Critical Commentary and Use of Various Tests - Term Paper Example

Critical Commentary Introduction There are a variety of tests which are used at one point or the other when carrying out evaluations among different populations. There are some which are commonly used in almost every evaluation session and others which are rarely used. The decision to use a given test when dealing with dyslexia depends on the respective strengths of the test and its abilities to capture the information that the assessor is looking for from the test. The use of the appropriate test in dyslexia evaluations allows the assessor to clearly understand the situation being dealt with so that the right conclusion can be made. It is also worth remembering that the kind of test used varies from population to pollution because each has its own characteristics which determine how effective the test used will be. Therefore, a critical evaluation needs to be done before a given test is opted for in the valuation process. This treatise provides a critical commentary on three testing approaches which were used to evaluate three dyslexic students. The paper draws from existing research and other published sources. It explores the issues involved in the testing and assessment process, the underlying theories of the tests and their strengths and weaknesses. Wide Range Assessment Test 4 The wide range assessment test refers to an achievement test that is used by specialist teachers and dyslexia assessors in measuring the ability of an individual to read words, understand sentences, spell words and device solutions to a variety of math problems. Corbetta & Shulman (2002) states that this assessment test is currently in its fourth version having evolved from the first version which was developed by Sidney Bijou and Joseph Jastack in the year 1941.It is appropriate for people aged between five years and ninety four years. It gives two equivalent forms which allows for retesting within a short duration of time after the initial test. Wilkinson & Robertson (2006) remarks that the retesting process is one of the critical aspects of the WRAT 4. It allows for the validation of the initial results that are obtained from the first forms. Studies have indicated that the retesting is effective whether it is done after the initial test or administer at the same time with the first one. In both cases, it is possible to reduce the potential practice effect that occurs when one repeats the same activity. Rao (2010), on the other hand, say that administration of both the Blue and the Green forms simultaneously tends to be more effective in ensuring that the effect of repeat activity engagement is totally eliminated. This ensures that the data which is obtained from the second test validates the first test thus making the overall test more reliable. The various editions of the Wide Range Achievement Test have also enjoyed widespread use in different settings in measuring the academic skills of individuals. It has also been used to gauge effective learning processes, critical thinking, reading abilities, calculation prowess and communication skills. Various scholars have studied the latest version of the test in order to determine its effectiveness as compared to the earlier three versions. In majority of these studies, the features which are inherent in the version appears to make it more superior in capturing and measuring academic abilities of students. Reynolds & Elaine (2007) notes that the inclusion of the computerized scoring aspect of the test coupled with the interpretive reports available to the clinician and user has played a very big role in ensuring the effectiveness and the efficiency of the testing and assessment process (Benedict, Smerbeck & Parikh, 2012). The standard scoring practice inherent in the test makes it applicable in evaluating and assessing dyslexic students. According to Mahant et al., (2003), the test has standard score that has a mean of one hundred with a standard deviation of fifteen percent. The abilities of the student are measure in percentiles. Arbitrary assigning of the grade level in the test to allow for interpretation as a rough reference level affects not only the reliability but also the efficiency of the systems. However, the impact is minimal considering that the standard scales are used for all the participations and therefore the error caused by the arbitrary assigned value will be inherent across all the tests carried out. DeMonte et al. (2009) notes that this test gives a split half reliability scores for different level used. The spelling level has a reliability of 0.97 while the arithmetic level has 0.96. However, since an overlap of the skills tested normally exists, an estimation of the reliability of both systems is considered. The split half reliabilities ranges for both the arithmetic and the reading levels shows that the overall reliability of WRAT 4 is excellent when it is used for to assess the right population and age bracket. Studies have also been done to determine the validity the results that are obtained from the test. Most of the studies try to correlate the findings got from WRAT 4 to those from other similar tests with the intention of determining any kind of flaws which may be inherent in the process thus affecting validity of the data and the conclusions made during the assessment process. A research by Parmenter (2007) to compare WRAT 4 and the Peabody Individual Achievement Test found that the two test highly correlate with each other. The research involved the administration of the two test over a comparable materials range. Same population and age bracket were used and the ceiling effect minimized. Other scholars have found that the information and conclusions made on the basis of WRAT results correlate with IQ tests in the range of 0.4 to 0.7. Parmenter (2007) argues that WRAT 4 is only effective when it used for the specific purposes that it was formulated to be used in. This include the comparison of achievement of two people, determination of the learning disability and ability, comparison of codes and informal assessment of learning patterns. Despite this being the case, it has specific features that allow it to accurately measure certain skills. It is a simple sound assessment of the fundamental skills, which are essential in the initial evaluation or progress measure of the ability of students or people suffering from dyslexia. The other feature which makes this test more reliable and beneficial in assessing abilities of learners is the extension of the norms that are used. The grade based norm in WRAT 4 is known to increase the usefulness of the test among the grade K population. The norms have also been extended to the age of 94 years to allow for the standardized assessment of adult literacy abilities and skills. Knopman & Mosley (2009) note that even with the extension of the norms, the test appears to be more effective when used measure the abilities of those in the Grade K range as the reliability and validity of the outcomes are enhanced. WRAT 4 is also flexible and time efficient making it widely applicable on several settings. The assessment that is done on younger children only takes fifteen minutes while that for the older children may take as little as 30 minutes. It can because used for both individuals and groups with the reliability and validity not being significantly compromised since the standardization has been done with a representative sample of the national population. Forn, Belenguer & Ávila (2012) says that the interpretation of the WRAT 4 is enhanced by the use of the grade based norms which also increase the usefulness of the process. Exiting literature therefore shows that this test is widely applicable with the reliability and validity of the results obtained from the test being very high. It can also be used in different contexts and on different age brackets up to 94 years. Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing The CTOP is an assessment test which was published in the year 1999 with the intention of the meeting the needs for carrying out evaluations that are relate to the phonological processing skills among different populations. Ever since it was distributed, it has been popular among very many professionals in the medical, education and psychology fields. Moreover, the test has been used in several studies that deal with reading as well as phonological processing among typical and clinical populations. To show how popular and widely applicable the test is, Rao (2010) notes that a recent CTOPP search of the PyschInfo database returned 43000 results. Such results shows that scholars are heavily applying and studying the test method. Forn, Barrós-Loscertales & Escudero (2006) finds CTOP to be very valuable when it comes to the identification and evaluation of phonological capabilities. It is a standard test for dyslexia assessment and allows the users to compare and contrast the subtests which are used to reveal whether a student is having problems with phonological analysis or synthesis. The test can only be used when working with those aged between four twenty-four years. The levels are grouped into two with the first one being the four to 11 years group and the second one level being 12 years to 24 years. Some scholars have argued that the results from the test cannot be used to show phonological skills due to the floor effect that is inherent in the process. Deluca, Genova & Hillary (2008), however, points out that this effect was only present in the first version and has ben eliminated through the addition of easier specifics and ceilings that are extended from simple to more difficult ones. The result of the addition of the items has been very positive making it possible for the test to be administered even to four year olds. Moreover, the inclusion of the subset referred to as the Phoneme Isolation has ensured that the test covers young participants. An analysis of the existing data and literature on the application of the test reveals that it has four main areas where it is effectively used to measure phonological processing skills and abilities. The first area where it can be effective applied is in the identification of persons who are significantly below the phonological abilities of their peers. The second areas of use is the determination of the strengths and weaknesses of the phonological processes which are already developed in a student. Thirdly, it can effectively be applied in the determination of the phonological processing skill development. This is done after an intervention program has been used on that particular individual. The final area of application is the measurement of phonological processing in scientific studies on education, medicine and psychology. One vital area and feature of this test that makes it very much applicable and effective is the variety of subsets that are included. The test has over five sunsets which are used to measure specific aspects of phonological processing. Sound matching is for example used to capture one’s ability to isolate various sounds with different words. The Elision on the other hand is used to evaluate the ability of the student to remove various phonological segments from the spoken words to make other words. The other important feature is the inclusion of composites. The composite score is made up of standard score of three subsets of the test. The first composite which is suitable for those aged between four to six years comprises of the Elision, Word Blending and the Sound matching subsets. The second composite which applies to those aged between seven to 24 years consists of the Elision, the Word blending and the Phoneme Isolation. Any composite which is used for the age brackets show the awareness of the student of the phonological strictures of the language which is being tested and examined. There are also other standardized composites such as the Rapid Symbolic Naming Composite and each one of them is meant to test specific ability of the student. According to Benedict, Smerbeck & Parikh (2012) the reliability of the results that are obtained from the various subsets of CTOPP and its composites is better demonstrated by means of average internal consistency of the various coefficients in it. Studies have found that all the subsets apart from the Non Word repetition have reliability figures above 0.80. The Non Word Repetition subset has an alpha average reliability which is approximated to be about 0.77.The consistency of the composites stands at a figure above 0.84. The figures show that the test gives very desirable and agreeable level of reliability. One limitation of this approach in the version which is being used in the UK population. Currently, the CTOPP tests being used in the United Kingdom are all American versions and therefore they do not clearly capture the actual ability of the students as they have American words that do not feature in the English language. The students end up struggling when it comes to spelling some of the words and thus makes it hard for them to effectively complete the task. This makes the test to have a high margin of error and thus somehow unreliable. Symbol Digit Modalities Test Knopman, Mosley (2009) defines this particular test to be a cognitive task which was developed by Smith to help assess the cognitive ability of learners and other users. It is made up of a sheet of paper and a sequence of symbols with corresponding numbers. In a normal tests, the paper contains nine symbols which have nine corresponding numbers referred to as keys. The sequence of the tasks is made up of series of symbols with each having a blank space below it. The person being examined is required to consult the key list where necessary and insert the numbers which correspond to the symbols. A time frame of ninety minutes is always provided. Bruce, Bruce & Arnett (2007) says that the person carrying out the test can decide to administer it either orally or in writing. In any of the methods used, it is imperative for the examiner to consider the abilities and the capabilities of the user so that the most appropriate mode of administration can be employed. Boringa, Lazaron & Polman (2001) adds that when this is not done the test and results obtained might not be a true image of the ability of the student since the administration method may have an impact on how they assign the keys to the symbols. The Symbol Digit Modalities Test is very effective when it is used to measure cognitive impairment among a wide range of populations suffering from medical and health problems like dyslexia. Benedict et al. (2002) remarks that SDMT is now part and parcel of dyslexia evaluations and it is specifically designed to help gauge and evaluate the cognitive deficit among the populations which are subjected to the test. More recent studies on SDMT have revealed that the scores obtained are heavily correlated to those from the Magnetic Resonance Imaging which is also widely used in evaluating disease burden among learners having the same problems. The main principle of the test is that the time that the users will take to pair the symbols with the specific numbers found in the sheets will directly show their cognitive abilities. As such it requires elements of concentration as well as psychomotor skills. The other skills needed and are key to success in the task and gaining high scores are the visual perceptual processing and human working memory. The two main measures which are taken are the psychomotor skills and the attention vs. integration. This test is used in longitudinal, cross-sectional as well as diagnostic processes so that it can show the examiner the group members who seem to be having deficits. The scoring aspect of the test has been made in such a way that it includes calculating the total points in the various subscales. It is therefore the number of the correctly coded items within a period of ninety minutes. In order to allow for application of the tests among a variety of populations, standardized scores are also available. The Z and the T scores are examples of the standardized scores based on a given reference population. One thing which makes this test very unique and advanced compared to others used in measuring of cognitive abilities is the fact that norms are available for the examiner based on age, sex and education levels. This way, they have the chance to select the test which will be effective in a given age group or a given sex and this makes the results obtained applicable and reliable. It is however worth noting that in the cases where the scores have been standardized, the examiner needs to indicate the reference scores. Without this, it will be difficult to interpret the information obtained. Some of the reference populations which are usually considered are the general population, the other disease group and the HD group. The standardization process itself however causes some problems that compromises the entire test when it comes to the interpretation and the understanding of the results obtained. This is due to the fact that it may require selection and use of different scaling methods (Benedict, Smerbeck & Parikh, 2012). Ordinal and continuous scaling are some of the scales which are widely used. When the ordinal and the continuous scales are applied, it is paramount that the examiner explains where ceiling or floor effects were expected in the measuring process and the overall impact that it has on the results obtained. This way, it is possible that an actual picture of the student’s cognitive abilities is seen. The SDMT method is very reliable especially when the test retest method or the intrainterview approach is used. Studies have shown that the conclusions and data from the assessment have strong coefficients of validity. Others meant to determine the correlation with other methods have also pointed towards a very reliable and valid test procedure which gives true picture of cognitive skills of the users. Conclusion Wide Range Assessment Test, Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing and the Symbol Digit Modalities Test are some of the widely used assessment procedures among dyslexia populations. Each of the tests has specific features which are meant to help in making it effective in measuring the intended academic skills. Specialist teachers and dyslexia assessors have to look into these features before using the test so that an effective evaluation is done. Generally the three methods of assessment are effective in measuring various aspects of academic ability. Each of them suits a given population range and is specifically designed for that group. Standardization however allows for widespread application. The validity and reliability of the test are high meaning that they give true picture of the capabilities of those suffering from dyslexia. Reference List Benedict, R, Fischer, J, Archibald, C & Arnett, P 2002, ‘Minimal neuropsychological assessment of MS patients: a consensus approach’, Clin. Neuropsychology, vol. 16, no. 38, pp. 13-97. Benedict, R, Smerbeck, A, & Parikh R 2012, ‘Reliability and equivalence of alternate forms for the Symbol Digit Modalities Test: implications for multiple sclerosis clinical trials’, Mult Scler, vol. 18, no. 45, pp. 1320. Boringa, J, Lazaron, R & Polman, C 2001, ‘The brief repeatable battery of neuropsychological tests: normative values allow application in multiple sclerosis clinical practice’, Mult. Scler, vol. 7, pp. 263–267. Bruce, J, Bruce,A & Arnett, P, 2007, ‘Mild visual acuity disturbance are associated with performance on tests of complex visual attention in MS’, JINS, vol. 13, no.45, pp. 544–548. Corbetta, M, & Shulman,G 2002, ‘Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain’, Nat. Rev. Neurosci., vol. 3, pp. 201–215. Deluca, J, Genova, H, Hillary, G 2008, ‘Neural correlates of cognitive fatigue in multiple sclerosis using functional MRI’, J.Neurol. Sci., vol. 270, no.2, pp. 28–39. DeMonte, V, Geffen, M, May, R, & MacFarland, K 2009, ‘Improved sensitivity of the rapid screen of mild traumatic brain injury’, J Clin Exp Neuropsychology, vol. 6, no. 9, pp. 1-11. Forn, C, Barrós-Loscertales, A & Escudero, J 2006, ‘Cortical reorganization during PASAT task in MS patients with preserved working memory functions’, Neuroimage vol. 31, pp. 686–689. Forn, C, Belenguer,A & Ávila, C 2012, ‘Information processing speed is the primary deficit underlying the poor performance of multiple sclerosis’, J.Neurol. Sci., vol. 22, no.12, pp. 33. Knopman, D, Mosley, T 2009, ‘Atherosclerosis risk in communities study brain MRI study. Fourteen-year longitudinal study of vascular risk factors, APOE genotype, and cognition: the ARIC MRI study’, Journal of the Alzheimer’s Association, vol. 5, pp. 207-214. Mahant, N, McCusker, A, Byth, K, & Graham, S 2003, ‘Huntingtons disease: clinical correlates of disability and progression’, Neurology, vol. 61, pp. 1085-1092. Parmenter, A, Garg, N, Munschauer, F & Benedict, R 2007, ‘Screening for cognitive impairment in multiple sclerosis using the Symbol Digit Modalities Test, Mult. Scler., vol. 13, no. 7, pp. 52–57. Rao, S 2010, A Manual for the Brief Repeatable Battery of Neuropsychological Test in Multiple Sclerosis, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, New York. Reynolds, C & Elaine, F 2007, Encyclopedia of Special Education. John Wiley & Sons, New York. Wilkinson, G, & Robertson, G 2006, Wide Range Achievement Test 4 Professional Manual. Psychological Assessment Resources, Lutz. Read More