STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE KTEA-3

•Item selection using curriculum consultants and content of widely used textbooks.

•Almost all Reading Comprehension questions are appropriately passage-dependent (see Keenan & Betjemann, 2006).

•Subtests in all eight specific learning disability areas identified in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA, 2004).

•Subtests in each of the three DSM-5 areas of impairment (Reading, Written Expression, and Math).

•Extensive tryout data using samples with approximate proportional representation by gender and ethnicity.

•Easel format for presenting subtest items.

•Reading-related subtests contribute to eight composites and yield five reading-related composites.

•Limited ceiling for some subtests for the oldest students in the Above Aver-

22222222111111111

age range. See Table 5.2 for specific data on highest possible subtest and composite scores for ages 21–25 and grade 12.

•Although most subtests have a ceiling that is at least 2 SD above the mean, at Grade 12, the ceilings for Nonsense Word Decoding, Reading Comprehension, Listening Comprehension, and Letter Naming Facility range from 124 to 129. At the highest age range, 12 of the 19 subtests have ceilings ≤150.

•Limited floor for some subtests for the youngest students with the lowest ability levels. For students younger than age 6, raw scores of 0 correspond to standard scores ranging from 78 to 40. For Pre-K through grade 1, raw scores of 0 correspond to standard scores ranging from 73 to 40. See Table 5.3 for specific data.

•Innovative item types, especially in Reading Comprehension, Written Expression, and Phonological Processing.

•Use of extensive item analysis procedures to eliminate biased items (gender or race) and items with poor psychometric properties.

•Expanded error analysis procedures with item-level analyses for Reading Comprehension, Listening Comprehension, Written Expression, Oral Expression, Phonological Processing, Math Concepts and Applications, Math Computation, Letter and Word Recognition, Nonsense Word Decoding, and Spelling.

•Novel and stimulating artwork is used throughout the test.

•It is not until age 11:8 that all subtests (with the exception of Nonsense Word Decoding) have a complete floor (standard score 40) and ceiling (standard score of 160). Nonsense Word Decoding does not have both a complete floor and ceiling at any age.

•Although Form A and Form B generally produce similar standard scores by age or grade, some large differences do occur. For Spelling, at 5:0–5:2, a raw score of 0 corresponds to standard scores of 55 for Form A and 80 for Form B.

•Error analysis procedures may be

•The standardization sample included students receiving special education services.

•Very detailed information on standardization procedures and sample are included in the Technical & Interpretive Manual.

•Expanded age range down to 4 years 0 months and up to 25 years 11 months for both Forms A and B.

•There are no separate norms for postsecondary students. Percentages of 19–20-, and 21–25-year-olds in high school or dropped out, graduated from high school with no further education, began 2-year postsecondary program, and began 4-year postsecondary program roughly approximated U.S. Census data

in most cases, but the examiner still lacks norms specifically

for students enrolled in postsecondary programs.

•Good to excellent mean split-half reliabilities of subtests and composites (range from .81 to .98, with the exception of Written and Oral Fluency which range from

.62 to .76).

•Two alternate forms are available for the KTEA-3, resulting in reduced practice effects for children who are assessed more than once.

•Alternate form reliability coefficients (adjusted for the variability of the norm group) are generally strong, ranging from .69 to .96 for the composites. Oral Fluency is the weakest, ranging from .69 to .74.

•The Technical & Interpretive Manual offers correlational data with two other tests of academic achievement and the KTEA-II as well as with a test of language (CELF-IV).

• The Oral Language subtests have

variable correlations with similar

22222222111111111

measures on the other achievement instruments. However this may be due to the very different approaches taken by different test batteries in measuring and defining oral expression and listening comprehension.

•Standard Errors of Measurement (SEm) are high for the ageand grade-norm sample for the Oral Fluency composite (ranging from 7.58–8.28) and several other subtests: Writing Fluency mean = 7.31, Associational Fluency mean = 9.28, Object Naming Facility mean = 8.31, and Letter Naming Facility

mean = 8.81.

•Table for error analysis categories is provided on the record form for five subtests.

•Separate error analysis pages are provided for subtests that have large numbers of skill categories, thereby making the main record form less cumbersome.

•New choices for descriptive categories allows examiners to base ability levels on either a 10or 15-point scale.

•The record form for Letter & Word Recognition and Nonsense Word Decoding includes phonetic pronunciation keys and, when needed, indicates correct stress of syllables. There is ample space to record the examinee’s pronunciations.

•The flash drive provides audio files for instructing the examiner about the correct pronunciations for administration and scoring purposes.

•Even though they lack sufficient top, norms for Phonological Processing, Letter & Word Recognition, Nonsense Word Decoding, and Reading Comprehension above age 12 and grade 6 may be helpful with weak readers.

•Need to remember to use conversion table to convert points earned in a set to the raw score for Reading Comprehension, Written Expression, Listening Comprehension, Word Recognition Fluency, and Oral Expression. Conversion tables are in the PDF Manual.

•Although scoring of most of

the Oral Expression and Written Expression items seems clear to us (especially with the aid of the explanations, examples, and Glossary), questions from graduate students, colleagues, and workshop attendees suggest that the scoring can be confus-

22222222111111111 ing for some examiners.

•When Associational Fluency and Object Naming Facility are administered, they must be given out of easel order, which is easy to forget for some examiners.

•Subtests required for computing Core Composites and the Academic Skills Battery are not contained in a single easel. Only Reading and Math composites can be obtained using the materials in Stimulus Book 1.

•The undifferentiated “Average” range for the 15-point score classifi-

cation system extends from 85 to 115. This range may make sense statistically and psychologically, but we find it much too broad (more than two thirds of the population) for interpreting educational performance.

•Both composites and subtests can be interpreted due to high reliability coefficients.

•Error analysis procedures pinpoint specific skill deficits.

•Qualitative observations for 15 KTEA-3 subtests, identified by both IDEA domain as well as by potential cognitive processing weaknesses, are especially helpful.

•The composites and error analysis yield much diagnostic information directly relevant to instructional remediation.

•Subtest and composite intercorrelations are presented by grade (Pre-K–12) and age (17–18, 19–20, 21–25) in the KTEA-3 Technical & Interpretive Manual.

•Interpretive procedures were simplified by comparing composites and subtests to ASB rather than to the mean of all composites.

•Integrated normative and ipsative comparisons are included in the interpretive process.

•Pairs of KTEA-3 Comprehensive subtests (i.e., Reading Comprehension and Listening Comprehension, and Written Expression and Oral Expression) have similar formats and allow for useful comparisons that can help the examiner distinguish specific problems in reading or writing from more general language problems.

•Caution needs to be taken when interpreting the scores with a nonoptimal ceiling or a nonoptimal floor for children under age 6.

•If all of the ASB subtests are not administered, then the Composite and Subtest Analysis cannot be completed because the ASB is used in all of these comparisons. However, pairwise composite comparisons or pairwise subtest comparisons are still possible.

•Many evaluators want to know if the component subtests in each composite are significantly and uncommonly different from each other, which should require cautious interpretation of the composite score. This information is available in Appendix G of the Manual, but is buried among all the other subtest comparisons.

•The comparison between Reading Comprehension and Listening Comprehension is very useful because of the almost identical formats of the two subtests. Differences between the formats of Written Expression and Oral Expression make that comparison less persuasive.

•Insufficient information is provided in the

Technical & Interpretive Manual on how to utilize the Growth Scale Values (GSV).

•The Growth Scale Values (GSV) allow for comparisons between an individual’s change across time but do not provide statistical comparisons to expected growth (“closing the gap”).