Comparing Apples and Oranges

Abstract

The assessment of young children in early childhood special education is a central area of educational practice. The results of child assessments often have significant implications for young children, their families, and the programs that serve them, including eligibility for special education services, instructional planning, and documentation of child outcomes. The array of early childhood assessment types and purposes can be challenging to disentangle at the practitioner and policy level. At this time, different types of assessment tools (e.g., norm-referenced and criterion-referenced) are being used to document the development and learning of children and little attention has been paid to the parallel information produced from different assessment types. The purpose of this study is to compare the assessment results from two types of developmental instruments commonly used (Assessment, Evaluation, and Programming System Second Edition [AEPS 2nd ed.] and Battelle Developmental Inventory II [BDI-2]) to determine their congruence in determining a child’s developmental status (e.g., “on track” or delayed). Results indicate substantive difference between the two measures highlighting the potential for mismeasurement and misinterpretation of child assessment data. Implications for policy and practice are discussed.

Assessment, Evaluation, and Programming System for Infants and Children: What are Salient Development and Research Factors to Consider?

“…All ten studies on the second edition of AEPS [4] were validity studies. Four or 40% of the studies examined the concurrent validity of AEPS and the BDI-2 [18,19,6,20]. The study by Wang et al [20] explored the reliability of AEPS items and resulted in a Cronbach's alpha of .…”

Content Validity Analyses of Qualitative Feedback on the Revised Assessment, Evaluation, and Programming System for Infants and Children (AEPS) Test

“…In terms of convergent validity, the results of the AEPS Test have been positively correlated with Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development [21,22] and the Revised Gesell and Amatruda Developmental and Neurological Examination [22,23] as well as the Battelle Developmental Inventory (BDI) [12,23] and the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales [23]. Gao and Grisham-Brown [24] examined the concurrent validity of two areas (i.e., Social-Communication and Cognitive) with similar developmental areas of BDI-2 and reported positives correlations.…”

“…First, screening and eligibility determination measures need to have adequate validity to ensure that children are properly identified and referred for services [7]. Second, test results used for formulating IFSP/IEPs and intervention content must provide an accurate reflection of the child's developmental status in order to target appropriate goals [12]. Third, to accurately monitor child progress, measures must provide valid information on child change over time [13].…”

Évaluation authentique en intervention précoce et importance de la complémentarité entre l’évaluation fonctionnelle et normative en psychoéducation

“…De son côté, l'évaluation fonctionnelle s'attarde aux connaissances et aux compétences d'une personne en relation avec son milieu humain et physique (Macy et Hoyt-Gonzales, 2007;Magerotte et Willaye, 2010). Toutefois, elle ne permet pas de comparer une personne à un groupe de référence comme le fait l'évaluation normative (Hallam, Lyons, Pretti-Frontczak et Grisham-Brown, 2014). Il demeure que l'évaluation fonctionnelle par le vécu partagé et l'observation permet d'accéder à des données terrains utiles à la planification et à la mise en oeuvre des stratégies d'intervention (Renou, 2014;Bégin, Massé, Couture et Villeneuve, 2018).…”