Adult Verbal Abstract Reasoning Assessment Instruments and their Clinimetric Properties

Abstract

Objective: This systematic review aims to identify, examine, and compare tests used to measure and assess verbal abstract reasoning (VAR). Method: Seven tests were identified through a systematic search of electronic databases, neuropsychological textbooks, and online catalogs. Clinical utility, normative data, and psychometric properties (internal consistency, test–retest reliability, and construct validity) of current test versions were evaluated using recent studies. A modified version of the CanChild Outcome Measures Rating Form, and structured quality assessment criteria were used in the evaluation process. Results: The WAIS-IV Similarities subtest was ranked the highest, followed by the Shipley-2 Abstraction test and Gorham’s Proverbs test. These three tests had sufficient validity to recommend their use, however some caution is advised for the latter two in terms of construct purity, and age of normative data, respectively. Other tests reviewed were the Delis–Kaplan Executive Functioning System Proverbs subtest, the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale fifth edition Verbal Analogies subtests, the Conceptual Level Analogy Test, and the Verbal Concept Attainment Test. For the majority of tests, construct validity was lacking while reliabilities were sufficient. Conclusions: Lack of sound psychometric evidence limits the range of options for the practitioner to choose a test with confidence to assess VAR. While there is merit in the clinical utility of the majority of assessment instruments evaluated in this review, caution is recommended before deciding to use a test that does not carry sufficient psychometric evidence to support its use. Further research is recommended to improve the library of tests available to clinicians and researchers.

Keywords:

• Verbal abstract reasoning
• Neuropsychological assessment
• Psychometric properties
• WAIS-IV Similarities
• Gorham’s Proverbs Test
• Shipley-2 Abstraction Test.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the administrative and library staff at the University of Southern Queensland for their assistance accessing resources for this project.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

There was no funding for this project.