January 7, 2021: Article first published. January 4, 2023: Article updated.
Is the Kaufman Test of Education Achievement (KTEA-3) being administered to your child?
If yes, do you know if the Brief Form or the Comprehensive Form is being administered?
Do you know the difference between the Brief and the Comprehensive Forms?
If your child has Dyslexia or is suspected of having Dyslexia, are you aware of the Dyslexia Index?
Do you know if your school is cherry picking subtests to administer, what each subtest measures, and if they are appropriate for assessing your child’s needs (or suspected needs)?
A Bit of Background
I live in Fairfax County, Virginia, where (at the time of this writing) the KTEA-3 is the test Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS) uses as the core test—and often the only test—when conducting educational evaluations.
FCPS denied my son an evaluation three times between first and sixth grades. After I paid for a private assessment in sixth grade, he was assessed with Dyslexia and was reading on a third grade level, even though he still had good grades and passing state exams.
After I presented the private evaluation to Silverbrook Elementary School (SES) staff, and after SES insisted on doing its own “comprehensive” initial evaluation, I assumed FCPS would do a comprehensive evaluation—as in identify and assess all of his needs.
I was wrong.
The Many Definitions of “Comprehensive”
FCPS educators administered portions of the KTEA-3 to my son four times in a period of three years.
In 2016, an FCPS educator administered eight subtests and areas if need were identified. A few weeks later, she administered eight additional subtests, at which point more areas of need were identified.
In 2017, an FCPS educator administered 12 subtests (not the exact same subtests as 2016), at which point more areas of need were identified.
In 2019, an FCPS educator administered 18 subtests, at which point areas of need still were identified.
With the exception of the second go-around in 2016, each educator stated her evaluation to be comprehensive, even though data collected indicated a need to probe other areas. For example, it shouldn’t have taken a re-evaluation, just three weeks after the initial evaluation, to probe additional areas. That could have been done during the initial evaluation and the data collected, to include parental concerns, indicated all these areas needed probing.
During a 2020 due process hearing, a procedural support liaison (PSL) and the educator who administered the 2017 KTEA-3, called all the evaluations comprehensive, while the educator who administered the KTEA-3 in 2019 termed the 2016 evaluation to be “focused”, rather than terming it “comprehensive” after being asked if it was comprehensive.
So, which is it?
What’s the difference?
And, what do the experts say?
The Brief Form
The Brief is just what it sounds like. Brief. Among other things, it takes less time to administer and has flexible administration options.
The Brief Form has five composites and six subtests.
The five composites are:
- Academic Skill Battery
- Reading
- Mathematics
- Written Language
- Brief Achievement
The six subtests are:
- Letter & Word Recognition
- Reading Comprehension
- Written Expression
- Spelling
- Math Concepts & Applications
- Math Computation
KTEA-3 Dyslexia Index
Comprehensive is a chameleon in school divisions.
If your school chooses to administer the Brief Form—and your child has Dyslexia or is suspected of having Dyslexia—the school needs to know there are limitations to using the Brief for Dyslexia or SLD screening. It will not be a comprehensive assessment if Dyslexia or an SLD is suspected.
Per Essentials of KTEA-3 and WIAT-III Assessment (page 119, 2016 paperback edition):
Limitations for Using the KTEA-3 Brief Form for Dyslexia or SLD Screening
Oral Language measures are not included in the Brief Form. Hence, the Brief Form will not identify:
(a) Weaknesses in oral language that may be hindering academic performance, or
(b) Critical discrepancies between oral and written language areas (Listening Comprehension vs. Reading Comprehension, Oral Expression vs. Written Expression).
One key symptom of dyslexia/reading disorder is that reading comprehension skill are lower than listening comprehension skills (RC < LC). If both reading and listening comprehension are low, then either a language disorder or a global reading impairment (characterized by low overall ability) may be suspected.
Reading Fluency, writing fluency, and math fluency subtests are not included in the Brief Form. Hence, specific fluency deficits may not be detected.
Subtests to identify processing deficits in phonological processing and naming facility are not included in the Brief Form.
The school must know, too, that the index is different depending on the age and/or grade of the student. Again, per Essentials of KTEA-3 and WIAT-III Assessment (page 281, 2016 paperback edition):
The KTEA-3 Dyslexia Index for grades K-1 includes measures of naming facility, phonological awareness, letter knowledge, letter-sound correspondence, and word recognition. . . .
The KTEA-3 Dyslexia Index for grades 2-12 includes measures of oral word reading fluency, decoding, and spelling. . . .
KTEA-3 Composite Structures of the Dyslexia Index Scores
| Grades K-1 or Ages 5-7 | Grades 2-12+ or Ages 7-25 |
| Phonological Processing + Letter Naming Facility + Letter & Word Recognition | Word Recognition Fluency + Nonsense Word Decoding + Spelling |
The Comprehensive Form
The Comprehensive Form has 14 composites and 19 subtests.
The 14 composites are:
- Academic Skill Battery
- Reading
- Mathematics
- Written Language
- Sound-Symbol
- Decoding
- Reading Fluency
- Reading Understanding
- Oral Language
- Oral Fluency
- Comprehension
- Expression
- Orthographic Processing
The 19 subtests are:
- Letter & Word Recognition
- Reading Comprehension
- Nonsense Word Decoding
- Phonological Processing
- Word Recognition Fluency
- Decoding Fluency
- Silent Reading Fluency
- Reading Vocabulary
- Math Concepts & Applications
- Math Computation
- Math Fluency
- Written Expression
- Spelling
- Writing Fluency
- Listening Comprehension
- Oral Expression
- Associational Fluency
- Object Naming Facility
- Letter Naming Facility
The Comprehensive, like the Brief, is just what is sounds like. It’s comprehensive.
In 2016, my son was administered what FCPS called a “comprehensive evaluation” that consisted of the following eight subtests:
- Letter and Word Recognition
- Reading Comprehension
- Nonsense Word Decoding
- Math Concepts & Applications
- Math Computation
- Written Expression
- Spelling
- Silent Reading Fluency
His scores ranged from below average to above average, with a 36 standard score point discrepancy between the lowest and highest scores.
Although additional subtests are recommended if the KTEA-3 subtest scores are low—or if there’s a significant difference between the different subtests’ scores—FCPS considered the eight subtests to be the definition of “comprehensive”.
During the evaluation process, the wonderful advocate Janice Armstrong schooled me on the KTEA, so when SES presented its final report for its initial “comprehensive” evaluation, I stated that FCPS didn’t do a comprehensive evaluation and asked FCPS to administer the entire KTEA-3.
FCPS agreed to administer additional subtests, and within a few weeks of his initial evaluation being presented, FCPS initiated my son’s first re-evaluation, and administered the following KTEA-3 subtests:
- Phonological Processing
- Silent Reading Fluency
- Word Recognition Fluency
- Decoding Fluency
- Reading Vocabulary
- Associational Fluency
- Object Naming Facility
- Listening Comprehension
The result?
Three additional areas of need were identified and he scored on the borderline of average/below average for two addition subtests—even though FCPS maintained the previous evaluation was “comprehensive”.
I continued to state that FCPS did not provide a comprehensive initial evaluation.
In 2017, FCPS Procedural Support Liaison Jean Massie suggested doing a reevaluation. I agreed.
The result?
Summer of 2017, FCPS educator Suzanne Gowe administered the following 12 KTEA-3 subtests:
- Phonological Processing
- Nonsense Word Decoding
- Writing Fluency
- Silent Reading Fluency
- Reading Comprehension
- Written Expression
- Spelling
- Word Recognition Fluency
- Decoding Fluency
- Reading Vocabulary
- Listening Comprehension
- Letter and Word Recognition
The result?
My son scored below average on a subtest FCPS failed to administer in 2016, thus another area of need was identified.
FCPS continued to maintain that the 2016 evaluation was comprehensive and Suzanne and FCPS maintained that her 2017 evaluation was comprehensive, too.
In 2019, my son was reevaluated again. FCPS educator Kelly Brady administered the the Qualitative Reading Inventory (QRI-6), Developmental Spelling Analysis (DSA) and the following 18 of the KTEA-3’s 19 subtests:
- Letter & Word Recognition
- Nonsense Word Decoding
- Reading Comprehension
- Reading Vocabulary
- Word Recognition Fluency
- Decoding Fluency
- Silent Reading Fluency
- Math Concepts & Applications
- Math Computation
- Math Fluency
- Written Expression
- Spelling
- Writing Fluency
- Listening Comprehension
- Associational Fluency
- Phonological Processing
- Object Naming Fluency
- Letter Naming Facility
The result?
My son scored below average on a subtest FCPS failed to administer in 2016 and 2017, thus another area of need was identified.
And yet, FCPS maintained the 2016, 2017, and 2019 evaluations were all comprehensive.
Enter Due Process
And then we went to due process and things changed up.
During the due process, I showed Kelly Brady the 2016 evaluation and asked if it was comprehensive. She replied:
“I would call this more of a focused evaluation.
Callie Oettinger: And what’s the difference between a focused evaluation and a comprehensive evaluation?
Kelly Brady: Sometimes, a IEP team or eligibility committee may only require certain information — so they would do a focused evaluation.
Callie Oettinger: Okay. So this is actually [Student]’s initial evaluation — the first evaluation that he was given.
Kelly Brady: Mm-hmm.
During the same hearing, Kelly and Suzanne spoke to FCPS not administering the KTEA-3 Oral Expression subtest. As with FCPS’ various forms of “comprehensive”, Kelly’s and Suzanne’s explanations resided in different forms, too.
From Kelly:
Kelly Brady: I did not evaluate [STUDENT]’s oral expression.
Callie Oettinger: Okay. Does the publisher recommend that an expression composite be administered?
Kelly Brady: We don’t administer the oral expression subtest part of the KTEA at FCPS.
Callie Oettinger: Why not?
Kelly Brady: It’s not approved by the test committee.
Callie Oettinger: Who is the test committee?
Kelly Brady: I don’t know.
From Suzanne:
Suzanne Gowe: One of the tests that one of the subtests on the oral language composite is not a test that we give.
Callie Oettinger: And why not?
Hearing Officer Rhonda Mitchell: Is that Fairfax County policy?
Suzanne Gowe: Yes.
Callie Oettinger: Why?
Suzanne Gowe: It’s the oral expression composite — and as, as far as I know — the reasoning is because the — there are other assessments that better test for the oral expression — tests that, say, a speech and language clinician would have.
Callie Oettinger: Did they give those to [STUDENT]?
Suzanne: I’m not a speech and language clinician — so I did not give those to [Student]. Are you asking if — the oral expression was not given. The oral expression was not given.
And yet, a “speech and language clinician” did not do an assessment in 2016 or 2017 or 2019, during the periods when the KTEA-3 was administered to my son—even though Suzanne maintained that there were better tests for oral expression.
Lessons Learned
Comprehensive is in the eye of the beholder and whomever the definition benefits during due process hearings.
An investment in the “Essentials” series of books edited by Alan S. Kaufman and Nadeen L. Kaufman is a must. For the KTEA, start with Essentials of KTEA-3 and WIAT-III Assessment.
Parents are the best advocates for their kids.
Reading through manuals and learning about standard scores, t scores, percentiles, bell curves, and so on, can be intimidating, but you have to know them—and you need an understanding of the tests to which they relate.
Anyone who thinks that school psychologists have the time to administer that many subtests clearly does not understand the amount of work we are given.
Legally there is a responsibility to identify disabilities and serve them. It is not legally our responsibility to find every weakness present, especially if the “weakness” is only slightly below average. And we never make decisions based on a single test. Students can score lower on subtests for many reasons other than actual lack of skill, especially if you’re making them take 19 tests that range in time from 4 minutes to over 30 minutes each with the average probably being about 15 minutes. And that’s if all you’re giving is academic testing – Cognitive would add another 10.
If you want an evaluation that detailed, that is not the responsibility of the school and this article is incredibly misleading. I endlessly love my students and I give them more than the necessary tests, but it would be INCREDIBLY rare for a child to need to be given what you’re defining as a comprehensive test. I’d call it an exhaustive test and that is absolutely not appropriate in a school setting.
Thank you for reading the article and for your taking the time to share your thoughts.
It sounds like you are passionate about your students. They are fortunate to have you in their corner. However, they are fortunate to have IDEA and implementing state regulations in their corner, too, which do state it is the responsibility of the school to do a full comprehensive evaluation.
While it is true that many school psychologists are overloaded with work, the reality is that neither IDEA nor implementing state regulations state comprehensive evaluations are tied to staff workload.
Pursuant to §300.301(a) of the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA): “Each public agency must conduct a full and individual initial evaluation, in accordance with §§300.304 through 300.306, before the initial provision of special education and related services to a child with a disability under this part.”
Pursuant to 300.301(c)(2): “The initial evaluation—Must consist of procedures—(i) To determine if the child is a child with a disability under §300.8; and (ii) To determine the educational needs of the child.”
Hence, the only way to propose an IEP that fully addresses the needs of a child is to identify both strengths and weaknesses – especially since strengths often mask weaknesses, making them look minimal, when in reality they are significant. Hence, comprehensive testing is needed.
There is only below, at, or above average. If a child is ‘slightly” below average, he is below average. Depending on where he is at in his life, the deficit could become worse as he ages and the workload increases, hence below average scores matter – even if just slightly below.
Many students are evaluated over a period of a few weeks just to prevent fatigue during testing, hence providing a comprehensive evaluation that is in line with federal and state regulations, in a manner that doesn’t tire out the child, is doable.
What “comprehensive” looks like will depend on the student – and if it means more and more tests to identify their needs, then it is important to do that. As you likely know, “co-morbid” is the term that must not be ignored. A student, as one example, may test as average or above average in comprehension skills, hence school staff might say that’s not a deficit. Yet, that same child might have borderline impaired processing speed, which slows down reading, which impacts comprehension, thus leaving the child with comprehension deficits. That same child might present as not paying attention in class, so the school poses suspicion of ADHD, but in reality the student has auditory processing deficits that impact how he processes information presented in class. Pair that with his processing speed and you end up with a child who might have to ask a lot of questions and need things repeated – yet staff might only see a child not paying attention in class.
I hope you’re able to obtain more help in what sounds like an overloaded career for you and I wish you and the kids for whom you’re helping the very best.
Lol @ Callie’s reply copy/pasting SPED law 101. What Ashley said in the first comment is correct and accurate information reflecting what school psychoeducational evaluation procedures look like and are intended for. What you said, Callie, actually discredits none of what Ashley’s comment said. That is precisely what the school assessment team is attempting to do through an evaluation is answer such questions, using multiple assessment methods, and many times involving a multidisciplinary team of specialists. They are trained to piece together the relevant information, taking into account multiple sources of data, and then interpret that information as a whole to inform a student’s educational profile and determine learning needs, if any. But again, school evaluations are NOT medical evaluations diagnosing underlying conditions and pathologies, and they were never intended to be. They are simply seeking to determine the educational IMPACT of a suspected disability, if one is present.
I’m sure you were awarded lots of lawsuit money for being the parent that’s every school’s worst nightmare: hiring an attorney to dig through every last mishap in bureaucratic documentation on the school’s behalf, locating any state regulatory verbiage that could be misconstrued to support your case, otherwise you wouldn’t be shouting from the rafters on an online forum that you know best over trained professionals. Please trust that just because you were the loudest and most persistent complainer on the topic, still doesn’t make you an expert.
Kelly Jo, Thank you for your comment. I always find it interesting to read the perspectives and assumptions of others – such as that 1) parents who speak up must have deep pockets for lawyers; 2) parents who speak up must have been awarded lots of money; 3) parents who speak up consider themselves experts; 4) parents who speak up can’t possibly be right (and can’t possibly help change the system to help both students and educators); 5) parents who speak up can’t have valid reasons for speaking up; 6) parents who speak up are wrong about their children’s IEPs or 504 Plans not being implemented; and 7) parents who speak up are the problem, rather than educators being a problem. The beauty of education is that all of us have the ability to learn something new every day, simply by interacting with others and learning their perspectives. The beauty of the Internet is that we have an opportunity to share what we’ve learned and our experiences with others, with the hope it might be forwarded and help others. I look forward to continuing to learn every day of my life. Thanks again for your perspective. As I said, I value input of others. I might not agree with it, but there’s always something to learn. Best, Callie
Callie, I faithfully read your articles and learn so much. I love your responses to the comments. I feel less alone in this struggle thanks to your articles. Keep up the great work.
Patty, Thank you for your kind words. You aren’t alone. Parents and educators nationwide struggle with how to help students who have special education needs. Sharing experiences, best practices, lessons learned, and so on helps all of us.
Callie, I agree 100 percent with Patty Z. Thank you for making me feel less alone. I’ve learned a lot too but I still feel so powerless when I, too, include PSL for revaluation. Sometimes it’s not for the light-hearted. I’m no expert by any means but the struggles are so painful for these kids. Thank you for all you do.
Thank you for your kind words, Carol. The best we can do is advocate for our kids and share our experiences so that 1) what doesn’t work can be fixed; what works can be amplified; and 3) other educators and parents can avoid recreating the wheel every time they encounter issues. *Don’t feel powerless or alone. We’re all together in raising kids and ensuring their needs are met.
I like that a lot of school districts, including FCPS of which I worked for a bit, include that the KTEA should be used along with other assessments and/or data, to make decisions. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT. It is an art, not a science. I think there is a potential to use testing as an end all-be all. Just this week, I tested a student who has done very poorly on state standardized tests. She also struggles with multi-step directions and assignments requiring multi-steps. Also, because the student wants to pursue an advanced diploma, she has struggled with Spanish and despite the struggle, she persists! However, on the KTEA everything was average. This gives me pause as it might, and I stress might, be related to something else other than a learning disability. Maybe the student has another disabling condition…maybe there is something else. No matter the case, we will endeavor to support the student.
By FCPS, I assume you mean Fairfax County Public Schools. FCPS is known for missing visual and auditory processing and not understanding how the two play into SLDs like Dyslexia. The same applies to fluency and processing and not understanding how a student who tests average/above average on comprehension, as one example, could in reality be struggling with comprehension due to impaired fluency and/or processing. Sometimes an average isn’t really an average. Being able to comprehend one paragraph in one sitting is one thing. Having impaired processing and fluency, and then slogging through pages of text is another. If you suspect something else at play, have you suggested additional testing? Providing services is good, but if the services don’t truly address the student’s unique need, then they are a waste of the student’s and teacher’s time. Providing services just for the sake of providing services isn’t how IDEA is supposed to work.
Hi Callie and Ashley,
I find discourse over evaluation procedures across state lines to be intriguing and I always love to learn more about how different schools conduct evaluations.
In reference to not having time to administer this many assessments, it is true that school psychologists many times wear many hats and juggle multiple evaluations at once. But, when evaluating a student, the team creates an evaluation plan that will help them gather the information they need in order to determine eligibility. This includes all providers, including speech pathology, occupational and physical therapy, and social work. Working with the teachers and parents to develop the plan before starting assessments helps to guide what areas of concern the team is looking into. That also does not mean that the plan is set in stone. If during evaluation, a new need arises, such as speech/language, OT, etc, the team has a duty to add on additional assessments in order to determine if those areas of concern are eligible for special education services.
When starting an evaluation, having a set battery of assessments that are administered to every student is not going to be beneficial to their evaluation process, will be more time consuming, and will provide unimportant or less valuable data when assessing the student. Assessments are to be used to gather the most relevant and pertinent information about the areas of need for the student you are assessing. That means that the subtests and assessments should be chosen based on the areas of concern, not just to test every area. Probing generally to start and then gradually getting more specific helps me capture the areas of need when I am assessing students.
As best practice when I am presented with a student who may have academic concerns, I will start with the KTEA-3 brief battery of tests, then based on their scores from those assessments, probe more using alternate tests or other subtests from the KTEA-3 to see if a strength or weakness arises. Sometimes, additional probing is not needed as a pattern of strengths and weaknesses arises from the initial testing.
As part of the evaluation process and in determining special education eligibility, I also utilize the RIOT/ICEL method, meaning I look at student records, parent/teacher/provider input, observation, testing, classroom instruction, curriculum, environment, and finally the learner themselves to see what areas are impacting the student. You bring up a good point, Callie, about auditory processing in that there are definitely other factors that can be at play that may not show up in standardized assessments.
The evaluation process and collaboration among all members of the evaluation team, which does include parents and outside providers, is essential for capturing a student’s needs. With minimal information about your son’s test scores, the why behind certain decisions that FCPS made over the years, and not knowing their evaluation process, I am interested in how they came to conclusions about eligibility for your son. I hope that through this process, there was resolution and that both your son and the school were able to receive and provide the appropriate services.
I hope this information was helpful or informative, or if anything, helps the community discourse to continue. Without communication, there is no growth and I thank you both for being bold in posting your experience and being willing to listen to multiple perspectives.
Kalyn, Thank you for your thoughtful reply and the time you invested in writing it. Having the opportunity to learn from the perspectives and experiences of others is important. You’ve offered a valuable perspective, which happens to be one I’ve seen work in private arenas. Unfortunately, too many school psychologists don’t have the support and resources they need to address the needs of all students. However, that isn’t an excuse for students’ needs to go unmet. Thanks again, Kalyn. Best, Callie