Need info on an intelligence test I am not familiar with

Discussion in 'Special Ed 101' started by mistmouse, Jan 22, 2007.

  1. mistmouse

    mistmouse New Member

    I just met with the diagnostician to go over the re-evaluation report so I can try to understand it before the IEP meeting. There was resistance to doing a re-evaluation even though my daughter hadn't had a full evaluation since her initial evaluation in kindergarten. We were working with data from when she was six, and she is twelve now. We used that argument, and the re-evaluation was done. However, the test used for intelligence testing is one called Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales. Her initial evaluation used the WISC either III or IV I can't remember. How do I relate the scores of the RIAS to the WISC so that I can understand subscore scatter.

    I need to know what to make of some of this, as I want to make sure we aren't overlooking anything that is going to be a problem in the future. I have a child who is extremely verbal and has been since a young age...speaking in complete sentences at an early age. She still is very strong verbally, yet she tests with a big discrepancy in verbal and nonverbal. We are talking 25 points difference in her verbal and nonverbal intelligence scores. Her verbal scores are the lower of the two. There was a big discrepancy on the WISC administered in kindergarten too, but I had bigger battles at the time. It is my understanding that IQ scores can drop significantly if a child is tested at a young age when verbal is higher than nonverbal due to the lack of formal instruction, and then is tested when they are older. Even though my daughter is extremely verbal and was talking in paragraphs before she even entered school, her verbal IQ was lower in Kindergarten when tested and in sixth grade when tested. In fact there is little drop in the verbal IQ from kindergarten and now.

    If anybody is familiar with this test and can lead me to where I can try to understand the scores better, I would appreciate it. I went to wrightslaw and did a search for Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales, but there is no information on it.

    I understood what the diagnostician was explaining about learning style and recommendations, but I need to understand the scores to know if there is a hidden problem that needs further testing.

    I wish it had been done with the WISC as I understand the subscores and scatter on that.

    Thanks for any info.
  2. Martie

    Martie Moderator


    I am not familiar with this test at all. There is one "Reynolds" who is a big deal publishing in behavioral assessment. I hope this is not the same person.

    Here's the general idea: there are only two reason not to give the WISC-IV: to save time (and therefore money) or because they do NOT want a direct comparison--there would be one more reason but it does not apply: it has been given recetly.

    I will do an academic search on it for you and see if I can find anything that doesn't require a subscription to access.

    What is the "drift" of the diagnostician's explanation. Does it make sense to you?

  3. Martie

    Martie Moderator


    This is a review of a BOOK that contains the assessemtn in quesiton. Unfortunately, it IS the same Reynolds.

    The review below refers to the assessment used as an "emerging" scale. I would ask to see relaibility and valididty data. MOST new intelligence scales demonstrate their validity by comparison to the WISC.

    I tried to get into Mental Measurement Yearbook (16th edition) but it is not availabe to me on-line. However, the test is listed as in it. You should be able to get this at any university or large public library.


    Recent Advances in Intelligence Assessment Theory and Practice

    Flanagan, Dawn P.; Harrison, Patti L.; Moses, James A. Jr.

    Reviews the book, Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, Tests, and Issues (2nd ed.) by Dawn P. Flanagan and Patti L. Harrison (Eds.) (see record 2005-09732-000). The coverage in this volume admirably meets the growing need for comprehensive information about current intellectual assessment methods of these various groups of theorists and practitioners. It provides authoritative, comprehensive, lucid information that integrates experimental work and theoretical formulations of cognitive processing with clinical assessment methods. This handbook is a superb theoretical and clinical overview of the state-of-the-art status of current intelligence testing. The standards of theoretical and methodological rigor, comprehensive topical coverage, balanced and objective critical analysis, life span cognitive evaluation, and advocacy for special populations (including the gifted, learning disabled, and culturally linguistically diverse individuals) are beautifully balanced. One could not ask for more from a review and critical evaluation of this extensive, rich, and complex literature. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2006 APA, all rights reserved)

    Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, Tests, and IssuesDawn P. Flanagan and Patti L. Harrison (Eds.) New York: Guilford Press, 2005. 667 pp. ISBN 1-59385-125-1. $70.00

    Many new, integrative conceptual models of cognition have been formulated, developed, expanded, refined, and validated during the past decade. The frequency and quality of these developments are increasing and appear likely to continue to accelerate. The leading cognitive theorists who have formulated these conceptual models have provided their colleagues with broadly applicable, integrative experimental and theoretical psychometric findings that have refined and expanded our understanding of the nature of human cognition. Many of the developments in cognitive theory building also have been translated into clinical assessment tools that provide new methods for pediatric, adolescent, adult, and geriatric intellectual assessment in the experimental laboratory as well as in applied educational and clinical settings.

    Both experimentalists and clinicians require objective and precise assessment instruments that accurately and validly measure important, specific cognitive skills. Cognitive psychologists, neuropsychologists, forensic psychologists, gerontologists, school psychologists, and educators all are being increasingly challenged to provide individualized, evidence-based, valid, and reliable cognitive assessment. Theoreticians and test developers have responded to these diverse needs through the development of a wide variety of new intellectual assessment measures as well as through development of progressively more refined and sophisticated versions of well-established, classical, cognitive assessment instruments. Although it is fortunate that there is an increasing wealth of theoretical information and clinical instrumentation to meet the needs of various cognitive assessment experimentalists and clinicians, it has become progressively more difficult to remain current in one's knowledge concerning this burgeoning literature.

    The coverage in this volume admirably meets the growing need for comprehensive information about current intellectual assessment methods of these various groups of theorists and practitioners. It provides authoritative, comprehensive, lucid information that integrates experimental work and theoretical formulations of cognitive processing with clinical assessment methods. Many of the chapters were written by leading authorities in cognitive theory and specific clinical assessment methods, and some chapters were written by the original theorists who developed the conceptual models that are presented. Multiple chapters also were written by the clinicians who developed or most recently revised the important intellectual assessment instruments that are discussed. A wide variety of theories and assessment methodologies are presented in a parallel, integrative format that encourages and enhances informed choice among intellectual assessment methods and their component measures that can be optimized to answer the specific assessment question and the individual needs of the client.

    The volume includes separate historical introductions to issues that are related to intelligence test development as well as intelligence test profile interpretation. The nature of intelligence as a theoretical construct and its early operational definition provide a useful framework in which to view the strengths as well as the limitations of current intellectual assessment theories and methods. Empirical evidence is provided even within these historical reviews to demonstrate why some of these classical ideas have been retained in current assessment methods, whereas others have been revised or removed. From the historical viewpoint, we come to appreciate the progressive unification of cognitive theory, scientific evidence, and clinical application to the development of intellectual assessment methods. We see the evolution of intellectual assessment from an early, global, performance-level form of analysis to a currently much more refined, multifactorial, dimensionally organized framework that is directed toward analysis of a complex set of related cognitive skills.

    In recent years there has been increasing recognition of the value of cross-battery assessment, which is based on integration of complementary, dimensionally defined cognitive skills that are assessed with component measures that may be selected from different tests. This general, dimensional theoretical approach allows one to develop individualized assessment procedures for each client on the basis of the specific assessment question and the unique pattern of strengths and deficits that the client may present. Within this model, fluid and crystallized intellectual abilities were identified long ago, and they have been repeatedly validated. More recent work has expanded the model to include a variety of other memorial, perceptual, and mental processing speed variables that have been identified primarily through extensive factor analytic construct validation procedures.

    Various empirically supported cognitive theories of Cattell, Horn, Carroll, Gardner, Sternberg, Naglieri, and Das are presented in detail by their originators and developers. This provides a dazzling array of new ideas, insights, and perspectives on the integrative theme of intelligence as an evolving construct that is increasingly seen as a multidimensional, multilayered, interactive, complex pattern of abilities that is in dynamic, interactive, hierarchically organized interaction among perceptual, conceptual, memorial, and executive levels of analysis. The authors present empirical evidence to support each aspect of these models that demonstrates their validity as well as their heuristic conceptual value.

    The Cattell–Horn–Carroll (CHC) multidimensional model of intelligence has had wide-ranging effects on the development and revision of cognitive tests that are currently in wide use. This cross-battery assessment methodology provides a means for comparison of dimensionally similar and complementary abilities across tests, and it provides one with an inventory of the scope and limitations of the dimensional coverage that is provided within a given set or combination of measures. Many theoretical models of cognitive information processing are presented in the text and are integrated with the empirically validated models that are based on CHC theory. The CHC model is shown to be a centrally important theoretical model that has guided development of the latest versions of the Wechsler intelligence scales for children and adults; the revisions of the Stanford–Binet IV and V; the latest versions of the Kaufman intelligence scales for children, adolescents, and adults; the Woodcock–Johnson III Cognitive Battery; and the Wide Range Intelligence Test. The CHC model also has been demonstrated to be a powerful dimensional methodology that is relevant to analysis of cultural and linguistic factors. Use of this methodology has allowed researchers to match the degree of acculturation and language proficiency in English with specific component measures from standard intelligence tests according to objective, well-validated criteria. Researchers can now choose specific assessment measures on an individual basis that are valid and appropriate for assessment of individuals from culturally and linguistically diverse populations. Investigation of intelligence test profile patterns in terms of component cognitive skills rather than broadly defined cognitive abilities also has proven to be important for refinement of analysis of patterns of ipsative strength and deficit among learning-disabled individuals. Specific methods for the assessment of such skills also are presented as additional applications of the CHC theoretical model.

    The text includes emerging intellectual assessment scales, such as the Differential Ability Scales, the Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test, the Cognitive Assessment System, and the Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales, with detailed presentations of their theoretical foundations, clinical utility, validity, and reliability. Case presentations illustrate the usefulness and skill coverage of these methods in clinical application settings. Many of these measures explicitly reference the CHC factorial model of intellectual ability assessment. Among the presentations of specific intellectual measures are chapters that discuss recently revised versions of classical measures such as the Woodcock–Johnson Cognitive Battery III; the Kaufman intelligence scales for children, adolescents, and adults; the Wechsler Scales for children and adults; and the Stanford–Binet V. These presentations appear in a series of chapters that were authored, in many cases, by the individuals who were in charge of revision of the current editions of these measures. The chapters are uniformly well written, self-contained, balanced, objective, and well integrated. A special feature of these presentations is that many of these measures also are cross-validated with other tests that are presented separately in the volume. This feature enhances and applies the cross-battery, multidimensional assessment model that characterizes the volume as a whole.

    A series of chapters addresses specialized assessment issues that are related to assessment of preschool children and exceptional children who are gifted, learning disabled, or culturally or linguistically diverse relative to children from the typical American culture. These chapters illustrate the importance of dimensional assessment and specify and highlight special abilities as well as sources of potential bias by means of the CHC model. The recommended individualized assessment procedures are detailed and explicitly operationally defined. There is rigorous validation of the methodology, and the authors stress the multifactorial nature of intellectual ability to highlight the pattern of strengths and deficits that the individual may present. A particular strength of these discussions is the presentation of an explicit, detailed, multistep process for analysis of both level and pattern of performance within each of these groups. The authors also present a valuable interpretive model that emphasizes multilevel hypothesis testing and integration with test behavior and the psychoeducational history rather than only simple norm referencing as the primary basis for clinical inference. Use of cross-battery assessment methodology to choose the best set of assessment measures for evaluation of a given individual is a special strength of the presentation.

    An unusual and particularly valuable chapter presents a detailed analysis of currently available measures of nonverbal intellectual assessment. These methods are particularly useful for evaluation of those individuals who have hearing impairment or deafness, use English as a second language, have a brain injury, have a nonverbal learning disability, have visual and/or motor impairment, or use nonstandard English as a primary language. Such individuals present special challenges that are not well met by the traditional methods of intellectual assessment. Use of these nonverbal procedures can be particularly valuable for demonstration of the individuals' specific cognitive strengths as well as their deficits. The authors present an information-processing model that highlights potential difficulties with information encoding input, sensory or cognitive processing, and response output for each of the special needs populations that they discuss. They present psychometric characteristics, clinical applications, and multiple specific sources of evidence for the validity of each measure and contrast these in the text as well as in tabular formats.

    The authors discuss the statistical methodology of confirmatory factor analysis and illustrate this discussion with data from multiple well-structured intelligence tests that are based on the CHC factorial model. The comparison of the Woodcock–Johnson III Cognitive Battery set of tests and the measures of the Cognitive Assessment System provides the most elegant example of the methodology. It demonstrates the convergent validity of these measures and supports the theoretical CHC factorial model that unifies the volume as a whole. Aside from its value as an explanation of the statistical methodology, this chapter provides a particularly valuable integrative summary of the CHC model through the analysis of many of the intellectual measures that are presented elsewhere in the volume. The presentation enhances understanding of the theoretical model as well as its statistical basis. A complementary chapter illustrates how the CHC model and its application to intellectual assessment methodology, which is modeled throughout the volume, meet generally accepted standards for test development, clinical application, and validation.

    This handbook is a superb theoretical and clinical overview of the state-of-the-art status of current intelligence testing. The standards of theoretical and methodological rigor, comprehensive topical coverage, balanced and objective critical analysis, life span cognitive evaluation, and advocacy for special populations (including the gifted, learning disabled, and culturally linguistically diverse individuals) are beautifully balanced. One could not ask for more from a review and critical evaluation of this extensive, rich, and complex literature.
  4. Martie

    Martie Moderator


    Here are 3 citations. i know the author of the last article. He's good but i don't have the article.


    Beaujean, A. Alexander; Firmin, Michael W; Knoop, Andrew J; Michonski, Jared D; Berry, Theodore P; Lowrie, Ruth E. Validation of the Frey and Detterman (2004) IQ prediction equations using the Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales. [References]. [Journal; Peer Reviewed Journal] Personality and Individual Differences. Vol 41(2) Jul 2006, 353-357. Elsevier Science.

    Year of Publication
    Reynolds, Cecil R; Kamphaus, Randy W. Introduction to the Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales and the Reynolds Intellectual Screening Test. [References]. [Book; Edited Book] Flanagan, Dawn P (Ed); Harrison, Patti L (Ed). (2005). Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, Tests, and Issues. (pp. 461-483). xvii, 667 pp. New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.
    Year of Publication

    Elliott, Robert W. Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales. [References]. [Journal; Peer Reviewed Journal] Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology. Vol 19(2) Mar 2004, 325-328. Elsevier Science.

    Year of Publication
  5. Martie

    Martie Moderator


    Below is the most detailed info. I can get on-line from home.

    This is the abstract of the Elliott article.

    Peer Reviewed Journal: 2004-12335-015.
    Title Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales. [References].
    Author Elliott, Robert W.
    Source Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology. Vol 19(2) Mar 2004, 325-328.
    Elsevier Science.
    ISSN Print 0887-6177
    Local Messages Check Library Catolog for Loyola Libraries holdings

    This article reviews the Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales (RIAS). The RIAS was developed as a theoretically and psychometrically sound instrument designed to measure general intelligence. In contrast to most existing measures of intelligence, the RIAS eliminates dependence on motor coordination, visual-motor speed, and reading skills and can be administered in a short period of time. The RIAS is an individually administered test of intelligence, which has been normed and standardized on an age population from 3 to 94 years. Utilizing the Cattell-Horn Model of Intelligence (Horn & Cattell, 1966), the authors have developed a reliable measure of general intelligence and its two primary components, fluid and crystallized intelligence. The RIAS includes a measure of verbal and non-verbal intelligence and a resultant Composite Intelligence Index (CIX). Verbal intelligence is assessed with tasks involving verbal problem solving and verbal reasoning tasks. Non-verbal intelligence is assessed by visual and spatial ability tasks. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2006 APA, all rights reserved)

  6. mistmouse

    mistmouse New Member

    I do believe the RIAS was probably given to save money. As I said, they didn't want to re-evaluation her at all as they believe it all relates back to behaviors. I of course became concerned that there is more going on once her behaviors were more under control.

    The diagnostician is very nice, and truly enjoyed testing my daughter, but she does work for the SD. She spent an hour going over the report with me, relating reasons my daughter might have scored lower than expected. Basically she explained that difficult child is a visual-spatial learner, and made some recommendations regarding such. When explaining the scores on the RIAS, she referred to subscores on the WJ-III to back up her findings on the RIAS. There are no subscores or anything on the RIAS portion of the report I was given. The report just says the RIAS includes two-subtest Verbal Intelligence Index (VIX) and a two-subtest Nonverbal Intelligence Index (NIX). The scaled sums of T scores for the four subtests are combined to form the Composite Intelligence Index (CIX), which is a summary estimate of global intelligence. A Composite Memory Index (CMX) is derived from the two supplementary memory subtests.

    Then it only lists:
    Verbal Intelligence 104
    Nonverbal Intelligence 129
    Composite Intelligence 117
    Composite Memory 88

    It is noted that the CMX is below average range. It also says that the CIX is a good estimate of her intelligence, but does note the discrepancy of the NIX of 129 and the VIX of 104. Then it says the magnitude of the difference observed is important because, "a difference of this size is relatively uncommon, occurring in only 9.2% of cases in the general population." On another page it says "it can be seen that her CMX falls significantly below her CIX. This result indicates a level of working memory skill that is not as well developed as her general intelligence at this time. The magnitude of the difference seen in this instance may take on special diagnostic significance due to its relative infrequency in the general population. A difference between CIX and CMX of this magnitude occurs in only 6.1% of the population." Then there is some information regarding the CMX and how it relates to visual-spatial and working memory, but in that paragraph again it says, "This discrepancy between nonverbal memory and verbal memory may take on special significance because the magnitude of the difference observed here is relatively uncommon, occurring in 2.2% of the population at her age."

    OK, I know that is a lot of information, but maybe that will help you help me understand what is going on. I also know that I shouldn't be extremely concerned since her intelligence is above average, although it did drop significantly from the initial evaluation in kindergarten. I just feel I need to have all the puzzle pieces to best help her since she goes into junior high next year and I would like her to be able to do what is expected and not give up. She already deals with anxiety, although it is predominantly related to school and school work.

    I think unless somebody can give me a good reason to believe this is an adequate test of what is going on I may have to ask for further testing.

    I will look for the information at the library to see if I can understand things better. I have been searching the internet for information on the RIAS, with no luck in interpreting it. If what I have given you can help you give me a better picture of what is going on, I would welcome any help.

  7. mistmouse

    mistmouse New Member

    Looks like we were posting at the same time Martie. I was able to get the information you posted, but I can't find anything on how to relate the RIAS to the WISC-IV. The SD knew we were asking for an independant Occupational Therapist (OT) evaluation due to ongoing concerns of visual-motor delays, which they say doesn't exist when they do an Occupational Therapist (OT) evaluation. I haven't seen the Occupational Therapist (OT) evaluation done earlier this month, but he did discuss visual-motor problems, and handwriting at the time of the evaluation.

    Besides saving time and money, would this have been a reason to do the RIAS instead of the WISC-IV?

    Thanks for your time and what information you found.

  8. Sheila

    Sheila Moderator

    From :

    "Schools and institutions, clinical settings, and individual practitioners are all looking for ways to control costs and maximize professional time. Over the past few years, a clear need has emerged for a new, comprehensive, and cost-effective intelligence test--a high-quality, reliable instrument that provides the necessary information to help clinicians make decisions regarding classification, selection, and educational placement. The RIAS meets that need.

    ....Administering the complete RIAS (all six subtests) typically takes about 35 minutes."

    If you don't agree with this test/report, you can as for an IEE.
  9. mistmouse

    mistmouse New Member

    Can you give me information on what the six subtests are supposed to be? Or any more information on how to compare this testing with the WISC-IV scores and subtests she had done in kindergarten. I wasn't given the subtest scores that comprised the CIX, VIX of CMX.

    I guess I will discuss this with my daughter's psychologist, who is a member of the IEP team, and see if she is familiar with this test and what this might indicate. One thing I do know is regardless of what spin they put on it, it is significant in some way that her verbal IQ is so much lower than her nonverbal IQ and she is and always has been what I consider advanced verbally.

    Thanks for the information. I suppose this might be a good test, if I had the same test done in the first place to compare it to.

  10. mistmouse

    mistmouse New Member

    Sheila, I went to the link you provided, and following other links from there was able to find out what the subtests are. Now I guess I just need to get in touch with the examiner and have her provide me with the information on the subtests, including the raw scores and the T scores. In the sample report on the site you listed, it gives a narrative of each of the subtests and what they are supposed to measure similar to what the WISC-IV report that I have does. I wasn't given this information.

    Thank you for your help. Now I know what to ask for, and hopefully will not meet with resistance in getting these subtest scores.