Contemporary Intellectual Assessment,

Fourth Edition: Theories, Tests, and

Issues – Ebook PDF Version
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/contemporary-intellectual-assessment-fourth-edition-t
heories-tests-and-issues-ebook-pdf-version/
Contributors
Richard J. Haier, PhD, Department of
Pediatrics, School of Medicine, University of
California, Irvine, Irvine, California
Rex E. Jung, PhD, Department of
Neurosurgery, University of New Mexico,
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Randy W. Kamphaus, PhD, Department of
Special Education and Clinical Sciences, College of
Education, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon
Alan S. Kaufman, PhD, Child Study Center,
Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut
James C. Kaufman, PhD, Neag School
of Education, University of Connecticut,
Storrs, Connecticut
Nadeen L. Kaufman, EdD, Child Study Center,
Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut
Timothy Z. Keith, PhD, Department of
Educational Psychology, University of
Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas
David A. Kilpatrick, PhD, Psychology Department,
State University of New York College at Cortland,
Cortland, New York
Sangwon Kim, PhD, NCSP, Department of
Psychology, Humboldt State University,
Arcata, California
Meghan A. Leahy, MS, Department of School
Psychology, St. John’s University, Jamaica, New York
Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger, PhD, private practice,
Carlsbad, California
Denise E. Maricle, PhD, NCSP,
Department of Psychology and Philosophy,
Texas Woman’s University, Denton, Texas
Nancy Mather, PhD, Department of Disability
and Psychoeducational Studies, University of
Arizona, Tucson, Arizona
Robb N. Matthews, PhD, INTEGRIS Medical
Group, Edmond, Oklahoma
R. Steve McCallum, PhD, Department of
Educational Psychology and Counseling, University
of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee
George McCloskey, PhD, Psychology Department,
Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
vii
Erin M. McDonough, PhD, Graduate School
of Applied and Professional Psychology,
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey,
New Brunswick, New Jersey
Ryan J. McGill, PhD, Department of
School Psychology, College of William and Mary,
Williamsburg, Virginia
Kevin S. McGrew, PhD, Institute for
Applied Psychometrics, St. Joseph, Minnesota
David E. McIntosh, PhD, Department of
Special Education, Ball State University,
Muncie, Indiana
Daniel C. Miller, PhD, Woodcock Institute
for the Advancement of Neurocognitive Research
and Applied Practice, Denton, Texas
Alyssa Montgomery, PhD, School of Psychology,
Fairleigh Dickinson University, Teaneck, New Jersey
Jaclyn Danielle Morrison, MA, Pearson Clinical
Assessment, San Antonio, Texas
Jack A. Naglieri, PhD, Curry School of
Education, University of Virginia, Charlottesville,
Virginia; Department of Psychology,
George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia
Salvador Hector Ochoa, PhD, College of
Education, University of New Mexico,
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Samuel O. Ortiz, PhD, Department of Psychology,
St. John’s University, Jamaica, New York
Tulio M. Otero, PhD, Chicago School of
Professional Psychology, Chicago, Illinois
Katherine Palma, BA, Department of
School Psychology, St. John’s University,
Jamaica, New York
Nicole Piazza, BA, Department of Psychology,
St. John’s University, Jamaica, New York
Eric E. Pierson, PhD, Department of Educational
Psychology, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana
Elizabeth M. Power, EdD, Department of
School Psychology, The College of Saint Rose,
Albany, New York
Aurelio Prifitera, PhD, private consultant,
San Antonio, Texas
Susan Engi Raiford, PhD, Pearson Clinical
Assessment, San Antonio, Texas
viii Contributors

Tara C. Raines, PhD, NCSP, Department of Robert J. Sternberg, PhD, Department of

Teaching and Learning Sciences, Morgridge College Human Development, Cornell University,
of Education, University of Denver, Ithaca, New York
Denver, Colorado
Julia Englund Strait, PhD, Department of
Cecil R. Reynolds, PhD, Department of School Psychology and Health Services Psychology,
Educational Psychology, Texas A&M University, University of Houston–Clear Lake, Houston, Texas
College Station, Texas
Megan C. Sy, PsyD,
Matthew R. Reynolds, PhD, Department of Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital,
Educational Psychology, University of Kansas, St. Petersburg, Florida
Lawrence, Kansas
Erica Torres, PsyD, School of Psychology,
Alycia M. Roberts, PhD, Child and Family Fairleigh Dickinson University, Teaneck, New Jersey
Psychological Services, Norwood, Massachusetts
Dustin Wahlstrom, PhD,
Ellen W. Rowe, PhD, Department of Psychology, Pearson Clinical Assessment, San Antonio, Texas
George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia
John D. Wasserman, PhD, independent practice,
Deanna Rumohr, EdS, Burke, Virginia
Psychology Department, Philadelphia College of
Lawrence G. Weiss, PhD,
Osteopathic Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Pearson Clinical Assessment, San Antonio, Texas
Joseph D. Salerno, PsyD, Sovereign Health Group,
Barbara J. Wendling, MA, educational consultant,
Marina del Rey, California
Dallas, Texas
W. Joel Schneider, PhD, Department of
John O. Willis, EdD, Regional Services
Psychological Studies in Education,
and Education Center, Amherst, New Hampshire
Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Anne Pierce Winsor, PhD, private practice,
Fredrick A. Schrank, PhD, Department of
Athens, Georgia
Educational and Counseling Psychology,
McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada Richard W. Woodcock, EdD,
Department of Psychology and Philosophy,
Jennie Kaufman Singer, PhD, Division of
Texas Woman’s University, Denton, Texas
Criminal Justice, California State University,
Sacramento, Sacramento, California Kirby L. Wycoff, PsyD, NCSP, Department of
Education, Worcester State University,
Jaime Slonim, EdS, Office of
Worcester, Massachusetts
Student Disabilities Services, University of
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Jianjun Zhu, PhD, Pearson Clinical Assessment,
San Antonio, Texas
Marlene Sotelo-Dynega, PsyD, ABSNP, NCSP,
School Psychology Program, St. John’s University,
Jamaica, New York
Foreword

Alan S. Kaufman

D awn Flanagan and her colleagues have been on the cutting edge of assessment with
Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, Tests, and Issues since the first edition
was published in 1997. This first edition set the tone with a trend-setting array of amaz-
ing chapters by a “who’s who” of authors, including John Horn and John Carroll, provid-
ing in-depth coverage of theory and practice. The book introduced Cattell–Horn–Carroll
(CHC) theory to a generation of psychologists, integrated theory with practice against a
backdrop of the history of assessment and test interpretation, and became so popular that
it helped define the cutting edge of assessment.
Psychologists could barely wait for the second edition of Contemporary Intellectual As-
sessment to be published in 2005, given the ongoing dramatic changes in the field of assess-
ment. Between 2001 and 2004, cognitive tests received major “facelifts” with the advent
of two new Wechsler scales (the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence—
Third Edition [WPPSI-III] and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children—Fourth Edi-
tion [WISC-IV]), as well as an array of theory-based tests (the Woodcock–Johnson III [WJ
III], the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children [KABC-II], and the Stanford–Binet
Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition [SB5]). The field needed to have the state of the art
redefined. Theory had never before so influenced practice; the psychometric-based CHC
theory and Luria-based neuropsychological theories moved from the ivory tower to testing
rooms; and the second edition of Contemporary Intellectual Assessment helped practitioners
ease into the transition.
The exceptional third edition, published in 2012, tried to unify a field that had
been fractured by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and response
to intervention (RTI). And this new fourth edition, edited by Dawn Flanagan and Erin
­McDonough, captures the essence of where the field of assessment has ventured and where
it is today. But I must admit that the field is not where I thought it would be now, and it
is not where test publishers (at least Pearson, the publisher of the Wechsler and Kaufman
batteries) thought it would be. A half-dozen years ago, really closer to a dozen years ago, we
thought that the assessment of intelligence and achievement would follow the rest of the

ix
x Foreword

world into the digital age. We thought that somewhere in basements, groups of 19-year-old
nerds were applying the latest technology to assemble the next generation of IQ tests that
would take the field by storm. We (my wife, Nadeen, and I) and Pearson were deep into the
development of the KABC—Digital (KABC-D), hoping to beat the high-tech teens to the
punch. The WISC-V, to the best of my knowledge, included three forms of the test, at least
for a short while during its development: two that were published (clinical test kit and Q-
interactive versions) and one that I believe was left on the cutting room floor (an all-digital
version). We were advised by different professionals at Pearson that “paper-and-pencil” tests
like the KABC-II had a shelf life of 5–7 years; that almost all examiners would switch to
Pearson’s Q-interactive administration in that time; and that the future was digital. Hence
the push for the KABC-D and the all-digital WISC-V.
Well, it didn’t happen. “Paper-and-pencil” tests have continued to thrive (how I hate
that term when applied to clinical test kit versions of tests such as the Cognitive Assess-
ment System—Second Edition [CAS2] or WISC-V!). The exodus from clinical versions
to Q-interactive versions did not occur—at least, not as rapidly as anticipated—and it
has met resistance from many school systems. It still may be the wave of the future, but
it does not define the cutting edge of the present. The KABC-D, embraced by a vibrant,
dynamic, innovative, intervention-oriented test development process for half a decade, is
now “on hold.” An all-digital version of the WISC-V has not yet been published (although
the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale [WAIS 5] of the future may include such a version).
Traditional clinical tests, like the amazing array of cognitive batteries published in 2014—
the CAS2, WJ IV, and WISC-V—continue to dominate our field and are seemingly setting
the tone for the future.
How did we get it so wrong? For one thing, we underestimated scientist-practitio-
ners—most notably the school psychologists and neuropsychologists who had been lead-
ing the field into the future on the foundation of a sophisticated amalgamation of refined
theory, state-of-the-art methodology, and empirically based educational interventions.
They were neither ready nor willing to reduce the role of the examiner as clinician and
keen observer, even if the burdens of administration, scoring, and timing of test items
could easily be passed on to a machine. They have also been unwilling to give up con-
crete test materials, which afford the opportunity for firsthand observations of a child’s
or adult’s problem-solving strategies (even though images on a computer screen can un-
doubtedly yield reliable and valid scores, just as group-administered IQ tests have done for
a century). And they worry about confidentiality—an ethical concern that looms even
larger now than before, in light of the impact of possible hacking on even the most seem-
ingly secure areas.
These are all reasonable and thoughtful concerns. The field of assessment may ul-
timately yield to the pressures of digital technology, but not yet, and probably not soon.
Computer-based administration and scoring such as Q-interactive methods will undoubt-
edly grow in popularity, but I no longer believe that the 19-year-olds will take over our field
with digital technology, the way that Binet once ousted Galton or Wechsler once surpassed
everyone.
The ultimate, perhaps inevitable, shift from clinical test kit to digital assessment will
only happen when a computerized test is published that addresses the scientist-practitio-
ner’s important concerns and is clearly seen as a better alternative—one that takes full
advantage of digital capabilities without squelching the role of the clinician.
This fourth edition of Contemporary Intellectual Assessment, once again, is on the
cutting edge of the field of assessment. Since the third edition was published in 2012, the
field has continued to shift. The advances are more subtle than in previous decades, but
Foreword xi

nonetheless tests have become more integrated, more complex, and more focused on both
neuropsychological and educational interventions. The fourth edition has kept pace with
these changes, which have included the following:

• An integration of psychometric (CHC) and neuropsychological processing traditions.

This integration is evident in chapters by Joel Schneider and Kevin McGrew (Chapter 3)
and by Daniel Miller and Denise Maricle (Chapter 33). This interface is taken a step fur-
ther by Richard Woodcock and colleagues (Chapter 32), who present a “functional” clas-
sification system for CHC abilities—a system they propose as being more informative and
useful for practitioners in school psychology, neuropsychology, and special education. And
this interweaving of psychometric and neuropsychological processing approaches pervades
the entire volume. Examples include the discussions of assessing special populations—­
gifted children, children with various disabilities, and English language learners (Part IV
of the book).
• An expansion—not a reduction—of the number of viable theories available to inform
diagnosis and interventions. All editions of Contemporary Intellectual Assessment have rig-
orously covered important theories of intelligence, even those that have not been trans-
lated to clinical tests of intelligence—most notably Robert Sternberg’s triarchic theory of
successful intelligence (Chapter 5) and Howard Gardner’s multiple-intelligences theory
(Chen & Gardner, Chapter 4). The fourth edition has expanded the theory section to
include two innovative approaches—Richard Haier and Rex Jung’s parieto-frontal integra-
tive theory (PFIT) (Chapter 7) and Phillip Ackerman’s intelligence-as-process, personality,
interests, and intelligence-as-knowledge (PPIK) framework for adult intellectual develop-
ment (Chapter 8). The PPIK theory, which is primarily focused on Raymond Cattell’s
ideas, also incorporates neurological concepts advocated by D. O. Hebb (always my favorite
learning theorist); this new chapter ensures an increased focus on adult development and
intelligence. Both the PFIT and PPIK theories highlight the rapidly growing influence of
neuropsychology on the current and future assessment scene.
• Enhanced psychometric and theoretical sophistication evident in assessment research that
has accompanied the development and interpretation of all major cognitive, achievement, and
neuropsychological tests. Part III of this newest Contemporary Intellectual Assessment has
separate chapters on the latest editions of all the major cognitive batteries—all of the
Wechslers (including the WISC-V Integrated), as well as the Reynolds Intellectual Assess-
ment Scales, Second Edition (RIAS-2), Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test—Second
Edition (UNIT2), CAS2, NEPSY-II, WJ IV, KABC-II Normative Update, and Differential
Ability Scales–II (DAS-II). Major achievement batteries are included as well; see especially
Chapter 29 by Jaclyn Morrison, Jennie Singer, and Susan Raiford, which juxtaposes the
Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement, Third Edition (KTEA-3) with the WISC-V
and WISC-V Integrated to link assessment results to interventions. Contemporary psy-
chometric sophistication peaks in Chapter 31, as Timothy Keith and Matthew Reynolds
address a heated and controversial debate in the literature regarding the efficacy of bifactor
models versus hierarchical confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) models as the best explana-
tion of the structure of intelligence.
• A more in-depth neuropsychological understanding of reading disabilities and specific
learning disabilities (SLD). State-of-the-art approaches dominate the chapters by Marlene
Sotelo-Dynega on the use of neuropsychological assessment in the identification of reading
disorders (Chapter 34); by David Kilpatrick on the role of orthographic processing in read-
ing (Chapter 35); by Dawn Flanagan and colleagues on the use of patterns of strengths and
xii Foreword

weaknesses (PSW) in the identification of SLD (Chapter 22); and by Erin McDonough
and colleagues on the diagnosis of SLD via DSM-5 (Chapter 37).
• Greater emphasis on the translation of theory, clinical insights, and test scores into
hands-on educational interventions. This focus on the direct translation of test results to
the classroom permeates nearly all chapters in the book, but is especially salient in Part V,
as luminaries in the field such as Dawn Flanagan, Vincent Alfonso, Samuel Ortiz, Nancy
Mather, Barbara Wendling, Catherine Fiorello, and Susan Raiford share their insights and
innovations.

The publication of the fourth edition of Contemporary Intellectual Assessment marks a

half-century since I entered the field of assessment. In 1967, I took a course in the clinical
psychology department at Columbia University that covered the Wechsler tests (WISC
and WAIS), the 1960 Stanford–Binet, the Rorschach, and the Thematic Apperception
Test (TAT). I was taught that IQ tests were personality tests, and that we shouldn’t pay too
much attention to the numbers. It was OK to deviate from standardized administration,
because, after all, we are clinicians. Most subtests were interpreted from a neo-Freudian
perspective, in which a low score on Information was more likely to denote repression
than a lack of knowledge. Similarly, high Comprehension coupled with low Information
signified a hysteric reaction; missing a few easy Comprehension items was likely to reflect
schizophrenia or psychotic depression; higher Digits Backward than Digits Forward meant
obstinacy or negativism; and relatively high Picture Completion suggested a paranoid
trend. There was no statistical significance to worry about. How high meant “high”? How
low was “low”? It just didn’t matter. A scaled score of 11 on Digit Symbol (now Coding)
coupled with an 8 or 9 on Digit Span was usually enough for a clinician to infer that the
person was controlling strong and pressing anxiety by excessive activity.
I asked my lab instructor many questions: Why was a child or adult not told to give a
second reason on WISC or WAIS Comprehension, when the scoring system gave 2 points
only if two different ideas were expressed? Why were we told to keep the stopwatch hidden
from view, and why were clients not told that they should work quickly when they could
earn as many as 3 bonus points for quick perfect performance on a single nonverbal item?
What was the validity evidence for interpreting specific verbal responses to Vocabulary
and Comprehension items as evidence of social incompetence, psychopathology, depen-
dence, or grandiosity? She laughed at my ignorance and impertinence and embarrassed me
in front of the other lab students.
That was 1967. In 1968, I selected psychometrics as my main area of study, and Robert
L. Thorndike agreed to be my chair. That same year, I started working at The Psychological
Corporation, where my boss was Alexander Wesman (who coined the term intelligent test-
ing in a 1968 American Psychologist article). By 1970, I had begun my 4-year apprenticeship
with David Wechsler. Revising the WISC and developing the WISC-R became my life;
learning everything I could from my brilliant mentor became my passion; applying that
knowledge became my life’s work. I was given the chance to fix the flaws in Wechsler’s
scales, to the extent that the Master was accepting of change. Later in the 1970s, Nadeen
and I were developing the K-ABC and training brilliant doctoral students at the Univer-
sity of Georgia who would change the face of cognitive, behavioral, and neuropsychologi-
cal assessment—Bruce Bracken, Jack Cummings, Patti Harrison, Randy Kamphaus, Steve
­McCallum, Jack Naglieri, and Cecil Reynolds. I realized that I had totally freed myself from
the shackles of my early training: the notion that IQ tests were no more and no less than
measures of personality.
Foreword xiii

In the 1970s, I joined other psychologists, most notably Joe Matarazzo and Jerry S
­ attler,
in writing books that attempted to bridge the gap between psychometrics and school/­
clinical psychology. When Nadeen and I published the K-ABC in 1983 (with the spec-
tacular help of the Georgia doctoral students mentioned above), we started the movement
toward theory-based tests and the integration of psychometric and neuropsychological pro-
cessing traditions. But that was just a small beginning. The 1980s saw new approaches to
theory-based assessment, highlighted by the Horn-inspired WJ-R in 1989. Dawn F­ lanagan
and her colleagues, many of them coauthors of chapters in this volume, used those bench-
marks as merely the starting point of what was to come—namely, the explosion of sophis-
ticated theoretical, clinical, and psychometric constructs, and the interdisciplinary expan-
sion of the fields of test construction and clinical assessment (in the present volume, see
Kamphaus et al., Chapter 2, for the history of intelligence test interpretation).
And here we are a half-century later, standing on the cutting edge of our field as we
ingest the innovative ideas of brilliant professionals who have come together to write the
39 chapters that constitute the 2018 edition of Contemporary Intellectual Assessment. Not
a weak link in the bunch, not a wasted word or graphic. Not a single chapter devoted to
computerized assessment.
Preface

T he history of intelligence testing has been well documented, from the early period of
mental measurement to present-day conceptions of the structure of intelligence and
valid assessment methods. The foundations of psychometric theory and practice were es-
tablished in the late 1800s and set the stage for the ensuing measurement of human cogni-
tive abilities. The technology of intelligence testing was apparent in the early 1900s, when
Binet and Simon developed a test that adequately distinguished children with intellectual
disabilities from children with normal intellectual capabilities, and was well entrenched
when the Wechsler–Bellevue was published in the late 1930s. In subsequent decades,
­significant refinements and advances in intelligence-testing technology have been made,
and the concept of individual differences has remained a constant focus of scientific in-
quiry.
Although several definitions and theories have been offered in recent decades, the
nature of intelligence, cognition, and competence continues to be elusive. Perhaps the
most popular definition was that offered by Wechsler in 1958. According to Wechsler, in-
telligence is “the aggregate or global capacity of the individual to act purposefully, to think
rationally and to deal effectively with his environment” (p. 7). It is on this conception of
intelligence that the original Wechsler tests were built. Because the Wechsler batteries
were the dominant intelligence tests in the field of psychology for decades and were found
to measure global intelligence validly, they assumed “number one” status and remain in
that position today. As such, Wechsler’s definition of intelligence continues to guide and
influence the present-day practice of intelligence testing.
In light of theoretical and empirical advances, however, it is clear that earlier editions
of the Wechsler tests were not based on the most dependable or current evidence of sci-
ence, and that overreliance on these instruments served to widen the gap between intel-
ligence testing and cognitive science. From the 1980s through the 2000s, new intelligence
tests have been developed to be more consistent with contemporary research and theoreti-
cal models of the structure of cognitive abilities, and the Wechsler scales (most notably the
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children—Fifth Edition [WISC-V]) are now keeping pace

xiv
Preface xv

with advances in theory and practice. In addition, changes in services, programs, legisla-
tion, and policy in psychology and education have had many implications for practical uses
of cognitive assessments and for the client populations with whom they are applied. More
recently, technological advances including tablet-based test administration have increased
the ease and convenience of cognitive assessment. Since the publication of the first edition
of Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, Tests, and Issues in 1997, there has been
tremendous growth in research about cognitive constructs, and this research—for exam-
ple, recent research in neuropsychology and executive functions—has in turn influenced
contemporary purposes of cognitive assessment in psychology and education. These in-
clude the development and delivery of multi-tiered services for children experiencing learn-
ing problems, as well as increasing uses of cognitive and neuropsychological assessment for
people who have specific learning disabilities, autism spectrum disorder, attention-deficit/
hyperactivity disorder, and other challenges.
The information presented in this text on modern intelligence theory and assessment
technology suggests that clinicians should be familiar with the many approaches to assess-
ing intelligence that are now available. For the field of intellectual assessment to continue
to advance, clinicians should use instruments that operationalize empirically supported
theories of intelligence and should employ assessment techniques that are designed to mea-
sure the broad array of cognitive abilities represented in current theory and research. It is
only through a broader measurement of intelligence—grounded in well-validated theories
of the nature of human cognitive abilities—that professionals can gain a better under-
standing of the relationship between intelligence and important outcome criteria (e.g.,
school achievement, occupational success). They can also continue to narrow the gap
between the professional practice of intelligence and cognitive ability testing on the one
hand, and theoretical, empirical, and practical advances in psychology and education on
the other.

PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES

The purpose of the fourth edition of this book is to provide a comprehensive conceptual
and practical overview of current theories of intelligence, individual measures of cognitive
ability, and uses of intellectual assessments. This text summarizes the latest research in the
field of intellectual assessment and includes comprehensive treatment of critical issues that
should be considered when the use of intelligence tests is warranted. The three primary
objectives of this book are as follows: (1) to present in-depth descriptions of prominent
theories of intelligence, tests of cognitive abilities, and neuropsychological instruments,
and issues related to the use of these tests; (2) to provide important information about the
validity of contemporary intelligence, cognitive, and neuropsychological tests and their
use in diagnosis and intervention planning; and (3) to demonstrate the utility of a well-
validated theoretical and research foundation for developing cognitive tests and interpre-
tive approaches, and for guiding research and practice. The ultimate goal of this book is to
provide professionals with the knowledge necessary to use the latest cognitive instruments
effectively.
Practitioners, university faculty, researchers, undergraduate and graduate students,
and other professionals in psychology and education will find this book interesting and
useful. It would be appropriate as a primary text in any graduate (or advanced undergradu-
ate) course or seminar on cognitive psychology, clinical or psychoeducational assessment,
or measurement and psychometric theory.
xvi Preface

ORGANIZATION AND THEMES

This book consists of 39 chapters, organized into six parts.

Part I, “The Origins of Intellectual Assessment,” traces the historical roots of test
conceptualization, development, and interpretation up to the present day. The updated
chapters provide readers with an understanding of how current practices evolved, as well
as a basis for improving contemporary approaches to test interpretation. Chapters provide
a necessary foundation for understanding and elucidating the contemporary and emerging
theories, tests, and issues in the field of intellectual assessment that are presented in subse-
quent sections of this volume.
Part II, “Contemporary Theoretical Perspectives,” updates several models presented
in the previous editions of this text (e.g., Cattell–Horn–Carroll [CHC] theory; planning,
attention, simultaneous, and successive [PASS] theory; the triarchic theory of successful
intelligence) and presents two alternative theoretical conceptualizations of human intel-
ligence: the parieto-frontal integration theory (PFIT) and the intelligence-as-process, per-
sonality, interests, and intelligence-as-knowledge (PPIK) framework for adult intellectual
development. These theories are described in terms of (1) how they reflect recent advances
in psychometrics, neuropsychology, and cognitive psychology, as well as neuroimaging; (2)
what empirical evidence supports them; and (3) how they have been operationalized and
applied. A comprehensive description of each theory is provided, focusing specifically on
its historical origins, as well as the rationale and impetus for its development and modifica-
tion. The theories represent viable foundations from which to develop and interpret cogni-
tive measures—measures that may lead to greater insights into the nature, structure, and
neurobiological substrates of cognitive functioning.
Part III, “Contemporary Intelligence, Cognitive, and Neuropsychological Batteries
and Associated Achievement Tests,” includes comprehensive chapters on the most widely
used and most current individual intelligence batteries and their utility in understanding
the cognitive capabilities of individuals from early school age through adulthood. This new
edition of Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, Tests, and Issues updates infor-
mation found in the third edition: It provides current research about the WISC-V and the
other most recent revisions of the Wechsler intellectual, memory, and achievement scales;
the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children—Second Edition, and Normative Update
and the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement, Third Edition; the Woodcock–John-
son IV Tests of Cognitive Abilities, Oral Language, and Achievement; the Differential
Ability Scales—Second Edition; the Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test—Second Edi-
tion; the Cognitive Assessment System—Second Edition; and the Reynolds Intellectual
Assessment Scales, Second Edition. In general, the authors provide descriptions of their as-
sessment instruments and discuss the instruments’ theoretical and research underpinnings,
organization and format, and psychometric characteristics. The authors also summarize the
latest research and practical uses and provide recommendations for interpreting the abili-
ties measured by their instruments.
Part IV, “Relevance of Tests of Intelligence, Cognitive Abilities, and Neuropsychologi-
cal Processes in Understanding Individual Differences,” includes chapters about the use of
cognitive tests to assess individuals for giftedness, intellectual disability, specific learning
disabilities, and traumatic brain injury, as well as individuals from culturally and linguisti-
cally diverse populations.
Part V, “Linking Assessment Data to Intervention,” includes chapters about using test
data to inform interventions aimed at ameliorating the manifestations of cognitive weak-
nesses.
Preface xvii

Part VI, “Contemporary and Emerging Issues in Intellectual, Cognitive, and Neuro-
psychological Assessment,” includes updated chapters related to the validity of intelligence
batteries and presents an updated practical and simplified nomenclature for CHC abilities.
In addition, this section’s chapters discuss the relationship between cognitive assessment
and reading disorders, as well as the role of cognitive testing in the assessment of executive
functions and specific learning disorder as defined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual
of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5). The integration of neuropsychological assess-
ment into school-based practice is discussed in two chapters. Suggestions and recommen-
dations regarding the appropriate use of intelligence, cognitive ability, and neuropsycho-
logical tests, as well as future research directions, are provided throughout this section of
the book.

Dawn P. Flanagan
Erin M. McDonough
Acknowledgments

W e are deeply grateful for the extraordinary contributions of our chapter authors. It
has been a rewarding experience to work with such a dedicated group of people,
many of whom are nationally and internationally recognized authorities in their respec-
tive areas. We thank Katherine Palma and Alexa Pate for their editorial assistance in the
preparation of this book. Their careful attention to detail improved the quality of this
work. We thank Natalie Graham for her support of another edition of this book, Marie
Sprayberry for her outstanding copy-editing skills, and Laura Specht Patchkofsky for her
skillful management of the production process. The staff at The Guilford Press are grate-
fully acknowledged for their expertise and their pleasant and cooperative working style.
The professionalism and expertise of our contributors and the staff at Guilford made this
project a most enjoyable and productive endeavor.

xviii
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 “I know you were at the bottom of it,” charged Frances.
“My dear child—” began Champney.
“I’m not your child, and I’m not a child, and I won’t be deared by
you,” cried Frances.
“Madame Antiquity,” responded Champney, bowing, “I assure you,
that far from wishing to force you to go on this trip with me, I only
agreed to take you, at your father’s request, and at a great personal
sacrifice to myself.”
Frances turned, and banged down the lid of her trunk. Then she
banged it again, to get the hasp to fit. Then she picked up a pair of
discarded boots and threw them across the room, hitting Freddy,
who entered at that moment.
“Why, sweetness!” gasped Freddy, who did not see Champney.
“Oh, go away,” cried Frances, blushing. “Don’t bother me! Can’t
you see I’m too busy to waste time now?”
And to illustrate the callousness of man to true love, it is
regrettable to state that Champney slipped out of the door at this
point, with an expression of great muscular tension about his mouth,
and no sooner was he in the hall than the brute reeled up against the
wall and, leaning there, laughed to a sinful degree.
Then he walked to the end of the hall, and entering a room, also
cluttered with trunks, he sat upon one of them and retold the scene
to the woman packing. “I never saw anything so delicious in its way,”
he laughed. “I really believe the medicine’s begun to work already.
But do you know, Frances promises to be a tremendous beauty. Just
now, when her cheeks and eyes were blazing so, she was simply
glorious to look at.” Which shows that Champney’s cool, disregarding
manner was not more than skin deep, and that unlimited
possibilities lay underneath. Perhaps, too, another potion was
beginning to work.
“I’m sorry she is so childish with you, Champney,” said Mrs. De
Witt.
“Don’t trouble yourself about that. I really don’t mind it; indeed, I
am afraid I rather enjoy it. It’s much rougher on her than on me, for
she really feels it, and it’s the person who loses his or her temper who
suffers the most.”
 “I hope the dear child will try to be more amiable, for naturally
she’s sweetness itself, and it’s bad enough to be saddled with us
without making your trip worse than need be. It’s so good of you to
take us!”
“Dear lady,” answered Champney, tenderly, “it’s nothing but a
little set-off against your years of goodness to me. You have really
given me a second home; nothing I can ever do will make me other
than your debtor.”
“It’s nice to hear you say so, Champney,” said Mrs. De Witt,
affectionately. “I have always felt as if you were a son of mine.”
“Then don’t talk to me about my goodness in taking you.”
“But it is good of you.”
“I don’t think Freddy and Frances think so.”
“Oh, Champney! Tell me, how did you find out their foolishness?”
“That is a secret,” chuckled Champney, “that goes with me to the
grave.”
⁂
Nor was it any better for Cupid the next day at the steamer. The
evil genius of the little god, in the shape of Potter, persisted in
following Frances about, and not a moment did she or Freddy find to
swear constancy or anything else to each other. Only a hand squeeze,
while the whistle was blowing “all ashore,” did they get to feed their
hearts upon during the separation.
Freddy went home, and, going to his room, flung himself on his
bed, and moaned, and bit the pillow, and felt he was feeling great
thoughts, and thought he was having great feelings.
And the little lady?
“No,” she declared, “I don’t want to walk with you; I don’t want a
steamer chair; I don’t want anything; I only want to be left al-o-o-o-
o-ne,” and—running to her stateroom, she flung herself upon the
lounge and wept over her unhappiness. “Oh, Freddy, Freddy,” she
sobbed, “only be true to me, that’s all I ask.”
But, alas, how is humanity constituted! The next morning, Freddy,
after a final look at himself in a tall mirror, remarked to the vision:
“Yes, that’s very tony. Now, I’ll take a walk on the Avenue, so as to
give the girls a treat.” As for Frances, after an hour’s rapid walk with
Champney in the crisp, sunny air, she came down to the breakfast-
table, and said: “Yes, steward, I’ll begin with fruit and oatmeal, and
then I’ll have chocolate, and beefsteak, and an omelette, and fried
potatoes, and hot rolls, and marmalade. Oh! And, steward, do you
have griddle cakes?”
Thus, despite their mutual intentions, the thought of each other
lessened daily, till even the inevitable correspondence lost interest
and flagged. Frances discovered that London, Paris, and the Riviera
offered greater attractions than Freddy’s witless and vapid “chronicle
of small beer;” while Freddy found that listening to the conversation
of a girl, present, was a far better way of spending time than reading
the letters of a girl, absent. Finally, Frances found a letter at the
bankers at Berne which ended the correspondence,—a letter over
which she laughed so heartily that Champney looked up from his
own bundle of mail and asked, “What is it that’s so funny?”
“Freddy’s engaged to Kitty Maxwell,” replied Frances.
“I don’t think you ought to be so gleeful at other people’s
misfortunes,” reproved Champney, laughing himself, however, while
speaking, as if he, too, saw something humorous in the
announcement.
“I—I wasn’t—I was laughing at something else,” Frances told him.
“What?” asked Champney.
“A secret,” replied Frances, blushing a little, even while laughing.
“Not from me?” urged Champney.
“Yes; I sha’n’t even tell you. Not a person in the world will ever
know it, and I’m very glad,” asserted Frances.
“I suspect I know it already,” suggested Champney. “I am a great
hand at finding out secrets. I have a patent method.”
“What is that?” asked Frances.
“That, too, is a secret,” laughed Champney.
⁂
When next we meet any of our characters, they—or at least two of
them—are toiling up a steep mountain path in the Bavarian Tyrol.
Frances leads, for the way is narrow, and Champney follows.
Conversation is at a marked discount; but whether this is due to the
natural incompatibility of the two, or merely to the exertion of the
climb, is unknown to history.
“She gets lovelier every day,” finally remarked Champney.
Frances stopped, and turned. “What did you say?” she asked.
“I didn’t speak,” answered Champney.
“I’m sure you did,” said Frances.
“No,” denied Champney, “I was merely thinking.”
“You did say something, I’m sure,” responded Frances, turning,
and resuming the climb.
Another five minutes brought them to the top of a little plateau set
in between two ranges of mountains, and dividing two lakes, famous
the world over. Even after the couple reached their destination,
however, they stood silent for a minute. Then Frances exclaimed,—
“Isn’t it glorious?”
“Lovely,” assented Champney, emphatically, but staring all the
time at Frances, making it doubtful of what he was speaking.
Frances, being quite conscious of this gaze, looked all the harder at
the view. “The mountains shut in so grandly!” she remarked, after a
pause.
“Such perfect solitude!” said Champney, enthusiastically.
“Yes,” assented Frances, with apparent reluctance in admitting the
fact. “But I suppose we must be going down again; mama will be
lonely.”
Champney calmly seated himself on a stone, unstrung his field-
glass, and surveyed through it the edge of the lake, far below them.
“Your mother,” he announced, “is sitting on the rug, just where we
left her. Her back is against the tree, and she is pretending to read.
But she’s doing nothing of the kind. She is taking a nap on the sly.
Surely you don’t want to disturb her?”
“It must be nearly luncheon time.”
“The boatmen haven’t even begun to unpack yet. Johann is just
taking the Vöslauer out of the boat, to cool it in the lake. They won’t
be ready for half an hour.”
 Frances began to look a little worried. There was a dangerous
persistence in this evident desire to remain on the alp. “I think I’ll go
down, anyway,” she said.
“You mustn’t do that,” begged Champney, laying the field-glass on
the rock.
“Why not?” demanded Frances.
“Because I have something to say to you,” said Champney.
Silence and apparent interest in the view on the part of Frances.
“Do you know,” asked Champney, “that I planned to be away for
only two months?”
“Yes.”
“And that I have been over here more than eight?”
“Oh, not so long as that,” denied Frances.
“Eight months and four days.”
“How quickly the time has gone!”
“But it has gone, and that’s the trouble. I have decided that I must
go back in September.”
Frances hesitated, and then said bravely, “We shall be very sorry to
have you go.”
“That makes it all the harder,” groaned Champney, rising and
joining Frances. “In fact, I hate so to leave you” (“you” can be plural
or singular) “over here that—that I want you to go back with me. Will
you?”
“Why, that is for mama and papa to settle,” remarked Frances,
artfully dodging the question, though perfectly understanding it.
“This isn’t to be settled by fathers and mothers. My dar—my—I
want you to go—because you have become so dear to me. I want to
tell you—to tell you how I have grown to love you in these months.
How happy you can make me by a single word. I—you—once you told
me you were not ‘my dear child.’ Oh, Frances, won’t you be my
dearest love?”
“If you want me to be,” acceded Frances.
⁂
 One of the simplest laws of natural philosophy is that a thing
descends more easily than it ascends. Yet it took those two over four
times longer to come down than it had taken them to go up,—which
proves that love is superior to all the laws of gravity; though it is not
meant to suggest by this that it has aught to do with levity. From
among a variety of topics with which they beguiled this slow descent
the following sentences are selected:
“I can’t believe it yet,” marvelled Champney. “It doesn’t seem as if
our happiness could have depended on such a small chance.”
“What chance?”
“Why—on that evening. When I found your mother wasn’t in, I
half turned away, but after hesitating, decided to wait. And then,
when I found you two in the morning room, I decided that I would
leave you, and go and read in the library. I was just about to say so,
when you told me to sit down by you on the sofa. That led to our
coming off here together, and really finding out about each other. Of
course that was equivalent to my falling desperately in love.”
“But you could have done that at home,” laughed Frances, merrily.
“No, I should have come off here, and some other man would have
won you.”
“Champney! I never could love any one but you.”
Champney swallowed the absurd statement rapturously. “That’s
just like the angel that you are,” he declared.
“But I knew you had something to do with our coming,” asserted
Frances, “though you did deny it.”
“No; like a consummate donkey, I didn’t want to be bothered with
you. Conceive of it, dear one, that I could ever think you a bother!”
“You didn’t know me,” laughed Frances happily, and with no
intention of vanity.
“No, I should think not. I wanted your father to take you. But I
shall never want any one else to do that in the future.”
“But why did you want me to go to Europe, if it wasn’t to be with
me?”
“Why—um—because, dear one, I saw a little girl that night who
was longing so for love that she was accepting a cheap and flashy
counterfeit in its stead. I didn’t want her to waste a real heart on such
an apology for a man, and so I interfered.”
“But how did you know?” cried Frances, looking bewildered. “We
had only just—you couldn’t have known it then?”
“Yes.”
“How?”
Champney laughed as he replied: “That’s telling.”
⁂
And now, another leap, please, back to that fireplace, and sofa,
again occupied by two—but not the same two—or, at least, only half
the same.
“Well,” groaned Champney, “I suppose I ought to be going, for you
must look your prettiest to-morrow, otherwise malicious people will
say it’s a match arranged for the business.”
“Let them,” laughed Frances. “By the way, how have you arranged
about that? You are such a good business man, and papa and mama
are so delighted, that I know you have the best of it.”
“Of course I have. And she’s sitting beside me now. But nothing
mercenary to-night, Madam,” ordered Champney. “Cupid, not
cupidity.”
“Well, Champney, dear, at least do tell me how you found out
about—about—” Frances stopped there.
“Never,” persisted Champney, nestling back on the sofa and
laughing.
“I don’t think it’s nice for a man to have secrets from his wife,”
reproved Frances, taking an eminently feminine view of man’s
knowledge.
“That is to be,” corrected Champney.
“Will you tell me—after to-morrow?”
“No.”
“Why not?”
“It’s too good to be told.”
“Ah, Champney!” And a small hand strayed round his neck, and
rested lightly against his cheek. Champney looked very contented.
 “Please, dear.” And a pair of lips came dangerously close to his
own.
Champney groaned a satisfied groan. “Well,” he began, “do you
remember when I came in the evening before we sailed, how Freddy
was sitting over there, and you were sitting just where you are?”
“Yes.”
“And how you let me sit down here, just where I am?”
“Yes.”
“And how I chatted for a moment and then suddenly became
silent?”
“Yes.”
“That was when I discovered it.”
“How?”
“I found that the seat I was sitting in was warm!”
 “SAUCE FOR THE GOOSE IS SAUCE FOR THE
GANDER”

“Oh, my dear!” cried her mother.

“I hope you have properly considered? He is charming, of course,
but—well—he is such a club habitué.”
“What? Well, well!” exclaimed her father. “Bless me, Meg, I had no
idea— Give me a kiss, if you have any to spare for your old dad now.
Why, of course, I consent, if you care for him. Only tell Mr. Tyler I
hear he spends too much time at his clubs.”
“Margaret! How nice!” ejaculated her sister. “I’ve liked him from
the start, and hoped—people said he was too fond of his club ever to
care to marry, and so I thought—but now it’s all right.”
“I knew he meant biz,” asserted her brother, “the moment he
began to keep away from the club, and put in so much time with
you.”
“I cannot tell you, my dearest Margaret (if I may call you that?),”
wrote his mother, “how happy I am over what my dear boy has just
told me. The luxury and ease of club life are now so great that I had
almost feared Harry could not be weaned from them. But since he
has chosen such a dear, beautiful, and clever girl, my worst anxiety is
over.”
“You are indeed to be congratulated, niece,” declared her aunt. “He
is a most eligible parti—good looks, position, and wealth. If you can
only keep him away from his clubs, I am confident you will be a very
happy and domestic couple.”
 “I have been certain of it for weeks,” her dearest feminine friend
assured her. “There isn’t a man I would rather have had you take, for
he is so much at his club that I shall still see something of you.”
“Er, Miss Brewster,” said one of her rejected lovers, “let me offer
you my best wishes. At the club we all swear by Harry, and we
actually think of going into mourning over the loss. Er, the fellows
are laying bets as to whether we shall ever see him there again. The
odds are six to one on the club,—but the fellows don’t know you, you
know.”
“I want to offer you my heartiest congratulations,” gushed the girl
who had tried for him. “Mr. Tyler has always been one of my best
friends, and I am sure you will be very happy. He isn’t, of course,
very fond of women’s society, but— Have you asked him to resign
from his clubs?”
⁂
“Don’t you want to sit down, Harry?” asked Margaret, making
room on the little sofa beside the fire.
The young couple had enjoyed four months of ecstatic travel, thirty
days of chaos while they settled their household goods, and then a
recurring Indian-summer honeymoon of two months in front of their
own fireside in the charmingly cosey library where the above remark
was made. Upon this particular evening, however, Harry, in
following his wife from the dining-room, took neither his customary
seat beside his wife on the sofa nor lighted a cigar. On the contrary,
he stood leaning against the mantel with anything but an expression
or attitude of ease, and, noting this, Margaret had asked her
question.
“Not to-night, dear,” said Harry. “The truth is—well—I met
Parmlee on my way up town, and I—that is—he asked me to come
round to the club this evening—and, well—I didn’t like to disappoint
him. And then, a fellow mustn’t stag—that is—don’t you think, my
darling, that it’s a mistake for married people to see too much of each
other—and—”
“Oh, Harry!” cried Margaret, interrupting and rising. “You said
you never could have enough—”
 “And I can’t, dearest,” interrupted Harry, hurriedly. “But you know
— Well—can’t you—”
“I feel as if it were the beginning of the end,” said Margaret, wildly.
“Now, my darling,” pleaded Harry, “do be reasonable. You know—
There, don’t cry. I won’t go. Sit down here and let me tell you how
much I love you.”
This occupied some time, but the clock never told on them, so it is
impossible to say just how long. Presently Margaret said:
“Harry, did you really want to—to leave me?”
“Not a bit,” lied Harry. “It was only to keep my word to Parmlee.”
“I suppose it’s too late now?” questioned Margaret, hopefully.
“Late? Oh, no! Fun’s just beginning. But I’m going to stay with
you, sweetheart.”
There was a moment’s silence, and then Margaret said: “If you
want to go, I want you to do it, Harry.”
“Well,” responded Harry, rising, “if you insist, dearest.”
“I do,” assented Margaret, in the most faint-hearted of voices.
“That’s a darling!” said her husband. “It’s half-past nine, so you’ll
only have a few minutes of loneliness before you go to bed.”
“I sha’n’t go to bed, Harry,” sighed Margaret, dolefully.
“Why, my darling,” protested Harry, a little irritably, “you don’t
want to make me miserable thinking of you as here by yourself.
Please be reasonable and don’t sit up for me. Leave me free to come
home when I want.”
“Very well, Harry,” acceded Margaret, dutifully, “if you insist I
won’t wait for your return.”
Harry took the charming face in his hands, and kissed each eyelid,
and then the lips. “I don’t deserve such an angel,” he asserted, his
conscience pricking him, “and— Oh, hang Parmlee!” he growled, as
her eyes, a little misty, looked up into his own. However, she
belonged to him, and there were plenty of evenings, and—well—
“Good-night, my treasure,” he ended.
⁂
 Margaret remained standing where Harry had left her until she
heard the front door close; then she collapsed on the sofa and softly
sobbed her sense of desertion and grief into the pillow. The warnings
of her family and friends recurred to her, and added to the pain of
the moment a direful dread of the future. Not knowing that most
bachelors are regular club men merely because it is the nearest
approach to home life they can attain, she dwelt on his having been
apparently wedded to these comforters of men, before marriage, and
inferred a return to his former daily frequenting of them.
Her grief was keen enough to prevent her from noticing that the
front door was presently opened, and not till she heard a faint cough
in the room did she raise her head from the pillow. It was to find a
servant with his back turned to the sofa, occupied, apparently, in
setting a chair in a position entirely unsuited to it,—a proceeding he
made far more noisy than became a well-trained butler, and which
he accompanied with two more coughs.
Hurriedly wiping her eyes, Margaret asked, “What is it, Craig?”
With his eyes carefully focussed to see everything but his
mistress’s face, the man came forward and held out his tray.
Almost mechanically she took the card upon it, and after a mere
glance she directed,—“Say that Mrs. Tyler is not receiving this
evening, and begs to be excused.”
Left alone once more, the young wife sat down upon a stool near
the fire, and looked into the blaze, idly twirling the card. “I wonder,”
she soliloquised presently, “if he would have done the same.” Again
she lapsed into meditation, for a few minutes; then suddenly she sat
up straight, with an air of sudden interest which was clearly derived
from her own thoughts. A moment later, she gave a short, hesitating
laugh. “If I only dared! I wonder if he would? Men are—” she said
disconnectedly; but even as she spoke, her face softened. “Poor
dear!” she murmured tenderly. Yet the words of pity melted into
another laugh, and this time merriment and not guilt was as the
dominant note. Springing to her feet with vivacity, she sped into the
hall, and placed the card on the tray, and that in turn conspicuously
on the hatrack. A second action consisted in turning on all the
electric lights of the chandelier. This done, she touched the bell.
 “You may close the house, Craig,” she ordered, when the servant
responded to the summons, “but as Mr. Tyler has gone to his club, I
wish you to leave these lights just as they are. I prefer that he should
not come home to a darkened house, so don’t turn out one.” Giving
one last glance, half merry and half guilty, at the bit of pasteboard
put in so prominent a position, Margaret lightly tripped upstairs,
humming something to herself.
⁂
Meantime Harry had wended his way to the club.
“Hello, Tyler!” said the man his wife had refused. “Don’t mean to
say you’ve actually ceased to be one of the ‘submerged tenth?’ How
and where is your superior moiety?”
“When I left Mrs. Tyler before her fire, ten minutes ago, she was
very well.”
“By George, if I had as clever and pretty a wife I don’t think I
should dare to leave her alone. I should be afraid of the other men.”
Harry turned away to hide his frown, but as he went towards the
door of the billiard room, rejoined: “Perhaps it wouldn’t be safe with
your wife.” To himself he carolled gleefully: “That cuts both ways.”
“But you are not afraid, I understand,” called the man, irritatingly,
“so I take it you won’t mind if I drop round there for a few moments
this evening, eh?”
“Certainly not,” responded Harry, suavely, but gritting his teeth.
“Hang the fellow,” he muttered. “How do such cads ever get into
decent clubs? As if Margaret’s refusing him twice wasn’t enough to
make him understand that she doesn’t want him round!”
Tyler’s anger was quickly forgotten in the warm reception his
cronies gave him, and a tumbler of “unsweetened” and a cue quickly
made him forget both the incident and the passing hours. Not till the
marker notified the players that the time limit had come did he wake
to the fact that it was two o’clock.
With a sense of guilt the husband hurried home. In the hallway, as
he took off hat and coat, he noticed the card, and picked it up. “So he
did come,” he growled, with a frown. “I hope Meg had gone to bed
before he got here. Not, of course, that it really matters,” he went on.
“She told me she never could endure him, so he’s welcome to call as
often as he likes to be snubbed.” To prove how little he cared, the
husband crushed the card viciously, and tossed it on the floor.
The light in Margaret’s room was burning low, Harry noticed when
he had ascended the stairs, and, peeping in, he saw that she was
sleeping peacefully. Entering quietly, he looked at her for a moment,
thinking with a little pang that he had given her pain. “You don’t
deserve such an angel,” he said aloud. “See how she has done just
what you asked her to do, with never a word of— There isn’t another
woman who would have taken it so sweetly. You’re an ass! And for
what? Four hours of—of nothing, when I might have been with her.”
He leaned down to very softly kiss a stray curl, and went towards his
own room, while saying: “How pretty and dainty she is! She’s worth
all the clubs in the world!” What was more, for a minute he believed
it.
The moment Harry was gone Margaret opened her eyes very wide,
rose softly, and looked at the clock. Then she went back to bed,
smiling demurely.
⁂
The next morning, when Harry entered the breakfast room a little
late, he was received with a kiss, and no word of reproach. Margaret
chatted over the meal in her usual entertaining, happy mood, telling
him the news she had already extracted from the morning’s paper.
“She’s too clever ever to nag a man,” thought Harry, and assured
that he was not to be taken to task, he became equally amiable, and
told her whom he had seen at the club, and of his score.
“I’m glad you had such a pleasant evening!” said Margaret,
sweetly. “I hope you didn’t stay so late as to tire yourself.”
“I didn’t notice the time,” fibbed Harry, “but probably I was in by
twelve.”
“Oh, no, dear,” said Margaret, pleasantly, “for I didn’t get home till
after one myself, and you weren’t back then.”
⁂
Twenty times Harry has tried to persuade his wife into
acknowledging that she spoke in jest, but Margaret only looks at him
with wideopen, questioning eyes, as innocent as a child’s. Her
husband firmly believes that she went to bed ten minutes after he left
the house, and always ends his unsuccessful attempts to get her to
confess the fact by taking Margaret in his arms and telling her of his
belief. This faith his wife rewards with a tender kiss, but only a kiss,
and still maintains her demure silence.
Harry spends no more evenings at the club, and every woman who
knows him holds him up to other men as an ideal married Benedick.
 THE CORTELYOU FEUD

It could never have happened to us anywhere in New York but at

Mrs. Baxter’s. I say this not with bitterness at, but in calm
recognition of, the merits and demerits of that universally esteemed
lady. Abroad, with the lords chamberlain, herald’s offices, and
peerages, it would be impossible. In the far West, where the
biography and genealogy of the leading families are not subjects for
polite conversation, it might occur frequently. But in New York, lying
between these two extremes, one is safe, except from accidents due
to the unfortunate existence of a peculiar class of people.
The kind I refer to are those described as having a good heart.
Such an organ involves, as a natural corollary, a weak head. These
qualities in combination are a terrible menace to society; for, owing
to the very goodness of heart, their possessors are pardoned over and
over again, and repeat their ill deeds with as much immunity from
punishment as a New York police captain. Every social circle has one
or more of these half-criminals, and in that in which my lot was cast
Mrs. Baxter was unequalled for the number, ingenuity, and
innocence of her mistakes. Omitting all hearsay and they-say
knowledge, I was her forty-seventh victim; and as pœnologists affirm
that more than half of the criminal acts are undiscovered, it can at
once be seen how society is menaced by people with good hearts.
The lady who always tells me when I do wrong—and to married
men I need not be more descriptive—has held me responsible for
that evening; and, since she married me, her husband is not the one
to impeach her discrimination. She insists that, knowing Mrs.
Baxter, I should have come early, and so had time to arrange matters
quietly. I appeal to any man if it would ever occur to him to get to a
dinner early on the possibility he was to sit next a lighted shell, in
order that he might express to his hostess his dislike of explosives.
All New York has known for years of our family feud. It’s been
common property ever since our esteemed ancestors thrashed it out
in court, to the enjoyment of the public and the disruption of our
family. For thirty years dinners, luncheons, yacht cruises, and house
parties have been arranged so as to keep a proper distance between
the descendants of my grandfather John Cortelyou and of his
nephew Dabney. Sometimes I have seen one of the latter at the
opposite end of a large dinner-table, and here and there I have had
other glimpses of them. But until that evening, no matter how close
chance brought us together, we had always succeeded in maintaining
a dignified unconsciousness of each other’s existence.
I was, let it be confessed, thirty minutes late, and merely accepting
the last little envelope on the tray the footman offered me, hurried
towards the drawing-room. On my way I naturally looked at the card
inside and read:
Mr. Pellew.
Miss Cortelyou.
That meant nothing to me. The name is not an uncommon one, and I
have taken in my aunts often enough to get accustomed to the
occurrence, even in the family. So, without a second thought of the
matter, I passed through the doorway and discharged my devoirs
with Mrs. Baxter.
“I was on the point of suicide, thinking you had failed me,” she
said. “As it is, Mr. and Mrs. Dana have just sent me word that they
can’t come because Milly has croup.”
“My note said half after seven,” I stated boldly. When one is very
late it is always best to put one’s hostess in the wrong, and a mistake
more or less to Mrs. Baxter was immaterial.
“Oh, never!” she declared, so guiltily that I was really sorry for her.
“Well, we can’t discuss it now. We were just going in without you,
and we’ll go on, leaving you to find your partner by the process of
elimination. I haven’t left you Hobson’s choice, however.”
I glanced round, and as the couples had gravitated together, I
easily picked out the only single figure left, and went towards it. She
was turned from me, standing by Ferdie Gallaudet and his partner,
who had not yet moved.
“That back is too young and pretty for Aunt Ellen or Madge,” was
my first thought. My second was a spoken one, and merely consisted
of the trite, “I am to have the pleasure, Miss Cortelyou.”
She was saying something to the girl, and went on saying it, with
her head over her shoulder, even as she rested her hand on my arm
and let me lead her away. And just as I was going to look at her, I
caught sight of Ferdie’s face, and fell to wondering what could ail him
that he looked so queer. We had been close to the door, and before
she had finished her remark, or I had ceased from wondering, we
were through it and in the half-gloom of the hall.
“I beg your pardon,” said she, turning to me, and speaking very
sweetly. “It was a message, and I had only just begun when you
came.”
“What a nuisance messages are!” was my remark. “What a nice
voice you have!” was my thought. Then we entered the dining-room,
and I glanced at my partner. It was Kate Cortelyou!
She looked at me at the same moment, and as our eyes met, an
expression of consternation appeared on both our faces. At least,
that’s what I felt in myself and saw in her. Horror succeeded as a
next sensation and expression. Womanlike, she cast her eyes
appealingly towards her hostess, and, manlike, I took a step towards
the hall door. In another second I think I should have bolted, but just
then Ferdie Gallaudet said, “Here’s your seat, Jack,” with a grin like a
Cheshire cat on his face. I looked at Kate and she looked at me. Then
we both looked at the chairs. Mechanically I stepped to them and
pulled out that on the right of mine. Kate’s eyelashes fluttered for a
moment, as if she were hesitating; then she slipped into the seat, and
the next moment I was sitting beside her. But enchantingly pretty as
I thought her (and I was either too fair-minded or she was too
beautiful for me not to acknowledge it, however much I might dislike
to do so), I could only wish I had broken my leg on my way to the
house.
I turned to my left to see if any escape were possible, but my
neighbour on that side was that horrible perpetual motion of a Mrs.
Marvin, and, besides, she was very properly occupied with her
partner. I peered furtively behind Kate to see if she could escape me,
for anything was better than the alternative. Next her were two
empty seats. Mrs. Baxter’s capacity for social blundering had done its
worst.
There is this to be said for the Cortelyou women, whether friends
or enemies: I’ve never seen one show the white feather in action. Just
as I was preparing to collapse under this accumulation of horrors,
Kate turned to me, with the friendliest of smiles, and murmured,—
“It’s ghastly, but every one except Mrs. Baxter is watching us.”
I took a furtive glimpse of the other guests. They were all
pretending to talk, but all clearly were missing nothing of our
tableau vivant. Wasn’t she clever to have seen it so quickly?
“They hope we’ll make a show of the family for their benefit,” I
growled.
“Can’t we—” suggested Kate, and then hesitated, and blushed very
prettily. The Cortelyou women are plucky, but Kate was only
nineteen.
I never was good as leader, but at the shafts I’m steady and
reliable. “Of course we can,” I responded, won by that blush.
“Don’t frown, then,” smiled Kate.
“I was not frowning at you,” I protested.
“But they’ll think you are,” she replied.
I tried to appear as pleased as Kate so successfully pretended to be,
and she rewarded me with an encouraging “That’s better,” and a very
refreshing look at her eyes.
“Now,” she continued, “how can we do it?”
“I’m pretty well up on the litany,” I whispered. “If you can do the
supplications I can respond with the ‘miserable sinner’ part.”
Kate laughed merrily, even while shaking her head reprovingly.
Kate has nice teeth. “You are painfully frank,” she told me.
“Frank?”
“Yes. You are probably not a bit more miserable than I am, but I
don’t groan aloud.”
“Oh, I say!” I exclaimed, rather horrified at the construction my
speech had been given. “It would be pure form, you know, quite as it
is in church, and not mean a bit more than it does when the sinner’s
pretty and wears a French gown.”
Kate drew her mouth down into a church-going expression, which
was very fetching in its demureness, but which wasn’t suitable for
our public performance, so I remarked:
“Don’t look so disapproving. The saintly vein suits the Madonna
type, but the Cortelyou forte lies in quite another direction.”
I won another laugh from those unsaintly lips. “You are worse than
I thought,” she added.
“Then you have thought of me?” I inquired, beginning to mellow
under her laugh. That was a mistake, for her face instantly became
serious, and her eyes gave a flash.
“What I think is my own concern,” she responded. The Cortelyou
women are stunning when they look haughty.
Being one of the family, however, I am too accustomed to the look
to be as entirely crushed by it as others are. “Who’s frowning now?” I
asked. I thought I’d learn what kind of a temper Kate had.
She still smiled as if she liked being put next me, but her eyes
gleamed, and I knew she’d pay me for my speech if the opportunity
occurred.
“We can’t begin like this,” she said. “Suggest something else.”
“I once heard of a poor couple in an English county who were
always sitting next each other, so they agreed to count alternative
tens up to a thousand,” I answered.
“I’m afraid you haven’t enough facial control for that,” replied
Kate, sweetly, appearing the picture of contentment. I thought her
remark unnecessary, considering we had been face to face only a few
minutes, and that she had just lost control of hers.
“Then suggest something yourself,” I muttered.
“As the photographer says, ‘A little more smile, please,’” corrected
Kate. “Yes, you unquestionably have the Cortelyou temper,” she
added serenely.
“If I had,” I asserted, “I should long since have turned to Mrs.
Marvin, who is dying for a listener.” I thought I’d let Kate understand
I wasn’t sitting next two empty chairs.