Nonverbal Assessment of Intelligence:
Introduction to the
Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test (UNIT)
Bruce A. Bracken, PhD
The University of Memphis
R. Steve McCallum, PhD
University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
UNIT Authors
Bruce A. Bracken, PhD
Professor of Psychology
Director, Child and Family Studies
The University of Memphis
Department of Psychology
Campus Box 52640
Memphis, TN 38152-6400
(901) 678-2143
bbracken @ memphis.edu
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
UNIT Authors
R. Steve McCallum, PhD
Professor and Chair
Psychoeducational Studies
Department
University of Tennessee, Knoxville
434 Claxton Addition
University of Tennessee
Knoxville, TN 37996
(423) 974-5405
mccallum @ utkux.utk.edu
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
What This Presentation Covers…
Part I: Nonverbal Assessment of Intelligence
Why nonverbal assessment matters
 What is nonverbal assessment?
 How can you evaluate nonverbal tests?
 For whom is nonverbal assessment appropriate?
 Why is nonverbal assessment needed?
 Assessment options when a language-loaded test
is inappropriate
 Current controversies
 A list of nonverbal intelligence tests

Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
What This Presentation Covers…
Part II: An Introduction to the UNIT






Theoretical Underpinnings
Scales and Subtests
Administration Features
UNIT Standardization and Technical Properties
(Reliability, Validity, and Special Psychometric
Properties)
Fairness
Clinical Use and Interpretation
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Why Nonverbal Assessment Matters…
U.S.A. Resident Population (12/1/97)
Number
White
222,104,000
African American
34,143,000
Native American
2,338,000
Asian/Pacific Islanders
10,181,000
Hispanic Origin (any race) 28,802,000
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Internet Release Date 2/6/98.
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Percent of Total
82.6
12.7
0.9
3.8
11.1
Why Nonverbal Assessment Matters…
U.S.A. Census Facts About Foreign-Born Individuals
• One out of every 10 people in the U.S.A. is
foreign-born.
• Of the nation’s total foreign-born population,
68% are White, 24% Asian/Pacific Islander, and
8% African American. Over 40% of the nation’s
total foreign-born are Hispanic.
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Why Nonverbal Assessment Matters…
U.S.A. Census Growth Trends
• By the middle of the next century, the
nation’s Hispanic population is expected to
reach 96.5 million (24.5 % of the total population).
• Through 2020, the Asian/Pacific Islander
population is expected to grow faster than the
nation’s other race groups or the Hispanic-origin
population.
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
What is Nonverbal Assessment?

Testing that requires no spoken language by the
examiner and examinee

Nonverbal refers to the method of administration
and the nature of the response, not the abilities
being assessed and the strategies used to arrive at
solutions
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Criteria for
Evaluating Nonverbal Assessments

Verbal instructions should be absent

Examinee responses should be nonverbal
(e.g., pointing, constructing, gesturing)

Administration procedures should be easily
understood by individuals of varying cultures

Multiple aspects of cognition should be assessed

Tasks should be balanced between those requiring
symbolic (language-related) and nonsymbolic
mediational strategies
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
For Whom Is
Nonverbal Assessment Appropriate?

Individuals with speech or language impairments

Individuals with hearing impairments

Individuals from diverse cultural or linguistic
backgrounds

Individuals who are verbally uncommunicative
or whose verbalizations are unreliable

Any individual for whom verbal performance
may underestimate the optimal level
of functioning
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Individuals with
speech or language impairments

Articulation Disorders

Expressive Language Disorders

Mixed Expressive Language Disorders

Language-Related Learning Disabilities

Post-Traumatic Language Impairment
(i.e., after Traumatic Brain Injury)

Language Impairment after Stroke
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Individuals with hearing impairments

Hard of hearing describes individuals with mild to
moderate hearing losses who still retain sufficient
residual hearing for communication through
spoken language

Deaf is the term preferred by deaf people to refer
to individuals with severe hearing losses who use
sign language as their primary means of
communication
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Individuals from diverse
cultural or linguistic backgrounds

Limited English Proficiency is a condition which
includes individuals who have difficulty reading,
writing, or understanding the English language
because they
• were born outside of the U.S.A. or have a native
language that is not English
• come from an environment where a language other
than English is dominant
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Individuals who are verbally
uncommunicative

Individuals with Serious Emotional Disturbance

Individuals who are extremely shy or verbally
uncommunicative
• Selective Mutism
• Autism
• Thought Disorder
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Other Diagnostic/Exceptional Groups
Appropriate for Nonverbal Assessment

Any individual for whom verbal performance may
underestimate the optimal level of functioning
• Individuals who are mentally retarded
• Individuals who are intellectually gifted in
nonverbal domains
• Individuals with focal or diffuse cortical damage
• Individuals who show low performance on IQ tests
in spite of high functional abilities
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
The Need for Nonverbal Assessment

Most cognitive and intellectual tests are
language-loaded, i.e., performance relies
heavily upon verbal responses or verbal
instructions and verbal stimuli

Results from language-loaded tests may not
be fair and accurate

Example: WISC–III
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Example:
WISC–III as a Language-Loaded Test

Verbal Scale subtests are all administered
and answered with language

Performance Scale subtests are all
administered with language, and test
performance may be verbally-mediated for
most subtests

The Full Scale IQ (FSIQ) equally weights
Verbal and Performance Scales
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Impact of Race and Ethnicity
on WISC–III Performance
WISC–III
Standardization Sample
FSIQ
Difference

– 14.9 points
– 9.4 points

African American vs. Whites
Hispanics vs. Whites
Source: Prifitera, A., Weiss, L., & Saklofske, D. (1998). The WISC–III in context. In A.
Prifitera & D. Saklofske (Eds.), WISC-III clinical use and interpretation:Scientist-practitioner
perspectives (pp. 1-38). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Deaf Individuals and
Adapted WISC–III Performance
Study
•
•
•
•
N
Wechsler (1991)
30
Braden et al. (1994)
19
Slate & Fawcett (1995)
47
Sullivan & Montoya (1997) 106
VIQ
PIQ
81.1
81.6
—
75.4
105.8
102.3
88.0
100.6
Source: Prifitera, A., Weiss, L., & Saklofske, D. (1998). The WISC-III in
context. In A. Prifitera & D. Saklofske (Eds.), WISC-III clinical use and
interpretation:Scientist-practitioner perspectives (pp. 1-38). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
FSIQ
92.2
90.7
—
86.2
Assessment Options
When a language-loaded test is inappropriate
Wechsler Performance Scale Tests

Benefits
•

Only subtests on the Wechsler that are language-reduced are used
Detriments
• Performance tasks often have lengthy verbal instructions
• Performance tasks typically have no checkpoint and few
demonstration/sample items
• Performance tasks place a heavy emphasis on speed
• Some performance tasks penalize for ambiguous errors
(e.g., rotations on Block Design)
• Some performance tasks are culturally-bound
(e.g., Picture Arrangement)
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Assessment Options
When a language-loaded test is inappropriate
Translated Tests

Benefits
• Assess the child in native language

Detriments
• Translations are labor intensive, expensive, and time-consuming
• Translations needed for every language spoken in population
• Regional/dialectal nuances within same language
• Lack of skilled bilingual translators
• Lack of skilled bilingual examiners
• Insufficient validation of translated scales
• Bilingual children are often not
proficient in either language
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Assessment Options
When a language-loaded test is inappropriate
Adapted Tests

Benefits

Detriments
• Test is modified to meet the special needs of examinee
• Adaptation often changes the basic nature of the
•
•
construct being assessed
Test has not been normed as adapted
Test usually has not been validated as adapted
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Assessment Options
When a language-loaded test is inappropriate
Nonverbal Measures

Benefits
• Test is administered, normed, and validated as a nonverbal measure
• Test requires no examinee receptive or expressive language abilities
• Test requires no second language skill of examinee
• Test is appropriate for all children

Detriments
• Often unidimensional assessment of a single construct
(e.g., matrix reasoning)
• Historically poor predictor of academic achievement
• Verbal demands on many “nonverbal” tests
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Current Controversies:
Verbal Mediation of Nonverbal Tests

Many nonverbal procedures have nonsymbolic,
abstract material

Few nonverbal procedures have symbolic,
verbally-mediated material

Best Practice is to find a test that balances or
otherwise compares performance on both
verbally- and nonverbally-mediated tasks
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Current Controversies:
Symbol & Gesture Comprehension
in Language-Impaired Individuals

Aphasia and language impairment affect central
processing of symbolic information that is essential to
language

In varying degrees, aphasic individuals may have
difficulty understanding spoken, written, and even
gestural communications

Best Practice is to build multiple indicators into a test to
ensure that the examinee understands what is being asked
of him or her (e.g., sample items, demonstration items, and
checkpoint items)
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Current Controversies:
Nonverbal Assessment Compared
With Use of Translated Tests

Advantages of Nonverbal Tests
• One test can be used across cultures and languages
• Bypasses the effect of bilingualism or differential
language competencies
• Solves the problem of translational inconsistencies
• Solves the problem of poorly normed test translations
• Solves the problem of examinee competence in language
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
A List of Nonverbal Intelligence Tests

First Generation Nonverbal Intelligence Tests

Matrices-Based Nonverbal Cognitive Procedures

The New Generation of Multidimensional
Nonverbal Cognitive Procedures
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
First Generation
Nonverbal Intelligence Tests

Draw A Person (Goodenough, 1926)

Raven’s Progressive Matrices
(originally 1938)

Wechsler Performance Scales
(originally 1939)

Leiter International Performance Scale
(originally 1948)
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Matrices-Based
Nonverbal Cognitive Procedures

Raven’s Progressive Matrices

Matrix Analogies Test

Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test

Comprehensive Test of Nonverbal Intelligence

Test of Nonverbal Intelligence–3rd Edition
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
The New Generation
of Multidimensional
Nonverbal Intelligence Tests

Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test (UNIT)
by B. A. Bracken & R. S. McCallum (1998)

Leiter International Performance Scale–Revised
by G. H. Roid & L. J. Miller (1997)
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Universal Nonverbal
Intelligence Test
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
An Introduction to the UNIT

Top Ten Goals in UNIT Development

Theoretical Underpinnings

Scales and Subtests
Administration Features
UNIT Standardization and Technical Properties
(Reliability, Validity, and Special Psychometric
Properties)
Fairness
Clinical Use and Interpretation




Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Top Ten Goals in UNIT Development
10. Answer the pressing need for cross-cultural assessment
instruments.
9. Create a multipurpose test for use whenever
language is an issue or concern.
8. Create a test that is entirely nonverbal, with no receptive or
expressive language requirements.
7. Develop tasks that comprehensively measure general
intelligence.
6. Develop tasks that measure important subdomains of
intelligence.
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Top Ten Goals in UNIT Development
(continued)
5. Develop tasks that enhance the testing experience for
examinees.
4. Encourage flexible and efficient assessment with three
administration options.
3. Develop a test that builds on examiner knowledge and
experience.
2. Develop a test that measures intelligence accurately and
with precision.
1. Ensure the highest level of test fairness.
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
UNIT Theoretical Underpinnings

A hierarchical model of intelligence with general
ability, or g, at the apex (e.g., Carroll, 1993;
Gustafsson, 1984)

Modification of Jensen’s (1980) dichotomy between
associative ability (Memory) and cognitive ability
(Reasoning)

Traditional Classification of Procedures according
to processing demands (i.e., those mediated by
Symbolic versus Nonsymbolic processing)
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
UNIT Theoretical Underpinnings

UNIT assesses complex Memory and Reasoning
abilities that lend themselves to internal processes
of verbal (Symbolic) mediation as well as those
that are less conducive to such mediation
(Nonsymbolic)

The interlocking design keeps the test efficient
and economical
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Conceptual Model for the UNIT
Symbolic
Subtests
Nonsymbolic
Subtests
Memory
Subtests
Reasoning
Subtests
Symbolic
Memory
Object Memory
Analogic Reasoning
Spatial Memory
Cube Design
Mazes
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
UNIT Scales

Memory Quotient (MQ)

Reasoning Quotient (RQ)

Symbolic Quotient (SQ)

Nonsymbolic Quotient (NSQ)

Full Scale Intelligence Quotient (FSIQ)
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Memory Quotient (MQ)

An index of complex memory functioning for both
meaningful and abstract material involving
• Short-term recall and organization
• Short-term recognition and reorganization

An index of memory for
• Content (what was seen)
• Location (where it was seen)
• Sequence (the order in which it was seen)
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Reasoning Quotient (RQ)

An index of thinking and problem-solving
abilities for
• Familiar situations
• Unfamiliar situations

An index that requires
• Pattern processing
• Understanding of relationships
• Planning abilities
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Symbolic Quotient (SQ)

An index of processing and problem-solving with
material that is
• Meaningful in content
• Conducive to internal verbal mediation

Internal verbal mediation includes
• Labeling
• Organizing
• Categorizing
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Nonsymbolic Quotient (NSQ)

An index of processing and problem-solving with
material that is
• Abstract in content
• Not very meaningful
• Not easily conducive to verbal mediation
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
UNIT Subtests
Symbolic Memory
 Cube Design
 Spatial Memory
 Analogic Reasoning
 Object Memory
 Mazes

Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Description of
Symbolic Memory Subtest
The examinee views a sequence of universal
symbols for a period of 5 seconds. After the stimulus is
removed, the examinee recreates the sequence using the
Symbolic Memory Response Cards. Each item is a series
of universal symbols for baby, girl, boy, woman, and man,
depicted in green or black. Symbolic Memory is primarily
a measure of short-term visual memory and complex
sequential memory for meaningful material.
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Administration at a Glance
Symbolic Memory
Place the response cards in two rows, black at the top and green at
the bottom, and in the following order from left to right: Baby, Girl, Boy,
Woman, Man. Place Stimulus Book 1 12"–18" in front of the examinee.
The space between the stimulus book and the response cards is the work
area. Make eye contact with the examinee, present the stimulus page for 5
seconds, and point to the stimulus figures. After 5 seconds, turn the
screening page to cover the stimulus page, wave a hand over the work area
and response cards, and use the open-handed shrug. After completing
a demonstration item, re-expose the stimulus page to demonstrate
the correct response(s).
.
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Arrangement of Test Materials
for Symbolic Memory
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Symbolic Memory Subtest:
Example Item
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Description of
Cube Design Subtest
Cube Design involves the presentation and direct
reproduction of two-color, abstract, geometric designs.
While viewing the stimulus design, the examinee
reconstructs the design directly on the stimulus book
or response mat, using green-and-white one-inch cubes.
Cube Design is primarily a measure of visual-spatial
reasoning.
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Administration at a Glance
Cube Design
For Demonstration 1 through Item 2, place Stimulus Book 1 flat, directly in
front of the examinee. (Use the back of the response mat to cover Spatial
Memory items.) For Demonstration 3 through Item 15, place Stimulus
Book 1 in its easel position 12"–18" in front of the examinee, and the
response mat between the examinee and the stimulus book. For each item,
place the required number of cubes beside the stimulus book or response
mat, expose the stimulus page, start the stopwatch deliberately, and use the
open-handed shrug. After completing demonstration items, stop the
stopwatch and point to the side(s) of the cube(s) and the corresponding
side(s) of the stimulus design.
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational
Arrangement of Test Materials
for Cube Design
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Cube Design Subtest:
Example Item
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Description of
Spatial Memory Subtest
The examinee views a random pattern of green,
black, or green and black dots on a 3 x 3 or 4 x 4
grid for a period of 5 seconds. After the stimulus
is removed, the examinee recreates the spatial
pattern with green and black circular chips on the
blank response grid. Spatial Memory is primarily a
measure of short-term visual memory for abstract
material.
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational
Administration at a Glance
Spatial Memory
.
Place Stimulus Book 1 in its easel position
12"–18" in front of the
examinee, the Response Grid directly in front of the examinee, and the
green and black response chips next to the Response Grid. For
Demonstration 1 through Item 11, use the 3 x 3 grid; for Items 12–27,
use the 4 x 4 grid. Make eye contact with the examinee, present the
stimulus page for 5 seconds, and point to the stimulus figures. After 5
seconds, turn the screening page to cover the stimulus page, wave a
hand over the response grid and response chips, and use the
open-handed shrug. After completing a demonstration item,
re-expose the stimulus page to demonstrate the correct
response(s).
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Arrangement of Test Materials
for Spatial Memory
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Spatial Memory Subtest:
Example Item
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Description of
Analogic Reasoning Subtest
Analogic Reasoning presents incomplete conceptual
or geometric analogies in a matrix format and
requires only a pointing response. The items feature
either common objects or novel geometric figures.
The examinee completes the matrix analogies by
selecting from four response options. Analogic
Reasoning is primarily a measure of symbolic
reasoning.
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Administration at a Glance
Analogic Reasoning
Place Stimulus Book 1 in its easel position directly in front
and within reach of the examinee. Present the stimulus page
and point to the figures in each row from left to right, ending
with the blank cell. Wave a hand over the response options at
the bottom of the stimulus page, point again to the blank
cell, and use the open-handed shrug. After completing
demonstration items, point to the correct response and
nod your head.
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Arrangement of Test Materials
for Analogic Reasoning
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Description of
Object Memory Subtest
The examinee is presented a random pictorial array
of common objects for 5 seconds. After the stimulus
is removed, a second pictorial array is presented,
containing all of the previously presented objects and
additional objects to serve as foils. The examinee
recognizes and identifies the objects presented in the
first pictorial array by placing response chips on the
appropriate pictures. Object Memory is primarily a
measure of short-term recognition and recall of
meaningful symbolic material.
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Administration at a Glance
Object Memory
Place Stimulus Book 2 flat, directly in front of the examinee
and eight black response chips beside the stimulus book. Make
eye contact with the examinee, present the stimulus page for 5
seconds, and point to the stimulus figures. After 5 seconds,
present the response page, wave a hand over the response page
and response chips, and use the open handed shrug. After
completing demonstration items, re-expose the stimulus page to
demonstrate the correct response(s).
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Arrangement of Test Materials
for Object Memory
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Description of
Mazes Subtest
The examinee uses paper and pencil to navigate
and exit mazes by tracing a path from the center
starting point of each maze to the correct exit,
without making incorrect decisions en route.
Increasingly complex mazes are presented. Mazes
is primarily a measure of reasoning and planful
behavior.
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Administration at a Glance
Mazes
Place the Mazes Response Booklet flat, directly in front of the
examinee and folded so that examinee sees only the item being
presented. Retain the pencils until the examinee needs the
graphite pencil to complete a maze. For demonstration items,
point to yourself, then to the mouse, then to the cheese. Start the
stopwatch deliberately and complete the maze with the redleaded pencil. Retrace the path with a finger and nod your head.
For sample items, point to the examinee, then to the mouse, then
to the cheese. Give the graphite pencil to the examinee and start
the stopwatch deliberately. For scored items, point to the
examinee and to the mouse, but not to the cheese.
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Arrangement of Test Materials
for Mazes
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Mazes Subtest:
Example Item
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
UNIT Administration Features





100% nonverbal administration
Flexible administration with three options
(Abbreviated, Standard, or Extended Batteries)
depending on your needs
Administration at a Glance card
Use of relatively universal and cross-cultural
nonverbal gestures
Demonstration items, Sample items, and
Checkpoint items for fair administration
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
100% Nonverbal Administration

UNIT is the only multidimensional IQ test which
may be administered completely nonverbally

But you always have the freedom to talk with a child
to build and maintain rapport, so long as the
discussion is not about the test!
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Flexible Administration
Abbreviated, Standard, Extended Batteries

Abbreviated Battery (2 subtests)
• about 15 minutes
• for screening of intellectual functioning

Standard Battery (4 subtests)
• about 30 minutes
• for eligibility and diagnostic decision-making

Extended Battery (6 subtests)
• about 45 minutes
• for more in-depth diagnostic assessments
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Administration at a Glance
Copyright © 1998 by The
Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to
reproduce or download pages for
informational or educational use.
Administration Gestures
Copyright © 1998 by The
Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to
reproduce or download pages for
informational or educational use.
Administration Gestures
Head Nodding
Head Shaking
Nodding the head up and
down communicates “yes”
or approval or that the
responses to sample items
are correct. The head nod
should not be used to
indicate correct responses
on scored items.
Shaking the head
from side to side
communicates “no”
or disapproval.
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Administration Gestures
Open-Handed
Shrugging
Shrugging the
shoulders with palms
up and a questioning
facial expression
asks “What is the
answer?”
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Palm Rolling
With one or both hands
out, with palms up and
fingers together, the
wrists are rotated toward
the body so that the hands
inscribe small circles
in the air. This gesture
indicates “Go ahead” or
“You try it now.”
Administration Gestures
Pointing
Hand Waving
Pointing with the
index finger first
to the relevant
aspects of the
stimulus and then
to the examinee
indicates “You do
it now.”
Moving an open hand
horizontally, with palm
up, over the stimulus
items indicates that they
should be considered as a
group or as a series of
options from which the
examinee should choose.
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Administration Gestures
Stop
Thumbs Up
Holding an open
hand in a nearly
vertical position with
the palm toward the
examinee conveys the
message, “Stop.”
Placing a hand over
the examinee’s hand or
over the test materials
may be necessary.
Holding a fist over the
table with the thumb
extending upward
essentially means the
same thing as a head
nod. The thumbs-up
gesture can also be used
to convey encouragement
or acknowledgment.
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Teaching Procedures
for Fair Administration

Demonstration Items
• Completed by the examiner to show the examinee
how to approach each item type

Sample Items
• Completed by the examinee to demonstrate that
he or she understands the problem; corrective
feedback by the examiner is allowed

Checkpoint Items
• Scored items completed by the examinee that
allow the examiner to provide feedback
about incorrect responses
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
UNIT Standardization
and Technical Properties

Standardization Sample

Reliability Studies

Floors, Ceilings, and Difficulty Gradients

Validity Studies
• Internal Consistency
• Reliabilities at Decision-Making Points
• Test-Retest Stability
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Table 5.1
Standards of Test Technical Adequacy for School-Aged Children
Internal Consistency
• Median subtest internal consistency averaged across ages .80
• Total test internal consistency averaged across ages .90
• Screening test internal consistency averaged across ages .80
Test–Retest Stability
• Total test stability coefficient .90
Floors
• Average subtest floor 2 SDs or more below normative mean
• Total test floor is 2 SDs or more below normative mean
Ceilings
• Average subtest ceiling 2 SDs or more above normative mean
• Total test ceiling 2 SDs or more above normative mean
Difficulty Gradients
• For subtests and total test, no fewer than three measurement points per
standard deviation, or each measurement point equivalent to no more than onethird standard deviation
Validity
• Validity studies reported (e.g., group mean differences)
Note. Adapted from “Limitations of Preschool Instruments and Standards for Minimal Levels of Technical Adequacy,” by B.
A. Bracken, 1987, Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 5, pp. 313–326. Copyright 1987 by the Journal of
Psychoeducational Assessment.
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
UNIT Standardization Sample




Normed on 2,100 children and adolescents
aged 5.0–17.11 years
108 sites across 38 states
Total of 3,865 children and adolescents tested for
norms development and reliability, validity, and
fairness studies
Sample representative of the general USA population
based on 1995 census updates
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
UNIT Standardization Sites
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
UNIT Sampling Variables








Age (5 years 0 months through 17 years 11 months)
Sex (Female, Male)
Race (African American, Asian American, Native American,
White, Other)
Hispanic Origin (Hispanic, Non-Hispanic)
Region (Midwest, Northeast, South, West)
Community Setting (Urban/Suburban, Rural)
Parental Educational Attainment (Less than High School
Degree; High School Graduate or Equivalency; Some College or
Technical School; Four or More Years of College)
Inclusion of Representative
Exceptional Children and Adolescents
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
UNIT Standardization Sample Compared with
U.S. Population: Sex, Race, Ethnicity, and SES
UNIT Sample %
U.S. Population %
Sex
Female
Male
49.9
50.1
48.9
51.1
Race
African American
White
Other
16.0
78.4
5.7
16.0
78.8
5.2
Ethnicity
Hispanic
Non-Hispanic
13.0
87.0
13.0
87.0
Parent Educational Attainment
Less than High School
High School Graduate
Some College
14.0
29.5
29.2
13.7
29.1
29.7
 4 Years of College
27.3
27.5
Note. N = 175 in each age group.
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
UNIT Standardization Sample Compared with
U.S. Population: Geographic Region and Community Size
UNIT Sample %
U.S. Population %
Geographic Region (38 states)
Midwest
Northeast
South
West
24.4
18.0
35.0
22.7
24.1
18.2
35.2
22.5
Community Size
Rural
Urban/Suburban
27.6
72.4
24.8
75.2
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
UNIT Standardization Sample Compared with
U.S. Population: Special Education Services
UNIT Sample %
U.S. Population %
Learning Disabilities
5.6
5.9
Speech and Language Impairments
2.3
2.4
Serious Emotional Disturbance
0.9
1.0
Mental Retardation
1.2
1.3
Hearing Impairments
0.2
0.2
Intellectual Giftedness
6.2
6.4
Bilingual Education
1.8
3.1
English as a Second Language
2.0
4.0
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
UNIT Internal Consistency
Split-Half Correlations
With Spearman-Brown Corrections
Standard
Battery
Memory
Reasoning
Symbolic
Nonsymbolic
Full Scale
Average
Reliability
Clinical/
Exceptional
Sample
.88
.90
.87
.91
.93
.95
.96
.95
.97
.98
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
UNIT Decision-Making Reliabilities
Split-Half Correlations With Spearman-Brown Corrections
(Also corrected for restriction or expansion in range)
Standard
Battery
Memory
Reasoning
Symbolic
Nonsymbolic
Full Scale
FSIQ =
70±10
FSIQ =
130± 10
.97
.97
.96
.98
.98
.96
.97
.95
.98
.98
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Test-Retest Stability
Corrected for variability on the first testing
Standard
Battery
Memory
Reasoning
Symbolic
Nonsymbolic
Full Scale
Corrected
r
.81
.87
.78
.84
.88
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
UNIT Floors and Ceilings

Floors: A term describing the extent to which
there are a sufficient number of easy items to
distinguish between examinees of delayed to very
delayed ability

Ceilings: A term describing the extent to which
there are a sufficient number of difficult items to
distinguish between examinees of superior and
very superior ability
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
UNIT Floors and Ceilings

Floors: UNIT subtests have very good to excellent
floors for low ability examinees across the entire
age range, with the exception of the Abbreviated
Battery at the youngest ages

Ceilings: UNIT subtests have consistently excellent
ceilings, even for the oldest and highest ability
examinees
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
UNIT Item Difficulty Gradients

Difficulty Gradients: A term describing the steepness of the
gradations in item difficulty. An increase or decrease in a
single raw score point should not result in a standard score
change of more than one-third SD

UNIT Difficulty Gradients: Average item gradients for UNIT
subtests equal or exceed standards for every age level,
indicating UNIT’s sensitivity to subtle differences in ability
levels (with the exception of one subtest at the earliest ages)
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
UNIT Internal Validity Studies

Evidence of Content Validity

Structural Evidence of Validity
• Development and Growth Curves
• Subtest Unidimensionality Studies
• Subtest and Scale Intercorrelation Studies
• Comparison among the three UNIT Batteries
• Factor Analytic Investigations
• Exploratory Factor Analyses
• Confirmatory Factor Analyses
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Age Progression of UNIT Subtests:
Mean Raw Scores By Age
70.00
60.00
Mean Subtest Raw Score
50.00
40.00
Symbolic Memory
Cube Design
30.00
Spatial Memory
Analogic Reasoning
20.00
Object Memory
Mazes
10.00
0.00
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1617
Age in Years
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Age Progression on UNIT Subtests:
Mean Rasch W Scores By Age
540
530
520
Mean W-Score
510
Symbolic Memory
500
Spatial Memory
Object Memory
Cube Design
Analogic Reasoning
490
Mazes
480
470
460
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16-17
Age in Years
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Age Progression of UNIT Standard Battery FSIQ:
Mean Rasch W Score By Age
540
530
520
Mean W-Score
510
Symbolic Memory
500
Spatial Memory
Object Memory
Cube Design
Analogic Reasoning
490
Mazes
480
470
460
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16-17
Age in Years
520
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce
or download pages for informational or educational use.
515
Exploratory Factor Analyses for Standard Battery
Second-Order Principal Components Schmid-Leiman Solution
for the Standardization and Clinical/Exceptional Samples
Standardization Sample
Clinical/Exceptional Sample
Second
First
Second
First
Order
Order
Order
Order
g
Memory Reasoning
g
Memory Reasoning
Symbolic Memory
.75
.46
–.05
.88
.35
.03
Cube Design
.77
.06
.36
.88
.05
.34
Spatial Memory
.80
.33
.11
.88
.34
.05
Analogic Reasoning
.73
–.05
.45
.88
.03
.36
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Confirmatory Factor Analyses for the Standardization Sample
Factor Loadings (Standardized Regression Beta Weights)
Memory Reasoning Symbolic Nonsymbolic
Symbolic Memory
Cube Design
Spatial Memory
Analogic Reasoning
Object Memory
Mazes
0.66
—
0.74
—
0.63
—
—
0.70
—
0.67
—
0.37
—
—
—
—
—
—
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
—
—
—
—
—
—
Confirmatory Factor Analyses for the Standardization Sample
Factor Loadings (Standardized Regression Beta Weights)
Memory
Symbolic Memory
Cube Design
Spatial Memory
Analogic Reasoning
Object Memory
Mazes
—
—
—
—
—
—
Reasoning Symbolic Nonsymbolic
—
—
—
—
—
—
0.66
—
—
0.65
0.63
—
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
—
0.68
0.75
—
—
0.36
Confirmatory Factor Analyses for the Clinical/Exceptional Sample
Factor Loadings (Standardized Regression Beta Weights)
Memory Reasoning Symbolic Nonsymbolic
Symbolic Memory
Cube Design
Spatial Memory
Analogic Reasoning
Object Memory
Mazes
0.71
—
0.78
—
0.68
—
—
0.74
—
0.73
—
0.47
—
—
—
—
—
—
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
—
—
—
—
—
—
Confirmatory Factor Analyses for the Clinical/Exceptional Sample
Factor Loadings (Standardized Regression Beta Weights)
Memory
Symbolic Memory
Cube Design
Spatial Memory
Analogic Reasoning
Object Memory
Mazes
—
—
—
—
—
—
Reasoning Symbolic Nonsymbolic
—
—
—
—
—
—
0.71
—
—
0.70
0.68
—
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
—
0.71
0.78
—
—
0.47
UNIT External Validity Studies

Correlational Studies

Studies with Clinical and Exceptional Samples
• Measures of Intelligence
• Measures of Academic Achievement
• Speech and Language Impairment (N = 57)
• Learning Disabilities (N = 205)
• Mental Retardation (N = 84)
• Intellectually Gifted (N = 160)
• Serious Emotional Disturbance (N = 23)
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
UNIT Standard FSIQ Correlations
with Other IQs

WISC-III FSIQ across four samples
(Learning Disabled, Mentally Retarded,
Intellectually Gifted, and Native American)
r
.81–.84

WJ-R Tests of Cognitive Ability BCA (Est):
.83

K-BIT IQ Composite:
.82

Matrix Analogies Test Standard Score:
.83

Raven’s Standard
Progressive Matrices T-Score:
.56
TONI-2 Quotient:
.63

Note: All correlations are corrected to control for restriction
or expansion in range.
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Correlations Between UNIT Full Scale IQs
and WJ-R Tests of Achievement
WJ-R
Broad
Written
Language
N
WJ-R
Broad
Reading
UNIT Abbreviated
Battery FSIQ
133
.78
.84
.78
.86
.82
95.3
23.0
UNIT Standard
Battery FSIQ
133
.81
.86
.81
.87
.85
93.8
24.4
UNIT Extended
Battery FSIQ
133
.80
.87
.81
.87
.85
92.1
24.0
92.4
28.1
94.3
31.3
86.4
29.0
94.9
23.4
88.5
27.7
Mean
SD
WJ-R
Broad
Mathematics
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
WJ-R
Broad
Knowledge
WJ-R
Skills
Mean
SD
Comparative Prediction of Achievement
by UNIT and Other Nonverbal Measures
N
WJ-R
Broad
Reading
UNIT Abbreviated
Battery FSIQ
133
.78
.84
.86
.82
UNIT Standard
Battery FSIQ
133
.81
.86
.87
.85
UNIT Extended
Battery FSIQ
133
.80
.87
.87
.85
Leiter-R Brief IQ*
29
.79
.80
—
—
Leiter-R Full IQ*
29
.82
.82
—
—
TONI-3 (Form A)*
20
.73
.76
.56
.76
TONI-3 (Form B)*
20
.71
.74
.55
.70
WJ-R
Broad
Mathematics
*Note. These data come from each test's manual.
WJ-R
Broad
Knowledge
WJ-R
Skills
UNIT Validity Studies:
Diagnoses and Exceptionalities

Speech and Language Impairment (N = 57)

Learning Disabilities (N = 205)

Mental Retardation (N = 84)

Intellectually Gifted (N = 160)

Serious Emotional Disturbance (N = 23)
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Table 5.31
UNIT Performance by a Sample With Speech and Language Impairments
and a Control Sample
Clinical
Sample
(n = 57)
Abbreviated Battery
FSIQ
Standard Battery
Memory Quotient
Reasoning Quotient
Symbolic Quotient
Nonsymbolic Quotient
FSIQ
Extended Battery
Memory Quotient
Reasoning Quotient
Symbolic Quotient
Nonsymbolic Quotient
Copyright © 1998 by The
Riverside Publishing
Company. Permission is
granted to reproduce or
download pages for
informational or educational
use.
FSIQ
Control
Sample
(n = 57)
Difference
Score
Effect
Size
Mean
SD
94.16
15.25
98.32
15.04
4.16
0.28
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
94.81
16.26
91.42
14.97
93.67
15.43
92.40
15.95
91.98
15.42
99.51
14.71
98.53
13.69
99.89
15.68
98.02
14.03
98.79
14.48
4.79
0.31
7.11
0.47
6.22
0.41
5.62
0.37
6.81
0.45
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
93.91
17.16
90.42
15.36
93.00
16.62
91.26
15.82
91.33
15.93
99.93
14.87
100.42
13.87
100.26
15.56
99.89
14.29
100.05
14.62
6.02
0.40
10.00
0.67
7.26
0.48
8.63
0.58
8.72
0.58
Note. Samples were matched according to age, sex, race, ethnicity, and parent education
level.
Table 5.32
UNIT Performance by a Sample With Learning Disabilities and a Control Sample
Clinical
Sample
(n = 205)
Abbreviated Battery
FSIQ
Standard Battery
Memory Quotient
Reasoning Quotient
Symbolic Quotient
Nonsymbolic Quotient
FSIQ
Extended Battery
Memory Quotient
Reasoning Quotient
Symbolic Quotient
Nonsymbolic Quotient
Copyright © 1998 by The
Riverside Publishing
Company. Permission is
granted to reproduce or
download pages for
informational or educational
use.
FSIQ
Control
Sample
(n = 205)
Difference
Score
Effect
Size
Mean
SD
91.87
13.61
100.50
13.27
8.63
0.58
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
90.84
13.91
91.85
14.17
90.32
13.48
92.21
13.38
90.20
13.67
100.76
13.34
100.95
13.46
100.05
13.63
101.51
12.92
100.83
13.00
9.92
0.66
9.10
0.61
9.73
0.65
9.30
0.62
10.63
0.71
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
90.29
13.42
91.98
14.60
89.96
13.08
92.20
14.10
89.84
13.69
100.74
13.34
101.04
13.54
100.31
13.34
101.43
13.27
100.87
13.19
10.45
0.70
9.06
0.60
10.35
0.69
9.23
0.62
11.03
0.74
Note. Samples were matched according to age, sex, race, ethnicity, and parent
education level.
Table 5.33
UNIT Performance by a Sample With Mental Retardation and a Control Sample
Clinical
Sample
(n = 84
Abbreviated Battery
FSIQ
Standard Battery
Memory Quotient
Reasoning Quotient
Symbolic Quotient
Nonsymbolic Quotient
FSIQ
Extended Battery
Memory Quotient
Reasoning Quotient
Symbolic Quotient
Nonsymbolic Quotient
Copyright © 1998 by The
Riverside Publishing
Company. Permission is
granted to reproduce or
download pages for
informational or educational
use.
FSIQ
Control
Sample
(n = 84)
Difference
Score
Effect
Size
Mean
SD
66.42
13.08
96.90
13.04
30.48
2.03
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
67.56
13.29
66.88
11.87
66.52
11.40
67.17
14.29
62.40
13.80
95.77
12.65
97.56
13.20
95.25
12.48
97.87
12.96
96.13
12.36
28.21
1.88
30.68
2.05
28.73
1.92
30.70
2.05
33.73
2.25
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
64.17
13.44
62.92
14.70
63.07
12.20
64.96
14.50
60.96
12.72
94.65
12.17
96.87
14.07
94.27
12.06
97.04
14.17
95.01
12.91
30.48
2.03
33.95
2.26
31.20
2.08
32.08
2.14
34.05
2.27
Note. Samples were matched according to age, sex, race, ethnicity, and parent education level.
Table 5.34
UNIT Performance by a Sample With Intellectual Giftedness and a Control Sample
Exceptional
Sample
(n = 160)
Abbreviated Battery
FSIQ
Standard Battery
Memory Quotient
Reasoning Quotient
Symbolic Quotient
Nonsymbolic Quotient
FSIQ
Extended Battery
Memory Quotient
Reasoning Quotient
Symbolic Quotient
Nonsymbolic Quotient
Copyright © 1998 by The
Riverside Publishing
Company. Permission is
granted to reproduce or
download pages for
informational or educational
use.
FSIQ
Control
Sample
(n = 160)
Difference
Score
Effect
Size
Mean
SD
117.03
11.08
103.86
14.61
13.17
0.88
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
112.99
11.12
118.36
10.52
115.63
10.35
116.19
10.75
117.64
10.10
102.54
15.93
104.99
13.95
104.63
14.39
102.94
14.22
104.14
14.18
10.45
0.70
13.37
0.89
11.00
0.73
13.25
0.88
13.50
0.90
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
112.69
11.04
116.74
10.78
114.49
10.46
115.04
10.83
116.48
9.85
102.95
15.95
104.89
14.24
104.43
14.60
103.30
14.35
104.28
14.55
9.74
0.65
11.85
0.79
10.06
0.67
11.74
0.78
12.20
0.81
Note. Samples were matched according to age, sex, race, ethnicity, and parent education level.
Table 5.35
UNIT Performance by a Sample With Serious Emotional Disturbance
and a Control Sample
Abbreviated Battery
FSIQ
Standard Battery
Memory Quotient
Reasoning Quotient
Symbolic Quotient
Nonsymbolic Quotient
FSIQ
Extended Battery
Memory Quotient
Reasoning Quotient
Symbolic Quotient
Nonsymbolic Quotient
Copyright © 1998 by The
Riverside Publishing
Company. Permission is
granted to reproduce or
download pages for
informational or educational
use.
FSIQ
Clinical
Sample
(n = 23)
Control
Sample
(n = 23)
Mean
SD
93.57
13.27
93.35
14.18
-0.22
0.01
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
94.57
15.65
92.43
13.03
93.48
14.71
93.43
12.91
92.65
13.97
95.52
15.14
92.65
14.24
94.87
14.54
92.96
13.70
93.09
13.67
0.95
0.06
0.22
0.01
1.39
0.09
-0.47
0.03
0.44
0.03
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
95.09
15.02
92.91
13.51
94.26
14.90
93.57
12.63
93.13
14.24
95.65
14.31
92.78
15.07
95.30
14.04
93.00
14.93
93.43
14.18
0.56
0.04
-0.13
0.01
1.04
0.07
-0.57
0.04
0.30
0.02
Difference
Score
Effect
Size
Note. Samples were matched according to age, sex, race, ethnicity, and parent education level.
UNIT and Test Fairness

UNIT was designed to optimize fairness for
individuals varying in age, sex, race, ethnicity,
language, and nationality

UNIT was also designed to be fair for individuals
with hearing impairment, language disabilities,
and color-vision deficiencies
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
UNIT Fairness Features

UNIT’s underlying theoretical model has
direct implications for fairness

Expert bias and sensitivity reviews of item and
subtest content were conducted

UNIT’s instructional sets, task composition,
and response modes were designed to reduce
situational sources of test bias
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
UNIT Fairness Studies:
Internal Test Characteristics

UNIT has comparable measurement precision
(reliability) across sex, race, and ethnicity

UNIT shows no evidence of Differential Item
Functioning (DIF)
• IRT item-fit statistics across groups
• Mantel–Haenszel procedure across groups
• Partial correlations between item performance and
sex, race, ethnicity, controlling for overall
performance

UNIT has comparable factor structure
across sex, race, and ethnicity
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
UNIT Fairness Studies:
External Criterion Analyses

The UNIT manual contains eight comparative
studies of group mean performances, including
fairness studies by sex, race, ethnicity, and
language.

UNIT has established fairness in the prediction of
an external variable, academic achievement.
Prediction from UNIT of performance on the
WJ-R Tests of Achievement was similar for
females and males, and African Americans and
Whites.
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
UNIT Fairness Studies:
Comparisons of Group Mean Performances








Females and Males
Ecuadorians
Hispanics
African Americans
Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders
Native Americans
Individuals in Bilingual and ESL Classrooms
Individuals who are Deaf/Hearing-Impaired
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Table 6.3
UNIT Performance by Demographically Matched Female and Male Examinees
Abbreviated Battery
FSIQ
Standard Battery
Memory Quotient
Reasoning Quotient
Symbolic Quotient
Nonsymbolic Quotient
FSIQ
Extended Battery
Memory Quotient
Reasoning Quotient
Symbolic Quotient
Copyright © 1998 by
The Riverside
Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to
reproduce or download
pages for informational
or educational use.
Nonsymbolic Quotient
FSIQ
Females
(n = 1,159)
Males
(n = 1,159)
Difference
Score
Effect
Size
Mean
SD
100.69
14.09
100.41
13.92
0.29
0.02
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
101.60
14.51
99.41
13.31
101.65
14.15
99.33
13.53
100.59
13.72
100.04
14.48
101.86
14.01
100.36
14.03
101.49
14.21
101.08
13.87
1.56
0.10
-2.46
0.16
1.29
0.09
-2.15
0.14
-0.49
0.03
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
101.80
14.58
99.50
13.29
101.93
14.25
99.34
13.63
100.93
13.85
100.26
14.24
102.05
13.71
100.47
13.87
101.80
14.16
101.31
13.81
1.55
0.10
-2.55
0.17
1.46
0.10
-2.47
0.16
-0.38
0.03
Note. Samples were matched according to age, race, ethnicity, and parent education level.
Table 6.10
UNIT Performance by Ecuadorian Examinees and a Demographically Matched Comparison
Sample
Abbreviated Battery
FSIQ
Standard Battery
Memory Quotient
Reasoning Quotient
Symbolic Quotient
Nonsymbolic Quotient
FSIQ
Extended Battery
Memory Quotient
Reasoning Quotient
Symbolic Quotient
Copyright © 1998 by
The Riverside
Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to
reproduce or download
pages for informational
or educational use.
Nonsymbolic Quotient
FSIQ
Ecuadorian United
States
(n = 30)
(n = 30)
Difference
Score
Effect
Size
Mean
SD
101.07
14.59
103.80
14.40
2.73
0.18
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
98.00
13.16
98.33
14.66
93.78
14.40
102.20
14.06
98.07
14.00
102.60
14.35
104.33
13.65
104.80
14.00
101.53
13.87
103.40
13.18
4.60
0.31
6.00
0.40
11.02
0.73
-0.67
0.04
5.33
0.36
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
98.56
13.75
99.13
14.03
95.81
13.58
102.00
14.03
99.11
14.18
103.28
13.76
101.93
16.35
105.04
13.74
100.00
16.62
102.38
14.63
4.72
0.31
2.80
0.19
9.23
0.62
-2.00
0.13
3.26
0.22
Note. Samples were matched according to age, sex, and parent education level.
Table 6.7
UNIT Performance by Hispanics and a Demographically Matched
Comparison Sample
Abbreviated Battery
FSIQ
Standard Battery
Memory Quotient
Reasoning Quotient
Symbolic Quotient
Nonsymbolic Quotient
FSIQ
Extended Battery
Memory Quotient
Reasoning Quotient
Symbolic Quotient
Copyright © 1998 by
The Riverside
Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to
reproduce or download
pages for informational
or educational use.
Nonsymbolic Quotient
FSIQ
Hispanic
(n = 194)
NonHispanic
(n = 194)
Mean
SD
97.98
12.65
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Difference
Score
Effect
Size
99.98
13.01
2.00
0.13
99.90
14.28
96.91
12.96
97.86
14.05
99.01
12.95
98.32
12.73
100.51
12.96
99.96
13.31
100.49
12.29
100.19
13.75
100.45
12.54
0.62
0.04
3.06
0.20
2.62
0.17
1.19
0.08
2.13
0.14
100.39
14.44
98.59
12.62
98.65
14.09
100.57
12.82
99.41
13.15
100.14
13.04
99.99
13.02
100.32
12.15
100.43
13.76
100.85
12.36
-0.26
0.02
1.40
0.09
1.67
0.11
-0.14
0.01
1.43
0.10
Note. Samples were matched according to age, sex, and parent education level.
Table 6.4
UNIT Performance by African Americans and a Demographically Matched
Comparison Sample
Abbreviated Battery
FSIQ
Standard Battery
Memory Quotient:
Reasoning Quotient:
Symbolic Quotient:
Nonsymbolic Quotient:
FSIQ
Extended Battery
Memory Quotient:
Reasoning Quotient:
Copyright © 1998 by
The Riverside
Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to
reproduce or download
pages for informational
or educational use.
Symbolic Quotient:
Nonsymbolic Quotient:
FSIQ
African
American
(n = 352)
White
(n = 352)
Difference
Score
Effect
Size
Mean
SD
91.34
12.57
98.97
13.77
7.63
0.51
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
91.93
13.47
91.13
12.28
92.32
13.12
91.00
11.91
90.68
12.29
99.27
13.73
99.42
12.17
99.45
12.86
99.05
12.80
99.31
12.17
7.34
0.49
8.28
0.55
7.13
0.48
8.04
0.54
8.63
0.58
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
92.21
13.72
91.01
12.79
92.49
13.74
90.60
12.21
90.15
13.18
99.65
13.57
99.67
12.41
99.92
12.87
99.32
13.26
99.92
12.10
7.44
0.50
8.66
0.58
7.43
0.50
8.72
0.58
9.77
0.65
Note. Samples were matched according to age, sex, ethnicity, and parent education level .
Table 6.5
UNIT Performance by Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders and a
Demographically Matched Comparison Sample
Asian American/
Pacific Islander White Difference
(n = 49)
(n = 49) Score
Abbreviated Battery
FSIQ
Standard Battery
Memory Quotient:
Reasoning Quotient:
Symbolic Quotient:
Nonsymbolic Quotient:
FSIQ
Extended Battery
Memory Quotient:
Reasoning Quotient:
Copyright © 1998 by
The Riverside
Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to
reproduce or download
pages for informational
or educational use.
Symbolic Quotient:
Nonsymbolic Quotient:
FSIQ
Effect
Size
Mean
SD
111.69
13.85
104.39
15.27
7.31
0.49
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
113.06
11.70
109.63
12.54
112.76
11.75
110.24
13.52
112.69
11.81
102.12
15.58
103.96
14.40
103.55
16.66
102.53
12.38
103.29
14.31
10.94
0.73
5.67
0.38
9.20
0.61
7.71
0.51
9.41
0.63
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
113.78
10.91
109.78
12.53
113.35
11.79
110.27
12.62
113.18
11.06
102.22
15.82
102.18
13.45
103.24
16.77
100.98
12.60
102.22
14.19
11.55
0.77
7.59
0.51
10.10
0.67
9.29
0.62
10.96
0.73
Note. Samples were matched according to age, sex, and parent education level.
Table 6.6
UNIT Performance by Native Americans and a Demographically
Matched Comparison Sample
Abbreviated Battery
FSIQ
Standard Battery
Memory Quotient
Reasoning Quotient
Symbolic Quotient
Nonsymbolic Quotient
FSIQ
Extended Battery
Memory Quotient
Reasoning Quotient
Symbolic Quotient
Copyright © 1998 by
The Riverside
Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to
reproduce or download
pages for informational
or educational use.
Nonsymbolic Quotient
FSIQ
Native
American
(n = 34)
White
(n = 34)
Difference Effect
Score
Size
Mean
SD
100.65
8.94
103.91
13.28
3.26
0.22
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
101.26
9.56
98.41
10.82
99.79
9.49
99.85
10.73
99.76
10.09
105.56
11.65
105.76
13.46
105.71
11.23
105.59
12.06
106.26
12.03
4.29
0.29
7.35
0.49
5.91
0.39
5.74
0.38
6.50
0.43
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
101.00
10.03
100.82
13.18
100.06
10.22
101.82
13.63
101.00
12.17
106.56
11.31
106.09
13.62
106.85
11.36
106.00
12.40
107.24
12.02
5.56
0.37
5.26
0.35
6.79
0.45
4.18
0.28
6.24
0.42
Note. Samples were matched according to age, sex, and parent education level.
Table 6.8
UNIT Performance by Bilingual and ESL Examinees and a
Demographically Matched Comparison Sample
Abbreviated Battery
FSIQ
Standard Battery
Memory Quotient
Reasoning Quotient
Symbolic Quotient
Nonsymbolic Quotient
FSIQ
Extended Battery
Memory Quotient
Reasoning Quotient
Symbolic Quotient
Copyright © 1998 by
The Riverside
Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to
reproduce or download
pages for informational
or educational use.
Nonsymbolic Quotient
FSIQ
Bilingual/
ESL
(n = 78)
EnglishSpeaking
(n = 78)
Mean
SD
93.01
11.96
95.84
13.62
2.82
0.19
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
94.53
12.27
91.56
13.35
90.47
12.14
95.71
12.00
92.16
11.75
95.77
14.29
96.72
11.17
95.83
11.71
96.55
14.23
95.72
12.98
1.25
0.08
5.16
0.34
5.36
0.36
0.84
0.06
3.56
0.24
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
93.93
11.66
94.33
11.75
91.25
12.13
96.99
11.63
93.30
11.45
97.14
13.11
96.34
11.98
97.29
11.34
96.45
14.37
97.03
13.04
3.21
0.21
2.01
0.13
6.04
0.40
-0.54
0.04
3.73
0.25
Note. Samples were matched according to age, sex, and parent education level.
Difference Effect
Score
Size
Table 6.9
UNIT Performance by Deaf and Hearing-Impaired Examinees and a
Demographically Matched Comparison Sample
Abbreviated Battery
FSIQ
Standard Battery
Memory Quotient
Reasoning Quotient
Symbolic Quotient
Nonsymbolic Quotient
FSIQ
Extended Battery
Memory Quotient
Reasoning Quotient
Symbolic Quotient
Copyright © 1998 by
The Riverside
Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to
reproduce or download
pages for informational
or educational use.
Nonsymbolic Quotient
FSIQ
HearingImpaired
(n = 106)
Non-Hearing- Difference
Impaired
Score
(n = 106)
Effect
Size
Mean
SD
94.92
14.10
98.52
14.77
3.59
0.24
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
93.43
16.06
91.35
13.40
92.38
14.46
92.59
14.62
91.40
14.72
97.77
14.51
97.23
15.74
97.57
14.26
97.42
15.15
97.60
14.57
4.34
0.29
5.88
0.39
5.19
0.35
4.83
0.32
6.20
0.41
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
92.67
16.25
93.48
13.83
91.96
14.63
93.78
15.36
90.90
14.83
98.00
14.30
99.40
14.72
97.85
14.31
99.80
14.04
98.91
14.02
5.33
0.36
5.92
0.39
5.90
0.39
6.03
0.40
8.01
0.53
Note. Samples were matched according to age, sex, race, ethnicity, and parent education level.
UNIT Fairness Studies:
Individuals with Color-Vision Deficiencies

A total of 7 individuals with the four common types of red-green
color-vision deficiencies were administered representative
portions of UNIT subtests.

All 7 participants were able to discriminate colors and perform
the subtests without difficulty, even though not all could reliably
name the colors. [Note: The UNIT is completely nonverbal and
does not require any naming.]

Summary: The protanopes, deuteranopes, protanomals, and
deuteranomals were all able to validly perform UNIT subtests.
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Clinical Use and Interpretation
1. Interpret FSIQ first
2. Interpret Primary and Secondary Scales
3. Interpret Subtests Ipsatively
and Normatively
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Clinical Use and Interpretation: FSIQ
Table 7.1 Descriptive Classifications of UNIT Scales Standard Scores
Percent Included
Theoretical
Normal
Abbreviated Standard Extended
Standard Scores Classification Curve
FSIQ
FSIQ
FSIQ
130 and above Very Superior
2.2
1.9
1.9
1.9
120-129
Superior
6.7
8.2
6.7
6.5
110-119
High Average 16.1
14.5
19.3
19.8
90-109
Average
50.0
51.3
50.2
50.0
80-89
Low Average
16.1
15.5
14.3
13.4
70-79
Delayed
6.7
6.0
5.5
5.6
69 and below
Very Delayed
2.2
2.7
2.2
2.8
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Sample Norms Table
Table B.4
Standard Score Equivalents of Sums of Scaled Scores:
Symbolic Quotient for the Standard Battery
Sum of
2 Scaled
Scores
Copyright © 1998 by The
Riverside Publishing
Company. Permission is
granted to reproduce or
download pages for
informational or educational
use.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Symbolic
Quotient
49
52
55
58
60
63
66
68
71
74
76
79
82
85
87
90
93
97
100
Percentile
Rank
<0.1
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.4
0.7
1
2
3
4
5
8
12
16
19
25
32
42
50
Confidence
Interval
90%
95%
48–64
50–66
53–69
56–72
57–73
60–76
62–78
64–80
67–83
69–85
71–87
74–90
76–92
79–95
81–97
83–99
86–102
89–105
92–108
47-65
49–67
52–70
55–73
56–74
59–77
61–79
63–81
66–84
68–86
70–88
73–91
75–93
78–96
80–98
82–100
85–103
88–106
91–109
Very
Delayed
Delayed
Low
Average
Average
Interpretive Hypotheses to Guide Comparisons
Between UNIT Scales
Memory > Reasoning
1. Examinee's short-term memory skills are better developed than nonverbal reasoning.
2. Examinee's ability to comprehend and reproduce visual stimuli is better developed than the ability
to analyze, synthesize, or reorganize visual stimuli.
3. Examinee's attention to relevant details is better developed than concentrated problem-solving
abilities.
Individuals with this pattern of scale scores may learn best through exposure to concrete, factual
information, with memory aids, as opposed to discovery learning activities. For example, reading
instruction might include considerable sight-word repetition, as opposed to a more whole-language
approach; instruction in higher order knowledge (e.g., comprehension, synthesis, evaluation) should
be based on well-learned rules, principles, and laws (e.g., science principles, grammar rules);
learning may be aided through the use of mnemonics (e.g., “a pint's a pound the world round”);
generalizations of previously learned material to new problems or contexts might be facilitated by
reminding students of basic concepts that guide problem solving (e.g., the area of complex
geometric designs can be computed by reducing the design to a combination
of familiar shapes, such as squares, rectangles, and triangles).
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Interpretive Hypotheses to Guide Comparisons
Between UNIT Scales
Reasoning > Memory
1. Examinee's nonverbal reasoning is better developed than short-term memory.
2. Examinee's ability to analyze, synthesize, or reorganize visual stimuli is better developed
than the ability to comprehend and reproduce visual stimuli.
3. Examinee's ability to concentrate during problem-solving activities is better than the
ability to attend to relevant visual details.
Individuals with this pattern of scale scores may be adept at solving unique problems that
are not highly dependent on previously learned information. Knowledge to be learned
might best be presented through the use of relationships, comparisons, underlying
principles, extrapolations, and discovery learning. Memory of information should be
facilitated by combining new content into existing taxonomies, categories, and strategies,
with an emphasis on understanding relationships.
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Interpretive Hypotheses to Guide Comparisons
Between UNIT Scales
Symbolic > Nonsymbolic
1. Examinee's symbolically mediated problem solving (using some language) is better
than nonsymbolically mediated problem solving.
2. Examinee's problem solving using accumulated knowledge is better than novel problem
solving.
3. Examinee's practical tasks are more easily handled than nonpractical tasks.
4. Examinee's “Verbal” skills are better than “Performance” skills.
Individuals who demonstrate better symbolic than nonsymbolic processing are more
adept with the use of language as a means of problem solving. Through the process of
subvocalization, these individuals may "self-talk" their way through problem solutions.
Because most academic material is symbolic in nature (e.g., reading, writing,
computation), children with this pattern of scale scores are likely to learn well in school.
Information to be acquired might best be presented in a symbolic fashion
(e.g., verbal, rebus, sign, gesture), so that the individual can assimilate
new material into his or her own symbolic repertoire (e.g., language).
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Interpretive Hypotheses to Guide Comparisons
Between UNIT Scales
Nonsymbolic > Symbolic
1. Examinee's nonverbal problem solving is better than symbolically mediated problem
solving (language facility).
2. Examinee's immediate problem solving is better than problem solving using knowledge
from accumulated experience (particularly symbols of language).
3. Examinee may have a language deficit.
4. Examinee may find practical tasks more difficult than nonpractical tasks.
5. Examinee's “Performance” skills are better than “Verbal” skills.
Individuals who demonstrate this pattern of scale scores may be adept at discerning the
relationships between abstract, figural stimulus characteristics. These individuals may
acquire and process information especially well through nonverbal means. In new
learning situations, a visual presentation may facilitate this student's acquisition of new
material (e.g., graphs, drawings). Concrete and experiential exploratory
learning approaches may be especially meaningful for students
with this pattern of scores.
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Primary and Secondary Abilities
Assessed by the UNIT Subtests
Symbolic
Memory
P
P
S
Cube
Design
P
P
P
Spatial
Memory
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
S
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
S
P
S
P
S
S
S
S
P
P
P
P
Object
Memory
P
P
S
S
P
Mazes
P
P
P
P
P
P
S
P
S
P
P
P
P
Analogic
Reasoning
P
P
S
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
S
P
S
P
S
Underlying Ability
Abstract Thinking
Analysis
Attention to Detail
Concentration
Concept Formation
Evaluation
Holistic Processing
Impulse Control
Nonsymbolic Mediation
Nonverbal Reasoning
Paper-and-Pencil Skill
Perception of Abstract Stimuli
Perception of Meaningful Stimuli
Perceptual Organization
Planning Ability
Reasoning
Reproduction of a Model
Sequential Processing
Simultaneous Processing
Spatial Orientation
Symbolic Mediation
Synthesis
Three-Dimensional Representation
Verbal Mediation
Visual–Motor Integration
Visual Short-Term Memory
Working Under Time Constraints
Note. P indicates a primary ability; S indicates a secondary ability.
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company. Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Symbolic Memory
Reliability
Split-Half
Test–Retest
.85
.72
g Loading
Standard Battery
Extended Battery
.74 (Good)
.73 (Good)
Subtest Specificity vs. 32%
Error Variance
15%
Most Related to
Spatial Memory
Least Related to Mazes
Primary Abilities
Shared With Other Subtests
• Attention to Detail
• Concentration
• Perception of Meaningful Stimuli
• Sequential Processing
• Symbolic Mediation
• Verbal Mediation
• Visual Short-Term Memory
Secondary Abilities
Shared With Other Subtests
• Concept Formation
• Perceptual Organization
• Visual–Motor Integration
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Symbolic Memory
Correlates of Subtest Performance
As a measure of short-term sequential and symbolic memory,
an examinee’s performance on the Symbolic Memory subtest may predict
such behaviors as the examinee’s ability to attend to and distinguish
important from irrelevant information; organize, recall, and follow
multistep directions; sequence verbal information meaningfully (e.g., story
telling; reading decoding); understand and compute multistep mathematics
story problems; ignore extraneous, competing information during problem
solving; and, concentrate on the interrelationships between salient
variables.
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Cube Design
Reliability
Split-Half
.91
Test–Retest
.85
g Loading
Standard Battery
Extended Battery
.78 (Good)
.73 (Good)
Subtest Specificity vs. 37%
Error Variance
9%
Primary Abilities
Shared With Other Subtests
• Abstract Thinking
• Analysis
• Attention to Detail
• Evaluation
• Holistic Processing
• Nonsymbolic Mediation
• Nonverbal
• Perceptual Organization
• Reasoning
• Reproduction of a Model
• Simultaneous Processing
• Spatial Orientation
• Synthesis
• Three-Dimensional
Most Related to
Spatial Memory
and Analogic Reasoning
•
Least Related to
Object Memory
and Mazes
Secondary Abilities
Shared With Other Subtests
Reasoning
Perception of
Abstract Stimuli
•
Representation
Visual–Motor Integration
• Working Under Time Constraints
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Cube Design
Correlates of Subtest Performance
Performance on the Cube Design subtest may predict the examinee’s
mechanical or graphic (e.g., artistic, drafting, geometry) competence;
ability to divide aspects of problems into discrete parts for examination and
recombination to provide a viable solution; tenacity in complex future
problem-solving situations; reaction to activities that have deadlines or
specific time limits; flexibility in evaluating and modifying solution
strategies; and ability to orient in and around his or her environment (e.g.,
reading maps, following spatial directions).
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Spatial Memory
Primary Abilities
Shared With Other Subtests
Reliability
Split-Half
Test–Retest
.81
.68
g Loading
Standard Battery
Extended Battery
.79 (Good)
.77 (Good)
Subtest Specificity vs.
Error Variance
Most Related to
Symbolic Memory
and Cube Design
Least Related to Mazes
20%
19%
• Attention to Detail
• Concentration
• Nonsymbolic Mediation
• Perception of Abstract Stimuli
• Perceptual Organization
• Simultaneous Processing
• Spatial Orientation
• Symbolic Mediation
•Visual Short-Term Memory
Secondary Abilities
Shared With Other Subtests
• Visual–Motor Integration
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Spatial Memory
Correlates of Subtest Performance
Performance on the Spatial Memory subtest may predict such future
behaviors as the examinee’s ability to view the totality and central
nature of problems; attend to, process, and recall visual details (e.g.,
editing, photography, chess); remember the crux of information,
rather than the sequence in which the information was presented;
concentrate on a problem until the problem is well understood;
disassemble and reassemble objects (e.g., motors, computers) by
memory; and sensitivity and awareness to minor changes in the
environment (e.g., noting the addition or subtraction of important
elements).
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Analogic Reasoning
Reliability
Split-Half
Test–Retest
.79
.72
g Loading
Standard Battery
Extended Battery
.74 (Good)
.73 (Good)
Subtest Specificity vs. 26%
Error Variance
21%
Most Related to Cube Design
and Object Memory
Least Related to Mazes
Primary Abilities
Shared With Other Subtests
• Abstract Thinking
• Analysis
• Concept Formation
• Evaluation
• Nonverbal Reasoning
• Perception of Meaningful Stimuli
• Reasoning
• Symbolic Mediation
• Synthesis
• Verbal Reasoning
Secondary Abilities
Shared With Other Subtests
• Attention to Detail
• Perception of Abstract Stimuli
• Perceptual Organization
• Sequential Processing
• Simultaneous Processing
• Spatial Orientation
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Analogic Reasoning
Correlates of Subtest Performance
Performance on the Analogic Reasoning subtest may
predict such future behaviors as the examinee’s ability to
understand and solve conceptual problems; determine the
interrelationships between objects and actions (e.g.,
understand cause-and-effect relationships); produce
rational arguments, based on sequential logic; generalize
learned principles to solve new problems (e.g., applying
centrifugal force to cause sediments to settle in a vial);
acquire and use rules in a systematic fashion.
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Object Memory
Reliability
Split-Half
Test–Retest
Primary Abilities
Shared With Other Subtests
.76
.60
g Loading
Standard Battery N.A.
Extended Battery .71 (Good)
Subtest Specificity vs.
Error Variance
Most Related to
Symbolic Memory
and Spatial Memory
Least Related to Mazes
26%
24%
• Attention to Detail
• Concentration
• Perception of Meaningful Stimul
• Simultaneous Processing
• Symbolic Mediation
• Verbal Reasoning
• Visual Short-Term Memory
Secondary Abilities
Shared With Other Subtests
• Concept Formation
• Perceptual Organization
• Visual–Motor Integration
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Object Memory
Correlates of Subtest Performance
Performance on Object Memory, unlike the other memory subtests, is based
on three specific skills: the ability to discern nuances in physical
characteristics; the ability to recognize and recall, as opposed to reproducing,
objects viewed; and the ability to rule out distracters that were not among the
original stimuli presented. These unique abilities may predict such future
behaviors as the examinee’s ability to attend to and discern minor details
(e.g., note minor elements of a story, note graphical configurations); observe,
note, and recall changes made in the structure of sports teams (i.e., who plays
which position); recall relevant information and ignore irrelevant
information; remember faces, facts, and objects when presented in a new or
different setting (e.g., recognizing people across social contexts); and discern
when something (e.g., plan, budget, scene) has been altered.
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Mazes
Reliability
Split-Half
Test–Retest
.64
.58
g Loading
Standard Battery
Extended Battery
N.A.
.44 (Poor)
Subtest Specificity vs. 45%
Error Variance
36%
Most Related to
Cube Design
and Spatial Memory
Least Related to
Object Memory
Primary Abilities
Shared With Other Subtests
• Concentration
• Evaluation
• Impulse Control
• Nonsymbolic Mediation
• Nonverbal Reasoning
• Paper-and-Pencil Skill
• Perceptual Organization
• Planning Ability
• Reasoning
• Sequential Processing
• Spatial Orientation
• Visual–Motor Integration
Secondary Abilities Shared
With Other Subtests
• Perception of Abstract Stimuli
• Working Under Time Constraints
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.
Mazes
Correlates of Subtest Performance
Performance on the Mazes subtest may predict such specific behaviors as
the examinee’s ability to make, execute, and evaluate future plans;
employ a reflective versus impulsive problem-solving style; concentrate
and make sense of diffuse and confusing problems; make decisions after
considering potential consequences; orient and organize one’s
environment spatially (e.g., follow directions, read maps, follow
topographical outlines); apply a logical and sequential approach to
solving problems; and work under time constraints.
Copyright © 1998 by The Riverside Publishing Company.
Permission is granted to reproduce or download pages for informational or educational use.