Technical Properties
Presentation and Evaluation of Standardization
The NEPSY was first developed in 1980 and released in Finland. It was not until 1998, after it was revised by its current authors Korkmaan, Kirk, and Kemp, that it was released in the United States. The current edition, the NEPSY-II, was published in 2007 (McGrath, 2014). With the publication of the second edition, new standardizations were required. Participants included 200 nation-wide examiners who had experience administering the NEPSY and had a specific population of examinees (Korkman, et al., 2007a). Overall, 1,200 individuals (an even distribution of females and males) were randomly assigned to each examiner. These sample data were collected between the years of 2005 and 2006. Researchers were able to compile a normative sample that closely resembled the population of children in the United States at the time. The test takers were divided based on age, geographic location, parental education, race, sex, and socioeconomic class. Concerns have been raised, however, over the lack of data for certain races or ethnicities, as well as the lack of research in urban or rural locations. The standardization process included the normalization of scores for various disability classifications (Davis & Matthews, 2010).
Presentation and Evaluation of Reliability
The NEPSY-II provides information regarding internal consistency, interrater reliability, measurements of standard errors, and test-retest reliability within their clinical and interpretive manual. In order to determine the internal consistency of the test, alpha and slip-half calculation methods were used to determine the item interdependence for each subtest. The reliability coefficients where calculated for...
... middle of paper ...
...critique of the manual and its subtests. In order to better understand the reliability and applications of the test, they conducted their own research regarding the normative samples, classifications of performance, and correlations between test performance, achievement, psychological diagnoses, and IQ. In one of their clinical studies they administered 22 of the subtests to 10 previously diagnosed groups, all of which are included in the clinical studies from the NEPSY-II. The results of the clinical trial were compared to control data using Cohen’s d effect. This graph represents seven of the groups who contained completed total scores data for each of the subtests. Overall, the research supports the NEPSY-II as a significant indicator of cognitive problems, with the Attention and Language domains showing more consistency than other domains (Brooks, et al, 2010).
In 13 patients a significant difference between verbal and performance IQ was found. In 10 of them the performance IQ was higher than the verbal. The results of subtest analysis indicate that cognitive strengths are more visible than cognitive weaknesses.
Gass, C., & Odland, A. a. The adage of the adage of the adage of the adage of the adage of the adage of the a MMPI-2 revised form symptom validity scale: Psychometric characteristics in a nonlitigation neuropsychological setting. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 34(1), 561-570. Gass, C., & Odland, A. a. The adage of the adage of the adage of the adage of the adage of the adage of the a MMPI-2 symptom validity scale: Psychometric characteristics and limitations in a Veterans Affairs neuropsychological setting.
Two types of assessment procedures that are currently being used are the Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery (LNNB), and the Halstead Russell Neuropsychological Evaluation System (HRNES-R). The LNNB is used to diagnose cognitive deficits, while the HRNES-R indicates both the presence and degree of impairment. Both procedures involve tasks that require the patient to complete a series of functions that test abilities and/or perceptions. Such tasks would include, but are not limited to, problem solving, memory, sensorimotor functioning, and psychological/emotional status.
Construct validity is the degree to which scores measure an intended construct. Construct validity is demonstrated by the correlation with other established intelligence and school achievement tests, and item performance. Developers computed correlation coefficients between scores on the TONI-4 and scores on two nonverbal intelligence tests, the Comprehensive Test of Nonverbal Intelligence–Second Edition (CTONI-2; Hammill, Pearson, & Wiederholt, 2009) and the TONI-3 (Brown, Sherbenou, & Johnsen, 1997). For the CTONI-2 study, there were 72 participants 6 to 17 years old. Form A scores were correlated with scores on the CTONI-2 Pictorial Scale, CTONI-2 Geometric Scale, and CTONI-2 Full Scale. The corresponding corrected coefficients between the TONI-4 and these scales were .74, .73, and .79, respectively. In the TONI-3 study, 56 participants were randomly sampled from the standardization sample. Participants’ item-level data were rescored to obtain TONI-3 scores. The corrected correlation coefficient between the TONI-4 and TONI-3 was .74. Developers also calculated average correlation coefficients between TONI-4 scores and scores on three school achievement tests ranging from .55 to .78. The resulting correlations confirm construct validity. These results show the TONI-4 scores are generally more correlated with other intelligence test scores than with achievement test scores. Item
In order for a test to have appeal is must have validity (Cohen, 2012). The Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales has been praised for its validity, and it utilizes the CHC model with is a composite model of intelligence (Cohen, 2012). The Wechsler model also shows strong validity and it also uses the CHC model (Cohen,
EE105’s score falls in the clinically significant classification range. EE105’s Adaptability score falls in the clinically significant classification range. Ms. Apple reports that EE105 has extreme difficulty adapting to changing situations and that EE105 takes much longer to recover from difficult situations than most others her age. EE105’s Adaptability score is consist with Ms. Apple’s concerns about EE105 shutting down with she becomes frustrated or upset. EE105’s Social Skills score falls in the at-risk classification range. EE105’s teacher reports that EE105 has difficulty complimenting others and making suggesting for improvement in a socially acceptable manner. EE105’s Leadership score falls in the clinically significant classification range. Ms. Apple reports that EE105 has difficulty giving suggestions for solving problems and has difficulty getting others to work together effectively. EE105’s Study Skills score falls in the clinically significant classification range. Ms. Apple reports that EE105 demonstrates weak study skills, is poorly organized, and has difficulty turning in assignments on time. EE105’s Functional Communication score falls in the clinically significant classification range. EE105’s teacher reports that EE105 demonstrates unusually poor expressive and receptive communication skills and that EE106 has significant difficulty seeking out and finding information on her
Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, by Dillenburger, K., and Keenan M., published in 2009, summarized Nov 19, 2009
Levine, B. & Stuss, D. (2002). Adult clinical neuropsychology: lessons from studies of the frontal lobes. Annual Reviews Psychology, 401-433.
Kumar, S., Rao, S. L., Sunny, B., & Gangadhar, B. N. (2007) Widespread cognitive impairment
Ruff, R. (2003) A friendly critique of neuropsychology: facing the challenges of our future, Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology. 18( 8), 847-864.
The report will critique Woodcock Johnson III Diagnostic Reading Battery (WJ III DRB) and compare my report to the Mental Measurement Yearbook (MMY). The assessment will include the evaluation, in relation to Woodcock et al.’s (1989) WJ III DRB, on the description and purpose of such tests along with ease of use, administrating and interrupting results based on converting raw scores to standard scores including analyzing the results. Finally, assess the overall quality of the test.
Evaluate LOC and mental status. Rationale: determine a baseline for future comparison, along with determining neurologic status.
In this world, there are many different individuals who are not only different in demographics but also different neurologically. Due to an immense amount of people it is important to first understand each individual, in order, to better understand them and to help them when it comes to certain areas such as education, the work force, and etc…. For this reason psychologists have aimed to further understand individuals through the use of psychological assessments. This paper aims to examine a particular assessment tool, the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales (Fifth Edition), which measures both intelligence and cognitive abilities (Roid, 2003). This assessment is usually administered by psychologists and the scores are most often used to determine placement in academics and services allotted to children and adolescents (despite their compatibility for adults) (Wilson & Gilmore, 2012). Furthermore before the investigation dives into the particulars of the test, such as its strengths and weakness’, it is best to first learn more about the intelligence scales general characteristics.
E and N scores for forms A and B of the EPI. The Null Hypothesis was
Sullivan, S. J., Hammond-Tooke, G. D., Schneiders, A. G., Gray, A. R., & McCrory, P. (2012). The diagnostic accuracy of selected neurological tests. Journal of Clinical Neuroscience, 19. 423-427. doi:10.1016/j.jocn.2011.09.011