NEWSLETTER 

SEPTEMBER 2024

Remember to Verify Current Caseloads by September 20

Please check your current caseload in WebKIDSS to ensure that all students are accounted for and accurate. Email Tristan Normile at tnormile@eckce.com no later than September 20th to confirm that your caseload is correct or to request changes. 

Age and Grade Scores Mislead More Than They Help

Jim Persinger

I have long wondered why publishers include age and grade scores in testing manuals, and auto-generate them in scoring software.  They are so typically misunderstood by educators, let alone parents, that reporting these scores is generally not helpful or can even be harmful.  It has long been recommended that they never be used in making any sort of diagnostic or placement decisions (e.g., Bracken, 1988; Reynolds, 1981).  In my first testing coursework as an undergraduate, at the same time I was being taught that these types of scores were common to most tests used in schools, I was told to not use them for any purpose because of their technical problems.  That was in 1986!  Still, publishers continue to provide these as scoring options, while at the same time advising their customers not to use those scores.

Why Are Age and Grade Scores So Misleading?

Educators and parents often find age and grade scores appealing because they seem easy to understand. They give a concrete reference point for a student’s performance—at least on the surface. But the conclusions most people draw from these scores are wrong.  The key problems are -

1. Inaccurate Generalizations About Student Performance

Let’s say a 10-year-old student scores an age-equivalent (AE) of 3 on an IQ test. Educators or parents might assume this child has the cognitive abilities of a typical 3-year-old, but this almost invariably makes no sense. A 3-year-old who scores AE 3 likely has typical skills for their age, while a 10-year-old with AE 3 might have vastly different strengths and weaknesses, which this score fails to reflect. This score tells us nothing about areas in which the child may be age-appropriate or even advanced.

Imagine a child in 5th grade scores at the 2nd-grade reading level. It is quite doubtful that this means they understand and approach reading like a 2nd grader. Instead, they may have specific gaps, such as vocabulary or comprehension skills, while still excelling in phonics. 

2. Declining Reliability with Age

Age and grade scores become increasingly unreliable as children grow older. Developmental patterns for children under 6 are somewhat predictable, but these patterns diverge widely in older students.  For children in early elementary school, slight delays in development are common and often resolve on their own. However, as students progress, differences in individual development vary more, making it impossible for an "age" score to reflect actual abilities accurately or meaningfully.

3. Unequal Measurement Units

Age and grade scores suggest an absolute difference, which doesn’t exist. For instance, a student in 12th grade with 11th-grade reading skills is far less delayed than a 2nd-grade student reading at a 1st-grade level, though both are “one year behind” according to grade scores.  A 3rd grader reading at a 1st-grade level likely needs significant interventions, while a high school junior who reads like a sophomore might not need support at all. The gap is not linear across grades.

4. Unfair Comparisons Between Tests

Age and grade scores from different tests are not comparable because of the way they are derived, not least of which is that they are artificially extrapolated as discussed below.  Each test is standardized differently, measuring distinct content, so using these scores side by side is not valid.  So for instance, a student may receive different age or grade scores in math and reading tests, which might confuse their actual abilities. These variations can lead to inappropriate expectations or interventions.

5. Hypothetical Norms

Sometimes if not typically, test publishers estimate scores for certain age or grade groups because they don’t have enough data. This means that when you report a student’s age or grade score, you may be comparing them to a made-up performance—what the publisher guessed would happen if they had tested more students in that group.

6. Misinterpretation and Undue Pressure on Children With Advanced Scores

To my experience as a school psychologist, this is one of the most concerning scenarios because of the potential for harm.  I have been in many variations of meetings in which, for example, a 2nd-grade student's grade equivalent score for math is 6th grade, which is typically interpreted by parents and occasionally by a teacher to mean that they are ready for 6th-grade math. How could they be when they haven’t been taught 6th-grade skills? This means nothing more than they have mastered the tested 2nd-grade material unusually well.

When parents hear that their 2nd grader scored “above grade level,” they may push for advanced placement, gifted services, etc.  However, advanced placement based on such scores will overwhelm a child, setting them up for frustration rather than success.  Scores at either extreme, whether much higher or lower than the average, tend to cause undue pressure. Parents may think a child scoring high should be moved up several grades or that a low-scoring child is significantly behind, both of which can lead to inappropriate educational decisions.

A Call to Action

There are far too many disadvantages to using age and grade scores for them to be generated when team members run score reports, let alone used as a basis for discussion.  Parents almost universally misunderstand them, and many teachers, including those in special education, may also misinterpret them.  I believe publishers continue to include these as scoring options because their marketing people know they have "face validity," in that some customers expect them and think they have some use, despite those publisher's own technical bulletins (example linked above!) advising customers not to use those scores. 

Educators should rely on more valid score options such as percentile ranks and standard scores, which provide a clearer, more accurate picture of student performance relative to peers.

References

Bracken, B.A. (1988). Ten psychometric reasons why similar tests produce dissimilar results. Journal of Psychology, 26, 155-166.
Reynolds, C.R. (1981). The fallacy of "two years below grade level for age" as a diagnostic for reading disorders. Journal of School Psychology, 19 (4), 350-358.