A Review of Instruments Used In the Assessment of Children Presented by:

Document technical information

Format pdf
Size 734.1 kB
First found Jun 9, 2017

Document content analysis

Language
English
Type
not defined
Concepts
no text concepts found

Persons

Cecil R. Reynolds
Cecil R. Reynolds

wikipedia, lookup

Organizations

Places

Transcript

Children’s Assessments (PPA Presentation)
Page 1
A Review of Instruments Used
In the Assessment of Children
Presented by:
Robert A. Reed, Psy.D.
Department of Psychology & Counseling
Carlow University
and
Diane Snyder, Psy.D.
Post-Doc, Carnegie Mellon University
Counseling Center
Pennsylvania Psychological Convention
June 18, 2014
Children’s Assessments (PPA Presentation)
Page 2
Developmental Assessments
Purposes of Developmental Assessment & Screening
 to identify infants who may be at risk for developmental delay,
 to diagnose the presence and extent of developmental problems,
 to identify an infant’s specific abilities and skills, and
 to determine appropriate intervention strategies. (Wyly, 1997)
 as evaluation of intervention strategies
 prediction of future competencies
 assessment of skills that are fundamental for success in a classroom environment (McCormick, 2008)
Infants and Toddlers
 occurs routinely in medical care settings
 infant-toddler care/education/intervention programs
 rely on brief screening instruments
 more complete assessments of children who do not seem to be developing at the usual pace
General types of infant and toddler developmental assessments
 questionnaires for the primary caregiver about the child’s activities, either soliciting the achievement of
specific developmental milestones or eliciting more general assessments of child development
 observations of child activities on a limited number of items (Glascoe, 2003)
 any child found to have developmental difficulties requires access to a more refined assessment with a
professionally administered developmental tool
Domains of Development
 General Cognitive skills
 Language
 Motor
 Socioemotional development
 Functional abilities appropriate to the age of the child
Cognitive Screening Tools
Caregiver Report
Observation
Mixed
Ages and Stages
Developmental Indicators for
Assessment of Learning-Revised
Battelle Developmental
Inventory Screening Test
Infant Development
Inventory
Slosson Intelligence Test
Developmental Profile-II
NCHS/NLSY Questionnaire
Lexington Developmental Scales
Preschool Screening System
Parents’ Evaluation of
Developmental Status
Bayley Infant
Neurodevelopmental Screener
(BINS)
Denver Developmental
Screening Test II
Children’s Assessments (PPA Presentation)
Page 3
Cognitive Diagnostic Tools
 Bayley Scales of Infant Development, Third ed.
 McCarthy Scales of Children’s Ability
 Mullen Scales of Early Learning
Language Screening Tools
Caregiver Reports
Observation
The Quick Test
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test
Communication and Symbolic Behavior Scales
(Coplan, 1993)
Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test
Early Language Milestone Scale (Wetherby and
Prizant, 2002)
Language Diagnostic Tools
Caregiver Report
Observation
Mixed
Receptive Expressive Emergent
Language Scale (REEL)
Reynell Developmental
Language Scales
Sequenced Inventory of
Communication
Development
MacArthur-Bates Communicative
Development Inventories
Preschool Language Scale
Test of Early Language
Development
Motor Development
Screening
 Early Motor Pattern Profile (EMPP) (Morgan and Aldag, 1996)
 Motor Quotient (Capute and Shapiro, 1985)
Diagnostic
Bayley Scales of Infant Development, Third ed.
 Movement Assessment of Infants (Chandler, Andrews, and Swanson, 1980)
 Peabody Developmental Motor Scales (Folio and Fewell, 1983)
 Alberta Infant Motor Scale (Piper and Darrah, 1994)
Children’s Assessments (PPA Presentation)
Page 4
Social-Emotional Development
Caregiver Report
Observation
Mixed
Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory
Bayley Scales of Infant
Development, Third ed
Vineland Social-Emotional
Maturity Scale
Infant-Toddler Social Emotional
Assessment, ITSEA
Achenbach System of Empirically
Based Assessment
Devereux Early Childhood
Assessment
Domain: Function/Activities of Daily Living

Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale-II
Specific Developmental Disabilities
 Modified Checklist of Autism in Toddlers (Dumont-Mathieu and Fine, 2005)
 Checklist for Autism in Toddlers (CHAT) (Baird et al., 2000)
 Pervasive Developmental Disorders Screening Test-II (PDDST-II) (Siegel, 2004)
 Screening Tool for Autism in Two-Year-Olds (STAT) (Stone, Coonrod, and Ousley, 2000)
 Social Communication Questionnaire (SCQ) (Rutter, Bailey, and Lord, 2003)






Bayley Scales of Infant Development- Third Edition
Purpose: Assess developmental functioning of infants and young children
Population: children ages 1 – 42 months
Administration Time: 30-60 minutes
Publisher: The Psychological Corporation
Cost: $1299 per complete kit
Scoring: hand or computer scoring available
Bayley-III
 Originally published in 1969; latest version 2006
 Assesses development across all 5 domains
 Socio-Emotional (Greenspan) and Adaptive domains are new additions
 To be used to identify children with developmental delays and provide data for treatment planning
Bayley-III Psychometrics
 provides norms at 10 day intervals of infants between 16 days and 5 months 15 days to allow for more precise
measurement
 Psychometric properties exceed those recommended by American Educational Research Association,
American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement
 Standardization included national sample of 1700 children between ages 16 days and 43 months and 15 days
Children’s Assessments (PPA Presentation)
Page 5










Stratified sampling for parent education, race/ethnicity, and geographic region
Equal boys and girls for each age group
Bayley Infant Neurodevelopmental Screener (BINS)
Purpose: To identify infants who are developmentally delayed or have neurological impairments
Population: ages 3 -24 months
Administration: About 10 minutes
Publisher: The Psychological Corporation
Cost: $220 per complete kit
Utilizes a subset of the items from the Bayley Scales of Infant Development – Second Edition
Screening tool; Inadequate as diagnostic tool
Assesses 4 conceptual areas:
o
Basic Neurological Functions/Intactness
o
Receptive Functions
o
Expressive Functions
o
Cognitive Processes
BINS Psychometrics
 Normative Sample: 600 nonclinical cases stratifies according to ages, sex, race/ethnicity, geographic region,
and parent education level
 Validity: Convergent validity with the BSID-II and the Battelle showed a trend to over identify infants when
the highest cutoff score was used.









Battelle Developmental Inventory, 2nd Edition
Purpose: Screening, diagnosis, and evaluation of development
Population: birth to 7 years, 11 months
Administration: 60-90 minutes
Publisher: Riverside Publishing
Cost: $1232 for complete kit with manipulatives
Scoring: hand and computer scoring available
Personal-Social, Adaptive, Motor, Communication, and Cognitive ability
100 item screening is a subset of total assessment
Screens and evaluates early childhood developmental milestones providing a strong assessment-intervention
link; Coordinates well with early childhood curricula
BDI–2 Psychometrics
 Normative Sample: 2500 children in 30 states; stratified according to age, sex, race/ethnicity, geographic
region, and SES
 Validity/Reliability: Test-Retest reliability .93 for 2 year olds .94 for 4 year olds; Convergent validity with
BSID-II, the Vineland, the WPPSI-III range from .60-.75




Mullen Scales of Early Learning
Purpose: A comprehensive measure of cognitive functioning for infants and preschool children
Population: birth to 68 months
Administration: 15-60 minutes
Publisher: American Guidance Services
Children’s Assessments (PPA Presentation)
Page 6





Cost: $849.65/per complete kit
Scoring: hand or computer scoring available
Identifies a child's strengths and weaknesses
Assesses early intellectual development and readiness for school
Provides a foundation for successful interventions
Mullen Psychometrics
 Normative Sample: 71 clinicians over 8 years; 1849 children between ages of 2 days and 69 months; 51%
male, 49 % female; Stratified according to race/ethnicity, SES geographic region, and community size
 Validity/Reliability: Concurrent validity with Bayley .70. Test-Retest reliability measure for 2 age groups.
For younger group .82-.96, for older .71-.79
















Vineland Social-Emotional Early Childhood Scales
Purpose: To assess the social and emotional functioning of young children
Population: birth to age 5 years, 11 months
Administration Time: 15-25 minutes
Publisher: American Guidance Service
Cost: $103 per complete kit
Scoring: hand or computer scoring available
Subset from the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale
Screening and identification of developmental delays but must be combined with other assessment for
diagnostic purposes (Mullen)
3 scales: Relationships, Play and Leisure, Coping Skills
Validity/Reliability data derived from Vineland ABS
Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition
Purpose: Designed as an adaptive behavior assessment system that measures self-sufficiency across the
life-span.
Population: Birth to age 90-11
Administration: 45-65 minutes
Publisher: Pearson
Cost: $420.65 for complete starter kit
Scoring: hand and computer scoring available
Vineland II
 Parent/Caregiver rating form, teacher rating form, and semi-structured interview
 Assesses 4 domains of functioning: Communication, Daily Living Skills, Socialization, Motor Skills
 Updated version improved diagnostic clarity to reflect the trend of the greater cultural expectations for
adaptive behavior in individuals with developmental disabilities associated with placement in least restrictive
living environments
Vineland II - Psychometrics
 Normative Sample: National sample of 3695 stratified according to race/ethnicity, geographical region, sex,
and mother’s education level
 Validity/Reliability: Internal consistency reliabilities .80 for the three primary domains; The Vineland-II
domain scores tended to show moderately strong convergent correlations with comparable scales from the
Adaptive Behavior Assessment System, Second Edition, with correlations averaging around .70 for similar
Children’s Assessments (PPA Presentation)
Page 7
scales. With regard to discriminant validity, Vineland-II domain scores tended to correlate at rather low levels
with intelligence test scores from the Wechsler tests, correlations generally falling in the range from .10 to .35
The Difficulty of Assessing Young Children
Undifferentiated nature of their capabilities, Infants being less differentiated than older children
 Sustaining attention
 There is no practical or reliable measure of any specific domain in early infancy that gives a precise prediction
about the child’s performance in that domain several years later (National Research Council and Institute of
Medicine, 2000).
Intelligence
History of IQ
 Stanford Binet (1905)
 Alpha-verbal & Beta-nonverbal (WW I)
 FSIQ, VIQ, PIQ: Wechsler-Bellevue (1939)
 Subtest improvements
 Dealing with bias
CHC Model (Cattell-Horn Carroll)
 Spearman (1904) g + specific factors
 Thurstone (1938) primary mental abilities
– 7-9 PMAs, independent of g
 Cattell-Horn: Gc and Gf
 Carroll (1993) (CHC) three-stratum model
– g = general measure of ability
– 10 = broad measures of ability
– 70 = narrow measures of ability
Broad measures of ability (Flanagan, Ortiz & Alfonso, 2007)
 Crystallized Intelligence (Gc): breadth and depth of a person's acquired knowledge, ability to communicate
one's knowledge, ability to reason using previously learned experiences.

Fluid Intelligence (Gf): broad ability to reason, form concepts, and solve problems using unfamiliar
information or novel procedures.
 Quantitative Reasoning (Gq): ability to comprehend quantitative concepts and relationships and manipulate
numerical symbols.
 Reading & Writing Ability (Grw): basic reading and writing skills.
 Short-Term Memory (Gsm): ability to apprehend and hold information in immediate awareness and use it
within a few seconds.
 Long-Term Storage and Retrieval (Glr): ability to store information and fluently retrieve it later in the process
of thinking.
 Visual Processing (Gv): ability to perceive, analyze, synthesize, and think with visual patterns, including the
ability to store and recall visual representations.
 Auditory Processing (Ga): ability to analyze, synthesize, and discriminate auditory stimuli, including the ability
to process and discriminate speech sounds that may be presented under distorted conditions.
Children’s Assessments (PPA Presentation)
Page 8


Processing Speed (Gs): ability to perform automatic cognitive tasks, when measured under pressure to
maintain focused attention.
Decision/Reaction Time/Speed (Gt): the immediacy with which an individual can react to stimuli or a task
(typically measured in seconds or fractions of seconds; not to be confused with Gs, which typically is measured
in intervals of 2-3 minutes).
Current Issues: Verbal vs Nonverbal Intelligence
 Verbal and nonverbal measures are a “practical” method for assessing IQ based on alpha & beta tests
– Tests have been “used to define the theory of intelligence that the test is intended to measure”
(Naglieri, 2008, p. 68).
 Verbal tasks
– Correlate with achievement testing
– Concern about overlap
 BUT Rindermann (2007) argues that the overlap between verbal IQ and achievement is a function of one
common latent ability and has some research to support this argument.
 Nonverbal tasks
– Are culturally more fair (Naglieri, 2008)
– Do not share overlap with achievement tests
– So, the variance they capture may be more unique to the person’s intellectual abilities
 If so, then the nonverbal tests may be a better measure of cognitive abilities
Many tests are trying to include the Verbal and Nonverbal while also trying to adhere to CHC model
Wechsler Intelligence Tests
The Wechsler Intelligence Scales are some of the most well-known measures of cognitive abilities. Several of the
subtests are similar to the Army Beta test (Picture Completion, Coding and Block Design). Early versions of the
Information, Arithmetic and Digit Span subtests were found on the Army Alpha test.
The current tests include:
 Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence, 4th Edition (WPPSI-IV) – ages 2.6 to 7.7)
 Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, 4th Edition (WISC-IV) – ages 6 to 16
 Wechsler Adult Intelligence Test, 4th Edition (WAIS-IV) – ages 16 to 90:11
WPPSI-IV
Author: David Wechsler
Published by: Pearson (PsychCorp)
Copyright: 2012
Cost: $1,145.00 (in box)
Content Evaluation (Wechsler, 2012)
Scale has been divided into two age bands, 2:6-3:11 years and 4:0-7:7 years
The WPPSI-IV has expanded to include additional subtests and index scores. Pearson reports that the testing time
has been maintained or reduced while increasing construct coverage. The age range has been extended to 7 years
7 months. The test was normed and standardized on 1,700 children stratified for US census. Pearson reports
comparable or improved psychometrics compared to the WPPSI-III.
 Primary Index Scales for Children ages 2.6 to 3.11:
o Verbal Comprehension Index uses two subtests: Receptive Vocabulary and Information
o Visual Spatial Index uses two subtests: Block Design and Object Assembly
Children’s Assessments (PPA Presentation)
Page 9



o Working Memory Index uses two subtests: Picture Memory and Zoo Locations
o FSIQ is derived from the five subtests (all subtests listed above except Zoo Locations)
Ancillary Index Scales for Children ages 2.6 to 3.11:
o Vocabulary Acquisition uses two subtests: Receptive Vocabulary and Picture Naming
o Nonverbal uses four subtests: Block Design, Object Assembly, Picture Memory and Zoo Locations
o General Ability uses four subtests: Receptive Vocabulary, Information, Block Design and Object
Assembly
Primary Index Scales for Children ages 4.0 to 7.7:
o Verbal Comprehension uses two subtests: Information and Similarities (other subtests are available)
o Visual Spatial uses one subtest: Block Design and Object Assembly is available
o Fluid Reasoning contains two tests: Matrix Reasoning and Picture Concepts
o Working Memory includes two subtests: Picture Memory and Zoo Locations
o Processing Speed uses two subtests: Bug Search and Cancellation
o FSIQ is derived from six subtests: Information, Similarities, Block Design, Matrix Reasoning, Picture
Memory and Bug Search
Ancillary Index Scales for Children ages 4.0 to 7.7:
o Vocabulary Acquisition uses Receptive Vocabulary and Picture Naming
o Nonverbal uses Block Design, Matrix Reasoning, Picture Concepts, Picture Memory and Bug Search
o General Ability uses Information, Similarities, Block Design and Matrix Reasoning
o Cognitive Proficiency uses Picture Memory, Zoo Locations, Bug Search and Cancellation
WISC-IV
Author: David Wechsler
Published by: Pearson
Copyright: 2003
Cost: $1,069.00 (in box)
Content Evaluation (Wechsler, 2003)
The WISC-IV preserves much if its earlier design, but “tilts” its design to reflect the CHC Model:
FSIQ or General Intelligence
Broad abilities includes four Index Scores derived from 10 narrow measures of ability
 Verbal Comprehension – Measures crystalized intelligence (3 subtests: Similarities, Vocabulary &
Comprehension)
 Perceptual Reasoning – Measures fluid reasoning (3 subtests: Block Design, Picture Concepts & Matrix
Reasoning)
 Working Memory – Measures working memory (2 subtests: Digit Span & Letter-Number Sequencing)
 Processing Speed – Measures speed of processing (2 subtests: Coding & Symbol Search)
WISC-V Coming Late fall, 2014
Author: David Wechsler
Published by: Pearson
Copyright: 2014
Cost: $1,031.00 (in box)
Content Evaluation (Wechsler, 2014)
The WISC-V continues to “tilt” its design to reflect the CHC Model:
FSIQ or General Intelligence
Children’s Assessments (PPA Presentation)
Page 10
Broad abilities now include five Index Scores
 Verbal Comprehension – Similarities, Vocabulary, Information & Comprehension
 Visual Spatial – Block Design and Visual Puzzles
 Fluid Reasoning – Matrix Reasoning, Figure Weights, Picture Concepts & Arithmetic
 Working Memory – Digit Span, Picture Span & Letter-Number Sequencing)
 Processing Speed – Coding, Symbol Search & Cancellation
WAIS-IV
Author: David Wechsler
Published by: Pearson
Copyright: 2008
Cost: $1,145.00 (in box)
Content Evaluation (Wechsler, 2008)
The WAIS-IV preserves much if its earlier design, but has started to “tilt” its design to reflect the CHC Model:
FSIQ or General Intelligence
Broad abilities includes four Index Scores derived from 10 narrow measures of ability
 Verbal Comprehension – Measures crystalized intelligence (3 subtests: Similarities, Vocabulary & Information)
 Perceptual Reasoning – Measures fluid reasoning (3 subtests: Block Design, Matrix Reasoning & Visual Puzzles)
 Working Memory – Measures working memory (2 subtests: Digit Span & Arithmetic)
 Processing Speed – Measures speed of processing (2 subtests: Coding & Symbol Search)
Reliability
The Wechsler scales have outstanding reliabilities (Kaufman & Lichtenberger, 1999; Sattler & Saklofske, 2001).
Overall internal consistency for the normative sample was in the .90s for IQ and Index scores except for the PSI (PSI
.87-.89). At the subtest level reliability is at .80s and .90s. Test retest stability ranges from .86 to .95 for IQ and
Index scores. And .70s to .90s for subtests. Interscorer agreement is in the .90 for all subtests (Wechsler, 2002).
Validity
The test manuals provide evidence of construct validity and the current structure of the WISC-IV and WAIS-IV have
been getting closer to the CHC model with its four Index scores. Independent researchers have replicated the
four-factor structure of the WISC and WAIS (Georgas, Van de Vijver, Weiss and Sakofske, 2002). Content validity
evidence is abundant with the Wechsler tests correlating well with other well-known tests such as the DAS .84-.91
(Elliott, 1990 and Wechsler, 2002), and the SB5 .80-.91 (Roid, 2003). Correlations between the Wechsler tests and
achievement tests have yielded predictive validity estimates from .65 to .75 (Wechsler, 2002, 2003).
Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, 5th Edition
Author: Gale Roid
Published by Riverside Publishing
Copyright date: 2003
Cost: $1,087.00
The SB5 is an individually administered assessment of intelligence and cognitive abilities suitable for examinees
aged two years through 85+ years. The SB5 yields a Full Scale IQ, Nonverbal IQ, Verbal IQ and an Abbreviated
Battery IQ. Five index scores are reported. All IQ and Index scores have a mean of 100 with a standard deviation of
15. Subtest scores have a mean of 10 and a standard deviation of 3, providing an opportunity for comparing profile
scores across other common IQ tests (Roid, 2003a).
Children’s Assessments (PPA Presentation)
Page 11
There is an additional early childhood version of the test for ages 2-7 years suitable for those working with
preschool assessment.
Content Evaluation
The SB5 is the first test to measure five cognitive factors in both nonverbal an verbal domains and is designed to
measure several of the cognitive factors identified by the CHC theory (fluid reasoning, crystallized general
knowledge, quantitative reasoning, visual-spatial ability and working memory. The CHC theory contends that
intelligence is a multifaceted array of cognitive abilities with a general (g) measure composed of several
dimensions (i.e., including the factors listed above) (Roid, 2003b).
General or Full Scale IQ (derived from 10 subtests that measure narrow abilities)
Broad abilities/Factors
Nonverbal
Verbal
Fluid Reasoning
Object Series/Matrices
Verbal Absurdities/Verbal Analogies
Knowledge
Picture Absurdities
Vocabulary
Quantitative
Quantitative Reasoning
Quantitative Reasoning
Visual-Spatial
Form Patterns
Position and Direction
Working Memory
Block Span (tapping)
Memory for Sentences/Last Word
SB5 Testing Sequence
• Administer Nonverbal Fluid Reasoning routing test.
• Administer Verbal Knowledge (vocabulary) routing test.
• Enter appropriate level for Nonverbal testlets
– 6 nonverbal levels
– Administer all testlets for appropriate level (ordered by level of difficulty), then proceed to next level
and administer all testlets, etc. until ceiling is reached for each factor.
• Enter appropriate verbal level testlets
– 5 verbal levels – complete all testlets for appropriate level and then proceed to next level –
administer all testlets, etc until ceiling is reached for each factor.
Technical Evaluation
The SB5 was standardized on a nationally representative sample of 4,800 subjects ranging in age from 2.0 years to
85+ years (oldest subject was 96). Demographics of the normative sample was matched with the 2000 census for
gender, ethnicity, geographic region and parental education (Roid, 2003b).
Reliability
Internal consistency averages .84-.89 across the 10 subtests. Split half coefficients for the FSIQ=.98, NVIQ=.95 and
VIQ=.96. Abbreviated IQ=.91. Factor Index scores rnage from .90 to .92. Nonverbal subtests range from .85 to .88
and Verbal subtests range from .84 to .89 (Roid, 2003b). Test re-test reliability measures (i.e., 5-8 days) are
reported for various ages and vary from .84 to .95 (Roid, 2003b). The practice effect in the test re-test procedure
(5-8 days) showed an IQ difference of 2-5 points and that author argues that this lower practice effect might
indicate that retesting can be done earlier than in other tests (author suggests retesting possible after 6 months
rather than the traditional one-year delay) (Roid and Tippin, 2009).
Validity
Several studies providing content-, criterion-, construct-, and consequence-related validity are included in the
technical manual (Roid, 2003b). Using confirmatory factor analysis, the five-factor model showed a strong and
Children’s Assessments (PPA Presentation)
Page 12
favorable fit (.89 to .93). Confirmatory analyses using the full-length subtests from the SB5 and the WJ III showed a
strong fit with the five-factor model aligning across the SB5 and the WJ III (Mather & Woodcock, 2001).
nd
Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children, 2 Edition
Authors: Alan Kaufman and Nadeen Kaufman
Published by: Pearson (originally published by AGS)
Copyright: 2004
Cost: $925.00
The KABC-II is defined as an individually administered and culturally fair test for children (minimizes verbal
instructions and responses). The test employs a dual-theoretical model using both the Luria neuropsychological
model and the Cattell/Horn/Carroll (CHC)model. It is normed for children ages 3-18.
Content Evaluation (Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004a)
The KABC-II uses a five factor design including the following factors and subtests:
Simultaneous/Gv (visual-spatial abilities)
 Triangles - assemble several foam triangles to match a picture
 Face Recognition - looks at photographs and select the correct face/faces shown in a difference pose from a
selection
 Pattern Reasoning (ages 5 and 6)  Block Counting - count the number of blocks in a picture of a stack of blocks
 Story Completion (ages 5 and 6)
 Conceptual Thinking – select a picture from a set of 4 or 5 that does not belong with the set
 Rover - move a toy dog to a bone on a grid that contains several obstacles
 Gestalt Closure - fill in gaps in a partially completed inkblot drawing and describe the object/action
Sequential/ Gsm (short-term memory)
 Word Order - child touches a series of silhouettes of objects in the same order they were read by evaluator
 Number Recall – child recalls numbers in same order that they were read by evaluator
 Hand Movements - copy a series of taps the examiner makes on the table with hand
Planning/Gf (fluid reasoning)
 Pattern Reasoning (ages 7–18) - child selects the missing stimulus within a pattern
 Story Completion (ages 7–18) – child selects pictures to fill in a story line
Learning/Glr (long-term storage and retrieval)
 Atlantis - child then has points to correct picture when nonsense name is read
 Atlantis Delayed - repeat the Atlantis subtest 15-25 minutes later to assess delayed recall
 Rebus - child is taught word or concept associated with a rebus (drawing) - child reads aloud phrases
composed of these rebuses
 Rebus Delayed – child repeats Rebus subtest 15-25 minutes later to demonstrate recall
Knowledge/Gc (crystalized intelligence - included in the CHC model only)
 Riddles – evaluator reads characteristics of verbal concept, the child points to it or names it
 Expressive Vocabulary – child names objects
 Verbal Knowledge – child selects picture that corresponds to a vocabulary word
KABC-II provides two general intelligence composite scores (M=100, SD=15): Mental Processing Index (MPI; Luria’s
model) and Fluid-Crystalized Index (FCI; CHC model). The Luria model takes 25-60 minutes to administer while the
CHC model takes 30-75 minutes to administer. A separate nonverbal index is also available.
Children’s Assessments (PPA Presentation)
Page 13
Technical Evaluation
The KABC-II was standardized on a sample of 3,025 children chosen to match the 2001 U.S. Census for age, gender,
geographical region, ethnicity and parent education. There are 18 age groups.
Reliability
Average internal consistency for the MPI and FCI ranges from .95 to .97. Average test retest for the MPI and FCI
ranges from .86 to .94 (correlations improve with age) groups (Lichtenberger, Sotelo-Dynega & Kaufman, 2009).
Validity
Construct validity is supported by factor-analysis studies available in the KABC-II Manual. Confirmatory factor
analysis reports high loadings on the intended scale and on the general factor. KABC-II is also supported by
correlations with the WISC-IV, WPPSI-III, KAIT, and WJ-III (Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004).
One of the MMY reviewers was critical that while the KABC-II claims to reflect the Luria model of processing, it
does not live up to its claims (see MMY for details).
Cognitive Assessment System-2nd Edition (CAS2)
Authors Naglieri and Das
Published by: Riverside
Copyright: 2012
Cost: $875.00 (without case)
Time to test: 40-60 minutes (shorter or standard formats)
The CAS is described as a multi-dimensional measure of ability based on a cognitive and neuropsychological
processing theory called Planning, Attention, Simultaneous, and Successive (PASS) (Naglieri & Conway, 2009). The
Riverside website states that the CAS is processing measure of ability that is fair to minority children, effective for
differential diagnosis and related to intervention. It is designed for children ages 5 – 18.
Content Evaluation (Naglieri & Das, 1997)
The CAS is based on the PASS theory that emphasizes basic psychological processes. Naglieri and Conway (2009)
stress that PASS processes are the “building blocks of ability conceptualized within a cognitive processing
framework, p 27.” PASS is defined as:
Planning: a mental activity that provides cognitive control, intentionality, organization, self-regulation and use of
processes, knowledge, and skills. Naglieri and Conway (2009)note that the construct of Planning is tested through
novel problem-solving where there is no previously acquired strategy. It is similar to the concept of executive
functioning. Planning contains three subtests:
 Planned Number Matching: from row of numbers, identify two that are the same
 Planned Codes: similar to other coding tests (e.g., A=XO; B=XX; etc.). Child writes in correct code
 Planned Connections: connect numbers and letters in sequences that appear in a quasi-random order
Attention is described as a mental function that provides focused, selective cognitive activity over time that is
resistant to distraction. Attention is measured using three subtests that include the following:
 Expressive Attention: Similar to Stroop Test where child reads color words printed in black in random
order. Then child names colors of a series of rectangles printed in the same colors as named on previous
Children’s Assessments (PPA Presentation)
Page 14


page. Then child is presented with color words printed in different ink colors that the colors the words
name. Child says the color the word is printed in and not the name of the color.
Number Detection: child finds the target stimulus (e.g., the numbers 1, 2, and 3 printed in an open font)
located within many distractors, such as the same numbers printed in a different font.
Receptive Attention: Targets are letters that are physically the same (e.g., L L but not L l). Then targets are
letters that have same name but are not physically the same (e.g., L l but not P l).
Simultaneous Processing is a mental activity where the child integrates stimuli into inter-related groups or a
whole. Simultaneous Processing Subtests include:
 Matrices: traditional matrix test
 Verbal Spatial Relations: measures comprehension of logical and grammatical descriptions of spatial
relationships. Child selects one of six drawings that best answers a question. Typical item might include:
“which picture shows a diamond below a circle?”
 Figure Memory: child is presented with a two-or three-dimensional geometric figure for 5 seconds. The
child is then asked to identify this figure within a larger complex geometric pattern that contains the
previous figure.
Successive Processing is described as a mental activity where a child processes stimuli in a specific serial order to
form a chain-like progression. Successive Processing Subtests include:
 Word Series: child is read a series of words and then asked to repeat them in order
 Sentence Repetition: Twenty sentences are read to the child. The child is asked to repeat each sentence
exactly as presented. Naglieri and Conway (2009) note that the sentences are composed of color words,
such as “The blue yellows the green” in order to reduce semantic meaning from the sentences.
 Sentence Questions: Similar sentences are used as in Sentence Repetition but after each sentence is read,
the child is asked a question about it. For example, the examiner reads, “The blue yellows the green,” and
then asks the child, “Who yellows the green?”
 Visual Digit Span
The CAS2 Full Scale score and each of the four PASS domains yields a standard score (M=100, SD=15). CAS2
subtests are reported as scaled scores (e.g., M=10, SD=3). Many of the PASS subtests are based on work completed
by Luria. Note how many of the tests avoid tasks associated with crystalized intelligence.
The CA2S includes the standard 12 subtest battery that can be administered in about 60 minutes. A shorter battery
containing 8 subtests (two from each domain) takes about 40 minutes. The CAS was standardized on a sample of
1,342 children and is representative of the U.S. population stratified for gender, race, ethnicity, region, community
setting, classroom placement and parental education.
Reliability
The CAS2 12 Subtest Core Battery Full Scale reliability is .95 with PASS Scale reliabilities ranging from .86 to .93.
Validity
Studies have found that children with a weakness in one or more of the PASS cognitive processes earned lower
scores on achievement tests and were likely to be identified for special education services. The more marked the
cognitive weakness, the low the achievement scores. Naglieri makes the argument that the use of traditional
intelligence tests to compare with achievement to identify learning problems is faulty as traditional IQ tests
contain questions that are similar to the questions on achievement tests (especially verbal and quantitative
questions). The similar content inflates the relationship between IQ and achievement. The CAS does not include
Children’s Assessments (PPA Presentation)
Page 15
achievement-like questions and has the advantage of predicting concurrent and future performance without the
problem of content overlap (Naglieri and Conway, 2009).
Naglieri and Conway point out that while the CAS does not contain achievement-like questions, the correlations
between the CAS and achievement tests is very similar to the relationship found between typical IQ tests and
achievement. This finding provides construct validity for the CAS and suggests that the cognitive processes
measured on the CAS are correlated with academic performance. Naglieri, and Ford (2005) report that since the
CAS does not measure achievement-like skills, it is a fairer test for minorities, those who live in poverty and who
may have a disadvantage on an IQ test that is at least partly measuring achievement rather than cognitive
processing.
Woodcock Johnson-Fourth Edition Test of Cognitive Abilities
Published by: Riverside
Copyright: 2014 (coming out this summer)
Cost: Complete Kit (Cognitive Test + Achievement Form A) - $1,934.90 (in box)
Cognitive Battery: $1148.85 (in box)
Content
The website indicates that this new edition of the Cognitive Battery is strongly oriented to the CHC model. It yields
a new Gf-Gc Composite for comparison to measures of cognitive processing, oral language, and achievement.
(http://www.riversidepublishing.com/products/wj-iv/pdf/MS91542_WJIV_SellSheet_HR.pdf).
Standard Battery
• Test 1: Oral Vocabulary
• Test 2: Number Series
• Test 3: Verbal Attention—new
• Test 4: Letter-Pattern Matching— new
• Test 5: Phonological Processing— new
• Test 6: Story Recall
• Test 7: Visualization— new
• Test 8: General Information
• Test 9: Concept Formation
• Test 10: Numbers Reversed
Extended Battery
• Test 11. Number-Pattern Matching
• Test 12: Nonword Repetition— new
• Test 13: Visual-Auditory Learning
• Test 14: Picture Recognition
• Test 15: Analysis-Synthesis
• Test 16: Object-Number Sequencing
• Test 17: Pair Cancellation
• Test 18: Memory for Words
The WJ-IV website indicates that the Standard Battery includes seven tests that are used to derive the General
Intellectual Ability (g) score. Factor scores for Comprehension-Knowledge (Gc), Fluid Reasoning (Gf, and ShortTerm Working Memory (Gwm) are obtained from the Standard Battery. The efficiency with which an individual can
perform cognitive tasks is measured by Cognitive Efficiency. In addition, a new Gf-Gc Composite is provided that
the website professes will be valuable as a predictor score for evaluation of strengths and weaknesses across all
Children’s Assessments (PPA Presentation)
Page 16
areas of cognitive processing, linguistic competency, and academic performance (Schrank, McGrew, Mather, &
Woodcock, 2014).
Psychometrics
Current psychometrics for the new WJ-IV could not be located online, but the previous editions of the WJ have
been well regarded.
Nonverbal Tests of Intelligence
Comprehensive test of Nonverbal Intelligence, 2nd Edition (CTONI-II)
Authors: Hammill, Pearson, & Wiederholt
Published by: Pearson
Copyright: 2009
Cost: $457.00
Time to test: 40-60 minutes
The CTONI-II is the second edition of a norm-referenced test that uses nonverbal formats to measure general
intelligence in children and adults (ages 6 to 89). The nonverbal format may be useful for those whose
performance on traditional tests might be affected by language or motor abilities. The CTONI-II does not adhere to
any particular theory of intelligence. It is a more practical approach to assessing ability using either simple oral
instructions or pantomime instructions. The authors still point out that the CTONI-II measures most of the abilities
measured by most intelligence tests. It does not measure general information, vocabulary or motor behavior.
Content Evaluation (Hammill, Pearson & Wiederholt, 2009)
The CTONI-II measures analogical reasoning, categorical classification and sequential reasoning using six subtests:
Pictorial Analogies and Geometric Analogies use a 2x2 matrix format to measure complex cognitive ability (i.e.,
this is to that (foot and shoe in the upper boxes) as this is to what (hand is to – select picture of glove) lower two
boxes in matrix).
Pictorial Categories and Geometric Categories require the test taker to deduce the relationship between two
stimulus figures (for example two different types of chairs) and then from a list of pictures, choose an object that
can be used for sitting.
Pictorial Sequences and Geometric Sequences contain different figures that bear some sequential relationship to
one another. The last box is empty and the test taker chooses from a list of figures the figure that best fits the
sequence. The test taker must recognize the rule that is guiding the progression of figures (Hammill & Pearson,
2009).
The CTONI-II was normed on a sample of 2,827 people from 10 states. U.S. Census information was used to stratify
the sample for geographic region, gender, ethnicity, parent education and income. The CTONI-II yields age
equivalents (they apologize for offering them), Percentile ranks, scaled scores (M=10, SD=3) and composites
(M=100 and SD=15). A Full Scale composite is also offered.
Reliability
Internal consistency coefficients for the subtests were in the .80s and in the .90s for the composite scores.
Test-retest coefficients for a 2-4 week interval were in the .80s for subtests and the higher .80s and .90s for the
composites (Hammill & Pearson, 2009).
Children’s Assessments (PPA Presentation)
Page 17
Validity
The magnitude of the correlations between the CTONI-II and several other intelligence tests (TONI-4, UNIT, RIAS,
WISC-IV, KAIT) are all large (r=.50 to .69) or very large (r=.70 to .89). Correlations between the CTONI-II and various
achievement batteries (for reading and math) were in the large to very large range (Hammill & Pearson, 2009).
Wechsler Nonverbal Scale of Ability (WNV)
Authors: Wechsler & Naglieri
Published by: Pearson
Copyright: 2006
Cost: $737.95
Time to test: Full Battery (4 subtest): 45 minutes, Abbreviated (2 subtest): 20 minutes
The WNV website describes the test as a nonverbal measure of ability for anyone. Especially designed for culturally
and linguistically diverse groups. It is normed for ages 4 to 21.
Content Evaluation (Wechsler & Naglieri, 2006)
The WNV is comprised of a variety of subtests intended to measure general ability in different ways. Most of the
WNV subtests can be found in other Wechsler products. Those subtests include the following:
 Matrices: Adapted from the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test NNAT.
 Coding: Adapted from the WISC-IV.
 Object Assembly: Adapted from the WPPSI-III and the WISC-III.
 Recognition: A new match-to-stimulus subtest. Child looks at page with geometric designs and then chooses
which of four of five responses matches the original design.
 Spatial Span: From the WMS-III, the test taker mimics the examiner’s tapping on a series of blocks in order or
in reverse order.
 Picture Arrangement: Adapted from the WAIS-III, the test taker arranges a set of picture cards to tell a logical
story.
Four subtests are used for to obtain a full scale IQ. For children 4-7 the Matrices, Coding, Object Assembly and
Recognition subtests are used. For those age 8-21 Matrices Coding, Spatial Span and Picture Arrangement are
used.
The WNV was standardized on two samples, one collected in the U.S. that consisted of 1,323 people stratified for
age, sex, race/ethnicity, education level, and geographical region, and the other collected in Canada that included
875 participants across a stratified sample similar to the U.S.
Reliability
Internal reliability for the U.S. sample ranges from .74 to .91 for the subtests and .91 for the full scale scores.
Similar correlations were found with the Canadian sample.
Validity
The WNV full scale IQ correlates with the WISC-IV at r=.76. While the manual contains support for its validity, the
MMY review suggested that more work needs to be done in this area.
Children’s Assessments (PPA Presentation)
Page 18
Shorter Batteries
Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence-Second Edition
Author: David Wechsler – Project team directed by Hsin-Yi Chen
Published by: Pearson
Copyright: 2011
Cost: $327.00 (in box)
Time to test: 4 subtest: 20-30 minutes
Content Evaluation (Pearson, 2011)
A short and reliable measure of intelligence for clinical and research settings. It is normed for ages 6-89 and
contains four familiar subtests (Vocabulary & Similarities make up the Verbal Comprehension Index, and Block
Design and Matrix Reasoning makes up the Perceptual Reasoning Index). The four subtests yield a Full Scale IQ. All
IQ scores use a mean of 100 with a standard deviation of 15. The subtest scores yield T scores (M=50, SD=10). An
even shorter Full Scale IQ can be obtained using two subtests (i.e., Vocabulary and Matrix Reasoning).
If it is determined that a full battery is needed, the four WASI-II subtests can be substituted for their equivalent
subtests on either the WISC-IV or WAIS-IV. This saves time and can minimize carryover affects.
Standardization was completed using a sample of 2,245 children and adults ages 6 to 90 years. The sample was
stratified for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education level and geographic region using the current U.S. Census data.
Reliability
Internal reliability for the subtests varies by age, but in general the reliability coefficients fall within the upper .80s
to the upper .90s. The IQ scales are a little higher than the coefficients of the individual subtests. For the children’s
sample, test-retest stability with a mean interval of 10 days ranged from .76 to .93 for subtests and .91 to .93 for
the Full Scale (4 subtest) IQ scales.
Validity
Correlations with the WISC-IV ranged from .75 for Similarities to .83 for Block Design. The IQ correlations ranged
from .88 for the WISC-IV to .90 for the WAIS-IV. Construct validity of the WASI-II was supported by the
intercorrelations of the WASI subtests and IQ scales and through factor analysis. Some concern has been raised for
the use of factor analysis since only two subtests are available for each IQ score (normally three variables – or
subtests – would be desired); however, a factor pattern emerges that supports separating the verbal from the
nonverbal tests. The WASI, the WASI-II and the K-BIT-2 appear to measure the same constructs (Canivez, Konold,
Collins & Wilson, 2009).
Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales (RIAS)
Authors: Reynolds & Kamphaus
Published by: Psychological Assessment Resources (PAR)
Copyright: 2003
Time to test: Four subtest Composite IQ requires about 20-25 minutes
Time to test: Composite Memory Index requires additional 10-15 minutes
Cost: $448.00
Children’s Assessments (PPA Presentation)
Page 19
Content Evaluation (Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2003)
The RIAS is an individually administered test of intelligence that is co-normed with a supplemental measure of
memory that is normed for ages 3 to 94. It includes four subtests, two which make up the Verbal Intelligence Index
(VIX) and two that make up the Nonverbal Intelligence Index (NIX). A Composite Index (CIX) is derived from the
four subtests. A composite Memory Index is obtained from two supplemental memory subtests. The authors
report that the test was designed to join practical and theoretical aspects of the assessment of intelligence
(Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2003). The RIAS applies the CHC model as a primary theoretical guide while also
maintaining verbal and nonverbal domains.
Verbal Subtests are as follows:
Guess What: test takers are provided with 2 or 3 clues and asked to deduce the object of concept being described.
The Guess What subtest measures verbal reasoning in combination with vocabulary and language development.
Verbal Reasoning: examinee listens to a propositional statement that forms a verbal analogy and is asked to
respond with one or two words that completes the idea or proposition. This test measures verbal-analytic
reasoning with less emphasis on vocabulary than the Guess What subtest.
Nonverbal Subtests are as follows:
Odd Item Out: test taker is presented with a picture card containing 5 to 7 pictures or drawings and asked to
determine which one does not belong with the others. This test measures nonverbal reasoning, spatial ability and
visual imagery.
What’s Missing: the test taker is shown a picture with a key element missing and is asked to identify that key
element. This test measures nonverbal reasoning.
Composite Memory Scale
Verbal Memory Index: brief stories are read out loud to the test taker who is asked to recall them. This test
measures encoding and brief storage of verbal material within a meaningful context.
Nonverbal Memory Index: A stimulus picture is presented to the test taker for five seconds followed by an array of
pictures. The test taker must identify the target picture from the array of six pictures. Measures encoding,
short-term storage and recognition of pictorial stimuli that are both concrete and abstract and without meaningful
reference.
The RIAS yields index scores (M=100, SD=15) for a verbal IQ, a nonverbal IQ, a composite IQ and a composite
memory index.
The RIAS was normed on a sample of 2,438 participants from 41 states between 1999 and 2002. The sample was
stratified for age, gender, ethnicity, education level (parent education for children) and geographic region.
Reliability
Internal reliability using coefficient alpha reached .84 or higher for every age group. The median alpha reliability
estimate was reported as .90 or better. Test-retest stability with an average interval of 21 days were in the .70s
and .80s.
Validity
Confirmatory factor analyses suggest that the CIX, VIX and NIX possess evidence of factorial validity. The authors
report that the CMX needs further research with a variety of clinical and nonclinical samples (Reynolds &
Kamphaus, 2009).
Children’s Assessments (PPA Presentation)
Page 20
Correlations with the WISC-IV such as RIAS-VIX with WISC-IV-VCI were in the .80s whereas the RIAS-VIX with the
WISC-IV-PRI ranged in the .40s to the .70s. The CIX correlations with the WISC-IV-FSIQ ranged from .79 to .90.
Additional correlations were reported for achievement indicating that the RIAS has good predictive value for
educational achievement.
Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test-2nd Ed.
Authors: Alan Kaufman and Nadine Kaufman
Published by: Pearson (originally by AGS)
Copyright: 2004
Time to test: 20 minutes
Cost: $250.00
Content Evaluation (Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004b)
The KBIT-2 contains 3 subtests. Two verbal (Verbal Knowledge and Riddles) and one nonverbal (Matrices) that yield
a VIQ, NVIQ and a Composite score. Normed on 2120 examinees from 34 states and stratified to the 2001 US
Census for education status (or mother’s education), geographical region, race and ethnicity. Norms are available
for ages 4 – 90. It is considered a reputable screening test for intelligence. It is easy to administer and easier to
score than other abbreviated batteries like the WASI-II.
Reliability
Interval consistency correlations for Verbal were .86-.96, for Nonverbal they were .78 to .93 and for IQ composite
they were .89 to .96. Test-retest with mean interval of 28 days yielded correlations from .76 to .93.
Validity
Compared to WASI, WISC-IV, WAIS-III yielded correlations in the moderate to high range.
Good test for a short screening tool.
Personality Assessment in Children & Teens
Considerations in Personality Assessment

Expansion of practice,

Need to be thorough,

Need to integrate data

Role of theory (Flanagan, 2007)
Expansion of Practice

thorough assessment of personality, or social/emotional/behavioral functioning.

school psychologists generally do a more thorough job of assessing cognitive domains

clinical psychologists tend to do a more thorough job of assessing psychopathology.
(Flanagan, 2007)
Need to be Thorough

a construct-based approach to assessment results in a broader view of the individual and his or her
functioning because more aspects of constructs can be measured with greater specificity
Children’s Assessments (PPA Presentation)
Page 21
Need to Integrate Data

Consider all data and being open to modifying interpretations on the basis of new information.

Accept divergence in findings and seek to explain it to capture the uniqueness of the individual.

A more useful report is more than separate descriptions of the numerical data from each test
Role of Theory

test interpretation should occur within a theoretical framework

many personality assessment devices were developed atheoretically, allowing interpretation according to a
preferred framework (Esquivel and Flanagan, 2007).
The Use of Drawings with Children





Drawings are less threatening
Drawings provide focused discussion
Drawings supply creative solutions
Drawings provide visual representations of problems areas
Drawings expand therapeutic engagement (Oster & Crone, 2004)
Drawings in the Test Battery

Reveal the dimension of fantasy and imagination often not captured in observations, checklists, and
interviews

Entry point into the subjective world of the client

Rough idea of developmental level (Oster& Crone, 2004)
Drawing Assessments

Draw-A-Person (Machover, 1952)
o Reflects person’s self-concept
o Projections of conflicts and concerns

Draw-A-Person in the Rain (Verinis, Lichtenberg, & Henrich, 1974)
o Rain represents perceived external stress

Mother-and-Child drawing (Gillepsie, 1994)
o Interpersonal self
Drawing Assessments

House-Tree-Person (Buck, 1948)
o Seen as standard
o House represents home life, interpersonal dynamics of family
o Tree represents unconscious feelings toward the self
o Person represents perceptions of self or who they wish to be

Kinetic House-Tree-Person (Burns, 1987)
o Adding action reflect clients’ well being more profoundly than static drawings

Draw-A-Family (Appel, 1931)
o Attitudes toward family members and perception of family roles

Kinetic Family Drawing (Burns & Kaufman, 1970).

Kinetic School Drawing (Prout & Phillips, 1974)
Children’s Assessments (PPA Presentation)
Page 22
Children’s Apperception Test (CAT)
Purpose: A projective method of investigating personality
Population: Ages 3-10
Administrative Time: varies
Publisher: C.P.S., Inc.
Cost: $142 for complete kit





CAT (2 versions – animal & human)

Consists of 10 picture cards showing animals engaged in relationship-oriented interactions

Designed to elicit how children perceive, respond to, and resolved different developmental problems

Presented as a game to child

Pictures presented in specific order

What is going on in the picture

What the animals are doing

What happened before in the story

What will happen next
CAT Psychometrics

No psychometric information reported in manual

psychometric concepts are not fully applicable to projectives (Anastasi, 1996)

o
o
o
o
Personality Assessment in Adolescence
Clarity in assessment needed to help address
Serious emotional disturbance
Juvenile delinquency
Violence
Mental health issues (Crespi & Politikos, 2008)





Millon Adolescent Clinical Inventory (MACI)
Purpose: Assess and adolescent’s personality along with self-reported concerns and clinical syndromes
Population: ages 13-19 – intended for a clinically disturbed population
Administration: 30 minutes
Publisher: NCS Assessments
Cost: $125 for starter kit (manual, 3 assessments, and mail-in scoring)
MACI





Appropriate for clinically disturbed population
NOT appropriate as assessment of normal personality or as a screening tool
160 items, 27 content scales, and 4 response bias scales
Personality Pattern scales parallel DSM IV personality disorders
Test construction follows domain theory of Millon
Personality Pattern Scales

Introversive

Inhibited

Doleful
Children’s Assessments (PPA Presentation)
Page 23

Submissive

Dramatizing

Egotistic

Unruly

Forceful

Conforming

Oppositional

Self-Demeaning

Borderline Tendency
Expressed Concerns

Identity Diffusion

Self-devaluation

Body disapproval

Sexual discomfort

Peer Insecurity

Social Insensitivity

Family Discord

Childhood abuse
Clinical Syndromes

Eating Dysfunctions

Substance-abuse Proneness

Delinquent Predisposition

Impulsive Propensity

Anxious Feelings

Depressive affect

Suicidal Tendency
MACI Psychometrics

Normative Sample: Primary sample of 579 adolescents, 2 cross validation samples of 138 and 194 each.
All subjects were in treatment programs.

Validity/Reliability: Cronbach alpha reliabilities range from .73-.91. Content validity is congruent with
theory of personality developed by author. Concurrent validity with the judgments of clinicians less than .35






Minnesota Multiphasic Inventory – Adolescent (MMPI-A)
Purpose: To assess major patterns of personality and emotional disorders
Population: ages 14-18
Administration: 45-60 minutes
Publisher: University of Minnesota Press
Cost: $210 starter kit
Scoring: hand, computer, and mail-in scoring available
MMPI-A

Resembles the MMPI-2

4 sets of scales;
o Validity scales
o Basic clinical scales
Children’s Assessments (PPA Presentation)
Page 24
o
o




Content Scales
Supplementary scales
Support diagnosis and treatment planning in a variety of settings.
Identify the root causes of potential problems early on.
Provide information to share with parents, teachers, and others in the adolescent’s support network.
Guide professionals in making appropriate referrals
Validity Scales

? - Cannot Say (reported as a raw score)
VRIN - Variable Response Inconsistency
TRIN - True Response Inconsistency
F1 - Infrequency 1
F2 - Infrequency 2
F - Infrequency
L - Lie
K - Correction
Clinical Scales

1 (Hs) Hypochondriasis
2 (D) Depression
3 (Hy) Hysteria
4 (Pd) Psychopathic Deviate
5 (Mf) Masculinity–Femininity
6 (Pa) Paranoia
7 (Pt) Psychasthenia
8 (Sc) Schizophrenia
9 (Ma) Hypomania
0 (Si) Social Introversion
MMPI-A Psychometrics

Normative Sample: Adolescent subjects obtained through schools in 8 states. Balanced sample across
geographic region, urban-rural residence, and ethnic background. Heavily skewed in the direction of
higher education and occupational level.

Validity/Reliability: Content validity established with the MMPI and the MMPI-2
Behavior Rating Scales
Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment: The Preschool and School-Age Behavior Checklists
Authors:T. Achenbach & L. Rescorla
Published by: Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment
Cost:
Child Behavior Checklist pkg of 50 = $25.00
Preschool computer scoring starter kit = $330.00
School-Aged computer scoring starter kit = $430.00
The Child Behavior Checklists (CBCL) are well-known behavior rating scales for preschool and school-aged children
that were first published in the 1980s. The CBCL is designed to assess behavior and emotional problems as well as
Children’s Assessments (PPA Presentation)
Page 25
social competencies as reported by parents, teachers and through self-report. Updating for DSM-5 + new early
childhood autism rating scale.
The Preschool CBCL (2000) scales are normed for ages 1.5 to 5 years. They include 99 items with ratings for
parents, childcare workers and teachers. An element of the CBCL/1½-5 is the Language Development Survey (LDS),
that uses parents’ reports to examine children’s expressive vocabularies and word combinations, along with risk
factors for language delays. Syndrome scales include: Emotionally Reactive; Anxious/Depressed; Somatic
Complaints; Withdrawn; Sleep Problems; Attention Problems; Aggressive Behavior.
The Teacher Report Form for the CBCL/1½-5/LDS contains items that child behavioral health experts from ten
cultures have rated as being consistent with DSM diagnostic categories. The DSM-Oriented Scales include:
Affective Problems; Anxiety Problems; Pervasive Developmental Problems; Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity
Problems; Oppositional Defiant Problems.
The school age assessment is normed for children ages 6 to 19 and includes forms for parents/surrogates, teachers
and self-report. The empirically based syndrome scales for teachers and parents include:
Anxious/Depressed;
Withdrawn/Depressed
Somatic Complaints
Social Problems
Thought Problems
Attention Problems
Rule-Breaking Behavior
Aggressive Behavior.
DSM oriented scales are also available and are reported to be consistent with DSM-IV categories and include:
Affective Problems
Anxiety Problems
Somatic Problems
Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Problems
Oppositional Defiant Problems
Conduct Problems.
In 2007 multicultural norms were added to both the Preschool and School-Aged scales that provides problem-scale
profiles in relation to multicultural norms. Different norms are provided for different societies
Reliability
Test-retest for the preschool form using an average 8 day interval yielded correlations in the .80s and .90s with a
mean r = .85. Test-retest on the school-aged form yielded a mean r = .88 with stability ratings after 12 months
averaging r = .65. Inter-parent agreement was observed with a r = .61 and the agreement between caregivers and
teachers was correlated at .65. Internal consistency for the school-aged forms ranged from the .70s to the .90s.
Additional information pertaining to the scales’ reliability is available at the website: www.aseba.org.
Validity
Content validity is well-established through extensive research and revisions of the forms. This information is
available in the manuals that are available through the scales’ website (www.aseba.org). Good discrimination
between children referred for behavioral health and special education services is noted when compared to a group
of non-referred children with similar demographics.
Behavioral Assessment System for Children-2nd Ed.
Author: Randy Kamphaus and Cecil Reynolds
Publisher: Pearson (originally published by AGS)
Copyright: 2004
Full length form: 10-20 minutes for parent and teacher ratings
Children’s Assessments (PPA Presentation)
Page 26
Costs:
Hand score starter kit: $527.60
Web-based scoring available
The BASC-II is a set of rating scales that include the Teacher Rating Scales (TRS), Parent Rating Scales (PRS),
Self-Report of Personality (SRP), Student Observation System (SOS), and Structured Developmental History (SDH).
The BASC-2 parent and teacher rating scales provide 16 clinical subscales:
Activities of Daily Living
Functional Communication
Adaptability
Hyperactivity
Aggression
Leadership
Anxiety
Learning Problems
Attention Problems
Social Skills
Atypicality
Somatization
Conduct Disorder
Study Skills
Depression
Withdrawal
Content (Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2004)
The BASC-2 is designed to assist in treatment planning, evaluation and intervention as well as to assist with
differential diagnoses when used with the DSM-IV. The teacher rating scales vary in length from 100 to 139 items.
The parent ratings range from 134 to 160 items. Total scores for each scale are converted to composite scores,
scaled scores, percentiles and there are graphs available with the computerized scoring program.
The BASC-2 was normed on a general population of American children and adolescents from various settings that
included 4,650 teacher ratings and 4800 parent ratings. A clinical norm sample included 5281 reports from
teacher, parent and self-ratings.
Reliability
Internal consistency has yielded coefficient alphas in the .90s for composite scales and in the .80s for subscales.
Test-retest reliability with one to eight week intervals were in the .80s for composites and .70s and .80s for
subscales.
Validity
The manual describes several measures to compare the BASC-2 with similar scales. In general, correlations were in
the high .70s and .80s (Achenbach scales, Conner scales, etc.).
Conners 3
Author: K. Conners
Publisher: MHS Publishers
Full length form: 20 minutes
Costs: Hand score kit with 25 forms: $449.00 (recently updated for DSM-5)
Software scoring program (unlimited use): $321.00
The Conners 3 is the third edition of a behavior rating scale used to assess for ADHD and other childhood disorders.
There are scales for parents and teachers (ages 6-18) and a self-report form for ages 8-18. The Conner, 3 contains
several scales including:
General Psychopathology
Inattention
Hyperactivity/Impulsivity
Learning Problems
Children’s Assessments (PPA Presentation)
Page 27
Executive Functioning
Peer Relations
ADHD Inattentive
ADHD Combined
Conduct Disorder
Aggression
Family Relations
ADHD Hyperactive-Impulsive
Oppositional Defiant Disorder
The Conners 3 has three validity scales titled: Positive Impression, Negative Impression and an Inconsistency Index.
The subscale raw scores are converted to T scores (mean=50, SD=10).
Reliability
Internal consistency coefficients are .90 and above for parent and teacher ratings and .85 and above for the self
reports. Interrater reliability is described as .82 to .98. Some subscales were slightly lower.
Validity
Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis yielded a five factor model for parents (learning problem,
aggression, hyperactivity/impulsivity, peer relations and executive functioning. A four factor model better suited
the teacher ratings (learning problems, aggression, hyperactivity/impulsivity, and peer relations. Correlations
between parent and teacher rating was .60.
Convergent validity with BASC-II, CBCL, etc were reported as reasonable.
The Conners 3 is a well-designed and improved over pervious Conners scales and highly recommended for clinical
use (Arfa, 2010).
Child Depression Inventory, 2nd Ed.
Author: Maria Kovacs
Publisher: MHS
Copyright: 2011
Time to test: 5 – 15 minutes
Cost:
Complete hand score kit: $289.00
Complete software score kit: $399.00
The Children’s Depression Inventory 2 (CDI2) is a rating scale designed to obtain ratings of a child’s depression
from parents, teachers and self-report. The rating scale is based on the original CDI that enjoyed much success.
The scale can be administered as a paper-pencil test, online or with a computer. The scales provided by the CDI2
include Emotional Problems and Functional Problems and four subscales including:
Negative Mood
Negative Self-Esteem
Ineffectiveness
Interpersonal Problems
A full length scale provides 28 items, whereas, a short screening scale uses 12 items.
The CDI2 was normed on a sample of 1187 parent ratings and 631 teacher ratings representing 26 different states
in the U.S. It is evenly proportioned for age and gender and the sample’s racial/ethnic distribution matches the
U.S. census distribution. A clinical sample of 319 youth ages 7 to 17 with diagnoses of Major Depressive Disorder,
ADHD, Conduct Disorder, Generalized Anxiety and Oppositional Defiant Disorder was obtained.
Children’s Assessments (PPA Presentation)
Page 28
Reliability
Internal consistency using coefficient alpha was nonclinical samples ranged from .68 to .88 and for clinical sample
.76 to .89. Test-retest with interval of 1-4 weeks ranged from .54 to .67. For 6 month interval it was .54.
Validity
A relationship is noted between CDI and self-esteem measures. Little is offered comparing the CDI with other
depression scales for children. Considered acceptable as a screening instrument, (MMY-17).
Revised Children's Manifest Anxiety Scale: Second Editon (RCMAS-2)
Authors: Cecil R. Reynolds & Bert O. Richmond
Publisher: Western Psychological Services
Copyright: 2008
Cost: Basic kit: $119.00
Time to administer: 10-15 minutes
The RCMAS-2 is a brief self-report inventory measuring the level of anxiety in 6- to 19-year-olds. The test is made
up of 49 items covering the following scales:
physiological anxiety
worry
social anxiety
defensiveness
inconsistent responding index
A cluster of 10 items assesses performance anxiety. The Defensiveness scale replaces and improves upon the
RCMAS Lie scale, and the Inconsistent Responding index is new to this edition.
Norms are based on an ethnically diverse sample of more than 2,300 individuals ages of 6 and 19, with similar
numbers of males and females. Norms are provided for three age groups: 6 to 8 years, 9 to 14 years, and 15 to
19 years. The website reports that because RCMAS-2 scales correlate highly with RCMAS scales, the research using
the RCMAS extends to the RCMAS-2. Seligman, Ollendick, Langley, Baldacci and Bechtoldt (2004) found that the
RCMAS was able to discriminate between anxiety disorder and externalizing disorders, but it was not as sensitive
to discriminating between anxiety disorder and other internalizing disorders.
Vanderbilt Scales
Copyright: 2002 American Academy of Pediatrics and the National Initiative for Children’s Healthcare Quality
Available via many websites
The NICHQ Vanderbilt Assessment Scales for parents and teachers screen for ADHD, Oppositional/Conduct
behaviors, and anxiety/depression. The instruments are primarily used to assess for symptoms of ADHD. The
Teacher version contains 18 items that assess ADHD, an additional 10 items that assess for oppositional and
conduct problems, 7 items that screen for depression and anxiety and 8 additional items that rate academic
performance and classroom behaviors. The parent form contains 18 items that assess ADHD, 8 items that screen
for oppositional behaviors, 14 items that evaluate for conduct problems and 7 items that rate anxiety and
depression. Additional items rate school performance, relationships with family members and peers.
Psychometric properties include Cronbach alpha’s at .90 or better. With regard to the 18 items used to diagnose
ADHD the two subscales (9 items for inattentive and 9 items for hyperactivity), factor analysis supports this two
factor model. Internal consistencies were .93 or higher and the scale correlates well with the Computerized
Children’s Assessments (PPA Presentation)
Page 29
Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children. The Vanderbilt scales have become a popular and easy to use behavior
rating scale to assess for ADHD with parents and teachers (Wolraich, Lambert, Doffing, Bickman, Simmons, &
Worley, K., 2003).
Child and Adolescent Functional Assessment Scale (CAFAS)
Author: Kay Hodges
Publisher: Functional Assessment Systems (Kay Hodges)
Copyright: 2000
Time to test: 10 minutes
Cost:
Costs are not posted on their website – paper forms are available but FAS appears to be trying to market
it as an online tool with a yearly fee.
The basic CAFAS assesses a youth’s functioning across eight domains that include:
School
Home
Community
Behavior Toward Others
Mood/Emotions
Self-Harmful Behavior
Substance Use
Thinking
Ratings are made on a four point scale (Severe-30, Moderate-20, Mild-10 and Minimal-0). Additional ratings are
available for caregiver resources.
The CAFAS was normed on 4758 children. Average test-retest correlations are .78, interrater reliability is .92 and
inter consistency is between .73 and .78 (Hodges & Wong, 1996). Hodges and Wong. It has demonstrated validity
in predicting service utilization among youth with serious emotional disturbance (Hodges, Doucette-Gates & Kim,
2000).
Child and Adolescent Needs and Strengths (CANS)
Author: John Lyons
Publisher: Praed Foundation
Copyright: 1999
Different versions of the CANS are in use in several states by child welfare, mental health and juvenile justice
applications. A comprehensive, multi-system version also exists. Some versions of the CANS can be downloaded
from the Praed website.
The CANS is somewhat similar to the CAFAS. It rates life domains using a range of 0 to 3 (no evidence-0, a history
of the concern but doing well-1, significant problem-2, severe problem-3). The life domains include:
Family
social functioning
Medical
developmental
learning problems
sexuality
self-care
community.
There are additional domains that evaluate school, child behavioral/emotional needs, acculturation, etc. There is
another section that assesses strengths across a range of domains (family, talents, interpersonal, educational,
resiliency, etc.).
Children’s Assessments (PPA Presentation)
Page 30
Reliability studies indicate that the CANS is reliable at the item level. Training and certification is required for the
use of the CANS and there is a recommended minimum for certification (reliability of 0.70 using an intraclass
correlation coefficient on a test vignette). Average reliability after training is approximately 0.80. Reliability on case
record is 0.85 and reliability with a live interview is at least 0.90. Validity has been explored using other measures
with similar constructs such as the CAFAS and CBCL. Validity has been demonstrated through the relationship of
the CANS to service use and outcomes. (Anderson, Lyons, Giles, Price & Estle, 2003).
References for Developmental Assessments
Athanasiou, M. (2007). Review of the Battelle Development Inventory, 2nd Ed. In Geisinger, K. F., Spies, R. A.,
Carlson, J. F., & Plake, B. S. (Eds.). (2007). The seventeenth mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln, NE: Buros
Institute of Mental Measurements.
Baird, G., Charman, T., Baron-Cohen, S., Cox, A., Swettenham, J., Wheelwright, S., and Drew, A. (2000). Screening
for autism at 18 months of age: 6-year follow-up study. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry, 39(3), 694-702.
Bayley, N. (2006).
Assessments Inc.
Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Devlopment- Third Edition.
San Antonio, Tx:
Harcourt
Benish, J. (1998). Review of the Bayley Infant Neurodevelopmental Screener. In Impara, J. C., & Plake, B. S.
(Eds.). (1998). The thirteenth mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental
Measurements
Capute, A.J., and Shapiro, B.K. (1985). The motor quotient: A method for the early detection of motor delay.
American Journal of the Diseases of Children, 98, 692-697.
Chandler, L., Andrews, M., and Swanson, M. (1980). The movement assessment of infants: A manual. Rolling Bay,
WA: Infant Movement Research.
Chittoorango, M.M., (2001). In Plake, B. S., & Impara, J. C. (Eds.). (2001). The fourteenth mental measurements
yearbook. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.
Coplan, J. (1993). Early language milestone scale. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed
Dumont-Mathieu, T., and Fine, D. (2005). Screening for autism in young children: The Modified Checklist for Autism
in Toddlers (M-CHAT) and other measures. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Review,
11, 253-262.
Folio, M.R., and Fewell, R.R. (1983). Peabody developmental motor scales and activity cards: A manual. Allen, TX:
DLM Teaching Resources.
Glascoe, F.P. (2003). Parents’ evaluation of developmental status: How well do parents’ concerns identify children
with behavioral and emotional problems? Clinical Pediatrics, 42, 133-138.
Graham, T. (2007). Review of the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development in Geisinger, K. F., Spies, R. A.,
Carlson, J. F., & Plake, B. S. (Eds.). (2007). The seventeenth mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln, NE: Buros
Institute of Mental Measurements.
Children’s Assessments (PPA Presentation)
Page 31
Kush, J. (2001). Review of the Vineland Social-Emotional Early Childhood Scales in Plake, B. S., & Impara, J. C.
(Eds.). (2001). The fourteenth mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental
Measurements.
McCormick, M. (2008). Issues in measuring child health. Ambulatory Pediatrics, 8(2), 77-84.
Morgan, A.M., and Aldag, J.C. (1996). Early identification of cerebral palsy using a profile of abnormal motor
patterns. Pediatrics, 98(4), 692-697.
National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early
childhood development. Committee on Integrating the Science of Early Childhood Development, J.P. Shonkoff and
D.A. Phillips (Eds.). Board on Children, Youth, and Families, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and
Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Piper, M.C., and Darrah, J. (1994). Motor assessment of the developing infant. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders.
Rutter, M., Bailey, A., and Lord, C. (2003). The social and communication questionnaire (SCQ) manual. Los Angeles,
CA: Western Psychological Services.
Siegel, B. (2004). Pervasive developmental disorders screening test-II (PDDST-II). Early childhood screener for
autistic spectrum disorders. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment.
Sparrow, S. S., Balla, D. A., & Cicchetti, D. V. (1984). Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales. Circle Pines, MN: American
Guidance Service, Inc.
Stone, W.I., Coonrod, E.E., and Ousley, O.Y. (2000). Brief report: Screening tool for autism in two-year-olds (STAT):
Development and preliminary data. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 30, 607-701.
Wetherby, A.M., and Prizant, B.M. (2002). Communication and symbolic behavior scales: Developmental profile.
Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Widaman, K. (in press). Review of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales in Spies, R. A., Carlson, J. F., & Geisinger,
K. F. (Eds.). (in press). The eighteenth mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental
Measurements.
Wyly, M.V. (1997). Infant assessment. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Intelligence References
Canivez, Gary L.; Konold, Timothy R.; Collins, Jason M.; Wilson, Greg; School Psychology Quarterly, Vol 24(4), Dec,
2009. pp. 252-265.
Flanagan, D. P., Ortiz, S. O., & Alfonso, V. C. (2007). Essentials of cross-battery assessment. (2nd Edition). New
Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Children’s Assessments (PPA Presentation)
Page 32
Georgas, J., Van de Vijver, F., Weiss, L., & Sakofske, D. (2002). A cross-cultural analysis of the WISC-III: Cultural
considerations in assessing intelligence. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Hammill, D. & Pearson, N. (2009). Comprehensive Test of Nonverbal Intelligence-Second Edition.
S. Goldstein (Eds.), Practitioner’s guide to assessing intelligence and achievement (pp. 233-263).
In J. Naglieri &
Hammill, D., Pearson, N. & Wiederholt, J. (2009). Comprehensive Test of Nonverbal Intelligence, (2nd ed.). Austin,
TX: Pro-Ed.
Kaufman, A. & Kaufman, N. (2004a). Manual for the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children-Second Edition.
Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
Kaufman, A.
Inc.
& Kaufman, N. (2004b). Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test, Second Edition. Bloomington, MN: Pearson,
Kaufman, A. & Lichtenberger, E. (1999). Essentials of WAIS-III assessment. New York: Wiley.
Lichtenberger, E., Sotelo-Dynega, M., & Kaufman, A. (2009). The Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children-Second
Edition. In J. Naglieri & S. Goldstein (Eds.), Practitioner’s guide to assessing intelligence and achievement (pp.
61-93).
Mather, N & Woodcock, R. (2001). WJ III tests of cognitive abilities examiner’s manual. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
Naglieri, J. (2008). Traditional IQ: 100 years of misconception and its relationship to minority representation in
gifted programs. In J. L. Van Tassel-Baska (Ed.), Alternative assessments with gifted and talented students (pp.
67-88). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Naglieri, J. & Conway, C. (2009). The Cognitive Assessment System. In J. Naglieri & S. Goldstein (Eds.),
Practitioner’s guide to assessing intelligence and achievement (pp. 27-59).
Naglieri, J. & Das, J. (1997). Cognitive Assessment System. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
Naglieri, J. & Brunnert, K. (2009). Wechsler Nonverbal Scale of Ability. In J. Naglieri & S. Goldstein (Eds.),
Practitioner’s guide to assessing intelligence and achievement (pp. 315-338).
Psychological Corporation. (1999). Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence. San Antonio, TX: Author.
Reynolds, C & Kamphaus, R. (2003). Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales. Odessa, FL: PAR.
Rindermann, H. (2007). The bigg-factor of national cognitive ability. European Journal of Personality, 21 (5),
767-787.
Roid, G. H. (2003a). Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales – Fifth Edition, Examiner’s Manual.
Roid, G. H. (2003b). Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales – Fifth Edition, Technical Manual.
Itasca, IL: Riverside.
Itasca, IL: Riverside.
Roid, G. H. & Tippin, S. (2009). Assessment of intellectual strengths and weaknesses with the Stanford-Binet
Intelligence Scales-Fifth Edition. In J. Naglieri & S. Goldstein (Eds.), Practitioner’s guide to assessing intelligence and
achievement (pp. 127-152).
Children’s Assessments (PPA Presentation)
Page 33
Sattler, J. & Saklofske, D. (2001). WISC-III subtests. In J. Sattler, Assessment of children: Cognitive applications (4th
ed., pp. 266-297). San Diego, CA: Jerome Sattler.
Schrank, F.A., McGrew, K.S., Mather, N., & Woodcock, R.W. (2014). Woodcock-Johnson IV. Rolling Meadows,
IL:Riverside Publishing.
Wechsler, D. (2012). Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence-Fourth Edition. San Antonio, TX:
Pearson.
Wechsler, D. (2003). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth Edition. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt
Assessments.
Wechsler, D. (2008). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Fourth Edition. San Antonio, TX: Pearson.
Wechsler, D. (2011). Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence – Second Edition. Bloomington, MN: Pearson.
Wechsler, D. & Naglieri, J. (2006). Wechsler Nonverbal Scale of Ability. San Antonio, TX: Pearson.
Personality Assessment References
Anastasi, A. (1996). Psychological testing (6th ed.). New York: Macmillan.
Appel, K.E. (1931). Drawings by children as aids in personality studies.
129-144.
Buck, J.N. (1948).
Burns, R.C. (1987).
Brunner/Mazel.
The H-T-P test.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1,
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 4, 151-159.
Kinetic House-Tree-Person drawings (K-H-T-P):
An integrative manual.
New York:
Burns, R.C., & Kaufman, S.H. (1970). Kinetic Family Darwings (K-F-D): An introduction to understanding children
through kinetic drawings. New York: Brunner/Mazel.
Claiborn, C. (1995).
Review of Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory – Adolescent.
In Conoley, J. C., &
Impara, J. C. (Eds.). (1995). The twelfth mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental
Measurements.
Crespi, T., & Politikos, N., (2008). Personality assessment with adolescents: Challenges and guidelines.
Adolescence, 43(171), 593-606.
Esquivel, G. & Flanagan, R. (2007). Narrative methods of personality assessment in school psychology.
Psychology in the Schools, 44(3), 271-280.
Flanagan, R. (2007). Comments on the miniseries:
in the Schools, 44(3), 311-317.
Personality assessment in school psychology.
Psychology
Children’s Assessments (PPA Presentation)
Page 34
Gillepsie, J. (1994).
Brunner/Mazel.
Machover, K. (1952).
Thomas.
The projective use of mother-and-child drawings: A manual for clinicians.
Personality projection in the drawing of the human figure.
Oster, G., & Crone, P.G. (2004).
Brunner-Routledge.
Springfield, Il:
Using Drawings in Assessment and Therapy (2nd Ed.).
Prout, H.T., & Phillips, P.D. (1974).
303-306.
A clinical note:
The Kinetic School Drawing.
New York:
Charles C.
New York:
Psychology in the Schools, 11,
Reinehr, R. (1998). Review of Children’s Apperception Test [1991 Revision]. In Impara, J. C., & Plake, B. S.
(Eds.). (1998). The thirteenth mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental
Measurements.
Retzlaff, P. (1995). Review of Millon Acolescent Clinical Inventory. In Conoley, J. C., & Impara, J. C. (Eds.).
(1995). The twelfth mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.
Verinis, J.S., Lichtenberg, E.F., & Henrich, L. (1974). The Draw-A-Person-In-The-Rain technique: Its relationship to
diagnostic category and other personality indicators. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 30, 407-414.
Behavior Ratings References
Achenbach, T. & Rescorla, L. (nd). Manual for the Achenbach System for Empirically Based Assessments: Pre-school
and School-age Manuals. http://www.aseba.org.
Anderson, R., Lyons, J., Giles, D. Price, J. & Estle, G. (2003). Journal of Child & Family Studies. Vol. 12 Issue 3,
p279-290.
Arffa, S. (2010). Test review of the Conners 3rd Edition. In Spies, R. A., Carlson, J. F., & Geisinger, K. F. (Eds.). (2010).
The Conners 3. The eighteenth mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental
Measurements.
Hodges, K., & Wong, M. (1996). Psychometric characteristics of a multidimensional measure to assess impairment:
The Child and Adolescent Functional Assessment Scale. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 5 (4), 445-467.
Hodges, K., Doucette-Gates, A., & Kim, C-S. (2000). Predicting service utilization with the Child and Adolescent
Functional Assessment Scale in a sample of youths with serious emotional disturbance served by center for mental
health services - funded demonstrations. Journal of Behavioral Health Services and Research, 27 (1), 47-59.
Geisinger, K. F., Spies, R. A., Carlson, J. F., & Plake, B. S. (Eds.). (2007). The Child Depression Inventory, 2003
update. The seventeenth mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.
Gerard, A. B., & Reynolds, C. R. (2004). Characteristics and Applications of the Revised Children's Manifest Anxiety
Scale (RCMAS). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Children’s Assessments (PPA Presentation)
Page 35
Reynolds, C. & Kamphaus, R. (2004). Behavior Assessment System for Children-Second Edition manual. Circle Pines,
MN American Guidance Service.
Seligman, Laura D.; Ollendick, Thomas H.; Langley, Audra K.; Baldacci, Heidi Bechtoldt. (2004).
The Utility of Measures of Child and Adolescent Anxiety: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Revised Children's
Manifest Anxiety Scale, the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children, and the Child Behavior Checklist. Journal of
Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, Vol. 33 (3), pp. 557-565.
Spies, R. A., Carlson, J. F., & Geisinger, K. F. (Eds.). (2010). The Conners 3. The eighteenth mental measurements
yearbook. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.
Wolraich, M., Lambert, W., Doffing, M., Bickman, L, Simmons, T. & Worley, K. (2003). Psychometric properties of
the Vanderbilt ADHD Diagnostic Parent Rating Scale in a referred population. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, Vol.
28 (8), pp. 559-568.

Similar documents

×

Report this document