and informal educational experiences. Some clinicians distinguish between tests of intelligence, which measure a person’s intellectual ability or capacity to learn, and tests of achievement, which measure information that the person has already learned and retained (Flanagan & Alfonso, 2017).
Tests of academic achievement generally measure three broad skills: reading, math, and written expression. These three areas reflect the main types of learning disabilities recognized by public schools. Some tests assess a fourth dimension of academic functioning, oral language, which reflects the child’s listening and speaking skills (Katz & Brown, 2020).
The Woodcock-Johnson IV Tests of Achievement (WJ-IV; Schrank et al., 2014) are the most widely used, comprehensive tests of academic achievement. The WJ-IV assesses academic achievement in reading, math, and written language. Within each domain, psychologists can assess children’s basic skills, fluency (i.e., speed and accuracy), and advanced applications. For example, children’s math skills can be assessed by asking them to calculate math problems (i.e., basic skills), to solve as many simple math problems as possible in a short period of time (i.e., math fluency), or to correctly answer increasingly more difficult math story problems (i.e., applied problem-solving).
The WJ-IV yields standardized scores on each of the three achievement domains with a mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15. Scores more than one standard deviation below the mean (i.e., <85) can indicate delays in a particular area of achievement, and scores more than 1.5 standard deviations below the mean (i.e., <78) might indicate a learning disorder (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Usually, clinicians examine children’s intelligence and achievement scores together to obtain a more complete picture of children’s strengths and weaknesses (Benisz et al., 2018).
On the WISC–V, Sara earned a FSIQ of 104, which is squarely in the average range. Her scores placed her at the 60th percentile, which means her overall abilities exceed 60% of children her age. She showed a relative strength in verbal comprehension and a relative weakness in fluid reasoning; however, all of her scores fell within normal limits. On the WJ-IV, Sara’s reading and math scores were 94, also in the average range. Her scores placed her at the 35th percentile. Altogether, her scores were average and suggested that her school refusal is not due to a cognitive problem or learning disability.
Review
Intelligence reflects children’s ability to adapt to their environments, to solve problems, and to learn and apply information accurately and efficiently. The WISC–V yields a FSIQ and measures of (1) verbal comprehension, (2) fluid reasoning, (3) visual–spatial reasoning, (4) working memory, and (5) processing speed.
Academic achievement refers to knowledge and skills that children learn through formal and informal educational experiences. The WJ-IV yields achievement scores in reading, math, and written language.
Scores on IQ and achievement tests are normally distributed with a mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15.
How Do Psychologists Assess Children’s Personality and Social–Emotional Functioning?
Personality Testing
Personality refers to a person’s relatively stable pattern of thoughts, feelings, and actions. Because children are in a stage of life characterized by development in all three domains, psychologists are reluctant to make definitive statements regarding children’s personality. Instead, clinicians often seek to understand children’s functioning in terms of thoughts, feelings, and actions in the context of their physical maturation, developmental tasks, and ever-changing environment (Butcher, 2019).
The most frequently used self-report measure of personality in older adolescents and adults is the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI). Despite its name, the MMPI is better viewed as a test of psychopathology and social–emotional functioning than personality per se. The original MMPI consists of true/false items that assess several domains of functioning. The most recent version of the MMPI, developed specifically for adolescents, is the MMPI-Adolescent-Restructured Form (MMPI-A-RF; Archer, 2016). This self-report test assesses three higher-order domains of adolescents’ functioning: (1) emotional/internalizing dysfunction, (2) behavioral/externalizing dysfunction, and (3) thought dysfunction. Furthermore, it generates a personality profile on nine restructured clinical (RC) scales based on adolescents’ self-reports:
Demoralization (RCd): dissatisfaction, hopelessness, self-doubt
Somatic Complaints (RC1): physical complaints such as headaches, stomachaches, and nausea
Low Positive Emotions (RC2): depression, lack of pleasure in life
Cynicism (RC3): beliefs in the general badness or selfishness of others
Antisocial Behavior (RC4): conduct and substance use problems
Ideas of Persecution (RC6): suspiciousness or mistrust of others
Dysfunctional Negative Emotions (RC7): anxiety, irritability, feelings of vulnerability
Aberrant Experiences (RC8): unusual perceptions or bizarre thoughts
Hypomanic Activation (RC9): impulsiveness, grandiosity, and high energy
The MMPI-A-RF yields other scores designed to assess adolescents’ test-taking attitude and specific psychological problems. For example, the test contains several validity scales that detect inconsistent responding or a tendency to over- or under-report symptoms. The test also contains specific problem scales that assess concerns such as substance use, negative attitudes toward school, and conflict in family relationships.
Figure 4.3 ■ Sara’s MMPI-A-RF Profile
Note: Compared to other adolescents, Sara reports significant problems on the Emotional/Internalizing Dysfunction (EID) scale. Her primary concerns are physical health problems (RC1) and anxiety (RC7).
The MMPI-A-RF yields scores (called T scores) with a mean of 50 and standard deviation of 10. Scores of 60 or greater indicate clinically significant problems in social–emotional functioning compared to other adolescents. Clinicians usually plot the adolescent’s T scores on a profile to graphically represent the most salient aspects of the adolescent’s functioning (Handel, 2016).
Sara’s MMPI-A-RF profile showed elevations on the broad emotional/internalizing dysfunction domain compared to other adolescent girls her age (Figure 4.3). Her scores were particularly high on scales assessing physical health problems (RC1) and negative emotions like anxiety and worry (RC7). In contrast, her scores on the demoralization scale (RCd) and the low positive emotions scale (RC2) were not elevated, indicating that Sara may manifest psychological distress through physical complaints and insomnia rather than through feelings of depression and hopelessness.
Parent, Teacher, and Self-Report Rating Scales
Many clinicians ask adults to evaluate children’s behavior and social–emotional functioning using checklists or rating scales. Older children and adolescents will also be asked to evaluate themselves. The most widely used rating scales include the Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment (ASEBA; Achenbach, 2015), the Conners Comprehensive Behavior Rating Scales (Conners, 2019), and the Behavior Assessment System for Children, Third Edition (BASC-3; Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2015).
For example, the BASC-3 can be administered to parents, teachers, and older children and adolescents across home and school settings. Each informant independently rates multiple aspects of the child’s behavior and social–emotional functioning on five broad dimensions: (1) externalizing behavior, such as aggression and hyperactivity; (2) internalizing behavior, such as anxiety and depression; (3) school problems, such as attention and learning difficulties, (4) adaptive skills, such as communication and social functioning;