Nonverbal Assessment of Intelligence: Introduction to the Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test (UNIT) Bruce A. Bracken, PhD The University of Memphis R. Steve McCallum, PhD University of Tennessee, Knoxville Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

UNIT Authors Bruce A. Bracken, PhD Professor of Psychology Director, Child and Family Studies The University of Memphis Department of Psychology Campus Box 52640 Memphis, TN 38152-6400 (901) 678-2143 bbracken @ memphis.edu Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

UNIT Authors R. Steve McCallum, PhD Professor and Chair Psychoeducational Studies Department University of Tennessee, Knoxville 434 Claxton Addition University of Tennessee Knoxville, TN 37996 (423) 974-5405 mccallum @ utkux.utk.edu Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

What This Presentation Covers… Part I: Nonverbal Assessment of Intelligence Why nonverbal assessment matters What is nonverbal assessment? How can you evaluate nonverbal tests? For whom is nonverbal assessment appropriate? Why is nonverbal assessment needed? Assessment options when a language-loaded test is inappropriate Current controversies A list of nonverbal intelligence tests Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

What This Presentation Covers… Part II: An Introduction to the UNIT Theoretical Underpinnings Scales and Subtests Administration Features UNIT Standardization and Technical Properties (Reliability, Validity, and Special Psychometric Properties) Fairness Clinical Use and Interpretation Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Why Nonverbal Assessment Matters… U.S.A. Resident Population (12/1/97) Number Percent of Total White 222,104,000 82.6 African American 34,143,000 12.7 Native American 2,338,000 0.9 Asian/Pacific Islanders 10,181,000 3.8 Hispanic Origin (any race) 28,802,000 11.1 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Internet Release Date 2/6/98. Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

• One out of every 10 people in the U.S.A. is foreign-born. Why Nonverbal Assessment Matters… U.S.A. Census Facts About Foreign-Born Individuals • One out of every 10 people in the U.S.A. is foreign-born. • Of the nation’s total foreign-born population, 68% are White, 24% Asian/Pacific Islander, and 8% African American. Over 40% of the nation’s total foreign-born are Hispanic. Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Why Nonverbal Assessment Matters… U.S.A. Census Growth Trends • By the middle of the next century, the nation’s Hispanic population is expected to reach 96.5 million (24.5 % of the total population). • Through 2020, the Asian/Pacific Islander population is expected to grow faster than the nation’s other race groups or the Hispanic-origin population. Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

What is Nonverbal Assessment? Testing that requires no spoken language by the examiner and examinee Nonverbal refers to the method of administration and the nature of the response, not the abilities being assessed and the strategies used to arrive at solutions Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Criteria for Evaluating Nonverbal Assessments Verbal instructions should be absent Examinee responses should be nonverbal (e.g., pointing, constructing, gesturing) Administration procedures should be easily understood by individuals of varying cultures Multiple aspects of cognition should be assessed Tasks should be balanced between those requiring symbolic (language-related) and nonsymbolic mediational strategies Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

For Whom Is Nonverbal Assessment Appropriate? Individuals with speech or language impairments Individuals with hearing impairments Individuals from diverse cultural or linguistic backgrounds Individuals who are verbally uncommunicative or whose verbalizations are unreliable Any individual for whom verbal performance may underestimate the optimal level of functioning Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Individuals with speech or language impairments Articulation Disorders Expressive Language Disorders Mixed Expressive Language Disorders Language-Related Learning Disabilities Post-Traumatic Language Impairment (i.e., after Traumatic Brain Injury) Language Impairment after Stroke Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Individuals with hearing impairments Hard of hearing describes individuals with mild to moderate hearing losses who still retain sufficient residual hearing for communication through spoken language Deaf is the term preferred by deaf people to refer to individuals with severe hearing losses who use sign language as their primary means of communication Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Individuals from diverse cultural or linguistic backgrounds Limited English Proficiency is a condition which includes individuals who have difficulty reading, writing, or understanding the English language because they were born outside of the U.S.A. or have a native language that is not English come from an environment where a language other than English is dominant Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Individuals who are verbally uncommunicative Individuals with Serious Emotional Disturbance Selective Mutism Autism Thought Disorder Individuals who are extremely shy or verbally uncommunicative Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Other Diagnostic/Exceptional Groups Appropriate for Nonverbal Assessment Any individual for whom verbal performance may underestimate the optimal level of functioning Individuals who are mentally retarded Individuals who are intellectually gifted in nonverbal domains Individuals with focal or diffuse cortical damage Individuals who show low performance on IQ tests in spite of high functional abilities Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

The Need for Nonverbal Assessment Most cognitive and intellectual tests are language-loaded, i.e., performance relies heavily upon verbal responses or verbal instructions and verbal stimuli Results from language-loaded tests may not be fair and accurate Example: WISC–III Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Example: WISC–III as a Language-Loaded Test Verbal Scale subtests are all administered and answered with language Performance Scale subtests are all administered with language, and test performance may be verbally-mediated for most subtests The Full Scale IQ (FSIQ) equally weights Verbal and Performance Scales Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Impact of Race and Ethnicity on WISC–III Performance WISC–III FSIQ Standardization Sample Difference African American vs. Whites – 14.9 points Hispanics vs. Whites – 9.4 points Source: Prifitera, A., Weiss, L., & Saklofske, D. (1998). The WISC–III in context. In A. Prifitera & D. Saklofske (Eds.), WISC-III clinical use and interpretation:Scientist-practitioner perspectives (pp. 1-38). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Deaf Individuals and Adapted WISC–III Performance Study N VIQ PIQ FSIQ Wechsler (1991) 30 81.1 105.8 92.2 Braden et al. (1994) 19 81.6 102.3 90.7 Slate & Fawcett (1995) 47 — 88.0 — Sullivan & Montoya (1997) 106 75.4 100.6 86.2 Source: Prifitera, A., Weiss, L., & Saklofske, D. (1998). The WISC-III in context. In A. Prifitera & D. Saklofske (Eds.), WISC-III clinical use and interpretation:Scientist-practitioner perspectives (pp. 1-38). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Assessment Options When a language-loaded test is inappropriate Wechsler Performance Scale Tests Benefits Only subtests on the Wechsler that are language-reduced are used Detriments Performance tasks often have lengthy verbal instructions Performance tasks typically have no checkpoint and few demonstration/sample items Performance tasks place a heavy emphasis on speed Some performance tasks penalize for ambiguous errors (e.g., rotations on Block Design) Some performance tasks are culturally-bound (e.g., Picture Arrangement) Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Assessment Options When a language-loaded test is inappropriate Translated Tests Benefits Assess the child in native language Detriments Translations are labor intensive, expensive, and time-consuming Translations needed for every language spoken in population Regional/dialectal nuances within same language Lack of skilled bilingual translators Lack of skilled bilingual examiners Insufficient validation of translated scales Bilingual children are often not proficient in either language Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Assessment Options When a language-loaded test is inappropriate Adapted Tests Benefits Test is modified to meet the special needs of examinee Detriments Adaptation often changes the basic nature of the construct being assessed Test has not been normed as adapted Test usually has not been validated as adapted Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Assessment Options When a language-loaded test is inappropriate Nonverbal Measures Benefits Test is administered, normed, and validated as a nonverbal measure Test requires no examinee receptive or expressive language abilities Test requires no second language skill of examinee Test is appropriate for all children Detriments Often unidimensional assessment of a single construct (e.g., matrix reasoning) Historically poor predictor of academic achievement Verbal demands on many “nonverbal” tests Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Current Controversies: Verbal Mediation of Nonverbal Tests Many nonverbal procedures have nonsymbolic, abstract material Few nonverbal procedures have symbolic, verbally-mediated material Best Practice is to find a test that balances or otherwise compares performance on both verbally- and nonverbally-mediated tasks Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Current Controversies: Symbol & Gesture Comprehension in Language-Impaired Individuals Aphasia and language impairment affect central processing of symbolic information that is essential to language In varying degrees, aphasic individuals may have difficulty understanding spoken, written, and even gestural communications Best Practice is to build multiple indicators into a test to ensure that the examinee understands what is being asked of him or her (e.g., sample items, demonstration items, and checkpoint items) Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Current Controversies: Nonverbal Assessment Compared With Use of Translated Tests Advantages of Nonverbal Tests One test can be used across cultures and languages Bypasses the effect of bilingualism or differential language competencies Solves the problem of translational inconsistencies Solves the problem of poorly normed test translations Solves the problem of examinee competence in language Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

A List of Nonverbal Intelligence Tests First Generation Nonverbal Intelligence Tests Matrices-Based Nonverbal Cognitive Procedures The New Generation of Multidimensional Nonverbal Cognitive Procedures Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

First Generation Nonverbal Intelligence Tests Draw A Person (Goodenough, 1926) Raven’s Progressive Matrices (originally 1938) Wechsler Performance Scales (originally 1939) Leiter International Performance Scale (originally 1948) Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Matrices-Based Nonverbal Cognitive Procedures Raven’s Progressive Matrices Matrix Analogies Test Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test Comprehensive Test of Nonverbal Intelligence Test of Nonverbal Intelligence–3rd Edition Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

The New Generation of Multidimensional Nonverbal Intelligence Tests Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test (UNIT) by B. A. Bracken & R. S. McCallum (1998) Leiter International Performance Scale–Revised by G. H. Roid & L. J. Miller (1997) Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

An Introduction to the UNIT Top Ten Goals in UNIT Development Theoretical Underpinnings Scales and Subtests Administration Features UNIT Standardization and Technical Properties (Reliability, Validity, and Special Psychometric Properties) Fairness Clinical Use and Interpretation Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Top Ten Goals in UNIT Development 10. Answer the pressing need for cross-cultural assessment instruments. 9. Create a multipurpose test for use whenever language is an issue or concern. 8. Create a test that is entirely nonverbal, with no receptive or expressive language requirements. 7. Develop tasks that comprehensively measure general intelligence. 6. Develop tasks that measure important subdomains of intelligence. Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Top Ten Goals in UNIT Development (continued) 5. Develop tasks that enhance the testing experience for examinees. 4. Encourage flexible and efficient assessment with three administration options. 3. Develop a test that builds on examiner knowledge and experience. 2. Develop a test that measures intelligence accurately and with precision. 1. Ensure the highest level of test fairness. Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

UNIT Theoretical Underpinnings A hierarchical model of intelligence with general ability, or g, at the apex (e.g., Carroll, 1993; Gustafsson, 1984) Modification of Jensen’s (1980) dichotomy between associative ability (Memory) and cognitive ability (Reasoning) Traditional Classification of Procedures according to processing demands (i.e., those mediated by Symbolic versus Nonsymbolic processing) Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

UNIT Theoretical Underpinnings UNIT assesses complex Memory and Reasoning abilities that lend themselves to internal processes of verbal (Symbolic) mediation as well as those that are less conducive to such mediation (Nonsymbolic) The interlocking design keeps the test efficient and economical Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Conceptual Model for the UNIT Memory Subtests Symbolic Memory Object Memory Spatial Memory Reasoning Subtests Analogic Reasoning Cube Design Mazes Symbolic Subtests Nonsymbolic Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

UNIT Scales Memory Quotient (MQ) Reasoning Quotient (RQ) Symbolic Quotient (SQ) Nonsymbolic Quotient (NSQ) Full Scale Intelligence Quotient (FSIQ) Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Memory Quotient (MQ) An index of complex memory functioning for both meaningful and abstract material involving Short-term recall and organization Short-term recognition and reorganization An index of memory for Content (what was seen) Location (where it was seen) Sequence (the order in which it was seen) Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Reasoning Quotient (RQ) An index of thinking and problem-solving abilities for Familiar situations Unfamiliar situations An index that requires Pattern processing Understanding of relationships Planning abilities Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Symbolic Quotient (SQ) An index of processing and problem-solving with material that is Meaningful in content Conducive to internal verbal mediation Internal verbal mediation includes Labeling Organizing Categorizing Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Nonsymbolic Quotient (NSQ) An index of processing and problem-solving with material that is Abstract in content Not very meaningful Not easily conducive to verbal mediation Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Symbolic Memory Cube Design Spatial Memory Analogic Reasoning UNIT Subtests Symbolic Memory Cube Design Spatial Memory Analogic Reasoning Object Memory Mazes Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Description of Symbolic Memory Subtest The examinee views a sequence of universal symbols for a period of 5 seconds. After the stimulus is removed, the examinee recreates the sequence using the Symbolic Memory Response Cards. Each item is a series of universal symbols for baby, girl, boy, woman, and man, depicted in green or black. Symbolic Memory is primarily a measure of short-term visual memory and complex sequential memory for meaningful material. Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Administration at a Glance Symbolic Memory Place the response cards in two rows, black at the top and green at the bottom, and in the following order from left to right: Baby, Girl, Boy, Woman, Man. Place Stimulus Book 1 12"–18" in front of the examinee. The space between the stimulus book and the response cards is the work area. Make eye contact with the examinee, present the stimulus page for 5 seconds, and point to the stimulus figures. After 5 seconds, turn the screening page to cover the stimulus page, wave a hand over the work area and response cards, and use the open-handed shrug. After completing a demonstration item, re-expose the stimulus page to demonstrate the correct response(s). . Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Arrangement of Test Materials for Symbolic Memory Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Symbolic Memory Subtest: Example Item Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Description of Cube Design Subtest Cube Design involves the presentation and direct reproduction of two-color, abstract, geometric designs. While viewing the stimulus design, the examinee reconstructs the design directly on the stimulus book or response mat, using green-and-white one-inch cubes. Cube Design is primarily a measure of visual-spatial reasoning. Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Administration at a Glance Cube Design For Demonstration 1 through Item 2, place Stimulus Book 1 flat, directly in front of the examinee. (Use the back of the response mat to cover Spatial Memory items.) For Demonstration 3 through Item 15, place Stimulus Book 1 in its easel position 12"–18" in front of the examinee, and the response mat between the examinee and the stimulus book. For each item, place the required number of cubes beside the stimulus book or response mat, expose the stimulus page, start the stopwatch deliberately, and use the open-handed shrug. After completing demonstration items, stop the stopwatch and point to the side(s) of the cube(s) and the corresponding side(s) of the stimulus design. Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Arrangement of Test Materials for Cube Design Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Cube Design Subtest: Example Item Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Description of Spatial Memory Subtest The examinee views a random pattern of green, black, or green and black dots on a 3 x 3 or 4 x 4 grid for a period of 5 seconds. After the stimulus is removed, the examinee recreates the spatial pattern with green and black circular chips on the blank response grid. Spatial Memory is primarily a measure of short-term visual memory for abstract material. Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Administration at a Glance Spatial Memory Place Stimulus Book 1 in its easel position 12"–18" in front of the examinee, the Response Grid directly in front of the examinee, and the green and black response chips next to the Response Grid. For Demonstration 1 through Item 11, use the 3 x 3 grid; for Items 12–27, use the 4 x 4 grid. Make eye contact with the examinee, present the stimulus page for 5 seconds, and point to the stimulus figures. After 5 seconds, turn the screening page to cover the stimulus page, wave a hand over the response grid and response chips, and use the open-handed shrug. After completing a demonstration item, re-expose the stimulus page to demonstrate the correct response(s). . Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Arrangement of Test Materials for Spatial Memory Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Spatial Memory Subtest: Example Item Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Description of Analogic Reasoning Subtest Analogic Reasoning presents incomplete conceptual or geometric analogies in a matrix format and requires only a pointing response. The items feature either common objects or novel geometric figures. The examinee completes the matrix analogies by selecting from four response options. Analogic Reasoning is primarily a measure of symbolic reasoning. Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Administration at a Glance Analogic Reasoning Place Stimulus Book 1 in its easel position directly in front and within reach of the examinee. Present the stimulus page and point to the figures in each row from left to right, ending with the blank cell. Wave a hand over the response options at the bottom of the stimulus page, point again to the blank cell, and use the open-handed shrug. After completing demonstration items, point to the correct response and nod your head. Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Arrangement of Test Materials for Analogic Reasoning Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Description of Object Memory Subtest The examinee is presented a random pictorial array of common objects for 5 seconds. After the stimulus is removed, a second pictorial array is presented, containing all of the previously presented objects and additional objects to serve as foils. The examinee recognizes and identifies the objects presented in the first pictorial array by placing response chips on the appropriate pictures. Object Memory is primarily a measure of short-term recognition and recall of meaningful symbolic material. Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Administration at a Glance Object Memory Place Stimulus Book 2 flat, directly in front of the examinee and eight black response chips beside the stimulus book. Make eye contact with the examinee, present the stimulus page for 5 seconds, and point to the stimulus figures. After 5 seconds, present the response page, wave a hand over the response page and response chips, and use the open handed shrug. After completing demonstration items, re-expose the stimulus page to demonstrate the correct response(s). Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Arrangement of Test Materials for Object Memory Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Description of Mazes Subtest The examinee uses paper and pencil to navigate and exit mazes by tracing a path from the center starting point of each maze to the correct exit, without making incorrect decisions en route. Increasingly complex mazes are presented. Mazes is primarily a measure of reasoning and planful behavior. Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Administration at a Glance Mazes Place the Mazes Response Booklet flat, directly in front of the examinee and folded so that examinee sees only the item being presented. Retain the pencils until the examinee needs the graphite pencil to complete a maze. For demonstration items, point to yourself, then to the mouse, then to the cheese. Start the stopwatch deliberately and complete the maze with the red-leaded pencil. Retrace the path with a finger and nod your head. For sample items, point to the examinee, then to the mouse, then to the cheese. Give the graphite pencil to the examinee and start the stopwatch deliberately. For scored items, point to the examinee and to the mouse, but not to the cheese. Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Arrangement of Test Materials for Mazes Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Mazes Subtest: Example Item Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

UNIT Administration Features 100% nonverbal administration Flexible administration with three options (Abbreviated, Standard, or Extended Batteries) depending on your needs Administration at a Glance card Use of relatively universal and cross-cultural nonverbal gestures Demonstration items, Sample items, and Checkpoint items for fair administration Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

100% Nonverbal Administration UNIT is the only multidimensional IQ test which may be administered completely nonverbally But you always have the freedom to talk with a child to build and maintain rapport, so long as the discussion is not about the test! Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Flexible Administration Abbreviated, Standard, Extended Batteries Abbreviated Battery (2 subtests) about 15 minutes for screening of intellectual functioning Standard Battery (4 subtests) about 30 minutes for eligibility and diagnostic decision-making Extended Battery (6 subtests) about 45 minutes for more in-depth diagnostic assessments Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Administration at a Glance Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Administration Gestures Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Administration Gestures Head Nodding Nodding the head up and down communicates “yes” or approval or that the responses to sample items are correct. The head nod should not be used to indicate correct responses on scored items. Head Shaking Shaking the head from side to side communicates “no” or disapproval. Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Administration Gestures Open-Handed Shrugging Shrugging the shoulders with palms up and a questioning facial expression asks “What is the answer?” Palm Rolling With one or both hands out, with palms up and fingers together, the wrists are rotated toward the body so that the hands inscribe small circles in the air. This gesture indicates “Go ahead” or “You try it now.” Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Administration Gestures Pointing Pointing with the index finger first to the relevant aspects of the stimulus and then to the examinee indicates “You do it now.” Hand Waving Moving an open hand horizontally, with palm up, over the stimulus items indicates that they should be considered as a group or as a series of options from which the examinee should choose. Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Administration Gestures Stop Holding an open hand in a nearly vertical position with the palm toward the examinee conveys the message, “Stop.” Placing a hand over the examinee’s hand or over the test materials may be necessary. Thumbs Up Holding a fist over the table with the thumb extending upward essentially means the same thing as a head nod. The thumbs-up gesture can also be used to convey encouragement or acknowledgment. Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Teaching Procedures for Fair Administration Demonstration Items Completed by the examiner to show the examinee how to approach each item type Sample Items Completed by the examinee to demonstrate that he or she understands the problem; corrective feedback by the examiner is allowed Checkpoint Items Scored items completed by the examinee that allow the examiner to provide feedback about incorrect responses Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

UNIT Standardization and Technical Properties Standardization Sample Reliability Studies Internal Consistency Reliabilities at Decision-Making Points Test-Retest Stability Floors, Ceilings, and Difficulty Gradients Validity Studies Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

• Median subtest internal consistency averaged across ages .80 Standards of Test Technical Adequacy for School-Aged Children Internal Consistency • Median subtest internal consistency averaged across ages .80 • Total test internal consistency averaged across ages .90 • Screening test internal consistency averaged across ages .80 Test–Retest Stability • Total test stability coefficient .90 Floors • Average subtest floor 2 SDs or more below normative mean • Total test floor is 2 SDs or more below normative mean Ceilings • Average subtest ceiling 2 SDs or more above normative mean • Total test ceiling 2 SDs or more above normative mean Difficulty Gradients • For subtests and total test, no fewer than three measurement points per standard deviation, or each measurement point equivalent to no more than one- third standard deviation Validity • Validity studies reported (e.g., group mean differences) Note. Adapted from “Limitations of Preschool Instruments and Standards for Minimal Levels of Technical Adequacy,” by B. A. Bracken, 1987, Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 5, pp. 313–326. Copyright 1987 by the Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment. Table 5.1 Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

UNIT Standardization Sample Normed on 2,100 children and adolescents aged 5.0–17.11 years 108 sites across 38 states Total of 3,865 children and adolescents tested for norms development and reliability, validity, and fairness studies Sample representative of the general USA population based on 1995 census updates Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

UNIT Standardization Sites Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

UNIT Sampling Variables Age (5 years 0 months through 17 years 11 months) Sex (Female, Male) Race (African American, Asian American, Native American, White, Other) Hispanic Origin (Hispanic, Non-Hispanic) Region (Midwest, Northeast, South, West) Community Setting (Urban/Suburban, Rural) Parental Educational Attainment (Less than High School Degree; High School Graduate or Equivalency; Some College or Technical School; Four or More Years of College) Inclusion of Representative Exceptional Children and Adolescents Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

UNIT Standardization Sample Compared with U. S UNIT Standardization Sample Compared with U.S. Population: Sex, Race, Ethnicity, and SES UNIT Sample % U.S. Population % Sex Female 49.9 48.9 Male 50.1 51.1 Race African American 16.0 16.0 White 78.4 78.8 Other 5.7 5.2 Ethnicity Hispanic 13.0 13.0 Non-Hispanic 87.0 87.0 Parent Educational Attainment Less than High School 14.0 13.7 High School Graduate 29.5 29.1 Some College 29.2 29.7  4 Years of College 27.3 27.5 Note. N = 175 in each age group. Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

UNIT Standardization Sample Compared with U. S UNIT Standardization Sample Compared with U.S. Population: Geographic Region and Community Size UNIT Sample % U.S. Population % Geographic Region (38 states) Midwest 24.4 24.1 Northeast 18.0 18.2 South 35.0 35.2 West 22.7 22.5 Community Size Rural 27.6 24.8 Urban/Suburban 72.4 75.2 Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

UNIT Standardization Sample Compared with U. S UNIT Standardization Sample Compared with U.S. Population: Special Education Services UNIT Sample % U.S. Population % Learning Disabilities 5.6 5.9 Speech and Language Impairments 2.3 2.4 Serious Emotional Disturbance 0.9 1.0 Mental Retardation 1.2 1.3 Hearing Impairments 0.2 0.2 Intellectual Giftedness 6.2 6.4 Bilingual Education 1.8 3.1 English as a Second Language 2.0 4.0 Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Clinical/ Exceptional Sample UNIT Internal Consistency Split-Half Correlations With Spearman-Brown Corrections Standard Battery Memory Reasoning Symbolic Nonsymbolic Full Scale Average Reliability .88 .90 .87 .91 .93 Clinical/ Exceptional Sample .95 .96 .97 .98 Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

UNIT Decision-Making Reliabilities Split-Half Correlations With Spearman-Brown Corrections (Also corrected for restriction or expansion in range) Standard Battery Memory Reasoning Symbolic Nonsymbolic Full Scale FSIQ = 70±10 .97 .96 .98 FSIQ = 130± 10 .96 .97 .95 .98 Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Test-Retest Stability Corrected for variability on the first testing Standard Battery Memory Reasoning Symbolic Nonsymbolic Full Scale Corrected r .81 .87 .78 .84 .88 Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

UNIT Floors and Ceilings Floors: A term describing the extent to which there are a sufficient number of easy items to distinguish between examinees of delayed to very delayed ability Ceilings: A term describing the extent to which there are a sufficient number of difficult items to distinguish between examinees of superior and very superior ability Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

UNIT Floors and Ceilings Floors: UNIT subtests have very good to excellent floors for low ability examinees across the entire age range, with the exception of the Abbreviated Battery at the youngest ages Ceilings: UNIT subtests have consistently excellent ceilings, even for the oldest and highest ability examinees Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

UNIT Item Difficulty Gradients Difficulty Gradients: A term describing the steepness of the gradations in item difficulty. An increase or decrease in a single raw score point should not result in a standard score change of more than one-third SD UNIT Difficulty Gradients: Average item gradients for UNIT subtests equal or exceed standards for every age level, indicating UNIT’s sensitivity to subtle differences in ability levels (with the exception of one subtest at the earliest ages) Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

UNIT Internal Validity Studies Evidence of Content Validity Structural Evidence of Validity Development and Growth Curves Subtest Unidimensionality Studies Subtest and Scale Intercorrelation Studies Comparison among the three UNIT Batteries Factor Analytic Investigations Exploratory Factor Analyses Confirmatory Factor Analyses Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Age Progression of UNIT Subtests: Mean Raw Scores By Age Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Age Progression on UNIT Subtests: Mean Rasch W Scores By Age Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Age Progression of UNIT Standard Battery FSIQ: Mean Rasch W Score By Age Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Exploratory Factor Analyses for Standard Battery Second-Order Principal Components Schmid-Leiman Solution for the Standardization and Clinical/Exceptional Samples Standardization Sample Clinical/Exceptional Sample Second First Second First Order Order Order Order g Memory Reasoning g Memory Reasoning Symbolic Memory .75 .46 –.05 .88 .35 .03 Cube Design .77 .06 .36 .88 .05 .34 Spatial Memory .80 .33 .11 .88 .34 .05 Analogic Reasoning .73 –.05 .45 .88 .03 .36 Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Confirmatory Factor Analyses for the Standardization Sample Factor Loadings (Standardized Regression Beta Weights) Memory Reasoning Symbolic Nonsymbolic Symbolic Memory 0.66 — — — Cube Design — 0.70 — — Spatial Memory 0.74 — — — Analogic Reasoning — 0.67 — — Object Memory 0.63 — — — Mazes — 0.37 — — Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Confirmatory Factor Analyses for the Standardization Sample Factor Loadings (Standardized Regression Beta Weights) Memory Reasoning Symbolic Nonsymbolic Symbolic Memory — — 0.66 — Cube Design — — — 0.68 Spatial Memory — — — 0.75 Analogic Reasoning — — 0.65 — Object Memory — — 0.63 — Mazes — — — 0.36 Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Confirmatory Factor Analyses for the Clinical/Exceptional Sample Factor Loadings (Standardized Regression Beta Weights) Memory Reasoning Symbolic Nonsymbolic Symbolic Memory 0.71 — — — Cube Design — 0.74 — — Spatial Memory 0.78 — — — Analogic Reasoning — 0.73 — — Object Memory 0.68 — — — Mazes — 0.47 — — Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Confirmatory Factor Analyses for the Clinical/Exceptional Sample Factor Loadings (Standardized Regression Beta Weights) Memory Reasoning Symbolic Nonsymbolic Symbolic Memory — — 0.71 — Cube Design — — — 0.71 Spatial Memory — — — 0.78 Analogic Reasoning — — 0.70 — Object Memory — — 0.68 — Mazes — — — 0.47 Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

UNIT External Validity Studies Correlational Studies Measures of Intelligence Measures of Academic Achievement Studies with Clinical and Exceptional Samples Speech and Language Impairment (N = 57) Learning Disabilities (N = 205) Mental Retardation (N = 84) Intellectually Gifted (N = 160) Serious Emotional Disturbance (N = 23) Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

UNIT Standard FSIQ Correlations with Other IQs WISC-III FSIQ across four samples (Learning Disabled, Mentally Retarded, Intellectually Gifted, and Native American) .81–.84 WJ-R Tests of Cognitive Ability BCA (Est): .83 K-BIT IQ Composite: .82 Matrix Analogies Test Standard Score: .83 Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices T-Score: .56 TONI-2 Quotient: .63 Note: All correlations are corrected to control for restriction or expansion in range. r Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Correlations Between UNIT Full Scale IQs and WJ-R Tests of Achievement Broad Written Language WJ-R Broad Reading WJ-R Broad Mathematics WJ-R Broad Knowledge WJ-R Skills UNIT Abbreviated Battery FSIQ 133 .78 .84 .78 .86 .82 95.3 23.0 UNIT Standard Battery FSIQ 133 .81 .86 .81 .87 .85 93.8 24.4 UNIT Extended Battery FSIQ 133 .80 .87 .81 .87 .85 92.1 24.0 Mean 92.4 94.3 86.4 94.9 88.5 SD 28.1 31.3 29.0 23.4 27.7 N Mean SD Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Comparative Prediction of Achievement by UNIT and Other Nonverbal Measures UNIT Abbreviated Battery FSIQ 133 .78 .84 .86 .82 UNIT Standard Battery FSIQ 133 .81 .86 .87 .85 UNIT Extended Battery FSIQ 133 .80 .87 .87 .85 Leiter-R Brief IQ* 29 .79 .80 — — Leiter-R Full IQ* 29 .82 .82 — — TONI-3 (Form A)* 20 .73 .76 .56 .76 TONI-3 (Form B)* 20 .71 .74 .55 .70 *Note. These data come from each test's manual. WJ-R Broad Reading WJ-R Broad Mathematics WJ-R Broad Knowledge WJ-R Skills N

UNIT Validity Studies: Diagnoses and Exceptionalities Speech and Language Impairment (N = 57) Learning Disabilities (N = 205) Mental Retardation (N = 84) Intellectually Gifted (N = 160) Serious Emotional Disturbance (N = 23) Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Reasoning Quotient Mean 91.42 98.53 7.11 0.47 SD 14.97 13.69 UNIT Performance by a Sample With Speech and Language Impairments and a Control Sample Table 5.31 Clinical Sample (n = 57) Control Sample (n = 57) Abbreviated Battery FSIQ Mean 94.16 98.32 4.16 0.28 SD 15.25 15.04 Standard Battery Memory Quotient Mean 94.81 99.51 4.79 0.31 SD 16.26 14.71 Reasoning Quotient Mean 91.42 98.53 7.11 0.47 SD 14.97 13.69 Symbolic Quotient Mean 93.67 99.89 6.22 0.41 SD 15.43 15.68 Nonsymbolic Quotient Mean 92.40 98.02 5.62 0.37 SD 15.95 14.03 FSIQ Mean 91.98 98.79 6.81 0.45 SD 15.42 14.48 Extended Battery Memory Quotient Mean 93.91 99.93 6.02 0.40 SD 17.16 14.87 Reasoning Quotient Mean 90.42 100.42 10.00 0.67 SD 15.36 13.87 Symbolic Quotient Mean 93.00 100.26 7.26 0.48 SD 16.62 15.56 Nonsymbolic Quotient Mean 91.26 99.89 8.63 0.58 SD 15.82 14.29 FSIQ Mean 91.33 100.05 8.72 0.58 SD 15.93 14.62 Note. Samples were matched according to age, sex, race, ethnicity, and parent education level. Difference Score Effect Size Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Reasoning Quotient Mean 91.85 100.95 9.10 0.61 SD 14.17 13.46 UNIT Performance by a Sample With Learning Disabilities and a Control Sample Table 5.32 Clinical Sample (n = 205) Control Sample (n = 205) Difference Score Effect Size Abbreviated Battery FSIQ Mean 91.87 100.50 8.63 0.58 SD 13.61 13.27 Standard Battery Memory Quotient Mean 90.84 100.76 9.92 0.66 SD 13.91 13.34 Reasoning Quotient Mean 91.85 100.95 9.10 0.61 SD 14.17 13.46 Symbolic Quotient Mean 90.32 100.05 9.73 0.65 SD 13.48 13.63 Nonsymbolic Quotient Mean 92.21 101.51 9.30 0.62 SD 13.38 12.92 FSIQ Mean 90.20 100.83 10.63 0.71 SD 13.67 13.00 Extended Battery Memory Quotient Mean 90.29 100.74 10.45 0.70 SD 13.42 13.34 Reasoning Quotient Mean 91.98 101.04 9.06 0.60 SD 14.60 13.54 Symbolic Quotient Mean 89.96 100.31 10.35 0.69 SD 13.08 13.34 Nonsymbolic Quotient Mean 92.20 101.43 9.23 0.62 SD 14.10 13.27 FSIQ Mean 89.84 100.87 11.03 0.74 SD 13.69 13.19 Note. Samples were matched according to age, sex, race, ethnicity, and parent education level. Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Reasoning Quotient Mean 66.88 97.56 30.68 2.05 SD 11.87 13.20 UNIT Performance by a Sample With Mental Retardation and a Control Sample Table 5.33 Clinical Sample (n = 84 Control Sample (n = 84) Difference Score Effect Size Abbreviated Battery FSIQ Mean 66.42 96.90 30.48 2.03 SD 13.08 13.04 Standard Battery Memory Quotient Mean 67.56 95.77 28.21 1.88 SD 13.29 12.65 Reasoning Quotient Mean 66.88 97.56 30.68 2.05 SD 11.87 13.20 Symbolic Quotient Mean 66.52 95.25 28.73 1.92 SD 11.40 12.48 Nonsymbolic Quotient Mean 67.17 97.87 30.70 2.05 SD 14.29 12.96 FSIQ Mean 62.40 96.13 33.73 2.25 SD 13.80 12.36 Extended Battery Memory Quotient Mean 64.17 94.65 30.48 2.03 SD 13.44 12.17 Reasoning Quotient Mean 62.92 96.87 33.95 2.26 SD 14.70 14.07 Symbolic Quotient Mean 63.07 94.27 31.20 2.08 SD 12.20 12.06 Nonsymbolic Quotient Mean 64.96 97.04 32.08 2.14 SD 14.50 14.17 FSIQ Mean 60.96 95.01 34.05 2.27 SD 12.72 12.91 Note. Samples were matched according to age, sex, race, ethnicity, and parent education level. Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Reasoning Quotient Mean 118.36 104.99 13.37 0.89 SD 10.52 13.95 UNIT Performance by a Sample With Intellectual Giftedness and a Control Sample Table 5.34 Exceptional Sample (n = 160) Control Sample (n = 160) Difference Score Effect Size Abbreviated Battery FSIQ Mean 117.03 103.86 13.17 0.88 SD 11.08 14.61 Standard Battery Memory Quotient Mean 112.99 102.54 10.45 0.70 SD 11.12 15.93 Reasoning Quotient Mean 118.36 104.99 13.37 0.89 SD 10.52 13.95 Symbolic Quotient Mean 115.63 104.63 11.00 0.73 SD 10.35 14.39 Nonsymbolic Quotient Mean 116.19 102.94 13.25 0.88 SD 10.75 14.22 FSIQ Mean 117.64 104.14 13.50 0.90 SD 10.10 14.18 Extended Battery Memory Quotient Mean 112.69 102.95 9.74 0.65 SD 11.04 15.95 Reasoning Quotient Mean 116.74 104.89 11.85 0.79 SD 10.78 14.24 Symbolic Quotient Mean 114.49 104.43 10.06 0.67 SD 10.46 14.60 Nonsymbolic Quotient Mean 115.04 103.30 11.74 0.78 SD 10.83 14.35 FSIQ Mean 116.48 104.28 12.20 0.81 SD 9.85 14.55 Note. Samples were matched according to age, sex, race, ethnicity, and parent education level. Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Reasoning Quotient Mean 92.43 92.65 0.22 0.01 SD 13.03 14.24 UNIT Performance by a Sample With Serious Emotional Disturbance and a Control Sample Table 5.35 Clinical Sample (n = 23) Control Sample (n = 23) Difference Score Effect Size Abbreviated Battery FSIQ Mean 93.57 93.35 -0.22 0.01 SD 13.27 14.18 Standard Battery Memory Quotient Mean 94.57 95.52 0.95 0.06 SD 15.65 15.14 Reasoning Quotient Mean 92.43 92.65 0.22 0.01 SD 13.03 14.24 Symbolic Quotient Mean 93.48 94.87 1.39 0.09 SD 14.71 14.54 Nonsymbolic Quotient Mean 93.43 92.96 -0.47 0.03 SD 12.91 13.70 FSIQ Mean 92.65 93.09 0.44 0.03 SD 13.97 13.67 Extended Battery Memory Quotient Mean 95.09 95.65 0.56 0.04 SD 15.02 14.31 Reasoning Quotient Mean 92.91 92.78 -0.13 0.01 SD 13.51 15.07 Symbolic Quotient Mean 94.26 95.30 1.04 0.07 SD 14.90 14.04 Nonsymbolic Quotient Mean 93.57 93.00 -0.57 0.04 SD 12.63 14.93 FSIQ Mean 93.13 93.43 0.30 0.02 SD 14.24 14.18 Note. Samples were matched according to age, sex, race, ethnicity, and parent education level. Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

UNIT and Test Fairness UNIT was designed to optimize fairness for individuals varying in age, sex, race, ethnicity, language, and nationality UNIT was also designed to be fair for individuals with hearing impairment, language disabilities, and color-vision deficiencies Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

UNIT Fairness Features UNIT’s underlying theoretical model has direct implications for fairness Expert bias and sensitivity reviews of item and subtest content were conducted UNIT’s instructional sets, task composition, and response modes were designed to reduce situational sources of test bias Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

UNIT Fairness Studies: Internal Test Characteristics UNIT has comparable measurement precision (reliability) across sex, race, and ethnicity UNIT shows no evidence of Differential Item Functioning (DIF) IRT item-fit statistics across groups Mantel–Haenszel procedure across groups Partial correlations between item performance and sex, race, ethnicity, controlling for overall performance UNIT has comparable factor structure across sex, race, and ethnicity Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

UNIT Fairness Studies: External Criterion Analyses The UNIT manual contains eight comparative studies of group mean performances, including fairness studies by sex, race, ethnicity, and language. UNIT has established fairness in the prediction of an external variable, academic achievement. Prediction from UNIT of performance on the WJ-R Tests of Achievement was similar for females and males, and African Americans and Whites. Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

UNIT Fairness Studies: Comparisons of Group Mean Performances Females and Males Ecuadorians Hispanics African Americans Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders Native Americans Individuals in Bilingual and ESL Classrooms Individuals who are Deaf/Hearing-Impaired Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

UNIT Performance by Demographically Matched Female and Male Examinees Females Males Difference Effect (n = 1,159) (n = 1,159) Score Size Abbreviated Battery FSIQ Mean 100.69 100.41 0.29 0.02 SD 14.09 13.92 Standard Battery Memory Quotient Mean 101.60 100.04 1.56 0.10 SD 14.51 14.48 Reasoning Quotient Mean 99.41 101.86 -2.46 0.16 SD 13.31 14.01 Symbolic Quotient Mean 101.65 100.36 1.29 0.09 SD 14.15 14.03 Nonsymbolic Quotient Mean 99.33 101.49 -2.15 0.14 SD 13.53 14.21 FSIQ Mean 100.59 101.08 -0.49 0.03 SD 13.72 13.87 Extended Battery Memory Quotient Mean 101.80 100.26 1.55 0.10 SD 14.58 14.24 Reasoning Quotient Mean 99.50 102.05 -2.55 0.17 SD 13.29 13.71 Symbolic Quotient Mean 101.93 100.47 1.46 0.10 SD 14.25 13.87 Nonsymbolic Quotient Mean 99.34 101.80 -2.47 0.16 SD 13.63 14.16 FSIQ Mean 100.93 101.31 -0.38 0.03 SD 13.85 13.81 Note. Samples were matched according to age, race, ethnicity, and parent education level. Table 6.3 Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

UNIT Performance by Ecuadorian Examinees and a Demographically Matched Comparison Sample Ecuadorian United Difference Effect States Score Size (n = 30) (n = 30) Abbreviated Battery FSIQ Mean 101.07 103.80 2.73 0.18 SD 14.59 14.40 Standard Battery Memory Quotient Mean 98.00 102.60 4.60 0.31 SD 13.16 14.35 Reasoning Quotient Mean 98.33 104.33 6.00 0.40 SD 14.66 13.65 Symbolic Quotient Mean 93.78 104.80 11.02 0.73 SD 14.40 14.00 Nonsymbolic Quotient Mean 102.20 101.53 -0.67 0.04 SD 14.06 13.87 FSIQ Mean 98.07 103.40 5.33 0.36 SD 14.00 13.18 Extended Battery Memory Quotient Mean 98.56 103.28 4.72 0.31 SD 13.75 13.76 Reasoning Quotient Mean 99.13 101.93 2.80 0.19 SD 14.03 16.35 Symbolic Quotient Mean 95.81 105.04 9.23 0.62 SD 13.58 13.74 Nonsymbolic Quotient Mean 102.00 100.00 -2.00 0.13 SD 14.03 16.62 FSIQ Mean 99.11 102.38 3.26 0.22 SD 14.18 14.63 Note. Samples were matched according to age, sex, and parent education level. Table 6.10 Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Table 6.7 UNIT Performance by Hispanics and a Demographically Matched Comparison Sample Non- Hispanic Hispanic Difference Effect (n = 194) (n = 194) Score Size Abbreviated Battery FSIQ Mean 97.98 99.98 2.00 0.13 SD 12.65 13.01 Standard Battery Memory Quotient Mean 99.90 100.51 0.62 0.04 SD 14.28 12.96 Reasoning Quotient Mean 96.91 99.96 3.06 0.20 SD 12.96 13.31 Symbolic Quotient Mean 97.86 100.49 2.62 0.17 SD 14.05 12.29 Nonsymbolic Quotient Mean 99.01 100.19 1.19 0.08 SD 12.95 13.75 FSIQ Mean 98.32 100.45 2.13 0.14 SD 12.73 12.54 Extended Battery Memory Quotient Mean 100.39 100.14 -0.26 0.02 SD 14.44 13.04 Reasoning Quotient Mean 98.59 99.99 1.40 0.09 SD 12.62 13.02 Symbolic Quotient Mean 98.65 100.32 1.67 0.11 SD 14.09 12.15 Nonsymbolic Quotient Mean 100.57 100.43 -0.14 0.01 SD 12.82 13.76 FSIQ Mean 99.41 100.85 1.43 0.10 SD 13.15 12.36 Note. Samples were matched according to age, sex, and parent education level. Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Table 6.4 UNIT Performance by African Americans and a Demographically Matched Comparison Sample African American White Difference Effect (n = 352) (n = 352) Score Size Abbreviated Battery FSIQ Mean 91.34 98.97 7.63 0.51 SD 12.57 13.77 Standard Battery Memory Quotient: Mean 91.93 99.27 7.34 0.49 SD 13.47 13.73 Reasoning Quotient: Mean 91.13 99.42 8.28 0.55 SD 12.28 12.17 Symbolic Quotient: Mean 92.32 99.45 7.13 0.48 SD 13.12 12.86 Nonsymbolic Quotient: Mean 91.00 99.05 8.04 0.54 SD 11.91 12.80 FSIQ Mean 90.68 99.31 8.63 0.58 SD 12.29 12.17 Extended Battery Memory Quotient: Mean 92.21 99.65 7.44 0.50 SD 13.72 13.57 Reasoning Quotient: Mean 91.01 99.67 8.66 0.58 SD 12.79 12.41 Symbolic Quotient: Mean 92.49 99.92 7.43 0.50 SD 13.74 12.87 Nonsymbolic Quotient: Mean 90.60 99.32 8.72 0.58 SD 12.21 13.26 FSIQ Mean 90.15 99.92 9.77 0.65 SD 13.18 12.10 Note. Samples were matched according to age, sex, ethnicity, and parent education level . Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

UNIT Performance by Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders and a Demographically Matched Comparison Sample Asian American/ Pacific Islander White Difference Effect (n = 49) (n = 49) Score Size Abbreviated Battery FSIQ Mean 111.69 104.39 7.31 0.49 SD 13.85 15.27 Standard Battery Memory Quotient: Mean 113.06 102.12 10.94 0.73 SD 11.70 15.58 Reasoning Quotient: Mean 109.63 103.96 5.67 0.38 SD 12.54 14.40 Symbolic Quotient: Mean 112.76 103.55 9.20 0.61 SD 11.75 16.66 Nonsymbolic Quotient: Mean 110.24 102.53 7.71 0.51 SD 13.52 12.38 FSIQ Mean 112.69 103.29 9.41 0.63 SD 11.81 14.31 Extended Battery Memory Quotient: Mean 113.78 102.22 11.55 0.77 SD 10.91 15.82 Reasoning Quotient: Mean 109.78 102.18 7.59 0.51 SD 12.53 13.45 Symbolic Quotient: Mean 113.35 103.24 10.10 0.67 SD 11.79 16.77 Nonsymbolic Quotient: Mean 110.27 100.98 9.29 0.62 SD 12.62 12.60 FSIQ Mean 113.18 102.22 10.96 0.73 SD 11.06 14.19 Note. Samples were matched according to age, sex, and parent education level. Table 6.5 Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

UNIT Performance by Native Americans and a Demographically Matched Comparison Sample American White Difference Effect (n = 34) (n = 34) Score Size Abbreviated Battery FSIQ Mean 100.65 103.91 3.26 0.22 SD 8.94 13.28 Standard Battery Memory Quotient Mean 101.26 105.56 4.29 0.29 SD 9.56 11.65 Reasoning Quotient Mean 98.41 105.76 7.35 0.49 SD 10.82 13.46 Symbolic Quotient Mean 99.79 105.71 5.91 0.39 SD 9.49 11.23 Nonsymbolic Quotient Mean 99.85 105.59 5.74 0.38 SD 10.73 12.06 FSIQ Mean 99.76 106.26 6.50 0.43 SD 10.09 12.03 Extended Battery Memory Quotient Mean 101.00 106.56 5.56 0.37 SD 10.03 11.31 Reasoning Quotient Mean 100.82 106.09 5.26 0.35 SD 13.18 13.62 Symbolic Quotient Mean 100.06 106.85 6.79 0.45 SD 10.22 11.36 Nonsymbolic Quotient Mean 101.82 106.00 4.18 0.28 SD 13.63 12.40 FSIQ Mean 101.00 107.24 6.24 0.42 SD 12.17 12.02 Note. Samples were matched according to age, sex, and parent education level. Table 6.6 Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

UNIT Performance by Bilingual and ESL Examinees and a Demographically Matched Comparison Sample Bilingual/ English- ESL Speaking Difference Effect (n = 78) (n = 78) Score Size Abbreviated Battery FSIQ Mean 93.01 95.84 2.82 0.19 SD 11.96 13.62 Standard Battery Memory Quotient Mean 94.53 95.77 1.25 0.08 SD 12.27 14.29 Reasoning Quotient Mean 91.56 96.72 5.16 0.34 SD 13.35 11.17 Symbolic Quotient Mean 90.47 95.83 5.36 0.36 SD 12.14 11.71 Nonsymbolic Quotient Mean 95.71 96.55 0.84 0.06 SD 12.00 14.23 FSIQ Mean 92.16 95.72 3.56 0.24 SD 11.75 12.98 Extended Battery Memory Quotient Mean 93.93 97.14 3.21 0.21 SD 11.66 13.11 Reasoning Quotient Mean 94.33 96.34 2.01 0.13 SD 11.75 11.98 Symbolic Quotient Mean 91.25 97.29 6.04 0.40 SD 12.13 11.34 Nonsymbolic Quotient Mean 96.99 96.45 -0.54 0.04 SD 11.63 14.37 FSIQ Mean 93.30 97.03 3.73 0.25 SD 11.45 13.04 Note. Samples were matched according to age, sex, and parent education level. Table 6.8 Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

UNIT Performance by Deaf and Hearing-Impaired Examinees and a Demographically Matched Comparison Sample Hearing- Non-Hearing- Difference Effect Impaired Impaired Score Size (n = 106) (n = 106) Abbreviated Battery FSIQ Mean 94.92 98.52 3.59 0.24 SD 14.10 14.77 Standard Battery Memory Quotient Mean 93.43 97.77 4.34 0.29 SD 16.06 14.51 Reasoning Quotient Mean 91.35 97.23 5.88 0.39 SD 13.40 15.74 Symbolic Quotient Mean 92.38 97.57 5.19 0.35 SD 14.46 14.26 Nonsymbolic Quotient Mean 92.59 97.42 4.83 0.32 SD 14.62 15.15 FSIQ Mean 91.40 97.60 6.20 0.41 SD 14.72 14.57 Extended Battery Memory Quotient Mean 92.67 98.00 5.33 0.36 SD 16.25 14.30 Reasoning Quotient Mean 93.48 99.40 5.92 0.39 SD 13.83 14.72 Symbolic Quotient Mean 91.96 97.85 5.90 0.39 SD 14.63 14.31 Nonsymbolic Quotient Mean 93.78 99.80 6.03 0.40 SD 15.36 14.04 FSIQ Mean 90.90 98.91 8.01 0.53 SD 14.83 14.02 Note. Samples were matched according to age, sex, race, ethnicity, and parent education level. Table 6.9 Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

UNIT Fairness Studies: Individuals with Color-Vision Deficiencies A total of 7 individuals with the four common types of red-green color-vision deficiencies were administered representative portions of UNIT subtests. All 7 participants were able to discriminate colors and perform the subtests without difficulty, even though not all could reliably name the colors. [Note: The UNIT is completely nonverbal and does not require any naming.] Summary: The protanopes, deuteranopes, protanomals, and deuteranomals were all able to validly perform UNIT subtests. Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Clinical Use and Interpretation 1. Interpret FSIQ first 2. Interpret Primary and Secondary Scales 3. Interpret Subtests Ipsatively and Normatively Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Clinical Use and Interpretation: FSIQ Table 7.1 Descriptive Classifications of UNIT Scales Standard Scores Percent Included Theoretical Normal Abbreviated Standard Extended Standard Scores Classification Curve FSIQ FSIQ FSIQ 130 and above Very Superior 2.2 1.9 1.9 1.9 120-129 Superior 6.7 8.2 6.7 6.5 110-119 High Average 16.1 14.5 19.3 19.8 90-109 Average 50.0 51.3 50.2 50.0 80-89 Low Average 16.1 15.5 14.3 13.4 70-79 Delayed 6.7 6.0 5.5 5.6 69 and below Very Delayed 2.2 2.7 2.2 2.8 Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Sample Norms Table 2 49 <0.1 48–64 47-65 3 52 0.1 50–66 49–67 Table B.4 Standard Score Equivalents of Sums of Scaled Scores: Symbolic Quotient for the Standard Battery Sum of Confidence 2 Scaled Symbolic Percentile Interval Scores Quotient Rank 90% 95% 2 49 <0.1 48–64 47-65 3 52 0.1 50–66 49–67 4 55 0.1 53–69 52–70 5 58 0.3 56–72 55–73 6 60 0.4 57–73 56–74 7 63 0.7 60–76 59–77 8 66 1 62–78 61–79 9 68 2 64–80 63–81 10 71 3 67–83 66–84 11 74 4 69–85 68–86 12 76 5 71–87 70–88 13 79 8 74–90 73–91 14 82 12 76–92 75–93 15 85 16 79–95 78–96 16 87 19 81–97 80–98 17 90 25 83–99 82–100 18 93 32 86–102 85–103 19 97 42 89–105 88–106 20 100 50 92–108 91–109 Very Delayed Delayed Low Average Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use. Average

Interpretive Hypotheses to Guide Comparisons Between UNIT Scales Memory > Reasoning 1. Examinee's short-term memory skills are better developed than nonverbal reasoning. 2. Examinee's ability to comprehend and reproduce visual stimuli is better developed than the ability to analyze, synthesize, or reorganize visual stimuli. 3. Examinee's attention to relevant details is better developed than concentrated problem-solving abilities. Individuals with this pattern of scale scores may learn best through exposure to concrete, factual information, with memory aids, as opposed to discovery learning activities. For example, reading instruction might include considerable sight-word repetition, as opposed to a more whole-language approach; instruction in higher order knowledge (e.g., comprehension, synthesis, evaluation) should be based on well-learned rules, principles, and laws (e.g., science principles, grammar rules); learning may be aided through the use of mnemonics (e.g., “a pint's a pound the world round”); generalizations of previously learned material to new problems or contexts might be facilitated by reminding students of basic concepts that guide problem solving (e.g., the area of complex geometric designs can be computed by reducing the design to a combination of familiar shapes, such as squares, rectangles, and triangles). Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Interpretive Hypotheses to Guide Comparisons Between UNIT Scales Reasoning > Memory 1. Examinee's nonverbal reasoning is better developed than short-term memory. 2. Examinee's ability to analyze, synthesize, or reorganize visual stimuli is better developed than the ability to comprehend and reproduce visual stimuli. 3. Examinee's ability to concentrate during problem-solving activities is better than the ability to attend to relevant visual details. Individuals with this pattern of scale scores may be adept at solving unique problems that are not highly dependent on previously learned information. Knowledge to be learned might best be presented through the use of relationships, comparisons, underlying principles, extrapolations, and discovery learning. Memory of information should be facilitated by combining new content into existing taxonomies, categories, and strategies, with an emphasis on understanding relationships. Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Interpretive Hypotheses to Guide Comparisons Between UNIT Scales Symbolic > Nonsymbolic 1. Examinee's symbolically mediated problem solving (using some language) is better than nonsymbolically mediated problem solving. 2. Examinee's problem solving using accumulated knowledge is better than novel problem solving. 3. Examinee's practical tasks are more easily handled than nonpractical tasks. 4. Examinee's “Verbal” skills are better than “Performance” skills. Individuals who demonstrate better symbolic than nonsymbolic processing are more adept with the use of language as a means of problem solving. Through the process of subvocalization, these individuals may "self-talk" their way through problem solutions. Because most academic material is symbolic in nature (e.g., reading, writing, computation), children with this pattern of scale scores are likely to learn well in school. Information to be acquired might best be presented in a symbolic fashion (e.g., verbal, rebus, sign, gesture), so that the individual can assimilate new material into his or her own symbolic repertoire (e.g., language). Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Interpretive Hypotheses to Guide Comparisons Between UNIT Scales Nonsymbolic > Symbolic 1. Examinee's nonverbal problem solving is better than symbolically mediated problem solving (language facility). 2. Examinee's immediate problem solving is better than problem solving using knowledge from accumulated experience (particularly symbols of language). 3. Examinee may have a language deficit. 4. Examinee may find practical tasks more difficult than nonpractical tasks. 5. Examinee's “Performance” skills are better than “Verbal” skills. Individuals who demonstrate this pattern of scale scores may be adept at discerning the relationships between abstract, figural stimulus characteristics. These individuals may acquire and process information especially well through nonverbal means. In new learning situations, a visual presentation may facilitate this student's acquisition of new material (e.g., graphs, drawings). Concrete and experiential exploratory learning approaches may be especially meaningful for students with this pattern of scores. Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Primary and Secondary Abilities Assessed by the UNIT Subtests Symbolic Cube Spatial Analogic Object Memory Design Memory Reasoning Memory Mazes Underlying Ability P P Abstract Thinking P P Analysis P P P S P Attention to Detail P P P P Concentration S P S Concept Formation P P P Evaluation P Holistic Processing P Impulse Control P P P Nonsymbolic Mediation P P Nonverbal Reasoning P Paper-and-Pencil Skill P P S S Perception of Abstract Stimuli P P P Perception of Meaningful Stimuli S P P S S P Perceptual Organization P Planning Ability P P P Reasoning P Reproduction of a Model P S P Sequential Processing P P S P Simultaneous Processing P P S P Spatial Orientation P P P Symbolic Mediation P P Synthesis P Three-Dimensional Representation P P P Verbal Mediation S P S S P Visual–Motor Integration P P P Visual Short-Term Memory S S Working Under Time Constraints Note. P indicates a primary ability; S indicates a secondary ability. Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Symbolic Memory • Attention to Detail • Concentration Reliability Split-Half .85 Test–Retest .72 g Loading Standard Battery .74 (Good) Extended Battery .73 (Good) Subtest Specificity vs. 32% Error Variance 15% Most Related to Spatial Memory Least Related to Mazes Primary Abilities Shared With Other Subtests • Attention to Detail • Concentration • Perception of Meaningful Stimuli • Sequential Processing • Symbolic Mediation • Verbal Mediation • Visual Short-Term Memory Secondary Abilities Shared With Other Subtests • Concept Formation • Perceptual Organization • Visual–Motor Integration Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Symbolic Memory Correlates of Subtest Performance As a measure of short-term sequential and symbolic memory, an examinee’s performance on the Symbolic Memory subtest may predict such behaviors as the examinee’s ability to attend to and distinguish important from irrelevant information; organize, recall, and follow multistep directions; sequence verbal information meaningfully (e.g., story telling; reading decoding); understand and compute multistep mathematics story problems; ignore extraneous, competing information during problem solving; and, concentrate on the interrelationships between salient variables. Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Cube Design • Abstract Thinking • Perceptual Organization Reliability Split-Half .91 Test–Retest .85 g Loading Standard Battery .78 (Good) Extended Battery .73 (Good) Subtest Specificity vs. 37% Error Variance 9% Most Related to Spatial Memory and Analogic Reasoning Least Related to Object Memory and Mazes Primary Abilities Shared With Other Subtests • Abstract Thinking • Perceptual Organization • Analysis • Reasoning • Attention to Detail • Reproduction of a Model • Evaluation • Simultaneous Processing • Holistic Processing • Spatial Orientation • Nonsymbolic Mediation • Synthesis • Nonverbal • Three-Dimensional Reasoning Representation • Perception of • Visual–Motor Integration Abstract Stimuli Secondary Abilities Shared With Other Subtests • Working Under Time Constraints Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Cube Design Correlates of Subtest Performance Performance on the Cube Design subtest may predict the examinee’s mechanical or graphic (e.g., artistic, drafting, geometry) competence; ability to divide aspects of problems into discrete parts for examination and recombination to provide a viable solution; tenacity in complex future problem-solving situations; reaction to activities that have deadlines or specific time limits; flexibility in evaluating and modifying solution strategies; and ability to orient in and around his or her environment (e.g., reading maps, following spatial directions). Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Spatial Memory • Attention to Detail • Concentration Reliability Split-Half .81 Test–Retest .68 g Loading Standard Battery .79 (Good) Extended Battery .77 (Good) Subtest Specificity vs. 20% Error Variance 19% Most Related to Symbolic Memory and Cube Design Least Related to Mazes Primary Abilities Shared With Other Subtests • Attention to Detail • Concentration • Nonsymbolic Mediation • Perception of Abstract Stimuli • Perceptual Organization • Simultaneous Processing • Spatial Orientation • Symbolic Mediation •Visual Short-Term Memory Secondary Abilities Shared With Other Subtests • Visual–Motor Integration Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Spatial Memory Correlates of Subtest Performance Performance on the Spatial Memory subtest may predict such future behaviors as the examinee’s ability to view the totality and central nature of problems; attend to, process, and recall visual details (e.g., editing, photography, chess); remember the crux of information, rather than the sequence in which the information was presented; concentrate on a problem until the problem is well understood; disassemble and reassemble objects (e.g., motors, computers) by memory; and sensitivity and awareness to minor changes in the environment (e.g., noting the addition or subtraction of important elements). Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Analogic Reasoning Reliability Split-Half .79 Test–Retest .72 g Loading Standard Battery .74 (Good) Extended Battery .73 (Good) Subtest Specificity vs. 26% Error Variance 21% Most Related to Cube Design and Object Memory Least Related to Mazes Primary Abilities Shared With Other Subtests • Abstract Thinking • Perception of Meaningful Stimuli • Analysis • Reasoning • Concept Formation • Symbolic Mediation • Evaluation • Synthesis • Nonverbal Reasoning • Verbal Reasoning Secondary Abilities Shared With Other Subtests • Attention to Detail • Perception of Abstract Stimuli • Perceptual Organization • Sequential Processing • Simultaneous Processing • Spatial Orientation Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Analogic Reasoning Correlates of Subtest Performance Performance on the Analogic Reasoning subtest may predict such future behaviors as the examinee’s ability to understand and solve conceptual problems; determine the interrelationships between objects and actions (e.g., understand cause-and-effect relationships); produce rational arguments, based on sequential logic; generalize learned principles to solve new problems (e.g., applying centrifugal force to cause sediments to settle in a vial); acquire and use rules in a systematic fashion. Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Object Memory • Attention to Detail • Concentration Reliability Split-Half .76 Test–Retest .60 g Loading Standard Battery N.A. Extended Battery .71 (Good) Subtest Specificity vs. 26% Error Variance 24% Most Related to Symbolic Memory and Spatial Memory Least Related to Mazes Primary Abilities Shared With Other Subtests • Attention to Detail • Concentration • Perception of Meaningful Stimul • Simultaneous Processing • Symbolic Mediation • Verbal Reasoning • Visual Short-Term Memory Secondary Abilities • Concept Formation • Perceptual Organization • Visual–Motor Integration Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Object Memory Correlates of Subtest Performance Performance on Object Memory, unlike the other memory subtests, is based on three specific skills: the ability to discern nuances in physical characteristics; the ability to recognize and recall, as opposed to reproducing, objects viewed; and the ability to rule out distracters that were not among the original stimuli presented. These unique abilities may predict such future behaviors as the examinee’s ability to attend to and discern minor details (e.g., note minor elements of a story, note graphical configurations); observe, note, and recall changes made in the structure of sports teams (i.e., who plays which position); recall relevant information and ignore irrelevant information; remember faces, facts, and objects when presented in a new or different setting (e.g., recognizing people across social contexts); and discern when something (e.g., plan, budget, scene) has been altered. Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Mazes • Concentration • Evaluation • Impulse Control Primary Abilities Shared With Other Subtests • Concentration • Evaluation • Impulse Control • Nonsymbolic Mediation • Nonverbal Reasoning • Paper-and-Pencil Skill • Perceptual Organization • Planning Ability • Reasoning • Sequential Processing • Spatial Orientation • Visual–Motor Integration Secondary Abilities Shared With Other Subtests • Perception of Abstract Stimuli • Working Under Time Constraints Reliability Split-Half .64 Test–Retest .58 g Loading Standard Battery N.A. Extended Battery .44 (Poor) Subtest Specificity vs. 45% Error Variance 36% Most Related to Cube Design and Spatial Memory Least Related to Object Memory Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.

Mazes Correlates of Subtest Performance Performance on the Mazes subtest may predict such specific behaviors as the examinee’s ability to make, execute, and evaluate future plans; employ a reflective versus impulsive problem-solving style; concentrate and make sense of diffuse and confusing problems; make decisions after considering potential consequences; orient and organize one’s environment spatially (e.g., follow directions, read maps, follow topographical outlines); apply a logical and sequential approach to solving problems; and work under time constraints. Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.