The assessment of young children in early childhood special education is a central area of educational practice. The results of child assessments often have significant implications for young children, their families, and the programs that serve them, including eligibility for special education services, instructional planning, and documentation of child outcomes. The array of early childhood assessment types and purposes can be challenging to disentangle at the practitioner and policy level. At this time, different types of assessment tools (e.g., norm-referenced and criterion-referenced) are being used to document the development and learning of children and little attention has been paid to the parallel information produced from different assessment types. The purpose of this study is to compare the assessment results from two types of developmental instruments commonly used (Assessment, Evaluation, and Programming System Second Edition [AEPS 2nd ed.] and Battelle Developmental Inventory II [BDI-2]) to determine their congruence in determining a child’s developmental status (e.g., “on track” or delayed). Results indicate substantive difference between the two measures highlighting the potential for mismeasurement and misinterpretation of child assessment data. Implications for policy and practice are discussed.
AckermanD. J.ColeyR. J. (2012). State pre-k assessment policies: Issues and status. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
2.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: Author.
3.
AnderssonL. L. (2004). Appropriate and inappropriate interpretation and use of test scores in early intervention. Journal of Early Intervention, 27, 55–68.
4.
BagnatoS. J.MacyM.SalawayJ.LehmanC. (2007). Research foundations for conventional tests and testing to ensure accurate and representative early intervention eligibility. Pittsburgh, PA: TRACE Center for Excellence in Early Childhood Assessment.
5.
BagnatoS. J.NeisworthJ.Pretti-FrontczakK. (2010). LINKing authentic assessment and early childhood intervention: Best measures for best practices (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
6.
BaileyD. (2004). Tests and test development. In McLeanM.WoleryM.BaileyD. (Eds.), Assessing infants and preschoolers with special needs (3rd ed., pp. 22–44). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
BrickerD. (Series Ed.). (2002). Assessment, Evaluation, and Programming System for Infants and Children (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
9.
BrickerD.AllenD.CliffordJ.Pretti-FrontczakK.SlentzK.SquiresJ. (2008). The relationship between the Ages and Stages Questionnaires® (ASQ) and the Assessment, Evaluation, and Programming System for Infants and Children (AEPS®) (EMRG White Paper No. 1). Eugene, OR: Early Intervention Management and Research Group.
10.
BrickerD.CliffordJ.YovanoffP.Pretti-FrontczakK.WaddellM.AllenD.HoseltonR. (2008). Eligibility determination using a curriculum-based assessment: A further examination. Journal of Early Intervention, 31, 3–21.
11.
BrickerD.CliffordJ.YovanoffP.WaddellM.AllenD.Pretti-FrontczakK.HoseltonR. (2008). Deriving and using the AEPS® cutoff scores to determine eligibility for IDEA services (EMRG White Paper No. 3). Eugene, OR: Early Intervention Management and Research Group.
12.
BrownT.HubbellS. P.WinchelB. (2010, October). Understanding the evidence behind commonly used assessments in early childhood. Presentation at the Division for Early Childhood Annual Conference, Kansas City, MO.
13.
DanaherJ. (2011). Eligibility policies and practices for young children under Part B of IDEA (NECTAC Notes No. 27). Chapel Hill: FPG Child Development Institute, National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center, The University of North Carolina.
14.
DanaherJ.ShackelfordJ.HarbinG. (2004). Revisiting a comparison of eligibility policies for infant/toddler programs and preschool special education programs. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 24, 59–67.
15.
Division for Early Childhood, Council for Exceptional Children. (2009). Developmental delay as an eligibility category (Concept Paper). Missoula, MT: Author.
16.
ElbaumB.GattamortaK.PenfieldR. (2010). Evaluation of the Battelle Developmental Inventory, 2nd Edition, screening test for use in states’ child outcomes measurement systems under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. Journal of Early Intervention, 32, 255–273. doi:10.1177/1053815110384723
17.
GaoX.Grisham-BrownJ. (2011). The use of authentic assessment to report accountability data on young children’s language, literacy and pre-math competency. International Education Studies, 4(2), 41–53.
18.
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993. PL 103-62, 31 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq. (1993).
19.
GreenwoodC. R.WalkerD.HornbeckM.HebbelerK.SpikerD. (2007). Progress developing the Kansas early childhood special education accountability system: Initial findings using ECO and COSF. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 27, 2–18.
20.
Grisham-BrownJ.HallamR.BrookshireR. (2006). Using authentic assessment to evidence children’s progress toward early learning standards. Early Childhood Education Journal, 34, 45–51.
21.
Grisham-BrownJ.Pretti-FrontczakK. (Eds.). (2011). Recommended practices in monitoring children’s performance. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
22.
HallamR.Grisham-BrownJ.GaoX.BrookshireR. (2007). The effects of outcomes-driven authentic assessment on classroom quality. Early Childhood Research & Practice, 9(2), 1–9.
23.
HebbelerK.SpikerD.BaileyD.ScarboroughA.MallikS.SimeonssonR.NelsonL. (2007). Early intervention for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families: Participants, services, and outcomes. Washington, DC: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, U.S. Department of Education.
24.
HebbelerK.SpikerD.WagnerM.CametoR.McKennaP. (1999). State-to-state variations in early intervention systems: National Early Intervention Longitudinal Study (NEILS). Washington, DC: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, U.S. Department of Education.
25.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, PL 108-446, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq. (2004).
26.
KnoblochH.StevensF.MaloneA. (1987). Manual of developmental diagnosis: The administration and interpretation of the Revised Gesell Armatruda Developmental and Neurological Examination. Houston, TX: Developmental Evaluation Materials.
27.
MacyM. G.BrickerD. (2004). Assessment, evaluation, & programming system for eligibility: User’s manual (AEPS: E®). Eugene: Early Intervention Program, University of Oregon.
28.
MacyM. G.BrickerD. D.SquiresJ. K. (2005). Validity and reliability of a curriculum-based assessment approach to determine eligibility for part C services. Journal of Early Intervention, 28, 1–16.
29.
MeiselsS. J. (2007). Accountability in early childhood: No easy answers. In PiantaR. C.CoxM. J.SnowK. (Eds.), School readiness and the transition to kindergarten in the era of accountability (pp. 31–47). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
MeiselsS. J.XueY.ShamblottM. (2008). Assessing language, literacy, and mathematics skills with Work Sampling for Head Start with preschoolers. Early Education and Development, 19, 963–981.
32.
National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center. (2009a). Part B SPP/APR 2009 Indicator Analyses (FY 2007-08) [Online document]. Retrieved from www.nectac.org/~pdfs/sec619/part-b_sppapr_09.pdf
33.
National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center. (2009b). Part C SPP/APR 2009 Indicator Analyses (FY 2007-08) [Online document]. Retrieved from www.nectac.org/~pdfs/partc/part-c_sppapr_09.pdf
34.
National Research Council. (2008). Early childhood assessment: Why, what, and how. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
RousB.McCormickK.GoodenC.TownleyK. F. (2007). Kentucky’s early childhood continuous assessment and accountability system: Local decisions and state supports. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 27, 19–33.
41.
SattlerJ. M. (2001). Assessment of children: Cognitive applications (4th ed.). LaMesa, CA: Author.
42.
SchultzT.KaganS. L. (2007). Taking stock: Assessing and improving early childhood learning and program quality (The Report of the National Early Childhood Accountability Task Force). Washington, DC: Pew Charitable Trusts.
43.
SekinoY.FantuzzoJ. (2005). Validity of the child observation record: An investigation of the relationship between COR dimensions and social-emotional and cognitive outcomes for Head Start children. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 242–261. doi:10.1177/073428290502300304
44.
SnyderP. A.WixsonC. S.TalapatraD.RoachA. T. (2008). Assessment in early childhood: Instruction-focused strategies to support response-to-intervention frameworks. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 34, 25–34.
