See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/235995920

The Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Ability, Third Edition

Article · March 2010

CITATIONS READS
0 17,481

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Health behavior patterns and diabetes management self-efficacy View project

Patterns of Adapting to Health, Self-Reported Health Status, and Risk Odds of Type 2 Diabetes View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Frederick H. Navarro on 20 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Running head: WOODCOCK – JOHNSON III 1

The Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Ability, Third Edition

Frederick H. Navarro

Walden University
Running head: WOODCOCK – JOHNSON III 2

Abstract

This paper reviews the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Ability, Third Edition (WJ-III

COG). The paper summarizes its historical development, reviews its psychometric properties,

and describes the materials and administration associated with its use. The reliability and

validity of the WJ-III COG is discussed, as well as its application in variable centered and

person-centered assessment of cognitive function. The paper concludes with a discussion of the

WJ-III COG strengths and weaknesses and implications for further development.
Running head: WOODCOCK – JOHNSON III 3

The Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Ability, Third Edition

The Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Ability, Third Edition (WJ III COG) is a set

of tests administered individually which assesses an extensive range of intellectual and cognitive

abilities for children up to two years old and adults up to and over the age of 90 (Blackwell,

2001). The WJ III COG is paired with the Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement (WJ III

ACH) which are both co-normed on the same sample (Cizek, 2003). This allows the exploration

of the link between cognitive abilities and academic achievement (Cizek, 2003). The WJ III

COG is the third revision of the original Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery

(WJTCA) of 1977 (Blackwell, 2001). The WJ III COG revision is designed to measure

cognitive ability constructs that are a part of the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) three stratum theory

of cognitive abilities including many narrow abilities (Stratum I), a limited set of broad cognitive

abilities (Stratum II), and a single general intelligence factor (Stratum III; Sanders, McIntosh,

Dunham, Rothlisberg & Finch, 2007). The WJ III COG also has a diagnostic supplement (DS;

Sares, 2003). Many reviewers note that the technical manuals of the WJ III COG clearly follow

many guidelines outlined for reliability and validity in the Standards for Educational and

Psychological Testing (Blackwell, 2001; Cizek, 2003; Sandoval, 2003).

Historical Development

The historical development of the WJ III COG closely parallels theoretical conceptions of

intelligence. Woodcock (2002) summarized this theoretical development of intelligence in five

stages: First, the conception of intelligence as a single ability, second, as a pair of abilities, third,

as a small set of multiple abilities, fourth, is a larger complete set of abilities, and fifth, as a set of

stratum where a few abilities are behind a broader set of abilities. The conception of intelligence

as a single factor or ability was first proposed by Spearman back in 1904 and is generally
Running head: WOODCOCK – JOHNSON III 4

referred to as Spearman's g (Kane, Oakland, & Brand, 2006). This conception of intelligence

was supported by the earliest version of the Stanford-Binet test of intelligence defined by the

single IQ score (Woodcock, et al.). Intelligence conceptualized as a pair of abilities

distinguished by verbal intelligence (VIQ) and nonverbal or performance intelligence (PIQ) was

the next development (Woodcock, et al.).

Woodcock-Johnson Test of Cognitive Abilities (WJTCA)

The first predecessor of the WJ III appeared in 1979, and at the third stage of intelligence

conceptualization which postulated a set of broad abilities (Woodcock, 2003). The WJTCA was

not based on any theory of intelligence, but was unique in that it offered co-normed tests of

cognitive abilities and achievement (Sanders, et al., 2003).

Woodcock-Johnson Test-Revised (WJ-R)

The first revision of the WJTCA occurred in 1989 with the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-

Educational Battery-Revised (WJ-R; Sanders, et al., 2003). The WJ-R was designed in response

to further refinement of cognitive ability dimensions, specifically in the areas of fluid

intelligence (Gf) and crystallized intelligence (Gc), and was expanded to measure seven

(Sanders, et al., 2003) to eight (Kane & Brand, 2006) broad cognitive abilities, as well as two

other abilities assessed in the achievement portion of the batteries (Sanders, et al., 2003). The

normative data set for the WJ-R consisted of 6,359 subjects with ages ranging from 24 months to

95 years old drawn from 100 different geographic areas in the U.S. (Kane, et al., 2006). The

range of cognitive abilities measured in the individually administered battery (McCabe,

Margolis, & Barenbaum, 2001) correspond to the Horn-Cattell model of cognitive abilities which

included fluid processing, visual processing, processing speed, long-term memory, crystallized

intelligence, picture vocabulary, oral vocabulary, incomplete words, sound blending, memory for
Running head: WOODCOCK – JOHNSON III 5

sentences, memory for words, calculation, and applied problems (Kane, et al., 2006). The

addition of measures for g gave the WJ-R a patched together three stratum model (e.g., a single

factor of intelligence, broad cognitive abilities, and a set of narrow cognitive abilities (Kane, et

al., 2006).

Woodcock Johnson Tests of Cognitive Abilities, Third Edition

The WJ III COG was published in 2001 (Taub & McGrew, 2004) and is firmly grounded

in the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory of cognitive abilities (Taub, et al., 2004) validated by

many factor analytic studies (Evans, Floyd, McGrew, & Leforgee, 2002). CHC theory, which is

the blueprint for the MJ III COG, fuses the Cattell-Horn theory of fluid intelligence (Gf) and

crystallized intelligence (Gc) with John Carroll’s three strata model of intelligence (Evans, et al.,

2002). Carroll’s three strata model of intelligence is supported by over 460 different exploratory

factor analyses (Phelps, McGrew, Knopik, & Ford, 2005) described in Human Cognitive

Abilities: A Survey of Factor-Analytic Studies (Sanders, et al.). As such, the CHC theory of

cognitive abilities postulates three strata as discussed above, namely: A single factor of

intelligence (Stratum III) comparable to Spearman’s g, a second stratum (Stratum II) with ten

more broad cognitive abilities, and a third stratum (Stratum I) of 73 distinct narrow cognitive

abilities which underlie the ten broad ones (Taub, et al., 2004; Phelps, et al., 2005). Phelps lists

the ten broad abilities of the CHC model as follows: “short-term memory (Gsm), crystallized

intelligence (Gc), quantitative knowledge (Gq), reading/writing (Grw), visual processing (Gv),

auditory processing (Ga), long-term storage and retrieval (Glr), fluid intelligence (Gf),

processing speed (Gs), and decision/reaction time or speed (Gt)” (p 67).

Psychometric Properties

Normative Sampling
Running head: WOODCOCK – JOHNSON III 6

The WJ III COG is standardized using a national sample of 8,818 subjects aged 2 through

90 years and older drawn from 100+ geographic regions of the United States and stratified to

match the U.S. population (Blackwell, 2001; Naglieri, Lauder, Goldstein, & Schwebech, 2006).

The total sample consists of “1,143 preschool-aged children, 4,783 students in kindergarten

through 12th grade, and 1,843 adults participants” (Cizek, 2003). In the sampling, communities

were targeted first, followed by the schools both private and public, and then the students

including those homeschooled (Cizek, et al.). Students with disabilities were included, but not

by design, as were students learning English with at least a year's worth of time practicing it

(Cizek, et al.). Key criteria addressed in sample stratification included geographic region, the

size of communities, ethnicity and Hispanic origin, school or college type, and gender (Sares,

2003).

According to Cizek (2003), the WJ III COG is made up of 20 narrow tests that are

separated into a standard version and an extended version. Woodcock (2002) describes the WJ

III COG as consisting of “21 narrow abilities” (p. 13). In addition to these there is a supplement,

the WJ III Diagnostic Supplement to the Tests Of Cognitive Abilities (WJ III COG DS) that

contains eleven more tests that are intended to improve the diagnostic capability of the WJ III

COG (Sares, 2003). Both the standard version of the WJ III COG and the extended version have

ten subtests each (Cizek, et al.). The standard battery addresses verbal comprehension, visual-

auditory learning, concept formation, sound blending, spatial relations, visual mapping,

incomplete words, numbers reversed, auditory working memory, and visual auditory learning-

delayed (Cizek, et al.; Phelps, et al., 2005). The extended battery includes picture recognition,

general information, auditory attention, retrieval fluency, analysis synthesis, memory for words,

rapid picture naming, planning, decision speed, and pair cancellation (Cizek, et al.; Phelps, et al.,
Running head: WOODCOCK – JOHNSON III 7

2005). The WJ III COG DS has 10 more tests which are designed to correspond with the 20

making up the regular WJ III COG (Sares, et al.). The supplementary tests for memory of

names, visual closure, and memory for sentences can be combined with the verbal

comprehension, visual matching, and incomplete words from the regular WJ III COG to create

clusters measuring broad intellectual and cognitive abilities (Sares, et al.). In fact, Phelps, et al,

describes how the WJ III COG approach is based on focusing only a few broad cognitive

abilities at a time. For example, Thinking Ability consists of four of the broad factors including

Gv, Ga, Gf, and Glr, while Cognitive Efficacy is derived from Gs, and Gsm (Blackwell, 2001).

Woodcock, et al, describes some of the key tools used to construct the WJ III COG including

item response theory (IRT), confirmatory factor analysis, and the Rasch single-parameter logistic

model that provided the benefits of “sample-free calibration,” “item free measurement,” and

several others.

Materials

The WJ III COG comes with a technical manual, an examiner's manual, examiner

training workbooks, response booklets for response recording for both examiners and test takers,

overlays for hand scoring (Cizek, 2003). Blackwell (2001) adds “two easel test books” (p 233),

a computer program for scoring, and audio taped presentations. Blackwell also notes that

examiners are expected to supply pencils, an audio tape player, ear phones, and a stop watch for

the timed tests. According to Cizek, and to a lesser extent Sandoval, et al., (2003), the

examiner's manual contains thorough documentation on the WJ III COG’s grounding in theory,

it’s development, instructions for administering the tests, guidelines to aid interpretation, and

reliability and validity evidence.

Administration
Running head: WOODCOCK – JOHNSON III 8

According to Blackwell (2001) all of the tests in the WJ III COG can be completed in 45

to 50 minutes, and a little over another hour is needed for the extended batteries. With respect to

the WJ III COG DS, Sares (2003) reports some tests given to preschool age children can run five

to 10 minutes per test. Most of the testing items are read to subjects by the examiner, and the

examiner records responses on an easel test book beyond the view of test takers. For some tests

an audio recording is used, and for timed tests the examiner uses a stopwatch. Blackwell

describes administering the WJ III COG as “relatively easy to learn” (p. 233), but then back

peddles by saying that examiner’s manuals need to be studied thoroughly along with the testing

materials, and that training in cognitive ability and educational testing should be at the graduate

level (p. 234). Cizek (2003) describes how the manuals address the qualifications of examiners

and test confidentiality issues. In fact, the testing materials include a “test session observation

checklist” that the examiners are supposed to use to record test taker cooperation, concentration,

attention, and self-confidence (Cizek, et al.). Finally, as many as 13 pages of the examiner's

manual is dedicated to describing special accommodations for people with language issues, or

problems with hearing or seeing or other physical handicaps (Cizek, et al).

Abbreviated Screening. An important feature of the WJ III COG which saves time in

administration is the ability to use a selected portion of test items to gauge the cognitive-

intelligence level of individual subjects (Blackwell, 2003) with the key goal of establishing the

base level of a test takers ability (Sandoval, 2003). Two tests offer this: the General Intelligence

Ability (GIA) score and the Brief Intellectual Ability (BIA) score (Cizek, 2003). The WJ III

COG BIA is a shorter version of the full WJ III COG which uses scores for verbal

comprehension, concept formation, and visual mapping (Newton, McIntosh, Dixon, Williams, &

Youman, 2008). The verbal comprehension scores indicate language skills; the concept
Running head: WOODCOCK – JOHNSON III 9

formation scales provide information on categorical reasoning, flexibility, and visual mapping

addresses the discrimination of symbols in a timed format (Newton, et al., 2008).

Scoring. According to Sandoval (2003), the WJ III COG cannot be scored by hand.

Cizek (2003) disagrees and flatly states that the WJ III COG tests can be “hand scored”, but the

Compuscore software eliminates this hassle. Yet, both Blackwell (2001) and Cizek describe that

testing materials come with a scoring template because some calculations are necessary in the

early going to establish upper and lower baseline levels. For the entire battery, the WJ III COG

relies on the Compuscore scoring program.

Output. Scoring tables are included with the technical manual and used to change raw

scores into age based and grade based scores (Woodcock Johnson III) with means of 100 and

standard deviations of 15 (Sanders, et al., 2007). Because scale levels are derived from a

normative sample, all scores can be converted to standard scores, T scores, and percentile ranks

(Gregory, 2007)

Reliability

Blackwell (2001) gives a good accounting of the reliability data for the WJ III COG. He

describes that split half methods were used for most of the tests, while reliability for the timed

tests and the multipoint items were established by Rasch analysis. He reports median reliability

coefficients of .80, with higher median reliability scores for clustered items (.90 or higher). Cizek

(2002) describes two test-retest reliability studies in the technical manual where time intervals of

less than a year and as many as 10 years returned good reliability coefficients (.70 to .90).

Finally, like the full WJ III, the WJ III COG BIA can be applied to subjects two years old to 90

plus with reliability coefficients from .94 to .98, and concurrent validity correlations in the range

of .60 to .69 with other measures of intelligence (Newton, et al., 2008). Reliability data for the
Running head: WOODCOCK – JOHNSON III 10

WJ III COG DS as reported by Sares (2003) is derived from Rasch analysis and split half

methods. Median reliability coefficients ranged from a low of .63 to a high of .91

Validity

According to Blackwell (2001), “Evidence for the validity of the WJ III is provided for

three categories: content, construct, and concurrent.” And, “The authors present an extensive list

of studies that have provided a broad variety of content and construct validity evidence

supporting the WJ III.” (p 234). In discussing concurrent validity, Blackwell describes

correlations “in the moderate to high range” (p 234) with other intelligence or cognitive

assessments. Cizek (2003) points out that much more information in technical manual addresses

the validity of scores from the WJ III COG versus the WJ III ACH, and that a key focus is the

description of attempts to link the WJ III COG to the CHC theoretical model. Phelps, et al.,

(2005) describes this collection of joint validation studies as CHC Broad Confirmatory Factor

Analysis because the focus is on the broad cognitive factors in the Stratum II. Phelps points out

that the validation of the narrow abilities in Stratum I primarily rest on content validity, and the

lack of factor analytic studies that focus on the narrow factors, and the broad and narrow factors

together, is a weakness of the WJ III COG. The article by Sanders, et al., (2007) is one example

of factor analysis applied to both narrow and broad cognitive that represents a concurrent validity

study actually intended to be part WJ III technical manual. In this study different factor analytic

models are explored using both the WJ III COG and the Differential Ability Scales (DAS) to

explore narrow ability loadings from Stratum I on overall g (Stratum III), narrow ability loadings

on the broad cognitive abilities in Stratum II, and finally, the narrow abilities loading on the

broad abilities, and the broad abilities loading on overall g to match the CHC model. Another

study contributing to this relationship is described by Taub, et al., (2004). Using data from the
Running head: WOODCOCK – JOHNSON III 11

original WJ III COG standardization sample comprising nearly 7,500 individuals age 6 through

90 and older, and 14 tests from the WJ III COG applied to calculate the GIA and CHC factor

scores, Taub, et al. obtained results supporting the factor structure of the WJ III COG over five

age groups. Because many broad cognitive ability scales in the WJ III COG are carried over

from previous versions, studies which supported the validity of these earlier versions contribute

to the validity of its present form. An example of this is the canonical correlation analysis study

conducted by Estabrook (1984) which looked at the relationship between the WJTCA and the

Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised (WISC-R). Using a sample of children from 7

to 12 years old, the squared canonical correlation obtained (Canonical R2 = .53) was sound

validity support for both tests.

Applications

Based on this review, I could employ the WJ III COG and its supplement to investigate a

wide range of cognitive abilities as potential sources of poor achievement. I could also explore

differences related to giftedness in children, weaknesses in comprehension among children, and

the intrapersonal structure of cognitive factors in relation to achievement in a person-centered

context. Here are some examples:

Exploring Comprehension

Floyd, Bergeron, and Alfonso (2006) used the WJ III COG to develop a profile of

subjects with poor comprehension across the cognitive domains specified by the CHC model.

Using a sample of children in grades 2 through 12 from the original WJ III normative sample, the

children were selected based on poor scores in reading skills, comprehension, and numerical

calculating skills based on the WJ III ACH. The analysis sample consisted of 20 poor

comprehenders, 30 low achievers, and 50 children with average scores. The findings of Floyd, et
Running head: WOODCOCK – JOHNSON III 12

al. (2006) showed key cognitive differences shared by poor comprehenders and low achievers

compared to average achievers. Among poor comprehenders and poor achievers WJ III COG

scores on listening comprehension, academic knowledge, comprehensive knowledge (Gc), fluid

reasoning (Gf), processing speed (Gs), and working memory (Gsm) were lower than those

obtained by average achievers (Floyd, et al.). Interestingly, poor comprehenders tended to score

better on long-term retrieval (Glr) as well as visual spatial thinking (Gv) and phonemic

awareness (Floyd, et al.). The use of the WJ III provided ample evidence that poor

comprehenders share a different cognitive ability profile when compared to average achievers.

This is a good example of how the WJ III COG can successfully identify cognitive weaknesses

which also contribute to inferior outcomes.

Predicting Giftedness

In a test of the comparative predictive power of the WJ III COG BIA and two other brief

tests of intelligence, Newton, et al., (2008) found that the WJ III COG BIA did the best job of

discriminating between exceptionally gifted children and non-gifted children.

Person Centered Identification of Multivariate Subtypes

Crockett, Moilanen, Raffaelli, and Randall (2006) make the distinction between variable

centered analysis and person-centered analysis. In their definition, the focus on traits as

individual items divorced from their intrapersonal organization within an individual represents

variable level analysis. Person-centered analysis, on the other hand, examines the nonlinear

interactive structure of traits as they exist within individuals. Based on this review, the WJ III

COG and its supplement take the variable centered perspective. An individual assessed with the

WJ III COG is evaluated at the variable level based on scores obtained for the narrow and

brought cognitive abilities. Personally, I have a great interest in person centered analysis
Running head: WOODCOCK – JOHNSON III 13

techniques and the application of statistical procedures like q type factor analysis (Asendorpf,

Borkenau, Ostendorf, & Van Aken, 2001), cluster analysis (Crockett, et al., 2006), and profile

analysis using multidimensional scaling (Kim, Frisby, & Davison, 2004) applied to exploring

intrapersonal structure. Given this interest, I was pleased to find examples of this type of person

centered analysis approach applied to cognitive abilities as measured by a Woodcock Johnson

tool, even if it wasn't the WJ III. Konold, Glutting, and McDermott (1997) applied repeated

cluster analyses to random samples of 262 children drawn from the WJ-R standardization sample

of 2,620 children. The cluster analyses conducted in several steps yielded eight “types” with

homogeneous interactive patterns across four scales of scholastic aptitude and four scales of

broad achievement. The importance of this kind of person centered analysis is that it

consistently reveals how single variables have interactive relationships with other variables

within a person, and that the form of that interaction can be different for different people. In my

view, this expands cognitive assessment dimensions beyond a focus on trait scale levels to

include a focus on individual correspondence to established homogenous types existing within

the population. In examining the profiles of the eight types validated by Konold, et al., there

were two types with above-average aptitude and achievement, one homogenous type of low

achievement and low aptitude, and five homogenous types existing around the middle which

showed quite a lot of overlap depending on the traits examined. It is interesting to note that an

eight type solution is common when large samples are used (see Brennan, Breitenbach, &

Dieterich, 2008; Matthews, Yousfi, Schmidt-Rathjens, & Amelang, 2003, & Lesser & Hughes,

1986).

Strengths and Weaknesses

Strengths
Running head: WOODCOCK – JOHNSON III 14

The new standardization sample used to norm the WJ III COG is large and developed

with great care (Cizek, 2003). The inclusion of the WJ III ACH set of tests in the standardization

sample makes the WJ III COG unique in that many areas of achievement can be related to

diverse areas of cognitive function (Blackwell, 2001). All reviewers cited see the CHC theory

foundation of the WJ III COG as positive and a feature that adds to its uniqueness. The fact that

the WJ III COG retains many features and scales from previous versions allows it to share the

many validity studies conducted with these predecessors. The technical manual’s attention to

AERA, APA, and NCME standards is a clear strength, as are the administration procedures

which uses simple aids, a computer program to simplify and speed up scoring, and procedures

which can be tailored to individuals with special needs.

Weaknesses

Even though the WJ III COG is modeled on CHC theory, Cizek (2003) noted that the WJ

III COG manual does not describe how this was done. According to Cizek, the manual also

lacks examples of computer-score output, and any description of recommended interventions for

different test outcomes. Sandoval (2003) noted several weaknesses in the WJ III COG, as well.

On the topic of accommodation, Sandoval noted that in tests where non-English (e.g., Spanish)

responses are allowed, understanding those responses must rely on the examiner’s knowledge of

the non-English language, which may or may not be present. In addition, Sandoval, noted that

extreme scores related to either age or ability are estimated rather than derived from actual

subject data. Sares (2003) also expresses frustration with the little information provided about

how the Rasch model contributed to test item selection, and the lack of any information

describing the factor analysis which confirmed model fit. As noted above, there is also the issue
Running head: WOODCOCK – JOHNSON III 15

addressed by Phelps, et al., (2005) related to lack of factor analytic studies supporting the

validity of the narrow ability scales.

Non Cognitive Contribution to Intelligence

In an interesting study of the WJ-R by Kane, Oakland, and Brand (2006), differing levels

of cognitive function discriminated between those with high and low cognitive ability. It was

found that the impact of the g factor is less important among those with high versus low

cognitive ability. The authors speculated that non-cognitive factors like motivation and

personality might be the cause, and noted that the 1993 WJ-R incorporated a cognitive

performance model (CPM) made up of non cognitive factors. Based on the various reviews

(Cizek, 2003; Sandoval, 2003; Sares, 2003; Thompson, 2003), there is no evidence that

comparable tests of non-cognitive factors are included in the WJ III COG.

Future Applications and Conclusion

To me, a clear expansion of WJ III COG development is linking cognitive ability

response data to functional magnetic resonance (fMRI) results. For example, the Grw scale

addresses reading and writing, and such tasks should engage areas such as Broca’s areas, the

angular gyrus, and the lateral temporal lobe (Diaz, & McCarthy, 2007). This may also open the

door to the formal inclusion of non-cognitive factors (e.g., motivation) which also have their

cognitive neuroscience counterparts (Daw & Shohamy, 2008). There is also a growing

awareness of implicit cognitive processes on learning (Greenwald, Banaji, Rudman, Nosek,

Mellott, and Farnham, 2002; Nosek, 2007). Depending on how this research evolves, there may

come a day when implicit cognition, along with fMRI study data, expands the CHC model and

informs a future revision of the WJ III COG.

References
Running head: WOODCOCK – JOHNSON III 16

Asendorpf, J., Borkenau, P., Ostendorf, F., & Van Aken, M. (2001, May). Carving personality

description at its joints: Confirmation of three replicable personality prototypes for both

children and adults. European Journal of Personality, 15(3), 169-198. Retrieved August

8, 2008, doi:10.1002/per.408

Blackwell, T. (2001, Summer). Test Review. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 44(4), 232.

Retrieved July 19, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database.

Brennan, T., Breitenbach, M., & Dieterich, W. (2008, June). Towards an Explanatory Taxonomy

of Adolescent Delinquents: Identifying Several Social-Psychological Profiles. Journal of

Quantitative Criminology, 24(2), 179-203. Retrieved August 4, 2008,

doi:10.1007/s10940-008-9045-7

Cizek, G. J. (2003). [Review of Woodcock-Johnson ® III.] In Woodcock, R., McGrew, K.,

Mather, N., & Schrank, F. (1977, 1977-2001). Woodcock-Johnson(r) III. Retrieved

August 5, 2009, from Mental Measurements Yearbook database.

Crockett, L. J., K. L. Moilanen, M. Raffaelli, & B.A. Randall.(2006). Psychological profiles and

adolescent adjustment: A person-centered approach. Development and

Psychopathology, 18(1), 195. Retrieved November 29, 2008, from Research

Library database. (Document ID: 992529941).

Daw, N., & Shohamy, D. (2008, October). The cognitive neuroscience of motivation and

learning. Social Cognition, 26(5), 593-620. Retrieved August 7, 2009, from Academic

Search Premier database.

Diaz, M., & McCarthy, G. (2007, November). Unconscious Word Processing Engages a

Distributed Network of Brain Regions. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19(11), 1768-

1775. Retrieved January 5, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database.

Running head: WOODCOCK – JOHNSON III 17

Estabrook, G. (1984, December). A canonical correlation analysis of the Wechsler Intelligence

Scale for Children--Revised and the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Ability in a

sample referred for suspected learning disabilities. Journal of Educational Psychology,

76(6), 1170-1177. Retrieved June 27, 2009, doi:10.1037/0022-0663.76.6.1170

Evans, J., Floyd, R., McGrew, K., & Leforgee, M. (2002, June). The Relations Between

Measures of Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) Cognitive Abilities and Reading Achievement

During Childhood and Adolescence. School Psychology Review, 31(2), 246. Retrieved

June 27, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database.

Floyd, R., Bergeron, R., & Alfonso, V. (2006, July). Cattell–Horn–Carroll cognitive ability

profiles of poor comprehenders. Reading & Writing, 19(5), 427-456. Retrieved July 19,

2009, doi:10.1007/s11145-006-9002-5

Greenwald, A., Banaji, M., Rudman, L., Nosek, B., Mellott, D., & Farnham, S. (2002, January).

A unified theory of implicit attitudes, stereotypes, self-esteem, and self-concept.

Psychological Review, 109(1), 3-25. Retrieved August 2, 2009, doi:10.1037/0033-

295X.109.1.3

Gregory, R. J. (2007). Psychological testing: History, principles, and applications (5th ed.).

Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Kane, H., & Brand, C. (2006, December). The Variable Importance of General Intelligence (g) in

the Cognitive Abilities of Children and Adolescents. Educational Psychology, 26(6),

751-767. Retrieved July 18, 2009, doi:10.1080/01443410500390897

Kane, H., Oakland, T., & Brand, C. (2006, September). Differentiation at Higher Levels of

Cognitive Ability: Evidence From the United States. Journal of Genetic Psychology,

167(3), 327-341. Retrieved July 18, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database
Running head: WOODCOCK – JOHNSON III 18

Kim, S., Frisby, C., & Davison, M. (2004, October). Estimating Cognitive Profiles Using Profile

Analysis via Multidimensional Scaling (PAMS). Multivariate Behavioral Research,

39(4), 595-624. Retrieved July 18, 2009, doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr3904_2

Konold, T., Glutting, J., & McDermott, P. (1997, June). The development and applied utility of a

normative aptitude-achievement taxonomy for the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-

Educational Battery--Revised. The Journal of Special Education, 31(2), 212-232.

Retrieved June 13, 2009, from PsycINFO database.

Lesser, J. A. and Hughes, M. A. (1986). The generalizability of psychographic market segments

across geographic locations, Journal of Marketing, 50(January), 18-27.

Matthews, G., Yousfi, S., Schmidt-Rathjens, C., & Amelang, M. (2003, March). Personality

variable differences between disease clusters. European Journal of Personality, 17(2),

157-177. Retrieved August 4, 2008, doi:10.1002/per.476

McCabe, P., Margolis, H., & Barenbaum, E. (2001, October). A comparison of Woodcock-

Johnson psycho-educational Battery Y-revised and Qualitative Reading Inventiory-II

instructional reading levels. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 17(4), 279-289. Retrieved

June 13, 2009, doi:10.1080/105735601317095034

Naglieri, J., Lauder, B., Goldstein, S., & Schwebech, A. (2006, Spring). WISC-III and CAS:

Which Correlates Higher with Achievement for a Clinical Sample?. School Psychology

Quarterly, 21(1), 62-76. Retrieved June 27, 2009, from Academic Search Premier

database.

Newton, J., McIntosh, D., Dixon, F., Williams, T., & Youman, E. (2008, July). Assessing

giftedness in children: Comparing the accuracy of three shortened measures of

Intelligence to the Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition. Psychology in the

Running head: WOODCOCK – JOHNSON III 19

Schools, 45(6), 523-536. Retrieved July 18, 2009, from Academic Search Premier

database.

Nosek, B. (2007, June). Understanding the individual implicitly and explicitly. International

Journal of Psychology, 42(3), 184-188. Retrieved August 2, 2009,

doi:10.1080/00207590601068159

Phelps, L., McGrew, K., Knopik, S., & Ford, L. (2005, Spring). The General (g), Broad, and

Narrow CHC Stratum Characteristics of the WJ III and WISC-III Tests: A Confirmatory

Cross-Battery Investigation. School Psychology Quarterly, 20(1), 66-88. Retrieved

August 2, 2009, doi:10.1521/scpq.20.1.66.64191

Sandoval, J. (2003). [Review of Woodcock-Johnson ® III.] In Woodcock, R., McGrew, K.,

Mather, N., & Schrank, F. (1977, 1977-2001). Woodcock-Johnson(r) III. Retrieved

August 5, 2009, from Mental Measurements Yearbook database.

Sanders, S., McIntosh, D., Dunham, M., Rothlisberg, B., & Finch, H. (2007, February). Joint

confirmatory factor analysis of the differential ability scales and the Woodcock-Johnson

Tests of Cognitive Abilities–Third Edition. Psychology in the Schools, 44(2), 119-138.

Retrieved July 18, 2009, doi:10.1002/pits.20211

Sares, T. (2003). [Review of the Woodcock-Johson® III Diagnostic Supplement to the Tests of

Cognitive Ability.] In Woodcock, R., McGrew, K., Mather, N., & Schrank, F. (1977,

1977-2003). Woodcock-Johnson(r) III Diagnostic Supplement to the Tests of Cognitive

Abilities. Retrieved July 23, 2009, from Mental Measurements Yearbook database.

Taub, G., & McGrew, K. (2004, Spring). A Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Cattell–Horn–

Carroll Theory and Cross-Age Invariance of the Woodcock–Johnson Tests of Cognitive

 Running head: WOODCOCK – JOHNSON III 20

Abilities III. School Psychology Quarterly, 19(1), 72-87. Retrieved June 27, 2009, from

Academic Search Premier database.

Thompson, D. L. (2003). [Review of the Woodcock-Johnson® III Diagnostic Supplement to the

Tests of Cognitive Ability.] In Woodcock, R., McGrew, K., Mather, N., & Schrank, F.

(1977, 1977-2003). Woodcock-Johnson(r) III Diagnostic Supplement to the Tests of

Cognitive Abilities. Retrieved July 23, 2009, from Mental Measurements Yearbook

database.

Woodcock Johnson III – Tests of Cognitive Skills retrieved June 13, 2009 from

http://www.cps.nova.edu/~cpphelp/WJIII-COG.html

Woodcock, R. (2002, April). New Looks in the Assessment of Cognitive Ability. PJE. Peabody

Journal of Education, 77(2), 6-22. Retrieved July 2, 2009, from Academic Search

Premier database.

View publication stats