Introduction: Psychological assessment of Roma children belongs to the most controversial topics in recent theory and practice of school psychology in Slovakia. The paper discusses the problem from the three main aspects.
Discussion: The first of them raises into question the usability of “general intelligence” construct in the assessment practice. It is shown that from the psychometric point of view it is improper to represent couple of qualitatively different attributes by sole number. Moreover, intelligence as a construct refers to general mental achievement of child here and now but it says nothing about the causes and reasons of the achievement.
The second part is devoted to the problem of test adaptation. The author draws attention to the fact that Roma people are the minority with own characteristics, including language, style of life, customs and values. Due to this, it is necessary to use in the psychological assessment solely well adapted psychological tests with special norms for Roma children.
The third topic discusses the position of psychologists in decision-making with regard to the type of education of a particular child.
Limitations: Because education is realized in a broad social context (policy, social attitudes and expectations, material and financial conditions, teaching expertise, etc.), many of these factors are out of psychologists´ direct control and competencies. Due to this, the primary task in the psychological assessment of Roma pupils should not be based on the question about the advisability of their special education. Instead of this, the psychologist should be concerned more on the proper description and explanation of children’s psychological functioning and, following this, on formulating individual and particular recommendations how and what cognitive, emotional or motivational elements it is necessary to develop at school.
If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.
American Educational Research Association Americaqn Psychological Association National Council on Measurement of Education (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington D.C.: American Educational Research Association.
Binet A. (1916). New methods for the diagnosis of the intellectual level of subnormals. The develompent of intelligence in children. Vineland: Training School at Vineland.
Brown R. T. Reynolds C. R. & Whitaker J. S. (1999). Bias in mental testing. School Psychology Quarterly 14(3) 208-238.
Coaley K. (2010). Psychological assessment and psychometrics. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Dočkal V. (2009). Intercultural differences manifested in the European standardizations of the SON-R 2 ½ -7 nonverbal intelligence test. Studia Psychologica 51(1) 35-51.
Fabio R. A. (2005). Dynamic assessment of intelligence is a better reply to adaptive behavior and cognitive plasticity. The Journal of General Psychology 132(1) 41-64.
Ferjenčík J. Bobáková M. Kovalčíková I. Ropovík I. & Slavkovská M. (2014). Proces a vybrané výsledky slovenskej adaptácie Delis-Kaplanovej systému exekutívnych funkcií D-KEFS. Československá psychologie 58(6) 543-558.
Ferjenčík J. Slavkovská M. & Kresila J. (2015). Executive functioning in three groups of pupils in D-KFS: Selected sssues in adapting the test battery for Slovakia. Journal of Pedagogy 6(1) 73-92.
Feuerstein R. Feuerstein R. S. Falik L. H. & Rand Y. (2002). The dynamic assessment of cognitive modifiability: The Learning propensity assessment device: Theory instruments and techniques. Revised and expanded edition of The Dynamic Assessment of Retarded Performers. Jerusalem Israel: ICELP Press.
Frieman A. Gallová E. Kubánová M. & Slosiarik M. (2009). Škola ako geto. Systematické nadmerné zastúpenie Rómov v špeciálnom vzdelávaní na Slovensku. Bratislava: Roma Education Fund.
Grigorenko E. L. & Sternberg R. J. (1998). Dynamic testing. Psychological Bulletin 124 75-111.
Hajko J. (2016). Hoď do mňa kameňom. Spolužitie s Rómami na Slovensku. Bratislava: Slovart.
Hambleton R. K. (2005). Issues designs and technical guidelines for adapting tests into multiple languages and cultures. In R. K. Hambleton P. F. Merenda & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.) Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment (s. 3-38). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Ass.
Kline P. (2000). Handbook of psychological testing. New York: Routledge.
Lambert N. M. (1981). Psychological evidence in Larry P. v. Wilson Riles: An evaluation by a witness for the defense. American Psychologist 36(9) 937-952.
Michell J. (1986). Measurement scales and statistics: A clash of paradigms. Psychological Bulletin 100(3) 398-407.
Michell J. (1997). Quantitative science and definition of measurement in psychology. British Journal of Psychology 88 355-383.
Pivoň R. (2008). Formování romskeho národa a romština. In kol.autorov: Rómske osady na východnom Slovensku zhľadiska terénneho antropologického výzkumu (s. 93-102). Bratislava: Open society foundation.
Podemski R. Marsh G. F. Smith T. F. & Price B. J. (1995). Comprehensive administration of special education. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Prasse D. P. & Reschly Y. D. (1986). Larry P.: A case of segregation testing or program efficacy? Exceptional Children 52(4) 333-346.
Rabiner D. L. Murray D. W. Schmid L. & Malone P. S. (2004). An exploration of the relationship between ethnicity attention problems and academic achievement. School Psychology Review 33(4) 498-509.
Raykov T. & Marcoulides G. A. (2011). Introduction to Psychometric Theory. New York: Routledge.
Ruisel I. (2004). Inteligencia a myslenie. Bratislava: Ikar.
Skiba R. J. Knesting L. & Bush L. D. (2002). Culturally competent assessment: More than nonbiased tests. Journal of Child and Family Studies 11(1) 61-78.
Taylor O. L. & Lee D. L. (1987). Standardized tests and African-American children: Communication and language issues. The Negro Educational Review 38(2-3) 67-80.
Zurcher R. (1998). Issues and trends in culture-fair assessment. Intervention in School and Clinic 34(2) 103-106.