Post on 03-Dec-2014
description
transcript
Putting cognitive ability testing in
proper perspective:
The “big picture” context
Dr. Kevin S. McGrewInstitute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP)
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP) Dr. Kevin McGrew 4-25-14
“In an ever-changing world, psychological testing remains the flagship of applied
psychology”Embretson, S. E. (1996). The new rules of measurement. Psychological Assessment, 8 (4), 341-349.
But…this strong applied testing technology needs to be placed in the proper “big picture” perspective
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP) Dr. Kevin McGrew 4-25-14
• Minds differ still more than faces(Voltaire, 1746)
• Each mind has its own method (Emerson, 1841)
• In a world as empirical as ours, a youngster who does not know what he is good at will
not be sure what he is good for(Fridenberg, 1959)
The Law of Individual Differences
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP) Dr. Kevin McGrew 4-25-14
• To appreciate the personal individual difference “terrain” or “landscape” of each person’s abilities. • Understand each persons unique personal profile (e.g., ability mountain peaks and valleys).
• Measure and identify each person’s peaks (potentials, exceptionalities, capacities, strengths) and their valleys (deficiencies, weaknesses, deficits, weaker abilities) in order to design educational programs to allow them to reach their fullest potential or capabilities.
A major purpose of psychological testing
The very big picture:
Bronfenbrenner's ecological
systems model
Beyond IQ
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP) Dr. Kevin McGrew 4-25-14
Local Community
School DistrictSocial Agencies
National PolicyNational PolicyCulture
Friend
NeighborhoodPeer Group
WorkOrganization
Family system
Parents
Staff
School
TeacherClassroom
Child
Personal Competence Systems
C P SE PH
Adapted from Masten (2003)
Distal(far away)Influences
Proximal(close/near)Influences
Beyond IQ
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP) Dr. Kevin McGrew 4-25-14
ConceptualDomain
PracticalDomain
Social - Emotional
Domain
PhysicalDomain
Personal Competence Systems
Cognitive and achievement batteries sampleonly a portion of a child’s total competencies
Beyond IQ
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP) Dr. Kevin McGrew 4-25-14
ConceptualDomain
PracticalDomain
Social - Emotional
Domain
PhysicalDomain
Personal Competence Systems
The best measures of cognitive abilities explain 40-50 %of school achievement
Cognitive assessment tools are valuable, yet fallible (not perfect), tools
Beyond IQ© Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP) Dr. Kevin McGrew 4-25-14
Local Community
School DistrictSocial Agencies
National PolicyNational PolicyCulture
Friend
NeighborhoodPeer Group
WorkOrganization
Family system
Parent
Child
Personal Competence Systems
C P SE PH
This is why cognitive assessment toolspredict/explain 40-50% of school achievement
Adapted from Masten (2003)
Staff
School
TeacherClassroom
Beyond IQ
© Institute for Applied
Psychometrics (IAP) Dr. Kevin
McGrew 4-25-14
Beyond IQ
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP) Dr. Kevin McGrew 4-25-14
The McGrew Motivation and
Academic Competence
Model(MACM)
McGrew Motivation and Academic Competence Model (MACM)
Orientations Towards Others (Social Ability)
Cognitive(Social Aware-
ness)Behavioral
-Prosocial Behaviors-Problem or maladaptive behaviors
How does the student need to behave towards others to succeed
on the task?
--Pro-social goal setting--Social cognition
Volitional Controls(Cognitive
Strategies & Styles)
Self-RegulatedLearning
Strategies
ConativeStyles
-Planning & activation
-Monitoring-Control & regulation-Reaction & reflection
What does the student need to do to
succeedon the task?
-Learning styles-Motivation styles-Self-protection styles
Conative Abilities
OrientationsTowards Self(Motivations)
Motivationalorientations
-Academic motivation-Intrinsic motivation -Academic goal orientation -Academic goal setting
Does the student want to do the task and for what
reasons?
Interests & Attitudes
-Academic attitudes-Academic interests & values
Self-Beliefs
-Locus of control -Academic self- efficacy -Academic self- concept-Ability conception
What are the students typical ways of
responding to the task?
Does the student think they can do the task?
Model is a revision of McGrew ‘s Model of Academic Competence and Motivation (McGrew et al., 2004; McGrew. 2007) which is grounded in Snow’s model of academic aptitude (Corono, 2002). Due to space limitations the model only lists general categories under the two areas under Social Ability and excludes the domains of physical, cognitive, affective/emotional and personality.
Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP), 01-05-13 – Dr. Kevin S. McGrew
Beyond IQ
Simplified MACM-based adaptation and extension of Snow’s dynamic model of conation in the academic domain (Corno, 1993)
Self-RegulatedLearning Strategies
ConativeStyles
Orientations Towards Self (Motivations)
Motivationalorientations
Interests & Attitudes
Self-Beliefs
Achievement Outcomes
Commitment to action
“Crossing the Rubicon”
Phrases used to describe this stage
-Arena of planning and pre-decision-making-Contemplating and deliberating over options-Processes involved in decision to pursue goals-WishWantIntentions
Volitional Controls(Cognitive Strategies & Styles)
Phrases used to describe this stage
-Arena of implementation and management-Carrying out plans and intentions-Action control strategies -Mindfullness (mindful effort investment)-Self-regulation of cognition and emotions
Reciprocalinteractions &
feedback
-Can I do the task?-Do I want to do the task and why?
-What do I need to do to succeed on the task?
COMMITMENT PATHWAY TO LEARNING Contemplate and plan Decide & Commit Implement and monitor
Performance feedback
Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP), 01-05-13 – Dr. Kevin S. McGrew
Beyond IQ
Conceptual Abilities(Cognitive and achievement)
We are focusing on just one personal competence domain within a larger system of proximal (close) and distal (far) influences on
the child
Our test instruments only “sample” select conceptual abilities within this one domain
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP) Dr. Kevin McGrew 4-25-14
Gs
Ga GvGfGq
GrwGlr
GwmGc
abilityconstruct
Human cognitive abilities
are hypothetical constructs
• Hidden attributes• Unseen phenomena• Not visible• Not directly observable• Latent• Are used to explain behavior
Gf = Fluid Reasoning
The Theoretical Domain The Measurement Domain
Gf
Tests are designed to produce visible or observable behavior that can be
quantified or measured. The test items are indicators of the attribute that
produce the hidden cognitive ability
A ????
B ????
What type of test and item formats do we want to use?
Mea
sure
men
t Dom
ain Universe of possible Gf item types and formats
C ????
D ????
Theo
retic
al D
omai
n
GfFluid reasoning
How do we make the unobservable (hidden) Gf abilities visible or observable?
This is a key test development question
“Tests do not think for themselves, nor do they directly communicate with patients. Like a stethoscope, a blood pressure gauge, or an MRI scan, a psychological test is a dumb tool, and the worth of the tool cannot be separated from the sophistication of the clinician who draws inferences from it and then communicates with patients and professionals”
Meyer et al. (2001). Psychological testing and psychological assessment. American Psychologist
Developing or administering a cognitive battery is only the first step……………..
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP) Dr. Kevin McGrew 4-25-14
“Intelligent” intelligence testing is required after a test is developed and is put into practice
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP) Dr. Kevin McGrew 4-25-14