The KeyMath-3 Diagnostic Assessment (KM-3) is an individually-administered math assessment used in educational placement and diagnostic decisions. It includes 10 subtests making up Basic Concepts, Operations, and Applications indexes and a “Total Test” composite that measures overall math ability. Here, covariances among subtests from the norming sample were analyzed with confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to investigate the validity of the three-index scoring structure for identifying relative strengths and weaknesses in math skills. Results indicated a single-factor structure, along with a “hand computation” subfactor potentially representing arithmetic calculation, was the most viable CFA model. The factor is largely measured in the same way across grade groups. At the subtest level, two calculation subtests yielded sufficient specificity for interpretation across all grades; three additional subtests had sufficient specificity at particular grade levels. These findings suggest the KM-3 primarily measures overall math ability and the utility of the three index scores is limited.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association.
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(2019), 29–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2018.12.004
3.
BrownT. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). Guilford.
4.
BryantB. R.BryantD. P.PorterfieldJ.DennisM. S.FalcomataT.ValentineC.BrewerC.BellK. (2016). The effects of a tier 3 intervention on the mathematics performance of second grade students with severe mathematics difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49(2), 176–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219414538516
5.
ClaessensA.EngelM. (2013). How important is where you start? Early mathematics knowledge and later school success. Teachers College Record, 115(6), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811311500603
6.
ConnollyA. J. (1988b). KeyMath–revised: A diagnostic inventory of essential mathematics. American Guidance Service.
7.
ConnollyA. J. (1998a). KeyMath–revised normative update: A diagnostic inventory of essential mathematics. American Guidance Service.
8.
ConnollyA. J. (2007). KeyMath-3 diagnostic assessment manual. Pearson.
9.
DrefsM. A.BeranT.FiorM. (2013). Methods of assessing academic achievement. In SaklofskeD. H.ReynoldsC. R.SchweanV. L. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of childhood psychological assessment (pp. 562–585). Oxford University Press.
10.
ElliottC. D. (2007). Differential ability scales. Introductory and technical handbook (2nd ed.). PsychCorp.
11.
FeldtL. S.CharterR. A. (2006). Averaging internal consistency reliability coefficients. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(2), 215–227. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164404273947
12.
FloresM. M.HintonV. M.BlantonE. N. (2023). Remote teaching of multidigit multiplication for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 46(4), 292–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/07319487221103838
13.
GrahamT. (2010). Review of the KeyMath-3 diagnostic assessment. In SpiesR. A.CarlsonJ. F.GeisingerK. F. (Eds.), The eighteenth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 281–284). Buros Institute.
14.
HuL.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
15.
KangY.McNeishD. M.HancockG. R. (2016). The role of measurement quality on practical guidelines for assessing measurement and structural invariance. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 76(4), 533–561. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164415603764
16.
KaufmanA. S. (1994). Intelligent testing with the WISC-III. Wiley.
17.
KeithT. Z. (2019). Multiple regression and beyond: An introduction to multiple regression and structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). Routledge.
18.
KeithT. Z.CaemmererJ. M.ReynoldsM. R. (2016). Comparison of methods for factor extraction for cognitive test‐like data: Which overfactor, which underfactor?Intelligence, 54(2016), 37–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2015.11.003
19.
KeithT. Z.ReynoldsM. R. (2018). Using confirmatory factor analysis to aid in understanding the constructs measured by intelligence tests. In FlanaganD. P.McDonoughE. M. (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (4th ed.). Guilford.
20.
LaneS.MooreD. (2010). Review of the KeyMath-3 diagnostic assessment. In SpiesR. A.CarlsonJ. F.GeisingerK. F. (Eds.), The eighteenth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 281–284). Buros Institute.
21.
LittleT. D. (2013). Longitudinal structural equation modeling. Guilford.
22.
LockwoodA. B.BensonN.FarmerR. L.KlatkaK. (2022). Test use and assessment practices of school psychology training programs: Findings from a 2020 survey of US faculty. Psychology in the Schools, 59(4), 698–725. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22639
23.
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
24.
MacCallumR. C.BrowneM. W.SugawaraH. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1(2), 130–149. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130
25.
McDonaldR. P.MarshH. W. (1990). Choosing a multivariate model: Noncentrality and goodness of fit. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 247–255. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.247
26.
MeadeA. W.JohnsonE. C.BraddyP. W. (2008). Power and sensitivity of alternative fit indices in tests of measurement invariance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3), 568–592. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.3.568
27.
ReynaV. F.BrainerdC. J. (2007). The importance of mathematics in health and human judgment: Numeracy, risk communication, and medical decision making. Learning and Individual Differences, 17(2), 147–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2007.03.010
28.
RhodesK. T.Branum-MartinL.MorrisR. D.RomskiM.SevcikR. A. (2015). Testing math or testing language? The construct validity of the KeyMath-revised for children with intellectual disability and language difficulties. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 120(6), 542–568. https://doi.org/10.1352/1944-7558-120.6.542
29.
RosliR. (2011). Test review: A. J. Connolly KeyMath-3 diagnostic assessment: Manual forms A and B. Minneapolis, mn: Pearson, 2007. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29(1), 94–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282910370138
30.
Schermelleh-EngelK.MoosbruggerH.MüllerH. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(20), 23–74. https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.12784
31.
ShapkaJ. D.DomeneJ. F.KeatingD. P. (2006). Trajectories of career aspirations through adolescence and young adulthood: Early math achievement as a critical filter. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12(4), 347–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803610600765752
WilliamsT. O.FallA.EavesR. C.DarchC.Woods-GrovesS. (2007). Factor analysis of the KeyMath-revised normative update form A. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 32(2), 113–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/15345084070320020201
37.
XiménezC.Maydeu-OlivaresA.ShiD.RevueltaJ. (2022). Assessing cutoff values of SEM fit indices: Advantages of the unbiased SRMR index and its cutoff criterion based on communality. Structural Education Modeling, 29(3), 368–380. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2021.1992596
