Test identification

Name of test The York Adult Assessment Battery - Revised
Version YAA-R
Previous version(s) YAA
Subjects Literacy
Summary An assessment battery consisting of tests of reading, spelling, writing and phonological skills that provides a screening tool for adults with dyslexia.

Assessment screening

Subscales Reading Comprehension, Written Precis, Writing Speed, Spoonerisms, RAN
Authors Meesha Warmington, Susan E Stothard, Margaret J Snowling
Publisher Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs.
Test source https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/media/9966/download
Guidelines available? Yes
Norm-referenced scores. Yes
Age range 16 years +
Key Stage(s) applicable to KS5
UK standardisation sample Yes
Publication date 2012
Re-norming date n/a


Validity measures available? Yes
Reliability measures available? Yes
Reason for exclusion from shortlist shortlisted

Evaluation and Appraisal

Additional information about what the test measures Reading, writing
Are additional versions available? this is the revised version. There is an original version as well. There are long and short versions contained within the test.
Can subtests be administered in isolation? yes
Administration group size individual
Administration duration 60 minutes
Description of materials needed to administer test record form and scoring pdf. Computer if typing speed is measured
Any special testing conditions? no

Response format

Response mode Electronic OR Paper Pencil
What device is required computer (only for typing speed subtest)
Queston format. open ended
Progress through questions flat

Assessor requirements

Is any prior knowledge/training/profession accreditation required for administration? no
Is administration scripted? Yes


Description of materials needed to score test scores contained within the general pdf
Types and range of available scores percentiles standard scores
Score transformation for standard score standardised on a sample of university students (cohort standardised)
Age bands used for norming n/a
Scoring procedures simple manual scoring - some practice required
Automatised norming none

Construct Validity

Does it adequately measure literacy, mathematics or science?
Does it reflect the multidimensionality of the subject? Generic literacy
Construct validity comments (and reference for source) The subtests align with theory of literacy attainment. Adequate construct validity is indicated from correlations with other instruments; WRAT word reading and spelling are significantly correlated with all YAA measures except RAN. Word Reading: spelling error rate 0.40; reading accuracy 0.55; reading time 0.40; reading rate 0.41; reading comprehension 0.24; spoonerism accuracy.47; spoonerism time .44; spoonerism rate .43; RAN digit rate .03; RAN object rate .03. WRAT Spelling: spelling error rate 0.52; reading accuracy 0.36; reading time 0.34; reading rate 0.36; reading comprehension 0.40; spoonerism accuracy.30; spoonerism time .39; spoonerism rate .36; RAN digit rate .13; RAN object rate .05.Contrasted group validity is assessed in a comparison between 20 students with dyslexia are compared to the normative sample of 106 students. Matching is not perfect - 7 students with dyslexia come from sixth form college, whereas none of the control group do. Generally there are large effect sizes in the group differences: spelling error rate 1.51; reading accuracy 1.22; reading time 1.61; reading rate 1.59; reading comprehension 0.70; precis content 1.16; precis time 0.29; precis rate 0.96; spoonerism accuracy 0.81; spoonerism time 0.82; spoonerism rate 0.08; RAN digit rate 0.96; RAN object rate 0.48; handwriting speed 1.06; typing speed 0.78.

Criterion Validity

Does test performance adequately correlate with later, current or past performance?
Summarise available comparisons The measure is intended for use for diagnostic purposes, and this use is supported by evidence that the measure predicted which individuals were dyslexic or non-dyslexic with 95% accuracy. In addition, a short version of the battery including reading accuracy and rate, spelling error rate, spoonerisms and RAN resulted in very similar levels of predictive accuracy.


Is test performance reliable?
Summarise available comparisons Internal consistency was measured for some subtests, varying between inadequate and good. Cronbach's alpha on normative sample: reading comprehension: 0.53; reading accuracy: 0.81; spoonerism 0.76. Reliability for précis rate, précis time, spelling error rate, spoonerism rate, reading rate and reading time could not be calculated as these constructs only yielded a single score for each participant.

Is the norm-derived population appropriate and free from bias?

Is population appropriate and free from bias? No
If any biases are noted in sampling, these will be indicated here. the majority of the standardisation population are students at Russell group universities, recruited through a convenience sample. This is reasonable for assessing students at Russell group universities or similar, but not ideal for the general population.


Sources Warmington, M., Stothard, S. E., & Snowling, M. J. (2013). Assessing Dyslexia in Higher Education: The "York Adult Assessment Battery-Revised". Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 13(1), 48-56. doi:10.1111/j.1471-3802.2012.01264.x