Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
116 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Culture-cultivated behavior |
behavior that reflects life experience, often from social learning |
|
|
multiculturalism |
valuing diverse perspective belief that all futures have value and are equal |
|
|
influence on culture |
geography, history, socioeconomic |
|
|
tests are constructed within a particular culture (what does this include?) |
test developers, test purpose, comparison sample the person being tests has his/her own cultural experiences as well. |
|
|
1960s intelligence tests and historical criticism |
stanford binet/ early wechslers were culture-loaded. developed by white, middle class male if you come from a different culture it is unfair to expect to know another culture. |
|
|
Black Intelligence Test of Cultural Homogeneity (BITCH) |
Williams created this using inner city african american slang of the era: purpose was to make case about culture/ not clinical use |
|
|
Culture-free measures would entail... & example? |
you would have to remove language. Leiter International Performance Scale (1929): pantomime, herring impaired and non-english alternative to Binet Raven Progressive Matrices (British sample) HOWEVER, not really culture free, choosing to test is a cultural choice... support for Gc, our culture is part of our intelligence! |
|
|
Cattell-Horn and cultural intelligence |
Gf: non-cultural intelligence Gc: Culture dependent (language is powerful tool for intelligent behavior) All culture have language so all have that advantage within own culture Multiple languages = metacognitive skills |
|
|
How to separate Gf and Gc (aka control for culture) |
culture-reduced tests: continuum of how little culture is on the test. remove language (biggest carrier of culture). use to estimate int. in individuals with varied backgrounds (hearing impaired) may want to know how a person will perform in a particular culture |
|
|
Nonverbal intelligence tests |
new name for culture-reduced tests Matrix analogies test (US norms now) drawing tests (Goodenough-Harris poor psychometrics, rapport builder... naglieri draw a person better but not for decisions) LATER: Naglieri nonverbal ability test universal nonverbal intelligence test |
|
|
cultural perspective on intelligence (deifnition) |
cultural intelligence is the "ability to deal effectively with people from different cultural backgrounds" -Goh, Koc, Sanger relative to context. problems to solve are cultural or context problems. could be gender difference not just foreign cultures. |
|
|
contemporary authors view on cultural intelligence |
intelligence is adapting to the environment (sternberg, mayor, salovey) |
|
|
Four-Factor model of cultural intelligence |
Motivational CQ: drive to know about other cultures and your confidence in learning Cognitive CQ: intellectual addressing of cross-cultural issues and differences Metacognitive CQ: Strategies affected by understanding of cultural diversity Behavioral CQ: changing verbal and nonverbal behavior to fit cultural context |
|
|
steps to improve CQ |
1. CQ Drive (what's my motivation for learning about diverse cultures?) 2. CQ knowledge (What cultural understanding do i need?) 3. CQ Strategy (whats my plan?) 4. CQ action (how should i act?) |
|
|
relationship between CQ and practice |
1.diverse clients: you can more accurately interpret what is happening or at least know it may be cultural 2.reduce barriers 3.increase capacity for empathy 4. requires willingness to be uncomfortable trusting that is is the path to greater comfort for all |
|
|
Gardner view on multiple intelligences |
1. intelligence is "biopsychological potential to process info" 2. it is activated in a cultural setting to solve problems, or create products that are of value 3. intelligences are uncorrelated. |
|
|
Theory development for Gardner's multiple intelligence |
candidate faculties --> real intelligences criteria: 1. brain amage produces the faculty in isolation 2. possible evolutionary value 3. identifiable core operations characteristic of theorized faculty 4. works with a symbol system 5. unique developmental history 6. existence of persons who are exceptional in the area 7. if 2 intelligences can be done simultaneously without hurting performance 8. psychometrics |
|
|
types of intelligence according to gardner's multiple intelligence |
linguistic musical logical/mahermatical spatial bodily/ kinesthetic intrapersonal interpersonal naturalist * existential * spiritual* ^ |
|
|
contributions of multiple intelligence theory |
1. challenged traditional thinking of 1980s 2. presented falsifiable theory 3. began to integrate neuropsychology in theory 4. development (predates brain revolution) 5. gave attention to non-academic ability that been relatively neglected |
|
|
criticisms of multiple intelligence theory (klein) |
weak theory: makes sweeping generalizations, uses anecdotes exemplars don't match (high achievers have capacities in more areas of MI category and they don't correspond to hypothesized relationships.. those with disabilities have limitations in areas outside of MI categories. theory-should be just that one. transfer of learning occurs across domains independence of his intelligences not supported (using abstract thinking helps with any MI task) experiments suggest processes share an executive function psychometrics--several correlate (verbal and spatial) education applications: suggests child can only learn content in their learning style. --gardner rejects learning style idea. |
|
|
learning style theories |
there are significant and meaningful differences across individuals in how people learn 1970s hypothesis: people will learn best if taught using method that complements their style 2000s neurological evidence lef to hypothesis softened: there are acquired preferences in learning |
|
|
Kolb Experiential Learning Model and cycle |
assess with learning style inventory. company says: "the LSI is not recommended as a tool for individual selection purposes" ... there are lots of measures called learning style inventory cycle: 1. concrete experience (accomodator, likes hands-on) 2. observation and reflection (diverger, likes imagination, discussion) 3. forming abstract concepts (assimilator, inductive reasoning, theory formation) 4. testing in new situations (converged, likes application of theories) |
|
|
Kolb more recently (learning style types) |
9 learning styles: initiating, experiencing, imagining, reflecting, analyzing, thinking, deciding, acting and balancing learning flexibility "the experiential learning styles are not fixed treats but dynamic states that can flex to meet the demands of different learning situations |
|
|
VARK: pseudoscience |
visual, aural, read/write, kinesthetic for profit used to be VARK learning styles but they changed to modalities because neuroscience doesn't support Now added mixed multi modality "learning style" 1.switch to modality that suits task 2. work through all 4 for every task |
|
|
Grasha-Riechmann teaching and learning styles |
different learning and teaching styles. they blend in individual rather than stand alone/ interact. (example, collaborative and facilitator; participant and expert; independent and delegator) |
|
|
problems with learning styles |
same issues as Gardner's MI only worse as less defined and more pervasive measured as preference--and pref. doesn't mean real experimental research says learning styles do not better than "one size education for all" approach measures are NOT INDEPENDENTLY evaluated / tests. what we do with information seems to be independent from the sensory channel through which is arrives may prevent person from developing whole self |
|
|
attribution problem for LS and MI |
MI popular in educational systems problem: excuse for not trying attributions make difference ("I can't do it.. i lack ability") humans do not learn better when instruction is customized to their learning style humans DO learn better when given info using variety of senses/ experiences brain/ human functions best as whole humans do better when they focus on effort practices causes than on ability causes NEVER use the phrase learning style as a meaningful concept |
|
|
theories questioning psychometric models |
emotional intelligence bloom's taxonomy sternberg CQ MI learning styles |
|
|
outside of CHC models of development and ability... |
constructivism (piaget, vygotsky) ecological systems theory college students (perry) |
|
|
constructivism |
individuals create meaning (not impose from outside) through interaction with world and people knowing comes from experiencing, not memorizing (running into problems and solving them) PIAGET: socratic questioning, each stage builds on prior, hierarchal, each stage unfolds automatically--pace may vary |
|
|
Piaget's stages of dev. |
1. sensorimotor (0-2) object perm. 2. preoperational (2-7) magical thinking 3. concrete operations (7-12) logical about concrete objects 4. formal operations (12+) adult abstraction/ reasoning |
|
|
Vygotsky and development |
cognitive development too complex for stages (continuous) adults can influence the unfolding when the child is in.. zone of proximal development relationship called cognitive apprenticeship scaffolding |
|
|
ecological systems theory |
bronfenbrenner "nurture" 5 styles of systems interact 1. microsystem (where we live) 2. mesosystem (relationships across microsystems) 3. exosystem (interaction between system you are involved and one you have no control over) 4. macrosystem (our cultures--USA) 5. chronosystem (transition in life and impact) |
|
|
Perry (1970) int. dev. in colege students |
1. dualism (there is a correct answer. memorize. all problems solvable). 2. multiplicity (every system of thought is equally good. just learn everything. feel overwhelmed) 3. relativism (it is wheat the teacher wants, learning is a game) 4. commitment in relativism (you own learinng/concepts.. "it depends".. context drives learning) |
|
|
CHC informed models over life |
CHC elements assume they appear in factor analyses more or less across lifespan little in theory on how elements relate to one another or how they emerge and change |
|
|
CHC weakness |
fails to describe how elements change or develop (do all elements spring forth fully formed?) -how do they arrive -do they change overtime? collectively/ individually? |
|
|
hypotheses about CHC development |
1. ability differentiation hypothesis :different ability levels have different cognitive structures. if central processes are deficient, that limits other processes, more differentiation at higher ability levels 2. age differentiation hypothesis: childhood g become multiple distinct aptitudes 3. age differentiation-dedifferentiation hypothesis: g specializes up to a point and then reintegrates into a "whole" 4, ability-specific developmental trajectories: each ability has a different developmental progression (bio based abilities grow in childhood; knowledge based grow to mid-late adult). |
|
|
investigation of hypotheses |
research on life-span. cohort studies of Schaie and Flynn |
|
|
methodology challenges for CHC investigations |
Kaufman reviews challenges self-selection cross:selection: cultural differences, flynn effect from education attainment longitudinal: practice effects and progressive error (lose the "novelly" which is being measured) selective attrition (quitters have lower IQs |
|
|
Seattle Longitudinal study |
Schaie examined factors in successful cog. aging measured inductive reasoning, verbal meaning, word-fluency, spatial orientation, numbers |
|
|
conclusion of Seattle Long. study |
conclusions: by age 60 everyone declined in some ability, no one declined in all 5- no even in 80s. more recent cohorts show stability or gain in verbal, spatial, and reasoning; decline in number/ word fluencymidlife memory change predicts old age hippocampus volume. episodic memory improve in middle age no reliable decline. optimists (30%) realists (half) pessimists (33% spatial; 10% verbal) ** practice |
|
|
Seattle Long. study and relation to health |
decline in speed of response= increase risk of death decline not level is predictors |
|
|
Schaie impact |
cognitive development/ change continues through adulthood and gaining prior notion- stopped in adolescence no uniform age related changes (can't guess from global IQ what outcome is) prior notion-downhill all the way |
|
|
Schaie societal impacts |
little correlation between age and work productivity used in age discrimination lawsuits/ mandatory retirement laws increase in performance across generations and the rate of aging has slowed |
|
|
Kaufman ties to CHC |
tried long. study with independent samples- controlled for different measures similar results to Schaie conculsions: decline with normal healthy aging (Gf, Gv, Gs) competing hyp: just Gs/ Gsm interaction vs real problem solving decline maintained: Gc (decline after age 75) Grw for word reading (Gc component) (comprehension which includes Gf drops; same for Gq tasks) |
|
|
do you face end of life decline in abilities? |
nomothetic data= yes on average idiographic= how stimulating if your environment/ good genes? |
|
|
conclusion of CHC and development |
the CHC elements relations to one another change over lifespan (new ones strengthen as others fade) fluid and crystallized reflect different processes of response to neurobiology and to sociocultural influences |
|
|
Flynn Effects |
test items calibrated to the norm groups 1950 cohort 50% ill pass X; change cohort and change % passing; how do people in 2000 compare on item x. studies with 1 old normed and 1 new normed... 73 studies and done with "international samples" RESULTS: did better on older tests (norms weren't as challenging as recent test; you'd perform better on 1950 than 2000) |
|
|
hypotheses for flynn effect |
worldwide exposure to more info (no, bigger effect for Gf measures) statistical or methodological artifact? (most think it is real) flynn hypothesis: rise of technology encouraged abstract thinking (not equal rise in tech. across countries). sternberg hyp: multiple interacting factors and more complex world demanding abstracting thinking (nutrition? public health? education? environment?) kaufman hyp: just due to changes in measures (flynn said those factors were accounted for in methodology and fluid measures aren't widely known) |
|
|
why care about flynn effect? |
special ed. new children retested using old norms (smaller % qualify now; new norms and more qualify $$) tests reformed more often.. death penalty: ID= no death penalty. |
|
|
Basic cognitive functioning and assessment |
assessment of basic functions (Gt, Gs, Gsm, Gf) apgar test coma scales mental status simple neuropsych measures ADLs Piaget (0-adult) Perry (college) |
|
|
Apgar test |
sensorimotor (Galton!) 1 and 5 min. after birth scoring: up to 10. 7-9 is normal. no relation to future health |
|
|
delirium |
disturbed state during fever, other health crisis. agitation, disturbed though and speech CAM-ICU-- assess mental status in ICU delirium observation--for older high-risk patients Neecham confusion tool-- for older high risk patients measures for children- none have emerged as optimal |
|
|
severe brain distress measures |
glasgow coma scale-- impaired consciousness based on observation scoring-- mild head injury, moderate, severe (coma), response to pain (decorticate/cecerebrate) Rancho los amigos patterns of recovery for closed head injury, not strict hierarchy, speed of moving through predicts long term recovery Mini-mental status 30 points over 11 items (orientation, simple mental manipulations, variations) scoring 24+ out of 30 is normal. influenced by education. |
|
|
2 other neuropsych measures |
bender gestalts (learning disability) clock face drawing (draw a clock face showing 10 min. after 11) |
|
|
ADL |
critical consideration in placement--extent to which a person can function independently transferring, mobility, eating, elimination, hygiene, dressing |
|
|
what o learn from studying ID |
ability falls on continuum awareness of personal prejudices importance of helping family not just individual |
|
|
Intellectual disability |
formerly mental retardation... new term. matches ICD and other categorizations roughly 2% of pop. 1. onset during "developmental period" 2. significant deficits in conceptual domain (intellectual functions) [CHC] deficits in learning/ academic settings/ experience as measured by standardized IQ 3. significant defects in social and practical domain (adaptive functioning) (ADL and interpersonal skills) cut-off approximately 70. EXCLUDES those who function but do poorly on IQ... age= before 18 exclude adults with brain damage or dementia |
|
|
traditional levels of ID |
1. mild: 50/55 to 70. can live independently (85-90%) 2. moderate: 35/40 to 50/55. can function in supervised environment (10%) 3. severe: 20/25 to 35/40. very basic self care (2-4%) 4. profound. below 20/25-- usually neurological damage (1-2%) |
|
|
AAIDD new view on ID |
redefined ID as a condition that can be improved but not cured 2010 degree of support needed 1. intermittent 2. limited 3. extensive 4. pervasive ** new idea that environment has a role in determining capacity not just genetics |
|
|
causes of ID |
most have no cause biology: genetic singly or polygenetic, inherited or mutation (PKU--leads to ID); chromosomes (Down syndrome extra 21st chromosome) cultural-familial ID: combination of psychosocial and biological influences |
|
|
Treatment for ID |
other than PKU- no biological treatment target specific problems via task analysis and train each part until whole provide support as needed (adaptive bx) communication training supported employment self-injurious behavior, train in communication. |
|
|
Global developmental delay |
formerly pervasive developmental disorder under age 5 at that age bx unreliable use this diagnosis when developmental milestones aren't met until old enough/ able to do an IQ test.. over age 5, not meeting milestones but can't complete IQ (e.g., impairment)... unspecified intellectual disability. GDD because cannot use intelligence test. |
|
|
Language disorder diagnostic criteria |
not physical impairment, ID, or GDD onset early developmental period persistent difficulties in acquisition and use of language across modalities 1. reduced vocab 2. limited sentence structure 3. impairment in discourse below those expected for age (functionally limiting) |
|
|
Language requires.. |
expressive ability (producing vocal/ gestures/ signals) receptive ability (receiving and comprehending language messages)-- ** receptive language problems have poorer long term outcome than expressive can be impaired in one and not the other (or both) |
|
|
in language disorder... |
vocab/ grammar are slow to develop and they affects all others they use context to hide comprehension problems. rely on gestures. look at others. can have poor: definitions, word finding, synonyms, multiple meanings, word play, etc. expressive difficulties. |
|
|
assessment of language disorder |
history: high heritable-see in other family members not stable until age 4 persists to adulthood consider culture/ variations in language clinical observations in home/school/work (may appear shy/ unwilling to talk/ defer to family) standardized tests of language ability exclude hearing or other sensory defects or speech-motor deficit |
|
|
language disorder causes |
physical/ unstimulating environment neurological disorders literacy and numeracy specific learning disorders ASD developmental coordination disorder social (pragmatic) communication disorder if has speech and lost it.. under 3, may be ASD or neurological; older than 3,.. seizures? |
|
|
speed-sound disorder |
difficulty with speech sound production, motor problem |
|
|
childhood onset fluency disorder |
aka STUTTERING repetitions, prolongations of consonants, broken words, blocking, circumlocutions, high physical tension |
|
|
social (pragmatic) communication disorder |
trouble using communication for social purposes (greeting) unable to change speech to match context trouble following rules for convo difficulty understanding what is not explicitly stated |
|
|
specific learning disorder (not disability) |
unexpected underachievement deficit in academic skill and can specify one of the 3 how is it diagnosed? clinical review of the individual's--developmental, medical, educational and family history resorts of test scores and teacher observations and response to academic interventions DSM 5 criteria. difficulty learning academic skills A. substantially/ quantifiably below expected for age B. at least one of following persisting 6 months and resisted intervention. (Grew, Gq) C. begin during school years but may not manifest until demands are great D. exclusionary criteria: Not ID, not uncorrected vision/ hearing, not other mental/ neurological, not psychosocial adversity, not language proficiency, not inadequate |
|
|
traditional diagnosis for learning disorder |
1.5 ( or 2) sd between achievement (measured with a test) and intelligence score... but may take too long to develop that big a gap and have missed years of remediation by then.. another method is Response to Intervention (diagnose if child responds significantly worse than peers with intervention known to be effective) |
|
|
legal requirements |
1. full and individual assessments 2. nondiscriminatory tests in child's native language 3. must rule out the exclusionary criteria 4. must assess all areas that could be related (intelligence, academic performance, health, vision, hearing, social and emotional status, motor abilities and communicative status) |
|
|
how to interpret scores (4 methods) |
1. simple discrepancy: 1.5 sd between intelligence and achievement- not justifiable (high intelligence and doing okay in classes most don't see as LD) 2. regression-based discrepancy formula (kentucky- but most restrictive of states)- every combination was calculated and tables show the size needed. considers reliability of test. problem: those with discrepancy look identical to shoe without discrepancy. IDEA 2004 said can't use discrepancy model so.. 3. response to intervention (RTI) or 4. pattern of strengths and weaknesses (PSW) |
|
|
response to intervention |
defines LD as child failing to achieve as expected when given research based intervention data-based decision- spot at- risk (bottom 10-25 %) multitiered: universal (high quality instruction for all) , targeted (focus on at risk and do more), intensive (monitor even closer) preventative: catch early problems: how to document? how long try intervention? how many interventions? who decides which interventions are research-based? |
|
|
how does RTI proceed? |
1. evaluation with tests of specific areas 2. present levels of academic performance and needs (narrative description of all areas) 3. develop goals based on curriculum and childs needs 4. design instruction and related services 5. monitor change |
|
|
Pattern of strengths and weaknesses |
attempt to measure what it says for psychological processes tries to measure specific academic and cognitive weaknesses and look for overall cognitive in avg. range but right now still too vague and undefined a process looks like a search for pathology stick with RTI. |
|
|
Autism Spectrum Disorder criteria |
A. persistent deficits in social communication and social interaction across multiple contexts B. restricted, repetitive patterns of behavior, interests or activities.. C. present in early developmental period D. significant impairment (Not ID or GDD); CAN be both ASD and ID |
|
|
assessment of ASD |
indicate levels of support needed specifiers: with or without intellectual impairment; language impairment; associate with a known medical or genetic condition or environmental factor; with catatonia variation in symptoms- spectrum assessment: multiple sources of information-- observation, history, self report if possible ASD: intelligence -specifier: with or without intellectual impairment; so you may see these behaviors with any level of intellectual ability |
|
|
neurodiversity movement |
begun by lay person's with ASD claim: disorders are part of spectrum of human diversity pressure to conform to neurotypical causes more problems (increasing eye contact is painful; decreasing stemming requires redirect of attention from learning); is ABA treatment or forced conformity? does it teach who to cope or that something is wrong with them?? |
|
|
ADHD criteria |
persistent pattern of inattention and/ or hyperactivity - impulsivity that interferes with functioning or development 1. inattention 2. hyperactivity/ impulsivity 3. prior to age 12 4. 2 or more settings 5. clearly interferes with social, academic or occupational functioning 6. not another disorder |
|
|
ADHD specifiers |
1. predominantly inattentive presentation: for 6 months meets inattention, not hyper 2. predominantly hyperactive/ impulsive presentation- for 6 mod meets hyper, not inattention 3. combined severity: mild, moderate, severe common: cog problems on attention, executive function (planning) and or memory early adulthood: associate with risk of suicide under diagnosed, especially predominantly inattention |
|
|
can drugs make you smarter? |
nootropics are mostly stimulants. drug changes feeling (energy, motivation) therefore users believe it also changes cognition- not same thing |
|
|
stimulant effects |
adderall/ ritalin; vyvanse -helps: believe is helps but strong placebo effect' low dose may help Gsm for episodic memory -no effect/ hinders: disturbed sleep, irritability, addictive modafinil (narcolepsy) -helps: feel more alert -hinders: actually seems to slow healthy people down caffeine: -helps: reaction time (Gt); if tired helps subjectively feel alert; helps with passive learning; limited help on low Gsm -hinders: high dose increases anxiety, nervousness, jitteriness; no effect on intentional learning; hinders high working memory tasks (Gsm); no impact on Gltr. Racetams (nootropil) -used with dyslexia and Alz to increase learning and memory -flawed research or contradictory -not approved by FDA for any use OVERALL: most often strongest positive effect for those starting with impairment (LD); for others, drugs may impair performance or have no effect; some optimism for simple memories improvement; still early; dosage has inverse U impact |
|
|
proposed model for stimulant effect |
low dose: arousal, attention, perhaps cognitive enhancement moderate dose: euphoria, feel powerful, addiction, cognitive impairment high: psychosis, circulatory, collapse |
|
|
biological interventions! |
sleep, exercise, good nutrition |
|
|
odors |
if you think it'll affect then it most likely will. perceived change causes change. |
|
|
Early intensive behavioral intervention |
under 5
identify basic component of skills: discrete trial training extinguish stereotypical behaviors provide appropriate alternate behaviors reinforce train on generalizing individualized to child |
|
|
Carolina Abecedarian Project |
random assignment of infants language and pre literacy long term gains of 4-6 IQ points and 5-7 points on WJ reading and math |
|
|
Schaei seattle long. study how to reduce age related cog. decline |
cognitive training inductive reasoning: make marks on the problem to identify patterns that help solve task spatial abilities: practice turning the paper to see shape, try to do same mentally; name drawing 2/3 of all improved |
|
|
in between young and old-- how to enhance, |
to enhance G, Gc, Gq, Grw, Gsm, Gltr Self assess: example ASSIST survey --A and B students as semester progressed increased frequency of studying, decreased time studying per study event --Ebbinghaus- overlearn curse of knowledge- not knowing what you don't know. so actively seek to learn what you think you know but dont/ interweave your learning-font cram in one topic-- intermix |
|
|
conclusions with changing intelligence.. |
early and intensive interventions with those severely impaired can make a diff. improvements in cog. functioning can be achieved at any age it takes work help yourself by getting sleep, exercise and good nutrition! |
|
|
responses to change (diffusion of innovations. order in which people adopt a technology (broadly defined)) |
1. explorer (early adopter): goal: anything new, introduces new tech. to society; cons: easily distracted; doesn't fit in and doesn't take direction 2. pioneer: Goal: theory building; copes with and maybe like uncertainty. cons: time management; unrealistically idealistic; iffy on being supervises 3. settler (late adopter): goal: connections with others, moves if a practical reason. likes stability. cons: takes a long time to get on board and misses opportunities. 4. established "stays back east": goal: stability, predictability, retain standards. varied (too few resources to change, in crisis, or comfortable)... cons: undermines needed changes; data: ends up impoverished (literally poorer) |
|
|
problems with tech testing services |
share cropping (client data stuck in system and you have to pay to get it out) accounts constrained to one person |
|
|
three major laws reflecting tech zeitgeist |
health insurance portability and accountability act (HIPAA) health information technology for economic and clinical health (HITECH) patient protection & affordable care act |
|
|
Folstein Mini Mental State Exam (MMSE) |
purpose: to quickly assess psychiatric patients' cognitive abilities typically given to elderly patients with dementia, but ultimately the MMSE separates patients with a cognitive disturbance from those without one. .8 or so reliability ; good validity |
|
|
Wechsler Nonverbal Scale of Ability (WNV) |
purpose: measure of cognitive ability for individuals who it would not be appropriate to test verbally. (hearing impaired, ASD, developmental delay) 4 years- 21 years reliability .91 FSIQ; validity alright |
|
|
Cultural Intelligence Scale -- CQ self-assessment and individual cultural values inventory (CQS) |
purpose: to assess an individual's ability to function culturally diverse settings. adapt/ adjust to environment. *money making measured on CQ drive, CQ knowledge, CQ strategy, and CQ action incremental validity: does measure add anything to what we are already doing? adds something on top of EQ and g! validity info not strong; reliability at .70 or so |
|
|
Woodcock Johnson Test of Cognitive Abilities (WJIV) |
Purpose: measure achievement in academics, intellectually and oral language abilities. design based on CHC for educational, clinical and research settings ages 2-90 good reliability/ validity .95 or so |
|
|
Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (KABC- II) |
purpose: measure processing/ cognitive abilities; minimal verbal instructions/ responses to help improve cultural fairness and reduce score differences between ethnic groups examiner can choose one of 2 models for interpretation recommended for testing examinees who are hearing impaired or nonnative english speakers ** 3 years- 18 years high validity and reliability |
|
|
Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) |
purpose: to test emotional intelligence. tests individual's capability to recognize, work with, comprehend, and regulate emotions. intended for education, clinical research and corporate settings. 17 years and older. administered individually or in a group high reliability seems most useful in business setting (needs more validity info) |
|
|
Differential Abilities Scale (DAS II) |
purpose: to help practitioners determine the strengths and weaknesses of the child being tests across many cognitive domains and help determine appropriate interventions and educational placements DAS-II wasn't created as an intelligence test, and doesn't provide IQ score or global composite score.. more of profile tes. 2 years- 18 qualification C level strong reliability recommended for finding additional info on strengths and weaknesses beyond cog. Iq .. specifically targets abilities unlike wechsler. |
|
|
Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT) |
purpose: assess a child's general/ school ability in a culturally neutral way; typically used to assess gifted or talented students, as well as children with suspected learning defects 4- 18 appears to be valid measurement.. NNAT2 retiring after december... next revision NNAT3 in 2017.. |
|
|
Values in Action (VIA) |
purpose: to identify an individual's character strengths. measure provides an an alternative way to view a person; instead of focusing on negative qualities, the VIA provides information about what strengths that individual possesses 10-17 (VIA-IS for 17+) VIA measures core character strengths of individual personality; these are used to develop areas of other strengths including: talent, interest, skill and resources. |
|
|
Leiter International Performance Scale (Leiter-3) |
purpose: non-verbal measure used to assess intelligence, memory, and attention. comprehensive gauge of non-herbal strengths and weaknesses needed for accurate assessment. mainly for individuals with impairments, ASD, brain injury, or communication disorders... clients with cog. impairments tend to score higher on the Leither than on stanford binet. or wechsler. not great reliability and validity--OK |
|
|
Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test (KBIT-2) |
purpose: measures verbal (Gc), and nonverbal (Gf and Gv) abilities and overall IQ (g). brief. covers wide age range. brief. 15-20 min. serves as a screening tool; not for diagnosis or placement.. |
|
|
Matrix Analogies Test (MAT) |
purpose: measure nonverbal intellectual ability of 5-17 yr olds. Assessed intellectual abilities of children with specific learning and physical disabilities, hearing impairment, language impairments, multilingual children, and gifts. Has been replaced by the NNAT due to internal validity!!! did not do well differentiating between scores in extreme upper and lower levels ; too much emphasis on matrix |
|
|
Bayley Scales of Infant Development III (Bayley-III) |
purpose: used to defecting developmental delays in infants, aiding in creation of a treatment plan, and monitoring the success of an implemented treatment plan.. usage is also beneficial in parental knowledge and understanding of infant's functioning and in research 1 month - 42 months 5 composite scaled scores Bayley-III not predictive of future achievement |
|
|
Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test (UNIT2) |
purpose: provide completely nonverbal intelligence assessment for individuals with speech, hearing, or language difficulties, those whose primary language is something other than English, those from different cultural backgrounds, those with emotional disturbance, those with physical impairments, or individuals who are not verbally communicative 5-22 10-15 min. for abb. 30 min. standard. 45-60 full scale. six subtests good reliability/ validity |
|
|
Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence (WPPSI-IV) |
purpose: assess cognitive development in preschoolers and young children 2-7 valid and reliable. reflects CHC. |
|
|
Brazelton Neonatal Behavioral Assessment Scale (NBAS) |
purpose: examine both behavioral and neurological (reflexive) status of infants. Looks at infant's abilities over different areas of development: autonomic, motor, state reg., and social 3 days - 2 months useful in examining individuality and competency of infant. may look at prenatal effects on infants. SNAPSHOT of infant, may have predictive value for later development/ risk for DD. lack of reliability/ validity data. not diagnostic. |
|
|
Cognitive Assessment System (CAS2) |
purpose: norm-referenced measure of cognitive ability based on cognitive/ neuropsychological theory called PASS. designed to measure cog. processing abilities.. 5-18. factor-analytic approach causes question over whether it is a true measure of intelligence. limited research with children with disabilities. |
|
|
Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI- II) |
purpose: provide a standard set of subtests yielding a fast and reliable screening measure of intelligence for use in clinical, educational, and research settings. Abridged version of WAIS-IV. four subtests. 2 index scores. 6-90 doesn't include testing of WMI or PSI ... can't be used for diagnosis |
|
|
Torrence Test of Creative Thinking (TTCT) |
purpose: used to determine who is gifted in creativity and to potentially estimate qualities of life: including possible career directions and related slalary K-12th. best predictor for adult creative achievement. not reliability/ validity info. cheap $$ |
|
|
Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales (SB5) |
purpose: comprehensive, norm-referenced measure administered individually to test one's intelligence and cog. abilities ; often used to diagnose exceptionalities and developmental disabilities 2-90 valid and reliable measure for cog. abilities. it emphasizes Nonverbal IQ supported use of SB5 in culturally diverse children more engaging for children! |
