Assessing Student Skills Using Process-Oriented Approaches

  • Susan Clements
  • Ray W. Christner
  • Amy L. McLaughlin
  • Jessica B. Bolton


The idea of systematically measuring human abilities is not a new concept, as it dates back to the work of Sir Francis Galton during the late 1800s, noted as the father of the “testing movement,” and the development of the first “intelligence” test by Alfred Binet in 1905 (Hale & Fiorello, 2004). Since their inception, the debate over the use and objectivity of intelligence tests has continued in the field of psychology and measurement, with the history showing examples of “IQ” tests being both mandated and banned from public education (i.e., P.A.R.C. v. Penn, 1971; Larry, P. v. Riles, 1972). Amidst the controversy of the use of intelligence tests, is the question of utility. Because of the historically strong link to placement decisions for children, many have questioned the continued value of such tests. However, recently a number of researchers have been highlighting some of the benefits of linking cognitive assessment to interventions, and the benefit of moving away from an overall IQ score to a more idiographic approach (Hale, Fiorello, Kavanagh, Holdnack, & Aloe, 2007). Like a number of topics in psychology and education, there have been differing views and opinions, not only on the structure of intelligence, but also on the idea of being able to derive useful and appropriate interventions from the assessment of cognitive abilities.


Word Pair Full Scale Intelligence Quotient Phonemic Awareness English Language Learner Specific Learning Disability 
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.


  1. Alloy, L. B., Acocella, J., & Bootzin, R. R. (1996). Abnormal psychology: Current perspectives. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, V. A. (2001). Development of executive functions through late childhood and adolescence in an Australian sample. Developmental Neuropsychology, 20(1), 385–406.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baron, I. S. (2004). Neuropsychological evaluations of the child. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Berninger, V. (2002). Best practices in reading, writing, and math assessment-intervention links: A systems approach for schools, classrooms, and individuals. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.) Best practices in school psychology IV. Vol 1 (pp. 851–865). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Collins, D. W., & Rourke, B. P. (2003). Learning-disabled brains: A review of the literature. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsyclhology, 25, 1011–1034.Google Scholar
  6. Fine, J. G., Semrud-Clikeman, M., Keith, T.Z., Stapleton, L., Hynd, G. (2007). The corpus callosum and reading: An MRI family study of volume and area. Neuropsychology, 21(2).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fiorello, C. A., Hale, J. B., McGrath, M., Ryan, K., & Quinn, S. (2001). IQ interpretation for children with flat and variable test profiles. Learning and Individual Differences, 13, 115–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Flanagan, D. (2006). Identification of specific learning disability: An operational definition encompassing IDEA 2004, RTI, Assessment of cognitive processes, and culture/linguistic differences. Presentation for the Chester County Intermediate Unit, PA.Google Scholar
  9. Glutting, J. J., Youngstrom, E. A., Ward, T., Ward, S., & Hale, R. L. (1997). Incremental efficacy of WISC-III factor scores in predicting achievement: What do they tell us? Psychological Assessment, 9, 295–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hale, J. B., & Fiorello, C. A. (2004). School neuropsychology: A practitioner’s handbook. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  12. Hale, J. B., Fiorello, C. A., Kavanaugh, J. A., Hoeppner, J. B., & Gaither, R. A. (2001). WISC-III predictors of academic achievement for children with learning disabilities: Are global and factor scores comparable? School Psychology Quarterly, 16, 31–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hale, J. B., Fiorello, C. A., Kavanagh, J. A., Holdnack, J. A., & Aloe, A. M. (2007). Is the demise of IQ interpretation justified? A response to special issue authors. Applied Neuropsychology, 14(1), 37–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hale, J. B., Fiorello, C. A., Miller, J. A., Wenrich, K., Teodori, A., & Henzel, J. (2008). WISC-IV interpretation for specific learning disabilities identification and intervention: A cognitive hypothesis testing approach. In A. Prifitera, D. Saklofske, & L. Weiss (Eds.), WISC-IV clinical assessment and intervention (2nd ed., pp. 109–171). San Antonio, TX: Pearson.Google Scholar
  15. Horn, J. L., & Cattell, R. B. (1967). Age differences in fluid and crystallized intelligence. Acta Psychologica, 26, 107–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jiron, C. (2005). Intelligent testing, not intelligence testing: To test or not to test? Communiqué, 34(4), 27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Kaplan E, Fein D, Kramer J, Delis DC, Morris R. (1999). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children – Process Instrument. The Psychological Corporation; San Antonio, TX.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kavale, K. A., Holdnack, J. A., & Mostert, M. P. (2005). Response to intervention and the identification of specific learning disability: A critique and alternative proposal. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28(1), 2–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Larry, P. v. Riles, 343 F. Supp. 1306 (D.C. N.D. Cal., 1972), aff’d., 502 F.2d 963 (9th Cir. 1974), further proceedings, 495 F. Supp. 926 (D.C. N.D. Cal., 1979), aff’d., 502 F.2d 693 (9th Cir. 1984).Google Scholar
  21. Levine, M. (1999). Developmental variation and leaning disorders (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Educators Publishing Service.Google Scholar
  22. Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2005). Feasibility and consequences of response to intervention: Examination of the issues and scientific evidence as a model for the identification of individuals with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(6), 525–531.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McCloskey, G. (2005). Neuropsychological-oriented process approach to psychoeducational assessment and intervention. Presented at the NASP Annual Conference Anaheim, CAGoogle Scholar
  24. McCloskey, G. (2006). Math skills instruction, assessment and intervention: Integrating neuropsychological and RTI perspectives to develop best practices. Presented at the Montgomery County Intermediate Unit #23, PA.Google Scholar
  25. McCloskey, George, Perkins, Lisa, Van Divner, Bob (2009). Assessment and intervention for executive function difficulties; School-Based Practice in Action Series. Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McGrew, K. S., & Knopik, S. N. (1996). The relationship between intra-cognitive scatter on the Woodcock–Johnson psycho-educational battery – Revised and school achievement. Journal of School Psychology, 34(4), 351–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Naglieri, J.A. and Bornstein, B.T. (2003). Intelligence and Achievement: Just how Correlated are they? Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 21(3), 244–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens (P.A.R.C.) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 334 F. Supp. 1257 (D.C. E.D. Pa. 1971), 343 F. Supp. 279 (D.C. E.D. Pa. 1972).Google Scholar
  29. 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(4), 376–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Reitman, W. R. (1964). Information-processing models in psychology. Science, New Series, 144(3623), 1192–1198.Google Scholar
  31. Samuda, R. J. (1998). Cross cultural assessment: Issues and alternatives. In R. J. Samuda, R. Feuerstein, A. Kaufman, J. Lewis, R. J. Sternburg, & Associates (Eds.), Advances in cross-cultural assessment (pp. 1–19). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  32. Sattler, J. M. (2001). Assessment of children: Cognitive applications. San Diego, CA: Jerome M. Sattler, Publisher, Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shaywitz, S.E., Lyon, G.R., & Shaywitz, B.A. (2006). Dyslexia (Specific reading disability). In F.D. Burg, J.R. Ingelfinger, R.A. Polin, & A.A. Gershon (Eds.) Gellis & Kagan’s Current, Vol. 17. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Siegel, L. S. (1999). Issues in the definition and diagnosis of learning disabilities: A perspective of Guckenberger v. Boston University. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32(4), 304–319.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tallel, P. (2006). Dynamic auditory processing, musical experience and language development, Trends in Neurosciences, 29(7), 382–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Thurstone, L. L. (1938). Primary mental abilities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Werner, H. (1937). Process and achievement: A basic problem of education and developmental psychology. Harvard Educational Review, 7, 353–368.Google Scholar
  38. Ysseldyke, J. (2005). Assessment and decision making for students with learning disabilities: What if this is as good as it gets? Learning Disability Quarterly, 28, 125–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susan Clements
    • 1
  • Ray W. Christner
  • Amy L. McLaughlin
  • Jessica B. Bolton
  1. 1.Philadelphia College of Osteopathic MedicinePhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations