http://gri.gallaudet.edu/~catraxle/reviews.html
1. COGNITIVE ASSESSMENT
[Go to list of tests]
[Go to "Assessing Deaf Students' Academic, Readiness, and Language Skills"]
[Go to "Assessment of Deaf Infants, Toddlers, and Preschoolers"]
2. ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR AND
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL ASSESSMENT
3. DEVELOPMENTAL/CRITERION-BASED
SCALES
4. ACADEMIC/READINESS
ASSESSMENT
The 1997-98 Update to the Four Test Review was developed by Anne Spragins. Much of the information included in this review has previously appeared in the following:
Mullen, Y., & Spragins, A.B. (1998, March). Deaf Children and Schools: Choosing and Using Appropriate Assessment Instruments. Paper presented at the annual convention of the National Association of School Psychologists, Orlando, FL.
Spragins, A.B., Anthony, S., & Swiff, H.M. (1996, March). Specializing in services to deaf: What do we do? Paper presented at the annual convention of the National Association of School Psychologists, Atlanta, GA.
Spragins, A.B. (1989, March). Guidelines for assessing preschool hearing impaired children.
Paper presented at the annual convention of the National Association of School Psychologists, Boston, MA.
Spragins, A.B., & Hill, D. (1988, April). Deaf infants, assessment & school psychologists: What will 99-457 mean? Paper presented at the annual convention of the National Association of School Psychologists, Chicago, IL.
Mullen, Y., & Spragins, A. (1987, March). Deaf students and psychological services: What psychologists need to know. Workshop presented at the annual convention of the National Association of School Psychology, New Orleans, LA.
Spragins, A., & Blennerhassett, L. (1983, May). Evaluating deaf students: What the school psychologist should know. Workshop presented at the annual convention of the National Association of School Psychologists, Detroit, MI.
Spragins, A., Spencer Day, P., & Blennerhassett, L., (1982). Intellectual, adaptive, social-emotional, developmental, language, and academic tests used with hearing impaired children. Workshop materials presented for the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Rockville, MD.
Spragins, A.B., & Blennerhassett, L. (1978). Intellectual, adaptive, social-emotional, developmental, language, and academic tests used with hearing impaired children. Workshop materials presented through the W. K. Kellogg/Gallaudet College "Special Schools of the Future" project, Washington, DC.
There is more to assessing the skills and competencies of deaf and hard of hearing children and youth
than simply selecting an evaluation instrument from a list of recommended tests. Randy Kamphaus, in one
of his books directed to the clinical practitioner, Clinical Assessment of Children's Intelligence: A
Handbook for Professional Practice, shares the following opinion:
"The examiner who is unfamiliar with hearing-impaired children and the issue of hearing impairments
in general may be able to get a score, perhaps even an accurate score. The central issues, however, are
interpretation of that score and treatment plan design. An examiner with greater expertise
related to the child's referral problem will simply be able to better understand the etiology, course,
and treatments. It's a matter similar to seeing a psychiatrist for heart problems. While the psychiatrist
can perhaps obtain relevant EKG and other test scores, I personally would feel better in the hands of a
cardiologist!" (Kamphaus, 1993, p. 400).
Blennerhassett, L. (in press). Psychological Assessment. In P. Hindley & N. Kitson (Eds.).
Mental health and deafness. London: Whurr Publications.
Braden, J.P. (1994). Deafness, deprivation, and IQ. New York: Plenum Pub. Co.
Braden, J. P. (1992). Intellectual assessment of deaf and hard-of-hearing people: A quantitative and
qualitative research synthesis. School Psychology Review, 21(1), 82-94.
Bradley-Johnson, S., & Evans, L.D. (1991). Psychoeducational assessment of
hearing-impaired students. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Heller, P. J. (1990). Psycho-Educational assessment. In M. Ross (Ed.) Hearing-impaired children
in the mainstream (pp. 61-81). Parkton, MD: York Press.
Levine, E. S. (1981). The ecology of early deafness: Guides to fashioning environments and
psychological assessments. New York: Columbia University Press.
Marschark, M. (1993). Psychological development of deaf children. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Sullivan, P.M., & Burley, S.K. (1990). Mental testing of the hearing-impaired child. In C.R.
Reynolds & R.W. Kamphaus (Eds.) Handbook of psychological and educational assessment of
children: Intelligence and achievement (pp. 761-788). New York: Guilford Press.
Traxler, C.B. (1989). The role of assessment in placing deaf students in academic and vocational
courses. In T. E. Allen, B. W. Rawlings, & A. N. Schildroth (Eds.) Deaf students and the
school-to-work transition (pp. 119-141). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Pub.
Vernon, M., & Alles, B. F. (1986). Psychoeducational assessment of deaf and hard-of-hearing
children and adolescents. In P. J. Lazarus & S. S. Strichart (Eds.), Psychoeducational evaluation
of children and adolescents with low-incidence handicaps (pp. 103-123). Orlando, FL: Grune &
Stratton, Inc.
Vess, S. M., & Douglas, L.S. (1995). Program planning for children who are deaf or severely hard
of hearing. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.). Best practices in school psychology-III (pp.
1123-1133). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
Although there is little empirical information about deaf and hard of hearing youngsters as thinkers
and learners, Vess and Douglas (1995) make the point that:
". . . hearing loss apparently alters their [deaf and hard of hearing children's] learning style so
that they often depend on experiential/visual learning modalities. Further, because these children have
no undistorted access to the flow of language and information in the environment, they quite reasonably
can demonstrate gaps in vocabulary, language, and conceptual knowledge, especially understanding and
using abstract concepts" (Vess & Douglas, 1995, p. 1127).
Achievement tests in general are used to evaluate the student's knowledge and understanding in
specified curricula areas, e.g., reading and math, and intended to assess the extent to which a student
has profited from schooling and other life experiences. Testing school readiness, on the other hand, is
not a unique kind of measurement. In Salvia and Ysseldyke's (1991) book, Assessment, tests of
"readiness" are described as:
"First, readiness tests are typically administered before school entry as during kindergarten.
Second, the tests are used to predict initial school success and to select those children who perform
poorly -- and thus are thought not to be ready for regular school experiences -- for participation in
remedial or compensatory education programs or delayed school entry" (p. 471).
For deaf and hard of hearing youngsters, identifying broad areas of academic strength and weaknesses
with an eye toward matching the youngster's present state of knowledge and academic and conceptual skills
with the appropriate curriculum placement, might be the goal of academic and readiness assessment. It is
unlikely that any one test instrument described in the following test review will provide sufficient
information to determine what a student can or cannot do correctly or what a student needs to learn to be
successful in a specific curriculum. Examiners skilled in educational evaluation and knowledgeable about
the potential impact of deafness on children's learning, typically use a variety of assessment
instruments -- including informal assessment and curriculum-based assessment -- to make critical
judgements about a deaf or hard of hearing child's state of knowledge and intervention/placement needs.
It is typical in assessing deaf and hard of hearing youngsters that examiners from a variety of
professions work as a team in order to ensure that there is a transfer of information, knowledge, or
skills across disciplinary boundaries. While psychologists often are responsible for evaluation in the
areas of cognition, adaptive behavior and social-emotional development, developmental and/or self-help
skills, and academic/readiness, the critical area of languge assessment for deaf and hard of hearing
children is best approached by speech-language professionals familiar with deaf and hard of hearing
children. Speech and language assessment, encompassed within the broader meaning of communication, e.g.,
content, method, attitudes and emotions, quality, quantity, and effectiveness of communication, are often
a critical element in the complete and comprehensive assessment of a deaf or hard of hearing individual.
A developmental, functional, integrated approach to assessment often is the goal of professionals
working with very young deaf children. In order to make a worthwhile appraisal of the child's skills and
learning processes, evaluators have used approaches ranging from the structured use of the Bayley
Scales of Infant Development - Second Edition (1993) to the more interactive play-based assessments,
such as Linder's Transdisciplinary Play-Based Assessment (1990).
Some evaluators report beginning the assessment with a structured instrument such as the
Bayley or the Central Institute for the Deaf Preschool Performance Scale (CID) (1984);
then moving to a more developmental measure such as those listed in this test review; and finally moving
to a play-based approach, in order to develop a complete picture of the child's skills, abilities, and
functional level.
For other evaluators, the play-based approach has become the instrument of choice for toddlers and
preschoolers. Linder (1990) writes of her approach:
"Transdisciplinary play-based sessions provided information on the child's developmental skills and
learning style, and not only translated into objectives for the child, but also elucidated intervention
strategies for the teams that worked with the child. The child-centered approach to assessment provided a
direct link to child-centered approaches to intervention" (p. x).
Whatever approach is chosen for working with young deaf and hard of hearing children, it is essential
that the evaluator have a firm foundation in developmental work with young children and an understanding
of the communication issues created by the fact of hearing loss.
1997-98 UPDATE
COGNITIVE ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS
USED WITH DEAF STUDENTS
1. WECHSLER SCALES: WAIS-III, WISC III, WPPSI-R: PERFORMANCE
SCALES
2. LEITER INTERNATIONAL PERFORMANCE SCALE - REVISED
3. HISKEY-NEBRASKA TEST OF LEARNING APTITUDE
4. COLUMBIA MENTAL MATURITY SCALE
5. GOODENOUGH-HARRIS DRAWING TEST
6. MERRILL-PALMER SCALE OF MENTAL TESTS
7. SMITH-JOHNSON NONVERBAL PERFORMANCE SCALE
8. BAYLEY SCALES OF INFANT DEVELOPMENT-SECOND EDITION
9. KAUFMAN ASSESSMENT BATTERY FOR CHILDREN
10. TEST OF NONVERBAL INTELLIGENCE - THIRD EDITION
11. RAVEN'S PROGRESSIVE MATRICES
12. CENTRAL INSTITUTE FOR THE DEAF PRESCHOOL PERFORMANCE SCALE
14. STANFORD-BINET INTELLIGENCE SCALE - FOURTH EDITION
15. DIFFERENTIAL ABILITY SCALES
16. COMPREHENSIVE TEST OF NONVERBAL INTELLIGENCE
17. NEW INSTRUMENTS: POTENTIALS FOR THE FUTURE
Developed by:
CHILDREN AND YOUTH
|
Anne B. Spragins, Ph.D. Lynne Blennerhassett, Ed.D. Psychology Department Gallaudet University 800 Florida Ave. N.E. Washington, D.C. 20002 |
Yvonne Mullen, Ed.D. Division of Psychology CLARKE - School for the Deaf/Center for Oral Ed. Round Hill Road Northampton, MA 01060 |
I. WECHSLER SCALES: WAIS-III (1997); WISC-III (1991); WPPSI-R (1989)
PERFORMANCE SCALE
PUBLISHER
The Psychological Corporation
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The Wechsler Scales (WAIS-III, WISC-III, and WPPSI-R) are individually administered instruments used
as part of a cognitive assessment. All three scales yeild composit scores for Verbal IQ, Performance IQ
and Full Scale IQ. For use with deaf or hard of hearing individuals, generally the use of the Performance
Scale only, is recommended.
The Performance Scale for the WAIS-III provides a measure of intelligence for individuals age 16 - 89
years and use of the full scale allows for four factor indexes: Verbal Comprehension, Perceptual
Organization, Working Memory, and Processing Speed.
The WISC-III Performance Scaleprovides three performance-based measures of intelligence for children
ages 6 to 16-1/2 years: an overall Performance Intelligence Quotient (PIQ), a Perceptual Organization
Index (POI), and a Processing Speed Index (PSI). The Performance Scale of the WPPSI-R measures
intellectual abilities of children age 3 through 7.3 years.
All Wechsler Scales yield deviation IQ's with mean = 100 and standard deviation = 15. Each scale
consists of a group of subtests with Scaled Scores expressed as Standard Scores with a mean = 10 and
standard deviation = 3.
NOTE: The Verbal Scale of the Wechsler tests can in no way be considered a valid measure of
any hearing impaired individual's "intelligence". However, in the hands of a knowledgeable evaluator
skilled in working with hearing impaired individuals, the Verbal Scale may be administered to provide
information on student's level of verbal achievement relative to that of hearing peers. See Moores
and Sweet (1990) and Geers and Moog (1989) for criterion related validity of Wechsler Verbal Scale
subtests with deaf and hard of hearing adolescents. See Maller (1996, 1997) for discussion of critical
issues in the use of verbal tests with deaf children.
NATURE OF INSTRUCTIONS
There are currently no standardized instructions for deaf or hard of hearing individuals. Instructions
can be modified so that task requirements are comprehensible to deaf persons by adding extra examples of
items, using pictures, demonstrating, gesturing and pantomiming or using sign communication. All
variations from standard administration should be described in reports.
NORMS
Deaf children were not reported as included in the representative sample.
NOTE: Although separate norms for deaf children (ages 6 to 16-1/2) are available from
the Gallaudet Research Institute, Gallaudet University for the WISC-R (the 1974 version of the Wechsler
Scales for Children), these norms are not recommended for use as they are out-of-date. The method of
communication and specific changes or additions to administration procedures in the 1974 version of the
WISC-R were not standardized in the collection of deaf norms.
ADVANTAGES
1. The WISC-III is one of the best known and well researched scales for children. It is one of the
three most popular tests for deaf or hard of hearing students.
2. The WISC-III Performance Scale taps a variety of skill areas with the exception of memory.
3. The variety of tasks on the WISC-III and WAIS-III generally hold the student's interest.
4. No items need to be omitted from the Performance Scale of the WISC-III or the WAIS-III when used
with deaf students.
5. The Performance Scales of the WPPSI-R and the WAIS-III can be used with younger and older deaf
populations. However, the WPPSI-R is suspected of underrating the abilities of young deaf children.
6. The WISC-III Performance Scale includes two new performance-based measures: Perceptual
Organization and Processing Speed which were not included on the WISC-R. There is little formal
information on how useful these measures are with deaf students.
7. The WAIS-III includes three new subtests: Matrix Reasoning, Symbol Search, and Letter-Number
Sequencing, plus four new factor indexes. There is, as yet, little information as to how deaf and hard
of hearing students will perform on these tasks.
DISADVANTAGES
1. The sample of behavior is halved by giving the Performance Scale only, rather than the full scale. This
is true for all three Weschler scales.
2. Most WISC-III Performance subtests are timed.
3. There are no tests of memory on the Performance Scale of the WISC-III.
4. Some task requirements may be difficult to convey non-verbally (e.g., speed, "tell me when you are
finished", the "most important" part of a story, "what's missing" is a specific problem for younger
children.
5. Examiner report that the WISC III scores lower than the old WISC-R. Whether this will also be true
for the new WAIS-III as compared to the older WAIS-R, is not yet known.
The WISC-III and the WAIS-III Performance Scale are best used as one part of a multi-factored
evaluation to ensure a "best" measure of the student's performance. The examiner should note the
student's performance style and determine whether tasks requirements are, in the examiner's
judgement, understood by the student. If sign communication is used in presentation, the type of
communication used by both examiner and the youngster should be clearly defined, as the use of sign
breaks standardization and can affect interpretation of results. Also, any additional modifications in
administration used should be included in reports.
Some examiners who are familiar with the old WISC-R and have used the deaf norms available for
that tests have reported a reluctance to change to the WISC III. However, the norms for the WISC-R
date to 1974 and the deaf norms to 1977. The norms are too old to use in making decisions about
today's students.. Also, since most of the changes in the revised WISC III occured within the
Performance Scale, a continued use of the outdated WISC-R is not recommended and may inflate PIQ
by up to 5 points (Weiss, 1991). It is as yet unclear whether the same caution should be issues for the
WAIS-III as compared to the older WAIS-R.
Examiners report that the WPPSI-R does not command the interest of deaf children and can be quite
long and tedious. It is up to the examiner to decide whether the information gleaned from the test is
"worth the effort".
Please read the above NOTE regarding the possible use of the Verbal Scales of the
Wechsler tests with deaf and hard of hearing individuals.
Allen, T.E. (1996). Stanford Achievement Test, 9th Edition, and WISC-III and Their Use with Deaf
and Hard of Hearing Students: Progress Report [World Wide Web document]. URL:
http://www.gallaudet.edu/~cadsweb/satprogr.html.
Braden, J.P., & Reed, J. (1994). Why do deaf children score differently on performance vs
motor-reduced nonverbal intelligence tests?Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 12(4),
357-363.
Mackinson, J.A., Leigh, I.W., Blennerhassett, L., & Anthony, S. (1997). Validity of the TONI-2
with deaf and hard of hearing children. American Annals of the Deaf, 142(4), 294-299.
Maller, S.J. (1994, March). WISC-III Profiles of Deaf Children. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of The National Association of School Psychologists, Seattle, WA.
Maller, S.J. (1994, April). Item Bias in the WISC-III with Deaf Children. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Maller, S.J. (1994). Validity and item bias of the WISC-III with deaf children. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation. University of Arizona, Tucson.
Maller, S.J. (1996, March). Verbal tests with deaf children. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the National Association of School Psychologists, Atlanta, GA.
Maller, S.J. (1997). Deafness and WISC-III item difficulty: Invariance and fit. Journal of School
Psychology,35(3), 299-314.
Maller, S.J. (1996). WISC-III Verbal item invariance across samples of deaf and hearing children of
similar measured ability. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 14(2), 152-165.
Maller, S.J., & Braden, J.P. (1993). The construct and criterion-related validity of the WISC-III
with deaf adolescents. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment Monographs, Monograph Series:
WISC-III, 184-113.
Maller, S.J., & Ferron, J. (In press). WISC-III factor invariance across deaf and standardization
samples. Educational and Psychological Measurement.
Slate, J. R., & Fawcett, J. (1995). Validity of the WISC-III for deaf and hard of hearing
persons. American Annals of the Deaf. 140(3), 250-254.
Slate, J.R., & Fawcett, J. (1996). Gender differences in Wechsler Performance scores of
school-age children who are deaf or hard of hearing. Amercan Annals of the Deaf, 141,(1), 19-24.
Sullivan, P.M., & Montoya, L.A. (1997). Factor analysis of the WISC-III with deaf and
hard-of-hearing children. Psychological Assessment, 9(3), 317-321.
REFERENCES (FOR THE WISC-R, WAIS-R, WIPPSI-R)
Adler, A.J. (1985). Ray's adaptation of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for children-Revised for the
Deaf with hearing and hearing impaired students. Dissertations Abstract International, 47, 121A
(Order No. DA8529575).
Anderson, R. I., & Sisco, F. H.(1977). Standardization of the WISC-R Performance Scale
for children. (Series T. No. 1) Washington,D.C.: Gallaudet College, Office of Demographic Studies
(now Center for Assessment and Demographic Studies, Gallaudet University).
Bardos, A.N., & Weber, M. (1988). WISC-R, MAT-EF, DAP and SAT with hearing-impaired
children. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Ohio School Psychologists.
Blennerhassett, L., & Moores, D.F. (April, 1988). Factor structure of the WISC-R for two
groups of deaf adolescents. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association of School
Psychologists, Chicago, Illinois.
Braden, J. P. (1984). The factorial similarity of the WISC-R performance scale in deaf and hearing
samples. Journal of Personality and Individual Differences. 5(4), 403-409.
Braden, J. P. (1985). Futile gestures: A reply to Courtney, Hayes, Couch, and Frick regarding
pantomimed administration of the WISC-R performance scale. Journal of Psychoeducational
Assessment, 3, 181-185.
Braden, J.P. (1985). The factorial similarity of the WISC-R Performance Scale in deaf and hearing
samples. Journal of Personality and Individual differences, 5, 403-409.
Braden, J. P. (1985). WISC-R deaf norms reconsidered. Journal of School Psychology,
23(4), 375-382.
Braden, J.P. (1985). The structure of nonverbal intelligence in deaf and hearing subjects.
American Annals of the Deaf, 130(6), 496-501.
Braden, J.P. (1989). The criterion-related validity of the WISC-R Performance Scale and other
nonverbal IQ tests for deaf children. American Annals of the Deaf, 134(5), 329-332.
Braden, J.P. (1990). Do deaf persons have a characteristic psychometric profile on the Wechsler
Performance Scales? Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 8(4), 518-526.
Braden, J. P. (1992). Intellectual assessment of deaf and hard-of-hearing people: A quantitative and
qualitative research synthesis. School Psychology Review, 21(1), 82-94.
Braden, J.P. (1994). Deafness, deprivation, and IQ. New York: Plenum Press.
Braden, J. P., & Paquin, M. M. (1985). A comparison of the WISC-R and WAIS-R performance scales
in deaf adolescents. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 3, 285-290.
Braden, J., Maller, S., & Paquin, M. (1993). The effects of residential versus day placement on
the performance IQs of children with hearing impairment. Journal of special Education,
26(4), 423-433.
Brinch, P.M. (1981). Relationship between intellectual functioning and communicative competence in
deaf children. Journal of Communication Disorders, 14, 429-434.
Brooks, C., & Riggs, S. (1980). WISC-R, WISC and reading achievement relationships among hearing
impaired children attending public schools. The Volta Review, 82(2), 96-102.
Courtney, A.S., Hayes, F.B., Couch, K.W., & Frick, M. (1984). Administration of the WISC-R
performance scale to hearing-impaired children using pantomimed instructions. Journal of
Psychoeducational Assessment, 2(1), 1-7.
Croake, J. W., Keller, J. F., & Catlin, N. (1973). WPPSI, Rutgers, Goodnough, Goodenough-Harris
IQ's for lower socioeconomic, black, preschool children. Psychology, 10(2), 58-65.
DeMarco, W. (1970). The scatter of intellectual abilities of the hard of hearing as assessed by the
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children. Dissertation Abstracts International, 30(7-B,
3383-3384.
Ensor, A. (1988, March). WAIS-R Performance as a predictor of achievement for deaf
adolescents. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Asociation of School
Psychologists, Boston, MA.
Ensor, A., & Phelps, L. (1980). Gender differences on the WAIS-R Performance Scale with young
deaf adults. Journal of the American Deafness and Rehabilitation Association, 22(3), 48-52.
Evans, L. (1966). A comparative study of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (performance)
and Raven's Progressive Matrices with deaf children. The Teacher of the Deaf, 64, 76-82.
Evans, L. (1980). WISC Performance Scale and Coloured Progressive Matrices with deaf children.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 50, 216-222.
Geers, A., & Moog, G. (1989). Factors predictive of development of literacy in profoundly
hearing-impaired adolescents. The Volta Review, 91 (2), 69-86.
Gibbins, S. (1989). Use of the WISC-R Performance Scale and K-ABC Non-verbal Scale with deaf children
in the USA and Scotland. School Psychology International, 10(3), 193-197. Graham, E., &
Shapiro, E. (1953). Use of the performance scale of the WISC with the deaf. Journal of
Consulting Psychology, 17, 396-398.
Hays, F.B., & Courtney, A.S. (1985). Commentary in response to Braden. Journal of
Psychoeducational Assessment, 3(2), 187-192.
Hirshoren, A., Hurley, O. L., & Hunt, J. I. (1977). The WISC-R and the Hiskey-Nebraska Test with
deaf children. American Annals of the Deaf, 122(4), 392-394.
Hirshoren, A., Hurley, O. L., & Kavale, K. (1979). Psychometric characteristics of the WISC-R
performance scale with deaf children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 44, 73-79.
James, R. P. (1984). A correlational analysis between the Raven's Matrices and WISC-R Performance
Scales. Volta Review, 86(7), 336-341.
Kelly, M.D., & Braden, J.P. (1990). Criterion-related validity of the WISC-R Performance Scale
with the Stanford Achievement Test-Hearing-Impaired Edition. Journal of School Psychology,
28(2), 147-151.
Kline, M., & Sapp, G.L. (1989). Carolina Picture Vocabulary Test: Validation with
hearing-impaired students. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 69 (1), 64-66.
Lavos, G. (1962) WISC psychometric patterns among deaf children. The Volta Review, 64,
547-552.
Meacham, F.R. (1984). A comparative study of the WISC-R and WAIS-R Performance IQ scores of
16-year-old hearing impaired students in a residential program. Dissertation Abstracts International,
45, 2042A-2043A (Order No. DA8423502).
Miller, M.S. (1985). Experimental use of signed presentations of the Verbal Scale of the WISC-R with
profoundldy deaf children: A preliminary report. In D.S. Martin (Ed.) Cognition, education, and
deafness (pp. 134-137). Gallaudet College Press: Washington, DC.
Moores, D.F., & Sweet, C. (1990). Factors predictive of school achievement. In D.F. Moores &
K.P. Meadow-Orlans (Eds.), Educational and developmental aspects of deafness. Washington, DC:
Gallaudet University Press.
Neuhaus, M. (1967). Modifications in the administration of the WISC performance sub-tests for
children with profound hearing losses. Exceptional Children, 33(8), 73-574.
Neyhus, A. (1978). Assessment for individualized education programming. The Volta Review,
80(5), 286-295.
Paquin, M.M., & Braden, J.P. (1990). The effect of residential school placement on deaf
children's performance IQ. School Psychology Review, 19(3), 350-355.
Phelps, L., & Branyan, B.J. (1990). Academic achievement and nonverbal intelligence in public
school hearing-impaired children. Psychology in the Schools, 27, 210-217.
Phelps, L., & Branyan, B.J. (1988). Correlations among the Hiskey, K-ABC Nonverbal Scale, Leiter,
and WISC-R Performance Scale with public-school deaf children. Journal of Psychoeducational
Assessment, 6(4), 354-358.
Phelps, L., & Ensor, A. (1986). Concurrent validity of the WISC-R using deaf norms and the
Hiskey-Nebraska. Psychology in the Schools, 23(2), 138-141.
Phelps, L., & Ensor, A. (1987). The comparison of performance by sex of deaf children on the
WISC-R. Psychology in the Schools. 24(3), 209-214.
Ray, S. (1979). An adaptation of the WISC-R for deaf children. New York:
Psychological Corporation.
Ray, S. (1982). Adapting the WISC-R for deaf children. Diagnostique, 7(3), 147-157.
Sarayev, S. (1988). A study of the intellectual functions in deaf school children using the Wechsler
scale. Defektologiya, No. 6, 17-23. (Dutch)
Seiler, R.D. (1985). Signed vs. gestrued administration of the WISC-R Performance Scale and the K-ABC
Nonverbal Scale as predictors of achievement with hearing impaired students. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 47, 844B-845B (Order No. DA86009060).
Silverman-Miller, M. (1984). Experimental use of signed presentations of the WISC-R Verbal Scale
with profoundly deaf children: A preliminary report of the sign selection process and experimental test
procedures. Paper presented at the International Symposium on Cognition, Education and Deafness,
Gallaudet College, Washington, D.C.
Sisco, R., & Anderson, P. (1978). Current findings regarding the performance of deaf children on
the WISC-R. American Annals of the Deaf, 123, 115-121.
Stewart, J. (1981). Wechsler performance IQ scores and social behaviors of hearing impaired
students. The Volta Review, 83(4), 215-222.
Sullivan, P. M. (1982). Administration modifications on the WISC-R performance scale with different
categories of deaf children. American Annals of the Deaf, 127(6), 780-788.
Sullivan, P.M., Brookhouser, P.E., & Burley, S.K. (1991). Intellectually gifted deaf adolescents:
Etiologic, academic and behavioral correlates. International Journal of Pediatric
Otorhinolaryngology.
Sullivan, P.M., & Schulte, L. (1992). Factor analysis of WISC-R with deaf and hard-of-hearing
children. Psychological Assessment, 4(4), 537-540.
Ulissi, S.M., & Gibbins, S. (1984). Use of the Leiter International Performance Scale and the
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised with hearing-impaired children. Diagnostique,
9 (3), 142-53.
Vomderhaar, W. F., & Chambers, J. F. (1975). An examination of deaf students' Wechsler
performance subtest scores. American Annals of the Deaf, 120(6), 540-545.
Watson, B., Sullivan, P., Moeller, M.P., & Jensen, J. (1982). The relationship of performance on
nonverbal intelligence tests and English language ability in prelingually deaf children. Journal of
Speech and Hearing Disorders, 47, 199-203.
Watson, B., Goldgar, D., Kroese, J., & Lotz, W. (1986). Nonverbal intelligence and academic
achievement in the hearing impaired. Volta Review, 88(3), 151-158.
Wilson, J. J., Rapin, I., Wilson, B. C., & Van Denberg, F. V. (1975). Neuropsychologic functions
of children with severe hearing impairment. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 18,
634-652.
Wolff, A.B., Cantor, D.S., Thatcher, R.W., Kammerer, B.L., & Gardner, J.K. (August, 1986).
Neurophysiological differences among deaf children with different etiologies of deafness. Paper
presented at the American Psychological Association annal meeting in Washington, DC.
[go to top of page]
[go to list of tests]
2. LEITER INTERNATIONAL PERFORMANCE SCALE - REVISED (1997)
PUBLISHER
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The Leiter-R is an untimed individually administered measure of non-verbal intelligence and cognitive
abilities which spans ages 2 years 0 months to 20 years 11 months. The revised Leiter (Leiter-R) consists
of 2 nationally standardized batteries: (1) a revision of the original Visualization and Reasoning
domains; and (2) new Attention and Memory domains.
The Leiter-R provides composit IQ scores (mean = 100, sd = 15) and scaled scores for each domain and
subtest (Mean = 10, sd = 3).
NATURE OF INSTRUCTIONS
There are no standardized instructions for deaf individiuals but the fact that all instructions are
entirely non-verbal makes the test appropriate for most deaf individuals. Most task requirements are self
evident, but some items are demonstrated.
NORMS
There were no deaf individiuals reported in the standardization samples and no separate deaf norms
reported.
ADVANTAGES
1. Speed is not an issue in the Leiter-R, therefore, the test might be appropriate for students for
whom speed is a problem
2. Instructions are non-verbal and do not require reading or writing. Test developers claim the test
is appropriate for hearing or motor impaired children.
3. Technical information on reliability, validity, and item analysis for the Leiter-R are much
improved over the old Leiter.
4. The test has an extensive nonverbal cognitive scale and a separate nonverbal attention and memory
scale (the latter with 10 different subtests).
DISADVANTAGES
1. There are no deaf norms available, and no information yet as to how deaf students will perform on
this new revised Leiter.
2. Preliminary reports from users suggest that the administration time is very long; that pantomime,
gesture administration is very difficult; and that material costs are high since numerous protocols must
be used with each child.
The Leiter-R appears quite interesting for use with deaf and hard of hearing students, but until
information is available from the field and research studies, we must suggest that clinicians review the
test and use clinical judgement in determining whether the instrument is appropriate for a particular
deaf individual. Administration time has been reported to be lengthy, but only practical experience and
research will tell us whether the time spent produces useful, interpretable results. The test has
potential for addressing a concern in deaf education about identification of deaf students with
attention/memory deficits independent of their nonverbal "intelligence" or reasoning.
REFERENCES FOR THE OLD LEITER
Birch, J.R., & Birch, J.W. (1951). The Leiter International Performance Scale as an aid in the
psychological study of deaf children. American Annals of the Deaf, 96(5), 502-5ll.
Boyd, J., & Shapiro, A.H. (1986). A comparison of the Leiter International Performance Scale to
WPPSI performance with preschool deaf and hearing impaired children. Journal of Rehabilitation of the
Deaf, 20(1), 23-26.
Lindsay, P.H., Shapiro, A., Musselman, C.R., & Wilson, A. (1988). Predicting language development
in deaf children using subscales of the Leiter International Performance Scale. Special Issue: Child
development: When things go wrong. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 42(2), 144-162.
Mira, M.P. (1962). Use of the Arthur Adaptation of the Leiter International Performance Scale and the
Nebraska Test of Learning Aptitude with preschool deaf children. American Annals of the Deaf, 107,
224-228.
Musgrove, W.J., & Counts, L. (1975). Leiter and Ravens performance and teacher ranking: A
correlational study with deaf children. Journal of the Rehabilitation of the Deaf, 8,
19-22.
Phelps, L., & Branyan, B.J. (1988). Correlations among the Hiskey, K-ABC Nonverbal Scale, Leiter,
and WISC-R Performance Scale with public-school deaf children. Journal of Psychoeduational
Assessment, 6(4), 354-358
Radcliff, J. K. & Radcliff, M. W. (1979). The Leiter scales: A review of validity findings.
American Annals of the Deaf, 124, 38-45.
Reeve, R. R. & French, J. L. (1983). A validation of the Leiter International Performance Scale
with kindergarten children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Research, 51, 458-459.
Ritter, D.R. (1976). Intellectual estimates of hearing-impaired children: A comparison of three
measures. Psychology in the Schools, 13(4), 397-39.
Taddonio, R.O. (1973). Correlation of the Leiter and visual subtests of the Illinois Test of
Psycholinguistic Abilities with deaf elementary school children. Journal of School Psychology, 11,
30-35.
Ulissi, S.M., & Gibbins, S. (1984). Use of the Leiter International Performance Scale and the
WISC-R with hearing impaired children. Diagnostique, (9)3, 142-153.
[go to top of page]
[go to list of tests]
3. HISKEY-NEBRASKA TEST OF LEARNING APTITUDE (1966)
PUBLISHER
This test is no longer produced. However, Hiskey-Nebraska record forms are available from PRO-ED. Ask for
order number 8449.
PRO-ED
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The Hiskey is a non-verbal test of learning aptitude designed for deaf children ages 3 to 16-1/2
years, which also includes norms for the hearing population. The test yields a Median Learning Age and a
Learning Quotient (LQ) for deaf students and a Deviation IQ for hearing students.
NOTE: Although the Hiskey has a wonderful history and was one of the few tests
developed for deaf students, its norms -- developed in 1966 -- its median score approach, and some of the
test materials, are now too old to be recommended for use in decision making for deaf students of today.
One hopes the Hiskey will be revamped and re-normed in the future. Some of the subtests, particularly
Memory for Digits, are creatively designed and serve a useful purpose as part of an evaluation for deaf
youngsters.
REFERENCES
Burnett, L., & Burnett, D. (1980). A correlational study of the Bender Visual Motor Gestalt Test
and the Hiskey-Nebraska Test of Learning Aptitude in use with hearing handicapped students. The Volta
Review, 82(7), 483-485.
Giangreco, C. J. (1966). The Hiskey-Nebraska Test of learning aptitude (revised) compared to several
achievement tests. American Annals of the Deaf, 111, 566-577.
Hirshoren, A., Hurley, O. L., & Hunt, J. T. (1977). The WISC-R and the Hiskey-Nebraska test with
deaf children. American Annals of the Deaf, 122(4), 392-394.
Hiskey, M. S. (1956). A study of the intelligence of deaf and hearing children. American Annals
of the Deaf,101, 329-339.
Kirk, S. A., & Perry, J. (1948). A comparative study of the Ontario and Nebraska tests for the
deaf. American Annals of the Deaf, 93, 315-323.
MacPherson, J. , & Lane, H. (1948). A comparison of deaf and hearing on the Hiskey Test and on
performance scales. American Annals of the Deaf, 93, 178-184.
Mira, M. P. (1962). The use of the Arthur Adaptation of the Leiter International Performance Scale
and the Hiskey-Nebraska with preschool deaf children. American Annals of the Deaf, 107, 224-228.
Nagyne, R., & Zsoldos, M. (1991). Issues of diagnosis of learning problems in patients with
impaired hearing on the basis of observations gained during the application of the Hiskey-Nebraska Test
of Learning Aptitude. Magyar Pszichologiai Szemle, 47(4), 393-402. (Hungarian with English
abstracts).
Paal, N., Skinner, S., & Reddig, C. (1988). The relationship of nonverbal intelligence measures
to academic achievement among deaf adolescents. Journal of Rehabilitation of the Deaf, 21
(3), 8-11.
Phelps, L., & Branyan, B.J. (1988). Correlations among the Hiskey, K-ABC Nonverbal Scale, Leiter,
and WISC-R Performance Scale with public-school deaf children. Journal of Psychoeduational
Assessment, 6(4), 354-358.
Phelps, P., & Ensor, A. (1985). Concurrent validity of the WISC-R using deaf norms and the
Hiskey- Nebraska. Psychology in the Schools, 23, 138-141.
Watson, B.U. (1983). Test-retest stability of the Hiskey-Nebraska Test of Learning Aptitude in a
sample of hearing-impaired children and adolescents. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders,
48 (2), 145-149.
Watson, B., & Goldgar, D. (1985). A note on the use of the Hiskey-Nebraska Test of Learning
Aptitude with deaf children. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in the Schools,
16(1), 53-57.
Watson, B., Sullivan, P., Moeller, M.P., & Jensen, J. (1982). The relationship of performance on
nonverbal intelligence tests and English language ability in perlingually deaf children. Journal of
Speech and Hearing Disorders, 47, 199-203.
Willis, D., Wright, L., & Wolfe, J. (1972). WISC-R and Hiskey Nebraska Performance of deaf
children. Perceptual and Motor Skills,34, 783-788.
[go to top of page]
[go to list of tests]
4. COLUMBIA MENTAL MATURITY SCALE 3RD EDITION (1972)
PUBLISHER
Psychological Corporation
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The CMMS is an untimed, non-verbal, pictorial test of intellectual skills for children ages 3.6 to
9.11.
NATURE OF INSTRUCTIONS
Standardized instructions for deaf students are not available. Gesture and pantomime may be used on
demonstration items to communicate instructions.
NORMS
Normative data for deaf populations are not available.
ADVANTAGES
1. The short administration time (15-20 minutes) is an advantage of the Columbia.
2. Because only a pointing response is required, the Columbia is useful in evaluating children who
have motor problems.
DISADVANTAGES
1. No normative, reliability or validity data are available regarding deaf populations.
2. The test items are for the most part limited to tasks of visual-perceptual discrimination and
perceptual classification.
3. The Columbia is thought to score high for children under 7, and low for children over 7.
4. For the deaf children for whom the Columbia may be appropriate, evaluators have noted that these
children often have difficulty understanding the task requirement which is, "Which one does NOT fit?"
Rarely do psychologists working with deaf children report use of this test except as a second measure
when motor problems are suspected. However, it is reported that the test is poor for children with visual
perceptual problems.
It has also been noted that this test is often selected for deaf children who have additional
problems. These children often have exhibited difficulty understanding the task, "Which one DOES NOT
fit?"
REFERENCES
Kamhi, A., Minor, J., Mauer, D. (1990). Content anaylsis and intratest performance profiles on the
Columbia and the TONI. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 33(2), 375-379.
Kodman, R., Waters, J., & Clifford, C. (1962). Psychometric appraisal of deaf children using the
Columbia Mental Maturity Scale. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 27, 275-279.
[go to top of page]
[go to list of tests]
5. GOODENOUGH-HARRIS DRAWING TEST (1963)
PUBLISHER
The Psychological Corporation
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
Although basically used as a qualitative personality projective technique, quantitative scoring of
Human Figure Drawings can be used as supplemental measurement of mental maturity for children ages 3-15.
A relatively objective scoring system for the drawing as a nonverbal measure of intellectual ability
as revealed in human-figure drawings produced by children and adolescents (ages 5 through 17) is provided
by:
Naglieri, J.A. (1988). Draw a person: A quantitative Scoring system. Austin, TX: The
Psychological Co.
NATURE OF INSTRUCTIONS
There are no standardized instructions for deaf students. The use of pantomime or gesture to
communicate "drawing the whole person" may influence the number of body features in the child's drawings,
thus significantly affecting the child's score.
NORMS
Normative data for deaf populations are not available.
ADVANTAGES
1. HFD'S require only a short amount of time for administration and scoring.
2. Quantitative scoring can be done using both Koppitz and Goodenough-Harris, which enables scoring
comparisons.
3. HFD IQ ranges for deaf children do not appear to be significantly different from those of hearing
children.
4. A 1953 study from the Clarke School for the Deaf reported HFDs to be better predictors of good or
poor learners than the Leiter or WISC-R.
5. HFD'S may be useful "ice-breaker" in an evaluation session.
DISADVANTAGES
1. Lack of normative data for deaf individuals is a disadvantage.
2. Communicating instructions to "draw a whole person" is often difficult without influencing the
content of the student's drawing.
3. Lack of validity and reliability data for deaf populations is a disadvantage.
HFDs are recommended as a quick-screening, supplemental or supportive measurement when used with a
more comprehensive measure of intellectual abilities in a multi-factored evaluation.
REFERENCES
Bolten, B.(1972). Quantification of two projective tests for deaf clients. Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 28(4), 554-556.
Bolten, B. (1973). Quantification of two projective tests for deaf clients: A large sample
validation study. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 29(2), 249-259.
Cates, J. (1991). Comparison of human figure drawings by hearing and hearing-impaired children.
Volta Review, 93(1), 31-39.
Chatterji, S., Mukerjee, M., & Gupta, R. (1988). Assessment of intelligence level of hearing
impaired children. Indian Journal of Applied Psychology, 25 (2), 39-47.
Glowatsky, E. (1941). The verbal element in the intelligence scores of congenitally deaf and hard of
hearing children. American Annals of the Deaf, 86, 218-224.
Shirley, M., & Goodenough, F. (1932). A survey of the intelligence of deaf children in Minnesota
schools. American Annals of the Deaf, 77, 238-247.
Springer, N. (1938). A comparative study of the intelligence of deaf and hearing children.
American Annals of the Deaf, 83, 138-152.
[go to top of page]
[go to list of tests]
6. MERRILL-PALMER SCALE OF MENTAL TESTS (1931)
PUBLISHER
Stoetling Co.
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The Merrill-Palmer is a general intelligence test for preschool children ages 19 months to six years.
The test includes a number of tasks children typically master during this age period, e.g., block
building, form board, color sorting, picture matching, puzzles, etc., arranged in colorful boxes. There
are a few verbal items on a separate list which may be eliminated.
NATURE OF INSTRUCTIONS
There are no standardized instructions for deaf children, however, the performance items can be
administered non-verbally by demonstration and gesture. Many non-verbal task requirements are
self-evident -- and, children seem to like the test items even though they are very old.
NORMS
Apparently there were no deaf children included in the original standardization sample. There are no
separate deaf norms available.
ADVANTAGES
1. There are only a few verbal items per age level and it is possible to omit these and still obtain a
total score for the deaf child.
2. The test has high interest value for preschool children -- they respond well to the colored boxes.
3. The order of administration within each age level is flexible.
4. The child is not penalized for refusing to attempt an item and a score can still be obtained
including the refusals and omissions.
5. The test is useful for children who have not had formal school experience.
DISADVANTAGES
1. The norms for this test are from 1930 -- very old on any measure.
2. There are no deaf norms or standardized administration procedures for deaf children.
3. It is not known how the elimination of the verbal items influences the reliability and validity of
the test.
4. The representativeness of the original sample is questionable.
5. There is no information on the reliability and validity of the test for hearing children.
6. Because of the large number of motor items, the test is not appropriate for children with motor
problems.
7. Many items are timed which may penalize the deaf and very young hearing child.
8. Our subjective impression is that Merrill-Palmer scores tend to be high in comparison with scores
on other tests in the same age range.
The Merrill-Palmer can be used as a screening instrument for young deaf children if the verbal items
are omitted. The developmental information provided and the child's approach to tasks, may be useful in
differential diagnosis and possibly for a limited developmental profile and program planning. The test is
quite old, but still has appeal, particularly for hard-to-test children. The fact that the examiner can
still get some type of overall score even though the child refused items, is a plus with hard-to-test
children. The question is what one can get from the test -- a general g factor.
NOTE: Please see the information given under the CID Preschool Performance Scale,
which is a more recent version of the Merrill-Palmer with four subtest added and deaf norms provided.
Some evaluators have found that if they first try to give the CID and find that the child cannot or will
not complete all the items needed for a score, the evaluator can use those same items for a Merill-Palmer
measure of the child's abilities, since the scoring mechanism is different on the two tests.
[go to top of page]
[go to list of tests]
7. SMITH-JOHNSON NONVERBAL PERFORMANCE SCALE (1977)
PUBLISHER
Western Psychological Service
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The Smith-Johnson is a systematic nonverbal developmental measuring instrument designed for preschool
deaf and hard of hearing children from 24 to 48 months of age. It is a nonverbal performance scale which
consists of 14 categories of tasks with several subtasks within each category, for a total of 65 items.
No global score is provided. A performance summary allows the clinician to compare the child's overall
performance in all 14 categories to the performance of children his/her age in the normative sample in
terms of chronological age equivalent.
NATURE OF INSTRUCTIONS
The items are arranged in order of difficulty, have universal appeal and require minimal instructions.
All tasks were taken from established, well-standardized instruments rather than creating new tasks.
Items were selected for assessing children with language dysfunction and/or suspected hearing loss.
NORMS
Norms are available for hearing boys and girls and deaf and hard of hearing boys and girls ages 2-0
through 4-0, in the form of percentage of items passed at each chronological age.
ADVANTAGES
1. Simple gesture or pantomime instructions.
2. Items are constructed such that a child can make a definite scorable response.
3. Scoring is not based on timing.
4. The scale is brief enough to stay within the fatigue limit of a young child.
5. Items chosen have already been shown to have a high correlation with acceptable criteria of
intelligence or learning ability as judged from previous studies.
6. Items present a fairly broad clinical picture without the use of language.
7. Test was developed based on over a 20 year period of work with deaf and hard of hearing children
and experience at the John Tracy Clinic.
DISADVANTAGES
1. The reliability of infant and preschool tests is lower than that of tests for older children. This
holds true for the Smith-Johnson.
2. Predictive validity is not established for the test as it was developed to describe a child's
current level of performance and to note deviations from normal expectancy for that age.
3. The hearing sample were all American-born Caucasians living on the West Coast. Sample design
approximated socioeconomic distribution reported by the United Stated Bureau of Census for 1958 but
socioeconomic status was determined by self-report.
4. Audiometric testing determined that 36% of the hearing impaired sample had profound hearing losses
and the other 64% were hard of hearing. Would the results be different if the percentages were reversed?
5. Significantly better performance was found in the hearing impaired sample on pencil drawing, color
items, paper folding and sorting. Authors speculate this may be a result of training at the clinic or
need to compensate for deficiencies. Research should explore the question.
As a measure of general cognitive function, the Smith Johnson has utility. Our impression is that,
for some reason, large numbers of psychologists are not using the test. Whether this is because it is
not widely known, has a limited age range, provides only percentage score information, or other
substantive reasons, we do not know. Some evaluators have reported that the scoring is difficult to use.
[go to top of page]
[go to list of tests]
8. BAYLEY SCALES OF INFANT DEVELOPMENT, SECOND EDITION (1993)
PUBLISHER
The Psychological Corporation
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The Bayley-II is a norm-referenced, standardized, evaluation of the developmental status of children.
The scales are designed to provide a three-part evaluation of a child's developmental status from ages
one months to 42 months. This new edition of the Bayley has an extended age and skill range as compared
to the first edition.
1. The Mental Scale and the Motor Scale yields a standard score (Mean =100, Standard Deviation = 16)
called the Mental Developmental Index (MDI) and a Psychomotor Development Index (PDI).
2. The Infant Behavior Record is completed after the Mental and Motor Scales and assesses the nature
of the child's social and objective orientation toward her/his environment.
NOTE: Because the Bayley-II is sa revision of the First Edition Bayley, little
information regardng its use with deaf infants and toddlers is available.
NATURE OF INSTRUCTIONS
Administration of the scales requires careful observation of the child's behavior by examiners who
are thoroughly familiar with the Bayley-II materials and procedures as well as the problems of testing
very young children. Ideally, examiners should have supervised training in the testing of a large number
of babies at several age levels varying in months, and a thorough understanding of the principles
underlying normal development and its deviations.
NORMS
ADVANTAGES
1. The standardization of the Mental and Motor scales is as good or better than that of any other
individual test.
2. The items on the Mental and Motor Scales are arranged in approximate order by age placements and
determined in previous studies employing the scales and revised in accordance with the more complete data
at the close of the standardization study.
3. Most of the items used in the Mental and Motor Scales have been used extensively in longitudinal
research. Several new items for visual stiumlation, preference and novelty, come directly from new infant
research.
4. Age range values are given in parenthesis below the age placement values. The age range values
provide estimates of the age at which each item was passed by 5 % and 95%, respectively, of the children
in the standardization sample.
5. The reported relationship between retest reliability and retest interval suggests that the
abilities measured by the Mental Scale may change qualitatively with age.
6. In certain groups of medically abnormal children, the predictive value of the infant scores may be
fairly high.
DISADVANTAGES
1. As with all developmental scales for groups of normal children, the predictive validity of the
infant scores against later IQ scores has repeatedly proven to be zero-order.
2. The test manual has a shortage of interpretive material.
3. Although interpretation of scores for medically abnormal children may require variation, the manual
does not address this problem.
4. The manual does not discuss the implications of changes in the correlates of the test scores over
time.
5. The manual does not help the determination of when and when not to use the instrument to gauge the
progress of infants who are undergoing remediation or treatment for developmental disabilities.
6. The scales reported no deaf children in the standardization sample and, therefore, provide no
information as to whether to expect differences in deaf and hearing infant's development.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR USE WITH DEAF INFANTS AND TODDLERS
Since all items are arranged developmentally, a deaf or hard of hearing child will probably pass a
performance item at a higher level than a language item. The language items may be attempted in order to
gain data on the deaf or hard of hearing child's language skills. Credit any language items passed that
precede the successfully completed performance item.
It is difficult to determine how to handle "hearing related", e.g., responds to voice, turns to
rattle, or language items missed when calculating the total Mental Development Inventory. The deaf child
will be penalized on items which require auditory skills and may be penalized in the language skill area
(approximately 12% of the items on the Bayley are language related, e.g. "point to the picture named...",
"Says a sentence of 2 words").
Since the total score (MDI) is comprised of a count of all items passed up to the ceiling item, deaf
or hard of hearing children failing on the items that are hearing or language related will receive less
points for the overall mental inventory.
The Hoffman (1982) modification developed for the old Bayley may prove useful for some deaf or hard of
hearing infants, particularly those with additional handicaps.
Hoffman, H. (1982). Bayley Scales of Infant Development: Modification for Youngsters with
Handicapping Conditions (Revised). Commack, NY: Suffolk Rehabilitation Center, United Cerebral Palsy.
Bradley, R. H. (April, 1987). General and specific aspects of the physical environment:
Relationships with development in handicapped children ages 1 to 10. Paper presented at the Bienniel
Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Baltimore, MD.
[go to top of page]
[go to list of tests]
9. KAUFMAN ASSESSMENT BATTERY FOR CHILDREN: THE NONVERBAL SCALE
(1983)
PUBLISHER
American Guidance Service
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (K-ABC) has a Nonverbal Scale that may be administered in
pantomime and responded to motorically. The scale yields a separate "mental processing composite" derived
from selected subtests within the Sequential and Simultaneous Processing Scales. The two scales,
Sequential Processing and simultaneous Processing, measure intellectual functioning. The test is
appropriate for children ages 4 through 12-1/2.
NATURE OF INSTRUCTIONS
Instructions for the Nonverbal Scale are, in most cases, self evident and can be pantomimed. There are
a few "teaching items" on the K-ABC Mental Processing subtest. These items allow the examiner to explain
the nature of the task in order to ensure that children understand what is expected of them for a
particular subtest.
NORMS
A small percentage of hard of hearing children were included in the national standardization sample on
the K-ABC as one stratification variable to ensure proportional representation of special populations.
ADVANTAGES
1. Most subtest are untimed.
2. Format allows "teaching items" which help ensure that the child understands the task.
3. Tips to aid the examiner in pantomiming instructions can be found in the administration manual
pages 40-42.
4. The Nonverbal Scale produces good reliability and validity coefficients for children age 4 and up.
5. The role of language is kept to a minimum.
6. Several studies have found performance on the K-ABC Nonverbal Scale related to academic achievement
for deaf or hard of hearing youngsters (Paal, Skinner, & Reddig, 1988; Phelps & Branyan, 1988;
Ulissi, Brice, & Gibbins, 1989).
7. The K-ABC Interpretive manual provides useful information for determining the child's strengths and
weaknesses, and has explicit educational recommendations.
8. Two studies have found significant correlations between the K-ABC Nonverbal Scale and WISC-R
Performance Scale results for deaf and hard of hearing children.
DISADVANTAGES
1. The number of Nonverbal K-ABC subtests for ages 2-1/2 and 3 is too small to constitute a scale.
2. Minority group members and higher socioeconomic groups were over-represented in the norm sample.
3. Children labeled as learning disabled in the norm sample are inadequately represented.
4. The scoring of the subtest, Spatial Memory, is proving to be a bit difficult.
The K-ABC Nonverbal Scale appears to be a useful instrument for evaluating deaf or hard of hearing
youngsters in academic settings. It is clearly not a good choice for use with children under age 5 as
there are not enough subtests appropriate for younger children on the Nonverbal Scale. However, when
using the Nonverbal Scale, as one must with the deaf or hard of hearing youngster, it is not possible to
take advantage of one of the strengths of the K-ABC, the sequential versus simultaneous processing
theoretical model. Therefore, how one interprets the results for the Nonverbal Scale is somewhat of a
question.
Courtney, A.S., Hayes, F.B., Watkins, K.M., & Frick, M. (1982). Relationships between the
K-ABC and the WISC-R for hearing-impaired children. University of Georgia, unpublished paper.
Gibbins, S. (1989). Use of the WISC-R Performance Scale and K-ABC Non-verbal Scale with deaf children
in the USA and Scotland. School Psychology International, 10(3), 193-197.
Gibbins, S., Ulissi, S.M., & Brice, P. (1985, April). Use of the K-ABC with hearing-impaired
children. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association of School Psychologists, Las
Vegas, Nevada.
Paal, N., Skinner, S., & Reddig, C. (1988). The relationship of nonverbal intelligence measures
to academic achievement among deaf adolescents. Journal of Rehabilitation of the Deaf, 21
(3), 8-11.
Phelps, L., & Branyan, B.J. (1990). Academic achievement and nonverbal intelligence in public
school hearing-impaired children. Psychology in the Schools, 27, 210-217.
Phelps, L., & Branyan, B.J. (1988). Correlations among the Hiskey, K-ABC Nonverbal Scale, Leiter,
and WISC-R Performance Scale with public-school deaf children. Journal of Psychoeduational
Assessment, 6(4), 354-358.
Porter, L.J., & Kirby, E.A. (1986). Effects of two instructional sets on the validity of the
Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children - Nonverbal Scale with a group of severely hearing impaired
children. Psychology in the Schools, 23(1), 37-43.
Seiler, R.D. (1985). Signed vs. gestrued administration of the WISC-R Performance Scale and the K-ABC
Nonvergal Scale as predictors of achievement with hearing impaired students. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 47, 844B-845B (Order No. DA8609069).
Ulissi, S.M., Brice, P.J., & Gibbins, S. (1989). The use of the Kaufman-Assessment Battery for
Children with the hearing-impaired. American Annals of the Deaf, 4, 283-287.
[go to top of page]
[go to list of tests]
10. TEST OF NONVERBAL INTELLIGENCE (THIRD EDITION 1997)
PUBLISHER
Pro-Ed
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The TONI-3 is a major revision of the original TONI, which is a language free measure of cognitive
ability designed to be used with subjects ranging in age from 5 through 85-11. The TONI-3 is not timed
and requires approximately 15 minutes to administer.
The TONI-3contains 50 items; has a deviation standard score (Mean=100; SD=15). Percentile ranks can be
computed
NATURE OF INSTRUCTIONS
The examiner pantomimes the instructions and the subject points to the appropriate response. The items
require subjects to solve problems by identifying relationships among abstract figures, and discovering
the rule that governs the relationship. Each item presents a set of figures with one or more of the
figures missing; the subject has a set of responses alternatives from which he/she must select the
correct response.
NORMS
the TONI-3 was normed in a stratified sample of 3000 subjects tested in 1995-96. Normative data for
deaf individiuals are not provided and deaf or hard of hearing individuals were not reported as included
in the standardization group.
ADVANTAGES
1. There are six training items to familiarize the subject with the testing format. These may be
repeated if the subject does not understand the task.
2. The same six item configuration is used throughout the test. This may be a useful format for
individuals who do not change tasks easily.
3. The manual repeatedly cautions examiners against over generalization of the TONI results. The
cautions may emphasize the need for using the TONI-2 with another measure of the intellectual potential.
4. The test utilizes abstract content (geometric forms) rather than pictures or passages to be read.
5. The test is not timed.
6. The TONI-3 has two equivalent forms suitable for test-retest.
7. The TONI-3 users have the benefit of 20 years of research on previous editions of the TONI.
DISADVANTAGES
1. The basis of all the TONI-3 items is problem solving; therefore, only a single component of
intelligence is tested.
2. The developers of the test clearly state that the test does not measure the broad range of
intellectual functioning or even all types of problem solving. This is only a disadvantage if the test is
improperly used.
3. The test developers suggest that "specialized norms could be helpful for handicapped populations",
but none are provided. Users are encouraged to develop local norms or specialized norms.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR USE WITH DEAF STUDENTS
Since the TONI-3 has no norms for deaf individuals and measures certain very specific aspects of
intelligence, it should not be used alone to plan educational or training programs. Examiners should use
the TONI-3 in conjunction with formal and informal measures of symbolic reasoning, academic achievement,
adaptive behavior, and, in some circumstances, measures of language. A profile grid on the answer sheet
of the test encourages the examiner to report results of other testing as well as the TONI-3 results.
One research study has found that the TONI-2 scores of deaf students correlates significantly with the
WISC-III Performance IQ. One hopes that research with the TONI-3 will follow.
Kamhi, A., Minor, J., & Mauer, D. (1990). Content analysis and intratest performance profiles on
the Columbia and the TONI. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 33(2), 375-379.
Mackinson, J.A., Leigh, I.W., Blennerhassett, L., & Anthony, S. (1997). Validity of the TONI-1
with deaf and hard of hearing children. American Annals of the Deaf, 142(4), 294-299.
Mackinson, J. (1996). Study of validity of the TONI-2 with deaf children. Unpublished dissertation.
Gallaudet University
[go to top of page]
[go to list of tests]
11. RAVEN'S PROGRESSIVE MATRICES (RAVENS) (1977)
PUBLISHER
The Psychological Corporation
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
Raven's Progressive Matrices are a series of three non-verbal test of reasoning ability (e.g., ability
to form comparisons, reason by analogy) based on figural materials:
Standard Progressive Matrices (ages 6 - 80 years)
Coloured Matrices (ages 5 - 11 years)
Advanced Progressive Matrices, Set I and II (high ability adolescents and adults)
On all tests raw scores are converted to percentiles. For the Standard and Coloured Matrices summary
United States percentiles are available for scoring. For the Advanced series there is a 1994 edition of
the manual with international norms.
NATURE OF INSTRUCTIONS
Standardized instructions for deaf individuals are not available. Task requirements can be conveyed
non-verbally by demonstration, gesturing, and pointing. It is reported that task requirements are usually
self-evident to school age children. The task for the examinee is to select from a group of six to eight
choices, the one piece that completes a matrix design.
NORMS
Deaf students were not included in the original British standardization sample. Normative data for
deaf sstudents are not available. Research Supplement No. 3 (1990 Edition) provides detailed
percentile norms for the Standard and Coloured Progressive Matrices based on the scores of 22,000
American students. Local and ethnic norms are presented for a variety of populations, including Black,
Hispanic, and Navajo.
ADVANTAGES
1. Only short administration time is required.
2. Task requirements are usually self-evident.
3. The test lends itself to analysis of errors to a certain extent.
4. Recent studies report the usefulness of the Matrices with deaf students, as a supplementary or
screening measurement, especially when testing-of-limits procedures are used.
5. In studies of deaf children, the Matrices have been shown to correlate significantly with other
measures of intellectual abilities such as the Wechsler scales and the Leiter.
6. Because only pointing responses are required, the Matrices are useful with children who have motor
problems.
7. Criterion-related validity with the SPM and SAT HI reading achievement has been reported for deaf
residential students.
8. Concurrent validity between SPM and the Wechsler PIQ has been reported. (Blennerhassett,
Strohmeier, & Hibbett, 1993).
DISADVANTAGES
1. Test development did not include deaf norms or standardized administration procedures for deaf
students.
2. The test is not considered valid for use with impulsive children, as they tend to respond randomly.
3. The test covers a limited range of thinking skills.
4. Following the manual's instruction to repeatedly ask the child "Is that the right one?" may lead
the child to change his response.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR USE WITH DEAF STUDENTS
The Matrices are recommended as a supplemental measure, used with a more comprehensive test of
intellectual abilities. It may provide a more valid measure for children with motor problems than other
performance-based tests (e.g., WISC-III, Leiter). However, children who have difficulty with analogous
reasoning will not fair well on this test.
REFERENCES
Armfield, A. (1985). A comparison of high-ability and low-ability pupil scores on Raven's Standard
Progressive Matrices at the Primary School attached to South China Normal University and the Guangzhou
School for the Deaf/Mute, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China. School Psychology International,
6(1), 24029.
Blennerhassett, L., Strohmeier, S.J., & Hibbett, C. (1994). Criterion-related validity of Raven's
Progressive Matrices with deaf residential school students. American Annals of the Deaf,
139(2), 104-110.
Burke, H.R. (1958). Raven's Progressive Matrices: A review and critical evaluation. Journal of
Genetic Psychology, 93, 199-228.
Carlson, J.S., & Dillon, R. 1978). Measuring intellectual capabilities of hearing-impaired
children: Effects of testing-of-limits procedures. The Volta Review, May, 216-225.
Chatterji, S., Mukerjee, M., & Gupta, R. (1988). Assessment of intelligence level of hearing
impaired children. Indian Journal of Applied Psychology, 25 (2), 39-47.
Conrad, R., & Weiskrantz, C. (1981). On cognitive ability of deaf children with deaf parents.
American Annals of the Deaf, 126(9), 995-1003.
Evans, L. (1980). WISC Performance Scale and Coloured Progressive Matrices witih deaf children.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 50, 216-222.
Goetzinger, M.R., & Houchins, R.R. (1969). The 1947 Coloured Raven's Progressive Matrices with
deaf and hearing subjects. American Annals of the Deaf, 114, 95-101.
Heinzweidl, K., & Carlson, J.S. (1976). The factorial structure of the Raven Coloured Progressive
Matrices Test. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 36, 409-413.
James, R.P. (1984). A correlational analysis between the Raven's Matrices and WISC-R Performance
Scales. Volta Review, 86 (7), 336-341.
Levine, B., & Iscoe, I. (1955). The progressive Matrices (1938), The Chicago NonVerbal and the
Wechsler-Bellevue on adolescent deaf population. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 11,
307-308.
Martin, D.S. (1987). Improving cognitive skills of hearing-impaired college students. Final
Report of the Field-Initiated Research Project, Gallaudet University, Washington, DC.
Martin, D.S. (April, 1983). Cognitive education for the hearing-impaired adolescent. Paper
presented at the Annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
Musgrove, W.J., & Counts, L. (1975). Leiter and Raven performance and teacher ranking: A
correlational study with deaf children. Journal of Rehabilitation of the Deaf, 8(3), 19-22.
Naglieri, J., & Welch, J. (1991). Use of Raven's and Naglieri's nonverbal matrix tests.
Journal of the American Deafness and Rehabilitation Association, 24(3-4), 98-103.
Padmapriya, V., & Mythili, S.P. (1988). A comparative study of deaf and normal children:
Cognitive factors and academic achievement. Journal of Indian Psychology, 7(1), 27-36.
Rich, C.C., & Anderson, R.P. (1965). A tactual form of the Progressive Matrices for use with
blind children. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 43, 912-919.
Ritter, D. (1976). Intellectual estimates of hearing impaired children: A comparison of three
measures. Psychology in the Schools, 13(4), 397-399.
Smeets, P.M., & Striefel, S. (1975). The effects of different reinforcement conditions on the
test performance of multihandicapped deaf children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
8, 83-39.
Srivastava, S., & Selvi, G. (1988). A comparative study of the level of intelligence of deaf and
normal children of the ages 9, 10, and 11 years with reference to their sex and economic status as
measured by the Raven's Progressive Matrices. Child Psychiatry Quarterly, 21(3), 87-107.
Su, Y. (1991). The report of using Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices in deaf children. Acta
Psychologica Sinica, 23(1), 107-112. (Chinese).
Tzuriel, D., & Caspi, N. (1992). Cognitive modifiability and cognitive performance of deaf and
hearing preschool children. Special Issue: Interactive assessment. Journal of Special Education,
26(3), 235-252.
Ward, J., & Fitzpatrick, T.F. (1973). Characteristics of Matrices items. Perceptual and Motor
Skills, 36, 987-993.
[go to top of page]
[go to list of tests]
12. CENTRAL INSTITUTE FOR THE DEAF PRESCHOOL PERFORMANCE SCALE (1984)
PUBLISHER
Stoelting Co.
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The CID Preschool Performance Scale is an adaptation of the Randall's Island Performance Series which
was developed in 1931; and it includes many items that are also used on the Merrill-Palmer Scale of
Mental Tests. Items are grouped into six subtests with point scores that can be converted into Scaled
Scores (Mean = 10; SD = 3) and a Deviation IQ (Mean = 100; SD = 15).
Subtests groupings are: Manual Planning, Manual Dexterity, Form Perception, Perceptual Motor,
Preschool
Skills, Part/Whole Relations.
NATURE OF INSTRUCTIONS
The test is completely non-verbal, both in instructions and response requirement.
NORMS
Norms are provided for deaf and hard of hearing children ages 2 years to 5 years 5 months (at 6 month
intervals). The test was standardized on 978 deaf, hard of hearing, and hearing children. Since no
significant differences were found between sex or among hearing loss groups, all children were combined
in the normative data. Most of the children in the sample were characterized as presenting some language
delay.
ADVANTAGES
1. Simple gesture or pantomime instructions.
2. Many items on the test have been used successfully with deaf and hard of hearing children at
Central Institute for the Deaf (CID) for years.
3. Test-retest reliability of .71 is reported.
4. Time limits on the test are generous.
5. If the examiner is convinced that the task is too difficult for the child, instructions for
simplification of the task are provided.
6. Children seem to like the test.
DISADVANTAGES
1. A predictive validity study correlating later WISC-R scores with scores on the CID for 112 children
found a correlation of .485. Given the fact that predictive validity of preschool scores against later
IQ scores is generally low, these correlations are respectable.
2. Although the test is a "reworking" of a test that psychologists and teachers found useful, there
are no studies available yet to give guidance as to how test results translate to intervention planning.
3. Examiners report that the grouping of items into subtests categories makes scoring difficult for
children who refuse items.
4. Testing time can be quite long with some deaf or hard of hearing children.
RECOMMENDATION FOR USE WITH PRESCHOOL DEAF CHILDREN
The CID includes all the non-language subtest of the old Merrill-Palmer plus three additional
subtests. Since the CID has norms for deaf and hard of hearing children and was standardized fairly
recently (1984), it can be recommended for use as a general measure of cognitive functioning. Since the
CID can be long to administer, very young and difficult to test deaf youngsters may need several testing
sessions. However, children enjoy the test and a persistent examiner should get responses from even the
youngest children.
REFERENCES
Spragins, A.B. (1991, March). Pre-School deaf children: Cognitive assessment with the CID and the
Battelle. Paper presented at the annual convention of the National Association of School
Psychologists in Dallas, Texas.
[go to top of page]
[go to list of tests]
13. MATRIX ANALOGIES TEST - EXPANDED FORM (1985)
PUBLISHER
The Psychological Corporation
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The MAT-Expanded Form is a language free measure of nonverbal reasoning abilities appropriate for ages
5 to 17 years. The matrix design of the stimulus items requires minimal verbal comprehension and no
verbal response. Items are organized into four groups determined by factor analysis: Pattern completion,
Reasoning by Analogy, Serial Reasoning, and Spatial Visualization.
Standard scores (Mean =100; SD=15) and Item-Group standard scores (Mean =10; SD=3) are provided as
well as percentile ranks, stanines by half-year intervals and age equivalents.
NORMS
Normative data for deaf individuals are not provided. Norms are based on a representative sample of
individuals living in the United States.
ADVANTAGES
1. The test utilizes abstract content rather than pictures or passages to be read.
2. The test is not timed.
3. The test repeats the same format through out; this may be an advantage for individuals who do not
change tasks easily.
4. Feedback from users of the test has pointed out that there are more items of a similar nature in
each group on the MAT than the TONI-2 thus giving the individual an opportunity to "get into" the test
better.
DISADVANTAGES
1. As with the TONI-2, the test does not measure the broad range of intellectual functioning or even
all types of problem solving. This is only a disadvantage if the test is improperly used.
2. There is little information as to how deaf individuals perform on this test.
Bardos, A.N., & Weber, M. (1988). WISC-R, MAT-FE, DAP and SAT with hearing impaired
children. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Ohio School Psychologists.
Braden, J.P. & Reed, J. (1994). Why do deaf children score differently on performance vs
motor-reduced nonverbal intelligence tests? Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 12(4),
357-363
[go to top of page]
[go to list of tests]
14. STANFORD-BINET INTELLIGENCE SCALE - FOURTH EDITION (1986)
PUBLISHER
The Riverside Publishing Co.
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The 1986 edition of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale (Binet-4) departs from the previous form of
the test to such an extent, in structure and theory, that it should be considered a new test rather than
a revision. The Binet 4 consists of 15 subtests providing a composite Standard Age Score with four
content area: Verbal Reasoning; Abstract/Visual Reasoning; Quantitative Reasoning; and Short Term Memory.
Not all subtests are administered at all ages, e.g., between 8 and 13 the subtests are administered
depending upon the student's age and performance on the initial routing subtest, Vocabulary. For
preschool children a rearrangement of the subtest results to yield a score in two areas, i.e., Verbal
Reasoning and Abstract/Visual Reasoning, rather than four, is suggested.
Each content area has a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 16 while the subtest standard scores
have a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 8. The age range of the test is 2 years through adult
NATURE OF THE INSTRUCTIONS
The 15 subtests use a variety of forms of instruction, most verbal, some accompanied by pointing.
Glaub and Kamphaus (1991) propose a nonverbal adaptation of the Binet-4 which has yet to be tested
practically.
NORMS
The test was normed on 5013 children between the ages of 2 and 23 years drawn from the US population
using a stratified random sampling procedure. Deaf or hard of hearing students are not reported as being
part of the normative sample.
CONSIDERATIONS FOR USAGE WITH DEAF STUDENTS
1. The flexibility (examiner chooses subtest appropriate for the examinee) of administration is both a
helpful device for customizing the test and a problem in creating the opportunity for unjustified uses --
how do we customize for an individual deaf student fairly?
The Examiner's Handbook: An Expanded Guide for Fourth Edition Users (1987) provides some
guidance for testing special populations:
"To evaluate examinees with cognitive, sensory, physical, or language limitations, the examiner must
(1) be thoroughly familiar with the stimulus and response demands of the tests and items that constitute
the Fourth Edition, (2) be aware and well informed of the examinee's particular limiting or handicapping
condition, and (3) possess the skills necessary to adjust the testing situation to the examinee's unique
needs. Not every examiner will have the skills and experience necessary to evaluate every examinee with
special needs" (p. 61).
On page 62 of the Examiners Guide a listing of test span for examinees who have limited
English proficiency or who are non-language proficient includes the following suggested subtests Bead
Memory, Pattern Analysis, Absurdities, Memory for digits, Copying Memory for Objects, Matrices, and Paper
folding & Cutting. These items appear to have face validity for some deaf or hard of hearing
students, however, we have no data to indicate how deaf students perform on these subtests as compared to
hearing students.
2. The Binet-4 produces results similar to the WISC-R for mentally retarded and learning disability
samples, with the Binet-4 consistently lower in scores -- what is the effect with deaf or hard of
hearing students?
3. Factor analytic studies of the Binet-4 have confusing results as different researchers using
similar procedures have produced different conclusions -- support for the Test Composite score has been
good, but for the Area Scores support has been unusually poor. The verbal reasoning and abstract/visual
reasoning factors show strong evidence of factorial support.
4. The concurrent validity and reliability research on the Binet-4 is solid.
5. The ceiling and floor of the Binet-4 has been found to be quite different from the old form with
adolescent obtaining a perfect score on tests such as Pattern Analysis and 2-year olds obtaining a raw
score of zero on one or more tests. Is this different with deaf students, we have no
data.
6. The standard score metric used in the Binet-4 is not comparable with other modern tests of
intelligence.
7. Kampuhaus (1993) states that "Tests such as Memory for Digits, Memory for Objects, and Copying have
poor "g" loadings. Therefore, they are more likely to deviate from the remainder of the profile and cause
interpretive difficulties" (p. 275). If these subtests are selectively used for deaf students,
what "interpretive difficulties" arise?
Glaub and Kamphaus (1991) report results using a nonverbal short form of the Binet-4 and data from
the standardization sample. The subtests selected included Bead Memory, Pattern Analysis, Copying, Memory
for Objects, and Matrices. The reliability coefficient for this new composite score was .95 and the
validity, estimated by correlating the composite with the test composite for the full battery, was .91.
8. The Binet-4 use of an adaptive testing design administering the Vocabulary subtest first to all
children, clearly is problematic for deaf students.. The intent of the practice was to base starting
points for individual subtests on ability rather than on chronological age. If one chooses to use
the Vocabulary subtest with deaf students for a specific reason one may or may not find it useful as a
routing guide. There is no research to indicate what to expect.
Glaub, V. E., & Kamphaus, R.W. (1991). Construction of a nonverbal adaptation of the
Stanford-Binet Fourth Edition. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 51, 231-241.
[go to top of page]
[go to list of tests]
15. DIFFERENTIAL ABILITY SCALES (1990)
PUBLISHER
The Psychological Corporation
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The DAS is a comprehensive battery of cognitive and achievement tests designed for children and
adolescents between the ages of 2 years, 6 months and 17 years, 11 months. The Cognitive Battery includes
17 cognitive subtests divided into two overlapping levels: Preschool Level comprised of lower Preschool
(ages 2:6-3:5): subtests include Block Building and Picture Similarities; and upper Preschool (ages
3:6-5:11): subtests include Picture Similarities, Pattern Construction, and Copying; and School-Age Level
(ages 6:0-17-11): subtests include Recall of Designs, Pattern Construction, Matrices, and Sequential
& Quantitative Reasoning.
The School Achievement Tests include three measures described as "screeners" of the basic skills of
arithmetic, spelling, and word reading. The achievement tests were co-normed with the cognitive battery
to make direct ability-achievement discrepancy analyses possible.
Overall, the DAS yields composite scores -- General Conceptual Ability (GCA), clusters, and Special
Nonverbal scale -- all with a mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15. Each composite score is based on
the sum of the appropriate subtest T scores; summed T scores are then converted to composite standard
scores and percentiles.
Additionally, the DAS provides an Ability Score on the Cognitive Subtests and Achievement Tests which
is based on the raw score performance, i.e., number of correct responses and the difficulty of the items
administered. T scores are available for a group or subtests termed the core and for a
group termed diagnostic.
The Special Nonverbal scale score appears to be an interesting possibility for use with deaf
or hard of hearing children, particularly with preschool deaf children.
NORMS
The DAS norm sample included 3,475 children, stratified by age, sex, race/ethnicity, parent education,
geographic region, and educational preschool enrollment to match 1988 census figures. The sample included
special education students, which may have included mildly hearing impaired students. A description of
the norm sample percentages of special education category includes 2.4% speech impaired but no listing
for hearing impaired.
CONSIDERATIONS FOR USAGE WITH DEAF STUDENTS
1. The DAS manual specifically states that:
"Several of the subtests that have verbal content or that require oral responses may not be
appropriate for children with hearing impairments, speech problems, or language problems. If the examiner
decides that one or more of these subtest are an invalid measure of the child's ability, a battery
composed of nonverbal tasks can be administered, and a Special Nonverbal Composite score can be obtained"
(p. 35).
". . . The decision to use a battery of nonverbal subtests should be based on observations of the
child and on the examiner's clinical judgment" (p. 36).
2. The record form for the DAS is very busy by comparison to tests like the WISC III due to the
various approaches to item administration used, e.g., varied starting points for age groups, decision
points, designated stopping points and alternative stopping points. Those who have mastered the
administration of the test say the wealth of information offered on the record form is worth the effort.
3. The DAS manual includes an approach to interpreting cognitive score patterns which may prove
useful.
4. There is no evidence, for or against, regarding the usefulness of providing the GCA, cluster, and
diagnostic subtest scores.
5. Some researchers warn that users should be wary of the interpreting the nonverbal reasoning and
spatial dimensions as unique dimensions.
6. One should note that there are lesser reliabilities of clusters and composites at the preschool
level.
7. Since there is a tight relationship between Pattern Construction and the Nonverbal Reasoning
ability score it may be difficult to interpret the Spatial score.
8. Correlations of .80 and .86 have been found between the Pattern Construction subtest and the
Wechsler Block Design -- this may be useful information for interpretation.
9. Although word of mouth tells us that some psychologists are using the DAS, particularly the
preschool level, with deaf children, we have no research evidence of its use or interpretation with deaf
children.
Riccio, C.A., Ross, C.M., Boan, C.H., Jemison, S., & Houston, F. (1996, March). Use of the
Differential Ability Scales (DAS) with young children with linguistic differences. Poster session
presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of School Psychologists in Atlanta, Georgia.
[go to top of page]
[go to list of tests]
16. COMPREHENSIVE TEST OF NONVERBAL INTELLIGENCE (1996)
PUBLISHER
Pro-Ed
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The Comprehensive Test of Nonverbal Intelligence (CTONI) is an individually administered test which
measures nonverbal reasoning abilities through analogical reasoning, categorical classifications, and
sequential reasoning in two different contexts: pictures of familiar objects (e.g., people, toys, and
animals) and geometric designs (e.g., unfamiliar sketches and drawings).
The CTONI yields three composite scores: Nonverbal Intelligence Quotient (NIQ) -- representing the
cognitive abilities of analogical reasonsing, categorical clssifying, and sequential reasoning; Pictorial
Nonverbal Intelligence Quotient (PNIQ) -- using pictures of familiiar objects to measure problem solving
and reasoning; and Geometric Nonverbal Intelligence Quotient (GNIQ) -- using unfamiliar designs to
measure problem solving and reasoning. Scores are reported in standard scores, percentiles and age
equivalents. Subtests scores may be described in standard scoress (Mean = 10; SD = 3); the three
composites (NIQ, PHIQ,GNIQ) may be described in standard scores (Mean = 100; SD = 15).
The CTONI is appropriate for ages 6-0 through 90-11. (Norms for the CTONI have been recently extended
to include the adult group).
NATURE OF INSTRUCTIONS
Students are required to look at a group of pictures or designs and solve the problems. No oral
responses, reading writing or object manipulations are required. There is a Computer Administered version
of the CTONI which is multimedia, i.e., instructions are given orally by "computer voice".
NORMS
The norm sample included a large representative statified sample of more than 2000 subjects from 25 US
states, Canada, and Panama. No deaf or hard of hearing subjects are reported in the sample.
ADVANTAGES
1. The test is not timed; is easy to use; and procedures are clearly explained in the manual.
2. The test utilizes both abstract content (geometric forms) and pictoral content, which allows the
examiner to tease out possible processing areas of difficulty for the examinee.
3. The format of the test stays consistent through out the test, which may be a plus for some
individuals who do not change tasks easily.
4. The manual reports reliability coefficients of .80 or greater, and reports evidence of content,
criterion-related, and construct validity.
5. The manual reports a study involving deaf students ranging in age 8 to 18 years whose composite
scores on the CTONI were compared to their reults on the WISC-III Performance subtests and Performance
IQ. Subtest correlations ranged from moderate to high and composites from .65 to 90.
6. One reviewer of the test notes that the study on deaf students and the CTONI indicates that deaf
students perform in the average range on the CTONI, but they score about 10 points lower on the
composites than their hearing peers. We must wait for additional studies to see if this number holds.
DISADVANTAGES
1. The basis of the CTONI is analogical reasoning, categorical classifications and sequential
reasoning; therefore, only these components of intelligence are being tested.
2. The use of both pictorial and geometric problem solving tasks can be both an advantage and a
disadvantage, depending upon the question the examiner is asking. A skilled examiner can make good use of
this test when selecting it for use with the appropriate examinee.
3. As in many tests, the composite results for the CTONI are more accurate than subtest results. One
reviewer comments this is particularly true on the CTONI for students from 6 years 0 months through 7
years 11 months because the two analogies subtests do not have an adequate floor for these ages -- the
reviewer suggests the need for more easy items for the analogies subtests to provide a better floor for
young children and help discriminate between children who are seriously developmentally delayed and those
who are not.
The CTONI, although it has no norms for deaf individuals and measures particular aspects of
intelligence, looks to be a good addition to the very limited battery of tests that are appropriate for
deaf or hard of hearing individuals. As with all tests that measure a particular type of intelligence,
the CTONI may best be used by examiners in conjunction with other measures of intelligence, academic
achievement, adaptive behavior and, in some circumstances, measures of language.
[go to top of page]
[go to list of tests]
17. NEW INSTRUMENTS: POTENTIALS FOR THE FUTURE
New test instruments are emerging at a startling rate to meet the needs of examiners working with a
changing, more diverse, population of children and adults in our society. Examiners familiar with the
impact of deafness on children and their families, examiners aware of the fact that neuroscience is
changing the focus of educational assessment from "how much" a child does, to "how does that child
learn", are exploring the use of new instruments and techniques in assesment. The following list of new
tests instruments have been suggested as having potential usefulness in assessing deaf and hard of
hearing children. Will the use of these instruments add to our ability to provide a comprehensive
evaluation of deaf and hard of hearing children? Will their use in assessment lead toward effective
programing for these children? Research is emerging to guide our recommendations and help answer these
questions.
17a. DAS-NAGLIERI COGNITIVE ASSESSMENT SYSTEM (CAS) (1997)
PUBLISHER
The Riverside Publishing Co.
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The CAS provides a cognitive processing approach to the measurement of intelligence based on the PASS
theory. The CAS is an assessment battery developed specifically to evaluate Planning, Attention,
Simultaneous, and Successive (PASS) cognitive processes. The CAS was developed to integrate
theoretical and applied areas of psychological knowledge using a theory of cognitive processing and tests
designed to measure those processes. The Basic Battery, including 8 subtests, and the Standard Battery
including 12 subtests, each yield Full Scale standard scores. Scores provided are scaled scores (X=10,
SD=3), standard scores (X=100, SD=15), precentiles, and age equivalents.
The CAS is appropriate for students ages 5-0 to 17-11 years.
Naglieri, J.A., Welch, J.A., & Braden, J. (1994). Performance of hearing-impaired students on
planning, attention, simultaneous, and successive (PASS) cognitive processing tasks. Journal of School
Psychology, 32(4), 371-383.
17b. T.O.V.A.(TM): TEST OF VARIABLES OF ATTENTION (1997)
PUBLISHER
American Guidance Service
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The T.O.V.A. (TM), a computerized assessment for screening Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD), is a 22.5
minute visual continuous performance test. The subject presses a Microswitch whenever a "correct"
stiumlus is presented and reactions are recorded. Variables measured include: errors of ommission
(inattention), erros of commission (impulsivity), reaction time, variability, post-commission reaction
time, and aanticipatory and multiple responses. Test data are analyzed by the computer program and
results are available for printing immediately. There is a School and a Clinical Version of the T.O.V.A.,
both including visual auditory, and combined Visual & Auditory components. Scores available are
standard scores and standard deviations.
The T.O.V.A. (TM) is appropriate for ages 4 to 80+ years.
Brice, P.J., & Kerman, M. (April, 1995). Use of the Test of Variables of Attention with Deaf
Children. Presentation at the annual meeting of the American Orthopsychiatric Association in Chicago, IL.
Sporn, M. (1997). The Test of Variables of Attention with the Deaf. Unpublished doctorial
predissertation, Gallaudet University, Washington, DC.
Sporn, M. (1997). The Use of the T.O.V.A. to Predict Attention and Behavior Problems in Deaf Adults.
Doctorial dissertation in progress, Galladuet University, Washington, DC.
17c. UNIVERSAL NONVERBAL INTELLIGENCE TEST (UNIT) (Expected 1998)
PUBLISHER
The Riverside Publishing Co.
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The UNIT is a nonverbal intelligence test developed to provide an appropriate measure of intelligence
for children who are limited in English proficiency or who are hearing impaired. It is described as a
comprehensive, multifactored, theoretically based, nonverbal measure of intelligence developed by Bruce
A. Bracken, University of Georgia, and R. Steve McCallum, University of Tennessee. The authors describe
the UNIT as a language-free test that requires no receptive or expressive language from the examiner or
the examinee, and one that assesses higher order cognitive processes with materials and activities that
are inherently interesting and motivating. An effort was made to employ universal item content (i.e.,
objects found in all industrialized cultures) in an attempt to make the test useful for
non-English-speaking populations.
The UNIT contains six subtests (Spatial Memory, Symbolic Memory, Object Memory, Cube Design, Analogic
Reasoning, Mazes), in a two-tier model of intelligence (memory and reasoning), and two organizational
strategies (symbolic and nonsymbolic organization). Five of the subtests require motoric manipulation and
one requires only a pointing response. Scores obtained from the UNIT are standard scores for a Full Scale
score, Memory Quotient, Reasoning Quotient, Symbolic Quotient and Nonsymbolic Quotient; individual scores
can be derived for each of the six subtests.
The sampling procedure used to collect standardization data targeted communities and schools from all
major U.S. Geographic regions, socioeconomic levels, racial and ethnic groups, and other demographic
categories in an attempt to accurately represent the U.S. population. Several special studies are planned
to assess UNIT technical adequacy and to include samples of exceptional students such as those who are
deaf or hard of hearing (and other disability groups).
The UNIT is appropriate for students ages 5 through 17 years 11 months.
Order Service Center
P.O. Box 839954
San Antonio, TX 78283-3954
Ph: 800-211-8378
FAX: 800-232-1223
Web site: http://www.psychcorp.com
Stoetling Co.
620 Wheat Lane
Wood Dale, IL 60191
Ph: 630 860-9700
FAX: 630 860-9775
E-mail: psychtests@stoeltingco.com
8700 Shoal Creek Blvd.
Austin, TC 78757-9965
Ph: 800-897-3203
FAX: 512-451-3246
Web site: http://www.proedinc.com
Order Service Center
P.O. Box 839954
San Antonio, TX 78283-9955
Ph: 800-211-8378
FAX: 800-232-1223
Web site: http://www.psychcorp.com
Order Service Center
P.O. Box 839954
San Antonio, TX 78283-3954
Ph: 800-211-8378
FAX: 800-232-1223
Web site: http://www.psychcorp.com
1350 S. Kostner Ave.
Chicago, IL 60623
Ph: 630 860-9700
FAX: 630 860-9775
E-mail: psychtests@stoeltingco.com
Publishers and Distributors
12031 Wilshire Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Ph: 800-648-8857
FAX: 310-478-7838
Order Service Center
P.O. Box 839954
San Antonio, TX 78283-3954
Ph: 800-211-8378
FAX: 800-232-1223
Web site: http://www.psychcorp.com
4201 Woodland Rd.
P.O. Box 99
Circle Pines, MN 55014
Ph: 800-328-2560
FAX: 612-786-9077
E-mail: ags@skypoint.com
Web site: http://www.agsnet.com
8700 Shoal Creek Boulevard
Austin, TX 78757-6897
Ph: 800-897-3203
FAX: 512-451-3246
Web site: http://www.proedinc.com
Order Service Center
P.O. Box 839954
San Antonio, TX 78283-3954
Ph: 800-211-8378
FAX: 800-232-1223
Web site: http://www.psychcorp.com
620 Wheat Lane
Wood Dale, IL 60191
Ph: 630 860-9700
FAX: 630 860-9775
E-mail: psychtests@stoeltingco.com
Order Service Center
P.O. Box 839954
San Antonio, TX 78283-3954
Ph: 800-211-8378
FAX: 800-232-1223
Web site: http://www.psychcorp.com
425 Spring Lake Dr.
Itasca, IL 60143-2079
Ph: 800-323-9540
FAX: 630-467-7192
Web site: http://www.riverpub.com
Order Service Center
P.O. Box 839954
San Antonio, TX 78283-3954
Ph: 800-211-8378
FAX: 800-232-1223
Web site: http://www.psychcorp.com
8700 Shoal Creek Boulevard
Austin, TX 78757-6897
Ph: 800-897-3203
FAX: 512-451-3246
Web site: http://www.proedinc.com
425 Spring Lake Dr.
Itasca, IL 60143-2079
Ph: 800-323-9540
FAX: 630-467-7192
Web site: http://www.riverpub.com
4201 Woodland Rd.
P.O. Box 99
Circle Pines, MN 55014
Ph: 800-328-2560
FAX: 612-786-9077
E-mail: ags@skypoint.com
Web site: http://www.agsnet.com
425 Spring Lake Dr.
Itasca, IL 60143-2079
Ph: 800-323-9540
FAX: 630-467-7192
Web site: http://www.riverpub.com