|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
The following HTML text is provided to enhance online readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML. Please use the page image as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy. 5
|
||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
Page 85 |
 |
 |
 |
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 85
Early Childhood Assessment: Why, What, and How
5
Assessing Learning and Development
Assessments for purposes other than screening and diagnosis have become more and more common for young children. Some of these assessments are conducted to answer questions about the child (e.g., monitoring progress during instruction or intervention). Other assessments are conducted to provide information about classrooms and programs (e.g., to evaluate a specific curriculum or type of program) or society in general (e.g., to describe the school readiness of children entering kindergarten). Many of the assessments widely in use in educational settings are designed primarily to inform instruction by helping classroom personnel specify how children are learning and developing and where they could usefully adapt and adjust their instructional approaches. Thus, the goals of much testing in this later period are more closely related to educational than to medical or public health issues, and the nature of the assessments as well as the domains assessed are modified accordingly.
The greater role of education in these assessments means that the settings for assessing children may be different, and the range of domains toward which assessments are directed is expanded. Assessment that is educationally oriented often takes school-age achievement as the ultimate target and thus is organized into domains that are highly relevant to K-12 schooling (e.g., literacy, science, social studies). Understanding the developmentally rel-
OCR for page 86
Early Childhood Assessment: Why, What, and How
evant conceptualization of these skills for preschool-age children is a task for researchers as well as test developers; nonetheless, it is clear that precursors to academic literacy, mathematics, and general knowledge can be measured long before formal instruction in these domains has commenced.
The domains of relevance to schooling extend well beyond cognition and knowledge. Children being educated or cared for in groups are expected to be able to regulate their emotions and attention; to form social relationships with peers and with non-familial adults; to learn from observation, participation, and direct instruction; and increasingly to direct their own learning. All these capacities are crucial if children are going to function well in preschool and child care or in K-12 programs, and promoting these capacities is also a primary goal of adults in group care and educational settings. Thus, assessments of such capacities are seen to reflect not only child skills but also the adequacy of the settings in which children spend their time. In addition, group care and educational settings vary in quality and in design, although state and local guidelines for teacher-child ratios, number of children served, and the preparation required of preschool teachers and caregivers limit the degree of variation to some extent.
Screening and diagnosis remain crucial purposes in assessment of older preschoolers, as well as infants and toddlers. In addition, such purposes as tracking the progress of children with an individualized education program or of groups of children exposed to a particular program or curriculum become particularly salient for older preschoolers. The measures discussed in this chapter are typically more appropriate for progress monitoring or program evaluation than for individual screening or diagnosis. Nonetheless, we recognize that all these domains raise assessment issues for the full range of purposes.
The chapter covers five domains: (1) physical well-being and motor development, (2) social and emotional development, (3) approaches to learning, (4) language and literacy, and (5) cognitive skills, including mathematics as a particular case. These are widely accepted domains differentiated in various policy statements, such as the “all children ready for school” goal of the National Education Goals Panel (Kagan, Moore, and Bredekamp,
OCR for page 87
Early Childhood Assessment: Why, What, and How
1995) and in the analysis of state learning standards by Scott-Little, Kagan, and Frelow (2006). For each of the domains, we first discuss how it is defined and how its internal structure has been delineated. We then present evidence for the importance of the domain: that it is widely mentioned in child achievement standards, that it is a focus of developmental theory and research, or that it relates to other outcomes important in the short or long term. We also consider evidence that the developmental domain is malleable, that is, amenable to change through interventions, since the capacity to change is another source of evidence for the importance of assessing it. We then describe some of the assessment approaches and tools that have been widely used to reflect status or progress in that domain. Appendix Tables 5-1 through 5-7 provide a summary listing of the major instruments discussed here, with a table for each domain. For each table, the first column indicates the subscale or specific domain assessed, and the second through fifth columns list the instruments that offer the relevant subscales, categorized by the measurement method(s) used by each: direct assessment, questionnaire, observation, or interview. Because many useful instruments do not quite fit into the domains we discuss, we have also included a table for general knowledge (sometimes categorized under cognitive skills), and have included science in the table with mathematics.
For more detailed information on instruments, including evaluative reviews, specific age range, time to administer, administrator qualifications required, as well as psychometric information, we have listed and described a variety of print and online instrument compendia and reviews in Appendix D.
PHYSICAL WELL-BEING AND MOTOR DEVELOPMENT
Defining the Domain
This domain encompasses issues of health, intactness of sensory systems, growth, and fitness, as well as motor development. Motor development has long been a topic of interest in pediatric and developmental studies, and it also is one of the areas used in screening children for possible developmental problems. The com-
OCR for page 88
Early Childhood Assessment: Why, What, and How
ponent of this domain attracting particular policy interest recently is fitness, with evidence that increases in obesity and lack of exercise in childhood are coming to constitute public health challenges.
Evidence of Consensus
Healthy children are a goal of every society, and indicators of health are included in standards promulgated by states as well as in Head Start standards and other documents reflecting policy. Piotrkowski, Botsko, and Matthews (2000) found in a survey of kindergarten teachers that good health was one of the factors perceived to be essential to school readiness. Surprisingly, issues of physical fitness are rarely addressed in state standards items, despite their clear importance to long-term health outcomes. Half of the physical well-being and motor development items cataloged by Scott-Little, Kagan, and Frelow (2005) addressed motor skills, but only 11.5 percent addressed fitness.
Perhaps because physical fitness and health have traditionally been considered of medical rather than educational relevance, they are not richly represented in the measures typically used in developmental assessment. An interest in the general welfare of children, however, dictates more focus on them in ongoing assessment. In particular, levels of childhood obesity constitute a recognized crisis (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2005; Institute of Medicine, 2005). Given the potential influences of early childhood care and education settings (which provide meals and organize physical activities that can influence obesity and fitness) and the evidence that preschool status on these dimensions predicts later health indices (Quattrin et al., 2005; Weiss et al., 2004), more attention is warranted to these indicators as part of developmental assessment. Many general developmental measures (e.g., the Bayley Scales of Infant Development and the Denver II) have subscales reflecting motor development, but greater attention to easily obtained measures of fitness (height, weight, body-mass index) as part of early childhood assessment in care and education settings is clearly merited.
OCR for page 89
Early Childhood Assessment: Why, What, and How
SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Defining the Domain
Research on young children’s social and emotional development has focused on three broad issues: (1) social competence, which reflects the degree of effectiveness the child has in social interactions with others (Fabes, Gaertner, and Popp, 2006); (2) self-regulation, which involves the modulating thought, affect, and behavior by means of deliberate as well as automated responses (Rothbart, Posner, and Kieras, 2006); and (3) maladjustment, consisting of clusters of symptoms that emerge over time, in more than one context, in more than one relationship, and that may impede the child’s ability to adapt and function in the family and the peer group (Campbell, 2006). Although there is general agreement on these three dimensions, different researchers parse the field somewhat differently, with the result that the various measures that have been developed reflect different emphases in defining the domain.
Importance in Practice and Policy
Although there is a lack of agreement as to how this domain should be subdivided, there is substantial agreement on the importance of the social and emotional development of young children to those working directly with them before and after the transition to formal schooling. In addition, a number of state consensus documents defining what young children should know and be able to do include a strong focus on their social and emotional skills, reflecting a recognition of the importance of this domain among policy makers as well.
Many states have addressed social and emotional development in their early learning guidelines. In reviews of state early learning guidelines, Scott-Little and colleagues conclude that guidelines for preschool-age children focus more on language and cognition than on physical and social and emotional development, whereas guidelines for infants and toddlers are more balanced across domains, with the guidelines for infants focusing especially on social and emotional development (Scott-Little,
OCR for page 90
Early Childhood Assessment: Why, What, and How
Kagan, and Frelow, 2006). California’s “Preschool Learning Foundations in Social and Emotional Development for Ages 3 and 4” (http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/pn/fd/documents/preschoollf.pdf) is an excellent example of the development of a consensus document regarding expectations for children’s social and emotional skills in the preschool years. Relying heavily on the research on young children’s social and emotional development, the document “describes benchmarks for the behavior of 3- and 4-yearolds in central domains of social and emotional development.… In focusing on social and emotional foundations of school readiness, a central assumption—well supported by developmental and educational research—is that school readiness consists of social-emotional competencies as well as other cognitive competencies and approaches to learning required for school success” (p. 1). The standards for social and emotional development in California’s early learning standards identify the dimensions of self (self-awareness and self-regulation, social and emotional understanding, empathy and caring, and initiative in learning), social interaction (including interactions with familiar adults, interaction with peers, group participation, and cooperation and responsibility) and relationships (attachments to parents, close relationships with teachers and caregivers, and friendships). The perspective that social and emotional development and early learning are closely linked is reflected in the inclusion of “Initiative in Learning” as a component of social and emotional development, involving the child’s interest in activities in the classroom, enjoyment of learning and exploring, and confidence in his or her ability to make new discoveries.
Importance for Later Development
The social and emotional demands of formal schooling on young children differ from those of early childhood settings, and children’s skills in this area at school entry are predictors of how well they make the adjustment to the new setting and progress academically (see Bierman and Erath, 2006; Campbell, 2006; Ladd, Herald, and Kochel, 2006; Mashburn and Pianta, 2006; Raver, 2002; Thompson and Raikes, 2007; Vandell, Nenide, and Van Winkle, 2006). Early childhood care and educational
OCR for page 91
Early Childhood Assessment: Why, What, and How
settings usually involve a choice of activities for portions of the day, many activities involve small rather than large groups, and children tend to have access to adult caregivers and teachers not only for guidance on activities but also when they are upset or experiencing difficulty with peers. Studies of kindergarten classrooms indicate a shift toward large group activities, which are structured, directed by teachers, and involve less choice. Lower adult-child ratios and more structured activities result in more limited access to adults. Not only do children need to learn to navigate interactions in larger groups and in tasks with more structure, but they also need to form new relationships with peers and teachers.
The domains of socioemotional development and executive function—the cognitive processes used in response to novel stimuli—are of central importance in early childhood, although a final decision about exactly which subskills in this area are most important to measure and most predictive would be somewhat speculative at this point. Nonetheless, providing a full picture of a young child’s development or of the impact of a care and educational setting requires attending at least to the measurement of social competence, attention regulation, and behavior problems. Studies in these areas illustrate evidence of linkages between early social and emotional development and behavioral adjustment to school as well as academic performance.
Social competence: A series of studies by Ladd and colleagues provides evidence for how different facets of social engagement in the kindergarten classroom combine to predict participation in the classroom and achievement. In one, the researchers concluded that findings were consistent with the hypothesis that “children’s classroom participation, particularly the ability to behave in a cooperative/independent manner in the kindergarten milieu, is a powerful precursor of early achievement” (Ladd, Birch, and Buhs, 1999).
The connection between a child’s socioemotional characteristics and teacher-child relationships is well established. Teachers report more conflicts with children who exhibit antisocial behaviors, such as interpersonal aggression or tantrums (e.g., Birch and Ladd, 1998; Hamre and Pianta, 2001; Howes, Phillipsen, and Peisner-Feinberg, 2000; Ladd and Burgess, 2001; Ladd, Birch, and
OCR for page 92
Early Childhood Assessment: Why, What, and How
Buhs, 1999; Pianta and Steinberg, 1992; Silver et al., 2005). Closeness, conflict, and dependence have been identified as three features of teacher-child relationships that are important to children’s development (Mashburn and Pianta, 2006).
While relationships with teachers as well as peers during the transition to formal schooling appear to be central to positive engagement in school and thereby achievement, positive teacher and peer relations in turn appear to rest at least in part on children’s knowledge of emotions and their ability to regulate the expression of their own emotions (Bierman et al., under review; Denham, 2006; Vandell, Nenide, and Van Winkle, 2006).
Self-regulation: Recent research on self-regulation acknowledges that some aspects of it involve emotion (e.g., modulation in the expression of negative emotions) and behavior (e.g., inhibition of aggressive impulses), and other aspects focus more on attentional and cognitive skills (e.g., the ability to maintain a set of instructions actively in working memory over time and despite distractions, taking the perspective of another, switching attention as task demands change) (Diamond et al., 2007; McClelland et al., 2007; Raver, 2002, 2004).
Socioemotional development is of importance during the early childhood period because it relates to children’s capacities to form relationships, both trusting relationships with adults and friendships with peers, and these relationships in turn seem to be related to the speed of learning in early care and educational settings. These markers of positive relations with peers and teachers have implications for children’s engagement and participation in the classroom. Children learn to regulate the expression of emotion in a variety of ways, including turning to others with whom they have secure relationships for comfort and support, using external cues, and, increasingly with age, managing their own states of arousal (Thompson and Lagattuta, 2006).
Behavior problems: Serious behavior problems are apparent early in some children. Research summarized by Raver (2002) indicates that children with early and serious problems of aggression who are rejected by peers are at elevated risk in terms of poor academic achievement, grade retention, dropping out of school, and eventually delinquency. Raver notes that children who are disruptive tend to get less instruction and positive feedback from
OCR for page 93
Early Childhood Assessment: Why, What, and How
teachers, to spend less time on task, to engage less with peers in learning tasks, and to show lower levels of school engagement overall, as reflected in part by lower attendance.
With respect to evidence relating to early social and emotional competencies, two notes of caution are needed. First, social and emotional competencies are worthy developmental goals in their own right, independent of their relationship to academic outcomes. Second, research in this area is not all in accord with the perspective that early social and emotional development predicts more positive academic achievement.
We note that, in a recent study, Duncan and colleagues (2007) carried out coordinated analyses of six major data sets looking at early predictors of later academic achievement. They found that early measures of achievement were strong predictors of later academic achievement, that measures of attention were moderately strong predictors of later achievement, but that measures of early social and emotional development, gleaned from parent and teacher reports, showed no or almost no predictive relationship to later achievement. The findings of this important study clearly differ from those of the reviews and findings summarized earlier. However, as the authors of this article themselves note, “our analysis is focused on behavior during the years just before and at the point of school entry. If some types of socioemotional skills are well established before the preschool years, and unchanging during these years, then we will not be able to detect their effects” (p. 1442). A further issue with this set of analyses is that the extensive set of control variables in the analyses includes many of the documented predictors of early social and emotional development, such as maternal education, family structure, family income, and, in some of the data sets, also parenting and home environment as well as participation in early care and education. This extensive set of controls may have diminished the capacity to detect relationships between early social and emotional development and later achievement. Finally, there was differential attrition in a number of the data sets included in the analyses, with greater attrition among families at greater risk. Selective attrition also works against detecting patterns of relationship between social and emotional development and academic achievement.
In summary, a number of recent reviews summarize evidence
OCR for page 94
Early Childhood Assessment: Why, What, and How
confirming the relation of early social and emotional competencies, self-regulation, and absence of serious behavior problems to early participation in learning activities and to academic achievement. While it is important to note that social and emotional development predicts later academic outcomes, at the same time we insist that children’s social and emotional well-being and competencies are worthy developmental goals in their own right, independent of their relationship to academic outcomes.
Evidence of Malleability
According to a review by Raver (2002), there is substantial evidence from experimental evaluations that it is possible to improve young children’s social and emotional development at the point of school entry or earlier, helping them to develop and stay on a positive course in their relationships with teachers and peers and to engage positively in learning activities. While the evidence summarized points to program effects across all the levels of intensity and the setting of the interventions considered (in the classroom, with parents, or both), findings are stronger when interventions engage parents as well as teachers and are more intensive. More recent reviews contribute to understanding the complexity of this domain (Bierman and Erath, 2006; Fabes, Gaertner, and Popp, 2006).
Several recent developments in intervention research on young children’s social and emotional development are noteworthy. First, very recent work has focused explicitly on interventions targeting children’s self-regulation skills. In recent work by Diamond and colleagues (Diamond et al., 2007), the Tools of the Mind curriculum, which embeds direct instruction in strengthening executive function in play activities and social interactions, was experimentally evaluated in prekindergarten programs in low-income neighborhoods. This intervention takes a Vygotskian approach—that is, it encourages extended dramatic play, teaches children to use self-regulatory private speech, and provides external stimuli to support inhibition. Results showed significant improvements in direct assessments of children’s executive function. By the end of the school year, children in classrooms
OCR for page 95
Early Childhood Assessment: Why, What, and How
implementing Tools of the Mind did not need help staying on task or redirecting inappropriate behavior. This study provides important evidence that aspects of self-regulation are malleable.
Measurement Issues
An ongoing challenge in the research on social and emotional development of young children is to forge agreement about specific constructs, measures, and the mapping of constructs to measures (Fabes, Gaertner, and Popp, 2006; Raver, 2002). The internal complexity of the domain is reflected in the fact that different measures parse it differently. The lack of agreement impedes the capacity to look across studies at accumulating patterns of findings (Zaslow et al., 2006).
Another challenge is that some see measures of social and emotional development as reflecting in part the early childhood environment and the teacher-child relationship, rather than as pure measures of the child. For example, a teacher who requires 3-year-olds in an early childhood classroom to sit still for long periods to do seat work is likely to assess many children as inattentive or disruptive (Thompson and Raikes, 2007). Her rating of a child as having behavior problems may actually be a reflection of her inappropriate expectations, rather than a child’s enduring behavior problem.
Another measurement challenge is the heavy reliance in this domain on teacher and parent reports. In development are direct assessments of children’s behavioral self-regulation (Emotion Matters II Direct assessments developed by Raver and modeled after work by Kochanska and colleagues); of the executive function aspects of self-regulation (the Head to Toe Task described by McClelland and colleagues, 2007); and of the Dots Task from the Directional Stroop Battery and the Flanker Task described by Diamond and colleagues (2007). Further work with these measures may generate important evidence about their reliability and validity, as well as their sensitivity to intervention approaches and their relation to teacher and parent reports and direct observations.
OCR for page 134
Early Childhood Assessment: Why, What, and How
Assessment Subscales
Data-Gathering Method
Direct Assessment
Questionnaire
Observation
Interview
Sizes
Bracken Basic Concept Scale-Revised (BBCS-R)
Comparisons
Bracken Basic Concept Scale-Revised (BBCS-R)
Shapes
Bracken Basic Concept Scale-Revised (BBCS-R)
Direction/position
Bracken Basic Concept Scale-Revised (BBCS-R)
Self-/social awareness
Bracken Basic Concept Scale-Revised (BBCS-R)
Texture/material
Bracken Basic Concept Scale-Revised (BBCS-R)
Quantity
Bracken Basic Concept Scale-Revised (BBCS-R)
Time/sequencing
Bracken Basic Concept Scale-Revised (BBCS-R)
Abstract/visual reasoning
Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale, Fourth ed. (SB-IV)
OCR for page 135
Early Childhood Assessment: Why, What, and How
Academic progress
Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test (EOWPVT)
Creative arts
The Galileo System for the Electronic Management of Learning (Galileo)
The Galileo System for the Electronic Management of Learning (Galileo)
Creative representation
High/Scope Child Observation Record (COR)
High/Scope Child Observation Record (COR)
Social studies
The Work Sampling System (WSS)
The Work Sampling System (WSS)
The arts
The Work Sampling System (WSS)
The Work Sampling System (WSS)
OCR for page 136
Early Childhood Assessment: Why, What, and How
APPENDIX TABLE 5-6 Math and Science Instruments
Assessment Subscales
Data-Gathering Method
Direct Assessment
Questionnaire
Observation
Interview
Mathematics
Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III), Peabody Individual Achievement Test (PIAT), Peabody Individual Achievement Test-Revised (PIAT-R), Test of Early Mathematics Ability (TEMA)
Work Sampling Plans, Portfolio, Summative Instructional Tools
Science
Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III), Peabody Individual Achievement Test (PIAT)
Work Sampling Plans, Portfolio, Summative Instructional Tools
Quantitative reasoning
Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale, Fourth ed. (SB-IV)
Number/counting
Bracken Basic Concept Scale-Revised (BBCS-R)/SRC
Sizes
Bracken Basic Concept Scale-Revised (BBCS-R)/SRC
Shapes
Bracken Basic Concept Scale-Revised (BBCS-R)/SRC
OCR for page 137
Early Childhood Assessment: Why, What, and How
Quantity
Bracken Basic Concept Scale-Revised (BBCS-R)
Achievement scale–arithmetic subtest
Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (K-ABC)
Formal mathematics
Test of Early Mathematics Ability, Second ed. (TEMA-2)
Informal mathematics
Test of Early Mathematics Ability, Second ed. (TEMA-2)
Achievement–broad mathematics
Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III)
Achievement-mathematical calculation skills
Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III)
Achievement–mathematical reasoning
Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III)
Early mathematics
The Galileo System for the Electronic Management of Learning (Galileo)
The Galileo System for the Electronic Management of Learning (Galileo)
OCR for page 138
Early Childhood Assessment: Why, What, and How
Assessment Subscales
Data-Gathering Method
Direct Assessment
Questionnaire
Observation
Interview
Nature and science
The Galileo System for the Electronic Management of Learning (Galileo)
The Galileo System for the Electronic Management of Learning (Galileo)
Logic and mathematics
High/Scope Child Observation Record (COR)
High/Scope Child Observation Record (COR)
Mathematical thinking
The Work Sampling System (WSS)
The Work Sampling System (WSS)
Scientific thinking
The Work Sampling System (WSS)
The Work Sampling System (WSS)
OCR for page 139
Early Childhood Assessment: Why, What, and How
APPENDIX TABLE 5-7 Language and Literacy Instruments
Assessment Subscales
Data-Gathering Method
Direct Assessment
Questionnaire
Observation
Interview
The Galileo System for the Electronic Management of Learning (Galileo)
High/Scope Child Observation Record (COR)
The Work Sampling System (WSS)
The Galileo System for the Electronic Management of Learning (Galileo)
High/Scope Child Observation Record (COR)
The Work Sampling System (WSS)
General language
Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals (CELF), MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventories (CDI), Test of Language Dominance (TOLD), Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III), NEPSY
Creative Curriculum Development Continuum for Ages 3-5
Creative Curriculum Development Continuum for Ages 3-5
Vocabulary
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT), Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test (EOWPVT)
MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventories (CDI)
OCR for page 140
Early Childhood Assessment: Why, What, and How
Assessment Subscales
Data-Gathering Method
Direct Assessment
Questionnaire
Observation
Interview
Phonological awareness
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP), Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III)
Grammar
Diagnostic Evaluation of Language Variation (DELV)
Literacy
Test of Early Reading Ability (TERA), Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III), Peabody Individual Achievement Test (PIAT) Concepts About Print (Clay) Sulzby Classification Schemes: Emergent Storybook Reading (1985)
Work Sampling Plans, Portfolio, Summative Instructional Tools
Reading recognition
Peabody Individual Achievement Test-Revised (PIAT-R)
Reading comprehension
Peabody Individual Achievement Test-Revised (PIAT-R)
Spelling
Peabody Individual Achievement Test-Revised (PIAT-R)
OCR for page 141
Early Childhood Assessment: Why, What, and How
Verbal reasoning
Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale, Fourth ed. (SB-IV)
Verbal
Primary Test of Cognitive Skills (PTCS)
Letters
Bracken Basic Concept Scale-Revised (BBCS-R)
Verbal IQ
Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence, Third ed. (WPPSI-III)
Receptive language
Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-Preschool (CELF-Preschool) Test of Early Language Development, Third ed. (TELD-3)
Sequenced Inventory of Communication Development-Revised (SICD-R)
Sequenced Inventory of Communication Development-Revised (SICD-R)
Expressive language
Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-Preschool (CELF-Preschool) Reynell Developmental Language Scales: U.S. Edition (RDLS) Test of Early Language Development, Third ed. (TELD-3)
Sequenced Inventory of Communication Development-Revised (SICD-R), Reynell Developmental Language Scales, U.S. ed. (RDLS)
Sequenced Inventory of Communication Development-Revised (SICD-R)
OCR for page 142
Early Childhood Assessment: Why, What, and How
Assessment Subscales
Data-Gathering Method
Direct Assessment
Questionnaire
Observation
Interview
Total language
Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-Preschool (CELF-Preschool)
Quick-test
Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-Preschool (CELF-Preschool)
Recall ability
Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (K-ABC), Expressive Vocabulary Subtest
Verbal expression
Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (K-ABC), Expressive Vocabulary Subtest
Words and gestures
MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventories (CDI)
Words and sentences
MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventories (CDI)
OCR for page 143
Early Childhood Assessment: Why, What, and How
Expressive communication
Preschool Language Scale, Fourth ed. (PLS-4)
Auditory comprehension
Preschool Language Scale, Fourth ed. (PLS-4)
Verbal comprehension
Reynell Developmental Language Scales, U.S. ed. (RDLS)
Spoken language quotient
Test of Early Language Development, Third ed. (TELD-3)
Initial sound fluency
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills, Sixth ed. (DIBELS)
Letter naming fluency
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills, Sixth ed. (DIBELS)
Word use fluency
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills, Sixth ed. (DIBELS)
Phoneme segmentation fluency
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills, Sixth ed. (DIBELS)
OCR for page 144
Early Childhood Assessment: Why, What, and How
Assessment Subscales
Data-Gathering Method
Direct Assessment
Questionnaire
Observation
Interview
Nonsense word fluency
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills, Sixth ed. (DIBELS)
Oral reading fluency and retell fluency
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills, Sixth ed. (DIBELS)
Alphabet
Test of Early Reading Ability-3 (TERA-3)
Conventions
Test of Early Reading Ability-3 (TERA-3)
Meaning
Test of Early Reading Ability-3 (TERA-3)
Letter-word identification
Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III)
Writing samples
Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III)
Word attack
Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III)
Language skills
Denver II
Denver II