The Woodcock-Johnson V, read from its own documents: 20 cognitive tests, the clusters they build and who gives them

0 The short answer

The Woodcock-Johnson V (WJ V) is a fully digital, individually administered battery from Riverside Insights, announced on February 3, 2025, whose Tests of Cognitive Abilities contain 20 tests built on Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory. Riverside's product page counts 12 clusters for that cognitive battery, while a peer reviewed overview counts 17 once the Virtual Test Library clusters are included, so the number depends on what is counted. Set beside the WAIS-5, the WJ V names more broad abilities (including long-term storage and retrieval fluency) and is co-normed with achievement tests, while the WAIS-5 reports five primary indices and is co-normed with a memory scale. Both are sold to qualified examiners and read in a professional evaluation, and ACIS is a separate online assessment that is neither.

1 What is the Woodcock-Johnson V, and who publishes it?

The WJ V is a system of three co-normed batteries published by Riverside Insights, not a single test: Tests of Cognitive Abilities, Tests of Achievement, and a Virtual Test Library of clinical and diagnostic tests. Riverside's technical abstract (LaForte, Dailey and McGrew, 2025) calls it a comprehensive assessment system for measuring general intellectual ability (g), specific cognitive abilities, oral language abilities and academic achievement from age 4 through 90 and older. The abstract counts the whole system at 60 tests. The cognitive battery, abbreviated WJ V COG, was authored by McGrew, Mather and LaForte, and the full system by McGrew, Mather, LaForte and Wendling, all in 2025.

Riverside's launch announcement is dated February 3, 2025, and the peer reviewed test review by Foster, Perazzo and Decker says the WJ V COG was published in February 2025. The technical abstract places the WJ V in a line that runs from the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery, Revised (1989) through the WJ III (2001), the WJ III Normative Update (2001 and 2007) and the WJ IV (Schrank, McGrew and Mather, 2014), and describes it as a theoretical, structural, interpretive and digital revision of the WJ IV.

Two structural facts matter for a reader who meets the name in a report. First, there is no separate oral language battery any more: most tests from the WJ IV oral language battery moved to the achievement battery or the Virtual Test Library. Second, the cognitive and achievement batteries share one norm sample, so a comparison between a cognitive score and an achievement score uses the same reference group. Riverside's WJ V brochure presents that as a selling feature, which this page does not test.

Riverside's brochure frames the system around school placement, eligibility and diagnostic decisions, and its product page says the battery serves "K-12 and adult populations". An adult who meets the WJ V is therefore using an instrument whose documentation leans toward school-age use, with adult norms that are documented below. The page on types of IQ tests lists the WJ V among sixteen instruments in one paragraph; this page is the long version.

2 What are the 20 cognitive tests, and what does each one ask?

The WJ V Tests of Cognitive Abilities has 14 standard tests and 6 extended tests, and each is classified to one or two broad CHC abilities by Riverside. The table follows Table 3 of the technical abstract. Descriptions are formats only: no item content appears here or anywhere on this site, because items are protected test material.

Four features of the list shape how a report reads. The first is the timed tests: Number-Pattern Matching and Letter-Pattern Matching run 3 minutes each, Symbol Inhibition 1 minute and the two retrieval fluency tests 1 minute per trial, so part of the battery rewards speed. The page on why IQ tests are timed explains what a clock buys and costs. The second is the three controlled learning tests (Analysis-Synthesis, Concept Formation and Visual-Auditory Learning), in which feedback is given during the first items. The abstract says the updated Fluid Reasoning cluster includes no controlled learning measure, consistent with Schneider and McGrew's recommendation that fluid reasoning be measured at least partly without scaffolding or feedback.

The third feature is the pairing of Story Recall and Story Comprehension: Story Comprehension is housed in the cognitive battery and also used in the achievement battery, according to Riverside's comparison document. The fourth is that the General Intellectual Ability score uses only eight of the 20 tests, equally weighted at every age: Oral Vocabulary, Verbal Analogies, Matrices, Spatial Relations, Story Recall, Semantic Word Retrieval, Verbal Attention and Number-Pattern Matching. The abstract reports that Verbal Analogies had the highest psychometric g loading of any WJ V test (median 0.72 across age groups), so its inclusion puts extra weight on fluid reasoning and verbal ability. The page on what IQ measures explains g, and the page on subtest types sorts common task formats.

3 How many clusters does the cognitive battery have: 12 or 17?

The count is 12 on Riverside's product page and 17 in a peer reviewed overview, and the gap is a counting rule, not a disagreement about the battery. The Riverside product page, read on October 6, 2026, says the system adds "20 cognitive tests across 12 clusters" and "26 achievement tests across 22 clusters", with a 15 test Virtual Test Library. Flanagan, Sotelo-Dynega and Alfonso's overview in the Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment says the cognitive battery contains 20 tests organized into 17 clusters.

Table 1 of the technical abstract, the selective testing table for the cognitive battery plus the Virtual Test Library, lists 17 cluster columns. A tally of that table gives 12 clusters that can be built from cognitive tests alone, counting Phonemic Retrieval Fluency, which needs one cognitive test and one Virtual Test Library test, and five more that need only Virtual Test Library tests: Phonological Awareness, Phonological Manipulation, Auditory Memory Span, RAN-Reading and RAN-Math. We did not find Riverside spelling out that reconciliation, so treat it as our reading of the table, not as a Riverside statement. The 12 clusters, the tests behind each, and the median marginal reliability the abstract reports for each cluster (its Tables 13 and 14) are below.

Two details help in reading the table. The seven broad ability clusters (Gc, Gf, Gv, Gl, Gr, Gwm and Gs) are each built from a pair of the 14 standard tests. The reliability values are marginal estimates computed from the norming data, which describe consistency within one session, not retest stability; the scoring section returns to retest evidence. The abstract describes the BIA as a screening measure and the Gf-Gc Composite as a valid indicator of general intelligence when an examiner evaluates a pattern of cognitive, oral language and academic strengths and weaknesses.

4 How does the WJ V map onto CHC theory, and where do the ACIS domain names line up?

The WJ V is built on a published blueprint of CHC theory, and a name for name comparison with ACIS shows six overlapping abilities and four that ACIS does not report. The technical abstract says the test design follows Schneider and McGrew's 2018 articulation of CHC theory, which blends Carroll's model of 1993 and Horn's model of 1991. The chapter by Schneider and McGrew in Flanagan and McDonough's fourth edition of Contemporary Intellectual Assessment is the statement the WJ V cites, and the page on the CHC model summarizes it for general readers.

The table below sorts the broad abilities that appear in Riverside's tables by where they live in the WJ V and which ACIS index carries the same CHC letter. ACIS facts here are only the six index names from its home page, read on October 6, 2026. A shared letter is a shared construct label, not a score equivalence.

Two cautions keep the table honest. First, the WJ V Gwm cluster is explicitly auditory, and its visual counterpart is a single extended test. Second, Riverside's test descriptions assign narrow abilities too, for example lexical knowledge to Oral Vocabulary, induction to Matrices and visualization to Spatial Relations, and the narrow level is where two batteries with the same broad label diverge most. The page on cognitive domains explains how ACIS reports its six, and the page on fluid versus crystallized intelligence covers the Gf and Gc pair behind the Gf-Gc Composite.

5 What changed from the WJ IV to the WJ V?

The WJ V changed the cognitive battery in structure, not just in delivery: auditory processing left the battery, long-term retrieval split in two, the fluid reasoning measures were replaced, and the general score went from seven weighted tests to eight equally weighted ones. Riverside's comparison document marks five cognitive tests as new in the WJ V: Matrices, Verbal Analogies, Story Comprehension, Visual Working Memory and Symbol Inhibition. The table gives the technical abstract's rationale for each change, without a judgment from us on whether it is right.

Counting the changes depends on the source. Riverside's comparison document lists five new cognitive tests, and Foster, Perazzo and Decker's test review counts five new tests and three removed, including measures of auditory processing. Neither is a complete changelog, and the documents we read do not list every removed or moved test.

Riverside's product page promises that examiners save 20 percent more time per assessment with automatic starting points, scoring and continuation rules. It gives no absolute time, so the figure is a publisher comparison. A reader whose earlier evaluation used the WJ IV should not expect the same scores: the general score now has different tests, no auditory processing component and a new reference group, and the page on how IQ changes with age explains why scores on different instruments and norm years differ for reasons unrelated to the person.

6 How is the WJ V scored, and how reliable are its scores?

Every WJ V test is first converted to a W score on an equal interval scale, and every other score (standard scores, percentile ranks, age and grade equivalents, relative proficiency) is derived from it. Lynne Jaffe's Riverside paper on the development and use of the W score and the relative proficiency index describes the W score as the foundational metric and the relative proficiency index (RPI) as one that most other batteries do not offer. For an adult, the practical meaning is in the table below, where each metric is stated as Riverside defines it.

The standard score metric uses the same mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15 that ACIS reports, so a 115 on a WJ V cluster sits at the same place in its own norm distribution as a 115 on any 100 and 15 scale. That is position within each instrument's own reference group, not agreement between instruments, and the page on how IQ scores are normed explains why two instruments on the same scale can disagree about one person. Norm tables run from age 4 years 0 months up to 100 years 0 months, with data collected from age 3 to anchor the curves at age 4.

On reliability, the abstract reports several kinds of evidence, and two answer different questions. Marginal reliability, summarized in the cluster table earlier, estimates consistency within a session and has medians of .90 to .98 for the cognitive clusters. Alternate form reliability comes from the calibration, alternate form and retest sample of 1,430 people and applies to tests with a parallel second form, which exist for 5 cognitive tests and are meant for retesting or for a timed test spoiled by an interruption. For three timed tests the abstract's Table 16 shows lower values for adults (ages 20 to 80 and older) than for ages 4 to 19: Number-Pattern Matching .87 against .94, Letter-Pattern Matching .86 against .92 and Symbol Inhibition .78 against .81. The Cognitive Processing Speed cluster's marginal .98 and these adult alternate form values are both Riverside figures and do not contradict each other, because they measure different things. The page on reliability and validity explains the difference, and the page on processing speed covers how speed measures behave across adulthood.

7 Who was in the WJ V norm sample, and how many were adults?

The norming sample was 5,837 people tested from February 2022 to August 2023, with about 30 percent of them aged 20 or older, and each person took only about a third of the tests. The technical abstract describes the sampling plan as 24 age groups: single years from ages 3 through 19, ten year groups from 20 through 79 and one group from 80 up, with a target of 250 per group, stratified by census region, sex, ethnicity, race and education level (the person's own education for adults, parent education for children). The adult groups, taken from the abstract's Table 6, are below.

Those seven groups sum to 1,763 people, which is about 30 percent of 5,837 (our arithmetic, not a Riverside statement). The abstract adds that 2,169 norming cases were aged 17 or older and no longer in high school, and that the 80 and older group fell short of its target of 250 because recruiting older adults was difficult after the pandemic.

The unusual feature is the design. With 60 tests in the system, Riverside used a multiple matrix sampling design in which each examinee took roughly a third of the tests, about 3 hours of testing, and plausible scores for the untaken tests were imputed. The abstract calls such methods statistically sound and points to a simulation study in the Technical Manual, which we did not see, so this page cannot evaluate it. It states the design because "5,837 people" does not mean 5,837 people took every test. For comparison, Pearson's WAIS-5 by-the-numbers sheet lists a normative sample of 2020 examinees, and its overview brochure says the normative samples were collected in 2023 and 2024 and gives the age range as 16 through 90 years 11 months.

Dates need care. Riverside's product page says the WJ V was "normed from 2022-2024" with "more than 5000" people, and its brochure says "almost 6000". The abstract, which is more specific, gives norming data collection as February 2022 to August 2023 and says all four research studies together ran to January 2024 and collected 8,209 cases, of which 5,837 were norming cases. The "2024" on the product page appears to match the wider research effort, but the page does not say so.

8 What evidence supports the WJ V, and who produced it?

Most of the published evidence for the WJ V was produced by its publisher and authors, two peer reviewed reviews add an outside reading, and the evidence is strongest for school age use. Riverside's technical abstract names its broad CHC model (Model C) as the primary measurement model for the tests and adds that a more complex hierarchical model offers extra structural insight for clinical interpretation. The abstract's authors include McGrew, who is also an author of the battery, which is normal for a technical manual but means evidence should be sorted by who produced it.

On concurrent validity, the abstract's Table 22 reports correlations between the WJ V General Intellectual Ability cluster and the general scores of five other batteries: .85 with the WAIS-IV Full Scale IQ (100 adults), .82 with the WISC-V (97), .77 with the WPPSI-IV (47), .79 with the KABC-II Normative Update (49) and .66 with the RIAS-2 (51). Riverside reads the range of .66 to .85 as support for the cluster as a valid measure of general intelligence. A correlation of .85 corresponds to about 72 percent shared variance, our arithmetic, so even the strongest link leaves room for different scores in one person. The list of comparison batteries does not include the WAIS-5, which the sources we read do not report as part of these studies.

According to the abstract, the clinical validity groups ranged in age from 6 to 18, were small (for example 20 children with intellectual disability and 15 with a writing learning disability, against 85 identified as gifted) and were not randomly selected, so Riverside itself says the results should not be treated as precise representations of each group. Older adults aged 50 and over were studied with the Mini-Mental State Examination, Second Edition and the Dementia Rating Scale, Second Edition, and those results appear in the Technical Manual, not in the abstract. For an adult reader, the public summaries document adult norms and adult reliability, while the group validity evidence they show is mostly for children and adolescents.

Two outside reviews are the only evidence on this list that Riverside did not write. Their abstracts, which are all we could read, are favorable: the overview calls the WJ V the most significant evolution in comprehensive cognitive assessment since the battery was introduced nearly 50 years ago, and the test review calls the psychometric evidence robust while noting that digital requirements may limit some users. We could not read the full texts or the funding statements, so this page treats them as informed outside opinions, not independent replications.

9 WAIS-5 or WJ V: which one will my evaluator use?

The two batteries overlap in purpose but differ in architecture, and the choice can depend on the referral question, the examiner's training and the records already on file. Nothing in the documents we read ranks one as more accurate than the other. The comparison below uses Pearson's own sheets for the WAIS-5 (by the numbers, overview brochure and comparison flyer) and Riverside's documents for the WJ V. Details about the WAIS-5 itself belong to the page on what the WAIS-5 is and the page on WAIS-5 subtests.

Reading across the rows, the WAIS-5 is an adult and older adolescent instrument with a more focused cognitive structure, and the WJ V is a lifespan system whose strength, in the publisher's account, is cross-domain comparison within one norm sample. Both offer a general score that leaves out some processing measures: the WAIS-5 has a General Ability Index for people with working memory or processing speed difficulties, and the WJ V has a Gf-Gc Composite built only from fluid reasoning and comprehension-knowledge tests. The page on WAIS-IV versus WAIS-5 shows how two editions of one Wechsler battery produce different results, a reminder that two publishers' batteries will not match.

An adult who has been told the evaluator "may use the WJ V" can ask four practical questions: which batteries will be given, which general score will lead the report and why, which comparison group will be used, and which tests are timed and what happens if one is interrupted. The abstract documents one answer: second forms exist for some timed tests so that a retest does not repeat the first form.

10 Who can administer the WJ V, how is it delivered, and what does it cost?

The WJ V is administered one to one by a trained examiner on a laptop and an iPad, Riverside sells access to schools and practitioners rather than to the public, and the prices Riverside publishes are examiner side prices, not the fee a client pays. A Riverside blog post from 2025 describes a laptop for the examiner and an iPad of 10 inches or larger for the examinee. The technical abstract describes an online mode, in which both devices join a shared browser session, and an offline mode, in which the examiner downloads the assignment, runs the test over a low energy Bluetooth link and uploads the data afterward. A Riverside paper on sensory impairments says the WJ V is intended for a one to one setting.

On qualification, we found less than a reader might hope. Riverside's WJ V store page, read on October 6, 2026, lists the Tests of Cognitive Abilities with "Pending qualifications", which suggests a verification step at purchase, and it states no level. Riverside's support page Am I qualified to use the WJ COG? is written for the WJ IV: it says qualification depends on the organization's policy, that interpretation requires graduate level training in cognitive assessment, and that professional titles vary by jurisdiction. We cannot say the WJ V rule is identical. The same paper on sensory impairments says examiners should be trained to administer and interpret cognitive, academic and language tests and should work within their area of expertise. The page on who can administer an IQ test explains the general A, B and C levels.

Prices are published by Riverside for examiners, not for people being tested. The table lists what the pricing brochure and store page showed when read on October 6, 2026. The brochure carries no date in the text we extracted, so check Riverside before relying on any figure.

By our arithmetic, the smallest subtest subscription for an independent practitioner is the 300 dollar access fee plus the 250 dollar minimum of 100 subtests, or 550 dollars. The brochure does not say whether one subtest unit equals one test given to one person, so this page does not convert it into a per evaluation cost. What a person pays is set by the evaluator or institution; the page on how much an IQ test costs covers that, and the page on official IQ tests compares the routes. ACIS is in the last table row to show that each route has a different price, not that the products are interchangeable.

11 What is the WJ V used for, what is it not, and what should an adult expect?

Riverside markets the WJ V for school placement, eligibility and diagnostic decisions, and for an adult the sensible expectation is a one to one session that produces cluster scores to be read by the evaluator in context, not a verdict. The brochure describes the system as validated for placement, eligibility and diagnostic determinations, and says it covers the eight specific learning disability areas on one platform. Those are publisher marketing statements, so read them beside the technical evidence above.

Two additions show where the product is moving. The WJ V Dyslexia Test Set, which the brochure says was authored by Dr. Nancy Mather, groups tests on word reading, decoding, spelling, fluency, phonological processing and rapid naming, and Riverside's dyslexia paper by Proctor and Mather says the diagnosis of dyslexia involves more than interpreting standardized test performance, because the evaluator must also consider family and school history, teacher reports, self-reports and current classroom performance. The WJ V Nonverbal is a nonverbal version of seven cognitive tests, according to the brochure, and a Riverside release of February 24, 2026 says it was open for pre-purchase and would be ready for use in schools in late 2026.

What the WJ V is not is a short list. It is not a diagnosis, because no cognitive score alone establishes one, and Riverside's own dyslexia paper says as much for dyslexia. It is not evidence about one person from group figures in its manual. It is not a promise of accommodations or eligibility, which are decisions made by the bodies that receive a report under their own rules, and this page does not advise on either. The pages on dyslexia and IQ, ADHD and IQ and twice exceptional learners cover the research on those topics.

For an adult entering a WJ V evaluation, the documents support a few modest expectations. The session is examiner led, on a tablet, with spoken, visual and timed tapping tasks, and since the system is built for selective testing the evaluator can give a selection of the 20 cognitive tests. Cluster scores come back with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15, and the W score and relative proficiency index are available if the evaluator uses them. Riverside's documents name the general score General Intellectual Ability, so whether the report also calls it an IQ is the evaluator's convention. No single cluster tells more than the pattern read with history and observation, as the page on adult IQ testing describes.

12 Where ACIS sits, and what a buyer should do

We sell ACIS, a separate online assessment, and it is not a Woodcock-Johnson V, a substitute for one or a source of WJ V scores; the right choice depends on what the score is for. ACIS has 20 subtests in six CHC domains (verbal comprehension, fluid reasoning, quantitative reasoning, visual spatial, working memory and processing speed) and reports a Full Scale IQ and six primary indices on the same mean 100, standard deviation 15 scale, with percentiles and a 95 percent confidence interval and adult norms for ages 16 to 90. Read on October 6, 2026, its one time forms were Quick at 15 dollars (6 subtests, about 45 minutes), Optimized at 30 dollars (13 subtests, about 110 minutes) and Full Scale at 50 dollars (all 20, about 175 minutes) and a free trial that needs no card. Prices can change, so check the current forms.

The limits are as important as the features. ACIS is taken online and unsupervised, in English only. It is not a clinical or diagnostic instrument, and it is not for hiring, school accommodations or admission to high IQ societies. It has no examiner, so it carries no clinical observations, and it does not report long-term storage, retrieval fluency or auditory processing scores, or a co-normed set of reading, writing and oral language tests, which the WJ V system does. The shared CHC letters in the mapping table show where construct names overlap, not that an ACIS index and a WJ V cluster rank a person alike. ACIS documentation is in the technical manual, and this page quotes nothing from it.

A buyer can reason in four steps. If a school, clinician, court or employer asks for an assessment, ask which instrument, which qualifications and which report they will accept before paying for anything, because an online score will not substitute. If you are curious about your own profile, an online battery is a reasonable start when read for what it is, as the pages on what IQ test to take, the best online IQ tests and where to take an IQ test set out. If a WJ V report has reached you, read the edition, the cluster composition, the norm basis and the evaluator's explanation together. And never average scores from different batteries, as the page on IQ score versus percentile explains.

The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (AERA, APA and NCME, 2014) is the framework this page uses to read any of these scores: evidence must support the specific interpretation, the reference group must suit the person, and reliability must be reported for each score that is interpreted. Riverside's abstract itself invokes the Standards for norm sample appropriateness and for reliability evidence on every interpreted score. The American Psychological Association's Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct, effective January 1, 2017, adds in Standard 9.02(b) that psychologists use instruments whose validity and reliability have been established for the population tested, and describe the strengths and limits of results where that is not so, and in Standard 9.10 that they take reasonable steps to ensure results are explained to the person assessed. Both apply to a WJ V report, a WAIS-5 report and an online score alike: a number is only as good as the match between instrument, person and use.

13 Sources Behind This Page

Every WJ V fact on this page comes from a Riverside Insights document or page, two peer reviewed reviews, or Pearson's own WAIS-5 sheets, and every ACIS fact comes from the ACIS home page. Riverside pages and prices were read on October 6, 2026 and can change. Riverside documents we read as files are cited by their original title. Two reviews were read only as abstracts, because the publisher blocked the full text.

• Riverside Insights. Woodcock-Johnson V product page, riversideinsights.com, and WJ V store pages with subscription contents, store.riversideinsights.com and product listing, read October 6, 2026.
• Riverside Insights. Riverside Insights Launches the Woodcock-Johnson V: A Legacy of Trust, Reimagined for Today's Educational Needs, launch announcement, February 3, 2025, and the blog post From Paper to Tablet: The Digital Launch of the Woodcock-Johnson V, blog.riversideinsights.com, 2025.
• LaForte E M, Dailey D and McGrew K S. WJ V Technical Abstract. Riverside Assessments, 2025, PDF.
• Riverside Insights. Woodcock-Johnson V New Tests and Clusters, the WJ IV to WJ V tests and clusters comparison, read October 6, 2026.
• Riverside Insights. Woodcock-Johnson V Tests of Cognitive Abilities: Test Descriptions and CHC abilities, PDF, read October 6, 2026.
• Riverside Insights. Woodcock-Johnson V Pricing Brochure, PDF, read October 6, 2026. The extracted text carries no date.
• Riverside Insights. Woodcock-Johnson V brochure, One Platform. Every Learner. Always Evolving., PDF, and the release New WJ V Nonverbal Cognitive Assessment from Riverside Insights Closes Critical Gap in Student Evaluation, GlobeNewswire, February 24, 2026.
• Riverside Insights. Am I qualified to use the WJ COG? Support page written for the WJ IV, info.riversideinsights.com, read October 6, 2026.
• Jaffe L E. Development, Interpretation, and Application of the W Score and the Relative Proficiency Index, and Use of the Woodcock-Johnson V for Populations With Sensory Impairments. Two papers, Riverside Assessments, 2025.
• Oh H, Liu H and Kim J. Item Fairness Evaluation of the Woodcock-Johnson V Norming Items. Unpublished manuscript, expanded from a poster at the National Association of School Psychologists annual meeting, February 14 to 17, 2024, Riverside Insights.
• Flanagan D, Sotelo-Dynega M and Alfonso V. Overview of the Woodcock-Johnson V Tests of Cognitive Abilities and Virtual Test Library. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 2025, volume 43, issue 8, pages 802 to 844.
• Foster L, Perazzo D and Decker S. Test Review: Woodcock-Johnson V Tests of Cognitive Abilities. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 2026, volume 44, issue 2, pages 249 to 256.
• Schneider W J and McGrew K S. The Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory of cognitive abilities, chapter 3. In Flanagan D P and McDonough E M (editors), Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, Tests, and Issues, fourth edition, Guilford Press, 2018.
• Pearson. WAIS-5 by the numbers, overview brochure and WAIS-IV versus WAIS-5 comparison flyer, 2024 and 2025.
• American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association and National Council on Measurement in Education. Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing, 2014, and American Psychological Association, Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct, effective January 1, 2017, Standards 9.02 and 9.10.

14 Frequently Asked Questions