| Cognitive Information Processing (CIP) |
Yields reliable information: the screening material reliably measures indicators of potential
learning disabilities and yields consistent results (if the screening tool was given to the same
person again, similar indicators of potential learning disabilities would be evident). A low
standard of error should be evident. |
Test-Retest Stability - An evaluation of test-retest
reliability was performed. Of the 150 follow-up sets of ratings, 92% were found to show a pattern of processing
which identified identical areas of relatively significant strength and weakness as were noted on the initial rating.
This suggests an overall stability correlation of approximately .92. Internal Consistency - In order to
assess the internal consistency and overall reliability of the CIP a split-half method was employed. Correlations across
processing areas range from .80 to .91 with overall Global Processing Index (GPI) correlations ranging from .92 to
.95. This data verifies that the CIP has very strong internal consistency. |
|
| |
Is valid: The screening material adequately represents the full range of characteristics
associated with learning disabilities. The screening material is consistent with what is
currently known about learning disabilities. It covers a scope sufficient to provide an initial
assessment in several areas such as language, motor, organization and social skills (look for a
description of which learning disability indicators may be assessed with the instrument). |
As stated on the website "provides an internal measure of each rating's validity" - see technical manual for more details. |
|
| |
The tool is cost-effective including initial
purchase and ongoing purchases of related materials such as question booklets, score sheets etc. |
You can download the complete demo package from the website for a free 30 day trial. If you want to continue
using it, the cost is $49.00 for one year term, $79 for a 2 yr term and $99 for a 3 yr term - all in US funds. |
|
| |
The time required to conduct the screening procedures is reasonable: it is quick to
administer, score, and interpret. |
The time required for the adult to complete the self-rating
scale would be 10 to 15 minutes. The software interprets the answers and provides a rating that can be
interpreted in a matter of minutes. |
|
| |
The requirements for learning to use the screening tool are reasonable. Requirements
may range from reviewing the instructions and user manual to participating in a training session. |
It is suggested that the practitioner try out the self-rating screening tool and be comfortable with the interpretation -
it takes approximately 15 minutes. Depending on the reading level of the adult, a practitioner may need to assist. |
|
| |
Minimize bias: The screening material accurately highlights potential indicators of
learning disabilities regardless of a person's age, gender, race, ethnicity, or primary language. |
Stated on the website: "provides a non-biased, culture fair screening/assessment," The sample had representatives of
adults, both genders and ethnic groups. The statistical comparisons found no significant differences across any of
the six processing domains or in the Global Processing Index as a function of ethnicity. This suggests that the CIP
is able to provide a non-biased assessment of cognitive processing skills. |
|
| |
Instructions are provided on how to interpret the screening tool results/findings. |
Instructions are provided on how to interpret the results of the adult's self-rating scale. Two types of scores are
provided at the CIP On-Line Entry and Scoring Site - a Global Processing Index (GPI)
score and Standard Deviation of the Difference (SDD) scores in each of 6
information processing areas.
The Global Processing Index (GPI) provides a standardized comparison between a specific person's rating
and the "norms" of the standardization sample who have already been rated. The GPI is intended to provide a
general measure of overall information processing skill which can then be used to determine relative processing
strengths and weaknesses in specific areas (see below).
Standard Deviation of Difference (SDD) scores are considerably more valuable than the GPI
from a diagnostic standpoint. The SDD scores provide a measure of the
significance of differences found between an individual's GPI and their rating in each specific processing area. As
with the GPI, the SDD scores represent the differences found within the standardization group. SDD scores within
the -1 to +1 range represent the average or "normal." From a diagnostic perspective, a processing SDD score below -1
could be significant enough to negatively impact learning.
| SDDs from GPI | Interpretation |
| 2 + | Significant Relative Strength |
| 1 to 2 | Moderate Relative Strength |
| 1 to -1 | Average Range |
| -1 to -2 | Moderate Relative Weakness |
| -2 + | Significant Relative Weakness |
In addition to these specific SDD scores, it is also
important to look for relative differences between "paired"
processing areas (visual vs auditory and sequential vs
conceptual). Although these differences are not provided in
the on-line SDD scores, they are taken into consideration
by the computer program during scoring and are reflected in the "interpretation" field. |
|
| |
The tool is compatible with the goals of the organization. For example, if you serve only
adults, was the test developed for adults only or if you serve a number of ESL learners, was this
the intended audience for the screening tool? |
Geared for adults and will help determine if cognitive processing may interfere with an adult's learning. |
|
| |
The format and written text follow clear language guidelines. |
yes |
|
| |
The tool includes information to help select possible learning materials and/or
instructional practices. |
|
It only provides a rating. No suggestions for strategies. |