Both tests were administered to 49 children with severe learning disabilities who entered a regional center for children with learning disabilities. They were tested again two years later with the same tests for follow-up tests. The average age of the children was 11 years old and they had a 2nd grade reading level. The results showed small differences in mean test scores compared to the original WRAT and PIAT tests. Follow-up test scores showed a change in test scores that were higher than the original test scores. In later reading scores were higher than spelling or math on the WRAT. On the PIAT, reading and math were superior to spelling. When both tests were scored, there was no difference in reading or spelling scores on the WRAT and PIAT, but on the mathematics subtest the PIAT scored higher than the WRAT. Many have tried to find a reasonable explanation for the difference in math scores on the WRAT and PIAT. Scull and Brand propose that the PIAT mathematics subtest can measure abilities in which students with disabilities are not limited. The WRAT on the other hand tends to measure areas where students are weakest and may cause earlier emotional and behavioral responses to learning. disability. The author addresses the issue of spelling scores being lower than reading scores as a result of a student's individual treatment program and has evidence to support this common trend among children with learning disabilities. The PIAT is more consistent with grade placement and word recognition level. The WRAT is better at measuring skills with specific learning disabilities. Scull and Brand recommend neither tests for placement into teaching programs nor detailed diagnostic work, but they say so