THE CATEGORY TEST: HISTORY,
DEVELOPMENT, AND FUTURE
DIRECTIONS
Nick A. DeFilippis & Jonathan N. Dodd
Georgia School of Professional Psychology
Early Tests of Concept
Formation
 Ach (1921), a German researcher developed a
means of studying concept formation
(Sakharov, 1930; Hanfmann & Kasanin, 1937).
 Vygotsky’s variation (Hanfmann & Kasanin,
1937).
 Hanfamann & Kasanin (1937) translated the
Vygotsky test into English and identified 3
basic factors of concept formation.
Early Tests of Concept
Formation
 Weigl Color-Form Test (1941) consisted of 12
cardboard figures that could be grouped
together according to their colors or forms.
 The Goldstein and Scheerer Sorting Test
(1941) required the subject to sort 7 of 33
common objects together and describe how
they are alike and deliniated abstract concept
formation into 3 levels of graded
sophistication: Concretistic, Functional, and
General.
Early Tests of Concept
Formation
 Ward Halstead developed an object sorting
task similar to Goldstein and Scheerer’s
known as the Halstead Object Sorting Test
 Straus & Werner (1942) conducted the first
studies with this instrument comparing
children with acquired brain injuries with
those with mental retardation.
Birth of the Category Test
 Due to variable success with the Halstead
Object Sorting Test, Ward Halstead
developed the Halstead Category Test,
designed to measure “grouping behavior.”
 The initial version of the Category Test
contained 9 subtests totaling 360 items.
 The test was administered via an apparatus
that contained a rotating drum and reading
lens.
Evolution of the Category Test
 During the 1940’s and 1950’s the method for
administering the CT changed.
 Incorporated the use of slides, the number of
items was reduced to 208, and subtest
reduced to 7, and it was placed in a console.
 Variations of test administration included
shortened versions, paper-and-pencil forms,
a card version, a computer version, a booklet
version, and an adapted version based on
item response theory.
Evolution of the Category Test
 The Booklet version of the Category Test,
known as the “Booklet Category Test” (BCT)
has enjoyed much popularity due to it’s ease
of transportation and administration, as
compared to the original version using a
cumbersome and heavy console.
 The booklet version consisted of 208 8 x 1
paper cards containing stimuli identical to the
original and bound into two separate
booklets.
Shortened versions of the
Category Test
 Charter, Swift, and Blusewicz (1997) developed a
shortened version of the CT composed of all
items in subtests 1 through IV and 20 items from
Subtests V from the original CT.
 Charter et al.’s sample consisted of 67 diffusely
brain damaged and 109 non-brain damaged
hospital patients matched for age and
education.
 Limitations include limited demographic data for
the control group and risk of selection bias.
Paper-and-pencil version
 Adams and Trenton (1981) modified the
original CT into a paper-and-pencil version in
efforts to reduce the cumbersomeness.
 They also created an alternative version of
their paper-and-pencil version with good
split-half-relability.
 Adams and Trenton noted significant practice
effects; thus, repeat testings between the
two versions are not recommended.
Booklet Category Test
 Research has shown that the BCT correlates
significantly with the original Halstead Category Test
(McCampbell and DeFilippis, 1979).
 Comparing Category Test performance of 30 chronic
alcoholics to that of 30 normal control college
students, with order of test administration (original
Halstead slide vs. booklet version) varied in
administration, strong correlations of .913 and .804
were found between normal and alcoholic
participants respectively.
 Significant practice effects b/w first and second
administrations of the CT in both normal and
alcoholic groups.
Psychometric Properties of the
CT
 The CT’s overall internal consistency is
approximately 97% (Lopez, Charter, &
Newman, 2000).
 Split-half reliability is 0.98 (Shaw, 1966).
 The CT shows significant age and education
effects (Heaton, Grant, & Matthews, 1991).
Psychometric Properties
 Most researchers agree that the CT is a
multidimentional instrument measuring
several independent but complimentary
cognitive abilities including:
 Concept formation, abstract reasoning, nonverbal
problem solving, and attention (Johnstone,
Holland, & Hewett, 1997)
 Learning (Laatsch & Choca, 1994)
 Judgment (Lopez, Charter, & Newman, 2000)
Psychometric
Properties:Construct Validity
 Research indicates that the BCT correlates
with measures of intelligence, memory, and
nonverbal problems solving (Allen, Goldstein,
& Mariano, 1999).
 Lansdell & Donnelly (1977) conducted a factor
analysis that indicated that the CT loaded
highly on visuomotor factors, as well as WAIS
Performance subtests, Block Design, Picture
Arrangement, and Object assembly.
Psychometric Properties:
Construct Validity
 Leonberger, Nicks, Goldfader, & Munz (1991)
found that the Category Test loaded on tests
of visual, but not verbal memory.
 Jonstone, Holland, & Hewett (1997) also
conducted a factor analysis finding that
Psychometric Properties:
Construct Validity
 Johnstone, et al. (1997) fourn that there was
not a single CT factor of abstract reasoining.
Rather, they identified three different factors
(cognitive demands) including:
 Symbol Recognition/Counting
 Spatial Positional Reasoning
 Proportional Reasoning
Psychometric Properties:
Lateralization Effects
 Dodd, McDermott, Goldstein, & DeFilippis
(2008) found that the Spatial Positional
Reasoning (SPR) Index correlated with
patients with right hemisphere lesions and
Performance IQ scores.
 In contrast, the Proportional Reasoning (PI)
index correlated with patients with left
hemisphere lesions and their Verbal IQ
scores.
Psychometric Properties: Effort
 Using item analysis, Laatsch & Choca (1991)
found that all items from Subtests I and II did
not discriminate between brain-injured and
normal subjects.
 Thus, most test-takers answered all items
from Subtest I and II correctly, regardless of
overall performance.
 Hence, performance on Subtests I and II can
be used as measures of effort, rather than
neurocognitive functioning.
Subscales of the Category Test
 The Category Test has received criticism for
providing only a single Error score; although it
requires the use of many component cognitive
abilities.
 Several efforts have been made at developing
new scales to the Category test including scales
for:




Categorization
Set Maintenance
Perseveration
Memory
Categorization Scale
 Rosenblum, et al. (2005) developed a Category
scale for the Booklet Category Test (BCT-CAT),
which is generated from clusters of similar test
items that run consecutively through each
subtest.
 Moderate correlation between the BCT-CAT and
the Categories completed scale of the WCST (r =
.478, p < .01).
 Moderate convergent validity with stronger
correlation between the WCST-CAT and the
BCT-CAT than the BCT-Error score (r = .478, p =
.01 vs. .396 p = .01).
Categorization Scale
 Discriminant validity was established against the
WCST-Failure to Maintain Set and WCSTPerseveration Errors.
 The BCT-CAT also had higher correlations with
visual and verbal memory tests than the BCTMemory scales (r = .644 & .410, p = .01 vs. .408 &
.383, p = .01).
 Land, DeFilippis, Hill, & Dodd, (2007)
demonstrated further concurrent validity of the
CT-CAT scales with the Halstead Impairment
Index.
Perseveration Scale
 Pelham (2001) made the first known attempts
at developing BCT subscales intended to
measure perseveration, loss of set, and
memory.
 Minassian, et al., (2003) published a series of
experiments attempting to develop further
validity and reliability for Pelham’s scales.
Perseveration Scale
 Pelham found moderate correlations with the
WCST Perseverative Responses scale (r = .407, p
< .01).
 Pelham also described how to score Subtest IV,
but not Subtests III, V, and VI.
 Minassian, et al., (2003) demonstrated that the
BCT-P correlated moderately with the WCST
Perseverative Response scores, as well as with
the WMS-R scores, which demonstrated good
convergent, but poor discriminant validity of the
BCT-P.
Loss of Set scale
 Pelham’s Loss of Set scale (BCT-LS) was
calculated based on the total number of
errors made after three consecutive correct
responses.
 This scoring rule was applied to subtests III,
IV, V, and VI.
 The BCT-LS scale did not correlate with any
other measures of attention or set
maintenance.
Loss of Set scale
 Minassian, et al., (2003) also were unable to
demonstrate correlations between the BCTLS scale and measures of attention and the
WCST FTMS scale.
Memory Scale
 Pelham’s memory scale (BCT-M) is the
percentage of possible correct scores from
Subtest VII.
 Pelham showed strong correlations between
the BCT-M scale and WMS-R scores.
 Minassian, et al., (2003) demonstrated a
significant positive correlation between the
BCT-M score and the CVLT-II learning score
for the first 5 trials.
Scales in Development
 Revised scoring criteria for the above
subscales has been proposed by Dodd &
DeFilippis.
 New methods and underlying constructs are
currently in development for:
 Category scale
 Set Loss scale
 Perseveration scale
New Category Scale (CAT-2)
 The CAT-2 is established after 3 consecutive
correct responses are achieved within a
subtest. If the patient loses set and is unable
to pick back up within 3 items, the CAT-2 “resets,” as it is assumed that the previous three
items correct was by chance, and the patient
never truly grasped the category/concept.
New Set Loss scales
 Set loss errors occur whenever a patient has
established the CAT-2 and then responds
incorrectly.
 2 types of set loss
 Attentional set loss
 Conceptual set loss
Attentional Set Loss (SL-A)
 The SL-A is scored only after an incorrect
response is given after the CAT-2 is
established and within a subgroup of items
that have similar stimulus structure.
 These are considered “true” set loss and
represent an unexpected change in the
patient’s approach to the test resulting from a
sudden dip in attention or impulsivity.
Conceptual Set Loss (SL-C)
 The SL-C is an incorrect response given after
CAT-2 is established, between subgroups
within a subtest in which the core stimulus
percept changes.
 This represents weak concept formation,
poor abstraction, poor mental/conceptual
flexibility, and easy confusion.
New Perseveration scale
 Perseveration on the BCT occurs when a
patient persists with the incorrect response or
principle for two or more items despite being
told “incorrect.”
 Further analysis of the patient’s approach to
the test may reveal more concrete forms of
perseveration verses conceptual forms of
perseveration.
New Perseveration scale
 The two most common forms of
perseveration that are feasibly scored
without prompting the patient include:
 counting on subtests III, V, and VI, and
 continual misplacement of roman numerals III and
IV on Subtest IV.
New Perseveration scale
 For Subtest III, the most common form of
PSV-W involves persisting with a counting
principle from the previous subtest.
 PSV-W for Subtest IV manifests after the
numbers disappear from the matrix, and the
patient regresses back to assigning the III and
IV to the traditional placements within the
quadrants, rather than the clockwise
progression of the roman numerals that is
presented in the test.
New Perseveration scale
 Perseveration on subtests V and VI is scored
when the patient persists with the counting
principle.
 Again, the examiner would only qualify an
error as a perseveration if the patient persists
with either counting objects that are the
same (PSV- CS) or counting objects that are
different from the other figures in that item
(PSV- CD).
References
Goldstein, K. & Scheerer, M. (1941). Abstract and concrete behavior: An experimental study with special tests.
Psychological Monographs, 53, (2, Whole Number 239).