CHAPTER 11 ■ Other Individual Tests of Ability in Education and Special Education 301

tests as an unbiased indicator of giftedness (Torrance, 1970, 1977; see also Santosa,
2007; Kim, 2006).
Factor analytic studies have suggested that the various types of creative thinking
(fluency, flexibility, originality) tend to load on a single, general factor (Clapham, 1998).
However, far more work is needed; today, human creativity surprisingly remains a
largely unexplained field.
In sum, the Torrance tests are typical of creativity tests. Applied practitioners
demand such a tool for their work. Though inconsistent, available data reflect the
tests' merit and fine potential. As with so many other tests, however, more work is
needed. One should view results from creativity tests as tentative, and to be used
only in conjunction with other tests.

Individual Achievement Tests: Wide Range

Achievement Test-3 (WRAT-3)
We have discussed the widely made distinction between intelligence and achieve-
ment. As you know, intelligence tests measure potential ability, whereas achievement
tests measure what the person has actually acquired or done with that potential.
Although scores from intelligence tests and achievement tests often overlap, dis-
crepancies sometimes arise between the two, for instance, when a person of average
potential has not made full use of that potential. Such a person would tend to score
higher on a general ability test than on a specific achievement test, especially if the
general ability test minimizes the effects of learning and the achievement test is
highly specific. Similarly, a person may score average on a general intelligence test
but, because of a high level of interest, motivation, or special training, score above
average on achievement. Thus, despite the overlap of intelligence and ability tests,
comparing their data can sometimes be extremely revealing. Indeed, as we indi -
cated, discrepancies between IQand achievement have traditionally been the main
defining feature of a learning disability.

Most achievement tests are group tests, which will be discussed in the next
chapter. Among the most widely used individual achievement tests is the WRAT-3,
which purportedly permits an estimate of grade-level functioning in reading, spelling,
and arithmetic (Kareken, Gur, & Saykin, 1995; Snelbaker, Wilkinson, Rob ertson, &
Glutting, 2001). It can be used for children ages 5 and older and has two levels for
each of the three achievement areas.
The WRAT-3 is easy to administer. It also is highly popular. Despite the test's
research and clinical uses, however, it has many problems (Johnstone, Holland, &
Larimore, 2000).
The earlier WRAT-R had been severely criticized for its inaccuracy in evaluating
grade-level reading ability. The test merely required participants to pronounce words
from a list. The 1993 version retained this format, which led one reviewer to conclude
that "on no grounds can this be considered a test of reading" (Mabry, 1995, p. 1108).
Because the basic concept of the test has not changed for nearly 60 years, it is
"already outdated" (Mabry, 1995, p. 1109).
The problems with the WRAT-3 underscore our repeated warning for caution
in the use of test results. All test users should learn as much as they can about the
tests they use. Statements from the test publishers or distributors of tests, and even
302 CHAPTER 11 ■ Other Individual Tests of Ability in Education and Special Education

statements in the test manuals, must always be carefully examined. Nevertheless, in

evaluating learning disabilities, many educators continue to rely on the WRAT-3.
As a screening tool, such use may be justified, but the test should never be used in
place of a comprehensive assessment to evaluate reading level.

SUMMARY
The number of individual ability tests is almost overwhelming. Most of these tests
serve highly specific purposes, and their strength lies in their specificity. Table 11.2
summarizes the major differences among the various individual tests of ability. Of
the infant and preschool scales, the Bayley Scales of Infant Development are the
most psychometrically sound. The McCarthy Scales of Children's Abilities appear
to be promising tests for measuring intelligence in young children, but more work
is needed. The KABC II is a relatively new test of considerable value, but it has
-

been strongly criticized. Overall, general ability tests for handicapped and special
populations should be used cautiously. Among ability tests for the handicapped, the
Columbia Mental Maturity Scale—Third Edition is one of the most promising.

Learning disability tests are based on information-processing theory. Because

these tests are relatively new, one should view their results with caution. Like cre -
ativity tests, these tests have a long way to go to reach the standards of the Binet and
Wechsler scales. Drawing tests such as the Bender, the Benton, and the Memoryfor-
Designs are all excellent and economical screening devices for brain damage. These
tests attempt to measure an ability related to brain functioning. The Bender Visual
Motor Gestalt Test, in addition to being a screening device for brain damage, can be
used to measure intellectual and emotional functioning.
Although achievement and intelligence tests often overlap, a comparison of the
two can be useful. A major individual achievement test, the Wide Range Achieve-
ment Test-3, can lead to incorrect conclusions because of several serious problems.