رواسازی نسخه دوم مقیاس¬های سنجش شناختی رینولدز در کودکان عادی و تیزهوش شهر تهران

محورهای موضوعی : سلامت نوجوانان

بهنوش زینلی زاده ¹ , غلامعلی افروز ^{2 *} , مسعود غلامعلی لواسانی ³

1 - دانشجوی دکتری روانشناسی، گروه روانشناسی و آموزش کودکان استثنائی، دانشکده علوم انسانی، واحد علوم و تحقیقات، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران [e-mail]
2 - (نویسنده مسئول)، استاد گروه روان‎شناسی، دانشکده روان¬شناسی و علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه تهران، ایران ایمیل: [e-mail]، شماره تلفن: [phone]+
3 - دانشیار گروه روان‎شناسی، دانشکده روان¬شناسی و علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه تهران، ایران، [e-mail]

تاریخ دریافت : 1403/05/29 تاریخ پذیرش : 1403/06/20 تاریخ انتشار : 1403/06/22

کلید واژه: توانایی¬های شناختی, رواسازی, مقیاس¬های ستجش شناختی رینولدز ,

چکیده مقاله :

چکيده مقدمه: با توجه به اینکه نسخه دوم مقیاس¬های سنجش شناختی رینولدز از لحاظ سنجش همه جانبه ابعاد شناختی، طول مدت اجرا، عدم وابستگی به سرعت دیداری حرکتی و خواندن و شرایط آسان اجرایی ابزاری پر مزیت است، هدف این پژوهش، رواسازی نسخه دوم مقیاس¬های سنجش شناختی رینولدز در کودکان شهر تهران بود. روش پژوهش: این پژوهش از نوع توصیفی- همبستگی بود. جامعه آماری پژوهش شامل کودکان 3 تا 6 ساله شهر تهران بود که از این جامعه یک گروه نمونه از کودکان به حجم 82 نفر با روش دردسترس انتخاب شدند. سپس نسخه دوم مقیاس¬های سنجش شناختی رینولدز پس از ترجمه و آماده سازی بر روی گروه نمونه اجرا شد. آزمون هوش آزمای تهران استنفورد بینه نیز به طور همزمان بر روی گروه نمونه اجرا شد. پس از اجرا 30 نفر از افراد نمونه که در آزمون استنفورد بینه نمره ای به طور معنادار بالاتر از میانگین داشتند به عنوان گروه تیزهوش انتخاب شدند. سپس داده¬ها با استفاده از روش همبستگی پیرسون و t مستقل مورد تجزيه و تحليل قرار گرفت. يافته¬ها: در بررسی روایی همگرا با استفاده از ضریب همبستگی پیرسون نتایج حاکی از همبستگی بالای این دو مقیاس بود. در بررسی روایی تشخیصی نیز میانگین¬ گروه¬های عادی و تیزهوش با استفاده از آزمون t مستقل با هم مقایسه شدند. در مقایسه گروه عادی و تیزهوش تفاوت همه خرده¬مقیاس¬ها (حدس بزن، استدلال کلامی، تصویر متناقض، اشکال ناقص، حافظه کلامی و حافظه غیر کلامی) به جز خرده مقیاس¬¬های شاخص پردازش سریع (تکلیف نام بردن سریع و جستجوی سریع تصویر) معنادار بود. نتيجه¬گيري: در نهایت یافته¬های این پژوهش، نشان می¬دهد که این ابزار یک ابزار مناسب برای سنجش ابعاد مختلف توانایی¬های شناختی است.

چکیده انگلیسی:

Abstract Introduction: Given that the second version of the Reynolds Cognitive Assessment Scales is an advantageous tool in terms of comprehensive assessment of cognitive dimensions, duration of performance, independence from visual-motor and reading speed, and easy performance conditions, the aim of this study was to validate the second version of the Reynolds Cognitive Assessment Scales in children in Tehran. Research Method: This descriptive-correlational study involved a sample of 82 children aged 3 to 6 years from Tehran, selected using a convenience sampling method. The second version of the Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales was translated, adapted, and administered to the sample. The Stanford-Binet Intelligence Test was also concurrently administered to the sample. Following the administration, 30 participants who scored significantly above the mean on the Stanford-Binet were selected as a gifted group. Then the data were analyzed using Pearson correlation and independent t test. Findings: Convergent validity was examined using Pearson's correlation coefficient, which revealed a high correlation between the two scales. To assess diagnostic validity, the mean scores of the normal and gifted groups were compared using an independent samples t-test. The results indicated significant differences between the normal and gifted groups on all subscales ('Guess what', 'Verbal Reasoning', 'Odd-item out', 'What is Missing', 'Verbal Memory' and 'Nonverbal Memory) except for Speeded Processing Index subscales ('Speeded Naming Task' and 'Speeded Picture Search'). Conclusion: The findings of this study suggest that this instrument is a suitable tool for assessing various dimensions of cognitive abilities.

منابع و مأخذ:

Reference:
1- Jozsa K, Amukune S, Zentai G, Barrett KC. School Readiness Test and Intelligence in Preschool as Predictors of Middle School Success: Result of an Eight-Year Longitudinal Study. Journal of intelligence. 2022; 10(3): 66, https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence10030066 [Link]
2- Veneziani I, Marra A, Formica C, Girmaldi A, Marino S, Quartarone A, Maresca G. Applications of Artificial Intelligence in the Neuropsychological Assessment of Dementia: A Systematic Review. Journal of Personalized Medicine. 2024; 14(1): 113; https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm14010113[Link]
3- Hoogdalem, AV, BBosman AM. Intelligence tests and the individual: Unsolvable problems with validity and reliability. Sage Journal. 2023; 17(1): 231 doi.org/10.1177/20597991231213871 [Link]
4- Jin H, Pang Y, Du X, Shi L. Artificial Intelligence-Based Prediction of Individual Differences in Psychological Occupational Therapy Intervention Guided by the Realization of Occupational Values. Occup Ther Int. 2022 Jul 6. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/2735824 [Link]
5- Vanessa Torres V, Grinsven V. The Response Process in Psychometric (Intelligence) Testing and Validity. Global Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. 2023; 11(5): 55. DOI: 10.19080/GJIDD.2023.11.555825 [Link]
6- Cheng A, To J, Wahianuar NH, Chan YH, Mulay KV. Concurrent validity of intelligence assessments in children with developmental disabilities in an Asian setting: Comparison of the Kaufman brief intelligence test – Second edition with the Wechsler Intelligence Scales. Pediatrics & Neonatology. 2024; 65(4): 341-347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedneo.2023.07.005 [Link]
7- Suen H., Greenapan S. Linguistic sensitivity does not require one to use grossly deficient norms: Why U. S. Norms should be used with the Mexican WAIS-III id capital cases, Psychology in Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, Official Publication of Division 33, American Psychological Association Retrieved from, 2009 Jul;16(3):214-22. doi: 10.1080/09084280903098786. [Link]
8- Hagmann-von Arx P, Lemola S, Grob A. Does IQ= IQ? Comparability of intelligence test scores in typically developing children. Assessment. 2018 Sep; 25(6): 691-701. https://doi: 10.1177/1073191116662911 [Link].
9- Spoci MK. The Construct Validity of the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence, Second Edition (WASI-II) and the Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales, Second Edition (RIAS-2) [master s thesis]. Eastern Illinois University, 2023 [Link]
10- Reynolds CR, Kamphaus RW. Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales Second Edition: Professional manual. Lutz, FL: Par. 2015. https://www.parinc.com/Products/Pkey/365 https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1139968 [Link]
11- Dombrowski SC, Watkins MW, Brogan MJ. An exploratory investigation of the factor structure of the Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales (RIAS). J Psycho Assessment. 2009 Dec; 27(6): 494-507. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0734282909333179 [Link]
12- Rasouli, S., Vahedi, SH., Gharadaghi, A Nemati, Sh. Developing and Validation of Intervention Program Based on Multiple Learning Systems for Students with Specific Learning with Reading Disabilities: Meta-Synthesis Study. Quarterly Journal of Child Mental Health. 2022; 9(2): http://dx.doi.org/10.52547/jcmh.9.2.2[Link]
13- Tebyani Nian L, Kamkari K, Lavasani M. Psychometric Properties of the Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales (RIAS)-in students with Intellectual Developmental Disorder. Applied Psychological Research. 2018 Sep 23; 9(3): 161-79. https://doi.org/10.22059/japr.2018.69114 [Link]
14- Raines TC, Reynolds CR, Kamphaus RW. The Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales, Second Edition, and the Reynolds Intellectual Screening Test, Second Edition. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2018-36604-018 [Link]
15- Ruchinskas, R., Goette, W. Reynolds Intellectual Screening Instrument 1st versus 2nd Edition in a Memory Disorder Sample. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology. 2021 July; 36 (2021): 570–577. https://academic.oup.com/acn/article/36/4/570/5897451 [Link]
16- Miles S, Fulbrook P, Mainwaring-Mägi D. Evaluation of standardized instruments for use in universal screening of very early school-age children: suitability, technical adequacy, and usability. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment. 2016 Mar; 36(2): 99-119. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282916669246. [Link]
17- Reynolds CR, Kamphaus RW. Development and application of the Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales (RIAS). Practitioner’s Guide to Assessing Intelligence and Achievement. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2009; Jul 15: 95-126. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Development-and-Application-of-the-Reynolds-Scales-Hapter-Reynolds/2f2c190ed556cd1c7a5be3e6afcaedb0e6f3935c [Link]
18- Kioumarsi, F., Sharifidaramdi, P., Kamkari, K. Psychometric Properties of Second Edition of Reynolds Intelligence Measures in Students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 2019; 8(2): 76-98. https://jld.uma.ac.ir/article_758.html?lang=en [Link]
19- Beaujean AA, Firmin MW, Michonski JD, Berry T, Johnson C. A multitrait—Multimethod examination of the Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales in a college sample. Assessment. 2010 Sep; 17(3): 347-60. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191109356865 [Link]
20- Miles S, Fulbrook P, Mainwaring-Mägi, D. Evaluation of Standardized Instruments for Use in Universa Screening of Very Early School-Age Children: Suitability, Technical Adequacy, and Usability, Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment. 2016; 36(2): 1-21, DOI: 10.1177/0734282916669246. [Link]
21- Gliniak, R. R. A comparison of scores on the RIAS and WISK-IV in a referred sample, A Thesis submitted to the Graduate College of Marshal University, 2014 https://mds.marshall.edu/etd/829/ [Link]
22- Nelson JM, Canivez GL. Examination of the structural, convergent, and incremental validity of the Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales (RIAS) with a clinical sample. Psycholo Assessment. 2012 Mar; 24(1): 129. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2011-17261-001 [Link]
23- Farmer, R.L., Kim, S.Y. Difference score reliabilities within the RIAS‐2 and WISC‐V. Psychology in the school. 2020Mar. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338557202_Difference_score_reliabilities_within_the_RIAS-2_and_WISC- [Link]
24- Gygi JT, Hagmann-von Arx P, Schweizer F, Grob A. The predictive validity of four intelligence tests for school grades: a small sample longitudinal study. Front Psychol. 2017 Mar 13; 8: 375. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00375 [Link]
25- Hashemi, S., Kamkari, K., Shokrzadeh, S. The Psychometric Properties of Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales, Second Edition in student’s Sampad. Journal of Applied Psychological Research, 2018; 9(1): 137-148. https://doi.org/10.22059/japr.2018.67064 [Link]
26- Dacey CM, Nelson WM, Stoeckel J, Reliability, criterion-related validity and qualitative comments of the Fourth Edition of the Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scale with a young adult population with intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research. 2001; 43(3): 179- 174. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2788.1999.00187.x[Link]