Upload
others
View
4
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
5/4/2015
1
Revision, evolution and revolution in assessment: The WJ IV and
beyond CHC theory
Dr. Kevin S. McGrew, PhD
Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP)
WJ IV Presentation Menu Dr. Kevin McGrew
A. Intro & Overview
B. New tests
C. Cognitive Complexity Principle (Brief)
D. WJ IV “Intelligent” testing (BB/TG)
E. COG Battery
F. The New Ga
G. OL Battery (+tech info)
H. ACH Battery (+tech info)
I. Variations & Comparisons
J. Advanced: Ref.-focused testing
N. IQs Corner fun stuff
E1. Scholastic Aptitudes
E2. COG tech
Pre The ?
B2. COG/OLB1. ACH
M. ASB’s
E3. WJ IV COG/Wechslers
L. ECAD
K. General technical info
O. Case study-Patrick
5/4/2015
2
Use the most contemporary measurement model of the evolving CHC
model of human cognitive abilities
“Beyond CHC” – CHC plus contemporary neurocognitive
research
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin S. McGrew 05-01-15
Evolution of CHC Theory in the WJ IV
WJ (1977): Scientific-Empirical (pragmatic)
WJ-R (1989): Extended Cattell-Horn Gf-Gc Theory
WJ III (2001): CHC Theory
WJ IV (2014): Beyond CHC Theory
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin S. McGrew 05-01-15
5/4/2015
3
The CHC taxonomy of cognitive abilities codebook (v2.5)
GfGc Gwm
Glr
Gv
Ga
Gs
GqGrw
g
Download at: http://www.iapsych.com/chccodebook1.pdf
http://www.iapsych.com/chccodebook2.pdf
Or visit:
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 06-18-14
Organize the battery into three (four) independent, co-normed batteries that can
be used independently or in any combination to provide greater flexibility
for examiners
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin S. McGrew 05-01-15
5/4/2015
4
Organization
WJ IV
Cognitive Achievement Oral Language
Standard Extended Standard Extended StandardBattery Battery Battery Battery Battery
ABC
10 tests 8 tests 11 tests 9 tests 12 tests 7 clusters 10 clusters 15 clusters 7 clusters 9 clusters
WJ IV COG and OL tests by CHC factor domains
Oral Vocabulary
(VL)
Number Series
(RQ)
General Information
(K0)
Object-Num.
Sequencing
(WM)
Pair Cancellation
(P/WM-AC)
Memory for Words
(MS)
Analysis-Synthesis
(RG)
Concept Formation
(I)
Numbers Reversed
(WM)
Picture Recognition
(MV)
Visual-Aud.
Learning
(MA)
Story Recall
(MM)
Number-Pat.
Matching
(P)
COG
OL
New or sign. change
Verbal Attention
(WM/AC)
Letter-Pat. Matching
(P)
Nonword Repetition
(PC/UM-MS)
Phonological Processing
(PC/Glr-LA)
Visualization
(Vz)
Picture Vocabulary
(VL/LD)
Oral Comp.
(LS)
Under.
Directions
(WM/Gc-LS)
Sentence Repetition
(MS)
Retrieval Fluency
(FI/LA)
Rapid Picture Naming
(NA/LA)
Sound Awareness
(PC)
Sound Blending
(PC)
Segmentation
(PC)
Comp -Knowledge
(Gc)
Fluid Reasoning (Gf)
Long-Term Retrieval (Glr)
Visual Processing (Gv)
Auditory Processing
(Ga)
Processing
Speed (Gs)
Short-Term
Wrk Mem(Gwm)
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin S. McGrew 05-01-15
5/4/2015
5
Gc Gwm Gs Ga Glr GvGf
Clusters available from Standard Cognitive easel
(10 tests)
(#) = # tests
Cognitive Efficiency (2)
Other clusters available by combining Standard Cognitive
tests with select tests from Extended Cognitive easel (8 tests)
Cognitive Efficiency (4)
Aud. Proc. (2)
LT Ret.(2)
VisualProc. (2)
Cog. Proc.Speed(2)
Fld. Reas.(2)
Cmp. Knw.(2)
ST Work. Mem. (2)
General Intellectual Ability – g (7)
Brief Intellectual Ability (3)
Gf-GcComposite (4)
Scholastic Aptitude Clusters (each a mix of 4 CHC abilities)
Number Facility (2)
Perc.Speed(2)
Qnt. Reas.(3)
New
Aud. Proc. (2)
LT Ret.(2)
VisualProc. (2)
Cog. Proc.Speed(2)
Fld. Reas.(2)
Cmp. Knw.(2)
ST Work. Mem. (2)
ST Work. Mem. (3)
Cmp. Knw.(3)
Fld. Reas.(3)
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin S.
McGrew 05-01-15
Clusters available from Oral Language easel (12 tests)
(#) = # tests
Gc Gwm Gs Ga Glr GvGf
Oral Lang. (2) *
Broad Oral Language (3) *
Oral Expression (2)
New
(* English or Spanish)
PhoneticCoding (2)
Spd. Lexical Access (2)
Listening Comprehension (2) *
Provides an overall index of oral language ability in Spanish as well as in English
• New Spanish/English Comparative Language Index (CLI) scores *
English & Spanish Oral Language/Ach discrepancy comparisons
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin S. McGrew 05-01-15
5/4/2015
6
Gc Gwm Gs Ga Glr GvGf
Vocab.(2)
(These two clusters require one test each from Cognitive and Oral Language easels)
Aud. Mm. Sp.(2)
Organization of WJ IV Cognitive (COG) and Oral Language (OL) batteries
General Intellectual Ability – g (7)
Brief Intellectual Ability (3)
Gf-Gc Composite (4)
ST Wk. Mem.(2)
Cmp. Know.(2)
Fld. Reas.(2)
Cognitive Efficiency (2)
Cog. Pr. Spd.(2)
LT Retrieval(2)
Visual. Proc.(2)
Aud. Proc.(2)
ST Wk. Mem.(3)
Cmp. Know.(3)
Fld. Reas.(3)
Qnt. Reas.(2)
Perc. Spd.(2)
Number Facility (2)
Cognitive Efficiency (4)
Reading, Math and Writing Scholastic Aptitudes (each comprised of a mix of 4 different CHC abilities)
Broad Oral Lang (3)*
Oral Expression (2)
Oral Lang. (2)*
Listening Comp. (2)* (* English or Spanish)
Phon. Cod.(2)
Spd. Lx. Acc.(2)
8 CHC narrowability
clusters
RQPN
VL MS
PCLS
LA
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin S. McGrew 05-01-15
Grw-WGrw-R Gq Gc/Gkn
Phon.-Graph. Know. (2)
Rdg. Cmp.(2)
Other clusters available by combining Standard ACH
tests with select tests from Extended ACH easel (9
tests)
(#) = # tests
Rdg. Cmp.(3)
Rdg. Rate(2)
Bas. Wr. Sk.(2)
Math Pr.Slv.(2)
Acd. Knw.(3)
Clusters available from Standard Ach
easel (11 tests)
(#) = # tests
Bas. Rdg. Sk.(2)
Brd. Rdg.(3)
Rdg. Flu.(2)
Rdg.(2)
Wr. Exp.(2)
Brd. Wr. Lg.(3)
Wr. Lg.(2)
Math Cal.Sk.(2)
Brd. Math.(3)
Math.(2)
Academic Skills (3)
Academic Applications (3)
Academic Fluency (3)
Broad Achievement (9)
Brief Achievement (3) New
3 parallel forms
of standard achievement
battery
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin S. McGrew 05-01-15
5/4/2015
7
Increase the cognitive complexity requirements for selected tests and
clusters to provide greater ecological validity and interpretive
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin S. McGrew 05-01-15
The WJ IV Auditory Processing (Ga) cluster is not your father's Ga measure
WJ IV still has the Oldsmobile Ga (Phonetic Coding) in OL: COG now has more cognitively complex Ga measures
The WJ IV has taken a broader contemporary view of the domain of Ga
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin S. McGrew 05-01-15
5/4/2015
8
Loadings on first unrotated common factor
CommunalityEstimates
Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI) 0.809 0.654
Auditory Processing (Ga) 0.804 0.646
Fluid Reasoning (Gf) 0.804 0.646
Perceptual Reasoning Index (PR) 0.800 0.639
Comprehension-Knowledge (Gc) 0.779 0.607
Short-Term Work. Memory (Gwm) 0.764 0.584
Working Memory Index (WMI) 0.749 0.562
Long-Term Retrieval (Glr) 0.683 0.466
Visual Processing (Gv) 0.604 0.365
Processing Speed Index (PSI) 0.569 0.323
Cog. Processing Speed (Gs) 0.537 0.288
1-factor (unrotated) common-factor solution for WJ IV COG / WISC-IV composite scores (n=173)
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 06-19-14
Provide new, useful and efficient options for comparing abilities
within and across batteries
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin S. McGrew 05-01-15
5/4/2015
9
New and useful options for comparing abilities (PSW) within and across batteries
•Options for exploring individual strengths and weaknesses acrosscognitive, linguistic, and academic abilities
•A new fluid-crystallized (Gf-Gc) composite for comparison to measures of cognitive processing, linguistic competency, and academic achievement for determination of relative strengths and weaknesses across all domains
•Each battery organized for ease of use, leading with a core set of tests in each battery for use as the predictor pool for calculations that identify relative strengths and weaknesses among administered tests and clusters
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin S. McGrew 05-01-15
Math (Gq)
Reading (Grw)
Writing
(Grw)
Other CHC cog abilities
Oral Lang.
abilities
Gf-GcComposite(predictor)
Possible strength
and weakness
target domains
Conceptual summary of new WJ IV Gf-Gc strength and weakness comparison procedure and options
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 06-19-14
5/4/2015
10
Retain and advance the psychometric quality that has been associated with the
previous editions of the WJ batteries
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin S. McGrew 05-01-15
Retain a focus on psychometric quality that has been associated with the previous editions of the Woodcock-
Johnson batteries
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 06-19-14
•By providing a new, large, and nationally-representative standardization sample of the US population (n=7,416);
•By updating items and simplifying test administration and interpretation procedures;
•By augmenting the underlying scaling of speeded tests; and
•By utilizing state-of-the art data collection, test development, and data analytic methods as models to facilitate progress in the field of applied test development.
5/4/2015
11
The WJ IV: New ACH Tests (B1)
Dr. Kevin McGrewInstitute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP)
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 6-20-14
WJ IV ACH tests by CHC factor domains
Grw -Reading
CHC Factors
New or sign. change
Grw -Writing
Gq Gc/Gkm
Letter-Word
Identification
(RD)
Passage Comp.
(RC)
Editing
(EU)
Social Studies
(K0/K2)
Sentence Wr. Fluency
(WA/WS)
Reading Vocabulary
(RC/Gc-VL)
Writing Samples
(WA)
Calculation
(A3)
Humanities
(K0/K2)
Spelling
(SG)
Science
(K0/K1)
Applied Problems
(A3/RQ)
Word Attack
(RD/Ga-PC)
Sentence Rdg. Fluency
(RC/Gc-RS)
Spelling of Sounds
(SG/Ga-PC)
Math Facts Fluency
(A3/Gs-N)
Reading Recall
(RC/Glr-MM)
Word Rdg.
Fluency
(RC/Gs-RS)
Oral Reading
(RD/V)
Number Matrices
(Gf-RQ)
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 06-18-14
5/4/2015
12
New cluster
Cluster introducedwith WJ III NU or cluster with new combination of tests
New or significantlyrevised tests
Test 8: Oral Reading
A measure of oral reading skill (story reading accuracy and prosody) that contributes to the Reading Fluency cluster
Fluent readers must be accurate readers. Measures fluency of oral expression in connected discourse. Fluent reading requires attention to the grammatical structure of prose. The way to ascertain whether an individual has attained this ability requires listening to him or her read connected discourse
Prosody: In reading, prosody refers to the expressiveness with which a student reads.
5/4/2015
13
Types of reading errors that may occur:
Self-corrections within 3 seconds do not count as errors.
Test 8: Oral Reading
Test 12: Reading Recall
A measure of reading skill that contributes to the Reading Comprehension cluster (reading comprehension and meaningful memory)
Examinee reads short paragraphs or stories and then recalls as much of the story as possible
Can compare to Story Recall in WJ IV COG
5/4/2015
14
Test 15: Word Reading Fluency
A measure of reading skill that contributes to the Reading Rate cluster.
A measure of vocabulary knowledge and semantic fluency
Examinee reads a list of four words and examinee must decide which two "go together"
Nine of the WJ IV Standard ACH
tests have optional Qualitative
Observation Checklists with
percentage base rate information for
informal clinical use
5/4/2015
15
What is cognitive complexity? (C)
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin S. McGrew 05-01-15
CHC factor breadth
Degree of g-loading
Complicated(Does not
necessarily equal)
Factorial complexity
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
Cognitive complexity
5/4/2015
16
• Increase the information processing demands of the tests within a specific narrow CHC domain.
• Not to be confused with factorial complexity• Design tests that place greater demands on:
• Cognitive information processing (cognitive load)• Greater allocation of key cognitive resources (working
memory or attentional control)• The involvement of more cognitive control or executive
functions
WJ IV cognitive complexity design approach based on work of Lohman & Larkin (2011)
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
Intelligence Testing Related
Research:Levels of
theoretical reductionism and
explanation
White matter tract organization,
integrity & efficiency
-rate of neural oscillations-neural synchronization-Reaction-time and temporal g-ERP’s (e.g., ABR)
PMA1
T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9T1 T12T10 T11
PMA2 PMA3 PMA4 …etc
…etc
G1 G2 G3
…etc
g ?
(Consensus Cattell-Horn-Carroll Hierarchical Three-Stratum Model)
-Human Connectome-Functional brain networks (Bressler & Menon, 2010)
-“Rich club” network hubs-P-FIT model
(Adapted from conceptual distinctions of Earl Hunt, 2011)
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
5/4/2015
17
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
Approach 1. Increasing the cognitive complexity of a test is often accomplished by making the test a mixed measure of more than one narrow CHC ability (factorially complex mixed CHC measures)
One design objective in the WJ IV was to increase the cognitive complexity requirements for
selected tests and clusters to provide greater ecological validity and interpretive relevance of
the measures.
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
5/4/2015
18
Most contemporary CHC designed individual tests have focused on developing relatively pure measures of each cognitive ability (mental pulley)
Gf Gwm Ga Gv
Gc Gs Glr
Analogy: Think of general intelligence (g) as a system of relatively independent cognitive abilities (relatively construct “pure” pulleys)
working together to deal with a specific cognitive task load
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
In this approach a test is designed to be a mixed measure of two (or more) cognitive abilities (mental pulleys; Gf + Gv)
Gf + Gv
Gf + Gv Gwm Gs Ga Glr Gc
Approach 1 to developing cognitively complex tests: Construct factorially complex measures (a system of pulleys from 2 or
more domain functions working in combination).
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
5/4/2015
19
Gf + Gv
Gf + Gwm + Gc + Gq Ga Glr Gv
Approach 1 example
Wechsler Arithmetic test
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
One design objective in the WJ IV was to increase the cognitive complexity requirements for selected tests and
clusters to provide greater ecological validity and interpretive relevance of the measures.
Approach 2. A second approach is to increase the complexity of information processing demands of the tests within a specific narrow CHC domain (Lohman & Larkin, 2011; McGrew, 2012). This second form of cognitive complexity, not to be confused with factorial complexity, places greater demands on cognitive information processing (cognitive load), requires greater allocation of key cognitive resources (working memory or attentional control), and invokes the involvement of more cognitive control or executive functions (Arend, Colom, Botella, Contreras, Rubio, & Santacreu, 2003; Jensen, 2011; Lohman & Larkin, 2011; Marshalek, Lohman, & Snow; 1983). This second approach to increasing test cognitive complexity was a primary design principle for the WJ IV.
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
5/4/2015
20
Ga Gv Gwm Gs Gf Glr Gc
Approach 2 is to increase the complexity of information processing demands of the tests within a specific CHC cognitive functional domain. Tasks are still as relatively pure a measure of the CHC domain as possible but there is a deliberate increase in the number of “mini-pulleys” (cognitive information component complexity) that work together within the CHC domain. This was the primary approach used for certain WJ IV tests.
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
Motor Power, Speed & Timing
(Gp,Gps)
(feedback loop)
Learning (storage) efficiency (Glr)
Retrieval fluency (Glr)
Sensory & PerceptualSystems
(feedback loop)
Beyond CHC TheoryAdapted from Schneider & McGrew
(2012, 2013)
Visual (Gv)
Auditory (Ga)
Tactile (Gh)
Kinesthetic (Gk)
Olfactory (Go)
Motor Control
(Note: e.g.., Gv, Ga, etc. are not simple visual perceptual or sensory processing but the complexity of visual processing that a person can handle)
Gt = Speed of Elem.Perc. Processing
Cognitive Processing Speed (Gs)
Acquired Knowledge Systems (aka, long-term memory)
Etc. (what)
Etc. (how)
Etc. (what)
Etc. (how)
Motor Sequences
(what)
Motor Sequences
(how)
Grw (what)
Grw(how)
Gc(what)
Gc (how)
Nonverbal (e.g., motor)
Cognitive
Environmental Input
Cognitive performance
Motor performance
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics, Dr. Kevin
S. McGrew, 012314
Includes both tacit andexplicit knowledge systems;
declarative (what) and procedural (how) knowledge
5/4/2015
21
The WJ IV COG is not your father’s intelligence test!
The WJ IV COG GIA is a much more cognitively complex (and high g) measure of intelligence
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
...most disciplines have a common set of terms and definitions (i.e., a standard nomenclature) that facilitates communication among professionals and guards against misinterpretations. In chemistry, this standard nomenclature is reflected in the ‘Table of Periodic Elements’. Carroll (1993a) has provided an analogous table for intelligence…..
(Flanagan & McGrew, 1998)
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics, Dr. Kevin S. McGrew, 012314
WJ IV “Intelligent” testing (D)
5/4/2015
22
•Relative degree of cognitive complexity:High Medium (M/M) Low
•CHC broad factor loading
•Test name abbreviation
•CHC narrow ability code(s)
Te
Go
All information based on analysis of WJ IV norm
data from ages 6 thru 19
•BIS (modified) content/stimuluscharacteristic
NumSeries
(RQ)
.91 .62 H .80
•g-loading
•Reliability
#
•Median correlations with R, M, W
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP)Dr. Kevin McGrew 3-28-14
.63 .73 .64
Gc
Ga
Gf
Gwm
Gs
Glr
Gv
.78
.75
.71
.60
.71
.66
.76
OralCmp
(LS)PicVoc
(VL)
.82 .69 M .76 .81 .65 M .82
RpdPcNm
(NA)RetFlu
(FI)
.80 .57 M .42 .85 .51 L .24
SndAwr
(PC)Segment.
(PC)SndBlnd
(PC)
.71 .67 H .52 .93 .60 M.74 .88 .53 L .62
SenRep
(MS/LS)
.83 .60 M .48
UndDir
(WM)
.86 .66 M .64
CO
G C
HC
clu
ster
g-l
oa
din
gs
NumSeries
(RQ)
ConFrm
(I)
AnlSyn
(RG)
.91 .62 H .80 .92 .62 M .62.90 .65 M .66
OralVoc
(LD/VL)GenInfo
(K0)
.89 .74 H .86 .84 .59 M .78
StryRec
(MM)VisAudLrg
(MA)
.93 .58 M .54 .96 .52 L .48
LetPtMat
(P)
.90 .55 M .77
Visual.
(Vz)PicRec
(MV)
.83 .60 M .70 .71 .47 L .50
PhnProc
(PC)NonWrRep
PC,UM/MS
.83 .75 H .59 .90 .58 M .18
VerbAttn
(WM/AC)
.86 .65 H .76
.15
.18
.50
.29 .26
.18 .30
.29 Gq
.32 GrwCOGACH
OL
.63 .73 .64 .44 .47 .35 .25 .43 .34
.42 .42 .50
.31 .39 .42 .30 .29 .30
.56 .51 .49 .35 .38 .24
.38 .49 .38 .36 .25 .36
.52 .51 .53 .34 .21 .41
.43 .35 .41 .45 .43 .39
.35 .37 .35 .34 .22 .22
.52 .42 .48 .40 .32 .33
.56 .48 .55 .49 .42 .44 .27 .31 .28
MemWrd
(MS)
.82 .63 M .58
.27 .28 .32
ObNmSq
(WM)
.89 .71 M .74
.32 .42 .35
#
NumRev
(WM/AC)
.86 .61 M .36
.41 .44 .42
#
PairCan
(P/AC)
.89 .49 L .60
.30 .44 .28
.46 .55 .48
NumPtMat
(P)
.84 .53 M .80
.53 .57 .61
Matrix Reasoning (I)Figure Weights (RQ)Picture Concepts (I)Arithmetic (RQ; Gq)
Similarities (VL/LD)Vocabulary (VL)Information (K0)Comprehension (LD/K0)
Block Design (Vz)Visual Puzzles (Vz/SR?)
Digit Span (MS,WM)Letter-Number Seq. (WM)Picture Span (WM/MS; Gv-MV?)
Coding (R9/MA?)Symbol Search (P/R9; Gv-SS?)Cancellation (P/R9)
Naming Speed Literacy (NA)Naming Speed Quantity (NA)Immediate Symbol Translation (MA)Delayed Symbol Translation (MA)Recognition Symbol Translation (MA)
WISC-V tests & tentative CHC
classifications (based on multiple
sources)
No Ga tests
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP), Dr. Kevin McGrew, 04-29-15
5/4/2015
23
WJ IV Tests of Cognitive Ability:Overview + (D)
Dr. Kevin McGrewInstitute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP)
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 2-04-14
Gf
Gc Gwm
Glr
Gv
Ga
Gs
GqGrw
g
I am going to be your guide for a “walk in the clouds” of human
cognitive abilities
The CHC model will be our map
The WJ IV COG (and OL)batteries will be our measures
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin S. McGrew 05-01-15
5/4/2015
24
Oral Vocabulary
General Information
Number Series
Concept Formation
Verbal
Attention
Numbers Reversed
Story Recall
Visual-Auditory Learning
Visualization
Picture Recognition
Letter-Pattern
Matching
Pair
Cancellation
Phonological
Processing
Nonword
Repetition
Obj-Num
Sequencing
Analysis-Synthesis
Memory for Words
Number-Pattern
Matching
The final 18 WJ IV COG tests by CHC domain
Gc Glr Gv Ga GsGwmGf
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
WJ III test
New test
WJ III COG, DS or ACH test with new twist
Perc SpdP (2)
Qnt ReasRQ (2)
VocabVL (2)
List AblLS (2)
AMemSpMS (2)
SpLex AcLA (2)
Num FacN (2)
Phn CodPC (2)
Narrow CHC ability clusters (8)
Aud Proc(2)
LT Ret(2)
VisualProc (2)
Cog ProcSpeed(2)
Fld Reas(2)
CmpKnw(2)
ST Work Mem (2)
ST Work Mem (3)
CmpKnw(3)
Fld Reas(3) Broad CHC ability clusters (10)
Gf Gs Ga Glr GvGwmGc
WJ IV CHC broad and narrow ability clusters
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
5/4/2015
25
Five primary design principles for WJ IV COG GIA
The WJ IV COG GIA cluster tests should:
1. Be the best factor indicators of each CHC broad domain
2. Be the best predictors of achievement from each CHC broad domain
3. Be the most cognitively complex indicators from each CHC broad domain
4. Be the best measures of g (general intelligence) from each CHC broad domain
5. Collectively should have a relatively equal balance of type of stimulus characteristics (verbal, numeric, figural)
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
WJ IV COG general ability clusters
BIA cluster
General Information
Concept Formation
Gf-Gc cluster
Gc Glr Gv Ga GsGwmGf
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
WJ III test
New test
WJ III COG, DS or ACH test with new twist
Oral Vocabulary
Number Series
Verbal
AttentionStory Recall Visualization
Letter-Pat Match
Phon
Processing
GIA cluster g
5/4/2015
26
WJ IV COG GIA cluster
.77 .76 .68 .63 .60 .75 .61
GIA test g-loadings (PCA: ages 6-19)
Gc Glr Gv Ga GsGwmGf
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
Oral Vocabulary
Number Series
Verbal
AttentionStory Recall Visualization
Letter-Pat Match
Phon
Processing
GIA cluster g
WJ IV COG GIA cluster
Gc Glr Gv Ga GsGwmGf
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
Oral Vocabulary
Number Series
Verbal
AttentionStory Recall Visualization
Letter-Pat Match
Phon
Processing
GIA cluster g
.18 .17 .14 .12 .12 .17 .11
Median test g-weights for GIA cluster
5/4/2015
27
GIA -Standard
GIAOral Vocabulary
General Information
Number Series
Concept Formation
Verbal
Attention
Numbers Reversed
Story Recall
Visual-AudLearning
Visualization
Picture Recognition
Letter-Pat. Match.
Pair
Canc.
Phon.
Processing
Nonword
Repetition
Primary WJ III and WJ IV COG tests and Clusters
Tests in WJ IV COG clusters
Tests in WJ III COG Clusters
WJ IV GIA
WJ III GIA-Standard
* Visual Matching is renamed Number-Pattern Matching in WJ IV
Comparison of composition of primary WJ III and WJ IV COG CHC and GIA clusters
(WJ III Spatial Relations is half of WJ IV Visualization)
(WJ IV Oral Vocab. was part of WJ III Verbal
Comp.)
Auditory Attention
Decision
Speed
Analysis-Synthesis
Retrieval
Fluency
Spatial
Relations
Verbal Comp.
Memory for Words
Sound
Blending
Visual
Matching *
Gc Gwm GsGaGlr GvGf
g
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
WISC-IV WAIS-IV WPPSI-III KABC-II SB-5 DAS-II
FS IQ FS IQ FS IQ FCI FS IQ GCA
(n =174) (n =177) (n = 99) (n=50) (n = 50) (n = 49)
WJ IV g-measures
General Intellectual Ability (GIA)
0.86 0.84 0.72 0.77 0.80 0.83
Brief Intellectual Ability (BIA) 0.83 0.74 0.76 0.79
Gf-Gc Composite 0.83 0.78 0.71 0.82
Note. Correlations in italic represent correlations with a pseudo-WJ IV GIA score computed from 7
WJ IV tests (WJ IV COG does not provide an GIA-Edv cluster)
Select concurrent validity evidence: Correlations of WJ IV primary COG g-scores
with external measures
Conclusion: The WJ IV GIA, BIA and Gf-Gc composite clusters demonstrate strong validity evidence as measures of general intelligence when the criterion are the global composite/total
scores from other major IQ batteries in the field
WJ III GIA other IQ score correlations were
from .67 to .76
5/4/2015
28
Arithmetic 0.82Vocabulary 0.81Similarities 0.77Matrix Reasoning 0.75Comprehension 0.71Block Design 0.69Letter-Number Seq. 0.66Picture Concepts 0.63Digit Span 0.62Symbol Search 0.58Coding 0.41
Oral Vocabulary 0.79Phonological Processing 0.79Verbal Attention 0.71Number Series 0.69Story Recall 0.55Visualization 0.51Letter-Pattern Matching 0.37
WISC-IV FS tests latent g-factor
WJ IV GIA tests latent g-factor
(n =174)
Latent gr = 1.0+
(Observed score r = .86)
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin S. McGrew 05-01-15
Loadings on first unrotated common factor
CommunalityEstimates
Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI) 0.809 0.654
Auditory Processing (Ga) 0.804 0.646
Fluid Reasoning (Gf) 0.804 0.646
Perceptual Reasoning Index (PR) 0.800 0.639
Comprehension-Knowledge (Gc) 0.779 0.607
Short-Term Work. Memory (Gwm) 0.764 0.584
Working Memory Index (WMI) 0.749 0.562
Long-Term Retrieval (Glr) 0.683 0.466
Visual Processing (Gv) 0.604 0.365
Processing Speed Index (PSI) 0.569 0.323
Cog. Processing Speed (Gs) 0.537 0.288
1-factor (unrotated) common-factor solution for WJ IV COG / WISC-IV composite scores (n=174)
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 06-19-14
5/4/2015
29
Fluid Reasoning (Gf) 0.78
Auditory Processing (Ga) 0.77
Short-Term Working Memory (Gwm) 0.76
Comprehension-Knowledge (Gc) 0.74
Long-Term Retrieval (Glr) 0.72
Visual Processing (Gv) 0.68
Processing Speed (Gs) 0.62
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin
McGrew 01-23-14
Comparison of WJ III and WJ IV CHC cluster g-loadings in respective norm samples (first unrotated principal component)
Fluid Reasoning (Gf) 0.79
Comprehension-Knowledge (Gc) 0.79
Long-Term Retrieval (Glr) 0.78
Auditory Processing (Ga) 0.69
Short-Term Working Memory (Gwm) 0.69
Processing Speed (Gs) 0.62
Visual Processing (Gv) 0.60
Note changes in relative g-loadingsfor Ga and Gwm
Oral Vocabulary
General Information Gc
Similarities (VL/LD)Vocabulary (VL)Information (K0)Comprehension (LD/K0)
Picture Vocabulary
Comp-Know
Comp-Know: Ext
Vocabulary
WJ IV Oral Vocabulary (COG) 0.89
WISC-IV Vocabulary 0.88WISC-IV Information 0.86WJ IV General Information (COG) 0.82WISC-IV Similarities 0.81WISC-IV Comprehension 0.72WJ IV Verbal Analogies (ECAD) 0.45
Select Comp-Know correlations
WISC-IV VCI = .79
WAIS-IV VCI = .74
KABC-II Gc = .82
(GIA)
OralVoc
(LD/VL)GenInfo
(K0)
.89 .74 H .86 .84 .59 M .78
.56 .51 .49 .35 .38 .24
OralCmp
(LS)PicVoc
(VL)
.82 .69 M .76 .81 .65 M .82
.52 .42 .48 .40 .32 .33
Gc
.71
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin S. McGrew 05-01-15
5/4/2015
30
COG Test 2: Number Series
• Was in WJ III Diagnostic Supplement• Gf-RQ (Quantitative Reasoning)• Not a “controlled learning” test as are Concept
Formation (Gf-I) and Analysis-Synthesis (Gf-RG)• More Gf “in the wild” – without examiner provided scaffolding
• Extensive history as a premier Gf test in thepsychometric measurement of intelligence
• High in cognitive complexity and g. Best single testpredictor of achievement. Best indicator of Gf factor.
• In GIA, BIA, Gf-Gc Composite, Gf, Gf-Ext, QuantitativeReasoning (RQ), and one Math Aptitude clusters.
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 6-20-14
Number Series
Concept Formation Gf
Analysis-Synthesis
Fluid Reasoning
Fluid Reasoning: Ext
Quantitative Reasoning
Select Fluid Reasoning correlations
WISC-IV PRI = .70
WAIS-IV PRI = .57
KABC-II Gf = .46
(GIA)
Matrix Reasoning (I)Figure Weights (RQ)Picture Concepts (I)Arithmetic (RQ; Gq)
WJ IV Concept Formation (COG) 0.80WISC-IV Matrix Reasoning 0.78WJ IV Number Series (COG) 0.76WISC-IV Picture Concepts 0.63WJ IV Analysis-Synthesis (COG) 0.63WJ IV Verbal Analogies (ECAD) 0.38
Block Design-Gv-VzVisual Puzzles – Gv-VzMatrix Reasoning – Gf-I
Block Design-Gv-VzPic Concepts – Gf-IMatrix Reasoning – Gf-I
Pattern Reasoning - Gf-I/Gv-Vz Story Completion – Gf-RG
NumSeries
(RQ)
ConFrm
(I)
AnlSyn
(RG)
.91 .62 H .80 .92 .62 M .62.90 .65 M .66
.63 .73 .64 .44 .47 .35 .25 .43 .34 #Gf
.78
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin S. McGrew 05-01-15
5/4/2015
31
COG Test 4: Letter-Pattern Matching
• Measure of Gs (perceptual speed) and orthographicprocessing
• This speeded test (all WJ IV speeded tests) is based on a newrate-based method of scaling the scores that eliminates the
need for bonus points
• Within Gs, it matches Number Pattern Matching in g, Gs factor loading, and prediction of achievement. Is
more cognitively complex than Number Pattern Matching
• In GIA, Gs, Perceptual Speed (P), Cog. Eff. and Cog. clusters
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 6-20-14
Letter-Pattern Matching
Pair CancellationGs
Number-Pattern Matching
Cog Proc Speed
Perceptual Speed
Select Cognitive Processing Speed correlations
WISC-IV PSI = .55
WAIS-IV PSI = .44
(GIA)
Gs
.60LetPtMat
(P)
.90 .55 M .77
PairCan
(P/AC)
.89 .49 L .60
.30 .44 .28
.46 .55 .48
NumPtMat
(P)
.84 .53 M .80
.53 .57 .61
Coding (R9/MA?)Symbol Search (P/R9; Gv-SS?)Cancellation (P/R9)
WJ IV Number-Pattern Matching (COG) 0.82WJ IV Pair Cancellation 0.80WJ IV Letter-Pattern Matching (COG) 0.72WISC-IV Coding 0.62WISC-IV Cancellation 0.57WJ IV Rapid Picture Naming (OL) 0.49WJ IV Retrieval Fluency (OL) 0.43WISC-IV Symbol Search 0.40WJ IV Phonological Processing (COG) 0.20
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin S. McGrew 05-01-15
5/4/2015
32
Phonological Processing
NonwordRepetition
Ga
Segmentation
Auditory Proc Phonetic Coding
Select Auditory Processing correlations
(GIA)
None available
Ga
.76SndAwr
(PC)Segment.
(PC)SndBlnd
(PC)
.71 .67 H .52 .93 .60 M.74 .88 .53 L .62PhnProc
(PC)NonWrRep
PC,UM/MS
.83 .75 H .59 .90 .58 M .18
.52 .51 .53 .34 .21 .41 .56 .48 .55 .49 .42 .44 .27 .31 .28
Sound Blending
Sound AwarenessNo Ga tests
WJ IV Sound Awareness (OL) 0.84WJ IV Phonological Awareness (COG) 0.75WJ IV Segmentation (OL) 0.71WJ IV Sound Blending (OL) 0.70WJ IV Nonword Repetition (COG) 0.64
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin S. McGrew 05-01-15
COG Test 5: Phonological Processing
• Ga (PC) / Glr (LA/FW)•3 subtests (Word Access; Word Fluency; Substitution• Measures three aspects of speech sound processing that requires the efficient construction of sound-based lexical representations• High in cognitive complexity and g. Best single Ga test predictor of achievement. High loading on Ga and secondary low loading on Gc(accessing the lexicon). Also loaded on narrow LA factor in
broard+narrow bottom-up CFA models.• In GIA, Ga, and all reading and writing scholastic aptitude clusters
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 6-20-14
5/4/2015
33
Examinee listens to a nonsense word and then must repeat the word exactly.
Requires temporary storage of phonological segments in immediate awareness.
Significant body of research has found such tasks to be significantly related to (and be possible “markers”of) reading disabilities, dyslexia and SLI (specific language impairment)
COG Test 12: Nonword Repetition
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin S. McGrew 05-01-15
OL Test 3: Segmentation
• Ga (PC)
• Examinee listens to words and identifies word parts
• In OL Phonetic Coding (PC) cluster
• Highest loading test on Ga factor across all ages
• A moderate measure of g and predictor of ach. across all ages; much more so (and more cognitively complex) than Sound Blending.
• Such tasks have been reported to be strong predictors of early reading (Bouwmeester et al, 2011; Geuden & Sandra, 2003)
5/4/2015
34
Nonword Repetition
(PC/UM-MS)
Phonological Processing
(PC/Glr-LA)
Sound Awareness
(PC)
Sound Blending
(PC)
Segmentation
(PC)
Auditory Processing (Ga)
Short Term
Wrk Mem (Gwm)
Most complex
Least complex
COG
OL
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 06-20-14
An auditory processing battery ?
Story Recall
Visual-Auditory Learning
Glr
Retrieval Fluency
Long-term Ret
(GIA)
Rapid Picture Naming
Spd of Lex AccessNaming Speed Literacy (NA)Naming Speed Quantity (NA)Immediate Symbol Translation (MA)Delayed Symbol Translation (MA)Recognition Symbol Translation (MA)
WJ IV Visual-Auditory Learning (COG) 0.71WJ IV Story Recall (COG) 0.66WJ IV Retrieval Fluency (COG) 0.29
Glr
.71StryRec
(MM)VisAudLrg
(MA)
.93 .58 M .54 .96 .52 L .48
.31 .39 .42 .30 .29 .30
RpdPcNm
(NA)RetFlu
(FI)
.80 .57 M .42
.35 .37 .35 .34 .22 .22
PPTV4 = .43CELF-4 WM = .57/.14CELF-4 Core = .31/42CASL Core = .42
KABC-II Glr = .64
Select correlations
Long-term Retrieval Speed of Lexical Access
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin S. McGrew 05-01-15
5/4/2015
35
Learning Efficiency
Retrieval Fluency
Meaningful Memory
Associative Memory
Free Recall
Naming Facility
Ideational Fluency
Associational Fluency
Expressional Fluency
Originality
Word Fluency
Figural Fluency
Figural Flexibility
Solution Fluency
Glr
Multiple-Trial and/orDelayed Recall
Glr differs from acquired knowledge systems (Gc, Grw, Gq, Gkn) in that it includes the processes of memory
Major implied Glr division made more explicit based on post-Carroll (1993) research. Learning efficiency (level trait) vs retrieval fluency (rate trait)
Glr: The ability to store, consolidate, and retrieve
information over periods of time measured in minutes,
hours, days and years.
Speed of Lexical Access
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin S. McGrew 05-01-15
Story Recall
Visual-Auditory Learning
Glr
Retrieval Fluency
Long-term Ret
(GIA)
Rapid Picture Naming
Spd of Lex AccessNaming Speed Literacy (NA)Naming Speed Quantity (NA)Immediate Symbol Translation (MA)Delayed Symbol Translation (MA)Recognition Symbol Translation (MA)
WJ IV Visual-Auditory Learning (COG) 0.71WJ IV Story Recall (COG) 0.66WJ IV Retrieval Fluency (COG) 0.29
Glr
.71StryRec
(MM)VisAudLrg
(MA)
.93 .58 M .54 .96 .52 L .48
.31 .39 .42 .30 .29 .30
RpdPcNm
(NA)RetFlu
(FI)
.80 .57 M .42
.35 .37 .35 .34 .22 .22
PPTV4 = .43CELF-4 WM = .57/.14CELF-4 Core = .31/42CASL Core = .42
KABC-II Glr = .64
Select correlations
Long-term Retrieval Speed of Lexical Access
Learning Efficiency
Retrieval Fluency
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin S. McGrew 05-01-15
5/4/2015
36
Visualization
Picture Recogntion
Gv
Visual Processing
Visual Processing correlations
WISC-IV PRI = .55
WAIS-IV PRI = .57
KABC-II Gv = .37
(GIA)
Block Design (Vz)Visual Puzzles (Vz/SR?)
WISC-IV Block Design 0.78WJ IV Visualization 0.64WJ IV Picture Recognition 0.48WISC-IV Symbol Search 0.34
Block Design-Gv-VzVisual Puzzles – Gv-VzMatrix Reasoning – Gf-I
Block Design-Gv-VzPic Concepts – Gf-IMatrix Reasoning – Gf-I
Rover – Gv-SSTriangles – Gv-Vz
Visual.
(Vz)PicRec
(MV)
.83 .60 M .70 .71 .47 L .50
.38 .49 .38 .36 .25 .36 Gv
.66
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin S. McGrew 05-01-15
Verbal Attention
Numbers Reversed
Gwm
Object Number Sequencing
Short-term Wrk Mem
(GIA)
Memory for Words
WISC-IV WMI = .72WAIS-IV WMI = .67KABC-II Gsm = .42
Select Short-term Working Memory correlations
Gwm.75
SenRep
(MS/LS)
.83 .60 M .48
UndDir
(WM)
.86 .66 M .64
VerbAttn
(WM/AC)
.86 .65 H .76
.42 .42 .50 .43 .35 .41 .45 .43 .39
MemWrd
(MS)
.82 .63 M .58
.27 .28 .32
ObNmSq
(WM)
.89 .71 M .74
.32 .42 .35
NumRev
(WM/AC)
.86 .61 M .36
.41 .44 .42
#
Sentence Repetition
UnderstandingDirections
Memory Span
Digit Span (MS,WM)Letter-Number Seq. (WM)Picture Span (WM/MS; Gv-MV?)
WJ IV Verbal Attention (COG) 0.80WJ IV Numbers Reversed (COG) 0.77WISC-IV Digit Span 0.73WJ IV Letter-Number Seq (COG) 0.69WISC-IV Object-Number Seq 0.65
Number Recall – Gsm-MSWord Recall – Gsm-MS/WM?
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin S. McGrew 05-01-15
5/4/2015
37
COG Test 3: Verbal Attention
• Measure of Gwm (working memory-WM; attentional control-AC)
• More ecological “real world” valid measure of working memory
• High in cognitive complexity and g. Within Gwm, the most cognitively complex, one of best indicators of Gwm factor, and best predictor of achievement
• In GIA, BIA, Gwm, Gwm3, Cognitive Efficiency, and one Reading and 1 Written Language Aptitude clusters.
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin S. McGrew 05-01-15
Low
Degree of AttentionalControl (AC)
Memory for
Words
Sentence Repetition
Memory Span (MS)
Tests
High
Degree of Cognitive Complexity ( Cog. Load)
Working Memory
Capacity (WM)Tests
Numbers
Reversed
Understanding
Directions
Object-Number
Sequencing
Verbal
Attention
HighLow
© Institute for
Applied
Psychometrics;
Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
Via multiple regression,the other five Gwmtests (at ages 6-19)
predicted (R=.70) 49 % of Verbal Attention’s score variance. Aftertaking into account Verbal Attention’s
reliability, approximately 35% of
Verbal Attention’s reliable score variance is not accounted for by
the other five Gwm tests
5/4/2015
38
Organizational overview of the WJ IV variations and comparisons (I)
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 06-18-14
Comparison Options
• GIA/Achievement
• Scholastic Aptitude/Achievement
• Gf-Gc/Achievement/other cog.-ling. abilities
• Broad Oral Language/Achievement
• Academic Knowledge/Achievement
Five ability/achievement difference score procedures to help compare ability to current levels of achievement
[Procedures account for regression-to-the mean (and how it varies by age)]
(Third method PSW SLD models)
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin S. McGrew 05-01-15
5/4/2015
39
Variation Options
• Intra-cognitive based on COG Tests 1—7
• Intra-achievement • Based on ACH Tests 1—6
• Based on Academic Skills, Academic Fluency, and Academic Applications clusters
• Intra-oral language based on OL Tests 1—4
Four variation procedures to help document an individual’s pattern of strengths and weaknesses.
Based on “core” tests in each battery
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin S. McGrew 05-01-15
(Possible criterion or predicted target scores)
Gf-Gc “hybrid” procedure
Predicted Target Cluster
Score
Regression-based prediction models that account for
regression-to-the-mean
Gf-Gc Composite(Predictor score)
GcGf
WJ IV Gf-Gc cognitive Ability cluster
Grw Gq
Brief Achievement
Academic Skills
Academic Fluency
Academic Applications
Broad Achievement
Reading
Brd. Rdg.
Rdg. Flu.
Bas. Rdg. Sk.
Rdg. Cmp.(& Ext)
Rdg. Rate
Wr. Lng.
Brd. Wr. Lg.
Bas. Wr. Sk.
Wr. Exp.
Phn.-Grp.Kn.
Math.
Brd. Math
Math Cal.Sk.
Math Pr. Slv.
CHC achievement abilities and WJ IV clusters
Phon. Cod. Sp. Lx. Acc.
ST Wk. Mem.(&Ext)
Cog .Pr.Spd. LT Retrieval Visual Proc.Aud. Proc.
Perc. Spd.
Cognitive Efficiency (& Ext)
Aud. Mm. Sp.
Other CHC broad/narrow cognitive and orallanguage abilities and WJ IV clusters
Gwm Gs Ga Glr Gv
Number Facility
(equals)
SD and PR for calculateddifference score
Difference Score
(Compare to distribution of difference scores in WJ IV norm sample to determine significant
strength or weakness)
Actual Target Cluster Score(minus)
Back to comparison menu
5/4/2015
40
Gf (Other): Average of other (non-Gf) 6 core tests
GcGf
NumberSeries
Gwm Gs Ga Glr
OralVocabulary
VerbalAttention
Letter-Pat.Matching
Phono.Processing
StoryRecall
Visual-ization
PredictedNum. Series
NumberSeries
-(minus)
=(equals)
DifferenceScore
SD and PR for calculated difference scores
(Compare difference score to distribution of difference
scores in WJ IV norm sample to determine significant strength or weakness)
ConceptFormation
Analysis-Synthesis
FluidReasoning
FluidReason-Ext
Quant.Reasoning
NumberMatrices
Other Gf tests Other Gf clustersThe same Gf (Other) score is used to evaluate obtained-predicted difference scores for any other optional Gf test or cluster that is available after testing.
Procedure is repeated for each CHC domain—each CHC core test removed and relevant “other” average computed, etc.
Similar procedures available for OL and ACH based on each batteries core tests and optional tests and clusters.
OralVocabulary
VerbalAttention
Letter-Pat.Matching
Phono.Processing
StoryRecall
Visual-ization
Core cognitive tests for intra-cognitive variation procedure
Explanation of WJ-IV intra-variation procedure: Cognitive example
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 06-18-14
Gv
General Intellectual Ability (GIA) cluster (Predictor score)
General Intellectual Ability (GIA) /Achievement comparison procedure
Gwm Gs Ga Glr GvGcGf
CHC Cognitive Abilities and WJ IV COG and OL Clusters
Regression-based prediction models that account for regression-to-the-mean (and how it varies by age)
Predicted Target
Cluster Score
Actual Target Cluster Score(minus) (equals)
Difference Score
SD and PR for calculated difference score
(Compare to distribution of difference scores in WJ IV
norm sample to determine significant strength or
weakness)
Oral Language
Grw Gq
Brief Achievement
Academic Skills
Academic Fluency
Academic Applications
Broad Achievement
Reading
Brd. Rdg.
Rdg. Flu.
Bas. Rdg. Sk.
Rdg. Cmp.(& Ext)
Rdg. Rate
Wr. Lng.
Brd. Wr. Lg.
Bas. Wr. Sk.
Wr. Exp.
Phn.-Grp.Kn.
Math.
Brd. Math
Math Cal.Sk.
Math Pr. Slv.
(Possible criterion or predicted target scores)Broad Oral Language
Oral Expression
Listening Comprehension
CHC Achievement Abilities and WJ IV
clusters
Academic Knowledge
5/4/2015
41
CHC Cognitive Abilities and WJ IV COG and OL Clusters
Gwm Gs Ga Glr GvGcGf
Oral Language/Achievement comparison procedure
SD and PR for calculated
difference scores
(Compare to distribution of difference scores in WJ IV
norm sample to determine significant strength or
weakness)
Broad Oral Language *
(Predictor score)
Sp. Lx. Acc.Phon. Cod.
(Possible criterion or predicted target scores)
Regression-based prediction models that account for
regression-to-the-mean (and how it
varies by age)Predicted
Target Cluster Score
Actual Target Cluster Score(minus) (equals)
Difference Score
Academic Skills
Academic Fluency
Academic Applications
Brd. Rdg.
Rdg. Flu.
Bas. Rdg. Sk.
Rdg. Cmp.(& Ext)
Rdg. Rate
Wr. Lng.
Brd. Wr. Lg.
Bas. Wr. Sk.
Wr. Exp.
Phn.-Grp.Kn.
Brd. Math
Math Cal.Sk.
Math Pr. Slv.
Reading Math.
Grw Gq
CHC Achievement Abilities and WJ IV ACH clusters
(Possible criterion or predicted
target scores)
Academic Knowledge(* English or Spanish)
Grw Gq
Brief Achievement
Academic Skills
Academic Fluency
Academic Applications
Broad Achievement
Reading
Brd. Rdg.
Rdg. Flu.
Bas. Rdg. Sk.
Rdg. Cmp.(& Ext)
Rdg. Rate
Wr. Lng.
Brd. Wr. Lg.
Bas. Wr. Sk.
Wr. Exp.
Math.
Brd. Math
Math Cal.Sk.
Math Pr. Slv.
CHC achievement abilities and WJ IV clusters
Academic Knowledge(Predictor
score)
Academic Knowledge/Achievement comparison procedure
Predicted Target Cluster
Score
Actual Target Cluster Score(minus) (equals)
SD and PR for calculated difference score
Difference Score
(Possible criterion or predicted target scores)
(Compare to distribution of difference scores in WJ IV norm sample to determine significant
strength or weakness)
Gwm Gs Ga Glr GvGcGf
CHC cognitive abilities and WJ IV cognitive and oral language clusters
Sp. Lx. Acc.Phon. Cod.
Regression-based prediction models that account for regression-to-the-mean
5/4/2015
42
The WJ IV Gf-Gc comparison procedure has clear implications for operationalizing this model
Common elements of third-method pattern of strength and weakness (PSW) approach to SLD identification (Flanagan et al.)
WJ IV Referral-focused selective assessment: (J)
“New” WJ IV COG-ACH research-based guidance
Dr. Kevin S. McGrew, PhD
Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP)
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin S. McGrew 05-01-15
5/4/2015
43
04/15
WJ IV studies
Cormier, McGrew, & Bulut
(2015a, 2015b; manuscripts submitted for publication)
< .01 = no statistical or practical significant effect.10 to .30 = moderate effect> .30 = strong effect
Effect size rules-of-thumb used in WJ III and WJ IV studies the same
5/4/2015
44
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19Gf WJ III
WJ IVGc WJ III
WJ IVGwm WJ III
WJ IVGlr WJ III
WJ IVGa WJ III
WJ IVGv WJ III
WJ IVGs WJ III
WJ IV
WJ III/WJ IV COG CHC-Basic Reading Skills relations summary and comparison by age
Not sign.
Moderate
Strong
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin S. McGrew 05-01-15
WJ III/WJ IV COG CHC-Reading Comprehension relations summary and comparison by age
Not sign.
Moderate
Strong
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19Gf WJ III
WJ IVGc WJ III
WJ IVGwm WJ III
WJ IVGlr WJ III
WJ IVGa WJ III
WJ IVGv WJ III
WJ IVGs WJ III
WJ IV© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin S. McGrew 05-01-15
5/4/2015
45
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19Gf WJ III
WJ IVGc WJ III
WJ IVGwm WJ III
WJ IVGlr WJ III
WJ IVGa WJ III
WJ IVGv WJ III
WJ IVGs WJ III
WJ IV
WJ III/WJ IV COG CHC-Math Calculation Skills relations summary and comparison by age
Not sign.
Moderate
Strong
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin S. McGrew 05-01-15
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19Gf WJ III
WJ IVGc WJ III
WJ IVGwm WJ III
WJ IVGlr WJ III
WJ IVGa WJ III
WJ IVGv WJ III
WJ IVGs WJ III
WJ IV
WJ III/WJ IV COG CHC-Math Problem Solving relations summary and comparison by age
Not sign.
Moderate
Strong
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin S. McGrew 05-01-15
5/4/2015
46
OralCmp
(LS)
.82 .69 M .76
.52 .42 48
SndAwr
(PC)Segment.
(PC)SndBlnd
(PC)
.71 .67 H .52 .93 .60 M.74 .88 .53 L .62
.56 .48 .55 .49 .42 .44 .27 .31 .28
AnlSyn
(RG)
.92 .62 M .62
.25 .43 .34
SenRep
(MS/LS)
.83 .60 M .48UndDir
(WM)
.86 .66 M .64
.43 .35 .41 .45 .43 .39
ObNmSq
(WM)
.89 .71 M .74
.32 .42 35
MemWrd
(MS)
.82 .63 M .58
.27 .28 .32
Manifest (actual score) variables
Latent factor variables
WJ IV COG/OL-Basic Reading Skills relations extant research summary
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP), Dr. Kevin McGrew, 04-22-15
NumSeries
(RQ)
ConFrm
(I)
.91 .62 H .80 .90 .65 M .66
.63 .73 .64 .44 .47 .35#
Basic Reading Skills Aptitude
PhnProc
(PC/LA)NonWrRep
PC,UM/MS
.83 .75 H .59 .90 .58 M .18
.52 .51 .53 .34 .21 .41
GenInfo
(K0)
.84 .59 M .78
.35 .38 .24
OralVoc
(LD/VL)
.89 .74 H .86
.56 .51 .49
PicVoc
(VL)
.81 .65 M .82
.47 .42 .41
Vocabulary(r=.89 with Gc)
When Vocabulary cluster is used instead of Gc cluster, it has a stronger
association with BRS.
LetPtMat
(P)
.90 .55 M .77
.46 .55 .48
NumPtMat
(P)
.84 .53 M .80
.53 .57 .61
PerceptualSpeed
(r=.85 with Gs)
When Perceptual Speed cluster is used instead of Gs
cluster, it demonstrates a significant association with
BRS. Gwm association decreases.
Gc
Ga
Gf
Gwm
Gs
Glr
Gv
Word
Attack
VerbAttn
(WM/AC)
.86 .65 H .76
.42 .42 .50
NumRev
(WM/AC)
.86 .61 M .36
.41 .44 .42
#
OralCmp
(LS)
SndAwr
(PC)Segment.
(PC)SndBlnd
(PC)
SenRep
(MS/LS)UndDir
(WM)ObNmSq
(WM)
AnlSyn
(RG)
MemWrd
(MS)
NumSeries
(RQ)
ConFrm
(I)
GenInfo
(K0)
PhnProc
(PC/LA)
NonWrRep
(PC,UM/
MS)
VerbAttn
(WM/AC)
OralVoc
(LD/VL)PicVoc
(VL)
NumRev
(WM/AC)
Vocabulary
LetPtMat
(P)NumPtMat
(P)
Gc
Ga
Gf
Gwm
GsPerceptual Speed PairCan
(P/AC)
Primary tests and clusters Possible follow-up tests
WJ IV COG/Basic Reading Skillsresearch-based suggested tests and
clusters
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP), Dr. Kevin McGrew, 04-22-15
StryRec
(MM)Glr
GvVisual.
(Vz)
5/4/2015
47
SndAwr
(PC)Segment.
(PC)SndBlnd
(PC)
SenRep
(MS/LS)UndDir
(WM)
OralCmp
(LS)
ObNmSq
(WM)
AnlSyn
(RG)
MemWrd
(MS)
NumSeries
(RQ)
ConFrm
(I)
PhnProc
(PC/LA)NonWrRep
PC,UM/MS
VerbAttn
(WM/AC)
OralVoc
(LD/VL)GenInfo
(K0)
PicVoc
(VL)
NumRev
(WM/AC)#
LetPtMat
(P)NumPtMat
(P)
Gc
Ga
Gf
Gs
GlrStryRec
(MM)
PairCan
(P/AC)
Perceptual Speed
Vocabulary
WJ IV COG/OL-Reading Comp.research-based suggested tests
and clusters
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP), Dr. Kevin McGrew, 04-22-15
Gwm
GvVisual.
(Vz)Primary tests and clusters Possible follow-up tests
SenRep
(MS/LS)UndDir
(WM)ObNmS
(WM)
AnlSyn
(RG)
MemWrd
(MS)
WJ IV COG/OL-Math Calc Skillsresearch-based suggested tests and
clusters
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP), Dr. Kevin McGrew, 04-22-15
NumSeries
(RQ)
VerbAttn
(WM/AC)
OralVoc
(LD/VL)PicVoc
(VL)
NumRev
(WM/AC)
LetPtMat
(P)
Gc
Gf
Gwm
Gs
Gv
PairCan
(P/AC)
Visual.
(Vz)
Perceptual Speed
Quant. Reas.
Primary tests and clusters Possible follow-up tests
NumPtMat
(P)
GenInfo
(K0)OralCmp
(LS)
ConFrm
(I)
PicRec
(MV)
Glr
Ga
StryRec
(MM)
PhnProc
(PC/LA)
5/4/2015
48
SenRep
(MS/LS)UndDir
(WM)ObNmS
(WM)
AnlSyn
(RG)
MemWrd
(MS)
WJ IV COG/OL-Math Problem Solvingresearch-based suggested tests and
clusters
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP), Dr. Kevin McGrew, 04-22-15
VerbAttn
(WM/AC)NumRev
(WM/AC)
LetPtMat
(P)
Gc
Gf
Gwm
Gs
Gv
PairCan
(P/AC)
Visual.
(Vz)
Perceptual Speed
Primary tests and clusters Possible follow-up tests
NumPtMat
(P)
OralCmp
(LS)
ConFrm
(I)
PicRec
(MV)
Glr
Ga
StryRec
(MM)
PhnProc
(PC/LA)
NumSeries
(RQ)
OralVoc
(LD/VL)PicVoc
(VL)
Vocabulary GenInfo
(K0)
History or learning problems in reading since starting school
History of early ear infections
Classroom performance and tested reading shows problems in word recognition and reading fluency/speed
Problems in paying attention in class. Also difficulty staying in his seat
Good in mathematics
Avid chess player
Very social
WJ IV example case study (O)(Patrick – 9 years 1 month old Grade 3.6)
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin S. McGrew 05-01-15
5/4/2015
49
Comprehension-Knowledge (Gc-Ext)Fluid Reasoning (Gf-EXT)
Short-term Working Mem (Gwm-EXT)
Cognitive Processing Speed (Gs)
Auditory Processing (Ga)Long-term Retrieval (Glr)
Visual-spatial Processing (Gv)
Patrick
9-1 3.6
WJ IV Patrick case study: GIA and broad CHC clusters – normative comparisons
General Intellectual Ability (GIA)
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin S. McGrew 05-01-15
Comprehension-Knowledge (Gc-Ext)Fluid Reasoning (Gf-EXT)
Short-term Working Mem (Gwm-EXT)
Cognitive Processing Speed (Gs)
Auditory Processing (Ga)Long-term Retrieval (Glr)
Visual-spatial Processing (Gv)
Patrick
9-1 3.6
WJ IV Patrick case study: GIA and broad CHC clusters – normative comparisons
General Intellectual Ability (GIA)
Average (50th percentile rank)
Average range
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin S. McGrew 05-01-15
5/4/2015
50
Patrick
9-1 3.6
Comprehension-Knowledge (Gc-Ext)Oral Vocabulary
General Information
Picture Vocabulary
Fluid Reasoning (Gf-Ext)Number Series
Concept Formation
Analysis-SynthesisQuantitative Reasoning (RQ)
Vocabulary (VL)
General Intellectual Ability (GIA)
WJ IV Patrick case study: GIA and broad CHC clusters – normative comparisons
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin S. McGrew 05-01-15
Patrick
9-1 3.6
Short-Term Working Memory (Gwm-Ext)
Verbal Attention
Numbers ReversedObject-Number Sequencing
Memory for Words
Sentence Repetition
Auditory Memory Span (MS)
WJ IV Patrick case study: GIA and broad CHC clusters – normative comparisons
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin S. McGrew 05-01-15
5/4/2015
51
Patrick
9-1 3.6
Cognitive Processing Speed (Gs)Letter-Pattern Matching
Pair CancellationNumber-Pattern Matching
Perceptual Speed (P)
Numbers Reversed
Number-Pattern Matching
Number Facility (N)
WJ IV Patrick case study: GIA and broad CHC clusters – normative comparisons
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin S. McGrew 05-01-15
Patrick
9-1 3.6
Auditory Processing (Ga)Phonological Processing
Nonword Repetition
Segmentation
Blending
Phonetic Coding (PC)
VisualizationPicture Recognition
Visual Processing (Gv)
WJ IV Patrick case study: GIA and broad CHC clusters – normative comparisons
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin S. McGrew 05-01-15
5/4/2015
52
Patrick
9-1 3.6
Story RecallVisual-Auditory Learning
Long-Term Retrieval (Glr)
WJ IV Patrick case study: GIA and broad CHC clusters – normative comparisons
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin S. McGrew 05-01-15
Basic Reading Skills
Reading ComprehensionReading Fluency
Reading Rate
Math Calculation SkillsMath Problem Solving
Basic Writing SkillsWritten Expression
Phoneme-Grapheme Knowledge
WJ IV Patrick case study: Select ACH clusters (no broad or cross-domain)Normative comparisons
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin S. McGrew 05-01-15
5/4/2015
53
The WJ IV provides a a variety of variation and comparison procedures for
understanding an individual’s learning needs and strengths and weaknesses
Five ability/achievement difference score comparison procedures to help compare ability to current levels of achievement
Four variation procedures to help document an individual’s pattern of strengths and weaknesses
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin S. McGrew 05-01-15
(Continued on next slide)
Intra-ACH Variations Procedure (+-1 SD): Patrick case study
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin S. McGrew 05-01-15
5/4/2015
54
Intra-ACH Variations Procedure (+-1 SD): Patrick case study
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin S. McGrew 05-01-15
Basic Reading Skills
Reading ComprehensionReading Fluency
Reading Rate
Math Calculation SkillsMath Problem Solving
Basic Writing SkillsWritten Expression
Phoneme-Grapheme Knowledge
Significant ACH strengths/weaknesses: Intra-ACH (Extended) variation procedure (+-1.5 SD) – Patrick case study
Test level weaknesses: Letter-Word Identification; Sentence Reading FluencyTest level strengths: None (Math Facts Fluency possible)
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin S. McGrew 05-01-15
5/4/2015
55
Gf (Other): Average of other (non-Gf) 6 core tests
GcGf
NumberSeries
Gwm Gs Ga Glr
OralVocabulary
VerbalAttention
Letter-Pat.Matching
Phono.Processing
StoryRecall
Visual-ization
PredictedNum. Series
NumberSeries
-(minus)
=(equals)
DifferenceScore
SD and PR for calculated difference scores
(Compare difference score to distribution of difference
scores in WJ IV norm sample to determine significant strength or weakness)
ConceptFormation
Analysis-Synthesis
FluidReasoning
FluidReason-Ext
Quant.Reasoning
NumberMatrices
Other Gf tests Other Gf clustersThe same Gf (Other) score is used to evaluate obtained-predicted difference scores for any other optional Gf test or cluster that is available after testing.
Procedure is repeated for each CHC domain—each CHC core test removed and relevant “other” average computed, etc.
Similar procedures available for OL and ACH based on each batteries core tests and optional tests and clusters.
OralVocabulary
VerbalAttention
Letter-Pat.Matching
Phono.Processing
StoryRecall
Visual-ization
Core cognitive tests for intra-cognitive variation procedure
Explanation of WJ-IV intra-variation procedure: Cognitive example
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 06-18-14
Gv
WJ IV Patrick case study: Intra-COG (Ext) variation output – select output
This information is presented
in color coded
profiles in the next
slides
Allows for simultaneous
viewing of normative and S/W
information(continues for rest of cognitive tests – not shown here)
5/4/2015
56
Comprehension-Knowledge (Gc-Ext))Fluid Reasoning (Gf-Ext)
Short-term Working Mem (Gwm-Ext)
Cognitive Processing Speed (Gs)
Auditory Processing (Ga)Long-term Retrieval (Glr)
Visual-spatial Processing (Gv)
Patrick
9-1 3.6
Significant broad COG cluster strengths/weaknesses: Intra-Cog (Extended) variation procedure (+-1.5 SD) – Patrick case study
General Intellectual Ability (GIA)
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin S. McGrew 05-01-15
Patrick
9-1 3.6
Comprehension-Knowledge (Gc-Ext)Oral Vocabulary
General Information
Picture Vocabulary
Fluid Reasoning (Gf-Ext)Number Series
Concept Formation
Analysis-SynthesisQuantitative Reasoning (RQ)
Vocabulary (VL)
WJ IV Patrick case study: COG clusters and tests strengths and weaknesses as per the Intra-COG (extended) variation procedure (+-1.5 SD)
General Intellectual Ability (GIA)
(+1.35 SD)
(+1.47 SD)
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin S. McGrew 05-01-15
5/4/2015
57
Patrick
9-1 3.6
Short-Term Working Memory (Gwm-Ext)
Verbal Attention
Numbers ReversedObject-Number Sequencing
Memory for Words
Sentence Repetition
Auditory Memory Span (MS)
(-1.44 SD)
WJ IV Patrick case study: COG clusters and tests strengths and weaknesses as per the Intra-COG (extended) variation procedure (+-1.5 SD)
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin S. McGrew 05-01-15
Patrick
9-1 3.6
Cognitive Processing Speed (Gs)Letter-Pattern Matching
Pair CancellationNumber-Pattern Matching
Perceptual Speed (P)
Numbers Reversed
Number-Pattern Matching
Number Facility (N)
(-1.49 SD)
(-1.44 SD)(-1.49 SD)
WJ IV Patrick case study: COG clusters and tests strengths and weaknesses as per the Intra-COG (extended) variation procedure (+-1.5 SD)
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin S. McGrew 05-01-15
5/4/2015
58
Patrick
9-1 3.6
Auditory Processing (Ga)Phonological Processing
Nonword Repetition
Segmentation
Blending
Phonetic Coding (PC)
VisualizationPicture Recognition
Visual Processing (Gv)
(-1.37 SD)
(+1.45 SD)
(+1.48 SD)
WJ IV Patrick case study: COG clusters and tests strengths and weaknesses as per the Intra-COG (extended) variation procedure (+-1.5 SD)
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin S. McGrew 05-01-15
Patrick
9-1 3.6
Story RecallVisual-Auditory Learning
Long-Term Retrieval (Glr)
WJ IV Patrick case study: CHC COG clusters and tests strengths and weaknesses as per the Intra-COG (extended) variation procedure (+-1.5 SD)
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin S. McGrew 05-01-15
5/4/2015
59
Short-term Working Mem (Gwm-Ext)
Cognitive Processing Speed (Gs)
Auditory Processing (Ga)Long-term Retrieval (Glr)
Visual-spatial Processing (Gv)
Patrick
9-1 3.6
Gf-Gc Composite
Perceptual Speed (P)
Phonetic Coding (PC)Auditory Memory Span (MS)
Number Facility (N)Cognitive Efficiency (Gsm+Gs-Ext)
Significant broad, narrow & clinical COG/ACH strengths/weaknesses: Gf-Gc Composite procedure (+-1.5 SD) – Patrick case study
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin S. McGrew 05-01-15
Basic Reading Skills
Reading ComprehensionReading Fluency
Reading Rate
Math Calculation SkillsMath Problem Solving
Basic Writing SkillsWritten Expression
Phoneme-Grapheme Knowledge
Significant broad, narrow & clinical COG/ACH strengths/weaknesses: Gf-Gc Composite procedure (+-1.5 SD) – Patrick case study
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin S. McGrew 05-01-15
5/4/2015
60
Gf-Gc composite
andGIA cluster
ACHcomparison
results
Patrick case study
© Institute for Applied
Psychometrics; Kevin S. McGrew
05-01-15
Basic Reading Skills
Reading ComprehensionReading Fluency
Reading Rate
Math Calculation SkillsMath Problem Solving
Basic Writing SkillsWritten Expression
Phoneme-Grapheme Knowledge
WJ IV Patrick case study: Select ACH clusters (no broad or cross-domain)Normative comparisons
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin S. McGrew 05-01-15
5/4/2015
61
Actual Basic Writing SkillsActual Basic Reading Skills
WJ IV Patrick case study: Scholastic Aptitude/Achievement comparison (+-1.5 SD):Basic Reading and Basic Writing Skills
Oral Vocabulary (Gc-LD/VL)
Verbal Attention (Gwm-WM/AC)
Number-Pattern Match. (Gs-P)
Phonological Proc. (Ga-PC/Glr-LA)
Predicted BRS & BWS ACHDiscrepancy PR = 26 SD = -0.64Discrepancy PR = 55 SD = +0.12
Num. Pat.Matching
(P)
Phon.Processing
(PC)
OralVocab.(LV/VL)
VerbalAttention
(WM)
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin S. McGrew 05-01-15
Actual Reading FluencyActual Reading Comprehension
WJ IV Patrick case study: Scholastic Aptitude/Achievement comparison (+-1.5 SD):Reading Comprehension, Reading Fluency & Reading Rate
Oral Vocabulary (Gc-LD/VL)
Concept Formation (Gf-I)
Number-Pattern Match. (Gs-P)
Phonological Proc. (Ga-PC/Glr-LA)
Predicted RC, RF, RRDiscrepancy PR = 58 SD = +0.19
Discrepancy PR = 6 SD = -1.59Actual Reading Rate Discrepancy PR = 5 SD = -1.61
Num. Pat.Matching
(P)
Phon.Processing
(PC)
OralVocab.(LD/VL)
Concept Formation
(I)
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin S. McGrew 05-01-15
5/4/2015
62
Actual Written Expression
WJ IV Patrick case study: Scholastic Aptitude/Achievement comparison (+-1.5 SD):Written Expression
Oral Vocabulary (Gc-LD/VL)
Story Recall (Glr-MM)Number-Pattern Match. (Gs-P)
Phonological Proc. (Ga-PC/Glr-LA)
Predicted Written ExpressionDiscrepancy PR = 85 SD = +1.04
Num. Pat.Matching
(P)
Phon.Processing
(PC)
OralVocab.(LV/VL)
Story Recall(MM)
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin S. McGrew 05-01-15
Actual Math Calculation Skills
WJ IV Patrick case study: Scholastic Aptitude/Achievement comparison (+-1.5 SD):Math Calculation
Oral Vocabulary (Gc-LD/VL)
Number Series (Gf-RQ)Pair Cancellation (Gs-P)
Visualization (Gv-Vz)
Predicted Math Calculation SkillsDiscrepancy PR = 55 SD = +0.14
PairCancel.(P/EF)
Visual.(Vz)
Oral Vocab.(LD/VL)
NumberSeries (RQ)
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin S. McGrew 05-01-15
5/4/2015
63
Actual Math Problem Solving
WJ IV Patrick case study: Scholastic Aptitude/Achievement comparison (+-1.5 SD):Math Problem Solving
Oral Vocabulary (Gc-LD/VL)
Analysis-Synthesis (Gf-RQ)Numbers Reversed (Gwm-WM)
Visualization (Gv-Vz)
Predicted Math Problem Solving
Discrepancy PR = 62 SD = +0.31
Visual.(Vz)
NumbersReversed
(WM)
OralVocab.(LD/VL)
Analysis-Synthesis(RG/RQ)
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin S. McGrew 05-01-15
Gf-Gc composite, GIA & SAPT GIA cluster ACH
comparison results
Patrick case study
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin S. McGrew 05-01-15