1. Critical Review of the Cognitive Abilities TestBy
Marisol Baquerizo
Richard Caster
Julie Engelhardt

2. 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)

3. 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

4. PURPOSE
Used to identify students who need help in developing general cognitive abilities, aid in the diagnosis of learning disabilities, and plan IEP’s.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. Summary of M.M.Y. Reviewer’s 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.

10. Summary of M.M.Y. Reviewer’s 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 student’s aptitude with his/her achievement.

11. Critique of the Instrument Strengths
Gives modifications for students with IEP’s
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)

12. 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.

13. Critique of the Instrument Overall
The test is a useful tool for assessing student’s cognitive development.
It is an old standard which is often cited in professional journals.