Einschätzung kognitiver Fähigkeiten bei Kindern mit geistiger Behinderung mit der Kaufman-Assessment Battery for Children (K-ABC) am Beispiel von Kindern mit Down Syndrom

Abstract

Nutzungsbedingungen Summary Assessment of Cognitive Abilities of Mentally Retarded Children: Applying the Kaufman-Assessment Battery for Children (K-ABC) with Children with Down's SyndromeStandardized tests only give limited information on the intellectual competencies of children with learning difficulties due to problems such as the "floor effect", poor differentiation in the lower range of functioning and flat profiles. Therefore, Reynolds and Clark (1985) suggested supplementing the standard analysis on the basis of chronological age with an alternative form of analysis on the basis of the developmental age level. The present study compares both forms of analysis for a group of 15 children with Down's syndrome tested with the Kaufman-Assessment Battery for Children (K-ABC). The standardized analysis resulted in flat profiles in the lowest range, showing little difference within and between the children. On the other hand, the alternative analysis demonstrated a high variability with a number of individual strengths and weaknesses as well as trends for this group of children. While the standardized analysis allows the determination of the level of intellectual capability, the determination of individual strengths and weaknesses through the alternative analysis can be an important basis for individualized training and therapy.Prax. Kinderpsychol. Kinderpsychiat. 60/2011, 805-819

BENDI: Improving Cognitive Assessments in Toddlers and Children with Down Syndrome Using Stealth Assessment

“…In the presence of a dynamic profile and with the specific characteristics of cognitive development described for DS, we need valid and reliable instruments for cognitive assessment in clinical settings. It is important to note that the use of traditional tests to assess cognitive abilities in people with NDD, and in particular with people with DS, has been criticized [13,43,44]. Floor effects are commonly observed in this population, and without observed variance in the assessments, it is difficult to identify individual profiles [45,46].…”