THE AVOM
:
A MODEL-DERIVED, AGE-LIMITED, AND
MODALITY-RELATED TEST OF INTELLECTUAL FUNCTIONING'
ROBERT
w.
WILDMAN,
II~
AND
LUCIANO L'ABATE
Georgia
State
Unwmsity
The ment statue of intellectual assessment is reviewed. Traditional psycho-
metric techniques are criticized for yielding only a single score that
purportg
to
measure the individual's intellectual ability. Such a unified score gives
no
indication
of
what specific deficit
is
present,
nor
does
it
suggest a strategy
for remediation. The AVOM Test
is
presented
as
a potentially useful device.
This
experimental
test
measures performance in two input channels, auditory
and
visual,
and
two
output channels,
oral
and manual. AVOM was
sdminis-
tered
to
over
200
elementary school students. Scores increased with age, and
the other
results
were supportive
of
the potential utility of the device.
The purpose of this paper is to present an age-limited
(9-10-11
years), modality-
related (Auditory-Visual-Oral-Manual) measure
of
cognitive functioning that was
finally constructed to
test
directly a psgchodiagnostic model based on information
processing proposed originally by L'Abate
(1969).
Early tests
of
this
model were
made by a hodgepodge of already existing techniques (L'Abate,
1971)
that were
indirectly and unsatisfactorily related to the model itself. On the basis
of
these
unclear and unsatisfactory results,
it
becomes important to construct
a
model-
derived test that would directly test its validity.
There are several problems with existing theories of intelligence (Guilford,
1956;
Spearman,
1904;
Thurstone,
1938).
First
of
all, no single theory can account
for
all
of the data concerning intellectual abilities. Secondly, and most importantly,
tests derived from these theories are
of
little
or
no utility in specifying rehabilitative
techniques that are appropriate for various intellective deficiencies. Bateman
(1963)
listed
a
number
of
very convincing reasons
for
her conclusion that the
use of a single
I&
score, the usual outcome
of
traditional psychometric devices,
is inadequate
for
specifying the appropriate rehabilitation techniques. She cited
a
case study in which
a
child was found
to
be deficient in the reception of visual
stimuli and in motor expression. Substantial improvements in the child's func-
tioning were observed following specific tutoring in these problem areas. Obviously,
a unitary
I&
measure could not have yielded this valuable information.
A
great
deal of concern among intelligence researchers has been devoted to
the presence of
a
general factor and to the verbal-nonverbal distinction.
As
un-
deniably important
as
both areas may be
(or
have been), we submit instead that a
much more important distinction has been neglected by investigators and clinicians
alike (Cancro,
1971;
Eysenck,
1973;
Hunt,
1972;
Riegel,
1973;
Sattler,
1975),
and
that is: the reception, recognition
or
input, and decoding vs. expression, cncoding,
and performance that has received much more attention from linguists (Chomski,
1Ap reciation
is
extended to the
officials
of
the Atlanta Public School System for their
mopera-
tion
wig
this
study,
as
well
as
to
the student0 who helped
us
with the collection and scoring of the
&a,
especially Janet Campbell, Bpnnie
Hugh-,
Frances Lints,
&on
Matice! and Nancy
Rem-
bold.
The
principal of Margtwet atchell School deserve3
our
appreaahon for
huJ
help and encour-
agement.
University, University Plaza, Atlanta,
GA
30303.
'NOW
8t
Rsdford
College, Radford, VA
24141.
%quests for reprints should be sent
to
the second author, Psychologv Dept., Georgia State
408