1

Using WISC IV with WIAT II

Dr. Donna Rury SmithNational Measurement Consultant

Harcourt Assessment Inc./PsychCorp

Agenda

• Review of WISC IV and WIAT II Structures• WISC IV and WIAT II Correlations• WISC IV and WIAT II Discrepancies• Reading Connection• Clinical Studies • Case Study

Correlations Between WISC IV andWIAT II at the Composite Level

• Correlations at the composite level range from .49 (for PSI-Oral Language) to .87 (for FSIQ-Total Achievement)

• VCI is highly correlated with Reading and Oral Language

• PRI is highly correlated with Math • WMI is highly correlated with Reading• PSI is highly correlated to Written Language

2

Correlations Between WISC IV and WIAT II At the Subtest Level

High correlations are reported between• Vocabulary and Word Reading (.69)• Information and Word Reading (.67)• Arithmetic and Word Reading (.65)

• Arithmetic and Numerical Operations(.65)

• Similarities and Reading Comp (.66)• Vocabulary and Reading Comp (.70)• Information and Reading Comp (.66)• Arithmetic and Reading Comp (.67)

• Similarities and Math Reasoning (.63)• Vocabulary and Math Reasoning (.65)• L-N Sequencing and Math Reasoning (.60)• Arithmetic and Math Reasoning (.77)

• Arithmetic and Written Expression (.60)

• Similarities and Listening Comp (.70)• Vocabulary and Listening Comp (.75)• Comprehension and Listening Comp (.64)• Information and Listening Comp (.74)• Arithmetic and Listening Comp (.69)• Word Reasoning and Listening Comp (.62)

• Vocabulary and Spelling (.61)• Information and Spelling (.61)• Arithmetic and Spelling (.67)

3

Correlations for New Subtests

• Picture Concepts shows a low correlation to Oral Expression (.30) and a moderate correlation to Listening Comp (.43)

• Letter-Number Sequencing shows a moderate correlation with Oral Expression (.39) and with Math Reasoning (.60)

• Matrix Reasoning shows a moderate correlation with Oral Expression (.42) and with Math Reasoning (.59)

• Cancellation shows minimal correlation with any WIAT II subtest

• Word Reasoning shows highest correlation with Listening Comp (.62) and lowest with Oral Expression (.42)

WISC IV – WIAT IIReading Connection

National Reading Panel Report

Critical AreasAlphabeticsFluencyComprehension

Importance of Early IdentificationValue of Early Intervention

Role of AssessmentEmpirically-based

decision-makingFocus shifted from

eligibility Progress monitoring

Linking Assessment to Instruction

4

Phonemic awareness and phonics represent different cognitive skills that are taught at different stages in the process of learning to read. While phonemic awareness represents the understanding that words are comprised of specific sounds, phonics is the ability to relate specific sounds to their corresponding symbols (The National Reading Panel, 2000).

Critical Area: Alphabetics

Phonological awareness is one-step in the process of early reading acquisition. It is neither a necessary or sufficient cause of reading disability or reading proficiency. Impaired phonological awareness should be considered a risk factor for developing problems in reading decoding and fluency.

Automaticity relates to fluency but the concepts are not interchangeable and automaticity of decoding does not ensure fluency. Development of word recognition skills has been associated with better reading comprehension skills and this is likely due to automatization of decoding. The fluent reader is able to decode quickly, effortlessly and accurately with appropriate expression. Fluent readers are multi-tasking, decoding, determining syntax and deriving meaning simultaneously.

Critical Area: Fluency

Vocabulary knowledge is an important component of translating text into meaning. Oral vocabulary serves as a base for the reader to map their knowledge base onto written text. The ability to apply decoding strategies is facilitated by word knowledge and is useful if correct decoding leads to text understanding.

Critical Area: Comprehension

5

Potential Alternative to the Ability-Achievement Discrepancy

Process-based R/W assessment • The early research that discredited

assessment and treatment of processes underlying learning disabilities was not focused on the processes that recent research has shown are relevant to reading and writing (Berninger, 1998a).

• The issue of how best to apply assessment of processes related to reading in identification of students with reading problems (Torgesen, 1979) has not been fully resolved (Torgesen, 2002).

• Yet, researchers have made considerable progress in identifying which processes are most relevant to (a) learning to read and spell words, (b) predicting who will have reading and

spelling problems if not provided early intervention, and

(c) improving reading or writing by training processes related to these literacy skills.

Processes include:1. phonological (Morris et al., 1998; Wagner

& Torgesen, 1987; Wagner, Torgesen, & Rashotte, 1979);

2. orthographic (Berninger, 1994a, 1994b, 1995, 2001a);

3. rapid automatic naming or RAN (Wolf, 1986; Wolf, Bally, & Morris, 1986; Wolf & Bowers, 1999; Wolf, Bowers, & Biddle, 2000);

4. morphological (Nagy, Berninger, Abbott, Vaughan, & Vermeulin, in press); and

5. receptive and expressive language (Catts, 1993).

6

• Progress has also been made in understanding the processes underlying handwriting, spelling, and composing (for recent review, see Berninger & Amtmann, 2003; Berninger, Abbott, Thomson, & Raskind, 2001; Berninger& Richards, 2002; Wong & Berninger, in press).

• These processes include – orthographic coding in short-term/working

memory and long-term memory,– motor planning for sequential finger

movements, – automatic letter production,– expressive language, and – executive functions, – as well as the same phonological and rapid

automatic naming processes as for reading.

Early Identification – Early Intervention

• Genetic Factor– The heritability of phonological deficits associated with

chromosome 6p appears to be influenced by IQ level with stronger heritability in high IQ versus lower IQ individuals (Knopik, Smith, Cardon, Pennington, Gayan, Olson & DeFries, 2002).

– Genetic studies have implicated the separate and joint contributions of chromosomes 1p and 6p to poor performance on measures of rapid automatic naming and phonological decoding but not phonemic awareness, single word reading or vocabulary (Grigorenko, Wood, Meyer, Pauls, Hart, & Pauls, 2001)

7

- Epidemiological studies report that the base rate of clinical referral and treatment of learning problems was found to be 5 times higher for boys than girls; however, among families with reading disorder the base rate was only 1.4 times greater (Wolff & Melngalis, 1994). - There was a higher incidence of reading problems in families inwhich at least one parent had a reading disorder. The greatest incidence occurred in families with both parents having a reading disorder while the next highest risk factor was associated with reading disordered fathers (Wolff & Melngalis, 1994). ). - In families with dyslexia, the base rate for offspring to develop a reading disorder was 34% compared to 6% in low risk families.

- Genetic studies strongly suggest that the genetic expression of reading disability occurs over an extended developmental period. Reading problems may emerge gradually over the course of development, rather than discretelyor at a specific age.

- Children at genetic risk for development of reading disorder display early differences (at a few days and 6 months after birth) in brain response to speech sounds and orienting to speech-sounds (Lyytinen, Ahonen, Eklund, Guttorm, Laakso, Leinonen, Leppanen, Lyytinen, Poikkeus, Puolakanaho, & Richardson, 2001).

- Evaluation of children that eventually develop a reading disorder has revealed expressive language weaknessesin the form of length of utterances, syntactic complexity and pronunciation accuracy at 2 ½ years of age, at 3 years of age weaknesses in receptive vocabulary and object naming and at 5 years of age the reading disordered children had poorer performance on object-naming, phonemic awareness and letter-sound knowledge(Scarborough, 1990).

• Language and Verbal Comprehension Factor

- At age 5, the best predictor of reading disability was letter-name knowledge (Pennington & Lefly, 2001).

- Rapid naming and general literacy skills predicted later reading achievement for youth with reading disorder (Scarborough, 1998).

- Studies suggest that children with reading disorder may evidence early language delays.

8

Children with language learning disabilitylearn language more slowly during the preschool years but may appear to have normal language skills during the school years unless carefully assessed to document problems in using language to learn academic skills and executive functions related to language use. Unlike dyslexics who tend to have relative strengths in morphology and syntax and relative weaknesses in phonology, the language learning disabled have relative weaknesses in phonology, morphology, and syntax.

- McArthur, Hogben, Edwards, Heath & Menger, (2000) studied a large sample of children diagnosed as having a specific reading disorder or a specific language impairment. Evaluation of reading and oral language abilities indicated that 55% of reading disordered children displayed impaired oral language skills and 51% of language disordered youth exhibited reading deficiency suggesting a high degree of overlap between these groups. Research has also revealed that a subgroup of children with reading disorder display global deficits in language functioning (Morris, Stuebing, Fletcher, Shaywitz, Lyon, Shankweiler, Katz, Francis & Shaywitz, 1998).

- The presence of fast decoding skills alone does not necessarily result in good comprehension (Faulkner, Barnes & Dennis, 2002). Additional processes such as listening comprehension (Faulkner et al, 2002), working memory (Palladino, Cornoldi, De Beni & Pazzaglia, 2001) language/semantic abilities (Nation, Adams, Bowyer-Crane, Claudine & Snowling, 2000) and verbal intellectual ability (Hatcher & Hulme, 1999) have also been found to relate to reading comprehension abilities.

9

-Not all children with reading disorder necessarily display impairment in phonological processing.

- A subset of children with reading disorder display marked difficulties with verbal and visual processing speed and that may indicate a subtype of reading disorder (Morris, Stuebing, Fletcher, Shaywitz, Lyon, Shankweiler, Katz, Francis & Shaywitz, 1998).

- Individuals with impairments in both RAN and phonemic awareness had the most severe reading problems when matched on phonological skills. Individuals with worse RAN scores had poorer performance on timed word recognition and comprehension tests (Compton, DeFries & Olson, 2000).

• Processing Speed Factor

The ability to rapidly access semantic information based on visual inputs is significantly diminished in some reading disordered youth. The difficulties observed in reading disorder children in rapidly accessing semantic information in a non-reading context suggests that poor automatization of decoding may actually reflect a broader impairment in efficient visual-semantic retrieval systems.

- Children with RD display high rates of rule violations on the tower of Hanoi suggesting some difficulties with self-monitoring during problem solving (Klorman et al, 1999).

-Children with reading disabilities that tend to read quickly but have high error rates compared to reading disorder children that readslowly but accurately, display significant problems with inhibiting pre-potent responses on measures of executive functioning(van der Sloot, Licht, Horsley, & Sergeant, 2000).

Deficits in executive functioning are primarily associated with ADHD and not reading disability; however, children with Reading Disorder and Co-morbid ADHD display executive function impairments. (Willcutt, Pennington, Boada, Ogline, Tunick, Chhabildas & Olson, 2001 & Klorman, Hazel-Feernandez, Shaywitz, Fletcher, Marchione, Holohan, Stuebing, & Shaywitz, 1999).

-

• Executive Function Factor

10

Behavior Associated with Deficits in Executive Functions1. Disinhibition-lacks behavioral control, impulsive 2. Perseveration-repeats non-functional behavior,

inability to change behavior despite corrective feedback, difficulties learning from experience

3. Forgetfulness-off-task behaviors, mental errors, loses track of what they were doing

4. Inefficiency-takes more steps to complete task than necessary

5. Difficulty understanding consequences and cause-effect relationships

6. Frequently violate rules despite apparent knowledge of the rules

7. Apathetic-lacks motivation, does not set goals, engages in behavior only when prodded

8. Difficulties accessing knowledge9. Concrete thinking10. Emotional lability11. Poor frustration tolerance12. Disorganized13. Inconsistent performance on tasks within

ability range14. Difficulties coping with change15. Poor judgment

- Fletcher (1985) reported that children with reading-spelling disorders performed more poorly than controls on a verbal list-learning task but not on a visual memory task. On the California Verbal Learning Test-Children’s Edition, Kramer, Knee & Delis (2000) reported that children with dyslexia recalled fewer words compared to controls, they learned the word list at a slower rate and they recalled fewer items on the last learning trial and on delayed recall trials.

-

• Memory Factor

11

- Delayed memory impairment is associated with reading disorder but not ADD (Kaplan, Dewey, Crawford, Fisher & Geoffrey, 1998). Children with reading disorder appear to have less efficient rehearsal and encoding skills for processing verbal information (Kramer et al, 2000).

- Verbal short-term memory impairment is present in some children with reading disability (Morris, Stuebing, Fletcher, Shaywitz, Lyon, Shankweiler, Katz, Francis & Shaywitz, 1998).

-Immediate memory performance has been found to predict the development of reading decoding skills (Meyler & Breznitz, 1998).

-Visual-verbal paired associate learning independent of phonological processing predicts development of word decoding skills in children (Windfuhr & Snowling, 2001).

-Visual and verbal short-term memory skills (in non-paired learning paradigms) also predict the development of decoding skills in children (Meyler & Zvia, 1998).

- Short-term memory functioning relates to level of reading performance among children with reading disabilities (Kirk & Rattan, 1991).

- Wilcutt et al (2000) found verbal working memorydeficits were associated with Reading Disorder and not ADHD. De Jong (1998) found reading disorder youth deficient on all language and numbers based auditory working memory tasks. Deficits in working memory performance occur in both visual and verbal domains and are related to difficulties in cognitive resource allocation associated with the “central executive” storage system.

12

-Performance on working memory tasks has been found to predict reading comprehension performance in non-disabled readers above the effects of decoding and vocabulary abilities (Seigneuric, Ehrlich, Marie-France, Oakhill & Yuill, 2000).

- Increasingly, working memory is becoming an important construct in the understanding of cognitive difficulties experienced in a variety of clinical conditions.

• Dyslexics benefit from explicit decoding instruction in the context of balanced reading instruction (Berninger, Nagy et al., 2003),

• Language learning disabled also need explicit instruction in morphological and syntactic awareness, vocabulary, and reading comprehension (Berninger et al., 2002; Wallach & Butler, 1994).

• Those with SLI need very intensive, systematic, and specialized language therapy by a qualified professional.

• Children with executive function disorders may require instructional as well as behavioral intervention and accommodations.

1. Children identified as poor readers (decoding and comprehension) display deficits in auditory working memory andphonological short-term memory.

2. Children with poor reading comprehension but not impaired decoding exhibited deficits in auditory working memory but average phonological short-term memory.

In Summary

13

3. Auditory working memory predicts reading comprehension in both skilled and disabled readers and predicts components of writing ability.

4. Auditory working memory tasks that contain an element of storage and active manipulation of the information are good predictors of language comprehension, in general.

5. Verbal intelligence has been found to predict reading decoding and comprehension abilities in children.

6. Verbal intelligence accounts for a large amount of the variance in a variety of language based skills.

7. Rates of response to intervention for reading comprehension relate to verbal ability. Among low SES children, verbal ability differentiated the children that would attain average reading versus those that would develop below average reading.

14

WISC IV Performance of Children

with Reading Disorder

56 children aged 7-13 who were identified with Reading Disorderaccording to DSM-IV-TR diagnostic criteria

.5210.18.9Word Reasoning

.929.97.7Arithmetic1.0110.58.2Information-.149.710.1Cancellation.5910.48.9Picture Completion.3810.19.2Symbol Search.6110.28.9Comprehension.5410.08.9Matrix Reasoning.9310.47.7L-N Sequencing1.0810.48.2Vocabulary.499.48.2Coding.2910.19.3Picture Concepts.709.88.0Digit Span.5710.18.8Similarities.249.69.0Block Design

Standard Difference

Matched Control Mean

Reading Disorder Mean

Subtest

WIAT II Clinical RD Study

162 children ages 7-18 with LD in Reading diagnosis

15

WISC IV Performance of Children with Reading and Writing Disorder

35 children aged 8-13 who were identified with both Reading Disorder and Disorder of Written Expression according to DSM-IV-TR diagnostic criteria

.3710.69.7Word Reasoning1.0511.48.5Arithmetic.7910.88.6Information-.189.09.5Cancellation.4710.89.7Picture Completion.5610.59.0Symbol Search.2410.19.5Comprehension.269.99.3Matrix Reasoning.7310.48.6L-N Sequencing.7810.68.6Vocabulary.8510.17.7Coding.109.89.5Picture Concepts.669.98.1Digit Span.3310.39.3Similarities.2210.710.2Block Design

Standard Difference

Matched Control Mean

Reading and WE Disorder Mean

Subtest

WISC IV Performance of Children withMath Disorder

33 children aged 8-13 who were identified with Math Disorderaccording to DSM-IV-TR diagnostic criteria

16

.579.88.4Word Reasoning1.7310.96.5Arithmetic.859.67.5Information.3510.08.8Cancellation.249.18.4Picture Completion.149.18.6Symbol Search.5810.08.6Comprehension.529.38.0Matrix Reasoning.5010.08.7L-N Sequencing.409.88.9Vocabulary.559.47.8Coding.8910.38.2Picture Concepts.4110.08.9Digit Span*.429.88.7Similarities.449.07.9Block Design

Standard Difference

Matched Control Mean

Math Disorder Mean

Subtest

.6310.18.6Digits Backward

.1410.09.6Digits Forward

Standard Difference

Matched Control Mean

Math Disorder Mean

Subtest

Case StudyCarlos Hernandez is a 14 year old 7th grader. He is Hispanic and his first

language is Spanish; however, he has received instruction in English since first grade. English language proficiency is not considered a factor in his poor academic performance. Although he has been an average student in the past, his grades have dropped significantly since he entered middle school last year.

The referral questions from his school’s Child Study Team include:1. In spite of tutorial and remedial assistance through general ed, why does

Carlos have reading comprehension that is significantly below grade level. His greatest difficulties are on comprehension tasks that require higher order reasoning skills.

2. Why doesn’t Carlos participate in class discussions, volunteer responses to the teacher’s questions, or work well on group projects?

3. Why did Carlos have good grades in Math until this past year? Why has his attitude about Math changed as well?

4. When asked to keep a class journal in Language Arts, Carlos doesn’t write. Credit for this activity (20% of his grade) would really boost his grade, but he earns next to nothing. Why is he refusing to participate?

5. Why does Carlos appear to be so disorganized? He loses assignments or turns them in late, he can’t get to class on time or with the right book, he doesn’t take notes in class so he doesn’t know what to study for tests, and his backpack looks like a rat’s nest.

17

Case StudyCarlos Hernandez is a 14 year old 7th grader. He is Hispanic and his first

language is Spanish; however, he has received instruction in English since first grade. English language proficiency is not considered a factor in his poor academic performance. Although he has been an average student in the past, his grades have dropped significantly since he entered middle school last year.

The referral questions from his school’s Child Study Team include:1. In spite of tutorial and remedial assistance through general ed, why does

Carlos have reading comprehension that is significantly below grade level. His greatest difficulties are on comprehension tasks that require higher order reasoning skills.

2. Why doesn’t Carlos participate in class discussions, volunteer responses to the teacher’s questions, or work well on group projects?

3. Why did Carlos have good grades in Math until this past year? Why has his attitude about Math changed as well?

4. When asked to keep a class journal in Language Arts, Carlos doesn’t write. Credit for this activity (20% of his grade) would really boost his grade, but he earns next to nothing. Why is he refusing to participate?

5. Why does Carlos appear to be so disorganized? He loses assignments or turns them in late, he can’t get to class on time or with the right book, he doesn’t take notes in class so he doesn’t know what to study for tests, and his backpack looks like a rat’s nest.

WISC IV Scores

Borderline68-7837262Full Scale (FSIQ)

Extremely Low60-781657Processing Speed (PSI)

Extremely Low63-782689Working Memory (WMI)

Average87-102349427Perceptual Reasoning (PRI)

Borderline73-8787919Verbal Comprehension (VCI)

QualitativeDescription

95% Confidence

Interval

PercentileRank

Composite Score

Sum ofScaledScores

Scale

Composite Scores Summary

18

Verbal Comprehension Subtest Score Summary

1610:6722Comprehension

58:6527Vocabulary

169:10719Similarities

PercentileRank

Test AgeEquiv.

ScaledScore

RawScore

Subtests

Perceptual Reasoning Subtest Scores Summary

2511:6822Matrix Reasoning

168:10716Picture Concepts

75>16:101254Block Design

PercentileRank

Test AgeEquiv.

ScaledScore

RawScore

Subtests

Working Memory Subtest Scores Summary

16:6312(Arithmetic)

27:10413Letter-Number Sequencing

57:2512Digit Span

PercentileRank

Test AgeEquiv.

ScaledScore

RawScore

Subtests

19

Processing Speed Subtest Scores Summary

0.46:2248(Cancellation)

28:6418Symbol Search

18:2333Coding

PercentileRank

Test AgeEquiv.

ScaledScore

RawScore

Subtests

Process Scores Summary

430Cancellation Structured

218Cancellation Random

55Digit Span Backward

67Digit Span Forward

Scaled ScoreRaw ScoreProcess Score

WISC IVDiscrepancy Analysis

20

Composite Score Differences

42.5%N12.4736568WMI - PSI2.4%Y12.8296594PRI - PSI4.8%Y11.38266894PRI - WMI19.4%Y11.75146579VCI - PSI21.3%Y10.18116879VCI - WMI14.5%Y10.59-159479VCI - PRI

BaseRate

Sig.Diff.Y/N

Critical

Value

Diff.Scaled Score 2

Scaled Score 1

Discrepancy Comparisons

Base Rate by Overall SampleStatistical Significance (Critical Values) at the .05 level

Subtest Score Differences

34.0%N3.80224Symbol Search -Cancellation

42.8%N3.58123Coding - Cancellation

44.4%N2.80134Letter-Number Sequencing - Arithmetic

29.2%N2.94235Digit Span - Arithmetic

N3.36077Similarities - Picture Concepts

44.8%N3.55-143Coding - Symbol Search

39.1%N2.83145Digit Span - Letter-Number Sequencing

BaseRate

Sig.Diff.Y/N

CriticalValue

Diff.Scaled Score

2

Scaled Score 1

Discrepancy Comparisons

Statistical Significance (Critical Values) at the .05 level

Differences between Subtest andMean of Subtest Scores

>25%3.56-2.206.24Symbol Search>25%3.440.806.27Comprehension>25%2.681.806.28Matrix Reasoning

>25%2.63-2.206.24Letter-Number Sequencing

>25%2.70-1.206.25Vocabulary10-25%W3.17-3.206.23Coding>25%3.390.806.27Picture Concepts>25%2.87-1.206.25Digit Span>25%3.010.806.27Similarities<1%S3.015.806.212Block Design

BaseRate

S/WCriticalValue

Diff.fromMean

MeanScaledScore

SubtestScaledScore

Subtest

Overall: Mean = 6.2, Scatter = 9, Base Rate = 22.5%Statistical Significance (Critical Values) at the .05 level

21

Differences between Subtest and Mean of Subtest Scores

>25%2.410.676.337Comprehension

>25%2.09-1.0098Matrix Reasoning

25%2.11-1.336.335Vocabulary

25%2.38-2.0097Picture Concepts

>25%2.230.676.337Similarities10%S2.223.00912Block Design

BaseRate

S/WCriticalValue

Diff.fromMean

MeanScaledScore

SubtestScaledScore

Subtest

Verbal Comprehension: Mean = 6.33, Scatter = 2, Base Rate = 79.2%Perceptual Reasoning: Mean = 9, Scatter = 5, Base Rate = 30.4%

Statistical Significance (Critical Values) at the .05 level

Process Discrepancy Comparisons

24.6%N4.40-2.0042Cancellation Random -Structured

44.2%N3.621.0056Digit Span Forward - Digit Span Backward

BaseRate

Sig.Diff

.Y/N

CriticalValue

Diff.Scaled Score 2

Scaled Score 1

Subtest/Process Score

Statistical Significance (Critical Values) at the .05 level

WIAT II Scores

22

Summary of WIAT II Subtest Scores

969- 918020Oral Expression

257- 837022Listening Comprehension

0.245- 67567Written Expression670- 847728Spelling567- 837542Math Reasoning

2182- 948830Numerical Operations468- 807421Pseudoword Decoding

157- 6963110**Reading Comprehension

1980- 9487109Word Reading

PR95%INTERVAL

STDRAWSUBTESTS*

* WIAT-II age-based normative information was used in the calculation of subtest and composite scores.

Ability-AchievementDiscrepancy Analysis

Using FSIQ

Predicted Difference Method

>25%N15.4458085Oral Expression20-25%N17.787078Listening Comprehension

1-2%Y15.31245680Written Expression>25%N11.2137780Spelling>25%N11.5337578Math Reasoning

N11.24-78881Numerical Operations20-25%Y7.9297483Pseudoword Decoding5-10%Y10.04166379Reading Comprehension

N9.23-88779Word Reading

BaseRate

Sig.Diff.Y/N

CriticalValue

ExpectedDiff.

ActualScore

PredictedScoreWIAT-II SUBTEST

Statistical Significance (Critical Values) at the .01 levelBase Rates are not reported when the achievement score equals or exceeds the ability score.

23

Simple Difference Method

N16.42-88072Oral Expression>25%N18.152*7072Listening Comprehension5-10%Y15.9616*5672Written Expression

N12.24-57772SpellingN12.24-37572Math ReasoningY12.24-168872Numerical OperationsN9.48-27472Pseudoword Decoding

20%N10.959*6372Reading ComprehensionY10.24-158772Word Reading

BaseRate

Sig.Diff.Y/N

CriticalValue

Diff.WIAT-IIScore

FSIQScore

WIAT-II SUBTEST

Statistical Significance (Critical Values) at the .01 level*Greater than or equal to critical difference of 0 points

Base Rates are not reported when the achievement score equals or exceeds the ability score.