The cognitive assessment course: Two decades later

Abstract

We wish to thank all of the faculty who completed this survey and who work tirelessly to provide students with evidence-based training in cognitive assessment. We thank Randy Floyd who reviewed an early draft of this manuscript and Vincent Alfonso for providing the original survey.

Academic Achievement Test Use and Assessment Practices: A National Survey of Special Education Administrators

“…At a minimum, training should focus on the importance of accurate, standardized administration, common errors (see Lockwood et al, 2019), and on interpretation. Third, as a significant number of special educators and educational diagnosticians administer NRTs, future research should examine the training that these professionals receive in areas crucial for proper test administration, such as psychometrics, statistics, and standardized procedures (Lockwood & Farmer, 2019); relatedly, future research into the NRT administration fidelity of these practitioners would also appear crucial. Finally, only a third of participants indicated that their district uses CBM data to aid in special education identification.…”

“…The survey was created to gather information regarding participant demographics as well as data regarding district-level (a) NRT and (b) CBM practices. Survey items were generated based on recent peer-reviewed articles (e.g., Lockwood & Farmer, 2019) and textbooks (e.g., Breaux & Lichtenberger, 2016; Waugh & Gronlund, 2013). The survey was reviewed by nine content experts.…”

“…Various team members may be responsible for collecting, interpreting, and using assessment results to inform eligibility decisions. In many districts, when measures of cognitive ability, academic achievement, and socio-emotional functioning are required, school psychologists administer and interpret those tests (Benson et al, 2019; Walcott & Hyson, 2018) due to their specialized training with standardized assessment (Lockwood & Farmer, 2019). However, special education teachers or other team members may be qualified to engage in academic achievement assessment (Qualifications Policy, n.d.).…”

Reliability Evidence for the Gibson Assessment of Cognitive Skills (GACS): A Brief Tool for Screening Cognitive Skills Across the Lifespan

“…8,9 In keeping with the most widely accepted view of cognition, the Cattel-Horn-Carrol theory, 10 it is important to consider a comprehensive analysis of cognitive abilities in intelligence testing, including specific auditory processing skills. [11][12][13] Recent research reveals evidence of need for ongoing development of cognitive assessment to more accurately incorporate more aspects of the CHC model. 14,15 We argue that development of such tests should consider a lifespan approach, the ability to screen briefly, and a simplified scoring and reporting system.…”

Difference score reliabilities within the RIAS-2 and WISC-V

“…Moreover, test authors provide dedicated worksheets as part of their record forms for the calculation of differences between specific cognitive ability composites and between subtests. Likely due to a constellation of these factors, as much as 65% and 33% of instructors teach students to interpret comparisons between composite scores and between subtests, respectively (Lockwood & Farmer, 2019). It is then no surprise that practitioners report interpreting score comparisons in practice (Benson et al, 2019;Kranzler et al, 2020;Sotelo-Dynega & Dixon, 2014).…”