This study examined the accuracy of a curriculum-based assessment for use during the eligibility process for Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) services. The study extended a previous investigation in which performance scores of children without disabilities on the Assessment, Evaluation, and Programming System (AEPS) were used to set cutoff scores at 6-month age intervals. These cutoff scores were then tested for service eligibility classification accuracy. The present study specifies and examines cutoff scores at more specific age intervals and performance domains. Present study findings largely replicated results of the original study. The AEPS cutoff scores were found to accurately classify most eligible children but did overidentify some ineligible children. The data from these two studies suggest that, to the extent allowed by state criteria, early intervention/early childhood special education personnel may be able to use the AEPS test as a valid assessment tool while qualifying children for IDEA services.

Infant mental health, as concept and intervention, is poorly understood by most practitioners in education settings. Direct-service personnel often lack appropriate knowledge, training, skills, and confidence in recognizing and addressing infant mental health problems. While programs and policymakers increasingly acknowledge the need to offer infant mental health services in order to prevent or mediate poor developmental outcomes among young children, effective methods of realizing an infant mental health initiative remain elusive. This qualitative study of five early education programs examines the use of mentors trained in clinical psychology or social work to support educators in delivering infant mental health services. The perspectives of administrators, direct-service providers, and mentors help us understand what constitutes successful infant mental health mentoring in general, and videotaping in combination with reflective consultation in particular.

Psychometric and utility studies on Social Emotional Assessment Measure (SEAM), an innovative tool for assessing and monitoring social-emotional and behavioral development in infants and toddlers with disabilities, were conducted. The Infant and Toddler SEAM intervals were the study focus, using mixed methods, including item response theory modeling and classical test theory. Results using a Rasch one-parameter logistic model indicated model fit statistics were consistent for age and item difficulty as well as for ability and item characteristics. Classical test theory analyses generally confirmed the developmental structure; mean scores increased with age and were significantly correlated across 6-month increments. Reliability studies indicated strong internal consistency and moderate interrater agreement between teachers. Test–retest reliability results completed by parents online indicated significant agreement. Overall, 90% of parents reported the SEAM asked appropriate questions and took less than 10 min to complete.

No abstract

The purpose of this article is to provide evidence of the technical adequacy of the Assessment, Evaluation, and Programming System–Third Edition (AEPS-3). The AEPS has long been identified as one of the most psychometrically sound early childhood curriculum-based assessments. In this article, results of three studies of technical adequacy are reviewed. First, a utility study was conducted to examine the degree to which teachers and providers found the AEPS-3 useful for its intended purposes (i.e., goal development and programming). Second, we examined the interrater reliability of the AEPS-3 by having teachers and providers view videotapes and score AEPS-3 items. Finally, a concurrent validity study was conducted, whereby a group of children were assessed using a norm-referenced assessment and the AEPS-3. Results of all three studies show provide early evidence that the AEPS-3 is psychometrically sound.