MENTAL RETARDATION AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES

RESEARCH REVIEWS 11: 197–208 (2005)

GENERAL MEASURES OF COGNITION FOR THE

PRESCHOOL CHILD
Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger*
Alliant International University, San Diego, CA

Preschool-age children who are experiencing delays in physical, cog- developing children (interindividual differences). The difficulty
nitive, communication, social, emotional, or adaptive development are of- with many comprehensive cognitive measures is that they often
ten referred for a comprehensive assessment to make diagnostic determi-
nations and to help develop appropriate interventions. Typically cognitive do not permit the estimation of functioning of children at
assessment has a key role in a comprehensive evaluation of a young child. In extremely low levels (e.g., below an intelligence quotient (IQ)
this article, five individually administered tests of cognitive ability, normed of 40 –50 or more than 3 SD below the mean).
for the preschool-age child, are reviewed. These specific tests include the This article reviews and compares five tests of general
Bayley Scales of Infant Development, 2nd edition, the Kaufman Assessment
Battery for Children, 2nd edition, the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale
cognitive ability for the preschool child that are comprehensive
of Intelligence, 3rd edition, the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale, 5th edi- in scope and that are widely known in the fields of psychology,
tion, and the Differential Abilities Scales. The following is provided for these school psychology, and neuropsychology: Bayley Scales of Infant
cognitive instruments: a description of the test procedures, information on Development, 2nd edition (BSID-II; [Bayley, 1993]), Kaufman
scoring systems, highlights of the technical qualities, and a summary of the Assessment Battery for Children, 2nd edition (KABC-II; [Kaufman
general meaning of test results. The article concludes with strengths and
limitations of the instruments. © 2005 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
and Kaufman, 2004a]), Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of
MRDD Research Reviews 2005;11:197–208. Intelligence, 3rd edition (WPPSI-III; [The Psychological Corpo-
ration, 2002]), Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale, 5th edition (SB5;
[Roid, 2003]), and the Differential Abilities Scales (DAS; [Elliott,
Key Words: preschool; cognitive assessment; KABC-II; BSID-II; WPPSI-III;
1990a,b]). For each test, a general description is provided, as well
SB5; DAS
as brief information on its historical, conceptual, and theoretical
background; the scoring systems and the technical qualities of
the tests are summarized; interpretation is briefly discussed to
give readers a basic understanding of the meaning of cognitive

P
reschool assessment takes places for many reasons: screen-
test results. Detailed information on how to interpret these
ing, diagnosis, placement decisions, and remediation of
measures is beyond the scope of this article; however, appropri-
problems. Research has shown that early intervention in a
ate references are suggested with each test for readers interested
child’s life is necessary to minimize lasting effects of a child’s
in more in-depth interpretive information. Each test has areas
difficulties [Kenny and Culbertson, 1993]. Thus, a comprehen-
that need improvement or that warrant caution on the exam-
sive cognitive assessment in the preschool years can be a key
iner’s part, and each test also has unique qualities that make it
component of a thorough multidisciplinary evaluation that di-
especially useful as a diagnostic tool. Thus, the strengths and
rectly leads to intervention strategies.
weaknesses of the instruments are highlighted to provide readers
A broad range of assessment measures should be used to
with an understanding of advantages and disadvantages in ad-
gain a full understanding of a preschooler’s functioning (e.g.,
ministering these particular instruments.
parent and teacher reports, behavioral observation, detailed de-
velopmental history, and play-based assessment, in addition to GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE TESTS
traditional cognitive tests). This article focuses on the traditional The five individually administered tests of general cogni-
tests of cognitive ability, although they are by no means the only tion for the preschool child described in this article vary in terms
“true” measure of a child’s development. There are many mea- of the age range that they assess, their technical qualities, and the
sures of cognitive ability for the preschool child —some are specific cognitive domains that they measure. In Table 1, infor-
comprehensive measures that attempt to assess many facets of mation is provided about age range that the tests cover and the
general cognitive ability and some are more specialized instru- tests’ administration time, in addition to the tests’ authors,
ments that target a selective number of cognitive abilities. Yet publishers, publication dates. Examiners should be aware that
others have been designed as brief instruments that can be used
as a screening tool in the assessment of preschooler’s cognitive
ability. Comprehensive measures of cognitive ability are useful *Correspondence to: Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger, Ph.D. E-mail:
in assessing young children with developmental disabilities, be- drlichtenberger@[Link]
cause these measures yield information about multiple domains Received 11 July 2005; Accepted 12 July 2005
Published online in Wiley InterScience ([Link]).
of functioning that are comparable with one another (intrain- DOI: 10.1002/mrdd.20076
dividual differences) as well as to a normative group of typically
© 2005 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
 Table 1. General Information About the Five Measures of Cognition for Preschool Children
Year of Age Range that
Test Author Publication Publisher Test Assesses Time to Administer

Bayley Scales of Infant Bayley 1993 The Psychological 1 to 42 mo. ● 25–60 min (for 16⫹ mo.)
Development, 2nd Corporation ● 25–35 min (for ⬍15 mo.)
edition (BSID-II)

The Kaufman Assess- Kaufman and 2004 American Guid- 3–0 to 18–11 ● 23–35 min (for age 3)
ment Battery for Kaufman ance Service ● 30–45 min (for age 4)a
Children, 2nd edi- ● 35–50 (for age 5)a
tion (KABC-II)
The Wechsler Pre- The Psychological 2002 The Psychological 2–6 to 7–3 ● 30–45 min (for age ⬍4–0)
school and Primary Corporation Corporation ● 45–60 min (for age ⬎4–0)
Scale of Intelli-
gence, 3rd Edition
(WPPSI-III)
Stanford-Binet Intelli- Roid 2003 Riverside 2 to 85 ● 45–75 min (for Full Scale IQ)
gence Scale, 5th ● 15–20 min (for abbreviated
edition (SB5) battery IQ)
The Differential Abili- Elliott 1990 The Psychological 2–6 to 17–11 ● 25–65 minb
ties Scales (DAS) Corporation

a
When administering Supplementary subtests in addition to Core KABC-II subtests, the battery can take up 60 min for 4-year-old children and 90 min for 5-year-old children. bSave (2003) reported that the DAS
lower preschool level will take about 40 min and the upper preschool level will take about 90 min to administer.

newer test norms are generally preferable years below his chronological age, make Description of Psychometric
to older norms. Flynn [1987] has dem- sure that the test you administer has a Properties
onstrated that norms in the United States floor appropriate for a 3-year-old. A test The psychometric characteristics of
become outdated by about 3 points/de- with an adequate floor will yield a stan- a test give information about its technical
cade. Thus, tests such as the BSID-II and dard score 2 standard deviations (SDs) or adequacy. How well a test is standardized
DAS that were published more than 10 more below the mean (a standard score of provides information about the quality of
years ago, will produce scores that may 70 or below). If a test does not have an the sample from which the norms were
be “inflated” by three or more points. adequate floor, then it may not accurately developed. Each of the five instruments
When choosing a general cognitive identify children with very delayed func- discussed in this article was standardized
test to administer to young children with tioning [Bracken, 2000]. with a large, well-stratified sample (rang-
developmental disabilities, administration ing from 1,700 to nearly 5,000 partici-
time needs to be carefully considered. pants). The samples were chosen to
Often such children will have difficulty Description of Scoring Systems
Each of the tests discussed in this match closely the U.S. Census data on
maintaining focused attention for a long the variables of age, gender, geographic
period of time, and thus tests with shorter article yields raw scores that are con-
verted in to standard scores (i.e., norm region, ethnicity, and parental education
administration times are more beneficial. (see Table 2). Other key technical qual-
All tests will offer natural breaks between referenced scores). For the global scales
(e.g., IQs or Indexes) the M ⫽ 100 and ities to consider about a test are its reli-
subtests, so if a child is beginning to lose
the SD ⫽ 15. Scaled scores are calculated ability and validity. Saye [2003] stated
motivation, interest, or focus, examiners
may choose to then temporarily suspend for the tests’ subtests with a M ⫽ 10 and that the typical standard for internal con-
the testing for a short play break or snack, a SD ⫽ 3. The scoring for the DAS is sistency and stability of a measure’s total
slightly different than the other tests test score is 0.90; and is 0.80 for compos-
and resume when the child seems ready
to focus. Even with the most challenging mentioned in that raw scores are con- ites and subtests. As noted in Table 2; the
preschool children try to avoid stopping verted to ability scores, which take into reliability of each of these tests (the sta-
midway through a subtest. Tangible or account both the difficulty of the items bility of the test score over time) is
social rewards can be used to encourage and the number of items answered cor- strong. The validity (how well a test
children to complete the tasks at hand, rectly. However, DAS ability scores are measures what it purports to measure) of
although they should be used judiciously. not norm-referenced. Therefore, the a test is typically demonstrated with fac-
In addition to considering admin- DAS ability scores for cognitive subtests tor analysis (construct validity); correla-
istration time, examine the age range that must then be converted to T-scores tions with other measures of cognitive
the test is designed to measure to deter- (M ⫽ 50, SD ⫽ 10) in order to make ability (concurrent validity); or correla-
mine whether it will be able to ade- comparisons with other children or be- tions with measures administered at a
quately measure a child’s abilities. As tween subtests. T-scores are then later time (predictive validity). Predictive
children with developmental disabilities summed and converted to a standard validity is normally weak for tests of pre-
often are performing at levels that are score (M ⫽ 100, SD ⫽ 15) for both schoolers’ cognitive ability because their
well below that of their peers, choose cluster scores and the General Concep- development occurs so rapidly and be-
instruments that will have an adequate tual Ability. Percentile ranks, confidence cause test items may measure different
range of content to assess a child at their intervals, age equivalents, and descriptive constructs at different ages [Bracken,
current level of ability. For example, if a categories are also available scoring met- 2000; Saye, 2003]. Table 2 also summa-
5-year-old child is functioning at least 2 rics for all of the instruments. rizes the evidence of each tests’ validity.
198 MRDD RESEARCH REVIEWS ● MEASURES OF COGNITION FOR PRESCHOOL ● LICHTENBERGER
 Table 2. Standardization and Psychometric Properties of Five Preschool Tests
Test Standardization Sample Evidence of Reliability Evidence of Validity

BSID-II 1,700 children, including 100 Internal-consistency reliability coefficients: ● Criterion validity is supported by correlations between the
children (50 boys and 50 ● Mental Scale (M ⫽ 0.88; range ⫽ 0.78–0.93) BSID-II MDI and the WPPSI-R (0.73), and the Mc-
girls), in each of the 17 age ● Motor Scale (M ⫽ 0.84; range ⫽ 0.75–0.87) Carthy Scales of Children’s Abilities (0.79)
groups between 1 month and ● Behavior Rating Scale Total Score (M ⫽ 0.88; ● Results of an exploratory factor analysis support the con-
42 months of age range 0.82–0.92) struct validity of the BSID-II
KABC-II 3,025 children, divided into 18 Internal-consistency coefficients for ages 3–6: ● Results of confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) across age
age groups, with each of the 6 ● 0.95 for the MPI levels support the construct validity of the KABC-II
age groups from ages 3 to 6 ● 0.96 for the FCI ● At ages 3–4, the WPPSI-III Full Scale IQ correlated 0.76
composed of 100–200 chil- ● Range for individual subtests ⫽ 0.69 for Hand and 0.81 with the KABC-II MPI and FCI, respectively
dren Movements to 0.92 on Rebus ● Academic achievement (Kaufman Test of Educational
● Subtests Mdn ⫽ 0.84 Achievement, 2nd edition; KTEA-II, Kaufman and Kauf-
man, 2004b) correlated 0.72–0.74 with the KABC-II MPI
and FCI
● Studies including clinical groups provide further evidence of
the KABC-II’s validity
WPPSI-III 1,700 children, divided into 9 Internal-consistency coefficients: ● Construct validity of the WPPSI-III is supported by the
age groups, each composed of ● 0.95 for V-IQ factor-analytic studies
200 children, except for the ● 0.93 for P-IQ ● Criterion validity is supported by correlations of 0.80–0.89,
7–0 to 7–3 age group that ● 0.89 for PSQ with the following instruments BSID-II, WPPSI-R
was composed of 100 chil- ● 0.93 for GLC (Wechsler, 1989), WISC-III (Wechsler, 1991), and DAS
dren ● 0.96 for FS-IQ (Elliott, 1990a,b)
● Range for subtests across all ages: 0.75 for Block ● Studies including clinical groups provide further evidence of
Design (for the 4–0 to 4–5 age group) to 0.96 on the test’s validity
Similarities (for ages 4–6 to 4–11 and 5–6 to 5–11)
● Subtest Mdn ⫽ 0.88
Test-retest coefficients:
● 0.91, 0.86, and 0.92 for the V-, P-, and FS-IQ,
respectively
SB5 4,800 participants, including Internal-consistency coefficients: ● Construct validity of the SB5 was demonstrated in a princi-
1,400 children ages 2–5. ● 0.98 for FS IQ pal components analysis
● 0.95 for Nonverbal IQ ● Criterion-related validity for preschool samples was found in
● 0.96 for V-IQ correlation between SB5 and the WPPSI-R (r ⫽ 0.83)
● Nonverbal subtests ranged from 0.85 to 0.89
● Verbal subtests ranged from 0.84 to 0.89
● Indexes ranged from 0.90 for Fluid Reasoning to
0.92 for Knowledge, Quantitative Reasoning, and
Visual-Spatial Processing
● Test-retest reliability (for 2–5 years):
● 0.92 to 0.95 for the IQs
● 0.82 to 0.92 for the Factor Index Scores
● 0.76 to 0.91 for the subtest scores
DAS 3,475 children and adolescents Internal-consistency coefficients (for the preschool age group): ● Concurrent validity was demonstrated by correlations of
with 175 children for each ● Subtests range from 0.68 for Block Building (at age 0.89 with the FS-IQ of the WPPSI-R to 0.77 with the
age group from 2–6 to 4–11, 2–6) to 0.90 for Pattern Construction (at age 5 SB-IV
and 200 children/year for ages years) ● Convergent validity was shown with correlations between
5–0—17–11 ● Generally in the low 0.80s, but the GCA score has DAS Verbal Ability and WPPSI-III V-IQ of 0.78 and cor-
higher reliability coefficients (about 0.90) relations between DAS Nonverbal Reasoning and
Test-retest reliability: WPPSI-II P-IQ of 0.76
● GCA ⫽ 0.90

DESCRIPTION OF TEST have a test profile with significantly their subtests are then described in a series
PROCEDURES stronger nonverbal than verbal skills. of tables.
Most general measures of cogni- Children with cerebral palsy or other
tion designed for preschool children tap motoric disorders may struggle in the BSID-II
the global domains of verbal and nonver- nonverbal domain, but have intact lan- The BSID-II assesses cognitive,
bal functioning. In addition, a measure of guage skills. Thus, children with devel- motor, and behavioral development of
global cognitive ability is yielded from opmental disabilities may have great vari- infants and children between the ages of
each test, but for most children with de- ability between their verbal and 1 month through 3 1⁄2 years. The first
velopmental disabilities, it is the variabil- nonverbal abilities, which minimizes the edition of the BSID (BSID; [Bayley,
ity between the separate domains of meaningfulness of the global cognitive 1969] was derived from several scales of
functioning that is the most important to score. To better understand how each of infant development, including the Cali-
measure, rather than the global (“aver- the tests measure verbal and nonverbal fornia First-Year Mental Scale [Bayley,
age”) cognitive ability score. For exam- abilities, the structures of the five instru- 1933] the California Preschool Mental Scale
ple, children with severe language disor- ments’ scales are briefly explained in the [Jaffa, 1934] and the California Infant Scale
ders or autistic-spectrum disorders may following sections and the content of of Motor Development [Bayley, 1936]. The
 Table 3. Description of BSID-II Scales
BSID-II Scale Description

Mental Assesses the child’s current level of cognitive, language, and personal-social development and includes items that measure
memory, problem solving, early number concepts, generalization, classification, vocalizations, language, and social
skills.
Motor Measures the child’s level of gross and fine motor development via items associated with crawling, sitting, standing,
walking, etc., for gross motor movement and items related to the use of writing, grasping, and imitation of hand
movements for fine motor movement.
Behavior rating This scale is completed by the examiner regarding the child’s behaviors during the test administration and assesses the
child’s attention/arousal (for children under 6 months of age), orientation/engagement toward the tasks and the ex-
aminer, emotional regulation, and quality of motor movement.

revision of the Bayley Scales includes res- chological research [Neisser, 1967; Das et each with its own battery of subtests. The
tandardization to update the norms, ex- al., 1979]. WPPSI-III offers a Full Scale IQ (FS-IQ)
tending the age range (formerly ranged In its second edition, the K-ABC that represents the overall level of cogni-
from 2 to 30 months), and addressing the underwent major revision –structurally and tive ability for children when the range of
shift in interest among clinicians and re- conceptually. The K-ABC’s theoretical scores in the profile is not highly variable.
searchers from assessing normal infants to foundation in Luria’s [1966] sequential-si- The test also yields a Verbal IQ (V-IQ)
assessing high risk and developmentally multaneous processing theory and cerebral that is “a measure of acquired knowl-
delayed infants. However, a majority of specialization theory was modified and edge, verbal reasoning, and comprehen-
the content of the BSID were retained; supplemented in the second edition. Un- sion” and a Performance IQ (P-IQ) that
items were added to expand the age like the original K-ABC; the KABC-II is is “a measure of fluid reasoning, spatial
range and content coverage. Items were founded in Luria’s three Blocks; and has a processing, attentiveness to detail, and vi-
changed or deleted if they were consid- second theoretical foundation—Cattell- sual-motor integration” [The Psycholog-
ered difficult to administer, identified as Horn-Carroll (CHC; [Carroll, 1997; ical Corporation, 2002], pp. 135–136).
biased against racial/ethnic groups, or Flanagan et al., 2000b]— giving examiners The WPPSI-III adds a General Language
were redundant with other items. more flexibility in interpretation (Table 4 Composite (GLC) that measures recep-
The BSID-II consists of three explains how these two theories are applied tive and expressive vocabulary abilities
scales: the Mental Scale, Motor Scale, to the test). To create the dual theoretical (but not higher-level processing of lan-
and Behavior Rating Scale (Table 3 de- basis, 10 new subtests were created and 8 guage) and—for the older age band—a
scribes the content of each scale). In old ones were removed, while 8 original Processing Speed Quotient (PSQ) that
2005, the Bayley Scales of Infant and Tod- K-ABC subtests were retained. measures processing speed (it is also ef-
dler Development, 3rd edition (Bayley-III) The KABC-II offers two batteries fected by attention– concentration, dis-
will be published by The Psychological for preschool-age children, one for age 3 tractibility, visual memory, planning abil-
Corporation. The Bayley-III will assess and another for children aged 4 – 6. De- ity, visual-motor coordination, and
five domains: cognitive, language, mo- pending on the age level of the child and compulsiveness). Mainly motor responses
tor, social-emotional, and adaptive be- the interpretive approach that the clini- are required on the Performance scale
havior. An optional Behavior Rating cian chooses to take, the KABC-II yields (pointing, placing, or drawing) and spo-
Scale will also be included with the from one to five scales. At Age 3, there is ken responses are usually required on the
Scales. The Bayley-III will also include only one scale, a global measure of abil- Verbal scale.
suggestions to help parents plan for their ity, composed of either five subtests Wechsler’s test for preschoolers has
child, based on the results of the assess- (Mental Processing Index–MPI) or seven a long history. In 1967, the Wechsler
ment. subtests (Fluid-Crystallized Index–FCI). Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelli-
For Ages 4 – 6, subtests are organized into gence (WPPSI) was developed to meet
KABC-II either three scales (Luria model) or four the growing need of how to evaluate
The KABC-II is a measure of the scales (CHC model): Sequential/Gsm, programs such as Head Start. The WPPSI
processing and cognitive abilities of chil- Simultaneous/Gv, and Learning/Glr are was basically developed as a downward
dren and adolescents between the ages of in both models, and Knowledge/Gc is extension of many of the WISC subtests,
3 years 0 months and 18 years 11 months. only in the CHC model. A Nonverbal but provided simpler items and an appro-
It is organized into three levels (Age 3, scale is also available at all ages. The priately aged standardization sample. Un-
Ages 4 – 6, Ages 7–18), the first two are KABC-II scales are described in Table 4, fortunately, the WPPSI accommodated
appropriate for preschoolers. The origi- and the subtests that comprise each scale the narrow 4 to 6 1⁄2 year age range,
nal K-ABC, published in 1983 was are outlined and briefly described in Ta- failing to meet the needs of program
rooted in neuropsychological theories— ble 5. evaluations because most of the new pro-
Sperry’s [1968] cerebral specialization ap- grams were for ages 3–5. However, the
proach and the Luria–Das successive-si- WPPSI-III WPPSI has continued to be improved
multaneous processing dichotomy. Both The WPPSI-III is a measure of and renormed, which lead the WPPSI to
the Sperry and Luria–Das models are cognitive functioning of children from have two revisions, one in 1989 and its
characterized by a dual-processing ap- ages 2 years, 6 months to 7 years, 3 most recent in 2002.
proach that has been well supported by a months. Its age range is divided into two For the 2– 6 to 3–11 age band and
large body of cognitive and neuropsy- age bands (2– 6 to 3–11 and 4 – 0 to 7–3), the 4 – 0 to 7–3 age band, WPPSI-III
200 MRDD RESEARCH REVIEWS ● MEASURES OF COGNITION FOR PRESCHOOL ● LICHTENBERGER
 Table 4. Luria and CHC Conceptualizations of KABC-II Scales Administered to Preschoolers
Name of
KABC-II Scale Luria Conceptualization CHC Conceptualization
Learning/Glr Learning Ability Long-Term Storage and Retrieval (Glr)

Reflects an integration of the processes associated with all three of Storing and efficiently retrieving newly-learned, or
Luria’s Blocks, placing a premium on the attention-concentra- previously learned, information.
tion processes that are in the domain of Block 1, but also re-
quiring Block 2 coding processes and Block 3 strategy genera-
tion to learn and retain the new information with efficiency.
Sequential and simultaneous processing are associated primarily
with Luria’s Block 2, and pertain to either a step-by-step (se-
quential) or holistic (simultaneous) processing of information.
Sequential/Gsm Sequential Processing Short-Term Memory (Gsm)
Measures the kind of coding function that Luria labeled “succes- Taking in and holding information, and then us-
sive,” and involves arranging input in sequential or serial order ing it within a few seconds.
to solve a problem, where each idea is linearly and temporally
related to the preceding one.
Simultaneous/Gv Simultaneous Processing Visual Processing (Gv)
Measures the second type, or simultaneous, coding function asso- Perceiving, storing, manipulating, and thinking
ciated with Block 2. For its tasks, the input has to be integrated with visual patterns.
and synthesized simultaneously (holistically), usually spatially, to
produce the appropriate solution. As mentioned earlier, the
KABC-II measure of simultaneous processing deliberately
blends Luria’s Block 2 and Block 3 to enhance the complexity
of the simultaneous syntheses that are required.
Knowledge/Gc (This scale is not included in the Luria model) Crystallized Ability (Gc)
Demonstrating the breadth and depth of knowl-
edge acquired from one’s culture.

Knowledge/Gc is included in the CHC system for the computation of the FCI, but it is excluded from the Luria system for the computation of the Mental Processing Index (MPI). Only the MPI and FCI are offered
for 3-year-olds. (Table adapted from Kaufman and Lichtenberger [2005]), p. 14).

subtests are categorized as core, supple- SB5 mine the developmental starting point
mental, or optional. Core subtests are The SB5 is an individually admin- for the remaining subtests. The SB5
those that comprise the V-IQ, P-IQ, and istered measure of cognitive abilities for subtests and scales are outlined and briefly
FS-IQ. The composition of the scales for children, adolescents, and adults from described in Table 7.
each age group is presented in Figures 1 ages 2 to 85. The SB5 replaces the Fourth
and 2. In the younger age bracket, two Edition of the Stanford-Binet (SB IV) that DAS
core subtests comprise the V-IQ and two was published in 1986. Changes were The DAS is an individually admin-
subtests comprise the P-IQ. The four made in the revision of the SB IV with istered battery of cognitive and achieve-
subtests of the V-IQ and P-IQ together the addition of a fifth factor (Visual-Spa- ment tests designed to be administered to
yield the FS-IQ for children aged 2– 6 to tial Processing), and with modification of children and adolescents between the
3–11. In the older age bracket, three the memory factor’s content to more ages of 2 years, 6 months through 17
subtests comprise the V-IQ and three heavily emphasize working memory years, 11 months. The British Ability
subtests comprise the P-IQ. In addition rather than short-term memory. The Scales (BAS; Elliott, 1979) was published
to the six subtests of the V-IQ and P-IQ, SB5 also increased the breadth of con- in Great Britain and was the forerunner
an additional core subtest (Coding) is cepts measured by the Nonverbal IQ, to the DAS. In 1984, Colin Elliott began
added in the calculation of the FS-IQ for which now covers five areas. The SB5 is development of an American version of
those aged 4 – 0 to 7–3. For both age based on the CHC theory of cognitive the BAS. The theoretical basis for the
groups the GLC comprises two subtests: functioning, and measures 5 of the 10 DAS is the CHC g factor of general in-
Receptive Vocabulary and Picture Nam- broad CHC abilities: Fluid Intelligence telligence.
ing (a supplemental subtest for children (Gf), Crystallized Knowledge (Gc), Quan- The DAS cognitive battery consists
under age 4, and an optional one for titative Knowledge (Gq), Visual Processing of 17 subtests that divide into three levels:
those aged 4 and above). Only the older (Gv), and Short-Term Memory (Gsm). Preschool Level (ages 2– 6 to 3–5), Up-
age bracket has a fourth standard score, The SB5 comprises 10 subtests that per Preschool Level (ages 3– 6 to 5–11),
the PSQ, which is composed of Coding yield a FS-IQ, two domain scores (V-IQ and the School-Aged Level (ages 6 – 0 to
and Symbol Search (a supplemental and Nonverbal IQ), and five factor in- 17–11). Depending on the child’s age,
subtest). Because GLC and PSQ require dexes (Fluid Reasoning, Knowledge, the core battery consists of four to six
the administration of noncore subtests, Quantitative Reasoning, Visual-Spatial subtests. The cognitive battery yields a
these two global scores are supplements, Reasoning, and Working Memory). Ad- composite score or General Conceptual
not “core” standard scores. A description ministration begins with two routing Ability score, in addition to lower level
of WPPSI-III subtests is provided in Ta- subtests (Vocabulary and Object Series/ composite scores, called Cluster scores.
ble 6. Matrices). These routing subtests deter- For preschool-aged children, two Cluster
MRDD RESEARCH REVIEWS ● MEASURES OF COGNITION FOR PRESCHOOL ● LICHTENBERGER 201
 Table 5. Subtests that Comprise KABC-II Scales for Ages 3–5
Age at which Subtest is Administered

Scale and Subtests Core Supplementary Nonverbal Description

Sequential/Gsm Subtests
Word Order 3–5 - - The child touches a series of silhouettes of common objects in the
same order as the examiner said the names of the objects; more
difficult items include an interference task (color naming) be-
tween the stimulus and response.
Number Recall 4–5 3 - The child repeats a series of numbers in the same sequence as the
examiner said them, with series ranging in length from 2 to 9
numbers; the numbers are single digits, except that 10 is used
instead of 7 to ensure that all numbers are one syllable.
Hand Movements - 4–5 3–5 The child copies the examiner’s precise sequence of taps on the
table with the first, palm, or side of the hand.
Simultaneous/Gv Subtests
Triangles 3–5 - - For most items, the child assembles several identical rubber trian-
gles (blue on one side, yellow on the other) to match a picture
of an abstract design; for easier items, the child assembles a dif-
ferent set of colorful rubber shapes to match a model con-
structed by the examiner.
Conceptual Thinking 3–5 - 3–5 The child views a set of 4 or 5 pictures and the child identifies
the one picture that does not belong with the others; some
items present meaningful stimuli and others use abstract stimuli.
Face Recognition 3–4 5 3–5 The child attends closely to photographs of one or two faces that
are exposed briefly, and then selects the correct face or faces,
shown in a different pose, from a group photograph
Gestalt Closure - 3–5 - The child mentally “fills in the gaps” in a partially completed
“inkblot” drawing and names (or describes) the object or action
depicted in the drawing.
Block Counting - 5 - The child counts the exact number of blocks in various pictures
of stacks of blocks; the stacks are configured such that one or
more blocks is hidden or partially hidden from view.
Pattern Reasoning 5–6 - 5 The child is shown a series of stimuli that form a logical, linear
pattern, but one stimulus is missing; the child completes the
pattern by selecting the correct stimulus from an array of 4 to 6
options at the bottom of the page (most stimuli are abstract,
geometric shapes, but some easy items use meaningful).
Learning/Glr Subtests
Atlantis 3–5 - - The examiner teaches the child the nonsense names for fanciful
pictures of fish, plants, and shells; the child demonstrates learn-
ing by pointing to each picture (out of an array of pictures)
when it is named.
Atlantis-Delayed - 5 - The child demonstrates delayed recall of paired associations
learned about 15–25 min earlier during Atlantis by pointing to
the picture of the fish, plant, or shell that is named by the ex-
aminer.
Rebus 4–5 - - The examiner teaches the child the word or concept associated
with each particular rebus (drawing) and the child then “reads”
aloud phrases and sentences composed of these rebuses.
Rebus-Delayed - 5 5 The child demonstrates delayed recall of paired associations
learned about 15–25 min earlier during Rebus by “reading”
phrases and sentences composed of those same rebuses
Knowledge/Gc Subtests
Riddles 3–5 - - The examiner provides several characteristics of a concrete or ab-
stract verbal concept and the child has to point to it (early
items) or name it (later items).
Expressive Vocabulary 3–5 - - The child provides the name of a pictured object.
Verbal Knowledge - 3–6 - The child selects from an array of 6 pictures the one that corre-
sponds to a vocabulary word or answers a general information
question

Note: Knowledge/Gc subtests are only administered if giving the CHC model. (Adapted from Table 1.2 of KABC-II Manual [Kaufman and Kaufman, 2004a]).

scores, Verbal Ability, and Nonverbal relatively high g loadings. There are also mation processing and short-term mem-
Ability are yielded from 4 to 6 subtests. 2–5 “diagnostic” subtests for each level, ory; however, the diagnostic subtests do
The composite scores are composed of which measure specific abilities that are not contribute to the composites. The
“core” subtests, only those subtests with less related to g, such as speed of infor- core and diagnostic cognitive subtests are
202 MRDD RESEARCH REVIEWS ● MEASURES OF COGNITION FOR PRESCHOOL ● LICHTENBERGER
 Fig. 1. WPPSI-III scale structure for ages 2– 6 to 3–11. Picture Naming can be substituted for a core Verbal subtest if necessary (From E. O. Lichtenberger
and A. S. Kaufman 2004, p 9. Copyright © 2004 by Wiley. Reprinted with permission).

Fig. 2. WPPSI-III scale structure for ages 4 – 0 to 7–3. Either supplemental Verbal subtest may be substituted for one core Verbal subtest. Supplemental
Performance subtests may be substituted for one core Performance subtest (From E. O. Lichtenberger and A. S. Kaufman 2004, p 10. Copyright © 2004
by Wiley. Reprinted with permission).

listed for the Lower and Upper Preschool not perform to the best of their abilities terpreted cautiously. Bear in mind that any
Levels in Table 8. in the assessment). On the basis of behav- given testing is a sample of a child’s behav-
ioral observations and opinion of the ior in a controlled situation. Thus, even if
MEANING OF TEST RESULTS caregiver who observed the assessment, the scores resulting from an assessment are
Scores from measures of general you can determine the validity of the deemed as “invalid” or if scores need to be
cognitive ability are important to inter- results. For example, if the child’s behav- viewed “with caution,” invaluable qualita-
pret within the context of a child’s med- iors indicated that he or she may not have tive information is yielded about how the
ical and social history as well as other test understood the directions of the tasks, or child approached a task, responded to the
results. Before interpreting the results, it the child could not remain focused and social situation, responded to directions and
is also important to consider how valid a attentive enough to complete the tasks at redirection, as well as other observable
given assessment is. If a caregiver ob- hand, then the test results need to be qualities such as attention, tolerance for
served the testing of the child, inquire interpreted cautiously or may not be frustration, and so forth.
about whether the child responded to the valid. In addition, if the caregiver indi-
assessment in a manner that was typical cates that the child was not responding in Comparing Cognitive Domains
for that child (i.e., some young children a manner that reflects his or her typical Interpretive information can be
do not respond well to strangers and may ability, then the results should also be in- gleaned by examining the discrepancy be-
MRDD RESEARCH REVIEWS ● MEASURES OF COGNITION FOR PRESCHOOL ● LICHTENBERGER 203
 Table 6. Description of WPPSI-III Subtests
Performance Subtests Verbal Subtests

Block Design Information

Child reproduces patterns made from 1- or 2-colored blocks. Child must either point to a picture or verbally answer brief oral
questions about commonplace objects and events.
Matrix Reasoning Vocabulary
The child looks at an incomplete matrix and selects the missing Child names pictured items and provides verbal definitions of
section from 4 or 5 response options. words.
Picture Concepts Word Reasoning
Child is presented with 2 or 3 rows of pictures and chooses The child reads an increasingly specific series of one to three
one picture from each row to form a group with a common clues and identifies the common object or concept being de-
organizational concept. scribed.
Object Assembly Comprehension
Child is required to fit puzzle pieces together to form a mean- Child verbally responds to questions about consequences of
ingful whole. events.
Picture Completion Similarities
Child identifies what is missing from pictures of common ob- Child completes a sentence that contains a verbal analogy.
jects.
Symbol Search Picture Naming
Child indicates, by marking a box, whether a target symbol The child names pictures that are displayed singularly in the
appears in a series of symbols stimulus booklet.
Coding Receptive Vocabulary
Using a key, the child draws symbols that are paired with sim- The child looks at a group of four pictures and points to the one
ple geometric shapes. that the examiner describes aloud.

To view which subtests comprise each WPPSI-III scale, examine Figures 1 and 2.

Table 7. SB5 Subtests and the Activities that Comprise them

Verbal Subtests Nonverbal Subtests

Fluid Reasoning Fluid Reasoning

● Early Reasoning: Examinee describes what is happening in the picture. ● Object Series/Matrices: Examinee selects the best alternative to complete
a series or a matrix.
● Verbal Absurdities: Examinee explains orally what is silly or impossi-
ble about the statement ready by the examiner.
● Verbal Analogies: Examinee solves word problems orally
Knowledge Knowledge
● Vocabulary: Early items require a pointing response. Items increase in ● Procedural Knowledge: Examinee shows what you typically do with a
difficulty requiring single word responses. Upper level items require that pictured object.
words be defined clearly
● Picture Absurdities: Examinee points to and tells what is silly or im-
possible in each picture
Quantitative Reasoning Quantitative Reasoning
● Quantitative Reasoning, Verbal: Examinee responds verbally to quan- ● Quantitative Reasoning, Nonverbal: Examinee solves a problem by
titative reasoning problems presented orally and visually. pointing to a response
Visual-Spatial Processing Visual-Spatial Processing
● Position and Direction: Examinee places a block on the part of the ● Form Board: Examinee uses blue plastic pieces to assemble a pattern
picture specified orally by the examiner or the examinee responds ver- shown on the stimulus page.
bally to oral questions.
● Form Patterns: Examinee must place the shapes back into the correct
spots in the form board after seeing the examiner remove them.
Working Memory Working Memory
● Memory For Sentences: Examinee recalls orally presented sentences. ● Delayed Response: Examinee must remember which cup hides an ob-
ject.
● Last Word: Examinee listens to a question, answers the question, and ● Block Span: Examinee taps blocks in the same sequence demonstrated
then recalls the last word in the question. by the examiner.

Subtest names are listed in bold and underneath each of the subtests, the activities that comprise each are listed and described in italics.

tween scores from the separate domains of sequential processing/short-term and the five factor indexes can be
the cognitive tests, to determine if differ- memory, simultaneous processing/ contrasted
ences are significant and relatively uncom- visual processing, learning/long- ● On the DAS, the Verbal versus
mon. For example, consider the following term memory, and knowledge) Nonverbal Ability clusters can
comparisons for the cognitive tests: ● On the WPPSI-III, the V-IQ be compared.
● On the BSID-II examine the versus P-IQ can be examined (as A variety of factors can lead to
MDI versus PDI well as the GLC and PSQ) unusual differences across domains:
● On the KABC-II, the separate in- ● On the SB5, the V-IQ versus language deficits, learning deficits,
dexes can be contrasted (measuring Nonverbal IQ can be examined visual-motor deficits, neuromuscular
204 MRDD RESEARCH REVIEWS ● MEASURES OF COGNITION FOR PRESCHOOL ● LICHTENBERGER
 Table 8. DAS Core and Diagnostic Cognitive Subtests for the Preschool Level
Preschool-Age Level

Core Cognitive Subtests 2–6 to 3–5 3–6 to 5–11 Description

Block Building ⫹ Child reproduces two- or three-dimensional block designs

using four or eight wooden blocks.

Verbal Comprehension ⫹ ⫹ Child points to picture or manipulates objects in response

to oral instructions from the examiner.

Picture Similarities ⫹ ⫹ Child places a card with a picture under one of four dis-
played pictures that the card shares an element or con-
cept with.

Naming Vocabulary ⫹ ⫹ Child gives the name of an object or picture.

Pattern Construction ⫹ Child constructs geometric designs with flat squares or

solid cubes.

Copying ⫹ Child draws abstract geometric designs.

Early Number Concepts ⫹ Child demonstrates knowledge of numerical concepts

such as size, number, order, addition, and subtraction.

Diagnostic Cognitive Subtests

Recall of Digits ⫹ ⫹ Child recalls digits that were presented orally.

Recognition of Pictures ⫹ ⫹ Child recognizes, in a group of four to seven similar pic-

tures, the one, two, three, or four picture that had
been briefly presented previously.

Block Building ⫹ As described earlier.

Matching Letter-Like Forms ⫹ Child finds an identical match to an abstract figure from
six choices.

Recall of Objects ⫹ Child recalls as many pictures as possible from memory

after viewing pictures on a card for 20–60 s.

All core subtests from the GCA at their respective year levels. (Adapted from [Elliott, 1990a]).

problems, or noncognitive factors such identified as one of the most well re- Special Considerations for Test
as fatigue and inattention. Examining searched and empirically supported Interpretation of Children with
the specific pattern of errors made on theories; which represents a viable Developmental Disabilities
the scales can help identify if a partic- framework from which cognitive func- Much information can be gleaned
ular area of functioning is problematic. tioning is interpreted. Detailed descrip- from traditional cognitive measures, even
Because tests of infant and early child- tions of this theory and its application if the test administration procedures have
hood global cognitive development to cognitive testing are available from been adapted to meet the needs of a
have been shown to be relatively poor Flanagan and her colleagues [McGrew disabled child. For example, modifica-
predictors of later IQ or academic and Flanagan, 1998; Flanagan and Or- tions during administration may include
functioning [Bayley, 1933; Siegel, tiz, 2001]. Although in-depth explana- removing time requirements, using mul-
1981; Black and Matula, 2000], clini- tion of interpretation of the five instru- tiple-choice formats, pantomiming re-
cians should interpret results of pre- sponses, pointing responses, stabilizing a
ments discussed in this article is not
school assessment, as primarily relevant child’s hand, or enlarging objects. When
possible in this limited space, the inter-
for developing immediate early inter- such modifications are made, clinicians
vention programs (and making long- ested reader can find more detail in the
must use their judgment to determine
term prognosis about the child’s devel- tests’ manuals as well as in texts by the whether the standardized norms are ap-
opmental skills should be avoided). following authors: plicable and valid. In some instances, it
An examination of the differences For the BSID-II see Black and may be possible to obtain a valid domain
between scores on a cognitive test is Matula [2000]; score, but not a battery composite score.
merely a beginning to interpretation. For the KABC-II see Kaufman et For example, a child with motor impair-
The meaningfulness of the test results is al. [2005]; ment may have a valid score on the
greatly enhanced when it is grounded For the WPPSI-III see Lichten- WPPSI-III V-IQ, SB5 V-IQ, the DAS
in an empirically supported theoretical berger and Kaufman [2004]; Verbal Ability, or the KABC-II Sequen-
model of the structure of intelligence For the SB5 see Roid and Barram tial/Gsm, Learning/Glr, and Knowl-
[Flanagan et al., 2000a]. The Horn- [2004]; edge/Gc, but may not have interpretable
Cattell-Carroll (CHC) theory has been For the DAS see Sattler [2001]. scores from the nonverbal scales of these
MRDD RESEARCH REVIEWS ● MEASURES OF COGNITION FOR PRESCHOOL ● LICHTENBERGER 205
same tests. In contrast, children with se- others, Robinson and Mervis [1996], the fied, which helps to maintain the child’s
vere linguistic deficits or disorders such as BSID-II itself does not include such data. attention and rapport during the testing.
Autism, may not be able to obtain a However, in the forthcoming third edi- The forthcoming Bayley-III will have
meaningful estimate of their cognitive tion of the BSID, the floor and ceiling of fewer manipulative and more play-based
ability with their verbal domain score, the subtests will be extended to improve items to facilitate administration. Scoring
but may demonstrate their cognitive assessment of lower functioning children. will be available via computer as well as
strengths on nonverbal scales. For exam- manually. The manual will also provide
ple, such children’s strengths might be Benefits Bayely-III data on children with high-
visible on the Bayley PDI, WPPSI-III In contrast to the BSID-II, both incidence clinical diagnoses, providing
P-IQ, SB5 Nonverbal IQ, the DAS the KABC-II and WPPSI-III made sig- evidence of the test’s validity.
Nonverbal Ability, or the KABC-II nificant improvements in the test floors The third edition of the WPPSI
Nonverbal Index. In addition, within the in their most recent editions. On the eliminated bonus points for speed, got rid
verbal realm, children with linguistic dif- KABC-II, there are better floors for of Geometric Design, and simplified test
ficulties or autism may also show vari- younger children and better ceilings for directions for many tasks by deemphasiz-
ability, with severely impaired expressive gifted children. The WPPSI-III has a ing difficult basic concepts. The
language skills and more intact receptive lower age range and has separate subtest KABC-II also introduced several novel
language skills. groupings for the two age groups, and has tasks with stimuli that are appealing to
When interpreting the results of a added items to measure very low and young children, making the test more
cognitive assessment of a developmen- very high-functioning individuals. The play-like keeping a young child easily
tally delayed child, also consider that WPPSI-III has also broadened the mea- engaged. The SB5 has similarly been
instruments’ scales are not “pure” mea- surement of nonverbal abilities, which is made more appealing to young children
sures of the verbal and nonverbal do- beneficial for developmentally delayed by increasing the number or toys and
mains. That is, the nonverbal scales also children. colored manipulatives. The number of
have some verbal demands (e.g., un- subtests was reduced from 15 to 10 on
derstanding the verbally presented di- Administration and Subtest the SB5, a more manageable number
rections) and some verbal scales have Demands when assessing young children. Similar to
nonverbal components (e.g., visual the other tests, the DAS materials are
stimuli or a pointing response). Thus, if Limitations appealing to most young children and the
a child does not perform as you would The one of the most notable limi- administration and scoring criteria in the
have predicted based on their suspected tations of the BSID-II is that many of the manual are thorough (albeit complex).
areas of strength and deficit, then it is items require either expressive language
necessary to consider the nuances of the or a good understanding of spoken lan- Psychometric Qualities
subtests’ stimuli and response demands guage for success. However, many high
to decipher what may have caused an risk and developmentally delayed young Limitations
unexpected result. children have speech and/or language One of the WPPSI-III’s limitations
delays or impairments, making it difficult is that the battery is heavily weighted
STRENGTHS, BENEFITS, to assess their cognitive abilities using the with word knowledge tasks (i.e., 3 of the
CAUTIONS, AND LIMITATIONS BSID-II. 14 subtests: Receptive Vocabulary, Pic-
Each of the five instruments re- A weakness in the subtest demands ture Naming, and Vocabulary), yet has
viewed in this article have benefits and for the KABC-II is its emphasis on speed zero measures of short-term memory.
limitations that are worth mentioning. of processing for a few subtests so that Short-term memory is an especially im-
This is not a comprehensive list of all differentiation occurs with older bright portant skill to assess for young children,
minor strengths or weaknesses for each examinees (that is, bonus points are in- and is included in most theories of intel-
battery, but rather is a list that points out cluded for some of the more advanced ligence, such as Guilford’s or CHC. An-
noteworthy strengths of the batteries, and items, which mainly effect school-age other limitation of the WPPSI-III is that
highlights limitations that may warrant children or adolescents). However, the a subtest with poor factorial validity (Pic-
caution by clinicians in using and inter- manual does allow examiners to calculate ture Concepts) was included as one of
preting the various instruments. Benefits scores with the effect of speed removed, only three subtests that contribute to
and limitations are listed in the following which helps to compensate for this weak- P-IQ.
global categories: test floors, administra- ness. A limitation of the KABC-II is that
tion and subtest demands, psychometric The DAS materials are organized for 3-year-olds it offers only an overall
qualities, scoring, and interpretation. in a complex manner, which can make cognitive score (either MPI, FCI, or
learning the test a challenge for examin- NVI), but no domain scores. However,
Test Floors ers. The administration and scoring cri- beginning at age 4, separate scores for
teria in the manual are also more com- different domains may be obtained.
Limitations plicated than that of many other tests of
The test floor of one of the five cognitive ability. Benefits
instruments reviewed is especially prob- The five tests reviewed here all
lematic for assessing children with devel- Benefits have large-well stratified normative
opmental disabilities. The BSID-II Men- The BSID-II offers flexible admin- bases, and strong reliability, validity, and
tal and Motor Development Indices do istration of items, yet still allows examin- factor analytic properties (except for the
not go below 50. Therefore, only mild ers to follow standardized procedures. WPPSI-III Picture concepts subtest
mental retardation can be accurately as- Thus, while there is a specified set of mentioned earlier).
sessed. Although norms that go below 50 items to administer, the order in which A unique strength of the KABC-II
have been extrapolated and published by one administers the items can be modi- is that it consistently produces lower
206 MRDD RESEARCH REVIEWS ● MEASURES OF COGNITION FOR PRESCHOOL ● LICHTENBERGER
 Table 9. Additional Selected Measure of Cognition for Preschoolers
Measure Age Domains Assessed

Boehm’s Test of Basic Concepts-Revised (BTBC-R; Boehm, 1986) 3–5 Knowledge of basic concepts (spatial, temporal, and
quantitative terms)
Coloured Progressive Matrices (CPM; Raven, 1991) 5–11 Nonverbal reasoning
Extended Merrill-Palmer Scales of Mental Development (MPSMD; 3–5 Semantic production, figural production, semantic
Ball et al., 1978) evaluation, and figural evaluation
Leiter International Performance Scale-Revised (LIPS-R; Roid and 2–30 Nonverbal measure of fluid reasoning, visualization,
Miller, 1997) memory, and attention
NEPSY (Korkman et al., 1998) 3–12 Attention/executive functions, language, sensori-
motor functions, visual-spatial processing, mem-
ory, and learning
Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test (UNIT; Bracken and McCal- 5–17 Nonverbal reasoning and memory
lum, 1998)
Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Abilities (WJ III COG; 2–90 Verbal comprehension, knowledge, long-term
Woodcock et al. 2001) memory retrieval, visual-spatial thinking, audi-
tory processing, fluid reasoning, processing
speed, short-term memory

global score differences between ethnic Interpretation based upon a dual theoretical model that
groups than many other tests of intelli- provides a strong framework for inter-
gence. These lower differences were cre- Limitations pretation. The SB5 is also well grounded
ated by eliminating knowledge/content- The SB5 and the BSID-II have in CHC theory (despite its additional
based subtests from the KABC-II’s MPI, some notable limitations in interpreta- verbal–nonverbal framework that is not
and including expert bias analyses, item tion. Although some key information is theory-driven). The DAS is similarly
response analyses, large representations of presented in the manual on interpreta- based in CHC theory, although Flanagan
ethnic minority children in the tryout tion, interpretive data in the SB5 techni- et al. [2000a] pointed out that not all of
sample, nationally proportionate repre- cal manual and examiner’s manual are the abilities from the CHC model are
sentation of ethnic minorities in the limited (Johnson and D’Amato, in press). well represented in the DAS. Although
norm sample, and cultural validity stud- In addition, the SB5’s 10 core profiles the WPPSI-III was not developed from a
ies. identified in the standardization sample specific theoretical stance, it includes
need to be examined in future research to new theoretically-driven subtests, which
Scoring determine their stability and utility in improved the clinical utility of the test.
regular and exceptional populations
(Kush, in press). Although the SB5 ap- CONCLUDING COMMENTS
Limitations pears to be well grounded in CHC the- The BSID-II, KABC-II, WPPSI-
The most notable limitations in ory, it is not clear why the verbal/non- III, SB5, and DAS are all individually
scoring are found in the DAS that relate verbal dichotomy remains, as it is not administered tests of children’s cognitive
to the difficult scoring and conversion consistent with its theoretical underpin- ability that are appropriate to administer
system. Five DAS subtests have open- nings. However, the SB5’s verbal/non- to preschool-age children. Many of these
ended responses requiring some judg- verbal dichotomy does offer clinical ad- tests have been revised and renormed in
ment by the examiner. Additionally, vantages for certain types of referral the past few years, and their revisions
converting cognitive subtest scores from questions (e.g., motor-impairment and have yielded psychometrically strong in-
a raw score to an ability score to a T- limited English proficiency). struments that are grounded in modern
score to a standard score is tedious for One of the BSID-II’s limitations theory. There are unique strengths and
examiners. The utility of the ability regarding interpretation is that it has not limitations for each of the instruments,
score, which uses an arbitrary numbering demonstrated treatment utility, and it is but generally they will each provide
system and does not allow for norm- not an appropriate instrument for identi- valid, reliable information about chil-
referenced comparisons, does not appear fying behavior goals for intervention dren’s global cognitive functioning and
to warrant the “extra” step involved in [Dunst, 1998]. Thus, although the processing abilities in separate cognitive
converting the raw score to its final BSID-II has diagnostic utility and is an domains. Numerous other instruments
norm-referenced score. excellent measure for assessing infant and are available that measure the cognitive
preschool development, it should not be ability of preschoolers; thus, to place the
Benefits used to plan specific interventions. five instruments discussed here into con-
On the KABC-II, SB5, DAS, and text, Table 9 presents a brief list of other
BSID-II, information on how to score Benefits measures for young children used by cli-
each of the subtests and scales is thor- As previously mentioned, test re- nicians and researchers. Measures of cog-
oughly presented in each of the test man- sults can be more meaningfully inter- nition for preschoolers have shown lim-
uals. Several examples are provided for preted when they are grounded in an ited predictive validity to future
subtests that are more complicated or empirically supported theoretical model intellectual functioning, and so results of
subjective to score. The record forms are of the structure of intelligence. The such instruments are best used to indicate
also well designed to facilitate scoring. KABC-II was specifically developed current abilities and to help develop ap-
MRDD RESEARCH REVIEWS ● MEASURES OF COGNITION FOR PRESCHOOL ● LICHTENBERGER 207
propriate remediation for immediate ar- Elliott CD. 1990a. DAS: Administration and Scor- Measurements Yearbook. [Electronic version
eas of deficit, not to predict future devel- ing Manual. San Antonio, TX: The Psycho- retrieved January 30, 2005, from the Buros
logical Corporation. Institute’s test reviews online website: http://
opment. The traditional measures of Elliott CD. 1990b. Differential Ability Scales: In- [Link]/buros ].
overall cognitive ability provide a com- troductory and Technical Handbook. San Lichtenberger EO, Kaufman AS. 2004. Essentials of
prehensive base of information about a Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corpora- WPPSI-III Assessment. New York: Wiley.
preschooler’s cognitive abilities, but these tion. Luria AR. 1966. Human Brain: An Introduction to
Elliott CD, Murray DJ, Pearson LS. 1979. British
should be utilized in conjunction with Ability Scales. Windsor, England: National
Neuropsychology. New York: Basic Books.
other data (e.g., other tests, observations, McGrew KS, Flangan DP. 1998. Intelligence Test
Foundation for Educational Research.
rating scales, and developmental history) Desk Reference (ITDR): The Gf-Gc Cross-
Flanagan DP, Mascolo J, Gensharft JL. 2000a. A
conceptual framework for interpreting pre- Battery Assessment. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
to create appropriate intervention strate- Neisser U. 1967. Cognitive Psychology. New
gies for children needing early interven- school intelligence tests. In: Braken BA, edi-
tor. The Psychoeducational Assessment of York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
tion. f Preschool Children, 3rd edition. Boston: Al- Raven JC. 1991. Coloured Progressive Matrices.
lyn & Bacon. p 428 – 469. London: Lewis.
REFERENCES Flanagan DP, McGrew KS, Ortiz SO. 2000b. The Robinson BF, Mervis CB. 1996. Extrapolated Raw
Ball RS, Merrifield P, Stott LH. 1978. Extended Wechsler Intelligence Scales and Gf-Gc The- Scores for the Second Edition of the Bayley
Merrill-Plamer Scale. Chicago: Stoelting. ory: A Contemporary Approach to Interpre- Scales of Infant Development. Am J Ment
Bayley N. 1933. The California First-Year Mental tation. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Ba- Retard 100:666 – 670.
Scale. Berkeley: University of California con. Roid GH. 2003. Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales,
Press. Flanagan DP, Ortiz SO. 2001. Essentials of Cross- 5th edition. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
Bayley N. 1936. The California Infant Scale of Battery Assessment. New York: Wiley. Roid GH, Barram RA. 2004. Essentials of Stan-
Motor Development. Berkeley: University of Flynn JR. 1987. Massive IQ gains in 4 nations: ford-Binet Intelligence Scales (SB5) Assess-
California Press. what IQ tests really measure. Psychol Bull ment. New York: Wiley.
Bayley N. 1969. Manual for the Bayley Scales of 101:171–191. Roid GH, Miller LJ. 1997. Leiter International
Infant Development. San Antonio, TX: The Jaffa AS. 1934. The California Preschool Mental Performance Scale –Revised. Wood Dale, IL:
Psychological Corporation. Scale. Berkeley: University of California
Stoelting.
Bayley N. 1993. Bayley Scales of Infant Develop- Press.
Sattler JM. 2001. Assessment of Children: Cogni-
ment, 2nd Edition Manual. San Antonio, TX: Johnson JA, D’Amato RC. (in press). Test Review
of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, 5th tive Applications, 4th edition. San Diego,
The Psychological Corporation.
Black MM, Matula K. 2000. Essentials of Bayely edition. Spies RA, Plake BS, editors. The CA: Sattler.
scales of Infant Development –II. New York: Sixteenth Mental Measurements Yearbook. Saye KB. 2003. Preschool intellectual assessment.
Wiley. [Electronic version retrieved January 30, In: Reynolds CR, Kamphaus RW, editors.
Boehm AE. 1986. Boehm’s Test of Basic Concepts 2005, from the Buros Institute’s test reviews Handbook of Psychological and Educational
–Revised. San Antonio, TX: The Psycholog- online website: [Link] Assessment of Children, 2nd edition. New
ical Corporation. Kaufman AS, Kaufman NL. 2004a. Kaufman As- York: Guilford. p 187–203.
Bracken BA. 2000. Maximizing construct relevant sessment Battery for Children, 2nd Edition Siegel LS. 1981. Infant tests as predictors of cogni-
assessment: the optimal preschool testing sit- Manual. Circle Pines, MN: AGS. tive and language development at 2 years.
uation. In: Bracken BA, editor. The Psycho- Kaufman AS, Kaufman NL. 2004b. Kaufman Test Child Dev 52:545–557.
educational Assessment of Preschool Chil- of Educational Achievement, 2nd Edition Sperry RW. 1968. Hemisphere deconnection and
dren, 3rd edition. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. p Manual. Circle Pines, MN: AGS. unity in conscious awareness. Am Psychol
33– 44. Kaufman AS, Lichtenberger EO, Fletcher-Janzen 23:723–733.
Bracken BA, McCallum RS. 1998. Universal Non- E, et al. 2005. Essentials of KABC-II Assess- The Psychological Corporation. 2002. WPPSI-III
verbal Intelligence Test. Itasca, IL: Riverside. ment. New York: Wiley. Technical and Interpretive Manual. San An-
Carroll JB. 1997. The three-stratum theory of cog- Kenny TK, Culbertson JL. 1993. Developmental tonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
nitive abilities. In: Flanagan DP, Genshaft JL, screening for preschoolers. In: Culbertson JL,
Wechsler D. 1989. Manual for the Wechsler Pre-
Harrison PL, editors. Contemporary Intellec- Willis DJ, editors. Testing Young Children:
school and Primary Scale of Intelligence–R-
tual Assessment: Theories, Tests, and Issues. A Reference Guide for Developmental, Psy-
choeducatinoal, and Psychosocial Assess- evised (WPPSI–R). San Antonio, TX: The
New York: Guilford. p 122–130.
Das JP, Kirby JR, Jarman RF. 1979. Simultaneous ments. Austin, TX: Pro Ed. p 73–100. Psychological Corporation.
and Successive Cognitive Processes. New Korkman M, Kirk U, Kemp S. 1998. NEPSY: A Wechsler D. 1991. Manual for the Wechsler Intel-
York: Academic Press. Developmental Neuropsychological Assess- ligence Scale for Children, 3rdedition
Dunst CJ. 1998. In: Bayley Scales of Infant Devel- ment. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological (WISC-III). San Antonio, TX: The Psycho-
opment, 2nd edition, Impara JC, Plake BS, Corporation. logical Corporation.
editors. The Thirteenth Mental Measure- Kush JC. (in press). Test review of the Stanford- Woodcock RW, McGrew KS, Mather N. 2001.
ments Yearbook. Lincoln, NE: Buros Insti- Binet intelligence scales, 5th edition. Spies Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Abil-
tute of Mental Measurements. RA, Plake BS, editors. The Sixteenth Mental ities. Itasca, IL: Riverside.

208 MRDD RESEARCH REVIEWS ● MEASURES OF COGNITION FOR PRESCHOOL ● LICHTENBERGER