The CTONI-2: Comprehensive Tests of Nonverbal Intelligence Second Edition

A basic introduction, description and cursory evaluation of the CTONI-2's strengths and weaknesses.

1. An overview of the Comprehensive test of nonverbal intelligence- second edition (CTONI-2) Tanya Maria Geritsidou The American College of Greece

2. Outline The CTONI-2’s Theoretical Rationale Content & Age Range Format of the CTONI-2 Administration Scoring Materials Provided Psychometric Properties Strengths and Weaknesses of the CTONI-2 Appropriate Uses for the CTONI-2 Summary

3. The CTONI-2’s Theoretical Rationale Based on three theories of intelligence (Lassiter, Matthews & Feeback , 2007) : The Das Model of simultaneous-sequential processing Jensen’s two-level theory of intelligence Theory of Fluid ( Gf ) and Crystallized ( Gc ) intelligence

4. The CTONI-2’s Theoretical Rationale The Das Model of simultaneous-sequential processing (Kirby & Das, 1977) : Simultaneous processing: to be able to integrate information in the brain in a spatial/non-temporal manner, making it fully surveyable at the same time Sequential processing: To be able to integrate information in the brain in a form that maintains its temporal order Both types are necessary for high level performance They are distinct from one another We can make predictions for achievement based on the model

5. The CTONI-2’s Theoretical Rationale Jensen’s ( Stankov , Horn & Roy, 1980, Jensen, 1981) two-level theory of intelligence (genetic differences according to race, SES, ethnicity): Level I ability: Associative learning Rote learning Attention/associative skills Short term memory Level II ability: Cognitive learning Abstract thinking / symbolic thought Conceptual learning Language use in problem solving

6. The CTONI-2’s Theoretical Rationale Theory of Fluid ( Gf ) and Crystallized ( Gc ) Intelligence by Cattell -Horn ( Thorsen , Gustafsson & Cliffordson , 2014) : Fluid Intelligence Problem solving ability in novel situations Abstract reasoning Crystallized Intelligence Knowledge from prior learning Knowledge from prior experiences Decreases with age Increases with age

7. CTONI-2 Content and Age Range The test assesses reasoning and problem solving in children and adults For ages 6 – 89 years and 11 months Categories of assessment: Analogical thinking Categorical formulation Sequential reasoning

8. CTONI-2 Format Six subtests that can be administered independently (but authors recommend that all be administered) Multiple choice images Pictorial pictorial scale Geometric geometric scale Full scale

9. CTONI-2 Format: Subtests 1 & 2 Analogies “This is to this, as this is to which one of these?”

10. CTONI-2 Format: Subtests 3 & 4 Categories “Which one of these is related to those?”

11. CTONI-2 Format: Subtests 5 & 6 Sequences (problem solving progression) “What is the rule guiding the progression of these?”

12. Administration of the CTONI-2 Qualification level B required (master’s degree in psychology + formal training in assessments) No time requirement (but usually takes about 1 hour) Examiner should pantomime or demonstrate while saying the instructions Easy administration – answers provided by pointing No basal level (basal provided by the example)

13. CTONI-2 Scoring 1 point for each correct response 0 point for each wrong response Ceiling reached with three consecutive wrong responses (test is discontinued) If three consecutive errors are made in the practice items, then the test is not administered at all The total number of correct reponses of a subtest is the Raw Score of that Subtest

14. CTONI-2 Scoring Responses are recorded in the Examiner Record Form, which is very user friendly ( Delen , Kaya & Ritter, 2012) Age and raw scores recorded at the time of administration Raw scores then converted to percentile ranks, scaled scores and age equivalents Descriptive terms and percentiles provided for composite scores

15. CTONI-2 Materials Provided Kit includes: Examiner’s manual 3 picture books Examiner’s Record Forms Very user friendly Translations of instructions provided FAQ for examiners Space in the examiner’s record form to record the setting and conditions of administration

16. CTONI-2’s Psychometric Properties Standardization Sample Properties Descriptives 2,827 participants from 10 states of USA Data collected during 2007-2008 Sample representative for: Age Gender Race SES Geographic region Parental status Exceptionality status Stratified for age 95% instructed in English, 5% in pantomime

17. CTONI-2’s Psychometric Properties Reliability Internal Consistency Cronbach’s a for subtest & composite scores was above .80, with standard error of measurement of around 1. Tested for 19 age intervals Most Cronbach’s a for demographics also above .80 Test-retest Reliability Used results from the CTONI as well as CTONI-2 Test-retest coefficient above .80 at the 1 month interval Interrater Reliability Two independent raters scored the tests High interrater reliability (correlation coefficient at .95)

18. CTONI-2’s Psychometric Properties Validity Content description Item bias was not statistically significant for all test groups (Hispanics, African Americans and gender Items have been thematically linked to the theoretical background (Bradley-Johnson, 1997, Delen et al., 2012) Construct identification Correlation coefficients of the CTONI/CTONI-2 with other intelligence tests range from .60 to .90 overall Correlation coefficients between the CTONI-2 and reading/math achievement tests were from .53 to .72 Factor analysis also supported the expectation of all subtests loading to one factor, general intelligence g (Spearman’s g) Criterion prediction The CTONI-2 can predict scores in achievement and intelligence tests

19. CTONI-2’s Psychometric Properties Generalizability There are some limitations to the validity analysis ( McGill, 2015) : The psychometric evidence provided is not sufficient for the proposed assessment model of the CTONI-2 There are problems with the method used for factor analysis (it is not considered as such by some analysts) It can’t be conclusive that the CTONI-2 actually is a one-factor model as per the general intelligence g demands Interpretations should be derived from the composite scores, not the individual subtest scores, where it was statistically proven to measure general intelligence g

20. Strengths & Weaknesses of the CTONI-2 It decreases language and motor ability effects on general intelligence scores (reduces confoundings ) Not being timed means information processing speed isn’t considered Easy to administer and score Oral instructions in many languages provided Instructions can be given in pantomime Takes little time compared to other intelligence tests Updated to keep examinee interest Pantomime instruction hasn’t been used enough in the standardization sample Standardization sample didn’t include non-English speaking populations The picture books may be distracting for the examiner (two-sided, two different test versions) Some cultural bias remains The issues with the statistical analyses for validity and reliability (the test-retest method) Might overestimate the intelligence scores due to item difficulty positive skewness ( Delen et al., 2012) Strengths Weaknesses

21. Appropriate Uses for the CTONI-2 Use to assess general intelligence of individuals with language or physical impairments Do NOT use with severely visually impaired people Use with populations such as: People within the ASD spectrum People with deafness People with learning difficulties/dyslexia Multilingual / non-English speaking people Children with Selective Mutism

22. Summary The CTONI-2 is an easy to administer, easy to score intelligence test It has important advantages in minimizing the possible confounding variable effects of verbal and motor competence on intelligence scores Higher cognitive level skills are assessed, more relevant to academic performance It is adequately normed Its issues with validity and reliability are not severe and still support its measurement of general intelligence

23. Thank you for your attention!

24. References Bradley-Johnson, S . ( 1997). Test reviews. Psychology in the Schools , 34 (3 ), 154–158. http://doi.org/10.1080/02783199209553413 Delen , E., Kaya , F., & Ritter, N. L. (2012). Test review : Comprehensive Test of Nonverbal Intelligence--Second Edition (CTONI-2). Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment , 30 (2), 209–213. http:// doi.org/10.1177/0734282911415614 Drossman , E. R., Maller , S. J., & McDermott, P.A. ( 2001). Core profiles of school-aged examinees from the national standardization sample of the Comprehensive Test of Nonverbal Intelligence. School Psychology Review , 30 (4), 586–598. Lassiter , K. S., Matthews, T. D., & Feeback , G. (2007). An examination of the CTONI utilizing GC-GF theory: A comparison of the CTONI and WJ-III. Psychology in the Schools , 44 (6), 567–577. http://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20248 McGill, R. J. (2015). Investigation of the Factor Structure of the Comprehensive Test of Nonverbal Intelligence-Second Edition (CTONI-2) Using Exploratory Factor Analysis. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment . http://doi.org/10.1177/0734282915610717 Reesman , J. H., Day, L. a, Szymanski, C. a, Hughes-Wheatland, R., Witkin , G. a, Kalback , S. R., & Brice, P. J. (2014). Review of intellectual assessment measures for children who are deaf or hard of hearing. Rehabilitation Psychology , 59 (1), 99–106. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0035829 Lakin , J. M., & Gambrell , J. L. (2012). Distinguishing verbal, quantitative, and figural facets of fluid intelligence in young students. Intelligence , 40 (6), 560–570. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2012.07.005 Kirby , J. R., & Das, J. P. (1977). Reading achievement, IQ, and simultaneous-successive processing. Journal of Educational Psychology , 69 (5), 564–570. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.69.5.564 Stankov , L., Horn, J. L., & Roy, T. (1980). On the relationship between Gf / Gc theory and Jensen’s Level I/Level II theory. Journal of Educational Psychology , 72 (6), 796–809. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.72.6.796 Jensen, A. R. (1981). Level I / Level II : Factors or categories   ?. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(6), 868–873 . Thorsen , C., Gustafsson , J. E., & Cliffordson , C. (2014). The influence of fluid and crystallized intelligence on the development of knowledge and skills. British Journal of Educational Psychology , 84 (4), 556–570. http://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12041