Part I:
Jose is a 12 year old Dominican male. He is Spanish speaking and is currently in the 6th grade at ABC Middle School. Jose was born in the Dominican Republic and migrated to the United States with his father when he was 9 years old. Jose currently lives in his aunt’s house with his father, an older brother and his paternal grandmother. The primary language spoken in the home is Spanish although he has some exposure to English at home as well. Upon arrival and placement in school, Jose’s teacher sent home a classroom inquiry questionnaire to obtain background information Jose and his family. In response to a question, Jose’s father responded, “Jose es lento para aprender,” which translates to, Jose is slow to learn. Initially, when Jose entered school, he only knew his vowels. As a result, the teacher spent time chunking three letter words at a time to gradually build his vocabulary. Due to Jose’s low academic functioning skills, Jose would forget what was learned in school over the weekend. The teacher, who is the only certified bilingual English Language Arts teacher in the district, collaborated with the coach and an advisor to support and teach Jose, however progress was slow and minimal. As such, school staff spoke to Jose’s father about his lack of academic progress and subsequently began a referral for special education services. Jose’s father was receptive to the feedback and during parent teacher conferences, became emotional and urged teachers to help his son. Jose’s father was encouraged to write a letter to CST principal to push for administrator’s request for evaluation. Initially, the evaluation was denied due to systemic barriers across the district. Jose was finally evaluated 2 years after his arrival in the United States.
Jose received private education paid for by his parents in the Dominican Republic. There were suspicions of delays since he was in pre-kindergarten but no formal evaluations were ever conducted. Jose is currently placed in a bilingual transitional program located in New Jersey. Jose has been in a bilingual classroom since he arrived from the Dominican Republic in the summer of 2016. Jose has very limited English language skills and is currently functioning at a 1st grade reading level. In addition, based on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (5th Edition) (WISC-V), Jose has an intelligence quotient (IQ) of 67. As mentioned earlier, after the initial request for referral, there were barriers to perform the evaluation. Mainly, Jose was denied an evaluation due to not having the sufficient length of time in the country, which was said to be at least two years. A request for another special education evaluation was formally obtained in December 2018 and the most recent IEP was finalized in March 2019.
According to Jose’s father and teacher, Jose has poor memory retention and easily forgets information such as his breakfast in his backpack, where the restroom is located, and his locker combination. Jose also has low maturity and enjoys child-like play such as princesses’ and prince’s. Jose was referred for a speech and language bilingual assessment due to lack of academic progress despite intense intervention in the last two and a half years since he has been in school.
Jose is a very well-kept child who is well liked by his teachers and peers. Jose enjoys school, learning new things, and applies genuine effort in his studies. In addition, Jose considers the needs of others and often brings food for his teacher. In the classroom, Jose’s peers understand thats he has learning difficulties and often help him with tasks. Due to vulnerability of Jose’s socio-emotional health as a result of limited skills, he is in need of positive reinforcement, reminders, one-on-one guidance with tasks, routines, and classroom procedures.
As per Jose’s IEP, his speech and language goals are to correctly respond to “WH” questions when read one to three spoken sentences, improve narrative discourse by retelling a story containing story grammar elements and demonstrating his understanding of the main idea. Lastly, he will develop vocabulary by labeling and categorizing objects, pictures and verbal information. Due to Jose’s limited English language skills, part of his assessment such as the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamental was administered in Spanish to assess his receptive and expressive skills and overall understanding.
Part II:
The educational testing tool used to evaluate Jose was the Woodcock-Johnson IV Tests of Achievements (WJ IV). According to Woodcock-Johnson IV Technical Manual (2014), the test is designed to measure “general intellectual ability; broad and narrow cognitive abilities as defined by contemporary Cattell- Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory, including oral language, reading, mathematics, writing abilities, and academic domain-specific aptitudes; and academic knowledge” (p. 1). The Woodcock- Johnson IV also “retains the focus on psychometric quality that has been associated with the previous editions of Woodcock-Johnson batteries” by providing a “large, nationally representative norming sample” from the entire US population (Woodcock-Johnson IV Technical Manual, 2014, p. 2).
The entire Woodcock Johnson IV is “organized into three distinct batteries to facilitate a broad range of tailored and comprehensive assessments by one or more assessment professionals.” (Woodcock-Johnson IV Technical Manual, 2014, p. 8). The three subcategories are cognitive abilities, oral language and achievement. The achievement portion of the WJ IV test of achievement includes 20 different tests that measure academic achievement in reading, math, written language, science, social studies and humanities (Woodcock-Johnson IV Technical Manual, 2014). In reference to testing accommodations, according to the Woodcock- Johnson IV Technical Manual (2014), “test instructions are written in clear, concise language without high vocabulary demands, making them appropriate for young children and individuals who are English language learners (p. 57). The manual states the test is provided in Spanish in the oral language. According to the Woodcock- Johnson IV Technical Manual (2014), “an important provision in the WJ IV OL is the Broad Oral Language cluster in Spanish, Amplio lenguaje oral. Amplio lenguaje oral also may be used as an ability measure for comparison to reading, mathematics, and written language measures in English when Spanish is the student’s dominant language.” (p. 21). This allows students who are not English language dominant to be able to take the oral assessment in Spanish.
The purpose of the WJ IV is to “form a comprehensive system for measuring general intellectual ability (g), specific cognitive abilities, oral language, and academic achievement across a wide age range” (Woodcock- Johnson IV Technical Manual, 2014, p.1). The assessment is used to measure the most important cognitive, language, and academic abilities” of students (Woodcock- Johnson IV Technical Manual, 2014, p.1). This method of administration includes specific directions and questions provided and a Spanish oral assessment given to Spanish speaking students. As stated earlier, the testing instrument consists of a variety of “20 tests for measuring academic achievement in reading, mathematics, written language, science, social studies, and the humanities” (Woodcock- Johnson IV Technical Manual, 2014, p.11).
In Jose’s WJ IV scores, the IEP states that for his age level he is performing at a very low range of scores. Also, it was noted that he has significant deficits in oral languages skills in both languages with more developed Spanish oral language skills although still limited. Jose was unable to complete any of the formal standardized testing in the areas of reading due to his limited ability to respond to any items in English. He verbalized during the assessment that he was unable to complete or understand the questions and asked for the question to be stated in Spanish. According to the results of the assessment, Jose stated he had a difficult time with school in the Dominican Republic in the areas of reading and math. The family was not in disagreement with the results although the father probably did not understand the results and wanted any assistance to help his son. The test seemed to be administered in Spanish but Jose struggled with the Spanish content as well. The main reason stated for the inability to complete some of the assessment was the lack of English language oral skills and lack of any skills in reading in both English and Spanish.
The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children- Fifth Edition (WISC-V) (Spanish) was used to obtain a comprehensive assessment of Jose’s general intellectual functioning. The WISC-V is an individually administered, comprehensive clinical instrument for assessing intelligence for children aged 6-16 years old (Wechsler, D., & Kaplan, E., 2015). The WISC-V can also be used as part of “ of an assessment to identify intellectual giftedness, intellectual disability, and cognitive strengths and weaknesses. Results can also serve as a guide for treatment planning and placement decisions in clinical and/or educational settings and can provide invaluable clinical information for neuropsychological evaluation and research purposes.” (Wechsler, D., & Kaplan, E., 2015). The WISC-V provides subset and composite scores that represent intellectual functioning in 5 specific cognitive domains. The five domains include: Verbal Comprehension (VCI), Visual Spatial (VSI), Fluid Reasoning (FRI), Working Memory (WMI), Processing Speed (PSI). These five domains are then compiled into a Full Scale Intelligence Quotient (FSIQ) (Wechsler, D., & Kaplan, E., 2015). The WISC-V is as a normative test that provides comparison sample scores. Since the WISC-V has the most substantial effect on student performance, the raw scores are calculated and compared to the normative scores for that specific age group. As related to language, the WISC is only a “culturally and linguistically valid test of cognitive ability in Spanish.” According to the WISC testing manual, the WISC has been adapted to be “proven and reliable” as the “adaptation is more than just a linguistic translation—test items have been validated to minimize cultural bias across multiple regions of origin, and modified when needed. While the test is given in Spanish, children earn credit for correct answers in either Spanish or English” (Wechsler, D., & Kaplan, E., 2015).This flexibility in testing allows for emergent bilinguals to access their full linguistic repertoires and obtain an accurate report of intellectual ability regardless of language use.
As mentioned earlier, one of the purposes of the WISC-V is “to assess and identify cognitive function and ability ranges which can help identify giftedness, learning disabilities, or general strengths and weaknesses” (Wechsler, D., & Kaplan, E., 2015). Learning disabilities can be be identified by “comparing results from an intelligence test like the WISC with the scores from an achievement test like the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test to identify gaps between academic achievement and a child’s level of intellectual functioning (Wechsler, D., & Kaplan, E., 2015).” The test is administered on a 1:1 basis with the identified child and the clinician. The test could be administered via standard paper-and-pencil or through a digital format. Overall, the WISC-V “includes a total of 16 subtests; however, the standard number of subtests given is 7.” The Visual Spatial Index testing involves solving puzzles and constructing geometric designs; the Fluid Reasoning Index requires the students to “detect relationships among visual objects”; the Working Memory Index asks students to repeat number sequences and utilize their auditory and visual attention and working memory; the Processing Speed Index tests the ability to match symbols associated to numbers and the ability to visually scan and match them quickly; and the Verbal Comprehension Index measures verbal reasoning (Wechsler, D., & Kaplan, E., 2015).
Jose was administered the WISC-V in Spanish on 1/30/2019. Jose obtained the following results: Verbal Comprehension Index score of 73, which falls in the very low range (4th percentile); Visual Spatial Index Score of 78, which falls in the very low range (7th percentile)
; Fluid Reasoning Index score of 76, which places him in the very low range (5th percentile); Working Memory Index score of 67, which falls in the extremely low range (1st percentile); Processing Speed Index score of 63, which falls in the extremely low range (1st percentile). In addition, the test determined that Jose’s Full Scale IQ was 67, which falls in the extremely low range at the 1st percentile. Lastly, according to Jose’s IEP, the ABAS-3 was completed by Jose’s teacher. Jose’s General Adaptive Composite Standard Score was 80, which places him in the 9th percentile, below average range. After testing, These results were relayed to Jose’s father. Jose’s father was in agreement with the results and recommendations, especially since he suspected that Jose had cognitive/ learning delays from an early age.
The testing determined that Jose was eligible for Special Education services under the classification of Specific Learning Disability in the areas of oral expression, listening comprehension, written expression and basic reading skills. Jose was offered an immediate placement into a special class mild/moderate learning or language disabilities for the remainder of the school year. However, the placement required Jose to be moved to a different campus due to lack of availability at his current site. Both of Jose’s parents and the CST determined it would be academically and emotionally challenging to change Jose’s educational placement so late into the school year and decided to postpone the move. Jose began receiving related services of speech and language therapy in his current school and will receive the remainder of his services during the 2019-2020 school year after he changes campuses. Jose’s father and the team were all in agreement to this disposition.
Part III:
According to Mahoney (2017), “reliability is measured as a coefficient (a number between 0 and 1), which informs us empirically of how much contamination (or error) is part of the overall test score” (p. 130). It is important to also keep in mind that no test is 100 percent reliable (Mahoney, 2017). According to the Woodcock-Johnson IV Tests of Achievement Technical Manual (2014), “The standard error of the reliability coefficient provides a confidence band within which the true reliability coefficient would be expected to fall. Table 4-2 reports the 68% confidence band for several typical reliabilities and sample sizes” (p. 90). The reliability scores according to the testing manual Table 4.2 are .85, .90 and .95 averaged for diverse testing samples (Woodcock-Johnson IV Technical Manual, 2014, p. 91). Mahoney (2017) supports these reliability scores by stating that for a test to be considered to have a reliable coefficient the number needs to be .85 or higher which is what is indicated in the technical manual.
According to the WISC-V Technical and Interpretive Manual (2015), the reliability scores for the WISC-V were determined using 3 methods: Internal consistency, test-retest (stability), and interscorer agreement. Average coefficients across the 11 age groups of composite scores ranged from .88 (Processing speed index) to .96 (FSIQ and general ability Index). The reliability estimates for the complementary subsets, process, and composite scores were outlined in table 4.2 of the WISC-V Technical and Interpretative Manual. Based on tests of reliability, the average coefficients across 11 age groups ranged from .90 to .94 for composite scores. Furthermore, the average coefficients for subtests and process scores were .82 to .89. The internal consistency reliability coefficients ≥ .90 have been recommended for making relevant decisions related to diagnosis, as well as decision about tailored instruction/ interventions for children.
Mahoney (2017) states “each use of the test must be considered for validity on a case-by-case basis.” (p.43). The Woodcock-Johnson IV Tests of Achievement Technical Manual (2014) states, “in an independent review, Braden and Niebling (2012) judged the quality of the WJ III content validity evidence, upon which the WJ IV continues to build, as near the strong end of their rating scale.” (p. 119). The rating scale ranged from 0-5 in which the test scored at a 4. The content of the test covers a wide range or core curricular areas. According to the Woodcock-Johnson IV Tests of Achievement Technical Manual (2014), “the representativeness of the WJ IV test content, process, and construct validity was addressed through specification of a test revision blueprint informed by contemporary CHC theory and cognitive neuroscience research.” (p. 219). The teaching manual provides detailed graphs and data that support the validity of the test and what it intends to measure.
According to Canivez & Watkins (2016), The evidence for WISC-V validity was structured around standards which reflect Messick’s (1995) unified validity theory which “prescribes evidence based on test content, response processes, internal structure, relations with other variables, and consequences of testing.” Furthermore, Canivez & Watkins (2016) state that for the WISC-V, test content was derived via a review of the literature and item/ subset review by “experts and advisory panel members (specialists in child psychology, neuropsychology, and/or learning disabilities).” A standardization study was conducted using a nationally representative sample to develop norms to support score WISC-V interpretation. Participants included 2,200 children ages 6-16, each of which was closely matched to 2012 US census data on race/ethnicity, parent education level, and geographic region and balanced with respect to gender. The WISC-V results showed “composite and subtest scores demonstrate high levels of internal consistency….both primary index scores and subtest scores demonstrate moderate to high consistency over testing occasion,…[and] scoring of the WISC-V is highly consistent across raters.” (Efficacy Research Report, 2018).
According to the WISC-V Technical and Interpretive Manual, various subsets within the five primary indexes are moderately to highly correlated with one another, this suggests a high probability of construct validity/ convergent validity. The WISC-V was also tested for validity for students in special populations such as, intellectually gifted, intellectual disability-mild severity, intellectual disability-moderate severity, borderline intellectual functioning, specific learning disorder-reading, specific learning disorder-reading and written expression, specific learning disorder-mathematics, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, disruptive behavior, traumatic brain injury, English language learners, Autism Spectrum Disorder with language impairment, and Autism Spectrum Disorder without language impairment,” (Canivez & Watkins, 2016). With that exhaustive list of specific student needs, the “evidence from these studies suggests that the WISC-V subtests are internally consistent for a wide variety of clinical groups, and their consistency is comparable to that for non-clinical test-takers,” (Efficacy Research Report, 2018).
Overall, it was determined that the WISC-V is sensitive to the performance differences of learners in varying reference groups. Furthermore, the identified patterns of score differences were consistent within each diagnostic category, thus providing support for the diagnostic utility of the WISC-V in identifying children with learning disabilities, neurodevelopmental disorders, or intellectual giftedness.
The Woodcock-Johnson IV Tests of Achievement Technical Manual (2014) is a criterion-referenced test in that it “gathers information about student progress or achievement in relation to a specified criteria” (Gottlieb, 2016, p. 202). This type of testing allows for teachers to be able to understand the language abilities of a student and can develop accommodations appropriate for that child. This allows for the test results to be used in an authentic manner and to help students progress in their language skills.
“[a]ll items from the new WJ IV tests underwent extensive pilot testing. After each test item pool was developed, project staff first administered the items to a restricted sample to try out the item format and verify that the item instructions were clear. After any necessary modifications were made, each test was administered to a convenience sample of approximately 100 to 200 examinees from a wide range of ages and abilities. The purpose of this round of pilot testing was to obtain preliminary item difficulty estimates and other item statistics to assess whether further item development or modifications were needed prior to the tryout study”
In addition, “[a] primary goal for the new tests and items was to capture the important aspects of the underlying constructs and cover a wide range of difficulty (construct-representation), while avoiding the measurement of other, confounding abilities (construct-irrelevant variance)” (Woodcock-Johnson IV Technical Manual, 2014, p. 43). Mahoney (2014) states that “[f]airness in testing is closely related to bias” (p. 108). The reviewers of the test looked at the content and format of the questions in order to evaluate any “potential bias or sensitivity issues for women, individuals with certain disabilities, and cultural or linguistic minorities” (Woodcock-Johnson IV Technical Manual, 2014, p. 43). Included in the technical manual were examples of questions for a reviewer to consider which included whether the item contained language that may not be familiar to certain groups or whether the item assume familiarity with concepts or relationships that may not be familiar to all groups (Woodcock-Johnson IV Technical Manual, 2014, p. 44). If any of these items was considered potentially biased it was removed from the pool. Although these tests seem to be able to adequately capture a student’s learning needs it can also cause students to underperform due to limited familiarity with the person conducting the test. If a student is taking the exam with someone they have no contact with outside of that session the student may feel shy or unable to perform adequately due to feeling embarrassed. It is important to be able to provide these testing tools with people the student has familiarity with such as a teacher whom the student sees regularly.
There were many factors considered when administering the exam in specific clinical groups. According to the Woodcock-Johnson IV Technical Manual (2014), [t]he comprehensiveness of the WJ IV battery made it impossible to administer all key tests and clusters to all clinical groups. To reduce examinee response burden, which is a significant concern in clinical groups, a diagnostic group-targeted approach to test selection was used.” (p. 210). The clinical groups included were: “gifted, intellectual disabilities (ID)/mental retardation (MR), learning disabilities (LD; reading, math, and writing), language delay, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), head injury, and autism spectrum disorders (ASD)” (Woodcock-Johnson IV Technical Manual, 2014, p. 209). This differentiation across groups allows for positive washback in that it can provide insight into how these different groups test and what accommodations can be made for their identified learning needs. Also, as stated earlier, the test being criterion-referenced also allows for evaluators to be able to assess a student on an individual basis as opposed to comparing them to their peers which allows for a decrease in anxiety and judgement of a student.
However, due to the WJ IV and WISC-V being administered during school hours, it may cause negative washback where students miss important instruction time in the classroom. Many students who may need to be in class all day to be able to grasp material will miss out on important information during this time which can cause them to feel frustrated and fall behind. Students being pulled out of their classes can also cause them to feel singled out or embarrassed by peers.
As mentioned earlier, research was conducted to assess the validity of the WISC-V across varying subsets of the population, including English Language Learners (ELL). For ELL’s, the sample was “50% female, 88% Hispanic, and 13% Asian. 50% of participants had parents with at least 12 years of education, with 6% reporting at least 16 years of parental education. 38% of participants were drawn from the West, 31% from the South, 19% from the Midwest, and 13% from the Northeast.” (Wechsler, D., & Kaplan, E., 2015). Results showed that ELL’s “scored significantly lower than their matched control counterparts on the Verbal Comprehension and Working Memory indices, as well as the Full-Scale IQ” (Wechsler, D., & Kaplan, E., 2015). However, “index scores containing subtests requiring minimal expressive language and reduced receptive language abilities showed no significant differences between groups” (Wechsler, D., & Kaplan, E., 2015). However, it is important to remember that the WISC-V is an instrument normed on children whose primary language is English and these children may come from a variety of cultural backgrounds. It is the overall responsibility of the individual administering the test to determine if the student being assessed is similar enough to those represented in the normative sample. This feat requires familiarity with the WISC-V, its psychometric properties, and its sample, as well as familiarity with the child. Culture plays an important role in an individual’s development and identity formation, which also influences the types of experiences that an individual is exposed to. Socio-Economic status (SES) is also another factor that plays a role in the development of cognitive skills and oftentimes, the differences that are seen on measures of cognitive ability could be attributed to socio-economic status/exposure/access rather than culture.
The data gathered when administering the WJ IV provides a wide range of results in different content areas such as oral, reading and writing; which is useful to obtain a holistic assessment of a student. It appears that the detailed review of reliability as well as validity included in the Technical Manual helps provide a review of how the test was developed and what considerations were applied when it came to student population which included; disabilities, sex, age and several other criterias. The WJ IV was also developed using a large nationally representative sample pool which helped improve the overall structure and reliability of the test. This assessment is a positive tool used as a starting point to be able to assess English Language Learners and although some parts are available in Spanish it is important to also include other languages in order to make the test more inclusive of other language cultures.
Due to the length of the WJ IV it is important to take into consideration the mental state of students as they move along to the different tests. If a student is fatigued towards the end of the test the results may not be as accurate. Juan seemed to become frustrated during certain parts of the exam due to lack of confidence in responding which could have affected his scores although his scores were consistently low. It is important to check in with the students and if needed, they should be able to take a break and resume testing at an appropriate time. In addition, it is important for the test to be administered by people who are part of the school environment in order for student’s to be able to feel comfortable speaking and answering questions which can diminish the probability of a student underperforming.
Part IV:
Mahoney (2017) states, “[f]ormative assessment is ongoing and happens most often in classrooms” (p. 82). Jose will need several modifications provided by his teacher which can help foster a supportive environment for him. According to Jose’s IEP, Jose has difficulty with oral expression, listening comprehension, writing, and basic reading skills. Furthermore, Jose requires additional speech and language supports in order to help him understand passages read, answer ‘WH’ question forms and acquire new academic vocabulary. Jose also needs reinforcement with decoding, reading fluency, inferencing and reading comprehension. Jose is also in need of reinforcement with sentence structure and written production. In regards to Math, Jose needs continued review and repetition with his basic math skills and a small amount of information introduced to him at a time.
To help Jose achieve both his social and academic goals, several accommodations are recommended. Some recommendations include: Jose will need extra time for his task completions, modifications in curriculum as well as homework assignments which include modification in amount of homework he receives as well as the content. To further support him in the classroom, Jose will require multi-sensory presentation of data which includes pictures, incorporating movement, videos and visuals to help him see the material in different formats. Jose will also require assistance with organization of his notebooks and school materials as well as constant check ins to ensure he understands what he is being asked to complete.
Furthermore, as related to social and emotional needs, Jose would benefit from small group instruction as well as peer teaching opportunities. Jose will also benefit from receiving consistent praise to elevate self-esteem and increase confidence in his abilities. Jose would benefit from interacting closely in the classroom with peers whom he has a strong relationship with as well as someone who is a positive role model for him.
In summary, Jose is an emerging bilingual student who was evaluated using the WISC and the WJ IV. Results showed that he was in need of additional supportive services due to his very limited language and cognitive skills. It is important when working with emergent bilingual students to be mindful of the ways that culture, exposure, and socio-economic status impact test outcomes. Although these tools provide baseline information, it is important to couple them with additional testing measures to gain a full scope of the student’s abilities and needs.
References
Efficacy Research Report. (2018). Pearson.
Gottlieb, M. (2016). Assessing English Language Learners: Bridges to Educational Equity,
Connecting Academic Language Proficiency to Student Achievement. 2ndEd. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin
Mahoney, K. (2017). The Assessment of Emergent Bilinguals: Supporting English Language
Learners. NY: Multilingual Matters.
McGrew, K. S., LaForte, E. M., & Schrank, F. A. (2014). Technical Manual. Woodcock-
Johnson IV. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside.
Watkins, Marley & Canivez, Gary. (2016). Review of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for
Children–Fifth Edition: Critique, Commentary, and Independent Analyses.
Wechsler, D., & Kaplan, E. (2015). WISC-V Integrated Technical and Interpretive Manual.
Bloomington, MN: Pearson.
