KTEA™-3 85

(Continued)

Base scoring on commonly heard speech.

Score 0 for sentence structure, word meaning, and word form (grammar) only if the error is obvious and would stand out in semi-formal speech such as speaking to the class.

Use judgment to choose best-fitting category.

Sometimes a response is clearly erroneous, but it is not immediately evident which category should be scored 0. In those instances, choose the category that in your judgment best fits the error. The overall subtest score will not be affected.

Give no credit for incomprehensible responses or no response.

If an examinee doesn’t respond to an item, or if the response is incomprehensible (the meaning cannot be understood), score 0 on all categories for that item.

Do not penalize false starts, self-corrections, or interjections.

For example, give credit if an examinee says: “Before she went home—I want to go home—she went to the grocery store with her mom.”

Most often, ignore extraneous words or sentences.

If the examinee says something that is not related to the task, but the examinee

22222222111111111

gives a correct response, ignore anything else he or she says.

Give no credit for task criterion and sentence structure for misplaced sentence parts.

On later items, misplacement of a part of the sentence can cause failure on both the task criterion (because the sentence does not make sense or says something false) and the sentence structure criterion (because of the misplacement). In such cases, score 0 for both criteria.

Do not penalize for articulation errors.

Note: From Chapter 6 of KTEA-3 Scoring Manual (Kaufman & Kaufman, 2014d).

HOW TO INTERPRET THE KTEA-3

Once you have completed administration and scoring, then you may begin a systematic method of interpreting the scores yielded from the KTEA-3. The KTEA-3 yields a great deal of information: the Comprehensive Form yields scores from 19 possible subtests, three core composites, 10 supplemental composites, and an Academic Skills Battery (ASB) composite; the Brief Form yields scores from six possible subtest scores, three core composites, and two overall composites (BA-3 and ASB). Given the wealth of information provided by the KTEA-3, examiners need to methodically employ an e cient process of interpretation to glean the most from the data. A systematic and e cient procedure for interpreting the KTEA-3 is described in the following section, and key di erences in the interpretation of the Comprehensive and Brief Forms will be explained.

86 ESSENTIALS OF KTEA™-3 AND WIAT®-III ASSESSMENT

Introduction to Interpretation

The reason for referral typically dictates the battery of tests administered during an assessment. In the case of the KTEA-3, either the full battery may be administered or a partial battery may be administered to answer a question about a particular area of academic functioning. We present an approach to interpreting the comprehensive battery of the KTEA-3 and an alternative approach if only part of the KTEA-3 Comprehensive Form is administered. The interpretive approaches advocated in this book begin at the global level by looking at the Academic Skills Battery composite (ASB) and core composites, then interpreting subtest scores, and finally the specific patterns of errors. One goal of KTEA-3 interpretation is to identify and promote understanding of the examinee’s strong and weak areas of academic functioning, from both normative (age-based or grade-based) and ipsative (person-based) perspectives. Similar to interpretive approaches presented for various cognitive instruments such as the KABC-II (Kaufman, Lichtenberger, Fletcher-Janzen, & Kaufman, 2005)

and unusualness of planned comparisons.

When you administer only portions of the KTEA-3, the ASB and other composites will not be available for the interpretive analyses. For these cases, you may conduct an

KTEA™-3 87

abbreviated interpretation. In the abbreviated interpretation of a partial battery you will conduct only two of the steps listed earlier:

2. Interpret composites and subtest scores.

5. Determine the significance and unusualness of planned comparisons.

When hand scoring, the data and calculations needed to conduct each of the interpretive steps outlined in this chapter are recorded on the KTEA-3 “Analysis and Comparisons” form on the Flash Drive.

After the interpretation of either the complete or the partial KTEA-3 Comprehensive Form battery, examiners may wish to obtain more detailed information by analyzing an examinee’s errors. The final section on interpretation details a process of error analysis for each KTEA-3 subtest.

Step 1: Interpret the Academic Skills Battery (ASB) Composite

The ASB is composed of three subtests for prekindergarteners, five subtests for kindergarteners, and six subtests for examinees in grades 1 and above. The ASB subtest structure is shown earlier in this chapter in Figure 2.1. If a partial KTEA-3 battery is administered, and all of the subtests that comprise the ASB are not obtained, then the ASB composite cannot be calculated, and this interpretive step can be skipped. The function of the ASB is to provide a global overview of an examinee’s academic achievement across three domains: reading, math,111111111and written language. The ASB composite standard score is also used in later interpretive steps as it represents an examinee’s “average” academic ability or the “midpoint” of all his or her academic skills. Thus, in the later interpretive steps, the ASB composite is the basis of comparison for determining the examinee’s relatively strong and weak areas of achievement.

When interpreting the ASB in written reports, you should report the ASB standard score, the confidence interval, percentile rank, and descriptive category. If the ASB’s confidence interval spans more than one descriptive category, we suggest reporting the descriptive category as a range (e.g., if the confidence interval is 105 to 113, then write in the report: “Eliza’s ASB composite was in the Average to Above Average range of academic functioning”).

In addition to reporting the ASB composite standard score, confidence interval, percentile rank, and descriptive category, you should report whether the ASB is a Normative Strength or Normative Weakness. A Normative Strength (NStr) is defined as a standard score that is greater than 115 (or 110 in the 10-point scale) and a Normative Weakness (NWk) is defined as a standard score that is lower than 85 (or 90 in the 10-point scale). Thus, Normative Strengths and Weaknesses are those scores that fall outside of the Average range of academic functioning. The front page of the Analysis and Comparisons form has a place to record whether the ASB composite is a Normative Strength or Normative Weakness by circling the appropriate abbreviation. See Figure 2.5 for an excerpt from the Analysis & Comparisons Form, which is provided on the KTEA-3 Flash Drive for recording data for interpretive Step 1.

88 ESSENTIALS OF KTEA™-3 AND WIAT®-III ASSESSMENT

Figure 2.5 Analysis of Academic Skills Battery Composite

Source: Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement–Third Edition (KTEA-3). Copyright © 2014 NCS Pearson, Inc. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved.

Some examinee’s ASB standard scores are comprised of scores that vary widely across the three academic domains. In such cases, the ASB should be interpreted with an appropriate explanation. For example, Tomás earned Reading Comprehension and Letter & Word Recognition standard scores of 74 and 75, respectively. He also earned much higher Math Computation and Math Concepts & Applications standard scores of 124 and 125, respectively. His ASB composite standard score was 100, which represents the midpoint of very diverse abilities. Because of the variability in the scores that comprise Tomás’ ASB scores, a more meaningful understanding of his diverse academic abilities can be obtained by examining his performance on the separate academic domain composites.

Thus, the examiner’s written report will communicate that, although Tomás earned an ASB composite score in the Average range,111111111 his academic skills are highly variable, ranging from Below Average to Above Average. The report will then go on to focus on those separate academic domains, as the Average ASB composite score does not provide as much useful and meaningful information as his scores on the separate academic domains.

Step 2: Interpret Other Composite Scores and Subtest Scores

In the second interpretive step, a procedure similar to that of Step 1 is followed for interpreting the other composite scores and the subtest scores. Step 2 is conducted whether a complete or partial KTEA-3 battery was administered. For whichever subtests were administered, report the standard score, the confidence interval, and the percentile rank. We do not recommend reporting the descriptive categories for each of the subtests, as that amount of information (scores plus descriptive categories) is a bit overwhelming and unnecessary. However, we do recommend reporting the descriptive categories for the three Core composites, Oral Composites, Reading-Related composites, and Cross-Domain Composites in addition to the standard scores, the confidence intervals, and the percentile ranks.

The final part of Step 2 for each composite and subtest is to determine whether each is a Normative Strength or a Normative Weakness. Circle NWk (below average) and NStr (above average) on the front page of the Analysis and Comparisons form to indicate the Normative Weaknesses and Strengths (see Figure 2.6).

KTEA™-3 89

Figure 2.6 Analysis of Domain Composites

Note: Excerpt from front page of the KTEA-3 Analysis & Comparisons Form.

Source: Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement–Third Edition (KTEA-3). Copyright © 2014 NCS Pearson, Inc. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved.

Step 3: Identify Composite Strengths and Weaknesses

In Steps 1 and 2, you compare the examinee’s abilities to that of the normative group (i.e., determining Normative Strengths and Weaknesses), but in Step 3 you compare the examinee’s abilities to his or her own average level of academic performance (i.e., determining Personal Strengths and Weaknesses). The ASB standard score is used as the value that represents an examinee’s “average level of performance,” which is compared to the111111111 examinee’s performance on the separate domain composites (Rapid Reference 2.6 gives the rationale for using the ASB to represent the examinee’s “average” level of performance). Thus, for each of the Core composites (Reading, Math, and Written Language), two Oral Composites (Oral Language and Oral Fluency), the four Reading-Related composites (Sound Symbol, Decoding, Reading Fluency, and Reading Understanding), and the Cross-Domain Composites (Comprehension, Expression, Orthographic Processing, and Academic Fluency), subtract the composite standard score from the ASB standard score. Then record this di erence on the front page of the Analysis and Comparisons form in the column labeled “Di . from ASB.” An examinee’s composite that is significantly higher than the ASB is labeled a Personal Strength (PStr) and a domain composite that is significantly lower than the ASB is labeled a Personal Weakness (PWk). Tables in the Technical & Interpretive Manual provide the specific di erence values necessary to be considered significant at the .05 level (refer to the “Significance” column of Table G.1 for grade norms or Table G.5 for age norms). If the di erence between the ASB and a domain composite is equal to or greater than the value indicated in the table then that composite is deemed significantly di erent. A significant di erence in which the domain composite is greater that the ASB is a Personal Strength and a significant di erence in which the domain composite is less than the ASB is a Personal Weakness.

If a Personal Strength or Personal Weakness is found, you should refer to Table G.1 or G.5 to see how unusual the di erence is in the normal sample. If the di erence occurs in 10% or fewer of the norm sample cases, then it is considered unusually

90 ESSENTIALS OF KTEA™-3 AND WIAT®-III ASSESSMENT

large. In such instances, record that the di erence is “Infrequent (≤10%)” on the last column of the Analysis and Comparisons form.

Rapid Reference 2.6

.....................................................................................................................

Rationale for Using ASB as Examinee’s

Average Level of Performance

Interpretive Steps 3 and 4 suggest using the ASB composite as the midpoint or average level of examinee’s academic performance when conducting comparisons with specific academic skill areas. The ASB includes one or two subtests from each of the academic domains, and it serves as an appropriate reference point for evaluating a broad range of individual composites and subtests.

Note: See page 106 of the KTEA-3 Technical & Interpretive Manual for additional information on the rationale.

Personal Strengths or Weaknesses that are also “Infrequent” and a Normative Strength or Weakness are especially noteworthy and demand special attention when translating scores to diagnostic and educational111111111 considerations. Personal Strengths and Weaknesses by definition are scores that are significantly di erent from an examinee’s ASB—that is, the di erences are very unlikely to have occurred by chance. Some significant di erences may be quite common in the population. Thus, these significant di erences, in and of themselves, may not be of particular clinical interest. However, if a di erence is so large that it rarely occurs in the population (i.e., it is “Infrequent”), then it is usually worth investigating further.

Step 4: Identify Subtest Strengths and Weaknesses

Step 4 is similar to Step 3 in that you are comparing an examinee’s performance to his or her own average level of performance. However, Step 3 determined Personal Strengths and Weaknesses for composites and Step 4 determines them for subtest scores. To identify subtest strengths and weaknesses, follow the same procedure outlined in Step 3: Subtract each subtest standard score from the ASB standard score. Record the absolute di erence between the scores on the front page of the Analysis and Comparisons form in the appropriate blank under “Di . from ASB.” Then refer to Table G.2 (grade norms) or G.6 (age norms) in the KTEA-3 Technical & Interpretive Manual to determine whether each di erence is statistically significant at the .05 level. If a di erence is large enough to be considered significant and the subtest score is higher than the ASB score, then that subtest is a Personal Strength (circle PStr on the form). If a di erence is large enough to be considered significant and the subtest

KTEA™-3 91

score is lower than the ASB score, then that subtest is a Personal Weakness (circle PWk on the form).

If a di erence is statistically significant (deeming a subtest a Personal Strength or Personal Weakness), then determine how unusual it is in the norm sample. Refer to the columns labeled “Frequency” in Table G.2 (grade norms) or Table G.6 (age norms) in the KTEA-3 Technical & Interpretive Manual. If the value of the di erence occurs in fewer than 10% of the norm sample cases, put a checkmark in the last column of the Analysis and Comparisons form in the “Infrequent” column. The subtests that are both a Personal Strength or Weakness and labeled “Infrequent” are worthy of further investigation, as they may provide useful diagnostic information or information related to educational considerations.

Step 5: Determine the Significance and Unusualness

of Planned Comparisons

Step 5 is useful for evaluating hypotheses about specific strong and weak areas of achievement or for evaluating a comparison between particular academic or reading-related skills. At times, specific planned comparisons of composites or subtests may provide useful information for diagnosis or instructional planning.

On the KTEA-3, there are numerous planned comparisons that can be made depending on the examiner’s needs. However, the test authors recommend routinely

111111111

making at least two comparisons in the Comprehensive Form: (1) Oral Expression subtest with Written Expression subtest, and (2) Reading Comprehension subtest with Listening Comprehension subtest. The Don’t Forget box reminds readers what can be learned from these expression and comprehension comparisons as well as comparing other subtests.

Don’t Forget

.....................................................................................................................

Which Subtest Comparisons Are Most Clinically Useful?

The most clinically useful subtest comparisons depend on the referral concerns as well as the examinee’s unique profile of strengths and weaknesses; however, as a general guide, the following subtest comparisons may be considered for each academic area:

92 ESSENTIALS OF KTEA™-3 AND WIAT®-III ASSESSMENT

(Continued)

What Can Be Learned From the Expression and Comprehension

Comparisons?

If the Expression and Comprehension composites are unitary (the examinee performs similarly on OE and WE, and on RC and LC), then comparing these two composite scores may help identify a weakness in either receptive or expressive oral and written language.

What Can Be Learned From Comparing Associational Fluency and Object Naming Fluency?

ONF involves retrieving names of common objects (overlearned information). ONF is a relatively low-level processing task because it requires no categorizing, generation of ideas, or creativity; however, rapid naming requires linking a visual stimulus with an aural response, which is difficult for some individuals with LD. On the other hand, AF is a task that allows for more creativity, strategy, and flexibility in thought. AF is a higher-level processing task than ONF, and doesn’t require linking the auditory and visual modalities. Comparing performance on AF and ONF (or LNF) may be clinically useful. For example, individuals with dyslexia tend to perform well on AF. In the KTEA-3 clinical validity study (Kaufman & Kaufman, 2014b), AF showed minimal difference between examinees with reading/writing disorders and their peers (p = .04, effect size was .37, the lowest effect size of any subtest).

The methods for evaluating planned comparisons between composites or subtests are very similar to those employed in Steps 3 and 4. Once you have determined which comparisons you would like to make, follow the substeps of Step 5 outlined in Rapid Reference 2.7. You will calculate the di erence between the scores, and then determine the significance and frequency of that di erence. The back page of the KTEA-3 Analysis and Comparisons form has places to record the data for these planned comparisons.