Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vsgnj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-21T00:24:21.598Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

15 - Intelligent Testing of Underserved Populations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2012

By
R. Steve McCallum  and
Bruce A. Bracken
Edited by
James C. Kaufman
R. Steve McCallum
Affiliation:
University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Bruce A. Bracken
Affiliation:
The College of William and Mary
James C. Kaufman
Affiliation:
California State University, San Bernardino
Get access

Summary

INTELLIGENT TESTING OF UNDERSERVED POPULATIONS

The imperative for nonverbal assessment in the United States is obvious and growing. According to U.S. Census data reported in 2000, more than 31 million people 5 years and older spoke a language other than English in the home and almost 2,000,000 had no English-speaking ability (U.S. Bureau of the Census). By 2005 the number of individuals who speak a language other than English in their homes had increased to nearly 60 million (approximately 20 percent of the U.S. population). In the United States, 12 individual states report that 20 percent or more of their respective populations speak a language other than English. California was the state that reported the largest percentage of non-English speakers (42.3 percent); Puerto Rico was the American territory reporting the largest incidence of non-English speakers (95.4 percent) (http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html).

Minority children and children from non-White racial or ethnic backgrounds comprise an increasingly larger percentage of public school children, particularly in many large metropolitan areas. For example, minority students comprise an overwhelming percentage of the school population in Miami (approximately 84 percent), Chicago (89 percent), and Houston (88 percent) (Bracken & McCallum, in press) Many of these minority children speak languages other than English, with the Limited English Proficient (LEP) population representing the fastest growing segment of the population in the United States.

Type
Chapter
Information
Intelligent Testing
Integrating Psychological Theory and Clinical Practice
 , pp. 193 - 219
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abrahams, R.D. (1973). The advantages of Black English. In Stephano, J.S. (Ed.) Language, Society, and Education: A profile of Black English. Worthington, OH: Charles A. Jones.Google Scholar
Athanasiou, M.S. (2000). Current nonverbal assessment instruments: A comparison of psychometric integrity and test fairness. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 18, 211–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bandalos, D.L. (2001). Review of the Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test, in Plake, B.S. & Impara, J.C. (Eds.). Fourteenth Mental Measurments Yearbook (pp. 1296–1298). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute.Google Scholar
Bracken, B.A. (1984). Bracken Basic Concept Scale. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Bracken, B.A. (1985). Critical review of the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (K-ABC). School Psychology Review, 14, 21–36.Google Scholar
Bracken, B.A. (1987). Limitations of preschool instruments and standards for minimal levels of technical adequacy. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 5, 313–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bracken, B.A. (1992). Multidimensional Self Concept Scale. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.Google Scholar
Bracken, B.A. (1992). The interpretation of psychological tests. In Most, R. and Zeidner, M. (Eds.), Psychological Testing: An Inside View (pp. 119–158). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
Bracken, B.A. (1998). Bracken Basic Concept Scale – Revised. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Bracken, B.A. (2006a). Bracken Basic Concept Scale – Receptive Third Edition. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment.Google Scholar
Bracken, B.A. (2006b). Bracken Basic Concept Scale: Expressive. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment.Google Scholar
Bracken, B.A. (2006c). Clinical Assessment of Interpersonal Relations. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
Bracken, B.A., & Barona, A. (1991). State-of-the-art Procedures for Translating, Validating, and Using Psychoeducational Tests for Cross-Cultural Assessment. School Psychology International, 12, 119–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bracken, B.A., & Boatwright, B.S. (2005a). Clinical Assessment of Attention Deficit – Child. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
Bracken, B.A., & Boatwright, B.S. (2005b). Clinical Assessment of Attention Deficit – Adult. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
Bracken, B.A., & Fouad, N.A. (1987). Spanish translation and validation of the Bracken Basic Concept Scale. School Psychology Review, 15, 94–102.Google Scholar
Bracken, B.A., & Howell, K.K. (2004). Clinical Assessment of Depression. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
Bracken, B.A., & Lamprecht, S. (2002). Ipsative subtest stability of the Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test. Paper presented at the International Congress of Applied Psychology (Division 2), Singapore, July 2002.
Bracken, B.A., & McCallum, R.S. (1998). The Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test. Chicago, IL: Riverside Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Bracken, B.A., & McCallum, R.S. (2001). UNIT Compuscore. Chicago, IL: Riverside Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Bracken, B.A., & McCallum, R.S. (2007). UNIT Group Ability Test. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing, Test in Progress.Google Scholar
Bracken, B.A., Barona, A., Bauermeister, J.J., Howell, K.K., Poggioli, L., & Puente, A. (1990). Multinational validation of the Bracken Basic Concept Scale. Journal of School Psychology, 28, 325–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bracken, B.A., Howell, K.K., Harrison, T.E., Stanford, L.D., & Zahn, B.H. (1991). Ipsative subtest pattern stability of the Bracken Basic Concept Scale and the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children in a preschool sample. School Psychology Review, 20, 309–324.Google Scholar
Bracken, B.A., Keith, L.K. (2004). Clinical Assessment of Behavior. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
Brown, L., Sherbenou, R.J., & Johnson, S.K. (1990). Test of Nonverbal Intelligence-2. Austin, TX:Pro-Ed.Google Scholar
Carroll, J.B. (1993). Human Cognitive Abilities: A Survey of Factor-Analytic Studies. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, C. (1977). Prospectus on black communications. School Psychology Digest, 6, 23–30.Google Scholar
Cattell, R.B. (1963). Theory for fluid and crystallized intelligence: A critical experiment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 54, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
,CTBS/McGraw-Hill (1996). Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills. Monterrey, CA: CTB/McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Farrell, M.M., & Phelps, L. (2000). A comparison of the Leiter-R and the Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test (UNIT) with children classified as language impaired. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 18, 268–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fives, C.J., & Flanagan, R. (2002). A review of the Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test (UNIT): An advance for evaluating youngsters with diverse needs. School Psychology International, 23, 425–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fouad, N.A., & Bracken, B.A. (1986). Cross-cultural translation and validation of two psychoeducational assessment instruments. School Psychology International, 7, 167–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forester, S. (2000). Personal communication.
Gilliam, J.E., Carpenter, B.O., & Christensen, J.R. (1996). Gifted and Talented Evaluation Scales: A Norm Referenced Procedure for Identifying Gifted and Talented Students. Austin, TX: PRO:ED.Google Scholar
Glutting, J., Adams, W., & Sheslow, D. (2002). WRIT: Wide Range Intelligence Test Manual. Wilmington, DE: Wide Range, Inc.Google Scholar
Glutting, J., McDermott, P.A., & Konold, T.R. (1997). Ontology, structure, and diagnosis benefits of a normative subtest taxonomy from the WISC-III standardization sample. In Flanagan, D.P., Genshaft, J.L., & Harrison, P.L. (Eds.), Contemporary Intellectual Assessment (pp. 349–372). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Harrison, P.L., & Oakland, T. (2000). Adaptive Behavior Assessment System. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Hooper, V.S. (2002). Concurrent and predictive validity of the Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test and the Leiter International Performance Scale-Revised. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN.Google Scholar
Hooper, V.S., & Bell, S.M. (2006). Concurrent validity of the Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test and the Leiter International Performance Scale-Revised. Psychology in the Schools, 43(2), 143–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, J.L. (1968). Organization of abilities and the development of intelligence. Psychological Review, 75, 242–259.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Horn, J.L. (1994a). Theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence. In Sternberg, R.J. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human intelligence (pp. 443–451). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
,Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Pub. L. No. 101-476, 1400 et seq., 104 Stat. 1142 (1991).
,Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments (IDEA) of 2004, 20 U.S.C.
Jensen, A.R. (1980). Bias in Mental Testing. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Jensen, A.R., & Reynolds, C.R. (1982). Race, social class and ability patterns on the WISC-R. Personality and Individual Differences, 3, 423–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jimenez, S. (2001). An analysis of the reliability and validity of the Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test (UNIT) with Puerto Rican children (Doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University, 2001). Dissertation Abstracts International, 62, 5424.Google Scholar
Kamphaus, R.W. (2001). Clinical Assessment of Child and Adolescent Intelligence (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Kaufman, A.S. (1979). Intelligent Testing with the WISC-R. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Kaufman, A.S. (1994). Intelligent Testing with the WISC-III. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Kaufman, A.S., & Kaufman, N.L. (1973). Black–white differences at age 2 ½–8 ½ on the McCarthy Scales of Children's Abilities. Journal of School Psychology, 11(3), 196–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufman, A.S., & Kaufman, N.L. (1983). Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (K-ABC). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
Kaufman, A.S., & Kaufman, N.L. (2004). Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children-II (K-ABC-II). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
Kirk, S.A., McCarthy, J.J., & Kirk, W.D. (1968). Examiner's Manual: Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities. Urbana, IL: Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Krivitski, E.C. (2000). Profile analysis of deaf children using the Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test (Doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Albany, 2000). Dissertation Abstracts International, 61, 2593.Google Scholar
Leiter, R.G. (1979). Intruction manual for the Leiter International Performance Scale. Wood Dale, IL: Stoelting.Google Scholar
Maller, S.J. (2000). Item invariance in four subtests of the Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test (UNIT) across groups of deaf and hearing children. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 18, 240–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markwardt, F.C. (1989). Peabody Individual Achievement Test – Revised: Manual. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
McCallum, R.S. (1991). Using the Stanford-Binet: FE to assess preschool children. In Bracken, B.A. (Ed.), The Psychoeducational Assessment of Preschool Children (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn Bacon.Google Scholar
McCallum, R.S. (1999). A ‘baker's dozen criteria for evaluating fairness in nonverbal testing. The School Psychologist, 53, 40–43.Google Scholar
McCallum, R.S. (Ed.). (2003). Handbook of Nonverbal Assessment. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press.CrossRef
McCallum, R.S., & Bracken, B.A. (In press). UNIT Gifted Screening Scales. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.
McCallum, R.S., Bracken, B.A., & Wasserman, J. (2001). Essentials of Nonverbal Assessment. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
McCarthy, D. (1972). McCarthy Scales of Children's Abilities. New York: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
McGrew, K.S., & Flanagan, D.P. (1998). The Intelligence Test Desk Reference (ITDR): Gf-Gc Cross-Battery Assessment. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Naglieri, J.A. (1985). Matrix Analogies Test Expanded Form: Examiner's Manual. San Antonio, Tx: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Naglieri, J.A, & Jensen, A.R. (1987). Comparison of black-white differences on the WISC-R and the K-ABC: Spearmen's hypothesis. Intelligence, 11, 21–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naglieri, J.A., (1997). Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test ¾ Multilevel Form Technical Manual. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Brace Educational Measurement.Google Scholar
Naglieri, J.A., McNeish, T.J., & Bardos, A.N. (1991). Draw A Person: Screening Procedure for Emotional Disturbance. Austin, TX: Proed.Google Scholar
Naglieri, J.A., LeBuffe, P.A., Pfeiffer, S.I. (1994). Devereux Scales of Mental Disorders. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Naglieri, J.A., & Bardos, A.N. (1997). General Ability Measure for Adults. Minneapolis, MN: NCS Assessments.Google Scholar
Naglieri, J.A., & Das, J.P. (1997). Cognitive Assessment System. Itasca, IL: Riverside.Google Scholar
Naglieri, J., & Ronning, M.E. (2000a). The relationship between general ability using the NNAT and SAT reading achievement. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 18, 230–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naglieri, J., & Ronning, M.E. (2000b). Comparison of White, African-American, Hispanic, and Asian Children on the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test. Psychological Assessment, 12, 328–334.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pasko, J.R. (1994). Chicago – don't miss it. Communique, 23, 2.Google Scholar
Raven, J.C. (1960). Guide to Standard Progressive Matrices. London, England: Lewis.Google Scholar
Reed, M.T., & McCallum, R.S. (1994). Construct validity of the Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test (UNIT). Manuscript submitted for publication.
Reynolds, C.R., & Kamphaus, R.W. (1994). Behavior Assessment System for Children. Second Edition. Circle Pines, MN: AGS Publishing.Google Scholar
Reynolds, C.R., & Kamphaus, R.W. (2005). Reynolds Intellectual Assessment System. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
Roid, G.H., & Miller, L.J. (1997). Leiter International Performance Scale – Revised. Wooddale, IL: Stoelting.Google Scholar
Roid, G.H. (2003). Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.Google Scholar
Sattler, J.M. (2001). Assessment of Children: Cognitive Applications. (4th ed.). San Diego, CA: Jerome M. Sattler.Google Scholar
Scardapane, J.R., Egan, A., Torres-Gallegos, M., Levine, N., & Owens, S. (2002, March). Relationships among WRIT, UNIT, and GATES scores and language proficiency. Paper presented at the Counsel for Exceptional Children, New York, NY.
Silver, L.B. (1993). Introduction and overview to the clinical concepts of learning disabilities. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America: Learning Disabilities, 2, 181–192.Google Scholar
,The Psychological Corporation (1992). Wechsler Individual Achievement Test: Manual. San Antonio, TX: Author.Google Scholar
Thorndike, R.L., Hagen, E.P., & Sattler, J.M. (1986). The Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale: Fourth Edition. Chicago: Riverside Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Torrance, E.P. (1982). Identifying and capitalizing on the strengths of culturally different children. In Reynolds, C.R. & Gutkin, T.B. (Eds.), The Handbook of School Psychology (pp. 481–500). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Unz, R. (1997, October 19). Bilingual is a damaging myth. Los Angeles Times.Google Scholar
,U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2000). Language use [Online]. Available: http://www.census.gov/population.www.socdemo/lang_use.html
Upson, L.M. (2003). Effects of an increasingly precise socioeconomic match on mean score differences in nonverbal intelligence test scores. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN.
Wechsler, D. (1939). The Measurement of Adult Intelligence. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wechsler, D. (1991). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children – III. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Wechsler, D. (1974). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children – Revised. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Wilhoit, B.E., & McCallum, R.S. (2002). Profile analysis of the Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test standardized sample. School Psychology Review, 31, 263–281.Google Scholar
Wilhoit, B., & McCallum, R.S. (2003). Cross-battery analysis of the UNIT. In McCallum, R.S. (Ed.), Handbook of Nonverbal Assessment. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Woodcock, R.W. (1990). Theoretical foundations of the WJ-R measures of cognitive ability. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 8, 231–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodcock, R.W. (1991). Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery-Revised: English and Spanish forms. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 8, 231–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodcock, R.W., McGrew, K.S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Abilities. Itasca, IL; Riverside Publishing.Google Scholar
Woodcock, R.W., & Munoz-Sandoval, A.F. (1996). Bateria Woodcock-Munoz Pruebas de habilidad cognoscitiva – Revisada. Chicago, IL: Riverside.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×