Running Head: ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT REVIEW 1

Assessment Instrument Review

ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT REVIEW 2

Assessment Instrument Review One

Name of DIBELS: Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills, Sixth Edition
Instrument

Publication Date 2002-2003

Purpose of Designed to assess growth and development of early literacy skills. Designed to measure skills that are critical that
Instrument underline success in reading. It is used to identify students and progress monitor those students who may not meet the
standard of the stet in reading. It is also used to evaluate how effective the reading instruction is in a school for a group
of individuals (Good, et al., 2002).
Age or Target Grades K-6
Population
Reliability the Initial Sound Fluency (ISF), Letter Name Fluency (LNF), Phonemic Segmentation Fluency (PSF), Word Use
Fluency (WUF), Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF), and Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) measures all showed remarkable
levels of reliability given the brief nature of these tests, their purposes, and the ages of the children. The WUF
reliability was the lowest .64 (alternate form), and the LNF (alternate form: .87) and ORF (alternate form: .92, and test-
retest: .92-.97) showed the most evidence of reliability (Good, et al., 2002).
Validity The tests generally are valid indicators of reading ability, but the ability of the test to correctly and accurately identify
who would need additional help may or may not be sound, though they look sensible. The average concurrent validity
coefficients (correlations with other measures taken at the same time) were .80 for ORF, .58 for NWF, .44 for PSF,
and .55 for ISF. The predictive validity coefficients were .47 for PSF, .53 for ISF, .66 for ORF, and .68 for NWF (there
were no predictive validity data for WUF) (Good, et al., 2002).
Norm Group The DIBELS is derived from the performance of 32,000 children. Participants included students in third through fifth
Population grade from twenty-two schools across five states (Good, et al., 2002).
Kinds of Scores Percentile Ranks: Initial Sound Fluency, Letter Naming Fluency, Phoneme Segmentation Fluency, Nonsense Word
Fluency, Oral Reading Fluency, Oral Retelling Fluency, Word Use Fluency (Good, et al., 2002).
Cost of Instrument Materials may be downloaded at no cost from DMG at http://dibels.org/next. Minimal reproduction costs associated
with printing (Good, et al., 2002).
Cost of Protocols The basic pricing plan is an annual per student license of $14.90. For users already using an mCLASS assessment
product, the cost per student to add mCLASS:DIBELS Next is $6 per student ("Center on Response to Intervention",
2018).
List All Personnel Testers will require 4-8 hours of training. Examiners must at a minimum be a paraprofessional.
Using Instrument
Assessment The DIBELS identifies students who may require RTI, assists with goal setting, progress monitors and screens for
ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT REVIEW 3

Information Use growth and development.

Justification and I find DIBELS to be useful for classroom and school decision making. For the most part, evidence adequate or better
Recommendation psychometric properties and do a fine job of evaluating letter name knowledge, phonemic awareness, and oral reading
for School Use fluency. DIBELS is relatively inexpensive and easy to administer to individuals (Good, et al., 2002).
References Good, R. H., III, Kaminski, R. A., Moats, L. C., Laimon, D., Smith, S., & Dill, S. (2002). DIBELS: Dynamic
Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills, Sixth Edition. Retrieved from https://search-ebscohost-
com.libproxy.lamar.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mmt&AN=test.2631&site=ehost-live
Center on Response to Intervention. (2018). Retrieved July 3, 2019, from https://rti4success.org/dibels-next-daze

Assessment Instrument Review Two

Name of GORT-5
Instrument

Publication Date 1963-2012

Purpose of The purpose of the instrument is to identify students with reading difficulty, diagnose reading disabilities, determine
Instrument strengths and weaknesses, and evaluate students’ progress in reading (Della-Piana & Krach, 2017).
Age or Target Ages 6-23
Population
Reliability Reliability estimates (coefficient alpha) were calculated for Rate, Accuracy, Fluency, Comprehension, and the Oral
Reading Index for both Forms A and B. Coefficient averages for all age intervals exceeded .90. The standard error of
measurement (SEM) for scaled scores for all ages is set at 1.00, and the SEM for the Oral Reading Index (ORI) score
ranges from 2 to 4 across ages and forms (Della-Piana & Krach, 2017).
Validity GORT-5 includes content-related evidence of validity, criterion-prediction evidence of validity, and construct-related
evidence of validity (Della-Piana & Krach, 2017).
Norm Group According to the test manual, the normative group of 2,556 was matched to the U.S. population across the variables of
Population geographic region, gender, race, ethnicity, parents’ education, household income, and exceptionalities.
Kinds of Scores Oral Reading Index (Fluency [Rate, Accuracy, Total], Comprehension) (Della-Piana & Krach, 2017).
Cost of Instrument $275 per complete kit including examiner's manual (129 pages), 25 examiner record booklets Form A, 25 examiner
record booklets Form B, and student book
Cost of Protocols $92 per examiner's manual; $59 per 25 examiner record booklets (Form A or Form B); $65 per student book (Della-
Piana & Krach, 2017).
List All Personnel The GORT-5 can be administered by trained professionals who have been extensively trained on administering the
Using Instrument GORT-5.
ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT REVIEW 4

Assessment The GORT-5 was developed as an assessment tool for oral reading diagnosis, strengths/weaknesses analysis, and
Information Use research.
Justification and GORT-5 is a well designed and developed measure of oral reading ability. The GORT-5 was developed as an
Recommendation assessment tool for oral reading diagnosis, strengths/weaknesses analysis, and research. When used for measuring
for School Use reading fluency and reading comprehension, it is a solid instrument (Della-Piana & Krach, 2017).
References Della-Piana, G. M., & Krach, K. S. (2017). Gray Oral Reading Tests–Fifth Edition. Mental Measurements
Yearbook,20. Retrieved July 6, 2019, from https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.libproxy.lamar.edu/ehost/detail/detail?
vid=7&sid=4ccac441-7129-46b1-99c8-
f985baa80b77@sessionmgr4006&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ==#db=mmt&AN=test.6455.

Assessment Instrument Review Three

Name of Weschler Intelligence Scale for Children – Fifth Edition, Integrated (WISC-V)
Instrument

Publication The WISC-V Integrated was first published in 2004, with its most recent fifth edition being published in 2015 (Bugaj,
Date 2017).
Purpose of This instrument is used to assess intelligence (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017). The WISC-V Integrated generates five
Instrument primary scales of index for verbal comprehension, visual spatial, working memory, fluid reasoning, and processing speed
(Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017). Together, these index scales produce a full scale IQ score (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017).
The test is administered individually (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017).
Age or Target 6-16 years of age
Population
Reliability The coefficients were found to be high and ranged in average from .77 to .93 (Bugaj, 2017). The internal reliability was
also found to be good among groups of special populations such as ADHD, brain injuries, and autism spectrum disorders
(Bugaj, 2017).
Validity Validity correlations were found between the subtest versions, and explanation was provided for results that were not
expected (Bugaj, 2017). Concurrent validity was determined by using two other achievement tests (Bugaj, 2017).
Norm Group The WISC-V Integrated was normed using approximately 500 individuals separated into 11 different age groups (Bugaj,
Population 2017). Gender equality was achieved in all but four groups and the samples were accurate representations of the
population for variables such as race, education level, and geographical location (Bugaj, 2017).
Kinds of Scores The five primary index scales of the WISC-V Integrated generate a Full Scale IQ Score that represents an individual’s
overall IQ (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017). Scaled scores can also be derived from this instrument, which are converted
ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT REVIEW 5

from raw scores on each of the 21 subtests (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017). The scaled scores classify an individual as being
developmentally delayed, borderline, low average, average, high average, superior, and very superior in terms of IQ
(Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017).
Cost of The cost of the WISC-V Integrated kit is $305 and includes manuals for administration and scoring, technical manuals,
Instrument stimulus books, and a variety of response booklets and scoring resources (Bugaj, 2017).

Cost of WISC-V Integrated protocols cost approximately $125 for a bundle of 25 (Bugaj, 2017).
Protocols

List All In order to administer the WISC-V Integrated, an individual must have a doctorate degree in a related field or certification
Personnel by a professional organization that is related to the field of assessment (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017).
Using
Instrument
Assessment The WISC-V Integrated provides information regarding an individual’s IQ score, which can then be used to assist in IEP
Information development and decision-making about educational placement (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017).
Use
Justification I would recommend the continued use of the WISC-V Integrated at my current school. It appears to have excellent
and reliability and good overall validity (Bugaj, 2017).
Recommendati
on for School
Use
References Bugaj, A.M. (2017). Wechsler intelligence scale for children: Fifth edition, integrated. Mental Measurements Yearbook, 20.
Retrieved from https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.libproxy.lamar.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=6&sid=98523c9f-6e5c-
431b-8bcd-965692542f1c%40sessionmgr4009&bdata=JmxvZ2luLmFzcCZzaXRlPWVob3N0LWxpdmU
%3d#AN=test.8594&db=mmt
Pierangelo, R., & Giuliani, G. A. (2017). Assessment in special education: A practical approach (5th ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson

Assessment Instrument Review Four

Name of Woodcock Johnson III
Instrument
ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT REVIEW 6

Publication Date 2004

Purpose of Measures dimensions of phonological awareness that are important, knowledge of phonics, reading achievement and
Instrument other abilities that are related to oral language.
Age or Target Ages 2-80+ (Margolis, D'Onofrio, & England, 2004).,
Population
Reliability The comprehensive manual reports that for age groups 4 to 7 years, 8 to 10, 11 to 13, and 14 to 17, only 1 of 24 test-
retest reliability coefficients for test administered a year apart equaled or exceeded .90; 13 of 24 fell between .59 and .
79. Thus, most of the WJ III DRB tests showed only moderate reliability (Margolis, D'Onofrio, & England, 2004).
Validity The correlation with independent tests of similar or related content. When investigating statistical validity, some
would posit that intertest correlations should be moderate, to establish that a statistical connection exists among tests of
related content and skills, and to show that the tests are not redundant measures. To a large degree, the validity studies
yielded moderate correlations (Margolis, D'Onofrio, & England, 2004).
Norm Group Test clusters were created by combining tests of similar underlying competencies (comprehensive manual, p. 98); this
Population grouping, the authors postulate, allows for generalization to a more representative pool of reading competencies
(Margolis, D'Onofrio, & England, 2004).
Kinds of Scores Basic Reading Skills, Reading Comprehension, Phonics Knowledge, Phonemic Awareness, Oral Language
Comprehension, Brief Reading, Broad Reading, Total Reading (Margolis, D'Onofrio, & England, 2004).
Cost of Instrument 2015: $441.85 per complete test kit including carrying case, test book, comprehensive manual (197 pages), audio CD
package, software package, and 25 test records and subject response booklets; $94.65 per package of 25 test records
and subject response booklets (Margolis, D'Onofrio, & England, 2004).
Cost of Protocols $97.35 per comprehensive manual; $211.45 per scoring and reporting program (Margolis, D'Onofrio, & England,
2004).
List All Personnel Personnel using this instrument requires a higher degree of knowledge and experience than is required for
Using Instrument administering and scoring the tests. Graduate‐level training in cognitive ability assessment and a background in
diagnostic decision‐making are requisite. Only trained and knowledgeable professionals who are sensitive to the
conditions that may compromise, or even invalidate, standardized test results should make interpretations and decision
(Margolis, D'Onofrio, & England, 2004).
Assessment Useful for the evaluation of strengths and weaknesses among cognitive abilities.
Information Use
Justification and Yes, I would recommend the WJ III. The WJ III appears to be a fine test that can help qualified examiners (e.g.,
Recommendation learning consultants, reading specialists) gain an overall understanding of examinees' reading abilities and identify
for School Use their weaknesses, especially if examiners focus on clusters rather than individual tests (Margolis, D'Onofrio, &
ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT REVIEW 7

England, 2004).
References Margolis, H., D'Onofrio, A., & England, C. T. (2004). Woodcock-Johnson III. Mental Measurements Yearbook, 17.
Retrieved July 5, 2019, from https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.libproxy.lamar.edu/ehost/detail/detail?
vid=12&sid=4ccac441-7129-46b1-99c8-
f985baa80b77@sessionmgr4006&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ==#AN=test.2850&db=mmt.

Assessment Instrument Review Five

rd
Name of Conners 3 Edition
Instrument

Publication Date 2010

Purpose of To be an assessment of ADHD and the most common comorbid issues with adolescents and children.
Instrument
Age or Target Ages 6-18 (Arffa & Dunn, 2010)
Population
Reliability Reliability measures are quite satisfactory. Internal consistency coefficients are .90 or above for Parent and Teacher
scales and .85 or above for Self-Report scales (Arffa & Dunn, 2010). Both test-retest and interrater reliability were
appropriately corrected for restriction of range (because there was low variability in the scores). Adjusted test-retest
reliability ranges from .82 to .98 for Parent scales except for Executive Functioning (.72) and Peer/Family Relations
(.78), from .83 to .90 for Teacher scales except for Executive Functioning (.78), and from .71 to .83 for the Self-Report
scale (Arffa & Dunn, 2010). A Reliable Change Index is available in Tables 11.13 to 11.15, which takes into account
the difference in test scores between the two administrations and the Standard Error of Difference.
Validity Overall, the Conners 3 can accurately distinguish clinical groups from the general population as well as discriminate
between clinical groups of ADHD subtypes, other disruptive behavioral disorders, and learning disorders (Arffa &
Dunn, 2010). Construct validity was established through scale structure validity using first exploratory and then
confirmatory factor analyses. A five-factor solution suited the Conners 3 Parent form (Learning Problems, Aggression,
Hyperactivity/Impulsivity, Peer Relations, Executive Functioning), a four-factor solution suited the Conners 3 Teacher
form (Learning Problems, Aggression, Hyperactivity/Impulsivity, Peer Relations) and a four-factor solution suited
the Conners 3 Self-Report form (Learning Problems, Aggression, Hyperactivity/Impulsivity, Family Relations) (Arffa
& Dunn, 2010).
Norm Group Normative data are reported separately by age (each year 6 to 18) and gender. Many of the Conners 3 scales are
Population significantly related to gender, with higher ratings for males, although overall gender accounts for only .6% to 2.9% of
ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT REVIEW 8

the variance on Parent forms and up to 6.6% on Teacher forms (Arffa & Dunn, 2010). The Conners 3 culminated with
an impressive 3,400 individuals in the normative sample. Nearly 7,000 rating forms were completed (Arffa & Dunn,
2010). Over 100 different sites in North America provided data from a general population group that was meant to
parallel the 2000 U.S. Census distribution of gender, ethnicity, and geographical region. More than 800 individuals
from a clinical population were also included. There are separate norms for boys and girls (Arffa & Dunn, 2010).
Kinds of Scores Calculated raw and T scores, linear T scores and empirical percentiles. Sic content scales: inattention,
Hyperactivity/Impulsivity, Learning Problems, Executive Functioning, Aggression, and Peer/Family Relations (Arffa
& Dunn, 2010).
Cost of Instrument 2015: $449 per Handscored kit including manual (2008, 470 pages), 25 parent/teacher/self-report QuikScore forms,
and 25 parent/teacher/self-report short QuikScore forms (Arffa & Dunn, 2010).
Cost of Protocols $349 per Reorder Kit including 25 parent/teacher/self-report QuikScore forms, and 25 parent/teacher/self-report short
QuikScore forms; $104 per manua (Arffa & Dunn, 2010)l; $65 per package of 25 parent, teacher, or self-report
QuikScore forms; $60 per package of 25 parent, teacher, or self-report (short) QuikScore forms (Arffa & Dunn, 2010);
$349 per Online Kit including manual, 25 Parent/Teacher/ self-report online forms; $3.50 per Online form; $759
per Conners 3 Software Kit including manual, unlimited use scoring software program (USB Key), 25
Parent/Teacher/Self-Report response booklets, and 25 Parent/Teacher/Self-Report (Short) QuikScore forms; $15 per
paper copy of DSM-5 Supplement (Arffa & Dunn, 2010).
List All Personnel School psychologists, clinicians, psychiatrists, pediatricians, child protection agencies, and mental health workers
Using Instrument (Arffa & Dunn, 2010).
Assessment In addition to supporting diagnoses, the Conners 3 can be used for making decisions about eligibility for special
Information Use education, to plan and monitor treatment interventions, for research purposes, and for screening purposes. Informants
include parents and teachers, as well as a Self-Report form appropriate for children ages 8 to 18 (Arffa & Dunn, 2010).
Justification and The Conners 3 is a well-designed instrument with excellent technical properties that promises to be instrumental in the
Recommendation evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment response of children with ADHD and co-morbid disorders. It has many advantages
for School Use over its predecessor, yet maintains many of the solid characteristics of the older form (Arffa & Dunn, 2010).
References Arffa, S., & Dunn, T. M. (2010). Conners 3rd Edition. Mental Measurements Yearbook,18. Retrieved July 4, 2019,
from https://eds-b-ebscohost-com.libproxy.lamar.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=4&sid=2c1f067e-531c-48e2-925d-
5b1b79d8fb13@pdc-v-sessmgr02&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ==#AN=test.3091&db=mmt.

Assessment Instrument Review Six

Name of (ABAS-3) Adaptive Behavior Assessment System – 3rd Edition
Instrument
ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT REVIEW 9

Publication Date 2017

Purpose of An assessment of adaptive skills needed to care for oneself, interact with others, and engage with environments
Instrument whether it is school, home or elsewhere (Henington, 2017).
Age or Target Birth to 89 years old (Henington, 2017).
Population
Reliability Across all forms, the mean coefficients were moderate to high (e.g., skill areas = .70, domains = .76, GAC = .82 on the
Parent/Primary Caregiver Form [0-5]). Interrater reliability (between raters using the same form) for 459 individuals
showed predominately acceptable effect sizes and corrected Pearson correlation coefficients on each form (the Adult
self-report was excluded) (Henington, 2017). The test authors explained that in some situations the effect sizes were
small, indicating random variation that tended to cancel out differences across the range of scores (Henington, 2017).
Validity The test authors analyzed the factor structure across versions for the three factors relative to the domain scores and a
single factor. The results indicate the ABAS-3distinguishes domains of adaptive behavior and is a comprehensive
measure of adaptive behavior (Henington, 2017).
Norm Group Norms based on 4500 individuals in three age categories (i.e., early and middle childhood, adulthood) who were rated
Population by one or two individuals (e.g., parents and/or teachers) for a total of 7,737 rating forms of typically developing
individuals and those with mild disabilities (Henington, 2017). All regions of the United States were represented
(with the South slightly overrepresented), and the sample was roughly representative of U.S. Census gender and
ethnicity data (Henington, 2017).
Kinds of Scores Norm-referenced scaled scores, norm-referenced standard scores, confidence intervals for standard scores, and
percentile ranks (Henington, 2017).
Cost of Instrument 2016: $310 per comprehensive print kit including 5 of each form (Parent/Primary Caregiver, Teacher/Daycare
Provider, Parent, Teacher, and Adult), manual (2015, 289 pages), and intervention planner (2015, 217 pages); $450 per
comprehensive software kit including 5 print copies of each form, print manual, unlimited use scoring assistant, and
intervention planner software; $450 per comprehensive online kit including 5 online form uses for each form, online
manual, and online intervention planner (Henington, 2017).
Cost of Protocols $175 per manual; $95 per intervention planner; $75 per 25 forms (Parent/Primary Caregiver, Teacher/Daycare
Provider, Parent, Teacher, or Adult) (Henington, 2017).
List All Personnel The rating scaled can be completed by any individual who regularly interact with the person being assessed, but only
Using Instrument licensed professionals can score the forms (Henington, 2017).
Assessment (a) diagnose and classify developmental and behavioral disorders, (b) identify functional limitations related to
Information Use challenges/disorders, (c) document eligibility for services, (d) plan and monitor interventions, and (e) facilitate
research. Eleven adaptive skills areas are assessed: (a) Communication, (b) Functional- and/or Pre-Academics, (c)
ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT REVIEW 10

Self-Direction, (d) Leisure, (e) Social, (f) Community Use, (g) Home/School Living, (h) Health and Safety, (i) Self-
Care, (j) Motor, and (k) Work (Henington, 2017).
Justification and Yes, I would recommend the continued use of the ABAS-3 due to the variety of people who rate the individual being
Recommendation assessed (Henington, 2017).
for School Use
References Henington, C. (2017). Adaptive Behavior Assessment System, Third Edition. Mental Measurements Yearbook,20.
Retrieved July 5, 2019, from https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.libproxy.lamar.edu/ehost/detail/detail?
vid=4&sid=9135bb12-c212-4019-a767-
320d72d77777@sessionmgr4006&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ==#AN=test.7501&db=mmt.

Assessment Instrument Review Seven

Name of Developmental Test of Visual Perception-3rd Edition (DTVP-3)
Instrument

Publication Date The DTVP-3 was published in 1961 with its most recent update in 2014 (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017).
Purpose of This instrument is used to assess certain descrepancies in visual perception (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017). The DTVP-
Instrument 3 gauges eye-hand coordination, copying, figure-fround, visual closure, and form consistency to establish if any
deficits are present (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017). It is a test that is individually administered and requires students to
draw lines, simple figures, complete missing portions of figures, find hidden shapes andrecognize shapes that are
hidden in complex backgrounds (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017).
Age or Target The DTVP-3 is geared for individuals between ages 4 and 13 (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017).
Population
Reliability Internal consistency reliability was demonstrated and the coefficients across all ages fell were .80 and .95 for the visual
closure subtest and general visual perception composite score (Alfonso & Lawrence, 2017). Test-retest reliability
coefficients were studied and found to fall between .70 and .85 for the different subtests and .87 and .90 for the
composite scores (Alfonso & Lawrence, 2017).
Validity Average criterion-related validity coefficients fell between .54 and .76, however there were no additional studies to
confirm the validity (Alfonso & Lawrence, 2017). Construct-related validity was studied and the correlation
coefficients were classified as medium to high as it was found that subtest measurements increased with age (Alfonso
& Lawrence, 2017). The validity coefficient for sub-scores and composites was found to have a median of .43 (Alfonso
& Lawrence, 2017).
ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT REVIEW 11

Norm Group The DTVP-3 was standardized using a group of approximately 1,000 kids from 27 different states (Alfonso &
Population Lawrence, 2017). The test manual states that the makeup of the sample mirrors the makeup of children across the
United States (Alfonso & Lawrence, 2017).
Kinds of Scores This instrument records raw subtest scores that are changed to scaled scores so they can be represented as percentiles
that compares the norms across different ages (Alfonso & Lawrence, 2017). Composite scores are also represented as
percentile ranks with additional descriptions of performance levels (Alfonso & Lawrence, 2017). Full interpretation of
the DTVP-3 provides age equivalents, percentile ranks, subtest raw and scaled scores, as well as composite index
scores (Alfonso & Lawrence, 2017).
Cost of Instrument The cost of the complete kit costs $257 (Alfonso & Lawrence, 2017).

Cost of Protocols Record forms for the DTVP-3 costs $39 for a set of 25 (Alfonso & Lawrence, 2017).

List All Personnel This assessment instrument should only be administered and interpreted by professionals who have been trained in
Using Instrument formal assessment practices such as an educational diagnostician (Alfonso & Lawrence, 2017).
Assessment The DTVP-3 can be used to measure an individual’s visual and perceptual abilities as well as screen for possible
Information Use deficits that may arise (Pieranelo & Giuliani, 2017).

Justification and I would recommend the use of this instrument only for students who are in primary school as the information it
Recommendation provides would be most evident in younger students.
for School Use
References Alfonso, V.C., & Lawrence, J. (2017). Developmental test of visual perception-Third edition. Mental Measurements
Yearbook, 20. Retrieved from https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.libproxy.lamar.edu/ehost/detail/detail?
vid=7&sid=9135bb12-c212-4019-a767-
320d72d77777%40sessionmgr4006&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=test.6460&db=mmt

Pierangelo, R., & Giuliani, G. A. (2017). Assessment in special education: A practical approach (5th ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson

Assessment Instrument Review Eight

Name of Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency, Second Edition
Instrument
ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT REVIEW 12

Publication Date 2010

Purpose of The purpose of this instrument is to measure the fine and gross motor skills of children ages 4-21(Snyder & Stutman,
Instrument 2010).
Age or Target 4-21
Population
Reliability Split-half reliability coefficients for the subtests ranged between .70 and .80 for all but two tests, while the total motor
composite reliability coefficient was measured to be in the mid-.90s (Snyder & Stutman, 2010). Test-retest reliability
was found to be approximately .80 when the tests were taken within 1-6 weeks of each other (Snyder & Stutman,
2010). Additionally, interrater reliability was found to be quite high when two individuals scored a single subject
(Snyder & Stutman, 2010).
Validity The authors of the manual worked to verify content and construct validity, however evidence of construct validity was
not convincing (Snyder & Stutman, 2010). However, evidence of construct validity was more convincing due to
studies showing that median scores in the eight subtests were indicative of appropriate development (Snyder &
Stutman, 2010).
Norm Group The BOT-2 was normed using a group of approximately 1,520 subjects who were from 38 different states and ranged
Population between 4-21 years of age (Snyder & Stutman, 2010).
Kinds of Scores Raw scores, standardized scores, composite scores, Z scores, and scaled scores and percentile rank (Snyder & Stutman,
2010).
Cost of Instrument $795 per kit including manual (2005, 273 pages), administration easel, 25 record forms, 25 examinee booklets, scoring
transparency, balance beam, blocks with string, penny box, penny pad, plastic pennies, knee pad, peg board and pegs, 2
red pencils, scissors, target, tennis ball, shape cards, and shuttle block (Snyder & Stutman, 2010).
Cost of Protocols $44.50 per 25 record forms for complete battery/short form; $44.50 per 25 examinee booklets (Snyder & Stutman,
2010).
List All Personnel Physical or Occupational Therapist that are trained to administer the assessment.
Using Instrument
Assessment Designed to identify students or children with Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD) and assist the placement
Information Use process in an adaptive physical education program. It is also used to evaluate motor skill deficits in TBI, ASD, and to
validate other measures (Snyder & Stutman, 2010).
Justification and I would definitely recommended to use. It appears that this assessment works well with children to receive measure of
Recommendation gross and fine motor coordination (Snyder & Stutman, 2010).
for School Use
References Snyder, K., & Stutman, G. (2010). Bruininks-Oseretsky test of motor proficiency, second edition. Mental
Measurements Yearbook, 18. Retrieved from https://eds-a-ebscohost-
ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT REVIEW 13

com.libproxy.lamar.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=10&sid=9135bb12-c212-4019-a767-
320d72d77777%40sessionmgr4006&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=test.3005&db=mmt

Assessment Instrument Review Nine

Name of CELF-5
Instrument

Publication Date 2017

Purpose of Purpose of this assessment is to identify, diagnose, and follow-up of language and communications disorders (Hutchins
Instrument & Pratt, 2017).
Age or Target Ages 5-21
Population
Reliability Internal consistency of the CELF-5 was explored using the split-half method and a Spearman-Brown correction for the
normative sample and three clinical samples (students with language disorder, autism spectrum disorder, and learning
disability in the areas of reading and/or writing) (Hutchins & Pratt, 2017). Average reliability coefficients for the
normative sample for test scores range from .75 (adequate) to .98 (excellent) across age groups. Average coefficients
for the index scores were generally higher and ranged from .95 to .96. Coefficients for all three clinical groups were
also excellent for both test and index scores. The standard error of measurement (SEM) was calculated for tests and
index scores across ages using the reliability coefficients from analyses of internal consistency (Hutchins & Pratt,
2017). The SEMs are acceptable and are no more than one-third the SD (Hutchins & Pratt, 2017). Test-retest
reliability was examined using a sample subset (n = 137) similar to that of the larger normative sample in major
demographic characteristics. The test-retest interval was 7 to 46 days (M = 19). Stability coefficients were average to
excellent across age bands. Evidence of interscorer agreement is also provided for those tests that require interpretation
of potentially ambiguous responses (Hutchins & Pratt, 2017).
Validity Evidence supporting content validity of the CELF-5 was established through literature review, user feedback, and
expert review. Although a few tests in the CELF-4 (e.g., Expressive Vocabulary) rightly belong to the construct of
language ability, they were removed based on user feedback as the developers sought to balance content coverage with
the practical utility of the tool (Hutchins & Pratt, 2017). Descriptions of the procedures used to establish content
validity are provided in the technical manual and offer support for the content and scope of the measure (Hutchins &
Pratt, 2017).
Norm Group Studies involved more than 3,000 children, adolescents, and young adults. It included 200 individuals in each year ages
Population 5:0–5:11 to 12:0–12:11, 150 in each year ages 13:0–13:11 to 16:0–16:11, and 180 from ages 17:0–21:11 (Hutchins &
ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT REVIEW 14

Pratt, 2017). The sample was stratified by age, sex, race/ethnicity, geographic region, and caregiver education level,
and data for the normative sample were similar to U.S. Census data for all variables. Each student tested “spoke and
understood English very (Hutchins & Pratt, 2017), and data for rates of bilingualism and a wide variety of dialects
spoken are presented in the examiner’s manual. In an effort to match the incidence in the population, a number of
individuals were included in the normative sample who were diagnosed with a language disorder (about 7%) (Hutchins
& Pratt, 2017).
Kinds of Scores Raw, scaled, composite, age-equivalent, index and standard scores (Hutchins & Pratt, 2017).
Cost of Instrument $721 per complete kit including case, examiner’s manual, technical manual, 2 stimulus books, 15 each record forms 1
and 2, 10 each reading and writing supplements 1 and 2, and 50 observational rating scale forms (Hutchins & Pratt,
2017).
Cost of Protocols $106 per examiner’s manual (2013, 304 pages); $99 per technical manual (2013, 95 pages); $193 per stimulus book;
$79.50 per 25 record forms (1 or 2); $27 per 25 reading and writing supplements (1 or 2); $51.50 per 50 observational
rating scales (Hutchins & Pratt, 2017).
List All Personnel Speech-Language Pathologist
Using Instrument
Assessment Norm- and criterion-referenced measure that can aid in the screening and identification of language disorders
Information Use (Hutchins & Pratt, 2017).
Justification and I would recommend this assessment because it seems to be very user friendly and is a well-validated tool that can be
Recommendation used adaptably for a variety of research.
for School Use
References Hutchins, T. L., & Pratt, S. (2017). Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals–Fifth Edition. Mental
Measurements Yearbook, 20. Retrieved July 4, 2019, from https://eds-a-ebscohost-
com.libproxy.lamar.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=4&sid=82ec5bc2-3c72-4d8b-8866-
e8da140f9b0a@sessionmgr4008&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ==#AN=test.6453&db=mmt.

Assessment Instrument Review Ten

Name of Test for Auditory Comprehension of Language – Fourth Edition
Instrument

Publication Date 2017

ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT REVIEW 15

Purpose of Created to assess receptive language ability of children that have issues communicating orally (Baxter & Prelock,
Instrument 2017).
Age or Target Ages 3 through 12
Population
Reliability Vocabulary .94/.93 Grammatical Morphemes .95/.95 Elaborated Phrases and Sentences .96/.95 Composites Vocabulary
.96 Morphology .97 Syntax .97 Receptive Language .97 Expressive Language .97 Oral Language .99 (Baxter &
Prelock, 2017).
Validity CELF-4/CELF Preschool-2 OWLS-II DAB-4 Vocabulary .65 .84 .85 Morphology .68 .83 .81 Syntax .75 .84 .74
Receptive Language .61 .79 .80 Expressive Language .77 .87 .91 Oral Language .79 .90 .87 (Baxter & Prelock, 2017).
Norm Group Co-normed on children ages 3 years 0 months through 12 years 11 months (Baxter & Prelock, 2017). Co-normed on a
Population sample of over 1,100 children from 26 states (Baxter & Prelock, 2017).
Kinds of Scores Raw, standard scores and percentile ranks (Baxter & Prelock, 2017).
Cost of Instrument $355 per kit including examiner’s manual (2014, 103 pages), picture book, 25 examiner record booklets, Critical
Reviews and Research Findings for TACL: 1965-2013, and TACL-4/TEXL comprehensive scoring supplement (Baxter
& Prelock, 2017).
Cost of Protocols $197 per picture book; $101 per manual; $57 per 25 examiner record booklets (Baxter & Prelock, 2017).

List All Personnel Speech Language Pathologist

Using Instrument
Assessment Used to identify students with receptive language issues, ipsative strengths and weaknesses, used to progress monitor
Information Use and research (Baxter & Prelock, 2017).
Justification and Easy to administer and does not take up too much time. The scoring is straightforward. I would recommend this
Recommendation assessment.
for School Use
References Baxter, A., & Prelock, P. A. (2017). Test for Auditory Comprehension of Language--Fourth Edition. Mental
Measurements Yearbook,20. Retrieved July 3, 2019, from https://eds-a-ebscohost-
com.libproxy.lamar.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=12&sid=7ae42b2f-39dc-4ecb-95a3-66de929e547c@sdc-v-
sessmgr02&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ==#AN=test.7499&db=mmt.

Assessment Instrument Review Eleven

Name of Battelle Developmental Inventory - 2
Instrument
ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT REVIEW 16

Publication Date 2007

Purpose of Commonly used to determine if young children have any developmental delays and if they are meeting the
Instrument developmental milestones.
Age or Target Birth – 7 years 11 months
Population
Reliability Test-retest reliability estimates are based on a sample of 252 children at 2 and 4 years of age over a 2- to 25-day retest
interval. Problems are noted with stability for the Attention and Memory subdomain, as well as the COM and COG
domains. Additional stability studies using the entire age range of the test would be helpful. Interscorer agreement was
calculated only on 17 items that require examiners' interpretation, such as the Fine Motor and Perceptual Motor items
in the student workbook (Athanasiou & Spiker, 2007).
Validity Evidence for content validity consists of judgments of professionals regarding coverage of important constructs, as
well as empirical item analysis procedures including item-total correlations, age trends, and model-data-fit statistics.
Items deemed unsatisfactory based on these procedures were deleted (Athanasiou & Spiker, 2007).
Criterion-related evidence for validity was investigated by correlating BDI-2 scores with those of other measures of
development, as well as measures of other constructs (e.g., phonological processing, intelligence, and academic
achievement). Patterns of correlations generally support the BDI-2 constructs, but some of the samples were relatively
small. Additional criterion-related evidence for validity is needed (Athanasiou & Spiker, 2007). Construct validity
evidence is provided in the forms of factor analyses, age differentiation, and patterns of intercorrelations. These indices
support the BDI-2 as a measure of development (Athanasiou & Spiker, 2007).
Norm Group Norm-referenced (2,500 children: birth-7 years 11 months)
Population
Kinds of Scores Scored as typically, sometimes, and rarely or never, raw scores, scaled scores and percentile ranks (Athanasiou &
Spiker, 2007).
Cost of Instrument $1,282 per complete kit with manipulatives including 5 Test Item Books, Examiner's Manual, Stimulus Book, Set of
Presentation Cards, 15 Complete Record Forms, 15 Workbooks, the Screening Test Item Book with 30 Screening Test
Record Forms, Set of Screening Presentation Cards, Screening Stimulus Book, the complete set of BDI-2
manipulatives, and a carrying case (Athanasiou & Spiker, 2007).
Cost of Protocols $405.70 per screener kit with manipulatives including Examiner's Manual, the Screening Test Item Book with 30
Screening Test Record Forms, set of Screening Presentation Cards, Screening Stimulus Book, Screening Test Quick
Reference Guide, manipulatives needed to administer the Screening Test, and a canvas carrying case) (Athanasiou &
Spiker, 2007).
List All Personnel Individual disciplines can assess the domains independently as needed– for example, if the SLP is only assessing
ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT REVIEW 17

Using Instrument Communication or if the OT/PT only need additional scores for physical development (Athanasiou & Spiker, 2007). It
is suggested that there be at least 2 individuals to administer the assessment (one person administering and one person
supporting) (Athanasiou & Spiker, 2007).
Assessment
Information Use It is a flexible, semi-structured assessment that used a combination of sources such as observation of the child,
interviews with parents and caregivers, a thorough developmental history (review of milestones reached each age and
more), social history and interaction with the child using game-like materials, toys, questionnaires, and tasks
(Athanasiou & Spiker, 2007).

Justification and Even though this assessment is time-consuming, I would still recommend using it as it allows for multiple sets of
Recommendation information across multiple domains (Athanasiou & Spiker, 2007).
for School Use
References Athanasiou, M., & Spiker, D. (2007). Battelle Developmental Inventory™, 2nd Edition. Mental Measurements
Yearbook,17. Retrieved July 6, 2019, from https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.libproxy.lamar.edu/ehost/detail/detail?
vid=4&sid=e6a46eda-2508-46f0-81d2-6c31cf43b60c@sdc-v-
sessmgr03&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ==#AN=test.2858&db=mmt.

Assessment Instrument Review Twelve

th
Name of Preschool Language Scale-5 Edition (PLS-5)
Instrument

Publication 2014
Date
Purpose of This instrument is used to evaluate language skills of students in early childhood (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017).
Instrument

Age or Target Birth to the age of 7 (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017).

Population
Reliability There are high reliability coefficients for interrater reliability, measuring between .96-.99 (McKnight & Shapley 2014).
There is also evidence of split-half reliability among the various age groups that fell between .80-.98 (McKnight &
Shapley 2014).
Validity Concurrent validity was found to range from .64-.86 when comparing the PLS-5 to the previous fourth edition (McKnight
ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT REVIEW 18

& Shapley 2014).

Norm Group The PLS-5 was normed using a sample of 1,400 children across 9 months in 2010 (McKnight & Shapley 2014). The
Population sample was stratified using current US census data for variables such as location, race, age and educational level
(McKnight & Shapley, 2014).
Kinds of Scores The results of this instrument can be reported as standard scores, age equivalents, and percentile ranks (McKnight &
Shapley 2014). Additionally, a total language score can be calculated (McKnight & Shapley 2014).
Cost of The instrument costs $358.75 per complete kit with manipulatives including examiner’s manual (2011, 119 pages),
Instrument administration and scoring manual (2011, 191 pages), picture manual, 15 record forms, and 25 Home Communication
Questionnaires (McKnight & Shapley 2014).
Cost of Protocols cost $60 for a pack of 15 (McKnight & Shapley 2014).
Protocols

List All The PLS-5 should only be administered by qualified professionals who have the appropriate certifications, such as an
Personnel educational diagnostician or LSSP (McKnight & Shapley 2014).
Using
Instrument
Assessment The PLS-5 is used to assess language deficits or delays in young children (McKnight & Shapley 2014). The results
Information provided can be used to help in IEP development and placement decisions (McKnight & Shapley 2014).
Use
Justification I would recommend the use of the PLS-5 at my school solely because it seems quite appropriate for young children and
and can assist in the IEP development.
Recommendati
on for School
Use
References McKnight, T., & Shapley, K. (2014). Preschool language scales-Fifth edition. Mental Measurements Yearbook, 19.
Retrieved from https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.libproxy.lamar.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=5&sid=ed2059cb-0acf-
4023-9b0e-1e4d6c71974e%40sessionmgr4008&bdata=JmxvZ2luLmFzcCZzaXRlPWVob3N0LWxpdmU
%3d#AN=test.3289&db=mmt

Pierangelo, R., & Giuliani, G. A. (2017). Assessment in special education: A practical approach (5th ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson.

Assessment Instrument Review Thirteen

ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT REVIEW 19

Name of First Step: Screening Test for Evaluating Preschoolers (FIRSTep)

Instrument

Publication 2016
Date
Purpose of This instrument is an OT and PT assessment that identifies students with moderated motor delays (Pierangelo & Giuliani,
Instrument 2017).
Age or Target The FIRSTep is designed for students between the ages of two and six (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017).
Population
Reliability The reliability of this instrument is evidenced to be good (Overton, 1998). Language reliability coefficients averaged .87
while motor coefficients averaged at a .71 (Overton, 1998). Test-retest reliability coefficients were high across all domains,
although the highest was in language with a coefficient of .91 (Overton, 1998).
Validity Criterion-related validity was assessed, and it was found that there was an inability to recognize false positives (Overton,
1998). However, when compared to tests of the same nature, this appears to be consistent across the board (Overton,
1998).
Norm Group Normed using 1,433 kids with an equal ratio of males to females (Overton, 1998). There were seven different age groups
Population from nine geographic regions of the United States and were standardized using Census information (Overton, 1998).
Kinds of Scores Raw scores, composite scores, subtest scores, scale scores and an overall composite score is generated (Overton, 1998).
Cost of The FIRSTep cost is $305.30 per complete kit including 5 record forms each for levels 1, 2, and 3, 25 Social-
Instrument Emotional/Adaptive Behavior booklets, 25 Parent booklets, manipulatives in a plastic case, and manual (1993, 166 pages)
(Overton, 1998).
Cost of Protocols cost is $58.85 per 25 record forms (specify level); $30.35 per 25 Social-Emotional Scale/Adaptive Behavior
Protocols checklists; $30.35 per 25 Parent/Teacher Scales; $147.75 per manual; $35.25 per manipulatives; $96.20 per stimulus
booklet. (Overton, 1998).
List All This assessment should only be administered by trained medical professionals (Overton, 1998).
Personnel
Using
Instrument
Assessment This instrument identifies students with motor deficits (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017). It can also be used to monitor
Information physical progress and results can help in the decision making process for related services (Overton, 1998).
Use
Justification Being an elementary teacher, I would recommend the use of the FIRSTep as it is a great way to evaluate those with
and developmental delays (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2017).
ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT REVIEW 20

Recommendati
on for School
Use
References Overton, T. (1998). First step: Screening test for evaluating preschoolers. Mental Measurements Yearbook, 13. Retrieved
from https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.libproxy.lamar.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=26&sid=ed2059cb-0acf-4023-9b0e-
1e4d6c71974e%40sessionmgr4008&bdata=JmxvZ2luLmFzcCZzaXRlPWVob3N0LWxpdmU
%3d#AN=test.1673&db=mmt

Pierangelo, R., & Giuliani, G. A. (2017). Assessment in special education: A practical approach (5th ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson.

Assessment Instrument Review Fourteen

Name of SIPT
Instrument

Publication Date 1995

Purpose of Designed to assess several practical abilities, various aspects of sensory processing status, and behavioral
Instrument manifestations of deficits in integration of sensory inputs from these systems (Ysseldyke, 1995).
Age or Target Ages 4-8 years 11 months
Population
Reliability Reliability data are restricted to those derived from administering the test to 41 dysfunctional children and 10 normal
children. On the basis of data provided in tables, it looks like all 41 dysfunctional children were labeled LD. The
children are of unspecified characteristics except for gender. For the entire sample of 51 children a total of 78 test-
retest reliabilities are reported. Three of the 78 exceed .90. Ten of the reliabilities reported for this test are below .40;
43 are at or below .70. Interrater reliabilities are also reported. The SIPT does not have the necessary reliability to be
used for diagnostic purposes (Ysseldyke, 1995).
Validity Reliability is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for validity (Ysseldyke, 1995).

Norm Group Based on a national sample of more than 2,000 children (Ysseldyke, 1995).
Population
Kinds of Scores Scores: 17 tests: Space Visualization, Figure-Ground Perception, Standing and Walking Balance, Design Copying,
Postural Praxis, Bilateral Motor Coordination, Praxis Verbal Command, Constructional Praxis, Postrotary Nystagmus,
ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT REVIEW 21

Motor Accuracy, Sequencing Praxis, Oral Praxis, Manual Form Perception, Kinesthesia, Finger Identification,
Graphesthesia, Localization of Tactile Stimuli (Ysseldyke, 1995).
Cost of Instrument $1,100 per set including all test materials, 25 copies of each consumable test form, 10 complete sets of all 17
computer-scored answer sheets with 10 transmittal sheets, manual (307 pages), and carrying case (Ysseldyke, 1995).
Cost of Protocols Additional scoring package, 10 $300, 25 $600 (Ysseldyke, 1995).

List All Personnel Administration of the SIPT requires advanced training in sensory integration theory and certification in test
Using Instrument administration and interpretation. Certification is available to occupational therapists, physical therapists, and speech-
language pathologists (Ysseldyke, 1995).
Assessment The SIPT provides therapists with a unique perspective on the underlying causes for problems in occupational
Information Use performance (Ysseldyke, 1995).
Justification and It is time consuming for young children although it is very thorough and comprehensive. I would recommend using
Recommendation this test when needed.
for School Use
References Ysseldyke, J. E. (1995). Sensory Integration and Praxis Tests. Mental Measurements Yearbook,12. Retrieved July 6,
2019, from https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.libproxy.lamar.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=33&sid=e6a46eda-2508-
46f0-81d2-6c31cf43b60c@sdc-v-
sessmgr03&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ==#AN=test.904&db=mmt.