Comprehensive Test of Nonverbal Intelligence (CTONI)

Nicholson, Charles L.

doi:10.1177/153450849902401-407

Cited by 5 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Bracken and Naglieri (2003) reported that the CTONI’s technical documentation lacked statistical information about its validity studies, used inappropriate methods of estimating reliability, and stressed that the measure had a limited ceiling at upper age levels (i.e., limited cognitive growth among respondents above 13 years old). Others (e.g., Bradley-Johnson, 1997; DiCerbo & de Barona, 2001; Nicholson, 1999) noted concerns about floor effects for younger examinees, as a score of 0 did not translate into a standard score more than 2 standard deviations ( SD s) below the mean (Bracken, 1987).…”

Section: Comprehensive Test Of Nonverbal Intelligencementioning

confidence: 99%

Validity and Reliability Evidence for the Comprehensive Test of Nonverbal Intelligence–Second Edition Scores From an Independent Sample

Parkin¹,

Beaujean

Firmin

et al. 2017

Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, we examined the factor structure, reliability, and external validity of scores from the Comprehensive Test of Nonverbal Intelligence-Second Edition (CTONI-2) using an independent sample of young adults currently enrolled in a postsecondary institution. Although the subtests appear to be measuring general intelligence, the aggregate Full Scale score should be interpreted with caution when using the instrument with adults suspected of having above average intelligence. The item difficulties were too low to capture individual differences in adults with higher intelligence. Moreover, the scores' reliability and the relations to measures of academic achievement are lower than what is typically expected for intelligence measures.

show abstract