WRAT4

WRAT4 PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 754 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

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

Download Presentation

WRAT4

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


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.

  • Login