of abilities, and interpreting results within the context of an individual's unique history and presenting problems in a manner that is psychometrically and theoretically defensible may certainly take a bit more time than simply administering a single battery and reporting scores along with their descriptive categories (e.g., average, below average). However, practitioners who are familiar with the XBA approach, including the use of the XBA software, and who are competent test users, find the approach time-efficient.

Note

1. Although the integrated Cattell-Horn and Carroll model presented in Flanagan et al. (2000) was used by the WJ III authors in the development of their battery, it is important to recognize that Woodcock's 1989 cognitive battery, the Woodcock-Johnson Psychoeducational Battery–Revised, was the first operationalization of contemporary Gf-Gc theory. Also noteworthy here is the fact that Alan and Nadeen Kaufman were the first to develop a cognitive battery based on theory (i.e., Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children; Kaufman & Kaufman, 1983).

References

Alfonso, V. C., Flanagan, D. P., & Radwan, S. (2005). The impact of the Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory on test development and interpretation of cognitive and academic abilities. In D. P. Flanagan & P. L. Harrison (Eds.),

Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (2nd ed., pp. 185–202). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Bracken, B. A. (1988). Ten psychometric reasons why similar tests produce dissimilar results. Journal of School Psychology, 26, 155–166.

Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Elliott, C. (2007). Differential Ability Scales—Second Edition. San Antonio,

TX: Harcourt Assessment.

Flanagan, D. P., Alfonso, V. C., Ortiz, S. O., & Dynda, A. M. (in press). Cognitive assessment: Progress in psychometric theories of intelligence, the

structure of cognitive ability tests, and interpretive approaches to cognitive test performance. In D. Saklofske, V. Schwean, & C. Reynolds (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of psychological assessment of children and adolescents. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Flanagan, D. P., & McGrew, K. S. (1997). A cross-battery approach to assessing and interpreting cognitive abilities: Narrowing the gap between practice and cognitive science. In D. P. Flanagan, J. L. Genshaft, & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 314–325). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Flanagan, D. P., McGrew, K. S., & Ortiz, S. O. (2000). The Wechsler intelligence scales and Gf-Gc theory: A contemporary approach to interpretation. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Flanagan, D. P., & Ortiz, S. O. (2001). Essentials of cross-battery assessment. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Horn, J. L., & Blankson, N. (2005). Foundation for better understanding of cognitive abilities. In D. P. Flanagan & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment (pp. 41–68). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. (1983). Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children. Circle Pines, MN: AGS.

Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (2004). Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children—Second Edition. Bloomington, MN: AGS.

McGrew, K. S. (1997). Analysis of the major intelligence batteries according to a proposed comprehensive CHC framework. In D. P. Flanagan, J. L. Genshaft, & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 151–180). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

McGrew, K. S. (2005). The Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory of cognitive abilities: Past, present and future. In D. P. Flanagan & P. L. Harrison (Eds.),

Contemporary intellectual assessment (pp. 136–182). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

McGrew, K. S., & Flanagan, D. P. (1998). The intelligence test desk reference: Gf-Gc cross-battery assessment. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Ortiz, S. O. (2008). Best practices in nondiscriminatory assessment. In A.

Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.) Best practices in school psychology V, (pp. 661– 678). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.

Ortiz, S. O., & Flanagan, D. P. (2002a). Cross-battery assessment revisited: Some cautions concerning “some cautions” (Part I). Communiqué, 30(6), 32– 34.

Ortiz, S. O., & Flanagan, D. P. (2002b). Cross-battery assessment revisited: Some cautions concerning “some cautions” (Part II). Communiqué, 30(8), 36–38.

Reynolds, C. (1984-1985). Critical measurement issues in learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 18(4), pp. 451–476.

Roid, G. H. (2003). Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales—Fifth Edition. Itasca,

IL: Riverside.

Thurstone, L. L. (1946). Theories of intelligence. Scientific Monthly, February, pp. 101–112.

Wechsler, D. (1939). Wechsler-Bellevue. New York, NY: Psychological

Corporation.

Wechsler, D. (1997). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—Third Edition. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.

Wechsler, D. (2003). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children—Fourth Edition. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.

Wechsler, D. (2012). Wechsler Primary and Preschool Scale of Intelligence —Fourth Edition. San Antonio, TX: Pearson.

Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. W., & Mather, N. (2001). The WoodcockJohnson III Tests of Cognitive Abilities. Itasca, IL: Riverside.

Chapter Seven

Cross-Battery Assessment Case Report

Gail Cheramie

This chapter includes a psychological evaluation that was carried out by Gail Cheramie following the methods described in this book. The comprehensive psychological evaluation conducted by Gail highlights a student with a specific learning disability (SLD) in the area of writing and demonstrates the effective use of the XBA DMIA v2.0 and XBA PSW-A v1.0 software programs. In addition to this case report, three reports detailing the results of comprehensive evaluations conducted in a manner consistent with the methods described herein are included in Appendix J, which is found on the CD accompanying this book. Specifically, Appendix J includes a comprehensive evaluation conducted by Karen Apgar. Karen's case highlights the use of the XBA C-LIM v2.0 program in the evaluation of the test performance of a student who is an English learner and experiencing academic difficulty in basic reading skills. Karen's case is also consistent with the Eugene, Oregon, School District Integrated Model for Identification of Students with Suspected SLD (see Appendix K for a complete description of this model). The second case included in Appendix J was conducted by Jim Hanson. Jim's case highlights a student with an SLD in the area of math and demonstrates the need to consider multiple data sources, gathered via multiple methods, in the SLD identification process. The final case included in Appendix J was conducted by John Garruto. Through a careful and thoughtful evaluation of many factors, John found that the student he evaluated had significant difficulties in long-term storage and retrieval. Based on this finding, he was able to understand why the student did not respond well to intervention and to offer more effective ways of intervening with the student.