Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger, Ph.D. KABC-II Advanced Interpretation CASP Annual Conference – February 18, 2006.

Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger, Ph.D. drlichtenberger@aol.com KABC-II Advanced Interpretation CASP Annual Conference – February 18, 2006

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Overview Theoretical Foundations of KABC-II Review of the Scales Step-by-Step Interpretation –With integrated Case Studies Integrating KTEA-II into Interpretation –CHC & Luria Interpretations Integrating QIs into Interpretation Using a Cross Battery Approach

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Dual Theoretical Foundation Luria Term Learning Ability Sequential Processing Simultaneous Processing Planning Ability Mental Processing Index (MPI) CHC Term Long-Term Storage & Retrieval (Glr) Short-Term Memory (Gsm) Fluid-Crystallized Index (FCI) KABC-II Scale Learning/Glr Sequential/Gsm Simultaneous/Gv Name of Planning/Gf Knowledge/Gc Crystallized Ability (Gc) Fluid Reasoning (Gf) Visual Processing (Gv)

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Stratum III: General ability is measured by the KABC-II Fluid-Crystallized Index (FCI) Stratum II: Broad abilities are measured by KABC- II Scales Glr Long- Term Storage & Retrieval g Gsm Short- Term Memory Gv Visual Process- ing Gf Fluid Reason- ing Gc Crystal- lized Ability CHC Theory Applied to KABC-II

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Stratum I: Narrow Abilities — Blue abilities are measured by the KABC II Subtests Associative Memory Learning Abilities Free Recall Memory Ideational Fluency Originality/ Creativity Lexical Knowledge General Information Language Development Listening Ability Information About Culture Induction General Sequential Reasoning Quantitative Reasoning Visual Memory Spatial Relations Visualization Spatial Scanning Closure Speed Memory Span Working Memory Glr Gsm Gv Gf Gc

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Abilities Not Measured by KABC-II Auditory Processing (Ga) Processing Speed (Gs) Reaction Time/Decision Speed (Gt) Reading & Writing (Grw) Quantitative Ability (Gq) Achievement (Measured by KTEA-II) Not Sufficiently Complex

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Luria Theory Applied to KABC-II Block 1 Maintains Attention Block 2 Codes & Stores Information Block 3 Plans & Organizes Behavior Planning/Gf Sequential/Gsm Simultaneous/Gv Learning/Glr

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Mediates attention and concentration. Allows focus of attention. Regulates energy level and tone of cerebral cortex. Recognizes significance of incoming stimuli. Allows receiving and processing of information. Block 1—Maintains Arousal

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Block 2—Codes & Stores Information Establishes connections with Block 3. Integrates incoming sensory information. Analyzes, codes, and stores incoming information via the senses. Uses successive and simultaneous processing.

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Block 3—Plans & Organizes Behavior Involves decision making, generating hypotheses, planning, self-monitoring, and programming. Concerned with overall efficiency of brain functions, and is involved in all complex behavior. Though not directly involved with motor or speech functions, it represents the output or response center of the brain.

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Selecting the Model: Guidelines for Administration Selection must be made before administering the KABC-II and should consider reasons for referral. The CHC model is given priority because Knowledge/Gc is an important aspect of cognitive functioning. The Luria model is preferred when the validity of the global composite would be compromised by including acquired knowledge. Models are selected primarily with “fairness” in mind.

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Selecting the Model: Interpretation Based on Either Theory Interpretation may be based on either theory, irrespective of which model was administered. Administration Interpretation LuriaModel Luria or CHC CHCModel CHC or Luria

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Taking in and holding information, and then using it within a few seconds. Sequential/Gsm Short-Term Memory 6 – 3 2 – 5 – 9 – 4 8 – 9 – 3 – 5 – 2 – 10 Say these numbers just as I do. Number Recall Sequential/Gsm

Solving novel problems by using reasoning abilities such as induction and deduction. Planning/Gf Fluid Reasoning Pattern Reasoning Planning/Gf

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved KABC-II Core Battery - A ge 3 Atlantis Word Order Triangles Conceptual Thinking Face Recognition ----------------------------- Riddles Expressive Vocabulary MPI or FCI composites only Luria CHC

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved KABC-II Core Battery - Ages 4-6 Riddles Expressive Vocabulary Riddles Expressive Vocabulary Riddles Expressive Vocabulary Knowledge/Gc Planning/Gf Triangles Concept Thinking Pattern Reasoning Rover Triangles Concept Thinking Pattern Reasoning Triangles Concept Thinking Face Recognition Simultaneous/ Gv Word Order Number Recall Word Order Number Recall Word Order Number Recall Sequential/Gsm Atlantis Rebus Atlantis Rebus Atlantis Rebus Learning/Glr Age 6Age 5Age 4 Scale 7-9 tests 7-9 tests 8-10 tests Luria/CHC

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved KABC-II Core Battery - Ages 7-18 Riddles Verbal Knowledge Riddles Verbal Knowledge Knowledge/Gc Pattern Reasoning Story Completion Pattern Reasoning Story Completion Planning/Gf Rover Block Counting Rover Triangles Simultaneous/Gv Word Order Number Recall Word Order Number Recall Sequential/Gsm Atlantis Rebus Atlantis Rebus Learning/Glr Ages 13-18Ages 7-12 Scale 8-10 tests 8-10 tests Luria/CHC

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Supplementary Subtests Administer after core subtests Use to explore hypotheses (added measure of core scales) Use for planned comparisons Use as a substitute if a core subtest is spoiled No prescribed sequence with one exception - Delayed Recall. At ages 5 and 13-18, you must administer a supplementary subtest to get the right delay interval. Knowledge/Gc tests are never used to obtain delay interval

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Supplementary Subtests Provide additional measures that have been normed and validated Do not contribute to scores for scales (except to substitute for a spoiled core subtest) Do contribute to the interpretive system and are useful for hypothesis testing (as in cross- battery assessment)

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Supplementary Tests Gestalt Closure Number Recall Verbal Knowledge 3 4 5 6 7-12 13-18 Gestalt Closure Hand Movements Verbal Knowledge Face Recognition Hand Movements Verbal Knowledge Block Counting Gestalt Closure Atlantis Delayed Rebus Delayed Story Completion Hand Movements Verbal Knowledge Block Counting Gestalt Closure Atlantis Delayed Rebus Delayed Hand Movements Block Counting Gestalt Closure Expressive Vocabulary Atlantis Delayed Rebus Delayed Hand Movements Triangles Gestalt Closure Expressive Vocabulary Atlantis Delayed Rebus Delayed

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Essentials of KABC-II Assessment By Kaufman, Lichtenberger, Fletcher-Janzen, & Kaufman Essentials Pages 345-357 The KABC-II Interpretive Worksheet in Appendix A provides a place to record all 6 interpretive steps: Manual Pages 43-55 KABC-II Manual covers first 3 steps in detail (& KABC-II Assist™). © 2005 Wiley

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Two Essential Steps Two Optional Steps Interpreting KABC-II: Steps from Manual vs. Essentials Book KABC-II Manual & Record Form Essentials of KABC-II Assessment Essentials further explains the Fourth Step (Supplemental Subtest Analysis) Essentials adds Step 5 with 5 Clinical Comparisons Essentials adds Step 6 which helps generate further interpretive hypotheses

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Summary of KABC-II Interpretive Steps ESSENTIAL STEPS Step 1. Interpret the global scale index, whether the FCI (CHC model), MPI (Luria model), or Nonverbal Index (NVI) (ages 3-18) Step 2. Interpret the child’s profile of scale indexes to identify strengths and weaknesses, both personal (relative to the child’s overall ability) and normative (compared to children about the same age) (ages 4-18) Essentials Pages 85-87 Record Form Pages 3 & 23

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Summary cont. Step 3A: Initial Learning vs. Delayed Recall— Learning/Glr (Initial) vs. Delayed Recall (ages 5-18) Step 3B: Learning vs. Acquired Knowledge— Learning/Glr vs. Knowledge/Gc (ages 4 – 18) Step 3. Planned Scale Comparisons Step 4. Supplementary Subtest Analysis OPTIONAL STEPS

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Summary cont. Step 5A: Nonverbal Ability (NVI) vs. Verbal Ability (ages 3-18) Step 5B: Problem-Solving Ability vs. Memory & Learning (ages 3-18) Step 5C: Visual Perception of Meaningful Stimuli vs. Abstract Stimuli (ages 4-18) Step 5D: Verbal Response vs. Pointing Response (ages 4 –18) Step 5E: Little or No Motor Response vs. Gross- Motor Response (ages 4 –18) Step 5. Planned Clinical Comparisons OPTIONAL STEPS

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Summary cont. Step 6. Generate Hypotheses to Explain Fluctuations in Two Circumstances: Step 6A: Scales that Are Not Interpretable (ages 4 –18) Step 6B: Supplementary Subtests that Are Inconsistent with Pertinent Core OPTIONAL STEPS

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved KABC-II Interpretive Worksheet Essentials Pages 345-357 Record Form & KABC-II Assist printout provides a place to record first 3 steps Appendix A of Essentials provides a place to record all 6 steps

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Step 1. Interpret the global scale index (FCI, MPI, or NVI) DON’T FORGET Calculate Range of All Index Scores Before Interpreting FCI or MPI Subtract the highest from the lowest Index standard scores If the difference is greater than or equal to 23 points (1 ½ SD) Then do not interpret the FCI or MPI Rather focus interpretation on the four or five indexes For ages 4-18 Essentials Pages 85-87

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Step 1. Interpret the global scale index (FCI, MPI, or NVI) For Age 3, Rule is Different Do not evaluate the interpretability of MPI or FCI During Step 1 Why? No profile of scores is offered before age 4, so global score is the only score to interpret However, if considerable variability exists, consider supplementing KABC-II with other tasks to better determine the child’s diverse cognitive strengths and weaknesses. Essentials Pages 85-87

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved 31 8998 118 80 38 Y N “If no (not less than 23 points), then do not interpret” “Less than 23 pts?” 93 Case Note: Sophia is a fifth grader (age 11:2) with difficulties in writing

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Essentials Pages 85-87 Step 1. Interpret the global scale index (FCI, MPI, or NVI) A. Consult Table D.2 to obtain SS and 90% or 95% confidence interval. Use Table D.4 for PR and Table 5.1 for category. B. If using NVI do not conduct any other interpretive steps. FCI 93 89-99 34 Average Global Scale Index Standard Score 95% confidence interval Percentile Rank Descriptive Category In Sophia’s case, the extreme variability between scales means FCI does not meaningfully summarize global ability

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Interpretive Statement: Sophia displayed considerable variability in her standard scores on the five scales that compose the FCI, with indexes ranging from 80 on Simultaneous/Gv to 118 on Sequential/Gsm. This wide variation in indexes (38 points, which equals more than 2 ½ SDs) renders her FCI meaningless as an estimate of global ability; it is merely the midpoint of greatly varying abilities.

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Ground Rules for Interpreting the KABC-II Interpret a scale index only if performance is consistent on subtests that compose scale (base rate rule <10%) Use.05 level of statistical significance when determining personal strengths/weaknesses Consider differences that are both statistically significant and uncommon (<10%) to be potentially valuable for diagnosis and educational purposes Essentials Page 88

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Interpreting the Results Step 2. Interpret the profile of scale indexes to identify strengths and weaknesses (personal/relative and normative) A. Determine whether each scale is interpretable (unitary). B. Conduct normative analysis (relative to Average range of 85-115) C. Conduct ipsative analysis (relative to child’s mean score) D. Determine if any scales that are personal strengths or weaknesses are infrequent. Essentials pp. 89-90 Essentials pp. 91-92 Essentials pp. 92-93 pp. 93-96

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Analysis of the interpretability of Sophia’s scale indexes Essentials Page 91 Step 2A: Use base rate rule of <10%. See Appendix A or Record Form p. 3 for ages 7-18

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved What to Do with an Uninterpretable Index Provides rich, diagnostic information Identifies uncommon variability Provides divergent vs. convergent data Consider narrow abilities or task differences Use cross-battery assessment to explore Optional Step 6 provides examiners with Guidelines to generate hypotheses about why the subtest scores varied Meaningfulness of Scale may be diminished, but the tests are not invalid. Essentials Page 90 Don’t Forget

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved 118 80 90 95 15 7 13 11 6 6 7 4 1 7 4 Step 2B: Identify if any of the scales are a normative weakness or a normative strength Computation of Sophia’s Normative Strengths and Weaknesses 97 96 107 3 Not Interp.

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved 118 80 90 95 15 7 13 11 6 6 7 4 1 7 4 Step 2C: Identify personal weaknesses or strengths in the scale profile Computation of Sophia’s Personal Strengths and Weaknesses 97 96 107 3 Not Interp. Calculate mean and difference from mean for each interpretable scale. +22 -16 -6

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved 118 80 90 95 15 7 13 11 6 6 7 4 1 7 4 Step 2D: Consult statistical significance and frequency table in Record Form (p. 3) or Manual (p. 23) or Essentials Appendix A (p.346) 97 96 107 3 Not Interp. +22 -16 -6

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Don’t Forget 3.4 Definitions of Indexes that are Key Assets and High Priority Concerns Three Conditions needed for Key Assets Three Conditions needed for High Priority Concerns 1. Normative Strength1. Normative Weakness 2. Personal Strength2. Personal Weakness 3. Infrequent (<10%) Occurrence Essentials Page 95 Summarizing Step 2 Findings

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Interpreting the Results Optional Steps Step 3. Scale Comparisons A. Learning/Glr to Delayed Recall (5-18) B. Learning/Glr to Knowledge/Gc Essentials p. 99-103 Essentials p. 103-104

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved CAUTION Even if some statistically differences prove to be unusually large —all findings from Steps 3 and 5 should be verified with other data to be considered potentially valuable for diagnostic or educational purposes. Essentials Page 99 Key Point for Optional Steps

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Neither Learning/Glr or the Delayed recall score is interpretable Significance & Infrequency are irrelevant in this case Thus, the difference is not calculated Essentials Page 102

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved For this optional step, you can compare each supplementary subtest that was administered with the mean scaled score of the Core subtests on that scale, if the scale is interpretable (see Table 3.6). If a scale is not interpretable (as determined in Step 2A), do not make any comparisons involving supplementary subtests for that scale. Optional Step 4: Supplementary Subtest Analysis (ages 3-18) Essentials Page 104

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved The difference scores listed in Table 3.5 provide base rates at the <10% level (discrepancies that are uncommonly large— occurring in less than 10% of the sample). However, if you are interested in applying more stringent base rates to these comparisons, refer to D.10 in the KABC-II manual. This table in the manual lists base rates at the <5% and <1% levels. Essentials Page 106 Tables for Supplementary Score Analysis

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Step 6B will help develop and verify hypotheses to explain the difference between the core and supplemental Gsm subtests Essentials Page 107 26 13 18 6.5 13 9

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Step 5A: Nonverbal Ability (NVI) vs. Verbal Ability (ages 3-18) Step 5B: Problem-Solving Ability vs. Memory & Learning (ages 3-18) Step 5C: Visual Perception of Meaningful Stimuli vs. Abstract Stimuli (ages 4-18) Step 5D: Verbal Response vs. Pointing Response (ages 4 –18) Step 5E: Little or No Motor Response vs. Gross-Motor Response (ages 4 –18) Optional Step 5. Planned Clinical Comparisons Information Processing Domain: Integration & Storage Information Processing Domain: Input & Output Essentials Page 107

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Appendix B provides tables to calculate standard scores corresponding to sums of subtest scaled scores for the following planned comparison clusters: Delayed Recall, Verbal Ability, Meaningful Stimuli, and Abstract Stimuli. Appendix C provides the necessary data to calculate standard scores for the Problem Solving and Memory and Learning clusters. Appendix D provides the necessary data to calculate standard scores for the Verbal Response, Pointing Response, Little Motor, and Gross Motor clusters. Essentials Appendices

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved  Values for minimum difference between highest and lowest subtest scaled scores that occurred in <10% of sample for each cluster  Values for differences between cluster scores that are statistically sig. or infrequent (also on p. 108) Appendix A The KABC-II Interpretive Worksheet provides

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Sophia’s Step 5A Comparison between Verbal and Nonverbal Ability 11 10 7 4 28 96 7 6 6 10 7 4 36 81 15 Sophia’s verbal abilities are significantly stronger than her nonverbal abilities, although not uncommonly so. Sophia’s nonverbal abilities fell within the Below Average range of functioning & represent a Normative Weakness

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Sophia’s Step 5B comparison 11 6 13 15 9 7 6 10 4 30 83 Sophia’s problem solving skills are in the below average range, a normative weakness Memory & Learning was not a unitary cluster, so the comparison could not be conducted. STOP 7

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Sophia’s Step 5C Comparison- Cannot be conducted 6 79 6 13 10 7 1 13 7 Abstract Stimuli was not a unitary cluster, so the comparison could not be conducted. STOP Sophia’s ability to utilize meaningful stimuli is in the below average range, a normative weakness

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Sophia’s Step 5D Comparison 15 13 10 5 Sophia’s ability to respond verbally was in the above average range – a normative strength STOP 38 117 11 6 7 5 24 87 STOP 30 Sophia’s ability to respond by pointing was at the low end of the average range

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Sophia’s Step 5E Comparison 6 7 10 7 3 Sophia’s gross motor response is in the below average range– a normative weakness 7 1 20 78 STOP 17 91 13 Sophia performed in the average range on tasks that required little or no motor response

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Step 6A: Scales that Are Not Interpretable (ages 4 –18) Step 6B: Supplementary Subtests that Are Inconsistent with Pertinent Core Subtests (ages 3-18) Step 6. Generate Hypotheses to Explain Fluctuations in Two Circumstances:

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Review the findings in Step 2A, in which you determined whether each of the scales was interpretable. If all scales are interpretable, proceed directly to Step 6B. However, if one or more of the Scale Index were found to be uninterpretable in Step 2A (i.e., uncommonly large subtest variability within the scale), then proceed with Step 6A. Determine if Step 6A needs to be conducted

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved First line of attack: Examine the results of Step 5—planned clinical comparisons—to identify possible hypotheses. Second line of attack: Determine how the Core subtests in each scale complement each other (e.g., if they measure different CHC Narrow Abilities, that might help explain why the child scored at different levels on them) Third line of attack: Examine QIs, behavioral observations in general, and pertinent background information to generate possible hypotheses. Three approaches for developing hypotheses to explain the substantial intra-scale variability: Essentials Page 121

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Sophia’s Learning/Glr Index was uninterpretable due to the extreme discrepancy between Rebus (13) and Atlantis (6). Two planned clinical comparisons may provide hypotheses for the Atlantis-Rebus variability: 1) Meaningful vs. Abstract Stimuli 2) Verbal Response versus Pointing Response.

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved 1) Meaningful vs. Abstract Stimuli –Meaningful Stimulus cluster comprises Atlantis (6) and Story Completion (7) –Abstract Stimulus cluster comprises Triangles (6) Rebus (13) and Pattern Reasoning (10) Abstract Stimuli was not a unitary cluster, so the comparison could not be conducted. Sophia’s ability to utilize meaningful stimuli is in the below average range (79), a normative weakness

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved 2. Verbal Response vs. Pointing Response Verbal Response cluster (117) comprises – Rebus (13), Number Recall (15), and Riddles (11) Pointing response cluster (87) comprises –Atlantis (6), Word Order (11), and Verbal Knowledge (7) Sophia’s ability to respond verbally was in the above average range – a normative strength Sophia’s ability to respond by pointing was at the low end of the average range

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Steps 6A and 6B rely mostly on: detective work observational skills theoretical understanding of what the scales measure The generation of hypotheses and support for these hypotheses from multiple sources of data, therefore, are necessarily more clinical than empirical. Always keep in mind

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved How the Learning/Glr Subtests Complement Each Other (Ages 4–18) YESNO Does sequence of stimuli matter? YESNO Context important for success? YESNO Uses meaningful auditory stimuli? NOYES Uses meaningful visual stimuli? NOYES Provides feedback for errors? RebusAtlantis

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Sequential/Gsm Scale—How the Core Subtests Complement Each Other (Ages 4–18) NOYESIntegration of auditory & visual stimuli? Long Number Series Interference TaskAchieves Difficulty? NumbersWordsNature of Content? VocalPointingNature of Output? Number RecallWord Order

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved NOYESRequires flexibility to shift tasks? NOYES (interference task) Measures the CHC Gsm narrow ability— Working Memory (MW)? Number RecallWord Order Sequential/Gsm Scale—How the Core Subtests Complement Each Other (Ages 4–18)

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved CHC Narrow Abilities for the Sequential/Gsm Scale Hand Movements Number Recall Word Order CHC Narrow Ability Gv Visual Memory (MV) Working Memory (MW) Gsm Memory Span (MS)

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Simultaneous/Gv Scale—How the Subtests Complement Each Other (Ages 3–4) MemoryProblem solving Problem Solving or Memory? Pointing Gross- Motor Nature of Response? MeaningfulAbstract & Meaningful Abstract Nature of Visual Stimuli? Face Recognition Conceptual Thinking Triangles

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Face Recognition Conceptual ThinkingTriangles CHC Narrow Ability Gf Induction (I) Visual Memory (VM) Spatial Relations (SR) Gv Visualization (VZ) CHC Narrow Abilities for the Simultaneous/Gv Scale (3-4)

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Rover (age 6) Pattern Reasoning Conceptual ThinkingTriangles CHC Narrow Ability General Sequential Reasoning (RG) Gf Induction (I) Spatial Scanning (SS) Spatial Relations (SR) Gv Visualization (VZ) CHC Narrow Abilities for the Simultaneous/Gv Scale (5-6)

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Gestalt Closure Block CountingTrianglesRover CHC Narrow Ability Gq Math Achievement (A3) Gf General Sequential Reasoning (RG) Closure Speed (CS) Spatial Scanning (SS) Spatial Relations (SR) Gv Visualization (VZ) SupplementaryCore Battery CHC Narrow Abilities for the Simultaneous/Gv Scale (7-12)

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Gestalt ClosureTriangles Block CountingRover CHC Narrow Ability Gq Math Achievement (A3) Gf General Sequential Reasoning (RG) Closure Speed (CS) Spatial Scanning (SS) Spatial Relations (SR) Gv Visualization (VZ) SupplementaryCore Battery CHC Narrow Abilities for the Simultaneous/Gv Scale (13-18)

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Planning/Gf Scale—How the Subtests Complement Each Other (Ages 7–18) YESNO Uses manipulatives? YESNO Visual-motor response? YESNO Meaningful visual stimuli? Story Completion Pattern Reasoning

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Gv Visualization (VZ) Gc General Information (K0) Gf Induction (I) General Sequential Reasoning (RG) Story CompletionPattern ReasoningCHC Narrow Ability CHC Narrow Abilities for the Planning/Gf Scale (7-18)

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Knowledge/Gc Scale—How the Core Subtests Complement Each Other (Ages 3–6) Note—Riddles has verbal and pictorial stimuli for its easiest items. Visual-vocalAuditory-visual Channel of communication? PictorialVerbal Type of stimuli? Expressive VocabularyRiddles

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Knowledge/Gc Scale—How the Core Subtests Complement Each Other (Ages 7–18) PointingVocal Type of response? YESNO Measures auditory- visual integration? Visual + auditoryAuditory Type of stimuli? Verbal Knowledge Riddles

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Gf General Sequential Reasoning (RG) General Information (KO) Language Development (LD) Gc Lexical Knowledge (VL) Expressive VocabularyVerbal Knowledge Riddles CHC Narrow Ability CHC Narrow Abilities for the Knowledge/Gc Scale

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Sophia’s Uninterpretable Learning/Glr Scale YESNO Does sequence of stimuli matter? YESNO Context important for success? YESNO Uses meaningful auditory stimuli? NOYES Uses meaningful visual stimuli? NOYES Provides feedback for errors? Rebus: 13Atlantis: 6 Step 5C Meaningful vs. Abstract stimuli wasn’t fruitful, but CHC narrow abilities are the same for Atlantis and Rebus—they are both measures of Associative Memory—so CHC theory will not provide any useful hypotheses for explaining Sophia’s uninterpretable Learning/Glr Index.

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved When conducting the third line of attack to help explain an uninterpretable Index: Review the Qualitative Indictors for the highest and lowest subtests in the scale see if there is evidence that noncognitive or extraneous behaviors differentially influenced performance on the two subtests. Step 6A: Third Line Of Attack Essentials Page 131

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Review your notes in the margins of the record form Identify any disruptive behaviors that were evident during the administration of the subtests that yielded the lowest scaled scores Identify any enhancing behaviors during the subtests on which the child performed well perseverance, extremely focused attention Step 6A: Third Line Of Attack Essentials Page 131

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved The goal: generate as many hypotheses as possible to explain uninterpretable Indexes. After generating numerous hypotheses, try to identify the best ones based on multiple pieces of corroborating data. When necessary, administer additional tests or subtests. Step 6A: Third Line Of Attack Essentials Page 131

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Third Line of Attack: Sophia’s Glr QI’s do not help reveal any noticeable explanations for the differences between Rebus and Atlantis. On both subtests: –Very focused, and didn’t hesitate to respond when uncertain. –Not impulsive during either test, and seemed to sustain attention.

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Third Line of Attack: Sophia’s Glr Unique Beh. Observation: –Sophia appeared to enjoy Rebus, making comments such as “This is fun, it’s like cracking a code.” –She used the context in the Rebus items as part of her strategy for solving the problems: “If I can’t remember the word, is it okay if I guess from the other words?” –Sophia seemed overwhelmed by the multiple unorganized stimuli in Atlantis

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Third Line of Attack: Sophia’s Glr Background information also reveals –Sophia loves detective stories. –Plays a CSI game often at home. –Enjoys typing “secret code emails” to her friends (although she does not like hand-writing notes or letters).

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved The process of conducting Step 6B is similar to that of conducting Step 6A. To determine if Step 6B needs be conducted, review the findings in Step 4, which determined whether each of the supplemental subtests was significantly different than the mean of the core subtests. Step 6B: Generate Hypotheses to Explain Supplementary Subtests that Are Inconsistent with Pertinent Core Subtests (ages 3-18) Essentials Page 132

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Step 6B: Generate Hypotheses to Explain Supplementary Subtests that are Inconsistent with the mean of Core Subtests First Line of Attack: Determine which supplemental subtests are significantly different from the Core Subtests

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Step 6B: First Line of Attack for Sophia’s Supplementary Subtests that were inconsistent with the Core Hand Movements (6 lower than Core of 13) –Examine Step 5E: Gross Motor ability (78) significantly lower than Little Motor Response (91)

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Why a supplementary subtest differs significantly from its core subtests: See Rapid References 3.4, 3.5, and 3.7 (in second line of attack). Rapid References 3.3 and 3.6 are not needed for this step because Learning/Glr and Planning/Gf do not have any supplementary subtests. Step 6B The second and third lines of attack that are of primary importance for generating hypotheses Essentials Page 133

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Step 6B Second and third lines of attack Sophia’s Hand Movements scaled score of 6 significantly below pertinent Core subtests HM is within the Below Average Range, but her Sequential/Gsm Index of 118 was a Key Asset for her.

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Step 6B Second and third lines of attack Sophia’s Hand Movements scaled score of 6 significantly below pertinent Core subtests Consider that she had a High Priority Concern in visual processing, Evidenced by Simultaneous/Gv Index of 80, Hypothesis: Hand Movements measures the Gv Narrow Ability of Visual Memory.

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Step 6B Second and third lines of attack Sophia’s Hand Movements scaled score of 6 significantly below pertinent Core subtests Sophia undoubtedly scored significantly lower on Hand Movements than on other short-term memory tasks because her deficit in visual processing prevented her from performing at an Above Average level in her area of strength.

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Evidence-based Background for QIs observed during testing and other clinical situations Effects of Anxiety Cognitive Domain Affected KABC-II Subtests Affected Working memory Short term memory Strategy formation Number Recall Hand Movements Word Order Atlantis Rebus Note. Although Anxiety may affect these KABC-II subtests, poor performance on these subtests is not necessarily indicative of problems with anxiety. Essentials Page 149

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Evidence-based Background for QIs observed during testing and other clinical situations Effects of Executive Functioning & Attention Cognitive Domain AffectedKABC-II Subtests Affected Attention Executive Functioning Working memory Number Recall Rover Concept Formation Pattern Reasoning Story Completion Riddles Note. Although problems with executive functioning and attention may affect these KABC- II subtests, poor performance on these subtests is not necessarily indicative of disorders associated with poor executive functioning and attention. Essentials Page 152 Word Order Rebus Atlantis Hand Movements

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Evidence-based Background for QIs observed during testing and other clinical situations Effects of Cultural Issues Cognitive Domain Affected KABC-II Subtests Affected Crystallized abilitiesVerbal Knowledge Riddles Expressive Vocabulary Note. Although cultural issues may affect these KABC-II subtests, poor performance on these subtests does not necessarily indicate that cultural issues have depressed scores on these subtests. Essentials Page 155

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved The lists of abilities and processes in Rapid References 4.3-4.20 are not intended to be limiting. They are intended to stimulate original observations about the child you are assessing. Other plausible abilities can easily be enumerated for each subtest based on a variety of armchair, clinical, and empirical analyses of the original K-ABC tasks, Wechsler subtests, and related cognitive tasks. The lists for each subtest are geared toward the two theories— Luria and CHC—that form the foundation of the KABC-II, have empirical validation, or provide potentially valuable clinical information about the influence of behavior on test performance. Subtest-By-Subtest Qualitative/Process Analysis of the 18 Subtests Essentials Pages 156-166

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved KABC-II & KTEA-II: Like Hand and Glove Conormed Similar, cohesive theoretical basis Similar interpretive strategies Tests complement each other Together provide the foundation of a comprehensive assessment

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Quantitative Analysis Coupled with Theoretical Analysis Correlational analyses offer valuable information about the integration of the tests CHC theory also provides valuable ways of integrating KABC-II and KTEA-II Finally, a second theoretical approach – Luria’s model -- offers another mechanism for analyzing and integrating the tests.

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved KABC-II Scale Index Correlations with KTEA-II Composites (ages 7-18) KTEA-II Composite KABC-II Scale TotalReadingMath Written Language Oral Language Learning/Glr.58.55.49.53.48 Sequential/Gsm.50.48.44 Simultaneous/Gv.54.47.53.40.43 Planning/Gf.63.56.59.51 Knowledge/Gc.75.71.53.59.68 Highest correlate of each KTEA-II Achievement Composite Second-Highest correlate of each KTEA-II Achievement Composite

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved The strong relationship between the Knowledge/Gc Index and all areas of achievement for school-age children and adolescents was anticipated, given that the scale is designed to measure the depth and breadth of knowledge acquired from one’s culture (including schooling). The good correlations with achievement for the new KABC-II scales—Planning/Gf and Learning/Glr—attest to the importance in the classroom of the ability to solve problems and learn new material during a clinical evaluation of general cognitive ability. Meaning of the KABC-II – KTEA-II Correlations

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Simultaneous/Gv Index had the highest correlation (r =.65) with KTEA-II Comprehensive Achievement. Knowledge/Gc (.60) and Sequential/Gsm (.59) in a virtual deadlock for second best. For ages 4 ½ - 6, when school skills are emerging, the amount of knowledge a child has already acquired is secondary to the cognitive processes that are needed to learn to read, write, compute, and speak KABC-II – KTEA-II Correlations Under Age 7

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved The KABC-II and KTEA-II were designed to sample a number of Broad and Narrow Abilities defined by the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) model These tests together measure 8 of the 10 CHC Broad Abilities and about 33 Narrow Abilities (Flanagan & Ortiz, 2001). Integrating the KABC-II & KTEA-II: Theory

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Stratum III: General ability is measured by the KABC-II Fluid-Crystallized Index (FCI) Stratum II: Broad abilities are measured by KABC- II Scales Glr Long- Term Storage & Retrieval g Gsm Short- Term Memory Gv Visual Process- ing Gf Fluid Reason- ing Gc Crystal- lized Ability CHC Theory Applied to KABC-II

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Stratum II: Broad abilities are measured by KTEA-II Scales Gq Quantitative Knowledge Three Additional Broad Abilities Measured with KTEA-II Ga Auditory Processing Grw Reading and Writing

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Stratum I: Narrow Abilities — measured by the KABC II Subtests Associative Memory Learning Abilities Lexical Knowledge General Information Language Development Induction General Sequential Reasoning Visual Memory Spatial Relations Visualization Spatial Scanning Closure Speed Memory Span Working Memory Glr Gsm Gv Gf Gc

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Stratum I: Narrow Abilities — measured by KTEA II Subtests Naming Facility Word Fluency Associat. Fluency Meaningful Memory Glr Listening Ability Oral Production & Fluency Grammatical Sensitivity Gc Quantitative Reasoning Gf Math Achievement Math Knowledge Gq Reading Decoding Reading Compreh. Verbal Language Compreh. Spelling Ability Writing Ability Grw Phonetic Cdg- Analysis Phonetic Cdg- Synth. Ga Engl. Usage Knowledge Reading Speed

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Sequential Processing, Short-Term Memory, Phonological Awareness, and Listening Comprehension KABC-II Sequential/Gsm Core subtests: As a primary measure of auditory short-term memory, these subtests help the examiner evaluate the critical listening skills that children need in the classroom. KTEA-II Phonological Awareness measures sound-symbol connections but because of the way it is set up, also measures auditory short-term memory and sequencing skills. KTEA-II Listening Comprehension also supports the Sequential/Gsm scale because it straddles auditory short-term memory, auditory working memory, and auditory long-term encoding.

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved The Simultaneous/Gv Scale and Written Expression KTEA-II Written Expression can be used to supplement the KABC-II Simultaneous/Gv scale Contrast performance on KABC-II Simultaneous/Gv subtests to the visual motor aspects of written expression activities. The visual motor activities on the KABC-II subtests like Rover or Triangles may be related to aspects of written expression. These comparisons may help you figure out why a child has poor handwriting, or poor visual organization on writing tasks.

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Planning, Reasoning, and Executive Functions: How They Apply to Rover and Rebus and to Several KTEA-II Subtests Rover measures both Gf and Gv Narrow Abilities, and demands intact executive functions for success. If a child has poor planning or executive functions, performance on this subtest is severely impacted. Rebus factorially belongs on the Glr/Learning Scale of the KABC- II, it can also assist in the exploration of the child’s fluid reasoning ability measured on the Planning/Gf scale. Written Expression, Reading Comprehension, Oral Expression, and Listening Comprehension all require "higher levels of cognition" (Sattler, 2001), "cognitive load" (Raney, 1993), or "higher-complex abilities."

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Auditory Processing (Ga) and Several Auditory Tasks on the KABC-II and KTEA-II KTEA-II Listening Comprehension and three KABC-II subtests (Riddles, Number Recall, Word Order) are dependent, to some extent, on the CHC Ga Broad Ability. These subtests still all use auditory input as the main processing vehicle and that, by nature, is serial and sequential (but are not primarily Ga subtests). Listening Comprehension, in particular, is a supportive subtest for Ga because it measures the kind of listening comprehension that students must do in school

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Summary Strong theoretical and correlational links between KABC-II and KTEA-II Using both with yield a fruitful examination of a child’s cognitive abilities and how they translate into academic skills Essentials Pages 246-250

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Composite/SubtestStandard Score Percentile Rank Reading Composite9230 Letter & Word Recognition9434 Reading Comprehension9025 Decoding Composite9127 Nonsense Word Decoding8719 Sound-Symbol Composite8821 Phonological Awareness8923 Reading Fluency Composite8923 Word Recognition Fluency9025 Decoding Fluency8821 Sophia’s KTEA-II Scores

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Composite/SubtestStandard Score Percentile Rank Mathematics Composite9127 Math Concepts & Applications9434 Math Computation8923 Oral Language Composite9639 Listening Comprehension9434 Oral Expression9845 Written Language Composite702 Written Expression713 Spelling744 Sophia’s KTEA-II Scores

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Diagnostic Impressions of Sophia Sophia displays significant deficits in the area of visual processing Her deficit in this basic psychological process, coupled with her deficits in the area of written expression and spelling, have led to the development of a Disorder of Written Expression.

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Diagnostic Impressions of Sophia Throughout the testing, Sophia’s written expression was sparse, she wrote in a labored manner, and made vocabulary, punctuation, and grammatical errors. Although her oral language appeared intact, her deficits in writing have greatly impacted her motivation & school achievement.

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Diagnostic Impressions of Sophia Her area of deficit requires intense and immediate intervention, both to keep her from falling further behind her peers, and to limit the damaging effects of low self esteem and poor motivation. –Word processing –Decrease visual-motor demands –Extra time for written assignments –Don’t requiring copying assignment from board –Incentive program to motivate Sophia to increase writing quantity –Other specific recs from Mather & Jaffe (2002)

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Supplementing the KABC-II Using Cross-Battery Methods Essentials Pages 268-280 Using CHC Cross Battery approach, you can approximate the total range of broad abilities more adequately than any single intelligence battery (Carroll, 1997) Kaufman (2000): The CHC CB approach can serve to elevate test interpretation to a higher level, to add theory to psychometrics and to thereby improve the quality of the psychometric assessment of intelligence

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Supplementing the KABC-II Using Cross-Battery Methods Essentials Pages 268-280 Cross-Battery approach is used to augment KABC-II assessments by allowing for: 1)greater breadth in the measurement of broad abilities (e.g., adding Ga and Gs to KABC-II assessments) and 2) greater depth in the measurement of broad abilities (e.g., adding qualitatively different measures of narrow abilities within broad ability domains).

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved 5 Guiding Principles of CB Approach 1.Select tests that have been classified through an acceptable method 2.Include two or more qualitatively different narrow ability indicators for each CHC domain to ensure proper construct representation 3.Select tests that were developed and normed with in a few years of one another to minimize the effects of spurious differences between tests scores attributable to the Flynn effect

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved 5 Guiding Principles of CB Approach 4.Select tests from the smallest number of batteries to minimize the effect of spurious differences between test scores that may be attributable to difft norm samples 5.Use clusters from a single battery whenever possible

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved The Steps of KABC-II Cross-Battery Assessment Step 1. Determine whether assessment of Ga and Gs is necessary or desired. Step 2. Determine whether there is a need to administer supplemental KABC-II subtests. Step 3. Determine whether it is necessary or desirable to achieve more in-depth measurement of broad cognitive abilities assessed by the KABC-II. Step 4. Determine whether the measurement of a specific or narrow ability is necessary or desirable. Essentials Page 274

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved If Ga is necessary to assess, such as in a referral for reading difficulties in a young child, then the KTEA-II phonological processing test may be administered. If Gs is necessary to assess, then you may administer the Gs subtests from the WJ III or WISC-IV Cross-Battery Step 1. Determine whether assessment of Ga and Gs is necessary or desired. Essentials Pages 274-276

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Interpret a cluster only when the child’s performance on the subtests comprising the cluster is consistent (or common) indicating a unitary ability For subtests derived from actual norms, use existing test’s guidelines For subtests derived from averaging subtests use McGrew & Flanagan (1998) and Flanagan & Ortiz’s (2001) guidelines (next slide) Cross-Battery Step 1. Guidelines for deriving and interpreting CHC Clusters Essentials Pages 274-276

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved McGrew & Flanagan (1998) and Flanagan & Ortiz’s (2001) guidelines Cross-Battery Step 1. Guidelines for deriving and interpreting CHC Clusters Essentials Pages 274-276 1.Convert subtest scores to scale having mean of 100 & SD of 15 2.Report subtest scores with CI of ± 7 (McGrew & Flanagan, 1998) 3.If the CI for the subtests overlap, then the ability presumed to underlie the cluster is considered unitary. If they do not touch or overlap, then the ability is considered nonunitary, and shouldn’t be interpreted. 4.Report clusters (both broad & narrow) with a CI of ± 5

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved McGrew & Flanagan (1998) and Flanagan & Ortiz’s (2001) guidelines Cross-Battery Step 1. Guidelines for deriving and interpreting CHC Clusters Essentials Pages 274-276 1.If an index is uninterpretable, determine whether a general conclusion may be made about the child’s performance 2.If all subtest scaled scores are ≤ 8 or ≥ 12, a statement may be made about performance 3.For example, Rover = 8; Triangles = 18 ….However, it is clear that Andrea’s Gv ability is a notable integrity for her because her performance on the tasks that comprise the Simultaneous/Gv index ranged from Average/Normal Limits to Upper Extreme/Normative Weakness

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Whenever the lower of the two subtest scaled scores comprising an index is a normative weakness (i.e., a scaled score 10), regardless of whether the Index represents a unitary ability. Cross-Battery Step 2. Determine whether there is a need to administer supplemental KABC-II subtests. Essentials Pages 276-278

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved John (age 8): Riddles = 5; Verbal Knowledge = 13 8-point variability in Knowledge/Gc subtests Thus, administer the Supplemental Expressive Vocabulary Cross-Battery Step 2. Determine whether there is a need to administer supplemental KABC-II subtests. Essentials Pages 276-278 1.Determine whether Riddles and Expressive Vocabulary are a unitary construct 2.If unitary, calculate the Knowledge/Gc Index based on these two subtests (Table D.2) 3.If not unitary, determine whether Expressive Vocabulary and Verbal Knowledge represent a unitary construct 4.If Verb. Knowledge & Expressive Vocab. Unitary, then calculate the Knowledge/Gc index based on those

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Glr is underrepresented on the core battery. You may administer the KABC-II delayed recall subtests (see interpretive Step 3A in Chapter 3) Or the KTEA-II Glr subtests (e.g., Listening Comprehension, Naming Facility/RAN, and Associational Fluency). You may also administer Glr tests from the WJ III or from other more specialized batteries, such as the Children’s Memory Scale (Cohen, 1997) or the CTOPP Cross-Battery Step 3. Determine whether it is necessary or desirable to achieve more in-depth measurement of broad cognitive abilities assessed by the KABC-II. Essentials Page 278

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Naming Facility, a narrow Glr ability, and Phonetic Coding, a narrow Ga ability, show substantial and consistent, positive correlations with basic reading skills Cross-Battery Step 4. Determine whether the measurement of a specific or narrow ability is necessary or desirable. Essentials Pages 279-280

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved A Visual Memory Cluster may be particularly informative when there is an observed reading difficulty that is not explained by difficulties in phonemic awareness or rapid automatized naming. Cross-Battery Step 4. Determine whether the measurement of a specific or narrow ability is necessary or desirable. Essentials Pages 279-280

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Calculation of a Reading Fluency cluster may provide an indication of the degree to which an individual has automatized basic reading skills (e.g., decoding). Deficient reading fluency can be compared to other fluency ability to determine whether fluency is impaired more globally or only as it related to reading decoding. A deficit in the basic psychological process of Processing Speed/Gs may be suggested with poor performance on Glr- Naming Facility tasks Cross-Battery Step 4. Determine whether the measurement of a specific or narrow ability is necessary or desirable. Essentials Pages 279-280

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Cross-Battery Summary The Cross-Battery Steps for supplementing the Core KABC-II Subtests with additional subtests can improve upon the breadth and depth of measurement of cognitive abilities These additional supplements can be deemed necessary upon review of additional KABC-II data The steps will help further test hypotheses about variation in a child’s KABC-II score profile.

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Identifying Info Julia A., Age 5:5, preschool Referral Concerns Julia has shown slow development & her grandmother & teacher have expressed concern about her attention and behavior Pediatrician referred for developmental evaluation to determine appropriate resources.

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Background Information Grandmother has custody Mother likely used illicit substances during pregnancy Chronic ear infections through age 2 Some seizure-like symptoms – no neurological evaluation yet Behavioral problems – destructive at home, gets into everything

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Background Cont. Does not know letters & numbers Attends preschool 3 days Hits classmates, scribbles on own face, difficulty sitting still, short attention span Few friends No other known medical problems

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Behavioral Observations Good eye contact Rapport easily established – no separation difficulties from grandma Spoke in full sentences with some articulation problems Difficulty attending to instructions Required extra teaching of the task

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Behavioral Observations Cont. Much extraneous movement Required a lot of redirection Oppositional behavior Immature pencil grip Very social Desired continued social interaction & playing with the examiner

31 6777 92 57 35 Y N “If no, do not interpret” “Less than 23 pts?” 72

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Essentials Pages 85-87 Step 1. Interpret the global scale index (FCI, MPI, or NVI) Julia displayed considerable variability in her standard scores on the four scales that compose the FCI, with indexes ranging from 92 on Learning/Glr to 57 on Sequential/Gsm. This wide variation in indexes (35 points, which equals more than 2 SDs) renders her FCI meaningless as an estimate of global ability; it is merely the midpoint of greatly varying abilities.

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Step 2A: Determine whether each scale is interpretable using a base rate criterion of <10% 57 76 92 88 7 7 9 9 0 6 8 6 7 1 1 3 The Sequential/Gsm scale cannot be interpreted because of the raw score of zero on Number Recall Manual p. 37: If there are not at least 2 subtests with raw scores greater than zero, do not interpret that scale index

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved 57 76 92 88 7 7 9 9 0 6 8 6 7 1 1 3 Step 2B: Identify if any of the scales are a normative weakness or a normative strength Computation of Julia’s Normative Strengths and Weaknesses

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved 57 76 92 88 7 7 9 9 0 6 8 6 7 1 1 3 Step 2C: Identify personal weaknesses or strengths in the scale profile Calculate mean and difference from mean for each interpretable scale. +14 +10 78 -21 -2

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved 57 76 92 88 7 7 9 9 0 6 8 6 7 1 1 3 Step 2D: Consult statistical significance and frequency table in Record Form (p. 3) or Manual (p. 23) or Essentials Appendix A (p.346) +14 +10 78 -21 -2 <10% <5% Although the Sequential/Gsm difference from the mean occurs infrequencly, the scale still cannot be interpreted because of the raw score of zero on Number Recall

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Don’t Forget 3.4 Definitions of Indexes that are Key Assets and High Priority Concerns Three Conditions needed for Key Assets Three Conditions needed for High Priority Concerns 1. Normative Strength1. Normative Weakness 2. Personal Strength2. Personal Weakness 3. Infrequent (<10%) Occurrence Essentials Page 95 Summarizing Step 2 Findings Knowledge/Gc (88) meets 2 nd 1 Sequential/Gsm (77) meets 3 Don’t Interpret Gsm Learning/Glr (92) meets 2 nd two

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Interpreting the Results Optional Steps Step 3. Scale Comparisons A. Learning/Glr to Delayed Recall (5-18) B. Learning/Glr to Knowledge/Gc Essentials p. 99-103 Essentials p. 103-104 Delayed Recall subtests were not administered to Julia

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Difference needed for significance (p<.05) = 12+ Difference needed for 10% base rate = 25+ Julia’s ability to learn new material does not differ significantly from her acquisition of facts and verbal concepts. 92 88 9 9 8 6 1 3 4 Y N

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved 196.3 157.5 4 5 2.3 1.3 8.5 The supplementary subtests did not differ significantly from the mean of the Core subtests Her Gsm scale was not interpretable, so the Step 4 comparisons with Supplementary Hand Movements subtest cannot be conducted

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Julia’s Step 5A Comparison between Verbal and Nonverbal Ability 6 9 8 3 23 87 7 6 5 6 2 5 26 61 26 Julia’s verbal abilities are significantly stronger than her nonverbal abilities, and it is uncommon to find a difference this size in the normal population Julia’s nonverbal abilities fell within the Lower Extreme range of functioning & represent a Normative Weakness

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Julia’s Step 5B comparison 4 9 8 1 8 6 7 6 1 22 19 76 71 5 Julia’s problem solving skills are comparable to her memory and learning abilities – they appear equally developed Julia’s memory and learning abilities & problem solving abilities fell within the Below Average range & represent a Normative Weakness

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Julia’s Step 5C Comparison- Cannot be conducted 9 5 -- 6 8 6 This comparison cannot be conducted because the supplementary subtest, Story Completion, was not administered.

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved 196.3 157.5 4 5 2.3 1.3 8.5 None of Julia’s supplementary subtests differed significantly from the mean of the Core subtests, so Step 6 B does not need to be conducted Determine if Step 6B needs to be conducted: First Line of Attack – Check Step 4 Results STOP

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Integrating Julia’s QIs Distractibility, difficulties attending, and poor attention to detail negatively affected her performance e.g., Hand Movements – would imitate a single gesture 2-3 times Number Recall – could remember 2 numbers, but would add several additional numbers On Conceptual Thinking was distractible, difficulty attending to directions Better attention when information presented verbally and visually and was continually repeated (e.g., Learning/Glr scale)

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Summary of Julia’s KABC-II Results FCI not interpretable due to variability between Learning/Glr of 92 and Sequential/Gsm of 57 3 of 4 Scales were interpretable (Sequential/Gsm not) Julia functions in the Average range in her ability to learn new material and level of acquired knowledge (e.g., Learning/Glr = 92 & Knowledge/Gc = 88) Her verbal knowledge was a personal strength Her long-term storage and retrieval was also a personal strength

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Julia’s Results Continued… Julia’s memory abilities & problem solving abilities are equally deficient and fell within the Below Average range, representing a Normative Weakness (attentional difficulties and distractibility had a negative influence on these abilities) Julia’s verbal abilities are significantly stronger than her nonverbal abilities, and it is uncommon to find a difference this size in the normal population Julia’s nonverbal abilities fell within the Lower Extreme range of functioning & represent a Normative Weakness Difficulties with fine motor coordination were also evident on the VMI-4 and were reported from teacher and grandmother

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Julia’s Recommendations Referrals for evals – neurologist, OT, speech & hearing Decrease fine motor demands to reduce frustration Increase level of structure in Julia’s home and school Preschool teacher- increase positive reinforcement Increase structure in home, clearly delineate rules, increase positive reinforcement Behavioral support & training for grandmother

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Identifying Info Keenan F., Age 9:2, 3 rd Grade Referral Concerns Mr. & Mrs. F wanted to better understand Keenan’s difficulties with reading & spelling Concerned that his current school placement may not be the most appropriate environment for him.

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Background Information Unremarkable developmental hx Articulation difficulties requiring speech therapy from ages 5 to 7 Reading problems emerged in Kindergarten Tutor states he has difficulties in word attack, irregular vowels, vocabulary, comprehension Writing is also difficult

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Behavioral Observations Good eye contact Rapport easily established Motivated to perform well Eager to please Desired structure Continually asked questions to obtain more specifics

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Behavioral Observations Cont. Cooperative Good tolerance for frustration Some distractibility, but not outside of normal range. Struggled with writing – frequent erasures, many misspellings. Problem solving style: verbal mediation, reflective

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Essentials Pages 85-87 Step 1. Interpret the global scale index (FCI, MPI, or NVI) A. Consult Table D.2 to obtain SS and 90% or 95% confidence interval. Use Table D.4 for PR and Table 5.1 for category. B. If using NVI do not conduct any other interpretive steps. FCI 87 82-92 19 Average Global Scale Index Standard Score 95% confidence interval Percentile Rank Descriptive Category In the case of Keenan, the extreme variability between scales means FCI is not a meaningful summary

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Step 2B: Identify if any of the scales are a normative weakness or a normative strength Computation of Keenan’s Normative Strengths and Weaknesses 77 90 86 90 108 6 12 8 10 12 6 5 7 7 11 0 7 1 3 1

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Step 2C: Identify personal weaknesses or strengths in the scale profile Computation of Keenan’s Personal Strengths and Weaknesses 77 90 86 90 108 6 12 8 10 12 6 5 7 7 11 0 7 1 3 1 Calculate mean and difference from mean for each interpretable scale. 90 13 4 0 18

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Step 2D: Consult statistical significance and frequency table in Record Form (p. 3) or Manual (p. 23) or Essentials Appendix A (p.346) 77 90 86 90 108 6 12 8 10 12 6 5 7 7 11 0 7 1 3 1 90 13 4 0 18

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Don’t Forget 3.4 Definitions of Indexes that are Key Assets and High Priority Concerns Three Conditions needed for Key Assets Three Conditions needed for High Priority Concerns 1. Normative Strength1. Normative Weakness 2. Personal Strength2. Personal Weakness 3. Infrequent (<10%) Occurrence Essentials Page 95 Summarizing Step 2 Findings Knowledge/Gc (108) meets 2 nd 2 Sequential/Gsm (77) meets 1 st 2

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Keenan’s abilities in learning new information and scoring and retrieving that information are equally developed. Difference needed for 10% base rate = 16+ Difference needed for significance (p<.05) = 13+

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Difference needed for significance (p<.05) = 12+ Difference needed for 10% base rate = 24+ Keenan’s ability to learn new material differs significantly from his acquisition of facts and verbal concepts, but not unusually so.

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved If Gv had been interpretable, Step 6B would help develop and verify hypotheses to explain the difference between the core and supplemental Gv subtests His Gv scale was not interpretable, so the Step 4 comparisons with Supplementary Gv subtests cannot be conducted

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Keenan’s Step 5A Comparison between Verbal and Nonverbal Ability This comparison cannot be conducted because the supplementary subtest, Expressive Vocabulary, was not administered.

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Keenan’s Step 5B comparison 6 8 7 6 2 12 5 7 10 7 27 34 89 78 11 Keenan’s problem solving skills are significantly stronger than his memory and learning abilities, although it is not uncommon to find a difference this size in the normal population Keenan’s memory and learning abilities fell within the Below Average range & represent a Normative Weakness

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Keenan’s Step 5C Comparison- Cannot be conducted 8 -- 10 5 7 7 This comparison cannot be conducted because the supplementary subtest, Face Recognition, was not administered.

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Keenan’s Step 5D Comparison 6 8 12 6 7 11 6 5 24 26 8791 4 Keenan performed equally well on tasks that required verbal responses and those that required pointing responses

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved 7-18 His Gv scale was not interpretable, but either was this clinical comparison because of variability between the subtests comprising “Little Motor Response” Age Core Subtests Relevant to the Clusters 4

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved A review of the QIs for the highest (Rover) and lowest (Triangles) subtests in Simultaneous/Gv scale showed no evidence that noncognitive or extraneous behaviors differentially influenced performance on the two subtests. There were no disruptive behaviors during either subtest, although Keenan was a slow & careful processor, which negatively impacted his Triangles score. He was able to complete the difficult items on Triangles, but not within the time limits. Some enhancing behaviors were present on both subtests – good attention, reflective problem solving style, good tolerance for frustration, he persevered. At this point, Keenan’s Gv subtest scores appear to fluctuate without any discernable pattern. Findings from Keenan’s Step 6A:

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved The process of conducting Step 6B is similar to that of conducting Step 6A. To determine if Step 6B needs be conducted, review the findings in Step 4, which determined whether each of the supplemental subtests was significantly different than the mean of the core subtests. In Keenan’s case the Step 4 results showed that his Gv scale was not interpretable, so the Step 4 analyses could not be conducted to determine whether the Supplementary subtests were different than the mean of the core Gv subtests Step 6B: Generate Hypotheses to Explain Supplementary Subtests that Are Inconsistent with Pertinent Core Subtests (ages 3-18) Essentials Page 132

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Summary of Keenan’s KABC-II Results FCI not interpretable due to variability between Knoweledge/Gc of 108 and Sequential/Gsm of 77 4 of 5 Scales were interpretable (Simultaneous/Gv not) Keenan consistently functions in the Average to slightly Below Average range in his ability to learn new material and to solve novel problems using fluid reasoning (e.g., Learning/Glr = 86 & Planning/Gf = 90) He showed a significant weakness in his short term memory (Sequential/Gsm = 77; 6 th percentile) This is both a normative weakness and a personal weakness for him.

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Keenan’s Results Continued… Followed up memory deficits with subtests of Children’s Memory Scale: Memory skills did not appear to be dependent on whether the modality was visual vs. auditory nor whether the stimuli were meaningful or abstract. Keenan’s acquired knowledge of words and facts is a relative strength for him, although his ability is in the Average range compared to his peers. He showed significantly stronger performance on Gc (70 th %ile) than Glr (18 th %ile), indicating that despite it being more difficult for him to learn the new material, he is learning verbal facts and concepts over time at home & school. His weaker Glr may be related to his memory difficulties, whereas his positive attitude combined with his strong level of effort likely contributes to his relative area of strength.

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Keenan’s KTEA-II Interpretation: Integrating QIs When reading real words, Keenan appeared to use a whole word approach, rarely phonetically sounding out the words, unless he clearly did not recognize the word. Using the whole word or sight approach, he often did not notice small differences in a word and would incorrectly identify a word. e.g., “quite” for “quiet,” “blossom” for “blossomed,” “meat” for “meant,” and “swamp” for “swap.” When he did not recognize the word by sight, he tried to sound it out phonetically, but had much difficulty and often sounded it out by chunking it into smaller pieces, such as “el ee ven” for “eleven” or “untild” for “united.”

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Keenan’s KTEA-II Interpretation: Integrating QIs In reading nonsense words, Keenan often left out or changed a letter, which made him mispronounce the word, “plex” for “plux,” “fape” for “fap,” and “skreet” for “shreed.” teacher’s report that Keenan “doesn’t decode properly and comes up with something different.” He read aloud very slowly and with numerous whole word mistakes that changed the meaning of the passage (Reading Comprehension). For the last passage, he said “worse” for “world,” “Israel” for “Inca,” “rings” for “ruins” and “experienced” for “entered.” Despite his misreading several of the words, when asked questions about the passage, he was able to use the questions to help correct himself and review the passage to find the answer.

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Integrating the KABC-II & KTEA-II Keenan’s overall cognitive functioning is in the Average to slightly Below Average range in most areas, with significant weaknesses in his short-term memory. His academic achievement is consistently in the Average range, with the exception of his reading fluency, which is Below Average. In fact, despite his specific skill weaknesses in decoding fluency and phonetic decoding of certain irregular patterns, his reading is still in the average range when compared to children of the same grade.

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Although Keenan does not have a learning disability, reading is an enormous struggle for him. He has short-term memory deficits that likely impact his ability to process and encode verbal information that has no prior meaning to him (such as single words, phonics rules).

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Keenan’s reading fluency is very slow. Even when he does recognize words accurately, he does so at a rate of speed that adversely affects his comprehension. This slow reading fluency coupled with difficulties with phonetic decoding prevent Keenan’s reading process from becoming automatic. Because Keenan’s decoding is not automatic, he has to devote more attention to decoding the words than to the meaning of what is being read.

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Keenan will likely have similar difficulties with spelling and writing as he does with decoding and reading comprehension because spelling ability contributes to writing ability in a similar way. Good spelling ability reduces the amount of effort the student must devote to producing individual words. Keenan’s attention to details fluctuates such that he makes careless errors in his work e.g., adding when he is supposed to be subtracting or omitting or adding letters when reading words Thus, he shows no true pattern to his errors.

©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Recommendations Consider changing private school placement Work on word attack skills (decoding), vocabulary, comprehension Emphasize accuracy rather than speed Modify assignments so that he does not spend an excessive amount of time on homework Reduce distractions for homework Reduce amount of information he is required to memorize Provide intensive practice, repetition, & review to promote retention and reinforce skills Integrate visual aids Help reduce careless errors (e.g., highlight process signs in math).

Summary of what the Essentials of KABC-II Assessment provides: Chapter 2 – Administration and Scoring: a highlight of solutions to key pitfalls Chapter 3 – Step-by-Step Interpretation: In depth explanation of the first 4 steps (also in the manual), plus two further steps for hypotheses testing Chapter 4 – Interpretation with QIs: An analysis of what typically observed behaviors may be related to. Chapter 5 – Strengths and Weaknesses: Good for marketing the test and providing comparisons to other tests Chapter 6 – Clinical Applications: Info about KTEA-II integration with the test and a CB Approach

Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger, Ph.D. KABC-II Advanced Interpretation CASP Annual Conference – February 18, 2006.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger, Ph.D. KABC-II Advanced Interpretation CASP Annual Conference – February 18, 2006."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger, Ph.D. KABC-II Advanced Interpretation CASP Annual Conference – February 18, 2006.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger, Ph.D. KABC-II Advanced Interpretation CASP Annual Conference – February 18, 2006."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback