|Instructor:||W. Joel Schneider|
|Office hours:||Mondays 2–3pm
and by appointment
Media for video storage (e.g., USB drive) and a stopwatch
Flanagan, D. & Harrison, P. (2012). Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (3rd ed., pp. 99-144). New York: Guilford.
Flanagan, D., Ortiz, S., & Alfonso, V. (2013). Essentials of cross-battery assessment (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Kaufman, A. S. (2009). IQ Testing 101. New York: Springer.
Kranzler, J. H. & Floyd, R. G. (2013). Assessing intelligence in children and adolescents: A practical guide. New York: Guilford.
Mather, N., & Jaffe, L. E. (2010). Comprehensive evaluations: case reports for psychologists, diagnosticians, and special educators. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Miller, D. C. (Ed.). (2010). Best practices in school neuropsychology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Cronbach L. J. & Meehl, P.E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests, Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281–302.
Deary, I. J., Penke, L., & Johnson, W. (2010). The neuroscience of human intelligence differences. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11, 201–211.
Donders, J. (1999). Pediatric Neuropsychological Reports: Do They Really Have To Be So Long?. Child Neuropsychology, 5(1), 70-78.
Goldstein, S., & Naglieri, J. A. (2008). The school neuropsychology of ADHD: Theory, assessment, and intervention. Psychology in the Schools, 45(9), 859-874.
Gottfredson, L. (1997). Why g matters: The complexity of everyday life. Intelligence, 24, 79–132.
Gottfredson, L. & Saklofske, D. (2009). Intelligence: Foundations and issues in assessment. Canadian Psychology, 50, 13–195.
Grove, W. M. & Meehl, P. E. (1996). Comparative Efficiency of Informal (Subjective, Impressionistic) and Formal (Mechanical, Algorithmic) Prediction Procedures: The Clinical–Statistical Controversy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2, 293–323.
Koziol, L. F., & Stevens, M. C. (2012). Neuropsychological assessment and the paradox of ADHD. Applied Neuropsychology: Child, 1(2), 79-89.
Lohman, D. F. (2006). Beliefs about differences between ability and accomplishment: From folk theories to cognitive science. Roeper Review, 29, 32–40.
McGill, R. J., Styck, K. M., Palomares, R. S., & Hass, M. R. (2016). Critical issues in specific learning disability identification: What we need to know about the PSW Model. Learning Disability Quarterly, 39(3), 159–170.
McKenzie R. G. (2009). Obscuring vital distinctions: The oversimplification of learning disabilities within RTI. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24, 203–215.
Nisbett, R. E., Aronson, J., Blair, C., Dickens, W., Flynn, J., Halpern, D. F., & Turkheimer, E. (2012). Intelligence: new findings and theoretical developments. American psychologist, 67(2), 130–159.
Reis, S. M. & Renzulli, J. S. (2011). Intellectual giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg & S. B. Kaufman (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of intelligence (pp.235–252). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schneider, W. J. (2016). Why Are WJ IV Cluster Scores More Extreme Than the Average of Their Parts? A Gentle Explanation of the Composite Score Extremity Effect (Woodcock-Johnson IV Assessment Service Bulletin No. 7). Itasca, IL: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Schneider, W. J., Mayer, J. D., & Newman, D. A. (2016). Integrating Hot and Cool Intelligences: Thinking Broadly about Broad Abilities. Journal of Intelligence, 4(1), 1:1–25.
Schneider, W. J. & McGrew, K. S. (2013). Cognitive performance models: Individual differences in the ability to process information. In S. Ortiz & D. Flanagan (Sec. Eds.), Section 9: Assessment Theory, in B. Irby, G. Brown, & R. Laro-Alecio & S. Jackson (Vol Eds.), Handbook of educational theories (pp. 767–782). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Swets, J. A., Dawes, R. M., & Monahan, J. (2000). Psychological science can improve diagnostic decisions. Psychological science in the public interest, 1(1), 1–26.
You are expected to attend every lecture. You must make arrangements to make up for any excused absences. Excessive absences may result in a failure to complete the course. More than 2 absences is excessive.
You are expected to practice assessment skills in role-playing exercises. If necessary, you are expected to consult with me to overcome any obstacles such as shyness and performance anxiety that might prevent you from participating fully.
All university courses should be challenging and exciting. Class discussions should be relevant, spirited, and intellectually serious. At the graduate level, much of the responsibility for making the class discussions lively and interesting shifts from the instructor to the participants. For graduate students, the expectations for academic rigor during discussions are also higher than they are for undergraduates. For example, graduate students are expected to base their arguments on theory and empirical data rather than solely on intuition and personal experience. Unfortunately, many students cannot engage in informed discussions very often because they have not completed their assigned readings. The following policies and procedures were developed to promote an atmosphere of intellectual rigor, competence, and enthusiasm in the course:
Throughout the course you will be assigned readings/videos. You are expected to have read/watched the assignments prior to the class period.
Write up a short reaction to each of the assigned readings/videos. Your reaction should include the main point(s) of the readings/videos, useful knowledge you extracted from the reading/videos, and a critical appraisal of the readings/videos.
In each class period, the assigned readings/videos will be discussed and the instructor will present new material. The intent of these discussions is to integrate new concepts with your current understanding. You are expected to come prepared to demonstrate a basic understanding of the main ideas of each assignment.
During discussion, you are encouraged to use the readings and your notes but you must be able to make your points succinctly and without excessive delay. If, for whatever reason, you have not completed the reading, you are expected to say so when called upon. Please note that excessive memorization of the readings is not necessary to answer the types of questions that are likely to be asked. I simply wish to ensure that you grasp the main ideas and have thought about the topics with sufficient depth.
There are certain skills that assessment professionals should have. You will find that if you have these skills, life will be easier for you and you will stand out as especially competent among other practitioners. There are a number of skills that I have identified as important. In order to pass the class, you will need to demonstrate on at least two occasions that you can perform these skills flawlessly. This list may grow as the semester progresses.
A professional has to be able to distinguish between information that must be mastered and committed to memory and information that, while perhaps interesting, can be looked up again when needed. From time to time, I will notify you in class or by email which aspects of previous lectures and readings you are expected to remember without the aid of your notes. At any time during the semester, I will ask you to demonstrate your knowledge in a quiz. To prevent unnecessary anxiety, the types of information you will need to know will be given to you in advance.
After you have been notified that I expect you to know something, you can be quizzed on it at any time.
You will be assigned different partners with whom to practice administering various tests. It is important to keep in mind that you are not evaluating each other’s cognitive abilities. Thus, when being given a test, you are encouraged to pretend to be a well-behaved child or low-functioning adult, depending on the test (i.e., do not try to get all the questions correct). You are also encouraged to give your partner answers that are neither extremely difficult nor extremely easy to score. Be courteous, professional and reliable in all your dealings with your assigned partners. You are required to practice giving 1 full protocol of each of the following tests: WJ IV cognitive, WISC–V, SB5, and the KABC–II. Completing these 4 practice administrations will require a large time commitment. Do not procrastinate. You should score all practice protocols and submit them to be graded. All tests will be graded on a pass/fail basis.You must receive a passing grade (<20 error points) on all 4 tests in order to pass the course.
You must give a perfect admininstration of each subtest in a role play with the GAs. Once a subtest has been passed, it does not need to be repeated.
You will demonstrate competency in the administration of the WISC–V with a child or adolescent. The administration must be recorded by video. The GAs will review your video for adminstration accuracy. If you do not display mastery on the administrations, you will be required to resubmit another video administration. You are strongly encouraged to view and critique your video performance before turning it in to be evaluated. Detailed checklists are available to guide your critique. If you catch your own mistakes, you will only lose half as much credit. You will complete a protocol for each of these administrations. The protocols will be graded by the GAs. Each protocol will be evaluated for the accuracy of scoring judgments as well as clerical calculations. Errors on any of the following will result in deduction of points:
Each minor error will be worth 1 to 4 points Each major error will be worth 5 to 20 points You must pass at least with no more than 10 error points. It usually takes people 2 to 3 attempts so plan ahead. It is your responsibility to find participants for your administrations. You will not be sharing official test results with the volunteers you test unless granted permission from the instructor. Do not offer feedback as an incentive for volunteering. The criterion for success is to be able to complete an administration from start to finish with minimal errors. Thus, your videos should be one continuous take. You may not restart the assessment process once you have begun with a child. You may not edit your video in any way to make it appear that you made fewer mistakes than you made.
Note on administrations
For the practice administrations, live administrations, and the video administrations, you must meet with the instructor if you fail to pass an assignment twice in a row. No assignment may be submitted more than 6 times. Failure to pass after the 6th attempt will result in having to repeat the course. Before the 6th and final attempt, you must meet with the instructor.
|Practice administrations with peers||Pass/Fail||Must pass all with ≤ 20 points to pass the course|
|Live administration of the WJ IV with the GAs||Pass/Fail||Must administer each subtest without error|
|Videotaped administration a with real child||Pass/Fail||Must pass with ≤ 10 points to pass the course|
|Team Report||Pass/Fail||Must give good faith effort to participate fully in one's group|
|Reaction Papers||Pass/Fail||Must complete and pass all reaction papers.|
|Assessment Skills||Pass/Fail||Must pass all skills|
|Class Discussion||100 points||If you do not talk all semester, it will be impossible for you to get an A.|
|Individual Report||400 points||Must earn B or better to pass the course|
|Final Exam||200 points|
Therefore 1000 points are possible. However, all Pass/Fail assignments must be passed to receive a B or better.
Any student needing to arrange a reasonable accommodation for a documented disability should contact Student Access & Accommodation Services at 350 Fell Hall, 438‒5853 (voice), 438‒8620 (TTY).
Plagiarizing and cheating on exams and other assignments are not tolerated. Any student exhibiting academic dishonesty will receive an F in the course and will be referred for disciplinary action.
I have an Open-Door Policiy. If you see that my office door is open, feel free to ask a question.
Another way to reach me is by email or in person, before or after class. I do not check my office telephone messages nearly as often as I check my email. I may, from time to time, email you about various matters.
|AssessingPsyche||William Stern (1871–1938): The Individual Behind the Intelligence Quotient|
|Cronbach & Meehl (1955)||Construct validity in psychological tests|
|Kaufman (2009)||IQ Testing 101: Chapters 1–3|
|Schneider (2014)||What do IQ tests test?|
|AssessingPsyche||Variables and Measurement Scales|
|Kaufman (2009)||IQ Testing 101: Chapters 4–6|
|AssessingPsyche||Probability Density Functions|
|AssessingPsyche||Expected Value: What Does the Mean Mean?|
|Kaufman (2009)||IQ Testing 101: Chapters 7–10|
|AssessingPsyche||Expected Value and Variance: Take a Moment or Two to Find Out How the Mean and Variance Are Alike|
|AssessingPsyche||Skewness: Lopsided Variability|
|Grove & Meehl (1996)||Comparative Efficiency of Informal (Subjective, Impressionistic) and Formal (Mechanical, Algorithmic) Prediction Procedures: The Clinical–Statistical Controversy|
|Swets, Dawes, & Monahan (2000)||Psychological science can improve diagnostic decisions|
|AssessingPsyche||The Normal Distribution and the Central Limit Theorem: Sum of the Many Reasons Variables Are Normally Normal|
|Gottfredson (1997)||Why g matters: The complexity of everyday life|
|AssessingPsyche||“Strawman Spearman” vs. Charles Spearman|
|AssessingPsyche||Cattell’s thoughts about Spearman|
|AssessingPsyche||Charles Spearman Reading Recommendations|
|AssessingPsyche||Is g an ability?|
|AssessingPsyche||The rise and fall of g and the end of bigotry|
|AssessingPsyche||Two Kinds of Hierarchies in Cognitive Ability Models|
|Nisbett et al. (2012)||Intelligence: New Findings and Theoretical Developments|
|Gottfredson & Saklofske (2009)||Intelligence: Foundations and issues in assessment|
|AssessingPsyche||Kurtosis: Beyond Peakedness|
|AssessingPsyche||The impractical, intangible, invaluable consolations of studying old, outmoded theories|
|Contemporary Intellectual Assessment||1. A History of Intelligence Assessment: The Unfinished Tapestry, John D. Wasserman|
|Contemporary Intellectual Assessment||2. A History of Intelligence Test Interpretation, Randy W. Kamphaus, Anne Pierce Winsor, Ellen W. Rowe, and Sangwon Kim|
|AssessingPsyche||Our debt to Francis Galton is great…and embarrassing|
|AssessingPsyche||Galton’s “ridiculous” intelligence tests|
|AssessingPsyche||Francis Galton Reading Recommendations|
|AssessingPsyche||Leta Stetter Hollingworth (1886–1939) and sex differences in cognitive variability|
|AssessingPsyche||Standard Scores and Why We Need Them|
|AssessingPsyche||A Gentle, Non-Technical Introduction to Factor Analysis|
|AssessingPsyche||Cronbach: Factor analysis is more like photography than chemistry|
|AssessingPsyche||Fun quote from Raymond Cattell on the importance of taxonomies|
|Contemporary Intellectual Assessment||3. Foundations for Better Understanding of Cognitive Abilities, John L. Horn and Nayena Blankson|
|AssessingPsyche||Extended Gf-Gc Theory, Visualized|
|AssessingPsyche||Fluid and crystallized intelligence in the classroom and on the job|
|AssessingPsyche||After money, comfort, and love, Raymond Cattell had to make one more sacrifice…|
|Contemporary Intellectual Assessment||Appendix. The Three-Stratum Theory of Cognitive Abilities, John B. Carroll|
|AssessingPsyche||Carroll’s Three Stratum Theory of Cognitive Abilities, Re-Visualized|
|Contemporary Intellectual Assessment||4. The Cattell–Horn–Carroll (CHC) Model of Intelligence, W. Joel Schneider and Kevin S. McGrew|
|Schneider & McGrew, (2013)||Individual Differences in the Ability to Process Information|
|AssessingPsyche||CHC Theory Slides|
|AssessingPsyche||Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) Theory of Cognitive Abilities in 3D?|
|Schneider (2013)||Principles of Assessment of Aptitude and Achievement|
|Lohman (2006)||Beliefs about differences between ability and accomplishment: From folk theories to cognitive science|
|AssessingPsyche||A Taxonomy of Influences on Ability Tests|
|Essentials of Cross-Battery Assessment||Chapters 1 & 2|
|AssessingPsyche||Within-Composite Differences: Why Measures of the Same Ability Differ|
|Essentials of Cross-Battery Assessment||Chapters 3 & 4|
|Schneider (2016)||Why Are WJ IV Cluster Scores More Extreme Than the Average of Their Parts? A Gentle Explanation of the Composite Score Extremity Effect|
|AssessingPsyche||Do Large Subtest Differences Invalidate Composite Scores?|
|Kranzler & Floyd (2013)||Chapter 4: The Assessment Process with Children and Adolescents|
|Canivez (2013)||Psychometric Versus Actuarial Interpretation of Intelligence and Related Aptitude Batteries|
|McGill, Styck, Palomares, & Hass (2016)||Critical Issues in Specific Learning Disability Identification: What We Need to Know About the PSW Model|
|AssessingPsyche||Why Specific Cognitive Processing Weaknesses Are Typically Only Partial Explanations for Academic Deficits|
|Kranzler & Floyd (2013)||Chapter 3: Ethics in Assessment|
|Michaels (2006)||Ethical considerations in writing psychological assessment reports.|
|AssessingPsyche||Cognitive Profiles are Rarely Flat.|
|Contemporary Intellectual Assessment||22. Testing with Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Populations: Moving beyond the Verbal–Performance Dichotomy into Evidence-Based Practice, Samuel O. Ortiz, Salvador Hector Ochoa, and Agnieszka M. Dynda|
|Essentials of Cross-Battery Assessment||Chapter 5|
|AssessingPsyche||Misunderstanding Regression to the Mean|
|Contemporary Intellectual Assessment||23. Linking Cognitive Abilities to Academic Interventions for Students with Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD), Nancy Mather and Barbara J. Wendling|
|Best practices in school neuropsychology||Chapter 19: Assessing and Intervening with Children with Reading Disorders|
|AssessingPsyche||Conditional normal distributions provide useful information in psychological assessment.|
|Best practices in school neuropsychology||Chapter 20: Assessing and Intervening with Children with Written Language Disorders|
|Best practices in school neuropsychology||Chapter 21: Assessing and Intervening with Children with Math Disorders|
|AssessingPsyche||What if We Took Our Models Seriously? Estimating Latent Scores in Individuals|
|Best practices in school neuropsychology||Chapter 22: Assessing and Intervening with Children with Speech and Language Disorders|
|Best practices in school neuropsychology||Chapter 23: Assessing and Intervening with Children with Nonverbal Learning Disabilities|
|Best practices in school neuropsychology||Chapter 25: Assessing and Intervening with Children with Memory and Learning Disorders|
|Best practices in school neuropsychology||Chapter 26: Assessing and Intervening with Children with Sensory-Motor Impairment|
|Contemporary Intellectual Assessment||7. Planning, Attention, Simultaneous, Successive (PASS): A Cognitive Processing–Based Theory of Intelligence, Jack A. Naglieri, J. P. Das, and Sam Goldstein|
|AssessingPsyche||Do CAS Planning Subtests Measure Planning or Processing Speed?|
|Koziel & Stevens (2012)||Neuropsychological Assessment and The Paradox of ADHD|
|AssessingPsyche||What role should cognitive tests of attention play in ADHD diagnosis?|
|AssessingPsyche||Attention Tests and ADHD: A modest proposal|
|Goldstein, S., & Naglieri, J. A. (2008)||The school neuropsychology of ADHD: Theory, assessment, and intervention|
|Contemporary Intellectual Assessment||30. Use of Intelligence Tests in the Identification of Children with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, Kathleen Armstrong, Jason Hangauer, & Joshua Nadeau|
|Contemporary Intellectual Assessment||24. Cognitive Assessment in Early Childhood: Theoretical and Practical Perspectives, Laurie Ford, Michelle L. Kozey, and Juliana Negreiros|
|Donders (1999)||Pediatric Neuropsychological Reports: Do They Really Have To Be So Long?|
|AssessingPsyche||Advice for psychological evaluation reports: Make every sentence worth reading.|
|AssessingPsyche||My Template for Psychological Evaluation Reports|
|AssessingPsyche||TableMaker: A program for making tables in psychological reports|
|Comprehensive Evaluations||Foreward by Willis (2011)|
|Comprehensive Evaluations||Case 5|
|Comprehensive Evaluations||Case 6|
|Comprehensive Evaluations||Case 7|
|Comprehensive Evaluations||Case 8|
|McKenzie (2009)||Obscuring vital distinctions: The oversimplification of learning disabilities within RTI.|
|AssessingPsyche||Communicate with percentile ranks…but think and reason with standard scores|
|Comprehensive Evaluations||Case 9|
|Comprehensive Evaluations||Case 10|
|Comprehensive Evaluations||Case 12|
|Comprehensive Evaluations||Case 13|
|Comprehensive Evaluations||Case 14|
|Reis & Renzulli (2011)||Intellectual giftedness|
|Comprehensive Evaluations||Case 16|
|Comprehensive Evaluations||Case 17|
|Comprehensive Evaluations||Case 21|
|Comprehensive Evaluations||Case 22|
|Comprehensive Evaluations||Case 23|
|Contemporary Intellectual Assessment||36. Intellectual, Cognitive, and Neuropsychological Assessment in Three-Tier Service Delivery Practices in Schools, George McCloskey, James Whitaker, Ryan Murphy, and Jane Rogers|
|Comprehensive Evaluations||Case 24|
|Comprehensive Evaluations||Case 27|
|Comprehensive Evaluations||Case 29|
|Comprehensive Evaluations||Case 30|
|Comprehensive Evaluations||Case 33|
|Contemporary Intellectual Assessment||5. Assessment of Intellectual Profile: A Perspective from Multiple-Intelligences Theory, Jie-Qi Chen and Howard Gardner|
|AssessingPsyche||Where does Emotional Intelligence fit into CHC Theory?|
|Comprehensive Evaluations||Case 35|
|Comprehensive Evaluations||Case 37|
|Comprehensive Evaluations||Case 38|
|Comprehensive Evaluations||Case 42|
|Comprehensive Evaluations||Case 44|
|Contemporary Intellectual Assessment||6. The Triarchic Theory of Successful Intelligence, Robert J. Sternberg|
|Comprehensive Evaluations||Case 45|
|Comprehensive Evaluations||Case 46|
|Comprehensive Evaluations||Case 53|
|Comprehensive Evaluations||Case 55|
|Comprehensive Evaluations||Case 58|
Final Exam: TBA in DEG 404