Best Practices in Cross-Battery Assessment of Nonverbal Cognitive Ability

Abstract

This chapter describes the purpose of cross-battery assessment, i.e., to provide psychological assessment specialists/examiners with an overall cognitive assessment strategy. More specifically, it is designed to make examiners aware of the subconstructs of intelligence, as defined by the Cattell–Horn–Carroll Model of intelligence, and to make them aware of how these constructs can be assessed, using the best available operationalizations (of the constructs). Cross-battery assessment principles can be used by examiners to determine cognitive strengths and weaknesses, and is generally considered to provide the steps necessary to complete a very comprehensive evaluation of cognitive abilities. I have adapted the guidelines and principles from McGrew and Flanagan (1998) and Flanagan et al. (2013) for those examiners who engage in nonverbal assessment of cognitive abilities and intelligence. In addition, I provide a listing of the best nonverbal assessment instruments (Appendix 1) and a set of worksheets to guide interpretation of scores obtained from nonverbal cross-battery assessment (Appendix 2). Finally, I provide a case for illustrative purposes in Appendix 3. As is apparent from reading the case, the basic principles and strategies are the same for both verbal and nonverbal assessment, but the number and quality of instruments available for nonverbal assessment are less than for verbal assessment.

Appendices

Appendix 1 Broad and Narrow Abilities Measured by Nonverbal Intelligence Batteries and Tests

Battery/Test	Test/Subtest	Broad ability	Narrow ability
UNIT-2	Spatial memory Symbolic memory	Visual processing	Visual memory
	Cube design	Fluid intelligence	General sequential reasoning
		Visual processing	Spatial relations
	Nonsymbolic quantity Numerical series	Fluid intelligence	Quantitative reasoning
	Analogic reasoning	Fluid intelligence	Induction
Raven’s	Raven’s progressive matrices	Fluid intelligence	Induction
Leiter-3	Classification Design analogies Repeated patterns Sequential order	Fluid intelligence	Induction
	Picture context Visual coding	Fluid intelligence	General sequential reasoning
	Figure rotation	Visual processing	Spatial relations
	Matching Form completion Paper folding	Visual processing	Visualization
	Immediate recognition Forward memory	Visual processing	Visual memory
	Figure ground	Visual processing	Flex of closure
	Delayed recognition Associated pairs Delayed pairs	Long-term retrieval	Associative memory
	Attention sustained	Processing speed	Perceptual speed
Matrix analogies	Matrix analogies	Fluid intelligence	Induction
Beta IV	Coding	Processing speed	Rate-of-test-taking
	Picture completion	Visual processing	Closure speed
	Clerical checking	Processing speed	Perceptual speed
	Picture absurdities	Crystallized intelligence	Language development
	Matrix reasoning	Fluid intelligence	Induction
CTONI-2	Pictorial analogies	Fluid intelligence	Induction
	Geometric analogies
	Pictorial categories	Fluid intelligence	Induction
	Geometric categories
	Pictorial sequences
	Geometric sequence
GAMA	Matching	Visual processing	Visualization
	Sequences	Fluid intelligence	General sequential reasoning
	Analogies	Fluid intelligence	Induction
	Construction	Visual processing	Spatial relations
NNAT-2	Pattern completion	Visual processing	Visualization
	Reasoning by analogy	Fluid intelligence	Induction
	Serial reasoning	Fluid intelligence	General sequential reasoning
	Spatial visualization	Visual processing	Spatial relations
TONI-4	TONI-4	Fluid intelligence	Induction
PPVT-4	PPVT-4	Crystallized intelligence	Lexical knowledge
WNV	Matrices	Fluid intelligence	Induction
	Coding	Processing speed	Rate-of-test taking
	Object assembly	Visual processing	Closure speed
	Recognition	Visual processing	Visual memory
	Spatial span	Short-term memory	Memory span
	Picture arrangement	Visual processing	Visualization

1. UNIT-2 Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test—Second Edition
2. Raven’s Raven’s Progressive Matrices
3. Leiter-3 Leiter International Performance Scale—Third Edition
4. MAT Matrix Analogies Test
5. Beta IV Beta IV
6. CTONI-2 Comprehensive Test of Nonverbal Intelligence—Second Edition
7. GAMA General Ability Measure for Adults
8. NNAT-2 Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test—Second Edition
9. TONI-4 Test of Nonverbal Intelligence—Fourth Edition
10. PPVT-4 Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test—Fourth Edition
11. WNV Wechsler Nonverbal Scale of Ability

Appendix 2 Cross-Battery Worksheets for Use with Nonverbal Intelligence Tests

Visual processing (Gv)

Spatial relations
Battery/Test	Test/Subtest	Standard Score (M = 100, SD = 15)
UNIT-2	Cube design
Leiter-3	Figure rotation
NNAT-2	Spatial visualization
Sum of subtests
Number of subtests
Sum of subtests/Number of subtests
Spatial relations standard score

Visualization
Battery/Test	Test/Subtest	Standard Score (M = 100, SD = 15)
Leiter-3	Matching
	Form completion
	Paper folding
GAMA	Matching
NNAT-2	Pattern completion
WNV	Picture arrangement
Sum of subtests
Number of subtests
Sum of subtests/Number of subtests
Visualization standard score

Flexibility of closure
Battery/Test	Test/Subtest	Standard Score (M = 100, SD = 15)
Leiter-3	Figure ground
Flexibility of closure standard score

Closure speed
Battery/Test	Test/Subtest	Standard score (M = 100, SD = 15)
Beta-4	Picture completion
WNV	Object assembly
Sum of subtests
Number of subtests
Sum of subtests/Number of subtests
Closure speed standard score

Visual memory
Battery/Test	Test/Subtest	Standard Score (M = 100, SD = 15)
UNIT-2	Spatial memory
	Symbolic memory
Leiter-3	Immediate recognition
	Forward memory
WNV	Recognition
Sum of subtests
Number of subtests
Sum of subtests/Number of subtests
Visual memory standard score

Sual processing broad ability score conversion
Spatial relations narrow ability score
Spatial scanning narrow ability score
Visualization narrow ability score
Flexibility of closure narrow ability score
Closure speed narrow ability score
Visual memory narrow ability score
Sum of narrow ability scores
Number of narrow ability scores
Sum of narrow ability scores/Number of narrow ability scores
Visual processing broad ability score (Gv)

Fluid reasoning (Gf)

Induction
Battery/Test	Test/Subtest	Standard Score (M = 100, SD = 15)
UNIT-2	Analogic reasoning
Raven’s	Raven’s progressive matrices
Leiter-3	Classification
	Design analogies
	Repeated patterns
	Sequential order
Matrix analogies	Matrix analogies
Beta-4	Matrix reasoning
CTONI-2	Pictorial analogies
	Geometric analogies
	Pictorial categories
	Geometric categories
	Pictorial sequences
	Geometric sequences
GAMA	Analogies
NNAT-2	Reasoning by analogy
TONI-4	TONI-4
WNV	Matrices
Sum of subtests
Number of subtests
Sum of subtests/Number of subtests
Induction standard score

Quantitative reasoning
Battery/Test	Test/Subtest	Standard Score (M = 100, SD = 15)
UNIT-2	Nonsymbolic quantity
	Number series
Sum of subtests
Number of subtests
Sum of subtests/Number of subtests
Quantitative reasoning standard score

General sequential reasoning
Battery/Test	Test/Subtest	Standard Score (M = 100, SD = 15)
UNIT-2	Cube Design
GAMA	Sequences
NNAT-2	Serial Reasoning
Leiter-3	Picture Context
	Visual Coding
Sum of subtests
Number of subtests
Sum of subtests/Number of subtests
General sequential reasoning standard score

Fluid reasoning broad ability score conversion
Induction narrow ability score
Quantitative reasoning narrow ability score
General sequential reasoning narrow ability score
Sum of narrow ability scores
Number of narrow ability scores
Sum of narrow ability scores/Number of narrow ability scores
Fluid reasoning broad ability score (Gf)

Long-term retrieval (Glr)

Associative memory
Battery/Test	Test/Subtest	Standard Score (M = 100, SD = 15)
Leiter-3	Delayed recognition
	Associated pairs
	Delayed pairs
Sum of subtests
Number of subtests
Sum of subtests/Number of subtests
Associative memory standard score

Processing speed (Gs)

Perceptual speed
Battery/Test	Test/Subtest	Standard Score (M = 100, SD = 15)
Leiter-3	Attention sustained
Beta-4	Clerical checking
Sum of subtests
Number of subtests
Sum of subtests/Number of subtests
Perceptual speed standard score

Rate of test taking
Battery/Test	Test/Subtest	Standard Score (M = 100, SD = 15)
Beta-4	Coding
WNV	Coding
Sum of Subtests
Number of Subtests
Sum of subtests/Number of subtests
Rate of test taking standard score

Processing speed broad ability score conversion
Induction narrow ability score
General sequential reasoning narrow ability score
Sum of narrow ability scores
Number of narrow ability scores
Sum of narrow ability scores/Number of narrow ability scores
Processing speed broad ability score (Gs)

Crystallized intelligence (Gc)

Language development
Battery/Test	Test/Subtest	Standard Score (M = 100, SD = 15)
Beta-4	Picture absurdities
Language development standard score

Lexical knowledge
Battery/Test	Test/Subtest	Standard Score (M = 100, SD = 15)
PPVT-4	PPVT-4
Lexical knowledge standard score

Crystallized intelligence broad ability score conversion
Induction narrow ability score
General sequential reasoning narrow ability score
Sum of narrow ability scores
Number of narrow ability scores
Sum of narrow ability scores/Number of narrow ability scores
Crystallized intelligence broad ability score (Gc)

Short-term memory (Gsm)

Visual memory
Battery/Test	Test/Subtest	Standard Score (M = 100, SD = 15)
UNIT-2	Spatial memory
	Symbolic memory
Leiter-3	Immediate recognition
	Forward memory
Sum of subtests
Number of subtests
Sum of Subtests/Number of Subtests
Visual memory standard score

Memory span
Battery/Test	Test/Subtest	Standard Score (M = 100, SD = 15)
WNV	Spatial span
Memory span standard score

Short-term memory broad ability score conversion
Visual memory narrow ability score
Memory span narrow ability score
Sum of narrow ability scores
Number of narrow ability scores
Sum of narrow ability scores/Number of narrow ability scores
Short-term broad ability score (Gf)

Appendix 3

Confidential Psychoeducational Report

Name: Miguel D.

Birth Date: 01/21/2008

Age: 8 years 1 month 20 days

School: Green Valley Elementary School

Grade Placement: 2nd grade

Sex: Male

Examiner: Jamie L. Smith

Test Dates: 3/16/2016, 3/27/2016

Referral Question: Miguel was referred for testing by his teacher because of reading difficulty, particularly reading comprehension. According to his teacher, Miguel can decode words, but this skill is not automatic and his reading lacks fluency. His general academic progress has been much slower than the other students in his classroom, and is marked by poor grades. She requested a psycho-educational evaluation to determine whether this problem is a function of intellectual disability, a specific learning disability, or a language-related limitation.

Background Information: Miguel is an eight-year-old boy who is in the second grade at Green Valley Elementary School. He is of Hispanic origin and moved with his family from Venezuela one year ago. Miguel’s parents are migrant workers and work on a local farm. He has two older brothers and a younger sister. Spanish is the dominant language within Miguel’s household. His current academic functioning has been described as low by both his teacher and parents, though they say that his English is average when compared to other children his age of Hispanic origin. Miguel’s mother states that he works diligently on his homework every day but struggles to find the right answers. An interview with Miguel’s mother revealed that he has had no significant health, medical, or emotional problems. He is not currently taking any medications. Miguel interacts well with his peers and is well liked by the other children in his classroom. Miguel is right-handed and does not wear glasses. A recent vision/hearing exam revealed no visual or auditory acuity problems.

Tests Administered:

Beta-4 (select subtests; 3/16/16)

Leiter International Performance Scale—Third Edition (Leiter-3) (select subtests; 3/16/16)

Woodcock- Johnson IV Tests of Achievement (WJ-ACH-IV) (select subtests; 3/16/16)

Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test—Second Edition (UNIT-2) (3/27/16)

Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test—Fourth Edition, Spanish Version (PPVT-4) (3/27/16)

Wechsler Nonverbal Scale of Ability (select subtests; 3/27/16)

Clinical and Behavioral Observations: Miguel was tested on a couple of occasions in the school psychology clinic. He was dressed casually and appeared somewhat reserved. Rapport was easily established and maintained. During the testing sessions, he was quiet yet cooperative. He maintained eye contact easily, but took several minutes to respond to many questions. Miguel’s language skills seemed below average for his age, and his activity level was generally low during testing. He took longer than usual to answer questions, and seemed to have trouble selecting the word that he wanted to use. At times, Miguel had difficultly articulating his thoughts and needed to be queried to facilitate a response. He became frustrated when the items became more difficult (e.g., he bit his nails, frowned). He would not voluntarily admit that he did not know the answer to the more difficult items, but rather, would wait until prompted by the examiner to say that he did not know. Miguel’s concentration level was extremely high during all of the tests. He did not display any unusual habits or mannerisms, and conveyed a sense of respect towards the examiner. Overall, the testing conditions were deemed adequate to obtain valid responses from this child.

Referral Question Determination:

Universal nonverbal intelligence test—second edition

Global scale	Standard score	Percentile rank
Full-scale IQ	82	12th
Memory	91	27th
Reasoning	77	6th
Nonsymbolic	91	27th

State regulations and guidelines require the use of standard scores to diagnose intellectual disability and a discrepancy score to diagnose specific learning disabilities. The UNIT-2 was administered to obtain a Full Scale IQ, from which a discrepancy score could be calculated. Miguel obtained a Full-Scale IQ of 82, which falls at the 12th percentile nationally and is classified as Low Average. We can be 90% certain that Miguel’s true score falls somewhere between 77 and 89. This score rules out intellectual disability, because it falls in the low average range and is considerably above the cutoff score necessary to help establish a diagnosis of intellectual disability (two standard deviations below the mean). In addition, the similarity between Miguel’s IQ score and achievement scores (discussed later) rules out the possibility of a specific learning disability, as defined by a discrepancy score. Strengths and weaknesses from the UNIT-2 are discussed as part of the cross-battery assessment.

Assessment of Cognitive Strengths and Weaknesses: Certain subtests from the Leiter-3 (3/16/16), Beta-4 (3/16/16), UNIT-2 (3/27/16), and PPVT-4 (3/27/16) were combined by CHC Cross- Battery principles and procedures. These scores yielded six broad cognitive ability clusters, which include Fluid Intelligence (Gf), Crystallized Intelligence (Gc), Visual Processing (Gv), Short- Term Memory (Gsm), Long-Term Retrieval (Glr), and Processing Speed (Gs). A summary of Miguel’s performance across these domains is provided below.

Cross-Battery Assessment of G f: Fluid intelligence applies to mental operations that are used when one is faced with a novel task that cannot be performed automatically. It includes forming concepts, identifying relationships, problem solving, drawing inferences, and reorganizing information. Miguel’s Gf ability was assessed through tasks that required him complete conceptual or geometrical analogies presented in matrix format (Analogic Reasoning, SS = 75 ± 7, Low). In addition, Gf was assessed by tasks requiring him to construct abstract, geometrical designs with cubes while viewing a picture of the design (Cube Design, 75 ± 7, Low). Miguel’s Fluid Intelligence cluster score of 75 ± 5 is ranked at the 5th percentile and is classified as Low. The variation of scores Miguel earned in this area was not statistically significant, suggesting uniform ability within this domain. Overall, Miguel’s ability to reason and form concepts is low, compared to peers.

Cross-Battery Assessment of G c: Crystallized intelligence is defined as the breadth and depth of a person’s acquired knowledge. Included in this category is verbal communication, cultural knowledge, and reasoning with abilities that have already been developed. Miguel’s Gc ability was assessed through tasks that required him to place an X on one picture out of four that illustrates an object that is wrong or foolish (Picture Absurdities, 74 ± 7, Low) and to identify pictures which corresponded to words that are presented orally (PPVT-4, 76 ± 7, Low). The variation in scores Miguel earned in this area was not statistically significant, suggesting uniform ability within this domain. Miguel’s Crystallized Intelligence cluster score of 75 ± 5 is ranked at the 5th percentile nationally and is classified as Low. Overall, Miguel’s ability to use his acquired knowledge and accumulated experiences to solve everyday problems is low.

Cross-Battery Assessment of G v: Visual processing refers to the ability to perceive, generate, synthesize, analyze, and think with visual patterns and stimuli. Miguel’s Gv ability was assessed by constructing abstract, geometrical designs while viewing a picture of the design (Cube Design, 75 ± 7, Low). In addition, Miguel was asked to reorder a prearranged set of picture cards to tell a logical story within a specified time limit (Picture Arrangement, 80 ± 7, Low). Because there is little variance, Miguel’s obtained scores on these Gv subtests combined to yield a cluster score of 78 ± 5, which is ranked at the 8th percentile nationally. This score suggests Miguel’s Visual Processing is low.

Cross-Battery Assessment of G sm: Short-term memory describes the ability to apprehend and hold information in immediate awareness and then use it within a few seconds. Miguel’s Gsm was assessed through tasks that required him to recreate a random pattern of dots after viewing the stimulus for five seconds (Spatial Memory, 105 ± 7, Average) and by asking him to reproduce sequences of symbols after being exposed to the stimulus for five seconds (Symbolic Memory, 95 ± 7, Average). Because there was no variation in Miguel’s scores, a Short-Term Memory cluster score of 100 ± 5 was obtained. This score is ranked at the 50th percentile nationally and falls in the Average Classification.

Cross-Battery Assessment of G lr: Long-term retrieval refers to the ability to store information and concepts in long-term memory and retrieve it later through association. Miguel’s Glr was assessed through tasks that required him to recall objects depicted on the Associated Pairs subtest after approximately 30 min (Delayed Pairs, 93 ± 7, Average). More specifically, this subtest measured Miguel’s Associative Memory, which is a narrow cluster included in the Glr factor. Because this was the only subtest that Miguel was administered in this factor, the narrow cluster of Associative Memory is the only representation of long-term retrieval.

Cross-Battery Assessment of G s: Processing speed is defined as the ability to perform cognitive tasks automatically, particularly when under pressure to concentrate. Miguel’s Gs ability was assessed through tasks that required him to identify and cross out target stimuli embedded within rows of stimuli on a page that includes both target stimuli and several foils (Attention Sustained, 70 ± 7, Low), and to write numbers that correspond to symbols, based upon a number-symbol key provided at the top of the page (Coding, 75 ± 7, Low). Miguel’s cluster score was 73 ± 5, which is ranked at the 3rd percentile and is classified as Low. Because there was no variation of scores in this area, Miguel’s processing speed can be considered uniform.

Assessment of Academic Achievement: Miguel’s achievement scores are consistent with his scores on the various tests of cognitive functioning. On the Woodcock Johnson IV Tests of Achievement (3/16/16), Miguel earned scores that ranged from Very Low to Low Average.

Reading: The Letter-Word Identification subtest measures the child’s word identification and basic reading skills, including sight vocabulary, phonics, and structural analysis. Miguel’s score of 68 (66–71, Very Low) on this test is equivalent to the average score of a child aged 6 years, 6 months. This score is low for Miguel’s age and is ranked at the 2nd percentile nationally.

The Reading Fluency subtest provides a measure of the child’s ability to quickly read and comprehend simple sentences. This test is part of the Broad Reading Cluster, which measures reading decoding, reading speed, and the ability to comprehend connected discourse while reading. Miguel’s score of 73 (69–77, Very Low) on this subtest is equivalent to the average score of a child aged 6 years, 6 months. This score is ranked at the 4th percentile.

Math: The Calculation subtest falls in the Broad Math and Math Calculation Clusters, which provide a measure of math achievement including problem solving, number facility, automaticity, and reasoning. The Calculation subtest requires the child to perform mathematical computations. Miguel’s score of 83 (78–89, Low Average) on this subtest is equivalent to the average score of a child aged 7 years, 0 months. This score falls at the 13th percentile nationally.

Lastly, the Applied Problems subtest is included in the Broad Math and Math Reasoning subtests and provides a measure of problem solving, analysis, reasoning, and vocabulary. Miguel’s score of 88 (84–91, Low Average) on this subtest is equivalent to the score of a child aged 6 years, 11 months. This score is ranked at the 20th percentile.

Data Integration and Interpretation: Data derived from the administration of selected cognitive and achievement tests suggest that Miguel demonstrates low to average functioning across the various cognitive and academic domains. According to the cross-battery analyses, Miguel exhibits an intrapersonal strength in short and long-term memory. However, in general Miguel’s pattern of cognitive weaknesses helps to explain the referral concerns and appear to underlie his reported difficulties in reading. For example, his low processing speed, fluid reasoning, crystallized intelligence, and visual processing all fall within the borderline to low average range. A pattern of scores such as Miguel’s often predict limited academic functioning, particularly as the content becomes more complex and relies less on rote memorization. The shift in task demands from a high dependence on memory to stronger emphasis on understanding patterns and relationships is particularly salient at the third grade level.

Because Miguel’s specific cognitive weaknesses appear to underlie his academic difficulties, his poor academic skills do not appear to be solely nor even primarily the result of factors such as limited English proficiency, nonsupportive educational environment, or cultural differences, although these variables may reduce academic skill acquisition to some degree.

Summary and Recommendations: Miguel is an eight-year-old boy who was administered selected cognitive and achievement tests. Data from these tests indicate that his cognitive functioning is low average and his academic achievement is considerably below average in Reading. Other academic areas are slightly below average also. He has several cognitive weaknesses. Miguel’s memory scores were average when compared to other children his age, suggesting that his abilities in this area are not impaired. However, as the academic content becomes more sophisticated and less memory-dependent he will experience increasing difficulty unless instructional strategies are developed to take advantage of his relatively good memory. The integration of data from the various tests and teacher reports has provided the basis for the following recommendations:

• 1. Reading skills will be enhanced via exposure to a strong code-emphasis approach (e.g., Language! by Sopris West, and Slingerland’s multisensory approach).

• 2. In order to address Miguel’s reading comprehension difficulties, he should be provided with organizational strategies and worksheets to use when reading a passage or story. And, in general he will be aided by the use of advance organizers and other structural devices to facilitate awareness of relationships and structure inherent into-be-learned content.

• 3. Miguel will profit from the use of mnemonics and other strategies designed to take advantage of his relatively strong memory. He will benefit from exposure to concrete, factual information, using memory aids, rather than through discovery learning instructional techniques. Instruction requiring higher order comprehension should rely on well-learned rules, principles and laws (e.g., “a pint is a pound the world round”).

________________________________

Jamie L. Smith, M.S.

Examiner in School Psychology