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
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online September, 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
This study evaluated the Battelle Developmental Inventory, 2nd Edition, Screening Test (BDI-2 ST) for use in states’ child outcomes accountability systems under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Complete Battelle Developmental Inventory, 2nd Edition (BDI-2), assessment data were obtained for 142 children, ages 2 to 62 months, who had been referred for eligibility evaluation for early intervention or preschool special education services. Results of a Rasch measurement analysis provided evidence supporting the reliability and validity of the five domain scores and total BDI-2 ST score. A comparison of children’s classifications as either having or not having a developmental delay based on the BDI-2 ST and the BDI-2 full assessment—using cut scores of 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0 standard deviations below the mean—indicated acceptable sensitivity, specificity, and overall classification accuracy of the BDI-2 ST. Implications of the findings are discussed for accountability reporting and clinical practice.
Allen, M.J., & Yen, W.M. ( 2002). Introduction to measurement theory. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press .
2.
Andrich, D. ( 1978). A rating formulation for ordered response categories . Psychometrika, 43, 561-573.
3.
Athanasiou, M. ( 2007). Review of the Battelle Developmental Inventory, 2nd Edition, by J. Newborg. Mental Measurements Yearbook, 17.
4.
Atkinds-Burnett, S., & Meisels, S. ( 2005). Developmental screening in early childhood: A guide (5th ed.). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
5.
Bagnato, S.J., Neisworth, J.T., & Munson, S.M. ( 1997). LINKing assessment and early intervention: An authentic curriculum-based approach. Baltimore: Brookes.
6.
Baker, F.B., & Kim, S.H. ( 2004). Item response theory: Parameter estimation techniques (2nd ed.). New York: Dekker.
7.
Barton, L.R., & Spiker, D. ( 2007). Review of the Battelle Developmental Inventory, 2nd Edition, by J. Newborg. Mental Measurements Yearbook, 17.
8.
Bliss, S.L. ( 2007). Test reviews: Newborg, J. (2005). Battelle Developmental Inventory Second Edition. Itasca, IL: Riverside. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 25, 409-415.
9.
Bond, T.G., & Fox, C.M. ( 2007). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
10.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2009). Child development: Developmental screening. Retrieved September1, 2010, from http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/child/devtool.htm
11.
Data Accountability Center. (2010a). Table 1-2: Children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, by disability category and state. Fall 2007. Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) data. Retrieved from September 1, 2010, https://www.ideadata.org/TABLES31ST/AR_1-2.htm
12.
Data Accountability Center. (2010b). Table 1-14: Children ages 3 through 5 served under IDEA, Part B, as a percentage of population, by disability category and state. Fall 2007. Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) data. Retrieved from September 1, 2010, https://www.ideadata.org/TABLES31ST/AR_1-14.htm
13.
Data Accountability Center. (2010c). Table 8-1: Infants and toddlers receiving early intervention services under IDEA, Part C, by age and state . Fall 2007. Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) data. Retrieved from September 1, 2010, https://www.ideadata.org/TABLES31ST/AR_8-1.htm
14.
Diamond, K. ( 1990). Effectiveness of the Revised Denver Developmental Screening Test in identifying children at risk for learning problems. Journal of Educational Research, 83(3), 152-157.
15.
Early Childhood Outcomes Center. (2006). Introduction to the ECO "Crosswalks" of birth-to-five assessment instruments to early childhood outcomes. Retrieved September1, 2010, from http://www.fpg.unc.edu/~eco/ assets/pdfs/Crosswalk_intro.pdf
16.
Early Childhood OutcomesCenter. (2009a). SPP template: Part B. Retrieved September4, 2010 from http://www.fpg.unc.edu/~eco/pages/fed_req.cfm
17.
Early Childhood OutcomesCenter. (2009b). SPP template: Part C. Retrieved September4, 2010 from http://www.fpg.unc.edu/~eco/pages/fed_req.cfm
18.
Early Childhood OutcomesCenter. (2009c). Measuring child outcomes: State Part B/Section 619 approaches. Information based on 2009 APRs verified by states July 2009. Retrieved September1, 2010, from http://www.fpg.unc.edu/~eco/assets/pdfs/Child_Outcomes_B_2009.pdf
19.
Early Childhood OutcomesCenter. (2009d). Measuring child outcomes: State Part C approaches. Information based on February 2009 APRs verified by states in July 2009. Retrieved September1, 2010, from http://www.fpg.unc.edu/~eco/assets/pdfs/PartC_Child_Outcomes_Chart2009.pdf
20.
Early Childhood Outcomes Center. (2009e). Overview of the Child Outcomes Summary Form. Retrieved September1, 2010, from http://www.fpg.unc.edu/~eco/assets/pdfs/COSF_overview.pdf
Getting Ready. (2009). Developmental screening and assessment. Retrieved September 1, 2010, from http://www.gettingready.org/matriarch/MultiPiecePage.asp_Q_PageID_E_318_A_PageName_E_NationalSchool ReadinessIndicat
23.
Glascoe, F.P. ( 2005). Screening for developmental and behavioral problems. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 11, 173-179.
24.
Glascoe, F.P. ( 2007). Commonly used screening tools: Battelle Developmental Inventory Screening Test (BDIST), 2nd Edition. Retrieved September 1, 2010, from http://www.dbpeds.org/articles/detail.cfm?texti=539
25.
Glascoe, F.P., & Byrne, K.E. ( 1993). The usefulness of the Battelle Developmental Inventory Screening Test. Clinical Pediatrics, 32, 273-280.
26.
Glascoe, F.P., Byrne, K.E., Ashford, L.G., Johnson, K.L., Chang, B., & Strickland, B. (1992). Accuracy of the Denver-II in developmental screening. Pediatrics, 89(6), 1221-1225.
27.
Glover, T.A., & Albers, C.A. ( 2007). Considerations for evaluating universal screening assessments . Journal of School Psychology, 45, 117-135.
28.
Henderson, L.W., & Meisels, S.J. ( 1994). Parental involvement in the developmental screening of their young children. Journal of Early Intervention, 18(2), 141-154.
29.
Individuals With DisabilitiesEducation ImprovementAct, Amendments of2004, Pub. L. No. 108-446, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.
30.
Johnson, E.S., Jenkins, J.R., Petscher, Y., & Catts, H. W. (2009). How can we improve the accuracy of screening instruments ? Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24(4), 174-185.
31.
Linacre, J.M. ( 2003). Size vs. significance: Infit and outfit mean-square and standardized chi-square fit statistics. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 17(1), 918.
32.
Linacre, J.M. ( 2008). A user’s guide to WINSTEPS Rasch-model computer program, v. 3.65. Chicago: Winsteps .com.
33.
Meehl, P.E., & Rosen, A. ( 1955). Antecedent probability and the efficiency of psychometric signs, patterns, or cutting scores. Psychological Bulletin , 52(3), 194-216.
34.
Meisels, S. ( 1989). Can developmental screening tests identify children who are developmentally at risk? Pediatrics, 83(4), 578-585.
35.
Montgomery, M.L., Saylor, C.F., Bell, N.L., Macias, M.M., Charles, J.M., & Katikaneni, L.D.P. (1999). Use of the Child Development Inventory to screen high-risk populations. Clinical Pediatrics , 38(9), 535-539.
36.
National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2009). Assessment of child progress: A guide to the NAEYC early childhood program standard and related accreditation criteria. Washington, DC: Author.
37.
Neisworth, J.T., & Bagnato, S.J. ( 2005). DEC recommended practices: Assessment. In S. Sandall, M. L.Hemmeter, B. J. Smith, & M. E. McLean (Eds.), DEC recommended practices: A comprehensive guide for practical application in early intervention/early childhood special education (pp. 45-69). Missoula, MT: Council for Exceptional Children, Division for Early Childhood.
Newborg, J., Stock, J., Wnek, L., Guidubaldi, J., Svinicki, J., Dickson, J., et al. (1988). Battelle Developmental Inventory with recalibrated technical data and norms: Screening test examiner’s manual (2nd ed.). Allen, TX: DLM Teaching Resources.
40.
Pepe, M.S. ( 2003). The statistical evaluation of medical tests for classification and prediction. New York: Oxford University Press.
41.
Pepe, M.S., Janes, H., Longton, G., Leisenring, W., & Newcomb, P. ( 2004). Limitations of the odds ratio in gauging the performance of a diagnostic, prognostic, or screening marker. American Journal of Epidemiology, 159, 882-290.
42.
Rudner, L.M., & Schafer, W.D. ( 2001). Reliability (Report No. EDO-TM-01-01). ERIC Digest.College Park, MD: ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation.
43.
Sandall, S., Hemmeter, M.L., Smith, B.J., & McLean, M.E. (2005). DEC recommended practices: A comprehensive guide for practical application in early intervention/early childhood special education. Missoula, MT: Council for Exceptional Children, Division for Early Childhood.
44.
U.S. Officeof Special Education Programs. (2009a). Child find. Retrieved September1, 2010, from http://www.childfindidea.org/elements_screening_b.htm
45.
U.S. Officeof Special Education Programs. (2009b). Part B Indicator Measurement table . Retrieved September1, 2010, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/bapr/2010/b2-1820-0624bmeastabletechedits10-29-09.pdf
46.
Wilson, B.J., & Reichmuth, M. ( 1985). Early-screening programs: When is predictive accuracy sufficient? Learning Disability Quarterly, 8, 182-188.
47.
Wright, B.D. ( 1977). Misunderstanding the Rasch model. Journal of Educational Measurement, 14, 219-225.
48.
Wright, B.D., & Linacre, J.M. ( 1999). WINSTEPS: Rasch analysis for all two-facet models. Chicago: MESA Press.
Yovanoff, P., & Squires, J. ( 2006). Determining cutoff scores on a developmental screening measure: Use of receiver operating characteristics and item response theory . Journal of Early Intervention, 29, 48-62.
