IV. Assessment approaches and criteria for selection of measures

IV.A: Formal assessment approaches include tests, developmental checklists and other measures that have an established protocol. In most cases it is standard procedure to use one or more norm-referenced instruments to determine eligibility because there needs to be a reliable and valid comparison of the child’s developmental status against other children the same age. Relying solely on norm-referenced instruments is not recommended, however, because they lack good predictive validity, particularly for children with developmental delays or disabilities. Additionally, few standardized measures have included children with disabilities in their norming population. Part C of IDEA recognizes these issues and allows evaluators to use informed clinical opinion to assist in their determination of eligibility for services.

IV.B: Information collected through more informal approaches can be quite useful, particularly when the purpose of assessment is program planning, or monitoring. Informal approaches include observation and interview. Observational data can be recorded anecdotally (after the observation occurs) or through a running record (during the observation). Observations in naturalistic settings can provide the evaluator with opportunities to see typical behavior patterns in familiar surroundings. While there are protocols for interviews, assessment information can also be collected from caregivers and family members and others using a non-structured format with open-ended questions.

IV.C: Assessment of young children with special needs should be:

  • Multi-measure – More than one measure should be used
  • Multi-method – Both formal and informal assessment approaches should be used
  • Multi-context – Assessments should occur across a variety of settings
  • Multi-purpose – Assessments can and should be used for more than one purpose

Assessment instruments generally fall into the following categories: play-based assessment, ecological assessment, judgment-based assessment and adaptive assessment.

Bagnato, Neisworth and Munson (1997) developed criteria for systematically reviewing assessment measures to determine their appropriateness for inclusion in an assessment of a young child with special needs.

Six Operational LINK Standards, Incorporating the Most Desirable Early Childhood Assessment Characteristics

StandardLINK Dimension

AuthenticityBases assessments on sequential authentic goals contained within a curriculum’s developmental hierarchy or task analysis

Taps natural developmental competencies

Emphasizes areas of strength rather than areas of concern

Requires use of developmentally appropriate and familiar toys and materials or necessary adaptive toys

Promotes natural circumstances for assessments

Converts contrived test items into authentic tasks

Balances quantitative and qualitative performance information

ConvergenceAccepts/incorporates multiple data sources, including curriculum-compatible and authentic information

Focuses on assessment in natural contexts

Relies on play-style stagings of assessments to complement natural displays of behavior

Ensures broader coverage of child and family’s developmental ecology

Promotes inter-or transdisciplinary modes of teamwork

Is family centered in outlook and process

CollaborationRelies on family as the primary source or authentic child performance data

Supports consensus decision making and use of collaborative problem solving and judgments as the most valid assessment process

Fosters in situ cross-talking and consensus decisions among parents and professionals about the child’s capabilities, needs, and family priorities

EquityAdapts tasks to accommodate child’s functional limitations

Emphasizes critical task/competencies demonstrated by the child, irrespective of functional limitation

Uses test-teach-test approach to identify primary response mode and to generalize its use by the child with various materials, activities, and settings

Conducts assessments via a natural test-teach-test framework that blends testing and teaching

Seeks to uncover and foster the child’s learning-to-learn skills and abilities

SensitivityUses sequential curricular goals and graduated metrics to monitor small increments of individual progress

Links authentic assessment tasks to authentic curriculum goals and authentic curriculum goals to authentic interventions

Underscores activity-based interventions in natural home and preschool settings and using natural activities

Links to real-life IEP/IFSP goals

CongruenceAccomplishes major purposes and missions of early childhood and special education

Uses developmentally appropriate styles of assessment that emphasize play, natural observation and parent reports

Contains tasks and procedures that allow flexible accommodations for young children with wide individual differences, in particular developmental delays and disabilities

Encompasses content and procedures that have field-derived social and treatment validities to support their suitability for use with young children, particularly those with special needs.

Developmentally appropriate assessment ratings to gauge the

quality of curriculum-based instruments

Assessment isWhen characterized by

AuthenticReal-life activities, settings, and methods that provide goals for intervention

3. Clear emphasis on skills or activities that are useful and worthwhile in natural settings

  1. Many or most items have some relevance; items can be adapted or contextualized to be useful objectives.
  1. Emphasis on items with little real-life relevance; psychometric tasks that were neither required nor desired in typical activities and settings.

CollaborativeConsensual decision making through teamwork between parents and professionals

3. Assessment items and methods are readily useful by parents and various professionals

  1. Materials can be used by professional teams after coaching, although parent use is minimal.
  1. Content and methods are discipline specific; use by parents and other professionals not feasible.

ConvergentA confluence of information from multiple sources, settings, occasions, domains, and measures of multiple purposes

  1. Emphasizes the use of multiple sources of information, including observation across settings and interview, as well as scoring of activity in context.
  1. Employs at least some information source other than testing (eg., interview, and observation in natural contexts).
  1. Focuses on direct testing, with little or no reliance on other avenues for information gathering.

EquitableFlexible and adaptive modifications to accommodate the needs and priorities of young children and families

  1. Activity is phrased functionally (what gets done), rather than requiring specific sensory or motor capability.
  1. Administration permits normative skill or activity to be modified to accommodate special sensory, motor, or cultural needs.
  1. Normative tasks or activities not feasible for child with special sensory (seeing or hearing), motor, or cultural needs.

SensitiveRange and density of tasks in the functional hierarchy to detect even small increments of change

  1. Assessment procedures and wide range of high density of items designed to detect even small changes
  1. Moderate array of items, but gaps between items that preclude tracking of modest changes
  1. Psychometric high inference items; few items for gauging child attainment of major developmental stages and capabilities; spotty, low density.

CongruentThe extent to which an assessment instrument and its procedures correspond, are compatible with the missions of early intervention, responsive to the developmental demands and special needs of young children, and suitable for and field validated with children similar to those to be assessed.

  1. Assessment system shows specific design features, content and procedures to detect and accommodate individual early childhood needs; demonstrates its suitability through formative field validations and/or standardization and norming studies that establish its social and treatment validities.
  1. Assessment system shows general design features, content, and procedures that can accommodate individual early childhood needs; but evidence of field-derived social and treatment validities is weak or absent.
  1. Assessment system is developmentally inappropriate in design, content, and procedures; fails to demonstrate field-derived social and treatment validity with special needs group(s) during its development; is normed and/or field-validated with typical children and misapplied to children

with special needs.

Bagnato, S.J., Neisworth, J.T., & Munson, S.M. (1997). LINKing assessment and early intervention: An authentic curriculum-based approach, Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes.

IV.D. Several measures used in early childhood assessment will be described in this section.

Developmental Indicators for the Assessment of Learning – Revised (DIAL-R) (Mardell-Czudnowski & Goldenberg, 1990) is a norm referenced instrument that is designed to screen motor, concepts and language. It is designed for use with children ages 2 years and 5 years 9 months. The DIAL-R was normed on 2227 in 1990 and is often used in team screenings using a station format.

Bayley Scales of Infant Development II is a 1993 revision of the original scales which were developed by Bayley in 1969. The scales assess development of children from 1-42 months of age. There are three scales: 1) mental scale (assesses perceptual acuity, discrimination, object constancy and memory, learning and problem solving, verbal ability, generalization and classification) 2) motor scale (muscle control and coordination); and 3)behavior rating scale (subscales address orientation/engagement, attention, motor quality and emotional regulation). Developmental age equivalents for motor, personal/socail, language and cognition are offered. Reliability and validity reported by the authors seem adequate. 1700 children were included in the normative sample and included children with special needs. The Bayley Scales of Infant Development are frequently included in the assessment battery to determine eligibility under Part C. It is generally administered by a trained school psychologist.

Battelle Developmental Inventory (Newborg et al., 1984) is a norm referenced tool used to assess development of children birth to age 8. There are 341 items in five domains and yields standard scores, percentile ranks and age equivalent. The normative sample consisted of 800 children (50 infants). The instrument is considered by norm-referenced and criterion referenced and can be used for evaluation and assessment purposes. The psychometric properties are sound, but because the sample included so few infants, it is a better choice for children 2 and older.

Hawaii Early Learning Profile (Furuno et al., 1988) is a criterion-referenced instrument that is accompanied by a curriculum that can be used for intervention planning. There are two versions, one for infants and toddlers and one for preschoolers. The Hawaii or HELP contains items across all five developmental domains.

Assessment, Evaluation, and Programming System (AEPS) for Infants and Children (Bricker, 1993; Cripe, Slentz, & Bricker, 1993) is designed for use with children from 1 month of age to 3 years and their families. The AEPS represents a departure from traditional assessment approaches in that it integrates assessment and intervention in one approach.