Woodcock/Johnson

III
(WJ-lll ACH)
by Lindsay Birchall and Charlene
Assenheimer

All About the WJ-lll Tests Of

Achievement
-"Broad Based screening measure for the identification of
strengths and weaknesses in academic achievement",
(McLoughlin & Lewis, 2008)
-Norm-Referenced Test
-Individual administration
-Major Content Areas: Reading, Oral Language,
Mathematics, Written language, Academic knowledge
-Ages 2 - 90+ (K-12 & College students and adults)
-Standard (12 subtests) or extended battery (10 additional
subtests), Handwriting Legibility Scale, Writing Evaluation
Scale
-Test comes in two forms: A or B
-Computer scoring - WJ lll Compuscore and Profiles
Program Normative Update

Mr WJ-lll

WJ lll's Test Family

-WJ lll Tests of Achievement (WJ lll ACH) determine and describe the present status of an
individual's academic strengths and weaknesses
(this is our guy!)
-WJ lll Tests of Cognitive Abilities (WJ lll COG) measure general and specific cognitive functions
(Cizek, n.d.)
-WJ Tests of Achievement Form C/Brief Battery
(2007) - Brief form of the WJ lll ACH- 9 subtests
-intended to "yield more information in less time"
(Woodcock, Schrank, Mather and McGrew,

Peer Reviewed Uses

-Screening
-Broad Measure of strengths and weaknesses
within student achievement (McLoughlin &
Lewis, 2008)
- Classroom accommodations (e.g. student is
more successful on subtest questions read
orally)
-"Among older students and adults the WJ lll could
also provide valuable information for career
decisions" (Krasa, 2007)
-"Assess both learning aptitude and
academic performance....." (McLoughlin

Self Proclaimed Uses

diagnosis of strengths and weaknesses

determination of discrepancies when

used in conjunction with other

assessment tools (think bro COG)
educational programming
planning short and long term goals-IPP's
assessing growth
program evaluation
research-excellent quality control for
researcher!
psychometric training-that's us!

Considerations & Cautions

-Special accommodations may be needed
-Must make written record of modifications
-Include an indication of scores being too
high or low as interpreted by the examiner.
-Valid use of norms will depend on deviation
from the standard
-All will affect reliability so assess risks with
the purpose for testing in mind.

The Test Record

Observation Checklist

Subtest - Reading
Test 1 Letter-Word Identification
Test 2 Reading Fluency
Test 9 Passage Comprehension
Test 13 Word Attack (Extended Battery)
Test 17 Reading Vocabulary (Extended
Battery)

Subtest - Oral Language

Test 3 Story Recall
Test 4 Understanding Directions
Test 14 Picture Vocabulary (Extended
Battery)
Test 15 Oral Comprehension

Retelling Scoring Guide

Following Directions:
Sample Scoring Guide

Subtest - Mathematics
Test 5 Calculation
Tst 6 Math Fluency
Test 10 Applied Problems
Test 18 Quantitative Concepts

Applied Problem Solving

Applied Problem Solving

Protocol

Subtest - Written Language

Test 7 Spelling
Test 8 Writing Fluency
Test 11 Writing Samples
Test 16 Editing (Extended Battery)

Subtest - Academic Knowledge

Test 19 Academic Knowledge (Extended
Battery)

Subtest - Supplemental
Test 12 Story Recall-Delayed
Test 20 Spelling of Sounds (Extended
Battery)
Test 21 Sound Awareness (Extended
Battery
Test 22 Punctuation & Capitalization
(Extended Battery)

Additional Checklists

Handwriting Legibility Scale - rates students

handwriting from the Writing Samples
subtest
Writing Evaluation Scale - used to assess
overall writing performance on tasks such
as writing stories or essays

Test Administration Guide

Follow test booklet instructions exactly

and pay attention to the special

instructions.
Prepare for the test ahead of time by
arranging the setting and materials as
suggested
Establish Rapport
Don't forget the "Identifying Information
Section"
Practice and strive for a brisk testing pace

Guide Cont'd

Stick to test order

Allow enough time-60-70 min standard
Record accurate basals and ceilings to
help to keep time limits
These vary with each test so be sure to
assess them accurately
Info on no basal, no ceiling or two
apparent basals or ceilings are also
outlined (examiners manual pg. 25-26)

Theoretical Basis
-Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) Theory of Cognitive
Abilities
-Classification system which outlines a theoretical
explanation on how and why people differ in their
cognitive abilities (Flanagan & Harrison, 2012)
-Synthesis of empirical
investigations of cognitive abilities
(Flanagan & Harrison, 2012)
-Combination of Cattell-Horn Gf Gc
(1987) and the Carroll tri stratum models (1993)
-Stratum 1 - 70 narrow abilities
-Stratum 2 - 98 primary second-order abilities
-Stratum 3 - Overall "g ability (general intelligence)

WJ lll ACH Tests, CHC Narrow Abilities, Cognitive

Processes and Related Educational Interventions
http://www.assess.nelson.com/pdf/asb-8.pdf, pg 2 & 3

Scoring
-Requires specific training under the supervision of an experienced
examiner
-May be manually scored (tedious)
-Raw scores must be calculated manually (caution!) - difficult to catch
manual mistakes once score is entered into Compuscore program
-WJ lll Compuscore and Profiles Program NU
- create derived scores from raw scores (grade and age equivalents,
percentile ranks, standard scores)
-computes scores on various scales specific to the WJ lll such as,
Upper level post-secondary scores:
-BICS-basic interpersonal communication skill
-CALP-cognitive-academic language proficiency
-"scores helpful in determining the ability of nonnative speakers
of English to function in informal and academic settings" (Cizek,
n.d.)
-Specific scoring regimens for each subtest - range in variability and
level of difficulty
-Overall scoring is difficult to interpret - pay close
attention to specific basal and ceiling measures for

Common Administration and Scoring

Mistakes made by Graduate Students on
the WJ-lll COG (Alfonso, Ramos and
Schermerhorn, 2009)
-WJ lll COG not WJ lll ACH (our guy)
-incorrect ceiling measures (tested beyond ceiling or did
not meet the ceiling)
-failure to record examine errors
-failure to encircle the correct row for the total number
correct
-Of the total errors, 33% were recorded within 5 subtests
-51/108 tests had incorrect entry of raw scores into
software program! - resulted in incorrect derived scores
-similar results to other conducted of other norm-referenced
tests such as the WISC-lll & WISC lV (i.e. high frequency
of error, same types of errors)

Examiner Training Workbook

& ceiling rules
Basal
raw score
Computing
age/grade
Estimated
equivalent scores
compuscore
Using
competency
Building
exercises
Practice
checklist
Observation
checklist
Training
References

Psychometric Properties
-In general, the psychometric quality of the WJ lll
Normative update is quite high, (McLoughlin &
Lewis, 2008)
-New normative group "adequately representative
of the North American population" (Cizek, n.d.)ACH and COG were co-normed, N=8,818,
students with disabilities, ESL participants
-Error measurement - fairly uniform across score
scales (Cizek, n.d.)
-Spanish Version - confirmed validity - results can
be printed in both languages
-No confirmation of reliability or validity for Form
C/Brief Battery

Reliability
-All Psychometric characteristics
can be found in the Technical Manual
-Handwriting subtest
- low inter rater reliability-ranged from .71-.85
- median test-retest reliability .69
-Internal consistency, measured by the split-half method,
"appear to be uniformly high......with magnitudes in the
.70s and .90s" (Cizek, n.d.)
-Test-retest reliability- >1yr, 1-2 yrs, 3-10 yrs = .80s and .
90s
-Interrater Reliability for three achievement subtests;
coefficients fell at or above .90
-Alternate Forms reliability- .80-.96 Forms A and B can be used
interchangeably

Validity
-All psychometric characteristics can be found in the Technical Manual
-Limited content validity found in the manual
-Less information found on WJ ACH then on WJ COG in general
-Construct Validity-"Developmental patterns that emerge compared to
the performance of "clinical samples" in terms of the relationship
between test content and cognitive abilities support the validity of
the Normative Update"(McLoughlin & Lewis, 2008)
-Caution-"Handwriting Subtest - interpret results with caution due to
questions about reliability" (McLoughlin & Lewis, 2008)
-Alternate Forms Validity-More investigation required to confirm that the
two alternate forms of the test are truly "equivalent" (McLoughlin &
Lewis, 2008)
-Convergent and Discriminant Validity-"Correlation
evidence.......expected pattern of relationships among tests was
observed......70 to .80 in certain examples" (Cizek, n.d.) e.g.
between Verbal Comprehension and Picture Vocabulary
-"Extensive confirmatory factor analyses provides validity
evidence"(Cizek, n.d.)
-Differential Item Functioning (DIF)-"bias and sensitivity reviews were

Strengths of the WJ-lll

-High Validity
-Recent Norms
-Audio equipment for specific tests produces
high reliability
-Easy to follow manual
-Efficient
-Examiner's workbook for practice
-Don't need to be a psychologist to administer it.
-Wide usage allows for comparison and retesting
over time to show growth
-Can administer a variety of subtest
combinations for screening purposes

Limitations of the WJ lll ACH

-Extensive training to administer score and interpret results
(less training for Brief Battery)
-Handwriting subtest requires two scorers
-Story Recall-Delayed- older students - recall 8 days later
-Not intended to diagnose LD with this test - need to in
conjunction with WJ lll COG cognitive test as well
(personal communication, C. Chase, May 22, 2013)
-Claims to be highly diagnostically useful - indicators could
be paired with intervention recommendations
-Inaccurate ceilings and/or item gradients for older
participants (Krasa, 2007)
- Norm group did not include demographic information for
college students, reduced information on the selection of
the adult participants (Cizek, n.d.)
-Brief Battery Form C does not have any reported statistical

Summary
WJIII is the kind of guy who likes to be used
with a specific purpose in mind by trained
professionals who follow a consistent
protocol. When he is handled correctly he
is a very valid and reliable kind of guy who
can help to guide instruction. Those who
know him well and understand his
strengths and limitations have made him
quite popular for students K-12. Pair him
up with the WJ lll-COG and you have an
effective means to diagnose a Learning

Conclusion
"Tests do not think for themselves, nor do
they directly communicate with patients.
Like a stethoscope, a blood pressure
guage, or an MRI scan, a psychological
test is a dumb tool, and the worth of the
tool cannot be separated from the
sophistication of the clinician who draws
inferences from it and then communicates
with patients and professionals."-Meyer et.
al., 2001, p. 153 as cited in Mather, N., &
Jaffe, L. E. (2002).

Questions?

References
Alfonso, V. C., Ramos, E., & Schermerhorn, S. M. (2009), Graduate Students'
Administration and Scoring Errors on the Woodcock-Johnson lll Tests of
Cognitive Abilities, Psychology in the Schools, 46 (7), 650-657. doi:
10.1002/pits.20405
Diamantopoulou, S., Fuentes, L. J., Gonzalez-Salinas, C. & Pina, A. V. (2012),
Validation of the Spanish Version of the Woodcock-Johnson Mathematics
Achievement Tests for Children 6-13, Journal of Psychoeducational
Assessment,
http://sagepub.com/content/early/2012/02/0734282912437531,
doi:10.1177/0734282912437531
Flanagan, D. P. & Harrison, P. L. (2012) Contemporary Intellectual Assessment:
Theories, Tests and Issues, 3rd ed., )pg 99-102), New York, NY: Guilford
Press
Ford, L., Swart, S., Negreiros, J., Lacroix, S., & McGrew, K. S. (2010). Woo
dcock-Johnson III.
Krasa, N. (2007), Is the Woodcock Johnson a Test for All Seasons? Ceiling
and Item Gradient Considerations in Its Use With Older Students, Journal of

References
Mather, N., & Jaffe, L. E. (2002). Woodcock-Johnson III: Reports,
recommendations, and strategies. John Wiley & Sons.
Mather, F. A., McGrew, K. S., Schrank, R. W. & Woodcock, R. W. (2009)
Woodcock-Johnson lll Tests of Achievement, Form C/Brief Battery, Journal
of
Psychoeducational
Assessment,
27,
345-350.
doi:10.1177/0734282908327944
Mather, N., & Woodcock, R. W. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of
Achievement: Examiner's Manual. Riverside Pub..McGrew, K. S.,
Woodcock, R. W., & Schrank, K. A. (2007). Woodcock-Johnson III
normative update technical manual. Riverside Pub.
McGrew, K (2009, May 15). Cattell-Horn Carroll (CHC) theory of intelligence:
Brief overview with links, Intelligent Insights on Intelligence Theories and
Tests (aka IQ's corner) Retrieved from
http://www.iqscorner.com/2009/05/cattell-horn-carroll-chc-theory-of.html

McGrew, K (2012, February 13). Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) model of

intelligence v2.0 - Model summary and definitions document updated,
Intelligent Insights on Intelligence Theories and Tests (aka IQ's corner)
Retrieved from

References
McLoughlin, J. A. & Lewis, R. B. (2008) Academic Achievement, In Davis A. C.
(Ed), Assessing Students with Special Needs,
(pg 166-173). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.
Schrank, F. A., & McGrew, K. S. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III.
Schrank, F. A., & Woodcock, R. W. (2001). WJ III Compuscore and Profiles
Program [computer software]. Woodcock-Johnson III.
Wendling, B. J., Schrank, F. A., & Schmitt, A. J. (2007). Woodcock-Johnson
III.
Wendling, B. J., Schrank, F. A., & Schmitt, A. J. (2007). Educational
Interventions Related to the Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement
(Assessment Service Bulletin No. 8). Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside
Publishing
Woodcock Johnson lll Subtest Descriptions, Retrieved from
http://www.washougal.k12.wa.us/teach_learn/sped-gbp/EVALUATION/WJ%20III%20Eval%20Subtest%20Descriptions.pdf

Cizek, G. J., Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., Mather, N. & Schrank, F. (n.d.)
Woodcock Johnson(r) lll, The Board of Regents of the University of
Nebraska and the Buros Center for Testing, Mental Measurements