A Guide to Child Nonverbal IQ Measures

Abstract

This guide provides a basic overview of 16 child nonverbal IQ measures and uses a set of specified criteria to evaluate them in terms of their psychometric properties. In doing so, the goal is neither to validate nor to criticize current uses of IQ but to (a) familiarize clinicians and investigators with the variety of nonverbal IQ measures currently available, (b) highlight some of the important distinctions among them, and (c) provide recommendations for the selection and interpretation of nonverbal IQ measures.

Comparison of performance on two nonverbal intelligence tests by adolescents with and without language impairment

“…It is also incumbent upon researchers studying children with SLI to carefully consider and justify decisions about whether or not to assess nonverbal IQ, and the purpose of such testing (e.g., to rule out mental retardation, to equate groups). If nonverbal IQ is assessed, the choice of test should be informed by a good understanding of the available options (DeThorne & Schaefer, 2004) as well as the limitations of such testing. Distributions of differences between WISC-III and UNIT scores by group.…”

“…Plante also noted that, although the nonverbal IQ criterion is intended to provide comparability of samples across studies, a score of 85 on one IQ test is not necessarily equivalent to an 85 on another test. In the current paper, we provide further evidence that nonverbal IQ scores are dependent on the test being used, and suggest that inter-test differences are not the same for all children.Tests that are intended to measure nonverbal IQ use a variety of tasks and theoretical constructs, and also vary in their psychometric properties (DeThorne & Schaefer, 2004). Thus, different nonverbal IQ tests not only attempt to measure different abilities, but vary in the reliability and validity with which they do so.…”

“…Tests that are intended to measure nonverbal IQ use a variety of tasks and theoretical constructs, and also vary in their psychometric properties (DeThorne & Schaefer, 2004). Thus, different nonverbal IQ tests not only attempt to measure different abilities, but vary in the reliability and validity with which they do so.…”

Equitable Assessment for Hearing and Deaf English Language Learners

“…To remove the confounding effects of language ability, nonverbal assessments attempt to measure general cognition without relying on examinees' or examiners' receptive or expressive language skills (McCallum, Bracken, & Wasserman, 2001). Although several nonverbal assessments (see the review of 16 nonverbal measures in DeThorne & Schaefer, 2004) that rely heavily on visuo-spatial skills have been demonstrated to be good indicators of abstract reasoning, these measures do not predict academic performance well due to the limited nature of the theoretical construct of nonverbal ability and the narrowness of the abilities measured [i.e., nonverbal assessments do not measure a wide range of cognitive abilities or skills (Fives & Flanagan, 2002;Sattler, 2008)]. Nonverbal tests also vary considerably in their psychometric properties including their standard error of measurement, which can lead to different diagnostic classifications depending on the nonverbal test being used (DeThorne & Watkins, 2006;Miller & Gilbert, 2008).…”

The standardization and norm study of TONI-3-Test of Nonverbal Intelligence in 6-11 age children sample

“…Buna karşılık sözel olmayan zeka testleri, bireylerin genel bilişsel yeteneklerini sözel ve dil yetenek düzeyinden etkilenmeksizin ölçmeyi amaçlamaktadırlar. [3][4][5] Günümüzde en çok kullanılan sözel olmayan zeka testlerine the Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test (UNIT), Raven Progressive Matrices (RPM), Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT) ve Test of Nonverbal Intelligence (TONI-3) örnek verilebilir. 5,6 Bu testlerin genel içeriklerinde dile dayanmayan/ sözsüz becerileri hızlı bir şekilde ölçme, sayısal beceriler, soyut mantık yürütme ve genel problem çözme gibi ortak özellikleri vardır.…”