Cummings and Moscato Soft on Woodcock—Johnson

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
The review by Cummings and Moscato of the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Ability (WJTCA) is criticized for its treatment of two of the three issues they addressed. This critique comments on five areas of disagreement. From their paper, readers would be led to believe that (a) the WJTCA is an appropriate test for the diagnosis of special populations; (b) the technical excellence of the Relative Performance Index (RPI) justifies use of the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery (WJPEB) for evaluation of children referred for special learning problems; (c) the test user can omit calculation of WJTCA achievement-aptitude RPI; (d) because the WJTCA predicts achievement better than the WISC-R it should be used as an achievement measure; and (e) the WJPEB has a standardization sample that may be biased in favor of middle class subjects creating a discrepancy between the WJTCA and WISC-R Full Scale score means. The authors argue, in contrast with Cummings and Moscato, that the WJTCA is biased toward achievement which results in comparability of mean Full Scale scores for normal children on the WJTCA and the WISC-R and a concomitant discrepancy of scores for LD children. This bias is incompatible with the current aptitude-achievement discrepancy model of specific learning disabilities, making inappropriate the use of the WJTCA within the parameters of that model.