Search

Selection, Use, and Interpretation of German Intelligence Tests for Children and Adolescents Based on CHC-theory: Update, Extension, and Critical Discussion In order to facilitate planning and interpretation of cognitive assessments for children and adolescents a CHC broad and narrow ability classification of nine widespread German tests of intelligence is presented. The Cattel-Horn-Carroll-theory of intelligence is an influential model in the field of intelligence testing. Its structure and basic premises are presented. On this basis, intelligence testing can be planned and interpreted systematically in a common theoretical framework. Practical implications and suggestions for diagnosticians (e. g. cross-battery-assessment) are pointed out. Finally, possibilities and limitations of CHC-theory in the field of intelligence testing are discussed.

OBJECTIVE No previous empirical study has investigated whether the LD identification decisions of proposed methods to operationalize processing strengths and weaknesses (PSW) approaches for LD identification are associated with differential treatment response. We investigated whether the identification decisions of the concordance/discordance model (C/DM; Hale & Fiorello, 2004) and Cross Battery Assessment approach (XBA method; Flanagan, Ortiz, & Alfonso, 2007) were consistent and whether they predicted intervention response beyond that accounted for by pretest performance on measures of reading. METHOD Psychoeducational assessments were administered at pretest to 203 4th graders with low reading comprehension and individual results were utilized to identify students who met LD criteria according to the C/DM and XBA methods and students who did not. Resulting group status permitted an investigation of agreement for identification methods and whether group status at pretest (LD or not LD) was associated with differential treatment response to an intensive reading intervention. RESULTS The LD identification decisions of the XBA and C/DM demonstrated poor agreement with one another (κ = -.10). Comparisons of posttest performance for students who met LD criteria and those who did not meet were largely null, with small effect sizes across all measures. CONCLUSIONS LD status, as identified through the C/DM and XBA approaches, was not associated with differential treatment response and did not contribute educationally meaningful information about how students would respond to intensive reading intervention. These results do not support the value of cognitive assessment utilized in this way as part of the LD identification process.

Processing Strengths and Weaknesses (PSW) models have been proposed as a method for identifying specific learning disabilities. Three PSW models were examined for their ability to predict expert identified specific learning disabilities cases. The Dual Discrepancy/Consistency Model (DD/C; Flanagan, Ortiz, & Alfonso, 2013) as operationalized by the Cross Battery Assessment Software (X-BASS; Ortiz, Flanagan & Alfonso, 2015), the Concordance-Discordance Model (C-DM; Hale & Fiorello, 2004), and the Psychological Processing Analyzer software (PPA v3.1; Dehn, 2015b) were evaluated. The DD/C approach as represented with the X-BASS system had a 100% agreement with the expert panel in the identification of specific learning disabilities and non-specific learning disabilities cases. The C-DM model was more conservative, identifying only 45% of the specific learning disabilities cases. The PPA software was too limited to be used in the study and is not recommended for use in identifying specific learning disabilities via a PSW approach. Although more research is needed, the results of this study would suggest that the DD/C and X-BASS provide the greatest utility for a PSW approach to identifying specific learning disabilities.