SPED 311 Assessment Review Project

Name: Caroline Reineke

Date: April 9, 2015
School/Setting: SFA Middle School/ Math Resource Co-teach
How does this project contribute to your knowledge about assessment?
This project helped me learn how to administer and analyze the results of the K-FAST
assessment. I discovered what the terms norms, reliability and validity mean when
applying them to an assessment. This helped me learn how to analyze a large amount of
information and synthesize it into a reader friendly format. The K-FAST assessment is
unique in that it assesses daily skills that many other tests do not have the capability of
assessing. This test is outdated and needs to be revamped before I would consider using it
to make educational decisions about students. This project helped me learn more about
the K-FAST and the skills I used to analyze this test I will be able to use in the future.

On my honor, as an Aggie, I have neither given nor received

unauthorized aid on this academic work.
Signature____________________________________________

Practical Evaluation
Description of Test: The Kaufman Functional Academic Skills Test (K-FAST) was
written by Alan Kaufman in 1994. The K-FAST is published by American Guidance
Services Inc. and is developed for people ages 15 to 85 years. The kit includes test
manual, easel with test questions and response sheet and is $481. The K-FAST can be
administered and scored by a variety of personnel but qualified professionals should only
interpret results. The purpose of the test is to measure an adolescents or adults ability to
demonstrate competence in reading and mathematics as applied to daily life situations.
The test takes approximately 15 to 25 minutes and is administered individually. There are
two subtests consisting of reading and arithmetic. The items on the test relate to everyday
activities that occur outside school settings.
Description of test manuals: The test manual is very organized and easy to follow. The
chapters are broken down into broad categories and then each chapter gives detailed
information. Within the test manual there were good testing practices such as rapport,
objective scoring and following directions. There were detailed directions for
administering and scoring the test. There were pictures of score reports that were filled
out to give an example of how they should be filled out. There was also a descriptive
range chart that described what different scores meant. This is helpful when analyzing
score reports and making educational decisions.
Description of test materials: The testing materials include an easel flipbook, scoring
sheet, pencil and scrap paper. The paper in the flipbook is very thin which could lead to
problems with durability over time. The book could be easily ripped if handled in a harsh
manner. The test is also not very appealing to the eye since all of the questions are in
black and white. The general procedure of the test is a one-on-one verbal question answer

format. The responses can be verbal or gestured with pointing to their response. The easel
flipbook has the questions on one side and the written directions for the test administrator
on the other side along with the correct answer.
Protocols: The test protocols are easy to record on and on good quality paper. The
scoring sheet has a one or a zero next to each question number. The recorder is to circle a
one if the question was answered correctly and to circle zero if the question was
answered incorrectly. If the individual answered incorrectly, there is a place for the
recorder to write the incorrect answer. The text is blue on white paper, which makes the
score sheet slightly more appealing than black writing on white paper. The individual test
records are large and easy to follow. There are tables for converting raw scores to
standard scores, standard score confidence intervals, percentile ranks, and the descriptive
categories are straightforward.
Test Items: The test items are appropriate for many different ages and follow a logical
progression of practical skills that require mathematical and reading problem solving.
There are two subtests in the K-FAST. There is an arithmetic subtest and a reading
subtest. The arithmetic subtest begins with counting and comparing then progresses to
multiplication/division and problem solving. The reading subtest starts with only a few
options to choose for the answer and then progresses in difficulty by adding many options
to choose from for the answer. The reading questions also require more reading as the test
progresses. To administer the test, the administrator is required to read the questions
aloud to the student. There is no time limit on any of the questions and the question can
be repeated as many times as necessary. The administrator reads the bold print on the
opposite side of the picture/question and the answer to the question is to the right of the

page in bold as well. The non-bold print shows a physical action the administrator should
do. The scoring is also very easy because there are only two options; mark a zero if
incorrect and mark a one if completely correct. The student may answer the question
orally or point at the correct answer. The basal of the K-FAST is item one of each subtest
and the ceiling of the K-FAST is four consecutive incorrect (zero) answers.
Technical Evaluation
Norms: The normative sample was found in 1992 by a multistage random sampling
procedure to represent the U.S. population ages fifteen to eighty five with enough
subjects at each age to ensure response stability. The sample was also organized within
each age group by gender, geographic region, SES and race of ethnic group. There were
1,424 people in the sample size. According to Shaw (1994), the sample is reasonably
representative of the general U.S. population for gender, ethnic group status, and
education but is not representative for geographic region. There is an underrepresentation
of Northeast and an overrepresentation from the South. They successfully met their goal
to include proportions of females to males like that of the United States.
The sample is not adequate for the special needs population. There is not mention
of the test being normed or used in any manner on people with special needs. The skills
in the K-FAST have been normed based on typically developing people, which would
alter the way educators and professionals evaluate the results of the special needs
population who takes this test.
Reliability: Reliability was tested through internal consistency and stability. Internal
consistency was estimated using the split-half method. This method is used to compare
the test items to each other to ensure internal consistency. The results of this were a mean

internal consistency reliability of .90, which is considered a high reliability. Stability was
determined by the test-retest method. The test was given to 116 nondisabled adolescents
and adults two times. The scores between the two tests had a mean gain in scores of 2.3
for the composite test scores. According to Shaw (1994), the manual clearly demonstrates
the K-FAST is a reliable test for ages fifteen to eighty-five.
Validity: Validity of the K-FAST was discussed in several different ways. The K-FAST
was part of an exploratory factor analysis of the KAIT and K-SNAP. This factor analysis
found that both Reading and Arithmetic load significantly on the first unrotated factor,
both subtests have significant loading on Crystallized Intelligence and arithmetic has
significant loading on Fluid intelligence.
The authors also conducted concurrent validity studies with Wechsler Intelligence
Scale for Children--Revised (WISC-R), the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale--Revised
(WAIS-R), the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale, Fourth Edition, the KAIT, the K-BIT,
the K-SNAP, and the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test--Revised (PPVT-R). The
correlations are moderate to high with all tests of intelligence, but the K-FAST should
only be considered a rough estimate of intellectual ability. The K-FAST is not an
appropriate estimate of intelligence of reading or math for people with disabilities. (Shaw
1994) Overall, this is an adequate validity study and compares the K-FAST to other tests
and populations.
Journal Reviews
Journal Review #1: The MMY article contains two reviews by Steven R. Shaw and
Robert T. Williams. In the Shaw article, there was a breakdown of each part of the test
giving specific information on how the test is administered and scored, normative data,

reliability and validity. Shaw notes that the reading subtest does not emphasize
pronunciation like many reading tests. The article also discusses how the result from the
K-FAST can be invaluable in situations such as transition planning, vocational counseling
or determining functional skill loss after a stroke. It is also noted that for such a short test
the K-FAST has outstanding reliability. The Williams review is not as detailed as Shaws
review. It states more facts and does not give much explanation. These reviews helped me
synthesize the reliability, norms and validity of this test with ease. They were very
straightforward and explained things in more common day language.
Journal Review #2: This article written by Nancy C. Klimczak, compared the K-FAST
to the WRAT-3 to see if it is necessary to give individuals both tests when analyzing
reading and math ability. The article discusses the purposes of the WRAT-3 and K-FAST
in detail. The WRAT-3 is a helpful tool is determining academic difficulties while the KFAST tests a persons abilities to read for meaning and solve every day problems. The
article discusses a study conducted to determine the relationship between performance on
the WRAT-3 and the K-FAST. The study analyzed the test scores of fifty-one individuals
who received neuropsychological evaluations to determine cognitive functioning. The
study concluded that the two tests measure the same things and therefore do not both
need to be given to individuals. This article helped me realize there are more tests like the
K-FAST and it is important to keep the individual in mind when deciding which test to
utilize.

References
Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (1994). In Shaw S. R., Williams R.(Eds.), Kaufman
functional academic skills test.
KFAST:KaufmanFunctionalAcademicSkillsTest.CirclePines,MN:American
GuidanceService.
Nancy C. Klimczak , Kimberly A. Bradford , Richard G. Burright & Peter J. Donovick
(2000) FORUM K-FAST and WRAT-3: Are They Really Different?, The Clinical
Neuropsychologist, 14:1, 135-138.

SEFB 311 Rubric for Test Review

Required Elements

Proficient

Emerging
Proficiency

Does not meet

requirements

Cover Sheet complete

All elements present;

self-reflection is
thoughtful and
complete
20

Any element
missing OR selfreflection is
superficial
0

Points
Practical Evaluation
Basic information
-name
-publisher
-cost
Points
Discussion of test
Manuals
-description
-ease of use
-Useful information
available
-complete information
available
Points
Discussion of test
materials
-description

ALL information
provided
10
All elements present;
discussion thoughtful
and insightful

15
All elements present;
discussion thoughtful
and insightful

Any information
missing

All elements present;

discussion could be
more thoughtful and
insightful

0
Any element
missing and/or
superficial
discussion

12
All elements present;
discussion could be
more thoughtful and

0
Any element
missing and/or
superficial

-durability analysis
-appeal to audience
analysis
Points
Discussion of test
protocols
-description
-ease of handling
-durability analysis
Points
Discussion of test items
-description
-ease of administration
-ease of scoring
-appropriateness of items
Points
Technical Evaluation
Norms
-discussion of sample
(who, where, when)
-discussion of
representativeness to Texas
and special education
Points
Reliability
-discussion of type, how
obtained
-discussion of adequacy
Points
Validity
-discussion of type, how
obtained
-discussion of adequacy
Points
Professional
Journal Article
-summarized in own words
-reflective analysis of how
article added to knowledge
about test
Points
MMY Review or second
journal article
-summarized in own words
-reflective analysis of how
review added to
knowledge about test
Points

insightful

discussion

15
All elements present;
discussion thoughtful
and insightful

12
All elements present;
discussion could be
more thoughtful and
insightful

0
All element
missing and/or
superficial
discussion

15
All elements present;
discussion thoughtful
and insightful

12
All elements present;
discussion could be
more thoughtful and
insightful

0
Any element
missing and/or
superficial
discussion

15

12

All elements present;

discussion thoughtful
and insightful,
includes critical
analysis

All elements present;

discussion could be
more thoughtful and
insightful

Any element
missing and/or
superficial
discussion

20
All elements present;
discussion thoughtful
and insightful,
includes critical
analysis
20
All elements present;
discussion thoughtful
and insightful,
includes critical
analysis
20

15
All elements present;
discussion could be
more thoughtful and
insightful

0
Any element
missing and/or
superficial
discussion

15
All elements present;
discussion could be
more thoughtful and
insightful

0
Any element
missing and/or
superficial
discussion

All elements present;

discussion thoughtful
and insightful,
includes critical
analysis
20
All elements present;
discussion thoughtful
and insightful,
includes critical
analysis

All elements present;

discussion could be
more thoughtful and
insightful

Any element
missing and/or
superficial
discussion

15
All elements present;
discussion could be
more thoughtful and
insightful

0
Any element
missing and/or
superficial
discussion

20

15

15

Professionalism
Use of APA style in
references and citations
Points
Written communication
Writing is free of the
following:
-spelling errors
-grammatical errors
- incomplete sentences
- run-on sentences
- homonym errors
-tense agreement
Points
Presentation in Class
Clear, concise, includes
discussion of test use and
population, norms,
reliability, validity, and an
overall recommendation
Points

APA style correct

Minor error

10
Writing meets all
criteria

7
Writing has one
minor error

30
Well presented, all
components wellarticulated, within time
limit

20
Could be more clear,
concise, still within
time limit

Needs to be
redone
0
Writing has two
or more errors or
any of the
following:
- incomplete
sentences
- run-on
sentences
- homonym
errors
-tense agreement
0
Not clear and/or
components
missing

20

15