KABC-II Reference — Luria, CHC & NVI for EB

ℹ️

The KABC-II offers two interpretive frameworks — Luria and CHC — selected before testing based on the student's background. For most students, the Luria model (MPI) is recommended. For students from language-minority backgrounds or with significant language differences, the Luria model or NVI further reduces language demands.

🧠 Luria Model → MPI

Excludes the Knowledge/Gc scale entirely
Recommended when Gc may be culturally or linguistically biased
MPI = Sequential + Simultaneous + Learning + Planning
Best choice for EB students and culturally/linguistically diverse populations
Reduces verbal/crystallized knowledge loading

📐 CHC Model → FCI

Includes Knowledge/Gc scale
FCI = Sequential + Simultaneous + Learning + Planning + Knowledge
Aligns with CHC theory used by WJ-V and WISC-V
Use when crystallized knowledge is not a confound
FCI is the CHC equivalent of FSIQ

⚠️

Model selection is made before testing and cannot change after. Document which model was selected and why in the FIE. For most special education evaluations in Texas, the Luria model (MPI) is the recommended choice because it provides the most language-reduced estimate of cognitive ability.

🌎

Nonverbal Index (NVI): Available as a supplemental composite using only nonverbal subtests. Appropriate for students with significant language differences, limited English, or communication disorders. NVI does not replace MPI or FCI as the primary ability estimate but can supplement interpretation for EB students.

ℹ️

All KABC-II composites use a standard score scale (M=100, SD=15). The five scales below contribute to either MPI (Luria) or FCI (CHC) depending on the model selected. Knowledge/Gc is used in CHC model only.

Composite	CHC Ability	Model	What It Measures
MPI — Mental Processing Index	Broad ability (no Gc)	Luria	Overall cognitive ability without crystallized knowledge; best for EB/language-minority students
FCI — Fluid-Crystallized Index	Broad ability (with Gc)	CHC	Full cognitive ability including verbal knowledge; CHC equivalent of FSIQ
NVI — Nonverbal Index	Nonverbal reasoning	Both	Nonverbal subtests only; language-reduced ability estimate; supplemental use for EB/communication disorders
Sequential (Gsm)	Short-Term Memory	Both	Ability to hold and use a serial order of information; working memory for sequences
Simultaneous (Gv)	Visual Processing	Both	Perceiving, integrating, and thinking with visual-spatial information; gestalt processing
Learning (Glr)	Long-Term Storage/Retrieval	Both	Ability to learn, store, and retrieve new information; associative learning and memory
Planning (Gf)	Fluid Reasoning	Both	Novel problem solving, inductive and deductive reasoning, hypothesis testing
Knowledge (Gc)	Crystallized Intelligence	CHC only	Verbal knowledge, vocabulary, general information; language-loaded; excluded from Luria model

ℹ️

Subtests use a scaled score scale (M=10, SD=3). Core subtests contribute to scale composites; supplemental subtests provide additional information. NVI-eligible subtests are marked.

Sequential / Short-Term Memory (Gsm)

3 subtests · Serial order processing · Working memory for sequences

▶

Subtest	CHC	Task Description	Low Score Impact
Number Recall	Gsm/WM	Student listens to a sequence of numbers and repeats them in the same order	Difficulty holding verbal sequences; impacts multi-step directions, mental math
Word Order	Gsm/WM	Student touches a series of pictures in the same order the examiner named them; interference condition added at higher levels	Difficulty holding verbal information while resisting interference; impacts listening comprehension
Hand Movements	Gsm/SM	Student copies examiner's sequence of hand movements in the same order NVI eligible	Motor memory and sequential processing; nonverbal working memory difficulties

Simultaneous / Visual Processing (Gv)

5 subtests · Gestalt & spatial processing · Visual-perceptual integration

▶

Subtest	CHC	Task Description	Low Score Impact
Block CountingNVI	Gv/Vz	Student counts blocks in a 3D picture, including hidden blocks obscured by others	Spatial visualization and mental rotation; impacts geometry, visual-spatial tasks
Conceptual ThinkingNVI	Gv/CF	Student identifies the one picture that does not belong in a visual concept group	Visual concept formation and categorical reasoning without verbal mediation
Face RecognitionNVI	Gv/MV	Student identifies a face (or faces) briefly shown in a group photograph	Visual memory and face discrimination; early levels only; ages 3–5 primarily
Gestalt Closure	Gv/Cs	Student names or describes an object depicted in a partially completed inkblot drawing	Visual closure and whole-pattern recognition; orthographic mapping connection
TrianglesNVI	Gv/Vz	Student assembles foam triangles (or rubber triangles with younger children) to match a picture or abstract design	Spatial analysis and visual construction; relates to block design-type tasks

Learning / Long-Term Storage & Retrieval (Glr)

4 subtests (2 delayed) · Associative learning · New learning efficiency

▶

Subtest	CHC	Task Description	Low Score Impact
AtlantisNVI	Glr/MA	Student learns nonsense names for fanciful sea creatures, plants, and shells; then identifies named objects among a group of pictures	New associative learning; directly predicts response to instruction; low = learning new vocabulary/concepts slowly
Atlantis Delayed	Glr/MA	Delayed recall of Atlantis items administered 15–25 minutes after initial learning	Retention of newly learned material; immediate vs. delayed comparison reveals consolidation issues
Rebus	Glr/MA	Student learns word-symbol associations (rebus symbols = words) and reads sentences using those symbols	Associative learning of symbol-word pairs; parallels phonics learning and reading acquisition
Rebus Delayed	Glr/MA	Delayed recall of Rebus symbol-word associations administered 15–25 minutes after initial learning	Retention of symbol-sound associations; immediate vs. delayed comparison; reading acquisition implications

Planning / Fluid Reasoning (Gf)

2 subtests · Novel reasoning · Available ages 7–18

▶

⚠️

Planning scale is only available for ages 7–18. Younger children do not receive Planning subtests.

Subtest	CHC	Task Description	Low Score Impact
Pattern ReasoningNVI	Gf/I	Student identifies the missing piece in a logical, abstract visual pattern series	Inductive visual reasoning; novel problem solving without verbal mediation
Story CompletionNVI	Gf/RG	Student selects pictures from a set to complete a logical picture story, placing them in blank spaces	Sequential reasoning and logical narrative thinking; planning and deductive reasoning

Knowledge / Crystallized Ability (Gc) — CHC Model Only

3 subtests · Verbal knowledge · Excluded from Luria/MPI

▶

⚠️

CHC model only. These subtests are NOT administered when using the Luria model. Knowledge subtests are language- and culture-loaded — they should not be used as cognitive ability measures for EB students or students from language-minority backgrounds.

Subtest	CHC	Task Description	Low Score Impact
Expressive Vocabulary	Gc/VL	Student names a pictured object	Expressive vocabulary breadth; may reflect educational opportunity or language exposure
Riddles	Gc/VL	Student listens to clues about a concept and names the concept	Verbal reasoning and concept formation through language; vocabulary depth and world knowledge
Verbal Knowledge	Gc/K0	Student identifies pictures of objects named or selects the picture that answers a general information question	General world knowledge and vocabulary; highly culture-loaded; reflect educational background

ℹ️

KABC-II composites use standard scores (M=100, SD=15). Individual subtests use scaled scores (M=10, SD=3). The KABC-II uses a 5-category classification system for composites; subtest scaled scores map to 4 of those 5 categories.

Classification	Standard Score	Scaled Score (subtests)	Percentile	FIE language
Upper Extreme	131+	—	98th+	significantly above average cognitive ability
Above Average	116–130	16–19	84th–97th	above average cognitive ability
Average	85–115	8–15	16th–84th	average range of cognitive ability
Below Average	70–84	4–7	2nd–15th	below average cognitive ability
Lower Extreme	≤69	1–3	Below 2nd	significantly below average; ID range — document carefully with adaptive behavior data

Standard scores: M=100, SD=15 · Scaled scores: M=10, SD=3 · Upper Extreme has no distinct scaled score category; scaled scores of 16–19 fall in the Above Average range.

🌎

The KABC-II is one of the primary cognitive batteries recommended for emergent bilingual (EB) and culturally/linguistically diverse students in Texas. The Luria model and NVI significantly reduce language and cultural loading compared to other major cognitive batteries.

Which Index to Use for EB Students

▶

Student Profile	Recommended Index	Rationale
EB student, some English proficiency	MPI (Luria model)	Excludes Gc/Knowledge; reduces cultural loading while maintaining broad ability estimate
Limited English, strong L1	MPI + NVI for comparison	NVI provides most language-reduced estimate; compare to MPI for consistency
Significant communication disorder or no functional language	NVI	Fully nonverbal; appropriate when any verbal response is not feasible
Bilingual with strong English proficiency, no language concerns	FCI (CHC model)	Full index including Gc appropriate when language is not a confound

FIE Documentation Language — EB Cognitive Results

▶

When documenting KABC-II results for EB students, include the model selected and rationale:

"The KABC-II was administered using the Luria interpretive model, which excludes the Knowledge/Crystallized Ability scale. This model was selected because [Student] is an emergent bilingual student whose English language proficiency may affect performance on tasks that measure verbal knowledge accumulated through language-based educational experiences. The Luria model provides a more culturally and linguistically equitable estimate of [pronoun] cognitive processing abilities."

⚠️

The KABC-II is most commonly used in Texas special education evaluations as an alternative to the WISC-V, particularly for EB students, students with language disorders, and students from culturally/linguistically diverse backgrounds. It is fully wired in the FIE Narratives Generator.

MPI vs. FCI vs. NVI — Which to Report

▶

Scenario	Report	Note
Standard evaluation, non-EB student	FCI as primary; MPI as secondary if Gc depresses FCI	FCI is more comparable to FSIQ for cross-battery use
EB / language-minority student	MPI as primary	Document Luria model selection rationale in FIE
Communication disorder / no verbal response possible	NVI as primary	Clearly note limitations of NVI as a full ability estimate
Significant Gc–MPI discrepancy	Report both; interpret MPI for eligibility	Large Gc suppression of FCI = language/exposure factor, not cognitive ability limitation

SLD Identification with KABC-II

▶

The KABC-II supports PSW and C-SEP approaches to SLD identification. Key considerations:

Learning scale (Glr) is particularly relevant for SLD — Atlantis and Rebus directly measure new associative learning, which parallels phonics and reading acquisition
Sequential (Gsm) weakness supports phonological memory deficit documentation
Planning (Gf) and Simultaneous (Gv) intact with Sequential (Gsm) low = typical dyslexia cognitive profile
For PSW: use MPI or FCI as the global ability estimate depending on model; scale scores as processing strengths/weaknesses
Knowledge (Gc) subtests (Luria model excluded) should not be used as processing variables for SLD when using Luria model