No abstract

Second Edition (KBIT-2; Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004b) is designed to provide a brief, individualized format for measuring verbal and nonverbal intelligence in children and adults from the ages of 4 years, 0 months through 90 years, 11 months. The test consists of only three subtests. Two are classified as Verbal subtests, and one is classified as a Nonverbal subtest. The KBIT-2 was developed alongside the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children, Second Edition (KABC-II; Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004a) and is primarily associated with the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) model of assessment and interpretation (Carroll, 1997). According to the KBIT-2 Manual, the entire test can be administered in approximately 15 to 30 minutes. Kaufman and Kaufman (2004b) recommend that the KBIT-2 be used as a screener for intellectual abilities in situations such as identification of children who are at-risk for academic problems, as part of gifted and talented selection (although full-scale assessment may be necessary to fulfill state guidelines), as part of assessment procedures for job applicants, as part of test batteries where the intellectual profile is not the primary concern, for forensic purposes, for re-evaluations, and for various similar circumstances that do not demand full-scale assessment of cognitive ability. The test authors caution against using the KBIT-2 for the purposes of diagnosis or placement, as more comprehensive assessment would most likely be necessary for these purposes.Unlike full-scale intelligence tests, the KBIT-2 is classified as a Level B instrument and may be administered by psychologists as well as by nonpsychologists such as educators and vocational or medical personnel who have received appropriate training and practice. Kaufman and Kaufman justify this recommendation based on the objective scoring elements. The verbal questions require one-word responses, and visual items require only pointing to the correct choice. Interpretation of test results should be carried out by individuals with formal training in assessment.The original KBIT (Kaufman & Kaufman, 1990) contained three subtests: Expressive Vocabulary, Definitions, and Matrices. In revising the test, the test authors decided to drop the Definitions subtest because of its reading requirement, replacing it with the new Verbal Knowledge Subtest, which requires no reading on the part of the examinee and which was deemed to be a cleaner measure of verbal ability.

No abstract

An alternating treatments design with a control condition was used to evaluate and compare the effects of two taped-problem interventions on addition fact fluency. Both taped-problem interventions were identical with the exception of the time delay between the auditory cue of the problem and the answer. One condition used a 2-s delay and the other condition used no delay. Results showed that both taped-problem conditions showed growth in student digits correct per minute scores and that the no-delay condition was slightly more efficient as the taped-problem no-delay procedure took approximately 33% less time. Discussion focuses on using comparative intervention designs to detect nuances in procedures to improve our understanding of math fact interventions that result in the highest learning rates.

We used an adapted alternating treatments design to evaluate and compare the effects of 2 spelling interventions on spelling acquisition and maintenance, word reading, and vocabulary in three first-grade students. The first intervention, Cover, Copy, and Compare (CCC), involved having participants look at a word, cover it, write it, then compare the written response with the original stimulus. For the second intervention, Cover, Copy, and Compare ? Sentence Definition (CCC ? SD), CCC was supplemented with the experimenter reading a sentence containing the word and a brief definition of the word. Results showed that both interventions increased participants' spelling at an equivalent rate, which was greater than a control condition. All participants showed greater gains in word reading in the 2 interventions than the control condition, and only 1 participant was better able to define words learned in the CCC ? SD condition relative to the CCC condition.