Eighty Woodcock–Johnson IV Tests of Achievement protocols from 40 test administrators were examined to determine the types and frequencies of administration and scoring errors made. Non-critical errors (e.g., failure to record verbatim) were found on every protocol (M = 37.2). Critical (e.g., standard score, start point) errors were found on 98.8% of protocols (M = 15.3). Additionally, a series of paired samples t-test were conducted to determine differences in total, critical, and non-critical errors pre- and during-COVID-19. No statistic differences were found. Our findings add to a growing body of research that suggests that errors on norm-referenced tests of achievement are pervasive. However, the frequency of errors did not appear to be affected by COVID-19 stressors or social distancing requirements. Implications of these findings for training and practice are discussed. Suggestions for future research are also provided.
AlfonsoV. C.JohnsonA.PatinellaL.RaderD. E. (1998). Common WISC-III examiner errors: Evidence from graduate students in training. Psychology in the Schools, 35(2), 119–125. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1520-6807(199804)
2.
BensonN. F.FloydR. G.KranzlerJ. H.EckertT. L.FeferS. A.MorganG. B. (2019). Test use and assessment practices of school psychologists in the United States: Findings from the 2017 national survey. Journal of School Psychology, 72, 29–48. https/doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2018.12.004
3.
BreauxK. C.LichtenbergerE. O. (2016). Essentials of KTEA-3 and WIAT-III assessment. John Wiley & Sons
FarmerR. L.McGillR. J.DombrowskiS. C.McClainM. B.HarrisB.LockwoodA. B.PowellS. L.PynnC.Smith-KellenS.LoethenE.BensonN. F.StinnettT. A. (2020). Teleassessment with children and adolescents during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and beyond: Practice and policy implications. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 51(5), 477–487. https://doi.org/10.1037/pro0000349
6.
FieldA. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Sage.
7.
HarrisonG. L.GoeganL. D.MacounS. J. (2019). Common examiner scoring errors on academic achievement measures. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 34(2), 98–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/0829573518763484
8.
JenkinsJ. R.HudsonR. F.JohnsonE. S. (2007). Screening for at-risk readers in a response to intervention framework. School Psychology Review, 36(4), 582–600. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2007.12087919
9.
KauffmanJ. M.NelsonC. M.SimpsonR. L.WardD. M. (2017). Contemporary issues. In KauffmanJ. M.CallahanD. P.PullenP. C. (Eds.), Handbook of special education (pp. 16–28). Routledge.
10.
KaufmanA. S.KaufmanN. L. (2014). Kaufman test of educational achievement (3rd ed.). Pearson.
11.
LobelloS. G.HolleyG. (1999). WPPSI-R administration, clerical, and scoring errors by student examiners. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 17(1), 15–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/073428299901700102
12.
LockwoodA.FarmerR.WinansS.SealanderK. (2021). Specific learning disability identification practices in the U.S.A: A survey of special education administrators. Contemporary School Psychology, 26, 535–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-021-00375-4
13.
LockwoodA. B.FarmerR. L.BohanK. J.WinansS.SealanderK. (2021). Academic achievement test use and assessment practices: A national survey of special education administrators. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 39(4), 436–451. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282920984290
14.
LockwoodA. B.FarmerR. L.SchmittM.SealanderK.LantermanC.AdkinsM. (2022). The course on norm-referenced academic assessment: A survey of special education faculty. Psychology in the Schools, 59(2), 398–412. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22616
15.
LockwoodA. B.KlatkaK.FreemanK.FarmerR. L.BensonN. (2023). School psychology trainees’ administration and scoring errors on The Woodcock Johnson IV Tests of Achievement. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 41(1), 36–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/07342829221124355
16.
LockwoodA. B.SealanderK.GrossT. J.LantermanC. (2020). Teacher trainees’ administration and scoring errors on the Kaufman test of educational achievement. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 38(5), 551–563. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282919871144
17.
LoeS. A. (2014). Examiner errors on the Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales committed by graduate student examiners. Psychology in the Schools, 51(1), 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21738
18.
MakiK. E.FloydR. G.RobersonT. (2015). State learning disability eligibility criteria: A comprehensive review. School Psychology Quarterly: The Official Journal of the Division of School Psychology, American Psychological Association, 30(4), 457–469. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000109
19.
MorganP. L.FriscoM. L.FarkasG.HibelJ. (2010). A propensity score matching analysis of the effects of special education services. The Journal of Special Education, 43(4), 236–254. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466908323007
20.
MrazikM.JanzenT. M.DombrowskiS. C.BarfordS. W.KrawchukL. L. (2012). Administration and scoring errors of graduate students learning the WISC-IV: Issues and controversies. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 27(4), 279–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/0829573512454106
OakE.ViezelK. D.DumontR.WillisJ. (2019). Wechsler administration and scoring errors made by graduate students and school psychologists. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 37(6), 679–691. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282918786355
24.
SchrankF. A.MatherN.McGrewK. S. (2014). Woodcock-Johnson IV tests of achievement. Riverside.
25.
SherretsS.GardG.LangnerH. (1979). Frequency of clerical errors on WISC protocols. Psychology in the Schools, 16(4), 495–496. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6807(197910)
26.
SlateJ. R.JonesC. H.MurrayR. A. (1991). Teaching administration and scoring of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—Revised: An empirical evaluation of practice administrations. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 22(5), 375–379. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.22.5.375
27.
SlateJ. R.JonesC. H.MurrayR. A.CoulterC. (1993). Evidence that practitioners err in administering and scoring the WAIS—R. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 25(4), 156–161.
28.
StyckK. M.WalshS. M. (2016). Evaluating the prevalence and impact of examiner errors on the Wechsler scales of intelligence: A meta-analysis. Psychological Assessment, 28(1), 3–17. https://10.1037/pas0000157
29.
TorgesenJ. K. (2002). Empirical and theoretical support for direct diagnosis of learning disabilities by assessment of intrinsic processing weaknesses. In BradleyR.DanielsonL.HallahanD. P. (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 565–613). Erlbaum.
30.
WechslerD. (2009). Wechsler individual achievement test (3rd ed.). Pearson.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
