Name, publisher, type of test, and publication: Developed by Linda Brown, Rita Sherbenou, and Susan Johnsen and published by pro.ed The Test of Nonverbal Intelligence-Fourth Edition (TONI-4) is an assessment that uses abstract reasoning and figural problem solving to estimate general intellectual ability. The Test of Nonverbal Intelligence, Fourth Edition (TONI-4) is a measure of general intelligence relying heavily on a nonverbal format and limited motor responses. The TONI-4 is designed to assess abstract/figural problem-solving skills of children and adults varying from ages 6 to 89 who have language, hearing, and motor difficulties. The TONI-4 has two equivalent versions, Form A and Form B, each of which consists of 60 items listed in …show more content…
order from easy to difficult with six additional training items. Using verbal or nonverbal instructions, the examinee is required to respond to a series of novel abstract figures using simple pointing gestures. Although the developers consider the TONI-4 to be a nonverbal assessment, verbal instructions are provided in English, Spanish, French, German, Chinese, Vietnamese, Korean, and Tagalog. Evans,Tawny&,Maddux describe the development of the TONI-4 as In developing the original version of the TONI (Brown, Sherbenou, & Johnsen, 1982), the authors’ goals were to address the need for a measure of intelligence without language and complex motor requirements. Due to the problem-solving nature and novice effect of the items, this measure is viewed as an adequate representation of Spearman’s theory of general intelligence and Horn and Cattell’s theory of fluid intelligence. The content of the original TONI was developed to fit Jensen’s (1980) seven properties of culture-free tests in which content-validation procedures led to the inclusion of 50 items per form. To address the need for lower flooring, larger ceiling effect, and greater discriminating power, original items have been added and removed over several revisions. Based on critical reviews and expert opinions, several changes were made to the TONI-4, including new norms, adding 15 items to improve the floor and ceiling effects. Also, items on each form of the TONI-4 are evenly distributed based on difficulty and across five areas of problem solving: Matching, Analogy, Progression, Classification, and Intersection.(2010) Despite having been revised three times the manual says that the majority of the items are still the same. The authors still claim that it is still useful for those who have a verbal motor or hearing impairments or those who may not understand American culture. Purpose and Administration of Assessment: The TONI-4 was developed to assess aptitude, intelligence, abstract reasoning, and problem-solving in a completely language-free format.
Examiners can use the TONI for various purposes. These purposes include estimating aptitude and general intellectual function. Identifying individuals believed to have intellectual impairments. Verifying the validity of referrals for treatment, therapy, or special services. In other words, the assessment is used to measure aptitude and general intellectual function without the need for verbal instructions. In order to administer this test, the examiner will need a basic understanding of mental ability testing and measurement statistics. They should also have a knowledge of the general procedure governing test administration scoring and interpretation. This knowledge is acquired by enrolling in college courses developed to assessment. These courses are typically found in the department of school psychology, special education, speech pathology, educational psychology and counseling. Workshops sponsored by local and state education agencies, professional organization, or private consultants may also help. In Counseling 428 Measurement Issues in Counseling, the different levels and the qualifications of those levels were discussed. The TONI-4 would be classified as in the level B category which “Requires some technical knowledge of test construction and background of the area(s) being assessed. Purchasers must have completed a four-year …show more content…
college degree and a course in tests and measurement. (Espinosa, 2016)” However despite the level B category the administration guidelines for the TONI-4 are clear and easy to understand. There is no time limit for examinees to respond during administration; however, it is estimated that the average administration process for each form takes approximately 15 minutes. The authors suggest that the TONI-4 can be administered using two formats: oral directions or nonverbal directions. The explanations for each format are presented in an easy to follow step-by-step fashion. The administration process for the training items along with suggestions for starting points for different age groups, individuals suspected of intellectual difficulties, and examinees experiencing difficulty passing training items are provided. Technical Aspects: The standardization for the TONI-4 was conducted with 2,272 individual’s ages 6 to 89 years. The demographic characteristics of the normative sample corresponded with the U.S. Census across several variables. Representativeness of the normative sample was supported by the stratification of each demographic variable for each age group and clear tables are provided. The TONI-4’s normative data are reported across a total of 19 age intervals. Of the total normative sample, 77% of the examinees were assessed using the oral instructions (English version only) and 23% were assessed using the nonverbal instructions. No additional information was provided regarding the demographic characteristics of those in the normative sample who were nonverbally administered the TONI-4. Evidence for Reliability: Reliability is a very important aspect of an assessment. It deals with the consistency of the test and its scores. Or shows “How consistently a test measures what it is supposed to measure (Espinosa, 2016).” There are different ways to test reliability and the developers of the assessment used many different ways to measure it. Internal consistency, test-retest, alternate form, and interrater agreement were used to measure score reliability. The developers measured internal consistency by calculating alpha coefficients across different age groups. The average alpha and standard error of measurement were .96 and 3, respectively. Alpha coefficients exceeded .92 at all age groups. Alpha coefficients using Form A ranged from .94 to .97 and a standard error of measurement of 2 to 4. Alpha coefficients using Form B ranged from .93 to .97 and a standard error of measurement of 2 to 4. The authors reported alpha coefficients for 13 demographic subgroups ranging from .92 to .97 using Form A and .94 to .97 using Form B. These results support reliability across the subgroups. Test-retest reliability estimates the stability of scores. Developers calculated correlation coefficients on both forms and at two age intervals, student, and adult. The sample included 63 participants from Austin, Texas. The sample consisted of 31 adults and 32 students from a private school and is not representative of the target population. Both forms were administered and then readministered 1 to 2 weeks later. The corrected correlation coefficients between the first and second testing’s of school age participants were .88 on Form A and .93 on Form B, whereas those of adult participants were .82 and .84 using Form A and Form B, respectively. Alternate form reliability was assessed by administering Form A followed by Form B to different age groups in the standardization sample. The corrected correlation coefficients between Form A and Form B ranged from .67 to .89. The developers also conducted an alternate form with delayed administration analysis. The participants and procedures for this study were identical to the test retest study. The corrected correlation coefficient between testing Form a first and testing Form B second with the school age participants was .83, whereas the corrected correlation coefficient with the adult group was .86. Similar results were observed when testing Form B first and Form a second. Evidence for Validity: Validity is arguably the most important assessment characteristic. Validity has to do with the meaningfulness and usefulness of an assessment. In simple terms, validity shows that the assessment is measuring what it claims to measure. The developers evaluated content, construct, concurrent, and predictive validity to determine if results are interpreted and used appropriately. Content validity confirms that scores measure the intended content domain. Devolopers determined item difficulty and discrimination using the standardization sample. The average difficulty ranged from 28% to 83% and 27% to 83% on Form A and Form B, respectively. The average item discrimination coefficient for Form A ranged from 45% to 66% and Form B ranged from 48% to 69%. These results provide supporting evidence of content validity because the median difficulty and discrimination coefficients approximate an acceptable 50%. Results from differential item functioning (DIF) analysis also support content validity. Logistic regression was implemented across 3 subgroups: gender, African American/non–African American, and Hispanic/non-Hispanic. One item was biased (p = .001) with Hispanic participants from the standardization sample.
Construct validity is the degree to which scores measure an intended construct. Construct validity is demonstrated by the correlation with other established intelligence and school achievement tests, and item performance. Developers computed correlation coefficients between scores on the TONI-4 and scores on two nonverbal intelligence tests, the Comprehensive Test of Nonverbal Intelligence–Second Edition (CTONI-2; Hammill, Pearson, & Wiederholt, 2009) and the TONI-3 (Brown, Sherbenou, & Johnsen, 1997). For the CTONI-2 study, there were 72 participants 6 to 17 years old. Form A scores were correlated with scores on the CTONI-2 Pictorial Scale, CTONI-2 Geometric Scale, and CTONI-2 Full Scale. The corresponding corrected coefficients between the TONI-4 and these scales were .74, .73, and .79, respectively. In the TONI-3 study, 56 participants were randomly sampled from the standardization sample. Participants’ item-level data were rescored to obtain TONI-3 scores. The corrected correlation coefficient between the TONI-4 and TONI-3 was .74. Developers also calculated average correlation coefficients between TONI-4 scores and scores on three school achievement tests ranging from .55 to .78. The resulting correlations confirm construct validity. These results show the TONI-4 scores are generally more correlated with other intelligence test scores than with achievement test scores. Item
performance was examined using maximum likelihood exploratory factor analysis. Results show all items load on a single factor, general intelligence. These results support that the TONI-4 measures intended constructs and not an intervening variable. Predictive validity determines the effectiveness of scores in predicting future performance of an individual. The results seen in the previous two studies are also evidence of predictive validity given the positive relationship between the TONI-4 scores and the intelligence and school achievement tests. These results support that the TONI-4 scores predicts the scores of other nonverbal intelligence tests and school achievement tests. Summary: The developer of the TONI-4 designed it to find a way to measure problem solving as a method of estimating cognitive ability. The reliability and validity is strong enough to show that the assessment is a good one and that it measures what it claims to. The TONI-4 has several strengths. As stated by (Ritter, N., Kilinc, E., Navruz, B., & Bae, Y., 2011)“It decreases cultural and language factors that often influence verbal-based intelligence tests.” The manual is clearly written and is easy to follow. The manual also gives verbal and nonverbal instructions as well as when to use one over the other. The manual has also added major non-English languages. The administration does not take as long at a time, compared to other intelligence tests. Despite the many positives, the assessment is not perfect and has some weaknesses. One such weakness is that the developers assessed the majority of participants using the English instructions and only a small percentage with the nonverbal instructions. “The authors emphasize the TONI-4 removes confounding factors that influence verbal-based intelligence tests but only tested 23% with the nonverbal format. Of the 77% taking the verbal format, none was administered the non-English formats.” (Ritter, N., Kilinc, E., Navruz, B., & Bae, Y., 2011) This is a problem because if an assessment claims that it removes certain factors but only test 23% of the population does it really do what it says it does. Also, the developers included non-English language instructions so that it will remove some of the language barriers. But they only test a small sample of people using the other languages. This does not have enough information that it really helps in the area that it is calming. In order to fix these problems, the developers should test more people using the nonverbal format since this test is supposed to test for nonverbal intelligence. They should also test more people using the non-English versions of the assessments. Another issue with the assessment is in the manual it stated that it was useful for “Identifying individuals believed to have intellectual impairments. Verifying the validity of referrals for treatment, therapy, or special services (Brown, L., Sherbenou, R. J., & Johnsen, S. K., 2010).” The assessment is calming to be useful to assist people with disabilities however according to (Ritter, N., Kilinc, E., Navruz, B., & Bae, Y., 2011) “The authors emphasize the value of the TONI-4 with exceptional populations. However, 13% of the children in the standardization sample had a disability, whereas only 7% of the adults had a disability. Although these percentages represent the U.S. population, additional participants with disabilities would benefit in supporting the authors’ claim that the test is useful with such populations.” If an assessment claims to be useful for a certain population then it should have a larger percent of the population test more than 20%. Despite the weaknesses, the TONI-4 is still a great assessment to use. The TONI-4 is a user-friendly test that can be administered quickly and efficiently. There is evidence that the test measures intelligence without influences from different verbal and cultures factors. It is encouraged to use this assessment for estimating aptitude and general intelligence, screening intellectual impairments particularly in individuals whose performance may be confounded by language, cultural, or physical impairments, and verifying referrals for special services.
The IGAT consisted of three verbal subtests and three nonverbal subtests. The verbal subtests included Information, Analogies, and Vocabulary. The nonverbal subsets included Spatial Relations, Mazes, and Language Comprehension. The verbal tests examine the understanding and comprehension skills of the test taker. The Spatial Relations and Mazes tests examines the test taker’s broad visual intelligence and ability to analyze abstract visual stimuli. The Language Comprehension test examines the test taker’s ability to find words in a sequence of scrambled letters as quickly as possible. The scores on the IGAT are given in three areas including verbal score, nonverbal score, and a total score. The scores of the IGAT are represented by standard scores and percentiles. The scores on this test have an average of 100 and a standard deviation of
Along with the already clear and precise guidelines for the Woodcock-Johnson III NU Tests of Cognitive Abilities, seven new features have been added to the tests (Woodcock & Johnson, 1989). In the Woodcock-Johnson III NU: Tests of Cognitive Abilities, it includes eight new tests, which measure information-processing abilities (Keith, Kranzler, & Flanagan, 2001). These tests include ones which measure working memory, planning, naming speed, and attention (Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001b). Also included in this version are five new cognitive clusters (McGrew, Werder, & Woodcock, 1991). Of these five clusters, there are also two additional clusters that are available when cognitive and achievement batteries are used together (Ramos, Alfonso, & Schermerhorn, 2009). Included in the tests that is helpful are interception plans and modified organization; the interception plans and modified organization increase the depth and breadth of coverage (Benner, Ralston, & Feuerborn, 2012). New features of the Woodcock-Johnson III NU: Tests of Cognitive Abilities also includes expanded cognitive factor structure, developing comparison between the tests; in the expanded cognitive factor structure, two to three tests measure different aspects of a broader ability more clearly (Jones et al., 2008). Another change is the fact that clusters and tests are now grouped into three broad cognitive areas (Ritchey & Coker, 2013). The three cognitive areas include Verbal Ability, Thinking Ability, and Cognitive Efficiency (Floyd et al., 2010). Expanded procedures for evaluating ability and achievement discrepancies is another new feature as well (Kranzler, Flores, & Coady, 2010). Also in the list of new features is a Diagnostic Supplement to the W...
Along with the already clear and precise guidelines for the Woodcock-Johnson III NU Tests of Cognitive Abilities, seven new features have been added to the tests. In the Woodcock-Johnson III NU Tests of Cognitive Abilities, it includes eight new tests, which measure information-processing abilities. These tests include ones which measure working memory, planning, naming speed, and attention. Also included in this version are five new cognitive clusters. Of these five clusters, there are also two additional clusters that are available when cognitive and achievement batteries are used together. Included in the tests that is helpful are interception plans and modified organization;...
The Bell Curve is a book originally published in 1994. It was written by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray to explain the variations of intelligence in American Society. They accomplished this by using statistical analysis, for the purpose of raising warnings regarding the consequences of the intelligence gap. This was also made to propose a national social policy with the goal of mitigating bad consequences that have been attributed to this intelligence gap. Much of the information is widely considered controversial. An example of this is the low African-American scores compared to whites and Asians, and genetic factors in intelligence abilities. The introduction of the book starts with a brief history of intelligence theory and recent developments in intelligence thought and testing. The author creates six assumptions that has to do with the validity of the “classical” cognitive testing techniques.
General intelligence tends to relate to various degrees with each other (Cohen 2012). An example of this is that if an individual is good in math, they may also be good in spelling. In this weeks reading we reviewed several different models of measurement of intelligence. In regard to these theories and general intelligence (g), the theories are various but have commonality and overlap. The Spearman's two-factor theory is if a test has high correlation with other test than the measurement of g is highly saturated (Cohen, 2012). The greater the importance of g on a test, the better the test is believed to predict intelligence
Hood, A.B., & Johnson, R.W. (2007). Assessment in Counseling: A guide to the use of psychological assessment procedures (4th ed.). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.
The areas of the brain that deal with speech and verbal communication are on the left side of the brain. Broca’s area in the left front of the brain deals with producing speech, and Vernike’s area in the left side of the brain deals with understanding speech. In some cases, the left side of the brain is much stronger than the right side, and a person is much stronger with verbal communication than non-verbal communication and activities. This is referred to as a non-verbal learning disability (NLD). The main characteristic of people with NLD is that their verbal IQ tends to be much higher than their performance IQ. The purpose of this paper is to explore the characteristics of NLD, and look at ways to help students with this disability .
In the, The RAIS and the Woodcock Johnson Tests, is used to measure a person’s basic intelligence. The test is shown that it only takes about thirty-five minutes based on who is administering the test and how the person receives the information. The test is split into four sections which consists of “Verbal intelligence index (VIX), a nonverbal intelligence index (NIX), a composite intelligence index (CIX), and the composite memory index (CMX)” (Sandhu, 2016). These all work together in the test to end with the final score or result. This will also demonstrate that of verbal intelligence. There are both nonverbal and verbal section within the test and the test can’t be done using the pencil and paper but has to involve the people giving it to the individual (Sandhu, 2016). I find this particular assessment/test to be useful as well in the classroom to help in aiding both the student and the teacher on skills both nonverbal and verbal based upon the student’s intelligence.
Epstein, M.H. & Sharma, J.M. (1998). Behavioral and emotional rating scale: A strength-based approach to assessment. Texas: Pro-Ed.
Intelligence tests have been developed by scientists as a tool to categorize army recruits or analyze school children. But still discussing what intelligence is, academics have a difficult time defining what intelligence tests should measure. According to the American researcher Thorndike, intelligence is only that what intelligence tests claim it is (Comer, Gould, & Furnham, 2013). Thus, depending on what is being researched in the test and depending on the scientist’s definition of intelligence the meaning of the word intelligence may vary a lot. This essay will discuss what intelligence is in order to be able to understand the intelligence theories and aims of intelligence tests.
Rourke a neuropsychologist engaged in research in order to come up define a clinically discrete model for NVLD. Identification of Non-Verbal Learning Disabilities arose from a series of systematic studies of learning disability subtypes. There were eight studies done regarding learning disabilities. Study One: The first study was designed to assess the relationship between such discrepancies and selected verbal, auditory perceptual, visual-perceptual, and problem solving abilities. All subjects fell within a Full Scale of WISC range 79-119 age range 9-14 years of all. In study one there was three groups. Each contained thirty learning disabled children that was formed on the basis of the relationship between their Verbal Intelligence Quotient and their Performance Intelligence Quotient scores on the WISC. Group one named HP-LV had 10 points higher than their VIQ. Group two named V=P had scores on the PIQ and the VIQ that was four points within each other. Group three named HV-LP had VIQ’s scores that were ten points higher than their
The demographic used for the study is described as “highly advantaged children (middle-class whites with IQs of at least 135)…” (Gallagher). An IQ of 135 or higher is a very selective group and less than 1% of the entire world fits that criteria (“What Goes Into the Making of a Genius?”). With an IQ at or over 135, these children are more susceptible to anxiety, stress, and relationship issues among peers (“Social and Emotional Issues”). These troubles could directly impact their happiness and have a large effect on their lives if the issues persist. The results are even more limiting when the other factors such as race and financial background are taken into account. The lives led by these children are by no means typical and having access to certain advantages and a greater susceptibility to certain conditions can have an impact on the results. When 99% of the world is exempt from this study and the results are being applied to such a broad spectrum, it is not an acceptable application of the provided
For the concept of intelligence, Robert Sternberg’s “Triarchic Theory of Successful Intelligence” and Gardner’s “Theory of Multiple Intelligences” were focused on for this particular self-assessment. Sternberg’s theory of intelligence divides total intelligence into analytic, creative and practical components (Woolfolk 117). According to Sternberg, analytical intelligence involves “the mental processes of the individual that lead to more or less intelligent behavior”, creative intelligence involves “coping with new experiences”, and practical intelligence involves emphasizing “the importance of choosing an environment in which you can succeed, adapting to that environment, and reshaping it if necessary” (Woolfolk 118).
In this world, there are many different individuals who are not only different in demographics but also different neurologically. Due to an immense amount of people it is important to first understand each individual, in order, to better understand them and to help them when it comes to certain areas such as education, the work force, and etc…. For this reason psychologists have aimed to further understand individuals through the use of psychological assessments. This paper aims to examine a particular assessment tool, the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales (Fifth Edition), which measures both intelligence and cognitive abilities (Roid, 2003). This assessment is usually administered by psychologists and the scores are most often used to determine placement in academics and services allotted to children and adolescents (despite their compatibility for adults) (Wilson & Gilmore, 2012). Furthermore before the investigation dives into the particulars of the test, such as its strengths and weakness’, it is best to first learn more about the intelligence scales general characteristics.
This is an essay about the different theories of intelligence; it will discuss which theory is best at determining intelligence in my opinion. The information provided will help describe the pros and cons of each of the theories being used to define intelligence, explain why is it important to assess children’s intelligence, and discuss the type of intelligence I possess. The different theories of intelligence are complex and understanding the elements of each can help an individual choose the one that they believe is the best for determining intelligence. Comparing the positive and the negative elements of each theory of intelligence will allow an individual to see both sides of the theory and the flaws that may be twisted