Introduction to Special Issue and to KTEA-3 Error Analysis

Abstract

This special issue focuses on an array of studies conducted using the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement-Third Edition (KTEA-3) error analysis system. These studies, based on KTEA-3 standardization and validation data with normal and clinical samples, were conducted to provide greater understanding of the kinds of errors students make in reading, writing, math, and oral language. This introduction provides a brief history of the error analysis system and outlines the organization of the special issue, which features commentaries on the articles by experts in the field. The themes throughout the special issue are patterns of errors made by students and the educational implications of these patterns.

Teacher Trainees’ Administration and Scoring Errors on the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement

“…The KTEA-3 (Kaufman & Kaufman, 2014) is a more recently published and common measure of academic achievement (Breaux & Lichtenberger, 2016). There appears to be a scarcity of research regarding the frequency with which teachers utilized the KTEA-3; however, the KTEA-3 is indicated as the most commonly used norm-referenced measure of academic achievement by school psychologist (Benson et al, 2019).…”

“…Norm-referenced tests of academic achievement, such as the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement, Third Edition (KTEA-3; Kaufman & Kaufman, 2014), Wechsler Individual Achievement Test, Third Edition (WIAT-III; Wechsler, 2009) and the Woodcock–Johnson IV Tests of Achievement (WJ-IV ACH; Schrank, Mather, McGrew, 2014), are important educational tools. These measures allow educators to evaluate academic achievement and areas of strengths and needed remediation in mathematics, reading, writing, and oral language (Breaux & Lichtenberger, 2016). Norm-referenced achievement measures are used in Individualized Education Program (IEP) creation, to help evaluate a program’s effectiveness (e.g., examine a new reading program at a school), and as pre–post measures of intervention effectiveness (Breaux & Lichtenberger, 2016).…”

“…These measures allow educators to evaluate academic achievement and areas of strengths and needed remediation in mathematics, reading, writing, and oral language (Breaux & Lichtenberger, 2016). Norm-referenced achievement measures are used in Individualized Education Program (IEP) creation, to help evaluate a program’s effectiveness (e.g., examine a new reading program at a school), and as pre–post measures of intervention effectiveness (Breaux & Lichtenberger, 2016). In addition, norm-referenced measures are useful for creating interventions to remediate academic difficulties (Breaux & Lichtenberger, 2016; Waugh & Gronlund, 2013), which is critical as the primary goal of assessment should be to improve student learning (National Association of School Psychologists [NASP], 2009; Waugh & Gronlund, 2013).…”

“…Perhaps equally important to multidisciplinary evaluation team members, norm-referenced measures of academic achievement allow educators to differentiate students from their peers, make classification decisions (Waugh & Gronlund, 2013), and are widely used for identifying if a child has a specific learning disability (SLD; Breaux & Lichtenberger, 2016). SLD represents the largest educational disability category as approximately 47% of students served by special education are identified with an SLD (National Center for Education Statistics, 2018).…”

“…Both cognitive and norm-referenced academic achievement measures require the administrator to provide a distraction-free environment, be skilled in establishing proper rapport, be able to detect signs of disinterest and fatigue, and frequently switch between tasks. Importantly, both types of assessment require strict adherence to standardized procedures that include correctly following basal and ceiling rules that might invalidate test scores when violated (Breaux & Lichtenberger, 2016; Flanagan & Alfonso, 2017).…”