Skip to main content

Comprehensive Test of Nonverbal Intelligence: Second Edition

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Handbook of Nonverbal Assessment

Abstract

The Comprehensive Test of Nonverbal Intelligence: Second Edition (CTONI-2: Hammill et al. 2009) is the second edition of the CTONI that was published originally in 1997, and was designed to provide examiners an efficient means for assessing the nonverbal reasoning ability of individuals who range in age from 6–0 to 89–11. It has six subtests (i.e., Pictorial Analogies, Geometric Analogies, Pictorial Categories, Geometric Categories, Pictorial Sequences, and Geometric Sequences). Three of these subtests use pictures of familiar objects as stimuli and three use unusual geometric designs. Examinees point to their answers; no manipulation of objects, reading, writing, or oral responses are required to take the test. This chapter describes (a) the theory underlying the CTONI-2, (b) a description of the subtests and composite scores, (c) the normative scores and their interpretation, (d) the uses of the test scores, (e) the standardization, norms, and reliability, and (f) the validity of the test. The CTONI-2 provides a psychometrically sound measure of intelligence within a nonverbal format. It is appropriate for a wide range of ages and offers subtest and composite scores.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Aiken, L. R., & Groth-Marnat, G. (2006). Psychological testing and assessment (12th ed.). Boston: Pearson Educational Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological testing (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Betz, S. K., Eickhoff, J. R., & Sullivan, S. F. (2013). Factors influencing the selection of standardized tests for the diagnosis of specific language impairment. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 44, 133–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, L., Sherbenou, R. J., & Johnson, S. K. (2010). Test of nonverbal intelligence (4th ed.). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

    Google Scholar 

  • Camilli, G., & Shepard, L. (1994). Methods for identifying biased test items. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carran, D. T., & Scott, K. G. (1992). Risk assessment in preschool children: Research implications for the early detection of educational handicaps. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 12, 196–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, R. J., Swerdlik, M. E., & Smith, D. K. (1992). Psychological testing and assessment. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Bryant, J. D. (2006). Selecting at-risk readers in first grade for early intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(2), 394–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Das, J. P. (1972). Patterns of cognitive ability in nonretarded and retarded children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 77, 6–12.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dollaghan, C. (2004). Evidence-based practice in communication disorders: What do we know, and when do we know it? Journal of Communication Disorders, 37, 391–400.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ehrler, D. J., & McGhee, R. L. (2008). Primary test of nonverbal intelligence. Austin, TX.: PRO-ED.

    Google Scholar 

  • Firmin, M. W. (2009). Comparison of college students’ performance on the CTONI-2, the RIAS, and three measures of school achievement. An independent unpublished study done at Cedarville University, Cedarville, OH.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, S., Plante, E., Vance, R., & Henrichsen, M. (1999). Performance of SLI and NL children on four tests of single-word vocabulary. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in the Schools, 30, 196–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gredler, G. R. (2000). Early childhood screening for developmental and educational problems. In B. A. Bracken (Ed.), The psychoeducational assessment of preschool children (pp. 399–411). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guilford, J. P. (1954). Psychometric methods (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guilford, J. P., & Fruchter, B. (1978). Fundamental statistics in psychology and education (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammill, D. D., Pearson, N. A., & Wiederholt, J. L. (1997). Comprehensive test of nonverbal intelligence. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammill, D. D., Pearson, N. A., & Wiederholt, J. L. (2009). Comprehensive test of nonverbal intelligence (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopkins, W. G. (2002). A scale of magnitudes for effect statistics. In A new view of statistics. Retrieved July 14, 2005, from http://www.sportsci.org/resource/stats/effectmag.html

  • Horn, J. L., & Cattell, R. B. (1966). Refinement and test of the theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 57, 253–270.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Janske, J. J. (1978). A critical review of some developmental and predictor precursors of reading disabilities. In A. L. Benton & D. Pearl (Eds.), Dyslexia: An appraisal of current knowledge (pp. 412–516). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, J. R. (2003, December). Candidate measures for screening at-risk students. Paper presented at the national research center on learning disabilities responsiveness-to-intervention symposium, Kansas City, MO. Retrieved April 3, 2006, from http://www.nrcld.org/symposium2003/jenkins/index

  • Jenkins, J. R., Hudson, R. G., & Johnson, E. S. (2007). Screening for service in an RTI framework: Candidate measures. School Psychology Review, 36, 582–599.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, A. R. (1980). Bias in mental testing. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jodoin, M. G., & Gierl, M. J. (2001). Evaluating type I error and power rates using an effect size measure with the logistic regressions procedure for DIF detection. Applied Measurement in Education, 14(4), 329–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, E. S., Jenkins, J. R., Petscher, Y., & Catts, H. W. (2009). How can we improve the accuracy of screening instruments? Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 24(4), 174–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kingslake, B. J. (1983). The predictive (in)accuracy of on-entry to school screening procedures when used to anticipate learning difficulties. British Journal of Special Education, 10, 24–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin, M. D. (1978). Developmental variation and learning disorders. Cambridge, MA: Educators Publishing Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunnally, J. S., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, S. H., Goo, J. M., & Jo, C. H. (2004). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve: Practical review for radiologists. Korean Journal of Radiology, 5(1), 11–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pepe, M. S. (2003). The statistical evaluation of medical tests for classification and prediction. New York: Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plante, E., & Vance, R. (1994). Diagnostic accuracy of two tests of preschool language. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 4, 70–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plante, E., & Vance, R. (1995). Diagnostic accuracy of two tests of preschool language. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 4, 70–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rathvon, N. (2004). Early reading assessment. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, C. R., & Kamphaus, R. (2003). Reynolds intellectual assessment scales. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, C. R., Livingston, R. G., & Willson, V. (2009). Measurement and assessment in education (2nd ed.) Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal, R. (1994). Parametric measures of effect size. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), Handbook of research synthesis (pp. 231–244). New York: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salvia, J., Ysseldyke, J. E., & Bolt, S. (2013). Assessment in special and inclusive education (12th ed.). Australia: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spearman, C. E. (1923). The nature of intelligence and the principles of cognition. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1990). Detecting differential item functioning using logistic regression procedures. Journal of Educational Measurement, 26, 55–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swets, J. A. (1996). Signal detection theory and ROC analysis in psychology and diagnostics: Collected papers. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • U. S. Bureau of the Census. (2007). Statistical abstract of the United States (126th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, F., Flowers, L., Meyer, M., & Hill, D. (2002, November). How to evaluate and compare screening tests: Principles of science and good sense. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Dyslexia Association, Atlanta.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zumbo, B. D. (1999). A handbook on the theory and methods of differential item functioning (DIF). Ottawa, OH: Directorate of Human Resources Research, Department of national Defense.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Donald D. Hammill .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hammill, D.D., Pearson, N. (2017). Comprehensive Test of Nonverbal Intelligence: Second Edition. In: McCallum, R. (eds) Handbook of Nonverbal Assessment. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50604-3_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics