Vocational Assessments Critiques
Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition (SB5)
The Stanford-Binet is an individually administered test of intelligence and cognitive abilities for people between the ages of two to 85 years. The SB5 is normed on a stratified random sample of 4,800 people who categorically match the year 2000 United States Census, and the scores have been found to approximate a normal distribution. The SB5 measures the following five factors of cognitive ability: Fluid Reasoning, Knowledge, Quantitative Reasoning, Visual-Spatial Processing, and Working Memory. The SB5 is used for clinical assessment, neuropsychological assessment, educational placement, career assessment, compensation evaluations, forensics, and aptitude research.
Critique. Parallel forms have been developed and the standards have changed to present a balanced verbal and non-verbal IQ content. Moreover, the test has been revised to be more colorful, interesting, and, therefore, more appealing to test-takers. The test permits combinations of screener subtests to be used for different purposes in order to quickly gauge a person's IQ. For example, the Vocabulary and Object-Series/Matrices gives the Abbreviated Battery IQ (ABIQ), which is equally weighted in verbal and nonverbal content. The SB5 may be used to assess learning disabilities in both math and reading, and has shown predictive capability in children as young as four years of age.
References
Becker, K.A. (2003). History of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales: Content and Psychometrics. Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition, Assessment Service Bulletin Number 1. Riverside, CA: Riverside Publishing.
Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children, Second Edition (KABC-II)
Overview. The Kaufman is a culturally fair individually administered measure of cognitive ability test appropriate for people between the ages of three to 18 years. Scores are based on age-based standard scores, age equivalents, and percentile ranks. The test is grounded in a dual theoretical foundation: the Luria neuropsychological model and the Cattell/Horn/Carroll (CHC) approach. The KABC-II has undergone extensive redesign and updating enabling fairer assessment of children from different backgrounds and with a variety of challenges -- there are small score differences between ethnic groups. The subtest design...
Moreover, the test is fully normed and validated and supplemental subtests provide a platform to allow hypothesis testing.
Critique. The KABC-II assists professionals to ascertain why a student may not be performing like same-age peers, and helps to provide insights into how individuals receive and process information, such that, cognitive weaknesses and strengths may be identified. A useful attribute of the KABC-II is that it fully conformed with the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement, Second Edition (KTGEA-II) that permits an achievement to ability comparison.
References
____. (2012). KABC-II. Pearson. Retreived http://www.pearsonassessments.com/
HAIWEB/Cultures/en-us/Productdetail.htm?Pid=PAa21000&Mode=summary
____. (2012). KABC-II. Western Psychological Services. Retreived http://portal.wpspublish.com/portal/page?_pageid=53,69517&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Ability, Third Edition
Overview. The WJ III COG is a broad measure of general intellectual ability appropriate for ages two to 90 years. The independent lower-order composite scores include: Long-Term Retrieval, Short-Term Memory, Processing Speed, Auditory Processing, Visual Processing, Comprehension-Knowledge, and Fluid Reasoning. The differential aptitude measures that can be used for predicting specific achievement criteria include: Oral Language Aptitude, Reading Aptitude, Mathematics Aptitude, Written Language Aptitude, and Knowledge Aptitude. The controlled learning tests include: Visual-Auditory Learning, Concept Formation, and Analysis-Synthesis. Both age equivalent and grade equivalent derived scores are given.
Critique. The WJ III COG has received its fair share of criticism. The test provides an overview of students' cognitive levels, but the scores appear to be elevated -- particularly for younger children -- as students may perform at higher levels in the classroom than their test scores would indicate. Students with language differences may not score well and it is reportedly not preferred for assessing for learning disabilities. At issue: the comprehensive test has been designed to reduce testing time and simplify administration by focusing on test items believed to…
