Part 3 of 3 part WJ IV introduction workshop at NASP 2014 in Washington DC.

1. The WJ IV and SLD:
Use of the Discrepancy and
Variation Procedures
National Association of School
Psychologists
February 19, 2014
Nancy Mather, Ph.D., University of
Arizona

2. Test 4: Letter-Pattern
Matching
NEW
New test
Timed test (3-minute limit)
Use Response Booklet
Begin with Sample A and Practice Test
Measures important Gs ability, perceptual
speed
• Provides a measure of orthographic
processing
•
•
•
•
•
Gs-P (Perceptual Speed)

3. Orthography
• The writing system of a language,
including the spelling patterns
• Students with reading and writing
disabilities tend to have weaknesses in the
automatic recall of spelling patterns
• Good readers and spellers will quickly
note the matching pair, as it is a common
English spelling pattern (e.g., th, oa) and
the others are not (e.g., ao, hx).

4. Test 3: Segmentation
NEW
• A measure of phonetic coding, an aspect of
Auditory Processing (Ga)
• Combines with Blending to form the Phonetic
Coding cluster
The two most important phonological awareness
abilities:
• Blending: pushing speech sounds together
(underlies using phonics for reading)
• Segmentation: pushing sounds apart
(underlies breaking apart sounds for spelling)

5. Segmentation
• Compound Words
• Syllables
• Phonemes (single speech
sounds)
(Sample test item deleted for test security reasons)

6. Achievement: What’s New?
• 7 new tests
• Oral Reading, Reading Recall,
• Word Reading Fluency
NEW
• Number Matrices
• Science, Social Studies, Humanities
• 8 new clusters
• Reading, Reading Comprehension-Extended,
Reading Fluency, Reading Rate
• Written Language
• Mathematics
• Brief Achievement, Broad Achievement

7. Test 12: Reading Recall
NEW
• A measure of reading skill that contributes to the
Reading Comprehension cluster
• Can compare to Story Recall in WJ IV COG
(Sample item deleted for test security reasons)

8. Test 15: Word Reading Fluency
NEW
(Sample test item deleted for test security reasons)
• A measure of reading skill that contributes to
the Reading Rate cluster
• Timed test: 3 minutes

9. Examples of Useful WJ IV
Comparisons
Word Attack 
Blending/Segmentation
Story Recall 
Reading Recall
Oral Vocabulary  Reading Vocabulary
Oral Comprehension Passage
Comprehension

10. Three Procedures that can
Contribute Information for SLD
Identification in the US
(IDEA, 2004)
• Ability-achievement discrepancy
• Response to intervention (RTI)
• Alternative research-based
methods (e.g., a pattern of
strengths and weaknesses- PSW
approach)

11. The primary purpose
for testing should be to
find out more about the
problem, not to just get
a score.
Dr. R. W. Woodcock

12. Two Types of
Discrepancies/Variations that Have Been
Used in SLD Identification
• Discrepancies between overall ability
or oral language and specific academic
performance
• Variations among abilities: a pattern of
strengths and weaknesses
(intra-individual variations)

13. Two Basic Concepts of SLD
• Unexpected Underachievementacademic performance is below what
would be predicted based upon one’s
other cognitive and/or academic abilities
• Expected Underachievement- academic
performance is in line with
cognitive/linguistic weaknesses- the
weakness(es) predict the poor
academic performance

14. Cognitive
Strengths(e.g.,
language, reasoning)
Cognitive Weaknesses
(e.g., phonological
awareness, processing
speed)

Unexpected
Underachievement
Intact academic
performance in
academic areas
not affected by the
disability (e.g.,
mathematics,
science)

Poor decoding and
spelling performance,
slow reading rate
Expected Underachievement

15. Discrepancies and
Variations
Two types of comparison procedures:
Discrepancies: a score is used to predict
performance in an area; predicted score is
based on score of the predictor (e.g., GIA)
Variations: a comparison of abilities to
identify a pattern of strengths and
weaknesses (fits with PSW approach);
predicted score based on a set of other
abilities

16. Discrepancy Options
Five different ability/achievement discrepancy
procedures help compare abilities to current
levels of achievement.
•
•
•
•
•
GIA/Achievement
Scholastic Aptitude/Achievement
Gf-Gc/Achievement/other abilities
Broad Oral Language/Achievement
Academic Knowledge/Achievement

17. GIA/Achievement
Discrepancy
Compares general intellectual ability to current
levels of achievement or oral language to determine
if a significant difference exists.
Requires:
• GIA (COG Tests 1-7)
• Any or all achievement clusters
• Can include up to 4 Oral Language clusters
–
–
–
–
Oral Language
Broad Oral Language
Oral Expression
Listening Comprehension

18. General Intellectual Ability (GIA)
WJ IV COG Tests 1-7 represent one of seven CHC factors:
Test 1 Oral Vocabulary--Comprehension-Knowledge (Gc)
Test 2 Number Series--Fluid Reasoning (Gf)
Test 3 Verbal Attention--Short-Term Working Memory
(Gwm)
Test 4 Letter-Pattern Matching--Cognitive Processing
Speed (Gs)
Test 5 Phonological Processing--Auditory Processing
(Ga)
Test 6 Story Recall--Long-Term Retrieval (Glr)
Test 7 Visualization--Visual Processing (Gv)

19. GIA/Achievement
Discrepancy Procedure
COMPARISONS
STANDARD SCORES
Actual Predicted Difference
GIA/Achievement Discrepancy Procedure*
BRIEF ACHIEVEMENT 95
95
0
BROAD ACHIEVEMENT 96
96
0
READING
91
96
-5
BROAD READING
91
96
-5
BASIC READ SKILLS
92
96
-4
READING COMP
91
96
-5
READING COMP-EXT 92
96
-4
READING FLUENCY
87
96
-9
READING RATE
89
97
-8
DISCREPANCY Significant at
PR
SD
+ or – 1.50 SD (SEE)
49
54
33
31
34
31
36
19
23
-0.02
+0.10
-0.44
-0.49
-0.41
-0.51
-0.37
-0.86
-0.74
GIA score is 95.
No significant discrepancies.
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No

20. Scholastic Aptitudes
• designed to predict performance in the nearterm
• may be useful in estimating quickness of
response to intervention
• designed to represent the concept of
“expected underachievement”

21. Some abilities are more
important than others…
Reasoning (Gf)
Oral language (Gc)
Processing speed
Short-term memory
Phonological awareness
Rapid automatized naming (RAN)

22. Gf-Gc/Other Abilities
•Requires COG Tests 1, 2, 8, 9
•Compares Gf-Gc composite to current
levels of achievement or oral language
abilities or other cognitive abilities to
determine if a discrepancy exists.
•Determines the presence of significant
strengths or weaknesses between an
individual’s more complex abilities (fluid
reasoning and comprehension-knowledge)
and achievement as well as other abilities
(cognitive or oral language).

23. Gf-Gc/Other Abilities
Can include:
• 10 additional COG clusters
• Any or all ACH clusters
• 2 OL clusters
• Auditory Memory Span (1 COG test, 1 OL test)
Especially helpful when individuals have a lowerlevel processing deficit that lowers the estimate of
general intelligence or when using a PSW model for
SLD identification.

24. 
Gf-Gc
Composite
Cognitive Abilities

Oral Language

Achievement

25. Indicates possible
patterns of
strengths and
weaknesses
Math (Gq)
Regressionbased
predictions that
Gf+Gc
Writing
account for
Composite
(Grw)
(predictor)
regression-tothe-mean (and
Other CHC
how it varies as a
cog abilities
function of age)
and produce
Oral Lang.
abilities
“real”
discrepancy
norms
Conceptual summary of WJ IV Gf+Gc strength and
Reading
(Grw)
weakness comparison procedure and options

26. Consideration of Different
Abilities
In homogenous samples of young adults,
“…measures in which there is much
emphasis on speediness correlate near zero,
perhaps negatively, with tests that require
solving difficult problems” (p. 91).
Source: Horn, J. L., & Blankson, A. N. (2012). Foundations for
better understanding of cognitive abilities. In D. Flanagan &
P. Harrison (Eds.). Contemporary intellectual assessment:
Theories, tests, and issues (3rd ed.) (pp. 73-98). New York:
Guilford.

27. Gf-Gc/Other Abilities
• Useful in gifted, gifted/SLD, and SLD
evaluations
• Useful in cases of traumatic brain injury or
other neuropsychological difficulties
• Can be used as a substitute for the GIA when
core cognitive processes, such as processing
speed, working memory, etc. are discrepant
from reasoning and knowledge.
• Useful within a PSW model to explore the
pattern of strengths and weaknesses

28. Gf-Gc/Other Abilities
COMPARISONS
STANDARD SCORES
DISCREPANCY
Actual Predicted Difference PR
SD
Interpretation at
+ or – 1.50 SD (SEE)
Gf-Gc Composite/Other Ability Comparison*
S-TERM WORK MEM (Gwm) 89
111 -22
3
-1.84
Weakness
COG PROCESS SPEED (Gs) 92
107 -15
12
-1.17
-PERCEPTUAL SPEED
88
108 -20
6
-1.52
Weakness
AUDITORY PROCESS (Ga)
79
111 -32
0.4
-2.67
Weakness
L-TERM RETRIEVAL (Glr)
81
111 -30
1
-2.33
Weakness
VISUAL PROCESSING (Gv) 104
109
-5
35
-0.39
-NUMBER FACILITY
90
110 -20
6
-1.59
Weakness
COGNITIVE EFFICIENCY
91
111 -20
6
-1.54
Weakness
COG EFFICIENCY (Ext)
87
111 -24
3
-1.96
Weakness
*This procedure compares the WJ IV Gf-Gc Composite cluster score to other selected clusters.
Uses Gf-Gc Composite as the predictor. In this case,
the composite was 120. Score changes because of
regression to the mean and the correlation between
the Gf-Gc composite and the other ability.

29. Gf-Gc/Achievement
COMPARISONS
STANDARD SCORES
Actual Predicted Difference
DISCREPANCY
PR
SD
Interpretation at
+ or – 1.50 SD (SEE)
Gf-Gc Composite/Other Ability Comparison*
BRIEF ACHIEVEMENT
95
BROAD ACHIEVEMENT
96
READING
91
BROAD READING
91
BASIC READING SKILLS 92
READING COMP
91
READING COMP-EXT
92
READING FLUENCY
87
READING RATE
89
115
115
115
114
112
114
115
111
110
-20
-19
-24
-23
-20
-23
-23
-24
-21
2
3
1
2
3
2
1
2
4
-2.05
-1.81
-2.24
-2.11
-1.86
-2.14
-2.30
-2.07
-1.74
Gf-Gc composite = 120.
Many significant discrepancies noted.
Weakness
Weakness
Weakness
Weakness
Weakness
Weakness
Weakness
Weakness
Weakness

30. Gf+Gc cognitive ability
and WJ IV cluster
Gf
Gc
Gf-Gc Composite
(Predictor)
Achievement domains
and WJ IV clusters
Other broad/narrow cognitive abilities and
processing abilities and WJ IV clusters
Gwm
Gs
Ga
Glr
Gv
Grw
Gq
ST Wrk
Mem
(&Ext)
Cog Prc
Spd
Aud Proc
LT
Retrieval
Visual Proc
Reading
Math
Brd Rdg
Brd Math
Aud Mem
Sp
Perc Spd
Phon Cod
Bas Rdg
Sk
Rdg Cmp
(& Ext)
Math Calc
Sk
Math Pr
Solv
Rdg Flu
Brd Wr Lng
Rdg Rate
Bas Wrt Sk
Wr Lng
Wr Exp
Cognitive Efficiency
(& Ext)
Sp Lex Acc
Phn-Grp
Kn

31. Ability/Achievement
Comparison Procedure
Predictor
Clusters for Comparison
All WJ IV ACH clusters
Broad Oral Language
7 in reading
4 in math
4 in writing
5 special purpose
Is achievement commensurate with
oral language ability?

32. Verbal Ability as the Estimate of
Reading Potential
By the end of elementary school:
“ Children should be able to comprehend,
or construct, the meaning of what is
being read at a level consistent with
their general verbal ability” (p.55).
Source: Torgesen, J. K. (2000). Individual differences
in response to early interventions in reading: The
lingering problem of treatment resisters. Learning
Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 55-64.

33. Academic
Knowledge/Achievement
Comparisons
• Academic Knowledge is used as a predictor of
achievement; full length tests of Science, Social
Studies, and Humanities that are administered
orally
– Strong measure of Gc
– Good predictor of academic ability
• All other achievement clusters can be compared to
Academic Knowledge
• Helps determine if reading, writing, and math are
discrepant from the Academic Knowledge cluster

34. Regulations IDEA 2004, August 14, 2006
§300.309(a)(2)(ii) permits consideration of:
The child exhibits a pattern of strengths
and weaknesses in
performance, achievement, or
both, relative to intellectual
development, that is determined by the
team to be relevant to the identification of
a specific learning disability.

35. The current Federal IDEA Definition of
SLD (34 C.F.R. 300.8):
Specific Learning Disability means a disorder in
one or more of the basic psychological
processes involved in understanding or in using
language, spoken or written, which disorder
may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to
listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do
mathematical calculations, including conditions
such as perceptual disabilities, brain injury,
minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and
developmental aphasia.

36. Benefits of PSW Approach
(a) aligns the identification process with
the concept of SLD and the definition;
(b) identifies the reason or reasons why
a student is struggling; and,
(c) helps inform the selection of
appropriate accommodations and
instructional methodologies.

37. Cognitive Testing
“The nature of a tier 3 referral makes it
imperative that the specific cognitive strengths
and weaknesses of the student and their impact
on learning and production be clearly specified”
(p. 870).
Source: McCloskey, G., Whitaker, J., Murphy, R., & Rogers,
J. (2012) Intellectual, cognitive, and neuropsychological
assessment in three-tier service delivery systems in schools.
In D. P. Flanagan & P. L. Harrison (Eds.)., Contemporary
Intellectual Assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 852890). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

38. Variation Options
Four different variation procedures to help
document an individual’s unique pattern of
strengths and weaknesses:
• Intra-cognitive
• Intra-achievement
• Academic Skills, Academic Fluency, and Academic
Applications clusters
• Intra-oral language

39. Intra-Cognitive
Variation Procedure
Strengths and weaknesses among cognitive
abilities
• Intra-cognitive based on COG Tests 1—7
• Optional tests that may be included:
–All remaining COG tests (Tests 8-18)
–Oral Language tests (Tests 1-8)
–ACH Test 13: Number Matrices

40. Intra-Cognitive Variation
Procedure
STANDARD SCORES
DISCREPANCY Interpretation at
VARIATIONS
Actual
Predicted Difference PR
SD
+ or – 1.50 SD (SEE)
Intra-Cognitive Variations
Oral Vocabulary^
109
93
16
93 +1.45
Number Series^
114
92
22
97 +1.84
Verbal Attention^
85
97
-12
16 -1.01
Letter-Pat Match^
89
97
- 8
27 -0.61
Phono Process^
84
97
-13
13 -1.14
Story Recall^
82
98
-16
10 -1.29
Visualization^
103
95
8
71 +0.55
^Core test for calculation of intra-cognitive variations.
-Strength
------
Requires Tests 1-7.
Average of the other 6 used as the predictor for the
remaining tests.

41. Intra-Cognitive (Extended)
Variation Procedure
VARIATIONS
STANDARD SCORES
DISCREPANCY
Interpretation at
Actual Predicted
Difference PRSD
+ or – 1.50 SD (SEE)
Intra-Cognitive (Extended) Variations
COMP-KNOWLEDGE (Gc)
124
FLUID REASONING (Gf)
109
S-TERM WORK MEM (Gwm) 89
COG PROCESS SPEED (Gs) 92
AUDITORY PROCESS (Ga)
79
L-TERM RETRIEVAL (Glr)
81
VISUAL PROCESSING (Gv) 104
93
91
97
97
97
98
96
31
18
-8
-5
-18
-17
8
99
96
24
33
6
9
74
+2.52
+1.75
-0.70
-0.44
-1.58
-1.35
+0.64
Strength
Strength
--Weakness
---
Includes additional tests beyond 1-7 and can
also include tests from Tests of Oral Language.
PERCEPTUAL SPEED
VOCABULARY¤
ORAL LANGUAGE+ 100
88
110
93
97
93
7
-9
24
17
93
71 +0.56
-0.71
+1.45
--
---

42. Intra-Achievement Variation
Procedures
• Two options
Intra-Achievement using Tests 1-6
• Test 1. Letter Word Identification
• Test 2. Applied Problems
• Test 3. Spelling
• Test 4. Passage Comprehension
• Test 5. Calculation
• Test 6. Writing Samples
Intra-Achievement using 3 clusters:
• Academic Skills
• Academic Fluency
• Academic Applications

43. Intra-Achievement Variation
Procedures
• Additional tests can be added to procedures
• Compares performance on one test or cluster to
average performance on other tests or clusters
• Provides information about examinee’s
strengths and weaknesses within academic
areas
• Helps pinpoint a pattern of strengths and
weaknesses

44. Academic Skills/Academic Fluency/
Academic Applications
When ACH Tests 1 through 6 and 9 through 11 are
administered, a cross-domain comparison is made.
• Academic Skills cluster is compared to a predictor
score from the Academic Applications and
Academic Fluency clusters;
• Academic Applications cluster is compared to
Academic Skills and Academic Fluency clusters;
• Academic Fluency cluster is compared to a
predictor score from the Academic Skills and
Academic Applications clusters.

45. Some related WJ IV speed or fluency clusters
are automatically included in this variation
procedure when the appropriate tests are
also administered.
The WJ IV COG Cognitive Processing Speed
(Gs), Perceptual Speed (P), and the WJ IV
ACH Reading Rate clusters are also compared
to the same “other” score as Academic
Fluency (Academic Skills/Academic
Applications)

46. Extended Time
• Slow perceptual speed
• Slow Academic Fluency
• Slow Reading Rate
In contrast to:
• Higher Gf-Gc Composite
• Higher Oral Language
• Higher Academic Knowledge

47. “It was as if he were driving in a
NASCAR race in first gear while
everyone else was cruising along
in fifth gear” (Lindstedt &
Zaccariello, 2008) (pp. 195-196).
Source: Lindstedt, K., & Zaccariello, M. J. (2008). A
tale of two assessments: Reading Fluency. In J. N. Apps,
R. F. Newby, & L. W. Roberts (Ed)., Pediatric
neuropsychology case studies: From the exceptional to
the commonplace (pp. 191-199). New York, NY:
Springer.

48. Intra-Oral Language Variation
Procedure
Required Tests 1-4
1. Picture Vocabulary
2. Oral Comprehension
Compares each
test to the
average of the
other 3.
3. Segmentation
4. Rapid Picture Naming
Can add in OL Tests 5-8 and COG tests:
COG 1: Oral Vocabulary
COG 5: Phonological Processing
COG 12: Nonword Repetition

49. Dr. Alan Kaufman
… there is a demand for the
comprehensive assessment to
drive intervention. This is the way
it has always been, and this is the
way it will always be because the
referral questions for children with
SLD have always asked, What is
wrong? And how can we help?
These questions demand
differential diagnosis, a large part
of which is determined by the
cognitive abilities present in the
individual child (p. 211).
Source: Kaufman, A. S., Lichtenberger, E. O., Fletcher-Janzen, E.,
& Kaufman, N. L. (2005). Essentials of the K-ABC-II Assessment.
New York: John Wiley & Sons.

50. Comprehensive evaluations that include both
cognitive and achievement testing are needed
to fully understand the nature and severity of
the SLD, identify the pattern of strengths and
weaknesses, and select appropriate
accommodations and interventions.

51. Diagnosis and Instruction
“Diagnosis must take second place
to instruction, and must be made a
tool of instruction, not an end in
itself.”
Source: Cruickshank, W.M. (1977). Leastrestrictive placement: Administrative wishful
thinking. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 10,
193-194.