Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test: Second Edition

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Handbook of Nonverbal Assessment

Abstract

This chapter describes the essential characteristics of the UNIT2, its strengths and limitations, changes and improvements. The test is multidimensional, and assesses memory, reasoning, and quantitative reasoning using both a symbolic and nonsymbolic administration format. The UNIT2 is easy to administer, score, and interpret, and follows the same general format as the UNIT. The UNIT2 Examiner’s Manual includes a wealth of data describing the technical properties of the test, in greater detail than other intelligence tests (e.g., tables related to the adequacy of ceilings, floors, and item gradients; and a chapter devoted to fairness and equity studies). The UNIT2 maintained all of the original strengths of the UNIT derived from its nonverbal assessment approach. In addition to retaining its strongest features, the UNIT2 also addresses several of the identified limitations of the original test by expanding the age range of the assessment, improving floors and ceilings, improving the representative sample, updating item quality both visually and color-wise, and fine-tuning the test to make it even more user-friendly.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
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

  • Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit index in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bracken, B. A. (1984). Examiner’s manual: Bracken basic concept scale. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bracken, B. A. (1987). Limitations of preschool instruments and standards for minimal levels of technical adequacy. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 4, 313–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bracken, B. A. (1992). Examiner’s manual: Multidimensional self concept scale. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bracken, B. A. (1993). Examiner’s manual: Assessment of interpersonal relations. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bracken, B. A. (1998). Examiner’s manual: Bracken basic concept scale: Revised. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bracken, B. A. (2006a). Examiner’s manual: Clinical assessment of interpersonal relations. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bracken, B. A. (2006b). Examiner’s manual: Bracken basic concept scale (3rd ed.). San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bracken, B. A., & McCallum, R. S. (1998). Universal nonverbal intelligence test. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bracken, B. A., & McCallum, R. S. (1999). Universal nonverbal intelligence test: University training guide. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bracken, B. A., & McCallum, R. S. (2016). Universal nonverbal intelligence test (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

    Google Scholar 

  • Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cattell, R. B. (1963). Theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 54, 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fives, C. J., & Flanagan, R. (2002). A review of the universal nonverbal intelligence test (unit) an advance for evaluating youngsters with diverse needs. School Psychology International, 23(4), 425–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glutting, J. J., McDermott, P. A., & Konold, T. R. (1997). Ontology, structure, and diagnostic benefits of a normative subtest taxonomy from the WISC-III standardization sample. In D. P. Flanagan, J. L. Genshaft, & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 349–372). New York: Guilford.

    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 

  • Horn, J. L. (1968). Organization of abilities and the development of intelligence. Psychological Review, 75, 242–259.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman, A. S. (1979). Intelligent testing with the WISC-R. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (1983). Kaufman Assessment battery for children: Administration and scoring manual. San Antonio, TX: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman, A. S., & Lichtenberger, P. O. (1999). Essentials of WAIS-III assessment. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCallum, R. S. (1991). The assessment of preschool children with the Stanford-Binet intelligence scale: Fourth edition. In B. A. Bracken (Ed.), The psychoeducational assessment of preschool children (2nd ed., pp. 107–132). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCallum, R. S. (1999). A “baker’s dozen” criteria for evaluating fairness in nonverbal testing. School Psychologist, 53, 40–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCallum, R. S., & Bracken, B. A. (2012). Universal multidimensional abilities scales. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCallum, R. S., Bracken, B. A., & Wasserman, J. (2001). Essentials of nonverbal assessment. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDermott, P. A., Fantuzzo, J. W., & Glutting, J. J. (1990). Just say no to subtest analysis: A critique on Wechsler theory and practice. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 8(3), 290–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGrew, K. S., & Flanagan, D. P. (1998). The intelligence test desk reference (ITDR): Gf-Gc cross-battery assessment. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naglieri, J. A., Das, J. P., & Goldstein, S. (2014). Cognitive assessment system (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roid, G. H. (2003). Stanford-Binet intelligence scales (5th ed.). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sattler, J. M. (1988). Assessment of children (3rd ed.). San Diego, CA: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sattler, J. M. (1992). Assessment of children (3rd ed. rev.). San Diego, CA: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrank, F. A., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2014). Woodcock-Johnson IV: Test of cognitive abilities. Rolling Meadows: Riverside.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38, 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wasserman, J. D., & Bracken, B. A. (2013). Fundamental psychometric considerations in assessment. In J. R. Graham & J. A. Naglieri (Eds.), Handbook of psychology. Volume 10: Assessment psychology (2nd ed., pp. 50–81). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wechsler, D. (1939). Measurement of adult intelligence. Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wechsler, D. (2003). Wechsler intelligence scale for children (4th ed.). San Antonio, TX: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheaton, B., Muthén, B., Alwin, D., & Summers, G. (1977). Assessing reliability and stability in panel models. In D. R. Heise (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 84–136). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilhoit, B., & McCallum, R. S. (2002). Profile analysis of the Universal nonverbal intelligence test (UNIT) standardization sample. School Psychology Review.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodcock, R. W. (1990). Theoretical foundations of the WJ-R measures of cognitive ability. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 8, 231–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III test of cognitive abilities. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of William and Mary, 301 Monticello Avenue, Williamsburg, VA, 23185, USA

    Alex Friedlander Moore & Bruce A. Bracken

  2. Department of Educational Psychology and Counseling, University of Tennessee, 523 BEC, 1126 Volunteer Blvd, Knoxville, TN, 37996-3452, USA

    R. Steve McCallum

Authors
  1. Alex Friedlander Moore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. R. Steve McCallum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bruce A. Bracken
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alex Friedlander Moore .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, USA

    R. Steve McCallum

Appendix : UNIT Interpretive Worksheet

Appendix : UNIT Interpretive Worksheet

  • Step1: Interpret the Global Intelligence Score

Scale

IQ

Confidence interval

Percentile rank

Descriptive category

 

90/95 Circle one

   

Abbreviated battery

90/95

   

Standard battery (with memory)

90/95

   

Standard battery (without memory)

90/95

   

Full scale

90/95

   

Step 2: Interpret the Construct-Specific Scores

Scale

IQ

Confidence interval

Percentile rank

Descriptive category

 

90/95 Circle one

   

Memory

90/95

   

Reasoning

90/95

   

Quantitative

90/95

   
  1. Note When an examinee’s scores on these three scales exhibit significant variability, the global intelligence score may not serve as a good estimate of global ability, and performance on the UNIT2 construct-specific composites should be interpreted

Index score

Difference statistically different?

Normative frequency of the difference

Memory-reasoning

  

Memory-quantitative

  

Reasoning-quantitative

  

Step 3: Interpret Subtest Performance

Pairwise Subtest Comparisons

Scaled score difference

Statistically different?

Normative frequency of difference?

Sym Mem-Spat Mem

  

Ana Reas-Cube Design

  

Nonsym Quan-Num Ser

  

Ipsative Subtest Comparisons:

Subtests frequency?

Scaled score

Rounded mean difference

Statistically different?

Strength/weakness

Sym Mem

    

Nonsym Quant

    

Ana Reas

    

Spat Mem

    

Num Series

    

Cube Des

    

MQ versus RQ Difference

Size needed for abnormality

Does size meet criteria?

 

20 points (Extreme 15%)

YES

NO

 

23 points (Extreme 10%)

YES

NO

 

27 points (Extreme 5%)

YES

NO

 

34 points (Extreme 1%)

YES

N0

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Friedlander Moore, A., McCallum, R.S., Bracken, B.A. (2017). The Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test: Second Edition. In: McCallum, R. (eds) Handbook of Nonverbal Assessment. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50604-3_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation