Use of a Curriculum-Based Measure to Corroborate Eligibility Decisions

Abstract

This study examined the usefulness of the Assessment, Evaluation, and Programming System, a curriculum-based measure, to corroborate the findings of standardized, norm-referenced tests that establish eligibility for IDEA services for young children. Using a sample of children who were developing typically, a Rasch one-parameter dichotomous measurement model was used to determine cutoff scores for 6-month intervals on the Assessment, Evaluation, and Programming System. These cutoff scores were evaluated for accuracy with a group of children previously found eligible for services. In most cases, the cutoff scores identified eligible children accurately. Implications for the use of curriculum-based measures to establish eligibility for IDEA services are discussed.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bagnato, S. , Neisworth, J. , & Munson, S. (1997). Linking assessment and early intervention: An authentic curriculum-based approach. Baltimore: Brookes.

Baker, E. (1992). Item response theory: Estimation techniques. New York: Marcel Dekker.

Bricker, D. (Ed.). (1993). Assessment, evaluation, and programming system for infants and children. Baltimore: Brookes.

Bricker, D. (Ed.). (2002). Assessment, evaluation, and programming system for infants and children (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Brookes.

Bricker, D. , & Pretti-Frontczak, K. (1996). Assessment, evaluation, and programming system for infants and children: Vol. 3. AEPS measurement for three to six years. Baltimore: Brookes.

Cizek, G. (2001). Setting performance standards: Concepts and methods. New Jersey: Erlbaum.

Danaher, J. (2001). Eligibility policies and practices for young children under Part B of IDEA (NECTAS Notes No. 9). Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina, FPG Child Development Institute.

Embretson, S. , & Reise, S. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Fleiss, J. (1981). Statistical methods for rates and proportions (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

10.

Hambleton, R. (1998). Enhancing the validity of HAEP achievement level score reporting. Proceedings of achievement levels workshop (pp. 77-98). Washington, DC: National Assessment Governing Board.

11.

Holland, P. , & Wainer, H. (Eds.). (1993). Differential item functioning . Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

12.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.

13.

Kolen, M. , Zeng, L. , & Hanson, B. (1996). Conditional standard errors of measurement for scale scores using IRT Journal of Educational Measurement , 33, 129-140.

14.

Linacre, M. (2002). Winsteps (Version 3.5) [Computer software]. Chicago: Mesa Press.

15.

Linacre, M. , & Wright, B. (1989). Equivalence of Prox and Mantel-Haenszel. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 3(2), 51-55.

16.

Lord, F. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum .

17.

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. (2002). A new era: Revitalizing special education for children and their families. Washington, DC: Author.

18.

Pretti-Frontczak, K. , & Bricker, D. (2000). Enhancing the quality of IEP goals and objectives . Journal of Early Intervention, 23, 92-105.

19.

Rasch, G. (1960; reprinted 1980). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

20.

Reckase, M. (1998). Converting boundaries between National Assessment Governing Board performance categories to points on the National Assessment of Educational Progress score scale: The 1996 science NAEP process. Applied Measurement in Education, 11, 9-11.

21.

Shakelford, J. (2002). State and jurisdictional eligibility definitions for infants and toddlers with disabilities under IDEA (NECTAS Notes No. 11) . Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina, FPG Child Development Institute.