Troy Courville

What Do Phonological Processing Errors Tell About Students’ Skills in Reading, Writing, and Oral Language

The kinds of errors that children and adolescents make on phonological processing tasks were studied with a large sample between ages 4 and 19 (N = 3,842) who were tested on the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement–Third Edition (KTEA-3). Principal component analysis identified two phonological processing factors: Basic Phonological Awareness and Advanced Phonological Processing. Canonical analysis and correlation analysis were conducted to determine how each factor related to reading, writing, and oral language across the wide age range. Results of canonical correlation analysis indicated that the advanced error factor was more responsible for reading, writing, and oral language skills than the basic error factor. However, in the correlation analysis, both the basic and advanced factors related about equally to different aspects of achievement—including reading fluency and rapid naming—and there were few age differences.

Analysis of Children's Errors in Comprehension and Expression.

Children’s oral language skills typically begin to develop sooner than their written language skills; however, the four language systems (listening, speaking, reading, and writing) then develop concurrently as integrated strands that influence one another. This research explored relationships between students’ errors in language comprehension of passages across oral and written modalities (listening and reading) and in language expression across oral and written modalities (speaking and writing). The data for this study were acquired during the standardization of the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement–Third Edition (KTEA-3). Correlational analyses from the total sample (n = 2,443-3,552) and within grade bands revealed low to moderate correlations (.26-.50). No evidence of convergent or divergent validity was found when comparing correlations of “same-name” error types (e.g., inferential errors across modalities) with correlations of “different-name” error types. These results support previous research findings and hypotheses that language by ear, eye, hand, and mouth are separable but interacting systems that differ in more ways than modality of input/output.

Beyond the Mask Analysis of Error Patterns on the KTEA-3 for Students With Giftedness and Learning Disabilities

An understanding of the strengths, weaknesses, and achievement profiles of students with giftedness and learning disabilities (G&LD) is needed to address their asynchronous development. This study examines the subtests and error factors in the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement–Third Edition (KTEA-3) for strength and weakness patterns of students with G&LD in higher and lower level thinking skills by comparing G&LD students (n = 196) with academically gifted (GT; n = 69) and specific learning disability (SLD) students (n = 90). Several one-way MANCOVAs were conducted with subtest error factor scores as dependent variables and grouping variable (G&LD, GT, or SLD) as the independent variable. The G&LD means scores across subtests were in between the two control groups. On many higher level thinking tasks, the G&LD group scored similar to the gifted group. The results support the use of error analysis to gain further understanding into the profile of students with G&LD.

Patterns of Cognitive Strengths and Weaknesses and Relationships to Math Errors

This study investigated cognitive patterns of strengths and weaknesses (PSW) and their relationship to patterns of math errors on the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement (KTEA-3). Participants, ages 5 to 18, were selected from the KTEA-3 standardization sample if they met one of two PSW profiles: high crystallized ability (Gc) paired with low processing speed/long-term retrieval (Gs/Glr; n = 375) or high Gs/Glr paired with low Gc (n = 309). Estimates of Gc and Gs/Glr were based on five KTEA-3 subtests that measure either Gc (e.g., Listening Comprehension) or Gs/Glr (e.g., Object Naming Facility). The two groups were then compared on math error factors. Significant differences favored the High-Gc group for factors that measure math calculation, basic math concepts, and complex computation. However, the two groups did not differ in their errors on factors that measure geometry/measurement or simple addition. Results indicated that students with different PSW profiles also differed in the kinds of errors they made on math tests.

How Achievement Error Patterns of Students With Mild Intellectual Disability Differ From Low IQ and Low Achievement Students Without Diagnoses

This study investigated the differences in error factor scores on the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement–Third Edition between individuals with mild intellectual disabilities (Mild IDs), those with low achievement scores but average intelligence, and those with low intelligence but without a Mild ID diagnosis. The two control groups were matched with the Mild ID clinical cases on demographic variables including age, gender, and parental education. Results showed significant differences between the groups on several error factors, particularly between the Mild ID group and the two control groups, and no significant differences between all three groups on six error factors. In addition, the two control groups differed significantly on four error factors. Implications for intervention selection, diagnostic considerations, and future directions for achievement test creation are discussed.

Exploratory Factor Analysis of Reading, Spelling, and Math Errors.

Norm-referenced error analysis is useful for understanding individual differences in students’ academic skill development and for identifying areas of skill strength and weakness. The purpose of the present study was to identify underlying connections between error categories across five language and math subtests of the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement–Third Edition (KTEA-3) through exploratory factor analyses (EFAs). The EFA results were supportive of models with two or three factors for each of the five subtests. Significant inter-factor correlations within subtests were identified in all subtests, except between two factors within the Math Concepts and Application (MCA) subtest. There was also consistency in the covariance patterns of some error categories across subtests, particularly within the Nonsense Word Decoding (NWD) and Spelling (SP) subtests. This consistency was supportive of the proposed factor structures. The factor structures yielded by these analyses were used as the bases for the other articles in this special issue.

Do Cognitive Patterns of Strengths and Weaknesses Differentially Predict Errors on Reading, Writing, and Spelling?

This study investigated the relationship between specific cognitive patterns of strengths and weaknesses (PSWs) and the errors children make in reading, writing, and spelling tests from the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement–Third Edition (KTEA-3). Participants were selected from the KTEA-3 standardization sample based on five cognitive profiles: High Crystallized Ability paired with Low Processing Speed and Long-Term Retrieval (High Gc), Low Crystallized Ability paired with High Processing Speed and Long-Term Retrieval (High Gs/Glr), Low Orthographic Processing (Low OP), Low Phonological Processing (Low PP), and Low Phonological Processing paired with Low Orthographic Processing (Low PP_OP). Error factor scores for all five groups were compared on Reading Comprehension and Written Expression; the first four groups were compared on Letter & Word Recognition, Nonsense Word Decoding, and Spelling, and the first three groups were compared on Phonological Processing. Significant differences were noted among the patterns of errors demonstrated by the five groups. Findings support the notion that students with diverse cognitive PSWs display different patterns of errors on tests of academic achievement.

Patterns of Strengths and Weaknesses on the WISC-V, DAS-II, and KABC-II and Their Relationship to Students' Errors in Oral Language, Reading, Writing, Spelling, and Math.

This study investigated the relationship between specific cognitive patterns of strengths and weaknesses and the errors children make on oral language, reading, writing, spelling, and math subtests from the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement–Third Edition (KTEA-3). Participants with scores from the KTEA-3 and either the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fifth Edition (WISC-V), Differential Ability Scales–Second Edition (DAS-II), or Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children–Second Edition (KABC-II) were selected based on their profile of scores. Error factor scores for the oral and written language tests were compared for three groups: High Gc paired with low processing speed, long-term memory, and/or reasoning abilities; Low Gc paired with high speed, memory, and/or reasoning; and Low orthographic and/or phonological processing. Error factor scores for the math tests were compared for three groups: High Gc profile; High Gf paired with low processing speed and/or long-term memory; and Low Gf paired with high processing speed and/or long-term memory. Results indicated a difference in Oral Expression and Written Expression error factor scores between the group with High Gc paired with low processing speed, long-term memory, and/or reasoning abilities; and the group with Low Gc paired with high speed, memory, and/or reasoning.

Biological Gender Differences in Students’ Errors on Mathematics Achievement Tests

This study investigated developmental gender differences in mathematics achievement, using the child and adolescent portion (ages 6-19 years) of the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement–Third Edition (KTEA-3). Participants were divided into two age categories: 6 to 11 and 12 to 19. Error categories within the Math Concepts & Applications and Math Computation subtests of the KTEA-3 were factor analyzed and revealed five error factors. Multiple ANOVA of the error factor scores showed that, across both age categories, female and male mean scores were not significantly different across four error factors: math calculation, geometric concepts, basic math concepts, and addition. They were significantly different on the complex math problems error factor, with males performing better at the p < .05 significance level for the 6 to 11 age group and at the p < .001 significance level for the 12 to 19 age group. Implications in light of gender stereotype threat are discussed.

Differences in Errors Between Students With Language and Reading Disabilities

Children with a specific learning disability in reading/writing (LDRW) and/or language impairment (LI) are likely to have difficulties across all areas of academic achievement, as a great deal of teaching and learning depends on intact reading skill and linguistic communication. Despite a large number of studies examining academic difficulties among these groups, there has been minimal research investigating types of errors made on tests of academic achievement. The present study compared academic error types of children with LDRW (Group 1) and children with LI (Group 3) to two distinct demographically matched control groups (Groups 2 and 4) using the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement–Third Edition (KTEA-3) error analysis system. Findings indicate that children in the LDRW group or LI group, on average, made a greater number of errors than their matched counterparts. Statistically significant differences, with moderate effect sizes, were found between examinees in the clinical groups and their respective matched control groups across several error categories. Some of the largest differences were found in the Written Expression and Oral Expression subtests. Most importantly, the patterns of errors made by LDRW and LI samples differed notably on the various tasks, providing new insights about these clinical samples.