1. INTELLIGENCE TESTING OF INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE BLIND OR VISUALLY IMPAIRED: A Position Paper Marnee Loftin, MA, TSBVI Carol Evans, PhD, Davis District, UT Debbie Willis, MA, APH July 20, 2012 AER International, Bellevue, WA 1

2. THE BEGINNING… APH established a Task Force in Jan. 2007 Asked question of Task Force: “Do IQ tests provide meaningful information for individuals with visual impairment?” 2

3. THE ANSWER… The Task Force responded that: “IQ tests can provide meaningful information to individuals who are blind and visually impaired, as well as to their instructors, families, and decision makers.” 3

4. HOWEVER IT IS IMPORTANT: “… provided that all tests be administered in accordance with key points that reflect the uniqueness of the population, as well as appropriate cautions.” 4

5. THE TASK FORCE STARTS: The Task Force developed a position paper and key points that reflect: Appropriate preparation for administration Cautions in administration Cautions in interpretation 5

6. CONTENTS OF POSITION PAPER CONSIST OF: PREPARATION Administration Specialized Training Needed Reasons for Evaluation Collaboration between Disciplines Eye Conditions and Developmental History 6

7. (Continued) ADMINISTRATION Adaptations Tactile and Symbolic Representation 7

8. (Continued) INTERPRETATION Qualitative Interpretation Reporting Results 8

9. POSITION STATEMENT When appropriate practices are followed, cognitive or intelligence testing of individuals who are blind or VI provides useful and valuable information to test- takers, their families, instructors, and other decision makers. 9

10. ISSUE 1: ADMINISTERING INTELLIGENCE TESTS GUIDELINE: Intelligence test results yield valuable information about an individual and increase the usefulness of the overall evaluation. 10

11. PRIOR TO ADMINISTRATION THE EVALUATOR MUST: Ensure completion of Functional Vision/Learning Media Assessment (FV/LMA) by TVI or O&M Specialist Understand … information contained in the FV/LMA and ways to use it in testing 11

12. (Continued) … the impact of adaptations and modifications upon test results … the importance of making tests accessible without changing content assessed or of level of difficulty Support of collaborative evaluations for ensuring the highest quality outcomes 12

13. ISSUE 2: SPECIALIZED TRAINING Guideline 2: Those administering tests need specialized training in theory of assessment and test construction as well as child development and communication methods of individuals who are blind and VI 13

14. Professional Preparation of Evaluator must include: Constructs of intelligence Theory of tests and measurement Typical and atypical child development Test administration with general and special populations Understanding of collaborative evaluations 14

15. The Professional Evaluator must: Accept the concept of collaborative evaluation Incorporate expertise of VI professionals in the evaluation process Collaborate in all phases from preparation for testing to report writing 15

16. ISSUE 3: REASONS FOR EVALUATION Guideline: The reason for the evaluation, and the resulting specific clinical judgments and recommendations, should be clearly documented in each individual’s report. 16

17. The Evaluator must: Request information about specific reasons for evaluation Avoid accepting reasons that relate only to regulations 17

18. Specificity of these requests will: Improve test selection Answer referral questions Minimize simple reporting of scores Increase applicability of results 18

19. The Recommendations should: Be clear to all stakeholders Avoid professional jargon Explain technical terms Apply to real-life situations and promote increasing independence and self- advocacy 19

20. The Evaluation should not be used as the sole determinant of: Cognitive abilities Presence of additional disabilities Eligibility for special programs 20

21. ISSUE 4: COLLABORATION Guideline: The visual impairment and/or rehabilitation professional, classroom teacher, family, and individual must be involved during the planning, evaluation, and report writing process. 21

22. COLLABORATIVE EVALUATIONS WILL ALWAYS: Gather information from all individuals Actively solicit and discuss information View collaboration as an on-going process Reflect the professional expertise of all 22

23. ISSUE 5: EYE CONDITION AND DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY Guideline 5: The evaluator should be aware of the individual’s medical and developmental history, as well as the implications of the eye condition on the tasks to be performed (and implementation of recommendations). 23

24. Specific information necessary includes understanding of: Medical history Developmental patterns and relationship to vision Early intervention Congenital vs. Adventitious vision loss Neurological vs. Ocular vision problems 24

25. ISSUE 6: ADAPTATIONS Guidelines: Adaptations, which include accommodations that do not change the concepts tested nor the difficulty level of the test items, should be planned in advance in collaboration with the visual impairment and/or rehabilitation professional and the test developer, and be well-documented in the final report. 25

26. ACCOMMODATIONS SHOULD: Provide access to the test taker Be planned in advance Maintain the basic concept and level of difficulty of items Be documented in final report 26

27. ACCOMMODATION OR MODIFICATION? Accommodations do not affect basic concept or level of difficulty, e.g. braille or LP Modifications affect basic concept or level of difficulty, e.g. use of calculator Either change increases the need for caution in interpretation of results 27

28. ISSUE 7: TACTILE AND SYMBOLIC REPRESENTATIONS Guideline 7: Symbols, tactile graphics, and miniature objects must be carefully considered and used with caution to represent pictorial or graphical information. Real objects should be used whenever feasible. 28

29. Visual stimuli must be carefully analyzed to determine Relevance to the concept being assessed Stimuli that can be made accessible Any changes or eliminations Appropriate use of miniature objects if familiarity with both the real object and the miniature is ensured 29

30. ISSUE 8: DIRECT OBSERVATION Guideline: The assessment should include direct observation in multiple situations. 30

31. Suggested behaviors for observation include: Visual efficiency Visual fatigue Organizational abilities required in problem-solving Application of O&M skills in new environments Presence of self-stimulatory behaviors 31

32. Additional information should include: Social integration with peers Independent initiation of activities Organization of tasks for successful management and completion Self-advocacy skills Self-management of technology 32

33. ISSUE 9: QUALITATIVE INTERPRETATION Guideline: When visual-spatial items or tests are administered, these results should be used only for clinical purposes and to identify appropriate modifications of educational or vocational materials and instructional methods. Results obtained from visual-spatial evaluations must never be reported as scores or used to determine the presence of other disabilities. Important exceptions to this guideline exist, and are documented below. 33

34. Visual-Spatial items or tests may be administered if: The individual uses vision for learning The FV and LMA support the presence of adequate vision for specific items Both the VI professional and Evaluator agree that results provide meaningful information AND support the referral question 34

35. Accommodations made to Visual- Spatial items/test must be: Supported by the FV/LMA Endorsed by both vision professional and evaluator Noted in the final report Include such things as extended time and use of CCTV during administration 35

36. Results of performance on Visual- Spatial items or tests should be: Reported qualitatively rather than as a score Used as a source to determine learning strengths Used to plan meaningful accommodations in different environments 36

37. ISSUE 10: REPORTING RESULTS Guideline: Reports of assessments of individuals with visual impairments need to be expanded to include an explanation of the procedures followed, changes in standardized administration, and the description of performance observed. 37

38. GENERAL CAUTIONS All reports should reflect that tests represent an estimate of abilities Standardization of most-frequently- administered tests did not include persons with visual impairments 38

39. Test results should be reported with the Evaluator specifying: Intervals around the obtained score as well as specific score Confidence intervals at 90% level Specific concerns relating to validity of scores Any adaptations in procedures and/or materials Lack of norms for individuals who are blind or visually impaired and corresponding cautions Accommodations to provide access are specified 39

40. REPORTING RESULTS OF VISUAL SPATIAL TESTS Extreme caution must be used in reporting scores on visual spatial tests Generally these must be reported qualitatively, i.e. as strengths and weaknesses, with implications for materials and instruction 40

41. Further Information: www.aph.org/tests/intelligencetesting.html Marnee Loftin loftinm@tsbvi.edu or loftinmp@att.netloftinm@tsbvi.edu loftinmp@att.net Carol Evans visionpsych@gmail.com or braillepsych@yahoo.comvisionpsych@gmail.com braillepsych@yahoo.com Debbie Willis dwillis@aph.orgdwillis@aph.org 41