Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Piat-R 1 PDF
Piat-R 1 PDF
Revised/Normative Update
-------------
Don R. Bartels, Wanaque Borough Board of Education, New Jersey
Background Information
Author
The Peabody Individual Achievement Test-Revised was designed
by Frederick C. Markwardt, Jr. He received his Ph.D in educational psy-
chology from the University of Minnesota. While at St. Cloud State
University in Saint Cloud, Minnesota, Dr. Markwardt spent eight years
teaching counseling, statistics, and measurement, while also providing
individual assessments of elementary aged students for educational plan-
ning and placements. Dr. Markwardt went on to serve on the Executive
Council of the Minnesota Psychological Association and the Minnesota
State Board of Examiners of Psychologists. He is currently associated
with a Saint Paul consulting firm specializing in assessment, while pursu-
ing his consulting services on educational research and test development.
Publisher
American Guidance Service, 4201 Woodland Road, PO Box 99,
Circle Pines, MN 55014-1796, www.agsnet.com, 1-800-328-2560
Price
PIAT-R/NU Complete Kit $289.95
Includes 4 easels, 50 Combined Test
Record and Written Expression
Response Booklets, NU Manual,
Carry bag
Above with nylon briefcase 319.95
PIAT-R/NU Manual 84.95
PIAT-R Combined Test Record
and Written Expression Response
Booklets (50) 69.95
Computer ASSIST Macintosh 199.95
Computer ASSIST Windows 199.95
Pronunciation Guide Cassette 15.95
Nylon Briefcase 49.95
DIAGNOSTIQUE 24(1-4),211-220 (1998-1999)
211
212 DIAGNOSTIQUE VOL. 24, NO. 1-4,1998-1999
Dimensions Measured
Administration
The PIAT,R/NU is an individually administered untimed test {the
only timed administration is the 20 minute limit requirement on the
higher level written expression (writing sample) subtest). Total adminis-
tration time is approximately one hour. Each subtests' items are arranged
in increasing difficulty levels. The subtests in general information, read,
ing recognition, mathematics, and spelling all include 100 verbal or mul-
tiple choice items. The reading comprehension subtest includes 82 items,
whereas the written expression subtest involves, at the younger age lev,
els, copying and dictation items. At the higher ages, students are expect,
ed to write a passage relating to one of two pictures shown. Based upon
the standardization, the manual requests that the order of the subtests
follow the structure of the test booklet with general information, reading
recognition, reading comprehension, mathematics, spelling, and written
214 DJAGNOSTIQUE VOL. 24, NO. 1-4,1998-1999
Summation of Data
Procedures
The PIAT-R/NU examiner must have a strong background in psy-
chological testing. statistics, and education. This test user has completed
graduate training in individual assessment, guidance, mesurement along
with knowledge of special appraisal methods appropriate for the
PIAT-R/NU instrument.
PIAT-R/NU subtests are scored objectively except for the Written
Expression subtest, which is scored based upon criteria as described in the
manual. Raw scores (items correct) along with SEM (standard errors of
measurement) can be recorded in three confidence levels (68%, 90%,
95%). Grade equivalents, age equivalents, standard scores, and per-
centiles are obtainable from the manual's norm tables or from the
ASSIST computer program.
the performance of the standardization sample). For the five basic sub-
tests (General Information, Reading Recognition, Reading
Comprehension, Mathematics, Spelling) and the two composites (Total
Reading, Total Test), the student's derived scores can be converted to:
age equivalents, grade equivalents, standard scores (for both age and
grade - age by three months intervals, grade by fall/winter/spring, based
upon time of administration), percentiles, normal curve equivalents, and
stanines. Total Reading composites are obtained by adding the raw scores
of the Reading Recognition and Reading Comprehension subtests. The
Total Test composites are calculated by adding all the raw scores of the
subtests, except for those scores of the Total Reading composite and the
Written Expression subtest. For the Written Expression subtest (Level I
& 11), derived scores can be converted to grade based stanines, while for
Level II the derived scores can be also converted to developmental scaled
scores.
Since a student's "true score" is impacted by a measurement error
(that is seen in every assessment), the PIAT~R/NU scores are considered
an estimate of a true score. Statistically, one can determine the estimate
of the measurement error through the utilization of standard error of
measurement (SEM). From the standard error of measurement, one can
determine a range of scores {confidence interval} wherein the "true
score" will likely lie. These confidence intervals are provided for grade
and age equivalents, standard scores, and percentiles at the 68%, 90%
and 95% levels.
Graphic profiles can be developed for a student's subtest scores
(except for Written Expression) in two formats: a Standard Score Profile
for showing standard scores and a Developmental Score Profile for graph-
ically showing age equivalents or grade equivalents. A student's confi-
dence intervals are plotted on the graph provided on the student's test
booklet. A reference line can then be drawn with actual grade place-
ment, chronological age, mental age, and IQ score, in order to compare
the student's PIAT~R/NU performance with expected performance.
Interpretation of Scores
The PIAT~R/NU, through the manual, allows the interpretation of
the student's derived scores in relation to the standardization sample. A
detailed case study is given to show the derived scores' relationship in
terms of comparisons to peers and in terms of the student's actual indi-
vidual performance. A student's confidence intervals allow one to inter-
216 DIAGNOSTIQUE VOl. 24, NO. 1-4, 1998-1999
Standardization
Sampling Procedures
The 1998 PIAT~R/NU was renormed based on data collected
between 1995 and 1996. This renorming was coordinated with the
renorming of the Key-Math-Revised, the Woodcock Reading Mastery
Tests-Revised, and the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement. No
changes were made to the batteries' contents.
Between October, 1995 and June, 1996, along with between
September 1996 and November 1996, a forty state national standardiza-
tion of 3,184 kindergarten through grade 12 students and an additional
245 age eighteen to twenty-two young adults were tested. Students were
selected by a multistage sampling based on the March 1994 Bureau of the
Census Current Population Survey (U. S. Bureau of the Census, 1994).
Site coordinators, psychologists, or educators with prior experience in
the test batteries, were recruited for school-based sampling. The fall and
spring norm samples were derived by using a stratified random process by
PEABODY INDIVIDUAL ACHIEVEMENTTEST-REVISED/NORMATIVE UPDATE 217
Sample Characteristics
The PIAT~R/NU manual gives tables listing the stratified sample
according to grade, sex, socioecononic status (parental education),
race/ethnicity, region, and educational placement. Upon review, the
total standardization sample appears to closely resemble the country as a
whole. Utilizing the March 1994 Census data of U.S. population (U.S.
Bureau of the Census, 1994) figures of 49.3% female, the sample provides
50.1%j and 50.7% male, the sample provides 49.9%. Distribution by
parental education level and by race/ethnicity shows that the sample
closely alines with the general population. From the U.S. Census classi-
fication, four categories of race/ethnicity were utilized: Hispanic,
African-American, White, and Other (including Asian, Pacific Islander,
Native American, and Alaskan Native). A new component of this
renorming included the designation of educational placement in order to
ensure the appropriate proportions of special education and gifted stu-
dents. The special education category was broken down into the follow-
ing classifications that closely resemble the U.S. percentages (U.S.
Department of Education, 1995): Learning Disabled 5.9%/5.5%US,
Speech/Language Delayed 2.4%/2.3%US, Emotionally/Behaviorally
Disturbed 0.8%/0.9%US, Mentally Retarded 0.8%/1.1%US, Physically
Impaired 0.1%/0.1%US, Other 0.8%/0.3%US. The Gifted classification,
unfortunately, did not resemble the U.S. percentages as closely:
2.3%/14.2%US.
Reliability
Estimating reliability of the PIAT~R/NU was completed by the four
methods of: test-retest, split half, item response theory, and
Kuder-Richardson. Tables in the manual cite the data.
Test-Retest Reliability
Stability of scores from one test session to another was determined
after a two to four weeks delay from the initial testing, with substantial
218 DIAGNOSTIQUE VOL. 24, NO. 1-4, 1998-1999
agreement between first and second testing scores. Based upon reported
data, most of the subtest correlations fell within the mid .80s to high .90s
with lower figures seen in grade four Mathematics (.78), grade six
Reading Comprehension (.78), and in grade six Mathematics (.79). The
composite correlations were reported as being from the low to upper .90s.
Split-Half Reliability
High levels of split-half reliability were documented for all age and
grade levels, due, in all likelihood, to the usage of basal and ceiling oper-
at ions of the test itself. Bygrade, for most of the first five subtests and two
composites, the coefficients are in the .90s for subtests and from .95 to
.99 for the composites. Kindergarten levels for Spelling (.86) and
Mathematics (.84) showed lower reliability. By age, the coefficients
reflect similar patterns: with one exception, the age subtest reliabilities
fall in the .90s, while the composite reliabilities fall within the upper
.90s. At the age five level (lowest level tested), Mathematics provides
the lowest coefficient (.83).
Kuder-Richardson Reliability
A strong degree of content homogeneity has been shown with the
reliability coefficients falling in the low to mid .90s, except for
Mathematics age five and Mathematics and Spelling grade Kindergarten.
With a comparison between these coefficients and those from the
split-half study, the little difference between the two reliabilities indicate
that the PIAT,R/NU provides unambiguous and clear content domains.
Validity
Content Validity
Based upon the reliability estimates of the split-half and
PEABODY INDIVIDUAL ACHIEVEMENT TEST-REVISED/NORMATIVE UPDATE 219
Construct Validity
Although there are a few exceptions (not named in the manual),
high correlations between PIAT-R/NU subtests and those same subtests
on the PlAT are evidence as a measure of PIAT-R/NU correlation with
other tests. The two forms of the Peabody Picture Vocabulary
Test-Revised (PPVT-R) (Dunn & Dunn, 1981) were given with the
PIAT-R/NU during the standardization. As reported, the median corre-
lations between the two instruments are moderate (.52 to .70). Studies
of developmental changes (nature of achievement over time) and factor
analysis are presented in tables (in the manual) to support the
PIAT-R/NU validity. These tables list the noted increases in the stu-
dents' scores at each grade and age level showing that the test's content
sequence corresponds with achievement expectations. In the manual,
fifty one validity studies are listed with descriptive information and ref-
erences. It appears, however, that further validity data is needed for the
PIAT-R/NU. In fact, in the manual itself, research on the PIAT-R/NU is
encouraged and solicited.
scoring guidelines and space for observations allowing the examiner ease
in interpretation and analysis.
The PIAT,R/NU allowsfor quick administration and scoring, use of
easels for testing, and use of training examples and demonstration. The
clearly understood format involves a multiple choice visual stimulus that
requires a motor (pointing) or verbal response for the Reading
Comprehension, Mathematics, and Spelling subtests. These response
modes make the instrument easy to use with students with motor or
speech difficulties.
The Written Expression subtest does allow one to evaluate the
practical aspects of the entire writing process, however, the utility of the
scores has been questioned. Consequently, an informal analysis of a stu,
dent's writing sample should be an additional component of an examin-
er's test battery.
The current new standardization updates the sampling to show the
inclusion of school age special education and gifted students in direct
correlation to the overall public school population. This allows the
PIAT,R/NU to be utilized for information regarding in-class inclusion
and for evaluating IEP goals and objectives.
Throughout the literature (including the actual manual), the need
for further research on the PIAT,R/NU is cited (and welcomed by the
author). In fact, concurrent validity studies are being called for in order
to delineate the correspondence of PIAT,R/NU with other current
achievement instruments.
References
Dunn,L.M., & Dunn,L.M. (1981). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test,Revised. CirclePines,
MN: American Guidance Service.
Dunn, L.M., and Markwardt, Ee. (1970). Peabody Individual Achievement Test. Circle
Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
Markwardt, He. (1989). Peabody Individual Achievement Test-Revised. Circle Pines, MN:
American Guidance Service.
Markwardt, HC. (1998). Peabody Individual Achievement Test-Revised NU. Circle Pines.
MN: American Guidance Service.
Taylor, R.L. (1997). Assessment of Exceptianal Students (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA.
Allyn & Bacon.
UiS, Bureau of the Census. (1994). Current Population Survey. Washington. DC:
U.S.Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Education. (1995). Seventh Annual Report to Congress on the
Implementation of the Individuals with DisabiUties Education Act. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.