Nonstandardized Evaluation of Emergent Communication in Individuals with Severe Intellectual Disabilities: Exploring Existing Options and Proposing Innovations

Abstract

Procedures to evaluate the communication of individuals with severe intellectual disabilities have grown to include myriad nonstandardized tests and procedures. This article examines the utility of existing nonstandardized assessment methods for generating representative and reliable findings for individuals with severe disabilities limited to nonsymbolic or emergent symbolic communicative abilities. Specifically, the use of informants, observations, and structured sampling are explored as to their strengths and limitations as assessment tools. Strategies for improving these methods are provided including preassessment planning, efforts to minimize observer subjectivity, and informant/observer training. Potential new directions for nonstandardized communication evaluation with this special population including applications of eye gaze and digital recording technology are also proposed.

Reliability among School-Based Professionals: Using a Feature-Matching Screening Checklist to Identify Communication Systems

“…Furthermore, although informal non-standardized assessments tools are valid methods to collect data to inform communication interventions, limitations exist given the subjectivity of observers (Olgetree & Price, 2017). While personal experience may influence a rater's ability to objectively determine the student's ability (Olgetree & Price, 2017), practice in using these assessment tools may decrease bias and increase reliability (Gronlund & James, 2013).…”

“…It is important to consider using various sources instead of relying exclusively on formal standardized assessments to determine a student's adaptive behavior skills (Olgetree & Price, 2017). While formal assessments provide standardized results, they may have little validity for students with high support needs (Brady et al, 2016).…”

“…However, due to the characteristics of informal assessments, there will be subjectivity of the observers (Olgetree & Price, 2017), as personal experiences may influence the observation (Gronlund & James, 2013). Without systematic instructions or guidelines, two evaluators may interpret the same event differently (Olgetree & Price, 2017). To attempt to mitigate some of the biases inherent in observations, the data collection process should involve factual and descriptive information to increase the objectivity of the findings (Gronlund & James, 2013).…”

“…By supplementing formal assessments with informal tools, the educational team may gain a broader understanding of the student’s abilities (Brady et al, 2016; Lund et al, 2017). A main advantage of informal assessments in the ability to evaluate the student in natural settings and across contexts (Boesch & Da Fonte, 2014; Olgetree & Price, 2017), and the flexibility of these tools allow for the evaluation of students who may be challenging to assess (Olgetree & Price, 2017). However, due to the characteristics of informal assessments, there will be subjectivity of the observers (Olgetree & Price, 2017), as personal experiences may influence the observation (Gronlund & James, 2013).…”

Introduction to the Special Issue on Communication Assessment and Intervention

“…More specifically, from the five assessment-related papers, readers should gain an appreciation of the value of assessing foundational aspects of communication. The five assessment-related papers contained in this special issue cover a number of cutting-edge issues, such as assessment of early emergent communication skills (Ogletree and Price 2018), assessment of early vocalizations (Roche et al 2018), communication intentionality (Peters-Scheffer et al 2018), breakdown and repair strategies (Price et al 2018), and the social communication of students with profound/multiple disabilities (Arthur-Kelly et al 2018). The remaining six papers address interventions for enhancing the communication functioning of individuals with neurodevelopmental disorders and developmental delay (Allen et al 2018;Carnett et al 2018;Dimian et al 2018;Hansen et al 2018;Simacek et al 2018;Wolf et al 2018).…”