Running head: WOODCOCK-JOHNSON III TEST ADMINISTRATION REFLECTION

Woodcock-Johnson III Test Administration Reflection

Wallace Fullerton and Heather Winthrop
California State University, Chico

Wallace Davis Fullerton and Heather Dawn Winthrop

WOODCOCK-JOHNSON III TEST ADMINISTRATION REFLECTION

Heather and I met a young girl named Ariana (pseudonym) who lives in Yuba
City to do some testing with the Woodcock-Johnson III. Ariana is in 1 st grade and she
seemed very excited and eager to start. She has a sister with special needs and we
have been told she does not receive much attention due to her sisters condition.
This adult attention seemed valuable to her and this helped during the testing
process as it served as a natural reinforcer for her participation. Ariana sat down
with Heather to work on the first standard test battery regarding reading. I waited in
the adjacent room and read news articles on my mobile phone. Heather completed
the test with Ariana within 20-30 minutes.
I sat down with Ariana as she was recouping from the first battery. At this
point she was getting a bit sleepy and had moved from excitement to a placid
affective state. Ariana was still friendly and agreeable and I asked her if she would
mind answering a few more questions with me for the second part of the test.
Ariana smiled and nodded. I asked Ariana what grade she was in and she told me
that she was in 1st grade. I told Ariana that if she could work through the second
session that a prize awaited at the end. She was excited and so we began testing. I
gave Ariana the test Battery for mathematics which includes the subtests Math
Calculation Skills (Test: 5), Math Fluency (Test: 6), and Math Reasoning (Test: 10).
As Ariana began on the Math Calculation subtest she was very calm and took
her time reasoning through the problems. She seemed highly concentrated and
assessed each question. At one point she became stuck and I restated (somewhat
off) that she could move on to the next problem if she could not think of the answer.
She understood and still took her time. When she could not answer she moved on,
but she did attempt to answer one of the later problems. We moved on to the Math
Fluency test and I explained to Ariana that the test was timed and that she would
Wallace Davis Fullerton and Heather Dawn Winthrop

WOODCOCK-JOHNSON III TEST ADMINISTRATION REFLECTION

have 3 minutes to complete as many problems as she could. Ariana looked excited
and she got right to work. She had a fiery and competitive spirit, as a fellow May
child, I deeply respected her tenacity. She completed this session and when asked
to put her pencil down, she did so very calmly. We then moved on to the Math
Reasoning test. This subtest was difficult for Ariana, but she still performed well.
She was beginning to lose interest by this time and it makes sense that she
performed the poorest on this section due to her lack of attention. The television
was on the Disney Channel in the living room and Arianas eyes kept wondering to
the flickering screen.
When we finished the third test I let Ariana pick from the prize bag with some
level of fanfare. She was happy with her prize and scampered off to go show them
to her sister and mother who were watching television. We thanked the mother and
Ariana for their cooperation through the testing process. I asked the mother some
questions about Arianas birthday, full name, and grade. We then thanked the
family for their time and left. Overall, the experience was very enjoyable and I look
forward to performing this function for a living. Ariana was a very quite child during
the testing process and provided little verbal indication of her engagement. Despite
this, Ariana was on task for almost the entire test session with Heather and I. Ariana
was exceptionally cooperative during the process and was happy to conform to the
rules.
If I were to perform this test again there would be a few items up for
consideration. The first change I would make would be in regard to the setting for
the testing. The kitchen where we tested is located directly next to the living room
which has a large television that the family was watching within Arianas view. This
was distracting her near the end of the testing session and I believe this contributed
Wallace Davis Fullerton and Heather Dawn Winthrop

WOODCOCK-JOHNSON III TEST ADMINISTRATION REFLECTION

to Arianas poorest performance on the final test administered (Applied Problems,

Test: 10). In addition, Ariana is a young subject and her attention span is finite. She
performed exceptionally well on the tests which Heather administered first and
reduced in score as she moved onto the later mathematics section I administered. I
suspect that a break may have been beneficial for the testing process. Another
aspect I considered was the use of a private test setting so that Arianas sister,
mother, my mother, and Heather would not be in the room to monitor Arianas
testing. This may have increased her anxiety beyond threshold and reduced
performance, or this extra attention may have increased Arianas anxiety level to
her threshold and improved performance. Another view might be that the presence
of the family may have been a comforting factor. Regardless, this adds extraneous
variables which alter test interoperability.
The positive aspects of our performance while testing Ariana had a lot to do
with our ability to connect with Ariana and maintain her attention through positive
reinforcement for participation. We also followed procedure for the setup of the
materials and placement of the test record and the test easel. Heather and I were
able to work with Ariana at an excellent pace which did not rush her, nor did it lag
so much that she lost interest. Overall, I think if we had changed the room utilized
for the testing procedure than we may have been able to utilize the results of the
testing officially (assuming we had been certificated).
In regard to test scores Ariana was within a healthy range for most of the
subtests administered. Her scores were above average for Letter-Word Identification
(Test 1), Reading Fluency (Test 2), Calculation (Test 5), Math Fluency (Test 6; based
on age equivalent), and Passage Comprehension (Test 9). The only subtest in which
her scores fell bellow average was the Applied Problems subtest (Test 10). This test
Wallace Davis Fullerton and Heather Dawn Winthrop

WOODCOCK-JOHNSON III TEST ADMINISTRATION REFLECTION

was the last to be administered and her attention was waning. I noticed Ariana
looking at the television numerous times during this section. Regardless, her scores
on Applied Problems were still minimally off-track for age and grade equivalencies.
The scores for each section were as follows, for reference, Ariana is 6 years, 9
months, and 19 days old and she is currently in her last quarter of the 1 st grade.
Arianas scores on the Language battery subtests administered by Heather were as
follows, for Test 1 Letter-Word Identification Ariana scored a raw score of 37 which
translates to an age equivalent of 7 years 10 months and grade equivalent of 2.5.
On Test 2 Reading Fluency Ariana scored a raw score of 21 correct and 1 incorrect;
this put her at a score of 7 years 11 months age equivalence, or 2.6 grade
equivalence. On Test 9 Passage Comprehension Ariana scored a raw score of 19
which has an age equivalence of 7 years 3 months and a grade equivalence of 1.9.
In regard to the Math battery of tests administered by me, Ariana scored a raw
score of 8 on Test 5 Calculation which translates to an age equivalence of 7 years 4
months, or grade equivalence of 2.0. On Test 6 Math Fluency Ariana scored a raw
score of 20 which is an age equivalent of 6 years and 11 months, or a grade
equivalence of 1.5. On the final subtest administered Ariana scored a raw score of
21 which is a grade equivalent of 6 years 4 months and a grade equivalent of 1.1.
These scores suggest that Ariana may be in need of intervention in regard to
applied mathematics problems and calculations. While these scores may have been
invalidated by the environment in which the testing was conducted, or the
participants level of engagement near the end of testing, I will examine these sores
as if they were not affected in any way by extraneous environmental or endemic
participant engagement.

Wallace Davis Fullerton and Heather Dawn Winthrop

WOODCOCK-JOHNSON III TEST ADMINISTRATION REFLECTION

Some interventions that may have been suggested given Arianas difficulty in
applied mathematics and calculation would have been the use of Cover-CopyCompare (CCC) a well researched intervention which is free and available to the
public for use. CCC is a method in which the teacher writes a math problem
example in the left hand column of a page. A dotted-line separates the right and left
halves of the paper. The paper is folded and the student is asked to cover the
correct answer by folding the page and attempting to duplicate the problem from
memory. This method lowers the stress for the student as they can look at the
problem again if they make a mistake and try again. Another possible intervention
which could be utilized for the calculation difficulties which Ariana was experiencing
would be Math Computation: Increase Accuracy and Productivity Rates Via SelfMonitoring and Performance Feedback In which a problem sheet is generated by the
teacher which is tailored to the students current level of ability. The teacher then
creates a progress-monitoring chart which is shown to the student. The student is
informed that if they can beat their current progress-monitoring score, they will
receive a prize. Since Ariana seemed highly motivated by our mystery prize bag
(and by highly motivated I mean she did not get up and simply go back to watching
television with her family) this tells me that a reinforcement based method would
likely be useful with Ariana. In addition, this method uses self-reinforcement through
challenging the student to see their progress monitoring score rise.
In regard to Arianas difficulty with applied mathematics one useful
intervention would be Applied Math Problems: Using Question-Answer Relationships
(QARs) to Interpret Math Graphics. This method utilizes different forms of math
graphics to help a student learn to interpret math problems via visual presentations.
The first step in this process is to determine the type of math graphics you would
Wallace Davis Fullerton and Heather Dawn Winthrop

WOODCOCK-JOHNSON III TEST ADMINISTRATION REFLECTION

like to utilize. The second step is to introduce the student to the various forms of
mathematic graphics. The student is paired off with a more adept peer to help them
in interpreting the data. I feel this would be helpful for Ariana as she seemed highly
motivated by personal attention. The graphics are then taught over several periods
of time in order of difficulty from pictures, to tables, bar graphs, charts, and finally
line graphs. After examining the graphics with their partner they then present the
strengths and weakness of the type of graph they studied to the class. The third
step involves having the student search with a partner and alone to discover the
question-answer-relationship (QAR) hidden in a graphic for a problem they are
given. The final step is to have the student solve a series of QAR questions alone in
which they read the answer, review the graphic, reread the question, choose the
appropriate QAR, answer the question, and then select the correct answer which
links the picture and the problem. Students are asked to solve the problems on their
own before looking at the multiple choice answers. I feel Ariana would have enjoyed
this method because of the work with others involved and the ability to challenge
herself to find the connection between the graphic and question which Ariana
seemed to enjoy.

Wallace Davis Fullerton and Heather Dawn Winthrop