Comprehensive vs. Brief Evaluaitons

Rebecca S. Blakeman, PhD

Licensed Psychologist

I often have parents tell me that their child has been “tested” by other private professionals or by their school…yet in some cases no actual “testing” as been done, or only abbreviated tests have been administered.  This article well address what is and is not “testing” and what constitutes “comprehensive” testing.

First and foremost, parents and teachers completing questionnaires about a child’s behavior is not testing; it is simply gathering information about that parent’s or teacher’s perspective in relation to the child’s behavior.  Questionnaire data will help us know what behaviors are present, but they do not tell us why those behaviors are present. 

Testing occurs when “tests” are administered to a child (or adult) in order to gain samples of behavior related to various skills (e.g., vigilance, memory, reading, etc.).  Through testing, we can observe and measure ability levels, learned skills, approach to problem solving, emotional response to frustration, degree of persistence, and sustained attention/distractibility.

In an effort to save time and money, “brief” test measures have been developed to measure intelligence (IQ) and academic abilities.  This can sometimes be helpful when programs mandate cognitive screening of hundreds of children (e.g., in a Head Start program), but are not likely to be helpful if concerns of learning disabilities or cognitive weaknesses are present.  Brief measures are simply that…brief.  A brief intelligence test may consist of 2 or 3 subtests and take only 10 or 15 minutes to administer.  In contrast, a comprehensive intelligence test may have 15 subtests and take nearly 1 ½ hours to administer.  Because each of the 15 subtests in a comprehensive IQ test measures somewhat different skills in different ways, significantly more information can be obtained, compared to using only a few subtests.  When using a brief IQ test, there is always the danger of “missing” valuable information that may drastically change the interpretation of the scores.  For example, it is not possible to know whether the scores on the few subtests administered are consistent with other abilities, whether they are actually relative strengths for the child (in which case personal weaknesses will be missed) or whether they are actually relative weaknesses for the child (in which case personal strengths will be missed). 

Academically, it is critical to avoid brief measures if a learning disability is suspected.  Most brief academic tests are designed to be administered quickly and scored easily.  While this is very practical when needing to screen hundreds of children, it is not helpful when trying to understand a child’s learning difficulties.  Most academic screeners do not assess the skills necessary for identifying learning disabilities.  For example, most brief academic tests do not measure word decoding (ability to sound out words), reading comprehension, or reading fluency, all of which are necessary for diagnosing dyslexia. Likewise, they do not measure math reasoning or written expression, which are necessary for recognizing learning disabilities in those areas.  It is very possible (and not unlikely) for a child with a learning disability to “pass” a brief academic test because the test does not measure the processes necessary for identifying the learning disability.  If a child is struggling in school, it is imperative that comprehensive measures be administered in order to have as complete a view of the child as possible.  The more we know about a child’s personal strengths and weaknesses, the better able we are to develop appropriate intervention strategies.