This article summarizes current knowledge as it relates to three basic requirements for assessment: qualified personnel, adequate tools, and fair implementation. On the basis of this summary, research and evaluation priorities for the attention of the fields of special education and school psychology are offered. These priorities include, among others, defining minimum competency for assessment personnel, determining the population-validity of currently used instruments and their modifications, and identifying sources of bias in assessment.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlgozzineB., & YsseldykeJ.Special education services for normal children: Better safe than sorry?Exceptional Children, 1981, 48, 238–243.
2.
BennettR.Basic measurement competence in special education teacher diagnosticians (Doctoral dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1979). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1980, 40, 4996A. (a) (University Microfilms No. 8006792).
3.
BennettR.Methods for evaluating the performance of school psychologists. School Psychology Monograph, 1980, 4(1), 45–59. (b).
4.
BennettR.The special education teacher diagnostician: Professional training needs. Paper presented at the International Conference of the Association for Children with Learning Disabilities, Milwaukee, February 1980. (c).
5.
BennettR.Issues in the educational assessment of children with learning and behavior disorders. Journal of the International Association of Pupil Personnel Workers, 1981, 25, 201–210, (a).
6.
BennettR.Professional competence and the assessment of exceptional children. Journal of Special Educaton, 1981, 15, 437–446. (b).
7.
BennettR., & LewisM.Assessing the assessors: A necessary and important training function. Princeton NJ: Educational Testing Service, 1980. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 193 885).
BerganJ., & SmithJ.Effects of socio-economic status and sex on prospective teachers' judgments. Mental Retardation, 1966, 4(1), 13–15.
10.
BernalE.A response to “Educational uses of tests with disadvantaged students.”American Psychologist, 1975, 30, 93–95.
11.
ClearyT.HumphreysL.KendrickS., & WesmanA.Educational uses of tests with disadvantaged students. American Psychologist, 1975, 30, 15–41.
12.
ColeN.Bias in testing. American Psychologist, 1981, 36, 1067–1077.
13.
Comptroller General of the United States. Disparities still exist in who gets special education. Washington DC: U.S. General Accounting Office, 1981.
14.
CotterD., & BerkR.Item bias in the WISC-R using black, white, and Hispanic learning disabled children. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Los Angeles, April 1981.
15.
DeanR.The use of the PIAT with emotionally disturbed children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1979, 12, 629–631.
16.
DeanR.The use of the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test with emotionally disturbed adolescents. Journal of School Psychology, 1980, 18, 172–175.
17.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Civil Service Commission, Department of Labor, & Department of Justice. Adoption by four agencies of uniform guidelines on employee selection procedures (1978). Federal Register, 1978, 43, 38290–38315.
18.
FlaugherR.The many definitions of test bias. American Psychologist, 1978, 32, 671–679.
19.
GoodmanL., & BennettR.Use of norm-referenced assessment for the mildly handicapped: Some basic issues reconsidered. In MillerT. & DavisE. (Eds.), The mildly handicapped student. New York: Grune and Stratton, in press.
20.
GreenleafW.Work with SOMPA. Paper presented at the BEH-NIE-IEL conference “Towards Equity in the Evaluation of Children Suspected of Educational Handicaps,” Washington DC, May 1980.
21.
HellerK.HoltzmanW., & MessickS.Placing children in special education: A strategy for equity. Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1982.
22.
HilliardA.Cultural diversity and special education. Exceptional Children, 1980, 46, 585–588.
KeoghB.KukicS.BeckerL.McLoughlinR., & KukicM.School psychologists' services in special education programs. Journal of School Psychology, 1975, 13, 142–148.
27.
LambertN. (Ed.). Special Education Assessment Matrix. Monterey CA: CTB/McGraw-Hill, 1981.
28.
Larry P. v. Wilson Riles. Opinion, U.S. District Court for Northern District of California (No. C-712270 RFP), October 11, 1979.
29.
LenkowskyR., & BlackmanL.The effect of teachers' knowledge of race and social class on their judgments of children's academic competence and social acceptability. Mental Retardation, 1968, 6(6), 15–17.
30.
Lora v. Board of Education of the City of New York. Opinion, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (75 Civ. 917), July 2, 1979.
31.
MacMillanD., & MeyersC.LarryP.: An educational interpretation. School Psychology Review, 1980, 9, 136–148.
32.
MaherC. & BennettR.Planning and evaluating special education services. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall, in press.
33.
ManniJ.WinikurD., & KellerM.The status of minority group representation in special education programs in the state of New Jersey: A summary report. Trenton: New Jersey State Department of Education, 1980.
34.
Mattie T. v. Holladay. Opinion, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi (No. DC-75-31-S), January 26, 1979.
35.
MercerJ.Labeling the mentally retarded child.Berkeley CA: University of California Press, 1973.
36.
MercerJ., & LewisJ.SOMPA technical manual. New York: Psychological Corporation, 1979.
37.
MessickS.The standard problem: Meaning and values in measurement and evaluation. American Psychologist, 1975, 30, 955–966.
38.
MessickS.Test validity and the ethics of assessment. American Psychologist, 1980, 35, 1012–1027.
39.
MillerC., & ChanskyN.Psychologists' scoring of WISC protocols. Psychology in the Schools, 1972, 9, 144–152.
40.
MillerC.ChanskyN., & GredlerG.Rater agreement on WISC protocols. Psychology in the Schools, 1970, 7, 190–193.
41.
MillerC.McLaughlinJ.HaddonJ., & ChanskyN.Socioeconomic Class and teacher bias. Psychological Reports, 1968, 23, 806.
42.
NunnallyJ.Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.
43.
Office of Education. Education of handicapped children: Implementation of part B of the Education of the Handicapped Act. Federal Register, 1977, 42, 42474–42518.
44.
Parents in Action on Special Education (PASE) v. Hannon. Opinion, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (No. 74 C 3586), July 11, 1980.
45.
RagostaM.Handicapped students and the SAT (Research Report No. 80–12). Princeton NJ: Educational Testing Service, 1980.
46.
ReynoldsC.Test bias: In God we trust: All others must have data. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles, August 1981.
47.
RobinsonN., & RobinsonH.The mentally retarded child. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1976.
48.
SalviaJ., & YsseldykeJ.Assessment in special and remedial education. Dallas: Houghton-Mifflin, 1981.
49.
ShermanS., & RobinsonN.Ability testing of handicapped people: Dilemma for government, science, and the public. Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1982.
50.
SpringC.BlundenD.GreenberL. & YellinA.Validity and norms of a hyperactivity rating scale. Journal of Special Education, 1977, 11, 313–321.
51.
Standards for educational and psychological tests. Washington DC: American Psychological Association, 1974.
52.
StevensG.Bias in the attribution of hyperkinetic behavior as a function of ethnic identification and socioeconomic status. Psychology in the Schools, 1981, 18, 99–106.
53.
StriekerL.A new index of differential subgroup performance: Application to the GRE Aptitude Test (Research Report No. 81–13). Princeton NJ: Educational Testing Service, 1981.
54.
ThorndikeR.Concepts of culture fairness. Journal of Educational Measurement, 1971, 8, 63–71.
55.
ThurlowM., & YsseldykeJ.Current assessment and decision-making practices in model LD programs. Learning Disability Quarterly, 1979, 2(4), 15–24.
56.
TobiasS.ColeC.ZibrinM., & BodlakovaV.Bias in the referral of children to special services. Paper presented at the annual convention of the.
57.
American Educational Research Association, Los Angeles, April 1981.
58.
TuckerJ.Ethnic proportions in classes for the learning disabled: Issues in nonbiased assessment. Journal of Special Education, 1980, 14, 93–107.
59.
WarrenS., & BrownW.Examiner scoring errors on individual intelligence tests. Psychology in the Schools, 1973, 10, 118–122.
60.
WinklerP.Personal communication (New Jersey State Education Department, Branch of Special Education and Pupil Personnel Services), November 24, 1980.
61.
YsseldykeJ.Issues in psycho-educational assessment. In PhyeG. & ReschlyD. (Eds.), School psychology: Perspectives and issues. New York: Academic Press, 1979.
62.
YsseldykeJ.Implementing the “Protection in Evaluation Procedures” provisions of P.L. 94–142. In Department of Health, Education and Welfare (Ed.)., PEP: Developing Criteria for the Evaluation of Protection in Evaluation Procedures Provisions. Philadelphia: Research for Better Schools, 1980.
63.
YsseldykeJ.AlgozzineB.ReganR., & PotterM.Technical adequacy of tests used by professionals in simulated decision making. Psychology in the Schools, 1980, 17, 202–209.
64.
YsseldykeJ.AlgozzineB.ReganR.PotterM.RicheyL., & ThurlowM.Psychoeducational assessment and decision making: A computer-simulated investigation (Research Report No. 32). Minneapolis MN: Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities, 1980.
65.
ZorefL., & WilliamsP.A look at content bias in IQ tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 1980, 17, 313–322.
