Assessment_of_Cognitive_Functioning

Assessment of cognitive functioning with psychological measures | | | INTRODUCTION Plomin and Petrill (1997) citied in (Foxcroft & Roodt; 2009) emphasized that although men are created equal, does not mean that all men are created the same. The framework or perspective that we use to view people will affect the way in which we interpret our observations and measurements results. (Foxcroft & Roodt; 2009). There are many different theories of cognitive functioning or intelligence and approaches to the measurement of intelligence. Walsh and Betz (1995) states that “the way in which we conceptualize the construct (intelligence) determines our approach to measuring it”. Meaning that the approach one adopts with regard to intelligence will determine the measurement being used. This essay will present two theories underlying the group test of intelligence, based on the psychometric approach and a learning potential test, based on the dynamic assessment approach, indicating the value of each approach given the context. It will secondly provide an example of each test that would be used in assessment process and justify the choice of the example. PSYCHOMETRIC APPROACH The psychometric approach defines intelligence as ‘what intelligence test measure’. (Foxcroft & Roodt; 2009). It focuses on how well people perform on standardized aptitude tests. The intelligence quotient represents how a person has done on an intelligence test compared to other people. It deals with the structure of intelligence and the measurement of individual differences in psychological characterises, such as intelligence. (Walsh & Betz; 1995). The psychometric approach focus is on the product rather than the process of learning as opposed to dynamic assessment approach. Intelligence is an unobservable trait, the nature of intelligence is inferred from observable behaviour namely performance on a test. This information is used to confirm or adapt theories on the structure of intelligences. For example the Spearman’s two-factor theory that postulated that every mental test or test item measured a general fact (g) that was common to all items and a specific factor (s) that was unique to that particular item and not shared by any other item. Intelligence can be measured by intelligence tested call IQ (intelligence quotient) tests. Such tests like the Stanford-Binet and the Raven’s Progressive Matrice all measure the same dominant form of intelligence, g or general intelligence factor. The abstraction of g stems from the observation that scores on all forms of cognitive test correlate positively with one another. G can be derived as the principal factor from cognitive test scores using the method of factor analysis (Author Unknown; 2011). An example of a group test that can be used for the assessment of university student entrants is the General Scholastic Aptitude Test: Senior Series for the age groups of 14 years to 18 years which measures the student’s present level of reasoning ability in respect of scholastic material. This test provide subtest which are grouped into verbal and non-verbal subscales and scores are also provided for the subscales, this enables one to differentiate between the individual’s ability to solve problem s with verbal and non-verbal content. The total score of the test is assumed to represent an underlying general factor of intelligence (Foxcroft & Roodt; 2009). This test will indicate whether a student has the mental intellect to enter the university program. The disadvantage of this approach is that it only assesses the intellectual ability and does not provide for the context within which intelligence develops and functions. The advantage is that they provide an indication of general ability as well as more specific abilities such as verbal ability and memory. (Honours Tutorial Letter 101/2011). DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT APPROACH The dynamic assessment approach also known as learning potential measurement is based on the view that cognitive processes are highly modifiable. (De Beer. 2000) Meaning that people are assessed and learn at the same time to. This approach allows participants to learn will the assessment by giving the participants clues to incorrect answers until the participants gets it correct, thus the participants also learns from incorrect answers. It incorporates training into the assessment process in an attempt to evaluate not only the current level of cognitive ability but also the potential future level of ability. (Foxcroft & Roodt. 2009). Unlike psychometric approach (IQ test) dynamic assessment approach emphasizes learning potential rather that past learning accomplishments. This approach is based on Vygotsky theory proximal development which distinguishers between levels of functioning a person can reach without help and the level of functioning a person can reach with help. (Foxcroft & Roodt.2009).The focus of the approach is the identification of undeveloped potential which can be achieved if the right learning opportunities is provided. (De Beer. 2000). An example of a leaning potential test is a LP Cat test developed by De Beer 2000. It uses a computerised adaptive measure for the measurement of learning potential. It provides information on the current level of performance and projected future levels of performance that could be attained by the individual if learning opportunities is provided. (Foxcroft & Roodt.2009) The advantage of this approach is that it reduced the risk of producing record of disadvantagement and cultural differences. It provides an opportunity for individuals to indicate their potential levels of performance irrespective of their background. (Foxcroft & Roodt. 2009). It takes into account the education and social economic level of the participant. REFERENCES 1. Author Unknown. 2011. PSYCHOMETRIC INTELLIGENCE. Accessed online www.k13academics.com/educational-psychology/intelligence/psychometic-intelligence. 8 July 2011 2. De Beer, M. (2000). THE CONSTRUCTIONM AND EVALUATION OF A DYNAMIC COMPUTERISED ADAPTIVE TEST FOR THE MEASUREMENT OF LEARNING POTENITAL. Doctorate degree at the University of South Africa. Pretoria (pp 59-61, 72-79, 84-850. 3. Foxcroft, C. & Roodt, G. (2009). INTRODUCTION TO PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT IN THE SOUTH AFRICAN CONTEXT (3rd ed.). Cape Town: Oxford University Press. 4. Walsh, W.B.. & Betz, N.E. (1995). TEST AND ASSESSMENT (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall (pp 149-159)