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

Spelling

Scoring Spelling is straightforward: score 1 for correctly spelled words and 0 for misspelled words. Poorly formed letters, capitalization, and mixing print with cursive are not penalized. Responses that contain letter reversals are scored 0 points unless the examinee is in Kindergarten or first grade. If the examinee is in Kindergarten or first grade, letter reversals are not penalized as long as the reversal does not form a di erent letter. During administration, carefully watch the examinee spell each item and ask him or her to name any letters that are unclear or ambiguous.

Avoid scoring the examinee’s responses “by eye,” reading through them and looking for misspelled words. This method of scoring is error prone—even if you are a good speller. Errors may include a correct spelling of the wrong word or may closely resemble the correct spelling. To prevent scoring errors, always compare each of the examinee’s responses with the correct spelling printed in the record form.

To calculate the raw score, subtract the number of incorrect items from the ceiling item. Skipped items (those words that the student chose not to attempt) are scored as incorrect. An error analysis may be conducted after the subtest is scored.

Math Fluency—Addition, Subtraction, and Multiplication

The raw score for each of the three Math Fluency subtests is the number of cor-

111111111

rect responses provided within the 1-minute time limit. Disregard any skipped or unattempted items—these are not scored as incorrect. Do not penalize for numeral formation and numeral reversal errors. When handwriting is unclear, you may ask the examinee to read his or her response to help you decipher what is written. Responses with transposition errors, such as 12 for 21, are scored as incorrect.

For hand scoring and Q-global scoring, use the scoring key provided in Appendix C of the Examiner’s Manual. The scoring keys are reproducible, which means you are allowed to make copies of these pages for your personal use and ease of reference.

WIAT®–III 193

e cient process of interpretation to glean the most from the data. A systematic and e cient procedure for interpreting the WIAT-III is described in the following section.

Introduction to Interpretation

The reason for referral typically dictates the battery of tests administered during an assessment. In the case of the WIAT-III, 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. The recommended interpretive approach for the WIAT-III begins at the global level by looking at the available composite scores, then interpreting subtest scores, and then drilling down further by analyzing skills analysis and qualitative data, and conducting additional analyses as needed. Interpretation of the WIAT-III involves the following five basic steps:

1.Interpret the composite scores.

2.Interpret the subtest scores.

3.Identify composite strengths and weaknesses.

4.Identify subtest strengths and weaknesses.

5.Determine the significance and unusualness of planned comparisons.

After these five interpretive steps, examiners may wish to obtain more detailed information by conducting a skills analysis and considering qualitative information. The

111111111

final sections on interpretation detail the skills analysis process and how to best utilize qualitative observations.

C A U T I O N

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

Use Confidence Intervals

Every score has a margin of error. When interpreting and reporting standard scores for subtests and composites, use the confidence interval for reporting scores within a range.

When using confidence intervals, you must first select the degree of confidence you want to report: 85%, 90%, or 95%. Generally, the higher the degree of confidence, the larger the score range. Many examiners prefer 90% because the score range is not so large yet the level of confidence is still quite high.

For example, if a 13-year-old examinee obtained a Word Reading age-based standard score of 100, the examiner can be 90% confident that the examinee’s true score is in the range of 95 to 105 (100 ± 5) and 95% confident that the

examinee’s true score is in the range of 94 to 106 (100 ± 6). When reporting results using 90%, you might say: Marie’s word reading skills were estimated in the average range (95–105), or Marie’s word reading skills were estimated in the 37th–63rd percentile range.

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

Step 1: Interpret the Composite Scores

Most examiners do not administer all the WIAT-III subtests available at a given age/grade due to time limitations or the need for a more targeted assessment. The WIAT-III is designed to be comprehensive enough to provide the measures most often needed for a diagnostic assessment, but flexible enough to allow examiners to select only the subtests or composites that are most relevant to addressing the referral concern. For this reason, the first step in the interpretation process does not assume the Total Achievement composite was obtained.

If the Total Achievement (TA) composite was obtained, interpretation begins by evaluating the TA composite score and its component subtest scores. The TA composite provides a global overview of an examinee’s academic achievement across four domains: oral language, reading, writing, and math. Review the TA standard score, confidence interval, percentile rank, and corresponding descriptive category. If the TA composite 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, it would be appropriate to report that “Lena’s TA composite was in the Average to Above Average range of academic functioning”).

Use the graphical profile to easily visualize the examinee’s profile of subtest scores on a normal distribution and 22222222111111111 compare scores with each other. The TA composite score indicates an examinee’s “average” or overall academic functioning, which is useful on its own for general screening, educational placement, or research purposes. For clinical and diagnostic purposes, valuable information is obtained from interpreting the degree of variability in performance across the subtest scores that comprise the Total achievement composite. Some examinees exhibit similar performance (a low degree of scatter) across subtest standard scores; however,

it is generally more common to see at least a moderate degree of scatter with one or more subtest scores that are considerably higher or lower than the TA composite score. A large degree of scatter is easy to spot. If the confidence intervals of two scores do not overlap, the scores are significantly di erent (see Don’t Forget box). Areas of strength and weakness suggested by the examinee’s TA profile of scores may be explored further in subsequent interpretive steps.

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

Step 3: Identify Composite Strengths and Weaknesses

After interpreting composite scores relative to the normative sample, consider the examinee’s relative or personal strengths and weaknesses by evaluating composite scores relative to the examinee’s own level of performance. Consider whether each composite score is consistent with the level of achievement across composite areas or if there is variation in performance across composite areas. Possible areas of relative strength or weakness are the highest or lowest composite scores, which are easy to spot on the graphical profile. Evaluate whether the di erences between pairs of composite standard scores are statistically significant at the desired level of confidence. For any statistically significant di erences, determine if the di erences are typical or rare by looking up the cumulative percentages of the standardization sample that obtained the same or similar composite score discrepancies.

Step 4: Identify Subtest Strengths and Weaknesses

Step 4 uses a procedure similar to the one described in Step 3. Consider the examinee’s relative or personal strengths and weaknesses at the subtest level by evaluating subtest scores relative to the examinee’s own level of performance. Consider whether each subtest score is consistent with the level of achievement across subtests or if there is variation in performance across subtest areas. Possible areas of relative strength or

111111111

weakness are the highest or lowest subtest scores, which are easy to spot on the graphical profile. Evaluate whether the di erences between pairs of subtest standard scores are statistically significant at the desired level of confidence. For any statistically significant di erences, determine if the di erences are typical or rare by looking up the cumulative percentages of the standardization sample that obtained the same or similar subtest score discrepancies.

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. Specific planned comparisons of composite scores or subtest scores may provide useful information for diagnosis or instructional planning. Numerous planned comparisons can be made depending on the examiner’s needs. However, specific score comparisons are recommended for reading, writing, and math referral concerns, as shown in Rapid Reference 3.7. Subtest and composite score comparisons can be evaluated using Q-global or by completing the tables provided in the record form.

WIAT®–III 197

Rapid Reference 3.7

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

Recommended Score Comparisons

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:

What can be learned from comparing reading and listening comprehension subtests, and oral and written expression subtests?