and tests, like the WNV, provide an e¡ective way to assess these individuals.The evidence previously presentedforEnglish-LanguageLearnersillustratesthattheWNVisane¡ective nonverbal test of general ability. This tool, therefore, should be used as part of the process to identify gifted examinees whose primary language is not English. WEAKNESSES OF THE WNV

We suggest that the WNV has no major weaknesses, albeit a few minor issues should be considered. Perhaps the most salient is the limitation of the 2^subtest battery: It o¡ers the advantage of e⁄ciency and has good reliability, but it does not correlate as highly as the 4-subtest battery with other measures of

c05_1

10/08/2008

81

STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES 81

abilityor with achievement.The 4-subtestbattery will also likely pose problems for examinees with motoric limitations (e.g., Coding, Spatial Span, Picture Arrangement, Object Assembly), particularly if the rate of responding is impacted. Finally, the Coding subtest is not the strongest in the scale as evidenced by relatively lower correlations with the Full Scale and low loadings of Coding on theg factor.There are research needs that are associated with many new tests. For example, it is important to understand how the WNV scores vary across gender, race, and ethnic groups and to understand how spoken directions in languages other than English might in£uence administration of the test. More details about the weaknesses can be seen in Tables 5.4 through 5.8. Table 5.4. Strengths and Weaknesses of the WNV Administration and Scoring Strengths Pictorial directions provide a means of instructing the examinee that is intuitive. If the examinee does not understand the demonstration or sample items, additional help may be provided. Additional help can be provided in any language or using a signed language. Speci¢c verbal statements are provided in the WNVAdministration and Scoring Manual in six languages. All verbal instructions are very short and simple, to reduce the need for comprehension of complex directions. All subtests are objectively scored. The Record Form is clear and concise. Computer scoring is provided. Subtests were selected to be most appropriate for the ages for which they are given. Tscores are provided for Spatial Span Forward and Backward by age. Weaknesses Discontinue rules vary for some of the subtests, which may be confusing. Examiners may need to practice the Spatial Span test, especially the longer items. Object Assembly items take some time to arrange. Behavioral observations are provided on the Record Form, but no data are given about the relationships between this information and the WNV scores. Examinees with motoric problems may ¢nd some of the subtests di⁄cult to complete.

c05_1

10/08/2008

82

82 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT Table 5.5. Strengths and Weaknesses of the WNV Reliability and Factorial Validity Strengths Reliability coe⁄cients for the WNV Full Scale are high (at least .90) for the U.S. and Canadian samples. Both the 4- and 2-subtest battery Full Scale scores have high reliability for the U.S. and Canadian samples. Matrices, Object Assembly, Recognition, Spatial Span, and Picture Arrangement had strong g loadings for ages 4 through 21 years for the U.S. and Canadian samples. The Coding subtest g loadings were adequate for the U.S. and Canadian samples. The pattern of g loadings across the age bands indicates that all the subtests load on one factor for the U.S. and Canadian samples. Weaknesses Reliabilities of some of the subtests are less than .80 for both the U.S. and Canadian samples. Spatial Span Forward has a reliability less than .80 for the U.S. and Canadian samples. The Coding subtest g loadings were not as strong as the other subtests.

Table 5.6. Strengths and Weaknesses of the WNV Validity Strengths Studies of English-Language Learners provided in the WNV Technical and Interpretive Manual support the utility of the WNV for that group. Studies of deaf and hard-of-hearing examinees provided in the WNV Technical and Interpretive Manual support the utility of the WNV for these groups. Correlations between the WNVand other tests of ability are good. Correlations between the WNVand achievement are good. Results are provided in the WNV Technical and Interpretive Manual for eight special populations. The correlation between the WNVand WISCIV Spanish is high. Weaknesses No validity studies are reported in the WNV Technical and Interpretive Manual for separate race or ethnic groups. No validity studies are reported in the WNV Technical and Interpretive Manual that examine sex di¡erences.

c05_1

10/08/2008

83

STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES 83

Table 5.7. Strengths and Weaknesses of the WNV Standardization Samples Strengths The WNV was simultaneously standardized with examinees from the United States and Canada. Separate norms conversion tables are provided for U.S. and Canadian examinees. The standardization samples are well strati¢ed. Well-established methods were used to ensure utility across cultures and language groups. Weaknesses The Canadian standardization size was not as large as the U.S. sample.

Table 5.8. Strengths and Weaknesses of the WNV Interpretation Guidelines Strengths The WNVAdministration and Scoring Manual provides statistical methods for comparing each subtest to the average of the subtests. The WNVAdministration and Scoring Manual provides statistical methods for comparing the Full Scale to achievement test scores using the simple di¡erence and predicted di¡erence method. The WNVAdministration and Scoring Manual provides statistical methods for comparing pairs of subtests. The WNVAdministration and Scoring Manual provides intersubtest scatter. The WNVAdministration and Scoring Manual provides statistical methods for comparing Spatial Span Forward and Backward scores and the rates at which these di¡erences occurred in the standardization sample. The WNVAdministration and Scoring Manual provides base rate data for the di¡erence between the Full Scale and achievement scores. The WNVAdministration and Scoring Manual provides base rate di¡erences between Spatial Span Forward and Backward. All these interpretative methods are provided based on the U.S. and Canadian samples. The Record Form provides a place to record the comparisons of subtests and Spatial Span Forward versus Backward. Weaknesses One minor issue is that the WNVcomputer scoring program defaults to the Canadian norm sample. Users in the United States need to be sure to select U.S. sample when installing the program.

c05_1

10/10/2008

84

84 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

TEST YOURSELF

.................................................................................................... 1. The WNV 4-subtest battery shows greater stability over time than the 2–subtest battery. True or False? 2. The WNV could be helpful for identifying gifted children who are learning English. True or False? 3. The WNV yields higher but similar Full Scale scores for those who are deaf and those who can hear normally. True or False? 4. The WNV yields similar Full Scale scores for those who speak English as their primary language and those who do not. True or False? 5. There are major weaknesses in the composition of the WNV U.S. and Canadian standardization samples. True or False? 6. The WNV correlates higher with other nonverbal tests of general ability than tests that have verbal and nonverbal content. True or False? Answers: 1. F; 2. T; 3. T; 4. T; 5. F; 6. F

c06_1

10/08/2008

85

Six CLINICAL APPLICATIONS OF THE WNV

I

n this chapter we cover the following contexts within which theWNVmay be used:

   

assessment of English-Language Learners identifying examinees for gifted and talented programs assessing examinees with Mental Retardation assessment of examinees who are deaf or hard-of-hearing

There has been a considerable amount of information published about these topics in general and relating to particular assessments. Since the WNV was only recently published when this book was written, the only research ¢ndings available are those provided in the test manual. So rather than summarizing the similarities and di¡erences for each study, we provide a discussion about the salient points in relation to the use of theWNV. Future research will certainly augment the information provided in this chapter. ASSESSMENT OF ENGLISH-LANGUAGE LEARNERS

The U.S. population is becoming increasingly diverse. At the turn of the millennium, Hispanics comprise the largest minoritygroupwith a population of approximately 15 to 20% of the school-age population, depending on the examinee’s age (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2003, as reported in the WNV Technical and Interpretive Manual ). The majority of the students in the U.S. Hispanic population are of Mexican origin (66.9%) and reside in the Western (40^45%) and Southern (30^35%) regions of the country. Nearly half (45.6%) of the total Hispanic population resides within a metropolitan area.The majority of Hispanics speak Spanish (over 25 million people in the United States), making it the second most prevalent language spoken in the United States. The level of education attained by this 85

c06_1

10/08/2008

86

86 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

population is, importantly, limited.Whereas 89% of non-Hispanic Whites aged 25 and older have a high school diploma, only 57% of Hispanics aged 25 and older have attained this level of education. Many Hispanics (27%) have less than a ninth-grade education, compared with only 4% of non-Hispanic Whites, and only 14% of Hispanics are in managerial or professional occupations, compared with 35% of non-HispanicWhites (Ramirez & de la Cruz, 2002). Assessment of individuals in the United States that have limited English language and academic skills mustbe madewith consideration oftheir unique characteristics. In particular, practitioners need to ensure that knowledge of English does not in£uence ability test scores. It is true that tests of ability typically include verbal subtests that require the examinee to de¢ne words, describe relationships between words, and express ideas using the English language. In fact, knowledge of words is included in the oldest intelligence tests that are in use today. The examinee is asked to de¢ne a word, and the response is graded (typically on a multiple-point scale).Tests of achievement, however, also include vocabulary questions. For example, students are required to de¢ne aword likebat on subtests included in the SB-5 and the WJ-III ACH. Similarly, the WJ-III COG contains aVerbal Comprehension subtest that has an item like ‘‘tell me another word for small,’’and the WJ-III ACH contains a Reading Vocabulary item like ‘‘tell me another word forlittle.’’ In addition, an item on theWJ-III ACH ReadingVocabulary test is something like ‘‘tell me another word for . . . (examiner points to the word big),’’ and in the WJ-III COG the examiner says something like ‘‘tell me another word for tiny.’’ Remarkably, the WJ-III COG Verbal Comprehension test contains 23 Picture Vocabulary items and the WJ-III ACH includes 44 PictureVocabulary items, and some of the items are the same! Suzuki andValencia (1997) argued that verbal questions found on tests such as these interfere with the accurate assessment of minority children. This is, of course, an obvious problem for those who have limited English-language skills; but this issue is not limited to verbal subtests. Some ability tests include questions that are described as measures of quantitative reasoning.These items, for example, may require the examinee to calculate the total number of pencils on a page (e.g., three pencils in one box plus ¢ve in a second box plus one in a third .................................................. box). Very similar items appear on the Many tests of ability have verbal and Wechsler Individual Achievement Test^Second quantitative questions that rely on educational experiences. EnglishEdition (WIATII). For example, a Language Learners often have not had Numerical Operations subtest item the opportunity to learn the facts that are requires the examinee to determine typically found on these kinds of tests. the total number of balls shown (e.g.,

DON’T FORGET

c06_1

10/08/2008

87

CLINICAL APPLICATIONS OF THE WNV 87

3 plus 5). Similarly, a WJ-III ACH Applied Problems subtest item asks the child to count the number of pencils pictured (e.g., 4). Moreover, a SB-5 Quantitative Reasoning item requires the child to complete a simple math problem (e.g. 4 þ 2 ¼ ? ), just as the WJ-III ACH Math Fluency (e.g., 7 þ 2 ¼ ?) and the WIATII Numerical Operations (e.g., 3 þ 2 ¼ ?) tests do. Thus, it is clear that tests ofquantitative skillsare used on measuresofability,yettheyrequire learningand often comprehension of verbally presented arithmetic problems that will be problematic for examinees who have not had the bene¢t of an e¡ective education as well as those who do not have good English-language skills. Whereas learning reading, math, and language skills is an essential goal of any formal and informal e¡ort at educating children, the characteristics of the home environment have considerable impact on the quantity and quality of information a child is exposed to. Although it is certainly important to have English language and quantitative skills to be successful in educational environments, the assessment of ability using tests with verbal and quantitative content poses a barrier for those with limited knowledge of English and limited academic skills. Despite the considerable support these tests have as predictors of achievement (Naglieri & Bornstein, 2003; Ramsey & Reynolds, 2004), the inclusion of verbal and quantitative tests does present a problem. As Yoakum and Yerkes wrote nearly 100 years ago, verbal tests are ine¡ective for those that do not have knowledge of the English language, which is why nonverbal tests avoid injustice by relative unfamiliarity with English. For minority examinees whose general education levels and English-language skills are limited, verbal and quantitative questions should not be used to assess ability. The WNV and other nonverbal tests of general ability provide a means to overcome that barrier for those from culturally and linguistically diverse populations. For this reason, the WNV provides an appropriate way to measure the ability of individuals who are learning English and for those who have limited educational experiences.This test is also appropriate for those being assessed for placement in gifted educational programs. Rapid Reference 6.1 lists additional variables to consider when assessing English-Language Learners.

IDENTIFYING EXAMINEES FOR GIFTED AND TALENTED PROGRAMS

The identi¢cation of children for gifted educational programs and, in particular, gifted children from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds has been and continues to be one of the most important challenges facing educators

c06_1

10/08/2008

88

88 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

Rapid Reference 6.1

.................................................................................................... Variables to Consider When Assessing English-Language Learners           

proficiency level in primary language proficiency level(s) in other language(s) language(s) used at home language(s) used at school language(s) used with peers formal educational opportunities educational opportunities at home and in the community parental language skills parental education history of interventions and English-language instruction motivation to learn English

(Ford,1998; Naglieri & Ford, 2003).The U.S. Department of Education reported that, as of1993, Black, Hispanic, and Native American students were underrepresented by 50 to 70% in gifted education programs (Naglieri & Ford, 2003; Ford,1998). Some educators and scientists attribute the problem to standardized tests, contending that these tests fail to adequately assess culturally and linguistically diverse populations (Frazier et al., 1995; Suzuki & Valencia, 1997), while others (Bracken & McCallum,1998; Naglieri & Ford, 2003) argue that nonverbal tests of general ability provide an important component of the procedures used to identify gifted minority children. The need to identify more minority children for gifted programs is clear, and the inclusion of a test like the WNV in the identi¢cation process can help. Any apparent psychometric advantage verbal and quantitative tests have over nonverbal tests for prediction of achievement is inconsequential in comparison to the injustice of excluding those with limited verbal and quantitative scores but high nonverbal scores. Instruction of these children should follow the methods outlined by Naglieri, .................................................. More minority children could be Brulles, and Lansdowne (2008). identified for gifted programs if This will help address the wellnonverbal tests were used as part of the documented di¡erence in achieveidentification process. ment levels between minority

DON’T FORGET

c06_1

10/08/2008

89

CLINICAL APPLICATIONS OF THE WNV 89

students from low-income homes (Bemak & Chung, 2005) and White students who have typically been identi¢ed for gifted programs. Using nonverbal tests will also allow for additional students to be included while at the same time continuing toincludehigh-abilitystudents from all groups.Administrators ofgifted programs and teachers of the gifted will be better able to reduce the achievement gap and foster social justice and equity for minority students who have high ability yet lower academic skills. The implications of the test choices that are made will make a big di¡erence for the identi¢cation of gifted children. There was a special study with gifted examinees performed with the standardization of the WNV. This study included only examinees who had been tested with a standardized measure of cognitive ability and had scored at or greater than two standard deviations above the mean.These examinees were then demographically matched to examinees in the WNV U.S. standardization sample and compared using a t-test and an e¡ect size measure. The results were very good.The gifted examinees performed as expected: signi¢cantlyhigher on every subtest (and subsequentlyonthe Full Scale score).The e¡ect sizes for the Full Scale score were large. Additionally, the e¡ect sizes for all subtests except Coding were large (and Coding was medium). These results indicate that the WNV is a good measure for the identi¢cation of gifted and talented examinees. ASSESSING EXAMINEES WITH MENTAL RETARDATION

Assessing the cognitive abilityof an examinee who is suspected of having Mental Retardation is challenging and very important. Using a test like the WNV is a way of taking the in£uence of language out of the assessment process. This will be particularly helpful to examinees with low cognitive ability who typically have had a history of poor academic and verbal skills. Additionally, all of the WNVsubtests are engaging and most of theWNVsubtests require minimal motor skills. This will be particularly important for examinees with Mental Retardation, and especially for minorities with limited English-language and academic skills, during the assessment process. There were two special studies with examinees who were previously diagnosed with Mental Retardation. One study included examinees diagnosed with Mild Mental Retardation, and the other study included examinees diagnosed with Moderate Mental Retardation. Both studies required that the examinees, met the DSM^IV^TM criteria for Mental Retardation, met the criteria for de¢cits or impairments in adaptive functioning in at least two of the areas identi¢ed by the DSM^IV^TM, and had existing test scores on a standardized measure of cognitive ability that were between two and four standard deviations

c06_1

10/08/2008

90

90 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

below the mean.These examinees were then demographically matched to examinees in the WNV U.S. standardization sample and compared using a t-test and an e¡ect size measure. Examinees in both studies performed as expected: signi¢cantly lower on every subtest (and subsequently on the Full Scale score). All e¡ect sizes were large, with the e¡ect sizes for the examinees diagnosed with Moderate Mental Retardation twice as large as the e¡ect sizes for examinees diagnosed with Mild Mental Retardation in nearly all cases. (The e¡ect size for Picture Arrangement is 1.92 for examinees diagnosed with Mild Mental Retardation and 2.96 for examinees diagnosed with Moderate Mental Retardation.) These results indicate that theWNV is a good measure for examinees diagnosed with Mental Retardation. ASSESSMENT OF EXAMINEES WHO ARE DEAF OR HARD-OF-HEARING

Assessing the cognitive ability of an examinee who is unable to hear at all, is unable to hear clearly, or has a signi¢cant history of not being able to hear clearly is extremely complex and time consuming. Many additional confounding variables must be considered as essential parts of a complete assessment (Sattler, Hardy-Braz, and Willis, 2006). For an example, Rapid Reference 6.2 provides a list of di¡erent types of communication modalities and languages used by individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing. The complexity of test administration is exponentially increased when the examiner is unable to directly communicate; this is similar for examinees

Rapid Reference 6.2

.................................................................................................... Communication Modalities/Languages Used by Deaf or Hard-of-Hearing Individuals        

American Sign Language (ASL) or other native signed languages simultaneous communication manually coded English signed exact English contact signs (often referred to as Pidgin signs) home signs and gestures cued speech spoken language (oral/aural)

c06_1

10/08/2008

91

CLINICAL APPLICATIONS OF THE WNV 91

Rapid Reference 6.3

.................................................................................................... Variables to Consider When Assessing Deaf or Hard-of-Hearing Examinees          

mode(s) of communication degree of loss type of loss age of onset/age of identification etiology comorbid condition(s) stability of loss parental communication skills frequencies impacted history of interventions and listening devices used

who do not speak, hear, or sign the same oral language as the examiner. Further complicating the assessment situation is that most standardized test instruments are developed for administration in spoken English. Thus, examiners may be forced to rely upon unveri¢ed translations of administration directions and/or using untrained, unlicensed interpreters without any veri¢cation of the interpreting process or results. The examiner, however, remains legally and ethically responsible for the accuracy of the assessment.With the majority of deaf and hard-of-hearing students educated in local public schools, chances are that when deaf or hard-of-hearing students are referred, most will be assessed by an examiner who is not trained or able to communicate appropriately, if at all, with them. Adding to the complexity of the situation is that not all deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals communicate in the same manner. Rapid Reference 6.3 lists some of the variables that must be considered when assessing deaf or hard-of-hearing individuals. Given the extremely high rates of comorbid conditions often related to the etiologies of deafness, along with the social consequences of having a hearing loss in a predominately hearing society, many of these students are at extremely high risk of academic failure. The cross-training of both examiners and interpreters in addition to developing better instruments are the triad of major barriers toward equality of psychological service delivery (Hardy-Braz, 2003). The nonverbal assessment of general cognitive ability using the WNV pictorial administration format strives toward this equality.

c06_1

10/08/2008

92

92 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

The WNV is the newest addition to a growing repertoire of psychological and intellectual testing instruments that may be used in a standardized manner to assess the cognitive ability of deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals. The WNVcontinues a long historical practice of providing a composite score based upon an individual examinee’s ability to solve novel problems and to respond with no formal language. The WNV builds upon the traditional Wechsler, performance-based items to measure ability. Assessing intelligence nonverbally attempts to avoid the common incorrect practice of equating an examinee’s clarity of speech with clarity of thought.While the Wechsler performance scales were the most widely used scale for testing deaf and hardof-hearing populations (Brauer, Braden, Pollard, & Hardy-Braz, 1998), they were not developed with these populations primarily in mind. The WISC IV provided extensive (six pages of the manual) administration guidelines for the use of the test with deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals in four di¡erent communication modalities (Hardy-Braz, 2003) and was developed based upon research, feedback, translations, and blind back translations. However, the lack of a clinical validity study meant that examiners needed to either wait for such comparable information or to use professional judgment in regard to the use of the WISCIV with these populations (Hardy-Braz, 2004, Flanagan & Kaufman, 2004). The Perceptual Reasoning Index (PRI), however, remains widely used as a measure, despite the fact that it is only one of four indexes of ability measured by the WISCIV. While some researchers suggested very cautious uses of the verbal scales (see Maller, 2003, for an overview), rarely have the verbal scales been translated and blindly back translated in an empirical manner. Very few states regulate or license any examiner’s self-identi¢cation as being bilingual, and if they do, American Sign Language is not often considered in this process due to the lackof tests to measure £uency in ASL. Several states have only recently recognized ASL as a formal language for school credit. In addition, many states do not yet recognize interpreters as licensed professionals or regulate the ethical behavior and quality of services. Furthermore, most sign-language interpreters are untrained in the skills and vocabulary necessary to assist in facilitating the discourse of appropriate, reliable, and valid psychological assessments.While the WNV is designed to be able to be primarilyadministered through the use of the pictorial directions, the communication of the supplemental language directions and all general communication for rapport building may need to be facilitated by a quali¢ed, trained, professional interpreter if a bilingual examiner is unable to be located. Rapid Reference 6.4 provides information about ¢nding support in locating such professionals.

c06_1

10/08/2008

93

CLINICAL APPLICATIONS OF THE WNV 93

Rapid Reference 6.4

.................................................................................................... Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID) The national organization for sign-language interpreters is the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID), which offers support in locating qualified interpreters as well as promoting professional and ethical standards for sign-language interpreters. Their website is www.rid.org.

If the examiner is neither trained in working with deaf people nor £uent in sign language, numerous issues may present themselves when using the WNV or any instrument with an examinee who communicates in American (or other native) Sign Language (i.e., the examinee is deaf or hard-of-hearing). The following tips are bene¢cial even for examiners working with examinees who do not use a native sign language or Signed English. For additional information, reference the ‘‘Testing ChildrenWho Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing’’section in the WISC-IV Integrated Administration and Scoring Manual (Wechsler et al., 2004b, pp. 19^27) or Sattler and Hardy-Braz (2002). Whenever a sign-language interpreter must be used, ensure that he or she meets the IDEA and ADA requirements for a quali¢ed interpreter. The interpreter must be (a) su⁄ciently skilled, (b) £exible with the examinee’s primary mode(s) of communication, (c) trained on the psychological assessment process as well as on theWNV, and (d) and knowledgeable about the psychological assessment process as well as the WNV instrument. The pictorially based administration directions of theWNVwere uniquelydesigned to minimize the need for anylinguistic explanation of the subtest tasks, but the brief verbal prompts may need to be interpreted into sign language or cued speech.Thus, a professional sign-language interpreter may still be necessary.The use of an interpreter will also enhance the rapport between the examiner and examinee, allow for greater interactions, and result in a better interpretation of the obtained assessment results by the examiner. The presence anduse ofan interpreter insertsanother complexvariable and is a potential source of error in the assessment process in all phases. Never assume that examinees are knowledgeable about the role of and the e¡ective use of an interpreter.The interpreter should be introduced atthe beginningof the testing session and a brief description of the interpreter’s role should be outlined by the examiner to the examinee; this will help clarify the interpreter’s role even if the examinee is knowledgeable about using interpreters.The presence of another person in the room may alter the examinee’s performance, a¡ect

c06_1

10/08/2008

94

94 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

the rapport, and change or modify CAUTION the communication of conversa- .................................................. tions, critical terms, directions, or The presence of another person in the phrases. Also be aware that a skilled room may alter the examinee’s performance, affect the rapport, and interpreter may sometimes request change or modify the communication of clari¢cation of administration conversations, critical terms, directions, instructions to facilitate the commuor phrases. nication process. A skilled interpreter should match the level and signs of the examinee. The use of an interpreter should always be noted in a report along with any modi¢cations or alterations in signs that the interpreter notes. Signed languages occuron avisual plane instead ofan auditoryone.Following are some suggestions for working with an interpreter. 









Include both the interpreter and the examinee in a discussion about the best physical location for the interpreter. It is recommended to have the interpreter sit slightly behind and to one side of the examiner to establish and maintain rapport and visually based communication, and to maintain clear roles and boundaries.The dominant hand of the interpreter may also determine which side of the examiner the interpreter should sit or stand on.There may be times in which the interpreter may need to lean over in order to place his or her signs close to the Stimulus Book or Response Booklet. Be aware of light sources that may interfere with visual communication and signs. Permit time for the examinee to become familiar with the interpreter and the communication process before beginning test administration. Keep in mind that the examinee may not have ever worked with an interpreter before. Always attempt to face and make eye contact with the examinee as well as address direct questions and comments to him or her and not to the interpreter. Avoid saying statements such as,‘‘Ask him . . . ’’or ‘‘Tell her . . . ’’ Once the testing session is complete and the examinee is no longer present, conduct a postsession discussion with the interpreter to gather any additional information about the testing session.

While other instruments have been modi¢ed and adapted for use, some instruments or parts thereof were made for use with deaf and hard-of-hearing people.Variables of particular importance to these groups, however, are almost

c06_1

10/08/2008

95

CLINICAL APPLICATIONS OF THE WNV 95

never reported or even collected. Because the deaf and hard-of-hearing populationswere identi¢ed early inthe developmentof theWNVas critical groups, extra care was taken ateverystage ofdevelopmentto ensure the highestquality product for these groups. The artwork of every item in development was carefully reviewed and several items were modi¢ed to conform to subtle facial expressions used in ASL. The WNV was piloted on numerous deaf individuals (of varying ages and abilities and who used di¡erentcommunication modalities) ateach stage of development. The spoken directions were translated into ASL, blindly back translated, and then modeled for the data-collection process as needed in the deaf clinical study. Demographic variables collected on an adapted version of the annual Gallaudet University survey of hearing-impaired students were also captured and are reported in the manual. The results are reported in Table 6.1 with the addition of the corresponding survey results. Table 6.1. Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Demographics Information from the WNV Compared with the 2006–2007 Annual Gallaudet Survey WNV Study Deaf (n ¼ 37)

WNV Study HH (n ¼ 50)

Gallaudet Survey (n ¼ 37,352)

59 0 41 0

80 6 8 2

93 3 4 1

59 0 38 3

80 2 6 4

86 2 4 8

41 43

20 68

13 77

54 6 6 8 6 14

41   16 7 36 (continued )

Family Hearing Status Maternal Hearing Hard-of-Hearing Deaf Unknown Paternal Hearing Hard-of-Hearing Deaf Unknown Sibling(s) with a hearing loss Yes No

Age of Hearing Loss Onset Birth < 1 year of age > 1 and < 2 years of age < 2 years of age > 2 and <4 years of age Unknown

81 11 5 0 0 3

c06_1

10/10/2008

96

96 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT Table 6.1. (continued )

Etiology of Hearing Loss Genetic/Hereditary/Familial Pregnancy Related Postnatal Disease/Injury Unknown

WNV Study Deaf (n ¼ 37)

WNV Study HH (n ¼ 50)

Gallaudet Survey (n ¼ 37,352)

49 8 19 30

36 10 8 48

23 10 12 57

50 22

83 15

Unaided AudiometricThresholds Measured By Earphone 59 Sound Field 11

Note: All numbers except the sample sizes are reported in percentages.

The WNV Technical and Interpretive Manual has one of the largest amounts of empirical information regarding results of the instrument’s use with these groups. It is also the ¢rst to separate clinical validity studies with deaf individuals from those who are hard-of-hearing and report them separately. In addition to recognizing ASL as an equal language (by the inclusion of ¢nger-spelling on the cover of both manuals), it is also the ¢rst instrument to report demographic information regarding the hearing status of family members, the age of onset of the hearing losses, and etiology. Appendix D in theWNV Technical and Interpretive Manual contains more general information regarding testing deaf and hard-of-hearing examinees. Because of the signi¢cant care that went into the development of theWNV, it is an exceptional nonverballyadministered cognitive assessmenttool that has strong empirical support for administering it to deaf or hard-of-hearing individuals using the pictorial directions. However, the use of a professional sign-language interpreter is an essential component of the assessment; professional experience, knowledge, skills, and training greatly enhance the utility of the WNV.

TEST YOURSELF

.................................................................................................... 1. Ability tests with verbal and quantitative scales contain very similar questions as those found on

(a) achievement tests. (b) personality tests.

c06_1

10/08/2008

97

CLINICAL APPLICATIONS OF THE WNV 97

(c) language tests. (d) None of the above 2. Minorities are overrepresented in Gifted and Talented Programs. True or False? 3. It is true that tests of ability typically include

(a) science subtests that require the examinee to define compounds. (b) mathematical subtests that require the examinee to multiply integers. (c) verbal subtests that require the examinee to define words. (d) reading subtests that require the examinee to comprehend short passages. 4. The characteristics of an examinee’s home environment have an impact on the

(a) quality of information the examinee is exposed to. (b) quantity of information the examinee is exposed to. (c) Both a and b (d) Neither a nor b 5. Which subtest might pose a barrier to accurately assessing an EnglishLanguage Learner?

(a) Matrices (b) Recognition (c) Spatial Span (d) Quantitative Reasoning 6. An examinee’s proficiency in his/her native language is important to consider when assessing an English-Language Learner. True or False? 7. What was the effect size of the difference between examinees identified as being gifted and their demographically matched counterparts in the special study referred to in the WNV Technical and Interpretive Manual?

(a) negligible (b) small (c) medium (d) large 8. There are three languages/communication modalities used by children who are deaf or hard-of-hearing. True or False? 9. What is the triad of major barriers toward equality of psychological service delivery for deaf or hard-of-hearing people?

(a) learning Signed Exact English, developing better instruments, and teaching American Sign Language in the schools (b) cross training of interpreters, developing better instruments, and learning Signed Exact English (c) developing better instruments, teaching American Sign Language in the schools, and cross training examiners (d) cross training of examiners, cross training of interpreters, and developing better instruments

c06_1

10/08/2008

98

98 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

10. Which special studies were included in the WNV Technical and Interpretive Manual?

(a) gifted and talented examinees (b) deaf examinees (c) English-Language Learners (d) hard-of-hearing examinees (e) All of the above Answers: 1. a; 2. false; 3. c; 4. c; 5. d; 6. true; 7. d; 8. false; 9. d; 10. e

c07_1

10/08/2008

99

Seven ILLUSTRATIVE CASE REPORTS

T

his chapter provides psychological assessment reports from six case studies of children who were referred for psychoeducational assessments in di¡erent school settings. They are presented to demonstrate the use and versatility of theWNVas a major component of a psychological assessment. Please note that these illustrative cases are provided with informed consent of the parent(s), no compensation was o¡ered to any of the individuals involved, and all identifying information has been altered to protect their privacy. Any and all resemblance to an actual person is coincidental. Identifyable information about the children has been altered to protect their identity (e.g., children’s names, teacher’s names). The ¢rstcase report (Jacob) involves ayoung child who is Deaf, uses American Sign Language (ASL) at home with his Deaf mother and his hearing father (whohas Deaf parents himself), and whowas referred for an assessmentregarding his potential quali¢cation for a gifted and talented program at his state-run residential school for deaf students.The second case report (Alice) involves a child who is deaf and uses a cochlear implant and oral communication. She had been referred at her school for an assessment to examine the possibility that she has a comorbid learning disability in reading.The third case report (Jeremy) involves a child who is suspected of having Attention-De¢cit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).There are other concerns aboutthis child includingsuspected speech and language delays, excessive activity, and achievement problems. The fourth illustrative case report (Luis) is about a child who speaks English as a second language.The ¢fth case report (Ryan) involves a child who is deaf and blind and has multiple medical and developmental concerns related to CHARGE syndrome.The referral for a triennial assessment was made for the purpose of gathering information regarding his current level of functioning and monitoring her academic progress.The reason for the referral for the sixth case report (Gene) is also a reevaluation. This case involves a young child previously identi¢ed as being autistic who is now entering the local public school system. 99

c07_1

10/08/2008

100

100 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

Psychological Evaluation Report Confidential Name: Jacob Leo Marcus Gender: Male Date of Birth: 10.18.1999 Age: 8 years, 3 months School: Greenville Montessori Elementary School Grade: Second Testing Date(s): 01.18.2008 By: L. V. Semenovich Handedness: Right Mode of Communication: American Sign Language (ASL) was used expressively and receptively. REASON FOR REFERRAL:

Jacob was assessed as part of a referred assessment at the Greenville Montessori Elementary School as requested by his mother and his school-based Gifted Review Committee. The committee requested that this school psychologist formally assessJacob’s intellectual ability for potential quali¢cation for services as a gifted student. Neither his mother nor his primary teacher, Mrs. Laney, expressed concerns related toJacob and his behaviors, but both independently stated that they were concerned about his apparent boredom in school and with his homework. Results of this assessment will be used to assess the appropriateness of Jacob’s educational classi¢cation, placement, and educational programming in accordance with the education procedures and criteria established by the state of North Carolina. This report is considered a con¢dential record and the results should only be interpreted byknowledgeable and properly licensed professionals. EVALUATION TECHNIQUES:

The examiner administered the following techniques: Parental Interview Teacher Interview Classroom Observations Academic Work Samples Wechsler Nonverbal Scale of Ability (WNV) SOURCES OF DATA:

1. Record Review: Jacob’s educational, audiological, medical, and psychological ¢les were reviewed as an integral part of this assessment.

c07_1

10/08/2008

101

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE REPORTS 101

2. Direct Observations: Jacob was observed by this examiner in his regular classroom taught by his teacher during both American History and English lessons. His teacher was unable to communicate directly withJacob beyond using a few simple signs (e.g., PayAttention,Work, Start, Open, Book), and most of the interactions between the teacher andJacob were facilitated by the class’s sign-language interpreter, Ms. Lara Alice. Ms. Alice is an RID, certi¢ed educational interpreter who works primarily withJacob.The communication and interaction between Ms. Alice and Jacobwas £uent and £owed without any apparent di⁄culties.Whenever Jacob asked any clarifying questions, Ms. Alice appeared to understand his expressive signs with ease and was able to clarify the interpretation. Jacob displayed a tendency to direct all of his questions to Ms. Alice instead of his teacher. Furthermore, during snack and lunchtime, Jacob stated that he preferred to sit with Ms. Alice because ‘‘they could talk.’’ Jacob was also observed in his general school environment (e.g., activities, playground, cafeteria, while transitioning between classes). No physicalor motordi⁄cultieswere noted. Jacob, however, did tend to walk and run with a slightly wider than typical stance.This very slight di¡erence did not appear to interfere in any way with his mobility.This type of stance can be common with young children with sensorineural hearinglosses, likeJacob’s. Often times, information from the vestibular system to the brain is also limited because it uses the same cranial nerve for transmitting information. Several items fromJacob’s homework and class workwere alsoreviewedby this examiner; theywere completed in a very neat and orderly fashion. His teacher explained thatJacob was working on long-division problems with older children (by 2 years) in his multiaged classroom and that he was beginning to read book series by himself. 3. Educator Interview: Jacob’s primary teacher, Mrs. Laney, was also asked about his academic and social performance to date. Mrs. Laney stated that Jacob was a bright student who did not display any behavioral or emotional concerns. She stated that she felt limited in her ability to teach Jacob directly since she onlyknewa few hundred ASL signs. Mrs. Laney added that she appreciated Ms. Alice and felt that she would be at a‘‘total loss’’ without the interpreting help. She statedJacob was very interested in space and astronomy and that he loved to play ‘‘Lego StarWars’’ with some of his classmates on the weekends.

c07_1

10/08/2008

102

102 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

4. Parental Interview: Jacob’s mother, Mrs. Marcus, served as the primary reporter for him and was interviewed by this examiner in ASL. She stated that Jacobwas an exceptional reader and thatmostacademic topics came easy for him. She explained that she had some developmental concerns earlier in his preschool years, but that he was doing very well now. She did express some concerns about his di⁄culties in making friends with other children his own age since manyof his classmates were unable to sign £uently. She, too, stated thatJacob enjoyed playing with friends his own age or slightly older and that they tended to play videogames, like the Lego Star Wars, together. Mrs. Marcus felt that Jacob was not being challenged enough at school or at home and was hoping that an advanced program would be more stimulating for him. She was concerned that the program support for hearing-impaired students at the local school was ‘‘good but that they do not know a great deal about deaf culture and how to teach smart deaf kids.’’ She also stated her concerns regarding the lack of visual ¢re alarms throughout the old school building and that she was concerned if an alarm occurred while her son was in the bathroom that he would not be able to hear it. She explained that she had never needed to worry about these issues at his previous school (a residential school for deaf students in another state), but since her husband (Jacob’s father) had been deployed overseas with his National Guard unit, she had moved back home with her parents. She elaborated that both of their mothers were Deaf, butJacob’s father was able to hear, and he was a CODA (Child of Deaf Adults). Mrs. Marcus requested this assessment in order to glean a better understanding of her son’s abilities and academic needs. 5. Test Instruments Used: The Wechsler Nonverbal Scale of Ability (WNV; Wechsler & Naglieri, 2006a) is an individually administered clinical instrument designed to measure of the cognitive ability of students between the ages of 4 years and 21 years, 11 months.The WNV was used to measureJacob’s cognitive abilityby using avarietyof subtests.The administration of the WNVyielded subtest scores and an overall Full Scale score. Pictorial directions were used during the WNVadministration to minimize verbal requirements of both the examiner andJacob. At the time of testingJacob was 8 years and 3 months old (8:03), and therefore, he was

c07_1

10/08/2008

103

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE REPORTS 103

administered the four subtests in the age-appropriate battery for individuals between the ages of 8 years and 21 years, 11 months.Those subtests were: Matrices, Coding, Spatial Span, and Picture Arrangement. Subtest T scores, Full Scale Standard Scores, Con¢dence Intervals, Percentile Rankings, and Test Age-Equivalent Scores were obtained. Subtest T scores have a mean of 50 and standard deviation of 10; the Full Scale score has a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. Optional scores were also computed for further analysis of Jacob’s performance on the Spatial Span subtest by examining his Spatial Span Forward (SSpF) and Spatial Span Backward (SSpB) scores and comparing them. Jacob’s performance was further examined by comparing his raw scores in terms of the Longest Spatial Span Forward (LSSpF) and Longest Spatial Span Backward (LSSpB).The WNV’s normative sample consists of information on the performance of 1,350 individuals who were matched in terms of age, sex, geographic region, education level, and race/ethnicity as speci¢ed in the 2003 U.S. Census data.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

1. Developmental History Jacob was born at the Pitt Memorial Hospital at 39 weeks gestation. No complications occurred during the pregnancy or birth. His mother reported that she needed no medications nor did she drink or smoke. During the two-day stay in the hospital, the newborn hearing screening test was conducted and a bilateral, sensorineural inability to hear was identi¢ed.While the etiologyof his deafness is unknown, every member ofJacob’s maternal family displays a similar history of deafness, as do the majority of his paternal family members. Developmental milestones were reported to have been obtained within normal parameters except for a slight delay in walking. Mrs. NOTE Marcus stated thatJacob did .................................................. not start walking without For an actual case study, ensure that the examiner and/or location of testing are holding onto furniture until noted like the fictitious ones included he was almost 2 years old. He here. was reported as having

c07_1

10/08/2008

104

104 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

signed his ¢rst signs around 7 months of age. No allergies, injuries, hospitalizations, or medical problems were reported. No problems with sleeping through the night except for the ¢rst week of his father’s deployment were mentioned. His most recent audiogram (12.22.2007 by H. B. Stevens) con¢rmed the existence of a bilateral, profound hearing loss at all frequencies. His vision was screened by the school nurse for both far- and nearvision prior to this assessment (08.06.2007), and no di⁄culties were reported. 2. Previous Assessments Previous psychoeducational information was available from one evaluation of Jacob.The results of that evaluation were as follows: Date of Evaluation 03.26.2005 Ralph P. Michaels

Test(s) administered Leiter-R

Results Full Scale IQ 119

Cognitive functioning is a very complex concept, and the reduction of a description of Jacob’s abilities to a single number may be misleading. Readers are strongly encouraged to refer to the complete reports of the previous evaluations as well as to be cognizant of the fact that various standardized tests with various normative samples and characteristics have been used.

NATURAL OBSERVATIONS:

Rapport was easily established withJacob. On the day of this evaluation, Jacob was very well groomed, neatly dressed, and he behaved in a well-mannered fashion.The communication betweenJacob and the examiner was conducted in American Sign Language and this appeared to be e¡ective. Jacob was attentive, engaging, and curious about the testing materials and the examiner. No physical limitations were noted as he sat in an appropriately sized chair and worked on a desktop in the school psychologist’s o⁄ce. The room was well lit and free from any distracters. His interpreter, his mother, and his teacher observed the assessment session through a one-way glass observation window, and they reported that his behavior and e¡ort were very similar to what they regularly see. Jacob sat upright with good posture and both of his feet stabilized on the £oor in front of his body throughout the session, and he used a well-developed dynamic tripod grasp when writing and did not appear to have any physical

c07_1

10/08/2008

105

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE REPORTS 105

limitations. During the hour-long standardized assessment session, Jacob was able toremain on task and workwithout any reminders toworkcarefullyand continuously. He appeared to enjoy the tasks and often commented on the fun nature of some of the test items. TEST RESULTS AND INTERPRETATIONS:

Due to the match between his characteristics and the taskdemands of the test, the WNV was selected for use with Jacob as a standardized measure of gathering information of his cognitive ability and level of intellectual development.This scale consisted of four di¡erent subtests. His performance on each contributed to the overall or Full Scale score. Jacob obtained a Full Scale score of 142. At the 95% con¢dence interval, this performance would range between 130 and 146, yielding a 99.7th percentile ranking.This is re£ective of a performance better than 99% of the normative sample and is considered in theVery Superior range of ability. The Matrices subtest required Jacob to look at an incomplete ¢gural matrix and then select the missing related portion from four or ¢ve response options provided. He was able to solve many of these items with ease and often explained the solution he used. His performance resulted in aTscore of 77. The Coding subtest required Jacob to copy symbols that are paired with simple geometric shapes or numbers. Using a key provided at the top of the page, Jacob had to draweach symbol in its corresponding shape or box within a speci¢ed time limit. He was able to complete a great number of these compared to children his own age, and his performance yielded aT score of 67. For the Spatial Span subtest, Jacob had to tap a series of blocks as demonstrated by the examiner. For Spatial Span Forward, Jacob had to repeat a sequence of tapped blocks in the same order that the examiner demonstrated. For Spatial Span Backward, Jacob had to tap a sequence of tapped blocks in the reverse order of what the examiner demonstrated. He readily understood the task demands and was able to complete these tasks and earn aT score of 72. No signi¢cant di¡erences were noted in the length of the spans (number of blocks tapped in a sequence) or in the presentation of the span (forward or backward). For the Picture Arrangement subtest, Jacob had to reorder a prearranged set of picture cards so that they told a logical story within a speci¢ed time limit. Again, Jacob appeared to enjoy the task demands and completed the items without apparent di⁄culties. His performance was also rated as being above most other children his age, with aT score of 71. He found several of the stories displayed by the completed items humorous and often told them back to the examiner as he laughed at them.

c07_1

10/08/2008

106

106 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

SUMMARY:

Jacob’s overall cognitive abilitywas measuredby theWNVand resultswere highly suggestive ofa signi¢cantlyhigher than average abilitycomparedtohis age-mates (in theVery Superior Range).This is supported by reports from his teacher, interpreter, and his mother. Academic work samples reviewed by this examiner also appear to support a very high level of ability. Concerns were mentioned regarding the accessibilityof the school buildings forJacob, his teacher’s signing skills, the role(s) of the interpreter in the classroom, Jacob’s interactionwith other children his own age, and his dealing with his father’s deployment. Concerns were also observed regarding Jacob’s vestibular system and overall physical balance. It is believed that this assessment was an accurate measure of Jacob’s level of intellectual ability as measured for a referred evaluation for gifted services and as conducted atthe Greenville Montessori Elementary School and in accordance with the guidelines established by his state’s Department of Education. It is recommended that the Gifted Review Committee at the Greenville Montessori Elementary School consider these assessment results along with other assessments, evaluation results, observations, and data in their decisions regarding Jacob’s need for services and modi¢cations. RECOMMENDATIONS:

The following recommendations should be discussed, amended, added to, developed, or rejected by all of the participants ofJacob’s IEP Team.The selection and presentation of these preliminary recommendations are this examiner’s, so nothing here would be binding on anyone unless and until it was approved by Jacob’s parents and by the IEP Team or was otherwise legally ordered. The recommendations are, of course, the examiner’s professional opinions based upon the results of this assessment. Also, including a recommendation here does not imply that the recommended activity is not already taking place, but that prior to the IEP meeting the examiner thought it was an appropriate idea based only on what he had learned about Jacob over the course of this assessment. 1. Jacob’s parents may bene¢t from the empathy and support from other parents who have a deaf child. One recommendation for the development of such a support network is that they become members of the American Society of Deaf Children (ASDC).They can be contacted via

c07_1

10/08/2008

107

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE REPORTS 107

telephone at 1.800.942.ASDC v/tty.They can also be reached via the Internet at www.deafchildren.org. 2. Because the raising and educating of a child who is considered to be disabled can sometimes be very overwhelming for parents and caretakers, Jacob’s parentsare encouragedtoavailthemselves ofthe supports o¡ered by various other agencies. Some supportive agencies in North Carolina that are highly recommended are BEGINNINGS for parents of children who are deaf or hard-of-hearing (1.800.541.4327 or www.beginningssvcs.com), the Family Support Network of North Carolina (1.800.852.0042 or www.fsnnc.org), the Exceptional Children’s Assistance Center (1.800.962.6817 or www.ecac-parentcenter.org), and the Governor’s Advocacy Counsel for Persons with Disabilities (1.888.315.4064 or www.gacpd.com). 3. Because of the 1997 reauthorization of the IDEA, educators serving all students who are deaf or hard-of-hearing need to consider the students’ language and communication needs, opportunities for direct communication with peers and professional personnel in the students’ language communication mode, academic levels, and full range of needs, including direct instruction in the students’ language and communication mode.The important consideration of each of these needs as they relate toJacob cannot be understated. 4. Following to the 2006 Services and Placement Options chapter of the National Association of State Directors of Special Education’s Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Students Educational Service Guidelines entitled Meeting the Needs of Students Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing, the following recommendations are also made for current and future educators of Jacob: a. The educational team should consider all of the factors unique to students who are deaf or hard-of-hearing to ensure that the placement of Jacob is appropriate. b. The educational team should considerJacob and his parents’ preferences and choices in developing the IEP, in determining the instruction and services that are appropriate forJacob, and in considering the setting in whichJacob’s IEP should be implemented. c. The educational team should ensure that language and communication are accessible to each student, classroom, and overall school environment, and supportJacob’s family in providing language and communication access at home and in the community.

c07_1

10/08/2008

108

108 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

d. The educational team should understand howJacob’s hearing loss impacts his ability to function in a typical classroom setting and in the school environment as a whole. e. The educational team should be knowledgeable about evaluating and managing a classroom placement that requires interpreting services. f. The educational team should understand the importance of social and emotional development of students who are deaf or hard-ofhearing. g. The educational team should ensure the availability of ageappropriate peers who shareJacob’s language and communication preferences. h. The educational team should ensure that the cultural needs of Jacob are met. i. The educational team should ensure thatJacob receives appropriate opportunities for direct instruction and directcommunicationwith support personnel. j. The educational team should ensure that personnel can e¡ectively communicate withJacob in his identi¢ed language and communication mode. k. The educational team should ensure appropriate access to support services forJacob. l. The educational team should ensure the availability of, and access to, extracurricular o¡erings forJacob. m. The educational team should ensure the availability of appropriate assistive technology forJacob. 5. Observations ofJacob’s capability in using sign language suggest that he depends greatly upon the skills of others to use sign language in a clear and consistent manner.Thus, it is strongly suggested to his IEP team that formal training in American Sign Language and visualgestural communication be o¡ered to those educators and other professionals interacting with him. He would also bene¢t greatly from other classmates and peers knowing and using signs. 6. Jacob’s parents and educators are strongly encouraged to register for the services of the Captioned Media Program.The captioned videotapes and ¢lms o¡ered by this service may assist in making information regarding the world aroundJacob more accessible to him. CMP can be reached by telephone at 1.800.237.6819 tty;1.800.237.6213 v; 1.800.538.5636 fax; or via the Internet at www.dcmp.org.

c07_1

10/08/2008

109

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE REPORTS 109

7. One book that many teachers and parents have found useful for activities for students similar to Jacob is Kid-Friendly Parenting with Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children by Medwin and Weston.This text is available at any major bookstore or via the Internet and is recommended by this examiner. 8. Another book that many parents have found useful and very practical for helping them with raising a child who is deaf is Raising and Educatinga Deaf Child by Mark Marschark.This text is available at any major bookstore or via the Internet and is highly recommended by this examiner. 9. Services for a gifted deaf child may need to be con¢gured di¡erently than any services developed to serve and support a child who is just deafor justgifted. Jacob’s IEP team needs to consider this as theydiscuss determining him as qualifying for such services. It is the opinion of this examiner thatJacob would indeed bene¢t from such services. 10. The Clerc Center at Gallaudet University has a plethora of educational resources available forJacob’s teachers and other educators.They can be accessed via the Internet at http://clerccenter.gallaudet.edu/. 11. Jacob would bene¢t from direct instruction about appropriate usage and clari¢cationoftherole(s)ofthesign-language interpreter inthe classroom. 12. Jacob’s mother’s concerns related to assistive technology and lack of ¢re alarms can be addressed by the school’s careful review of the situation and their school-wide American’s with Disabilities Act (ADA) plan. 13. It is also recommended that his IEP team consider the need for an occupational therapy assessment related toJacob’s sense of balance and his vestibular system. 14. It is also suggested to his IEP team that local resources fromJacob’s father’s National Guard’s Family Readiness Program be accessed and made available toJacob and his mother during and after his deployment. Figure 7.1provides a summary page forJacob’s report, and Figure 7.2 provides an analysis. It was an honor and pleasure to have worked withJacob.This examiner is available for any further consultation, assessment, or support of Jacob, if appropriate. He canbereached athiso⁄ceattheschoolor viathetelephoneatthe numberbelow. L.V. Semenovich, PhD, NCSP School Psychologist NCSP Certi¢cation Number XXX Phone Number: 252.753.0000

c07_1

10/08/2008

110

110 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

Figure 7.1. WNV Summary Page for Jacob

TEST RESULTS APPENDIX Wechsler Nonverbal Scale Ability

Subtest/Scale Matrices Coding Spatial Span Picture Arrangement Mean Spatial Span Forward Spatial Span Backward Longest Spatial Span Forward Longest Spatial Span Backward

Full Scale

T-Score

Difference from Child’s Mean

Percentile Rank

77 67 72 71 71.75

5.25 4:75 0.25 0:75 No strengths or weaknesses

99.7th 96th 99th 98th

68 66 6 (raw) 5 (raw)

142

— — Difference = 2, NS — — Difference = 1 95% Confidence Interval 130–146

— — Base Rate = 41.1 — — Base Rate = 51.0 99.7th

c07_1

10/08/2008

111

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE REPORTS 111

Figure 7.2. WNV Analysis Page for Jacob

c07_1

10/08/2008

112

112 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

Psychological Evaluation Report Confidential Name: Alice B. Patrick Gender: Female Date of Birth: 02.21.1997 Age: 10 years, 8 months School: Cogswell Central Middle School Grade: Fifth Dates of Assessment: 10.28.2007 By: Paul W. Cachman Preferred Hand Use: Left Mode of Communication: Simultaneously Signed and Spoken English and pantomimed gestures were used expressively and receptively. REASON FOR REFERRAL:

Alice was assessed as part of a referred assessment atthe Cogswell Central Middle School as requested by the School Based Committee (SBC) and her teacher. The committee requested that this school psychologist formally assess Alice’s intellectual ability for potential quali¢cation as a learning disabled NOTE student. After completing the ..................................................... Teacher Assistance Team (TAT) Schools for the children of military personnel on military bases and operated process, Alice’s teacher was still by the U.S. Department of Defense concerned about Alice in the areas Educational Agency have special of slow academic progress, atteneducation regulations that are worldwide tion skills, memory di⁄culties, and different from surrounding state schools. and di⁄culties in reading and writing. Results of this assessment will be used to assess the appropriateness of Alice’s educational classi¢cation, placement, and programming in accordance with the Department of Defense’s (DoD’s) special education procedures and criteria for the suspected category for learning disabilities (i.e., Category D).This report is considered a con¢dential record, and the results should only be interpreted by knowledgeable and properly licensed professionals. EVALUATION TECHNIQUES:

The examiner administered the following techniques: Parental Interview Teacher Interview Classroom Observations Academic Work Samples

c07_1

10/08/2008

113

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE REPORTS 113

Wechsler Nonverbal Scale of Ability (WNV) The Stanford Binet Intelligence Scale^Fifth Edition (SB-5) The Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function:Teacher (BRIEF:Teacher) The Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function: Parent (BRIEF: Parent) Cognitive Assessment System (CAS) Process Assessment of the Learner^Reading and Writing (PAL-Reading and Writing) SOURCES OF DATA:

1. Record Review: Alice’s educational, audiological, medical, and psychological ¢les were reviewed as an integral part of this assessment. 2. Direct Observations: This examiner observed Alice in her regular classroom being taught by Ms. Maldonado. Alice was also observed in her general school environment (e.g., activities, playground, cafeteria, during after-school activities). Alice displayed a high level of energy in numerous settings and she appeared to be very social with her classmates. Her attention span appeared short compared with other children in the classroom, yet she behaved in a socially appropriate and polite manner. She seemed to comprehend the academic duties and tasks demanded from her during several di¡erent observations, yet she did not always complete her work in an organized, timely fashion or to the quality level expected by her abilities as seen by others. 3. Educator Interview: Alice’s primary teacher, Mrs. Maldonado, was also asked about her academic and social performance to date. Mrs. Maldonado stated that Alice was not achieving as well as she could in all areas in her classroom. Alice was seen rushing through assignments and not being able to break tasks into coherent and meaningful steps and retain comprehension of the topic at hand.Writing and note taking seemed especially di⁄cult for Alice. 4. Parental Interview: Alice’s mother stated that she, too, was very concerned about Alice’s academic progress to date. She said that she viewed her daughter as having similar issues and problems as that of her son, who had been identi¢ed as being both gifted and dyslexic. She said that Alice had attentional di⁄culties, as did most members of the family. Alice’s mother wanted whatwasbest for her daughter and wished tohelpher out

c07_1

10/08/2008

114

114 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

so that Alice could be more successful at school. She stated that her daughter was very forgetful of things, especially when there were multiple parts or steps. 5. Test Instruments Used: The Wechsler Nonverbal Scale Ability (WNV) (Wechsler & Naglieri, 2006a) is an individually administered clinical instrument designed to measure the cognitive abilityof students between the ages of 4 years and 21years,11months.TheWNVmeasured Alice’s cognitive abilityby using a variety of subtests.The administration of the WNVyielded subtest scores and an overall Full Scale score. Pictorial directions were used during the WNVadministration to minimize verbal requirements of both the examiner and Alice. Since Alice was 10 years and 8 months old (10:08), she was administered the four subtests in the age-appropriate batteryfor individualsbetweenthe ages of8yearsand21years,11months. Those subtests were: Matrices, Coding, Spatial Span, and Picture Arrangement. Subtest T scores, Full Scale scores, Con¢dence Intervals, Percentile Rankings, and Test Age-Equivalent Scores were obtained. Subtest T scores have a mean of 50 and standard deviation of10; the Full Scale score has a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. Optional scores were also computed for further analysis of Alice’s performance on the Spatial Span subtest by examining her Spatial Span Forward (SSpF) and Spatial Span Backward (SSpB) scores and comparing them. Alice’s performancewas further examinedbycomparingher rawscores interms of the Longest Spatial Span Forward (LSSpF) and Longest Spatial Span Backward (LSSpB).The WNV’s normative sample consists of information on the performance of1,350 individuals who were matched in terms of age, sex, geographic region, education level, and race/ ethnicity as speci¢ed in the 2003 U.S. Census data. The Stanford Binet Intelligence Scale^Fifth Edition (SB-5) (Roid, 2003) is an individually administered battery of intelligence and cognitive abilities.The scale consists of ten subtests that provide measures of £uid reasoning, knowledge, quantitative reasoning, visual-spatial processing, and working memory. Each of the ¢ve factors is assessed in both verbal and nonverbal fashions.The age range for which the test is appropriate spans from 2 years, 0 months to over 85 years of age.The instrument’s normative sample consists of information on the performance of 4,800 individuals whowere matched in terms of age, sex, geographic region, socioeconomic levels, and ethnicity as speci¢ed in the 2001U.S. Census data. Bias reviews were also conducted on all items

c07_1

10/08/2008

115

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE REPORTS 115

for sex,ethnic,religious,cultural,regional,disability,andsocioeconomic di¡erences. Composite scores were reported to have high reliabilities on average, mean of100, and a standard deviation of15. Subtest scores in each of the ¢ve broad ability factors have a mean of 10 and a standard deviation of 3. Alice was administered the test in a standardized fashion according to the test publisher’s administration guidelines so that the results of her performance could be compared with the performance of other students of the same age. Scores can be reported for the Full Scale IQ, a Nonverbal IQ, or aVerbal IQ in addition to ¢ve factor indexes and subtest scores. Standard Scores, Percentile Rankings, Change-Sensitive Scores, and Age-Equivalent Scores can all be computed. The Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF) (Gioia, Isquith, Guy, & Kenworthy, 2000) is a questionnaire designed for parents and teachers of school-aged children that enables professionals to assess executive functioning behaviors in both home and school environments. It is designed for children between 5 and 18 years of age. Executive functions are an integrated collection of cognitive processes that are responsible for guiding, directing, and managing cognitive, emotional, and behavioral functions, particularly during active, novel problem-solving activities.The 86 items on both the parental and teacher forms assessed Alice’s executive skills in eight areas.The executive functions are mental processes that direct and control an individual’s thought action and emotion, particularly during active problem solving. Speci¢c skills include (a) selecting appropriate goals for a particular task, (b) planning and organizing an approach to problem solving, (c) inhibiting (blocking out) distractions, (d) holding a goal and plan in mind, (e) £exibly trying a newapproachwhen necessary, (f) completing work in a timely fashion, and (g) monitoring one’s own behavior.The executive functions are also responsible for controlling emotional responses, thereby allowing for more e¡ective problem solving and more successful interpersonal relationships. Inconsistency and Negativity scales are also computed. On the BRIEF Clinical Scales, Tscores that fall within a range of 70 or above are considered Clinically Signi¢cant, suggesting a high level of maladjustment.Tscores that fall within the range of 60 to 69 (At-Risk) identify either a signi¢cant problem that may not be severe enough to require formal treatment or a potential of developing a problem that needs careful monitoring. The Cognitive Assessment System (CAS) (Naglieri & Das,1997) is a theorybased, norm-referenced, individually administered measure of

c07_1

10/08/2008

116

116 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

intelligence based on the PASS cognitive processing model: It assesses Planning,Attention,Simultaneous,andSuccessive processesforstudents from 5 through 17 years of age. Designed to expand the traditional measurement of intelligence, the CAS provides an inclusive perspective on the cognitive processing strengths and weaknesses of Alice.The CAS may be used for a variety of purposes, including diagnosis, eligibility, determination of discrepancies, reevaluation, and program planning. There are two administration options available for the examiner. One is the 8-subtest option called the Basic Battery.The other is a 12-subtest option called the Standard Battery.The standardization sample was a representative group of 2,200 children and adolescents 5 through17 years of age. A strati¢ed random sampling plan was used to obtain a sample that closely matches the U.S. population.This sample was used to create norms for the CAS Full Scale and each of the Planning, Attention, Simultaneous, and Successive Scales set at a mean of 100 and SD of 15. The Process Assessment of the Learner^Reading and Writing (PAL-RW) (Berninger, 2001) is an individually administered measure of a student’s strengths and weaknesses in the development of reading- and writing-related processes.The test is for students in kindergarten through sixth gradewhorange in age from 5 to13 years. Itcanbe used as a screening tool for identifying students atrisk for reading and/or writing problems, a progress-monitoring measurement instrument, as well as for diagnosing students with reading or writing processing problems. This subtest of the PAL-RW targets and assesses the neurodevelopmental processes most relevant to Alice’s learning to read and write: orthographic skills; phonological skills; rapid automatic naming; phonological decoding; word-speci¢c representations; automaticity of alphabet-letter retrieval and production, with and without memory requirements; ¢nger-function skills; and executive functions for coordinating word-level and sentence-level processing in comprehension, for coordinating listing and retelling, and for coordinating listening and note taking. Not every subtest is administered to every child at every grade.The subtests that are administered have the most empirical support for assessing the processes involved in reading and writing.The PAL-RW’s standardization sample consists of 868 students assessed during the 1999 to 2000 academic year and are represented the 1998 U.S. Census data. Decile scores obtainable are derived from the sum of Alice’s actual raw scores on each subtest. Decile scores representthe percentage of students in the normative sample who obtain scores at or below that decile score.

c07_1

10/08/2008

117

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE REPORTS 117

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

1. Developmental History: Alice was born on base at Fort Rudd’s Mowack Army Medical Center at 40 weeks gestation. No complications occurred during the pregnancy or birth. Her mother reported that she needed no medications nor did she drink or smoke. She did state that her husband did smoke at that time but that he has since quit. During the three-day stay in the hospital, the newborn hearing screening test was conducted and a bilateral, sensorineural inability to hear was identi¢ed.The etiologyof Alice’s deafness is unknown, and there is no reported history of hearing issues on either side of her family. Alice’s mother stated that Alice did not start walking without holding onto furniture until she was over 2 years old. She was reported as having signed her ¢rst signs around 6 months of age. No allergies, injuries, hospitalizations, or medical problems were reported. No problems with sleeping through the night were mentioned. Except for walking, developmental milestones were reported as being obtained within expected parameters, and no pre-, peri-, or postnatal problems were reported. It was noted, however, that Alice’s older brother was reported as having learning di⁄culties (i.e., Dyslexia). Audiometric assessment results (03.26.2007 by H. B. Stevens) suggest a bilateral, profound hearing loss across all frequencies, but with Alice’s revised cochlear implant, her hearing level is between 25 and 30 dBs in all frequencies. Alice had become implanted at a relatively late age (March 2004), and then after that device failed last fall (October 2006) another device was implanted in November of that year. Alice reports that the device helps her be aware of sounds and noises in her environment and to understand people around her who cannot sign. Alice was able to hear various environmental noises over the course of this extended assessment but was unable to con¢dently identify some of the sounds.When communication preferences (i.e., the examiner speaking or signing directly) where checked, Alice stated that she preferred the examiner to sign and for the interpreter to remain with her and help her understand signs she did not know. She stated that her mother could sign fairly well but that her father did not know many signs. Over the course of the assessment, Alice spoke more and utilized less sign language for communication as she became more comfortable and as the English language demands of the assessment increased.

c07_1

10/08/2008

118

118 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

Her vision was screened by the school nurse for both far- and nearvision prior to this assessment (08.06.2007) and no di⁄culties were reported. 2. Home/Family Information: Atthe time oftesting,Alice resided onbase atFortRudd and attended the Cogswell Central Middle School. School records indicate that Alice resided with her mother, father, and an older brother. It was reported that the family had moved two previous times. No additional signi¢cant family transitions or di⁄culties were noted. 3. Previous Psychological Assessments: Previous psychoeducational information was available from one evaluation of Alice.The results of that evaluation were as follows: Date of Evaluation Test(s) administered Results 04.01.2000 Multiple speech and adaptive Examiner: Edward Thomas behavior delays noted

Cognitive functioning is a very complex concept, and the reduction of a description of Alice’s abilities to a single number may be misleading. Readers are strongly encouraged to refer to the complete reports of the previous evaluations as well as to be cognizant of the fact that various standardized tests and normative samples have been used. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS

Rapportwas easilyestablishedwith Alice. Onthe dayof this evaluation, Alicewas very well groomed, neatly dressed, and she behaved in a well-mannered fashion. The communication between Alice and the examiner was conducted in simultaneously spoken and signed English, and this appeared to be e¡ective. Alice sat upright with good posture and both of her feet stabilized on the £oor in front of her body throughout the session, and she used a well-developed dynamic tripod grasp when writing with her left hand. She was assessed in a well-lit and quiet room with minimal distractions in the environment. During standardized assessment sessions, Alice was able to remain on task and work, with frequent reminders and verbal encouragement to work carefully and continuously. She appeared to enjoy the mentally challenging tasks and the individual attention from this examiner. She responded well to praise and talked freelyabout her di⁄culties in school. She explained that she had a di⁄cult time sticking to one task and that her mind often felt as if it were racing. She was observed to count items on her ¢ngers and to frequently repeat tasks subvocally.

c07_1

10/08/2008

119

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE REPORTS 119

TEST RESULTS AND INTERPRETATIONS

Due to the signi¢cant history of hearing issues and the match between her characteristics and the task demands of the test, the Wechsler Nonverbal Scale of Ability (WNV) was selected for use with Alice as a primary measure of nonverballygathering information regardingherlevelof intellectual development.This scale consisted of four di¡erent subtests. Her performance on each contributed to the overall or Full Scale score. Alice obtained a Full Scale score of 99. At the 95% con¢dence interval this performance would range between 91 and 107. It can also be seen as being atthe 47th percentile ranking.This is re£ective of a performance better than 47% of the normative sample and is considered in the Average range of ability. The Matrices subtest required Alice to look at an incomplete ¢gural matrix and then select the missing related portion from four or ¢ve response options provided. She was able to solve many of these items with ease and would sometimes explain the solution she used to the examiner. Her performance resulted in aTscore of 63. In comparison to the average of her performance on other subtests, her performance on this subtest is seen as re£ecting a cognitive strength. This amount of a di¡erence is seen in less than 5% of the population. The Coding subtest required Alice to copysymbols that are paired with simple geometric shapes or numbers. Using a key provided at the top of the page, Alice had to draw each symbol in its corresponding shape or box within a speci¢ed time limit. It was observed that she had to frequently look back to the code key as she proceeded to replicate the symbols. She was able to complete several of these, but when compared to the average of her performance on other subtests, her performance re£ected a relative cognitive weakness. Her performance yielded a T score of 38. For the Spatial Span subtest, Alice had to tap a series ofblocks as demonstrated by the examiner. For Spatial Span Forward, Alice had to repeat a sequence of tapped blocks in the same order that the examiner demonstrated. For Spatial Span Backward, Alice had to tap a sequence of tapped blocks in the reverse order of what the examiner demonstrated. She understood the task demands with apparent ease and was able to complete these tasks and earn a T score of 43. No signi¢cant di¡erences were noted in the length of the spans (number of blocks tapped in a sequence) or in the presentation of the span (forward or backward). For the PictureArrangement subtest, Alice had to reorder a prearranged set of picture cards so that they told a logical story; she had a speci¢ed time limit. Alice appeared to enjoy the task demands and completed the items without any apparent di⁄culties. Her performance was also rated as being similar to most other children her age with a T score in the Average range of 55.

c07_1

10/08/2008

120

120 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

As a means of assessing her intellectual skills and cognitive functioning with varying degrees of language demands, the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale^Fifth Edition (SB-5) was also administered. On this test, Alice earned a Full Scale IQ score of 100. Her current overall intelligence is measured as being in the Average range and is ranked at the 50th percentile. There is a 95% probability that her ‘‘true’’ FSIQ is included in the range of scores between 96 and 104.When considering Alice’s performance on the FSIQ, her Nonverbal IQ of 99 is commensurate with herVerbal IQ score.The‘‘true’’ Nonverbal IQ is expected to lie within a range of scores between 93 and 105 with 95% con¢dence. Alice’s nonverbal reasoning skills are classi¢ed as Average and are ranked at the 47th percentile. Her ‘‘true’’ Verbal IQ of 101 is expected to lie within a range of scores between 95 and 107 with 95% con¢dence. Alice’s current verbal reasoning abilities are classi¢ed as Average and are ranked at the 53rd percentile.The SB-5 index of Visual-Spatial Processing was identi¢ed as the highest Factor Index score in Alice’s pro¢le.The instrument’s author de¢nes this index as the ability to see patterns, relationships, spatial orientations, or the gestaltthe whole among diverse piecesof a visual display. This score represented an area of relative strength for Alice. Compared to other individuals, this score would be described as being in the Average range. Similarly, the Knowledge and Quantitative Reasoning Indexes represent Alice’s poorest areas of performance.The Knowledge Index refers to Alice’s accumulated fund of general information. Information assessed by this factor has been acquired at home, school, and in Alice’s everyday life experiences. The Knowledge and Quantitative Reasoning indexes represent Alice’s poorest areas of performance. The Knowledge Index refers to Alice’s accumulated fund of general information. Information assessed by this factor has been acquired at home, school, and in Alice’s everydaylife experiences.The Quantitative Reasoning Index relates toAlice’s skills with both numbers and numerical problem solving. Some of the problems used words and some used pictured relationships. The items on the SB-5 emphasize problem solving of an applied nature instead of speci¢c mathematical knowledge that has been acquired by Alice through her school-based learning.These assessment results suggest that Alice will likely ¢nd tasks that measure these abilities to be more challenging. Compared to other individuals, these scores would also be described as being in the Average range. Togather and assess information related toAlice’s abilitytoplan, organize, and reviewher academic work, the Behavior Rating Inventoryof Executive Function was completed by both her mother and her primary teacher. Her teacher rated Alice’s abilitiestoresist impulsive thoughts, plan, organize herself, and otherwise deal with monitoring her own work as all being signi¢cantly weak. Her mother’s ratings, however, yielded scores that suggested that Alice’s skills at organizing

c07_1

10/08/2008

121

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE REPORTS 121

her work materials were her only weakness and di⁄culty.The di⁄culties seen by her teacher are supported by the observations made by this examiner and reported by Alice herself. These self-organizing skills appear to be her greatest weakness and a major source of her academic di⁄culties. To gather information related to Alice’s strengths and weaknesses in the cognitive processes that underline her academic output and performance, the Cognitive Assessment System (CAS) was administered to her by this examiner. Alice earned a CAS Full Scale score of 99, which is within the Average classi¢cation and ranked at the 47th percentile. This means that her performance is equal to or greater than 47% of children her age in the standardization group. There is a 90% probability that Alice’s true Full Scale score is within the range of 94 to 104. The CAS Full Scale score is made up of separate scales called Planning, Attention, Simultaneous, and Successive cognitive processing. Because there was signi¢cant variation among these scales, the Full Scale will sometimes be higher and other times lower than the separate PASS scales on the CAS. The Simultaneous scale was found to be a signi¢cant relative weakness, which means that Alice‘s poor Simultaneous processing is a weakness in relation to her overall PASS score. Alice’s Planning processing scale re£ects her ability to make decisions about how to best complete the tests, use good strategies, control behavior, selfmonitor, and self-correct. Alice earned a CAS Planning scale standard score of 108, which is within theAverage classi¢cation and is ranked atthe 70th percentile. This means Alice did as well as or better than 70% of the scores obtained by children her age in the standardization group.There is a 90% probability that Alice’s true Planning score is within the range of 100 to 114.There was signi¢cant variation among the three subtests on this scale. Planned Codes was found to be a signi¢cant strength. Planning is a cognitive process by which Alice determined, selected, and used a strategy or method to e⁄ciently solve a problem.The planning process provided the means to solve problems for which no method or solution is immediately apparent. Planning is also important for impulse control as well as utilization of knowledge.The CAS Planning subtests require the application of strategies to perform the novel tasks presented.While she did well on these types of tasks, Alice had great di⁄culty in explaining how she approached the problems in the manner in which she did.This lack of metacognitive awareness was typical of her lack of re£ection or monitoring of her own performance. Alice earned a CAS Simultaneous scale standard score of 87, which is within the LowAverage classi¢cation and is ranked at the 19th percentile.This means Alice did as well as or better than 19% of the scores obtained by children her age in the standardization group. There is a 90% probability that Alice’s true Simultaneous score is within the range of 81to 94. Alice’s Simultaneous processing

c07_1

10/08/2008

122

122 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

scale was relatively lower than her average PASS score.This means that Alice performed poorly in comparison to her average PASS score on tests that required her to relate parts into a group or whole, understand relationships among pictures and words, and work with spatial relationships.There was no signi¢cant variation among the three subtests on this scale. Simultaneous processing involves integrating separate stimuli into a single whole or group. In addition to perceiving parts intoasinglegestalt,simultaneousprocessingrequiresunderstandinglogicalgrammatical relationships. Simultaneous subtests in the CAS required Alice to perceive objects as a group and to interrelate separate elements into a whole through examination of the stimuli during the activity or through recall. Alice’s Attention was measured by tests that required her to focus on speci¢c features of the material and resist reacting to distracting parts of the tests. Alice’s score on the Attention scale re£ects her ability to attend and concentrate. Alice earned a CAS Attention scale standard score of 104, which is within the Average classi¢cation and is ranked at the 61st percentile. This means Alice did as well as or better than 61% of the scores obtained by children her age in the standardizationgroup.There is a90%probability thatAlice’strueAttentionscore iswithin the range of 96 to111.There was no signi¢cant variation among the three subtests on this scale. Attention is a cognitive process by which Alice selectively attended to a particular stimulus and inhibited attending to competing stimuli. Successful performance on the CAS Attention subtests required attention to be focused, selective, sustained, and e¡ortful.The tasks present competing demands on attention and require sustained focus over time to identify a target stimulus and avoid distractions. Alice’s performance on the Successive scale re£ects her ability to work with information in a speci¢c linear order. For example, the tests required her to remember the order of words spoken by the examiner and comprehend information that is based on ordering of words. Alice earned a CAS Successive scale standard score of 98, which is within the Average classi¢cation and is ranked at the 45th percentile. This means Alice did as well as or better than 45% of the scores obtained by children her age in the standardization group. There is a 90% probability that Alice’s true Successive score is within the range of 92 to 105. There was no signi¢cant variation among the three subtests on this scale. Successive processing involves working with things in a speci¢c serial order, perceiving stimuli in sequence, and forming sounds and movements in order.The Successive subtests in the CAS required Alice to either reproduce a sequence of independent stimuli or answer questions based on understanding syntactic relationships. To gather information regarding Alice’s skills and abilities, which are involved in the cognitive processes shown to in£uence academic outcomes related to reading and writing, numerous subtests from the Process Assessment of the

c07_1

10/08/2008

123

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE REPORTS 123

Learner^Reading and Writing were administered.The results of the administration of these subtests are included in the test results appendix and are reported indecile scores.Signi¢cantscatter was noted inthe obtained results.This is further evidence of Alice displaying uneven development and mastery of skills and abilities highly related to writing and reading.These results are consistent with other testing results indicatingAlice’s underliningdi⁄culties in academic tasks.TheAlphabet Writing subtest is a measure of Alice’s automaticity in writing lowercase letters of the alphabet in order from her memory. She displayed some confusion between upper- and lower-case letters and had to be reminded to check her work for accuracy. The Receptive Coding subtest is a measure of Alice’s ability to code whole written words into short-term memory and then segment each word into units of di¡erent sizes. Alice was asked to compare whole words, single letters, and letter groups to the target words presented by the stimulus booklet. Several simple mistakes impeded her from performing well on this subtest.The Expressive Coding subtest was a measure of Alice’s ability to code whole written words into short-term memory, and then to reproduce the words or parts of words in writing. For each item, Alice was presented the word in the stimulus booklet and then asked to write the whole word or target single letter or letter group from the word.This was also a di⁄cult task for her to complete, and her performance was below that of her age-mates. The RAN-Letters subtest is a measure of Alice’s ability to quickly and accurately name aloud familiar letters and letter groups. She was able to do this task without much di⁄culty. As in the RAN-Words subtest, as the tasks became harder her performance began to worsen. A similar level of performance was noted on the RAN-Digits subtest that measured Alice’s ability to quickly and accurately name aloud single-digit and double-digit numbers.When the two tasks were combined for the RAN-Words and Digits subtest (which measured Alice’s ability to quickly and accurately name aloud words and double-digit numbers) her performance su¡ered even more. These results are also highly suggestive of her overall di⁄culty in shifting between two di¡erent tasks that are occurring simultaneously. When Alice was asked to listen to a simulated classroom lecture and to take notes on the information presented for the Note-Taking Task, she did a very poor job of taking notes related to the information presented. Later, on the Note-TakingTask B subtest, Alice was required to review her notes taken during the ¢rst task and then to write a paragraph summarizing this information. It is used as a means of assessing Alice’s ability to reconstruct the meaning from self-written notes. Her performance on both of these related tasks was very poor. The Syllables subtest assessed Alice’s abilities to segment spoken words into syllables. For each item, Alice was asked to repeat a polysyllabic word presented

c07_1

10/08/2008

124

124 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

by the examiner and then to say the syllable(s) remaining when a targeted syllable was omitted. No di⁄culties with these skills, as assessed by the PAL, were noted. The Phonemes subtest provides a means of assessingAlice’s ability tosegment spoken words into phonemes. For the ¢rst set of items, Alice was asked to repeat a monosyllabic or polysyllabic word presented by the examiner, to provide the phonemes remaining when a targeted phoneme is omitted, and then to say the omitted phoneme. Her performance on this task re£ected some relative dif¢culties in completing these items. The Rimes subtest assessed Alice’s understanding of the portion of syllables that remain when the initial phoneme or phonemes of the syllable are omitted. Items on this subtest required Alice to say the portions of monosyllabic or polysyllabic words remaining when the targeted rime is omitted. The demands of this task were extremely di⁄cult for Alice, and her performance yielded results indicating her weakness in this area. TheWord Choice subtestassessed Alice’s ability toidentifythe correctspelling of words when they are presented with two misspelled distracter words that have the same or similar pronunciation as the correctly spelled word. Some dif¢culties were noted in this area. The Pseudoword Decoding subtest measured Alice’s ability to apply phonological decoding skills. Alice was presented with a list of printed pseudowords, and she was required to say them aloud. The pseudowords used by this subtest were designed to mimic the phonological structure of words in the English language. She did relatively well on this subtest and her performance suggested that her application of phonological skills helped her in her reading and decoding abilities. The Finger Sense subtest was a measure of Alice’s ¢nger functions related to written output.This subtest included ¢ve subtasks: Repetition, Succession, Localization, Recognition, and Fingertip Writing. For each task, the items are performed ¢rst with Alice’s right hand, and then with her left hand.The Repetition task required Alice to touch her index ¢nger toher thumb 20 times.The Succession task, which is similar to theRepetitiontask, required Alice to touch her four ¢ngers to her thumb in succession for ¢ve sequences. For each item of the Localization task, Alice’s hand was shielded from her view, the examiner touched one of her ¢ngers, removed the shield, and then asked Alice to name or point to the ¢nger that was touched. Also, for each item in the Recognition task, Alice’s hand was shielded from her view, the examiner touched one of Alice’s ¢ngers, removed the shield, and asked Alice to say the number corresponding to the ¢nger that was touched, according to the numbered ¢nger drawing in the stimulus booklet. The Fingertip Writing task required Alice to say the name of the letter that the examiner had ‘‘written’’ on Alice’s ¢nger with a wooden stylus. She was able to

c07_1

10/08/2008

125

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE REPORTS 125

perform these taskswith ease,and her performance suggested thatthe neurological communication between her ¢nger tips and her brain was functioning well. The Sentence Sense subtest was a measure of Alice’s ability to coordinate word recognition and sentence comprehension processes when reading for meaning under timed conditions. Each item required Alice to identify the sentences in which meaning di¡ered by only one word. Each of the two distracter sentences had one erroneous word that could not make sense in the sentence context. Alice appeared to bene¢t from the structure of this task, and her performance was rated to be a relative strength. TheCopyingsubtestwasa measure ofAlice’s handwritingautomaticity inability to copy accurately without memory requirements. This subtest consists of two tasks: (a) sentence copying task that incorporates all the letters of the alphabet, and (b) a paragraph copying task. Both tasks were performed well byAlice. The pro¢le of her overall performance on the PAL suggested the presence of signi¢cant processing di⁄cultiesalso as noted by her assessment using the CASwhich negatively impacted various aspects of her reading and writing skills. Her di⁄culties in impulse control, attentional weakness, multitasking, organization, and lack of self-monitoring all contributed to her overall struggles and weaknesses in her academic achievement. SYNTHESIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The results from this assessment are believed to be valid and reliable. At the time of the assessment, Alice was a 10-year, 8-month-old student who was receiving services as a hearing-impaired student. Signi¢cant concerns were expressed by her teacher regarding Alice’s memory and attention skills that were seen to negatively impact her academic achievement. As part of her psychological evaluation, Alice scored in the Average range on both the Wechsler Nonverbal Scale of Ability andthe StanfordBinetIntelligenceScale^FifthEdition. Signi¢cantandunusual di¡erences were noted on her performances on some subtests and are suggestive of cognitive strengths in reasoning and weaknesses in her attention and short-term memory skills. While Index Scores ranged within 14 points (Visual Spatial greater than Knowledge and Quantitative Reasoning), her composite scores were very similar. No signi¢cant processing concerns were noted by results from this instrument. Signi¢cant weaknesses were noted in her ability to sustain focus and concentration throughout this assessment. Her teacher’s rating of Alice’s executive skills as measured by the BehaviorRatingInventoryofExecutiveFunction and her performance on the tasks of the Cognitive Assessment System were highly suggestive of signi¢cant di⁄culties and weaknesses. Her mother’s rating indicated a signi¢cant level of concern in only one areathe organization of materials. Results from the Process Assessment of the Learner^Reading and Writing were also highly suggestive of Alice

c07_1

10/08/2008

126

126 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

displaying awide variety in her skills with noticeably signi¢cant weaknesses in the processes involved with writing and note taking.These results, when combined with observations, ratings, classroom performance, teacher reports, Alice’s self-reports, grades, and other school-based information, were highly suggestive of attention and cognitive processing weaknesses. It isbelievedthatthisassessmentwasan accurate measure ofAlice’slevelof intelligence, executive functioning, and cognitive processingasmeasured for a referred evaluation conducted at the Cogswell Central Middle School at Fort Rudd and in accordance with the guidelines established by the U.S. Department of Defense. RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommendations should be discussed, amended, added to, developed, or rejected by all of the participants of Alice’s CSC Team.The selection and presentation of these preliminary recommendations are this examiner’s, so nothing here would be binding on anyone unless and until it was approved byAlice’s parents and by the CSC Team or was otherwise legallyordered.The recommendations are, of course, the examiner’s professional opinions based upon the results of this assessment. Also, including a recommendation here does not imply that the recommended activity is not already taking place, but that prior to the CSC meeting the examiner thought it was an appropriate idea based onlyonwhat he had learned about Alice over the course of this assessment. 1. It is recommended that the Case Study Committee at Fort Rudd’s Cogswell Central Middle School consider these assessment results along with other assessments, evaluation results, observations, and other data in their decisions regarding Alice’s need for appropriate services and accommodations.There is evidence of Alice displaying attentional and cognitive processing di⁄culties, which are related to her current academic di⁄culties.These processing concerns will need to be compared with her achievement assessment results in light of the Category D quali¢cation criteria. Her parents should be reminded that the regulations governing special educational services at Department of Defense administered schools are di¡erent than the laws governing special educational services in civilian schools. 2. Alice’s parents may bene¢t from the empathy and support from other military parents who have a child with a disability. One recommendation for the development of such a support network is that they contact the Specialized Training of Military Parents (STOMP).They can be telephoned at 1.800.5PARENTor reached via the Internet at www.stompproject.org.

c07_1

10/08/2008

127

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE REPORTS 127

3. Alice’s parents may also bene¢t from the empathy and support from other parents who have a child who has di⁄culty with tasks that require sustained focused attention. One recommendation for the development of such a support network is that they contact the Children with Attention De¢cit Disorders (CHADD) organization. More information on CHADD can be located on the Internet at www.chadd.org or by telephoning 1.800.233.4050. 4. Alice’s parents may also bene¢t from the empathy and support from other parents who have a child who is deaf. One recommendation for the development of such a support network is that they become members of the American Society of Deaf Children.They can be contacted via telephone at 1.800.942.ASDC v/tty.They can also be reached via the Internet at www.deafchildren.org. 5. Because the raising and educating of a child who is considered to be disabled can sometimes be very overwhelming for parents and caretakers, Alice’s parents are encouraged toavail themselves of the supports o¡ered by various other agencies. Some supportive agencies in North Carolina that are highly recommended are: BEGINNINGS for parents of children who are deaf or hard-of-hearing (1.800.541.4327 or www.beginningssvcs.com), the Family Support Network of North Carolina (1.800.852.0042 or www.fsnnc.org), the Exceptional Children’s Assistance Center (1.800.962.6817 or www.ecac-parentcenter.org), and the Governor’s Advocacy Counsel for Persons with Disabilities (1.888.315.4064 or www.gacpd.com). 6. Because of the 1997 reauthorization of the IDEA, educators serving all students who are deaf or hard-of-hearing need to consider the students’ language and communication needs, opportunities for direct communication with peers and professional personnel in the students’ language communication mode, academic levels, and full range of needs, including direct instruction in the students’ language and communication mode.The important consideration of each of these needs as they relate to Alice cannot be understated. 7. Following the 2006 Services and Placement Options chapter of the National Association of State Directors of Special Education’s Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students Educational Service Guidelines entitled Meetingthe Needsof StudentsWho Are Deafor Hardof Hearing, the following recommendationsarealsomadeforcurrentandfutureeducatorsofAlice: a. The educational team should consider all of the factors unique to studentswho are deaforhard-of-hearing to ensure thatthe placement of Alice is appropriate.

c07_1

10/08/2008

128

128 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

b. The educational team should consider Alice and her parents’ preferences and choices in developing the IEP, in determining the instruction and services that are appropriate for Alice, and in considering the setting inwhich Alice’s IEPshould be implemented. c. The educational team should ensure that language and communication are accessible to each student, classroom, and overall school environment, and support Alice’s family in providing language and communication access at home and in the community. d. The educational team should understand howAlice’s hearing loss impacts her ability to function in a typical classroom setting and in the school environment as a whole. e. The educational team should be knowledgeable about evaluating and managing a classroom placement that requires interpreting services. f. The educational team should understand the importance of social and emotional development of students who are deaf or hard-ofhearing. g. The educational team should ensure the availability of ageappropriate peers who share Alice’s language and communication preferences. h. The educational team should ensure that the cultural needs of Alice are met. i. The educational team should ensure that Alice receive appropriate opportunities for direct instruction and directcommunicationwith support personnel. j. The educational team should ensure that personnel can e¡ectively communicate with Alice in her identi¢ed language and communication mode. k. The educational team should ensure appropriate access to support services for Alice. l. The educational team should ensure the availability of, and access to, extracurricular o¡erings for Alice. m. The educational team should ensure the availability of appropriate assistive technology for Alice. 8. Alice’s parents and educators are strongly encouraged to register for the services of the Captioned Media Program.The captioned videotapes and ¢lms o¡ered by this service may assist in making information regarding the world around Alice more accessible to her. CMP can be

c07_1

10/08/2008

129

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE REPORTS 129

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

reached by telephone at 1.800.237.6819 tty;1.800.237.6213 v; 1.800.538.5636 fax; or via the Internet at www.dcmp.org. Onebookthatmany teachers and parents have founduseful for activities for students similar to Alice is Kid-Friendly Parenting with Deafand Hard of Hearing Children by Medwin and Weston.This text is available at any major bookstore or via the Internet and is recommended by this examiner. Another book that many parents have found useful and very practical for helping them with raising a child who is deaf is Raising and Educating a Deaf Child by Mark Marschark.This text is available at any major bookstore or via the Internet and is highly recommended by this examiner. The Clerc Center at Gallaudet University has a plethora of educational resources available for Alice’s teachers and other educators.They can be accessed via the Internet at http://clerccenter.gallaudet.edu/. Impulsivity is a¡ecting all areas of Alice’s academic performance. She would bene¢t from a tutor or other adult working with her to increase her awareness of when it is important to pay attention to details and slow down to problem solve and self-monitor. In speci¢c direct teaching circumstances, a system of rewards could be implemented to encourage thoughtful, step-wise planning and appropriate selfmonitoring and self-correction. High-quality results should be stressed over ¢nishing quickly. Results from this assessment are suggestive of Alice having signi¢cant di⁄culty with tasks that require attention. For written directions, encourage her to highlight (underline or circle) points that might be forgotten or overlooked. Check back after ¢nishing the task. It is also suggested that when working with her, teach Alice to anticipate when instructions might be delivered in the classroom by tuning into speci¢c cues (e.g., the teacher ¢nishing writing an assignment on the board and turning to the class). Alice would bene¢t from reading Keeping Ahead in School by Dr. Mel Levine. It is a book written to help adolescents understand their learning di⁄culties. It is important to‘‘demystify’’Alice’s di⁄culties so that she can understand more about her own kind of mind. It is available at most major bookstores. Further handouts and suggestions for interventions related to Alice’s processing weaknesses and needs will be shared with the parents and education sta¡ at the CSC team meeting.

c07_1

10/08/2008

130

130 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

If a problem should arise, Alice should be referred to her CSC team for their input, review, and intervention.This examiner is also available for further consultation and support if there are any questions. Paul W. Cachman, Psy.S., NCSP School Psychologist NCSP Certi¢cation Number XXX O⁄ceTelephone 202.555.1212 TEST RESULTS APPENDIX Wechsler Nonverbal Scale of Ability

Subtest/Scale

Difference from Child’s Mean Score

T-Score

Matrices

63

Coding

38

11.75 (Weakness)

43 55 49.75 48 40

6.75 5.25

90th 4.5 12th 6.0 24th 69th

Difference = 8

22.2

Difference = 2 95% Confidence Interval 91–107

26.3

Spatial Span Picture Arrangement Mean Score Spatial Span Forward Spatial Span Backward Longest Spatial Span Forward Longest Spatial Span Backward

Full Scale

13.25 (Strength)

Percentile Ranking/ Base Rate

5 (raw) 3 (raw)

99

47th

The Stanford Binet Intelligence Scale^Fifth Edition

Cluster/Subscale Nonverbal Intelligence Quotient Verbal Intelligence Quotient Full Scale Intelligence Quotient Fluid Reasoning Factor Index

Standard/ Scale Score

Standard Score Range (90% CI)

Percentile Ranking

99 101 100 97

94–104 96–106 97–103 90–104

47th 53rd 50th 42nd

c07_1

10/08/2008

131

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE REPORTS 131

Knowledge Factor Index Quantitative Reasoning Factor Index Visual-Spatial Processing Factor Index Working Memory Factor Index Nonverbal Fluid Reasoning Nonverbal Knowledge Nonverbal Quantitative Reasoning Nonverbal Visual-Spatial Processing Nonverbal Working Memory Verbal Fluid Reasoning Verbal Knowledge Verbal Quantitative Reasoning Verbal Visual-Spatial Processing Verbal Working Memory

94 94 108 106 8 7 10 12 12 11 11 8 11 10

88–100 88–100 101–113 98–112

34th 34th 70th 66th

Change Sensitive Scores

Confidence Interval Scores

Age Equivalents

499 502 501 498 500 498 506 507

3 2 2 4 3 5 5 5

9:8 10:7 10:6 9:7 10:0 9:4 12:6 11:4

Nonverbal Verbal Full Scale Fluid Reasoning Knowledge Quantitative Reasoning Visual-Spatial Processing Working Memory

The Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function: Parent

Index/Scale Inhibit Shift Emotional Control Behavioral Regulation Index (BRI) Initiate Working Memory Plan/Organize

T-Score

T-Score Range (90% CI)

Percentile Ranking

52 53 51 52 52 61 59

47–57 47–59 46–56 48–56 45–59 56–66 54–64

70th 71st 64th 67th 68th 86th 82nd (continued)

c07_1

10/08/2008

132

132 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

Index/Scale

T-Score Range (90% CI)

T-Score

Organization of Materials Monitor Metacognition Index (MI) Global Executive Composite (GEC)

Scale

66 64 62 59

Percentile Ranking

61–71 58–70 59–65 57–61

94th 89th 87th 80th

Cumulative Percenrtile

Protocol Classification

 90th  98th

Acceptable Acceptable

Negativity Inconsistency

Note: Female, age-specif|c norms have been used to generate this prof|le.

Cognitive Assessment System

Cluster/Subscale Planning Simultaneous Attention Successive Full Scale Matching Numbers Planned Codes Planned Connections Nonverbal Matrices Verbal-Spatial Relations Figure Memory Expressive Attention Number Detection Receptive Attention Word Series Sentence Repetition Sentence Questions

Standard Score

Standard Score Range (90% CI)

Percentile Ranking

108 87 104 98 99 9 15 10 8 10 6 12 9 11 8 11 10

100–114 81–94 96–111 92–105 94–104

70th 19th 61st 45th 47th

c07_1

10/08/2008

133

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE REPORTS 133

Confidential Neuropsychological Evaluation

Name: Jeremy Age: 6 years 2 months

REASON FOR EVALUATION

Jeremy (aged 6 years 2 months) was referred by his physician because of a history of speech and language delay, excessive activity, and achievement problems. Concerns have been expressed this year while in ¢rst grade that he may experience ADHD as well. Evaluation was recommended in an e¡ort to better understand and de¢ne current problems as well as assist with treatment planning. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Jeremy’s mother provided a social and developmental history. Jeremy’s father completed some college and is employed in the auto parts industry, and his mother is a college graduate and homemaker. He is the second of three children, none of whom have experienced developmental or adjustment problems. Jeremy wasthe product ofanuncomplicated pregnancy, labor, and delivery. Hewas somewhat jaundiced at birth. As an infant he did not always enjoy cuddling and often was either crying or hungry. As a toddler he was constantly into things and typically overactive. He adapted to new situations and was generally happy. Jeremy’s medical history is noted byhospitalization at9 months and15 months for asthma. He has a history of recurrent ear infections. He settles down to sleep and usually sleeps through the night. He tends to be a restless sleeper. Jeremy met developmental milestones initially within normal limits; however language development was slow. Jeremydid not have manywords, his articulation was poor, and he was, and continues to often be, unintelligible. He currently has someproblemswithlanguageassociation,retrieval,sequencing,andorthographic abilities. He has received services as a student with a Communication Disorder. Jeremy understands directions and situations as well as others. He had a di⁄cult time in kindergarten concentrating. He was often distracted and did not wait to be called on. He typically does better in a one-on-one relationship. He has a hard time in group activities often‘‘worrying what others are doing.’’Jeremy is socially active and appears widely accepted by his peers. Within the home setting, Jeremy ¢dgets and has di⁄culty remaining seated. He is easily distracted and does not respond to limits well. He talks excessively, interrupts, misses cues, and can be a repeat o¡ender who frustrates easily.

c07_1

10/08/2008

134

134 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

Nonetheless, he does not have a signi¢cant behavioral problem. Discipline when needed consists of time out. Parents agree on disciplinary intervention, but no particular form of intervention has proven to be consistently e¡ective. In June 2007, Jeremy’s physician initiated a trial of extended-release Adderall at 10 mgs qd.The medicine appeared to improve self-discipline.There was a positive di¡erence noted at school and at church. Jeremy has been slow in developing motor skills, though he has no trouble with large motor skills. He has been slow in toilet training. He still has problems with night-time training. During the dayhe goes to the bathroom independently and does not have very many accidents. ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES

Conners Parent Rating Scale ^Revised (Form L) Child Behavior Checklist Home Situations Questionnaire Social Attributes Checklist Review of Academic File Peabody PictureVocabularyTest^IIIA (PPVT-III) ExpressiveVocabularyTest Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children^Fourth Edition (WISCIV) Wechsler Nonverbal Scale of Ability (WNV) Cognitive Assessment System (CAS) Gordon Diagnostic System Purdue Pegboard Developmental Test of Visual Motor Integration Human Figure Drawing Bracken Basic Concept Scales (School Readiness Cluster) Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement Clinical Play Interview BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATION

Jeremy isa child ofaverage size and appearancewho came to the evaluationsession well-groomed and neatlydressed. He was seen for two sessions with a lunch break in between sessions. Jeremy’s behavior during both sessions was similar. Eye contact was appropriate, and he maintained and initiated conversation easily. His conversation, however, was intelligible only approximately 20% of the time. He particularly appeared to have di⁄culty understanding certain types of questions as well.When he understood the task, Jeremy responded well, but when he did not he tended to be passive. When he understood a task, Jeremy appeared

c07_1

10/08/2008

135

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE REPORTS 135

moderately con¢dent in his skills.Throughout the sessionsJeremy appeared neither anxious nor sad. Overall he was calm and emotionally stable. Jeremy related well to the examiners and smiled appropriately. His thoughts appeared logical, focused, and relevant, though immature in light of Jeremy’s language weaknesses. Jeremy was alert, attentive, and with support concentrated adequately. He was cooperative and attempted all tasks presented. He was motivated to perform but required a signi¢cant amount of encouragement and prompting to remain on task. He had a tendency toward increased activity, squirming, and wriggling during both sessions and was occasionally distracted. Overall, however, it was not signi¢cantlydi⁄cult to establish a working relationship with this pleasant child. Jeremy did not take the prescribed stimulant medication on the day of the assessment. ASSESSMENT RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION Language

The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test was administered as a simple measure of one-word receptive vocabulary. Jeremy completed this task with a standard score of 100, equivalent to the 50th percentile. In contrast, Jeremy earned a standard score of only 78, equivalent to the 7th percentile on the Expressive Vocabulary Test, which is a simple synonym measure of expressive language. Jeremy demonstrates nearly a two-year delay in expressive language. Intellectual

Jeremyearned a high score ontheWechsler Nonverbal Scale of Ability, which also measures general ability using nonverbal spatial tests. On this test he earned a Full Scale score of 111, which is ranked at the 77th percentile and falls within the High Average range. There is a 90% chance that his true score falls within the range of 103 to 117.There was no signi¢cant variability among the four tests used to compute theWNV Full Scale. Similarly, Jeremy’s Perceptual Reasoning score of110 (75th percentile) falls atthe juncture of theAverage and High Average ranges and is a relative strength. The tests on this scale measure general ability without requiring Jeremy to express himself verbally and instead require that he work with pictures and assemble a design to match a picture. Jeremy earned aWISCIV Verbal Comprehension score of 71 which falls at the 3rd percentile and is signi¢cantly lower than his overall mean on the WISCIV and substantially below the Average range (90 to 110). This means that when his general ability was measured using questions that required verbal expression and comprehension he performed particularly poorly. This

c07_1

10/08/2008

136

136 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

is consistent with his scores on the Expressive Vocabulary Test (score of 78; 7th percentile). Jeremy also earned aWorking Memory Scale score of 88 which is ranked at the 21st percentile and is inthe LowAverage range.This scale measures general ability usingteststhatrequire recallof information presentedby the examiner. Similarly, Jeremy earned a score of 97 (42nd percentile) on the Processing Speed scale of theWISCIV (Average range).The subtests on this scale measure general ability using tests that require, for example, rapidly writing symbols that correspond to numbers. In total, on theWISCIV, Jeremy earned a Full Scale IQ score of 88, which is ranked at the 21st percentile. This means that he performed as well as or better than 21% of children his age in the standardization sample. This score falls in the LowAverage range.There is a 90% probability that his true Full Scale score fallswithinthe range of 84 to93. However, therewas signi¢cantvariabilityamong the four scales of this test. Executive/Neuropsychological Skills

Jeremy earned a CAS Full Scale score of 89, which is within the LowAverage classi¢cation and is ranked at the 23rd percentile.This means that his performance is equal to or greater than 23% of the scores obtained by children his age in the standardization group.There is a 90% probability thatJeremy’s true Full Scale score is within the range of 83 to 98. There was signi¢cant variation among the four PASS scales on the CAS.The Simultaneous scale was found to be a signi¢cant strength in relation to his average PASS score.The Planning and Successive scales were found to be signi¢cant cognitive weaknesses. Jeremy’s poor Planning and Successive processing scores are especially important because they represent weaknesses both in relation to his overall PASS score and in relation to his peers. These cognitive weaknesses have important implications for diagnosis and eligibility determination, as well as educational programming. Jeremy’s Planning processing scale was signi¢cantly lower than his average PASS score and well below the Average range. He had trouble with development and use of good strategies, control of behavior, self-monitoring, and self-correction when completing the planning tests. Jeremy earned a CAS Planning scale standard score of 74, which is within the BelowAverage classi¢cation and is ranked at the 4th percentile. There is a 90% probability that Jeremy’s true Planning score is within the range of 70 to 86. Jeremy’s poor performance in Planning is especially important because it is a weakness both in relation to his overall PASS score and in relation to his peers.

c07_1

10/08/2008

137

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE REPORTS 137

Jeremy’s Successive processing scale was signi¢cantly lower than his average PASS score and well below theAverage range.This meansthathe performed especially poorly on tests that required working with information in a speci¢c linear order. For example, the tests required him to remember the order of words spoken by the examiner and comprehend information that is based on ordering of words. Jeremy earned a CAS Successive scale standard score of 81, which is within the Low Average classi¢cation and is ranked at the 10th percentile. This meansJeremy did as well as or better than10% of the scores obtained by children his age in the standardization group. There is a 90% probability that Jeremy‘s true Successive score is within the range of 76 to 90.There was no signi¢cant difference between the two subtests on this scale. Jeremy’s Simultaneous processing scale was signi¢cantly higher than his average PASS score. This means that Jeremy performed relatively well on tests that required him to relate parts into a group or whole, understand relationships among pictures and words, and work with spatial relationships. Jeremy earned a CASSimultaneous scale standard score of123, which is withinthe Superior classi¢cation and is ranked at the 94th percentile.This means Jeremy did as well as or better than 94% of the scores obtained by children his age in the standardization group (range ¼ 113  128). His score on this test is consistent with both his WISCIV Perceptual Reasoning score of 110 and his Wechsler Nonverbal Full Scale score of 107. Jeremy’s Attentionwas measuredby teststhatrequired him to focus onspeci¢c features of the material and resist reacting to distracting parts of the tests. He earned a CAS Attention scale standard score of 91, which is within the Average classi¢cation and is ranked at the 27th percentile. This means Jeremy did as well as or better than 27% of the scores obtained by children his age in the standardization group. There is a 90% probability that Jeremy’s true Attention score is within the range of 84 to 101. Attention

Jeremy’s ability to sustain attention and inhibit impulsive responding (measured using the Gordon Diagnostic System) suggests problems with sustained attention and impulse control. This test includes measures of sustained attention, which is di¡erent than the attention tests included in the CAS. On the Delay tasks, though he made a normal number of correct responses, his total number of responses was excessive and abnormal. On theVigilance tasks he made an abnormal number of commission errors and a borderline number of correct responses.

c07_1

10/08/2008

138

138 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

Motor/Perceptual

Jeremy held a pencil in his right hand with a somewhat variable three to four ¢nger pincer grip. He did not appear to have any large motor abnormalities. Mild ¢ne-motor awkwardness was apparent. His score for ¢ne-motor skills for motor speed and coordination, based onthePurduePegboard performance,suggests slightly below average performance. Jeremy’s reproductions of the ¢gures on the Developmental Test of Visual Motor Integration yielded a standard score of 91, which is equivalent to the 27th percentile.This is consistent with his human ¢gure drawing, which was immature. Academic

Jeremy earned a score at the 25th percentile on the Bracken Basic Concept Scale, which is an indication of basic school readiness in verbal concepts. He has mastered color names, letters, and numbers. He is less consistent with sizes, comparisons, and shapes. Jeremy earned similar scores on the verbal tests of the Woodcock-JohnsonTests of Achievement. He earned a Broad Reading score of 83, which is ranked at the 13th percentile. He also earned low scores on the Phoneme/Grapheme (77; 6th percentile) and the Word Attack (76; 5th percentile) tests. These test scores re£ect the di⁄culty he has shown in language-related tasks and those that are related to Planning and Successive processing. Importantly, his reading problems are also in£uencing his understanding of text, as shown by his Passage Comprehension standard score of 80 (9th percentile). In contrast were his scores that involve Understanding Directions (100; 50th percentile), Spelling (95; 37th percentile), and Writing (95; 37th percentile). Emotion and Behavior

During a brief play interview, Jeremy initially had trouble settling into play but eventually played with direction. He did not involve the examiner very much, but did not resist when the examiner tried to play along. For the most part, however, Jeremy had di⁄culty playing interactionally instead of choosing to play in parallel. Jeremyappears to be a child with adequate reality testingbutclearlysomewhat immature behavior and thought processes. He relates well to others and appears positively bonded to his family.There are no indications to suggest that signi¢cant psychological or emotional problems are responsible for Jeremy’s current presentation.

c07_1

10/08/2008

139

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE REPORTS 139

Parent responses to the Conners’ Rating Scale indicated thatJeremy demonstrates three inattentive and four hyperactive-impulsive symptoms to a clinical degree. His parent responses to the Child Behavior Checklist placed Jeremy well within the normal range for all behavioral scales except for Attention Problems, presenting at the 93rd percentile (50th percentile is averagehigh score indicates a problem). His mother noted signi¢cant problems in public places on the Home Situations Questionnaire. Mild problems are noted when interacting with others, during routines such as meals or whenparents are onthe telephone,doing chores, and homework. Jeremy was described as generally having a positive mood on the Social Attributes Checklist. He demonstrates empathy and at times humor. He can approach others positively and assert rights and needs appropriately, but he is less consistent in expressing wishes and preferences clearly and anger and frustration e¡ectively. Jeremy can gain access to peers and is accepted by other children. He can enter a conversation, take turns, and show interest, but is less consistent in negotiating and compromising. He does not draw inappropriate attention to himself. SUMMARY AND DIAGNOSTIC IMPRESSIONS

Jeremy was referred due to a history of excessive activity, speech, and language delay; possible early learning disabilities; and questions about ADHD. He has been treated recently with success with a stimulant medication. Jeremy has a history of being markedly overactive as a toddler, demonstrating slow language development, and experiencing nocturnal enuresis. Motor development has been slow as well. Jeremy received services at school as a student with a Communication Disorder and is scheduled to receive continuing services in a ¢rstgrade classroom, where he is currently in the regular class. Jeremy’s performance on the various tasks that were administered indicate that he has limited expressive vocabulary and articulation problems and a disorder in both Planning and Successive basic psychological processes.Whereas his receptive vocabulary appears average, he is markedly impaired on measures of general ability that rely on verbal comprehension and expression (WISC IV Verbal Scale score at only the 3rd percentile) and a WISCIV Full Scale of 88. In contrast, when tested with a pure nonverbal measure of ability (the WNV), Jeremy earned a score of 111, which is ranked at the 77th percentile and falls within the High Average range. His Simultaneous processing score of123 (94th percentile) was similarlyhigh, but motor and perceptual skills (which

c07_1

10/08/2008

140

140 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

are related to Planning and Successive processes) are in the LowAverage range. Academic achievement appears consistent with this pro¢le, re£ecting the emergence of a language-based learning disability that is associated with Planning and Successive processing disorders. Jeremy also demonstrates problems with impulsive behavior and sustained attention. On a diagnostic basis, Jeremy presents problems consistent with an Expressive Language Disorder and a Developmental Coordination Disorder, and he met the diagnostic criteria for ADHD, Combined Type. The extent to which the ¢rst two problems fuel symptoms of the third remains unclear at this time. There are no indications, however, to suggest that signi¢cant psychological or emotional problems are responsible forJeremy’s struggles. His ability to function in a regular ¢rst-grade setting in light of his marked academic needs and signi¢cant expressive language problems is of considerable concern.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. It is strongly recommended that Jeremy’s physician review the current evaluation. Should his medications be adjusted, this examiner is prepared to assist in the collection of behavioral data within the home and school setting. 2. It is recommended that Jeremy’s educational team review the current evaluation. Given the extent of his problems, it is recommended that he be carefully monitored during the ¢rst few weeks of school in the regular classroom setting. Jeremy is in need of intensive language and educational/remedial services.This examiner is prepared to consult further withJeremy’s educational team. 3. It is recommended thatJeremy’s parents consider more intensive community services for speech/language therapy and academic development.This examiner is prepared to make appropriate referrals. 4. Jeremy has a disorder in two of the basic psychological processes that are related to his language problems.This means that he may qualify for services under IDEA as a child with a speci¢c learning disability, and the school administrators should consider the extent to which he meets the eligibility criteria. 5. In order to help him better manage the demands posed by tasks that involve successive processing, Jeremy needs individualized instruction to help him with segmenting, blending, and deleting sounds that

c07_1

10/08/2008

141

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE REPORTS 141

6.

7.

8. 9.

takes into consideration his cognitive weakness in Successive processing.The following strategies from the book Helping Children Learn: InterventionHandoutsforUseinSchoolandatHome (Naglieri & Pickering, 2003) are attached and should be used to helpJeremy improve his processing of serial information: a. chunking (‘‘Chunking for Reading Decoding’’) b. understanding words by their sounds (‘‘Segmenting Words for Reading/Decoding and Spelling’’and ‘‘Letter-Sound Awareness’’) c. decoding/spelling rules (‘‘Reading/Decoding Rules’’) In order to helpJeremy better manage the demands posed by tasks that involve Planning, he will need individualized instruction that will teach him the importance of using strategies for solving problems, selfmonitoring, and correcting himself when needed.The following handouts from the book Helping Children Learn: InterventionHandoutsfor Use in School and at Home (Naglieri & Pickering, 2003) are attached and should be used to helpJeremy improve his processing of serial information: a. For reading decoding: ‘‘Plans for Word Syllables’’and ‘‘Reading Decoding Rules’’ b. ‘‘Self-Monitoring for Planning and Attention Problems’’ c. ‘‘Stop and Think! Teaching Self-Control’’ d. ‘‘Plans for Reading Comprehension’’ E¡orts should be made to locate activities in and out of the home that Jeremy can succeed at, feel good about, and use to bolster his emerging self-esteem.This examiner is concerned that as the demands of school and life increaseJeremy is likely to struggle increasingly, thereby increasing the probability that he will develop a range of adverse behaviors and coping strategies.Jeremy’s parents would bene¢t from additional ideas and resources to assist him at home.The texts by Brooks and Goldstein, Raising Resilient Children and Raising a Self-Disciplined Child, are suggested as helpful resources. A bell and pad behavioral system is recommended to address nocturnal enuresis. It is recommended that Jeremy be closely monitored and reevaluated before beginning third grade. JoyJansen, M.Ed. Sam Goldstein, Ph.D.

c07_1

10/08/2008

142

142 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT Conners’ Rating Scale

T-scores Oppositional Behavior Cognitive Problems/Inattention Hyperactivity Anxious/Shy Perfectionism Social Problems Psychosomatic Conners’ ADHD Index Conners’ Global Index Restless-Impulsive Emotional Ability Total DSM-IV Inattentive Hyperactive-Impulsive Total

44 65 71 47 43 50 44 69 67 44 61 62 69 68

These scores are age-adjusted T scores (mean = 50; SD = 10).

WISCIV

Scaled Score (Mn = 10; SD = 3) Verbal Comprehension Similarities Vocabulary Comprehension Information Word Reasoning Perceptual Reasoning Block Design Picture Concepts Matrix Reasoning Working Memory Digit Span

8 3 4 1 7 13 9 13 6

c07_1

10/08/2008

143

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE REPORTS 143

Letter-Number Sequencing Processing Speed Coding Symbol Search

Verbal Comprehension Perceptual Reasoning Working Memory Processing Speed Full Scale

10 11 8 Standard Scores (Mn = 100; SD = 15)

Percentiles

90% C. I.

71 110 88 97 88

3rd 75th 21st 42nd 21st

67–78 103–116 83–95 90–105 84–93

WNV

T Scores (Mn = 50; SD = 10) Matrices Coding Object Assembly Recognition

56 53 47 64 Full Scale Score (Mn = 100; SD = 15)

Full Scale

111

CAS

Scaled Scores (Mn = 10; SD = 3) Matching Numbers Planned Codes Nonverbal Matrices

5 6 16 (continued)

c07_1

10/08/2008

144

144 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

Scaled Scores (Mn = 10; SD = 3) Verbal-Spatial Relations Expressive Attention Number Detention Word Series Sentence Repetition

Planning Simultaneous Attention Successive Full Scale

12 12 5 7 6

IQ (Mn = 100; SD = 15)

Percentiles (Mn = 50)

90% C. I.

74 123 91 81 89

4th 94th 27th 10th 23rd

70–86 113–128 84–101 76–90 83–98

WJ-III ACH

Standard Scores (Mn = 100; SD = 15) Letter/Word Identification Understanding Directions Spelling Passage Comprehension Applied Problems Writing Samples Word Attack Spelling of Sounds Brief Achievement Broad Reading Brief Reading Basic Reading Skills Brief Writing Academic Application Phoneme/Grapheme Knowledge

91 100 95 80 92 95 76 85 91 83 83 83 94 86 77

c07_1

10/08/2008

145

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE REPORTS 145

Bilingual Psychoeducational Evaluation

Name: Luis Age: 5 years 11 months Gender: Male Handedness: Right Native Language: Spanish Other Languages: English, some basic signs REASON FOR REFERRAL

Luis was seen as part of a multidisciplinary reevaluation to assess his educational needs and in particular to obtain current information about his cognitive ability and achievement. According to his teacher, he ‘‘copies well, knows colors, and completes activities.’’ Luis is reported to generally follow directions fairly well, yet there are questions as tohow much he understands when directions are given. He has di⁄cultieswith letters, numbers, and preliteracyskills anddoes notalways remember the names of other children in his classroom. OBSERVATIONS AND BACKGROUND

Luis was in an early childhood setting in Head Start for bilingual children.When he was enrolled, Luis was taught some sign language to support his communication for immediate needs (more, all done, etc.). He is currently enrolled in an English-speaking, full-day regular education kindergarten classroom with ELL (English-Language Learner) support, and he also receives speech and language services. Luis appeared to be a well-developed Hispanic 5 year, 11 month male who is right handed and does not wear glasses. His skin hair and clothes were clean. His manner of dress was typical for his age. Luis indicated both parents speak Spanish at home. At school, his teacher teaches mostly in English and gives some support in Spanish through the use of a classroom aid. His expressive speech is characterized as having rather marked articulation di⁄culties. A report by the bilingual speech and language therapist indicated that Luis’s father reported that Luis was in a serious car accident when he was around1year old that resulted in a bump on his forehead. Luis was in a car seat. His father reported that he had started talking before the accident, but then stopped afterward and had to relearn some of what he already knew. At this time Luis appeared to understand more Spanish than English. Luis was also observed to have dif¢culty understanding questions and directions if too long or delivered too

c07_1

10/08/2008

146

146 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

quickly. His typical manner of coping with not understanding is to quickly respond,‘‘I don’t know.’’ Luis was friendly, cooperative, and animated during the assessment. He showed a good range of emotion as evidenced by his overall expressions during conversation and nonverbal activities during rapport building. School reports do indicate he has good relationships with peers, his teacher, and other adults. Luis’s performance during formal testing did not appear to be adversely a¡ected by failure or frustration. Modi¢cation or adaptations to the standardized procedures were not required due to any sensory, motor limitations, but were due to language issues. Speci¢cally, items needed to be repeated in both languages and several times before he was able to completely comprehend and execute a response. He did not require an excessive amount of reinforcement and praise.Testing was conducted using both English and Spanish. TESTS ADMINISTERED

Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence (WPPSI-III) Cognitive Assessment System (CAS) Wechsler Nonverbal Scale of Ability (WNV) Woodcock-JohnsonTests of Achievement^Third Edition (WJ-III) Baterı´ a III TESTS AND RESULTS Ability

Luis was administered the Wechsler Nonverbal Scale Of Ability (WNV). The WNV is used to assess the general cognitive ability of individuals aged 4 years to 21 years. This test provides a Full Scale score that uses questions that do not rely on understanding of the English language and is administered using pictorial directions. Luis’s Full Scale score is 105. He scored higher than approximately 63 out of 100 individuals his age. His general cognitive ability, as assessed by the WNV, is in the Average range. No strengths or weaknesses were noted in the pro¢le. This examiner was asked to administer the third edition of theWechslerPreschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence (WPPSI-III) to Luis. Although there is no Spanish version of this test, this examiner complied with the request and administered other cognitive tests that relied less on verbal expression and reasoning in English and on academic achievement.

c07_1

10/08/2008

147

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE REPORTS 147

Luis was administered the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence (WPPSI-III) to test his cognitive ability.This instrument is divided into three main scores: aVerbal (auditory-verbal) IQ score (VIQ), a Performance (visual^motor) IQ score (PIQ), and a Full Scale IQ score (FSIQ). There is also an optional general language scale (GL), which provides an estimate of general language ability (in English). Cognitive ability at the preschool age is dif¢cult to assess due to the variability of preschool children’s performance and the rapid developmental changes they experience. With this in mind, the reader is encouraged to interpret the following scores with caution. Results ¢nd that Luis functions within the average range with a FSIQ of 93, which is at the 32nd percentile. Luis’s verbal skills fall into the lower end of the LowAverage range with aVIQ of 80, which is at the 9th percentile. Nonverbal skills fall into the Average range with a PIQ of 93, which is at the 32nd percentile. Two more scores, Processing Speed (PS) and General Language Composite (GLC), were also derived from the WPPSI-III. Luis obtained a PS score of 94 (4th percentile), re£ecting average range ability on tasks requiring rapid and accurate scanning of visual information. Luis’s GLC score of 81 (10th percentile) falls within the LowAverage range and re£ects expressive and receptive language development. Because of Luis’s expressive language di⁄culties and his underdeveloped language pro¢ciencies, other tests that rely less on acquired academic achievement and language pro¢ciencies were administered. The Cognitive Assessment System (CAS) was administered to Luis.The CAS is an individually administered test designed to measure intelligence as a group of cognitive processes. It is based on the PASS theory of intelligence: The basic premise of the theory is that human cognitive functioning includes Planning, Attention, Simultaneous processing, and Successive processing. The CAS has shown its usefulness in evaluating bilingual Hispanic students of limited language pro¢ciencies. Luis earned a CAS Full Scale score of 92, which is within the Average classi¢cation and is ranked at the 30th percentile. This means that his performance is equal to or greater than 30% of the scores obtained by children his age in the standardization group.There is a 90% probability that Luis’s true Full Scale score is within the range of 87 to 97.The CAS Full Scale score is made up of separate scales called Planning, Attention, Simultaneous, and Successive cognitive processing. Because there was signi¢cant variation among these scales, the Full Scale will sometimes be higher and other times lower than the separate PASS scales on the CAS.The Simultaneous scale was found to be a signi¢cant strength

c07_1

10/08/2008

148

148 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

in relation to his average PASS score.The Successivescalewasfound to beasigni¢cantcognitive weakness. Luis’s poor Successive processing is especially important because it is a weakness both in relation to his overall PASS score and in relation to his peers. Luis’s Planning processing scale re£ects his ability to make decisions about how to best complete the tests, use good strategies, control his behavior, selfmonitor, and self-correct. Luis earned a CAS Planning scale standard score of 98, which is within the Average classi¢cation and is ranked at the 45th percentile. This means Luis did as well as or better than 45% of the scores obtained by children his age in the standardization group.There is a 90% probability that Luis’s true Planning score is within the range of 91 to 106. Luis’s Simultaneous processing scale score was signi¢cantly higher than his average PASS score. This means that Luis performed relatively well on tests that required him to relate parts into a group or whole, understand relationships among pictures and words, and work with spatial relationships. Luis earned a CAS Simultaneous scale standard score of 104, which is within the Average classi¢cation and is ranked at the 61st percentile. This means Luis did as well as or better than 61% of the scores obtained by children his age in the standardization group. There is a 90% probability that Luis’s true Simultaneous score is within the range of 97 to 110. There was signi¢cant variation among the three subtests on this scale. Non-verbal Matrices was found to be a signi¢cant strength. Luis’s attention was measured by tests that required him to focus on speci¢c features of the material and resist reacting to distracting parts of the tests. Luis’s score on the Attention Scale re£ects his ability to attend and concentrate. Luis earned a CAS Attention scale standard score of 100, which is within the Average classi¢cation and is ranked at the 50th percentile. This means Luis did as well as or better than 50% of the scores obtained by children his age in the standardization group. There is a 90% probability that Luis’s true Attention score is within the range of 92 to 108. Luis’s Successive processing scale was signi¢cantly lower than his average PASS score and well below theAverage range.This meansthathe performed especially poorly on tests that required working with information in a speci¢c linear order. For example, the tests required him to remember the order of words spoken by the examiner and comprehend information that is based on ordering of words. Luis earned a CASSuccessive scale standard score of 75, which is within the BelowAverage classi¢cation and is ranked at the 5th percentile.This means Luis did as well as or better than 5% of the scores obtained by children his age in the standardization group.There is a 90% probability that Luis’s true Successive score is within the range of 70 to 83.

c07_1

10/08/2008

149

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE REPORTS 149

Successive Processes has to do with:      

working with things in speci¢c order understanding facts based on order perceiving stimuli in a sequence executing movements in order remembering and holding sounds or words in sequences retaining sequences of events from text and serial organization of speech

Classroom problems related to successive processes:     

poor word-decoding skills failure to comprehend syntax structure failure to pronounce words and sequence word segments accurately di⁄culty in following steps, or omitting steps needed to solve problems lack of comprehension of sequence of events in a story

Academic Achievement

Select subtests from the English and Spanishversions of theWoodcock-JohnsonTestsof Achievement^III (Baterı´a-III) were administered toLuis.The areas assessed include reading, mathematics, and written language. Reading The Reading Cluster is a measure of reading achievement that includes decoding and comprehension while reading. Based on the Letter-Word Identi¢cation and Passage Comprehension tests, Luis’s overall reading achievement, in English, is within the Mildly Impaired range. He obtained a standard score of 81, which is at the10th percentile. Letter-Word Identi¢cation measured Luis’s ability to identify letters that were better developed in English versus Spanish (ss = 75 and 87, respectively). He was unable toidentify the letterst, s, d, x, and o in English. In Spanish he was able to identify the letters l, a, o, s, and b. He was able to identify one target word when presented with three alternatives.This he did in both English and Spanish. Passage Comprehension measured Luis’s ability to understand what he had read. The items required Luis to read a short passage and identify a missing key word that made sense in the context of the passage. Luis appeared not to be able to pick a picture that represented one or two words. He was unable to do this in either language. Math The Math cluster is a comprehensive measure of math achievement involving problem solving, facility with numbers, reasoning, and, according to the manual,

c07_1

10/08/2008

150

150 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

automaticity.The Calculation and Applied Problems tests make up the Math cluster. Luis obtained a Math Standard Score of 91, which is in the Mildly Impaired to theWithin Normal Limitsrange and re£ects performance atthe 26thpercentile. Calculation measured Luis’s ability to perform mathematical computations. He worked very slowly and relied on the use of strategies that appeared to be inef¢cient. He was able to write the numbers 1 and 3 on demand. He was unable to complete single-digit addition items such as 2 þ 2 ¼ ? Applied Problems measured Luis’s ability to analyze and solve math problems. To solve the problems, he was required to listen to the problem, recognize the procedure to be followed, and then perform relatively simple calculations. Because some of the problems included extraneous information, Luis needed to decide not only the appropriate mathematical operations to use but also what information to include in the calculation. Luis solved the initial items with no observed di⁄culty,buthe demonstrated increasingdi⁄cultywithsolving the latter items. It appeared as if hewouldbecome‘‘lost’’inthe details ofextraneous verbal information. Luis performed similarly on both English and Spanish versions of the test as evidenced by standard scores of 94 and 96, respectively. Written Language TheWritten Language cluster includes measures of spelling and quality.The tests that comprise the cluster include Spelling and Writing Samples. Luis’s Written Language cluster standard score of 95 is in the Mildly Impaired to WNL range and is at the 36th percentile. Spelling measured Luis’s ability to write orally presented words correctly. His skills at writing letters on demand are Mildly Impaired as evidenced by his spelling standard score of 83. This score is at the 13th percentile. Luis wrote letters in a laborious manner. Spelling skills were below average in both English and Spanish. For example, Luis was able to trace letters, or copy letters, but was only able to write one letter (P) on demand. He wrote d for w, c for e, a for m, and r for s. Writing Samples measured Luis’s skill inwriting responses to meet avarietyof demands. He was asked to produce written sentences that were evaluated with respect to the quality of expression. Luis was not penalized for any errors in basic writing skills, such as spelling or punctuation. Luis was able to write his ¢rst name and approximated writing the word car by getting one letter correcta within the misspelled wordin response to a picture. Total Achievement

Luis’sTotal Achievement score of 79 (English) is within the LowAverage (Moderately Impaired) range.

c07_1

10/08/2008

151

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE REPORTS 151

SUMMARY

Luis’s cognitive ability is within the average range as measured by his Full Scale scores on theWPPSI-III (Full Scale IQ of 93 with scores ranging from 80 [Verbal] to 94 [Processing Speed]), CAS (Full Scale of 92 with scales ranging from 75 [Successive] to 104 [Simultaneous]), and the WNV (Full Scale of 105). He demonstrates low scores on verbal measures of ability on the WPPSI-III, which is related to underdeveloped academic language skills in English and Spanish. A signi¢cant cognitive strength and a signi¢cant cognitive processing weakness were noted on the CAS in Simultaneous and Successive processing, respectively. Luis’s highest Full Scale score is on the WNV and suggests he performs well on cognitive tasks when language demands are eliminated. Select Achievement in English

Luis’s academic skills on theWJIII are in the low range for his age. Luis’s ability to apply academic skills is within the Average range.When compared to others at his age level, Luis’s standard scores are Average in brief mathematics and brief writing. His standard score is LowAverage (compared to age peers) in brief reading. No signi¢cant strengths or weaknesses were found among the scores for a selected set of Luis’s achievement areas. Select Achievement in Spanish

When compared to others athis age level, Luis’s ability toapplyacademic skills on the Baterı´a-III is within the low average range. Also when compared to others at his age level, Luis’s standard score is very low in brief reading. Luis’s scores on the various measures of ability and processing suggest that he has a disorder in basic psychological processing (Successive from CAS) and academic failure.This evidence should be taken into consideration by the multidisciplinary teamwhen eligibility for special educationalservices will be considered. RECOMMENDATIONS

Strategies for Improving Successive Processing: 

 

Teach the child to organize things in steps as a strategy for completing tasks. Give instructions in a bulleted list (in Luis’s case add a pictorial list). Say and write alphabet letters, words, brief sentences, or numbers (and number groups) in order.

c07_1

10/08/2008

152

152 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT    

Memorize poems, songs, or lines in a play. Arrange items or repeat events from a story or occasion in order. Follow speci¢c, ordinal instructions (pair with pictorial stimuli). Write out steps of an everyday activity.

Possible Educational Interventions Suggestions:   

Continue letter-sound awareness. Plans for Word Syllables. Letter ordering for Spelling.



Complete guidelines for these and other interventions are provided in Helping ChildrenLearn:InterventionHandoutsforUseinSchoolandatHome (Naglieri & Pickering, 2003), which is available at www.Brookespublishing.com. Further analysis and speci¢c recommendationswilltake place inthe contextof the school’s multidisciplinary team. ____________________________________________ Tulio M. Otero-Zeno, Ph.D., NCSP, ABSNP Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence (WPPSI-III)

Sum of Scaled Scores

Composite Score

Percentile Rank

95% C. I.

Qual. Desc.

19 27 18 64 13

80 93 94 93 81

9 32 34 32 10

76–86 88–99 87–102 89–97 76–89

Low Average Average Average Average Low Average

Verbal Performance Processing Speed Full Scale IQ General Language

Cognitive Assessment System (CAS)

Standard Score Planning Simultaneous Attention Successive Pass Mean Full Scale

98 104 100 75 94 92

Percentile

90% C. I.

Difference from Mean

Difference Needed at .05/.01

Sig .05/.01

45 61 50 5

91–106 97–110 92–108 70–83

4 10 6 –19

10.8/9.7 9.6/8.6 11.1/9.9 9.5/8.6

–/– Sig/Sig –/– Sig/Sig

30

87–97

c07_1

10/08/2008

153

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE REPORTS 153

Scaled Scores

Planning Subtests Matching Numbers Planned Codes Planned Connections

10 11 8

Simultaneous Subtests Nonverbal Matrices Verbal-Spatial Relations Figure Memory

13 10 9

Attention Subtests Expressive Attention Number Detection Receptive Attention

11 11 8

Successive Subtests Word Series Sentence Repitition Sentence Questions

6 7 5

Wechsler Nonverbal Scale Of Ability (WNV) Full Scale Score Summary

Scale

Sum of T-Scores

Full Scale Score

Percentile Rank

211

105

63

Full Scale Score

95% C. I.

Qual. Desc.

97–113

Average

Subtest Scores Summary

Subtests Matrices Coding Object Assembly Recognition

Raw Score

T-Score

Test Age Equiv.

Percentile Rank

15 16 20 14

58 47 47 59

7:6 5:4 5:4 7:2

79 38 38 82

c07_1

10/08/2008

154

154 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT Difference Between Subtest and Mean of Subtest Scores Subtest

Subtest T-Score

Mean T-Score

Difference

Critical Value

58 47 47 59

52.75 52.75 52.75 52.75

5.25 5.75 5.75 6.25

8 9 10 10

Matrices Coding Object Assembly Recognition

S/W

Base Rate 23.9 21.1 20.1 18.8

Overall Mean = 52.75, Scatter = 12,Base Rate = 73.9% Statistical Signif|cance (Critical Values) atthe .05 level

WJ-IIINUACH Norms based on 6 years 0 months Cluster/Test

RS

W

AE

Function

RPI

SS (90% Band)

PR

Brief Ach

—

379

4–11

mod imp’d

22/90

79 (74–83)

8th

Brief Reading

—

370

4–10

mild imp’d

26/90

81 (76–86)

10th

Brief Math

—

421

5–9

mild imp’d –WNL

78/90

91 (80–101)

26th

Brief Writing

—

411

5–8

mild imp’d –WNL

74/90

95 (89–100)

36th

Academic Skills

—

378

4–11

mod imp’d

23/90

76 (71–82)

6th

Academic APPS

—

423

6–0

WNL

89/90

99 (94–105)

48th

Letter-Word Id.

7

322

4–1

sev imp’d

2/90

75 (70–80)

5th

Applied Problems

11

423

5–7

mild imp’d –WNL

76/90

94 (86–102)

34th

Spelling

8

393

5–1

mild imp’d

25/90

83 (77–89)

13th

Passage Comp.

6

418

5–11

WNL

86/90

98 (91–105)

45th

Calculation

2

419

5–10

mild imp’d –WNL

79/90

94 (83–105)

34th

Writing Samples

3–A

430

6–2

WNL to adv

96/90

104 (96–112)

61th

Note: imp’d=impaired; mod=moderately; WNL=within normallimits; sev=severely; adv=advanced

c07_1

10/08/2008

155

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE REPORTS 155

WJ-IIINUACH (continued)

VARIATIONS

SD

Significant at þ/1.5 SD (SEE)

1:41 0:06 þ0:55

No No No

Standard Scores Variation Actual Predicted Difference PR

Intra-Ach (Brief) Brief Reading Brief Math Brief Writing

81 91 95

13 0 6

94 91 89

8 48 71

Bateı´ra IIINormative Update Pruebas de aprovechamiento Norms based on age 6 years 0 months

Cluster/Test

RS

W

AE

Function

RPI

Breve Lectura

—

351 3–7

mod imp’d 5/90

Aplic Acade´micas

—

406 5–3

mild imp’d

54/90

Ident de letras y palabras 5

348 5–2

mild imp’d

26/90

Comprensio´n de textos

4

355 <2.0 sev imp’d

1/90

Problemas aplicados

16

426 5–8

WNLimits

82/90

Muestras de redaccio´n

4-A 438 6–4

adv

98/90

SS (90% Band) PR 69 (26–112) 88 (58–117) 87 (81–92) 64 (1–136) 96 (89–102) 108 (101–116)

2 21 19 1 39 71

Note: imp’d=impaired; mod=moderately; WNL=within normallimits; sev=severely; adv=advanced

c07_1

10/08/2008

156

156 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

Psychological Evaluation Report Confidential Name: Ryan Pat Perkins Date of Birth: 08.12.1995 School: Springfield Middle School Date of Assessment: 08.26.2007 Mode of Communication: American Sign Language was used expressively and receptively.

Gender: Male Age: 12 years, 14 days Grade: Sixth By: Olga Meshcheryakov

REASON FOR REFERRAL:

Ryan was assessed as part of a referred assessment at the Spring¢eld Middle School as requested byhis school-based IEP team. Ryan is deafblind and has multiple medical and developmental concerns related to CHARGE syndrome. The committee requested that this school psychologist formally assess Ryan’s intellectual abilityand self-help (i.e., adaptive behavior) skills as partofa triennial assessment.The IEP team desired more recent information regarding Ryan’s current level of intellectual functioning and adaptive behavior skills.While an education assessor completed an assessment at the end of the previous academic year, Ryan’s parents expressed numerous concerns regarding that assessment and the obtained results. Results of this assessment will be used to assess the appropriateness of Ryan’s educational classi¢cation, placement, and educational programming in accordance with the education procedures and criteria established by the state of Vermont. This report is considered to be a con¢dential record and the results should only be interpreted byknowledgeable and properly licensed professionals. EVALUATION TECHNIQUES:

The examiner administered the following techniques: Parental Interview Teacher Interview Classroom Observations Wechsler Nonverbal Scale of Ability Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales^Second Edition: Parent/Caregiver Rating Form Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales^Second Edition:Teacher Rating Form SOURCES OF DATA:

1. Record Review: Ryan’s educational, audiological, medical, and psychological ¢les were reviewed as an integral part of this assessment.

c07_1

10/08/2008

157

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE REPORTS 157

2. Direct Observations: This examiner observed Ryan in his regular cross-categorical classroom being taught by his teacher, Mrs. Pryor. Ryan was also observed in his general school environment, activities, physical and occupational therapy times, playground, cafeteria, and while transitioning between classes. Ryan was observed during times when his teacher’s aide was present as well as when she, Ms. Krabapple, was not.Whenever he interacted with a child or teacher who did not know sign language, Ryan chose to speak in English and listen to their voices.When he did not appear to fully understand what was said to him, he would quickly ask for clari¢cation. If he continued to not grasp what was said, he asked his aide or teacher to sign it to him.While he did not have great di⁄culty walking in the school’s hallways, he approached descending stairs in a halting manner and preferred to descend without alternating his footsteps. He also frequently hesitated whenever he was to exit the school building for several seconds, according to both his teacher and aide. In order to view the class’s smartboard and while interacting with others, especially adults, Ryan was seen to frequently tilt his head backward and gaze downward.While similar in size to other children in his class, he appeared to be very small compared with children his age. 3. Educator Interview: Ryan’s primary teacher, Mrs. Pryor, was also asked about his academic and social performance to date. Mrs. Pryor stated that Ryan ‘‘had his limitations’’ but that he was an absolute joy to her classroom. She explained that Ryan was extremely helpful, cooperative, happy, polite, and did not display any behavioral or emotional concerns. She felt that Ryan had been making solid progress in the special education classroom and that his academic skills were improving. She hopes that this assessment will help establish a benchmark of Ryan’s daily living skills so that his progress can be monitored and future growth documented. 4. Parental Interview: His mother served as the primary reporter for Ryan and was interviewed by this examiner. She stated that Ryan was a challenge but also a blessing and joy in the life of her family. She stated that she felt very overwhelmed during the ¢rst few years of his life, but that she and her husband see Ryan settling in and making good

c07_1

10/08/2008

158

158 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

progress in school. She stated that she knows he has limitations and that he develops at a much slower rate than other children. She explained that Ryan has been evaluated numerous times in the past but that she did not believe the most recent evaluation was done appropriately. Because of her feelings aboutthe assessor and the results he obtained, she requested an assessment to be done by an examiner who could communicate in sign language and who knew about childrenwith hearinglosses. Mrs. Perkins explained that Ryan enjoyed playing with his 7-year-old sister, Lisa. His youngest sister, Maggie, was just born last year and is too young to play with him, Mrs. Perkins added. 5. Test Instruments Used: The Wechsler Nonverbal Scale of Ability (WNV) (Wechsler & Naglieri, 2006a) is an individually administered clinical instrument designed to measure the cognitive ability of students between the ages of 4 years and 21years,11months.TheWNVwas used to measure Ryan’s cognitive ability by using a variety of subtests.The administration of the WNV yielded subtest scores and an overall Full Scale score. Pictorial directions were used during the WNVadministration to minimize verbal requirements of both the examiner and Ryan. Because Ryan was 12, he was administered the four subtests in the age-appropriate battery for individuals between the ages of 8 years and 21 years, 11 months.Those subtests were: Matrices, Coding, Spatial Span, and Picture Arrangement. Subtest Tscores, Full Scale Standard Scores, Con¢dence Intervals, Percentile Rankings, and Test Age ^Equivalent Scores were obtained. Subtest Tscores have a mean of 50 and standard deviation of 10; the Full Scale score has a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. Optional scores were also computed for further analysis of Ryan’s performance on the Spatial Span subtest by examining his Spatial Span Forward (SSpF) and Spatial Span Backward (SSpB) scores and comparing them. Ryan’s performance was further examined by comparing his raw scores in terms of the Longest Spatial Span Forward (LSSpF) and Longest Spatial Span Backward (LSSpB).The WNV’s normative sample consists of information on the performance of 1,350 individuals who were matched in terms of age, sex, geographic region, education level, and race/ethnicity as speci¢ed in the 2003 U.S. Census data. The Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales^Second Edition: Parent/Caregiver Rating Form (VABS-II PCRF) (Sparrow, Cicchetti, & Balla, 2005) is

c07_1

10/08/2008

159

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE REPORTS 159

an individually administered measurement tool for assessing an individual’s adaptive behavioral skills. It is designed for use with individuals between the ages of birth and 90 years of age. Ryan’s social and behavioral maturity was measured by the examiner’s evaluation of his parent’s responses to items in four major areas: communication, daily living skills, socialization, and motor skills. Information was also gathered regarding Ryan’s problematic behaviors or maladaptive skills. These are behaviors that may interfere with Ryan’s adaptive functioning and are of an externalizing, internalizing, or other fashion. Standard scores with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15 are provided for each domain. Each subdomain is reported in terms of v-scores, which have a mean of 15 and standard deviation of 3. Percentile rankings, adaptive levels, and age-equivalent scores may also be calculated. For individuals between the ages of birth and 6 years, the Adaptive Behavior Composite Score consists of four domains; for individuals age 7 and older, the Adaptive Composite Score consists of three similar domains because motor skills are no longer assessed. The Vineland’s normative sample consists of information on the performance of 3,695 individuals who were matched in terms of sex, geographic region, socioeconomic levels, and ethnicity as speci¢ed in the 2001 U.S. Census data. TheVineland Adaptive Behavior Scales^Second Edition:Teacher Rating Form (VABS-II TRF) (Sparrow, Cicchetti, & Balla, 2006) is an individually administered measurement tool for assessing an individual student’s adaptive behavioral skills. It is designed for use for academically enrolled individuals between the ages of 3 and 21. Ryan’s social and behavioral maturity was measured by the examiner’s evaluation of his teacher’s responses to items in four major areas: communication, daily living skills, socialization, and motor skills. Standard scores with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15 are provided for each domain. Each subdomain is reported in terms of v-scores, which have a mean of 15 and standard deviation of 3. Percentile rankings, adaptive levels, and age-equivalent scores may also be calculated. For individuals between the ages of 3 and 6 years, the Adaptive Behavior Composite Score consists of four domains; for individuals age 7 and older, the Adaptive Composite Score consists of three similar domains because motor skills are no longer assessed.The Vineland’s normative sample consists of information on the

c07_1

10/08/2008

160

160 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

performance of 2,570 individuals who were matched in terms of sex, geographic region, socioeconomic levels, and ethnicity as speci¢ed in the 2001 U.S. Census data.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION: 1. Developmental History

Ryan was born at the Spring¢eld Memorial Hospital at 32 weeks gestation. Facial malformations were evident at birth, and his ears appeared to be small and without any lobes, his mother reported. She added that Ryan required several operations on his heart shortly after he was born. She said that he was born with an extra ¢nger on each hand as well as an additional nipple on his chest. She also explained that Ryan only had one kidney and that he previously had some plastic surgery on his hands, lips, ears, nose, and face in order to make him ‘‘less unusual looking.’’ She stated that he had an extensive history of ear infections. She thanked the school for wonderful physical and occupational therapists that have addressed his low muscle tone and ¢ne motor skills de¢cits. Mrs. Perkins said that the CHARGE Syndrome diagnosis was made shortly after Ryan’s ¢rst birthday based upon his characteristics, and it was just recently con¢rmed by a genetic test. More detailed information regarding the numerous medical aspects of Ryan’s development is contained within the geneticist’s report. His most recent audiogram (08.06.2007 by F. L. Montero) con¢rmed the existence of a bilateral, mild hearing loss at low frequencies and a moderate loss at higher frequencies. She stated that the characteristics of Ryan’s inability to hear appear not to have changed in several years and seem stable. His most recent vision assessment (06.08.2007 byA. B.Thomas) con¢rmed the existence of the colobomas in both of his eyes, that his left eye was smaller than his right, and a mild case of nearsightedness.The doctor also commented that Ryan was able to view objects placed low to his ¢eld of vision and that Ryan was able to read without much di⁄culty when he was able to place a book in an appropriate location.

2. Previous Assessments

Previous psychoeducational information was available from several evaluations of Ryan.The results of those evaluations were as follows:

c07_1

10/08/2008

161

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE REPORTS 161

Date of Evaluation 12.22.1995 Dawn Kaufman, PhD 10.18.1999 Charles P. Mark 11.06.2002 Blair V. Stevens 03.26.2007 Raymond Lawrence

Test(s) administered

Results

Bayley-3

‘‘Global delays’’

Leiter-R ABAS DAS

FSIQ = 57 ‘‘significant impairments’’ SNIQ = 62

WJ-III Achievement Cognitive

(1.1a Form A) ‘‘Overall = 40’’ GIA = 26

Cognitive functioning is a very complex concept and the reduction of a description of Ryan’s abilities to a single number may be misleading. Readers are strongly encouraged to refer to the complete reports of the previous evaluations as well as to be cognizant of the fact that various standardized tests and normative samples have been used.The report of the March 2007 evaluation results contains several questionable comments and practicesthatcall into questionthe reliability and validity of the reported results. A review of the WJ-3 record forms was not possible because they were unable to be located. Readers are encouraged to consider the results as suspect and unveri¢able. NATURAL OBSERVATIONS:

Rapportwas easilyestablished with Ryan.Hehad seenthis examineronseveral previous occasions and commented that it was fun to play with him again. On the day of this evaluation, Ryan presented as being well groomed, neatly dressed, and he behaved in a well-mannered fashion.The communication between Ryan and the examiner was conducted in American Sign Language and this appeared effective.Hissignswere made clearly,and he appearedtovisuallytrackthe examiner’s signs without any di⁄cultyand with his head slightly tilted back. His ability to ¢ngerspell clearly appeared to be di⁄cult due to ¢ne motor di⁄culties. Ryan sat upright with good posture and both of his feet widely placed on the £oor in front of his body throughout the session, and he used a loose tripod grasp when writing. During the hour-long standardized assessment session, Ryan was able to remain on task and work without any reminders to work carefully and continuously. Ryan was attentive, engaging, and curious about the testing materials and the examiner. He commented that he thought the cartoon drawings were funny but that he could see himself sitting across the table

c07_1

10/08/2008

162

162 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

from the examiner as he accurately pointed to the corresponding ¢gures in the WNV test materials. No physical limitations were seen to impede his performance as he sat in an appropriately sized chair and worked on a desktop in the school psychologist’s o⁄ce. He was allowed to pick up the testing materials and visually scan them in di¡erent visual locations in order to see them clearly. The roomwas well lit and free from anydistracters. His parents and his teacher’s aide observed the assessment session through a one-wayglass observation window, and they reported that his behavior and e¡ort were very similar to what they normally see. TEST RESULTS AND INTERPRETATIONS:

Due to the match between his characteristics and the taskdemands of the test, the Wechsler Nonverbal Scale of Ability was selected for use with Ryan as a standardized measure of gathering information of his cognitive abilities and level of intellectual development.This scale consists of four di¡erent subtests. His performance on each contributed to the overall or Full Scale score. Ryan obtained a Full Scale score of 51. At the 95% con¢dence interval this performance would range between 47 and 63. It can also be seen as a 0.1st percentile ranking.This is re£ective of a performance better than less than one-tenth of 1% of the normative sample and is considered in the Very Low range of ability. Readers should consider the possibility of the impact of his requiring additional time to visually scan the materials, which may have resulted in slightly lower scores on the timed subtests. His performance, however, did not appear to be impacted by this modi¢cation nor are there any signi¢cant di¡erences in his performance between timed and untimed subtests. Thus, it is believed that his performance on the WNVyielded scores that are both reliable and valid. The Matrices subtest required Ryan tolook at an incomplete ¢gural matrix and then select the missing related portion from four or ¢ve response options provided. He appeared tograsp the taskdemandswith minor di⁄culty. His performance resulted in aTscore of 19. The Coding subtest required Ryan to copy symbols that are paired with simple geometric shapes or numbers. Using a key provided at the top of the page, Ryan had to draw each symbol in its corresponding shape or box within a speci¢ed time limit. He was able to complete few of these compared to children his own age, and his performance yielded aTscore of 28. After carefullyviewing the symbol key, he was able to reproduce the correct symbols without looking back at the key. For the Spatial Span subtest, Ryan had to tap a series ofblocks as demonstrated by the examiner. For Spatial Span Forward, Ryan had to repeat a sequence of

c07_1

10/08/2008

163

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE REPORTS 163

tapped blocks in the same order that the examiner demonstrated. For Spatial Span Backward, Ryan had to tap a sequence of tapped blocks in the reverse order of what the examiner demonstrated. He understood the taskdemands, explained them back to the examiner, and was able to complete some of these items to earn aTscore of 21. Nosigni¢cantdi¡erences were noted in the length of the spans (number of blocks tapped in a sequence) or in the presentation of the span (forward or backward). For the Picture Arrangement subtest, Ryan had to reorder a prearranged set of picture cards so that they told a logical story within a speci¢ed time limit. His performance was also rated as being below that of most other children his age, with aTscore of 27. (See Figure 7.3 for a summary of the WNV Results.) To assess Ryan’s self-help skills at home and at school, the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales^Second Edition was selected and used. Ryan’s Adaptive Behavior Composite (ABC) is a score that is calculated from the three domain scores

Figure 7.3. WNV Analysis Page for Ryan

c07_1

10/08/2008

164

164 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

and as a composite score it represents the most statistically stable global estimate of Ryan’s adaptive behavior skills. It is the most reliable measure of Ryan’s overall functioning.Two forms were used for Ryan’s assessment: the Interview Edition was used with his mother acting as the informant, and the Classroom Edition with his teacher ¢llingout the form. Readers are reminded that these results compare Ryan’s skills to those of children his own age who do not have disabilities and so may not fully re£ect the complex and dynamic impact of CHARGE Syndrome on numerous aspects of his physical, social, and cognitive development. Both raters viewed Ryan as exhibiting signi¢cant delays in his general level of functioning. His mother rated his overall abilities as being signi¢cantly impaired (ABC Composite Standard Score of 64; 1st percentile ranking; range 59^69) as did his teacher (ABC Composite Standard Score of 66; 1st percentile ranking; range 62^70). His mother viewed her son as displaying strength in the personal communication subdomain as well as an average level of maladaptive behaviors. The Communication Domain consists of three content areas: receptive, expressive, and written communication skills. Receptive Communication refers to how Ryan listens and pays attention as well as what he understands. The Expressive Communication skill area refers to what Ryan says and how he uses words and sentences to gather and provide information.The skills assessed in the Written Communication area refer to what Ryan understands about how letters make words as well as what he reads and writes. No signi¢cant differences were reported in his skills within this domain, and overall his communication skills are low (1st percentile ranking) when compared to others his own age. The Daily Living Skills Domain consists of three content areas: personal, domestic, and community living skills. The Personal Daily Living Skills area refers to how Ryan dresses, eats, and practices personal hygiene.The skills assessed in the Domestic Daily Living Skills area refer to the household tasks and responsibilities that Ryan performs. Community Daily Living Skills refers to how Ryan uses time, money, the telephone, the computer, and job skills, as appropriate. His skills in this domain were seen as being at lower than the 1st percentile ranking by his mother and at the 4th percentile ranking by his teacher. The Socialization Domain consists of three content areas: interpersonal relationships, play and leisure time, and coping skills. The Interpersonal Relationships area refers to how Ryan interacts with others. The Play and Leisure Time area refers to how Ryan plays and otherwise uses leisure time. The skills

c07_1

10/08/2008

165

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE REPORTS 165

measured in the Coping Skills area relate to how Ryan demonstrates responsibility as well as sensitivity to others. Both raters viewed and reported Ryan as displaying very low skills in this domain, as well. SUMMARY:

Ryan’s overall cognitive ability was measured by theWNVand results indicated a signi¢cantly lower than average ability compared to his age-mates. This is supported by reports from his teacher, interpreter, and his mother. His performance, when his visual impairments were accommodated for, indicated a signi¢cant cognitive impairmentbut signi¢cantly higher than his most recent assessment. The close consistency of two previous evaluations and the results of this assessmentalongwiththe inabilitytoreviewtherecordforms fromtherecentevaluation all call into question the results obtained on 03.2007. It appears that Ryan does display signi¢cant cognitive disabilities when compared to nondisabled children his own age, but when those skills are measured in a nonverbal fashion with an appropriate instrument and byan examiner who is able to communicate directly with him, Ryan is able to display a much higher level of ability. The Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales^Second Edition was administered by interviewing his mother and teacher, separately, in order to gather information regarding his adaptive behavior skills. Both raters viewed Ryan’s adaptive behavior skills as being signi¢cantly impaired, as compared to children his own age without disabilities. It is believed that this assessment was a valid and reliable measure of Ryan’s level of intellectual abilities, as measured for a triennial assessment conducted at the Spring¢eld Middle School in accordance with the guidelines established by the state of Vermont’s Department of Education. RECOMMENDATIONS:

It is recommended that Ryan’s IEP Team at Spring¢eld Middle School consider these assessment results along with other assessments, evaluation results, observations, and data in their decisions regarding Ryan’s need for services and modi¢cations. The following recommendations should be discussed, amended, added to, developed, or rejected by all of the participants of Ryan’s IEP Team. The selection and presentation of these preliminary recommendations are this examiner’s, so nothing here would be binding on anyone unless and until it were approved by Ryan’s parents and by the IEP Team or were otherwise legally

c07_1

10/08/2008

166

166 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

ordered.The recommendations are, of course, the examiner’s professional opinions based upon the results of this assessment. Also, including a recommendation here does not imply that the recommended activity is not already taking place, just that, prior to the IEP meeting, the examiner thought it was an appropriate idea, based only on what he had learned about Ryan over the course of this assessment. 1. Ryan’s parents may bene¢t from the empathy and support from other parents who have a child who is deaf. One recommendation for the development of such a support network is thattheybecome members of the American Society of Deaf Children.They can be contacted via telephone at 1.800.942.ASDC v/tty.They can also be reached via the Internet at www.deafchildren.org. 2. Ryan and his parents may bene¢t from the empathy and support from professionals and parents who are very knowledgeable about CHARGE Syndrome. It is strongly suggested that they contact and become members of the CHARGE Syndrome Foundation.Theycan be contacted via telephone at 516.684.4720 They can also be reached via the Internet at www.chargesyndrome.org. 3. Because of the 1997 reauthorization of the IDEA, educators serving all students who are deaf or hard-of-hearing, need to consider each student’s language and communication needs, opportunities for direct communication with peers and professional personnel in the student’s language communication mode, academic levels, and full range of needs, including direct instruction in the student’s language and communication mode.The important consideration of each of these needs as they relate to Ryan cannot be understated. 4. Following the 2006 Services and Placement Options chapter of the National Association of State Directors of Special Education’s Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Students Educational Service Guidelines entitled Meeting the Needs of Students Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing, the following recommendations are also made for current and future educators of Ryan:  The educational team should consider all of the factors unique to studentswho are deaforhard of hearing to ensure thatthe placement of Ryan is appropriate.  The educational team should consider Ryan’s and his parents’ preferences and choices when developing the IEP, in

c07_1

10/08/2008

167

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE REPORTS 167























determining the instruction and services that are appropriate for Ryan, and in considering the setting in which Ryan’s IEP should be implemented. The educational team should ensure that language and communication are accessible to each student, classroom, and overall school environment, and support Ryan’s family in providing language and communication access at home and in the community. The educational team should understand how Ryan’s hearing loss impacts his ability to function in a typical classroom setting and in the school environment as a whole. The educational team should be knowledgeable about evaluating and managing a classroom placement that requires interpreting services. The educational team should understand the importance of social and emotional development of students who are deaf or hard of hearing. The educational team should ensure the availability of ageappropriate peers who share Ryan’s language and communication preferences. The educational team should ensure that the cultural needs of Ryan are met. The educational team should ensure that Ryan receives appropriate opportunities for direct instruction and direct communicationwith support personnel. The educational team should ensure that personnel can e¡ectively communicate with Ryan in his identi¢ed language and communication mode. The educational team should ensure appropriate access to support services for Ryan. The educational team should ensure the availability of, and access to, extracurricular o¡erings for Ryan. The educational team should ensure the availability of appropriate assistive technology for Ryan.

5. Observations of Ryan’s skill in using sign language are suggestive of the fact that he bene¢ts more when the skills of others to use sign language in a clear and consistent manner are strong.Thus it is strongly

c07_1

10/08/2008

168

168 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

suggested to his IEP team that formal training in American Sign Language and visual-gestural communication be o¡ered to those educators and other professionals interacting with him. He would also bene¢t greatly from other classmates and peers knowing and using signs. His IEP team may also wish to consider o¡ering formal teaching in sign skills to his parents and younger brother so that Ryan’s skills would be supported and enhanced at home as well as at school. Ryan’s parents and educators are strongly encouraged to register for the services of the Captioned Media Program.The captioned videotapes and ¢lms o¡ered by this service may assist in making information regarding the world around Ryan more accessible to him. CMP can be reached by telephone at 1.800.237.6819 tty; 1.800.237.6213 v;1.800.538.5636 fax; or via the Internet at www.dcmp.org. One book that many teachers and parents have found useful in terms of ideas for activities for students similar to Ryan is Kid-Friendly Parenting with Deafand Hard of Hearing Children by Medwin and Weston.This text is available at any major bookstore or via the Internet and is recommended by this examiner. Another book that many parents have found useful and very practical for helping them with raising a child who is deaf is Raising and Educatinga Deaf Child by Mark Marschark.This text is available at any major bookstore or via the Internet and is highly recommended by this examiner. Services for a deafblind child may need to be con¢gured di¡erently than any services developed to serve and support a child who is just deaf or visually impaired. Ryan’s IEP team needs to consider this as they discuss determining him as qualifying for such services. It is the opinion of this examiner that Ryan would indeed bene¢t from such services. The Clerc Center at Gallaudet University has a plethora of educational resources available for Ryan’s teachers and other educators.They can be accessed via the Internet at http://clerccenter.gallaudet.edu/. Due to the unique visual impairments he has, Ryan may also bene¢t from being permitted to wear a sun-visor or a hat with a brim, such as a baseball cap.This type of shade for his eyes may assist him in transitioning between the arti¢cial light of a school hallway and the brighter sunlight outside. His current hesitations in stepping outside

c07_1

10/08/2008

169

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE REPORTS 169

reported by his teacher and aide may be a result of his eyes needing more time to adjust to the changes in light. 12. Results from the ratings of his adaptive behaviors are consistent in that both his mother and his teacher viewed him as displaying signi¢cant skill de¢cits. Caregivers and academic educators are encouraged to consider proactively programming a systematic approach to teaching Ryan many of these activities of daily living. It was an honor and pleasure to have worked with Ryan.This examiner is available for any further consultation, assessment, or support of Ryan, if appropriate. She can be reached at her o⁄ce at Spring¢eld Middle School or via the telephone number that follows. Olga Meshcheryakov, PhD, NCSP School Psychologist NCSP Certi¢cation Number XXX O⁄ceTelephone 555.1917

TEST RESULTS APPENDIX Wechsler Nonverbal Scale of Ability

Difference from Child’s Mean Score

Percentile Ranking

Subtest/Scale

T-Score

Matrices Coding Spatial Span Picture Arrangement Mean Score Spatial Span Forward Spatial Span Backward Longest Spatial Span Forward Longest Spatial Span Backward

19 32 21 27 24.75 19 29 2 (raw)

5.75 7.25 3.75 2.25

<1st 4th <1st 1st

Difference = 10

Base Rate = 17.0

2 (raw)

Difference = 0

Base Rate = —

51

95% Confidence Interval 47–63

0.1st

Full Scale

170

— 9 9 10 — —

Daily Living Skills Domain Interpersonal Relationships Play and Leisure Time Coping Skills

Socialization Domain

Adaptive Behavior Composite

64

69

59 — — —

67 — — —

17 17 17

— — —

Standard Score

v-Scale Score

— 9 7 6

Communication Domain Personal DL Skills Domestic DL Skills Community DL Skills

Maladaptive Behavior Index Internalizing Externalizing

10 9 8

v-Scale Score — — — 1st — — — <1st — — — 2nd 1st

þ=  2 þ=  2 þ=  2 þ=  7 þ=  3 þ=  2 þ=  2 þ=  8 þ=  2 þ=  3 þ=  2 þ=  8 þ=  5

þ=  1 þ=  2 þ=  1

90% Confidence Interval

Percentile Ranking

SS Range (90% CI)

Low

Low

Low Low Low Mod Low

Low Low Low Low

Mod Low Low Low

Adaptive Level

Average Average Average

Level

—

—

— 04:11 05:11 05:06

— 05:11 03:05 04:08

04:11 04:11 06:06

Age Eq

10/08/2008

Receptive Communication Expressive Communication Written Communication

Cluster/Subscale

Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales^Second Edition: Parent/Caregiver Rating Form

c07_1 170

65 — — — 74 — — —

— 9 12 12  9 9 9 — —

Communication Domain Personal DL Skills Academic DL Skills School Community DLSk

DLSk Domain Interpersonal Relationships Play and Leisure Time Coping Skills

Socialization Domain

Adaptive Behavior Composite

66

67

— — —

9 10 8

Receptive Communication Expressive Communication Written Communication

Standard Score

v-Scale Score

1st 1st

þ=  5 þ=  4

1st — — —

þ=  7 þ=  1 þ=  2 þ=  1 4th — — —

— — —

þ=  2 þ=  2 þ=  2

þ=  6 þ=  2 þ=  1 þ=  1

Percentile Ranking

SS Range (90% CI)

Low

Low

Mod Low Low Low Low

Low Low Mod Low Mod Low

Low Mod Low Low

Adaptive Level

—

—

— < 03:00 < 03:00 < 03:00

— 04:05 09:02 08:11

03:08 05:01 05:07

Age Eq

10/08/2008

Cluster/Subscale

Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales^Second Edition:Teacher Rating Form

c07_1 171

171

c07_1

10/08/2008

172

172 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

Psychological Evaluation Report Confidential Name: Gene L. Stewart Gender: Male Date of Birth: 10.19.2001 Age: 6 years, 12 days School: Murray Elementary School Grade: First Dates of Assessment: 10.31.2007 By: William M. York Mode of Communication: Spoken English and pantomimed gestures were used expressively and receptively.

REASON FOR REFERRAL:

Gene was assessed as part of a referred assessment at the Murray Elementary School as requested by his school-based committee based upon incoming records and a request from his teacher, Mrs. Alfonso. Gene’s teacher was concerned regarding Gene in the areas of his tendency to display aggressive behaviors (e.g., kicking, screaming, hitting) when his desires were unmet, to babble continuously, and his general developmental delays. The school-based committee recommended that this examiner assess Gene’s intellectual ability, cognitive development, adaptive behavior (i.e., self-help skills), and his social and emotional development for potential quali¢cation for special education as a student with autism. Incoming educational records stated that he had been previously identi¢ed as displaying characteristics of having Autism Spectrum Disorder and served in special education at a military base school under the Department of Defense’s special education category EDevelopmental Delay. Results of this assessment will be used to assess the appropriateness of Gene’s educational classi¢cation, placement, and programming in accordance with the State of Connecticut’s special education procedures and criteria.This report is considered a con¢dential record and the results should only be interpreted by knowledgeable and properly licensed professionals.

EVALUATION TECHNIQUES:

The examiner administered the following techniques: Teacher Interview Parent Interview Classroom Observations Wechsler Nonverbal Scale of Ability Leiter International Performance Scale^Revised

c07_1

10/08/2008

173

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE REPORTS 173

The Behavior Assessment System for Children^Second Edition: Parent Rating Form The Behavior Assessment System for Children^Second Edition:Teacher Rating Form The Adaptive Behavior Assessment System^Second Edition: Parent Rating Form The Adaptive Behavior Assessment System^Second Edition:Teacher Rating Form

SOURCES OF DATA: 1. Record Review

Gene’s educational, audiological, medical, and psychological ¢les were reviewed as an integral part of this assessment. 2. Direct Observations

This examiner observed Gene in his regular classroom being taught by Mrs. Alfonso as well as in the classroom being taught by Mrs. Hernandez. Gene was also observed in his general school environment and during playground times. No motoric di⁄culties were noted or observed. His playground behavior was energetic as he ran from one activity or piece of equipment to the next. He would frequently yell out to anyone who might be listening and then quickly jump into another activity. He was not observed playing with any other children, and manyof his classmates appeared to avoid playing with him. During a reading activity in his class, he attempted to wander away from the group several times, and the classroom aide had to repeatedly redirect him. He impulsively blurted out several questions while his teacher read a book. Many of those questions had little to no relationship to the story being told. He was also observed in the classroom next to his taught by Mrs. Hernandez.With parental permission he had been reportedlyspending a greatdeal of time in her classroom as a means of supporting him and addressing his inappropriate classroom behaviors. 3. Educator Interview

Gene’s primary teacher, Mrs. Alfonso, was also asked about his academic and social performance to date. Mrs. Alfonso stated that Gene’s tendency toward aggression had him being restrained and removed from her classroom frequently. She felt that his inattention, aggression, vocal outbursts, and unusual behaviors were interfering with his learning and that of other students in the classroom. She also stated that he appeared to have di⁄culties with most of the academic activities happening in her room.

c07_1

10/08/2008

174

174 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

4. Parent Interview

Gene’s mother was asked about her son and his skills. She stated that she believed her son was autistic and that everything she had seen on ‘‘Oprah’’ or had read about autism seemed to agree with that diagnosis. She added that she was confused by her previous school system’s insistence that her son be considered as being delayed. She said that she felt as if the previous school system did not wish to support an applied behavioral system of educating Gene. She described her son as out-going, loud, and often out-of-control. She explained that Gene had always had a hard time behaving himself and that he used to do many inappropriate things (e.g., eating dirt, biting himself), but that many of these behaviors had been greatly diminished since she started using a behavioral analysis approach at home. She explained that she hoped that this assessment would help establish his level of functioning, be a means to monitor future development, and resolve the question about her son being delayed or disabled. 5. Test Instruments Used

The Wechsler Nonverbal Scale of Ability (WNV) (Wechsler & Naglieri, 2006a) is an individually administered clinical instrument designed to measure the cognitive ability of students between the ages of 4 years and 21 years, 11 months. The WNVwas used to measure Gene’s cognitive ability by using a variety of subtests. The administration of the WNVyielded subtest scores and an overall Full Scale score. Pictorial directions were used during the WNV administration to minimize verbal requirements of both the examiner and Gene. Because Gene was 6 years old, he was administered the four subtests in the age-appropriate battery for individuals between the ages of 4 years and 7 years,11months.Those subtests were: Matrices, Coding, Object Assembly, and Recognition. Subtest T scores, Full Scale Standard Scores, Con¢dence Intervals, Percentile Rankings, and Test Age-Equivalent Scores were obtained. Subtest T scores have a mean of 50 and standard deviation of 10; the Full Scale score has a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15.The WNV’s normative sample consists of information on the performance of 1,350 individuals who were matched in terms of age, sex, geographic region, education level, and race/ethnicity as speci¢ed in the 2003 U.S. census data. The LeiterInternationalPerformanceScale^Revised (Leiter-R) (Roid,1997) is an individually administered test instrument designed to assess cognitive functions in children and adolescents ages 2 years, 0 months to 20 years, 11 months. The battery includes measures of nonverbal intelligence in £uid reasoning and

c07_1

10/08/2008

175

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE REPORTS 175

visualization, as well as appraisals of visuospatial memoryand attention. Subtests from the Visualization and Reasoning (VR) battery are used to estimate Gene’s intellectual ability. A nationally representative normative sample of 1,719 subjects, corresponding to the 1993 U.S. Census percentages, provided scaled scores (with a mean of 10 and a standard deviation of 3) for each subtest and composite scores using an IQ scale (with a mean of100 and a standard deviation of15). Scales based on item response theory are also included to allow the assessment of small increments of improvement (growth) in the functioning level of exceptional students. The Leiter-R was speci¢cally developed to assess the intellectual ability, memory, and attention of those students who had signi¢cant communication disorders, cognitive delay, English as a second language, hearing impairments, motor impairments, traumatic brain injury, Attention-De¢cit Disorder, and certain types of learning disabilities. The Leiter-R includes two groupings of subtests: (a) theVisualization and Reasoning (VR) Batterywith10 subtests of nonverbal intellectual ability related to visualization, reasoning, and spatial ability; and (b) the Attention and Memory (AM) Battery with 10 subtests of nonverbal attention and memory function. Also included are four rating scales (Examiner, Parent, Self, andTeacher), which provide multidimensional behavioral observation information about the individual. Standard Scores, Percentile Rankings, Growth Scores, and Age-Equivalent Scores are all obtainable. The Behavior Assessment System for Children^Second Edition (BASC-2) (Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2004) is a multimethod, multidimensional approach to evaluating the behavior and self-perceptions of students between the ages of 2 and 21years. The BASC is multimethodical in that it has ¢ve di¡erent components. These may be used individually or in any combination: a self-report scale on which a student can describe his or her emotions and self-perceptions; two rating scales, one for teachers and one for parents, that gather descriptions of the student’s observable behavior; a structured developmental history; and a form for recording and classifying directly observed classroom behavior.The BASC-2 is multidimensional in that it measures numerous aspects of behavior and personality, including positive (adaptive) as well as negative (clinical) dimensions. The BASC-2 was designed to facilitate the di¡erential diagnosis and educational classi¢cation of a variety of emotional and behavioral disorders of children and to aid in the design of treatment plans.When used individually, the BASC-2 components are reliable and psychometricallysophisticated instruments that provide an arrayofbene¢cial data.Whenused as atotalsystem, theBASC-2 provides information about a child from a variety of sources, enabling the examiner to have a more complete understanding of that student.The normative sample is based on a large, representative sample and is di¡erentiated according to the age,

c07_1

10/08/2008

176

176 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

gender, and clinical status of the student. Several thousand students between the ages of 2 and 18 were included in the normative sample, which matched the U.S. population estimates as re£ected in the 2001 Census Population Survey. Thus, ratings of Gene’s behaviors were compared to several hundred students of the same age, and scores were calculated by this comparison. The BASC-2: TeacherRatingScales (TRS) is a measure ofboth adaptive and problem behaviors in the school setting. It is designed for use by teachers or others who ¢ll a similar role, such as teacher aides or preschool caregivers. The TRS has three forms with items targeted at three age levels: preschool (2^5), child (6^11), and adolescent (12^21). The ¢rst form was given to Gene’s teacher. The forms contain descriptors of behaviors that the respondent rates on a 4-point scale of frequency, ranging from never to almost always.TheTRS assesses clinical problems in the broad domains of Externalizing Problems, Internalizing Problems, and School Problems. It also measures Adaptive Skills. In addition to scale and compositescores, theTRS provides abroad composite, the Behavioral Symptoms Index (BSI), which assesses the overall level of problem behaviors. The BSI is composed to measure a general problem factor underlying theTRS.The TRS can be interpreted with both General and Clinical norms, and contains a negative response scale, consistency index, as well as a response pattern index. Each of these is in place to ensure a fair, reliable, and accurate assessment of Gene by his teacher. The BASC-2: Parent Rating Scales (PRS) is a comprehensive measure of Gene’s adaptive and problem behaviors in community and home settings. The PRS usesthe same 4-pointresponse formatastheTRSand hasthe same levels for forms (preschool, child, adolescent).The PRS assesses almost all of the clinical problem and adaptive behavior domains that the TRS measures. However, the PRS does not have a School Problems composite, nor does it include the two TRS scales that are best observed by teachers (Learning Problems and Study Skills). The PRS o¡ers the same norm groups as theTRS: national age norms (General, Female and Male) and Clinical norms. Like theTRS, the PRS includes an F index as a checkon the validityof the parent ratings, a consistency index, and a response pattern index. Critical items on either scale may also be interpreted individually. On the Clinical Scales,Tscores that fall within a range of 70 or above are considered Clinically Signi¢cant, suggesting a high level of maladjustment. T scores that fall within the range of 60 to 69 (At-Risk) identify either a signi¢cant problem that may not be severe enough to require formal treatment or a potential of developing a problem that needs careful monitoring. On the Adaptive Scales,T scores that fall within the range of 30 or below are considered Clinically Signi¢cant.Tscores of 31 to 40 fall within the At-Risk range.

c07_1

10/08/2008

177

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE REPORTS 177

The Adaptive Behavior Assessment System^Second Edition (ABAS^II) (Harrison & Oakland, 2003) is an individually administered rating scale that measures adaptive behavior characteristics of Gene by his teacher or parent.This system provides a norm-referenced assessment of Gene’s adaptive skills in 10 di¡erent areas. The ABAS^II is appropriate for use with individuals between birth and 89 years of age.Teachers, parents, caretakers, or other individuals can complete rating forms. Both his primary teacher and his mother rated Gene’s skills. Each skill area score is converted to a standard score with a mean of10 and a standard deviation of 3. Factor raw scores are also used to generate composite scores with a mean of100 and a standard deviation of15.The scale’s standardization sample consists of more than 2,100 children between the ages of birth and 5 years as well as an additional 5,270 individuals for the remaining rating forms.These samples were representative of the 2000 U.S. Census and included individuals with disabilities in natural proportions. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: 1. Home/Family Information

At the time of testing, school records indicated that Gene resided with his mother, father, and a younger brother. Gene had recently resided on base at Fort Edwards and attended an elementary school there, but now the family resided o¡ base so he was no longer able to attend the Department of Defense’s school. Both his father and brother were reported to have speech problems. No signi¢cant family problems or stresses were reported. His father was reported as having deployed in August of 2006. His mother explained that her husband’s recent deployment extension had made life di⁄cult for her but that Gene and his brother did not seem bothered by the news. She felt that they had adjusted well to their father’s continued absence. 2. Medical/Developmental Milestones

Gene’s developmental milestones were reported as being obtained within expected parameters. Nohospitalizations, use of medications, or signi¢cantinjuries were reported. His mother commented that Gene’s unusual behaviors, limited interactions with others, and strange sleeping habits have always been her most pressing concerns. The results of a preschool functional vision and hearing screening on 09.28.2007 by Mrs. Mitchum, the school nurse at Murray Elementary School, suggested that functional vision and hearing seemed within normal limits.

c07_1

10/08/2008

178

178 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

3. Intake/Educational Information

Psychoeducational information was available from two previous evaluations of Gene.The results of those evaluations were as follows:

Date of Evaluation

Test(s) Administered

Results

ADOS

‘‘clinically suggestive of an Autism Spectrum Disorder’’

WPPSI-III ABAS-II BASC-2

FSIQ = 68 GAC = 72 BSI = 74

12.22.2004 Barbara Sussman 10.18.2006 Jordan King

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS:

Rapport was easily established with Gene. Throughout this evaluation, Gene presented as being clean, well groomed, neatly dressed, and alert.The communication between Gene and the examiner was conducted in spoken English (Note: pantomimed gestures were used for the administration of the test items on the Leiter-Revised and pictorial directions were used for the administration of the Wechsler Nonverbal Scale), and this appeared to be e¡ective. Gene tended to speak at the examiner in a loud telegraphic manner despite repeated admonishments for him to speak in a quieter tone. He appeared to enjoycounting the cards of the test kit as the examiner placed them on the table and would frequently clap his hands and loudly state ‘‘Show me the money!’’, ‘‘Yes, I win cash!’’, ‘‘Yeah, baby!’’, or ‘‘I win again!’’ Sometimes he would pick up all of the cards, fan them in his hand, and state ‘‘It is all mine!’’ Many of his vocalizations were his repeating back statements or questions from the examiner in an echo-like manner. He had great di⁄culty remaining seated in his chair and often named accurately many of the pictures and objects he saw in the testing materials. He consistently, however, erroneously referred to all quadrilaterals as triangles. After responding to many test items, he often would say ‘‘good jab’’ (instead of job) or clap for his own performance regardless of the accuracy of his response. Overall he was very compliant with requests from this examiner, made consistent eye contact, and expressed himself by hugging the examiner at the end of the session.

c07_1

10/08/2008

179

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE REPORTS 179

TEST RESULTS AND INTERPRETATIONS:

Due to the match between his characteristics and the taskdemands of the test, the Wechsler Nonverbal Scale of Ability was selected for use with Gene as a standardized measure of gathering information of his cognitive abilities and level of intellectual development.This scale consisted offourdi¡erent subtests. His performance on each contributed to the overall or Full Scale score. Gene obtained a Full Scale score of 90. At the 95% con¢dence interval this performance would range between 83 and 99. Itcan also be described as a 25th percentile ranking.This is re£ective of a performance better than less than 25% of the normative sample and is considered in the Average range of ability. The Matrices subtest required Gene to look at an incomplete ¢gural matrix and then select the missing related portion from four or ¢ve response options provided. He appeared to grasp the task demands readily. His performance resulted in aTscore of 40. The Codingsubtestrequired Gene to copysymbolsthatare paired with simple geometric shapes or numbers. Using a key provided at the top of the page, Gene had to draw each symbol in its corresponding shape or box within a speci¢ed time limit. His performance yielded aTscore of 42. The Object Assembly subtest involved Gene being presented with prearranged puzzle pieces of recognizable objects (e.g., a ball, a bird), and he had to ¢t the pieces together to form a meaningful whole within a speci¢ed time limit. His performance on these tasks resulted in aT score of 53. While doing these, Gene often would verbalize the names of the completed ¢gures and then clap his hands when he completed them. At the end of the subtest, Gene raised both arms above his head, as if in triumph, and jumped from his chair to do a short ‘‘victory dance.’’ After being reseated and redirected, the Recognition subtest was administered.This subtest required Gene to look at various geometric designs for 3 seconds each and then identify which one of four or ¢ve response options identically matched the previously seen stimulus design. His performance on this subtest resulted in aTscore of 47. Due to concerns related to his communication skills and the potential range of abilities he displayed in his classroom, theVisualization and Reasoning Battery from the Leiter International Performance Scale^Revised was selected to provide a measurement of his cognitive abilities. Furthermore, because of the signi¢cant di¡erence between his performance on theWNVand the reported results from the previous assessment, it was judged prudent to have a second cognitive measurement done in a nonverbal fashion. It was also selected as a means of

c07_1

10/08/2008

180

180 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

establishing a baseline of skills (i.e., Growth Scores) so that future growth and development can be reassessed and compared back to these scores at a later date. His overall level of cognitive development and intellectual abilities, as measured by the Leiter-R, was seen to be within the Average range, with a Full Scale Standard Score of 99. His performance placed his abilities at the 47th percentile rank compared to children his own age. The range of scores related to his performance would place the measurement of his overall cognitive abilities between 92 and106, with a 90% con¢dence interval.The Fluid Reasoning Scale results yielded a Standard Score of 100 (range of 91^109; percentile ranking at the 50th), and the FundamentalVisualization Scale results yielded a Standard Score of 91 (range of 84^98; percentile ranking at the 27th). His performance across the di¡erent subtests varied tremendously, but the results from all but one subtest (Sequential Order) were within the average range of ability. The Figure Ground subtest required Gene to identify embedded ¢gures or designs within a complex stimulus. He was able to do this with some minor di⁄culties related mostly to his impulsive nature and tendency to name all of the various objects within the stimulus pictures. The Form Completion subtest assessed Gene’s ability to recognize a whole object from a randomly displayed array of its fragmented parts. No di⁄culties were noted on these types of tasks with Gene. Gene had to make a selection of provided response cards or manipulative shapes that matched the easel stimuli for the Matching subtest.These tasks assessed his skills at the discrimination and matching of visual stimuli.While his performance on this subtest is one of his lowest, his limited attention skills appeared to hamper his performance. The Sequential Order subtest measured Gene’s cognitive skills in understanding logical progressions. This subtest used pictorial and ¢gural objects and required him to make a selection of related stimuli that progressed in a corresponding order. Gene appeared to be very involved with these tasks and his performance was slightly above that of children his own age. On the Repeated Patterns subtest, Gene had to supply the missing portion of pattern by moving response cards into alignment with the test instrument’s easel so that patterns of pictorial or ¢gural objects are repeated. This task tapped into a cognitive area in which Gene displayed some relative di⁄culties, but it was one in which he could still perform similar to children his own age when his attention and behaviors were structured for him. The Picture Context subtest assessed Gene’s ability to recognize a pictured object that has been removed from a larger display (missing location indicated

c07_1

10/08/2008

181

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE REPORTS 181

by markings) using visual contextual clues. Gene did not display any di⁄culties with this task. The Classi¢cation subtest assessed Gene’s cognitive skills involved in the categorization ofobjects orgeometricdesigns. Hewas able to do these itemswithout any apparent di⁄culties. No signi¢cant cognitive strengths or weaknesses were noted by his performance on this testing instrument nor were any cognitive processing di⁄culties observed. To gather information regarding Gene’s social and emotional development, both his primary teacher and his mother completed the appropriate rating scale forms from the Behavior Assessment System for Children^Second Edition. The views of the two raters and the computed results suggest that theyhad very di¡erent views of Gene and his behaviors. His mother rated Gene as displaying a high level of hyperactive behaviors and attention problems along with di⁄culties in communication. His teacher, however, saw Gene as displaying extremely high levels of hyperactive behaviors, many unusual characteristics, attentional di⁄culties, aggression, a lack of social skills, and limited self-help skills. The Behavioral Symptoms Index on the BASC-2 consists of the Hyperactivity, Aggression, Depression, Attention Problems, Atypicality, and Withdrawal scales. This score re£ects Gene’s overall level of problem behavior. Gene was rated by both his teacher and parent as displaying an elevated level of social and emotional di⁄culties. The Externalizing Problems composite score is computed from the Hyperactivity and Aggression scales. The behaviors to which this composite refers are of a disruptive nature, and Gene’s rating yielded results that are highly suggestive that Gene was displaying signi¢cant di⁄culties in this area, especially while in school.The Internalizing Problems composite score is computed from the Anxiety, Depression, and Somatization scales. This composite score includes scales that are not marked by actingout behavior. Gene was not seen as displaying signi¢cant levels of these types of behaviors.The Adaptive Skills composites score is comprised of Adaptability, Activities of Daily Living, Functional Communication, Social Skills, Leadership, and Study Skills.This composite score summarizes Gene’s appropriate emotional expression control, communication skills, daily living skills both in and outside of the home, as well as prosocial, study, organizational, and other adaptive skills.While his teacher viewed and rated Gene as displaying de¢cits in all areas on this scale, his mother viewed and rated him as displaying de¢cits in just his communication skills. Areas inwhich concernswere raisedbyhisteacher, his mother, orbothwere on the Hyperactivity, Aggression, Atypicality,Withdrawal, and Attentional Scales. The Hyperactivity scale assessed Gene’s behaviors and focused on hyperactive

c07_1

10/08/2008

182

182 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

behaviors such as ¢ddling with things, interrupting others, being overly active, or having limited or poor self-control. Items on this scale that related to impulsivity included assessing Gene’s ability to wait his turn in a group activity and to think before acting. The Aggression scale assessed the tendency for Gene to do physical or emotional harm to others or their property. This scale assessed both verbal and physical aggression.Test items that measured verbal aggression referred to behaviors such as arguing, name calling, and verbally threatening others.Test items that assess physical aggression included breaking of his possessions and hitting others.The Atypicality scale measured Gene’s tendency to behave in ways that are considered unusual or that are more commonly associated with psychosis. Manyof the items on this scale focused on Gene’s sense of disconnection from or awareness of his normalsurroundings.TheWithdrawal scale measured Gene’s tendency to evade others in order to avoid social contact and/or his lack of interest in making contact in social settings. The Attention Problems scale measured Gene’s ability to maintain attention and his tendency to be easily distracted from tasks requiring attention. It is this scale, along with the hyperactivityscale, thatprovides information on Gene’stendency to displayADHD-like behaviors. To further assess Gene’s self-help skills at home and at school, both his mother and his teacher completed the appropriate rating forms of the Adaptive Behavior Assessment System^Second Edition. Gene’s General Adaptive Composite (GAC) is a score that is based on information obtained from all relevant skill areas. It generally providesthe mostcomprehensive andglobal measure ofan individual’s adaptive behavior and is the most reliable measure of Gene’s overall functioning. While his mother rated his overall abilities as being slightly higher (GAC Composite Standard Score of 74; 4th percentile ranking; range 60^79) compared to thatof his teacher (GAC Composite Standard Score of 69;2nd percentile ranking; range 65^73), both raters viewed Gene as exhibiting signi¢cant delays in his level of functioning. Both raters viewed Gene as having a relatively higher level of practical skills than in other domains. The Communication skill area refers to Gene’s speech, language, and social skills needed for communication with other people, including his vocabulary, nonverbal communication, responding to questions, and conversation skills. Gene was rated in this area by both as displaying signi¢cant weaknesses and delays. The Community Use skill area refers to Gene’s skills that are necessary for successful functioning in the community, including use of community resources, recognition of di¡erent facilities, expression of interest in activities outside of

c07_1

10/08/2008

183

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE REPORTS 183

his home, and getting around in the community. Gene was rated as having some delays or weaknesses by his mother. The Functional Academics skill area refers to Gene’s basic preacademic skills that form the foundations for reading, writing, mathematics, and other academic skills that are needed for independent functioning on a daily basis such as letter recognition, drawing simple shapes, and counting. In comparison to his agemates as represented by the ABAS-II’s normative sample, Gene’s skills were rated as being within the Average Range of ability. The School/Home Living skill areas refers to Gene’s skills that are needed for thebasic care ofone’s home orlivingsituation (or school classroom) such as cleaning, straightening, helping adults with household tasks, taking care of personal possessions, and performing chores. The Health and Safety skill area refers to Gene’s abilities that are needed for protecting his health, responding to injuries or illness, using medicines, followingsafetyrules, keepingoutof physical danger, and showing caution. His mother saw a higher level of these kinds of abilities than did his teacher. The Leisure skill area refers to Gene’s skills thatare needed for engaging in and planning leisure and recreational activities, including playing with others, playing with toys, engaging in recreation at home, and following rules in games. Both adults saw this as an area that was signi¢cantly impaired for Gene.While his teacher did not see di⁄culties with Gene’s abilitiy to take care of his own personal needs, his mother saw greater di⁄culties in his skills in taking care of his personal needs such as eating, dressing, bathing, toileting, grooming, and hygiene. The Self-Direction skill area refers to Gene’s skills that are necessary for independence, responsibility, and self-control.This includes making choices about food and clothing, starting and completing tasks, following a daily routine, and following directions. The Social skill area refers to Gene’s abilities in interacting socially and getting along with others. These skills include expressing a¡ection, having friends, displaying and recognizing emotions, assisting others, and having manners. The Motor skill area referstoGene’sbasic gross and ¢ne motor skills.These are the skills that are needed for his locomotion, manipulating his environment, and the future development of more complex activities such as sitting, pulling up to a standing position, walking, ¢ne motor tasks, and kicking. Both raters saw delays in each of these areas, with his teacher seeing and rating a slightly greater degree of impairment than his mother.

c07_1

10/08/2008

184

184 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:

CAUTION

.................................................. While individual examiners

may make a diagnosis based The results from this assessment are on the results of an assessment, believed to be valid and reliable. examiners cannot make a Gene’s intellectual abilities, as measqualification for services in special ured in a nonverbal fashion by education. Under the IDEA law such a decision is a team discussion and both the Wechsler Nonverbal Scale of determination. Ability and the Leiter International Performance Scale^Revised, were seen to be within the Average range when compared to children his own age. The results from his teacher’s ratings of his social and emotional development, as measured by the Behavior Assessment System for Children^Second Edition, were suggestive of signi¢cant behavioral concerns. These concerns were noted and observed by this examiner as he saw Gene display several atypical behaviors. Reports by teachers and his mother contained numerous examples of atypical and self-injurious behaviors.These behaviors, however, were rated to be mostly of an attentional nature by his mother. Both his teacher’s and his mother’s ratings of Gene’s adaptive behaviors yielded results that were considered to be signi¢cantly below those of children his own age. It isbelieved thatthis assessment was an accurate measure of Gene’s level of intellectual, social-emotional development, behavior, and adaptive behavior skills as measured for a referred evaluation conducted at the Murray Elementary School and in accordance with the guidelines established by the State of Connecticut. The following recommendations should be discussed, amended, added to, developed, or rejected by all of the participants of Gene’s CSC Team.The selection and presentation of these preliminary recommendations are this examiner’s, so nothing here would be binding on anyone unless and until it were approved by Gene’s parents and by the CSC Team or were otherwise legally ordered.The recommendations are, of course, the examiner’s professional opinions based upon the results of this assessment. Also, including a recommendation here does not imply that the recommended activity is not already taking place, just that, prior to the CSC meeting, the examiner thought it was an appropriate idea, based only on what he had learned about Gene over the course of this assessment.

1. It is recommended that the Child Study Committee at the Murray Elementary School consider these assessment results along with

c07_1

10/08/2008

185

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE REPORTS 185

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

other assessments, evaluation results, observations, and data in their decisions regarding Gene’s need for appropriate services and accommodations. Gene’s parents may bene¢t from the empathy and support from other military parents who have a child with a disability. One recommendation for the development of such a support network is that they contact the Specialized Training of Military Parents (STOMP).They can be telephoned at 1.800.5PARENTor reached via the Internet at www.stompproject.org. Results of this assessment are suggestive of Gene’s need for an individualized behavior and education program that encourages and supports the enhancement of Gene’s self-help skills.These programs may wish to focus upon his functional communication and other independent functioning skills. Results of this assessment are highly suggestive of the need for a welldeveloped individualized behavior program and/or a highly structured classroom for Gene. Impulsivity is a¡ecting all areas of Gene’s academic performance. He would bene¢t from an aide/tutor or other adult working with him to increase his awareness of when it is important to pay attention to details and slow down to problem solve and self-monitor. In speci¢c directteaching circumstances, a system of rewards could be implemented to encourage thoughtful, step-wise planning and appropriate self-monitoring and self-correction. High-quality results should be stressed over his ¢nishing quickly. Attentional issues are seriously impacting Gene’s academic achievement. His parents are strongly encouraged to share this report and discuss this issue further with his pediatrician. Results of this assessment are suggestive of the need for Gene’s involvement in a formalized social skills training program. Participation in such a program may assist him in developing more appropriate social awareness and improve his self-image. It is recommended to his IEP team that they consider such a related service for him.

If a problem should arise, Gene should be referred to his CSC team for their input, review, and intervention.This examiner is also available for further consultation and support if there are any questions. William M.York, PhD

c07_1

10/08/2008

186

186 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

TEST RESULTS APPENDIX Wechsler Nonverbal Scale Ability

Subtest/Scale Matrices Coding Object Assembly Recognition Mean Score Full Scale

Difference from Child’s Mean Score

Percentile Ranking

5.5 3.5 7.5 1.5

16th 21st 62nd 38th

95% Confidence Interval 83–99

25th

T-Score 40 42 53 47 45.5 90

Leiter International Performance Scale^Revised

Visualization and Reasoning Composites Fluid Reasoning Brief IQ Fundamental Visualization Spatial Visualization Full Scale Intelligence

Standard SS Range Percentile Growth Score Score (90% CI) Ranking (90% CI) Age Eq 100 98 91 — 99

91–109 89–107 84–98 — 92–106

50th 45th 27th — 47th

451 456 460 — 458

Visualization and Reasoning Subtests

Scaled Score

Percentile Ranking

Growth Score

Age Eq

Figure Ground Design Analogies Form Completion Matching Sequential Order Repeated Patterns Picture Context Classification Paper Folding Figure Rotation

7 — 10 7 14 8 10 13 — —

452 — 463 453 462 443 464 478 — —

03:11 — 04:10 04:00 04:09 03:03 05:00 06:06 — —

—

— —

03:10 04:03 04:07 — 04:05

c07_1

10/08/2008

187

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE REPORTS 187

Behavior Assessment System for Children^Second Edition:Teacher Rating Scale Combined Sex Normative Group

Clinical Scales

T-Score

T-Score Range (90% CI)

Percentile Ranking

Ipsative Sig. Level/Freq. of Diff.

85 64 39 61 54 75 70 75

80–90 59–69 32–46 55–67 47–61 70–80 63–77 71–79

99th 90th 5th 86th 71st 96th 95th 99th

.05/2% or less .05/15% or less .05/1% or less .05/10 or less .05/15% or less NS NS NS

T-Score

T-Score Range (90% CI)

30 32 36

23–37 26–38 30–42

Hyperactivity Aggression Anxiety Depression Somatization Atypicality Withdrawal Attention Probs

Adaptive Scales Adaptability Social Skills Functional Comm

Composites Externalizing Problems Internalizing Probs Beh. Sym. Index Adaptive Skills

Composite Comparisons Externalizing Problems vs. Internalizing Problems

Percentile Ranking

Ipsative Sig Level/Freq. of Diff.

1st 3rd 8th

NS NS NS

T-Score

T-Score Range (90% CI)

Percentile Ranking

76 52 78 30

72–80 47–57 75–81 25–35

98th 63rd 99th 2nd

Difference

Sig. Level

Freq. of Diff.

24

.01

5% or less

Mean T-Score of the BSI: 72 Mean T-Score of the Adaptive Skills Composite: 33

c07_1

10/08/2008

188

188 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT Behavior Assessment System for Children^Second Edition: Parent Rating Scale Combined Sex Normative Group

Clinical Scales Hyperactivity Aggression Anxiety Depression Somatization Atypicality Withdrawal Attention Problems

Adaptive Scales Adaptability Social Skills Activities of D.L. Functional Comm

T-Score

T-Score Range (90% CI)

Percentile Ranking

Ipsative Sig. Level/Freq. of Diff.

58 47 40 48 50 53 49 66

52–64 40–54 33–47 41–55 42–58 45–61 42–56 60–72

82nd 47th 16th 46th 54th 71st 51st 93rd

NS NS .05/25% or less NS NS NS NS .05/10% or less

T-Score

T-Score Range (90% CI)

Percentile Ranking

Ipsative Sig. Level/Freq. of Diff.

39 48 46 32

32–46 42–54 37–55 25–39

14th 40th 32nd 5th

NS NS NS .05

Composites Externalizing Probs Internalizing Probs Beh. Sym. Index Adaptive Skills

Composite Comparisons Externalizing Problems vs. Internalizing Problems

T-Score

T-Score Range (90% CI)

Percentile Ranking

53 45 55 39

48–58 39–51 51–59 34–44

68th 32nd 73rd 13th

Difference

Sig. Level

Freq. of Diff.

8

NS

—

MeanT-Score of the BSI: 54 MeanT-Score of the Adaptive Skills Composite: 41

c07_1

10/08/2008

189

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE REPORTS 189

Teacher/Daycare Provider Form of the Adaptive Behavior Assessment System^Second Edition

Skill Area

Scaled Score

Communication Functional Preacademics School Living Health and Safety Leisure Self-Care Self-Direction Social Motor

4 10 6 4 2 11 4 1 6

Composite Score

Standard Score

Standard Score Range (90% CI)

Percentile Ranking

GAC Conceptual Social Practical

69 74 51 79

44–52 68–80 44–58 71–87

2nd 4th 0.1st 8th

Parent/Primary Caregiver Form of the Adaptive Behavior Assessment System^Second Edition

Skill Area Communication Community Use Functional Preacademics Home Living Health and Safety Leisure Self-Care Self-Direction Social Motor

Scaled Score 3 6 7 12 9 5 6 7 6 7 (continued)

c07_1

10/08/2008

190

190 ESSENTIALS OF WNV ASSESSMENT

Composite Score GAC Conceptual Social Practical

Standard Score

Standard Score Range (90% CI)

Percentile Ranking

74 69 71 86

69–79 62–76 62–80 79–93

4th 2nd 3rd 18th

Reference_1

10/08/2008

191

REFERENCES

Bemak, F., & Chung, R. (2005). Advocacy as a critical role for urban school counselors: Working toward equity and social justice. Professional School Counseling, 8, 196. Berringer,V. W. (2001). Process Assessment of the Learner (PAL) Test Battery for Reading and Writing. San Antonio,TX:The Psychological Corporation. Boake, C. (2002). From the Binet-Simon to the Wechsler-Bellevue:Tracing the history of intelligence testing. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 24, 383^405. Bracken, B. A., & McCallum, R. S. (1998). Universal Nonverbal IntelligenceTest. Itasca, IL: Riverside. Brauer, B. A., Braden, J. P., Pollard, R. Q., & Hardy-Braz,S.T. (1998). Hearingimpairments and test interpretation. In J. H. Sandoval, C. L. Frisby, K. F. Geisinger, J. Ramos-Grenier, & J. Dowd-Scheuneman (Eds.),Testinterpretationanddiversity:Achievingequityinassessment. (pp. 297^ 315).Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Burch, S., & Joyner, H. (2007). Unspeakable:Thestory of JuniusWilson. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Cohen, B. H. (1996). Explaining psychological statistics. Paci¢c Grove, CA: Brooks & Cole. Cohen, J. (1988). Statisticalpoweranalysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Davis, F. B. (1959). Interpretation of di¡erences among averages and individual test scores. Journal of Educational Psychology, 50, 162^170. Flanagan, D. P., & Kaufman, A. S. (2004). Essentials of WISC-IVassessment. NewYork: Wiley. Ford, D.Y. (1998).The underrepresentation of minority students in gifted education: Problems and promises in recruitment and retention. Journal of Special Education, 32, 4^14. Frazier, M. M., Martin, D., Garcia, J., Finley,V. S., Frank, E., Krisel, S., & King, L. (1995). A new windowforlooking atgifted children (RM9522). Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented; University of Connecticut. Gioia, G. A., Isquith, P. K., Guy, S. C., & Kenworthy, L. (2000) Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Hardy-Braz, S.T. (2003). Enhancing school-based psychological services: Assessments and interventions with students who are deaf or hard of hearing. Workshop presented at the meeting of the National Association of School Psychologists,Toronto, Canada. Hardy-Braz, S.T. (2004). Using theWISC-IV with deaf or hard of hearing students. In D. P. Flanagan& A.S.Kaufman(Eds.),EssentialsofWISC-IVAssessment(pp.208^214).NewYork:Wiley. Harrison, P., & Oakland,T. (2003) Adaptive Behavior Scale^Second Edition. San Antonio,TX: Pearson. intelligence. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v1.1). Retrieved April 18, 2008, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intelligence 191

Reference_1

10/08/2008

192

192 REFERENCES intelligence. (n.d.). Merriam-Webster.com; (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate1 Dictionary, Eleventh Edition). Retrieved April 18, 2008 from Merriam-Webster.com website: http:// www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intelligence Jensen, A. R. (1998).The ‘g ’factor: The science ofmental ability.Westport, CT: Praeger. Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (2004). KaufmanTestof Educational Achievement^Second Edition. San Antonio,TX: Pearson. Lichtenberger, E. O., Mather, N., Kaufman, N. L., & Kaufman, A. S. (2004). Essentials of assessment report writing. NewYork: Wiley. Maller, S. J. (2003). Intellectual assessment of deaf people: A critical review of core concepts and issues. In M. Marschark and P. E. Spencer (Eds.), Oxford handbook ofdeafstudies, language, and education (pp. 451^463). NewYork: Oxford University Press. Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs,T. E. (2006). Inclusive classroom: Strategies for e¡ective instruction (4th ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Minsko¡, E., & Allsopp, D. (2003). Academicsuccessstrategiesforadolescents with learning disabilitiesand ADHD. Baltimore: Brookes. Murdoch, S. (2007). IQ: Asmart history ofa failed idea. NewYork: Wiley. Naglieri, J. A. (1997). Naglieri nonverbal ability test^Multilevel form. San Antonio,TX: Pearson. Naglieri, J. A. (1999). Essentials of CAS assessment. NewYork: Wiley. Naglieri, J. A. (2003a). Naglieri Nonverbal AbilityTest^Individual Administration. San Antonio,TX: Pearson. Naglieri, J. A. (2003b). Naglieri nonverbal ability tests: NNATand MATEF. In R. S. McCallum,(Ed.), Handbook of nonverbal assessment (pp. 175^190). NewYork: Kluwer. Naglieri, J. A. (2008a). Best practices in linking cognitive assessment of students with learning disabilities to interventions. In A.Thomas and J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (5th ed.) (pp. 679^696). Bethesda, MD: NASP. Naglieri, J. A. (2008b).Traditional IQ: 100 years of misconception and its relationship to minority representation in gifted programs. In J.VanTassel-Baska (Ed.), Criticalissuesinequity and excellence in gifted education series alternative assessment ofgifted learners (pp. 67^88).Waco,TX: Prufrock Press. Naglieri, J. A.(in press). Psychometric Issues in the Assessment of Impairment. In. S. Goldstein, J. A. Naglieri, & S. Ozono¡ (Eds.). Impairment: From theory to practice. NewYork: Springer. Naglieri, J. A., & Bornstein, B.T. (2003). Intelligence and achievement: Just howcorrelated are they? Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 21, 244^260. Naglieri, J. A., Brulles, D., & Lansdowne, K. (2008).Teacher’s guideto identi¢cation and instruction of gifted children using the Naglieri Nonverbal AbilityTest. San Antonio,TX: Pearson. Naglieri, J. A., & Chambers, K. (2008). Psychometric Issues and Current Scales for Assessing Autism Spectrum Disorders.In. S.Goldstein, J.A. Naglieri, & S. Ozono¡ (Eds.). Assessment of Autism Spectrum Disorders. (pp. 55^90). NewYork: Springer. Naglieri, J. A., & Das, J. P. (1997). Cognitive Assessment System. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside. Naglieri, J. A., & Ford, D.Y. (2003). Addressing under-representation of gifted minority children using the Naglieri Nonverbal AbilityTest (NNAT). Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 155^160. Naglieri, J. A., & Ford, D.Y. (2005). Increasing minority children’s participation in gifted classes using the NNAT: A response to Lohman. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 29^36. Naglieri, J. A., & Paolitto, A.W. (2005). Ipsative comparisons of WISC-IVindex scores. Applied Neuropsychology,12, 208^211. Naglieri, J. A., & Pickering, E. B. (2003). HelpingChildrenLearn:InterventionHandoutsforUseinSchool and at Home. Baltimore: Brookes.

Reference_1

10/08/2008

193

REFERENCES 193

Naglieri, J. A., & Ronning, M. E. (2000).The relationships between general ability using the NNATand SAT reading achievement. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 18, 230^239. Newcomer, P. L. (2001). Diagnostic Achievement Battery 3. Austin,TX: ProEd. Pearson Education, Inc. (2005).Wechsler Individual Achievement Test^Second Edition. San Antonio, TX: Pearson. Pintner, R. (1923). Intelligence testing. NewYork: Henry Holt. Ramirez, R. R., and de laCruz, G. P. (2002).The Hispanic population in the United States: March 2002. Current Population Reports, P20^545. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Ramsay, M. C., & Reynolds, C. R.(2003). Relationsbetween intelligence and achievementtests. In G. Goldstein & S. R. Beers (Eds.), Comprehensive Handbook of Psychological Assessment:Vol.1, Intellectual and Neuropsychological Assessment. NY: Wiley. Reynolds, C. R. & Kamphaus, R.W. (2004). Behavior Assessment Systemfor Children^Second Edition. San Antonio,TX: Pearson. Roid, G. (2003). Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale (5th ed.). Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing. Roid, G. H., & Miller, L. J. (1997). Leiter International Performance Scale-Revised.Wooddale, IL: Stoelting. Sattler, J. M. (2001). Assessment of children: Cognitive applications (4th ed.). San Diego, CA: Author. Sattler, J. M., & Hardy-Braz, S.T. (2002). Hearing impairments. In J. M. Sattler (Ed.), Assessment of children: Behavioral and clinical applications. (pp. 377^389). La Mesa, CA: Jerome M. Sattler. Sattler, J. M., Hardy-Braz, S.T., & Willis, J. O. (2006). Hearing impairments. In J. M. Sattler & R. D. Hoge (Eds.), Assessmentofchildren: Behavioraland clinicalapplications (5th ed.) (pp.478^492). La Mesa, CA: Jerome M. Sattler. Silverstein, A. B. (1982). Pattern analysis as simultaneous statistical inference. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50, 234^240. Silverstein, A. B. (1993).Type I,Type II, and other types of errors in pattern analysis. Psychological Assessment, 5, 72^74. Sparrow, S. S., Cicchetti, D.V., & Balla, D. A. (2005).Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales^Second Edition, Parent/Caregiver Rating Form. San Antonio,TX: Pearson. Sparrow, S. S., Cicchetti, D.V., & Balla, D. A. (2006).Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales^Second Edition,Teacher Rating Form. San Antonio,TX: Pearson. Spearman, C. (1904).‘‘General intelligence’’: Objectively determined and measured. American Journal of Psychology,15, 201^293. Suzuki, L. A., & Valencia, R. R. (1997). Race-ethnicity and measured intelligence. American Psychologist, 52, 1103^1114. U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2003). Current population survey. October 2003: School enrollment supplement ¢le [CD-ROM].Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of the Census (Producer/Distributor). Wechsler, D. (1939).Wechsler-Bellevue intelligence scale. NewYork:The Psychological Corporation. Wechsler, D. (1975). Intelligence de¢ned and unde¢ned: A relativistic appraisal. American Psychologist, 30, 135^139. Wechsler, D. (1991).TheWechslerIntelligenceScaleforChildren^ThirdEdition. San Antonio,TX: Pearson. Wechsler, D., Kaplan, E., Fein, D., Kramer, J., Morris, R., Delis, D. C., & Maerlender, A. (2004a).Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children^Fourth Edition^Integrated. San Antonio,TX: Pearson. Wechsler, D., Kaplan, E., Fein, D., Kramer, J., Morris, R., Delis, D. C., & Maerlender, A. (2004b).Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children^Fourth Edition^Integrated Administration and Scoring Manual. San Antonio,TX: Pearson.

Reference_1

10/08/2008

194

194 REFERENCES Wechsler, D., & Naglieri, J. A. (2006a).Wechsler Nonverbal Scale of Ability. San Antonio,TX: Pearson. Wechsler, D., & Naglieri, J. A. (2006b).Wechsler Nonverbal Scaleof Ability Administration and Scoring Manual. San Antonio,TX: Pearson. Wechsler, D., & Naglieri, J. A. (2006c).Wechsler Nonverbal Scale of AbilityTechnical and Interpretive Manual. San Antonio,TX: Pearson. Wilkinson, G. S., & Robertson, G. J. (2006).WideRangeAchievementTest^FourthEdition. Lutz, FL: PAR. Woodcock, R.W., McGrew, K., & Mather, N. (2001a).Woodcock-Johnson III NU Tests of Achievement. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside Publishing. Woodcock, R.W., Mather, N., & McGrew, K. (2001b).Woodcock-Johnson III NU Tests of Cognitive Skills. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside Publishing. Yoakum, C. S., & Yerkes, R. M. (1920). Army mental tests. NewYork: Henry Holt & Company.

Bib_1

10/08/2008

195

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Braden, J. P. (1994). Deafness, deprivation, and IQ. NewYork: Plenum Press. A comprehensive research book on intelligence testing and deaf people that explores the interactions between the environment and intelligence through the meta-analysis of over 8,000 subjects in more than 50 studies. Braden, J. P., & Athanasiou, M. S. (2005). A Comparative review of nonverbal measures of intelligence. In D. P. Flanagan & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: theories, tests, and issues (2nd ed., pp. 557^577). NewYork: Guilford. Auseful chapter thatcompares numerous nonverbal measures of intelligence across several dimensions in an outstanding and comprehensive book. Burch, S., & Joyner, H. (2007). Unspeakable:Thestory of JuniusWilson. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. A great history bookof a true case of a black deaf man misidenti¢ed, abused, castrated, and institutionalized for his life.This book documents a tragic example of what can and sometimes does gowrong in societywhen intelligence testing is done wrong with a person who di¡ers from most others. Fadiman, A. (1997).The spirit catches you and you fall down: AHmong child, her American doctors, and the collision oftwo cultures. NewYork: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. A fantastic book that explores the intersection and clinical clashes that can occur when individuals from diverse cultures interact.The book explores the culture collisions between a Hmong refugee family and a rural Californian hospital when a young girl has severe epilepsy. Glickman, N. S., & Gulati, S. (2003). Mental health careofdeafpeople: Aculturally a⁄rmativeapproach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. A good clinical case and resource book regarding the clinical care of deaf people. Gopaul-McNicol, S., & Thomas-Presswood,T. (1998).Working with linguistically and culturally di¡erent children: Innovativepractice and clinical approaches. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Agreat introduction toworking with linguistically and culturallydi¡erent children, full of references, and a great bibliography. It promotes a strong bio-ecological approach to understanding the lives of children in their cultural context. McCallum, R. S. (2003). Handbook of nonverbal assessment. NewYork: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Provides detailed coverage of nonverbal assessment practices for individuals from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds. McCallum, R. S., Bracken, B. A., & Wasserman, J. (2001). Essentials of nonverbal assessment. New York: Wiley. Primarily focusing on the UNITand Leiter-R, this book provides solid coverage for using them for nonverbal assessments. 195

Bib_1

10/08/2008

196

196 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY Rhodes, R., Ochoa, H., & Ortiz, S. (2005). Assessing culturally and linguistically diverse students: A practical guide. NewYork: Guilford. An essential book full of practical tools and techniques that are applicable in the assessment of English-language learners and students from diverse cultures and backgrounds. Sandoval, J., Frisby, C., Geisinger, K., Scheuneman J., & Grenier, J. (Eds.) (1998).Test interpretation and diversity: Achieving equity in assessment (pp. 297^315). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. A wide-ranging book consisting of brief chapters spanning a diversity of issues in the psychological testing of various social groups. Stewart, L. G., University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Rehabilitation Research & Training Center on Deafness/Hearing Impairment., National Association of the Deaf., & National Institute of Handicapped Research (U.S.). (1986). Clinical rehabilitation assessment and hearing impairment: Aguideto quality assurance. Silver Spring, MD: National Association of the Deaf. A collection of case and report examples by one of the ¢rst deaf psychologists. Wechsler, D., & Matarazzo, J. D. (1972).Wechsler’s measurementand appraisal ofadult intelligence (5th and enl. ed.). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins. Aclassic bookbya leading clinician that contains his perspective on the di¡erence between measuring intelligence nonverbally and nonverbal intelligence.

Index_1

10/09/2008

197

INDEX

Adaptive Behavior Assessment System^Second Edition (ABAS-II), 177, 182^183 Administering the WNV: ages 4:0^7:11, 13 ages 8:0^21:11, 13 demonstration/sample item, 14 discontinue rules, 16^17, 33, 34 key points for, 28^31 rates of presentation, 18 reserve rules, 15^16, 33, 34 spoiled subtests, 18 start points, 14^15, 33, 34 timing, 18 See also Interpreting the WNV; Scoring the WNV Allsopp, D., 67 American Society of Deaf Children (ASDC), 106, 127, 166 ArmyAlpha tests, 53 Army Beta tests, 53 Baterı´a-III, 149^150 BEGINNINGS, 107, 127 Behavior Assessment System for Children^Second Edition (BASC-2), 175^176, 181^182, 184

Behavior Assessment System for Children^Second Edition: Parent Rating Scales (BASC-2 PRS), 176 Behavior Assessment System for Children^Second Edition: Teacher Rating Scales (BASC-2 TRS), 176 Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF), 113^115, 125 Bemak, F., 88 Berninger,V.W., 116 Binet, A., 2 Boake, C., 54 Bornstein, B.T., 87 Bracken, B. A., 88 Braden, J. P., 92 Brauer, B. A., 92 Brulles, D., 55, 88 Captioned Media Program (CMP), 108^109, 128^129, 168 CHARGE Syndrome Foundation, 166 Children with Attention De¢cit Disorders (CHADD), 127 Chung, R., 88 197

Index_1

10/09/2008

198

198 INDEX

Clinical applications of the WNV: deaf/hard-of-hearing individuals, 90^96 case reports, 100^132, 156^171 English-language learners, 85^87, 88 case report, 145^155 gifted individuals, 87^89 case report, 100^111 individuals with ADHD (case report), 133^144 individuals with Autism (case report), 172^190 individuals with Mental Retardation, 89^90 Coding (CD), 9, 14, 16, 17, 29, 34^35. See also Administering the WNV; Interpreting the WNV; Scoring the WNV Cognitive Assessment System (CAS), 115^116, 121^125, 136^137, 147^149 Cohen, B. H., 76 Cohen’s d-ratio, 76 Con¢dence intervals, 56, 57, 58. See also Interpreting the WNV; Scoring the WNV Connors Parent Rating Scale ^Revised (Form L), 139 Das, J. P., 67, 115 Davis, F. B., 60 de la Cruz, G. P., 86 Delis, D. C., 26, 93 Developmental Test of Visual Motor Integration, 138 Diagnostic Achievement Battery^ Third Edition (DAB-3), 70

Exceptional Children’s Assistance Center, 107, 127 ExpressiveVocabularyTest, 135, 136 Family Support Network of North Carolina, 107, 127 Fein, D., 26, 93 Finley,V. S., 88 Flanagan, D. P., 64, 92 Ford, D.Y., 78, 80, 87, 88 Frank, E., 88 Frazier, M. M., 88 Full Scale scores, 40, 56, 57, 58, 68^70. See also Interpreting the WNV; Scoring the WNV g (general ability), 3, 53^55 Gallaudet University, 6, 95^96, 109, 129, 168 Garcia, J., 88 General intelligence, 3 Gioia, G. A., 115 Gordon Diagnostic System, 137 Governor’s Advocacy Counsel for Persons with Disabilities, 107, 127 Guy, S. C., 115 Hardy-Braz, S.T., 26, 90, 91, 92, 93 Harrison, P., 177 Helping Children Learn: Intervention Handouts for Use in School and at Home (Naglieri and Pickering), 141, 152 Home Situations Questionnaire, 139 Intelligence, 2, 53^55 Interpreting the WNV: ability^achievement comparisons, 68^70

Index_1

10/09/2008

199

INDEX 199

4-subtest battery, 59^64 overview, 55^58 Spatial Span, 66^67 strengths/weaknesses, 83 subtest vs. mean scores, 62^64 2-subtest battery, 64, 65 See also Scoring the WNV IQ: A Smart History of a Failed Idea (Murdoch), 1 Isquith, P. K., 115 Kamphaus, R.W., 175 Kaplan, E., 26, 93 Kaufman, A. S., 64, 68, 92 Kaufman, N. L., 68 KaufmanTest of Educational Achievement^Second Edition (KTEA-II), 68^69 Keeping Ahead in School (Levine), 129 Kenworthy, L., 115 Kid Friendly Parenting with Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children (Medwin and Weston), 109, 129, 168 King, L., 88 Kramer, J., 26, 93 Krisel, S., 88 Lansdowne, K., 55, 88 Leiter International Performance Scale ^Revised (Leiter-R), 174^175, 179^181, 184 Maerlender, A., 26, 93 Martin, D., 88 Mastropieri, M. A., 67 Mather, N., 70

Matrices (MA), 5, 9,14,16, 17, 24, 28, 34. See also Administering the WNV; Interpreting the WNV; Scoring the WNV McCallum, R. S., 88 McGrew, K., 70 Meeting the Needs of Students Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing, 107, 127, 166 Minsko¡, E., 67 Morris, R., 26, 93 Murdoch, S., 1 Naglieri, J. A., 1, 3, 6, 7, 10, 13, 17, 26, 54, 55, 63, 64, 67, 78, 80, 87, 88, 102, 114, 115, 141, 158, 174 Naglieri Nonverbal AbilityTest^ Individual (NNAT-I), 4 Naglieri Nonverbal AbilityTest^ Multilevel Version (NNATML), 78 Newcomer, P. L., 70 Oakland,T., 177 Object Assembly (OA), 9, 14, 16, 17, 29, 35. See also Administering the WNV; Interpreting the WNV; Scoring the WNV Paolitto, A.W., 61 Peabody PictureVocabularyTest^IIIA (PPVT-III), 135 Percentile ranks, 56, 57, 58. See also Interpreting the WNV; Scoring the WNV Perceptual Reasoning Index (PRI), 92 Pickering, E. B., 67, 141

Index_1

10/09/2008

200

200 INDEX

Picture Arrangement (PA),10,14,16,17, 30^31, 37. See also Administering the WNV; Interpreting the WNV; Scoring the WNV Pintner, R., 53 Pollard, R. Q., 92 Predicted-di¡erence method, 68^70 Process Assessment of the Learner^ Reading and Writing (PAL-RW), 116, 125 Purdue Pegboard, 138 Raising and Educating a Deaf Child (Marschark), 109, 129, 168 Raising a Self-Disciplined Child (Brooks and Goldstein), 141 Raising Resilient Children (Brooks and Goldstein), 141 Ramirez, R. R., 86 Ramsey, M. C., 87 Recognition (RG), 10, 14, 16, 17, 30, 36. See also Administering the WNV; Interpreting the WNV; Scoring the WNV Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID), 93 Reynolds, C. R., 87, 175 Robertson, G. J., 70 Roid, G., 114, 174 Ronning, M. E., 78 Sattler, J. M., 13, 26, 90, 93 Scoring the WNV: age-equivalent, 40^41 converting scores, 38^40 Full Scale Score Plot, 40 overview, 33^37

scoring assistant, 48^49 strengths/weaknesses, 81 subtest Tscore pro¢le, 40 See also Interpreting the WNV; Administering the WNV Scruggs,T. E., 67 Silverstein, A. B., 59, 61 Simple-di¡erence method, 68^70 Social Attributes Checklist, 139 Spatial Span (SSp), 10, 14, 16, 17, 30, 36. See also Administering the WNV; Interpreting the WNV; Scoring the WNV Spearman, Charles, 3, 54 Specialized Training of Military Parents (STOMP), 126, 185 Standard di¡erence, 76 Stanford Binet Intelligence Scale ^ Fifth Edition (SB-5), 113, 114, 120, 125 Stanford-Binet scales, 2 Strengths/Weaknesses of the WNV: ability^achievement correlation, 77^78 administration, 81 and gifted individuals, 80 and individuals with language limitations, 78^80 correlation with other tests, 76^77 factorial validity, 82 4-subtest battery, 80^81 interpretation, 83 reliability, 73^75, 82 scoring, 81 standardization samples, 83 2-subtest battery, 80 validity, 76^80, 82 Suzuki, L. A., 54, 80, 86, 88

Index_1

10/09/2008

201

INDEX 201

Tscores, 40, 56, 57, 58. See also Interpreting the WNV; Scoring the WNV Unspeakable:The Story of Junius Wilson (Burch, Joyner), 1 U.S. Bureau of the Census, 85 Valencia, R. R., 54, 80, 86, 88 Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales^ Second Edition: Parent/ Caregiver Rating Form (VABS-II PCRF), 159, 164^165 Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales^ Second Edition: Teacher Rating Form (VABS-II TRF), 159^160, 164^165 Wechsler, D.3,6,7,10,13,17, 26,54,55,61, 71, 93, 103, 114, 158, 174 Wechsler Individual Achievement Test^Second Edition (WIATII), 68, 86^87 Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children^Fourth Edition (WISC-IV), 135^136 Wechsler Nonverbal Ability Administration and Scoring Manual, 13 Wechsler Nonverbal Scale of Ability (WNV): administering (see Administering the WNV) clinical applications of (see Clinical applications of the WNV) and deaf/hard-of-hearing individuals, 6, 26^28, 74, 76, 79^80, 90^96

case reports, 100^132 description of, 7^9 development of, 4^6 history of, 2^4 interpreting (see Interpreting the WNV) overview, 1^2 purpose of, 3^4 Record Form, 18^22 analysis page, 41^48 summary page, 37^41 scoring (see Scoring the WNV) scoring assistant, 48^49 strengths of (see Strengths/ Weaknesses of the WNV) structure of, 9^10 testing conditions, 13 2- vs. 4-subtest battery, 9, 14, 75 (see also Interpreting the WNV) weaknesses of (see Strengths/ Weaknesses of the WNV) Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence ^Third Edition (WPSSI-III), 146^147 Wechsler-Bellevue scales, 3 Wide RangeAchievementTest^Fourth Edition (WRAT-4), 70 Wilkinson, G. S., 70 Willis, J. O., 90 Woodcock, R.W., 70 Woodcock-JohnsonTests of Achievement^Third Edition (WJ-III), 68^69, 138 Yerkes, R. M., 53, 87 Yoakum, C. S., 53, 87

Index_1

10/09/2008

202

about_1

10/08/2008

203

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

KIMBERLY A. BRUNNERT

Kimberly A. Brunnert (formerly Diehl) obtained her Masters degree in Experimental Psychology and her Doctorate degree in Quantitative Psychology from the University of Kansas at Lawrence (1996, 2002) under the direction of Susan Embretson. Her dissertation married cognitive science and psychometrics. From1999 to 2001, Dr. Brunnert worked under the direction of Dr. Janet Marquis, intheResearchDesign and AnalysisUnitoftheLife SpanInstitute attheUniversity of Kansas on a statistical and methodological team that investigated best procedures used to analyze many di¡erent data types. From 2001 to 2006, Dr. Brunnert worked for Harcourt Assessment, Inc. as a Psychometrician and a Research Director on six major products including the Wechsler Nonverbal Scale of Ability (WNV) (Wechsler & Naglieri, 2006). From 2006 to 2008, Dr. Brunnert worked as a Research Director for Harcourt Assessment, now Pearson, on products in the educational catalog. She now works for Pearson in Educational Assessment as a Senior Research Scientist. Dr. Brunnert has been a member of the Universityof Kansas Graduate School Advisory Board since 2003 when she was a founding member and has served asvice-chair and chair of this Board. Dr. Brunnert has over a dozenscholarly publications in the areas of psychometrics (e.g., item response theory, longitudinal data analysis), applied psychometrics (e.g., cognitive theory, algorithmic item generation), and assessment. She also has one patent (pending) titled Nonverbal Assessment Instruction Providing System and Method, which details the utility of the pictorial directions for the WNV. JACK A. NAGLIERI

Jack A. Naglieri obtained his Master of Science degree from St. John’s University (1974). He worked as a school psychologist in the New York area from 203

about_1

10/08/2008

204

204 ABOUT THE AUTHORS

1974 to 1977, prior to earning his doctorate from the University of Georgia (1979) under the direction of Alan S. Kaufman, who had worked with Dr.Wechsler. In 1980 he began his career as a university professor at Northern Arizona University, and from 1982 to 2000 he was on the faculty at Ohio State University. Dr. Naglieri was director of George Mason University’s (GMU) Center for Cognitive Development from 2000 to 2004, and is now a Professor of Psychology at George Mason University in Fairfax,Virginia. He holds an appointment as a Senior Research Scientist at the Devereux Foundation’s Institute for ClinicalTraining and Research and is director of the school psychology program. He is the Senior Editor of the Journal of Attention Disorders and is on the editorial boards of many professional journals. Dr. Naglieri is the author of more than 250 scholarly publications and books in the area of psychological assessment and intervention, including Helping Children Learn: Intervention Handouts for Use at School and Home (with Pickering, 2003). He is the author of the widely used Naglieri Nonverbal AbilityTest (1997, 2003), as well as other tests designed to measure ability, cognitive processing, emotional disorders, resilience, and impairment. STEVEN T. HARDY-BRAZ

Steven T. Hardy-Braz, a nationally certi¢ed school psychologist who specializes in working with students who are deaf or hard of hearing, was trained in substance abuse counseling, and with two undergraduate degrees at the University of New Haven he obtained both his Masters degree in Developmental Psychology and his Specialist Degree in Psychology (Psy. S.) in School Psychology from Gallaudet University. He has presented at numerous conferences and schools for the deaf, nationally and internationally, as well as authored dozens of papers and chapters. While at the Eastern North Carolina School for the Deaf he worked with deaf students who also were autistic, mentally disabled, emotionally disturbed, blind, and/or learning disabled. He has trained graduate students in East Carolina University’s Special Education Department. Awarded the North Carolina School PsychologyAssociation (NCSPA) award for Practitioner of the Year, the Southeast Regional Institute of Deafness’ Outstanding Educator of theYear, he was also named Gallaudet University’s Outstanding Young Alumnus Award, the ¢rst hearing person to ever be thus recognized. He has served as President of the NCSPA, chairman of the N.C. mental health advisory board, and co-coordinator of the National Association of School Psychologists’ Interest Group on Students who are

about_1

10/08/2008

205

ABOUT THE AUTHORS 205

Deaf or Hard of Hearing and their families. He has worked for the U.S. Department of Defense at Fort Bragg Schools, is an o⁄cial national trainer on ten of the most widely used psychological assessment instruments, and has consulted with test developers on over a dozen assessments with four di¡erent test publishers.

about_1

10/08/2008

206

Brunnert Naglieri Hardy-Braz

Psychology

Quickly acquire the knowledge and skills you need to confidently administer, score, and interpret the WNV™

E

of WNV ™ Assessment provides practitioners with the practical, step-by-step advice needed to administer, score, and interpret the Wechsler Nonverbal Scale of Ability (WNV™), a nonverbal assessment of general ability used to assess a wide variety of individuals. The test is especially well suited for those who are not proficient in English, such as young children, recent immigrants, English language learners, and the deaf and hard of hearing. Like all the volumes in the Essentials of Psychological Assessment series, this book is designed to help busy mental health professionals quickly acquire the knowledge and skills they need to make optimal use of a major psychological assessment instrument. Each concise chapter features numerous callout boxes highlighting key concepts, bulleted points, and extensive illustrative material, as well as test questions that help you gauge and reinforce your grasp of the information covered.

KIMBERLY A. BRUNNERT, PHD, is a Senior Research Scientist in Educational Assessment at Pearson, where she has worked with Jack Naglieri on the development of the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test, Individual Administration; Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test, Second Edition; and the Wechsler Nonverbal Scale of Ability. JACK A. NAGLIERI, PHD, is Professor of Psychology at George Mason University, Senior Research Scientist at the Devereux Foundation, a Fellow of APA Division 16—School Psychology, and recipient of that division’s Senior Scientist Award. In addition, he has published a number of research papers, books, and tests. STEVEN T. HARDY-BRAZ, PSYS, NCSP, is a past president of the North Carolina School Psychology Association. He has worked with residential schools for deaf students, the U.S. Department of the Defense, and public school systems. In addition to providing state, regional, and national training in assessment and diagnosis, especially in evaluations with students with learning disabilities, he consulted on the development of the WNV™.

TM

Essentials of WNV ™ Assessment is the best source of information on the test, providing you with illuminating case reports, expert assessment of the test’s relative strengths and weaknesses, and valuable advice on its clinical applications. Authoritative and insightful coverage is presented for the assessment of examinees from diverse social, linguistic, and cultural backgrounds. You will learn the fundamentals of administration and interpretation, as well as advanced tips for application of the WNV™.

Essentials of WNV Assessment

TM WNVssentials

Essentials of

WNV Assessment TM

Complete coverage of administration, scoring, interpretation, and reporting Expert advice on avoiding common pitfalls Conveniently formatted for rapid reference

Other titles in the Essentials of Psychological Assessment series: Essentials of Assessment Report Writing Essentials of WISC®-IV Assessment Essentials of Cross-Battery Assessment, Second Edition Essentials of WJ III™ Tests of Achievement Assessment Essentials of WJ III™ Cognitive Abilities Assessment

Essentials of Stanford-Binet Intellegence Scales (SB5) Assessment Essentials of School Neuropsychological Assessment Essentials of Processing Assessment Essentials of DAS-II® Assessment Essentials of Evidence-Based Academic Interventions

Visit us on the Web at: www.wiley.com/psychology

Kimberly A. Brunnert Jack A. Naglieri Steven T. Hardy-Braz Alan S. Kaufman & Nadeen L. Kaufman, Series Editors