.

~
I
lndira Gandhi
Ignou
THE PEOPLE'S
UNIVERSITY
GROUP A
MPCE-012
Psychodiagnostics
National Open University
School of Social Sciences

10 Block

'.
3
TESTS OF COGNITIVE FUNCTIONS
UNIT 1
Measures of Intelligence and Conceptual Thinking 5

UNIT 2
The Measurement of Conceptual Thinking .I

(The Binet and Wechsler's Scales) 24

UNIT 3
Measurement of Memory and Creativity 37

UNIT 4
Utility of Data .from the Test of Cognitive Functions 55

N
.•...
I
W
o
a..
:E
Expert Committee
Prof. A. V. S. Madnawat Dr. Madhu Jain Dr. Vijay Kumar Bharadwas
Professor & HOD Department Reader, Psychology Director
of Psychology, University of Department of .Psychology Acadernie Psychologie, Jaipur
Rajasthan. Jaipur University of Rajasthan, Jaipur
Prof. Dipesh Chandra Nath
Dr. Usha Kulshreshtha Dr. Shailender Singh Bhati Head of Dept.' of. Applied
Associate Professor, Psychology Lecturer, 0. D. Government Psychology, Calcutta University
University of Rajasthan, Jaipur Girls College, Alwar, Rajasthan Kolkata
Dr. Swaha Bhattacharya Prof. Vandana Sharma Dr. Mamta Sharma
Associate Professor Professor and Head of Assistant Professor
Department of Applied Psychology Department Department of Psychology
Calcutta University, Kolkata of Psychology Punjabi University, Patiala
Punjabi University, Patiala
Prof. P. H. Lodhi Dr. Vivek Belhekar
Professor and Head of the Prof. Varsha Sane Godbole Senior Lecturer
Department of Psychology Professor and Head of Bombay University, Mumbai
University 'of Pune, Pune Department of Psychology
Osmania University, HyderabadDr. Arvind Mishra
Prof. Amulya Khurana Assistant Professor
Professor & Head Psychology Dr. S. P. K. Jena Zakir Hussain Center for
Humanities and Social Sciences Associate Professor and Incharge Educational Studies. Jawaharlal
Indian Institute of Technology Department of Applied Nehru University, New Delhi
New Delhi Psychology University of Delhi. .
South Campus Benito Juarez Dr. Kamka Khandelwal Associate
Prof. Waheeda .Khan Road. New Delhi Professor and Head of
Professor and Head Department - Department of Psychology
of Psychology Prof. Manas K. Mandal Lady Sri Ram College,
Jarnia Millia University Director Kailash Colony, New Delhi
Jarnia Nagar, New Delhi Defense Institute of
Psychological Research Prof. G. P. Thakur
Prof. Usha Nayar DRDO, Timarpur, Delhi Professor and Head of
Professor, Tata Institute of Department of Psychology (Rtd.)
Social Sciences, Deonar, Mumbai Ms. Rosley Jacob M.o. Kashi Vidhyapeeth
Lecturer, Department of Varanasi
Prof. A.K. Mohanty Psychology, The Global Open
Professor, Psychology University Nagaland, Paryavaran
Zakir Hussain Center for Complex, New Delhi
Education Studies, Jawaharlal
Nehru University, New Delhi

Content Editor
Prof. VimalaVeeraraghavan
Emeritus Professor, Psychology
Department of Psychology
SOSS, IGNOU, New Delhi

Format Editor: Prof. VimalaVeeraraghavan& Dr. Shobha Saxena (Academic Consultant), IGNOU, New Delhi
Programme Coordinator: Prof. Vimala Veeraraghavan, IGNOU, New Delhi

Block Preparation Team

Units 1-4 Ms. Kiran Rathore
Assistant Professor
Department of Psychology
Osmania University, Hyderabad

PRINT PRODUCTION
Shri Rajiv Girdhar Shri Hemant Kumar
A.R: (Publication) S.O. (Publication)
MPDD, IGNOU, New Delhi MPDD, IGNOU, New Delhi
November. 2020 (Reprint)
C' lndira Gandhi National Open University, 2010
-ISBN-978-81-266-5535-9
All right reserved. N~'part of this work may he reproduced in anyform, by mimeograph or any other
means, without permission in writing from the If/dim Gandhi National Open University. '.
Further information on Indra Gandhi National Open University courses may be obtainedfrom. the
Universitv's offi-ce lit Maidan Garhi, New Delhi-l Ill 068.
Printed and published on behalf of the Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi by
Registrar, MPDD.
Printed-at Mfs Saraswati Offset Printer Pvt, Ltd., Saruswati House, A-5, Naraina Industrial
Area, Phase-II, New Delhi-ll0028
 BLOCK 3 . INTRODUCTION
The assessment of intelligence was conceived in a theoretical void and born
into a theoretical vacuum. During the last half of the nineteenth century, first
Sir Francis Galton in England (1883) and then Alfred Binet in France (Binet
& Henri, 1895) took turns in developing the leading intelligence tests of the
day. Galton, who was interested in men of genius and in eugenics, developed
his test from a vague, simplistic theory that people take in information through
their senses, so the most intelligent people must have the best developed senses.
His test included a series of sensory, motor, and reaction time tasks, all of which
produced reliable, consistent results (Galton, the half cousin of Charles Darwin,
was strictly a scientist, and accuracy was essential), but none of which proved
to be valid as measures of the construct of intelligence.

The assessment, of intelligence has tremendous potential for great use and great
abuse. IQ tests can be used to categorize people into oblivion and misinterpreted
to support a wide variety of racist and sexist ideologies. But they can also
be used to examine and treat children once simply called 'stupid'. Unit 1, will
briefly touch on the history of intelligence assessment and then focus on the
Wechsler Scales, the most used tests of cognitive development, the Stanford-
Binet V, the descendant of the first major test of cognitive development, and
then describe more recent tests of cognitive development, such as the Kaufman
tests, the Woodcock-Johnson, the Differential Ability Scales, and the Cognitive
Assessment System.

Abstract reasoning or conceptual thinking is no doubt the most advanced of

the cognitive abilities. Whereas animals may be capable of problem solving, only
humans can abstract. Thus, abstraction and problem solving are not synonymous,
and problems can be solved without abstraction. However, formation of an
abstract concept is often the most elegant way of solving a problem. The word
abstraction connotes abstracting some unifying idea or principle on the basis
of observation of diverse material. It is therefore an activity that is removed
from direct sensory experience and constitutes a representation of such
experience. The term abstraction is often contrasted to concreteness, the latter
term indicating cognitive activity associated with direct experience, and without
such representation. Concreteness is direct interaction with the "real world"
without additional processing.

Conceptual thinking or abstract reasoning is a recognised form of thinking that

includes aspects of critical, creative, and meta cognitive thinking. Conceptual
thinking requires the ability to critically examine factual information; relate to
prior knowledge; see patterns and connections; draw out significant understand-
ings at the conceptual level; evaluate the truth of the understandings based on
the supporting evidence; transfer the understanding across time or situation; and,
often, use the conceptual understanding to creatively solve a problem or create
N a new product, process, or idea. In Unit 2, we will be dealing with conceptual
't""

W
I
thinking and its measurement. We will present the various tests that could be
o
a. used for the purpose and then discuss the applicabllity and limitations of these
:E tests.
Webster's dictionary (1966) defines memory as the 'conscious or unconscious
evocation of things past'. As such, the term 'memory' can refer to a variety
of learned behaviours, and it could be argued that many aspects of perception
and language involve the use of certain memory systems. A number of authors
have alluded to the range of possible human memory systems but in the present
context we will mainly be concerned with the more customary use of the term,
that is the retention of specific information which has been acquired in the
recent past. It is this aspect of memory which forms the basis of most of the
memory symptoms reported by brain damaged patients and which is the main
focus of this unit. The first half of this unit will cover in depth the various aspects
of memory assessment.

What does it mean to be creative? Some might say thinking outside the box;
others might argue it as having a good imagination, and still others might suggest
creativity is a synergy that can be tapped through brainstorming. We take an
empirical, psychological approach to this question. One of the first things we .
will cover in Unit 3 is to define what creativity is. Secondly this unit will cover
the different types of tests used in assessment of creativity.

Cognitive testing is a general term referring to the assessment of a wide range

of information processing or thinking skills and behaviours. These comprise
general neuro psychological functions involving brain-behavior relationships,
general intellectual functions (such as reasoning and problem solving) as well
as more specific cognitive skills (such as visual and auditory memory), language
skills, pattern recognition, finger dexterity, visual perceptual skills, academic skills,
and motor functions. Cognitive testing may include aptitude testing (which
assesses cognitive potential such as general intelligence) and achievement testing
(which assesses proficiency in specific skills such as reading or mathematics).
Cognitive testing uses well known tests such as the Scholastic Aptitude Test
(SAT) and intelligence quotient (IQ) tests of all kinds. Thus, cognitive testing
is an umbrella term that refers to many different types of tests measuring many
different types of thinking and learning skills.

The Unit 4 expands the discussion of assessment in clinical psychology. Cognitive

assessment measures a host of intellectual capacities and encompasses the
subspecialty of neuropsychological assessment that examines brain-behaviour
relationships. Once all the assessment data are collected and examined by the
psychologist, decisions can be made regarding diagnosis, treatment plans, and
predictions about future behaviour.
UNIT 1 MEASURES OF INTELLIGENCE
AND CONCEPTUAL THINKING
Structure
1.0 Introduction

1.1 Objectives

1.2 History of Intelligence Assessment

1.3 Measures of Intelligence

1.3.1 Wechsler Scales
1.3.2 We,chsler Scales for Adults
1.3.3 WAIS-III
1.3.4 WAIS-IV
1.3.5 The Wechsler Scale for Children
1.3.6· The Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Int~lligence (WPPSI)

1.4 Stanford-Binet Scales

1.4.1 Characteristics of Stanford Binet Scale

1.5 Woodcock-Johnson Psycho Educational Battery-S'" Edition:

Tests of Cognitive Ability (WJ-III)

1.6 Raven's Progressive Matrices

1.7 Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (K-ABCII)

1.7.1 Kaufman Adolescent and Adult Intelligence Test (KAIT)

1.8 Differential Abilities Scales (DAS)

1.9 Cognitive Assessment System (CAS)

1.10 Questions and Controversies Concerning IQ Testing

1.11 Future Perspectives and Conclusions

1.12 Let Us Sum Up

1.13 Unit End Questions

1.14 Suggested Readings

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The assessment of intelligence via the conventional IQ test has tremendous potential
for great use and great abuse. IQ tests can be used to categorize people into
oblivion and misinterpreted to support a wide variety of racist and sexist ideologies.
But they can also be used to examine and treat children once simply called
'stupid'. This unit will briefly touch on the history of intelligence assessment and
then focus on the Wechsler Scales, the most used tests of cognitive development,
the Stanford-Binet V,the descendant of the first major test of cognitive development,
and then describe more recent tests of cognitive development, such as the Kaufman
tests, the Woodcock-Johnson, the Differential Ability Scales, and the Cognitive
Assessment System. 5

I
Tests of Cognitive
Functions 1.1 OBJECTIVES
After completing this unit, you will be able to:

• describe the history of intelligence assessment;

• describe some of the important measures used for intellectual assessment;

• explain the Stanford Binet scales;

• elucidate the Woodcock Jhonson battery;

• describe Raven's Progressive Matrices;

• explain Kaufman assessment battery for children and for adolescents and
adults;

• elucidate the differential ability scales;

• explain the cognitive assessment system;

• analyse the controversies concerned with IQ testing; and

• discuss the future perspectives of intelligence testing.

1.2 HISTORY OF INTELLIGENCE ASSESSMENT

The assessment of intelligence was conceived in a theoretical void and born into
a theoretical vacuum. During the last half of the nineteenth century, first Sir Francis
Galton in England (1883) and then Alfred Binet in France (Binet & Henri, 1895)
took turns in developing the leading intelligence tests of the day. Galton, who was
interested in men of genius and in eugenics, developed his test from a vague,
simplistic theory that people take in information through their senses, so the most
intelligent people must have the best developed senses. His test included a series
of sensory, motor, and reaction time tasks, all of which produced reliable, consistent
results (Galton, the half cousin of Charles Darwin, was strictly a scientist, and
accuracy was essential), but none of which proved to be valid as measures of the
construct of intelligence.

Alfred Binet, with the assistance of the Minister of Public Instruction in Paris (who
was eager to separate mentally retarded from normal children in the classroom),
published the first 'real' intelligence test in 1905. Like Galton's test, Binet's
instrument had only a vague tie to theory (in this case, the notion that intelligence
was a single, global ability that people possessed in different amounts). In a stance
antithetical to Galton's, Binet declared that because intelligence is complex, so,
too, must be its measurement. He conceptualised intelligence as one's ability to
demonstrate memory, judgment, reasoning, and social comprehension, and he and
his colleagues developed tasks to measure these aspects of global intelligence.

Binet's contributions included his focus on language abilities (rather than the non-
verbal skills measured by Galton) and his introduction. of the mental age concept,
derived from his use of age levels, ranging from 3 to 13 years, in his revised 1908
scale (mental age was the highest age level at which the child had success; the
Intelligence Quotient, or IQ, became the ratio of the child's mental age to .
chronological age, multiplied by 100).In 1916,Lewis Terman of Stanford University
translated and adapted the Binet-Simon scales in the US to produce the Stanford
6
Binet (Terman, 1916).
Nearly coinciding with the Stanford Binet's birth was a second great influence on Measures of Intelligence and
Conceptual Thinking
the development of IQ tests in the US: America's entry into World War I in 1917.
Practical concerns superseded theoretical issues. Large numbers of recruits needed
to be tested quickly, leading to the development of a group IQ test, the Army
Alpha. Immigrants who spoke English poorly or not at all had to be evaluated
with nonverbal measures, spearheading the construction of the nonverbal group
test, the Army Beta.

The next great contributor to IQ test development was David Wechsler. While
awaiting induction into the US Army in 1917, Wechsler obtained ajob with E.G.
Boring that required him to score thousands of Army Alpha exams. After induction
he was trained to administer individual tests of intelligence such as the new Stanford
Binet. These clinical experiences paved the way for his Wechsler series of scales.
Wechsler borrowed liberally from the Stanford Binet and Army Alpha to develop
his Verbal Scale and from the Army Beta and Army Performance Scale Examination
to develop his non verbal Performance Scale. His creativity came not from ·his
choice of tasks, .all of which were already developed and validated, but from his
insistence that everyone should be evaluated on both verbal and non-verbal scales,
and that profiles of scores on a variety of mental tasks should be provided for
each individual to supplement the global or aggregate measure of intelligence.

1.3 MEASURES
, OF INTELLIGENCE
There are hundreds of tests that propose to measure intelligence or cognitive
ability. Different tests have been developed for use with various populations such
as children, adults, ethnic minority group members, the gifted, and the disabled
(e.g., visually, hearing, or motorically impaired individuals). Some tests are
administered individually, while others are administered in groups. Some tests
have used extensive research to examine reliability and validity, whereas others
have very little research support. Some are easy to administer and score, while
others are very difficult to use. Although there are many intelligence tests to
choose from, only a small handful of tests tend to be used consistently and widely
by most psychologists. Clearly, the most popular and frequently administered tests
include the Wechsler Scales (i.e., the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Third
Edition [WAIS-Ill], the WAIS-R as a Neuropsychological Instrument [WAIS-R
NI], the Wechsler Intelligence Scale of Children-Fourth Edition [WISC-IV], the
Wechsler Primary and Preschool Scale-Third Edition [WPPSI-III]). The second
most frequently used intelligence test is the Stanford-Binet (Fifth Edition). Other
popular choices include the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (K-ABC)
and the Woodcock-lohnson Psycho educational Battery etc.

1.3.1 Wechsler Scales

While Wechsler (1974) defined intelligence as being a person's capacity to
understand and cope with his or her environment, his tests were not predicated
on this definition. Tasks developed were not designed from well-researched
concepts exemplifying his definition. In fact virtually all of his tasks were adapted
7
Tests of Cognitive from other existing tests. Wechsler did not give credence to one task above
Functions
another, but believed that this global entity called intelligence could be ferreted out
by probing a person with as many different kinds of mental tasks as one can
conjure up. Wechsler did not believe in a cognitive hierarchy for his tasks, and
he did not believe that each task was equally effective. He felt that each task was
necessary for the fuller appraisal of intelligence. All of his scales yields IQs with
a mean of 100 and standard deviation (SD) of 15, as well as subtest scaled
scores with mean =10 and SD= 3.

1.3.2 Wechsler Scales for Adults

The Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale was developed and published by David
Wechsler (1896-1981) in1939. The test was revised in 1955 and renamed the
Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) and revised again in 1981 as the
Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale Revised (WAIS-R; Wechsler, 1981). The third
edition was published in 1997 (WAIS-III; Wechsler, 1997) and the most recent
edition is the scale of the fourth edition published in 2008 (WAIS-IV; Wechsler,
2008) thus the WAIS-IV is the current version of the test in use today.

1.3.3 WAIS-III
The WAIS-III consists of seven individual verbal subtests (Information, Similarities,
Arithmetic, Vocabulary, Comprehension, Digit Span, and Letter-Numbering
Sequencing) and seven Performance (or nonverbal) subtests (Picture Completion,
Picture Arrangement, Block Design, Object Assembly, Matrix Reasoning, Digit
Symbol, and Symbol Search) (see table 1). Each subtest includes a variety of
items that assess a particular intellectu~l skill of interest (e.g., the vocabulary
subtest includes a list of words that the respondent must defme). The WAIS-III
generally takes about one to one-and-a-half hours to individually administer to
someone between the ages of 16 and 74. Three IQ scores are determined using
the WAIS-III: a Verbal IQ, a Performance IQ, and a Full Scale (combining both
Verbal and Performance) IQ score. The mean IQ score for each of these three
categories is 100 with a standard deviation of 15. Scores between 90 and 110
are considered within the average range of intellectual functioning. Scores below
70 are considered to be in the mentally deficient range, while scores above 130
are considered to be in the very superior range. The individual subtests (e.g.,
Vocabulary, Block Design) have a mean of 10 and a standard deviation of 3.
These subtests form the basis for subtle observations about the relative strengths
and weaknesses possessed by each individual. The table below gives the details
of the subtests of WAIS Ill.

Table 1: Descriptions of the WAIS-III Subtests

Sub Tests Description

1) Picture completion A set of colour pictures of common objects

and settings, each of which is missing an
important part that the examinee must
identify.

2) Vocabulary A series of orally and visually presented

words that the examinee
orally defmes.

8
 Measures of Intelligence and
3) Digit Symbol Coding A series of numbers, each of which is paired Conceptual Thinking
with its own corresponding hieroglyphic-like
symbol. Using a key, the examinee writes
the symbol corresponding to its number.

4) Similarities A series of orally presented pairs of

words for which the examineeexplains
the similarity of the common objects or
concepts they represent

5) Block Design A set of modeled or printed two-

dimensional geometric patterns that the
examinee replicates using two-color cubes.

6) Arithmetic A series of arithmetic problems that the

examinee solves mentally and responds to
orally.

7) Matrix Reasoning A series of incomplete gridded patterns that

the examinee completes by pointing to or
saying the number of the correct response
from fivepossible choices.

8) Digit Span A series of orally presented number

sequences that the examinee repeat
sverbatim for Digits Forward and in reverse
for Digits Backward.

9) Information A series of orally presented questions

that tap the examinee's knowledgeof
common events, objects, places, and
people.
10) Picture Arrangement A set of pictures presented in a mixed-
up order that the examineerearranges into
a logical story sequence.

11) Comprehension A series of orally presented questions

that require the examinee to understand
and articulate social rule and concepts or
solutions toeveryday problems.

12) Symbol Search A series of paired groups, each pair

consisting of a target group and asearch
group. The examinees indicates, by marking
the appropriate box, whether either target
symbol appears in the search group.

13) Letter-Number Sequencing A series of orally presented sequences

of letters and numbers that the examinee
simultaneously tracks and orally repeats,
with the number in ascending order and the
letters in alphabetical order.

14) Object Assembly Set of puzzles of common objects, each

presented in a standardized configuration
that the examinee assembles to form a
meaningful whole.

Source: From Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, Third Edition, by D. Wechsler,

1997, San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation. 9
Tests of Cognitive Administration and Scoring of the WAIS-m
FW1CtiOns
WAIS-IIl must be administered on an individual basis by a specially trained
psychologist. Although the administration and scoring of some sub tests (e.g.,
arithmetic) is a relatively simple matter, many of the subtests, especially those
comprising open-ended questions, call for informed professionaljudgment in scoring
responses. A large part of the examiner's job is to establish and maintain rapport
with the person taking the test. The sub tests of the WAlS ill are given separately,
alternating the verbal and performance subtests. The examinee first completes the
picture completion subtest, which is simple and nonthreatening (this helps to
capture the examinee's interest), then the vocabulary subtest, then the digit-symbol
coding subtest, and so on. In each subtest, items are arranged in order of difficulty,
with the easier items at the beginning of each subtest and the more difficult items
given later. For most subtests, it is neither necessary nor useful to administer all
test items to every subject. Instead, a fairly easy item is given first, and a subject
who answers that item correctly receives credit for that item and for all the easier
items of the subtest. If the subject fails the first item, the examiner administers all
the easier items to determine what types of problems the subject can or cannot
solve. Similarly, if a subject consecutively fails a number of the moderately difficult
items, the examiner concludes the subtest, rather than administering the most
difficult items. The rationale for this procedure is that subjects tend to lose interest
in testing if they are forced to respond to a number of items that are either
insultingly easy or impossibly difficult for them.

The WAIS III manual includes tables that are used to transform raw scores on
each of the subtests to standard scores with a mean of 10 and a standard
deviation of 3 (the same scale as used by the Stanford-Binet Fifth Edition). These
standardized sub test scores provide a uniform frame of reference for comparing
scores on the different sections of the WAlS ill. For example, if a person receives
a score of 16 on the digit span test and 9 on the block design test, one might
reasonably infer that this person is relatively better at the functions measured by
the digit span test than at those measured by the block design test.

Traditionally, interpretation of the WAIS focused on Verbal, Performance, and

Full-Scale IQ. These scores are still reported in WAlS-IIl, but there is growing
consensus that the Verbal-Performance dichotomy is not sufficient for understanding
individuals' intelligence. The WAIS-III provides scores for four empirically
supported indices: Verbal Comprehension (Vocabulary, Similarities, Information),
Perceptual Organisation (Picture Completion, Block Design, Matrix Reasoning),
Working Memory (Arithmetic, Digit Span, Letter-Number Sequencing),and
Processing Speed (Digit-Symbol Coding, Symbol Search). The Picture
Arrangement, Comprehension, and Object Assembly subtests do not contribute
to these index scores. The WAlS-ill manual provides tables for converting verbal,
performance, and full-scale scores into deviation IQs based on a mean of 100
and a standard deviation of 15.

1.3.4 WAIS-IV
The current version of the test, the WAIS-IV, which was released in 2008, is
composed of 10 core subtests and five supplemental subtests, with the 10 core
subtests comprising the Full Scale IQ. With the new WAIS-IV, the verball
performance subscales from previous versions were removed and replaced by the
index scores. The General Ability Index (GAl) was included, which consists of
10
the Similarities, Vocabulary, Information, the Block Design, Matrix Reasoning and Measures of Intelligence 'and
Conceptual Thinking
Visual Puzzles subtests. The GAl is clinically useful because it can be used as a
measure of cognitive abilities that are less vulnerable to impairment.

There are four index scores representing major components of intelligence:

1) Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI)

2) Perceptual Reasoning Index (PR!)

3) Working Memory Index (WMI)

4) Processing Speed Index (PSI) .

The Verbal Comprehension Index includes four tests:

1) Similarities: Abstract verbal reasoning (e.g., "In what way are an apple and
a pear alike 7")

2) Vocabulary: The degree to which one has learned, been able to comprehend
and verbally express vocabulary (e.g., "What is a guitar?")

3) Information: Degree of general information acquired from culture (e.g., "Who

is the president of Russia?")

4) Comprehension (supplemental):Ability to deal with abstract social conventions,

rules and expressions (e.g., "What does Kill 2 birds with 1 stone
metaphorically mean?")

The Perceptual Reasoning Index comprises five tests

1) Bock Design: Spatial perception, visual abstract processing & problem solving

2) Matrix Reasoning: Nonverbal abstract problem solving, inductive reasoning,

spatial reasoning. '

3) Visual Puzzles: non-verbal reasoning

4) Picture Completion (supplemental): Ability to quickly perceive visual details

5) Figure Weights (supplemental): quantitative and analogical reasoning

The Working Memory Index is obtained from three tests:

1) Digit span: attention, concentration, mental control (e.g., Repeat the numbers
1-2-3 in reverse sequence)

2) Arithmetic: Concentration while manipulating mental mathematical problems

(e.g., "How many 45-cent stamps can you buy for a dollar?")

3) Letter-Number Sequencing (supplemental): attention and working memory

(e.g., Repeat the sequence Q-I-B-3-J-2, but place the numbers in numerical
order and then the letters in alphabetical order)

The Processing Speed Index includes three tests:

1) Symbol Search: Visual perception, speed

2) Coding: Visual-motor coordination, motor and mental speed

3) Cancellation (supplemental): visual-perceptual speed

11,
Tests of Cognitive Two broad scores are also generated, which can be used to summarize general
Functions intellectual abilities:

• Full Scale IQ (FSIQ), based on the total combined performance of the

VCI, PRI, WMI, and PSI

• General Ability Index (GAl), based only on the six subtests that comprise
the VCI and PR!

The WAIS-IV was standardized on a sample of 2,200 people in the United

States ranging in age from 16 to 90. An extension of the standardization has been
conducted with 688 Canadians in the same age range. The median Full Scale IQ
is centered at 100, with a standard deviation of 15. In a normal distribution, the
IQ range of one standard deviation above and below the mean (i.e., between 85
and 115) is where approximately 68% of all adults would fall.

1.3.5 The Wechsler Scales for Children

The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children(WISC) was first published in 1949
and was revised in 1974 (and renamed the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-
Revised; WISC-R) and revised again in 1991(renamed the Wechsler Intelligence
Scale for Children-Third Edition; WISC-ill) and again in 2003 (now named the
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth Edition).

The WISC-IV is the version currently used today. The WISC-IV has both verbal
and nonverbal subscales similar to those used in the WAIS-ill. However, WISC-
IV questions are generally simpler because they were developed for children aged
6 to 16 rather than for adults. Furthermore, they are clustered in four categories
that represent different areas of intellectual functioning. These include;

i) Verbal Comprehension, ii) Perceptual Reasoning, iii) Working Memory, and iv)
Processing Speed.

Each of these four areas of intellectual functioning include both "core" or mandatory
subtests that must be administered to derive an index or IQ score as well as at
least one "supplementary" or optional subtest that is not included in the index or
IQ score. The Verbal Comprehension category consists of three core subtests
including Similarities, Vocabulary, and Comprehension as well as two supplementary
sub tests that include Information and Word Reasoning. The Perceptual Reasoning
category also consists of three core subtests, including Block Design, Picture
Concepts, and Matrix Reasoning as well as one supplementary subtest called
Picture Completion. The working memory category consists of two core subtests
including Digit Span and Letter-Number Sequencing as well as one supplementary
subtest entitled Arithmetic. Finally, the Processing Speed category consists of two
core subtests including coding and Symbol Search as well as one supplementary
subtest entitled Cancellation.

The WISC-IV provides four index score IQs as well as an overall or full-scale
IQ based on the scores from all of the four index scores. These IQ scores all are
set with a mean of 100and a standard deviation of 15. The four factor scores.
(i.e., Verbal Comprehension, Perceptual Reasoning, Working Memory, and
Processing Speed) were developed using factor analytic techniques and numerous
research studies to reflect human intellectual functioning. Each of the subtests uses
a mean of 10 and standard deviation of 3. The WISC- IV has been shown to
have excellent reliability, validity, and stability (Wechsler, 2003).
12
1.3.6 The Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Measures of Intelligence and
Conceptual Thinking
Intelligence (WPPSI) ,1;

WPPSI was developed and published in 1967 for use with children aged 4 to6.
The test was revised in 1989 and became known as the Wechsler Preschool and
Primary Scale of Intelligence-Revised (WPPSI-R) and revised again in 2002 as
the WPPSI-III. The WPPSI-III is the current version of the test being used
today. The WPPSI -III is used for children ranging in age from 2 to 7. Like the
other Wechsler scales (WAIS-ID, WAIS-ID NI, and WISC-IV), the WPPSI-III
has both Verbal and Performance scales resulting in four IQ scores: Verbal IQ,
Performance IQ, Processing Speed IQ, and Full Scale IQ. Similar to the other
Wechsler scales, IQ scores have a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15,
while the subtest scores have a mean of 10 and a standard deviation of 3. The
Verbal IQ score consists of the Information, Vocabulary, and Word Reasoning
subtest while theComprehension and Similarities subtests are not included in the
calculation of the Verbal IQ .score. The Performance IQ consists of the Block
Design, Matrix Reasoning, and Picture Concept subtests while the Picture
Completion and Object Assembly are not included in the calculation of the
Performance IQ score.

The Processing .Speed IQ score consists of the Symbol Search and Coding
.Subtest. The WPPSI-ID has been shown to have satisfaction, reliability, validity,
and stability (Wechsler, 2002) .

.Self Assessment Questions

1) Trac~ the history of intelligence assessment.

2) Describe Wechsler Scales.

3) Elucidate Wechsler scale for children.

4) What are the important features of Weehsier preschool and primary scale
of intelligence.

5) Describe WAIS III and WAIS IV.

13
Tests of Cognitive
Functions 1.4 STANFORD-BINET SCALES
The major impetus for the development of intelligence tests was the need to
classify (potentially) mentally retarded school children. The scales developed for
this purpose by Binet and Simon in the early 1900s was the forerunners of one
of the most successful and most widely researched measures of general intelligence,
the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale. The Stanford-Binet is used widely in assessing
the intelligence of children and young adults, and it is one of the outstanding
examples of the application of the principles of psychological testing to practical
. testing situations.

The scale developed by Binet and Simon in 1905 consisted of a set of 30

problems, varying from extremely simple sensory motor tasks to problems involving
judgment and reasoning. The basic strategy followed in this test and in its many
revisions was to observe the subject's reactions to a variety of somewhat familiar,
yet challenging tasks. Terman and Merrill (1937) neatly summarize Binet's
procedures, noting that this type of test is "not merely an intelligence test; it is a
method of standardized interview which is highly interesting to the subject and
calls forth his natural responses to an extraordinary variety of situations" (p. 4).

Binet's original scales have undergone several major revisions. The fifth edition of
the Stanford-Binet (Roid, 2003) represents the cumulative outcome of a continuing
process of refining and improving the' tests. Following a model adopted with the
release of the fourth edition of this test in 1986, the selection and design of the
tests included in the Stanford-Binet is based on an increasingly well-articulated
theory of intelligence. The fifth edition of the Stanford-Binet leans less heavily on
verbal tests than in the past; the current version of the test includes equal
representation of verbal and nonverbal sub tests. In this edition, both verbal and
nonverbal routing tests are used to quickly and accurately adapt test content and
testing procedures to the capabilities of the individual examinee.

Each subtest of the Stanford-Binet is made up of open-ended questions or tasks

that become progressively more difficult.

1.4.1 Characteristics of the Stanford Binet Scale

Like many other tests of general mental ability, the Stanford-Binet samples a wide
variety of taskstt that involve the processing of information and measures an
individual's intelligence by comparing his or hers performance on these tests; the
Stanford-Binet has employed a well-developed theory of intelligence to guide the
selection and development of subtests. Drawing on the work ofVernon (1965),
R. B. Cattell (1963), Sternberg (1977, 1981), and others, the authors of the
Stanford-Binet have formulated a hierarchical model of cognitive abilities and
have used this model in selecting subtests and in scoring the Stanford-Binet

The theoretical model used in developing and interpreting the Stanford-Binet is

shown table 2. The current version of the Stanford-Binet measures five general
factors (Fluid Reasoning, Knowledge, Quantitative Reasoning, Visual-Spatial
Processing and Working Memory), using both verbal and nonverbal tasks. In
table 2, the factors measured and the subtest names are shown in boldface,
whereas the specific tasks that are used to measure each of these factors are
shown in plain text. In several cases there are different sets of tasks that are
appropriate at varying developmental levels. So, for example, in evaluating the
14
 Verbal Fluid Reasoning of a young examinee (or an examinee who finds age- ' Measures of Intelligence and
Conceptual Thinking
appropriate questions too difficult), you might use simple reasoning tasks, whereas
verbal absurdities tasks might be used for more advanced examinees and verbal
analogies tasks might be appropriate for the oldest and most advanced examinees.

Examinees receive scores on each of the ten subscales (scales with a mean of 10
and standard deviation of 3), as well as composite scores for Full Scale, Verbal
and Nonverbal IQ, reported on a score scale with a mean of 100 and a standard
deviation of 15.Historically, the IQ scale based on a mean of 100 and a standard
deviation of 15 had been the norm for almost every other major test, but the
Stanford-Binet had used a score scale with a standard deviation of 16. This might
strike you as a small difference, but what it meant was that scores on the Stanford-
'Binet were hard to compare with scores on all other tests; ascore of 130 on
previous versions of the Stanford-Binet was not quite as high a score as a 130
on any other major test (if the standard deviation isl6, 130 is 1.87 standard'
deviations abovethe mean, whereas on tests with a standard deviation of 15, it
'. is 2 standard deviations above the mean). The current edition of the Stanford-
Binet yields IQ scores that are comparable to those on other major tests.

Table 2: Theoretical Model for the Stanford-Binet (Fifth Edition)

Verbal Non Verbal

Fluid Reasoning Verbal Fluid Reasoning' Nonverbal Fluid

Reasoning Object Series/
Early Reasoning (2-3) Matrices
" VerbalAbsurdities (4) Nonverbal
Verbal Analogies (5-6) Knowledge
Procedural Knowledge
(2-3)

Knowledge Verbal Knowledge Picture Absurdities

Vocabulary (4-6)

Quantitative Reasoning Verbal Nonverbal

Quantitative Reasoning Quantitative
Quantitative Reasoning Reasoning
(2-6) Quantitative
Reasoning (2-6)

Visual-Spatial Processing Verbal Nonverbal

Visual-Spatial Visual-Spatial
Processing Processing
Position and Direction Form Board (1-2)
(2-6) Form Patterns (3-6)

Working Memory Verbal Working Nonverbal

Memory Working Memory
Memory for Sentences Delayed Response (1)
(2-3) Last Word (4-6) Block Span (2-6)

Administration and Scoring of the Stanford-Binet

Throughout its history, the Stanford-Binet has been an adaptive test in which an
individual responds to only that part of thetest that is appropriate for his or her 15
 Tests of Cognitive developmental level. Thus, a young child is not given difficult problems that would
Functions lead only to frustration (e.g., asking a 5-year-oldwhy we have a Constitution).
Similarly, an older examinee is not bored with questions that are well beneath his
or her age level (e.g., asking a lO-year-old to add 4 + 5).Subtests in the Stanford-
Binet are made up of groups of items that are progressively more difficult. A child
taking the test may respond to only a few sets of items on each subtest.

One of the examiner's major tasks has been to estimate' each examinee's mental
age to determine the level at which he or she should be tested. The recent
revisions of the Stanford-Binet include objective methods of determining each
appropriate level for each examinee through the use of routing tests; the current
edition uses both verbal (Vocabulary) and nonverbal (Matrices) routing tests.

Historically, the Stanford-Binet has been regarded as one of the best individual
tests of a chilli's intelligence available. The recent revisions of the Stanford-Binet
may increase its relevance in adult testing. This test draws on a long history of
development and use, and it has successfully integrated theoretical work on the
'.
nature of intelligence. It is likely that the Stanford-Binet will remain a standard
against which many other tests of general mental ability are judged.

1.5 WOODCOCK-JOHNSON PSYCHO

EDUCATIONAL BATTERY (3rd EDITION):
TESTS OF COGNITIVE ABILITY (WJ Ill)
The original Woodcock Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery: Tests of Cognitive
Ability (WJ; Woodcock & Johnson, 1977) made a major contribution to test
development because of its inclusion of a diversity of novel tasks that represented
the first major departure from subtests originally developed by Binet or by World
War I psychologists. The WJ, however, was developed from an entirely practical
perspective, with no apparent emphasis on theory. All that changed with the
publication of the WJ-R (Woodcock & Johnson, 1989), an expanded and
reformulated test battery that is rooted firmly in Horn's modified gf-gc
psychometric theory of intelligence, as is its recent successor, the third edition of
the WJ (WJ I11;Woodcock, McGrew & Mather, 2000).

The WJ Ill, for ages 2 to 90+ years and composed of Cognitive and Achievement
sections, is undoubtedly the most comprehensive test battery available for clinical
assessment. The WJ III Cognitive battery (like the WJ-R) is based on Horn's
(1989) expansion of the fluid/crystallized model of intelligence and measures seven
separate abilities: Long-Term Retrieval, Short-Term Memory, Processing Speed,
Auditory Processing, Visual Processing, Comprehension-Knowledge and Fluid
Reasoning. An eighth ability, Quantitative Ability, is measured by several subtests
on the Achievement portion of the WJ Ill.

Self Assessment Questions

1) What is Stanford Binet scales and what are their characteristics?

16
 Measures of Intelligence and
2) Discuss the administration and scoring of Stanford Binet scale. Conceptual Thinking

3) Elucidate Woodcock Johnson Psycho educational battery.

1.6 RAVEN'S PROGRESSIVE MATRICES

Raven's Progressive Matrices, probably the most widely cited culture-reduced
tests, have had a long and distinguished history. Factor analyses carried out in
Spearman's laboratory in the 1930s suggested that tests made up of simple
pictorial analogies showed high correlations with a number of other intelligence
tests and, more important, showed high loadings on Spearman's g.
\

Raven's Progressive Matrices (available in both paper and computer-administered

forms) are made up of a series of multiple-choice items, all of which follow the
same basic principle. Each item represents a perceptual analogy in the form of a
matrix. S~me valid relationship connects items in each row in the matrix, and
some valid relationship connects items in each column of the matrix. Each matrix
is presented in such a way that a piece of the matrix, located in the lower-right
.corner, is missing. The subject must choose from among six or eight alternatives
the piece that best completes each matrix.

There are three forms of Raven's Progressive Matrices. The most widely used
form, the Standard Progressive Matrices, consists of 60 matrices grouped into 5
sets. Each of the 5 sets involves 12 matrices whose solutions involve similar
principles but vary in difficulty. The principles involved in solving the 5 sets of
matrices include perceptual discrimination, rotation, and permutations of patterns.
The first few items in each set are comparatively easy, but the latter matrices may
involve very subtle and complex relationships.

The Standard Progressive Matrices are appropriate both for children above 5
years of age and adults; because of the low floor and fairly high ceiling of this test,
the Standard Matrices are also appropriate for most ability levels. For younger
children (ages 4 to 10), and for somewhat older children and adults who show
signs of retardation, the Coloured Progressive Matrices seem to be more
appropriate. This test consists of three sets of 12 matrices that employ color and
are considerably less difficult than those that make up the Standard Progressive
Matrices.

Finally, the Advanced Progressive Matrices are appropriate for intellectually

advanced subjects who find the Standard Matrices too easy. The Advanced
Matrices are made up of 3 sets of 12 matrices, many of which involve extremely
subtle principles in their solutions. The test effectively discriminates among those
who receive extremely high scores on the Standard Progressive Matrices
17
Tests of Cognitive
Functions . 1.7 KAUFMAN ASSESSMENT BATTERY FOR
CHILDREN (K-ABC 11)
The K-ABC-II (Kaufrnan & Kaufman, 2004) is administered to children between
the ages of 3 and 13 and has five global scales including Sequential Processing,
Simultaneous Processing, Learning Ability, Planning Ability, and Crystallized
Ability. Scores are then combined to create a Mental Processing Index (MPI)
and a nonverbal index. The development of the K-ABC reflects a different
.theoretical approach to intellectual assessment relative to the Wechsler scales.
The K-ABC-II was developed from research and theory in neuropsychology
and, unlike both the Wechsler and Stanford-Binet scales, has achievement scores
to measure skills such as reading ability. Many clinicians feel that the K-ABC-II
is more enjoyable and engaging for children than the Wechsler scales and Stanford-
Binet, as well as a less verbally dependent test. Furthermore, the K-ABC-U
generally takes less time to administer than the Wechsler and Stanford-Binet.

The Sequential Processing/Short-Term Memory Scale is designed to measure the

ability to solve problems by remembering and using an ordered series of images
or ideas. The Simultaneous/Visual Processing Scale measures the ability to solve
spatial, analogical, or organisational problems that require the processing of many
stimuli at one time. The Learning Ability/Long- Term Storage and Retrieval Scale
measures the ability to successfully complete different types of learning tasks.
Immediate recall and delayed recall tasks are included in this scale. The Planning/
Fluid Reasoning Scale measures the ability to solve nonverbal problems that are
different from the kinds taught in school. Verbally mediated reasoning must be
used to solve the problems. The Knowledge/Crystallized Ability Scale measures
knowledge of words and facts using both verbal and pictorial stimuli and requiring
either a verbal or pointing response. Means are set at lOO with standard deviations
of 15.

1.7.1 Kaufman Adolescent and Adult Intelligence Test

(KAIT)
The Kaufman Adolescent and Adult Intelligence Test (KAIT) (Kaufman &
Kaufman, 1993) is an individually administered intelligence test for individuals
between the ages of 11 and more than 85 years. It provides Fluid, Crystallized,
and Composite IQs. It includes a Core Battery of six subtests (three Fluid and
three Crystallized) and an Expanded Battery that also includes alternate Fluid and
Crystallized subtests plus measures of delayed recall of information learned earlier
in the evaluation during two of the Core subtests.

1.8 DIFFERENTIAL ABILITIES SCALES (DAS)

The DAS was developed by Elliott (1990) and is an individually administered
battery of 17 cognitive and achievement tests for use with individuals aged 2
through to 17 years. The DAS Cognitive Battery has a preschool level and a
school-age level. The school-age level includes reading, mathematics, and spelling
achievement tests that are referred to as 'screeners'. The same sample of subjects
was used to develop the norms for the Cognitive and Achievement Batteries;
therefore, intra- and inter-comparisons of the two domains are possible. The
DAS is not based on a specific theory of intelligence. Instead, the test's structure
 is based on tradition and statistical analysis. Elliott (1990) described his approach Measures of Intelligence and
Conceptual Thinking
to the development of the DAS as 'eclectic' and credited the work of researchers
such as Cattell Horn, Das, Jensen, Thurstone, Vemon, and Spearman.

1.9 COGNITIVE ASSESSMENT SYSTEM (CAS)

The Das-Naglieri Cognitive Assessment System(CAS; Naglieri& Das, 1997), for
ages 5 to 17 years, is based on, and developed according to, the Planning,
Attention, Simultaneous, and Successive (PASS) theory of intelligence. The PASS
theory is a multidimensional view of ability that is the result of the merging of
contemporary theoretical and applied psychology (Das, Naglieri& Kirby, 1994).
According to this theory, human cognitive functioning includes four components:
planning processes that provide cognitive control, utilisation of processes and
knowledge, inten,tionality and self-regulation to achieve a desired goal; attentional
processes that provide focused, selective cognitive activity over time; and
simultaneous ana successive information processes that are the two forms of
operating on information.

Self Assessment Questions.

1) Describe Raven's Progressive Matrices.

2) How are Kaufman Assessment Battery for children different from Kaufrnan
adolescent and adult intelligence test?

3) Describe Differential Abilities Scales.

4) What is cognitive assessment system?

',j 1.10 QUESTIONS AND CONTROVERSIES

~ CONCERNING IQ TESTING
L.

Are We Born With A Certain IQ?

Often people assume that we are born with an innately determined level of
intellectual ability that is not influenced by social, emotional, and environmental 19
Tests of Cognitive factors. Some suggest that IQ differences found among different racial groups
Functions might be due to inborn differences in intelligence. A great deal of controversy has
raged in this debate for many years. The publication of the book The Bell Curve
(Hermstein & Murray, 1994) reignited this controversy by suggesting that African
Americans were innately less intelligent than Caucasians while Caucasians were
less intelligent than Asians. Research examining genetic influences on intelligence
generally studies the heritability (i.e., the estimate of genetic contribution to a given
trait) of IQ using twin studies. Identical (monozygotic) and fraternal (dizygotic)
twins reared together and reared apart present a unique research opportunity for
examining the influence of both genetic and environmental contributions to a wide
variety of traits. It has been estimated that the heritability of intelligence is
between.40 and .80. Thus between 16% and 64% of the variance in intellectual
ability is due to genetic influence. Research generally supports the notion of at
least some significant genetic influence in intellectual ability. However, biological
(e.g., prenatal care, genetics, nutrition), psychological (e.g., anxiety, motivation,
self-esteem), and social (e.g., culture, socioeconomic status) influences all appear
to be associated with intelligence or at least with IQ scores on standardized tests.

Is IQ Scores Stable Over Time?

Measures of attention, memory, and other cognitive abilities assessed during the
first year of life generally are moderately associated (i.e., r = .36) with intelligence
test scores assessed later in childhood. Often people assume that an IQ score
obtained in childhood is stable over time. Thus, many people erroneously believe
that someone who obtained an IQ of 120 in the first grade will also have an IQ
of 120 in adulthood. Intelligence tests, however, provide an index of current
functioning, and scores may change significantly over time. Many factors influence
the stability of IQ scores. First, scores obtained when a child is very young (e.g.,
age 3) are likely to be less stable than scores obtained when a child is older (e.g.,
age 16). This is partially because early childhood tests focus on perceptual and
motor skills, whereas tests for older children and adults focus more on verbal
skills. Second, the longer the time between testing administrations, the more
unstable the IQ score will appear. Thus, the difference between scores obtained
at ages 3 and 30 is likely to be greater than the difference between scores
obtained at ages 16 and 19. Furthermore, environmental factors such as stress,
nutrition, educational opportunities, exposure to toxins such as lead, and illness,
among other influences, all play a role in the determination of IQ scores.

Are IQ Scores Biased?

Many people are concerned about potential bias in intelligence testing. For example,
many feel that IQ testing may be biased in that children from high socioeconomic-
level homes tend to perform better on standardized tests than those from lower
socioeconomic-level homes. Furthermore, some argue that currently available
intelligence tests may not be appropriate for use with individuals from many ethnic
minority groups. In fact, California passed legislation that prohibited intelligence
testing from being used for school placement of African-American children (Larry
P vs Wilson Riles). The ruling suggested that intelligence testing was biased
against African Americans and that they were disproportionately represented in
educable mental retardation (EMR) classrooms. Bias is determined by examining
the test's validity across different groups. A test is biased if the validity of the test
varies from group to group. Research suggests that most standardized IQ tests
such as the Wechsler and Stanford-Binet scales are not biased. However, tests
20 can be misused by both unqualified and well meaning people.
Should The Terms Intelligence Quotient or IQ Continue To Be Used? Measures of Intelligence and
Conceptual Thinking
A number of misconceptions and myths about IQ exist. These include the notion
that the IQ measures an innate or genetically-determined intelligence level, that IQ
scores are fixed and never change, and that IQ scores generated from different
tests mean the same thing. These concerns have led some experts to suggest that
general IQ scores be eliminated in favour of standard scores that more accurately
describe specific skills. In fact, many recent tests of intellectual and cognitive
abilityhave not used the terms intelligence quotient or IQ at all. These include
the Woodcock-Johnson Psychoeducational Battery, the Kaufman Assessment
Battery for Children, and the newest version of the Stanford-Binet.

1.11 FUTURE PERSPECTIVES AND

CONCLUSIONS
.The unchanging nature of IQ tests has begun to thaw. For the first three-quarters
of a century, from Binet's 1905 scale until to about 1980, there was the Binet and
there was the Wechsler and that was about it. Then came a series of tests that
included novel tasks and an attempt to link theory to IQ assessment. Today,
clinicians have more choice than ever before and these choices include a pick of
theory - namely Horn-Cattell gf-gc, expanded Horn gf-gc, and Luria PASS.

The critics of IQ tests abound, especially among popular and influential theorists
such as Sternberg (e.g. Sternberg & Kaufman, 1998), and these critics must be
heard. It is partly because of the critics that the developers of IQ tests have
constantly striven to improve the existing measures and to attempt to bring more
theory and research into the development of new tests and the revision of old
ones. Tests that are powerful psychometric tools that have a solid research history,
and that are clinically and neuro psychologically relevant are valuable if used
intelligently by highly trained examiners.

Clinicians who employ the intelligent testing philosophy as outlined in Kaufman

(1994) can make a meaningful difference in a client's life when interpreting the
results of a test profile in the context of clinical observations during the test
session, background information about the client, research fmdings, and theoretical
models. The array of instruments described in this entry, as well as others not
included because of space constraints, can each serve quite well as the IQ test
of choice for clinical evaluation. Perhaps when some of the highly respected
theories of intelligence are translated into individual tests of intelligence it will be
time to abandon existing instruments. But the test developers who attempt to
translate the theories necessarily. must be well versed in the clinical,
neuropsychological, and psychometric aspects of assessment; otherwise, the perfect
theory-based test will prove to be an imperfect clinical tool.

And what of the future? There has been considerable progress during the past
two decades in providing options for clinicians apart from the Wechsler and Binet,
and several of these options have impressive theoretical foundations. Yet progress
has not been as rapid as most would wish. By their very nature, test publishers
are conservative, investing their money in proven ventures rather than speculating
on new ideas for measuring intelligence.Progress will likely continue to be controlled
as the twenty-first century unfolds.

Eventually, new and improved high-tech instruments will be available that meet the
21
rigours of psychometric quality and the demands of practical necessity. Hopefully
Tests of Cognitive those tests will not abandon theory but will embrace it, continuing the trend in the
Functions development of IQ tests that began in the early 1980s and has continued to the
present. But none of the excellent instruments that are now available for clinical
assessment of intelligence - Wechsler or otherwise - should be left for dead until
there is something of value to replace them.

1.12 LET US SUM UP

The assessment of intelligence has a long history in clinical psychology. Compulsory
education and psychologists' ability to measure mental abilities contributed to the
development and success of the field of intelligence testing. However, by the end
of the 1960s, the validity of these tests was being challenged. To this day, there.
are many controversies about how intelligence is defined and how it is measured.
Contemporary clinical psychologists appear to believe in both a general factor of
intelligence, g and specific abilities that underlie the general intelligence factor.
Intelligence scores are correlated with school success, occupational status, and
job performance. In addition, there are group differences in intelligence test scores
between males and females and among ethnic/racial groups. Although intelligence
test scores are influenced by genetic factors, environment does play some role in
the development of intelligence. IQ scores are more stable for adults than they are
for children.

We have discussed some major intelligence tests in use today. The Wechsler
Scales are the most commonly used tests of intelligence assessing preschool
children (WPPSI-III), elementary and secondary school children (WISC-IV),
and adults (WAIS-Ill and WAIS-IV). The Stanford-Binet, Kaufman Scales, and
other intelligence tests are also frequently used. In addition to overall intellectual
skills and cognitive strengths and weaknesses, these tests are frequently used to
assess the presence of learning disabilities, predict academic success in school,
examine brain dysfunction, and assess personality. Intelligence test results are
used to quantify overall levels of general intelligence as well as specific cognitive
abilities. This versatility allows clinical psychologists to use intelligence test scores
for a variety of prediction tasks (e.g., school achievement).

1.13 UNIT END QUESTIONS

Multiple Choice Questions
1) Which of the following is nearly always the best predictor of academic
achievement?
a) overall intelligence or g
b) nonverbal intelligence
c) verbal intelligence
d) mother's educational level
2) Reading skill of the examinee is often a confounding factor in the use of
a) group- administered intelligence tests.
b) comprehensive, individually administered intelligence tests.
c) brief, individually administered intelligence tests.
22 d) group- administered reading tests.
 Measures of Intelligence and
3) When screening for intellectual level Conceptual Thinking

a) G is the only important concern.

b) verbal and nonverbal intelligence should be considered.

c) memory assessments should nearly always be considered.

d) working memory and processing speed are the best estimators inmost
cases.
4) Test developers hoped to accomplish which of the following when revising
the original K-ABC?

a) update noDUS
b) develop alternative subtests to measure verbal ability

c) develop alternative subtests to measure nonverbal ability

d) both a and b

5) FODUulafor IQ is

a) MAlCA* 100

b) CA*MAlIOO

c) CAlMA*IOO

d) . None

Theoretical Questions
1) Describe the history of intellectual assessment?

2) What are some of the different tests used to measure IQ and how are they
similar and different?
3) Will an IQ score obtained at age 5 be the same as an IQ score obtained
at age 40 for the same person? Why or why not?

4) Discuss the controversies surrounding IQ testing

5) What are the future prospects of IQ testing?

1.14 SUGGESTED READINGS

th
Groth-Mamat, Gary. (2003). Handbook of Psychological Assessment (4 ed.).
New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Murphy, K.R., Davidshofer, C.O. (2005). Psychological Testing: Principles
and Applications (6th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education International.

23
 UNIT 2 THE MEASUREMENT OF
CONCEPTUAL THINKING
(THE BINET AND WECHSLER'S
SCALES)
Structure
2.0 Introduction

2.1 Objectives

2.2 The "Abstract Attitude"

2.2.1 Characteristics of Abstract Attitude
2.2.2 Characteristics of Tests of Abstraction

2.3 Measurement of Conceptual Thinking

2.4 Overview of Tests

f
/2.4.1 Analogies and Proverb Tests
2.4.2· Performance Tests (Sorting Tests)
2.4.3 Colour Sorting Tests
2.4.4 Halstead Category Tests
2.4.5 Tha Haufmann Kasanin Concept Formation Test (1937)
2.4.6 The Twenty Questions Tasks

2.5 Range of Applicability and Limitations

2.6 Cross-Cultural Considerations and Accommodations for Persons with

Disabilities

2.7 Let Us Sum Up

2.8 Unit End Questions

2.9 Suggested Readings

2.0 INTRODUCTION
Abstract reasoning or conceptual thinking is no doubt the most advanced of
\

the cognitive abilities. Whereas animals may be capable of problem solving, only
humans can abstract. Thus, abstraction and problem solving are not synonymous,
and problems can be solved without abstraction. However, formation of an
abstract concept is often the most elegant way of solving a problem. The word
abstraction connotes abstracting some unifying idea or principle on the basis
of observation of diverse material. It is therefore an activity that is removed
from direct sensory experience and constitutes a representation of such
experience. The term abstraction is often contrasted to concreteness, the latter
term indicating cognitive activity associated with direct experience, and without
such representation. Concreteness is direct interaction with the "real world"
without additional processing.

Conceptual thinking or abstract reasoning is a recognised form of thinking that

includes aspects of critical, creative, and meta cognitive thinking. Conceptual
24
thinking requires the ability to critically examine factual information; relate to The Measurement of
Conceptual Thinking (The
prior knowledge; see patterns and connections; draw out significant understandings Binet and Wechsler's Scales)
at the conceptual level; evaluate the truth of the understandings based on the
supporting evidence; transfer the understanding across time or situation; and,
often, use the conceptual understanding to creatively solve a problem or create
a new product, process, or idea. In this unit we will be dealing with conceptual
thinking and its measurement. We will present the various tests that could be
used for the purpose and then discuss the applicability and limitations of these
tests.

2.1 OBJECTIVES
After completing this unit, you will be able to:

• discuss the concept of abstract reasoning or conceptual thinking;

• explain various tests of abstract reasoning;

• describe the applications and limitations of the tests of concept formation;

and

• discuss the cross-cultural considerations and accommodations for per

sons with disabilities in tests of concept formation.

2.2 THE "ABSTRACT ATTITUDE"

The relationship between brain function and abstract reasoning was probably
first discussed during the late nineteenth century by the neurologists Henry Head
and Hughlings Jackson. However, this relationship had its first full theoretical
development in the work of Kurt Goldstein and Martin Scheerer and is best
articulated in their 1941 monograph on abstract and concrete behavior (Goldstein
& Scheerer, 1941).They characterised the abstract attitude with eight points.

2.2.1 Characteristics of Abstract Attitude

1) To detach our ego from the outer world or from inner experiences.

2) To assume a mental set.

3) To account for acts to oneself; to verbalize the account.

4) To shift reflectively from one aspect of the situation to another.

5) To hold in mind simultaneously various aspects.

6) To grasp the essential of a given whole; to break up a given whole into

parts, to isolate and synthesize them.

7) To abstract common properties reflectively; to form hierarchic concepts.

8) To plan ahead ideationally; to assume an attitude towards the "mere

possible" and to think or perform symbolically.

Based on these points, tests of abstraction can be said to have the following
task characteristics.
25
Tests of Cognitive 2.2.2 Characteristics of Tests of Abstraction
Functions
1) Learning to identify a relevant attribute or multiple attributes to solve a
problem or make an accurate generalisation.

2) Learning a rule or set of rules that solve a problem.

3) Concept formation or spontaneous generation of hypotheses that relate

disparate material.

4) Inductive reasoning through spontaneous formation of hypotheses that rule

out alternative possibilities for a solution, and that finally lead to a correct
solution.

5) Having an "attitude toward the possible" or forming and manipulating a

mental representation of an object that is not physically present.

6) Spontaneous generation of plans that lead to ultimate solution of a problem.

7) The ability to shift, or change hypotheses or plans when the current one
or the pre potent response is not productive.

The large variety of cognitive and neuropsychological tests available makes it

possible to identify procedures that provide assessments of all of these tasks.
With respect to neuropsychology, patients with various forms of brain damage
or disease lose all or some of these characteristics, as do some patients with
psychiatric disorders, notably schizophrenia. Tests.of abstract reasoning require
to a greater or lesser degree the ability to maintain a mental set, to shift
reflectively, to hold in mind simultaneously various aspects of a task (now known
as dual processing), to abstract common properties, and to grasp essentials.
Most scholars in the field would agree that these tests may be treated
quantitatively, and would not agree with the relatively extreme view taken b)'
Goldstein and Scheerer regarding numerical scoring. However, contemporary
neuropsychology does not eschew the use of qualitative observation, and efforts
are being made to make such observations objective, reliable, and perhaps
quantifiable.

The distinction within abstract reasoning between those tasks in which the test-
taker has to generate concepts ana those in which an established concept has
to be identified through experiencing a series CIfpositive and negative instances
needs to be emphasised. Whereas self initiated concept formation, attribute
identification, and rule learning may all require the abstract attitude, they
nevertheless appear to be separable cognitive abilities that may have differing
clinical and adaptive implications. Absence of the abstract attitude, and
consequent concreteness, may prevent solution of even the simplest conceptual
tasks, but the capability of abstract reasoning can exist at numerous levels. Ability
to identify relevant and irrelevant perceptual attributes and the ability to learn
rules does not guarantee intact ability to generate conceptual strategies in "open-
field" novel problem-solving situations.

The importance of flexibility is also important, because attainment of a perfectly

correct concept may not be adaptive when environmental circumstances
necessitate a change, The Wisconsin Card Sorting Test stresses this latter
consideration. The symptom of fixed perseverative rigidity is perhaps the end
point of this failure to re conceptualise under changing circ].lmst~~es. '
26
 The Measurement of
Self Assessment Questions Conceptual Thinking (The
Binet and Wechsler's Scales)
1) Define abstract attitud.

2) What are the characteristics of abstract attitude?

3) What are the characteristics of tests of abstraction?

2.3 MEASUREMENT OF CONCEPTUAL

TlDNKING
The measurement of conceptual thinking is based upon the principle that
emotional disturbances and personality disorders.interfere with thinking processes,
particularly with the ability to form abstract concepts. The purpose of these
tests are, therefore, to help the psychologist observe the subject's thought
processes and to discover the extent to which maladjustment or mental illness
has impaired his conscious thinking, as revealed in efforts to solve problems
requiring the formation of concepts.
In particular, these tests are intended to evaluate the subject's ability to deal
with objects and situations on the abstract or conceptual level, as compared
with the concrete. Ability to form concepts implies conscious reasoning at the
abstract level; that is, transcending the immediate specific sensory situation,
abstracting the common property from particular instances, analysing and
synthesizing, shifting from one aspect to another, keeping in mind several aspects
simultaneously, planning ideationally, and self-criticism. An individual's behaviour
at the concrete level, on the other hand, lacks these characteristics. The individual
is then unreflective; he responds to the immediately given object or situation
as something unique; he does not perceive an object or situation as one instance
of a general class or category.
::>
/'

2.4 OVERVIEW OF TESTS

Within neuropsychological assessment, there are specialized tests of abstract
reasoning as well as tests generally classed as assessing other abilities that can
be interpreted from the standpoint of abstract and concrete behavior through
qualitative observation. Although abstract reasoning may be involved in all these
procedures, the specialised tests provide a direct assessment of the individual's
ability to learn or form an abstract concept. Some of these procedures are
paper and pencil tests that use language directly as the test medium. 27
Tests of Cognitive 2.4.1 Analogies and Proverb Tests
Functions
The most commonly used tests of this type are analogies and proverbs tests.
The Raven Progressive Matrices Test (1982) contains analogy items that use
pictorial material, but factor analytic studies have shown that the test has a strong
verbal component, apparently because many of the pictures of objects are
nameable (Lezak, 1995). Proverbs tests, such as the one developed by Gorham
(1956), test the ability to form verbal abstractions in either a free-response or
multiple choice form. Some items from the Comprehension subtest of the various
Wechsler intelligence scales are proverbs that require a free verbal response.
Interpretation of a proverb, such as "One swallow doesn't make a summer"
requires the forming of an abstract generalization from a metaphor.

2.4.2 Performance Tests (Sorting tests)

The tests used most commonly in neuropsychological assessment are performance
tests, which should not be characterised as nonverbal tests for various reasons,
but which use nonverbal media, such as colored blocks, or geometric forms.
The major reason for not characterising these tests as nonverbal is that although
the media used are generally not linguistic symbols, the test solution process
may place heavy reliance on language. We will refer to them as performance
tests, for want of a better term.
The most commonly used of these performance tests are sorting tasks. Many
years ago Egon Weigl (1927) invented the prototype of these tasks that are
still referred to as Weigl type sorting tests. The first tests developed were of
the free sorting type in which a variety of objects are placed on a table, and
the subject is asked to group the objects through such instructions as "Sort
those figures which you think belong together," or "Put those together which
you think can be grouped together." After the first sorting, the subject isasked
to put the objects together in another way.
The sorting tests first made generally available in a published form were those
described in a monograph on abstract and concrete behavior wrtlten by Kurt
Goldstein and Martin Scheerer (1941). This monograph contains what is
essentially a test manual for a series of procedures now known as The Goldstein-
Scheerer tests. In the Goldstein-Scheerer series, there is one relatively simple
sorting task: The Weigl-Goldstein-Scheerer Color Form Sorting Test, and two
more complex tasks: the Gelb-Goldstein Color Sorting Test and the Gelb,
Goldstein, Weigl and Scheerer Object Sorting Test. The test method, however,
is the same in all cases; the materials are set out, the subject is asked to sort
them and then to re sort them. These tests assess the general capacities to
form an abstraction or concept as the basis for the initial sorting and also evaluate
cognitive flexibility, or the capacity to shift concepts.
2.43 Colour Sorting Tests
The administration of the Colour Sorting Test is some what different from the
other sorting tests. The test material consists of many skeins of wool (Holmgren
Wools) that vary in hue and brightness. The subject is asked to select a skein
of her or his preference, and to pick out the other skeins that can be grouped
with it (e.g., different shades of green). When this procedure is completed, the
examiner picks out a skein of a different hue and asks the subject to pick
out the other skeins that go with it. This procedure is followed by triple matching:
Three skeins at a time are placed before the subject varying in hue and brightness.
28 The left and center skeins have the same hue but different brightness, and the
 right skein has the same brightness as the center skein, but differs in hue. The The Measurement of
Conceptual Thinking (The
examiner points to the left and right skein and asks about where the center Binet and Wechsler's Scales)
one belongs. The shift relates to whether the subject can sort according to hue
and brightness. Shifting from hue to brightness is difficult for some normal people,
and prompting about the idea of brightness is permissible, the point being whether
the subject accepts the shift, and the idea of common brightness.
These free categorization tests provide abundant opportunity for qualitative
assessment and variations of the procedure to elicit various features of
concreteness. However, they differ from the concept identification procedures
to be described later in this unit in the sense that they are true measures of
concept formation. That is, the subject is provided with an array of diverse
material out of which the abstraction has to be formed. The concept has to
be self-initiated, and the subject makes up the rule that provides the basis for
grouping. The. rule may be simple (e.g., colour or shape) or quite complex as
in the brightne~s or hue concept involved in the Color Sorting Test. Nevertheless,
the subject is required to initiate his or her own categorization, or fail to do
so.
2.4.4 Halstead Category Test
The Goldstein-Scheerer tests are no longer commonly used, but their theoretical
descendants are in common use. The most widely used ones are the Halstead
Category Test(Halstead, 1947) and the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (Grant&
Berg, 1948; Heaton et aI., 1993) .
. Halstead (1947) was aware of Kurt Goldstein's theory of the abstract attitude,
and it is historically important to note that the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test
was first described as "a Weigl-type card sorting problem." In these tests that
followed the Weigl type sorting tests and the Goldstein Scheerer tests, there
was an important change. The concepts in these tests are not formed by the
subject, but are inherent in the test materials themselves. The subject's task
had changed from forming concepts to identifying concepts formed by the test
maker.
Investigators in this area have therefore made a distinction between concept
formation, which can be assessed with free sorting tests, and concept
identification, which is what is involved in the Category and Card Sorting
procedures.
In a series of experimental studies by Boume and collaborators, the process
of concept identification was intensively studied, mainly in normal individuals,
to provide a detailed understanding of its relevant parameters, such as complexity
and the role of informative feedback (Boume,1966). In a sense, the difference
between a concept formation and a concept identification procedure is analogous
to the difference between a projective and an objective test. In the former,
the subject can exercise free self expression; whereas the latter requires
adherence to a particular structure. Perrine (1993) has made the important
distinction in concept identification tests between attribute identification and rule
learning. The Wisconsin Card Sorting Test stresses attribute identification. The
correct answer is the stimulus attribute of form, colour, or number. In the case
of the Category Test, the correct principle is a rule, regardless of the attributes
of the stimuli. For example, the correct answer is the odd object in an array.
Interestingly, Perrine reported only 30%shared variance between the two
procedures. 29
Tests of Cognitive Brief descriptions of these two tests are as follows:
Functions
1) The Halstead Category Test is administered through the use of an
apparatus that displays the test stimuli and provides information to the subject
regarding whether a response is correct. The subject looks at a screen below
which are four numbered keys. The instructions are to look at the patterns on
the screen and press the key that represents the right answer. If the correct
key is pressed, the subject hears a pleasant chime. If the answer is incorrect,
a rasping buzzer follows the response. The subject is told that he or she will
be guessing at first, but when the concept or principle that unites the stimuli
is learned, he or she will always get the chime. The test consists of seven subtests.
The first of them is really a familiarisation trial, and the second is a simple counting
task. The remaining subtests require identification or learning of a concept, such
as oddity or spatial location. The most commonly used score for this test is
total errors, but error scores can be obtained for each subtest and are sometimes
useful clinically. For example, some of the concepts are spatial in nature and
some are numerical, each of which may have different implications for brain
ftmction.
2) The Wisconsin card sort test (WCST) was developed to examine
concept formation and the ability of participants to overcome the tendency to
perseverate. The Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (see figure 1) in its original version
consists of a deck of cards with colored geometric forms printed on them. The
cards vary with regard to forms, colors, and number of forms. Four of the
cards are laid out as models, and the subject is given the deck. The general
instruction is to place each card below the correct model card. After each
placement, the examiner tells the subject whether the correct response was made.
The task is to learn to sort the cards by form, colour, or number based on
the pattern of right and wrong answers. When ten consecutive correct responses
are made, the examiner, unbeknown to the subject, changes the concept. For
example, if colour was the correct response, the correct concept may be changed
to form. The test continues until the subject correctly solves the six categories
tested, or the supply of 128 cards is exhausted. Numerous scores are derived
from this test, the most commonly used ones being the number of the six
categories achieved, total errors, and preservative errors measuring persistence
in sorting by a particular attribute after the relevant concept has been changed.
W",,<:I
[::::J bluo
.9,e"
L..J yellow

~r: *
~461
r=.11**1
(bj

30 Fig. 1: Typical Responses in the WCST

In (a) the unstated rule was 'sort by colour'. The subject's response is incorrect The Measurement of
Conceptual Thinking (The
because they actually sort by shape. Binet and Wechsler's Scales)

In (b) the unstated rule is 'sort by colour', which the respondent does correctly
even though the card differs from the matching cards both in respect of shape
and number.

Some tests incorporate aspects of concept formation and concept identification.

2.4.5 The Haufmann Kasanin Concept Formation Test

(1937)
This is also known as the Vygotsky Test, and a recent modification called the
Modified Vygotsky Concept Formation Test (MVCFT; Wang, 1983) represent
tasks of that type. The Hanfman Kasanin is a challenging procedure in which
the subject is asked to perform a number of sorts, much like the Color Form
Sorting Test. However, there is a correct answer that the subject must learn
through making sorts and obtaining information from the examiner concerning
the correctness of the solution. The task is challenging because the concept
is not a directly" perceivable attribute, but is a second order principle that has
to be derived from the characteristics of multiple attributes. The MVCFT modifies
the original procedure. It consists of 22 different blocks varying in color, size,
shape, and height. In the first part (convergent thinking),the examiner selects
a target block and asks the participant to identify all other blocks that would
.belong with
, it, telling participants whether each response is right or wrong.
Participants are given correcting cues following each incorrect attempt. The
procedure is repeated for four sets of blocks. A successful solution requires
simultaneous consideration of the width and height of the blocks. Thus, the
participant must combine abstract principles to determine the rule. When each
complete set has been identified, the participant is then asked to state the sorting
rule and then move on to the next set. Scores are based on the number of
errors. After completion of this procedure, the examiner asks the participant
to reclassify the blocks according to as many rules or ways as he/she can think
of, one at a time (divergent thinking). After each classification, the examiner
randomly mixes the blocks and asks for a new way of grouping. When the
participant exhausts hislher means of classification, points are awarded for total
number of logical principles. This test contains concept formation and concept
identification elements.

2.4.6 The Twenty Questions Task (Minshew, Siegel,

Goldstein and Weldy, 1994)
This also has a correct answer, but the subject has to self initiate sorting strategies
to arrive at that answer. The procedure is much like the Twenty Questions parlor
game in which a target object must be named based on questions that can
be answered only yes or no. The strategy for narrowing the possibilities and
arriving at the right answer has to be formed by the player.

Another way of studying abstraction is through the examination of generalization.

When the same response is made to a continuum of stimuli, the phenomenon
is referred to as stimulus generalisation. At a conceptual level, stimulus
generalisation allows for classification, such that all objects w;t!l the same invariant
characteristics may be classed into specific categories. Thus, a table is still a
31

I
Tests of Cognitive table regardless of wide variations in size, colour, shape, and other characteristics.
Functions When tasks are of a conceptual nature, stimulus generalisation is referred to
as equivalence range (Gardner & Schoen, 1962).

Equivalence range problems assess an individual's tolerance for variability in

stimulus characteristics within some category. In the case of the Colour Sorting
Test, for example, the equivalence range is the amount of variation in brightness
accepted to categorize a skein as being of a common hue. Generalisation
procedures have been used mainly in research investigations .

. In a study by Olson, Goldstein, Neuringer, and Shelly (1969), the task involved
presenting geometric figures, half of which were permutations of a circle and
the other half of which were permutations of a diamond, The permutations
reduced the figures in width in the direction of a common shape. Subjects were
shown the figures one at a time and asked to indicate whether it was a circle,
a diamond, or neither. The measure of equivalence range was correctly classified
figures. A modified version of the Col or Sorting Test was also administered.
The literature suggested that brain damaged individuals have narrow equivalence
ranges, and that was what was found for both the color sorting and visual forms
tasks. Thus, it would appear that abstraction of common properties by brain
damaged individuals has a narrow focus, probably limited to specific, concrete,
stimulus properties.

Another aspect of abstract reasoning relates to what K. Goldstein and Scheerer

(1941) referred to as an "attitude toward the possible." It consists of the ability
to form a central representation of an object that is not perceptually present.
They used the Block Design Test (Kohs Blocks) for evaluating this aspect of
abstract and concrete behaviour, because it is necessary to form a changing
representation of the individual blocks in space to match the model. As the
model presented in their version of the test becomes more like the desired
production with the blocks, by making it larger or drawing in lines between
the blocks, the task becomes more concrete and simpler for patients.

Another form of abstract reasoning is challenged when a problem must be solved

through logical inference. Situations requiring such processes generally require
forming a plan or developing a strategy that ultimately leads to a solution. When
lost in a forest, what is the best way of finding the way out? When shopping,
what is the best way of completing errands in minimal time?

In trying to reach a solution to a problem, what inductive methods are best

for reaching the solution in the fewest steps? Psychological testing models for
these abilities include searching strategy tests, the recently developed multiple
errands tests (McCue et al., 1995), and game procedures in which a correct
identification must be made with the fewest possible number of steps. The twenty
questions game task, in which the test taker must identify an object contained
in a large array of objects by asking as few questions as possible would be
an example of a strategy task. (Minshew et al., 1994). The Tower of Hanoi
or London problem is another strategy formation task. It is a puzzle in which
rings are placed on pegs and the participant has to move the rings, one at
a time, from one peg to another and put them in the same arrangement using
the fewest possible moves (Shallice, 1982). The number of moves and time
to solution are typically used as scores.

Recently, we have seen the development of more practical strategy tasks in

32
 which the participant is given a task to perform and must form a strategy to The Measurement of
Conceptual Thinking (The
do it in an optimally effective and successful way. The Multiple Errands Test
Binet and Wechsler's Scales)
and the Modified Six Elements Test from the Behavioural Assessment of the
Dysexecutive Syndrome tests (Wilson, Alderman, Burgess, Emslie, & Evans,
1996) are examples of such procedures. In both of them, the participant is
assigned practical tasks and is scored for efficiency and success with which
these tasks are performed. For example, on the Modified Six Elements subtest,
the subject is rated for how he or she divides time among three assigned tasks.

Self Assessment Questions

1) How is conceptual thinking measured?

2) Describe analogies and proverb tests.

3) What are sorting tests how do these measure conceptual thinking?

4) What is colour sorting test?

5) Describe Halstead category test.

6) Elucidate the concept formation test of Haufmann asanin.

, 7) What is the role of the twenty questions task?

.u
J
l.
2:

33
Tests of Cognitive
Functions 2.5 RANGE OF APPLICABILITY AND
LIMITATIONS
Tests of abstraction and problem solving ability are commonly used in
neuropsychological assessment of children and adults. However, limits of
applicability exist at each end of the continuum of cognitive function. Severely
impaired or disorganised patients typically cannot cooperate for these procedures.
At the other extreme, because these tests were designed for assessment of brain-
damaged patients, they do not have the complexity or difficulty level of tests
developed for normal individuals. Therefore, unlike the intelligence tests that are
often used as part of a neuropsychological assessment, these tests are not really
useful for assessment of level of ability within the normal range. Furthermore,
they are particularly susceptible to practice effects. Therefore retesting is difficult
to interpret particularly among individuals who initially do reasonably well on
these tests. For example, once a near normal or normal performance on the
Wisconsin Card Sorting Test is obtained, retesting is compromised, because the
individual already knows the right answers and may remember that the examiner
changed the relevant concept after a series of correct responses.

2.6 CROSS CULTURAL CONSIDERATIONS AND

ACCOMMODATIONS FOR PERSONS WITH
DISABILITIES
These "tests would appear to be reasonably culture fair, because they do not
rely heavily on language or knowledge of some specific environment or culture.
The stimuli used, usually geometric forms, do not include artifacts associated
with some particular culture. Obviously, instructions written in English would have
to be interpreted for patients who do not speak English. The major socio cultural
limitation would therefore relate mainly to general considerations concerning the
meaning and acceptability of testing in different cultures.

These tests were designed for individuals with reasonably intact vision, hearing,
and motor abilities. Typically, ad hoc accommodations are made for various
disabilities where possible. There are two major issues with regard to
accommodation : testing of patients with severe sensory or motor handicaps
of the upper extremities and of patients who are not ambulatory. In general,
the former matter is dealt with on an adhoc basis. There are no formal versions
of the Category Test or the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test for the blind or the
deaf.

However, the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test can be administered at bedside, and
this can be accomplished for the Category Test as well if one wishes to use
the booklet version of this test, or a version that can be administered with a
lap top computer. In the case of individuals who are severely visually impaired,
the traditional methodology has been to substitute auditory modality tests. In
the case of abstract reasoning, proverbs or analogies tests may be used. Using
tests based upon tactile perception is another useful strategy. The Halstead
Tactual Performance Test may be administered to an individual who is blind
and provides a good assessment of problem solving ability. For patients with
profound hearing loss, spoken instructions may be presented visually or any
technology that provides sufficient amplification may be used. The absence of
standard neuropsychological tests for individuals with severe sensory deficits is
34 a limitation of the field that is in need of correction.
 For patients with impaired mobility, the use of laptop computers and related The Measurement of
Conceptual Thinking (The
software has greatly expanded the capability of bedside testing and testing of
Binet and Wechsler's Scales)
patients in their homes. Such technologies as head sticks, voice activation, and
application of robotics should become increasingly viable methods of
accommodating individuals with physical handicaps, or who are too ill to travel
to an assessment laboratory.

2.7 LET US SUM UP

Neuropsychological assessment of abstract reasoning may be accomplished with
specialised tests of conceptual ability, or with a variety of tasks that may be
accomplished abstractly or concretely. The former tasks are generally quantitative
procedures; whereas the latter method typically involves qualitative observation.
In assessment of abstraction ability, it is important to ascertain that the patient
passes or fails the task because of a deficit in abstract reasoning ability. Some
tasks appear to measure that ability, but may actually be accomplished through
a variety of other methods. Impairment of abstraction ability in brain damaged
patients may be ,a qualitative loss of the abstract attitude, or a quantitative
impairment of level of ability. Furthermore, there are varying levels of abstraction.
We have characterised two of these levels as concept formation and concept
identification. Concept formation refers to those tasks in which the subject must
self initiate concepts; concept identification describes the situation in which the
subject must learn an established concept. Within concept identification, learning
may involve identifying relevant attributes or learning rules that organise diverse
Stimuli.

2.8 UNIT END QUESTIONS

1) Tick the True/ False Statements

i) The majority of tests used by neuropsychologists were

not usually developed for the purpose of assessing
brain damage. (True / False)

ii) Translation of a test is sufficient to correct potential

inaccuracies that can occur in testing bilingual individuals. (True/ False)

ill) Wisconsin Card Sorting Test was first described as

"aWeigl-type card sorting problem". (True !False)

iv) The Goldstein-Scheerer tests are one of the most

commonly used tests today. (True/ False)

v) An important aspect of abstract reasoning relates to

what K. Goldstein and Scheerer referred to as an
"attitude toward the possible". (True / False)

2) Discuss the concept of abstract reasoning or concept formation?

N
.•....
, 3) Describe the characteristics of tests of abstract reasoning?
UJ
U
a. 4) Describe in detail the various measures of abstract reasoning?
~
5) Critically analyse the range of applicability and limitations of tests of concept
thinking
35
Tests of Cognitive
Functions 2.9 SUGGESTED READINGS
Lezak, M.D .. (1995). Neuropsychological Assessment (3rd ed.). New York:
Oxford University Press.

Sterling, J. (2002). Introducing Neuropsychology. New York: Taylor & Francis

Inc.

36
UNIT 3 MEASUREMENT OF MEMORY
AND CREATIVITY
Structure

3.0 Introduction

3.1 Objectives

3.2 Memory
3.2.1 Explicit and Implicit Memory
3.2.2 Memory Assessment
3.2.3 Tests of Explicit Memory
3.2.4 Tests of Implicit Memory
3.2.5 Assessment of Different Memory Systems

3.3 Future Perspectives and Conclusions

3.4 Creativity
3.4.1 Assessment of Creativity
3.4.2 Product Measures
3.4.3 Process Measures
3.4.4 person Measures
3.4.5 The SOl Assessments (Structure of Intellect Assesssments)
3.4.6, Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (TTCT)
3.4.7 Person Measures

3.5 Future Perspectives and Conclusions

3.6 'Let Us Sum Up

3.7 Unit End Questions

3.8 Suggested Readings

3.0 INTRODUCTION
Webster's dictionary (1966) defines memory as the 'conscious or unconscious
evocation of things' past'. As such, the term 'memory' can refer to a variety of
learned behaviours, and it could be argued that many aspects of perception and
language involve the use of certain memory systems. A number of authors have
alluded to the range of possible human memory systems but in the present
context we will mainly be concerned with the more customary use of the term,
that is the retention of specific information which has been acquired in the
recent past. It is this aspect of memory which forms the basis of most of the
memory symptoms reported by brain damaged patients and which is the main
focus of this unit. The first half of this unit will cover in depth the various
aspects of memory assessment.

What does it mean to be creative? Some might say thinking outside the box;
others might argue it as having a good imagination, and still others might suggest
creativity is a synergy that can be tapped through brainstorming. We take an
empirical, psychological approach to this question. One of the first things we
will cover in this unit is to define what creativity is. Secondly this unit will
cover the different types of tests used in assessment of creativity. 37
Tests of Cognitive
Functions 3.1 OBJECTIVES
After completing this unit, you will be able to:

• explain the concept of memory and creativity;

• describe explicit and implicit memory;

• delineate the tests of Explicit memory;

• delineate tests of implicit memory;

• explain assessment of different memory systems;

• define creativity;

• explain Assessment of creativity;

• discuss the product and process measures of creativity;

• describe Torrance test of creativity; and

• discuss the future perspectives in assessment of memory and creativity.

3.2 MEMORY
By a simple definition, memory is the capability to acquire, retain, and make use of
knowledge and skills. Since the early 1980s, the way that cognitive scientists think
about memory has dramatically changed. Today, memory is more often viewed not
as a unitary entity but as comprising different components or systems. Neuro cognitive
research has indicated that it is more appropriate to consider the human memory as
a collection of multiple but closely interacting systems than as a single and indivisible
complex entity (e.g. Tulving, 1985a; Squire, 1992; Schacter & Tulving, 1994a).
Different memory systems differ from one another in terms of the nature of
representations they handle, the rules of their operations, and their neural substrates
(e.g.Tulving, 1984;Weiskrantz, 1990;Tulving & Schacter, 1992;Schacter & Tulving,
1994b; Willingham, 1997).

Various classificatory schemes of human memory have been propose~ so far.

Undoubtedly, the two most influential and extended classifications are those
postulated by Squire (1992) and Schacter and Tulving (1994a). Squire
distinguishes two long term memory systems: declarative and non declarative
(or procedural) memory; whereas Schacter and Tulving identify five major
systems: procedural memory, perceptual representation system, semantic
memory, short term working memory and episodic memory. Related distinctions
include explicit versus implicit memory, direct versus indirect memory, and
memory with awareness versus memory without awareness. However, these
latter dichotomies may not be memory systems, but rather forms of expression
of memory. According to the Schacter and Tulving classification, retrieval
operations in the procedural, perceptual representation and semantic systems
are implicit, whereas in the working memory and episodic memory they are
explicit. On the other hand, Squire considers declarative memory as an explicit
system, whereas non declarative memory is viewed as a heterogeneous collection
of implicit abilities.

38
 Measurement of
Memory and
Creativity

Simple
.classical
oondiHoning

. Fig. 1: The Subdivisions of Long- Term Memory

3.2.1 Explicit and Implicit Memory

Compelling evidence for the existence of multiple memory systems is provided by
experimental findings of numerous convergent dissociations (functional,
developmental, pharmacological, neuro psychological, neuro anatomical)
between tasks of explicit and implicit memory (Schacter, 1987; Ruiz-Vargas,
1993; Nyberg &Tulving, 1996; Schacter, Wagner & Buckner,2000).

1) ExplicitMemory
This is revealed by intentional or conscious recollection of specific previous
information, as expressed on traditional tests of free recall, cued recall and
recognition. Although the relationships between cued recall, free recall, and
recognition are highly complex, these three memory tests share an essential
property: Success in them is predicated upon the subject's knowledge of events
that occurred when he/she was personally present in a particular spatio temporal
context. Because the task instructions make explicit reference to an episode in
the subject's personal history, such tasks have been referred to as
autobiographical, direct, episodic, explicit or intentional memory tests.

2) ImplicitMemory
This is revealed by a facilitation or change of performance on tests that do not
require intentional or conscious recollection, such as perceptual identification,
word stem completion, lexical decision, identification of fragmented pictures,
mirror drawing, and so on. These tasks, classified as implicit, indirect, or
incidental tests of memory, involve no reference to an event in the subject's
personal history but are none the less influenced by such events. For example,
prior experience with a particular word might later improve a subject's ability
to identify that item under conditions of perceptual difficulty, restore deleted
letters in order to complete that item, or make a decision concerning that item's
lexical status. In general, such tasks require the subject to demonstrate 39
Tests of Cognitive conceptual, factual, lexical, perceptual, or procedural know ledge, or to make some
Functions form of affective or cognitive judgment. The measures of interest reflect change in
performance (e.g. change in accuracy and/or speed) as a function of some form of
prior experience (e.g. experience with the task, with the test stimuli, or with related
stimuli). When the prior experience occurs within the experimental context, it is
possible to compare such measures of behavioural change with traditional measures
of memory for the events causing that change.
Consider these two experimental situations:
1) A list of 20 familiar words is presented to subjects who are instructed to pay
attention to each word because, after the presentation, they will be asked to
reproduce as many of the presented words as possible.
2) A list of 20 familiar words is also presented to subjects who are instructed to
perform an orienting task (e.g. pleasantness ratings).
3) After this study phase, the subjects will be asked to say the first word that
comes to mind in response to a series of three letter word stems. Obviously,
some word stems can be completed with presented words, and some cannot.
The first experimental situation reflects one of the ways in which psychologists
have traditionally measured human memory: by assessing deliberate or explicit
memory of subjects for items studied in a specific learning episode with a recall
test.
In the second situation, it is often observed that subjects show an enhanced
tendency to complete word stems corresponding to studied words in comparison
to 'new' word stems. This phenomenon is known as repetition priming of
perceptual priming.
Priming does not invol ve intentional or explicit recollection of the study episode,
and thus it is assumed to reflect implicit memory for previously acquired
information.
Distinction between explicit and implicit memory has had a profound impact
on contemporary research and theorizing of human memory. The finding that
some products of memory are expressed with conscious awareness of the
previous experience, and other ones without conscious awareness of the source
of the information, has constituted 'a revolution in the way that we measure
and interpret the influence of past events on current experience and behaviour'
(Richardson-Klavehn & Bjork,1988: 475-476). Therefore, both experimenters
and clinicians should take into account this distinction whenever they assess
human memory.

3.2.2 Memory Assessment

The German philosopher Hermann Ebbinghaus(1850-1909) was the first to
demonstrate that memory can be measured. His main contribution was
methodological in nature. Among his most important contributions were the
study/test paradigm for the study of memory, the basic foundation of any memory
experiment and test, and the savings method, currently considered as an implicit
memory test, which were a couple of inventions of very large influence. Since
then, memory assessment has undergone an extraordinary quantitative and
qualitative advance.
Both the evolution and the accumulation of new memory tasks have defined
the progress throughout the last century. The Ebbinghausian measure of serial
40
 recall led to new forms of testing recall (free recall, cued recall), and these measures Measurement of
Memory and
. fuelled new theoretical developments in the 1980s. Today, two major classes of Creativity
memory measures are distinguished: tests of explicit memory and tests of implicit
memory.
3.2.3 Tests of Explicit Memory
Explicit memory tests are those in which the instructions in the test phase make
explicit reference to an episode or experience in the subject's personal history. Thus,
they requireintentionalor consciousrecollectionof previous information.Traditionally,
these tests have been considered as the only memory tests. Table below rovides a
relatively extensive list of tests of explicit memory currently in use.
Table 1: Tests for Explicit Memory'
1. Adult Memory and Information Processing Battery (AMIPB)
2. The Benton Revised Visual Retention Test (BVRT)
3. The Buschke Selective Reminding (SR) Test
4. The California Verbal Learning Test (CVLT)

5. The Luria Nebraska Memory Scale (~NMS)

6. The Memory Assessment Clinic (MAC) Battery

7. The Misplaced Objects Test

8. fhe Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (AVLT)

9. The Rey-Osterreith Complex Figure Test (CFT)

10. The Rivermead Behavioural Memory Test (RBMT)

11. The Warrington Recognition Memory test
12. The Wechsler Memory Scale-Revised (WMS-R)

(Source: BaddeJey, Wilson and Watts (1995)

Table 2: Memory and Meta Memory Questionnaires

(Memory Questionnaires (MQs) ask people to recall or recognise
knowledge or events.
Meta Memory Questionnaires (MMQs) ask people to indicate how well
they recall or recognise knowledge or events.)
MQs
1. The Autobiographical Cueing Technique or TheCrovitz-Schiffman
Technique
2. The Autobiographical Memory Interview (AMI)
3. The Boston Remote Memory Battery (BRMB)
4. The 'Dead-or-Alive' test
5. The Famous Faces Test
6. The Famous Personalities Test
7. The Price Estimation Test 41
Tests of Cognitive MMQs
Functions
1. The Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (CFQ)

2. The Everyday Memory Questionnaire (EMQ)

3. The Inventory of Memory Experiences (1MB)

4. The Memory Assessment Clinic Self-Rating Scale(MAC-S)

5. The Self-Rating Scale of Memory Function (SRSMF)

'6. The Short Inventory of Memory Experiences (SIMB)

7. The Subjective Memory Questionnaire

The RBMT is one of the few memory tests to have aversion for children.
However, recently some memory tests for use with children have been presented
[e.g. The Children's test of Non word Repetition (CNRep) constructed by
Gathercole, Baddeley, Willis and Emslie; The Story Recall Test developed by
Beardsworth and Bishop].

The tests of explicit memory include free recall, cued recall and recognition memory
tasks. Prototypically, in tasks of free recall, subjects are shown a list of items (words,
pictures, sentences) and are later asked to recall the items in any order that they
choose. In cued recall, subjects are given explicit retrieval cues. The retrieval cues
are prompts, reminders or any additional information that guides the search processes
. , in memory (e.g. FRUITS for the to be recalled words 'apple', 'plum', 'grape',
'kiwi'). In free and cued recall, memory performance is assessed simply by counting
the number of to be remembered items recalled.

An exception to the prototypical tasks outlined above is serial recall, in which the
subject is asked to recall the items in the order of presentation, and performance is
assessed by the number of items recalled in the correct sequential order. This
procedure allows the assessment of memory for order or temporal memory, one
kind of memory especially relevant, for instance, in language perception and
comprehension. Serial recall is also used in the well-known short-term memory task
called digit span that has been traditionally included in tests of general intelligence
such as Wechsler-batteries .•

A typical recognition task involves presenting a list containing the to-be-remembered

or old items (e.g. words) just as in the presentation phase of recall tasks. However,
in the subsequent test phase, subjects are shown a series of words, that is, old items
mixed with new items or distractors and they are required to decide which the old
ones are.

In the last few years, much research has also been devoted to the study of the
subjective states of awareness associated with recognition memory. Tulving (1985b)
introduced a new methodology to distinguish 'remember' (R) and 'know' (K)
responses in recognition memory tests. An R response represents recognition with
conscious recollection of the item's prior occurrence; a K response represents
• recognition associated with feelings of familiarity in the absence 'of conscious
recollection. Tulving proposed that these two states of awareness reflect two kinds
of consciousness, autonoetic and noetic, which are respectively properties of episodic
and semantic memory. The rememberlknow paradigm merits its consideration
because a number of studies have demonstrated that the recollective experience of
42
remembering is affected in different ways by many independent variables. For our Measurement of
Memory and
purposes, its results are especially relevant to focus on different subject variables. Creativity
There is now considerable evidence that age, A1zheimer' s disease, amnesia, epilepsy,
schizophrenia and autistic disorders have dissociative effects on R and Kresponding.
The general finding has been that, in the conditions mentioned, 'remember'responses
are selectively impaired and 'know' responses are relatively spared (Gardiner & /'

Richardson- Kla vehn, 2000).

Finally, it cannot be ignored that an unlimited number of memory judgment tasks are
also explicit memory tasks. For example, judgments of presentation frequency,
judgements of temporal order or recency, judgements of input modality, judgements
of source/reality monitoring, feeling-of-knowingjudgements, and so on.

3.2.4 Tests of Implicit Memory

Implicit memory tests are those in which subjects are asked to respond to test
stimuli (e.g. generate a word, classify an object, perform a motor task) without
making reference to prior events. The impressive experimental evidence available
about dissociations between implicit and explicit memory tasks warrants the
assumption that there are fundamental differences between mnemonic information
assessed by implicit and explicit memory tests.

For example, numerous studies have documented across diverse tasks that amnesic
patients (and other special populations) exhibit preserved mnemonic functioning when
they are a~sessed with tests of implicit memory, and a memory severely impaired
when tests of explicit memory are given. Studies with normal subjects have also
shown that under some conditions (e.g. effects of alcohol, psychoactive drugs, general
anesthesia, or certain experimental manipulations) normal's exhibit implicit memory
for information that they cannot explicitly remember. The most important and
theoretically relevant conclusion from these findings is that implicit memories are
explicitly inaccessible and vice versa, because (a) different aspects of events are
encoded by distinct but interacting neuro cognitive systems, and (b) diverse tasks
tap different memory systems. Therefore, an adequate memory assessment requires
of experimenters and clinicians to make use of explicit memory tests as well as
implicit memory tests.

There are many implicit memory tests currently in use, and new tests are created
every year, A general classification scheme that includes most of them has been
recently proposed by Toth (2000). Implicit memory tests could be roughly organised
in two major categories: verbal and non verbal tests, and each one of them in its
turn into three subclasses:

1) Perceptual tests (e.g. perceptual identification, word stem completion, .

degraded word naming, object/non-object decision),

2) Conceptual tests (e.g. word association, category instance generation, object

categorization, person/trait attributions), and

3) Procedural tests (e.g. reading mirror inverted text, probability judgements,

mirror drawing, motor tracking). Generally speaking, the perceptual tests
challenge the perceptual representation system, the conceptual tests involve
the semantic memory s~stem, and the procedural tests tap the procedural
memory system. 43
Tests of Cognitive 3.2.5 Assessment of Different Memory Systems
Functions
From the multiple memory systems view, memory assessment must evolve to assess
every single memory system. According to the five-fold classification system
proposed by Schacter and Tulving, such systems are defmed and could be assessed
as follows:

1) The procedural memory system: This is a behavioural action system

concerned with the acquisition, retention and retrieval of motor, perceptual and
cognitive skills, simple conditioning, and non associative forms ofleaming. These
kinds of memory are measured by tests of implicit memory, such as the pursuit
rotor task, maze learning, mirror reading, artificial grammar learning, tower of
Hanoi, and so on.

2) The perceptual representation system (PRS): This encompasses various

domain-specific subsystems that process and represent information about the
form and structure of words and objects. The PRS is assessed with implicit
memory tests, such as perceptual identification, word stem completion,
homophone spelling, picture fragment completion, object / non object decision,
possible / impossible object decision, and many others.

3) The semantic memory system: This is the system involved in the acquisition,
retention and retrieval of general knowledge of the world. Therefore, the task
of assessing the status ofthis complex and multi-faceted system seems an
impressive one. This challenge could be overcome by using a multiplicity of
types of tests, such as word fluency, vocabulary, word association, naming
tasks (animals, objects, etc.), recognition offamous faces, category instance
generation, fact generation, category verification, semantic anomaly detection,
K responses in recognition tests, and so on.

4) The working memory system (WM): This is a short term system that makes
possible the temporary maintenance and processing of information, and to
manipulate that information. The WM is measured by explicit memory tests
such as the Brown-Peterson task, various memory span tests (e.g. forward
and backward digit span, word span, alpha span), the size of the recency
effect, the release from pro active inhibition task, the Dobbs and Rule task,
mental arithmetic, and others.

As Craik et al. (1995) emphasise, because WM tests do not all measure the
same component processes it is advisable to assess WM by using several tests
rather than one global test.

5) The episodic memory system: This is the system for personally experienced
episodes. Episodic memories are assessed with tests of explicit memory for
verbal and non-verbal materials, such as free recall (immediate and delayed),
cued recall, recognition, R responses in recognition tests, generation task, and
others. Different tasks may be used to assess autobiographical memory,
considered as a subtype of episodic memory, such as recall and recognition of
famous events, the Crovitz-Schiffman technique or the cueing method, etc. In
clinical contexts, the Auto biographical Memory Interview (AMI) provides
relevant information about the deterioration of this kind of memory in patients.

At this point, it should be noted that remembering and the different memory systems
summarized above all refer to the past. However, as everybody knows, people are
44
also capable of remembering what they must do in the future. The former is called Measurement of
Memory and
retrospective memory, and the latter, prospective memory. Creativity

Prospective memory is defined as the timely remembering of a planned action;

everyday tasks such as remembering to phone one's sister at eleven o'clock,
remembering to take medication after lunching, or remembering to reply to an e-
mail this evening are all significant memory acts common to everyday living. Because
both observations in the real world as well as laboratory studies show that prospective
memory declines with age, brain damages and progressive brain diseases, prospective
memory tasks should be given whenever memory is assessed.

Self Assessment Questions

I) Define Memory.

2) Differentiate between explicit and implicit memory .

........ ; .

3) How would you assess memory?

4) What are the various tests of explicit memory?

5) Elucidate the tests of implicit memory.

6) Describe the assessment of different memory systems.

45
Tests of Cognitive
Functions 3.3 FUTURE PERSPECTIVES AND
CONCLUSIONS
During the last decade, students of memory have witnessed a colossal progress in
scientific understanding of this capacity. However, scientists have also discovered
that 'the complexity of memory far exceeds anyone's imagination' (Tulving, 2000:
727). Thus, it is not unusual for the very term 'memory' to mean many things to
many people and, consequently, for the concept of 'memory impairment' to be
utilised in many different ways by researchers, clinicians and patients and their
families. This idea has been masterly captured by Tulving (2000: 728) when he said:
'Any claim about "memory" or "memory impairment" immediately requires
. clarification: About which kind of memory, memory task, memory process, or
memory system are we talking?'

. One fundamental reason for this lack of agreement is that memory is not a monolithic
entity but a collection of different systems with multiple processes which are expressed
in different ways. This idea should be assumed not only by researchers but also by
clinicians and neuropsychologists in order to reduce the undesirably great distance
existing between experimental research and clinical assessment.

Currently, most neuropsychological batteries are still focused on traditional memory

tests; that is, free recall, cued recall and recognition tasks. However, implicit memory
tests must be included without delay into explorations of special populations such as
brain-damaged individuals, patients with Alzheimer' s disease 'and other degenerative
brain diseases, the elderly, etc., who have already showed sharp dissociations between
explicit and implicit memory task performances.

Fortunately, the incipient convergence between psychologists and neuropsychologists

favoured by the new Cognitive Neuroscience framework (Kosslyn& Koenig, 1992;
Gazzaniga, 1995) undoubtedly will result in an impressive change in the ways human
memory will be assessed in the years to come.

3.4 CREATIVITY
Creativity is usually defmed as the capacity to generate ideas that are jointly original
and adaptive. Original ideas are those that have a low statistical likelihood of occurring
in the population, whereas adaptive ideas are those that satisfy certain scientific,
aesthetic, or practical criteria. An idea that is original but maladaptive is more likely
to be considered a sign of mental disturbance than creativity, while an idea that is
adaptive but unoriginal will be dismissed as mundane or perfunctory rather than
creative. Although almost universal consensus exists on this abstract definition of the
phenomenon, much less agreement is apparent regarding how best to translate this
definition into concrete instruments or tests.

3.4.1 Assessment of Creativity

Psychologists wishing to assess individual differences in creativity have a tremendous
range of instruments to choose from.

Therefore, before investigators can settle on any single test or battery of tests, it is
first necessary that they address four major questions:
46
 l
i) What is the age of the target population? Some measures are specifically Measurement of
Memory and
designed for school-age populations, whether children or adolescents, whereas Creativity
other measures are targeted at adult populations.

ii) Which domain of creativity is to be assessed? Not only may creativity in the
arts differ substantially from creativity in the sciences, but also there may appear
significant contrasts within specific arts (e.g. music vs. literature ) or sciences
(e.g. mathematics vs. invention).

iii) What is the magnitude of creativity to be evaluated? At one extreme is everyday

problem solving ability ('little c' creativity) where at the other extreme is eminent
creativity that earns awards and honours appropriate to the domain ('Big C'
Creativity, or genius).

iv) Which manifestation of creativity is to be targeted? That is, the investigator

must decide whether creativity manifests itself primarily as a product, a process,
or a person. Some instruments postulate that creativity takes the form of a
concrete product; others assume that creativity involves a particular type of
cognitive process, while still others posit that creativity entails a personal
disposition of some kind.

Of these four questions, it is the last that is perhaps the most crucial. Assessment
strategies differ dramatically depending on whether creativity is best manifested as a
product, process.or person. As a consequence, the description of creativity measures
. that follows willbe divided into three subsections.

3.4.2 Product Measures

Ultimately, a creative idea should take some concrete form, such as a poem, story,
painting, or design. Hence, one obvious approach to creativity assessment is to
measure the quantity or quality of productive output. A case in point is the Consensual
Assessment Technique devised by Amabile (1982). Here a research participant is
asked to make some product, such as a collage or a poem, which is then assessed
by an independent set of experts. This technique has proven especially useful in
laboratory experiments on the social circumstances that are most likely to favour
creative behaviour.

However, this approach has at least two disadvantages.

i) First, the creativity of an individual is decided according to performance on a

single task.

ii) Second, the assessment is based on a task that may not be representative of
the domain in which the individual is most creative. For instance, a creative
writer will not necessarily do well on a task in the visual arts, such as making
collages.

iii) An alternative is to assess individual differences in creativity according to

products that the person has spontaneously generated. For example, the Lifetime
Creativity Scales assess creative behaviour by asking participants to self identify
examples of their own creative achievements (Richards et al., 1988).
47
Tests of Cognitive According to this approach, creativity assessment is based on multiple products in
Functions the domain that the individual finds most germane to personal creative expression.
Although this instrument has proven validity and utility, it can be objected that a
product's creativity requires an external assessment, such as that provided in the
Consensual Assessment Technique. Further more, this instrument is clearly aimed at
everyday creativity rather than creative output that is highly valued professionally or
socially.

One way to assess such Big-C Creativity is to use some variety of productivity
measure. Thus, the creativity of scientists may be gauged by journal articles and that
of inventors by patents. Often such measures of pure quantity of output are
supplemented by evaluations of quality. For example, the quality of a scientist's
productivity may be assessed by the number of citations to his or her work. Another
approach is to assess creative impact in terms of awards and honours received or
the evaluations of experts in the field, which tactic dates back to Francis Galton
(1869). One especially innovative strategy is Ludwig's (1992) Creative Achievement
Scale, which provides an objective approach to evaluating a creator's life work.
This scale has proven useful in addressing the classic question of whether exceptional
creativity is associatedwith some degree of psychopathology (the 'mad-genius'
debate).

3.4.3 Process Measures

One major drawback of all product measures of creativity is that they appear barren
of truly psychological content. These measures stress outward behaviour and its
impact rather than internal mental states. Yet presumably there exists some special
thought processes that underly these creative products. Accordingly, psychologists
can instead devise instruments that tap into these crucial processes. For example,
Mednick (1962) theorized that creativity requires the capacity to generate remote
associations that can connect hitherto disparate ideas. He implemented this theory
by devising the Remote Association Test, or RAT, that has seen considerable use in
subsequent research. A person taking the RAT must identify a word that has an
associative linkage with three separate stimulus words (e.g. associating the word
'chair' with the given words 'wheel, electric, high').

An even more popular set of measures was devised by Guilford (1967) in the context.
of his multidimensional theory of intelligence. These measures assess various kinds
of divergent thinking, which is supposed to provide the basis for creativity. Divergent
thinking is the capacity to generate a great variety of responses to a given set of
stimuli. Unlike convergent thinking, which aims at the single most correct response,
ideational productivity is emphasized. A specific instance is the Unusual Uses test,
which asks research participants to come up with as many uses as possible for
ordinary objects, such as a toothpick or paperclip. The participants' responses can
then be scored for fluency (number of responses), flexibility (number of distinct
categories to which the responses belong), and originality (how rare the response is
relative to others taking the test).

Guilford's development of Divergent Thinking (DT) tests in the 1950s and 1960s is
usually considered to be the launching point for serious development efforts and
large- scale application. Among the first measures of divergent thinking were Guilford's
(1967) Structure of the Intellect (SOl) divergent production tests, Wallach and
Kogan's (1965) and Getzels and Jackson's (1962) divergent thinking tests, and
48 Torrance's (1962,1974) Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT).
3.4.5 The SOl Assessments (Structure of Intellect Measurement of
Memory and
Assessments) Creativity

Guilford's (1967) Structure of the Intellect Model proposed 24 distinct types of

divergent thinking: One type for each combination of four types of content (Figural,
Symbolic, Semantic, Behavioural) and six types of product (Units, Classes, Relations,
Systems, Transformations, Implications).

For example, the SOl DT battery (Structure of Intellect and Divergent Thinking)
consists of several tests on which subjects are asked to exhibit evidence of divergent
production in several areas, including divergent production of semantic units (e.g.,
listing consequences of people no longer needing to sleep), of figural classes (finding
as many classifications of sets of figures as is possible), and of figural units (taking a
simple shape such as a circle and elaborating upon it as often as possible).

Another example is the Match Problem, which represented the divergent production
of figural transformations. The Match Problem has several variations, but they tend
to be variations on the basic theme of Match Problem I. In this test, 17 matches are
placed to create a grid of two rows and three columns (i.e., six squares). Participants
are asked to remove three matches so that the remaining matches form four complete
squares.

Guilford noted that such tasks are characterised by the need for trial and error
strategies and flexible thinking. Several other tests were also used to study figural
transformati,ons, all with the same basic requirements to come up with multiple ways
to transform visual spatial objects and relationships. Guilford believed that this
particular group of tests assesses flexibility. Guilford's entire SOl divergent production
battery consists of several dozen such tests corresponding to the various divergent \
~gcomponents.

3.4.6 Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT)

The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking which are also based upon many aspects
of the SOl battery are by far the most commonly used tests of divergent thinking
and continue to enjoy widespread international use.

Over several decades, Torrance refmed the administration and scoring of the TTCT,
which may account for its enduring popularity. The battery includes Verbal (Thinking
Creatively with Words) and Figural tests (Thinking Creatively with Pictures) that
each includes a Form A and Form B that can be used alternately.

The Figural forms have three subtests:

i) Picture Construction, in which a participant uses a basic shape and expands

on it to create a picture;

ii) Picture Completion, in which a participant is asked to finish and title incomplete
drawings; and

iii) Lines I Circles, in which a participant is asked to modify many different series
of lines (FormA) or circles (Form B).

The Verbal form has seven subtests. For the first three tasks, the examinee is asked
to refer to a picture at the beginning of the test booklet. For example, in Form A, the 49
Tests of Cognitive picture is of an elf staring at its reflection in a pool of water. These first three tasks
Functions are considered part of the Ask and Guess section:

Asking, in which a participant asks as many questions as possible about the picture;

Guessing Causes, in which a participant lists possible causes for the pictured action;

Guessing Consequences, in which a participant lists possible consequences for the

pictured action.

The [mal four verbal subtests are self- contained:

Product Improvement, in which a participant is asked to make changes to improve

a toy (e.g., a stuffed animal)

Unusual Uses, in which a participant is asked to think of many different possible

uses for an ordinary item (e.g., a card board box)

Unusual Questions, in which a participant asks as many questions as 'possible

about an ordinary item (this item does not appear in later editions); and

Just suppose, in which a participant is asked to 'just suppose" that an improbable

situation has happened then list possible ramifications.

Administration, scoring, and score reporting of the various tests and forms are
standardized, and detailed norms were created and revised accordingly. The original
test produced scores in the traditional four DT areas, but the streamlined scoring
system introduced in the 1984 revision made significant changes to the available
scores. Under the stream lined system, the Figural tests can be scored for resistance
to premature closure and abstractness of titles in addition to the familiar scores of
fluency, elaboration, and originality. Flexibility was removed because those scores
tended to be largely undifferentiated from fluency scores. Resistance to premature
closure is determined by an examinee's tendency to not immediately close the
incomplete figures on the Figural Picture Completion test. Torrance believed this
tendency reflected the examinee's ability "to keep open and delay closure long enough
to make the mental leap that makes possible original ideas. Less creative persons
tend to leap to conclusions prematurely without considering the available information"
(Torrance & Ball, 1984, p. 20).

3.4.7 Person Measures

Process measures of creativity operate under the assumption that creativity requires
the capacity to engage in somewhat distinctive cognitive processes. Not all
psychologists agree with this position. In the first place, often performance on process
instruments can be enhanced by relatively straightforward training procedures, and
sometimes performance enhancements can occur by changing the instructional set
when administering the test (i.e. the command to 'be creative! '). In addition, creative
individuals appear to have distinctive non cognitive characteristics that set them apart
from persons who fail to display creativity. This has led some psychologists to propose
that creativity be assessed by person based measures.

50
The most frequently used instruments assess creativity via the personality Measurement of
Memory and
characteristics that are strongly correlated with creative behaviour. These personality Creativity
assessments are of three kinds. First, the assessment may simply depend on already
established scales of standard tests, such as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory or Eysenck's Personality Questionnaire. These measures will tend to
yield the lowest validity coefficients.

Second, the assessment may be based on the construction of a specialised subscale

of an already established personality test. For instance, Gough (1979) devised a
Creative Personality Scale from his more general Adjective Check List. Third, the
assessment may rely on a measure that is specially constructed to gauge individual
differences in creative personality. An example is the How Do You Think: questionnaire
that gauges whether a person has the interests, values, energy, self confidence, humour,
flexibility, playfulness, unconven-tionality, and openness associated with creativity
(Davis, 1975).

An alternative person based approach is predicated on the assumption that creative

potential emerges by means of a particular set of developmental experiences. These
experiences may reflect either genetic predilections (nature )or acquired inclinations
(nurture). For example, Schaefer and Anastasi (1968) designed a biographical
inventory that identifies creativity in adolescent boys (see also Schaefer, 1970). The
items tap such factors as family background, school activities, and extracurricular
interests. Moreover; the inventory discriminates not only creative from non creative
adolescents but also between scientific and artistic creativity. Similar biographical
inventories have been devised for both children and adults. The box below presents
a summary of representative creativity measures.

Table 3: Summary Table of Representative Creativity Measures

Product Measures Consensual Assessment Technique (Amabile, 1982)

Lifetime Creativity Scales (Richards et aI., 1988)

Creative Achievement Scale (Ludwig, 1992)

Process Measures Remote Associates Test (Mednick, 1962)

Unusual Uses Test (Guilford, 1967)

Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (Torrance, 1966; Crammond, 1994)

Person Measures Creative Personality Scale of the Adjective Check List (Gough,
1979)

How Do You Think Inventories (Davis, 1975)

Biographical Inventory - Creativity (Schaefer, 1970; Schaefer & Anastasi, 1968)

The above list by no means exhausts the inventory of tests that purport to measure
creativity. The instruments listed are merely chosen as representative ofthe
various types of tests that have been developed since the 1960s.

51
Tests of Cognitive
Functions Self Assessment Questions
1). What are the future perspectives and conclusions in regard to memory?

I
2) Defme creativity.

3) How would you assess creativity?

4) What are product measures of creativity?

5) What are process measures of creativity?

6) What are person measures of creativity?

7) Which of the three is more applicable to measuring creativity?

.................................................................................................................
!

8) ExpJ~rr~c~;est of creativity.
~/... \ : .

52
 Measurement of
3.5 FUTURE PERSPECTIVES AND Memory and
Creativity
CONCLUSIONS
Ideally, scores on the diverse creativity measures should inter correlate so highly
that all alternative instruments could be said to assess the same underlying latent
factor. The various measures can then be said to display convergent validity. Yet
many empirical studies have found that alternative instruments often fail to converge
on a single, psychometrically cohesive dimension. Even worse, many measures seem
to lack divergent validity as well. For instance, some of the process type instruments
exhibit unacceptably high correlations with scores on intelligence tests. These
correlations have driven some researchers to question whether creativity can be
reliably separated from the problem solving ability associated with general intelligence
(i.e. 'Spearrnan's G'). In contrast, other creativity researchers have advocated more
positive conclusions, believing that there indeed exists a sub set of instruments that
have the desired convergent and divergent validity as well as the requisite predictive
validity. Whether this optimistic position will receive empirical justification in future
research remains to be seen.

Clearly, psychologists who want to assess creativity must confront a tremendous

number of alternative creativity measures. Not only db the various instruments differ .
in their respective reliabilities and validities, but also the alternative measures are
often based on rather contrary conceptions about what has to be measured. Even
within a single approach there is available several rival measurement tools. Thus, the
'person type measures include both biographical inventories and personality
questionnaires, and the latter may be subdivided into more than one kind. Complicating
matters even more, the choice of instrument is contingent on such criteria as the age
of the target population, the domain of creativity involved, and the magnitude of
creativity to be assessed. Creativity assessment is no easy task, and may even require
some creativity.

3.6 LET US SUM UP

Memory tests need to be grounded in theory and research with the ability to assess
alicomponents of the memory process. It is only through a broad, comprehensive
approach to memory assessment that neuropsychologists can obtain valid, clinically
meaningful conclusions and recommendations for their patients.

Creativity is a key component ofhurnan cognition that is related yet distinct from the
construct of intelligence. One way of organising creativity assessment is in terms of
person, process, product, and press (i.e., environment).

3.7 UNITENDQUESTIONS
1) Which of the following is Not part of the "Four P" model?

1) Process

2) Product

3) Possibility

4) Person 53
Tests of Cognitive 2) Which of the following is most commonly associated with creativity?
Functions
1) Intrinsic motivation

2) Extrinsic motivation

3) Anticipation of rewards

4) Anticipation of evaluation

3) The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking assess:

1) task motivation

2) domain- specific knowledge

3) artistic ability

4) divergent thinking

4) "Flow" refers to:

1) the speed at which one works

2) consistency among items in a divergent-thinking test

3) similarities between intelligence and creativity test scores

4) the experience of being intensely engaged in an activity

5) Tick the True or False statements.

i) The Structure of Intellect model looks at both the

. types of content and the types of product in
divergent thinking. (TruelFalse)

ii) Serial recall is also used in the well-known

short-term memory task called digit span. (True/False)

iii) Explicit memory is revealed by a facilitation or change

of performance on tests that do not require
intentional or conscious recollection. (TruelFalse)

iv) Prospective memory is defmed as the timely

remembering of a planned action. (True/False)

6) What is memory? Describe in detail the different tests for assessment

of memory?

7) Define creativity? Discuss the various ways of assessing creativity?

8) What are the future perspectives and conclusion in regard to creativity?

9) What are SOl assessments? Elucidate. , I

3.8 SUGGESTED READINGS

Kaufman, James c., Plucker,
Jonathan A.,Baer, John.(2008). Essentials of
Creativity Assessment. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Lezak, M.D. (1995). Neuropsychological Assessment (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford
54 University Press.
UNIT 4 UTILITY OF DATA FROM THE
TEST OF COGNITIVE
FUNCTIONS
Structure
4.0 Introduction

4.1 Objectives

4.2 Cognitive Testing

4.3 Utility of Data from Tests of Cognitive Functions

4.3.1 Clinical Use of Intelligence Tests
4.3.2 The Estimation of General Intellectual Level
4.3.3 The Case of Harold
4.3.4 Prediction of Academic Success
4.3.5 Occupational Performance
4.3.6 The Appraisal of Style

4.4 Uses of Neuropsychological Assessment

4.4.1 Determining the Biological (I.E., Neuroanatomical, Physiological) Correlates
of Test Results: Detection, Gradation, and Localisation of Brain Damage
4.4.2 Determining Whether Changes Are Associated With Neurological Disease,
Psychiatric Conditions, Developmental Disorders, or Non-Neurological
Conditions
4.4.3 Assessing Changes over Time and Developing a Prognosis
4.4.4 Offering Guidelines for Rehabilitation, Vocational/Educational Planning, or
A Combination of These
4.4.5 Providing Guidelines and Education for Family and Caregivers
4.4.6 Planning for Discharge and Treatment Implementation

4.5 Overview of Instruments

4.5.1 Behaviour Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF)
4.5.2 Behaviour Rating Inventory of Executive Function-Preschool Version
(BRIEF-P)
4.5.3 Comprehensive Test of Nonverbal Intelligence (CTONI)
4.5.4 Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processes (CTOPP)
4.5.5 Das Naglieri Cognitive Assessment System (CAS)
4.5.6 Detroit Tests of Learning Aptitude-Fourth Edition (DTLA-4)
4.5.7 Differential Ability Scales-Second Edition (DAS-II)
4.5.8 Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children-Second Edition (KABC-II)
4.5.9 Leiter International Performance Scale-Revised (Leiter-R)
4.5.10 NEPSY, Second Edition (NEPSY-II)
4.5.11 Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales-Fifth Edition (SB5)
4.5.12 Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test (UNIT)
4.5.13 Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI)
4.5.14 Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Third Edition (WAIS-III)
4.5.15 Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth Edition (WISC-IV)
4.5.16 Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth Edition Integrated
(WlSC-IV Integrated)
Wechsler Nonverbal Scale of Ability (WNV)
55
4.5.17
Tests of Cognitive 4.5.18 Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence-
Functions Third Edition (WPPSI-III)
4.5.19 Wide Range Assessment of Memory and Learning-
Second Edition (WRAML-2)
4.5.20 Woodcock-lohnson Tests of Cognitive Abilities-Third Edition! Normative
update (WJ-III COG/NU)
4.6 Let Us Sum Up

4.7 Unit End Questions

4.8 Suggested Readings

4.0 INTRODUCTION
This unit expands the discussion of assessment in clinical psychology. Cognitive
assessment measures a host of intellectual capacities and encompasses the
subspecialty of neuropsychological assessment that examines brain-behaviour
relationships. Once all the assessment data are collected and examined by the
psychologist, decisions can be made regarding diagnosis, treatment plans,
and predictions about future behaviour.

4.1 OBJECTIVES
After reading this unit, you should be able to:

• describe the uses of intelligence and neuropsychological tests in assessing

cognitive functions; and

• provide an overview of various instruments for assessing cognitive

functions.

4.2 COGNITIVE TESTING

Cognitive testing is a general term referring to the assessment of a wide
range of information processing or thinking skills and behaviours. These comprise
general neuro psychological functions involving brain-behavior relationships, general
intellectual functions (such as reasoning and problem solving) as well as more
specific cognitive skills (such as visual and auditory memory), language skills,
pattern recognition, finger dexterity, visual perceptual skills, academic skills, and
motor functions. Cognitive testing may include aptitude testing (which assesses
cognitive potential such as general intelligence) and achievement testing (which
assesses proficiency in specific skills such as reading or mathematics). Cognitive
testing uses well known tests such as the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) and
intelligence quotient (IQ) tests of all kinds. Thus, cognitive testing is an umbrella
term that refers to many different types of tests measuring many different types
of thinking and learning skills.

4.3" UTILITY OF DATA FROM TESTS OF

COGNITIVE FUNCTIONS
In the preceding units, we have described several of the more commonly
used cognitive tests. It is time to take a closer look at how such tests are
used in the clinical setting.
56
4.3.1 Clinical Use of Intelligence Tests Utility of Data from the
Test of Cognitive
Functions
The intelligence test is a special measure that primarily helps to assess a wide
spectrum of cognitive features. The manner in which such .cognitive features
operate for the patient needs to be delineated. One of the main assets of
intelligence tests is their accuracy in predicting future behavior. Initially,
Binet was able to achieve a certain degree of predictive success with his
scales, and, since that time, test procedures have become progressively more
refined and accurate. More recent studies provide ample support that
intelligence tests can predict an extremely wide number of variables. In
particular, IQ tests are excellent predictors of academic achievement,
occupational performance and are sensitive to the presence of
neuropsychological deficit.

4.3.2 The Estimation of General Intellectual Level

The most obvious use of an intelligence test is as a means for arriving at an
estimate of the patient's general intellectual level. Frequently, the goal is the
determination of how much general intelligence (g) a given person possesses.
Often, the question is stated a bit differently-for example, what is the
patient's intellectual potential? Posing the question in this way suggests that
perhaps the person is not functioning as well as his or her potential would
indicate. The potential can form a baseline against which to measure current
achievements, thus providing information about the patient's current level of
-functioning. Many pitfalls and fallacies are associated with the pursuit of
these goals. The following is an example.

4.3.3 The Case of Harold

Harold was being routinely evaluated prior to transfer to a special class for
advanced junior high school students. Rather surprisingly, his Full Scale
WISC-IV IQ turned out to be 107. This score was in the average range but
below the cut off point for admission to the class. It was also considerably
below what his teachers had estimated based on his classroom performance.
A closer look at his subtest scores revealed that his performances on Block
Design and Coding were significantly below those on the other sub tests. A
follow-up interview with Harold was quite revealing. Since early childhood,
he had suffered from muscular weakness in both arms and hands. This
weakness prevented him from making fine, quick motor responses. However,
he had developed a number of clever compensations to prevent others from
guessing his limitation. For example, what had appeared to be slow, deliberate,
even confused responses on Block Design were really not that at all. He was
feigning confusion to mask his difficulty with fine motor functions. Clearly,
then, Harold's IQ score had been unduly affected by a motor weakness that
had nothing to do with his ability to perform intellectually.

This example is but the tip of the iceberg. It does suggest, however, that
obtaining an IQ is not the end of a clinician's task, but it is only the beginning.
The IQ score must be interpreted. Only through knowledge of the patient's
learning history and by observations made during the testing situation can
that score be placed in an appropriate interpretive context and adequately
evaluated.

57
Tests of Cognitive 4.3.4 Prediction of Academic Success
Functions
As mentioned previously, there are data that demonstrate a relationship between
intelligence test scores and school success (Neisser et al., 1996). To the extent
that intelligence should logically reflect the capacity to do well in school, we are
justified in expecting intelligence tests to predict school success. Not everyone
would equate intelligence with scholastic aptitude, but the fact remains that a
major function of intelligence tests is to predict school performance. One must
remember, however, that intelligence and academic success are not conceptually
identical.

4.3.5 Occupational Performance

In addition to predicting academic achievement, IQ scores have also been
correlated with occupation, ranging from highly trained professionals with
mean IQs of 125, to unskilled workers with mean IQs of 87 (Reynolds,
Chastain, Kaufman, & McLean, 1987). Correlations between job proficiency
and general intelligence have been highest in predicting relatively more complex
jobs rather than less demanding occupations. 1. Hunter (1986) reported
moderately high correlations between general intelligence and success for
managers (.53), salespersons (.61), and clerks (.54). For intellectually
demanding tasks, nearly half the variance related to performance criteria can
be accounted for by general intelligence (F. Schmidt, Ones, & Hunter, 1992).
The use of intelligence tests for personnel selection has demonstrated financial
efficacy for organisations (E Schmidt & Hunter, 1998). In addition, the accuracy
of using IQ tests can be incrementally increased by combining the results with
integrity tests, work samples, and structured interviews (F. Schmidt & Hunter,
1998).

4.3.6 The Appraisal of Style

As we have noted, what is important is not only whether the client succeeds or
fails on particular test items but also how that success or failure occurs. One of
the major values of individual intelligence tests is that they permit us to observe
the client or patient at work. Such observations can help us greatly in interpreting
an IQ. For example, did this child do as well as possible? Was there failure
avoidance? Did the child struggle with most items, or was there easy success?
Was the child unmotivated, and could this have detracted from the child's
performance? Such questions and the ensuing interpretations breathe life into an
otherwise inert IQ score.
The following simulated questions from the WAIS-III and a hypothetical patient's
responses to them are examples of the data that can be obtained beyond the
sheer correctness or incorrectness of a response.
Query: Who wrote Paradise Lost? (Information subtest)
Answer: Probably a Catholic. But since the Pope began changing things around,
they retitled it.
Query: What is the advantage of keeping money in a bank? (Comprehension
.subtest)
Answer: There isn't. There's so damn many crooks. But they'll get theirs
someday.
Query: In what ways are a lion and a tiger alike?(Similarities subtest)
58
Answer: Well, now, that's a long story. Do they look alike? They really can't Utility of Data from the
Test of Cognitive
breed together, you know. Functions

(These simulated items were provided courtesy of The Psychological Corporation.

The answers are based on responses to actual items.)

Some clinicianshave ventured considerably beyond making a few limited personality

inferences that would inject some added meaning into IQs and have based mental
disorder diagnoses on the Stanford Binet and Wechsler scales. They believed that
by examining patterns of scores (known as inter-test scatter); they could apply
diagnostic labels to patients (e.g., schizophrenia or depression). Over the years,
however, studies purporting to show the validity of these interpretations of inter
test scatter could rarely be replicated. Thus, diagnoses cannot be reliably inferred
from patterns of test performance.

Another import~nt asset of intelligence tests, particularly the WAIS-III and

WISCIII, is that they provide valuable information about a person's cognitive
strengths and weaknesses. They are standardized procedures whereby a person's
performance in various areas can be compared with that of age-related peers. In
addition, useful comparisons can be made regarding a person's pattern of strengths
and weaknesses. The WAIS-III, WISC-III, and other individually administered
tests provide the .examiner with a structured interview in which a variety of tasks
can be used to observe the unique and personal ways the examinee approaches
cognitive tasks. Through a client's interactions with both the examiner and the test
materials, .an .initial impression can be made of the individual's self-esteem,
behavioural idiosyncrasies, anxiety, social skills, and motivation, while also obtaining
a specific picture of intellectual functioning.

Intelligence tests often provide clinicians, educators, and researchers with baseline
measures for use in determining either the degree of change that has occurred in
an individual over time or how an individual compares with other persons in a
particular area or ability. This may have important implications for evaluating the
effectiveness of an educational program or for assessing the changing abilities of
a specific student. In cases involving recovery from a head injury or readjustment
following neurosurgery, it may be extremely helpful for clinicians to measure and
follow the cognitive changes that occur in a patient. Furthermore, IQ assessments
may be important in researching and understanding more adequately the effect on
cognitive functioning of environmental variables, such as educational programs,
family background, and nutrition. Thus, these assessments can provide useful
information about cultural, biological, maturational, or treatment-related differences
among individuals.

Self Assessment Questions

1) Define cognitive testing and describe the characteristics.

 Tests of Cognitive
Functions 2) What are the uses of tests of cognitive functions in clinical setting?

3) What are the uses of intelligence tests in clinical settings?

4) How do we estimate the general intellectual level?

..

5) Discuss the case of Harold.

~
...............................................................................................................

6) Can intelligence test scores be used for predicting academic success?

7) Can occupational performance be predicted through IQ scores?

8) What is appraisal style?

.......................... : \ .
\
................................................................... ~ .

4.4 USES OF NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL

ASSESSMENT
One can identify at least seven different but related purposes or uses of
60 neuropsychological assessment. These categories are derived from what are
probably the most common clinical referral questions presented to Utility of Data from the
Test of Cognitive
neuropsychologists as well as from the information presented in many Functions
neuropsychological reports. These categories of use can.arise in a number of
different contexts, including medicine, law, education, and research. The8e;~,~egories
are presented here in the order reflecting the logic in which clinicalinferences are
typically made. ~

Describing and identifying changes in psychological functioning (cognition,

behaviour, emotion) in terms of presence/absence and severity. Although the
raison d' etre of clinical neuropsychology is to predict the presence of brain damage,
the ability to describe function precedes this seemingly core purpose of
neuropsychological tests. Neuropsychologists are usually expected to provide a
description of a patient or client by identifying cognitive strengths and weaknesses
and then by making the basic inference of whether the patient's current status
represents a change from some previous, usually not precisely defined, baseline
or pre morbid level of functioning. When children are evaluated and there is little
basis to estimate pre morbid abilities, clinicians may attempt to infer change from
expected developmental milestones. The issues of strengths and weaknesses and
rhe presence or absence of change are addressed before any other inferences
regarding brain function or recommendations for interventions may be considered.
The neuropsychologist must try to infer what part of the current observations
reflects the patient's "normal" allocation of intellectual functions versus what parts
of the current observations show changes attributable to brain dysfunction. Accurate
description and reference to correct normative standards for the individual are the
most basic and critical purposes of neuropsychologicalassessment.
"",-
4.4.1 Determining the Biological (I.E., Neuroanatomical,
Physiological) Correlates of Test Results:
Detection, Gradation and Localisation of Brain
Damage
After they have described the patient's behaviour, neuropsychologists typically try
to determine whether the pattern of test results, clinical behaviour, and particular
historical context of the observations can be attributed to abnormal brain function.
Such abnormalities may be the presence of a structural brain lesion, a developmental
disorder, or in some cases, neuro chemical lesion. Part of this determination is
trying to ascertain what region of the brain is involved.

4.4.2 Determining Whether Changes are Associated

with Neurological Disease, Psychiatric Conditions
Developmental Disorders, or Non-Neurological
Conditions
The next kind of inference that clinical neuropsychologists often try to make or
are asked to make concerns the likely etiology or etiologies that produced the
changes described. In the case of neurological disorder and known history, this
can sometimes be done accurately. This is particularly true in cases in which the
behavioural changes involve unusual and dramatic phenomena that have historically
been related to the presence of lesions, in specific parts of the brain and are
usually caused by a highly limited set of etiologies. For example, non-fluent aphasia
symptoms (e.g., hesitant, a grammatic speech) are most likely related to a limited
61
 Tests of Cognitive set of diseases that, if present by history, can be considered causative of the
Functions observed changes in language.

Many changes in neuropsychological functions, however, may be caused by

psychiatric, motivational, developmental, or cultural factors and may not be
attributable to a specific neurological etiology even when present by history.
Often, neuropsychological test findings are nonspecific to etiology and may
be related to a host 'of factors, such as depression, anxiety, sleep deprivation,
or even chronic pain. In these instances, the neuropsychologist must work as
an investigator to review the test findings thoroughly in the context of the
patient's history.

4.4.3 Assessing Changes over Time and Developing a

Prognosis

.. One of the most useful applications of neuropsychological assessment is to

track improvements and decrements in performance over time. This helps in
determining the etiology and progression of a disease, developing social or
financial plans for a patient, and tracking whether treatment or efforts toward
rehabilitation are effective.

4.4.4 Offering Guidelines for Rehabilitation, Vocational /

Educational Planning, or A Combination of These
The ability to provide inferences regarding etiology and descriptive power
has made neuropsychological assessment a popular tool in rehabilitation and
educational planning. Therapists and teachers can often use a patient's profile
of strengths and weaknesses to develop and optimize rehabilitation and
educational programs. Knowledge of which problems or weaknesses are
attributable to brain damage and which are likely the result of non neurological
sources can help a therapist allocate time and resources toward the treatment
priorities that are most likely to be effective.

4.4.5 Providing Guidelines and Education for Family and

Caregivers
In a similar vein, neuropsychological data can help families and caregivers to
understand the strengths and weaknesses of their loved ones and to cope
with patients who may suffer from challenging limitations on independent
functioning. Beleaguered family members are less likely to be angry with a
patient when they understand that symptoms that appear to be related to
motivation or personality are actually causally related to a disease state. An
understanding of the prognosis of the illness can also be invaluable to families
who must plan their use of finances and future care.

4.4.6 Planning for Discharge and Treatment Implementation

Neuropsychological deficits can sometimes be insidious and difficult to
describe, even for sophisticated clinicians, An understanding of a patient's
capabilities can help the clinician assess the degree to which a patient is
going to comply with treatment recommendations and medication use, as
well as the extent to which the patient or the patient's family may need
continued supervision after discharge.

62
 Utility of Data from the
Self Assessment Questions Test of Cognitive
Functions
1) Define and describe neuropsychological tests.

2) Can behaviour be related to abnormal functions through

neuropsychological tests?

...............................................................................................................
!I>

3) . Can neuropsychological test provide etiology for diagnosis and prognosis?

4) What are the various functions of neuropsychological tests?

4.5 OVERVIEW OF INSTRUMENTS

Assessing cognitive functioning in students or patients can yield valuable data that
inform instruction through identification of a pattern of strengths and weaknesses,
thus giving insight into learning styles and preferences. This, in turn, can help a
multidisciplinary team develop comprehensive instructional programs.

The following is a list of measures spanning all age ranges and levels of cognitive
functioning. Nonverbal measures are included as they may be appropriate for
students demonstrating limited language ability or limited English proficiency.
Measures used to assess various types of cognitive processing and executive
functions have also been included, as results of such assessment can facilitate a
cross-battery analysis of cognitive processes and positively impact instructional
decision-making.

4.5.1 Behaviour Rating Inventory of Executive Function

(BRIEF)
The Behaviour Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF; Gioia, Isquith,
Guy, & Ken-worthy, 2000) is an individualised, norm-referenced measure of
executive function behaviours designed for school-aged students from 5 to 18
years of age. The BRIEF is a questionnaire that is completed by parents or
teachers (two different forms), who rate behaviours related to executive functions 63
Tests of Cognitive in eight scales (Inhibit, Shift, Emotional Control, Initiate, Working Memory, Plan!
Functions Organise, Organisation of Materials, and Monitor).

Results of the scales are combined to generate two index scores, Behavioural
RegulationlBRI (based on three scales) and Meta cognitionIMI (based on five
scales), and an overall composite score, the Global Executive Composite/GEe.
Standardization of the BRIEF included individuals with a variety of developmental
or neurological conditions, allowing for use of the inventory with a broad range
of students. A Self-Report Form is also available for use with students 13 through
18 years of age, the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function-Self-Report
Version (BRIEF-SR; Guy, Isquith, & Gioia, 2005).

4.5.2 Behaviour Rating Inventory of Executive Function-

Preschool Version (BRIEF-P)
The Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function-Preschool Version (BRIEF-
P; Gioia, Espy, & Isquith, 2003) is an individualised, norm-referenced measure
of executive function behaviours for preschool-aged children from 2 years to 5
years-ll months of age. The BRIEF-P, a questionnaire designed to be completed
by parents or teachers (single form), rates behaviors related to various executive
functions' observed in the home and in the preschool setting in five scales (Inhibit,
Shift, Emotional Control, Working Memory, and Plan!Organise). Items are rated
on a Likert scale (never, sometimes, often) comparing the significance of the
child's behaviours to those of other children of the same age over a specified
period of time.

Results of the scales are combined to generate three index scores, Inhibitory Self-
Control, Flexibility, and Emergent Meta cognition (each based on two scales),
and an overall composite score, the Global Executive Composite/GEe.
Standardization of the BRIEF-P included individuals with a variety of developmental
_or-neurological conditions and children considered at risk, allowing for use of the
----irhrentory with a broad range of students. Use of the BRIEF-P may facilitate early
identification of children with potential problems in areas of self-regulation.

4.5.3 Comprehensive Test of Nonverbal Intelligence (CTONI)

.>

, The Comprehensive Test of Nonverbal Intelligence (CTONI; Hammill, Pearson,

& Wiederholt, 1997) measures the nonverbal reasoning abilities of individuals
aged 6-0 to ~18-11. No oral responses, reading, writing, or manipulation of objects
.

are required. The crONI is useful for testing individuals with difficultiesin language
or fine-motor skills, including those who are bilingual, non-English-speaking, or
have motor or neurological disabilities. The test can be administered orally or
through pantomime.

The six subtests of the CTONI require subjects to view a group of pictures or
designs and to solve problems involving analogies, categorizations, and sequences.
The viewer simply indicates an answer by pointing to the answer. A computer-
administered version of the test is available, the CTONI-CA. This is an interactive
multimedia test that can be taken entirely on a computer. The program gives all
the instructions using a human voice; the examinee points the mouse and clicks
on the answer.

64
 4.5.4 Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processes Utility of Data from the
Test of Cognitive
(CTOPP) Functions

The Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processes (CTOPP; Wagner, Torgesen,

& Rashotte, 1999) is an individually administered, norm-referenced measure of
phonological awareness, phonological memory, and rapid naming, all foundational
skill areas that are critical in learning to read. One form of the CTOPP is
administered to children aged 5 and 6 years, focusing on the skills generally
needed in kindergarten and first grade. It consists of seven core subtests and one
supplemental subtest. A second form for individuals ranging from ages 7 through
24 years consists of six core subtests and eight supplemental subtests.
The purposes of the CTOPP include identifying students who are behind in
developing phonological skills and determining which skills have not been
acquired or adequately developed. The supplemental tests allow for assessing
specific strengths and weaknesses related to phonological processes. Subtests
include subtests to measure rapid naming, blending and segmenting words
and non-words, sound matching, and memory for digits. All subtests and
4
composites (Phonological Awareness, Phonological Memory, and Rapid
Naming) are reported in scaled scores, standard scores, and percentiles.

Self Assessment Questions

1) Describe Behaviour Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF).

2) How does Behaviour Rating Inventory of Executive Function-Preschool

Version (BRlEF-P) differ from BRIEF?

3) Describe the Comprehensive Test of Nonverbal Intelligence (CTONI).

4) Explain the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processes (CTOPP).

4.5.5 Das Naglieri Cognitive Assessment System (CAS)

The Das Naglieri Cognitive Assessment System (CAS: Naglieri& Das, 1997) is
an individuallyadministered measure of cognitive ability designed to assess Planning, 65
Tests of Cognitive Attention, and Simultaneous and Successive (PASS) processes in individuals 5
Functions years to 24 years-ll months old. Planning tasks require the test taker to develop
an approach to solving a task in an efficient and effective manner. Attention tasks
require the individual to selectively attend to one and ignore the other aspect of
a two-dimensional stimulus. Simultaneous tasks require the individual to interrelate
the component parts of a particular item to arrive at the correct answer. Finally,
successi ve tasks require the individual to either reproduce a particular sequence
of events or answer questions that require correct interpretation of the linearity of
events.

There are 8 subtests in the Basic Battery and 12 subtests in the Standard Battery.
The CAS may be used for diagnosis, eligibility, determination of discrepancies,
reevaluation, and instructional planning.

4.5.6 Detroit Tests of Learning Aptitude-Fourth Edition

(DTLA-4)
The Detroit Tests of Learning Aptitude-Fourth Edition (DTLA-4; Harnmill, 1998)
is an individually administered measure of mental ability for individuals 6 to 17
years of age. It includes la subtests that may be combined to form 16 composites
measuring both general intelligence and discrete ability areas. This test not only
measures basic abilities but also shows the effects of language, attention, and
motor abilities on test performance.

The DTLA-4 yields an Overall Composite comprised of standard scores of all

10 subtests in the battery. This composite is probably the best estimate of general
intelligence. The Optimal Level Composite includes the four highest standard
scores on the subtests and is the best estimate of a person's overall "potential."
The Domain Composites are contrasting composites provided for three domains:
language, attention, and manual dexterity. DTLA 4 includes the following: Verbal
Composite, Nonverbal Composite, Attention-Enhanced Composite, Attention-
Reduced Composite, Motor-Enhanced Composite, and Motor-Reduced
Composite.

4.5.7 Differential Ability Scales-Second Edition (DAS-II)

The Differential Ability Scales-Second Edition (DAS-II; Elliott, 2007) is an
individually administered norm-referenced battery of cognitive subtests for children
and adolescents ages 2-6 through 17-11. Although most cognitive measures are
truly language-free, the DAS-II controls for language loading by providing a
special Nonverbal Index, and can be used easily with very young children and
English Language Learners. It consists of two overlapping batteries, the Early
Years Battery and the School-Age Battery. Several subtests within each battery
can be used out of level for individuals working above or below typical levels by
age.

The DAS-II yields (a) a composite score focused on reasoning and conceptual
abilities, the General Conceptual Ability (GCA) score; (b) lower-level composite
scores called cluster scores; and (c) diverse, specific-ability measures, including
the core subtests, which comprise the GCA and diagnostic subtests. Verbal Ability
measures the child's acquired verbal concepts and knowledge. Nonverbal Ability
represents complex, nonverbal, inductive reasoning requiring mental processing.
Spatial Ability measures complex visual processing. Diagnostic Clusters include
Working Memory, Processing Speed, and School Readiness. The DAS-H yields
t-scores for sub-tests and standard scores and percentiles for cluster and index
66 scores and the GCA.
 4.5.8 Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children-Second Utility of Data from the
Test of Cognitive
Edition (KABC- 11) Functions

The Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children-Second Edition (KABC-II;

Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004) is an individually administered measure of the
cognitive processing abilities of children and adolescents aged 3 through 18.
The KABC-II is a theory-based clinical instrument that contributes to culturally
fair assessment. The KABC-II offers two global summaries: the Fluid-
Crystallized Index (FCI), which includes all five scales, and the Mental
Processing Index (MPI) , which includes the first four scales but not the
Knowledge/Crystallized Ability Scale. The test manual states: "Measures of
Gc (general cognition) should be excluded from any score that purports to
measure a person's intelligence or overall cognitive ability whenever the
measure of Gc is not likely to reflect that person's level of ability."

The KABC-II offers a Nonverbal Scale (NVI) , which yields a nonverbal

index to assess the processing and cognitive abilities of children with whom
a nonverbal measure of cognitive ability is appropriate. The Sequential
Processing/Short -Term Memory Scale is designed to measure the ability to
solve problems by remembering and using an ordered series of images or
ideas. The SimultaneousNisual Processing Scale measures the ability to solve
spatial, analogical, or organisational problems that require the processing of many
stimuli at one time. The Learning AbilitylLong- Term Storage and Retrieval Scale
measures the ability to successfully complete different types of learning tasks.
Immediate. recall and delayed recall tasks are included in this scale. The Planning!
Fluid Reasoning Scale measures the ability to solve nonverbal problems that are
different from the kinds taught in school. Verbally mediated reasoning must be
used to solve the problems. The Knowledge/Crystallized Ability Scale measures
knowledge of words and facts using both verbal and pictorial stimuli and requiring
either a verbal or pointing response.

Self Assessment Questions

1) Give a description of Das Naglieri Cognitive Assessment System (CAS).

2) What is the role of Detroit Tests of Learning Aptitude-Fourth Edition

(DTLA-4).

3) What are the characteristic features of Differential Ability Scales-Second

Edition (DAS-II).
N
't""
I

W
U
e,
:E

67
Tests of Cognitive
4) Discuss Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children-Second Edition
Functions
(KABC-U)

4.5.9 Leiter International Performance Scale-Revised

(Leiter-R)
The Leiter International Performance Scale-Revised (Leiter-R; Roid& Miller, 1998)
is a standardized, individually administered, nonverbal test designed to assess
cognitive functions in children and adolescents ages 2-0 to 20-11 years. The
Leiter-R includes two groupings of subtests: the Visualization and Reasoning Battery
with 10 subtests of nonverbal intellectual ability related to visualization, reasoning,
and spatial ability; and the Attention and Memory Battery with 10 subtests of
nonverbal attention and memory function.

The Fluid Reasoning composite is comprised of subtests that show evidence of

providing a unique fluid measure of seriation, reasoning, and pattern generation.
The Full IQ score represents a measure of general nonverbal intelligence. The IQ
is the sum of the subtests that compose the IQ estimate, and the subtests represented
vary depending on the age of the student. The IQ score includes diverse aspects
of cognition and is comprised of highly correlated subtests to obtain a single
measure of intellectual ability.

4.5.10 NEPSY, Second Edition (NEPSY-II)

The NEPSY-U (Korkm.in, Kirk, & Kemp, 2007) is a comprehensive instrument
designed to assess neuropsychological development in preschool and school-age
children from 3 years to 16 years, 11 months. It has a strong theoretical foundation
that emphasises the interrelatedness of brain operations. The full assessment
evaluates six domains, including Executive Function and Attention, Language,
Memory and Learning, Sensorimotor, Visuospatial Processing, and Social
Perception. The Social Perception domain has been added to the original NEPSY.
It includes Affect Recognition and Theory of Mind, which would be beneficial
particularly for children with possible autism. Performance is reported in standard
(scaled) scores, process scores, and percentiles. Behavioural observations are
presented as cumulative percentages or base rates.

4.5.11 Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales-Fifth Edition (SB5)

The Stanford-Binet-Fifth Edition (SB5; Roid, 2003) provides comprehensive
coverage of five factors of cognitive ability:Fluid Reasoning, QuantitativeReasoning,
Visual-Spatial Reasoning, Working Memory, and Knowledge. The SB5 scoring
provides a Full Scale IQ score, a Nonverbal IQ score, and a Verbal IQ score,
which are reported in standard scores and percentiles and can be used to assess
individuals from 2 years of age through 85 years. The SB5 Nonverbal IQ (NVIQ)
is based on the nonverbal subtests of the five-factor index scales. It measures
skills in solving abstract, picture-oriented problems; recalling facts and figures;
solving quantitative problems shown in picture form; assembling designs; and
68
recalling tapping sequences. The NVIQ measures the general ability to reason, Utility of Data from the
Test of Cognitive
solve problems, visualize, and recall information presented in pictorial, figural, and Functions
symbolic form, as opposed to information presented in the form of words and
sentences.

The SB5 Verbal IQ (VIQ) provides a composite of all the cognitive skills required
to solve the items in the five verbal subtests. The VIQ measures general ability
to reason, solve problems, visualize, and recall important information presented in
words and sentences (printed and spoken). In addition, it reflects the examinee's
ability to explain verbal response clearly, present rationale for response choices,
create stories, and explain spatial directions. General verbal ability, measured by
VIQ, is one of the most powerful predictors. of academic success in classrooms,
because of the heavy reliance on language, reading, and writing.

Fluid Reasoning is the ability to solve verbal and nonverbal problems using inductive
or deductive reasoning. Quantitative Reasoning is an individual's facility with
numbers and numerical problem solving, whether word problems or picture
relationships. Activities in the SB5 emphasise applied problem solving more than
specific mathematical knowledge acquired through school learning. Visual-Spatial
Processing measures an individual's ability to see patterns and relationships.Working
Memory is a class of memory processes in which diverse information stored in
short-term memory is inspected, sorted, or transformed. Knowledge is a person's
accumulated fund of general information acquired at home, school, or work. Also
called crystallized ability, it involves learned material such as vocabulary that has
been acquired and stored in long-term memory. Verbal knowledge subtests fall
under the narrow abilities of Lexical Knowledge and General Knowledge.

4.5.12 Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test (UNIT)

The Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test (UNIT; Bracken & McCallum, 1998)
is a set ofindividually administered tasks that measure the general intelligence and
cognitive abilities of children and adolescents from ages 5 through 17 years who
may be disadvantaged by traditional verbal and language-loaded measures. As
such, the UNIT provides a comprehensive assessment of general intelligence.

The UNIT offers three administration options: abbreviated battery (2 subtests),

standard battery (4 subtests), and extended battery (6 subtests). The Nonverbal
Intelligence Quotient (NIQ) is, in most instances, the best index for measuring the
ability to solve problems, or to reason, not requiring words. The Nonverbal
Quotient (NIQ) measures three cognitive abilities (analogical reasoning, categorical
classifying, and sequential reasoning), all assessed in two contexts (pictorial objects
and geometric designs). The Memory Quotient is an index of attending, organising,
encoding, storing, and recalling information and experiences. The Reasoning
Quotient provides a measurement of thinking skills, including the ability to use
information to solve problems. The Symbolic Quotient measures symbolic
processing or mediation. Symbolic mediation represents the verbal component of
a nonverbal task. The Nonsymbolic Quotient measures abilities of perception,
recognition, sequencing, organisation, and integration. These skills encompass all
aspects of cognition including reasoning and memory. Subtest scores are reported
in standard scores and percentiles.
69
Tests of Cognitive
Self Assessment Questions
Functions
1) Describe Leiter International Performance Scale-Revised (Leiter-R).

2) In what ways the NEPSY, Second Edition (NEPSY-II) cab used?

3) Describe states the functions of Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales-Fifth

Edition (SB5).

4) What is Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test (UNIT)? Describe the test.

4.5.13 Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI)

The Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI; Wechsler, 1999) is an
individuallyadministered, brief intelligence scale consisting of either two or four
subtests designed to be used with individuals age 6 to 89. Subtests (from the
WISe-IV and WAIS-III) are Vocabulary, Block Design, Similarities, and Matrix
Reasoning. Subtest raw scores are converted to t-scores (mean of 50 and a
standard deviation of 10). If two subtests are given, a Full Scale IQ (reported as
a standard score) can be derived. If four subtests are given, a Verbal IQ,
Performance IQ, and Full Scale IQ can be derived. The manual states that, "The
WASI is appropriate for screening, estimating IQ when a full evaluation is not
possible, reevaluations when time is limited, research estimates of IQ, and other
situations when a more comprehensive evaluation is not needed or not possible."

70
4.5.14 Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Third Edition Utility of Data from the
Test of Cognitive
(WAIS-III) Functions

The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Third Revision (WAIS-ill; Wechsler, 1997)

is an individually administered, standardized test designed to measure general
intelligence, or the overall ability of the individual "to act purposefully, to think
rationally and to deal effectively with his environment" (Wechsler, 1999, p. 3).
The WAIS-ill covers an age range from 16 to 89 years. It contains 14 subtests,
each yielding scaled scores with a mean of 10 and a standard deviation of 3.
From these subtest scores, the WAIS-III provides three separate intelligence
quotients (lQs): a Verbal Scale IQ, a Performance Scale IQ, and a Full Scale IQ.
Alternately, it may be scored using the Full Scale IQ and the four Index Scores
model used with the WISC- IV (Verbal Comprehension Index, Perceptual
Organisation Index, Working Memory Index, and Processing Speed Index).

4.5.15 Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth

Edition (WISC-IV)
The WechslerIntelligence Scale for Children-Fourth Edition (WISC-IV; Wechsler,
2(03) provides a measure of general intellectual functioning (Full Scale Intelligence
Quotient [FSIQ]) and four index scores. It can be used to assess individuals
between the ages of 6 and 16 years, 11 months. Its framework is based on theory
and supported by clinical research and factor-analytic results. The four index
scores are the Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI), the Perceptual Reasoning
Index (Piu), the Working Memory Index (WMI) , and the Processing Speed
Index (PSI). The WISC-IV consists of 10 core subtests and five supplemental
subtests. The VCI is composed of subtests measuring verbal abilities utilising
reasoning, comprehension, and conceptualisation. The PR! is composed of subtests
measuring perceptual reasoning and organisation. The WMI is composed of subtests
measuring attention, concentration, and working memory. The PSI is composed
of subtests measuring the speed of mental and grapho motor processing.

4.5.16 Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth

Edition Integrated (WISC-IV Integrated)
The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth Edition (WISC-IV Integrated;
Kaplan, Fein, Kramer, Delis, & Morris, 2004) enhances the WISC-IV by
adding 16 process sub-tests, as well as qualitative and quantitative observations
and error scores. The addition of more measures of cognitive processes allows
for a broader definition of intelligence for individuals aged 6 years through 16-11.
All or selected process subtests may be used when a low scaled score is obtained
on a corresponding subtest or when a child displays inconsistent or atypical
performance. Results may be used to investigate low scores and identify strengths
and weaknesses in the corresponding areas.

To supplement the Verbal domain (VCI on WISC-IV), subtests include

(a) Similarities Multiple Choice, (b) Vocabulary Multiple Choice, (c) Picture
Vocabulary Multiple Choice, (d) Comprehension Multiple Choice, and
(e) Information Multiple Choice. To supplement the Performance domain (PR!
on WISC IV), subtests include (a) Block Design Multiple Choice, (b) Block
Design Process Approach, and (c) Elithorn Mazes. The six process subtests that
71
Tests of Cognitive enhance the Working Memory domain (WMI on WISC IV) include (a) Visual
Functions Digit Span, (b) Spatial Span, (c) Letter Span, (d) Letter-Number Sequencing
Process Approach, and (e) Elithom Mazes. Finally, process subtests used to
enhance the Processing Speed (PSI on WISC-IV) include Coding Recall and
Coding Copy.

4.5.17 Wechsler Nonverbal Scale of Ability (WNV)

The Wechsler Nonverbal Scale of Ability (WNV; Wechsler &Naglieri, 2006) is
an individually administered test of nonverbal intelligence for individuals from ages
4 through 21 years. When language poses a barrier to typical administration, or
.if traditional intellectual assessment results are questionable due to language-related
difficulties, the WNV is appropriate.

The WNV uses subtests to determine a full-scale measure of cognitive ability. The
subtests yield a raw score that is converted to a t-score, allowing a student's
performance to be compared to that of his peers. T-scores have a mean of 50
and a standard deviation of 10. The t-scores of the subtests are totaled and
converted to a full-scale score that is a standard score, with a mean of 100 and
a standard deviation of 15. The subtests consist of (a) Matrices, (b) Coding, (c)
Spatial Span (a visual memory measure corresponding to the auditory task in
Digit Span), (d) Spatial Span Forward, (e) Spatial Span Backwards, (f) Picture
Arrangement, (g) Object Assembly, and (h) Recognition.

4.5.18 Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of

Intelligence-Third Edition (WPPSI-Ill)
The Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence-Third Edition ewwpSI-
ill; Wechsler, 2002) is an individually administered, standardized instrument for
assessing the intelligence of children aged 2-6 through 7-3. It includes short,
game-like tasks that engage young children. The WPPSI-ill provides a Full Scale
IQ (FSIQ), Verbal IQ (VIQ), and Performance IQ (PIQ) for ages 2-6 through
3-11 using four subtests. For ages 4-0 through 7-3, seven subtests are used to
yield a FSIQ, VIQ, and PIQ. Optional subtests may be given to obtain a General
Language Composite for younger children or a Processing Speed Quotient for
older children.

Self Assessment Questions

1) Describe Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI).

2) How does the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Third Edition (WAIS-ill)

differ from the abbreviated scale?

72
 Utility of Data from the
3) Explain the test items in the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-
Test of Cognitive
Fourth Edition (WISC-IV). Functions

4) How is the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth Edition

Integrated (WISC-IV Integrated) differing from the IV edition ofWISC?

5) Describe Wechsler Nonverbal Scale of Ability (WNV).

6) . Explain theWechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence- Third

Edition (WPPSI-III).

4.5.19 Wide Range "Assessment of Memory and

Learning-Second Edition (WRAML-2)
The Wide Range Assessment of Memory and Learning-Second Edition (WRAML-
2; Sheslow& Adams, 2004) is an individually administered measure of memory
functions that may have a significantimpact on learning and school-relatedproblems.
The WRAML-2 may be used with individuals from age 5 through 90. It provides
a General Memory Index, three additional index scores (Verbal Memory, Visual
Memory, and Attention and Concentration), and three supplemental index scores
(Working Memory, Delayed Memory, and Recognition). Each index score is
derived from performance on from two to four subtests, and all are reported in
standard scores and percentile ranks. Standard scores have a mean of 100 and
a standard deviation of 15.

4.5.20 Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Abilities-Third

Edition/Normative Update (WJ-III COGINU)
The Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Abilities (Wl-III COGINU;
Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2005) is a comprehensive set of individually
administered co-normed tests for measuring cognitive ability. The tests may
be used from ages 2 through adult. The battery assesses general intellectual
ability as well as specific cognitive abilities. Twenty individual tests and 20
Cluster scores provide broad estimates of cognitive abilities.
73
Tests of Cognitive The Verbal Ability Cluster Score is a measure of language development that
Functions includes the comprehension of individual words and the comprehension of
relationships among words. The Thinking Ability Cluster Score represents a
sampling of the thinking processes that may be invoked when information in short-
term memory cannot be processed automatically. The scale includes samples of
long-term retrieval, visual-spatial thinking, auditory processing, and fluid reasoning.
The Cognitive Efficiency Cluster is derived from a sampling of two factors of
automatic cognitive processing, processing speed, and short-term memory.

4.6 LET US SUM UP

Tests of cognitive ability are use to answer a wide variety of important clinical
questions. In addition to identifying over all intellectual skills and cognitive strengths
and weaknesses, these tests are frequently employed to assess the presence of
learning disabilities, predict academic success in school, examine brain dysfunction,
and assess personality. Any competent psychologist must be cautious in the use
of intellectual, neuropsychological, achievement, and all other forms of cognitive
testing. Professionals must be aware of the limitations of the testing situation and
the limitations of the particular test they have chosen. They must be careful to use
tests for the purpose for which the test was developed and researched and in
conjunction with other appropriate tests. They must also be able to understand
the results in terms of the context of the individual's testing response style and the
bio psychosocial influences that might affect particular scores. For instance, scores
may not accurately reflect potential if a child is distracted due tosevere stress or
family conflict, chronic illness; compromised by poor nutrition; or disadvantaged
due to poverty or frequent school disruption. In fact, some research as indicated
that stress level and coping abilities are significantly associated with performance
on intelligence and other tests of cognitive abilities.

4.7 UNIT END QUESTIONS

1) True and False Q!lestions

i) Cognitive testing is a general term referring to the

assessment of a wide range of information processing
or thinking skills and behaviours. (TruelFalse)

ii) IQ tests are excellent predictors of academic achievement,

occupational performance and are sensitive to the
presence of neuropsychological deficit. (TruelFalse)

iii) When children are evaluated, clinicians attempt to

infer change from pre morbid abilities. (TruelFalse)

iv) One of the most useful applications of neuropsychological assessment

is to track improvements and decrements in performance over time.
(TruelFalse)

v) Quantitative Reasoning is the ability to solve verbal

and nonverbal problems using inductive or deductive
reasomng. (TruelFalse)

vi) The Leiter International Performance Scale-Revised is a

verbal test designed to assess cognitive functions in
74
children and adolescents ages 2-0 to 20-11 years. (TruelFalse)
 Utility of Data from the
2) Discuss the clinical use of intelligence tests? Test of Cognitive
Functions

3) Discuss in detail the uses of neuropsychological tests?

4) Provide an overview of various instruments to assess cognitive functions?

5) Describe the test Wide Range Assessment of Memory and Learning-Second

Edition (WRAML-2)

•••• i ••••.•..••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

\ 6) How are the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Abilities-Third Edition!

Normative update (Wl-Ill COGINU) useful?

4.8 SUGGESTED READINGS

Groth-Marnat, Gary. (2003). Handbook of Psychological Assessment (4thed.).
New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Murphy, K.R., Davidshofer, e.O. (2005). Psychological Testing: Principles

and Applications (6thed.). New Jersey: Pears on Education International.

References

Amabile, T.M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: a consensual assessment

technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(5), 997-1013.

Baddeley, A.D., Wilson, B.A. & Watts, F.N. (1995). Handbook of Memory
Disorders. Chichester: Wiley.

Binet, A. & Henri, V. (1895). La psychologieindividuelle.

L'AnneePsychologique, 2, 411-465.
75
Tests of Cognitive Boume. L.E. Jr. (1966). Human conceptual behavior. Boston: Allyn& Bacon.
Functions
Bracken, B. A, & McCallum, R S. (1998). Universal Nonverbal Intelligence
ts« Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishers.
Cattell, R B. (1963). Theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence: A critical
experiment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 54, 1-22.

Craik, F.LM., Anderson, N.D., Kerr, S.A & Li, K (1995). Memory 'changes
in normal ageing. In Baddeley, AD., Wilson, B.A & Watts, F.N. (Eds.),
Handbook of Memory Disorders (pp. 211-241). Chichester: Wiley.

Crarnrnond, Bonnie (1994). The Torrance tests of creative thinking: from

design through establishment of predictive validity. In Subotnik, RF. & Amold,
K.D. (Eds.), Beyond Terman: Contemporary Longitudinal Studies of
Giftedness and Talent (pp. 229-254). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Das, lP., Naglieri, J.A & Kirby, J.R (1994). Assessment of Cognitive
Processes: The PASS Theory of Intelligence. Boston, MA: Allyn& Bacon.

Davis, GA (1975). In frumious pursuit of the creative person. Journal of

Creative Behaviour, 9(2), 75-87.

Elliott, C. D. (2007). Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition. San Antonio,

TX: Psychological Corporation.

Elliott, C.D. (1990). Differential Ability Scales (DAS) Administration and

Scoring Manual. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.

Galton, Francis (1869). Hereditary Genius: An Inquiry into its Laws and
Consequences. London: Macrnillan.

Gardiner, lM. & Richardson-Klavehn, A (2000). Remembering and knowing.

In Tulving, E. &Craik, F.I.M. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Memory (pp.
229-244). New York: Oxford University Press.

Gardner, RW. & Schoen, RA (1962). Differentiation of abstraction in concept

formation. Psychological. Monographs, 76, No. 41 (While No. 560).

Gazzaniga, M.S. (1995). The Cognitive Neurosciences. Cambridge, MA:

The MIT Press.

Getzels, J. W., & Jackson, P. W. (1962). Creativity and intelligence:

Explorations with gifted students. New York: Wiley.

Gioia, G A, Espy, K A, &Isquith, P. K (2003). Behavior Rating Inventory

of Executive Function-Pre-School version. Lutz, FL: Psychological
Assessment Resources, Inc.

Gioia, G A, Isquith, P. K, Guy,' S. c., &Kenworthy, L. (2000). Behavior

Rating Inventory of Executive Function. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment
Resources, Inc.

Goldstein, K &Scheerer, M. (1941). Abstract and concrete behavior: An

experimental study with special tests. Psychological Monographs, 53, (2, Whole
No. 239).

Gorham, D.R (1956). A Proverbs Test for clinical and experimental use.
76 Psychological Reports, 2, 1-12.
Gough, H.G (1979). A creative Personality Scale for the Adjective Check Utility of Data from the
Test of Cognitive
List. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(8), 1398-1405. Functions

Graf, P. &Schacter, D.L. (1985). Implicit and explicit memory for new
associations in normal subjects and amnesic patients. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 11, 501-518.

Grant, D.A., & Berg, E.A. (1948). A behavioral analysis of the degree of
reinforcement and ease of shifting to new responses in a Weigl-type card
sorting problem. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38, 404-411.

Guilford, J.P. (1967). The Nature of Human Intelligence. New York: McGraw-
Hill.

Guy, S. e., Isquith, P. K., &Gioia, G A. (2005). Behavior Rating Inventory

of Executive, Function®-Self-Report Version. Lutz, FL: Psychological
Assessment Resources, Inc.

Halstead, W.e. (1947). Brain and intelligence. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press, 1947.

Hammill, D. D. (1998). Detroit Tests of Learning Aptitude, Fourth Edition.

Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Hammill, D. D., Pearson, N., &Wiederholt, 1. L. '(1997). Comprehensive Test

of Nonverbal Intelligence. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Hanfmann, E., &Kasanin, 1. (1937). A method for the study of concept

formation. Journal of Psychology, 3, 521-540.

Heaton, RK., Chelune, C.J., Talley, J.L., Kay, GG, & Curtiss, G (1993).
Wisconsin Card Sorting Test manual, revised and expanded. Odessa, FL:
PsychologicalAssessment Resources.

Hermstein, R J., & Murray, e. (1994). The bell curve: Intelligence and
class structure in American life. New York: Free Press.

Horn, J.L. (1989). Cognitive diversity: a framework of learning. In Ackerman,

P.L., Sternberg, R.J. & Glaser, R (Eds.), Learning and Individual Differences
(pp. 61-116). New York: Freeman.

Hunter, J. E. (1986). Cognitive ability, cognitive aptitudes, job knowledge,

and job performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 29, 340-362.

Kaplan, E., Fein, D., Kramer, 1., Delis, D., & Morris, R (2004). Wechsler
Intelligence Scale for Children, 4th Edition Integrated. San Antonio, TX:
Psychological Corporation. \

Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (2004). Kaufman Assessment Battery for

Children, Second Edition. Circle Pines, MN: Pearson (AGS).

Kaufman, A.S. & Kaufman, N.L. (1993). Manual for Kaufman Adolescent &
Adult Intelligence Test (KAIT). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service,
Inc.

Korkman, M., Kirk, u., & Kemp, S. (2007). NEPSY, Second Edition. San
Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
77

I
Tests of Cognitive Kosslyn, S.M. & Koenig, O. (1992). Wet Mind. The New Cognitive Neuroscience.
Functions New York: The Free Press.

Lezak, M.D. (1995). Neuropsychological assessment (3rd ed.). New York:

Oxford University Press.

Ludwig, A.M. (1992). The Creative Achievement Scale. Creativity Research

Journal, 5(2), 109-124.

McCue, M. (1995). Ecologically valid assessment of problem: The American

Multiple Errands Test (Abstract). Journal of the International
Neuropsychological Society, 1, 149.

Mednick, S.A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process.

Psychological Review, 69(3), 220-232.

Minshew, NJ., Siegel, DJ., Goldstein, G., &Weldy, S. (1994). Verbal problem
solving in high functioning autistic individuals. Archives of Clinical
Neuropsychology, 9, 31-40.

Naglieri, J. A, & Das, J. P. (1997). Das Naglieri Cognitive Assessment

System. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.

Neisser, u., Hoodoo, G., Bouchard, T. J., Jr., Boykin, A W., Brody, N., Ceci,
S. J., et al. (1996). Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. American
Psychologist, 51, 77-101

Nyberg, L. &Tulving, E. (1996). Classifying human long-term memory:

evidence from converging dissociations. The European Journal of Cognitive
Psychology, 8, 163-183.

Olson, J.L., Goldstein, G., Neuringer, C. & Shelly, C.H. (1969). Relation
between equivalence range and concept formation ability in brain-damaged
patients. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 28, 743-749.

Perrine, K. (1993). Differential aspects of conceptual processing in the

Category Test and Wisconsin Card Sorting Test. Journal of Clinical and
Experimental Psychology, 15, 461-473.

RR & Reynolds, C.R (Eds.), Handbook of Creativity (pp. 53-75). New

York: Plenum Press.

Raven, LC. (1982). Revised manual for Raven's Progressive Matrices and
Vocabulary Scale. Windsor, U.K.: NFER Nelson.

Reynolds, C. R, Chastain, R L., Kaufman, AS., & McLean, J. E. (1987).

Demographic characteristics and IQ among adults: Analysis of the WAIS-R
standardization sample as a function of the stratification variables. Journal of
School Psychology, 25, 323-324

Richards, R, Kinney, D.K., Lunde, I., Benet, M. &Merze1, AP.C. (1988).

Assessing everyday creativity: characteristics of the Lifetime Creativity Scales and
validation with three large samples. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 54(3), 476-485.

Richardson-Klavehn, A & Bjork, RA (1988). Measures of memory. Annual

Review of Psychology, 39,475-543.
78
Roid, G. H. (2003). Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition. Itasca, Utility of Data from the
IL: Riverside Publishing. Test of Cognitive
Functions
Roid, G. H., & Miller, L. J. (1998). Leiter International Performance Scale-
Revised. Wood Dale, IL: Stoelting Company.

Ruiz-Vargas, J.M. (1993). Disociaciones entre pruebasimplycitas y explycitas

de memoria: significado e implicacionesteo ricas [Dissociations between implicit
and explicit memory tests: theoretical significance and implications]. Estudios de
Psicologya, 49, 71-106.

Schacter, D.L. & Tulving, E.(1994a). Memory Systems 1994. Cambridge, MA:
The MIT Press.

Schacter, D.L. & Tulving, E. (1994b). What are the memory systems of 1994?
In Schacter, D.L. &Tulving, E. (Eds.), Memory Systems 1994 (pp. 1-38).
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Schacter, D.L. (1987). Implicit memory: history and current status. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 13,501-518.

Schacter, D.L., Wagner, A.D. & Buckner, R.L. (2000). Memory systems of
1999. In Tulving, E. &Craik, F.LM. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Memory
(pp. 627-643). New York: Oxford University Press.

Schaefer, CE. &Anastasi, A. (1968). A biographical inventory for identifying

creativity in adolescent boys. Journal of Applied Psychology, 58, 42-48.

Schaefer, C.E. (1970). Biographical Inventory -Creativity. San Diego, CA:

Educational and Industrial Testing Service.

Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection
methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85
years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262-274.

Schmidt, F. L., Ones, D. S., & Hunter, J. E. (1992). Persennel selection.

Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 627-670.

Shallice, T. (1982). Specific impairments of planning. Philosophical

Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 298, 199-209.

Sheslow, D., & Adams, W. (2004). Wide Range Assessment of Memory and
Learning, Second Edition. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources,
Inc.

Squire, L.R. & Knowlton, B.J. (2000). The medial temporal lobe, the
hippocampus, and the memory systems of the brain. In Gazzaniga, M.S.
(Ed.), The New Cognitive Neurosciences (2nd ed., pp. 765-779). Cambridge,
MA: The MIT Press.

Squire, L.R. (1992). Memory and the hippocampus: a synthesis from findings
with rats, monkeys and humans. Psychological Review, 99, 195-231.

Sternberg, R J. (1981b). Toward a unified componential theory of human

intelligence, L Fluid abilities. In M. Friedman, 1. Das, & N. O'Connor (Eds.),
Intelligence and learning. New York: Plenum.
' ...•. "
79
Tests of Cognitive Sternberg, R. J. (1977). Intelligence, information processing, and analogical
Functions reasoning: The componential analysis of human abilities. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.

Terman, L.M. (1916). The Measurement of Intelligence. Boston, MA:

Houghton- Mifflin.

Torrance, E. P. (1962). Guiding creative talent. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice- Hall.

Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking-Directions

manual and scoring guide. Verbal test booklet A. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic
Testing Service.

Torrance, E. P., & Ball, O. E. (1984). Torrance Tests of Creative

Thinking:Streamlined administration and scoring manual (Rev. ed.).
Bensonville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.

Torrance, E.P. (1966). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Princeton, NJ:

Personnel Press.

Toth, J.P. (2000). Nonconscious forms of human memory. In Tulving, E.

&Craik, ELM. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Memory (pp. 245-261).
New York: Oxford University Press.

Tulving, E. &Schacter, D.L. (1992). Priming and memory systems. In Smith,

B. ~ Adelman, G. (Eds.), Neuroscience Year. Supplement 2 to the
Encyclopedia of Neuroscience (pp. 130-133). Boston: Birkhauser.

Tulving, E. (1984). Multiple learning and memory systems. In Lagerspetz,

K.M.J. &Niemi, P. (Eds.), Psychology in the 1990's (pp. 163-184).
Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Tulving, E. (1985a). How many memory systems are there? American

Psychologist, 40, 385-398.

Tulving, E. (1985b). Memory and consciousness. Canadian Psychology, 26,

1-26.

Tulving, E. (2000). Introduction (Section VI: Memory). In Gazzaniga, M.S.

(Ed.), The New Cognitive Neurosciences (2nd ed., pp. 727-732). Cambridge,
MA: The MIT Press.

Vernon, P. E. (1965). Ability factors and environmental influences. American

Psychologist, 20, 723-733.

Wagner, R., Torgesen, 1., & Rashotte, C. (1999). Comprehensive Test of

Phonological Processes. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed, Inc.

Wallach, M. A., &Kogan, N. (1965). Modes of thinking in young children:

A study of the creativity- intelligence distinction. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston.

Wang, P.L. (1983). Modified Vygotsky Concept Formation Test: Instruction

manual. Wood Dale, IL: Stoelting.

Wechsler, D. (1974). Manualfor the Wechsler Intelligence Scalefor Children-

80
 Utility of Data from the
Revised (WISC-R). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation. Test of Cognitive
Functions
Wechsler, D. (1981). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised. San Antonio,
TX: Psychological Corporation.
Wechsler, D. (1997). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (3rd ed.). San Antonio,
TX: Psychological Corporation.
Wechsler, D. (1999). Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence. San Antonio,
TX: Psychological Corporation.
Wechsler, D. (2002). Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scales of Intelligence,
3rd Edition (WPPSI-III). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.

Wechsler, D, (2003). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fourth Edition

(WISC-N). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.

Wechsler, D., &Naglieri, J. A. (2006). Wechsler Nonverbal Scales of

Intelligence (WNV). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.

Weigl, E. (1927). Zurpsychologiesogenannterabstraktionsprozess.

5 ZeitschriftJu "rpsychologie, 103, 1-45.
Weiskrantz, L. (1990). Problems of learning and memory: one or multiple
memory systems? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London
(B), 329, 99-'-108.
Willingham, D.B. (1997). Systems of memory in the human brain. Neuron,
18, 5-8.
Wilson, B.A., Alderman, N., Burgess, P.W., Emslie, H., & Evans, J.1. (1996).
Behavioural assessment of dysexecutive syndrome. Bury St. Edmunds, England
(1996).
Woodcock, R W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2005). Woodcock-lohnson
Tests of Cognitive Abilities, Third EditionINormative Update. Itasca, IL:
Riverside Publishing.
Woodcock, RW & Johnson, M.B. (1977). Woodcock-lohnson Psycho-
Educational Battery. Allen, TX: DLMffeaching Resources.

Woodcock, RW., McGrew, K.S. & Mather, N. (2000). Woodcock-lohnson

Psycho-Educational Battery - Third Edition (Wl Ill). Chicago, IL: Riverside.

tu
u

81
NOTES