Carlena Lowell

SEI 508 Review of Assessments

1










Review of Assessments
Carlena Lowell
September 6, 2012












Carlena Lowell
SEI 508 Review of Assessments
2

Introduction
In this Review of Assessments I have chosen five tools based on my familiarity or
unfamiliarity with them. I have never implemented three of the five I chose to review:
the Assessment, Evaluation, and Programming Systems, the Vineland Social Emotional
Early Childhood Scales and the SCERTS Model. I wanted to familiarize myself with
them for two reasons: a.) the company I am employed by uses the AEPS and b.) I was
intrigued by the other two in researching evaluations to use for this assignment. Two of
the five assignments I have implemented before: the Battelle Developmental Inventory
and the Creative Curriculum. I wanted to gain more of an understanding for these two
in relation to standards, validity and reliability. I am most familiar with the Creative
Curriculum as I have been implementing it for three years. I have only used the Battelle
once; however, will be using in the near future as a professional, so would like to gain a
better understanding of it. In this assignment, I have listed the assessments with
respect to the domains they evaluate, from the broadest to the narrowest.
The Creative Curriculum Developmental Continuum for Ages 3-5
This observation-based, curriculum-embedded assessment with norms has two
separate assessment kits: one for children birth through age two, and the other for
children birth through age five, the latter being the basis for this review. Until recent
years, the Creative Curriculum was used with a Developmental Continuum; currently
the system that is used with Creative Curriculum is Teaching Strategies GOLD. There
are 38 objectives in nine areas of content which are: social-emotional, physical,
language, cognitive, literacy, mathematics, science and technology, the arts, and social
Carlena Lowell
SEI 508 Review of Assessments
3

studies. Two of the 38 objectives are reserved for English-language acquisition in order
to be inclusive of English-language learners (Dodge, Colker, & Heroman, 2010b, p. 4).
The norms for the Creative Curriculum with TSG were taken in 2010, in all regions of
the US. The norm sample was closely matched to the 2009 census with respect to
seven different ethnic groups (Lambert, Kim, Taylor, & McGee, 2010, p. 3). The TSG
system does take children with disabilities into account; therefore, teachers are able to
assess children independent of their ability level (Dodge, Colker, & Heromen, 2010a, p.
1).
The Creative Curriculum is an authentic assessment as it uses primarily observation
and anecdotal documentation of the children in a natural setting. This is an ongoing
assessment that teachers use throughout the school year. There are other tools
involved with TSG that allow teachers to view the individual childs progress, and also
the progress of the entire class (Bagnato, et al., 2010, p. 135). There is also a Child
Progress and Planning Report which allows for family input, as well as individualizing for
the child based on interests. (Bagnato, et al., 2010, p. 135). Also, there are On the Spot
Observation Recording Tools, Child Assessment Portfolios and Assessment
Opportunity Cards (Dodge, et al., 2010a, p. 4). All of these TSG components prove the
utility of this assessment system is notable. The Creative Curriculum also allows for
family engagement. There are letters at the ends of the chapters to families to discuss
the various aspects of child development that are available in Spanish and English.
Also, generally teachers who use this system discuss the strengths and needs of the
child in the classroom based on the assessment.
Carlena Lowell
SEI 508 Review of Assessments
4

There is a ten point rating scale of 0-9 for all 38 objectives that represent indicators.
The expectations for ages and for classes/grades are depicted along the bottom of the
indicators in the form of color bands, for example, red is birth through one year, orange
represents one to two years, and so on. The validity and reliability analysis was based
on six of the nine content areas (social-emotional, physical, language, cognitive,
literacy, and mathematics) (Dodge, et al., 2010b, p. 5). The validity was analyzed using
the Rasch scale, and found that all of the six areas measured only the intended area
giving the TSG areas unidimensionality, and the giving assessment a notable validity
rating (Dodge, et al., 2010b, p. 5). TSG ranged from .95-.98 in the person reliability
test, and .99 in all six areas in the item reliability test; both of these being very high
(Lambert, et al., 2010, p. 15-16). The Creative Curriculum and TSG have proven to rate
high in both validity and reliability.
Assessment, Evaluation, and Programming Systems for Infants and
Children, Second Edition
This criterion-referenced, curriculum-embedded assessment addresses a variety of
domains for children ranging in age from birth to 72 months, with one assessment
aimed at children birth through 36 months (level I) and another for children 36-72
months (level II) in a transdisciplinary approach. The domains covered by the AEPS
are fine and gross motor, adaptive, cognitive, social-communication, and social; the
assessment also conveys a variety of content areas such as reading and math
(Bagnato, Neisworth & Pretti-Frontczak, 2010, p. 99). The six domains covered in each
of the levels are the same; however, both levels are based on developmental content
Carlena Lowell
SEI 508 Review of Assessments
5

appropriate for the respective level, with the latter level also having a focus on pre-
academics (Bricker, Pretti-Frontczak, Grisham-Brown, Johnson, Macy, Slentz, &
Waddell, 2008, p. 2). This assessment is designed to assess both children who are
developing typically, as well as children who are at risk or have a disability. It holds a
high authenticity rating as it focuses on observation of children in their natural
environments, with some semi-structured play activities. The AEPS also relies on
family input with the Family Report piece of the assessment, as well as the family being
welcome during the observation. This assessment can be modified for children with
disabilities using for example, sign language or a communication board (Waddell, Pretti-
Frontczak, Johnson, & Bricker, 2007, p. 4).
The AEPS does follow the accountability requirements from the Office of Special
Education Programs, as well as holding alignment with many states early childhood
standards, which makes it a useful assessment in the eligibility process. In addition, the
AEPS assessment meets all recommended assessment practices of the Division for
Early Childhood of the Council for Exceptional Children (Sandall et al., 2005) as well as
the recommendations of the Presidents Commission on Excellence in Special
Education (2002) (Waddell, et al., 2007, p. 5). The AEPS offers follow up
considerations for each goal, as well as environmental tips and advice on instructional
activities (Bagnato, et al., 2010, p. 101). The accountability of the AEPS is rated high,
and the utility of the assessment holds a notably high rating, as well. The AEPS has a
strong evidence base; there have been many studies done researching various aspects
of the assessment. An entire bibliography of the studies can be found at
http://aepslinkedsystem.com/annotatedbio.html.
Carlena Lowell
SEI 508 Review of Assessments
6

When the AEPS was first introduced in the early 1970s there were no curriculum-based
assessments on the market. A primary goal for the AEPS was to be used by service
delivery personnel to develop functional and developmentally appropriate goals and
associated intervention content (Bricker et al., 2008, p. 3). Another purpose it served,
and continues to serve today, is evaluation. The composition of the AEPS Child
Observation Data Recording Form (CODRF) is such that continual observation of the
childrens performance over time is encouraged; in this way, teams are able to monitor
the changes that occur in a childs performance as various instructional techniques and
intervention strategies are employed (Bagnato, et al., 2010, p. 101). The AEPS
assessment is highly regarded in many aspects including, but not limited to, reliability,
validity, authenticity, and collaboration with professionals and family members. It is a
powerful assessment tool used for eligibility, as well as ongoing evaluations.
Battelle Developmental Inventory, Second Edition
The BDI-2 is a standardized, and both norms and criterion-referenced, assessment that
can be administered to children ages birth through seven years, eleven months. The
norm sample was taken from a group of 2,500 children, ranging in age from birth to
seven years, eleven months. The data was compiled over 14 months and compared to
the 2000 census in relation to sex, ethnicity, education level and religion (Bliss, 2007, p.
411). This assessment is meant to screen and evaluate early childhood developmental
milestones in the areas of personal-social, adaptive, motor, communication and
cognitive ability. Each of these domains has multiple subdomains in the test. The BDI-
2 does align with the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) child outcomes and
the Head Start Child Outcomes; therefore, is able to be used for determining eligibility
Carlena Lowell
SEI 508 Review of Assessments
7

(Riverside Publishing, 2011, p. 1-2). The administration of the BDI-2 requires child
observations, caregiver interviews and structured methods requiring interaction with the
child in a controlled setting (Bliss, 2007, p. 409; Technical Assistance and Training
System, 2009, p. 2).
The basal level is reached by a child scoring two on three consecutive items; the ceiling
level is obtained by receiving a score of zero on three consecutive items (Bliss, 2007, p.
410). For each of the 450 items on the test, the child can score between 0 and 2. The
scores are totaled at the end of each subdomain, and then can be translated into scaled
scores, age equivalents and percentile ranks. After the scaled scores for the
subdomains are collected, they are added together to find the domain sum; the domain
sums are added to attain the BDI-2 total score, which can be converted to
developmental quotients and percentile ranks (Bliss, 2007, p. 410). With a few
exceptions pertaining to specific subdomains, the BDI-2 has a solid range for reliability.
According to Bliss (2007), Examination of the BDI-2 coefficients revealed BDI-2 total
score reliabilities ranging from .98-.99, a highly acceptable score (p. 412). The validity
of the BDI-2 was obtained against seven other assessment and most of the correlations
were found to be in the moderate range. Validity was also determined for children with
disabilities. Results of these studies indicate that the BDI-2 distinguishes well for
children with autism, developmental delays, speech and language delays, and also
distinguishes children who were born prematurely from their peers (Bliss, 2007, p 414).
The authenticity of the BDI-2 is acceptable as portions of the test are administered via
observation in the childs natural setting and caregiver interview; however, one portion
of the test is generally administered in a controlled setting with specific test items,
Carlena Lowell
SEI 508 Review of Assessments
8

although it does incorporate authentic, play-based activities (Riverside Publishing,
2011, p. 3). This assessment can be administered by an individual, as well as by a
team of professionals (Riverside Publishing, 2011, p. 3). Overall, the BDI-2 is a reliable,
validated assessment that obtains information about children over a wide range of
developmental aspects.
The SCERTS Model
This criterion-referenced, curriculum-embedded assessment can be implemented with
people of all ages; however, it was chiefly designed for preschool and elementary aged
children (Rubin & Laurent, 2004, p. 300; Bagnato et al., 2010, p. 224). This approach
was created with the intent to support the development of young children with ASD and
their families; therefore, this assessment is flexible in regards to the varying abilities of
children with ASD in domains such as cognitive and communication (Prizant, Wetherby,
Rubin & Laurent, 2003, p. 296 & 298). The SCERTS model focuses on three domains:
social communication, emotional regulation and transactional support. There are
various parts of the SCERTS that allow for much collaboration amongst various
professionals, the family and caregivers of the child. The SCERTS Assessment
Process Report (SAP-R) is a questionnaire to be filled out by the family or via an
interview. The SAP Map allows for identification of the assessment team members,
their roles and responsibilities, where the observation will take place, and who will plan
the observation, and also, may identify the need for collaboration with outside experts
as well (Bagnato et al., 2010, p. 227-228).
Carlena Lowell
SEI 508 Review of Assessments
9

This is an authentic assessment in that it gathers information (with a SCERTS
Assessment Process ObservationSAP-O) from people who know the child well, and
also observes the child in their natural environments (at least two done in person, and if
not possible, via a video of the child) (Bagnato et al., 2010, p. 225). Also to ensure the
childs behaviors are a good representation of the child during the observation, the
assessment takes into account six variables: natural contexts, length of observation,
partners, group size, activity variables, and transitions (Bagnato et al., 2010, p. 225).
The utility of this assessment is also notably high as it is linked to program planning
once the observation has been completed. It also allows for progress monitoring. This
assessment is evidence based with extensive research done for over two decades
(Prizant et al, 2003, p. 298).
The Vineland Social Emotional Early Childhood Scales
The Vineland SEEC is an authentic curriculum-referenced assessment with norms and
is used for children ages birth through five years eleven months. The norms are from
the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale, and are from a population similar to the of the
1980 U.S. census population in relation to age, gender, geographic region, parent
education, race/ethnic group, community size and diverse developmental
disabilities/disorders; the date of the population sample used to develop the norms
should be noted as it is decades old (Bagnato, et al., 2010, p. 245 & 249; U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, 2010, p. 1; Gagnon, Nagle, & Nickerson,
2007, p. 233).
Carlena Lowell
SEI 508 Review of Assessments
10

This assessment is used to determine the social and emotional functioning of young
children; therefore, the three areas of concentration are interpersonal relationships, play
and leisure time, and coping skills. The scores the 122 items of these three areas are
added together to create a Social-Emotional Composite score (Bagnato, et al., 2010, p.
245). The components of this assessment were derived from the Vineland Adaptive
Behavior Scales, Second Edition. Its notably high authenticity is shown through the fact
that The Vineland Social-Emotional Early Childhood Scales (SEEC, Sparrow, Balla, &
Cicchetti, 1998) uses the semi-structured interview format, relying on caregiver
responses to provide an overview of the childs social and emotional functioning
(Gagnon, et al., 2007, p. 229). The validity of the SEEC receives a low rating due to the
lack of validity studies; however, the validity of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales,
Second Edition is ranked high in validity and as stated before, the components of the
SEEC were derived from the ABS (U.S. DHHS, 2010, p. 2).
The SEEC is a positive skills based assessment. After the assessment is administered,
a Program Planning Profile is completed which indicates what skills a child has already
become proficient in. This is a useful tool to have access to when program planning.
Another aspect of the utility of the SEEC is the idea that individuals with disabilities were
included in the national norms; therefore, it can be used in determining eligibility and
potentially for accountability purposes to meet Office of Special Education Programs
(OSEP) mandates regarding child outcomes (Bagnato, et al., 2010, p. 248). The
Vineland SEEC is an authentic assessment with low in validity and acceptable in means
of utility; however, ranks notably among collaboration and family engagement and has a
strong evidence base.
Carlena Lowell
SEI 508 Review of Assessments
11

Conclusion
The assessments reviewed cover a range of domains. The Creative Curriculum,
Assessment, Evaluation, and Programming System and Battelle all cover at least five
domains. The Vineland and SCERTS Model are both more specific in that they assess
certain aspects of social and emotional development. The assessments are all
curriculum-based or embedded, except for the Battelle. Several of them are designed
for children ages birth through six, but two of them are for other age ranges. A couple
of them are used for determining eligibility. I chose to review a mix of assessments that
I was familiar and unfamiliar with. This was to enable myself to become acquainted with
assessments I am not, and to give myself a more in depth understanding of the ones I
am familiar with.












Carlena Lowell
SEI 508 Review of Assessments
12

References
Bagnato, S. J., Neisworth, J. T., & Pretti-Frontczak, K. (2010). LINKing Authentic
assessment & early childhood intervention. Baltimore, Maryland: Paul H.
Brookes Publishing Co., Inc.
Bliss, S. L. (2007, July 19). Test reviews: Newborg, J. (2005). Battelle Developmental
InventorySecond Edition. Itasca, IL: Riverside. Journal of Psychoeducational
Assessment, 25: 409, 409-415.
Bricker, D., Pretti-Frontczak, K., Grisham-Brown, J., Johnson, J. J., Macy, M., Slentz,
K., & Waddell, M. (2008). Original purposes and expanded uses of AEPS.
EMRG white paper no. 2. Eugene, OR: Early Intervention Management and
Research Group (EMRG). Retrieved from
http://aepslinkedsystem.com/pdf/originalPurposesAndExpandedUsesWhitePaper
.org.
Dodge, D. T., Colker, L. J., & Heroman, C. (2010a). Teaching Strategies: The Creative
Curriculum for Preschool. Retrieved from:
https://www.fldoe.org/Early Learning/pdf/CreativeCurriculum.pdf.
Dodge, D. T., Colker, L. J., & Heroman, C. (2010b). Teaching Strategies GOLD
assessment system technical summary. Retrieved from:
http://www.teachingstrategies.com/content/pageDocs/GOLD-Tech-Summary-8
18-2011.pdf.
Carlena Lowell
SEI 508 Review of Assessments
13

Gagnon, S. G., Nagle, R. J., & Nickerson, A. B. (2007). Parent and teacher ratings of
peer interactive play and social-emotional development of preschool
children at risk. Journal of Early Intervention, 29:3, 228-242.
Lambert, R. G., Kim, D., Taylor, H., & McGee, J. R. (2010, December). Technical
manual for the Teaching Strategies GOLD assessment system. UNC
Charlotte: The Center for Educational Measurement and Evaluation.
Prizant, B. M., Wetherby, A. M., Rubin, E., & Laurent, A. C. (2003, December). The
SCERTS model: a transactional, family-centered approach to enhancing
communication and socioemotional abilities of children with autism spectrum
disorder. Infants and Young Children, 8:50, 296-316.
Rubin, E., & Laurent, A. C. (2004). Implementing a curriculum-based assessment to
prioritize learning objectives in Asperger syndrome and high-functioning autism.
Top Lang Disorders, 19:1, 298-315.
Technical Assistance and Training System. (2009, May). Overview of the Battelle
Developmental Inventory-2. Retrieved from
www.tats.ucf.edu/docs/eUpdates/Evaluation-8.pdf.
The Riverside Publishing Company. (2011). Battelle Developmental Inventory, Second
Edition (BDI-2). Retrieved from
http://www.riversidepublishing.com/products/bdi2/index.html.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Administration for Children and
Families. (2010). Vineland social-emotional early childhood scales/Vineland
Carlena Lowell
SEI 508 Review of Assessments
14

SEEC, 1998. Washington, DC: DHHS: Office of Planning, Research and
Evaluation.
Waddell, M., Pretti-Frontczak, K., Johnson, J., & Bricker, D. (2007). Using AEPS to
determine eligibility for IDEA services. Baltimore, Maryland: Paul H. Brookes
Publishing Co., Inc. Retrieved from
http://aepslinkedsystem.com/pdf/Eligibility.pdf.