Cecil R. Reynolds, co-author of the Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales (RIAS) and recently revised RIAS-2, is one of the leaders in the field of gifted assessment. The following is part two of a two-part interview conducted with Dr. Reynolds concerning the use of assessments in gifted and talented programs. Did you miss part one of this series? Click here.

Q: What originally prompted you to design an assessment for gifted identification?

CR: To reduce the confounds present in most traditional measures of intelligence. We wanted to have better instrumentation for identifying the intellectually gifted using methods that are less influenced by culture than most tests—the RIAS is not “culture-free,” nor do such psychological tests exist, and the desirability of a culture-free test is questionable conceptually as well. We live in societies, not in isolation. That said, confounds such as motor coordination, especially fine motor coordination and speed, interpretation of directions that have cultural salience, and even short-term memory can all adversely influence scores on intelligence tests, and these variables are not associated strongly with general intelligence. For programs that seek to identify intellectually gifted individuals, the RIAS and now RIAS-2 are strong choices.

Q: The RIAS (and now RIAS-2) has been one of the most popular and widely used assessment instruments for gifted testing. Is the instrument useful for other types of assessments?

CR: The RIAS-2 is useful any time an examiner needs a comprehensive assessment of intelligence, especially one that is not confounded by motor speed, memory, and certain cultural issues. When understanding general intelligence, as well as crystallized and fluid intellectual functions, are important to answering referral questions, the RIAS-2 is entirely appropriate.

Q: What makes the RIAS-2 unique from the previous version?

The unique feature of the RIAS-2 is the addition of a co-normed Speeded Processing Index (SPI). It is greatly motor-reduced from similar attempts to measure processing speed on other more traditional, lengthy intelligence batteries. In keeping with the original philosophy of the RIAS, we do not recommend, but do allow, examiners to use this SPI as a component of the Intelligence Indexes, and we worked very hard to reduce the motor-confounds that typically plague attempts to assess processing speed.

Q: Originally there were no processing speed subtests on the RIAS. Why is that?

CR: Processing speed represents a set of very simple tasks that by definition anyone should be able to perform with 100% correctness if given sufficient time. This conflicts with our view of intelligence as the ability to think and solve problems. Processing speed correlates with few variables of great interest as well—it is a poor predictor of academic achievement, and tells us little to nothing about academic or intellectual potential. It is useful in screening for attentional issues, performance of simple tasks under time pressures, and coordination of simple brain systems, and as such can be useful especially in screening for neuropsychological issues that might require follow up assessment, but processing speed tasks remain poor estimates of intelligence.

Many RIAS users asked us to undertake the development of a motor-reduced set of processing speed tasks. Students who ask for extended time as an accommodation on tests are often required by the determining agency to have scores form some timed measures as well, and we felt we could derive a more relevant way of providing this information without the motor issues being as salient as a confound. The ability to contrast such performance with measured intelligence is important to this decision-making process.

Q: What advice do you have for psychologists and diagnosticians when it comes to assessing a student for giftedness?

CR: When choosing assessments to qualify students for a GT program, be sure you understand the goals of the program and the characteristics of the students who are most likely to be successful in that program. Then, choose your assessments to measure those characteristics so you have the best possible match between the students and the goals and purposes of the GT program.

 

Cecil R. Reynolds, co-author of the Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales (RIAS) and recently revised RIAS-2, is one of the leaders in the field of gifted assessment. The following is part one of a two-part interview conducted with Dr. Reynolds concerning the use of assessments in gifted and talented programs.

Q: Theoretically speaking, what do you believe would be the most effective way to identify a gifted student?

Cecil Reynolds: I am often asked what tests or other processes should be used to identify children for participation in a gifted and talented program in the schools. My answer is almost always something along the lines of “What are the goals of the program itself?” and “What are the characteristics of the children you wish to identify?” The most important thing we can do is match the children to the program so they have the highest likelihood of success. So, for example, if the program is intended to promote academic achievement among the most academically able students in the school, I would recommend a very different selection process and different tests than if the program was intended to take the most intellectually talented students in the school and provide them with a challenging, engaging curriculum that would enrich their school experience, motivate them to achieve, and allow them to fall in love with something and pursue it with passion. While the students in these programs would overlap, the two groups would not be identical and certainly the academic outcomes would not be the same. But, the point is that we must know what characteristics we need to assess to identify and to place students in programs where they will be successful, and that requires us to first know what it is our program is intended to do.

Q: What are some of the challenges that psychologists and diagnosticians face when attempting to identify a gifted student accurately?

CR: Regardless of the program and its goals for students, the tremendous diversity in the American schools is our greatest challenge. We have an obligation to be fair, and just, and to promote the best in all children, and that is our intention. However, no schools in any country serve the range of backgrounds and abilities such as are served in our schools. The demands upon school staff to be culturally competent in so many areas, and to devise methods of teaching and accurate measures of intelligence, academic outcomes, behavioral outcomes, and school success generally, and to understand and to motivate such a wide array of eager young minds, are just incredible and require a commitment from the school board on down to the teacher aides. Maintaining this commitment and acquiring these competencies are undoubtedly staunch challenges to us all. These challenges can be magnified in the domain of gifted education because how “giftedness” is defined and valued may vary tremendously from one cultural group to another. The biggest concerns I hear from practitioners and diagnosticians center around the lack of proportionate representation of some ethnic minority groups in GT programs and how it can change assessment practices to overcome these issues. The RIAS and RIAS-2 are well suited to assist in identifying more minority students for GT programs since the minority-white differences on mean scores on the RIAS and now RIAS-2 are smaller by about half the differences seen on most traditional intelligence batteries.

Q: A lot has been written about the idea that just because a student has been identified as academically gifted, it does not mean he or she will be successful. Identifying them is simply step one. What things do you find tend to hinder their progress in our schools?

CR: Often it is the mismatch between the program and the student. It is hard to overemphasize the importance of the match between the program goals and methods of achieving them and the students in the program and their characteristics. We simply have to get the right students into the right programs. We also have to attend to students’ motivation to achieve academically as well as focus on study skills, time management, organization skills, listening skills, and other non-intellective factors that go into academic learning. IQ generally only accounts for less than 50% of the variance on academic achievement, and that is one of the many reasons we also developed the School Motivation and Learning Strategies Inventory (SMALSI). Just because a student is bright does not mean he or she knows how to study and learn, has good test-taking skills, or is motivated to engage in school learning—we should assess these variables as well and intervene accordingly.

Come back next week for the second part of this interview!

We are proud to announce that we have deepened the offerings available from the PAR Training Portal.  

“The Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function™, 2^nd Edition (BRIEF™2): An Introduction by Peter K. Isquith” is a video featuring Dr. Isquith discussing this new assessment and how it was updated during this revision. “Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales™, 2nd Ed. (RIAS™-2): An Overview with Cecil R. Reynolds” is a video featuring Dr. Reynolds discussing the RIAS-2 and what users should know about this revision. Both videos are excellent ways to learn about the key points of the product direct from the authors themselves!

Full-length, interactive training courses on both the BRIEF2 and RIAS-2 will be added to the PAR Training Portal in 2016.

Furthermore, to complement the full-length interactive training course on the Feifer Assessment of Reading™ (FAR™) currently live on the portal, we have added seven pronunciation guides. Each of the seven audio files offers the correct pronunciation for items appearing on subtests from the FAR. These audio presentations are meant to help users learn the most accurate enunciations of items and/or responses.

The PAR Training Portal offers our Customers the unique opportunity to receive training through online presentations that provide an overview of the development, scoring, sample item content, and normative and clinical data of selected assessments. To access the Training Portal, use your parinc.com username and password to log in. Don’t have a free account? Register now.

 

We are pleased to announce the release of the Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales™, Second Edition (RIAS™-2) by Cecil R. Reynolds, PhD, and Randy W. Kamphaus, PhD. The RIAS-2 retains all the features that made the original instrument so popular and gives practitioners even more reason to trust this instrument.

The revised assessment, which was developed by the original authors using feedback from clinicians around the country, remains true to the original test. It’s still fast, cost effective, and simple to administer and can be used across the developmental continuum to assess intelligence and its major components from ages 3 to 94 years.

 The RIAS-2:

• Assesses both verbal and nonverbal intelligence. Verbal intelligence is assessed by measuring verbal problem solving and verbal reasoning, which uses acquired knowledge and skills. Nonverbal intelligence is assessed by measuring reasoning and spatial ability using novel situations and stimuli.


• Optional memory subtests available. Verbal and nonverbal memory is assessed via the Composite Memory Index, useful when a broad estimate of memory is desired.


• Yields a General Reasoning Index (GRI). A highly reliable score, the GRI reflects overall measurement of the general factor of reasoning and problem-solving skill.


• Informs decisions in classification, selection, and educational placement. The RIAS-2 is ideal as a stand-alone intellectual assessment or as part of a clinical battery, when a standardized assessment of intellectual functioning is needed to diagnose specific disorders such as intellectual disabilities or learning disabilities, and for educational placement.

New in the RIAS-2

• New speeded processing subtests and index. Two supplemental subtests (one verbal, one nonverbal) combine to create the Speeded Processing Index (SPI). Both the Speeded Naming Task and Speeded Picture Search subtests require far less motor skill than competitive measures.


• Greater data for interpretation. Reliable change scores and ability–achievement discrepancies with the AAB are provided.


• Revised basal/ceiling rules. Now all basal and ceiling rules for the subtests are consistent with one another and allow for more accurate assessment at the lowest and highest ability level.


• Revised/new item content. Items throughout the test have been updated to eliminate confusing or outdated content. Guess What, Odd-Item Out, Verbal Reasoning, What’s Missing, Verbal Memory, and Nonverbal Memory subtests appear in this update, retaining the structure and familiarity of the original measure.


• Wider range of T scores. For most grade levels, T score ranges of at least 25 to 75 are available.

Technical product information and more details on what is new with this revision are available on our Web site.

Are you attending the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) 2015 Annual Convention? Make sure you stop by the PAR booth (#500) to preview some of the products we will be introducing this year, including the Feifer Assessment of Reading™ (FAR™) and the Child and Adolescent Memory Profile™ (ChAMP™). Take advantage of special preorder pricing on these products, plus our special NASP discount of 15% off and free shipping on all orders placed at the convention!

Also, we will be demonstrating some of our newest tools to help school psychologists, like our interactive Training Portal, our newly updated PAR Toolkit app, and PARiConnect.

Three PAR authors will be presenting at NASP 2015, as well. Check your program to verify times and confirm locations:

• On Wednesday, February 18, from 3:00 to 4:50 p.m. ET, Cecil Reynolds, PhD, will present, “The Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales-2 (RIAS-2): Development, Psychometrics, Applications, and Interpretation.”


• On Thursday, February 19, from 10:00 to 11:20 a.m. ET, Steven Feifer, DEd, will present, “Integrating RTI with Cognitive Neuropsychology: A Scientific Approach to Reading.”


• On Thursday, February 19, from 12:00 to 1:50 p.m. ET, Peter K. Isquith, PhD, will present, “Identifying Executive Function Intervention Targets and Measuring Outcomes.”

Hope to see you in Orlando!