Spatial intelligence test for children

2,021
-1

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
2,021
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Spatial intelligence test for children

  1. 1. The SON-R non-verbal intelligence tests: fair assessment of childrenDr. Peter TellegenUniversity of GroningenThe Netherlandsp.j.tellegen@rug.nl
  2. 2. The SON-testsOriginally developed in 1943 for use with deaf childrenNow two tests for general application with different age norms: the SON-R 2,5-7 (published in 1998) the SON-R 5,5-17 (published in 1988)Dr. Peter Tellegen (university of Groningen, The Netherlands)Dr. Jaap Laros (university of Brasilia, Brazil)Publisher: Hogrefe Verlag, Germany
  3. 3. History of the SON-tests SON (1943) 4-14 years SON-’58 (1958) 4-16 yearsSON 2½-7 (1975) SSON (1975) 3-7 years 7-17 yearsSON-R 2½-7 (1998) SON-R 5½-17 (1988) 2,5-8 years 5,5-17 years SON-I 6-40 (2008) 6-40 years
  4. 4. A non-verbal test• The SON-tests are tests of general intelligence which do not require the use of spoken or written language• The focus is on fluid intelligence• The tests are especially suitable for children with problems in the area of language and communication• For cross-cultural intelligence assessment, the SON-tests can be very useful, because the test materials don’t need translation
  5. 5. Some characteristics SON-R 2,5-7 SON-R 5,5-17Age range 2;6 – 6;11 yrs 5;6 – 6;11 yrsNumber of subtests 6 7Administration individually individuallyDuration 50 min. 90 min.Sample N=1.124 N=1.350Reliability .90 .93Generalisability .78 .85
  6. 6. Evaluation by the Dutch test commission (COTAN) SON-R 2,5-7 SON-R 5,5-17Construction good goodMaterials good goodManual good goodNorms good goodReliability good goodConstruct validity good goodCriterion validity good good
  7. 7. Dimensions in the SON-testsConcrete reasoningAbstract reasoningSpatial abilitiesPerceptual abilities
  8. 8. SON-R and language developmentCorrelations of SON-R 2,5-7 and teacher evaluation(general education, N=616)Criterion correlation------------------------------------------------Intelligence .46Language development .44Correlations of SON-R 2,5-7 and evaluation by staff(special groups, N=241)Criterion correlation------------------------------------------------Intelligence .61Language development .31
  9. 9. SON-R and language developmentCorrelations of IQ SON-R 2,5-7 with other testsCriterion test General education Special groups-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------General intelligence Bailey .59 (50) K-ABC .65 (115) RAKIT .60 (165) .55 (70) LDT .58 (80) WPPSI .60 (53)Language development Reynell .45 (558) .44 (179) TvK .59 (108) .53 (49)---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  10. 10. Subtests of the SON-R 2,5-7Mosaics (spatial)Categories (reasoning)Puzzles (spatial)Analogies (reasoning)Situations (reasoning)Patterns (spatial)
  11. 11. Analogies (SON-R 2,5-7)Abstract reasoning
  12. 12. Mosaics (SON-R 2,5-7)Spatial
  13. 13. Categories (SON-R 2,5-7)Abstract reasoning
  14. 14. Puzzles (SON-R 2,5-7)Spatial
  15. 15. Situations (SON-R 2,5-7)Concrete reasoning
  16. 16. Patterns (SON-R 2,5-7)Spatial
  17. 17. Standardisations of the SON-R 2,5-7The Netherlands (1998) publishedGermany (2005) to be published 2006Great Britain (2005) most data collectedCzech/Slowak Republic (2006) most data collectedBrazil (2007) in preparationIran (2007) in preparationThailand (2007) in preparation
  18. 18. Subtests of the SON-R 5,5-17Categories (reasoning)Mosaics (spatial)Hidden Pictures (perceptual)Patterns (spatial)Situations (reasoning)Analogies (reasoning)Stories (reasoning)
  19. 19. Categories (SON-R 5,5-17)Concrete reasoning
  20. 20. Mosaics (SON-R 5,5-17)Spatial
  21. 21. Hidden pictures (SON-R 5,5-17)Perceptual
  22. 22. Patterns (SON-R 5,5-17)Spatial
  23. 23. Situations (SON-R 5,5-17)Concrete reasoning
  24. 24. Analogies (SON-R 5,5-17)Abstract reasoning
  25. 25. Stories (SON-R 5,5-17)Concrete reasoning
  26. 26. PRINCIPLES of ASSESSMENT The needs of the subject are the focus of interestImprove Highlight theaccuracy of limitations ofmeasurement interpretation
  27. 27. Characteristics of administrationboth verbal and non-verbal instructionextensive examplesfeedbackadaptive procedureno time-pressureadministration stops after few errorsactive involvement of the child
  28. 28. Individualized adaptive testing3 series (a, b, c) with same levels of difficulty Each child starts with same item a1. Stop in each series after two errors. Skip easy items at the beginning (they are counted as correct)
  29. 29. Norms based on age intervalsThe WISC-tests use norms based on 4-month intervalsTwo children with exactly the same raw scores: Age of John is 6;3:30 Age of Mary is 6;4:0The age difference is only 1 dayBut the difference in IQ is 8 points John: IQ = 74 Mary: IQ = 66
  30. 30. Continuous normsIt is possible to compute standardized scores (z) for any raw score X and for any age Y with a formula such as:Z = a + b.X + c.X2 + d.X3 + e.Y + f.Y2 + g.Y3 + h.X.Y + i.X2.Y + j.X3.Y + k.X.Y2a ... k parameters of the modelX2, X3 second and third order of raw scoreY2, Y3 second and third order of age
  31. 31. Fair assessmentWhen tested with a verbal intelligence test, children who grow up with a different language will be at a disadvantage.Their intelligence will be underestimated and this may result in lower educational and vocational opportunities.
  32. 32. Immigrant children in The NetherlandsVerbal intelligence should be assessed in the native language(Carroll).Also with the SON-tests, immigrant children score lowercompared to native Dutch children.With verbal intelligence tests, however, the difference is twice aslarge.
  33. 33. Mean IQ’s of immigrant childrengroups SON-R RAKITMoroccan 88.7 80.5Turkish 91.0 80.0SON-R non-verbal intelligence testRAKIT general intelligence test, like the WISC
  34. 34. Educational level of the father in The Netherlands and mean IQ’sEducational level pct. mean SON IQOnly primary school 7% 92.9University 7% 111.6
  35. 35. Improving the nonverbal contentPictorial contents can also be culturally biased.Cross-cultural research – between countries and alsobetween different cultures within a country –can make the test less culture dependent.For the new edition of the SON-R 5,5-17 such researchis carried out with the subtest Categories.
  36. 36. Thailand photo research categories
  37. 37. Africa photo research categories
  38. 38. Morocco photo research categories
  39. 39. Cross-cultural research SON-R 5,5-17Improvement of the subtest Categories Group-wise administration in different countries Comparison of results Improving item content Estimation of difficulty order Evaluation of item biasFirst round: Brazil, Indonesia, Kenya, Morocco, The NetherlandsSecond round: Brazil, Thailand, Iran, Slovakia, Surinam, The Netherlands
  40. 40. The SON outside EuropeResearch with the tests in:Kenya, Morocco, Burkina Fasso, Congo BrazzavilleBrasilia, Surinam, PeruThailand, Iran, China, IndonesiaAustralia, United States
  41. 41. Africa photo boy patterns
  42. 42. Morocco photo girl mosaics
  43. 43. Africa photo boy patterns
  44. 44. Africa photo boy mosaics
  45. 45. Morocco photo boy mosaics
  46. 46. Morocco photo girl patterns
  47. 47. Research with the SON-R 2,5-7 Thailand (Udon Thani)
  48. 48. Performance of the Thai children on the SON-R 2,5-7 [a] Udon Thani other parts (poor rural area) Thailand N=49 N=240 --------------------- --------------subtest mean (sd) mean (sd)-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------• Mosaics (spatial) 7.1 (2.8) 9.0 (2.9)• Patterns (spatial) 8.3 (2.8) 11.3 (3.0)• Categories (reasoning) 7.2 (3.2) 9.7 (3.2)• Situations (reasoning) 7.1 (3.3) 10.0 (3.4)-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Total IQ 82.8 (14.2) 100.2 (15.7)
  49. 49. Performance of Kenyan children on the SON-R 2,5-7Group N mean IQUrban (Nakuru) 18 85.4Rural school 12 69.3
  50. 50. Performance of Peruvian children on the SON-R 5,5-17Group N mean IQUrban (Lima) 160 94.0Rural (Urubamba) 32 73.0(street children / poor areas)
  51. 51. Conclusion: how to interpret the test scoresTest performance reflects level of intelligence. But it is also true thatTest performance reflects the situation in which children grow up.Unless situations are fairly comparable, scores do not represent “real” intelligence but are better described as representing differences in cognitive development.
  52. 52. www.testresearch.nl Pages in Dutch / German / English General information on the SON and other intelligence testsOf special interest on the website:Fair Assessment of Children from Cultural Minorities: A Description of the SON-R Nonverbal Intelligence TestsP.J. Tellegen & J.A. LarosIn: Quality Education for Children from Socially Disadvantaged SettingsEdited by Dagmar Kopcanova (2005)

×