The results of psychological or educational tests are critical in determining the efficacy of our efforts to improve the mental capacity of young children. However, the cost, availability, and logistics of these services are frequently obstacles that prevent a greater number of individuals from having access to this type of testing and information in the first place (Pajares & Kranzler, 1995). Psychologists have developed numerous tests to assess various cognitive abilities and intelligence quotients (IQ).
Woodcock-Johnson 4TH Edition Overview
The Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Capacities are the most comprehensive battery available for evaluating cognitive abilities in children and adolescents from two to adulthood. Authors altered the Woodcock-Johnson Tests most recently in 2014, and the most current version, known as the WJ IV test, was developed by authors Fredrick A. Schrank, Kevin S. McGrew, and Nancy Mathe. Nelson Education published it for use with their intelligence and scholastic aptitude tests (Mather & Jaffe, 2016). Level C or one certification is required for administrators, such as psychologists and other healthcare professionals, to competently deliver the Woodcock-Johnson IV, which takes around 5–10 minutes for each test. There are two ways to give the test: with a pen and paper or with electronic scoring.
Woodcock-Johnson 4TH Edition Technical Aspects
Like its predecessor, the Woodcock-Johnson III, the revised Woodcock-Johnson IV assesses achievement from various perspectives. It is possible to reliably screen, diagnose, and monitor progress in reading, writing, and mathematics performance with the Woodcock-Johnson IV Achievement Tests of Achievement (WJ IV ACH), consisting of a standard battery of eleven tests (Schrank, & Wendling, 2018). When calculating the General Intellectual Ability (GIA) score, a core set of tests (1–7) is utilized. This set of tests also serves as the foundation for the intra-cognitive variation approach. Even though there are so many categories, the Woodcock-Johnson IV (WJ IV) is organized to make it easy for examiners to use. It is also flexible enough for them to effectively evaluate learning issues in both children and adults in a way that no other assessment tool can match, even though there are many categories.
The WJ-IV-COG consists of 18 tests, seven of which are brand new. After establishing a proficiency level and implementing interventions with a student, the standard battery is available in three forms, A, B, and C. The batteries contain parallel content. This content provides examiners the means to monitor progress two to three times per year once a proficiency level has been established and interventions have been implemented with a student (Schrank et al., 2016). Examiners who seek to rotate between the three parallel forms to diminish examinee familiarity with test material will benefit from the flexibility provided by the parallel forms. This collection of exams, which may be administered independently and are independent, complementary, and norm-referenced, measures intellectual talents, academic success, and spoken language abilities, all in one. In addition to being widely applicable, the exam may be administered to both children and adults. The normal battery may obtain a broad range of scores, but a more in-depth diagnostic assessment of specific strengths and weaknesses can be obtained using the extended battery. The Achievement Battery provides examiners with the option of administering only the exact tests relevant to any referral questions included in the battery. As a result, examiners will seldom be required to give all the tests or complete all the interpretative alternatives for a single individual.
Woodcock-Johnson 4TH Edition Evidence for Test Validity
A shift from the WJ III to the WJ IV was the inclusion of “hybrid wide plus narrow” assessments in the cluster scores (technical manual, p. 120) rather than striving to create purer CHC clusters (as was the case with the WJ III). In addition, evidence for validity was organized around areas of test content, as recommended by the Association for Educational and Psychological Testing (AERA), The American Psychological Association (APA), and The National Council on Measurement and Evaluation (NCME), response processes, internal structure, and relationships with other variables. Using cross-sectionally calculated trends that mirrored projected developmental growth curves, some evidence for validity was based on developmental changes over the life span, which researchers used to demonstrate validity in part. Tests also gave evidence of validity based on relationships with other variables in the same way. With small to moderately large samples (Ns = 50–177), the WJ IV COG was compared to six different contemporary intelligence tests. The correlations between general intelligence scores were generally high, with the majority in the.80s, indicating that general intelligence was being measured concurrently. Correlations at the factor and cluster levels were often smaller than those at the factor level. With small samples (Ns = 49–51), the ACH was compared to two different achievement batteries and an oral and written language test. The composite score correlations were mostly in the 0.60 to 0.70 range within the separate reading, mathematics, and writing areas, but some were in the 0.80 and 0.90 range.
Recently, the WJ IV wide ability components’ incremental validity beyond the general intelligence factor has been demonstrated in recent studies (Breit & Preckel, 2020). Furthermore, incremental validity examination was lacking via hierarchical multiple regression, analyses, or latent factor predictions of academic achievement. The problem was also similar for oral language scores with disclosure of how much variance uniquely due to the higher-order g factor (GAI or Gf–Gc) versus the first-order factors (cluster/broad ability). Researchers noted this to be particularly concerning because WJ IV users cannot judge the relative merits. Because of the hierarchical structure of measurement and the conflated sources of variation from general intelligence and wide talents (Raykov, 1997), the internal consistency estimates and standard errors of measurement derived from these approaches may also be incorrect.
Woodcock-Johnson 4TH Edition for Reliability
Another essential aspect of the exam is the precision in measuring conveyed in the outcomes. Internal consistency reliabilities were evaluated using the split-half technique for untimed tests with dichotomously scored items. In contrast, reliabilities for tests containing subtests and clusters were assessed using the Mosier (1943) formula for unweighted composites, according to the BUROS center for testing. The reliability of speeded tests was examined using the test-retest process with a one-day retest interval, and correlations were corrected for data range limits. The reliability coefficients for all tests, clusters, and composite scores are shown in the technical handbook for each age group from 2 to 19 years and the seven adult age groups. The median dependability coefficients were high in all cases: 38 out of 39 were 0.80 or higher, and 17 were 0.90 or higher (Cole et al., 2013). In most cases, test-retest correlations for timed tests were in the 0.80–0.90 range, with a few exceptions.
Summary of the Strengths and Weaknesses of Woodcock-Johnson 4TH Edition
To apply a complicated instrument such as the Woodcock-Johnson IV Tests of Cognitive Abilities, one’s comprehension of assessment concepts must be at least as sophisticated as the instrument being used. Examiners must have a well-articulated understanding of the theory that underpins the WJ IV and an understanding of the limitations inherent in the instrument to make the best use of the WJ IV and provide sensible, useful, scientific interpretations of the test results to the participants. In terms of core strengths, it is characterized by its capacity to promote the investigation of strengths and weaknesses across cognitive, spoken language, and academic abilities in the shortest time feasible. Additional benefits of using the batteries are that they may be utilized in combination with one another or as independent examinations. When it comes to comparing abilities and achievements, the WJ IV includes techniques that have been made easier or reframed.
Despite these advantages, the most significant disadvantage of the WJ IV Tests of Cognitive Abilities is the high level of certification required for administrators of the tests. To acquire the Woodcock-Johnson lV, the purchaser must first submit a GDPR form (General Data Protection Regulation). This regulation is mostly related to how the tests are graded. The Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory of intelligence says that the Woodcock-Johnson® IV Tests of Cognitive Skills (WJ IVTM COG) cover the widest range of cognitive abilities of any standardized tests. This step is important to note for the sake of this discussion. To emphasize, the Woodcock-Johnson® IV Tests are the most important metrics for cognitive ability testing.
References
Breit, M., & Preckel, F. (2020). Incremental validity of specific cognitive abilities beyond general intelligence for the explanation of students’ school achievement. Gifted and Talented International, 35(2), 73–85.
Cole, W. R., Arrieux, J. P., Schwab, K., Ivins, B. J., Qashu, F. M., & Lewis, S. C. (2013). Test-Retest reliability of four computerized neurocognitive assessment tools in an active duty military population. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 28(7), 732–742.
Mather, N., & Jaffe, L. E. (2016). Woodcock-Johnson IV: Reports, recommendations, and strategies (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Schrank, F. A., Decker, S. L., & Garruto, J. M. (2016). Essentials of WJ IV cognitive abilities assessment (essentials of psychological assessment) (1st ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Pajares, F., & Kranzler, J. (1995). Self-efficacy beliefs and general mental ability in mathematical problem-solving.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20(4), 426–443.
Raykov, T. (1997). Scale reliability, cronbach’s coefficient alpha, and violations of essential tau-equivalence with fixed congeneric components. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 32(4), 329–353.