Special Education Screening System: Group Achievement Test

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of standardized group achievement testing in screening and identifying mildly handicapped students for referral to special education programs. Stanford Achievement Test scores of students already placed in either regular or special education programs in four elementary schools were arranged according to four cutoff points: 20th, 15th, 10th, and 5th percentiles. At the 10th percentile cutoff, 71% of the special education and 97% of the regular education students were correctly identified. These results were cross-validated for students at two other elementary schools. The potential uses of this identification method as a preliminary screening device are discussed—particularly at a lower cutoff point of the 5th percentile.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Algozzine

Christenson

, & Ysseldyke

(1982). Probabilities associated with the referral to placement process. Teacher Education and Special Education, 5, 19–23.

Benson

J. A.

, & Hughes

(1985). Perceptions as role definition processes in school psychology. A national survey. School Psychology Review, 14, 64–74.

Carroll

J. L.

Harris

J. D.

, & Bretzing

B. H.

(1979). A survey of psychologists serving secondary schools. Professional Psychology, 10, 766–770.

Christenson

Ysseldyke

, & Algozzine

(1982). Institutional constraints and external pressures influencing referral decisions. Psychology in the Schools, 19, 341–345.

Cook

V. J.

, & Patterson

J. G.

(1977). Psychologists in the schools of Nebraska: Professional function. Psychology in the Schools, 14, 371–376.

Galagan

(1985). Psychoeducational testing: Turn out the lights, the party's over. Exceptional Children, 52, 288–299.

General Accounting Office (GAO). (1981). Disparities still exist in who gets special education. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Gerber

M. M.

(1984). The Department of Education's Sixth Annual Report to Congress on P.L. 94–142: Is Congress getting the full story? Exceptional Children, 51, 209–224.

Gresham

(1986). On the malleability of intelligence: Unnecessary assumptions, reifications, and occlusion. School Psychology Review, 15, 261–263.

10.

Hagerty

G. J.

, & Abramson

(1987). Impediments to implementing national policy change for mildly handicapped students. Exceptional Children, 53, 315–323.

11.

Howell

K. W.

(1986). Direct assessment of academic performance. School Psychology Review, 15, 324–335.

12.

Lacayo

Sherwood

, & Morris

(1981). Daily activities of school psychologists: A national survey. Psychology in the Schools, 18, 184–190.

13.

Peterson

Heistad

Peterson

, & Reynolds

(1985). Montevideo individualized prescriptive instructional management system. Exceptional Children, 52, 239–243.

14.

Public Law 94–142, The Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975. Washington, DC: Federal Register.

15.

Psychological Corporation. (1983). Stanford Achievement Test technical manual. San Antonio: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

16.

Salvia

, & Ysseldyke

(1985). Assessment in special and remedial education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

17.

Sapon-Shevin

(1987). The National Education Reports and special education: Implications for students. Exceptional Children, 53, 300–306.

18.

Tucker

J. A.

(1985). Curriculum-based assessment: An introduction. Exceptional Children, 52, 199–204.

19.

Utah State Office of Education (1975). Project identification. Salt Lake City: Author.

20.

Utah State Office of Education. (1981). Rules and regulations for education programs for the handicapped. Salt Lake City: Author.

21.

Welton

, & Wedell

(1982). Special education in England and Wales. Report printed at the University of London, Institute of Education.

22.

Ysseldyke

Thurlow

Graden

Wesson

Deno

, & Algozzine

(1983). Generalizations from five years of research on assessment and decision making. Exceptional Education Quarterly, 4, 75–93.