Skip to main content

Academic Achievement Assessments

Achievement assessment is typically included in a full individual evaluation for any student considered for special education services. Careful evaluation of academic strengths and weaknesses can provide helpful information about academic and school success, as well as significant insight into factors (both general and subject-specific) that are having an adverse impact on academic achievement, including identification of learning gaps that have not previously been noted.

View Evaluations

Overview

Academic achievement assessment is typically included in a full individual evaluation for any student considered for special education services. Careful evaluation of academic strengths and needs can provide helpful information about academic and school success, as well as significant insight into factors (both general and subject-specific) that may have an adverse impact on academic achievement, including identification of learning gaps that have not previously been noted.

Students with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) tend to struggle with subjects requiring conceptualizing abstract information (e.g., mathematics, time concepts) and sequencing narratives and themes either verbally or in written form (i.e., reading comprehension, reporting on events). It is not uncommon for reading recoding skills to be better than reading comprehension (Saulnier & Ventola, 2012). Practitioners are encouraged to use formal and informal assessments based on the individual’s needs (Hagiwara, 2001-2002; Meyer, 2001-2002).

Criterion-referenced and norm-referenced assessments are common, traditional approaches to assessing academic achievement. However, some of the demands related to traditional, standardized testing may be difficult for students with ASD, related to their trouble with cognitive flexibility, executive functioning, and behavioral self-regulation (Hill, 2004); moreover, norm-referenced test results are rarely useful for informing classroom-based instructional needs (Marston, Fuchs, & Deno, 1986). For these reasons, curriculum-based measurement (CBM) may be particularly for evaluating the academic performance of students with ASD and creating meaningful instructional goals for them.

No instruments reviewed within this section were specifically developed to assess academic achievement in persons with ASD, and little research has been conducted to examine the use of these instruments in this population (see information later in this introduction regarding available research). However, when examiners and evaluation teams make eligibility, programming, and/or intervention decisions based on information gathered from multiple and diverse sources and approaches, assessment linked to intervention is maximized.

Included within this section of the TARGET is summary information about the following instruments for academic achievement assessment:

  • Bilingual Verbal Ability Tests (BVAT-NU)
  • Diagnostic Achievement Battery–Fourth Edition (DAB-4)
  • Gray Oral Reading Test–Fifth Edition (GORT-5)
  • Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement–Third Edition (KTEA-3)
  • KeyMath Diagnostic Assessment–Third Edition (KeyMath-3)
  • Oral and Written Language Scales–Second Edition (OWLS-II)
  • Qualitative Reading Inventory-Sixth Edition (QRI-6)
  • Test of Early Math Ability–Third Edition (TEMA-3)
  • Test of Early Reading Ability–Fourth Edition (TERA-4)
  • Test of Early Written Language–Third Edition (TEWL-3)
  • Test of Mathematical Abilities–Third Edition (TOMA-3)
  • Test of Reading Comprehension–Fourth Edition (TORC-4)
  • Test of Word Reading Efficiency–Second Edition (TOWRE-2)
  • Test of Written Language–Third Edition (TOWL-4)
  • Test of Written Spelling–Fifth Edition (TWS-5)
  • Wechsler Individual Achievement Test–Third Edition (WIAT-III)
  • Wide Range Achievement Test, Fifth Edition (WRAT-5)
  • Woodcock-Johnson IV Tests of Achievement–Fourth Edition (WJ-IV ACH)
  • Woodcock-Muñoz Language Survey–Revised Normative Update (WMLS-R NU)
  • Woodcock Reading Mastery Test–Third Edition (WRMT-III)

The summary of academic achievement assessments included in this section is not intended to be all-inclusive. Rather, the assessments were selected based on their prevalence within clinical and academic settings as well as their relevance to children with ASD.

Currently, there is little research regarding the use of various achievement assessments with individuals with ASD . In fact, published studies in this area are limited to those conducted with now-updated versions of academic achievement measures. For example, Mayes and Calhoun (2008) found that students with high-functioning ASD demonstrated significant deficits in written language as measured using the WIAT-II. Hartley et al. (2008) found that scores from the OWLS (1995), were useful in differentiating children with ASD from their typically-developing peers and non-ASD children matched on nonverbal cognitive functioning.

Misconceptions

Myth:

Standardized testing administered by an evaluation specialist is more valid than informal data from the classroom.

Reality:

Classroom data provide information about how the student functions on a daily basis. Analyzing formal and informal data to determine patterns of skills and learning is a key component of assessment (Hagiwara, 2001-2002). In fact, informal data from the classroom may be more valuable than information gathered in a contrived one-on-one setting when determining programming for a student with ASD.

Myth:

If students have high abilities in word calling and/or reading fluency, they have good general reading skills.

Reality:

Many students with ASD have good rote skills), but may still have significant difficulty with inferencing, sequencing, and comprehension skills. Their lack of understanding of social situations may make gaining meaning from reading very difficult. Both formal assessment data and informal data should be analyzed for patterns of deficits in reading.

Myth:

If a student has a high IQ or high achievement, he/she should be successful in the general education classroom.

Reality:

Because students with ASD have difficulty with language, communication, and social skills, they may struggle in the general education classroom in activities that involve these skills (e.g., group discussions, small group activities, following directions).

Myth:

If a student has good expressive and receptive language skills, there is no need to refer the student for a comprehensive speech and language evaluation.

Reality:

One of the two core diagnostic domains in ASD is that a person demonstrates persistent deficits in social communication. It is common for students who have or are suspected of having ASD to perform well on rote language tasks. However, for students with ASD, a comprehensive speech and language evaluation to determine functioning in pragmatic language, social interaction skills, and understanding of nonverbal language is critical.