Intelligence Assessment

Front 1

1. Assessment vs. testing

Back 1

a. Testing: An objective and standardized measure of a simple behavior—part of an assessment
b. Assessment: A complex process of solving problems (answering questions) in which psychological tests are often used as one of the methods of collecting relevant data and involves:
i. Interview
ii. Demographic information
iii. Medical information
iv. Personal history
v. Observations by tester and others

Front 2

2. Purpose of psychological assessment

Back 2

a. Diagnosis—IQ, academic, socio-emotional
b. Treatment planning and recommendations
c. Court mandated
d. Disability determination
e. Research

Front 3

3. Ethics in testing

Back 3

a. Test should be appropriate (standardization, reliable, valid for client)
b. Competence/training/supervision
c. Conflict of interest
d. Confidentiality
e. Test setting
f. Analysis of scores
g. Use of qualitative information

Front 4

h. Deciding on which tests to use

Back 4

i. Cultural background, language
ii. Referral question
iii. Time to test
iv. Age
v. Psychometric properties
vi. Tester’s competence
vii. Capabilities of the client: attention span, ability, trust, age, reading level

Front 5

4. Gender, Ethnicity, Age Differences in IQ

Back 5

a. Gender: males do better on full scale, verbal and performance IQ, VCI, POI, WMI; females better on PSI
i. Differences not substantial—about 1-5 points
b. Ethnicity: whites outscore African Americans by 11-13 points on VIQ, PIQ, FSIQ
i. Asian Americans perform better than whites
c. Age: VIQ peaks in 40s; drops in 70s to 80s
i. PIQ peaks in 20s and steadily declines after

Front 6

5. Goleman—Emotional intelligence

Back 6

a. Talk about importance at school and work
b. Try to define it as intelligence tested like others

Front 7

6. Theories of intelligence
a. Spearman:

Back 7

g measure of general intelligence

Front 8

b. Horn & Cattell’s fluid-crystallized theory:

Back 8

i. Crystallized intelligence: academic and cultural learning (verbal subtests)
ii. Fluid intelligence: problem-solving not affected by schooling or acculturation (performance subtests)

Front 9

c. Sternberg: Triarchic Ability Tests

Back 9

i. Traditional IQ good for school achievement, but not success out of school
ii. Battery of multiple choice questions that tap into 3 aspects of intelligence: analytic, practical, creative

Front 10

d. Gardner: Multiple types of intelligence (list the 7)

Back 10

i. Linguistic
ii. Logical-mathematical
iii. Musical
iv. Bodily-kinesthetic
v. Spatial
vi. Interpersonal
vii. Intrapersonal

Front 11

e. Vygotsky: Zone of proximal development

Back 11

i. Considered role of ecological factors in intelligence
ii. Children with the same IQ can differ because different benefits they receive from the environment

Front 12

7. History of intellectual functioning

Back 12

a. 19th century: Sir Francis Galton
b. Turn of 20th century: Alfred Binet
c. 1916: Lewis Terman adapted the Binet-Simon for US use
i. Used to test ability of military in WWI
d. Mid 1930s: Wechsler—provided equal weight to verbal and nonverbal tests
e. 1939: Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale—use of standard scales
f. 1955: WAIS
g. 1981: WAIS-R
h. 1997: WAIS-III
i. 2008: WAIS-IV

Front 13

8. Wechsler

Back 13

a. Tests not based on theory, but rather practical and clinical uses
b. Broadly defined intelligence as: the capacity to act purposefully, to think rationally, and to deal effectively with his/her environment
i. Intelligence is the sum of many specific abilities

Front 14

9. IQ Construct

Back 14

a. Verbal IQ correlates more strongly with academic achievement than performance IQ
b. Education and occupation predict IQ
c. Keep in mind
i. IQ tasks measure what the individual has learned within a culture
ii. IQ tasks are samples of behavior that are not exhaustive
iii. IQ tests are optimally useful from an information-processing model
iv. IQ tests assess cognitive functioning under fixed experimental conditions
v. Hypotheses generated from IQ test profiles should be supported with data from multiple sources

Front 15

10. Heritability and malleability of IQ
a. Evidence for the roles of genes

Back 15

i. Single-gene or chromosomal abnormalities linked with intellectual deficits (e.g., Down’s syndrome)
ii. Identical and fraternal twins correlated IQs—the higher genetic similarity, the higher the correlation
b. In general, verbal abilities more heritable than non-verbal

Front 16

c. Flynn effect (malleability)

Back 16

i. In a study of 14 nations, IQ gains found over time (with a 3 point gain per decade in US)
ii. Generational gains have been documented into the late 1990s
iii. Gains on fluid tasks have been greater than those on crystallized tasks
iv. Because gains are so dramatic, they are likely due to environment

Front 17

11. IQ tests

Back 17

a. Use—Benson
i. Must integrate scores of IQ and achievement
ii. Can’t think of IQ as a fixed, innate ability but instead develops in a context

Front 18

b. WAIS-IV structure
i. Verbal comprehension index:

Back 18

verbal acquired knowledge and verbal reasoning
1. Vocabulary
2. Similarities
3. Information
4. Comprehension (supplemental)

Front 19

ii. Working memory index:

Back 19

ability to attend to information, hold and process info in memory
1. Digit span
2. Arithmetic
3. Letter-number sequencing (supplemental)

Front 20

iii. Perceptual reasoning (formerly organization) index:

Back 20

nonverbal, fluid reasoning, attention to detail, visual-motor integration
1. Block design
2. Matrix reasoning
3. Visual puzzles
4. Picture completion (supplemental)
5. Figure weights (supplemental)

Front 21

iv. Processing speed index:

Back 21

ability to process visual information quickly
1. Symbol search
2. Coding
3. Cancellation (supplemental)

Front 22

c. Standardization of WAIS

Back 22

i. N = 2,450 based on US census data
ii. Stratified by age, sex, ethnicity, geographic region, and educational level
iii. 13 age groups between 16-89
iv. Factor analysis supported multiple factor model
v. Administration time for 13 subtests: 65-95 minutes

Front 23

d. Administration errors

Back 23

i. Both experienced and non-experienced prone to error
ii. Practice with constructive feedback reduces errors
iii. Common errors
1. Failure to follow standardization procedures
2. Not enough querying with verbal subtests
3. Leniency with scoring items (vocab, similarities, comprehen,)
4. Mechanical scoring of items

Front 24

e. Practice effects

Back 24

tend to be significant, particularly with performance subtests
i. Less pronounced after one year

Front 25

f. WAIS ages

Back 25

16 and older (16:0 – 16:11 can use WISC or WAIS—can judge based on academic performance)
g. WISC ages 6 to 16_11 (age 6 or below can use WPPSI-III or WISC)

Front 26

h. WISC-IV (2003) structure
i. Verbal comprehension index

Back 26

1. Vocabulary _ straightforward questions over the meaning of words
2. Similarities _ asking how two concepts are alike
3. Comprehension _ questions about social situations or common concepts
4. Information (supplemental) _ general knowledge questions
5. Word reasoning (supplemental)

Front 27

ii. Perceptual organization index

Back 27

1. Block Design _ children put together red-and-white blocks in a pattern according to a displayed model. This is timed, and some of the more difficult puzzles award bonuses for speed
2. Picture Arrangement
3. Object Assembly
4. Matrix Reasoning _children are shown an array of pictures with one missing square, and select the picture that fits the array from five options
5. Picture Completion (supplemental) _ children are shown artwork of common objects with a missing part, and asked to identify the missing part by pointing and/or naming

Front 28

iii. Working memory index

Back 28

1. Digit Span _ children are orally given sequences of numbers and asked to repeat them, either as heard or in reverse order
2. Letter-number sequencing
3. Arithmetic (supplemental) _ orally administered arithmetic questions. Timed

Front 29

iv. Processing speed index

Back 29

1. Coding _ children under 8 mark rows of shapes with different lines according to a code, children over 8 transcribe a digit-symbol code. Time-limited with bonuses for speed
2. Symbol Search _ children are given rows of symbols and target symbols, and asked to mark whether or not the target symbols appear in each row
3. Cancellation (supplemental)

Front 30

i. WISC profile interpretation

Back 30

i. Step 1: Report FSIQ and four indices
ii. Step 2: Determine if the FSIQ discrepancy is interpretable (23point discrepancy among indices = FSIQ not interpretable)
iii. Step 3: Determine if the indices are unitary and thus interpretable (5point difference between subtests that make up each index)
iv. Step 4: Determine normative strengths and weaknesses among indices
v. Step 5: Determine personal strengths and weaknesses among indices
vi. Step 6: Interpret fluctuations in profiles—one paragraph for FSIQ and each index

Front 31

j. Verbal-Performance IQ discrepancies
i. Learning disabilities

Back 31

1. LD diagnosis: achievement is substantially lower than measured intelligence
2. LD, illiterate, dyslexic often display P > V

Front 32

ii. Delinquency and bilingualism

Back 32

1. P > V among children and adolescents but not older adolescents and adults

Front 33

iii. Autism

Back 33

1. P > V among children and adolescents, but no discrepancy among those with average IQ

Front 34

iv. Mental retardation

Back 34

1. MR diagnosis: IQ lower than 70, plus poor adaptive functioning
a. Mild 55-69
b. Moderate 40-54
c. Severe 39 and below
2. No discrepancy in P vs. V

Front 35

v. Correlates of higher verbal IQ

Back 35

1. People with at least one year of graduate school
2. People with depression, bipolar disorder
3. People with schizophrenia
4. People who have abused alcohol and Alzheimer’s
5. People with motor coordination problems
6. People with gifted intellectual functioning

Front 36

vi. ADHD and IQ performance

Back 36

1. VCI > WMI
2. POI > PSI

Front 37

k. WISC is diagnostic aid for: autism, expressive language disorder, intellectual giftedness, mental retardation, ADHD, learning disorders, TBI, motor impairments
i. Learning disability assessment

Back 37

1. IQ and achievement discrepancy (1 1/2 SD) no longer required under Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (2004)

Front 38

l. WISC standardization

Back 38

i. N = 2,200; age blocks 6_0 to 6_11
ii. Stratified by: sex, race, education level, geographic region

Front 39

m. WISC/WAIS scores

Back 39

i. Mean index/subtest = 100/10
ii. Standard deviation index/subtest = 10/3
iii. Very superior: 130+
iv. Superior: 120_129
v. High average: 110_119
vi. Average: 90_109
vii. Low average: 80_89
viii. Borderline: 70_79
ix. Extremely low: 69_

Front 40

n. WISC/WAIS strengths/weaknesses
i. WISC/WAIS Strengths

Back 40

1. Nonverbal may be more universal
2. Multiple subtests for each skill
3. Good predictor of school success
4. Kaufman—can break down full scale IQ for helpful information
5. Alternate order of verbal and nonverbal to avoid fatigue
6. Developed with factor analysis
7. Specific and standardized administration
8. Spanish version
9. Attempts to remove cultural bias

Front 41

ii. WISC/WAIS Weaknesses

Back 41

1. Doesn’t assess all forms of IQ (emotional intelligence—Gardner)
2. Large amount based on acquired knowledge
a. School-based learning is culturally influenced
3. Culturally biased content (Greenfield—no culture free test)
4. If tester is not properly trained, validity is impacted
5. Still no fully representative
6. Penalizes African Americans and other minority groups

Front 42

o. Kaufman

Back 42

i. The burden is on test users to be better than the tests they use
ii. WISC subtest measure what the individual has learned, are samples of behavior and not exhaustive
iii. WISC optimally useful when interpreted from an information_processing model: input, integration, storage, output
iv. WISC (especially verbal scale) correlates well with academic achievement
v. WISC criticized because it lacks theoretical basis and is based on factor analysis

Front 43

p. Pros and cons of grade equivalent scores

Back 43

i. Pros
1. Easily understood
2. Place performance in developmental complex
3. Reduce misinterpretation
ii. Cons
1. Grade equivalents encourage comparison with inappropriate groups
2. Identical grade equivalent scores on different tests may mean different things
3. Grade equivalents assume growth is constant throughout the school year
4. Exaggerate small differences in performance

Front 44

q. Factors affecting reliability and validity

Back 44

i. Test length
ii. Test-retest interval
iii. Variability of scores
iv. Guessing
v. Variation within test situation
vi. Test taking skills, anxiety, speed
vii. Acute state of disturbance

Front 45

12. Culture and testing
a. Greenfield

Back 45

i. No such thing as “culture free” or “culture fair” test
ii. Formal schooling, environment, media, technology, film, video games give advantages for certain tests
iii. Doesn’t mean can’t administer tests cross-culturally, but must be mindful of cultural differences

Front 46

b. Sattler
i. Arguments against the use of intelligence tests with minorities

Back 46

1. Tests have a white middle class bias
2. National norms are inappropriate
3. Ethnic minority children are deficient in motivation, test practice, reading, and exposure to culture
4. Problems exist in examiner-examinee rapport
5. Test results lead to the placement of ethnic minority children in special ed
ii. However, research does not suggest tests are biased

Front 47

iii. Arguments for the use of IQ test

Back 47

1. Test scores are useful in evaluating current functioning
2. Tests provide predictive indices of future academic success
3. Tests are instrumental in obtaining special services

Front 48

c. Lopez: four types of bias in the assessment of women and minority groups

Back 48

i. Overpathologizing
ii. Minimizing—dismissing women’s presenting problems
iii. Overdiagnosing
iv. Underdiagnosing

Front 49

d. Cervantes & Acosta—Testing Latinos

Back 49

i. The Spanish version of the WAIS (EIWA) is questionable because it was normed on a less educated, lower income population—may inflate scores
ii. Difficulties involving translators: loss of nuances, inaccurate translation
iii. The language and reading ability of the client should be carefully assessed
iv. Degree of psychosocial stress experienced by immigrant needs to be assessed
v. Data obtained from a patient must always be interpreted cautiously, particularly when lower levels of acculturation and education are present

Front 50

13. Academic achievement—Steinberg et al.
a. Ethnic differences in adolescent achievement

Back 50

b. Asian American students perform > whites > Latino or Black
c. Parenting
i. Adolescents from authoritative homes had better scores on psychosocial development—do better than kids from authoritarian homes
ii. Black adolescents perform more poorly in school regardless of parenting style
iii. Asian Americans performed better in school regardless of parenting style
d. All students believed getting a good education improves chances of getting a job
e. Latino and Black more optimistic about getting a job despite not having a good education
f. Minority students more influenced by peers than white students

Front 51

14. Mental status exam
a. Purpose:

Back 51

screen of current level of functioning, examines indicators of psychopathology or neuropathology
i. Formal exam not needed for everyone

Front 52

b. Assesses

Back 52

i. Appearance: clothing, hygiene, effort, eye contact
ii. Attitudes
iii. Motor behaviors
iv. Affect—external manifestation of person’s internal state, mood—calm, angry cheerful
v. Memory
vi. Thought: logic, clarity, ideas of reference
vii. Language: rate of speech, tone quality, volume, fluency
viii. Judgment: self-understanding, realistic

Front 53

15. Psychological report

Back 53

a. Header—“Psychological Evaluation” “Confidential,” date of report and testing
b. Reason for referral
c. Background information
d. Tests administered
e. Behavioral observations
f. Assessment results
g. Summary and recommendations

Front 54

16. Specific disorders
a. Diagnostic criteria for 315.00 Reading Disorder

Back 54

i. A. Reading achievement. as measured by individually administered standardized tests of reading accuracy or comprehension. is substantially below that expected given the person's chronological age, measured intelligence, and age-appropriate education.
ii. B. The disturbance in Criterion A significantly interferes with academic achievement or activities of daily living that require reading skills.
iii. C. If a sensory deficit is present, the reading difficulties are in excess of those usually associated with it.

Front 55

b. Diagnostic criteria for 315.00 Reading Disorder

Back 55

i. A. Reading achievement. as measured by individually administered standardized tests of reading accuracy or comprehension. is substantially below that expected given the person's chronological age, measured intelligence, and age-appropriate education.
ii. B. The disturbance in Criterion A significantly interferes with academic achievement or activities of daily living that require reading skills.
iii. C. If a sensory deficit is present, the reading difficulties are in excess of those usually associated with it.

Front 56

c. Diagnostic criteria for 315.1 Mathematics Disorder

Back 56

i. B. The disturbance in Criterion A significantly interferes with academic achievement or activities of daily living that require mathematical ability.
ii. A. Mathematical ability, as measured by individually administered standardized tests, is substantially below that expected given the person’s chronological age, measured intelligence, and age appropriate education
iii. C. If a sensory deficit is present, the difficulties in mathematical ability usually associated with it.

Front 57

d. Diagnostic criteria for Mental Retardation

Back 57

i. A. Significantly subaverage intellectual functioning: an IQ of approximately 70 or below on an individually administered IQ test (for infants, a clinical judgment of significantly subaverage intellectual functioning).
ii. B. Concurrent deficits or impairments in present adaptive functioning (i.e., the person's effectiveness in meeting the standards expected for his or her age by his or her cultural group) in at least two of the following areas: communication, self-care, home living, social/interpersonal skills, use of community resources, self-direction, functional academic skills, work, leisure, health, and safety.
iii. C. The onset is before age 18 years.
iv. Code based on degree of severity reflecting level of intellectual impairment:
v. 317 Mild Mental Retardation: IQ level 50-55 to approximately 70
vi. 318.0 Moderate Mental Retardation: IQ level 35-40 to 50-55
vii. 318.1 Severe Mental Retardation: IQ level 20-25 to 35-40
viii. 318.2 Profound Mental Retardation: IQ level below 20 or 25 319 Mental Retardation, Severity Unspecified: when there is strong presumption of Mental Retardation but the person's intelligence is untestable by standard tests

Front 58

e. Diagnostic criteria for 315.31 Mixed Receptive-Expressive Language Disorder

Back 58

i. A. The scores obtained from a battery of standardized individually administered measures of both receptive and expressive language development are substantially below those obtained from standardized measures of nonverbal intellectual capacity. Symptoms include those for Expressive Language Disorder as well as difficulty understanding words, sentences, or specific types of words, such as spatial terms.
ii. B. The difficulties with receptive and expressive language significantly interfere with academic or occupational achievement or with social communication.
iii. C. Criteria are not met for a Pervasive Developmental Disorder.
iv. D. If Mental Retardation, a speech-motor or sensory deficit, or environmental deprivation is present, the language difficulties are in excess of those usually associated with these problems.