Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, Tests, and Issues
1130
Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, Tests, and Issues
1130Hardcover(Fourth Edition)
-
SHIP THIS ITEMIn stock. Ships in 6-10 days.PICK UP IN STORE
Your local store may have stock of this item.
Available within 2 business hours
Related collections and offers
Overview
Product Details
| ISBN-13: | 9781462535781 |
|---|---|
| Publisher: | Guilford Publications, Inc. |
| Publication date: | 09/17/2018 |
| Edition description: | Fourth Edition |
| Pages: | 1130 |
| Product dimensions: | 7.10(w) x 10.10(h) x 2.20(d) |
About the Author
Erin M. McDonough, PhD, is Clinical Assistant Professor in the School Psychology Program of the Graduate School for Applied and Professional Psychology at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, and serves as Director of the Rutgers School Psychology Internship Consortium. Dr. McDonough is also the founder and Director of Psychological Diagnostic Evaluations of New York, where she see clients and supervises psychologists and interns. Dr. McDonough publishes on issues related to psychological assessment of students with learning disabilities, and lectures and conducts workshops in this area at the state, regional, and national levels.
Read an Excerpt
CHAPTER 1
A History of Intelligence Assessment
The Unfinished Tapestry
John D. Wasserman
When our intelligence scales have become more accurate and the laws governing IQ changes have been more definitively established it will then be possible to say that there is nothing about an individual as important as his IQ, except possibly his morals; that the greatest educational problem is to determine the kind of education best suited to each IQ level; that the first concern of a nation should be the average IQ of its citizens, and the eugenic and dysgenic influences which are capable of raising or lowering that level; that the great test problem of democracy is how to adjust itself to the large IQ differences which can be demonstrated to exist among the members of any race or nationality group.
— Lewis M. Terman (1922b)
This bold statement by the author of the first Stanford–Binet intelligence scale captures much of both the promise and the controversy that have historically surrounded, and that still surround, the assessment of intelligence. Intelligence tests and their applications have been associated with some of the very best and very worst human behaviors. On the one hand, intelligence assessment can provide a meaningful basis for understanding the strengths and weaknesses of misunderstood children, adolescents, or adults — thereby providing data that can be used to design and implement interventions to help people reach their potential more effectively. On the other hand, intelligence assessment can be used to segregate and label people — treating their future as a fixed outcome, an unchangeable fate. The history of forced sterilizations of individuals with intellectual disabilities in the United States and many other countries is a tragic example of how intelligence tests may be misused, exceeded only by the systematic extermination of intellectually disabled individuals in Nazi Germany (e.g., Friedlander, 1995). The topic of intelligence and its assessment deservedly elicits many strong feelings.
Intelligence is arguably the most researched topic in the history of psychology, and the concept of general intelligence has been described as "one of the most central phenomena in all of behavioral science, with broad explanatory powers" (Jensen, 1998, p. xii). Still, social, legal, and political forces have in some instances excluded intelligence test results from important types of educational and personnel decision-making processes. Tangible advances in assessment practices have been slow and episodic. Following Alfred Binet's initial successes, the beginning of the 20th century saw an accelerated pace of small- and large-scale applied intelligence testing, but many anticipated educational and occupational benefits were never realized. Buros (1977) considered 1927 as the "banner year" in which "the testing movement reached maturity" (p. 9). The middle of the century saw only incremental gains in testing, such as electronic scoring, analysis, and reporting of test results, but with comparatively "little progress" (Buros, 1977, p. 10) and more than a little "stagnation" (Carroll, 1978, p. 93). A landmark quantitative review of factor-analytic investigations near the end of the 20th century (i.e., Carroll, 1993) stimulated a new school of thinking about intelligence assessment, but the story remains unfinished. In the United States, federal educational reforms and civil rights legislation have had pronounced effects upon the use of intelligence tests in education. It is possible to see the history of intelligence assessment as an unfinished tapestry depicting the rich saga of a developing discipline, with recurrent characters interwoven through different narratives, as well as more than a few loose and unresolved thematic threads.
In this chapter, the origins of intelligence assessment are recounted, with an emphasis on milestone events and seminal individuals. Thematic strands present from the early days are traced, including some that were resolved and some that remain unresolved. An effort has been made whenever possible to provide samples of primary source material. Finally, although we all tend to view history through the lens of our own experiences, it is helpful to appreciate the sociocultural context, institutional traditions, and professional Zeitgeist associated with historical events, as well as the experiences and personal motivations that may have driven the ideas and behaviors of historical figures.
PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC ANTECEDENTS: PHRENOLOGY IN THE 19TH CENTURY
The first science purporting to be a "true science of mind" that could measure mental qualities and functions was cranioscopy, introduced at the beginning of the 19th century by Franz Joseph Gall, and later renamed phrenology by Gall's associate, Johann Gaspar Spurzheim. Gall (1758–1828) was a Viennese physician and neuroanatomist, and Spurzheim (1776–1832) was a physician and colleague who would ultimately be responsible for the widespread dissemination of phrenology. But it would be a Scotsman, George Combe (1788–1858) — who developed and published a two-volume system of phrenology in 1824, as well as launching a phrenology journal with his brother — who would prove most instrumental in the popularization of phrenology. Combe's system appears in Figure 1.1. He also wrote the immensely successful book The Constitution of Man, which advanced the idea that all the laws of nature were in harmony with one another, and that people could best fulfill God's will and obtain the greatest happiness by discovering these laws and obeying them. The book went through eight editions and sold approximately 350,000 copies between 1828 and 1900.
The basic tenets of phrenology can be summarized easily. In a letter to a Viennese official, Gall (1798/1857) asserted that the brain was the organ of the mind, that the mind could be reduced to a number of faculties, that the faculties were innate, that the faculties were located in distinct and particular organs of the brain, that the surface of the skull was determined by the external form of the brain, and that phrenologists could judge the development of individual faculties merely by examining the form of the skull. A well-developed faculty was thought to have a large cerebral organ that corresponded to a cranial protuberance. Gall originally described and localized 27 distinct faculties; Spurzheim (1815) increased the list to 32 faculties; Combe (1853) further expanded the list to 35; and others expanded the list to 43 (e.g., Payne, 1920).
Gall and Spurzheim traveled through Europe promoting phrenology, which Gall advocated as a science and Spurzheim as a way to reform education, religion, and penology. It quickly became popular in the United Kingdom, and Spurzheim came to the United States in 1832 to promote phrenology to a scientific community that was already quite familiar with it. By the time Combe conducted his 1839 American phrenology lecture tour, audiences averaged over 500 across each of the 16 lectures (Walsh, 1976). A satirical depiction of a phrenological examination from about the same time appears in Figure 1.2.
Gall and Spurzheim are today credited with recognizing the significance of gray matter as the source of nerve fibers; most importantly, they are credited with introducing the neuroscientific concept of functional localization in the cerebral cortex (Simpson, 2005). Dallenbach (1915) provides evidence that they should be credited with the terms mental functions and faculties. British philosopher and critic G. H. Lewes (1867) went a step further, asserting that Gall laid the groundwork for psychology as a science rather than philosophy: "Gall rescued the problem of mental functions from Metaphysics and made it one of Biology" (p. 407). Even so, there is a long history of disparaging efforts to localize mental functions in specific regions in the brain by calling them a new "phrenology" (e.g., Franz, 1912; Fuster, 2008, p. 346).
PHILOSOPHICAL AND SCIENTIFIC ANTECEDENTS
The most prominent British philosopher of his era, Herbert Spencer (1820–1903) sought to synthesize universal natural laws (especially evolution) across the disciplines of biology, psychology, sociology, and ethics. Spencer coined the phrase "survival of the fittest" (p. 444) in The Principles of Biology (1864) after reading Charles Darwin (1859), although he was reluctant to accept Darwin's evolutionary mechanism of natural selection. In The Principles of Psychology (1855), Spencer described how the behavior of the individual organism adapts through interaction with the environment, and defined intelligence as a "continuous adjustment" of "inner to outer relations" (p. 486). Spencer's ideas persist in a number of ways to this day. Intelligence, as we shall see, is still widely considered to represent a capacity associated with adaptation to one's environment. In a critical review of Spencer's synthesis, John Dewey (1904) was struck by the luck that Spencer and Darwin published almost simultaneously, thereby making their very different concepts of evolution indistinguishable to the public.
Beyond Spencer's philosophical influence, the foundation for psychology as a science, as well as for the scholarly study of intelligence, was laid by naturalist Charles Darwin (1809–1882), who is most remembered for his theory of evolution by natural selection. In his writings, Darwin frequently referred to adaptive behavior in animals and humans as "intelligent"; more importantly, he argued that the same forces that act on animal evolution also apply to human mental abilities: "There is no fundamental difference between man and the higher mammals in their mental faculties" (Darwin, 1871, p. 35). In The Descent of Man, Darwin (1871) went even further in applying his evolutionary theory to human mental characteristics — probably after reading the work of his half-cousin Francis Galton, the Victorian polymath, whose drive for scientific measurement of human capabilities would start the race to develop measures of intelligence in motion.
It is difficult to overstate the impact of Darwin's theory of evolution on psychology. By considering human behavior in an evolutionary context, Darwin treated the study of psychology as no less a science than biology and other natural sciences. His influence was substantial and may be seen, for example, in Joseph Jastrow's (1901) American Psychological Association (APA) presidential address to start the 20th century. Jastrow described psychology as both a laboratory science and an applied science, setting the study of intelligence in a somewhat Spencerian evolutionary context:
Intelligence must first be realized as an advantage-gaining factor in the evolutionary struggle; that struggle is not merely, and indeed in all the stages that here come into consideration, not mainly a conflict of tooth and nail, a contest of strength of claw and fleetness of foot, but a war of wits, an encounter of skill and cunning, a measure of strategy and foresight. (p. 9)
Francis Galton and the Anthropometric Laboratory
If you lived in London in the mid-1880s or 1890s, you could pay three- or fourpence for you or your children to undergo a variety of physical measurements and tests, with the option to register results for future reference and follow-up. The measurements were available from Francis Galton's Anthropometric Laboratory, first located at the International Health Exhibition (see Figure 1.3), then at the University of Cambridge, the South Kensington Museum, and finally at the Clarendon Museum at Oxford. Anthropometry referred to the "measurement of man," and Galton's laboratory was, according to Diamond (1977), "a device to tease the public into providing the data he needed for his research" (p. 52). As a lifelong advocate for objective scientific measurement, Galton (1822–1911; see Figure 1.4) was a pioneer in the use of test batteries and questionnaires for data collection, the concept of control groups in research, and statistical methods (as developer of the techniques of regression and correlation).
Galton introduced his system of anthropometric measurements in Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development (1883), where he wrote, "It is needless for me to speak here about the differences in intellectual power between different men and different races, or about the convertibility of genius as shown by different members of the same gifted family achieving eminence in varied ways" (pp. 82–83). He conceptualized his measurements as constituting indicators of physical efficiency to complement performance on formal academic written literary examinations, which he thought were the best available measures of intelligence (e.g., Galton, 1884, 1891).
The examination took less than 1 hour. Although the makeup of the battery changed slightly over time, each session began with the completion of a card recording age, birthplace, marital status (married, unmarried, or widowed), residence (urban, suburban, or country), and occupation. The examinee's name, birth date, and initials were collected in the laboratory's later years, with the full name indexed in a separate list. The examiner then recorded the color of the examinee's eyes and hair, followed by tests and measurements of sensory acuity, stature, strength, and lung capacity:
* Eyesight keenness, color sense, and judgment in estimating length and squareness
* Hearing keenness and highest audible note
* Height standing, without shoes
* Height sitting, from seat of chair
* Span of arms (between opposite fingertips, with arms fully extended)
* Weight, in usual indoor clothing
* Breathing capacity (volume of air exhaled after a deep breath)
* Strength of pull (as an archer draws a bow)
* Strength of grasp (squeeze with the strongest hand)
* Swiftness of blow with fist (against a flat bar with pad at one end)
Specialized instruments (some invented by Galton) were employed, such as the spirometer, which required exhaling into a tube to measure the number of cubic inches of water displaced in a tank. Galton (1890b) interpreted breathing (lung) capacity as an indicator of energy level:
The possession of a considerable amount of breathing capacity and of muscular strength is an important element of success in an active life, and the rank that a youth holds among his fellows in these respects is a valuable guide to the selection of the occupation for which he is naturally fitted, whether it should be an active or a sedentary one. (p. 238)
Galton constructed normative distributions for each measurement, including mean values and percentile ranks (i.e., the percentage of cases falling below the obtained score) in specified age ranges, differentiated by gender. Some measures, like breathing capacity and strength of grip, were assessed in relation to stature. It was possible to look at a normative chart and instantly know your approximate percentile rank. After collecting data on nearly 10,000 examinees at the International Health Exhibition, Galton's laboratory at South Kensington collected data on an additional 3,678 examinees (Galton, 1892), so adult norms were based on fairly large samples.
Galton never directly asserted that his tests measured intelligence. Instead, he observed that sensory measures are relevant in determining the breadth of experience upon which intelligence can operate:
The only information that reaches us concerning outward events appears to pass through the avenue of our senses; and the more perceptive our senses are of difference, the larger is the field upon which our judgment and intelligence can act. (1907, p. 19)
In 1890, Galton acknowledged that only research could reveal the most important areas of human functioning to measure, through careful examination of test results and correlations with external criteria:
One of the most important objects of measurement is hardly if at all alluded to here and should be emphasized. It is to obtain a general knowledge of the capacities of a man by sinking shafts, as it were, at a few critical points. In order to ascertain the best points for the purpose, the sets of measures should be compared with an independent estimate of the man's powers. We thus may learn which of the measures are the most instructive. (1890a, p. 380)
The uncertainty, of course, was where to sink the "shafts" — or, in other words, which abilities to measure.
(Continues…)
Excerpted from "Contemporary Intellectual Assessment"
by .
Copyright © 2018 The Guilford Press.
Excerpted by permission of The Guilford Press.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
Table of Contents
I. The Origins of Intellectual Assessment1. A History of Intelligence Assessment: The Unfinished Tapestry, John D. Wasserman
2. A History of Intelligence Test Interpretation, Randy W. Kamphaus, Anne Pierce Winsor, Ellen W. Rowe, & Sangwon Kim
II. Contemporary Theoretical Perspectives
3. The Cattell–Horn–Carroll Theory of Cognitive Abilities, W. Joel Schneider & Kevin S. McGrew
4. Assessment from the Perspective of Multiple—Intelligences Theory: Principles, Practices, and Values, Jie—Qi Chen & Howard Gardner
5. The Triarchic Theory of Successful Intelligence, Robert J. Sternberg
6. Redefining Intelligence with the Planning, Attention, Simultaneous, and Successive Theory of Neurocognitive Processes, Jack A. Naglieri & Tulio M. Otero
7. The Parieto—Frontal Integration Theory: Assessing Intelligence from Brain Images, Richard J. Haier & Rex E. Jung
8. Intelligence—as—Process, Personality, Interests, and Intelligence—as—Knowledge: A Framework for Adult Intellectual Development, Phillip L. Ackerman
III. Contemporary Intelligence, Cognitive, and Neuropsychological Batteries, and Associated Achievement Tests
9. Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence—Fourth Edition, Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children—Fifth Edition, and Wechsler Individual Achievement Test—Third Edition, Dustin Wahlstrom, Susan Engi Raiford, Kristina C. Breaux, Jianjun Zhu, & Lawrence G. Weiss
10. The WJ IV Tests of Early Cognitive and Academic Development, Fredrick A. Schrank & Barbara J. Wendling
11. Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children—Fifth Edition Integrated, Susan Engi Raiford
12. The Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children—Second Edition and KABC—II Normative Update, Lisa Whipple Drozdick, Jennie Kaufman Singer, Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger, James C. Kaufman, Alan S. Kaufman, & Nadeen L. Kaufman
13. The Differential Ability Scales—Second Edition, Colin D. Elliott, Joseph D. Salerno, Ron Dumont, & John O. Willis
14. The Woodcock–Johnson IV: Tests of Cognitive Abilities, Tests of Oral Language, Tests of Achievement, Fredrick A. Schrank, & Barbara J. Wendling
15. The Cognitive Assessment System—Second Edition: From Theory to Practice, Jack A. Naglieri & Tulio M. Otero
16. The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—Fourth Edition and the Wechsler Memory Scale—Fourth Edition, Lisa Whipple Drozdick, Susan Engi Raiford, Dustin Wahlstrom, & Lawrence G. Weiss
17. The Wechsler Nonverbal Scale of Ability: Assessment of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Populations, Jack A. Naglieri & Tulio M. Otero
18. The Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales—Second Edition and the Reynolds Intellectual Screening Test, Tara C. Raines, Cecil R. Reynolds, & Randy W. Kamphaus
19. The NEPSY—II, Robb N. Matthews & John L. Davis
20. The Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test—Second Edition: A Multidimensional Nonverbal Alternative for Cognitive Assessment, R. Steve McCallum & Bruce A. Bracken
IV. Relevance of Tests of Intelligence, Cognitive Abilities, and Neuropsychological Processes in Understanding Individual Differences
21. Use of Intelligence Tests in the Identification of Giftedness, David E. McIntosh, Felicia A. Dixon, & Eric E. Pierson
22. Use of Ability Tests in the Identification of Specific Learning Disabilities within the Context of an Operational Definition, Dawn P. Flanagan, Vincent C. Alfonso, Michael Costa, Katherine Palma, & Meghan Leahy
23. Use of Intelligence Tests in the Identification of Children and Adolescents with Intellectual Disability, Ryan L. Farmer & Randy G. Floyd
24. Intellectual and Neuropsychological Assessment of Individuals with Sensory and Physical Disabilities and Traumatic Brain Injury, Scott L. Decker, Julia Englund Strait, Alycia M. Roberts, & Joseph Ferraracci
25. Testing with Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Populations: New Directions in Fairness and Validity, Samuel O. Ortiz, Nicole Piazza, Salvador Hector Ochoa, & Agnieszka M. Dynda
V. Linking Assessment Data to Intervention
26. Cognitive Hypothesis Testing: Linking Test Results to the Real World, Catherine A. Fiorello & Kirby L. Wycoff
27. Cross—Battery Assessment, the Cross—Battery Assessment Software System, and the Assessment–Intervention Connection, Dawn P. Flanagan, Michael Costa, Meghan Leahy, Katherine Palma, Vincent C. Alfonso, & Samuel O. Ortiz
28. Linking Cognitive Abilities to Academic Interventions for Students with Specific Learning Disabilities, Nancy Mather & Barbara J. Wendling
29. The Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement—Third Edition, Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children—Fifth Edition, and Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children—Fifth Edition Integrated: Integrating Data for a Comprehensive Evaluation of Specific Learning Disability, Jaclyn D. Morrison, Jennie Kaufman Singer, & Susan Engi Raiford
VI. Contemporary and Emerging Issues in Intellectual, Cognitive, and Neuropsychological Assessment
30. Using the Joint Test Standards to Evaluate the Validity Evidence for Intelligence Tests, Alyssa Montgomery, Erica Torres, & Jamie Eiseman
31. Using Confirmatory Factor Analysis to Aid in Understanding the Constructs Measured by Intelligence Tests, Timothy Z. Keith & Matthew R. Reynolds
32. Functional Cattell–Horn–Carroll Nomenclature for Practical Applications, Richard W. Woodcock, Denise E. Maricle, Daniel C. Miller, & Ryan J. McGill
33. The Emergence of Neuropsychological Constructs into Tests of Intelligence and Cognitive Abilities, Daniel C. Miller & Denise E. Maricle
34. Enhancing the Identification of Reading Disorders with Neuropsychological Tests, Marlene Sotelo—Dynega
35. Incorporating Recent Advances in Understanding Word—Reading Skills into SLD Diagnoses: The Case of Orthographic Mapping, David Kilpatrick
36. The Role of Cognitive and Intelligence Tests in the Assessment of Executive Functions, Denise E. Maricle & Erin K. Avirett
37. The Role of Cognitive and Intelligence Tests in DSM—5 Diagnosis of Specific Learning Disorder, Erin M. McDonough, Dawn P. Flanagan, Megan Sy, & Vincent C. Alfonso
38. Should our Future Include the Integration of Evidence—Based Neuropsychological Services into School Settings?, Elizabeth Power & Rik Carl D’Amato
39. Intellectual, Cognitive, and Neuropsychological Assessment in Three—Tier Service Delivery Systems in Schools, George McCloskey, Jaime Slonim, & Deanna Rumohr
Interviews
Practitioners, students, and researchers in school, educational, and child clinical psychology and neuropsychology. Serves as a primary text in graduate-level intellectual/cognitive assessment courses.