Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 47 (2012) 665 – 673

CY-ICER 2012

The use of Woodcock-Johnson tests for identifying students with

special needs-a comprehensive literature review
Bashir Abu-Hamour *, Hanan Al Hmouz, Jihan Mattar, Mohammad Muhaidat
Mutah University, -Karak, Jordan
Mutah University, -Karak, Jordan
University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan
Al Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan

Abstract

The Woodcock-Johnson Tests (WJ III) is a valid and reliable assessment tool of both cognitive abilities and achievement
among children and adults. It is based on the most current theoretical model of intelligence, Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory.
The broad CHC abilities measured on one or more of the WJ Tests are: Long-Term Retrieval (Glr), Auditory Processing (Ga),
Fluid Reasoning (Gf), Processing Speed (Gs), Short-Term Memory (Gsm), Visual-Spatial Thinking (Gv), Comprehension-
Knowledge (Gc), Reading-Writing (Grw), and Quantitative Knowledge (Gq). The WJ III proves to be a valuable diagnostic tool
to be used to identify exceptional children including high incidence disabilities like head injury, Attention Deficit and
Hyperactivity Disorder ADHD; low incidence disabilities such as visual impairment and autism; and gifted students including
those with a learning disability. Higher education students have benefit from WJ III tests as well.
12 Published
© 2012 PublishedbybyElsevier
ElsevierLtd.
Ltd.Selection and/or peer review under responsibility of Prof. Dr. Hüseyin Uzunboylu
Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
Keywords: WJ III Tests, CHC Theory, Cognitive and Achievemnt Tests, and Students with Special Needs

1. Introduction

The main aims of most intelligence and achievement tests are to determine the intellectual and academic levels of
students, particularly exceptional students who are far behind or far ahead of classmates. Examples of these
exceptionalities are learning disability, mild intellectual disability, hearing impairment, and giftedness. The idea of a
complete battery of WJ Tests
to use
scientific-empirical methodology to construct a set of tests that would tap many different aspects of cognitive
functioning defined by extant cognitive and neuroscience research (R. W. Woodcock, personal communication, June
20, 2008). The first edition of the WJ was published in 1977, the revised edition in 1989, the third edition in 2000,
and the normative update in 2007.

The Woodcock-Johnson III Tests (WJ III) is one of the most widely used tools across the world because of its
distinguished features. First, the additional tests, clusters, and interpretive procedures have strengthened and
use in educational, clinical, and research settings

* Bashir Abu-Hamour. Tel.: 00962775388547

E-mail address: bashiressa@gmail.com

1877-0428 © 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and/or peer review under responsibility of Prof. Dr. Hüseyin Uzunboylu
Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.714
666 Bashir Abu-Hamour et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 47 (2012) 665 – 673

(Mather & Woodcock, 2001). Second, the WJ III consists of two distinct, co-normed batteries: WJ III Tests of
Cognitive Abilities (WJ III COG) and the WJ III Tests of Achievement (WJ III ACH). Together they provide a
comprehensive system for measuring general intellectual ability (g), specific cognitive abilities, scholastic aptitude,
oral language, and achievement. Accordingly, the WJ III batteries were designed to provide the most valid methods
for determining patterns of strengths and weaknesses based on actual discrepancy norms (Mather & Schrank, 2001).
Third, the norms for the WJ III COG and WJ III ACH are based on data from the same sample of subjects. This

possible when comparing scores from separately normed tests (Mather & Woodcock, 2001). Fourth, although the
number correct are scored by hand, all other scores are obtained by using the Compuscore (r) and Profiles software
program (Schrank & Woodcock, 2007a).

Recent advances in current theory and research on the structure of human cognitive abilities have resulted in a
new empirically derived model commonly referred to as the Cattell-Horn-Carroll Theory (CHC theory) (Carroll,
1993; Cattell, 1941; & Horn 1965). The CHC theory of cognitive abilities is identified by researchers as one of the
most validated models of cognitive abilities (Alfonso, Flanagan, & Radwan, 2005; Flanagan & Ortiz, 2001;
McGrew, 2005; McGrew & Flanagan,1998; McGrew & Woodcock, 2001). CHC theory is grounded in a body of
historical analytic research, as well as developmental studies of cognitive abilities, neurocognitive analyses, and
research on genetic heredity research to substantiate its validity (Horn & Noll, 1997). The WJ III was aligned with a
stratified model of intellectual abilities defined and refined by Cattell, Horn, and Carroll (Flanagan & Harrison,
2005). The fundamental criteria for developing cognitive abilities in the WJ III were derived from the Cattell-Horn-
Carroll (CHC) theory of cognitive abilities as described in the WJ III COG examiner's manual (Mather &
Woodcock, 2001). CHC Theory is a three level model of human cognitive abilities that includes general intelligence
(g), nine broad cognitive abilities, and more than 100 narrow cognitive abilities (McGrew & Flanagan, 1998). The
broad CHC abilities measured by the WJ III are: Long-Term Retrieval (Glr), Auditory Processing (Ga), Fluid
Reasoning (Gf), Processing Speed (Gs), Short-Term Memory (Gsm), Visual-Spatial Thinking (Gv), Comprehension-
Knowledge (Gc), Reading-Writing (Grw), and Quantitative Knowledge (Gq) (see Table 1 for definitions).

The WJ III literature review is organized into six parts. Part one focuses on validity and reliability studies. Part
two presents the use of WJ III Tests with high incidence disabilities that includes head injury, Attention and Deficit
Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), language impairment, mild intellectual disability, specific reading, math, and
written language disabilities. Part three reviews the use of WJ III Tests with low incidence disabilities such as;
hearing impairment, visual impairment, and autism. Part four addresses the use of WJ III Tests with gifted students
including gifted students with a learning disability. Part five explains the use of the WJ for higher education
students. Part six reviews the international use of WJ.

2. Validity and Reliability Studies of WJ III

Timothy and Donald (2003), in the Eighteenth Mental Measurements Yearbook, reviewed the WJ III reliability
and validity. They explained that reliability data of WJ III were generated using two primary means: Split-half
reliabilities were calculated by age for eight of the subscales, whereas the reliability estimates for three subscales
were calculated (also by age) using the Rasch analysis procedures. Split-half reliability coefficients for the eight
subscales were in the acceptable range of .80 or above (five were >.90), and the Rasch procedures suggested
acceptable reliability for the three subscales. The reliability of 15 defined clusters was also examined, and all of the
coefficients were above .80 (many were above .90). In addition, WJ III validity was examined using a variety of
methods including content, concurrent, and construct methods. Data reported in the test manual describe factor
analyses that support the theoretical (CHC) factor structure. Concurrent validity evidence is presented in the
manual indicating the correlations between the WJ III subscales and clusters scores and other established measures
of cognitive ability (e.g., WPPSI-R, WISC-III, and WAIS-III). Overall the reliability and validity data provide
 Bashir Abu-Hamour et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 47 (2012) 665 – 673 667

empirical support for WJ III Tests when it is used in appropriate situations. Consistently, several other studies have
investigated the use of the WJ III Tests with a variety of student populations, and have added to the base of
information on its validity and reliability (Lohman, 2003; Mather & Woodcock, 2001).

Table 1. Broad CHC Cognitive Factor Definitions

Factor Symbol Definition

Ability to reason, form concepts, and problem solve, using novel information and/or
Fluid Reasoning Gf
procedures
Comprehension- epth of general knowledge of a culture, including
Gc
Knowledge) verbal communication and reasoning with previously learned procedures
Visual Processing
Gv Ability to analyze and synthesize visual information
Auditory Processing Ga Ability to analyze and synthesize auditory information
Ability to quickly perform automatic cognitive tasks, particularly when under pressure to
Processing Speed Gs
maintain focused concentration
Ability to temporarily hold information in immediate awareness and then use it within a
Short-Term Memory Gsm
few seconds
Long-Term Retrieval Glr Ability to store information and retrieve it later through association
Ability to comprehend quantitative concepts and relationships and to manipulate numerical
Quantitative Knowledge Gq
symbols
A common factor underlying both reading and writing, including basic reading and writing
Reading-Writing Grw
skills and the skills required for comprehension and expression.
Source: (Mather & Woodcock, 2001).

Recently in Jordan, two studies have been conducted to test the psychometric properties of the WJ III Tests by
Al-Karaan and Al-Tit (2010). The results of the two studies showed that the scale demonstrates sufficient construct
validity, positive correlations with statistical significance between the scale subtests on one hand, and with other
academic achievement tests on the other hand. The coefficient results also presented appropriate reliability by using
either the internal reliability (consistency) measured with Cronbach's alpha or the stability using a test retest
procedure. These results are very promising in terms of standardizing the WJ III Tests in Jordan.

3. The Use of WJ Tests with High Incidence Disabilities

Researchers have shown that WJ is a good tool in identifying high incidence disabilities such as language
impairment, head injuries, ADHD, mild intellectual disability, and reading, math and written language disabilities
(Dalke, 1988; Fidler, Plante, & Vance, 2011; Hoy & Gregg, 1986; Schrank, 2005; Tupper, 2001).

3.1. The Use of WJ Tests with Language Disorders

The WJ III Tests can be used with confidence for identifying students with language disorders. McGrew,
Schrank, and Woodcock (2007) administered the WJ III Tests to a sample that included 156 children and
adolescents with articulation disorders, communication disorders, expressive language disorders, mixed receptive-
expressive language disorders, and central auditory processing disorders. Results showed that the presence of a
language disorder is typically related to lower cognitive ability scores on the Listening Comprehension and Fluid
Reasoning clusters (See Table 1 for definitions). These findings were consistent with the literature that describes the
cognitive profile for persons who have language impairment (Fidler et al., 2011).

3.2. The Use of WJ Tests with Head Injury

Results from the Technical Manual of WJ III (McGrew et al., 2007) indicate that Processing Speed and Working
Memory are among the lowest areas of performance for both children and adults with head injuries. A sample
includes scores from 123 children and adolescents with a number of different types of brain injury from an
668 Bashir Abu-Hamour et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 47 (2012) 665 – 673

externally inflicted trauma, including traumatic brain injury, closed head injury, fractured skull, hemorrhage,
contusion, and post-concussive disorder were administered the WJ III Tests. The cognitive consequences of these
injuries are broad and can vary by the severity of the injury. Some of the most persistent problems associated with
head injury include memory impairments and difficulties in attention and concentration (National Institutes of
Health, 1998); these problems are evident in the patterns of scores provided in WJ Tests scores (Tupper, 2001).

3.3. The Use of WJ Tests with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)

The diagnosis and treatment of ADHD is complicated because of the similarities in features and patterns of
performance on neuropsychological measures of ADHD with other disorders. Individuals with ADHD may
demonstrate cognitive profiles similar to those with learning disabilities, traumatic brain injuries, and social-
emotional problems. Most importantly, identification and diagnosis of ADHD are further complicated by validity
problems found with the diagnostic criteria in the fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorder (DSM-IV) (Stage, Finch, Trinkle, & Dean, 2005). Schrank (2005) suggested that the Report Writer for the
WJ III is useful in documenting behavioral manifestations of ADHD particularly for parents and teachers. The
researcher investigated the performance of a sample of individuals with ADHD who were administered various
combinations of WJ III tests. The results showed that the sample scored the lowest on Cognitive Efficiency,
Processing Speed, Short-Term Memory, and Long-Terms Retrieval. Also, the results showed that the Academic
Fluency cluster was the lowest and the Oral Language cluster was the highest. A recent study conducted by
McQuade et al. (2010) has reached similar conclusions.

3.4. The Use of WJ Tests with Mild Intellectual Disability

Results from the Technical Manual for children with intellectual disability suggest that the median general
intellectual ability scores were consistent with intellectual ability criterion of Intellectual Disability. The results also
showed that the scores were low in all academic subtests; Brief Reading, Brief Math, Brief Writing, and Academic
Knowledge (McGrew et al., 2007). On the other hand, Shaver and Floyd (2003) investigated the use of the WJ III
Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) factor clusters with children with mild intellectual disability. The results showed that
children with intellectual disability demonstrated a rather wide range of performance across the CHC broad
cognitive abilities.

3.5. The Use of WJ Tests with Reading Disorders

Reading disorders are estimated to be involved in at least 80% of all learning disabilities (Torgesen, 2002).
Reading disorders are characterized by reading achievement (i.e., accuracy, speed, or comprehension) that falls

an age-appropriate educational history (APA, 2000). The most common type of specific learning disability, dyslexia,
significantly interferes with academic achievement or activities of daily living that require the application of basic
reading and spelling skills. Their reading problems are not explainable by inadequate learning opportunities
(Benson, 2007; U.S. Department of Education, 2004). Because of the sheer number of students who experience
reading problems, it is important that practitioners have a better understanding of the full range of cognitive abilities
and their relative importance to the growth and maintenance of basic reading skills (Floyd, Keith, Taub, & McGrew,
2007). Previous research has identified several cognitive and linguistic variables that are implicated as correlates or
causes of reading disabilities (e.g., Badian, 2005; Bishop & League, 2006; Fawcett, Singleton, & Peer, 1998;
Scarborough, 1998). Specifically, hypotheses about the causation of dyslexia has been derived from theories
regarding the relationships between and among basic reading skills and Phonological Awareness (PA), Rapid
Automatized Naming (RAN), and Processing Speed (PS), and Working Memory (WM). All of these abilities are
measured by WJ III Tests. One example is a study conducted by Mockler (2003) who investigated the relationship
among cognitive abilities and reading achievement using WJ III Tests. The study indicates significant contributions
 Bashir Abu-Hamour et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 47 (2012) 665 – 673 669

of both RAN and PA to the prediction of reading achievement. Recently, Abu-Hamour (2010) examined the
relationships among WJ III measures of cognitive abilities and word reading. The word reading measures were
predicted by using multiple cognitive abilities including PA, RAN, PS, and WM. Specifically, a model consisting of
RAN, PA, and PS provided the most powerful prediction of all reading skills. These findings lend more support to
the use of WJ III Tests to explain the variance in reading skills.

3.6. The Use of WJ Tests with Mathematics Disorders

Mathematics disorders, sometimes referred to as dyscalculia, significantly interfere with academic achievement
or activities of daily living that require the application of mathematical skills. Current estimates indicate that
approximately 5 to 7% of the school-age population has remarkable difficulty in math achievement which
negatively affects schooling, daily living, and employment (Swanson, Jerman, & Zheng, 2008). The cognitive
abilities that have been the focus of most investigations of math skills are information retrieval (Geary, 1994; Geary,
Brown, & Samaranayake, 1991), working memory (Geary, 1994; Hitch & McAuley, 1991; Shafir & Siegel, 1994;
Swanson & Hsieh, 2009), and processing speed (Bull & Johnston, 1997; Geary, 1994). Floyd et al. (2003)
investigated the students performance on the WJ III Math Calculation Skills and Math Reasoning clusters. They
found that Comprehension-Knowledge (Gc) demonstrated moderate relations with Math Calculation Skills after the
early school-age years and moderate to strong relations with Math Reasoning. Fluid Reasoning (Gf), Short-term
Memory (Gsm), and Working Memory generally demonstrated moderate relations with the mathematics clusters.
Processing Speed (Gs) demonstrated moderate relations with Math Reasoning during the elementary school years
and moderate to strong relations with Math Calculation Skills.

3.7. The Use of WJ Tests with Written Language Disability

This type of specific learning disability significantly interferes with academic achievement or activities of daily
living that require the application of writing. Researchers have shown that written language is related to
Comprehension-Knowledge (Gc), Fluid Reasoning (Gf), Processing Speed (Gs), and Long-term Retrieval (Glr)
(Floyd et al., 2008; McGrew & Knopik, 1993). Recently, Floyd et al. (2008) have searched for most important
cognitive abilities for understanding the writing skills of children during the school-age years using the WJ III Tests.
Their findings confirmed the previously mentioned research results.

4. The Use of WJ Tests/CHC Theory with Low Incidence Disabilities (Hearing Impairment, Visual
Impairment, and Autism)

More school psychologists and other education professionals who work with deaf and hard of hearing students
are becoming aware of the advantages of CHC theory and its applications. Therefore, they may identify a broader
picture of strengths and weaknesses among cognitive abilities through CHC-based assessment that in turn could lead
to increased instructional recommendations for teachers. Teachers may then possibly increase the number and
variety of instructional strategies to help deaf and hard of hearing students acquire and retain academic skills, such
as reading, by increasing the number of identified ability strengths and needs in assessment that are known to relate
to reading development in different age periods (Miller, 2008). When selecting tests for students with low vision as
well as for those who are blind, an evaluator must ensure that any adaptation or accommodation does not make the
task more difficult or complicated. This is also a concern when translating a written test into Braille. To date, the
Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement Braille Adaptation (Jaffe, 2009; Jaffe, Henderson, Evans, McClurg,
& Etter, 2009; Schrank & Woodcock, 2007) is the only standardized academic achievement battery that has been
specifically adapted for Braille readers.
670 Bashir Abu-Hamour et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 47 (2012) 665 – 673

In terms of autism, McGrew et al. 2007 in the WJ III Technical Manual present data pertaining to the
performance of 155 children and adolescents with autistic spectrum disorders, including autistic disorder and
sorder. These disorders are often characterized by
impaired social interaction or communication skills (APA, 2000). The data presented in the manual suggest that
children and adolescents with autistic spectrum disorders show low performance on Processing Speed, Working
Memory, Reading, Brief Math, and Writing.

5. The Use of WJ Tests with Giftedness

Most of the literature on the identification of gifted and talented students has suggested the use of multiple
criteria including scores on standardized measures of cognitive ability, academic achievement, classroom
performance, teacher reports, and parent nomination (Borland, 1989; Davis & Rimm, 1994; Renzulli & Reis, 1997).
Similarly, Kaufman and Harrison (1986) support the use of multiple criteria for assessing gifted and talented but
they strongly encourage the use of intelligence tests. In a validity study, Newton, McIntosh, Dixon, Williams, and
Youman (2008) investigated the accuracy of three shortened measures of intelligence for predicting giftedness as
assessed by the Stanford Binet Intelligence Scale, Fifth Edition-Full Scale IQ score (SB5 FSIQ) : the Woodcock
Johnson Tests of Cognitive Ability, Third Edition Brief Intellectual Ability (WJ III COG BIA) score; the Stanford
Binet Intelligence Scale, Fifth Edition Abbreviated IQ (SB5 ABIQ); and the Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test IQ
Composite (K-BIT). The results revealed that overall, the WJ III score was the most accurate and the K-BIT score
was the least accurate in identifying giftedness using the SB5 Full Scale.
Rizza, McIntosh, and McCunn (2001) investigated the WJ III CHC factors among a group of gifted individuals
and typical individuals. The researchers found that gifted students performed significantly higher across the CHC
factor clusters compared to the typical group. Brody and Mills (1997) defined students with Gifted/Learning

have a learning disability that makes some aspect of academic In a recent study,
Abu-Hamour, Urso, and Mather (in press) have administered several tests from the WJ III Tests of Cognitive and
Achievement Abilities (WJ III COG; Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001/2007; WJ III ACH; Woodcock,

reasoning ability and oral language abilities were significantly higher than all of his other abilities. Conversely, his
long-term retrieval, short-term memory, auditory attention, processing speed, and cognitive fluency were all
significantly lower than predicted by his other abilities. These findings indicated that the student has dyslexia which
was caused by weaknesses in both memory and speed of symbol perception. Based on the findings, the student was
provided with a 24-week effective intervention. This study demonstrates the value of using valid normative-based
assessments such as WJ III Tests for an accurate diagnosis of a gifted student with dyslexia then providing
appropriate intervention.

6. The Use of WJ Tests with Higher Education Students

The number of students with Learning Disabilities (LD) electing to continue their formal education beyond high
school has increased over the last decades (Krasa, 2007). University students require intelligence testing for a
variety of reasons. The most obvious one is to identify the possibility of a disability (Ofiesh & McAfee, 2000).
Although most Learning Disabilities are diagnosed before a student arrives at college, some receive their initial
diagnosis during their first years of university study (Morgan, Sullivan, Darden & Gregg, 1997). Dalke (1988)
conducted a study to compare college students with and without learning disabilities, by compared patterns of
performance on the WJ of 72 college freshmen, 36 with LD and 36 without LD. The results indicated that cognitive
and academic deficits commonly associated with the presence of a Learning Disability do continue into young
adulthood. Thus, among older students and adults, the WJ III can also provide information that is valuable for
postsecondary planning and career decisions (Krasa, 2007).
 Bashir Abu-Hamour et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 47 (2012) 665 – 673 671

7. The International Use of WJ Tests

International editions of the WJ have been introduced in Latvia, Slovakia, Czech Republic, and Hungary in 1998.
The WJ III was also normed on Brazilian children in 2010. Results indicated strong validity evidence for the
Brazilian adaptation (Wechsler et al., 2010). The Spanish version of WJ III ( - ) was
normed in 2005. The parallel English and Spanish versions, related through the equated U.S.A norms procedure,
provide the specific and comparative information often required for program placement and instructional planning
(Schrank, McGrew, Ruef, Alvarado, Sandoval, & Woodcock, 2005).

Conclusion

In conclusion, the WJ III is a reliable and valid assessment tool of both cognitive abilities and achievement
among children and adults. It is based on the most current theoretical model of intelligence, CHC theory. The WJ III
proves to be a valuable diagnostic tool to be used to identify exceptional children including: high incidence
disabilities such as ADHD, language impairment, mild intellectual disability, specific reading, math, and written
language disabilities, and traumatic brain injury; and low incidence disabilities such as hearing impairment, visual
impairment, and autism; and gifted students including those with a learning disability. Higher education students
have also benefited from information obtained from the WJ III tests. In addition, the widespread use of the WJ
around the world affirms the value of this test.

Acknowledgements

This work has been prepared with generous help provided by Fredrick Schrank and Mary Ruef from Woodcock-

References

Abu-Hamour, B. (2010). The Relationships among cognitive ability measures and irregular word, non-word, and word reading. Journal of the
International Academy for Research in Learning Disabilities, 26, 43-50.
Abu-Hamour, B., Urso, A., & Mather, N. (in press). The application of standardized assessments and CBM measures in a case study of a student
with a severe reading disability. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties.
Alfonso, V. C., Flanagan, D. P., & Radwan, S. (2005). The impact of the Cattell Horn Carroll theory on test development and interpretation of
cognitive and academic abilities. In D. Flanagan & P. L. Harrison (Eds.),Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and
issues (2nd ed., pp. 185-202). New York: Guilford.
Al-Karaan, M. A. (2010). The development of Jordanian image to Woodcock-Johnson scale third edition of the cognitive abilities of the age
group (6-16) years
Al-Tit, A. A. (2010). Developing Jordanian version of Woodcock-Johnson III cognitive abilities scale for (6-16) years: Standard battery

American Educational Research Association (AERA), American Psychological Association (APA), & National Council on Measurement in
Education (NCME). (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research
Association.
American Psychiatric Association (APA). (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Badian, N. (2005). Does a visual-orthographic deficit contribute to reading disability? Annals of Dyslexia, 55, 28-52.
Benson, N. (2007). Cattell-Horn-Carroll cognitive abilities and reading achievement. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 26(1), 27-41.
Bishop, A. G., & League, M. B. (2006). Identifying a multivariate screening model to predict reading difficulties at the onset of kindergarten: A
longitudinal analysis. Learning Disability Quarterly, 29, 235 252.
Borland, J.H. (1989). Planning and implementing programs for the gifted. New York: Teachers College Press.
Brody, L., & Mills, C. (1997). Gifted children with learning disabilities: A review of the issues. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 282-296.
ifficulties: Contributions from processing speed, item identification, and short-term
memory. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 65, 1 24.
Carroll, J.B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Cattell, R. B. (1941). Some theoretical issues in adult intelligence testing. Psychological Bulletin, 38, 592.
Dalke, C. (1988). Woodcock-Johnson psycho-educational test battery profiles: A comparative study of college freshmen with and without
learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21(9), 567-570
Davis, G.B., & Rimm, S.B. (1994). Education of the gifted and talented (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
672 Bashir Abu-Hamour et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 47 (2012) 665 – 673

Fawcett, A., Singleton, C., & Peer, L. (1998). Advances in early years screening for dyslexia in the United Kingdom. Annals of Dyslexia, 48, 57-
88.
Fidler, L.J., Plante, E., & Vance, R. (2011). Identification of adults with developmental language impairments. American Journal of Speech-
language Pathology, 20, 2-13.
Flanagan, D. P., & Harrison, P. L. (2005). Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues. (2nd Ed.). New York, NY: The
Guilford Press.
Flanagan, D. P. & Ortiz, S. O. (2001). Essentials of cross-battery assessment. New York, NY: Wiley Press.
Floyd, R. G., Evans, J. J., & McGrew, K. S. (2003). Relations between measures of Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) cognitive abilities and
mathematics achievement across the school-age years. Psychology in the Schools, 40(2), 155-171.
Floyd, R. G., Keith, T. Z., Taub, G. E., & McGrew, K. S. (2007). Cattell-Horn-Carroll cognitive abilities and their effects on reading decoding
skills: g has indirect effects, more specific abilities have direct effects. School Psychology Quarterly, 22, 200-233.
Floyd, R. G., McGrew, K. S., & Evans, J. J. (2008). The relative contributions of the Cattell-Horn-Carroll cognitive abilities in explaining writing
achievement during childhood and adolescence. Psychology in the Schools, 45(2), 132-144.
Geary, D. C. (1994). lopment: Research and practical applications. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Geary, D. C., Brown, S. C., & Samaranayake, V. A. (1991). Cognitive addition: A short longitudinal study of strategy choice and speed-of-
processing differences in normal and mathematically disabled children. Developmental Psychology, 27, 787 797.
Hitch, G. J., & McAuley, E. (1991). Working memory in children with specific arithmetical learning disabilities. British Journal of Psychology,
82, 375 386.
Horn, J.L. (1965). Fluid and crystallized intelligence: A factor analytic and developmental study of the structure among primary mental abilities.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Champaign.
Horn, J. L., & Noll, J. (1997). Human cognitive capabilities: Gf-Gc theory. In D. Flanagan, J. L. Genshaft, & P. L. Harrison (Eds.),
Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 53-91). New York: Guilford.
Hoy, C., & Gregg, N. (1986). Learning disabled students: An emerging population on college campuses. Journal of College Admission, 112, 10-
14.
Jaffe, L. E. (2009). Supplementary manual. Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement Braille Adaptation. Louisville, KY: American Printing
House for the Blind. Adapted with permission from Woodcock Johnson III Tests of Achievement Normative Update by N. Mather &
R. W. Woodcock, 2001, 2007, Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside.
Jaffe, L. E., & Henderson, B. W. (with Evans, C. A., McClurg, L., & Etter, N). (2009). Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement Normative
Update Braille Adaptation. Louisville, KY: American Printing House for the Blind. Adapted with permission from Woodcock
Johnson III Tests of Achievement Normative Update by R. W. Woodcock, K. S. McGrew, & N. Mather, 2001, 2007, Rolling
Meadows, IL: Riverside.
Kaufman, A.S., & Harrison, P.L. (1986). Intelligence tests and gifted assessment: What are the positives? Special Issues: The IQ Controversy.
Roeper Review, 8,154 159.
Krasa, N. (2007). Is the Woodcock-Johnson III a test for all seasons? Ceiling and item gradient considerations in its use with older students.
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 25, 3-16.
Lohman, D.F. (2003). The Woodcock-Johnson III and cognitive abilities test (form 6): A concurrent validity study. Retrieved from
http://faculty.education.uow.edu.au/dlohman/pdf/cogat_WJIII_final_2col%202r.pdf
Mather, N., & Schrank, F. A. (2001). Use of the WJ III discrepancy procedures for Learning Disabilities Identification and
Diagnosis (Woodcock Joh n No. 3). Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.
Mather, N. & Woodcock, R.W. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Cognitive abilities . Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing
Company.
McGrew, K. S. (2005). The Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory of cognitive abilities: Past, present, and future. In D. P. Flanagan, J. L. Genshaft, & P. L.
Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (2nd ed., pp.136-182). New York: Guilford.
McGrew, K. S., & Flanagan, D. P. (1998). The intelligent test desk reference (ITDR): Gf-Gc cross-battery assessment. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
McGrew, K. S., & Knopik, S. N. (1993). The relationship between the WJ-R Gf-Gc cognitive clusters and writing achievement across the life-
span. School Psychology Review, 22, 687 695.
McGrew, K. S., Schrank, F. A., & Woodcock, R. W. (2007). Technical manual, Woodcock-Johnson III Normative Update. Rolling Meadows, IL:
Riverside.
McGrew, K. S., & Woodcock, R. W. (2001). Woodcock Johnson III technical manual. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside.
McQuade, J.D., Tomb, M., Hoza, B., Waschbusch, D.A., Hurt, A., &Vaughn, A.J. (2010). Cognitive deficits and positively biased self-
perceptions in children with ADHD. Abnormal child Psychology, 39, 307-319.
Miller, B. D. (2008). Cattel-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory-based assessment with deaf and hard of hearing children in the school setting. American
Annals of the Deaf, 152, 459- 466.

Mockler, J. L. (2003). Predicting reading achievement in children: The significance of naming speed, phonological awareness, cognitive ability,
processing speed, and neuroanatomy. Retrieved from
http://proquest.umi.com.ezlibrary.ju.edu.jo/pqdweb?index=3&did=764945501&SrchMode=1&sid=2&Fmt=2&VInst=PROD&VType
=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1303048870&clientId=75089
Morgan, A. M., Sullivan, S. A., Darden, C., & Gregg, N. (1997). Measuring the intelligence of college students with learning disabilities: A
comparison of results obtained on the WAIS-R and the KAIT. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 560-565.
National Institutes of Health (1998, October 26 28). Rehabilitation of persons with traumatic brain injury (NIH Consensus Statement), 16(1),1
41. Retrieved from http://consensus.nih.gov/1998/1998TraumaticBrainInjury109html.htm
 Bashir Abu-Hamour et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 47 (2012) 665 – 673 673

Newton, J. H., McIntosh, D. E., Dixon, F., Williams, T., & Youman, E. (2008). Assessing giftedness in children: Comparing the accuracy of
three shortened measures of intelligence to the Standford-Binet intelligence scales, fifth edition. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 523-
536.
Ofiesh, N. S., & McAfee, J. K. (2000). Evaluation practices for college students with LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 14-25.
Renzulli, J.S., & Reis, S.M. (1997). The school wide enrichment model: A how-to guide for educational excellence. Mansfield Center, CT:
Creative Learning Press.Research & Practice, 9, 190 202.
Rizza, M. G., McIntosh, D. E., & McCunn, A. (2001). Profile analysis of the Woodcock Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Abilities with gifted
students. Psychology in the Schools, 38, 447 455.
Scarborough, H. S. (1998). Predicting the future achievement of second graders with reading disabilities: Contributions of phonemic awareness,
verbal memory, rapid naming, and IQ. Annals of Dyslexia, 48, 115 136.
Schrank, F.A. (2005). Using the Woodcock-Johnson III with Individuals with ADHD. The ADHD Report, 13(5), 9-11.
Schrank, F. A., McGrew, K. S., Ruef, M. L., Alvarado, -Sandoval, A. F., & Woodcock, R. W. (2005). Overview and technical
supplement -
Schrank, F. A., & Woodcock, R.W. (2007a). WJ III Normative Update Compuscore and Profiles Program (Version 3.0) [Computer software].
Woodcock-Johnson III. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside Publishing.
Schrank, F. A., & Woodcock, R.W. (2007b). WJ III NU Compuscore and Profiles Program Woodcock-Johnson III: Tests
of Achievement Braille Adaptation. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside Publishing.
Shafir, U., & Siegel, L. S. (1994). Subtypes of learning disabilities in adolescents and adults. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, 123 134.
Shaver, R. B., & Floyd, R. G. (March, 2003). Children with mild mental retardation: CHC broad cognitive ability profiles. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the National Association of School Psychologists. Toronto, Ontario.
Stage, K., Finch, A. D., Trinkle, J., & Dean, R. (2005). Predicting cognitive processing abilities using constructing tasks from a neurologically
impaired sample. Download from the Woodcock-Munoz foundation.org.
Swanson, H. L. & Hsieh, C. J. (2009). Reading disabilities in adults: A selective meta-analysis of the literature. Review of Educational Research,
79,1362-1390.
Swanson, H. L., Jerman, O., & Zheng, X. (2008). Growth in working memory and mathematical problem solving in children at risk and not at
risk for serious math difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 343-379.
Timothy, S., & Donald, T. L. (2003). [Review of the Woodcock-Johnson III Diagnostic Supplement to the Tests of Cognitive Abilities].In B. S.
Plake, J. C. Impara, & R. A. Spies (Eds.), The sixteen mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental
Measurements.
Torgesen, J. K. (2002). The prevention of reading difficulties. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 7-26.
Tupper, D. P. (2001). Some observations on the use of the Woodcock-Johnson tests of cognitive ability in adults with head injury. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 23, 306-310.
U.S. Department of Education (2004). The Individual with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004. Washington, DC: Author.
Wechsler, S. M., Nunes, C. S., Scelini, P. W., Pasian, S. R., Homsi, S. V., Moretti, L., & Anache, A. A. (2010). Brazilian adaption of the
Woodcock Johnson III Cognitive Tests. School Psychology International, 31, 409- 421.
Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001, 2007). Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Abilities and Tests of Achievement(3rd ed).
Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside.
Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001, 2007). Woodcock-Johnson III. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside.