Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2023 Nov;36(6):1218-1228.
doi: 10.1111/jar.13137. Epub 2023 Aug 8.

Deviation scores: An innovative approach to interpreting cognitive test results for individuals with intellectual disabilities

Devadrita Talapatra  1 , Laurel Snider  2 , Jeanine Coleman  3 , Talia Thompson  4 , Jessica S Reinhardt  5 , David Hessl  6 , Karen Riley  7
Affiliations
Review

Deviation scores: An innovative approach to interpreting cognitive test results for individuals with intellectual disabilities

Devadrita Talapatra et al. J Appl Res Intellect Disabil. 2023 Nov.

Abstract

Background: Students with Intellectual Disability undergo frequent cognitive testing. Testing with this population is limited by insensitivity to relative strengths and weaknesses due to floor effects.

Aim: The study explored the utility of deviation scores via four case studies as a supplement to educational decision-making.

Methods: Four students with Intellectual Disability completed cognitive testing. Deviation scores were calculated using age dependent raw z-score transformations to determine deviation from the standardization sample norms.

Results: The application of deviation scores highlighted true relative strengths and weaknesses for students with Intellectual Disability rather than documenting previously known deficits. The four cases studies illustrated where deviation scores could, or could not, add value above and beyond traditional scoring.

Discussion: Deviation scores can supplement placement and service decisions for students. Practical and psychometric considerations are reviewed.

Conclusion: The findings highlight the usefulness of deviation scores in providing meaningful information to school- and clinic-based practitioners.

Keywords: cognitive testing; deviation score; intellectual disability.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Field example 1: Case study of Charles, age 6 years, 4 months, with fragile X syndrome. This figure illustrates Charles’ Subtest Profile in both Scaled and Deviation Scores across all SB5 domains. SB5 subtests include Nonverbal Fluid Reasoning (NV FR), Nonverbal Knowledge (NV KN), Nonverbal Quantitative Reasoning (NV QR), Nonverbal Visual Spatial (NV VS), Nonverbal Working Memory (NV WM), Verbal Fluid Reasoning (V FR), Verbal Knowledge (V KN), Verbal Quantitative Reasoning (V QR), Verbal Visual Spatial (V VS), and Verbal Working Memory (V WM).
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Field example 2: Case study of Sarah, age 13 years, 6 months, with Down syndrome. This figure illustrates Sarah’s Subtest Profile in both Scaled and Deviation Scores across all SB5 domains (i.e., NV FR, NV KN, NV QR, NV VS, NV WM, V FR, V KN, V QR, V VS, and V WM).
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
Field example 3: Case study of Tim, age 17 years, 10 months, with Intellectual Disability and Autism Spectrum Disorder. This figure illustrates Tim’s Subtest Profile in both Scaled and Deviation Scores across all SB5 domains (i.e., NV FR, NV KN, NV QR, NV VS, NV WM, V FR, V KN, V QR, V VS, and V WM).
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 4
Field example 4: Case study of Peter, age 6 years, 10 months, with Intellectual Disability and Autism Spectrum Disorder (comparison to non-floored IQ). This figure illustrates Peter’s Subtest Profile in both Scaled and Deviation Scores across all SB5 domains (i.e., NV FR, NV KN, NV QR, NV VS, NV WM, V FR, V KN, V QR, V VS, and V WM).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. American Educational Research Association. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association.
    1. Armstrong K, Hangauer J, & Nadeau J (2012). Use of intelligence tests in the identification of children with intellectual and developmental disabilities. In Flanagan DP & Harrison PL (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues. The Guilford Press.
    1. Bagnato SJ, & Neisworth JT (1994). A national study of the social and treatment “invalidity” of intelligence testing for early intervention. School Psychology Quarterly, 9(2), 81–102. 10.1037/h0088852 - DOI
    1. Bramlett MD, Blumberg SJ, Ormson AE, George JM, Williams KL, Frasier AM, Skalland BJ, Santos KB, Vsetecka DM, Morrison HM, Pedlow S, & Wang F (2014). Design and operation of the national survey of children with special healthcare needs, 2009–2010. https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/25843/cdc_25843_DS1.pdf - PubMed
    1. Budimirovic DB, Berry-Kravis E, Erickson CA, Hall SS, Hessl D, Reiss AL, & Kaufmann WE (2017). Updated report on tools to measure outcomes of clinical trials in fragile X syndrome. Journal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders, 9(1), 1–36. - PMC - PubMed