20
Cognitive Abilities Test (CAT) Digital PRIMARY www.gl-assessment.co.uk/catdigital sample reports Includes new enhanced reporting
1
Cognitive Abilities Test (CAT) Digital PRIMARY
www.gl-assessment.co.uk/catdigital
sample reports
Includes
new enhanced
reporting
2
SAMPLE REPORTS PAGE
Standard Report - Group Demographic Comparison 3
Standard Report - Group Demographic Comparison Graphs 4
Standard Report - CAT Verbal Reasoning Test - Mean score and Stanine distribution 5
Standard Report - Pupils’ CAT scores listed by Surname 6
CAT Individual Pupil Profile - Individual pupil CAT profile 7
Subtest Reports - Pupils’ subtest raw scores listed by Surname 8
Subtest Reports - Pupils’ subtest standardised scores listed by Surname 9
Key Stage 2 indicators with pupil profiles - Group summary of Key Stage 2 indicators 10
Key Stage 2 indicators with pupil profiles - Group Demographic Comparison Showing Likely Levels of KS2 11
Key Stage 2 indicators with pupil profiles - Pupils’ KS2 indicators listed by Surname 12
Key Stage 2 indicators with pupil profiles - Individual pupils’ CAT and KS2 profiles 13
Cognitive Strengths and Weaknesses Profile – an explanation of the report 14
Cognitive Strengths and Weaknesses Profile - Group Summary of Strength/Weakness Profiles listed by Surname 15
Cognitive Strengths and Weaknesses Profile - Visual-Verbal Profile Chart 16
CAT Digital Group Visual - Verbal Learning Profile 17
Case Study - Online testing at Handcross Park Independent Prep School 18
Case Study - Online Testing at Weald of Kent Grammar School 19
Contents
Cognitive Abilities Test (CAT) Digital CAT Digital is an onscreen version of GL Assessment’s popular Cognitive Abilities Test. It measures the three principal areas of reasoning – verbal, non-verbal and numerical – as well as an element of spatial ability, allowing teachers to test the full range within an entire class or year.
The rich data provided can be used to enhance all aspects of the teaching and learning process, from ongoing classes to predicting future educational attainment. It helps identify pupil’s strengths, needs and learning preferences and informs target-setting and the development of individual learning plans. Standardise scores allow you to compare your pupils’ results with the national average.
Note: Pupil listings can be sorted by Surname or by First name or by merit order based on Standard Age Scores.
New Enhanced ReportsOur digital products now come with additional enhanced reporting as standard. These provide more powerful and flexible insights into test results and include reports such as:
• GroupDemographicComparisons
Reports are available by class, year group, schools, cluster of schools or by authority.
Speak to your area consultant for more details.
PRIMARY
NEW
NEW
NEW
3
Mean Standard Age ScoresNumberof pupils Overall CAT Verbal Quantitative Non-Verbal
Mean Raw Scores
Verbal Quantitative Non-Verbal
Group Demographic Comparison
School: Sample SchoolGroup: Sample Group Number of Pupils: 32
CAT Section A
CAT Level: C
All Students
GenderFemales
Males
32
12
20
101.299.8 96.9 101.6 46.9 34.2 39.2
100.9 101.8 93.7 107.4 46.1 32.2 43.1
99.2 100.8 98.8 98.2 47.5 35.5 37.0
Ethnic Group
White 19 104.6 105.3 102.7 106.1 52.3 40.0 43.6
Black 9 92.3 93.7 89.7 93.9 38.2 26.9 32.4
Asian 4 94.0 98.8 85.8 97.8 41.0 23.5 33.8
Free School MealsNo 26 106.8 106.3 103.9 110.2 53.1 40.5 46.9
Yes 6 69.8 79.2 66.5 64.7 20.3 7.3 6.2
Special Education
None 27 105.7 105.2 103.2 108.7 51.7 39.7 45.5
School Action 3 70.3 80.3 65.0 66.7 22.3 5.3 7.3
School Action Plus 2 65.5 78.5 59.5 59.0 19.0 3.5 2.5
Custom 1
EE2 2EE 11 101.7 100.5 97.9 107.0 46.5 34.5 43.1
EE3 3EE 9 90.4 94.9 88.4 88.3 39.2 25.6 26.8
EE1 1EE 8 106.2 105.8 104.6 108.5 53.5 42.8 47.0
EE4 4EE 4 103.0 108.5 97.8 103.0 52.2 36.0 41.2
© GL Assessment 2008Number of pupils is based upon the Overall CAT score.
4
VerbalNumberof pupils 60
Non-VerbalQuantitative
70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
Group Demographic Comparison Graphs
School: Sample SchoolGroup: Sample Group Number of Pupils: 32
CAT Section A
CAT Level: C
All Students
GenderFemales
Males
32
12
20
Ethnic GroupWhite 19
Black 9
Asian 4
Free School MealsNo 26
Yes 6
Special EducationNone 27
School Action 3
School Action Plus 2
Custom 1
EE2 2EE 11
EE3 3EE 9
EE1 1EE 8
EE4 4EE 4
© GL Assessment 2008Number of pupils is based upon the Overall CAT score.
5
CA
T Verbal Reasoning Test - M
ean score and Stanine distribution
School: Sam
ple School
Group: S
ample G
roupN
umber of Pupils: 32
CA
TS
ection B
CA
T Level: C
Stand. Age Scores
All Students
NM
eanSD
1
Gender
Females
Males
Percentage of students in each Stanine
32101.2
23
45
67
89
National
19.13
919
193
250
912
47
1217
2017
127
4
12101.8
20.00
1725
80
250
817
20100.8
17.55
515
255
250
1010
100.015.0
Verbal
Ethnic Group
White
19105.3
17.20
016
260
320
1611
Black
993.7
17.80
3322
110
220
011
Asian
498.8
20.025
025
025
00
025
Free Meals
No
26106.3
17.40
412
234
310
1215
Yes
679.2
10.017
3350
00
00
00
Special
None
27105.2
18.00
711
224
300
1115
School A
ction3
80.310.0
330
670
00
00
0
School A
ction Plus
278.5
10.00
5050
00
00
00
Custom
1
EE
2 2EE
11100.5
17.60
1818
09
450
09
EE
3 3EE
994.9
20.011
1133
110
110
1111
EE
1 1EE
8105.8
17.70
00
500
250
1212
EE
4 4EE
4108.5
20.00
025
250
00
2525
© G
L Assessm
ent 2008K
ey: N - N
umber of students, S
D - S
tandard Deviation.
6
School: Sample SchoolGroup: Sample Group Number of Pupils: 32
CAT Section C
CAT Level: C
Pupils' CAT scores listed by Surname
Pupil Name Date of Test SAS GR RS SAS ST NPR GR RS SAS ST NPR GR RS SAS ST NPR GR
Verbal Quantitative Non-VerbalMean CAT
Shirley Aransiola 93 3205-05-2009 20 88 3 22 23 24 88 3 22 21 45 103 5 58 16Jackie Blair 64 1505-05-2009 32 75 2 5 31 2 59 1 1 30 5 59 1 1 30Kevin Blakeland 131 7105-05-2009 2 123 8 94 5 57 130 9 98 1 65 141 9 99 1William Browne 93 4105-05-2009 23 94 4 34 17 24 88 3 22 21 36 96 4 40 21Dave Browne 100 5405-05-2009 15 104 6 60 15 37 99 5 48 17 38 97 5 42 19Michael Chung 72 1305-05-2009 28 72 1 3 32 13 77 2 6 27 9 68 1 2 29Alastair Clifton 93 4005-05-2009 20 92 4 30 20 39 100 5 50 16 26 87 3 20 23Gordon Dawes 93 3905-05-2009 20 92 4 30 20 28 90 4 26 20 39 97 5 42 19Natasha Gill 119 5805-05-2009 8 107 6 68 10 48 110 6 74 10 64 140 9 99 2Ruth Grant 98 3905-05-2009 16 92 4 30 20 36 97 5 42 19 46 104 6 60 15Jimmy Hills 67 2305-05-2009 31 82 3 12 27 5 60 1 1 29 0 59 1 1 30Jeffrey Hilton 96 4305-05-2009 19 94 4 34 17 38 99 5 48 17 36 95 4 37 22Gary Jameson 128 7605-05-2009 4 139 9 99 2 54 120 8 91 5 60 126 8 96 6Roger Jones 84 2905-05-2009 24 86 3 18 24 22 86 3 18 24 17 80 2 9 26John Kennedy 67 2605-05-2009 30 84 3 14 26 0 59 1 1 30 1 59 1 1 30Tony Mathwes 123 7305-05-2009 5 127 9 96 4 53 117 7 87 7 60 126 8 96 6Neil Moss 107 6005-05-2009 14 107 6 68 10 47 108 6 70 12 49 107 6 68 12Peter Murdi 98 4105-05-2009 16 94 4 34 17 39 101 5 53 15 39 98 5 45 18John Nash 120 6205-05-2009 7 111 6 77 8 55 122 8 93 2 61 128 9 97 5Diane Peron 129 7705-05-2009 3 141 9 99 1 55 121 8 92 4 60 125 8 95 9Ken Reagan 114 5805-05-2009 9 107 6 68 10 55 122 8 93 2 53 113 7 80 11Mary Roberts 82 2005-05-2009 25 80 2 9 29 16 81 2 11 26 23 85 3 16 24Sarah Robson 72 2805-05-2009 28 85 3 16 25 3 59 1 1 30 12 73 1 4 27Sandeep Roopra 75 2305-05-2009 27 82 3 12 27 6 63 1 1 28 18 81 2 11 25Nina Sharma 132 7605-05-2009 1 139 9 99 2 52 116 7 86 8 64 140 9 99 2Satpal Sidhu 97 5205-05-2009 18 102 5 55 16 23 87 3 20 23 44 102 5 55 17James Thomas 113 6205-05-2009 11 111 6 77 8 54 120 8 91 5 48 107 6 68 12Margaret Thompson 112 5905-05-2009 12 107 6 68 10 49 110 6 74 10 57 119 8 90 10Peter Tucker 77 1705-05-2009 26 77 2 6 30 21 85 3 16 25 10 70 1 2 28David Vincents 111 6905-05-2009 13 119 8 90 7 45 107 6 68 14 48 107 6 68 12Tessa Watt 113 5505-05-2009 10 105 6 63 14 46 108 6 70 12 60 126 8 96 6Mary Whittaker 122 7105-05-2009 6 121 8 92 6 50 112 7 78 9 63 134 9 99 4
© GL Assessment 2008
7
School: Sample School Pupil Name: Shirley Aransiola CAT Level: CGroup: Sample Group Age: 10:02 Date of Test: 05-05-2009
Sex: Female
Battery Raw Score SAS ST NPR Standard Age Score with 90% Confidence Bands
VERBAL(53 questions attempted) 32 88 3 22
QUANTITATIVE(43 questions attempted) 24 88 3 22
NON-VERBAL(53 questions attempted) 45 103 5 58
The overall mean SAS for all batteries taken is 93. Individual performance on eachbattery taken shows that this pupil is below average on Verbal Reasoning, below averageon Quantitative Reasoning, about average on Non-Verbal Reasoning.
Key:SAS - Standard Age ScoreST - StanineNPR - National Percentile Rank! - Chance level raw score
Note:A pupil's SAS scores are only an estimate of true ability as performance on any one occasion can be affected by a number of factors such as mood, illness etc. So, onanother day, the same pupil could get a different score. Statistical methods can be used to estimate the range of scores within which you can be 90% sure that the pupil'strue score lies.
CAT Individual pupil CAT profile Section D
© GL Assessment 2009
8
School: Sample School CAT Level: CGroup: Sample Group Number of Pupils: 32
Verbal (Raw Scores) Quantitative (Raw Scores) Non-Verbal (Raw Scores)Number V1 V2 V3 Total Number Q1 Q2 Q3 Total Number N1 N2 N3 Total
Pupil Name Date of Test Attempted(78) (24) (24) (30) (78) Attempted(58) (20) (20) (18) (58) Attempted(66) (24) (24) (18) (66)
Shirley Aransiola 05-05-2009 53 24 8 0 32 43 20 4 0 24 53 24 21 0 45Jackie Blair 05-05-2009 46 15 0 0 15 19 2 0 0 2 36 5 0 0 5Kevin Blakeland 05-05-2009 74 24 24 23 71 57 20 20 17 57 65 24 24 17 65William Browne 05-05-2009 53 24 17 0 41 45 20 4 0 24 47 24 12 0 36Dave Browne 05-05-2009 66 24 24 6 54 49 20 17 0 37 53 24 14 0 38Michael Chung 05-05-2009 42 13 0 0 13 43 13 0 0 13 39 9 0 0 9Alastair Clifton 05-05-2009 56 24 16 0 40 47 20 19 0 39 41 24 2 0 26Gordon Dawes 05-05-2009 63 24 15 0 39 43 20 8 0 28 53 24 15 0 39Natasha Gill 05-05-2009 69 24 24 10 58 54 20 20 8 48 65 24 24 16 64Ruth Grant 05-05-2009 61 24 15 0 39 47 20 16 0 36 56 24 22 0 46Jimmy Hills 05-05-2009 51 23 0 0 23 26 5 0 0 5 31 0 0 0 0Jeffrey Hilton 05-05-2009 55 24 19 0 43 47 20 18 0 38 45 24 12 0 36Gary Jameson 05-05-2009 77 24 24 28 76 57 20 20 14 54 64 24 24 12 60Roger Jones 05-05-2009 54 24 5 0 29 33 20 2 0 22 47 17 0 0 17John Kennedy 05-05-2009 53 24 2 0 26 27 0 0 0 0 30 1 0 0 1Tony Mathwes 05-05-2009 75 24 24 25 73 57 20 20 13 53 64 24 24 12 60Neil Moss 05-05-2009 69 24 24 12 60 50 20 20 7 47 58 24 24 1 49Peter Murdi 05-05-2009 63 24 17 0 41 50 20 19 0 39 53 24 15 0 39John Nash 05-05-2009 68 24 24 14 62 56 20 20 15 55 63 24 24 13 61Diane Peron 05-05-2009 78 24 24 29 77 57 20 20 15 55 61 24 24 12 60Ken Reagan 05-05-2009 70 24 24 10 58 57 20 20 15 55 58 24 24 5 53Mary Roberts 05-05-2009 46 20 0 0 20 36 16 0 0 16 39 23 0 0 23Sarah Robson 05-05-2009 48 24 4 0 28 30 3 0 0 3 41 12 0 0 12Sandeep Roopra 05-05-2009 54 23 0 0 23 30 6 0 0 6 44 18 0 0 18Nina Sharma 05-05-2009 78 24 24 28 76 57 20 20 12 52 65 24 24 16 64Satpal Sidhu 05-05-2009 68 24 24 4 52 38 20 3 0 23 54 24 20 0 44James Thomas 05-05-2009 70 24 24 14 62 55 20 20 14 54 55 24 24 0 48Margaret Thompson 05-05-2009 69 24 24 11 59 55 20 20 9 49 62 24 24 9 57Peter Tucker 05-05-2009 47 17 0 0 17 39 20 1 0 21 36 10 0 0 10David Vincents 05-05-2009 74 24 24 21 69 50 20 20 5 45 54 24 24 0 48Tessa Watt 05-05-2009 67 24 24 7 55 53 20 20 6 46 62 24 24 12 60Mary Whittaker 05-05-2009 74 24 24 23 71 56 20 20 10 50 66 24 24 15 63
CAT Pupils' subtest raw scores listed by Surname Section A
© GL Assessment 2009
9
School: Sample School CAT Level: CGroup: Sample Group Number of Pupils: 32
Verbal Quantitative Non-Verbal OverallStanines Stanines Stanines Mean
Pupil Name Date of Test V1 V2 V3 Total SAS NPR GR Q1 Q2 Q3 Total SAS NPR GR N1 N2 N3 Total SAS NPR GR SAS GRShirley Aransiola 05-05-2009 9 3 1 3 88 22 23 8+ 2 1 3 88 22 21= 9 7 1 5 103 58 16 93 20=Jackie Blair 05-05-2009 4 1 1 2 75 5 31 1 1 1 1 59 1 30= 2 1 1 1 59 1 30= 64 32Kevin Blakeland 05-05-2009 9 9 6 8 123 94 5 8+ 9 7 9 130 98 1 9 9 8 9 141 99 1 131 2William Browne 05-05-2009 9 6 1 4 94 34 17= 8+ 2 1 3 88 22 21= 9 4 1 4 96 40 21 93 20=Dave Browne 05-05-2009 9 9 2 6 104 60 15 8+ 6 1 5 99 48 17= 9 5 1 5 97 42 19= 100 15Michael Chung 05-05-2009 4 1 1 1 72 3 32 5 1 1 2 77 6 27 3 1 1 1 68 2 29 72 28=Alastair Clifton 05-05-2009 9 5 1 4 92 30 20= 8+ 8 1 5 100 50 16 9 1 1 3 87 20 23 93 20=Gordon Dawes 05-05-2009 9 5 1 4 92 30 20= 8+ 3 1 4 90 26 20 9 5 1 5 97 42 19= 93 20=Natasha Gill 05-05-2009 9 9 3 6 107 68 10= 8+ 9 4 6 110 74 10= 9 9 8 9 140 99 2= 119 8Ruth Grant 05-05-2009 9 5 1 4 92 30 20= 8+ 6 1 5 97 42 19 9 8 1 6 104 60 15 98 16=Jimmy Hills 05-05-2009 8 1 1 3 82 12 27= 3 1 1 1 60 1 29 1 1 1 1 59 1 30= 67 30=Jeffrey Hilton 05-05-2009 9 6 1 4 94 34 17= 8+ 7 1 5 99 48 17= 9 4 1 4 95 37 22 96 19Gary Jameson 05-05-2009 9 9 8 9 139 99 2= 8+ 9 6 8 120 91 5= 9 9 6 8 126 96 6= 128 4Roger Jones 05-05-2009 9 2 1 3 86 18 24 8+ 1 1 3 86 18 24 5 1 1 2 80 9 26 84 24John Kennedy 05-05-2009 9 1 1 3 84 14 26 1 1 1 1 59 1 30= 1 1 1 1 59 1 30= 67 30=Tony Mathwes 05-05-2009 9 9 7 9 127 96 4 8+ 9 5 7 117 87 7 9 9 6 8 126 96 6= 123 5Neil Moss 05-05-2009 9 9 4 6 107 68 10= 8+ 9 4 6 108 70 12= 9 9 1 6 107 68 12= 107 14Peter Murdi 05-05-2009 9 6 1 4 94 34 17= 8+ 8 1 5 101 52 15 9 5 1 5 98 45 18 98 16=John Nash 05-05-2009 9 9 4 6 111 77 8= 8+ 9 6 8 122 93 2= 9 9 6 9 128 97 5 120 7Diane Peron 05-05-2009 9 9 9 9 141 99 1 8+ 9 6 8 121 92 4 9 9 6 8 125 95 9 129 3Ken Reagan 05-05-2009 9 9 3 6 107 68 10= 8+ 9 6 8 122 93 2= 9 9 3 7 113 80 11 114 9Mary Roberts 05-05-2009 6 1 1 2 80 9 29 6 1 1 2 81 11 26 8 1 1 3 85 16 24 82 25Sarah Robson 05-05-2009 9 2 1 3 85 16 25 2 1 1 1 59 1 30= 4 1 1 1 73 4 27 72 28=Sandeep Roopra 05-05-2009 8 1 1 3 82 12 27= 3 1 1 1 63 1 28 6 1 1 2 81 11 25 75 27Nina Sharma 05-05-2009 9 9 8 9 139 99 2= 8+ 9 5 7 116 86 8 9 9 8 9 140 99 2= 132 1Satpal Sidhu 05-05-2009 9 9 2 5 102 55 16 8+ 2 1 3 87 20 23 9 7 1 5 102 55 17 97 18James Thomas 05-05-2009 9 9 4 6 111 77 8= 8+ 9 6 8 120 91 5= 9 9 1 6 107 68 12= 113 10=Margaret Thompson 05-05-2009 9 9 3 6 107 68 10= 8+ 9 4 6 110 74 10= 9 9 5 8 119 90 10 112 12Peter Tucker 05-05-2009 5 1 1 2 77 6 30 8+ 1 1 3 85 16 25 4 1 1 1 70 2 28 77 26David Vincents 05-05-2009 9 9 6 8 119 90 7 8+ 9 3 6 107 68 14 9 9 1 6 107 68 12= 111 13Tessa Watt 05-05-2009 9 9 2 6 105 63 14 8+ 9 3 6 108 70 12= 9 9 6 8 126 96 6= 113 10=Mary Whittaker 05-05-2009 9 9 6 8 121 92 6 8+ 9 4 7 112 78 9 9 9 7 9 134 99 4 122 6
CAT Pupils' subtest standardised scores listed by Surname Section B
© GL Assessment 2009
10
School: Sample SchoolGroup: Sample Group Number of Pupils: 32
CAT Section A
CAT Level: C
Group summary of Key Stage 2 indicators
Maths SciencePercentage of pupils expected to achieve:
Likely Distribution of Levels Indicated by your Pupil's CAT Results for each Key Stage 2 Subject
Level 4 or higher
Mean points score
Overall mean points score
73.4 % 65.5 % 78.0 %
26.6 26.2 28.0
27.0
KS2 English KS2 Maths KS2 Science
English
© GL Assessment 2008
11
EnglishNo. ofpupils
Maths
2 or less 3 4 5
Science
% Level 5 and 4+5 2 or less 3 4 5 % Level 5 and 4+5 2 or less 3 4 5 % Level 5 and 4+5
Likely Distribution of KS2 Levels (% of students)
Group Demographic Comparison Showing Likely Levels of KS2
School: Sample SchoolGroup: Sample Group Number of Pupils: 32
CAT Section A
CAT Level: C
All Students
GenderFemales
Males
32
12
20
45% 28%7% 19% 30% 36%15% 20% 34% 44%4% 17%
40% 30%8% 22% 21% 43%17% 19% 27% 48%5% 19%
49% 27%7% 17% 35% 32%13% 20% 38% 41%4% 16%
Ethnic Group
White 19 51% 32%2% 14% 35% 42%8% 15% 35% 52%2% 11%
Black 9 40% 19%13% 29% 22% 28%24% 26% 33% 33%8% 26%
Asian 4 30% 28%18% 24% 20% 26%25% 29% 32% 31%6% 31%
Free MealsNo 26 50% 34%3% 13% 36% 44%3% 17% 37% 54%1% 8%
Yes 6 24% 1%28% 47% 3% 0%63% 34% 21% 1%20% 59%
Special
None 27 49% 33%4% 14% 35% 43%5% 18% 37% 52%1% 10%
School Action 3 30% 1%26% 43% 3% 0%62% 35% 20% 1%18% 61%
School Action Plus 2 21% 0%29% 50% 1% 0%79% 20% 11% 0%30% 58%
Custom 1
EE2 2EE 11 50% 24%6% 19% 29% 39%10% 22% 35% 47%2% 16%
EE3 3EE 9 34% 24%15% 27% 14% 29%34% 23% 25% 32%11% 31%
EE1 1EE 8 56% 31%1% 11% 46% 38%1% 15% 45% 50%0% 5%
EE4 4EE 4 36% 42%4% 18% 31% 40%11% 18% 32% 49%3% 16%
© GL Assessment 2008Number of pupils is based upon the Overall CAT score.
12
School: Sample SchoolGroup: Sample Group Number of Pupils: 32
CAT Section B
CAT Level: C
Pupils' KS2 indicators listed by Surname
Pupil Name Date of Test English Maths Science 2 or less
Indicated Key Stage Level Prob. of obtaining KS2 English Level Prob. of obtaining KS2 Maths Level
VerbalSAS
MeanSAS
Prob. of obtaining KS2 Science Level
3 4 5 5432 or less 5432 or less
Shirley Aransiola 88 4C05-05-2009 93 4C 4B 5% 35% 57% 2% 3% 36% 58% 3% 1% 11% 74% 14%Jackie Blair 75 3C05-05-2009 64 2 3C 42% 48% 10% 0% 83% 16% 1% 0% 34% 56% 9% 0%Kevin Blakeland 123 5C05-05-2009 131 5A 5A 0% 0% 23% 76% 0% 0% 1% 99% 0% 0% 1% 98%Dave Browne 104 4A05-05-2009 100 4B 4A 0% 4% 73% 23% 1% 13% 75% 11% 0% 4% 63% 32%William Browne 94 4B05-05-2009 93 4C 4B 2% 17% 75% 6% 3% 36% 58% 3% 1% 11% 74% 14%Michael Chung 72 205-05-2009 72 2 3B 58% 36% 6% 0% 56% 41% 3% 0% 14% 61% 24% 1%Alastair Clifton 92 4C05-05-2009 93 4C 4B 3% 22% 71% 4% 3% 36% 58% 3% 1% 11% 74% 14%Gordon Dawes 92 4C05-05-2009 93 4C 4B 3% 22% 71% 4% 3% 36% 58% 3% 1% 11% 74% 14%Natasha Gill 107 4A05-05-2009 119 5B 5B 0% 3% 66% 31% 0% 0% 13% 86% 0% 0% 9% 90%Ruth Grant 92 4C05-05-2009 98 4B 4A 3% 22% 71% 4% 1% 18% 73% 8% 0% 6% 68% 26%Jimmy Hills 82 3A05-05-2009 67 2 3B 15% 53% 32% 1% 75% 24% 1% 0% 26% 61% 14% 0%Jeffrey Hilton 94 4B05-05-2009 96 4C 4B 2% 17% 75% 6% 1% 24% 69% 5% 0% 8% 71% 20%Gary Jameson 139 5B05-05-2009 128 5B 5B 0% 0% 7% 93% 0% 0% 2% 98% 0% 0% 2% 98%Roger Jones 86 3A05-05-2009 84 3B 4C 8% 42% 49% 1% 13% 65% 22% 1% 3% 32% 61% 4%John Kennedy 84 3A05-05-2009 67 2 3B 11% 48% 40% 1% 75% 24% 1% 0% 26% 61% 14% 0%Tony Mathwes 127 5C05-05-2009 123 5B 5B 0% 0% 17% 83% 0% 0% 6% 94% 0% 0% 5% 95%Neil Moss 107 4A05-05-2009 107 4A 5C 0% 3% 66% 31% 0% 4% 62% 34% 0% 2% 40% 58%Peter Murdi 94 4B05-05-2009 98 4B 4A 2% 17% 75% 6% 1% 18% 73% 8% 0% 6% 68% 26%John Nash 111 4A05-05-2009 120 5B 5B 0% 2% 54% 44% 0% 0% 11% 89% 0% 0% 8% 92%Diane Peron 141 5A05-05-2009 129 5A 5B 0% 0% 5% 95% 0% 0% 2% 98% 0% 0% 2% 98%Ken Reagan 107 4A05-05-2009 114 5C 5C 0% 3% 66% 31% 0% 1% 30% 69% 0% 1% 19% 81%Mary Roberts 80 3B05-05-2009 82 3B 4C 21% 55% 24% 0% 17% 66% 16% 0% 4% 38% 55% 3%Sarah Robson 85 3A05-05-2009 72 2 3B 9% 45% 45% 1% 56% 41% 3% 0% 14% 61% 24% 1%Sandeep Roopra 82 3A05-05-2009 75 3C 3A 15% 53% 32% 1% 42% 52% 5% 0% 10% 57% 32% 1%Nina Sharma 139 5B05-05-2009 132 5A 5A 0% 0% 7% 93% 0% 0% 1% 99% 0% 0% 1% 99%Satpal Sidhu 102 4B05-05-2009 97 4C 4B 1% 6% 76% 18% 1% 21% 71% 6% 0% 7% 70% 23%James Thomas 111 4A05-05-2009 113 5C 5C 0% 2% 54% 44% 0% 1% 35% 64% 0% 1% 21% 78%Margaret Thompson 107 4A05-05-2009 112 5C 5C 0% 3% 66% 31% 0% 1% 40% 59% 0% 1% 24% 75%Peter Tucker 77 3C05-05-2009 77 3C 3A 32% 53% 15% 0% 34% 58% 7% 0% 8% 52% 39% 2%David Vincents 119 5C05-05-2009 111 5C 5C 0% 1% 32% 68% 0% 2% 44% 54% 0% 1% 27% 72%Tessa Watt 105 4A05-05-2009 113 5C 5C 0% 4% 70% 25% 0% 1% 35% 64% 0% 1% 21% 78%Mary Whittaker 121 5C05-05-2009 122 5B 5B 0% 1% 27% 72% 0% 0% 7% 92% 0% 0% 6% 94%
© GL Assessment 2008# Mean SAS calculations are based on one or two batteries only. If Verbal SAS is missing, indicators for languages are based on the Mean SAS and not the # Verbal SAS.
13
School: Sample School Pupil Name: Shirley Aransiola CAT Level: CGroup: Sample Group Age: 10:02 Date of Test: 05-05-2009
Sex: Female
Battery RawScore SAS ST NPR Standard Age Score with 90% Confidence Bands
VERBAL(53 questions attempted)
32 88 3 22
QUANTITATIVE(43 questions attempted)
24 88 3 22
NON-VERBAL(53 questions attempted)
45 103 5 58
The overall mean SAS for all batteries taken is 93.Individual performance on each battery taken shows thatthis pupil is below average on Verbal Reasoning, belowaverage on Quantitative Reasoning, about average onNon-Verbal Reasoning.
Key:SAS - Standard Age ScoreST - StanineNPR - National Percentile Rank! - Chance level raw score
Note:A pupil's SAS scores are only an estimate of true abilityas performance on any one occasion can be affected by anumber of factors such as mood, illness etc. So, onanother day, the same pupil could get a different score.Statistical methods can be used to estimate the range ofscores within which you can be 90% sure that the pupil'strue score lies. These confidence bands are shown on thegraph. Similarly, KS2 results are influenced by manyfactors other than cognitive ability, again statisticalmethods are used in calculating KS2 indicators and forthese 80% confidence bands are used.
Indicated KS2 Levels with 80% Confidence Bands
Subject Level
English 4C
Maths 4C
Science 4B
Key Stage 2 English
Key Stage 2 Mathematics
Key Stage 2 Science
CAT Individual pupils' CAT and KS2 profiles Section C
© GL Assessment 2009
14
CognitiveAbilities Test
Further Information about CAT scores is provided in the CognitiveAbilities Test Administration Manual.In case of enquiries please contact the GL Assessment CustomerService Advisers on 0845 6021937.Copyright © 2009 GL Assessment Limited.GL Assessment is part of the Granada Learning Group.
Cognitive Strengths and Weaknesses ProfileSchool: Sample School Section: A, BGroup: Sample GroupNo. of pupils: 32 CAT level: C
Section A - Relative Strengths and Weaknesses Profile
The following pages give lists of your combinedgroups' or classes' results in the three batteries ofCAT tests, together with an indication of their relativestrengths and weaknesses. Performances areexpressed as being in one of four categories:
E: An even profile of performance across the threebatteries. No SAS differs from any other by ten ormore points.
D: One of the batteries' scores is "Distinct". It is tenor more SAS points different from the other twobatteries' scores, though those two scores are withinten points of each other. If the odd-one-out is greaterthan the other two, then it may be said that this batteryrepresents a relative strength; if it is smaller then itmay be said to represent a relative weakness. Thesub-profile will show this.
C: The profile of performance shows a "Contrast"among the scores. The largest SAS is ten or morepoints greater than the lowest. The battery with thegreatest score can thus be reckoned a relativestrength, that with the lowest a relative weakness.These are shown in the sub-profiles.
CC: A "Complete Contrast" among the three SASscores: they are all ten or more points apart from eachother. Again, the battery with the greatest score canbe reckoned a relative strength, that with the lowest arelative weakness. These are shown in thesub-profiles.
For the sub-profiles, the three batteries arerepresented as V for verbal reasoning, Q forquantitative reasoning and N for non-verbalreasoning. A relative strength in one battery isdenoted by that battery's letter with a "+" suffix, arelative weakness with a "-" suffix. So, for example, acategory D profile where the SAS for the verbalbattery is much bigger than the other two scores willbe shown as V+ in the "strengths/weaknesses"column. Or a C profile where the biggest SAS is forthe verbal battery and the lowest is for the non-verbalbattery will be shown as V+N- in thestrengths/weaknesses column.
Clearly, no such elaboration needs to be or can bemade for category E profiles.
Section B - Visual-Verbal Profile Chart
The final page is a summary plot of the whole group'sverbal and non-verbal reasoning scores. It allows youto see, at a glance, if there is a dominantcharacteristic in the group for particular strengths andweaknesses. A more detailed explanation is given onthat page.
15
School: Sample School CAT Level: CGroup: Sample Group Number of Pupils: 32
Verbal Quantitative Non-Verbal Mean Strength/WeaknessPupil Name Date of Test Age Sex RS SAS RS SAS RS SAS SAS Profile Subprofile
Shirley Aransiola 05-05-2009 10:02 Female 32 88 24 88 45 103 93 D N+Jackie Blair 05-05-2009 10:01 Female 15 75 2 59 5 59 64 D V+Kevin Blakeland 05-05-2009 10:01 Male 71 123 57 130 65 141 131 D N+William Browne 05-05-2009 10:01 Male 41 94 24 88 36 96 93 EDave Browne 05-05-2009 10:02 Male 54 104 37 99 38 97 100 EMichael Chung 05-05-2009 10:01 Male 13 72 13 77 9 68 72 EAlastair Clifton 05-05-2009 10:03 Male 40 92 39 100 26 87 93 C Q+ N-Gordon Dawes 05-05-2009 10:03 Male 39 92 28 90 39 97 93 ENatasha Gill 05-05-2009 10:02 Female 58 107 48 110 64 140 119 D N+Ruth Grant 05-05-2009 10:03 Female 39 92 36 97 46 104 98 C N+ V-Jimmy Hills 05-05-2009 10:00 Male 23 82 5 60 0 59 67 D V+Jeffrey Hilton 05-05-2009 10:03 Male 43 94 38 99 36 95 96 EGary Jameson 05-05-2009 10:00 Male 76 139 54 120 60 126 128 D V+Roger Jones 05-05-2009 10:01 Male 29 86 22 86 17 80 84 EJohn Kennedy 05-05-2009 10:01 Male 26 84 0 59 1 59 67 D V+Tony Mathwes 05-05-2009 10:01 Male 73 127 53 117 60 126 123 C V+ Q-Neil Moss 05-05-2009 10:03 Male 60 107 47 108 49 107 107 EPeter Murdi 05-05-2009 10:00 Male 41 94 39 101 39 98 98 EJohn Nash 05-05-2009 10:02 Male 62 111 55 122 61 128 120 D V-Diane Peron 05-05-2009 10:03 Female 77 141 55 121 60 125 129 D V+Ken Reagan 05-05-2009 10:02 Male 58 107 55 122 53 113 114 C Q+ V-Mary Roberts 05-05-2009 10:01 Female 20 80 16 81 23 85 82 ESarah Robson 05-05-2009 10:02 Female 28 85 3 59 12 73 72 CC V+ Q-Sandeep Roopra 05-05-2009 10:00 Female 23 82 6 63 18 81 75 D Q-Nina Sharma 05-05-2009 10:02 Female 76 139 52 116 64 140 132 D Q-Satpal Sidhu 05-05-2009 10:02 Male 52 102 23 87 44 102 97 D Q-James Thomas 05-05-2009 10:01 Male 62 111 54 120 48 107 113 C Q+ N-Margaret Thompson 05-05-2009 10:03 Female 59 107 49 110 57 119 112 C N+ V-Peter Tucker 05-05-2009 10:02 Male 17 77 21 85 10 70 77 C Q+ N-David Vincents 05-05-2009 10:00 Male 69 119 45 107 48 107 111 D V+Tessa Watt 05-05-2009 10:02 Female 55 105 46 108 60 126 113 D N+Mary Whittaker 05-05-2009 10:03 Female 71 121 50 112 63 134 122 D N+
* Note - Pupils need to complete all three batteries to obtain a profile category.
CAT Group Summary of Strength/Weakness Profiles listed by Surname Section A
© GL Assessment 2009
16
School: Sample School CAT Level: CGroup: Sample Group Number of Pupils: 32
The chart shows the verbal and non-verbal scores plottedagainst each other for each student in the class or group.This gives an at-a-glance picture of the characteristics of thegroup, according to where they congregate on the plot. Thishas been divided into five areas: four quadrants: A, B, C andD and a central circle E. Pupils in each of these areas my becharacterised briefly as follows:
E: average pupils in terms of both verbal and visualabilities.
A: pupils who are good with spoken and written words, butwho may be weaker with materials such as charts, figuresand diagrams.
B: balanced and strong in ability all round.
C: pupils who struggle with both texts and abstractconcepts.
D: pupils who are good at visualisation but may lack facilityin dealing with verbal and written material.
Note that these are mere thumbnail sketches of broadlearning types and should not be taken as classifyingindividual pupils. The intention is to form an impression of theabilities of a whole group, to assist in planning programmesof teaching and learning for the group. Useful conclusionscan be reached about how best to approach classes of pupilsthat fall largely into each of these areas. For a full discussionof implications for teaching and learning , see "Getting theBest from CAT" by Dr Steve Strand, published by GLAssessment.
Gender key:Boys
Girls
Unknown
CAT Visual-Verbal Profile Chart Section B
© GL Assessment 2009
17
VE
RB
AL
CAT3 Digital Group Visual-Verbal Learning Profile - Thumbnail sketchesHigh
Low
Active talkers enjoy written work, group discussion, essays, word games. Likely to be good in English, MFL, history and all areas where verbal skills are prominent.Good with spoken and written words, but weaker with materials such as charts, figures, diagrams etc.Need support with visual modelling, e.g., science, technology or geography where they are often required to model ideas pictorially, and other visual work such as interpreting diagrams.
A
Struggle with both text and abstract concepts. General issues of motivation and self-esteem are present. Best to tap into their interests and build upon their successes.Target basic literacy and numeracy skills, use the National frameworks for English and Maths, ICT spreadsheets, clicker, games etc.Provide structured tasks with clear directions, guidance, support and break learning into small steps.Will not learn by osmotic approaches, need active methods with clear purposes (e.g. writing a letter of complaint)C
Well balanced and strong in their abilities, good with both text and pictures/diagrams. Will perform well in most areas of learning.Will be good at forming hypotheses, asking questions, predicting, applying examples to new situations – encourage exploration of their own ideas as independent learners. Develop their study skills and ability to organise their own learning, e.g. use of library, Internet etc.
B
Good at visualisation and inventing solutions, but may lack facility in dealing with verbal and written work. Could become frustrated and develop behavioural problems. Presenting visual/spatial tasks and study methods may lead to an improvement in behaviour, attitude and progress in school. More likely than other students to prefer active learning methods, modelling, demonstrations, films, videos, games, simulations etc.
D
E
HighNON VERBAL
18
How online tests are used to monitor progressat Handcross Park School
case study
Handcross Park Independent Prep School inWestSussex has a deserved reputation for providing highstandards of childcare for 2 – 13 year olds.The schoolprides itself on achieving excellence in all areas andassessment is a key aspect of informing teaching andlearning across the whole school.
In the Autumn term of 2007, Handcross Park decided toadopt a suite of online reasoning, literacy and numeracyassessments from GL Assessment in order to provide anefficient method of assessing pupils and collating results.Neil Cheesman, Deputy HeadTeacher, noticed thedifference immediately.
“We instantly saw a huge reduction in the time it took toanalyse results. Online assessment provides results withinminutes and saves a great deal of time previously taken upby marking written assessments.”
However, not only was the school new to digitalassessment; it was also using GL Assessment’s tests forthe first time. “Our previous tests didn’t cater for pupils thatwere out-of-range and we wanted a means of assessingpupils of all abilities. Another problem was that the data wasin an unfriendly format and we had to spend hours goingthrough the reports and making them easily accessible forstaff.”
Handcross Park chose to adopt the digital version ofGL Assessment’s Cognitive AbilitiesTest (CAT) to assesspupils’ reasoning abilities. CAT measures the three principalareas of reasoning – verbal, non-verbal and quantitative – andis the most widely used test of reasoning abilities in the UK.
To measure specific strengths and needs in English, theschool selected the Suffolk Reading Scale (SRS) andProgress in English (PIE). For Maths, they adopted Progressin Maths (PIM), a standardised series of tests designed toprovide rich diagnostic information about pupils’mathematical abilities.
Used together, Handcross Park found that the test dataprovided a useful, objective means of assessing pupilsprogress which supported ongoing classroom assessment.
Introducing online assessmentWhen the school introduced GL Assessment’s onlinetesting platform,Testwise, Neil Cheesman found little needfor staff training. “Having established that all we neededwas a reliable internet connection, we required virtually notraining with the new assessments. We are reasonablycomputer literate and just had to log in and start.”
“The support in setting-up the online system has been veryefficient, together with the ongoing support, which has beensuperb.The results have always been available withinminutes of the assessments being completed,” he says.
“The electronic assessments are forYears 3 – 8 and while itcan be a busy time for me in organising the process, wesave so much staff time as we are not wasting valuablehours marking papers.”
Instant reportingOnce a test has been completed by a pupil, test scores anddetailed diagnostic reports are delivered instantly, enablingteachers at Handcross Park to evaluate pupils’ needsimmediately.
At the beginning of the academic year, Handcross Park usesthe PIE, PIM and SRS tests to provide a comparison ofStandardised Age Scores within the class, year group andnationally.
“We use these to inform target setting, teaching andlearning for the year ahead.Teachers particularly like theoption of producing a question-by-question analysis as itallows them to review individual and group progress, andthen embark on specific target setting,” Neil explains.
A ‘Value AddedTracking Chart’ is also used to view year-on-year progress of individual pupils, classes and year groups.
The school finds this very useful in monitoring the progressof individual pupils, together with displaying an overallpicture of the year group’s ability levels in Maths andEnglish.This is also used as a comparison across classeswithin year groups to evaluate teaching at the school.
In the summer term, the school uses CAT data to informteaching and learning based on comparisons within eachclass and year group. It is also used to obtain a usefulguideline for Key Stages 2–3 and GCSE predictors, and toascertain a comparison of boys and girls. For example, thedata can enable teachers to see if girls are out performingboys in numeracy, or whether a particular group of childrenare struggling with a specific area in English.
“All of these tests arm our teachers with knowledge aboutour pupils’ levels of understanding across the curriculum,enabling them to take into account specific areas of learningduring lessons”, Neil explains.
“We can tailor lessons accordingly and take into accountspecific areas of learning during lessons, so that each pupilwill gain the maximum benefit.The whole process isworking extremely well and the online element ensures thatour time is given to supporting pupils rather than given tounnecessary paperwork.”
March 2009
“We immediately noticed a huge differencein the time it took to analyse results –online assessment provides results withinminutes and saves a great deal of timeinvolved in marking written assessments.”
GLP309.artwork:Layout 1 25/8/09 15:57 Page 1
19
case study
CAT Digital gets the green light at Weald ofKent Grammar
“We want to inspire our students to aim high andmaking sure we have a clear understanding of eachchild’s learning potential is central to achieving this.Weuse GL Assessment’s Cognitive AbilitiesTest (CAT)Digital to assess our students’ capabilities before theyarrive at the school and this makes it easier for us toensure they are ready to learn right from the start of anew academic year,” says Des Deehan, Deputy HeadTeacher atWeald of Kent Grammar.
Weald of Kent is a highly-regarded grammar school situatedin the heart ofTonbridge in Kent. Graded as Outstanding byOfsted in April 2007, the school prides itself on being able tomeet the individual educational needs of its students toboost attainment.The leadership team uses CAT Digital toassess the learning abilities of new students in the July priorto their transfer from primary school.The test results providean important basis for making decisions on how each child’slearning progress can be best supported.This has proved tobe a successful strategy for encouraging greaterachievement at Weald of Kent and in 2007, the school wasrewarded with an impressive 98% of students gaining fiveA* to C-grade GCSE passes, including English and maths.
Attended by 1050 eleven to 18-year-olds, the majority ofWeald of Kent’s students are girls, although boys can enterthe school in the 6th form.The paper-based version of theCAT test has been used for the past nine years to assessstudents’ abilities upon their arrival at the school.Theassessment measures the three principal areas of reasoning- verbal, non-verbal and numerical, as well as an element of
spatial ability. With a typical intake of over 150 childrenjoining Weald of Kent inYear 7, the decision to move to thedigital CAT test has proved a much more efficient way forthe school to carry out the valuable process of pupil testing.
“Using the online version of the CAT test ensures we cancomplete our pupil assessments promptly and the digitalformat makes this a less stressful experience for thestudents. We have found that testing online helps studentssettle in to the school easily because the results comethrough quickly.This allows us to place children in theirlearning groups from the first day they arrive and they canthen start making friends within their groups.”
Teachers refer to their students’ CAT scores throughout theacademic year as they provide a detailed picture of whateach child is capable of and this information can be verypowerful in driving progress. Results enable teachers to seteffective learning targets for individual students or groupsthat are relevant to their potential. As a school with alanguage specialism, for example, Weald of Kent regularlyidentifies those students who have achieved a high score inthe verbal reasoning section of the test.These children arethen encouraged to study one of the many languagecourses the school offers within the curriculum, such asItalian, Portuguese or Japanese.
Students’ CAT data also plays a key role in helping teacherspredict how well their students will do in their GCSE exams.Examining results in this way helps to ensure teachers canprovide learning support to those children who might befalling below their expected level of achievement.
Analysing grades can uncover discrepancies betweenstudents’ skills in areas such as verbal or non-verbal literacy,which might suggest issues with delayed languagedevelopment.This knowledge can then be taken intoaccount when teachers are planning lessons.
“We have introduced an effective method of presentinglearning targets in a colour-coded system, which helps
students to take more responsibility for their own progress.A target coloured green shows the child where they shouldbe at in their learning, based on their previous achievement,and blue highlights what they could aspire to. Students’ CATscores are an essential part of getting the target-settingprocess right as they provide us with a wealth of informationon each child’s individual strengths and weaknesses.”
The school leadership team has been pleased with how wellthe introduction of digital testing at Weald of Kent has beenreceived by parents. It is usual practice for test results andindividual learning targets to be shared with parents as thishelps make it easier for them to see where they can providesupport at home.
Looking back at students’ results over a three or four yeartime period ensures teachers at the school can track theirstudents’ progress as they learn.This helps them identifythose students who are regarded as high achievers so thatthey can be provided with teaching and learning that willengage and challenge them to achieve more.
“We are extremely proud of our school and its students andwe are delighted that Ofsted has confirmed our status as anoutstanding school. We offer a vibrant learning communitywhere individuality is celebrated and independence isnurtured. Digital testing has changed the way we supportteaching and learning and enabled us to respond morequickly to the individual needs of our students.”
March 2009
“Students’ CAT scores are an essential partof getting the target-setting process right
as they provide us with a wealth ofinformation on each child’s individual
strengths and weaknesses.”
“Digital testing has changed the way wesupport teaching and learning and enabledus to respond more quickly to the individual
needs of our students.”
GLP309.artwork:Layout 1 25/8/09 15:57 Page 3
GLA154
GL Assessment, Chiswick Centre, 414 Chiswick High Road, London, W4 5TF Phone: 0845 602 1937 Fax: +44 (0) 20 8742 8767 www.gl-assessment.co.uk
Contact your local consultant for further information
