To examine the effects of the type of assessment report on educators' planning decisions, 86 educators of students with severe mental retardation were assigned randomly to one of two groups, those reading a functional assessment report or those reading a developmental assessment report for the same student with severe mental retardation. After reading the assessment report, each educator wrote five instructional objectives and made recommendations for service delivery. No significant differences were found in the quality of Individualized Education Program (IEP) objectives. However, more participants in the developmental group recommended related services than those in the functional group. In addition, educators who read the functional reports recommended less restrictive placements than those who read developmental reports.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Algozzine, B., Webber, J., Campbell, M., Moore, S., & Gilliam, J. (1980). Classroom, decision making as a function of diagnostic labels and perceived competence. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 197518.
2.
Algozzine, B., & Ysseldyke, J. (1980). Decision makers' predictions of students' academic difficulties as a function of referral information. Journal of Educational Research, 73, 145–150.
3.
Babad, E. (1985). Some correlates of teachers' expectancy bias. American Educational Research Journal, 22, 175–183.
4.
Becker, H., Schur, S., Paoletti-Schelp, M., & Hammer, E. (1986). Functional skills screening inventory.Austin, TX: Functional Resources Enterprises.
5.
Brigance, A. H. (1978). Brigance diagnostic inventory of early development.North Billerica, MA: Curriculum Associates.
6.
Brinker, R. P., & Thorpe, M. E. (1984). Integration of severely handicapped students and the proportion of I.E.P. objectives achieved. Exceptional Children, 51, 168–175.
7.
Browder, D. (1991). Assessment of individuals with severe handicaps. Baltimore: Brookes.
8.
Brown, L., Branston, M. B., Hamre-Nietupski, S., Pumpian, I., Certo, N., & Grunewald, L. (1979). A strategy for developing chronological-age appropriate and functional curricular content for severely handicapped adolescents and young adults. Journal of Special Education, 3, 81–90.
9.
Burge, S. (1991). Assessment practices for students with severe disabilities. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Houston, Texas.
10.
Chaikin, A., Sigler, E., & Derlega, V. (1974). Nonverbal mediators of teacher expectation effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 144–149.
11.
Cooper, H. M. (1979). Some effects of pre-performance information on academic expectations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 375–380.
12.
Donnellan, A. M. (1984). The criterion of the least dangerous assumption. Behavior Disorders, 9, 141–149.
13.
Downing, J., & Perino, D. (1992). Functional versus standardized assessment procedures: Implications for educational programming. Mental Retardation, 30, 289–295.
14.
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1981). Peabody picture vocabulary test-Revised.Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
15.
Evans, I., Brown, F., Weed, K., Spry, K., & Owen, F. (1987). The assessment of functional competencies: A behavioral approach to the evaluation of programs for children with disabilities. In R. Prinz (Ed.), Advances in behavioral assessment of children & families (Vol. 3, pp. 93–121). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
16.
Falvey, M. (1989). Community-based curriculum: Instructional strategies for students with severe handicaps.Baltimore: Brookes.
17.
Gillung, T. B., & Rucker, C. N. (1977). Labels and teacher expectations. Exceptional Children, 43, 464–465.
18.
Good, T. L. (1987). Two decades of research on teacher expectations: Findings and future directions. Journal of Teacher Education, 38, 32–47.
19.
Horner, R. H., McDonnell, J. J., & Bellamy, T. (1984). Efficient instruction of generalized behaviors: General case programming in simulation and natural settings. In R. H. Horner, L. H. Meyer, & H. D. Fredericks (Eds.), Education of learners with severe handicaps: Exemplary service strategies (pp. 289–314). Baltimore: Brookes.
20.
Huebner, E. S. (1987). Teachers' special education decisions: Does test information make a difference?Journal of Educational Research, 80, 202–205.
21.
Irons, D., Irons, T., & Maddux, C. (1984). A survey of perceived competence among psychologists who evaluate students with severe handicaps. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 9, 55–60.
22.
Learning in Functional Environments Criterion Referenced Assessment. (1989). Richardson, TX: Region X Education Service Center.
23.
Linehan, S. A., Brady, M. P., & Hwang, C. (1991). Ecological versus developmental assessment: Influences on instructional expectations. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 16, 146–153.
24.
Meyer, L. H., Eichinger, J., & Park-Lee, S. (1987). A validation of program quality indicators in educational services for students with severe disabilities. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 12, 251–263.
25.
Sigafoos, J., Cole, D., & McQuarter, R. (1987). Current practices in the assessment of students with severe handicaps. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 12, 264–273.
26.
Snell, M. E. (1987). Systematic instruction of persons with severe handicaps.Columbus, OH: Merrill.
27.
Sparrow, S., Balla, D., & Cicchetti, D. (1984). Vineland adaptive behavior scales.Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Services.
28.
Swann, W., & Snyder, M. (1980). On translating beliefs into action: Theories of ability and their application in an instructional setting. Journal of Personality and School Psychology, 38, 879–888.
29.
Terman, L. M., & Merrill, M. A. (1972). Stanford-Binet intelligence scale: Form LM.Dallas, TX: Houghton Mifflin.
30.
Voeltz, L. M., Evans, I. M., Freedland, K., & Donellon, S. (1982). Teacher decision making in the selection of educational programming priorities for severely handicapped students. The Journal of Special Education, 16, 179–198.
31.
Ysseldyke, J. E. (1980). Some effects of preperformance expectations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 375–380.
