Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM


Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.


KTEA-II Test Review

No description

Micah Bachemin

on 5 March 2013

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of KTEA-II Test Review

Description of Standardization Procedures •The standardization of the KTEA-II Comprehensive Form took place from September 2001 through May 2003.
•A nationally representative age-norm sample of 3000 examinees aged 4½ through 25, and a nationally representative grade-norm sample of 2400 students in grades K through 12, were tested at 133 sites reaching 253 communities in 39 states and the District of Columbia.
•The KTEA-II Comprehensive Form consisted of two non-overlapping parallel forms, each containing the fourteen subtests of the final edition. Approximately half of the norm sample took each form.
•The KTEA-II Comprehensive Form was co-normed with the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children, Second Edition.
•Alternate-form reliability studies were conducted concurrently with standardization, and special equating studies were carried out to further support the linkage between the two forms. Test Administration Time to Administer: 120 minutes for all subtests in both easels
Test Materials: Testing easels, Student Response Booklets, Written Expression Booklets, Listening Comprehension CD, Puppet, Word Recognition Fluency and Nonsense Decoding Fluency Cards, RAN Cards, Error Analysis Forms, Record Forms, Manual, Norms Book, Pencil, Paper (optional), Stopwatch
Test Structure: Eight of the fourteen subtests are grouped into 4 domain composites: Reading, Math, Written Language and Oral Language. The other six subtests measures skills related to reading which adds four additional composites. Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement,
Second Edition (KTEA-II) Description of Norm Group •The KTEA-II Comprehensive Form was normed on age and grade samples that represent the U.S. population of children and young adults who speak English, are not institutionalized, and do not have physical or perceptual impairments that would prevent them from being able to perform the tasks.
•The grade norm sample is demographically representative of the U.S. population at each grade level from kindergarten through grade 12.
•The age norm sample extends beyond the range of the grade norm sample, down to age 4:6 and up through age 25. Description of Normative Scores •The recommended start points are tailored to the student’s grade.
•For Reading Comprehension and Word Recognition Fluency, the start points are determined by the student’s performance on Letter & Word Recognition.
•Any subtest that has one or more start points beyond Item 1 also has a basal rule.
•The discontinue rule of a subtest designates the point at which you should stop administering items.
•The three fluency subtests and Naming Facility (RAN) do not have basal and discontinue rules. Standard Error of Measurement Test Review Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement-II The purpose of the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement is to provide in-depth diagnostic information on the academic achievement of individual students in the areas of reading, math, written expression and oral language. It is designed for ages 4:06 to 25 years. • Average SEM for composite scores ranges from about 2.5 points to 5.5 points.
• The mean SEMs for subtests are higher because subtests are less reliable than composite scores. Sources of Test Error •Measurement errors inherent in assessing complex areas of functioning such as school achievement Uses of the KTEA-II •Assesses achievement – Identifies academic strengths and weaknesses in reading, math, written language and oral language.
•Identifies processes – Assists examiners in understanding how students take in information
•Analyzes errors- Provides a detailed summary of the patterns of errors a student makes on each of the subtests. This can help examiners plan appropriate instruction targeting specific difficulties a student displays.
•Program Planning – Norm-referenced scores as well as error analysis information indicate a student’s approximate level.
•Measures academic progress – The two parallel forms of the test allow for measurement of a student’s academic progress while ensuring that changes in performance are not due to a student’s familiarity with the battery content.
•Evaluates interventions or programs – Provides information about the effectiveness of specific programs and interventions.
•Assists in making placement decisions – Provides normative data.
•Research – Reliable, valid measurement of academic achievement which is suitable for use in research designs. Reliability The reliability of the test is based on the following:
•Internal consistency
The testers used a split- half technique. Each form was divided in parallel halves to determine their distribution of item difficulty and skill areas assessed
In the overview, the author stated that the Reading and Math composites and the Spelling and Nonsense Word Decoding subtests have an average reliability in .90s. This means that these subtests are suitable to be used on their own in individual decision making.
The other subtests had reliabilities in the .80s except Associational Fluency and Oral Expression. Associated Fluency dips because it is looking for the reason for reading difficulties as opposed to measuring achievement. Oral Expression dips at the upper grades because it is centered on identifying problems in expressive language. These subtests are suitable for screening purposes.
•Alternate Form Reliability (Forms A and B)
Tested 221 students at multiple grade levels. Half took Form A and the other half took Form B. The test was given twice over time.
Alternate form reliabilities are high, ranging from the high .80s to mid .90s.
There was overall high consistency across time and forms. Validity •They provided different types of evidence to prove the validity of the test.
•Method 1- the KTEA-II test scores were correlated to achievement and cognitive scores from the following tests:
The Wechsler Individual Achievement Test 2nd Edition (WIAT II)
Woodcock- Johnson Tests of Achievement 3rd Edition (WJ III ACH)
Peabody Individual Achievement Test-Revised, Normative Update (PIAT-R/NU)
Oral and Written Language Scales (OWLS)
Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children, 2nd Edition (KABC-II)
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, 3rd Edition (WISC-III)
Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Abilities, 3rd Edition (WJ- III) •Method 2- Intercorrelations of subtests and composites
•Method 3-Factor Analysis to show the structure of the test
•Method 4-Studies that show the applications for use of the KTEA with special populations (specific learning disabilities, intellectually disabled, ADHD, emotionally disturbed, gifted/talented, deaf)
•The findings provide strong support for the validity of the KTEA-II composites and subtests in the areas of reading, mathematics and written language. Strengths and Weaknesses Strengths
•Designed to measure all seven areas stipulated by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act 2004 to test for specific learning disabilities.
•Helps to identify and analyze specific student errors for more intense remediation.
•Studies showing use with special populations.

•Time it takes to administer all subtests and composites.
•Basal and ceiling differ for different sections which can be confusing.
Full transcript