Reynolds intellectual assessment scales iq

Graduate Psychometrics

https://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/delivery?sid=c7e96d15-d5be-4b3f-a406-cb9fff427cee%40pdc-v-sessmgr05&vid=4&ReturnUrl=https%3a%2f%2fwe… 1/7

EBSCO Publishing Citation Format: APA (American Psychological Assoc.):

NOTE: Review the instructions at http://support.ebsco.com/help/?int=ehost&lang=&feature_id=APA and make any necessary corrections before using. Pay special attention to personal names, capitalization, and dates. Always consult your library resources for the exact formatting and punctuation guidelines.

References Reynolds, C. R. (2016). Reynolds Adaptable Intelligence Test–Nonverbal. Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx? direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=mmt&AN=test.10721&site=ehost-live&scope=site&custid=uphoenix

Reynolds Adaptable Intelligence Test–Nonverbal Review of the Reynolds Adaptable Intelligence Test-Nonverbal by THOMAS J. GROSS, Assistant Professor, Psychology Department, College of Education and Behavioral Sciences, Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY: DESCRIPTION. The Reynolds Adaptable Intelligence Test-Nonverbal (RAIT-NV) was developed from the Reynolds Adaptable Intelligence Test (RAIT) subtests for the Fluid Intelligence Index (FII), which is named the Nonverbal Intelligence Index (NVII) on the RAIT-NV. The RAIT-NV was normed for individuals from 10 years 0 months to 75 years of age. The RAIT-NV includes a professional manual and fast guide that give a test overview and administration and scoring information. Item books, answer sheets, scoring key overlay, and score summary forms are also included. Administration instructions require examinees to read the instructions silently and inform the examiner when they are finished; however, reading out loud and pointing by the examiner are allowed for examinees who are unable to read. There are general instructions, as well as individual subtest instructions. The test author recommends that examiners have formal training in assessment and knowledge of cognitive evaluation. Two subtests comprise the NVII. The Nonverbal Analogies (NVA) subtest has 52 items and a 7-minute time limit. The task requires examinees to choose the best picture that fits a pictorial analogy. The Sequences (SEQ) subtest has 43 items and a 10-minute time limit. This subtest has examinees select a picture that best completes a series of pictures. Both subtests have a multiple-choice format, and the overlay is used to hand score the answer sheet. Raw scores are converted to T scores for each subtest, based on age, and the sum of the T scores is used to find the NVII standard score. An appendix in the professional manual provides 90% and 95% confidence intervals, percentile ranks, stanine scores, z scores, and normal curve equivalents. Age equivalents up to 19 years are provided, but the test author advises against their use. For each age group in the normative sample, statistical significance levels between NVA and SEQ subtest score discrepancies are included in the test manual with the percentage of difference scores. DEVELOPMENT. The primary goal for developing the RAIT-NV was to provide a means to administer a traditional paper-and-pencil assessment of nonverbal intelligence to individuals or groups. The purpose

javascript:openWideTip('http://support.ebsco.com/help/?int=ehost&lang=&feature_id=APA');
https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=mmt&AN=test.10721&site=ehost-live&scope=site&custid=uphoenix
11/3/2019 EBSCOhost

https://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/delivery?sid=c7e96d15-d5be-4b3f-a406-cb9fff427cee%40pdc-v-sessmgr05&vid=4&ReturnUrl=https%3a%2f%2fwe… 2/7

of this goal was to have a reliable and valid intellectual assessment for examinees who might face environmental or personal setbacks that would impair their verbal skills. A secondary goal was to eliminate confounds related to cultural/linguistic biases through item reviews, and to provide multiple and conceptually equitable forms of instructions during administration. Further, the test author provides a means for comparing a change in NVII standard scores from administration from one time period to another. Much of the RAIT-NV development is discussed as a portion of the RAIT development. The test author reported piloting items and versions of the RAIT using classical test theory, Rasch analyses, and expert reviews to assess items. This approach is consistent with that described in previous reviews of the RAIT (see Floyd & Singh, 2014; Suppa, 2014). TECHNICAL. The RAIT-NV used the RAIT standardization sample of 2,124 individuals divided into 23 age groups from 10 to 75 years. The range of ages in each group varied from 6 months to 10 years; age and group sizes ranged from 71 to 120 individuals. Within the sample, 484 participants completed the booklet version of the RAIT, and 1,640 completed the computer version. No differences between groups were found; still, the RAIT-NV can be administered only in booklet form. The standardization sample was selected to match the 2010 U.S. Census population statistics through stratified random sampling. Raw scores were weighted within age groups based on gender, ethnicity, and educational attainment or parent’s educational attainment for those 10 to 20 years of age. Continuous norming procedures were used to adjust raw score distributions and calculate subtest T scores for the NVA and SEQ at each age range. The NVII was created by using the cumulative frequency distribution of the summed subscale T scores to create a standard score scale with a mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15. The confidence intervals were calculated using an estimated true score and the standard error of estimate. The simple difference method was used to calculate the statistical significance of difference scores. It was observed that approximately 30 to 50% of the discrepancy scores were one or more standard deviations from the mean, dependent on age group (manual, Appendix I). Regarding reliability, the median alpha coefficients were .89 for NVA (range = .84 to .93), .86 for SEQ (range .81 to .92), and .93 for NVII (range = .89 to .96). Test-retest reliability was assessed with 132 participants (10 to 20 years of age, n = 45; 21 to 40 years of age, n = 40; 41 to 75 years of age, n = 47) over a period of 18 to 34 days. Uncorrected and disattenuated (corrected for alpha) coefficients, respectively, for the total sample were .77 and .84 for NVA, .74 and .83 for SEQ, and .81 and .86 for NVII. The range for the uncorrected coefficients was .73 to .80 for NVA, .68 to .83 for SEQ, and .75 to .87 for NVII. The range of disattenuated coefficients was .81 to .89 for NVA, .77 to .97 for SEQ, and .80 to .92 for NVII. Correlations between the NVA and SEQ subtests were not readily apparent. The test author reported that the RAIT-NV is designed to measure “nonverbal or fluid intelligence” (manual, p. 40). A principal component analysis using varimax rotation for the RAIT norming sample indicated that the NVA and SEQ subtests loaded onto a single factor with factor loadings of .91 and .81, respectively. External validity was assessed by correlating the RAIT-NV NVII and subtest scores with scores on other standardized tests and job industry and job training level as well as comparing performance across clinical groups. Correlations between RAIT-NV subtests and other standardized measures’ subtests are provided. In relation to other assessments of intelligence, the NVII was significantly correlated with the Test of General Reasoning Ability (TOGRA) General Reasoning Index (GRI) at .90. The TOGRA is a derivative test of the RAIT, as well. Correlations between the NVII and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children —Fourth Edition (WISC-IV; n = 29) were significant for the Full Scale IQ (FSIQ) score (.51), Processing Speed Index (.52), and the Perceptual Reasoning Index (PRI; .43). Correlations between the NVII and the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV; n = 28) were significant only for the PRI (.44). Correlations (n = 51) between the NVII and Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales (RIAS)

11/3/2019 EBSCOhost

https://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/delivery?sid=c7e96d15-d5be-4b3f-a406-cb9fff427cee%40pdc-v-sessmgr05&vid=4&ReturnUrl=https%3a%2f%2fwe… 3/7

Verbal Intelligence Index (VIX; .65), Nonverbal Intelligence Index (NIX; .36), Composite Intelligence Index (CIX; .60), and an optional Composite Memory Index (CMX; .56) were statistically significant. The Wonderlic Personnel Test total score significantly correlated with the NVII (.71), as did the Beta III IQ score (.72). The relationships of the NVII scores (n = 66) with tests of academic achievement were consistent across the Wide Range Achievement Test 4 (WRAT4) Reading Composite (.43) and the Test of Irregular Word Reading Efficiency (TIWRE) Reading Efficiency Index (.40). The author reported median and mean NVII scores by job industry and found that the NVII correlated significantly (.31; n = 372) with the complexity of professions as outlined by the O*NET Job Zones (National Center for O*NET Development, n.d.). Seven clinical groups were identified: intellectual disability (n = 52), traumatic brain injury (n = 39), stroke (n = 32), dementia (n = 24), hearing impaired (n = 28), learning disability (10 to 17 years of age, n = 22; 18 to 50 years of age, n = 29), and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (10 to 17 years of age, n = 28; 18 to 50 years of age, n = 34). Comparisons of means between the clinical groups and matched samples from the normative set were conducted with independent t-tests for the NVA, SEQ, and NVII scores. Overall, the matched groups had an NVII standard score of approximately 100 (range = 98 to 103), an NVA T score of approximately 51 (range = 50 to 54), and SEQ approximately T = 50 (range = 48 to 52); however, matched sample standard deviations were not provided. In sum, the clinical groups had lower mean scores than the respective matched groups; however, no effect sizes were provided. COMMENTARY. The RAIT-NV is a brief and straightforward assessment that may be administered and scored with little effort on the part of the professional examiner. Test administrators should be aware that the RAIT-NV requires individuals to complete their own answer sheets, which could be difficult for younger individuals or those with intellectual or motor impairments. Also, many of the items on the NVA and some of the items on the SEQ subtests do require culturally specific knowledge (e.g., information about specific sports), which might limit generalization. General guidelines are provided for both verbal and nonverbal administration; there are no detailed instructions in the test manual regarding how to gesture nonverbal instructions. The RAIT-NV was developed with a sample that closely approximates the 2010 U.S. Census; however, with projected changes in U.S. demographics (e.g., Colby & Ortman, 2015) the test developers could consider updating the standardization sample. Nonetheless, the summaries provided by the test developer indicate the RAIT-NV is generally reliable. The external evidence of validity of the RAIT-NV and the related subscales might need clarification. The NVII appears to estimate some form of overall intellectual functioning, but associations with overall intelligence scores varied by test. Although a comparison test such as the Wonderlic could be conceptualized as a measure of fluid abilities, it is more likely a measure of general intelligence (Hicks, Harrison, & Engle, 2015). Similarly, relationships between the NVII and other measures of fluid intelligence seem inconsistent. For example, the NVII has significant correlations with PRI on the WISC-IV and WAIS-IV but a larger correlation with the RIAS VIX than NIX. Those administering the RAIT-NV should consider reviewing the NVA and SEQ correlations with other test batteries’ subtests to appraise subtest validity independently. In consideration of the populations of individuals with disabilities, it appears that the scores were consistently lower than the matched sample. Still, it is difficult to discern the magnitude of the differences as it was unclear how family-wise error was addressed in the means comparisons, and the omission of the matched groups’ standard deviations makes independently calculating effect sizes difficult. SUMMARY. The RAIT-NV succeeds in being a short duration test that can be completed in paper-and- pencil form by a wide age range of individuals. It could be useful as a screener of intellectual functioning but might need to be used in conjunction with other measures. The RAIT-NV is likely insufficient to be used for discriminating clinical and non-clinical groups until more information regarding differences

11/3/2019 EBSCOhost

https://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/delivery?sid=c7e96d15-d5be-4b3f-a406-cb9fff427cee%40pdc-v-sessmgr05&vid=4&ReturnUrl=https%3a%2f%2fwe… 4/7

between these groups is explored, such as sensitivity and specificity. REVIEWER’S REFERENCES Colby, S. L., & Ortman, J. M. (2015). Projections of the size and composition of the U.S. population: 2014 to 2060: Population estimates and projections. Current Population Reports, P25-1143. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Floyd, R. G., & Singh, L. J. (2017). [Test review of the Reynolds Adaptable Intelligence Test]. In J. F. Carlson, K. F. Geisinger, & J. L. Jonson (Eds.), The twentieth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 605- 607). Lincoln, NE: Buros Center for Testing. Hicks, K. L., Harrison, T. L., & Engle, R. W. (2015). Wonderlic, working memory capacity, and fluid intelligence. Intelligence, 50, 186-195. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2015.03.005 National Center for O*NET Development. (n.d.). O*NET Online. Retrieved from https://www.onetonline.org/help/online/zones Suppa, C. H. (2017). [Test review of the Reynolds Adaptable Intelligence Test]. In J. F. Carlson, K. F. Geisinger, & J. L. Jonson (Eds.), The twentieth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 607-609). Lincoln, NE: Buros Center for Testing.

Review of the Reynolds Adaptable Intelligence Test-Nonverbal by RONALD A. MADLE, Retired School Psychologist (formerly Shikellamy School District and Penn State University), Lewisburg, PA: DESCRIPTION. The Reynolds Adaptable Intelligence Test-Nonverbal (RAIT-NV) uses visual analogies and visual sequences to measure intelligence in individuals from 10-0 to 75-11 years. It was formed from the Fluid Intelligence Index (FII) of its parent assessment, the comprehensive Reynolds Adaptive Intelligence Test (RAIT). Stated applications include clinical assessment for individuals with various disabilities (e.g., learning disabilities, intellectual disabilities, autism spectrum disorder, neuropsychological impairments), human resources testing, and testing second language learners. It is not appropriate for individuals with significant visual or visual-perceptual impairments. The RAIT-NV test kit includes 10 color item booklets and pads of 50 answer sheets and score summary forms with a see-through scoring key, a professional manual, and a fast guide. The test has 95 items across the Nonverbal Analogies (NVA) and Sequences (SEQ) subtests, with an overall Nonverbal Intelligence Index (NVII). Many individuals can learn to administer the test with the guidance of an appropriately qualified person. It can be administered to groups or individuals using a conventional paper-and-pencil format. All items have five multiple-choice options. After silently reading the test instructions and sample items in the test booklet, the examinee begins the 20- minute-long test. Answers are recorded by filling in bubbles, although dictated responses are permissible. Items can be skipped and returned to within each section, there is no penalty for guessing, and scratch paper may be used. Alternate instructions are presented for examinees with secondary disabilities (e.g., reading, hearing, motor impairments) or second language learners. Even though the subtests have time limits, they are quite generous. Objective scoring is completed on the score summary form, which includes demographic information, raw and standard subtest scores and the NVII, and significance of differences between subtests. The reverse side provides space for plotting subtest and index scores and for recording reliability of changes across administrations. Subtest raw scores are converted to T scores (mean = 50; standard deviation = 10), which are summed to obtain the NVII standard score using the traditional standard score metric (mean = 100; standard deviation = 15) with the associated confidence interval and percentile rank. Score descriptors are significantly below/above average, moderately below/above average, below/above average, and average, with average being 90-109 and all other intervals at 10-point increases or decreases.

11/3/2019 EBSCOhost

https://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/delivery?sid=c7e96d15-d5be-4b3f-a406-cb9fff427cee%40pdc-v-sessmgr05&vid=4&ReturnUrl=https%3a%2f%2fwe… 5/7

In addition to providing fairly standard interpretive advice, the test author recommends accounting for the Flynn Effect by subtracting 0.3 standard score units from the obtained NVII for each year after the test standardization. DEVELOPMENT. The RAIT-NV was developed as part of the RAIT, a comprehensive, flexible intellectual assessment that can be administered in individual or group formats. One hundred sixty-five items (86 NVA and 79 SEQ) were developed, reviewed, and piloted. In the first pilot study three groups of 150 people took selected subtests. Item difficulty, item discrimination, and item bias (DIF) statistics were derived from classical test theory and item response theory. The revised test, with NVA and SEQ items reduced to 72 and 68, respectively, was submitted to a second field test. A second sample of individuals (n = 397) was divided into two groups who took either odd-numbered or even-numbered items. Following the same analyses as in the first pilot, score means, standard deviations, and distributions were computed and items sorted by difficulty. A final analysis of item foil effectiveness and possible biases was completed before items were finalized for the standardization version. TECHNICAL. Standardization. The final RAIT standardization form included 52 NVA items and 43 SEQ items. At this point, time limits were assigned (7 minutes and 10 minutes for NVA and SEQ, respectively). There were no basal or ceiling rules, and each participant completed as many items as possible within the time limits assigned. From July 2011 to November 2012 standardization data were collected in 40 states using both computer and paper-and-pencil administrations. A total of 2,124 people (484 booklet and 1,640 computer) across 23 age groups completed the standardization version. A multivariate analysis of covariance found no differences between the two administration methods, permitting use of all data in the norms. Distributions on gender, ethnicity, and education level were consistent with the 2010 U.S. Census. Geographically the South and West were somewhat overrepresented, but there were no significant differences in scores across regions. A statistical weighting procedure was used to achieve a near- perfect match with the Census figures. Besides the subtest and index scores the final norm tables include 90% and 95% confidence intervals, percentiles, stanines, z scores, normal curve equivalents, age equivalents, discrepancy scores, and reliable change scores. Reliability. Content sampling (internal consistency) and time sampling reliability information is provided in the test manual. Interscorer reliability was not assessed due to the objective multiple-choice test format. Coefficient alpha for the NVII was a very respectable .93, and for the NVA and SEQ scales, values were .89 and .86, correspondingly. Age group coefficients ranged from .81 to .96, with all NVII coefficients between .89 and .96. Most subtest alpha values were in the mid- to high .80s and considered acceptable for making decisions about individuals. Test score stability was examined in 132 individuals from ages 10 to 75 with an average retest interval of 24.5 days (range = 18 to 34 days). The corrected stability coefficient for the total group was .86, with NVA and SEQ being .84 and .83, respectively. When three separate age groups are examined, the reliability for the 10- to 20-year-old group is somewhat weaker than that for the older groups (.77 to .81). Relatively small gains in scores across time (about three points) were noted. Validity. The manual presents multiple types of evidence of validity. Test content included expert review of the item content and developmental sequencing of items by difficulty, as well as the internal consistency of the scales found in the reliability studies. Principal components analyses explored the relationships among variables. A principal components analysis suggested either a two- or three-factor solution for the original RAIT, with the three-factor

11/3/2019 EBSCOhost

https://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/delivery?sid=c7e96d15-d5be-4b3f-a406-cb9fff427cee%40pdc-v-sessmgr05&vid=4&ReturnUrl=https%3a%2f%2fwe… 6/7

solution being chosen. Factor 2, or the Fluid Intelligence Index (which is the same as the NVII), had the strongest relationship to g. This finding was considered strong justification for breaking out the RAIT-NV as a stand-alone test. The RAIT-NV was correlated with several measures of intelligence and achievement to provide convergent and divergent evidence of validity. Comparisons with the Test of General Reasoning Ability (.90; Reynolds, 2014), Wonderlic Personnel Test (.71; Wonderlic, 2002), and the Beta III (.72; Kellogg & Morton, 1999) showed a strong relationship between their overall scores typical of correlations between measures of g. Further comparisons are reported between the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children—Fourth Edition (WISC-IV: Wechsler, 2003), Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV; Wechsler, 2008), and Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales (RIAS; Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2003). The NVII correlated moderately with the Perceptual Reasoning Index (.43), Processing Speed Index (.52), and Full Scale IQ (.51) on the WISC-IV (n = 29). When 28 adults were administered the WAIS-IV and the RAIT-NV, a moderate correlation was found with the Perceptual Reasoning Index (.44). All other correlations with these two measures were not significant. Finally, the NVII was found to have moderate to strong correlations with each RIAS index in a sample of 51 individuals. Correlations between the RAIT-NV and achievement measures showed moderately strong results on the Word Reading subtest of the Wide Range Achievement Test 4 (.44; Wilkinson & Robertson, 2006) and the Test of Irregular Word Reading Efficiency (.40; Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2007). Finally, scores were examined for individuals in various clinical groups. Scores were as expected. For example, the intellectually disabled group had a mean NVII of 64.67 with similar results on the two subtests. Other groups examined (traumatic brain injury, stroke, dementia, hearing impaired, learning disabilities, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder) also showed expected levels of impairment. COMMENTARY AND SUMMARY. Overall, the RAIT-NV appears to be a useful test that has built on the solid foundation of its parent, the RAIT. It is easily administered and scored across a wide age range. Norms tables show good floor and ceiling scores at all ages with adequate or better item gradients. The RAIT-NV’s psychometric characteristics are moderate to strong, although intercorrelations with some Wechsler index scores seem more typical of IQ-achievement correlations. Important, however, are consistently strong correlations with measures of fluid intelligence. Clinically, there are sufficient floors and ceilings to permit classification of individuals as intellectually disabled or mentally gifted. As with other cognitive tests, however, it would not be possible to discriminate at the more impaired levels of intellectual disability. The RAIT-IV should prove particularly useful in any setting where an efficient (especially group- administered) measure of intellectual functioning, especially fluid ability, is needed. REVIEWER'S REFERENCES Kellogg, C. E., & Morton, N. W. (1999). Beta III. San Antonio, TX: Pearson. Reynolds, C. R. (2014). Test of General Reasoning Ability. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Reynolds, C. R., & Kamphaus, R. W. (2003). Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Reynolds, C. R., & Kamphaus, R. W. (2007). Test of Irregular Word Reading Efficiency. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Wechsler, D. (2003). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children—Fourth Edition. San Antonio, TX: Pearson. Wechsler, D. (2008). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—Fourth Edition. San Antonio, TX: Pearson. Wilkinson, G. S., & Robertson, G. J. (2006). Wide Range Achievement Test 4. Lutz, FL: Psychological

11/3/2019 EBSCOhost

https://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/delivery?sid=c7e96d15-d5be-4b3f-a406-cb9fff427cee%40pdc-v-sessmgr05&vid=4&ReturnUrl=https%3a%2f%2fwe… 7/7

Assessment Resources. Wonderlic, E. F. (2002). Wonderlic Personnel Test. Libertyville, IL: Wonderlic. U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). Current population survey, March 2010. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.

*** Copyright © 2014. The Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska and the Buros Center for Testing. All rights reserved. Any unauthorized use is strictly prohibited. Buros Center for Testing, Buros Institute, Mental Measurements Yearbook, and Tests in Print are all trademarks of the Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska and may not be used without express written consent.