Search

The Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (WIAT-4) is the latest iteration of a popular instrument that psychologists employ to assess academic achievement. The WIAT-4 authors make both pragmatic and measurement claims about the instrument. The pragmatic claims involve being useful for identifying individuals in certain academic achievement-related groups (e.g., specific learning disability). The measurement claims are twofold: (a) the instrument's scores represent psychological attributes, and (b) scores transformed to standard score values have equal-interval properties. The WIAT-4 authors did not provide the evidence necessary to support the pragmatic claims in the technical manual, so we could not evaluate them. Thus, we limited our evaluation to the measurement claims for the composite scores. To do so, we used information in the technical manual along with some additional factor analyses. Support for the first measurement claim varies substantially across scores. Although none of the evidence is particularly strong, scores in mathematics and reading domains tend to have more support than the writing and total achievement scores. Support for the second claim was insufficient for all scores. Consequently, we recommend that psychologists wishing to interpret WIAT-4 composite scores limit those interpretations to just a few in the mathematics and reading domains. Second, psychologists should completely refrain from using any composite score in a way that requires equal-interval values (e.g., quantitative score comparisons). Neither of these recommendations necessarily disqualifies the scores from being useful for pragmatic purposes, but support for these uses will need to come from evidence not currently provided in the WIAT-4 technical manual.

Although phonemic awareness is an essential skill in learning to decode written words, practitioners may question which phonemic awareness tasks best operationalize their relationship with orthographic mapping, the process that converts a decoded word into one instantly recognized on sight. Tests from the "Woodcock-Johnson IV" were used to evaluate the effects of phonemic awareness tasks and vocabulary on measures of pseudoword decoding, word reading, and spelling in three age groups (ages 6 to 8, 9 to 13, and 14 to 19 years) within the WJ IV normative sample (N = 4082). Results from path analysis indicated the effects of phonemic awareness tasks and vocabulary varied depending on age and reading task type with mixed results based on theoretical expectations. Results from the 9 to 13 age group appeared closest to conforming to hypotheses. We discuss implications of measuring phonemic awareness, reading, and spelling in the context of comprehensive psychoeducational assessment.

Like all psychoeducational batteries, the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test, Fourth Edition (WIAT-4) requires independent investigation and analysis. The publisher provides multiple theories to support interpretation of its reading measures. At the word reading level, the battery includes a new Phonemic Proficiency subtest that the publisher reported correlated relatively higher with word reading skills than more basic phonological measures. However, its explanation of word reading skills in the context of other important predictors, like vocabulary, has not been investigated. At the comprehension level, the publisher endorsed an expanded simple view of reading, where oral reading fluency skills mediate the effects of word reading and oral language skills on comprehension. Using structural equation modeling with correlations provided in the technical manual, these analyses investigated multiple hypotheses stemming from publisher-endorsed theories. Results conformed to much of the publisher's word level theories, but they were more equivocal at the comprehension level. Implications for WIAT-4 interpretation are discussed.

The simple views of reading (SVRs) and writing (SVWs) reflect useful frameworks for the psychoeducational evaluation of literacy difficulties. They describe reading comprehension and written expression as the outcome of oral language, decoding, and transcription skills. Prior research has demonstrated that these components explain the vast majority of variance in comprehension and written expression. However, subtests' specific task demands can influence the relationships among these components within the models. As a result, practitioners should know the degree to which various test batteries operationalize these frameworks. Using correlations from school-age participants provided in the technical manual, these analyses investigated the SVR and SVW within the Woodcock-Johnson IV battery through structural equation modeling. Results suggest that the battery's measures conform to many of the expectations stemming from the SVR/SVW. However, its comprehension and written expression measures appear less language-influenced and more affected by decoding/spelling. Implications for psychoeducational practice are discussed.

The simple views of reading (SVR) and writing (SVW) provide useful foundations for the interpretation of psychoeducational achievement batteries. Research has established that oral language, decoding, and transcription explain significant variance in reading comprehension and written composition, respectively. However, the specific task demands of subtests influence the relationships among these constructs. As a result, the degree to which the KTEA-3's tasks conform to findings associated with the SVR and SVW are not known. These analyses evaluated the degree to which the KTEA-3 oral language and decoding or transcription tests explained variance in reading comprehension, and written expression. Results inform practitioners as to the relative contributions of each component and useful knowledge when determining which battery to use in psychoeducational evaluation.

The Wechsler individual achievement test, third edition (WIAT-III) is a popular individually administered achievement battery. Despite its ubiquity in assessment practice, scant research into its structure exists. We analyzed the structure of the WIAT-III in a sample of students in Grades 3-12 referred for special education evaluations (n = 355). Using confirmatory factor analysis, we evaluated the fit of the factor structure assumed by the composite scores provided by the test publisher. We then compared that model to alternative first-order, second-order and bifactor models in an exploratory fashion. Results demonstrated that the publisher implied model does not capture the structure of the WIAT-III. Instead subtests appear related to each other based on both their domain of academic performance and in other shared abilities. Implications for practice are discussed.

The simple view of writing suggests that written composition results from oral language, transcription (e.g., spelling/handwriting), and self-regulation skills, coordinated within working memory. The model provides a number of implications for the interpretation of psychoeducational achievement batteries. For instance, it hypothesizes that writing skills are only partially related to each other through a hierarchy of levels of language (e.g., subword, word, sentence, discourse levels) and that transcription skills such as spelling mediate the effects of language skills on composition. We evaluated implications of the simple view of writing in the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test, 3rd Edition (WIAT-III). Using structural equation modeling, we established that WIAT-III writing tasks are only partially related to each other within both the battery's normative sample and an independent sample of students referred for special education. We also described how lower level writing skills mediated the effects of language skills on higher level writing skills. However, these effects varied across normative and referral samples.

Theories of reading and writing development suggest that the factor structure of achievement batteries could change across development. As a result, it is important to test achievement batteries for invariance across development. The purpose of these analyses is to determine whether the factor structure of reading, writing, and oral language measures is invariant across grade ranges in the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement, 3rd Edition. Results suggest that multiple interpretational models demonstrate measurement and structural invariance. Implications for practice are discussed.

The Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement, 3rd edition (KTEA-3) is a popular battery for the assessment of students' academic skills. Its manual includes a series of confirmatory factor analyses to support construct validity. Its five-factor model did not include all available subtests in the battery and required covarying residuals between certain subtests, which could suggest that it measures additional abilities beyond its specified factors. Further, its factors appear highly correlated which suggests the presence of a general factor. This investigation supplements the analyses in the manual with both an oblique rotation and a higher-order exploratory factor analysis using a Schmid-Leiman rotation within multiple grade ranges. Results suggest that the KTEA-3 is factorally complex. The Schmid-Leiman rotation indicates that it is a measure of both a general ability, and perhaps an additional naming facility factor.

In this study, we examined the factor structure, reliability, and external validity of scores from the Comprehensive Test of Nonverbal Intelligence-Second Edition (CTONI-2) using an independent sample of young adults currently enrolled in a postsecondary institution. Although the subtests appear to be measuring general intelligence, the aggregate Full Scale score should be interpreted with caution when using the instrument with adults suspected of having above average intelligence. The item difficulties were too low to capture individual differences in adults with higher intelligence. Moreover, the scores' reliability and the relations to measures of academic achievement are lower than what is typically expected for intelligence measures.

Oral language and word reading skills have important effects on reading comprehension. The Wechsler Individual Achievement Test-Third Edition (WIAT-III) measures both skill sets, but little is known about their specific effects on reading comprehension within this battery. Path analysis was used to evaluate the collective effects of reading and oral language measures on reading comprehension in a total of 456 students referred for special education evaluations. Students were split randomly into two groups (calibration and validation) for model construction and testing. Results indicate that these measures demonstrate a number of effects on reading measures that go beyond the expressive/receptive distinction in the test manual and add to the validity evidence for the WIAT-III. Implications for practice and study limitations are discussed.

This study used structural equation modeling to examine the effect of Stratum III (i.e., general intelligence) and Stratum II (i.e., Comprehension-Knowledge, Fluid Reasoning, Short-Term Memory, Processing Speed, and Visual Processing) factors of the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) cognitive abilities, as operationalized by the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fourth Edition (WISC-IV; Wechsler, 2003a) subtests, on Quantitative Knowledge, as operationalized by the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test, Second Edition (WIAT-II; Wechsler, 2002) subtests. Participants came from the WISC-IV/WIAT-II linking sample (n = 550). We compared models that predicted Quantitative Knowledge using only Stratum III factors, only Stratum II factors, and both Stratum III and Stratum II factors. Results indicated that the model with only the Stratum III factor predicting Quantitative Knowledge best fit the data. (Contains 4 figures and 5 tables.)

In the cognitive test interpretation literature, a Rational/Intuitive, Indirect Empirical, or Combined approach is typically used to construct conceptual taxonomies of the functional (behavioral) similarities between subtests. To address shortcomings of these approaches, the functional requirements for 49 subtests from six individually administered scales of cognitive ability (WISC-IV, WPPSI-III, SB-V, WJ-III, CAS, and UNIT) were typed on index cards. Forty-eight (48) in-service and/or pre-service school psychologists were asked to sort the cards into two, three, five, or eight functionally similar piles. A multidimensional scaling analysis was performed on a 49x49 matrix of similarity scores collapsed across all 48 subjects. Three dimensions were extracted from the data: "Reproduction of Stimuli Sequences versus Picture Viewing" (Dimension 1), "Timed Speed versus Untimed Power" (Dimension 2), and "Verbal versus Performance" (Dimension 3). A hierarchical clustering procedure was then applied to the matrix data, and results were compared to previous categorization schemes identified in the test interpretation literature.