Abas 3 reliability and validity

Assessment Instrument Review - 10

Assessment Instrument Review One

Name of Instrument

Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests- 3rd Edition (WRMT-3)

Publication Date

2011

Purpose of Instrument

Instrument is used to assess academic achievement in reading (Brunsman, 2014). The WRMT-3 uses scores in nine areas including letter identification, phonological awareness, rapid automatic naming, word identification, word attack, listening, word, and passage comprehension and oral reading fluency (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017). These scores produce another additional four cluster scores regarding the students readiness, basic skills, reading comprehension, and total reading skills (Brunsman, 2014). It is administered individually or in small groups in test format (Brunsman, 2014).

Age or Target Population

The WRMT-3 can be used with students from grades three through twelve (Brunsman, 2014).

Reliability

Split-half reliability scores fell between .64 and .97, with an average reliability score between .85 and .95 (Brunsman, 2014). Test-retest reliability was determined based on 155 students and ranged from .52 to .97 (Brunsman, 2014).

Validity

Evidence of construct validity was found for reading achievement (Brunsman, 2014). Patterns were found to increase as the age of test takers increased (Brunsman, 2014).

Norm Group Population

The WRMT-3 was normed during 2009-2010 using 5000 individuals ranging from 4 and ½ years to 79 years 11 months (Brunsman, 2014). The group was representative of the United States for variables such as geographical location, gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status and the presence of disabilities (Brunsman, 2014).

Kinds of Scores

Scores for the WRMT-3 are available in raw and standard scores, percentiles, and grade and age equivalents so that the student’s reading ability can be compared to those of his or her peers (Brunsman, 2014).

Cost of Instrument

The total cost for both forms of the kit with the administration manual included is $683.70, with lower pricing for individual forms (Brunsman, 2014).

Cost of Protocols

The cost for the administration protocol is $165 (Brunsman, 2014).

List All Personnel Using Instrument

The WRMT-3 should only be administered by trained professionals such as educational diagnosticians (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017).

Assessment Information Use

This instrument is used to screen and assess reading achievement (Brunsman, 2014). The information gained from the WRMT-3 can provide guidance for IEP development as well as decisions regarding educational placement (Brunsman, 2014).

Justification and Recommendation for School Use

I would recommend the use of the WRMT-3 in my district for multiple reasons. The first reason is because the demographic makeup of my district tends to have many students who struggle in their reading abilities, so this test could help in assessing and identifying deficits. Additionally, this instrument was found to have good reliability and adequate validity so I believe it to be a viable option for assessing reading achievement (Brunsman, 2014).

References

Brunsman, B. (2014). Woodcock reading mastery tests-Third edition. Mental Measurements Yearbook, 19. Retrieved from https://eds-b-ebscohost-com.libproxy.lamar.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=3&sid=81ce81ba-a760-4248-9d37-163dc65f5c45%40sessionmgr104&bdata=JmxvZ2luLmFzcCZzaXRlPWVob3N0LWxpdmU%3d#AN=test.3351&db=mmt

Pierangelo, R., & Giuliani, G. A. (2017). Assessment in special education: A practical approach (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Assessment Instrument Review Two

Name of Instrument

Kaufman Tests of Educational Achievement-3rd Edition (KTEA-3)

Publication Date

The KTEA-3 was first published in 1985, with its most recent third edition being published in 2014 (Mackler, 2017).

Purpose of Instrument

This instrument is a comprehensive test of academic achievement (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017). The KTEA-3 is comprised of 14 subtests that generate scores for five composite areas including reading, math, written language, oral language, and comprehensive achievement (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017). It is a battery of assessments that is individually administered to students (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017).

Age or Target Population

The KTEA-3 is appropriate for individuals ages 4 to 25 (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017),

Reliability

Split-half reliability was calculated for all untimed subtests in the KTEA-3 (Mackler, 2017). Reliability coefficients were relatively elevated with averages between .80 and .90, although the oral fluency coefficient was measured to be in the .70 range (Mackler, 2017). The strongest reliability was found in five subtests, mid to high .90s, with slightly lower coefficients in another 5 areas falling between .80 and .90 (Mackler, 2017). Interrater reliability coefficients were high for oral and written expression which is indicative of consistent scoring criteria (Mackler, 2017).

Validity

The KTEA-3 demonstrates concurrent validity, which is important for school assessments (Mackler, 2017). Previous studies found evidence of validity for the subtests and composite scores (Mackler, 2017).

Norm Group Population

The KTEA-3 was normed using 2,600 English-speaking students with no physical or perceptual deficits whose ages ranged from prekindergarten through grade 12 (Mackler, 2017).

Kinds of Scores

Five composite scores are generated via 19 subtests, which can then be converted to standard scores (Mackler, 2017). The standard scores can also generate percentile scores to compare individual academic achievement levels (Mackler, 2017).

Cost of Instrument

The total cost of the KTEA-3 is $992.45 for both forms, the scoring manual, and multiple score reports (Mackler, 2017). Additional pricing is available for individual forms and other resources (Mackler, 2017).

Cost of Protocols

The protocol for the KTEA-3 is $32.95 for only the record form (Mackler, 2017).

List All Personnel Using Instrument

This instrument must be administered by someone with a master’s degree in a related field or someone with appropriate licensures, such as an educational diagnostician (Mackler, 2017).

Assessment Information Use

The KTEA-3 is used to determine overall levels of academic achievement for individuals (Mackler, 2017). This instrument also uses parallel forms which can help compare pre and posttests, as well provide a means for progress monitoring (Mackler, 2017).

Justification and Recommendation for School Use

I would recommend the continued use of the KTEA-3 in my current school district. The batteries cover a variety of areas that help with the understanding of an individual’s academic strengths and challenges (Mackler, 2017).

References

Macker, K. (2017). Kaufman tests of educational achievement-Third edition. Mental Measurements Yearbook, 20. Retrieved from https://eds-b-ebscohost-com.libproxy.lamar.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=8&sid=81ce81ba-a760-4248-9d37-163dc65f5c45%40sessionmgr104&bdata=JmxvZ2luLmFzcCZzaXRlPWVob3N0LWxpdmU%3d#AN=test.6516&db=mmt

Pierangelo, R., & Giuliani, G. A. (2017). Assessment in special education: A practical approach (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Assessment Instrument Review Three

Name of Instrument

Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fifth Edition, Integrated (WISC-V Integrated)

Publication Date

The WISC-V Integrated was first published in 2004, with its most recent fifth edition being published in 2015 (Bugaj, 2017).

Purpose of Instrument

This instrument is used to assess intelligence (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017). The WISC-V Integrated generates five primary scales of index for verbal comprehension, visual spatial, working memory, fluid reasoning, and processing speed (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017). Together, these index scales produce a full scale IQ score (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017). The test is administered individually (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017).

Age or Target Population

The target age group for the WISC-V Integrated is 6-16 years of age (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017).

Reliability

Internal reliability of the WISC-V Integrated was found by using the split-half method (Bugaj, 2017). The coefficients were found to be high and ranged in average from .77 to .93 (Bugaj, 2017). The internal reliability was also found to be good among groups of special populations such as ADHD, brain injuries, and autism spectrum disorders (Bugaj, 2017).

Validity

Validity correlations were found between the subtest versions, and explanation was provided for results that were not expected (Bugaj, 2017). Concurrent validity was determined by using two other achievement tests (Bugaj, 2017).

Norm Group Population

The WISC-V Integrated was normed using approximately 500 individuals separated into 11 different age groups (Bugaj, 2017). Gender equality was achieved in all but four groups and the samples were accurate representations of the population for variables such as race, education level, and geographical location (Bugaj, 2017).

Kinds of Scores

The five primary index scales of the WISC-V Integrated generate a Full Scale IQ Score that represents an individual’s overall IQ (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017). Scaled scores can also be derived from this instrument, which are converted from raw scores on each of the 21 subtests (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017). The scaled scores classify an individual as being developmentally delayed, borderline, low average, average, high average, superior, and very superior in terms of IQ (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017).

Cost of Instrument

The cost of the WISC-V Integrated kit is $305 and includes manuals for administration and scoring, technical manuals, stimulus books, and a variety of response booklets and scoring resources (Bugaj, 2017).

Cost of Protocols

WISC-V Integrated protocols cost approximately $125 for a bundle of 25 (Bugaj, 2017).

List All Personnel Using Instrument

In order to administer the WISC-V Integrated, an individual must have a doctorate degree in a related field or certification by a professional organization that is related to the field of assessment (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017).

Assessment Information Use

The WISC-V Integrated provides information regarding an individual’s IQ score, which can then be used to assist in IEP development and decision-making about educational placement (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017).

Justification and Recommendation for School Use

I would recommend the continued use of the WISC-V Integrated at my current school. It appears to have excellent reliability and good overall validity (Gubaj, 2017).

References

Gubaj, A.M. (2017). Wechsler intelligence scale for children: Fifth edition, integrated. Mental Measurements Yearbook, 20. Retrieved from https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.libproxy.lamar.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=6&sid=98523c9f-6e5c-431b-8bcd-965692542f1c%40sessionmgr4009&bdata=JmxvZ2luLmFzcCZzaXRlPWVob3N0LWxpdmU%3d#AN=test.8594&db=mmt

Pierangelo, R., & Giuliani, G. A. (2017). Assessment in special education: A practical approach (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Assessment Instrument Review Four

Name of Instrument

Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children, Second Edition (KABC-II)

Publication Date

The KABC-II was originally published in 1983 and its most recent second edition was published in 2004 (Braden & Ouzts, 2005).

Purpose of Instrument

This instrument is used to assess overall intelligence and was developed to minimize language influence for child IQ measurement (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017). It is comprised of 18 subtests, which are utilized dependent on the tester’s age, to create four of five scaled scores, again dependent on age (Braden & Ouzts, 2005). The KABC-II is an intelligence test that is individually administered (Braden & Ouzts, 2005).

Age or Target Population

The target population for this instrument is children aged 3 to 18 (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017).

Reliability

The majority of reliability coefficients of KABC-II subtests range from .80 to .90 and are classified as good to excellent (Braden & Ouzts, 2005). The consistency of single and global scales were found to range from .81 to .97 and are classified as being good to excellent as well (Braden & Ouzts, 2005).

Validity

The current edition of this instrument does not measure its validity using up to date standards, so finding evidence of validity is challenging (Braden & Ouzts, 2005). However, with the standards that is does use there is evidence of validity for three of the five measured areas (Braden & Ouzts, 2005). According to the technical manual, satisfactory evidence of content validity has been found (Braden & Ouzts, 2005).

Norm Group Population

The KABC-II was standardized with a group of approximately 3,000 children which was composed to accurately reflect the relevant census data for the United States (Braden & Ouzts, 2005).

Kinds of Scores

This instrument provides scaled scores for each subtest with a standardization of a mean of 10 with a standard deviation of 3 (Braden & Ouzts, 2005). Index scores are also normed to an average of 100, but with a standard deviation of 15 (Braden & Ouzts, 2005).

Cost of Instrument

The complete KABC-II kit currently costs $935 (Braden & Ouzts, 2005).

Cost of Protocols

Record forms for this instrument cost $70.75 for a set of 25 (Braden & Ouzts, 2005).

List All Personnel Using Instrument

The KABC-II can be administered by professionals with a doctorate in a related field or those with a licensed certification in the field of assessment such as a campus diagnostician or Licensed Specialist in School Psychology (LSSP) (Braden & Ouzts, 2005).

Assessment Information Use

This instrument is used to screen students and the scores generated help in IEP development and decision-making regarding educational placement (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017).

Justification and Recommendation for School Use

Even though the KABC-II demonstrates good reliability, due to the unclear nature of the instrument’s validity (Braden & Ouzts, 2005) I would not recommend the KABC-II for continued use in my school district.

References

Braden, J.P. & Ouzts, S.M. (2005). Kaufman assessment battery for children: Second edition. Mental Measurements Yearbook, 16. Retrieved from https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.libproxy.lamar.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=3&sid=03ead0ab-fa10-4dbd-afb3-7b827696f0de%40sessionmgr4007&bdata=JmxvZ2luLmFzcCZzaXRlPWVob3N0LWxpdmU%3d#AN=test.2808&db=mmt

Pierangelo, R., & Giuliani, G. A. (2017). Assessment in special education: A practical approach (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Assessment Instrument Review Five

Name of Instrument

Draw-A-Person: Screening Procedure for Emotional Disturbance (DAP:SPED)

Publication Date

The DAP:SPED was published in 1991 (Cosden, 1995).

Purpose of Instrument

This instrument is used to assess the social and emotional development of individuals and can identify children who are at a higher risk of having an emotional disturbance (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017). It is a projective drawing test, which works to make individuals feel emotions by presenting them with emotional stimuli (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017). There aren’t any subtests in the DAP:SPED, but the scoring systems has two different criteria (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017). The first criteria measures eight different dimensions of the drawing while the second criteria scores each drawing based on 47 items (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017). The DAP:SPED can be administered either individually or in a group setting (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017).

Age or Target Population

The DAP:SPED has a target population for individuals from ages 6 to 17 (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017).

Reliability

This instrument has evidence of high reliability (Cosden, 1995). Reliability studies identify the correlation coefficients to fall between .80 and .90 for interrater reliability and intrarater reliability (Cosden, 1995).

Validity

Studies referenced in the manual of the DAP:SPED claim that its results accurately discriminate between control groups and groups with emotional disturbances (Cosden, 1995).

Norm Group Population

The DAP:SPED was normed nationally for a variety of age and gender groups (Cosden, 1995). However, it is important to keep in mind that a “normal sample” for this type of test is solely based on individuals with emotional disturbances (Cosden, 1995).

Kinds of Scores

The T- scores obtained from the DAP:SPED, which are based on the figures drawn by the individual, are compared to the normed sample to determine if they are at a higher risk for having or developing an emotional disturbance (Cosden, 1995).

Cost of Instrument

The complete kit costs $168 (Cosden, 1995).

Cost of Protocols

Protocols cost $56 for a pack of 25 (Cosden, 1995).

List All Personnel Using Instrument

The DAP:SPED can be administered by licensed professionals, such as educational diagnosticians or LSSPs (Cosden, 1995).

Assessment Information Use

This instrument is used to screen individuals to determine if they are at risk for an emotional disturbance (Cosden, 1995).

Justification and Recommendation for School Use

I would not recommend the use of the DAP:SPED as a tool for emotional disturbance screenings. This is my opinion because of the lack of additional information it provides beyond determining the risk for emotional disturbances.

References

Cosden, M. (1995). Draw a person: Screening procedure for emotional disturbance. Mental Measurements Yearbook, 12. Retrieved from https://eds-b-ebscohost-com.libproxy.lamar.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=3&sid=478cfdb0-295f-4d59-96b6-bc570bbf5ebe%40sessionmgr102&bdata=JmxvZ2luLmFzcCZzaXRlPWVob3N0LWxpdmU%3d#AN=test.1248&db=mmt

Pierangelo, R., & Giuliani, G. A. (2017). Assessment in special education: A practical approach (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Assessment Instrument Review Six

Name of Instrument

Adaptive Behavior Assessment System-3rd Edition (ABAS-3)

Publication Date

The ABAS-3 was originally published in 2000, with the most recent third edition being released in 2015 (Henington, 2017).

Purpose of Instrument

This instrument is used to assess adaptive behavior (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017). The ABAS-3 puts focus on one’s ability to complete practical daily activities, care for his or herself, independently take part in interaction with others and the environment, and communicate effectively (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017). It is a rating scale that can be filled out by family, teachers, employers, and other people who interact with the individual regularly (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017). Due to the nature of the rating scale, it is completed on an individual basis (Henington, 2017).

Age or Target Population

The target population for this instrument is anyone between two years and 89 years of age (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017).

Reliability

The author cites internal reliability across six normed samples, and high reliability coefficients between .96 and .99 for the General Adaptive Composite (Henington, 2017). Coefficients for the adaptive components of the test had an average of .85, while those for the adaptive areas ranged between .72 and .99 (Henington, 2017).

Validity

The technical manual of the ABAS-3 cites high correlations of concurrent validity when compared to the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale and the Behavior assessment System for Children (Henington, 2017).

Norm Group Population

This instrument was normed so that it could be used with a wide variety of populations (Henington, 2017). The sample consisted of approximately 4,000 people across 24 different states (Henington, 2017).

Kinds of Scores

Raters provide an ability rating score from 1-4 based on the frequency with which the individual can perform the skill (Henington, 2017). The scores provided are added together and converted to scaled scores with a mean of 10 and standard deviation of 3 (Henington, 2017). Scores from defined areas are combined for a General Adaptive Composite and three different domain scores (Henington, 2017). These scores are then identified into ability categories ranging from extremely low to high (Henington, 2017).

Cost of Instrument

The whole ABAS-3 kit costs $310 (Henington, 2017).

Cost of Protocols

The protocols for this instrument cost $75 for a bundle of 25 forms (Henington, 2017).

List All Personnel Using Instrument

The rating scaled can be completed by any individual who regularly interact with the person being assessed, but only licensed professionals can score the forms (Henington, 2017).

Assessment Information Use

The ABAS-3 to assess an individual’s abiity to function in their daily lives (Henington, 2017).

Justification and Recommendation for School Use

I would recommend the continued use of the ABAS-3 due to the variety of people who rate the individual being assessed.

References

Henington, C. (2017). Adaptive behavior assessment system, third edition. Mental Measurements Yearbook, 20. Retrieved from https://eds-b-ebscohost-com.libproxy.lamar.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=4&sid=d48e6029-d8fe-4c82-8152-a816416525dc%40sessionmgr101&bdata=JmxvZ2luLmFzcCZzaXRlPWVob3N0LWxpdmU%3d#AN=test.7501&db=mmt

Pierangelo, R., & Giuliani, G. A. (2017). Assessment in special education: A practical approach (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Assessment Instrument Review Seven

Name of Instrument

Developmental Test of Visual Perception-3rd Edition (DTVP-3)

Publication Date

The DTVP-3 was originally published in 1961 with its most recent update in 2014 (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017).

Purpose of Instrument

This instrument is used to assess specific deficits in and individuals visual perception (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017). The DTVP-3 measures eye-hand coordination, copying, figure-fround, visual closure, and form constancy to determine if any deficits are present (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017). It is a test that is individually administered and requires students to draw lines, simple figures, complete missing portions of figures, find hidden shapes andrecognize shapes that are hidden in complex backgrounds (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017).

Age or Target Population

The DTVP-3 is geared for individuals between ages 4 and 13 (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017).

Reliability

Internal consistency reliability was demonstrated and the coefficients across all ages fell were .80 and .95 for the visual closure subtest and general visual perception composite score (Alfonso, Wissel, & Lorimer, 2017). Test-retest reliability coefficients were studied and found to fall between .70 and .85 for the different subtests and .87 and .90 for the composite scores (Alfonso et al., 2017).

Validity

Average criterion-related validity coefficients fell between .54 and .76, however there were no additional studies to confirm the validity (Alfonso et al., 2017). Construct-related validity was studied and the correlation coefficients were classified as medium to high as it was found that subtest measurements increased with age (Alfonso et al., 2017). The validity coefficient for sub-scores and composites was found to have a median of .43 (Alfonso et al., 2017).

Norm Group Population

The DTVP-3 was standardized using a group of approximately 1,000 kids from 27 different states (Alfonso et al., 2017). The test manual states that the makeup of the sample mirrors the makeup of children across the United States (Alfonso et al., 2017).

Kinds of Scores

This instrument records raw subtest scores that are changed to scaled scores so they can be represented as percentiles that compares the norms across different ages (Alfonso et al, 2017). Composite scores are also represented as percentile ranks with additional descriptions of performance levels (Alfonso et al., 2017). Full interpretation of the DTVP-3 provides age equivalents, percentile ranks, subtest raw and scaled scores, as well as composite index scores (Alfonso et al., 2017).

Cost of Instrument

The cost of the complete kit costs $257 (Alfonso et al., 2017).

Cost of Protocols

Record forms for the DTVP-3 costs $39 for a set of 25 (Alfonso et al., 2017).

List All Personnel Using Instrument

This assessment instrument should only be administered and interpreted by professionals who have been trained in formal assessment practices such as an educational diagnostician (Alfonso et al., 2017).

Assessment Information Use

The DTVP-3 can be used to measure an individual’s visual and perceptual abilities as well as screen for possible deficits that may arise (Pieranelo & Giuliani, 2017).

Justification and Recommendation for School Use

I would recommend the use of this instrument only for students who are in primary school as the information it provides would be most apparent in younger students.

References

Alfonso, V.C., Wissel, A., & Lorimer, L. (2017). Developmental test of visual perception-Third edition. Mental Measurements Yearbook, 20. Retrieved from https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.libproxy.lamar.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=3&sid=09e9385e-1b8e-4e7c-8099-a093dec508b7%40sessionmgr4008&bdata=JmxvZ2luLmFzcCZzaXRlPWVob3N0LWxpdmU%3d#AN=test.6460&db=mmt

Pierangelo, R., & Giuliani, G. A. (2017). Assessment in special education: A practical approach (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Assessment Instrument Review Eight

Name of Instrument

Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency-2nd Edition (BOT-2).

Publication Date

The BOT-2 was first published in 1978 and most recently updated in 2005 (Snyder, 2010).

Purpose of Instrument

This instrument is used to assess an individual’s fine and gross motor skills (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017). It is administered in an individual setting and is both a paper-based and performance based test (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017). There are eight subtests that evaluate fine motor precision, fine motor integration, manual dexterity, bilateral coordination, balance, running speed and agility, upper-limb coordination, and strength (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017).

Age or Target Population

This instrument can be used on individuals between 4 ½ and 14 ½ years of age (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017).

Reliability

Split-half reliability coefficients for the subtests ranged between .70 and .80 for all but two tests, while the total motor composite reliability coefficient was measured to be in the mid-.90s (Snyder, 2010). Test-retest reliability was found to be approximately .80 when the tests were taken within 1-6 weeks of eachother (Snyder, 2010). Additionally, interrater reliability was found to be quite high when two individuals scored a single subject (Snyder, 2010).

Validity

The authors of the manual worked to verify content and construct validity, however evidence of construct validity was not convincing (Snyder, 2010). However, evidence of construct validity was more convincing due to studies showing that median scores in the eight subtests were indicative of appropriate development (Snyder, 2010).

Norm Group Population

The BOT-2 was normed using a group of approximately 1,500 subjects who were from 38 different states and ranged between 4-21 years of age (Snyder, 2010).

Kinds of Scores

This instrument provides raw scores, which are then changed to standardized scores and percentile rankings (Snyder, 2010).

Cost of Instrument

The complete BOT-2 kit costs $857.95 (Snyder, 2010).

Cost of Protocols

A bundle of 25 protocols for the BOT-2 costs $50.25 (Snyder, 2010).

List All Personnel Using Instrument

The BOT-2 should be administered by a trained medical professional, such as a physical or occupational therapist (Snyder, 2010).

Assessment Information Use

This instrument is used to identify developmental motor deficiencies, as well as for creating and analyzing motor training programs (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017).

Justification and Recommendation for School Use

I would recommend the use of the BOT-2 in my current school district as it appears to be a useful instrument for the assessment of fine and gross coordination, strength and dexterity in young individuals (Snyder, 2010).

References

Pierangelo, R., & Giuliani, G. A. (2017). Assessment in special education: A practical approach (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Snyder, K. (2010). Bruininks-Oseretsky test of motor proficiency, second edition. Mental Measurements Yearbook, 18. Retrieved from https://eds-b-ebscohost-com.libproxy.lamar.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=3&sid=0f78057d-ac37-4f7d-bee8-44bd8ac30d91%40pdc-v-sessmgr05&bdata=JmxvZ2luLmFzcCZzaXRlPWVob3N0LWxpdmU%3d#AN=test.3005&db=mmt

Assessment Instrument Review Nine

Name of Instrument

Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, Fourth Edition (PPVT-4)

Publication Date

The PPVT-4 was first published in 1959 while the fourth edition was released in 2007 (Kush, 2010).

Purpose of Instrument

This instrument is administered individually to assess an individual’s receptive vocabulary and word retrieval ability (Kush, 2010). The individual is presented with four different pictures and is asked to point to the one that describes a spoken word or object (Kush, 2010). There are no subtests for the PPVT-4 (Kush, 2010).

Age or Target Population

The PPVT-4 can be used with any individual older than 2 years and 6 months of age (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017).

Reliability

The average split-half reliability constant was found to be .94 and test-retest coefficients fell between .92 and .96 (Kush, 2010). The evidence presented in the technical manual points to several types of reliability (Kush, 2010).

Validity

The most apparent type of validity for the PPVT-4 was its moderate to high concurrent validity correlations with other instruments of a similar nature (Kush, 2010).

Norm Group Population

This instrument was standardized using 3,540 subjects who were determined to represent the nation in regards to race, gender, education level, location, and presence of a disability (Kush, 2010).

Kinds of Scores

The PPVT-4 generates raw scores that can be converted to standardized scores (Kush, 2010). These scores can then be converted to percentiles, stanines, age equivalents and grade equivalents (Kush, 2010).

Cost of Instrument

The complete PPVT-4 kit costs $452.70 (Kush, 2010).

Cost of Protocols

A set of 25 protocols costs $49.35 (Kush, 2010).

List All Personnel Using Instrument

The PPVT-4 should only be administered by individuals with a master’s degree in a related field of assessment, such as an educational diagnostician (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017).

Assessment Information Use

This instrument is used to measure and assess the receptive vocabulary skills of individuals (Kush, 2010). The results obtained help in the identification of those who may have deficits in their speech and language abilities as well as provide guidance for IEP development and educational placement (Kush, 2010).

Justification and Recommendation for School Use

I would recommend the continued use of the PPVT-4 because it is an easy to use and effective way to measure vocabulary, while also decreasing the influence of language production abilities (Kush, 2010).

References

Kush, J.C. (2010). Peabody picture vocabulary test, fourth edition. Mental Measurements Yearbook, 18. Retrieved from https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.libproxy.lamar.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=6&sid=2618d065-9afd-476c-88a5-09a3dacf985b%40sessionmgr4008&bdata=JmxvZ2luLmFzcCZzaXRlPWVob3N0LWxpdmU%3d#AN=test.3030&db=mmt

Pierangelo, R., & Giuliani, G. A. (2017). Assessment in special education: A practical approach (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Assessment Instrument Review Ten

Name of Instrument

Test of Auditory Comprehension of Language-4th Edition (TACL-4)

Publication Date

The TACL-4 was first published in 1973 and most recently updated in 2014 (Baxter, 2017).

Purpose of Instrument

This instrument was created to assess the auditory comprehension of language in children who demonstrate communication deficits (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017). It has three subtests that measure vocabulary, grammatical morphemes, and elaborated phrases and sentences so that information can be gained regarding areas of language comprehension problems (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017). The TACL-4 is individually administered assessment (Baxter, 2017).

Age or Target Population

The target population for the TACL-4 is children between the ages of 3 and 12 (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017).

Reliability

Coefficient alpha for reliability was measured for all ages, genders, races, and exceptionalities in all subtests and found to be acceptable (Baxter, 2017). A .80 reliability coefficient for test-retest reliability provides minimal evidence of reliability (Baxter, 2017).

Validity

The strongest type of validity presented by the TACL-4 was concurrent validity (Baxter, 2017). Studies in the manual demonstrated evidence of strong correlations with other assessments measuring receptive oral language abilities (Baxter, 2017).

Norm Group Population

The TACL-4 was normed with a group of 1.142 individuals who fell within the target population age (Baxter, 2017). The sample groups was representative of the US census for variables including location, race, gender, income, and parental education levels (Baxter, 2017).

Kinds of Scores

The results of the TACL-4 can be in the form of raw scores, scaled scores, percentiles, age equivalents, and descriptive classifications and identify children with deficits in receptive language (Baxter, 2017).

Cost of Instrument

The purchase price of the TACL-4 is $355 (Baxter, 2017).

Cost of Protocols

Protocols for this instrument cost $57 for a bundle of 25 booklets (Baxter, 2017).

List All Personnel Using Instrument

Only professionals with a master’s degree in a related field and appropriate training and qualification should administer this instrument (Baxter, 2017).

Assessment Information Use

The TACL-4 identifies children with deficits in receptive language and provides a way to monitor student progress (Baxter, 2017).

Justification and Recommendation for School Use

I would recommend the continued use of the TACL-4 due to its ability to accurately assess receptive language abilities in a straight forward and effective way (Baxter, 2017).

References

Baxter, A. (2017). Test for auditory comprehension of language-Fourth edition. Mental Measurements Yearbook, 20. Retrieved from https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.libproxy.lamar.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=3&sid=28e35796-6d4d-476f-ae8f-04c498c9a966%40sessionmgr4010&bdata=JmxvZ2luLmFzcCZzaXRlPWVob3N0LWxpdmU%3d#AN=test.7499&db=mmt

Pierangelo, R., & Giuliani, G. A. (2017). Assessment in special education: A practical approach (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Assessment Instrument Review Eleven

Name of Instrument

Preschool Language Scale-5th Edition (PLS-5)

Publication Date

The PLS-5 was published in 1969 with its most recent update in 2011 (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017).

Purpose of Instrument

This instrument is used to evaluate language skills of students in early childhood (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017). The subtests of the PLS-5 test the areas of attention, play, gesture, vocal development, semantics, language structure, integrative language and emergent literacy skills (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017). These scales are designed to be administered individually to assess language skills (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017).

Age or Target Population

The PLS-5 has a target population of children from birth to the age of 7 (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017).

Reliability

There are high reliability coefficients for interrater reliability, measuring between .96-.99 (McKnight, 2014). There is also evidence of split-half reliability among the various age groups that fell between .80-.98 (McKnight, 2014).

Validity

Concurrent validity was found to range from .64-.86 when comparing the PLS-5 to the previous fourth edition (McKnight, 2014).

Norm Group Population

The PLS-5 was normed using a sample of 1,400 children across 9 months in 2010 (McKnight, 2014). The sample was stratified using current US census data for variables such as location, race, age and educational level (McKnight, 2014).

Kinds of Scores

The results of this instrument can be reported as standard scores, age equivalents, and percentile ranks (McKnight, 2014). Additionally, a total language score can be calculated (McKnight, 2014).

Cost of Instrument

The instrument costs $358.75 (McKnight, 2014).

Cost of Protocols

Protocols cost $60 for a pack of 15 (McKnight, 2014).

List All Personnel Using Instrument

The PLS-5 should only be administered by qualified professionals who have the appropriate certifications, such as an educational diagnostician or LSSP (McKnight, 2014).

Assessment Information Use

The PLS-5 is used to assess language deficits or delays in young children (McKnight, 2014). The results provided can be used to help in IEP development and placement decisions (McKnight, 2014).

Justification and Recommendation for School Use

I would not recommend the use of the PLS-5 at my school solely because I work at a high school and the test is not appropriate for students of that age.

References

McKnight, T. (2014). Preschool language scales-Fifth edition. Mental Measurements Yearbook, 19. Retrieved from https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.libproxy.lamar.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=5&sid=ed2059cb-0acf-4023-9b0e-1e4d6c71974e%40sessionmgr4008&bdata=JmxvZ2luLmFzcCZzaXRlPWVob3N0LWxpdmU%3d#AN=test.3289&db=mmt

Pierangelo, R., & Giuliani, G. A. (2017). Assessment in special education: A practical approach (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Assessment Instrument Review Twelve

Name of Instrument

Early Screening Profiles (ESP)

Publication Date

The ESP was published in 1990 (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017).

Purpose of Instrument

This instrument assesses early childhood by utilizing various domains and environments to assess the cognitive, language, motor, self-help, and social development of young children (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017). The three subtests are defined as profiles and measure a cognitive language profile, motor profile, and a self-help/social profile (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017). The ESP is a developmental test, administered individually, to screen for possible developmental delays (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017).

Age or Target Population

This instrument is designed to be administered to children ranging from 2-7 years of age (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017).

Reliability

The reliability of the ESP is unclear due to some coefficients being in the .90s and others classified as unacceptable (Barnett, 1995). The coefficient for test-retest reliability fell between .56-.82 which is indicative of potential decision variability (Barnett, 1995).

Validity

The validity of the ESP is inconsistent and there are divergent and convergent patterns that appear to show high levels of inconsistency (Barnett, 1995). Additionally, validity correlations between the ESP and Kaufman Assessment Battery fall between .40 and .80 (Barnett, 1995).

Norm Group Population

The ESP was standardized with approximately 1,150 children between two and seven years of age (Barnett, 1995).

Kinds of Scores

There are two scoring levels based on scaled scores for the areas of cognitive, motor, and self-help (Barnett, 1995). These scores provide index scores to identify children who are at risk (Barnett, 1995). There are also options for subscale and total scale scores, with stanines and age equivalents (Barnett, 1995).

Cost of Instrument

The cost for the complete ESP kit is $399.75 (Barnett, 1995).

Cost of Protocols

The score summary forms cost $17.45 for a set of 25 (Barnett, 1995).

List All Personnel Using Instrument

The ESP should be administered by a certified professional, such as an educational diagnostician or LSSP (Barnett, 1995).

Assessment Information Use

This instrument is used to screen for possible developmental problems in young children (Barnett, 1995).

Justification and Recommendation for School Use

I would not recommend the use of the ESP for my school because I work at a high school and it is not appropriate for students of that age. Additionally, due to the lack of reliability and validity, I would not recommend its use at the schools in my district (Barnett, 1995).

References

Barnett, D.W. (1995). Early screening profiles. Mental Measurements Yearbook, 12. Retrieved from https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.libproxy.lamar.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=10&sid=ed2059cb-0acf-4023-9b0e-1e4d6c71974e%40sessionmgr4008&bdata=JmxvZ2luLmFzcCZzaXRlPWVob3N0LWxpdmU%3d#AN=test.1029&db=mmt

Pierangelo, R., & Giuliani, G. A. (2017). Assessment in special education: A practical approach (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Assessment Instrument Review Thirteen

Name of Instrument

Leiter International Performance Scale-Third Edition (Leiter-3).

Publication Date

This test was published in 1963, and most recently updated in 2013 (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017).

Purpose of Instrument

This nonverbal test is administered to children to measure their nonverbal intelligence and cognition (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017). Due to the nonverbal nature of the Leiter-3 it is a good tool to use with individuals who are hearing impaired, language learners, or have communication or cognitive deficits (Ward, 2017). The subtests are made up of a cognitive and attention and memory battery. The ten subtests measure sequential order, form completion, classification, figure ground, matching patterns, forward and reverse memory, attention sustained and divided, and nonverbal stroop (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017).

Age or Target Population

This instrument is designed for individuals older than three years of age (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017).

Reliability

The Leiter-3 reliability coefficients for internal consistency are reported by the test manual to be adequate (Ward, 2017). The alpha coefficient for the nonverbal IQ score was high, falling between .94 and .98 (Ward, 2017). Test-retest coefficients generally fell below.80 (Ward, 2017).

Validity

The technical manual of the Leiter-3 supports evidence of content, concurrent, and construct validity (Ward, 2017).

Norm Group Population

The norming group used individuals ranging from 3-75 years of age from four different regions of the United States (Ward, 2017). The group of people was reflective of Census data for factors such as gender, ethnicity, location, and education level of parents (Ward, 2017).

Kinds of Scores

Raw scores on the ten different subtests are scaled and summed from the tests of each battery to measure a nonverbal IQ score that can be compared to others (Ward, 2017).

Cost of Instrument

The complete Leiter-3 kit costs $1,095 (Ward, 2017).

Cost of Protocols

Protocols cost $73 for a set of 20 (Ward, 2017).

List All Personnel Using Instrument

The Leiter-3 should be used by professionals who are trained in administration and interpretation of results (Ward, 2017).

Assessment Information Use

This instrument can be used to measure the nonverbal intelligence, attention, and memory in target-aged individuals (Ward, 2017). The results obtained can help with IEP development and decisions regarding related services and educational placement (Ward, 2017).

Justification and Recommendation for School Use

Due to the unique nature of this nonverbal assessment, I would recommend the use of the Leiter-3 in my school. Additionally, the validity is satisfactory and the reliability is apparent (Ward, 2017).

References

Pierangelo, R., & Giuliani, G. A. (2017). Assessment in special education: A practical approach (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Ward, S. (2017). Leiter international performance scale-Third edition. Mental Measurements Yearbook, 20. Retrieved from https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.libproxy.lamar.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=18&sid=ed2059cb-0acf-4023-9b0e-1e4d6c71974e%40sessionmgr4008&bdata=JmxvZ2luLmFzcCZzaXRlPWVob3N0LWxpdmU%3d#AN=test.6447&db=mmt

Assessment Instrument Review Fourteen

Name of Instrument

First Step: Screening Test for Evaluating Preschoolers (FIRSTep)

Publication Date

The FIRSTep was first published in 1990 and updated in 1993 (Overton, 1998).

Purpose of Instrument

This instrument is an occupational and physical therapy assessment that identified students with moderated motor delays (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017). There are five indexes measuring foundations, coordination, verbal, nonverbal, and complex tasks (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017). It is administered in an individualized setting (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017).

Age or Target Population

The FIRSTep is designed for students between the ages of two and six (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017).

Reliability

The reliability of this instrument is evidenced to be good (Overton, 1998). Language reliability coefficients averaged .87 while motor coefficients averaged at a .71 (Overton, 1998). Test-retest reliability coefficients were high across all domains, although the highest was in language with a coefficient of .91 (Overton, 1998).

Validity

Criterion-related validity was assessed and it was found that there was an inability to recognize false positives (Overton, 1998). However, when compared to tests of the same nature, this appears to be consistent across the board (Overton, 1998).

Norm Group Population

The FIRSTep was normed using 1,433 kids with an equal ratio of males to females (Overton, 1998). There were seven different age groups from nine geographic regions of the United States and were standardized using Census information (Overton, 1998).

Kinds of Scores

Raw scores are used to create a profile of domain and composite scores based on age (Overton, 1998). Subtest scores are converted to scale scores and an overall composite score is generated (Overton, 1998). Scores are used to compare motor ability scores between those with delays and those without (Overton, 1998).

Cost of Instrument

The FIRSTep costs $305.30 for the complete testing kit (Overton, 1998).

Cost of Protocols

Protocols cost $58.85 for a set of 25 (Overton, 1998).

List All Personnel Using Instrument

The FIRSTep should only be administered by trained medical professionals (Overton, 1998).

Assessment Information Use

This instrument identifies students with motor deficits (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017). Additionally, this test can be used to monitor physical progress and results can help in the decision making process for related services (Overton, 1998).

Justification and Recommendation for School Use

If I were at an elementary school, I would recommend the use of the FIRSTep as it is a satisfactory way to evaluate those with developmental delays (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017).

References

Overton, T. (1998). First step: Screening test for evaluating preschoolers. Mental Measurements Yearbook, 13. Retrieved from https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.libproxy.lamar.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=26&sid=ed2059cb-0acf-4023-9b0e-1e4d6c71974e%40sessionmgr4008&bdata=JmxvZ2luLmFzcCZzaXRlPWVob3N0LWxpdmU%3d#AN=test.1673&db=mmt

Pierangelo, R., & Giuliani, G. A. (2017). Assessment in special education: A practical approach (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.