Population changes, legislative changes, time and cost constraints, and practitioner and family perceptions each affect the delivery of early intervention services. This pilot project examined current evaluation practices used with the birth to 3 population. The role of norm-referenced and authentic assessment tools in the eligibility determination process was examined through a convenience sample of child–caregiver dyads and interdisciplinary practitioners. A majority of the children in the project were given a norm-referenced assessment along with authentic assessment measures. For more than half of those children, interpretation of the norm-referenced scores was questioned as standardized procedures could not be followed due to home language differences. Practitioners reported using authentic assessment information rather than norm-referenced data to derive developmental needs in nearly 80% of the children evaluated. The results of the pilot project provide a foundation for future study of evidence-based practices for norm-referenced and authentic assessment tool use with infants and toddlers.
American Occupational Therapy Association. (2010). Occupational therapy code of ethics and ethics standards. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 64(Suppl.), S17-S26. doi:10.5014/ajot.2010.64S17
2.
American Occupational Therapy Association. (2011). Occupational therapy services in early childhood and school-based settings. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 65(Suppl.), S46-S54. doi:10.5014/ajot.2011.65S46
American Speech–Language–Hearing Association. (2008). Roles and responsibilities of speech-language pathologists in early intervention: Position statement. Available from www.asha.org/policy
Assistance to States for the Education of Children with Disabilities, 300 C.F.R. §300.114 (2011).
8.
BagnatoS. J. (2005). The authentic alternative for assessment in early intervention: An emerging evidence-based practice. Journal of Early Intervention, 28, 17-22. doi:10.1177/105381510502800102
9.
BagnatoS. J. (2008). Authentic assessment for early childhood intervention: Best practices. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
10.
BagnatoS. J.HoH. Y. (2006). High stakes testing with preschool children: Violation of professional standards for evidence based practice in early childhood intervention. KEDI Journal of Educational Policy, 3(1), 23-43.
11.
BagnatoS. J.McLeanM.MacyM.NeisworthJ. T. (2011). Identifying instructional targets for early childhood via authentic assessment: Alignment of professional standards and practice-based evidence. Journal of Early Intervention, 33, 243-253. doi:10.177/1053815111427565
12.
BagnatoS. J.NeisworthJ. T.Pretti-FrontczakK. (2010). Linking authentic assessment and early childhood intervention: Best measures for best practices (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MA: Brookes.
13.
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. doi:10.1177/1053815108324422
14.
CalhoonJ. (1997). Comparison of assessment results between a formal standardized measure and a play-based format. Infant-Toddler Intervention, 7, 201-214.
CheslockM. A.KahnS. J. (2011). Supporting families and caregivers in everyday routines. The ASHA Leader, 16, 10-13.
18.
CrawfordK. C.OgletreeB. T. (2010). [Review of the book TPBA2 and TPBI2]. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 25, 55-57. doi:10.1177/1088357609350368
Division for Early Childhood. (2014). DEC recommended practices in early intervention/early childhood special education 2014. Retrieved from http://www.dec-sped.org/recommendedpractices
The Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center. (2015d). Understand the confidentiality requirements applicable to IDEA early childhood programs: Frequently asked questions (FAQ). Retrieved from http://ectacenter.org/topics/procsafe/procsafe.asp
27.
Early Intervention Program for Infants and Toddlers With Disabilities, 34 C.F.R. § 303.21 (2011).
28.
Early Intervention Program for Infants and Toddlers With Disabilities, 34 C.F.R. § 303.26 (2011).
29.
Early Intervention Program for Infants and Toddlers With Disabilities, 34 C.F.R. § 303.321 (2011).
30.
Early Intervention Program for Infants and Toddlers With Disabilities, 34 C.F.R. § 303.321(c)(2) (2011).
31.
Early Intervention Program for Infants and Toddlers With Disabilities, 34 C.F.R. § 303.322 (2011).
32.
Early Intervention Program for Infants and Toddlers With Disabilities, 34 C.F.R. §303, Subpart E (2011).
33.
EddeyG. E.RobeyK. L.ZumoffP.MalikZ. Q. (1995). Multidisciplinary screening in an arena setting for developmental delay in children from birth to six years of age. Infant-Toddler Intervention, 5, 233-241.
34.
El-GhorouryN. H.KrackowE. (2012). Enhancing the identification of autism spectrum disorders via a model of culturally sensitive childhood assessment. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 43, 249-255. doi:10.1037/a0027354
35.
HeoK. H.SquiresJ.YovanoffP. (2008). Cross-cultural adaptation of a pre-school screening instrument: Comparison of Korean and US populations. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 52, 195-206.
36.
HepburnK. S. (2004). Building culturally and linguistically competent services to support young children, their families, and school readiness. Baltimore, MD: The Annie E. Casey Foundation.
37.
HurthJ. L.GoffP. (2002). Assuring the family’s role on the early intervention team: Explaining rights and safeguards (2nd ed.). Chapel Hill, NC: National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center. Retrieved from http://www.nectac.org/~pdfs/pubs/assuring.pdf
KeiltyB.LaRoccoD. J.CasellF. (2009). Early interventionists’ reports of authentic assessment methods through focus group research. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 28, 244-256. doi:10.1177/0271121408327477
40.
LinderT.LinasK. (2009). A functional, holistic approach to developmental assessment through play: The Transdisciplinary Play-Based Assessment, Second Edition. Zero to Three, 30(1), 28-33.
41.
MacyM. G.BagnatoS. J.MacyR. S.SalawayJ. (2015). Conventional tests and testing for early intervention eligibility: Is there an evidence base?Infants & Young Children, 28, 182-204. doi:10.1097/IYC.0000000000000032
42.
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. doi:10.1177/105381510502800101
43.
MacyM. G.Thorndike-ChristT.LinY. (2010). Parental reports of perceived assessment utility: A comparison of authentic and conventional approaches. Infants & Young Children, 23, 286-302. doi:10/1097/IYC.0b013e3181f1ec1b
44.
McManusB. M.CarleA. C.RapportM. J. (2014). Classifying infants and toddlers with developmental vulnerability: Who is most likely to receive early intervention?Child: Care, Health, and Development, 40, 205-214. doi:10.1111/cch.12013
McWilliamR. A. (2010). Routines-based early intervention: Supporting young children and their families. Baltimore, MA: Brookes.
47.
Minnesota Department of Education. (2011). Talk with me: A resource guide for speech-language pathologists and educators working with linguistically diverse young children and their families. Retrieved from http://www.asec.net/Archives/Talkwithme5-11.pdf
48.
MyersC. L.McBrideS. L.PetersonC. A. (1996). Transdisciplinary, play-based assessment in early childhood special education: An examination of social validity. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 16, 102-126. doi:10.1177/027112149601600109
49.
National Association for the Education of Young Children. (1995). Responding to linguistic and cultural diversity recommendations for effective early childhood education. Retrieved from http://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/positions/PSDIV98.PDF
50.
National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2009). Family engagement, diverse families, and early childhood education programs: An integrated review of the literature. Retrieved from http://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/research/FamEngage.pdf
NeisworthJ. T.BagnatoS. J. (2000). Recommended practices in assessment. In SandallS.McLeanM. E.SmithB. J. (Eds.), DEC recommended practices in early intervention/early childhood special education (pp. 17-28). Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
55.
NeisworthJ. T.BagnatoS. J. (2004). The mismeasure of young children: The authentic assessment alternative. Infants & Young Children, 17, 198-212.
56.
Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education. (2011). Part C of the individuals with disabilities in education act: Final regulations nonregulatory guidance. Retrieved from http://ectacenter.org/partc/non_reg_guidance.asp
Parent Advocacy Coalition for Educational Rights Center. (2010). Natural environments support early intervention services. Retrieved from http://www.pacer.org/parent/php/PHP-c178.pdf
59.
Parks WarshawS. (2006). Inside HELP: Administration and reference manual for using the Hawaii Early Learning Profile as a birth to three, curriculum based assessment. Palo Alto, CA: VORT Corporation.
RainesT. C.DeverB. V.KamphausR. W.RoachA. T. (2012). Universal screening for behavioral and emotional risk: A promising method for reducing disproportionate placement in special education. Journal of Negro Education, 81, 283-296. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7709/jnegroeducation.81.3.0283
62.
RapportM. J.FurzeJ.MartinK.SchreiberJ.DannemillerL. A.DiBiasioP. A.MoerchenV. A. (2014). Essential competencies in entry-level pediatric physical therapy education. Pediatric Physical Therapy, 26, 7-18.
63.
RichardsonP. K. (2015). Use of standardized tests in pediatric practice. In Case-SmithJ.O’BrienJ. C. (Eds.), Occupational therapy for children and adolescents (7th ed., pp. 163-192). St. Louis, MO: Elsevier.
64.
RingwaltS. (2008). Developmental screening and assessment instruments with an emphasis on social and emotional development for young children ages birth through five. Chapel Hill: National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center, FPG Child Development Institute, University of North Carolina. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED505971.pdf
65.
RoysircarG. (2005). Culturally sensitive assessment, diagnosis, and guidelines. In ConstantineM. G.SueD. W. (Eds.), Strategies for building multicultural competence in mental health and educational settings (pp. 19-38). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
66.
SchraederT.QuinnM.StockmanI. J.MillerJ. (1999). Authentic assessment as an approach to preschool speech-language screening. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 8, 195-200.
67.
ShackelfordJ. (2006). State and jurisdictional eligibility definitions for infants and toddlers with disabilities under IDEA. Retrieved from http://ectacenter.org/~pdfs/pubs/nnotes21.pdf
68.
SquiresJ. (2015). Guiding principles for accurate and efficient decision making. In Division for Early Childhood (Ed.), DEC recommended practices: Enhancing services for young children with disabilities and their families (Monograph Series No. 1, pp. 37-52). Los Angeles, CA: Division for Early Childhood.
69.
SterlingS.CandlerC.NevilleM. (2011). Comparison of developmental age derived from the Transdisciplinary Play-Based Assessment and the Peabody Developmental Motor Scales-2. Journal of Occupational Therapy, Schools, & Early Intervention, 4, 121-128.
ThorleyM.LimS. M. (2011). Considerations for occupational therapy assessment for indigenous children in Australia. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 58, 3-10. doi:10.1111/j.1440-1630.2010.00852.x
73.
VanderheydenA. 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, 28-33. doi:10.1177/105381510502800104
