Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Identification, Testing & Assessment .

.

.

Good thoughts, 13umm!

As it happens, there are a number of clinical indices available to professionals that could be used in some of the ways you propose. Some of them use norm-referenced scales (from the WISC-V Integrated) that do address 3D spatial reasoning in a motor-free format. There are also subtests from other cognitive instruments (e.g., UNIT2, SB5) That include those types of tasks in their standard batteries. I would suspect they are not used more widely because having too many different measures in a highly-competitive (and often contentious) admissions process tends to create more opportunities for either gamesmanship or litigation--both of which also tend to increase inequity in admissions, since they generally are more accessible to highly-resourced families (not only those with more wealth, but those with more knowledge of educational institutions, and those with more social connections).

The more quantitative and objective reason they are not in wider use is that the published indices, on the whole, have stronger psychometric properties. One can put together many different combinations of subtests to create new proposed indices, but not all of them will be equally robust from a statistical standpoint.

On a practical level, the use of the Spatial Test Battery by Johns Hopkins University's CTY talent search program is exactly aimed at your concern about insufficient representation in standard IQ tests from visual spatial thinking skills.

Some of the other qualities (for example, different aspects of working memory) are not addressed on tests like the WISC because memory is not the primary focus of the test. It is only being sampled because of it's contribution to overall intelligence. There are other measures that are designed to look more comprehensively at aspects of memory (such as the WRAML-2). Those assessment instruments usually would come out only when indicated by specific concerns, and typically in the context of a much more comprehensive evaluation (such as a neuropsychological), extending beyond cognition.

.

Probably the closest thing to an all-in-one set of CHC measures is the family of Woodcock-Johnson tests (which, naturally, is actually mostly authored by Kevin McGrew and his team, not either Dr. Woodcock or Dr. Johnson!), but administering all of the subtests from all three sections of the battery would probably take a couple of school days of doing basically nothing but testing. And you're right--that would probably be a nightmare for most students!

Even then, there are quite a few skills not addressed.

.

You may be aware that many North American schools did, at one point, administer the same standardized test of cognition and achievement every year, typically over the course of a week. Not comprehensive, of course. But a truly comprehensive measure would take way too much time, and would not provide a lot of new information if given every one to two years. (Not to mention it would be very expensive!)

I actually prefer not to end the day with reasoning tests. They may be more fun, but to obtain optimal performance, we usually want to do those earlier in the day, when brains are fresh. I would vote for not testing at all at the end of the day, and just stick with Dairy Queen!

.