Transcript Document

KABC-II Advanced
Interpretation
CASP Annual Conference – February 18, 2006
Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger, Ph.D.
[email protected]
Overview
• Theoretical Foundations of KABC-II
• Review of the Scales
• Step-by-Step Interpretation
– With integrated Case Studies
• Integrating KTEA-II into Interpretation
– CHC & Luria Interpretations
• Integrating QIs into Interpretation
• Using a Cross Battery Approach
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Theoretical
Foundations
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Dual Theoretical Foundation
Name of
Luria Term
CHC Term
KABC-II Scale
Learning Ability
Long-Term Storage &
Retrieval (Glr)
Learning/Glr
Sequential Processing
Short-Term Memory (Gsm)
Sequential/Gsm
Simultaneous Processing
Visual Processing (Gv)
Simultaneous/Gv
Planning Ability
Fluid Reasoning (Gf)
Planning/Gf
Crystallized Ability (Gc)
Knowledge/Gc
Mental Processing
Index (MPI)
Fluid-Crystallized
Index (FCI)
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
CHC Theory Applied to KABC-II
Stratum III: General ability is
measured by the KABC-II
Fluid-Crystallized Index (FCI)
Stratum II:
Broad
abilities are
measured
by KABCII Scales
g
Glr
Gsm
Gv
Gf
Gc
LongTerm
Storage &
Retrieval
ShortTerm
Memory
Visual
Processing
Fluid
Reasoning
Crystallized
Ability
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Stratum I: Narrow Abilities—Blue abilities are
measured by the KABC II Subtests
Glr
Gsm
Gv
Associative
Memory
Memory Span
Visual
Memory
Learning
Abilities
Working
Memory
Spatial
Relations
General
Sequential
Reasoning
Free Recall
Memory
Visualization
Quantitative
Reasoning
Ideational
Fluency
Spatial
Scanning
Listening
Ability
Closure
Speed
Information
About Culture
Originality/
Creativity
Gf
Induction
Gc
Lexical
Knowledge
General
Information
Language
Development
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Abilities Not Measured by KABC-II
•
Auditory Processing (Ga)
•
Processing Speed (Gs)
•
Reaction Time/Decision Speed (Gt)
•
Reading & Writing (Grw)
Achievement
•
Quantitative Ability (Gq)
(Measured by KTEA-II)
Not Sufficiently
Complex
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Luria Theory Applied to KABC-II
Planning/Gf
Learning/Glr
Block 1
Maintains
Attention
Block 3
Plans &
Organizes
Behavior
Simultaneous/Gv
Block 2
Codes &
Stores
Information
Sequential/Gsm
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Block 1—Maintains Arousal
Mediates attention and concentration.
Allows focus of attention.
Regulates energy level and tone of
cerebral cortex.
Recognizes significance of incoming stimuli.
Allows receiving and processing of information.
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Block 2—Codes & Stores Information
Establishes connections with Block 3.
Integrates incoming sensory information.
Analyzes, codes, and stores incoming
information via the senses.
Uses successive and simultaneous
processing.
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Block 3—Plans & Organizes Behavior
Involves decision making, generating hypotheses,
planning, self-monitoring, and programming.
Concerned with overall efficiency of brain
functions, and is involved in all complex behavior.
Though not directly involved with motor or speech
functions, it represents the output or response
center of the brain.
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Selecting the Model:
Guidelines for Administration
vs. Interpretation
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Selecting the Model:
Guidelines for Administration
•
Selection must be made before administering the
KABC-II and should consider reasons for referral.
•
The CHC model is given priority because Knowledge/Gc
is an important aspect of cognitive functioning.
•
The Luria model is preferred when the validity of the
global composite would be compromised by including
acquired knowledge.
•
Models are selected primarily with “fairness” in mind.
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Selecting the Model:
Interpretation Based on Either Theory
Interpretation may be based on either theory,
irrespective of which model was administered.
Administration
Interpretation
Luria Model
Luria or CHC
CHC Model
CHC or Luria
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Review of the
Five Scales
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Sequential/Gsm
Short-Term Memory
Taking in and holding information, and then
using it within a few seconds.
Say these numbers just as I do.
Number Recall
Sequential/Gsm
6–3
2–5–9–4
8 – 9 – 3 – 5 – 2 – 10
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Simultaneous/Gv
Visual Processing
Perceiving, storing, manipulating, and thinking
with visual patterns.
Block Counting
Simultaneous/Gv
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Learning/Glr
Long-Term Retrieval
Storing and efficiently retrieving newly-learned or
previously learned information.
Atlantis
Learning/Glr
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Planning/Gf
Fluid Reasoning
Solving novel problems by using reasoning abilities
such as induction and deduction.
Pattern
Reasoning
Planning/Gf
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Knowledge/Gc
Not in Luria Model
Demonstrating the breadth and depth of
knowledge acquired from one’s culture.
Verbal
Knowledge
Knowledge/Gc
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
KABC-II Core Battery - Age 3
Atlantis
MPI or FCI
Word Order
composites only
Triangles
Conceptual Thinking
Face Recognition
----------------------------Riddles
Expressive Vocabulary
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
KABC-II Core Battery - Ages 4-6
Scale
Age 4
Age 5
Age 6
Learning/Glr
Atlantis
Rebus
Atlantis
Rebus
Atlantis
Rebus
Sequential/Gsm
Word Order
Number Recall
Word Order
Number Recall
Word Order
Number Recall
Simultaneous/
Gv
Triangles
Concept Thinking
Face Recognition
Triangles
Concept Thinking
Pattern Reasoning
Triangles
Concept Thinking
Pattern Reasoning
Rover
Riddles
Expressive
Vocabulary
Riddles
Expressive
Vocabulary
Riddles
Expressive
Vocabulary
7-9 tests
8-10 tests
Planning/Gf
Knowledge/Gc
Luria/CHC
7-9 tests
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
KABC-II Core Battery - Ages 7-18
Scale
Ages 7-12
Ages 13-18
Learning/Glr
Atlantis
Rebus
Word Order
Number Recall
Rover
Triangles
Pattern Reasoning
Story Completion
Riddles
Verbal Knowledge
Atlantis
Rebus
Word Order
Number Recall
Rover
Block Counting
Pattern Reasoning
Story Completion
Riddles
Verbal Knowledge
Sequential/Gsm
Simultaneous/Gv
Planning/Gf
Knowledge/Gc
Luria/CHC
8-10 tests
8-10 tests
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Supplementary Subtests
• Administer after core subtests
• Use to explore hypotheses (added measure of core scales)
• Use for planned comparisons
• Use as a substitute if a core subtest is spoiled
No prescribed sequence with one exception Delayed Recall.
• At ages 5 and 13-18, you must administer a supplementary
subtest to get the right delay interval.
• Knowledge/Gc tests are never used to obtain delay interval
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Supplementary Subtests
• Provide additional measures that have been
normed and validated
• Do not contribute to scores for scales (except
to substitute for a spoiled core subtest)
• Do contribute to the interpretive system and
are useful for hypothesis testing (as in crossbattery assessment)
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Supplementary Tests
3
4
5
6
7-12
13-18
Gestalt
Closure
Gestalt
Closure
Face
Recognition
Story
Completion
Hand
Movements
Hand
Movements
Number
Recall
Hand
Movements
Hand
Movements
Hand
Movements
Block
Counting
Triangles
Verbal
Knowledge
Verbal
Knowledge
Verbal
Knowledge
Verbal
Knowledge
Gestalt
Closure
Gestalt
Closure
Block
Counting
Block
Counting
Expressive
Vocabulary
Expressive
Vocabulary
Gestalt
Closure
Gestalt
Closure
Atlantis
Delayed
Atlantis
Delayed
Atlantis
Delayed
Atlantis
Delayed
Rebus
Delayed
Rebus
Delayed
Rebus
Delayed
Rebus
Delayed
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
How to Interpret the KABC-II:
Step-by-Step
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Essentials of KABC-II Assessment
By Kaufman, Lichtenberger,
Fletcher-Janzen, & Kaufman
The KABC-II Interpretive
Worksheet in Appendix A
provides a place to record all
6 interpretive steps:
Essentials Pages 345-357
© 2005 Wiley
KABC-II Manual covers first
3 steps in detail (& KABC-II
Assist™).
Manual Pages 43-55
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Interpreting KABC-II:
Steps from Manual vs. Essentials Book
• Two Essential Steps
• Two Optional Steps
KABC-II Manual &
Record Form
• Essentials further explains the Fourth
Step (Supplemental Subtest Analysis)
Essentials of
KABC-II
Assessment
• Essentials adds Step 5 with 5 Clinical
Comparisons
• Essentials adds Step 6 which helps
generate further interpretive
hypotheses
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Essentials Pages 85-87
Record Form Pages 3 & 23
Summary of KABC-II Interpretive Steps
ESSENTIAL STEPS
Step 1. Interpret the global scale index, whether the FCI
(CHC model), MPI (Luria model), or Nonverbal
Index (NVI) (ages 3-18)
Step 2. Interpret the child’s profile of scale indexes to
identify strengths and weaknesses, both personal
(relative to the child’s overall ability) and
normative (compared to children about the same
age) (ages 4-18)
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Summary cont.
OPTIONAL STEPS
Step 3. Planned Scale Comparisons
Step 3A: Initial Learning vs. Delayed Recall—
Learning/Glr (Initial) vs. Delayed Recall
(ages 5-18)
Step 3B: Learning vs. Acquired Knowledge—
Learning/Glr vs. Knowledge/Gc (ages 4 –
18)
Step 4. Supplementary Subtest Analysis
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Summary cont.
OPTIONAL STEPS
Step 5. Planned Clinical Comparisons
Step 5A: Nonverbal Ability (NVI) vs. Verbal
Ability (ages 3-18)
Step 5B: Problem-Solving Ability vs. Memory &
Learning (ages 3-18)
Step 5C: Visual Perception of Meaningful Stimuli
vs. Abstract Stimuli (ages 4-18)
Step 5D: Verbal Response vs. Pointing Response
(ages 4 –18)
Step 5E: Little or No Motor Response vs. GrossMotor Response (ages 4 –18)
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Summary cont.
OPTIONAL STEPS
Step 6. Generate Hypotheses to Explain
Fluctuations in Two Circumstances:
Step 6A: Scales that Are Not Interpretable (ages
4 –18)
Step 6B: Supplementary Subtests that Are
Inconsistent with Pertinent Core
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
KABC-II Interpretive Worksheet
• Record Form & KABC-II Assist printout provides a
place to record first 3 steps
• Appendix A of Essentials provides a place to record
all 6 steps
Essentials Pages 345-357
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Essentials Pages 85-87
Step 1. Interpret the global scale index (FCI, MPI, or NVI)
DON’T FORGET
Calculate Range of All Index Scores
Before Interpreting FCI or MPI
For ages
4-18
• Subtract the highest from the lowest Index
standard scores
• If the difference is greater than or equal to 23
points (1 ½ SD)
• Then do not interpret the FCI or MPI
• Rather focus interpretation on the four or five
indexes
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Essentials Pages 85-87
Step 1. Interpret the global scale index (FCI, MPI, or NVI)
For Age 3, Rule is Different
Do not evaluate the interpretability of
MPI or FCI During Step 1
• Why? No profile of scores is offered before age
4, so global score is the only score to interpret
• However, if considerable variability exists,
consider supplementing KABC-II with other
tasks to better determine the child’s diverse
cognitive strengths and weaknesses.
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Case Note: Sophia is a fifth grader
(age 11:2) with difficulties in writing
“Less than 23 pts?”
STEP 1. INTERPRET THE GLOBAL SCALE INDEX
Confidence
Interval
Scale Used
Scale
Index
(circle one)
Is Global Scale Interpretable?
Descriptive Category
(Ages 4-18)
(Standard
Score)
(Circle one)
90%
FCI (CHC Model)
MPI (Luria Model)
NVI
87
93
(
or
95%
Highest
Index
Lowest
Index
Range
Less than
23 pts
or Categories
38 YY N
N
89 - 98 ) 118 80 •31
Percentile Rank
If NO,
do not
interpret
“If no (not less than 23 points),
then do not interpret”
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Essentials Pages 85-87
Step 1. Interpret the global scale index
In Sophia’s
case, the
extreme
variability
between
scales means
FCI does not
meaningfully
summarize
global ability
(FCI, MPI, or NVI)
A. Consult Table D.2 to obtain SS and 90% or 95%
confidence interval. Use Table D.4 for PR and Table
5.1 for category.
B. If using NVI do not conduct any other interpretive
steps.
Global Scale
Index
FCI
Standard
Score
93
95% confidence
interval
89-99
Percentile
Rank
34
Descriptive
Category
Average
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Interpretive Statement:
• Sophia displayed considerable variability in her
standard scores on the five scales that compose the
FCI, with indexes ranging from 80 on
Simultaneous/Gv to 118 on Sequential/Gsm.
• This wide variation in indexes (38 points, which
equals more than 2 ½ SDs) renders her FCI
meaningless as an estimate of global ability;
• it is merely the midpoint of greatly varying abilities.
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Essentials Page 88
Ground Rules for Interpreting the KABC-II
• Interpret a scale index only if performance is
consistent on subtests that compose scale
(base rate rule <10%)
• Use .05 level of statistical significance when
determining personal strengths/weaknesses
• Consider differences that are both
statistically significant and uncommon
(<10%) to be potentially valuable for
diagnosis and educational purposes
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Interpreting the Results
Step 2. Interpret the profile of scale indexes to identify
strengths and weaknesses (personal/relative
and normative)
A. Determine whether each scale is interpretable
(unitary). Essentials pp. 89-90
B. Conduct normative analysis (relative to
Average range of 85-115) Essentials pp. 91-92
C. Conduct ipsative analysis (relative to child’s
mean score) Essentials pp. 92-93
D. Determine if any scales that are personal
strengths or weaknesses are infrequent. pp. 93-96
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Sophia’s subtest scaled scores grouped by scale
AGES 7-18 CALCULATION OF SCALE INDEXES
Sequential/Gsm
Scaled
Scores
5. Number
15
Recall
14. Word
11
Order
Sum
26
Planning/Gf
Scaled
Scores
4. Story
7
Completion
15. Pattern
10
Reasoning
Sum
17
Simultaneous/Gv
Scaled
Scores
7-12
18
13
11. Rebus
19
Sum
Knowledge/Gc
Scaled
Scores
13-18
7
6
Learning/Glr
Scaled
Scores
1. Atlantis
6
7. Rover
7
11
10. Verbal Knowledge
18
Sum
18. Riddles
12. Triangles
13. Block Counting
13
Sum
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Essentials Page 91
Step 2A: Use base rate rule of <10%.
See Appendix A or Record Form p. 3 for ages 7-18
Scale Index
Scale
(Standard Score)
Sequential/Gsm
118
Simultaneous/Gv
Learning/Glr
Planning/Gf
Knowledge/Gc
80
97
90
95
Subtest Scaled
Range
Scores
Occurring
Interpretable?
< 10%a
High
Low
Range
15
11
4
Y
N
5
7
6
1
Y
N
6
13
6
7
Y
N
6
10
7
3
Y
N
6
11
7
4
Y
N
5
Analysis of the interpretability of Sophia’s scale indexes
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Essentials Page 90
Don’t Forget
What to Do with an Uninterpretable Index
Meaningfulness of Scale may be diminished, but
the tests are not invalid.
• Provides rich, diagnostic information
• Identifies uncommon variability
• Provides divergent vs. convergent data
• Consider narrow abilities or task differences
• Use cross-battery assessment to explore
• Optional Step 6 provides examiners with Guidelines to
generate hypotheses about why the subtest scores
varied
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Step 2B: Identify if any of the scales are a normative
weakness or a normative strength
STEP 2. INTERPRET PROFILE OF SCALE INDEXES TO IDENTIFY STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES
Subtest Scaled Scores
*See critical values
for Step 2A
Scale Index
(Standard Score)
Scale
Sequential/Gsm
Simultaneous/Gv
118
80
Learning/Glr
97
Planning/Gf
90
95
96
Knowledge/Gc
Index Mean
(rounded)
High
Low
Range
15 11
7 6
13 6
10 7
4
1
7
3
11 7
4
Interpretable?
Y
N
Normative Weakness
(NW) or Normative
Strength (NS)
<85
NW
>115
NS
NS
Personal Weakness (PW)
or Personal Strength (PS)
Diff from
Mean
PW or PS
(p<.05)
PW
PS
PW
PS
NS
Not
Interp.PW
PS
Y
N
NW
Y
N
NW
Y
N
NW
NS
PW
PS
Y
N
NW
NS
PW
PS
Infrequent
(<10%)
CHC model (include Knowledge/Gc)
Luria model (omit Knowledge/Gc)
Computation of Sophia’s Normative Strengths and Weaknesses
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Step 2C: Identify personal weaknesses or strengths in
the scale profile
STEP 2. INTERPRET PROFILE OF SCALE INDEXES TO IDENTIFY STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES
Subtest Scaled Scores
*See critical values
for Step 2A
Scale Index
(Standard Score)
Scale
Sequential/Gsm
Simultaneous/Gv
118
80
Learning/Glr
97
Planning/Gf
90
95
96
Knowledge/Gc
Index Mean
(rounded)
High
Low
Range
15 11
7 6
13 6
10 7
4
1
7
3
11 7
4
Interpretable?
Y
N
Normative Weakness
(NW) or Normative
Strength (NS)
<85
NW
>115
NS
NS
Personal Weakness (PW)
or Personal Strength (PS)
Diff from
Mean
+22
-16
PW or PS
(p<.05)
PW
PS
PW
PS
NS
Not
Interp.PW
PS
Y
N
NW
Y
N
NW
Y
N
NW
NS
-6
PW
PS
Y
N
NW
NS
-1
PW
PS
Infrequent
(<10%)
CHC model (include Knowledge/Gc)
Luria model (omit Knowledge/Gc)
Calculate mean and
difference from mean for
each interpretable scale.
Computation of Sophia’s Personal Strengths and Weaknesses
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Step 2D: Consult statistical significance and frequency table
in Record Form (p. 3) or Manual (p. 23) or
Essentials Appendix A (p.346)
P 2. INTERPRET PROFILE OF SCALE INDEXES TO IDENTIFY STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES
Subtest Scaled Scores
*See critical values
for Step 2A
Scale Index
(Standard Score)
Scale
ential/Gsm
ltaneous/Gv
High
118
80
Low
Range
15 11
7 6
13 6
10 7
Interpretable?
Y
N
4
1Y
7Y
3Y
PW or PS
(p<.05)
N
NW
NS
N
NW
NS
N
NW
NS
-6
PW
PS
NW
NS
-1
PW
PS
ning/Gf
90
N
11 7
4Y
95
96 CHC model (include Knowledge/Gc)
(rounded)
Diff from
Mean
>115
NS
97
Index Mean
Personal Weakness (PW)
or Personal Strength (PS)
<85
NW
ning/Glr
wledge/Gc
Normative Weakness
(NW) or Normative
Strength (NS)
+22
-16
PW
PS
PW
PS
Infrequent
(<10%)
PW
PS
Not Interp.
Luria model (omit Knowledge/Gc)
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Essentials Page 95
Summarizing Step 2 Findings
Don’t Forget 3.4
Definitions of Indexes that are Key Assets and High
Priority Concerns
Three Conditions needed for
Key Assets
Three Conditions needed for
High Priority Concerns
1. Normative Strength
1. Normative Weakness
2. Personal Strength
2. Personal Weakness
3. Infrequent (<10%) Occurrence
3. Infrequent (<10%) Occurrence
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Interpreting the Results
Optional Steps
Step 3. Scale Comparisons
Essentials p. 99-103
Essentials p. 103-104
A. Learning/Glr to Delayed Recall (5-18)
B. Learning/Glr to Knowledge/Gc
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Essentials Page 99
Key Point for Optional Steps
CAUTION
Even if some statistically differences prove
to be unusually large —all findings from
Steps 3 and 5 should be verified with other
data to be considered potentially valuable
for diagnostic or educational purposes
.
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Essentials Page 102
STEP 3A INITIAL LEARNING VS DELAYED RECALL
Learning/Glr (Initial) vs. Delayed Recall
Scale
Subtest Scaled
Scores
High Low Range
Interpretable?
(<10%)
Learning/Glr
13
6
7
Y
N
Delayed Recall
12
6
6
Y
N
Index
Standard
Score
Only calculate the
difference if both scales
are interpretable
Difference
Sig?
Y
Thus, the difference is
not calculated
Neither
Learning/Glr or
the Delayed
recall score is
interpretable
N
Infrequent?
Y
N
Significance & Infrequency are
irrelevant in this case
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Essentials Page 102
STEP 3B LEARNING VS ACQUIRED KNOWLEDGE
Learning/Glr (Initial) vs. Knowledge/Gc
Scale
Subtest Scaled
Scores
High Low Range
Interpretable?
(<10%)
Index
Standard
Score
Learning/Glr
13
6
7
Y
N
97
Knowledge/Gc
11
7
4
Y
N
95
Only calculate the
difference if both scales
are interpretable
Difference
Sig?
Y
Thus, the difference is
not calculated
Learning/Glr
is not
interpretable
N
Infrequent?
Y
N
Significance & Infrequency are
irrelevant in this case
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Essentials Page 104
Optional Step 4:
Supplementary Subtest Analysis (ages 3-18)
For this optional step, you can compare each supplementary subtest
that was administered with the mean scaled score of the Core
subtests on that scale, if the scale is interpretable (see Table 3.6).
If a scale is not interpretable (as determined in Step 2A), do not
make any comparisons involving supplementary subtests for that
scale.
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Essentials Page 106
Tables for Supplementary
Score Analysis
The difference scores listed in Table 3.5 provide base rates at
the <10% level (discrepancies that are uncommonly large—
occurring in less than 10% of the sample).
However, if you are interested in applying more stringent base
rates to these comparisons, refer to D.10 in the KABC-II
manual. This table in the manual lists base rates at the <5% and
<1% levels.
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Essentials Page 107
STEP 4. SUPPLEMENTAL SUBTEST ANALYSIS FOR AGES 7-12
Scale
Sequential/Gsm
Simultaneous/Gv
Scale
Interpretable in
Step 2?
Y N
Y
N
Sum of
Scaled
Scores
Mean
Scaled
Score
Supplemental
Subtest
Y
N
Scaled
Score
Diff from
Mean
Sig.
.(p<.05)
Sig?
Infrequent
(<10%)
Infreq
?
29
26
2=
13
14.5
Hand Movements
6
7
3.5
Y N
5.0
Y N
13
13
2=
6.5
6.5
Gestalt Closure
6
.5
3.7
Y N
5.5
Y N
Block Counting
7
1.5
3.2
Y N
5.5
Y N
10
1
3.1
Y N
3.5
Y N
Simultaneous/Gv
Knowledge/Gc
Differences between supplemental
subtest & mean scaled score that are
significant or infrequent
15
18
2=
7.59
Expressive Vocab.
Step 6B will help develop and verify
hypotheses to explain the difference
between the core and supplemental
Gsm subtests
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Essentials Page 107
Optional Step 5. Planned Clinical Comparisons
Information Processing Domain: Integration & Storage
Step 5A: Nonverbal Ability (NVI) vs. Verbal Ability (ages 3-18)
Step 5B: Problem-Solving Ability vs. Memory & Learning (ages 3-18)
Information Processing Domain: Input & Output
Step 5C: Visual Perception of Meaningful Stimuli vs. Abstract Stimuli
(ages 4-18)
Step 5D: Verbal Response vs. Pointing Response (ages 4 –18)
Step 5E: Little or No Motor Response vs. Gross-Motor Response
(ages 4 –18)
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Essentials Appendices
Appendix B provides tables to calculate standard scores
corresponding to sums of subtest scaled scores for the
following planned comparison clusters: Delayed Recall,
Verbal Ability, Meaningful Stimuli, and Abstract Stimuli.
Appendix C provides the necessary data to calculate
standard scores for the Problem Solving and Memory
and Learning clusters.
Appendix D provides the necessary data to calculate
standard scores for the Verbal Response, Pointing
Response, Little Motor, and Gross Motor clusters.
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Appendix A
The KABC-II Interpretive Worksheet provides

Values for minimum difference between
highest and lowest subtest scaled scores
that occurred in <10% of sample for each
cluster

Values for differences between cluster
scores that are statistically sig. or
infrequent (also on p. 108)
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Sophia’s Step 5A Comparison between
Verbal and Nonverbal Ability
11
10
7
7
6
10
6
7
4
4
28
96
Sophia’s verbal
abilities are
significantly stronger
than her nonverbal
abilities, although not
uncommonly so.
36
15
81
Sophia’s nonverbal abilities
fell within the Below
Average range of
functioning & represent a
Normative Weakness
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Sophia’s Step 5B comparison
Step 5B. PLANNED CLINICAL COMPARISONS
MEMORY & LEARNING
VS.
Scaled Scores
3
4
5-18
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
11
____
6
15
____
13
____
____
PROBLEM SOLVING ABILITY
Scaled Scores
3-4
5
6
7-12
Word Order
____
____
____
Face
Recognition
Atlantis
____
____
____
____
____
Number Recall
Rebus
6
____
10
7
____
____
7
1318
Conceptual
Thinking
Triangles
____
____
____
____
____
____
9
Y
stop
STOP
Range of
Scaled Scores
N
Y
Sum of Scaled
Scores
stop
Standard
Score
Memory & Learning was not a
unitary cluster, so the comparison
Is Difference
could not be conducted. significant?
Is Difference
uncommonly
large?
Range of Scaled
Scores
4
Uncommonly
Large Range?
Difference
Y
N
Y
Pattern
Reasoning
Rover
Story
Completion
Block
Counting
N
30
83
Uncommonly Large
Range?
Sum of Scaled
Scores
Standard Score
Sophia’s problem solving skills
are in the below average range,
a normative weakness
N
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Sophia’s Step 5C Comparison- Cannot be conducted
Step 5C. PLANNED CLINICAL COMPARISONS
MEANINGFUL STIMULI
VS.
Scaled Scores
4
5-18
6
____ ____
Atlantis
____
Face Recognition
____
7 Story Completion
1
Y
ABSTRACT STIMULI
Scaled Scores
4
5-12 13-18
____ ____
6
____ ____
13 ____
____ ____
10
Range of Scaled
Scores
N
13
stop
79
Uncommonly Large
Range?
Sum of Scaled
Scores
Standard Score
Difference
Sophia’s ability to utilize
meaningful stimuli is in theIsbelow
Difference
Y
N
average range, a normative
significant?
weakness
Is Difference
Y
N
uncommonly
large?
Range of Scaled
Scores
7
Y
N
stop
STOP
Triangles
Rebus
Pattern Reasoning
Uncommonly Large
Range?
Sum of Scaled
Scores
Standard Score
Abstract Stimuli was not a
unitary cluster, so the
comparison could not be
conducted.
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Sophia’s Step 5D Comparison
Step 5D. PLANNED CLINICAL COMPARISONS
VERBAL RESPONSE
VS.
Scaled Scores
4-6
____
15
____
13
____
7-18
____
____
10
____
5
Y
STOP
stop
POINTING RESPONSE
Scaled
Scores
4
5-18
____ 11
____
____
6
____
____
____
____
7
Number Recall
Rebus
Expressive Vocabulary
Riddles
Range of Scaled Scores
N
38
Sum of Scaled Scores
117
Standard Score
Sophia’s ability to
respond verballyIs Difference significant?
Is Difference
was in the above
uncommonly
large?
average range – a
normative strength
Range of Scaled Scores
5
Uncommonly Large
Range?
Y
stop
STOP
30
Difference
Y
N
Y
N
Word Order
Face Recognition
Atlantis
Verbal Knowledge
N
Uncommonly Large
Range?
24
Sum of Scaled Scores
87
Standard Score
Sophia’s ability to
respond by pointing
was at the low end
of the average
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
range
Sophia’s Step 5E Comparison
Step 5E. PLANNED CLINICAL COMPARISONS
LITTLE MOTOR RESPONSE
VS.
GROSS MOTOR RESPONSE
Scaled Scores
4
5-6
____
____
____
____
7-18
10
____
____
7
3
Y
stop
STOP
Scaled
Scores
4
5-6
7-12
Conceptual Thinking
Face Recognition
Pattern Reasoning
Block Counting
Range of Scaled
Scores
N
Uncommonly Large
Range?
17
Sum of Scaled Scores
91
Standard Score
____
____
Sophia
performed in
the average
range on
tasks that
required little
or no motor
response
13
Is Difference
significant?
Is Difference
uncommonly large?
Difference
Y
N
Y
N
____
____
6
____
____
7
____
7
1318
____
____
Hand Movements
Triangles
Rover
Story Completion
Range of Scaled Scores
1
Y
N
Uncommonly Large
Range?
stop
20
Sum of Scaled Scores
78
Standard Score
STOP
Sophia’s gross motor
response is in the below
average range– a
normative weakness
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Step 6. Generate Hypotheses to Explain
Fluctuations in Two Circumstances:
Step 6A: Scales that Are Not Interpretable (ages 4 –18)
Step 6B: Supplementary Subtests that Are
Inconsistent with Pertinent Core Subtests
(ages 3-18)
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Determine if Step 6A needs to be conducted
• Review the findings in Step 2A, in which you determined whether
each of the scales was interpretable.
• If all scales are interpretable, proceed directly to Step 6B.
• However, if one or more of the Scale Index were found to be
uninterpretable in Step 2A (i.e., uncommonly large subtest
variability within the scale), then proceed with Step 6A.
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Essentials Page 121
Three approaches for developing hypotheses
to explain the substantial intra-scale variability:
•First line of attack: Examine the results of Step 5—planned
clinical comparisons—to identify possible hypotheses.
•Second line of attack: Determine how the Core subtests in
each scale complement each other (e.g., if they measure
different CHC Narrow Abilities, that might help explain why
the child scored at different levels on them)
•Third line of attack: Examine QIs, behavioral observations
in general, and pertinent background information to generate
possible hypotheses.
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Step 6A. GENERATE HYPOTHESES TO EXPLAIN FLUCTUATIONS IN SCALES THAT ARE NOT INTERPRETABLE
First Line of Attack: Examine Planned Clinical Comparisons (from Step 5) to identify possible hypotheses
Was Index found
uninterpretable in
Cluster that may provide hypotheses Age Core Subtests Relevant to the Clusters
Step 2?
for the subtest variability in the index
(check box if yes)
Verbal Response vs. Pointing Response
Sequential/Gsm
4-18
Abstract vs. Meaningful Stimuli
Memory & Learning vs. Problem Solving Ability
Simultaneous/Gv
Little Motor vs. Gross Motor Response
4
Number Recall (Verbal) vs. Word Order (Pointing)
Face Recognition (Meaningful) vs. Triangles (Abstract)
3-4
4
Face Rec. (Mem. & Learn.) vs. Triangles/Concep. Th. (Prob Slv)
Face Recognition/Concept. Thinkg. (Little) vs. Triangles (Gross)
5
Concept Thinking/Pattern Reason. (Little) vs. Triangles
Little Motor vs. Gross Motor Response
(Gross)
6
Concept Th./Pattern Reason. (Little) vs. Triangles/Rover
Little Motor vs. Gross Motor Response
(Gross)
Learning/Glr
Planning/Gf
Knowledge/Gc

Little Motor vs. Gross Motor Response
13-18
Block Counting (Little) vs. Rover (Gross)
Verbal Response vs. Pointing Response
4-18
Rebus (Verbal) vs. Atlantis (Pointing)
Abstract vs. Meaningful Stimuli
4-18
Rebus (Abstract) vs. Atlantis (Meaningful)
Abstract vs. Meaningful Stimuli
7-18
Pattern Reasoning (Abstract) vs. Story Completion (Meaningful)
Little Motor vs. Gross Motor Response
7-18
Pattern Reasoning (Little) vs. Story Completion (Gross)
Verbal Response vs. Pointing Response
7-18
Riddles (Verbal) vs. Verbal Knowledge (Pointing)
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Sophia’s Learning/Glr Index was
uninterpretable due to the
extreme discrepancy between
Rebus (13) and Atlantis (6).
Two planned clinical comparisons may provide
hypotheses for the Atlantis-Rebus variability:
1) Meaningful vs. Abstract Stimuli
2) Verbal Response versus Pointing Response.
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
1) Meaningful vs. Abstract Stimuli
– Meaningful Stimulus cluster comprises
• Atlantis (6) and
• Story Completion (7)
Sophia’s ability to utilize
meaningful stimuli is in the
below average range (79), a
normative weakness
– Abstract Stimulus cluster comprises
• Triangles (6)
• Rebus (13) and
• Pattern Reasoning (10)
Abstract Stimuli was not
a unitary cluster, so the
comparison could not be
conducted.
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
2. Verbal Response vs. Pointing Response
• Verbal Response cluster (117) comprises
– Rebus (13), Number Recall (15), and Riddles (11)
Sophia’s ability to respond verbally
was in the above average range – a
normative strength
• Pointing response cluster (87) comprises
– Atlantis (6), Word Order (11), and Verbal Knowledge (7)
Sophia’s ability to respond by
pointing was at the low end of
the average range
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Always keep in mind
Steps 6A and 6B rely mostly on:
•detective work
•observational skills
•theoretical understanding of what the scales measure
The generation of hypotheses and support for these hypotheses
from multiple sources of data, therefore, are necessarily more
clinical than empirical.
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Rapid References 3.3-3.7
•
Provide Information for the Second Line of Attack
•
See Pages 124-127
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
How the Learning/Glr Subtests Complement
Each Other (Ages 4–18)
Atlantis
Rebus
Provides feedback for
errors?
YES
NO
Uses meaningful visual
stimuli?
YES
NO
Uses meaningful auditory
stimuli?
NO
YES
Context important for
success?
NO
YES
Does sequence of stimuli
matter?
NO
YES
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Sequential/Gsm Scale—How the Core Subtests
Complement Each Other (Ages 4–18)
Word Order
Number Recall
Nature of Output?
Pointing
Vocal
Nature of Content?
Words
Numbers
Interference Task
Long Number
Series
YES
NO
Achieves
Difficulty?
Integration of
auditory & visual
stimuli?
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Sequential/Gsm Scale—How the Core Subtests
Complement Each Other (Ages 4–18)
Measures the CHC
Gsm narrow ability—
Working Memory
(MW)?
Requires flexibility
to shift tasks?
Word Order
Number Recall
YES
(interference task)
NO
YES
NO
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
CHC Narrow Abilities for the
Sequential/Gsm Scale
CHC Narrow Ability
Word
Order
Number
Recall
Hand
Movements
Gsm
Memory Span (MS)
Working Memory
(MW)
Gv
Visual Memory (MV)
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Simultaneous/Gv Scale—How the Subtests
Complement Each Other (Ages 3–4)
Nature of
Visual
Stimuli?
Conceptual
Face
Thinking Recognition
Triangles
Abstract Abstract & Meaningful
Meaningful
Nature of
Response?
GrossMotor
Pointing
Pointing
Problem
Solving or
Memory?
Problem
solving
Problem
solving
Memory
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
CHC Narrow Abilities for the
Simultaneous/Gv Scale (3-4)
CHC Narrow Ability Triangles
Gv
Conceptual
Thinking
Face
Recognition
Visualization (VZ)
Spatial
Relations (SR)
Visual Memory (VM)
Gf
Induction (I)
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
CHC Narrow Abilities for the
Simultaneous/Gv Scale (5-6)
CHC Narrow Ability
Triangles
Conceptual
Thinking
Pattern
Reasoning
Rover
(age 6)
Gv
Visualization (VZ)
Spatial
Relations (SR)
Spatial
Scanning (SS)
Gf
Induction (I)
General
Sequential
Reasoning (RG)
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
CHC Narrow Abilities for the
Simultaneous/Gv Scale (7-12)
Core Battery
CHC Narrow Ability
Rover
Triangles
Supplementary
Block
Counting
Gestalt
Closure
Gv
Visualization (VZ)
Spatial
Relations (SR)
Spatial Scanning
(SS)
Closure Speed (CS)
Gf
General Sequential
Reasoning (RG)
Gq
Math Achievement
(A3)
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
CHC Narrow Abilities for the
Simultaneous/Gv Scale (13-18)
Core Battery
CHC Narrow Ability
Rover
Block
Counting
Supplementary
Triangles
Gestalt
Closure
Gv
Visualization (VZ)
Spatial Relations
(SR)
Spatial Scanning
(SS)
Closure Speed (CS)
Gf
General Sequential
Reasoning (RG)
Gq
Math Achievement
(A3)
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Planning/Gf Scale—How the Subtests
Complement Each Other (Ages 7–18)
Pattern
Reasoning
Story Completion
Meaningful
visual stimuli?
NO
YES
Visual-motor
response?
NO
YES
Uses
manipulatives?
NO
YES
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
CHC Narrow Abilities for the
Planning/Gf Scale (7-18)
CHC Narrow Ability
Pattern Reasoning
Story Completion
Gf
Induction (I)
General Sequential
Reasoning (RG)
Gc
General
Information (K0)
Gv
Visualization (VZ)
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Knowledge/Gc Scale—How the Core Subtests
Complement Each Other (Ages 3–6)
Type of stimuli?
Channel of
communication?
Riddles
Expressive
Vocabulary
Verbal
Pictorial
Auditory-visual
Visual-vocal
Note—Riddles has verbal and pictorial stimuli for its easiest items.
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Knowledge/Gc Scale—How the Core Subtests
Complement Each Other (Ages 7–18)
Type of stimuli?
Type of
response?
Measures auditoryvisual integration?
Riddles
Verbal Knowledge
Auditory
Visual + auditory
Vocal
Pointing
NO
YES
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
CHC Narrow Abilities for the
Knowledge/Gc Scale
CHC Narrow Ability
Riddles
Verbal Knowledge
Expressive
Vocabulary
Gc
Lexical
Knowledge (VL)
Language
Development (LD)
General
Information (KO)
Gf
General
Sequential
Reasoning (RG)
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Step 5C
Meaningful
vs. Abstract
stimuli
wasn’t
fruitful, but
Sophia’s Uninterpretable
Learning/Glr Scale
Atlantis: 6
Rebus: 13
Provides feedback for
errors?
YES
NO
Uses meaningful visual
stimuli?
YES
NO
Uses meaningful auditory
stimuli?
NO
YES
Context important for
success?
NO
YES
Does sequence of stimuli
matter?
NO
YES
CHC narrow abilities are the same for Atlantis and Rebus—they are both
measures of Associative Memory—so CHC theory will not provide any useful
hypotheses for explaining Sophia’s uninterpretable Learning/Glr Index.
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Essentials Page 131
Step 6A: Third Line Of Attack
When conducting the third line of attack
to help explain an uninterpretable Index:
• Review the Qualitative Indictors for the
highest and lowest subtests in the scale
• see if there is evidence that noncognitive or
extraneous behaviors differentially influenced
performance on the two subtests.
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Essentials Page 131
Step 6A: Third Line Of Attack
• Review your notes in the margins of the record
form
• Identify any disruptive behaviors that were
evident during the administration of the subtests
that yielded the lowest scaled scores
• Identify any enhancing behaviors during the
subtests on which the child performed well
•perseverance,
•extremely focused attention
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Essentials Page 131
Step 6A: Third Line Of Attack
• The goal:
•generate as many hypotheses as possible to
explain uninterpretable Indexes.
• After generating numerous hypotheses,
•try to identify the best ones based on multiple
pieces of corroborating data.
• When necessary,
•administer additional tests or subtests.
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Third Line of Attack: Sophia’s Glr
• QI’s do not help reveal any noticeable
explanations for the differences between
Rebus and Atlantis. On both subtests:
– Very focused, and didn’t hesitate to respond when
uncertain.
– Not impulsive during either test, and seemed to
sustain attention.
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Third Line of Attack: Sophia’s Glr
• Unique Beh. Observation:
– Sophia appeared to enjoy Rebus, making
comments such as “This is fun, it’s like cracking a
code.”
– She used the context in the Rebus items as part of
her strategy for solving the problems: “If I can’t
remember the word, is it okay if I guess from the
other words?”
– Sophia seemed overwhelmed by the multiple
unorganized stimuli in Atlantis
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Third Line of Attack: Sophia’s Glr
• Background information also reveals
– Sophia loves detective stories.
– Plays a CSI game often at home.
– Enjoys typing “secret code emails” to her friends
(although she does not like hand-writing notes or
letters).
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Essentials Page 132
Step 6B: Generate Hypotheses to Explain
Supplementary Subtests that Are Inconsistent
with Pertinent Core Subtests (ages 3-18)
• The process of conducting Step 6B is similar to that of conducting
Step 6A.
• To determine if Step 6B needs be conducted, review the findings in
Step 4, which determined whether each of the supplemental
subtests was significantly different than the mean of the core
subtests.
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
First Line of Attack: Determine which
supplemental subtests are significantly different
from the Core Subtests
Step
6B:GENERATE
GenerateHYPOTHESES
Hypotheses TO
to EXPLAIN
Explain SUPPLEMENTARY SUBTE
Step 6B.
Supplementary
that are
THE
MEAN OF CORESubtests
SUBTESTS
Inconsistent with the mean of Core Subtests
First Line of Attack: Determine which supplemental subtests are significant
a. Check box if supplemental subtest is significantly different from mean of
core subtests (See Step 4 results)
Age
Supplemental Subtest
Number Recall
Gestalt Closure
Hand Movements
Verbal Knowledge
Face Recognition
Block Counting
Story Completing
Expressive Vocabulary
Triangles
3
4
5
6
7-12

13-18
b. Conduc
Clinical
subtest
The follo
5’s clust
- Ex
Ve
- Ve
Ab
- Ha
m
- Bl
M
Second Line of Attack: Examine how Supplemental & Core subtests within
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
First Line of Attack: Determine which
supplemental subtests are significantly different
from the Core Subtests
Step 6B: Generate Hypotheses to
Explain Supplementary
Subtests
that
are Inconsistent
PLAIN SUPPLEMENTARY SUBTESTS
THAT ARE
INCONSISTENT
WITH
with the mean of Core
Subtests
plemental subtests are significantly different from the Core Subtests
y different from mean of
ge
6
7-12
13-18
b. Conduct only an informal examination of the Planned
Clinical comparisons, as most Supplemental
subtests are excluded from the planned comparisons
The following supplemental tests are included in Step
5’s clusters:
- Expressive Vocabulary (Gc subtest) is in the
Verbal Ability cluster.
- Verbal Knowledge (Gc subtest) is in the Verbal
Ability and Pointing Response clusters.
- Hand Movements (Gsm Subtest) is in the Gross
motor response & nonverbal ability clusters.
- Block Counting (Gv subtest) is in the Little
Motor cluster.
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
lemental & Core subtests within each scale complement each other
Step 6B: First Line of Attack for Sophia’s
Supplementary Subtests that were
inconsistent with the Core
• Hand Movements (6 lower than Core of 13)
– Examine Step 5E: Gross Motor ability (78)
significantly lower than Little Motor Response
(91)
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Essentials Page 133
Step 6B
The second and third lines of attack
that are of primary importance for
generating hypotheses
• Why a supplementary subtest differs significantly from
its core subtests:
• See Rapid References 3.4, 3.5, and 3.7 (in second
line of attack).
• Rapid References 3.3 and 3.6 are not needed for this
step because Learning/Glr and Planning/Gf do not have
any supplementary subtests.
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Step 6B
Second and third lines of attack
• Sophia’s Hand Movements scaled score of
6 significantly below pertinent Core subtests
• HM is within the Below Average Range,
• but her Sequential/Gsm Index of 118 was a
Key Asset for her.
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Step 6B
Second and third lines of attack
Sophia’s Hand Movements scaled score of 6
significantly below pertinent Core subtests
• Consider that she had a High Priority
Concern in visual processing,
• Evidenced by Simultaneous/Gv Index of 80,
• Hypothesis:
• Hand Movements measures the Gv
Narrow Ability of Visual Memory.
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Step 6B
Second and third lines of attack
Sophia’s Hand Movements scaled score of 6
significantly below pertinent Core subtests
• Sophia undoubtedly scored significantly
lower on Hand Movements than on other
short-term memory tasks
• because her deficit in visual processing
prevented her from performing at an Above
Average level in her area of strength.
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
How to Interpret the KABC-II:
Qualitative Indicators
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Essentials Page 149
Evidence-based Background for QIs observed
during testing and other clinical situations
Effects of Anxiety
Cognitive Domain
Affected
KABC-II Subtests
Affected
Working memory
Short term memory
Strategy formation
Number Recall
Hand Movements
Word Order
Atlantis
Rebus
Note. Although Anxiety may affect these KABC-II subtests, poor
performance on these subtests is not necessarily indicative of problems with
anxiety.
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Essentials Page 152
Evidence-based Background for QIs observed
during testing and other clinical situations
Effects of Executive Functioning & Attention
Cognitive Domain Affected
KABC-II Subtests Affected
Attention
Executive Functioning
Working memory
Number Recall
Word Order
Rover
Rebus
Concept Formation
Pattern Reasoning Atlantis
Story Completion
Hand Movements
Riddles
Note. Although problems with executive functioning and attention may affect these KABCII subtests, poor performance on these subtests is not necessarily indicative of disorders
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
associated with poor executive functioning and attention.
Essentials Page 155
Evidence-based Background for QIs observed
during testing and other clinical situations
Effects of Cultural Issues
Cognitive Domain
Affected
KABC-II Subtests
Affected
Crystallized abilities
Verbal Knowledge
Riddles
Expressive Vocabulary
Note. Although cultural issues may affect these KABC-II subtests, poor
performance on these subtests does not necessarily indicate that cultural
issues have depressed scores on these subtests.
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Essentials Pages 156-166
Subtest-By-Subtest
Qualitative/Process Analysis of the
18 Subtests
• The lists of abilities and processes in Rapid References 4.3-4.20
are not intended to be limiting.
• They are intended to stimulate original observations about the
child you are assessing.
• Other plausible abilities can easily be enumerated for each subtest
based on a variety of armchair, clinical, and empirical analyses of
the original K-ABC tasks, Wechsler subtests, and related
cognitive tasks.
• The lists for each subtest are geared toward the two theories—
Luria and CHC—that form the foundation of the KABC-II, have
empirical validation, or provide potentially valuable clinical
information about the influence of behavior on test performance.
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Chapter 6
Clinical Applications
Comprehensive Picture
of Child’s Processing
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
KABC-II & KTEA-II:
Like Hand and Glove
•
•
•
•
•
Conormed
Similar, cohesive theoretical basis
Similar interpretive strategies
Tests complement each other
Together provide the foundation of a
comprehensive assessment
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Quantitative Analysis Coupled
with Theoretical Analysis
• Correlational analyses offer valuable
information about the integration of the
tests
• CHC theory also provides valuable ways
of integrating KABC-II and KTEA-II
• Finally, a second theoretical approach –
Luria’s model -- offers another mechanism
for analyzing and integrating the tests.
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
KABC-II Scale Index Correlations
with KTEA-II Composites (ages 7-18)
KTEA-II Composite
KABC-II Scale
Written
Oral
Language Language
Total
Reading
Math
Learning/Glr
.58
.55
.49
.53
.48
Sequential/Gsm
.50
.48
.44
.44
.44
Simultaneous/Gv
.54
.47
.53
.40
.43
Planning/Gf
.63
.56
.59
.51
.51
Knowledge/Gc
.75
.71
.53
.59
.68
Highest correlate of each KTEA-II Achievement Composite
Second-Highest correlate of each KTEA-II Achievement Composite
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Meaning of the KABC-II – KTEA-II
Correlations
• The strong relationship between the Knowledge/Gc Index and all
areas of achievement for school-age children and adolescents was
anticipated, given that the scale is designed to measure the depth
and breadth of knowledge acquired from one’s culture (including
schooling).
• The good correlations with achievement for the new KABC-II
scales—Planning/Gf and Learning/Glr—attest to the importance
in the classroom of the ability to solve problems and learn new
material during a clinical evaluation of general cognitive ability.
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
KABC-II – KTEA-II Correlations
Under Age 7
• Simultaneous/Gv Index had the highest correlation (r = .65) with
KTEA-II Comprehensive Achievement.
• Knowledge/Gc (.60) and Sequential/Gsm (.59) in a virtual
deadlock for second best.
• For ages 4 ½ - 6, when school skills are emerging, the amount of
knowledge a child has already acquired is secondary to the
cognitive processes that are needed to learn to read, write,
compute, and speak
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Integrating the
KABC-II & KTEA-II: Theory
• The KABC-II and KTEA-II were designed to
sample a number of Broad and Narrow Abilities
defined by the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC)
model
• These tests together measure 8 of the 10 CHC
Broad Abilities and about 33 Narrow Abilities
(Flanagan & Ortiz, 2001).
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
CHC Theory Applied to KABC-II
Stratum III: General ability is
measured by the KABC-II
Fluid-Crystallized Index (FCI)
Stratum II:
Broad
abilities are
measured
by KABCII Scales
g
Glr
Gsm
Gv
Gf
Gc
LongTerm
Storage &
Retrieval
ShortTerm
Memory
Visual
Processing
Fluid
Reasoning
Crystallized
Ability
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Three Additional Broad Abilities
Measured with KTEA-II
Stratum II:
Broad abilities
are measured
by KTEA-II
Scales
Gq
Ga
Grw
Quantitative
Knowledge
Auditory
Processing
Reading and
Writing
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Glr
Gsm
Gv
Associative
Memory
Memory Span
Visual
Memory
Learning
Abilities
Working
Memory
Spatial
Relations
Gf
Induction
General
Sequential
Reasoning
Gc
Lexical
Knowledge
General
Information
Language
Development
Visualization
Spatial
Scanning
Closure
Speed
Stratum I: Narrow Abilities—
measured by the KABC II Subtests
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Glr
Gf
Gc
Gq
Ga
Grw
Naming
Facility
Quantitative
Reasoning
Listening
Ability
Math
Achievement
Phonetic
CdgAnalysis
Reading
Decoding
Word
Fluency
Oral
Production
& Fluency
Math
Knowledge
Phonetic
CdgSynth.
Reading
Compreh.
Associat.
Fluency
Grammatical
Sensitivity
Verbal
Language
Compreh.
Spelling
Ability
Meaningful
Memory
Writing
Ability
Stratum I: Narrow Abilities—
measured by KTEA II Subtests
Engl. Usage
Knowledge
Reading
Speed
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger.
All Rights Reserved
Lurian Process Approach to
Integrating KABC-II & KTEA-II
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Sequential Processing, Short-Term Memory,
Phonological Awareness, and Listening
Comprehension
• KABC-II Sequential/Gsm Core subtests: As a primary measure
of auditory short-term memory, these subtests help the examiner
evaluate the critical listening skills that children need in the
classroom.
• KTEA-II Phonological Awareness measures sound-symbol
connections but because of the way it is set up, also measures
auditory short-term memory and sequencing skills.
• KTEA-II Listening Comprehension also supports the
Sequential/Gsm scale because it straddles auditory short-term
memory, auditory working memory, and auditory long-term
encoding.
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
The Simultaneous/Gv Scale and
Written Expression
• KTEA-II Written Expression can be used to supplement the
KABC-II Simultaneous/Gv scale
• Contrast performance on KABC-II Simultaneous/Gv subtests to
the visual motor aspects of written expression activities. The visual
motor activities on the KABC-II subtests like Rover or Triangles
may be related to aspects of written expression.
• These comparisons may help you figure out why a child has poor
handwriting, or poor visual organization on writing tasks.
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Planning, Reasoning, and Executive Functions:
How They Apply to Rover and Rebus and to
Several KTEA-II Subtests
• Rover measures both Gf and Gv Narrow Abilities, and demands
intact executive functions for success. If a child has poor planning
or executive functions, performance on this subtest is severely
impacted.
• Rebus factorially belongs on the Glr/Learning Scale of the KABCII, it can also assist in the exploration of the child’s fluid reasoning
ability measured on the Planning/Gf scale.
• Written Expression, Reading Comprehension, Oral
Expression, and Listening Comprehension all require "higher
levels of cognition" (Sattler, 2001), "cognitive load" (Raney, 1993),
or "higher-complex abilities."
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Auditory Processing (Ga) and Several Auditory
Tasks on the KABC-II and KTEA-II
• KTEA-II Listening Comprehension and three KABC-II subtests
(Riddles, Number Recall, Word Order) are dependent, to some
extent, on the CHC Ga Broad Ability.
• These subtests still all use auditory input as the main processing
vehicle and that, by nature, is serial and sequential (but are not
primarily Ga subtests).
• Listening Comprehension, in particular, is a supportive subtest
for Ga because it measures the kind of listening comprehension
that students must do in school
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Summary
• Strong theoretical and correlational links
between KABC-II and KTEA-II
• Using both with yield a fruitful examination
of a child’s cognitive abilities and how they
translate into academic skills
Essentials Pages 246-250
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Sophia’s KTEA-II Scores
Composite/Subtest
Reading Composite
Letter & Word Recognition
Standard Percentile
Score
Rank
92
30
94
34
Reading Comprehension
Decoding Composite
Nonsense Word Decoding
90
91
87
25
27
19
Sound-Symbol Composite
Phonological Awareness
Reading Fluency Composite
88
89
89
21
23
23
90
88
25
21
Word Recognition Fluency
Decoding Fluency
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Sophia’s KTEA-II Scores
Composite/Subtest
Standard Percentile
Score
Rank
Mathematics Composite
Math Concepts & Applications
Math Computation
Oral Language Composite
91
94
89
96
27
34
23
39
Listening Comprehension
Oral Expression
Written Language Composite
94
98
70
34
45
2
71
74
3
4
Written Expression
Spelling
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Diagnostic Impressions of Sophia
• Sophia displays significant deficits in the area
of visual processing
• Her deficit in this basic psychological process,
coupled with her deficits in the area of written
expression and spelling, have led to the
development of a Disorder of Written
Expression.
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Diagnostic Impressions of Sophia
• Throughout the testing, Sophia’s written
expression was sparse, she wrote in a labored
manner, and made vocabulary, punctuation,
and grammatical errors.
• Although her oral language appeared intact,
her deficits in writing have greatly impacted
her motivation & school achievement.
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Diagnostic Impressions of Sophia
• Her area of deficit requires intense and
immediate intervention, both to keep her from
falling further behind her peers, and to limit
the damaging effects of low self esteem and
poor motivation.
–
–
–
–
–
–
Word processing
Decrease visual-motor demands
Extra time for written assignments
Don’t requiring copying assignment from board
Incentive program to motivate Sophia to increase writing quantity
Other specific recs from Mather & Jaffe (2002)
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Supplementing the KABC-II with
the Cross Battery Approach
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Essentials Pages 268-280
Supplementing the KABC-II Using
Cross-Battery Methods
Using CHC Cross Battery approach, you can approximate the
total range of broad abilities more adequately than any single
intelligence battery (Carroll, 1997)
Kaufman (2000): The CHC CB approach can serve to elevate
test interpretation to a higher level, to add theory to
psychometrics and to thereby improve the quality of the
psychometric assessment of intelligence
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Essentials Pages 268-280
Supplementing the KABC-II Using
Cross-Battery Methods
Cross-Battery approach is used to augment KABC-II
assessments by allowing for:
1) greater breadth in the measurement of broad abilities (e.g.,
adding Ga and Gs to KABC-II assessments) and
2) greater depth in the measurement of broad abilities (e.g., adding
qualitatively different measures of narrow abilities within broad
ability domains).
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
3 Pillars of CB Approach
• CHC Theory
• Broad CHC Ability Classifications of Tests
• Narrow CHC Ability Classifications of Tests
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
5 Guiding Principles of CB Approach
1. Select tests that have been classified through an
acceptable method
2. Include two or more qualitatively different narrow
ability indicators for each CHC domain to ensure
proper construct representation
3. Select tests that were developed and normed with in
a few years of one another to minimize the effects
of spurious differences between tests scores
attributable to the Flynn effect
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
5 Guiding Principles of CB Approach
4. Select tests from the smallest number of
batteries to minimize the effect of spurious
differences between test scores that may be
attributable to difft norm samples
5. Use clusters from a single battery whenever
possible
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Essentials Page 274
The Steps of KABC-II Cross-Battery Assessment
Step 1. Determine whether assessment of Ga and Gs is
necessary or desired.
Step 2. Determine whether there is a need to administer
supplemental KABC-II subtests.
Step 3. Determine whether it is necessary or desirable to achieve
more in-depth measurement of broad cognitive abilities
assessed by the KABC-II.
Step 4. Determine whether the measurement of a specific or
narrow ability is necessary or desirable.
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Essentials Pages 274-276
Cross-Battery Step 1.
Determine whether assessment of Ga and Gs
is necessary or desired.
• If Ga is necessary to assess, such as in a referral for reading
difficulties in a young child, then the KTEA-II
phonological processing test may be administered.
• If Gs is necessary to assess, then you may administer the
Gs subtests from the WJ III or WISC-IV
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Essentials Pages 274-276
Cross-Battery Step 1.
Guidelines for deriving and interpreting CHC Clusters
• Interpret a cluster only when the child’s performance on the
subtests comprising the cluster is consistent (or common)
indicating a unitary ability
• For subtests derived from actual norms, use existing test’s
guidelines
• For subtests derived from averaging subtests use McGrew
& Flanagan (1998) and Flanagan & Ortiz’s (2001)
guidelines (next slide)
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Essentials Pages 274-276
Cross-Battery Step 1.
Guidelines for deriving and interpreting CHC Clusters
• McGrew & Flanagan (1998) and Flanagan & Ortiz’s (2001)
guidelines
1. Convert subtest scores to scale having mean of 100 &
SD of 15
2. Report subtest scores with CI of ± 7 (McGrew &
Flanagan, 1998)
3. If the CI for the subtests overlap, then the ability
presumed to underlie the cluster is considered unitary.
If they do not touch or overlap, then the ability is
considered nonunitary, and shouldn’t be interpreted.
4. Report clusters (both broad & narrow) with a CI of ± 5
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Essentials Pages 274-276
Cross-Battery Step 1.
Guidelines for deriving and interpreting CHC Clusters
• McGrew & Flanagan (1998) and Flanagan & Ortiz’s (2001)
guidelines
1. If an index is uninterpretable, determine whether a
general conclusion may be made about the child’s
performance
2. If all subtest scaled scores are ≤ 8 or ≥ 12, a statement
may be made about performance
3. For example, Rover = 8; Triangles = 18
….However, it is clear that Andrea’s Gv ability is a
notable integrity for her because her performance
on the tasks that comprise the Simultaneous/Gv
index ranged from Average/Normal Limits to Upper
Extreme/Normative Weakness
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Essentials Pages 276-278
Cross-Battery Step 2.
Determine whether there is a need to administer
supplemental KABC-II subtests.
• Whenever the lower of the two subtest scaled scores comprising
an index is a normative weakness (i.e., a scaled score < 7) and the
higher of the two subtest scores is well within the average range
of ability or higher (i.e., a scaled score > 10),
• regardless of whether the Index represents a unitary ability.
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Essentials Pages 276-278
Cross-Battery Step 2.
Determine whether there is a need to administer
supplemental KABC-II subtests.
• John (age 8): Riddles = 5; Verbal Knowledge = 13
• 8-point variability in Knowledge/Gc subtests
• Thus, administer the Supplemental Expressive Vocabulary
1. Determine whether Riddles and Expressive Vocabulary
are a unitary construct
2. If unitary, calculate the Knowledge/Gc Index based on
these two subtests (Table D.2)
3. If not unitary, determine whether Expressive Vocabulary
and Verbal Knowledge represent a unitary construct
4. If Verb. Knowledge & Expressive Vocab. Unitary, then
calculate the Knowledge/Gc index based on those
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Essentials Page 278
Cross-Battery Step 3.
Determine whether it is necessary or desirable
to achieve more in-depth measurement
of broad cognitive abilities assessed by the KABC-II.
• Glr is underrepresented on the core battery.
• You may administer the KABC-II delayed recall subtests (see
interpretive Step 3A in Chapter 3)
• Or the KTEA-II Glr subtests (e.g., Listening Comprehension,
Naming Facility/RAN, and Associational Fluency).
• You may also administer Glr tests from the WJ III or from
other more specialized batteries, such as the Children’s
Memory Scale (Cohen, 1997) or the CTOPP
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Essentials Pages 279-280
Cross-Battery Step 4.
Determine whether the measurement
of a specific or narrow ability is necessary or desirable.
• Naming Facility, a narrow Glr ability,
• and Phonetic Coding, a narrow Ga ability,
• show substantial and consistent, positive correlations with
basic reading skills
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Essentials Pages 279-280
Cross-Battery Step 4.
Determine whether the measurement
of a specific or narrow ability is necessary or desirable.
• A Visual Memory Cluster may be particularly informative
when there is an observed reading difficulty that is not
explained by difficulties in phonemic awareness or rapid
automatized naming.
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Essentials Pages 279-280
Cross-Battery Step 4.
Determine whether the measurement
of a specific or narrow ability is necessary or desirable.
• Calculation of a Reading Fluency cluster may provide an
indication of the degree to which an individual has automatized
basic reading skills (e.g., decoding).
• Deficient reading fluency can be compared to other fluency
ability to determine whether fluency is impaired more globally
or only as it related to reading decoding.
• A deficit in the basic psychological process of Processing
Speed/Gs may be suggested with poor performance on GlrNaming Facility tasks
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Cross-Battery Summary
• The Cross-Battery Steps for supplementing the Core KABC-II
Subtests with additional subtests can improve upon the
breadth and depth of measurement of cognitive abilities
• These additional supplements can be deemed necessary upon
review of additional KABC-II data
• The steps will help further test hypotheses about variation in a
child’s KABC-II score profile.
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Additional Case Studies
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Identifying Info
• Julia A., Age 5:5, preschool
Referral Concerns
• Julia has shown slow development & her
grandmother & teacher have expressed
concern about her attention and behavior
• Pediatrician referred for developmental
evaluation to determine appropriate
resources.
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Background Information
• Grandmother has custody
• Mother likely used illicit substances during
pregnancy
• Chronic ear infections through age 2
• Some seizure-like symptoms – no
neurological evaluation yet
• Behavioral problems – destructive at home,
gets into everything
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Background Cont.
• Does not know letters & numbers
• Attends preschool 3 days
• Hits classmates, scribbles on own face,
difficulty sitting still, short attention span
• Few friends
• No other known medical problems
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Behavioral Observations
• Good eye contact
• Rapport easily established – no separation
difficulties from grandma
• Spoke in full sentences with some
articulation problems
• Difficulty attending to instructions
• Required extra teaching of the task
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Behavioral Observations Cont.
•
•
•
•
•
•
Much extraneous movement
Required a lot of redirection
Oppositional behavior
Immature pencil grip
Very social
Desired continued social interaction &
playing with the examiner
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Assessment Procedures
•
•
•
•
•
•
KABC-II
VMI-4
Child Behavior Checklist
ADHD Rating Scale – IV
Clinical Interviews: grandma, teacher
Play observation
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
KABC-II
Global Scale
Fluid-Crystallized Index (FCI)
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
“Less than 23 pts?”
STEP 1. INTERPRET THE GLOBAL SCALE INDEX
Confidence
Interval
Scale Used
Scale
Index
(circle one)
Is Global Scale Interpretable?
Descriptive Category
(Ages 4-18)
(Standard
Score)
(Circle one)
90%
or
95%
Highest
Index
FCI (CHC Model)
MPI (Luria Model)
87
72
(
67 - 77 ) 92
Lowest
Index
Range
Less than
23 pts
or Categories
35 YY N
57 •31
N
Percentile Rank
If NO,
do not
interpret
NVI
“If no, do not interpret”
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Essentials Pages 85-87
Step 1. Interpret the global scale index
(FCI, MPI, or NVI)
• Julia displayed considerable variability in
her standard scores on the four scales that
compose the FCI, with indexes ranging
from 92 on Learning/Glr to 57 on
Sequential/Gsm.
• This wide variation in indexes (35 points,
which equals more than 2 SDs) renders
her FCI meaningless as an estimate of
global ability;
• it is merely the midpoint of greatly varying
abilities.
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Step 2A: Determine whether each scale is interpretable
using a base rate criterion of <10%
STEP 2. INTERPRET PROFILE OF SCALE INDEXES TO IDENTIFY STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES
Subtest Scaled Scores
*See critical values
for Step 2A
Scale Index
(Standard Score)
Scale
Sequential/Gsm
Simultaneous/Gv
Learning/Glr
57
76
92
High
Low
7
7
9
0
6
8
Range
7
1
1
Planning/Gf
Knowledge/Gc
88
Index Mean
(rounded)
9 6
3
Interpretable?
Y
N
Normative Weakness
(NW) or Normative
Strength (NS)
<85
NW
>115
NS
Personal Weakness (PW)
or Personal Strength (PS)
Diff from
Mean
PW or PS
(p<.05)
PW
PS
Y
N
NW
NS
PW
PS
Y
N
NW
NS
PW
PS
Y
N
NW
NS
PW
PS
Y
N
NW
NS
PW
PS
Infrequent
(<10%)
CHC model (include Knowledge/Gc)
Luria model (omit Knowledge/Gc)
•The Sequential/Gsm scale cannot be interpreted because of
the raw score of zero on Number Recall
•Manual p. 37: If there are not at least 2 subtests with raw
scores greater than zero, do not interpret that scale
©2005index
E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Step 2B: Identify if any of the scales are a normative
weakness or a normative strength
STEP 2. INTERPRET PROFILE OF SCALE INDEXES TO IDENTIFY STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES
Subtest Scaled Scores
*See critical values
for Step 2A
Scale Index
(Standard Score)
Scale
Sequential/Gsm
Simultaneous/Gv
Learning/Glr
57
76
92
High
Low
7
7
9
0
6
8
Range
7
1
1
Planning/Gf
Knowledge/Gc
88
Index Mean
(rounded)
9 6
3
Interpretable?
Y
N
Normative Weakness
(NW) or Normative
Strength (NS)
<85
NW
>115
NS
Personal Weakness (PW)
or Personal Strength (PS)
Diff from
Mean
PW or PS
(p<.05)
PW
PS
Y
N
NW
NS
PW
PS
Y
N
NW
NS
PW
PS
Y
N
NW
NS
PW
PS
Y
N
NW
NS
PW
PS
Infrequent
(<10%)
CHC model (include Knowledge/Gc)
Luria model (omit Knowledge/Gc)
Computation of Julia’s Normative Strengths and Weaknesses
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Step 2C: Identify personal weaknesses or strengths in
the scale profile
STEP 2. INTERPRET PROFILE OF SCALE INDEXES TO IDENTIFY STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES
Subtest Scaled Scores
*See critical values
for Step 2A
Scale Index
(Standard Score)
Scale
Sequential/Gsm
Simultaneous/Gv
Learning/Glr
57
76
92
High
Low
7
7
9
0
6
8
Range
7
1
1
Planning/Gf
Knowledge/Gc
Index Mean
(rounded)
88
78
9 6
3
Interpretable?
Y
N
Normative Weakness
(NW) or Normative
Strength (NS)
<85
NW
>115
NS
Personal Weakness (PW)
or Personal Strength (PS)
Diff from
Mean
Y
N
NW
NS
-21
-2
Y
N
NW
NS
+14
Y
N
NW
NS
Y
N
NW
NS
+10
PW or PS
(p<.05)
PW
PS
PW
PS
PW
PS
PW
PS
PW
PS
Infrequent
(<10%)
CHC model (include Knowledge/Gc)
Luria model (omit Knowledge/Gc)
Calculate mean and
difference from mean for
each interpretable scale.
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Step 2D: Consult statistical significance and frequency
table in Record Form (p. 3) or Manual (p. 23)
or Essentials Appendix A (p.346)
STEP 2. INTERPRET PROFILE OF SCALE INDEXES TO IDENTIFY STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES
Subtest Scaled Scores
*See critical values
for Step 2A
Scale Index
(Standard Score)
Scale
Sequential/Gsm
Simultaneous/Gv
Learning/Glr
57
76
92
High
Low
7
7
9
0
6
8
Range
7
1
1
Planning/Gf
Knowledge/Gc
Index Mean
(rounded)
88
78
9 6
3
Interpretable?
Y
N
Normative Weakness
(NW) or Normative
Strength (NS)
<85
NW
>115
NS
Personal Weakness (PW)
or Personal Strength (PS)
Diff from
Mean
Y
N
NW
NS
-21
-2
Y
N
NW
NS
+14
Y
N
NW
NS
Y
N
NW
NS
+10
PW or PS
(p<.05)
PW
Infrequent
(<10%)
PS
<5%
PW
PS
PW
PS
PW
PS
PW
PS
<10%
CHC model (include Knowledge/Gc)
Luria model (omit Knowledge/Gc)
•Although the Sequential/Gsm difference from the mean occurs
infrequencly, the scale still cannot be interpreted because of the
raw score of zero on Number Recall
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Essentials Page 95
Summarizing Step 2 Findings
Don’t Forget 3.4
Definitions of Indexes that are Key Assets and High
Priority Concerns
Three Conditions needed for Key
Assets
Learning/Glr (92) meets 2nd two
1. Normative Strength
2. Personal Strength
3. Infrequent (<10%) Occurrence
Three Conditions needed for
High Priority Concerns
Sequential/Gsm (77) meets 3
1. Normative Weakness Don’t
2. Personal Weakness Interpret Gsm
3. Infrequent (<10%) Occurrence
Knowledge/Gc (88) meets 2nd 1
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Interpreting the Results
Optional Steps
Step 3. Scale Comparisons
Essentials p. 99-103
Essentials p. 103-104
A. Learning/Glr to Delayed Recall (5-18)
B. Learning/Glr to Knowledge/Gc
Delayed Recall
subtests were not
administered to Julia
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
STEP 3B LEARNING VS ACQUIRED KNOWLEDGE
Learning/Glr (Initial) vs. Knowledge/Gc
Scale
Learning/Glr
Knowledge/Gc
Subtest Scaled
Scores
High
Low Range
Interpretable?
(<10%)
Index
Standard
Score
89
87
11
Y
N
92
86
129
611
31
Y
N
188
08
4
22
Only calculate the
difference if both scales are
interpretable
Difference
Sig?
Julia’s ability to learn
new material does not
differ significantly from
her acquisition of facts
and verbal concepts.
Y
N
Y N
Difference needed
for significance
(p<.05) = 12+
Infrequent?
YY NN
Difference needed
for 10% base rate
= 25+
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Her Gsm scale was not interpretable, so the Step 4 comparisons with
Supplementary Hand Movements subtest cannot be conducted
STEP 4. SUPPLEMENTARY SUBTEST ANALYSIS FOR AGE 5
Scale
Sequential/Gsm
Simultaneous/Gv
Scale
Interpretable in
Step 2?
Y
Y
2=
N
N
Mean
Scaled
Score
Sum of
Scaled
Scores
19
3=
Supplementary
Subtest
Differences between supplementary
subtest & mean scaled score that are
significant or infrequent
Scaled
Score
Diff from
Mean
Hand Movements
6.3
Y
N
15
2=
7.5
Sig?
Infrequent
(<10%)
Infreq
?
3.5
Y N
5.0
Y N
Gestalt Closure
4
2.3
3.6
Y N
5.0
Y N
Face Recognition
5
1.3
4.0
Y N
6.0
Y N
2.7
Y N
5.0
Y N
3.1
Y N
4.0
Y N
Block Counting
Knowledge/Gc
Sig.
(p<.05)
Verbal Knowledge
8
.5
The supplementary subtests did not differ
significantly from the mean of the Core subtests
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Julia’s Step 5A Comparison between Verbal
and Nonverbal Ability
6
9
8
7
5
6
6
2
3
5
23
87
Julia’s verbal abilities
are significantly
stronger than her
nonverbal abilities, and
it is uncommon to find
a difference this size in
the normal population
26
26
61
Julia’s nonverbal abilities
fell within the Lower
Extreme range of
functioning & represent a
Normative Weakness
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Julia’s Step 5B comparison
Step 5B. PLANNED CLINICAL COMPARISONS
MEMORY & LEARNING
VS.
Scaled Scores
3
4
5-18
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
4
____
9
1
____
8
____
____
PROBLEM SOLVING ABILITY
Scaled Scores
3-4
5
6
7-12
Word Order
____
Face
Recognition
Atlantis
____
Number Recall
Rebus
7
6
____
____
6
____
1318
____
Conceptual
Thinking
Triangles
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
8
Y
stop
Range of
Scaled Scores
N
22
Sum of Scaled
Scores
71
Standard
Score
Julia’s memory and
learning abilities & problem
solving abilities fell within
the Below Average range
& represent a Normative
Weakness
Y
stop
5
Is Difference
significant?
Is Difference
uncommonly
large?
Range of Scaled
Scores
1
Uncommonly
Large Range?
Difference
Y
N
Y
Pattern
Reasoning
Rover
Story
Completion
Block
Counting
N
19
76
Uncommonly Large
Range?
Sum of Scaled
Scores
Standard Score
Julia’s problem solving skills are
comparable to her memory and
learning abilities – they appear
equally developed
N
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Julia’s Step 5C Comparison- Cannot be conducted
Step 5C. PLANNED CLINICAL COMPARISONS
MEANINGFUL STIMULI
VS.
Scaled Scores
4
5-18
9
____ ____
Atlantis
____ 5
Face Recognition
____
-- Story Completion
ABSTRACT STIMULI
Scaled Scores
4
5-12 13-18
____ ____
6
____ ____
8 ____
____ ____
6
Range of Scaled
Scores
Y
N
stop
Triangles
Rebus
Pattern Reasoning
This comparison
cannot be conducted
Uncommonly Large
because the Y N
Range?
supplementary subtest,
Sum of Scaled
Story Completion, was
Scores
not administered.
Range of Scaled
Scores
Standard Score
Standard Score
stop
Is Difference
significant?
Is Difference
uncommonly
large?
Uncommonly Large
Range?
Sum of Scaled
Scores
Difference
Y
N
Y
N
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Julia’s Step 5D Comparison
Step 5D. PLANNED CLINICAL COMPARISONS
VERBAL RESPONSE
VS.
Scaled Scores
4-6
____
1
____
8
____
9
7-18
____
____
____
8
Y
STOP
stop
POINTING RESPONSE
Scaled
Scores
4
5-18
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
Number Recall
Rebus
Expressive Vocabulary
Riddles
Range of Scaled Scores
N
Range of Scaled Scores
Uncommonly Large
Range?
Y
Sum of Scaled Scores
stop
Standard Score
Is Difference significant?
Is Difference
uncommonly large?
Word Order
Face Recognition
Atlantis
Verbal Knowledge
N
Uncommonly Large
Range?
Sum of Scaled Scores
Standard Score
Difference
Y
N
Y
N
Verbal Response was not a
unitary cluster, so the comparison
could not be conducted.
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Julia’s Step 5E Comparison
Step 5E. PLANNED CLINICAL COMPARISONS
LITTLE MOTOR RESPONSE
Scaled Scores
4
5-6
____
____
____
7
6
____
1
Y
stop
GROSS MOTOR RESPONSE
Scaled
Scores
4
5-6
7-12
7-18
____
____
VS.
Conceptual Thinking
Face Recognition
Pattern Reasoning
Block Counting
____
____
6
____
-____
____
____
____
Range of Scaled
Scores
N
Uncommonly Large
Range?
Sum of Scaled Scores
Standard Score
1318
____
____
Hand Movements
Triangles
Rover
Story Completion
Range of Scaled Scores
Y
stop
STOP
N
Uncommonly Large
Range?
Sum of Scaled Scores
Standard Score
Difference
This comparison
cannot be conducted
Is Difference
Y
N
because
significant? the supplementary subtest, Rover,
was
Is Difference
Y
N not administered.
uncommonly large?
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Determine if Step 6B needs to be conducted:
First Line of Attack – Check Step 4 Results
STEP 4. SUPPLEMENTARY SUBTEST ANALYSIS FOR AGE 5
Scale
Sequential/Gsm
Simultaneous/Gv
Scale
Interpretable in
Step 2?
Y
Y
Mean
Scaled
Score
Sum of
Scaled
Scores
2=
N
N
19
3=
Supplementary
Subtest
Differences between supplementary
subtest & mean scaled score that are
significant or infrequent
Scaled
Score
Diff from
Mean
Hand Movements
6.3
Y
N
2=
15
7.5
Sig?
Infrequent
(<10%)
Infreq
?
3.5
Y N
5.0
Y N
Gestalt Closure
4
2.3
3.6
Y N
5.0
Y N
Face Recognition
5
1.3
4.0
Y N
6.0
Y N
2.7
Y N
5.0
Y N
3.1
Y N
4.0
Y N
Block Counting
Knowledge/Gc
Sig.
(p<.05)
Verbal Knowledge
8
.5
None of Julia’s supplementary subtests differed
significantly from the mean of the Core subtests, so
Step 6 B does not need to be conducted
STOP
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Integrating Julia’s QIs
•Distractibility, difficulties attending, and poor attention to
detail negatively affected her performance
•e.g., Hand Movements – would imitate a single
gesture 2-3 times
•Number Recall – could remember 2 numbers, but
would add several additional numbers
•On Conceptual Thinking was distractible, difficulty
attending to directions
•Better attention when information presented verbally and
visually and was continually repeated (e.g., Learning/Glr
scale)
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Summary of Julia’s KABC-II
Results
•FCI not interpretable due to variability between
Learning/Glr of 92 and Sequential/Gsm of 57
•3 of 4 Scales were interpretable (Sequential/Gsm not)
•Julia functions in the Average range in her ability to learn
new material and level of acquired knowledge (e.g.,
Learning/Glr = 92 & Knowledge/Gc = 88)
•Her verbal knowledge was a personal strength
•Her long-term storage and retrieval was also a
personal strength
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Julia’s Results Continued…
•Julia’s memory abilities & problem solving abilities
are equally deficient and fell within the Below Average
range, representing a Normative Weakness
(attentional difficulties and distractibility had a
negative influence on these abilities)
•Julia’s verbal abilities are significantly stronger than
her nonverbal abilities, and it is uncommon to find a
difference this size in the normal population
•Julia’s nonverbal abilities fell within the Lower
Extreme range of functioning & represent a Normative
Weakness
•Difficulties with fine motor coordination were also
evident on the VMI-4 and were reported from
teacher and grandmother
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Julia’s Recommendations
•Referrals for evals – neurologist, OT, speech & hearing
•Decrease fine motor demands to reduce frustration
•Increase level of structure in Julia’s home and school
•Preschool teacher- increase positive reinforcement
•Increase structure in home, clearly delineate rules,
increase positive reinforcement
•Behavioral support & training for grandmother
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Identifying Info
• Keenan F., Age 9:2, 3rd Grade
Referral Concerns
• Mr. & Mrs. F wanted to better understand
Keenan’s difficulties with reading &
spelling
• Concerned that his current school placement
may not be the most appropriate
environment for him.
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Background Information
• Unremarkable developmental hx
• Articulation difficulties requiring speech
therapy from ages 5 to 7
• Reading problems emerged in Kindergarten
• Tutor states he has difficulties in word
attack, irregular vowels, vocabulary,
comprehension
• Writing is also difficult
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Behavioral Observations
•
•
•
•
•
•
Good eye contact
Rapport easily established
Motivated to perform well
Eager to please
Desired structure
Continually asked questions to obtain more
specifics
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Behavioral Observations Cont.
• Cooperative
• Good tolerance for frustration
• Some distractibility, but not outside of
normal range.
• Struggled with writing – frequent erasures,
many misspellings.
• Problem solving style: verbal mediation,
reflective
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Assessment Procedures
• KABC-II
• KTEA-II, Comprehensive Form A
• Children’s Memory Scale (CMS)- selected
subtests
• Clinical Interviews: parents, teacher, tutor
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
KABC-II
Scale
Sequential/Gsm
Number Recall
Word Order
Simultaneous/Gv
Rover
Triangles
Gestalt Closure
Block Counting
Learning/Glr
Atlantis
Rebus
Planning/Gf
Story Completion
Pattern Reasoning
Knowledge/Gc
Verbal Knowledge
Riddles
Fluid-Crystallized Index (FCI)
Supplementary Scale
Delayed Recall
Atlantis Delayed
Rebus Delayed
Standard Score
(mean = 100; SD = 15)
77
6
6
90
12
5
6
13
86
8
7
90
10
7
108
12
11
87
85
10
5
90%
Confidence
Interval
70-86
82-100
80-94
83-97
101-115
82-92
Percentile
Rank
6
9
9
25
75
5
9
84
18
25
16
25
50
16
70
75
63
19
50
5
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
“Less than 23 pts?”
STEP 1. INTERPRET THE GLOBAL SCALE INDEX
Confidence
Interval
Scale Used
Scale
Index
(circle one)
Is Global Scale Interpretable?
Descriptive Category
(Ages 4-18)
(Standard
Score)
(Circle one)
90%
FCI (CHC Model)
MPI (Luria Model)
87
(
or
95%
Highest
Index
Lowest
Index
Range
Less than
23 pts
31 YY N
N
82 - 92 ) 108 77 •31
or Categories
Percentile Rank
If NO,
do not
interpret
NVI
“If no, do not interpret”
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Essentials Pages 85-87
Step 1. Interpret the global scale index
In the case of (FCI, MPI, or NVI)
Keenan, the
extreme
A. Consult Table D.2 to obtain SS and 90% or 95%
variability
confidence interval. Use Table D.4 for PR and Table
between scales
5.1 for category.
means FCI is
not a
B. If using NVI do not conduct any other interpretive
meaningful
steps.
summary
Global Scale
Index
FCI
Standard
Score
87
95% confidence
interval
82-92
Percentile
Rank
19
Descriptive
Category
Average
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Step 2A: Use base rate rule of <10%.
See Appendix A or Record Form p. 3 for ages 7-18
Scale Index
Scale
(Standard Score)
Sequential/Gsm
77
Simultaneous/Gv
Learning/Glr
Planning/Gf
Knowledge/Gc
90
86
90
108
Subtest Scaled
Range
Scores
Occurring
Interpretable?
< 10%a
High
Low
Range
6
6
0
Y
N
5
12
5
7
Y
N
6
8
7
1
Y
N
6
10
7
3
Y
N
6
12
11
1
Y
N
5
Analysis of the interpretability of Keenan’s scale indexes
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Step 2B: Identify if any of the scales are a normative
weakness or a normative strength
STEP 2. INTERPRET PROFILE OF SCALE INDEXES TO IDENTIFY STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES
Subtest Scaled Scores
*See critical values
for Step 2A
Scale Index
(Standard Score)
Scale
Sequential/Gsm
High
Low
Learning/Glr
86
6
12
8
Planning/Gf
90
108
10 7
12 11
Simultaneous/Gv
Knowledge/Gc
Index Mean
(rounded)
77
90
Range
6
5
7
0
7
1
3
1
Interpretable?
Y
N
Normative Weakness
(NW) or Normative
Strength (NS)
<85
NW
>115
NS
Personal Weakness (PW)
or Personal Strength (PS)
Diff from
Mean
PW or PS
(p<.05)
PW
PS
Y
N
NW
NS
PW
PS
Y
N
NW
NS
PW
PS
Y
N
NW
NS
PW
PS
Y
N
NW
NS
PW
PS
Infrequent
(<10%)
CHC model (include Knowledge/Gc)
Luria model (omit Knowledge/Gc)
Computation of Keenan’s Normative Strengths and Weaknesses
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Step 2C: Identify personal weaknesses or strengths in
the scale profile
STEP 2. INTERPRET PROFILE OF SCALE INDEXES TO IDENTIFY STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES
Subtest Scaled Scores
*See critical values
for Step 2A
Scale Index
(Standard Score)
Scale
Sequential/Gsm
Simultaneous/Gv
77
90
Learning/Glr
86
Planning/Gf
90
108
90
Knowledge/Gc
Index Mean
(rounded)
High
6
12
8
Low
Range
6
5
7
0
7
1
10 7
12 11
3
1
Interpretable?
Y
N
Normative Weakness
(NW) or Normative
Strength (NS)
<85
NW
>115
NS
Y
N
NW
NS
Y
N
NW
NS
Y
N
NW
NS
Y
N
NW
NS
Personal Weakness (PW)
or Personal Strength (PS)
Diff from
Mean
13
4
0
18
PW or PS
(p<.05)
PW
PS
PW
PS
PW
PS
PW
PS
PW
PS
Infrequent
(<10%)
CHC model (include Knowledge/Gc)
Luria model (omit Knowledge/Gc)
Calculate mean and
difference from mean for
each interpretable scale.
Computation of Keenan’s Personal Strengths and Weaknesses
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Step 2D: Consult statistical significance and frequency
table in Record Form (p. 3) or Manual (p. 23)
or Essentials Appendix A (p.346)
INTERPRET PROFILE OF SCALE INDEXES TO IDENTIFY STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES
Subtest Scaled Scores
Scale Index
(Standard Score)
le
Gsm
us/Gv
lr
77
High
90
86
90
108
90
f
/Gc
dex Mean
(rounded)
6 Range6
12 5
8 7
Low
10 7
12 11
*See critical values
for Step 2A
0
7
Y
1
Interpretable?
Y
N
Y
3
Y
1
Y
Normative Weakness
(NW) or Normative
Strength (NS)
<85
NW
>115
NS
N
NW
NS
N
NW
NS
N
NW
NS
N
NW
NS
Personal Weakness (PW)
or Personal Strength (PS)
Diff from
Mean
13
4
0
18
PW or PS
(p<.05)
PW
PS
PW
PS
PW
PS
PW
PS
PW
PS
Infrequent
(<10%)
CHC model (include Knowledge/Gc)
Luria model (omit Knowledge/Gc)
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Essentials Page 95
Summarizing Step 2 Findings
Don’t Forget 3.4
Definitions of Indexes that are Key Assets and High
Priority Concerns
Three Conditions needed for Key
Assets
Knowledge/Gc (108) meets 2nd 2
1. Normative Strength
2. Personal Strength
3. Infrequent (<10%) Occurrence
Three Conditions needed for
High Priority Concerns
Sequential/Gsm (77) meets 1st 2
1. Normative Weakness
2. Personal Weakness
3. Infrequent (<10%) Occurrence
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
STEP 3A INITIAL LEARNING VS DELAYED RECALL
Learning/Glr (Initial) vs. Delayed Recall
Scale
Subtest Scaled
Scores
High Low Range
Interpretable?
(<10%)
Index
Standard
Score
Learning/Glr
8
7
1
Y
N
86
Delayed Recall
10
5
5
Y
N
85
Only calculate the
difference if both scales
are interpretable
1
Sig?
Y
Difference needed for
significance (p<.05) = 13+
N
Difference
Keenan’s abilities
in learning new
information and
scoring and
retrieving that
information are
equally developed.
Infrequent?
Y
N
Difference needed for
10% base rate = 16+
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
STEP 3B LEARNING VS ACQUIRED KNOWLEDGE
Learning/Glr (Initial) vs. Knowledge/Gc
Scale
Learning/Glr
Knowledge/Gc
Subtest Scaled
Scores
High
Low Range
Interpretable?
(<10%)
Index
Standard
Score
8
7
1
Y
N
86
12
11
1
Y
N
108
Only calculate the
difference if both scales are
interpretable
22
Difference
Sig?
Keenan’s ability to learn
new material differs
significantly from his
acquisition of facts and
verbal concepts, but not
unusually so.
Y
Difference needed
for significance
(p<.05) = 12+
N
Infrequent?
Y N
Difference needed
for 10% base rate
= 24+
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
STEP 4. SUPPLEMENTAL SUBTEST ANALYSIS FOR AGES 7-12
Scale
Sequential/Gsm
Simultaneous/Gv
Scale
Interpretable in
Step 2?
Y N
Y
N
Sum of
Scaled
Scores
Mean
Scaled
Score
Y
N
Scaled
Score
Diff from
Mean
Sig.
.(p<.05)
2=
Hand Movements
2=
Gestalt Closure
6
3.7
Block Counting
13
3.2
Simultaneous/Gv
Knowledge/Gc
Supplemental
Subtest
Differen
subtest &
sig
2=
Expressive Vocab.
3.5
3.1
If Gv had been interpretable, Step 6B would help develop and
verify hypotheses to explain the difference between the core
and supplemental Gv subtests
His Gv scale was not interpretable, so the
Step 4 comparisons with Supplementary
Gv subtests cannot be conducted
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Keenan’s Step 5A Comparison between
Verbal and Nonverbal Ability
This comparison cannot be
conducted because the
supplementary subtest,
Expressive Vocabulary, was
not administered.
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Keenan’s Step 5B comparison
Step 5B. PLANNED CLINICAL COMPARISONS
MEMORY & LEARNING
VS.
Scaled Scores
3
4
5-18
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
6
____
8
6
____
7
____
____
PROBLEM SOLVING ABILITY
Scaled Scores
3-4
5
6
7-12
Word Order
____
____
____
Face
Recognition
Atlantis
____
____
____
____
____
Number Recall
Rebus
5
7
____
12
____
____
10
1318
Conceptual
Thinking
Triangles
____
____
____
____
____
____
2
Y
stop
Range of
Scaled Scores
N
27
Sum of Scaled
Scores
78
Standard
Score
Keenan’s memory and
learning abilities fell within
the Below Average range
& represent a Normative
Weakness
Y
stop
11
Is Difference
significant?
Is Difference
uncommonly
large?
Range of Scaled
Scores
7
Uncommonly
Large Range?
Difference
Y
N
Y
N
Pattern
Reasoning
Rover
Story
Completion
Block
Counting
N
34
89
Uncommonly Large
Range?
Sum of Scaled
Scores
Standard Score
Keenan’s problem solving skills are
significantly stronger than his
memory and learning abilities,
although it is not uncommon to find a
difference this size in the normal
population ©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Keenan’s Step 5C Comparison- Cannot be conducted
Step 5C. PLANNED CLINICAL COMPARISONS
MEANINGFUL STIMULI
VS.
Scaled Scores
4
5-18
8
____ ____
Atlantis
____ -Face Recognition
____
10 Story Completion
ABSTRACT STIMULI
Scaled Scores
4
5-12 13-18
____ ____
5
____ ____
7 ____
____ ____
7
Range of Scaled
Scores
Y
N
stop
Triangles
Rebus
Pattern Reasoning
This comparison
cannot be conducted
Uncommonly Large
because the Y N
Range?
supplementary subtest,
Sum of Scaled
Face Recognition, was
Scores
not administered.
Range of Scaled
Scores
Standard Score
Standard Score
stop
Is Difference
significant?
Is Difference
uncommonly
large?
Uncommonly Large
Range?
Sum of Scaled
Scores
Difference
Y
N
Y
N
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Keenan’s Step 5D Comparison
Step 5D. PLANNED CLINICAL COMPARISONS
VERBAL RESPONSE
VS.
Scaled Scores
4-6
____
____
____
7-18
____
6
____
7
____
11
5
Y
stop
POINTING RESPONSE
Scaled
Scores
4
5-18
____
____
6
____
____
____
8
____
____
12
Number Recall
Rebus
Expressive Vocabulary
Riddles
6
Range of Scaled Scores
N
Uncommonly Large
Range?
Y
24
Sum of Scaled Scores
stop
87
Standard Score
4
Is Difference significant?
Is Difference
uncommonly large?
Difference
Y
N
Y
N
Word Order
Face Recognition
Atlantis
Verbal Knowledge
Range of Scaled Scores
N
Uncommonly Large
Range?
26
Sum of Scaled Scores
91
Standard Score
Keenan performed equally well on
tasks that required verbal
responses and those that required
pointing responses
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Keenan’s Step 5E Comparison
Step 5E. PLANNED CLINICAL COMPARISONS
LITTLE MOTOR RESPONSE
VS.
Scaled Scores
4
5-6
____
____
____
____
6
Y
STOP
stop
Scaled
Scores
4
5-6
7-12
7-18
7
____
____
13
GROSS MOTOR RESPONSE
Conceptual Thinking
Face Recognition
Pattern Reasoning
Block Counting
____
____
Range of Scaled
Scores
N
Y
Sum of Scaled Scores
stop
Standard Score
Is Difference
uncommonly large?
____
____
Hand Movements
Triangles
Rover
Story Completion
Range of Scaled Scores
7
Uncommonly Large
Range?
Is Difference
significant?
5
____
12
____
____
10
____
____
1318
N
Uncommonly Large
Range?
Sum of Scaled Scores
Standard Score
Difference
Y
N
Y
N
Little motor response was not a
unitary cluster, so the comparison
could not be conducted.
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Step 6A. GENERATE HYPOTHESES TO EXPLAIN FLUCTUATIONS IN SCALES THAT ARE NOT INTERPRETABLE
First Line of Attack: Examine Planned Clinical Comparisons (from Step 5) to identify possible hypotheses
Was Index found
uninterpretable in
Cluster that may provide hypotheses Age Core Subtests Relevant to the Clusters
Step 2?
Core Subtests Relevant to the Clusters
for the subtest variability in the index Age
(check box if yes)
Verbal Response vs. Pointing Response
Sequential/Gsm
4-18
Abstract vs. Meaningful Stimuli
Simultaneous/Gv

Memory & Learning vs. Problem Solving Ability
Little Motor vs. Gross Motor Response
4
Number Recall (Verbal) vs. Word Order (Pointing)
Face Recognition (Meaningful) vs. Triangles (Abstract)
4
3-4
4
Face Rec. (Mem. & Learn.) vs. Triangles/Concep. Th. (Prob Slv)
Face Recognition/Concept. Thinkg. (Little) vs. Triangles (Gross)
5
Concept Thinking/Pattern Reason. (Little) vs. Triangles
Little Motor vs. Gross Motor Response
(Gross)
6
Concept Th./Pattern Reason. (Little) vs. Triangles/Rover
Little Motor vs. Gross Motor Response
(Gross)
Learning/Glr
Planning/Gf
Little Motor vs. Gross Motor Response
13-18
7-18
Block Counting (Little) vs. Rover (Gross)
Verbal Response vs. Pointing Response
4-18
Rebus (Verbal) vs. Atlantis (Pointing)
Abstract vs. Meaningful Stimuli
4-18
Rebus (Abstract) vs. Atlantis (Meaningful)
Abstract vs. Meaningful Stimuli
7-18
Pattern Reasoning (Abstract) vs. Story Completion (Meaningful)
Pattern
Reasoning
vs. Story Completion (Gross)
Little Motor
vs. Gross
Response
His Gv scale
was
notMotor
interpretable,
but7-18
either
was
this (Little)
clinical
Verbal Response vs. Pointing Response
Riddles (Verbal) vs. Verbal Knowledge (Pointing)
Knowledge/Gc
7-18the subtests comprising
comparison
because of variability between
“Little Motor Response”
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Findings from Keenan’s Step 6A:
• A review of the QIs for the highest (Rover) and lowest (Triangles)
subtests in Simultaneous/Gv scale showed no evidence that
noncognitive or extraneous behaviors differentially influenced
performance on the two subtests.
• There were no disruptive behaviors during either subtest, although
Keenan was a slow & careful processor, which negatively impacted
his Triangles score. He was able to complete the difficult items on
Triangles, but not within the time limits.
• Some enhancing behaviors were present on both subtests – good
attention, reflective problem solving style, good tolerance for
frustration, he persevered.
• At this point, Keenan’s Gv subtest scores appear to fluctuate
without any discernable pattern.
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Essentials Page 132
Step 6B: Generate Hypotheses to Explain
Supplementary Subtests that Are Inconsistent
with Pertinent Core Subtests (ages 3-18)
• The process of conducting Step 6B is similar to that of conducting
Step 6A.
• To determine if Step 6B needs be conducted, review the findings in
Step 4, which determined whether each of the supplemental
subtests was significantly different than the mean of the core
subtests.
•In Keenan’s case the Step 4 results showed that his Gv scale
was not interpretable, so the Step 4 analyses could not be
conducted to determine whether the Supplementary subtests
were different than the mean of the core Gv subtests
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Summary of Keenan’s KABC-II
Results
•FCI not interpretable due to variability between
Knoweledge/Gc of 108 and Sequential/Gsm of 77
•4 of 5 Scales were interpretable (Simultaneous/Gv not)
•Keenan consistently functions in the Average to slightly
Below Average range in his ability to learn new material
and to solve novel problems using fluid reasoning (e.g.,
Learning/Glr = 86 & Planning/Gf = 90)
•He showed a significant weakness in his short term
memory (Sequential/Gsm = 77; 6th percentile)
•This is both a normative weakness and a personal
weakness for him.
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Keenan’s Results Continued…
•Followed up memory deficits with subtests of Children’s
Memory Scale:
•Memory skills did not appear to be dependent on
whether the modality was visual vs. auditory nor
whether the stimuli were meaningful or abstract.
•Keenan’s acquired knowledge of words and facts is a
relative strength for him, although his ability is in the
Average range compared to his peers.
•He showed significantly stronger performance on Gc (70th
%ile) than Glr (18th %ile), indicating that despite it being
more difficult for him to learn the new material, he is
learning verbal facts and concepts over time at home &
school.
•His weaker Glr may be related to his memory difficulties,
whereas his positive attitude combined with his strong
level of effort likely contributes to his relative area of
strength.
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
KTEA-II Comprehensive Form A
Scale
Reading Composite
Letter & Word Recognition
Reading Comprehension
Decoding Compositea
Nonsense Word Decoding
Mathematics Composite
Math Concepts & Applications
Math Computation
Oral Language Composite
Listening Comprehension
Oral Expression
Written Language Composite
Written Expression
Spelling
Reading Fluency Composite
Word Recognition Fluency
Decoding Fluency
Comprehensive Achievement
Composite
Standard Score
(grade-based)
98
93
104
91
88
102
107
97
97
95
101
88
89
89
84
89
80
96
90% Confidence Percentile
Interval
Rank
94-102
45
88-98
32
98-110
61
87-95
27
82-94
21
96-108
55
99-115
68
89-105
42
88-106
42
85-105
37
89-113
53
82-94
21
80-98
23
84-94
23
78-90
14
81-97
23
73-87
9
92-100
39
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Keenan’s KTEA-II Interpretation:
Integrating QIs
•When reading real words, Keenan appeared to use a whole
word approach, rarely phonetically sounding out the words,
unless he clearly did not recognize the word.
•Using the whole word or sight approach, he often did not
notice small differences in a word and would incorrectly identify
a word.
•e.g., “quite” for “quiet,” “blossom” for “blossomed,” “meat” for
“meant,” and “swamp” for “swap.”
•When he did not recognize the word by sight, he tried to
sound it out phonetically, but had much difficulty and often
sounded it out by chunking it into smaller pieces, such as “el
ee ven” for “eleven” or “untild” for “united.”
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Keenan’s KTEA-II Interpretation:
Integrating QIs
•In reading nonsense words, Keenan often left out or changed
a letter, which made him mispronounce the word,
• “plex” for “plux,” “fape” for “fap,” and “skreet” for “shreed.”
• teacher’s report that Keenan “doesn’t decode properly and
comes up with something different.”
•He read aloud very slowly and with numerous whole word
mistakes that changed the meaning of the passage (Reading
Comprehension).
•For the last passage, he said “worse” for “world,” “Israel” for
“Inca,” “rings” for “ruins” and “experienced” for “entered.”
•Despite his misreading several of the words, when asked
questions about the passage, he was able to use the
questions to help correct himself and review the passage to
find the answer.
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Integrating the KABC-II & KTEA-II
•Keenan’s overall cognitive functioning is in the
Average to slightly Below Average range in
most areas, with significant weaknesses in his
short-term memory.
•His academic achievement is consistently in
the Average range, with the exception of his
reading fluency, which is Below Average.
•In fact, despite his specific skill weaknesses in
decoding fluency and phonetic decoding of
certain irregular patterns, his reading is still in
the average range when compared to children
of the same grade.
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
•Although Keenan does not have a learning
disability, reading is an enormous struggle for
him.
•He has short-term memory deficits that likely
impact his ability to process and encode verbal
information that has no prior meaning to him
(such as single words, phonics rules).
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
•Keenan’s reading fluency is very slow.
•Even when he does recognize words accurately,
he does so at a rate of speed that adversely
affects his comprehension.
•This slow reading fluency coupled with
difficulties with phonetic decoding prevent
Keenan’s reading process from becoming
automatic.
•Because Keenan’s decoding is not automatic,
he has to devote more attention to decoding the
words than to the meaning of what is being read.
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
•Keenan will likely have similar difficulties with
spelling and writing as he does with decoding
and reading comprehension because spelling
ability contributes to writing ability in a similar
way.
•Good spelling ability reduces the amount of
effort the student must devote to producing
individual words.
•Keenan’s attention to details fluctuates such
that he makes careless errors in his work
•e.g., adding when he is supposed to be
subtracting or omitting or adding letters when
reading words
•Thus, he shows no true pattern to his errors.
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Recommendations
•Consider changing private school placement
•Work on word attack skills (decoding), vocabulary,
comprehension
•Emphasize accuracy rather than speed
•Modify assignments so that he does not spend an excessive
amount of time on homework
•Reduce distractions for homework
•Reduce amount of information he is required to memorize
•Provide intensive practice, repetition, & review to promote
retention and reinforce skills
•Integrate visual aids
•Help reduce careless errors (e.g., highlight process signs in
math).
©2005 E. O. Lichtenberger. All Rights Reserved
Summary of what the Essentials of
KABC-II Assessment provides:
• Chapter 2 – Administration and Scoring: a
highlight of solutions to key pitfalls
•Chapter 3 – Step-by-Step Interpretation: In depth
explanation of the first 4 steps (also in the manual), plus
two further steps for hypotheses testing
•Chapter 4 – Interpretation with QIs: An analysis of what
typically observed behaviors may be related to.
•Chapter 5 – Strengths and Weaknesses: Good for
marketing the test and providing comparisons to other tests
•Chapter 6 – Clinical Applications: Info about KTEA-II
integration with the test and a CB Approach