As we mentioned in a previous post, the newly-updated and revised Gifted Rating Scales Second Edition is nearing its publication date. The GRS 2 will include teacher rating scales as well as new parent rating scales. Together, these updated instruments offer a comprehensive screening system for students ages 4 through 18 years and 11 months. The online format will allow for quick and efficient screening, with comprehensive reporting and multi-rater reports.
We thank you for your interest in the GRS and for your work with gifted and talented students. This post will be the final post on the Gifted Assessment Insights website. Please visit the MHS Gifted and Talented Hub for updates and information about publication dates and research about the GRS 2. The MHS Gifted and Talented Hub includes a variety of information and resources to improve identification of and support for high potential youth, directly addressing issues of fairness, equity, and representation.
You can find Dr. Pfeiffer on the Steven Pfeiffer Psychology website. Visit Dr. Pfeiffer’s site to request a speaking engagement, request information about counseling and consulting, and review a list of articles and books written by Dr. Pfeiffer.
Dr. Jarosewich hosts a website for her program evaluation consulting firm, Censeo Group. Contact Dr. Jarosewich for support preparing a proposal for the National Science Foundation, US Department of Education, or other grantmaker or to discuss program evaluation for your grant-funded work.
We are excited to share with you information from the MHS Virtual Boothat the National Association for Gifted Children 67th Annual Convention Reimagined!
MHS has announced information about the Gifted Rating Scales Second Edition! Read more by clicking here or on the flyer below. The GRS 2 will include teacher rating scales as well as new parent rating scales. Together, these updated instruments offer a comprehensive screening system for students ages 4 through 18 years and 11 months. The online format will allow for quick and efficient screening, with comprehensive reporting and multi-rater reports.
Read more at the MHS Gifted and Talented Hub, which includes information and resources to improve identification of and support for high potential youth, directly addressing issues of fairness, equity, and representation.
We will be sharing more information about the GRS 2 release date as it becomes available. Sign up for updates on our website and also on the MHS Gifted and Talented Hub to receive updates.
The 2020 NAGC 67th Annual Convention Reimagined! live sessions are over, but Dr Pfeiffer’s on-demand presentation 829759 – Best Practices in Gifted Assessment will be available for registered participants until the conference site is closed.
Dr. Pfeiffer’s presentation focuses on how “gifted assessment” differs from “gifted identification.” Participants learn about key principles and fundamental beliefs underlying gifted assessment, multiple purposes for gifted assessment, and new measures of intellectual ability, creativity, and teacher and parent rating scales. Comparisons between practices in the USA and Brazil highlight socio-cultural differences in gifted assessment internationally.
Today’s guest author is friend and yoga instructor, Areta Verschoor. This post about mindfulness connects to previous posts about supporting the social emotional learning (SEL) of gifted students.
Areta teaches yoga in several studios in the Chicagoland area, including Black Cat Studios. She teaches to inspire and empower physical well being + awakening for everyday life. Her classes are warm + light, with an emphasis on breath connection, balance, physical awareness + opening of the heart. Having studied vinyasa yoga, adaptive yoga, yoga for eating disorder recovery + trauma informed yoga – Areta brings deep knowledge to her teaching. Helping each person find ease + strength in their body, no matter how they arrive on the mat. Step into her light, bright energy to find new joy in your practice.
Mindfulness: a mental state achieved by focusing one’s awareness on the present moment, while calmly acknowledging and accepting one’s feelings, thoughts, and bodily sensations.
A widely-accepted definition of mindfulness comes from Jon Kabat Zinn, the founder of mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR): The awareness that arises from paying attention, on purpose, in the present moment and non-judgmentally. MBSR is a secular practice that focuses attention to the present moment to calm the mind from worries about the past, future, and busy to-do lists.
Practicing mindfulness to bring on a state of calm and quiet is said to decrease feelings of anxiety and stress. Under stress, the brain releases “fight-or-flight” jolts of adrenaline, which can affect the developing brains of children and increase the likelihood of long-term mood disorders. Harvard researchers found that a structured school-based mindfulness intervention showed a reduction in perceived stress and improvements in sustained attention among student participants.. Study authors noted the potential value of mindfulness interventions in school. The paper provides references for literature about mindfulness in educational practice and recommendations for integrating mindfulness into classrooms. Similarly, a 2019 EdWeek article noted that mindfulness and meditation in classrooms can “decrease stress and anxiety, boost working memory, focus attention, reduce emotional reactivity, and increase relationship satisfaction.” You can read more, in an article by the Harvard Gazette about mindfulness and about schools across California that are investigating the impact of mindfulness in classrooms to reverse the effects of chronic stress.
Areta ends yoga practice with guided meditation, focused attention to breath, or a body scan to help her students release tension and leave class in a calm and relaxed state. Areta provided us with a guide for practicing mindfulness. Take a deep breath, settle into your space, and try out the steps of the guide.
Think about how you might use this guide in your classroom. What a wonderful way to spend a quiet ten minutes with your students. Where in your schedule could you find several minutes to support students’ practice of mindfulness?
As we adjust to starting a new school year and the new school policies and practices that we will implement because of COVID-19, we and our students are likely feeling some anxiety. We wanted to share a short video with you from Dr. Jeffrey Zeig in which he discusses how to deal with anxiety related to uncertainty.
In this video, Dr. Jeffrey Zeig shares information on techniques to cope with anxieties related to feeling uncertain, particularly now, during the spread of COVID-19.
Jeffrey K. Zeig, Ph.D. is the Founder and Director of the Milton H. Erickson Foundation, having studied with Milton Erickson, MD, for more than six years. Dr. Pfeiffer, who at one time trained with Dr. Zeig, thought that our readers might appreciate learning from this astute and brilliant clinician.
Much has changed in the world, as it has in education and the gifted field, since the start of the new century. And most futurists recognize that change is occurring at an increasingly rapid, almost breathtaking, pace as we find ourselves in the second decade of the 21st century. We have seen rapid global weather changes, sudden and often inexplicable political shifts in how countries govern – both in the USA and internationally, and grand transformations in the use of social media, economic indices and predictions, technological and medical advances, and even approaches to homeschooling, teaching, child rearing and parenting. Most recently, we are dealing with a novel coronavirus pandemic that has challenged our public health, economic, political and social fabric.
One area of focus that has not been part of this revolution of change is the gifted field and gifted education. For a number of reasons, the field of gifted education and the practice of serving the gifted in the schools has not enjoyed appreciable change for almost one hundred years. This lack of change in how we understand and serve this unique, special needs, group of students in the real-world of the schools is certainly not due to a lack of research or innovative best practices literature published in the gifted journals. It is rather that innovation—which is affecting so many fields of human endeavor today—has not gained much traction in the schools.
This was the la raison principale why Steven Pfeiffer, lead author of the Gifted Rating Scales (GRS), accepted the invitation to organize a special issue on the gifted for school psychologists. The idea was to provide readers of Psychology inthe Schools with the most recent and exciting new ideas, research findings, federal policy, information on gifted curriculum and instruction, and ways to identify, motivate, challenge, and understand gifted students.
The special issue for which Pfeiffer serves as guest editor is slated for publication in the coming months: It will be a fall/winter 2020 issue of Psychology in the Schools. The journal is published by Wiley and is available at most University libraries and online at www.wiley.com. The contributors to the special issue consist of a group of recognized authorities in their respective areas of research, practice, and advocacy for the gifted, including, David Dai, Kristen Stephens, Elizabeth Shaunessy-Dedrick, Del Siegle, Kris Wiley, Dante Dixson, Linda Silverman, Frank Worrell, Carol Smith, Susannah Wood, Susan Assouline, Denise Winsor, Bobbie Gilman, and Megan Foley-Nicpon. It’s a lineup of All Stars!
One reason for a special issue on the gifted written specifically for school psychologists is that national surveys of members of the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) indicate that they are not well-equipped to serve gifted students in the schools. For example:
— Only half of NASP members report receiving training in assessment of the gifted, and less than half report receiving training in characteristics of the gifted. Perhaps more telling, 37% report receiving no training in gifted assessment, characteristics of the gifted, curriculum and instructional methods for the gifted learner, unique socioemotional needs, or the “twice exceptional” student.
— More than half of NASP members indicate that their graduate training dedicated “little” time to the gifted student, and 37% report that their graduate programs dedicated “no” time to learning about the gifted.
— More than half of NASP members (66%) report “never or rarely” conducting gifted evaluations; only 17% report consulting with teachers about gifted students, and the great majority rate their level of expertise in consulting with teachers on curriculum or instructional needs for gifted students as “low.”
There are other socio-cultural, and political reasons for why change in serving the gifted has been very slow to take hold in the schools. Many of the contributors to the special issue discuss the various reasons. Sadly, ‘innovation waves’ in our understanding of and in the provision of cutting-edge and evidence-based services and programs for the gifted has not kept pace with other changes across our society.
An interview with the lead author of the GRS-2, Steven Pfeiffer, recently appeared in the 2020 issue of the North American Journal of Psychology. Professor Pfeiffer was asked a number of questions about his views on giftedness, talent development, the new GRS-2, and ways to identify and nurture high ability kids. He has provided a short summary of his answer to one of the interview questions that appears in the journal to whet the interest of our readers. A full interview is available here.
Interviewer Question: A burning question about giftedness and talent development, Dr. Pfeiffer- is it quantitative or qualitative- and what do you see as the differences?
Steven Pfeiffer: This is a terrific question! It brings me back to my graduate student days, when I had the good fortune of studying with James Gallagher at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. Professor Gallagher had a lovely answer to the quantitative versus qualitative issue. He liked to say, and I am paraphrasing him here – “Try to view giftedness like water. At a certain temperature, it freezes into a solid, ice. But when warmed, the ice melts and turns into something very different, a liquid. And under further heating, the liquid actually transforms from a liquid into a gaseous state.” Professor Gallagher would then ask: “are these different states of water: solid, liquid, and gas – qualitative distinctions? Or are they quantitative differences?”
Professor Gallagher’s challenge to us students – at least how I have come to interpret and understand his view, is that giftedness can be considered both as marked by quantitative and qualitative distinctions. I agree with this nuanced position when thinking about giftedness and talent development. It helped guide our thinking about the development of the GRS and GRS-2. Let me use a soccer analogy, which readers of my work know I often rely upon by analogy when trying to explain intellectual or academic giftedness. The differences between most good High School varsity soccer players and weekend recreational soccer players, like myself, are, pretty much, quantitative. However, the differences between Division I College soccer players and world class soccer stars, such as Messi or Ronaldo, are, in many regards, astounding qualitative distinctions.
Messi and Ronaldo, and the other world class soccer players, perform, “on the turf,” in both quantitatively and in qualitatively different ways, compared to the rest of us who play soccer. Many things that they do on the field are more than just better or faster or more precise than what the rest of us can only hope to do. They play at an amazingly creative and elite level that captures our imagination because it reflects more than simply quantitative differences! The same is true among our most elite, eminent, and highly accomplished authors, poets, performing artists, scientists, politicians, engineers, mathematicians, physicians, teachers, and psychotherapists.
A second take-away from watching Messi, Ronaldo, and other world class soccer players on the field, training as well as competing, is this: They have an abundance of raw talent, considerable God-given gifts that are critical to develop to the highest levels on the soccer field. No question about this. But in addition to natural ability, to reach the highest levels in their chosen field, in this case soccer, they also need to develop to a very high level a number of specific physical and socio-emotional skills that complement their God-given gifts. Researchers have called these contextual, moderating and mediating factors. Whatever we label them, it is apparent to anyone who has spent considerable time on the sidelines watching elite youth develop, over time, into world-class soccer players, that many factors go into the equation that ultimately leads to elite performance on the playing field.
My point in thinking about soccer, which I love with an unbridled passion, is that the same is true in understanding the development of talent at its highest levels in almost any other field or profession, such as law, politics, the sciences, the performing arts, medicine, research, architecture, engineering… the list goes on and on. Of course, the factors that are uniquely important to the algorithm that creates a Messi or Ronaldo in soccer are not necessarily identical to the factors that create a world-class physician and immunologist such as Dr. Anthony Fauci, or world-renowned writers such as F. Scott Fitzgerald, Virginia Woolf, or Joyce Carol Oates. The point is this: A great many factors, in addition to high-level ability, go into the equation that ultimately leads to the development of talent at its highest level of expression-whatever the field.
Dr. David, counselor of gifted children and their families, has shared with us a timely post about considerations when conducting therapy online with students and families.
On-line treatment has been widely spread in the second decade of the 22nd century. Googling: ONLINE PSYCHOLOGICAL TREATMENT CORONAVIRUS has shown (until March 25) 67,600,000 results! However, written materials about the treatment of children, especially younger than 10, via video has been very limited in general, mainly because of the possibility of play treatment is almost non-existent through Skype, Zoom, WhatsApp, etc. No wonder that up to now I have not found any protocol for video-treatment of gifted children. I hereby offer some tips for such treatment based on my 2-week experience of treating 8-18-year old gifted children and instructing their parents through Skype and WhatsApp. As the coronavirus does not seem to disappear in the near future I hope that my following post – about video play-therapy of the gifted – will also be of some help for gifted children, their parents and their therapist.
This post will concentrate on five main issues:
The concern of patients about their [older] therapists;
The various difficulties young patients face when switching to video treatment;
Technical failures: when the connection is interrupted, the voice is blurred, etc.;
When younger siblings invade into the conversation;
When “I am the video-treatment person”.
Some of these issues have been mentioned before; most of them are common to video treatment of non-gifted as well.
What happens when the patient is concerned about their therapist?
Almost all child therapists have experienced the necessity of cancelling an appointment because of an illness, an injury or a misfortune, disaster or a sever condition of someone close to her. Children can understand, sometimes even at age 2, what is being unwell, and many of them already take part in a play role of: “a visit at the doctor’s clinic”, using kits that include a thermometer, a blood pressure gauge; a stethoscope, a plastic bottle with a colored medicine-like liquid given to them when their body temperature increases, or even without any accessories. There are children who put their teddy-bear to sleep, cover him with blankets, sing him a lullaby, and even ask everybody who enters the room to do it quietly because “teddy-bear has got a temperature”. Other children swing their doll’s cradle while “calming” her with unclear mumblings, try to “feed” her with the white liquid in “her” little plastic bottle while “persuading” her to sip some more drops because she “must become stronger”.
When “Corona Time” started, many kindergarten children were curious about the new situation, and many caretakers and teachers had to respond to the demand of children who asked for more knowledge. More intelligent children asked more questions at a younger age, but all educators have noticed that giving as accurate answers as possible – depending on the child’s developmental stage and emotional maturity – was needed. While this has been the case in many other critical situations, for example an illness or even a death in the family, there has always been an option of giving a general answer rather than profound answers that the child could not possibly understand or perceive. This has not been the case with the coronavirus.
The fight against the coronavirus has required as full cooperation as possible from everybody. Thus, parents, educators and caretakers have taught children how to properly wash their hands; how to keep “social distance” from others; and later telling even very young children that they could not meet their older relatives, not even their grandparents. Gifted children as young as 4-5 already knew the difference between a virus and a microbe and what must be done in order to minimize their nature.
This reality has created an enormous challenge for all therapists, especially for the older among us. Older therapists do not have to take care of their own children whose schools have been closed, and are not even allowed to meet their own grandchildren, so they are the most “natural’ group ready and available for video-treatment of children. But some highly gifted children know already at the age of 6 that older persons are more vulnerable to the coronavirus, and most death cases it causes are of 65+-year olds. The children’s concern about the health – even the life – of their therapists is accompanied, man a time, with the parents’ concern, which is well grounded.
The first rule in facing this challenge is telling the truth. When a child asks me if I am not afraid because of being old I tell her that indeed, I am old, and thus I do whatever I can in order to stay healthy. All “my” children know that this is true, as about 3 weeks ago, before people belonging to my age-group were advised not to meet others at all, I already told each child who entered my clinic to measure the distance between us, using my PowerLock 5-meter measuring tape [see the picture]. When the next week the children started the video treatment they already knew that I was telling them the truth about keeping as isolated from the virus as possible.
Many children, especially young, ask, at this point: “How old are you”? My answer is “67 and a half” or “next August I’ll be 68”. Accuracy rather than vagueness is a key for establishing trust. However, if you happen to have additional risk factor, it is not recommended to share this info with any of your patients, no matter how old or gifted they are.
2. What happens when a young child feels he need his parents to be present at the video-meeting?
Trust building is a main ingredient – if not the most important factor – of the treatment success. It is quite frequent to hear from the child’s parents, before the first meeting with the therapist, that they “can’t believe he will be able to stay in the clinic without us” or even “why can’t I, his mother, be present”? In most cases when the child is aware of his parents’ concerns they turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy; the child insists on his parents’ presence in the clinic. But when the parents are determined not to allow it the child eventually gives up, which helps building the necessary connection with the therapist and accelerates its strength. Thus, even if the child is a gifted 5-year old, it is almost always possible to agree upon “two breaks during the meeting when she meets her mother at the waiting room” or “leaving the clinic door open for the first two weeks”.
It is not possible to go through this process when the first meeting is not at the clinic, so just to make sure – we are talking about a child that has already established a satisfactory level of trust with the therapist. But even then, the transition to a video meeting is not simple. First of all: there is a technical problem. It is highly recommended not to use a tablet when the child is under 10, and operating the computer for such a meeting might be new for many young children even if highly gifted. Thus, a parent must “be there” both at the beginning and the end of the meeting. A parent is also required to “be close” in case of a technical or other problem.
But the transition from a two-people meeting to the situation when the parent is present or at least within a hearing distance is not necessarily negative. Here is an example that shows that this situation can have a positive effect.
A child who has not dared to express his deep negative feelings towards school, other family members, his siblings or even his parents is finally speaking about it with his therapist knowing that his parents are listening but cannot stop him or even intervene. He uses the opportunity to “speak up”, after he had already practiced it with his therapist, in order to “show” his parents that his feelings were acceptable, “telling” them that there is a possibility that he is “to blame”, that he feels being accused for no reason, and that he is ready to speak about his “bad behavior” with them.
3. What happens when technical failures occur?
During a video conversation it is quite frequent that the connection is interrupted, the voice is blurred, the therapist or the patient moves and her picture disappear from the screen, etc. We, older people, are used to hearing time and again that “children are better than us with computers” or “the young generation was born with a screen”. However, generalizations tend to be statistically true, but they cannot be applied to all cases. In addition, a child can be a champion in computer-games, or even an excellent programmer, but this does not necessarily make him more knowledgeable in fixing hardware problems… Sometimes a child who got his first smartphone at age 5 has had no experience in using video programs that are much better functional with a large screen. We need a larger screen for a better opportunity to follow the nuances of the patient’s expressions, her home-environment, the design of her room and many other important things that we have not had the opportunity to see because we always met the patient in our clinic.
In order to minimize the problems while using Skype or Zoom, the therapist must make sure it is installed on her computer. Both programs can be downloaded for free; even a technophobe can download them if she is determined to succeed. The next step will be to try using it in order to make sure it works. After that, you, the therapist, need to send the email address you used for it to your patients. When you do that, you demonstrate confidence, as if to say: most probably both you, my patient and your parents need me now more than ever, and together we shall overcome any technical problem!
But we cannot deny that using a video tool for a counseling meeting might cause an unexpected problem, including the potential of disconnection of the conversation and even the patient’s decision to terminate the whole process. In order to prevent such a situation, or at least minimize its prospects, I recommend preparing a back-up video tool, another program that should be installed in a different computer or smartphone, as well as an available telephone, if possible, a hardwired phone.
All these details seem very technical, but unlike in a face-to-face therapy session, when the therapist depends mainly on her own capabilities and experience, in a video session she must make sure these “technicalities” would not be on the way. This is true especially for highly-talented children and adolescents who sometimes have less patience than others, and in many cases hate to waste time until the line is fixed and the conversation resumed.
4. What happens when younger siblings invade into the conversation?
When our patient, child or adolescent, is sitting at the table during our conversation, whether in her own room or not, the basic rule or privacy in treatment, namely, that only the two of us are present and nobody gets in during it, changes. When everybody is at home younger siblings, who usually want to interfere with their older brother’s and sister’s life, find it harder to control themselves. It would not be fair to blame them or their parents for “not disciplining” them. “Corona Time” is not a good time to educate younger siblings, so both parents and counselors should be understanding when a sibling enters the room where our patient is conversing with us. A younger sibling usually believes that her older sister has a more interesting life – she goes to more places, meets more people… These beliefs are reinforced when the younger child feels she has nothing to do while her older sister is “on Skype”…
Here is a least of the most frequent scenarios that might happen when the younger sibling enters the room in the middle of the video meeting:
The older brother drives him out. It can be done by shouting, yelling and even pushing, kicking or hitting him. It is not our task to intervene. We must remember that while we are speaking with our patient, the sibling is under a parent’s care, the sole commander of what goes on in the house. The fact that we saw what happened does not mean we are part of it and certainly not that we have a role in it.
Our patient tries to involve us into the situation, saying things such as: “You see, I always tell you how unbearable my brother is”. In such a case we should ask our patient to call the parent. When our conversation is resumed, we might be asked to explain our reaction. One single sentence should be enough: “Your parent is the chief commander at home!”
The younger child enters the room, waves at us, “makes a face” in front of the screen, or says something that she knows would make her brother angry. If our patient did not react physically when the sibling leaves the room, we must praise her for her self-control and for not being impulsive.
If and only if our patient wishes to speak about what had just happened, we are to explain to her that her younger sibling was jealous because she was probably bored, and because she also wanted to have “someone special” to speak with. This explanation can develop, if the child shows an interest, to deeper ideas and thoughts about envy and jealousy. Quite often with gifted children being aware of a more abstract idea, sometimes at a very young age, leads to a deeper interest in the subject and curiosity that results in self-studying it.
5. What if “this kind of treatment does not feel like me” or just “I cannot do it”?
In spite of my warm recommendation to offer each patient the possibility to continue their treatment by video conversations, it is, first of all, up to the patient. If the patient or her parents decide they do not want to try it there is no problem.
But there are also many therapists who feel they cannot do it. The reason does not really matter. Some therapists find it hard to adopt a new method, preferring to stick to things they are familiar with; to protocols they had been using or rules such as “I am not to be in my patient’s house”. Some others have the self-perception: “I am a technophobe”. Younger therapists may not be able to treat other children when their own need care. In all these cases, and in many others, it is recommended to stop the treatment in order to get back to face-to-face meetings in better days.
The worst possible scenario, in my opinion, is that a therapist who is overwhelmed by her own anxieties continues meeting patients. Such a scenario might be harmful to all patients: adults, adolescents and children. But gifted children and adolescents are even more vulnerable to such a situation. As one of the most typical characteristic of the gifted is sensitivity, many are extremely sensitive to their therapist’s feelings. Indeed, transference in treatment is important, and counter-transference is unavoidable, but when the therapist’s anxieties are projected upon her patient, and even worst – the patient is concerns about her therapist’s life – such a situation is not just unethical; I would define is as immoral.
Dr. Michael F. Shaughnessy received his Bachelor’s degree from Mercy College in Dobbs Ferry, NY, his master’s degree in counseling and guidance from Bank Street College of Education, and his master’s in School Psychology from the College of New Rochelle. He did his doctoral work at the University of Nebraska- Lincoln and has done post-doctoral study at George Washington University in Head Injury and Brain Trauma and additional study at Texas Tech University in Lubbock, Texas in multiple disabilities.
Dr. Shaughnessy’s research interests are Intelligence Testing and Personality, Gifted Education, Projective Psychology, and Clinical Psychology
In this blog post, Dr. Shaughnessy reviews revisions of two well-known tests – The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-5th Edition and The Expressive Vocabulary Test- 3rd Edition. These instruments are often used as part of comprehensive evaluations and their revisions provide updated norms and easy paper and pencil or digital administration.
The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-5th Edition
The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test 5th Edition (PPVT™-5) is a well-known test that has been around literally for decades, serving as an integral part of most comprehensive evaluations. The PPVT-5 is a measure of receptive vocabulary designed for Standard American English. The test measures receptive vocabulary and its acquisition; strengths and weaknesses in the domain of semantics, word knowledge; and overall general language development. The PPVT-5 can be used for screening for receptive language disorders, screening for pre-school children, measuring word knowledge, understanding reading delays and difficulties, and measuring reevaluation and growth.
The goal of the revision was to update normative data to provide accurate comparative information; simplify and shorten the administration process; and include item analyses for assessment to intervention connections. The PPVT-5 keeps the basic well-known format of the PPVT–4 – respondents select a stimulus word from a four-picture layout – with stimulus words and pictures more applicable to different cultures within the United States.
Examiners compute raw scores to receive age-based standard scores (M = 100, SD = 15), percentile ranks, normal curve equivalents (NCEs), stanines, and both age and grade equivalents. Douglas Dunn, the author of the PPVT-5 has written a quite comprehensive manual delving into the statistical aspects of the test. The manual provides evidence of reliability, evidence of internal consistency, standard error of measurement and confidence intervals, and reliability of test scores. In terms of validity, the manual provides evidence based on test content, and response processes. The manual also reports relationships with other variables, specifically correlations with the PPVT-4, EVT-3, CLEF-Preschool -2, CLEF-5, and the KTEA-3-Brief.
Special group studies included populations diagnosed with language disorder, language delay and specific language impairment, autism spectrum disorder, specific language disability in reading and or writing, and hearing impairment with cochlear implants.
The publisher’s website and testing manual has additional information about testers’ qualifications, age-rage, administration time, and the paper and pencil and digital format of the assessment.
The Expressive Vocabulary Test- Third Edition
The EVT-3 is a valid reliable measure of expressive vocabulary and word retrieval for Standard American English. The EVT–3:
Measures expressive vocabulary
Offers comparisons of receptive and expressive vocabulary with concurrent administration of the PPVT-5
Assesses strengths and weaknesses in the realm of semantics, word knowledge
Offers an assessment of general language development.
Generates evidence-based interventions through the online Q-global system
The goals of the updated Expressive Vocabulary Test, Third Edition (EVT™-3) were to update normative data, include item analyses to connect assessment to intervention, and offer digital applications that maintain the basic qualities of the EVT–2 – ease of administration and response capture, brief administration time, and accurate and straightforward scoring. The stimulus words and pictures were also updated to be culturally relevant.
The EVT-3 will be available in paper and pencil and digital formats. The digital format includes digital scoring and reporting, digital stimulus books and manuals, and digital administration and scoring via Pearson’s Q-interactive® system.
The test yields age-based standard scores (M = 100, SD = 15), percentiles, normal curve equivalents (NCEs), stanines, and age and grade equivalents. Scoring options include digital Q-global scoring, although examiners can also use the manual for hand score.
The manual provides evidence of reliability and validity, including test-retest, internal consistency, standard error of measurement, confidence intervals, and reliability and standard errors of measurement of the normative sample. In terms of evidence of validity, the manual provides evidence based on test content, response processes, and relationships with other variables such as correlations with EVT-2 and PPVT-5. The PPVT-5 and EVT-3 were co-normed, offering a high degree of confidence in the results of the two tests.
The publisher’s website and testing manual has additional information about testers’ qualifications, age-rage, administration time, and the paper and pencil and digital format of the assessment.
When used together, the PPVT-5 and the EVT-3 offer direct comparisons of receptive and expressive vocabulary. The general idea is that using both tests together expedites movement immediately to evidence-based interventions using the data gathered from these two tests.
Both instruments will be available via Q-interactive, Pearson’s web- and iPad®-based system for interactive, seamless assessment, scoring, and reporting. With Q-interactive, examiners administer interactive assessments with an intuitive, portable system that employs two iPads that are connected by Bluetooth. The student or subject views the test stimuli on one iPad while the examiner uses the other iPad to view and control test administration directions and the verbal stimuli, and record and score responses. New users can receive orientation or sign-up at HelloQ.com. for an overview.
Both tests have a long and rich history of use and their importance cannot be over-estimated. These two instruments are easy to administer and score, and provide an excellent baseline and pre-post measure of growth and development to ascertain if students are responding to intervention. These two instruments will provide excellent information for speech language therapists, school psychologists, educational diagnosticians and others involved in the evaluation and assessment of preschool and school aged children, adolescents and adults.
Dunn, D. M. (2019) . Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (5th ed.) [Measurement instrument]. Bloomington, MN: NCS Pearson.
Williams, K. T. (2019). Expressive Vocabulary Test (3rd ed.) [Measurement instrument]. Bloomington, MN: NCS Pearson.