Part 1
Descriptive and Interpretive Information

Explanation of Major Broad Cognitive Abilities

Cognitive processing consists of the many different mental actions that a person uses to make sense of information that comes into awareness either through the senses or by retrieval from memory. Cognitive processing includes actions such as recognizing, thinking about, working with, or changing the form of information. New information must be processed before or as it is transferred into long-term memory for later use. Following are descriptions of some of the cognitive abilities involved in cognitive processing.

Along with the descriptions of the cognitive abilities are examples of tasks that involve them. This is not to imply that the cognitive ability discussed is the only one involved in that task, because cognitive abilities are not discrete. The innumerable functions that the brain performs are continuous and integrated; they have been defined and named, for purposes of research and treatment, by neuroscientists and physicians. As John Horn (1991) stated:

Specifying different features of cognition is like slicing smoke—dividing a continuous, homogeneous, irregular mass of gray into…what? Abstractions. Terms like reasoning and retrieval are used to indicate that a task typically involves more of one than the other, but the behavior itself is continuous. And there are many ways to slice the smoke to indicate cognition. (pp. 198–199)

For clarity, the tasks described here are related to the cognitive abilities that are most apparent. In their book CHC Cognitive-Achievement Relations: What We Have Learned from the Last 20 Years of Research (2010), McGrew and Wendling provide a synthesis of research that summarizes how these various CHC abilities are related to achievement.

Comprehension-Knowledge (Gc)

Comprehension-knowledge, also referred to as “crystallized intelligence,” is typically described as a combination of a person's language development and the general knowledge he has acquired through life experiences and education. As such, it can be strongly influenced by a person's culture and values.

Language development includes a person's ability to understand language (spoken or signed) and the ability to use language to express himself. Knowledge includes declarative knowledge (knowledge of facts, or “knowing what”) and procedural knowledge (knowledge of procedures, or “knowing how to”). Examples of declarative knowledge include knowing math facts, rules of games, the location of India, the meaning of the word “rock” (and every other word meaning that a person knows), and why it is unsafe to swim in shark-infested water. Examples of procedural knowledge include such things as knowing how to drive a car, brush your teeth, apply math facts to solve an algebra problem, figure out the main idea of a passage in a book, or remove a spleen.

Knowledge and the ability to use language form the basis for new learning. People understand and retain new information more easily when they can relate it to something they already know. A person who has been to an aquarium or spends time near the ocean has a better foundation for understanding text or a lecture about marine life than the person who lives in a desert area and has no familiarity with marine life. A good fund of knowledge is also necessary for written expression. The more a person knows about a topic, the more information he can incorporate into a writing assignment.

Quantitative knowledge is a subset of comprehension-knowledge and includes all the information that a person knows about math, such as math facts and the concepts underlying math operations, algorithms, and algebraic formulas.

Comprehension-knowledge is organized, consolidated, and stored in long-term memory, “the mind's warehouse.”

Fluid Reasoning (Gf)

Fluid reasoning is the ability to be both deliberate and flexible in controlling one's mental processes to solve new or unfamiliar problems. When using fluid reasoning, the information and procedures a person has previously learned may be useful but are not always sufficient to solve the problem, and so the person must apply logical reasoning in addition to any available information.

Inductive and deductive reasoning are generally considered the best indicators of fluid reasoning ability, although quantitative reasoning is also an aspect of fluid reasoning.

Deductive reasoning is the ability to start with given rules or a general statement and proceed in a step-by-step fashion to figure out the solution to a problem. Some examples of deductive reasoning are:

• Solving an algebra problem using a known algorithm.
• Determining that if all crows are black, and a particular bird is white, then that bird is not a crow.
• You are given the problem: Two men bring a lion and a goat to a river. They have only one boat, which is small and can only carry one man and one animal at a time. How can both men and both animals reach the other side of the river without the lion eating the goat?

Inductive reasoning is the ability to perceive a pattern based on multiple observations or experiences and come up with a rule or generalization that explains them. Consequently, inductive reasoning is going from the specific to the general. Some examples of inductive reasoning are:

• The sun has come up every morning that I have been alive. I have never seen or read about a day in which the sun has not come up. Therefore, the sun comes up every morning.
• In a series of research studies, scientists found that women who took high levels of calcium with vitamin D had fewer heart attacks than those who took high levels of calcium without vitamin D. Based on these data, they hypothesized that vitamin D has properties that protect against heart disease.

Reasoning is important for all aspects of learning, in school and in life. At a basic level, a student uses inductive reasoning when noticing that both sit and sack start with the sound /s/ and then figures out that the letter s says /s/. The student uses deductive reasoning when recalling the rule “s between two vowels can say /s/ or /z/,” and applying it to sound out “rose.” Both inductive and deductive reasoning are key abilities in understanding the scientific method, the reasons for the start of World War II, and why prejudice against an entire race of people or religion makes no sense. A student uses reasoning when reading, writing a persuasive essay, or, while watching a video, inferring a character's motives for committing a crime.

Quantitative reasoning is the ability to reason with numbers, the mathematical relations among numbers, and different operations to solve problems. The content of the reasoning process is quantitative knowledge. Problems that come up in daily life, and that do not fit neatly into mathematical routines and procedures that a person already knows, require quantitative reasoning. Examples include figuring out the amount of carpet needed to carpet three rooms of varying sizes, or how to apply IRS rules to a company's taxes.

Short-Term Working Memory (Gwm)

A previous and widely held theory of memory is that short-term memory is a kind of holding pattern for information entering mental awareness; when other cognitive processes start to work on it, working memory takes over. Current theories of short-term memory hold that a person cannot maintain information in mental awareness without working with it. Even a task as simple as remembering a phone number for a few seconds requires some work (focusing attention on it and repeating it)—thus the more descriptive term, short-term working memory. Working memory capacity describes a person's ability to control attention, direct it to the information held in conscious awareness, and maintain it, while other cognitive abilities operate on the information. Using the phone number example, attention is focused on the string of digits while expressive language repeats it. Understood in this way, short-term working memory is a dynamic process, an operation performed on information, rather than a stable ability.

A critical distinction between short-term working memory and long-term memory is that short-term working memory is a dynamic process and long-term memory is a storage facility. As stated, information enters mental awareness through our senses or is retrieved from long-term memory. If no attention is directed toward it, the information dissipates immediately. Information is only available for conscious thought while short-term working memory is acting on it. When the process is completed and the information has been rearranged, combined with other information, or transformed in some way, it is either transferred to long-term memory for storage, or, if is no longer needed (e.g., you have dialed the phone number), attention is withdrawn, and it dissipates.

Short-term working memory is limited in capacity (the amount of information it can work on simultaneously) and duration (the amount of time before the information is lost); consequently, people whose mental processes can operate on the information quickly are at an advantage. Processing speed, then, acts as a catalyst for short-term working memory (discussed later). Some examples of the use of short-term working memory are:

• Working the steps of a long division problem while simultaneously retrieving the needed math facts from long-term memory.
• Holding all of the information in a long and complex sentence in memory until the end when you can combine the elements to establish the meaning.
• Writing an essay in which previously learned information is used to explain a point of view while simultaneously formulating ideas, figuring out the best way to organize them, and selecting the words to use.
• Driving to a new location while trying to revisualize the map you left at home.

Long-Term Memory and Learning Efficiency

Schneider and McGrew (2012) define long-term storage and retrieval as “the ability to store, consolidate, and retrieve information over periods of time measured in minutes, hours, days, and years” (p. 116). Information cannot be accessed while it is held in long-term memory. It first must be retrieved.

Learning Efficiency

Learning is the process of understanding and transferring new information, or newly transformed information, into long-term memory. Efficient learning depends on different types of memory, including meaningful memory and associative memory.

Meaningful memory, used almost constantly, refers to information in which the parts are meaningfully related. A student uses meaningful memory to learn the cause-and-effect relationships among events in a country's history rather than as unrelated occurrences; the characters, plot, and outcome of a story; or a friend's account of her day.

Associative memory involves the learning of pairs of items until the presentation of one triggers the recall of the other. Associative memory can be used for pairing dates with important events in history, memorizing multiplication tables, remembering the names of two chemicals needed for a formula, or remembering the associations between the letters and their sounds.

Learning efficiency, then, is the ability to apply comprehension and various types of memory to transfer new learning into long-term storage.

Long-Term Retrieval (Glr)

Long-term retrieval is the ability to transfer information from long-term memory to short-term working memory, where it can be used. A key characteristic of long-term retrieval is fluency—the speed, accuracy, and completeness with which a person can retrieve the required information. Fast transfer of information from long-term memory to short-term working memory allows a person fast access to it for use in solving a problem or performing a task. Speed in completing these tasks frees up short-term working memory so the person can move on to other tasks.

The methods by which retrieval is accomplished take various forms; three of the more common are ideational fluency, associational fluency, and word fluency.

• Ideational fluency is “the ability to rapidly produce a series of ideas, words, or phrases related to a specific condition or object” (Schneider & McGrew, p. 118). A person might use ideational fluency when attempting to list all of the types of birds that typically inhabit cold climates or all of the ways to apologize in French.
• Associational fluency is the “ability to rapidly produce…original or useful ideas related to a particular concept” (Schneider & McGrew, p. 118). Examples include a student thinking up reasons for showing up at school two hours late, brainstorming as many topics as possible for a report on creative inventions, or coming up with multiple ways to get into a car when the keys have been lost.
• Word fluency is the ability to rapidly produce words within a given category. It includes the ability to retrieve the words necessary for expressing thoughts, both in speech and in writing. A student with word retrieval difficulties often has trouble expressing complex thoughts or describing or writing about an event or a feeling. Likely, the student's vocabulary will be somewhat imprecise (e.g., describing hinges as “the things that go on the side of the door”).

Processing Speed (Gs)

Processing speed is the ability to quickly and fluently perform relatively easy or over-learned tasks, especially when focused concentration is required. Once a person knows how to do a task, speed in the related mental operations facilitates its performance. As noted, because short-term working memory is limited in capacity and duration, speed in processing information makes short-term working memory more efficient. Number facility (i.e., the speed at which a person performs basic arithmetic operations accurately), reading speed, and writing speed are academic subskills directly related to processing speed. For example, once a student with fast processing speed has learned the multiplication facts and the steps for doing multi-digit multiplication, more cognitive attention is available for considering whether or not an answer makes sense. A student with fast processing speed is likely to become a fluent reader more quickly than a student with slow processing speed, because the first student will make automatic associations between the spoken and written words more quickly.

Perceptual Speed

Perceptual speed is a subskill of processing speed; it involves a person's ability to rapidly and accurately compare visual symbols (e.g., letters, numbers, math symbols) and recognize similarities and differences. Perceptual speed is important in developing automatic identification of these symbols for use in higher-level tasks such as reading, writing, and math.

Orthographic Processing

Orthographic processing is an aspect of reading and writing ability (Grw). Orthographic processing is the ability to form images in memory of the spelling patterns of our language. This includes individual letter forms and their orientation (i.e., which way they face), common letter combinations (e.g., com, -tion, -ed), and syllable types (e.g., compete has two syllables, closed and vowel-consonant-e). When reading, a person who has these patterns set in memory recognizes words and letter patterns automatically, facilitating recall of the associated sound and the ability to identify whole words instantaneously. A person with weak orthographic processing acquires sight words slowly and has to sound out many words, resulting in weak reading achievement and slow reading speed.

Orthographic retrieval is the ability to store orthographic patterns in long-term memory and retrieve them when needed, as in spelling. Moreover, once a person has retrieved and written a word, orthographic memory helps him determine whether the word “looks right.” For example, smoke and smoak sound the same, but only one is correct. Research in reading disabilities suggests that the academic skills of sight word acquisition and reading fluency are related to the cognitive abilities of perceptual speed, orthographic processing, and rapid automatized naming.

Visual Processing (Gv)

Visual processing is the ability to use mental imagery for a variety of purposes. Among the many aspects of visual processing are visualization, visual memory, and imagery.

• Visualization is the ability to grasp the spatial relationships among objects and to imagine what an object, picture, design, pattern, or mental image would look like from a different perspective or if the components were rearranged. Examples include being able to look at an empty room and figure out how furniture could be best arranged, look at a map and figure out how to get where you are going, and create a mental image of a building from looking at a blueprint. Visualization abilities are especially important in the fields of technology, engineering, and architecture, as well as for upper-level math and science, such as geometry, calculus, and physics.
• Visual memory is the ability to hold a visual image in mental awareness for a short time—up to approximately 30 seconds. If a person focuses attention on and works with the image, it may then be transferred into long-term memory. The first step, however, is to hold the image in immediate awareness long enough to do something with it. Visual memory may be used for such diverse purposes as remembering the shapes of geometric figures, the constellation of planets around the sun, or the image of an old photograph.
• Imagery is the ability to mentally construct vivid images. People who create mental images of the events, characters, and situations described in material they are reading understand and can remember the information significantly better than those who do not create such images.

Auditory Processing (Ga)

Auditory processing incorporates a wide range of abilities involved in the interpretation and organization of different types of sounds, such as recognizing the type of sound (e.g., speech, music, traffic), perceiving patterns in sounds (e.g., music, rhythm, Morse code), and filtering out background noise. An auditory processing ability that is particularly important for academic learning is phonetic coding.

Phonetic Coding

Phonetic coding is the ability to recognize and process subtle differences between speech sounds. People with poor phonetic coding have difficulty perceiving the individual speech sounds in words. Phonetic coding is not related to the ability of the ear to hear the sounds but rather of the brain to make the distinction among the sounds in spoken words. A critical aspect of phonetic coding is phonemic awareness, the ability to identify, isolate, blend, or rearrange the phonemes (i.e., individual speech sounds). A person may have intact language abilities but have difficulty identifying and manipulating the phonemes that make up words, often resulting in delayed reading and spelling development.

Hierarchy and Explanation of Four Score Levels of Information Available on the WJ IV

Level 1: Qualitative

Qualitative information is obtained through observation of behavior during testing, analysis of task demands, and error analysis of responses to test items. Qualitative information, although not a score, is an important component for understanding and interpreting all scores obtained by the individual. Often an understanding of how a person obtained a particular score is as important as the information provided by the score itself. Qualitative information is one of the critical components of individualized assessment and is an integral part of the interpretation and reporting of test results. (See Table 1.1.)

Table 1.1 Hierarchy of WJ IV Score Levels and Interpretive Utility

Level	Type of Information	Basis	Information and Scores	Uses
1	Qualitative	Observations during testing and analysis of responses	Description of the individual's behavior during testing Patterns of errors and correct responses within specific tasks Strategies (efficient or inefficient, correct or erroneous) used to perform specific tasks	Consideration of the possible effect of the individual's behavior on the obtained test scores Prediction of the individual's behavior and reactions in instructional situations Analysis of an individual's strengths, misunderstandings, and limitations regarding specific cognitive, linguistic, and academic skills; procedures; and knowledge Instructional recommendations for specific skills
2	Level of Development (Norm Referenced)—Provides a general estimate of an individual's level of development or achievement in relation to age or grade	Sum of item scores Age or grade level in the norming sample at which the median score is the same as the individual's score	Raw score Test or cluster W score1 Age Equivalent (AE) Grade Equivalent (GE)	Reporting an individual's general level of achievement or development in a skill, ability, or area of knowledge compared with others in the norming sample Monitoring an individual's progress within a specific skill or ability based on the W score
3	Proficiency (Criterion Referenced)—Indicates the quality of performance on criterion tasks of a given difficulty level	Distance of an individual's W score (W Ability) from the median W score obtained by the individual's age or grade-peers in the norming sample (the reference score, or Reference W)	Quality of performance on specific tasks Test or cluster W Difference (the difference between the individual's W Ability and the W Reference) Relative Proficiency Index (RPI) Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP) level Instructional or Developmental Zone	Likelihood of proficiency on tasks mastered by average age or grade-peers Difficulty level at which the individual will perceive typical tasks to be manageable Placement decisions based on a criterion of significantly strong or weak proficiency Prediction of performance on similar tasks
4	Relative Standing in a Group (Norm Referenced)—Provides a basis for making peer comparisons	Relative position (A transformation of a difference score, such as dividing it by the standard deviation of the reference group)	Rank order Standard Score (SS)1 (including T score, z score, Normal Curve Equivalent [NCE] Discrepancy SD DIFF) Percentile Rank (PR) (including Discrepancy PR)	Statement of the relative (ordinal) position of an individual's score, based on the standard deviation (SD), within the range of scores obtained by age- or grade-peers in the norming sample Placement decisions based on a criterion of significantly high or low standing compared with one's peer group
1Equal interval units; preferred metric for statistical analyses

Task Analysis and Comparisons of Selected Tests

The basis for qualitative analysis of a test is generally twofold: task analysis and error pattern analysis. In task analysis, the evaluator analyzes the cognitive, linguistic, and academic demands of the task, including the foundational skills and knowledge that the person needs to perform the task proficiently. The similarities and differences between the task demands, compared with the individual's demonstrated proficiency (or lack thereof) on each task, suggest the type of task demands that are either easy or difficult for the individual. In error pattern analysis, the evaluator examines the errors the person made and the strategy used in doing the task (possibly in lieu of the necessary skills) to discern the specific foundational skill(s) that has not been mastered.

Task analysis is frequently used to obtain information about an individual's skills and abilities other than the ability that is the intended target of the test or cluster. A test is designed to measure a certain ability or knowledge, but at times, one recognizes through more detailed analysis that the intended ability was not measured. As an example, the Short-Term Working Memory cluster is intended to measure the ability to hold information in immediate awareness while performing a mental operation on it. Low scores on Verbal Attention, Numbers Reversed, and Object-Number Sequencing might, quite reasonably, lead the evaluator to diagnose difficulties with working memory. Task analysis, however, shows that all three tests require the student to visualize numbers. Suppose that error analysis of Object-Number Sequencing showed errors only on the repetition of numbers but not on objects—a question should arise as to whether the problem is in memory or in the student's ability to visualize numbers. That question can then be answered by checking performance on other tests that require memory but not numbers, such as Story Recall, Visual-Auditory Learning, Sentence Repetition, and Memory for Words. In addition, Number-Pattern Matching, Calculation, and Math Facts Fluency would provide additional information regarding facility with numbers. Task analysis and error pattern analysis, then, can help evaluators to obtain valuable information that may require further investigation.

Level 2: Level of Development

Level 2 information is derived directly from the raw score. This information indicates a general level of development or achievement and is usually transformed to metrics, such as the W score, that compare raw scores with those of age- or grade-level peers.

W Scores

The W score is an intermediate score between raw scores and derived scores, such as standard scores, percentiles, and grade equivalents. W scores appear on the computer printout only if the examiner chooses that option in Program Options. The W scale is a special transformation of the Rasch ability scale and provides a common scale of equal-interval measurement on which both a person's ability and the task difficulty can be represented. The W scale for each test is centered on a value of 500 that has been set to approximate the average performance at age 10 years, 0 months. The W score for any cluster is the average W score for the tests included in the cluster. The W score is also used to plot the Age/Grade Profile that illustrates Development Zones on the WJ IV COG and WJ IV OL and Instructional Zones on the WJ IV ACH (see Level 3—Degree of Proficiency). Because the W scale is particularly useful for measuring growth, it can be considered a growth scale.

Age and Grade Equivalents

An age equivalent (AE), or age score, matches the examinee's W score to the age group in the norming sample with the same median W score; a grade equivalent (GE) matches the examinee's W score to the grade group in the norming sample with the same median W score. For example, if John's W score on Letter-Word Identification were 491, his AE would be 8–4 (eight years, four months) because 491 is the median W score of the group of children age 8–4 in the norming sample. All students, regardless of age, who obtain a W score of 491 will have an age equivalent of 8–4. Age equivalents are expressed in years and months, separated by a dash (–). For each test, the age scale starts at either 2–0 or 4–0 and extends to the age of peak median performance in the norming sample. Grade equivalents are expressed as the grade year and month, separated by a decimal point (.). The grade scale ranges from <K.0 (below beginning kindergarten) to >18.0 (above beginning second-year graduate school).

The WJ IV age and grade equivalents are structured so that the Reference W for both the age groups and the grade groups is the median W score of the age group. Every grade equivalent (year and month) is linked to an age equivalent (year and month) so that, regardless of the test or cluster, a GE will always correspond to the same AE. For example, the AE 13–3 is associated with a GE of 7.8. Table 1.2 shows W, AEs, and GEs for Molly and Duke.

Table 1.2 Comparison of Test Scores for Molly and Duke

Molly, age 12–4, grade 6.9				Duke, age 12–9, grade 6.9
Test	W	AE	GE	Test	W	AE	GE
Applied Problems	510	13–3	7.8	Calculation	508	13–3	7.8

Although their ages and their W scores differ, their grade equivalents are the same because their age equivalents are the same.

Some Cautions about Interpreting Grade and Age Equivalents

Many teachers and parents misunderstand grade and age equivalent scores, thinking that if a third-grade child obtains a GE of 6.3 on a test, that the child is ready for instruction at that level. This is not true. For tests that have a form for each grade (e.g., high-stakes tests), the GE of 6.3 means that if a typical student in the third month of sixth grade took the third-grade test, the older student would be likely to obtain the same raw score (i.e., usually, the number of correct items). On the WJ IV, however, everybody in the norming sample, regardless of age, is administered the same test, so the younger student's score really is similar to a typical sixth grader's score. One must be cautious, however, in the conclusions drawn from this.

First, the ability to respond correctly to a sampling of questions in a specific skill or knowledge area does not indicate that a person has sufficient skill or knowledge to move into higher-level instruction or instructional materials. For example, Bella, in mid-third grade, obtained a Broad Reading GE of 5.4. However, Bella has not had the benefit of the two years of daily instruction that provides the foundation and context for what students learn as they advance, such as comprehension skills for long passages, strategies for organizing the information, and the use of different parts of a text. Thus, Bella is demonstrating advanced skills for third grade, but not readiness for fifth-grade work.

Second, when two students at any grade obtain the same raw score or number correct, one cannot assume that their instructional needs are the same. On the Calculation test, for example, one student might have made many careless errors but have completed more difficult computations, whereas the other has completed fewer less-difficult problems, but with greater accuracy. Consequently, the first student may need training in self-monitoring and the second may need help with certain algorithms or math concepts.

Third, if a person obtains a grade or age equivalent lower than his or her current grade or age level, one should not assume that instructional materials at the lower level are appropriate. A low GE warrants further evaluation or analysis of the current test results to ascertain the reason for the low score and to plan an intervention specific to the person's needs.

Fourth, consider the difference in curriculums. One popular math curriculum presents multiplication and division in second grade; another introduces them in mid-third grade. The grade equivalents based on the norming sample are not tied to any particular curriculum, so even if a child obtained a GE of 3.5 on the Broad Mathematics cluster, the curriculum used in the local school at the mid-third grade level may not fit the child's instructional needs. One cannot assume that the GE means that the student has mastered the skills or knowledge necessary to function at that grade level in the class curriculum.

The cautions in interpreting grade scores are the same for age scores. Grade and age scores are useful for monitoring growth from year to year, keeping in mind that, depending on the subject, the increase in skill or information learned varies by subject and grade level. For example, growth in reading skills from grade 1 to grade 3 is far greater than the growth in reading skills from grade 9 to grade 11. Growth in knowledge of world history, however, is considerably greater in high school than in primary school. For more information regarding interpretation of grade equivalents, see Cohen and Spenciner (2010), Types of Scores in Assessment.

Level 3: Degree of Proficiency

Level 3 information indicates the quality of a person's performance on criterion tasks of known difficulty levels when compared with that person's age or grade reference group.

Before discussing this level of scores, a clarification of the terms mean and median as used in the WJ IV might be helpful. Whereas a mean is often described as an arithmetic average, the WJ IV uses an advanced statistical method (i.e., bootstrapping) in which the Reference W, sometimes referred to as the mean, is the median of multiple medians taken from a large number of resamplings of smaller groups of a population. The Reference W of each group (age or grade) in the norming sample is the reference point with which all of the scores are compared. Consequently, in the following explanations of the Relative Proficiency Index (RPI), standard scores, and percentile ranks, the words mean and Reference W are used interchangeably. The WJ IV Technical Manual provides a comprehensive explanation of the bootstrapping procedure and the construction of the WJ IV norms. (See McGrew, LaForte, & Schrank, 2014, pp. 71–86.)

Relative Proficiency Index (RPI)

The Relative Proficiency Index (RPI) is derived from a mathematical prediction based on the normative data. It predicts the examinee's level of success (quality of performance) on tasks similar to those tested. It represents a person's expected percentage of proficiency, based on his or her test performance, for tasks that the reference (comparison) group (age or grade) would perform with 90% proficiency. The RPI is recorded as two numbers separated by a slash (/). The first number is the examinee's expected level of proficiency; the second number is always 90, the criterion of mastery. For example, Jeremy's Word Attack score of 47/90 indicates that when reading unfamiliar words, Jeremy's proficiency is likely to be 47% when his average age or grade-peer's proficiency is 90%.

The RPI is based on the W difference—the difference in W units, either positive or negative, between the examinee's W score on a test or cluster and the Reference W (the median score of the reference group). For example, a +30 W difference would result in an RPI of 100/90, whereas a −30 W difference would result in an RPI of 25/90.

Relative Proficiency Index, Standard Score, and the Standard Deviation

Test items do not increase in difficulty in exactly equal intervals. From item to item, the increase in difficulty level varies. Within a test, a subset of items that represents a period of rapid growth in a particular skill (e.g., basic reading skills from age 5 to 15) will increase in difficulty in relatively large increments. A subset of items that represents a period of slow or no growth in a skill (e.g., basic reading skills from age 15 to 25) will have smaller increases in difficulty between the items. The WJ IV Technical Manual (McGrew et al., 2014) shows illustrations of the growth curves for the cognitive, oral language, and academic achievement broad abilities (pp. 137, 139, 140). Accordingly, during a period in which a skill is developing rapidly, students in the norming sample are likely to have a wide variation in their scores (and proficiency), resulting in a large standard deviation. The larger the standard deviation, the wider the range of scores that could be encompassed by the middle 50%.

When interpreting the various WJ IV scores, consider that the RPI and standard score measure different aspects of performance. The RPI conveys the actual distance between the individual's score and the reference group median (in W units) and is not affected by the standard deviation. It displays the likelihood of success in similar tasks (i.e., the level of difficulty that the individual can manage) (qualitative) versus his or her standing in the reference group (i.e., where the score falls in the continuum of others at the same age or grade in the norming sample) (quantitative).

Table 1.3 shows the scores of a sixth-grade student named Leo on the tests of Letter-Word Identification (LWI) and Calculation. Note that above the double line, all of the numbers are the same. At Leo's grade level, both tests had the same median. He obtained the same W score on both tests, resulting in the same W Difference (491−515 = −24). Because the RPI is tied to the W Difference score, his RPI for both tests is also the same.

Table 1.3 Leo's Scores on the Letter-Word Identification and Calculation Tests (Jaffe, 2009)

Scores	Letter-Word Identification	Calculation
W ability	491	491
Mean	515	515
W Difference	−24	−24
RPI	39/90	39/90
SD	25	16
SS	86	78

Figure 1.1 illustrates the relationship between the standard deviation and standard scores and the lack of relationship between the standard deviation and the RPI. Note that on both curves, the W units are in the same place but they no longer match the lines depicting standard deviations. Just like on a ruler, the numbers on the W scale do not shift position and always represent the same amount of change from one to another. The standard score numbers on the Letter-Word Identification curve are farther apart than they are on the Calculation curve because the standard deviation is larger—25 W units versus 16 W units. Standard scores are a function of the number of standard deviations the obtained W score is from the Reference W, typically called the mean. First, because Leo's W difference is a negative number, his standard scores will be below the Reference W. For Letter-Word Identification, Leo's W difference (−24) is smaller than the standard deviation of 25, so it is within a standard deviation of the mean, translating to an SS of 86. For Calculation, Leo's W difference is larger than the standard deviation of 16, so it is more than 1 standard deviation below the mean, and translates to an SS of 78 (Jaffe, 2009).

Figure 1.1 Comparison of Leo's Relative Proficiency Indexes, Standard Scores, and Standard Deviations on Two Tests.

Reprinted from ASB #11 Development, Interpretation, and Application of the W Score and the Relative Proficiency Index, by L. Jaffe, 2009. Retrieved March 1, 2015 from http://www.riversidepublishing.com/products/wjIIIComplete/resources.html. Copyright 2009 by Riverside Publishing Company. Reprinted with permission.

Note. When the size of the standard deviation changes, only the standard score changes. The W difference, and thus the RPI, does not change.

Some test developers consider scores within one standard deviation of the mean as within the average range, indicating that no intervention is needed. Consequently, based on his standard score of 86, Leo might not be seen as needing help in word recognition, whereas his Calculation standard score of 78 would indicate that he was having some difficulty. On both tests, however, he scored 24 points below the mean of his grade-peers in the norming sample, translating to an RPI of 39/90. So, in actuality, Leo is doing equally poorly and needs intervention in both academic areas.

Because the mean, or Reference W, is known for every test (by age and grade), once a person's W ability is known, a mathematical prediction can be made regarding that person's likelihood of success at the level of difficulty at which a comparison group will score 90%, the criterion for mastery.

Table 1.4 shows the ranges of W difference scores and the likelihood of a person demonstrating mastery on a task similar to the one assessed. The verbal labels describe the level of proficiency indicated by each RPI range and the level of ease or difficulty with which the student is likely to find the task. For example, a student whose RPI is between 82/90 and 95/90 is demonstrating average success and is likely to find similar tasks at his or her age or grade level manageable. Higher RPIs indicate increased facility with the task; lower RPIs indicate less facility and a need for intervention. Note, however, that the ranges overlap slightly. In each range, the highest RPI is the same as the lowest RPI in the next range, so that 82/90 represents both Limited to Average and Average. The evaluator must interpret these scores carefully. The student whose RPI is 82/90 is not likely to find a task as “manageable” as the student whose RPI is 90/90 or 95/90. Correspondingly, the student is not likely to find the task as difficult as someone whose RPI is 70/90.

Table 1.4 W Difference Values Associated with RPIs and Instructional Implications

W Difference	RPI	Proficiency	Instructional Implications
+31 and above	100/90	Very Advanced	Extremely easy
+14 to +30	100/90 to 98/90	Advanced	Very easy
+7 to +13	98/90 to 95/90	Average to Advanced	Easy
+6 to −6	95/90 to 82/90	Average	Manageable
−13 to −7	82/90 to 67/90	Limited to Average	Difficult
−30 to −14	67/90 to 24/90	Limited	Very difficult
−50 to −31	24/90 to 3/90	Very Limited	Extremely difficult
−51 and below	3/90 to 0/90	Extremely Limited	Nearly impossible

Examiners may choose Proficiency as an option on the Score Report.

Comparative Language Index

The Comparative Language Index (CLI), a unique application of the RPI, is available in the WJ IV OL when the three parallel English and Spanish tests have been administered (Tests 1, 2, and 6 in English and Tests 10 through 12 in Spanish). The numerators of the RPI from the Broad Oral Language cluster and the comparable Amplio Lenguaje oral cluster are represented in a ratio. For example, if Jorge's RPI Amplio Lenguaje oral cluster was 95/90, and his Broad Oral Language cluster was (15/90), the Spanish/English CLI would be 95/15.

Cognitive-Academic Language Proficiency (CALP)

A CALP score is provided for all of the tests that measure English language proficiency, if this option is selected in the online scoring. As with the RPI, the CALP level is based on the W difference score. Five CALP levels predict how the student will perform on English language tasks when compared with others of the same age or grade. As illustrated in Table 1.5, the scores range from a CALP Level of 6: Very Advanced—the student will find the language demands in instructional situations to be extremely easy, to a CALP Level of 1: Extremely Limited—the student will find the language demands in instructional situations nearly impossible to manage.

Table 1.5 CALP Levels, Implications, and Comparisons with RPI Levels

W Difference	CALP Level	Instructional Implications: The learner is likely to find the language demands
+31 and above	6	Very Advanced	Extremely easy
+14 to +30	5	Advanced	Very easy
+7 to +13	4–5 (4.5)	Fluent to Advanced	Easy
+6 to −6	4	Fluent	Manageable
−13 to −7	3–4 (3.5)	Limited to Fluent	Difficult
−30 to −14	3	Limited	Very difficult
−50 to −31	2	Very Limited	Extremely difficult
−51 and below	1	Extremely Limited	Nearly impossible

Age/Grade Band Profiles

The WJ IV Age/Grade Band Profiles are special applications of the RPI. These bands extend from −10 W score units (easy) to +10 W score units (difficult), displaying the range between an RPI of 96/90 (easy) to an RPI of 75/90 (difficult). The person will find tasks that are below the lower point of the band to be easy and those above the higher point of the band to be difficult. The length of the bands on the Age/Grade Band Profile indirectly reflects the rate of growth of the measured trait in the population. Long bands are associated with a relatively slow rate of growth, whereas short bands reflect relatively rapid periods of growth. For example, a narrow band for the Letter-Word Identification test indicates that growth is rapid at the student's age or grade level, whereas a wide band for the Word Attack test indicates that growth takes place slowly during that developmental period.

The Age/Grade Band Profile displays the practical implications of the test or cluster scores (in contrast to the statistical implications displayed by the SS/PR Profiles). The developmental and instructional zones suggest the level at which tasks will be easy for a person and the level at which they will be difficult. The Age/Grade Band Profile may be used to describe a person's present level of functioning. Evaluators should remember, however, that the Age/Grade Band Profile is based on the performance of students in the norming sample. One must consider whether the examinee's performance on a particular test is below, at, or above the level of achievement expected at his or her educational institution, as well as where his or her level of achievement is in relation to the WJ IV Age/Grade Band.

Level 4: Comparison with Peers

Level 4 information indicates relative standing in the group when compared with age- or grade-peers.

Percentile Ranks (PR)

A percentile rank describes a student's relative standing in a comparison group on a scale of 1 to 99. The percentile rank indicates the percentage of people from the comparison group who had scores the same as or lower than the person's score. A student's percentile rank of 68 indicates that 68% of the comparison group had scores the same as or lower than the student's score.

Extended percentile ranks provide scores down to a percentile rank of 0.1 and up to a percentile rank of 99.9. A student's percentile rank of 0.1 indicates that only 1 in 1,000 students in a reference group would score as low or lower. A student's percentile rank of 99.9 indicates that only 1 in 1,000 students would have a score as high, or that the person's score exceeded 999 people out of 1,000.

Standard Scores (SS)

A standard score describes a student's performance relative to the average performance of the comparison group. It is based on the average, or mean, score being assigned a value of 100, with a standard deviation, an indication of the variability of scores in the population, assigned a value of 15. The standard scores range from 40 to 160. Table 1.6 describes the standard score ranges, their equivalents in percentile ranks, and the descriptive label assigned to them.

Table 1.6 Classification of Standard Score and Percentile Rank Ranges

Standard Score Range	Percentile Rank Range	WJ IV Classification
131 and above	98–99.9	Very Superior
121–130	92–97	Superior
111–120	76–91	High Average
90–110	25–75	Average
80–89	9–24	Low Average
70–79	3–8	Low
69 and below	0.1–2	Very Low

Z Scores

A z is a standard score that has a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1. A (+) sign means that the score is above the mean (e.g., +2.0 means two standard deviations above the mean) and a (−) sign means that the score is below the mean (e.g., −2.0 means two standard deviations below the mean).

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

The standard error of measurement is an estimate of the amount of error attached to an individual's standard score, or how much one could expect a person's obtained score to vary from the true score if the person were administered the same test repeatedly. The WJ IV provides the unique SEM associated with each possible score, rather than average SEMs based on the entire sample, a feature made possible by the use of Rasch scaling.

Score Terminology and Explanation of Cluster Scores, Variations, and Comparisons

Score Terminology

The explanations for the score terminology below are the same for both Variation and Comparison procedures.

Actual Standard Score (SS)

The examinee's obtained standard score on a cognitive, oral language, or achievement test or cluster.

Predicted SS

The standard score that the examinee was expected to obtain based on his or her performance on a specific cluster, composite, or a core set of tests. (See later discussion.)

SS Difference (SS Diff)

The SS Diff represents the Predicted SS subtracted from the Actual SS.

Discrepancy Standard Deviation (SD)

For each age and grade group in the norm sample, a score distribution is created of the SS Diffs of all individuals with the same Predicted SS as that of the examinee. The examinee's Discrepancy SD is represented as a z score indicating the position of the examinee's SS Diff within this distribution—its distance, positive or negative, from the mean SS Diff of the group.

Discrepancy Percentile Rank (PR)

The Discrepancy PR shows the percentage of individuals (same age or grade, same Predicted Score) who had the same or lower Diff SS as the examinee.

Interpretation at ±1.50 SD (SEE: Standard Error of Estimate)

If the user has chosen 1.5 in the Score Report options as indicating a significant difference, a Discrepancy SS of +1.5 SD or above is labeled as a significant strength, and −1.5 as a significant weakness. This type of difference would occur approximately 6 of 100 times. Thus, a Discrepancy PR of 6 and below would be a Weakness and a Discrepancy PR of 94 and above would be a Strength. A Discrepancy SD of ±1.5 is the default setting; the user has the option to change the level of significance.

Cluster Scores

The cluster score “indicates the likelihood, within a population, of obtaining a particular score or combination of scores” (McGrew, Werder, & Woodcock, 1991, p. 42). A cluster (or composite) score is not, however, the average of the standard scores of the tests that constitute it; rather, it represents an examinee's performance as compared with peers on the tests that make up the cluster. The cluster score is further from the mean, either positively or negatively, than the individual test scores that make up the cluster. Because it is more unusual for several scores within a cluster to be significantly above or below the mean, this occurrence is less frequent in the norm group. Thus, when a number of tests are below the mean, the cluster score reflects this infrequency by being lower; and when a number of tests are above the mean, by being higher. Because the WJ IV provides the same metric for both tests and clusters (e.g., standard score, percentile rank), people tend to notice differences between the test and cluster scores more readily than on tests that use different metrics at the test and cluster or composite level (e.g., scaled scores with a mean of 10 for the subtests along with standard scores with a mean of 100 for the composites). This phenomenon is also affected by the number of tests that compose the cluster and their intercorrelations (Paik & Nebenzahl, 1987). The lower the intercorrelations between the tests, the more extreme the apparent discrepancy between the tests' scores and the cluster score will be.

Variations

Types of Variations (see Tables 1.7–1.10):

• Intra-Cognitive
• Intra-Oral Language
• Intra-Achievement
• Academic Skills/Academic Fluency/Academic Applications

Explanation of Variations

The scoring program provides variations for cluster and test scores within each battery. Each variation is based on a comparison between the examinee's actual standard score on a test or cluster (the target test/cluster) and the predicted score for the test or cluster. The degree of difference between the actual score and the predicted score has interpretive value, even if it is not significant. Variations are also provided for comparisons among the academic areas of skills, fluency, and applications.

Variation Predicted Score

Each battery has a set of core tests, and each core test represents one type of ability. The predicted score for any target test or cluster is the average of standard scores of the core tests, excluding the core test that represents the same type of ability as the test/cluster being predicted. The predicted score is then corrected for regression to the mean.

For example, the core tests within the Cognitive battery and their representative abilities are:

• Oral Vocabulary (Comprehension-Knowledge, Gc)
• Number Series (Fluid Reasoning, Gf)
• Verbal Attention (Short-Term Working Memory, Gwm)
• Letter-Pattern Matching (Processing Speed, Gs)
• Phonological Processing (Auditory Processing, Ga)
• Story Recall (Long-Term Retrieval, Glr)
• Visualization (Visual Processing, Gv)

If the variation were between Analysis-Synthesis and the six other cognitive abilities represented by the core tests, the Predicted Score would be the average of the standard scores of the core cognitive tests, excluding Number Series. Number Series would be excluded because, like Analysis-Synthesis, it represents Gf.

In Tables 1.7–1.10, the first column shows the core tests for the type of variation; the first cell in each row contains the test that would be excluded from averaging when compared with any of the target tests or clusters in the same row.

Table 1.7 Cognitive Variations

	Test Excluded from Averaging	Target Test	Target Cluster
Cognitive Ability Core Tests	Oral Vocabulary (Gc)	General Information Picture Vocabulary Oral Comprehension	Comprehension-Knowledge Comprehension-Knowledge–Ext Vocabulary Oral Language
	Number Series (Gf)	Concept Formation Analysis Synthesis Number Matrices	Fluid Reasoning Fluid Reasoning–Ext Quantitative Reasoning
	Verbal Attention (Gwm)	Numbers Reversed Object-Number Sequencing Memory for Words Sentence Repetition Understanding Directions	Short-Term Working Memory Short-Term Working Memory–Ext Auditory Memory Span
	Letter-Pattern Matching (Gs)	Number-Pattern Matching Pair Cancellation Rapid Picture Naming Retrieval Fluency	Cognitive Processing Speed Perceptual Speed Speed of Lexical Access
	Phonological Processing (Ga)	Nonword Repetition Segmentation Sound Blending	Auditory Processing Phonetic Coding
	Story Recall (Glr)	Visual-Auditory Learning	Long-Term Retrieval
	Visualization (Gv)	Picture Recognition	Visual Processing

Table 1.8 Oral Language Variations

	Test Excluded from Averaging	Target Test	Target Cluster
Oral Language Core Tests	Picture Vocabulary (Gc)	Sentence Repetition Oral Vocabulary	Oral Expression Vocabulary
	Oral Comprehension (Gwm)	Understanding Directions	Listening Comprehension
	Segmentation (Ga)	Sound Blending Phonological Processing Nonword Repetition	Phonetic Coding Auditory Processing
	Rapid Picture Naming (Glr)	Retrieval Fluency	Speed of Lexical Access

Table 1.9 Academic Achievement Variations

	Test Excluded from Averaging	Target Test	Target Cluster
Achievement Core Tests	Letter-Word Identification	Word Attack Oral Reading	Basic Reading Skills Reading Fluency
	Applied Problems	Number Matrices	Math Problem Solving
	Spelling	Editing Spelling of Sounds	Basic Writing Skills
	Passage Comprehension	Sentence Reading Fluency Reading Recall Word Reading Fluency Reading Vocabulary	Reading Comprehension Reading Comprehension–Ext Reading Rate
	Calculation	Math Facts Fluency	Math Calculation Skills
	Writing Samples	Sentence Writing Fluency	Written Expression

Table 1.10 Academic Skills/Fluency/Applications Variations

	Clusters Usedfor Averaging	Target Test	Target Cluster
Cognitive Ability Core Tests	Academic Fluency Academic Applications	—	Academic Skills
	Academic Skills Academic Applications	—	Academic Fluency
	Academic Skills Academic Fluency	—	Academic Applications
	Academic Fluency	Letter-Pattern Matching Pair Cancellation Number-Pattern Matching Sentence Reading Fluency Word Reading Fluency	Cognitive Processing Speed Perceptual Speed Reading Rate

Comparisons

Types of Comparisons (See Tables 1.11–1.15)

• Gf-Gc Composite/Other Ability Comparisons
• General Intellectual Ability (GIA)/Achievement Discrepancy Procedure
• Scholastic Aptitude/Achievement Comparisons
• Oral Language/Achievement Comparisons
• Academic Knowledge/Achievement Comparisons

Explanation of Comparisons

The procedure for obtaining Comparisons (discrepancies) is the same as that for obtaining Variations. The difference is the composition of the Predictor Score. Whereas Variation predictors are derived from the average of scores of a set of core tests with the target measure excluded, Comparison predictors are based on a single score.

The targets for the Comparisons are clusters rather than individual tests. The comparisons show the degree of difference, if any, between the standard score of the predictor cluster and that of the target cluster. Five composites or clusters may serve as predictors: Gf-Gc, GIA, Scholastic Aptitude, Broad Oral Language, and Academic Knowledge. For four types of comparisons, the predictor is, simply, the score of the cluster most representative of the examinee's level of general cognitive abilities (i.e., Gf-Gc, GIA), Oral Language, or Academic Knowledge, corrected for regression to the mean. Scholastic Aptitude is somewhat different and is discussed next.

Table 1.11 Gf-Gc as the Predictor Composite

Possible Target Clusters
Cognitive	Oral Language	Reading	Math	Writing	Other Achievement
Short-Term Working Memory	Phonetic Coding	Reading	Mathematics	Written Language	Academic Skills
Short-Term Working Memory–Ext.	Speed of Lexical Access	Broad Reading	Broad Mathematics	Broad Written Language	Academic Applications
Cognitive Processing Speed		Basic Reading Skills	Math Calculation Skills	Basic Writing Skills	Academic Fluency
Auditory Processing		Reading Comprehension	Math Problem Solving	Written Expression	Phoneme-Grapheme Knowledge
Long-Term Retrieval		Reading Comprehension–Ext.			Brief Achievement
Visual Processing		Reading Fluency			Broad Achievement
Auditory Memory Span		Reading Rate
Number Facility
Perceptual Speed
Cognitive Efficiency
Cognitive Efficiency–Ext.

Table 1.12 GIA as the Predictor Composite

Possible Target Clusters
Oral Language	Reading	Math	Writing	Other Achievement
Oral Language	Reading	Mathematics	Written Language	Academic Knowledge
Broad Oral Language	Broad Reading	Broad Mathematics	Broad Written Language	Academic Skills
Oral Expression	Basic Reading Skills	Math Calculation Skills	Basic Writing Skills	Academic Fluency
Listening Comprehension	Reading Comprehension	Math Problem Solving	Written Expression	Academic Applications
	Reading Comprehension–Ext.			Phoneme-Grapheme Knowledge
	Reading Fluency			Brief Achievement
	Reading Rate			Broad Achievement

Table 1.13 Oral Language as the Predictor

Possible Target Clusters
Oral Language	Reading	Math	Writing	Other Achievement
Phonetic Coding	Reading	Mathematics	Written Language	Academic Skills
Speed of Lexical Access	Broad Reading	Broad Mathematics	Broad Written Language	Academic Fluency
	Basic Reading Skills	Math Calculation Skills	Basic Writing Skills	Academic Applications
	Reading Comprehension	Math Problem Solving	Written Expression	Academic Knowledge
	Reading Comprehension–Ext.			Phoneme-Grapheme Knowledge
	Reading Fluency
	Reading Rate

Table 1.14 Academic Knowledge as the Predictor

Possible Target Clusters
Oral Language	Reading	Math	Writing	Other Achievement
Phonetic Coding	Mathematics	Written Language	Other Achievement	Reading
Speed of Lexical Access	Broad Mathematics	Broad Written Language	Academic Skills	Broad Reading
	Math Calculation Skills	Basic Writing Skills	Academic Fluency	Basic Reading Skills
	Math Problem Solving	Written Expression	Academic Applications	Reading Comprehension
			Phoneme-Grapheme Knowledge	Reading Comprehension-Ext.
			Brief Achievement	Reading Fluency
			Broad Achievement	Reading Rate

Scholastic Aptitude/Achievement Comparisons

For the Scholastic Aptitude/Achievement Comparisons, the predictor is the Scholastic Aptitude Standard Score (SAPT). Each of the six Scholastic Aptitude scores is a simple average of the W scores of the four Cognitive tests most highly correlated with, and thus, the best predictor of, the specific achievement cluster, taking into account changes in developmental level. Any tests that share content with the tests in the target cluster are omitted as possible predictors. The Scholastic Aptitude/Achievement comparisons are, perhaps, the best indicator of whether an examinee's difficulties in an academic skill are to be expected, if the cognitive abilities most related to that skill are at a similar level, or unexpected, if the cognitive abilities most related to that skill are considerably higher.

Unlike the other comparisons on the Score Report, the Scholastic Aptitude/Achievement Comparisons have four scores under the heading of Standard Scores: Actual, SAPT, Pred, and Difference. SAPT represents the simple average of the four predictor tests. Once the SAPT is corrected for regression to the mean, it is the Predicted Score (Pred). As in the other Comparisons, the Difference represents the Actual Score minus the Predicted Score.

Table 1.15 Scholastic Aptitude as the Predictor for Academic Achievements

Tests That Compose the Predicted Score	Possible Target Clusters
Oral Vocabulary Phonological Processing Concept Formation Number-Pattern Matching	Reading Broad Reading Reading Comprehension Reading Fluency Reading Rate
Oral Vocabulary Phonological Processing Verbal Attention Number-Pattern Matching	Basic Reading Skills
Oral Vocabulary Number Series Visualization Pair Cancellation	Mathematics Broad Mathematics Math Calculation Skills
Oral Vocabulary Visualization Numbers Reversed Analysis-Synthesis	Math Problem Solving
Oral Vocabulary Phonological Processing Story Recall Number-Pattern Matching	Written Language Broad Written Language Written Expression
Oral Vocabulary Phonological Processing Verbal Attention Number-Pattern Matching	Basic Writing Skills

Sample Statements for Reporting Scores

The following statements provide examples of ways to describe various test scores in reports. The clusters and tests will vary, depending on the cognitive, oral language, or achievement test or ability being discussed.

Score Levels Reported in Combination

Cognitive

1. Results of the WJ IV indicate that Avery's quantitative reasoning, the mathematical aspect of fluid reasoning, is very strong. On the Quantitative Reasoning cluster, she scored as high as or higher than 91% of age-peers in figuring out complex numerical patterns. Her RPI indicates that when other average 12-year-olds would be 90% successful on a similar task, Avery would be 99% successful. Although she had a pencil and paper, she solved many of the items mentally.

Oral Language

1. Audrey's CALP Level of 5 and RPI of 99/90 in Oral Language Comprehension suggest that she will find the English language demands in instructional situations to be very easy.
2. Given Jared's difficulty with phonetic spelling, his RPI of 37/90 on the Segmentation test more accurately represents his ability to perceive the individual sounds of a word than does his standard score of 84.

Achievement

1. Liam's basic reading skills, including fluency, are very well developed (PR 91, RPI 99/90), whereas his passage comprehension is significantly lower (PR 41, RPI 85/90).
2. Lara demonstrated Low Average to Average performance on the WJ IV Spelling test, with a grade equivalent of early grade 3 and an RPI of 62/90.
3. Test results indicate that Kristen's spelling is in the Average range (PR 56, SS 102).
4. Kara's Broad Written Language score fell within the Low to Low Average ranges (SS 77–83), with a grade equivalent of early grade 3. Her RPI of 75/90 indicates that when average grade-peers are 90% successful on written language tasks, Kara will be 75% successful.
5. Although Nicholas's standard score on the Mathematics Reasoning cluster was within the Average range for seventh-grade students, his RPI (45/90) indicated that he will have considerably more difficulty than most of his grade-peers in math problem solving.
6. Although Sheila's standard scores on both Broad Reading and Broad Mathematics are in the Low range compared with other fifth-graders, her proficiency in reading (RPI 9/90) is markedly lower than her proficiency in mathematics (RPI 42/90).

Level of Development

Grade and Age Equivalents

Cognitive

1. Diane's performance on the Verbal Attention test was comparable to that of average eight-year-olds.

Oral Language

1. The developmental zone on the WJ IV Oral Language battery indicates that Martha may find tasks involving phonemic segmentation quite difficult; her performance on this skill was similar to that of beginning first-grade students.
2. Dick's scores indicate that his level of functioning on oral vocabulary is average compared with grade-mates.

Achievement

1. Jackson's instructional zone on the WJ IV Age/Grade Band Profile indicates that his basic writing skills are advanced compared with others his age. His performance on spelling and editing skills was similar to the average performance of sixth-grade students on these tests.
2. Maria's obtained grade score on the Broad Reading cluster was approximately beginning third grade (GE 3.1).
3. Sally is a fourth-grader whose current performance in math computation is comparable to that of a first-grade student.

Relative Proficiency Scores

Cognitive

1. Samuel is predicted to demonstrate 2% mastery on short-term working memory tasks that average age-peers would perform with 90% mastery (RPI: 2/90). Accordingly, it is likely that he will find tasks that require him to simultaneously hold information in memory and work with it nearly impossible.

Oral Language

1. Jody's RPIs on the tests of Oral Vocabulary and Picture Vocabulary (47/90 and 53/90, respectively) suggest that weak vocabulary is one reason for his difficulty in reading comprehension.
2. Jason's RPI on the Picture Vocabulary test was 75/90, suggesting that when average age-peers have 90% success on tasks requiring knowledge of specific words, Jason will have 75% success. This score places his proficiency at the lower end of the instructional range.
3. Ben's performance on the tests of Retrieval Fluency (RPI 90/90) and Rapid Picture Naming (RPI 88/90) indicate that he has average proficiency in rapidly retrieving familiar words from long-term memory.
4. Daniel's RPI on the Vocabulary cluster predicts that his probability of success in being able to express a specific word for an object or event is 79% as compared to 90% for an average age-peer.

Achievement

1. Mark's RPI of 66/90 on the Broad Mathematics cluster indicates that he would find math assignments at grade level to be very difficult.
2. Sam's RPI of 21/90 on the Phoneme-Grapheme Knowledge cluster indicates that when sounding out and spelling words that he does not already know, Sam would demonstrate 21% proficiency when the average fourth-grade student would demonstrate 90% proficiency. Sam's knowledge of phoneme-grapheme correspondences and spelling patterns is very limited.
3. Chloe demonstrated advanced proficiency on tests of school-based knowledge (Academic Knowledge, RPI 98/90). When average age-peers demonstrate 90% proficiency on science, social studies, and humanities tasks, Chloe's proficiency would be approximately 98%.
4. Bryn's RPI of 82/90 on the Passage Comprehension test suggests that she is likely to find similar classroom tasks, such as completing a worksheet using the cloze procedure (reading one or two sentences and filling in the missing word), somewhat difficult, but manageable.
5. Although Luz scored considerably higher on the Applied Problems test than on the Calculation test, her RPIs of 70/90 and 40/90 indicate that she will experience frustration in dealing with grade-level math concepts and number relationships.

Comparative Language Index

1. Jose's Comparative Language Index (CLI) of 95/35 indicates that he is predicted to perform similar oral language tasks in Spanish with 95% proficiency, whereas he would perform those tasks with only 35% proficiency in English.
2. Delia's Comparative Language Index (CLI) of 10/98 indicates that she will perform similar oral language tasks in Spanish with only 10% proficiency but with 98% proficiency in English.

Cognitive-Academic Language Proficiency

1. Kai met the criteria for fluency on all tests of oral language skills (CALP 4 to 4.5). He should find the English language demands of instruction at the twelfth-grade level manageable to easy.
2. Ingrid's CALP level of 2 on the Oral Language cluster indicates that she is very limited in language comprehension and expressive vocabulary; consequently, she is likely to have extreme difficulty on fourth-grade academic tasks that require these abilities.
3. Ralph's performance on the WJ IV Oral Language cluster (CALP level 1) suggests that he has extremely limited comprehension of English. Managing academic instruction in English, appropriate for 10-year-old native speakers, will be nearly impossible for him.

Peer Comparison Scores

Standard Score Ranges

• Cognitive

1. Fran's performance varied on the tests constituting the Perceptual Speed cluster. Her standard score on Letter-Pattern Matching indicated a High Average level of ability when compared with her typical grade-peers, whereas her performance on the Number-Pattern Matching test was in the Low Average range.
2. Mariah demonstrated superior reasoning skills, using inductive and deductive logic to form concepts and solve problems using newly learned procedures (Fluid Reasoning: SS 127, PR 96).
3. Kata's Average to High Average score on the Analysis-Synthesis test reflects her ability to use deductive, linear logic for solving novel problems.

• Oral Language

1. Oscar demonstrated average ability to store linguistic information in memory and retrieve it later.
2. TJ scored in the Low Average range on the Rapid Picture Naming test, demonstrating a relative weakness in rapid retrieval of known words.

• Achievement

1. Jacob demonstrated performance commensurate with his age-peers in math problem solving.
2. Sam's level of achievement on the Reading Fluency cluster was in the Average range.
3. Test results indicated that all of Jesse's reading abilities were in the Low Average range when compared with grade-peers in the norming sample (SS 86).
4. Max's writing fluency, formulating and writing simple sentences quickly, was in the High Average to Superior ranges (SS ± 1 SEM = 115–123).
5. Nancy's overall math abilities, as represented by the Broad Mathematics cluster score, are in the Low range, with no significant discrepancies among the component tests of Calculation, Math Facts Fluency, and Applied Problems.
6. When Mr. Garibaldi's scores were compared with the graduate school sample, his Comprehension-Knowledge score remained competitive (SS 114). When compared with adults his age, Mr. Garibaldi performed well within the Average range in each of the academic clusters (reading, writing, and mathematics). In contrast, these academic scores were only in the Low range when compared with the graduate school sample.
7. Emma's Low to Low Average performance on Applied Problems reflects her difficulty with math concepts.
8. Tom's score on the Spelling test (SS ± 1 SEM: 98–110) was significantly higher than his score on the Writing Samples test (SS ± 1 SEM: 75–86).
9. Mark's performance on the tests of the Broad Mathematics cluster differed significantly. His computation was in the High Average range, whereas his ability to retrieve math facts quickly was in the Very Low range.

Percentile Ranks

• Cognitive

1. Test results indicate that Alejandro's inductive and deductive logical reasoning is as high as or higher than that of 81% of students his age (PR = 81).
2. Jody's processing speed equaled or exceeded 83% of his age-peers.
3. Gabriella's high average visual processing speed (PR 83) indicates that she can rapidly perform simple cognitive tasks based on visual symbols or pictures.
4. Angelica's Object-Letter Sequencing score was in the Low range, exceeding only 6% of her peers (PR 6).

• Oral Language

1. Despite living most of his life in Jordan, Bashir performed as well as or better than 63% of English-speaking grade-peers on vocabulary knowledge and understanding one- to two-sentence discourse (Oral Language PR 63). He had considerably more difficulty understanding and remembering instructions using complex sentence structure (Understanding Directions PR 37).
2. Stuart demonstrated severe difficulty in quickly retrieving known words from long-term memory. His score on Speed of Lexical Retrieval indicated that his ability to express the words he intends was as slow as or slower than the lowest 5 children out of 1,000.

• Achievement

1. Kay's percentile rank of 99.5 on the Basic Math Skills cluster indicates that she scored as high as or higher than 995 of 1,000 people her age.
2. On the Broad Mathematics cluster, Sara scored at the 25^th percentile, within the lower limits of the Average range.
3. Test results from the WJ IV Broad Reading cluster indicated that Susan's overall reading achievement was in the Low Average range (20th percentile).
4. Lawrence's frustration with classroom writing tasks is understandable given his obtained percentile rank of 3 on Writing Samples. Among his grade-peers, only 3% tested as low as or lower than Lawrence.
5. On the reading tests, a significant difference existed between Olivia's Low Average to Average performance on word recognition (Letter-Word Identification PR ±21–39) and her Very Low to Low performance understanding reading passages of one to two sentences (Passage Comprehension PR ±1–5).
6. Bill's score on Applied Problems (PR: 2) was significantly lower than his score on the Calculation test (PR: 89).

Intra-Ability Variations

The following are examples of statements that can be used to describe Intra-Cognitive, Intra-Oral Language, and Intra-Achievement Variations.

• Cognitive Variations

1. Aiden's only significant Intra-Cognitive Variation was in Fluid Reasoning, indicating a severe deficit in abstract, logical reasoning. A discrepancy of this magnitude is found in only 1% of the students his age.
2. Comparison between Bill's Comprehension-Knowledge cluster score and his average performance on the other six core CHC tests showed that only 6 of 100 students (PR: 6) would obtain a score as low or lower.

• Oral Language Variations

1. When Gretchen's Vocabulary score (Standard Score = 119) is compared with three other aspects of oral language (Predicted Score = 102), only 6 out of 100 students with the same predicted score would have a score as high as or higher than hers.
2. The Oral Language variations revealed that all but one of Holly's oral language abilities are higher than expected by at least a standard deviation. Her significantly low score in Speed of Lexical Access (−1.76 SD), however, is consistent with her difficulty in quickly and efficiently retrieving words in conversation and in writing.

• Achievement Variations

1. Comparisons among Jeanne's achievement clusters revealed no significant score discrepancies.
2. On the Broad Written Language cluster, only 3% of students with the same predicted score as Alex's would obtain a score as low as or lower than his score of 87.
3. Of Philip's grade-peers with the same predicted standard score in Broad Reading, only 2 out of 100 would obtain a score as high as or higher than his score of 115.
4. When D. J.'s Broad Math cluster standard score of 95 is compared with his average on the other achievement clusters, only 1 out of 100 grade-peers with the same predicted score would have obtained a score as low or lower.

• Combined

1. Margaret evidences significant intra-individual weaknesses in both Auditory Processing and Basic Reading Skills. The likelihood of her age-peers with the same predicted score obtaining scores as low as or lower than hers is 1% for Auditory Processing and 3% for Basic Reading Skills.

Ability/Achievement Comparisons

• General Intellectual Ability

1. No significant discrepancies existed between Shirin's General Intellectual Ability (GIA) and her current academic performance.
2. Gina's functioning in math calculation is significantly below expectations when compared with her General Intellectual Ability and her Oral Language scores.
3. When compared with his overall intellectual ability, Patrick's achievement in all areas of written language was significantly lower than predicted.

• Gf-Gc Composite

1. A significant discrepancy existed between Charlene's scores on the Gf-Gc Composite and Basic Reading Skills. Only 2 of 100 individuals with her predicted standard score of 105 would obtain her score of 75 or lower.
2. Based on the Gf-Gc composite, Robert's Broad Reading, Math Calculation, and Academic Knowledge were all significantly lower than predicted. These findings suggest that, overall, Robert's progress in academic skills and knowledge is not keeping pace with his more advanced cognitive abilities.

• Scholastic Aptitudes

1. Although Jeff's assessed aptitude for learning the reading skills measured by the Broad Reading cluster is represented by a standard score of 81, his actual score was 55. Only 1 out of 100 students with the same reading aptitude would obtain a score as low as or lower than Jeff's.
2. The WJ IV provides scholastic aptitude scores for each academic area based on the cognitive abilities that are best correlated with the academic skill or knowledge. Based on his aptitude scores, Gerald scored significantly lower than predicted in Broad Reading, Basic Reading Skills, and Broad Written Language.

• Oral Language

1. Current test results indicate that Taylor has a significant discrepancy between his oral language abilities and his reading skills. When his Oral Language cluster (SS 104) is compared with his Basic Reading Skills (SS 65) and Reading Comprehension clusters (SS 74), only 1 and 2 individuals, respectively, out of 100 would obtain a scores as low or lower than his.
2. Carter's difficulty learning to spell words is unexpected given his advanced oral language abilities and his superior phonemic awareness skills.

• Academic Knowledge

1. When Serena's Academic Knowledge cluster score is used to predict her Broad Reading score, only 2 of 100 students would score as high as she did in reading.
2. Braylen's Academic Knowledge is significantly higher than his current level of reading and writing skills.
3. The discrepancy between Amy's performance on the Academic Knowledge cluster (SS 104) and her performance on the Reading Rate cluster (SS 77) would be found in only 3 of 100 students.

Overview of Tests and Task Demands (WJ IV COG, WJ IV OL, WJ IV ACH)

Table 1.16 Description of Tests and Task Demands for the WJ IV Tests of Cognitive Abilities

Test	Broad CHC Abilities Foundational Abilities	Stimuli	Task Demands	Response
Test 1: Oral Vocabulary	Comprehension-Knowledge (Gc) Vocabulary knowledge Word retrieval ability	Auditory (words)	Knowledge of antonyms and synonyms	Oral (word)
Test 2: Number Series	Quantitative Knowledge (Gq) Math reasoning Efficient retrieval of math facts	Visual (numbers)	Fill in the missing number in a series	Oral
Test 3: Verbal Attention	Short-Term Working Memory (Gwm) Auditory memory span Familiarity with numbers and names of animals	Auditory	Listen to a series of animals and numbers and answer a question	Oral
Test 4: Letter-Pattern Matching	Processing Speed (Gs) Perceptual Speed Ability to recognize common letter patterns Rapid visual scanning	Visual (letters)	Rapidly locating and circling identical letters of letter patterns from a defined row of letters	Motor (circling)
Test 5: Phonological Processing	Auditory Processing (Ga) Speech-sound discrimination Phoneme segmentation Phoneme blending Phoneme substitution Word retrieval Vocabulary knowledge	Auditory	A. Providing a word that has a given phonemic element in a specified location B. Naming as many things as possible in one minute that begin with a specified sound C. Substituting part of a word to create a new word.	Oral
Test 6: Story Recall	Long-Term Retrieval (Glr) Oral language comprehension Oral language production Meaningful memory	Auditory (stories)	Listening to and retelling details of stories	Oral (sentences)
Test 7: Visualization	Visualization (Gv) Spatial relationships Visual discrimination Figure-ground discrimination Visual sequencing Visual closure Visual-motor	Visual (abstract drawings and configurations of blocks)	A. Identifying the subset of pieces needed to form a complete shape B. Identifying the two matching sets of blocks within an array	Oral (letters) or motoric (pointing)
Test 8: General Information	Comprehension-Knowledge (Gc) Knowledge of one's environment and the world, generally learned incidentally Vocabulary knowledge	Auditory (questions)	A. Identifying where specified objects are found B. Identifying what people typically do with specified objects	Oral (sentences)
Test 9: Concept Formation	Fluid Reasoning (Gf) Inductive reasoning Comprehension of complex syntax Classification of drawings	Visual (drawings)	Identifying, categorizing, and determining rules	Oral (words)
Test 10: Numbers Reversed	Short-Term Working Memory (Gwm) Familiarity with number names Possibly, ability to visualize numbers	Auditory (numbers)	Holding a span of numbers in immediate awareness and then reversing the sequence	Oral (numbers)
Test 11: Number-Pattern Matching	Processing Speed (Gs) Perceptual speed Experience with numbers Rapid visual scanning	Visual (numbers)	Rapidly locating and circling identical numbers from defined rows of numbers	Motoric (circling)
Test 12: Nonword Repetition	Auditory Processing (Ga) Speech-sound discrimination Short-term working memory Auditory memory span	Auditory (nonsense words)	Repeating an orally presented nonsense word	Oral (words)
Test 13: Visual-Auditory Learning	Long-Term Retrieval (Glr) Associative memory	Visual (rebuses) Auditory (words)—in the learning condition Visual (rebuses)—in the reading condition	Learning symbol-word associations and “reading” aloud sentences composed of the symbols	Oral (sentences)
Test 14: Picture Recognition	Visual-Spatial Thinking (Gv) Visual recognition memory	Visual (pictures)	Identifying a subset of previously presented pictures within a field of similar pictures	Oral (letter names) or motoric (pointing)
Test 15: Analysis-Synthesis	Fluid Reasoning (Gf) Deductive reasoning Short-term working memory	Visual (drawings)	Analyzing puzzles (using a given code) to determine missing components	Oral (words)
Test 16: Object-Letter Sequencing	Short-Term Working Memory (Gwm) Auditory memory span Auditory sequencing Familiarity with numbers and animal names	Auditory (words, numbers)	Holding a mixed set of numbers and words in immediate awareness while reordering into two sequences	Oral (words, numbers)
Test 17: Pair Cancellation	Processing Speed (Gs) Rapid visual scanning Visual sequencing	Visual (pictures)	Identifying and circling instances of a repeated pattern rapidly	Motoric (circling)
Test 18: Memory for Words	Short-Term Working Memory (Gwm) Auditory memory span	Auditory (words)	Repeating a list of unrelated words in correct sequence	Oral (words)

Table 1.17 Description of Tests and Task Demands for the WJ IV Tests of Oral Language

Test	CHC Broad Ability Foundational Abilities	Stimuli	Task Demands	Response
Test 1: Picture Vocabulary	Oral Expression (Gc) Vocabulary knowledge Word retrieval	Visual (pictures)	Giving the names of pictured objects	Oral (word)
Test 2: Oral Comprehension	Listening Comprehension (Gc) Language comprehension Vocabulary knowledge Word retrieval General knowledge	Auditory (text)	Completing an oral sentence by giving the missing key word that makes sense in the context	Oral (word)
Test 3: Segmentation	Auditory Processing (Ga) Phonological awareness: segmenting words into syllables Phonemic awareness: segmenting words into phonemes	Auditory (words)	Segmenting words into syllables and phonemes	Oral (word)
Test 4: Rapid Picture Naming	Processing Speed (Gs) Rapid automatic naming Word retrieval	Visual (pictures)	Recognizing objects, then retrieving and articulating their names rapidly	Oral (words)
Test 5: Sentence Repetition	Memory Span (Gwm) Auditory memory span Oral language comprehension Oral language production	Auditory (sentences)	Repeating sentences that increase in length and complexity	Oral (sentences)
Test 6: Understanding Directions	Listening Comprehension (Gc) Short-term working memory Comprehension of complex syntax Visual scanning of details in pictures	Auditory (sentences) Visual (pictures)	Listening to a sequence of instructions and then following the directions	Motoric (pointing)
Test 7: Sound Blending	Auditory Processing (Ga) Phonological awareness: blending word parts Phonemic awareness: blending phonemes Speech-sound discrimination Auditory memory span Short-term working memory	Auditory (word parts and phonemes)	Synthesizing language sounds (word parts and phonemes)	Oral (word)
Test 8: Retrieval Fluency	Long-Term Retrieval (Glr) Ideational fluency Vocabulary knowledge Word retrieval	Auditory (directions only)	Naming as many examples as possible from given categories	Oral (words)
Test 9: Sound Awareness	Auditory Processing (Ga) Speech-sound discrimination Phonological awareness: rhyming Phonological and phonemic awareness: deletion	Auditory (word)	A. Providing rhymes for target words B. Deleting word parts and phonemes from words to make new words	Oral (word)

Table 1.18 Overview of the WJ IV Tests of Achievement

Test	Curricular Area Foundational Abilities	Stimuli	Task Demands	Response
Test 1: Letter-Word Identification	Reading (Grw) Reading, decoding (phonics and orthographic knowledge)	Visual (text)	Recognizing and naming printed letters and words	Oral (letter name, word)
Test 2: Applied Problems	Mathematics (Gq) Math reasoning Computation	Auditory (questions) Visual (numeric, text)	Translating orally presented word problems into computations and solving them	Oral
Test 3: Spelling	Spelling (Grw) Encoding Phonics knowledge Orthographic knowledge Visual-motor skill	Auditory (words)	Spelling orally presented words	Motoric (writing)
Test 4: Passage Comprehension	Reading (Grw) Reading comprehension Verbal (printed) language comprehension Vocabulary word retrieval	Visual (text)	Reading a sentence that has a missing key word, then giving a word that makes sense in the context	Oral (word)
Test 5: Calculation	Mathematics (Gq) Math computation	Visual (numeric)	Performing various mathematical calculations	Motoric (writing)
Test 6: Writing Samples	Writing (Grw) Sentence formulation Writing ability Visual-motor coordination	Auditory (directions) Visual (text and pictures)	Writing meaningful sentences in response to specific instructions	Motoric (writing)
Test 7: Word Attack	Reading (Grw) Reading decoding Phonetic coding Orthographic knowledge (knowledge of non-phonetic word parts)	Visual (word)	Reading nonsense words that conform to conventional spelling rules	Oral (word)
Test 8: Oral Reading	Reading (Grw) Phonics Word identification	Visual (sentences)	Reading aloud sentences that gradually increase in difficulty	Oral (sentences)
Test 9: Sentence Reading Fluency	Reading (Grw) Reading speed Reading comprehension	Visual (text)	Reading printed sentences rapidly and recognizing whether they make sense	Motoric (circling “yes” or “no”)
Test 10: Math Facts Fluency	Mathematics (Gq) Knowledge of math facts Math fact retrieval	Visual (numeric)	Writing responses to simple addition, subtraction, and multiplication problems as quickly as possible	Motoric (writing)
Test 11: Sentence Writing Fluency	Writing (Grw) Sentence formulation Writing speed	Visual (words with picture)	Rapidly formulating and writing simple sentences, incorporating a few given words	Motoric (writing)
Test 12: Reading Recall	Reading (Grw) Reading decoding Reading comprehension Meaningful memory	Visual (stories)	Reading brief stories and retelling the details	Oral (sentences)
Test 13: Number Matrices	Mathematics (Gq) Math reasoning Computation	Visual (numbers)	Identifying the patterns in a number matrix and filling in the missing numbers	Oral (numbers)
Test 14: Editing	Proofreading Skills (Grw) English usage (capitalization, punctuation, grammar) Spelling	Visual (text)	Identifying and correcting capitalization, punctuation, grammatical, and spelling errors in written passages	Oral
Test 15: Word Reading Fluency	Reading (Grw) Reading speed Vocabulary knowledge	Visual (words)	Reading rows of four printed words and circling the two words that go together	Motoric (circling)
Test 16: Spelling of Sounds	Spelling (Grw/Ga) Spelling ability Knowledge of phonics and orthographic generalizations	Auditory (letter, word)	Writing letter combinations and nonsense words that conform to conventional English spelling patterns	Motoric (writing)
Test 17: Reading Vocabulary	Reading (Grw/Gc) Vocabulary knowledge Expressive vocabulary Word retrieval	Visual (word)	Reading words and supplying synonyms and antonyms	Oral (word)
Test 18: Science	General information (Gc) Science knowledge Long-term retrieval Vocabulary knowledge	Auditory (question) Visual (text, picture)	Responding to questions about science	Motoric (pointing) or oral (word, sentences)
Test 19: Social Studies	General information (Gc) Social Studies knowledge Long-term retrieval Vocabulary knowledge	Auditory (question) Visual (text, picture)	Responding to questions about social studies	Motoric (pointing) or oral (word, sentences)
Test 20: Humanities	General information (Gc) Cultural knowledge Long-term retrieval Vocabulary knowledge	Auditory (question) Visual (text, picture)	Responding to questions about humanities	Motoric (pointing) or oral (word, sentences)

Example Items

Table 1.19 WJ IV Cognitive Standard Battery

Test 1: Oral Vocabulary The test includes two orally presented tasks: providing synonyms and providing antonyms.	Test 6: Story Recall (audio recording) The task requires listening to passages of gradually increasing length and complexity and then recalling the story elements. Martha went to the store to buy groceries. When she got there, she discovered that she had forgotten her shopping list. She bought milk, eggs, and flour. When she got home she discovered that she remembered to buy everything except the butter.
Test 2: Number Series The test requires determining the missing number in a series of numbers. 4 7 __ 13 36 26 15 __ Test 3: Verbal Attention (audio recording) This test requires listening to a series of words containing numbers and animals intermixed and then answering a specific question regarding the sequence. 8 – dog – bird – 4 – 7 Tell me the number that came after bird. Test 4: Letter-Pattern Matching (timed) The test requires locating and circling the two matching letters or letter patterns in a row of six patterns. The matching pattern is a common spelling pattern. hc ch cc hh ch nh	Test 7: Visualization The test has two subtests: Spatial Relations involves identifying from a series of shapes the pieces needed to form the whole shape. Block Rotation requires identifying the two block patterns that match the target pattern.
Test 5: Phonological Processing (audio recording) This test is composed of three subtests: Word Access requires naming a word that has a specific sound in a specific location. Tell me a word that ends with the /k/ sound. Word Fluency requires naming as many items as possible that start with a certain sound. Tell me all the words you can think of that begin with the /f/ sound. Substitution requires substituting one part or sound of a word for another part to create a new word. Change the /b/ in belt to /f/.	Test 8: General Information This test includes two tasks: identifying where specified objects would usually be found and telling what people would usually do with a specified object. What do people usually do with a ladder? Where would you usually find eyeglasses? Test 9: Concept Formation The task involves identifying and stating what is different about drawings that are inside a box from those that are outside the box. Correct response: little and two (The drawings inside the box are little and have two of each.) Test 10: Numbers Reversed (audio recording) Contains series of from 2 to 7 digits to be repeated in reverse order. Item: 7–2–3–5 Correct: 5–3–2–7
Mather, N., & Jaffe, L. E. (2016). Woodcock-Johnson IV: Reports, Recommendations, and Strategies (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Table 1.20 Example Items for the WJ IV Tests of Cognitive Abilities: Extended Battery

Test 11: Number-Pattern Matching (timed) The task is to match two identical numbers in a row. Numbers range from 1 to 3 digits. Test 12: Nonword Repetition (audio recording) This task requires listening to a nonsense word and then repeating the nonsense word exactly. clib tasiona Test 13: Visual-Auditory Learning The test simulates a learning-to-read process. The task is to learn the association between a series of words and symbols and then “read” phrases and sentences composed of the symbols. (This man is by the house.) (He is happy.)	Test 15: Analysis-Synthesis The task requires using a colored key to analyze the components of an incomplete logic puzzle and name the colors of the empty squares. Test 16: Object–Number Sequencing (audio recording) The task requires listening to a series of mixed words and numbers and then repeating first the words and then the numbers. Item: boy – 1 – 4 – soap – 6 Correct: boy – soap – 1 – 4 – 6
Test 14: Picture Recognition The task is to look at a set of pictures and then identify the ones that were seen when shown a larger set of pictures. Which two did you see?	Test 17: Pair Cancellation (timed) The task requires scanning rows of three pictures (e.g., hot air balloon, leaf, balloon) repeated in random order and circling each instance of the target pair (e.g., hot air balloon, leaf).
	Test 18: Memory for Words (audio recording) The task requires repeating a list of unrelated words in the correct sequence. Repeat what I say: ruler, book, what
Mather, N., & Jaffe, L. E. (2016). Woodcock-Johnson IV: Reports, Recommendations, and Strategies (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Table 1.21 Example Items for the WJ IV Tests of Oral Language

Test 1: Picture Vocabulary The task requires naming common to less familiar pictured objects. What is this person holding? (Correct: gavel) Test 2: Oral Comprehension (audio recording) The task requires listening to short passages and then supplying the missing final word. Without a doubt, his novels are more complex than the novels of many other contemporary ___. (Correct: writers, novelists, authors) Test 3: Segmentation This task requires breaking apart the sounds in words, moving from compound words to syllables to individual speech sounds. rain – coat com-pu-ter /s/ /u / /n/	Test 6: Understanding Directions (audio recording) The task requires pointing to objects in a picture after listening to instructions that increase in length and linguistic complexity. Point to the man on the bike. Go. Point to car in the intersection after you point to one of the flying birds. Go. Before you point to the tallest building, point to the tree closest to a corner. Go.
Test 4: Rapid Picture Naming (timed) The task requires naming, as rapidly as possible, pictures of common objects presented in rows.	Test 7: Sound Blending (audio recording) The task requires blending a series of orally presented sounds (syllables and/or phonemes) into whole words. /b/a/s/k/e/t/ would be “basket.”
Test 5: Sentence Repetition (audio recording) The task requires exact repetition of sentences that increase in length and complexity. She got a bike. The tickets for the show were all sold out.	Test 8: Retrieval Fluency (timed) The task is to name as many items in a given category as possible in 1 minute. Three categories are presented. Name different things that you can wear. Name them as fast as you can. Begin.
	Test 9: Sound Awareness (audio recording) The task includes two measures of phonological awareness (rhyming and deletion). Tell me a word that rhymes with goat. (rhyming) Say the word “cat” without the /k/ sound. (deletion)
Mather, N., & Jaffe, L. E. (2016). Woodcock-Johnson IV: Reports, Recommendations, and Strategies (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Table 1.22 Example Items for the WJ IV Tests of Achievement: Standard Battery

Test 1: Letter-Word Identification The task requires identifying and pronouncing individual letters and words. g r cat palm	Test 7: Word Attack The task requires pronouncing nonwords that conform to English spelling rules. flib bungic
Test 2: Applied Problems The task involves analyzing and solving practical math problems. Bill had $7.00. He bought a ball for $3.95 and a comb for $1.20. How much money did he have left?	Test 8: Oral Reading The task requires reading a series of sentences that gradually increase in complexity. The flower was red. The geranium was blooming.
Test 3: Spelling The task requires the written spelling of words presented orally. Spell the word “horn.” She played the horn in the band. Horn.	Test 9: Sentence Reading Fluency The task requires rapidly reading and comprehending simple sentences. The sky is green. Y You can sit on a chair. N A bird has four wings. Y
Test 4: Passage Comprehension The task requires reading a short passage silently and then supplying a key missing word. The boy ______ off his bike. (Correct: fell, jumped) The book is one of a series of over eighty volumes. Each volume is designed to provide convenient ______ to a wide range of carefully selected articles. (Correct: access)	Test 10: Math Facts Fluency The task requires rapid calculation of simple, single-digit addition, subtraction, and multiplication facts. 2   5   6 + 3   − 3   × 7
Test 5: Calculation The task includes math computations from simple addition facts to complex equations. 2 + 4 = 3x + 3y = 15	Test 11: Sentence Writing Fluency The task requires quickly formulating and writing simple sentences using three given words and a picture prompt.
Test 6: Writing Samples The task requires writing sentences in response to a variety of demands. The sentences are evaluated based on the quality of expression. Write a good sentence that describes your favorite snack._________________________________ _________________________________
Mather, N., & Jaffe, L. E. (2016). Woodcock-Johnson IV: Reports, Recommendations, and Strategies (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Table 1.23 Example Items for the WJ IV Tests of Academic Achievement: Extended Battery

Test 12: Reading Recall The task requires reading passages of gradually increasing length and complexity and recalling the story elements. John went to the zoo on Saturday. He saw lots of animals, including elephants, monkeys, and giraffes.	Test 17: Reading Vocabulary The test involves reading words for two different tasks: providing synonyms and providing antonyms. cab (taxi) house (home)
Test 13: Number Matrices This task requires identifying a missing number in a number matrix.	Test 18: Science The task involves answering questions about curricular knowledge in various areas of the biological and physical sciences. What is the planet closest to Earth? What is a neutron?
Test 14: Editing The task requires identifying and correcting errors in spelling, punctuation, capitalization, or word usage in short typed passages. Bobby's face was so sunburned, it looked like he had fell into a bucket of red paint. (Correct: fallen)	Test 19: Social Studies The task involves answering questions about curricular knowledge of history, geography, government, and economics. Who was the first president of the United States? What is it called when a society or government is run by the wealthiest people?
Test 15: Word Reading Fluency This task requires quickly reading rows of words and circling the two words that go together. red tree blue pencil wheel show apple tire	Test 20: Humanities The task involves answering questions about art, music, and literature. What is the setting of a story? On a musical scale, how many notes are in an octave?
Test 16: Spelling of Sounds (audio recording) The task requires the written spelling of nonwords according to English spelling rules. barchessmuff
Mather, N., & Jaffe, L. E. (2016). Woodcock-Johnson IV: Reports, Recommendations, and Strategies (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons..

Score Equivalents, Classification Labels, and Average Grade Placement for Age

Figure 1.2 Normal Curve with Score Equivalents

Table 1.24 Various Types of Scores with Their Means and Standard Deviations

Score	Mean	SD
Deviation IQ	100	15
Percentile	50	NA
Z score	0.00	1.00
Scaled score	10	3
T score	50	10
GRE-like score	500	100

Table 1.25 Score Equivalents and Classification Labels

WJ IV Classifications	Deviation IQ Score	Percentile Rank	Z Score	Scaled Score	T Score	Stanine	Wechsler Classifications
Very Superior	145	99.9	+3.00	19	80		Extremely High
	144	99.8	+2.93
	143	99.8	+2.87
	142	99.7	+2.80		78
	141	99.7	+2.73
	140	99.6	+2.67	18	77
	139	99.5	+2.60
	138	99	+2.53			10
	137	99	+2.47		75
	136	99	+2.40
	135	99	+2.33	17	73
	134	99	+2.27
	133	99	+2.20		72
	132	98	+2.13
	131	98	+2.07
Superior	130	98	+2.00	16	70	9
	129	97	+1.93				Very High
	128	97	+1.87		68
	127	96	+1.80
	126	96	+1.73
	125	95	+1.67	15	67
	124	95	+1.60
	123	94	+1.53		65	8
	122	93	+1.47
	121	92	+1.40
High Average	120	91	+1.33	14	63
	119	90	+1.27				High Average
	118	88	+1.20		62
	117	87	+1.13
	116	86	+1.07
	115	84	+1.00	13		7
	114	82	+0.93
	113	81	+0.87		58
	112	79	+0.80
	111	77	+0.73
Average	110	75	+0.67	12	57
		109	73	+0.60			Average
	108	70	+0.53		55	6
	107	68	+0.47
	106	66	+0.40
	105	63	+0.33	11	53
	104	61	+0.27
	103	58	+0.20
	102	55	+0.13		52
	101	53	+0.07
	100	50	0.00	10	50	5
	99	47	−0.07
	98	45	−0.13		48
	97	42	−0.20
	96	39	−0.27
	95	37	−0.33	9	47
	94	34	−0.40
	93	32	−0.47		45	4
	92	30	−0.53
	91	27	−0.60
	90	25	−0.67	8	43
Low Average	89	23	−0.73				Low Average
	88	21	−0.80		42
	87	19	−0.87
	86	18	−0.93
	85	16	−1.00	7	40	3
	84	14	−1.07
	83	13	−1.13		38
	82	12	−1.20
	81	10	−1.27
	80	9	−1.33	6	37	2
Low	79	8	−1.40				Very Low
	78	7	−1.47		35	2
	77	6	−1.53
	76	5	−1.60
	75	5	−1.67	5	33
	74	4	−1.73
	73	4	−1.80		32
	72	3	−1.87
	71	3	−1.93
	70	2	−2.00	4	30	1
Very Low	69	2	−2.07				Extremely Low
	68	2	−2.13		28
	67	1	−2.20
	66	1	−2.27
	65	1	−2.33	3	27
	64	1	−2.40
	63	1	−2.47		25
	62	1	−2.53
	61	0.5	−2.60
	60	0.4	−2.67	2	23
	59	0.3	−2.73
	58	0.3	−2.80		22
	57	0.2	−2.87
	56	0.2	−2.93
	55	0.1	−3.00	1	20

Table 1.26 Average Grade Placement for Age

Yrs.-Mos.	Average Grade Placement		Yrs.-Mos.	Average Grade Placement		Yrs.-Mos.	Average Grade Placement
5–1 5–2 5–3 5–4 5–5	0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3		9–6 9–7 9–8 9–9 9–10 9–11	4.2 4.3 4.3 4.4 4.4 4.5		14.0 14.1 14.2 14.3 14.4 14.5	8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.9 9.0
5–6 5–7 5–8 5–9 5–10 5–11	0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6		10–0 10–1 10–2 10–3 10–4 10–5	4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 5.0 5.1		14.6 14.7 14.8 14.9 14.10 14.11	9.1 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.3 9.4
6–0 6–1 6–2 6–3 6–4 6–5	0.7 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3		10–6 10–7 10–8 10–9 10–10 10–11	5.2 5.3 5.3 5.4 5.4 5.5		15–0 15–1 15–2 15–3 15–4 15–5	9.5 9.6 9.7 9.8 9.9 10.0
6–6 6–7 6–8 6–9 6–10 6–11	1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5		11–0 11–1 11–2 11–3 11–4 11–5	5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 6.0		15–6 15–7 15–8 15–9 15–10 15–11	10.1 10.2 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.4
7–0 7–1 7–2 7–3 7–4 7–5	1.6 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2		11–6 11–7 11–8 11–9 11–10 11–11	6.1 6.2 6.2 6.3 6.3 6.4		16–0 16–1 16–2 16–3 16–4 16–5	10.5 10.6 10.7 10.8 11.0 11.1
7–6 7–7 7–8 7–9 7–10 7–11	2.2 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.5		12–0 12–1 12–2 12–3 12–4 12–5	6.5 6.7 6.8 6.9 6.9 7.0		16–6 16–7 16–8 16–9 16–10 16–11	11.2 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 11.6
8–0 8–1 8–2 8–3 8–4 8–5	2.6 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.1		12–6 12–7 12–8 12–9 12–10 12–11	7.1 7.2 7.2 7.3 7.3 7.4		17–0 17–1 17–2 17–3 17–4 17–5	11.8 11.9 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3
8–6 8–7 8–8 8–9 8–10 8–11	3.2 3.3 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.5		13–0 13–1 13–2 13–3 13–4 13–5	7.5 7.7 7.8 7.9 8.0 8.1		17–6 17–7 17–8 17–9 17–10 17–11	12.4 12.5 12.6 12.7 12.8 12.9
9–0 9–1 9–2 9–3 9–4 9–5	3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.1		13–6 13–7 13–8 13–9 13–10 13–11	8.2 8.2 8.2 8.3 8.3 8.4
From: Woodcock, R. W., & Johnson, M. B. (1977). Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery (p. 120). Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.

Tips for Interpretation

General Tips

The following section provides examples of basic tips to facilitate accurate interpretation of the test results, followed by specific examples of possible cluster and test comparisons.

Significant Differences Exist between or Among the Tests Within a Cluster

If significant discrepancies exist between or among the individual test scores within a factor or cluster, report performance on the narrow abilities and, using task analysis and other test results, attempt to explain the reason or reasons for the difference between the scores. Also consider how this information may alter interpretation or use of the factor/cluster score.

Example: Alyssa's Cognitive Processing Speed cluster score fell in the Low Average range with Pair Cancellation in the average range and Letter-Pattern Matching in the very low range. Further testing shows that the Perceptual Speed cluster is also in the Low Average range, with a similar split between Number-Pattern Matching (average) and Letter-Pattern Matching. Spelling is in the Low range. The evaluator hypothesizes that, despite the cluster scores, Alyssa's actual cognitive processing speed and perceptual speed are Average, but that orthographic processing (recognition of common letter patterns) is deficient. Qualitative analysis of spelling reinforces this hypothesis, as Alyssa has made errors only on words that are not spelled as they sound, and those she has spelled phonetically (e.g., thay, jumpt). Further analysis of reading errors and reading speed could confirm this hypothesis.

Attempt to Determine the Common Abilities Required on Tests on Which the Student Performed Well and Tests on which the Student Performed Poorly

Look for any similarities and differences between and among the task demands and subskills required by the tests on which the student performed well, as well as similarities between and among the tests on which the examinee performed poorly. Also examine the types of errors made on test items, determine whether a pattern of errors exists, and note any strategies the examinee used. Based on these comparisons, attempt to determine the narrow abilities that appear strong throughout testing and those that appear weak. For examples, see Specific Comparisons, in the following section.

Review Both Peer Comparison Scores and RPIs

When making determinations about cognitive, oral language, or academic strengths and weaknesses, check both Relative Performance Indices (RPIs) and peer comparison scores (standard scores and percentile ranks). Both provide valuable, but different, types of information. Although standard scores might be necessary for making eligibility decisions, the RPIs are more indicative of the level of ease or difficulty that the student actually has with the task.

Consider the Impact of Attention and Behavior on Test Results

While testing, take notes regarding difficulties with attention, impulse control, persistence, activity level, fatigue, and any other behaviors that might affect test performance. Low scores on tests in which the student displays these behaviors may be more indicative of primary emotional or behavioral issues (e.g., test anxiety, poor attention, depression) than of weaknesses in the assessed skills. Also, if attention is a problem, note the tests during which a student's inattentive behaviors increase. These may be tests requiring the skills that are most difficult for the student. Review your notes and your responses on the Test Session Observation Checklist. Target behaviors of concern to explore in more depth.

In your report, describe the behaviors and their possible effect on the test results (e.g., “The student's low frustration tolerance appeared to affect his effort in the test situation. If he did not know an answer immediately, he refused to try to think it through and would not respond to encouragement. Consequently, his current scores may underestimate his true abilities.”)

Record any comments the student makes indicating his attitude toward certain tasks (e.g., “I hate (or love) math,” “I hate tests like these. It always looks like there's a million things on the page and I get confused.”); comments regarding school in general or any aspect of school (e.g., “The teacher always picks on me”); and comments about himself as a learner (e.g., “I never remember that,” “I'm always the last one finished,” or “I'm really good at science”).

Note any behavioral changes in response to tests with different formats, subject areas, or response requirements. For example, compare the student's attitude, persistence, and level of cooperation on timed versus untimed measures; oral versus written measures; cognitive, oral language, and academic tests; and in various skill areas (e.g., reading versus math). A change in behavior may provide clues as to task demands that are easy and those that are difficult.

Consider the Differences in Task Demands Among Measures of Similar Constructs

Each WJ IV test measures a different aspect of performance. A comparison among tests and their unique demands can often lead to insights regarding interpretation of an individual's performance.

Specific Comparisons

The following section provides examples of the types of comparisons that can provide additional insights into test performance.

Memory

1. Compare performance on memory tests that require retention of both visual and auditory associations (e.g., Visual-Auditory Learning) with those that require only auditory memory (e.g., Memory for Words and Sentence Repetition). If one memory system appears obviously stronger, also consider other task demands that might be relevant. For example, the Visual-Auditory Learning test includes corrective feedback on error responses and requires repeated retrieval of the symbol names over time, whereas the other two tests require only one immediate response.
2. Compare performance on working memory tests (e.g., Verbal Attention, Numbers Reversed, Understanding Directions, and Object-Number Sequencing) with performance on tests that measure memory span (e.g., Memory for Words and Sentence Repetition). If performance on memory span tests is higher, consider that the student may have more difficulty with the divided attention required by short-term working memory than with rote sequential memory.
3. If performance is low on tests of meaningful memory (e.g., Story Recall, Understanding Directions, Sentence Repetition), consider the effect of the student's level of acquired knowledge and language development on performance. Low performance may be more a reflection of lack of experience or limited language abilities than of poor memory. Also consider the heavy short-term working memory load imposed by Understanding Directions.
4. Compare performance on short-term working memory tests (e.g., Verbal Attention, Memory for Words, Numbers Reversed, Object-Number Sequencing) to performance on tests that require meaningful memory (e.g., Sentence Repetition, Story Recall, Understanding Directions). Check to see whether performance improves when the information is more meaningful. Also compare Story Recall with Sentence Repetition and Understanding Directions, because Story Recall has the highest level of context, and Understanding Directions has the most complex syntax.
5. Compare performance on tasks that involve retrieval of old learning (e.g., Picture Vocabulary, General Information) with those that involve storage and retrieval of new learning (e.g., Visual-Auditory Learning). High performance on old learning in contrast to low performance on new learning suggests difficulty with comprehending and/or storing new information.

Academic Fluency/Processing Speed

1. If scores in Sentence Reading Fluency, Math Facts Fluency, and Sentence Writing Fluency are all low, compare the Academic Fluency cluster score with the Cognitive Processing Speed and Perceptual Speed cluster scores to determine whether the student has a generalized slow speed of processing or is only slow when tasks involve academic material. Also check Number-Pattern Matching, which, if low, might reinforce a weakness in processing speed. Another indicator of a weakness in processing speed in all of these tests is that most items are correct but fewer are completed.
2. Compare performance on tasks involving rapid visual scanning (e.g., Letter-Pattern Matching, Number-Pattern Matching, and Pair Cancellation) with those involving rapid word retrieval (e.g., Rapid Picture Naming and Retrieval Fluency). If visual scanning is fast and speed of lexical access is slow, consider a problem in naming speed or word retrieval. If speed of lexical access is fast and visual scanning is slow, consider a problem in perceptual speed. Look at the student's behaviors and scores on other tests and on classroom tasks to corroborate these hypotheses.
3. If scores on all tests requiring rapid visual scanning of symbols (e.g., Letter-Pattern Matching, Number-Pattern Matching, Pair Cancellation) are low, consider the possibility of visual or ocular-motor problems. Other behaviors that may indicate ocular-motor problems include losing the place, skipping lines, and using a finger or pencil to aid in tracking along a line when reading.
4. Note on Letter-Pattern Matching and Number-Pattern Matching whether the student displays a pattern of matching one or more transposed letters or numbers (e.g., oa and ao, 16 and 61), or skips lines. These behaviors suggest inefficiency with scanning and may be related to problems with the efficient processing of print.

Oral Language

Although the WJ IV OL tests are not sufficient to diagnose a primary language disorder, the test results can provide strong indications as to generalized and specific language problems that would necessitate a referral to a speech-language pathologist for further evaluation.

1. Compare the student's performance on Oral Vocabulary with that on Reading Vocabulary. If Oral Vocabulary and Reading Vocabulary are both low, consider that the student's limited oral vocabulary also limits reading vocabulary. If the student's score on the oral test is high and the reading test score is low, consider that weak decoding skills prevent the student from demonstrating word knowledge when reading. Check Letter-Word Identification and Word Attack for additional diagnostic information.
2. If Oral Vocabulary, Reading Vocabulary, and Picture Vocabulary are all low, consider a primary language disorder affecting vocabulary acquisition. Check tests that require oral language comprehension (e.g., Oral Comprehension, Story Recall).
3. Consider that limited reading experiences, especially from middle school on, often cause limited oral vocabulary and background knowledge. A student with poor basic reading skills is not reading or comprehending sufficient text from which to learn new words and information at the same rate as age- or grade-peers.
4. Compare the student's performance on tests of oral vocabulary (e.g., Oral Vocabulary, Picture Vocabulary) with tests that require oral comprehension of connected discourse (e.g., Oral Comprehension, Story Recall, Understanding Directions). If vocabulary knowledge is significantly better than discourse comprehension, consider a weakness in language comprehension (especially syntax) or short-term working memory.
5. Analyze the student's responses on Story Recall, Reading Recall, Writing Samples, and Sentence Writing Fluency to provide insights into sentence formulation. Indications of difficulties on Story Recall would include responses that indicate knowledge of the content but are poorly organized and unclear, contain word substitutions, and demonstrate obvious difficulty with word retrieval. Similar difficulties would be apparent on Reading Recall. Recording the examinee's responses to these tests facilitates language analysis. Indication of difficulties on Writing Samples includes omission of key words and sentence structure that is particularly simple (on the higher items) or has syntax that is sufficiently awkward to obscure sentence meaning. Indication of difficulties on Sentence Writing Fluency would include omission of key words, changed words, and awkward syntax.
6. Consider that the student may have a primary language disorder if many oral language tests are low (e.g., Oral Vocabulary, Phonological Processing, Nonword Repetition, Picture Vocabulary, Segmentation, Sound Blending, Retrieval Fluency, Story Recall, Oral Comprehension, Understanding Directions, Rapid Picture Naming). Poor short-term working memory for linguistic information (e.g., Memory for Words, Sentence Repetition) is also likely to be low. Acquisition of academic knowledge, reading comprehension, and written expression are also likely to be low. In contrast, tests that involve minimal oral language (e.g., simple instructions along with pictures) should be higher (e.g., Visualization, Letter-Pattern Matching, Number-Pattern Matching, Numbers Reversed, Picture Recognition, Calculation).
7. Compare the student's performance on Picture Vocabulary and Rapid Picture Naming—both relatively simple tasks that require the student to retrieve single words from memory. If the student performs well on Picture Vocabulary but poorly on Rapid Picture Naming, consider a problem with the speed of lexical access or word retrieval. Although both require retrieval of a specific word, only Rapid Picture Naming is timed, increasing the need for automaticity of response. Although low Retrieval Fluency may reinforce the possibility of a word retrieval problem, average performance would not exclude it. Because Retrieval Fluency allows for a broader range of acceptable responses, it may not be as sensitive to word retrieval difficulties as Rapid Picture Naming. Difficulty with both Rapid Picture Naming and Retrieval Fluency also could be related to speed of processing.
8. If the student speaks Spanish, compare performance on the WJ IV OL English language tests with performance on the Spanish tests. Calculate a Comparative Language Index and determine whether additional testing is necessary in either or both languages.

Phonological Awareness to Print

Keep in mind that the progression of phonological awareness is developmental. Generally, the progression is as follows:

• Preschool: segmenting sentences into words
• Preschool to kindergarten: rhyming
• Kindergarten: segmenting words into syllables and deleting syllables
• Grade 1: blending, segmenting, deleting, and adding phonemes
• Grades 1–2: manipulation (e.g., substitution, transposition) of phonemes

Many children are not able to perform the deletion task on the WJ IV Sound Awareness test until the end of first grade.

1. If a student has low performance on both Sound Blending and Segmentation, recommend instruction in both blending (synthesizing sounds) and segmenting (analyzing sounds).
2. Some individuals have trouble learning to rhyme but can learn to blend and segment sounds. If a student has difficulty with rhyming and deletion on Sound Awareness, check performance on the Sound Blending and Segmentation tests.
3. Phonological awareness abilities can be developed through carefully planned instruction. In interpreting assessment results, consider how the current or past method of reading instruction may have affected the student's performance rather than assuming that the student developed these abilities through incidental learning. The student may have had difficulties that continue to affect reading and spelling, despite ostensibly adequate phonological skills.
4. Before deciding that a student has a weakness in orthographic processing (i.e., recognition and recall of spelling patterns and letter forms), make sure that phonological awareness skills are developed. Phonological awareness provides the foundation on which orthographic coding skills are built.
5. Students who speak English as a second language may misperceive some English phonemes and receive low scores on measures of phonological awareness, such as Nonword Repetition and Sound Blending. These low scores may be more a reflection of their limited familiarity with English phonemes than poor phonological awareness. If possible, evaluate these skills in their native language also.
6. Compare the results of the Phonetic Coding cluster (Sound Blending and Segmentation) with the Phoneme-Grapheme cluster (Word Attack and Spelling of Sounds). If phonetic coding is significantly higher than phoneme/grapheme knowledge, the problem is likely in knowledge of letter/sound relationships (phonics) or orthographic processing. If performance is low on both, the student needs instruction in blending and segmentation, as well as in phonics.
7. If analysis of Sound Awareness indicates good rhyming ability but a weakness in deleting phonemes within words, and scores on Sound Blending and Segmentation are low, the student may benefit from a word family approach to reading instruction while learning the more complex phonological awareness skills that will enable her to make better use of phonics.
8. Before recommending phonological awareness training for older students with reading disabilities, make sure that their problems are not related to the orthographic features of words (recalling letter patterns) rather than to the phonological features. If the student includes all of the sounds and sequences them correctly on the Spelling of Sounds and Spelling tests (even though the word may be misspelled), instruction in phonological awareness is probably unnecessary. The following performance patterns may indicate that instruction should instead be directed to mastery of common English spelling patterns:
   • Spellings on Spelling of Sounds, Spelling, and Writing Samples that are phonically accurate (correct sound-symbol correspondence) but violate spelling rules and include letter combinations that are unlikely to occur in written English (kw instead of qu)
   • Attempts to sound out words that would normally be recognized as sight words (e.g., was)
   • Scores on Sound Blending, Segmentation, and Sound Awareness are average or better but Letter-Word Identification, Word Attack, Sentence Reading Fluency, and Spelling are weak. Word Attack may be higher if the student has developed knowledge of phoneme-grapheme correspondences.

Basic Reading and Writing Skills

1. Record errors on both the Letter-Word Identification and Word Attack tests for later error analysis. Through error analysis, attempt to discern patterns of performance (e.g., the student is able to identify initial and final sounds but has difficulty with medial vowel sounds; the student does not know how to divide a word into syllables and how the syllable type affects the sound of the vowel).
2. If Letter-Word Identification is higher than Word Attack, the student may be depending on sight word recognition rather than the application of phonic skills. Determine whether the student has a weakness in phonological processing or foundational reading subskills that may be contributing to poor decoding.
3. To evaluate fluency, when listening to the Oral Reading test, consider the individual's expression, such as pausing at punctuation, reading in phrases, and changes in tone of voice.
4. Compare Word Reading Fluency and Sentence Reading Fluency with Letter-Word Identification and Word Attack. If all are low, it is likely that poor basic reading skills are preventing the development of fluency. If only the timed measures are low, it is likely that the student needs to engage in activities to build automaticity and increase reading rate.
5. Compare Letter-Word Identification, Word Attack, and Word Reading Fluency with Oral Reading and Sentence Reading Fluency to determine whether increased context improves basic reading skills.
6. If the student demonstrates weaknesses in basic reading skills, check performance on the tests of phonological awareness to determine whether weak phonological awareness skills are contributing to weak basic reading skills. If the results are inconclusive, consider administering a standardized test of phonological awareness.
7. Compare performance on the Spelling and Spelling of Sounds tests. Check Spelling to see whether the student has mastered spellings of high-frequency words (not all of the words are high frequency) and Spelling of Sounds to see whether the student knows the spelling conventions of English in words that have not been memorized.
8. Compare performance on Word Attack and Spelling of Sounds. Check to see that the student can use phoneme/grapheme correspondences and orthographic conventions for both reading and spelling nonsense words that conform to English spelling patterns.
9. On Editing, make a note of whether the student is able to detect the error, even if he cannot correct it.

Reading Comprehension

1. Research indicates that most students who have good oral reading skills and poor comprehension have deficits in comprehension of oral language (Catts, Adlof, & Ellisi-Weismer, 2006; Snowling & Hulme, 2011; Spencer, Quinn, & Wagner, 2014). Compare tests requiring basic reading skills (Letter-Word Identification, Word Attack) with tests requiring reading comprehension (Passage Comprehension, Reading Recall). If performance in basic reading skills is higher than performance in reading comprehension, give tests from the WJ IV OL or COG (e.g., Oral Comprehension, Story Recall) to explore the possibility of a weakness in oral language. Also check to see whether limited knowledge and vocabulary are contributing factors.
2. Analyze errors on Passage Comprehension to see whether the student's answers are syntactically correct. If many error items are not syntactically correct, consider the possibility of a problem in comprehension of oral syntax.
3. Consider performance on Science, Social Studies, Humanities, and General Information, and the oral vocabulary tests. Limited background knowledge or vocabulary may be the reason for poor reading comprehension.
4. Compare performance on Passage Comprehension with Oral Comprehension, Reading Vocabulary with Oral Vocabulary, and Reading Recall with Story Recall to see whether a difference exists between comprehension of written language versus oral language. In general, high correlations exist between these measures unless the student is having trouble with basic reading skills. In secondary and postsecondary students, reading comprehension may be higher than listening comprehension, because in written text, language is visible and the memory demands decrease.
5. Compare results on the Sentence Reading Fluency and Passage Comprehension tests with tasks that involve increased content, such as Reading Recall. Attempt to determine whether increased content helps or hinders the student's reading comprehension.

Written Expression

1. Compare performance on Writing Samples to measures and observations of oral language abilities. Attempt to determine whether the quality of written expression is similar to the quality of oral expression.
2. Compare the syntactic complexity of the sentences produced on Writing Samples and Sentence Writing Fluency. Determine whether the student is able to write long, complex sentences with substantial content, as well as short, simple sentences.
3. Analyze spelling on Writing Samples and compare with performance on Spelling and Spelling of Sounds. See whether spelling performance deteriorates when the student has to integrate many aspects of writing.
4. Analyze the student's use of punctuation and capitalization on the Writing Samples test. Compare with Editing to see whether the student knows the rules and can correct errors when she does not have to write but cannot simultaneously formulate a sentence; retrieve spellings; execute the mechanical act of writing; and attend to punctuation, capitalization, and usage. Do a similar analysis of unedited classroom writing samples.
5. Compare performances on Sentence Writing Fluency, Sentence Reading Fluency, and Math Facts Fluency to determine whether the student has a similar rate on all timed measures.

Handwriting

1. Evaluate and record the specific factors affecting legibility: slant, spacing, size, horizontal alignment, letter formation, and line quality. List the elements that need improvement.
2. Compare the student's performance on Sentence Writing Fluency, a timed test, with performance on Writing Samples and Spelling. Sentence Writing Fluency is most indicative of a student's fastest handwriting, whereas Writing Samples and Spelling represent handwriting under typical writing conditions. If the student writes legibly on the Writing Samples and Spelling tests, conclude that handwriting is adequate under typical conditions.
3. For older students (middle school and up), writing rate has more of an effect on writing skill than does quality of handwriting. If a student has a compromised writing rate, specific accommodations are often necessary.
4. If a student in the upper elementary grades or higher is struggling with handwriting, check to see whether he has developed competent keyboarding skill. If not, recommend instruction in word processing.
5. If the student evidences significantly poor quality of manuscript (print), observe her as she writes. Note whether the strokes she uses to make her letters are made in the correct sequence and whether the direction of the strokes is correct (generally left to right, top to bottom). Multiple errors of this type impede the development of writing fluency and automaticity.
6. Note the student's pencil grip as she writes. An awkward or particularly odd grip could indicate weakness in hand muscles. Consider a referral to an educational occupational therapist for evaluation.
7. Note the student's posture as she writes. An extreme tilt of the head to one side or the other may indicate inefficient visual functioning such as the suppression of one eye. After the test, ask the student about her ability to see the paper and the reason for turning her head.

Mathematics

1. If the student is slow on tests of Perceptual Speed (Letter-Pattern and Number-Pattern Matching) and Math Fluency, and makes many errors on Calculation and Applied Problems, consider that slow processing speed may have impeded the development of automaticity of math facts and procedures, thus leaving little cognitive attention available for more complex application of those skills.
2. If the student has difficulty with all math tests as well as Numbers Reversed and Number-Pattern Matching, analyze Object-Number Sequencing to see whether she had difficulty with only the numbers but not the “things.” If so, consider that she may have specific difficulty visualizing and working with number symbols.
3. Analyze the student's errors on Math Facts Fluency. Many incorrect responses may indicate a weakness in understanding the operations, inattention to the operation signs, and/or poor knowledge of facts; correct but few answers may indicate lack of automaticity. Observe the student during the test to see whether she is compensating for limited knowledge by counting on her fingers or making hatch marks.
4. Compare performance on Math Facts Fluency with Calculation to see whether low performance in basic skills is a result of delayed automaticity with math facts or limited procedural knowledge.
5. Compare results on Math Facts Fluency with Sentence Reading Fluency and Sentence Writing Fluency to determine whether performance on all timed academic tests are similar. If the student's performance on these are low but performance on basic and applied math skills is adequate, consider slow processing/perceptual speed as a contributing factor.
6. Errors are often rule-governed; the student misunderstands the rule, misapplies the rule, or has made up a rule. Analyze errors on all of the math tests to attempt to determine the reason for errors on specific items. If needed, give the student a similar problem and ask her to explain the procedure while solving the problem. Example: The student attempts to solve 7 × 13 (in a vertical format) and comes up with an answer of 22. Verbalizing her procedure, she says, “7 times 3 is 21.” She then points to the 1 in the 13 and said, “Add the one and that's 22.” Her process indicates that she does not understand the problem as 7 groups of 13. Her rule is to multiply the first number and then add the second.
7. Consider that the student may obtain an average or better score on the Calculation test without having the grade-expected skills. If the student has used a variety of inefficient processes (e.g., counting on fingers, repeated addition instead of multiplication) to compensate for lack of procedural (e.g., use of algorithms) or conceptual (e.g., place value) knowledge and math information (e.g., units of measurement equivalencies), point out the difference between her scores and her approach to the tasks.
8. If the student has difficulty with Applied Problems and Number Matrices but Calculation appears adequate, check her performance on Concept Formation to see whether she has difficulty working with multiple elements of a problem simultaneously and abstracting the superordinate features.
9. If the student is having difficulty discerning number patterns, see whether the level at which she breaks down provides any information about her flexibility with number relationships. Example: The student can respond correctly as long as the increment between numbers is static (e.g., 6–9–12…) but has difficulty when the increment changes within a pattern (e.g., 6–9–13–18…).