Chapter 10 & 17
Chapter 10 – Assessment of Intelligence and General Ability
Defining intelligence
oAbilities are enduring characteristics of individuals, sometimes
called ability traits, because they are usually stable across time.
Abilities can be seen in many domains of individual differences,
including cognitive, physical (motor skills), visual, auditory,
mechanical, and job-related, to name a few. When related to
intelligence, one refers to cognitive abilities, which generally
constitute one’s ability to understand complex ideas, solve novel
problems, think abstractly, and engage in various forms of
reasoning. In this paradigm, intelligence is often referred to as
general intellectual ability.
oRoget’s Thesaurus, for example, provides the following synonyms
for intelligence: acumen, aptitude, brainpower, brilliance,
discernment, information, insight, knowledge, learning, news,
notice, report, sense, smarts, understanding, and wisdom.
Theories of intelligence
Table 10.2 Comparison of the Theories of Intelligence
F
P
S
H
C
M
I
Spearm
an’s
Two-
Factor
Theory
X X X
Vernon’
s
Hierarc
hical
Model
X X X X
Carroll’
s Three-
Stratum
Theory
X X X X
Cattell-
Horn-
Carroll
Theory
of
Cogniti
? X X X
ve
Abilities
Thursto
ne’s
Multifac
tor
Theory
X X
Cattell-
Horn
Gf-Gc
Theory
X X X
Guilford
’s
Structu
re-of-
Intellec
t Model
X X
Piaget’s
Theory
of
Cogniti
ve
Develop
ment
X
Sternbe
rg’s
Triarchi
c
Theory
of
Intellig
ence
X X X
Das,
Naglieri
, &
Kirby’s
PASS
Theory
of
Cogniti
ve
Process
ing
X
Gardner
’s
X
Theory
of
Multiple
Intellig
ences
oSpearman’s Two-Factor Theory
Charles E. Spearman is credited as having developed the
concept of the g factor of intelligence. He pioneered the
statistical technique called factor analysis and used the
technique to offer viable psychometric definition of
intelligence. As a graduate student in 1904, Spearman
published a paper on a two-factor theory of intelligence that
emphasized (1) a general intelligence factor (g), which is
general intellectual ability, and (2) specific factors that vary
according to an individual’s specific abilities. He derived the
notion of g through factor analysis and demonstrated that
scores on all mental tests were positively correlated, offering
compelling evidence that all intelligent behavior is derived
from one “metaphorical pool of mental energy” (Plucker, 2003
). Spearman’s paper was almost instantly controversial and
spawned scholarly debates about the existence of the g factor
and the “partitioning” of intelligence that would span
decades.
To explain Spearman’s theory, let’s say we have four
cognitive tests measuring vocabulary, reading
comprehension, computation, and arithmetic reasoning.
According to Spearman, each of these tests measures both
the g factor and the particular s factor. As Figure 10.1
illustrates, he believed that s factors overlap the g factor, but
the g is the most important estimate or measurement of
someone’s intellectual ability. Although Spearman’s theory
was developed over 100 years ago, the issue of g versus
multiple factors of intelligence is an issue still hotly debated
today (Flanagan & Harrison, 2012 ).
oVernon’s Hierarchical model
Philip E. Vernon (1950 ) proposed a hierarchical model of
intelligence that organized abilities at four different levels
(see Figure 10.2 ). The first level of the hierarchy was
Spearman’s general factor (g) of intelligence. The second
level included two broad abilities: verbal-educational ability
and practical-mechanical-spatial ability. Each broad ability
was further subdivided into specific abilities shown on the
third level: verbal-educational comprises verbal fluency and
numerical ability, and practical-mechanical-spatial includes
mechanical ability, psychomotor ability, and spatial relations.
The fourth level consists of even more special and specific
factors particular to the abilities in each of the domains above
it. Because Vernon’s model accounted for a g factor as a
higher-order factor as well as other specific factors, it was
viewed as a way to reconcile Spearman’s two-factor theory
(which emphasized the g factor) and Thurstone’s multiple-
factor theory (which did not have a g) (Plucker & Esping, 2014
).
oCarroll’s Three-Stratum Model of Human Abilities
John B. Carroll was an educational psychologist who, over the
course of his more than 50-year career, rigorously pursued
“the field’s need for a thoroughgoing survey and critique of
the voluminous results in the factor-analytic literature on
cognitive abilities” (Carroll, 1993 , p. vii). Using an empirical
approach, he developed the three-stratum model, which was
an extension of previous theories (particularly the Cattell-Horn
Gf-Gc model) that specified what kinds of individual
differences in cognitive abilities exist and how those kinds of
individual differences are related to one another (Carroll, 2012
). Carroll’s model was a hierarchical theory composed of three
layers, or strata, of cognitive abilities:
Stratum III: general ability, similar to g.
Stratum II: broad cognitive abilities, which include fluid
intelligence, crystallized intelligence, general memory
and learning, broad visual perception, broad auditory
perception, broad retrieval ability, broad cognitive
speediness, and processing speed.
Stratum I: narrow cognitive abilities, which are specific
factors grouped under the Stratum II abilities.
Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) Hierarchical Three-Stratum Model
oThe CHC model has been described as a hierarchical, multiple-
stratum model with general intelligence (g) at the apex (or stratum
III), nine broad cognitive abilities (G) (stratum II), and at least 69
narrow cognitive abilities (stratum I). The distinguishing feature
between the CHC model and the Cattell-Horn Gf-Gc model is that
the CHC model supports the existence of a g factor (Floyd,
Bergeron, Hamilton, & Parra, 2010 ). The Kaufman Assessment
Battery for Children, 2nd Edition (KABC-II), an intelligence test for
children ages 3 to 18, is founded in the CHC model (as well as
Luria’s processing theory). Figure 10.3 depicts the CHC model as it
applies to the KABC-II. The next theories move away from the idea
of the general factor (g) of intelligence.
oThurstone’s Multifactor Theory
Louis L. Thurstone (1938 ) challenged the notion of a general
factor (g) of intelligence and was in the forefront of
psychometric research identifying multiple ability factors
underlying measures of intelligence. By analyzing scores on
56 different tests taken by children of different age groups
and university students, he identified seven fairly distinctive
factors (rather than a single g factor) that he called primary
mental abilities:
Numerical Ability is the ability to perform basic
mathematic processes accurately and rapidly.
Verbal Comprehension is the ability to understand
ideas expressed in word form.
Word Fluency is the ability to speak and write fluently.
Memory is the ability to recognize and recall
information such as numbers, letters, and words.
Reasoning is the ability to derive rules and solve
problems inductively.
Spatial Ability is the ability to visualize and form
relationships in three dimensions.
Perceptual Speed is the ability to perceive things
quickly, such as visual details and similarities and
differences among pictured objects.
oCattell-Horn Gf-Gc Theory
Like Thurstone, Raymond B. Cattell disagreed with
Spearman’s concept of g and believed that one general factor
of intelligence was not enough. Instead, he maintained that
general intelligence has two major parts: fluid intelligence and
crystallized intelligence (Cattell, 1941 ). Fluid intelligence
(designated by Gf) has been described by Cattell as the ability
to solve problems and adapt to new situations. It is
considered to be more genetically determined and based on
physiological aspects of an individual. Because fluid abilities
are considered relatively culture-free, they are often reflected
in memory span and spatial thinking tests. Crystallized
intelligence (designated by Gc), on the other hand, refers to
acquired knowledge and ability obtained through education
and personal experience. Tests of verbal comprehension and
knowledge draw on crystallized abilities. Both types of
intelligence increase throughout childhood and adolescence;
however, fluid intelligence tends to peak in adolescence and
begins to decline around age 30 or 40. Crystallized
intelligence continues to grow throughout adulthood.
John Horn, a student of Raymond Cattell, worked on a series
of studies to enrich and validate Gf and Gc. However, Horn
believed that the available research supported the presence
of several broad abilities beyond Gf and Gc. He extended
Cattell’s model to include 9 to 10 broad cognitive abilities:
fluid intelligence (Gf), crystallized intelligence (Gc), short-term
acquisition and retrieval (Gsm), visual intelligence (Gv),
auditory intelligence (Ga), long-term storage and retrieval
(Glr), cognitive processing speed (Gs), correct decision speed
(CDS), quantitative knowledge (Gq), and reading and writing
skills (Grw) (Horn & Cattell, 1966 ). In addition, he found that
over 80 abilities (also called primary mental abilities)
constituted the 9 to 10 broad cognitive abilities.
Guilford’s Structure-of-Intellect Model
oIn the 1960s, J. P. Guilford (1967 ) developed a model that also
rejected the existence of general intelligence, even as a higher-
order factor. The structure-of-intellect model is a comprehensive,
complex model that represents the extreme in terms of the number
of factors associated with intellectual ability. The model includes
180 unique intellectual factors organized around three dimensions:
operations, contents, and products. Operations are rules of logic or
mental procedures that solve problems. Contents refers to a
particular kind of information. Products are items of information
from the same content category. According to his model,
intellectual functioning involves the application of operations to
contents, which results in products. There are six types of
operations: cognition, memory retention, memory recording,
divergent thinking, convergent thinking, and evaluation. Each of
these operations could be applied to one of five types of contents:
visual, auditory, symbolic, semantic, and behavioral. The application
of operations to these contents results in one of six products: units,
classes, relations, systems, transformations, and implications.
oPiaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development
In contrast to the psychometric g factor theories of
intelligence, Jean Piaget (1970 ) conceptualized a theory of
cognitive development. From his work on the French
standardization of Burt’s intelligence tests in 1920, he noticed
that children of the same age tended to make exactly the
same type of mistakes. He became interested in
understanding how individuals develop intellectual abilities,
rather than individual differences in intelligence test
performance. He suggested that intelligence develops
through the interaction of biological maturation and
experience and progresses through four stages: sensorimotor,
preoperational, concrete operational, and formal operational
periods (see Figure 10.5 ). Children move through these stages
through the use of two intellectual functions: assimilation and
accommodation. Assimilation is the process by which a child
relates new objects and ideas to familiar objects and ideas.
Accommodation is the process by which a child changes
behavior and psychological structures in response to
environmental events. Piaget’s theories have been the basis
of the design of curriculum materials and educational
programs, and a number of scales have been published to
assess an individual’s stage of intellectual development.
oLuria’s model
A. R. Luria (1966 ) was a Russian neuropsychologist who is
best known for his seminal work on structures of the brain and
the behavioral and cognitive deficits associated with various
brain lesions (i.e., areas of brain tissue that appear abnormal).
Luria’s research has had considerable influence on
intelligence testing; for example, the Kaufman Assessment
Battery for Children (KABC-II) focuses on mental processes
based on Luria’s theory. Luria’s work involved mapping the
brain’s systems and functions responsible for human cognitive
processes, especially the high-level processes associated with
the intake and integration of information and with problem-
solving abilities (Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004a ; Luria, 1970 ).
He identified three main blocks in the brain that represented
the brain’s functional systems: The first block (Block 1) is
responsible for arousal, concentration, and attention. Block 2
involves the use of one’s senses to analyze, code, and store
information. Block 3 applies executive functions for
formulating plans and programming behavior; it represents
the output or response center of the brain. Although Luria
distinguished the three blocks of brain functions and their
separate cognitive processes, his main emphasis was on the
integration of these blocks in order to support all cognitive
activity (Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004b ).
oSternberg’s Triarchic Theory of Successful Intelligence
Sternberg’s Triarchic Theory of Successful Intelligence
(Sternberg, 1985 , 1988 ) is also based on the information
processing model of intelligence. He believed that intelligence
is comprised of three separate, though interrelated, abilities:
analytical (componential), creative (experiential), and
practical (contextual). Analytical intelligence refers to the
ability to perform academic, problem-solving tasks. Creative
intelligence involves the ability to react effectively to novel
situations and find new solutions to problems. Practical
intelligence refers to the ability to solve real-life problems as
they arise (also known as common sense). Sternberg
contended that intelligent behavior arises from a balance
between analytical, creative, and practical abilities, which
function collectively to allow individuals to achieve success
within particular sociocultural contexts. In addition, he
believed that intelligent individuals are those who can figure
out their strengths and weaknesses and find ways to optimize
their strengths and minimize their weaknesses so they
succeed in their environment.
oGardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences
Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences (1983 )
rejected the traditional views of intelligence and contended
that human intelligence was neither a single complex entity
nor a set of specific abilities. Instead, Gardner suggested that
there are several relatively autonomous intelligences, and an
individual’s intelligence reflects a unique configuration of
these intellectual capacities. He stated that “intelligences
work together to solve problems to yield various kinds of end
states—vocations, avocations, and the like” (Gardner, 1993 ,
p. 9). To date, Gardner (2011) has identified eight
intelligences:
Linguistic Intelligence describes the ability to
perceive and generate spoken or written language.
Logical/Mathematical Intelligence involves the
ability to understand and utilize numerical, abstract,
and logical reasoning to solve problems.
Spatial Intelligence entails the ability to perceive,
modify, transform, and create visual or spatial images.
Bodily/Kinesthetic Intelligence is the ability to use
all or part of one’s body to express ideas and feelings or
to produce or transform things.
Musical/Rhythmic Intelligence involves the ability to
perceive, reproduce, or create musical forms.
Interpersonal Intelligence describes the ability to
perceive, appreciate, and contend with the moods,
intentions, motivations, and feelings of other people.
Intrapersonal Intelligence is the ability to understand
one’s own feelings and use such knowledge in
regulating one’s own life.
Naturalistic Intelligence involves the ability to
recognize and classify living and nonliving forms in
one’s environment.
oPlanning-Attention-Simultaneous-Successive (PASS) Theory of
Cognitive Processing
J. P. Das, Jack Naglieri, and John R. Kirby (1994 ) developed a
modern theory of cognitive ability that is linked to the work of
Luria (1966). Das and colleagues’ theory centers on the
concept of information processing. They suggested that four
cognitive processes are the basic building blocks of human
intellectual functioning:
Planning is a mental activity that involves setting
goals, problem solving, knowledge, intentionality, and
self-regulation to achieve a desired goal.
Attention is the process involving focused cognitive
activity (while ignoring other distractions).
Simultaneous Processing involves the ability to
synthesize information from a whole (e.g., spatially) to
solve problems.
Successive (Sequential) Processing involves the
ability to solve problems by mentally arranging input in
a sequential or serial order.
oTerman’s Study
Lewis Terman (1877–1956) is well known for his research on
intelligence in children. In 1922, he began a longitudinal study
that sought to answer the following question: What kind of
adults do children with high IQs become (Terman & Oden,
1959 )? He followed the lives of 1528 “gifted” (i.e., having IQ
scores of 135 or higher) children, who have been tracked for
over 80 years (50 years after Terman’s death). The study is
the longest-running survey ever carried out. Contrary to the
stereotypes, Terman found that the gifted children were taller,
healthier, physically better developed, and superior in
leadership and social adaptability. They also excelled in
school and often moved ahead in the curriculum. As adults,
those in Terman’s sample had the following characteristics:
More likely to earn graduate degrees and doctorates
Earned incomes well above population averages
More satisfied with their life and life’s work
Low criminality
Achieved greater marital success
Physically healthier than the average adult
Lower incidence of psychological problems (e.g.,
substance abuse and suicide)
Intelligence Tests
oIntelligence tests measure a broad spectrum of cognitive abilities,
such as reasoning, comprehension, judgment, memory, and spatial
ability. They help us gain an understanding of an examinee’s
cognitive strengths and weaknesses and are considered excellent
predictors of academic achievement and academic success (Sattler,
2008 ) as well as success in training and job performance
(Muchinsky, 2008 ). Most intelligence tests include items that
require verbal and nonverbal reasoning and a variety of other
cognitive abilities. The terminology used on tests to delineate
abilities is numerous and varied and may be based on a particular
theory of intelligence or factor-analytic evidence. Table 10.3
presents just a few of the common types of cognitive abilities
assessed in intelligence testing. As with other types of assessment
instruments, measures of intellectual ability can be used for a
number of purposes. They may be used for screening; for
identification of intellectual disabilities, learning disabilities, or
giftedness; to place individuals into specialized academic or
vocational programs; or as a cognitive adjunct to a comprehensive
clinical evaluation, where the main focus is on personality or
neuropsychological assessment (Kaufman, 2000 , p. 453).
Table 10.3 Cognitive Abilities
Abstract reasoning Ability to use concepts and symbols
to solve problems
Knowledge The accumulated fund of general
information
Memory Ability to recognize and recall
information such as numbers,
letters, and words
Nonverbal reasoning Ability to solve tasks using spatial
ability and visualization
Numeric reasoning Ability to solve problems with
numbers or numerical concepts
Perceptual ability Ability to perceive, understand, and
recall patterns of information
Processing speed The speed of performing basic
cognitive operations
Reasoning Ability to derive rules and solve
problems inductively
Spatial ability Ability to visualize and manipulate
visual images, geographic shapes,
or objects in three dimensions
Verbal comprehension Ability to understand words,
sentences, and paragraphs
oIntelligence tests can also be classified as verbal or nonverbal, or
contain items of both types. Verbal intelligence tests presume that
examinees have a certain standard of language ability; they are
able to understand language and use it to reason or respond
(Plucker & Esping, 2014 ). Nonverbal measures of intelligence
reduce language from directions, items, or responses. They may use
oral directions, allow examinees to respond to test items
nonverbally, or use puzzles or other manipulatives. Nonverbal tests
are appropriate for special populations, such as individuals who are
non-English speaking, who are deaf or hearing impaired, or who
have other types of language or physical disabilities or reading
problems.
oAbility, Intelligence, Achievement, and Aptitude
Intelligence can be referred to using a number of different
terms, such as ability, intellectual ability, general ability, and
cognitive ability. Similarly, intelligence tests are often called
cognitive ability tests, general ability measures, or simply
ability tests. Although this terminology is generally accurate,
in the context of assessment, intelligence, achievement, and
aptitude are all aspects of an individual’s overall ability, and
there are separate tests that measure each area:
Intelligence Tests measure an individual’s current
intellectual ability level.
Achievement Tests measure what an individual knows
or can do right now, in the present.
Aptitude Tests are future-oriented, predicting what an
individual is capable of doing with further training and
education.
Table 10.4 Distinguishing Characteristics of Intelligence, Achievement, and
Aptitude Tests
P O U
Intelligence
tests
Measure a broad
spectrum of
cognitive
abilities
Present and
future
To determine
need for more in-
depth evaluation
To identify
intellectual
disabilities,
learning
disabilities, or
giftedness
For
placement/selecti
on into
specialized
academic or
vocational
programs
As part of a
comprehensive
clinical
evaluation
Achievement
tests
Measure
knowledge and
skills learned as
a result of
instruction
Present To identify
academic
strengths and
weaknesses
For
placement/selecti
on into
specialized
academic or
vocational
programs
To track
achievement
over time
To evaluate
instructional
objectives and
programs
To identify
learning
disabilities
As part of a
comprehensive
clinical
evaluation
Aptitude tests Measure talents
or performance
abilities prior to
instruction
Future To predict future
performance
For
placement/selecti
on into
specialized
academic or
vocational
programs
For job
placement
decisions
As part of a
comprehensive
clinical
evaluation
Individual intelligence tests
oThe Wechsler Scales
Despite the number of intelligence tests available, the
Wechsler scales continue to dominate the field; their
popularity is unrivaled in the history of intellectual
assessment. In 1939, David Wechsler, a psychologist at
Bellevue Hospital in New York, first published an individual
intelligence test (i.e., the Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence
Scale). Since that time, he developed a series of three
intelligence scales designed for different age groups. The
Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS-IV) is designed to
assess the cognitive abilities of individuals ages 16 to 89
years. The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-V) is
for children of ages 6 years through 17 years. The Wechsler
Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence (WPPSI-IV) is
designed for very young children of ages 2 years through 6
years. The Wechsler scales continue to be the most widely
used measure of intelligence the world over. A study by
Camara, Nathan, and Puente (2000 ) found that among
intelligence tests, the WAIS-II and the WISC-III were the most
frequently used tests of intelligence by psychologists. In this
section, we will discuss the WAIS-IV, the WISC-V, and the
WPPSI-IV.
Each of the three Wechsler scales yields a Full-Scale IQ (FSIQ),
index composite scores, and subtest scaled scores. The FSIQ
is considered the most representative estimate of global
intellectual functioning and is derived from a combination of
the subtest scores. The index composite scores measure more
narrowly defined cognitive domains and are composed of the
sum of various subtest scores. Subtest scores are measures of
specific abilities. The FSIQ and index composite scores have a
mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. The subtest
scaled scores have a mean of 10 and a standard deviation of
3.
Earlier versions of the Wechsler scales did not use index
scores but utilized a dual IQ structure that included two IQ
scores: verbal IQ (VIQ) and performance IQ (PIQ). The VIQ
score summarized an individual’s performance on subtests
designed to measure vocabulary, general knowledge, verbal
comprehension, and working memory. The PIQ score
measured visual-motor skills, alertness to details, nonverbal
reasoning, processing speed, and planning ability. The use of
the dual IQ structure appears to be changing, as the latest
edition of the WISC completely eliminated the VIQ and PIQ
scores in favor of the four index scores (see Table 10.5 for a
description of the WISC-V indexes and subtests). The WPPSI-IV
now has five index scores: Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI),
Visual Spatial Index (VSI), Working Memory Index (WMI), Fluid
Reasoning Index (FRI), and Processing Speed Index (PSI).
Table 10.5 Description of Full-Scale IQ, Indexes, and Subtests on the WISC-V
Full-Scale IQ (FSIQ) Global and aggregate measure of
intelligence.
Verbal Comprehension Index
(VCI)
This index measures verbal
knowledge/understanding obtained
through both informal and formal
education. It reflects application of
verbal skills to new situations. One
of the best predictors of overall
intelligence.
Similarities This subtest measures verbal
reasoning and concept formation.
The individual must identify the
similarity between two dissimilar
words and describe how they are
similar.
Vocabulary Measures word knowledge and
verbal concept formation. The
individual is required to name the
pictures displayed in the stimulus
book and give definitions for words
the examiner reads aloud.
Comprehension Measures verbal reasoning and
conceptualization, verbal
comprehension, and verbal
expression. Individuals must answer
questions based on their
understanding of general principles
and social situations.
Information Measures the individual’s ability to
acquire, retain, and retrieve general
factual knowledge. The test requires
the child to answer questions that
address a broad range of general
knowledge topics.
Word reasoning Measures verbal comprehension,
word reasoning, verbal abstraction,
domain knowledge, the ability to
integrate and synthesize different
types of information, and the ability
to generate alternative concepts.
This test requires the individual to
identify the common concept being
described in a series of clues.
Perceptual Reasoning Index
(PRI)
This index measures one’s ability to
interpret and organize visual
information and ability to solve
problems.
Block design This subtest measures the ability to
analyze and synthesize abstract
visual stimuli. The individual views a
constructed model or a picture in
the stimulus book. Within a specified
time limit, the examinee recreates
the design using nine identical
blocks; each block has two sides all
red, two sides all white, and two
sides that are half red/half white.
Matrix reasoning Measures fluid intelligence,
attention to detail, concentration,
reasoning ability; overall a reliable
estimate of general nonverbal
intelligence. In this exercise, a child
examines a matrix (filled with
pictures of certain objects) that is
missing a section. The child then
selects the missing portion from a
group of picture options.
Picture concepts Measures abstract, categorical
reasoning ability. The individual
sees rows with pictures of various
objects and selects those objects
that are similar and should be
grouped together. For example, the
similar items might be trees or
animals.
Picture completion Measures visual perception and
organization, concentration, and
visual recognition of essential
details of objects. This test requires
the individual to view a picture and
then point to or name the important
part missing within a specified time
limit.
Working memory index (WMI) This index measures one’s ability to
temporarily retain information in
memory, perform some operation or
manipulation with it, and produce a
result. Involves attention,
concentration, and mental control.
Digit span This subtest is composed of two
parts. The Digit Span Forward task
requires the individual to repeat
numbers in the same order as read
aloud by the examiner. Digit Span
Backward requires the individual to
repeat the numbers in the reverse
order of that presented by the
examiner. This subtest measures
auditory short-term memory,
sequencing skills, attention, and
concentration.
Letter-number sequencing Measures attention, short-term
memory, concentration, numerical
ability, and processing speed. The
individual is asked to read a
sequence of numbers and letters
and recall the numbers in ascending
order and the letters in alphabetical
order.
Arithmetic Measures mental manipulation,
concentration, attention, short- and
long-term memory, numerical
reasoning ability, and mental
alertness. It requires the individual
to mentally solve a series of orally
presented arithmetic problems
within a specified time limit.
Processing Speed Index (PSI) This index measures one’s ability to
quickly and correctly scan,
sequence, or discriminate simple
visual information. Involves
concentration and rapid eye-hand
coordination.
Coding This subtest measures the
individual’s short-term memory,
learning ability, visual perception,
visual-motor coordination, visual
scanning ability, cognitive flexibility,
attention, and motivation. The
individual copies symbols that are
paired with simple geometric shapes
or numbers.
Symbol search Measures processing speed, short-
term visual memory, visual-motor
coordination, cognitive flexibility,
visual discrimination, and
concentration. The individual is
presented with a series of paired
groups of symbols, with each pair
containing a target group and a
search group. The individual scans
the search group and indicates
whether the target symbol(s)
matches any of the symbols in the
search group within a specified time
limit.
Cancellation Measures processing speed, visual
selective attention, vigilance, and
visual neglect. The individual scans
both a random and a structured
arrangement of pictures and marks
target pictures within a specified
time limit.
oThe first step is reporting and describing the examinee’s FSIQ score
(i.e., the examinee’s overall level of intellectual ability). Examiners
compare the examinee’s FSIQ to those of the general population (as
identified by the performance of the norm group, from which all
scores are derived). The population of the United States has an
average intelligence score of 100. Table 10.6 identifies the
descriptive classifications for FSIQ and index composite score
ranges on the Wechsler scales. Using this table, we see that a
person who has a FSIQ score of 100 is functioning within the
average range of intellectual ability. Examiners should report the
FSIQ score along with the appropriate percentile rank and
descriptive classification in relation to the level of performance
(e.g., average, high average, etc.).
Table 10.6 Descriptive Classifications for FSIQ and Index Composite Scores
Composite score Classification Percentile range
%
Percent included
in normal curve
130 and above Very superior 98-99 2.2
120-129 Superior 91-97 6.7
110-119 High average 75-90 16.1
90-109 Average 25-74 50.0
80-89 Low average 9-24 16.1
70-79 Borderline 3-8 6.7
69 and below Extremely low 1-2 2.2
oInterpretation can also involve describing and analyzing subtest
scores within an individual’s profile. Using a three-category
descriptive classification, subtest scores may be described as
follows (understanding that subtests have a mean of 10 and a
standard deviation of 3; Sattler & Dumont, 2004 ):
Subtest scaled scores of 1 to 7 indicate a relative weakness
(one to three standard deviations below the mean).
Subtest scores of 8 to 12 indicate average ability (within one
standard deviation from the mean).
Subtest scores of 13 to 19 indicate a relative strength (one to
three standard deviations above the mean).
oSignificant differences between the highest and lowest subtest
scores are called subtest scatter, which can be useful in specifying
particular strengths and weaknesses of an individual’s performance.
Examiners can also analyze subtest scores using a base-rate
approach to compare an examinee’s subtest scores with the scores
of the general population.
Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale, 5th Edition
oThe latest edition of the Stanford-Binet was published in 2003 and is
appropriate for use with individuals between the ages of 2 and 85+
years. It normally takes 45 to 75 minutes to administer the test. The
Stanford-Binet, 5th Edition, was constructed on a five-factor
hierarchical cognitive model that includes the following scales:
Full-Scale IQ (FSIQ) measures the ability to reason with both
words and visual material, the ability to store and later
retrieve and apply important knowledge, broad span of
memory for both words and visual details, spatial-visualization
ability, and the ability to solve novel problems with numbers
and number concepts.
Nonverbal IQ (NVIQ) measures reasoning skills in solving
picture-oriented, abstract problems; remembering facts and
figures presented in visual displays; solving numerical
problems shown in picture form; assembling visual puzzles;
and remembering information presented in visual space.
Verbal IQ (VIQ) measures general verbal reasoning ability—
solving problems presented in printed or spoken words,
sentences, or stories.
oThe FSIQ, VIQ, and NVIQ have composite scores with a mean of 100
and a standard deviation of 15, and the VIQ and NVIQ each include
five subtests, each having a mean of 10 and a standard deviation of
3. The subtests are organized into five cognitive factors in both the
verbal and nonverbal domains:
Fluid Reasoning is the ability to solve novel problems,
whether presented verbally or nonverbally.
Knowledge is the accumulated fund of general information
acquired at home, school, work, and in daily life.
Quantitative Reasoning is the ability to solve problems with
numbers or numerical concepts.
Visual Spatial Processing is the ability to see patterns and
manipulate visual images, geographic shapes, or 3-D objects.
Working Memory is the ability to store information in short-
term memory and then sort or transform that information.
Table 10.9 Descriptive Categories for the Stanford-Binet Full-Scale IQ
IQ R D category
176-225 Profoundly Gifted or Profoundly
Advanced
161-175 Extremely Gifted or Extremely
Advanced
145-160 Very Gifted or Highly Advanced
130-144 Gifted or very advanced
120-129 Superior
110-119 High average
90-109 Average
80-89 Low average
70-79 Borderline delayed
55-69 Mildly impaired or delayed
40-54 Moderately Impaired or Delayed
25-39 Severely Impaired or Delayed
10-24 Profoundly Impaired or Delayed
The Kaufman Instruments
oThe 1st edition of the KABC was the first intelligence test to be
founded on two theoretical models: Luria’s processing model and
the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) model.
oThe Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children, 2nd Edition (KABC-II;
Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004a ), was designed to measure a range of
cognitive abilities in children ages 3 to 18. The instrument is
grounded in two modern theoretical models: Luria’s
neuropsychological theory of processing and the Cattell-Horn-Carroll
(CHC) model of broad and narrow abilities. Because of its dual
theoretical foundation, the KABC-II may be interpreted based on
either interpretive approach (i.e., the Luria model or the CHC
approach), depending on which approach the examiner chooses to
take. The KABC-II yields a separate global score for each of the two
theoretical models: the Mental Processing Index (MPI), which
measures mental processing ability from the Luria perspective, and
the Fluid-Crystallized Index (FCI), which measures general cognitive
ability from the CHC model. The primary difference between these
two global scores is that the MPI (Luria’s model) excludes measures
of acquired knowledge, whereas the FCI (CHC theory) includes
measures of acquired knowledge (Kaufman, Lichtenberger, Fletcher-
Janzen, & Kaufman, 2005 ). Only one of these two global scores is
computed for any examinee. The KABC-II also yields scores on five
broad abilities scales and 18 core and supplementary subtests;
however, an examiner would not use all 18 with one child. The
selection of subtests is based on the age range of the child and
which theoretical approach is used for interpretation. Table 10.10
provides a description of the KABC-II scales and core subtests for
the 7-to-18 age range. The instrument provides standard scores,
percentiles, and age-equivalent scores. For the broad ability scales,
standard scores have a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15.
Descriptive categories are also provided based on various standard
score ranges: upper extreme (standard score of 131 or greater),
above average (116 to 130), average (85 to 115), below average
(70 to 84), and lower extreme (69 or less). The KABC-II was
standardized on a sample of 3025 children reflective of the
demographics of the 2001 U.S. Census report. The test manual
reports strong evidence of internal consistency and test-retest
reliabilities as well as evidence of construct validity. Global scores of
the KABC-II correlated strongly with the WISC-III, WISC-V, and
WPPSI-III FSIQs. Raiford and Coalson (2014 ) found that the
correlation remained strong between the KABC-II and the WPPSI-IV.
In 2018, The KABC II NU was released to provide a normative
update to the instrument. The new update is reflective of the
current population of children in the United States.
Table 10.10 KABC-II Scales and Core Subtests
S and subtests D
Sequential/Gsm Measures the ability to arrange
input into a sequential or serial
order to solve a problem.
Number recall Measures sequential processing and
short-term memory; the examiner
says a series of numbers and the
child repeats them.
Word order Measures sequential processing and
short-term memory; the examiner
says a series of words and the child
points to pictures of those words in
the same sequence.
Simultaneous/Gv Measures ability to integrate and
synthesize input simultaneously,
usually spatially, to solve a problem.
Rover Measures visual processing; the
child moves a toy dog to a bone on
a checkerboard-like grid that
contains obstacles (rocks and
weeds) and tries to find the
“quickest” path (e.g., the one that
takes the fewest moves).
Triangles (7-12) Measures visual ability and spatial
relationships; the child arranges
shapes to match a model or picture.
Block counting (13-18) Measures visualization of objects in
three dimensions; the child counts
how many blocks are present in a
picture.
Planning/Gf Measures high-level, decision-
making, executive processes
including analysis, planning, and
organization.
Pattern reasoning Nonverbal measure of reasoning
skills and hypothesis testing
necessary for problem solving; the
examinee is presented with set of
images and must select an image
that completes the pattern (most
images are abstract, geometric
shapes).
Story completion Nonverbal measure of planning and
reasoning skills; the child is shown
an incomplete series of pictures and
has to choose picture cards to
complete the story.
Learning/Glr Measures ability to integrate
cognitive processes associated with
learning, retaining, and efficiently
retrieving information.
Atlantis Measures ability to learn new
information through association
between pictures and nonsense
names; the child is taught names for
fanciful pictures of fish, plants, and
shells; the child then demonstrates
learning by pointing to and naming
each picture.
Rebus learning Measures ability to learn new
information; the examiner teaches
the child the word or concept
associated with each particular
rebus (drawing), and the child then
“reads” aloud phrases and
sentences composed of these
rebuses.
Knowledge/Gc Measures verbal knowledge, verbal
comprehension, and verbal
reasoning.
Riddles Measures verbal comprehension,
verbal reasoning, and word
retrieval; the examiner reads a
riddle and the child answers the
riddle by pointing to a picture or
saying a concrete or abstract verbal
concept, and the child has to point
to it or name it.
Verbal knowledge Measures vocabulary and general
information; the child selects a
picture that corresponds to a
vocabulary word or answers a
general information question.
The Kaufman Adolescent and Adult Intelligence Test (KAIT;
Kaufman & Kaufman, 1993 ) is designed for individuals of
ages 11 to 85 years. The core battery consists of three
intelligence scales (i.e., fluid, crystallized, and composite
intelligence) and six subtests—three that assess fluid
intelligence and three that assess crystallized intelligence.
The fluid scale measures the ability to solve novel problems
by using reasoning, which is considered a function of
biological and neurological factors; the crystallized scale
measures ability to solve problems and make decisions based
on acquired knowledge, verbal conceptualization, formal and
informal education, life experience, and acculturation. The
composite score provides a measure of overall intellectual
functioning. The instrument was standardized on a national
sample of 2000 individuals. The manual reports validity and
reliability information, including information on correlational
studies with the WISC-V, the WAIS-III, and the KABC-II, as well
as internal consistency reliability coefficients in the .90s.
Additional studies have shown similar relationships with the
WAIS-IV (Lichtenberger & Kaufman, 2012 ).
oWoodcock-Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Abilities
The Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Abilities (WJ III
COG; Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2007 ) is one of the most
widely used instruments for assessing cognitive abilities in
individuals ages 2 to 90+ years. The WJ III COG is based on
the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory of cognitive abilities,
which combines Cattell and Horn’s Gf-Gc theory and Carroll’s
three-stratum theory. On the WJ III COG, scores represent
cognitive ability at four different levels:
First Level consists of 31 cognitive tests that measure
broad and narrow cognitive abilities. Rarely do
examiners use all 31 tests; rather, they select
appropriate tests based on the purpose of assessment.
Second Level consists of several clusters of broad
cognitive abilities derived from the 31 cognitive tests.
Third Level consists of three categories of broad
cognitive abilities, including verbal ability (acquired
knowledge and language comprehension), thinking
ability (intentional cognitive processing), and cognitive
efficiency (automatic cognitive process).
Fourth Level consists of a general intellectual ability
(GIA) score.
The WJ III COG provides a variety of scores, including age and
grade equivalents, raw score/number correct, percentile
ranks, and standard score (mean = 100; SD = 15). It also
provides the following average standard score descriptors:
standard scores of 131 and above are “very superior,” 121–
130 are “superior,” 111–120 are “high average,” 90–110 are
“average,” 80–89 are “low average,” 70–79 are “low,” and 69
and below are “very low.”
oAdditional individual intelligence tests
The Differential Ability Scales, 2nd Edition (DAS–II; Elliot, 2007
), is a comprehensive, individually administered instrument
for assessing cognitive abilities of children ages 2 years
through 17 years. The DAS was initially developed to provide
professionals assessing children with learning disabilities and
developmental disabilities with information at a finer level of
detail than simply an IQ score; thus, its main focus is on
specific abilities rather than on general “intelligence.” In
addition to learning disabilities, the DAS-II is also appropriate
for children with a variety of special classifications, including
Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), language
impairment, limited English proficiency, mild to moderate
intellectual impairment, and gifted/talented children. The
DAS-II consists of 20 core and diagnostic subtests that are
grouped into three batteries: Early Years Battery (Lower
Level) for ages 2 years, 6 months to 3 years, 5 months; Early
Years Battery (Upper Level) for ages 3 years, 6 months to 6
years, 11 months; and School Age Battery for ages 7 years to
17 years, 11 months. These batteries provide the General
Conceptual Ability (GCA) score, which is a composite score
that focuses on reasoning and conceptual abilities.
The Slosson Intelligence Test–4th Edition (SIT-4) is a 187-item
oral screening instrument that was designed to provide a
“quick estimate” of general verbal cognitive abilities of
individuals ages 4 to 65. It measures the following cognitive
domains: vocabulary, general information, similarities and
differences, comprehension, quantitative, and auditory
memory. As a screening instrument, it can be used to provide
tentative diagnoses or to determine if further in-depth
evaluation is needed.
The Das Naglieri Cognitive Assessment System (CAS; Naglieri
& Das, 1997 ) was built on the planning, attention,
simultaneous, and successive (PASS) theory of cognitive
processes, which emphasizes cognitive processes that are
related to performance, rather than to a general intelligence
model. The CAS assesses cognitive processes in children ages
5 through 17 and yields scores for the planning, attention,
simultaneous, and successive subscales as well as a full-scale
score. The test may be used for identifying ADHD, learning
disabilities, intellectual disabilities, and giftedness as well as
for evaluating children with traumatic brain injury.
Group intelligence tests
oThe World War I Army Alpha and Army Beta tests were the first
major group intelligence tests developed and were used to screen
millions of recruits.
oCognitive abilities test (COGAT)
The Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT; Lohman & Hagen, 2001 )
measures K–12 students’ learned reasoning and problem-
solving skills. It was designed to help educators make
important student placement decisions, such as selecting
students for gifted and talented programs. The CogAT can be
administered in whole or in part, and 30 to 60 minutes of time
is allowed per session, depending on the child’s grade level. It
provides scores for three batteries as well as an overall
composite score:
Verbal Battery Measures a child’s ability to remember
and transform sequences of English words, to
understand them, and to make inferences and
judgments about them. It includes subtests on verbal
classification, sentence completion, and verbal
analogies.
Quantitative Battery Measures a child’s
understanding of basic quantitative concepts and
relationships that are essential for learning
mathematics. It includes subtests on quantitative
relations, number series, and equation building.
Nonverbal Battery Measures reasoning through the
manipulation and classification of geometric shapes and
figures.
Composite Score Derived from the results of the three
batteries, the composite score is a general statement of
a student’s overall reasoning ability.
Raw scores are converted to stanines, percentile ranks, and
“standard age scores.” Standard age scores (SAS) have a
mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 16 and are used to
allow comparisons between a student’s scores and the scores
of other students in the same age group. SAS range from 50
to 150; scores from 128 to 150 are considered “very high,”
scores from 112 to 127 are “above average,” scores from 89
to 111 are “average,” scores from 73 to 88 are “below
average,” and scores from 50 to 72 are “very low.” An
interesting feature of the CogAT is that its website
(http://www.riverpub.com/products/CogAT) contains an
Interactive Profile Interpretation System that enables
teachers, counselors, and parents to interpret test scores by
inputting the child’s test profile. The interactive system also
provides intellectual characteristics and instructional
suggestions for children based on their CogAT profile.
oOtis-Lennon School Ability Test, 8th Edition (OLSAT-8)
The OLSAT-8 (Otis & Lennon, 2003 ) is a widely used group
intelligence test sold only to accredited schools and school
districts, often used for screening children for gifted and
talented programs. First published in 1918, the OLSAT-8 yields
an overall school ability index and consists of five subtests
designed to measure abstract thinking and reasoning abilities
of children. The subtests are verbal comprehension, verbal
reasoning, pictorial reasoning, figural reasoning, and
quantitative reasoning. The test has seven levels extending
from grades K through 12.
oRaven’s Progressive Matrices (RPM)
The Raven’s Progressive Matrices (RPM; Raven, Raven, &
Court, 2003 ) are multiple-choice tests that measure fluid
intelligence, which is the ability to make sense out of complex
data, to perceive new patterns and relationships, and to forge
constructs (largely nonverbal). The tests consist of a series of
visual matrices (i.e., a 2 × 2 or 3 × 3 grid), each of which has
a piece missing. The examinee studies the pattern on the grid
and selects the missing piece from a group of options. The
RPM is available in three formats: the Standard Progressive
Matrices (SPM), which is used with the general population; the
Coloured Progressive Matrices (CPM), which is designed for
younger children, the elderly, and people with moderate or
severe learning difficulties; and the Advanced Progressive
Matrices (APM), appropriate for adults and adolescents of
above-average intelligence. The tests are called progressive
because each test consists of “sets” of items, and each item
and each set are progressively more difficult.
oSpecialized tests
So far, we’ve provided information about a number of well-
known individual and group intelligence tests. For the most
part, these tests can be used for multiple purposes for
assessing diverse populations. However, some tests are more
specialized, meaning they were developed specifically for use
with certain populations, such as preschool children,
individuals with learning disabilities or other disabilities,
children with gifted abilities, or individuals from diverse
cultural or linguistic backgrounds. Examples of intellectual
ability tests designed for special populations include the Test
of Nonverbal Intelligence (TONI-4), the Leiter Performance
Scale–3rd Edition (Leiter-3), and the Universal Nonverbal
Intelligence Test (UNIT).
Table 10.11 Specialized Intelligence Tests
P T
Culturally & Linguistically
Diverse Populations
Comprehensive Test of Nonverbal
Intelligence
Culture Fair Intelligence Test
Leiter International Performance
Scale (Leiter-3)
Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test, 3rd
Edition
Test of Nonverbal Intelligence, 3rd
Edition
Universal Nonverbal Intelligence
Test
Giftedness Screening Assessment for Gifted
Elementary and Middle School
Students, 2nd Edition
Structure of Intellect Learning
Abilities Test, Gifted Screening Form
Learning Disabilities, Deafness
or Hearing Impaired, Speech
Problems, or Other Disabilities
Comprehensive Test of Nonverbal
Intelligence
Leiter International Performance
Scale—3rd Edition
Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test, 2nd
Edition
Test of Nonverbal Intelligence, 3rd
Edition
Universal Nonverbal Intelligence
Test
Preschoolers Bayley Scales of Infant Development
—3rd Edition
Extended Merrill-Palmer Scale
McCarthy Scales of Children’s
Abilities
Mullen Scales of Early Learning
NEPSY
oTest of Nonverbal Intelligence, 4th Edition
A well-known specialized test is the Test of Nonverbal
Intelligence, 4th Edition (TONI-4). This 60-item instrument is a
language-free measure of intelligence, aptitude, abstract
reasoning, and problem solving in individuals ages 6 through
90 years. It is completely nonverbal, requiring no reading,
writing, speaking, or listening on the part of the test taker.
Examiners administer the test by pantomiming instructions,
and the test takers indicate their response choices by
pointing, nodding, or using a symbolic gesture. The test is well
suited for use with individuals who have severe spoken
language disorders (i.e., aphasia); individuals who are deaf or
hearing impaired; non-English speakers, or English-language
learners; and individuals with cognitive, language, or motor
impairments due to intellectual disabilities, deafness,
developmental disabilities, autism, cerebral palsy, stroke,
disease, head injury, or other neurological impairment. The
TONI-4 requires approximately 15 to 20 minutes to administer
and score. The test provides raw scores, deviation IQ scores,
percentile ranks, and age-equivalent scores. It is sound
psychometrically, with strong validity and reliability evidence,
and was normed on a demographically representative and
stratified sample of 3451 people.
oLeiter International Performance Scale–3rd Edition
The Leiter International Performance Scale–3rd Edition (Leiter-
3) has four subtests to calculate nonverbal IQ, two subtests to
calculate nonverbal memory, two subtests to calculate
processing speed, and one nonverbal neuropsychological
screener. The Leiter-3 was normed on a range of children who
have hearing issues, deafness, cognitive impairment,
developmental delays, autism, and speech and language
deficits; know ESL; and are intellectually gifted. The authors
have included a complete profile of cognitive strengths and
weaknesses. Scores are presented for each subtest and skill
area. The Leiter was found to correlate with the WISC-V (r
= .88), the WJ-III (r = .88 − .92) and the SB-5 (r = .85). The
Leiter-3 has been used to test a wide variety of individuals,
including those with hearing and language disabilities, mental
disabilities, cultural disadvantages, or non-English-speaking
backgrounds. The Leiter-3 measures dimensions of perceptual
and conceptual abilities. In the 3rd edition of the Leiter, the
number of subtests were reduced from 20 to 10 (i.e., Figure-
Ground, Form Completion, Classification and Analogies,
Sequential Order, Visual Patterns, Attention Sustained,
Forward Memory, Attention Divided, Reverse Memory, and
Nonverbal Stroop). The Leiter-3 is a valuable tool in the
assessment of the cognitive abilities of children with hearing
impairments, children with severe expressive or receptive
language disabilities, and adults with severe or profound
intellectual disability. The Leiter-3 is also considered an
appropriate instrument for those who have motor and
manipulative difficulties in addition to impaired
communication skills.
oUniversal Nonverbal Intelligence Test
The Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test (UNIT) is a
language-free test that requires no receptive or expressive
language from the examiner or examinee. The UNIT measures
a number of types of intelligence and cognitive abilities. The
test is made up of six subtests designed to measure the
functioning of the client according to a two-tier model of
intelligence: memory and reasoning. The memory subtests
are object memory, spatial memory, and symbolic memory.
The reasoning subtests are analogic reasoning, cube design,
and mazes. Although five of the subtests require motoric
manipulation, they can be adapted for a pointing response.
On the spatial memory subtest, the examinee must remember
and re-create the placement of colored chips. On the object
memory scale, the examinee is shown a visual array of
common objects such as a pan, computer, and rose for 5
seconds and then has to identify the objects shown from a
larger array of objects in pictures. The internal consistency
coefficient for 5- to 7-year-olds ranged from .83 in analogic
reasoning to .89 in design.
oInterviews and observations
Adequate assessment of intellectual ability requires more
than test results. It will also include interviews with the test
taker and relevant collateral sources, such as parents and
teachers (if the test taker is a child). Through the interview,
examiners can gather important background information
about the examinee, as well as establish the basis for a good
working relationship.
Observations of examinees can provide counselors with
information relevant to intelligence assessment. For example,
an examiner can observe a test taker’s appearance,
emotional responses, social interactions, communication
skills, and thought processes, which can give the examiner
insight into the test taker’s functioning.
Issues in assessing intelligence
oThe issue of heredity and intelligence has been debated for
decades. The influence of heredity on IQ has been misinterpreted to
imply that there is little point in trying to educate or be educated or
that IQ is somehow impervious to change. This is a fallacy because
many environmental factors—including family environment,
parenting, socioeconomic status, nutrition, and schooling—influence
the course of intellectual development (Toga & Thompson, 2005 ).
The best estimate of the heritability of intelligence is .50, which
suggests that genetic variation accounts for about 50% of the
individual difference in intelligence test scores, with the other 50%
attributable to environmental factors (Plomin, DeFries, Knopils, &
Neiderhiser, 2012 ). From this, it could be suggested that enriched
environments would help everyone achieve their potential;
however, the complex relationships among genes, the environment,
and the brain make conclusions about the extent of specific
influences on intelligence difficult to determine.
oMuch concern is still focused on the biased nature of intelligence
tests. Many assessment instruments were originally developed by
European and American psychologists who did not consider how
cultural and ethnic factors affected their tests (Sattler, 2008 ); and
sometimes, their notions about intelligence are not shared by other
cultures (Sternberg, 2003 ). For example, European Americans
emphasize verbal ability, problem solving, and mental processing
speed as important intellectual abilities, whereas other cultures or
ethnic groups may emphasize social skills, cooperativeness, or
obedience (see Sternberg, 2003 for review). Only in the latter half of
the 20th century did test developers begin to consider cultural and
ethnic factors and focus on constructing or revising tests to
minimize cultural bias. For example, verbal intelligence tests,
especially those dealing with vocabulary and general information,
are highly culturally loaded, which means they have items specific
to a particular culture. In contrast, nonverbal tests are culturally
reduced because they are less dependent on items with specific
language symbols.
oAnother issue often debated involves the stability of intelligence
over time. An intelligence test score is not viewed as a fixed
attribute. IQs change over the course of development, especially
from birth through 5 years of age (research has indicated that
intelligence test scores are very unstable in early childhood and are
poor predictors of later intelligence). Scores obtained on intelligence
tests administered during school years show a more substantial
relationship with scores obtained in adult years (Sattler, 2008 ).
Later, scores may decline with age on some types of test items and
increase on others.
oA final issue is the Flynn Effect. The Flynn Effect refers to the
general trend in increased IQs over time with each subsequent
generation. This was first discovered by James Flynn (1998 , 2009 ),
who investigated IQ scores over the past 100 years. He found that,
on average, IQ scores have continuously improved to a gain of
about 2 standard deviations across the 20th century. Even if gains
are now beginning to tail off, as Flynn believes, the change is
massive. It translates into 30 IQ points, which, if taken literally,
would mean that 50% of the population 100 years ago would have
had intellectual capabilities consistent with intellectual disability as
defined by current intelligence test score classifications. Many view
this proposition as absurd, since there is “no evidence that people
100 years ago were less intelligent than people now” (Nettelbeck &
Wilson, 2005 , p. 614). It seems unlikely that there is a single factor
that accounts for the increase; however, some suggested reasons
for rising IQ include the following (Dickens & Flynn, 2001 ; Flynn,
2000 , 2009 ):
Widespread public education
Reduced family size
More leisure time
More intellectually demanding work
Greater use of technology
Better prenatal care
Improved nutrition
Changes in child-rearing practices
Increased familiarity with tests and testing
Chapter 17 – communicating assessment results
Feedback sessions
oIn most instances, the assessment process ends with an oral or
written report, whereby counselors communicate assessment
results to clients (or other relevant parties) in a comprehensible and
useful manner. Assessment results are of direct interest to clients.
oHopefully you can see that counselors and other helping
professionals use feedback sessions with clients to orally
communicate their assessment results. During feedback sessions,
counselors can review and clarify assessment results, acquire
additional information relevant to the assessment process, educate
the client (and family members, if relevant) about what their results
mean, and provide recommendations regarding interventions or
educational services. Furthermore, feedback sessions can be a
vehicle for establishing good rapport with clients and to help them
understand why treatment is being recommended.
oThe feedback session is usually scheduled soon after the
assessment, and spouses and primary caregivers may be invited to
attend. If the examinee is a child, teachers, school administrators,
and other professionals may be included with the family’s
permission. Counselors should begin feedback sessions by
describing the purpose of the assessment. They should be prepared
to explain difficult concepts and the limits of a test. Counselors may
also wish to explain the various sources of test bias that may affect
the interpretation of the scores. The client also needs to understand
that test data represent just one source of information and are not
sufficient for fully assessing an individual’s abilities, skills, or traits.
oAfter explaining the purpose of the test, counselors should report
test results in a manner that clients (and family members) can
understand. Most people, professionals and laypersons alike, find
that percentile ranks can be the easiest types of scores to
understand (Lichtenberger, Mather, Kaufman, & Kaufman, 2004 ).
When explaining percentile ranks to clients, it is easy for them to
see that being #1 is not the best outcome. If you are in the 1st
percentile, then that means that out of 100 people, your score is
equal to or higher than one score. In other words, your score is
probably the lowest out of the 100. Hopefully as a professional
counselor you won’t have to tell someone they are #1, but you can
see the utility of explaining assessment results in terms of
percentile rank. Standard scores can easily be converted to
percentile ranks using a conversion table. Some professionals prefer
using qualitative descriptions of scores rather than the scores
themselves. When appropriate, the standard error of measurement
can help to emphasize that the test results are not absolute; results
provide approximations of where true scores might fall. The
following are examples of how to orally communicate various types
of scores with a hypothetical client named June, who is 10 years old
and in the fifth grade (Miller, Linn, & Gronlund, 2011 , p. 391):
Percentile Ranks “On the Math Computation subtest, June
scored in the 93rd percentile, meaning she scored the same
or better than 93% of the national norm of fifth graders.”
Deviation IQ “On the verbal comprehension index, June
earned a standard score of 115, which fell in the above-
average range.”
T Scores “June obtained a high score (T score = 70) on the
Child Behavior Checklist/6-18 Withdrawn/Depressed syndrome
scale. Her score fell in the clinical range, suggesting that she
is shy, lacks energy, feels sad, and is withdrawn.”
Stanines “On a scale from 1 to 9, June received a stanine
score of 8 on the math computation subtest. This score
indicates that June is performing in the above-average range,
which encompasses stanine scores from 7 to 9. The average
range includes stanine scores falling between 4 and 6, and
the below-average range falls between 1 and 3.”
Grade Equivalent Scores “June’s grade equivalent score on
the math computation subtest was 6.3. This means that June
correctly answered the same number of items that the
average sixth grader (in the third month of the school year
[November]) would answer on the same fifth-grade test. This
is above the national average for fifth-grade students, but it
does not necessarily mean that June is ready for seventh-
grade math instruction. It simply means that on the test, she
performed better than most of the fifth graders and about as
well as a typical sixth grader.”
Age Equivalents Scores “On the reading test, June’s age
equivalent score was 11-2. This means that June’s score was
similar to the average performance of children who are 11
years and 2 months old.”
oBecause clients are often nervous or anxious about receiving their
assessment results, counselors should focus on the clients’ thoughts
and feelings about their scores and interpretations. Thus, the
feedback session itself can become a therapeutic experience for the
client. The client’s reaction to results also may provide professionals
with new insight about the individual. Furthermore, by participating
in the discussion and interpretation of assessment results, the client
may become more accepting of the findings, gain more self-
awareness, and be more willing to use the information in decision
making. Counselors consider the guidelines shown in Figure 17.2 for
interpreting results in feedback sessions (Reynolds, Livingston,
Willson, & Willson, 2010 ). While the assessment process is not
consistently as linear as is depicted, using the figure as a guide will
be helpful to clinician looking to understand the typical steps in the
process.
Group feedback sessions
oGroup feedback sessions are frequently used to communicate test
results. Clients with particular learning or personality styles may
prefer group and social interaction; such clients often learn from
each other as well as from the counselor. Most tests now provide
interpretive material that the counselor can highlight effectively and
efficiently in group sessions. This approach is usually more
economical. The counselor can work with a small or large group and
can use a PowerPoint or other visual to convey information. Such
aids are less likely in a one-on-one situation. The use of group
sessions does not preclude offering individual sessions if a client
needs further help processing the information.
oProblem areas
Acceptance
The goal of the feedback session is often to get clients
to accept assessment results and incorporate that
information into their decision making. Negative results
frequently prompt test takers to resist accepting valid
and genuine information about themselves. Counselors
can enhance acceptance of test results by doing the
following:
oInvolve the clients in decision making and general
selection of tests prior to the testing.
oEstablish rapport with the clients so that they
trust the counselor and are relaxed in the
sessions.
oSpend sufficient time interpreting the results to
test takers, but do not overwhelm them with too
much data.
oTranslate the results into language that the clients
can understand.
oShow the validity of the information for the
decision(s) to be made.
Readiness
The critical factor in the acceptance of the test results is
the examinee’s readiness to hear it. How one presents
test results has a substantial effect on an individual’s
ability to accept the results. If the information is
damaging to an examinee’s self-concept, the counselor
might have to work on getting that individual to extend
his or her acceptance. The following techniques can
help increase an examinee’s readiness level:
oHave several sessions prior to the feedback
session to build rapport.
oAllow the client to bring up the topic of test
results; don’t immediately begin the feedback
session with test interpretation.
oFocus on the test rather than on the client.
oReflect the examinee’s responses to feedback.
Negative results
Often the results are not what the test taker wanted,
desired, or expected. The individual may have failed to
pass a certification or licensing examination or to
achieve the minimum score for admission to college. On
a clinical test, a client may become defensive after
being informed that they scored high on scales
assessing substance-abuse problems. Or, an individual
may score high on the validity scales on a personality
test and be told that their test was invalid. The test
administrator must know how to appropriately
communicate negative test results to individuals. The
following are several recommendations:
oExplain the rationale for cutoff scores and the
validity of the established procedures.
oAvoid using negative terms or labels, such as
“abnormal,” “deviant,” or “pathological.”
oGain an understanding of the test taker’s
perceptions and feelings.
oAccept the test taker’s right to argue with test
implications, without necessarily agreeing with
the test taker.
oIdentify other information about the individual
that supports or does not support the test data.
oDiscuss the implications of the data and the
importance of that information for decision
making.
Flat profiles
Many times an individual’s pattern of scores has no
highs or lows; rather it is just a flat profile. On aptitude
and achievement tests, this would indicate a similar
level of performance in all areas. On interest or career
inventories, flat profiles may indicate that the client is
undecided about future goals. Response set might be a
factor on a test, with the individual ranking everything
high, average, or low. In the case of flat profiles on
interest and career guidance tests, counselors can ask
clients to read the descriptions of the six Holland types
and rank the three types most characteristic of
themselves (Gati & Amir, 2010 ), then discuss the
clients’ expectations, relevant past experiences,
previous work activities, and misconceptions and
stereotypes. In the case of flat profiles on aptitude and
achievement tests, counselors can look at the interests,
values, and career goals and assure the clients that
their profiles are not abnormal. The counselor should
discuss what an individual considers their goals to be
and what that individual can do acceptably. A good
procedure is to investigate the individual’s performance
on previous tests to determine whether this pattern is
typical. Finally, flat profiles can be telling in terms of
diagnostic considerations. Flat learning profiles may be
helpful in the diagnosis of a mild cognitive impairment
of Alzheimer’s disease, for example (Gifford et al.,
2015 ).
Motivation and attitude
Test results are more significant to clients who are
motivated to take a test, come in and discuss the
results, and have a positive attitude toward the value of
the data. Some clients have a negative attitude toward
testing prior to the test and maintain that attitude
afterward. Some clients become negative after they see
that the test results are not what they expected.
Counselors should recognize that tests can aid clients in
developing more realistic expectations about
themselves and can be valuable in decision making.
However, some clients put too much weight on the
results and become overly dependent on test data to
solve their problems. Other clients use test results as a
way of escaping from their feelings and problems.
Counselors interpreting test results need to be aware
not only of a client’s motivation to take or not take a
test, but also of the client’s attitude toward the test.
Other important information is the immediate goal for
the interpretation of the test results and the client’s
desire to be involved in decision making about the type
of test to be taken and the dissemination of test results.
Feedback sessions with parents
oThe first step in the parent feedback session is describing what the
test measures. For example, the examiner can simply inform
parents that the math computation subtest of the Wide Range
Achievement Test (WRAT5) measures an individual’s ability to
perform basic mathematics computations without using long,
technical descriptions of the subtest. The examiner then discusses
the child’s scores, avoiding scientific jargon and providing
meaningful information to parents (Miller et al., 2011 ). The
examiner should walk the parent through the interpretation, being
patient and understanding but honest. In general, percentile ranks,
grade equivalent scores, and stanines are easy to explain and are
less likely to be misinterpreted. Actual test results may be
presented visually through the use of graphs and profiles to help
parents understand the results. Oral feedback needs to be
comprehensible as well as informational. However, in general, it is
best to keep explanations brief and simple and not overwhelm
parents with more information than they can grasp in a short period
of time.
oThe Code of Fair Testing Practices in Education (Joint Committee on
Testing Practices, 2004 ) states that parents or guardians should be
informed about how test scores will be stored and to whom and
under what circumstances scores will be released. Parents should
also be informed of how to register complaints and have testing
problems resolved. Parents and guardians should also be informed
about the rights of test takers and whether they can obtain copies
of their child’s tests and completed answer sheets, and if their child
can retake tests, have tests rescored, or cancel scores.
oSattler and Hoge (2006 , p. 166) provide a four-phase model for
presenting assessment findings to parents:
Phase 1: Establish Rapport Arrange to meet with parents
in a private setting, and make every effort to have both
parents or guardians present at the interview. Examiners
should help parents feel comfortable during the session and
encourage them to talk freely and ask questions.
Phase 2: Communicate Assessment Results Assessment
results and their implications should be summarized as clearly
as possible, in a straightforward, detailed, and unambiguous
manner. Examiners should be prepared that some of the
information shared might at times arouse conflict, hostility, or
anxiety in parents. They need to help parents express their
feelings and have their feelings acknowledged by the
examiner. The hope is that the parents will develop realistic
perceptions and expectations for their child.
Phase 3: Discuss Recommendations Examiners need to
allow time for parents to assimilate assessment results and
help them formulate a plan of action. The parents may want
specific recommendations or program suggestions, and the
examiner should be prepared to provide these.
Phase 4: Terminate the Interview Examiners should
summarize the assessment results and recommendations and
encourage parents to ask any additional questions. Examiners
should also inform parents that they are available for
additional meetings.
oIn responding to parents’ concerns, examiners should be prepared
to answer many questions about testing. Table 17.1 provides a list
of frequently asked questions. Miller, Linn, and Gronlund (2011 , p.
390) recommend the following actions to help prevent
misinterpretation of assessment results:
Refer to intelligence tests as learning ability tests or aptitude
tests. The term intelligence is often misunderstood and
emotionally charged.
Do not describe ability or aptitude tests as measuring fixed
abilities, because they do not. They measure learned abilities.
Do not inform parents that tests scores will “predict how well
their child will do in school.” Instead, say something like,
“Students with similar scores as your child’s scores usually do
well in school,” or for low scorers, “ . . . usually find learning
difficult.”
oDuring a feedback session, parents may express concerns about a
variety of aspects of their child’s assessment. A common question is
what to do if they disagree with the results of the testing—for
example, if assessment results indicate that the child is not ready
for kindergarten, yet the parents think the child is; or if the parents
think their child should be placed in the gifted program, but
assessment results show that the child doesn’t qualify for
placement. Parents should be advised of avenues they might take,
such as pursuing an independent evaluation on their own,
recognizing that the school district may not reimburse them for the
evaluation and that it may be difficult to have the client tested with
the same tests.
oParents may want to know whether test results really matter.
Professionals can explain the objectives of assessment programs
and the issue of accountability to help parents understand why
assessment results are important. They should also emphasize to
parents that many placement and selection decisions are based on
the outcome of the assessment process; thus, parents should
encourage children to take the assessment process seriously and do
their best.
oParents might ask whether the tests are culturally biased.
Examiners can discuss with parents the procedures that many
standardized tests use to reduce test bias, such as using panels of
experts to review test items, comparing test results among various
groups to see if score differences occur because of affiliation with a
particular group. It is important to explain that even with these
attempts, some bias might still be operating in the testing situation
and may distort a person’s true score.
oParents may be concerned about whether scores are fixed or
changeable. They need to be reminded that a test measures a
sample of behavior at a particular time, using items from a given
domain. Tests scores do change; they can go up and down, and
their child’s scores may vary from year to year. Sometimes poor
performance happens because a student may not be skilled in the
areas measured by the test. Most children perform better in some
areas than in others. Parents need to understand the dynamics at
work and refrain from hasty value judgments.
oParents may ask whether children should be informed about their
own test results. In most cases students should be provided
feedback on their performance in words and terms they can
understand. The information can help them understand their own
strengths and weaknesses and make more realistic educational and
vocational choices.
Assessment reports
oIn addition to oral feedback, counselors may communicate findings
in a written assessment report, often called a psychological report
or a psychoeducational report. These reports summarize the data
collected from interviews, tests, and observations that directly
addressed the reason for assessment. Professionals from various
disciplines write assessment reports, including school psychologists,
clinical psychologists, neuropsychologists, counselors, and speech
and language therapists. Although their professional roles may
differ, all engage in the process of report writing. The central
purposes of assessment reports are fourfold: (a) to describe the
client; (b) to record and interpret the client’s performance on
assessment instruments; (c) to communicate assessment results to
the referral source; and (d) to make recommendations or decisions
regarding educational programs, therapy, or other appropriate
intervention (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2018 ; Engelhard & Wind, 2013 ;
Urbina, 2014 ). Reports also create a record of the assessment for
future use and may serve as a legal document (Gunn & Taylor, 2014
).
oThe content of written reports addresses the specific concerns (e.g.,
psychological, behavioral, academic, or linguistic) of the referral
source (Goldfinger & Pomerantz, 2013 ). For example, a teacher
may request information about whether a child’s learning progress
differs from peers or why a child is having difficulty in a particular
subject area, such as reading (Schwean et al., 2006 ). Parents might
request an assessment to determine if their child meets the school’s
criteria for inclusion in the gifted and talented program. A judge
may need to know the best placement for a child in a child custody
dispute. A probation officer might want to know an adolescent’s
psychological functioning to determine whether any mental health
needs should be addressed. Each referral source has different
information needs. Assessment reports are tailored to address the
referral questions and the intended audiences.
oWritten reports should integrate information from multiple
assessment methods, including interviews, observations, tests, and
records. The extent to which reports integrate assessment
information varies greatly. Reports that are low on integration
generally focus more on test scores, neglect inconsistent results
between various methods, ignore the overall context of the client,
and do not discuss the meaning of the scores for the client. An
integrated report carefully blends assessment findings so that they
have specific meaning for the client (Goldfinger & Pomerantz,
2013 ).
oThe length of written reports can vary substantially. Although the
average report is between five and seven single-spaced pages
(Donders, 2001 ), no universal agreement on length is
recommended (Groth-Marnat & Horvath, 2006 ). For forensic
evaluations, Ackerman (2006 ) distinguishes between reports that
are brief (1–3 pages), standard (2–10 pages), and comprehensive
(10–50 pages). Length is based on the purpose of the report, the
context (i.e., educational, mental health, medical, or vocational
settings), the expectations of the referral source, the importance
and impact of the assessment, and the complexity and quantity of
information to be reported.
oQualities of well-written reports
The success of the assessment process requires that
assessment results be communicated effectively. Written
reports are read not only by other mental health
professionals, but also by clients, parents, teachers, court
systems, and other professionals. Thus, reports need to be
written in a language that is understandable by a fairly wide
audience. However, several major problems are frequently
encountered in written reports, such as the use of jargon,
poorly defined terms, and abbreviations; poor or illogical
explanations of results; vague or inappropriate
recommendations; poor organization; emphasis on numbers
rather than explanations; and the exclusive use of computer-
generated test reports (Carr & McNulty, 2014 ). Overuse of
jargon was the most frequent complaint cited from clients,
parents, teachers, and even mental health professionals
(Lichtenberger et al., 2004 ).
To keep written reports clear and understandable, the
language should be specific and concrete rather than abstract
and ambiguous. Abstract statements may be difficult for
readers to interpret, and ambiguous sentences are often
misinterpreted because they imply different meanings to
different individuals. The sentence “John lacks mechanical
aptitude” leaves the reader to interpret “lacks” and
“mechanical aptitude.” It would be better to say, “John is
unable to use the screwdriver or put washers on the bolts.”
Similarly, in the sentence “Mary is an extrovert,” who is to
define an extrovert? It would be better to say, “Mary likes to
be with people and be the center of attention. She talks and
laughs loudly and makes sure she introduces herself to
everyone in the room.”
When writing assessment reports, counselors should consider
the following recommendations (Carr & McNulty, 2014 ;
Goldfinger & Pomerantz, 2013 ; Lichtenberger et al., 2004 ;
Wiener & Costaris, 2012 ):
Avoid jargon and abbreviations.
Refer to yourself in the third person (e.g., “the examiner
found” instead of “I found”).
Use simple words and concise sentences.
Avoid using needless words and phrases.
Avoid redundancies.
Begin paragraphs with a strong declarative sentence
followed by information that supports the declarative
statement.
Write background information and observations in the
past tense.
Write assessment results in the present tense.
Information irrelevant to the purpose for the
assessment generally should not be included.
Capitalize test titles.
Pay attention to punctuation, capitalization, spelling,
and grammar.
The assessment report format
oIn general, a written assessment should discuss the reason for
referral, the assessment procedures used, the client’s background
information, behavioral observations, assessment results and
interpretation, the examiner’s interpretation and conclusion, and
recommendations (see Table 17.2 ). Because some assessment
professionals use tests as one data collection method, some
assessment reports (particularly comprehensive psychological
evaluations) will contain a list of the tests that were used during the
assessment process. However, when tests are not used in the
assessment process, they are not be listed or discussed in the
written report. We will describe each of the sections of an
assessment report. As an example, we have provided an
abbreviated assessment report later in the chapter.
Table 17.2 Sections of a Typical Report
I. Title and identifying information
II. Reason for referral
III. Background information
IV. Behavioral observations
V. Assessment instruments and procedures
VI. Assessment results and interpretation
VII. Summary
VIII. Recommendations
oTitle and identifying information
Most reports begin with a title that is followed by important
identifying information. The title is typically centered across
the top of the first page (e.g., Mental Health Evaluation,
Psychoeducational Assessment, Psychological Evaluation).
Identifying information is generally recorded underneath the
title as follows:
Examinee’s Name
Date of Birth
Chronological Age
School and Grade (if assessing a student)
Date(s) of Assessment
Report Date (date written)
Examiner’s Name
oReason for referral
This is typically the first section of the report and contains the
reasons why the individual is being referred for assessment.
This section is crucial because the reason for referral
determines the focus of an evaluation and provides the
rationale for the assessment; all other sections of the report
should be written with the referral question in mind
(Lichtenberger et al., 2004 ). Writers must also assume that
the referral source is not the only individual who will read the
report; other individuals such as other mental health
professionals, attorneys, case managers,
parents/spouses/children of the examinees, and even
examinees themselves may read the report.
oBackground information
This section provides a context for understanding the client
(Goldfinger & Pomerantz, 2013 ). In this section, counselors
give a brief description of the individual’s personal history,
which may include a chronological summary of the client’s
social and developmental history, medical history, education,
family constellation, and employment information (if
relevant). This information is typically obtained through
interviews (with the client and relevant collateral sources) and
records (e.g., school records, previous assessment results,
intervention plans, court documents, health records, etc.).
Although this section provides the context in which
assessment results are interpreted, if the background
information is not relevant to the referral problem, and if it is
very personal, counselors should consider carefully whether or
not to include it in the report (Kamphaus & Frick, 2005 ). The
report should not include hearsay, unverified opinions,
generalized statements, or potentially harmful or damaging
information.
oBehavioral observations
This section covers observations that occurred during the
assessment process and/or observations that occurred in
other settings (e.g., the classroom, waiting room, playground,
at home; Lichtenberger et al., 2004 ). Behaviors can be
observed directly by the counselor, or observations can be
provided indirectly by reports from teachers, parents, and
others who have contact with the client. Examples of
observations made during the assessment include physical
appearance, ease of establishing and maintaining rapport
with the client, language style (e.g., speed, pitch, volume, and
rhythm of speech), attention span, distractibility, activity
level, anxiety level, mood, attitude toward the assessment
process, attitude toward the examiner, and unusual
mannerisms or habits (Lichtenberger et al., 2004 ). Typically,
behaviors are presented in the report if they had a positive or
negative impact on the individual’s performance during the
assessment or on the individual’s academic, social, or
emotional functioning.
oAssessment instruments and procedures
This section provides a brief description of the instruments
and procedures used in the assessment process. Usually
written in list form, reports may also identify the dates that
the client and other relevant collateral sources (e.g., parents,
teachers, etc.) were interviewed. This is followed by the
names of any tests that were administered, including any
formal methods of observation.
oAssessment results and interpretation
The results of the instruments administered should be
presented descriptively in this section. Only include results
that are relevant to the assessment—it is not mandatory to
describe every test score in this section of the report. In terms
of format, assessment results can be organized by (a) domain,
(b) ability, or (c) test. Using a domain-oriented approach,
separate paragraphs are written on each domain of interest,
such as intellectual ability, achievement, adaptive behavior,
social/emotional functioning, and the like. Each paragraph
may include data from multiple instruments and strategies.
An ability-oriented format is similar to a domain-oriented
approach, except that assessment results are organized
based on specific abilities (such as memory, reasoning, visual-
spatial ability, expressive language, etc.) rather than on
general domains. The test-oriented format, the most
commonly used organizational format, includes separate
paragraphs that describe the results of each individual
assessment instrument. In addition to reporting results using
one of the three formats, counselors may also provide
instrument data in a chart or graph format as an appendix.
After the assessment results are presented, they should be
interpreted in a manner that is meaningful and relevant to the
client, the referral source, and other relevant collateral
sources. Discuss clinically significant findings, such as test
scores that fall in the “clinical range.” Report results that are
supported by (a) scores on other assessment instruments, (b)
behavioral observations that occurred both during the
assessment and in other contexts, or (c) background
information obtained from interviews with the client and
collateral sources, as well as from any documents or records
(Lichtenberger et al., 2004 ). Try to explain any discrepancies
across assessment instruments and strategies. Factors that
may affect the validity or reliability of assessment results
should also be addressed in this section, such as cultural
differences, language factors, disabilities, health problems,
and so on. It is important to remember that the focus of this
section is on the individual being assessed, not simply the
scores on assessment instruments.
Advancements in computer technology are changing the way
professionals conduct assessments, including incorporating
computer-based test interpretations (CBTIs) into the results
and interpretation section of the written report. CBTIs convert
an individual’s test results into extensive narrative reports,
which can provide several advantages to examiners: the
reports may be more comprehensive than an individual
examiner’s reports, CBTIs save the examiner time in
preparing reports, and CBTIs may provide more objective
information. However, a central issue in the use of CBTIs is
the accuracy of these interpretations. Another concern is that
many of the lengthy narratives often appear valid (even if
they are not valid) to untrained consumers and even to some
professionals (Goldfinger & Pomerantz, 2013 ). Unqualified
counselors may use these reports to compensate for a lack of
training and experience. In addition, counselors may come to
depend more on the CBTIs rather than their own clinical
judgment. There can be numerous problems with the
interpretations made using CBTIs (Lichtenberger, 2006 ).
Counselors should view CBTIs as a valuable adjunct to, rather
than a substitute for, clinical judgment. In this light,
counselors can incorporate the information from CBTIs into
the results and interpretation section of the written report in
the context of their own clinical judgment.
oSummary
This section of the report integrates key information from
each part of the report as well as the counselor’s hypotheses
or clinical impressions about the client. This section is
particularly important since some may read only this section
out of the entire written report. Counselors briefly restate the
reason for referral, pertinent background information,
behavioral observations, and test results and interpretations.
The hypotheses or clinical impressions are a key element of
this section because they help describe and clarify the nature
of and reasons for the client’s particular problems or
concerns. All hypotheses and clinical impressions are based
on and supported by multiple pieces of assessment
information. A clear summary of the assessment is then
provided that answers the referral questions using
connections among the examinee’s background information,
behavior observations, and test results. Summaries are
concise and should rarely exceed one page. New information
is never included in the summary.
oRecommendations
In this section, specific suggestions are offered regarding
programs, strategies, and interventions that address the
referral questions and improve outcomes for the individual
being assessed. Recommendations vary based on the reason
for referral as well as the setting where the assessment takes
place. For example, recommendations for students in K–12
schools typically focus on behavioral interventions,
instructional strategies, or other appropriate educational
services (Lichtenberger et al., 2004 ). Recommendations for
clients assessed in mental health clinics usually center on
treatment recommendations based on the client’s diagnosis.
Note that some assessment reports also contain an appendix
that includes any additional information or readings that the
counselor wishes to share to help implement the
recommendations—for example, information about a
particular learning or emotional disorder, the pharmaceutical
treatment of a particular disorder, or a specific technique to
use for spelling instruction.
Communicating assessment results to other professionals
oGoldfinger and Pomerantz (2013 ) provided some basic guidelines
for presenting assessment information to other professionals:
Find out exactly what information the recipient needs, what
the individual plans to do with it, and what qualifications the
individual has.
Make sure ethical and legal procedures are followed, such as
securing a client’s written permission to release information.
Check to see whether procedures have been established for
test information. Normally a policy is already in force.
Aim the report as directly as possible to the particular
question asked. This practice saves time and provides clear
communication of needed information
Communicating assessment results to the public
oCommunication with the public should follow these general
procedures:
Communication should take place before and after testing.
News releases can announce a test, and letters and cards can
be sent to the parents or guardians. An example of such a
letter is shown in Figure 17.3 . Reports of test results can be
made through the local media or can be presented at PTA or
community meetings.
Because most citizens are not familiar with test jargon and
statistical terms, the results should be presented as simply as
possible while still remaining accurate and honest.
Percentile bands or stanines can be reported graphically or
visually using handouts, transparencies, or slides.
Data should be presented in summary form—for example, by
grade rather than by teacher.
Statistical and measurement terms can be defined in
nontechnical language with examples provided.
The public is not stupid and should not be treated with
condescension.
oAny oral or written communication should include the following
components:
A general description of the tests or testing program
Uses of the test results
Types of skills and competencies measured
Types of scores reported and the meaning of those scores
Type of norms used
Definitions and examples of the summary statistics and
measurement concepts needed to understand the
presentation
The results with appropriate comparisons (national, state,
district, and school; year-to-year changes; or grade by grade)
Factors that might have influenced the results
oAn oral presentation requires time for questions. The examiner
should be prepared to answer the following types of questions
about major issues:
Are these tests biased against minority and disadvantaged
students?
Why do we test so much?
Why are some schools in the system achieving higher results
than others in the system?
Are teachers influenced by the test results?
