The SON-R non-verbal intelligence tests: fair assessment of children Dr. Peter Tellegen University of Groningen The Netherlands [email protected] The SON-tests Originally developed in 1943 for use with deaf children Now two tests for general application with different age norms: the SON-R 2,5-7 (published in 1998) the SON-R 5,5-17 (published in 1988) Dr. Peter Tellegen (university of Groningen, The Netherlands) Dr. Jaap Laros (university of Brasilia, Brazil) Publisher: Hogrefe Verlag, Germany History of the SON-tests SON (1943) 4-14 years SON-’58 (1958) 4-16 years SON 2½-7 (1975) SSON (1975) 3-7 years 7-17 years SON-R 2½-7 (1998) 2,5-8 years SON-R 5½-17 (1988) 5,5-17 years SON-I 6-40 (2008) 6-40 years A non-verbal test • The SON-tests are tests of general intelligence which do not require the use of spoken or written language • The focus is on fluid intelligence • The tests are especially suitable for children with problems in the area of language and communication • For cross-cultural intelligence assessment, the SON-tests can be very useful, because the test materials don’t need translation Some characteristics SON-R 2,5-7 SON-R 5,5-17 Age range Number of subtests Administration Duration Sample Reliability Generalisability 2;6 – 6;11 yrs 6 individually 50 min. N=1.124 .90 .78 5;6 – 6;11 yrs 7 individually 90 min. N=1.350 .93 .85 Evaluation by the Dutch test commission (COTAN) Construction Materials Manual Norms Reliability Construct validity Criterion validity SON-R 2,5-7 SON-R 5,5-17 good good good good good good good good good good good good good good Dimensions in the SON-tests Concrete reasoning Abstract reasoning Spatial abilities Perceptual abilities SON-R and language development Correlations of SON-R 2,5-7 and teacher evaluation (general education, N=616) Criterion correlation -----------------------------------------------Intelligence .46 Language development .44 Correlations of SON-R 2,5-7 and evaluation by staff (special groups, N=241) Criterion correlation -----------------------------------------------Intelligence .61 Language development .31 SON-R and language development Correlations of IQ SON-R 2,5-7 with other tests Criterion test General education Special groups ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------General intelligence Bailey .59 (50) K-ABC .65 (115) RAKIT .60 (165) .55 (70) LDT .58 (80) WPPSI .60 (53) Language development Reynell .45 (558) .44 (179) TvK .59 (108) .53 (49) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subtests of the SON-R 2,5-7 Mosaics Categories Puzzles Analogies Situations Patterns (spatial) (reasoning) (spatial) (reasoning) (reasoning) (spatial) Analogies (SON-R 2,5-7) Abstract reasoning Mosaics (SON-R 2,5-7) Spatial Categories (SON-R 2,5-7) Abstract reasoning Puzzles (SON-R 2,5-7) Spatial Situations (SON-R 2,5-7) Concrete reasoning Patterns (SON-R 2,5-7) Spatial Standardisations of the SON-R 2,5-7 The Netherlands (1998) Germany (2005) Great Britain (2005) Czech/Slowak Republic (2006) Brazil (2007) Iran (2007) Thailand (2007) published to be published 2006 most data collected most data collected in preparation in preparation in preparation Subtests of the SON-R 5,5-17 Categories Mosaics Hidden Pictures Patterns Situations Analogies Stories (reasoning) (spatial) (perceptual) (spatial) (reasoning) (reasoning) (reasoning) Categories (SON-R 5,5-17) Concrete reasoning Mosaics (SON-R 5,5-17) Spatial Hidden pictures (SON-R 5,5-17) Perceptual Patterns (SON-R 5,5-17) Spatial Situations (SON-R 5,5-17) Concrete reasoning Analogies (SON-R 5,5-17) Abstract reasoning Stories (SON-R 5,5-17) Concrete reasoning PRINCIPLES of ASSESSMENT The needs of the subject are the focus of interest Improve accuracy of measurement Highlight the limitations of interpretation Characteristics of administration both verbal and non-verbal instruction extensive examples feedback adaptive procedure no time-pressure administration stops after few errors active involvement of the child Individualized adaptive testing 3 series (a, b, c) with same levels of difficulty Each child starts with same item a1. Stop in each series after two errors. Skip easy items at the beginning (they are counted as correct) Norms based on age intervals The WISC-tests use norms based on 4-month intervals Two children with exactly the same raw scores: Age of John is 6;3:30 Age of Mary is 6;4:0 The age difference is only 1 day But the difference in IQ is 8 points John: IQ = 74 Mary: IQ = 66 Continuous norms It is possible to compute standardized scores (z) for any raw score X and for any age Y with a formula such as: Z = a + b.X + c.X2 + d.X3 + e.Y + f.Y2 + g.Y3 + h.X.Y + i.X2.Y + j.X3.Y + k.X.Y2 a ... k parameters of the model X2, X3 second and third order of raw score Y2, Y3 second and third order of age Fair assessment When tested with a verbal intelligence test, children who grow up with a different language will be at a disadvantage. Their intelligence will be underestimated and this may result in lower educational and vocational opportunities. Immigrant children in The Netherlands Verbal intelligence should be assessed in the native language (Carroll). Also with the SON-tests, immigrant children score lower compared to native Dutch children. With verbal intelligence tests, however, the difference is twice as large. Mean IQ’s of immigrant children groups Moroccan Turkish SON-R RAKIT 88.7 91.0 80.5 80.0 SON-R non-verbal intelligence test RAKIT general intelligence test, like the WISC Educational level of the father in The Netherlands and mean IQ’s Educational level pct. Only primary school University 7% 7% mean SON IQ 92.9 111.6 Improving the nonverbal content Pictorial contents can also be culturally biased. Cross-cultural research – between countries and also between different cultures within a country – can make the test less culture dependent. For the new edition of the SON-R 5,5-17 such research is carried out with the subtest Categories. Thailand photo research categories Africa photo research categories Morocco photo research categories Cross-cultural research SON-R 5,5-17 Improvement of the subtest Categories Group-wise administration in different countries Comparison of results Improving item content Estimation of difficulty order Evaluation of item bias First round: Brazil, Indonesia, Kenya, Morocco, The Netherlands Second round: Brazil, Thailand, Iran, Slovakia, Surinam, The Netherlands The SON outside Europe Research with the tests in: Kenya, Morocco, Burkina Fasso, Congo Brazzaville Brasilia, Surinam, Peru Thailand, Iran, China, Indonesia Australia, United States Africa photo boy patterns Morocco photo girl mosaics Africa photo boy patterns Africa photo boy mosaics Morocco photo boy mosaics Morocco photo girl patterns Research with the SON-R 2,5-7 Thailand (Udon Thani) Performance of the Thai children on the SON-R 2,5-7 [a] Udon Thani other parts (poor rural area) Thailand N=49 N=240 ---------------------------------subtest mean (sd) mean (sd) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------• Mosaics (spatial) 7.1 (2.8) 9.0 (2.9) • Patterns (spatial) 8.3 (2.8) 11.3 (3.0) • Categories (reasoning) 7.2 (3.2) 9.7 (3.2) • Situations (reasoning) 7.1 (3.3) 10.0 (3.4) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Total IQ 82.8 (14.2) 100.2 (15.7) Performance of Kenyan children on the SON-R 2,5-7 Group N mean IQ Urban (Nakuru) Rural school 18 12 85.4 69.3 Performance of Peruvian children on the SON-R 5,5-17 Group Urban (Lima) Rural (Urubamba) (street children / poor areas) N mean IQ 160 32 94.0 73.0 Conclusion: how to interpret the test scores Test performance reflects level of intelligence. But it is also true that Test performance reflects the situation in which children grow up. Unless situations are fairly comparable, scores do not represent “real” intelligence but are better described as representing differences in cognitive development. www.testresearch.nl Pages in Dutch / German / English General information on the SON and other intelligence tests Of special interest on the website: Fair Assessment of Children from Cultural Minorities: A Description of the SON-R Nonverbal Intelligence Tests P.J. Tellegen & J.A. Laros In: Quality Education for Children from Socially Disadvantaged Settings Edited by Dagmar Kopcanova (2005)