Willmore KTEA-III Test Review

docx

School

Liberty University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

621

Subject

Statistics

Date

Jan 9, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by SuperHumanRavenPerson995

EDUC 621 T EST R EVIEW T EMPLATE Your name: Brandon Willmore Name of instrument: Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement, Third Edition (KTEA-III) Author(s) of instrument: Alan Kaufman, Nadeen Kaufman, Kristina Breaux Date of current publication: 2014 Publisher: Pearson Base all answers on information provided in MMY (available through Liberty University Online Library), course textbook, and, if necessary, recent scholarly sources. 1. List all “ global ” areas and their corresponding subtests that comprise each global area (add more or less space as needed): A. List all Global Areas (aka Domains, Clusters) : Reading, Math, Written Language, Oral Language B. List all Subtests: Reading: Letter and Word Recognition, Nonsense Word Decoding, Reading Comprehension, Reading Vocabulary, Word Recognition Fluency, Decoding Fluency, Silent Reading Fluency Math: Math Concepts and Applications, Math Computation, Math Fluency Written Language : Written Expression, Spelling, Writing Fluency Oral Language : Listening Comprehension, Oral Expression, Associational Fluency, Phonological Processing, Object Naming Facility, Letter Naming Facility 2. State the age range this test can be administered to: Age 4-25 3. State the purpose of the test: The purpose is to measure academic achievement in reading, mathematics, written language and oral language. 4. Describe the qualifications required for an examiner to administer this test: Those who are administering the test must be trained in educational and psychological testing. Even if they have limited training in the content areas, they may still administer the Kaufman Test if the former applies. 5. List the types of scores (e.g., standard scores, percentile rank, scaled scores, age equivalent, grade equivalent, etc.) this test uses to report results. Your answer should follow the examples stated here. Do not list anything else. Types of scores: standard scores, age and grade equivalents, percentile ranks, normal curve equivalents, and Growth Scale Value (GSV) Page 1 of 4

EDUC 621 6. List the instrument’s technical data (including actual numbers) regarding validity, reliability, and standardization / normative process. Validity: According to technical data, validity is demonstrated through content and statistical analysis. KTEA-3 aligns with the Common Core Standards and intercorrelation studies show that in Reading, Math, Written Language, Sound-Symbol, Decoding, and Reading Fluency, there is a validity of .70s and .80s. In Oral Language and Oral Fluency, there is a correlation coefficient between .40s and .50s. Reliability: A cross grade levels the coefficients for subtests ranged from .54 to .98. For the composite level coefficients ranged from . 70 to .99. Across ages, coefficients ranged from .55 to . 99 at the subtest level and .66 to .99 at the composite level Standardization/Normative Process: Across grade levels the standard error of measurement ranged from 2.12 to 10.17 at the subtest level and 1.74 to 8.28 at the composite level. “Agreement between administrators in the normative sample was 90% (Oral Expression) and 95% (Written Expression), suggesting that the rigorous scoring procedures outlined for the KTEA-3 allow for consistent interpretation of examinee responses” (2014). 7. State the approximate time needed to administer the test: Approximately 2-23 minutes per subtest. Approximations range 10-35 minutes for each of the three core academic composites, and 15-85 minutes for the Academic Skills Battery. Given that all subtests or composites are not tabulated, the total time will vary depending on how many subtests / composites are given. 8. Did this test’s norming population include individuals with special needs and/or limited English proficiency? No, the norming population did not include individuals with special needs. There are no instrument adaptations for students with special needs, nor is there any version for limited English Proficiency students. 9. Describe the strengths of the instrument. If not explicitly stated in the MMY, support your answer based on the information given. The instrument's strengths are multifaceted. Firstly, its broad applicability across a wide age range is noteworthy. Additionally, the robust validity and reliability further enhance its credibility. Notably, the instrument goes beyond traditional assessments, encompassing evaluation in math, reading, written, and oral language skills. The flexibility in administration is a notable advantage, allowing examiners to either conduct the entire test or select specific sections tailored to the examinee's needs. A notable improvement in this edition is the introduction of a digital web-based version, a commendable advancement over the second edition. The availability of a plethora of resources for test administration and scoring further contributes to the instrument's efficacy. In summary, the test stands out for its user-friendly interface, versatile administration options, and promising results, making it a valuable tool in educational assessment. Page 2 of 4

EDUC 621 10. State any weaknesses of the instrument. If not expressly stated in the MMY, support your answer based on the information given. The instrument does exhibit some weaknesses. Firstly, the absence of a Spanish version limits its applicability, potentially hindering assessments for Spanish-speaking individuals. Additionally, there seems to be a lack of sufficient adaptations tailored for students with disabilities, which may impact the inclusivity of the instrument. Another noteworthy weakness pertains to the potential time constraints associated with administering the complete set of subtests, composites, and battery tests. Lengthy testing sessions may risk diminishing the student's engagement and attention, potentially compromising the accuracy of the results. This aspect raises concerns about the instrument's practicality in certain scenarios. 11. References: Nadeen, A., Nadeen, K., Breaux, K. (2014) Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement, Third Edition. Mental Measurements Yearbook and Tests in Print . Yearbook: #20. Personal Response: After reviewing this test and considering all that you have learned in this review, would you recommend that this test be used to assess the students for whom it is designed? State why this test would or would not be useful in assessing this population. If this test could be used for the student population you are teaching or hope to teach, please include that information and why you would or would not use this test. I would recommend the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement, Third Edition (KTEA-III) for assessing students in a school setting, spanning pre-kindergarten through twelfth grade. Its reliability and validity make it a robust tool for evaluating students' strengths and weaknesses in reading, math, written, and oral language. The test's user-friendly design and abundant resources for examiners facilitate straightforward administration and scoring, adding to its practicality. A significant strength lies in the extensive array of subtests, allowing flexibility to tailor assessments to specific needs without requiring the administration of all subtests. The additional benefit of a report suggesting intervention strategies for both school psychologists and parents underscores the test's value in supporting student development, particularly in critical areas like reading and math. Despite limitations such as the absence of a Spanish version and limited adaptations for students with disabilities, except for read-aloud accommodations in Listening Comprehension passages, the test has demonstrated effectiveness in identifying strengths and weaknesses in students with special needs. Overall, the KTEA-III emerges as a highly recommended tool, marked by substantial improvements and acknowledged as "a strong option for specific referral problems" with the flexibility to address varying levels of concern through multiple composite scores (Nadeen, 2014). Page 3 of 4

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version