A Reconceptualization and Revised Scoring Procedure for the ITPA Based on Multivariate Analysis of the Original Normative Data

Abstract

This research was conducted to (1) determine whether a factor analysis of the original normative ITPA data would support the dimensions of Osgood’s psycholinguistic model which provides its theoretical base, (2) investigate the need for constructing psycholinguistic profiles based upon this empirical factor structure rather than upon a priori theoretical “facet structure”, and (3) devise a weighted multiple regression formula for estimating psycholinguistic age based on subtest correlations with chronological age for the original normative group. Whereas five factors were anticipated, one of these split into two components. The factors represented the (1) perceptual process at the representation level, accounting for 8% of the variance; (2) perceptual process at the integration level, 6.5%; (3) organizing process at the representation level, 25%; and (4) expressive process at the integration level, 11%. The expected integration-organizing factor split into (5) auditory memory, 9%, and (6) visual memory, 9%. As anticipated, no emergent factor represented the expressive process at the representation level. The emergent factor structure strongly suggests that the use of factor profiles would be more meaningful than the use of subtest profiles. A multiple regression formula is presented for computing psycholinguistic age equivalents.

A comparison of an ITPA estimated psycholinguistic quotient and WISC-R IQs for developmentally disabled children

“…Compared an estimated Psycholinguistic Quotient., based on Cronkhite and Penner's (1975) revised scoring procedure for the ITPA Psycholinguistic Age, to the WISC-R Verbal, Performance, and Full Scale IQs of developmentally disabled children. The Quotient entered into strong relationships with the WISC-R Verbal and Full Scale IQs.…”

The grammatic closure subtest of the ITPA as a screening device

“…The Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities' CITPA) Grammatic Closure subtest has been correlated to academic achievement in the areas of reading, mathematics and spelling as demonstrated in the reviews of numerous studies (Sedlack and Weener, 1973;Kirk and Elkins, 1974;Newcomer and Hammill, 1975;Kirk and Kirk, 1978 Criticisms of the ITPA In addition to Kirk and Kirk's objections to its misuse, criticisms of the ITPA centered around analyses determining the construct validity and the internal structure of the test's battery of subtests (Carroll, 1972;Hare, Hammill and Bartel, 1973;Cronkhite and Penner, 1975). Sedlack and Weener (1973) reviewed twenty factor analysis studies on the ITPA and stated "the most striking feature of all the factor analytic work done on the ITPA is its inconsistency."…”

“…This tapping of abilities may explain the subtest's high correlation (0.934) to the overall score of the ITPA (Cronkhite and Penner, 1975).…”

“…Cronkhite and Penner (1975) found that the ITPA's composite score (PLA) could be predicted from the Grammatic Closure subtest with a correlation of 0.934 making it an indicator of overall ability rather than of specific skill. Cronkhite and Penner (1975) characterized the Grammatic Closure subtest as a test of "representational-organizing". They stated that skills necessary to serve this function involve use of language as an organizing device.…”

“…However, Cronkhite and Penner (1975) Impressions of this examiner during the administration of the Grammatic Closure subtest was that it provided concise and valuable information about the subjects' abilities to process linguistic information and respond appropriately. Of the fifty-eight subjects, those with articulation and voice problems were also easily identified during the one-to-two word responses.…”