哪个分数代表什么?标准化认知测试绩效对变化评估的操作化。

IF 2 4区 医学 Q1 EDUCATION, SPECIAL
Cristan Farmer, Audrey Thurm, Tanvi Das, E Martina Bebin, Jonathan A Bernstein, Elizabeth Berry-Kravis, Joseph D Buxbaum, Charis Eng, Thomas Frazier, Antonio Y Hardan, Alexander Kolevzon, Darcy A Krueger, Julian A Martinez-Agosto, Hope Northrup, Craig M Powell, Latha Valluripalli Soorya, Joyce Y Wu, Mustafa Sahin
{"title":"哪个分数代表什么?标准化认知测试绩效对变化评估的操作化。","authors":"Cristan Farmer, Audrey Thurm, Tanvi Das, E Martina Bebin, Jonathan A Bernstein, Elizabeth Berry-Kravis, Joseph D Buxbaum, Charis Eng, Thomas Frazier, Antonio Y Hardan, Alexander Kolevzon, Darcy A Krueger, Julian A Martinez-Agosto, Hope Northrup, Craig M Powell, Latha Valluripalli Soorya, Joyce Y Wu, Mustafa Sahin","doi":"10.1352/1944-7558-130.5.344","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Developmental domains, such as cognitive, language, and motor, are key concepts of interest in longitudinal studies of intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD). Normative scores (e.g., IQ) are often used to operationalize performance on standardized tests of these concepts, but it is the interval-distributed person-ability scores that are intended for the assessment of within-individual change. Here we illustrate the use and interpretation of several Stanford Binet, 5th Edition score types (IQ, extended IQ, Z-normalized raw score, developmental quotient, raw sum score, age equivalent, and ability score) using data from two longitudinal studies of rare genetic conditions associated with IDD. We found that, although normality assumptions were tenuous for all score types, floor effects led to model unsuitability for longitudinal analysis of most types of norm-referenced scores, and that the validity of interpretation with respect to individual change was best for ability scores.</p>","PeriodicalId":51508,"journal":{"name":"Ajidd-American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities","volume":"130 5","pages":"344-361"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Which Score for What? Operationalizing Standardized Cognitive Test Performance for the Assessment of Change.\",\"authors\":\"Cristan Farmer, Audrey Thurm, Tanvi Das, E Martina Bebin, Jonathan A Bernstein, Elizabeth Berry-Kravis, Joseph D Buxbaum, Charis Eng, Thomas Frazier, Antonio Y Hardan, Alexander Kolevzon, Darcy A Krueger, Julian A Martinez-Agosto, Hope Northrup, Craig M Powell, Latha Valluripalli Soorya, Joyce Y Wu, Mustafa Sahin\",\"doi\":\"10.1352/1944-7558-130.5.344\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Developmental domains, such as cognitive, language, and motor, are key concepts of interest in longitudinal studies of intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD). Normative scores (e.g., IQ) are often used to operationalize performance on standardized tests of these concepts, but it is the interval-distributed person-ability scores that are intended for the assessment of within-individual change. Here we illustrate the use and interpretation of several Stanford Binet, 5th Edition score types (IQ, extended IQ, Z-normalized raw score, developmental quotient, raw sum score, age equivalent, and ability score) using data from two longitudinal studies of rare genetic conditions associated with IDD. We found that, although normality assumptions were tenuous for all score types, floor effects led to model unsuitability for longitudinal analysis of most types of norm-referenced scores, and that the validity of interpretation with respect to individual change was best for ability scores.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51508,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ajidd-American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities\",\"volume\":\"130 5\",\"pages\":\"344-361\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ajidd-American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1352/1944-7558-130.5.344\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SPECIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ajidd-American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1352/1944-7558-130.5.344","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

发展领域,如认知、语言和运动,是智力和发育障碍(IDD)纵向研究的关键概念。规范性分数(例如,智商)通常用于操作这些概念的标准化测试中的表现,但它是间隔分布的个人能力分数,旨在评估个人内部的变化。在这里,我们利用两项与IDD相关的罕见遗传条件的纵向研究数据,说明几种斯坦福比奈第五版评分类型(智商、扩展智商、z标准化原始得分、发育商、原始总和得分、年龄当量和能力得分)的使用和解释。我们发现,虽然正态性假设对所有分数类型都是脆弱的,但地板效应导致模型不适合大多数类型的规范参考分数的纵向分析,并且关于个体变化的解释有效性对于能力分数来说是最好的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Which Score for What? Operationalizing Standardized Cognitive Test Performance for the Assessment of Change.

Developmental domains, such as cognitive, language, and motor, are key concepts of interest in longitudinal studies of intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD). Normative scores (e.g., IQ) are often used to operationalize performance on standardized tests of these concepts, but it is the interval-distributed person-ability scores that are intended for the assessment of within-individual change. Here we illustrate the use and interpretation of several Stanford Binet, 5th Edition score types (IQ, extended IQ, Z-normalized raw score, developmental quotient, raw sum score, age equivalent, and ability score) using data from two longitudinal studies of rare genetic conditions associated with IDD. We found that, although normality assumptions were tenuous for all score types, floor effects led to model unsuitability for longitudinal analysis of most types of norm-referenced scores, and that the validity of interpretation with respect to individual change was best for ability scores.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
4.80%
发文量
47
期刊介绍: The American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (Print ISSN: 1944–7515; Online ISSN: 1944–7558) is published by the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. It is a scientifi c, scholarly, and archival multidisciplinary journal for reporting original contributions of the highest quality to knowledge of intellectual disabilities, its causes, treatment, and prevention.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信