![]()
Chapter One
Overview1
The Cross-Battery Assessment approach (hereafter referred to as the XBA approach) was introduced by Flanagan and her colleagues over 15 years ago (Flanagan & McGrew, 1997; Flanagan, McGrew, & Ortiz, 2000; Flanagan & Ortiz, 2001; McGrew & Flanagan, 1998). The XBA approach is based on the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory (and now also integrated with neuropsychological theory). It provides practitioners with the means to make systematic, reliable, and theory-based interpretations of any ability battery and to augment that battery with cognitive, achievement, and neuropsychological subtests from other batteries to gain a more psychometrically defensible and complete understanding of an individual's pattern of strengths and weaknesses (Flanagan, Ortiz, & Alfonso, 2007). Moving beyond the boundaries of a single cognitive, achievement, or neuropsychological battery by adopting the rigorous theoretical and psychometric XBA principles and procedures represents a significant improvement over single-battery assessment because it allows practitioners to focus on accurate and valid measures of the cognitive constructs and neurodevelopmental functions that are most germane to referral concerns (e.g., Carroll, 1998; Decker, 2008; Kaufman, 2000; Wilson, 1992).
Don't Forget
The XBA approach provides practitioners with the means to make systematic, reliable, and theory-based interpretations of ability batteries and to augment them with cognitive, achievement, and neuropsychological tests from other batteries to gain a more defensible and complete understanding of an individual's pattern of strengths and weaknesses.
According to Carroll (1997), the CHC taxonomy of human cognitive abilities âappears to prescribe that individuals should be assessed with respect to the total range of abilities the theory specifiesâ (p. 129). However, because Carroll recognized that âany such prescription would of course create enormous problems,â he indicated that â[r]esearch is needed to spell out how the assessor can select what abilities need to be tested in particular casesâ (p. 129). Flanagan and colleaguesâ XBA approach clearly spells out how practitioners can conduct assessments that approximate the total range of cognitive and academic abilities and neuropsychological processes more adequately than what is possible with any collection of co-normed tests.
In a review of the XBA approach, Carroll (1998) stated that it âcan be used to develop the most appropriate information about an individual in a given testing situationâ (p. xi). In Kaufman's (2000) review of XBA, he said that the approach is based on sound assessment principles, adds theory to psychometrics, and improves the quality of the assessment and interpretation of cognitive abilities and processes. More recently, Decker (2008) stated that the XBA approach âmay improve school psychology assessment practice and facilitate the integration of neuropsychological methodology in school-based assessments [because it] shift[s] assessment practice from IQ composites to neurodevelopmental functionsâ (p. 804). Finally, a recent listserv thread of the National Association of School Psychologists focused on the potential weaknesses of the XBA approach. In that thread, Kevin McGrew (2011, March 30) stated, âIn the hands of âintelligentâ intelligence examiners the XBA system is safe and sound.â
Noteworthy is the fact that assessment professionals âcrossedâ batteries long before Woodcock (1990) recognized the need and before Flanagan and her colleagues introduced the XBA approach. Neuropsychological assessment has crossed various standardized tests in an attempt to measure a broader range of brain functions than that offered by any single instrument (Hale & Fiorello, 2004; Hale, Wycoff, & Fiorello, 2011; Lezak, 1976, 1995; Lezak, Howieson, & Loring, 2004; see Wilson, 1992, for a review). Nevertheless, several problems with crossing batteries plagued assessment related fields for years. Most of these problems have been circumvented by Flanagan and colleaguesâ XBA approach (see Table 1.1 for examples). But unlike the XBA approach, other various so-called cross-battery and flexible battery techniques applied within the fields of school psychology and neuropsychology are not grounded in a systematic approach that is theoretically and psychometrically sound. Thus, as Wilson (1992) cogently pointed out, the field of neuropsychological assessment is in need of an approach to guide practitioners through the selection of measures that would result in more specific and delineated patterns of function and dysfunctionâan approach that provides more clinically useful information than one that is âwedded to the utilization of subscale scores and IQsâ (p. 382).
Table 1.1 Parallel Needs in Cognitive AssessmentâRelated Fields Addressed by the XBA Approach
Source: Information obtained, in part, from Wilson (1992).
| School psychology, clinical psychology, and neuropsychology have lagged in the development of conceptual models of the assessment of individuals. There is a need for the development of contemporary models. | The XBA approach provides a contemporary model for measurement and interpretation of cognitive and academic abilities and neuropsychological processes. |
| Likely there is a need for events external to a field of endeavor to give impetus to new developments and real advances in that field. | Carroll and Horn's Fluid-Crystallized theoretical models (and more recently Schneider and McGrew's [2012] CHC model) and research in cognitive psychology and neuropsychology provided the impetus for and continued refinements to the XBA approach and led to the development of better assessment instruments and interpretive procedures. |
| There is a need to utilize a conceptual framework to direct any approach to assessment. This would aid both in the selection of instruments and methods and in the interpretation of test findings. | The XBA approach is based mainly on CHC theory but also neuropsychological theory. Since the XBA approach links all the major cognitive and achievement batteries as well as selected neuropsychological instruments to CHC theory, in particular, selection of tests and interpretation of test findings are easier. |
| The conceptual framework or model underlying assessment must incorporate various aspects of neuropsychological and cognitive ability function that can be described in terms of constructs recognized in the neuropsychological and cognitive psychology literature. | The XBA approach incorporates various aspects of neuropsychological and cognitive ability functions that are described in terms of constructs recognized in the literature. In fact, a consistent set of terms and definitions within the CHC literature (e.g., Schneider & McGrew, 2012) and the neuropsychology literature (e.g., Miller, 2013) underlie the XBA approach. |
| There is a need to adopt a conceptual framework that allows for the measurement of the full range of behavioral functions subserved by the brain. In neuropsychological assessment, no inclusive set of measures is standardized on a single normative population. | XBA assessment allows for the measurement of a wide range of broad and narrow cognitive abilities specified in CHC theory and neuropsychological processes specified by neuropsychology theory and research. Although an XBA norm group does not exist, the crossing of batteries and the interpretation of assessment results are based on sound psychometric principles and procedures. |
| Because there are no truly unidimensional measures in psychological assessment, there is a need to select subtests from standardized instruments that appear to reflect the neurocognitive function of interest. In neuropsychological assessment, the aim therefore is to select those measures that, on the basis of careful task analysis, appear mainly to tap a given construct. | The XBA approach is defined in part by a CHC classification system. Most subtests from the major cognitive and achievement batteries as well as selected neuropsychological instruments were classified empirically as measures of broad and narrow CHC constructs (either via CHC within- or cross-battery factor analysis or expert consensus or both). In addition, the subtests of cognitive and neuropsychological batteries were classified according to several neuropsychological domains (e.g., attention, visual-spatial, auditory-verbal, speed and efficiency, executive). Use of evidence-based classifications allows practitioners to be reasonably confident that a given test taps a given construct. |
| An eclectic approach is needed in the selection of measures, preferably subtests rather than the omnibus IQs, in order to gain more specificity in the delineation of patterns of function and dysfunction. | The XBA approach ensures that two or more relatively pure, but qualitatively different indicators of each broad cognitive ability are represented in a complete assessment. Two or more qualitatively similar indicators ... |
