Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

How Do School Psychologists Interpret Intelligence Tests for the Identification of Specific Learning Disabilities?

  • Published:
Contemporary School Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although intelligence tests are among the most widely used psychological instruments in school psychology, at the current time, little is known about how practitioners interpret them. The primary purpose of this study, therefore, was to determine how intelligence tests are interpreted by school psychologists, particularly for the identification of specific learning disabilities (SLD). Participants were 1317 school psychologists who were practicing in the USA. Results indicated that school psychologists differ widely in their approach to intelligence test interpretation, particularly for the identification of SLD, and that these differences are only modestly related to personal characteristics, level and accreditation/approval status of professional training, and state regulations for SLD eligibility determination. Although we found that most practicing school psychologists (80%) regularly interpret the overall score, which is the most reliable and valid score for most uses of intelligence tests in the schools, many also engage in questionable interpretive practices, such as conducting intra-individual (ipsative) subtest analyses and the patterns of strengths and weaknesses approach to SLD identification. Implications of these results for practice and training are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Beaujean, A. A., & Benson, N. F. (2019). The one and the many: Enduring legacies of Spearman and Thurstone on intelligence test score interpretation. Applied Measurement in Education, 32, 198–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2019.1619560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benson, N. F., Beaujean, A. A., McGill, R. J., & Dombrowski, S. C. (2018). Revisiting Carroll’s survey of factor-analytic studies: Implications for the clinical assessment of intelligence. Psychological Assessment, 30, 1028–1038. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000556.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Benson, N. F., Floyd, R. G., Kranzler, J. H., Eckert, T. L., Fefer, S. A., & Morgan, G. B. (2019). Test use and assessment practices of school psychologists: Findings from the 2017 national survey of assessment practices in school psychology. Journal of School Psychology, 72, 29–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2018.12.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Benson, N. F., Maki, K. E., Floyd, R. G., Eckert, T. L., Kranzler, J. H., & Fefer, S. A. (in press). A national survey of school psychologists’ practices in identifying specific learning disabilities. School Psychology.

  • Braden, J. P., & Shaw, S. R. (2009). Intervention validity of cognitive assessment: Knowns, unknowables, and unknowns. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 34, 106–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brody, N. (1994). Cognitive abilities. Psychological Science, 5, 63–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1994.tb00632.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A. W. (1946). Review of diagnostic psychological testing. Vol. 1. [Review of the book. Diagnostic Psychological Testing. Vol. I. In D. Rapaport, M. M. Gill, R. Schafer & R. R. Holt]. Psychological Bulletin, 43, 477–479. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0049564.

  • Burns, M. K., Peterson-Brown, S., Haegele, K., Rodriguez, M., Schmitt, B., Cooper, M., et al. (2016). Meta-analysis of academic interventions derived from neuropsychological data. School Psychology Quarterly, 31, 28–42. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000117.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Canivez, G. L. (2013). Psychometric versus actuarial interpretation of intelligence and related aptitude batteries. In D. H. Saklofske, C. R. Reynolds, & V. L. Schwean (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of child psychological assessments (pp. 84–112). Oxford University Press.

  • Cronbach, L. J., & Gleser, G. C. (1953). Assessing similarity between profiles. The Psychological Bulletin, 50, 456–473. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0057173.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dana, J., Dawes, R., & Peterson, N. (2013). Belief in the unstructured interview: The persistence of an illusion. Judgment and Decision making, 8, 512–520.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawes, R. M., Faust, D., & Meehl, P. E. (1989). Clinical versus actuarial judgment. Science, 243, 1668–1674. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.2648573.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Elliott, J. G., & Resing, W. C. (2015). Can intelligence testing inform educational intervention for children with reading disability? Journal of Intelligence, 3, 137–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fagan, T. K., & Wise, P. S. (2007). School psychology: Past, present, and future. National Association of School Psychologists.

  • Fiorello, C. A., & Wycoff, K. L. (2018). Cognitive hypothesis testing: Linking test results to the real world. In D. P. Flanagan & E. M. McDonough (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 715–730). The Guilford Press.

  • Flanagan, D. P., & Alfonso, V. C. (2017). Essentials of WISC-V assessment. Wiley.

  • Flanagan, D. P., & Kaufman, A. S. (2009). Essentials of WISC-IV assessment (2nd ed.). Wiley.

  • Flanagan, D. P., & Schneider, W. J. (2016). Cross-battery assessment? XBA PSW? A case of mistaken identity: A commentary on Kranzler and colleagues’ “classification agreement analysis of cross-battery assessment in the identification of specific learning disorders in children and youth”. International Journal of School & Educational Psychology, 4, 137–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683603.2016.1192852.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flanagan, D. P., Fiorello, C. A., & Ortiz, S. O. (2010). Enhancing practice through application of Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory and Research: A “third method” approach to specific learning disability identification. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 739–760.

  • Flanagan, D. P., Ortiz, S. O., & Alfonso, V. C. (2013). Essentials of cross-battery assessment (3rd ed.). Wiley.

  • Flanagan, D. P., Alfonso, V. C., Sy, M. C., Mascolo, J. T., McDonough, E. M., & Ortiz, S. O. (2018a). Dual discrepancy/consistency operational definition of SLD: Integrating multiple data sources and multiple data-gathering methods. In V. C. Alfonso & D. P. Flanagan (Eds.), Essentials of specific learning disability identification (pp. 329–430). Wiley.

  • Flanagan, D. P., Costa, M., Palma, K., Leahy, M. A., Alfonso, V. C., & Ortiz, S. O. (2018b). Cross-battery assessment, the cross-battery assessment software system, and the assessment-intervention connection. In D. P. Flanagan & E. M. McDonough (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (4th ed., pp. 731–776). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, J. M., & Miciak, J. (2019). The identification of specific learning disabilities: A summary of research on best practices. Texas Center for Learning Disabilities.

  • Grove, W. M., Zald, D. H., Lebow, B. S., Snitz, B. E., & Nelson, C. (2000). Clinical versus mechanical prediction: A meta-analysis. Psychological Assessment, 12, 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1037//1040-3590.12.1.19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jimerson, S. R., Skokut, M., Cardenas, S., Malone, H., & Stewart, K. (2008). Where in the world is school psychology? Examining evidence of school psychology around the globe. School Psychology International, 29, 131–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034308090056.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. L., & Morgan, G. B. (2016). Survey scales: A guide to development, analysis, and reporting. New York: Guilford Press.

  • Kahneman, D., & Klein, G. (2009). Conditions for intuitive expertise. American Psychologist, 64, 515–526. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016755.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kamphaus, R. W., Pierce Winsor, A., Rowe, E. W., & Kim, S. (2018). A history of intelligence test interpretation. In D. P. Flanagan & E. M. McDonough (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (4th ed., pp. 56–72). Guilford.

  • Kaufman, A. S. (1979). Intelligent testing with the WISC-R. Wiley.

  • Kaufman, A. S. (1994). Intelligent testing with the WISC-III. Wiley.

  • Kearns, D. M., & Fuchs, D. (2013). Does cognitively focused instruction improve the academic performance of low-achieving students? Exceptional Children, 79, 263–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291307900200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolowich, L. (2018). The best time to post on Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Pinterest, and Google+ [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing//best-times-post-pin-tweet-social-media-infographic#.WZ8kDBPK8YQ.twitter.

  • Kranzler, J. H., & Floyd, R. G. (2013). Assessing intelligence in children and adolescents: A practical guide. Guilford.

  • Kranzler, J. H., Benson, N., & Floyd, R. G. (2016). Intellectual assessment of children and youth in the United States of America: Past, present, and future. International Journal of School & Educational Psychology, 4, 276–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683603.2016.1166759.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kranzler, J. H., Floyd, R. G., Benson, N., Zaboski, B., & Thibodaux, L. (2016a). Classification agreement analysis of cross-battery assessment in the identification of specific learning disorders in children and youth. International Journal of School & Educational Psychology, 3, 124–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683603.2016.1155515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kranzler, J. H., Floyd, R. G., Benson, N., Zaboski, B., & Thibodaux, L. (2016b). Cross-battery assessment pattern of strengths and weaknesses approach to the identification of specific learning disorders: Evidence-based practice or pseudoscience? International Journal of School & Educational Psychology, 3, 146–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683603.2016.1192855.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kranzler, J. H., Gilbert, K., Robert, C. R., Floyd, R. G., & Benson, N. (2019). Further examination of a critical assumption underlying the dual discrepancy/consistency approach to SLD identification. School Psychology Review, 48, 207–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lilienfeld, S. O., Wood, J. M., & Garb, H. N. (2006). Why questionable psychological tests remain popular. The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine, 10, 6–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Little, R. J. (1995). Modeling the drop-out mechanism in repeated-measures studies. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90, 1112–1121. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1995.01476615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Little, R. J., & Rubin, D. B. (2002). Statistical analysis with missing data. Wiley.

  • Lockwood, A. B., & Farmer, R. L. (in press). The cognitive assessment course: Two decades later. Psychology in the Schools.

  • Maki, K. E., & Adams, S. R. (2019). A current landscape of specific learning disability identification: Training, practices, and implications. Psychology in the Schools, 56, 18–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maki, K. E., Floyd, R. G., & Roberson, T. (2015). State learning disability eligibility criteria: A comprehensive review. School Psychology Quarterly, 30, 457–469. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000109.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McGill, R. J. (2016). Invalidating the full scale IQ score in the presence of significant factor score variability: Clinical acumen or clinical illusion? Archives of Assessment Psychology, 6, 49–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGill, R. J., Dombrowski, S. C., & Canivez, G. L. (2018). Cognitive profile analysis in school psychology: History, issues, and continued concerns. Journal of School Psychology, 78, 108–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2018.10.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGrew, K. S., & Wendling, B. J. (2010). Cattell-Horn-Carroll cognitive-ability achievement relations: What we have learned from the past 20 years of research. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 651–675. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLain, M., & Pfeiffer, S. (2012). Identification of gifted students in the United States today: A look at state definitions, policies, and practices. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 28, 59–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377903.2012.643757.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melby-Lervåg, M., & Hulme, C. (2013). Is working memory training effective? A meta-analytic review. Developmental Psychology, 49, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miciak, J., Fletcher, J. M., Stuebing, K. K., Vaughn, S., & Tolar, T. D. (2014). Patterns of cognitive strengths and weaknesses: Identification rates, agreement, and validity for learning disabilities identification. School Psychology Quarterly, 29, 21–37. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000037.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Miciak, J., Taylor, W. P., Stuebing, K. K., & Fletcher, J. M. (2018). Simulation of LD identification accuracy using a pattern of processing strengths and weaknesses method with multiple measures. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 36, 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282916683287.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Naglieri, J. A., & Feifer, S. G. (2018). Pattern of strengths and weaknesses made easy: The discrepancy/consistency method. In V. C. Alfonso & D. P. Flanagan (Eds.), Essentials of specific learning disability identification (pp. 431–474). Wiley.

  • National Center for Education Statistics. (2018). Children and youth with disabilities. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgg.asp.

  • National Center for Learning Disabilities. (2014). The state of learning disabilities. National Center for Learning Disabilities.

  • Nisbett, R. E., Aronson, J., Blari, C., Dickens, W., Flynn, J., Halpern, D. F., & Turkheimer, E. (2012). Intelligence: News findings and theoretical developments. American Psychologist, 67, 130–159. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026690.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeiffer, S. I., Reddy, L. A., Kletzel, J. E., Schmelzer, E. R., & Boyer, L. M. (2000). The practitioner’s view of IQ testing and profile analysis. School Psychology Quarterly, 15, 376–385. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0088795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rapaport, D., Gil, R., & Schafer, R. (1945-1946). Manual of psychological testing-I: Diagnostic testing of intelligence and concept formation. The Josiah Macy Jr. Foundation.

  • Rubin, D. B. (1976). Inference and missing data. Biometrika, 63, 581–592. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/63.3.581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sattler, J. M. (2018). Assessment of children: Cognitive foundations and applications (6th ed.). Sattler Publishing.

  • Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7, 147–177. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989x.7.2.147.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, W. J., & Kaufman, A. S. (2017). Let’s not do away with comprehensive cognitive assessments just yet. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 32, 8–20. https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acw104.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, W. J., & McGrew, K. S. (2018). The Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory of cognitive abilities. In D. P. Flanagan & E. M. McDonough (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (4th ed., pp. 73–162). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, W. J., & Roman, Z. (2018). Fine-tuning cross-battery assessment procedures: After follow-up testing, use all valid scores, cohesive or not. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 36, 34–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282917722861.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sotelo-Dynega, M., & Dixon, S. G. (2014). Cognitive assessment practices: A survey of school psychologists. Psychology in the Schools, 51, 1031–1045. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stuebing, K. K., Fletcher, J. M., Branum-Martin, L., & Francis, D. J. (2012). Evaluation of the technical adequacy of three methods for identifying specific learning disabilities based on cognitive discrepancies. School Psychology Review, 41, 3–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stuebing, K. K., Barth, A. E., Trahan, L. H., Reddy, R. R., Miciak, J., & Fletcher, J. M. (2014). Are child cognitive characteristics strong predictors of responses to intervention? A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 85, 395–421. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314555996.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, W. P., Miciak, J., Fletcher, J. M., & Francis, D. J. (2017). Cognitive discrepancy models for specific learning disabilities identification: Simulations of psychometric limitations. Psychological Assessment, 29, 446–457. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000356.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Terman, T. L. (1916). The measurement of intelligence: An explanation of and a complete guide for the use of the Stanford revision and extension of the Binet-Simon Intelligence Scale. Houghton Mifflin.

  • Walcott, C. M., & Hyson, D. (2018). Results from the NASP 2015 membership survey, part one: Demographics and employment conditions [Research report]. National Association of School Psychologists.

  • Wasserman, J. D. (2018). A history of intelligence assessment: The unfinished tapestry. In D. P. Flanagan & E. M. McDonough (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (4th ed., pp. 3–55). Guilford.

  • Watkins, M. W. (2000). Cognitive profile analysis: A shared professional myth. School Psychology Quarterly, 15, 465–479. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0088802.

  • Wechsler, D. (1939). The measurement of adult intelligence. Williams & Wilkins.

  • Wechsler, D. (1991). Wechsler intelligence scales for children-third edition. Psychological Corporation.

  • Wechsler, D. (2014). Wechsler intelligence scale for children (5th ed.). Pearson Assessment.

  • Zaboski, B., Kranzler, J. H., & Gage, N. A. (2018). Meta-analysis of the relationship between academic achievement and broad abilities of the Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory. Journal of School Psychology, 71, 42–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2018.10.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Special Education, School Psychology, and Early Childhood Studies, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, 32611, USA

    John H. Kranzler & Kathrin E. Maki

  2. Baylor University, Waco, TX, USA

    Nicholas F. Benson

  3. Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, USA

    Tanya L. Eckert

  4. University of Memphis, Memphis, TN, USA

    Randy G. Floyd

  5. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, USA

    Sarah A. Fefer

Authors
  1. John H. Kranzler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kathrin E. Maki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nicholas F. Benson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tanya L. Eckert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Randy G. Floyd
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Sarah A. Fefer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John H. Kranzler.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

Based on a larger national survey of school psychologists’ assessment practices (Benson et al. 2019), this study was determined to be exempt from review by the Institutional Review Board according to federal regulation 45 CFR 46.101(b)(2). Participation was anonymous, voluntary, and electronic documentation of consent was required.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kranzler, J.H., Maki, K.E., Benson, N.F. et al. How Do School Psychologists Interpret Intelligence Tests for the Identification of Specific Learning Disabilities?. Contemp School Psychol 24, 445–456 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-020-00274-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-020-00274-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation