Journal of School

Psychology
1977 • Vol. 15, No. 2

ASSESSMENT OF YOUNG CHILDREN

MARTHA S. ABBOTT and JUDITH S.

CRANE
Georgia State
University

Summary: Discusses important issues and problems related to the assessment of

young children. A review of the literature identifies major trends in the field of
assessment in early childhood education. Authors conclude that with increased
emphasis on assessment of young children, there is an increased need to develop
teachers' skills in both selection and interpretation of appropriate formal and informal
assessment techniques.

The implementation of a systematic program for the assessment of the

individual child is vital to the success of any early childhood education program.
Several trends become apparent in reviewing the literature related to the
assessment of the young child. This paper will present and critique several
major trends, including (1) an increase in the emphasis on assessment in early
childhood education; (2) the use of achievement, readiness, and criterion-
referenced tests to identify instructional needs of the individual child; (3) the
increased use of informal assessment techniques; (4) the influences of cultural-
linguistic differences upon assessment; (5) the use of assessment for the early
diagnosis of learning or behavioral problems; and (6) the recognition of a need for
the development of teachers' skills in areas such as test selection and interpre• tation.
Techniques employed in the process of assessing the young child from infancy
and
preschool through the primary grades range from formalized testing with
standardized, norm-referenced instruments to informal techniques such as
observation of the child at free play or in a semistructured situation. The method of
assessment is not as important as the accuracy and appropriateness of the technqiue
in relation to what is being assessed. Scriven (1967) discusses the need for three
types of matches in the develop• ment of an effective curriculum: (1) a match
between the goals of the curriculum and the content of instruction, (2) a match
between the curriculum goals and the assessment content, and (3) a match between
the course content and the assessment content.
In 1971 Kamii and Elliot called for the development of measurement techniques
which effectively match program objectives and goals for early childhood
education. The Center for the Study of Evaluation-Early Childhood
Research Center Preschool/Kindergarten Test Evaluations (Hoepfner, Stern, &
Nummedal, 1971) sys• tematically evaluated a wide range of tests utilizing the
Critical MEAN test evaluation criteria of measurement validity, examinee
appropriateness, administrative usability, and quality of standardization. Within
any one of the four areas a letter grade was assigned: G for a test that met the
criteria well; F for a fair test, signifying the test was probably one of the better
tests available, although it did not completely meet the criteria; and P for a test
that did not meet the criteria and was unsatisfactory in the area. The majority of tests
evaluated received ratings of Fs and Ps, indicating a need for the application of more
stringent criteria in the development and validation of standardized evaluation
measures in early childhood education.
In the 1960's and early 70's an increasing knowledge of statistics has resulted in
an

118
119 Assessment of Young
Journal of School 119
Children
Psychology

improvement of normed technical data in test development. Standardization

proce• dures have become more representative of the total population with all
subgroups being represented. The 1974 edition of Standards for Educational and
Psychological Tests emphasizes the need for ethical presentations in the test manual
of technical data with explanations of the tests strengths and weaknesses.
The APA Standards also discuss the fallibility of obtained scores and ffie need
for
careful consideration of test appropriateness in relation to the population. There is
the possibility that test results will be inaccurate and yet be heavily weighed in
making instructional decisions in regard to a child. Inaccurate test results may be
attributed to situations in which the basic assumptions of testing have not been
met. Some basic assumptions which should be carefully considered when
administering tests include: equal educational opportunity (especially in dealing
with low socioeconomic group students), maximum motivation, and normal state
of health. For example, a child who is tested could be assessed as having failed to
achieve minimum standards for a par• ticular grade and could be placed in a remedial
class, when, in fact, his/her test scores may not be truly indicative of his/her
competence. A child may be discriminated against if s/he is tested on an
instrument which emphasizes verbal abilities when English is the second language
or when a dialect is spoken at home. While the problem of assessing and interpreting
a child inaccurately remains an important issue in educa• tional measurement, the
improvement in test development and the use of a variety of assessment techniques
in making placement or instructional decisions have helped to minimize the
possibility of this type of error.

EMPHASIS ON ASSESSMENT IN EARLY CHILDHOOD

EDUCATION
In considering the historical perspective of early childhood education, one
iden• tifies a trend indicating an increasing emphasis on assessment and evaluation.
Formal techniques have been an accepted part of the educational assessment
process in the primary grades since the I 920's and l 930's when "scientific
measurement of a child's behavior, including his achievements in school," resulted
in the development of numerous standardized tests (Durkin, 1974, p. 107). Many of
these tests remained in use for years without revision. Since that time, teachers,
guidance counselors, and psychologists have faithfully compiled records of children's
performances on stan• dardized, norm-referenced intelligence and achievement tests.
For the most part, such test scores were the only systematically recorded assessment
information before the late 1960's. The use of such tests had little or no relevant
application to the educational needs of a child. Test results were seldom used to make
prescriptive decisions concern• ing children's educational progress.
Recent interest in the instrumentation and methodology of assessment in early
childhood education came about partly as a result of the legislation authorizing federal
appropriations for the development of compensatory early education programs. Project
Head Start was implemented in the summer of 1965. With the funding of Planned
Variation Head Start and Follow Through in 1969, legislation required that all models
include a system of evaluating the program's effectiveness. The continuation of fund•
ing became primarily dependent upon the measurement of success by increments in IQ
120 Assessment of Young
Journal of School 120
Children
Psychology

scores or gains in achievement test scores. However, the time limits of funding con•
tracts resulted in the use of tests which had been previously published. These
tests
121 Assessment of Young
Journal of School 121
Children
Psychology

seldom met Scriven's requirement for congruency between test content and
curriculum content. This system of accountability based on achievement and
intelligence testing of young children was opposed by a majority of early childhood
educators due to scarcity of appropriate assessment instruments. A need for more
appropriate instruments be• came evident, for without such instruments, meaningful
evaluations of the effective• ness of the models would be impossible.

INTELLIGENCE TESTS AS PREDICTIVE

MEASURES
Another trend in testing is reflected by the extensive body of research
which indicates that performance on intelligence tests is fairly stable over the
elementary, high school, and college years (Anastasi, 1958; McCall, Appelbaum,
& Hogarty,
1973). Intelligence testing in the preschool years also shows remarkably high
correla• tions with retests at a later time. However, there have also been studies of
individual young children indicating that changes of considerable magnitude may
result due to environmental changes .such as adoption, infant stimulation, and early
compensatory education, which alter subsequent intellectual development (Honzik,
Mcfarlane, & Allen, 1948). Longitudinal studies on preschool intelligence tests
indicate they have only moderate validity in the prediction of subsequent
intelligent test performance (Lewis, 1973; McCall, Hogarty, & Hurlburt, 1972).
It is also important to note that intelligence in infancy and preschool years is
qualitatively different from intelligence at school age (Erikson, 1950; Havighurst,
1953). Therefore, interpretation of stan• dardized IQ and achievement scores for
infants and preschoolers must be made with great caution. Some critics of group
IQ have suggested the importance of inquiry into the reasons an individual chooses
a specific answer (Sigel, 1963). Such inquiry often contributes valuable knowledge
about the child's cognitive processes which scores alone do not provide. It is for
this reason that when important decisions about a child must be made, they should
not be based on group tests without the use of supplemental information from
additional sources.

USE OF ACHIEVEMENT, READINESS,

AND CRITERION-REFERENCED TESTS
The use of achievement, readiness, and criterion-referenced tests to identify in•
structional needs of young children represents another trend in the field of early
childhood assessment. Achievement tests are the most common form of evaluation in
primary school assessment. The emphasis in these tests has traditionally been the
assessment of long-term educational goals. If achievement tests are to be used for
instructional decisions, one must recognize the importance of choosing a test which
reflects the goals of the curriculum. Testing children on material which has not been
presented in their program does not yield scores that are representative of what the
child has achieved. Standardized achievement tests which are presently available are
appropriate for use in primary grade classrooms which use a traditional curriculum
emphasizing academic skills. These achievement tests seldom include items which
122 Assessment of Young
Journal of School 122
Children
Psychology

measure achievement in problem-solving skills, affective development, and creativity

which are emphasized in discovery-oriented programs.
Several weaknesses in the interpretation of achievement tests are unavoidable.
Achievement tests fail to take into account the process by which a child arrives at an
121 Journal
Assessment
of School
of Young 121
Psychology
Children

answer. Responses are scored as either correct or incorrect without any

consideration of the problem-solving skills used to arrive at the chosen answer.
Often answers that appear to be incorrect could actually have been scored as correct
if the child's logic in answering the question had been taken into account. As a
result, a child may be penalized for creative thinking.
During the 1950's and 1960's achievement test scores were often usedin
establish• ing homogeneous groups within schools or classrooms. Research has yielded
data that such grouping is not to the advantage of low ability students (Kirk, 1972;
Dunn, 1968). Since heterogeneous grouping patterns are becoming increasingly
prevalent, the use of the achievement test scores as an ability grouping indicator
has declined.
Readiness tests are another form of achievement tests which have been used
for grouping purposes in kindergarten and the beginning of first grade. They are
designed to determine whether or not the child has acquired skills which are
considered prereq• uisite to the learning experiences typically encountered in first
grade. According to Hunt and Kirk (1974), these entry skills are needed by the
child in order to cope with the teaching and learning situations which the child
experiences in first grade. Readi• ness tests place a great deal of emphasis on
skills important to the acquisition of reading behaviors. Skills measured in
readiness tests typically include: (1) visual discrimination, including the
recognition of similarities and differences in letters, numbers, and geometric
shapes; (2) auditory discrimination, including the identifica• tion of sounds in
letters, blends, and words; (3) verbal comprehension, including the demonstration
of an understanding of words and sentences, and the ability to follow directions;
(4) recognition of letters, words, and numerals; (5) recognition and com• prehension
of words in sample lessons; and (6) reproduction of symbols, including drawing
or copying geometric forms, letters, or numbers (Gronlund, 1976).
A new trend may be emerging in the area of readiness testing as exemplified by
the
1976 edition of the widely used Metropolitan Readiness Test (Nurss &
McGauvran,
1976). In addition to the traditional test materials used in the administration
and interpretation of this test, the Metropolitan Readiness Test has made available
a hand• book designed to help the teacher in planning instructional activities to
aid in the remediation of weaknesses as assessed by the Metropolitan Readiness Test.
The Handbook of Skill Development Activities for the Young Child (Nurss,
1976)
consists of suggestions for activities designed to develop skills in four major skill areas
(auditory, visual, language, and quantitative). While The Handbook of Skill Develop•
ment Activities for the Young Child can be used without formal assessment of the
child's level of development, the use of the test results enables the teacher to determine
which skills have been satisfactorily mastered so that s/he may plan subsequent instruc•
tion to focus on specific skill weaknesses of individual children.
Until the 1970's test publishers dealt almost exclusively with standardized, norm•
referenced tests. The results of these tests seldom provided the teacher with specific
information that could be used to individualize instruction or facilitate learning for the
student. However, criterion-referenced tests are now being published which can be
used to individualize instruction. Criterion-referenced tests measure a child's perfor•
122 Journal
Assessment
of School
of Young 122
Psychology
Children

mance in relation to mastery of specific objectives rather than the norm of a sample
population. Criterion-referenced tests which are presently available and are suitable for
the primary grades deal primarily with the assessment of skills in mathematics and
reading. These tests include The Individualized Pupil Monitoring System in
Mathemat• ics and Reading (1973, 1974), Mastery: An Evaluation Tool (Science
Research As-
123 Journal
Assessment
of School
of Young 123
Psychology
Children

sociates, 1972), and the Prescriptive Reading Inventory (1972). The Test of Basic
Experience (Moss, 1970) and the Boehm Test of Basic Concepts (Boehm, 1969) use
a modified criterion-referenced approach.
The development of criterion-referenced tests has the potential of being
particularly useful for instructional purposes. The Fountain Valley Teacher
Support System (Zwieg, 1974) includes criterion-referenced instruments and a
guide which teachers use in identifying appropriate instruction for remediation
of skill weaknesses. This guide refers the teacher to sections of published
instructional materials such as standard basal readers where activities are provided
for the remediation of specific skill weak• nesses. A comprehensive application of
criterion-referenced assessment is also incor• porated in the Individual Prescribed
Instruction Program (1970).
In the process of combining the advantages of individual and group testing,
innova• tive techniques utilizing computers are being studied. Many programs have
attempted to adapt item coverage to the individual's response pattern. Such
procedures can eliminate boredom from working on easy items and frustration from
encountering too many problems which are beyond the present ability level of the
individual (Anastasi,
1976). While some attempts have been made to design paper and pencil tests of
this type (Cleary, Linn, & Rock, 1968), response-contingent testing seems to be
adminis• tered most effectively by computers. This approach has been considered
by Baker (1971), Glaser and Nitko (1971), Weiss and Betz (Note I), and Larkin and
Weiss (Note
2). This mode of testing can be especially useful in individualized instructional
pro•
grams.

INFORMAL ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUES

An important trend in early childhood assessment has been toward the use
of informal techniques such as systematic observation (McReynolds, I 968). Such
tech• niques are often more useful than standardized measurement in early
childhood set• tings because they can be used unobtrusively and can yield
information that norm• referenced, formal instruments cannot obtain. Observations
may be done through the use of one-way mirrors or video-tapes which limit the
distractions which can affect child behavior. Observations provide valuable
supplemental information. Learning outcomes in the cognitive domain (Bloom,
Hastings, & Madaus, 1971), such as application of knowledge, use of reasoning
skills (synthesis or analysis), and in the affective domain such as development of
positive self-concept and interpersonal com• munication skills are more effectively
assessed by observation techniques than by formal testing procedures. According to
Simon and Boyer (Note 3), traditional obser• vation systems have been used in
assessing such skills as problem solving, social skills, and interaction with didactic
materials.
Various observation techniques used in early childhood education settings include
anecdotal records, time samples, skill checklists, rating scales, product evaluation, and
coded observations. The use of a combination of two or more of these observation
techniques, such as a skill checklist and anecdotal records, or a rating scale and a skill
124 Journal
Assessment
of School
of Young 124
Psychology
Children

checklist, provides a useful assessment system for children who are too young for
pencil and paper techniques. One or more of these observational techniques combined
with a careful analysis of results of more formalized standardized instruments can give
the teacher valuable information to use in planning a program suitable to the needs of
the individual child. Observation of the child can even help the teacher to make such
123 Journal of School
Assessment of Young 123
Psychology
Children

decisions as what method best facilitates the child's learning in a particular area
(e.g. direct teaching, use of manipulative materials, etc.). Observation, as a
technique for the assessment of development, is widely implemented by advocates
of discovery• oriented programs.
Anecdotal records are factual descriptions of incidents which the teacher
observes
and records because s/he believes they are meaningful in relation to the development
of the child. To retain objectivity, anecdotes should be recorded as soon after the
incident occurs as possible. Teacher interpretation of the incident should be
recorded sepa• rately. While major decisions about a child should not be based on
anecdotal records alone, anecdotes do provide a sample of learning experiences in
the child's develop• ment.
With one important exception, interview techniques have not been used
frequently
in early childhood education. That exception is Piaget's methode clinique, used
almost exclusively with the cognitively oriented curricula (Kamii, 1971; Lavatelli,
1970). These interviews have been designed to determine the child's understanding
of skills such as classification, seriation, and conservation. Unlike procedures
used in the majority of testing situations, the examiner tries to follow the logic of
the child in an informal conversational manner (Kamii & Peper, 1969). The use of
the interview as a tool to assess socioemotional development of young children has
not been adequately studied.
A rating scale consists of a set of characteristics to be judged with an indication
of the degree to which the characteristic exists. Rating scales are useful in
assessing affective goals, including motives, attitudes, and values. Early affective
development is considered as important as the development of intellectual capacities,
and the major• ity of early childhood education programs include goal statements
in the affective domain (Bryan & London, 1970; Krebs, 1970). Hoepfner (Note
4) asserts that there are few valuable measures of achievement motivation,
interest, activity level, and self-esteem available, and rating scales are perhaps
the most useful assessment tool available.
Skill checklists are probably the most widely used observation technique in
early
childhood education programs. Generally, they consist of a list of behavioral objec•
tives ranging from simple to complex. Checklists are frequently developed by the
teacher to cover a wide range of behaviors included in the goals of a curriculum.
Publishers of instructional materials also have developed checklists which are geared
to the instructional objectives covered in their particular series. The Scott-Foresman
series Mathematics Around Us (1975) has a composite skill checklist for the first four
levels (K-3).

INCREASED AWARENESS OF LINGUISTIC-CULTURAL BIAS

Another important trend in the field of assessment is an increasing awareness of the
need to provide for consideration of cultural-linguistic differences among
children. Holtzman ( 1971) refers to this trend as "a decrease in enthrocentrism in
assessment.'' Many investigators are advocating the construction and administration
of tests in the dialect or native language of minority group children. It has also been
recommended that test content be ptore reflective of the cultural background of
124 Journal of School
Assessment of Young 124
Psychology
Children

various minority groups (Baratz, 1969). Standardized tests given to 4- and 5-year-olds
frequently call for information of a scholastic nature which children from lower
socioeconomic groups
125 Journal of School
Assessment of Young 125
Psychology
Children

have not experienced (Stephens & Evans, 1973). While no test can be developed that
is totally free of cultural bias, attempts have been made to limit bias. Such tests
have come to be called culture-fair tests.
Oakland and Weikart (Note 5), who were concerned with the effect of a lack
of
test-taking skills on the part of low socioeconomic group children, developed a
series of activities designed to teach test-taking skills. These activities had strong
positive effects on standardized test performance. The child who is not competent in
standard English will have difficulties in demonstrating cognitive abilities on a test
which is written in standard English. Alternate measures of assessment must be
investigated and developed for such children. While interest in cross-cultural
testing has been stimu• lated as the result of early intervention compensatory
education programs, attempts to deal with such problems have been limited. The
Culture-Fair Intelligence Test (un• dated), developed by Cattell, and the Harris-
Goodenough Draw-A-Man Test are often used to assess mental abilities of children
from different linguistic backgrounds.
The Bilingual Syntax Measure (Dulay & Marina, 1976) is one instrument that
can be used to provide the teacher with valuable information as to the child's
facility in using both his native language and English, and as to the particular
grammatical constructions in the second language which are difficult for the child.
By providing the teacher with information about the child's levels of competency and
performance in his second language, the teacher can more efficiently structure
learning experiences in the target language. For example, the teacher can provide
learning experiences in an area such as mathematics, which is not heavily dependent
upon verbal skills.

EARLY DIAGNOSIS OF LEARNING OR

BEHAVIORAL PROBLEMS
Another trend is evident as one considers assessment in early childhood
education programs for the early diagnosis of children having learning or behavioral
difficulties. Such diagnosis is extremely important in light of research such as that
of Kirk (1972), who did a series of studies on young mentally retarded children.
Kirk found that children given preschool training gained substantially in intelligence
and social matur• ity areas, while the abilities of children who did not participate in
preschool training declined. Bloom's (1964) review of literature on child development
studies indicates that "experience has a greater impact during the period in which
a particular be• havioral characteristic is undergoing relatively rapid change." Since
the literature (Kirk, 1972) indicates that these problems are most successfully dealt with
in the early formative years, this quote emphasizes the importance of the early discovery
of physi• cal, mental, or emotional problems which may have detrimental effects on
a child's development.
Tools for the early detection of problems are now being published. One technique
of special interest to early childhood educators is a 15-minute test for use during the
regular prekindergarten medical examinations of children at the age of 4 or 5. This
test, which was developed by Dr. Mark Ozer, is designed to determine the child's ability
to discriminate sounds and symbols, to process auditory and visual clues, and to follow
directions. This type of assessment is valuable in that it can be widely implemented
126 Journal of School
Assessment of Young 126
Psychology
Children

with a minimum of expense on the part of the parents. Further development of such
tests could lead to the establishment of an assessment program resulting in the ability to
make recommendations to the school regarding the optimal learning environment
for an individual child. Early screening for learning problems by the detection
of poor
127 Journal of School
Assessment of Young 127
Psychology
Children

motor coordination, audio discrimination, and spatial orientation has become an

im• portant concern in preschool assessment. A systematic process of assessment
in the preschool facilitates the early detection of learning problems. When early
diagnostic and remedial programs are available for preschool children, fewer
instances of frustra• tion and failure in the primary grades will occur (Marshall,
Note 6; Weikart, 1972).
Assessment of infant intelligence, once used primarily for diagnostic purposes
for
adoptive agencies, is presently used for the diagnosis of possible retardation, brain
damage, physical and sensory disabilities, and personality problems (Stott &
Ball, Note 7). Study after study in the 1960's and 1970's found that test scores
during the first two years of life for a normal sample of children could not be
used in the prediction of preschool or school-age intelligence (Bayley, 1949;
Bowlby, 1952; Wit• tenborn, Astrachan, De Gauger, Grant, Janaff, Kugel,
Meyers, Reiss, & Russell,
1956). Predictions for infants classified as retarded or as having neurological
impair•
ment is much better (Knobloch & Pasamanik, Note
8).
Tests developed for assessment of infant development in the 1960's and
1970's differ from earlier ones in that most have been developed to test specific
types of behavior rather than all aspects of mental development. Examples of
such tests in• clude: the Graham/Rosenbeith Behavioral Exam of Neonates
(Rosenblith, 1961); the Composite Developmental Inventory for Infants and
Young Children (Caldwell & Drachmon, 1964); the Denver Developmental
Screening Tests (Frankenburg & Dodds,
1968); the Frichtl-Petterson Tool for Assessment of Motor Skills (Frichtl &
Peterson,
Note 9); and Koontz Child Development Program (Koontz, Note 10). Both
cognitive and social skills have been included in infant tests, but emphasis is on
specific evalua• tion and suggestions for treatment of retarded infants.

TEACHERS' NEED FOR MEASUREMENT AND ASSF.SSMENT

SKILLS
With the increased emphasis on assessment of the young child in both cognitive
and affective development, there is an increased need to develop teachers' skills
in both selection and interpretation of appropriate formal and informal assessment
techniques. A lack of measurement and assessment skills on the part of teachers has
been indicated by research. Mayo (Note 11) found that graduating seniors in 86
teacher-training institutions were unable to demonstrate a high level of competency in
measurement techniques. In another study by Goslin (1967), it was determined that
60% of the teachers had only minimal familiarity with techniques of testing and
measurement and that these teachers made little use of information obtained from
standardized tests. Teachers should be provided with an opportunity to develop
measurement skills so that assessment techniques may be used to the greater benefit of
children. Until teachers are trained to employ assessment information in planning
individualized instruction, the development of new and more effective assessment
techniques will be useless.
128 Journal of School
Assessment of Young 128
Psychology
Children

REFERENCES NOTES
I. Weiss, D. J., & Betz, N. E. Ability measurement: Conventional or adaptive.
Psychometric Methods Program, Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota,
Re•
search Report 73-1 •• February, 1973.
2. Larkin, K. C., & Weiss, D. J. An empirical comparison of two-stage and pyramidal ability
testing. Psychometric Methods Program, Department of Psychology, University of
Min• nesota Research Report 7 5-1 , February, 1975.
129 Journal of School
Assessment of Young 129
Psychology
Children

3. Simon, A. & Berger, E. F. (Eds.) Mirrors for behavior II. An anthology of

observation instruments (Vols. A and B). Philadelphia: Research for Better Schools, 1970.
4. Hoepfner, R. Measuring normal and affective states in children. Los Angeles: Center
for
Study of Evaluation, U.C.L.A., 1970.
5. Oakland, T., & Weikart, D. The effects of test-wiseness materials on standardized
test
performance ofpreschool disadvantaged children. Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the American Educational Research Association, New York, February, 1971.
6. Marshall, M. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Educa•
tion of Young Children, Seattle, November, 1973.
7. Stott, L. N., & Ball, J. Evaluation of infant and pre-school mental tests. Detroit:
Merrill• Palmer Institute, 1963.
8. Knobloch, H., & Pasamanik, B. Prediction from assessment of neuromotor and
intellectual
status in infancy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological
Association, Los Angeles, 1966.
9. Frichtl, C., & Peterson, L. W. Frichtl-Peterson tool for assessment of motor skills.
Cham•
paign, Ill.: State Department of Mental Health, 1969.
10. Koontz, C. W. Koontz child development program. Los Angeles: Western
Psychological
Service, 1974.
11. Mayo, S. F. Pre-service preparation of teachers in educational measurement. Final
Report.
Loyola University, Chicago, 1967.

REFERENCES
Anastasi, A. Heredity, environment, and the question "How." Psychological Review, 1958, 65
(4), 197-208.
Anastasi, A. Psychological testing. New York: Collier-MacMillan, 1976.
Baker, F. B. Automation of test scoring, reporting, and analysis. In R. L. Thorndike (Ed.),
Educational measurement (2nd ed.). Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education,
1971.
Baratz, J. C. A bi-dialectal task for determining language proficiency in economically disadvan•
taged Negro children. Child Development, 1969, 40, 889-901.
Bayley, N. Consistency and variability of intelligence from birth to 18 years. Journal of Generic
Psychology, 1949, 75, 165.
Bloom, B. S., Hastings, J. T., & Madaus, G. F. Handbook on formative and summative
evaluation of student learning. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971.
Boehm, A. A. Test of basic concepts. New York: Psychological Corporation, 1969.
Bolster, L. C., Cox, G. F., Gibb, E.G., Hansen, V. P., Kilpatrick, J. E., Robetaille, D. F.,
Trimble, H. C., Vance, I. E., Walch, R., & Wisner, R. J. Mathematics around us. Glen•
view, Ill.: Scott, Foresman, 1976.
Bryan, J. H. & London, P. Altruistic behavior by children. Psychological Bulletin, 1970, 73 (3),
200-211.
Caldwell, B. M., & Drachmon, R. H. Comparibility of three methods of assessing the develop•
mental level of young infants. Pediatrics, 1974, JO, 51.
Cleary, T. A., Linn, R. L., & Rock, D. A. An exploratory study of programmed texts. Educa•
tional and Psychological Measurement, 1968, 28, 347-349.
Dulay, H., & Marina, B. The bilingual syntax measure. New York: Harcourt, Brace, &
Jovanovich, 1976.
Dunn, J. A. Inter and intra-rater reliability of the new Harris-Goodenough Draw-A-Man Test.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1968, 24, 269-270.
Durkin, D. Teaching them to read. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1974.
Ebel, R. L. Improving the competence of teachers in educational measurement. Clearing House,
1964, 36. 67-71.
Erikson, E. H. Childhood and society. New York: Norton, 1950.
Frankenburg, W. K., & Dodds, J.B. Denver Developmental Screening Test. Denver: University
of Colorado Press, 1968.
Glaser, R., & Nitko, A. J. Measurement in learning and instruction. In R. L. Thorndike (Ed.),
Educational measurement (2nd ed.). Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education,
130 Journal of School
Assessment of Young 130
Psychology
Children
1971.
Goslin, D. A. The social impact of testing. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1967, 45, 676-682.
131 Journal of School
Assessment Psychology
of Young Children 127

Gronlund, N. Measurement and evaluation. New York: MacMillan, 1976.

Havighurst, R. J. Human development and education. New York: Longmans-Green, 1953.
Hoepfner, R., Stem, C., & Nummedal, S. G. (Eds.)Early childhood research center,
Preschool/
Kindergarten Test Evaluations. Los Angeles: Center for Study of Evaluation, U.C.L.A.,
1971.
Holtzman, W. H. The changing world of mental measurement and its social significance. American
Psychologist, 1971, 26, 546-553. -
Honzik, M. P., McFarlane, J. W., & Allen, L. The stability of mental test performance between 2
and 18 years. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 1948, 17, 309-315.
Hunt, J. McV., & Kirk, G. E. Criterion-referenced tests of school readiness: A paradigm with
illustrations. Generic Psychology Monographs, 1974, 90, 143-182.
Individualized Prescribed Instruction. Department of Measurement and Guidance. New York:
Houghton-Mifflin, 1970.
Individualized Pupil Monitoring System-Mathematics. Department of Measurement and
Gui•
dance. New York: Houghton-Mifflin, 1973.
Individualized Pupil Monitoring System-Reading. Department of Measurement and
Guidance.
New York: Houghton-Mifflin, 1974.
Kamii, C. Evaluation of learning in preschool education: Socioemotional, perceptual-motor,
cognitive development. In B. S. Bloom, J. T. Hastings, & G. F. Maduas (Eds.),Handbook
on formative and summative evaluation of student learning. New York: McGraw-Hill,
1971.
Kamii, C., & Elliott, D. L. Evaluation of evaluations. Educational Leadership, 1971, 28,
827-831.
Kamii, C., & Peper, R. A. A Piagetian method of evaluation ofpreschool children's
development in classification. Ypsilanti, Michigan: Public Schools, 1969. (ERIC Document
Reproduction
Service No. ED 039 013).
Kirk, S. A. Educating exceptional children. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1972.
Krebs, D. L. Altruism, an examination of the concept and a review of the literature. Psychological
Bulletin, 1970, 73 (4), 258-302.
Lavatille, C. S. Piaget's theory applied to an early education curriculum. Boston:
American
Science and Engineering, 1970.
Lewis, M. Infant intelligence tests: Their use and misuse. Human Development, 1973, 16,
108-118.
McCall, R. B., Appelbaum, M. I., & Hogarty, P. S. Developmental changes in mental per•
formance. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 1973, 38
(Serial No. 150).
McCall, R. B., Hogarty, P. S., & Hurlburt, N. Transitions in infant sensorimotor development
and the prediction of childhood l.Q. American Psychologist, 1972, 27, 728.
McReynolds, P. An introduction to psychological assessment. In P. McReynolds
(Ed.),Advances in psychological assessment (Vol. I). Palo Alto, Calif.: Science and
Behavior Books, 1968. Moss, M. H. Tests of basic experiences. Monterey, Calif.: Center for
Test Evaluation/McGraw•
Hill, 1970.
Nurss, J. The handbook of skill development activities for the young child. New York: Harcourt,
Brace, & Jovanovich, 1976.
Nurss, J. R., & McGauvran, M. E. Metropolitan Readiness Test. New York: Harcourt, Brace,
& Jovanovich, 1975.
Prescriptive reading inventory. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1972.
Rosenblith, J. F. The modified Graham Behavior Test for Neonates: Test-retest reliability, norma•
tive data and hypotheses for future work. Biologica neonatorum, 1961, 3, 174-180.
Science Research Associates. Mastery: An evaluation tool. Chicago: Science Research
Associates,
1972.
Scriven, M. The methodology of evaluation. In R. W. Tyler, R. M. Gagne, and M. Scriven
(Eds.), Perspective of curriculum and evaluation. Skokie, Ill.: Rand-McNally, 1967.
132 Journal of School
Assessment Psychology
of Young Children 127

Sigel, I. E. How intelligence tests limit understanding of intelligence. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly,

1963, 9, 39--58.
Stephens, J. M., & Evans, E. D. The psychology of classroom learning. New York: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston,.1973.
Weikart, D. Relationship of curriculum, teaching and learning in preschool education. In J.
Stanley (Ed.), Preschool programs for the disadvantaged. New York: MacMillan, 1972.
Wittenborn, J. R., Astrachan, M.A., DeGouger, M. W., Grant, W.W., Janoff, I.E., Kugel, R.
B., Meyers, B. J., Reiss, A., & Russel, E. C. A study of adoptive children IL The predictive
133 Journal of School
Assessment Psychology
of Young Children 127

validity of the Yale developmental examination of infant behavior. Psychological Mono•

graphs, 1956, 70, 2.
Zweig, R. (&!.)Fountain Valley Teacher Support System. Huntington Beach, Calif.: Richard
L.
Zweig Associates, Inc., 1974.

Martha S. Abbott Judith S. Crane

Associate Professor Doctoral Student
Department of Early Childhood Education Department of Early Childhood Education
Georgia State University Georgia State University
33 Gilmer Street SE 33 Gilmer Street SE
Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Atlanta, Georgia 30303