EDUC 622 Test Review 2
Choose a test that you have practiced. Refer to the manual and the Mental Measurements
Yearbook (required).
Your name: Jack K Yeatts
Name of instrument: TOAL-4 Test of Adolescent and Adult Language-Fourth Edition
Author(s) of instrument: Donald D. Hammill, Virginia L. Brown, Stephen C. Larson, J.Lee Wiederholt
Date of publication: 1980-2007
Publisher: pro-ed
Base all answers on information provided in test manual and Buros MMY [available online].
1. List the subtests
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Word Opposites
Word Derivations
Spoken Analogies
Word Similarities
Sentence Combining
6. Orthographic Usage
2. Describe the age range.
The fourth revision of this enduring test measures spoken and written language skills in people
between the ages of 12 and 24.
3. State the purpose of the instrument.
It was designed to measure spoken and written language abilities of adolescents and young
adults, with varying degrees of knowledge of the English language.
4. Describe the examiner qualifications.
Only professionals with formal training in assessment should administer the TOAL-4.
5. List the available scores.
Test results can be reported as percentile ranks and scaled scores. The scaled scores of these
subtests can be combined to form three composites (Spoken Language, Written Language, and
General Language) to estimate an individual’s status relative to the abilities measured by the
test.
Spoken Language — Scores are formed by combining the scaled scores of the subtests Word
Opposites, Word Derivations, and Spoken Analogies.
Written Language — Scores are formed by combining the scaled scores of the subtests Word
Similarities, Sentence Combining, and Orthographic Usage.
General Language — Scores are formed by combining the scaled scores of all six subtests.
5. List the instrument’s technical data provided (i.e., validity, reliability, norms, research).
As opposed to prior versions of the test, the TOAL-4 was standardized with a new group of examinees
who comprised 1,671 individuals from 12 to 24 years of age with 65 to 193 individuals per age group.
The sample represents the U.S. population with respect to gender, ethnicity, geographic region, Hispanic
status, exceptionality status, family income, and parent education level. Seven tables document this
information and support four of the improvements of this edition of the test.
The authors evaluated the internal consistency, test-retest, and interexaminer reliability of the TOAL-4.
Measures of internal consistency, obtained from the entire standardization sample, revealed alpha
coefficients ranging from .94 to .97 for the composite scores and from .83 to .96 for individual subtest
scores. These indicate that the test has high internal consistency and that the standard errors of
measurement are stable. Alpha coefficients for 10 subgroups representing gender, ethnic, and
exceptionality categories are also high, and indicate that test users can make recommendations based on
test results with confidence.
A total of 108 individuals divided into three age groups were retested 2 weeks after the original
administration. Measures of test-retest reliability yielded high correlations for all age groups' composite
scores (.89+) and acceptable (.79) to excellent (.90+) correlations for their individual subtest scores.
These coefficients indicate that the TOAL-4 scores remain stable over at least this period of time.
Interscorer reliability was determined by having 'two PRO-ED staff members' (examiner's manual, p. 31)
score the Word Similarities, Sentence Combining, Orthographic Usage, and the Written Language
Composite scores from 50 protocols from the normative sample. Correlation coefficients of .97, .82, .98,
and .97 were obtained for each subtest, respectively, indicating that the TOAL-4 has good to excellent
interexaminer reliability. Assuming that the two individuals who participated in this study had formal
training in language assessment, clinicians can feel confident that results obtained by similarly trained
colleagues and/or referral sources reflect an examinee's performance. Nonetheless, to complete this
section, the authors should have provided information about the professional backgrounds and experience
of these PRO-ED staff members.
The authors attended to content, criterion-related, and construct validity in the development of the test.
Evidence of content validity is both qualitative and quantitative. It includes a detailed rationale for item
and testing format selection for each subtest, and a discussion that supports the identification of four
clinical groups based on the composite indexes. Empirical data on content validity result from a
conventional item analysis for item discrimination and difficulty, and from a differential item functioning
analysis for test bias. Based on this evidence test users can be confident that the test has met the
requirement for content validity.
To determine the criterion validity of the TOAL-4 it was administered to seven groups of students with
and without school-related problems. Their scores were then correlated with other valid measures of
spoken and written language. The authors provide numerous tables to illustrate their findings, which
reveal large and very large coefficients for all subtest scores and composite indexes. These provide
convincing evidence of the test's ability to predict an examinee's performance in other activities that
involve language.
Construct validity was measured empirically to verify six hypotheses generated from six constructs (e.g.,
given that language skills are related to age, subtest scores should correlate with age). Results showed that
test scores are significantly related to age and intelligence, that the subtests and composite scores
contribute a unique variance to the total score, and that the test differentiates among groups of individuals
with and without language disabilities. In addition, a confirmatory factor analysis indicates that the
General Language composite index reflects both spoken and written language abilities when there is a
difference of 7 or less between these scores. Conversely, a discrepancy of 8 or more should lead
examiners to place less emphasis on the General Language composite.
6. List features of the instrument that provide well-designed and easy-to-follow administration
procedures.
The TOAL-4’s entry points and ceilings are quite simple. On every subtest, testing begins with Item 1 and
ends with three items in a row are scored incorrect (the ceiling).
7. State the approximate administration and scoring time.
Most suitable for individual administration, the TOAL-4 can be completed in an hour.
8. List features of the scoring procedures that are well designed and easy to follow.
To administer and score the TOAL-4, examiners will need the Examiner’s Manuel, the Examiner Record
Booklet, and the Written Language Form. The manual provides the tables needed to convert raw scores
into standard scores and percentiles. Space is provided for recording an individual’s item performance on
the three spoken language subtests. The items of the three written language subtests are scored in the
spaces provided in the written language form. The instructions are clear and easy to follow.
9. Explain this instrument’s adaptation for students with limited English proficiency.
The TOAL-4 measures competence in the English language and so caution should be used when
interpreting the test results of people who are bilingual.
10. Explain the appropriateness of the instrument for use with children who have disabilities.
The numbers of individuals in exceptionality groups (e.g., mental retardation) are very small in the
validity studies and examiners should be warned that use of the instrument with these groups could be
problematic.
11. Describe the adaptation of the instrument for use with children who have special needs.
The manual did not describe any adaptation of the instrument for use with children who have special
needs.
12. Describe the strengths of the instrument.
The TOAL-4, as a means to measure spoken and written vocabulary and grammar in adolescents and
young adults, has many strengths. First, its standardization with a representative sample of the U.S.
population indicates that the test can be used with individuals from multiple backgrounds. Second, the
manual provides a useful interpretation section as well as comprehensive information about the revision
of the test, its reliability, and its validity. The record forms are easy to follow and provide detailed
instructions for administration and scoring that streamline test administration.
13. State any weaknesses of the instrument
The absence of subtests for the assessment of phonology and pragmatics limits its usefulness; the authors'
contention that assessing these two language features cannot be done with this test format is not supported
with references. The conditions under which examiners can administer the written portion of the test to a
group are not discussed and beg for an explanation. The professional status of the examiners who
participated in the test-retest reliability measurement is not provided.
14. Additional comments, information, and observations:
The manual is extremely difficult to read and use. Three separate documents are required to administer
the TOAL-4, therefore the examiner will likely need to practice juggling these materials. I found this
assessment easy to score and I enjoyed the experience of adding the TOAL-4 to my toolbox of assessment
experience.
References: (provide citation for test and for Buros MMY)
Hammill, D. D., Brown, V. L., Larsen, S. C., & Wiederholt, J. (2007). Test of Adolescent and Adult
Language, Fourth Edition. Mental measurements yearbook with tests in print, 18.
Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/
login.aspx?direct=true&db=mmt&AN=TIP18043472&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Hammill, D. D., Brown, V., Larsen, S. C., Wiederholt, J. L., & Pro-Ed (Firm). (2007).TOAL-4: Test of
adolescent and adult language : [assessing important aspects of spoken and written language].
Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.