Woodcock johnson iii score ranges

Graduate Psychometrics

https://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/delivery?sid=6991eb8b-6929-488f-b10d-f1bafd67a059%40sessionmgr4007&vid=7&ReturnUrl=https%3a%2f%2f… 1/10

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 Schrank, F. A., McGrew, K. S., Mather, N., LaForte, E. M., Wendling, B. J., & Dailey, D. (2015). Woodcock-

Johnson® IV Tests of Early Cognitive and Academic Development. Retrieved from https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx? direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=mmt&AN=test.8061&site=ehost-live&scope=site&custid=uphoenix

Woodcock-Johnson® IV Tests of Early Cognitive and Academic Development Review of the Woodcock-Johnson® IV Tests of Early Cognitive and Academic Development by RUSSELL N. CARNEY, Professor of Psychology, Missouri State University, Springfield, MO: DESCRIPTION. The Woodcock-Johnson® IV Tests of Early Cognitive and Academic Development (ECAD) is a new individually administered battery of tests specifically designed for children ages 2.5 years to 7 years, as well as 8- and 9-year-olds with cognitive delays. It is the downward extension (agewise) of the newly revised Woodcock-Johnson IV (WJ IV; Schrank, McGrew, & Mather, 2014). According to the test’s Comprehensive Manual, the purpose is “to identify emergent cognitive abilities and early academic skills” (p. 1) and to get at cognitive delays and relative strengths and weaknesses that may inform early interventions. The ECAD consists of 10 tests administered by way of a single, colorful easel book, wherein test stimuli face the child, and directions face the examiner. Four of the tests are unique to the ECAD, and the remaining six are alternate forms from other Woodcock-Johnson tests. Administration of the ECAD takes about 50 minutes, and several of the tests have basal and ceiling rules. Two tests use an audio recording via a CD, one requires a two-sided response worksheet, and two are timed. The test manual provides clear directions for both administration and scoring. Seven of the tests measure cognitive factors (e.g., Gf, Gc, Gwm) based on the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory of cognitive abilities (e.g., McGrew, 2005), and three measure academic ability (reading, math, and written language). The ECAD yields three cluster scores: General Intellectual Ability-Early Development (GIA-EDev; representing general intelligence), Early Academic Skills, and Expressive Language. Several familiar types of scores are produced, including raw scores, age equivalents, grade equivalents, percentile ranks, and standard scores. Other derived scores include z scores, T scores, stanines, and normal curve equivalents. Scoring is completed via an online scoring and reporting system. DEVELOPMENT. In developing the ECAD, the test authors followed guidelines outlined in the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (American Educational Research Association

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.8061&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=7&ReturnUrl=https%3a%2f%2f… 2/10

[AERA], American Psychological Association [APA], & National Council on Measurement in Education [NCME], 2014). The ECAD is theoretically and structurally similar to the WJ IV. As stated earlier, the theory base is the CHC theory of cognitive abilities—a modern, factor-analytic theory built on the work of Raymond Cattell, John Horn, and John Carroll. A “three-stratum” theory, the top level represents general intelligence (G), the second level breaks down into a number of broad abilities that include crystallized (Gc) and fluid (Gf) intelligence, and beneath each of the second stratum abilities, a set of narrow factors is identified. In developing new items, the authors of the ECAD consulted outside experts, including university faculty members, psychologists, and public school teachers. Careful review by these individuals helped ensure that the test covered the constructs involved and that the test items were of appropriate difficulty for young children. In addition, bias and sensitivity reviews were conducted by a committee composed of nine professionals with specializations related to diversity and disability. According to the test manual, “all ECAD test item pools were calibrated onto a common scale, called a W scale, for use in the construction of the final published tests and the development of the norms” (p. 56). A Rasch single-parameter logistic test model was used during the development of the test, including for calibration, item pool equating, and scaling. An item tryout study was conducted with several hundred students to provide information about the potential test items, as well as about other features of the new test, such as directions, format, and scoring. Next, a norming study was conducted (2009-2012) in conjunction with the WJ IV. The test manual details how the resultant data were calibrated and equated using the Rasch model. Differential item functioning (DIF) was also examined to check for potentially biased items. Final test forms were assembled and evaluated. Test makers consulted with professionals familiar with young children having various disabilities and from various linguistic backgrounds in order to make the test more accessible to children with special needs. TECHNICAL. The ECAD test battery was co-normed with the WJ IV battery, facilitating the simultaneous calibration and scaling of the tests that appear in both batteries. Tests were administered to 7,416 individuals ranging in age from 2 to 90+ years. Of these examinees, 2,378 were ages 2 to 10 and used as the norm sample for the ECAD. Sample sizes ranged from 173 (2-year-olds) to 336 (8-year-olds). The entire sample came from 46 states and the District of Columbia. Stratification variables included Census region, sex, country of birth, race, ethnicity, community type, parent education, and type of school. Efforts were made to match U.S. population proportions (2010 Census projections). Examinee weighting was used to improve the correspondence. Additional details on the norming process are presented in the test manual. Test reliability deals with the consistency and precision of test scores. The test manual provides reliability coefficients for each of the 10 individual tests and the three cluster scores across ages 2-10. For all tests except one (Rapid Picture Naming), internal consistency was calculated using the split-half procedure (odd/even halves, corrected by the Spearman-Brown formula). The three cluster score reliabilities were figured using Mosier’s formula. On the individual tests, across age groups, median internal reliability coefficients ranged from .74 (Picture Vocabulary) to .97 (Memory for Names). For cluster scores, reliabilities were quite good, with median values of .95, .96, and .89 for General Intellectual Ability-Early Development, Early Academic Skills, and Expressive Language, respectively. Based on test/age specific reliability coefficients, standard errors of measurement (SEMs) are provided for each age group. SEMs can be used to construct a confidence interval around a child’s test score (i.e., the observed score + SEM). Based on the ECAD’s standard scores (M = 100, SD = 15, range = 40-160), and depending on a particular test’s reliability and the age group, SEMs ranged from 2.60 (age 2, Memory for Names; ages

11/3/2019 EBSCOhost

https://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/delivery?sid=6991eb8b-6929-488f-b10d-f1bafd67a059%40sessionmgr4007&vid=7&ReturnUrl=https%3a%2f%2f… 3/10

5 and 6, Letter-Word Identification) to 8.22 (age 10, Visual Closure). On the General Intellectual Ability cluster score, SEMs ranged from 2.60 to 3.67 across age groups. On the Early Academic Skills cluster score, SEMs ranged from 2.60 to 3.35. And, finally, on the Expressive Language cluster score, SEMs ranged from 3.00 to 5.61. Validity “refers to the degree to which evidence and theory support the interpretations of test scores for proposed uses of tests” and “the process of validation involves accumulating relevant evidence” in that regard (AERA, APA, & NCME, 2014, p. 11). The test manual states that validity evidence, in part, is based on prior validity studies related to the four versions of the Woodcock-Johnson test batteries and research dealing with CHC theory. The manual provides a summary of the 10 tests, describing test content, processes, and construct descriptions. In developing both the ECAD and the WJ IV, the authors used modern test development procedures. Multidimensional scaling, correlation analysis, and cluster analysis, were used to evaluate empirically the match between desired content dimensions and the judgment of professionals. These analyses provided support for the content structure of the battery. Developmental patterns of the test and ability cluster scores (based on cross-sectional data) were also examined. The tests and cluster scores showed developmental changes across the age span, as well as divergent growth curves–the latter providing evidence for distinct abilities. Intercorrelation matrices (presenting correlations among the 10 test and three cluster scores) are provided for three age ranges. The intercorrelations suggest that various tests on the ECAD measure distinct abilities and that the academic skills cluster measures achievement. Because the ECAD was co-normed with the WJ IV, it was possible to examine the ECAD within the WJ IV’s structural validity analysis. “A systematic exploratory, model generation and a cross-validation structural validity strategy were applied” to the norming data, which the manual goes on to describe as “the most thorough scientific approach to the examination of the structural validity of any contemporary battery of cognitive, oral language, and achievement tests” (p. 92). Although space limitations do not allow a description of the details here, the authors of the manual were satisfied that their findings supported a broad CHC factor top-down model, and concluded that CHC g-factor loadings were consistent with existing research and provided evidence for structural validity. The test manual provides additional validity evidence in the form of several tables listing correlations between scores from the ECAD and a variety of relevant tests. For example, students’ ECAD scores were correlated with well-respected measures of children’s cognitive ability. These tests included two editions of the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence (i.e., the WPPSI-III and the WPPSI-IV). Here, for example, Full Scale IQ scores on the WPPSI-III and WPPSI-IV demonstrated correlation coefficients of .75 and .78, respectively, with the General Intellectual Ability cluster score on the ECAD. Similarly, the General Conceptual Ability (G) score on the Differential Ability Scales-Second Edition (DAS-II) yielded a correlation coefficient of .87 with the ECAD’s general ability cluster score. In another study, the ECAD’s Expressive Language scores were correlated with children’s performance on other measures of language, such as the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals, Fourth Edition (CELF-4) and the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, Fourth Edition (PPVT-4). As an example, the correlation coefficients were .82 and .79 between the ECAD’s Expressive Language cluster score and the core language score on the CELF-4 and the PPVT-4 score, respectively. Scores from a number of other tests were correlated with scores from the ECAD, and the resultant correlation coefficients are presented in the test manual. Performance on the ECAD for three different clinical samples is also provided. Samples included children with cognitive delay (N = 61), children with speech/language delay (N = 63), and children with autism (N = 41). Each sample is broken down in terms of demographic characteristics, such as age

11/3/2019 EBSCOhost

https://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/delivery?sid=6991eb8b-6929-488f-b10d-f1bafd67a059%40sessionmgr4007&vid=7&ReturnUrl=https%3a%2f%2f… 4/10

range, gender, and race. Based on the extensive evidence reported, the authors of the manual conclude that “the validity evidence presented supports the use of the ECAD tests for measuring children’s cognitive abilities and early academic skills” (p. 118). COMMENTARY. The ECAD has a number of strengths—a key one being that the test authors paid careful attention to guidelines in the joint technical standards (AERA, APA, & NCME, 2014), and thus followed current testing-industry best practices in terms of test development. The authors should be commended in this regard. Further, the ECAD’s Comprehensive Manual is exceptionally well written and thorough. Based on the reliability information presented, the manual suggests that the ECAD tests are “sufficiently reliable for measuring children’s abilities” (p. 118). This conclusion is particularly the case with the ability and achievement cluster scores, where the reliability coefficients are in the .90s across age groups. Likewise, the extensive validity evidence is deemed favorable, and “supports the use of the ECAD tests for measuring children’s cognitive abilities and early academic skills” (manual, p. 118). This reviewer is inclined to agree with the test authors’ positive conclusions. As with the WJ IV, the ECAD has a well-researched theory base (CHC theory). It was co-normed with the WJ IV, which is advantageous, and a variety of useful scores are reported. Indeed, as Cizek (2003) wrote in his review of the WJ III, “Virtually any derived score that a user could want from a norm- referenced test is provided” (p. 1020). Further, as the test manual states, “One advantage derived from the Rasch scaling of test data is that a unique calculation of the SEM is provided for each possible test score” (p. 47). On a practical note, standard scores having a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15 make comparisons with other modern tests (e.g., the Wechsler or Binet intelligence tests) easier. Another practical observation is that the single easel book should simplify the administration of the test. The booklet seems well made, and pictorial stimuli are colorful and seem appropriate for young children. Further, as the test manual suggests, examiners who are familiar with the Woodcock Johnson test should find it easy to learn to administer the new ECAD. As a measure of both cognitive ability and achievement, the Woodcock Johnson battery has long been a staple of special education assessment. In earlier reviews, Cizek (2003) concluded that the WJ III was “clearly a superior instrument” (p. 1024), and Sandoval (2003) described the WJ III as “the premier battery for measuring both the cognitive abilities and school achievement of school-aged children and young adults” (p. 1027). Given its careful development, the ECAD battery should fare just as well and earn similar accolades. SUMMARY. The new ECAD represents an agewise downward extension of the Woodcock Johnson IV (Schrank, McGrew, & Mather, 2014). Designed specifically for young children (i.e., 2.5 years to 7 years, and 8- and 9-year-olds with cognitive delays), this individually administered battery yields 10 test scores, as well as three important composite (cluster) scores: General Intellectual Ability-Early Development (representing general intelligence), Early Academic Skills, and Expressive Language. In particular, the first two cluster scores allow for the direct comparison of a child’s ability with his or her achievement, which is helpful in the diagnosis of learning disabilities. Based on CHC theory, and co-normed with the WJ IV, the carefully developed ECAD is a welcome addition to the Woodcock Johnson family of tests. It should be very helpful to those tasked with assessing developmental delays in young children and in identifying their respective strengths and weaknesses. REVIEWER’S REFERENCES American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Cizek, G. J. (2003). [Review of the Woodcock-Johnson III]. In B. S. Plake, J. C. Impara, & R. A. Spies

11/3/2019 EBSCOhost

https://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/delivery?sid=6991eb8b-6929-488f-b10d-f1bafd67a059%40sessionmgr4007&vid=7&ReturnUrl=https%3a%2f%2f… 5/10

(Eds.), The fifteenth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 1020-1024). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements. McGrew, K. S. (2005). The Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory of cognitive abilities: Past, present, and future. In D. P. Flanagan & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (2nd ed., pp. 136-202). New York, NY: Guilford. Sandoval, J. (2003). [Review of the Woodcock-Johnson III]. In B. S. Plake, J. C. Impara, & R. A. Spies (Eds.), The fifteenth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 1024-1028). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements. Schrank, F. A., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2014). Woodcock-Johnson® IV. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside.

Review of the Woodcock-Johnson® IV Tests of Early Cognitive and Academic Development by CLAUDIA R. WRIGHT, Professor Emeritus, California State University, Long Beach, CA: DESCRIPTION. The Woodcock-Johnson® IV Tests of Early Cognitive and Academic Development (ECAD), the newest addition to the extensive Woodcock-Johnson collection of instruments, represents a theoretically and technically sound battery of developmentally appropriate tests designed to assess cognitive abilities and academic skills for children ages 2 years 6 months to 7 years 11 months and for children ages 8-9 years who have been identified with cognitive developmental delays. The ECAD yields 10 test and three cluster scores. The General Intellectual Ability-Early Development (GIA-EDev) cluster comprises seven cognitive test scores: Test 1, Memory for Names (72 items); Test 2, Sound Blending (22 items); Test 3, Picture Vocabulary (43 items); Test 4, Verbal Analogies (28 items); Test 5, Visual Closure (30 items); Test 6, Sentence Repetition (34 items); and Test 7, Rapid Picture Naming (120 items). The Early Academic Skills (EAS) cluster is made up of three achievement-related test scores: Test 8, Letter-Word Identification (54 items); Test 9, Number Sense (25 items); and Test 10, Writing (42 Items). The Expressive Language (EL) cluster includes Picture Vocabulary and Sentence Repetition; each requires a verbal response. Examiners well versed in standardized testing protocols (American Educational Research Association [AERA], American Psychological Association [APA], & National Council on Measurement in Education [NCME], 2014) are advised to exercise strict adherence to the administration and scoring procedures set forth in the ECAD Comprehensive Manual. Detailed guidance is provided for testing preparation including seating arrangements, materials, establishing rapport, managing time, employing the standardized audio recording for the Sound Blending and Sentence Repetition tests, establishing basal and ceiling levels, and scoring correct responses that may be mispronounced due to variations in speech patterns or synonym use. The ECAD Test Book is organized in a sturdy easel format so that each stimulus page (pictures, letters, or numbers) faces the examinee, and a corresponding detailed instruction page faces the examiner. Special attention to detail enhances the accessibility of ECAD test items and instructions to very young children, children with disabilities (such as vision, hearing, or motor), and children from diverse linguistic backgrounds with particular emphasis on the use of simple language to reduce “language load” and brightly colored, boldly outlined stimulus objects to boost the visual experience. On all tests, each item is scored either “1” (correct) or “0” (incorrect), yielding a total raw score for each test. Detailed descriptions are provided for deriving normative scores, including age-equivalents, percentile ranks, and difference scores. Test administrators are reminded that interpretation of ECAD scores is the purview of professionals with specialized training in early childhood assessment practices and diagnostic decision making. DEVELOPMENT. The ECAD is conceptually based upon the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory of

11/3/2019 EBSCOhost

https://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/delivery?sid=6991eb8b-6929-488f-b10d-f1bafd67a059%40sessionmgr4007&vid=7&ReturnUrl=https%3a%2f%2f… 6/10

cognitive abilities (Schneider & McGrew, 2012) and developed and normed concurrently with the Woodcock-Johnson® IV (WJ IV; Schrank, McGrew, & Mather, 2014c). ECAD Tests 1 through 7 assess cognitive abilities consistent with CHC Long-term Retrieval (Glr), Auditory Processing (Ga), Comprehension-Knowledge (Gc), Fluid Reasoning (Gf), Visual Processing (Gv), Short-term Working Memory (Gwm), and Cognitive Processing Speed (Gs). Tests 8 through 10 provide a measure of academic achievement. The first seven tests form the basis for the GIA-EDev cluster, an overall estimate of global intelligence (g). Tests 3 (Picture Vocabulary, Gc-VL/LD) and 6 (Sentence Repetition, Gwm-MS) form the EL cluster; and Tests 8 (Letter-Word Identification, Grw-RD), 9 (Number Sense, Gq- A3/Gf-RQ), and 10 (Writing, Grw-SG), the EAS cluster. Tests 1, 4, 5, and 9 are unique to the ECAD; Tests 2, 3, 6 and 7 are alternate forms of four tests from the Woodcock-Johnson IV Tests of Oral Language (WJ IV OL; Schrank, Mather, & McGrew, 2014b); and Tests 8 and 10 are alternate forms of two tests from the Woodcock-Johnson IV Tests of Achievement (WJ IV ACH; Schrank, Mather, & McGrew, 2014a). Items for the ECAD were selected from existing WJ IV item pools and included the development of new items appropriate for 2-year-old examinees. Also, for children with cognitive delays, additional consideration for test design was based on Parts B and C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 (IDEA, 2004). ECAD items were submitted for review by outside content-area experts to assess construct relevance, appropriate levels of difficulty for the target age range, gender bias, and sensitivity issues that might affect children including those with disabilities or from diverse linguistic backgrounds. Items identified as potentially biased were removed or rewritten prior to test trials. ECAD test pools were calibrated using the Rasch (IRT) measurement model to create a common scale (W scale) from which to describe an examinee’s ability, an item’s difficulty, and for the calculation of GIA-EDev and EL cluster scores based on the arithmetic average of the corresponding W scores for each test included in the cluster. To optimize individual test weights, GIA-EDev scores were differentially weighted using principal components analysis, generating differential g weights across the age range for ECAD test scores contributing to the cluster. TECHNICAL. Norms. Normative data for the WJ IV and the ECAD were collected over a 25-month period (December 2009 through January 2012) by thoroughly vetted and trained professional examiners recruited by the test publisher. Participants had been randomly selected using a stratified sampling design. Demographic characteristics observed for these samples were consistent with the 2010 U.S. Census. Of the total sample of 7,416, ECAD norms were based on 2,378 children between the ages of 2 years 6 months and 10 years 11 months: ages 2-6 to 2-11 (n = 173); 3-0 to 3-11 (n = 203); 4-0 to 4-11 (n = 223); 5-0 to 5-11 (n = 205); 6-0 to 6-11 (n = 308); 7-0 to 7-11 (n = 310); 8-0 to 8-11 (n = 336); 9-0 to 9-11 (n = 306); 10-0 to 10-11 (n = 314). Participants were predominantly White (64%), lived in metropolitan areas (83%), and had parent education levels beyond high school (59%). To control for possible biases in the normative sample data, each examinee was assigned a series of partial weights based on his/her contribution to the U.S. database. Both conventional and innovative procedures were employed to construct these weighted ECAD norms. Bootstrap resampling procedures allowed for more precise estimates of an examinee’s ability, calculation of age-equivalent scores, percentile ranks, and standard score norms for each test and cluster, and calculation of difference score norms that supported data-based predictions and comparisons among selected tests or cluster scores. Reliability. Estimates of internal-consistency reliability for examinees’ scores at each age level were calculated using the split-half procedure for odd and even items, applying the Spearman-Brown correction formula. Exceptions included reliability estimates for scores on the Rapid Picture Naming test, which were calculated using the Rasch model and estimates for cluster scores, which were calculated

11/3/2019 EBSCOhost

https://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/delivery?sid=6991eb8b-6929-488f-b10d-f1bafd67a059%40sessionmgr4007&vid=7&ReturnUrl=https%3a%2f%2f… 7/10

using the unweighted composite formula by Mosier (1943). Moderate to strong median reliability estimates across the nine age levels were obtained for each test and cluster: Memory for Names (.97); Sound Blending (.84); Picture Vocabulary (.74); Verbal Analogies (.80); Visual Closure (.77); Sentence Repetition (.86); Rapid Picture Naming (.86); Letter-Word Identification (.96); Number Sense (.79); and Writing (.91); GIA-EDev (.95); EAS (.96); and EL (.89). Validity. Conventional and innovative methods were applied for examining content-, concurrent-, and structural-related evidence of validity. For content evidence of validity, the Guttman Radex 2- dimensional multidimensional scaling (MDS) procedure was employed to examine the relationships between the 51 WJ IV and the 10 ECAD tests for two age groups (3-5, 6-8) and to identify tests sharing the same cognitive operations or common content features, displayed as a visual-spatial map. The MDS analysis yielded support for four types of shared content characteristics: (a) auditory-verbal (primarily Ga, Gc, and select Gwm tests); (b) figural-visual (Gv and select Gf and Glr tests); (c) quantitative- numeric (primarily Gq/Gf-RQ and select Gwm tests); and, (d) reading-writing. The authors noted the first three dimensions are consistent with the verbal, figural, and numeric components of the Berlin Model of Intelligence Structure (BIS; Süß & Beauducel, 2005) but that the BIS model does not include auditory or reading-writing components. To examine criterion-related evidence of validity, several studies were conducted in which ECAD scores were correlated with well-known measures including three measures of cognitive abilities, four language tests, and two developmental skills assessments. The three measures of cognitive abilities, each individually administered, were the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence–Third Edition (WPPSI-III; 16:267); Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence–Fourth Edition (WPPSI-IV, Wechsler, 2012; 19:176); and Differential Ability Scales–Second Edition (DAS-II; 18:45). The WPPSI-III and DAS-II administrations occurred during the WJ IV/ECAD norming study; the WPPSI-IV administration occurred in 2014. For a sample of 99 examinees ages 4 through 7 (M = 5.9 years, SD = .8 years), correlations were examined between five WPPSI-III composite scores and eight ECAD test scores and two ECAD cluster scores. Mean performance on the ECAD tests and clusters ranged from 100.1 to 109.1, suggesting the sample was of somewhat above average intelligence. Correlations between GIA-EDev cluster scores and WPPSI-III Full Scale IQ, Verbal IQ, and General Learning Quotient supported GIA-EDev as (a) a measure of general intelligence (r = .75), (b) a measure of verbal abilities (r = .82), and (c) a measure of learning abilities (r = .80), respectively. Notable were correlations between Picture Vocabulary, Sentence Repetition, and the EL cluster with both the WPPSI-III Verbal IQ (r = .77, .72, and .81, respectively) and the WPPSI-III General Learning Quotient (r = .79, .71, and .81, respectively), as measures of crystalized intelligence-based language abilities. Further, correlations between scores for Number Sense with the WPPSI-III Full Scale, Verbal, and Perceptual IQ (r = .68, .65, and .60, respectively), suggested a moderate relationship between early quantitative abilities and general intelligence. In a second study, ECAD and WPPSI-IV scores were analyzed for a sample of 100 examinees, ages 3 through 7 years (M = 5.2 years, SD = 1.2). Means on the ECAD tests and clusters ranged from 102.3 to 111.6, and means on the WPPSI-IV composite scores ranged from 103.5 to 105.2, indicating the sample was above average in general intelligence. Consistent with previous findings, strong correlations (corrected for variability in the ECAD sample) supported evidence for GIA-EDev scores as a measure of general intelligence (r = .78 with WPPSI-IV Full Scale IQ); verbal abilities (r = .77 with WPPSI-IV Verbal Comprehension Composite); and, visual-spatial abilities (r = .77 with WPPSI-IV Visual Spatial Composite). For a sample of 50 preschool children, ages 3 through 6 years (M = 5.2 years, SD = .9 years), correlations were examined for ECAD and DAS-II scores. A correlation of .87 between GIA-EDev (M =

11/3/2019 EBSCOhost

https://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/delivery?sid=6991eb8b-6929-488f-b10d-f1bafd67a059%40sessionmgr4007&vid=7&ReturnUrl=https%3a%2f%2f… 8/10

104.0, SD = 12.8) and DAS-II General Conceptual Ability (M = 113.8, SD = 13.8) scores supported the GIA-EDev as an indicator of general intelligence. In addition, EL (M = 104.6, SD = 13.8) and Picture Vocabulary (M = 102.0, SD = 14.9) scores yielded moderate coefficients with DAS-II General Conceptual Ability (r = .71 and .65, respectively); DAS-II School Readiness (M = 110.9, SD = 14.6) (r = .71 and .62, respectively); and DAS-II Verbal Ability (M = 107.5, SD = 13.9) (r = .73 and .78, respectively). It was concluded that these language ability measures provide indicators of both general intelligence and language abilities in this sample. Further, high correlations were observed between scores on DAS-II School Readiness with EAS (M = 101.8, SD = 11.0) (r = .91); Letter-Word Identification (M = 99.3, SD = 12.1) (r = .89); and Writing (M = 101.0, SD = 9.0) (r = .85). To examine performance on ECAD test and cluster scores for children with documented and/or primary diagnoses for cognitive developmental delays, three groups of examinees were identified: cognitive delay (ages 3 through 6, n = 61), speech and/or language delay (ages 3 through 6, n = 63), and autism (ages 3 through 7, n = 41). Ten ECAD tests and two Woodcock Johnson IV Oral Language tests (Oral Comprehension and Understanding Directions) were administered. As expected, the patterns of ECAD cluster scores were lowest for the cognitive delay group: GIA-EDev (M = 73.8, SD = 19.3), EL (M = 79.4, SD = 21.4), and EAS (M = 77.2, SD = 15.6). Higher performances were observed for the speech/language delay group for whom the means and standard deviations were 89.3 (13.9), 91.8 (12.8), and 88.7 (12.9), respectively, and the autism group, for whom the corresponding means and standard deviations were 88.0 (17.6), 90.7 (17.3), and 88.6 (14.8). No other statistics were reported for these samples. Additional analyses were conducted on two subsamples from the normative population to examine the relationship between ECAD scores and scores from four language tests. The Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals, Fourth Edition (CELF-4; 18:30), the Comprehensive Assessment of Spoken Language (CASL; 15:58); and the Oral and Written Language Scales: Listening Comprehension/Oral Expression (OWLS; 14:266) are all individually administered multidimensional batteries of oral language ability. The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, Fourth Edition (PPVT-4; 18:88) is an individually administered measure of expressive vocabulary and word retrieval. For a sample of 50 examinees, ages 5 through 8 years (M = 6.8, SD = 1.3), scores on four ECAD tests and the EL cluster were correlated with the six CELF-4 composite scores. Moderate to high coefficients ranging from .68 to .82 (median .78) were obtained between EL (M = 106.0, SD = 11.4) and CELF-4 scores. The correlation coefficient between EL and PPVT-4 (M = 105.8, SD = 10.5) was .79. Among other ECAD tests, Picture Vocabulary (M = 102.1, SD = 12.9) achieved the highest correlation with CELF-4 Language Content (M = 106.3, SD = 12.2, r = .78) and with PPVT-4 (r = .75). The results support EL and Picture Vocabulary scores as measuring early oral language abilities. Separately, for a sample of 50 examinees, 3 through 6 years (M = 5.1, SD = 1.1), their scores were analyzed on three ECAD tests (Picture Vocabulary, Sentence Repetition, and Rapid Picture Naming) and EL along with their scores on six CASL and three OWLS measures. Across all coefficients, only low to moderate relationships were observed. Among the ECAD tests, Picture Vocabulary was correlated .58 with CASL Core Composite and .57 with OWLS Oral Composite, suggesting moderate support for the Picture Vocabulary test as a general measure of oral language ability. Moderate coefficients were observed for Sentence Repetition with CASL Core Composite, Sentence Completion, and Syntax Construction (.53, .61, and .54, respectively); and with OWLS Oral Composite and Oral Expression (.52 and .54, respectively). Rapid Picture Naming scores yielded the lowest correlations with CASL scores (ranging from .17 to .26, median .225) and with OWLS scores (ranging from -.21 to .10, median = -.06), suggesting this ECAD test is measuring abilities not assessed by the CASL or OWLS scores. The range of correlations between ECAD EL and CASL scores was from .34 to .55 (median = .465); and with OWLS scores, .34 to .53 (median = .50).

11/3/2019 EBSCOhost

https://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/delivery?sid=6991eb8b-6929-488f-b10d-f1bafd67a059%40sessionmgr4007&vid=7&ReturnUrl=https%3a%2f%2f… 9/10

Other correlational analyses investigated the relationship between ECAD scores and two early childhood development measures: the Battelle Developmental Inventory, 2nd Edition (BDI-2; 17:15), a norm-referenced developmental skills assessment for children (birth to 7 years); and the Riverside Early Assessments of Learning IDEA Observational Version (REAL IDEA-OV; Bracken, 2013), an observational assessment of developmental functioning for children (birth to 7 years). For a sample of 98 examinees, ages 3 through 7 years (M = 5.1, SD = 1.2), moderate correlations were obtained between the BDI-2 Communication and Cognitive domain scores and each of the seven ECAD cognitive test scores (ranging from .40 to .70, median = .58; and .39 to .71, median = .64, respectively); and with GIA-EDev (.75 and .79, respectively) and EL (.74 and .72, respectively). The correlations observed between the GIA-EDev and the BDI-2 Communication and Cognitive scores were offered as validity evidence for GIA-EDev as a cognitive ability measure in development assessments with young children. In another study, a sample of 84 examinees, 2 through 6 years (M = 4.6, SD = .9), were observed by examiners using the REAL IDEA-OV. Moderate to strong correlations were obtained for each of the 10 ECAD tests and three cluster scores with each of the six REAL IDEA-OV domains. Specifically, ECAD Picture Vocabulary, Visual Closure, Sentence Repetition, Letter-Word Identification, Number Sense, and GIA-EDev scores yielded coefficients of .70 or higher with REAL IDEA-OV domains: Cognitive (ranging from .71 to .82, median = .79), Communication (ranging from .75 to .82, median = .79), and Academic (ranging from .74 to .89, median = .81). EL yielded moderate to high coefficients across the REAL IDEA- OV domains (.63 to .80, median = .74); scores on Memory for Names and EAS produced relatively low correlations (ranging from .30 to .48, median = .35 and .38 to .43, median = .40, respectively). Overall, these findings provide validity support for selected ECAD scores serving as measures of early cognitive abilities, expressive language skills, and pre-academic skills. Based on WJ IV and ECAD normative data, structural-related evidence of validity was examined by applying a split-sample design (two sets of approximately equal numbers of examinees for each age group) for developing an exploratory model using cluster analysis, exploratory principal components analysis, and multidimensional scaling to identify the best fitting model. Two plausible models were noted, the broad CHC factor top-down model and the broad plus narrow CHC factor bottom-up model; the former was considered preferred because it was the simpler of the two models. A confirmatory structural model for cross validation was applied to WJ IV and ECAD normative data. Although the analyses were carried out for the entire age range for the WJ IV (3 through 90+ years), of particular interest for this review are the outcomes of the model development and cross-validation analyses based on two subsamples of examinees: ages 3 through 5 (n = 208); and ages 6 through 8 (n = 412). For the two age groups, median latent factor loadings from a low of .73 for Cognitive Processing Speed to a high of .98 for Long-term Retrieval on the general intelligence factor (g) indicated the corresponding clusters are representative of abilities strongly influenced by general intelligence. Additional structural evidence of validity was supported by factor loadings observed on each of the 10 ECAD tests. COMMENTARY. The Woodcock-Johnson IV ECAD battery of tests was subjected to extensive and rigorous statistical analyses applied to a large normative data base. Validation of ECAD scores was optimized by including analyses with 11 well-established assessment batteries. The test authors caution that whereas developmental patterns reported with ECAD data supported the validity of scores, these outcomes were based on cross-sectional rather than longitudinal data. Additional research is recommended to examine longitudinal growth data. Also, as relatively small sample sizes were employed for one validation study with children with developmental delays (ages 3 through 7), it is suggested that the test authors undertake more extensive validation efforts to support the use of the ECAD with this important subpopulation of children and include those ages 8 to 9 years. Overall, the ECAD is exceptionally well constructed and adds a welcomed dimension to the Woodcock-Johnson

11/3/2019 EBSCOhost

https://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/delivery?sid=6991eb8b-6929-488f-b10d-f1bafd67a059%40sessionmgr4007&vid=7&ReturnUrl=https%3a%2f%2f… 10/10