EDEX 790  Student Report WJIII

Sample for Practice Purposes only

Name:  Isabel                  


D.O.B.:  7/2/94

C.A.:  8-4


School:  Hurricane Elementary

Grade:  2.2


Teacher:  Mrs. Weathers


Evaluation Procedures and Dates:


10/2/02 & 10/30/02

CBM Assessment

10/15/02 & 10/16/02


10/31/02 & 11/13/02

Testing Observations:  Isabel was cooperative and attentive to the all tasks in the one to one situation.  Overall she needed a few breaks, sometimes in the middle of a test, especially when the items became more difficult. 

Isabel was attentive during the reading samples. She held the page with the reading passage and following along with her finger.When she was reading from the passsages, she was able to maintain her attention for 1 minute. If she did not know a word, she was hesitate and then look at me. At that point I would tell her the word and encourage her to kepe on reading all the words that she could read. She would wiggle in her seat when when I asked her some comprehension questions on the text. Overall she was willing to work and maintain attention in a one-to-one situation.

During the WJIII assessment, Isabel attempted the difficult tasks, but gave up easily skipping to the next one.  Sometimes during a test, Isabel would stand up or half lean out of her chair while answering questions.  This behavior occurred when she was near the ceiling and appeared to be guessing at answers.  She seemed to have more difficulty during the timed tests. She would look around, or speak off topic, which limited the amount of questions she was able to answer. She was given breaks in between all sub-tests; during this time, we would have a conversation or read a book of his choice. Overall, Isabel appeared to work hard during the testing period and remained cooperative.

Test and Subtests Administered:

Woodcock-Johnson III Test of Achievement, Standard Battery

Level of Achievement: 

Before the test results are discussed, a brief explanation of scores is offered. Standardized tests are tests for which the test publisher develops the “norms” or norm-referenced scores. In order to find out what scores are high, average, or low, they give the test to a large number of children across the country. The students in the national population samples are carefully selected. The publisher will use census data to select a group of students so that their scores on the test will represent the scores that would have been gotten if all the children in the country had been tested. After the group has been selected, the test’s directions are very specifically written. The test is always presented in the same way to all children. This is done so all children have the same chance to know what they are supposed to do on the test. A test written and administered in this way is a “standardized” test. Fairly specific parameters of “correct” answers are also given. Standard or scale scores are typically used in interpreting ability (IQ) or achievement tests.
Percentile ranks describe performance on a scale from 1 to 99 relative to the performance of some segment of the norming sample that is at a specific age or grade level. The subject’s percentile rank indicates the percentage of the children in the norm group who got the same scores or a lower score on the test. These scores are frequently misunderstood since an “average” score falls between the 25th and 75th percentile. This is because the distance between the 1st and the 2nd percentile is much larger than the distance between the 50th and 51st percentile. That is, the scale is not divided evenly.

A special feature of the WJIII is the option to use either grade- or age-based norms. A grade equivalent reflects the subject’s performance in terms of the grade level in the norming sample at which the average score is the same as the subject’s score. An age equivalent score is similar to a grade equivalent, except that it reflects performance in terms of the age level in the norming sample at which the average score is the same as the subject’s score.
Percentile ranks and Standard scores are based on age and not grade placement because Isabel is older than most students in the second grade. The WJIII classifications based on standard score and percentile ranks are as follows:
High Average= SS 111 to 120 and % Rank 76 to 91
Average= SS 90 to 110 and % Rank 25 to 75
Low Average = SS 80 to 89 and % Rank 9 to 24
Low = SS 70 to 79 and % Rank3 to 8
Very Low = SS 69 and below and % Rank 0.1 to 2

Subtest Standard Score Percentile Ranks Grade Equivalent Age Equivalent
Letter-Word Identification 85 16 2.1 7-5
Reading Fluency 81 10 1.7 7-0
Passage Comprehension 89 24 2.0 7-4
Broad Reading 82 12


Calculation 93 32 2.4 7-9
Math Fluency 101 52 3.0 8-5
Applied Problems 104 61 3.1 8-8
Broad Mathematics 99 47


Spelling 86 18 1.8 7-6
Writing Fluency 87 19 2.1 7-2
Writing Samples 98 46 2.4 8-2
Broad Written Language 87 19



Sound Awareness, Oral comprehension(or any other subtests that you have given, if you have given a number of subtests that fit into one of the BROAD categories then just add that here) 100 51 2.8 8-5


The results of the WJIII placed Isabel's performance in the low average to average range of achievement in all areas.  The Broad Mathematics and Sound Awareness scores were in the average range of achievement and both the Broad Written Language and Broad Reading scores were in the low average range. 

 Isabel's Broad Reading standard score of 82 places her overall reading performance in the low average range. Her instructional On the Letter-Word Identification subtest, Isabel read words presented in a list form within the low average range, a standard score of 85.  Isabel could automatically identify several words but required more time and attention to the words she had to decode.  On the Reading Fluency subtest, Isabel read and comprehended sentences within the low average range, a standard score of 81.  Isabel was able to comprehend the sentences but was limited due to her basic reading skills and time requirements of the test. On the Passage Comprehension subtest, that required Isabel to read a short passage and supply the missing word, her standard score of 89 placed her one point below the average range. The nine-point difference between her basic reading fluency skills and comprehension skills reflects Isabel increased ability to gain meaning from words in context when she is not timed. This also indicate that she needs assistance to increase her reading fluency. The instructional zone for Broad Reading is from an easy grade level of 1.7 to a difficult grade level of 2.6  Informal reading assessments and curriculum based monitoring would provide additional information on reading strengths and weaknesses.

Isabel's Broad Math standard score of 99 places her overall math performance in the average range.  Isabel's standard score of 93 on the Calculation subtest, which required her to perform mathematical computations in a worksheet format, placed her achievement in the average range.  Isabel quit working when she approached the subtraction of a two-digit number from a two-digit number, which was one problem away from a multiplication problem (not yet taught).  On the Math Fluency subtest, Isabel accurately and rapidly solved simple addition and subtraction problems within the average range, a standard score of 101.  On the Applied Problems subtest, Isabel was required to look at pictures and count items, tell time and temperature, and count money. She received a standard score of 104 which placed her in the average range.  Isabel's overall scores in the area of math are average, showing strength in applying her computation skills to solving mathematical problems in everyday situations. 

Isabel's Broad Written Language standard score of 87 places her overall writing performance in the average range.  On the Spelling subtest, Isabel produced single letters and words in response to oral prompts within the low average range, a standard score of 86.  Isabel could identify lower case and upper case letters but tried to spell words phonetically that required the memorization of visual features. She also omitted needed letters.  This weakness in spelling words was consistent with her difficulty in reading words in list form as evidenced by the fact that Isabel could automatically spell several words but required more time and attention on the words she had to spell phonetically.  On the Writing Fluency subtest, Isabel wrote legible, simple sentences with acceptable English syntax within the low average range, a standard score of 87.  Isabel wrote slowly but accurately. The time constaint was a factor in this score and timing should be a consideration for future assessment.  This is consistent with Isabel's reading skills being limited due to time as evidenced by her low average score on the timed subtest Reading Fluency.  Isabel's standard score of 98 on the Writing Samples subtest, which required writing meaningful sentences in response to a variety of tasks, placed her achievement in the average range.  The twelve-point difference between her writing skills and spelling skills reflects Isabel's strength in her ability to produce expressive sentences.  In addition, the writing samples subtest does not deduct for errors in spelling. capitalization, or punctuation.

On the Sound Awareness subtest, Isabel demonstrated her phonological awareness abilities by rhyming, deleting sounds, substituting sounds, and reversing sounds within the average range, a standard score of 100.  Isabel rhymed, deleted sounds, and substituted sounds with ease but found reversing sounds difficult. Isabel appears to have the prerequisite phonological skills for reading but is not yet automatic in her decoding skills.

Summary and Conclusions :

Isabel's overall performance ranged from low average to average.  Her relative strengths were her comprehension skills, math, writing meaningful sentences when given a task, and phonological skills.  However, Isabel is not as strong in reading, spelling, and writing fluency abilities. She is strong in word recognition. However, Isabel is not as strong as strong in her independent reading comprehension abilities. Comprehension difficulties arose in recalling detail and sequencing of events. These skills also influences lower scores in Contrived Written Language, as well as in Applied Problems in mathematics. Based on her testing, Isabel will need support in basic reading decoding skills and in transferring those skills to written expression. In addition, Isabel was limited when a subtest had a time constraint.  She was able to do the work but had difficulty when she had to finish in a specific amount of time. She will need assistance to increase her fluency skills.

Isabel's academic strength is in mathematical skills. Overall the biggest discrepancy is between her math abilities and her reading/written language.  These results are also supported by the fact that she attends general education for math and that her time on task in math class is excellent. Isabel will be monitored in mathematics depending on her scores on PACT and MAPS starting in 3rd grade.

Based on the results additional assessment in specific phonic skills and written language would be helpful.

WJIII Report Rubric Scoring 30 points

Technical (include student data, ethical use of information) (5) (CC9S8) Use verbal, non-verbal, and written language effectively. No technical, grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors. Correct scoring on the WJIII, clear format in presentation Scores presented in table format, regroup scores within subtests. Format follows the model provided.

Testing Observation CC8S2 (5)Administer nonbiased informal assessments. Clear observation of student during testing situation. Comments related to attitude, word habits, comments related to changes in testing situation to assist student. Include and add to your observation of how the student worked during CBM

Appropriate reporting of the WJIII (15)
CC8K1 Basic terminology used in assessment.
CC8K4 Use and limitations of assessment instruments.
CC8S2 Administer nonbiased formal assessments.

Correct format for presentation. Correct discussion of the grade or age scores and level of functioning. Comments about individual items that might have affected test results. Comparison of tests within general areas. At least one paragraph discussion for each broad subtest. Include ranges for the subtests – low, average… Comparison of tests between areas and summary.

Recommendations for next steps. (5)
CC8S4 Develop or modify individualized assessment strategies.
CC8S5 Interpret information from formal and informal assessments.
Comparison of tests to observation and class work. Comments related to the next steps for assessment.

Return to EDEX 790 Syllabus: http://www.ed.sc.edu/caw/edex790.html