A few tips!
6/16/2016
Core-Selective Process (C-SEP): Using the WJ IV to Efficiently and Comprehensively Diagnose Specific Learning Disabilities Tammy L. Stephens, Ph.D. Account Executive, Riverside/HMH
Presenter
Tammy L. Stephens, Ph.D. Account Executive, Riverside/HMH [email protected]
Edward K. Schultz, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Midwestern State University [email protected]
Agenda • • • • • • • •
Welcome and Introductions History of SLD Identifications (Pros & Cons) Legal Considerations Core Selective Evaluation Process (C-SEP) WJ IV Core Tests Diagnostic Precision & Cognitive Complexity Case Study Discuss Unique Scoring Features of the WJ IV
1
6/16/2016
Description • Evaluators have been using CHC theory-based assessment as one of the methods since the movement away from the discrepancy models.
• Advances in both CHC Theory and in test design, specifically the WJ IV Battery of Tests, has led to greater efficiency in the testing process as well as improved diagnostic precision.
• This session will demonstrate how to use the WJ IV using the Core-Selective Evaluation Process (C-SEP), yielding diagnostically useful information in less time.
The Participant Will be Able to….. • Understand and apply the lessons from the last decade regarding SLD identification
• Interpret test data using a variety of statistically sound techniques. • Increase diagnostic precision using the Core-Selective Evaluation Process (C-SEP)
• Identify SLD using single-batteries by interpreting results using the norms and scoring software created for the test, specifically the WJ IV.
Current Practice • IDEA allow several options to school districts to develop local policy in order to identify SLD including IQ/Achievement approaches, RTI, cross battery approaches (XBA), processing approaches, and integrated models such as RTI/XBA.
• Each of these methods have features that help answer complex referral questions, however each of these methods have disadvantages related to comprehensiveness, efficiency, precision, and legal ramifications.
2
6/16/2016
Pros of Discrepancy Approaches • Easy to apply and arguably efficient • Simple to understand & interpret • Consistency across interpretations • Administratively/Legally Appealing due to quantifiable scores and cuts
Cons of the Discrepancy Approaches • IQ/Achievement discrepancy lacks comprehensiveness and precision.
• Overreliance on the standard scores, assessment does not inform intervention, and under- identifies students with low-average IQs and over-identifies students with high IQs.
• Potential for rigid adherence to cut-scores.
Pros of Cross-Battery Approaches • Useful when using single batteries that do not sufficiently measure theorybased constructs (e.g., CHC factors)
• Results inform intervention • Comprehensive and flexible • Useful for ELLs and identify students with low or lower IQs • Theory-Driven
3
6/16/2016
Cons of Cross-Battery Approaches • Contrived norms utilized instead of actual test norms(precise) for interpretation
• Complicated-time consuming pg. 361 (XBASS) • Inconsistency in professional development resulting in varying degrees of implementation
• Transferring scores from single-batteries such as the WJ IV to XBA software impacts precision by replacing actual norms with contrived norms.
• Necessity and efficiency of inputting scores in two different places is in question (potential for error and time consuming)
Cons of Cross-Battery Approaches • Misinterpretation/disregarding of scores (divergent scores) Pg. 192 • Global ability is now “relevant” for Dual-Discrepancy PSW Analysis –subject to misuse to get 3 “yes’s
• Over-emphasis on mathematical formulas using standard scores and less on clinical judgment.
Core-Selective Evaluation Process - (C-SEP) • The Core-Selective Evaluation Process to identify specific learning disabilities (SLD) is an efficiently focused, data-driven professional judgment process rooted in contemporary CHC theory.
• Specifically, using a single-battery (WJ IV core battery of tests from the cognitive, achievement and oral language) as a foundation of the evaluation, integrated with current policy and practice, the most salient features of SLD are assessed in order to comprehensively and efficiently describe an individual’s unique pattern of strengths and weaknesses.
4
6/16/2016
Pros of Using C-SEP Model the WJ IV • Efficient. (power to accomplish something)-more cognitively complex measures makes testing more robust yet efficient.
• Comprehensive. Comprehensively-measures the most salient features of SLD (language)
• Precise. Use of actual norms • Diagnostic. Ability to go into greater depth. New narrow-beyond CHC
Pros of C-SEP Model Using the WJ IV • One-step scoring –no transferring • Beyond Standard Scores-RPI’s, CALP, etc. • PSW analysis using actual norms, GIA • Intra-individual differences (COG, ACH, OL) • OL as a predictor • Scholastic APT Cluster • Gf-Gc • Oral Expression, Listening Comp are directly measured.
Legal Considerations • Tests should be used for the purposes for which they were published. • Interpretation should be conducted using the actual test norms UNLESS crossing batteries is necessary.
• Varying levels of expertise in using more complex eligibility models (e.g., XBA) results in inability to explain results.
5
6/16/2016
Legal Guidelines • Specific Learning Disability: …Means a DISORDER in one or more basic psychological processes, involved in understanding or in using LANGUAGE, either written or SPOKEN, which may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations….
6
6/16/2016
7
6/16/2016
WJ IV & C-SEP Model
“It is a delight to see the level of leadership and practical solutions Dr Schultz and Stephens have brought to contemporary evaluation practices. The C-SEP model parallels one of the author’s team design objectives of the WJ IV.” - Dr. Fred Schrank, Author of the WJ IV
The Woodcock-Johnson® IV Assessments • Tests of Cognitive Abilities • Tests of Achievement Forms A, B, and C • NEW! Tests of Oral Language Three batteries are co-normed.
8
6/16/2016
Organization of the WJ IV WJ IV Cognitive
Achievement
Oral Language
A B C Standard Battery
Extended Battery
10 tests 7 clusters
8 tests 10 clusters
Standard Battery
Extended Battery
11 tests 9 tests 15 clusters 7 clusters
Standard Battery 12 tests 9 clusters
WJ IV & C-SEP Model • The organization of the WJ IV tests fit nicely into a C-SEP model of SLD Determination
• Provides a core set of tests in each battery Cognitive: Tests 1–7 Achievement: Tests 1–6 Oral Language: Tests 1–4
• Most cognitively complex and ecologically valid tests in each battery • Increases ease and flexibility of use
Step 1: Measure Psychological Processes (CORE 7) • Administer the WJ IV Cognitive CORE 7 and analyze the student’s performance.
• If one of the G’s is not average or above average, further exploration IS warranted through the utilization of selective testing procedures.
9
6/16/2016
WJ IV Cog CORE 7
WJ-IV Cognitive Core 7 Tests
Score
Average (Yes/No)
Test 1: Oral Vocabulary (Gc) Test 2: Number Series (Gf) Test 3: Verbal Attention (Gwm) Test 4: Letter-Pattern Matching (Gs) Test 5: Phonological Processing (Ga) Test 6: Story Recall (Glr) Test 7: Visualization (Gv)
Cognitive Selective Testing Table
OL-O5
OL-O5
Step 2: Measure Language (CORE 4) • ….. or in using LANGUAGE, either written or SPOKEN, and which may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak…. (core 4)
• Comprehension-Knowledge (Gc) – Picture Vocabulary and Oral Comprehension (primarily)
• Auditory Processing (Ga) – Segmentation
• Cognitive Processing Speed (Gs) and (Glr) – Rapid Picture Naming
10
6/16/2016
WJ IV OL CORE 4
WJ-IV Oral Language Core 4 Tests
Score
Average (Yes/No)
Test 1: Picture Vocabulary (Gc)
Test 2: Oral Comprehension (Gc)
Test 3: Segmentation (Ga)
Test 4: Rapid Picture Naming (Gs)
Oral Language Selective Testing Table
COG-18
Step 3: Measure Academics • Get a focused referral question • Core or Selective • Cautions concerning Achievement Tests – Curriculum differences – Standard Scores can be misleading – Limited number of item (avg. 3 per grade)
11
6/16/2016
WJ IV CORE Achievement
WJ-IV Achievement Core 6 Tests
Score
Average (Yes/No)
Test 1: Letter-Word Identification Test 2: Applied Problems Test 3: Spelling Test 4: Passage Comprehension Test 5: Calculation Test 6: Writing Samples
Selective Testing Table
Step 4: Use Integrated Data Analysis Procedures to Identify PSWs • Regulations and Research • Profile Analysis • Multiple lenses
12
6/16/2016
C-SEP Case Study • Andre: 10-years, 1-month • Referred by the school’s RTI committee • History of struggles with reading • Developmentally appropriate milestones • Never attended preschool • Learned things later than other students his age • Hard worker and attentive to school work
WJ IV Cognitive: CORE 7
WJ IV Cognitive: CORE 7 (Weaknesses)
13
6/16/2016
WJ IV Cognitive Core 7
CORE 7
40
WJ IV Cognitive
41
WJ IV Cognitive: Selective Testing
14
6/16/2016
WJ IV Cognitive: Selective Testing
WJ IV Oral Language: CORE 4
WJ IV Oral Language: CORE 4 (Weaknesses)
15
6/16/2016
WJ IV Oral Language: Selective Testing
Oral Language Core & Selective
47
WJ IV Achievement: CORE 6
16
6/16/2016
WJ IV Achievement
CORE 6
49
WJ IV Achievement: CORE 6 (Weaknesses)
WJ IV Achievement: Selective Testing (Weaknesses)
17
6/16/2016
Broad Achievement
Specific Learning Disability Definition:
• …Means a DISORDER in one or more basic psychological processes, involved in understanding or in using LANGUAGE, either WRITTEN or SPOKEN, which may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations…. – – – – – – – –
Oral Expression Listening Comprehension Written Expression Basic Reading Skills Reading Fluency Skills Reading Comprehension Mathematical Calculation Mathematical Problem solving
53
Triangulation of Data • Reason for Referral: Struggles in Reading • History of struggles in reading (Parent information, teacher information, student information, test scores, report card grades, etc.
• RTI Data: Reading interventions and CBM data collected and show nonresponsiveness
• Ruled out Exclusionary Factors • Formal and Informal testing results: Both support weakness in Reading. • Investigate and Consider all data collected to determine a pattern of Strengths and weaknesses.
54
18
6/16/2016
CASE STUDY: Integrated Interpretation (WJ IV Results)
Patterns of Strengths and Weaknesses: Cognitive Strengths:
Academic Strengths:
• • • •
• Math Reasoning • Math Calculations • Writing Samples
Comprehension –Knowledge (Gc) Fluid Reasoning (Gf) Short-term Working Memory (Gwm) Visual Processing (Gv)
Cognitive Weaknesses:
Academic Weaknesses:
• Cognitive Processing Speed (Gs) • Auditory Processing (Ga) • Long-Term Retrieval (Glr)
• Basic Reading Skills • Reading Comprehension
• Reading Fluency • Spelling
56
Determining PSW with the WJ IV
57
19
6/16/2016
Variation and Comparison Procedures
Variations: Procedures to help analyze the variability in an individual’s performance within the cognitive, oral language, or achievement domains. Comparisons: Procedures to help analyze if an individual’s performance is in line with or discrepant from a predictor (e.g., general intelligence).
Intra-Ability Variation Procedures Diagnose Intra-cognitive Cognitive Abilities
Oral Language
Achievement
Identify Strengths and Weaknesses Early Identification
Intra-oral language Cognitive Abilities
Oral Language
Achievement
Program Planning Intra-achievement Cognitive Abilities
Oral Language
Achievement
Four Variation Procedures
•Intra-Cognitive •Intra-Oral Language •Intra-Achievement •Academic Skills/Academic Fluency/Academic Applications
20
6/16/2016
Is achievement in line with or discrepant from: Overall cognitive ability (GIA)
Ability/Achievement Comparison Procedures Cognitive Abilities
Oral Language
Achievement
GIA, Scholastic Aptitude, or Gf-Gc
Cognitive Abilities
Oral Language
Achievement
Aptitude (Scholastic)
Gf-Gc
Oral language
Cognitive Abilities
Oral Language
Achievement
Academic Knowledge
Intra-Cognitive Variations
62
Five Comparison Procedures
• GIA/Achievement • Scholastic Aptitude/Achievement • Gf-Gc/Other Ability • Broad Oral Language/Achievement • Academic Knowledge/Achievement
21
6/16/2016
Predicted Scores • Variation procedure: The predicted score is based on the average of the other core tests
• Comparison or discrepancy scores: the predicted score is based upon the predictor (e.g., GIA, Oral Language, Academic Knowledge)
GIA/Achievement Discrepancy
GIA score is 95. No significant discrepancies.
Scholastic Aptitudes Six Scholastic Aptitude clusters Composed of the four cognitive tests that are designed to provide the best predictor of achievement.
They compare the most relevant cognitive abilities to current levels of achievement in specific academic areas to determine if cognitive abilities are consistent with achievement (aptitudeachievement consistency).
22
6/16/2016
Six Scholastic Aptitudes
Reading Math Writing
Scholastic Aptitudes
Basic Reading Skills Test 1: Oral Vocabulary Test 3: Verbal Attention Test 5: Phonological Processing Test 11: Number-Pattern Matching Math Calculation Skills Test 1: Oral Vocabulary Test 2: Number Series Test 7: Visualization Test 17: Pair Cancellation
Scholastic Aptitude/Achievement Comparison
69
23
6/16/2016
Summary • The updated WJ IV Tests are more cognitively complex and ecologically valid resulting in a more robust and efficient test instrument.
• Core-Selective Evaluation Process (C-SEP) provides an efficient and comprehensive SLD eligibility model while utilizing the robustness of the WJ IV tests.
• Legal implications exist when evaluators neglect to interpret test scores using the actual test norms and scoring system; instead, they are manipulated and entered into a third-party software program (e.g., contrived norms & increased error rate)
• The WJ IV offers flexibility and numerous options for interpreting test results using the WJ IV Online Scoring Platform.
Contacts
Tammy L. Stephens, Ph.D. Account Executive, Riverside/HMH [email protected]
Edward K. Schultz, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Midwestern State University [email protected]
72
24
Core-Selective Process (C-SEP): Using the WJ IV to Efficiently and Comprehensively Diagnose Specific Learning Disabilities Tammy L. Stephens, Ph.D. Account Executive, Riverside/HMH
Presenter
Tammy L. Stephens, Ph.D. Account Executive, Riverside/HMH [email protected]
Edward K. Schultz, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Midwestern State University [email protected]
Agenda • • • • • • • •
Welcome and Introductions History of SLD Identifications (Pros & Cons) Legal Considerations Core Selective Evaluation Process (C-SEP) WJ IV Core Tests Diagnostic Precision & Cognitive Complexity Case Study Discuss Unique Scoring Features of the WJ IV
1
6/16/2016
Description • Evaluators have been using CHC theory-based assessment as one of the methods since the movement away from the discrepancy models.
• Advances in both CHC Theory and in test design, specifically the WJ IV Battery of Tests, has led to greater efficiency in the testing process as well as improved diagnostic precision.
• This session will demonstrate how to use the WJ IV using the Core-Selective Evaluation Process (C-SEP), yielding diagnostically useful information in less time.
The Participant Will be Able to….. • Understand and apply the lessons from the last decade regarding SLD identification
• Interpret test data using a variety of statistically sound techniques. • Increase diagnostic precision using the Core-Selective Evaluation Process (C-SEP)
• Identify SLD using single-batteries by interpreting results using the norms and scoring software created for the test, specifically the WJ IV.
Current Practice • IDEA allow several options to school districts to develop local policy in order to identify SLD including IQ/Achievement approaches, RTI, cross battery approaches (XBA), processing approaches, and integrated models such as RTI/XBA.
• Each of these methods have features that help answer complex referral questions, however each of these methods have disadvantages related to comprehensiveness, efficiency, precision, and legal ramifications.
2
6/16/2016
Pros of Discrepancy Approaches • Easy to apply and arguably efficient • Simple to understand & interpret • Consistency across interpretations • Administratively/Legally Appealing due to quantifiable scores and cuts
Cons of the Discrepancy Approaches • IQ/Achievement discrepancy lacks comprehensiveness and precision.
• Overreliance on the standard scores, assessment does not inform intervention, and under- identifies students with low-average IQs and over-identifies students with high IQs.
• Potential for rigid adherence to cut-scores.
Pros of Cross-Battery Approaches • Useful when using single batteries that do not sufficiently measure theorybased constructs (e.g., CHC factors)
• Results inform intervention • Comprehensive and flexible • Useful for ELLs and identify students with low or lower IQs • Theory-Driven
3
6/16/2016
Cons of Cross-Battery Approaches • Contrived norms utilized instead of actual test norms(precise) for interpretation
• Complicated-time consuming pg. 361 (XBASS) • Inconsistency in professional development resulting in varying degrees of implementation
• Transferring scores from single-batteries such as the WJ IV to XBA software impacts precision by replacing actual norms with contrived norms.
• Necessity and efficiency of inputting scores in two different places is in question (potential for error and time consuming)
Cons of Cross-Battery Approaches • Misinterpretation/disregarding of scores (divergent scores) Pg. 192 • Global ability is now “relevant” for Dual-Discrepancy PSW Analysis –subject to misuse to get 3 “yes’s
• Over-emphasis on mathematical formulas using standard scores and less on clinical judgment.
Core-Selective Evaluation Process - (C-SEP) • The Core-Selective Evaluation Process to identify specific learning disabilities (SLD) is an efficiently focused, data-driven professional judgment process rooted in contemporary CHC theory.
• Specifically, using a single-battery (WJ IV core battery of tests from the cognitive, achievement and oral language) as a foundation of the evaluation, integrated with current policy and practice, the most salient features of SLD are assessed in order to comprehensively and efficiently describe an individual’s unique pattern of strengths and weaknesses.
4
6/16/2016
Pros of Using C-SEP Model the WJ IV • Efficient. (power to accomplish something)-more cognitively complex measures makes testing more robust yet efficient.
• Comprehensive. Comprehensively-measures the most salient features of SLD (language)
• Precise. Use of actual norms • Diagnostic. Ability to go into greater depth. New narrow-beyond CHC
Pros of C-SEP Model Using the WJ IV • One-step scoring –no transferring • Beyond Standard Scores-RPI’s, CALP, etc. • PSW analysis using actual norms, GIA • Intra-individual differences (COG, ACH, OL) • OL as a predictor • Scholastic APT Cluster • Gf-Gc • Oral Expression, Listening Comp are directly measured.
Legal Considerations • Tests should be used for the purposes for which they were published. • Interpretation should be conducted using the actual test norms UNLESS crossing batteries is necessary.
• Varying levels of expertise in using more complex eligibility models (e.g., XBA) results in inability to explain results.
5
6/16/2016
Legal Guidelines • Specific Learning Disability: …Means a DISORDER in one or more basic psychological processes, involved in understanding or in using LANGUAGE, either written or SPOKEN, which may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations….
6
6/16/2016
7
6/16/2016
WJ IV & C-SEP Model
“It is a delight to see the level of leadership and practical solutions Dr Schultz and Stephens have brought to contemporary evaluation practices. The C-SEP model parallels one of the author’s team design objectives of the WJ IV.” - Dr. Fred Schrank, Author of the WJ IV
The Woodcock-Johnson® IV Assessments • Tests of Cognitive Abilities • Tests of Achievement Forms A, B, and C • NEW! Tests of Oral Language Three batteries are co-normed.
8
6/16/2016
Organization of the WJ IV WJ IV Cognitive
Achievement
Oral Language
A B C Standard Battery
Extended Battery
10 tests 7 clusters
8 tests 10 clusters
Standard Battery
Extended Battery
11 tests 9 tests 15 clusters 7 clusters
Standard Battery 12 tests 9 clusters
WJ IV & C-SEP Model • The organization of the WJ IV tests fit nicely into a C-SEP model of SLD Determination
• Provides a core set of tests in each battery Cognitive: Tests 1–7 Achievement: Tests 1–6 Oral Language: Tests 1–4
• Most cognitively complex and ecologically valid tests in each battery • Increases ease and flexibility of use
Step 1: Measure Psychological Processes (CORE 7) • Administer the WJ IV Cognitive CORE 7 and analyze the student’s performance.
• If one of the G’s is not average or above average, further exploration IS warranted through the utilization of selective testing procedures.
9
6/16/2016
WJ IV Cog CORE 7
WJ-IV Cognitive Core 7 Tests
Score
Average (Yes/No)
Test 1: Oral Vocabulary (Gc) Test 2: Number Series (Gf) Test 3: Verbal Attention (Gwm) Test 4: Letter-Pattern Matching (Gs) Test 5: Phonological Processing (Ga) Test 6: Story Recall (Glr) Test 7: Visualization (Gv)
Cognitive Selective Testing Table
OL-O5
OL-O5
Step 2: Measure Language (CORE 4) • ….. or in using LANGUAGE, either written or SPOKEN, and which may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak…. (core 4)
• Comprehension-Knowledge (Gc) – Picture Vocabulary and Oral Comprehension (primarily)
• Auditory Processing (Ga) – Segmentation
• Cognitive Processing Speed (Gs) and (Glr) – Rapid Picture Naming
10
6/16/2016
WJ IV OL CORE 4
WJ-IV Oral Language Core 4 Tests
Score
Average (Yes/No)
Test 1: Picture Vocabulary (Gc)
Test 2: Oral Comprehension (Gc)
Test 3: Segmentation (Ga)
Test 4: Rapid Picture Naming (Gs)
Oral Language Selective Testing Table
COG-18
Step 3: Measure Academics • Get a focused referral question • Core or Selective • Cautions concerning Achievement Tests – Curriculum differences – Standard Scores can be misleading – Limited number of item (avg. 3 per grade)
11
6/16/2016
WJ IV CORE Achievement
WJ-IV Achievement Core 6 Tests
Score
Average (Yes/No)
Test 1: Letter-Word Identification Test 2: Applied Problems Test 3: Spelling Test 4: Passage Comprehension Test 5: Calculation Test 6: Writing Samples
Selective Testing Table
Step 4: Use Integrated Data Analysis Procedures to Identify PSWs • Regulations and Research • Profile Analysis • Multiple lenses
12
6/16/2016
C-SEP Case Study • Andre: 10-years, 1-month • Referred by the school’s RTI committee • History of struggles with reading • Developmentally appropriate milestones • Never attended preschool • Learned things later than other students his age • Hard worker and attentive to school work
WJ IV Cognitive: CORE 7
WJ IV Cognitive: CORE 7 (Weaknesses)
13
6/16/2016
WJ IV Cognitive Core 7
CORE 7
40
WJ IV Cognitive
41
WJ IV Cognitive: Selective Testing
14
6/16/2016
WJ IV Cognitive: Selective Testing
WJ IV Oral Language: CORE 4
WJ IV Oral Language: CORE 4 (Weaknesses)
15
6/16/2016
WJ IV Oral Language: Selective Testing
Oral Language Core & Selective
47
WJ IV Achievement: CORE 6
16
6/16/2016
WJ IV Achievement
CORE 6
49
WJ IV Achievement: CORE 6 (Weaknesses)
WJ IV Achievement: Selective Testing (Weaknesses)
17
6/16/2016
Broad Achievement
Specific Learning Disability Definition:
• …Means a DISORDER in one or more basic psychological processes, involved in understanding or in using LANGUAGE, either WRITTEN or SPOKEN, which may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations…. – – – – – – – –
Oral Expression Listening Comprehension Written Expression Basic Reading Skills Reading Fluency Skills Reading Comprehension Mathematical Calculation Mathematical Problem solving
53
Triangulation of Data • Reason for Referral: Struggles in Reading • History of struggles in reading (Parent information, teacher information, student information, test scores, report card grades, etc.
• RTI Data: Reading interventions and CBM data collected and show nonresponsiveness
• Ruled out Exclusionary Factors • Formal and Informal testing results: Both support weakness in Reading. • Investigate and Consider all data collected to determine a pattern of Strengths and weaknesses.
54
18
6/16/2016
CASE STUDY: Integrated Interpretation (WJ IV Results)
Patterns of Strengths and Weaknesses: Cognitive Strengths:
Academic Strengths:
• • • •
• Math Reasoning • Math Calculations • Writing Samples
Comprehension –Knowledge (Gc) Fluid Reasoning (Gf) Short-term Working Memory (Gwm) Visual Processing (Gv)
Cognitive Weaknesses:
Academic Weaknesses:
• Cognitive Processing Speed (Gs) • Auditory Processing (Ga) • Long-Term Retrieval (Glr)
• Basic Reading Skills • Reading Comprehension
• Reading Fluency • Spelling
56
Determining PSW with the WJ IV
57
19
6/16/2016
Variation and Comparison Procedures
Variations: Procedures to help analyze the variability in an individual’s performance within the cognitive, oral language, or achievement domains. Comparisons: Procedures to help analyze if an individual’s performance is in line with or discrepant from a predictor (e.g., general intelligence).
Intra-Ability Variation Procedures Diagnose Intra-cognitive Cognitive Abilities
Oral Language
Achievement
Identify Strengths and Weaknesses Early Identification
Intra-oral language Cognitive Abilities
Oral Language
Achievement
Program Planning Intra-achievement Cognitive Abilities
Oral Language
Achievement
Four Variation Procedures
•Intra-Cognitive •Intra-Oral Language •Intra-Achievement •Academic Skills/Academic Fluency/Academic Applications
20
6/16/2016
Is achievement in line with or discrepant from: Overall cognitive ability (GIA)
Ability/Achievement Comparison Procedures Cognitive Abilities
Oral Language
Achievement
GIA, Scholastic Aptitude, or Gf-Gc
Cognitive Abilities
Oral Language
Achievement
Aptitude (Scholastic)
Gf-Gc
Oral language
Cognitive Abilities
Oral Language
Achievement
Academic Knowledge
Intra-Cognitive Variations
62
Five Comparison Procedures
• GIA/Achievement • Scholastic Aptitude/Achievement • Gf-Gc/Other Ability • Broad Oral Language/Achievement • Academic Knowledge/Achievement
21
6/16/2016
Predicted Scores • Variation procedure: The predicted score is based on the average of the other core tests
• Comparison or discrepancy scores: the predicted score is based upon the predictor (e.g., GIA, Oral Language, Academic Knowledge)
GIA/Achievement Discrepancy
GIA score is 95. No significant discrepancies.
Scholastic Aptitudes Six Scholastic Aptitude clusters Composed of the four cognitive tests that are designed to provide the best predictor of achievement.
They compare the most relevant cognitive abilities to current levels of achievement in specific academic areas to determine if cognitive abilities are consistent with achievement (aptitudeachievement consistency).
22
6/16/2016
Six Scholastic Aptitudes
Reading Math Writing
Scholastic Aptitudes
Basic Reading Skills Test 1: Oral Vocabulary Test 3: Verbal Attention Test 5: Phonological Processing Test 11: Number-Pattern Matching Math Calculation Skills Test 1: Oral Vocabulary Test 2: Number Series Test 7: Visualization Test 17: Pair Cancellation
Scholastic Aptitude/Achievement Comparison
69
23
6/16/2016
Summary • The updated WJ IV Tests are more cognitively complex and ecologically valid resulting in a more robust and efficient test instrument.
• Core-Selective Evaluation Process (C-SEP) provides an efficient and comprehensive SLD eligibility model while utilizing the robustness of the WJ IV tests.
• Legal implications exist when evaluators neglect to interpret test scores using the actual test norms and scoring system; instead, they are manipulated and entered into a third-party software program (e.g., contrived norms & increased error rate)
• The WJ IV offers flexibility and numerous options for interpreting test results using the WJ IV Online Scoring Platform.
Contacts
Tammy L. Stephens, Ph.D. Account Executive, Riverside/HMH [email protected]
Edward K. Schultz, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Midwestern State University [email protected]
72
24
