Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download KABC-II
Document related concepts
no text concepts found
Transcript
KABC-II Advanced Interpretation CASP Annual Conference – February 18, 2006 Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger, Ph.D. [email protected] 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 Theoretical Foundations ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Dual Theoretical Foundation Name of Luria Term CHC Term KABC-II Scale Learning Ability Long-Term Storage & Retrieval (Glr) Learning/Glr Sequential Processing Short-Term Memory (Gsm) Sequential/Gsm Simultaneous Processing Visual Processing (Gv) Simultaneous/Gv Planning Ability Fluid Reasoning (Gf) Planning/Gf Crystallized Ability (Gc) Knowledge/Gc Mental Processing Index (MPI) Fluid-Crystallized Index (FCI) ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved CHC Theory Applied to KABC-II Stratum III: General ability is measured by the KABC-II Fluid-Crystallized Index (FCI) Stratum II: Broad abilities are measured by KABCII Scales g Glr Gsm Gv Gf Gc LongTerm Storage & Retrieval ShortTerm Memory Visual Processing Fluid Reasoning Crystallized Ability ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Stratum I: Narrow Abilities—Blue abilities are measured by the KABC II Subtests Glr Gsm Gv Associative Memory Memory Span Visual Memory Learning Abilities Working Memory Spatial Relations General Sequential Reasoning Free Recall Memory Visualization Quantitative Reasoning Ideational Fluency Spatial Scanning Listening Ability Closure Speed Information About Culture Originality/ Creativity Gf Induction Gc Lexical Knowledge General Information Language Development ©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) Achievement • Quantitative Ability (Gq) (Measured by KTEA-II) Not Sufficiently Complex ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Luria Theory Applied to KABC-II Planning/Gf Learning/Glr Block 1 Maintains Attention Block 3 Plans & Organizes Behavior Simultaneous/Gv Block 2 Codes & Stores Information Sequential/Gsm ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Block 1—Maintains Arousal 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. ©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 vs. Interpretation ©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 Luria Model Luria or CHC CHC Model CHC or Luria ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Review of the Five Scales ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Sequential/Gsm Short-Term Memory Taking in and holding information, and then using it within a few seconds. Say these numbers just as I do. Number Recall Sequential/Gsm 6–3 2–5–9–4 8 – 9 – 3 – 5 – 2 – 10 ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Simultaneous/Gv Visual Processing Perceiving, storing, manipulating, and thinking with visual patterns. Block Counting Simultaneous/Gv ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Learning/Glr Long-Term Retrieval Storing and efficiently retrieving newly-learned or previously learned information. Atlantis Learning/Glr ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Planning/Gf Fluid Reasoning Solving novel problems by using reasoning abilities such as induction and deduction. Pattern Reasoning Planning/Gf ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Knowledge/Gc Not in Luria Model Demonstrating the breadth and depth of knowledge acquired from one’s culture. Verbal Knowledge Knowledge/Gc ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved KABC-II Core Battery - Age 3 Atlantis MPI or FCI Word Order composites only Triangles Conceptual Thinking Face Recognition ----------------------------Riddles Expressive Vocabulary ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved KABC-II Core Battery - Ages 4-6 Scale Age 4 Age 5 Age 6 Learning/Glr Atlantis Rebus Atlantis Rebus Atlantis Rebus Sequential/Gsm Word Order Number Recall Word Order Number Recall Word Order Number Recall Simultaneous/ Gv Triangles Concept Thinking Face Recognition Triangles Concept Thinking Pattern Reasoning Triangles Concept Thinking Pattern Reasoning Rover Riddles Expressive Vocabulary Riddles Expressive Vocabulary Riddles Expressive Vocabulary 7-9 tests 8-10 tests Planning/Gf Knowledge/Gc Luria/CHC 7-9 tests ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved KABC-II Core Battery - Ages 7-18 Scale Ages 7-12 Ages 13-18 Learning/Glr Atlantis Rebus Word Order Number Recall Rover Triangles Pattern Reasoning Story Completion Riddles Verbal Knowledge Atlantis Rebus Word Order Number Recall Rover Block Counting Pattern Reasoning Story Completion Riddles Verbal Knowledge Sequential/Gsm Simultaneous/Gv Planning/Gf Knowledge/Gc Luria/CHC 8-10 tests 8-10 tests ©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 crossbattery assessment) ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Supplementary Tests 3 4 5 6 7-12 13-18 Gestalt Closure Gestalt Closure Face Recognition Story Completion Hand Movements Hand Movements Number Recall Hand Movements Hand Movements Hand Movements Block Counting Triangles Verbal Knowledge Verbal Knowledge Verbal Knowledge Verbal Knowledge Gestalt Closure Gestalt Closure Block Counting Block Counting Expressive Vocabulary Expressive Vocabulary Gestalt Closure Gestalt Closure Atlantis Delayed Atlantis Delayed Atlantis Delayed Atlantis Delayed Rebus Delayed Rebus Delayed Rebus Delayed Rebus Delayed ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved How to Interpret the KABC-II: Step-by-Step ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Essentials of KABC-II Assessment By Kaufman, Lichtenberger, Fletcher-Janzen, & Kaufman The KABC-II Interpretive Worksheet in Appendix A provides a place to record all 6 interpretive steps: Essentials Pages 345-357 © 2005 Wiley KABC-II Manual covers first 3 steps in detail (& KABC-II Assist™). Manual Pages 43-55 ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Interpreting KABC-II: Steps from Manual vs. Essentials Book • Two Essential Steps • Two Optional Steps KABC-II Manual & Record Form • Essentials further explains the Fourth Step (Supplemental Subtest Analysis) Essentials of KABC-II Assessment • 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 Essentials Pages 85-87 Record Form Pages 3 & 23 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) ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Summary cont. OPTIONAL STEPS Step 3. Planned Scale Comparisons 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 4. Supplementary Subtest Analysis ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Summary cont. OPTIONAL STEPS Step 5. Planned Clinical Comparisons 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. GrossMotor Response (ages 4 –18) ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Summary cont. OPTIONAL STEPS 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 ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved KABC-II Interpretive Worksheet • 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 Essentials Pages 345-357 ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Essentials Pages 85-87 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 For ages 4-18 • 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 ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Essentials Pages 85-87 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. ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Case Note: Sophia is a fifth grader (age 11:2) with difficulties in writing “Less than 23 pts?” STEP 1. INTERPRET THE GLOBAL SCALE INDEX Confidence Interval Scale Used Scale Index (circle one) Is Global Scale Interpretable? Descriptive Category (Ages 4-18) (Standard Score) (Circle one) 90% FCI (CHC Model) MPI (Luria Model) NVI 87 93 ( or 95% Highest Index Lowest Index Range Less than 23 pts or Categories 38 YY N N 89 - 98 ) 118 80 •31 Percentile Rank If NO, do not interpret “If no (not less than 23 points), then do not interpret” ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Essentials Pages 85-87 Step 1. Interpret the global scale index In Sophia’s case, the extreme variability between scales means FCI does not meaningfully summarize global ability (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. Global Scale Index FCI Standard Score 93 95% confidence interval 89-99 Percentile Rank 34 Descriptive Category Average ©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 Essentials Page 88 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 ©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). Essentials pp. 89-90 B. Conduct normative analysis (relative to Average range of 85-115) Essentials pp. 91-92 C. Conduct ipsative analysis (relative to child’s mean score) Essentials pp. 92-93 D. Determine if any scales that are personal strengths or weaknesses are infrequent. pp. 93-96 ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Sophia’s subtest scaled scores grouped by scale AGES 7-18 CALCULATION OF SCALE INDEXES Sequential/Gsm Scaled Scores 5. Number 15 Recall 14. Word 11 Order Sum 26 Planning/Gf Scaled Scores 4. Story 7 Completion 15. Pattern 10 Reasoning Sum 17 Simultaneous/Gv Scaled Scores 7-12 18 13 11. Rebus 19 Sum Knowledge/Gc Scaled Scores 13-18 7 6 Learning/Glr Scaled Scores 1. Atlantis 6 7. Rover 7 11 10. Verbal Knowledge 18 Sum 18. Riddles 12. Triangles 13. Block Counting 13 Sum ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Essentials Page 91 Step 2A: Use base rate rule of <10%. See Appendix A or Record Form p. 3 for ages 7-18 Scale Index Scale (Standard Score) Sequential/Gsm 118 Simultaneous/Gv Learning/Glr Planning/Gf Knowledge/Gc 80 97 90 95 Subtest Scaled Range Scores Occurring Interpretable? < 10%a High Low Range 15 11 4 Y N 5 7 6 1 Y N 6 13 6 7 Y N 6 10 7 3 Y N 6 11 7 4 Y N 5 Analysis of the interpretability of Sophia’s scale indexes ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Essentials Page 90 Don’t Forget What to Do with an Uninterpretable Index Meaningfulness of Scale may be diminished, but the tests are not invalid. • 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 ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Step 2B: Identify if any of the scales are a normative weakness or a normative strength STEP 2. INTERPRET PROFILE OF SCALE INDEXES TO IDENTIFY STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES Subtest Scaled Scores *See critical values for Step 2A Scale Index (Standard Score) Scale Sequential/Gsm Simultaneous/Gv 118 80 Learning/Glr 97 Planning/Gf 90 95 96 Knowledge/Gc Index Mean (rounded) High Low Range 15 11 7 6 13 6 10 7 4 1 7 3 11 7 4 Interpretable? Y N Normative Weakness (NW) or Normative Strength (NS) <85 NW >115 NS NS Personal Weakness (PW) or Personal Strength (PS) Diff from Mean PW or PS (p<.05) PW PS PW PS NS Not Interp.PW PS Y N NW Y N NW Y N NW NS PW PS Y N NW NS PW PS Infrequent (<10%) CHC model (include Knowledge/Gc) Luria model (omit Knowledge/Gc) Computation of Sophia’s Normative Strengths and Weaknesses ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Step 2C: Identify personal weaknesses or strengths in the scale profile STEP 2. INTERPRET PROFILE OF SCALE INDEXES TO IDENTIFY STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES Subtest Scaled Scores *See critical values for Step 2A Scale Index (Standard Score) Scale Sequential/Gsm Simultaneous/Gv 118 80 Learning/Glr 97 Planning/Gf 90 95 96 Knowledge/Gc Index Mean (rounded) High Low Range 15 11 7 6 13 6 10 7 4 1 7 3 11 7 4 Interpretable? Y N Normative Weakness (NW) or Normative Strength (NS) <85 NW >115 NS NS Personal Weakness (PW) or Personal Strength (PS) Diff from Mean +22 -16 PW or PS (p<.05) PW PS PW PS NS Not Interp.PW PS Y N NW Y N NW Y N NW NS -6 PW PS Y N NW NS -1 PW PS Infrequent (<10%) CHC model (include Knowledge/Gc) Luria model (omit Knowledge/Gc) Calculate mean and difference from mean for each interpretable scale. Computation of Sophia’s Personal Strengths and Weaknesses ©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) P 2. INTERPRET PROFILE OF SCALE INDEXES TO IDENTIFY STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES Subtest Scaled Scores *See critical values for Step 2A Scale Index (Standard Score) Scale ential/Gsm ltaneous/Gv High 118 80 Low Range 15 11 7 6 13 6 10 7 Interpretable? Y N 4 1Y 7Y 3Y PW or PS (p<.05) N NW NS N NW NS N NW NS -6 PW PS NW NS -1 PW PS ning/Gf 90 N 11 7 4Y 95 96 CHC model (include Knowledge/Gc) (rounded) Diff from Mean >115 NS 97 Index Mean Personal Weakness (PW) or Personal Strength (PS) <85 NW ning/Glr wledge/Gc Normative Weakness (NW) or Normative Strength (NS) +22 -16 PW PS PW PS Infrequent (<10%) PW PS Not Interp. Luria model (omit Knowledge/Gc) ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Essentials Page 95 Summarizing Step 2 Findings 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 Strength 1. Normative Weakness 2. Personal Strength 2. Personal Weakness 3. Infrequent (<10%) Occurrence 3. Infrequent (<10%) Occurrence ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Interpreting the Results Optional Steps Step 3. Scale Comparisons Essentials p. 99-103 Essentials p. 103-104 A. Learning/Glr to Delayed Recall (5-18) B. Learning/Glr to Knowledge/Gc ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Essentials Page 99 Key Point for Optional Steps 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 . ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Essentials Page 102 STEP 3A INITIAL LEARNING VS DELAYED RECALL Learning/Glr (Initial) vs. Delayed Recall Scale Subtest Scaled Scores High Low Range Interpretable? (<10%) Learning/Glr 13 6 7 Y N Delayed Recall 12 6 6 Y N Index Standard Score Only calculate the difference if both scales are interpretable Difference Sig? Y Thus, the difference is not calculated Neither Learning/Glr or the Delayed recall score is interpretable N Infrequent? Y N Significance & Infrequency are irrelevant in this case ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Essentials Page 102 STEP 3B LEARNING VS ACQUIRED KNOWLEDGE Learning/Glr (Initial) vs. Knowledge/Gc Scale Subtest Scaled Scores High Low Range Interpretable? (<10%) Index Standard Score Learning/Glr 13 6 7 Y N 97 Knowledge/Gc 11 7 4 Y N 95 Only calculate the difference if both scales are interpretable Difference Sig? Y Thus, the difference is not calculated Learning/Glr is not interpretable N Infrequent? Y N Significance & Infrequency are irrelevant in this case ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Essentials Page 104 Optional Step 4: Supplementary Subtest Analysis (ages 3-18) 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. ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Essentials Page 106 Tables for Supplementary Score Analysis 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. ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Essentials Page 107 STEP 4. SUPPLEMENTAL SUBTEST ANALYSIS FOR AGES 7-12 Scale Sequential/Gsm Simultaneous/Gv Scale Interpretable in Step 2? Y N Y N Sum of Scaled Scores Mean Scaled Score Supplemental Subtest Y N Scaled Score Diff from Mean Sig. .(p<.05) Sig? Infrequent (<10%) Infreq ? 29 26 2= 13 14.5 Hand Movements 6 7 3.5 Y N 5.0 Y N 13 13 2= 6.5 6.5 Gestalt Closure 6 .5 3.7 Y N 5.5 Y N Block Counting 7 1.5 3.2 Y N 5.5 Y N 10 1 3.1 Y N 3.5 Y N Simultaneous/Gv Knowledge/Gc Differences between supplemental subtest & mean scaled score that are significant or infrequent 15 18 2= 7.59 Expressive Vocab. Step 6B will help develop and verify hypotheses to explain the difference between the core and supplemental Gsm subtests ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Essentials Page 107 Optional Step 5. Planned Clinical Comparisons Information Processing Domain: Integration & Storage Step 5A: Nonverbal Ability (NVI) vs. Verbal Ability (ages 3-18) Step 5B: Problem-Solving Ability vs. Memory & Learning (ages 3-18) Information Processing Domain: Input & Output 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) ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Essentials Appendices 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. ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Appendix A The KABC-II Interpretive Worksheet provides 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) ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Sophia’s Step 5A Comparison between Verbal and Nonverbal Ability 11 10 7 7 6 10 6 7 4 4 28 96 Sophia’s verbal abilities are significantly stronger than her nonverbal abilities, although not uncommonly so. 36 15 81 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 Step 5B. PLANNED CLINICAL COMPARISONS MEMORY & LEARNING VS. Scaled Scores 3 4 5-18 ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 11 ____ 6 15 ____ 13 ____ ____ PROBLEM SOLVING ABILITY 3-4 Scaled Scores 5 6 7-12 Word Order ____ ____ ____ Face Recognition Atlantis ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Number Recall Rebus 6 ____ 10 7 ____ ____ 7 1318 Conceptual Thinking Triangles ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 9 Y stop STOP Range of Scaled Scores N Y Sum of Scaled Scores stop Standard Score Memory & Learning was not a unitary cluster, so the comparison Is Difference could not be conducted. significant? Is Difference uncommonly large? Range of Scaled Scores 4 Uncommonly Large Range? Difference Y N Y Pattern Reasoning Rover Story Completion Block Counting N 30 83 Uncommonly Large Range? Sum of Scaled Scores Standard Score Sophia’s problem solving skills are in the below average range, a normative weakness N ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Sophia’s Step 5C Comparison- Cannot be conducted Step 5C. PLANNED CLINICAL COMPARISONS MEANINGFUL STIMULI VS. Scaled Scores 4 5-18 6 ____ ____ Atlantis ____ Face Recognition ____ 7 Story Completion 1 Y ABSTRACT STIMULI Scaled Scores 4 5-12 13-18 ____ ____ 6 ____ ____ 13 ____ ____ ____ 10 Range of Scaled Scores N 13 stop 79 Y Sum of Scaled Scores N stop STOP Standard Score Uncommonly Large Range? Sum of Scaled Scores Standard Score Difference Sophia’s ability to utilize meaningful stimuli is in theIsbelow Difference Y N average range, a normative significant? weakness Is Difference uncommonly large? Range of Scaled Scores 7 Uncommonly Large Range? Triangles Rebus Pattern Reasoning Y Abstract Stimuli was not a unitary cluster, so the comparison could not be conducted. N ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Sophia’s Step 5D Comparison Step 5D. PLANNED CLINICAL COMPARISONS VERBAL RESPONSE VS. Scaled Scores 4-6 ____ 15 ____ 13 ____ 7-18 ____ ____ 10 ____ 5 Y STOP stop POINTING RESPONSE Scaled Scores 4 5-18 ____ 11 ____ ____ 6 ____ ____ ____ ____ 7 Number Recall Rebus Expressive Vocabulary Riddles Range of Scaled Scores N 38 Sum of Scaled Scores 117 Standard Score Sophia’s ability to Is Difference significant? respond verbally Is Difference was in the above uncommonly large? average range – a normative strength Range of Scaled Scores 5 Uncommonly Large Range? Y stop STOP 30 Difference Y N Y N Word Order Face Recognition Atlantis Verbal Knowledge N Uncommonly Large Range? 24 Sum of Scaled Scores 87 Standard Score Sophia’s ability to respond by pointing was at the low end of the average ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved range Sophia’s Step 5E Comparison Step 5E. PLANNED CLINICAL COMPARISONS LITTLE MOTOR RESPONSE VS. GROSS MOTOR RESPONSE Scaled Scores 4 5-6 ____ ____ ____ ____ 7-18 10 ____ ____ 7 3 Y stop STOP Scaled Scores 4 5-6 7-12 Conceptual Thinking Face Recognition Pattern Reasoning Block Counting Range of Scaled Scores N Uncommonly Large Range? 17 Sum of Scaled Scores 91 Standard Score ____ ____ Sophia performed in the average range on tasks that required little or no motor response 13 Is Difference significant? Is Difference uncommonly large? Difference Y N Y N ____ ____ 6 ____ ____ 7 ____ 7 stop STOP ____ ____ Hand Movements Triangles Rover Story Completion Range of Scaled Scores 1 Y 1318 N Uncommonly Large Range? 20 Sum of Scaled Scores 78 Standard Score Sophia’s gross motor response is in the below average range– a normative weakness ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved 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 Subtests (ages 3-18) ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Determine if Step 6A needs to be conducted • 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. ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Essentials Page 121 Three approaches for developing hypotheses to explain the substantial intra-scale variability: •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. ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Step 6A. GENERATE HYPOTHESES TO EXPLAIN FLUCTUATIONS IN SCALES THAT ARE NOT INTERPRETABLE First Line of Attack: Examine Planned Clinical Comparisons (from Step 5) to identify possible hypotheses Was Index found uninterpretable in Cluster that may provide hypotheses Age Core Subtests Relevant to the Clusters Step 2? for the subtest variability in the index (check box if yes) Verbal Response vs. Pointing Response Sequential/Gsm 4-18 Abstract vs. Meaningful Stimuli Memory & Learning vs. Problem Solving Ability Simultaneous/Gv Little Motor vs. Gross Motor Response 4 Number Recall (Verbal) vs. Word Order (Pointing) Face Recognition (Meaningful) vs. Triangles (Abstract) 3-4 4 Face Rec. (Mem. & Learn.) vs. Triangles/Concep. Th. (Prob Slv) Face Recognition/Concept. Thinkg. (Little) vs. Triangles (Gross) 5 Concept Thinking/Pattern Reason. (Little) vs. Triangles Little Motor vs. Gross Motor Response (Gross) 6 Concept Th./Pattern Reason. (Little) vs. Triangles/Rover Little Motor vs. Gross Motor Response (Gross) Learning/Glr Planning/Gf Knowledge/Gc Little Motor vs. Gross Motor Response 13-18 Block Counting (Little) vs. Rover (Gross) Verbal Response vs. Pointing Response 4-18 Rebus (Verbal) vs. Atlantis (Pointing) Abstract vs. Meaningful Stimuli 4-18 Rebus (Abstract) vs. Atlantis (Meaningful) Abstract vs. Meaningful Stimuli 7-18 Pattern Reasoning (Abstract) vs. Story Completion (Meaningful) Little Motor vs. Gross Motor Response 7-18 Pattern Reasoning (Little) vs. Story Completion (Gross) Verbal Response vs. Pointing Response 7-18 Riddles (Verbal) vs. Verbal Knowledge (Pointing) ©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) Sophia’s ability to utilize meaningful stimuli is in the below average range (79), a normative weakness – 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. ©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) Sophia’s ability to respond verbally was in the above average range – a normative strength • Pointing response cluster (87) comprises – Atlantis (6), Word Order (11), and Verbal Knowledge (7) Sophia’s ability to respond by pointing was at the low end of the average range ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Always keep in mind 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. ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Rapid References 3.3-3.7 • Provide Information for the Second Line of Attack • See Pages 124-127 ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved How the Learning/Glr Subtests Complement Each Other (Ages 4–18) Atlantis Rebus Provides feedback for errors? YES NO Uses meaningful visual stimuli? YES NO Uses meaningful auditory stimuli? NO YES Context important for success? NO YES Does sequence of stimuli matter? NO YES ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Sequential/Gsm Scale—How the Core Subtests Complement Each Other (Ages 4–18) Word Order Number Recall Nature of Output? Pointing Vocal Nature of Content? Words Numbers Interference Task Long Number Series YES NO Achieves Difficulty? Integration of auditory & visual stimuli? ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Sequential/Gsm Scale—How the Core Subtests Complement Each Other (Ages 4–18) Measures the CHC Gsm narrow ability— Working Memory (MW)? Requires flexibility to shift tasks? Word Order Number Recall YES (interference task) NO YES NO ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved CHC Narrow Abilities for the Sequential/Gsm Scale CHC Narrow Ability Word Order Number Recall Hand Movements Gsm Memory Span (MS) Working Memory (MW) Gv Visual Memory (MV) ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Simultaneous/Gv Scale—How the Subtests Complement Each Other (Ages 3–4) Nature of Visual Stimuli? Conceptual Face Thinking Recognition Triangles Abstract Abstract & Meaningful Meaningful Nature of Response? GrossMotor Pointing Pointing Problem Solving or Memory? Problem solving Problem solving Memory ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved CHC Narrow Abilities for the Simultaneous/Gv Scale (3-4) CHC Narrow Ability Triangles Gv Conceptual Thinking Face Recognition Visualization (VZ) Spatial Relations (SR) Visual Memory (VM) Gf Induction (I) ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved CHC Narrow Abilities for the Simultaneous/Gv Scale (5-6) CHC Narrow Ability Triangles Conceptual Thinking Pattern Reasoning Rover (age 6) Gv Visualization (VZ) Spatial Relations (SR) Spatial Scanning (SS) Gf Induction (I) General Sequential Reasoning (RG) ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved CHC Narrow Abilities for the Simultaneous/Gv Scale (7-12) Core Battery CHC Narrow Ability Rover Triangles Supplementary Block Counting Gestalt Closure Gv Visualization (VZ) Spatial Relations (SR) Spatial Scanning (SS) Closure Speed (CS) Gf General Sequential Reasoning (RG) Gq Math Achievement (A3) ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved CHC Narrow Abilities for the Simultaneous/Gv Scale (13-18) Core Battery CHC Narrow Ability Rover Block Counting Supplementary Triangles Gestalt Closure Gv Visualization (VZ) Spatial Relations (SR) Spatial Scanning (SS) Closure Speed (CS) Gf General Sequential Reasoning (RG) Gq Math Achievement (A3) ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Planning/Gf Scale—How the Subtests Complement Each Other (Ages 7–18) Pattern Reasoning Story Completion Meaningful visual stimuli? NO YES Visual-motor response? NO YES Uses manipulatives? NO YES ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved CHC Narrow Abilities for the Planning/Gf Scale (7-18) CHC Narrow Ability Pattern Reasoning Story Completion Gf Induction (I) General Sequential Reasoning (RG) Gc General Information (K0) Gv Visualization (VZ) ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Knowledge/Gc Scale—How the Core Subtests Complement Each Other (Ages 3–6) Type of stimuli? Channel of communication? Riddles Expressive Vocabulary Verbal Pictorial Auditory-visual Visual-vocal Note—Riddles has verbal and pictorial stimuli for its easiest items. ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Knowledge/Gc Scale—How the Core Subtests Complement Each Other (Ages 7–18) Type of stimuli? Type of response? Measures auditoryvisual integration? Riddles Verbal Knowledge Auditory Visual + auditory Vocal Pointing NO YES ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved CHC Narrow Abilities for the Knowledge/Gc Scale CHC Narrow Ability Riddles Verbal Knowledge Expressive Vocabulary Gc Lexical Knowledge (VL) Language Development (LD) General Information (KO) Gf General Sequential Reasoning (RG) ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Step 5C Meaningful vs. Abstract stimuli wasn’t fruitful, but Sophia’s Uninterpretable Learning/Glr Scale Atlantis: 6 Rebus: 13 Provides feedback for errors? YES NO Uses meaningful visual stimuli? YES NO Uses meaningful auditory stimuli? NO YES Context important for success? NO YES Does sequence of stimuli matter? NO YES 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 Essentials Page 131 Step 6A: Third Line Of Attack 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. ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Essentials Page 131 Step 6A: Third Line Of Attack • 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 ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Essentials Page 131 Step 6A: Third Line Of Attack • 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. ©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 Essentials Page 132 Step 6B: Generate Hypotheses to Explain Supplementary Subtests that Are Inconsistent with Pertinent Core Subtests (ages 3-18) • 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. ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved First Line of Attack: Determine which supplemental subtests are significantly different from the Core Subtests Step 6B:GENERATE GenerateHYPOTHESES Hypotheses TO to EXPLAIN Explain SUPPLEMENTARY SUBTE Step 6B. Supplementary that are THE MEAN OF CORESubtests SUBTESTS Inconsistent with the mean of Core Subtests First Line of Attack: Determine which supplemental subtests are significant a. Check box if supplemental subtest is significantly different from mean of core subtests (See Step 4 results) Age Supplemental Subtest Number Recall Gestalt Closure Hand Movements Verbal Knowledge Face Recognition Block Counting Story Completing Expressive Vocabulary Triangles 3 4 5 6 7-12 13-18 b. Conduc Clinical subtest The follo 5’s clust - Ex Ve - Ve Ab - Ha m - Bl M Second Line of Attack: Examine how Supplemental & Core subtests within ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved First Line of Attack: Determine which supplemental subtests are significantly different from the Core Subtests Step 6B: Generate Hypotheses to Explain Supplementary Subtests that are Inconsistent PLAIN SUPPLEMENTARY SUBTESTS THAT ARE INCONSISTENT WITH with the mean of Core Subtests plemental subtests are significantly different from the Core Subtests y different from mean of ge 6 7-12 13-18 b. Conduct only an informal examination of the Planned Clinical comparisons, as most Supplemental subtests are excluded from the planned comparisons The following supplemental tests are included in Step 5’s clusters: - Expressive Vocabulary (Gc subtest) is in the Verbal Ability cluster. - Verbal Knowledge (Gc subtest) is in the Verbal Ability and Pointing Response clusters. - Hand Movements (Gsm Subtest) is in the Gross motor response & nonverbal ability clusters. - Block Counting (Gv subtest) is in the Little Motor cluster. ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved lemental & Core subtests within each scale complement each other 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 Essentials Page 133 Step 6B The second and third lines of attack that are of primary importance for generating hypotheses • 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. ©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 How to Interpret the KABC-II: Qualitative Indicators ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Essentials Page 149 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. ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Essentials Page 152 Evidence-based Background for QIs observed during testing and other clinical situations Effects of Executive Functioning & Attention Cognitive Domain Affected KABC-II Subtests Affected Attention Executive Functioning Working memory Number Recall Word Order Rover Rebus Concept Formation Pattern Reasoning Atlantis Story Completion Hand Movements Riddles Note. Although problems with executive functioning and attention may affect these KABCII subtests, poor performance on these subtests is not necessarily indicative of disorders ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved associated with poor executive functioning and attention. Essentials Page 155 Evidence-based Background for QIs observed during testing and other clinical situations Effects of Cultural Issues Cognitive Domain Affected KABC-II Subtests Affected Crystallized abilities Verbal 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. ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Essentials Pages 156-166 Subtest-By-Subtest Qualitative/Process Analysis of the 18 Subtests • 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. ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Chapter 6 Clinical Applications Comprehensive Picture of Child’s Processing ©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 Written Oral Language Language Total Reading Math Learning/Glr .58 .55 .49 .53 .48 Sequential/Gsm .50 .48 .44 .44 .44 Simultaneous/Gv .54 .47 .53 .40 .43 Planning/Gf .63 .56 .59 .51 .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 Meaning of the KABC-II – KTEA-II Correlations • 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. ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved KABC-II – KTEA-II Correlations Under Age 7 • 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 ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Integrating the KABC-II & KTEA-II: Theory • 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). ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved CHC Theory Applied to KABC-II Stratum III: General ability is measured by the KABC-II Fluid-Crystallized Index (FCI) Stratum II: Broad abilities are measured by KABCII Scales g Glr Gsm Gv Gf Gc LongTerm Storage & Retrieval ShortTerm Memory Visual Processing Fluid Reasoning Crystallized Ability ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Three Additional Broad Abilities Measured with KTEA-II Stratum II: Broad abilities are measured by KTEA-II Scales Gq Ga Grw Quantitative Knowledge Auditory Processing Reading and Writing ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Glr Gsm Gv Associative Memory Memory Span Visual Memory Learning Abilities Working Memory Spatial Relations Gf Induction General Sequential Reasoning Gc Lexical Knowledge General Information Language Development Visualization Spatial Scanning Closure Speed Stratum I: Narrow Abilities— measured by the KABC II Subtests ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Glr Gf Gc Gq Ga Grw Naming Facility Quantitative Reasoning Listening Ability Math Achievement Phonetic CdgAnalysis Reading Decoding Word Fluency Oral Production & Fluency Math Knowledge Phonetic CdgSynth. Reading Compreh. Associat. Fluency Grammatical Sensitivity Verbal Language Compreh. Spelling Ability Meaningful Memory Writing Ability Stratum I: Narrow Abilities— measured by KTEA II Subtests Engl. Usage Knowledge Reading Speed ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Lurian Process Approach to Integrating KABC-II & KTEA-II ©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 KABCII, 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 Sophia’s KTEA-II Scores Composite/Subtest Reading Composite Letter & Word Recognition Standard Percentile Score Rank 92 30 94 34 Reading Comprehension Decoding Composite Nonsense Word Decoding 90 91 87 25 27 19 Sound-Symbol Composite Phonological Awareness Reading Fluency Composite 88 89 89 21 23 23 90 88 25 21 Word Recognition Fluency Decoding Fluency ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Sophia’s KTEA-II Scores Composite/Subtest Standard Percentile Score Rank Mathematics Composite Math Concepts & Applications Math Computation Oral Language Composite 91 94 89 96 27 34 23 39 Listening Comprehension Oral Expression Written Language Composite 94 98 70 34 45 2 71 74 3 4 Written Expression Spelling ©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 with the Cross Battery Approach ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Essentials Pages 268-280 Supplementing the KABC-II Using Cross-Battery Methods 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 Essentials Pages 268-280 Supplementing the KABC-II Using Cross-Battery Methods 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 3 Pillars of CB Approach • CHC Theory • Broad CHC Ability Classifications of Tests • Narrow CHC Ability Classifications of Tests ©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 Essentials Page 274 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. ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Essentials Pages 274-276 Cross-Battery Step 1. Determine whether assessment of Ga and Gs is necessary or desired. • 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 ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Essentials Pages 274-276 Cross-Battery Step 1. Guidelines for deriving and interpreting CHC Clusters • 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) ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Essentials Pages 274-276 Cross-Battery Step 1. Guidelines for deriving and interpreting CHC Clusters • McGrew & Flanagan (1998) and Flanagan & Ortiz’s (2001) guidelines 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 Essentials Pages 274-276 Cross-Battery Step 1. Guidelines for deriving and interpreting CHC Clusters • McGrew & Flanagan (1998) and Flanagan & Ortiz’s (2001) guidelines 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 Essentials Pages 276-278 Cross-Battery Step 2. Determine whether there is a need to administer supplemental KABC-II subtests. • Whenever the lower of the two subtest scaled scores comprising an index is a normative weakness (i.e., a scaled score < 7) and the higher of the two subtest scores is well within the average range of ability or higher (i.e., a scaled score > 10), • regardless of whether the Index represents a unitary ability. ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Essentials Pages 276-278 Cross-Battery Step 2. Determine whether there is a need to administer supplemental KABC-II subtests. • John (age 8): Riddles = 5; Verbal Knowledge = 13 • 8-point variability in Knowledge/Gc subtests • Thus, administer the Supplemental Expressive Vocabulary 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 Essentials Page 278 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. • 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 ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Essentials Pages 279-280 Cross-Battery Step 4. Determine whether the measurement of a specific or narrow ability is necessary or desirable. • Naming Facility, a narrow Glr ability, • and Phonetic Coding, a narrow Ga ability, • show substantial and consistent, positive correlations with basic reading skills ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Essentials Pages 279-280 Cross-Battery Step 4. Determine whether the measurement of a specific or narrow ability is necessary or desirable. • 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. ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Essentials Pages 279-280 Cross-Battery Step 4. Determine whether the measurement of a specific or narrow ability is necessary or desirable. • 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 GlrNaming Facility tasks ©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 Additional Case Studies ©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 ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Assessment Procedures • • • • • • KABC-II VMI-4 Child Behavior Checklist ADHD Rating Scale – IV Clinical Interviews: grandma, teacher Play observation ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved KABC-II Global Scale Fluid-Crystallized Index (FCI) ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved “Less than 23 pts?” STEP 1. INTERPRET THE GLOBAL SCALE INDEX Confidence Interval Scale Used Scale Index (circle one) Is Global Scale Interpretable? Descriptive Category (Ages 4-18) (Standard Score) (Circle one) 90% or 95% Highest Index FCI (CHC Model) MPI (Luria Model) 87 72 ( 67 - 77 ) 92 Lowest Index Range Less than 23 pts or Categories 35 YY N 57 •31 N Percentile Rank If NO, do not interpret NVI “If no, do not interpret” ©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% STEP 2. INTERPRET PROFILE OF SCALE INDEXES TO IDENTIFY STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES Subtest Scaled Scores *See critical values for Step 2A Scale Index (Standard Score) Scale Sequential/Gsm Simultaneous/Gv Learning/Glr 57 76 92 High Low 7 7 9 0 6 8 Range 7 1 1 Planning/Gf Knowledge/Gc 88 Index Mean (rounded) 9 6 3 Interpretable? Y N Normative Weakness (NW) or Normative Strength (NS) <85 NW >115 NS Personal Weakness (PW) or Personal Strength (PS) Diff from Mean PW or PS (p<.05) PW PS Y N NW NS PW PS Y N NW NS PW PS Y N NW NS PW PS Y N NW NS PW PS Infrequent (<10%) CHC model (include Knowledge/Gc) Luria model (omit Knowledge/Gc) •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 ©2005index E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Step 2B: Identify if any of the scales are a normative weakness or a normative strength STEP 2. INTERPRET PROFILE OF SCALE INDEXES TO IDENTIFY STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES Subtest Scaled Scores *See critical values for Step 2A Scale Index (Standard Score) Scale Sequential/Gsm Simultaneous/Gv Learning/Glr 57 76 92 High Low 7 7 9 0 6 8 Range 7 1 1 Planning/Gf Knowledge/Gc 88 Index Mean (rounded) 9 6 3 Interpretable? Y N Normative Weakness (NW) or Normative Strength (NS) <85 NW >115 NS Personal Weakness (PW) or Personal Strength (PS) Diff from Mean PW or PS (p<.05) PW PS Y N NW NS PW PS Y N NW NS PW PS Y N NW NS PW PS Y N NW NS PW PS Infrequent (<10%) CHC model (include Knowledge/Gc) Luria model (omit Knowledge/Gc) Computation of Julia’s Normative Strengths and Weaknesses ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Step 2C: Identify personal weaknesses or strengths in the scale profile STEP 2. INTERPRET PROFILE OF SCALE INDEXES TO IDENTIFY STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES Subtest Scaled Scores *See critical values for Step 2A Scale Index (Standard Score) Scale Sequential/Gsm Simultaneous/Gv Learning/Glr 57 76 92 High Low 7 7 9 0 6 8 Range 7 1 1 Planning/Gf Knowledge/Gc Index Mean (rounded) 88 78 9 6 3 Interpretable? Y N Normative Weakness (NW) or Normative Strength (NS) <85 NW >115 NS Personal Weakness (PW) or Personal Strength (PS) Diff from Mean Y N NW NS -21 -2 Y N NW NS +14 Y N NW NS Y N NW NS +10 PW or PS (p<.05) PW PS PW PS PW PS PW PS PW PS Infrequent (<10%) CHC model (include Knowledge/Gc) Luria model (omit Knowledge/Gc) Calculate mean and difference from mean for each interpretable scale. ©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) STEP 2. INTERPRET PROFILE OF SCALE INDEXES TO IDENTIFY STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES Subtest Scaled Scores *See critical values for Step 2A Scale Index (Standard Score) Scale Sequential/Gsm Simultaneous/Gv Learning/Glr 57 76 92 High Low 7 7 9 0 6 8 Range 7 1 1 Planning/Gf Knowledge/Gc Index Mean (rounded) 88 78 9 6 3 Interpretable? Y N Normative Weakness (NW) or Normative Strength (NS) <85 NW >115 NS Personal Weakness (PW) or Personal Strength (PS) Diff from Mean Y N NW NS -21 -2 Y N NW NS +14 Y N NW NS Y N NW NS +10 PW or PS (p<.05) PW Infrequent (<10%) PS <5% PW PS PW PS PW PS PW PS <10% CHC model (include Knowledge/Gc) Luria model (omit Knowledge/Gc) •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 Essentials Page 95 Summarizing Step 2 Findings Don’t Forget 3.4 Definitions of Indexes that are Key Assets and High Priority Concerns Three Conditions needed for Key Assets Learning/Glr (92) meets 2nd two 1. Normative Strength 2. Personal Strength 3. Infrequent (<10%) Occurrence Three Conditions needed for High Priority Concerns Sequential/Gsm (77) meets 3 1. Normative Weakness Don’t 2. Personal Weakness Interpret Gsm 3. Infrequent (<10%) Occurrence Knowledge/Gc (88) meets 2nd 1 ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Interpreting the Results Optional Steps Step 3. Scale Comparisons Essentials p. 99-103 Essentials p. 103-104 A. Learning/Glr to Delayed Recall (5-18) B. Learning/Glr to Knowledge/Gc Delayed Recall subtests were not administered to Julia ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved STEP 3B LEARNING VS ACQUIRED KNOWLEDGE Learning/Glr (Initial) vs. Knowledge/Gc Scale Learning/Glr Knowledge/Gc Subtest Scaled Scores High Low Range Interpretable? (<10%) Index Standard Score 89 87 11 Y N 92 86 129 611 31 Y N 188 08 4 22 Only calculate the difference if both scales are interpretable Difference Sig? Julia’s ability to learn new material does not differ significantly from her acquisition of facts and verbal concepts. Y N Y N Difference needed for significance (p<.05) = 12+ Infrequent? YY NN Difference needed for 10% base rate = 25+ ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Her Gsm scale was not interpretable, so the Step 4 comparisons with Supplementary Hand Movements subtest cannot be conducted STEP 4. SUPPLEMENTARY SUBTEST ANALYSIS FOR AGE 5 Scale Sequential/Gsm Simultaneous/Gv Scale Interpretable in Step 2? Y Y 2= N N Mean Scaled Score Sum of Scaled Scores 19 3= Supplementary Subtest Differences between supplementary subtest & mean scaled score that are significant or infrequent Scaled Score Diff from Mean Hand Movements 6.3 Y N 15 2= 7.5 Sig? Infrequent (<10%) Infreq ? 3.5 Y N 5.0 Y N Gestalt Closure 4 2.3 3.6 Y N 5.0 Y N Face Recognition 5 1.3 4.0 Y N 6.0 Y N 2.7 Y N 5.0 Y N 3.1 Y N 4.0 Y N Block Counting Knowledge/Gc Sig. (p<.05) Verbal Knowledge 8 .5 The supplementary subtests did not differ significantly from the mean of the Core subtests ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Julia’s Step 5A Comparison between Verbal and Nonverbal Ability 6 9 8 7 5 6 6 2 3 5 23 87 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 26 26 61 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 Step 5B. PLANNED CLINICAL COMPARISONS MEMORY & LEARNING VS. Scaled Scores 3 4 5-18 ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 4 ____ 9 1 ____ 8 ____ ____ PROBLEM SOLVING ABILITY 3-4 Word Order ____ Face Recognition Atlantis ____ Number Recall Rebus Scaled Scores 5 6 7-12 7 6 ____ ____ 6 ____ 1318 ____ Conceptual Thinking Triangles ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 8 Y stop Range of Scaled Scores N 22 Sum of Scaled Scores 71 Standard Score Julia’s memory and learning abilities & problem solving abilities fell within the Below Average range & represent a Normative Weakness Y stop 5 Is Difference significant? Is Difference uncommonly large? Range of Scaled Scores 1 Uncommonly Large Range? Difference Y N Y Pattern Reasoning Rover Story Completion Block Counting N 19 76 Uncommonly Large Range? Sum of Scaled Scores Standard Score Julia’s problem solving skills are comparable to her memory and learning abilities – they appear equally developed N ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Julia’s Step 5C Comparison- Cannot be conducted Step 5C. PLANNED CLINICAL COMPARISONS MEANINGFUL STIMULI VS. Scaled Scores 4 5-18 9 ____ ____ Atlantis ____ 5 Face Recognition ____ -- Story Completion ABSTRACT STIMULI Scaled Scores 4 5-12 13-18 ____ ____ 6 ____ ____ 8 ____ ____ ____ 6 Range of Scaled Scores Y N stop Triangles Rebus Pattern Reasoning This comparison cannot be conducted Uncommonly Large because the Y N Range? supplementary subtest, Sum of Scaled Story Completion, was Scores not administered. Range of Scaled Scores Standard Score Standard Score stop Is Difference significant? Is Difference uncommonly large? Uncommonly Large Range? Sum of Scaled Scores Difference Y N Y N ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Julia’s Step 5D Comparison Step 5D. PLANNED CLINICAL COMPARISONS VERBAL RESPONSE VS. Scaled Scores 4-6 ____ 1 ____ 8 ____ 9 7-18 ____ ____ ____ 8 Y STOP stop POINTING RESPONSE Scaled Scores 4 5-18 ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Number Recall Rebus Expressive Vocabulary Riddles Range of Scaled Scores N Range of Scaled Scores Uncommonly Large Range? Y Sum of Scaled Scores stop Standard Score Is Difference significant? Is Difference uncommonly large? Word Order Face Recognition Atlantis Verbal Knowledge N Uncommonly Large Range? Sum of Scaled Scores Standard Score Difference Y N Y N Verbal Response was not a unitary cluster, so the comparison could not be conducted. ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Julia’s Step 5E Comparison Step 5E. PLANNED CLINICAL COMPARISONS LITTLE MOTOR RESPONSE Scaled Scores 4 5-6 ____ ____ ____ 7 6 ____ 1 Y stop GROSS MOTOR RESPONSE Scaled Scores 4 5-6 7-12 7-18 ____ ____ VS. Conceptual Thinking Face Recognition Pattern Reasoning Block Counting ____ ____ 6 ____ -____ ____ ____ ____ Range of Scaled Scores N Uncommonly Large Range? Sum of Scaled Scores Standard Score 1318 ____ ____ Hand Movements Triangles Rover Story Completion Range of Scaled Scores Y stop STOP N Uncommonly Large Range? Sum of Scaled Scores Standard Score Difference This comparison cannot be conducted Is Difference Y N because significant? the supplementary subtest, Rover, was Is Difference Y N not administered. uncommonly large? ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Determine if Step 6B needs to be conducted: First Line of Attack – Check Step 4 Results STEP 4. SUPPLEMENTARY SUBTEST ANALYSIS FOR AGE 5 Scale Sequential/Gsm Simultaneous/Gv Scale Interpretable in Step 2? Y Y Mean Scaled Score Sum of Scaled Scores 2= N N 19 3= Supplementary Subtest Differences between supplementary subtest & mean scaled score that are significant or infrequent Scaled Score Diff from Mean Hand Movements 6.3 Y N 15 2= 7.5 Sig? Infrequent (<10%) Infreq ? 3.5 Y N 5.0 Y N Gestalt Closure 4 2.3 3.6 Y N 5.0 Y N Face Recognition 5 1.3 4.0 Y N 6.0 Y N 2.7 Y N 5.0 Y N 3.1 Y N 4.0 Y N Block Counting Knowledge/Gc Sig. (p<.05) Verbal Knowledge 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 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, 3rd 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 Assessment Procedures • KABC-II • KTEA-II, Comprehensive Form A • Children’s Memory Scale (CMS)- selected subtests • Clinical Interviews: parents, teacher, tutor ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved KABC-II Scale Sequential/Gsm Number Recall Word Order Simultaneous/Gv Rover Triangles Gestalt Closure Block Counting Learning/Glr Atlantis Rebus Planning/Gf Story Completion Pattern Reasoning Knowledge/Gc Verbal Knowledge Riddles Fluid-Crystallized Index (FCI) Supplementary Scale Delayed Recall Atlantis Delayed Rebus Delayed Standard Score (mean = 100; SD = 15) 77 6 6 90 12 5 6 13 86 8 7 90 10 7 108 12 11 87 85 10 5 90% Confidence Interval 70-86 82-100 80-94 83-97 101-115 82-92 Percentile Rank 6 9 9 25 75 5 9 84 18 25 16 25 50 16 70 75 63 19 50 5 ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved “Less than 23 pts?” STEP 1. INTERPRET THE GLOBAL SCALE INDEX Confidence Interval Scale Used Scale Index (circle one) Is Global Scale Interpretable? Descriptive Category (Ages 4-18) (Standard Score) (Circle one) 90% FCI (CHC Model) MPI (Luria Model) 87 ( or 95% Highest Index Lowest Index Range Less than 23 pts 31 YY N N 82 - 92 ) 108 77 •31 or Categories Percentile Rank If NO, do not interpret NVI “If no, do not interpret” ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Essentials Pages 85-87 Step 1. Interpret the global scale index In the case of (FCI, MPI, or NVI) Keenan, the extreme A. Consult Table D.2 to obtain SS and 90% or 95% variability confidence interval. Use Table D.4 for PR and Table between scales 5.1 for category. means FCI is not a B. If using NVI do not conduct any other interpretive meaningful steps. summary Global Scale Index FCI Standard Score 87 95% confidence interval 82-92 Percentile Rank 19 Descriptive Category Average ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Step 2A: Use base rate rule of <10%. See Appendix A or Record Form p. 3 for ages 7-18 Scale Index Scale (Standard Score) Sequential/Gsm 77 Simultaneous/Gv Learning/Glr Planning/Gf Knowledge/Gc 90 86 90 108 Subtest Scaled Range Scores Occurring Interpretable? < 10%a High Low Range 6 6 0 Y N 5 12 5 7 Y N 6 8 7 1 Y N 6 10 7 3 Y N 6 12 11 1 Y N 5 Analysis of the interpretability of Keenan’s scale indexes ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Step 2B: Identify if any of the scales are a normative weakness or a normative strength STEP 2. INTERPRET PROFILE OF SCALE INDEXES TO IDENTIFY STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES Subtest Scaled Scores *See critical values for Step 2A Scale Index (Standard Score) Scale Sequential/Gsm High Low Learning/Glr 86 6 12 8 Planning/Gf 90 108 10 7 12 11 Simultaneous/Gv Knowledge/Gc Index Mean (rounded) 77 90 Range 6 5 7 0 7 1 3 1 Interpretable? Y N Normative Weakness (NW) or Normative Strength (NS) <85 NW >115 NS Personal Weakness (PW) or Personal Strength (PS) Diff from Mean PW or PS (p<.05) PW PS Y N NW NS PW PS Y N NW NS PW PS Y N NW NS PW PS Y N NW NS PW PS Infrequent (<10%) CHC model (include Knowledge/Gc) Luria model (omit Knowledge/Gc) Computation of Keenan’s Normative Strengths and Weaknesses ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Step 2C: Identify personal weaknesses or strengths in the scale profile STEP 2. INTERPRET PROFILE OF SCALE INDEXES TO IDENTIFY STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES Subtest Scaled Scores *See critical values for Step 2A Scale Index (Standard Score) Scale Sequential/Gsm Simultaneous/Gv 77 90 Learning/Glr 86 Planning/Gf 90 108 90 Knowledge/Gc Index Mean (rounded) High 6 12 8 Low Range 6 5 7 0 7 1 10 7 12 11 3 1 Interpretable? Y N Normative Weakness (NW) or Normative Strength (NS) <85 NW >115 NS Y N NW NS Y N NW NS Y N NW NS Y N NW NS Personal Weakness (PW) or Personal Strength (PS) Diff from Mean 13 4 0 18 PW or PS (p<.05) PW PS PW PS PW PS PW PS PW PS Infrequent (<10%) CHC model (include Knowledge/Gc) Luria model (omit Knowledge/Gc) Calculate mean and difference from mean for each interpretable scale. Computation of Keenan’s Personal Strengths and Weaknesses ©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) INTERPRET PROFILE OF SCALE INDEXES TO IDENTIFY STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES Subtest Scaled Scores Scale Index (Standard Score) le Gsm us/Gv lr 77 High 90 86 90 108 90 f /Gc dex Mean (rounded) 6 Range6 12 5 8 7 Low 10 7 12 11 *See critical values for Step 2A 0 7 Y 1 Interpretable? Y N Y 3 Y 1 Y Normative Weakness (NW) or Normative Strength (NS) <85 NW >115 NS N NW NS N NW NS N NW NS N NW NS Personal Weakness (PW) or Personal Strength (PS) Diff from Mean 13 4 0 18 PW or PS (p<.05) PW PS PW PS PW PS PW PS PW PS Infrequent (<10%) CHC model (include Knowledge/Gc) Luria model (omit Knowledge/Gc) ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Essentials Page 95 Summarizing Step 2 Findings Don’t Forget 3.4 Definitions of Indexes that are Key Assets and High Priority Concerns Three Conditions needed for Key Assets Knowledge/Gc (108) meets 2nd 2 1. Normative Strength 2. Personal Strength 3. Infrequent (<10%) Occurrence Three Conditions needed for High Priority Concerns Sequential/Gsm (77) meets 1st 2 1. Normative Weakness 2. Personal Weakness 3. Infrequent (<10%) Occurrence ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved STEP 3A INITIAL LEARNING VS DELAYED RECALL Learning/Glr (Initial) vs. Delayed Recall Scale Subtest Scaled Scores High Low Range Interpretable? (<10%) Index Standard Score Learning/Glr 8 7 1 Y N 86 Delayed Recall 10 5 5 Y N 85 Only calculate the difference if both scales are interpretable 1 Sig? Y Difference needed for significance (p<.05) = 13+ N Difference Keenan’s abilities in learning new information and scoring and retrieving that information are equally developed. Infrequent? Y N Difference needed for 10% base rate = 16+ ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved STEP 3B LEARNING VS ACQUIRED KNOWLEDGE Learning/Glr (Initial) vs. Knowledge/Gc Scale Learning/Glr Knowledge/Gc Subtest Scaled Scores High Low Range Interpretable? (<10%) Index Standard Score 8 7 1 Y N 86 12 11 1 Y N 108 Only calculate the difference if both scales are interpretable 22 Difference Sig? Keenan’s ability to learn new material differs significantly from his acquisition of facts and verbal concepts, but not unusually so. Y Difference needed for significance (p<.05) = 12+ N Infrequent? Y N Difference needed for 10% base rate = 24+ ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved STEP 4. SUPPLEMENTAL SUBTEST ANALYSIS FOR AGES 7-12 Scale Sequential/Gsm Simultaneous/Gv Scale Interpretable in Step 2? Y N Y N Sum of Scaled Scores Mean Scaled Score Y N Scaled Score Diff from Mean Sig. .(p<.05) 2= Hand Movements 2= Gestalt Closure 6 3.7 Block Counting 13 3.2 Simultaneous/Gv Knowledge/Gc Supplemental Subtest Differen subtest & sig 2= Expressive Vocab. 3.5 3.1 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 Step 5B. PLANNED CLINICAL COMPARISONS MEMORY & LEARNING VS. Scaled Scores 3 4 5-18 ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 6 ____ 8 6 ____ 7 ____ ____ PROBLEM SOLVING ABILITY 3-4 Scaled Scores 5 6 7-12 Word Order ____ ____ ____ Face Recognition Atlantis ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Number Recall Rebus 5 7 ____ 12 ____ ____ 10 1318 Conceptual Thinking Triangles ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 2 Y stop Range of Scaled Scores N 27 Sum of Scaled Scores 78 Standard Score Keenan’s memory and learning abilities fell within the Below Average range & represent a Normative Weakness Y stop 11 Is Difference significant? Is Difference uncommonly large? Range of Scaled Scores 7 Uncommonly Large Range? Difference Y N Y N Pattern Reasoning Rover Story Completion Block Counting N 34 89 Uncommonly Large Range? Sum of Scaled Scores Standard Score 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 ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Keenan’s Step 5C Comparison- Cannot be conducted Step 5C. PLANNED CLINICAL COMPARISONS MEANINGFUL STIMULI VS. Scaled Scores 4 5-18 8 ____ ____ Atlantis ____ -Face Recognition ____ 10 Story Completion ABSTRACT STIMULI Scaled Scores 4 5-12 13-18 ____ ____ 5 ____ ____ 7 ____ ____ ____ 7 Range of Scaled Scores Y N stop Triangles Rebus Pattern Reasoning This comparison cannot be conducted Uncommonly Large because the Y N Range? supplementary subtest, Sum of Scaled Face Recognition, was Scores not administered. Range of Scaled Scores Standard Score Standard Score stop Is Difference significant? Is Difference uncommonly large? Uncommonly Large Range? Sum of Scaled Scores Difference Y N Y N ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Keenan’s Step 5D Comparison Step 5D. PLANNED CLINICAL COMPARISONS VERBAL RESPONSE VS. Scaled Scores 4-6 ____ ____ ____ 7-18 ____ 6 ____ 7 ____ 11 5 Y stop POINTING RESPONSE Scaled Scores 4 5-18 ____ ____ 6 ____ ____ ____ 8 ____ ____ 12 Number Recall Rebus Expressive Vocabulary Riddles 6 Range of Scaled Scores N Uncommonly Large Range? Y 24 Sum of Scaled Scores stop 87 Standard Score 4 Is Difference significant? Is Difference uncommonly large? Difference Y N Y N Word Order Face Recognition Atlantis Verbal Knowledge Range of Scaled Scores N Uncommonly Large Range? 26 Sum of Scaled Scores 91 Standard Score Keenan performed equally well on tasks that required verbal responses and those that required pointing responses ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Keenan’s Step 5E Comparison Step 5E. PLANNED CLINICAL COMPARISONS LITTLE MOTOR RESPONSE VS. Scaled Scores 4 5-6 ____ ____ ____ ____ 6 Y STOP stop Scaled Scores 4 5-6 7-12 7-18 7 ____ ____ 13 GROSS MOTOR RESPONSE Conceptual Thinking Face Recognition Pattern Reasoning Block Counting ____ ____ Range of Scaled Scores N Y Sum of Scaled Scores stop Standard Score Is Difference uncommonly large? ____ ____ Hand Movements Triangles Rover Story Completion Range of Scaled Scores 7 Uncommonly Large Range? Is Difference significant? 5 ____ 12 ____ ____ 10 ____ ____ 1318 N Uncommonly Large Range? Sum of Scaled Scores Standard Score Difference Y N Y N Little motor response was not a unitary cluster, so the comparison could not be conducted. ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Step 6A. GENERATE HYPOTHESES TO EXPLAIN FLUCTUATIONS IN SCALES THAT ARE NOT INTERPRETABLE First Line of Attack: Examine Planned Clinical Comparisons (from Step 5) to identify possible hypotheses Was Index found uninterpretable in Cluster that may provide hypotheses Age Core Subtests Relevant to the Clusters Step 2? Core Subtests Relevant to the Clusters for the subtest variability in the index Age (check box if yes) Verbal Response vs. Pointing Response Sequential/Gsm 4-18 Abstract vs. Meaningful Stimuli Simultaneous/Gv Memory & Learning vs. Problem Solving Ability Little Motor vs. Gross Motor Response 4 Number Recall (Verbal) vs. Word Order (Pointing) Face Recognition (Meaningful) vs. Triangles (Abstract) 4 3-4 4 Face Rec. (Mem. & Learn.) vs. Triangles/Concep. Th. (Prob Slv) Face Recognition/Concept. Thinkg. (Little) vs. Triangles (Gross) 5 Concept Thinking/Pattern Reason. (Little) vs. Triangles Little Motor vs. Gross Motor Response (Gross) 6 Concept Th./Pattern Reason. (Little) vs. Triangles/Rover Little Motor vs. Gross Motor Response (Gross) Learning/Glr Planning/Gf Little Motor vs. Gross Motor Response 13-18 7-18 Block Counting (Little) vs. Rover (Gross) Verbal Response vs. Pointing Response 4-18 Rebus (Verbal) vs. Atlantis (Pointing) Abstract vs. Meaningful Stimuli 4-18 Rebus (Abstract) vs. Atlantis (Meaningful) Abstract vs. Meaningful Stimuli 7-18 Pattern Reasoning (Abstract) vs. Story Completion (Meaningful) Pattern Reasoning vs. Story Completion (Gross) Little Motor vs. Gross Response His Gv scale was notMotor interpretable, but7-18 either was this (Little) clinical Verbal Response vs. Pointing Response Riddles (Verbal) vs. Verbal Knowledge (Pointing) Knowledge/Gc 7-18the subtests comprising comparison because of variability between “Little Motor Response” ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Findings from Keenan’s Step 6A: • 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. ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved Essentials Page 132 Step 6B: Generate Hypotheses to Explain Supplementary Subtests that Are Inconsistent with Pertinent Core Subtests (ages 3-18) • 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 ©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; 6th 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 (70th %ile) than Glr (18th %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 KTEA-II Comprehensive Form A Scale Reading Composite Letter & Word Recognition Reading Comprehension Decoding Compositea Nonsense Word Decoding Mathematics Composite Math Concepts & Applications Math Computation Oral Language Composite Listening Comprehension Oral Expression Written Language Composite Written Expression Spelling Reading Fluency Composite Word Recognition Fluency Decoding Fluency Comprehensive Achievement Composite Standard Score (grade-based) 98 93 104 91 88 102 107 97 97 95 101 88 89 89 84 89 80 96 90% Confidence Percentile Interval Rank 94-102 45 88-98 32 98-110 61 87-95 27 82-94 21 96-108 55 99-115 68 89-105 42 88-106 42 85-105 37 89-113 53 82-94 21 80-98 23 84-94 23 78-90 14 81-97 23 73-87 9 92-100 39 ©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). ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved 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
