Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger, Ph.D. [email protected] KABC-II Advanced Interpretation CASP Annual Conference – February 18, 2006
Dec 18, 2015
Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger, Ph.D.
KABC-II Advanced Interpretation
CASP Annual Conference – February 18, 2006
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Overview• Theoretical Foundations of KABC-II• Review of the Scales• Step-by-Step Interpretation
– With integrated Case Studies
• Integrating KTEA-II into Interpretation– CHC & Luria Interpretations
• Integrating QIs into Interpretation• Using a Cross Battery Approach
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Theoretical Foundations
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Dual Theoretical Foundation
Luria TermLearning Ability
Sequential Processing
Simultaneous Processing
Planning Ability
Mental Processing
Index (MPI)
CHC TermLong-Term Storage & Retrieval (Glr)
Short-Term Memory (Gsm)
Fluid-Crystallized
Index (FCI)
KABC-II ScaleLearning/Glr
Sequential/Gsm
Simultaneous/Gv
Name of
Planning/Gf
Knowledge/GcCrystallized Ability (Gc)
Fluid Reasoning (Gf)
Visual Processing (Gv)
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Stratum III: General ability is measured by the KABC-II
Fluid-Crystallized Index (FCI)
Stratum II: Broad
abilities are measured by KABC-II Scales
GlrLong-Term
Storage &Retrieval
GlrLong-Term
Storage &Retrieval
g
GsmShort-Term
Memory
GvVisual
Process-ing
GfFluid
Reason-ing
GcCrystal-
lizedAbility
CHC Theory Applied to KABC-II
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Stratum I: Narrow Abilities—Blue abilities are measured by the KABC II Subtests
Associative Memory
LearningAbilities
Free RecallMemory
IdeationalFluency
Originality/Creativity
LexicalKnowledge
General Information
LanguageDevelopment
ListeningAbility
InformationAbout Culture
Induction
GeneralSequentialReasoning
QuantitativeReasoning
VisualMemory
SpatialRelations
Visualization
SpatialScanning
ClosureSpeed
Memory Span
WorkingMemory
GlrGlr GsmGsm GvGv GfGf GcGc
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Abilities Not Measured by KABC-II
• Auditory Processing (Ga)
• Processing Speed (Gs)
• Reaction Time/Decision Speed (Gt)
• Reading & Writing (Grw)
• Quantitative Ability (Gq)
Achievement (Measured by
KTEA-II)
Not Sufficiently
Complex
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Luria Theory Applied to KABC-II
Block 1 Maintai
ns Attentio
n
Block 2 Codes & Stores
Information
Block 3 Plans &
Organizes
Behavior
Planning/Gf
Sequential/Gsm
Simultaneous/Gv
Learning/Glr
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Mediates attention and concentration.Allows focus of attention.
Regulates energy level and tone of cerebral cortex.
Recognizes significance of incoming stimuli.Allows receiving and processing of information.
Block 1—Maintains Arousal
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Block 2—Codes & Stores Information
Establishes connections with Block 3.Integrates incoming sensory information.
Analyzes, codes, and stores incoming information via the senses.
Uses successive and simultaneous processing.
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Block 3—Plans & Organizes Behavior
Involves decision making, generating hypotheses, planning, self-monitoring, and programming.
Concerned with overall efficiency of brain functions, and is involved in all complex behavior.
Though not directly involved with motor or speech functions, it represents the output or response
center of the brain.
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Selecting the Model: Guidelines for
Administration vs. Interpretation
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Selecting the Model: Guidelines for Administration
• Selection must be made before administering the KABC-II and should consider reasons for referral.
• The CHC model is given priority because Knowledge/Gc is an important aspect of cognitive functioning.
• The Luria model is preferred when the validity of the global composite would be compromised by including acquired knowledge.
• Models are selected primarily with “fairness” in mind.
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Selecting the Model:Interpretation Based on Either Theory
Interpretation may be based on either theory, irrespective of which model was administered.
Administration Interpretation
Luria Model Luria or CHC
CHC Model CHC or Luria
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Review of the Five Scales
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Taking in and holding information, and then using it within a few seconds.
Sequential/GsmShort-Term Memory
6 – 3
2 – 5 – 9 – 4
8 – 9 – 3 – 5 – 2 – 10
Say these numbers just as I do.
Number RecallSequential/Gsm
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Perceiving, storing, manipulating, and thinking with visual patterns.
Simultaneous/GvVisual Processing
Block CountingSimultaneous/Gv
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Storing and efficiently retrieving newly-learned or previously learned information.
Learning/GlrLong-Term Retrieval
AtlantisLearning/Glr
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Solving novel problems by using reasoning abilities such as induction and deduction.
Planning/GfFluid Reasoning
Pattern Reasoning Planning/Gf
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Demonstrating the breadth and depth of knowledge acquired from one’s culture.
Knowledge/GcNot in Luria Model
Verbal Knowledge Knowledge/Gc
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
KABC-II Core Battery - Age 3
AtlantisWord OrderTrianglesConceptual ThinkingFace Recognition-----------------------------RiddlesExpressive Vocabulary
MPI or FCI composites only
Lu
ria
CH
C
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
KABC-II Core Battery - Ages 4-6
RiddlesExpressive Vocabulary
RiddlesExpressive Vocabulary
RiddlesExpressive Vocabulary
Knowledge/Gc
Planning/Gf
TrianglesConcept ThinkingPattern ReasoningRover
Triangles
Concept Thinking
Pattern Reasoning
Triangles
Concept Thinking
Face Recognition
Simultaneous/
Gv
Word Order
Number Recall
Word Order
Number Recall
Word Order
Number RecallSequential/Gsm
Atlantis
Rebus
Atlantis
Rebus
Atlantis
RebusLearning/Glr
Age 6Age 5Age 4Scale
7-9 tests 7-9 tests 8-10 testsLuria/CHC
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
KABC-II Core Battery - Ages 7-18
Riddles
Verbal Knowledge
Riddles
Verbal KnowledgeKnowledge/Gc
Pattern Reasoning
Story Completion
Pattern Reasoning
Story Completion
Planning/Gf
Rover
Block Counting
Rover
TrianglesSimultaneous/Gv
Word Order
Number Recall
Word Order
Number Recall
Sequential/Gsm
Atlantis
Rebus
Atlantis
RebusLearning/Glr
Ages 13-18Ages 7-12Scale
8-10 tests 8-10 testsLuria/CHC
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Supplementary Subtests
• Administer after core subtests• Use to explore hypotheses (added measure of core
scales)
• Use for planned comparisons• Use as a substitute if a core subtest is spoiledNo prescribed sequence with one exception - Delayed Recall.
• At ages 5 and 13-18, you must administer a supplementary subtest to get the right delay interval.
• Knowledge/Gc tests are never used to obtain delay interval
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Supplementary Subtests
• Provide additional measures that have been normed and validated
• Do not contribute to scores for scales (except to substitute for a spoiled core subtest)
• Do contribute to the interpretive system and are useful for hypothesis testing (as in cross-battery assessment)
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Supplementary Tests
Gestalt Closure
Number Recall
Verbal Knowledge
3 4 5 6 7-12 13-18
Gestalt Closure
Hand Movements
Verbal Knowledge
Face Recognition
Hand Movements Verbal Knowledge
Block Counting
Gestalt Closure
Atlantis Delayed
Rebus Delayed
Story Completion
Hand Movements
Verbal Knowledge
Block Counting
Gestalt Closure
Atlantis Delayed
Rebus Delayed
Hand Movements
Block Counting
Gestalt Closure
Expressive Vocabulary
Atlantis Delayed
Rebus Delayed
Hand Movements
Triangles
Gestalt Closure
Expressive Vocabulary
Atlantis Delayed
Rebus Delayed
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
How to Interpret the KABC-II:
Step-by-Step
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Essentials of KABC-II Assessment
By Kaufman, Lichtenberger, Fletcher-Janzen, & Kaufman
Essentials Pages 345-357
The KABC-II Interpretive Worksheet in Appendix A provides a place to record all 6 interpretive steps:
Manual Pages 43-55
KABC-II Manual covers first 3 steps in detail (& KABC-II Assist™).© 2005 Wiley
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
• Two Essential Steps
• Two Optional Steps
Interpreting KABC-II: Steps from Manual vs. Essentials Book
KABC-II Manual & Record Form
Essentials of KABC-II Assessment
• Essentials further explains the Fourth Step (Supplemental Subtest Analysis)
• Essentials adds Step 5 with 5 Clinical Comparisons
• Essentials adds Step 6 which helps generate further interpretive hypotheses
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Summary of KABC-II Interpretive Steps
ESSENTIAL STEPS
Step 1. Interpret the global scale index, whether the FCI (CHC model), MPI (Luria model), or Nonverbal Index (NVI) (ages 3-18)
Step 2. Interpret the child’s profile of scale indexes to identify strengths and weaknesses, both personal (relative to the child’s overall ability) and normative (compared to children about the same age) (ages 4-18)
Essentials Pages 85-87Record Form Pages 3 & 23
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Summary cont.
Step 3A: Initial Learning vs. Delayed Recall—Learning/Glr (Initial) vs. Delayed Recall (ages 5-18)
Step 3B: Learning vs. Acquired Knowledge—Learning/Glr vs. Knowledge/Gc (ages 4 –18)
Step 3. Planned Scale Comparisons
Step 4. Supplementary Subtest Analysis
OPTIONAL STEPS
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Summary cont.
Step 5A: Nonverbal Ability (NVI) vs. Verbal Ability (ages 3-18)
Step 5B: Problem-Solving Ability vs. Memory & Learning (ages 3-18)
Step 5C: Visual Perception of Meaningful Stimuli vs. Abstract Stimuli (ages 4-18)
Step 5D: Verbal Response vs. Pointing Response (ages 4 –18)
Step 5E: Little or No Motor Response vs. Gross-Motor Response (ages 4 –18)
Step 5. Planned Clinical ComparisonsOPTIONAL STEPS
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Summary cont.
Step 6. Generate Hypotheses to Explain Fluctuations in Two Circumstances:
Step 6A: Scales that Are Not Interpretable (ages 4 –18)
Step 6B: Supplementary Subtests that Are Inconsistent with Pertinent Core
OPTIONAL STEPS
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
KABC-II Interpretive Worksheet
Essentials Pages 345-357
• Record Form & KABC-II Assist printout provides a place to record first 3 steps
• Appendix A of Essentials provides a place to record all 6 steps
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Step 1. Interpret the global scale index (FCI, MPI, or NVI)
DON’T FORGET
Calculate Range of All Index Scores Before Interpreting FCI or MPI
• Subtract the highest from the lowest Index
standard scores• If the difference is greater than or equal to 23
points (1 ½ SD)• Then do not interpret the FCI or MPI• Rather focus interpretation on the four or five
indexes
For ages 4-18
Essentials Pages 85-87
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Step 1. Interpret the global scale index (FCI, MPI, or NVI)
For Age 3, Rule is Different
Do not evaluate the interpretability of MPI or FCI During Step 1
• Why? No profile of scores is offered before age
4, so global score is the only score to interpret• However, if considerable variability exists,
consider supplementing KABC-II with other tasks to better determine the child’s diverse cognitive strengths and weaknesses.
Essentials Pages 85-87
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
•31
STEP 1. INTERPRET THE GLOBAL SCALE INDEX
Scale Used Scale Index
Confidence
Interval
(circle one) Is Global Scale Interpretable? (Ages 4-18) Descriptive Category
(Circle one)
(Standard
Score) 90% or 95%
Highest Index
Lowest Index Range
Less than 23 pts or Categories
Percentile Rank
FCI (CHC Model)
MPI (Luria Model)
NVI
(
-
)
Y N
If NO, do not
interpret
87
89 98 118 80 38 Y N
“If no (not less than 23 points), then do not
interpret”
“Less than 23 pts?”
93
Case Note: Sophia is a fifth grader (age 11:2) with difficulties
in writing
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Essentials Pages 85-87
Step 1. Interpret the global scale index (FCI, MPI, or NVI)
A. Consult Table D.2 to obtain SS and 90% or 95% confidence interval. Use Table D.4 for PR and Table 5.1 for category.
B. If using NVI do not conduct any other interpretive steps.
FCI 93 89-99 34 Average
Global Scale Index
Standard Score
95% confidence interval
Percentile Rank
Descriptive Category
In Sophia’s case, the extreme
variability between
scales means FCI does not meaningfully summarize
global ability
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Interpretive Statement:
• Sophia displayed considerable variability in her standard scores on the five scales that compose the FCI, with indexes ranging from 80 on Simultaneous/Gv to 118 on Sequential/Gsm.
• This wide variation in indexes (38 points, which equals more than 2 ½ SDs) renders her FCI meaningless as an estimate of global ability;
• it is merely the midpoint of greatly varying abilities.
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Ground Rules for Interpreting the KABC-II
• Interpret a scale index only if performance is consistent on subtests that compose scale (base rate rule <10%)
• Use .05 level of statistical significance when determining personal strengths/weaknesses
• Consider differences that are both statistically significant and uncommon (<10%) to be potentially valuable for diagnosis and educational purposes
Essentials Page 88
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Interpreting the Results
Step 2. Interpret the profile of scale indexes to identify
strengths and weaknesses (personal/relative and normative)
A. Determine whether each scale is interpretable (unitary).
B. Conduct normative analysis (relative to Average range of 85-115)
C. Conduct ipsative analysis (relative to child’s mean score)
D. Determine if any scales that are personal strengths or weaknesses are infrequent.
Essentials pp. 89-90
Essentials pp. 91-92
Essentials pp. 92-93
pp. 93-96
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
AGES 7-18 CALCULATION OF SCALE INDEXES
Sequential/Gsm Planning/Gf Learning/Glr
Scaled Scores
Scaled Scores
Scaled Scores
15 5. Number Recall
7 4. Story Completion
6 1. Atlantis
11 14. Word Order
10 15. Pattern Reasoning
13 11. Rebus
Sum Sum Sum
Simultaneous/Gv Knowledge/Gc
Scaled Scores
Scaled Scores
7-12 13-18 7 10. Verbal Knowledge
7 7. Rover 11 18. Riddles
6 12. Triangles
13. Block Counting
Sum
Sum
26 17
18
19
13 18
Sophia’s subtest scaled scores grouped by scale
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Scale Index Subtest Scaled
Scores
Scale (Standard Score) High Low Range Interpretable?
Range
Occurring
< 10%a
Sequential/Gsm 15 11 4 Y N 5
Simultaneous/Gv 7 6 1 Y N 6
Learning/Glr 13 6 7 Y N 6
Planning/Gf 10 7 3 Y N 6
Knowledge/Gc 11 7 4 Y N 5
118
80
97
90
95
Analysis of the interpretability of Sophia’s scale indexes
Essentials Page 91
Step 2A: Use base rate rule of <10%.See Appendix A or Record Form p. 3 for
ages 7-18
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
What to Do with an Uninterpretable Index
• Provides rich, diagnostic information• Identifies uncommon variability • Provides divergent vs. convergent data
• Consider narrow abilities or task differences
• Use cross-battery assessment to explore
• Optional Step 6 provides examiners with Guidelines to generate hypotheses about why the subtest scores varied
Meaningfulness of Scale may be diminished, but the tests are not invalid.
Essentials Page 90
Don’t Forget
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
STEP 2. INTERPRET PROFILE OF SCALE INDEXES TO IDENTIFY STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES
Scale Index
Subtest Scaled Scores *See critical values for Step 2A
Normative Weakness (NW) or Normative
Strength (NS)
Personal Weakness (PW) or Personal Strength (PS)
Scale (Standard Score)
High Low Range Interpretable? <85 >115 Diff from
Mean PW or PS
(p<.05) Infrequent
(<10%)
Sequential/Gsm Y N NW NS PW PS
Simultaneous/Gv Y N NW NS PW PS
Learning/Glr Y N NW NS PW PS
Planning/Gf Y N NW NS PW PS
Knowledge/Gc Y N NW NS PW PS
Index Mean
(rounded)
CHC model (include Knowledge/Gc)
Luria model (omit Knowledge/Gc)
11880
9095
15713
11
1166
7
417
4
Step 2B: Identify if any of the scales are a normative weakness or a normative strength
Computation of Sophia’s Normative Strengths and Weaknesses
97
96
10
7 3
Not Interp.
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
STEP 2. INTERPRET PROFILE OF SCALE INDEXES TO IDENTIFY STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES
Scale Index
Subtest Scaled Scores *See critical values for Step 2A
Normative Weakness (NW) or Normative
Strength (NS)
Personal Weakness (PW) or Personal Strength (PS)
Scale (Standard Score)
High Low Range Interpretable? <85 >115 Diff from
Mean PW or PS
(p<.05) Infrequent
(<10%)
Sequential/Gsm Y N NW NS PW PS
Simultaneous/Gv Y N NW NS PW PS
Learning/Glr Y N NW NS PW PS
Planning/Gf Y N NW NS PW PS
Knowledge/Gc Y N NW NS PW PS
Index Mean
(rounded)
CHC model (include Knowledge/Gc)
Luria model (omit Knowledge/Gc)
11880
9095
15713
11
1166
7
417
4
Step 2C: Identify personal weaknesses or strengths in the scale profile
Computation of Sophia’s Personal Strengths and Weaknesses
97
96
10
7 3
Not Interp.
Calculate mean and difference from mean for each interpretable scale.
+22-16
-1
-6
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
STEP 2. INTERPRET PROFILE OF SCALE INDEXES TO IDENTIFY STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES
Scale Index
Subtest Scaled Scores *See critical values for Step 2A
Normative Weakness (NW) or Normative
Strength (NS)
Personal Weakness (PW) or Personal Strength (PS)
Scale (Standard Score)
High Low Range Interpretable? <85 >115 Diff from
Mean PW or PS
(p<.05) Infrequent
(<10%)
Sequential/Gsm Y N NW NS PW PS
Simultaneous/Gv Y N NW NS PW PS
Learning/Glr Y N NW NS PW PS
Planning/Gf Y N NW NS PW PS
Knowledge/Gc Y N NW NS PW PS
Index Mean
(rounded)
CHC model (include Knowledge/Gc)
Luria model (omit Knowledge/Gc)
11880
9095
15713
11
1166
7
417
4
Step 2D: Consult statistical significance and frequency table in Record Form (p. 3) or Manual (p. 23) or Essentials Appendix A (p.346)
97
96
10
7 3
Not Interp.
+22-16
-1
-6
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Don’t Forget 3.4Definitions of Indexes that are Key Assets and High
Priority Concerns
Three Conditions needed for Key Assets
Three Conditions needed for High Priority Concerns
1. Normative Strength 1. Normative Weakness
2. Personal Strength 2. Personal Weakness
3. Infrequent (<10%) Occurrence 3. Infrequent (<10%) Occurrence
Essentials Page 95
Summarizing Step 2 Findings
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
CAUTION Even if some statistically differences prove to be unusually large —all findings from Steps 3 and 5 should be verified with other data to be considered potentially valuable for diagnostic or educational purposes.
Essentials Page 99
Key Point for Optional Steps
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Interpreting the Results Optional Steps
Step 3. Scale Comparisons
A. Learning/Glr to Delayed Recall (5-18)
B. Learning/Glr to Knowledge/Gc
Essentials p. 99-103
Essentials p. 103-104
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
STEP 3A INITIAL LEARNING VS DELAYED RECALL Learning/Glr (Initial) vs. Delayed Recall
Subtest Scaled
Scores
Interpre-table? (<10%)
Index Standard Score
Scale High Low Range
Learning/Glr 13 6 7 Y N
Delayed Recall 12 6 6 Y N
Only calculate the difference if both scales
are interpretable
Difference
Sig? Infre-quent?
Y N
Y N
Neither Learning/Glr or the Delayed recall score is interpretable
Significance & Infrequency are irrelevant in this case
Thus, the difference is not calculated
Essentials Page 102
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
STEP 3B LEARNING VS ACQUIRED KNOWLEDGE Learning/Glr (Initial) vs. Knowledge/Gc
Subtest Scaled
Scores
Interpre-table? (<10%)
Index Standard Score
Scale High Low Range
Learning/Glr 13 6 7 Y N
Knowledge/Gc 11 7 4 Y N
Only calculate the difference if both scales
are interpretable
Difference
Sig? Infre-quent?
Y N
Y N
97
95
Learning/Glr is not interpretable
Significance & Infrequency are irrelevant in this case
Thus, the difference is not calculated
Essentials Page 102
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
For this optional step, you can compare each supplementary subtest that was administered with the mean scaled score of the Core subtests on that scale, if the scale is interpretable (see Table 3.6).
If a scale is not interpretable (as determined in Step 2A), do not make any comparisons involving supplementary subtests for that scale.
Optional Step 4: Supplementary Subtest Analysis (ages 3-18)
Essentials Page 104
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
The difference scores listed in Table 3.5 provide base rates at the <10% level (discrepancies that are uncommonly large—occurring in less than 10% of the sample).
However, if you are interested in applying more stringent base rates to these comparisons, refer to D.10 in the KABC-II manual. This table in the manual lists base rates at the <5% and <1% levels.
Essentials Page 106
Tables for Supplementary
Score Analysis
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
STEP 4. SUPPLEMENTAL SUBTEST ANALYSIS FOR AGES 7-12
Differences between supplemental subtest & mean scaled score that are
significant or infrequent
Scale
Scale Interpret-
able in Step 2?
Sum of Scaled Scores
Mean Scaled Score
Supplemental Subtest
Scaled Score
Diff from Mean
Sig. .(p<.05) Sig?
Infrequent (<10%)
Infreq?
Sequential/Gsm Y N 2 = Hand Movements 6 7 3.5 Y N 5.0 Y N
Simultaneous/Gv Y N 2 = Gestalt Closure 6 .5 3.7 Y N 5.5 Y N
Simultaneous/Gv Block Counting 7 1.5 3.2 Y N 5.5 Y N
Knowledge/Gc Y N 2 = Expressive Vocab. 10 1 3.1 Y N 3.5 Y N
14.5
29
13
6.5
15
7.5
Step 6B will help develop and verify hypotheses to explain the difference between the core and supplemental
Gsm subtests
Essentials Page 107
26
13
18
6.5
13
9
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Step 5A: Nonverbal Ability (NVI) vs. Verbal Ability (ages 3-18)Step 5B: Problem-Solving Ability vs. Memory & Learning (ages 3-18)
Step 5C: Visual Perception of Meaningful Stimuli vs. Abstract Stimuli (ages 4-18)
Step 5D: Verbal Response vs. Pointing Response (ages 4 –18)Step 5E: Little or No Motor Response vs. Gross-Motor Response
(ages 4 –18)
Optional Step 5. Planned Clinical Comparisons
Information Processing Domain: Integration & Storage
Information Processing Domain: Input & Output
Essentials Page 107
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Appendix B provides tables to calculate standard scores corresponding to sums of subtest scaled scores for the following planned comparison clusters: Delayed Recall,
Verbal Ability, Meaningful Stimuli, and Abstract Stimuli.
Appendix C provides the necessary data to calculate standard scores for the Problem Solving and Memory and Learning clusters.
Appendix D provides the necessary data to calculate standard scores for the Verbal Response, Pointing Response, Little Motor, and Gross Motor clusters.
Essentials Appendices
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Values for minimum difference between highest and lowest subtest scaled scores that occurred in <10% of sample for each cluster
Values for differences between cluster scores that are statistically sig. or infrequent (also on p. 108)
Appendix A The KABC-II Interpretive Worksheet provides
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Sophia’s Step 5A Comparison between Verbal and Nonverbal Ability
Step 5A. PLANNED CLINICAL COMPARISONS
VERBAL ABILITY VS. NONVERBAL ABILITY Scaled Scores Scaled Scores
3-18 3-4 5 6 7-18 ____ Riddles ____ ____ ____ Conceptual Thinking ____ Expressive Vocabulary ____ ____ Face Recognition ____ Verbal Knowledge ____ ____ Story Completion
____ ____ ____ ____ Triangles ____ ____ ____ Pattern Reasoning ____ ____ ____ ____ Hand Movements ____ Block Counting
Range of Scaled Scores
Range of Scaled Scores
Y N
Uncommonly Large Range?
Y N
Uncommonly Large Range?
Sum of Scaled Scores
Sum of Scaled Scores
Standard Score
Standard Score
Difference Is Difference
significant? Y N
Is Difference uncommonly large?
Y N
St op
stop
11107
4
28
96
7
6
6107
4
36811
5Sophia’s verbal abilities are significantly stronger than her nonverbal abilities, although not uncommonly so.
Sophia’s nonverbal abilities fell within the Below Average range of functioning & represent a Normative Weakness
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Sophia’s Step 5B comparison
Step 5B. PLANNED CLINICAL COMPARISONS
MEMORY & LEARNING VS. PROBLEM SOLVING ABILITY Scaled Scores Scaled Scores
3 4 5-18 3-4 5 6 7-12 13-18
____ ____ ____ Word Order ____ ____ ____ Conceptual Thinking
____ ____ Face Recognition
____ ____ ____ ____ Triangles
____ ____ ____ Atlantis ____ ____ ____ ____ Pattern Reasoning
____ ____ Number Recall ____ ____ ____ Rover ____ ____ Rebus ____ ____ Story
Completion ____ Block
Counting
Range of Scaled Scores
Range of Scaled Scores
Y N
Uncommonly Large Range?
Y N
Uncommonly Large Range?
Sum of Scaled Scores
Sum of Scaled Scores
Standard Score
Standard Score
Difference
Is Difference significant?
Y N
Is Difference uncommonly
large?
Y N
stop stop
11
6
13
15
9
7
610
4
3083
Sophia’s problem solving skills are in the below average range, a normative weakness
Memory & Learning was not a unitary cluster, so the comparison could not be
conducted.
STOP
7
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Sophia’s Step 5C Comparison- Cannot be conducted
Step 5C. PLANNED CLINICAL COMPARISONS
MEANINGFUL STIMULI VS. ABSTRACT STIMULI Scaled Scores Scaled Scores 4 5-18 4 5-12 13-18 ____ ____ Atlantis ____ ____ Triangles ____ Face Recognition ____ ____ ____ Rebus ____ Story Completion ____ ____ Pattern Reasoning
Range of Scaled Scores
Range of Scaled Scores
Y N
Uncommonly Large Range?
Y N
Uncommonly Large Range?
Sum of Scaled Scores
Sum of Scaled Scores
Standard Score
Standard Score
Difference
Is Difference significant?
Y N
Is Difference uncommonly
large?
Y N
stop stop
6
79
613107
1
13
7
Abstract Stimuli was not a unitary cluster, so the comparison could not
be conducted.
STOP
Sophia’s ability to utilize meaningful stimuli is in the below average range, a normative weakness
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Sophia’s Step 5D Comparison
Step 5D. PLANNED CLINICAL COMPARISONS
VERBAL RESPONSE VS. POINTING RESPONSE Scaled Scores Scaled
Scores
4-6 7-18 4 5-18 ____ ____ Number Recall ____ ____ Word Order ____ ____ Rebus ____ Face Recognition ____ Expressive Vocabulary ____ ____ Atlantis
____ Riddles ____ ____ Verbal Knowledge
Range of Scaled Scores
Range of Scaled Scores
Y N
Uncommonly Large Range?
Y N
Uncommonly Large Range?
Sum of Scaled Scores
Sum of Scaled Scores
Standard Score
Standard Score
Difference Is Difference significant? Y N
Is Difference uncommonly large?
Y N
stop stop
151310
5
Sophia’s ability to respond
verbally was in the above
average range – a normative
strength
STOP 38
117
1167
5
24
87
STOP
30
Sophia’s ability to respond by
pointing was at the low end of the average
range
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Sophia’s Step 5E Comparison
Step 5E. PLANNED CLINICAL COMPARISONS
LITTLE MOTOR RESPONSE VS. GROSS MOTOR RESPONSE Scaled Scores Scaled
Scores
4 5-6 7-18 4 5-6 7-12 13-18
____ ____ Conceptual Thinking ____ Hand Movements ____ Face Recognition ____ ____ ____ Triangles
____ ____ Pattern Reasoning ____ ____ ____ Rover ____ Block Counting ____ ____ Story Completion
Range of Scaled Scores
Range of Scaled Scores
Y N
Uncommonly Large Range?
Y N
Uncommonly Large Range?
Sum of Scaled Scores
Sum of Scaled Scores
Standard Score
Standard Score
Difference Is Difference
significant? Y N
Is Difference uncommonly large?
Y N
stop stop
6710
7
3
Sophia’s gross motor response is in the
below average range– a normative weakness
7
1
20
78
STOP STOP17
9113
Sophia performed
in the average range on tasks that required
little or no motor
response
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Step 6A: Scales that Are Not Interpretable (ages 4 –18)
Step 6B: Supplementary Subtests that Are Inconsistent with Pertinent Core Subtests (ages 3-18)
Step 6. Generate Hypotheses to Explain Fluctuations in Two Circumstances:
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
• Review the findings in Step 2A, in which you determined whether each of the scales was interpretable.
• If all scales are interpretable, proceed directly to Step 6B.
• However, if one or more of the Scale Index were found to be uninterpretable in Step 2A (i.e., uncommonly large subtest variability within the scale), then proceed with Step 6A.
Determine if Step 6A needs to be conducted
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
•First line of attack: Examine the results of Step 5—planned clinical comparisons—to identify possible hypotheses.
•Second line of attack: Determine how the Core subtests in each scale complement each other (e.g., if they measure different CHC Narrow Abilities, that might help explain why the child scored at different levels on them)
•Third line of attack: Examine QIs, behavioral observations in general, and pertinent background information to generate possible hypotheses.
Three approaches for developing hypotheses to explain the substantial intra-scale variability:
Essentials Page 121
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Step 6A. GENERATE HYPOTHESES TO EXPLAIN FLUCTUATIONS IN SCALES THAT ARE NOT INTERPRETABLE
First Line of Attack: Examine Planned Clinical Comparisons (from Step 5) to identify possible hypotheses Was Index found uninterpretable in Step 2? (check box if yes)
Cluster that may provide hypotheses for the subtest variability in the index
Age Core Subtests Relevant to the Clusters
Sequential/Gsm
Verbal Response vs. Pointing Response 4-18 Number Recall (Verbal) vs. Word Order (Pointing)
Abstract vs. Meaningful Stimuli 4 Face Recognition (Meaningful) vs. Triangles (Abstract)
Memory & Learning vs. Problem Solving Ability 3-4 Face Rec. (Mem. & Learn.) vs. Triangles/Concep. Th. (Prob Slv) Little Motor vs. Gross Motor Response 4 Face Recognition/Concept. Thinkg. (Little) vs. Triangles (Gross)
Little Motor vs. Gross Motor Response 5 Concept Thinking/Pattern Reason. (Little) vs. Triangles
(Gross)
Little Motor vs. Gross Motor Response 6 Concept Th./Pattern Reason. (Little) vs. Triangles/Rover
(Gross)
Simultaneous/Gv
Little Motor vs. Gross Motor Response 13-18 Block Counting (Little) vs. Rover (Gross)
Verbal Response vs. Pointing Response 4-18 Rebus (Verbal) vs. Atlantis (Pointing)
Learning/Glr
Abstract vs. Meaningful Stimuli 4-18 Rebus (Abstract) vs. Atlantis (Meaningful)
Abstract vs. Meaningful Stimuli 7-18 Pattern Reasoning (Abstract) vs. Story Completion (Meaningful)
Planning/Gf
Little Motor vs. Gross Motor Response 7-18 Pattern Reasoning (Little) vs. Story Completion (Gross)
Knowledge/Gc
Verbal Response vs. Pointing Response 7-18
Riddles (Verbal) vs. Verbal Knowledge (Pointing)
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Sophia’s Learning/Glr Index was uninterpretable due to the
extreme discrepancy between Rebus (13) and Atlantis (6).
Two planned clinical comparisons may provide hypotheses for the Atlantis-Rebus variability:
1) Meaningful vs. Abstract Stimuli
2) Verbal Response versus Pointing Response.
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
1) Meaningful vs. Abstract Stimuli – Meaningful Stimulus cluster comprises
• Atlantis (6) and
• Story Completion (7)
– Abstract Stimulus cluster comprises • Triangles (6)
• Rebus (13) and
• Pattern Reasoning (10)Abstract Stimuli was not a unitary cluster, so the comparison
could not be conducted.
Sophia’s ability to utilize meaningful stimuli is in
the below average range (79), a normative
weakness
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
2. Verbal Response vs. Pointing Response
• Verbal Response cluster (117) comprises– Rebus (13), Number Recall (15), and Riddles (11)
• Pointing response cluster (87) comprises – Atlantis (6), Word Order (11), and Verbal Knowledge (7)
Sophia’s ability to respond verbally was in the above
average range – a normative strength
Sophia’s ability to respond by pointing was
at the low end of the average range
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Steps 6A and 6B rely mostly on:•detective work•observational skills•theoretical understanding of what the scales measure
The generation of hypotheses and support for these hypotheses from multiple sources of data, therefore, are necessarily more clinical than empirical.
Always keep in mind
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
•Provide Information for the Second Line of Attack
•See Pages 124-127
Rapid References 3.3-3.7
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
How the Learning/Glr Subtests Complement Each Other (Ages 4–18)
YESNODoes sequence of stimuli matter?
YESNOContext important for success?
YESNOUses meaningful auditory stimuli?
NOYESUses meaningful visual stimuli?
NOYESProvides feedback for errors?
RebusAtlantis
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Sequential/Gsm Scale—How the Core Subtests Complement Each Other (Ages 4–18)
NOYESIntegration of auditory & visual stimuli?
Long Number Series
Interference TaskAchieves Difficulty?
NumbersWordsNature of Content?
VocalPointingNature of Output?
Number RecallWord Order
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
NOYESRequires flexibility to shift tasks?
NOYES
(interference task)
Measures the CHC Gsm narrow ability—Working Memory (MW)?
Number RecallWord Order
Sequential/Gsm Scale—How the Core Subtests Complement Each Other (Ages 4–18)
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
CHC Narrow Abilities for the Sequential/Gsm Scale
Hand Movements
Number Recall
Word OrderCHC Narrow Ability
Gv Visual Memory (MV)
Working Memory (MW)
Gsm Memory Span (MS)
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Simultaneous/Gv Scale—How the Subtests Complement Each Other (Ages 3–4)
MemoryProblem solving
Problem solving
Problem Solving or Memory?
PointingPointingGross-Motor
Nature of Response?
MeaningfulAbstract & Meaningful
AbstractNature of Visual
Stimuli?
Face Recognition
Conceptual ThinkingTriangles
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Face Recognition
Conceptual ThinkingTrianglesCHC Narrow Ability
Gf Induction (I)
Visual Memory (VM)
Spatial Relations (SR)
Gv
Visualization (VZ)
CHC Narrow Abilities for the Simultaneous/Gv Scale (3-4)
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Rover
(age 6)Pattern
ReasoningConceptual
ThinkingTrianglesCHC Narrow Ability
General Sequential Reasoning (RG)
GfInduction (I)
Spatial Scanning (SS)
Spatial Relations (SR)
GvVisualization (VZ)
CHC Narrow Abilities for the Simultaneous/Gv Scale (5-6)
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Gestalt Closure
Block CountingTrianglesRoverCHC Narrow Ability
GqMath Achievement (A3)
GfGeneral Sequential Reasoning (RG)
Closure Speed (CS)
Spatial Scanning (SS)
Spatial Relations (SR)
GvVisualization (VZ)
SupplementaryCore Battery
CHC Narrow Abilities for the Simultaneous/Gv Scale (7-12)
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Gestalt ClosureTriangles
Block CountingRoverCHC Narrow Ability
GqMath Achievement (A3)
GfGeneral Sequential Reasoning (RG)
Closure Speed (CS)
Spatial Scanning (SS)
Spatial Relations (SR)
GvVisualization (VZ)
SupplementaryCore Battery
CHC Narrow Abilities for the Simultaneous/Gv Scale (13-18)
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Planning/Gf Scale—How the Subtests Complement Each Other (Ages 7–18)
YESNOUses manipulatives?
YESNOVisual-motor response?
YESNOMeaningful visual stimuli?
Story CompletionPattern
Reasoning
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
GvVisualization (VZ)
GcGeneral Information (K0)
GfInduction (I)
General Sequential Reasoning (RG)
Story CompletionPattern ReasoningCHC Narrow Ability
CHC Narrow Abilities for the Planning/Gf Scale (7-18)
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Knowledge/Gc Scale—How the Core Subtests Complement Each Other (Ages 3–6)
Note—Riddles has verbal and pictorial stimuli for its easiest items.
Visual-vocalAuditory-visualChannel of communication?
PictorialVerbalType of stimuli?
Expressive VocabularyRiddles
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Knowledge/Gc Scale—How the Core Subtests Complement Each Other (Ages 7–18)
PointingVocalType of response?
YESNOMeasures auditory-visual integration?
Visual + auditory
AuditoryType of stimuli?
Verbal KnowledgeRiddles
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
GfGeneral Sequential Reasoning (RG)
General Information (KO)
Language Development (LD)
GcLexical Knowledge (VL)
Expressive Vocabulary
Verbal Knowledge Riddles
CHC Narrow Ability
CHC Narrow Abilities for the Knowledge/Gc Scale
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Sophia’s Uninterpretable Learning/Glr Scale
YESNODoes sequence of stimuli matter?
YESNOContext important for success?
YESNOUses meaningful auditory stimuli?
NOYESUses meaningful visual stimuli?
NOYESProvides feedback for errors?
Rebus: 13Atlantis: 6
Step 5C Meaningful
vs. Abstract stimuli wasn’t
fruitful, but
CHC narrow abilities are the same for Atlantis and Rebus—they are both measures of Associative Memory—so CHC theory will not provide any useful hypotheses for explaining Sophia’s uninterpretable Learning/Glr Index.
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
When conducting the third line of attack to help explain an uninterpretable Index:
• Review the Qualitative Indictors for the highest and lowest subtests in the scale
• see if there is evidence that noncognitive or extraneous behaviors differentially influenced performance on the two subtests.
Step 6A: Third Line Of Attack
Essentials Page 131
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
• Review your notes in the margins of the record form
• Identify any disruptive behaviors that were evident during the administration of the subtests that yielded the lowest scaled scores
• Identify any enhancing behaviors during the subtests on which the child performed well
•perseverance, •extremely focused attention
Step 6A: Third Line Of Attack
Essentials Page 131
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
• The goal:•generate as many hypotheses as possible to explain uninterpretable Indexes.
• After generating numerous hypotheses,
•try to identify the best ones based on multiple pieces of corroborating data.
• When necessary,
•administer additional tests or subtests.
Step 6A: Third Line Of Attack
Essentials Page 131
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Third Line of Attack: Sophia’s Glr
• QI’s do not help reveal any noticeable explanations for the differences between Rebus and Atlantis. On both subtests:– Very focused, and didn’t hesitate to respond when
uncertain. – Not impulsive during either test, and seemed to
sustain attention.
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Third Line of Attack: Sophia’s Glr
• Unique Beh. Observation:– Sophia appeared to enjoy Rebus, making
comments such as “This is fun, it’s like cracking a code.”
– She used the context in the Rebus items as part of her strategy for solving the problems: “If I can’t remember the word, is it okay if I guess from the other words?”
– Sophia seemed overwhelmed by the multiple unorganized stimuli in Atlantis
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Third Line of Attack: Sophia’s Glr
• Background information also reveals – Sophia loves detective stories. – Plays a CSI game often at home. – Enjoys typing “secret code emails” to her friends
(although she does not like hand-writing notes or letters).
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
• The process of conducting Step 6B is similar to that of conducting Step 6A.
• To determine if Step 6B needs be conducted, review the findings in Step 4, which determined whether each of the supplemental subtests was significantly different than the mean of the core subtests.
Step 6B: Generate Hypotheses to Explain Supplementary Subtests that Are Inconsistent with Pertinent Core Subtests (ages 3-18)
Essentials Page 132
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Step 6B. GENERATE HYPOTHESES TO EXPLAIN SUPPLEMENTARY SUBTESTS THAT ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE MEAN OF CORE SUBTESTS
First Line of Attack: Determine which supplemental subtests are significantly different from the Core Subtests
a. Check box if supplemental subtest is significantly different from mean of core subtests (See Step 4 results)
b. Conduct only an informal examination of the Planned Clinical comparisons, as most Supplemental subtests are excluded from the planned comparisons
Age Supplemental Subtest 3 4 5 6 7-12 13-18 Number Recall Gestalt Closure Hand Movements Verbal Knowledge Face Recognition Block Counting Story Completing Expressive Vocabulary Triangles
The following supplemental tests are included in Step 5’s clusters:
- Expressive Vocabulary (Gc subtest) is in the Verbal Ability cluster.
- Verbal Knowledge (Gc subtest) is in the Verbal Ability and Pointing Response clusters.
- Hand Movements (Gsm Subtest) is in the Gross motor response & nonverbal ability clusters.
- Block Counting (Gv subtest) is in the Little Motor cluster.
Second Line of Attack: Examine how Supplemental & Core subtests within each scale complement each other
Step 6B: Generate Hypotheses to Explain Supplementary Subtests that are Inconsistent with the mean of Core Subtests
First Line of Attack: Determine which supplemental subtests are significantly
different from the Core Subtests
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Step 6B. GENERATE HYPOTHESES TO EXPLAIN SUPPLEMENTARY SUBTESTS THAT ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE MEAN OF CORE SUBTESTS
First Line of Attack: Determine which supplemental subtests are significantly different from the Core Subtests
a. Check box if supplemental subtest is significantly different from mean of core subtests (See Step 4 results)
b. Conduct only an informal examination of the Planned Clinical comparisons, as most Supplemental subtests are excluded from the planned comparisons
Age Supplemental Subtest 3 4 5 6 7-12 13-18 Number Recall Gestalt Closure Hand Movements Verbal Knowledge Face Recognition Block Counting Story Completing Expressive Vocabulary Triangles
The following supplemental tests are included in Step 5’s clusters:
- Expressive Vocabulary (Gc subtest) is in the Verbal Ability cluster.
- Verbal Knowledge (Gc subtest) is in the Verbal Ability and Pointing Response clusters.
- Hand Movements (Gsm Subtest) is in the Gross motor response & nonverbal ability clusters.
- Block Counting (Gv subtest) is in the Little Motor cluster.
Second Line of Attack: Examine how Supplemental & Core subtests within each scale complement each other
Step 6B: Generate Hypotheses to Explain Supplementary Subtests that are Inconsistent with the mean of Core Subtests
First Line of Attack: Determine which supplemental subtests are significantly
different from the Core Subtests
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Step 6B: First Line of Attack for Sophia’s Supplementary Subtests that were
inconsistent with the Core
• Hand Movements (6 lower than Core of 13)– Examine Step 5E: Gross Motor ability (78)
significantly lower than Little Motor Response (91)
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
• Why a supplementary subtest differs significantly from its core subtests:
• See Rapid References 3.4, 3.5, and 3.7 (in second line of attack).
• Rapid References 3.3 and 3.6 are not needed for this step because Learning/Glr and Planning/Gf do not have any supplementary subtests.
Step 6BThe second and third lines of attack that are of primary importance for
generating hypotheses
Essentials Page 133
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Step 6BSecond and third lines of attack
• Sophia’s Hand Movements scaled score of 6 significantly below pertinent Core subtests
• HM is within the Below Average Range, • but her Sequential/Gsm Index of 118
was a Key Asset for her.
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Step 6BSecond and third lines of attackSophia’s Hand Movements scaled score of 6 significantly below pertinent Core subtests
• Consider that she had a High Priority Concern in visual processing,
• Evidenced by Simultaneous/Gv Index of 80,
• Hypothesis: • Hand Movements measures the Gv
Narrow Ability of Visual Memory.
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Step 6BSecond and third lines of attack
Sophia’s Hand Movements scaled score of 6 significantly below pertinent Core subtests
• Sophia undoubtedly scored significantly lower on Hand Movements than on other short-term memory tasks
• because her deficit in visual processing prevented her from performing at an Above Average level in her area of strength.
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
How to Interpret the KABC-II:
Qualitative Indicators
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Evidence-based Background for QIs observed during testing and other clinical situations
Effects of AnxietyCognitive Domain Affected
KABC-II Subtests Affected
Working memoryShort term memoryStrategy formation
Number RecallHand MovementsWord OrderAtlantis Rebus
Note. Although Anxiety may affect these KABC-II subtests, poor performance on these subtests is not necessarily indicative of problems with anxiety.
Essentials Page 149
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Evidence-based Background for QIs observed during testing and other clinical situations
Effects of Executive Functioning & Attention
Cognitive Domain Affected KABC-II Subtests Affected
AttentionExecutive FunctioningWorking memory
Number RecallRoverConcept FormationPattern ReasoningStory Completion
Riddles Note. Although problems with executive functioning and attention may affect these KABC-II subtests, poor performance on these subtests is not necessarily indicative of disorders associated with poor executive functioning and attention.
Essentials Page 152
Word Order
Rebus
Atlantis
Hand Movements
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Evidence-based Background for QIs observed during testing and other clinical situations
Effects of Cultural IssuesCognitive Domain Affected
KABC-II Subtests Affected
Crystallized abilities Verbal KnowledgeRiddlesExpressive Vocabulary
Note. Although cultural issues may affect these KABC-II subtests, poor performance on these subtests does not necessarily indicate that cultural issues have depressed scores on these subtests.
Essentials Page 155
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
• The lists of abilities and processes in Rapid References 4.3-4.20 are not intended to be limiting.
• They are intended to stimulate original observations about the child you are assessing.
• Other plausible abilities can easily be enumerated for each subtest based on a variety of armchair, clinical, and empirical analyses of the original K-ABC tasks, Wechsler subtests, and related cognitive tasks.
• The lists for each subtest are geared toward the two theories—Luria and CHC—that form the foundation of the KABC-II, have empirical validation, or provide potentially valuable clinical information about the influence of behavior on test performance.
Subtest-By-Subtest Qualitative/Process Analysis of the
18 Subtests
Essentials Pages 156-166
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Chapter 6Clinical Applications
Comprehensive Picture of Child’s
Processing
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
KABC-II & KTEA-II:Like Hand and Glove
• Conormed
• Similar, cohesive theoretical basis
• Similar interpretive strategies
• Tests complement each other
• Together provide the foundation of a comprehensive assessment
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Quantitative Analysis Coupled with Theoretical Analysis
• Correlational analyses offer valuable information about the integration of the tests
• CHC theory also provides valuable ways of integrating KABC-II and KTEA-II
• Finally, a second theoretical approach – Luria’s model -- offers another mechanism for analyzing and integrating the tests.
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
KABC-II Scale Index Correlations with KTEA-II Composites (ages 7-18)
KTEA-II Composite
KABC-II ScaleTotal Reading Math
Written Language
Oral Language
Learning/Glr .58 .55 .49 .53 .48
Sequential/Gsm .50 .48 .44 .44 .44
Simultaneous/Gv .54 .47 .53 .40 .43
Planning/Gf .63 .56 .59 .51 .51
Knowledge/Gc .75 .71 .53 .59 .68Highest correlate of each KTEA-II Achievement CompositeSecond-Highest correlate of each KTEA-II Achievement Composite
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
• The strong relationship between the Knowledge/Gc Index and all areas of achievement for school-age children and adolescents was anticipated, given that the scale is designed to measure the depth and breadth of knowledge acquired from one’s culture (including schooling).
• The good correlations with achievement for the new KABC-II scales—Planning/Gf and Learning/Glr—attest to the importance in the classroom of the ability to solve problems and learn new material during a clinical evaluation of general cognitive ability.
Meaning of the KABC-II – KTEA-II Correlations
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
• Simultaneous/Gv Index had the highest correlation (r = .65) with KTEA-II Comprehensive Achievement.
• Knowledge/Gc (.60) and Sequential/Gsm (.59) in a virtual deadlock for second best.
• For ages 4 ½ - 6, when school skills are emerging, the amount of knowledge a child has already acquired is secondary to the cognitive processes that are needed to learn to read, write, compute, and speak
KABC-II – KTEA-II Correlations Under Age 7
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
• The KABC-II and KTEA-II were designed to sample a number of Broad and Narrow Abilities defined by the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) model
• These tests together measure 8 of the 10 CHC Broad Abilities and about 33 Narrow Abilities (Flanagan & Ortiz, 2001).
Integrating the KABC-II & KTEA-II: Theory
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Stratum III: General ability is measured by the KABC-II
Fluid-Crystallized Index (FCI)
Stratum II: Broad
abilities are measured by KABC-II Scales
GlrLong-Term
Storage &Retrieval
GlrLong-Term
Storage &Retrieval
g
GsmShort-Term
Memory
GvVisual
Process-ing
GfFluid
Reason-ing
GcCrystal-
lizedAbility
CHC Theory Applied to KABC-II
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Stratum II: Broad abilities are measured by KTEA-II
Scales
GqQuantitative Knowledge
Three Additional Broad Abilities Measured with KTEA-II
GaAuditory
Processing
GrwReading and
Writing
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Stratum I: Narrow Abilities—measured by the KABC II Subtests
Associative Memory
LearningAbilities
LexicalKnowledge
General Information
LanguageDevelopment
Induction
GeneralSequentialReasoning
VisualMemory
SpatialRelations
Visualization
SpatialScanning
ClosureSpeed
Memory Span
WorkingMemory
GlrGlr GsmGsm GvGv GfGf GcGc
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Stratum I: Narrow Abilities—measured by KTEA II Subtests
Naming Facility
Word Fluency
Associat. Fluency
Meaningful Memory
GlrGlr
Listening Ability
Oral Production & Fluency
Grammatical Sensitivity
GcGc
Quantitative Reasoning
GfGf
Math Achievement
Math Knowledge
GqGq
Reading Decoding
Reading Compreh.
Verbal Language Compreh.
Spelling Ability
Writing Ability
GrwGrw
Phonetic Cdg-
Analysis
Phonetic Cdg-
Synth.
GaGa
Engl. Usage Knowledge
Reading Speed
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Lurian Process Approach to
Integrating KABC-II & KTEA-II
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Sequential Processing, Short-Term Memory, Phonological Awareness, and Listening
Comprehension
• KABC-II Sequential/Gsm Core subtests: As a primary measure of auditory short-term memory, these subtests help the examiner evaluate the critical listening skills that children need in the classroom.
• KTEA-II Phonological Awareness measures sound-symbol connections but because of the way it is set up, also measures auditory short-term memory and sequencing skills.
• KTEA-II Listening Comprehension also supports the Sequential/Gsm scale because it straddles auditory short-term memory, auditory working memory, and auditory long-term encoding.
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
The Simultaneous/Gv Scale and Written Expression
• KTEA-II Written Expression can be used to supplement the KABC-II Simultaneous/Gv scale
• Contrast performance on KABC-II Simultaneous/Gv subtests to the visual motor aspects of written expression activities. The visual motor activities on the KABC-II subtests like Rover or Triangles may be related to aspects of written expression.
• These comparisons may help you figure out why a child has poor handwriting, or poor visual organization on writing tasks.
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Planning, Reasoning, and Executive Functions: How They Apply to Rover and Rebus and to
Several KTEA-II Subtests • Rover measures both Gf and Gv Narrow Abilities, and demands
intact executive functions for success. If a child has poor planning or executive functions, performance on this subtest is severely impacted.
• Rebus factorially belongs on the Glr/Learning Scale of the KABC-II, it can also assist in the exploration of the child’s fluid reasoning ability measured on the Planning/Gf scale.
• Written Expression, Reading Comprehension, Oral Expression, and Listening Comprehension all require "higher levels of cognition" (Sattler, 2001), "cognitive load" (Raney, 1993), or "higher-complex abilities."
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Auditory Processing (Ga) and Several Auditory Tasks on the KABC-II and KTEA-II
• KTEA-II Listening Comprehension and three KABC-II subtests (Riddles, Number Recall, Word Order) are dependent, to some extent, on the CHC Ga Broad Ability.
• These subtests still all use auditory input as the main processing vehicle and that, by nature, is serial and sequential (but are not primarily Ga subtests).
• Listening Comprehension, in particular, is a supportive subtest for Ga because it measures the kind of listening comprehension that students must do in school
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Summary
• Strong theoretical and correlational links between KABC-II and KTEA-II
• Using both with yield a fruitful examination of a child’s cognitive abilities and how they translate into academic skills
Essentials Pages 246-250
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Composite/Subtest Standard Score
Percentile Rank
Reading Composite 92 30
Letter & Word Recognition 94 34
Reading Comprehension 90 25
Decoding Composite 91 27
Nonsense Word Decoding 87 19
Sound-Symbol Composite 88 21
Phonological Awareness 89 23
Reading Fluency Composite 89 23
Word Recognition Fluency 90 25
Decoding Fluency 88 21
Sophia’s KTEA-II Scores
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Composite/Subtest Standard Score
Percentile Rank
Mathematics Composite 91 27
Math Concepts & Applications 94 34
Math Computation 89 23
Oral Language Composite 96 39
Listening Comprehension 94 34
Oral Expression 98 45
Written Language Composite 70 2
Written Expression 71 3
Spelling 74 4
Sophia’s KTEA-II Scores
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Diagnostic Impressions of Sophia
• Sophia displays significant deficits in the area of visual processing
• Her deficit in this basic psychological process, coupled with her deficits in the area of written expression and spelling, have led to the development of a Disorder of Written Expression.
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Diagnostic Impressions of Sophia
• Throughout the testing, Sophia’s written expression was sparse, she wrote in a labored manner, and made vocabulary, punctuation, and grammatical errors.
• Although her oral language appeared intact, her deficits in writing have greatly impacted her motivation & school achievement.
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Diagnostic Impressions of Sophia• Her area of deficit requires intense and
immediate intervention, both to keep her from falling further behind her peers, and to limit the damaging effects of low self esteem and poor motivation. – Word processing
– Decrease visual-motor demands
– Extra time for written assignments
– Don’t requiring copying assignment from board
– Incentive program to motivate Sophia to increase writing quantity
– Other specific recs from Mather & Jaffe (2002)
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Supplementing the KABC-II with the Cross Battery
Approach
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Supplementing the KABC-II Using Cross-Battery Methods
Essentials Pages 268-280
Using CHC Cross Battery approach, you can approximate the total range of broad abilities more adequately than any single intelligence battery (Carroll, 1997)
Kaufman (2000): The CHC CB approach can serve to elevate test interpretation to a higher level, to add theory to psychometrics and to thereby improve the quality of the psychometric assessment of intelligence
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Supplementing the KABC-II Using Cross-Battery Methods
Essentials Pages 268-280
Cross-Battery approach is used to augment KABC-II assessments by allowing for:
1) greater breadth in the measurement of broad abilities (e.g., adding Ga and Gs to KABC-II assessments) and
2) greater depth in the measurement of broad abilities (e.g., adding qualitatively different measures of narrow abilities within broad ability domains).
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
3 Pillars of CB Approach
• CHC Theory
• Broad CHC Ability Classifications of Tests
• Narrow CHC Ability Classifications of Tests
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
5 Guiding Principles of CB Approach1. Select tests that have been classified through an
acceptable method
2. Include two or more qualitatively different narrow ability indicators for each CHC domain to ensure proper construct representation
3. Select tests that were developed and normed with in a few years of one another to minimize the effects of spurious differences between tests scores attributable to the Flynn effect
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
5 Guiding Principles of CB Approach
4. Select tests from the smallest number of batteries to minimize the effect of spurious differences between test scores that may be attributable to difft norm samples
5. Use clusters from a single battery whenever possible
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
The Steps of KABC-II Cross-Battery Assessment
Step 1. Determine whether assessment of Ga and Gs is
necessary or desired.
Step 2. Determine whether there is a need to administer supplemental KABC-II subtests.
Step 3. Determine whether it is necessary or desirable to achieve more in-depth measurement of broad cognitive abilities assessed by the KABC-II.
Step 4. Determine whether the measurement of a specific or narrow ability is necessary or desirable.
Essentials Page 274
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
• If Ga is necessary to assess, such as in a referral for reading difficulties in a young child, then the KTEA-II phonological processing test may be administered.
• If Gs is necessary to assess, then you may administer the Gs subtests from the WJ III or WISC-IV
Cross-Battery Step 1. Determine whether assessment of Ga and Gs
is necessary or desired.
Essentials Pages 274-276
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
• Interpret a cluster only when the child’s performance on the subtests comprising the cluster is consistent (or common) indicating a unitary ability
• For subtests derived from actual norms, use existing test’s guidelines
• For subtests derived from averaging subtests use McGrew & Flanagan (1998) and Flanagan & Ortiz’s (2001) guidelines (next slide)
Cross-Battery Step 1. Guidelines for deriving and interpreting CHC Clusters
Essentials Pages 274-276
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
• McGrew & Flanagan (1998) and Flanagan & Ortiz’s (2001) guidelines
Cross-Battery Step 1. Guidelines for deriving and interpreting CHC Clusters
Essentials Pages 274-276
1. Convert subtest scores to scale having mean of 100 & SD of 15
2. Report subtest scores with CI of ± 7 (McGrew & Flanagan, 1998)
3. If the CI for the subtests overlap, then the ability presumed to underlie the cluster is considered unitary. If they do not touch or overlap, then the ability is considered nonunitary, and shouldn’t be interpreted.
4. Report clusters (both broad & narrow) with a CI of ± 5
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
• McGrew & Flanagan (1998) and Flanagan & Ortiz’s (2001) guidelines
Cross-Battery Step 1. Guidelines for deriving and interpreting CHC Clusters
Essentials Pages 274-276
1. If an index is uninterpretable, determine whether a general conclusion may be made about the child’s performance
2. If all subtest scaled scores are ≤ 8 or ≥ 12, a statement may be made about performance
3. For example, Rover = 8; Triangles = 18
….However, it is clear that Andrea’s Gv ability is a notable integrity for her because her performance on the tasks that comprise the Simultaneous/Gv index ranged from Average/Normal Limits to Upper Extreme/Normative Weakness
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
• Whenever the lower of the two subtest scaled scores comprising an index is a normative weakness (i.e., a scaled score < 7) and the higher of the two subtest scores is well within the average range of ability or higher (i.e., a scaled score > 10),
• regardless of whether the Index represents a unitary ability.
Cross-Battery Step 2. Determine whether there is a need to administer
supplemental KABC-II subtests.
Essentials Pages 276-278
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
• John (age 8): Riddles = 5; Verbal Knowledge = 13• 8-point variability in Knowledge/Gc subtests• Thus, administer the Supplemental Expressive Vocabulary
Cross-Battery Step 2. Determine whether there is a need to administer
supplemental KABC-II subtests.
Essentials Pages 276-278
1. Determine whether Riddles and Expressive Vocabulary are a unitary construct
2. If unitary, calculate the Knowledge/Gc Index based on these two subtests (Table D.2)
3. If not unitary, determine whether Expressive Vocabulary and Verbal Knowledge represent a unitary construct
4. If Verb. Knowledge & Expressive Vocab. Unitary, then calculate the Knowledge/Gc index based on those
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
• Glr is underrepresented on the core battery.
• You may administer the KABC-II delayed recall subtests (see interpretive Step 3A in Chapter 3)
• Or the KTEA-II Glr subtests (e.g., Listening Comprehension, Naming Facility/RAN, and Associational Fluency).
• You may also administer Glr tests from the WJ III or from other more specialized batteries, such as the Children’s Memory Scale (Cohen, 1997) or the CTOPP
Cross-Battery Step 3. Determine whether it is necessary or desirable
to achieve more in-depth measurement of broad cognitive abilities assessed by the KABC-II.
Essentials Page 278
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
• Naming Facility, a narrow Glr ability, • and Phonetic Coding, a narrow Ga ability, • show substantial and consistent, positive correlations with
basic reading skills
Cross-Battery Step 4. Determine whether the measurement
of a specific or narrow ability is necessary or desirable.
Essentials Pages 279-280
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
• A Visual Memory Cluster may be particularly informative when there is an observed reading difficulty that is not explained by difficulties in phonemic awareness or rapid automatized naming.
Cross-Battery Step 4. Determine whether the measurement
of a specific or narrow ability is necessary or desirable.
Essentials Pages 279-280
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
• Calculation of a Reading Fluency cluster may provide an indication of the degree to which an individual has automatized basic reading skills (e.g., decoding).
• Deficient reading fluency can be compared to other fluency ability to determine whether fluency is impaired more globally or only as it related to reading decoding.
• A deficit in the basic psychological process of Processing Speed/Gs may be suggested with poor performance on Glr-Naming Facility tasks
Cross-Battery Step 4. Determine whether the measurement
of a specific or narrow ability is necessary or desirable.
Essentials Pages 279-280
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Cross-Battery Summary
• The Cross-Battery Steps for supplementing the Core KABC-II Subtests with additional subtests can improve upon the breadth and depth of measurement of cognitive abilities
• These additional supplements can be deemed necessary upon review of additional KABC-II data
• The steps will help further test hypotheses about variation in a child’s KABC-II score profile.
Summary of what the Essentials of KABC-II Assessment provides:• Chapter 2 – Administration and Scoring: a
highlight of solutions to key pitfalls
•Chapter 3 – Step-by-Step Interpretation: In depth explanation of the first 4 steps (also in the manual), plus two further steps for hypotheses testing
•Chapter 4 – Interpretation with QIs: An analysis of what typically observed behaviors may be related to.
•Chapter 5 – Strengths and Weaknesses: Good for marketing the test and providing comparisons to other tests
•Chapter 6 – Clinical Applications: Info about KTEA-II integration with the test and a CB Approach