SpeechPathology.com Phone: 800-242-5183


eLuma Online Therapy - Love What You Do - May 2023

Interpreting Test Scores

Shelley Velleman, Ph.D

August 1, 2005

Share:

Question

Note: The following information pertains only to test scores that are "normally distributed" (i.e., form a bell-shaped curve), as is the case with tests that report standard scores.

As a middle school SLP I receive many reports from other S

Answer

The very short answer to these questions is "It depends". The long answers relate to the purpose of the testing: Is it to identify which students qualify for services, or is it to establish a profile of language/learning strengths and weaknesses for the student and therefore to determine a specific, useful diagnosis and a specific, useful treatment plan?

To identify which students qualify for services, most school systems (in my experience) use the standard deviation, a measure of how scores spread around the mean. The standard deviation is useful because it takes the variance of the population into account. If most people's scores are close to the mean, the standard deviation will be small; if scores are spread out, then the standard deviation will be larger. Statistically, the middle 68% of the population is considered to be "normal"; these are the scores that fall within one standard deviation of the mean. Another 27% of the scores fall between one and two standard deviations from the mean (half above and half below) and 2.3% fall more than two standard deviations from the mean (half above and half below).

Of course, we are primarily concerned with those that fall below the mean (unless we are assessing a child to determine whether a gifted/talented program is appropriate). Sixteen percent of children fall 1 standard deviation or more below the mean; 2.5% fall 2 standard deviations or more below the mean; 1.15% fall 3 standard deviations or more below the mean. In percentile terms, children whose scores fall at the 16th percentile are one standard deviation below the mean, and so on.

Rules vary from state to state and even from school district to school district (in some states) with respect to how far below the mean the child must fall in order to qualify for services. In my experience, most cutoffs range from 1 to 2 standard deviations, although some school systems do provide services to children with scores at the 25th percentile or below. From a statistical point of view, the 25th percentile is low average - below the scores that would be earned by 75% of children at that age, but still within the average range.

Whether these rules apply to overall test quotients or to individual subtests should depend upon the significance of the subtest for the child's functioning in the setting in question, but this is a tricky route to follow. It would seem that memory for following directions, for example, could have far more impact on the child's academic success than number memory backwards.

On the other hand, number memory backwards performance could be a reflection of the child's general ability to hold and manipulate abstract information in his/her mind without external visual or auditory cues, and could therefore presage significant academic difficulties even if actually recalling a list of numbers is never requested by the teacher. Many assessment tasks require skills that are not obvious from the title of the subtest. (See Stackhouse and Wells 1997 for an excellent analysis of the "hidden" requirements of many phonological awareness tasks.)

This leads to the second function of testing: establishing a communication or learning profile for a child, which is a much more functional and flexible procedure. This is vital to understanding whether and why the student will be able to perform adequately in a given classroom and also to giving a usefully specific diagnosis.

For example, a child with a statistically significant difference between his/her verbal and non-verbal IQ scores could be technically considered to be learning disabled even if both scores are within or even above normal limits (e.g., one at the 85th percentile and one at the 99th). Such a child might seem to be brilliant at math, for instance (assuming that the nonverbal score is the higher of the two), but have a difficult time with word problems that are supposedly at his/her level of quantitative ability.

Some assessment instruments provide procedures for weighing the requirements of various subtests in order to identify a specific performance profile, but many tests lack this feature and sometimes even those that have it are unrevealing with respect to particular children. Inconsistent performance across subtests -- some very strong scores and some very weak scores on the same assessment instrument -- can be washed out if only the overall test score, or only a summary quotient, is considered. Often it is the comparison of the lower subscores from a group of tests that have been administered to the higher subscores from the same group of tests that provides the key to understanding a child's academic or other communicative struggles. This requires more flexible, abstract thinking on the part of the SLP: to figure out what the common underlying skills are for those subtests on which the child does well versus those on which he/she does poorly, and to put those concepts together with the child's apparent strengths and weaknesses within the classroom in order to determine the appropriate diagnosis and the most efficacious intervention plan.

Stackhouse, J., & Wells, B. (1997). Children's speech and literacy difficulties: A psycholinguistic framework. London: International Thomson Publishers.


Shelley L. Velleman is an associate professor of Communication Disorders at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. She is the author of many articles about normal and disordered phonological development (including childhood apraxia of speech), and also of "Making phonology functional" (Butterworth-Heinemann,1998) and the "Childhood apraxia of speech resource guide" (Delmar/Thomson, 2003).


shelley velleman

Shelley Velleman, Ph.D


Related Courses

Facilitating First Verbs through Shared Book Reading
Presented by Susan Hendler Lederer, PhD, CCC-SLP
Video

Presenter

Susan Hendler Lederer, PhD, CCC-SLP
Course: #9735Level: Introductory1 Hour
  'The theories about learning verbs and the examples of books'   Read Reviews
This course discusses early verb acquisition, choosing first verb targets, and a variety of strategies to facilitate verb learning using children’s picture books as a therapy context.

Language Outcomes of Children with Trauma Histories: Understanding the Impact
Presented by Yvette D. Hyter, PhD, CCC-SLP, ASHA Fellow
Video

Presenter

Yvette D. Hyter, PhD, CCC-SLP, ASHA Fellow
Course: #9737Level: Advanced1.5 Hours
  'Good information'   Read Reviews
This is Part 1 of a two-part series. This course is designed to explain the influences that various types of childhood experiences with trauma and maltreatment have on development. The focus is on language and social-pragmatic communication skills of children.

Children with Trauma Histories: Assessment, Intervention, and Advocacy
Presented by Yvette D. Hyter, PhD, CCC-SLP, ASHA Fellow
Video

Presenter

Yvette D. Hyter, PhD, CCC-SLP, ASHA Fellow
Course: #9738Level: Advanced1.5 Hours
  'This course was very informative'   Read Reviews
This is Part 2 of a two-part series. This course features assessment protocols for determining language abilities of children with trauma histories and evidence-based, trauma-informed intervention strategies. It discusses the responsibility of trauma-informed speech, language and hearing professionals to advocate for children who have experienced trauma.

Reading Comprehension and the SLP: Foundational Understanding
Presented by Angie Neal, MS, CCC-SLP
Audio

Presenter

Angie Neal, MS, CCC-SLP
Course: #10763Level: Intermediate1 Hour
  'Angie is such a great presenter! Thank you so much for speaking about topics that I can use in my everyday setting'   Read Reviews
This is Part 1 of a two-part series. This course provides SLPs with foundational knowledge needed to directly address and collaboratively support reading comprehension across all grade levels. Models of language and reading comprehension, comprehension processes vs. products, instruction in comprehension skills vs. strategies, factors in reading comprehension difficulties, and connections to general education are discussed.

Reading Comprehension and the SLP: Contributions of Language
Presented by Angie Neal, MS, CCC-SLP
Video

Presenter

Angie Neal, MS, CCC-SLP
Course: #10764Level: Intermediate1 Hour
  'Great information, take-aways that I can use immediately'   Read Reviews
This is Part 2 of a two-part series. The connections between reading comprehension and areas of language such as vocabulary, morphosyntax and social communication are described in this course. Implications for intervention/instruction and collaboration with educators are also discussed.

Our site uses cookies to improve your experience. By using our site, you agree to our Privacy Policy.