|
| |
-
WJ III®
Report Writer Suggestions
-
Since the Report Writer for the WJ III was published in
December, a few program “bugs” have been found. Regretfully, these were not
caught in the quality assurance process. The principle bugs are described
below and suggestions are provided for your use in verifying the reports you
may have run already. Also, Dr. Woodcock and I both believe you can use your
current Report Writer if you take these suggestions into account.
-
-
Two of the bugs occur in very specific and isolated
circumstances and did not appear in the numerous sample reports created and
reviewed in the development process.
-
-
Problem. There can be a problem in the
Intra-Individual Discrepancies table on the Table of Scores for Broad Math.
The Broad Math score may be reported inaccurately. When this occurs, it will
manifest itself as an obvious error in that location of table of scores. Be
assured, however, that the Broad Math score is correct in the narrative and
also in the main part of the Table of Scores. The problem only occurs when
you use the combination of Standard COG and Standard ACH for obtaining
Intra-Individual Discrepancies. Suggestion. You can easily avoid this
bug: Just don’t select “Intra-Individual Discrepancies” until you get version
1.1. You can use the Intra-COG and Intra-ACH discrepancies instead.
-
-
Problem. There can be an occasional problem with
the identification of “relative strengths” or “relative weaknesses” in the
narrative portion of the report for Intra-Cognitive discrepancies. This
problem does not appear in the Table of Scores. This bug occurs when all of
the tests for the GIA (Std) are administered, and some, but not all, of the
tests that would comprise the GIA (Ext) cluster are administered.
Suggestion. If you use the COG, you can avoid this bug by always
administering COG Tests 1-7 or COG Tests 1-7 and 11-17. Alternatively, if you
want to administer another subset of COG tests for your purposes, use the
Summary and Score report option, rather than the Comprehensive Report option.
-
-
Problem. The third bug occurs more frequently than
the first two. The standard score classification labels for cluster standard
scores 121 to 130 and 131 and above differ from the suggested standard score
classification labels provided in Table 2-2 of the Report Writer manual. (The
score provided in the Table of Scores is always correct.) In the narrative,
the classification is reported as “high” when it should be reported as
“superior.” Also, a classification of “superior” is reported when it should
say “very superior.” Suggestion. Unfortunately, there isn’t a way to
avoid this problem with the current Report Writer. If you want to verify the
accuracy of the narrative, look at the cluster scores in the Table of Scores.
If any are above 121, use your word processor to insert the appropriate label
in the narrative from Table 2-2.
-
-
There are a few other lesser or minor bugs, but these do
not adversely affect scoring, use, or interpretation. I would describe them
as things that I wanted to be implemented but were not. Consequently, I won’t
discuss those here. They will be implemented in Version 1.1.
-
-
In closing, I’d like to say that the response to the
Report Writer has been very gratifying. I’ve greatly appreciated the comments
I’ve received from several school psychologists on the usefulness of the
checklists, for example. In the main, people have been very understanding
about the bugs that have occurred. Most people just want to know when Version
1.1 will be available. Riverside is carefully doing quality assurance on it
now. Hopefully, it won’t be too long.
-
-
Fredrick A. Schrank, PhD, ABPP
-
Diplomate in School Psychology
-
American Board of Professional Psychology
-
Senior Author
-
Report Writer for the WJ III
-
|
3 million visitors plus: