[blindkid] IQ testing

David Andrews dandrews at visi.com
Thu Mar 22 02:24:17 UTC 2012


Carol:

There are enough of us fast Braille readers around to show that it 
just isn't an anomaly!  I read at about 250 words per minute, and 
have since I was a teen ager at least.  Not to over simplify the 
situation -- but we just don't have the same expectations we had 40 
or 50 years ago.  I learned Braille I was not given any choice, and I 
was damned well going to read well, my teachers and parents saw to that.

Dave

\At 05:35 PM 3/21/2012, you wrote:
>Arielle,
>
>You bring up so many relevant points.  I keep thinking about how it 
>would have affected me if i had been told when Serena was little, 
>that she would read much more slowly than her peers.  Luckily, we 
>never heard that from her very competent teachers.
>
>Dr. Nemeth gave the luncheon address at the Getting in Touch with 
>Literacy conference a couple of years ago.  He prefaced his prepared 
>remarks by saying something like this: I've been hearing all weekend 
>about how Braille is so slow.  I guess I was just too dumb to 
>realize that and I ended up reading Braille very fast.  Hooray for 
>Dr. Nemeth.  He's one of the few who can challenge the prevailing 
>attitude so publicly and get away with it!
>
>Carol
>
>At 06:01 PM 3/21/2012, you wrote:
>>Hi Carol,
>>I'd be very interested to see what you learn re: the sources of these
>>pathetic statistics and standards about Braille reading. I can assure
>>you Braille is *not* read letter by letter!
>>I suspect that even if the stats are accurate, they describe only the
>>*average* blind child receiving the *average* level of education and
>>training in Braille reading technique. We all know that on average
>>Braille instruction is deficient-both in terms of quantity and in
>>terms of quality. Studies like these don't look at Braille reading
>>rates for children who actually get a sufficient education in Braille
>>reading with sufficient opportunities to practice and instruction in
>>proper technique, i.e. reading with both hands and not letter by
>>letter. It's a real shame these educational factors are not measured
>>and adjusted for in research on Braille reading because these
>>educational factors are changeable and could really raise the bar.
>>Because these factors are ignored, deficiencies in education are never
>>addressed and the average rate is taken to be an appropriate standard.
>>This is actually quite timely because today I gave a talk at school
>>about my dissertation research, which will be about blindness
>>simulation exercises and the kinds of low expectations they can
>>promote in sighted people including teachers of the blind. The basic
>>idea of my dissertation is that when sighted people struggle and have
>>bad experiences themselves with blindness skills, they come to believe
>>that blind people lack capability. I was so upset by the Texas School
>>for the Blind Braille reading rates that I mentioned it in my talk.
>>Interestingly, all my colleagues (who are social psychologists but
>>have no blindness background) immediately understood and appreciated
>>the detrimental effects of these low standards. Ironic that a group of
>>folks with no blindness "expertise" all get it but a bunch of TVI's
>>and Braille "researchers" still don't. (And I might add I was reading
>>my presentation in Braille at a respectable fluent rate).
>>It also made me wonder if some of the problem comes from sighted TVI's
>>having such a tough time learning Braille themselves, and then
>>concluding that Braille is tough and slow for blind kids as well?
>>Arielle
>>
>>On 3/21/12, Carol Castellano <carol_castellano at verizon.net> wrote:
>> > This is a very interesting report.  Thanks for sharing it, Gina.
>> >
>> > I appreciate the delineation of factors that can complicate the
>> > testing of blind individuals.  What keeps bothering me, tho, is this
>> > complete acceptance of slow--really slow--Braille reading rates.  It
>> > is hard for me to believe that this is true across the board, as my
>> > own daughter was always an average speed (compared to sighted
>> > classmates) reader throughout her school years.
>> >
>> > I am about to delve into the sources for these sad statistics to see
>> > if they are "the usual"--based on a very few children, without
>> > adjustment for relevant differences and factors, and very
>> > OLD.  Braille is read letter by letter?   Really?  I have seen with
>> > my own eyes that that simply is not true!
>> >
>> > Well, wish me luck.  I'll try to report back.
>> >
>> > Carol
>> >
>> > Carol Castellano
>> > President, Parents of Blind Children-NJ
>> > Director of Programs
>> > National Organization of Parents of Blind Children
>> > 973-377-0976
>> > carol_castellano at verizon.net
>> > www.blindchildren.org
>> > www.nopbc.org
>> >
>> > At 01:55 PM 3/21/2012, you wrote:
>> >>Sorry for the delayed response...
>> >>
>> >>In response to the original question, yes, a visual impairment *is*
>> >>a valid reason not to give a child a "complete"
>> >>Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-fourth edition (WISC-IV).
>> >>When a test such as the WISC-IV is standardized, it is given to many
>> >>children (in this case, over 2000). The performance of all children
>> >>within specific age groups is then ranked from very low to very
>> >>high. Once the test is published, the performance of a child who
>> >>takes the test is compared to that of others in the standardization
>> >>sample who are within his/her age group. That child is then ranked
>> >>based on how his/her performance compares to the sample. To my
>> >>knowledge, the WISC-IV standardization sample did not include any
>> >>students with uncorrectable visual impairments.
>> >>
>> >>Many of the nonverbal (visual) subtests of the WISC-IV are not only
>> >>visual tests, they are timed tests. If a blind or visually impaired
>> >>student takes one of those subtests, his/her performance, including
>> >>the time it takes him/her to complete the task, is compared to that
>> >>of sighted kids. So if a child with low vision takes, say, 35
>> >>seconds to arrange a specific array of colored blocks based on a
>> >>pictorial representation of the blocks, while the average fully
>> >>sighted child took 8 seconds to complete the array, the child with
>> >>low vision would receive a very low score. Obviously, such a
>> >>comparison would be completely invalid. On top of that, scores from
>> >>those visual tests are combined into composite scores which are used
>> >>to describe the child's overall "ability" or IQ. Again, it would not
>> >>be valid to give a child an IQ score based on a timed comparison
>> >>with a sighted child. Additionally, there are legal and ethical
>> >>guidelines for choosing tests that are validated for the specific
>> >>  purpose for which they are being used.
>> >>
>> >>While it would be possible to adapt the tests, for example, ask the
>> >>child to arrange blocks that have been modified to have different
>> >>textures rather than different colors, the available standardized
>> >>scores would still only be based on the sighted performance rather
>> >>than the adapted performance, so the scores would lack validity
>> >>(especially for timed tests). Also, ethical guidelines prohibit
>> >>using standardized scoring procedures when a test has been modified
>> >>and given in a drastically different (non-standardized) way.
>> >>
>> >>The Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB, a British
>> >>organization) just released a comprehensive report in February 2012
>> >>about the issues surrounding psychometric assessment of B/VI
>> >>individuals. Although it is British, they discuss a number of US
>> >>tests as well as the many factors to be considered when assessing
>> >>someone with vision loss. It also addresses issues relating to
>> >>reading speed, decoding, and comprehension for B/VI students. Given
>> >>the recent threads on this list about reading speed, this article
>> >>may interest some of you.  At the end there is a long list of
>> >>references for those interested in learning more about the research
>> >>on this subject. It is a very fascinating read! Here is a link to the
>> >> article:
>> >>
>> >>http://www.rnib.org.uk/aboutus/research/reports/2012/psychometric 
>> _ testing_report.doc
>> >>
>> >>In response to the person who commented, "I have always been
>> >>curious, has there been any attempt to make these tests accessible
>> >>to blind and visually impaired children?" the answer is that there
>> >>has. However, these attempts have been few and far between. One of
>> >>the most common tests is the Blind Learning Aptitude Test (BLAT).
>> >>Unfortunately, this test has not been re-standardized since it came
>> >>out in the 1970's, so it is no longer considered a valid test. The
>> >>reason there are not more tests specifically developed for assessing
>> >>the blind is, in my opinion, simple: Money. It costs test publishers
>> >>many tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars to develop,
>> >>standardize, print, and market these types of tests, and they want
>> >>to make their money back plus a hefty profit. The numbers of people
>> >>who would purchase these kinds of tests are too low for test
>> >>publishers to feel motivated to develop them. Most school districts
>> >>have at the very least one WISC-IV test kit (at a cost of $1000+ for
>> >>  each kit, not to mention the cost of replenishing the test
>> >> protocols as they are used). Large school districts such as Los
>> >> Angeles Unified probably have well over 100 WISC-IV kits. Multiply
>> >> that by the nearly 100,000 schools around the country and it's a
>> >> pretty huge number. While a district as big as LAUSD might purchase
>> >> one or two cognitive tests specifically designed for blind or
>> >> visually impaired kids (if they were available), most smaller
>> >> districts would probably be less likely to purchase a kit given the
>> >> low incidence of visual impairment compared to other
>> >> disabilities... And test publishers know this. Thus, a lack of
>> >> tests. While there are researchers working on these tests, I think
>> >> finding a test publisher willing to publish a test with low
>> >> projected sales rates is a big part of the problem.
>> >>
>> >>In regards to the Woodcock-Johnson-III available from APH, this is
>> >>the academic version of the WJ-III. The cognitive (IQ) version of
>> >>the WJ-III has not been developed into an accessible format.
>> >>
>> >>Sorry for the long message, but I hope the information is helpful.
>> >>
>> >>Best,
>> >>Gina O.
>> >>
>> >>-----Original Message-----
>> >>From: blindkid-bounces at nfbnet.org
>> >>[mailto:blindkid-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Dr. Denise M Robinson
>> >>Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 8:52 AM
>> >>To: Blind Kid Mailing List, (for parents of blind children)
>> >>Subject: Re: [blindkid] IQ testing
>> >>
>> >>The WWJIII is now in a braille format to access blind children and
>> >>is adapted appropriately--You can get it from APH Denise
>> >>
>> >>On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Patricia <bcsarah.fan at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > As a blind aspiring counsellor who has my Bachelors in psychology, I
>> >> > am familiar with these IQ tests and have always been curious, has
>> >> > there been any attempt to make these tests accessible to blind and
>> >> > visually impaired children? Or is the answer just "they're not, and
>> >> > that's the way it is." I don't expect a definitive answer on this as
>> >> > I'm sure no one here would know, but it's always been one of those
>> >> > things that I've been curious about.
>> >> >
>> >> > Patricia
>> >> >
>> >> > On 3/19/12, Tom and Deb OConnor <toc6642 at charter.net> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > Is a vision impairment a valid reason not to give a child a 
>> "complete"
>> >> > > Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-fourth edition?  The final
>> >> > > conclusion was that it would be inappropriate?  Given 5 
>> subtests only.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Thanks for any information on this.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Tom & Debbie O'Connor
>> >> > > toc6642 at charter.net
>> >> > >
>> >> > > _______________________________________________
>> >> > > blindkid mailing list
>> >> > > blindkid at nfbnet.org
>> >> > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindkid_nfbnet.org
>> >> > > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info
>> >> > > for
>> >> > > blindkid:
>> >> > >
>> >> > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindkid_nfbnet.org/bcsarah.fan%40gm
>> >> > ail.com
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> > blindkid mailing list
>> >> > blindkid at nfbnet.org
>> >> > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindkid_nfbnet.org
>> >> > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>> >> > blindkid:
>> >> > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindkid_nfbnet.org/deniserob%40gmai
>> >> > l.com
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>--
>> >>  Denise
>> >>
>> >>Denise M. Robinson, TVI, Ph.D.
>> >>CEO, TechVision, LLC
>> >>Specialist in Technology/Training/Teaching for blind/low vision
>> >>509-674-1853
>> >>
>> >>Website with hundreds of informational articles & lessons all done with
>> >>keystrokes: www.yourtechvision.com
>> >>
>> >>"The person who says it cannot be done, shouldn't interrupt the one
>> >>who is doing it." --Chinese Proverb
>> >>
>> >>Computers are incredibly fast, accurate, and stupid: humans are
>> >>incredibly slow, inaccurate and brilliant; together they are
>> >>powerful beyond imagination.
>> >>--Albert Einstein
>> >>
>> >>It's kind of fun to do the impossible.
>> >>--Walt Disney





More information about the BlindKid mailing list