The ability to collect, organize graphically, understand, interpret, and use data to make decisions is becoming more central to the role of early childhood practitioners. One consideration in practitioner use of data is the acceptability of the method of data display. The purpose of this study was to explore Head Start teachers’ preference for and acceptability of four methods of data display. In addition, the authors examined teacher accuracy in using various methods of data display and the relation between acceptability and accuracy. Finally, the authors included teacher educational level to examine its relationship to preference, acceptability, and accuracy. In general, results from the sample of teachers (N = 172) indicate that they had distinct preferences for specific types of data display and that acceptability varied for different methods of display. Furthermore, accuracy of use varied by method of data display, but acceptability did not appear to influence accuracy. Teacher educational level was not statistically related to teacher preference, acceptability, or accuracy. The authors discuss results in the context of the increasing use of graphic displays in early childhood contexts and associated practical implications.
AIMSweb progress monitoring and RTI system. (2008). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc. http://www.aimsweb.com
2.
Baggett, K.M., & Carta, J.J. ( 2006). Using assessment to guide social-emotional intervention for very young children: An individual growth and development indicator (IGDI) of parent-child interaction. Young Exceptional Children Monograph Series, 8, 67-76.
3.
Bailey, D.B. ( 1984). Effects of lines of progress and semi-logarithmic charts on ratings of charted data. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis , 17, 359-365.
4.
Barnett, D.W., Elliott, N., Wolsing, L., Bunger, C.E., Haski, H., McKissick, C., et al. (2006). Response to intervention for young children with extremely challenging behaviors: What it might look like. School Psychology Review, 35(4), 568-582.
5.
Barnett, D.W., VanDerHeyden, A.M., & Witt, J.C. ( 2007). Achieving science-based practice through response to intervention: What it might look like in preschools. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 17, 31-54.
6.
Browder, D., Demchak, M., Heller, M., & King, D. ( 1989). An in vivo evaluation of the use of data-based rules to guide instructional decisions. Journal of the Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps, 14(3), 234-240.
7.
Buysse, V., Winton, P., & Zimmerman, T. (Eds.). (2007 ). RTI goes to pre-K: An early intervening system called recognition and response. Early Developments, 11, 6-10.
8.
Carta, J.J., Greenwood, C.R., Luze, G.J., Cline, G., & Kuntz, S. ( 2003). Developing a general outcome measure of growth in social skills for infants and toddlers. Journal of Early Intervention , 26, 91-114.
9.
Codding, R.S., Skowron, J., & Pace, G.M. ( 2005). Back to basics: Training teachers to interpret curriculum-based measurement data and create observable and measurable objectives. Behavioral Interventions, 20, 165-176.
10.
Coleman, M.R., Buysse, V., & Neitzel, J. ( 2006). Recognition and response: An early intervening system for young children at-risk for learning disabilities. Full report. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, FPG Child Development Institute.
11.
Cooke, N.L., Heward, W.L., Test, D.W., Spooner, F., & Courson, F.H. ( 1991). Student performance data in the classroom: Measurement and evaluation of student progress. Teacher Education and Special Education, 14(3), 155-161.
12.
DeProspero, A., & Cohen, S. ( 1979). Inconsistent visual analysis of intrasubject data. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 12, 573-579.
13.
Early Childhood Research Institute on Measuring Growth and Development. (1998a). Research and development of individual growth and development indicators for children between birth and age eight (Technical Report No. 4). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
14.
Early Childhood Research Institute on Measuring Growth and Development. (1998b). Theoretical foundations of the Early Childhood Institute on Measuring Growth and Development: An early childhood problem-solving model (Technical Report No. 6). Minneapolis : University of Minnesota.
15.
Early Childhood Research Institute on Measuring Growth and Development. (2000). Individual Growth and Development Indicators for preschool children: Rhyming/early literacy. Available online from Center for Early Education and Development , University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Web site: http://www.ggg.umn.edu
16.
Eckert, T.L., Hintze, J.M., & Shapiro, E.S. ( 1999). Development and refinement of a measure for assessing the acceptability of assessment methods: The Assessment Rating Profile-Revised. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 15(1), 21-42.
17.
Elliott, S.N., Witt, J.C., Kratochwill, T.R., & Callahan-Stoiber, K. (2002). Selecting and evaluating classroom interventions. In M. R. Shinn , H. M. Walker, & G. Stoner (Eds.), Interventions for achievement and behavior problems II: Preventive and remedial approaches (pp. 243-294). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists .
18.
Farlow, L.J., & Snell, M.E. ( 1989). Teacher use of student performance data to make instructional decisions: Practices in programs for students with moderate to profound disabilities . Journal of Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps , 14(1), 13-22.
19.
Farmer, R., Wolery, M., Gast, D.L., & Page, J.L. ( 1988). Individual staff training to increase the frequency of data collection in an integrated preschool program. Education and Treatment of Children, 11(2), 127-142.
20.
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. ( 1984). Criterion-referenced assessment without measurement: How accurate for special education? Remedial and Special Education , 5, 29-32.
21.
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. ( 1986). Effects of systematic formative evaluation: A meta-analysis . Exceptional Children, 53, 199-208.
22.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C.L., & Stecker, P.M. ( 1991). Effects of curriculum-based measurement and consultation on teacher planning and student achievement in mathematics operations. American Educational Research Journal, 28(3), 617-641.
23.
Furlong, M.J., & Wampold, B.E. ( 1982). Intervention effects and relative variation as dimensions in experts’ use of visual inference. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 15, 415-421.
24.
Good, R.H., III, & Kaminski, R.A. (2002). Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (6th ed.). Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement.
25.
Greenwood, C.R., Luze, G.J., Cline, G., Kuntz, S., & Leitschuh, C. ( 2002). Developing a general outcome measure of growth in movement for infants and toddlers. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 22, 143-157.
26.
Greenwood, C.R., Walker, D., Carta, J.J., & Higgins, S.K. ( 2006). Developing a general outcome measure of growth in the cognitive abilities of children 1 to 4 years old: The early problem-solving indicator. School Psychology Review, 35(4), 535-551.
27.
Kazdin, A.E. ( 1982). Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
28.
Kennedy, C.H. ( 2005). Single-case designs for educational research. New York, NY: Allyn & Bacon.
29.
Knapp, T.J. ( 1983). Behavior analysts’ visual appraisal of behavior change in graphic display. Behavioral Assessment, 5, 155-164.
30.
Lomax, R. ( 2001). Statistical concepts: A second course for education and the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
31.
Luze, G.J., Linebarger, D.L., Greenwood, C.R., Carta, J.J., Walker, D., Leitschuh, C., et al. (2001). Developing a general outcome measure of growth in the expressive communication of infants and toddlers. School Psychology Review, 30, 383-406.
32.
McConnell, S.R., Priest, J.S., Davis, S.D., & McEvoy, M.A. (2002). Best practices in measuring growth and development for preschool children. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology IV (pp. 1231-1246). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
33.
McCormick, L., Noonan, M.J., & Heck, R. ( 1998). Variables affecting engagement in inclusive preschool classrooms. Journal of Early Intervention, 21, 160-176.
34.
McMillan, J.H. ( 2003). Understanding and improving teachers’ classroom assessment decision making: Implications for theory and practice. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 22(4), 34-43.
35.
Munger, G.F., Snell, M.E., & Loyd, B.H. ( 1989). A study of the effects of frequency of probe data collection and graph characteristics on teachers’ visual analysis. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 10, 109-122.
36.
Ridley, S.M., McWilliam, R.A., & Oates, C.S. ( 2000). Observed engagement as an indicator child care program quality. Early Education and Development, 11, 133-146.
37.
Roehrig, A.D., Duggar, S.W., Moats, L., Glover, M., & Mincey, B. ( 2008). When teachers work to use progress monitoring data to inform literacy instruction: Identifying potential supports and challenges . Remedial and Special Education, 29, 364-382.
38.
Sandall, S.R., Schwartz, I.S., & LaCroix, B. ( 2004). Interventionists’ perspectives about data collection in integrated early childhood classrooms. Journal of Early Intervention, 26, 161-174.
39.
Schaubroeck, J., & Muralidhar, K. (1991). A meta-analysis of the relative effects of tabular and graphic display formats on decision-making performance. Human Performance, 42(2), 127-145.
40.
Schwartz, I.S., & Olswang, L.B. ( 1996). Evaluating child behavior change in natural settings: Exploring alternative strategies for data collection. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 16(1), 82-101.
41.
Skiba, R., Deno, S., Marston, D., & Casey, A. ( 1989). Influence of trend estimation and subject familiarity on practitioners’ judgments of intervention effectiveness. The Journal of Special Education, 22(4), 433-446.
42.
Stevens, J.P. ( 2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (4th ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
43.
VanDerHeyden, A.M. ( 2005). Intervention-driven assessment practices in early childhood/early intervention: Measuring what is possible rather than what is present. Journal of Early Intervention, 28(1), 28-33.
44.
VanDerHeyden, A.M., & Snyder, P. ( 2006). Integrating frameworks from early childhood intervention and school psychology to accelerate growth for all young children. School Psychology Review, 35(4), 519-534.
45.
VanDerHeyden, A.M., Snyder, P.A., Broussard, C., & Ramsdell, K. ( 2008). Measuring response to early literacy intervention with preschoolers at risk. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education , 27(4), 232-249.
46.
VanDerHeyden, A.M., Witt, J.C., & Gatti, S. ( 2001). Descriptive assessment method to reduce overall disruptive behavior in a preschool classroom. School Psychology Review , 30(4), 548-567.
47.
Von Brock, M.B., & Elliott, S.N. ( 1987). Influence of treatment effectiveness information on the acceptability of classroom interventions. Journal of School Psychology, 25, 131-144.
48.
Wesson, C., King, R., & Deno, S. ( 1984). Direct and frequent measurement of student performance: If it’s good for us, why don’t we use it?Learning Disability Quarterly, 7, 45-48.
49.
Williams, L., & Rink, J. ( 2003). Teacher competency using observational scoring rubrics . Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 22, 552-572.
50.
Wolf, M.M. ( 1978). Social validity: The case for subjective measurement or how applied behavior analysis is finding its heart. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 203-214.
