KeepingItRealwithAuthAssessment

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254307494
Keeping It “REAL” with Authentic Assessment
Article in NHSA Dialog A Research-to-Practice Journal for the Early Intervention Field · January 2010
DOI: 10.1080/15240750903458105
CITATIONS
READS
33
1,257
2 authors:
Marisa Macy
Stephen Bagnato
University of Nebraska at Kearney
University of Pittsburgh
58 PUBLICATIONS 508 CITATIONS
108 PUBLICATIONS 1,910 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Infant Mental Health--Early Regulatory Disorders Assessment View project
Innovative Disabilities Interventions for Rural & Urban Contexts View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Stephen Bagnato on 12 August 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
SEE PROFILE
This article was downloaded by: [Macy, Marisa]
On: 15 January 2010
Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 918633748]
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 3741 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
NHSA Dialog
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t775653686
Keeping It “R-E-A-L” with Authentic Assessment
Marisa Macy a; Stephen J. Bagnato b
a
Department of Education, Lycoming College, b Departments of Pediatrics and Psychology-inEducation, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC),
Online publication date: 15 January 2010
To cite this Article Macy, Marisa and Bagnato, Stephen J.(2010) 'Keeping It “R-E-A-L” with Authentic Assessment', NHSA
Dialog, 13: 1, 1 — 20
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/15240750903458105
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15240750903458105
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
NHSA DIALOG, 13(1), 1–20
C 2010, National Head Start Association
Copyright ISSN: 1524-0754 print / 1930-9325 online
DOI: 10.1080/15240750903458105
RESEARCH ARTICLES
Keeping It “R-E-A-L” with Authentic Assessment
Marisa Macy
Downloaded By: [Macy, Marisa] At: 23:06 15 January 2010
Lycoming College, Department of Education
Stephen J. Bagnato
University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC), Departments of Pediatrics
and Psychology-in-Education
The inclusion of young children with disabilities has remained a function of the Head Start program
since its inception in the 1960s when the United States Congress mandated that children with
disabilities comprise 10% of the Head Start enrollment (Zigler & Styfco, 2000). Standardized, normreferenced tests used to identify children with delays are problematic because (a) they have low
treatment validity, (b) they are not universally designed or adaptable, (c) it is difficult to capture the
real life behaviors/skills of young children, (d) they do little to facilitate collaboration with parents,
(e) they lack sensitivity to changes in the child’s development and learning, and (f) children with
disabilities are often excluded from group data. This study examined the use of an alternative approach
that uses early childhood authentic assessment to determine a young child’s eligibility for special
services. Results of this study have implications for adopting authentic assessment practices.
Keywords: developmental delay, systems integration
The inclusion of young children with disabilities has remained a function of the Head Start program since its inception in the 1960s. The United States Congress mandated that children with
disabilities comprise 10% of the Head Start enrollment (Zigler & Styfco, 2000). Informal and formal types of assessment practices are used to determine children who are eligible for specialized
services (Bagnato, 2007; McLean, Bailey, & Wolery, 2004; National Association of School Psychologists, 2005; National Research Council, 2008). Informally, Head Start professionals observe
children on an ongoing basis as children participate in their early childhood programs. Professionals note when children’s behavior and skills deviate from developmental expectations. Parents and
caregivers also contribute to understanding a young child’s development. Home visits and other
opportunities for collaboration allow Head Start programs to gather a holistic picture of children.
Correspondence should be addressed to Marisa Macy, Lycoming College, Department of Education, 700 College
Place, Williamsport, PA 17701. E-mail: macy@lycoming.edu
Downloaded By: [Macy, Marisa] At: 23:06 15 January 2010
2
MACY AND BAGNATO
Formally, professionals may incorporate the use of tools to screen children for delays in development and learning. An individual assessment may occur if a child’s academic or developmental
performance is suspicious to a professional and parent, or a group of children may be screened.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA) requires the implementation of child-find efforts in order to locate young children who are eligible for services due
to delay or risk conditions. Screening tools offer a snapshot and are not comprehensive enough
to determine eligibility for IDEA services.
Eligibility assessments are used when enough data are collected to warrant an in-depth look
at a child’s development. Standardized, norm-referenced tests are the most widely used tools
to determine whether a child is eligible for IDEA services. This practice is a result of the fact
that standardized, norm-referenced tests often contain standard scores that are required under
many state guidelines (Danaher, 2005; Shakelford, 2006). Standard deviation and percentage
delay are frequently used in order to identify the eligible population of young children; however, several states make use of informed clinical opinion, which promotes more flexibility for
children, their families, and professionals (Bagnato, McKeating-Esterle, Fevola, Bartalomasi, &
Neisworth, 2008; Bagnato, Smith-Jones, Matesa, & McKeating-Esterle, 2006; Dunst & Hamby,
2004; Shakelford, 2002). Informed clinical opinion, or clinical judgment, is often used by professionals to understand a child’s special needs without having to administer formal tests to a child
(Bagnato et al., 2006).
It is not unreasonable to assume that standardized, norm-referenced tests have been proven to
be reliable and valid. These tests have been in existence for several years and have widespread use
among professionals who believe them to have strong psychometric properties. A recent research
synthesis examined the use of standardized, norm-referenced tests and established that few if any
of these tests are effective in determining eligibility for IDEA special services for young children
with disabilities (Bagnato, Macy, Salaway, & Lehman, 2007).
In addition to weak evidence supporting use of standardized, norm-referenced tests to identify
eligible young children with delays, the study (Bagnato et al., 2007) also pointed out several
flaws with using these tests for eligibility determination. First, most of the standardized, normreferenced tests examined in Bagnato et al.’s (2007) study did not include children with disabilities
in the standardization process. In addition, all of the standardized, norm-referenced tests lacked
item density and procedural flexibility, which are salient elements to assessing young children
with delays. The standardized, norm-referenced tests were also deficient in offering graduated
scoring options.
Another concern with using standardized, norm-referenced tests for eligibility determination
is that they do not inform treatment efforts or instruction. These tests can show the extent a child’s
behavior or skill is different from the norm, but they do not lay a foundation for the next steps in
helping the child reach his or her potential or supports she or he will need to be fully included
in a Head Start classroom. Differentiating children’s performances on a test is the main focus of
standardized, norm-referenced tests, not necessarily what will occur after the test is over.
One of the basic tenets of IDEA is that assessment practices must be fair and nonbiased.
Court cases have challenged the use of inappropriate assessments. Professional organizations
like the Division for Early Childhood (DEC) and the National Association for the Education
of Young Children (NAEYC) propose using multiple methods for collecting information about
children. A promising alternative to standardized, norm-referenced testing is the use of authentic
assessment, which promotes a natural context to best understand what a child can do. It is a
form of assessment that favors events, materials, and individuals who are familiar to the child.
AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT
3
Downloaded By: [Macy, Marisa] At: 23:06 15 January 2010
Real life conditions become the backdrop for children to apply what they know to a given
situation.
Head Start programs would benefit by having authentic eligibility assessments that link to
curriculum and instruction because children will enter their programs with meaningful information (Bagnato et al., 2007; Grisham-Brown, Hallam, & Pretti-Frontczak, 2008). Results from the
authentic assessment can be used to directly inform program planning, curriculum, instruction,
and lesson plans. To implement authentic assessment, practitioners should pay close attention to
the R-E-A-L framework: roles, equipment, assessment tools, and location.
Role of data collector. Authentic assessment relies upon a team of people that consists of informed
caregivers such as parents, grandparents, and other family members as well as teachers, speech
therapists, and other professionals who are familiar with and have knowledge of the child’s
skills and abilities (Bagnato & Neisworth, 1999; Guralnick, 2006). Effective teams have
mutual respect for one another’s roles and expertise, ability to communicate with others,
and openness to share assessment role responsibilities. Assessment responsibilities are shared
when (a) parents are considered central members of the team with valuable observations
and information to contribute (Meisels, Xue, Bickel, Nicholson, & Atkins-Burnett, 2001);
(b) teachers and practitioners provide input (Dunst, 2002; Keilty, LaRocco, & Casell, 2009);
and (c) the team relies upon the observations and evaluations of trained professionals such as
occupational and speech therapists, depending on the child’s need (Meisels, Bickel, Nicholson,
Xue, & Atkins-Burnett, 2001).
Equipment and materials. Familiar equipment and materials are used to assess children using an
authentic assessment framework. Common toys or household items are examples of materials
that children will recognize from their natural environments. When assessment includes the
actual or authentic activity with companion materials, the child is operating under more usual
conditions and has experience performing similar tasks. For example, assessing a child’s
adaptive skills during snack with all the familiar accompanying utensils, food items, and
furniture can help to obtain an accurate assessment of the child’s true ability.
Assessment tools. Select authentic assessment tools that bring together interdisciplinary and interagency teams (Losardo & Notari-Syverson, 2001; Slentz & Hyatt, 2008). Curriculum-based
tools connect assessment to programming and intervention planning (Macy & Bricker, 2006).
Curriculum-based assessments allow teams to gather information from various sources, including parents and teachers. Another benefit is that they can be used to monitor individual and
group progress. Bagnato, Neisworth, and Pretti-Frontczak (in press) recommend eight quality
standards for selecting assessment tools to include (a) acceptability—the social aspects of using
a tool; (b) authenticity—contextual factors (e.g., everyday situations); (c) collaboration—the
tool can be easily incorporated into interdisciplinary teamwork; (d) evidence—the tool has
been found through research and practice to be valid, reliable, and useful; (e) multiple factors—
used to gather information about a child (e.g., various methods, individuals, situations, and
time points); (f) sensitivity—the tool is sensitive to child performance; (g) universality—
children with special needs can be accommodated; and (h) utility—the extent the tool is useful
to parents and professionals. These eight standards are illustrated in Figure 1. Approximately
100 different authentic and standard, norm-referenced assessments were rated using the eight
standards by over 1,000 assessment users in an online study. Results from the online survey
indicated that users identified authentic assessment as meeting more of the eight standards
than the standardized, norm-referenced tests.
Downloaded By: [Macy, Marisa] At: 23:06 15 January 2010
4
MACY AND BAGNATO
FIGURE 1
Standards for judging assessment tools (from Bagnato et al., in press).
Location. Authentic assessment approaches reflect the ongoing experiences children may encounter in their home, school, community, and other places where young children spend
time. Authentic assessment takes place during the real life conditions under which the target
behaviors/skills are needed for the child to function. Young children are often more comfortable and relaxed in familiar locations, and this will result in a more accurate assessment
(Neisworth & Bagnato, 2004).
The R-E-A-L framework can be used by Head Start professionals to facilitate implementation
of an authentic assessment approach. The foundation for assessment should be to measure skills
that reflect what a child is capable of doing in genuine situations. Authentic assessment is used
to understand what children can do in naturalistic settings by using typical early childhood
experiences to assess children. This is different from standardized, norm-referenced tests that
are often administered in a clinical setting, with structured and adult-directed procedures, by
people who are unfamiliar to the child, and test discrete isolated tasks that are unrelated to the
child’s daily life. Given the questionable practice of using standardized, norm-referenced tests to
determine a child is eligible for IDEA special services, further research and analysis on assessment
AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT
5
alternatives is necessary. The purpose of this study was to examine the technical adequacy of
authentic assessment measures.
METHOD
Downloaded By: [Macy, Marisa] At: 23:06 15 January 2010
Nine authentic measures were chosen through a review of literature and surveys of practitioners
investigating the most commonly used measures in preschool and early intervention settings
(Bagnato, Neisworth, & Munson, 1997; Bagnato et al., in press; Pretti-Frontczak, Kowalski, &
Brown, 2002). To be included in our review, the authentic measure needed to have published
research available. Other authentic measures were considered for inclusion (like the Developmental Continuum from Teaching Strategies); however, we did not find published research on
these measures. The following nine authentic measures are included in the study:
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
Adaptive Behavior Assessment System (ABAS),
Assessment Evaluation and Programming System (AEPS),
Carolina Curriculum for Preschoolers with Special Needs (Carolina),
Child Observation Record (COR),
Developmental Observation Checklist System (DOCS),
Hawaii Early Learning Profile (HELP),
Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory (PEDI),
Transdisciplinary Play-Based Assessment (TPBA), and
Work Sampling System (WSS)/Ounce
Some measures had multiple editions (i.e., AEPS, Carolina, ABAS, COR, and TPBA).
Table 1 offers information about these measures.
Research studies on the identified authentic assessments (i.e., ABAS, AEPS, Carolina, COR,
DOCS, HELP, PEDI, TPBA, and WSS/Ounce) were reviewed in this synthesis. Research characteristics fell into two categories: accuracy (reliability) and effectiveness (validity, utility).
Accuracy refers to the extent to which a tool identifies young children with disabilities. This
includes reliability of the measure (e.g., consistency across test items and the use of cutoff scores
in order for the tool to precisely or accurately measure a skill or behavior). Examples of accuracy
include test-retest reliability, interrater reliability, intrarater reliability, and interitem consistency.
Effectiveness refers to the extent to which a tool successfully identifies young children with
disabilities. This includes the validity of the measure (i.e., including to what extent does the tool
measure what it was designed to measure) and how it relates significantly to similar measures.
Examples of effectiveness include predictive validity, concurrent validity, construct validity, test
floors, and item gradients. The next section describes our strategy for searching the literature base
for research studies on the accuracy and effectiveness of authentic assessment measures.
Search Strategy
Search Terms. Relevant published research studies were identified using the following
search terms: authentic assessment, testing, early intervention, preschool, early childhood, eligibility, pediatrics, disabilities, handicap identification, and referral. More general terms of special
schools, state programs resource, centers, and evaluations were also used.
6
Birth to
89 years
5 rating
forms
Birth to 6
Birth to
preschool
ABAS
AEPS
Carolina
Age Range
Parent/Primary Caregiver
form is designed to be
completed by parents or
other primary caregivers.
Two forms are available:
Ages birth to 5 and Ages
5–21.
4-point rating scale:
3 = Always when needed
2 = Sometimes when needed
1 = Never when needed
0 = Is not able
Includes a box to check if
rater guessed. Includes
section for rater to make
comments regarding a
specific item.
3-point rating scale:
2 = Consistently meets
criterion
1 = Inconsistently meets
criterion
0 = Does not meet criterion
Six qualifying notes
3-point rating scale:
(+) Mastery
(+/−) Inconsistent/emerging
skill
(−) Unable to perform skill
Qualifying notes
Parent Form
(B-5): 241
Teacher Form
(2–5): 216
B-3: 249
3–6: 217
B-2: 359
2–5: 400
Communication, Community
Use, Functional
Pre-Academics,
School/Home Living,
Health and Safety, Leisure,
Self-Care, Self-Direction,
Social, Motor (10)
Adaptive, Cognitive, Fine
Motor, Gross Motor,
Social-Communication, &
Social (6)
Cognition,
Cognition/Communication,
Communication,
Personal-Social, Fine
Motor, Gross Motor (6)
Families encouraged to be
involved throughout the
assessment and instruction
process.
Family Report allows parents
to be involved in collecting
information and
list/prioritize areas of
interest.
Family Involvement
Scoring Features
# of Items
Domains
TABLE 1
Nine Authentic Measures and Their Characteristics
Downloaded By: [Macy, Marisa] At: 23:06 15 January 2010
n/a
Provides cutoff
scores by age
intervals.
Provides normreferenced
scores based on
age.
Eligibility
Features
7
21/2 to 6
Birth to 6
COR
DOCS
Developmental Checklist
(DC): Language, Social,
Motor, Cognition (4)
Adjustment Behavior
Checklist (ABC)
Parental Stress and Support
Checklist (PSSC)
Initiative, Social Relations,
Creative Representation,
Music and Movement,
Language and Literacy,
Mathematics and Science
(6)
Provides normreferenced
scores based on
age.
Parents are viewed as primary
informant on the DC
questionnaire. PSSC
assesses parental stress,
parental support, child
adaptability, parent-child
interaction, and
environmental impact.
DC: Raters check Yes or No
(Yes = 1; No =0)
ABC: 4-point rating scale:
Very much like, Somewhat
like, Not much like, Not at
all like
PSSC: 4-point rating scale:
Highly agree, Somewhat
agree, Sometimes agree,
Do not agree
DC: 475
ABC: 25
PSSC: 40
(Continued on next page)
n/a
Family Report is available to
create reports for parents
about their child that can
be discussed at parent
conferences or home visits.
Parents are able to record
notes about the child based
on the parents’
observations of the child’s
behavior at home on the
report. Parent Guide
available to explain the
COR and for parents to
record anecdotes based on
the COR.
5-point rating scale:
Five descriptive statements
that represent a range of
functioning from very poor
to very superior
30 items, each
with 5 levels
Downloaded By: [Macy, Marisa] At: 23:06 15 January 2010
8
Birth to 6
6 months
to 71/2
years
HELP
PEDI
Age Range
Self-Care
Mobility
Social Function (3)
Cognition, Fine Motor, Gross
Motor, Language, Social
Emotional, Self Help (6)
Domains
Functional
Skills: 197
Caregiver
Assistance:
20
Modifications:
20
685
# of Items
Materials available to
increase parent
participation in the
assessment process;
guidelines for inclusion of
parent input are spread
throughout.
Options for administration
include parent interview.
Functional Skills: 0 =
Unable, or limited in
capability to perform item
in most situations; 1 =
Capable of performing
item in most situations
Caregiver Assistance:
Independent,
Supervise/Prompt/Monitor,
Minimal assistance,
Moderate assistance,
Maximal assistance, Total
assistance
Modifications: No
modifications,
Child-oriented,
Rehabilitation, Extensive
modifications
Family Involvement
4-point rating scale:
(+) Skill or behavior is
present
(−) Skill is not present
(+/−) Skill appears to be
emerging
(A) Skill or behavior is
atypical or dysfunctional
Qualifying notes
Scoring Features
TABLE 1
Nine Authentic Measures and Their Characteristics (Continued)
Downloaded By: [Macy, Marisa] At: 23:06 15 January 2010
Provides normreferenced
scores.
Provides age
ranges for
skills.
Eligibility
Features
WSS: PreGrade
5
WSS/Ounce
WSS: Personal and Social
Development, Language
and Literacy, Mathematical
Thinking, Scientific
Thinking, Social Studies,
The Arts, Physical
Development & Health (7)
Ounce: Personal
Connections, Feelings
About Self, Relationships
with Other Children,
Understanding and
Communication,
Exploration and Problem
Solving, Movement and
Coordination (6)
Cognitive, Social-Emotional,
Communication and
Language, Sensorimotor
Development
n/a
A list of developmental
skills
observed
during play
3 types of ratings:
Not Yet
In Process
Proficient
Scoring system:
(+) Skill at age level and
his/her skills are
qualitatively strong
(−) Skill is below age level
and team has qualitative
concerns
√
( ) Need for further
observation and/or testing
(NO) No opportunity
(NA) Not applicable due to
age or disability
Downloaded By: [Macy, Marisa] At: 23:06 15 January 2010
Ounce: Contains a Family
Album element that is used
by families to collect
observations, photos, and
mementos of their child’s
growth and development.
Includes play with parent in
the assessment sequence.
n/a
n/a
Note. ABAS = Adaptive Behavior Assessment System; AEPS = Assessment Evaluation & Programming System; Carolina = Carolina Curriculum for Infants/
Toddlers/Preschoolers with Special Needs; COR = Child Observation Record; DOCS = Developmental Observation Checklist System; HELP = Hawaii Early Learning
Profile; PEDI = Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory; TPBA = Transdisciplinary Play-Based Assessment; WSS/Ounce = Work Sampling System.
Ounce:
Birth to
31/2
Birth to 6
TPBA
9
10
MACY AND BAGNATO
The nine authentic assessments (i.e., ABAS, AEPS, Carolina, COR, DOCS, HELP, PEDI,
TPBA, and WSS/Ounce) were also included within the search. The search was done broadly in
the fields of psychology, developmental disabilities, special education, allied health fields (speech
and language therapy, physical therapy, occupational therapy), and as early intervention.
Downloaded By: [Macy, Marisa] At: 23:06 15 January 2010
Sources. The primary databases included the following sources: CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Digital Dissertations, Ebsco Host, Education Resource Information Center (ERIC), Google
Scholar, Health Source, Illumina, Medline, Ovid/Mental Measurements Yearbook Buros, Psychological Abstracts (PsycINFO), and Social Sciences Citation Index. Additionally, we conducted
selective searches of unpublished masters’ theses and doctoral dissertations. Hand searches of
select journals and ancestral searches were also conducted.
Selection Criteria. The study had to meet the following criteria for inclusion: (a) researched
one or more of the selected authentic assessment measures; (b) involved the evaluation of young
children with disabilities or at risk for developing a disability due to environmental or biological
risk conditions; (c) examined the accuracy or effectiveness of the measure at testing infants,
toddlers, and preschool children with disabilities; and (d) disseminated in a scientific and scholarly
publication, which included dissertation and thesis studies. This research synthesis was conducted
as part of literature reviews and syntheses conducted at the Tracking, Referral and Assessment
Center for Excellence (Dunst, Trivette, & Cutspe, 2002).
RESULTS
A total of 27 studies on authentic assessment were identified from the fields of child development,
early intervention, psychology, special education, physical therapy, pediatrics, and behavioral
development. The most studies were conducted on the AEPS. The following information is
presented in Table 2: total number of studies that met the inclusion criteria, years articles were
published, age range included in the studies, and the total number of participants in study samples.
Participants
There were over 10,000 young children who participated in these research studies on authentic
assessment. Children’s ages ranged from birth to 224 months. Children were identified with
various disabilities, and there were several studies that included children without disabilities
and children who were at risk for developing a disability. Table 3 shows child characteristics
that include total sample size, mean age in months, age range in months, and child ability
characteristics.
Types of Studies
Each study reported in this synthesis examined some aspect of accuracy and/or effectiveness
related to one or more of the authentic measures. We found the following types of studies:
AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT
11
TABLE 2
Research Studies on the Nine Measures
Downloaded By: [Macy, Marisa] At: 23:06 15 January 2010
Tool
# of Studies
Publication Years
ABAS
AEPS
Carolina
2
9
1
2006–2007
1986–2008
2006
COR
DOCS
HELP
PEDI
TPBA
WSS/Ounce
3
5
2
2
4
1
1993–2005
1997–2005
1995–1996
1993–1998
1994–2003
2008
Children’s Age Range (in Months)
33 to 216
0 to 72
Mean age for the treatment
group was 4.5 months
48 to 68
1 to 72
22 to 34
36 to 224
6 to 46
45 to 60
Sample Size (Children)
151
2,897
47
4,902
2,000+
29
50
74
112
Note. ABAS = Adaptive Behavior Assessment System; AEPS = Assessment Evaluation & Programming System;
Carolina = Carolina Curriculum for Infants/Toddlers/Preschoolers with Special Needs; COR = Child Observation
Record; DOCS = Developmental Observation Checklist System; HELP = Hawaii Early Learning Profile; PEDI =
Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory; TPBA = Transdisciplinary Play-Based Assessment; WSS/Ounce = Work
Sampling System.
13 interitem/interrater reliability, 5 test–retest reliability, 5 sensitivity/specificity, 15 concurrent
validity, 3 predictive validity, and 6 construct/criterion validity. Accuracy (reliability) and effectiveness (validity) of the research studies are identified in Table 4.
Reported Results
A total of 16 studies examined the accuracy of authentic measures. There were 20 studies that
examined the effectiveness of authentic measures. The number of studies exceeds 27 because
some studies examined accuracy and effectiveness. Table 5 incorporates results on the accuracy
and effectiveness of authentic assessment measures.
DISCUSSION
Using authentic assessment to determine children eligible for IDEA services has the potential to
improve Head Start services for children (Bagnato, 2007; Grisham-Brown et al., 2008; Gulikers,
Bastiaens, & Kirschner, 2004; Layton & Lock, 2007; Neisworth & Bagnato, 2004). In order to
establish whether or not a child was eligible for early intervention services, many of the studies
in our review had standardized, norm-referenced tests as a comparison from which to judge the
merit of the authentic measures. This was the case for the majority of concurrent and constructs
validity studies reviewed in this synthesis. McLean et al. (2004) suggest that one way to examine
construct validity is to establish convergent validity by examining high positive correlations with
other tests that measure the same constructs. Authentic assessments do not measure constructs in
the same way as standardized, norm-referenced tests. Instead of comparing authentic measures
12
MACY AND BAGNATO
TABLE 3
Research Studies with Participant Demographic Information
Author(s) and Year
(N = 27)
Downloaded By: [Macy, Marisa] At: 23:06 15 January 2010
Anthony (2003)
Bailey & Bricker (1986)
Baird, Campbell, Ingram, &
Gomez (2001)
Bricker, Bailey, & Slentz
(1990)
Bricker, Yovanoff, Capt, &
Allen (2003)
Bricker et al. (2008)
Calhoon (1997)
Cody (1995)
Sample
Size
Age Range
in Months
10
32
13
6 to 46
n/a
11 to 47
Developmental delay
Children with and without developmental delay
Cri-du-Chat syndrome
335
2 to 72
861
1 to 72
1,381
4
25
1 to 72
22 to 35
22 to 34
Children with (mild, moderate, and severe) and without developmental delay,
and at risk
Children eligible and not eligible for early intervention/early childhood
special education
Same as above
Language delay
Previously identified as delayed in the areas of behavior, cognition, and
language
Down syndrome
DelGiudice, Brogna,
47
n/a
Romano, Paludetto, &
Toscano (2006)
Di Pinto (2006)
60
60 to 216
Fantuzzo, Grim, & Montes
733/1,427
n/a
(2002)
Friedli (1994)
20
n/a
Gilbert (1997)
100
1 to 72
Hsia (1993)
82
36 to 72
Knox & Usen (1998)
10
45 to 224
Macy, Bricker, & Squires
68
6 to 36
(2005)
McKeating-Esterle, Bagnato,
91
33 to 71
Fevola, & Hawthorne
(2007)
Meisels, Xue, & Shamblott
112
45.24 to 59.76
(2008)
Morgan (2005)
32
4 to 60
Myers, McBride, & Peterson
40
7 to 36
(1996)
Noh (2005)
65
36 to 64
Sayers, Cowden, Newton,
Warren, & Eason (1996)
Schweinhart, McNair,
Barnes, & Larner (1993)
Sekina & Fantuzzo (2005)
Sher (2000)
Slentz (1986)
Wright & Boschen (1993)
Child
Characteristics
ADHD (ADHD/PI; ADHD/C)
Urban and low income
Children with and without developmental delay
Children with and without developmental delay
Children with and without developmental delay
Cerebral palsy
Children eligible and not eligible for early intervention/early childhood
special education
Developmental delay, autism, hearing impairment/deafness, Down
syndrome, MR, CP/muscular dystrophy, speech/language impairment,
visual impairment/blindness, other health impairment, multiple disabilities
At risk; children with special needs whose IEPs indicated that they were in
the mild to moderate range (speech or physical impairment)
Reactive attachment disorder
Developmental delay
4
n/a
Children eligible and not eligible for early intervention/early childhood
special education
Down syndrome
2,500
n/a
Low income
242
20
55 to 68
36 to 67
53
40
36 to 72
36 to 84
Urban
Children eligible and not eligible for early intervention/early childhood
special education
Children with and without developmental delay
Cerebral palsy
Note. ABAS = Adaptive Behavior Assessment System; ADHD = Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder; AEPS =
Assessment Evaluation & Programming System; Carolina = Carolina Curriculum for Infants/Toddlers/Preschoolers
with Special Needs; COR = Child Observation Record; CP = Cerebral Palsy; DOCS = Developmental Observation
Checklist System; HELP = Hawaii Early Learning Profile; IEP = Individualized Education Plan; MR = Mental
Retardation; PEDI = Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory; TPBA = Transdisciplinary Play-Based Assessment;
WSS/Ounce = Work Sampling System.
13
AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT
TABLE 4
Research Study Characteristics
Accuracy (Reliability)
Downloaded By: [Macy, Marisa] At: 23:06 15 January 2010
Author(s) and Year (N = 27)
Test
Anthony (2003)
Bailey & Bricker (1986)
Baird, Campbell, Ingram, & Gomez
(2001)
Bricker, Bailey, & Slentz (1990)
Bricker, Yovanoff, Capt, & Allen
(2003)
TPBA
AEPS
DOCS
Bricker et al. (2008)
AEPS
Calhoon (1997)
Cody (1995)
DelGiudice, Brogna, Romano,
Paludetto, & Toscano (2006)
Di Pinto (2006)
Fantuzzo, Grim, & Montes (2002)
Friedli (1994)
Gilbert (1997)
Hsia (1993)
TPBA
AEPS
AEPS
ABAS
COR
TPBA
DOCS
AEPS
Knox & Usen (1998)
Macy, Bricker, & Squires (2005)
PEDI
AEPS
Meisels, Xue, & Shamblott, (2008)
McKeating-Esterle, Bagnato, Fevola,
& Hawthorne (2007)
Morgan (2005)
Myers, McBride, & Peterson (1996)
Noh (2005)
WSS
ABAS
AEPS
AEPS
DOCS
TPBA
AEPS
Effectiveness (Validity)
Interitema
Sensitivitya
Constructa
Interraterb Test-Retest Specificityb Concurrent Criterionb Predictive
xb
x
x
x
xa
xb
x
x
xa
xb
xa
xb
x
x
x
x
xa
xb
xb
xa
xb
x
x
x
xa
xa
xa
xb
xb
x
x
x
x
x
xa
xa
xb
Sayers, Cowden, Newton, Warren, &
Eason (1996)
Schweinhart, McNair, Barnes, &
Larner (1993)
Sekina, & Fantuzzo (2005)
Sher (2000)
Slentz (1986)
COR
xb
COR
AEPS
AEPS
xb
Wright & Boschen (1993)
PEDI
x
AEPS
x
xa
xb
xa
xb
x
x
x
x
xa
xa
xa
Note. ABAS = Adaptive Behavior Assessment System; AEPS = Assessment Evaluation & Programming System;
Carolina = Carolina Curriculum for Infants/Toddlers/Preschoolers with Special Needs; COR = Child Observation
Record; DOCS = Developmental Observation Checklist System; HELP = Hawaii Early Learning Profile; PEDI =
Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory; TPBA = Transdisciplinary Play-Based Assessment; WSSS/Ounce =
Work Sampling System.
14
MACY AND BAGNATO
TABLE 5
Reported Research Results
Author(s) and Year (N = 27)
Anthony (2003)
Bailey & Bricker (1986)
Downloaded By: [Macy, Marisa] At: 23:06 15 January 2010
Baird, Campbell, Ingram, & Gomez
(2001)
Bricker, Bailey, & Slentz (1990)
Bricker, Yovanoff, Capt, & Allen
(2003)
Bricker et al. (2008)
Calhoon (1997)
Cody (1995)
DelGiudice, Brogna, Romano,
Paludetto, & Toscano (2006)
Di Pinto (2006)
Fantuzzo, Grim, & Montes (2002)
Friedli (1994)
Gilbert (1997)
Hsia (1993)
Knox & Usen (1998)
Macy, Bricker, & Squires (2005)
Meisels, Xue, & Shamblott (2008)
Reported Results
TPBA visual development guidelines were used by raters at Denver’s PLAY
clinic and had positive interrater agreement results.
AEPS correlation with the Gesell Developmental Schedule (Knobloch et al.,
1980) was strong for the whole test but not individual areas. AEPS could be
successfully administered in a reasonable amount of time.
DOCS may lack sensitivity in detecting variations in development.
AEPS correlation across areas was r = .88 (p < .001).
AEPS newly established cutoff scores in the 2nd edition identified eligible
children accurately most of the time.
AEPS cutoff scores performed similarly to the Bricker et al. (2003) study. The
measure accurately identified the majority of children correctly.
Children performed better (i.e., higher scores) on the TPBA than the
conventional test, and the play-based assessment provided a richer
description of children’s emerging skills.
In the HELP study, the play age obtained from the authentic assessment was
highly correlated with the Developmental Age Equivalent of the
conventional assessment (i.e., BSID).
After 1 year, children in the Carolina condition made progress and had higher
DQ than children in the comparison condition who made slight progress but
improvements were not statistically significant.
ABAS accurately documents poor social adaptive outcomes for children with
ADHD.
The study supports the use of the COR assessment method for low-income
urban preschool children; however, a three-factor model should replace the
proposed six-factor model.
TPBA had favorable test retest results, interrater agreement, and concurrent
validity.
Significant difference among raters was found: mothers rated the child’s skills
highest, the fathers next, and the teachers last. Differences among raters on
the DOCS may influence eligibility decisions.
The AEPS has strong interrater agreement at both domain (ranging from .87
social to .94 adaptive) and total test (.90) levels. Strong relationship between
individual domain scores (.64 to .96) and total test (.98) when internal
consistency was examined. Findings also showed that the AEPS was
sensitive to performance differences of children with delays.
The PEDI is a useful tool for describing the area of functional delay in children
with cerebral palsy. It also appears to be sensitive to changes that were
observed clinically.
The AEPS accurately classified all eligible children and over 94% (n = 64/68)
of the noneligible children. The overall sensitivity was 100%; specificity
was 89%. The AEPS used to determine eligibility was positively and
significantly correlated with conventional eligibility measures. Finally, the
observers who scored the AEPS had strong agreement on observations made
about child performance.
Study found evidence for validity and reliability of WSS, suggesting that
WSHS accurately assesses language development, literacy, and mathematics
skills in young children.
(Continued on next page)
AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT
15
TABLE 5
Reported Research Results (Continued)
Author(s) and Year (N = 27)
McKeating-Esterle, Bagnato, Fevola,
& Hawthorne (2007)
Morgan (2005)
Myers, McBride, & Peterson (1996)
Downloaded By: [Macy, Marisa] At: 23:06 15 January 2010
Noh (2005)
Sayers, Cowden, Newton, Warren, &
Eason (1996)
Schweinhart, McNair, Barnes, &
Larner (1993)
Sekina, & Fantuzzo (2005)
Sher (2000)
Slentz (1986)
Wright & Boschen (1993)
Reported Results
ABAS-II is correlated with ratings of informed opinion when assessing
children for early intervention.
Evidence supports the predictive validity of the DOCS-II in detecting RAD in
a randomized sample.
The overall mean number of days to complete the eligibility assessment
process took the group using the TPBA 22 days less than it took the group
using a conventional test.
The AEPS has satisfactory interrater reliability agreement in the cognitive and
social domains. Strong relationship between individual domain scores and
items in the domains.
When children’s scores increased on the gross motor domain of the HELP,
they did the same for the PSI.
The COR was found to be a psychometrically promising tool for the
assessment of children’s development in developmentally appropriate early
childhood programs. Also, the COR helped staff to understand early
childhood development and curriculum and to prepare individualized
education programs for their children.
Univariate and multivariate results provide support for convergent and
divergent validity of the COR dimensions. Fifteen of the 18 variables
differentiated the three COR dimensions, particularly the COR Cognitive
and Social Engagement dimensions.
Professionals using the AEPS were able to identify eligible children. Moderate
interrater reliability for the communication domain and high reliability for
other domains.
Positive results of this study support the technical properties of the AEPS.
Interrater agreement was very high at .94 for the entire test and ranged from
.84 to .94 for the six domains. Results for two administrations of the AEPS
(N = 18) revealed strong level of stability across time for the total test (.91),
domain scores varied between high (fine motor .86, cognitive .91, social
communication .77) to moderate (social .50) to low stability (gross motor
.07 and self-care .13). Internal consistency was strong for all domains except
self-care. Concurrent validity was examined by comparing the AEPS with
the McCarthy (1972) and the Uniform Performance Assessment System
(Haring, White, Edgar, Affleck, & Hayden, 1980) with mixed results
ranging from very weak to strong relationships between domains and scales.
Satisfactory information is provided to confirm the PEDI’s usefulness for
clinical and research purposes with children with cerebral palsy.
Note. ABAS = Adaptive Behavior Assessment System; AEPS = Assessment Evaluation & Programming System;
Carolina = Carolina Curriculum for Infants/Toddlers/Preschoolers with Special Needs; COR = Child Observation
Record; DOCS = Developmental Observation Checklist System; HELP = Hawaii Early Learning Profile; PEDI =
Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory; TPBA = Transdisciplinary Play-Based Assessment; WSS/Ounce = Work
Sampling System.
with other good examples of authentic and linked eligibility assessment, many of the studies in
our review made comparisons with nonlinked eligibility tests. For example, in the Macy, Bricker,
and Squires (2005) study, the AEPS (curriculum linked measure) was compared with the Battelle
Developmental Inventory (not linked to curriculum).
16
MACY AND BAGNATO
Future research should continue not only to examine the accuracy and effectiveness of authentic measures but also to make comparisons using an external standard. Some examples of
external standards are (a) correct identification rates based on expert consensus, (b) the need for
services—service-based eligibility, and (c) probability of succeeding/progressing in Head Start
or typical setting with typical peers without support services. Another area of research should
study the effects of the initial eligibility assessment using authentic measures on child outcomes
using a longitudinal design. Cost–benefit studies need to be conducted on the use of authentic
assessment practices used to determine children eligible for IDEA services. This type of evidence
could be helpful to policymakers when reauthorizing policies and updating eligibility assessment
guidelines.
Downloaded By: [Macy, Marisa] At: 23:06 15 January 2010
Limitations
A number of authentic assessment measures are commercially available; however, we chose to
examine only these nine measures because they appeared most often in the professional literature
and by accounts from practitioners. Other authentic measures, like the Developmental Continuum
from Teaching Strategies, were not included in this review because they did not meet our inclusion
criteria. For example, tools like the Developmental Continuum have conducted research studies;
however, we were unable to locate these in journals and/or the databases we searched. Sometimes
publishers maintain the results from studies for proprietary reasons and they are not available to
the public. The body of literature contained other publications related to authentic assessment
and we included only research studies that involved young children who were at risk or had a
disability in the sample.
Authentic assessment can be used for designing a program for a child, creating interventions,
and to evaluate the efficacy of a child’s individualized program. Not only does authentic assessment have potential to accurately identify children in need of services, it also has important
implications beyond eligibility determination (Neisworth & Bagnato, 2004). Findings of this
study will help professionals to critically identify characteristics of authentic assessment research
findings that influence the accurate and representative documentation of a young child’s early
intervention eligibility assessment experience.
Head Start programs would benefit from an assessment approach that provides useful information linked to curriculum and instruction in order to serve children more efficiently. Additionally,
an approach is needed that can monitor ongoing child performance (Downs & Strand, 2006;
Grisham-Brown, Hallam, & Brookshire, 2006; Grisham-Brown et al., 2008; Hebbeler, Barton,
& Mallik, 2008; Meisels, Liaw, Dorfman, & Nelson, 1995). Authentic assessment is a viable alternative to eligibility assessments that use standardized, norm-referenced tests (Bagnato, 2005,
2007; Bagnato & Neisworth, 1992; Macy & Hoyt-Gonzales, 2007; McLean, 2005; Neisworth &
Bagnato, 2004). An authentic assessment approach has growing support from early childhood
professional organizations (i.e., DEC and NAEYC) and from the literature base (Bagnato &
Neisworth, 2005). The authentic assessment studies reported here in this research study are the
first phase of research supporting the use of an authentic assessment approach for eligibility
determination. Although this foundation is a good start, more research is needed to continue to
explore authentic measures and approaches.
AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT
17
Downloaded By: [Macy, Marisa] At: 23:06 15 January 2010
REFERENCES
*Indicates studies used in the synthesis.
**Indicates measures used in the synthesis.
*Anthony, T. L. (2003). The inclusion of vision-development guidelines in the Transdisciplinary Play-Based Assessment:
A study of reliability and validity. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Denver, Denver, CO.
Bagnato, S. J. (2005). The authentic alternative for assessment in early intervention: An emerging evidence-based practice.
Journal of Early Intervention, 28, 17–22.
Bagnato, S. J. (2007). Authentic assessment for early childhood intervention best practices: The Guilford school practitioner series. New York: Guilford.
Bagnato, S. J., Macy, M., Salaway, J., & Lehman, C. (2007). Research foundations for conventional tests and testing
to ensure accurate and representative early intervention eligibility. Pittsburgh, PA: TRACE Center for Excellence
in Early Childhood Assessment, Early Childhood Partnerships, Children’s Hospital/University of Pittsburgh, U.S.
Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs, and Orelena Hawks Puckett Institute.
Bagnato, S. J., McKeating-Esterle, E., Fevola, A. F., Bartalomasi, M., & Neisworth, J. T. (2008). Valid use of clinical
judgment (informed opinion) for early intervention eligibility: Evidence-base and practice characteristics. Infants and
Young Children, 21, 334–348.
Bagnato, S. J., & Neisworth, J. T. (1992). The case against intelligence testing in early intervention. Topics in Early
Childhood Special Education, 12, 1–20.
Bagnato, S. J., & Neisworth, J. T. (1999). Collaboration and teamwork in assessment for early intervention. Comprehensive
Psychiatric Assessment of Young Children, 8, 347–363.
Bagnato, S. J., & Neisworth J. T. (2005). DEC recommended practices: Assessment. In S. Sandall, M. L. Hemmeter, B.
J. Smith, & M. McLean (Eds.), DEC recommended practices (pp. 45–50). Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
Bagnato, S. J., Neisworth, J. T., & Munson, S. (1997). LINKing assessment and early intervention. Baltimore, MD:
Brookes.
Bagnato, S. J., Neisworth, J. T., & Pretti-Frontczak, K. L. (in press). LINKing assessment and early intervention (4th ed.).
Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Bagnato, S. J., Smith-Jones, J., Matesa, M., & McKeating-Esterle, E. (2006). Research foundations for using clinical
judgment (informed opinion) for early intervention eligibility determination. Cornerstones, 2(3), 1–14.
*Bailey, E., & Bricker, D. (1986). A psychometric study of a criterion-referenced assessment designed for infants and
young children. Journal of the Division of Early Childhood, 10, 124–134.
*Baird, S. M., Campbell, D., Ingram, R., & Gomez, C. (2001). Young children with Cri-du-Chat: Genetic, developmental,
and behavioral profiles. Infant-Toddler Intervention, 11, 1–14.
**Bricker, D. (Ed.). (1993). Assessment, evaluation, and programming system for infants and children (1st ed.). Baltimore,
MD: Brookes.
**Bricker, D. (Ed.). (2002). Assessment, evaluation, and programming system for infants and children (2nd ed.).
Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
*Bricker, D., Bailey, E., & Slentz, K. (1990). Reliability, validity, and utility of the Evaluation and Programming System:
For infants and young children (EPS-I). Journal of Early Intervention, 14, 147–160.
*Bricker, D., Clifford, J., Yovanoff, P., Pretti-Frontczak, K., Waddell, M., Allen, D., et al. (2008). Eligibility determination
using a curriculum-based assessment: A further examination. Journal of Early Intervention, 31, 3–21.
*Bricker, D., Yovanoff, P., Capt, B., & Allen, D. (2003). Use of a curriculum-based measure to corroborate eligibility
decisions. Journal of Early Intervention, 26, 20–30.
*Calhoon, J. M. (1997). Comparison of assessment results between a formal standardized measure and a play-based
format. Infant-Toddler Intervention: The Transdisciplinary Journal, 7, 201–214.
*Cody, D. A. (1995). Play assessment as a measure of cognitive ability in developmentally delayed preschoolers.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA.
Danaher, J. (2005). Eligibility policies and practices for young children under Part B of IDEA (NECTAC Notes No.15).
Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina, FPG Child Development Institute, National Early Childhood
Technical Assistance Center.
*DelGiudice, E., Brogna, G., Romano, A., Paludetto, R., & Toscano, E. (2006). Early intervention for children with Down
syndrome in southern Italy: The role of parent-implemented developmental training. Infants & Young Children, 19,
50–58.
Downloaded By: [Macy, Marisa] At: 23:06 15 January 2010
18
MACY AND BAGNATO
*Di Pinto, M. (2006). The ecological validity of the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Functioning (BRIEF) in
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: Predicting academic achievement and social adaptive behavior in the subtypes
of ADHD. Dissertation Abstracts International, 67(03), 1696B. (UMI No. 3209793)
Downs, A., & Strand, P. S. (2006). Using assessment to improve the effectiveness of early childhood education. Journal
of Child and Family Studies, 15, 671–680.
Dunst, C. J. (2002). Family-centered practices: Birth through high school. Journal of Special Education, 36(3), 139–147.
Dunst, C. J., Trivette, C. M., & Cutspe, P. A. (2002). An evidence-based approach to documenting the characteristics
and consequences of early intervention practices. Centerscope, 1(2), 1–6. Retrieved July 11, 2009, from http://www.
evidencebasepractices.org/centerscope/centerscopevol1no2.pdf
Dunst, C. J., & Hamby, D. W. (2004). States’ Part C eligibility definitions account for differences in the percentage of children participating in early intervention programs. Snapshots, 1(4). Retrieved July 12, 2009, from
http://www.tracecenter.info/products.php
*Fantuzzo, D., Grim, S., & Montes, G. (2002). Generalization of the Child Observation Record: A validity study for
diverse samples of urban, low-income preschool children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 17, 106–125.
*Friedli, C. (1994). Transdisciplinary play-based assessment: A study of reliability and validity. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Colorado, Denver, CO.
*Gilbert, S. L. (1997). Parent and teacher congruency on variations of a screening assessment: An examination (Report
No. H023B50009). Auburn, AL: Auburn University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED413726)
Grisham-Brown, J., Hallam, R., & Brookshire, R. (2006). Using authentic assessment to evidence children’s progress
toward early learning standards. Early Childhood Education Journal, 34, 45–51.
Grisham-Brown, J., Hallam, R., & Pretti-Frontczak, K. L. (2008). Preparing Head Start personnel to use a curriculumbased assessment: An innovative practice in the “age of accountability.” Journal of Early Intervention, 30, 271–281.
Gulikers, T. M., Bastiaens, T. J., & Kirschner, P. A. (2004). A five-dimensional framework for authentic assessment.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(3), 67–86.
Guralnick, M. J. (2006). Family influences on early development: Integrating the science of normative development,
risk and disability, and intervention. In K. McCartney & D. Phillips (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of early childhood
development (pp. 44–61). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
**Haley, S. M., Coster, W. J., Ludlow, L. H., Haltiwanger, J. T., & Andrellos, P. J. (1992). Pediatric Evaluation of
Disability Inventory (PEDI). Boston: New England Medical Center Hospitals, Inc.
**Harrison, P. L., & Oakland, T. (2003). Adaptive Behavior Assessment System-Second Edition. San Antonio, TX: The
Psychological Corporation.
Hebbeler, K., Barton, L. R., & Mallik, S. (2008). Assessment and accountability for programs serving young children
with disabilities. Exceptionality, 16, 48–63.
**High/Scope Educational Research Foundation. (2003). Preschool Child Observation Record–Second Edition. Ypsilanti,
MI: High/Scope Press.
**Hresko, W. P., Miguel, S. A., Sherbenou, R. J., & Burton, S. D. (1994). Developmental Observation Checklist System.
Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
*Hsia, T. (1993). Evaluating the psychometric properties of the Assessment, Evaluation, and Programming System for
Three to Six Years: AEPS Test. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 108-446, 20 U.S.C. (2004).
**Johnson-Martin, N. M., Attermeier, S. M., & Hacker, B. J. (2004). The Carolina curriculum for infants and toddlers
with special needs (3rd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
**Johnson-Martin, N. M., Hacker, B. J., & Attermeier, S. M. (2004). The Carolina curriculum for preschoolers with
special needs (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Keilty, B., LaRocco, D. J., & Casell, F. B. (2009). Early interventionists’ reports of authentic assessment methods through
focus group research. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 28, 244–256.
*Knox, V., & Usen, Y. (1998). Clinical review of the Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory. The British Journal of
Occupational Therapy, 63, 29–32.
Layton, C. A., & Lock, R. H. (2007). Use authentic assessment techniques to fulfill the promise of No Child Left Behind.
Intervention in School & Clinic, 42, 169–173.
**Linder, T. W. (1993). Transdisciplinary play-based assessment: A functional approach to working with young children.
Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Losardo, A., & Notari-Syverson, A. (2001). Alternative approaches to assessing young children. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Downloaded By: [Macy, Marisa] At: 23:06 15 January 2010
AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT
19
Macy, M., & Bricker, D. (2006). Practical applications for using curriculum-based assessment to create embedded learning
opportunities for young children. Young Exceptional Children, 9(4), 12–21.
*Macy, M. G., Bricker, D. D., & Squires, J. 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.
Macy, M., & Hoyt-Gonzales, K. (2007). A linked system approach to early childhood special education eligibility
assessment. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 39(3), 40–44.
*McKeating-Esterle, E., Bagnato, S. J., Fevola, A., & Hawthorne, C. (2007). A comparison of clinical judgment (informed
opinion) with performance-based assessment to document early intervention status. Unpublished master’s thesis,
University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.
McLean, M. (2005). Using curriculum-based assessment to determine eligibility: Time for a paradigm shift? Journal of
Early Intervention, 28, 23–27.
McLean, M., Bailey, D. B., & Wolery, M. (2004). Assessing infants and preschoolers with special needs (3rd ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Meisels, S. J., Bickel, D. D., Nicholson, J., Xue, Y., & Atkins-Burnett, S. (2001). Trusting teachers’ judgments: A validity
study of a curriculum-embedded performance assessment in kindergarten to grade 3. American Educational Research
Journal, 38, 73–95.
**Meisels, S. J., Dombro, A. L., Marsden, D. B., Weston, D., & Jewkes, A. (2003). The Ounce Scale: An observational
assessment for infants, toddlers, and families. New York: Pearson Early Learning.
**Meisels, S. J., Jablon, J. R., Marsden, D. B., Dichtelmiller, M. L., & Dorfman, A. B. (2001). The Work Sampling System
(4th ed.). New York: Pearson Early Learning.
Meisels, S. J., Liaw, F., Dorfman, A., & Nelson, R. F. (1995). The Work Sampling System: Reliability and validity of a
performance assessment for young children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 10, 277–296.
Meisels, S. J., Xue, Y., Bickel, D. D., Nicholson, J., & Atkins-Burnett, S. (2001). Parental reactions to authentic
performance assessment. Educational Assessment, 7, 61–85.
*Meisels, S. J., Xue, Y., & Shamblott, M. (2008). Assessing language, literacy, and mathematics skills with Work
Sampling Head Start. Early Education and Development, 19, 963–981.
Morgan, F. T. (2005). Development of a measure to screen for reactive attachment disorder in children 0–5 years.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 66(04), 2312B (UMI No. 3173576).
*Myers, C. L., McBride, S. L., & Peterson, C. 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.
National Association of School Psychologists. (2005). NASP position statement on early childhood assessment. Bethesda,
MD: Author.
National Research Council. (2008). Early childhood assessment: Why, what, and how. Washington, DC: National
Academies Press.
Neisworth, J. T., & Bagnato, S. J. (2004). The mismeasure of young children: The authentic assessment alternative.
Infants & Young Children, 17, 198–212.
*Noh, J. (2005). Examining the psychometric properties of the second edition of the Assessment, Evaluation, and
Programming System for three to six years: AEPS Test–Second Edition (3–6). Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Oregon, Eugene, OR.
**Parks, S., Furono, S., O’Reilly, K., Inatsuka, T., Hoska, C. M., & Zeisloft-Falbey, B. (1994). Hawaii early learning
profile (HELP). Palo Alto, CA: Vort.
Pretti-Frontczak, K., Kowalski, K., & Brown, R. D. (2002). Preschool teachers’ use of assessments and curricula: A
statewide examination. Exceptional Children, 69, 109–123.
*Sayers, L. K., Cowden, J. E., Newton, M., Warren, B., & Eason, B. (1996). Qualitative analysis of a pediatric strength
intervention on the developmental stepping movements of infants with Down syndrome. Adapted Physical Activity
Quarterly, 13, 247–268.
*Schweinhart, L. J., McNair, S., Barnes, H., & Larner, M. (1993). Observing young children in action to assess their
development: The High/Scope Child Observation Record study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53,
445–454.
*Sekina, Y., & Fantuzzo, J. (2005). Validity of the Child Observation Record: An investigation of the relationship between
COR dimensions and social-emotional and cognitive outcomes for Head Start children. Journal of Psychoeducational
Assessment, 23, 242–261.
20
MACY AND BAGNATO
Downloaded By: [Macy, Marisa] At: 23:06 15 January 2010
Shakelford, J. (2002). Informed clinical opinion (NECTAC Note No. 10). Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North
Carolina, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute, National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center.
Shakelford, J. (2006). State and jurisdictional eligibility definitions for infants and toddlers with disabilities under IDEA
(NECTAC Note No. 21). Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina, Frank Porter Graham Child Development
Institute, National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center.
*Sher, N. (2000). Activity-based assessment: Facilitating curriculum linkage between eligibility evaluation and intervention. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR.
*Slentz, K. (1986). Evaluating the instructional needs of young children with handicaps: Psychometric adequacy of the
Evaluation and Programming System-Assessment Level II. Dissertation Abstracts International, 47 (11), 4072A.
Slentz, K. L., & Hyatt, K. J. (2008). Best practices in applying curriculum-based assessment in early childhood. In A.
Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (Vol. 2, pp. 519–534). Bethesda, MD: National
Association of School Psychologists.
*Wright, F. V., & Boschen, K. (1993). The Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory (PEDI) validation of a new
functional assessment outcome instrument. Canadian Journal of Rehabilitation, 7, 41–42.
Zigler, E., & Styfco, S. J. (2000). Pioneering steps (and fumbles) in developing a federal preschool intervention. Topics
in Early Childhood Special Education, 20, 67–70.
View publication stats