This study employed structural equation modeling to examine the effects of Cattell–Horn–Carroll (CHC) abilities on reading decoding skills using five age-differentiated subsamples from the standardization sample of the Woodcock–Johnson III (Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001). Using the Spearman Model including only g, strong direct effects of g on reading decoding skills were demonstrated at all ages. Using the Two-Stratum Model including g and broad abilities, direct effects of the broad abilities Long-Term Storage and Retrieval, Processing Speed, Crystallized Intelligence, Short-Term Memory, and Auditory Processing on reading decoding skills were demonstrated at select ages. Using the Three-Stratum Model including g, broad abilities, and narrow abilities, direct effects of the broad ability Processing Speed and the narrow abilities Associative Memory, Listening Ability, General Information, Memory Span, and Phonetic Coding were demonstrated at select ages. Across both the Two-Stratum Model and the Three-Stratum Model at all ages, g had very large but indirect effects. The findings suggest that school psychologists should interpret measures of some specific cognitive abilities when conducting psychoeducational assessments designed to explain reading decoding skills.
This study evaluated the inclusion and representation of women serving on school psychology journal editorial boards from 1965 to 2020. A total of 3,267 names were collected from six journals at 5-year increments and coded for gender using a four-step process. Across 55 years, women constituted 38% of editorial boards across these journals. When considering their levels of service, they constituted 10% of editors, 42% of associate editors, and 39% of board members. Women demonstrated a consistent increase in participation across all levels, with an overall change from 3.4% to 54.8%. In 2020, five out of six journals included more than 50% women on their editorial boards. However, underrepresentation of women is still apparent as recent reports showed women compose 87% of school psychologists, 63% of school psychology faculty, and 85% of school psychology doctoral recipients. Low numbers of women as editors as well as differences in women's participation across journals suggest a need for further evaluation of potential bias and gender-related barriers related to service in school psychology journals. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
As the Vineland Scales are among the most relevant, well-developed, and popular measures of adaptive behavior available for use, this study evaluated the factor structure and dimensionality of the Vineland-3 Comprehensive Interview Form. Drawing data from 2,560 participants in the norming sample, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were completed across two independent samples from four age-groups ranging from preschool-age children to adults. Results from exploratory factor analysis revealed evidence for a unidimensional model across age-groups, but results from confirmatory factor analysis indicated that multidimensional models were better fitting than unidimensional models for each age-group. Discussion focuses on whether the Vineland-3 Comprehensive Interview Form is truly a unidimensional or multidimensional measure.
This review provides an overview and critique of the design characteristics, technical properties, and validity evidence of behavior ratings scales focusing on measurement of the characteristics of emotional disturbance. Manuals and published research supporting nine parent and teacher rating scales were reviewed. These rating scales included the Behavior Evaluation Scale-2: Home Version (McCarney, 1994a); the Behavior Evaluation Scale-2: School Version (McCarney, 1994b); the Behavior Disorders Identification Scale, Second Edition: Home Version (McCarney & Arthaud, 2000a); the Behavior Disorders Identification Scale, Second Edition: School Version (McCarney & Arthaud, 2000b); the Devereux Behavior Rating Scale-School Form (Naglieri, LeBuffe, & Pfieffer, 1993); the Emotional and Behavior Problem Scale, Second Edition: Home Version (McCarney & Arthaud, 2001a); the Emotional and Behavior Problem Scale, Second Edition: School Version (McCarney & Arthaud, 2001b); the Scale for Assessing Emotional Disturbance (Epstein & Cullinan, 1998); and the Social-Emotional Dimension Scale (Hutton & Roberts, 1986). All instruments demonstrated several limitations in technical adequacy and were supported by generally incomplete and weak collections of validity evidence that limit their usefulness during the assessment of behaviors associated with emotional disturbance.
The most global score yielded by intelligence tests, IQs, are supported by substantial validity evidence and have historically been central to the identification of intellectual disabilities, learning disabilities, and giftedness. This study examined the extent to which IQs measure the ability they target, psychometric g. Data from three samples of children and adolescents (Ns = 200, 150, and 135) who completed varying pairs of individually administered, multidimensional intelligence tests were analyzed using a joint confirmatory factor analysis to generate correlations between IQs and general factors representing psychometric g. The resulting values, expressed as g loadings, for the six IQs ranged from .88 to .95 (M = .92). The accuracy of IQs in measuring psychometric g, the meaning of reliable specific ability variance in IQs not accounted for by psychometric g, and the use of IQs in schools and related settings are discussed.
The assessment of intelligence has long been mandated by law for eligibility determination for special education and related services (e.g., intellectual disabilities, specific learning disabilities, and intellectual giftedness). Under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act (2004), there are explicit regulations for evaluation procedures that delineate the role of intelligence tests for identifying disabilities and for determining eligibility for special education and related services. The aims of this chapter are first to define the construct of intelligence and to discuss how it is measured. Following this, we describe how intelligence tests are used in the schools and to discuss issues of social justice pertaining to intelligence test use.
