Lessons from the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (K-ABC): Toward a new cognitive assessment model.

Abstract

When the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (K-ABC; A. S. Kaufman & N. L. Kaufman, 1983a, 1983b) was published just over 10 years ago, it had many unique features, including its information processing model and specific recommendations for educational remediation. Although the test has received much attention because of these characteristics, the K-ABC has also been the subject of much controversy. Through consideration of some of these arguments, lessons that researchers in the field of child assessment may learn from the K-ABC and their implications for future directions are identified. Based in part on lessons learned from the K-ABC, an alternative assessment model for the evaluation of children with reading problems is proposed at the end of this article. The state of child cognitive assessment just over a decade ago was one of both stagnation and altercation. From a scientific perspective, there had been few fundamental changes in either theory or tests since the turn of the century. For instance, thencontemporary IQ tests such as the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised (WISC-R; Wechsler, 1974) and Form L-M of the Stanford-Binet (SB-LM; Terman & Merrill, 1973) had basically the same formats and subtests as their respective progenitors, Binet's original 1905 scale and the 1939 Wechsler-Bellevue (e.g., Sternberg, 1992). From a social perspective, the use of IQ tests for the special education placement of minority children was the subject of many court cases (e.g., Reschley, 1990). It was against this troubled background that the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (K-ABC; ages 2 '/,-12 '/ 2 years; Kaufman & Kaufman, 1983a, 1983b) was published. At the time, many of the K-ABC's features seemed to be direct rejoinders to some of these controversies. For instance, some K-ABC subtests were quite novel compared to those that make up the WISC-R or the SB-LM. Also, the K-ABC is based on specific theoretical models, the application of which are intended to provide more pure estimates of ability versus achievement, identify children who have particular types of information processing deficits, and help psychologists make specific recommendations for educational remediation. None of the aforementioned characteristics were unique in the early 1980s. Other tests were organized according to specific conceptual models (e.g., Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Ability; Kirk, McCarthy, & Kirk, 1968) or were intended to assess reasoning rather than acquired knowledge (e.g., Raven's Stan

Body Mass Index and Cognitive Ability of Young Children

“…Although this is in line as the sole measure of cognitive ability. The different subscales of this measure are difficult to interpret which lowers the validity of both subscales [54,55]. However, since the total score for cognitive ability (Mental Processing Composite) was the main outcome of this study, the interpretation of the subscales might be less important.…”

Discriminant and predictive validity of the WISC-III ACID profile among children with learning disabilities

“…In a broader context, the current cautionary results are consonant with research on previous Wechsler scales which revealed that subtest profiles were not reliably associated with such important external variables as achievement and special education placement (Hale & Raymond, 1981;Hale & Saxe, 1983;Kramer, Henning-Stout, Ullman, & Schnellenberg, 1987;McDermott, Fantuzzo, Glutting, Watkins, & Baggaley, 1992;McDermott, Glutting, Jones, Watkins, & Kush, 1989;Watkins & Kush, 1994). A review of the subtest analysis research persuaded Kline, Snyder, and Castellanos (1996) that "we as a discipline have pursued scatter analysis . .…”

The Kaufman Ability Battery for Children Mental Processing Scale: A Valid Measure of “Pure” Intelligence?

“…Jensen also found that the general factor explains 44% of the test variance as opposed to 5% explained by each processing scale and concluded that "in a sense the K-ABC is both saved and defeated by g" (p. 382). Similarly, Kline, Snyder, and Castellanos (1996) claimed that the high correlation between the Achievement scale and the Mental Processing scale (.70) raises doubt as to whether they are separate factors. In their opinion, this doubt is reinforced by findings indicating that the difference between the achievement and intelligence scores is unrelated to variables such as verbal development, neuropsychological status, and familial history of the disabled.…”