Hunterstation454

View Kristin Fontaine’s profile on LinkedIn, the world's largest professional community. Kristin has 7 jobs listed on their profile. See the complete profile on LinkedIn and discover Kristin’s. Normative Update Compuscore and Profiles Program CD-ROM for Mac and Windows. Normative Update Technical Manual 206 pages.

Trusted Windows (PC) download WJ III Compuscore and Profiles Program 2.1. Virus-free and 100% clean download. Get WJ III Compuscore and Profiles Program alternative downloads. WJ III NU Compuscore and Profiles Program- The educator should use this program to enter raw scores and avoid hand computation errors (Riverside Publishing Company, 2007) Report Writer for the WJ III - This program continues and expands on the Compuscore and Profiles Program in that it assists the educator in writing comprehensive and accurate. (2007) explained that scores are placed into the WJ-III scoring program, Compuscore and Profiles Program, and individual strengths and weaknesses can be computed in specific areas as a diagnostic.

John Wiley & Sons

Chapter One

WJ III Descriptive and Interpretive Information

INTRODUCTION

The following score forms may be used to display and summarize an individual's test scores. The forms are followed by a chart that matches grade placement with chronological age. This chart is useful for determining the typical age for a given grade and whether disparities exist between grade placement and age. When differences exist (such as in the case of a retention), it is sometimes helpful to compare the individual's performance to both grade-peers and age-peers. Next, several tables are provided that describe the WJ III tests and the task requirements. These are followed by example test items for the WJ III COG and WJ III ACH. Because they are not actual items from the test, these sample items may be shared with a parent or teacher who is interested in knowing more about the nature or types of questions on the specific tests. The descriptive information includes an explanation of all the scores on the WJ III, with sample statements for reporting scores and describing the results from the discrepancy procedures. The last part of the section provides ideas for meaningful test comparisons, as well as tips for interpretation. These comparisons and tips can help an evaluator develop a diagnostic hypothesis to explain a particular pattern of test scores.

SAMPLE SCORE FORMS

The following score forms are intended to aid the evaluator in organizing the student's assessment results on the WJ III COG and WJ III ACH. The forms give the evaluator the choice of score level to use (i.e., qualitative, level of development, degree of proficiency, comparison with peers) and the level of specificity with which to analyze the results (test to factor/cluster). These forms are helpful for analysis of assessment results and as a visual framework for presenting this information to others.

EXPLANATION OF WJ III SCORES, INTERPRETIVE LEVELS, AND DISCREPANCIES

Level 1: Qualitative

Qualitative information is obtained through observation of behavior during testing, analysis of task demands, and error analysis of responses to test items. Qualitative information, though not a score, is a pivotal component for understanding and interpreting all scores obtained by the student. Oftentimes a description of how a student obtained a particular score is as important as the information provided by the score itself. Qualitative information is one of the critical components of proper individualized assessment and is an integral part of the reporting and interpretation of test results (see Table 9).

Task Analysis and Comparisons of Selected Tests

The basis for qualitative analysis of a test is generally twofold: task analysis and error pattern analysis. In task analysis, the evaluator analyzes the cognitive and academic demands of the task, including the subskills the student needs to perform the task proficiently. The similarities and differences between the task demands, compared with the student's demonstrated proficiency (or lack thereof) on each task, suggest the type of task demands that are either easy or difficult for the student. In error pattern analysis, the evaluator examines the errors the student made and the strategy he or she used in doing the task (possibly in lieu of exercising the necessary skills) to discern the subskill(s) that have not been mastered.

Task analysis is frequently used to obtain information about a student's skills and abilities other than the ability that is the intended target of the test or cluster. A test is designed to measure a certain ability, but at times one recognizes through more detailed analysis that the intended ability was not measured. As an example, the Working Memory cluster is intended to measure the ability to hold information in immediate awareness while performing a mental operation on it. Low scores on Auditory Working Memory and Numbers Reversed might, quite reasonably, lead the evaluator to diagnose difficulties in working memory. Task analysis, however, shows that both tests require the student to visualize numbers. Suppose that error analysis of Auditory Working Memory showed errors only on repetition of numbers but not on objects-a question should arise as to whether the problem is in memory or in the student's ability to visualize/work with numbers. That question can then be answered by checking the student's performance on other tests that require memory but no numbers, such as Memory for Words and Visual-Auditory Learning. Visual Matching and Calculation would provide additional information regarding facility with numbers. Task analysis and error pattern analysis, then, help evaluators to obtain valuable information that may, or may not, require further investigation.

Level 2: Level of Development

Level 2 information is derived directly from the raw score. This information indicates the level of development and is usually transformed to metrics that compare raw scores to age- or grade-level groups. Raw scores are then entered into the WJ III Compuscore and Profiles Program (Schrank & Woodcock, 2001) or the Report Writer for the WJ III (Schrank & Woodcock, 2002).

W Scores

W scores are intermediate scores for test interpretation. These scores do not appear on the computer printout unless the examiner chooses that option in Program Options. The W-scale is a special transformation of the Rasch ability scale and provides a common scale of equal-interval measurement that represents both a person's ability and the task difficulty. The W-scale for each test is centered on a value of 500, which has been set to approximate the average performance at age 10 years, 0 months. The W score for any cluster is the average W score for the tests included in the cluster. The W score is also used to plot the Age/Grade Profile, which illustrates Development Zones on the WJ III COG and Instructional Zones on the WJ III ACH (see Level 3: Degree of Mastery). The W-scale is particularly useful for the measurement of growth and can be considered a growth scale.

Age Equivalents (AE)

An age equivalent (AE), or age score, reflects the student's performance in terms of the age group in the norming sample in which the median raw score is the same as the student's raw score. If half the subjects of age 8-5 in the norming sample obtained a raw score of 20 or greater, and half the subjects of age 8-5 obtained a raw score of 20 or less, then the raw score of 20 is assigned the age equivalent of 8-5 (8 years, 5 months). All students, regardless of age, who obtain a raw score of 20 will have an 8-5 age equivalent assigned as their level of development. Age equivalents are expressed in years and months with a dash (-) as the delimiter. The age scale starts at 2-0 on some tests and 4-0 on the other tests, and extends to the age of peak median performance in the norming sample for each test.

Grade Equivalents (GE)

A grade equivalent (GE), or grade score, reflects the student's performance in terms of the grade level in the norming sample at which the median raw score is the same as the student's raw score. For example, if half the subjects in grade 3.6 in the norming sample obtained a raw score of 20 or greater, and half the subjects in grade 3.6 in the norming sample obtained a raw score of 20 or less, then the raw score of 20 is assigned the grade equivalent of 3.6 (third grade, sixth month). All students, regardless of age, who obtain a raw score of 20 will have a 3.6 grade equivalent assigned as their level of development. Grade equivalents are expressed in grade and month with a decimal point (.) as the delimiter. The grade scale ranges from 18.0 (above beginning second year graduate school).

Level 3: Degree of Proficiency

Level 3 information indicates the quality of a student's performance on criterion tasks of known difficulty levels when compared to an age or grade reference group.

Relative Proficiency Index (RPI)

The Relative Proficiency Index (RPI) predicts a student's level of proficiency on tasks that typical age- or grade-peers (the reference group) would perform with 90% proficiency. For example, an RPI of 55/90 on the calculation test would indicate that, on similar math tasks, the student would demonstrate 55% proficiency, whereas average age- or grade-peers would demonstrate 90% proficiency. Interpretation guidelines, paralleling informal reading inventory criteria, are Independent Level (easy; 96/90 and above), Instructional Level (76/90 to 95/90); and Frustration Level (difficult; 75/90 and below).

RPIs are based on the W scale. The W scale is a special transformation of the Rasch ability scale (Rasch, 1960; Wright & Stone, 1979) and uses the same set of numbers for expressing both item difficulty and an individual's ability. As a consequence, the scale provides a mathematical basis for predicting performance based on the difference between a person's ability and difficulty of the task. WJ III users do not need to use W scores directly, although W scores can be provided by the Compuscore and Profiles Program, if desired.

For any skill or ability assessed, the RPI can document a performance deficit that may not be apparent in peer-comparison scores (e.g., standard scores, percentile ranks). When there appears to be a contradiction between interpretations of the standard score and the RPI, the evaluator must remember that these two kinds of scores are communicating different information and are not interchangeable. A common misconception is that peer-comparison scores indicate ability or achievement levels. In fact, peer-comparison scores do not provide direct information regarding a student's mastery of the skill or ability being assessed. Rather, they represent a rank ordering, indicating the position in which a student's score falls within the distribution of scores obtained by age- or grade-peers in the norming sample. Woodcock (1999) illustrates this difference as follows:

Persons with visual or hearing problems are usually classified as handicapped or in need of special services because they have significant deficits in the quality of their visual or aural performance, not because they fall below some point on a norm-referenced criterion scale. On the other hand, mental retardation has been based primarily on a norm-referenced criterion such as having an IQ that falls in the lower 3% of the general population (below 70). (Woodcock, 1999)

Occasionally, an evaluator may note an apparent contradiction between a standard score and the RPI. For example, on the Letter-Word Identification test, Tommy, a second-grade boy, obtained a standard score of 92 (average, albeit at the lower end), a percentile rank of 30, and an RPI of 62/90 (limited). These scores suggest that, even though many other second-graders (30%) demonstrated equally limited or more limited sight vocabularies, Tommy's skills were nonetheless deficient compared to the average proficiency of second-graders. He requires additional attention to sight-word acquisition. This apparent discrepancy is more likely to be observed during a period of rapid growth in a skill or ability. Consequently, it is important to consider proficiency scores as well as peer-comparison to determine a student's need for services.

Sample descriptive statements reflect a Fluid Reasoning W difference of -10 for a male student.

Proficiency: 'His fluid reasoning ability is limited to average....'

Functionality: 'His fluid reasoning ability is mildly impaired to within normal limits....'

Developmental: 'His fluid reasoning ability is mildly delayed to age-appropriate....'

Implications: 'He will probably find age-level tasks requiring him to identify categories and relationships among categories, make inferences, recognize and form concepts, and draw conclusions difficult.'

Cognitive-Academic Language Proficiency (CALP)

A CALP score is provided for all of the tests that measure English language proficiency, if this option is selected in the software. As with the RPI, the CALP level is based upon the W score differences. CALP levels describe how the student will perform on English language tasks when compared with others of the same age or grade. As illustrated in Table 12, the scores range from a CALP Level of 5 (Advanced), where the student will find the language demands in instructional situations to be very easy, to a CALP Level of 1 (Negligible), where the student will find the language demands in instructional situations impossible to manage.

Age/Grade Profiles

The Instructional Zone in the WJ III ACH and the Developmental Zone in the WJ III COG are special applications of the RPI. These bands extend from -10 W score units (easy) to +10 W score units (difficult). These bands display the range between an RPI of 96/90 (easy) to an RPI of 75/90 (difficult). The student will find tasks that are below the lower point of the band to be quite easy, and those above the higher point of the band to be quite difficult. The length of these bands on the Age/Grade Profile indirectly reflects the rate of growth of the measured trait in the population. In a period of development when growth is rapid, the Developmental or Instructional Zone bands will be quite narrow; in a period of development when little growth occurs, the bands will be quite wide. For example, a narrow band for a second grade student on the Letter-Word Identification test indicates that growth in sight word acquisition is rapid at that grade level, whereas a wide band for a student in high school indicates that sight word acquisition takes place slowly during that developmental period.

The Age/Grade Profile displays the practical implications of the test or cluster scores (in contrast to the statistical implications displayed by the SS/PR Profiles). The Developmental and Instructional Zones suggest the level that which tasks will be easy for a person and the level at which tasks will be difficult, and may be used to describe the student's present level of functioning.

Level 4: Comparison with Peers

Level 4 information indicates relative standing in the group when compared to age- or grade-peers.

Percentile Ranks (PR)

A percentile rank describes a student's relative standing in a comparison group on a scale of 1 to 99 (see Table 13). The student's percentile rank indicates the percentage of students from the comparison group who had scores the same as or lower than the student's score. A student's percentile rank of 68 indicates that 68% of the comparison group had scores the same as or lower than the student's score. Extended percentile ranks provide scores down to a percentile rank of one-tenth (0.1) and up to a percentile rank of ninety-nine and nine-tenths (99.9). A student's percentile rank of 0.1 indicates that only 1 in 1,000 students in a reference group would score as low or lower. A student's percentile rank of 99.9 indicates that 999 in 1,000 students in a reference group would score the same or lower.

Standard Scores (SS)

A standard score describes a student's performance relative to the average performance of the comparison group. It is based on an average score being assigned a value of 100, with a standard deviation, an indication of the variability of scores in the population, assigned a value of 15. The range of standard scores is 0 to over 200.

Z Scores

A z is a standard score that has a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1. A (+) sign means that the score is above the mean (e.g., +2.0 means two standard deviations above the mean) and a (-) sign means that the score is below the mean (e.g., -2.0 means two standard deviations below the mean).

(Continues...)

Excerpted from Woodcock-Johnson III by Nancy Mather Lynne E. Jaffe Copyright © 2002 by Nancy Mather and Lynne E. Jaffe. Excerpted by permission.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

Adaptive Behavior Assessment System II (ABAS-II) Scoring Assistant

Location: Assessment Library

Copies: 1

Batelle Developmental Inventory II (BDI-II) Scoring Pro

Location: Assessment Library

Copies: 5

Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development III (Bayley III) Scoring Assistant and PDA

Location: Assessment Library

Copies: 1

Behavior Assessment System for Children II (BASC-II) Scoring and Reporting System

Location: Assessment Library

Copies: 1

BASC-2 Behavior andEmotional Screening System (BESS) Scoring and Reporting System

Location: Assessment Library

Copies: 1

Bilingual Verbal Ability Tests (BVAT) Scoring and Reporting Program

Location: Assessment Library

Copies: 1

Differential Ability Scales II (DAS-II) Scoring Assistant

Location: Assessment Library

Copies: 2

Differential Ability Scales II (DAS-II) Phonological Processing Audio & Signed Standard Sentences Video

Location: Assessment Library

Copies: 1

Marital Satisfaction Inventory Revised (MSI-R) Scoring Assistant

Location: Assessment Library

Copies: 2

*software is on floppy disk only

NEPSY II Scoring Assistant and Assessment Planner

Location: Assessment Library

Copies: 1

Personality Inventory for Youth (PIY) Scoring Assistant

Location: Assessment Library

Copies: 1

*software is on floppy disk only

Roberts Apperception Test for Children (Roberts II) Scoring Assistant

Location: Assessment Library

Copies: 1

*includes CD and USB Key (required to use program)

Stanford Binet Intelligence Scales V (SB5) ScoringPro

Location: Assessment Library

Copies: 3

Woodcock Johnson Compuscore And Profiles Program

Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test (UNIT) Compuscore

Location: Assessment Library

Copies: 2

Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales II (Vineland II) Scoring and Reporting System

Location: Assessment Library

Copies: 2

Woodcock Johnson Compuscore And Profiles Programme

Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children IV (WISC-IV) Scoring Assistant

Location: Assessment Library

Copies: 1

Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children IV Spanish (WISC-IV Spanish) Scoring Assistant

Location: Assessment Library

Copies: 1

Wechsler Nonverbal (WNV) Scoring Assistant

Location: Assessment Library

Copies: 1

Woodcock Johnson III Tests of Achievement (WJ III ACH)

Woodcock Johnson III Test of Cognitive Abilities (WJ III COG)

Woodcock Johnson Iii Compuscore And Profiles Program

Compuscore and Profiles Program

Woodcock Johnson Compuscore And Profiles Programming

Location: In Achievement Test Kits; Assessment Library stores 2 separate copies

Copies: Version 1.1: 2

Version 2.0: 6

Woodcock Johnson III NUNormative Update Compuscore and Tech Manual

(used for Bateria IIICognitive and Achievement Tests)

Location: Assessment Library

Copies: 1