Using CogAT

David Lohman
Institute for Research and Policy on Acceleration
Belin-Blank Center
&
Iowa Testing Programs
University of Iowa

http://faculty.education.uiowa.edu/dlohman/
 Topics
 Distinguishing between ability & achievement
 Overview of CogAT
 Comparing CogAT with other ability tests
 Interpreting CogAT scores
 General issues in selection
 Identification of talent in special populations
 Combining Achievement, Ability, & Teacher
ratings: the Lohman – Renzulli matrix
Distinguishing between
ability and achievement
Puzzlements for common interpretations
of ability & achievement
 Is ability more biologically based?
 Most studies show same heritability for IQ (Gf) and
achievement tests (Gc)
 Lower relative achievement than ability =
underachievement
 But there are an equal number of “overachievers”
 Status scores (IQ, PR) show good stability
 But one must keep getting better to retain that IQ
 Between 9 – 17 r(True IQ) = .75.
 60% in top 3% at 9 NOT in top 3% at age 17
 Fluid abilities invested in experience to produce
particular constellations of crystallized abilities?
 Only for very young children
 Thereafter, crystallized abilities -> fluid
Level 1. Nominalism (Most people here)

“ability” and “achievement” are separate

(Jangle fallacy –T. Kelley, 1927)

Ability Achievement
Level 2. Oh, Oh – there’s more overlap than
uniqueness here!
 Its all ‘g’ (any indicant will do)
 Its all just a product of experience
 Preserve stage 1 beliefs –
 Purge ability of visible achievement (e.g.
measure “process” or use only “nonverbal”
measures)

Ability Achievement
Level 3. Island kingdoms –Things get even
more complicated (most scholars of human abilities)
 Effects of language, culture, and experience on
the development of ability (“All abilities are
developed” Anastasi)
 Experience alters the structure of the brain
 Mental processes do not exist independently of
knowledge.
 Example of Flynn Effect
105

100

95
IQ on the 1995 Scale

90

85

80

75

70
1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Year

Gains in Wechsler-Binet IQ for the U.S. White population.

Sources J. Horgan (1995) and D. Schildlovsky.
Proportion of variance in WISC Full Scale IQ at age 7 accounted for
by genetic factors as a function of socioeconomic status (SES)

Low High

Turkheimer et al. (2003) Psychological Science, 14 (6). N= 319 twin pairs.

43% White, 54% Black. Most families poor.
 Fluid-Crystallized Continuum (1)

Fluid Crystallized

Basketball Football
Physical General Volleyball
physical Swimming
skills fitness
Field hockey Cycling
Wrestling
 Fluid-Crystallized Continuum (1)

Fluid Crystallized
Science Social studies
achievement achievement Specific
Cognitive General fluid factual
ability (Gf) Math knowledge
abilities achievement Knowledge of
literature

Basketball Football
Physical General Volleyball
physical Swimming
skills fitness
Field hockey Cycling
Wrestling
 Fluid-Crystallized Continuum (2)

Fluid Crystallized
Science Social studies
achievement achievement Specific
Cognitive General fluid factual
ability (Gf) Math knowledge
abilities achievement Knowledge of
literature

Basketball Football
Physical General Volleyball
physical Swimming
skills fitness
Field hockey Cycling
Wrestling
A common ability-achievement space
Level 4. Systems theories (A handful)

Aptitude Theory (Richard Snow)

Sidesteps the issue of defining

intelligence;
 starts with expertise & the contexts in
which it is developed & displayed,
 readiness to learn in those contexts
Overview of CogAT
 Some History
 Lorge -Thorndike Intelligence test
 Cognitive Abilities Test
 Form 1 1974
 Forms 2 – 3 (no Composite score)

 Forms 4 – Thorndike & Hagen – Comp score

 Form 5 – Hagen

 Form 6 – Lohman & Hagen

 Co-normed with the ITBS & ITED

 Primary uses of CogAT
 To guide efforts to adapt instruction to the
needs and abilities of students
 To provide an alternative measure of cognitive
development
 To identify students whose predicted levels of
achievement differ markedly from their
observed levels of achievement
 Primary Battery (K-2)
General Reasoning Ability

Verbal Reasoning Quantitative Reasoning Nonverbal Reasoning

..... ..... .....

Oral Vocabulary Relational Concepts Figure Classification

Verbal Reasoning Quantitative Concepts Matrices

No reading
Tests untimed (paced by teacher)
Mark directly in booklet
 Multilevel Battery (gr. 3-12)
General Reasoning Ability

Verbal Reasoning Quantitative Reasoning Nonverbal Reasoning

...... ..... .....

Verbal Classification Quantitative Relations Figure Classification

Sentence Completion Number Series Figure Analogies
Verbal Analogies Equation Building Figure Analysis

Tests timed
Separate Answer sheet
Common Directions
3 Separate Test
Batteries
(Not one)
 Scores
 Raw score = number correct
 Scale score – USS
 Within level - map number correct on to a scale
whose intervals are approximately the same size
 Between levels – maps number correct on different
levels of the test on to a single, common,
developmental scale
 USS Scale

D
etc
C

A
Relationships among Stanines, Percentile Ranks, and
Standard Age Scores

134 - 150
 Composites
 Composite scores
 Partial VQ, VN, QN
 Full – VQN or C [do NOT use for screening]

 Primary Battery
 V or (VQ) versus N
 Multilevel Battery
 V versus QN
 Consequential Validity:
Score warnings
 Age out of range
 Age unusual for coded grade
 Estimated test level
 Level unusual for coded grade
 Targeted score
 Too few items attempted to score
 Many items omitted (slow and accurate)
 Extremely variable responses
 Personal Confidence Intervals
 Pattern of item responses aberrant?
 Inconsistent across subtests within a battery?
 Personal Standard Error of Measurement (PSEM)

SAS PR 1 25 50 75 99

V 120 89
Q 116 84
N 125 94
Score Profiles
 CogAT 6 ‘ABC’ Profile system
Measuring the pattern
 “A” profiles: Confidence bands overlap for all
three scores. Scores are at roughly the sAme level

 “B” profiles: One score is aBove or Below the

other two scores, which do not differ

 “C” profiles: Two scores Contrast

 “E” profiles: Extreme B or C profiles (>=24)

 “A” Profile

SAS PR 1 25 50 75 99

V 120 89
Q 116 84
N 125 94
 “B” Profiles

SAS PR 1 25 50 75 99

V 120 89
Q 116 84 N-
N 100 50

SAS PR 1 25 50 75 99

V 95 38
Q 92 31 N+
N 110 73
 “C” Profile

SAS PR 1 25 50 75 99

V 120 89
V+ N-
Q 110 73
N 100 50
 Extreme “C” Profile

SAS PR 1 25 50 75 99

V 120 89
Q 107 67
N 92 31

SAS Max – SAS Min = 28 E (V+ N-)

 Profile Level
 Median (middle) age stanine

6 A
5 B (V+)
8 C (Q+ V-)
2 E (N+ V-)
CogAT6 Profile frequencies for students
in K-12 population

Percent in
K-12
Profile population
A 33

B 42
B+ ( 21)
B- (22)
E 7
B+ (4)
B- (3)
 CogAT6 Profile frequencies for students in K-12
pop. and for students with two stanine scores of 9

Percent in Percent in
K-12 Stanine=9
Profile population group
A 33 37
B 42 27
B+ ( 21) ( 6)
B- (22) ( 21)
E 7 19 37%
B+ 4 ( 3)
B- 3 ( 16)
Comparing CogAT
with other tests
 Reliability
 Many estimates for a given test
 Sources of error
 Correlation versus standard error of
measurement (SEM)
 Correlations depend on sample variability
 Easily misinterpreted

 SEM
 Typical SD of distribution of test scores if
each student could be tested many times

 Person-level estimate – Only on CogAT

SEM for SAS scores
SEM for SAS scores
SEM for SAS scores
SEM for SAS scores
 Standard Errors of Measurement for
Individual & Group Tests

WISC CogAT OLSAT-

-IV SB-V 6 8 Inview Raven NNAT

Verbal 3.9 3.6 3.4 5.7 5.3

Nonverbal 4.2 3.9 3.7 5.8 4.5 3.0 6.1

Quantitative 4.5 5.3 3.3

Comp/Full Scale 2.8 2.8 2.2 5.7 3.5
 Standard Errors of Measurement for
Individual & Group Tests

WISC CogAT OLSAT-

-IV SB-V 6 8 Inview Raven NNAT

Verbal 3.9 3.6 3.4 5.7 5.3

Nonverbal 4.2 3.9 3.7 5.8 4.5 3.0 6.1

Quantitative 4.5 5.3 3.3

Comp/Full Scale 2.8 2.8 2.2 5.7 3.5
 CogAT is more reliable than
 Individually-administered tests:
 SB-V
 WISC-IV

 Group-administered tests:
 Inview
 Otis-Lenon

 NNAT
Conditional Standard Error of Meas.

Cogat 6 Verbal Battery: Level A

20.00

15.00
SEM

USS Score
10.00
Raw Score
5.00

0.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
Number Correct
Conditional SEM's for CogAT6 Verbal USS scores, by test level

Verbal USS K 1 2 A B C D ...

. . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
191-195 11.5 9.9 6.5 5.3 4.8 4.3
196-200 15.9 11.4 7.5 5.9 5.2 4.5
201-205 12.0 12.5 8.5 7.0 5.4 4.8
206-210 10.5 7.4 5.9 5.2
211-215 17.0 12.5 13.0 13.1 8.9 6.9 5.6
216-220 13.4 10.4 8.4 6.2
221-225 13.0 14.8 13.2 10.9 7.4
226-230 13.9 8.5
231-235 14.5 14.8 13.3 10.8
236-240 15.0 13.3
241-245 16.9 14.3
246-250
251-255 16.5 14.8
256-260 95th PR
261-265 15.4
266-270 99th PR 16.4
 Out of level testing?
 SAS or PR scores?
 Primary Battery – Multilevel Battery?
 Requires individual testing
 Assumes child can use machine-readable answer
sheet
 Quant battery assumes familiarity with numerical
operations
 Level A – H?
 Common time limits & directions
 Validity
 Construct
 Representation --- all three aspects of fluid
reasoning ability
 Predictive
 Excellent for predicting current and future
academic achievement
 Predictions the same for all ethnic groups
 Consequential
 No other test comes close
 Validity:
Construct Representation
 Carroll’s Three-Stratum Theory
of Human Abilities

Gf Fluid Reasoning
Abilities
 Carroll’s Three-Stratum Theory
of Human Abilities

Verbal Quantitative Figural-

Sequential Reasoning Inferential
Reasoning Reasoning
Correlation between WISC Full Scale Score and CogAT Composite = .79
 Predictive Validity
 Correlations with current and subsequent achievement
 Within Battery predictions strong
 Verbal with Reading, Soc Studies (r =.4 - .8)
 Quant with Mathematics (r = .4 - .8)
 Figural–Nonverbal with Math (r = .4 - .7)
 Negative for verbal ach. after controlling g
 Across batteries
 Multiple correlations – typically R = .8
 Often better than prior achievement in the domain
 V and QN partial composite especially useful
 Within ethnic-group correlations the same
 Implications for TALENT identification
 Consequential Validity: Advice on
score interpretation?
 Early 20th century theory of ‘culture-fair
measure of g’
 21st century theory of reasoning abilities
 Evidence from research on human abilities
 Evidence from predictions of academic
achievement
 Evidence from ATI research

 Evidence from cognitive psychology

 Consequential Validity: Score use
 Does every child (teacher) receive potentially useful
information?
 Specific suggestions for how to use the level and profile
of scores to
 Assist the child in learning by adapting instruction better to
meet his/her learning style
 Build on cognitive strengths
 Shore up weaknesses
 Interpretive Guide for Teachers & Counselors
 Short Guide for teachers (free online)
 Profile interpretation system (free online)
 Norms
 Flynn Effect (next slide)
 Shaunessy et al. (2004)
 Cattell Culture Fair test 17.8 IQ points higher than
NNAT
 Project Bright Horizon in Phoenix
 2000 K-6 children, about ½ ELL
 CogAT, Raven, NNAT

 Raven 10 SAS points higher than CogAT or NNAT

 Example of Flynn Effect
105

100

95
IQ on the 1995 Scale

90

85

80

75

70
1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Year

Gains in Wechsler-Binet IQ for the U.S. White population.

Sources J. Horgan (1995) and D. Schildlovsky.
Mistakes in norming NNAT
NNAT SD's by Test Level
25

20
Standard Deviation .

George (2001)
15
Naglieri &
Ronning (2000)
10
Bright Horizon

0
A B C D E F G
Test Level
 True Versus Reported NAI Scores
by NNAT Test Level

True NAI Score

Level 100 115 130 145
A 100 121 142 163
B 100 119 139 158
C 100 119 137 156
D 100 117 134 151
E 100 115 130 145
F 100 116 132 149
G 100 116 132 148
 True Versus Reported NAI Scores
by NNAT Test Level

True NAI Score

Level 100 115 130 145
A 100 121 142 163
B 100 119 139 158
C 100 119 137 156
D 100 117 134 151
E 100 115 130 145
F 100 116 132 149
G 100 116 132 148
 Over-identification Rates for the Number
of Students with NAI Scores Above 115, 130, and 145

True NAI Score

Level 115 130 145
A 1.5 3.4 11.9
B 1.4 2.6 7.3
C 1.3 2.3 5.8
D 1.2 1.7 2.9
E 1.0 1.0 1.0
F 1.1 1.4 2.0
G 1.1 1.4 1.9
 Over-identification Rates for the Number
of Students with NAI Scores Above 115, 130, and 145

True NAI Score

Level 115 130 145
A 1.5 3.4 11.9
B 1.4 2.6 7.3
C 1.3 2.3 5.8
D 1.2 1.7 2.9
E 1.0 1.0 1.0
F 1.1 1.4 2.0
G 1.1 1.4 1.9
Interpreting CogAT
scores
 Primary uses of CogAT
 To guide efforts to adapt instruction to the
needs and abilities of students
 To provide an alternative measure of cognitive
development
 To identify students whose predicted levels of
achievement differ markedly from their
observed levels of achievement
Myths about adapting instruction
 All students are pretty much alike
 Reading Vocab Across Grades
400

350

V
O
Vocabulary Developmental Standard Score

C
300
A
B
99th %-tile
U 80th %-tile
L250 50th %-tile
A 20th %-tile

R 1st %-tile

Y
200

150

100
K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Grade
 Reading Vocab Across Grades
400

350

V
Vocabulary Developmental Standard Score

O
C 300
A
B 99th %-tile
U 80th %-tile
L 250 50th %-tile
20th %-tile
A
1st %-tile
R
Y
200

150

100
K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Grade
Myths about adapting instruction
 All students are pretty much alike
 Every student is unique
Myths about adapting instruction
 All students are pretty much alike
 Every student is unique
 Adaptations should be based on self-reported
learning styles
Myths about adapting instruction
 All students are pretty much alike
 Every student is unique
 Adaptations should be based on self-reported
learning styles
 If the method is right, the outcome will be good
 Examples of correlations

Predictor and criterion r N

Aspirin and reduced risk of death by heart attacka .02 22,071

General batting skill as a Major League baseball .06 —

player and hit success on a given instance at bata

Calcium intake and bone mass in .08 2,493

premenopausal womena

Effect of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs .14 8,488

(e.g., ibuprofen) on pain reductiona

Weight and height for U.S. adultsa .44 16,948

Myths about adapting instruction
 All students are pretty much alike
 Every student is unique
 Adaptations should be based on self-reported
learning styles
 If the method is right, the outcome will be good
 Individualization requires separate learning tasks
 Important Characteristics of
Students
 Cognition (knowing)
 Domain knowledge & skill
 Reasoning abilities in the symbol systems
used to communicate knowledge (Verbal,
Quant., Spatial)
 Affection (feeling)
 anxiety, interests, working alone/with others
 Conation (willing)
 persistence, impulsivity
 Important Characteristics of
Classrooms
 Structure
 Novelty/Complexity/Abstractness
 Dominant symbol system
 Opportunities for working alone or with others
General Principles of Instructional Adaptation

 Build on Strength
 Focus on working memory

 Scaffold wisely

 Emphasize strategies

 When grouping, aim for diversity

 Case Study: Naomi
No. of Number Raw Age Scores Grade Scores
Items Attempted Score USS SAS PR S PR S
Verbal 40 39 31 148 107 67 6 59 5
Quantitative 40 38 18 109 85 17 3 11 2
Nonverbal 40 40 30 147 109 71 6 60 6
Composite 135 100 50 5 38 4

PR 1 25 50 75 99

V 67
Q 17
N 71

Profile 6E (Q-)
 Primary uses of CogAT
 To guide efforts to adapt instruction to the
needs and abilities of students
 To provide an alternative measure of
cognitive development
 To identify students whose predicted levels of
achievement differ markedly from their
observed levels of achievement
ITBS – CogAT correlation

High
CogAT

Low

Low High
ITBS
ITBS – CogAT correlation

High
CogAT

Low

Low High
ITBS
ITBS – CogAT correlation

High
CogAT

Low

Low High
ITBS
ITBS – CogAT correlation

High CogAT only

Both
CogAT

ITBS only

Low

Low High
ITBS
Proportion of students identified by one
test also identified by the second test

Correlation between tests

Cut score 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90

Top 1% 0.13 0.19 0.27 0.38 0.54

Top 2% 0.17 0.23 0.31 0.42 0.58

Top 3% 0.20 0.26 0.35 0.45 0.60

“Do not use the Composite score to
screen children for academic
giftedness”
 Thorndike & Hagen (1984) (CogAT4)
 Thorndike & Hagen (1992) (CogAT5)
 Lohman & Hagen (2000) (CogAT6)
 Generally good news for low
achieving students
 The lower the student’s score on an achievement
test
 The greater the likelihood that CogAT scores
will be higher
 Especially for nonverbal battery
 Primary uses of CogAT
 To guide efforts to adapt instruction to the
needs and abilities of students
 To provide an alternative measure of cognitive
development
 To identify students whose predicted levels of
achievement differ markedly from their
observed levels of achievement
 Predicting Achievement from Ability
Predicted
Achievement
Score
Hig
A h
c
h
i
e
v Avg
e
m Distribution of
e Achievement
n for SAS of 110
t

70 80 90 100 110 120 130

Standard Age Score
 Moderate Correlation

Moderate Correlation
Unexpectedly
High Ach.
Expected
Level of Ach.
Achievement

B
Unexpectedly
Low Ach.

Ability
 Predicting Ach vrs Flagging Ach-
Ability discrepancies

 Who are the students (at any ach level) who are
most likely to improve if given new motivation
or instructional resources?
 Reasoning Ability > Achievement
1. Underachievement
• poor effort, instruction, etc.

2. Well developed ability to transfer knowledge &

skills to novel situations
• evidence for practice in varied contexts
 Achievement > Reasoning Ability
1. Overachievement
• unusual effort, good instruction

2. Difficulty in applying knowledge/skills in

unfamiliar contexts
• need for integration, cross-course transfer
General issues in
selection
 Golden Rules of selection
 Identification criteria must be logically and
psychologically tied to the requirements of the
day-to-day activities that students will pursue.
 Mathematics?
 Literary arts?

 Visual Arts?

 Differentiated selection implies differentiated

instruction
 Example
Example r = .6of r =PR.6
using

100

90

80
Mathematics Achievement

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Nonverbal Reasoning
 Example
Example r = PR
r = .6 using .6
100

90

80
Mathematics Achievement

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Nonverbal Reasoning
 Example
Example r = PR
r = .6 using .6
100

90

80
Mathematics Achievement

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Nonverbal Reasoning
Example r = .6
 Imprecision of even high
correlations
 Given r = .8
 What is the likelihood that a student who scores
in 60-70th PR at Time 1 will scores in the 60-70th
PR at Time 2?
Lohman, D. F. (2003). Tables of
prediction efficiencies.
Lohman, D. F. (2003). Tables of
prediction efficiencies.
Lohman, D. F. (2003). Tables of
prediction efficiencies.
Proportion of students identified by
both tests

Correlation between tests

Cut score 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90

Top 1% 0.13 0.19 0.27 0.38 0.54

Top 2% 0.17 0.23 0.31 0.42 0.58

Top 3% 0.20 0.26 0.35 0.45 0.60

 Regression to the mean
 The tendency of students with high scores to
obtain somewhat lower scores upon retest
 0 at the mean
 Increases with distance from the mean

 Easily predicted from correlation

 Ypred = Mean + r (Y – mean)
 Causes of Regression to the
Mean
 “Errors” of measurement
 Often much larger for high scoring students
 Differential growth rates
 Changes in the abilities measured by the tests at
time 1 and time 2 (esp achievement tests)
 Changes in the norming population
 school sample or national age sample
 Reducing Regression
 Use the most reliable tests available
 (judge by SEM on reported score scale)
 Avoid accepting the highest score as the best
estimate of ability
 Average scores
 Ability and Achievement test scores
 Within domain (e.g., math ach & CogAT Q or QN)
 Achievement at T1 and T2
 Revolving door policies
Combining scores
 “And,” “or” or “Average”
"And" "Or" "Average"

Test 1 and Test 2 Test 1 or Test 2 Average of Test 1 and Test 2

Figure 5. Plots of the effects of three rules: (a) high scores on test 1 and test 2; (b) high
scores on test 1 or test 2; and (c) high scores on the average of test 1 and test 2.
 Screening tests
 You administer a screening test to reduce the
number who must be administered the
admissions test
 Assume a correlation of r = .6 between the two
tests
 Assume students must score at the 95th PR or
higher on the admissions test
 What cut score on the screening test will include
all of those who would meet this criterion?
Proportion of students in top X percent of screening test who
exceed the same or a more stringent cut score on follow up
test
r = .6
Admissions test

Top x % 5% 3% 1%
30% 0.80 0.84 0.91
25% 0.75 0.80 0.87
Screening Test

20% 0.68 0.73 0.82

15% 0.59 0.65 0.75
10% 0.48 0.54 0.65
5% 0.31 0.36 0.48
3% 0.22 0.26 0.36
Proportion of students in top X percent of screening test who
exceed the same or a more stringent cut score on follow up
test
r = .6
Admissions test

Top x % 5% 3% 1%
30% 0.80 0.84 0.91
25% 0.75 0.80 0.87
Screening Test

20% 0.68 0.73 0.82

15% 0.59 0.65 0.75
10% 0.48 0.54 0.65
5% 0.31 0.36 0.48
3% 0.22 0.26 0.36
 Screening might make sense
 When admissions test is expensive to administer
 When the correlation between the admissions &
screening test is very high
 When there are many more applicants than
places in the program
 When the false rejection rate is not an issue
 Local versus National Norms
 Except for regional or national talent searches, the
PRIMARY reference group is not the nation or even
the state but the school or school district.
 The need for special instruction depends on the
discrepancy between the child’s level of cognitive and
academic development and that of his or her
classmates.
 Multiple perspectives: Nation, the local population,
opportunity-to-learn subgroups within the local
population
Identification of Talent
in Special Populations
ELL children
Identifying academic talent
Not giftedness
 Tradeoff
Measuring the right things approximately
for ELL students
or
the wrong things with greater accuracy
 Inference of Aptitude?
 When someone learns in a few trials what
others learn in many trials
 Opportunity to learn is critical
 Common norms appropriate only if
experiences are similar
 Placement by achievement
 Multiple Perspectives
 The need for special programming depends most
importantly on the discrepancy between a child’s
achievements & abilities and that of his or her
classmates
 Except for regional talent searches, summer programs
that draw from different schools, etc… Make better use
of local norms!
 For ELL students in grade 3, compare scores to:
 Other ELL students in grade 3
 Other students in grade 3 in the district/school
 Other grade 3 students in the nation
 Multiple Programming Options
 Current level of achievement is primary guide
 Programming goal: to improve the achievement
at a rate faster than would otherwise occur
 For on- and below-grade-level achievement
options include: tutors, after-school or weekend
classes/clubs, etc. Motivational component
critical.
 For achievement well in advance of peers,
consider single-subject acceleration
 Combining ITBS and CogAT
 Grades K – 2
 Average CogAT V and ITBS Reading Total
 Average CogAT Q and ITBS Math total
 CogAT NV stands alone

 Grades 3 – 12
 Average CogAT V and ITBS Reading Total
 Average CogAT QN and ITBS Math Total

 Use NCE scores – they can be averaged

 Then sort by grade and OTL group
 Integrating ability, achievement, and
teacher ratings
 See Lohman, D. F. & Renzulli, J. (2007). A
simple procedure for combining ability test
scores, achievement test scores, and teacher
ratings to identify academically talented children.
 Teacher Rating (Renzulli Scales) on
Learning ability, Motivation, or
Creativity (NOMINATED students only)
 Teacher Rating (Renzulli Scales) on
Learning ability, Motivation, or
Creativity
Verbal
Ability

Or

Quant/NV
Ability

(ALL
Students)
 Teacher Rating (Renzulli Scales) on
Learning ability, Motivation, or
Creativity

Below Avg. Above Avg.

Verbal
Ability
>97th PR
Or

Quant/NV >80th PR
Ability
 Teacher Rating (Renzulli Scales) on
Learning ability, Motivation, or
Creativity

Below Avg. Above Avg.

Verbal
Ability
>97th PR II I
Or

Quant/NV >80th PR IV III

Ability
 Teacher Rating (Renzulli Scales) on
Learning ability, Motivation, or
Creativity

Below Avg. Above Avg.

Verbal
Ability
>97th PR II I
Or admit

Quant/NV >80th PR IV III

Ability
 Teacher Rating (Renzulli Scales) on
Learning ability, Motivation, or
Creativity

Below Avg. Above Avg.

Verbal
Ability
>97th PR II I
Or Admit but
watch
Quant/NV >80th PR IV III
Ability
 Teacher Rating (Renzulli Scales) on
Learning ability, Motivation, or
Creativity

Below Avg. Above Avg.

Verbal
Ability
>97th PR II I
Or

Quant/NV >80th PR IV III

Ability Enrichment
 Teacher Rating (Renzulli Scales) on
Learning ability, Motivation, or
Creativity

Below Avg. Above Avg.

Verbal
Ability
>97th PR II I
Or

Quant/NV >80th PR IV III

Ability Try next year
 Teacher Rating (Renzulli Scales) on
Learning ability, Motivation, or
Creativity

Below Avg. Above Avg.

Verbal
Ability
>97th PR II I
Or Admit but admit
watch
Quant/NV >80th PR IV III
Ability Try next year Enrichment
 Final Thoughts: Using CogAT
 Examine warnings and confidence intervals on
score reports
 Do not screen using Composite score
 Use V and QN instead (at grade 3 +)
 Combine with Reading Total and Math Total
 Average measures of the same construct; Use
“or” for measures of different constructs
 To identify talent, measure the right aptitudes
but then compare scores to the proper norm
group(s)
 Emphasize local norms for in-school programs
 ELL
 Compare the performance of the ELL 3rd
grader with that of other ELL 3rd graders
 Be wary of national norms that you can
purchase– esp on nonverbal tests (Raven,
NNAT,…)
 Nonverbal tests have a role to play, but should
never stand alone
 Emphasize the identification of talent rather
than the identification of giftedness
 General
 It is unwise to accept the highest score as the
best estimate of ability
 Combine ability and achievement test scores in
principled ways
 Teacher ratings are only as good as teacher
training in making ratings
 Do not simply add teacher ratings and similar
measures to ability/achievement scores
 There is no way to measure innate ability; all
abilities are developed
 Measures of achievement and ability differ in
degree – not kind
 Future expertise is built on the base of current
knowledge in a domain, reasoning abilities
needed for new learning in that domain, interest
in the domain, and the ability to persist in the
pursuit of excellence
 All of which depend on opportunity and
circumstance
 The End
www.cogat.com

http://faculty.education.uiowa.edu/dlohman
 NCE Scores
 Get from the publisher for CogAT
 Table look up (Table 32 in CogAT Norms
Manual)
 Convert PR’s to NCE scores
 In Excel
NCE = NORMINV (PR/100, 50, 21.06)

 If SAS > 135

NCE = 21.06 * [(SAS – 100)/16] + 50