What is non-parametric test applicability

Büttner, Michael Diagnostics of the intellectual deficit Examination of the reliability of test results


1 Büttner, Michael Diagnostics of intellectual deficiency Examination of the reliability of test results Praxis der Kinderpsychologie und Kinderpsychiatrie 33 (1984) 4, S urn: nbn: de: bszpsydok30374 First published at: Terms of use PsyDok grants a non-exclusive, non-transferable, personal and limited right on the use of this document. This document is intended for personal, non-commercial use only. Use does not constitute a transfer of title to this document and is subject to the following restrictions: All copies of this document must retain all copyright notices and other notices of legal protection. You may not modify this document in any way, nor may you reproduce, publicly display, perform, distribute or otherwise use this document for public or commercial purposes. By using PsyDok and this document, you accept the terms of use. Contact: PsyDok Saarland University and State Library Saarland University, Campus, Building B 1 1, D66123 Saarbrücken Internet: psydok.sulb.unisaarland.de/

2 Whereto 'Ein Grnnekerg, Basis, Fundamentals, Eine Lin CONTENT From Practice and Research Bahr,], Qutstoip.S, Hoger, Ch Data Protection and Research Conflicts and Solutions (Data Protection and Research Confhcts and Solutions) 296 Biermann, G Macht und Ohnmacht in dealing with children (Power and Powerless in Deahng With Children) 206 Broke, B Diagnosis, Etiology and in Therapy the Case of Hypeikinesis Syndrome (Diagnosis, Etiology and in Therapy the Case of Hypeikinesis Syndrome) 222 Buttner, M Diagnosis of intellectual deficiency testing von Test Befunden (Intelligence of Mentally Retarded Persons) 123 Buichard.F Practical application and theoretical considerations for restraint therapy in children with early childhood autistic syndrome (Practice Of and Theoretical Consideration On Holding Therapy With Autists) 282 Diepold, B Depression in children Psychoanalytic consideration (Depression in Children Psychoanalytic Consideiation) 55 Frank, H Die inpatient admission e as a threat to the family relationship pattern in psychosomatically ill children and adolescents (Admission to Hos pital as a Threat to Tamily Relation Pattern of the Psvchosomatically 111 Child and Adolescent) 94 Gehring, Th M Institution and ecosystem aspects of child psychiatric problem solutions (Institution and Fcosvstem Appioaches to PioblemSohing in Child Psychiatry) 172 Gutezeit, G, Marake,] Various studies on the effectiveness! Factors influencing self-perception in children and adolescents (Studies of the Effects of Various Factors Upon the Seif Perception of Children and Juveniles) 113 Hampe.H, Kunz.D Integration and maladjustment of diogenes dependent after treatment in a therapeutic community (Adjustment and Maladjustment of Drug Addicts after Treatment ma Therapeutic Community) 49 Hattmann, H, Rohmann, U Eine ZweiSvstemTheoue of information processing and its meaning for System Theory of Information Processing and Its Sig das autistic syndrome and other psychoses (A Two mficance for The Autistic Syndrome and Other Psychoses ) 272 Herzka, Fl St Childhood why5 Childhood Some Conclusions Drawn from Its History 3 Hoger, Ch, Qutstoip.S, Sa / n, /, Breull.A Use of educational counseling centers and child psychiatric outpatient clinics in Comparison (A Companson of the Attendance of Child Guidance Clinies and Outpatient Units of Child Psyc hiatric hospitals) 264 Jungjohann, FE, Beck, B Catamnestic results of a total group of patients of a regional child psychiatric treatment center (Results of a FollowUp Study of a Total Group of Patients of a Regional Child Psychiatry Theiapeutic Seivice) 148 hallenbach.h Visual wake up benefits for people with disabilities Adolescents without cerebial chess (A Comparative Studv of the Visual Pereeption ot Phy sically Disvbled Iuveniles vvithout Brain Injury) 42 Kammerer, L. B, Gobel, D Stationare kmelei psychiatric therapy in Itern judgment (Paiental Satis faction with the Inpatient Treatment ol Childien and Adolescents) 141 Knoke.H Familial Conditions and Dis turbances of Concentntion and Petfoimance Lochet, \ f Das prasuicidal Svndiom in children and adolescents (The "Piesuicidal Svndiom" m Children and 2i4 Adolescents) 214 Mangold, B, Rathet, G, SchivaighoJet.H Analytically revealed family herapie in dei child and adolescent psychiatry indication, goals (\ nalv ticallv Onentated Familv T hei apy in Child and Adolescent Psvchiatrv Indication, Goals) 9 Thtmm.D, Kteuzet.E AI Tianssexualitat in adolescence Liteiaturubeisicht (Transexuahsm in Juveniles) 70 Tlumm, D, Kieuzet.EM Tianssexualit.it im adolescent case report (Transexuahsm in Juveniles \ Case Report) 97 Vogel, Ch Multiple Tics und \ utoaggressionen 1 all secondary neurotization in postvaceinal lncephalopathy (Multiple Tics and AutoAggressive Tcndcncies \ Case Repoit of Secondary Neuiosis bv a Cere bral Dysfunction after \ aceination) 1 88

3 14/15 Dei The Tasks I \ Contents Pedagogy and Youth Welfare Tasks Goldbeck I Foster parents in the role conflict of a psychological care of foster families (lostei Paients in Role Confhcts ance ot I ostei 1 amihes) He «, Tft foi the Guid Svstemonentierte Schulpsvchologie (Svstemoiientattd ) Knbs.l I amihenoiientieiung in the home education The conceptual further development of the theiapeutisch-pedagogischen Jugendheim Haus Sommeiberg "in Rosiath (Family Onentation in Institutions for Dis turbed Vdolescents the 1 herapeuticpedagogic Institution" Haus Sommeibeig 'in Rosiath T Neuedtische Kmder) Conceptional Development of Qiienst, in the special school Therapeutic Influences and Problems (Neurotic Chil dren in Special Schools Therapeutic Influences and Pioblems) Vi'aitenberg.G Lack of perspective and demonstrative lifestyle Look for young people in the field of tension in social development (Lack ot Prospects and the Demonstrative Seareh for a Lite Style Young People in the Confhcts of Societal Developments) Wolfram 11 U Im \ oifeld dei Erziehungsberatung Psychologische! Service for day care centers (On the Penmetei of Child Guidance Chmcs Psychological Ser vices foi Conference Reports Kmdergaitens) Diepold, B. Rohsc.H, VI cgener, M Anna Freud Ihi Leben und Werk September 1984 in Hamburg Hofjmevei. O Attends the 3rd International Wuizbuiger Symposium 28 / Weber, M for childhood psychiatry on the report on the conference counseling in the Linifeld of lugendieligionen "from November 36, 1983 in I ohmn Honors Hans Robert last year Ingeborg Jochmus on the 65th birthday I ricdnch Specht on the 60th birthday Johann Zaunei 65th birthday reports (book reviews) \ itlagiuei, p 1'appicntihistonen et le mattresorder Du discours ideiitifiant au discours dehrant 125 \ zcii / nsschnctder, FI, Vleiiset, D Psychotherapeutic treatment of I seriously disabled and home children 36 Beland.H. Eickhoß, F \ V, Loch, W, Riehtei , HE, MeisterttiantiSeeget, E, Scheuneit, G (ed.) Jahibuch dei Psy choanalyse 251 Breuer, C \ noiexia nervosa Reflections on the picture of illness, zui origin g and zui therapy, taking into account family conditions 292 Coisini.A Mongolism Biological, educational and social aspects 162 ReukaiifW Child psychotherapy School education School dispute integration 164 Judges, E This is how people learn to speak 325 Schusc / ike, W Legal issues in counseling services 201 Speihng.E, Massing, A, Reich, G, Geotgt, H, Wobbe Monks.E The Mehrgeneiationen Family Therapy 198 Stockeruus, M, Barbuccanu.G Nonsense of unclear geneses 245 Ischeulin.D (Flisg) Relationship and technique in khententnerten therapy toi discussion about a differenticlle Gespiachspsy chotheiapie 198 Walter,] (Ed.) Sexuality and mental handicap 324 Zlotoictcz, VI Waium have children fearing 291 messages 39, 78, 108, 167, 202, 253, 293, 326

4 From the Schleswig State Hospital, Hestetberg Hospital for Child and Adolescent Psychiatrists (Medical Director: Prot. Dr. H. Meyerhoff) Diagnostics of the intellectual deficiency Examination of the reliability of test results By Michael Büttner Summary 675 test protocols of various standardized intelligence tests of young children, adolescents and children Adults were examined for their content structure and their school performance-related validity. The results show that learning disabled and mildly mentally disabled people can be differentiated in regular intelligence tests, whereby the two levels of intelligence are distinguished by a gradual divergence of skill levels, and mentally disabled people fail more evenly in all intelligence functions, while learning disabled people still have significant partial strengths. The actual limits of talent are most likely to be effective where problem-solving strategies are to be learned and applied again in novel situations, both in the educationally-dependent as well as in the non-verbal area of ​​thinking. Almost 90% of the people who were tested as being less gifted attended special schools or failed regular schools, which proves the direct connection between lack of intellect and need for special schools. In spite of the very heterogeneous special education system, the differential diagnosis of learning disabilities / intellectual disabilities is also assigned to schools L and G in 56% of cases. Another 69 or particularly in the sensitive range of intellectual talent for the following reasons 1. The area of ​​intellectual talent is generally only vaguely defined or definable (cf. Lutz, 1968; Berner, 1977; ScbenkDaiizmger, 1978; Harbauer et al , 1980), especially when reference is made to probable academic performance, and even recognized intelligence classifications (WHO classification, Wechsler, quoted in Remschmidt, 1977; 1964) indicate different IQ ranges for the same intelligence level. 2. Previous attempts to determine an empirical mean IQ value for learning disabilities and special needs schooling yielded IQ values ​​of around 75 (Weiss, 1975) and around 84 (Beer, Kutalck, Schnell, 1968) even with widely spread samples. Generalizing verbal classifications often limit the special need for schooling at an IQ value of around 90 (Berner, aao, Schenk-Danzinger, aao) and according to the school organization classification used in the Federal Republic of Germany, the IQ values ​​for learning disabilities should be around 85 and 70 intellectual disabilities below 70 (Meyer, 1977; BodensteinJenke, 1980). In the intelhgence range of learning disabilities (up to borderline intelhgence) within the IQ range 8090, which cannot be precisely defined within its limits, it is not surprising if most of the children of this level of ability remain on standard tables and here the problem children become 1. Introduction of the school system (Schenk-Danzinger , aao, Against the background of recent discussions about the value of an intelligence quotient per se and the already raised question of whether we need an IQ at all, right up to the development of new intelligence concepts (including the Berlin intelligence structure model according to Jager, 1983; Wie ner intelligence concept according to Kubinger, 1983) On the basis of the supposed or actual evidence that the previous intelligence models are in need of revision due to faulty basic assumptions, and finally also against the background of the knowledge that IQ norm values ​​are unstable due to fundamental changes in the population and that creeping changes in mean values calibrations require re-calibration (Kubinger, op. Tewcs, 1983), the question arises for the psychological diagnostician as to what the existing and commonly used intelligence tests are worth at all. This question arises, namely Praxisd Child Psychology (1984), ISSN Vandenhoeck Sc Ruprecht 1984 Beer and others, op. 3. With all z.t. Justified criticism of the practicability of regular intelligence tests for the personal crisis of the intellectually less gifted (e.g. Meyer, op. cit .; Eggert, 1972), psychological diagnostics is dependent on using this method if a lack of intellect is to be diagnosed and quantified with the help of the IQ. The development of procedures specially adapted to the less gifted (e.g. TBGB, CMMLB) does not eliminate the diagnostic problems, since only a different standard is offered here, not a more reliable assessment of talent (Meyer, op. Cit.). Ultimately, the question remains whether regular intelligence tests, i.e. intelligence tests calibrated at the level of normal talent, cannot do justice to the ability potential of the less talented and e.g. Skill structures in addition to the

5What is the consequence of current intelligence diagnostics for which this assumption leads directly to the following question: Are the psychological test instruments for assessing talent so reliable, valid and accurate that a decisive judgment can be made on the basis of the data then collected when selecting pupils with special needs or when declaring a regular school failure. According to the school law in most federal states, there is no requirement for psychological examination findings to be taken into account when assessing a need for special schooling. Research results obtained by special school teachers, although special school teachers in particular tend to interpret IQ data they have determined themselves very restrictively. Even full-time school psychologists are at most informative, not authorized to give instructions, and special school teachers are predominantly of the opinion that they are more competent in assessing pupils with special school needs than the psychologists specially trained in test diagnostics from the uncertainty of interpretation of IQ data this now results in the indication for the empirical study presented here. Is the factor talent 'or intelligence', regardless of how valid or inadequate its assessment itself is, so relevant for the assessment of a need for special schooling or a failure in regular school that a significant part of the variance in school failure in regular schools is based on this criterion alone can be clarified, ie is there an overriding performance criterion 'special school intelligence', can this criterion be ascertained using a psychological test? Or does the structure of special school instruction have to be taken into account when assessing the need for special school in order to arrive at a correct school performance expectation diagnosis, so does special school selection have to be left to the special school teachers? Broadly based effectiveness studies on IQ are known primarily from the area of ​​accommodation mare (Weiss, 1983) and have in some cases produced good results, but here the question of test applicability is not so unstable either. 2. Target group and methodology The author had the data of 675 intelligence tests of below-average intelligent children, adolescents and young adults and the corresponding school career data available for evaluation from his own outpatient and inpatient psychodiagnostic examinations, including differentiated test responses in the IQ area below the range of the norm Test persons whose test values ​​no longer produced a differentiating result (e.g. where a complete test failure is still assigned an IQ value) were not taken into account. The following procedures HA WIK, HAWIE, RAVEN CPM, RAVEN SPM, CFT 1, CFT 2 were used / 20, KRAMER test The clientele was characterized by the fact that they sought counseling or treatment because of any complications in their behavior, personality, family or school, whereby the school situation was partly the reason for the presentation. The clinical symptoms, some outside of the intellect disorder (e.g. behavior disorders, psychological complications, MCD, morbid-reactive problems, symptoms of delusion, etc.) are not taken into account in this investigation, since it is essentially about the isolation of the factor "intellect" and its significance for the patient School performance in the less gifted area is possible So special schools should not be checked for their intelligence potential, but the reverse route should be taken in such a way that an intelligence finding below the norm could be compared with the school's retention at the time of the test, before any advice or treatment It is about the group to be modified for the intellectually less gifted, which should be in need of school organizational aspects to attend a school for the learning handicapped and the mentally handicapped. A clear and secure separation of the IQ areas for these two groups of less gifted students can of course not exist; every type of demarcation is more or less arbitrary and also serves more to describe the group of people than to assign a student to a certain type of school Technical literature only agrees that the

6 M Buttner Diagnostics of intellectual deficiency 125 Table 1 Intelligence classifications and IQ limits Level Definition WHO classification WECHSLER Own review 1 Average intelligence, standard variant II III Low intelligence, marginal debut, learning disability Very low intelligence, light intellect. Disability, debility IV Moderate intellectual disability, imbecility u less 59 u.Less the boundary between L and G area is disputed, not about the demarcation itself (see Lutz, op. cit .; SchenkDanzin ger, op. cit .; Meyer, op. cit .; Pohl, 1973), not even the degrees of intellect are given uniformly. Therefore, a separate intelligence classification had to be defined for this investigation. The intelligence levels relevant for the special school sector include levels II and III, which on the one hand can be measured logically in a test-psychological manner, on the other hand can also be trained at school and which differ from one another in their skill level sufficiently significantly. According to this classification, a total of 445 people (= 65.9%) were learning disabled and 230 people (= 34.1%) were slightly mentally disabled, referred to as LB and GB in the further course of the presentation. The age range extends from kindergarten age (3; 5 years) to adulthood (27; 9 years), the latter being mainly integrated into vocational training measures for the disabled after leaving school. 482 people (= 71.4%) were male, 193 people (= 28.6%) were female. An additional age and gender specification was not necessary, since the IQ calculations contain these characteristics. 3. Presentation of the test results 3.2 Overview of the intelligence tests used As the WECHSLERT tests (HAWIK, HAWIE) are well known, a test description is not necessary. The HAWIKRevision (Tewes, a.a.o.) was not yet available in this sample. The fq data were assigned to the samples LB and GB in such a way that either all three IQ test values ​​(verbal, action and total IQ) of a test person or at least two IQ values ​​had to be below or above the critical IQ limit of 75. With the help of meaningless patterns and figures, the RAVEN methods measure the ability to think clearly as the most important aspect of intelligence via cognitive abilities such as making comparisons, thinking in analogies, inductive thinking, precise judgments and reasoning. In addition to general intelligence (factor 'g'), perception factors and functional abilities are also included in the test performance. In the case of the less gifted, the degrees of difficulty fluctuate indiscriminately because they are unable to recognize the solution method through the use of talent; their solution hits contain a high degree of random probability, while with the more gifted the answer numbers tend to decrease continuously. According to \ Xenke & Muller (1966), the CPMtems contain three successively increasing levels of difficulty: Level I = arranging simple surface features, level II optical closure = perceptual closure of continuous and discrete symmetrical figures, level fll = elementary feature analysis and recognition of simple regularities and regularities. The RAVEN methods correlate less with school performance factors. The RAVEN results included this study, standardization was only evaluated by those people who could be classified according to the German (Schmidtke et al., 1978; Kratzmeier, 1979). The previous, rough classification of intelligence levels I V was no longer taken into account. The SPM was only used for the LB group, as it no longer differentiates sufficiently in the GB area. The CFT 1 (Weiss, Osterland, 1977) provides data on functional intelligence (reproductive and productive perception, visual orientation and attention) and on basic intelligence (classifications, relationship-creating thinking, recognizing figural specifications in the context of character-changed figures, recognizing rules, independent of language and educational background) and laws). Three IQ values ​​are determined, with the assignment to the LB and GB group being carried out in the same way as the WFCHSLER assignment (three or at least two of the overall test fq values, test part 1: functional intelligence and test part 2: basic measurement in the LB or GB range when the IQ limit is exceeded or fallen below 75 , age norms only). The CFT 2/20, like the CFT 1, in its basic conception serves to record the basic ability, the basic mental abilities (general mental abillty ",,, g" factor), independent of cultural or educational influences, via knowledge of regularities and laws, relationships, constancy and organization in thinking behavior with unfamiliar, new problems. The good differentiation in the lower performance range enables useful aids in checking the need for special education.

7 In the pre-reading of the IQ area of ​​the GB group The CFT 20 (formerly 2) has meanwhile expanded the ability to attend school further downwards. Spread found. In this study, only test part 1 was used for the most part, the test part summary of the average sub-test was only used in particularly unsafe cases. The results of the assignment of the resulting three IQ values ​​to the LB and The summary IQ value of a poorly gifted GB group were again carried out analogously to the previous procedure, first allowing a rough assessment of the relative going. Intelligence position within the comparison group or the intelligence test according to KRAMER (revision 1972) of its probable distance from the norm. Finally, the important question, mainly as developmental diagnostics, is also what does an IQ say about the actual IQ used in preschool, it essentially reveals symptoms of retardation in toddler performance, and with intelligent intelligence tests, the less gifted can be tried reliably with regular information. As a so-called relay test (based on BINET), we only gain from the content structure, it is with the controversial concept of the age of age of the test performance, from the subtest results. connected. For the special diagnosis of suitability for school, it is of little relevance. The standard value information according to the average, the suspicion of an intellectual disability test age of the LB and GB sample should only be able to be inferred, but it will be partially. serve as a rough guide with regard to the classification of talented students. The detailed norm 3 2 Summary of the average IQ results of the standardization samples are the test nits If we subdivide the 'measurable' IQ range below the norm at a limit value of 75, we get two highly significantly different performance groups, with the learning disabled group above 75 (LB), all data of the will be allocated. The age group variances, the data of the mentally handicapped group (GB) with Min below this value. Since some procedures still deliver differentiated results even below the IQ limit of 60, manual instructions can be found. The conversion of value points is only possible for the CHANGER tests; the average raw points are given for all other tests. The age group specification of the gifted plays a rather subordinate role anyway, and is therefore included in the spread. Raw point comparison values ​​for different age groups are not given for the RAVEN SPM and the CFT 2/20, for the

8 M. Buttner. Diagnostics of intellectual deficiency 127 Table 3: Average sub-test resultsc of the LB and GB sample TEST LB GB Test old LB / GB norm value profile comparison '1 "1 B / GB X s X s X \ HAWIK WP 10; 0 / general knowledge 6.02 1.81 3.69 1.68 11; 6y. 10.00 Verbal part general understanding 7.10 2.03 4.90 2.31 p> 0.10, arithmetic reasoning 4.73 2.30 2.08 2.02 not Significant similarities in 9.54 2.29 6.87 2.04 Vocabulary test 7.78 1.72 5.10 1.76 Repeating numbers 6.48 2.16 3.22 2.93 Number symbol test 7.63 2.68 3, 98 2.24 Handle part complete pictures 8.73 2.66 6.08 3.23 p = 0.001, picture arrangement 7.78 2.82 4.00 2.24 very significant mosaic test 7.78 2.12 6.36 2.14 Figure laying 9.19 2.90 6.74 3.36 HAWIE WP 18; 5, general knowledge 4.33 1.70 3.15 0.89 18; * J. 8.13 Verbal part general understanding 5.00 2.71 5.30 1.75 9.16 p> 0.10, repeat numbers 6.61 2.36 4.45 2.37 9.78 nonsignificant arithmetic reasoning 4.83 1.80 2.70 1.22 9 , 34 Finding similarities 6.00 1.73 4.39 1.34 8.75 Number symbol test 6.44 2.29 4.79 2.13 8.96 Handle part picture arrangement 8.44 1.80 5.33 1.85 9.28 p 0.01, = complete pictures 8.28 2.44 3.94 2 , 20 9.13 significant mosaic test 7.50 2.21 4.24 2.21 9.53 Figure placement 10.00 2.71 5.67 3.06 9.48 RAVEN CPM RP 8; 9 / Series A 7.80 1.35 6.67 1.40 9; 5J. 9.62 Total test series AB 5.63 1.86 3.35 1.38 8.66 p 0.001, = series B 4.18 1.60 3.03 1.28 7.52 very sign. RAVEN SPM RP 14; 3Y. Series A 10.55 1.30 10.93 Series B 8.30 2.27 9.02 Series C 6.72 2.01 not applicable 7.97 not applicable Series D 6.94 2.63 7.91 Series E 2, 28 1.61 3.93 CFT 1 RP 8; 2/1 substitutions 6.91 3.24 3.92 2.31 8; 4J. 10.69 2 mazes 8.02 2.86 4.53 2.97 9.89 3 classifications 5.64 1.79 3.74 1.65 7.30 v 2 (35) 4 similarities 5.81 2.02 3.60 2.03 8.34 p = 0.01, 5 matrices 4.27 1.70 3.00 1.75 7.69 significant CFT 2/20 RP part 1 12; 6/1 series continuation 5.56 1.71 4.31 1.66 14; 5J. 8.53 Test part 1 2 classifications 5.09 1.65 4.15 1.89 7.27 p> 0.10, 3 matrices 4.63 1.69 3.73 1.51 8.36 not sign. 4 topolog. Conclusion. 2.86 1.47 1.96 1.28 4.46 Statistical significance test of profile shapes according to Kristof, 1958 It is checked whether the shape of two test profiles differs from one another. The difference between two test profiles is printed out using the test variable X2. The profile comparison is done by arithmetically superimposing the two test profiles.

9 128 M Buttner Diagnostics of the intellectual giftedness for children SPM, the comparative secondary school values ​​are communicated. A profile comparison of the functional part in CFT 1 (11 = test 1 and 2) is not necessary, since the reliability coefficients necessary for the X ^ calculation have not been calculated for these sub-tests. The test values ​​of part 2 of the CFT 2/20 are not shown because of the small sample size and the largely identical test items for test part 1. physical mobility, but are given only an abstract symbol for the probable height of intellect. The meaning of this symbol can be demonstrated well in the CPM, because here the test items are graded successively according to difficulty (see section 3.1) in the following senal structure Mare IA 16 Level II A 711 Level III A 12 From 13 From 411 From 12 B 12 B 3 7 B Content-related significance of the intelligence test results of the less gifted The separation of the differentiated, measurable less gifted area into two skill performance groups at the IQ limit of 75 results in two highly significantly different performance groups, with the mean total IQ of the LB group around 80, that of the GB group fluctuates around 65. The spread of the IQ values ​​is significantly greater in the GB range than in the LB range, i.e. In the UK, test failures and test successors are further apart, this performance group has the greater heterogeneity.Now the question arises as to which information can be obtained from an aging tester of a less talented person with regard to his or her ability level, which in turn gives conclusions about the reliable applicability of the procedures, Namely, if the summary IQ value is also linked to a differentiation of the ability structure of the less gifted person in terms of content, and not only signals a mere general lack of knowledge or ability in accordance with the original WECHS LER assumptions, the less gifted sample (with the exception of GB children) achieves significantly more in the action part than in the verbal part. While both performance groups have an almost identical profile course in the herbal part, i.e. a very similar skill structure, in the action part there are significant structural differences in the way that in the LB area accentuated partial achievements can be observed, whereas the GB area is more leveled in its skill structure is. The main service areas of the 1 B group (GF, WT in the V part, BE, BO, MT, FL in the H part) with some even 'normal' characteristics also include those services that, according to WECHSLER, have a high proportion of general intelligence (,, g "factor) and which should be particularly suitable for the weeding out of the less gifted (GF, WT, MT, BO), so that the particularly" intellectual "performance actually has to be redefined. The less gifted, however, clearly fail in performance areas that affect the so-called learning ability , which record the uptake of education, storage and reuse in novel cognitive and social problem situations (AW, RD, AV in HAWIE, BO in HAWIK), so that the lower mental flexibility is more likely to be expressed in a poor transfer of what has been learned and experiences Inadequate talent through transfer performance naturally does not apply to the so-called non-verbal intelligence tests; here we come across rather by avoiding "translators" d Directly on the general intellec The test values ​​show that the less gifted in their ability to think in a formal-logical way declines with increasing degree of abstraction and complexity, while the GB group thinks significantly more strongly than the LB group. Both groups can cope with difficulty level I completely, level III no longer at all and within level ff there is a slight superiority of the LB compared to the GB group, although overall only the beginnings of level II are recorded. This drop in performance is repeated in the same way in the SPM, which, however, already places such high demands on the LB group that it can no longer adequately differentiate the GB group. Unlike the CPM test items, the CFT scales are not graded according to the level of difficulty. The CFT 1 tests different intelligence functions, and here the significant profile progression difference in the LB and GB group means that the LB group has performance characteristics with partial performers, which in turn has a differentiated GB group against a leveled performance profile. The significant structural differences do not occur in the CFT 2/20, however, because the test constructs in this procedure address a similar level of abstraction in thinking, and the less gifted, for example, do not. classify better, but are less able to recognize series, these are similar claim categories for those who fluctuate indiscriminately in their cognitive problem-solving strategy and can only use thought processes with the slightest formal requirement, otherwise help themselves with the method of tnal & error or guessing and thereby cause only a gradual deviation of the LB from the GB level. When leaving the concrete illustrative performance level and attempting to develop intellectual capacity through the formal logical thinking ability, the less gifted fail mainly because they succeed in recognizing, learning and systematically applying a solution strategy because they are unable to adequately recognize a solution strategy. But despite high solution uncertainty, a large number of random solutions, we observe on average a continuous decrease in the number of solutions with increasing degree of difficulty, a constant frequency of solutions with a similar degree of difficulty, and it becomes clear that even a few solutions at the simplest level of complexity give a vahid sample of intelligent behavior as well as a comprehensive fntelligenztestbattene, as the IQ total values ​​show. The observation of the test performances in the functional area (ZS, ZN, CFT) should not go unmentioned

10 VI Buttner Diagnostics of Intellectual Childhood Ability 129 test failures and test successes obviously encompass a broader range of performance, ie. intact functional skills can also be possessed by the intactly intellectually disabled, while on the other hand, highly gifted learning disabled people can also have poor performance due to e.g. MCD, MCP, perception disorders, memory disorders, which the partly. explains the larger spread of the test values. Functional services are therefore less suitable as a means of distinguishing between LB and GB group. The KRAMER results are not specified because the characteristics ascertained in this procedure do not reveal a numerically exact performance structure (x development lag LB 1; 0 years, GB 3; 5 years). In summary, it can be stated that the investigation of several qualitatively distinguishable intelligence functions, the use of very different test procedures and the analysis of very different sample sizes per test reveal remarkably uniform performance tendencies in the less gifted. Up to the lower limit of the mild intellectual disability, the regular test requirements are mastered well above the O performance. The LB group and the GB group differ in their profile height. In addition, the LB group has a number of partial strengths, in which the intellectual disability is relatively less effective than in the GB group. The performance structures of the less gifted represent a relatively homogeneous feature, i.e. even small samples and a few less gifted people can reliably identify where the performance limits are to be applied. An interesting secondary finding is that the average performance of all learning disabled people often corresponds to the average of the regular youngest age norm (e.g. kindergarten norm, etc.). in the CFT 1 4.School failure In the class attended at the time of the test, two or more focus points were shown on the last report card. Table 4 Actual distribution of the types of school attended among the less gifted and schooled children and school-leavers, total (N = 592) IB (N = 391) GB (N = 201) N% N% N "> School for the mentally handicapped 78 13.2 13 3,, 3 School for the learning handicapped,,, 8 Primary school (grade 14),,, 4 Secondary school (grade 59) 58 9,, 1 3 1.5 Realschule / Gymnasium 4 0.7 4 1.0 0 0.0 cannot be assigned with certainty (hospital / home schools) 37 6.2 9 2,, 9 Children not yet started school Pre-school situation, total (N = 83) LB (N = 54) GB (N = 29) N% N% N% regular kindergarten 14 16.9 8 14.8 6 20.7 special daycare / special kindergarten 25 30,,, 3 compulsory schooling, but not schooling, postponed from school 44 53 ,, 8 9 31.0

11 no M Buttner Diagnostics of intellectual inadequacy Table 5 Actual distribution of the school success of the LB and GB group (according to the above criteria, information in%) in the respective school type School success Performance School School School downright failure Graduation from school type Ges LB GB Ges LB GB Ges LB GB Ges LB GB School G No school success classification School L 57.4 57.8 56.6 20.3 21.5 18.4 2.5 3.3 1.3 19.8 17.4 23.7 Primary school 19.7 20.1 17.2 80.3 79.9 82.8 Hauptschule 22.4 23.6 0.0 41.4 41.8 33.3 5.2 5.5 0.0 31.0 29.1 66 , 6 Realsch / Gvm 25.0 25.0 75.0 75.0 Grade repetitions, resets, retraining before the = test time Ges 141 case 23.8%, LB 32.0%, GB 8.0% The deviation of the observed distributions of a random distribution in Tables 4 and 5 is statistically significant (p 0 01, \ 2Test) = with insufficient or a The class goal (the transfer) Line retraining to a lower level announced, initiated or completed. The lungs year has just started. Subject with insufficiently censored. was not reached. School type was Das Wiederho School was left without attaining the regular qualification. The actual distribution is now to be compared with the adjusted distribution, i.e. the distribution of the students among the school types that correspond to the current performance profile and thus the realized school suitability (failure in the higher school type assignment of the student to the next lower school type, ie a failure at the elementary school was actually able to work successfully at the school for the learning disabled due to his realized suitability for school). From the tabular compilation of school performance, the following facts result about 63% of the test-diagnostic learning disabled and 16% of the mentally handicapped attend or attended mainstream schools and thus, at first glance, let the test diagnosis LB or GB be downgraded as completely absurd. If, however, the school performance is taken as a basis, the L regular schoolers contain 78% school failures, the GRegel schoolers 85% school failures, i.e. only one in five primary school students with learning difficulties and almost one in three secondary school students can at least adequately cope with the mainstream school requirements, and one in six mentally disabled primary school students. The secondary school students should be excluded because of the low number of cases. The corrected school performance categories in accordance with the school performance actually offered therefore show that approx. 89% of the intellectually less gifted also provide special school performance. In the LB / GB distinction in the L area in 69% of the cases and in the G area in 56% of the cases, there was a correspondence between the level of intelligence and school performance, whereby the heterogeneity of the special schools (weak schools L, demanding schools G) cannot enable a more precise allocation . The results also show, however, that 15% of LB schoolers and 3% of GB schoolers can achieve standard school performance, i.e. performance contrary to expectations and intellectual aptitude. Interestingly, the IQ comparison between the LB schoolchildren, who can at least be able to work in regular schools, and the regular L schoolchildren shows, however, that the long-term disabled, but regular school suitable schoolchildren consistently have a higher intelligence than the regular L schoolchildren, although there is no statistically significant difference in IQ exists between both school performance groups. However, there is a uniform tendency in the Rich Table 6 Adjusted "School type distribution based on actual school performance (N total of schooled children = 555) School performance level total (r> = 555) LB (N = 382) GB (N = 173) N% N% N% Successful special school students G Failures in school L,,, 1 Successful special school students L Failures in elementary and secondary schools (including those leaving),,, 0 Successful primary and secondary school students and failures in secondary schools 62 11,, 9 5 2.9 Successful secondary school students 1 0.2 1 0.3 0 0.0 The deviation of the observed distribution from a random distribution is statistically significant (p 0.01, X2Test)

12 School M Buttner Diagnostics of the intellectual giftedness for children Hl Table 7 Comparison of the average IQ values ​​of the regular school suitable LB students (performance contrary to expectations) with those of the regular 1 B special schoolers (performance according to the expectation) The quality of life data of the regular school suitable LB school students are based on 54 test protocols for the LB test overall group LBRegelschuler LBSonderschuler Significance xiq N x IQ N xiq exam (tlest) RAVEN SPM 78,,, 8 CFT 20 part 1 83,,, 4 CFT 1 total 81,,, 9 CFT 1 part 1 86,,, 5 CFT 1 part 2 84,,, 0 HAWIK Total 81.9 6 82,, 1 HAWIK Verbal 81.2 6 82,, 7 HAWIK Action 87.7 6 88,, 8> p 0 05 ns establishment of a stable relationship between lower intelligence and special needs and a possible explanation of the phenomenon that some of the more intelligent LBSchildren do not fail in mainstream schools. On the other hand, caution is advised with the assumption that in general the more intelligent LB schoolers are also more suitable for mainstream schools or that by lowering the IQ limit for learning disabilities to 85 instead of 90, the less gifted schoolchildren can be sorted out again and assigned to the average range of intelligence. In the sample defined here as learning disabled, there are 105 cases with total IQ values ​​between 86 and 90 (= 23.6% of all learning disabled), of which only 24 successfully attend regular schools or kindergartens (= 22.8% of the learning disabled with high intelligence). This finding clearly demonstrates the justification for extending the learning disability up to the IQ limit of 90 and giving the more intelligent learning disabilities a discreet chance to be able to meet a small part of mainstream school requirements more easily than less intelligent learning disabilities. The relationships listed for the schoolchildren can also be found in the pre-school area. Only 15% of the LB and 20% of the GB children regularly attend kindergarten and are therefore (still1) inconspicuous. However, every fifth LB and every second GB child is already recorded in facilities for disabled children and finally 2/3 of the LB and 1h of the GB children are not ready for school or not able to start school at the time they were required to attend school and must be postponed . Since the preschool children were not specially selected, but part of a random sample of the less gifted, there is reason to assume that the problem of early childhood retardation as a development delay that can be made up must also be viewed critically (see Harbauer, op. Disturbances in the intellectual level of development in the pre-school age, which arithmetically can be assigned to the LB and GB area and which cannot be explained by behavioral anomalies (e.g. inhibitions to express themselves, fears, isolated sensory failures), are very likely to allow only a very small proportion of future regular school skills Expect subsequent maturation, but to a far greater extent a future need for special schooling. 5. The predictive power of the test procedure In connection with this study, the final question arises as to how reliably the various intelligence tests can assign intellectual school suitability and actual school performance and thus also predict them. A correct judgment with a narrow interpretation would mean that LBSchulers are successful in school L, but fail in mainstream schools and are also misplaced in schools G, that GB schoolers are properly challenged in school G and fail in all higher school types. The hit rate "of the intelligence tests with regard to the assessment of the degree of inadequate giftedness and the corresponding school performance expectation or school performance level" of the intelligence tests with the assignment of intelligence level LB / GB and school performance according to school L and G in% of all test results of the respective procedure test diagnosis learning disability Diagnosis of mental findings Overall group of under-gifted school performance I = School performance in school G School performance in special school Overstrained in regular school Overstrained in school L Undrained in school G and regular school HAWIK 65.7 65.5 65.5 HAWIE 60.0 96.3 8 3.3 CPM 74, 6 65.5 72.0 SPM 68.8 not detectable 68.8 CF1 1 60.6 82.0 76.2 CFT 2/20 62.5 61.5 62.3

13 132 M Buttner diagnosis of intellectual deficiency is true for the test statement, the "tough" test of the IB / GB distinction and the equally fuzzy demarcation between school L and school G at 60% and above. The relatively best LB assignments succeed with the RAVEN scales, the relatively best GB assignments with the HAWIE and CFT 1, limited to a test statement and the Intelhgenzkntenum as the sole read-out feature. 6. Discussion of the results With this exploratory study, an attempt was made to check whether the intelligence concept, as it is the basis of the usual standardized intelligence tests, is suitable for use in the less gifted and whether the test data obtained before an assignment of the attribute 'school performance expectation' in the L and G areas for appropriate school preservation. Regardless of whether the IQ is understood as an intelligence quotient, as a quantity of intelligence or as a quantity of intelligence, the results show a correspondence between the IQ range of intelligence and a corresponding need for special schooling in about 90% of the cases. With the fine selection in the LB and GB area, significantly more than half of the trap can be assigned correctly, i.e. in the sense of the expectation. The ability structures of the less gifted can be precisely differentiated with regular test requests. The LB and GB groups differ gradually in the samples of intelligent behavior, but also in the presence of relatively stronger key skills in the LB group. The GB performance level is more balanced on an overall lower mare. Particularly abstract problems are difficult for those with a low level of weakness, but a few correct approaches are sufficient to determine an IQ that is just as precise, i.e., a 'true' IQ as in tests that include the focus on skills. No test is significantly more reliable or suitable than others. Although the IQ demarcation is a question of definition, the extension of the LB range up to IQ 90 seems necessary and is evidenced by the fact that less than 1 U in the LB group with IQs between 86 and 90 can achieve standard school levels, although there are and of course smooth transitions and error margins the criteria-related separation of LB / GB cannot be exactly understood at school, precisely because of the heterogeneity of the special education system and the spread of intelligence parameters. The results and conclusions should not be taken unreservedly as a plea to use the IQ as this examination for the elite teens in special school areas L and G, but in fact a significant connection between IQ and school performance opportunities in the less gifted can be verified in such a way that significantly more LB schoolchildren had to attend or attend school L than other schools and just as significantly more GB schoolchildren had to attend or attend school G than other schools, although the two types of school were not exactly differentiated in the transition area. The weaknesses of the test diagnostics read necessarily more pronounced than with the Feinaus in the rough reading and also differ depending on the test. The measurable degree of intelligence presented as an essential determinant of school preservation in the special school sector can be confirmed without restriction according to the data here overall and thus seems to have a greater significance for the school education boundaries than other supporting factors, e.g. the work techniques, the work behavior, the stimulation conditions. School and preschool age ranges differ insignificantly in the impact of the lack of intelligence on the ability to be formed. The IQ, which is determined as a deviation from the average, is absolutely justified for assessing the need for special schooling or normal school failure, whereby the more precise confidence limits of the test and school data also enable L and G referencing. The factor 'school performance intelligence' already explains around 90% of the variance in the need for special schools in general. An interesting question about the white papers would be whether special education examinations come to a similarly high level of effectiveness and, if so, what part of this is made by the IQ used by special school teachers. Summary Intelligence Testing of Mentally Retarded Persons In this study the IQ scores of 675 mentally retarded educable and trainable persons aged years were examined in order to compare between 4 and 27 level of intelligence with actual success in school and to analyze the structure of abihties in different common intelligence tests. The results show some significant differences in mental abihties between low and high grades of mental retardation on the one hand in there general level of performance, on the other hand in some special quahfications of the low grades of mental retardation. The diagnostic value of IQ scores consists in the possibihty to predict a relation be tween mental development and actual school perform ance also on that mental level below the average. There is found an agreement between low mental abihty and unsuccessful school performance in regular school conditions in about 90% of this sample. Even the discrimination between low and high grades of mental retardation only relative to there IQ score is correct in 69% resp. 56% with regard to there expected and adequate school performance. Literature Beer, F Kutalek, N u Schnell, H (1968) The influence of intelligence and milieu on school performance, Vienna Berner, P (1977) Psychiatrische Systematik, Bern. BodensteinJenke, (1980) A comparative study of psychomotor test performances of autistic, learning and mentally handicapped students with the help of the LOS from the TBGB In Prax. Child psych. Children R