CTONI-2

Reliability

Validity

References

The Comprehensive Test of Non-Verbal Intelligence (CTONI-2)

Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J. (1974). Working memory. In G. A. Bower (Ed.), Recent Advances in Learning and Motivation (Vol. 8, pp. 47-89).

New York: Academic Press.

Delen, E., Kaya, F., & Ritter, N. L. (2012). Review of Comprehensive Test of Nonverbal Intelligence—Second edition (CTONI-2). Journal of

Psychoeducational Assessment, 30(2), 209-213. doi:10.1177/0734282911415614.

Fuster, J. M. (2009). Prefrontal cortex. In L. Squire (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Neuroscience (pp. 905-908). Elsevier. Doi: 10.1016

B978-008045046-9.01118-9

Grazioplene, R., Ryman, S., Gray, J., Rustichini, A., Jung, R., & Deyoung, C. (2015). Subcortical intelligence: Caudate volume predicts IQ in

healthy adults. Human Brain Mapping, 36 (4), 1407-1416. doi:10.1002/hbm.22710.

Hammill, D. D., Pearson, N. A., & Weiderholt, J. L. (2009). Comprehensive Test of Nonverbal Intelligence (2nd ed.). Austin: PRO-ED.

Parkin, J.R., Beaujean, A.A., Firmin, M.W., Qiu, X., & Firmin, R.L. (2018). Validity and reliability evidence for the Comprehensive Test of

Nonverbal Intelligence- Second Edition scores from an independent sample. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 36(5), 423-435.

Presented by

Tessie Spyksma * Sam Tanner * Sophie Wharmby * Heather Young

Reliability & Validity

Clinical Population

What is the CTONI-2?

Capable of response

Understand instructions

• norm-referenced test that measures higher-order cognitive abilities
• “Language reduced” = language may be used but the test does not rely on these language abilities

Between

6;0 - 89;11

The test is suitable for patients who

• cannot communicate verbally
• have impaired motor abilities -can use alternative response method

(Hammill, Pearson, & Weiderholt, 2009)

Inter-rater Reliability

Test-Retest

Coefficient Alpha

Inclusion Criteria

(Hammill, Pearson, & Weiderholt, 2009)

Relatively intact eyesight

Internal consistency - How well a test measures what it intends to

Differences between the individuals who are scoring the test results

Measure of consistency of an individual’s performance over time

Familiar with printed pictures and forms

Pass at least 1/3 of practice items

Over .80 for all subtests and composites

Between .95 and .99 for each subtest

Over .80 for all subtests, over .90 for all composites and .95 for full scale composite

(Hammill, Pearson, & Weiderholt, 2009)

What does the CTONI-2 measure?

Contexts

Criterion-Prediction

Content-Description

Construction-Identification

Geometric

Pictorial

The degree to which a test measures what it claims

How well the items represent general intelligence

Subtest #2 - Geometric Analogies

Subtest #1 - Pictorial Analogies

The effectiveness of a test in predicting performance in a specified activity

Analogies

Strengths & Weakness - in the literature

• follows normal pattern of intelligence based on age
• results correlate with school achievement
• differentiates those with learning or intellectual disabilities

• Correlation coefficients to other measures of intelligence: .57-.70
• insignificant difference in the means of CTONI-2 and other measures of intelligence

• rationales provided
• strong relationship to other tests and theories of intelligence
• conventional item analysis- removal of easy, difficult, and non-representative items
• differential functioning item analysis- removal of biased items

(Hammill, Pearson, & Weiderholt, 2009)

Strengths

(Hammill, Pearson, & Weiderholt, 2009)

Subtest #4 - Geometric Categories

Subtest #3 - Pictorial Categories

• No time limit

• Targets general intelligence independently

Categories

Cognitive Abilities

Final Recommendations & Future Directions

• Can be conducted through multiple modalities and cross-linguistically

• Simple to administer and score

Weaknesses

(Hammill, Pearson, & Weiderholt, 2009)

• Applies to a wide age range

• No time limit

(Delen, Kaya & Ritter, 2012) (Hammill et al., 2009)

Subtest #6 - Geometric Sequences

Subtest #5 - Pictorial Sequences

• Does not differentiate individuals with higher intelligence

• Little standardization on pantomime instructions

Sequences

• No standardization in other languages

(Delen, Kaya & Ritter, 2012) (Parkin et al., 2018)

(Hammill, Pearson, & Weiderholt, 2009)