Improving Validity By Testing for Competence: Refinement of a Paradigm and Its Application to the Hearing-Impaired

Abstract

The Raven Coloured Progressive Matrices and a Piagetian battery were administered to 120 hearing-impaired children, ages 6-11 years, under one of two nonelaborative conditions—(1) standard, or (2) simple feedback—or under one of four elaborative conditions—(3) child's "verbalization" after problem solution, (4) verbalization during and after solution, (5) differential feedback, and (6) verbalization during and after solution coupled with differential feedback. The study was designed to (a) establish the differential effects of method of test administration, (b) examine the criterion-related validity of the tests by taking method of test administration into account, and (c) explore the robustness of the paradigm with respect to changes in instruments and populations. Analysis indicated enhanced performance under partially elaborative conditions (3 and 4) as compared to that found for nonelaborative conditions (1 and 2), as well as augmented performance for fully elaborative conditions (5 and 6) as compared to partially elaborative (3 and 4) procedures. All analyses yielded similar findings for both dependent measures. The findings of this investigation may be used as an aid in the development of appropriate diagnostic instruments and procedures, which would in turn enable classroom learning to be maximal. The research findings may also be useful in gaining maximum validity in prediction of school achievement and ability to profit from particular types of instruction.

Cognitive Modifiability and Cognitive Performance of Deaf and Hearing Preschool Children

“…The assessment of the cognitive functioning of deaf children has been of great concern for practitioners and researchers, mainly because deafness may result in a breakdown of the conceptualized relationship between language and other aspects of cognition (Dillon, 1979(Dillon, , 1980Hoffmeister, 1988;Hubert & Roller, 1984;Keane, 1987;Levine, 1974Levine, , 1981Ottem, 1980;Sullivan, 1982;Vernon, 1968). The bias toward spoken language by researchers has resulted in a debate about the relevance of language to the assessment of cognitive capacities of deaf versus hearing children (Vernon, 1968).…”

“…Several attempts have been made to apply dynamic assessment procedures with deaf children (Carlson 8c Dillon, 1978;Dillon, 1979Dillon, , 1980Hubert & Roller, 1984;Katz, 1984;Keane, 1987;Keane & Kretschmer, 1987;Keane, Tannenbaum, 8c Krapf, 1992;Koehler, 1977). Carlson and Dillon (1978) and Dillon (1979) gave Raven's Coloured Progressive Matrices Test (RCPM) and Piagetian-type cognitive tasks to deaf children, using a testing-the-limits procedure.…”

“…Carlson and Dillon (1978) and Dillon (1979) gave Raven's Coloured Progressive Matrices Test (RCPM) and Piagetian-type cognitive tasks to deaf children, using a testing-the-limits procedure. The testing-the-limits procedure was reported as more accurate in reflecting the deaf children's cognitive potential than were standard conventional tests.…”

Competence vs. Performance and recent approaches to cognitive assessment

“…This approach involves the integration of standardized procedures of intervention into the testing situation itself, thus enhancing the utility of the approach. The interventions consist of a series of elaborative testing conditions designed to facilitate existing cognitive organization or underlying competence (Dillon, 1979). Studies utilizing the paradigm have employed one or more of the following testing conditions: (a) simple feedback as to the correctness or incorrectness of a response, (b) child's "verbalization" of solution strategies following a response, (c) child's verbalization during and after solution of each item, (d) elaborated feedback from the examiner as to reasons for the correctness/incorrectness of each response, and (e) examinee verbalization during and after item solution combined with elaborated feedback.…”

“…Enhanced performance has occurred among normal children (Carlson & Dillon, 1979), hearing-impaired children (Dillon, 1979), and educable mentally retarded individuals (Carlson & Wiedl, 1978). The elimination of racial and ethnic differences in performance is particularly significant in light of recent court decisions and allegations of test bias.…”