Web site: www.gallaudet.edu/~catraxle/reviews.html
1. COGNITIVE
ASSESSMENT
2. ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR AND
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL ASSESSMENT
3. DEVELOPMENTAL/CRITERION-BASED
SCALES
4. ACADEMIC/READINESS
ASSESSMENT [Go to list of tests]
[Go to "Assessing Deaf Students' Academic, Readiness, and Language Skills"]
[Go to "Assessment of Deaf Infants, Toddlers, and Preschoolers"]
The 1997-98 Update to the Four Test Review was developed by Anne Spragins. Much of the information included in this review has previously appeared in the following:
Mullen, Y., & Spragins, A.B. (1998, March). Deaf Children and Schools: Choosing and Using Appropriate Assessment Instruments. Paper presented at the annual convention of the National Association of School Psychologists, Orlando, FL.
Spragins, A.B., Anthony, S., & Swiff, H.M. (1996, March). Specializing in services to deaf: What do we do? Paper presented at the annual convention of the National Association of School Psychologists, Atlanta, GA.
Spragins, A.B. (1989, March). Guidelines for assessing preschool hearing impaired children.
Paper presented at the annual convention of the National Association of School Psychologists, Boston, MA.
Spragins, A.B., & Hill, D. (1988, April). Deaf infants, assessment & school psychologists: What will 99-457 mean? Paper presented at the annual convention of the National Association of School Psychologists, Chicago, IL.
Mullen, Y., & Spragins, A. (1987, March). Deaf students and psychological services: What psychologists need to know. Workshop presented at the annual convention of the National Association of School Psychology, New Orleans, LA.
Spragins, A., & Blennerhassett, L. (1983, May). Evaluating deaf students: What the school psychologist should know. Workshop presented at the annual convention of the National Association of School Psychologists, Detroit, MI.
Spragins, A., Spencer Day, P., & Blennerhassett, L., (1982). Intellectual, adaptive, social-emotional, developmental, language, and academic tests used with hearing impaired children. Workshop materials presented for the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Rockville, MD.
Spragins, A.B., & Blennerhassett, L. (1978). Intellectual, adaptive, social-emotional,
developmental, language, and academic tests used with hearing impaired children. Workshop materials
presented through the W. K. Kellogg/Gallaudet College "Special Schools of the Future" project,
Washington, DC.
CONSIDERATIONS IN EVALUATING DEAF
There is more to assessing the skills and competencies of deaf and hard of hearing children and youth
than simply selecting an evaluation instrument from a list of recommended tests. Randy Kamphaus, in one
of his books directed to the clinical practitioner, Clinical Assessment of Children's Intelligence: A
Handbook for Professional Practice, shares the following opinion:
"The examiner who is unfamiliar with hearing-impaired children and the issue of hearing impairments
in general may be able to get a score, perhaps even an accurate score. The central issues, however, are
interpretation of that score and treatment plan design. An examiner with greater expertise
related to the child's referral problem will simply be able to better understand the etiology, course,
and treatments. It's a matter similar to seeing a psychiatrist for heart problems. While the
psychiatrist can perhaps obtain relevant EKG and other test scores, I personally would feel better in the
hands of a cardiologist!" (Kamphaus, 1993, p. 400).
Blennerhassett, L. (in press). Psychological Assessment. In P. Hindley & N. Kitson (Eds.).
Mental health and deafness. London: Whurr Publications.
Braden, J.P. (1994). Deafness, deprivation, and IQ. New York: Plenum Pub. Co.
Braden, J. P. (1992). Intellectual assessment of deaf and hard-of-hearing people: A quantitative and
qualitative research synthesis. School Psychology Review, 21(1), 82-94.
Bradley-Johnson, S., & Evans, L.D. (1991). Psychoeducational assessment of
hearing-impaired students. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Heller, P. J. (1990). Psycho-Educational assessment. In M. Ross (Ed.) Hearing-impaired children
in the mainstream (pp. 61-81). Parkton, MD: York Press.
Levine, E. S. (1981). The ecology of early deafness: Guides to fashioning environments and
psychological assessments. New York: Columbia University Press.
Marschark, M. (1993). Psychological development of deaf children. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Sullivan, P.M., & Burley, S.K. (1990). Mental testing of the hearing-impaired child. In C.R.
Reynolds & R.W. Kamphaus (Eds.) Handbook of psychological and educational assessment of children:
Intelligence and achievement (pp. 761-788). New York: Guilford Press.
Traxler, C.B. (1989). The role of assessment in placing deaf students in academic and vocational
courses. In T. E. Allen, B. W. Rawlings, & A. N. Schildroth (Eds.) Deaf students and the
school-to-work transition (pp. 119-141). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Pub.
Vernon, M., & Alles, B. F. (1986). Psychoeducational assessment of deaf and hard-of-hearing
children and adolescents. In P. J. Lazarus & S. S. Strichart (Eds.), Psychoeducational evaluation
of children and adolescents with low-incidence handicaps (pp. 103-123). Orlando, FL: Grune &
Stratton, Inc.
Vess, S. M., & Douglas, L.S. (1995). Program planning for children who are deaf or severely hard
of hearing. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.). Best practices in school psychology-III (pp.
1123-1133). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
Although there is little empirical information about deaf and hard of hearing youngsters as thinkers
and learners, Vess and Douglas (1995) make the point that:
". . . hearing loss apparently alters their [deaf and hard of hearing children's] learning style so
that they often depend on experiential/visual learning modalities. Further, because these children have
no undistorted access to the flow of language and information in the environment, they quite reasonably
can demonstrate gaps in vocabulary, language, and conceptual knowledge, especially understanding and
using abstract concepts" (Vess & Douglas, 1995, p. 1127).
Achievement tests in general are used to evaluate the student's knowledge and understanding in
specified curricula areas, e.g., reading and math, and intended to assess the extent to which a student
has profited from schooling and other life experiences. Testing school readiness, on the other hand, is
not a unique kind of measurement. In Salvia and Ysseldyke's (1991) book, Assessment, tests of
"readiness" are described as:
"First, readiness tests are typically administered before school entry as during kindergarten.
Second, the tests are used to predict initial school success and to select those children who perform
poorly -- and thus are thought not to be ready for regular school experiences -- for participation in
remedial or compensatory education programs or delayed school entry" (p. 471).
For deaf and hard of hearing youngsters, identifying broad areas of academic strength and weaknesses
with an eye toward matching the youngster's present state of knowledge and academic and conceptual skills
with the appropriate curriculum placement, might be the goal of academic and readiness assessment. It is
unlikely that any one test instrument described in the following test review will provide sufficient
information to determine what a student can or cannot do correctly or what a student needs to learn to be
successful in a specific curriculum. Examiners skilled in educational evaluation and knowledgeable about
the potential impact of deafness on children's learning, typically use a variety of assessment
instruments -- including informal assessment and curriculum-based assessment -- to make critical
judgements about a deaf or hard of hearing child's state of knowledge and intervention/placement needs.
It is typical in assessing deaf and hard of hearing youngsters that examiners from a variety of
professions work as a team in order to ensure that there is a transfer of information, knowledge, or
skills across disciplinary boundaries. While psychologists often are responsible for evaluation in the
areas of cognition, adaptive behavior and social-emotional development, developmental and/or self-help
skills, and academic/readiness, the critical area of languge assessment for deaf and hard of hearing
children is best approached by speech-language professionals familiar with deaf and hard of hearing
children. Speech and language assessment, encompassed within the broader meaning of communication, e.g.,
content, method, attitudes and emotions, quality, quantity, and effectiveness of communication, are often
a critical element in the complete and comprehensive assessment of a deaf or hard of hearing individual
A developmental, functional, integrated approach to assessment often is the goal of professionals
working with very young deaf children. In order to make a worthwhile appraisal of the child's skills and
learning processes, evaluators have used approaches ranging from the structured use of the Bayley
Scales of Infant Development - Second Edition (1993) to the more interactive play-based assessments,
such as Linder's Transdisciplinary Play-Based Assessment (1990).
Some evaluators report beginning the assessment with a structured instrument such as the
Bayley or the Central Institute for the Deaf Preschool Performance Scale (CID) (1984);
then moving to a more developmental measure such as those listed in this test review; and finally moving
to a play-based approach, in order to develop a complete picture of the child's skills, abilities, and
functional level.
For other evaluators, the play-based approach has become the instrument of choice for toddlers and
preschoolers. Linder (1990) writes of her approach:
"Transdisciplinary play-based sessions provided information on the child's developmental skills and
learning style, and not only translated into objectives for the child, but also elucidated intervention
strategies for the teams that worked with the child. The child-centered approach to assessment provided a
direct link to child-centered approaches to intervention" (p. x).
Whatever approach is chosen for working with young deaf and hard of hearing children, it is essential
that the evaluator have a firm foundation in developmental work with young children and an understanding
of the communication issues created by the fact of hearing loss.
TESTS OF ACADEMIC AND READINESS SKILLS I. ACADEMIC SKILLS
1. STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT - NINTH EDITION
2. PEABODY INDIVIDUAL ACHIEVEMENT TEST - REVISED
3. KEYMATH REVISED: A DIAGNOSTIC INVENTORY OF ESSENTIAL
MATHEMATICS
4. WOODCOCK READING MASTERY TESTS - REVISED
5. BRIGANCE DIAGNOSTIC INVENTORY OF BASIC SKILLS
6. WOODCOCK-JOHNSON PSYCHO-EDUCATIONAL BATTERY
7. KAUFMAN TEST OF EDUCATIONAL ACHIEVEMENT
8. SEQUENTIAL ASSESSMENT OF MATHEMATICS INVENTORIES
9. TEST OF WRITTEN LANGUAGE - THIRD EDITION
II. READINESS SKILLS
10. BRACKEN BASIC CONCEPT SCALE
11. TEST OF EARLY MATHEMATICS ABILITY - SECOND EDITION
12. TEST OF EARLY READING ABILITY - DEAF OR HARD OF HEARING
13. METROPOLITAN READINESS TESTS - SIXTH EDITION
14. TEST OF RELATION CONCEPTS: NORMS FOR DEAF CHILDREN
Developed by:
USED WITH DEAF AND
HARD OF HEARING STUDENTS
|
Anne B. Spragins, Ph.D. Lynne Blennerhassett, Ed.D. Psychology Department Gallaudet University 800 Florida Ave. N.E. Washington, D.C. 20002 |
Yvonne Mullen, Ed.D. Division of Psychology CLARKE - School for the Deaf/Center for Oral Ed. Round Hill Road Northampton, MA 01060 |
1. STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST - 9TH EDITION (1996)
DISTRIBUTED BY:
Gallaudet Research Institute
Gallaudet University
800 Florida Ave. N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20002-3625
Ph: (202) 651-5575 (Vor TTY)
FAX: (202) 651-5746
For Updated Information: http://www.gallaudet.edu/~catraxle/sat-faq.html
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The STANFORD Achievement Test, 9th Edition (Stanford 9) Form S, is a widely used achievement test
published in 1995 by Harcourt Brace educational Measurement (formerly The Psychological Corporation),
San Antonio, Texas. The Stanford 9 is an achievement test which measures the abilities and skills of
students in subject areas: e.g., reading, language, spelling, mathematics, science, and social science; the test
reflects the curriculum content commonly taught in grades 1 through 9 throughout the United States. The
Stanford 9 is available in eight difficulty levels which measure content considered appropriate for
HEARING students in specific grades in school. The Stanford 9 used with deaf students is NOT different
from the Stanford used with hearing students, i.e., test items and questions are exactly the same for both
deaf and hearing students. In testing it's deaf students, a school usually orders screening tests from the
Gallaudet Research Institute (GRI); administers and scores the screening tests; on the basis of a screening
test, the school assigns the appropriate Stanford 9 level to each student and orders the Stanford 9 materials
from GRI. The Stanford 9 may also be ordered directly from the publisher.
To determine which subtests to administer to deaf students, consult the booklet Stanford Achievement Test,
9th Edition: Administration Procedures for Deaf & Hard-of-Hearing Students (1996), available from
Gallaudet Research Institute. For questions relating to the test, i.e., ordering, administration, norms for deaf
or hard of hearing, etc., call GRI personnel or use the Internet and check the web site listed above.
The Stanford 9 provides various kinds of scores: raw scores, grade equivalent scores, scaled scores, and age
based percentile rankings. Also available is a Score Summary Folder which can be compiled for each
student profiling that student in the Reading Vocabulary, Reading Comprehension, Mathematics: Problem
Solving, Mathematics: Procedures, Spelling, and Language subtests. Graphs for each of the subtests indicate
the student's performance in scaled scores, grade equivalents for hearing students, and each graph shows
the median score (50th percentile) for the 1996 norming sample representing the deaf and hard-of-hearing
special education population in 1996, by age.
NORMS
The GRI norming project of 1996 extends the work of the Psychological Corporation by allowing
comparisons of deaf and hard of hearing student's performance with that of their deaf and hard of hearing
age group. The Psychological Corporation norms allow comparisons with hearing students. The data for the
norming sample of deaf and hard of hearing students on the Stanford 9, are available only by contacting
Gallaudet Research Institute.
ADVANTAGES
1. The Stanford 9 provides screening tests to determine which level subtest to administer to deaf or hard of hearing students. Since many deaf and hard of hearing students develop reading skills at a slower pace than hearing students of the same age, assigning the proper level of the Stanford 9 on the basis of age or grade in school can be a problem. GRI provides a booklet to guide the use of screening tests and encourages schools to be sure to use the screening test procedure and not simply assign students to a test level based on the student's age or grade in school.
2. A norm booklet, a booklet containing frequently asked questions, and other helpful printed material (plus regularly updated Internet information) is provided by GRI to help interpret tests scores.
3. Grade equivalent scores representing the average performance of HEARING students tested in a given month of the year with a specific subtest of the Stanford 9 are provided for comparison purposes.
4. The new Stanford 9 has a different mathematics measurement than the old SAT-8. Developed in alignment with the Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics recommended by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, the Stanford 9 mathematics subtests contain items that are set within a context of realistic problems; therefore, both mathematics subtests rely on verbal information. GRI provides only a screening test in Reading for the Stanford 9 (no longer an additional screening test in Mathematics), since the mathematics subtests on the Stanford 9 are more dependent on verbal information than the previous mathematics computation subtest.
5. GRI provides a booklet giving conversion tables for the Stanford 9 scaled scores to the SAT-8 scaled scores, for those who need to make this comparison.
6. Large-print and braille editions of the Stanford 9 are available from the American Printing House
for the Blind.
DISADVANTAGES
1. The Stanford 9 is a group test which does provide an Individual Student Report, but is generally given to a group of students.
2. The test is lengthy to administer even if only the Mathematics and Reading subtests are given.
3. Since the test was designed to measure content which is considered appropriate for hearing students in specific grades in school, there may be a question as to whether the content material was covered in the deaf student's curriculum. If a school wants to determine whether the test is aligned with their curriculum, contact Harcourt Brace Educational Measurement (800-228-0752) and ask for the Stanford 9's Compendium of Instructional Objectives.
4. Some advanced students may "top out" (answer all items or 90% correctly), therefore leaving a question as to what their achievement level actually is. It has been reported that the Stanford 9, like the older SAT-8, may be good for the "middle of the road" deaf or hard of hearing student, but not give enough information about the reading or math ability of the higher achieving student. More data is needed to see if this comment holds for the newly designed mathematics measurement on the Stanford 9.
5. Examiners must remember that when comparison of deaf and hard of hearing students are made
with hearing students, the comparison often involves comparing older deaf and hard of hearing
students to younger hearing students who took the same test level. This information is only
considered a disadvantage when the examiner uses the deaf/hearing comparison information
incorrectly.
Allen, T.E. (1996). Stanford Achievement Test, 9th Edition, and WISC-III and Their Use with
Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students: Progress Report [world wide Web document].
URL:http://www.gallaudet.edu/~cadsweb/satprogr.html.
Traxler, C.B. (1996). Frequently Asked Questions About the Stanford Achievement Test [World
Wide Web document]. URL:http://www.gallaudet.edu/~catraxle/sat-faq.html.
REFERENCES (FOR SAT-8 AND EARLIER FORMS OF SAT)
Allen, T.E. (April, 1984). Out-of-level testing with the Stanford Achievement Test (Seventh
Edition): A procedure for assigning students to the correct battery level. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Allen, T.E., White, C.S., & Karchmer, M.A. (1983). Issues in the development of a special edition
for hearing-impaired students of the seventh edition of the Stanford Achievement Test. American Annals of
the Deaf, l28(1), 34-39.
Braden, J.P. (1989). The criterion-related validity of the WISC-R Performance Scale and other
nonverbal IQ tests for deaf children. American Annals of the Deaf, 134(5), 329-332.
Braden, J.P., Wollack, J.A., & Allen, T.E. (1995). A reply to Kishor: Choosing the right metric.
Journal of Psychoeducuational Assessment, 13(3), 250-265.
Convey, J.J., & Koelle, W.H. (1981). Improving the prediction of achievement of deaf adolescents
by modifying a locus of control and self-concept instrument. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Eastern Educational Research Association, Philadelphia, PA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
210 875).
French, D.B. (1987). Validity, test bias, and the use of the Special Edition of the Stanford
Achievement Test for the Hearing Impaired (SAT-HI) with Canadian students. A.C.E.H.I. Journal, 13 (3),
104-116.
Holt, J.A. (1995). Efficiency of screening procedures for assigning levels of the Stanford
Achievement Test (Eighth Edition) to students who are deaf or hard of hearing. American Annals of the
Deaf, 140(1), 23-27.
Holt, J. (1994). Classroom attributes and achievement test scores for deaf and hard of hearing
students. American Annals of the Deaf, 139 (4), 430-437.
Holt, J.A., Traxler, C.B., & Allen, T.E. (1992). Interpreting the scores: A user's guide to the 8th
Edition Stanford Achievement Test for educators of deaf and hard of hearing students.
Holt, J.A., & Allen, T.E. (1989). The effects of schools and their curricula on the reading and
mathematics achievement of hearing impaired students. International Journal of Educational Research,
13(5), 547-561.
Jensema, C. (1978). A comment on measurement error in achievement tests for the hearing
impaired. American Annals of the Deaf, 123(4), 496-499.
Kelly, M., & Braden, J. (1990). Criterion-related validity of the WISC-R Performance Scale with
the Stanford Achievement Test-Hearing-Impaired Edition. Journal of Special Education, 26(3), 235-252.
Kishor, N. (1995). Evaluating predictive validity by using different scales of the Stanford
Achievement Test for the Hearing Impaired. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 13(3), 241-249.
Kishor, N. Evaluating predictive validity: A rejoinder to Braden et al. (1995). (1995). Journal of
Psychoeducational Assessment 13(3), 266-270.
Martin, D.S. (1987). Improving cognitive skills of hearing-impaired college students. Final report
of the Field-Initiated Research Project. Gallaudet University, Washington, DC 20002.
Martin, D.S. (April, 1983). Cognitive education for the hearing-impaired adolescent. Paper
presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
Martin, D.S., & Jonas, B.S. (1988). Cognitive enhancement of hearing-impaired post-secondary
students (Revised). Project Field-Initiated Research Program No. 023DH60039. Gallaudet University,
Washington, DC 20002.
Messerly, C. (1986). The use of computer-assisted instruction in facilitating the acquisition of math
skills with hearing-impaired high school students. Volta Review, 88 (2), 67-77.
Moores, D.F., & Sweet, C. (1990).Factors predictive of school achievement. In D.F. Moores & K.P.
Meadow-Orlans (Eds.), Educational and developmental aspects of deafness. Washington, DC: Gallaudet
University Press.
Scherer, M.J. (April, 1987). Factors affecting persistence of deaf college students. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC.
Spencer, P., & Delk, L. (1989). Hearing-impaired students' performance on tests of visual
processing: Relationships with reading performance. American Annals of the Deaf, 134(5), 333-337.
Townsley, L. (1985). Latin as a vocabulary builder for hearing-impaired and second-language
students of English. Teaching English to Deaf and Second Language Students, 3 (1), 4-8.
Trybus, R.J., & Jensema, C. (1976). The development use, and interpretation of the 1973 Stanford
Achievement Test, Special Edition for Hearing Impaired Students. Center for Assessment and Demographic
Studies, Gallaudet University, 800 Florida Ave. NE, Washington, DC, 20002.
Trybus, R.J., & Karchmer, M.A. (1977). School achievement scores of hearing-impaired children:
National data on achievement status and growth patterns. American Annals of the Deaf Directory of
Programs and Services, 122, 62-69.
Wolk, S., & Zieziula, F.R. (1985). Reliability of the 1973 Edition of the SAT-HI over time:
Implication for assessing minority students. American Annals of the Deaf, 130 (4), 285-290.
Wolk, S., & Allesn, T.E. (1984). A five-year follow-up of reading-comprehension achievement of
hearing-impaired students in special education programs. Journal of Special Education, 18 (2), 161-176.
Wolk, S., & Schildroth, A. (1985). A longitudinal study of deaf students' use of an associational
strategy on a reading comprehension test. Journal of Research in Reading, 8(2), 82-93.
Wolk, S., & Schildroth, A. (1984). Consistency of an associational strategy used by hearing-impaired students. Journal of Research in Reading, 7(2), 135-142.
2. PEABODY INDIVIDUAL ACHIEVEMENT TEST- REVISED (1989)
PUBLISHER
American Guidance Service
4201 Woodland Rd.
PO Box 99
Circle Pines, MN 55014-1796
Ph: 800-328-2560
FAX:612-786-9077
E-mail:ags@skypoint.com
Web site: www.agsnet.com
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The PIAT-R is an individually administered wide-range screening measure of achievement covering
mathematics, reading recognition, reading comprehension, spelling, written language, and general
information, appropriate for grades kindergarten through high school. Although the PIAT-R contains many
new items, including the new "Written Expression", it was designed to measure substantially the same
content areas as the original PIAT. The revised test is said to be more representative of current curricular
content. The PIAT-R provides grade- and age-based standard scores (X=100; SD=15); percentile ranks, and
a stanine scale.
The PIAT-R is appropriate for ages 5 through 18 years.
ADVANTAGES
1. Three of the five subtest use a multiple-choice format and require only a pointing response.
2. No time limits.
3. Item content seems appropriate.
DISADVANTAGES
1. No standardization for deaf or hard of hearing students.
2. "General information" section depends heavily on language skill, specifically syntactic abilities, in order to understand the questions.
3. Higher levels of "reading recognition" require correct phonetic pronunciation of words for credit.
4. Wording of questions in various subtests is complex.
5. The PIAT-R is not designed for use as a diagnostic test in any of the content areas it covers as it is designed to identify an individual's general level of achievement. If used correctly it may or may not be useful for deaf students.
6. The items on the PIAT-R were selected to represent a cross section of various curricula in use
across the United States, rather than to reflect the curriculum of any individual school system.
Items may or may not reflect the curriculum used in classes for deaf children in some school
systems.
Davis, J.M., Elfenbein, J., Schum, R., & Bentler, R.A. (1986). Effects of mild and moderate
hearing impairments on language, educational, and psychosocial behavior of children. Journal of Speech &
Hearing Disorders, 51, 53-62.
Moores, D.F., & Sweet, C. (1990). Factors predictive of school achievement. In D.F. Moores &
K.P. Meadow-Orlans (Eds.), Educational and developmental aspects of deafness. Washington, DC:
Gallaudet University Press.
3. KEYMATH REVISED: A DIAGNOSTIC INVENTORY OF ESSENTIAL MATHEMATICS
(1988)
PUBLISHER
American Guidance Service
4201 Woodland Rd.
PO Box 99
Circle Pines, MN 55014-1796
Ph: 800-328-2560
FAX:612-786-9077
E-mail:ags@skypoint.com
Web site: www.agsnet.com
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
KeyMath-R is a content-referenced test with provisions for normative interpretation. The test is an
untimed, individually administered test that assesses mathematical skills in three major areas: Basic
Concepts, Operations, and Applications. It contains thirteen subtests. Scores provided are standard scores
(X=100; SD=15) for the total test and for each of the three domains; subtest yield scaled scores (X=10;
SD=3) percentile ranks for each subtest scaled scores and for the area and total test standard scores; grade
and age equivalents and stanines.
KeyMath - R is appropriate for kindergarten through Grade 9 (students age 5 through 13 years).
NORMS
National norms were developed in 1986 using a U.S. student population in grades K through 9 with
representation based on the latest U.S. Census and stratification variables, geographic region, grade, gender,
socioeconomic status, race or ethnic group. No deaf or hard of hearing students are reported in the sample.
ADVANTAGES
1. Breaks math into components such that a profile of skills can be produced.
2. Can see a comparison between the student's performance on the total test and that of peers at the same grade or age level; and a comparison between student's area scores and those of the reference group.
3. Provides useful information that can guide teachers in selecting appropriate procedures for remediation. KeyMath-R is a diagnostic instrument whose utility is closely tied to the meaningfulness of the test interpretation.
4. Alternate test forms (A and B) are available for the KeyMath-R.
DISADVANTAGES
1. There are no norms for deaf or hard of hearing students.
2. Instructions for some items require processing syntactically complex language.
3. "Missing elements" and "word problems" draw too heavily on language skills for use with some
deaf or hard of hearing students.
4. WOODCOCK READING MASTERY TESTS - REVISED (1987)
PUBLISHER
American Guidance Service
4201 Woodland Rd.
PO Box 99
Circle Pines, MN 55014-1796
Ph: 800-328-2560
FAX:612-786-9077
E-mail:ags@skypoint.com
Web site: www.agsnet.com
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The WRMT-R is a comprehensive battery of tests measuring several important aspects of reading ability. It
consists of six tests and two separate supplementary checklists arranged in three clusters: Readiness Cluster
(Form G only), Basic Skills cluster, Reading Comprehension Cluster. Scores are available for the three
clusters and for Total Reading (Full or Short Scale). The test is available in two forms, i.e., Form G is a
complete test battery, Form H contains only the tests of reading achievement. Scores available are: standard
scores (X=100, SD=15), age and grade equivalents, and age- and grade-based percentile ranks.
The WRMT-R is appropriate for ages 5 to 75+years.
ADVANTAGES
1. Simple to administer.
2. Provides an instructional level profile; percentile rank profile; and a diagnostic profile for the three clusters, i.e., readiness, basic skills, reading comprehension.
3. The Word Comprehension test allows evaluation in four content areas which provides diagnostic information in reading development.
4. Reliabilities calculated using the split-half procedure are in the .90's.
DISADVANTAGES
1. No norms for deaf or hard of hearing students.
2. Oral pronunciation of words, use of rebuses, analogies and cloze procedures, all used in this test, are particularly difficult for deaf, hard of hearing and/or language-impaired students.
3. The Word Identification and Word Attack tests may be inappropriate for many deaf or hard of
hearing students.
5. BRIGANCE DIAGNOSTIC COMPREHENSIVE INVENTORY OF BASIC SKILLS (1983)
BRIGANCE INVENTORY OF EARLY DEVELOPMENT (1978)
PUBLISHER
Curriculum Associates
P.O. Box 2001
North Billerica, MA 01862
Ph: 508-667-8000
FAX: 800-366-1158
Web site: www.curriculumassociates.com
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
There are two inventories of basic skills:
Brigance, A. H. (1983). Brigance Diagnostic Comprehensive Inventory of Basic Skills (CIBS)
Brigance, A.H. (1978). Inventory of Early Development (IED)
The CIBS is a "criterion-referenced" instrument with 198 specific-objective tests in 7 areas. It is designed to
monitor individual student progress through an objectives-based curriculum. An accompanying
record-keeping system supports the flexible assessment system.
The IED includes 98 skill sequences from birth through the developmental age of six years. It is based on
observable functions, sequenced by task analysis correlated with child development and thus can be used as
a criterion referenced tool. For normative use of the instrument developmental ages are referenced to a
consensus of age norms provided in the literature. The author suggests that the principal use of the IED is
to identify skill areas where a child may need more practice or training.
ADVANTAGES - CIBS
1. Criterion-referenced.
2. Covers a wide range of school-related skills from K-9 levels.
3. Provides a systematic structure for non-formal assessment.
4. Leads easily into generation of goals for IEP.
5. Single tests and items can be used separately.
DISADVANTAGES - CIBS
1. Many items measure phonetic decoding, oral reading, etc., which are not appropriate for deaf or hard of hearing children.
2. Items selected for use must be tied to the curriculum objectives in the child's school.
3. Lack of information on item quality, content and construct validity, and standard setting methods
limit the generalizability of results obtained.
ADVANTAGES - IED
1. The developmental task-analytic model used as a basis for the IED combines norm- and criterion-based elements, and links assessment and curriculum goal planning.
2. Common objects in the classroom or home can be used to supplement the test.
3. Pragmatic modifications of tasks can be made.
4. A variety of response styles, e.g., verbal, pointing, eye localization, paper-pencil behaviors are allowed.
5. Assessment and intervention elements are linked in one format, i.e., the developmental/task analytic hierarchy.
6. Selected domain areas of interest may be administered rather than the entire test.
7. Easy to use and motivating for children.
DISADVANTAGES - IED
1. No formal validity or reliability studies exist at this time.
2. No social-emotional skill domain is provided.
3. Some task analyses are not sufficiently narrow to accommodate the functional capabilities of
severely and multihandicapped young children.
6. WOODCOCK JOHNSON PSYCHO-EDUCATIONAL BATTERY - REVISED (1990)
DISTRIBUTED BY
Riverside Publishing
425 Spring Lake Drive
Itasca, IL 60143
Ph:800-323-9540
FAX: 630-467-7192
Web site: www.riverpub.com
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The WJ-R is a wide-range, comprehensive set of individually administered tests for measuring cognitive
abilities, scholastic aptitudes, and achievement. There are two major parts: the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of
Cognitive Ability (WJ-R COG) and the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement (WJ-R ACH). Both are
subdivided into a Standard Battery and a Supplemental Battery.
Derived scores (standard scores with X=100, SD=15), Relative Mastery Index, grade and age equivalent
scores are available for all individual tests and clusters. There are procedures for norm-based evaluation of
intra-cognitive and intra-achievement discrepancies as well as aptitude/achievement discrepancies. A
computer program that generates scores and interpretive narrative reports for the Woodcock-Johnson-Revised is available. Also available is the Bateria Woodcock-Munoz-Revisada (1996) for monolingual or
nearly monolingual Spanish-speaking students.
The WJ-R is appropriate for individuals 24 months to 90 years of age.
ADVANTAGES
1. The test is often used and understood as a good reference by school personnel.
2. Selected tests on the Cognitive Scale may provide useful information about deaf or hard of hearing
students' abilities.
DISADVANTAGES
1. There are no norms for deaf or hard of hearing students and no research information concerning the performance of deaf students on the tests.
2. Of the 21 tests included in the WJ-R COG Standard and Supplementary Battery, 7 tests require the use of an audio tape; 2 of the 7 tests in the Standard Battery require use of an audio tape.
3. Scoring the WJ-R is an arduous job if one wants to use standard scores rather than grade or age equivalent and if one wants to use selected tests rather than cluster scores.
7. KAUFMAN TEST OF EDUCATIONAL ACHIEVEMENT (1985)
PUBLISHER
American Guidance Service
4201 Woodland Road
P.O. box 99
Circle Pines, MN 55014-1796
Ph: 800-328-2560
FAX: 612-786-9077
E-Mail: ags@skypoint.com
Web site: WWW.agsnet.com
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The K-TEA is an individually administered measure of the school achievement of children and adolescents.
The test has a Brief Form including the areas of Reading, Mathematics and Spelling, and a Comprehensive
Form which includes specific domains, i.e., Reading Decoding, Reading Comprehension, Mathematics
Applications, Mathematics Computation, and Spelling.
Scores provided are standard scores (X=100; SD=15), grade and age equivalent, and percentile rank. Both
Comprehensive and Brief forms offer norm-referenced measurement of domains and the Comprehensive
Form also provides criterion-referenced assessment in analysis of students' errors.
The test is appropriate for ages 6 years to 18 years 11 months (or grades 1 through 12).Testing time for the
Comprehensive Form is approximately one to one and one quarter hours.
ADVANTAGES
1. The manual clearly states, "... Whenever a verbal response is required (except for the identification of letters or reading or words in Reading Decoding), it makes no difference whether the student responds in English, sign language, a subcultural slang, or another language such as Spanish or Vietnamese. Give the student credit for any response that can clearly be defended as correct. It is therefore always desirable that examiners be familiar with the student's cultural and linguistic background and know sign language if the student is hearing-impaired." (p. 36).
2. The test is "user friendly"; administration and computing raw scores is relatively easy.
3. A method is presented for grouping missed items according to the skills they asses -- thus
identifying the student's strengths and weaknesses. Using the interpretation procedures to K-TEA
error analysis results provides a source of information from which instructional objectives can be
developed.
DISADVANTAGES
1. The Reading Composite score includes: Reading Decoding, Spelling, and Reading Comprehension. Errors on the subtest "Reading Decoding" are based on pronunciation such that mispronunciations are penalized.
2. How to administer Spelling tests to deaf and hard of hearing students is always a problem.
8. SEQUENTIAL ASSESSMENT OF MATHEMATICS INVENTORIES (1985)
DISTRIBUTED BY
The Psychological Corporation
555 Academic Court
San Antonio, TX 78204-2498
Ph: 800-211-8378
FAX: 800-232-1223
TDD: 800-723-1318
Web site: www.hbem.com or www.PsychCorp.com
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The SAMI is a standardized test, individually administered, designed to measure the performance of
students in the Kindergarten through eighth grade mathematics curriculum. The SAMI includes eight
subtests: Mathematical Language, Ordinality, Number and Notation, Computation, Measurement,
Geometric Concepts, Mathematical Applications, and Word Problems. The twofold purpose of the SAMI is
to differentiate among students in overall performance in mathematics and to measure individual student's
strengths and weaknesses in learning the mathematics curriculum. Both within-grade and across-grade
norms are provided. Standard scores (X=100, SD=15) are available for the total test score and for each
subtest (X=10, SD=3), as are grade equivalents and percentile ranks.
The SAMI is appropriate for students from age 5 to age 14 (kindergarten to 8th grade).
NORMS
The standardization sample of 1456 students in grades kindergarten through 8, was drawn from eight
school districts in six states representing all four regions of the US. The manual reports an oversampling of
the North Central and West and undersampling of the Northeast regions. Results, based on those schools
reporting race, indicate an oversampling of Blacks and an undersampling of children with Spanish origin.
Sampling by both gender and grade was balanced
ADVANTAGES
1. Free response format rather than multiple choice gives the examiner an opportunity to make diagnostic judgements about student's strategies for solving a problem.
2. A variety of presentation modes, e.g., picture, symbolic, and modes of responses, e.g., pointing, writing and telling are used.
3. Results from the SAMI can be useful in measuring an individual student's particular strengths and
weaknesses in learning the mathematics curriculum. With or without deaf norms, this information
should be useful for intervention planning, if the SAMI content matches the mathematics
curriculum of the deaf or hard of hearing student's school program.
DISADVANTAGES
1. There is no normative data, and little anecdotal data, related to deaf or hard of hearing students'
performance on the SAMI.
9. TEST OF WRITTEN LANGUAGE - THIRD EDITION (1996)
PUBLISHER
Pro-Ed
8700 Shoal Creek Blvd.
Austin, TX 78758-6897
Ph: 800-897-3203
FAX: 512-451-3246
Web site: http://www.proedinc.com
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The TOWL-3 is a comprehensive norm-referenced test of written language which uses both essay analysis
formats and traditional test formats. The essay format (spontaneous) measures elements such as story
construction, e.g., plot, character development; contextual vocabulary, e.g., syntactic maturity, grammar;
and contextual conventions, e.g., spelling, punctuation. In the traditional test format (contrived)
vocabulary, style and spelling, logical sentences, and sentence combining are assessed. Composite standards
scores, grade equivalents, and percentiles are provided for overall writing, contrived writing, and
spontaneous writing.
The test is appropriate for ages 7-6 through 17-11 years.
NORMS
The TOWL-3 includes all new normative data on over 2000 public and private school students, collected in
1994-95 reflecting the 1990 US census relative to gender, residence, region, disabling condition , and
income and education of parents. Whether deaf and hard of hearing students were included in the
"disabling condition" is not known.
ADVANTAGES
1. Two alternative, equivalent forms are available thus allowing pre- and post-testing.
2. TOWL-3 is not timed.
3. Statistical procedures have been used in the TOWL-3 to detect and eliminate sources of cultural, gender, and racial bias.
4. All aspects of reliability and validity have been strengthened in the TOWL-3, e.g., measures of internal and test-retest consistency are reported as approximate .80 at most ages and many in the .90s.
5. Provides a standard way to evaluate both spontaneous and contrived writing.
6. The manual provides suggestions for assessing written language informally and gives ideas for
remediating writing deficits.
DISADVANTAGES
1. There is no normative data for deaf or hard of hearing students.
2. One section of the contrived format requires dictated sentences.
3. Research data is needed to determine how to interpret score results for deaf and hard of hearing students; without such data, an informal use of the test is probably most helpful in remediation planning for this population.
10. BRACKEN BASIC CONCEPT SCALE (1984)
DISTRIBUTED BY
The Psychological Corporation
Order Service Center
P.O. Box 839954
San Antonio, TX 78283-3954
Ph:800-211-8378
FAX: 800-232-1223
Web site: www.hbem.com or www.PsychCorp.com
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The BBCS measures a subset of children's receptive vocabulary -- basic concepts. The test author defines a
basic concept as a word "that is a label for one of the basic colors, sequences, shapes, sizes, social or
emotional states and characteristics, textures, and time" (p. 7, manual). Concept attainment is measured in
eleven separate categories. A composite test score with X=100 and SD=15, is provided. Standard scores
(X=10, SD=3) are provided for subtest clusters: school readinesss composite, direction/position,
social/emotional, size, texture/material, quantity, and time/sequence; also provided are percentile rank and
concept age scores.
The test consists of a Diagnostic Scale for ages 2.6 through 8 years and a Screening Test for ages 5 to 7
years.
NORMS
The norm sample included 1109 children reflecting the 1980 U.S. Census in age, gender, ethnic group,
geographic region, community size, and socio-economic status. No deaf or hard of hearing children were
reported in the standardization sample.
ADVANTAGES
1. Response required is either pointing or short verbal response (Assuming the child understands the questions which are given verbally, e.g., Which box is empty?" Which animal is big?" "What is hot?")
2. The test could potentially identify concepts and conceptual categories that are problematic for individual children.
3. The statistical back ground (good information on error variance) and general standardization (representative sample of 1109 children) appears quite good.
4. Since "color" is one of the concepts measured, test authors have taken in consideration the possibility of color blind children. The examiner is to use an expectancy score (table provided) rather than administer the color subtest which would unduly deflate the child's School Readiness Composite and total Test Standard Scores.
5. There is good potential for a criterion-referenced use of the BBCS.
6. A concept development program, Bracken Concept Development Program (1986), is available to
teach basic concepts to children who have gaps in their concept development as identified on the
diagnostic test of the BBCS. The program includes teaching materials, at-home activities and
reproducible worksheets.
DISADVANTAGES
1. For deaf and hard of hearing children the language demands of the test may be too great; the question may be Does the child not know the language or not know the concept tested?
2. If the test is signed to a deaf or hard of hearing child, it would seem prudent to use results only in criterion referenced rather than in a normative way.
3. If the test is signed to a deaf or hard of hearing child, problems may arise in the iconisity of the
signs, particularly in the "shape" subtest.
Bracken, B.A., & Cato, L.A. (1986). Rate of conceptual development among deaf preschool and
primary children as compared to a matched group of nonhearing impaired children. Psychology in the
Schools, 23, 95-99.
11. TEST OF EARLY MATHEMATICS ABILITY-SECOND EDITION (1990)
PUBLISHER
Pro-Ed
8700 Shoal Creek Blvd.
Austin, TX 78758-6897
Ph: 800-897-3203
FAX: 512-451-3246
Web site: http://www.proedinc.com
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The Test of Early Mathematics Ability (TEMA-2) is a norm-referenced individually administered test that
can be used as a diagnostic instrument to measure informal as well as formal, or school-taught, concepts
and skills. Items are designed to measure the following domains: concepts of relative magnitude, reading
and writing numerals, counting skills, number facts, calculation, calculational algorithms, and base-ten
concepts. Test results are reported in standard score (X=100, SD=15) and in percentile rank or age
equivalents.
The TEMA-2 is appropriate for children ages 3-0 through 8-11 years.
NORMS
The standardization sample was composed of 896 children representing 27 states and reflecting the 1980
U.S. census. No deaf or hard of hearing children are reported in the sample.
ADVANTAGES
1. The TEMA-2 has good potential as a general measure of math strength and weaknesses; as a screen for school readiness; and a guide for instruction and remediation.
2. The new easel back for the second edition should make administration more examiner friendly.
3. The manual reports reliabilites for the TEMA-2 are in the .90s.
4. The TEMA-2 now includes a book, Assessment Probes and Instructional Activities, of remedial
techniques for improving skills in the areas assessed on the test.
DISADVANTAGES
1. Although anecdotal information suggests that the TEMA-2 is used often with deaf and hard of hearing children, there is little research data to indicate expectations for their performance.
12. TEST OF EARLY READING ABILITY - DEAF OR HARD OF HEARING (1991)
PUBLISHER
Pro-Ed
8700 Shoal Creek Blvd.
Austin, TX 78758-6897
Ph: 800-897-3203
FAX: 512-451-3246
Web site: http://www.proedinc.com
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The Test of Early Reading Ability -- Deaf or Hard of Hearing (TERA-D/HH) is an adaptation of the Test of
Early Reading Ability -- Second Edition (1989) for the general population of children. The TERA-D/HH is
an individually administered test of reading designed for children with moderate to profound sensory
hearing loss (i.e., ranging from 41 to beyond 91 decibels aided). The test taps the child's ability to construct
meaning, knowledge of the alphabet and its functions, and awareness of print conventions. Scores are
reported as standards scores (X=100, SD=15), normal curve equivalents, and percentile rankings.
The TERA-D/HH is appropriate for children age 3-0 through 13-11 years.
NORMS
The TERA-D/HH was standardized on a national sample of 1146 deaf or hard of hearing children from 29
states. On variables of gender, race, geographic region, ethnicity and age, the sample reflected the U.S.
population reported in the 1985 statistical abstract. On variables relating to deafness, the sample is
reflective of the regional and national summary reported by the Center for Assessment and Demographic
Studies, Gallaudet University, Washington, DC (1987-88). Fifty percent of the sample came from state
residential programs, 33% from self-contained classrooms in education faciltites for hearing students, and
17% from mainstreamed programs with some special services provided. Seventeen percent had moderate
hearing losses, 25% had severe, and 58% had profound hearing losses.
ADVANTAGES
1. The test was standardized on a national sample of deaf and hard of hearing students.
2. Normative data are given for six-month intervals.
3. There are two alternate equivalent forms which allows for initiation of an intervention program
and retest to determine gains.
DISADVANTAGES
1. The fact that the examiner has to "cut and paste" pictures to put in the testing materials may or may not be a disadvantage -- depending upon the educational/philosophical bent of the examiner.
2. The manual is careful to point out that, "Even though this test was designed carefully, standardized thoroughly, and researched extensively, certain limitations involved in its use should be considered" (p. 23-24): (1) test reliability: when making judgements about individual students be cautious in interpreting results and do not use results of subtests having reliabilities less than .80 -- confirm hypotheses with other observations; (2) tests do not diagnose, people do, therefore evaluate all available data within the given situational context; (3) in intervention planning be aware that the test results from the TERA-D/HH, although useful in delineation of possible abilities and weaknesses, cannot substitute for ongoing, social/contextual assessment.
13. METROPOLITAN READINESS TESTS - SIXTH EDITION (1995)
PUBLISHER
The Psychological Corporation
Order Service Center
P.O. Box 839954
San Antonio, TX 78283-3954
Ph: 800-211-8378
FAX: 800-232-1223
TDD: 800-723-1318
Web site: www.hbem.com or www.PsychCorp.com
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
Level 1 of the Metropolitan Readiness Test - Sixth Edition (MRT 6) assesses five areas of development in
prekindergarten and kindergarten children: visual discrimination, beginning consonants, sound-letter
correspondence, story comprehension (using a big book) and quantitative concepts and reasoning. The
examiner records the child's answers on a Student Record Form. The test can be used both as a norm-referenced and criterion-referenced instrument with standard scores and percentile ranks available.
The MRT 6 is appropriate for ages 4 through 7 years (pre-kindergarten through Grade 1).
NORMS
There are no indications that deaf or hard of hearing children were included in the norm sample.
USE WITH DEAF AND HARD OF HEARING CHILDREN
We have no information on the use of the Sixth Edition with deaf children, but some examiners report
finding past editions of this test useful with very young deaf or hard of hearing children as a readiness
measure. Clearly, some adaptations will have to be made in administration of items.
14. TEST OF RELATIONAL CONCEPTS: NORMS FOR DEAF CHILDREN (1997)
DISTRIBUTOR
Harris Communications
15159 Technology Dr.
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Ph: 888-257-5160
FAX: 612-906-1099
E-mail: mail@harriscom.com
Web site: www.harriscom.com
GENERAL DISCRIPTION
The Test of Relational Concepts (TRC) by Nellie K. Edmonston and Nancy Litchfield Thane was published
in 1992 by Communication Skills Builders, A Division of The Psychological Corporation. In 1997 the
authors published Norms for Deaf Children for the TRC as part of a Gallaudet University Pre-College
National Mission Program. The test is described as a quick, individually administered test for identifying
children needing remediation in the comprehension of relational concepts. The 56 concepts are presented
one to a page and include dimensional adjectives (e.g., long/short), spatial concepts (e.g., infront of/behind)
temporal concepts (e.g., before/after), quantitative concepts (e.g., more/less), and right/left; same/different.
Deaf norms are presented for each of the four age levels included in the standardization (5.0-6.11, 7.0-8.11,
9.0-10.11, 11.0-12.11).
Standard scores and percentile ranks are provided for each concept score in each age grouping. Consistent
with the original TRC, standardization and norms, standard scores for this sample are T-scores, and with a
mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10.
USE WITH DEAF AND HARD OF HEARING CHILDREN
Edmonston and Thane (1997) state: "The norms presented here are intended to provide a means for the effective identification of those deaf children whose concept comprehension is deficient relative to their peers. With relational concepts so vital in expressing grammatical relations and so prevalent in the school curriculum, the effective identification of deficits in this area is a reuirement of appropriate educational planning".