Cross-Battery Approach to the Assessment of Executive Functions

  • Dawn P. Flanagan
  • Vincent C. Alfonso
  • Shauna G. Dixon
Chapter
First Online:

Abstract

Increasing attention has been paid to the role of executive functions in school learning and achievement in recent years (e.g., Dawson, 2012; Maricle & Avirett, 2012; McCloskey, 2012; Meltzer, 2007, 2012; Miller, 2007, 2013). For example, within the emerging subdiscipline of school neuropsychology, attempts have been made to integrate psychometric and neuropsychological theories in an effort to better understand brain–behavior relationships (e.g., Flanagan, Alfonso, Ortiz, & Dynda, 2010; Miller, 2007). In addition, some intelligence test developers offer a cognitive processing model as a basis for interpreting test performance and provide clinical clusters, such as “executive processes,” “cognitive fluency,” and “broad attention” as part of their battery (e.g., WJ III NU; Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001, 2007). Other test authors developed tests that more directly purport to measure executive functions, including planning and attention. For example, the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children, second edition (KABC-II; Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004), although based on the Cattell–Horn–Carroll (CHC) theory of the structure of cognitive abilities, maintains its roots in the Lurian model of cognitive processing and measures “Fluid Reasoning (Gf)/Planning,” for example. Likewise, the Cognitive Assessment System (CAS; Das & Naglieri, 1997) is based on a Lurian cognitive processing theory of intelligence and measures planning, attention, and simultaneous and successive processes, of which the former two are often conceived of as executive functions (Maricle & Avirett, 2012; Naglieri, 2012).

Keywords

Executive Function Work Memory Capacity Concept Formation Neuropsychological Batterie Cognitive Batterie 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Alfonso, V. C., Flanagan, D. P., & Radwan, S. (2005). The impact of the Cattell-Horn theory on test development and interpretation of cognitive and academic abilities. In D. P. Flanagan & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (2nd ed., pp. 185–202). New York: Guildford Press.Google Scholar
  2. Baron, I. (2004). Neuropsychological evaluation of the child. New York, NY US: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Carroll, J. B. (1997). The three-stratum theory of cognitive abilities. In D. P. Flanagan, J. L. Genshaft, & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 122–130). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  5. Carroll, J. B. (1998). Foreword. In K. S. McGrew & D. P. Flanagan (Eds.), The intelligence test desk reference: Gf-Gc cross-battery assessment (pp. xi–xii). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  6. Comrey, A. L. (1988). Factor-analytic methods of scale development in personality and clinical psychology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 754–761.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Das, J. P., & Naglieri, J. A. (1997). Cognitive assessment system. Itasca, IL: Riverside.Google Scholar
  8. Dawson, P. (2012). Executive functioning in children. In S. Goldstein & J. A. Naglieri (Eds.), Handbook on executive functioning.Google Scholar
  9. Dean, R. S., & Woodcock, R. W. (2003). Dean–Woodcock neuropsychological battery. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.Google Scholar
  10. Decker, S. L. (2008). School neuropsychology consultation in neurodevelopmental disorders. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 799–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dehn, M. J. (2006). Essentials of processing assessment. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  12. De La Paz, S. (2007). Managing cognitive demands for writing: Comparing the effects of instructional components in strategy instruction. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 23, 249–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Delis, D. C., Kaplan, E., & Kramer, J. H. (2001). Delis Kaplan executive function system. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
  14. Elliott, C. D. (2007). Differential ability scales—Second edition. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment.Google Scholar
  15. Feifer, S. G., & Della Toffalo, D. A. (2007). Integrating RTI with cognitive neuropsychology: A scientific approach to reading. Middletown, MD: School Neuropsych Press.Google Scholar
  16. Fiorello, C. A., Hale, J. B., Snyder, L. E., Forrest, E., & Teodori, A. (2008). Validating individual differences through examination of converging psychometric and neuropsychological models of cognitive functioning. In S. K. Thurman & C. A. Fiorello (Eds.), Applied cognitive research in k-3 classrooms (pp. 232–254). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Flanagan, D. P., Alfonso, V. C., & Ortiz, S. O. (2012). The cross-battery assessment approach: An overview, historical perspective, and current directions. In D. P. Flanagan, J. L. Genshaft, & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 459–483). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  18. Flanagan, D. P., Alfonso, V. C., & Mascolo, J. T. (2013). A CHC-based operational definition of SLD: Integrating multiple data sources and multiple data-gathering methods. In D. P. Flanagan & V. C. Alfonso (Eds.), Essentials of specific learning disability identification (pp. 233–298). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  19. Flanagan, D. P., Alfonso, V. C., Ortiz, S. O., & Dynda, A. M. (2010). Integrating cognitive assessment in school neuropsychological evaluations. In D. C. Miller (Ed.), Best practices in school neuropsychology: Guidelines for effective practice, assessment, and evidence-based intervention (pp. 101–140). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  20. Flanagan, D. P., & McGrew, K. S. (1997). A cross-battery approach to assessing and interpreting cognitive abilities: Narrowing the gap between practice and cognitive science. In D. P. Flanagan, J. L. Genshaft, & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 314–325). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  21. Flanagan, D. P., McGrew, K. S., & Ortiz, S. O. (2000). The Wechsler Intelligence Scales and Gf-Gc theory: A contemporary approach to interpretation. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  22. Flanagan, D. P., & Ortiz, S. O. (2001). Essentials of cross-battery assessment. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  23. Flanagan, D. P., Ortiz, S. O., & Alfonso, V. C. (2007). Essentials of cross-battery assessment (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  24. Flanagan, D. P., Alfonso, V. C., & Ortiz, S. O. (2012). The cross-battery assessment approach: An overview, historical perspective, and current directions. In D. P. Flanagan, J. L. Genshaft, & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 459–483). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  25. Flanagan, D. P., Ortiz, S. O., & Alfonso, V. C. (2013). Essentials of cross-battery assessment (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  26. Flanagan, D. P., Ortiz, S. O., Alfonso, V. C., & Mascolo, J. T. (2006). Achievement test desk reference: A guide to learning disability identification (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  27. Fletcher-Janzen, E., & Reynolds, C. R. (2008). Neuropsychological perspectives on learning disabilities in the era of RTI: Recommendations for diagnosis and intervention. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  28. Hale, J. B., & Fiorello, C. A. (2004). School neuropsychology: A practitioner’s handbook. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  29. Horn, J. L. (1991). Measurement of intellectual capabilities: A review of theory. In K. S. McGrew, J. K. Werder, & R. W. Woodcock (Eds.), Woodcock-Johnson technical manual (pp. 197–232). Chicago: Riverside.Google Scholar
  30. Horn, J. L., & Blankson, N. (2005). Foundations for better understanding of cognitive abilities. In D. P. Flanagan & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (2nd ed., pp. 41–68). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  31. Kaplan, E. (1988). A process approach to neuropsychological assessment. In T. Boll & B. K. Bryant (Eds.), Clinical neuropsychology and brain function: Research, measurement, and practice (pp. 125–167). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  32. Kaufman, A. S. (1979). Intelligent testing with the WISC-R. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  33. Kaufman, A. S. (2000). Forward. In D. P. Flanagan, K. S. McGrew, & S. O. Ortiz (Eds.), The Wechsler intelligence scales and Gf-Gc theory: A contemporary approach to interpretation. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  34. Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (2004). Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children-second edition. Circle Pines, MN: AGS Publishing.Google Scholar
  35. Keith, T. Z., & Reynolds, M. R. (2010). CHC and cognitive abilities: What we’ve learned from 20 years of research. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 635–650.Google Scholar
  36. Keith, T. Z., & Reynolds, M. R. (2012). Using confirmatory factor analysis to aid in understanding the constructs measured by intelligence tests. In D. P. Flanagan & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (3rd ed., pp. 758–799). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  37. Korkman, M., Kirk, U., & Kemp, S. (2007). NEPSY-II: A developmental neuropsychological assessment. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
  38. Lezak, M. D. (1976). Neuropsychological assessment. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Lezak, M. D. (1995). Neuropsychological assessment (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Lezak, M. D., Howieson, D. B., & Loring, D. W. (2004). Neuropsychological assessment (4th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Luria, A. R. (1973). The working brain: An introduction to neuropsychology. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  42. Maricle, D. E., & Avirett, E. (2012). The emergence of neuropsychological constructs into tests of intelligence and cognitive abilities. In D. P. Flanagan & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (3rd ed., pp. 800–819). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  43. Marzano, R., & Pickering, D. (1992). Dimensions of learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  44. Mascolo, J. T., Flanagan, D. P., & Alfonso, V. C. (in press). Planning, selecting, and tailoring interventions for the unique learner. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  45. McCloskey, G. (2009). The WISC-IV integrated. In D. P. Flanagan & A. S. Kaufman (Eds.), Essentials of WISC-IV assessment (2nd ed., pp. 310–467). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  46. McCloskey, G. (2012). Working memory and executive functioning. In S. Goldstein & J. A. Naglieri (Eds.), Handbook on executive functioning.Google Scholar
  47. McCloskey, G., Perkins, L. A., & Van Divner, B. (2009). Assessment and intervention for executive function difficulties. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  48. McGrew, K. S. (2005). The Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory of cognitive abilities: Past, present, and future. In D. P. Flanagan, J. L. Genshaft, & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (2nd ed., pp. 136–182). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  49. McGrew, K. S. (1997). Analysis of the major intelligence batteries according to a proposed comprehensive CHC framework. In D. P. Flanagan, J. L. Genshaft, & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 151–180). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  50. McGrew, K. S., & Flanagan, D. P. (1998). The intelligence test desk reference (ITDR): Gf-Gc cross-battery assessment. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  51. Meltzer, L. (2007). Executive function in education: From theory to practice. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  52. Meltzer, L. (2012). Handbook of executive functioning. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  53. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 104–131). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.Google Scholar
  54. Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50, 741–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Miller, D. C. (2007). Essentials of school neuropsychological assessment. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  56. Miller, D. C. (2010). Best practices in school neuropsychology: Guidelines for effective practice, assessment, and evidence-based intervention. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  57. Miller, D. C. (2013). Essentials of school neuropsychological assessment (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  58. Miller, D. C., & Maricle, D. E. (2012). The emergence of neuropsychological constructs into tests of intelligence and cognitive abilities. In D. Flanagan & P. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (3rd ed., pp. 800–819). New York, NY US: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  59. Naglieri, J. A. (2005). The cognitive assessment system. In D. P. Flanagan, P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (2nd ed., pp. 441–460). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  60. Naglieri, J. A. (2012). The cognitive assessment system. In S. Goldstein & J. A. Naglieri (Eds.), Handbook on executive functioning.Google Scholar
  61. Reynolds, M. R., Keith, T. Z., Flanagan, D. P., & Alfonso, V. C. (in press). A cross-battery, reference variable, confirmatory factor analytic investigation of the CHC Taxonomy. Journal of School Psychology.Google Scholar
  62. Roid, G. H. (2003). Stanford-binet intelligence scales, (5th ed.). Itasca, IL: Riverside.Google Scholar
  63. Sattler, J. M. (1988). Assessment of children (3rd ed.). San Diego, CA: Author.Google Scholar
  64. Schneider, J. W., & McGrew, K. S. (2012). The Cattell-Horn-Carroll model of intelligence. In D. P. Flanagan & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (3rd ed., pp. 99–144). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  65. Semrud-Clikeman, M., Wilkinson, A., & Wellington, T. (2005). Evaluating and using qualitative approaches to neuropsychological assessment. In R. D’Amato, E. Fletcher-Janzen, & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of school neuropsychology (pp. 287–302). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  66. Strauss, E., Sherman, E. M. S., & Spreen, O. (2006). A compendium of neuropsychological tests: Administration, norms, and commentary (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Wechsler, D. (2003). Wechsler intelligence scale for children—Fourth edition. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
  68. Wechsler, D. (2004). Wechsler intelligence scale for children—fourth edition integrated. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
  69. Wechsler, D. (2008). Wechsler adult intelligence scale—fourth edition. San Antonio, TX: Pearson.Google Scholar
  70. Wilson, B. C. (1992). The neuropsychological assessment of the preschool child: A branching model. In I. Rapin & S. I. Segalowitz (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of neuropsychology: Vol. 6. Child neuropsychology (pp. 377–394). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  71. Woodcock, R. W. (1990). Theoretical foundations of the WJ-R measures of cognitive ability. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 8, 231–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III tests of cognitive abilities. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.Google Scholar
  73. Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2007). Woodcock-Johnson III tests of cognitive abilities. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dawn P. Flanagan
    • 1
  • Vincent C. Alfonso
    • 2
  • Shauna G. Dixon
    • 1
  1. 1.St. Johns UniversityQueensUSA
  2. 2.Fordham UniversityNew York CityUSA

Personalised recommendations