The Woodcock Johnson III Brief Assessment is a "maximum performance test" (Reynolds, Livingston, Willson, 2006) that is designed to assess the upper levels of knowledge and skills of the test taker using both power and speed to obtain a large amount of information in a short period of time. The Brief Assessment also provides an adequate alternative form within the WJ III Test Batteries to use for academic screening of discrepancies and evaluation of student progress. Another noted strength is that the authors have added some unique capabilities to the scoring process, which allow the test user to determine test taker differences within and between the three major academic categories making the results more useful for teachers charged with setting interventions. Test administration is straightforward, the testing materials are relevant and easy to use, and testing time is minimal. Finally, the standardization procedures for all the Woodcock-Johnson III testing instruments were conormed; therefore, test results can be compared with greater legitimacy between the academic and ability tests. Noted weaknesses of the test related to the fact that all validity data of the Woodcock-Johnson NU Brief Battery appears to be based from the original Woodcock-Johnson III (2001). On first review of the Brief Battery, the validity of the test seemed somewhat questionable. Standardization was based on a renormed population without revision of the original scale; however, after reviewing the technical information from the technical guide issued prior to the update, the validity of the series appears to be adequate in that collection of the technical data related to the prior model was collected and reported as recently as 2001. A weakness for the consumer, related to this test, would be the omission of certain validity information such as convergent validity evidence that is produced and available in the technical manual prior to update. A final noted weakness is the sample sizes used to norm the test. Although on first glance the sample size appears to be rather large and sufficient, a closer look at the wide age range that is considered (2+ to 90 years of age) and the stratification of the sample population by 10 different variables reveals a minimal number of member participants in each categorical area.