Cogat Score VQN vs. quantitative battery

[Anonymous]

Anyone knows which one is more important: composite (VQN) or the quantitative battery? My did relatively ok overall but his quant is much stronger than the other 2 so I am wondering if his quant score will help him.

[Anonymous]

I wouldn't think one would be more important than the others. It's just a piece of information about each student's relative strengths and weaknesses.

[Anonymous]

Q and V are important. Strong Q, but weak V suggests that the kid belongs in Level 3 instantly of full term AAP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Q and V are important. Strong Q, but weak V suggests that the kid belongs in Level 3 instantly of full term AAP.

*** typo: instead of

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Q and V are important. Strong Q, but weak V suggests that the kid belongs in Level 3 instantly of full term AAP.

Strong Q but weak V suggests that the student belongs in Advanced Math and Level 3 instead of full time AAP. This is not a sure thing though. The review process is holistic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Q and V are important. Strong Q, but weak V suggests that the kid belongs in Level 3 instantly of full term AAP.

I am not sure if I agree because there are also other data points. Kid can also have a weak V but strong VALLSS.

What would be a weak V?

[Anonymous]

I am curious to hear what would be considered "weak" and "strong" here. My kid's "relative weakness" in the report is V with the score of 128.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am curious to hear what would be considered "weak" and "strong" here. My kid's "relative weakness" in the report is V with the score of 128.

Yeah, are we talking 130 and 100? 130 and 80? 145 and 130? 140 and 130?

I would guess all of those profiles have different implications

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am curious to hear what would be considered "weak" and "strong" here. My kid's "relative weakness" in the report is V with the score of 128.

Yeah, are we talking 130 and 100? 130 and 80? 145 and 130? 140 and 130?

I would guess all of those profiles have different implications

My kid would have no chance vs. the 145 and weak 130

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Q and V are important. Strong Q, but weak V suggests that the kid belongs in Level 3 instantly of full term AAP.

I am not sure if I agree because there are also other data points. Kid can also have a weak V but strong VALLSS.

What would be a weak V?

Is VALLS meaningful for kids at the top? Is it actually being used this way? Doesn’t a strong VALLS simply mean a kid can read?

I think VALLS is a good indicator for finding kids in need of reading intervention. It seems like a poor screener, on the other hand, to determine actual reading ability. My impression is that it wasn’t intended for that use, anyhow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Q and V are important. Strong Q, but weak V suggests that the kid belongs in Level 3 instantly of full term AAP.

I am not sure if I agree because there are also other data points. Kid can also have a weak V but strong VALLSS.

What would be a weak V?

Is VALLS meaningful for kids at the top? Is it actually being used this way? Doesn’t a strong VALLS simply mean a kid can read?

I think VALLS is a good indicator for finding kids in need of reading intervention. It seems like a poor screener, on the other hand, to determine actual reading ability. My impression is that it wasn’t intended for that use, anyhow.

**By “determine reading ability” I mean how well a child can read as opposed to identifying simply whether that child can read.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Q and V are important. Strong Q, but weak V suggests that the kid belongs in Level 3 instantly of full term AAP.

I am not sure if I agree because there are also other data points. Kid can also have a weak V but strong VALLSS.

What would be a weak V?

Is VALLS meaningful for kids at the top? Is it actually being used this way? Doesn’t a strong VALLS simply mean a kid can read?

I think VALLS is a good indicator for finding kids in need of reading intervention. It seems like a poor screener, on the other hand, to determine actual reading ability. My impression is that it wasn’t intended for that use, anyhow.

It was not intended as anything but a screener to make sure kids can read, but iReady is not intended to be anything but a screener, either. iReady was used last year, so I assume VAALS will be used this year. Cue eye roll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Q and V are important. Strong Q, but weak V suggests that the kid belongs in Level 3 instantly of full term AAP.

I am not sure if I agree because there are also other data points. Kid can also have a weak V but strong VALLSS.

What would be a weak V?

Is VALLS meaningful for kids at the top? Is it actually being used this way? Doesn’t a strong VALLS simply mean a kid can read?

I think VALLS is a good indicator for finding kids in need of reading intervention. It seems like a poor screener, on the other hand, to determine actual reading ability. My impression is that it wasn’t intended for that use, anyhow.

**By “determine reading ability” I mean how well a child can read as opposed to identifying simply whether that child can read.

I honestly think nobody knows since it's new this year. I remember our teacher discussing the VALLSS and he said it measures reading comprehension too. Getting back to the question of low V, I think a kid with the "low" V of 120 and over 700 VALLSS will be fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Q and V are important. Strong Q, but weak V suggests that the kid belongs in Level 3 instantly of full term AAP.

I am not sure if I agree because there are also other data points. Kid can also have a weak V but strong VALLSS.

What would be a weak V?

Is VALLS meaningful for kids at the top? Is it actually being used this way? Doesn’t a strong VALLS simply mean a kid can read?

I think VALLS is a good indicator for finding kids in need of reading intervention. It seems like a poor screener, on the other hand, to determine actual reading ability. My impression is that it wasn’t intended for that use, anyhow.

It was not intended as anything but a screener to make sure kids can read, but iReady is not intended to be anything but a screener, either. iReady was used last year, so I assume VAALS will be used this year. Cue eye roll.

I think the VALLS primary "result" is high, moderate or low risk of "developing" a reading "difficulty," though there is a numerical result too. My kid got a low risk rating with a number score of 690 (max=720). (I think she'll do fine on CogAT V, though FCPS hasn't shared that with us yet.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Q and V are important. Strong Q, but weak V suggests that the kid belongs in Level 3 instantly of full term AAP.

I am not sure if I agree because there are also other data points. Kid can also have a weak V but strong VALLSS.

What would be a weak V?

Is VALLS meaningful for kids at the top? Is it actually being used this way? Doesn’t a strong VALLS simply mean a kid can read?

I think VALLS is a good indicator for finding kids in need of reading intervention. It seems like a poor screener, on the other hand, to determine actual reading ability. My impression is that it wasn’t intended for that use, anyhow.

**By “determine reading ability” I mean how well a child can read as opposed to identifying simply whether that child can read.

I honestly think nobody knows since it's new this year. I remember our teacher discussing the VALLSS and he said it measures reading comprehension too. Getting back to the question of low V, I think a kid with the "low" V of 120 and over 700 VALLSS will be fine.

The comprehension part is auditory. That’s a proxy for reading comprehension, not actual reading comprehension.

I agree you are likely right that the specific child discussed here will be fine. As a parent, it feels frustrating that iready reading has been replaced by a tool that doesn’t have much of a gradient at the top.