An analysis of the “Wide Range Achievement Test” – WRAT3, focusing on its use as an efficient psychometric tool.
This paper discusses the WRAT3, which has been used for many years as a screening device to help pinpoint students who may need extra instruction or academic support. The paper describes the make up of the WRAT3 test, outlining its three academic subtests – reading, spelling, and arithmetic. The writer claims the importance of this specific test being part of a battery of tests in order to achieve the most accurate reading.
“This test was normed using students age 5 to 19 in grades kindergarten through 12th grade. The test can be administered to anyone aged 5 to 75 (Overton, 2000), making it a screening tool with wide application. It has been noted in the marketing information for this test that wider claims are made for its use. Both the publisher and some distributors have made claims suggesting that the WRAT3 may represent complete testing. The Stoelting Company, one marketer for the test, says
“Useful in determining a person’s level of performance in relation to age peers, WRAT3 can be used to determine appropriate instructional levels, and in diagnosing learning disabilities in reading, spelling, and arithmetic. (Wllkinson, 2000). This seems an exaggerated claim unless the tester realizes that the WRAT3 should be one part of a test battery when diagnosing significant learning problems. As noted later in the paper, the reading subtest is markedly limited, and the test does not measure written expression at all, even though that is one area where a student can be found to be learning disabled.
“Useful in determining a person’s level of performance in relation to age peers, WRAT3 can be used to determine appropriate instructional levels, and in diagnosing learning disabilities in reading, spelling, and arithmetic. (Wllkinson, 2000). This seems an exaggerated claim unless the tester realizes that the WRAT3 should be one part of a test battery when diagnosing significant learning problems. As noted later in the paper, the reading subtest is markedly limited, and the test does not measure written expression at all, even though that is one area where a student can be found to be learning disabled.