420 likes | 1.87k Views
History. Developed in 1930s by psychologist Joseph F. Jastak Idea to expand on existing measures of cognitive performance and assess 3 basic academic codesfirst published in 1946Several revisions; WRAT3 (1993)WRAT4 (2006)WRAT-Expanded. WRAT4 Updates. New measure of reading achievement:Sentenc
E N D
1. WRAT4 Wide Range Achievement Test Version 4
Anja Langner
2. History Developed in 1930s by psychologist Joseph F. Jastak
Idea to expand on existing measures of cognitive performance and assess 3 basic academic codes
first published in 1946
Several revisions; WRAT3 (1993)
WRAT4 (2006)
WRAT-Expanded
3. WRAT4 Updates New measure of reading achievement:
Sentence Comprehension
Reading Composite (Word Reading and Sentence Comprehension)
Age-based norms extended to age 94
Addition of grade-based norms
4. Basics Measures the basic academic skills of reading, sentence comprehension, spelling, and math computation
Useful for initial evaluations of individuals referred for learning, behavioral, or vocational difficulties
Alternate forms (blue and green) allow for retesting without practice effects, or additional performance observation
5. Population Standardized on representative national sample of approximately 3,000 individuals, age 5-94
proportionate distribution of age, gender, ethnicity, geographic region, and educational attainment (index of SES)
6. Reliability Internal Consistency
Median reliability coefficients of subtests and reading composite score for age and grade level range from .83-.93 in both blue and green forms
For combined form, coefficients range from .92-.98
Alternate-Form Reliability (blue/green)
.75 - .89
practice effects very small
7. INSERT PICTURE Internal consistency table 5.1
Alternate-form reliability – delayed test p.61
8. Reliability Problems:
While there is excellent precision of measurement for individuals of lower and average skill levels throughout the entire age and grade ranges
For the upper teenage through middle-adult years, the subtests do not provide as much precision at the higher score levels
? word-reading and sentence-comprehension skills plateau rather early
? higher-order reading skills, like comprehension of longer articles and textual passages, not measured
9. Validity Internal validity
Items were subjected to extensive content review by outside experts to maximize relevance and minimize gender or ethnic bias
Mean raw scores on subtests increase with age and grade level until middle age and later decline, as would be expected by developmental changes
Subtest intercorrelations
Median intercorrelations for all pairs of subtests: .56-.79
Modest increase in divergent validity from WRAT3 to WRAT4
10. Validity External validity
Moderate to high correlations of WRAT4 subtests with other achievement tests:
WIAT-II: .49 - .92
WJ-III ACH: .54 - .85
Moderate to moderately high correlations of WRAT4 subtests with cognitive ability indexes:
WISC-IV Full-scale IQ: .50-.81
SB-5 Full-scale IQ: .67-.78
Clinical studies show ability of WRAT4 to identify students with Learning disorders, Low cognitive ability, and High cognitive ability
11. INSERT PICTURE Table 5.38 - WRAT4 and other Achievement tests
Possible: clinical studies results p. 106
12. Administration With Individuals recommended; small groups possible for Part 2 of Spelling and Math Computation subtests (age 8 and older)
Approximately 15-25 minutes for individuals ages 5-7 years; approximately 35-45 minutes for individuals ages 8 years and older
13. Subtests Word Reading measures letter and word decoding
Sentence Comprehension measures an individual’s ability to gain meaning from words and to comprehend ideas and information contained in sentences
Spelling measures an individual’s ability to encode sounds into written form
Math Computation measures an individual’s ability to perform basic mathematics computations
14. 1. Word Reading Letter Reading
Start point for ages 7 and younger
Subject is asked to read 15 letters out loud
Word Reading
Start point for ages 8 and older
Subject is asked to read up to 55 words out loud
15. 2. Sentence Comprehension At least 6 years old or in first grade
Maximum of 50 items that consist of one or two sentences with a blank left to fill in one or, at most, two words
Participant silently reads sentence and gives oral response of missing word
Word Reading raw score used as start point
16. Example
38. “Of the four poisonous snakes that inhabit North America, the coral snake is not only the most deadly, but, with its bands of red, yellow, and black, it is also the most easily____________.”
17. 3. Spelling Letter Writing
Start point for ages 7 or younger
Administrator reads up to 13 letters and participant writes them down
Spelling
Start point for ages 8 or older
Administrator reads up to 42 words and participant writes them
18. 4. Math Computation Oral Math
Start point for Ages 7 or younger
15 items incl. counting, reading numbers out loud, and simple calculations
Math Computation
Start point for Ages 8 or older
Complete up to 40 math problems (add, subtract, multiply or divide) in 15 minutes
19. Examples 29. Solve for n:
4n – 3 = 29
n = ____
34. 15% of 160 = _______
20. Scoring Raw scores: 0 or 1 point for each item; then add points together for each subtest
Reading Composite score :
combines Word Reading and Sentence Comprehension standard scores
Convert to Standard scores, Confidence Intervals, and Percentile Ranks
21. Interpretation Standard scores (Mean 100,SD 15): allow comparison of performance on different tests or results on the same test at different ages or grade levels
Confidence intervals (SEM): range of scores within which an individual’s true score can be expected
? Standard Score Profile
Percentile Ranks: percentage of individuals in normative group obtaining scores below a particular score
22. Interpretation Grade Equivalents: show month of grade for which particular test score was the average score obtained in standardization sample
Can be misinterpreted
Can’t compare scores with scores from other test
Use only for supplementary interpretation
23. Decision to conduct further testing based on confidence interval overlap (p. 28)
NCE (Normal Curve Equivalents): provided because special government sponsored programs such as Title I require participating states to report test results this way, similar to percentile ranks but uses different mean and SD (scores of 1 to 99)
Stanine: single-digit, reporting test scores when broader score ranges are appropriate (scores of 1 to 9) for example in reporting test results to student and parentsDecision to conduct further testing based on confidence interval overlap (p. 28)
NCE (Normal Curve Equivalents): provided because special government sponsored programs such as Title I require participating states to report test results this way, similar to percentile ranks but uses different mean and SD (scores of 1 to 99)
Stanine: single-digit, reporting test scores when broader score ranges are appropriate (scores of 1 to 9) for example in reporting test results to student and parents
24. Interpretation Extended Interpretation: meaningful differences in performance between subtests
Statistical significance
Prevalence: occurrence of certain standard score differences in standardization sample
If significant difference in certain area is found, further evaluation necessary
25. Differences required between pairs of subtest standard scores (p. 487)
Brittany: math difficulties-indicates need for further testing
Differences required between pairs of subtest standard scores (p. 487)
Brittany: math difficulties-indicates need for further testing
26. Strengths Ease of administration and scoring; takes very little time
Psychometrically sound
Excellent standardization
Correlates well with other achievement and cognitive tests
In clinical studies, separates people with learning or cognitive deficits from people without
27. Weaknesses Only screens for strengths and weaknesses
Does not measure other important achievement abilities
Does not adequately measure skills of above-average and advanced readers at the later adolescent and adult years
Materials not very appealing
Small number of appropriate items for young children
28. References Wilkinson, Gary S., & Robertson, Gary J. (2006). WRAT4 Wide Range Achievement Test Professional Manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.
Snelbaker, A., Wilkinson, G., Robertson, G., & Glutting, J. (2001). Wide Range Achievement Test 3 (WRAT 3). Understanding psychological assessment (pp. 259-274). Dordrecht Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Smith, T., & Smith, B. (1998, December). Relationship between the Wide Range Achievement Test 3 and the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test. Psychological Reports, 83(31), 963-967.
Harmer, William R., & Williams, Fern (1978). The Wide Range Achievement Test and the Peabody Individual Achievement Test: A Comparative Study. Houston, TX: International Reading Association.