SPED 311 Assessment Review Project

Name: Elizabeth Whitaker

Date: November 29, 2016

How does this project contribute to your knowledge about the technical aspects of

assessment?

This project allowed me to explore the different technical components of a test. I could

gain a greater understanding of how norms, validity, and reliability measures are essential to

include when creating an assessment test. If the test has high scores in each of these areas, the

test can be used effectively to test the topic being measured. If a test does not show high levels

of validity and reliability, the tests needs improvements. Reviewers often reflect on the lacking

components, suggesting ways in which the validity and reliability can be improved.

On my honor, as an Aggie, I have neither given nor received unauthorized aid

on this academic work.

Signature____________________________________________
Elizabeth Whitaker
SPED 311
29 November 2016
Test Review: Conners 3

Discussion of Test

The Conners 3 authored by C. Keith Conners is an attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

(ADHD) assessment tool developed for children ages 6 to 18. The test is published by Multi-

Health Systems Inc. The test kit includes a testing manual, parent form, teacher form, and

student form for $329.00. To complete the assessment test, a student, parent, and teacher fill

out forms where the scores are compared to assess whether the student does or doesnt have

ADHD.

Discussion of Test Manuals

The 470-page test manual is presented in a user-friendly layout, providing a descriptive

table of contents. The following topics are outlined in the table of contents: introduction,

theory and research/conceptual framework, administration, scoring, computerized scoring of

the Conners 3, interpretation, intervention, case studies, development, standardization,

ratability, validity, development/reliability/validity of the Conners 3 short and index forms,

development and reliability of the Conners 3 Spanish forms, and concluding comments. Having

the table of contents made it easy to look for a certain topic when reviewing the assessment

test. Each topic had an abundant amount of information provided with clear descriptions for

the readers. Per Dombrowski & Mahdavis (2014) review of the Conners 3, the validity of the

test needed to be improved. They stated that to improve the validity, it would have been

beneficial for future versions of the test to include how the 14 areas of the Conners 3 relate to
the four measures of attention. Kao & Thomass (2010) review also believed that construct

validity should have been improved. To improve this validity, further comparative studies

needed to be performed.

Discussion of Test Materials & Protocol

The Conners 3 consists of three tests forms. The Conners 3-P (parent form) is provided

for youth ranging from 6 to 18 with a short and full length version. The full-length version

provides more data and information to be used to compare home and school life behavior. This

is beneficial in that the data collected can better indicate if the ADHD symptoms are present in

multiple settings. The Conners 3-T (teacher form) is provide for youth ranging from 6 to 18 with

a short and full length version. The short length version is helpful for use during limited time or

for follow up testing. However, the full-length version provides more comprehensive results,

making it ideal for initial and re-evaluation. The Conners 3-SR (self-report form) is available for

children ages 8 to 18 with a short and full length version. The short length version is used to

address key areas and works well when there are time restrictions. The full-length version helps

with comprehensive results and is recommended for initial evaluation and re-evaluation. Kao &

Thomas (2010) state that language used in the self-report needed to be adjusted for the

younger ages. All the forms use a carbon copy element, allowing the proctor to have a copy of

the results. The tests are durable in that the paper is thick and can withstand normal wear and

tear of a pen. The area of scoring is easy to figure out with laid out rows and columns to add up

points for each scenario. The ease and durability of the test materials makes it an appropriate

test to give to parents, teachers, and students to complete.

Discussion of Test Items

The Conners 3 consists of forms with different scenarios that students, parents, and

teachers rate on a scale of 0-3. The scale reads as followed: 0 not true at all, 1 just a little

true, 2 pretty much true, 3 very much true. Kao & Thomas (2010) determined the scale to

be limited in that it only ranges from 0-3. This is a hindrance, but it does provide an ease in

filling out the forms. A small rating scale helps the test administration stay within the 10 to 20-

minute range. The teacher form contains 115 questions with space to circle their rating. The

different situations provided are appropriate in that they can be used for multiple ages. They

are observable and measurable based on the scale. The situations may look a little different

depending on the age, but the rating scale is easily applied to the different ages being tested.

The carbon copy underneath each form make the scoring easy to compute and the teachers

have an instant copy of the results. This is effective use of data collection in that the

assessment results can be analyzed in a quick manner amongst the three different forms.

Technical Evaluation

Norms

The large normative sample used on the Conners 3 was based on the 2000 US census.

The normative sample included 1,400 participants. The ethnic population break down for the

Conners 3-T normative sample was 6% Asian, 15.58% African American, 17.50% Hispanic,

57.50% Caucasian, 3.33% other, and .08% missing. The ethnic population breakdown for the

Conners 3-SR normative sample was 5.10% Asian, 15.20% African American, 15% Hispanic,
61.10% Caucasian, 3.60% other, and 0% missing. The breakdown of ethnicities for both the

Conners 3-T and Conners 3-SR were within +/- 1% of the 2000 US Census. This makes the test

reputable in that the test was assessed over a population that is similar in ethnic makeup of the

general population. Not one ethnicity was overrepresented, making the Conners 3 more

consistent. The region breakdown of norms results in 31.53% in the US Northeast, 8.69% in the

US West, 22.85% in the US Midwest, 28.91% in US South, and 8.03% in Canada. This shows

consistency in that the normative sample took participants from multiple regions. Not one

region was over represented, making the test more reliable.

Reliability

The reliability of the Conners 3 was assessed by Gallant et al. (2007) and Gallant (2008). The

Conners 3 showed high levels of internal consistency (the extent to which items measure the

same dimension) found through Cronbachs alpha scores. Cronbach alpha scores range from 0.0

to 1.0. The parent form, teacher form, and self-rating form were assessed through Cronbachs

alpha, respectfully resulting in the following scores .91, .94, and .88. The high scores in internal

consistency indicate that the test is reliable amongst each form. This is important in that

teachers can be confident that the different forms are truly measuring the same dimensions.

The temporal stability of the Conners 3 was assessed through test-retest reliability. To use test-

retest reliability, the Conners 3 was performed on a sample of 84 parents, 136 teachers, and 80

youths over a 2 to 4-week interval. The mean test-retest correlation for Conners 3-P Content

scales was .85. The mean test-retest correlation for Conners 3-T Content scales was .85. The

mean test-retest correlation for Conners 3-SR Content scale was .79. All the scores were above
a .70, making it an acceptable to use to measure ADHD. The final type of reliability assessed on

the Conners 3 was inter-rater reliability. The inter-rater reliability measures the degree of

agreement between two different raters. For the Conners 3, the degree of agreement for two

parents or two teachers on the same youth was measured. To test the level of inter-rater

reliability, two parents rated 198 youths and two teachers rated 110 youth. The mean adjusted

inter-rater correlation for the Conners 3-P content scale was .81. The mean adjusted inter-rater

correlation for the Conners 3-T content scale was .73. The results indicate moderate to solid

levels of rater agreement, implying a strong sense of consistency among raters. The difference

in the parent and teacher scores indicate that results may vary depending on what is seen at

home and in the school settings. This is beneficial in that seeing symptoms in multiple settings

helps confirm the ADHD behavior of a student.

Validity

The types of validity discussed in the Conners 3 are factorial, convergent and divergent,

and discriminative validity. To test the factorial validity, data was used from a derivational

sample and a confirmatory sample. Within each sample, the general population and clinical

cases were used. Three different procedures were used to test the factorial validity: exploratory

factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, and intercorrelations. To test the convergent and

divergent validity, a sample of the youth, teacher, and parent forms were completed and

compared to the scores of another measure of childhood psychopathology (i.e. Behavior

Assessment System for Children, Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment, or

Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function). The time between each test event was one
month. The T-score from the Conners 3 and the other test were compared to identify the

convergent and divergent validity. To test the discriminative validity, the analyses of covariance

(ANCOVAs) and the discriminant function analyses (DFAs) were tested. The ANCOVAs scores

were used to determine if the scores of the Conners 3 can be distinguishable between the

various groups tested. The DFAs were used to determine if the Conners scores could predict if

an individual was in the general population or targeted clinical group. Both Dombrowski &

Mahdavis (2014) and Kao & Thomas (2014) review indicate that construct validity needed to

be improved for the assessment test. All the reviewers believed that the construct validity could

be improved through more comparison studies.

Journal Reviews

Journal Review #1

Dombrowski & Mahdavis (2014) review of the Conners 3 points out the issues of

validity, but provides valuable information into reasons the Conners 3 can be one test to assess

ADHD in students. The Conners 3 needed to improve in validity by comparing the 14 variables

assessed by the Conners 3 with the four measures of attention. Since this information was left

out, Dombrowski and Mahdavi believe that the internal structure of the Conners 3 should be

questioned. They also believe that construct validity should have been included when assessing

the test. Construct validity would give information on how the Conners 3 relates to other

continuous measures of performance. Despite the deficiency in validity, the reviewers find the

Conners 3 to be beneficial for testing ADHD. Using the Conners 3 scores, clinicians can

discriminate between children who have ADHD and those who do not. The reviewers see the
Conners 3 as an assessment test that should be paired with other tests and not just used as a

standalone test.

Journal Review #2

Kao & Thomass (2010) review of the Conners 3 provides valuable information on the

effectiveness of test along with the ease of administering the test. Kao and Thomas argue that

the test needs to be reevaluated for validity. Construct validity was touched on in the manual,

but further comparison studies need to be performed. They both also observed flaws in the

Conners 3 wording and language used in the self-report forms. The language was not seen as

suitable for children at a younger age, requiring more clarification. Also, they found the scoring

range to be limited due to it only being between 0 to 3. Despite the weaknesses in the test, Kao

and Thomas found strengths in the administration of the Conners 3. One of the strengths they

found was the minimal training in administration of the test. Another strength they observed

was the use of different forms depending on the time restraint. The author of the test

considered the home and school setting, making the test not too long for a student to

complete.
 References

Conners, C. K. (2014). Conners Continuous Performance Test 3rd Edition. North Tonawanda, NY:

Multi-Health Systems, Inc.

Dombrowski, S., & Mahdavi, J. (2014). Review of Conners 3. In J. F. Carlson, K.F. Geisinger, & J.L.

Jonson (Eds.), The Twentieth Mental Measurement Yearbook. Lincoln, NE: Buros

Institute.

Kao, G.S., & Thomas, H. M. (2010). Test Review: C. Keith Conners Conners 3rd Edition Toronto,

Ontario, Canada-Multi-Health Systems, 2008. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment

28(6), 598-602.