Piaget hypothesized that we understand the world through the use of cognitive frameworks. The strengths and limitations of these cognitive frameworks (or levels) both help and hinder the learning process. Comprehending individuals’ cognitive levels is essential for teachers to ensure that their students learn. Piaget developed a series of tasks to assess individuals’ cognitive levels (typically called "clinical interviews" which can only be conducted in a one-to-one fashion). Thus, a paper-and-pencil test that could be administered to groups was developed to help teachers determine the cognitive level of the children they teach. Problems with the scoring technique limited the validity and reliability of the instrument; therefore, a revised scoring system was developed that simplified and broadened the scoring of the test. The purpose of the current study is to determine if the reliability and validity of the paper-and-pencil instrument would be significantly increased through the use of the revised scoring procedures. Pre-existing data will be used in all analysis. A total of 279 students (ranging from third to twelfth grades) took the paper-and-pencil test. Next, each student either completed the Piagetian tasks under the supervision of a trained task administrator in the traditional one-on-one format or was retested using the paper-pencil instrument. Some students participated in all three assessments. A bivariate correlation was conducted to analyze the validity and reliability of the instrument. A t-test was calculated to test for a significant difference in the correlational coefficients between the two scoring methods. Results show that correlation coefficients are stronger when using the revised method. The t-test found that the revised scoring method was significantly more reliable, yet was only more valid for two of three stages.