Personal Musings on the Woodcock Johnson IV
So far I have used the WJIV for one year. Many times, I have used different combinations of tests, depending on the student: EAL, ADHD-type difficulties, maths difficulties and (wonderfully, occasionally) very straightforward, dyslexia – how marvellous! On the up side, there is a range of tests in the WJIV to cover all these options. I have found that one whole test allows a great deal of variety, allowing me to test different areas, but this does not come without its drawbacks. (I have become much quicker now!)
What do I find useful?
- In my opinion, the examiners’ manual describes the tests well, covering what each area assesses in user-friendly language that I have found very useful when writing a brief description of the task in the main body of the report and in appendix 4. (See updated SASC guidance, page 16, October 2021).
- The scoring rules and administration are provided clearly in the test record booklet and very clear instructions are displayed on the stimulus materials. The stimulus takes the form of an easel where the student sees the stimulus on one side and the assessor has their instructions on the other side. If I am honest, the stimulus does not seem very robust (provided in ring binder format) and it does not seem that it will take much for the holes to break and come away. However, the stimulus materials are also available to be used on a computer. I have tried assessing using the digital stimulus materials, which provides two benefits. There is a lot of information on each page which I felt may be overwhelming to the student, and using the computer enabled me to cover up part of the page to help with this. In addition, there is no possibility of the digital stimulus wearing out! However, working this way does not provide the examiner with easy access to the instructions so I reverted to the paper stimulus. I did not have room to have the instructions on the paper stimulus, as well as the computer.
- Scoring is all done online, which makes scoring quicker and less error-prone. However, there are drawbacks to this which are discussed later.
- I like the immediate feedback-controlled learning task: ‘concept formation’ which is one of the non-verbal subtests. The student has to use logic to reason about whether a specific concept belongs in a particular category or classification, relating to visual features, about why some items are “in a box” whereas others are “not in a box.” Immediate feedback and correction is given, providing a controlled learning task, demonstrating the capacity to learn from instruction. This test is ideal to see if there is something specific preventing our students from progressing.
- I really like the verbal attention subtest, which is part of the short-term working memory composite. The student listens to an intermingled series of animals and digits which are presented from a recording. Rather than repeating the series, the student holds the information in immediate memory and then answers specific questions (e.g. “the animal that came before the 5”). Because the instruction is given after the sequence has been presented, it makes it difficult to use strategies to boost scores and so is perhaps a truer reflection of working memory: the student does not after all know what is going to be asked in the classroom.
- In light of recent debate about the SDMT: “should I use it?, I don’t need to for remote testing, but do for face-to face, but hang on, actually if I don’t use it, it will not invalidate my assessment or diagnosis!” – not to mention the SDMT’s age – it is useful to have an alternative measure of processing speed. The WJIV provides very useful data on the processing abilities of candidates. SASC recommend two tests: letter-pair matching and pair-cancellation, which combine to form a cognitive processing speed score. There is a third task: number-pair matching, which SASC say to administer if there are EAL or visual concerns. In my opinion, there is also value in comparing letter- and number-based activities to determine if difficulties are only related to letters or numbers, or both. We can examine if there is a discrepancy between the two different areas, somewhat like looking at the rapid digit and letters task in the CTOPP 2. However, I do have the concern that this may be interpreted over-testing if I do this as a matter of course. (I do note that the SASC guidance says ‘suggestions’, so as long as we can justify why a particular test was done, there should be no issue… unless someone “in the know” can tell us different…).
- Number Series:’ In this test, the student has to determine a missing number in a sequence – I can’t personally get this to only fit in the cognitive section as I can see its place in attainment, similar to the FAM ‘sequences’ subtest. This aside, I do think ‘Number Series’ provides value as it allows the calculation of an underlying ability score from the non-verbal/ visual and verbal scores (much like the WRIT). It is this composite score that allows comparisons to be made to the other composite scores – without the Number Series, this is not available.
- WJIV covers underlying ability (although no dexterity task like the diamonds). It also has working memory and phonological memory. The fact that these now fall under the same heading in the new SASC guidelines for report writing, has alleviated my concern that the WJIV only provides one subtest for phonological memory (‘Nonword repetition’), not the two that I have been used to in CTOPP2. The WJIV also has phonological awareness (now a discrete section in our reports) and processing speed, but not rapid naming. This is such a shame as I still need to use that single section of CTOPP2, although I may, on occasion, supplement this with the supplementary phonological awareness tasks. I think the WJIV missed a trick there!
What is less useful?
- The ‘oral vocabulary’ verbal tests provide a good measure of oral vocabulary as they require single-word responses and this makes it very easy to spot word-finding difficulties. However, overall the verbal tests make limited demands upon the student’s ability to communicate in phrases or sentences. I have considered performing another language test in addition (back to the WRIT, although a major reason for buying the WJIV was to move away from the WRIT?) but this feels like it defeats the object of using WJIV as a high-coverage test, and would make my assessment even longer.
- There is no equivalent to the ‘diamonds’ non-verbal construction task (WRIT) which not only yielded good information, but was a good ice-breaker that I used near the start of the assessment to show that it is not all writing! However, the students do seem to like the non-verbal tests on the WJIV.
- The phonological processing section has 3 tasks: provide a word that has a specific sound at the beginning, in the middle, or at the end of a word; name as many words as possible that begin with a specified sound; and substitute part of a word to create a new word, such as changing /k/ in kip to /d/ to make dip. However, only one overall score is provided by the scoring system for this. I would have preferred to see the individual scores, as in the CTOPP2 for example, to get a clearer idea of strengths and challenges. Similarly, the ‘visualisation’ task has two subtests (identify the two or three shapes that combine to form a complete target shape and identify the two block patterns that match the target pattern) and again, only one score is provided. However, this forces one to look carefully at qualitative information and how the student responded. As SASC states, this is a good thing and I have found that it has given me opportunity to interpret the individual sections, placing greater emphasis on interpretative comments.
- Although scoring is quick, as it is all online, there is no way of double-checking the results. But I am starting to get a feel for what the raw scores correspond to when standardised. Perhaps this, too, will come with more experience.
- In the student responses booklet, when completing the letter and number pattern matching and the pair cancellation task, some students have groaned as it does look very overwhelming!
Undecided thoughts
- There are a lot of composite scores available. It is not yet clear to me where to put them in the SASC format, as they come from different areas. I also have questions about whether they are necessary? If I do use them, will it over face the reader? My main concern is how accessible all these different scores are for the reader – I am still in an ongoing internal debate with myself on how best to solve this (never mind trying to fit all the results on one page in appendix 2 of the report!
- Our current batteries, the WRIT, TOMAL2, CTOPP2, SDMT etc… are so well-known by assessors who know how to efficiently use them to provide valuable assessments to our clients, as well as how they fit with SASC guidelines. It is not so clear for the WJIV.
- So, on reflection, am I glad I spent a relative fortune? Am I glad I spent my summer holidays testing my family to death? Invested time in generating new content for my own reports and appendices until I was satisfied(ish)?
- The answer is: Yes!
References
Schrank, F. A., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2014). Woodcock-Johnson IV Tests of Cognitive Abilities. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside Publishing.
Schrank, F. A., & Dailey, D. (2014). Woodcock-Johnson Online Scoring and Reporting [Online format]. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside Publishing.
W. Joel Schneider Strengths and Weaknesses of the Woodcock–Johnson IV Tests of Cognitive Abilities: Best Practice from a Scientist–Practitioner Perspective – https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-802076-0.00007-4