Welcome to the discussion area of the Dyslexia Positive website. The idea is that anyone interested in dyslexia can join in a discussion based on themes initiated by a member of the Dyslexia Positive team. Please participate by commenting on the articles and feel free to ask any questions!
Showing posts with label WRIT. Show all posts

Posted 26th October, 2017 by Sue Partridge

I recently had reason to be a little nostalgic about the method I learned for assessing adults with dyslexia back in the 1990s. I trained with Cynthia Klein and used a method broadly outlined in Klein, C. (2003) Diagnosing dyslexia: a guide to the assessment of adults, London, The Basic Skills Agency.

A number of colleagues have been preparing for resubmission of evidence to renew their Assessment Practice Certificate (APC), and I am staggered by the length of the diagnostic report now required, the proliferation of assessment tests needed and the depth of analysis expected.  Feedback on the resubmission by expert assessors can run to several pages of intricate recommendations for improved practice and precise wording to be used in reports. Continue reading this article… »

To receive an email when a new article is published, enter your email address:

NB: you should receive an email asking you to confirm whether you want to subscribe.


Posted 26th August, 2017 by Sue Partridge

What can the WRIT vocabulary subtest tell us about reading ability?

by Alison Earey

The Vocabulary subtest depends upon the participants’ understanding and production of oral language.  Therefore, the Vocabulary subtest is inappropriate for individuals unfamiliar with English.

Vocabulary tests are among the best predictors and commonly demonstrate the highest correlation with total IQ at any subtest within a given ability battery (WRIT manual, p60).

STEC Guidelines (SASC 2005) tell us that WRIT is a measure of underlying ability.

So,the question re-phrased is –  What does being able to define words orally tell us about reading ability?

The Vocabulary subtest tells us whether a person knows what word means or not. It doesn’t tell us whether they have learned the word from reading or from conversation. Continue reading this article… »


Photograph of Melanie Knight

Posted 8th March, 2011 by Melanie Knight

 

Significance level .05 .01
Differences between subtest scores  for 13 to 18 years old
Diamonds and Matrices 15 – 18 19 or above
Vocabulary and Verbal analogies 17 – 22 23  or above
Differences between subtests for 19 years and older
Diamonds and Matrices 12 -15 16 or above
Vocabulary and Verbal analogies 14 -18 19 or above

Adapted from table 6.6 from the WRIT Manual (Glutting, Adams and Sheslow, 2000, p.76)

To calculate a learner’s visual and verbal aptitude it is necessary to add the standard scores of the 2 subtests within each domain.  For example to calculate a learner’s visual aptitude score you must add the standard scores for the matrices and diamond subtests together.

However some learners may score significantly better on one subtest than another within a domain.  This poses the question to assessors “Is it safe to combine the learner’s subtest scores to generate a domain score?”

On page 76 of the WRIT manual relevant differences between subtest scores for statistical significance are provided. The differences are listed at 2 levels of statistical significance; p<.05 and p<.01. “P” is an estimate of the probability that the result has occurred by accident.  Therefore the smaller the value of “P”, the greater the statistical significance.  Differences at the .01 level would normally be considered significant by statisticians.

Caution may need to be employed in interpreting domain standard scores when significant differences are found between subtest standard scores ” (WRIT Manual  page 50). However they do not clarify whether it is safe to combine the scores at either the .05 or the .01 level to generate a domain score. Hence it appears to be left to the assessor’s discretion to decide whether to combine statistically significant subtest scores and to comment on the statistically interesting difference.

7 Comments so far: leave a comment or ask a question »