The RSI has a large normative sample with approximately 2800 ratings collected, closely matching 2010 U.S. Census target numbers. Normative samples were evenly balanced in terms of age and gender. Specifically, ratings of 50 male and 50 female children/youth were collected for each year of age, resulting in 800 rated children for each of the RSI (5–12 Years) Forms (both with age M= 8.5years, SD=2.3years), and 600 rated youth for each of the RSI (13–18 Years) Forms (both with age M=15.5years, SD=1.7years). Normative samples were collected so that the distributions of race/ethnicity were stratified by geographic region and parental education.
Additionally, to better reflect the U.S. general population, between 11.6 to 11.8% of the normative samples included ratings of children/youth who had a clinical diagnosis or were eligible to receive special educational services according to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) criteria.
Internal Consistency refers to the extent to which all items on the same scale consistently measure the same content. The RSI Scales and the Total Score were found to demonstrate strong levels of internal consistency. Test-Retest Reliability refers to the stability of test scores when an assessment is administered on two or more occasions. Partial correlations were conducted to assess the test-retest reliability of the RSI Scales and Total Score over a 2- to 4-week interval (controlling for age and gender). And excellent test-retest reliability was found.
Discriminative validity pertains to an instrument’s ability to distinguish between relevant participant groups. Assuming that functional impairment should increase as the number of diagnoses increases, the RSI should be able to distinguish individuals with a greater number of diagnoses from individuals with fewer or no diagnoses. ANCOVAs were conducted to compare the RSI scores of children/youth from the general population with clinical cases categorized according to their number of diagnosed disorders (i.e., one diagnosis, two to three diagnoses, and four or more diagnoses). Significant main effects of number of diagnoses were observed for all scores (p < .01) except for Mobility on the RSI (5–12 Years) Teacher Form and the RSI (13–18 Years) Teacher Form (p = .036 and .017, respectively).
An examination of Cohen’s d effect size ratios indicate that differences from the general population became progressively larger as the number of diagnoses increased. Specifically, across scores on all RSI Forms, effect sizes were generally small when comparing the general population to clinical cases with one diagnosis (median Cohen’s d = 0.45), medium when comparing the general population to clinical cases with two to three diagnoses (median Cohen’s d = 0.61), and strong when comparing the general population to clinical cases with four or more diagnoses (median Cohen’s d = 1.02). These results confirm the expectation that as the number of diagnoses increases, the level of impairment as assessed by the RSI also increases.
Back to the top Interpretive Reports
Interpretive reports are comprehensive and present scores numerically and graphically. Comparative Reports
Comparative reports allow for a multi-rater perspective by comparing results of different raters. Progress Monitoring and Treatment Effectiveness Report
Progress monitoring and treatment effectiveness reports compare the results of two to four administrations for the same individual to measure changes over time. These reports are ideal when monitoring treatment and intervention. Sam Goldstein, Ph.D. (www.samgoldstein.com)
Sam Goldstein, Ph.D. is an Assistant Clinical Instructor at the University of Utah School of Medicine and on staff at the University Neuropsychiatric Institute. He is a licensed psychologist and has been nationally certified as a school psychologist. He is Clinical Director of the Neurology Learning and Behavior Center. Dr. Goldstein has authored over 40 texts as well as over fifty book chapters and two dozen peer reviewed research articles. He currently serves as Editor in Chief of the Journal of Attention Disorders and sits on the editorial boards of six peer reviewed journals. He is co-editor of the Encyclopedia of Child Development. Recent books include the Handbooks of Neurodevelopmental and Genetic Disorders in Children and Adults, Handbook of Resilience in Children, Assessment of Intelligence and Achievement, Assessment of Autism Spectrum Disorders and Assessment of Impairment. He is the co-author of the Autism Spectrum Rating Scales, Comprehensive Executive Functioning Inventory, Rating Scales of Impairment and the Cognitive Assessment System Second Edition.
Back to the top
Watch a TEDx Talk with Dr. Goldstein - The Power of Resilience
Jack A. Naglieri, Ph.D. (www.jacknaglieri.com)
Dr. Jack A. Naglieri is Professor of Psychology. Prior to his current position he was Professor of School Psychology and Psychology at the Ohio State University where he taught from 1982 to 2000. He also is a Fellow of APA Division 16, recipient of APA Division 16 2001 Senior Scientist Award, and holds an appointment as a senior Research Scientist at the Devereux Foundation's Institute for Clinical Training and Research. Dr. Naglieri obtained his Bachelor's degree in Psychology from Long Island University, Master of Science from St. John's University, and Ph.D. in Educational Psychology from the University of Georgia in 1979. He worked as a school psychologist in the New York area from 1974-1977.
The author of more than 150 scholarly papers, chapters, books, and tests, he has focused his efforts since the late 1970s on reconceptualizing intelligence. Jack A. Naglieri is also the author of the Cognitive Assessment System
(Naglieri & Das, 1997), the CAS Scoring Aide (Naglieri, 2002), the General Ability Measure for Adults (Naglieri & Bardos, 1997), Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (Naglieri, 1996), Devereux Scoring Assistant (LeBuffe, Naglieri, & Pfeiffer, 1996), Devereux Scales of Mental Disorders (Naglieri, LeBuffe, & Pfeiffer, 1994), Devereux Behavior Rating Scales School Form (Naglieri, LeBuffe, & Pfeiffer, 1994), Draw A Person: Screening Procedure for Emotional Disturbance (Naglieri, McNeish, & Bardos, 1990), Draw A Person: Quantitative Scoring System (Naglieri, 1988), Matrix Analogies Test (Naglieri, 1985).
Back to the top