Test Review

The Lindamood Test: Some Cautions

Thomas Kampwirth CSU, Long Beach

The Lindamood Auditory Conceptualization test, first introduced in 1971, was revised (somewhat) in 1979 (Lindamood & Lindamood, 1979). It purports to measure a student's ability to detect patterns and locations among sounds, and to represent these sound patterns with colored wooden blocks. The test is intended to determine if a student can perceive and then "conceptualize" the separate sounds and patterns being read to himlher, and then express this conceptualization through the actual manipulation of the blocks. The test authors consider this skill to be essential to reading and spelling success.

My cautions are not concerning the theoretical idea behind or practical use of this test, but rather its curious and potentially misleading "Recommended Minimum Scores" data which are presented on the score sheet. (Note: In order to understand the "cautions" presented herein, the reader will need a copy of the LAC scoresheet , along with the current manual.)

On page 27 of the 1979 manual the authors state that the Recommended Minimum Scores "repre­sent minimal levels of performance ... ," and "Individu­als who score below the recommended levels have a dysfunction that disrupts the spelling/reading pro-cess ... " Unfortunately, this latter statement is not supported by data. What is refuted by data (the au­thors' own) is the notion that these "minimum scores" represent dysfunctional levels of performance. Look in the manual on page 37, Table 3. This contains the main source of norming data available from the publisher (n = 660 across grades K-12). On the same page, Table 4 lists data from much larger samples, but the authors

fail to provide information about where they obtained these data, nor do they cover the full range of grades. Readers will observe that the data for grade 3 in Table 3 and for the same grade in Table 4 indicate a very different distribution of scores (i.e., in Table 3, 40% of the students earned scores of 50 or below, whereas in table 4 only 19% of the students in the same grade had a score of 50 or below). This remarkable disparity isn't commented on by the authors. Perhaps they believe that sort of unreliability of scores across samples from the same grade is acceptable. It shouldn't be. That's caution number one.

Caution number two arises from the fact that at every grade level, the recommended minimum scores are somewhere near the median score earned by students in the Table 3 nonning group. Look at the scores presented in Table 3 for kindergarten. Note that 78% of the norming students had scores at or below 40. Yet the minimum scores listed for kindergarten are 31 (for the first half of the year) and 40 (for the second half). In other words, the author~ believe that 78% of the norming population " ... have a dysfunction that disrupts the spelling/reading process."

For grade three, it is suggested (on the proto­col) that the recommended minimum score for the end of that grade is 81. Table 3 of the manual indicates that 83% of the norming population had scores of 81 or below. Using these data, 83% of third graders have the same dysfunction as the students in kindergarten.

The LAC score sheet would have the unwary believing that many more students have an information processing deficit in the area of auditory

About the Author: Thomas Kampwirth, PhD, is a professor and coordinator of the School Psychology Credential Progrm at California State University, Long Beach. He can be reached at (310) 985-4998 or fax at (310) 985-4534.

The Lindamood Test 45

conceptualization than in fact have such a problem. Why would the authors and publishers of a test want us to believe that (for example) 83% of a normal popula­tion in a norm group are dysfunctional? I hope it is just careless editing, but...after the 1971 version of this test came out, the publishers also produced a remedial package called Auditory Discrimination in Depth (Lindamood & Lindamood, 1975). Is it possible that somebody thought it would be a good idea if 83% of third graders needed remediation? Hmmmm.

I'm informed that some advocates who want students found eligible for services in the category of learning disabled are using the LAC test and finding (are you surprised?) that their target students have an auditory processing dysfunction, according to the "recommended minimum score." Enlighten them.

I've gone through Table 3 of the LAC manual and determined approximations to first, second, and third quartile scores. These are presented below. I'd recommended that you use these approximations for scoring and reporting purposes.

First Quartile Second Quartile Third Quartile Grades Median

K 20 31 38 1 33 40 48 2 38 52 76 3 40 55 75 4 44 61 90 5 52 71 84 6 45 74 92

7-12 52 68 90

An example: Let's say that a boy in grade 3 earns an LAC total score of 52. According to the protocol, he would be quite a bit below the recommended minimum score (81). Actually, he's only a few points below the median for third graders. Does a child at or near the median have a dysfunction? Only if the average is dysfunctional. Hmmmm.

REFERENCES Lindamood, C.H., & Lindamood, P.c. (1975). The A.D.D.

Program: Auditory discrimination in depth. Hingham, MA: Teaching Resources Corporation.

Lindamood, C.H., & Lindamood, P.c. (1979). Lindamood auditory conceptualization test. Hingham, MA: Teaching Resources Corporation.