Assessing Severely Handicapped Children

Abstract

Public Law 94-142 mandates the nationwide provision of special education and related services for all handicapped children, regardless of the severity of their handicap. More specifically, children must be assessed, and individualized education plans must be provided. Each plan must specify: (a) the child's present levels of educational performance; (b) annual goals, including short term objectives; (c) educational services to be provided; ( d) the dates for initiation and anticipated duration of services; and (e) appropriate objective criteria and evaluation procedures for determining whether instructional objectives are being achieved (Section 602 [ 4] [19]).Across the country, school systems are feeling the strain on available resources. Particularly alarming is the scarcity of trained manpower to meet the special educational needs of severely handicapped children. Sailor, Guess, and Lavis (1975) proclaimed "an immediate need to provide a cadre of competent, qualified teachers with allied personnel and resources to deliver an effective and functional educational program for severely handicapped" (p. 201).During the past four years, attention has focused on the immediate shortage of trained teachers and the critical factors that constitute necessary teacher competencies for directing the educational program of severely and multiply handicapped children

Assessment in rehabilitation psychology.

“…Tests of intelligence, by virtue of being "global" measures, are prone to multiple confounding factors such as a child's language or motor deficits, which can have a differential effect on the overall score (Lezak et al, 2004). Because the measurement of intelligence does not become stable until approximately 4 years of age, tests of infant abilities are believed to be most useful for describing a child's current status, rather than having predictive value of a child's future cognitive ability, except for children with significant developmental delays (DuBose, 1977;McCall, Hogarty, & Hurlburt, 1972;Sattler, 1992). As such, careful and comprehensive assessment of the child's neuropsychological strengths and weaknesses, academic status, adaptive skills, motor skills and psychological status are likely to be more useful in educational and treatment planning for children with medical conditions (Barlow, 2001;Yeates, Ris, & Taylor, 1999).…”

Test Biases that Hamper Learners with Disabilities

“…In the cases of students with severe impairments, sensory impairments, communication impairments, or multiple impairments, factors that are linked to motivation or level of cognitive arousal during testing can have a significant impact on students' responses (Dubose, 1978;Dubose et al, 1977;Kierner & Dubose, 1974;Sullivan & Vernon, 1979). Motivation and attitude toward testing can bias responses of young learners (National Association for the Education of Young Children, 1989); consequently young learners with disabilities may be the group most at risk for responding inappropriately to standardized tests (Bailey & Woolery, 1984;Halle & Sindelar, 1982).…”

“…Depending upon the restrictions by which questions or responses are limited, tested students who exhibit handicaps such as visual disability, communicative disorders, or motor dysfunctions can be penalized (Fox & Weaver, 1981 ;Gillespie & Lieberman, 1983;McKinney, 1983). Additionally, when tests are administered to students with disabilities that can range from mild to profound, the probability of erroneous assessment increases in proportion to the degree and the multiplicity of impairments (Brown, 1987;Dubose, 1978;Dubose, Langley, & Stass, 1977;Kierner & Dubose, 1974;Sparrow & Cicchetti, 1978). The authors' purpose in this article is to highlight test biases that can hamper the performance of learners.…”

Assessment of the Severely Handicapped Preschool-Aged Child

“…There are advocates who suggest we employ adapted strategies rather than develop new instruments for this population (Dubose, Langley, & Stagg, 1977;Hauessermann, 1958;Hupp & Donofrio, 1983;Jens & Johnson, 1982;Robinson & Fieber, in press). These strategies involve a number of different techniques, generally relying upon the assumption that there are underlying cognitive processes tapped in the performance of the tasks (Hauessermann, 1958;Robinson, in press;Robinson & Fieber, in press;Robinson & Robinson, 1978, 1983.…”

“…Whether norm-or criterionreferenced tools are used, information gleaned from this assessment process should include the evaluation of (a) the skills already mastered by the individual, (b) the child's response to interventions designed. to tech specific skills or tasks, and (c) the child's ability to perform given tasks in different settings and with different persons (Bourgeault, Harley, Dubose, & Langley, 1977;Dubose et al, 1977;Langley, 1978;Simeonsson, Huntington, & Parse, 1980).…”