Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-dvmhs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-27T21:49:24.194Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An investigation of the use of standardised leaving certificate performance as a method of estimating pre-morbid intelligence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 February 2020

E. Costello ,
T. Burke ,
K. Lonergan ,
T. Burke ,
N. Pender  and
M. Mulrooney
E. Costello*
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, Dublin City University, Dublin 9, Ireland Department of Psychology, Beaumont Hospital, Dublin 9, Ireland
T. Burke
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, Dublin City University, Dublin 9, Ireland
K. Lonergan
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Beaumont Hospital, Dublin 9, Ireland
T. Burke
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Beaumont Hospital, Dublin 9, Ireland Academic Unit of Neurology, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
N. Pender
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Beaumont Hospital, Dublin 9, Ireland Academic Unit of Neurology, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
M. Mulrooney
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Beaumont Hospital, Dublin 9, Ireland
*
*Address for correspondence: E Costello, Department of Psychology, Beaumont Hospital, PO Box 1297, Dublin, Ireland. (Email: emmet.costello23@mail.dcu.ie)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background:

In cases of brain pathology, current levels of cognition can only be interpreted reliably relative to accurate estimations of pre-morbid functioning. Estimating levels of pre-morbid intelligence is, therefore, a crucial part of neuropsychological evaluation. However, current methods of estimation have proven problematic.

Objective:

To evaluate if standardised leaving certificate (LC) performance can predict intellectual functioning in a healthy cohort. The LC is the senior school examination in the Republic of Ireland, taken by almost 50 000 students annually, with total performance distilled into Central Applications Office points.

Methods:

A convenience sample of university students was recruited (n = 51), to provide their LC results and basic demographic information. Participants completed two cognitive tasks assessing current functioning (Vocabulary and Matrix Reasoning (MR) subtests – Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence, Second Edition) and a test of pre-morbid intelligence (Spot-the-Word test from the Speed and Capacity of Language Processing). Separately, LC results were standardised relative to the population of test-takers, using a computer application designed specifically for this project.

Results:

Hierarchical regression analysis revealed that standardised LC performance [F(2,48) = 3.90, p = 0.03] and Spot-the-Word [F(2,47) = 5.88, p = 0.005] significantly predicted current intellect. Crawford & Allen’s demographic-based regression formula did not. Furthermore, after controlling for gender, English [F(1,49) = 11.27, p = 0.002] and Irish [F(1,46) = 4.06, p = 0.049) results significantly predicted Vocabulary performance, while Mathematics results significantly predicted MR [F(1,49) = 8.80, p = 0.005].

Conclusions:

These results suggest that standardised LC performance may represent a useful resource for clinicians when estimating pre-morbid intelligence.

Keywords

Neuropsychologyeducational achievementscholastic attainmentpre-morbid intelligence
Type
Original Research
Information
Irish Journal of Psychological Medicine , Volume 40 , Issue 2 , June 2023 , pp. 166 - 174
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The College of Psychiatrists of Ireland

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

Axelrod, BN, Vanderploeg, RD, Schinka, JA (1999). Comparing methods for estimating premorbid intellectual functioning. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 14, 341–346.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baade, LE, Schoenberg, MR (2004). A proposed method to estimate premorbid intelligence utilizing group achievement measures from school records. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 19, 227–243.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baddeley, AD, Emslie, H, Nimmo-Smith, I (1992). The Speed and Capacity of Language-Processing Test. Thames Valley Test Company: London, UK.Google Scholar
Binder, LM, Iverson, GL, Brooks, BL (2009). To err is human: “Abnormal” neuropsychological scores and variability are common in healthy adults. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 24, 31–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boston, G (1980). Classification of occupations. Population Trends 20, 9–11.Google Scholar
Bright, P, van der Linde, I, (2018). Comparison of methods for estimating premorbid intelligence. Neuropsycholical Rehabilitation 2018, 1–14.Google Scholar
Crawford, JR, Allan, KM (1997). Estimating premorbid WAIS-R IQ with demographic variables: regression equations derived from a UK sample. The Clinical Neuropsychologist 11, 192–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farooq, MS, Chaudhry, AH, Shafiq, M, Berhanu, G (2011). Factors affecting students’ quality of academic performance: a case of secondary school level. Journal of Quality and Technology Management 7, 1–14.Google Scholar
Follman, J (1984). Cornucopia of correlations. American Psychologist 39, 701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franzen, MD, Burgess, EJ, Smith-Seemiller, L (1997). Methods of estimating premorbid functioning. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 12, 711–738.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Griffin, SL, Mindt, MR, Rankin, EJ, Ritchie, AJ, Scott, JG (2002). Estimating premorbid intelligence: comparison of traditional and contemporary methods across the intelligence continuum. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 17, 497–507.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heaven, PCL, Ciarrochi, J (2012) When IQ is not everything: Intelligence, personality and academic performance at school. Personality and Individual Differences 53, 518–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnstone, B, Wilhelm, KL (1996). The longitudinal stability of the WRAT-R reading subtest: is it an appropriate estimate of premorbid intelligence? Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society 2, 282–285.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaufman, AS, Lichtenberger, EO (1990). Assessing adult and adolescent intelligence. Allyn 8c Bacon: Boston.Google Scholar
Klesges, RC, Troster, AI (1987). A review of premorbid indices of intellectual and neuropsychological functioning: what have we learned in the past five years? International Journal of Clinical Neuropsychology 9, 1–11.Google Scholar
Krull, KR, Scott, JG, Sherer, M (1995). Estimation of premorbid intelligence from combined performance and demographic variables. The Clinical Neuropsychologist 9, 83–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lezak, M (1983). Neuropsychological Assessment, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press: New York.Google Scholar
Mortensen, EL, Gade, A, Reinisch, JM (1991). A critical note on Lezak’s ‘best performance method’ in clinical neuropsychology. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology 13, 361–371.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nelson, HE (1982). National Adult Reading Test (NART): For the Assessment of Premorbid Intelligence in Patients with Dementia: Test Manual. NFER-Nelson: Windsor.Google Scholar
Nelson, HE, Willison, J (1991). National Adult Reading Test (NART). NFER-Nelson: Windsor.Google Scholar
O’Connor, MC, Paunonen, SV (2007). Big five personality predictors of post-secondary academic performance. Personality and Individual Differences 43, 971–990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, KE, Graham, N, Hodges, JR (1994). Reading in dementia of the Alzheimer type: a preserved ability? Neuropsychology 8, 395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reynolds, CR (1997). Postscripts on premorbid ability estimation: conceptual addenda and a few words on alternative and conditional approaches. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 12, 769–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, EW (1972). WAIS factor analysis with brain-damaged subjects using criterion measures. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 39, 133.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schinka, JA, Vanderploeg, RD (2000). Estimating premorbid level of functioning. In Clinician’s Guide to Neuropsychological Assessment (ed. Vanderploeg, RD), pp. 39–67. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers: Mahwah, NJ.Google Scholar
Shepard, L (1980). An evaluation of the regression discrepancy method for identifying children with learning disabilities. The Journal of Special Education 14, 79–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
State Examinations Commission (2015). State examinations statistics (https://www.examinations.ie/?l=en&mc=st&sc=r15). Accessed 10 October 2016.Google Scholar
Teng, E, Manly, J (2005). Neuropsychological testing: helpful or harmful? Alzheimer Disease & Associated Disorders 19, 267–271.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turner, EA, Chandler, MM, Heffer, RW (2009). The influence of parenting styles, achievement motivation, and self-efficacy on academic performance in college students. Journal of College Student Development 50, 337–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wechsler, D (1958). Mental deterioration and its appraisal. In The Measurement and Appraisal of Adult Intelligence (ed. Matarazzo, J, 4th edn), pp. 199–213. Williams & Wilkins Co: Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar
Wechsler, D (1991). The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children: Manual, 3rd edn. The Psychological Corporation: San Antonio, TX.Google Scholar
Wechsler, D (1997). WAIS-III: Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, 3rd edn. The Psychological Corporation: San Antonio, TX.Google Scholar
Wechsler, D (2008). WAIS-IV: Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, 4th edn. NCS Pearson: San Antonio, TX.Google Scholar
Wechsler, D (2011). WASI-II: Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence. Pearson: Bloomington, MN.Google Scholar
Wikoff, RL (1979). The WISC-R as a predictor of achievement. Psychology in the Schools 16, 364–366.3.0.CO;2-U>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, D, McCarty, CT (2012). New Non-reading Intelligence Tests 1-3 (NNRIT 1-3) Manual: Oral Verbal Group Tests of General Ability. Hodder Education: London, UK.Google Scholar