BLOCK 3: TESTS OF COGNITIVE FUNCTIONS

UNIT 1

MEASURES OF INTELLIGENCE AND CONCEPTUAL THINKING

HISTORY OF INTELLIGENCE TESTS

The assessment of intelligence has a long history in clinical psychology. Compulsory education and
psychologists' ability to measure mental abilities contributed to the development and success of the
field of intelligence testing. However, by the end of the 1960s, the validity of these tests was being
challenged. To this day, there. are many controversies about how intelligence is defined and how it is
measured.

Contemporary clinical psychologists appear to believe in both a general factor of intelligence, g and
specific abilities that underlie the general intelligence factor.

Intelligence scores are correlated with school success, occupational status, and job performance. In
addition, there are group differences in intelligence test scores between males and females and
among ethnic/racial groups. Although intelligence test scores are influenced by genetic factors,
environment does play some role in the development of intelligence. IQ scores are more stable for
adults than they are for children.

PRE BINET

The assessment of intelligence was conceived in a theoretical void and born into a theoretical
vacuum. During the last half of the nineteenth century, first Sir Francis Galton in England (1883) and
then Alfred Binet in France (Binet & Henri, 1895) took turns in developing the leading intelligence
tests of the day.

Galton, who was interested in men of genius and in eugenics, developed his test from a vague,
simplistic theory that people take in information through their senses, so the most intelligent people
must have the best developed senses. His test included a series of sensory, motor, and reaction time
tasks, all of which produced reliable, consistent results.

CONTRIBUTION OF BINET

Alfred Binet, with the assistance of the Minister of Public Instruction in Paris (who was eager to
separate mentally retarded from normal children in the classroom), published the first 'real'
intelligence test in 1905. Like Galton's test, Binet’s instrument had only a vague tie to theory (in this
case, the notion that intelligence was a single, global ability that people possessed in different
amounts). In a stance antithetical to Galton's, Binet declared that because intelligence is complex, so,
too, must be its measurement. He conceptualised intelligence as one's ability to demonstrate
memory, judgment, reasoning, and social comprehension, and he and his colleagues developed tasks
to measure these aspects of global intelligence.

Binet's contributions included his focus on language abilities (rather than the nonverbal skills
measured by Galton) and his introduction. of the mental age concept, derived from his use of age
levels, ranging from 3 to 13 years, in his revised 1908 scale (mental age was the highest age level at
which the child had success; the Intelligence Quotient, or IQ, became the ratio of the child's mental
age to . chronological age, multiplied by 100).In 1916,Lewis Terman of Stanford University translated
and adapted the Binet-Simon scales in the US to produce the Stanford Binet (Terman, 1916).
CONTRIBUTION OF WECSHLER

The next great contributor to IQ test development was David Wechsler. While awaiting induction into
the US Army in 1917, Wechsler obtained a job with E.G. Boring that required him to score thousands
of Army Alpha exams. After induction he was trained to administer individual tests of intelligence
such as the new Stanford Binet. These clinical experiences paved the way for his Wechsler series of
scales.

Wechsler borrowed liberally from the Stanford Binet and Army Alpha to develop his Verbal Scale and
from the Army Beta and Army Performance Scale Examination to develop his non verbal
Performance Scale.

The unique contribution of Wechsler in this field is evident from his insistence that everyone should
be evaluated on both verbal and non-verbal scales, and that profiles of scores on a variety of mental
tasks should be provided for each individual to supplement the global or aggregate measure of
intelligence.

MEASURES OF INTELLIGENCE

There are hundreds of tests that propose to measure intelligence or cognitive ability. Different tests
have been developed for use with various populations such as children, adults, ethnic minority group
members, the gifted, and the disabled (e.g., visually, hearing, or motorically impaired individuals).
Some tests are administered individually, while others are administered in groups.

the most popular and frequently administered tests include the Wechsler Scales (i.e., the Wechsler
Adult Intelligence Scale-Third Edition [WAIS-Ill], the WAIS-R as a Neuropsychological Instrument
[WAIS-R NI], the Wechsler Intelligence Scale of Children-Fourth Edition [WISC-IV], the Wechsler
Primary and Preschool Scale-Third Edition [WPPSI-III]).

The second most frequently used intelligence test is the Stanford-Binet (Fifth Edition). Other

popular choices include the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (K-ABC) and the Woodcock-
Johnson Psycho educational Battery etc.

THE WECHSLER SCALES

The Wechsler Scales provide an estimate of global intellectual ability (Full Scale IQ) and four
Composites:

• Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI), which measures the application of verbal skills and
information to problem solving;

• Perceptual Reasoning Index (PRI), which measures the ability to engage in nonverbal
reasoning using visual images;

• Working Memory Index (WMI), which measures working memory, short-term memory,
sustained attention, and auditory processing; and

• Processing Speed Index (PSI), which measures visual-motor coordination, attention,

concentration, and the speed of mental processing.

The Wechsler scales include three individually administered scales of intelligence. The Wechsler
Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence – Fourth Edition (WIPPSI-IV) measures cognitive
development in preschoolers and young children ages 2.6–7.7 years (Wechsler, 2012). The Wechsler
Intelligence Scale for Children – Fifth Edition (WISC–V) measures a child's intellectual ability and is
appropriate for children 6.0–16.11 years (Wechsler, 2014). The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale –
Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV) measures an adult's intellectual ability and is appropriate for persons 16.0–
90.11 years (Wechsler, 2008).

The Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales

The Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition (SB5) is an individually administered measure of
intelligence and cognitive abilities for persons 2–85 years and older. The SB5 is used to diagnose a
wide variety of developmental disabilities and can be used as part of early childhood assessment,
psychoeducational evaluations for special education services, and for later career development
planning (Royd, 2003a, 2003b).

The Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children

The Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children, Second Edition (KABC-II) (Kaufman and Kaufman,
2004a) is appropriate for children ages 3–18 years. The scales and subscales are designed to
minimize verbal instructions and responses. Test items contain limited cultural content, which limits
cultural bias. KABC-II scales include: simultaneous processing, sequential processing, planning,
learning, and knowledge. The KABC-II is considered a better predictor of intellectual ability in
children with intellectual limitations, compared to other assessments of intelligence, because it
measures intellectual ability without emphasizing academic and verbal skills. The Kaufman Brief
Intelligence Test (KBIT-2) (Kaufman and Kaufman, 2004b) is a screening tool that includes two scales:
crystalized or verbal scale and fluid or nonverbal scale. The KBIT-2 can be used (a) to re-evaluate the
intellectual status of a child or adult who has previously received comprehensive assessment; (b) as a
screening tool to identify high-risk children who will need referral for comprehensive assessment;
and (c) as an assessment of intellectual ability in children and adults residing in institutional settings.

The Woodcock Johnson Psychoeducational Battery

It is an assessment, now in its third edition, that measures cognitive ability and academic
achievement in children, young people, or adults. The tests of cognitive ability produce a full-scale
intelligence score and determine strengths and weaknesses of information processing. The tests of
academic achievement assess abilities in reading, written language, mathematics, and knowledge.
They also assess basic skills in each of these areas and the level of application of those skills by the
person being assessed. This battery is one of the main diagnostic tools used to evaluate a student for
specific learning disabilities. Test results on the cognitive portion, when combined and compared
with the results of the achievement portion, reveal the learning style of a student who may have a
learning disability, documented by a statistically significant numerical difference between actual
performance and cognitive potential. [developed in 1977 by Richard W. Woodcock (1928– ), U.S.
psychologist, and his business partner Mary E. Bonner Johnson]

The Woodcock Johnson IV test, or Woodcock Johnson Fourth Edition, was recently released as the
newest and most recent version of the Woodcock Johnson test. The Fourth Edition serves to replace
the Woodcock Johnson III, or Third Edition. This older version was used for some time until replaced
by this newest version.

The Woodcock Johnson Tests of Cognitive Abilities contain the greatest breadth of cognitive abilities
of any standardized body of tests. These tests help to identify learning problems. It helps to measure
aspects of seven different broad CHC abilities (Cattell–Horn–Carroll theory, commonly abbreviated to
CHC, is a prominent psychological theory on the structure of human cognitive abilities). Finally, it
offers a new Gf-Gc Composite [This measures intellectual level (or intellectual development) from
Fluid Reasoning (Gf) and Comprehension-Knowledge (Gc) tests alone] for comparison with other
cognitive abilities, oral language, and achievement.

Raven’s Progressive Matrices

Raven’s matrices is a nonverbal ability test used to assess abstract reasoning. The test is progressive
in the sense that questions get harder as the test progresses. The task is to determine the missing
element in a pattern which is generally presented in the form of a matrix, hence the name Raven’s
matrices.

The tests were originally developed by John C. Raven in 1936 and are currently licensed by Pearson
PLC. Here is an example of the format used.

There are three forms intended for respondents of different abilities. The tests can be administered
from the age of five all the way up to elderly. These three tests are:

Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices

This is the original test published in 1938. All questions were black patterns on a white background.
There were 60 questions arranged over five sets, within each set the items were presented in
increasing (progressive) difficulty.

Raven’s Coloured Progressive Matrices

These matrices were designed for people with general lower ability because of age (old, young) of
mentally impaired. It contains the two first sets from the Standard Matrices with an additional set of
12 items inserted in between the two. Questions however were primarily presented on a colored
background to make them visually stimulating.

Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices

The advanced form of the matrices more items (48), presented as one set of 12 (set I), and another
of 36 (set II). Items are presented in black on a white background similar to the standard version, and
also becomes increasingly difficult throughout the test. These items are suitable for adults and
adolescents of above-average intelligence.

DIFFERENTIAL ABILITIES SCALES (DAS)

The DAS was developed by Elliott (1990) and is an individually administered battery of 17 cognitive
and achievement tests for use with individuals aged 2 through to 17 years. The DAS Cognitive Battery
has a preschool level and a school-age level. The school-age level includes reading, mathematics, and
spelling achievement tests that are referred to as 'screeners'. The same sample of subjects was used
to develop the norms for the Cognitive and Achievement Batteries; therefore, intra- and inter-
comparisons of the two domains are possible. The DAS is not based on a specific theory of
intelligence. Instead, the test's structure is based on tradition and statistical analysis. Elliott (1990)
described his approach to the development of the DAS as 'eclectic' and credited the work of
researchers such as Cattell Horn, Das, Jensen, Thurstone, Vernon, and Spearman.
COGNITIVE ASSESSMENT SYSTEM (CAS)

The Das-Naglieri Cognitive Assessment System(CAS; Naglieri& Das, 1997), for ages 5 to 17 years, is
based on, and developed according to, the Planning, Attention, Simultaneous, and Successive (PASS)
theory of intelligence. The PASS theory is a multidimensional view of ability that is the result of the
merging of contemporary theoretical and applied psychology (Das, Naglieri& Kirby, 1994).

According to this theory, human cognitive functioning includes four components: planning processes
that provide cognitive control, utilisation of processes and knowledge, intentionality and self-
regulation to achieve a desired goal; attentional processes that provide focused, selective cognitive
activity over time; and simultaneous and successive information processes that are the two forms of
operating on information.

QUESTIONS AND CONTROVERSIES CONCERNING IQ TESTING

Are We Born With A Certain IQ?

Often people assume that we are born with an innately determined level of intellectual ability that is
not influenced by social, emotional, and environmental factors. It has been estimated through
research that the heritability of intelligence is between.40 and .80. Thus between 16% and 64% of
the variance in intellectual ability is due to genetic influence.

Is IQ Scores Stable Over Time?

Intelligence tests, however, provide an index of current functioning, and scores may change
significantly over time. Many factors influence the stability of IQ scores. First, scores obtained when a
child is very young (e.g., age 3) are likely to be less stable than scores obtained when a child is older
(e.g., age 16). This is partially because early childhood tests focus on perceptual and motor skills,
whereas tests for older children and adults focus more on verbal skills. Second, the longer the time
between testing administrations, the more unstable the IQ score will appear.

Furthermore, environmental factors such as stress, nutrition, educational opportunities, exposure to

toxins such as lead, and illness, among other influences, all play a role in the determination of IQ
scores.

Are IQ Scores Biased?

Bias is determined by examining the test's validity across different groups. A test is biased if the
validity of the test varies from group to group. Research suggests that most standardized IQ tests

such as the Wechsler and Stanford-Binet scales are not biased. However, tests can be misused by
both unqualified and well meaning people.

Should The Terms Intelligence Quotient or IQ Continue To Be Used?

A number of misconceptions and myths about IQ exist. These include the notion that the IQ
measures an innate or genetically-determined intelligence level, that IQ scores are fixed and never
change, and that IQ scores generated from different tests mean the same thing.

In fact, many recent tests of intellectual and cognitive ability have not used the terms intelligence
quotient or IQ at all. These include the Woodcock-Johnson Psychoeducational Battery, the Kaufman
Assessment Battery for Children, and the newest version of the Stanford-Binet.
UNIT 2

THE MEASUREMENT OF CONCEPTUAL THINKING

INTRODUCTION

The term abstraction is often contrasted to concreteness, the latter term indicating cognitive activity
associated with direct experience, and without such representation. Concreteness is direct
interaction with the "real world“ without additional processing.

Conceptual thinking or abstract reasoning is a recognised form of thinking that includes aspects of
critical, creative, and meta cognitive thinking. Conceptual thinking requires the ability to critically
examine factual information; relate to prior knowledge; see patterns and connections; draw out
significant understandings at the conceptual level; evaluate the truth of the understandings based on
the supporting evidence; transfer the understanding across time or situation; and, often, use the
conceptual understanding to creatively solve a problem or create a new product, process, or idea.

INTRODUCTION

The term abstraction is often contrasted to concreteness, the latter term indicating cognitive activity
associated with direct experience, and without such representation. Concreteness is direct
interaction with the "real world“ without additional processing.

Conceptual thinking or abstract reasoning is a recognised form of thinking that includes aspects of
critical, creative, and meta cognitive thinking. Conceptual thinking requires the ability to critically
examine factual information; relate to prior knowledge; see patterns and connections; draw out
significant understandings at the conceptual level; evaluate the truth of the understandings based on
the supporting evidence; transfer the understanding across time or situation; and, often, use the
conceptual understanding to creatively solve a problem or create a new product, process, or idea.

THE "ABSTRACT ATTITUDE"

The relationship between brain function and abstract reasoning was probably first discussed during
the late nineteenth century by the neurologists Henry Head and Hughlings Jackson. However, this
relationship had its first full theoretical development in the work of Kurt Goldstein and Martin
Scheerer and is best articulated in their 1941 monograph on abstract and concrete behavior
(Goldstein & Scheerer, 1941). They characterised the abstract attitude with eight points.

Characteristics of Abstract Attitude

1) To detach our ego from the outer world or from inner experiences.

2) To assume a mental set.

3) To account for acts to oneself; to verbalize the account.

4) To shift reflectively from one aspect of the situation to another.

5) To hold in mind simultaneously various aspects.

6) To grasp the essential of a given whole; to break up a given whole into

parts, to isolate and synthesize them.

7) To abstract common properties reflectively; to form hierarchic concepts.

8) To plan ahead ideationally; to assume an attitude towards the "mere

possible" and to think or perform symbolically.

Characteristics of Tests of Abstraction

1) Learning to identify a relevant attribute or multiple attributes to solve a problem or make an

accurate generalisation.

2) Learning a rule or set of rules that solve a problem.

3) Concept formation or spontaneous generation of hypotheses that relate disparate material.

4) Inductive reasoning through spontaneous formation of hypotheses that rule

out alternative possibilities for a solution, and that finally lead to a correct solution.

5) Having an "attitude toward the possible" or forming and manipulating a mental representation of
an object that is not physically present.

6) Spontaneous generation of plans that lead to ultimate solution of a problem.

7) The ability to shift, or change hypotheses or plans when the current one

or the pre potent response is not productive.

The large variety of cognitive and neuropsychological tests available makes it possible to identify
procedures that provide assessments of all of these tasks.

With respect to neuropsychology, patients with various forms of brain damage or disease lose all or
some of these characteristics, as do some patients with psychiatric disorders, notably schizophrenia.

MEASUREMENT OF CONCEPTUAL THINKING

The measurement of conceptual thinking is based upon the principle that emotional disturbances
and personality disorders interfere with thinking processes, particularly with the ability to form
abstract concepts. The purpose of these tests are, therefore, to help the psychologist observe the
subject's thought processes and to discover the extent to which maladjustment or mental illness has
impaired his conscious thinking, as revealed in efforts to solve problems the formation of concepts.

OVERVIEW OF TESTS

Within neuropsychological assessment, there are specialized tests of abstract reasoning as well as
tests generally classed as assessing other abilities that can be interpreted from the standpoint of
abstract and concrete behavior through qualitative observation. Although abstract reasoning may be
involved in all these procedures, the specialised tests provide a direct assessment of the individual’s
ability to learn or form an abstract concept. Some of these procedures are paper and pencil tests
that use language directly as the test medium.

ANALOGIES AND PROVERB TESTS

The most commonly used tests of this type are analogies and proverbs tests. The Raven Progressive
Matrices Test (1982) contains analogy items that use pictorial material, but factor analytic studies
have shown that the test has a strong verbal component, apparently because many of the pictures of
objects are nameable (Lezak, 1995). Proverbs tests, such as the one developed by Gorham (1956),
test the ability to form verbal abstractions in either a free-response or multiple choice form. Some
items from the Comprehension subtest of the various Wechsler intelligence scales are proverbs that
require a free verbal response.

PERFORMANCE TESTS (SORTING TESTS)

The tests used most commonly in neuropsychological assessment are performance tests, which
should not be characterised as nonverbal tests for various reasons, but which use nonverbal media,
such as colored blocks, or geometric forms.

The most commonly used of these performance tests are sorting tasks. Many years ago Egon Weigl
(1927) invented the prototype of these tasks that are still referred to as Weigl type sorting tests.

The sorting tests first made generally available in a published form were those described in a
monograph on abstract and concrete behavior wrtlten by Kurt Goldstein and Martin Scheerer (1941).
This monograph contains what is essentially a test manual for a series of procedures now known as
The Goldstein-Scheerer tests.

COLOUR SORTING TESTS

The administration of the Colour Sorting Test is some what different from the other sorting tests. The
test material consists of many skeins of wool (Holmgren Wools) that vary in hue and brightness. The
subject is asked to select a skein of her or his preference, and to pick out the other skeins that can be
grouped with it (e.g., different shades of green).

HALSTEAD CATEGORY TEST

The Goldstein-Scheerer tests are no longer commonly used, but their theoretical descendants are in
common use. The most widely used ones are the Halstead Category Test(Halstead, 1947) and the
Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (Grant& Berg, 1948; Heaton et aI., 1993) .

The concepts in these tests are not formed by the subject, but are inherent in the test materials
themselves. The subject's task had changed from forming concepts to identifying concepts formed by
the test maker.

THE HAUFMANN KASANIN CONCEPT FORMATION TEST (1937)

This is also known as the Vygotsky Test, and a recent modification called the Modified Vygotsky
Concept Formation Test (MVCFT; Wang, 1983) represent tasks of that type. The Hanfman Kasanin is a
challenging procedure in which the subject is asked to perform a number of sorts, much like the
Color Form Sorting Test. However, there is a correct answer that the subject must learn through
making sorts and obtaining information from the examiner concerning the correctness of the
solution. The task is challenging because the concept is not a directly" perceivable attribute, but is a
second order principle that has to be derived from the characteristics of multiple attributes.

THE TWENTY QUESTIONS TASK (MINSHEW, SIEGEL, GOLDSTEIN AND WELDY, 1994)

This also has a correct answer, but the subject has to self initiate sorting strategies to arrive at that
answer. The procedure is much like the Twenty Questions parlor game in which a target object must
be named based on questions that can be answered only yes or no. The strategy for narrowing the
possibilities and arriving at the right answer has to be formed by the player.

RECENT DEVELOPMENT
Recently, we have seen the development of more practical strategy tasks in which the participant is
given a task to perform and must form a strategy to do it in an optimally effective and successful way.
The Multiple Errands Test and the Modified Six Elements Test from the Behavioural Assessment of
the Dysexecutive Syndrome tests (Wilson, Alderman, Burgess, Emslie, & Evans, 1996) are examples of
such procedures.

RANGE OF APPLICABILITY AND LIMITATIONS

Tests of abstraction and problem solving ability are commonly used in neuropsychological
assessment of children and adults. However, limits of applicability exist at each end of the continuum
of cognitive function. Severely impaired or disorganised patients typically cannot cooperate for these
procedures. At the other extreme, because these tests were designed for assessment of brain
damaged patients, they do not have the complexity or difficulty level of tests developed for normal
individuals.

CROSS CULTURAL CONSIDERATIONS AND ACCOMMODATIONS FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

These "tests would appear to be reasonably culture fair, because they do not rely heavily on
language or knowledge of some specific environment or culture. The stimuli used, usually geometric
forms, do not include artifacts associated with some particular culture. Obviously, instructions
written in English would have to be interpreted for patients who do not speak English.

UNIT 3: MEASUREMENT OF MEMORY AND CREATIVITY

INTRODUCTION

Webster's dictionary (1966) defines memory as the 'conscious or unconscious evocation of things'
past'. As such, the term 'memory' can refer to a variety of learned behaviours, and it could be argued
that many aspects of perception and language involve the use of certain memory systems. A number
of authors have alluded to the range of possible human memory systems but in the present context
we will mainly be concerned with the more customary use of the term, that is the retention of
specific information which has been acquired in the recent past.

Creativity can be defined in terms of thinking outside the box; others might argue it as having a good
imagination, and still others might suggest creativity is a synergy that can be tapped through
brainstorming. We take an empirical, psychological approach to this question.

MEMORY CLASSIFICATION

Various classificatory schemes of human memory have been propose~ so far.

Undoubtedly, the two most influential and extended classifications are those postulated by Squire
(1992) and Schacter and Tulving (1994a).

Squire distinguishes two long term memory systems: declarative and non-declarative (or procedural)
memory; whereas Schacter and Tulving identify five major systems: procedural memory, perceptual
representation system, semantic memory, short term working memory and episodic memory.

Related distinctions include explicit versus implicit memory, direct versus indirect memory, and
memory with awareness versus memory without awareness.

According to the Schacter and Tulving classification, retrieval operations in the procedural,
perceptual representation and semantic systems are implicit, whereas in the working memory and
episodic memory they are explicit.
On the other hand, Squire considers declarative memory as an explicit system, whereas non
declarative memory is viewed as a heterogeneous collection of implicit abilities.

1) Explicit Memory

This is revealed by intentional or conscious recollection of specific previous information, as expressed

on traditional tests of free recall, cued recall and recognition. Although the relationships between
cued recall, free recall, and recognition are highly complex, these three memory tests share an
essential

property: Success in them is predicated upon the subject's knowledge of events that occurred when
he/she was personally present in a particular spatio temporal context.

2) Implicit Memory

This is revealed by a facilitation or change of performance on tests that do not require intentional or
conscious recollection, such as perceptual identification, word stem completion, lexical decision,
identification of fragmented pictures, mirror drawing, and so on. These tasks, classified as implicit,
indirect, or incidental tests of memory, involve no reference to an event in the subject's personal
history but are none the less influenced by such events.

Tests of Explicit Memory

Explicit memory tests are those in which the instructions in the test phase make

explicit reference to an episode or experience in the subject's personal history. Thus,

They require intentional or conscious recollection of previous information. Traditionally,

these tests have been considered as the only memory tests.

Tests for Explicit Memory'

1. Adult Memory and Information Processing Battery (AMIPB)

2. The Benton Revised Visual Retention Test (BVRT)

3. The Buschke Selective Reminding (SR) Test

4. The California Verbal Learning Test (CVLT)

5. The Luria Nebraska Memory Scale (~NMS)

6. The Memory Assessment Clinic (MAC) Battery

7. The Misplaced Objects Test

8. fhe Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (AVLT)

9. The Rey-Osterreith Complex Figure Test (CFT)

10. The Rivermead Behavioural Memory Test (RBMT)

11. The Warrington Recognition Memory test

12. The Wechsler Memory Scale-Revised (WMS-R)

Tests of Implicit Memory

Implicit memory tests are those in which subjects are asked to respond to test stimuli (e.g. generate
a word, classify an object, perform a motor task) without making reference to prior events. The
impressive experimental evidence available about dissociations between implicit and explicit
memory tasks warrants the assumption that there are fundamental differences between mnemonic
information assessed by implicit and explicit memory tests.

There are many implicit memory tests currently in use, and new tests are created every year, A
general classification scheme that includes most of them has been recently proposed by Toth (2000).
Implicit memory tests could be roughly organised in two major categories: verbal and non verbal
tests, and each one of them in its turn into three subclasses:

1) Perceptual tests (e.g. perceptual identification, word stem completion, . degraded word naming,
object/non-object decision),

2) Conceptual tests (e.g. word association, category instance generation, object categorization,
person/trait attributions), and

3) Procedural tests (e.g. reading mirror inverted text, probability judgements, mirror drawing, motor
tracking). Generally speaking, the perceptual tests challenge the perceptual representation system,
the conceptual tests involve the semantic memory system, and the procedural tests tap the
procedural memory system.

Assessment of Different Memory Systems

From the multiple memory systems view, memory assessment must evolve to assess

every single memory system. According to the five-fold classification system

proposed by Schacter and Tulving, such systems are defined and could be assessed as follows:

1) The procedural memory system: This is a behavioural action system concerned with the
acquisition, retention and retrieval of motor, perceptual and cognitive skills, simple conditioning, and
non associative forms of leaming. These kinds of memory are measured by tests of implicit memory,
such as the pursuit rotor task, maze learning, mirror reading, artificial grammar learning, tower of
Hanoi, and so on.

2) The perceptual representation system (PRS): This encompasses various domain-specific

subsystems that process and represent information about the form and structure of words and
objects. The PRS is assessed with implicit memory tests, such as perceptual identification, word stem
completion, homophone spelling, picture fragment completion, object / non object decision,
possible / impossible object decision, and many others.

3) The semantic memory system: This is the system involved in the acquisition, retention and
retrieval of general knowledge of the world. Therefore, the task of assessing the status of this
complex and multi-faceted system seems an impressive one. This challenge could be overcome by
using a multiplicity of types of tests, such as word fluency, vocabulary, word association, naming
tasks (animals, objects, etc.), recognition of famous faces, category instance generation, fact
generation, category verification, semantic anomaly detection, K responses in recognition tests, and
so on.

4) The working memory system (WM): This is a short term system that makes
possible the temporary maintenance and processing of information, and to manipulate that
information. The WM is measured by explicit memory tests such as the Brown-Peterson task, various
memory span tests (e.g. forward and backward digit span, word span, alpha span), the size of the
recency effect, the release from proactive inhibition task, the Dobbs and Rule task, mental
arithmetic, and others.

As Craik et al. (1995) emphasise, because WM tests do not all measure the same component
processes it is advisable to assess WM by using several tests rather than one global test.

5) The episodic memory system: This is the system for personally experienced episodes. Episodic
memories are assessed with tests of explicit memory for verbal and non-verbal materials, such as
free recall (immediate and delayed), cued recall, recognition, R responses in recognition tests,
generation task, and others. Different tasks may be used to assess autobiographical memory,
considered as a subtype of episodic memory, such as recall and recognition of famous events, the
Crovitz-Schiffman technique or the cueing method, etc. In clinical contexts, the Auto biographical
Memory Interview (AMI) provides relevant information about the deterioration of this kind of
memory in patients.

CREATIVITY

Creativity is usually defined as the capacity to generate ideas that are jointly original and adaptive.
Original ideas are those that have a low statistical likelihood of occurring in the population, whereas
adaptive ideas are those that satisfy certain scientific, aesthetic, or practical criteria.

Assessment of Creativity

Psychologists wishing to assess individual differences in creativity have a tremendous

range of instruments to choose from.

Therefore, before investigators can settle on any single test or battery of tests, it is

first necessary that they address four major questions:

What is the age of the target population?

Which domain of creativity is to be assessed?

What is the magnitude of creativity to be evaluated?

Which manifestation of creativity is to be targeted?

CLASSIFICATION OF CREATIVITY MEASURES

Product Measures

Ultimately, a creative idea should take some concrete form, such as a poem, story, painting, or
design. Hence, one obvious approach to creativity assessment is to measure the quantity or quality
of productive output. A case in point is the Consensual Assessment Technique devised by Amabile
(1982). Here a research participant is asked to make some product, such as a collage or a poem,
which is then assessed by an independent set of experts. This technique has proven especially useful
in laboratory experiments on the social circumstances that are most likely to favour creative
behaviour.

However, this approach has at least two disadvantages.

i) First, the creativity of an individual is decided according to performance on a single task.

ii) Second, the assessment is based on a task that may not be representative of the domain in which
the individual is most creative. For instance, a creative writer will not necessarily do well on a task in
the visual arts, such as making collages.

Process Measures

Product measures stress outward behaviour and its impact rather than internal mental states. Yet
presumably there exists some special thought processes that underly these creative products.
Accordingly, psychologists can instead devise instruments that tap into these crucial processes. For
example, Mednick (1962) theorized that creativity requires the capacity to generate remote
associations that can connect hitherto disparate ideas. He implemented this theory by devising the
Remote Association Test, or RAT.

GLOBAL MEASURES

Guilford's development of Divergent Thinking (DT) tests in the 1950s and 1960s is usually considered
to be the launching point for serious development efforts and large- scale application. Among the
first measures of divergent thinking were Guilford’s (1967) Structure of the Intellect (SOl) divergent
production tests, Wallach and Kogan's (1965) and Getzels and Jackson's (1962) divergent thinking
tests, and Torrance's (1962,1974) Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT).

The SOl DT battery (Structure of Intellect and Divergent Thinking) consists of several tests on which
subjects are asked to exhibit evidence of divergent production in several areas, including divergent
production of semantic units (e.g., listing consequences of people no longer needing to sleep), of
figural classes (finding as many classifications of sets of figures as is possible), and of figural units
(taking a simple shape such as a circle and elaborating upon it as often as possible).

The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking which are also based upon many aspects of the SOl battery
are by far the most commonly used tests of divergent thinking and continue to enjoy widespread
international use.

Over several decades, Torrance reformed the administration and scoring of the TTCT, which may
account for its enduring popularity. The battery includes Verbal (Thinking Creatively with Words) and
Figural tests (Thinking Creatively with Pictures) that each includes a Form A and Form B that can be
used alternately.

PERSON MEASURES

Process measures of creativity operate under the assumption that creativity requires the capacity to
engage in somewhat distinctive cognitive processes. Not all psychologists agree with this position.

In addition, creative individuals appear to have distinctive non cognitive characteristics that set them
apart from persons who fail to display creativity. This has led some psychologists to propose that
creativity be assessed by person based measures.

The most frequently used instruments assess creativity via the personality characteristics that are
strongly correlated with creative behaviour. These personality assessments are of three kinds. First,
the assessment may simply depend on already established scales of standard tests, such as the
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory or Eysenck's Personality Questionnaire. These measures
will tend to yield the lowest validity coefficients.

Second, the assessment may be based on the construction of a specialised subscale

of an already established personality test. For instance, Gough (1979) devised a Creative Personality
Scale from his more general Adjective Check List.

Third, the assessment may rely on a measure that is specially constructed to gauge individual

differences in creative personality. An example is the How Do You Think: questionnaire

that gauges whether a person has the interests, values, energy, self confidence, humour,

flexibility, playfulness, unconventionality, and openness associated with creativity

(Davis, 1975).

CONCLUSION

Clearly, psychologists who want to assess creativity must confront a tremendous

number of alternative creativity measures. Not only do the various instruments differ .

in their respective reliabilities and validities, but also the alternative measures are

often based on rather contrary conceptions about what has to be measured. Even

within a single approach there is available several rival measurement tools. Thus, the

'person type measures include both biographical inventories and personality

questionnaires, and the latter may be subdivided into more than one kind. Complicating

matters even more, the choice of instrument is contingent on such criteria as the age

of the target population, the domain of creativity involved, and the magnitude of

creativity to be assessed. Creativity assessment is no easy task, and may even require

some creativity.

UNIT 4 : UTILITY OF DATA FROM THE TEST OF COGNITIVE FUNCTIONS

INTRODUCTION

Tests of cognitive ability are use to answer a wide variety of important clinical questions. In addition
to identifying over all intellectual skills and cognitive strengths and weaknesses, these tests are
frequently employed to assess the presence of learning disabilities, predict academic success in
school, examine brain dysfunction, and assess personality.

Any competent psychologist must be cautious in the use of intellectual, neuropsychological,

achievement, and all other forms of cognitive testing. Professionals must be aware of the limitations
of the testing situation and the limitations of the particular test they have chosen.

USES

1. Determining the Biological (I.E., Neuroanatomical, Physiological) Correlates of Test Results:

Detection, Gradation and Localisation of Brain Damage

2. Determining Whether Changes are Associated with Neurological Disease, Psychiatric Conditions
Developmental Disorders, or Non-Neurological Conditions

3. Assessing Changes over Time and Developing a Prognosis

4. Offering Guidelines for Rehabilitation, Vocational / Educational Planning, or A Combination of
These

5. Providing Guidelines and Education for Family and Caregivers

6. Planning for Discharge and Treatment Implementation