Abstract
One of the greatest contributions psychologists have made to society is the development of methods for quantifying the various constructs used in the field (see Anastasi & Urbina, 1997). In fact, without methods of quantification, little research could be conducted, and practitioners would be limited to subjective interpretations of informal data they obtain. The development of tools used to assess psychological constructs has greatly improved the reliability and validity of the field, perhaps the most obvious ones being personality and intelligence tests. It is important to recognize that the study of any psychological construct is very dependent on the quality and content of the tools used. And, the methods included in scientific research directly influence the results of any study and consequently what is learned about the topic. Importantly, we must recognize that what we learn from a test is completely determined by the content of the instruments and the specific information they provide. The quality of these tools, therefore, is directly proportional to the quality of the information obtained and based on the way in which test authors conceptualize and measure their constructs. The better the tool, the more reliable and valid our findings, and as validity increases, so does the quality of the information that is obtained and, ultimately, the better the services provided. In this chapter, the tools used for assessment of impairment are examined.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing (2014th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text revision). Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological testing (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Barkley, R. A. (2011). Barkley functional impairment scale. New York: Guildford Press.
Barkley, R. A. (2012). Barkley functional impairment scale—Children and adolescents. New York: Guildford Press.
Bird, H. R., Canino, G. J., Davies, M., RamÍrez, R., Chávez, L., Duarte, C., et al. (2005). The brief impairment scale (BIS): A multidimensional scale of functional impairment for children and adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 44, 699–707.
Bird, H. R., Shaffer, D., Fisher, P., Gould, M. S., et al. (1993). The Columbia Impairment Scale (CIS): Pilot findings on a measure of global impairment for children and adolescents. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 3, 167–176.
Bracken, B. A. (1987). Limitations of preschool instruments and standards for minimal levels of technical adequacy. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 5, 313–326.
Bracken, B. A., & McCallum, R. S. (2016). Universal nonverbal intelligence test (2nd ed.). Itasca, IL: Riverside.
Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. New York: Hold, Rinehart and Winston.
Davis, F. B. (1959). Interpretation of differences among averages and individual test scores. Journal of Educational Psychology, 50, 162–170.
Fabiano, G. A., Pelham, W. E., Waschbusch, D. A., Gnagy, E. M., Lahey, B. B., Chronis, A. M., et al. (2006). A practical measure of impairment: Psychometric properties of the impairment rating scale in samples of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and two school-based samples. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 35, 369–385.
Goldstein, S., & Naglieri, J. A. (2016). Rating scale of impairment. Toronto: MHS.
Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (2004). Kaufman assessment battery for children second edition manual. Circle Pines, MN: AGS.
Naglieri, J. A., Das, J. P., & Goldstein, S. (2014). Cognitive assessment system interpretive handbook (2nd ed.). Itasca, IL: Riverside.
Naglieri, J. A., & Paolitto, A. W. (2005). Ipsative comparisons of WISC-IV Index scores. Applied Neuropsychology, 12, 208–211.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Shaffer, D., Gould, M. S., Brasic, J., Ambronsini, P., Fisher, P., Bird, H., et al. (1983). A children’s global assessment scale (CGAS). Archives of General Psychiatry, 40, 1228–1231.
Silverstein, A. B. (1982). Pattern analysis as simultaneous statistical inference. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50, 234–240.
Thorndike, R. L. (1982). Applied psychometrics. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Wechsler, D. (2014). Wechsler intelligence scale for children (5th ed.). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Naglieri, J.A., McGoldrick, K.D. (2016). Psychometric Issues in the Assessment of Impairment. In: Goldstein, S., Naglieri, J. (eds) Assessing Impairment. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7996-4_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7996-4_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4899-7994-0
Online ISBN: 978-1-4899-7996-4
eBook Packages: Behavioral Science and PsychologyBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)