1. A PROPOSAL FOR ASSESSING COGNITIVE DISABILITY IN SCHOOL BY PSYCHOLOGISTS AND TEACHERS QUESTIONNAIRES Ángela María MUÑOZ SÁNCHEZ Remedios PORTILLO CÁRDENAS University of Malaga

2. The need for adequate differentiation between disability and non-disability mental categories, especially for those in the borderline zone, it emerged because of its influence on school decisions when allocating special needs support services. Reflexiones sobre el diagnóstico de la discapacidad por retraso mental ligero- límite. Apuntes de Psicología, 23, 3, 247-256.

3. OBJECTIVES A simple tool whereby borderline cognitive disability can be assessed, would be of great use in schools to address the special needs of certain students. In order to address this issue, we devised a simple questionnaire capable of measuring general intelligence and cognitive disability, which could be easily administered in schools.

4. Our working assumption is that if I find matches between the data of a questionnaire designed for this work and conventional psychometric tests, we consider its usefulness for making decisions about identifying needs.

5. So we assessed the validity of our questionnaire, CRITERIA, by comparing its results with four usually administered standard intelligence tests.

6. The Questionnaire was filled in by psychologists (female = 60, male =16, total N = 76). METHOD (FIRST QUESTIONNAIRE) PARTICIPANTS: PSYCHOLOGISTS To design the questionnaire Criteria we have developed an initial document sent to psychologists to inquire about the methodology used by them.

7. METHOD (SECOND QUESTIONNAIRE) PARTICIPANTS: STUDENTS N = 79 N = 58 N = 68 N = 205

8. . This questionnaire collects information on the assessment issues of children with cognitive disability, giving special attention to the methodology used to distinguish between those showing a borderline intelligence from those showing slight mental retardation. CUESTIONARIO PARA ORIENTADORES DE CENTROS ESCOLARES NIVEL EDUCACIÓN PRIMARIA (6-12 AÑOS) INDICADORES DE ASIGNACIÓN DE ALUMNADO A GRUPOS DE NECESIDADES EDUCATIVAS ESPECIALES Evaluación psicopedagógica de la discapacidad intelectual ligera y del retraso límite: elementos y modos de evaluación. Apuntes de Psicología, 25, 2, 111-128. INSTRUMENTS FIRST QUESTIONNAIRE: PSYCHOLOGISTS

9. SECOND INSTRUMENTS QUESTIONNAIRE It was filled in by teachers that assessed the ability of their students. This Questionnaire was to collect information from the students including all school areas. This instrument was developed as a Lickert scale, its score ranging from 1 to 10 in each of 41 items (1 = very low level, 5 = average level 10 = very high level). This Questionnaire assesses the following areas: Oral Expression, Writing, Reading, Mathematical Problems, Calculation, Artistic Expression, Daily Life, Social Relations, Attention, Memory and Global Assessment.

10. INSTRUMENTS: TESTS -Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children Revised (WISC-R) - Kaufman Intelligence Test (K- BIT) -Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices (RAVEN) -Test of Nonverbal Intelligence-Second Edition (TONI-2).

11. PROCEDURE In 2002-2003 the first Questionnaire was filled in by psychologists and during the academic years 2002-2003 and 2003-2004, the second Questionnaire was filled in by teachers about their children and we have administered standard intelligence tests to the same students. Discapacidad intelectual y necesidades educativas especiales asociadas: retraso mental ligero frente a retraso límite. Tesis Doctoral. (CD-ROM). Ed. Servicio de Publicaciones Universidad de Málaga.

12. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS FIRST STUDY: CONCLUSIONS OF PSYCHOLOGICAL QUESTIONNAIRE

13. 100% of the professionals have agreed that this should include the components. 1- Global intellectual functioning 2- Specific intellectual functioning 3- Adaptive behaviour 4- Competition curriculum 5- Learning potential 6- Motivation to learn 100% 7- Family environment97% 8- Behavioural problems97.1% 9- Personality traits85.7% 10- Other factors44% There are other components but the agreement is lower in these cases. THE COMPONENTS THAT DETERMINE THE INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY ARE…

14. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 MD.T 1- Global intellectual functioning 7.741.442 2- Specific intellectual functioning 7.661.552 3- Adaptive behaviour6.801.762 4- Competition curriculum7.971.468 5- Learning potencial7.351.704 6- Motivation to learn7.432.118 7- Family environment7.361.674 8- Behavioural problems7.351.704 9- Personality traits6.60.894 AND THE EMPHASIS ON THE COMPONENTS FOR THE DETERMINATION OF DISABILITY

15. FORMS OF ASSESSMENT 9,0 8,5 8,0 7,5 7,0 6,5 6,0 5,5 MD.T. 1.- Interview with parents 5.822.691 2.- Interview with Professor 7.032.007 3.- Observation7.681.821 4.- Tests8.431.267 1 2 3 4

16. 1) DIFFERENCES IN USUAL INTELLIGENCE TESTS 2) FACTORIAL ANALYSIS ESTABLISHES FIVE UNDERLYING FACTORS IN THE QUESTIONNAIRE 3) BY GENDER DIFFERENCES IN THE QUESTIONNAIRE STUDY 4) DIFFERENCES IN FACTORS OF CRITERIA QUESTIONNAIRE -AVERAGE OF TESTS OF INTELLIGENCE IN ALLOCATION TO THE ROLE OF DISABILITY - DIFFERENCES IN FACTORS OF QUESTIONNAIRE CRITERIA WITH THE ASSIGNMENT OR NOT DISABILITY. 5) ANALYSIS OF CANONICAL CORRELACION. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: SECOND STUDY

17. 1) DIFFERENCES IN USUAL INTELLIGENCE TESTS CI half obtained by intelligence test used: WISC-R = 1, RAVEN =2, K-BIT = 3 and 4 =TONI-2 12 3 4

18. 2) FACTORIAL ANALYSIS ESTABLISHES FIVE UNDERLYING FACTORS IN THE QUESTIONNAIRE

19. 2) Factorial Analysis of Our Questionnaire

20. 3) BY GENDER DIFFERENCES IN THE QUESTIONNAIRE APPROACH

21. 3) GRAPHIC OF THE DIFFERENCES BY GENDER Classics Results

22. 4- A) AVERAGE OF TESTS OF INTELLIGENCE IN ALLOCATION TO THE ROLE OF DISABILITY TONI-2 = 1, RAVEN =2, K-BIT = 3 y WISC-R = 4 The difference between the tests was significant, with a greater difference IQ obtained with the test TONI-2. [F (3.130) = 6.390]; p<.001] Estimated marginal averages

23. 4º - B) Differences in factors of Criteria 4º - B) Differences in factors of QUESTIONNAIRE Criteria (1 = Attention-memory, 2 = Reading Scripture 3 = Artistic Expression, 4 = Speaking, 5 = Adaptive Behaviour, 6 = Mathematical Logic ) Estimated marginal averages Assignation to group without disability with disability F (5.119) =4.29; p<.001], which show that the scores on the questionnaire Criteria vary with the assignment or not disability.

24. The first canonical correlation analysis showed consistency between standard intelligence tests and teachers assessment of students. 5) ANALYSIS OF CANONICAL CORRELATIONS

25. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE QUESTIONNAIRE AND APPROACH THE TESTS OF INTELLIGENCE TO WHICH THE FACTOR VERBALE VARIABLES CANONICAL VARIABLE APPROACH VARIABLES VERBAL- WISCR.69 WISCR-MANIPULATIVO.84 VERBAL- KBIT.76 PREDICT VARIABLES Mathematical Logic.84 Adaptive Behaviour.43 Expression Scripture.40 Artistic Expression.80 Reading Scripture.76 Attention-memory-.32

26. The second canonical correlation analysis showed consistency between both sets of variables except in Speaking Expression, which is coherent, due to the fact that these tests try to measure the non-verbal intelligence.

27. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE QUESTIONNAIRE AND APPROACH THE TESTS OF INTELIGENCE (TOTAL SCORES ABOUT TESTS (PROGRESSIVE MATRICES) VARIABLES CANONICAL VARIABLE APPROACH VARIABLES MATRICES-KBIT.61 RAVEN.74 TONI-2.88 PREDICT VARIABLES Mathematical Logic.63 Adaptive Behaviour.47 Speaking Expression -.13 Artistic Expression.65 Reading Scripture.55 Attention-memory -.91

28. FINALLY So, with regard to correlations in our Questionnaire Criteria and intelligence tests used in this study, and the other studies has been made, we can say that our test is a good predictor of scores that students would get to implement the different intelligence test most commonly used by psychologists our community.

29. Autoras: -Ángela Mª Muñoz Sánchez: University of Malaga -angela@uma.es Tfno. 9521312495 - Remedios Portillo Cárdenas: University of Malaga - Remedios Portillo Cárdenas: University of Malaga - remediosportillo@uma - Tfno. 951293525

30. Comments Comments Questions Questions Clarifications Clarifications Suggestions Suggestions Thanks for your attention