Kaufman Test Research Articles

Exploratory Factor Analysis of the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement, 3rd Edition

The Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement, 3rd edition (KTEA-3) is a popular battery for the assessment of students’ academic skills. Its manual includes a series of confirmatory factor analyses to support construct validity. Its five-factor model did not include all available subtests in the battery and required covarying residuals between certain subtests, which could suggest that it measures additional abilities beyond its specified factors. Further, its factors appear highly correlated which suggests the presence of a general factor. This investigation supplements the analyses in the manual with both an oblique rotation and a higher-order exploratory factor analysis using a Schmid-Leiman rotation within multiple grade ranges. Results suggest that the KTEA-3 is factorally complex. The Schmid-Leiman rotation indicates that it is a measure of both a general ability, and perhaps an additional naming facility factor.

Do Achievement Factors Change Across Development? An Investigation With the KTEA-3

Theories of reading and writing development suggest that the factor structure of achievement batteries could change across development. As a result, it is important to test achievement batteries for invariance across development. The purpose of these analyses is to determine whether the factor structure of reading, writing, and oral language measures is invariant across grade ranges in the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement, 3rd Edition. Results suggest that multiple interpretational models demonstrate measurement and structural invariance. Implications for practice are discussed.

Relationship between reading and long-term storage and retrieval (Glr) in college students

ABSTRACTThe purpose of this study was to (a) identify the relationship between specific types of reading ability, different forms of learning, and long-term memory and retrieval (Glr); and then (b) to determine the degree to which self-assessed reading ability and a Glr measure could predict objective reading ability. College students were administered three different reading assessments from the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement, Second Edition (KTEA-II): word reading, reading comprehension, and nonsense word decoding. They were also given two pairs of Glr subtests that consisted of immediate and delayed versions from the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children, Second Edition (KABC-II). One set was embedded within context, whereas the other was not. Results showed that although overall reading ability and reading comprehension correlated the highest with Glr measures that were embedded in context, word reading, and nonsense word decoding were correlated the highest with delayed measures of Glr. Second, the self-assessment accounted for 23% of the variability in overall reading ability. Not only do these results show the strength of the relationship between Glr and reading, but also the ability to use these measures along with self-assessment to screen for reading disabilities.

Cognitive ability influences on written expression: Evidence for developmental and sex-based differences in school-age children

Some studies have demonstrated that the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) cognitive abilities influence writing; however, little research has investigated whether CHC cognitive abilities influence writing the same way for males and females across grades. We used multiple group structural equation models to investigate whether CHC cognitive ability influences on written expression differed between grades or sex using the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children, Second Edition and the Kaufman Tests of Educational Achievement, Second Edition co-normed standardization sample data (N=2117). After testing for consistent measurement of cognitive abilities across grades and sex, we tested whether the cognitive ability influences on written expression were moderated by grade level or sex. An important developmental shift was observed equally across sex groups: Learning Efficiency (Gl) influences decreased whereas Crystallized Ability (Gc) influences increased after fourth grade. Further, Short-Term Memory (Gsm) and Retrieval Fluency (Gr) influences on written expression depended on sex at grades 1–4, with larger Gr influences for females and larger Gsm influences for males. We internally replicated our main findings using two different cognitive explanatory models, adding further support for the developmental and sex-based differential cognitive ability influences on writing. Explanatory cognitive models of writing need to incorporate development, and possibly, sex to provide an expanded understanding of writing development and guard against potential generalizability issues characteristic of special population (i.e., male-female) studies.

Macular pigment optical density is positively associated with academic performance among preadolescent children

Objective: Macular pigment optical density (MPOD) – a non-invasive indicator of retinal xanthophylls and correlate of brain lutein – has been associated with superior cognitive function among adult populations. Given that lutein accumulation in the brain occurs in early life, it is possible that the cognitive implications of greater MPOD may be evident in childhood.Methods: Participants aged 8–9 years (n = 56) completed MPOD measurements via heterochromatic flicker photometry. Academic performance was assessed using the Kaufman Test of Academic and Educational Achievement II (KTEA). Habitual dietary intake of L and Z was measured among a subsample of participants (n = 35) using averaged 3-day food records. Stepwise hierarchical regression models were developed to determine the relationship between MPOD and academic achievement tests, following the adjustment of key covariates including sex, aerobic fitness, body composition, and intelligence quotient (IQ).Results: The regression analyses revealed that MPOD improved the model, beyond the covariates, for overall academic achievement (ΔR2 = 0.10, P < 0.01), mathematics (ΔR2 = 0.07, P = 0.02), and written language composite standard scores (ΔR2 = 0.15, P < 0.01).Discussion: This is the first study to demonstrate that retinal L and Z, measured as MPOD, is positively related to academic achievement in children, even after accounting for the robust effects of IQ and other demographic factors. These findings extend the positive associations observed between MPOD and cognitive abilities to a pediatric population.Trail registration: The Fitness Improves Thinking in Kids 2 (FITKids2) trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01619826.

Utility of KTEA-3 Error Analysis for the Diagnosis of Specific Learning Disabilities

Through the use of excerpts from one of our own case studies, this commentary applied concepts inherent in, but not limited to, the neuropsychological literature to the interpretation of performance on the Kaufman Tests of Educational Achievement–Third Edition (KTEA-3), particularly at the level of error analysis. The approach to KTEA-3 test interpretation advocated here parallels the cognitive process-oriented approach used by McCloskey and colleagues in their interpretation of the Wechsler scales. This approach is also advocated by Hale and Fiorello as part of their cognitive hypothesis testing model and is inherent in the neuropsychological assessment and interpretation frameworks proposed by Miller and Dehn. For the purpose of this commentary, we describe how this approach to KTEA-3 test interpretation fits within our own Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC)-based approach to specific learning disabilities (SLD) identification. To derive maximum benefit from error analysis, practitioners must pay careful attention to the manner in which students respond to test items and copiously document their observations during test administration.

What Do Phonological Processing Errors Tell About Students’ Skills in Reading, Writing, and Oral Language?

The kinds of errors that children and adolescents make on phonological processing tasks were studied with a large sample between ages 4 and 19 ( N = 3,842) who were tested on the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement–Third Edition (KTEA-3). Principal component analysis identified two phonological processing factors: Basic Phonological Awareness and Advanced Phonological Processing. Canonical analysis and correlation analysis were conducted to determine how each factor related to reading, writing, and oral language across the wide age range. Results of canonical correlation analysis indicated that the advanced error factor was more responsible for reading, writing, and oral language skills than the basic error factor. However, in the correlation analysis, both the basic and advanced factors related about equally to different aspects of achievement—including reading fluency and rapid naming—and there were few age differences.

Beyond the Mask

An understanding of the strengths, weaknesses, and achievement profiles of students with giftedness and learning disabilities (G&amp;LD) is needed to address their asynchronous development. This study examines the subtests and error factors in the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement–Third Edition (KTEA-3) for strength and weakness patterns of students with G&amp;LD in higher and lower level thinking skills by comparing G&amp;LD students ( n = 196) with academically gifted (GT; n = 69) and specific learning disability (SLD) students ( n = 90). Several one-way MANCOVAs were conducted with subtest error factor scores as dependent variables and grouping variable (G&amp;LD, GT, or SLD) as the independent variable. The G&amp;LD means scores across subtests were in between the two control groups. On many higher level thinking tasks, the G&amp;LD group scored similar to the gifted group. The results support the use of error analysis to gain further understanding into the profile of students with G&amp;LD.

Implications of Error Analysis Studies for Academic Interventions

We reviewed 13 studies that focused on analyzing student errors on achievement tests from the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement–Third edition (KTEA-3). The intent was to determine what instructional implications could be derived from in-depth error analysis. As we reviewed these studies, several themes emerged. We explain how a careful analysis of errors is key to planning the most appropriate instructional interventions.

Error Analysis

This commentary will take an historical perspective on the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement (KTEA) error analysis, discussing where it started, where it is today, and where it may be headed in the future. In addition, the commentary will compare and contrast the KTEA error analysis procedures that are rooted in psychometric methodology and the process approach to error analysis which is derived primarily from cognitive neuropsychology.

Exploratory Factor Analysis of Reading, Spelling, and Math Errors

Norm-referenced error analysis is useful for understanding individual differences in students’ academic skill development and for identifying areas of skill strength and weakness. The purpose of the present study was to identify underlying connections between error categories across five language and math subtests of the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement–Third Edition (KTEA-3) through exploratory factor analyses (EFAs). The EFA results were supportive of models with two or three factors for each of the five subtests. Significant inter-factor correlations within subtests were identified in all subtests, except between two factors within the Math Concepts and Application (MCA) subtest. There was also consistency in the covariance patterns of some error categories across subtests, particularly within the Nonsense Word Decoding (NWD) and Spelling (SP) subtests. This consistency was supportive of the proposed factor structures. The factor structures yielded by these analyses were used as the bases for the other articles in this special issue.

Differences in Errors Between Students With Language and Reading Disabilities

Children with a specific learning disability in reading/writing (LDRW) and/or language impairment (LI) are likely to have difficulties across all areas of academic achievement, as a great deal of teaching and learning depends on intact reading skill and linguistic communication. Despite a large number of studies examining academic difficulties among these groups, there has been minimal research investigating types of errors made on tests of academic achievement. The present study compared academic error types of children with LDRW (Group 1) and children with LI (Group 3) to two distinct demographically matched control groups (Groups 2 and 4) using the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement–Third Edition (KTEA-3) error analysis system. Findings indicate that children in the LDRW group or LI group, on average, made a greater number of errors than their matched counterparts. Statistically significant differences, with moderate effect sizes, were found between examinees in the clinical groups and their respective matched control groups across several error categories. Some of the largest differences were found in the Written Expression and Oral Expression subtests. Most importantly, the patterns of errors made by LDRW and LI samples differed notably on the various tasks, providing new insights about these clinical samples.

Patterns of Strengths and Weaknesses on the WISC-V, DAS-II, and KABC-II and Their Relationship to Students’ Errors in Oral Language, Reading, Writing, Spelling, and Math

This study investigated the relationship between specific cognitive patterns of strengths and weaknesses and the errors children make on oral language, reading, writing, spelling, and math subtests from the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement–Third Edition (KTEA-3). Participants with scores from the KTEA-3 and either the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fifth Edition (WISC-V), Differential Ability Scales–Second Edition (DAS-II), or Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children–Second Edition (KABC-II) were selected based on their profile of scores. Error factor scores for the oral and written language tests were compared for three groups: High Gc paired with low processing speed, long-term memory, and/or reasoning abilities; Low Gc paired with high speed, memory, and/or reasoning; and Low orthographic and/or phonological processing. Error factor scores for the math tests were compared for three groups: High Gc profile; High Gf paired with low processing speed and/or long-term memory; and Low Gf paired with high processing speed and/or long-term memory. Results indicated a difference in Oral Expression and Written Expression error factor scores between the group with High Gc paired with low processing speed, long-term memory, and/or reasoning abilities; and the group with Low Gc paired with high speed, memory, and/or reasoning.

Patterns of Cognitive Strengths and Weaknesses and Relationships to Math Errors

This study investigated cognitive patterns of strengths and weaknesses (PSW) and their relationship to patterns of math errors on the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement (KTEA-3). Participants, ages 5 to 18, were selected from the KTEA-3 standardization sample if they met one of two PSW profiles: high crystallized ability (Gc) paired with low processing speed/long-term retrieval (Gs/Glr; n = 375) or high Gs/Glr paired with low Gc ( n = 309). Estimates of Gc and Gs/Glr were based on five KTEA-3 subtests that measure either Gc (e.g., Listening Comprehension) or Gs/Glr (e.g., Object Naming Facility). The two groups were then compared on math error factors. Significant differences favored the High-Gc group for factors that measure math calculation, basic math concepts, and complex computation. However, the two groups did not differ in their errors on factors that measure geometry/measurement or simple addition. Results indicated that students with different PSW profiles also differed in the kinds of errors they made on math tests.

Analysis of Children’s Errors in Comprehension and Expression

Children’s oral language skills typically begin to develop sooner than their written language skills; however, the four language systems (listening, speaking, reading, and writing) then develop concurrently as integrated strands that influence one another. This research explored relationships between students’ errors in language comprehension of passages across oral and written modalities (listening and reading) and in language expression across oral and written modalities (speaking and writing). The data for this study were acquired during the standardization of the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement–Third Edition (KTEA-3). Correlational analyses from the total sample ( n = 2,443-3,552) and within grade bands revealed low to moderate correlations (.26-.50). No evidence of convergent or divergent validity was found when comparing correlations of “same-name” error types (e.g., inferential errors across modalities) with correlations of “different-name” error types. These results support previous research findings and hypotheses that language by ear, eye, hand, and mouth are separable but interacting systems that differ in more ways than modality of input/output.

Biological Gender Differences in Students’ Errors on Mathematics Achievement Tests

This study investigated developmental gender differences in mathematics achievement, using the child and adolescent portion (ages 6-19 years) of the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement–Third Edition (KTEA-3). Participants were divided into two age categories: 6 to 11 and 12 to 19. Error categories within the Math Concepts &amp; Applications and Math Computation subtests of the KTEA-3 were factor analyzed and revealed five error factors. Multiple ANOVA of the error factor scores showed that, across both age categories, female and male mean scores were not significantly different across four error factors: math calculation, geometric concepts, basic math concepts, and addition. They were significantly different on the complex math problems error factor, with males performing better at the p &lt; .05 significance level for the 6 to 11 age group and at the p &lt; .001 significance level for the 12 to 19 age group. Implications in light of gender stereotype threat are discussed.

Introduction to Special Issue and to KTEA-3 Error Analysis

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.

How Achievement Error Patterns of Students With Mild Intellectual Disability Differ From Low IQ and Low Achievement Students Without Diagnoses

This study investigated the differences in error factor scores on the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement–Third Edition between individuals with mild intellectual disabilities (Mild IDs), those with low achievement scores but average intelligence, and those with low intelligence but without a Mild ID diagnosis. The two control groups were matched with the Mild ID clinical cases on demographic variables including age, gender, and parental education. Results showed significant differences between the groups on several error factors, particularly between the Mild ID group and the two control groups, and no significant differences between all three groups on six error factors. In addition, the two control groups differed significantly on four error factors. Implications for intervention selection, diagnostic considerations, and future directions for achievement test creation are discussed.

Achievement Error Differences of Students With Reading Versus Math Disorders

The purpose of this study was to understand and compare the types of errors students with a specific learning disability in reading and/or writing (SLD-R/W) and those with a specific learning disability in math (SLD-M) made in the areas of reading, writing, language, and mathematics. Clinical samples were selected from the norming population of the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement–Third Edition (KTEA-3) as well as matched controls. Although the authors expected to find overall differences between the groups in their area of difficulties, the study revealed that the two clinical samples were more similar than different. In particular, the SLD-M clinical group performed lower on some errors that were not related to their area of disability compared with the SLD-R/W group. Implications of the study show the importance of error analysis especially when creating goals for individual education plans. Although a student may have an SLD-R/W, he or she may still need support in certain mathematic areas, and vice versa.

Commentary

The articles presented in this Special Issue provide evidence for many statistically significant relationships among error scores obtained from the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement, Third Edition (KTEA)-3 between various groups of students with and without disabilities. The data reinforce the importance of examiners looking beyond the standard scores when analyzing results. Although the data in these articles are powerful by themselves, this commentary explores the potential advantages of considering additional information to increase the practicality of these results. Although statistical significance may provide evidential validity of the results, and the articles inform clinical practice and offer valuable leads for further research that should be pursued, the present authors question whether the data as presented provide sufficient information to determine the predictive and practical utility of these initial results. The next step, we believe, is to extend these novel approaches to data from larger, carefully defined samples of students with specific learning challenges and disabilities.