the ctoni-2: comprehensive tests of nonverbal intelligence second edition

AN OVERVIEW OF THE

COMPREHENSIVE TEST

OF NONVERBAL

INTELLIGENCE- SECOND

EDITION (CTONI-2)

Tanya Maria Geritsidou

The American College of Greece

Outline

The CTONI-2’s Theoretical Rationale

Content & Age Range

Format of the CTONI-2

Administration

Scoring

Materials Provided

Psychometric Properties

Strengths and Weaknesses of the CTONI-2

Appropriate Uses for the CTONI-2

Summary

The CTONI-2’s Theoretical

Rationale

Based on three theories of intelligence (Lassiter,

Matthews & Feeback, 2007) :

The Das Model of simultaneous-sequential

processing

Jensen’s two-level theory of intelligence

Theory of Fluid (Gf) and Crystallized (Gc) intelligence


Rationale

The Das Model of simultaneous-sequential

processing (Kirby & Das, 1977) : Simultaneous processing: to be able to integrate

information in the brain in a spatial/non-temporal

manner, making it fully surveyable at the same time

Sequential processing: To be able to integrate

information in the brain in a form that maintains its

temporal order

Both types are necessary for high level performance

They are distinct from one another

We can make predictions for achievement based on

the model


Rationale

Jensen’s (Stankov, Horn & Roy, 1980, Jensen, 1981) two-level theory of intelligence (genetic differences according to race, SES, ethnicity):

Level I ability: Associative learning Rote learning

Attention/associative skills

Short term memory

Level II ability: Cognitive learning Abstract thinking / symbolic thought

Conceptual learning

Language use in problem solving


Rationale

Theory of Fluid (Gf) and Crystallized (Gc)

Intelligence by Cattell-Horn (Thorsen, Gustafsson &

Cliffordson, 2014) :

Fluid Intelligence

Problem solving ability in novel situations

Abstract reasoning

Crystallized Intelligence

Knowledge from prior learning

Knowledge from prior experiences

Decreases with

age

Increases with

age

CTONI-2 Content and Age Range

The test assesses reasoning and problem solving in children and adults

For ages 6 – 89 years and 11 months

Categories of assessment:

Analogical thinking

Categorical formulation

Sequential reasoning

CTONI-2 Format

Six subtests that can be administered

independently (but authors recommend that all

be administered)

Multiple choice images

Pictorial pictorial scale

Geometric geometric scale

Full

scale

CTONI-2 Format: Subtests 1 & 2

Analogies

“This is to this, as this is to which one of

these?”


Categories

“Which one of these is related to those?”


Sequences (problem solving progression)

“What is the rule guiding the progression of

these?”

Administration of the CTONI-2

Qualification level B required (master’s degree in psychology + formal training in assessments)

No time requirement (but usually takes about 1 hour)

Examiner should pantomime or demonstrate while saying the instructions

Easy administration – answers provided by pointing

No basal level (basal provided by the example)

CTONI-2 Scoring

1 point for each correct response

0 point for each wrong response

Ceiling reached with three consecutive wrong responses (test is discontinued)

If three consecutive errors are made in the practice items, then the test is not administered at all

The total number of correct reponses of a subtest is the Raw Score of that Subtest

CTONI-2 Scoring

Responses are recorded in the Examiner

Record Form, which is very user friendly (Delen,

Kaya & Ritter, 2012)

Age and raw scores recorded at the time of

administration

Raw scores then converted to percentile

ranks, scaled scores and age equivalents

Descriptive terms and percentiles provided for

composite scores

CTONI-2 Materials Provided

Kit includes:

Examiner’s manual

3 picture books

Examiner’s Record Forms

Very user friendly

Translations of instructions provided

FAQ for examiners

Space in the examiner’s record form to record the setting and conditions of administration

CTONI-2’s Psychometric Properties

Standardizatio

n Sample

Properties

Descriptives 2,827 participants from 10 states of USA

Data collected during 2007-2008

Sample representative for: Age

Gender

Race

SES

Geographic region

Parental status

Exceptionality status

Stratified for age

95% instructed in English, 5% in pantomime


Reliability

Internal Consistency

Cronbach’s a for subtest & composite scores was above .80, with standard error of measurement of around 1.

Tested for 19 age intervals

Most Cronbach’s a for demographics also above .80

Test-retest Reliability

Used results from the CTONI as well as CTONI-2

Test-retest coefficient above .80 at the 1 month interval

Interrater Reliability

Two independent raters scored the tests

High interrater reliability (correlation coefficient at .95)

CTONI-2’s Psychometric Properties Validity

Content description Item bias was not statistically significant for all test groups

(Hispanics, African Americans and gender

Items have been thematically linked to the theoretical background (Bradley-Johnson, 1997, Delen et al., 2012)

Construct identification Correlation coefficients of the CTONI/CTONI-2 with other

intelligence tests range from .60 to .90 overall

Correlation coefficients between the CTONI-2 and reading/math achievement tests were from .53 to .72

Factor analysis also supported the expectation of all subtests loading to one factor, general intelligence g (Spearman’s g)

Criterion prediction The CTONI-2 can predict scores in achievement and

intelligence tests


Generalizability

There are some limitations to the validity analysis (McGill, 2015):

The psychometric evidence provided is not sufficient for the proposed assessment model of the CTONI-2

There are problems with the method used for factor analysis (it is not considered as such by some analysts)

It can’t be conclusive that the CTONI-2 actually is a one-factor model as per the general intelligence g demands

Interpretations should be derived from the composite scores, not the individual subtest scores, where it was statistically proven to measure general intelligence g

Strengths & Weaknesses of the CTONI-2

It decreases language and motor ability effects on general intelligence scores (reduces confoundings)

Not being timed means information processing speed isn’t considered

Easy to administer and score

Oral instructions in many languages provided

Instructions can be given in pantomime

Takes little time compared to other intelligence tests

Updated to keep examinee interest

Pantomime instruction hasn’t been used enough in the standardization sample

Standardization sample didn’t include non-English speaking populations

The picture books may be distracting for the examiner (two-sided, two different test versions)

Some cultural bias remains

The issues with the statistical analyses for validity and reliability (the test-retest method)

Might overestimate the intelligence scores due to item difficulty positive skewness(Delen et al., 2012)

Strengths Weaknesses

Appropriate Uses for the CTONI-2

Use to assess general intelligence of

individuals with language or physical

impairments

Do NOT use with severely visually impaired

people

Use with populations such as:

People within the ASD spectrum

People with deafness

People with learning difficulties/dyslexia

Multilingual / non-English speaking people

Children with Selective Mutism

Summary

The CTONI-2 is an easy to administer, easy to score intelligence test

It has important advantages in minimizing the possible confounding variable effects of verbal and motor competence on intelligence scores

Higher cognitive level skills are assessed, more relevant to academic performance

It is adequately normed

Its issues with validity and reliability are not severe and still support its measurement of general intelligence

Thank you for your attention!

References

Bradley-Johnson, S. (1997). Test reviews. Psychology in the Schools, 34(3), 154–158. http://doi.org/10.1080/02783199209553413

Delen, E., Kaya, F., & Ritter, N. L. (2012). Test review: Comprehensive Test of Nonverbal Intelligence--Second Edition (CTONI-2). Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30(2), 209–213. http://doi.org/10.1177/0734282911415614

Drossman, E. R., Maller, S. J., & McDermott, P.A. (2001). Core profiles of school-aged examinees from the national standardization sample of the Comprehensive Test of Nonverbal Intelligence. School Psychology Review, 30(4), 586–598.

Lassiter, K. S., Matthews, T. D., & Feeback, G. (2007). An examination of the CTONI utilizing GC-GF theory: A comparison of the CTONI and WJ-III. Psychology in the Schools, 44(6), 567–577. http://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20248

McGill, R. J. (2015). Investigation of the Factor Structure of the Comprehensive Test of Nonverbal Intelligence-Second Edition (CTONI-2) Using Exploratory Factor Analysis. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment. http://doi.org/10.1177/0734282915610717

Reesman, J. H., Day, L. a, Szymanski, C. a, Hughes-Wheatland, R., Witkin, G. a, Kalback, S. R., & Brice, P. J. (2014). Review of intellectual assessment measures for children who are deaf or hard of hearing. Rehabilitation Psychology, 59(1), 99–106. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0035829

Lakin, J. M., & Gambrell, J. L. (2012). Distinguishing verbal, quantitative, and figural facets of fluid intelligence in young students. Intelligence, 40(6), 560–570. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2012.07.005

Kirby, J. R., & Das, J. P. (1977). Reading achievement, IQ, and simultaneous-successive processing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69(5), 564–570. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.69.5.564

Stankov, L., Horn, J. L., & Roy, T. (1980). On the relationship between Gf/Gc theory and Jensen’s Level I/Level II theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(6), 796–809. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.72.6.796

Jensen, A. R. (1981). Level I / Level II : Factors or categories ?. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(6), 868–873.

Thorsen, C., Gustafsson, J. E., & Cliffordson, C. (2014). The influence of fluid and crystallized intelligence on the development of knowledge and skills. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 556–570. http://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12041