This sample essay on Ripa G2 Scoring Manual provides important aspects of the issue and arguments for and against as well as the needed facts. Read on this essay’s introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion.
Ross Information Processing Assessment – Geriatric: Second Edition (RIPA G:2) Diagnostic Test Critique General Information Ross-swain, D. , & Fogle, P. T. , (2012).
Ross Information Processing Assessment- Geriatric. (2nd ed. ). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
No reference was given as to what revisions/changes occurred in the production of the RIPA-G:2 from its previous edition.
Purpose of Test The purpose of the Ross Information Processing Assessment-Geriatric: Second Edition (RIPA-G:2) is to provide a comprehensive and norm-referenced cognitive- inguistic assessment instrument that is designed to identify, describe, and quantify cognitive-linguistic deficits in individuals ages 55 years and older. Test Composition The RIPA-G:2 is composed of examiner record booklets and the manual.
The booklets are organized into seven subtests (immediate memory, temporal orientation, spatial orientation, general information, situational knowledge, categorical vocabulary, and listening comprehension) that evaluate the different aspects of geriatric cognitive-linguistic skills/functioning.
The manual is straightforward and easy to follow. Split into six chapters, the first three cover general information about the test, administration and interpretation.
Whereas, chapters four through six focus on the normative sample, the test’s reliability and the test’s validity. Appendixes A-C are used to convert the subtest raw scores to scaled scores, the subtest raw scores to percentile ranks, and to convert the sums ot the scaled scores to indexes and percentile ranks, respectively.
Appendix D consists of an example of a scored RIPA-G:2 subtest that is helpful to the examiner’s understanding of the test.
Administration of Test The RIPA-G:2 is an easy to administer test where the only material required during the assessment is the Examiner Record Booklet (a recording device is recommended in the case of an examinee who produces rapid responses). The test itself only takes 25-35 minutes to administer, however if the examinee appears fatigued or to lose interest at any point, it is suggested that the test be extended into another session at a later date.
It is also suggested that the examiner be thoroughly familiar with the manual and procedures, as well as having a good rapport with the examinee. The examiner would first fill out Section 1 of the Examiner Record Booklet with the examinee’s identifying information then begin the assessment with:
Subtest 1: Immediate Memory which requires the examinee to repeat numbers, words, and sentences of increasing length and complexity after the examiner.
Subtest 2: Temporal Orientation requires the examinee to answer questions relating to the concept of time.
Subtest 3: Spatial Orientation requires the examinee to answer questions relating to the concept of locations or places.
Subtest 4: General Information assesses the examinee’s ability to recall general information that is erceived as common knowledge.
Subtest 5: Situational Knowledge requires the examinee to answer questions that involve problem-solving and reasoning.
Subtext 6: Categorical Vocabulary assesses the examinees ability to list items in several categories as well as providing a name of a category per list of items.
Subtest 7: Listening Comprehension requires the examinee to listen to the examiner read a short narrative paragraph and answer the questions that follow it. For each subtest the examiner would write each of the examinee’s responses in the space provided, ecord their score, and circle the corresponding diacritical response(s).
The diacritical notations are used to record the examinee’s behavior and are as follows (complete definitions can be found in chapter two of the manual): e- error response p- perseveration r – repetition of stimulus for completion of the task d- denial or refusal dl- delayed response c – confabulation pc- partially correct or incomplete response i- irrelevant information contained in response t- tangential information provided with response sc- self-corrected response a reference box can be found at the end of each subtest for reference.
Scoring For every subtest (except for part A of Subtest 6) each response is given a score of 3 when the response is correct, 2 when the response is partially correct, self- corrected, or correct but accompanied by irrelevant or tangential information, 1 when the response is an error, perseverated, or contabulated, or O when the response is denied or unintelligible, or no response is elicited. These scores are in conjunction with the diacritical notations so as to better describe the examinees performance.
For Subtest 6 part A, the examiner should make a note of what strategies the xaminee employs and tally the number of correct objects named. For this part of Subtest 6 the rubric follows the same 3-0 scale, however the criteria is different. A score of 3 is given when all items are correct and the total tally of responses is 15 or more, 2 when all responses are self-corrected or the total tally of responses is 10-14, 1 when there are error responses, perseverations, or denials, or the total tally of responses is 9 or less, and O when the response is unintelligible or no response is elicited.
The RIPA-G:2 produces three types of scores: raw scores, scaled scores, and ercentile ranks. The percentile rank can be converted to a corresponding severity rating that provides a general indication of the examinee’s performance in comparison to others. The raw score is calculated for each subtest by summing up all the item scores per that subtest. These scores are taken from all seven subtests and transcribed to Section 2 of the Examiner Record Booklet where they are then converted to scaled scores and percentile ranks via the age-based tables located in Appendixes A and B, respectively.
The degree of severity can be interpreted using section 3 of the booklet. The Composite Index of Section 2 is derived by taking the total sum of the scaled scores and finding the corresponding terms using Appendix C in the manual. Section 4 of the Examiner Record Booklet is used to describe the examinee’s behavior. The total number of diacritical notations used within the subtests should be calculated and divided by total possible occurrences (these numbers are provided in Section 4) and rounded to the nearest whole number in order to portray the overall percentage of occurrence.
Interpretation The results of this test should not be used to diagnose, however, they do give a ood idea as to a selection of long-term therapy goals. It helps to identify cognitive- linguistic deficits in the elderly population, in research that focuses on cognitive processing in the elderly population, as well as in the determination of the degree of severity of any cognitive-linguistic problems in those examinees who perform poorly on the test.
By examining the subtests that are generated to assess organizational skills, temporal concepts, special concepts, memory, categorization, sequencing, general information, awareness of reality, semantic organization bases, word finding bilities, auditory sequential memory, receptive vocabulary, and processing speed, one can take the examinees results and facilitate small therapy tasks in accordance. Evaluation of Test Adequacy The RIPA-G:2 data was collected from 229 individuals, 106 of which were normally functioning and 123 who were diagnosed with a specified cognitive-linguistic impairment.
Data was collected from ten different states, 54/46 female to male ratio, their ages ranged from 55-97 years with a predominantly white and economically stable demographic. Testing took place from the spring of 2008-the summer of 2010. There were a total of seven examiners selected based on their purchase of the RIPA- G within the previous two years. The data presented suggests t 2 is a highly reliable and valid measure of cognitive-linguistic processing in the geriatric population.
The reliability is shown to be consistently high across all three types of reliability studied; content, time and scorer differences. Coefficient alphas, test-retest, and scorer difference methods were used. Of the 56 different alphas reported, 28 met or exceeded . 90, and 45 exceeded or met . 80. All information Processing Indexes exceeded or round to . 0 within the subgroups as well. The test-retest method took 32 individuals and had them take the test twice, the second time a week or more later.
All but one of the mean standard scores, the standard deviations, and the correlation coefficients showed the relationships between the test sessions to round to or exceed . 80 which suggests reliability. Validity shows the RIPA-G:2 to be a highly effective and valid assessment tool via the data presented. The content-description validity involving “the systematic examination of the test content to determining whether it covers a representative ample of the behavior domain to be measured” is highly descriptive.
The conventional and differential item functioning analyses fully supported the validity of the items. The criterion-prediction validity “the effectiveness of a test in predicting an individual’s performance in specified activities” supported this test’s validity by the results of two samples of adults who underwent selected criterion measure review and binary classification analysis pertaining to the test’s sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value with positive correlations.
Construct-identification validity is elated to the degree to which certain traits of a test can be identified and the extent to which these will reflect the assumption on which the test is based and results suggested that these traits be examined via differences among groups, exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, and item validity. The traits were all found to consistently underlying and thus further supports the conclusion that the RIPA-G:2 is a valid measure of cognitive-linguistic abilities. Summary I think that this test is easy to administer and understand.
The context and anguage of the manual is easy to comprehend, however, the organization of the administrative instructions is not sequential and thus a little bit hard to locate at first. The manual specifies that one shouldn’t stray from its specified scoring, but it leaves a lot of room for clinical Judgment as well. However, I like how one does not need the manual in the actual assessment, all one needs is the Examiner Record Booklet – the manual is only necessary in the translation of scores. The results of the test are easy to comprehend, not only for an SLP but for caregivers as well. Overall, I would definitely use it.