Ktea-2 Assessment Critique
Children identified as high performing or talented received mean scores above average for all subtests and composites.
In terms of validity, comprehensive evidence is provided in support of the test’s content validity.
The addition of an Oral Language section to the KTEA-II seems beneficial, but is an area of particular concern in terms of both reliability and validity. I believe the Oral Language results should be interpreted cautiously.
Outside reviewers caution that there is a danger of overestimating or underestimating a student’s performance due to steep item gradients on the KTEA-II. When tests have steep item gradients, a 1-point change in raw scores can result in a large change in standard scores when using the KTEA-II. In some cases, a 1-point change in a raw score results in a change of as much as 13 standard score points. Reviewers have also found that although the norms for the KTEA-II begin at 4 to 6, most subtests do not have adequate floors at this age. Instruments without adequate floors do not have enough easy items to discriminate between students with and without skill deficits. Several concerns exist in regard to the adequacy of some KTEA-II subtest floors;