Assessing Children for the
Presence of a Disability
by Betsy B. Waterman, PhD
The Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA), Public Law 101-476, lists 13 separate categories of disabilities
under which children may be eligible for special education and related services.
To determine if a child is eligible for classification under one of these areas
of exceptionality, an evaluation, or assessment, of the child must be conducted.
Every year, millions of children, ages 3 and up, are assessed for the presence
of a disability and are found eligible for special education and related
services because they are in need of support in order to achieve success in
school.
This News Digest focuses upon the assessment process -- the ways and primary
skill areas in which school systems collect information in order to determine if
a child is eligible for special education and related services and to make
informed decisions about that child's educational placement and instruction. By
law, this process must involve much more than just giving the student a
standardized test in the area of his or her suspected disability. Valuable
information about the student's skills and needs can come from many sources,
including parents, teachers, and specialists, and by using a variety of
assessment approaches, such as observations, interviews, testing, and methods
such as dynamic assessment or ecological assessment. In this way, a
comprehensive picture of the student can be obtained and used to guide
eligibility decisions and educational programming.
In this issue, we describe what federal law requires in terms of assessing
school-aged children with disabilities and explore what thorough assessment
involves. The various skill areas in which children are often assessed --
intelligence, language, perception, achievement, and behavioral and
emotional/social development -- are described, so that readers may gain an
understanding of how a child's abilities and disabilities in each skill area
contribute to his or her learning and educational performance. The issue
concludes with an extensive reference list and a brief list of organizations
that may be able to provide information on the assessment of specific
disabilities. Two, more extensive bibliographies of additional resources on
assessment -- one for families and one for schools -- are available separately
from NICHCY upon request.
Section One: Introduction to
Assessment
Stacey is in danger of failing second grade again. She appears to have
difficulty following directions, completing assignments on time, progressing in
reading and spelling, and interacting with her peers. Her teacher believes that
Stacey may have a learning disability and has made a referral to the Committee
on Special Education.
Joe has spina bifida and uses a wheelchair. He has recently moved into the
community and enrolled in the local high school. His parents are concerned that
Joe is not developing the mobility and daily living skills that he needs now and
in the future. They request that the new school system evaluate Joe to identify
his special needs.
Bob has become severely withdrawn in the last year. His grades have been
declining steadily, he is starting to skip school, and when the teacher calls on
him in class, he responds rudely or not at all. The teacher is worried that Bob
may have an emotional disorder. She makes a referral to the special education
department.
While these children are different from each other in very many ways, they may
also share something in common. Each may be a student who has a disability that
will require special education services in the school setting. Before decisions
may be made about what those special education services will be, each child will
require an evaluation conducted by specially trained educational personnel,
which may include a school psychologist, a speech/language pathologist, special
education and regular education teachers, social workers, and, when appropriate,
medical personnel. This is true for any child suspected of having a disability.
Assessment in educational settings serves five primary purposes:
1. Screening and identification
To screen
children and identify those who may be experiencing delays or learning problems;
2. Eligibility and diagnosis
To determine
whether a child has a disability and is eligible for special education services,
and to diagnose the specific nature of the student's problems or disability;
3. IEP development and placement
To provide
detailed information so that an Individualized Education Program (IEP) may be
developed and appropriate decisions may be made about the child's educational
placement;
4. Instructional planning
To develop and plan
instruction appropriate to the child's special needs; and
5. Evaluation
To evaluate student progress. (Berdine
& Meyer, 1987, p. 5)
This News Digest focuses upon the assessment process for determining if a child
is eligible for special education and related services and for diagnosing the
nature of his or her special needs. In Section One, a definition of assessment
is presented, along with a brief discussion of what the IDEA mandates in terms
of assessment. Section Two provides an overview of some of the methods used to
gather information about a child with a suspected disability (e.g., reviewing
school records, observations, interviews, standardized tests, curriculum-based
assessment). In Section Three, the parents' role in the assessment process is
briefly discussed. Section Four provides an overview to the issues associated
with assessing students who are culturally or linguistically diverse. Section
Five addresses in detail the various skill areas that are typically the focus of
assessment. These are: intelligence, language, perception, achievement, and
behavioral and emotional/social development. In Section Six, interpretation of
results is discussed. This News Digest concludes with the reference listing of
readings on assessment. More extensive NICHCY bibliographies on assessment are
available separately upon request.
Defining Assessment
There is sometimes confusion regarding the terms
"assessment" and "testing." While they are related, they are
not synonymous. Testing is the administration of specifically designed and often
standardized educational and psychological measures of behavior and is a part of
the assessment process. Assessment, also known as evaluation, can be seen as a
problem-solving process (Swanson & Watson, 1989) that involves many ways of
collecting information about the student. Roth-Smith (1991) suggests that this
information-gathering process involves:
1. Observing the student's interactions with parents,
teachers, and peers;
2. Interviewing the student and significant others in
his or her life;
3. Examining school records and past evaluation results;
4. Evaluating developmental and medical histories;
5. Using information from checklists completed by
parents, teachers, or the student;
6. Evaluating curriculum requirements and options;
7. Evaluating the student's type and rate of learning
during trial teaching periods;
8. Using task analysis to identify which task components
already have been mastered and in what order unmastered skills need to be
taught; and
9. Collecting ratings on teacher attitude towards
students with disabilities, peer acceptance, and classroom climate. (Roth-Smith,
1991, p. 307)
Clearly, gathering information about the student using such a variety of
techniques and information sources can be expected to shed considerable light
upon the student's strengths and needs, the nature of his or her disability and
how it affects educational performance, and what type of instructional goals and
objectives should be established for the student. More detail about many of
these methods of collecting information about the student will be presented
throughout this News Digest.
How Students Are Identified for Assessment
There are at least two ways in which a student may be
identified for assessment. The first is that the school suspects the presence of
a learning or behavior problem and asks the student's parents for permission to
evaluate the student individually. Schools routinely give tests to all students
in a particular grade; when a student scores too far below his or her peers,
this alerts the school to a potential problem. Alternatively, the student's
classroom teacher may identify that a problem exists --perhaps the student's
work is below expectations for his or her grade or age, or the student's
behavior is disrupting learning --and so the teacher refers the student for
assessment.
The student's parents may also call or write to the school or to the director of
special education and request that their child be evaluated. They may feel that
the child is not progressing as he or she should be, or notice particular
problems in how the child learns. If the school suspects that the child, indeed,
may have a disability, then the school must conduct an assessment.
If school personnel do not feel that the child has a disability, they may refuse
to assess the child, but must inform the parents in writing as to their reasons
for refusing. If parents feel strongly that their child does, indeed, have a
disability that requires special education, they may request a due process
hearing, where they will have the opportunity to show why they feel their child
should be evaluated. Due process proceedings are beyond the scope of this News
Digest; more information about parents' due process rights is available in
another NICHCY publication: Questions and Answers About the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act.
Assessment and Federal Law
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA),
Public Law 101-476, lists 13 separate categories of disabilities under which
children may be eligible for special education and related services. These are:
1. Autism
A developmental disability
significantly affecting verbal and nonverbal communication and social
interaction, generally evident before age 3.
2. Deafness
A hearing impairment that is so
severe that the child is impaired in processing linguistic information, with or
without amplification.
3. Deaf-blindness
Simultaneous hearing and
visual impairments.
4. Hearing impairment
An impairment in hearing,
whether permanent or fluctuating.
5. Mental retardation
Significantly subaverage
general intellectual functioning existing concurrently with deficits in adaptive
behavior.
6. Multiple disabilities
The manifestation of
two or more disabilities (such as mental retardation-blindness), the combination
of which requires special accommodation for maximal learning.
7. Orthopedic impairment
Physical disabilities,
including congenital impairments, impairments caused by disease, and impairments
from other causes.
8. Other health impairment
Having limited
strength, vitality, or alertness due to chronic or acute health problems.
9. Serious emotional disturbance
A disability
where a child of typical intelligence has difficulty, over time and to a marked
degree, building satisfactory interpersonal relationships; responds
inappropriately behaviorally or emotionally under normal circumstances;
demonstrates a pervasive mood of unhappiness; or has a tendency to develop
physical symptoms or fears.
10. Specific learning disability
A disorder in
one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in
using language, spoken or written, which may manifest itself in an imperfect
ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical
calculations.
11. Speech or language impairment
A communication disorder such as stuttering, impaired articulation, a language
impairment, or a voice impairment.
12. Traumatic brain injury
An acquired injury to
the brain caused by an external physical force, resulting in total or partial
functional disability or psychosocial impairment, or both.
13. Visual impairment
A visual difficulty
(including blindness) that, even with correction, adversely affects a child
educational performance.
To determine if a child is eligible for classification under one of these areas
of exceptionality, an individualized evaluation, or assessment, of the child
must be conducted.
The IDEA specifies a number of requirements regarding evaluations of children
suspected of having a disability. While a more complete description of these
requirements is available in NICHCY's Questions and Answers About the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, these requirements are briefly
summarized as follows:
1. Before a child is evaluated for the first time, the
school district must notify parents in writing. Parents must give written
permission for the school system to conduct this first evaluation (known as a
preplacement evaluation).
2. Evaluations must be conducted by a multidisciplinary
team (e.g., speech and language pathologist, occupational or physical therapist,
medical specialists, school psychologist) and must include at least one teacher
or specialist who is knowledgeable about the area of the child's suspected
disability.
3. The assessment must thoroughly investigate all areas
related to the child's suspected disability.
4. No single procedure may be used as the sole criterion
for determining a child's eligibility for special services or for determining
his or her appropriate educational placement. Rather, the evaluation process
must utilize a variety of valid assessment instruments and observational data.
5. All testing must be done individually.
6. Tests and other evaluation materials must be provided
in the child's primary language or mode of communication, unless it is clearly
not feasible to do so.
7. All tests and other evaluation materials must be
validated for the specific purpose for which they are used. This means that a
test may not be used to assess a student in a particular area (e.g.,
intelligence) unless the test has been designed and validated through research
as measuring that specific area.
8. Assessments must be conducted in a nondiscriminatory
way. This means that the tests and evaluation materials and procedures that are
used may not be racially or culturally discriminatory (biased) against the
child.
9. The evaluation team must ensure that any test used is
administered appropriately by a person trained to do so, that the test is being
used for the purposes for which it was designed, and that the child's disability
does not interfere with the child's ability to take any test measuring specific
abilities (e.g., the child's visual impairment affects his or her ability to
read and correctly answer the questions on an achievement test). [34 CFR
Sections 300.530-300.532]
Appropriately, comprehensively, and accurately assessing a child with a
suspected disability clearly presents a significant challenge to the assessment
team.
Section Two: Methods of
Gathering Information
One of the cornerstones of the IDEA's evaluation requirements is that it is
inappropriate and unacceptable to base any eligibility or placement decision
upon the results of only one procedure [34 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
Section 300.532(d)]. The child must be assessed "in all areas related to
the suspected disability, including, if appropriate, health, vision, hearing,
social and emotional status, general intelligence, academic performance,
communicative status, and motor abilities" [34 CFR Section 300.532(f)].
Because of the convenient and plentiful nature of standardized tests, it is
perhaps tempting to administer a battery (group) of tests to a student and make
an eligibility or placement determination based upon the results. However, tests
alone will not give a comprehensive picture of how a child performs or what he
or she knows or does not know. Evaluators need to use a variety of tools and
approaches to assess a child, including observing the child in different
settings to see how he or she functions in those environments, interviewing
individuals who know the child to gain their insights, and testing the child to
evaluate his or her competence in whatever skill areas appear affected by the
suspected disability, as well as those that may be areas of strength. There are,
recently, a number of other approaches being used to collect information about
students as well; these include curriculum-based assessment, ecological
assessment, task analysis, dynamic assessment, and assessment of learning style.
These approaches yield rich information about students, are especially important
when assessing students who are from culturally or linguistically diverse
backgrounds, and, therefore, are critical methods in the overall approach to
assessment. Students possessing medical or mental health problems may also have
assessment information from sources outside of the school. Such information
would need to be considered along with assessment information from the school's
evaluation team in making appropriate diagnoses, placement decisions, and
instructional plans.
Only through collecting data through a variety of approaches (observations,
interviews, tests, curriculum-based assessment, and so on) and from a variety of
sources (parents, teachers, specialists, peers, student) can an adequate picture
be obtained of the child's strengths and weaknesses. Synthesized, this
information can be used to determine the specific nature of the child's special
needs, whether the child needs special services and, if so, to design an
appropriate program.
Reviewing School Records
School records can be a rich source of information about
the student and his or her background. The number of times the student has
changed schools may be of interest; frequent school changes can be disruptive
emotionally as well as academically and may be a factor in the problems that
have resulted in the student's being referred for assessment. Attendance is
another area to note; are there patterns in absences (e.g., during a specific
part of the year, as is the case with some students who have respiratory
problems or allergies), or is there a noticeable pattern of declining
attendance, which may be linked to a decline in motivation, an undiagnosed
health problem, or a change within the family?
The student's past history of grades is usually of interest to the assessment
team as well. Is the student's current performance in a particular subject
typical of the student, or is the problem being observed something new? Are
patterns noticeable in the student's grades? For example, many students begin
the year with poor grades and then show gradual improvement as they get back
into the swing of school. For others, the reverse may be true: During the early
part of the year, when prior school material is being reviewed, they may do
well, with declines in their grades coming as new material is introduced. Also,
transition points such as beginning the fourth grade or middle school may cause
students problems; the nature and purpose of reading, for example, tends to
change when students enter the fourth grade, where reading to learn content
becomes more central. Similarly, middle school requires students to assume more
responsibility for long-term projects (Hoy & Gregg, 1994). These shifts may
bring about a noticeable decline in grades for some students.
Test scores are also important to review. Comparing these scores to a student's
current classroom performance can indicate that the student's difficulties are
new ones, perhaps resulting from some environmental change that needs to be
investigated more fully, or the comparison may show that the student has always
found a particular skill area to be problematic. "In this situation, the
current problems the student is experiencing indicate that the classroom demands
have reached a point that the student requires more support to be
successful" (Hoy & Gregg, 1994, p. 37).
Looking at Student Work
Often, an initial part of the assessment process
includes examining a student's work, either by selecting work samples that can
be analyzed to identify academic skills and deficits, or by conducting a
portfolio assessment, where folders of the student's work are examined.
When collecting work samples, the teacher selects work from the areas where the
student is experiencing difficulty and systematically examines them. The teacher
might identify such elements as how the student was directed to do the activity
(e.g., orally, in writing), how long it took the student to complete the
activity, the pattern of errors (e.g., reversals when writing, etc.), and the
pattern of correct answers. Analyzing the student's work in this way can yield
valuable insight into the nature of his or her difficulties and suggest possible
solutions.
Maintaining portfolios of student work has become a popular way for teachers to
track student progress. By assembling in one place the body of a student's work,
teachers can see how a student is progressing over time, what problems seem to
be re-occurring, what concepts are being grasped or not grasped, and what skills
are being developed. The portfolio can be analyzed in much the same way as
selective work samples, and can form the basis for discussions with the student
or other teachers about difficulties and successes and for determining what
modifications teachers might make in their instruction.
Prereferral Procedures
Many school systems recommend or require that, before an
individualized evaluation of a student is conducted, his or her teacher meet
with an assistance team to discuss the nature of the problem and what possible
modifications to instruction or the classroom might be made. These procedures
are known as prereferral. Prereferral procedures have arisen out of a number of
research studies documenting faulty referral practices, including, among other
practices, the overreferral of students who come from backgrounds that are
culturally or linguistically different from the majority culture, those who are
hard to teach, or those who are felt to have behavioral problems. According to
Overton (1992), "the more frequent use of better prereferral intervention
strategies is a step forward in the prevention of unnecessary evaluation and the
possibility of misdiagnosis and overidentification of special education
students" (p. 6).
This process recognizes that many variables affect learning; rather than first
assuming that the difficulty lies within the student, the assistance team and
the teacher will look specifically at what variables (e.g., classroom, teacher,
student, or an interaction of these) might be affecting this particular student.
Examining student records and work samples and conducting interviews and
observations are part of the assistance team's efforts. These data-gathering
approaches are intended to specify the problem more precisely and to document
its severity. Modifications to the teacher's approach, to the classroom, or to
student activities may then be suggested, attempted, and documented; if no
progress is made within a specific amount of time, then the student is referred
for an individualized evaluation. It is important for teachers to keep track of
the specific modifications they attempt with a student who is having trouble
learning or behaving, because these can provide valuable information to the
assessment team at the point the student is referred for evaluation.
Observation
Observing the student and his or her environment is an
important part of any assessment process. Observations in the classroom and in
other settings where the student operates can provide valuable information about
his or her academic, motor, communication, or social skills; behaviors that
contribute to or detract from learning; and overall attitude or demeanor.
Observing the student's environment(s) and his or her behavior within those
environments can identify the factors that are influencing the student. For the
information from observations to be useful, the team must first define the
purpose for the observation and specify:
1. Who will make the
observation;
2. Who or what will be observed;
3. Where the observation will take place (observing a
range of situations where the student operates is recommended);
4. When the observation will take place (a number of
observations at different times is also important); and
5. How the observations will be recorded. (Wallace,
Larsen, & Elksnin, 1992, p. 12).
Observations are a key part of some of the assessment methods that will be
discussed later in this section, including curriculum-based assessment,
ecological assessment, and task analysis. There are many ways in which to record
what is observed; the box below entitled "Common Observational
Techniques" lists and briefly describes the more common observational
methods.
Common Observational Techniques
Anecdotal Records
The observer describes
incidents or behaviors observed in a particular setting in concrete, narrative
terms (as opposed to drawing inferences about feelings or motives). This type of
record allows insight into cause and effect by detailing what occurred before a
behavior took place, the behavior itself, and consequences or events that
occurred after the behavior.
Event Recording
The observer is interested in recording specific
behavioral events (such as how many times the student hits or gets out of his or
her seat). A tally sheet listing the behaviors to be observed and counted is
useful; when the observer sees the behavior of interest, he or she can simply
make a tick mark on the sheet.
Duration Recording
This method usually requires a watch or clock, so
that a precise measurement of how much time a student spends doing something of
concern to the teacher or assessment team (e.g., talking to others, tapping,
rocking) can be recorded.
Time-Sampling Recording
With this technique observers count the number
of times a behavior occurs during a specific time interval. Rather than observe
for long periods of time and tally all incidences of the behavior causing
concern, the observer divides the observation period into equal time units and
observes and tallies behavior only during short periods of time. Based upon the
time sampling, predictions can then be made about the student's total behavior.
Checklists and Rating Scales
A checklist usually requires the observer
to note whether a particular characteristic is present or absent, while a rating
scale typically asks the observer to note the degree to which a characteristic
is present or how often a behavior occurs. There are many commercially available
checklists and rating scales, but they may be developed locally as well. (Sources: Swanson & Watson, 1989, pp. 273-277; Wallace, Larsen, &
Elksnin, 1992, pp. 12-13.)
While observations can yield useful information about the student and his or her
environments, there are a number of errors that can occur during observations
and distort or invalidate the information collected. One source of error may
come from the observer -- he or she must record accurately, systematically, and
without bias. If his or her general impression of the student influences how he
or she rates that student in regards to specific characteristics, the data will
be misleading and inaccurate. This can be especially true if the student comes
from a background that is different from the majority culture. In such cases, it
is important that the observer have an understanding of, and a lack of bias
regarding, the student's cultural or language group. Often, multiple observers
are used to increase the reliability of the observational information collected.
All observers should be fully trained in how to collect information using the
specific method chosen (e.g., time-sampling using a checklist) and how to remain
unobtrusive while observing and recording, so as not to influence the student's
behavior. It is also important to observe more than once, in a number of
situations or locations, and at various times, and to integrate these data with
information gathered through other assessment procedures. Decisions should not
be made based upon a narrow range of observational samples.
Interviews
Interviewing the student in question, his or her
parents, teachers, and other adults or peers can provide a great deal of useful
information about the student. Ultimately, "an interview should be a
conversation with a purpose" (Wallace, Larsen, & Elksnin, 1992, p. 16),
with questions designed to collect information that "relates to the
observed or suspected disability of the child" (p. 260). Preparing for the
interview may involve a careful review of the student's school records or work
samples, for these may help the assessment team identify patterns or areas of
specific concern that can help determine who should be interviewed and some of
the questions to be asked. Parents, for example, may be able to provide detailed
information about the child's academic or medical background. It is especially
important that they contribute their unique, "insider" perspective on
their child's functioning, interests, motivation, difficulties, and behavior in
the home or community. They may have valuable information to share about
possible solutions to the problems being noted. Teachers can provide insight
into the types of situations or tasks that the child finds demanding or easy,
what factors appear to contribute to the child's difficulties, and what has
produced positive results (e.g., specific activities, types of rewards) (Wodrich
& Joy, 1986). The student, too, may have much to say to illuminate the
problem. "All persons interviewed should be asked if they know of
information important to the solution of the academic or behavior problem that
was not covered during the interview" (Hoy & Gregg, 1994, p. 44).
Organizing interview results is essential. Hoy and Gregg (1994) suggest that the
interviewer might summarize the "perceptions of each person interviewed in
a way that conveys similarities and differences in viewpoints" (p. 46),
including:
1. Perceptions of the primary problem
and its cause,
2. What attempts have been made to
solve or address the problem,
3. Any recent changes in the problem's
severity, and
4. Student strengths and weaknesses.
Testing
Most assessments include tests, although this has become
increasingly controversial. Many educators question the usefulness of the
information gained from tests, for reasons that will be discussed in a moment.
However controversial testing may be, this News Digest will nonetheless present
a basic overview of the issues, because testing so often forms a part of the
assessment process. Parents, teachers, and other professionals may find this
basic information helpful (a) for understanding some of the controversy
surrounding testing and, thus, what principles schools need to consider when
using standardized tests, and (b) for identifying what resources of information
about tests are available and what alternatives to testing exist.
Standardized tests are very much a part of the education scene, as we all know.
Most of us have taken many such tests in our lifetime. Tests may be informal --
meaning a measure developed locally -- or they may be commercially developed,
formal measures, commonly called standardized tests. Unlike informal tests,
standardized tests have detailed procedures for administration, timing, and
scoring. There is a wide variety of tests available to assess the different
skill areas.
Some tests are known as criterion-referenced tests. This means that they are
scored according to a standard, or criterion, that the teacher, school, or test
publisher decides represents an acceptable level of mastery. An example of a
criterion- referenced test might be a teacher-made spelling test where there are
20 words to be spelled and where the teacher has defined an "acceptable
level of mastery" as 16 correct (or 80%). These tests, sometimes called
content-referenced tests, are concerned with the mastery of specific, defined
skills; the student's performance on the test indicates whether or not he or she
has mastered those skills.
Other tests are known as norm-referenced tests. Scores on these tests are not
interpreted according to an absolute standard or criterion (i.e., 8 out of 10
correct) but, rather, according to how the student's performance compares with
that of a particular group of individuals. In order for this comparison to be
meaningful, a valid comparison group -- called a norm group -- must be defined.
A norm group is a large number of children who are representative of all the
children in that age group. Such a group can be obtained by selecting a group of
children that have the characteristics of children across the United States --
that is, a certain percentage must be from each gender, from various ethnic
backgrounds (e.g., Caucasian, African American, American Indian, Asian,
Hispanic), from each geographic area (e.g., Southeast, Midwest), and from each
socioeconomic class. By having all types of children take the test, the test
publisher can provide information about how various types of children perform on
the test. (This information -- what type of students comprised the norm group
and how each type performed on the test -- is generally given in the manuals
that accompany the test.) The school will compare the scores of the child being
evaluated to the scores obtained by the norm group. This helps evaluators
determine whether the child is performing at a level typical for, below, or
above that expected for children of a given ethnicity, socioeconomic status,
age, or grade.
Not all tests use large, representative norm groups. This means that such tests
were normed using a group of individuals who were not representative of the
population in general. For example, on one such test, the norm group may have
included few or no African American, Hispanic, or Asian students. Because it is
not known how such students typically perform on the test, there is nothing to
which an individual student's scores can be compared, which has serious
implications for interpretation of results.
Thus, before making assumptions about a child's abilities based upon test
results, it is important to know something about the group to which the child is
being compared -- particularly whether or not the student is being compared to
children who are similar in ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and so on. The more
unlike the child the norm group is, the less valuable the results of testing
will generally be. This is one of the areas in which standardized testing has
fallen under considerable criticism. Often, test administrators do not use the
norm group information appropriately, or there may not be children in the norm
group who are similar to the child being tested. Furthermore, many tests were
originally developed some time ago, and the norm groups reported in the test
manual are not similar at all to the children being tested today.
Selecting an Appropriate Instrument
The similarity of the norm group to the student being
tested is just one area to be carefully considered by the professionals who
select and administer standardized tests. Choosing which test is appropriate for
a given student requires investigation; it is extremely important that those
responsible for test selection do not just use what is available to or
"always used by" the school district or school. The child's test
results will certainly influence eligibility decisions, instructional decisions,
and placement decisions, all of which have enormous consequences for the child.
If the child is assessed with an instrument that is not appropriate for him or
her, the data gathered are likely to be inaccurate and misleading, which in turn
results in faulty decisions regarding that child's educational program. This is
one of the reasons that many educators object vehemently to standardized testing
as a means of making decisions about a student's strengths, weaknesses, and
educational needs.
Therefore, selecting instruments with care is vital, as is the need to combine
any information gathered through testing with information gathered through other
approaches (e.g., interviews, observations, dynamic assessment).
Given the number of standardized tests available today, how does the individual
charged with testing select an appropriate test for a given student? Here are
some suggestions.
1. Consider the student's skill areas to be assessed,
and identify a range of tests that measure those skill areas. There are a
variety of books that can help evaluators identify what tests are available; one
useful reference book is Tests: A Comprehensive Reference for Assessments in
Psychology, Education, and Business (3rd edition) by Sweetland and Keyser
(1991). Another is A Consumer's Guide to Tests in Print (Hamill, Brown, &
Bryant, 1992). Both books describe what each available test claims to measure,
the age groups for which it is appropriate, whether it is group- and
individually-administered (all testing of children with suspected disabilities
must be individualized), how long it takes to administer the test, and much
more. Additionally, the two NICHCY bibliographies -- one for families and one
for schools -- that are available separately from this News Digest list many
books on assessment which describe and critique a subset of the tests available
in any given skill area. Taking advantage of the review information available on
tests is a critical responsibility of all those charged with assessing students
and making decisions about their education.
2. Investigate how suitable each test identified is for
the student to be assessed and select those that are most appropriate. A
particularly valuable resource for evaluating tests is the Mental Measurements
Yearbook (Conoley & Kramer, 1992), which describes tests in detail and
includes expert reviews of many tests. This yearbook is typically available in
professional libraries for teachers, university libraries, and in the reference
section of many public libraries. Publishers of tests generally also make
literature available to help professionals determine whether a test is suitable
for a specific student. This literature typically includes sample test
questions; information on how the test was developed; a description of what
groups of individuals (e.g., ethnic groups, ages, grade levels) were included in
the "norm" group; and general guidelines for administration and
interpretation.
Some questions professionals consider when reviewing a test are:
1. According to the publisher or expert reviewers, what,
specifically, is the test supposed to measure? Is its focus directly relevant to
the skill area(s) to be assessed? Will student results on the test address the
educational questions being asked? (In other words, will the test provide the
type of educational information that is needed?) If not, the test is not
appropriate for that student and should not be used.
2. Is the test reliable and valid? These are two
critical issues in assessment. Reliability refers to the degree to which a
child's results on the test are the same or similar over repeated testing. If a
test is not reliable or if its reliability is uncertain -- meaning that it does
not yield similiar results when the student takes the test again -- then it
should not be used. Validity refers to the degree to which the test measures
what it claims to measure. For example, if a test claims to measure anxiety, a
person's scores should be higher under a stressful situation than under a
nonstressful situation. Test publishers make available specimen sets that will
typically report the reliability and validity of the test. This information may
also be reported in books describing the test, in the Mental Measurement
Yearbook (Conoley & Kramer, 1992), or in many of the books listed in the
reference section of this News Digest or in the two NICHCY bibliographies on
assessment (available separately from this document).
3. Is the content/skill area being assessed by the test
appropriate for the student, given his or her age and grade? (Scope and sequence
charts that identify the specific hierarchy of skills for different academic
areas are useful here.) If not, there is no reason to use the test.
4. If the test is norm-referenced, does the norm group
resemble the student? This point was mentioned above and is important for
interpretation of results.
5. Is the test intended to evaluate students, to
diagnose the specific nature of a student's disability or academic difficulty,
to inform instructional decisions, or to be used for research purposes? Many
tests will indicate that a student has a disability or specific problem
academically, but results will not be useful for instructional planning
purposes. Additional testing may then be needed, in order to fully understand
what type of instruction is necessary for the student.
6. Is the test administered in a group or individually?
By law, group tests are not appropriate when assessing a child for the presence
of a disability or to determine his or her eligibility for special education.
7. Does the examiner need specialized training in order
to administer the test, record student responses, score the test, or interpret
results? In most, if not all, cases, the answer to this question is yes. If the
school has no one trained to administer or interpret the specific test, then it
should not be used unless the school arranges for the student to be assessed by
a qualified evaluator outside of the school system.
8. Will the student's suspected disability impact upon
his or her taking of the test? For example, many tests are timed tests, which
means that students are given a certain amount of time to complete items. If a
student has weak hand strength or dexterity, his or her performance on a timed
test that requires holding a pencil or writing will be negatively affected by
the disability. Using a timed test would only be appropriate for determining how
speed affects performance. To determine the student's actual knowledge of a
certain area, a non-timed test would be more appropriate. It may also be
possible to make accommodations for the student (e.g., removing time
restrictions from a timed test). If an accommodation is made, however, results
must be interpreted with caution. Standardized tests are designed to be
administered in an unvarying manner; when accommodations are made,
standardization is broken, and the norms reported for the test no longer apply.
9. How similar to actual classroom tasks are the tasks
the child is asked to complete on the test? For example, measuring spelling
ability by asking a child to recognize a misspelled word may be very different
from how spelling is usually measured in a class situation (reproducing words
from memory). If test tasks differ significantly from classroom tasks,
information gathered by the test may do little to predict classroom ability or
provide information useful for instruction.
Limitations of Testing
Even when all of the above considerations have been
observed, there are those who question the usefulness of traditional testing in
making good educational decisions for children. Many educators see traditional
tests as offering little in the way of information useful for understanding the
abilities and special needs of an individual child. Martin Kozloff (1994) offers
the following example to illustrate how rigid use and interpretation of tests
can result in useful information being overlooked or misinterpreted.
Ms. Adams: (Holding up a picture of a
potato.) And this one?
Indra: You eat it.
Ms. Adams: No. It's a potato. Let's
try another. (Holds up a picture of a duck.) What is this?
Indra: Swimming.
Ms. Adams: No. It's a duck. Say,
"duck."
Indra: Duck.
Ms. Adams: Very good. (Still showing
picture of a duck.) Now, what is this?
Indra: Swimming! (p. 16)
Kozloff notes that: There are many competent ways to respond to "What is
this?". Indra said what potatoes are for and what the duck was doing. Ms.
Adams scores Indra's answers incorrect because the test Ms. Adams is using
narrowly defines as correct those answers with an object-naming function. Thus,
Ms. Adams underestimates the size of Indra's object-naming repertoire and does
not notice the other functions of Indra's vocabulary. (Kozloff, 1994, pp. 16-17)
Another concern about the overuse of testing in assessment is its lack of
usefulness in designing interventions. Historically, it has seemed as if tests
have not been interpreted in ways that allow for many specific strategies to be
developed. While scores help to define the areas in which a student may be
performing below his or her peers, they may offer little to determine particular
instruction or curricular changes that may benefit the child.
Traditional tests often seem to overlap very little with the curriculum being
taught. This suggests that scores may not reflect what the child really knows in
terms of what is taught in the actual classroom. Other concerns include
overfamiliarity with a test that is repeated regularly, inability to apply test
findings in any practical way (i.e., generating specific recommendations based
on test results), and difficulty in using such measures to monitor short-term
achievement gains.
The sometimes circular journey from the referral to the outcome of the
assessment process is frustrating. The teacher or parent requests help because
the student is having problems, and the assessment results in information that
more or less states, "The student is having problems."
It may be, however, that it is not that the tests themselves offer little
relevant information but, rather, that the evaluators may fail to interpret them
in ways that are useful. If we only ask questions related to eligibility (e.g.,
does this child meet the criteria as an individual with mental disabilities?) or
about global ability (e.g., what is this child's intellectual potential?), then
those are the questions that will be answered. Such information is not enough,
if the goal is to develop an effective and appropriate educational program for
the student.
Other Assessment Questions
During the assessment process, we often ask questions
such as:
1. How can we help the child to do
his or her work?
2. How can we manage the
child's behavior, or teach the child to manage his or her own behavior?
3. How can we help the child to be neater, faster,
quieter, more motivated?
As alluded to a moment ago, it may be that a different
set of questions needs to be asked, questions that may be more effective in
eliciting practical and useful information that can be readily applied toward
intervention. Such questions might include:
1. In what physical
environment does the child learn best?
2. What is useful,
debilitating, or neutral about the way the child approaches the task?
3. Can the student hold multiple pieces of information
in memory and then act upon them?
4. How does increasing or slowing the speed of
instruction impact upon the child's accuracy?
5. What processing mechanisms are being taxed in any
given task?
6. How does this student interact with a certain
teacher style?
7. With whom has the child been successful? What about
the person seems to have contributed to the child's success?
8. What is encouraging to the child? What is
discouraging?
9. How does manipulating the mode of teaching (e.g.,
visual or auditory presentation) affect the child's performance?
The two sets of questions above differ from each other
in two important ways. Within the first set, there is a subtle assumption that
the problem is known (e.g., we "know" that the child is not trying
hard enough) and that the solution to the problem is all that is needed. The
second set of questions, in contrast, is seeking information about the problem.
The assessment is designed to find out what is keeping the child from trying
harder or producing readable work. Also, the first set of questions tends to be
more "child-blaming," while the other set attempts to understand more
about the child's experience. Assuming one already "knows" the problem
may result in fewer and less effective interventions. On the other hand, if we
seek to understand "why" the child is having difficulty succeeding in
school (e.g., he or she has trouble remembering and integrating information;
fear of failure results in reduced classroom effort), we engage in an assessment
process that seeks information about the problem and results in the
identification of specific strategies to reduce the problem's negative impact on
learning. To this end, assessment that goes beyond administering standardized
tests and includes other evaluation methods is essential. In the remainder of
this section, several valuable assessment methods will be briefly described.
Resources of additional information are listed in the two NICHCY bibliographies
on assessment available separately from this News Digest.
Ecological Assessment
Ecological assessment basically involves directly observing and assessing the
child in the many environments in which he or she routinely operates. The
purpose of conducting such an assessment is to probe how the different
environments influence the student and his or her school performance. Where does
the student manifest difficulties? Are there places where he or she appears to
function appropriately? What is expected of the student academically and
behaviorally in each type of environment? What differences exist in the
environments where the student manifests the greatest and the least difficulty?
What implications do these differences have for instructional planning? As
Wallace, Larsen, and Elksnin (1992) remark: "An evaluation that fails to
consider a student's ecology as a potential causative factor in reported
academic or behavioral disorders may be ignoring the very elements that require
modification before we can realistically expect changes in that student's
behavior" (p. 19).
Direct Assessment
Direct assessment of academic skills is one alternative that has recently gained
in popularity. While there are a number of direct assessment models that exist
(Shapiro, 1989), they are similar in that they all suggest that assessment needs
to be directly tied to instructional curriculum. Curriculum-based assessment (CBA)
is one type of direct evaluation. "Tests" of performance in this case
come directly from the curriculum. For example, a child may be asked to read
from his or her reading book for one minute. Information about the accuracy and
the speed of reading can then be obtained and compared with other students in
the class, building, or district. CBA is quick and offers specific information
about how a student may differ from peers.
Because the assessment is tied to curriculum content, it allows the teacher to
match instruction to a student's current abilities and pinpoints areas where
curriculum adaptations or modifications are needed. Unlike many other types of
educational assessment, such as I.Q. tests, CBA provides information that is
immediately relevant to instructional programming. (Berdine & Meyer, 1987,
p. 33)
CBA also offers information about the accuracy and efficiency (speed) of
performance. The latter is often overlooked when assessing a child's performance
but is an important piece of information when designing intervention strategies.
CBA is also useful in evaluating short-term academic progress. The resources on
CBA which are listed in the NICHCY bibliographies on assessment (available
separately from this News Digest) offer detailed guidance on how to design
assessments that are tied to the curriculum.
Dynamic Assessment
Dynamic assessment refers to several different, but similar approaches to
evaluating student learning. Although these approaches have been in use for some
time, only recently has dynamic assessment been acknowledged as a valuable means
of gathering information about students (Lidz, 1987). The goal of this type of
assessment "is to explore the nature of learning, with the objective of
collecting information to bring about cognitive change and to enhance
instruction" (Sewell, 1987, p. 436).
One of the chief characteristics of dynamic assessment is that it includes a
dialogue or interaction between the examiner and the student. Depending on the
specific dynamic assessment approach used, this interaction may include modeling
the task for the student, giving the student prompts or cues as he or she tries
to solve a given problem, asking what the student is thinking while working on
the problem, sharing on the part of the examiner to establish the task's
relevance to experience and concepts beyond the test situation, and giving
praise or encouragement (Hoy & Gregg, 1994). The interaction allows the
examiner to draw conclusions about the student's thinking processes (e.g., why
he or she answers a question in a particular way) and his or her response to a
learning situation (i.e., whether, with prompting, feedback, or modeling, the
student can produce a correct response, and what specific means of instruction
produce and maintain positive change in the student's cognitive functioning).
Typically, dynamic assessment involves a test-train-retest approach. The
examiner begins by testing the student's ability to perform a task or solve a
problem without help. Then, a similar task or problem is given the student, and
the examiner models how the task or problem is solved or gives the student cues
to assist his or her performance. In Feuerstein's (1979) model of dynamic
assessment, the examiner is encouraged to interact constantly with the student,
an interaction that is called mediation, which is felt to maximize the
probability that the student will solve the problem. Other approaches to dynamic
assessment use what is called graduated prompting (Campione & Brown, 1987)
where "a series of behavioral hints are used to teach the rules needed for
task completion" (Hoy & Gregg, 1994, p. 151). These hints do not evolve
from the student's responses, as in Feuerstein's model, but, rather, are
scripted and preset, a standardization which allows for comparison across
students. The prompts are given only if the student needs help in order to solve
the problem. In both these approaches, the "teaching" phase is
followed by a retesting of the student with a similar task but with no
assistance from the examiner. The results indicate the student's
"gains" or responsiveness to instruction -- whether he or she learned
and could apply the earlier instructions of the examiner and the prior
experience of solving the problem.
An approach known as "testing the limits" incorporates the classic
training and interactional components of dynamic assessment but can be used with
many traditional tests, particularly tests of personality or cognitive ability
(Carlson & Wiedl, 1978, 1979, as cited in Jitendra & Kameenui, 1993).
Modifications are simply included in the testing situation -- while taking a
particular standardized test, for example, the student may be encouraged to
verbalize before and after solving a problem. Feedback, either simple or
elaborated, may be provided by the examiner as well.
Of course, dynamic assessment is not without its limitations or critics. One
particular concern is the amount of training needed by the examiner to both
conduct the assessment and interpret results. Another is a lack of operational
procedures or "instruments" for assessing a student's performance or
ability in the different content areas (Jitendra & Kameenui, 1993). Further,
conducting a dynamic assessment is undeniably labor intensive.
Even with these limitations, dynamic assessment is a promising addition to
current evaluation techniques. Because it incorporates a teaching component into
the assessment process, this type of assessment may be particularly useful with
students from minority backgrounds who may not have been exposed to the types of
problems or tasks found on standardized tests. The interactional aspect of
dynamic assessment also can contribute substantially to developing an
understanding of the student's thinking process and problem-solving approaches
and skills. Certainly, having detailed information about how a student
approaches performing a task and how he or she responds to various instructional
techniques can be highly relevant to instructional planning.
Task Analysis
Task analysis is very detailed; it involves breaking down a particular task into
the basic sequential steps, component parts, or skills necessary to accomplish
the task. The degree to which a task is broken down into steps depends upon the
student in question; "it is only necessary to break the task down finely
enough so that the student can succeed at each step" (Wallace, Larsen,
& Elksnin, 1992, p. 14).
Taking this approach to assessment offers several advantages to the teacher. For
one, the process identifies what is necessary for accomplishing a particular
task. It also tells the teacher whether or not the student can do the task,
which part or skill causes the student to falter, and the order in which skills
must be taught to help the student learn to perform the task.
According to Bigge (1990), task analysis is a process that can be used to guide
the decisions made regarding:
1. What to teach next;
2. Where students encounter problems when they are attempting but are not able
to complete a task;
3. The steps necessary to complete an entire task;
4. What adaptations can be made to help the student accomplish a task;
5. Options for those students for whom learning a task is not a possible goal
(as described in Wallace, Larsen, & Elksnin, 1992, p. 14).
Task analysis is an approach to assessment that goes far beyond the need to make
an eligibility or program placement decision regarding a student. It can become
an integral part of classroom planning and instructional decision-making.
Outcome-Based Assessment
Outcome-based assessment is another approach to gathering information about a
student's performance. This type of assessment has been developed, at least in
part, to respond to concerns that education, to be meaningful, must be directly
related to what educators and parents want the child to have gained in the end.
Outcome-based assessment involves considering, teaching, and evaluating the
skills that are important in real-life situations. Learning such skills will
result in the student becoming an effective adult. Assessment, from this point
of view, starts by identifying what outcomes are desired for the student (e.g.,
being able to use public transportation). In steps similar to what is used with
task analysis, the team then determines what competencies are necessary for the
outcomes to take place (e.g., the steps or subskills the student needs to have
mastered in order to achieve the outcome desired) and identifies which subskills
the student has mastered and which he or she still needs to learn. The
instruction that is needed can then be pinpointed and undertaken.
Learning Styles
The notion of learning styles is not new, but seems to have revived in the past
few years. Learning styles theory suggests that students may learn and problem
solve in different ways and that some ways are more natural for them than
others. When they are taught or asked to perform in ways that deviate from their
natural style, they are thought to learn or perform less well. A learning style
assessment, then, would attempt to determine those elements that impact on a
child's learning and "ought to be an integral part of the individualized
prescriptive process all special education teachers use for instructing
pupils" (Berdine & Meyer, 1987, p. 27).
Some of the common elements that may be included here would be the way in which
material is typically presented (visually, auditorily, tactilely) in the
classroom, the environmental conditions of the classroom (hot, cold, noisy,
light, dark), the child's personality characteristics, the expectations for
success that are held by the child and others, the response the child receives
while engaging in the learning process (e.g., praise or criticism), and the type
of thinking the child generally utilizes in solving problems (e.g., trial and
error, analyzing). Identifying the factors that positively impact the child's
learning may be very valuable in developing effective intervention strategies.
Section Three: The Parents' Role in the
Assessment Process
While designing, conducting, interpreting, and paying for the assessment are the
school system's responsibilities, parents have an important part to play before,
during, and after the evaluation. The purpose of this section is to provide
parents with suggestions for the range of ways in which they might involve
themselves in the assessment of their child. The extent to which parents involve
themselves, however, is a personal decision and will vary from family to family.
Before the evaluation, parents:
1. May initiate the evaluation process by requesting that the school system
evaluate their child for the presence of a disability and the need for special
education.
2. Must be notified by the school, and give their consent, before any initial
evaluation of the child may be conducted.
3. May wish to talk with the person responsible for conducting the evaluation to
find out what the evaluation will involve.
4. May find it very useful to become informed about assessment issues in general
and any specific issues relevant to their child (e.g., assessment of minority
children, use of specific tests or assessment techniques with a specific
disability).
5. May need to advocate for a comprehensive evaluation -- one that investigates
all skill areas apparently affected by the suspected disability and that uses
multiple means of collecting information (e.g., observations, interviews,
alternative approaches).
6. May suggest specific questions they would like to see addressed through the
evaluation (see "Other Assessment Questions" in Section Two).
7. Should inform the school of any accommodations the child will need (e.g.,
removing time limits from tests, conducting interviews/testing in the child's
native language, adapting testing environment to child's specific physical and
other needs).
8. Should inform the school if they themselves need an interpreter or other
accommodations during any of their discussions with the school.
9. May prepare their child for the evaluation process, explaining what will
happen and, where necessary, reducing the child's anxiety. It may help the child
to know that he or she will not be receiving a "grade" on the tests he
or she will be taking but that the purpose behind any testing is to gather
information to help the student succeed in school.
During the evaluation process, parents:
10. Need to share with the school their insights into the child's background
(developmental, medical, and academic) and past and present school performance.
11. May wish to share with the school any prior school records, reports, tests,
or evaluation information available on their child.
12. May need to share information about cultural differences that can illuminate
the educational team's understanding of the student (see Section Four).
13. Need to make every effort to attend interviews the school may set up with
them and provide information about their child.
After the evaluation, parents:
14. Need to carefully consider the results that emerge from their child's
evaluation, in light of their own observation and knowledge of the child. Do the
results make sense in terms of the behaviors, skills, needs, and attitudes they
have observed in their child? Are there gaps, inconsistencies, or unexpected
findings in the results that parents feel are important to address, if a
comprehensive picture of the student's strengths and needs is to be developed?
15. May share their insights and concerns about the evaluation results with the
school and suggest areas where additional information may be needed. Schools may
or may not act upon parents' suggestions, and parents have certain recourses
under law, should they feel strongly about pursuing the matter.
16. Participate fully in the development of their child's Individualized
Education Program (IEP), using information from the evaluation.
Section Four: Assessing Students Who Are
Culturally and Linguistically Diverse
It is a well-known fact that the demographics of American schools are changing.
Many students come from ethnic, racial, or linguistic backgrounds that are
different from the dominant culture, and this number is steadily increasing
(National Center for Education Statistics, 1992). Much concern has been
expressed in recent years about the overrepresentation of minority students in
special education programs, particularly in programs for students with mild
disabilities, and a great deal of research has been conducted to identify the
reasons why. Many factors appear to contribute, including considerable bias
against children from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds,
particularly those who are poor (Harry, 1992). The style and emphasis of the
school may also be very different from those found in the cultures of students
who are racially or linguistically diverse. Because culture and language affect
learning and behavior (Franklin, 1992), the school system may misinterpret what
students know, how they behave, or how they learn. Students may appear less
competent than they are, leading educators to inappropriately refer them for
assessment. Once referred, inappropriate methods may then be used to assess the
students, leading to inappropriate conclusions and placement into special
education.
There is also a great deal of research and numerous court decisions (e.g., Larry
P. v. Riles, 1979; Guadalupe v. Tempe Elementary District, 1972) to support the
fact that standardized tests (particularly intelligence and achievement tests)
are often culturally and linguistically biased against students from backgrounds
different from the majority culture. On many tests, being able to answer
questions correctly too often depends upon having specific culturally-based
information or knowledge. If students have not been exposed to that information
through their culture, or have not had the experiences that lead to gaining
specific knowledge, then they will not be able to answer certain questions at
all or will answer them in a way that is considered "incorrect" within
the majority culture. This can lead to inappropriate conclusions about students'
ability to function within the school setting.
Therefore, when students come from a nondominant culture or speak a language
other than English, care must be taken in how they are evaluated. "All
professionals involved in the assessment process need to be aware that their
beliefs and perceptions may not match those of the population they serve"
(Hoy & Gregg, 1994, p. 65). Because most cognitive, language, and academic
measures are developed using standards of the majority English-speaking culture,
their use with students who are not from that culture may be inappropriate. It
is, therefore, imperative that the evaluation team collect the majority of their
information about the student in other ways, such as through interviews,
observations, and approaches such as dynamic assessment, which has shown promise
for use with minority students (Lidz, 1987). "Professionals must attend
carefully to the overall picture of a child's background and performance"
states Harry (1992), and adds that "assessment cannot be complete without
an understanding of whether prior instruction has been adequate and
appropriate." (p. 87)
To this end, Ortiz (1986) recommends that such students first undergo the
prereferral process mentioned earlier. Many schools are moving toward requiring
a prereferral process before any individualized evaluation is done. The purpose
of the prereferral process is "to determine if appropriate and sufficient
approaches have been attempted." (Wallace, Larsen, & Elksnin, 1992, p.
467). This allows the school to adjust instruction or make other classroom
modifications and see if these changes address the problem being noted. The
prereferral process includes:
1. Direct observation of the student in the regular classroom;
2. Analyzing how the student behaves and interacts verbally in different
settings; and
3. Reviewing the methods of instruction that are used in the regular classroom.
It is also important to interview people who are familiar with the student, for
these individuals can provide a wealth of information about his or her intents,
adaptive behavior, how he or she processes information and approaches learning,
language ability, and (in the case of students who are not native speakers of
English) language dominance. Interviewers should be aware, however, that the
differing culture and/or language of those being interviewed can seriously
affect the nature and interpretation of information gathered. Some understanding
of how individuals within that culture view disability, the educational system,
and authority figures will be helpful in designing, conducting, and interpreting
a culturally sensitive interview. [See Harry, 1992, for an interesting
discussion of the traditional worldviews of the African American, Hispanic,
Native American, and Asian cultures; she defines a group's "worldview"
as its members "underlying beliefs about humanity's purpose and place in
the universe, beliefs that affect codes of personal and interpersonal behavior
as well as attitudes to the health, life, and death of human beings (p. 25).] It
may be particularly useful to gather information from the home environment,
which will help the assessment team develop an understanding of the student
within his or her own culture. To facilitate this, parents need to communicate
openly with the school and share their insight into their child's behaviors,
attitudes, successes and needs, and, when appropriate, information about the
minority culture.
Before conducting any formal testing of a student who is a non-native speaker of
English, it is vital to determine the student's preferred language and to
conduct a comprehensive language assessment in both English and the native
language. Examiners need to be aware that it is highly inappropriate to evaluate
students in English when that is not their dominant language (unless the purpose
of the testing is to assess the student's English language proficiency).
Translating tests from English is not an acceptable practice either; the IDEA
states that tests and other evaluation materials must be provided and
administered in the child's primary language or mode of communication unless it
is clearly not feasible to do so [34 CFR Section 300.532(a)(1)]. If possible,
the evaluator in any testing situation or interview should be familiar to the
child and speak the child's language.
When tests or evaluation materials are not available in the student's native
language, examiners may find it necessary to use English-language instruments.
Because this is a practice fraught with the possibility of misinterpretation,
examiners need to be cautious in how they administer the test and interpret
results. Alterations may need to be made to the standardized procedures used to
administer tests; these can include paraphrasing instructions, providing a
demonstration of how test tasks are to be performed, reading test items to the
student rather than having him or her read them, allowing the student to respond
verbally rather than in writing, or allowing the student to use a dictionary
(Wallace, Larsen, & Elksnin, 1992, p. 471). However, if any such alterations
are made, it is important to recognize that standardization has been broken,
limiting the usefulness and applicability of test norms. Results should be
cautiously interpreted, and all alterations made to the testing procedures
should be fully detailed in the report describing the student's test
performance. As mentioned earlier, it is also essential that other assessment
approaches be an integral part of collecting information about the student.
A full discussion of the recommended procedures for evaluating students from
culturally or linguistically diverse backgrounds is beyond the scope of this
News Digest, yet it is a topic of great importance. We have listed many books
and articles on the subject in the bibliographies on assessment we offer
separately for families and for schools.
Section Five: Primary Areas of Assessment
In this section, we will look in detail at the primary areas in which students
are assessed, which are: intelligence, language, perceptual abilities, academic
achievement, behavior, and emotional/social development. When the disability is
related to a medically related condition (e.g., sensory deficit, orthopedic
impairment, arthritis), assessment information from physicians or other medical
practitioners needs to be included as well. More than one assessment technique
should be used in any given area, and the assessment team should clearly
understand that each area encompasses more than one ability.
In this section, we will look at what skills are involved in these traditional
areas of assessment (e.g., intelligence, language, and so on) and how schools
may collect information about how a student performs in each area. While
standardized testing is often the default means of gathering information about a
student, it is highly recommended that other methods be used as well, including
interviews, observations, and methodologies such as ecological or dynamic
assessment.
Intelligence
While a person's intelligence is typically measured by an intelligence test,
there is considerable controversy over what, precisely, is meant by the term
"intelligence." Binet, who was largely responsible for the development
of the first intelligence test, viewed intelligence as a collection of
faculties, including judgment, practical sense, initiative, and the ability to
adapt to circumstances (Wallace, Larsen, & Elksnin, 1992). Thurman, in
contrast, developed a multifactor theory of intelligence, which included such
mental abilities as verbal, number, perceptual speed, reasoning, memory, word
fluency, and spatial visualization. Wechsler, on the other hand, believed that
intelligence was the ability of the person "to act purposefully, to think
rationally, and to deal effectively with his environment." (Wechsler, 1958,
p. 7, as cited in Wallace, Larsen, & Elksnin, 1992, p. 105).
It is important to know that different intelligence tests are based upon
different definitions of what constitutes intelligence. As a result, different
tests may measure different skills and abilities. It is critical, therefore,
that administrators of such tests "be completely aware of an author's
definition of intelligence when selecting and interpreting an intelligence
test" and "to view the scores as highly tentative estimates of
learning ability that must be verified by other evidence." (Wallace, Larsen,
& Elksnin, 1992, p. 106).
The theory underlying intelligence tests (e.g., how does one define intelligence
or develop tests of intelligence?) is not the only controversy surrounding their
use. How fairly they assess certain populations (e.g., minority children,
persons with limited experience, children with severe language deficits), and
whether or not such tests are reliable and valid (Elliott, 1987) are also areas
of hot debate. In the past, intelligence measures have been misused,
particularly with African American children, Native Americans, and non-English
speaking children, who, based upon their scores, were placed in classes for
those with mental retardation or with learning disabilities. However, given the
many court cases involving standardized intelligence testing as a means of
assessing minority children (e.g., Diana v. State Board of Education, 1970;
Covarrubias v. San Diego Unified School District, 1971; Larry P. v. Riles, 1979;
Guadalupe v. Tempe Elementary District, 1972), and given the strength and volume
of advocates' protests, evaluators are now becoming more sensitive to issues of
test bias, the importance of testing in a child's native language, the need for
specialized training when administering and interpreting standardized tests, and
the importance of combining any test scores with information gathered in other
ways.
Issues related to the definition of "intelligence" and the
"fairness" of using measures of intelligence also become less
concerning if one knows the purpose for which the test is being used.
Intelligence tests are most helpful (and probably most appropriate) when they
are used to determine specific skills, abilities, and knowledge that the child
either has or does not have and when such information is combined with other
evaluation data and then directly applied to school programming.
There are a number of skills that an intelligence test appears to measure --
social judgment, level of thinking, language skill, perceptual organization,
processing speed, and spatial abilities. Questions that attempt to measure
social judgment and common sense, numerical reasoning, concrete and abstract
thinking, the ability to recognize similarities and differences between objects
or concepts, and vocabulary and language skill (e.g., the ease with which a
person can find words in memory) appear very dependent on experience, training,
and intact verbal abilities. Perceptual organization, processing speed, and
spatial abilities seem less dependent on experience and verbal skill.
Intelligence tests can also yield valuable information about a student's ability
to process information. In order to learn, every person must take in, make sense
of, store, and retrieve information from memory in an efficient and accurate
way. Each of us can process certain kinds of information more easily than other
kinds. The artist sees and reproduces accurate depictions of the world, while
others struggle to produce stick figures. The musician creates beautiful sounds
from a mixture of separate tones. The writer crafts words to create a mood.
Others of us do none of these things well. In school, children need certain
skills to function effectively. They must be able to listen attentively so that
other movements, sounds, or sights do not distract them. They must be able to
understand the words spoken to them. This often requires children to hold
multiple pieces of information in memory (e.g., page number, questions to
answer) and to act upon them. They must be able to find the words they need to
express themselves and, ultimately, commit these words to paper. This involves
another whole series of processing skills -- holding a writing implement,
coordinating visual and motor actions, holding information in memory until it
can be transferred to paper, transforming sounds into written symbols, and
understanding syntax, punctuation, and capitalization rules. They also must be
able to interpret the nonverbal messages of others, such as a frown, a smile, a
shake of the head. Equally important, they must do all of these things quickly
and accurately and often in a setting with many distractions.
A thorough interpretation of an intelligence test can yield information about
how effectively a child processes and retrieves information. Most individually
administered intelligence tests can determine, at least to some degree, a
child's ability to attend, process information quickly, distinguish relevant
from less relevant details, put events in sequence, and retrieve words from
memory.
Kamphaus (1993) summarizes a number of research findings related to the use of
intelligence tests:
1. Intelligence test scores are more stable for school-aged children than for
preschoolers and more stable among individuals with disabilities than those
without disabilities;
2. Intelligence test scores can change from childhood to adulthood;
3. It is likely that environmental factors, socioeconomic status, values, family
structure, and genetic factors all play a role in determining intelligence test
scores;
4. Factors such as low birth weight, malnutrition, anoxia (lack of oxygen), and
fetal alcohol exposure have a negative impact on intelligence test scores; and
5. Intelligence and academic achievement appear to be highly related.
This last finding supports the notion that intelligence and achievement tests
may not be so different from each other and that "intelligence tests may be
interpreted as specialized types of achievement measures" (Kamphaus, 1993,
p. 65). This is consistent with the suggestion that intelligence tests may be
best used to determine specific skills, abilities, and knowledge.
Language
Language provides the foundation upon which communication, problem solving, and
expanding, integrating, analyzing, and synthesizing knowledge take place.
Deficits in language, therefore, can have a profound impact on the ability of an
individual to learn and function competently and confidently as he or she
interacts in the world.
Language is complex and involves multiple domains -- nonverbal language, oral
language (i.e., listening and speaking), written language (i.e., reading and
writing), pragmatic language (e.g., using language for a specific purpose such
as asking for help), phonology, and audiology. How quickly a person can access
words or ideas in memory further influences his or her use of language. A child
who must struggle to find an appropriate term is at a great disadvantage in a
learning and social environment. As he or she grapples to retrieve a word,
others have moved on. The student may miss critical pieces of knowledge, connect
incorrect bits of information in memory, and have an ineffective means of
showing others all that he or she knows. Such problems can result in lowered
levels of achievement and in feelings of confusion, helplessness, and
frustration.
It is clear how important language processing can be to a child's successful
adaptation to the school environment and, therefore, it is an important area to
be considered in the assessment process. Speech and language pathologists are
specially trained professionals who, working with school psychologists and
classroom teachers, are frequently the primary individuals gathering data
related to a child's language functioning.
Bloom and Lahey (1978) divide language processes into three general categories:
form, content, and use. Phonology, morphology, and syntax are all considered to
be components of form. The first of these processes, phonology, refers to the
knowledge a person has of the sounds in the language. While the number of sounds
that exist are limited, a nearly endless number of words can be constructed from
these sounds. Awareness of the basic sound units of language appears important
to a child's ability to quickly and accurately locate words in memory when
speaking, comprehend oral sentences, and learn to read (Liberman &
Shankweiler, 1987). It is important to note that the ability to blend or
separate sounds (i.e., phonological processing ability) is often overlooked in
the assessment process. This may be an unfortunate oversight, given its apparent
importance to the reading process.
Morphology, the second form element, refers to the smallest meaningful unit of
language. Morphology involves the stringing together of sounds (phonemes) and
includes such structures as prefixes, suffixes, word endings that describe
number (e.g., dog vs. dogs), and tense (e.g., walk vs. walked). Syntax refers to
the rules used in combining words to make a sentence. As with the sounds of
language (phonology), the rules of language are finite. The acquisition of
syntax is also developmental.
While syntax determines the rules that guide how sentences are put together,
such knowledge alone is not sufficient for constructing sentences. The meaning
of words constrains what words may or may not be used together. For example, the
sentence "I saw the house flying over the orchard" would make little
sense, although it is syntactically correct. It is this aspect of language, the
importance of meaning, that Bloom and Lahey (1978) refer to as content. Content
involves knowledge of vocabulary, the relationships between words, and
"time-and-event" relationships (Swanson & Watson, 1989). The child
must also be able to associate words with the correct environmental experience.
It is generally expected that a child understands the meaning of more words than
he or she can express at any point in time. As Swanson and Watson (1989) point
out, when an individual appears able to express more information than he or she
is able to receive and comprehend, it may suggest that he or she has difficulty
in auditory input and processing.
Use, the final component in the Bloom and Lahey model, refers to "the
pragmatic functions of language in varying contexts" (Swanson & Watson,
1989, p. 151). It views the child as an active "communicator" whose
words and sentences are intentionally selected in relation to the effect the
speaker wishes to have on a listener. The speaker needs to be able to (a) change
what is said in some way when it is apparent that he or she is not being
understood, (b) vary language use when talking with different groups (e.g.,
peers or adults), and (c) use language in a variety of functional ways (e.g., to
begin or end a conversation). Thus, use (or pragmatics, as it is sometimes
called) is a vital area to assess in language; to ignore how a student uses
language is to ignore a basic element of language -- that we communicate in a
context, for a particular purpose or reason (Heward & Orlansky, 1992).
Assessing a Child's Language Abilities
The IDEA's regulations provide a
definition of speech-language impairment as "a communication disorder such
as stuttering, impaired articulation, a language impairment, or a voice
impairment that adversely affects" a child's educational performance [34
CFR Section 300.7(b)(11)]. In more specific terms, a child with a speech
disorder may have difficulty in producing sounds properly, speaking in a normal
flow or rhythm, or using his or her voice in an effective way. A child with a
language disorder would have problems using or understanding the rules, sounds,
or symbols that we use to communicate with each other. This relates to language
form, content, and/or use, as discussed above (Heward & Orlansky, 1992). A
child with a speech impairment, a language impairment, or both, would be
eligible for services under the IDEA.
There are many standardized measures of speech and language ability. Some
"provide a comprehensive view of all language functioning," while
others "measure specific components of linguistic performance (for example,
phonology, linguistic structure, or semantics)" (Wallace, Larsen, &
Elksnin, 1992, p. 252). The range of tests and what they measure may be
identified through consulting resource books on speech/language assessment or
more general test references such as Tests (Sweetland & Keyser, 1991), or by
contacting organizations such as the American Speech-Language-Hearing
Association (ASHA).
It is important to realize, however, that "standardized diagnostic tests
are generally insensitive to the subtleties of ongoing functional
communication" (Swanson & Watson, 1989, p. 155). Therefore, in addition
to or in place of standardized tests, a typical speech/language evaluation
should include obtaining a language sample that seeks to capture how the student
performs in an actual communication situation. Language samples can be obtained
through checklists or observational recording systems, or through informally
conversing with the student. Great care must be taken to ensure that assessment
of students is culture-free and dialect-sensitive, as many children will speak
nonstandard English or another language entirely. [The issue of cultural bias in
language assessment is considered in Topics in Language Disorders (Terrell,
1983)]. Obtaining such a language sample from the student is often the
responsibility of the speech-language pathologist.
Through interviews, observations, and teaching, teachers can also gather
valuable information about a student's language use. By engaging in what is
known as diagnostic teaching, the teacher can become an invaluable participant
in the ongoing assessment and remediation of a child's language deficiencies. It
is important, however, for teachers to be thoroughly familiar with the
developmental milestones of normal language functioning.
Obtaining a case history of the child (in most cases, from the parents) can also
be valuable in the initial stages of assessment. Knowing in detail how the
child's language has developed can yield information relevant to the problem and
includes gaining an understanding of the early stages of the disorder, any
physical or emotional condition that may have been or be involved, whether the
disorder occurs in other settings and, if so, how it manifests itself, and any
insights the parents may have into how best to assess and work with their child
(Wallace, Larsen, & Elksnin, 1992, p. 260).
It is also important to realize that the ability to receive and understand
language, and to use language verbally, is in part dependent upon how well the
body performs physically. Before embarking upon an extensive (and expensive)
battery of tests, examiners should ensure that any apparent speech or language
impairment is not actually the result of a hearing impairment which, in effect,
prevents the child from hearing words clearly and learning to use or understand
them. Similarly, many children with physical disabilities may not be able to
speak clearly enough to be understood but, when provided with assistive
technology (e.g., speech synthesizers, computers), may show themselves to be
competent users of language.
Perceptual Abilities
Perceptual abilities determine how individuals perceive information and how they
respond. These abilities can be subdivided into at least four general areas:
visual-perceptual, auditory-perceptual, perceptual-motor skill, and attention.
Assessing a student in these areas is intended to determine strengths and
weaknesses in information and sensory processing and can help the assessment
team gain an understanding of how the child learns best.
The idea of "perceptual deficits" has long been linked to learning
disabilities. It is important to realize that research results in this area have
been mixed and controversial, and offer only small support for including
evaluation of perceptual abilities in any assessment battery or approach
(Overton, 1992). Linguistic issues, rather than perceptual abilities, may more
often explain learning deficits. Nevertheless, since assessing perceptual
abilities continues to be part of the evaluation process at present, we will
briefly discuss them below.
Visual-Perceptual Ability
Visual perception includes the ability to
discriminate between two or more visual stimuli, locate a particular figure
within a larger scene, and understand position in space. Perceptual skills
include detecting specific colors, shapes, and sizes. In reading, it requires
the ability to detect the visual features of a letter or word so that the 26
letters of the alphabet can be distinguished from each other. The student must
also discriminate between ten written digits.
Auditory-Perceptual Ability
Auditory perception includes the ability to detect
certain auditory features such as changes in volume, discrimination of vowel or
consonant sounds, and nonphonemic sound discrimination (e.g., the sound of a
bell from the sound of a buzzer). In a school setting, then, the student would
need the ability to discriminate between different sounds, identify spoken words
that are the same or different, and hear sounds in order.
Perceptual-Motor Ability
Most assessments include one or more measures of
perceptual-motor ability. It has been an assumption of many educators that
perceptual-motor or visual-motor problems are often associated with learning
problems and, therefore, should be included in most assessment batteries (Salvia
& Ysseldyke, 1991). Historically, tests of perceptual-motor skill have been
second only to intelligence tests in terms of use in the assessment of
school-aged children. Tests of perceptual-motor skill or perceptual-motor
integration most often ask students to copy geometric designs that are placed in
front of them. This requires the child to see the design, attend to and remember
the relevant features, and then carry out the motor actions necessary to
reproduce the design on paper.
Attention
The ability to focus on a given activity for extended periods is
important if a student is to take in information or complete the day-to-day
tasks in school. Keogh and Margolis (1976) have suggested three phases of
attention: the ability to (a) come to attention; (b) focus attention; and (c)
maintain attention. The issue of "selective" attention must also be
considered here. Students must be able to attend, and they must be able to
sustain attention on the most relevant stimuli. For example, a student must be
able to attend to the teacher's words rather than to his or her clothing.
Difficulties in any of the three phases of attention can interfere with a
student's ability to learn or share what he or she knows in a consistent
fashion. While the ability to attend effectively is seldom assessed through a
formalized instrument, information related to attention can be gathered through
classroom observations and observations of test behaviors.
Assessing Perceptual Ability
As was mentioned above, assessing perceptual
abilities is not without its controversies. There are certainly a number of
issues that need to be considered when addressing this area.
The first issue relates to the importance of ensuring that a student's apparent
perceptual difficulties are not actually the result of a lack of visual or
auditory acuity (as opposed to a difficulty with processing stimuli). Before
beginning an assessment of perceptual ability, then, the student's eyesight and
hearing should be tested (Overton, 1992; Swanson & Watson, 1989). This can
be part of the assessment process, with the school referring the student to the
appropriate facilities for such screenings.
The second issue is related to the relevance of such measures to the goals of
assessment. There has been little to suggest that direct training in perceptual
skills improves academic performance (Salvia & Ysseldyke, 1991; Vellutino,
1979). If there is little applicability, then it seems reasonable to question
whether formal tests of perceptual skill are necessary as part of the assessment
battery.
The third issue is related to the validity and reliability of the perceptual
test measures. There is some suggestion that tests purported to measure
perceptual abilities may actually measure other factors such as language or
verbal memory skill (Vellutino, 1979). Information gained from tests thought to
measure perceptual processing may actually result in incorrect explanations for
learning problems. This may lead those working with the child towards strategies
that are not useful (perceptual training such as copying designs) and away from
ones that may be helpful, such as training in phonological processing. There are
also concerns that many of the instruments currently available do not meet
acceptable standards of reliability and validity (Swanson & Watson, 1989, p.
217), making their use of questionable value.
Academic Achievement
Academic achievement refers to how well the child is performing in core skill
areas such as reading, mathematics, and writing. Assessment batteries typically
include an individual measure of academic achievement, although it is important
to realize that standardized achievement tests may be inappropriate for use with
immigrant or minority group children. Information about the child's placement
(i.e., below, at, or above) in his or her peer group and knowledge about the
specific skills the child possesses are important both for the planning and
evaluation of instruction.
Reading
Reading is an extension of the language process. It
provides a way for individuals to exchange information. Reading also represents
the means by which much of the information presented in school is learned and is
the academic area most often implicated in school failure.
Reading, like language, is an extremely complex process, a process that is, for
many, so natural or fluent that many of the subskills are not recognized or
identified as a part of the process. Identifying these subskills is important,
however, if an adequate assessment in this area is to occur.
Prereading skills include:
1. General language competence;
2. Understanding that reading is a means of exchanging ideas (e.g., the ability
to "read" pictures);
3. The ability to complete rhymes and identify words that do not rhyme;
4. The ability to distinguish between verbal and nonverbal sounds, recognize
when words are the same or different, and segment and blend language sounds; and
5. The ability to store and retrieve sounds one has heard.
Having opportunities for abundant language experiences, while not a skill, is
also important to the development of prereading and later reading ability.
Reading skills can be divided into two general categories: word recognition and
comprehension. A number of skills are used when attempting to identify,
pronounce, or retrieve a word. Four types of analyses can be used by the child:
visual analysis (i.e., the use of visual features), contextual analysis (i.e.,
using the surrounding words for clues about a given word), phonological analysis
(i.e., using information about the sounds in the word), and structural analysis
(i.e., recognizing and giving meaning to specific word parts such as prefixes,
suffixes, or syllables). Phonological analysis appears particularly important as
children attempt to gain reading skill. It allows the child to decode (i.e.,
read) a word he or she has never seen before, either in isolation or in context.
This is not possible with visual, contextual, or structural analysis alone. The
ability, then, to engage in phonemic analysis is important to becoming a
proficient reader and, therefore, is an area that should be considered in any
assessment of any child who is struggling with reading.
Gaining meaning from text (comprehension) is the most common goal of reading.
The general approach of the reader (active or passive), use of prior knowledge,
and contextual analysis are all skills that appear related to comprehension. The
ability to grasp literal information and to predict, interpret, critically
analyze, or create new ideas in response to a paragraph are examples of the use
of context at the comprehension level. Listening comprehension also appears to
be related to reading comprehension, particularly at the higher reading skill
levels (Stanovich, 1982).
The assessment of reading, then, needs to address the ability of the child to
recognize individual words and to comprehend text. Assessment instruments should
be selected that assure that test content and test tasks are as similar as
possible to school reading tasks. Both formal and informal assessment may be
useful here. Informal measures may include asking the student to:
1. Read aloud, which permits the teacher to identify errors in decoding and to
determine the student's fluency and accuracy when reading;
2. Answer questions after reading, to determine the student's ability to
understand the main idea of the story, capture its details, or place events in
sequence;
3. Paraphrase or re-tell the story in his or her own words;
4. Fill in missing words in a passage he or she has not read;
5. Identify which sentence out of several means the same thing as a sentence
supplied by the teacher; and
6. Provide synonyms of selected words.
Mathematics
Another critical area of school achievement is that of
mathematics. The terms "mathematics" and "arithmetic" are
often used interchangeably but actually mean different things. Mathematics
refers to the study of numbers and their relationships to time, space, volume,
and geometry, while arithmetic refers to the operations or computations
performed. Subskills related to mathematics include:
1. Problem-solving,
2. The ability to perform mathematics in practical situations,
3. Performance of appropriate computational skills,
4. Use of mathematics to predict,
5. Understanding and use of concepts related to measurement,
6. Interpretation and construction of charts or graphs,
7. Ability to estimate,
8. Understanding and application of geometric concepts,
9. Ability to recognize the reasonableness of results, and
10. Computer knowledge (for more information, see Lerner, 1988; Reid &
Hresko, 1981; Roth-Smith, 1991).
For a student to learn and act on knowledge of mathematics, he or she must
understand terms regarding amount or direction (i.e., language-based knowledge),
understand that numbers stand for a quantity, hold multiple pieces of
mathematical information in memory and perform mathematical operations (e.g.,
add, multiply) on them, and know that numbers can be manipulated in meaningful
ways.
The assessment of mathematics should measure a student's ability in both
calculation and reasoning (application). Like reading, an evaluation of
mathematical understanding and performance should also be structured so that it
closely matches the demands made on the child in the actual classroom situation.
Assessment might begin by analyzing actual samples of the student's work and
identifying specific errors and any apparent pattern to those errors.
Curriculum-based assessment techniques are also useful, and can be combined with
task analysis and error analysis to identify where, specifically, the student is
having problems. Interviewing can be useful as well, and may include
"asking the student to solve a problem and explain the steps used in the
process" (Overton, 1992, p. 257). Such an approach can be invaluable in
providing insight into a student's mathematical reasoning. Conducting several
such interviews is important, however, to avoid drawing hasty conclusions about
the nature of a student's difficulties. Observations can also provide productive
information to the assessment team and should focus on student behavior during
-- and his or her approach to -- written assignments, working at the chalkboard,
and classroom discussions.
Written Language
Written language is a complex form of communicating that
consists of three general areas: spelling, handwriting, and written expression
or composition. Like reading, writing tasks are an important part of the school
curriculum and are often utilized in evaluating a student's understanding of a
given concept. Written language is directly tied to reading, listening, and
speaking, and skills in all of these areas overlap.
Spelling has often been considered a difficult task (Henderson, 1985). In
English, the difficulty arises because there is no one-to-one correspondence
between letters and their representative sounds. This can cause problems for the
reader and may cause even greater problems for the speller. In spelling there
are even fewer cues to aid in recreating a spoken word in print. As Lerner
(1988) explains:
Several clues aid the reader in recognizing a word in print: context, phonics,
structural analysis, and configuration. There is no opportunity, however, to
draw on peripheral clues in reproducing a word. (p. 105)
Both language and reading experience appear to be important to the development
of connections between letters and their sounds. Thus, knowledge of spelling
patterns, analysis of word parts, and knowledge of syllable rules all need to be
measured.
It is important to consider that any approach that does not require a child to
independently reconstruct a word (e.g., one that simply asks a child to select a
misspelled word from among a group of words) does little to give information
about the child's ability to recreate accurate spelling in a sentence he or she
is writing. Assessment of spelling is particularly well given to informal
approaches such as curriculum-based measurement or interviews. A number of
standardized, commercially available spelling tests are available as well.
Handwriting refers to the actual motor activity that is involved in writing.
Most students are taught manuscript (printing) initially and then move to
cursive writing. There are those who advocate that only manuscript or only
cursive should be taught (Reid & Hresko, 1981). In truth, problems may
appear among students in either system. Wiederhold et al. (1978) have suggested
a number of areas which may be assessed related to both manuscript and cursive
writing. The assessment of manuscript includes evaluating the position of the
hand and paper, size of letters and the proportion of letters to each other,
quality of the actual pencil lines, the amount and regularity of the slant of
the letters, letter formation and alignment, letter or word spacing, and speed
of production. Cursive writing can be considered according to many of the same
qualities but should also include an evaluation of the way in which letters are
connected.
Composition refers to the more creative parts of written expression. Alley and
Deshler (1979) suggest three general areas that need to be addressed in any
assessment of written expression:
1. The student's attitude toward writing;
2. Ability of the individual to express content (e.g., skill in describing or
reporting events, or in expressing views or feelings); and
3. The student's ability to "craft" a paragraph (e.g., the student's
ability to organize, sequence, choose effective words, use punctuation and
capitalization, or take notes).
Both formal and informal measures of assessment of written expression are
available and should be considered in a thorough evaluation. Analyzing work
samples produced by the student can be particularly useful, as can interviewing
the student regarding his or her perceptions of the writing process.
Behavior and Emotional and Social Development
Behavior -- how a student conducts himself or herself in school -- is often a
key factor in educational performance. Certainly, behavior that is off-target
academically or socially -- inattention, being out of seat, talking too much,
hitting or biting, skipping school -- can detract from learning. When a
student's behavior appears to be interfering with school performance and
relationships with others, or when that behavior is maladaptive, bizarre, or
dangerous, it becomes important to assess the student's behavior (when the
behavior occurs, how often, and for what reasons) as well as his or her
emotional and social development. Wallace, Larsen, and Elksnin (1992)
"stress the need to take an ecological perspective when assessing a
student's nonacademic behaviors in order to obtain a complete picture and
examine the relationship between the behavior and the environment" (pp.
164-165).
Negative or inappropriate behaviors may occur for different reasons. One child
may be disruptive in class because of attention deficit disorder. A second child
may exhibit similar behaviors due to a mental illness, while another's
inappropriate behavior may be linked to environmental factors such as his or her
parents' recent divorce. Still another child may be disruptive only in one or
two classes, for reasons associated with the way instruction is organized (e.g.,
a predominance of small group, large group, or self-paced activities) or
something in that environment which the student finds disturbing. Thus,
identifying why a child is exhibiting certain behaviors is an important part of
the assessment process. The reasons why, if they can be determined, will
influence whether or not the child is determined eligible for special education
services and, if so, will certainly affect the nature of decisions made
regarding educational and other interventions.
Assessing Problem Behavior
For children exhibiting signs of emotional, social,
or behavioral problems, the assessment team will generally conduct a behavioral
assessment. The goal of behavioral assessment is to gain an increased
understanding of how environmental factors may be influencing the child's
behavior. This includes identifying (a) what expectations and rules are
established by significant others in the settings where the problem behavior
occurs, and (b) what "specific variables in a particular situation . . .
may be maintaining problem behaviors" (Berdine & Meyer, 1987, p. 151).
This knowledge will then be used directly in designing intervention strategies.
"Behavioral assessment depends on keen observation and precise
measurement" (Swanson & Watson, 1989, p. 246). Assessment is tied to
observing a specific situation (e.g., how the child responds during lunch or
reading) at a particular point in time. It is important that a behavioral
assessment involve multiple measures and take place in various settings (e.g.,
the classroom, school playground, chorus, home) and at different times during
the day (e.g., morning, afternoon, and night). The ability to observe and record
behavior, select the most appropriate places to observe the child, and find
efficient and clear means of interpreting results are all critical in behavioral
assessment. Collectively, the observations should provide information which:
1. Pinpoints and quantifies the nature of the behavior problem (including what
variables in the environment are contributing to or maintaining the behavior);
2. Allows eligibility and placement decisions to be made;
3. Illuminates what type of instruction or intervention is needed; and
4. Provides baseline information against which progress can be measured once
intervention begins.
Interviews are also a useful means of gathering information about a child's
behavior. Parents and significant others may be able to offer insight into the
nature and history of the child's difficulties. The child may also be an
excellent source of information. Of primary interest here is determining the
child's "awareness of the problem behaviors and their controlling
variables, degree of motivation to change, and skill at behavioral
self-control" (Berdine & Meyer, 1987, p. 174).
Assessing Adaptive Behavior
Other aspects of behavior may be important to
assess as well. Adaptive behavior is a frequent focus of assessment, and is a
required area of assessment when a classification of mental retardation is being
considered for a student. Adaptive behavior refers to "the effectiveness or
degree with which individuals meet the standards of personal independence and
social responsibility expected for age and cultural groups" (Grossman,
1983, p. 1). When assessing a person's adaptive behavior, examiners may
investigate his or her strengths and weaknesses in a variety of different skill
areas, such as: communication, self-care, home living, social skills, community
use, self-direction, health and safety, functional academics, leisure, and work.
According to the American Association on Mental Retardation (1992), these are
the skills with which individuals most often require assistance or some
specialized support.
The IDEA specifies "deficits in adaptive behavior" as one of the two
characteristics necessary for a student to be classified as having mental
retardation (the other characteristic being "significantly subaverage
general intellectual functioning" [34 CFR Section 300.7(b)(5)]. Measuring a
student's adaptive behavior, however, should not be limited to only those
students suspected of having mental retardation; this type of assessment has
much to offer the decision-making associated with students with other
disabilities as well, particularly in regards to IEP development and
instructional and transition planning.
Many commercially-developed adaptive behavior instruments exist to help
educators evaluate a student's adaptive skills. Using these instruments
typically does not require the student to be involved directly; rather,
examiners record information collected from a third person who is familiar with
the student (e.g., parent, teacher, direct service provider) and who can report
what types of adaptive skills the student has mastered and which he or she has
not. Unfortunately, there is some concern that many of the available adaptive
behavior scales do not meet the technical requirements of good instrumentation
[for example, reliability and validity may not reported by the publisher
(Berdine & Meyer, 1987; AAMR, 1992)] and that there may be bias inherent in
assessing the behavior of children who are culturally or linguistically
different from the majority culture. Therefore, care must be taken with the
selection of the adaptive behavior scale to be used. It is also a good idea to
use other methods to collect information about the student's skills, such as
direct observation and interviewing the student. For minority students, it is
imperative to develop an understanding of what types of behavior are considered
adaptive (and, thus, appropriate) in the minority culture, before making
judgments about the particular functioning of a student.
Assessing Emotional and Social Development
No child lives in a vacuum. His or
her relative freedom from internal and external stressors, ab
