Although norm-referenced tests have been a mainstay in special education placement and program evaluation activity, there never has been a systematic effort to determine whether handicapped children have been included in the development of the tests' norms, items, and indices of reliability and validity. The present investigation explored this question by analyzing up-to-date user manuals and technical supplements of 27 aptitude and achievement tests. Results indicated most test developers and publishers provide scant data on the appropriateness of their tests for use with handicapped children. Implications for test users, developers, and publishers are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllenT. E.WhiteC. S., & KarchmerM. A. (1983). Issues in the development of a special edition for hearing-impaired students of the seventh edition of the Stanford Achievement Test. American Annals of the Deaf, 128, 34–39.
2.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1985). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
3.
BennettR. E. (1983). Research and evaluation priorities for special education assessment. Exceptional Children, 50, 110–117.
4.
BennettR. E., & RagostaM. (1984). A research context for studying admissions tests and handicapped populations (Report No. 1). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
5.
FuchsD. (1981, April). Differential responses of preschool language-handicapped children and familiar and unfamiliar testers as a function of task complexity, length of acquaintanceship, and sex of child. In ShipmanV. (Chair), Client identification and issues of validity: The influence of situational variables on children's cognitive performance. Symposium presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Los Angeles.
6.
FuchsD.FeatherstoneN. L.GarwickD. R., & FuchsL. S. (1984). Effects of examiner familiarity and task characteristics on speech- and language-impaired children's test performance. Measurement and Evaluation in Guidance, 16, 198–204.
7.
FuchsD., & FuchsL. S. (1986). Test procedure bias: A meta-analysis of examiner familiarity effects. Review of Educational Research, 56, 243–262.
8.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S.DaileyA. M., & PowerM. H. (1985). The effect of examiners' personal familiarity and professional experience on handicapped children's test performance. Journal of Educational Research, 78, 141–146.
9.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S.GarwickD. R., & FeatherstoneN. L. (1983). Test performance of language-handicapped children with familiar and unfamiliar examiners. Journal of Psychology, 114, 37–46.
10.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S.PowerM. H., & DaileyA. M. (1985). Bias in the assessment of handicapped children. American Educational Research Journal, 22, 185–197.
11.
GallasH. B., & SigelI. E. (1979). Cognitive-developmental assessment in children: Application of a cybernetic model. In OzerM. N. (Ed.), A cybernetic approach to the assessment of children: Toward a more humane use of human beings. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
12.
GohD. S.TeslowC. J., & FullerG. B. (1981). The practice of psychological assessment among school psychologists. Professional Psychology, 12, 696–706.
13.
GouldS. J. (1981). The mismeasure of man. New York: W. W. Norton.
14.
JenkinsJ. R., & PanyD. P. (1978). Standardized achievement tests: How useful for special education?Exceptional Children, 44, 448–453.
15.
JeonesR. L. (1973). Accountability in special education: Some problems. Exceptional Children, 40, 631–642.
16.
KeoghB.KukicS.BeckerL.McLoughlinR., & KukicM. (1975). School psychologists' services in special education programs. Journal of School Psychology, 13, 142–148.
17.
LaGrowS. J., & Prochnow-LaGrowJ. E. (1982). Technical adequacy of the most popular tests selected by responding school psychologists in Illinois. Psychology in the Schools, 19, 186–189.
18.
PalmerD. J. (1983). An attributional perspective on labeling. Exceptional Children, 49, 423–429.
19.
ReynoldsM. C., & BalowB. (1972). Categories and variables in special education. Exceptional Children, 38, 357–366.
20.
SalviaJ., & YsseldykeJ. E. (1978). Assessment in special and remedial education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
21.
ShermanS. W., & RobinsonN. M. (1982). Ability testing of handicapped people: Dilemma for government, science, and the public. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
22.
ThompsonR. H.WhiteK. R., & MorganD. P. (1982). Teacher-student interaction patterns in classrooms with mainstreamed mildly handicapped students. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 220–236.
23.
YsseldykeJ. E., & AlgozzineB. (1982). Critical issues in special and remedial education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
24.
YsseldykeJ. E., & ShinnM. R. (1981). Psycho-educational evaluation. In KauffmanJ. M. & HallahanD. P. (Eds.), Handbook of special education (pp. 418–440). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
