The CTONI-2 is a nonverbal intelligence test for individuals aged 6-89 years that assesses reasoning and problem-solving abilities. It is based on theories of simultaneous-sequential processing, two levels of intelligence, and fluid and crystallized intelligence. The test contains 6 subtests that are administered through pictorial multiple choice questions. It provides advantages such as minimizing language and motor skill influences. While the CTONI-2 is easy to administer and has good reliability, some questions remain regarding its validity and appropriate uses include assessing intelligence when language is a confounding factor.

1. AN OVERVIEW OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE TEST
OF NONVERBAL
INTELLIGENCE- SECOND
EDITION (CTONI-2)
Tanya Maria Geritsidou
The American College of Greece

2. 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

3. 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

4. The CTONI-2’s Theoretical
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

5. The CTONI-2’s Theoretical
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

6. The CTONI-2’s Theoretical
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

7. 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

8. 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

9. CTONI-2 Format: Subtests 1 &
2
 Analogies
 “This is to this, as this is to which one of
these?”

10. CTONI-2 Format: Subtests 3 &
4
 Categories
 “Which one of these is related to those?”

11. CTONI-2 Format: Subtests 5 &
6
 Sequences (problem solving progression)
 “What is the rule guiding the progression of
these?”

12. 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)

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. CTONI-2’s Psychometric
Properties
 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)

18. 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

19. CTONI-2’s Psychometric
Properties
 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. Thank you for your attention!

24. 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