Assessment of Nonverbal Cognitive Ability

Assessment of Nonverbal Cognitive Ability
by Sarah Pemble LMHC

What is Nonverbal Cognitive Assessment?
Measures a student’s ability to: Recognize underlying rules and relationships Remember details See and copy conceptual patterns Reason Complete sequences

Nonverbal Assessment Theories of Nonverbal Intelligence
Spearman’s “G” and “S” factors Cattell’s fluid and crystallized measures Thurstone’s mental abilities

Nonverbal Assessment Use a Nonverbal measure when:
Speech or hearing disabled Student has writing limitations Staff suspects a nonverbal learning disability Student is an ELL learner

Differential Ability Scales (DAS)
Entire test: 20 subtests—17 cognitive and 3 achievement s measures yields overall cognitive and achievement scores. Valid for children years old GCA is the general ability of an individual to perform complex mental processing that involves conceptualization and the transformation of information. Also provides composite or cluster score; diverse-specific ability measures; diagnostic subtests for school-aged children, and achievement screening tests in word reading, basic number skills and spelling Developed from the British Ability Scales in DAS II version released in 2007

Nonverbal Assessment DAS
General Conceptual Ability Matrices Sequential & Quantitative Reasoning Nonverbal Reasoning ability Spatial Ability Recall of Designs Pattern Construction Copying

Nonverbal Assessment (DAS)
PARAMETRICS- RELIABILITY The DAS was standardized from on 3,475 children and adolescents with approximately 175 at each age level. The sample was stratified by age and sex, geographic location, special education enrollment, across race-ethnicity, and parent educational levels, and proved very similar to 1988 census populations (which have changed significantly in the last 20 years). Internal Reliability .89 and .90 for Preschool Nonverbal ability and School-Age Nonverbal Reasoning ability, and .92 for the Spatial ability scores. Test-retest increase in scores: Nonverbal increases measured from 3.3 to 6.6, and the Spatial from 4.7 to 7.6 points. Measures of Verbal ability were somewhat more stable and showed smaller practice-effect gains than both the Nonverbal and Spatial abilities.

VALIDITY Inter-correlation validity: Average correlations between the 17 individual subtests (excluding achievement subtests) and the GCA range from .22 to .82. Construct validity DAS Verbal, Nonverbal, and GCA scores were generally lower than the WPPSI-R Verbal, Performance, and Full Scales DAS Nonverbal Reasoning score correlated higher with the WISC-R Verbal than with the Performance (.77 vs. .57). The DAS Spatial cluster correlated highest with the WISC-R Performance scale (.69). **Alternate method of determining reliability had to be used due to non-uniform starting point.

ADMINSTRATION Requires preparation –Some feel the complexity of administration and testing limits its’ effectiveness Accuracy of results strongly impacted by skill of the tester Basal/discontinue rules but no uniform start/end point All subtests include teaching items Test took much longer to give than predicted

Difficulty in scoring Item by item administration & scoring Tester’s professional judgment (book example)

VALUE Are verbal and communication skills central to intelligence? Can Intelligence be tested apart from culture? (Cole & Cole, 1993) Considerable caution should be exercised in the interpretation of these tests Use of nonverbal IQ has been widely-criticized (Kaufman, 2001)

SCORING Qualitative information can be added Includes raw scores, standardized , T scores and percentile ranking T score points can actually be given for no successes-this complicates interpretation Interpretation should proceed from general to specific Relationship of scores more important than an individual score Statistically significant differences

KABC-II Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children, 2nd Edition
Measures the processing & cognitive ability of children & adolescents, 3-18 Individually administered Time: sub-test 90 minutes (took me three hours) Non-verbal scales for hearing impaired, speech-language disorders, non-English

Nonverbal Assessment KABC-II
Features: Measures sequential and simultaneous processing, learning, reasoning and crystallized ability Records score differences between ethnic and cultural groups Uses two theoretical models- Cattel-Horn Carroll (CHC) and Luria’s processing theory Option for assessing without measuring acquired knowledge Non-Verbal scale can be pantomimed and responded to motorically

Features (continued): Can be administered out-of level Ensures that no child will do poorly because they do not understand. Bi-lingual (Spanish/English) Non-Verbal scales Includes easels in Spanish translations for teaching and scoring. Quantitative indicators for each subtest, so examiner can record observations about test-taking behaviors that may be relevant.

Two Theoretical Models: A. Luria’s neuropsychological model, which features three functional units. focuses on general mental processing ability and deemphasizes acquired knowledge (language proficiency or general information) yields a global score called the Mental Processing Index (MPI) measures learning, sequential & simultaneous processing & planning abilities

The Three Blocks of Luria’s Neuropsychogical Theory Plans & Organizes (block 3) Behavior Codes and Stores Information (block 2) Maintains Arousal (block 1)

Two Theoretical Models (continued): B. Cattell-Horn- Carroll (CHC) is a hierarchical organization of broad and narrow cognitive abilities. The (FCI) Fluid-Crystallized Index measure five broad abilities and general cognitive ability Recommended for gifted/talented

How to Choose: The CHC is the model of choice, except where acquired knowledge/crystallized ability would compromise choice. Luria is preferred when child has bilingual background; whose cultural background may affect knowledge or verbal development; known or suspected language disorders; autism; or hearing impaired Non-Verbal, hearingloss, limited English, limited Cognitive abilities (Do Luria instead if you want Learning Subtest)

Non-Verbal Subtest Composed of only those subtests that can be administered in pantomime and responded to motorically Face Recognition Story completion Triangles Pattern Reasoning Hand Movements Conceptual Thinking

Non-Verbal Scales Pantomimed or responded motorically NVS has reliability and validity coefficients that are not substantially lower. NVS for language related disabilities or ESL Not used to replace MPI or FCI for shy or mild speech/ language issues Not be given to bilingual unless grasp of English is limited and would be penalized for language demands.

Qualitative Indicators: Each subtests has indicators to record observations that may be relevant for interpretation such as: fails to sustain attention reluctant to respond when uncertain unusually focused worries about time limit verbalizes story ideas

Standardization Nationally representation of 3,205 ages 3-18 in 39 states/127 sites over 16-month period Random sampling for target sample- then each age match for sex, ethnic group, ed of parents, geog. region, Sp.ed. or gifted Norms- mirror 2001 U.S. Census data Subtest score distributions: mean- 10 & SD - 3, combined/scaled to mean & SD - 15

Reliability Subtest reliability coefficients are for younger children below.70 Global/individual scales but coefficients for NV are the lowest .90 Subtest stability coefficients are Global/individual scales are with NV being the lowest.

Reliability (continued) Younger girls scored better then boys all scales except knowledge: means by gender was 3pts or less Parent education important predictor for all pre-school and knowledge only scales for school age Ethnic differences – parent education does not control for SES, controlling for SES doesn’t remove variables that are differentially distributed by ethnicity.

Reliability (continued) Ethnic difference are modest compared to parent education; largest variance on the knowledge scale. Ethnicity on global scales accounts for 2% of variance for preschoolers and 5% for older Each ethnic group was reviewed but low influences

Validity Strong support for the construct validity of the KABC global scales Correlation with Wechsler two points higher than full scale at 97.3 Full IQ correlation with WISC and FCI/MPA .89 &.88. Subscale & Index score correlation are present with IQ scores on the WISC-III, WISC-IV, WPPSI-III, KAIT, Cog-WJIII

Validity (continued) Clinical studies- ID process with “exceptional” kids: LD/reading: SS, greatest on Learning Index. NV on both MPI/FCI was 16 points. LD/math: SS greatest on Planning LD/written: SS, -11.9—14.8 greatest on learning MR: SS, -29.9—37.4, greatest on Simultaneous & Planning, similar on MPI/FCI/NV ADHD: SS, -5.9—10, greatest difference simultaneous. Smaller ethnic group differences: substantial details provided for time bias and mean group difference, it’s claim of a reduction in ethnic group differences is not entirely achieved Socio- cultural norms are absent from the KABC-II

VALUE Interesting subtests & reduced emphasis on prior learning- better technical characteristics Improvement on original i.e. norms for older, representation at all ages New subtest strength psychometrics Clear and psychometrically defensible procedures for indentifying individual strengths /weakness Somewhat smaller score differences between ethnic groups Teaching exercises Nice soft-sided case- material fit

VALUE (continued) Absence of direct evidence to support how a single test can measure two distinct constructs (you can’t assume sub-standard leads to processing information differently) Two interpretive models does not magically reflect two different ways of processing just because examinee might lack education or ESL Culturally bias- even non-verbal (Story Comp.) Bonus for timing (places burden on examiner) Complete lack of evidence to support the use of test data for guiding educational or psychological interventions.

VALUE (continued) Do not let child see your marks (feedback) Each core subtest begins with a playful/ interesting & non-threatening subtest that does not need verbalization. Subtest that are similar are not administered in order (needs familiarity & practice) Rules must be internalized to ensure proper administration (practice for reliability) Establish/maintain rapport- praise for effort not correctness (hard-child wanted to know how doing)

VALUE (continued) Start points vary with each age Each subtest has a rule when to stop Most subtests include teaching time 3 types of timing: (hard to remember) *timing of stimulus *timing of responses for time limits *timing of responses for extra points

Test of Nonverbal Intelligence 3rd Edition
TONI-3 Test of Nonverbal Intelligence 3rd Edition Measures a single intelligent behavior- a person’s ability to solve novel & abstract problem Designed for persons ages 6:0- 89:11 45 questions All testers start at item 1 Two equivalent forms (A & B) Individually administered Useful for those who are nonverbal, illiterate, non-English speaking, culturally different, or otherwise have some kind of linguistic difficulties. Two equivalent forms good for test-retest reliability.

Test of Nonverbal Intelligence 3rd Edition (continued)
TONI-3 Test of Nonverbal Intelligence 3rd Edition (continued) Each item presents a novel problems No word No numbers No familiar pictures No familiar symbols Designed to be culturally sensitive Potential bias insignificant Two equivalent forms good for test-retest reliability.

Psychometrics- Norming
Normed in 1995 & 1996 by two data collection procedures Major standardization sites were selected in each of the four geographic regions per U.S. Bureau of Census (NY, South Dakota, Kansas, Texas, Arizona, & Washington) Sample of 3,451 people residing in 28 states participated All children in the sample attended school in general education & children with disabilities who were enrolled in these classes were included in the sample, too. Smaller test sites were selected randomly by contacting professionals who had purchased the TONI A total of 67 experienced testers from 22 states volunteered to for the purpose of norming the TONI-3. An additional 1,391 students participated TONI-3 Psychometrics- Norming Normed in 1995 & 1996 by two data collection procedures Major standardization sites were selected in each of the four geographic regions per U.S. Bureau of Census (NY, South Dakota, Kansas, Texas, Arizona, & Washington) Sample of 3,451 people residing in 28 states participated All children in the sample attended school in general education & children with disabilities who were enrolled in these classes were included in the sample, too. Two equivalent forms good for test-retest reliability.

Psychometrics- Norming
Normed in 1995 & 1996 by two data collection procedures Major standardization sites were selected in each of the four geographic regions per U.S. Bureau of Census (NY, South Dakota, Kansas, Texas, Arizona, & Washington) Sample of 3,451 people residing in 28 states participated All children in the sample attended school in general education & children with disabilities who were enrolled in these classes were included in the sample, too. Smaller test sites were selected randomly by contacting professionals who had purchased the TONI A total of 67 experienced testers from 22 states volunteered to for the purpose of norming the TONI-3. An additional 1,391 students participated TONI-3 Psychometrics- Norming Normed in 1995 & 1996 by two data collection procedures (continued) Smaller test sites were selected randomly by contacting professionals who had purchased the TONI A total of 67 experienced testers from 22 states volunteered to for the purpose of norming the TONI-3. An additional 1,391 students participated for a total of 3,451 participants Two equivalent forms good for test-retest reliability.

Psychometrics- Reliability
Normed in 1995 & 1996 by two data collection procedures Major standardization sites were selected in each of the four geographic regions per U.S. Bureau of Census (NY, South Dakota, Kansas, Texas, Arizona, & Washington) Sample of 3,451 people residing in 28 states participated All children in the sample attended school in general education & children with disabilities who were enrolled in these classes were included in the sample, too. Smaller test sites were selected randomly by contacting professionals who had purchased the TONI A total of 67 experienced testers from 22 states volunteered to for the purpose of norming the TONI-3. An additional 1,391 students participated TONI-3 Psychometrics- Reliability Coefficients Alpha ranges from: .89 (6 yr. interval) .97 (80-89 yr interval).  Standard Error of Measurement (SEM) average is 4 points (3-5 points) across all ages. NOTE: Coefficeints Alpha demonstrate the extent to which test items correlate with one another. Two equivalent forms good for test-retest reliability.

Normed in 1995 & 1996 by two data collection procedures Major standardization sites were selected in each of the four geographic regions per U.S. Bureau of Census (NY, South Dakota, Kansas, Texas, Arizona, & Washington) Sample of 3,451 people residing in 28 states participated All children in the sample attended school in general education & children with disabilities who were enrolled in these classes were included in the sample, too. Smaller test sites were selected randomly by contacting professionals who had purchased the TONI A total of 67 experienced testers from 22 states volunteered to for the purpose of norming the TONI-3. An additional 1,391 students participated TONI-3 Psychometrics- Reliability The stability of the TONI-3 was studied using the test-retest method. ages 13 years, 15 years, years time lapse between the two testing (form A & B) was 1 week. Test-retest coefficients were greater than .90 for both forms. Contains little or no time sampling error. Two equivalent forms good for test-retest reliability.

Normed in 1995 & 1996 by two data collection procedures Major standardization sites were selected in each of the four geographic regions per U.S. Bureau of Census (NY, South Dakota, Kansas, Texas, Arizona, & Washington) Sample of 3,451 people residing in 28 states participated All children in the sample attended school in general education & children with disabilities who were enrolled in these classes were included in the sample, too. Smaller test sites were selected randomly by contacting professionals who had purchased the TONI A total of 67 experienced testers from 22 states volunteered to for the purpose of norming the TONI-3. An additional 1,391 students participated TONI-3 Psychometrics- Reliability Immediate Alternate Forms Reliability: Both forms of the test are given during one testing session. The means and standard deviations for Forms A and B are virtually Identical at every age interval. Time Sampling: Administer Form A, administer Form B one week later = .90 coefficient.  Scorer Differences: Coefficients were .99 for both Form A and Form B= high interscorer reliability Two equivalent forms good for test-retest reliability.

Psychometrics- Validity
Normed in 1995 & 1996 by two data collection procedures Major standardization sites were selected in each of the four geographic regions per U.S. Bureau of Census (NY, South Dakota, Kansas, Texas, Arizona, & Washington) Sample of 3,451 people residing in 28 states participated All children in the sample attended school in general education & children with disabilities who were enrolled in these classes were included in the sample, too. Smaller test sites were selected randomly by contacting professionals who had purchased the TONI A total of 67 experienced testers from 22 states volunteered to for the purpose of norming the TONI-3. An additional 1,391 students participated TONI-3 Psychometrics- Validity Correlation between the TONI-3 & the CTONI, WISC-III, & WAIS-R Criterion Tests TONI-3 Form A Form B CTONI (high correlation) Pictorial Nonverbal IQ……………………………… Geometric nonverbal IQ……………………………... Overall Nonverbal IQ………………………………… WISC-III (moderate to high) Verbal Scales IQ……………………………………… Performance Scales IQ……………………………… Full Scale IQ………………………………………….. WAIL-R (moderate to high) Verbal Scale IQ……………………………………….. Performance Scale IQ……………………………….. Two equivalent forms good for test-retest reliability.

TONI-3 Administration Instructions are pantomimed and do not required the subject to read or listen to instructions Five practice items & provisions are made for repeating the practice items if the tester does not comprehend what is required 20-30 minutes to administer Discontinue after 3 incorrect responses The test is not timed Two equivalent forms good for test-retest reliability.

Administration (continued)
TONI-3 Administration (continued) On the Answer & Record Form space is provided to document: Anecdotal comments Administration conditions Interpretation and recommendations In addition, there is an Administration and scoring instructions section Two equivalent forms good for test-retest reliability.

Nonverbal Assessment TONI

TONI-3 Creating a Comprehensive Profile TONI-3 scores are only one piece of the puzzle, a comprehensive profile requires additional testing, observations, interview, & consultation. Alone, the TONI-3 provides some useful information, however best practice indicates a need for comparable data. Two equivalent forms good for test-retest reliability.

TONI-3 Sharing the Results Special Consideration:
Other tests or activities that are loaded with spoken or written language tasks could be helpful in estimating the potential of students who are nonverbal, illiterate, or non-English speaking. However, consider language deviance rather than intellectual deviance when a student’s profile is characterized by normal or above average on non-verbal measures combined with subaverage performance on language-loaded measures. Two equivalent forms good for test-retest reliability.

TONI-3 Two types of normative scores are reported: Deviation Quotients
Normed in 1995 & 1996 by two data collection procedures Major standardization sites were selected in each of the four geographic regions per U.S. Bureau of Census (NY, South Dakota, Kansas, Texas, Arizona, & Washington) Sample of 3,451 people residing in 28 states participated All children in the sample attended school in general education & children with disabilities who were enrolled in these classes were included in the sample, too. Smaller test sites were selected randomly by contacting professionals who had purchased the TONI A total of 67 experienced testers from 22 states volunteered to for the purpose of norming the TONI-3. An additional 1,391 students participated TONI-3 Interpreting Scores (continued) EXAMPLE: Jonny’s raw score of 22 was converted to a quotient of 98 and to a percentile rank of 45 which indicates that he is performing in the average range when compared with other students who took the test. --OR— Jonny performed better than 45% of the other 11 year old students. Two types of normative scores: Percentile Quotients Mean of 100 SD of 15 Percentile Ranks Two types of normative scores are reported: Deviation Quotients Percentile Ranks Percentile Deviation Descriptions % Included Ranks Quotients > > Very Superior Superior Above Average Average Below Average Poor < < Very Poor Two equivalent forms good for test-retest reliability.

Interpreting Scores (continued)
Normed in 1995 & 1996 by two data collection procedures Major standardization sites were selected in each of the four geographic regions per U.S. Bureau of Census (NY, South Dakota, Kansas, Texas, Arizona, & Washington) Sample of 3,451 people residing in 28 states participated All children in the sample attended school in general education & children with disabilities who were enrolled in these classes were included in the sample, too. Smaller test sites were selected randomly by contacting professionals who had purchased the TONI A total of 67 experienced testers from 22 states volunteered to for the purpose of norming the TONI-3. An additional 1,391 students participated TONI-3 Interpreting Scores (continued) Quotients Deviation Percentile Ranks Age Equivalents Raw scores are converted to: Two types of normative scores are reported: Deviation Quotients Percentile Ranks Two equivalent forms good for test-retest reliability.

TONI-3 Value Intelligence is a complex and multidimensional construct, and the TONI-3 measures only one component of that construct. Be cautious not to over-generalize TONI-3 results. TONI-3 is easy to administer Quick administration Fairly engaging for the test taker Scoring is simple Two equivalent forms good for test-retest reliability High reliability with a coefficient alpha ranging from 89 (6 yr. old) to 97 (80-89 yr. old) High correlation between the CTONI and the WAIS-R Two equivalent forms good for test-retest reliability.

TONI-3 Value (continued)
Test is useful in determining a persons ability to : organize information identify missing data to identify and exclude irrelevant information to perceive a greater number of common elements efficiently and systematically problem solve adopt alternative strategies anticipate sequence Two equivalent forms good for test-retest reliability.

DAS, KABC- II, & TONI-3 Review- TONI-3 Norming
Administered to 2,060 in 1995 and again in 1996 to 1,391-smaller sites selected randomly by contacting 67 professionals (who purchase 2nd edition) and they tested 20 people = 3,251 people residing in 29 states Representative sample of the US with regards to geographic region, gender, race, urban/rural, ethnicity, disabling conditions, SES and Ed. of adults and parents Major standardization sites from each of the four geographic regions designated by the census bureau. Deviation quotients – mean of 100 and SD of 15 Two equivalent forms good for test-retest reliability.

Review- KABC-II Norming
DAS, KABC- II, & TONI-3 Review- KABC-II Norming Nationally representative of 3,205, ages 3-18 in 30 states/127 sites over a 16-month period. Norms mirror 2001 U.S. census Randon sampling for target sample – then each age matched for sex, ethnic group, ed of parents, geographic region, Sp.ed or gifted Subtest score distribution: mean 10 & SD 3; combined/scaled to mean 100 & SD 15 Two equivalent forms good for test-retest reliability.

DAS, KABC- II, & TONI-3 Review- DAS Norming
Standardized on 3,475 U.S. children, per age group. Stratified for age, gender, race/ethnicity, parent ed.,, geographic region, preschool enrollment & sp ed., 1988 census figures Two equivalent forms good for test-retest reliability.

Discussion- Reliability
DAS, KABC- II, & TONI-3 Discussion- Reliability Pre: School age: Luria/CHC: ; Gc.90; MPI FCI .93 .99 Internal/sub composite Nonverbal Test-retest Interscorer DAS KABC II TONI-3 Two equivalent forms good for test-retest reliability.

Discussion- Content Validity
DAS, KABC- II, & TONI-3 Discussion- Content Validity Inter-correlation of subtests and composites by age ranges were and 99.7 for GCA, and SNV for ages 2:6 –3:5, 99.6 and 99.8 for ages 3:6-5:11 Comprehensive & appropriate, intratest relationship and structure all strongly support the expected outcomes of the test. Items not biased to groups & little or no bias for characteristics of the seven groups DAS TONI-3 KABC II Two equivalent forms good for test-retest reliability.

Discussion- Criterion Validity
DAS, KABC- II, & TONI-3 Discussion- Criterion Validity Correlates w/WPPSI-R ; Stanford- Binet ; K-ABC DAS and WISC-R NV Reasoning score correlated higher with WISC-R Verbal than w/Performance (.77 vs. .57). Correlates w/ WISC, 2 pts higher than full scale of 97.3; Full IQ correlates w/ WISC & MPI/FCI ; Subscale & index score correlation are present w/IQ scores on the WISC-III, WISC-IV, WPSSI-III, KAIT, Cog-WJIII It correlates w/CTONI, WISC-III - high, WAIS- mod-high WISC-R & WJ- most robust Nonverbal strongest DAS TONI-3 KABC II Two equivalent forms good for test-retest reliability.

Discussion- Construct Validity
DAS, KABC- II, & TONI-3 Discussion- Construct Validity Average correlations between all subtests and the GCA range from .18 to .81. Intercorrelations support the DAS as a measure of General Mental Ability Clinical Studies: LD: Reading, math, written, MF ADHD all statistically significant; Small ethnic group differences not entirely achieved; Socio-cultural norms absent Age correlates: *6-0,17-11strong after 17 flat, age 60 decline *School achievement: .55-78, all tests significantly high *Group diffentiation: i.e. MR, gifted, ethnicity, LD, gender- all supportive DAS KABC II TONI-3 Two equivalent forms good for test-retest reliability.

DAS, KABC- II, & TONI-3 Discussion DAS KABC II TONI-3 Brief
Once piece of intelligence Easy to administer Easy to learn Quick administration Strong reliability Most reliable Start/stop point confusing Requires much practice If you don’t use timed procedures, reliability decreases Out of level testing challenges Model is most complete Story completion is not culturally sensitive Intended more for the modernized and industrialized society Has an excellent qualitative section Two equivalent forms good for test-retest reliability. Most Complicated Least Complicated

DAS, KABC- II, & TONI-3 Round Table Discussion Social Economic Status
If you don’t use timed procedures, reliability decreases Out of level testing challenges Start/stop point confusing Requires much practice Most reliable Intended more for the modernized and industrialized society Story completion is not culturally sensitive Model is most complete Has an excellent qualitative section Information it yields is fairly limited Quick administration Easy to administer Easy to learn Brief Round Table Discussion Social Economic Status Cultural Biases Major limit of all nonverbal tests of intelligence: verbal and communication skills are central to overall intelligence. Assumptions about internal processes Subjectivity We never know to what extent the child is using verbal medication to problem solve Quality testing experience level Use of information- Real life application How do you know when you’re really assessing ability or testing other things? Are the skills that can be testing nonverbally an adequate assessment? Two equivalent forms good for test-retest reliability.

DAS, KABC- II, & TONI-3 Round Table Discussion
If you don’t use timed procedures, reliability decreases Out of level testing challenges Start/stop point confusing Requires much practice Most reliable Intended more for the modernized and industrialized society Story completion is not culturally sensitive Model is most complete Has an excellent qualitative section Information it yields is fairly limited Quick administration Easy to administer Easy to learn Brief Round Table Discussion DAS- Study participants identified as black, white, other Two equivalent forms good for test-retest reliability.

Assessment of Nonverbal Cognitive Ability

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Assessment of Nonverbal Cognitive Ability"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Assessment of Nonverbal Cognitive Ability

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Assessment of Nonverbal Cognitive Ability"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback