W-J and Wechsler

The Wechsler, or WISC (Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children) as it’s often referred to, is an individualized intelligence test that is administered by a trained and certified school psychologist, or another individual with specific training in it. It is made up of 2 strands, Verbal and Performance, each of which has 5-6 subtests. Each subtest gives a scaled score, and these are used to come up with standard scores for the Verbal IQ and Performance IQ. Together, these 2 scores make up the Full Scale IQ.
The Woodcock-Johnson III is an individual achievement test that is administered by an individual, usually a special education teacher or a diagnostician, who has been trained in its administration, scoring, and interpretation. It measures all of the standard school subjects (decoding, comprehension, writing, spelling, computation, problem solving, etc.), and provides a standard score for each subtest, as well as scores for Broad Reading, Broad Math, etc. I hope this helps! Good luck!

also has a test of cognitive ability which produces an IQ score. (Cognitive Battery) This is only to be given by a trained diagnostician- though not necessarily a psyche. They upped the requirements for testers when they released the new test.

The WJIII isn’t organized the same way as the WISC, partly because it is based on a different view of the organization of intelligence. It produces ,along with the General Intellectual Ability score, up to ten or eleven clusters that provide information regarding memory, visual processing, processing speed, abstract reasoning, attentional capacity (not ADD), executive function, various aspects of auditory processing, working memory… It is quite complete.

The psyche with whom I work feels that the WISC is a purer measure of intelligence than the WJIII- a feeling that I think is shared throughout the testing community- but that the WJIII gives information that is likely more useful to teachers and parents in terms of planning instruction and accommodations. I think the truth is pretty close to that. Some folks, depending on how detailed you want to be, and the stamina of the child- will give the WISC and then parts of the WJIII to “fill out” the diagnositc information. I like the WJIII- as a former teacher it makes more intuitive sense to me.

Robin

The WISC-III really isn’t a ‘purer’ measure of intelligence than the WJIII (in fact, its theoretical basis is outdated and has it roots from Wechsler’s work with mentally ill adults in the 1930’s), however, because the WISC-III is by far the most commonly administered individual intelligence test given in schools I would recommend that you go with it. Research shows that different intelligence tests often give significantly different scores when administered to the same person. The WJIII measures some cognitive processes that the WISC-III does not measure. LD and ADHD students have been found to score relatively low on some of these additional process measures. Because of this, an LD or ADHD student is likely to score signficantly lower on the WJIII than the WISC-III (up to 20 or more IQ points). Because discrepancy scores are still used to determine the presence of a learning disability in most school districts, eligibility for services might depend on which IQ test was adminstered. Also, people think in terms of WISC-III IQ’s because it is the most popular intelligence test given. So saying a child received a below average IQ score of 80 on the WJIII (even though he might have obtained an average range IQ of 100 if the WISC-III were given) might bias people into thinking that any academic problems the child might be having is due more to low ability than to a learning problem.

I actually haven’t found that kids score that much lower when I have given the WJIII to students who have previously had the WISC- sometimes 5 or 10 points, but seldom anything statistically significant. I have been somewhat amazed at how close they were because I wxpected more of a difference. Interestingly, at the training that I went to with Dr. McGrew, he indicated that there were parts of the WISC that he felt were more effective that the WJIII (block design in particular) and his recommendation was to do a meld of both tests. As I said though, I appreciate the diagnostic information from the WJIII and it makes more sense to me as a former teacher when I think about how to recommend accommodations and modifications.

Robin

Thanks for this info. It’s helpful. I should have been clearer in my question. What about the Wechsler Achievement Test? How does that compare with the achievement portion of the W-J?

Yep, the WJIII is a more theoretically sound test than the WISC-III- its a better test. Kevin McGrew and his collegues (sp?) do good work. The WISC-III and WJIII correlate about .80. This translates to the standard error of estimate (similar to the standard error of measurement) being about + or - 8 points. Wish we could do away with the discrepancy formula method of identifying students and use a more thoeretically sound method so that we could use better tests- ones that include measures of phonological processing. Problem with the WJIII is that you still have to give the WISC-III, because if the WJIII yields scores that are 5 to 10 points lower then a student might not qualify for the special education intervention and modfications he or she may need.

It actually goes 5-10 either way- and as often one or the other-which is fine statistically. Often enough it comes within a point or two. And I agree- the discrepency formula is unreasonable and innappropriate. However, if you look at the back page of the new scoring printout, they have made a real effort to calculate discrepency between achievement and aptitude in a way that meets the requirements of the law. The predicted scores look very similar to what regressed scores look like- again not exact but within a point or two.

Robin

I don’t know the WIAT well because I typically am only asked for the WJ, but my understanding is that the scores are typically somewhat lower than the WJ scores. I am not sure if this refers to Standard score or grade levels- the grade levels on all normed tests are notoriously unreliable- or how much lower though. Anitya does this one, maybe she will hop in here.

Robin

I give the WJ III (as of last Oct./Nov.) primarily. Our psych. does the WIAT. However, at times we have a parent request testing for a child no one thinks is LD (usually the parent has a friend who tells them they can get their child help in resource). So, sometimes I do academic testing only. Then I borrow the WIAT. I administer both tests and collect a score of other data and write a report. If parent does not accept this (if I think there is a discrepancy somewhere based on my eval. I recommend the full psycho educational), we then give a WISC.

The WIAT used to score higher than the WJ, r. It seems to score very similarly to the WJ, III and sometimes just a little lower. The reading comprehension section is different and I like having both kinds of comprehension assessments. Plus the WIAT has a listening comprehension subtest that is the same format as the reading comprehension.

We give the WISC almost all of the time. We are experimenting with 1-2 WJ subtests on LD to see of we get a correlation to certain learning behaviors. Can’t recall which subtests, not at school where i can look at the test.

Thank you (and everyone else) for all the info. The psychologist we are planning to use is recommending the Stanford Binet LM and the Wechsler Achievement Test. The Stanford Binet choice is because he believes that the WISC is not a good indicator of giftedness. (The WISC scores were very scattered, some being in the Superior range.) I have heard that corroborated by several people, but I’ve now heard on this board that the Stanford Binet LM is out of date and should not be used. He wants to do the Wechsler Achievement primarily because the schools do the WJ, and this is a chance to have a different look at achievement. I was convinced and now I’m feeling as if we may be going down the wrong path here. To top it all off, one of the other consultants we had talked to was telling me I wouldn’t get a good look at writing by doing the Wechsler Achievement and should do the WJIII in any case. I’ve gotten totally confused.Do you have any opinions? Our goal in this testing is to look at the giftedness as well as the ld and figure out the best plan for this year and for a choice of junior highs. Thanks much.

I’m back in my office now so I looked up some dates for you. The Stanford-Binet LM was published in 1960. It was updated and replaced by the Stanford-Binet Fourth Edition in 1986. Older tests tend to yield higher scores then newer tests (about 3 points per decade; called ‘softening of the norms’) so your child is sure to score higher on the LM than he did on the WISC-III- which is probably why the psychologist wants to give it. Also, be aware that your school might not accept the test results if the LM is given (because it is obsolete and not used anymore).

The WIAT Written Expression subtest requires the child to write a descriptive letter within a 15 minute time limt. The WJIII has two writing subtests: Writing Fluency requires the child to quickly compose sentences within a 7 minute time period and Writing Samples requires the child to write sentences that describe a picture or answer a question or command. The WIAT and WJIII writing subtest sappear to measure different writing skills so choosing one depends on what you are after.

I have a question, my son was given a full psych,edu eval in Va which included the wisc, I was given all kinds of good info,specific on a few points and based on the tests, his academic achievement and past difficulties with his add affecting school,he qualified for sped, this was in the 4th grade. We moved to Germany where he now attends a DODDS school. I was told here that he had to be retested for dodds elegibility(we came with IEP in hand) and he was given only the wj. Results to me seemed vague compared to the previous battery of testing, lots of low average and broad average.The summary said he had evidence of a learning difference not a deficit. He qualified by virtue of a dx of adhd since 1st gr. and the fact that he had previously qualified under ohi in the states. I have been uncomfortable with how the test was given and the results but haven’t been able to pinpoint why exactly. So what I am reading into the info in the above posts is that the wj will score him doing better than he really does. Am I seeing this wrong? I guess I am real leery of sudden improvements, although he seemed to have done so this past year. The reason being, in kgarten and 1st half of 1st grade he was in Tx and failing 1st grade, went to Fl and suddenly he was on grade level, went to Va in 2nd, and doing horrible again. So…several years later in 6th, he tests well, is put in reg. classes, and seems to be doing very well. Call me suspicious I suppose, but I am waiting for the other shoe to drop. What do you all think? Opinions appreciated. Thanks!

I really don’t think that it is the test. The vagueness you are feeling is likely the result of the evaluator. There should not be a substantial difference in the overall scores. Unfortunately there are as many inadequate folks giving tests as there are in any other profession. This is sad because it leaves folks like you- who are discerning readers of results- with a bad taste in your mouth about the information you receive.

Grade level scores are the least useful part of any assessment and when a test has been updated- as the WJIII has recently- they become even more useless in terms of assessing progress. They are a reflection of the people in the norming sample and have little to do with what actually occurs in a classroom- and this is likely the explanation for the discrepency from place to place that you have found. The only measures that produce accurate grade level score in a given situation are criterion referenced measures base on material taught in the classroom. And we all know how variable this can be…

Eligibility needs to be redetermined almost every time you move sadly, because of variations in the interpretation of the law from state to state. If the data the receiving school gets is complete and meets their criteria for assessment, then you may not need additional testing, but frequently when we get students from out of state ( or in your case out of country:) the data is sparse and/or out of date and the poor child needs to repeat the whole process. It is very unfair- to kids and parents- and to school personel who want accurate data for programming decisions. I can’t tell you the number of times I have had kids move back from southern states and the schools don’t even return the information we sent them! Yuck!!!

Robin

If I am reading your message correctly, your son was never diagnosed with a learning disability but rather with ADHD. If that is the case then you wouldn’t necessarily expect low scores on the achievement test. ADHD effects classroom performance (and thereby grades) much more than it does performance on an individually administered achievement tests. I’ve tested many ADHD students who do just fine on an achievement test but are obtianing low grades because they are inconsistent in completing and turing in assignments and do not use a good strategy for studying and taking classroom tests.

If he is doing well in the the regular classroom- great! But watch closely because some ADHD students have difficulty in the 6th and later grades because the nature of assignments become more independent and require more planning than they did in lower grades (i.e., 3 or 4 part reports that are due in 6 weeks present a particular challenge to some ADHD students).

Thanks y’all, for the info. No he wasn’t dx ld, and add was dxed by a doc with no prompting from school or myself, really didn’t know much about it back then. He will be starting 7th gr. this yr, I do understand about the schoolwork and turning stuff in, seems one of the best parts of having resource support is that the other teachers pay more attention to how and what he is doing, of course my showing up on a weekly basis to ask them helps too :o) I just wish he could do better on tests, I think he may also have test anxiety, I saw something in his journal from English class that makes me think so. I will just keep my eye on things as I have been and be there when I am needed if things go awry.

One of the things I thought was a little strange about the test as far as vague also was that he had previously been dx with mild to mod. capd, once in 1st gr. and again in 4th at the big eval. but this eval in 6th just noted a processing deficit, didn’t specify what kind.Most of the accommodations for capd seem to coincide with those for add so that hasn’t been a big factor so far. His resource teacher who also administered the test told me she found him to be a strong visual learner and his iep has that written in for other teachers, that they use visual cues to augment lessons.
I just thought it strange for one eval to be so specific on some stuff and this one basically said he was just average(albeit, low and broad, some regular average). I guess also the fact that in 4th he was given 8 different tests and only one to re eval in the 6th. Anyway, I probly have rambled on enough. Since school starts in 12 days(hoo raa) you will most assuredly be hearing from me again. Thanks again.

…….ditto. I find this frequently, the child has learned, can demonstrate ability to read/compute/problem solve in a situation that can circumvent ADHD behaviors. Thus, we have a problem more with production than with learning. In these instances we are in a quandry. Jimmy can read, but doesn’t complete the reading, he can divide but doesn’t do the assignments……

Traditional resource is more often than not organized to meet the needs of students who need special education, special teaching techniques and strategies in order to learn to read to compute…….. Many times ADHD youngsters do not need this, they need accomodations, modifications and behavior management plans. This may or may not involve the special education teacher. In the case at my school I can so infrequently get into any single classroom that the general ed. teacher is going to implement all of the above anyway.

Indeed, I can understand the reason for the amibguity in this case. We try to avoid OHI in the case of ADHD (depite the legality of this), we instead look for an LD or a discrepancy in learning. If we find the ADHD to be severe enough to have negatively impacted learning to read or math, then we qualify on that basis and teach, modify, and accomodate.