I'm reflecting on my notes from various sessions at ASHA, and encountering one of my enduring pet peeves over and over: When researchers consider cognitive scores as stable traits, exact measures, or worse, indicative solely of some sort of inherent, native ability. 1/5
Having personally assessed many hundreds of children, the child’s state on test day can bias an individual score dramatically, and from a clinical standpoint, rarely does a single test encompass someone’s true potential. 2/5
Plus, we know how malleable these scores are through natural experience or experimental procedures. So I got squirmy when I heard a presentation that referred to cognitive scores as “something we can’t change.” 3/5
Increased sample sizes can help to overcome measurement error, but not flaws in interpretation. That’s on us to recognize assessments as fallible heuristics. I fully admit that I too am guilty of this. 4/5
I’m actively trying to determine better ways to assess both verbal and nonverbal skills in future studies in a way that is clinically/educationally relevant and ecologically valid, but also standardizable for research. Would love suggestions. Ok rant over. 5/5
Share this Scrolly Tale with your friends.
A Scrolly Tale is a new way to read Twitter threads with a more visually immersive experience.
Discover more beautiful Scrolly Tales like this.