{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022727272727272728, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0023923444976076554, 'mean_word_length': 5.340909090909091, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Note on the Word Identification Subtest of the Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests-Revised: Different Classification Consequences of Forms G and H

Forty-eight students, randomly selected from among fifth-grade children who were participating in a re-test estimation study, were administered Forms G and H of the Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests' Word Identification subtest in a counterbalanced format. Analyses of the data indicate that the two forms of the subtest are not parallel. While a correlation between the scores on the two forms of the subtest was high (r = .86), classification reliability was poor; statistically significant levels were reached for both grade classification and quartile classification inconsistencies between the forms. Implications of these findings for the subtest's use in Woodcock profiles are discussed.