336 ESSENTIALS OF NEPSY-II ASSESSMENT

Rapid Reference 6.16

Inter-Rater Reliability for NEPSY-II

To determine the degree to which trained raters were consistent in scoring these subtests during standardization, inter-rater reliability was calculated as percent agreement rates between trained scorers. Agreement rates ranged from 93 to 99%:

Clocks 97%

Design Copying 94–95% across scores

Memory for Names 99%

Theory of Mind 99%

Word Generation 93%

Visuomotor Precision 95%

The results show that although these subtests require some judgment in scoring, they can be scored with a very high degree of reliability between raters.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

In this chapter, we have reviewed the types of developmental and acquired disorders for which a NEPSY-II assessment (Korkman et al., 2007) is appropriate. We have also discussed patterns observed in representative disorders in the NEPSY-II validity studies that are reflected in the Referral Batteries and can guide the clinician in selecting subtests to aid diagnosis, as well as having reviewed reliability of the NEPSY-II. Now in Chapter 7, we move to the final step in the assessment process, the reporting of test results, by looking at illustrative case reports.

1.Across the years, many studies have shown that a core deficit of dyslexia is in phonological processing.

True or False?

2.The Speeded Naming and Word Generation subtests were most sensitive to impairments in RD.

True or False?

3.Math disabilities often coexist with language, spatial, attentional, and psychomotor disabilities.

True or False?

Seven

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE REPORTS

This chapter synthesizes the principles and concepts presented in the first six chapters of the book and guides you through the process of presenting the wealth of data available from a NEPSY-II evaluation in a clear, understandable manner. Hypotheses should be validated through results on NEPSY-II, other as-

sessments, the comprehensive history, and school and medical records. This chapter contains three case studies of children referred for neuropsychological evaluation. The case studies are organized around the use of the NEPSY-II Referral Batteries in order to guide you in their use. With increasing economic and time constraints, a clinician may find that it is not always possible to administer a full NEPSY-II, though that is the most comprehensive and thorough path for assessment. When constraints are present, the NEPSY-II Referral Batteries will be useful tools for addressing a more general referral question (GRB) or to focus your assessment on a common referral question using a specific Diagnostic Referral Battery (DRB).

It is important to understand that there is no standardized report format; therefore, these reports are presented in several different formats. You may follow a prescribed format recommended by your agency, clinic, hospital, or the like. On the other hand, if you are in a position to develop your own format, it is essential to keep in mind the parties to whom you will be communicating the test results (e.g. parents, medical professionals, school personnel, and so forth). The referral statement focuses the reader on the referral question immediately. It provides comprehensive background information so the readers understand how the child’s developmental, medical, psychosocial, and educational background may provide clues to or may have contributed to the problem. It presents test results divided into sections, usually by domain or function that make the wealth of information manageable to read. It describes the task that the child was performing that yielded the test results. It is essential to supply comparative information for scores by providing means, percentiles, and descriptors. Charts and graphs can be very helpful to understanding results, whether they appear in the body of the report or on a data

339