Running head: ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS FOR IDENTIFICATION OF LD
Evaluating Students for Learning Disabilities: Assessment Instruments
Used in North Carolina1
Margaret Gessler Werts2, Christina Young Tillery
Rebecca R. Roark, Shirley H. Harris
Appalachian State University
1This study was supported, in part, by a grant to the first author from the Faculty Development Center, Hubbard Center, Appalachian State University, Boone, NC. However, the opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect policies of the Appalachian State University and no official endorsement should be inferred. The authors are grateful for the assistance provided by Michelle Schwarz Miller, Jama Smith, and Danny Brock.
2 Correspondence should be addressed to Margaret Werts, Ph.D., Appalachian State University, Department of Language, Reading, and Exceptionalities, ASU Box 32085, Boone, NC 28608,
e-mail: wertsmg@appstate.edu; telephone: (828) 262-6365; fax (828) 262-6767.
Abstract
Special education directors and psychologists from each school district in North Carolina were surveyed to determine instruments most frequently used to assess students referred for special education services. Of 117 school districts statewide, 108 districts responded and 107 usable questionnaires were received. The questionnaire included brief demographic information and a list of assessment instruments followed by questions regarding who administers each test. Tests were categorized according to the following areas: cognitive functioning, reading, global academic functioning, mathematics, writing and spelling, and adaptive behavior. Respondents indicated there are a variety of testing instruments used in North Carolina, most of which are tests of global academic functioning. In addition, results of this study compared favorably with previous studies regarding assessment tools, and psychologists rather than special education directors most frequently complete assessments. These results have implications for: 1) teacher preparation programs, 2) preservice students, 3) persons selecting tests for purchase, and 4) persons who administer testing instruments.
Evaluating Students for Learning Disabilities: Assessment Instruments
Used in North Carolina
In public educational settings, a student is sometimes referred for a special education evaluation to determine educational needs, and whether the student qualifies for services according to those needs (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2002). Following screening, a student exhibiting suspected characteristics of a learning disability (LD) begins an evaluation process in which school assessment team members (e.g., psychologists, special education teachers, general education teachers, guidance counselors) administer tests and conduct observations to determine the existence and extent of a learning disability (Berninger, Stage, Smith, & Hildebrand, 2001; Hallahan & Kauffman, 2003). If a student is identified as having a disability, the Individualized Educational Program (IEP) team determines the student’s present level of performance and educational goals, along with appropriate supplemental aids and services. The quality of these assessment procedures can have a long-term impact on the educational future of the student with a learning disability. Therefore, to maintain quality of procedures, evaluators must be cognizant of many factors, including appropriate assessment instruments and their interpretations (Salvia & Ysseldyke, 2001).
A number of assessment instruments, each having strengths and weaknesses, are available to educators and psychologists. Selection of an appropriate assessment instrument should be an individual decision for each student as specified in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 1997). Often examiners repeatedly administer tests with which they are familiar. One strong argument for this practice is that the more frequently a test is given, the more reliably an examiner can interpret the results. Other arguments include availability of tests in the schools and costs of purchasing new testing instruments. Some districts have amassed a collection of tests over the years. However, as tests age and norms become dated, results from one edition to another may not be comparable (Addison & Abram, 2001).
Students preparing for careers in special education and psychology need to be familiar with assessment instruments, including those frequently administered to identify students with learning disabilities. University personnel in teacher preparation programs should offer training in currently used assessment instruments. If practicing teachers are administering tests, pre-service teachers should be taught those skills. If psychologists and diagnosticians test students suspected of learning disabilities, pre-service teachers should be taught to interpret and understand results. Skills taught in assessment classes should reflect current demands placed on practicing teachers, test administrators, and school psychologists.
Some researchers have examined the use of assessment instruments (Goh, Teslow, & Fuller, 1981; Hutton, Dubes, & Muir, 1992; Reschly, Genshaft, & Binder, 1987; Wilson & Reschly, 1996). A search of the literature revealed some information about assessment instruments currently used to identify students with learning disabilities, but a majority of the studies focused on assessment instruments used by psychologists testing for a wide variety of disability conditions (Kaufman & Kaufman, 2001). Frankenberger and Harper (1987) collected state guidelines on identification of learning disabilities to determine definition, methods, and procedures employed by states. During the early 1980s, an increased number of states delineated more specific achievement discrepancy criteria, but did not attempt to change their LD definition components. The indication is that multiple tests must be used to establish the discrepancy.
In 1979, Goh, Teslow, and Fuller (1981) surveyed 500 members of the National Association for School Psychologists (NASP) from five regions to assess which testing instruments were being used. These authors noted there were no previous national data on testing instruments used by school psychologists. The test list for their questionnaire was compiled from two sources: Seventh Mental Measurement Yearbook and Psychology in the Schools. Participants were asked to rate each test as never, seldom, occasionally, or frequently used. Seventy-one percent of the tests administered were in the areas of intelligence, achievement (general and specific), and perceptual functioning. The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised, Wide Range Achievement Test, Key Math Diagnostic Arithmetic Test, and Bender-Gestalt Test were the assessment instruments most frequently used. Many respondents wrote in a variety of measures in all areas, but no single test was written in by a majority of respondents, suggesting considerable diversity in instrument selection among school psychologists.
Several years later, Reschly, Genshaft, and Binder (1987) conducted a national survey of NASP members to determine use of assessment instruments. Nine categories of assessment instruments were listed for school psychologists to estimate the number of times per month each test was used. The most frequently reported instruments included the Wechsler scales, Wide Range Achievement Test-Revised, Key Math, and the Bender Visual Motor Gestalt Test. Other assessment instruments that were frequently used included: Draw-A-Person, Boehm Test of Basic Concepts, and informal tests. Tests most frequently listed in each category were also those most frequently taught in university training programs.
Hutton, Dubes, and Muir (1992) using a modified version of the Goh, Teslow, and Fuller (1981) questionnaire, surveyed 1,000 randomly selected NASP members from five national regions. The authors found that use of intelligence tests decreased between 1979 and 1989, while use of achievement tests, behavior ratings, and adaptive behavior measures increased. The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised, Wide Range Achievement Test, Key Math, and the Bender Visual Motor Gestalt Test were most often used. Draw-A-Person was the most frequent projective test reported. Another noteworthy result of this study was that school psychologists spent more time with preschool populations, thus expanding the trend toward early intervention.
A follow-up to the Reschly, Genshaft, and Binder (1987) survey was conducted by Wilson and Reschly (1996). In this study participants marked a Likert scale indicating high, moderate, low, or very low occurrence of use. Wechsler Intelligence Scales, Bender Visual Motor Gestalt Test, and Draw-A-Person were most used, but less frequent use of Wide Range Achievement Test-Revised was reported. Use of Woodcock Johnson-Revised, Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale if Intelligence-Revised, and anecdotal observations increased over the ten-year period. The authors concluded there was minimal change over the time period between the two surveys.
All studies cited above were conducted nationally using NASP members as participants. This study had a different purpose. The focus was on one state, North Carolina, to determine which testing instruments were most frequently used to identify students with learning disabilities. Information from each district was also needed to determine the personnel administering tests. Therefore, this study focused on two research questions: (1) what assessments instruments were used in the school districts in North Carolina, and (2) who administers each assessment instrument. These results will inform faculty at institutions of higher education of teaching practices for pre-service special education teachers. Teaching should focus on currently used tests, as well as test administration and/or interpretation.
Methods
Participants
Questionnaires were mailed to special education directors and testing coordinators/school psychologists in each of the 117 school districts within North Carolina to insure feedback from each school district. Names and addresses were obtained from the North Carolina Educational Directory, a publication of the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. When the directory did not identify personnel, district offices were contacted by phone to request the name and title of appropriate individuals. Names, titles, and addresses were entered into a database and mailing labels, for initial and subsequent mailings, were generated. For data entry and participant confidentiality, each questionnaire was assigned a code number that was handwritten on the upper right hand corner of each questionnaire and on each reply envelope.
Instrument
The questionnaire was constructed from tables of tests listed in Assessment of Exceptional Students Educational and Psychological Procedures (5th ed.) (Taylor, 2000). The list of tests was taken directly from the tables cited within each chapter on test types. No test was moved from one category to another because no attempt was made to evaluate the categorization of tests. The list of tests was printed on a single sheet of paper (11 in. by 17 in.) then folded to form a booklet of four pages (8.5 in. by 11 in.). Following the title page, three pages were formatted with three columns each: testing instruments; codes for indicating whether the instrument was used: Y (yes), N (not used), R (rarely used, less than 2-3 times per year); and space for indicating who administers the instrument. Testing instruments were divided into six categories: Tests of Cognitive Functioning, Tests of Reading, Tests of Global Academic Functioning, Tests of Arithmetic and Mathematics, Tests of Writing and Spelling, and Tests of Adaptive Behavior. All tests from Taylor (2000) were the ones included in the list. Participants were invited, through written instructions on the title page, to make additional comments in the space provided on each page. At the end of the questionnaire, participants were asked to complete the following demographic data: gender, years employed in education, years in present position, level of education, and positions previously held within education.
Procedure
A four-step
mailing procedure was followed (Dilman, 1978). The initial mailing packet, sent
to special education directors and school psychologists/testing coordinators in
each school district, contained a cover letter, the questionnaire, a
postage-paid reply envelope, a foil-wrapped gourmet teabag, and an order form
for selecting one of three notepad designs. Teabags and notepads were sent as
incentives for returning the questionnaire. The cover letter explained the
study, informed recipients of the identification code and its use, and asked
respondents to indicate if they wished to receive a copy of the study results.
A second mailing, approximately ten days later, consisted of a postcard
thanking recipients for their response and/or requesting immediate return of
the questionnaire. In addition, the postcard instructed recipients to call if
the initial mailing had not been received. A return mailing to respondents
contained the notepad selected and an accompanying note of appreciation for
participation. The final mailing to non-respondents consisted of a packet which
was mailed within three weeks of the postcard prompt. This mailing included
another cover letter, the questionnaire (coded to denote second mailing so
responses would not be counted twice), postage-paid reply envelope, and notepad
order form.
Each returned questionnaire was logged and assigned a second code number according to the numerical order in which responses were received. This procedure helped ensure respondent confidentiality. In addition, a list was compiled of all respondents requesting results of the survey, and reply envelopes were prepared. A report was mailed to respondents as soon as results were compiled.
Data Analysis
Data entry occurred in two phases: (1) responses related to frequency of assessment instrument use, and (2) responses related to assessment instrument administration. Multiple-choice responses related to test use were entered into a database as yes (Y), no (N), or rarely used (R). Special education directors and psychologists were entered on separate databases. When responses from both the special education director and the psychologist within the same school district were received, data was combined. This procedure errs on the side of overestimating, rather than underestimating, the district’s use of a particular test. If responses differed, data was collapsed using the following guidelines: (1) yes (Y) responses were given priority over all responses, and (2) rarely (R) responses were given priority over no (N) responses. If respondents reported using an assessment instrument not listed in the questionnaire, the instrument was included as an additional variable in the database. All data were entered twice and checked for entry reliability. When discrepancies were found, original responses were checked and all errors corrected.
Results
Returns and
Demographics of Respondents
Several school districts returned only one questionnaire, while other districts returned two, one each from the special education director (n=85 or 73%) and the school psychologist (n=59 or 50%). This does not total 100% because some respondents indicated they completed the questionnaire collaboratively. Of the 117 districts within the state, 107 (91.5%) districts responded with either one or two usable questionnaires. The number of responding districts was divided by the total number of districts and then multiplied by 100.
Of 144 respondents, 108 were female, 22 were male, and 14 did not answer
this question. Respondents had worked from 2-37 years in education with a mean
of 19.25 years. Almost half of the respondents (n=70) had thirty or more years
of experience in education. Respondents reported they had worked in their
present position from 1-28 years with a mean of 10.10 years. Fifty-eight percent of the respondents (n=84)
had worked in their current position 10 years or less. Two respondents held
degrees at the bachelor level, 15 held doctorates, but the overwhelming
majority of respondents (n=119) held a degree at the master or education
specialist level.
Frequency of Use
Percentages of use for each assessment instrument are reported in Table 1. If the combined percentages of yes (Y) and rarely (R) responses equaled or exceeded 25% of the number of responding districts, the assessment instrument was included in a list of frequently used tests to be considered for instruction. Within the six categories, 28 assessment instruments met this criterion and are noted in Table 1 with an asterisk.
<Table
1 here>
Test instrument administration, as reported by psychologist and special education directors, is reported in Table 2.
<Table
2 here>
Tests of cognitive functioning. Seven tests of cognitive functioning were included in
the questionnaire. Four instruments were used by at least 25% of the school
districts. All responding districts reported using the Wechsler
Intelligence Scale for Children-III (WISC-III),
while 70.0% reported using the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale-4 (SB-4),
59.8% reported using the Kaufman
Brief Intelligence Test (K-BIT), and 32.7%
reported using the Slosson Intelligence Test-Revised (SIT-R).
Special education directors and psychologists reported
psychologists as the primary administrators of WISC-III and SB-3. The K-BIT and SIT-R
were reported as administered by psychologists, special education teachers,
counselors, diagnosticians, and general education teachers. Whether or not a
teacher administering these tests held licensure as a school psychologist is
unknown. According
to administration manuals, the WISC-III, SB-4, and K-BIT should
be administered by persons with formal training or licensure. The SIT-R
can be administered by anyone familiar with the test and the student being
assessed.
Tests of reading.
Nine tests of reading were listed on the questionnaire. Respondents reported
using the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised (WRMT-R) most frequently, 80.3% of the districts. Informal
Reading Inventories (IRI) was used by 67.3%,
and Woodcock Diagnostic Reading Battery (WDRB) was used by 41.1% of the districts.
Psychologists, special education teachers, and
diagnosticians were most frequently reported as administrators of WRMT-R, while
psychologists and special and general education teachers were most
frequently reported as administering the IRI. Psychologists and special
education teachers administered the WDRB most frequently. The WDRB manual
states that personnel with formal training must administer the assessment
instrument. However, IRI and WRMT-R may be administered by anyone
familiar with the instrument. Again, whether or not a teacher administering
these tests held licensure as a school psychologist is unknown.
Tests of global academic functioning. Eighteen tests of global academic functioning were
included in the questionnaire. Twelve tests met the criterion for frequency of
use. The most widely reported assessment instrument used for assessing academic
functioning was the Woodcock Johnson-Revised (WJ-R), which was used by 98.1% of the districts. Wechsler
Individual Achievement Test (WIAT) was used by
94.4% of the districts. Other tests reported used by more than 25% of the
districts included: Brigance Comprehensive Inventory of Basic
Skills-Revised (BCIBS-R), Brigance Inventory of Essential Skills (BIES),
Diagnostic Achievement Test for Adolescents-2 (DATA-2), Behavior Assessment
System for Children (BASC), Differential Ability Scales (DAS), Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (KABC), Kaufman
Test of Educational Achievement (KTEA), Diagnostic Achievement Battery-2
(DAB-2), Peabody Individual Achievement Test-Revised (PIAT-R), and Wide Range Achievement Test-3 (WRAT-3). See Table 1 for percentages of use.
Psychologists were reported as most frequent administrators of WJ-R and WIAT, followed by special education teachers and diagnosticians. Psychologists and special education teachers were reported as administrators of BCIBS-R, BIES, DATA-2, BASC, DAS, KABC, KTEA, DAB-2, PIAT-R, and WRAT-3. In addition, general education teachers and counselors were reported as administrators, with the exception of DAS. The PIAT-R and WRAT-3 were also administered by speech pathologists. Personnel with formal training must administer five of the tests of global functioning (WJ-R, DAB-2, DATA-2, DAS, and KABC). However, a variety of school personnel may administer other tests listed in this category.
Tests of arithmetic and mathematics. Five
tests of arithmetic and mathematics were listed in the questionnaire, and two
were reported as used by 25% or more of the districts. KeyMath-Revised
(KM-R) was reported as being used by 40.1% of the districts, and the Test of
Mathematical Abilities-2 (TOMA-2) was reported as being used by 39.3% of the
districts.
Psychologists were reported most frequently as
administrators of the KM-R and TOMA-2. Special education teachers
and diagnosticians were mentioned as additional administrators of these two
tests. Test manuals of the KM-R and TOMA-2 state tests may be administered by anyone familiar with the
instrument, including special and general education teachers.
Tests of writing and spelling. Eleven tests of writing and spelling were included,
and three were reported as used by 25% or more of the districts. The Test
of Written Language-3 (TOWL-3) was used by 66.4%, Test of Early Written
Language (TEWL) was used by 52.3%, and Test
of Written Expression (TOWE) was used by 29.9%
of the districts.
Psychologists were the most frequently reported
administrators of TOWL-3, TEWL, and TOWE, followed by special education
teachers and diagnosticians. The TOWL-3 was also often reported as administered
by speech pathologists. Any trained personnel can administer the TOWL-3,
TEWL, and TOWE.
Tests of adaptive behavior. Four of the eight tests of adaptive behavior were
reported as being used by 25% or more of the districts. The Vineland
Adaptive Behavior Scales (VABS) was reported as
being used by 96.3%, Adaptive Behavior Inventory (ABI) was reported as being used by 48.6%, AAMR
Adaptive Behavior Scale (AAMR ABS) was used by
43.0%, and Scales of Independent Behavior (SIB) was used by 26.2% of the districts.
Psychologists, followed by special education teachers,
diagnosticians, and general education teachers were reported most frequently as
administering VABS, ABI, AAMR ABS, and SIB. Counselors, social
workers, and parents were also reported as VABS administrators. SIB
is the only assessment instrument requiring formal training for administration.
Discussion
All school districts in North Carolina were surveyed regarding test instruments used to assist in identifying students with learning disabilities. Several conclusions are evident from the results. First, a variety of tests are used within North Carolina. Some tests were listed only once, some more often, thus adding to the diversity of tests used across the state. This may be the result of no state mandates (Cobb, personal communication, 2001) for selecting assessment instruments, and, therefore, personnel in each district may decide which tests will be purchased and used. No information was obtained regarding the training of psychologists and special education directors, or whether this influenced which tests were selected. However, test administrators are required to choose tests based on the individual needs of each student being evaluated (IDEA, 1997). We noted a significant lack of tests requiring non-verbal responses, tests for young children, and tests designed for persons with severe or profound disabilities. This may be explained by the questionnaire instructions, which asked respondents to focus on students with learning disabilities. Some tests were listed under “other,” but did not reach the 25% criterion for inclusion in this report.
Second, when comparing results of this study with
previous ones, the series of Wechsler scales continued to be widely
used. In the area of math, Key Math or Key Math-Revised was
reported as most frequently used in all studies except Wilson and Reschly
(1996). Wilson and Reschly listed tests or procedures focusing only on global
academic functioning rather on individual curricular areas such as math and
reading. The WJ or WJ-R was reported as the most frequently used
test of global academic functioning in the present study and in Wilson and
Reschly (1996), as well as being ranked tenth in achievement tests as reported
by Hutton, Dubes, & Muir (1992). Reschly, Genshaft, and Binder (1987) did
not report high frequency of usage for the WJ. The percentages of use
for the WIAT were similar in this study to those of the WJ-R. The
WIAT may not have been mentioned in earlier studies since it is a
recently published instrument. The Woodcock Reading Mastery Test or
revised versions of it were reported as frequently used in this study. In
addition, this instrument ranks in the top eight among achievement tests in the
Goh, Teslow, and Fuller (1981) study, fourth in the Hutton, Dubes, and Muir
(1992) study. Wilson and Reschly (1996) did not list the WRMT as
frequently used test. The Vineland Adaptive Behavior Inventory/Scales
was the most frequently used test of adaptive behavior in the current
study. It ranked among the top eight in frequency of occurrence overall (Goh,
Teslow, & Fuller, 1981) and second in occurrence among measures of adaptive
behavior (Hutton, Dubes, and Muir, 1992). In other studies, Reschly, Genshaft,
and Binder (1987) and Wilson and Reschly (1996), the Vineland was
reported as rarely or never used. The Vineland is a well-established
checklist, but in some areas may have been over-shadowed by newer instruments.
We have no data on the variability of its use. Our results show high and
consistent usage. Further research may indicate other explanations for these
differences. The Test of Written Language-3 was the most frequently used
test of writing and spelling in the current study, and was ranked fifth in
usage among achievement tests by Hutton, Dubes, and Muir (1992), but was not
mentioned as a frequently used test in the other studies. This variability is
not explained through the data in this study. It may be related to regional
differences, training differences, (Hosp & Reschly, 2002) or, as mentioned
above, persons may use tests of global academic functioning rather than tests
in individual curricular areas.
While some tests remain widely accepted, others
appear to have declined in usage. Although previous studies were conducted on
the national level, the present study was completed in North Carolina. However,
the high return rate of the present study (91.5%) lends credibility to the
tests used. This has implications for the training needed in this area.
Third, more districts reported using tests of global academic functioning rather than specific curricular assessment tests. This suggests that decisions about academic function are often based on results of a sub-test rather than a test of one academic area. Because the reliability and validity of an embedded sub-test may vary from the overall test, administrators may not consider the quality of the sub-test. It is difficult to compare a sub-test to a whole test because the number of variables, size of samples, and sampling procedures vary. Interpreters and administrators of tests are advised to check test manuals for reliability and validity reports of subtests scores, as well as total test scores.
Finally, respondents reported that most often psychologists, not special education teachers, administer assessment instruments in North Carolina. One interpretation is that special education teachers need to become familiar with assessment instruments, how to interpret test scores, integrate results with work samples and observations, and how to articulate results in parent-friendly language. Faculty in teacher preparation programs need to provide preservice and inservice teachers with information about the most frequently used assessment instruments currently in use within schools in their region. This study, focusing on North Carolina alone, should serve as a procedural model for colleges and universities. Regional and training differences may impact tests in use in other areas of the country. It is critical that preservice teachers are trained comprehensibly, but that they have familiarity with assessment instruments used in areas where they are most likely to teach.
Impact of the Project
Persons participating in individualized education program (IEP) meetings need to be knowledgeable of assessment instruments currently available and used when making educational decisions for students. Teachers, both special and general education, should be knowledgeable about test scores, test items, basic statistics involved in calculating scores, and interpretation of an individual student’s performance.
Information about assessment instruments would be useful for several groups: (1) faculty preparing preservice teachers, (2) personnel selecting tests for purchase, and (3) personnel deciding which assessment instruments are most appropriate to a student’s characteristics, subsequent placement, and educational decisions. This investigation attempts to assist preparing preservice and inservice teachers by identifying assessment use and appropriate administration personnel. Important decisions in IEP meetings rest heavily on test results; therefore it is imperative that all persons involved be knowledgeable of testing procedures and outcomes.
Limitations of the Project
Information reported here is based on self- report and, therefore, subject to such limitations such as lack of knowledge and/or lack of attention to responses. However, the brief questionnaire required approximately 15 minutes to complete. In addition, because surveys were sent to both psychologists and special education directors within each district some dissimilar information was received. However, most district responses were consistent enough to be considered valid. In highly dissimilar cases, data was collapsed.
This study was limited to North Carolina, while other studies of this type have been conducted nationwide and generally with NASP members. Certainly persons within the districts would have more accurate knowledge of what tests were being administered locally. Although results of this study cannot be generalized to other areas of the country, many of the results were similar to the national studies. Faculty responsible for the preparation of special education teachers should be current in their knowledge of testing procedures.
References
Addison, S. C., & Abram, D. J. (2001). The potential for empirically based estimates of
expected progress for students with learning disabilities: Legal and conceptual issues.
School
Psychology Review, 30 (4), 473-486.
Berninger, V. W., Stage, S. A., Smith, D. R., & Hildebrand, D. (2001). Assessment for reading
and writing intervention: A three-tier model for prevention and remediation. In J. J. W.
Andrews,
D. H. Saklofske, & H. L. Janzen (Eds.), Handbook of psychoeducational
assessment: Ability, achievement, and behavior in children (pp. 195-223). Calgary, AB,
Canada:
Division of Applied Psychology.
Dilman, (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: A total design method. New York: Wiley.
Frankenberger, W. & Harper, J. (1987). States’ criteria and procedures for identifying learning
disabled children:
A comparison of 1981/82 and 1985/86 guidelines. Journal of learning
Disabilities, 20 (2),118-121.
Goh, D. S., Teslow, C. J., & Fuller, G. B. (1981). The practice of psychological assessment
among school psychologists. Professional Psychology, 12 (6), 696-706.
Hallahan, D. P.,
& Kauffman, J. M. (2003). Exceptional learners: Introduction to special
education
with casebook. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Hosp, J. L., & Reschly, D. J. (2002). Regional differences in school psychology practice.
School Psychology Review, 31 (1), 11-29.
Hutton, J. B., Dubes, R., & Muir, S. (1992). Assessment practices of school psychologists: Ten
years later. School Psychology Review, 21 (2), 271-284.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, P. L. 105-17, 20 U.S.C.
1400 et
seq.
Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (2001). Assessment of specific learning disabilities in the
new millennium: Issues, conflicts, and controversies. In A.S. Kaufman & N.L. Kaufman
(Eds.),
Specific learning disabilities and difficulties in children and adolescents:
Psychological
assessment and evaluation (pp. 433-461). Cambridge child and adolescent
psychiatry.
Pierangelo, R.,
& Giuliani, G. A. (2002). Assessment in special education: A practical
approach.
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Reschly, D. J.,
Genshaft, J., & Binder, M. S. (1987). The 1986 NASP Survey: Comparison
of
practitioners, NASP leadership, and university faculty on key issues. Washington, DC:
National Association of School Psychologists. (ED300733)
Salvia, J., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (2001) Assessment (8th Ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Taylor, R. L. (2000). Assessment
of exceptional students: Educational and psychological
procedures (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Wilson, M. S. & Reschly, D. J. (1996). Assessment in School Psychology Training and Practice,
School Psychology Review, 25 (1), 9-23.
|
Table
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assessment
Instruments Percentages of Use |
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Test |
|
|
% Yes |
% Rarely |
% No |
% No Response |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tests
of Cognitive Functioning |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wechsler
Intelligence Scale for Children-III* |
100 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kaufman
Brief Intelligence Test* |
37.4 |
22.4 |
32.7 |
7.5 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stanford-Binet
Intelligence Scale-4* |
33.6 |
36.4 |
23.4 |
6.6 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Slosson
Intelligence Test-Revised* |
14 |
11.2 |
67.3 |
7.5 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
McCarthy
Scales of Children's Abilities |
8.4 |
13.1 |
70.1 |
8.4 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Slosson
Full-Range Intelligence Test |
4.7 |
5.6 |
81.3 |
8.4 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Detroit
Test of Learning Aptitude-4 |
1.9 |
11.2 |
78.5 |
8.4 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tests
of Reading |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Woodcock
Reading Mastery Tests-Revised* |
60.7 |
19.6 |
16.8 |
2.9 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Informal
Reading Inventories* |
49.5 |
17.8 |
23.4 |
9.3 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Woodcock
Diagnostic Reading Battery* |
30.8 |
10.3 |
47.7 |
11.2 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Test of
Reading Comprehension-3 |
11.2 |
13.1 |
62.6 |
13.1 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gray Oral
Reading Test-3 |
5.6 |
18.7 |
66.4 |
9.3 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diagnostic
Reading Scales |
5.6 |
4.7 |
74.8 |
14.9 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stanford
Diagnostic Reading Test-Revised |
3.7 |
11.2 |
74.8 |
10.3 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Durrell
Analysis of Reading Difficulty |
2.8 |
6.5 |
78.5 |
12.2 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gilmore
Oral Reading Test |
0.9 |
5.6 |
78.5 |
15 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tests of
Global Academic Functioning |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Woodcock
Johnson-Revised* |
94.4 |
3.7 |
1.9 |
0 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Wechsler
Individual Achievement Test* |
81.3 |
13.1 |
3.7 |
1.9 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Test |
|
|
% Yes |
% Rarely |
% No |
% No Response |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brigance
Comp.1 Inventory of Basic Skills-R2* |
75.7 |
10.3 |
10.3 |
3.7 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Brigance
Inventory of Essential Skills* |
72.9 |
11.2 |
11.2 |
4.7 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diagnostic
Achievement Test for Adol.3-2* |
18.7 |
9.3 |
60.7 |
11.3 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Behavior
Assess.4 System for Children* |
49.5 |
3.7 |
40.2 |
6.6 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Differential
Ability Scales* |
46.7 |
13.1 |
29.9 |
10.3 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kaufman
Assess. Battery for Children* |
43.9 |
15.9 |
33.6 |
6.6 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kaufman
Test of Educational Achievement* |
42.1 |
25.2 |
26.2 |
6.5 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diagnostic
Achievement Battery-2* |
33.6 |
24.3 |
33.6 |
8.5 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peabody
Individual Achievement Test-R* |
31.8 |
19.6 |
41.1 |
7.5 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wide
Range Achievement Test-3* |
21.5 |
13.1 |
57.9 |
7.5 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Social
Skills Rating System |
17.8 |
4.7 |
67.3 |
10.2 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mini-Battery
of Achievement |
4.7 |
2.8 |
81.3 |
11.2 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Norris
Educational Achievement Test |
1.9 |
3.7 |
83.2 |
11.2 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
Academic Skills Individual Screener |
1.9 |
2.8 |
84.1 |
11.2 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Multilevel
Academic Survey Test |
0 |
2.8 |
83.2 |
14 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hammill
Mutiability Achievement Test |
0 |
0.9 |
87.9 |
11.2 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tests
of Arithmetic and Mathematics |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Keymath
& Keymath-Revised* |
33.7 |
7.4 |
58.9 |
0 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Test of
Mathematical Abilities-2* |
29 |
10.3 |
49.5 |
11.2 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stanford
Diagnostic Mathematics Test-4 |
3.7 |
2.8 |
81.3 |
12.2 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Enright
Diag.5 Inventory of Arith.6 Skills |
1.9 |
3.7 |
84.1 |
10.3 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diagnostic
Test of Arithmetic Strategies |
1.9 |
1.9 |
84.1 |
12.1 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mathematics
Concept Inventory |
|
|
0 |
2.8 |
86 |
11.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Test |
|
|
% Yes |
% Rarely |
% No |
% No Response |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tests
of Writing and Spelling |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Test of
Written Language-3* |
47.7 |
18.7 |
29.9 |
3.7 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Test of
Early Written Language* |
43 |
9.3 |
40.2 |
7.5 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Test of
Written Expression* |
22.4 |
7.5 |
61.7 |
8.4 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Test of
Written Spelling-3 |
4.7 |
6.5 |
77.6 |
11.2 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Written
Language Assessment |
3.7 |
0.9 |
85 |
10.4 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Written
Language Sampling |
2.8 |
3.7 |
81.3 |
12.2 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Test of
Written English |
2.8 |
2.8 |
84.1 |
10.3 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Test of
Written Spelling |
1.9 |
3.7 |
85 |
9.4 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Writing
Process Test |
|
0.9 |
1.9 |
86.9 |
10.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spellmaster |
|
0.9 |
0 |
87.9 |
11.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mather-Woodcock
Group Writing Tests |
0 |
2.8 |
86.9 |
10.3 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tests
of Adaptive Behavior |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adaptive
Behavior Inventory* |
43 |
5.6 |
44.9 |
6.5 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AAMR
Adaptive Behavior Scale* |
28 |
15 |
47.7 |
9.3 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assessment
of Adaptive Areas |
2.8 |
0.9 |
82.2 |
14.1 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scales of
Independent Behavior* |
17.8 |
8.4 |
63.6 |
10.2 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vineland
Adaptive Behavior Scales* |
91.6 |
4.7 |
2.8 |
0.9 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kaufman
Functional Acad.7 Skills Test |
6.5 |
1.9 |
79.4 |
12.2 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Normative
Adaptive Behavior Checklist |
2.8 |
5.6 |
79.4 |
12.2 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Responsibility
and Indep.8 Scale for Adol. |
0.9 |
3.7 |
83.2 |
12.2 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
*=Assessment
Instruments used by more than 25% of districts; 1=Comprehensive; 2=Revised; |
||||||
|
3=Adolescents;
4=Assessment; 5=Diagnostic; 6=Arithmetic; 7=Academic; 8=Independent; |
||||||
