This paper is a review of new and newly revised nonverbal tests of ability. Five nonverbal instruments were compared with regard to psychometric integrity and indications of test fairness. This comparison revealed that although the instruments examined are generally impressive in terms of technical adequacy and sensitivity of administration guidelines, they tend to present less statistical evidence of test fairness. Findings are discussed with regard to implications for users of nonverbal assessment instruments.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anastasi, A. (1988). Psychological testing (6th ed.). New York: Macmillan.
2.
Bracken, B. A. (1987). Limitations of preschool instruments and standards for minimal levels of technical adequacy. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 4, 313-326.
3.
Bracken, B. A. , Keith, L. K., & Walker, K. C. (1994). Assessment of preschool behavior and social-emotional functioning: A review of thirteen third-party instruments. Assessment in Rehabilitation and Exceptionality, 1, 331-346.
4.
Bracken, B. A. , & McCallum, R. S. (1998). Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
5.
Brown, L. , Sherbenou, R. J., & Johnsen, S. K. (1997). Test of Nonverbal Intelligence: Third Edition. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
6.
Camilli, G. , & Shepard, L. (1994). Methods for identifying biased test items. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
7.
Campbell, D. T. , & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.
8.
Cattell, R. B. (1963). Theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 54, 1-22.
9.
Flanagan, D. P. , & Alfonso, V. C. (1995). A critical review of the technical characteristics of new and recently revised intelligence tests for preschool children. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 13, 66-90.
10.
Hammill, D. D. , Pearson, N. A., & Wiederholt, J. L. (1997). Comprehensive Test of Nonverbal Intelligence. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
11.
Harris, A. M. , Reynolds, M. A., & Koegel, H. M. (1996). Nonverbal assessment: Multicultural perspectives. In Suzuki, L. A., Meller, P. J., & Ponterotto, J. G. (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural assessment: Clinical, psychological, and educational applications (pp. 223-252). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
12.
Jensen, A. R. (1980). Bias in mental testing. New York: The Free Press.
13.
McGrew, K. S. , & Flanagan, D. P. (1998). The intelligence test desk reference (ITDR): Gf-Gc cross-battery assessment. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
14.
Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13-103). New York: American Council on Education and Macmillan.
15.
Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from a person's responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50, 741-749.
16.
Naglieri, J. A. , & Bardos, A. N. (1997). General Ability Measure for Adults. Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems.
17.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
18.
Padilla, A. M. , & Medina, A. (1996). Using tests in culturally appropriate ways. In Suzuki, L. A., Meller, P.J., & Ponterotto, J. G. (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural assessment: Clinical, psychological, and educational applications (pp. 1-28). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
19.
Reynolds, C. R. , & Kaiser, S. M. (1990). Test bias in psychological assessment. In C. R. Reynolds and T. B. Gutkin (Eds.), Handbook of school psychology (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
20.
Roid, G. H. , & Miller, L. J. (1997). Leiter International Performance Scale-Revised. Wood Dale, IL: Stoelting.
21.
Salvia, J. , & Ysseldyke, J. E. (1981). Assessment in special and remedial education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
22.
Woodcock, R. W. , & Johnson, M. B. (1989/1990). Woodcock-Johnson Psychoeducational Battery-Revised. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
