Ktea 3 academic skills battery

11/3/2019 EBSCOhost

https://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/delivery?sid=6991eb8b-6929-488f-b10d-f1bafd67a059%40sessionmgr4007&vid=9&ReturnUrl=https%3a%2f%2fw… 1/7

EBSCO Publishing Citation Format: APA (American Psychological Assoc.):

NOTE: Review the instructions at http://support.ebsco.com/help/?int=ehost&lang=&feature_id=APA and make any necessary corrections before using. Pay special attention to personal names, capitalization, and dates. Always consult your library resources for the exact formatting and punctuation guidelines.

References Kaufman, A. S., Kaufman, N. L., & Breaux, K. C. (2014). Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement, Third

Edition. Retrieved from https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx? direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=mmt&AN=test.6516&site=ehost-live&scope=site&custid=uphoenix

<!--Additional Information: Persistent link to this record (Permalink): https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx? direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=mmt&AN=test.6516&site=ehost-live&scope=site&custid=uphoenix End of citation-->

Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement, Third Edition Review of the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement, Third Edition by KAREN MACKLER, School Psychologist, Lawrence Public Schools, Lawrence, NY: DESCRIPTION. The Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement, Third Edition (KTEA-3) is an individually administered measure of academic achievement for children in prekindergarten through Grade 12, and also including adults ages 19 to 25. The assessment covers reading, math, writing, and language areas. There are two parallel forms of the test, A and B. The test is comprehensive and comes with test easels, separate booklets for written expression stories, test protocols including a student response booklet, an administration manual, a scoring manual, and a USB key, which includes scoring protocols and the technical manual. The battery comprises 19 subtests, though administration of all subtests is not required. A subtest may stand on its own, or may be used as part of a composite. The test manual advises which subtests should be administered, based on the referral question, which is very helpful for school-based personnel, especially if the test is to be used for considerations other than eligibility. Administration time varies, depending upon which subtests are given. An estimate of 10 to 35 minutes is given per each core battery, of which there are three. One typically would want to obtain the Academic Skills Battery composite score, which should take approximately 15 minutes at the earlier age ranges and about 85 minutes for those students in Grades 3 and up. The Written Expression subtest takes the longest amount of time to administer, as examinees are asked to write an essay as part of the subtest. The test is primarily norm-referenced, but may be interpreted as criterion-referenced in reading, math, oral language, and written language when using the error analysis capabilities of the test. Uses for the test include determining eligibility for classification and placement, identifying skill strengths and weaknesses, progress monitoring, and demonstrating the effectiveness of response to intervention (RTI) programs. The assessment profile allows for error analysis, which may be useful for instructional planning for school-aged students. Parallel forms of the test would be helpful for pretest/posttest designs or collecting longitudinal data. The subtests may be given to follow disability categories listed in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEIA, 2004) and academic deficit

javascript:openWideTip('http://support.ebsco.com/help/?int=ehost&lang=&feature_id=APA');

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=mmt&AN=test.6516&site=ehost-live&scope=site&custid=uphoenix

11/3/2019 EBSCOhost

https://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/delivery?sid=6991eb8b-6929-488f-b10d-f1bafd67a059%40sessionmgr4007&vid=9&ReturnUrl=https%3a%2f%2fw… 2/7

areas of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013). The test is the latest in the Kaufman Achievement series, the last being the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement–Second Edition (KTEA-II; 2004). Of the 19 subtests, four are new. Other subtests have been revised by adding new items or improving content coverage. Administration procedures have been simplified. Even the artwork has been updated. The new subtests are Reading Vocabulary, Silent Reading Fluency, Writing Fluency, and Math Fluency. The Naming Facility subtest on the KTEA-II was broken into two subtests on this measure, Object Naming Facility and Letter Naming Facility. DEVELOPMENT. The Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement, Third Edition is the latest achievement battery developed by Alan and Nadeen Kaufman. This version is a revision of the KTEA-II, originally published in 2004. The KTEA-3 underwent an arduous process leading up to its standardization. The authors conducted mini-pilot studies and a full pilot study prior to a national tryout. The tryout evaluated students and young adults representative of the national population. The final normative sample consisted of approximately 2,600 individuals in prekindergarten through Grade 12, and ages 4 through 25. All participants spoke English and did not have physical or perceptual disabilities that would preclude them from taking the test without modifications. None of the participants was institutionalized. Data from the tryout sample were included with the standardization sample. TECHNICAL. The norm sample was broken down by grade, and norms were created for fall, winter, and spring. The norm sample based upon ages was largely taken from the grade norm sample. In both samples, half of the group was administered Form A and half Form B. Overall, considerable care was taken to ensure a representative sample based on the most current U.S. Census data available. Reliability was computed using the split-half method for all subtests except for the subtests that are timed. Reliability coefficients computed for most composite scores were quite high, in the .80s and the .90s. The Oral Fluency composite coefficients were lower, in the .70s. The reliability for this composite was stronger at younger ages, which is appropriate, as this skill is called upon as a prerequisite for early literacy skills. These findings held true across all grade and age ranges. Of interest is the excellent reliability data (mid- to high .90s) for Letter and Word Recognition, Nonsense Word Decoding, Reading Vocabulary, Math Concepts and Applications, and Spelling. Somewhat lower reliability coefficients were found for Reading Comprehension, Phonological Processing, Math Fluency, Written Expression, and Listening Comprehension, ranging from .80 to the low .90s. Alternate-form reliability was computed for Forms A and B, and the test authors concluded that the two forms measure the same academic abilities. Scores should be consistent regardless of the form chosen for administration. Fluency tests showed lower reliabilities that may be due in part to individual differences such as motivation, stamina, attention, and background knowledge. Interrater reliability was computed for Oral Expression (90%) and Written Expression (95%). Reliability coefficients were high, indicating that the scoring criteria presented in the manuals may be used to obtain scores that are consistent across examiners. Validity was established relative to test content, response processes, and internal structure. Because much of the test was modeled after the preceding KTEA-II, the validity studies should still hold. The constructs of the various academic composites are valid and useful for the practitioner. Concurrent or convergent evidence of validity is important to school-based personnel when deciding which tests to purchase. When compared to scores from other tests (e.g., Wechsler Individual Achievement Test—Third Edition, Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement), mean KTEA-3 scores for individuals were somewhat lower, which might be attributed to the Flynn effect, which is typical of

11/3/2019 EBSCOhost

https://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/delivery?sid=6991eb8b-6929-488f-b10d-f1bafd67a059%40sessionmgr4007&vid=9&ReturnUrl=https%3a%2f%2fw… 3/7

newly normed tests rendering older norms softer. Studies provided support for the validity of the composites and subtests. Higher correlations were found between core academic subtests and between KTEA-3 composites and similar composites on other tests. Several studies involving special populations were conducted (those with learning disabilities, mild intellectual disability, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, specific learning disability, and academically gifted), resulting in promising results for the discriminant ability of the test, which makes the test useful clinically. COMMENTARY. Once again, the Kaufmans have presented a well-researched assessment measure that shows high promise for clinical utility. The content of the subtests is relevant and covers the breadth of academic skills needed for success for a school career and beyond. Subtests can stand alone or be used as part of meaningful composites. Fluency subtests should not be used alone or used to make diagnostic or placement decisions. The Oral Language composite does not demonstrate the same level of reliability as other composites, but most often there are other assessment data presented from other sources that will corroborate scores on these subtests. Two scoring methods may be used. The Q-global method is the test publisher’s web-based platform. It may be a little overwhelming at first, but the Q-global system offers the ability to identify a pattern of relative strengths and weaknesses, useful for identification and classification. The report also provides the psychologist with intervention suggestions based upon error analysis and suggestions for parents to use at home to provide support for underlying academic skills. Alternatively, protocols may be scored by hand. Support for this approach is provided on the USB key included in the test kit. The flash drive also includes audio files needed to administer the Listening Comprehension passages as well as information useful for other subtests. The files can be downloaded to another device such as a laptop or smartphone. At first, it may be somewhat overwhelming for some psychologists or other test administrators to deal with the flash drive, but after several administrations of the test and after scoring it several times, the procedures became much easier for this reviewer. The error analysis and intervention suggestions are helpful, and goals may be taken directly from the suggestions given. As response to intervention becomes more and more ingrained into current practices, this feature is very helpful for saving time and assisting teachers with ideas for appropriate intervention. The standardization sample was reflective of the different areas of the country, but it would have been helpful to include students who do not speak English as their first language. Such individuals often constitute a problematic subgroup on standardized tests. Overall, the test design was very user-friendly and current in terms of what is needed in today’s schools. SUMMARY. The Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement, Third Edition (KTEA-3), is a thoroughly planned, user-friendly instrument that can be very helpful for school based practitioners or those assisting young adults in planning for their futures. The test presents good statistics in both reliability and validity studies. The test battery covers all of the areas necessary to have a good understanding of an examinee’s academic strengths and weaknesses. It is also helpful to use the error analysis to determine eligibility for services and goals. Parallel forms are helpful for pretest/posttest analyses and progress monitoring. Future research will make this test even more helpful for meeting current educational assessment needs. REVIEWER’S REFERENCE American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

11/3/2019 EBSCOhost

https://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/delivery?sid=6991eb8b-6929-488f-b10d-f1bafd67a059%40sessionmgr4007&vid=9&ReturnUrl=https%3a%2f%2fw… 4/7

Review of the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement, Third Edition by MERILEE McCURDY, Associate Professor, and LESLIE HART, Doctoral Candidate, Department of Educational Psychology and Counseling, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN: DESCRIPTION. The Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement, Third Edition (KTEA-3) is an achievement battery for children in prekindergarten through Grade 12 (or, from age 4 through age 25 years). The KTEA-3 is an individually administered assessment of a child’s achievement across numerous domains, ranging from reading and written language to mathematics and oral language. Performance across the KTEA-3 can be considered both norm-referenced and, through error analysis, criterion-referenced. Compared to the second edition, the KTEA-3 adds restandardized norms, four new subtests, and revisions to existing subtests to aid in clarity and administration. The assessment is composed of 19 subtests that combine to form composite scores. The core composites are Reading (composed of the Letter and Word Recognition and Reading Comprehension subtests), Math (Math Concepts and Applications and Math Computation subtests), and Written Language (Written Expression and Spelling subtests). The KTEA-3 provides a unique composite called the Academic Skills Battery. Given the nature of this composite, the required number of subtests increases as the student ages. At the Pre-K level, the composite includes Math Concepts and Applications, Letter and Word Recognition, and Written Expression. Assessment at the Kindergarten level also includes the Math Computation and Spelling subtests. All other ages take these five subtests as well as Reading Comprehension. The KTEA-3 also can produce four supplemental reading-related composite scores. The Sound-Symbol composite is composed of Phonological Processing and Nonsense Word Decoding subtests. The Decoding composite is derived from the Letter and Word Recognition and Nonsense Word Decoding subtests. The Reading Fluency composite includes the Silent Reading Fluency, Word Recognition Fluency, and Decoding Fluency subtests, and the Reading Understanding composite, includes Reading Comprehension and Reading Vocabulary subtests. Two oral composites can be constructed. The first, Oral Language, is composed of Associational Fluency, Listening Comprehension, and Oral Expression. The second, Oral Fluency, is derived from Associational Fluency and Object Naming Facility. Four cross-domain composite scores can also be derived. The first, Comprehension, is composed of Reading Comprehension and Listening Comprehension subtests; the Expression composite includes Written Expression and Oral Expression subtests; the Orthographic Processing composite includes Spelling, Letter Naming Facility, and Word Recognition Fluency; and the Academic Fluency composite includes the Writing Fluency, Math Fluency, and Decoding Fluency subtests. The KTEA-3 kit has two parallel forms for use in repeated assessment. Administration of the subtests can be customized to address the presenting referral concern of the client. DEVELOPMENT. The KTEA-3 was initially conceptualized in early 2009. The subtests are designed to assess primary academic areas: basic reading, reading understanding, reading fluency, language processing, mathematics, written language, and oral language. At the beginning stage of redevelopment, researchers administered six subtests to 37 participants in Kindergarten and Grade 2. Four were new subtests to the assessment (Reading Vocabulary, Silent Reading Fluency, Math Fluency, and Writing Fluency) and two were included due to a change in administration (Spelling, Math Computation). Following this “mini-pilot,” a second mini-pilot was conducted using most of the remaining subtests. Afterward, two pilot administrations (one group-administered and one individually administered) were conducted to obtain information about item content and the usability of the test. A tryout phase in 2011 included approximately 870 typical examinees and 32 students identified as having specific learning disabilities in reading and/or writing. This stage resulted in changes in start

11/3/2019 EBSCOhost

https://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/delivery?sid=6991eb8b-6929-488f-b10d-f1bafd67a059%40sessionmgr4007&vid=9&ReturnUrl=https%3a%2f%2fw… 5/7

points, and results of item analyses led to the removal of items biased with respect to gender, parental education level, or ethnicity. The test authors report that no more than 10% of the initial items were removed from any given subtest. The standardization phase data were collected from August 2012-July 2013 and included 2,600 participants. This group was matched to the 2012 U.S. Census data across age, gender, parent education, ethnicity, region, and exceptionality. The level of agreement between the U.S. Census and the standardization sample is reported and shows good concordance. This agreement holds true across both the spring and fall standardization samples. There may be some underrepresentation across exceptionality groups, particularly for those individuals with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Results from this standardization study led to some administration changes, dropping of items appearing to be biased, equating of parallel forms, and vertical scaling. TECHNICAL. Reliability. Reliability was assessed using split-half, alternate-form, and interrater reliability methods. Standard errors of measurement were also provided. Split-half reliability coefficients are reported as evidence of internal consistency. The test authors report this metric both by grade and by age. Across grade levels, coefficients for subtests ranged from .54 to .98. At the composite level, coefficients ranged from .70 to .99. Across ages, coefficients ranged from .55 to .99 at the subtest level and from .66 to .99 at the composite level. Alternate-form reliability was evaluated across three grade-based ranges of participants (PK-2, 3-6, and 7-12). Demographic information for the 306 examinees in the sample shows concordance with the U.S. Census figures. An average of 7.5 days lapsed between the administrations. For the first participant range (PK-2), correlations at the subtest level ranged from .59 to .95. At the composite level, the correlations ranged from .74 to .96. The second participant range (3-6) showed similar patterns of correlations at the subtest (.54 to .92) and composite (.69 to .96) levels. The third grouping (Grades 7- 12) demonstrated correlations at the subtest level ranging from .59 to .95 and, at the composite level, from .70 to .96. Using these reviewers’ criteria for evaluating reliability coefficients, reliability coefficients ranged from good (.80s) to excellent (.90s) across a majority of composite scores. Additional information on reliability is provided through the standard error of measurement (SEM). Across grades, the SEM ranges from 2.12 to 10.17 at the subtest level and from 1.74 to 8.28 at the composite level. An age- based consideration of the SEM shows similar patterns across subtests (1.5 to 10.06) and composites (1.55 to 8.81). Final evidence of reliability is provided through a consideration of interrater reliability. The KTEA-3 includes two subtests that require some degree of interpretation by the administrator. 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. Validity. The KTEA-3 demonstrates validity through content and statistical analyses. The content of the KTEA-3 subtests is derived from concrete academic areas, and answer choices are closely examined to identify patterns and lines of reasoning to the correct answer. Further evidence of validity might be taken from the test authors’ suggestion that some KTEA-3 content aligns with the Common Core State Standards. The validity of the structure of the test was assessed in three parts: intercorrelation analysis, factor analysis, and fit statistics. Intercorrelation studies established an adequate relationship across subtest and composite scores, particularly in Reading, Math, Written Language, Sound-Symbol, Decoding, and Reading Fluency (.70s and .80s). Oral Language and Oral Fluency demonstrated correlation coefficients with other composites that were in the between .40s and .50s, which was typical of previous