Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Rasch and classification analyses on a field-test version of the third edition of the Assessment, Evaluation, and Programming System (AEPS-3), a curriculum-based assessment used to assess young children birth to age 6 years, were conducted. First, an evaluation of the psychometric properties of data from each developmental area of an AEPS-3 field-test version was conducted. Next, cutoff scores at 6-month age intervals were created and then the validity of the cutoff scores was evaluated. Results using Rasch modeling indicated acceptable model fit statistics with reasonable reliability estimates within each developmental area. Classification results showed cutoff scores accurately classified a high percentage of eligible children. Findings suggest that scores from a field-test version of the AEPS-3 are reliable within developmental areas. To the extent allowed by state criteria, early childhood interventionists could possibly use a new field-test version of the AEPS-3 to determine or corroborate eligibility for special education services.

Keywords

curriculum-based assessment eligibility determination measurement

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Andrich

(1978). A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika, 43(4), 561–573. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02293814

Bagnato

S. J.

(2005). The authentic alternative for assessment in early intervention: An emerging evidence-based practice. Journal of Early Intervention, 28(1), 17–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/105381510502800102

Bagnato

S. J.

(2007). Authentic assessment for early childhood intervention: Best practices. Guilford Press.

Bagnato

S. J.

McLean

Macy

Neisworth

J. T.

(2011). Identifying instructional targets for early childhood via authentic assessment: Alignment of professional standards and practice-based evidence. Journal of Early Intervention, 33(4), 243–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053815111427565

Bagnato

S. J.

Neisworth

J. T.

Pretti-Frontczak

(2010). LINKing authentic assessment & early childhood intervention: Best Measures for best practices (2nd ed). Brookes.

Bond

T. G.

Fox

C. M.

(2007). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Boone

W. J.

(2016). Rasch analysis for instrument development: Why, when, and how? CBE Life Sciences Education, 15(4), Article rm4. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-04-0148

Bricker

(Ed.). (2002). Assessment, evaluation, and programming system for infants and young children (2nd ed.). Brookes.

Bricker

Clifford

Yovanoff

Pretti-Frontczak

Waddell

Allen

Hoselton

(2008). Eligibility determination using a curriculum-based assessment: A further examination. Journal of Early Intervention, 31(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053815108324422

10.

Bricker

Dion

Grisham

Johnson

Macy

Slentz

Waddell

(in press). Assessment, evaluation, and programming system (3rd ed.). Brookes.

11.

Bricker

Yovanoff

Capt

Allen

(2003). Use of a curriculum-based measure to corroborate eligibility decisions. Journal of Early Intervention, 26(1), 20–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/105381510302600102

12.

Danaher

. (2011). Eligibility policies and practices for young children under Part B of IDEA (NECTAC Notes No. 27). The University of North Carolina, FPG Child Development Institute, National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center. http://ectacenter.org/~pdfs/pubs/nnotes27.pdf

13.

de Sam Lazaro

S. L

. (2017). The importance of authentic assessments in eligibility determination for infants and toddlers. Journal of Early Intervention, 39(2), 88–105. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053815116689061

14.

Division for Early Childhood. (2014). DEC recommended practices in early intervention/early childhood special education. http://www.dec-sped.org/recommendedpractices

15.

Grisham

Crawford

Waddel

Toland

M. D.

(2020). Psychometric properties of the Assessment, Evaluation, and Programming System for infants and children, 3rd edition (AEPS-3). Journal of Early Intervention. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053815120967359

16.

Grisham-Brown

Pretti-Frontczak

(2011). Assessing young children in inclusive settings: The blended practices approach. Brookes.

17.

Hallam

R. A.

Lyons

A. N.

Pretti-Frontczak

Grisham-Brown

(2014). Comparing apples and oranges: The mismeasurement of young children through the mismatch of assessment purpose and the interpretation of results. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 34(2), 106–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/0271121414524283

18.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004).

19.

Johnson

Rahn

Bricker

(2015). An activity-based approach to early intervention (4th ed.). Brookes.

20.

Linacre

J. M.

(2000). Comparing and choosing between “Partial Credit Models” (PCM) and “Rating Scale Models” (RSM). Rasch Measurement Transactions, 14(3), Article 768. https://www.rasch.org/rmt/rmt143k.htm

21.

Linacre

J. M.

(2002). What do infit and outfit, mean-square and standardized mean? Rasch Measurement Transactions, 16(2), Article 878. https://www.rasch.org/rmt/rmt162f.htm

22.

Linacre

J. M.

(2003). Data variance: Explained, modeled, and empirical. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 17, 942–943. http://www.rasch.org/rmt/rmt173g.htm

23.

Linacre

J. M.

(2014). Dimensionality: Contrasts and variance. www.winsteps.com/winman/principalcomponents.html.

24.

Linacre

J. M.

(2020a). A user’s guide to Winsteps, Ministep, Rasch-model computer programs: Program manual 4.7.0. https://www.winsteps.com/a/Winsteps-Manual.pdf

25.

Linacre

J. M.

(2020b). Winsteps (Version 4.5.3) [Computer software]. http://www.winsteps.com/

26.

Macy

Bagnato

S. J.

Macy

Salaway

(2015). Conventional tests and testing for early intervention eligibility: Is there an evidence base? Infants and Young Children: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Special Care Practices, 28(2), 182–204. https://doi.org/10.1097/IYC.0000000000000032

27.

Macy

Bricker

Squires

(2005). Validity and reliability of a curriculum-based assessment approach to determine eligibility for part C services. Journal of Early Intervention, 28(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/105381510502800101

28.

Mardell-Czudnowski

Goldenberg

D. S.

(2011). Developmental indicators for the assessment of learning, Fourth Edition (DIAL-4). NCS Pearson.

29.

Metz

C. E.

(1978). Basic principles of ROC analysis. Seminars in Nuclear Medicine, 8(4), 283–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0001-2998(78)80014-2

30.

National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2009). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs service children birth through age 8.

31.

Neisworth

J. T.

Bagnato

S. J.

(2004). The mismeasure of young children: The authentic assessment alternative. Infants & Young Children, 17(3), 198–212.

32.

Shackelford

(2006). State and jurisdictional eligibility definitions for infants and toddlers with disabilities under IDEA. https://ectacenter.org/~pdfs/pubs/nnotes21.pdf

33.

Squires

Bricker

(2009). Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ): A parent completed child monitoring system (3rd ed.). Brookes.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.14 MB

Scale Evaluation and Eligibility Determination of a Field-Test Version of the Assessment,Evaluation,and Programming System–Third Edition

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material