Skip to main content
 
Notice: Users may be experiencing issues with displaying some pages on stanfordhealthcare.org. We are working closely with our technical teams to resolve the issue as quickly as possible. Thank you for your patience.
Stanford Health Care

Which Score for What? Operationalizing Standardized Cognitive Test Performance for the Assessment of Change.

Which Score for What? Operationalizing Standardized Cognitive Test Performance for the Assessment of Change. American journal on intellectual and developmental disabilities Farmer, C., Thurm, A., Das, T., Bebin, E. M., Bernstein, J. A., Berry-Kravis, E., Buxbaum, J. D., Eng, C., Frazier, T., Hardan, A. Y., Kolevzon, A., Krueger, D. A., Martinez-Agosto, J. A., Northrup, H., Powell, C. M., Valluripalli Soorya, L., Wu, J. Y., Sahin, M. 2025; 130 (5): 344-361

Abstract

Developmental domains, such as cognitive, language, and motor, are key concepts of interest in longitudinal studies of intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD). Normative scores (e.g., IQ) are often used to operationalize performance on standardized tests of these concepts, but it is the interval-distributed person-ability scores that are intended for the assessment of within-individual change. Here we illustrate the use and interpretation of several Stanford Binet, 5th Edition score types (IQ, extended IQ, Z-normalized raw score, developmental quotient, raw sum score, age equivalent, and ability score) using data from two longitudinal studies of rare genetic conditions associated with IDD. We found that, although normality assumptions were tenuous for all score types, floor effects led to model unsuitability for longitudinal analysis of most types of norm-referenced scores, and that the validity of interpretation with respect to individual change was best for ability scores.

View details for DOI 10.1352/1944-7558-130.5.344

View details for PubMedID 40858311