No. The print screening materials are included in the TOD-Combination Kit, TOD-Early Kit and TOD-Comprehensive Kit.

The TOD-S can be administered digitally on the WPS OES and scored automatically or can be administered on paper. The TOD-C and TOD-E can only be administered on paper (although pdf easels are available for remote/digital administration, responses are recorded/scored on a paper record form). When administered on paper, the TOD-S, TOD-C, and TOD-E can be hand-scored or scored on OES for free. This free online scoring and reporting provides a convenient alternative to hand-scoring as well as an interpretive score report and access to a customisable intervention report.
 

The answer to this question is complicated and requires some context. Reliability and validity evidence occurs over time and from multiple studies and methodologies. It cannot be defined by single scores. Expert recommendations for interpreting reliability and validity estimates are produced by statistical equations.  

Reliability estimates are assumed to reflect the percentage of systematic variance in a test (vs. error) and can be calculated using statistical equations. The two most common reliability formulae are Cronbach’s Alpha and Spearman-Brown. Both yield coefficients designed to estimate the magnitude of the linear relationship between two variables, perhaps two versions of the same test. The most common correlational statistics assess relationships between either two interval-level variables (i.e., the Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient) or two ordinal variables (i.e., Spearman’s Rho). Authors of tests and measurement texts (e.g., Sattler, 2018) provide criteria for interpreting these reliability coefficients (after Murphy & Davidshofer, 2005).  

Values above .90 are considered high/excellent; .80 to .89, moderately high or good; .70 to .79, moderate or fair; .60 to .69 low or poor; and .00 to .59, very low. Reliability coefficients set the limits on validity; for example, the square root of a reliability coefficient of a test defines the maximum predictive validity of that instrument. 

Validity is traditionally defined as the extent to which a test does what it was designed to do and, like reliability, is typically operationalised using correlation coefficients. Understanding the conceptual nature of “validity” is more complicated than reliability. Tests are valid for particular purposes. For example, validity coefficients address the extent to which a test assesses the construct it was created to address.  

Thus, construct validity is determined in part by how strong the correlation coefficient is between the test in question, say a newly developed test, and an established instrument that measures similar skills. In addition, validity data can inform prediction, i.e., how well a test predicts some criterion of interest. As an example, intelligence tests are often used to predict academic achievement. Across many studies reported in test manuals and in the general literature, these validity coefficients typically range from about .40 to .70, indicating that the percentage of the variance accounted for in achievement by intelligence ranges from about 16% to 49%.  

Reliabilities for the TOD tests and composites are typically good (i.e., greater than .80), as reported in the TOD Manual. Similarly, validity estimates are good also. For example, the TOD-C Dyslexia Diagnostic Index is a strong predictor of the probability of dyslexia.  

In summary, data generally support the reliability of the TOD indexes, composites, and tests and the validity of these scores for their intended purposes. Consequently, examiners can have confidence in the TOD scores.  

The TOD is far more comprehensive of an assessment than the WRIT and designed to capture most of the important abilities relevant to dyslexia. In comparison to the Verbal Scale on the WRIT, there are two vocabulary measures on the TOD. In comparison to the Visual Scale on the WRIT, there are two fluid reasoning tests on the TOD, so similar constructs are being measured by both tests. The authors of the TOD do not really distinguish between the hypothetical concepts of ability and attainment as both are influenced by each other. Abilities can change as one attains more knowledge. The reasoning tests may, however, be viewed as a measure of reasoning ability, whereas the vocabulary tests are more of a reflection of attainment and educational experience. The TOD was primarily designed to measure the linguistic risk factors and the reading and spelling abilities that are most impacted by dyslexia.