Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This investigation compared the data contained in the Learning Potential Assessment Device (LPAD) report with the information contained in a standard psychological report (SPR) for its value in educational programming. Participants were 146 students in graduate special education courses at five mid-western universities who used a 24 item Likert-scale inventory. Independent variables considered were report type, teaching position, and years of teaching experience. Special educators rated both the SPR and LPAD reports the most negatively. Teachers with no experience, or in their first years of teaching, rated both reports the most highly, while those with 2–5 years’ experience rated the reports more negatively than did teachers with 6 or more years of experience. Neither report was perceived to be valuable for program planning purposes.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anastasi

(1968). Psychological testing (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan.

Bagnato

S. J.

(1980). The efficacy of diagnostic reports as individualized guides to prescriptive goal planning. Exceptional Children, 46, 554–557.

Bagnato

S. J.

, & Neisworth

J. T.

(1979). Between assessment and intervention: Forging an assessment/curriculum linkage for the handicapped preschooler. Child Care Quarterly, 8, 179–197.

Brandt

H. M.

, & Giebink

J. W.

(1968). Concreteness and congruence in psychologists’ reports to teachers. Psychology in the Schools, 5, 87–89.

Duffy

J. B.

, Salvia

, Tucker

, & Ysseldyke

(1981). Nonbiased assessment: A need for operationalism. Exceptional Children, 47, 427–434.

Feuerstein

, Rand

, Hoffman

M. B.

, & Miller

(1980). Instrumental Enrichment: An intervention program for cognitive modifiability. Baltimore: University Park Press.

Hull

C. H.

, & Nie

N. H.

(Eds.), (1981). SPSS update new procedures for release (pp. 7–9). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Keogh

B. K.

(1972). Psychological evaluation of exceptional children: Old hangups and new directions. Journal of School Psychology, 10, 141–145.

Larry P. v. Riles, 495 F. Supp. 926 (N.D. California, 1979).

10.

Narrol

, & Bachor

D. G.

(1975). An introduction of Feuerstein's approach to assessing and developing cognitive potential. Interchange, 6, 2–16.

11.

Reschly

D. J.

(1979, December). Comparisons of bias in assessment with conventional and pluralistic measures. Paper presented to the Iowa Educational Research and Evaluation Association Conference, Des Moines, Iowa.

12.

Rucker

C. N.

(1967a). Report writing in school psychology: A critical investigation. Journal of School Psychology, 5, 101–108.

13.

Rucker

C.N.

(1967b). Technical writing in the school psychologist's reports. Psychology in the Schools, 4, 146–150.

14.

Salvia

, & Ysseldyke

J. E.

(1981). Assessment in special and remedial education (2nd ed.). Dallas: Houghton Mifflin.

15.

Sattler

J. M.

(1974). Assessment of children's intelligence. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders.

16.

Sattler

J. M.

(1982). Assessment of children's intelligence and special abilities. (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

17.

Tallent

, & Reis

W. J.

(1959). Multidisciplinary views on the preparation of written clinical psychological reports: III. The trouble with psychological reports. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 15, 444–446.

18.

Tombari

M. L.

(1981). Nonbiased assessment of emotionally disturbed students. Unpublished manuscript. Austin TX.

19.

Ysseldyke

J. E.

, & Regan

(1980). Nondiscriminatory assessment: A formative model. Exceptional Children, 46, 465–466.

A Comparison of Two Types of Assessment Reports

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References