How to write a cross battery assessment report
If what we consider to be an interpretable, norm-based composite is available, then that is the score that should be reported and interpreted—a core guiding principle of XBA Flanagan et al.
One sub-test is not sufficient to indicate the presence of an SLD or other impairment. Dixon, Scott L. McIntosh, Felicia A. The alternative to averaging consistent subtest score performances from different batteries is, of course, to not average them and to simply discuss them separately.
At about 2 SDs below the mean, there is about a 4-point difference between the averaged cluster and the cluster generated from the formula, with the averaged cluster being higher.
Essentials of cross battery assessment pdf
Likewise, the use of simple equations or formulae for making strict diagnostic decisions is equally unsupportable regardless of the type of score used. And, if they are measuring the same construct, then the correlation between them is likely at least moderate, which would then lead to a two-subtest cluster that does not differ meaningfully from a norm-based cluster if such a cluster was available; see Figure 2. Flanagan, Ortiz and Alfonso  suggest "seven deadly sins" as a metaphor for understanding the misconceptions surrounding SLD evaluation that continue to undermine its reliability and validity. Joel Schneider, Kevin S. This handbook for practitioners includes chapters by John D. Schneider, Gabrielle Wilcox, Julie N. If the only manner in which such information can be gathered is via the use of crossing batteries and averaging scores, then it should be done within the framework of a systematic, theory-based, and well-reasoned approach, such as XBA — an approach that Alan S. We are comfortable with this fact.
Indeed, what the report actually demonstrates is that the two methods produce marginally different results for a two-test cluster; i. Sixth, in order to minimize the effect of spurious differences between test scores, select tests from the smallest number of batteries.
Cross battery assessment for dummies
Moreover, the report is presented in a manner that seems to suggest that making decisions regarding dysfunction with scores in this range is unique to scores derived only from averaging methods. Deciding whether a standard score in the range of , for example, represents function or dysfunction is not made any easier simply because that value was obtained via norm-based versus averaging methods. Keith, Matthew R. Sound decisions require an explanatory framework that is logical and consistent, with an explanation for any conflicting data. McGrew and Flanagan, , we have ourselves examined and addressed these issues over the years because XBA may, but does not always, necessitate use of averaging. Incidentally, such follow up testing or hypothesis testing is routine in the field of neuropsychology. Essentials of Cross Battery Assessment 2nd Edition. That is, the field currently lacks instruments with sufficient breadth and depth of coverage of CHC narrow abilities. Likewise, although we recognize that in cases with scores above the mean there are differences in the values obtained via the two methods, within the context of XBA, we do not suggest following up on high average scores and therefore, we do not cross-batteries to create averages at the upper end of the ability continuum. Also noteworthy is that the XBA approach does not provide a mechanism for the creation of any cluster, whether global, broad, or narrow, on the basis of more than three scores. Alfonso, Jennifer T. If the intent of the article is to note that averaging can be problematic, especially when conducted in an unreasoned and indiscriminate manner, we completely agree. This approach also includes guidelines for identification of specific learning disabilities and assessment of cognitive strengths and weaknesses in individuals from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.
Englund, Alycia M. Moreover, because the difference in values obtained by either method arithmetic average or actual norm for two scores in the same cognitive domain are negligible in the average range of ability e.
Likewise, although we recognize that in cases with scores above the mean there are differences in the values obtained via the two methods, within the context of XBA, we do not suggest following up on high average scores and therefore, we do not cross-batteries to create averages at the upper end of the ability continuum.
The third recommendation noted in the report relates to the use of a formula to develop clusters. Thus, in XBA, averaging is nearly always done to follow up on weak score performances at the lower end of the ability continuum.
based on 27 review