The Woodcock-Johnson Assessment

Introduction
The Woodcock-Johnson Assessment utilizes achievement and cognitive measures that involve the entire representation of what is actually happening intellectually with a child. This information can be used to determine the diagnosis of a disability. The Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement has four different versions with the latest being the VI. In 1977, the first version of the test was written and consisted of twenty-two subtest by Richard Woodcock and Mary E. Bonner Johnson (Woodcock, McGrew, Mather 2001). The assessment can be used with individuals of all ages and is given to one subject at a time and the administration is simple to manage (Blackwell, 2001). For the purpose of this paper, reliability and validity of the Woodcock-Johnson

III will be reviewed as well as the general abilities of the assessment, how it relates to identified disabilities and finally, how it relates to the classroom.
General Abilities
The Woodcock-Johnson III was reported by Keith, Kranzler, and Flanagan (2001) as being established to measure the intellectual capabilities similar to the Cattell-Horn-Caroll-Theory (CHC) that had been proven effective in the past.

The WJ III is made up of seven tests that were standard and three more which were supplemental. The version of this assessment was meant for subjects who were ages two to ninety and over (Keith et al., 2001). The research from Keith, Kranzler and Flanagan (2001) listed the following test: Short-Term/Working Memory, Processing Speed, Comprehension Knowledge, Visual-Spatial Thinking, Auditory Processing, Long Term Retrieval and Fluid Reasoning, and finally planning and Auditory Attention. Floyd, McGrew, Barry, Rafael and Rogers (2009) stated in research that the WJ III with its seven composite scores is better than any other intelligence battery test at the given time. The general abilities of the assessment seem to be appropriate from the research

found.
Reliability and Validity
The Woodcock-Johnson III has the reputation of being a valid and reliable testing instrument that covers many aspects of intelligence. Timothy and Donald (as cited by Abu-Hamour, Hmouz, Mattar, and Muhaidat, 2012) reported from the Eighteenth Mental Measurements Yearbook that the test was reliable and valid with the subtest in the suitable range of .80 or higher. The research correspondingly showed that the validity of the WJ III was existent and was concluded by applying the procedures comprising of content, concurrent and construct (Abu-Hamour et al., 2012). According to Blackwell (2001), there has been a wide-range of research to demonstrate the reliability and the validity of the WJ III. The research which demonstrated the assessment as valid and reliable was likewise widespread, covering many different ages and capabilities of achievement levels which corresponded by means of real-life scenarios. Associations between the discoveries of this assessment and other comparable assessments stand temperate to extraordinary which designates that the test is undertaking what it was created to do in determining skills as well as capabilities (Blackwell 2001).
WJ III and Identified Disabilities
Abu-Hamour et al., (2012) mentioned the following as some of the identified disabilities that was researched and reported using the WJ III.

The findings were based on students with language disorders, head injuries, Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), Mild Intellectual Disability, and Specific Learning Disability in math and/or reading (Abu-Hamour et al., 2012). The assessment given as a study with language disorders included one hundred and fifty six students, and it was determined through the process that a language disorder is usually linked to lower cognitive ability scores (Abu-Hamour et al., 2012). Results recorded from the manual of WJ III (as cited by Abu-Hamour et al., 2012) reported students with head injuries had the lowest scores on the test and their processing speed and working memory was affected. ADHD was reported to look similar to those with learning disabilities, head injuries or social emotional problems (Abu-Hamour et al., 2012). Torgesen (as citied by Abu-Hamour 2012) reported that 80% of all SLD involved reading. Finally, mild intellectual disability was recorded as being the lowest scores in all subtests (Abu-Hamour

2012).