1. INTRODUCTION

Nowadays, it is observed that the topic of social inclusion, and the interest in studies aimed at minority populations have gained space within the Brazilian scientific environment (Cássia and Dardes, 2010, Francia-Freitas and Gil, 2012), especially in the area of psychological evaluation. However, there is a lack of psychological instruments aimed at meeting the demands of people with some type of disability (Nacimiento and Flores-Mendoza, 2007, Nicolaiewsky and Correa, 2009).

Regarding the psychological evaluation for people with visual disabilities, the situation is even more aggravating, since there are few studies and research related to the investigation of diferent psychological constructs, especially intelligence (Lobato, 2005, Masini, 1995).

Such shortage can be understood by the dificulty of working with the specificities required by the disability, together with the long and demanding process of development of psychological instruments. In consequence, only a very limited number of researchers focus their eforts in that area.

According to Brambring and Troster (1994), this lack of instrumentation creates a gap in research and studies focused on the development and cognitive proile of children and adults with this feature. Although the national literature presents important research (Machado, 2011, Nunes and Lomónaco, 2008, Rabello, Motti and Gasparetto, 2007), the international scientific production has been much more advanced and extensive when it comes to Psychological evaluations of people with visual disabilities (Alonso, 2003; Celeste, 2006; Navarro and López, 2002), mainly in the area designed to build specific instruments to use with that population (Ballesteros, Barsida, Reales and Muñiz, 2003; Deverell, 2011). Some advantages can be cited as a result of an adequate evaluation, for instance, the improvement of the quality of life of people with that speciic type of disability. Despite that, there is not enough instrumentation for such evaluation and, consequently, not enough knowledge on the field.

In Brazil, the list of psychological tests available for professional and commercial use (System of Evaluation of Psychological Tests, SATEPSI, prepared by the Federal Council of Psychology), points to the absence of instruments that have evidence of validity to be used in that population, to understand the cognitive abilities and abilities of children, especially those with some type of disability (Chiodi and Wechsler, 2009). The available tests for the evaluation of this construct in the Brazilian population are all directed to the general population, not presenting, in their manuals or normative tables, any studies or data that demonstrate their efectiveness for usage in that specific population.

In general, having specific instruments for these populations can help reduce errors in relation to diagnoses and/or poorly conducted processes (Campos and Nakano, 2014, Zanfelici and Oliveira, 2013). Therefore the importance of a diferentiated look before the specificities, particularities, and care that are indispensable for the construction or adaptation of an instrument together with the visually impaired. This, in general, allows a better quality of evaluation, application, and understanding of the results of this population. (Baron, 2006; Bizerra, Cizauskas, Inglez y Franco, 2012; González, Piera, Salabert y Seba, 2002; Malta, Endriss, Rached, Moura y Ventura, 2006; Navarro y López, 2002; Nunes y Lomónaco, 2010; Sena y Carmo, 2005).

The visual impairment can be understood as the loss - partial or total, acquired or congenital - of the vision, composed of a complex structure that entangles physiological aspects, sensorial-mo- tor function, perspective and psychological (Ministry of Education and Culture, 2001). Thus, it can be said that from an evaluative perspective it is necessary to consider any individual specificity in order to optimize the preserved functions involving even a more precise diagnosis.

The specific needs can be numerous (Scholl, 1982), alternating in relation to the age of manifestation of the visual problem, the manifestation form of the disability, etiology, type (acquired or congenital), degree of vision (total or low blindness in the case of some residual vision), in addition to individual styles and social aspects (Barraga, 1997, Lowenfeld, 1977, Norris, Spaulding and Brodie 1957). In this case, it must be clear that these specificities act in such a way as to alter the execution procedures of a certain activity, but not being associated with the learning capacity (Cunha, Enumo and Canal, 2011).

Thus, it is essential for the evaluator to have that information available, in order to qualify physical access to objects and the stimulation of the tactile and auditory senses, promoting equal evaluation conditions for all (Ballesteros et al., 2003, Bizerra et al., 2012). This enables the assessment of cognitive skills to be standardized but also considering each evaluated in its specificities. (Verdugo, Caballo y Delgado, 1996; Camargo, Nardi y Veraszto, 2008; Rabello et al., 2007).

For instance, we can mention the diferences due to the type and degree of disability. Considering the type, blindness consists of a picture of visual impairment in which there is a total loss of vision. Blind people can make use of remaining senses for their learning and development, such as the senses of touch, hearing, smell and palate, which help with the assimilation of information from external stimuli and enable the perception, analysis, and understanding of the environment (Laramara, nd).

In scientific terms, having as a reference the classification of visual limitations provided by the World Health Organization (WHO, www.portal.saude.gov.br), a blind person is someone who has a maximum visual acuity lower than 1/50 (0.02) or without light perception. They need spoken books, Braille system, voice output devices, software with voice synthesizers, walking stick, orientation / mobility training (Deiciente Online, nd). On the other hand, people with low vision, are classified when the vision capacity of the best eye does not exceed 30% in relation to what is considered normal vision, even with relevant treatment or use of glasses.

In the World Health Organization (WHO), the maximum visual acuity between 1/20 (0,05) and 1/10 (0,1), can make use of special aids to improve the visual resolution, such as non-optical aids, optical and electronic aids. Regarding the type, it should be clarified that a person with a congenital disability is someone who was born blind or with low vision. This is diferent from those who were able to see, but developed a disability throughout their life (González, 2007).

The diferences point to a wide range of alterations that may be present in visual function: impairment in visual acuity, in color vision, in the visual ield, in contrast sensitivity, in adaptation to light (Douglas et al., 2009). So the particularities of the people classified within that characteristic must be considered, given the heterogeneity of the picture, mainly if we ind out that the forms of learning and contact with the environment are diferent, as pointed out by Almeida and Araújo (2013) and Dale and Sonksen. (2002). It must be considered that people with a congenital deficient gained knowledge and experience without the use of vision throughout their life, and those who have acquired a deficiency had the chance to see at some point of their lives.

In this way, it can be seen that the population with visual impairment is heterogeneous and, therefore, presents great variability and diversity in relation to vision (Gil, 2000). This means that, despite classifying a person according to the degree (low vision or blindness) or type of deficiency (acquired or congenital), there is a need to evaluate other important variables, such as: the ophthalmological diagnosis; the evolution; the etiology and its prognosis; and, mainly, visual functionality in relation to the degree of vision loss. Thus, the time of occurrence of the deiciency, the progression of visual loss, and the association or derivation with other diseases and should also be considered.

The visually impaired, regardless of type and grade, present a decrease in vision irreversibly (www. portal.saude.gov.br), in addition to some restrictions in relation to their abilities, and in terms of daily life routines, such as their speed of work, their mobility, capacity for spatial orientation and to perform tasks that require the use of vision (Caballo and Núñez, 2013). Given these specificities and similarities, it is relevant to consider these specificities in the psychological evaluation process so that the individuals are aware of their capacities and limitations.

Therefore, the professional who is working with the assessment of the cognitive abilities of the visually impaired should pay attention to those situations that allow him to know his patient, beyond his or her answers. In this approach, the use of a broader procedure, which involves not only performance tests but also an external evaluation, makes this process even more extensive, though recommendable.

Based on this proposal, the development of intelligence assessment tests for children with visual impairment (PAIC-DV) was initiated. This consists of tasks that assess performance in four areas (verbal reasoning, memory, numerical reasoning and logical reasoning) and a scale to be answered by the teacher (Intelligence Scale for visually impaired children - professional version, EPIC-DV), the battery has been the aim of studies investigating its psychometric qualities.

The verbal, memory and logical subtest were evaluated in terms of their suitability to the target audience (Campos and Nakano, 2014), as well as the performance of visually impaired children with normovisuals, while still analyzing the inluence of variables such as sex and age (Campos and Nakano, in press). The scale had its content validity investigated (Campos and Nakano, 2016). In the study reported here, the focus will be on the scale of the teacher.

External evaluations made by teachers have been recognized as tools that contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of cognitive development (Cunha, Enumo and Dias, 2009), by enabling the expansion of the perception of cognitive abilities, as well as intellectual conditions, motor and emotional afect adjustment perspectives. Although systematized, this type of evaluation allows the understanding of the needs of each student, as well as the elaboration of good considerations about their academic development, necessary changes and, mainly, they can help in the identification of flaws in the quality of the student's learning (Ferreira, 2002).

In this case, the evaluation made by the teachers admits functions of diagnostic comprehension of representative gaps in relation to the skills that contribute to the academic development and can help to direct and minimize the dificulties in teaching (Viana, 2013). This can be relected by assuming a starting point of support to plan strategies and rethink pedagogical actions (Blasis, Falsarella and Alavarse, 2013).

Within the perspective of the importance of carrying out an evaluation that considers the specificities of the visual disability, as well as the particularities due to the type and degree, the present study aimed to investigate possible diferences in the cognitive capacity between the groups of children with DV (congenital, acquired visual deficiency, blindness, and low vision), based on the teacher's evaluation. The importance of investigating possible diferences between groups of children focuses on the need to clarify the heterogeneity and specificities of each type and grade. It should be clear that the study, in the way it was organized, also constituted an investigation of the psychometric qualities of the scale, but specifically, evidence of validity, in order to guarantee security in its use.

2. METHOD

2.1 Participants

The sample was composed of 10 professionals of both sexes, being eight female and two male, aged between 18 and 65 years (M = 45.70, DP = 13.17), which act in the care of children with visual impairment. Among that sample of professionals, seven were pedagogues, a physical educator, a physiotherapist and a computer teacher, who developed activities directly with visually impaired children, in specialized care institutions.

The selection criteria for the professionals involved in the research were established: A) the participants should be professionals who act regularly and permanently in the institution selected for the study, in order to ensure, in this way, that the participants know the routine and operation of said institution; B) have contact with the child that will be evaluated for at least 3 months, in order to guarantee an adequate evaluation of their abilities; C) be professionals who are willing to receive the researcher during their work ile or who are in the institution available to respond to the scale, in days and times previously programmed with them; D) agree to participate voluntarily in the investigation, through the signing of the term of free and informed consent.

These professionals carried out the evaluation of 30 visually impaired children, aged between 7 and 12 years (M = 9.76, DP = 1.81), of both sexes and of diferent levels of schooling. Of these, 8 had acquired deficiency and 22 of the congenital type, while 23 were still diagnosed with low vision and 7 with blindness. For each child, a professional responded to the Professional Perception Scale on Children's Intelligence.

2.2 Instrument

Intelligence Scale for children with visual impairment - professional version - EPIC-DV The scale was elaborated from the CHC Intelligence model and from the selection of some specific skills, especially those of fluid and crystallized intelligence (Alfonso, Flanagan and Radwan, 2005, Bue- no, 2013, Cattel, 1998, Flanagan, Ortiz, Alfonso and Mascolo, 2002, Horn and Cattel, 1967, Hunt, 1996, Knox 1977, McGrew, 2005, Zampieri and Schelini, 2013). The version of the scale that was used is composed of 29 sentences, divided into four areas: (1) Verbal Reasoning, (2) Memory, (3) Numerical Reasoning (with seven items each); (4) Logical Reasoning (with eight items) (Campos and Nakano, 2016).

The Verbal Reasoning area assesses the understanding of the child's verbal domains regarding their ability to establish relationships between words and phrases. The idea is to see if the child is able to grasp meanings of words easily, as well as to understand them and also make use of reading and writing.

The Memory area is focused on evaluating the ability to memorize and remember concepts seized in the short term. The evaluator will have to understand the capacity associated with the maintenance of information in the conscience for a short period of time, in order to recover them immediately.

The area of Logical Reasoning seeks to evaluate the child's ability to understand deductive and inductive relationships. In this type of reasoning, the child has a mental image and is able to see it without being real, often being able to solve a problem or perform a task based on that mental image.

Finally, the Numeric Reasoning area aims to evaluate the quantitative ability deined as the understanding of basic quantitative concepts such as addition, subtraction, multiplication, division and manipulation of numerical symbols.

The teacher should read each of the sentences, analyze their content and evaluate the level of the child, selecting the one that best describes the him (within a ive-point Likert scale: Performance well below expectations, performance slightly by below expectations, performance slightly above expectations, performance well above expectations, unable to judge). This last category was inserted due to the perception that the professional may not have information about the child's performance in all areas encompassed by the scale, so instead of forcing him to make a choice that it will not necessarily represent the real skill of the child, it was decided to create that alternative response.

The instrument should be answered by teachers and professionals who have at least three months of contact with the child and usually involves about ten to ifteen minutes. The assigned score varies from 1 to 4, providing 1 point for performance well below expectations, 2 points for performance slightly below expectations, 3 points for performance slightly above expectations and 4 points for performance above expectations. There is also the category Unable to Judge, in which the score reached is zero.

2.3 Procedure

Before the data collection process, the project was submitted and approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the institution. Then, contact was made with the institutions and after the authorization, all professionals who met the inclusion criteria were invited to participate. All professionals had access to the consent term of the investigation and only responded to the scale after they had signed.

In the cases in which a professional evaluated more than one child, this response process was carried out in the workplace and during the ile, with authorization from the institutions. The researcher stayed in the place, keeping her distance, to clarify possible doubts.

2.4 Data analysis

In order to fulill the proposal of this research, descriptive analyzes were conducted comparing the perception of each professional involved in this process, regarding the cognitive performance of visually impaired children considering the degree and type of disability.

The analyzes were carried out through non-parametric Mann-Whitney analysis, comparing the intragroup performance of children considering type and degree of deficiency, in order to ind out if the diferences in the averages found were significant. We opted for this type of analysis since the data were asymmetric and the number of participants small.

It should be noted that the descriptive statistical analyzes were performed using the statistical package IBM SPSS Statistics 20.0 (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) for Windows®, (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA, 2008). The levels of significance adopted were: p ≤ 0.05 for significant values, p ≤ 0.01 for very significant values and p ≤ 0.001 for highly significant values.

3. RESULTS

Initially, the results of the evaluations of teachers regarding the degree of disability, that is, children evaluated with blindness and low vision, comparing the performances in the measures of the four skills that make up the EPIC-DV, were calculated considering the total number of points assigned by the teacher’s evaluation. Descriptive statistics by group are given in Table 1, as well as the average diference test for each of the measures of the scale.

As it can be seen in Table 1, no significant diferences were found for the degree of deficiency in any of the skills evaluated by the scale, as well as for their total score. Thus, it was possible to verify that in this sample, the perception of professionals on intellectual performance is possibly independent from the influence of the type of disability, since children with low vision and children with blindness were evaluated in a similar way than the skills.

It must be taken into account that the data distribution for each classification (low vision x blindness), refers to a reduced sample of children, being 23 that make up the sample of children with low vision and seven that make up the sample of children with blindness. In addition to the restricted number of participants, the inequality of participants in each condition should be considered as a limitation in the interpretation of the described results. Although the diferences between the groups were not significant, it is noted that, in general, professionals tend to perceive children with low vision as more skilled than children with blindness, in most of the characteristics evaluated, since they were assigned higher averages, with the exception of logical reasoning, as it can be seen in Table 1.

The same type of analysis was conducted, though focused on the type of deficiency (acquired x congenital), again using the non-parametric Mann Whitney test, in the four skills included in the EPIC-DV. Again, the total number of points reached through the teacher's evaluation was considered for the analysis. The descriptive statistics are given in Table 2, as well as the test of diference of averages for each one of the measures of the scale.

According to Table 2 it is possible to notice that no significant diferences were found in most of the skills regarding the type of disability, except for the Verbal Reasoning factor. In this type of cognitive ability, children with congenital deficiency obtained higher scores than those with an acquired disability. Thus, the results point to the diferences between the two types of disability.

As previously mentioned, these results should be weighted, considering that the data distribution for each classification (congenital x acquired), refers to a reduced sample of children, being 24 that make up the sample of children with congenital deficiency and 6 that make up the sample of children with acquired disability. Therefore, this limitation should also be considered during the understanding of the described results.

4. DISCUSION

Unlike the initial hypothesis developed about the existence of cognitive diferences between the diferent types of degrees of visual impairment, given the specificities of each table noted in the scientific literature, the results revealed more similarities than diferences between groups. It is interesting how the external evaluation, carried out by the professor, confirmed previously found results about the nonexistence of these diferences between the groups also in the performance tests (Campos & Nakano, 2014). Hence, it could be suggested that both types of evaluation (performance and external) seem to indicate similar results.

On the other hand, one of the hypothesis refers to the fact that the diferences between the groups, if they exist, may not have been identified due to the fact that the EPIC-DV is carried out through external evaluation, through the perception of the professional. In this way, it is possible that the professional’s evaluation had been more procedural, in order to know the person he or she is evaluating (criterion assumed to be considered suitable to perform the task). These diferences may not have been identified.

This difers from the situation in regular local schools where a more generalized evaluation tendency can be observed, relected on what was expected in relation to the student's age and/or schooling. In order for this doubt to be solved, it is suggested to carry out other types of evaluation, to deepen the investigations in relation to possible diferences in performance, and individual research is necessary, through other instruments and/or evaluation methods. This framework reinforces the relevance of using the two measures together, within a broader perspective of evaluation.

Another hypothesis implies the possibility that, by working in institutions specialized in the care of that specific population, professionals have a deeper knowledge of the specific needs of these children, as well as clarifications about the fact that the lack of vision does not interfere in the intellectual and cognitive capacity, and it is only necessary to stimulate other sensory organs, as it has been recommended in the literature. Even though the visual sense is little or nonexistent, disabled people can develop various other skills that are favorable to them when faced with a variety of situations (Roberts, 1996).

Among these special needs, these children may take longer to perform some activities, mainly because of the need for greater use of tactile perception, which requires more time than the visual (Cerqueira and Ferreira, 1996; Oliveira, Biz. and Freire, 2011). To perform the tasks, these students need to manipulate and explore the object to know its characteristics and, later, make a detailed analysis of the parts to draw conclusions (MEC, 2007). The comprehension of these characteristics was included in the process of construction of the tests, as well as the scale, so that the skills focused on these instruments were in accordance with the real potential of these individuals, to allow a contextualized and specific evaluation. It was sought, through the development of the instruments, to guarantee that, despite the type or degree of disability, such subjects could be evaluated and compared with others under conditions of equality.

It is worth noting that by involving the teacher in the task of assessing the cognitive development of their students, a possible factor that should not be disregarded is the bias in the answers. In case that the professional who has been invited to perform such evaluations is also directly responsible for the learning process and domain in which he is evaluating (Gottman and Clasen, 1972, Oliveira and Leite, 2000), some attention should be paid to that possibility. On the other hand, the relevance of that professional can be argued due to his more reined view, his professional practice and his particular knowledge of each student, so that the knowledge of the strategies used by the students and the Possession of more precise information about the process by which teaching and learning is given (Lunt, 1995) cannot be rejected either.

In this way, it is important to consider the EPIC-DV, initially as a tracking tool, given its ease of application, the speed of data collection, as well as the possibility of collective application. It is intended that such instruments enable professionals who, through their application, can identify strengths and weaknesses of the child, which could later be verified through the application of other instruments with the infant, as well as using other tools and evaluation methodologies that complement this investigation. In this sense, the importance of using instruments that present evidence of validity for this specific population is highlighted, though unfortunately is still characterized by the gap in our country. Overall, the PAIC-DV and the EPIC-DV aim to remedy, in parts, the dificulty encountered by professionals when faced with the need for cognitive assessment of children with visual impairment.

5. FINAL CONSIDERATIONS

Considering the importance of the EPIC-DV as an instrument of evaluation of cognitive abilities, from the perspective of the professional/professor, the results presented in this study and in others previously conducted indicate the suitability of its use for the purpose for which it was developed, although other studies need to be conducted in the future.

The complementary analyzes may also be carried out to further expand the knowledge on the operation of the instrument such as analyzes that allow obtaining information on the operation of the items, focused on the investigation of the distribution of responses or variability of these in the diferent points of the scale, indications of central tendency and the estimation of the dificulty of being endorsed (chosen), through the use of more modern statistical methodologies, such as the Theory of Response to the Item.

Other investigations carried out in a complementary way with analyzes from the classical theory of tests are recommended. These studies should consider the investigation of the influence of external variables (sex, age, schooling), as well as search studies for evidence of external validity, comparing the results in EPIC-DV with other performance instruments.

Regarding the EPIC-DV, it is suggested to extend the amount of evaluations per child (minimally two diferent evaluations of the same child, made by independent evaluators). This extension would allow the conduction of more robust analysis through the theory of response to the item, verifying the severity (dificulty) of the judges (professionals who evaluated the children). Through this procedure, possible diferences between evaluators could be noticed, improving the quality of the results found.

Regarding the scale, it should still be inferred that it makes possible an initial evaluation of children's cognitive abilities from an external perspective, which would indicate their understanding as a tracking instrument. This consideration was concluded based on the results obtained, and can be better demonstrated and justified in subsequent studies related to the normalization processes of the instrument.

Given the scarcity of materials on the subject and the concern and need for studies with specific populations, the development of a psychological instrument capable of evaluating cognitive skills of children with visual impairment is relevant to the area of psychological assessment in the country. Thus, it is objectified that new studies are conducted with the instruments, in order to investigate the psychometric properties and then have the possibility of disposition for professional use in accordance with the rules of publication and marketing of the country.

It must be recognized that the research brings limitations, mainly in relation to the small number of participants, due to the dificulty in locating children with this picture or institutions of attention to them. In this way, studies with larger samples are recommended so that the instrument created may have verified its psychometric qualities, required by the Federal Council of Psychology (CFP).

Finally, the results presented here pointed out that the scale can be used, within the same correction system, for diferent types and degrees of visual impairment, with the exception of the verbal subtest, which will need to consider the type of deficiency when comparing the results of those children with the normative data. Separate tables for congenital and acquired deficiency should be prepared for this subtitle to ensure that a child's performance is compared with others in equal conditions, given the significant diferences found.

References

Alfonso, V. C., Flanagan, D. P., & Radwan, S. (2005). The Impact of the Cattell-Horn-Carroll Theory on Test development and Interpretation of Cognitive and Academic Abilities. In D. P. Flanagan & P. L. Harrison (Orgs.), Contemporary Intellectual Assessment (pp. 185-202). New York: Guilford.

Almeida, T., & Araújo, F. (2013). Diferenças experimentais entre pessoas com cegueira congénita e adquirida: Uma breve apreciação. Revista Interfaces: Saúde, Humanas e Tecnologia, 1 (3), 1-21. http://dx.doi.org/ 2317-434x.

Alonso, M.A. V. (2003). Psicología y Ceguera: manual para la intervención psicológica en el ajus- te a la deficiencia visual (Reseña). Integración Revista sobre ceguera y deficiencia visual, 43, 54-56.

Ballesteros, S., Barsida, D., Reales, J. M. & Muñiz, J. (2003). La Batería de Habilidades Hápticas: un instrumento para evaluar la percepción y la memoria de niños ciegos y videntes a través de la modalidad háptica. Integración Revista sobre ceguera y deficiencia visual, 43, 7-21.

Baron, H. (2006). Visual Impairment and psychometric testing – Practical advice for test users ma- naging the testing of people who have sight disabilities. Recuperado de http:// www.psyasia.com, VisualImpairmentandPsychologicalTesting.pdf.

Barraga, N.C. (1997). Utilização da visão residual por adultos com graves deiciências visuais. Em: Assembleia Mundial para o bem-estar dos cegos. São Paulo.

Bizerra, A.F., Cizauskas, J.B.V., Inglez, G.C., & Franco, M.T. (2012). Conversas de aprendizagem em museus de ciências: como os deicientes visuais interpretam os materiais educativos do museu de microbiologia. Revista Educação Especial, 25 (42), 57-74. http://dx.doi.or- g/10.5902/1984686X4341.

Blasis, E., Falsarella, A. M., & Alavarse, O. M (2013). Avaliação e Aprendizagem: Avaliações externas: perspectivas para a ação pedagógica e a gestão do ensino. São Paulo: CENPEC: Fundação Itaú Social.

Brambring, M., & Troster, H. (1994). The assessment of cognitive development in blind infants and preschoolers. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 88(1), 9-18.

Bueno, J.M.P. (2013). Análise das habilidades avaliadas pelo ENEM por meio da teoria CHC: Um estudo de validade. Dissertação de Mestrado não publicada, Universidade São Francisco. Itatiba, SP.

Caballo, C., & Núñez, M. A. (2013). Personas con discapacidad visual. In M. A. Verdugo & Scha- lock, R. L. (Orgs.), Discapacidad e inclusión: Manual para la docencia (pp.259-283). Salamanca: Amarú.

Camargo, E.P., Nardi, R., & Veraszto, E.V. (2008). A comunicação como barreira à inclusão de alunos com deiciência visual em aulas de óptica. Revista brasileira de Ensino de Física, 30 (3), 1-13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1806-11172008000300016.

Campos, C. R., & Nakano, T. C. (2016). Escala de avaliação de inteligência para crianças deficientes visuais – versão professor: estudo de validade de conteúdo. Revista Ciência e Cognição, 21 (2), 155-171.

Campos, C.R., & Nakano, T.C. (2014). Avaliação da Inteligência de Crianças Deicientes Visuais: Proposta de Instrumento. Psicologia: Ciência e Proissão, 34 (2), 406-419.

Campos, C.R., & Nakano, T.C. (2016). Escala de avaliação de inteligência para crianças deicientes visuais – versão professor: estudo de validade de conteúdo. Ciências e Cognição, 21(2), 155-171.

Campos, C.R., & Nakano, T.C. (no prelo). Avaliação da inteligência de crianças deicientes visuais: estudo exploratório da adequação de itens. Avances em Psicología Latinoamericana.

Cássia, M. & Dardes, M.C.M. (2010). Deficiente visual: uma educação inclusiva ou exclusiva?. Revista Pandora Brasil, 24, 1-12.

Cattell, R. B. (1998). Where is intelligence? Some answers from the triadic theory. In J.J. McArdle & R. W. Woodcock (Orgs.), Human cognitive abilities in theory and practice (pp. 29-38). New Jersey: Erlbaum.

Celeste, M. (2006). Play Behaviors and Social Interactions of a child Who is blind: Theory and Practice. Journal of visual impairment & Blindness, 100 (2), 75-90.

Cerqueira, J. B., & Ferreira, M. A. (1996). Os recursos didáticos na educação especial. Revista Benjamin Constant, 5, 1-10.

Chiodi G.M., & Wechsler M. S. (2009). Escala de Inteligência WISC-III e Bateria de Habilidades Cognitivas Woodcock Johnson-III: comparação de instrumentos. Avaliação Psicológica, 8 (3), 313-324.

Cunha, A.C.B., Enumo, S.R.F., & Dias, T.L. (2009, outubro). Análise de indicadores cognitivos e comportamentais em provas assistidas com crianças com necessidades educativas especiais. Anais da 32ª Reunião Anual da ANPED, Caxambu, MG, Brasil, 10.

Cunha, A.C.B., Enumo, S.R.F., & Canal, C.P.P. (2011). Avaliação Cognitiva psicométrica e assis- tida de crianças com baixa visão moderada. Paidéia, 21 (48), 29-39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/ S0103-863X2011000100005.

Dale, N., & Sonksen, P. M. (2002). Visual impairment in infancy: impact on neurodevelopmental and neurobiological processes. Developmental medicine & child neurology, 44 (11), 782-791. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8749.2002.tb00287.x.

Deverell, L. (2011). O&M Environmental Complexity Scale. International Journal of Orientation & Mobility, 4 (1), 64-77.

Douglas, D., McCall, S., McLinden, M., Pavey, S., Ware, J., & Farrell, A. M. (2009). Internatio- nal review of the literature of evidence of best practice models and outcomes in the education of blind and visually impaired children. VICTAR, University of Birmingham and St Patrick's College: Dublin report for NCSE.

Ferreira, L. M. S. (2002). Retratos da avaliação: conlitos, desvirtuamentos e caminhos para superação. Porto Alegre: Mediação.

Francia- Freitas, M.L.P., & Gil, M.S.C.A. (2012). O desenvolvimento de crianças cegas e de crianças videntes. Revista Brasileira de Educação Especial (Marília), 18 (3), 507-526. http://dx.doi. org/10.1590/S1413-65382012000300010.

Flanagan, D. P., Ortiz, S. O., Alfonso, V. C., & Mascolo, J. T. (2002). he achievement test desk reference (ATDR): Comprehensive assessment and learning disabilities. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Gil, M. (2000). Deiciência Visual. Cadernos da TV escola. Brasília, n.º 1. Ministério da Educação.

González, R. P. Piera, P.J. F., Salabert, M. D., & Seba, U. L. (2002). Spanish Adaptation of the Nottingham Adjustment Scale I. Reliability study. Integración Revista sobre ceguera y deficiencia visual, 40, 7-20.

González, E. (2007). Necessidades educacionais especíicas: intervenção psicoeducacional. Porto Alegre: Artmed.

Gottman, J. M., & Clasen, R. E. (1972). Evaluation in education: A practitioner's guide. Itasca, IL: Peacock Publishers. Human Development Training Institute.

Horn, J. L. & Cattell, R. B. (1967). Age diferences in luid and crystallized intelligence. Acta Psychologica, 26, 107-129. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/00016918(67)90011-X

Hunt, E. (1999). Intelligence and human resources: past, present and future. In P. L. Ackerman, P.C. Kyllonen, & R. D. Roberts (Eds.), Learning and individual diferences: process, trait and content determinants (pp. 284-298). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/10315-001.

P.C. Kyllonen, & R. D. Roberts (Eds.), Learning and individual diferences: process, trait and con- tent determinants (pp. 284-298). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/10315-001.

Knox, A. B. (1977). Adult development and learning. San Francisco: JosseyBass. doi: 10.1177/074171367802800205.

Laramara (n.d.). Associação Brasileira de assistência à pessoa com deiciência visual – Deinições. Recuperado de http://laramara.org.br/deiciencia-visual/deinicoes.

Lobato, M.J. (2005). Déicits Visuais (não publicado). Recuperado de www.deicienciavisual.com/ site/page4/iles/deices_visuais.pdf.

Lowenfeld, B. (1977). Our blind children, growing and learning with them. Springield: Charles C. Thomas Publisher.

Lunt, I. (1995). A prática da avaliação. Em: Daniels, H. (Org.). Vygotsky em foco: pressupostos e desdobramentos. Campinas: Papirus.

Machado, E.V. (2011). A importância do (re)conhecimento do Sistema Braille para a humani- zação das políticas públicas de Inclusão. International Studies on Law and Education, 9, 49-54.

Malta, J., Endriss, D., Rached, S., Moura, T., & Ventura, L. (2006). Desempenho funcional de crianças com deiciencia visual, atendidas no Departamento de Estimulação Visual da Fundação Altino Ventura. Arquivo Brasileiro de Otalmologia, 69 (4), 571-574. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/ S0004-27492006000400021.

Masini, E. F. S. (1995). Algumas questões sobre a avaliação do portador de deiciência visual. Revista Brasileira de Estudos de Pedagogia, 76 (184), 615-634.

McGrew, K. S. (2005). The Cattell–Horn–Carroll theory of cognitive abilities: Past, present, and future. In D. P. Flanagan & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: heories, tests, and issues (pp. 136–177). New York: Guilford Press.

Ministério da Educação e Cultura [MEC], (n.d.). Declaração de Salamanca: Sobre Princípios, Políticas e Práticas na Área das Necessidades Educativas Especiais. Recuperado de http://portal.mec. gov.br/seesp/arquivos/pdf/salamanca.pdf.

Ministério da Educação e Cultura [MEC] (2007). Saberes e práticas da inclusão: desenvolvendo competências para o atendimento às necessidades educacionais especiais de alunos cegos e de alunos com baixa visão. [2. ed.] / coordenação geral SEESP/MEC. - Brasília: MEC/ SEESP.

Nascimento, E., & Flores Mendoza, C. E. (2007). WISC-III e WAIS-III na avaliação da in- teligência de cegos. Psicologia em Estudo, 12 (3), 627-633. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1413- 73722007000300020.

Navarro, M.H., & López, E.M. (2002). Cultural accesibility in a visual environment: boundaries and future trends. Integración Revista sobre ceguera y deficiencia visual, 40, 21-28.

Nicolaiewsky, C.A., & Correa, J. (2009). Habilidades cognitivo-linguísticas e segmentação lexical em Braille. Paidéia, 19 (44), 341-348. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0103-863X2009000300008.

Norris, M, Spaulding, P. J., & Brodie, F. H. (1957). Blindness in children, University of Chicago.

Nunes, S., & Lomônaco, J.F.B. (2008). Desenvolvimento de conceitos em cegos congênitos: camin- hos de aquisição do conhecimento: Desenvolvimento de conceitos em cegos congênitos. Psicolo- gia Escolar e Educacional, 12 (1), 119-138. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1413-85572008000100009.

Nunes, S., & Lomônaco, J.F.B. (2010). O aluno cego: preconceitos e potencialidades. Psicologia Escolar e Educacional, 14 (1), 55-64.

Oliveira, A. A. S., & Leite, L. P. (2000). Educação inclusiva e as necessidades educativas especiais. In E.J. Manzini (Org.), Educação especial: temas atuais (pp. 511-524). Marília: Unesp.

Oliveira, F. I. W., Biz, V. A., & Freire, M. (2011). Processo de Inclusão de Alunos Deicientes Vi- suais na Rede Regular de Ensino: Confecção e Utilização de Recursos Didáticos Adaptados. Re- cuperado de http://www.unesp.br/prograd/PDFNE2003/Processo%20de%20inclusao%20de%20 alunos%20deicien-tes%20visuais.pdf)>. Acesso em: 30 mar. 2016 .

Rabello, S., Motti, T.F.G., & Gasparetto, M.E. R.F. (2007). Avaliação educacional por meio do teste IAR em escolares com cegueira. Revista Brasileira de Educação Especial, 13 (2), 281-290. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1413-65382007000200009.

Roberts, A. (1996). Reabilitação Psicossocial do Cego. João Pessoa: Paraíba.

Scholl, G.T. (1986). What does it mean to be blind? In G.T. Scholl (Ed.), Foundations of education for blind and visually handicapped children and youth: heory and practice (pp. 23-33). NY: American Foundation for the Blind.

Sena, C.C.R.G., & Carmo, W.R. (2005, setembro). El uso de modelos tridimensionales en la enseñanza de Geografia para personas ciegas: uma proposta de inclusion. Anais do XI Simposio Brasileiro de Geograia Física Aplicada, São Paulo, SP, Brasil, 10.

Verdugo, M. A., Caballo, C., y Delgado, J. (1996). Diseño y aplicación de un programa de entrenamiento en habilidades sociales para alumnos con deficiencia visual. Integración. Revista sobre ceguera y deficiencia visual, 22, 5-24.

Viana, M. C. V. (2013). O Processo de Ensino/Aprendizagem Sob Diferentes Olhares. Editora Am- paro Ouro Preto: Centro de Educação Aberta e a Distância da Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto.

Zampieri, M., & Schelini, P.W. (2013). O uso de medidas intelectuais na análise do monitora- mento metacognitivo de crianças. Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa, 29, 2, 177-183. http://dx.doi. org/10.1590/S0102-37722013000200007

Zanfelici, T. O., & Oliveira, S. L. M. (2013). Ensino de testes psicológicos a alunos com deiciências sensoriais: expectativas e experiências. Avaliação Psicológica, 12 (3), 369-378.