Obtain permission for access to copyrighted materials (e.g., stimulus book, response booklet) as appropriate.
Provide the response booklet to the facilitator in advance of the testing session and communicate the plan for securing and forwarding/returning materials, real-time and after testing. For example, seal the response booklet that is clearly labeled and have the facilitator open the envelope on camera only after requested to do so, and return the original response booklet to the examiner in prepaid envelopes to ensure test security is not compromised and test records can be maintained. The examinee or facilitator may sign the seal, tape up the provided envelope so that it cannot be opened without tearing, and show the envelope to the examiner on camera. They should be instructed to immediately mail it. It is acceptable to ask the examinee or facilitator to show pages of the response booklet immediately, if necessary to facilitate scoring, but the response booklet must be returned.
Practice using the digital assets until the use of the materials is as smooth as a face-to-face administration. Do not display items from the paper stimulus book on a camera.
Review Table 1 for the specific telepractice considerations for each subtest to be administered.
Input and output requirements and equivalence evidence
Consider the input and output requirements for each task, and the evidence available for telepractice equivalence for the specific task type.
Telepractice Versus Face-to-Face Administration
Although there are no published studies that examine the equivalence of telepractice and face-to-face administration and scoring of the WIAT–III specifically, a number of studies support equivalence of tasks that are highly similar to the WIAT–III subtest with respect to constructs assessed and input/output demands. These studies include nonclinical examinees (Galusha-Glasscock et al., 2016; Sutherland et al., 2017; Wright, 2018a, 2018b), as well as examinees with specific learning disabilities, (Hodge et al., 2019), intellectual disability (Temple et al., 2010), and other clinical conditions (Cullum et al., 2006; Galusha-Glasscock et al., 2016; Grosch, Weiner, Hynan, Shore, & Cullum, 2015; Hildebrand, Chow, Williams, Nelson, & Wass, 2004; Ragbeer et al., 2016; Stain et al., 2011; Temple et al., 2010; Wadsworth, Dhima, et al., 2016; Wadsworth, Galusha-Glasscock, et al., 2018).
It is important to consider the conditions under which equivalence studies of telepractice and face-to-face assessment modes are conducted and attempt to reproduce these as closely as possible if testing via telepractice. Typical telepractice studies that support telepractice and face-to-face equivalence involve the examiner becoming very familiar with the teleconference platform by using it for its intended purpose for several hours, and administering tests, even those that are familiar in face-to-face mode, multiple times to practice examinees. Most studies that have established telepractice and face-to-face mode equivalence involve an onsite facilitator who is in a professional role. However, preliminary research conducted with parents serving as an in-home facilitator who managed audiovisual needs and response booklets found no significant differences across modes (International Neuropsychological Society [INS], 2020). Finally, the examinee is typically in an office- or school-based setting (with the exception of the study described in INS, 2020). Therefore, if in-home assessment is taking place, it is advisable to prepare a similar environment as much as possible as described in Audio/Visual Environment section.
Digital Versus Traditional Format
Telepractice involves the use of technology in assessment as well as viewing onscreen stimuli. For these reasons, studies that investigate assessment in digital versus traditional formats are also relevant.
Investigations of WIAT–III tasks and tasks with similar input/output demands, from the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fourth Edition (WISC–IV; Wechsler, 2003), the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Fourth Edition (WAIS–IV; Wechsler, 2008), and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fifth Edition (WISC–V; Wechsler, 2014), have produced evidence of equivalence when administered and scored via digital or traditional formats to examinees without clinical conditions (Daniel, 2012; Daniel, 2013; Daniel et al., 2014; Raiford, Zhang, et al., 2016). In addition, equivalence has been demonstrated for tasks with similar input/output demands with examinees with clinical conditions, such as intellectual giftedness or intellectual disability (Raiford et al., 2014, Raiford, Zhang, et al., 2016), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder or autism spectrum disorder (Raiford, et al., 2015; Raiford, Zhang, et al., 2016), or specific learning disorders in reading or mathematics (Raiford, Drozdick, et al., 2016; Raiford, Zhang, et al., 2016).
Evidence by Subtest
Table 2 lists each WIAT–III subtest, the input and output requirements, and the evidence of subtest equivalence in telepractice–face-to-face and digital–traditional investigations for similar tasks. The abbreviations in the Input and Output column correspond to the various input and output requirements of each subtest, and a key appears at the bottom of the table. For example, brief spoken directions as an input requirement is abbreviated as BSD. The numbers in the evidence columns correspond to the studies in the reference list, which is organized alphabetically in telepractice and digital sections. For clarity, each study is denoted either T or D, with T indicating the study investigated telepractice–face-to-face mode, and D indicating the study addressed digital–traditional format.