Presentation on theme: "Critical Review of the Cognitive Abilities Test By Marisol Baquerizo Richard Caster Julie Engelhardt."— Presentation transcript:
Critical Review of the Cognitive Abilities Test By Marisol Baquerizo Richard Caster Julie Engelhardt
Brief Description of Purpose and Nature of Test General purpose of test is to test the cognitive abilities of K-12 students relating to verbal,quantitative, and nonverbal reasoning and problem solving. Primary Battery (K-2) Multilevel (3-12)
Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT) Published by Riverside Publishing, 1954 (Mulit-level Test); 1986 (K-2 Test) Costs $76 for 25 Multilevel Tests Time required to administer K-2 unlimited time 3-12 three 90 minutes sessions
PURPOSE Used to identify students who need help in developing general cognitive abilities, aid in the diagnosis of learning disabilities, and plan IEPs.
Description of content and appropriateness of assessment Contains 200 items. A verbal battery assessing sentence completion, verbal classification, and analogies. A quantitative battery assessing quantitative relations, number series, and equation building. A nonverbal battery measuring figure classification, figure analogies, and figure analysis.
TECHNICAL EVALUATION Type -Raw scores, standard age score, age percentile rank, age stanine, grade percentile rank, and grade stanine. Standardization sample –160,000 K- 12 students from public, Catholic, and private non-Catholic schools Standard setting procedures were carefully conducted for content and ethnic sensitivity; however, no technical manual was available to provide specifics.
Reliability Results of K-R 20 reliabilities of for Primary Battery 1-2. Results of K-R 20 reliabilities of for Multilevel Tests A-H. The tests show internal consistency, but no data to show reliability over time.
Validity Correlations between K-12 student CogAT scores with their scores on one of three achievement tests concurrently standardized with it (ITBS, ITED, and Tests of Achievement and Proficiency) are strong. Correlations of.70 and.71 for the nonverbal battery and.83 and.84 for the verbal battery with the same tests mentioned above.
Summary of M.M.Y. Reviewers Comments Reviewed by Bert A. Goldman, professor, School of Education, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, NC Stephen H. Ivens, vice president, research and development, Touchstone Applied Science Associates, Brewster, NY Lack reliability and validity data over time, but what is presented supports the use of the test. The information just needs to be collected. Well-known & respected for measuring general and specific cognitive abilities.
Summary of M.M.Y. Reviewers Comments The manual entitled Interpretive Guide for School Administrator greatly helps understand the development the test and analysis of scores. Reviewers seem very impressed with the test designers manuals to interpret scores and the integrity of score information. Works as a stand-alone document and coupled with the ITBS. Excellent. Easy-to-use. Can reliably compare a students aptitude with his/her achievement.
Critique of the Instrument Strengths Gives modifications for students with IEPs Very clear instructions Student answer sheets can be marked by test administrators for identification of certain sub-groups. Challenging upper-end questions on all tests Younger (primary) children write in the booklet, older students use an answer sheets. (less confusing)
Critique of the Instrument Weaknesses Unclear which form is for which grade. (Labeled as A-H) Student performance relates only norming sample. Norm group selection is unclear (acceptance rate of schools invited may not have been reflective of U.S. sub- groups). Lacks reliability and validity over time.
Critique of the Instrument Overall The test is a useful tool for assessing students cognitive development. It is an old standard which is often cited in professional journals.