Bruce A. Bracken, PhD The University of Memphis R. Steve McCallum, PhD University of Tennessee,...

Bruce A. Bracken, PhDThe University of Memphis

R. Steve McCallum, PhDUniversity of Tennessee, Knoxville

Nonverbal Assessment of Intelligence:

Introduction to the Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test (UNIT)

Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

UNIT Authors

Bruce A. Bracken, PhDProfessor of PsychologyDirector, Child and Family StudiesThe University of Memphis

Department of PsychologyCampus Box 52640Memphis, TN 38152-6400(901) 678-2143bbracken @ memphis.edu


UNIT Authors

R. Steve McCallum, PhDProfessor and ChairPsychoeducational Studies

DepartmentUniversity of Tennessee, Knoxville

434 Claxton AdditionUniversity of TennesseeKnoxville, TN 37996(423) 974-5405mccallum @ utkux.utk.edu


Part I: Nonverbal Assessment of Intelligence Why nonverbal assessment matters What is nonverbal assessment? How can you evaluate nonverbal tests? For whom is nonverbal assessment appropriate? Why is nonverbal assessment needed? Assessment options when a language-loaded test is inappropriate Current controversies A list of nonverbal intelligence tests

What This Presentation Covers…



What This Presentation Covers…

Part II: An Introduction to the UNIT Theoretical Underpinnings Scales and Subtests Administration Features UNIT Standardization and Technical Properties

(Reliability, Validity, and Special Psychometric Properties)

Fairness Clinical Use and Interpretation

Why Nonverbal Assessment Matters… U.S.A. Resident Population (12/1/97)

Number Percent of Total

White 222,104,000 82.6African American 34,143,000 12.7Native American 2,338,000 0.9Asian/Pacific Islanders 10,181,000 3.8Hispanic Origin (any race) 28,802,000 11.1

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Internet Release Date 2/6/98.


Why Nonverbal Assessment Matters…

U.S.A. Census Facts About Foreign-Born Individuals

• One out of every 10 people in the U.S.A. is foreign-born.

• Of the nation’s total foreign-born population, 68% are White, 24% Asian/Pacific Islander, and 8% African American. Over 40% of the nation’s total foreign-born are Hispanic.


Why Nonverbal Assessment Matters… U.S.A. Census Growth Trends

• By the middle of the next century, the nation’s Hispanic population is expected to reach 96.5 million (24.5 % of the total population).

• Through 2020, the Asian/Pacific Islander population is expected to grow faster than the nation’s other race groups or the Hispanic-origin population.


What is Nonverbal Assessment?

Testing that requires no spoken language by the examiner and examinee

Nonverbal refers to the method of administration and the nature of the response, not the abilities being assessed and the strategies used to arrive at solutions


Criteria for Evaluating Nonverbal Assessments

Verbal instructions should be absent Examinee responses should be nonverbal

(e.g., pointing, constructing, gesturing) Administration procedures should be easily

understood by individuals of varying cultures Multiple aspects of cognition should be assessed Tasks should be balanced between those requiring

symbolic (language-related) and nonsymbolic mediational strategies


For Whom Is Nonverbal Assessment Appropriate?

Individuals with speech or language impairments Individuals with hearing impairments Individuals from diverse cultural or linguistic

backgrounds Individuals who are verbally uncommunicative

or whose verbalizations are unreliable Any individual for whom verbal performance

may underestimate the optimal level of functioning


Individuals with speech or language impairments

Articulation Disorders Expressive Language Disorders Mixed Expressive Language Disorders Language-Related Learning Disabilities Post-Traumatic Language Impairment

(i.e., after Traumatic Brain Injury) Language Impairment after Stroke


Individuals with hearing impairments

Hard of hearing describes individuals with mild to moderate hearing losses who still retain sufficient residual hearing for communication through spoken language

Deaf is the term preferred by deaf people to refer to individuals with severe hearing losses who use sign language as their primary means of communication


Individuals from diverse cultural or linguistic backgrounds

Limited English Proficiency is a condition which includes individuals who have difficulty reading, writing, or understanding the English language because they

• were born outside of the U.S.A. or have a native language that is not English

• come from an environment where a language other than English is dominant


Individuals with Serious Emotional Disturbance• Selective Mutism

• Autism

• Thought Disorder

Individuals who are extremely shy or verbally uncommunicative

Individuals who are verbally uncommunicative


Other Diagnostic/Exceptional Groups Appropriate for Nonverbal Assessment

Any individual for whom verbal performance may underestimate the optimal level of functioning

• Individuals who are mentally retarded

• Individuals who are intellectually gifted in nonverbal domains

• Individuals with focal or diffuse cortical damage

• Individuals who show low performance on IQ tests in spite of high functional abilities


The Need for Nonverbal Assessment

Most cognitive and intellectual tests are language-loaded, i.e., performance relies heavily upon verbal responses or verbal instructions and verbal stimuli

Results from language-loaded tests may not be fair and accurate

Example: WISC–III


Example: WISC–III as a Language-Loaded Test

Verbal Scale subtests are all administered and answered with language

Performance Scale subtests are all administered with language, and test performance may be verbally-mediated for most subtests

The Full Scale IQ (FSIQ) equally weights Verbal and Performance Scales


Impact of Race and Ethnicity on WISC–III Performance

WISC–III FSIQStandardization Sample Difference

African American vs. Whites – 14.9 points Hispanics vs. Whites – 9.4 points

Source: Prifitera, A., Weiss, L., & Saklofske, D. (1998). The WISC–III in context. In A. Prifitera & D. Saklofske (Eds.), WISC-III clinical use and interpretation:Scientist-practitioner perspectives (pp. 1-38). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Deaf Individuals and Adapted WISC–III Performance

Study N VIQ PIQFSIQ

• Wechsler (1991) 30 81.1 105.8 92.2

• Braden et al. (1994) 19 81.6 102.3 90.7

• Slate & Fawcett (1995) 47 — 88.0 —

• Sullivan & Montoya (1997) 106 75.4 100.6 86.2

Source: Prifitera, A., Weiss, L., & Saklofske, D. (1998). The WISC-III in context. In A. Prifitera & D. Saklofske (Eds.), WISC-III clinical use and interpretation:Scientist-practitioner perspectives (pp. 1-38). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Assessment Options When a language-loaded test is inappropriate

Benefits

• Only subtests on the Wechsler that are language-reduced are used

Detriments

• Performance tasks often have lengthy verbal instructions

• Performance tasks typically have no checkpoint and few demonstration/sample items

• Performance tasks place a heavy emphasis on speed

• Some performance tasks penalize for ambiguous errors (e.g., rotations on Block Design)

• Some performance tasks are culturally-bound (e.g., Picture Arrangement)

Wechsler Performance Scale Tests



Benefits• Assess the child in native language

Detriments• Translations are labor intensive, expensive, and time-consuming

• Translations needed for every language spoken in population

• Regional/dialectal nuances within same language

• Lack of skilled bilingual translators

• Lack of skilled bilingual examiners

• Insufficient validation of translated scales

• Bilingual children are often not proficient in either language

Translated Tests



Benefits

• Test is modified to meet the special needs of examinee

Detriments

• Adaptation often changes the basic nature of the construct being assessed

• Test has not been normed as adapted

• Test usually has not been validated as adapted

Adapted Tests



Benefits

• Test is administered, normed, and validated as a nonverbal measure

• Test requires no examinee receptive or expressive language abilities

• Test requires no second language skill of examinee

• Test is appropriate for all children

Detriments

• Often unidimensional assessment of a single construct (e.g., matrix reasoning)

• Historically poor predictor of academic achievement

• Verbal demands on many “nonverbal” tests

Nonverbal Measures


Current Controversies: Verbal Mediation of Nonverbal Tests

Many nonverbal procedures have nonsymbolic, abstract material

Few nonverbal procedures have symbolic, verbally-mediated material

Best Practice is to find a test that balances or otherwise compares performance on both verbally- and nonverbally-mediated tasks


Current Controversies: Symbol & Gesture Comprehension in Language-Impaired Individuals

Aphasia and language impairment affect central processing of symbolic information that is essential to language

In varying degrees, aphasic individuals may have difficulty understanding spoken, written, and even gestural communications

Best Practice is to build multiple indicators into a test to ensure that the examinee understands what is being asked of him or her (e.g., sample items, demonstration items, and checkpoint items)


Current Controversies: Nonverbal Assessment Compared With Use of Translated Tests

Advantages of Nonverbal Tests• One test can be used across cultures and languages

• Bypasses the effect of bilingualism or differential language competencies

• Solves the problem of translational inconsistencies

• Solves the problem of poorly normed test translations

• Solves the problem of examinee competence in language


A List of Nonverbal Intelligence Tests

First Generation Nonverbal Intelligence Tests Matrices-Based Nonverbal Cognitive Procedures The New Generation of Multidimensional

Nonverbal Cognitive Procedures


First Generation Nonverbal Intelligence Tests

Draw A Person (Goodenough, 1926) Raven’s Progressive Matrices (originally

1938) Wechsler Performance Scales

(originally 1939) Leiter International Performance Scale

(originally 1948)


Matrices-Based Nonverbal Cognitive Procedures

Raven’s Progressive Matrices Matrix Analogies Test Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test Comprehensive Test of Nonverbal Intelligence Test of Nonverbal Intelligence–3rd Edition


The New Generation of Multidimensional Nonverbal Intelligence Tests

Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test (UNIT) by B. A. Bracken & R. S. McCallum (1998)

Leiter International Performance Scale–Revised by G. H. Roid & L. J. Miller (1997)



Universal NonverbalIntelligence Test

An Introduction to the UNIT

Top Ten Goals in UNIT Development Theoretical Underpinnings Scales and Subtests Administration Features UNIT Standardization and Technical Properties

(Reliability, Validity, and Special Psychometric Properties)

Fairness Clinical Use and Interpretation


Top Ten Goals in UNIT Development

10. Answer the pressing need for cross-cultural assessment instruments.

9. Create a multipurpose test for use whenever language is an issue or concern.

8. Create a test that is entirely nonverbal, with no receptive or expressive language requirements.

7. Develop tasks that comprehensively measure general intelligence.

6. Develop tasks that measure important subdomains of intelligence.


Top Ten Goals in UNIT Development (continued)

5. Develop tasks that enhance the testing experience for examinees.

4. Encourage flexible and efficient assessment with three administration options.

3. Develop a test that builds on examiner knowledge and experience.

2. Develop a test that measures intelligence accurately and with precision.

1. Ensure the highest level of test fairness.


UNIT Theoretical Underpinnings

A hierarchical model of intelligence with general ability, or g, at the apex (e.g., Carroll, 1993; Gustafsson, 1984)

Modification of Jensen’s (1980) dichotomy between associative ability (Memory) and cognitive ability (Reasoning)

Traditional Classification of Procedures according to processing demands (i.e., those mediated by Symbolic versus Nonsymbolic processing)


UNIT Theoretical Underpinnings

UNIT assesses complex Memory and Reasoning abilities that lend themselves to internal processes of verbal (Symbolic) mediation as well as those that are less conducive to such mediation (Nonsymbolic)

The interlocking design keeps the test efficient and economical


Conceptual Model for the UNIT

Symbolic Subtests

Nonsymbolic Subtests

MemorySubtests

Symbolic Memory

Object Memory

Spatial Memory

ReasoningSubtests

Analogic Reasoning

Cube DesignMazes


UNIT Scales

Memory Quotient (MQ) Reasoning Quotient (RQ) Symbolic Quotient (SQ) Nonsymbolic Quotient (NSQ) Full Scale Intelligence Quotient (FSIQ)


Memory Quotient (MQ)

An index of complex memory functioning for both meaningful and abstract material involving• Short-term recall and organization

• Short-term recognition and reorganization

An index of memory for• Content (what was seen)

• Location (where it was seen)

• Sequence (the order in which it was seen)


Reasoning Quotient (RQ)

An index of thinking and problem-solving abilities for• Familiar situations

• Unfamiliar situations

An index that requires• Pattern processing

• Understanding of relationships

• Planning abilities


Symbolic Quotient (SQ)

An index of processing and problem-solving with material that is• Meaningful in content

• Conducive to internal verbal mediation

Internal verbal mediation includes• Labeling

• Organizing

• Categorizing


Nonsymbolic Quotient (NSQ)

An index of processing and problem-solving with material that is• Abstract in content

• Not very meaningful

• Not easily conducive to verbal mediation


UNIT Subtests

Symbolic Memory Cube Design Spatial Memory Analogic Reasoning Object Memory Mazes


Description of

Symbolic Memory Subtest

The examinee views a sequence of universal symbols for a period of 5 seconds. After the stimulus is removed, the examinee recreates the sequence using the Symbolic Memory Response Cards. Each item is a series of universal symbols for baby, girl, boy, woman, and man, depicted in green or black. Symbolic Memory is primarily a measure of short-term visual memory and complex sequential memory for meaningful material.


Administration at a Glance

Symbolic Memory

Place the response cards in two rows, black at the top and green atthe bottom, and in the following order from left to right: Baby, Girl, Boy,Woman, Man. Place Stimulus Book 1 12"–18" in front of the examinee.The space between the stimulus book and the response cards is the workarea. Make eye contact with the examinee, present the stimulus page for 5seconds, and point to the stimulus figures. After 5 seconds, turn thescreening page to cover the stimulus page, wave a hand over the work areaand response cards, and use the open-handed shrug. After completinga demonstration item, re-expose the stimulus page to demonstratethe correct response(s).

.


Arrangement of Test Materials for Symbolic Memory


Symbolic Memory Subtest: Example Item


Description of

Cube Design Subtest

Cube Design involves the presentation and direct reproduction of two-color, abstract, geometric designs. While viewing the stimulus design, the examinee reconstructs the design directly on the stimulus book or response mat, using green-and-white one-inch cubes. Cube Design is primarily a measure of visual-spatial reasoning.



Cube Design

For Demonstration 1 through Item 2, place Stimulus Book 1 flat, directly in front of the examinee. (Use the back of the response mat to cover Spatial Memory items.) For Demonstration 3 through Item 15, place Stimulus Book 1 in its easel position 12"–18" in front of the examinee, and the response mat between the examinee and the stimulus book. For each item, place the required number of cubes beside the stimulus book or response mat, expose the stimulus page, start the stopwatch deliberately, and use the open-handed shrug. After completing demonstration items, stop the stopwatch and point to the side(s) of the cube(s) and the corresponding side(s) of the stimulus design.


Arrangement of Test Materials for Cube Design


Cube Design Subtest: Example Item


Description of

Spatial Memory Subtest

The examinee views a random pattern of green, black, or green and black dots on a 3 x 3 or 4 x 4 grid for a period of 5 seconds. After the stimulus is removed, the examinee recreates the spatial pattern with green and black circular chips on the blank response grid. Spatial Memory is primarily a measure of short-term visual memory for abstract material.



Spatial Memory

Place Stimulus Book 1 in its easel position 12"–18" in front of theexaminee, the Response Grid directly in front of the examinee, and thegreen and black response chips next to the Response Grid. ForDemonstration 1 through Item 11, use the 3 x 3 grid; for Items 12–27,use the 4 x 4 grid. Make eye contact with the examinee, present thestimulus page for 5 seconds, and point to the stimulus figures. After 5seconds, turn the screening page to cover the stimulus page, wave ahand over the response grid and response chips, and use theopen-handed shrug. After completing a demonstration item,re-expose the stimulus page to demonstrate the correctresponse(s).

.


Arrangement of Test Materials for Spatial Memory


Spatial Memory Subtest: Example Item


Description of

Analogic Reasoning Subtest

Analogic Reasoning presents incomplete conceptual or geometric analogies in a matrix format and requires only a pointing response. The items feature either common objects or novel geometric figures. The examinee completes the matrix analogies by selecting from four response options. Analogic Reasoning is primarily a measure of symbolic reasoning.



Analogic Reasoning

Place Stimulus Book 1 in its easel position directly in front and within reach of the examinee. Present the stimulus page and point to the figures in each row from left to right, ending with the blank cell. Wave a hand over the response options at the bottom of the stimulus page, point again to the blank cell, and use the open-handed shrug. After completing demonstration items, point to the correct response and nod your head.


Arrangement of Test Materials for Analogic Reasoning


Description of

Object Memory Subtest

The examinee is presented a random pictorial array of common objects for 5 seconds. After the stimulus is removed, a second pictorial array is presented, containing all of the previously presented objects and additional objects to serve as foils. The examinee recognizes and identifies the objects presented in the first pictorial array by placing response chips on the appropriate pictures. Object Memory is primarily a measure of short-term recognition and recall of meaningful symbolic material.



Object Memory

Place Stimulus Book 2 flat, directly in front of the examinee and eight black response chips beside the stimulus book. Makeeye contact with the examinee, present the stimulus page for 5seconds, and point to the stimulus figures. After 5 seconds,present the response page, wave a hand over the response pageand response chips, and use the open handed shrug. Aftercompleting demonstration items, re-expose the stimulus page todemonstrate the correct response(s).


Arrangement of Test Materials for Object Memory


Description of

Mazes Subtest

The examinee uses paper and pencil to navigate and exit mazes by tracing a path from the center starting point of each maze to the correct exit, without making incorrect decisions en route. Increasingly complex mazes are presented. Mazes is primarily a measure of reasoning and planful behavior.



Mazes

Place the Mazes Response Booklet flat, directly in front of the examinee and folded so that examinee sees only the item being presented. Retain the pencils until the examinee needs the graphite pencil to complete a maze. For demonstration items, point to yourself, then to the mouse, then to the cheese. Start the stopwatch deliberately and complete the maze with the red-leaded pencil. Retrace the path with a finger and nod your head. For sample items, point to the examinee, then to the mouse, then to the cheese. Give the graphite pencil to the examinee and start the stopwatch deliberately. For scored items, point to the examinee and to the mouse, but not to the cheese.


Arrangement of Test Materials for Mazes


Mazes Subtest: Example Item


UNIT Administration Features

100% nonverbal administration Flexible administration with three options

(Abbreviated, Standard, or Extended Batteries) depending on your needs

Administration at a Glance card Use of relatively universal and cross-cultural

nonverbal gestures Demonstration items, Sample items, and

Checkpoint items for fair administration


100% Nonverbal Administration

UNIT is the only multidimensional IQ test which may be administered completely nonverbally

But you always have the freedom to talk with a child to build and maintain rapport, so long as the discussion is not about the test!


Flexible Administration Abbreviated, Standard, Extended Batteries

Abbreviated Battery (2 subtests)• about 15 minutes

• for screening of intellectual functioning Standard Battery (4 subtests)

• about 30 minutes

• for eligibility and diagnostic decision-making Extended Battery (6 subtests)

• about 45 minutes

• for more in-depth diagnostic assessments


Administration Gestures



Head Nodding

Nodding the head up and down communicates “yes” or approval or that the responses to sample items are correct. The head nod should not be used to indicate correct responses on scored items.

Head Shaking

Shaking the head from side to side communicates “no” or disapproval.



Open-Handed Shrugging

Shrugging the shoulders with palms up and a questioning facial expression asks “What is the answer?”

Palm Rolling

With one or both hands out, with palms up and fingers together, the wrists are rotated toward the body so that the hands inscribe small circles in the air. This gesture indicates “Go ahead” or “You try it now.”



Pointing

Pointing with the index finger first to the relevant aspects of the stimulus and then to the examinee indicates “You do it now.”

Hand Waving

Moving an open hand horizontally, with palm up, over the stimulus items indicates that they should be considered as a group or as a series of options from which the examinee should choose.



Stop

Holding an open hand in a nearly vertical position with the palm toward the examinee conveys the message, “Stop.” Placing a hand over the examinee’s hand or over the test materials may be necessary.

Thumbs Up

Holding a fist over the table with the thumb extending upward essentially means the same thing as a head nod. The thumbs-up gesture can also be used to convey encouragement or acknowledgment.


Teaching Procedures for Fair Administration

Demonstration Items

• Completed by the examiner to show the examinee how to approach each item type

Sample Items

• Completed by the examinee to demonstrate that he or she understands the problem; corrective feedback by the examiner is allowed

Checkpoint Items

• Scored items completed by the examinee that allow the examiner to provide feedback about incorrect responses


UNIT Standardization and Technical Properties

Standardization Sample Reliability Studies

• Internal Consistency

• Reliabilities at Decision-Making Points

• Test-Retest Stability

Floors, Ceilings, and Difficulty Gradients Validity Studies


Standards of Test Technical Adequacy for School-Aged Children

Internal Consistency• Median subtest internal consistency averaged across ages .80• Total test internal consistency averaged across ages .90• Screening test internal consistency averaged across ages .80

Test–Retest Stability• Total test stability coefficient .90

Floors• Average subtest floor 2 SDs or more below normative mean• Total test floor is 2 SDs or more below normative mean

Ceilings• Average subtest ceiling 2 SDs or more above normative mean• Total test ceiling 2 SDs or more above normative mean

Difficulty Gradients• For subtests and total test, no fewer than three measurement points per standard deviation, or each measurement point equivalent to no more than one-third standard deviation

Validity• Validity studies reported (e.g., group mean differences)

Note. Adapted from “Limitations of Preschool Instruments and Standards for Minimal Levels of Technical Adequacy,” by B. A. Bracken, 1987, Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 5, pp. 313–326. Copyright 1987 by the Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment.

Table 5.1


UNIT Standardization Sample

Normed on 2,100 children and adolescents aged 5.0–17.11 years

108 sites across 38 states Total of 3,865 children and adolescents tested for

norms development and reliability, validity, and fairness studies

Sample representative of the general USA population based on 1995 census updates


UNIT Standardization Sites


UNIT Sampling Variables

Age (5 years 0 months through 17 years 11 months) Sex (Female, Male) Race (African American, Asian American, Native American,

White, Other) Hispanic Origin (Hispanic, Non-Hispanic) Region (Midwest, Northeast, South, West) Community Setting (Urban/Suburban, Rural) Parental Educational Attainment (Less than High School

Degree; High School Graduate or Equivalency; Some College or Technical School; Four or More Years of College)

Inclusion of Representative Exceptional Children and Adolescents


UNIT Standardization Sample Compared with U.S. Population: Sex, Race, Ethnicity, and SES

UNIT Sample % U.S. Population %

Sex

Female 49.9 48.9

Male 50.1 51.1

Race

African American 16.0 16.0

White 78.4 78.8

Other 5.7 5.2

Ethnicity

Hispanic 13.0 13.0

Non-Hispanic 87.0 87.0

Parent Educational Attainment

Less than High School 14.0 13.7

High School Graduate 29.5 29.1

Some College 29.2 29.7

4 Years of College 27.3 27.5

Note. N = 175 in each age group.Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

UNIT Standardization Sample Compared with U.S. Population: Geographic Region and Community Size


Geographic Region (38 states)

Midwest 24.4 24.1

Northeast 18.0 18.2

South 35.0 35.2

West 22.7 22.5

Community Size

Rural 27.6 24.8

Urban/Suburban 72.4 75.2


UNIT Standardization Sample Compared with U.S. Population: Special Education Services


Learning Disabilities 5.6 5.9

Speech and Language Impairments 2.3 2.4

Serious Emotional Disturbance 0.9 1.0

Mental Retardation 1.2 1.3

Hearing Impairments 0.2 0.2

Intellectual Giftedness 6.2 6.4

Bilingual Education 1.8 3.1

English as a Second Language 2.0 4.0


UNIT Internal Consistency Split-Half Correlations With Spearman-Brown Corrections

Standard Battery

MemoryReasoningSymbolicNonsymbolicFull Scale

AverageReliabilit

y

.88

.90

.87

.91

.93

Clinical/Exception

al Sample

.95

.96

.95

.97

.98


UNIT Decision-Making Reliabilities Split-Half Correlations With Spearman-Brown Corrections (Also corrected for restriction or expansion in range)

Standard Battery


FSIQ = 70±10

.97

.97

.96

.98

.98

FSIQ = 130± 10

.96

.97

.95

.98

.98


Test-Retest Stability Corrected for variability on the first testing

Standard Battery


Corrected r

.81

.87

.78

.84

.88


UNIT Floors and Ceilings

Floors: A term describing the extent to which there are a sufficient number of easy items to distinguish between examinees of delayed to very delayed ability

Ceilings: A term describing the extent to which there are a sufficient number of difficult items to distinguish between examinees of superior and very superior ability


UNIT Floors and Ceilings

Floors: UNIT subtests have very good to excellent floors for low ability examinees across the entire age range, with the exception of the Abbreviated Battery at the youngest ages

Ceilings: UNIT subtests have consistently excellent ceilings, even for the oldest and highest ability examinees


UNIT Item Difficulty Gradients

Difficulty Gradients: A term describing the steepness of the gradations in item difficulty. An increase or decrease in a single raw score point should not result in a standard score change of more than one-third SD

UNIT Difficulty Gradients: Average item gradients for UNIT subtests equal or exceed standards for every age level, indicating UNIT’s sensitivity to subtle differences in ability levels (with the exception of one subtest at the earliest ages)


UNIT Internal Validity Studies

Evidence of Content Validity Structural Evidence of Validity

• Development and Growth Curves

• Subtest Unidimensionality Studies

• Subtest and Scale Intercorrelation Studies

• Comparison among the three UNIT Batteries

• Factor Analytic Investigations• Exploratory Factor Analyses• Confirmatory Factor Analyses


0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16-17

Age in Years

Me

an S

ub

tes

t R

aw S

core

Symbolic Memory

Cube Design

Spatial Memory

Analogic Reasoning

Object Memory

Mazes

Age Progression of UNIT Subtests:Mean Raw Scores By Age


460

470

480

490

500

510

520

530

540

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16-17

Age in Years

Me

an W

-Sco

re

Symbolic Memory

Spatial Memory

Object Memory

Cube Design

Analogic Reasoning

Mazes

Age Progression on UNIT Subtests:Mean Rasch W Scores By Age


475

480

485

490

495

500

505

510

515

520

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16-17

Age in Years

Me

an W

-sco

res

460

470

480

490

500

510

520

530

540

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16-17

Age in Years

Me

an W

-Sco

re

Symbolic Memory

Spatial Memory

Object Memory

Cube Design

Analogic Reasoning

Mazes

Age Progression of UNIT Standard Battery FSIQ:Mean Rasch W Score By Age


Exploratory Factor Analyses for Standard BatterySecond-Order Principal Components Schmid-Leiman Solution for the Standardization and Clinical/Exceptional Samples

Standardization Sample Clinical/Exceptional SampleSecond First Second First

Order Order Order Order g Memory Reasoning g Memory Reasoning

Symbolic Memory .75 .46 –.05 .88 .35 .03

Cube Design .77 .06 .36 .88 .05 .34

Spatial Memory .80 .33 .11 .88 .34 .05

Analogic Reasoning .73 –.05 .45 .88 .03 .36


Confirmatory Factor Analyses for the Standardization Sample Factor Loadings (Standardized Regression Beta Weights)

Memory Reasoning Symbolic Nonsymbolic

Symbolic Memory 0.66 — — —

Cube Design — 0.70 — —

Spatial Memory 0.74 — — —

Analogic Reasoning — 0.67 — —

Object Memory 0.63 — — —

Mazes — 0.37 — —


Confirmatory Factor Analyses for the Standardization Sample Factor Loadings (Standardized Regression Beta Weights)


Symbolic Memory — — 0.66 —

Cube Design — — — 0.68

Spatial Memory — — — 0.75

Analogic Reasoning — — 0.65 —

Object Memory — — 0.63 —

Mazes — — — 0.36


Confirmatory Factor Analyses for the Clinical/Exceptional SampleFactor Loadings (Standardized Regression Beta Weights)


Symbolic Memory 0.71 — — —

Cube Design — 0.74 — —

Spatial Memory 0.78 — — —

Analogic Reasoning — 0.73 — —

Object Memory 0.68 — — —

Mazes — 0.47 — —


Confirmatory Factor Analyses for the Clinical/Exceptional SampleFactor Loadings (Standardized Regression Beta Weights)


Symbolic Memory — — 0.71 —

Cube Design — — — 0.71

Spatial Memory — — — 0.78

Analogic Reasoning — — 0.70 —

Object Memory — — 0.68 —

Mazes — — — 0.47


UNIT External Validity Studies

Correlational Studies• Measures of Intelligence

• Measures of Academic Achievement

Studies with Clinical and Exceptional Samples• Speech and Language Impairment (N = 57)

• Learning Disabilities (N = 205)

• Mental Retardation (N = 84)

• Intellectually Gifted (N = 160)

• Serious Emotional Disturbance (N = 23)


UNIT Standard FSIQ Correlations with Other IQs

WISC-III FSIQ across four samples (Learning Disabled, Mentally Retarded, Intellectually Gifted, and Native American).81–.84

WJ-R Tests of Cognitive Ability BCA (Est): .83

K-BIT IQ Composite: .82

Matrix Analogies Test Standard Score: .83

Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices T-Score: .56

TONI-2 Quotient: .63Note: All correlations are corrected to control for restriction or expansion in range.

r


Correlations Between UNIT Full Scale IQs and WJ-R Tests of Achievement

UNIT Abbreviated Battery FSIQ 133 .78 .84 .78 .86 .82 95.3 23.0

UNIT Standard Battery FSIQ 133 .81 .86 .81 .87 .85 93.8 24.4

UNIT Extended Battery FSIQ 133 .80 .87 .81 .87 .85 92.1 24.0

Mean 92.4 94.3 86.4 94.9 88.5

SD 28.1 31.3 29.0 23.4 27.7

N

WJ-RBroadReading

WJ-RBroadMathematics

WJ-RSkills

WJ-RBroadWrittenLanguage

WJ-RBroadKnowledge Mean SD


Comparative Prediction of Achievement by UNIT and Other Nonverbal Measures

UNIT Abbreviated Battery FSIQ 133 .78 .84 .86 .82

UNIT Standard Battery FSIQ 133 .81 .86 .87 .85

UNIT Extended Battery FSIQ 133 .80 .87 .87 .85

Leiter-R Brief IQ* 29 .79 .80 — —

Leiter-R Full IQ* 29 .82 .82 — —

TONI-3 (Form A)* 20 .73 .76 .56 .76

TONI-3 (Form B)* 20 .71 .74 .55 .70

*Note. These data come from each test's manual.

N

WJ-RBroadReading

WJ-RBroadMathematics

WJ-RBroadKnowledge

WJ-RSkills

UNIT Validity Studies: Diagnoses and Exceptionalities

Speech and Language Impairment (N = 57)

Learning Disabilities (N = 205)

Mental Retardation (N = 84)

Intellectually Gifted (N = 160)

Serious Emotional Disturbance (N = 23)


Table 5.31

Abbreviated BatteryFSIQ Mean 94.16 98.32 4.16 0.28

SD 15.25 15.04Standard BatteryMemory Quotient Mean 94.81 99.51 4.79 0.31

SD 16.26 14.71Reasoning Quotient Mean 91.42 98.53 7.11 0.47

SD 14.97 13.69Symbolic Quotient Mean 93.67 99.89 6.22 0.41

SD 15.43 15.68Nonsymbolic Quotient Mean 92.40 98.02 5.62 0.37

SD 15.95 14.03FSIQ Mean 91.98 98.79 6.81 0.45

SD 15.42 14.48Extended BatteryMemory Quotient Mean 93.91 99.93 6.02 0.40




SD 15.82 14.29FSIQ Mean 91.33 100.05 8.72 0.58

SD 15.93 14.62

Note. Samples were matched according to age, sex, race, ethnicity, and parent education level.

UNIT Performance by a Sample With Speech and Language Impairments and a Control Sample

ClinicalSample(n = 57)

Control Sample(n = 57)

DifferenceScore

Effect Size


Table 5.32






SD 13.38 12.92FSIQ Mean 90.20 100.83 10.63 0.71





SD 14.10 13.27FSIQ Mean 89.84 100.87 11.03 0.74

SD 13.69 13.19


UNIT Performance by a Sample With Learning Disabilities and a Control Sample



DifferenceScore

Effect Size


Table 5.33






SD 14.29 12.96FSIQ Mean 62.40 96.13 33.73 2.25





SD 14.50 14.17FSIQ Mean 60.96 95.01 34.05 2.27

SD 12.72 12.91


UNIT Performance by a Sample With Mental Retardation and a Control Sample

ClinicalSample(n = 84


DifferenceScore

Effect Size


Table 5.34Control Sample(n = 160)

ExceptionalSample(n = 160)

DifferenceScore

Effect Size






SD 10.75 14.22FSIQ Mean 117.64 104.14 13.50 0.90





SD 10.83 14.35FSIQ Mean 116.48 104.28 12.20 0.81

SD 9.85 14.55


UNIT Performance by a Sample With Intellectual Giftedness and a Control Sample


Table 5.35 UNIT Performance by a Sample With Serious Emotional Disturbance and a Control Sample

Abbreviated BatteryFSIQ Mean 93.57 93.35 -0.22 0.01




SD 14.71 14.54Nonsymbolic Quotient Mean 93.43 92.96 -0.47 0.03

SD 12.91 13.70FSIQ Mean 92.65 93.09 0.44 0.03


SD 15.02 14.31Reasoning Quotient Mean 92.91 92.78 -0.13 0.01



SD 12.63 14.93FSIQ Mean 93.13 93.43 0.30 0.02

SD 14.24 14.18




DifferenceScore

Effect Size


UNIT and Test Fairness

UNIT was designed to optimize fairness for individuals varying in age, sex, race, ethnicity, language, and nationality

UNIT was also designed to be fair for individuals with hearing impairment, language disabilities, and color-vision deficiencies


UNIT Fairness Features

UNIT’s underlying theoretical model has direct implications for fairness

Expert bias and sensitivity reviews of item and subtest content were conducted

UNIT’s instructional sets, task composition, and response modes were designed to reduce situational sources of test bias


UNIT Fairness Studies: Internal Test Characteristics

UNIT has comparable measurement precision (reliability) across sex, race, and ethnicity

UNIT shows no evidence of Differential Item Functioning (DIF)• IRT item-fit statistics across groups

• Mantel–Haenszel procedure across groups

• Partial correlations between item performance and sex, race, ethnicity, controlling for overall performance

UNIT has comparable factor structure across sex, race, and ethnicity


UNIT Fairness Studies: External Criterion Analyses

The UNIT manual contains eight comparative studies of group mean performances, including fairness studies by sex, race, ethnicity, and language.

UNIT has established fairness in the prediction of an external variable, academic achievement. Prediction from UNIT of performance on the WJ-R Tests of Achievement was similar for females and males, and African Americans and Whites.


UNIT Fairness Studies: Comparisons of Group Mean Performances

Females and Males Ecuadorians Hispanics African Americans Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders Native Americans Individuals in Bilingual and ESL Classrooms Individuals who are Deaf/Hearing-Impaired


Table 6.3 UNIT Performance by Demographically Matched Female and Male Examinees

Females Males Difference Effect(n = 1,159) (n = 1,159) Score

SizeAbbreviated BatteryFSIQ Mean 100.69 100.41 0.29 0.02





SD 13.53 14.21FSIQ Mean 100.59 101.08 -0.49 0.03





SD 13.63 14.16FSIQ Mean 100.93 101.31 -0.38 0.03

SD 13.85 13.81

Note. Samples were matched according to age, race, ethnicity, and parent education level.


Table 6.10

UNIT Performance by Ecuadorian Examinees and a Demographically Matched Comparison Sample

Ecuadorian United Difference EffectStates Score Size

(n = 30) (n = 30)Abbreviated BatteryFSIQ Mean 101.07 103.80 2.73 0.18





SD 14.06 13.87FSIQ Mean 98.07 103.40 5.33 0.36





SD 14.03 16.62FSIQ Mean 99.11 102.38 3.26 0.22

SD 14.18 14.63

Note. Samples were matched according to age, sex, and parent education level.


Table 6.7 UNIT Performance by Hispanics and a Demographically Matched Comparison Sample

Non- Hispanic Hispanic Difference

Effect (n = 194) (n = 194) Score Size






SD 12.95 13.75FSIQ Mean 98.32 100.45 2.13 0.14

SD 12.73 12.54Extended BatteryMemory Quotient Mean 100.39 100.14 -0.26 0.02




SD 12.82 13.76FSIQ Mean 99.41 100.85 1.43 0.10

SD 13.15 12.36



UNIT Performance by African Americans and a Demographically Matched Comparison Sample

African American White Difference Effect(n = 352) (n = 352) Score Size


SD 12.57 13.77Standard BatteryMemory Quotient: Mean 91.93 99.27 7.34 0.49

SD 13.47 13.73Reasoning Quotient: Mean 91.13 99.42 8.28 0.55

SD 12.28 12.17Symbolic Quotient: Mean 92.32 99.45 7.13 0.48

SD 13.12 12.86Nonsymbolic Quotient: Mean 91.00 99.05 8.04 0.54

SD 11.91 12.80FSIQ Mean 90.68 99.31 8.63 0.58

SD 12.29 12.17Extended BatteryMemory Quotient: Mean 92.21 99.65 7.44 0.50




SD 12.21 13.26FSIQ Mean 90.15 99.92 9.77 0.65

SD 13.18 12.10

Note. Samples were matched according to age, sex, ethnicity, and parent education level .

Table 6.4


UNIT Performance by Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders and a Demographically Matched Comparison Sample

Asian American/Pacific Islander White Difference Effect(n = 49) (n = 49) Score Size


SD 13.85 15.27Standard BatteryMemory Quotient: Mean 113.06 102.12 10.94 0.73




SD 13.52 12.38FSIQ Mean 112.69 103.29 9.41 0.63

SD 11.81 14.31Extended BatteryMemory Quotient: Mean 113.78 102.22 11.55 0.77




SD 12.62 12.60FSIQ Mean 113.18 102.22 10.96 0.73

SD 11.06 14.19Note. Samples were matched according to age, sex, and parent education level.

Table 6.5


Table 6.6UNIT Performance by Native Americans and a Demographically Matched Comparison Sample

NativeAmerican White Difference

Effect(n = 34) (n = 34) Score Size






SD 10.73 12.06FSIQ Mean 99.76 106.26 6.50 0.43





SD 13.63 12.40FSIQ Mean 101.00 107.24 6.24 0.42

SD 12.17 12.02



Table 6.8UNIT Performance by Bilingual and ESL Examinees and a Demographically Matched Comparison Sample

Bilingual/ English-ESL Speaking Difference

Effect(n = 78) (n = 78) Score Size






SD 12.00 14.23FSIQ Mean 92.16 95.72 3.56 0.24





SD 11.63 14.37FSIQ Mean 93.30 97.03 3.73 0.25

SD 11.45 13.04Note. Samples were matched according to age, sex, and parent education level.


Table 6.9 UNIT Performance by Deaf and Hearing-Impaired Examinees and a Demographically Matched Comparison Sample

Hearing- Non-Hearing- Difference EffectImpaired Impaired Score Size(n = 106) (n = 106)






SD 14.62 15.15FSIQ Mean 91.40 97.60 6.20 0.41





SD 15.36 14.04FSIQ Mean 90.90 98.91 8.01 0.53

SD 14.83 14.02



UNIT Fairness Studies: Individuals with Color-Vision Deficiencies

A total of 7 individuals with the four common types of red-green color-vision deficiencies were administered representative portions of UNIT subtests.

All 7 participants were able to discriminate colors and perform the subtests without difficulty, even though not all could reliably name the colors. [Note: The UNIT is completely nonverbal and does not require any naming.]

Summary: The protanopes, deuteranopes, protanomals, and deuteranomals were all able to validly perform UNIT subtests.


Clinical Use and Interpretation

1. Interpret FSIQ first

2. Interpret Primary and Secondary Scales

3. Interpret Subtests Ipsatively and Normatively


Clinical Use and Interpretation: FSIQ


Table 7.1 Descriptive Classifications of UNIT Scales Standard Scores

Percent IncludedTheoreticalNormal Abbreviated Standard Extended

Standard Scores Classification Curve FSIQ FSIQ FSIQ130 and above Very Superior 2.2 1.9 1.9 1.9120-129 Superior 6.7 8.2 6.7 6.5110-119 High Average 16.1 14.5 19.3 19.890-109 Average 50.0 51.3 50.2 50.080-89 Low Average 16.1 15.5 14.3 13.470-79 Delayed 6.7 6.0 5.5 5.669 and below Very Delayed 2.2 2.7 2.2 2.8

Delayed

Sample Norms Table

Sum of Confidence 2 Scaled Symbolic Percentile Interval

Scores Quotient Rank 90% 95%

2 49 <0.1 48–64 47-65

3 52 0.1 50–66 49–67

4 55 0.1 53–69 52–70

5 58 0.3 56–72 55–73

6 60 0.4 57–73 56–74

7 63 0.7 60–76 59–77

8 66 1 62–78 61–79

9 68 2 64–80 63–81

10 71 3 67–83 66–84

11 74 4 69–85 68–86

12 76 5 71–87 70–88

13 79 8 74–90 73–91

14 82 12 76–92 75–93

15 85 16 79–95 78–96

16 87 19 81–97 80–98

17 90 25 83–99 82–100

18 93 32 86–102 85–103

19 97 42 89–105 88–106

20 100 50 92–108 91–109

VeryDelayed

LowAverage

Average

Table B.4 Standard Score Equivalents of Sums of Scaled Scores:Symbolic Quotient for the Standard Battery


Memory > Reasoning

1. Examinee's short-term memory skills are better developed than nonverbal reasoning.

2. Examinee's ability to comprehend and reproduce visual stimuli is better developed than the ability to analyze, synthesize, or reorganize visual stimuli.

3. Examinee's attention to relevant details is better developed than concentrated problem-solving abilities.

Individuals with this pattern of scale scores may learn best through exposure to concrete, factual information, with memory aids, as opposed to discovery learning activities. For example, reading instruction might include considerable sight-word repetition, as opposed to a more whole-language approach; instruction in higher order knowledge (e.g., comprehension, synthesis, evaluation) should be based on well-learned rules, principles, and laws (e.g., science principles, grammar rules); learning may be aided through the use of mnemonics (e.g., “a pint's a pound the world round”); generalizations of previously learned material to new problems or contexts might be facilitated by reminding students of basic concepts that guide problem solving (e.g., the area of complex geometric designs can be computed by reducing the design to a combination of familiar shapes, such as squares, rectangles, and triangles).

Interpretive Hypotheses to Guide Comparisons Between UNIT Scales



Reasoning > Memory

1. Examinee's nonverbal reasoning is better developed than short-term memory.

2. Examinee's ability to analyze, synthesize, or reorganize visual stimuli is better developedthan the ability to comprehend and reproduce visual stimuli.

3. Examinee's ability to concentrate during problem-solving activities is better than theability to attend to relevant visual details.

Individuals with this pattern of scale scores may be adept at solving unique problems thatare not highly dependent on previously learned information. Knowledge to be learnedmight best be presented through the use of relationships, comparisons, underlyingprinciples, extrapolations, and discovery learning. Memory of information should befacilitated by combining new content into existing taxonomies, categories, and strategies,with an emphasis on understanding relationships.



Symbolic > Nonsymbolic

1. Examinee's symbolically mediated problem solving (using some language) is better than nonsymbolically mediated problem solving.

2. Examinee's problem solving using accumulated knowledge is better than novel problem solving.

3. Examinee's practical tasks are more easily handled than nonpractical tasks.

4. Examinee's “Verbal” skills are better than “Performance” skills.

Individuals who demonstrate better symbolic than nonsymbolic processing are more adept with the use of language as a means of problem solving. Through the process of subvocalization, these individuals may "self-talk" their way through problem solutions. Because most academic material is symbolic in nature (e.g., reading, writing, computation), children with this pattern of scale scores are likely to learn well in school. Information to be acquired might best be presented in a symbolic fashion (e.g., verbal, rebus, sign, gesture), so that the individual can assimilate new material into his or her own symbolic repertoire (e.g., language).



Nonsymbolic > Symbolic

1. Examinee's nonverbal problem solving is better than symbolically mediated problem solving (language facility).

2. Examinee's immediate problem solving is better than problem solving using knowledge from accumulated experience (particularly symbols of language).

3. Examinee may have a language deficit.

4. Examinee may find practical tasks more difficult than nonpractical tasks.

5. Examinee's “Performance” skills are better than “Verbal” skills.

Individuals who demonstrate this pattern of scale scores may be adept at discerning the relationships between abstract, figural stimulus characteristics. These individuals may acquire and process information especially well through nonverbal means. In new learning situations, a visual presentation may facilitate this student's acquisition of new material (e.g., graphs, drawings). Concrete and experiential exploratory learning approaches may be especially meaningful for students with this pattern of scores.


Primary and Secondary Abilities Assessed by the UNIT Subtests

Symbolic Cube Spatial Analogic Object

Memory Design Memory Reasoning Memory Mazes Underlying Ability

P P Abstract Thinking

P P Analysis

P P P S P Attention to Detail

P P P P Concentration

S P S Concept Formation

P P P Evaluation

P Holistic Processing

P Impulse Control

P P P Nonsymbolic Mediation

P P Nonverbal Reasoning

P Paper-and-Pencil Skill

P P S S Perception of Abstract Stimuli

P P P Perception of Meaningful Stimuli

S P P S S P Perceptual Organization

P Planning Ability

P P P Reasoning

P Reproduction of a Model

P S P Sequential Processing

P P S P Simultaneous Processing

P P S P Spatial Orientation

P P P Symbolic Mediation

P P Synthesis

P Three-Dimensional Representation

P P P Verbal Mediation

S P S S P Visual–Motor Integration

P P P Visual Short-Term Memory

S S Working Under Time Constraints

Note. P indicates a primary ability; S indicates a secondary ability.


Symbolic Memory

Reliability

Split-Half .85 Test–Retest .72

g Loading

Standard Battery .74 (Good)Extended Battery .73 (Good)

Subtest Specificity vs. 32%Error Variance 15%

Most Related to Spatial Memory

Least Related to Mazes

Primary Abilities

Shared With Other Subtests• Attention to Detail• Concentration• Perception of Meaningful Stimuli• Sequential Processing• Symbolic Mediation• Verbal Mediation• Visual Short-Term Memory

Secondary Abilities Shared With Other Subtests• Concept Formation• Perceptual Organization• Visual–Motor Integration


Symbolic Memory

Correlates of Subtest PerformanceAs a measure of short-term sequential and symbolic memory, an examinee’s performance on the Symbolic Memory subtest may predict such behaviors as the examinee’s ability to attend to and distinguish important from irrelevant information; organize, recall, and follow multistep directions; sequence verbal information meaningfully (e.g., story telling; reading decoding); understand and compute multistep mathematics story problems; ignore extraneous, competing information during problem solving; and, concentrate on the interrelationships between salient variables.


Reliability

Split-Half .91

Test–Retest .85

g Loading



Most Related to Spatial Memory and Analogic Reasoning

Least Related to Object Memory and Mazes

Cube Design


Primary Abilities Shared With Other Subtests

• Abstract Thinking • Perceptual Organization

• Analysis • Reasoning

• Attention to Detail • Reproduction of a Model

• Evaluation • Simultaneous Processing

• Holistic Processing • Spatial Orientation

• Nonsymbolic Mediation • Synthesis

• Nonverbal • Three-Dimensional

Reasoning Representation • Perception of • Visual–Motor Integration Abstract Stimuli

Secondary Abilities Shared With Other Subtests• Working Under Time Constraints

Cube Design

Correlates of Subtest PerformancePerformance on the Cube Design subtest may predict the examinee’s mechanical or graphic (e.g., artistic, drafting, geometry) competence; ability to divide aspects of problems into discrete parts for examination and recombination to provide a viable solution; tenacity in complex future problem-solving situations; reaction to activities that have deadlines or specific time limits; flexibility in evaluating and modifying solution strategies; and ability to orient in and around his or her environment (e.g., reading maps, following spatial directions).


Spatial Memory

Reliability


g Loading

Standard Battery .79 (Good) Extended Battery .77 (Good)


Most Related to Symbolic Memory and Cube Design


Primary Abilities Shared With Other Subtests• Attention to Detail

• Concentration

• Nonsymbolic Mediation

• Perception of Abstract Stimuli

• Perceptual Organization

• Simultaneous Processing

• Spatial Orientation

• Symbolic Mediation

•Visual Short-Term Memory

Secondary Abilities Shared With Other Subtests• Visual–Motor Integration


Spatial Memory

Correlates of Subtest PerformancePerformance on the Spatial Memory subtest may predict such future behaviors as the examinee’s ability to view the totality and central nature of problems; attend to, process, and recall visual details (e.g., editing, photography, chess); remember the crux of information, rather than the sequence in which the information was presented; concentrate on a problem until the problem is well understood; disassemble and reassemble objects (e.g., motors, computers) by memory; and sensitivity and awareness to minor changes in the environment (e.g., noting the addition or subtraction of important elements).


Analogic Reasoning

Reliability


g Loading



Most Related to Cube Design and Object Memory


Primary Abilities Shared With Other Subtests• Abstract Thinking • Perception of Meaningful Stimuli

• Analysis • Reasoning

• Concept Formation • Symbolic Mediation

• Evaluation • Synthesis

• Nonverbal Reasoning • Verbal Reasoning

Secondary AbilitiesShared With Other Subtests• Attention to Detail

• Perception of Abstract Stimuli


• Sequential Processing


• Spatial Orientation


Analogic Reasoning

Correlates of Subtest PerformancePerformance on the Analogic Reasoning subtest may predict such future behaviors as the examinee’s ability to understand and solve conceptual problems; determine the interrelationships between objects and actions (e.g., understand cause-and-effect relationships); produce rational arguments, based on sequential logic; generalize learned principles to solve new problems (e.g., applying centrifugal force to cause sediments to settle in a vial); acquire and use rules in a systematic fashion.


Object Memory

Reliability


g Loading

Standard Battery N.A. Extended Battery .71 (Good)


Most Related to Symbolic Memory and Spatial Memory


Primary Abilities Shared With Other Subtests• Attention to Detail

• Concentration

• Perception of Meaningful Stimul


• Symbolic Mediation

• Verbal Reasoning

• Visual Short-Term Memory

Secondary Abilities Shared With Other Subtests• Concept Formation


• Visual–Motor Integration


Object Memory

Correlates of Subtest PerformancePerformance on Object Memory, unlike the other memory subtests, is based on three specific skills: the ability to discern nuances in physical characteristics; the ability to recognize and recall, as opposed to reproducing, objects viewed; and the ability to rule out distracters that were not among the original stimuli presented. These unique abilities may predict such future behaviors as the examinee’s ability to attend to and discern minor details (e.g., note minor elements of a story, note graphical configurations); observe, note, and recall changes made in the structure of sports teams (i.e., who plays which position); recall relevant information and ignore irrelevant information; remember faces, facts, and objects when presented in a new or different setting (e.g., recognizing people across social contexts); and discern when something (e.g., plan, budget, scene) has been altered.


Mazes

Reliability

Split-Half .64Test–Retest .58

g Loading

Standard Battery N.A.Extended Battery .44 (Poor)


Most Related to Cube Design and Spatial Memory

Least Related to Object Memory

Primary Abilities Shared With Other Subtests• Concentration• Evaluation• Impulse Control• Nonsymbolic Mediation• Nonverbal Reasoning• Paper-and-Pencil Skill• Perceptual Organization• Planning Ability• Reasoning• Sequential Processing• Spatial Orientation• Visual–Motor Integration

Secondary Abilities SharedWith Other Subtests• Perception of Abstract Stimuli• Working Under Time Constraints


Mazes

Correlates of Subtest PerformancePerformance on the Mazes subtest may predict such specific behaviors as the examinee’s ability to make, execute, and evaluate future plans; employ a reflective versus impulsive problem-solving style; concentrate and make sense of diffuse and confusing problems; make decisions after considering potential consequences; orient and organize one’s environment spatially (e.g., follow directions, read maps, follow topographical outlines); apply a logical and sequential approach to solving problems; and work under time constraints.


Bruce A. Bracken, PhD The University of Memphis R. Steve McCallum, PhD University of Tennessee,...

Documents

Transcript of Bruce A. Bracken, PhD The University of Memphis R. Steve McCallum, PhD University of Tennessee,...