PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [Macy, Marisa]On: 15 January 2010Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 918633748]Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

NHSA DialogPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t775653686

Keeping It “R-E-A-L” with Authentic AssessmentMarisa Macy a; Stephen J. Bagnato b

a Department of Education, Lycoming College, b Departments of Pediatrics and Psychology-in-Education, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC),

Online publication date: 15 January 2010

To cite this Article Macy, Marisa and Bagnato, Stephen J.(2010) 'Keeping It “R-E-A-L” with Authentic Assessment', NHSADialog, 13: 1, 1 — 20To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/15240750903458105URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15240750903458105

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

NHSA DIALOG, 13(1), 1–20Copyright C© 2010, National Head Start AssociationISSN: 1524-0754 print / 1930-9325 onlineDOI: 10.1080/15240750903458105

RESEARCH ARTICLES

Keeping It “R-E-A-L” with Authentic Assessment

Marisa MacyLycoming College, Department of Education

Stephen J. BagnatoUniversity of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC), Departments of Pediatrics

and Psychology-in-Education

The inclusion of young children with disabilities has remained a function of the Head Start programsince its inception in the 1960s when the United States Congress mandated that children withdisabilities comprise 10% of the Head Start enrollment (Zigler & Styfco, 2000). Standardized, norm-referenced tests used to identify children with delays are problematic because (a) they have lowtreatment validity, (b) they are not universally designed or adaptable, (c) it is difficult to capture thereal life behaviors/skills of young children, (d) they do little to facilitate collaboration with parents,(e) they lack sensitivity to changes in the child’s development and learning, and (f) children withdisabilities are often excluded from group data. This study examined the use of an alternative approachthat uses early childhood authentic assessment to determine a young child’s eligibility for specialservices. Results of this study have implications for adopting authentic assessment practices.

Keywords: developmental delay, systems integration

The inclusion of young children with disabilities has remained a function of the Head Start pro-gram since its inception in the 1960s. The United States Congress mandated that children withdisabilities comprise 10% of the Head Start enrollment (Zigler & Styfco, 2000). Informal and for-mal types of assessment practices are used to determine children who are eligible for specializedservices (Bagnato, 2007; McLean, Bailey, & Wolery, 2004; National Association of School Psy-chologists, 2005; National Research Council, 2008). Informally, Head Start professionals observechildren on an ongoing basis as children participate in their early childhood programs. Profession-als note when children’s behavior and skills deviate from developmental expectations. Parents andcaregivers also contribute to understanding a young child’s development. Home visits and otheropportunities for collaboration allow Head Start programs to gather a holistic picture of children.

Correspondence should be addressed to Marisa Macy, Lycoming College, Department of Education, 700 CollegePlace, Williamsport, PA 17701. E-mail: macy@lycoming.edu

Downloaded By: [Macy, Marisa] At: 23:06 15 January 2010

2 MACY AND BAGNATO

Formally, professionals may incorporate the use of tools to screen children for delays in devel-opment and learning. An individual assessment may occur if a child’s academic or developmentalperformance is suspicious to a professional and parent, or a group of children may be screened.The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA) requires the imple-mentation of child-find efforts in order to locate young children who are eligible for services dueto delay or risk conditions. Screening tools offer a snapshot and are not comprehensive enoughto determine eligibility for IDEA services.

Eligibility assessments are used when enough data are collected to warrant an in-depth lookat a child’s development. Standardized, norm-referenced tests are the most widely used toolsto determine whether a child is eligible for IDEA services. This practice is a result of the factthat standardized, norm-referenced tests often contain standard scores that are required undermany state guidelines (Danaher, 2005; Shakelford, 2006). Standard deviation and percentagedelay are frequently used in order to identify the eligible population of young children; how-ever, several states make use of informed clinical opinion, which promotes more flexibility forchildren, their families, and professionals (Bagnato, McKeating-Esterle, Fevola, Bartalomasi, &Neisworth, 2008; Bagnato, Smith-Jones, Matesa, & McKeating-Esterle, 2006; Dunst & Hamby,2004; Shakelford, 2002). Informed clinical opinion, or clinical judgment, is often used by profes-sionals to understand a child’s special needs without having to administer formal tests to a child(Bagnato et al., 2006).

It is not unreasonable to assume that standardized, norm-referenced tests have been proven tobe reliable and valid. These tests have been in existence for several years and have widespread useamong professionals who believe them to have strong psychometric properties. A recent researchsynthesis examined the use of standardized, norm-referenced tests and established that few if anyof these tests are effective in determining eligibility for IDEA special services for young childrenwith disabilities (Bagnato, Macy, Salaway, & Lehman, 2007).

In addition to weak evidence supporting use of standardized, norm-referenced tests to identifyeligible young children with delays, the study (Bagnato et al., 2007) also pointed out severalflaws with using these tests for eligibility determination. First, most of the standardized, norm-referenced tests examined in Bagnato et al.’s (2007) study did not include children with disabilitiesin the standardization process. In addition, all of the standardized, norm-referenced tests lackeditem density and procedural flexibility, which are salient elements to assessing young childrenwith delays. The standardized, norm-referenced tests were also deficient in offering graduatedscoring options.

Another concern with using standardized, norm-referenced tests for eligibility determinationis that they do not inform treatment efforts or instruction. These tests can show the extent a child’sbehavior or skill is different from the norm, but they do not lay a foundation for the next steps inhelping the child reach his or her potential or supports she or he will need to be fully includedin a Head Start classroom. Differentiating children’s performances on a test is the main focus ofstandardized, norm-referenced tests, not necessarily what will occur after the test is over.

One of the basic tenets of IDEA is that assessment practices must be fair and nonbiased.Court cases have challenged the use of inappropriate assessments. Professional organizationslike the Division for Early Childhood (DEC) and the National Association for the Educationof Young Children (NAEYC) propose using multiple methods for collecting information aboutchildren. A promising alternative to standardized, norm-referenced testing is the use of authenticassessment, which promotes a natural context to best understand what a child can do. It is aform of assessment that favors events, materials, and individuals who are familiar to the child.

Downloaded By: [Macy, Marisa] At: 23:06 15 January 2010

AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT 3

Real life conditions become the backdrop for children to apply what they know to a givensituation.

Head Start programs would benefit by having authentic eligibility assessments that link tocurriculum and instruction because children will enter their programs with meaningful informa-tion (Bagnato et al., 2007; Grisham-Brown, Hallam, & Pretti-Frontczak, 2008). Results from theauthentic assessment can be used to directly inform program planning, curriculum, instruction,and lesson plans. To implement authentic assessment, practitioners should pay close attention tothe R-E-A-L framework: roles, equipment, assessment tools, and location.

Role of data collector. Authentic assessment relies upon a team of people that consists of informedcaregivers such as parents, grandparents, and other family members as well as teachers, speechtherapists, and other professionals who are familiar with and have knowledge of the child’sskills and abilities (Bagnato & Neisworth, 1999; Guralnick, 2006). Effective teams havemutual respect for one another’s roles and expertise, ability to communicate with others,and openness to share assessment role responsibilities. Assessment responsibilities are sharedwhen (a) parents are considered central members of the team with valuable observationsand information to contribute (Meisels, Xue, Bickel, Nicholson, & Atkins-Burnett, 2001);(b) teachers and practitioners provide input (Dunst, 2002; Keilty, LaRocco, & Casell, 2009);and (c) the team relies upon the observations and evaluations of trained professionals such asoccupational and speech therapists, depending on the child’s need (Meisels, Bickel, Nicholson,Xue, & Atkins-Burnett, 2001).

Equipment and materials. Familiar equipment and materials are used to assess children using anauthentic assessment framework. Common toys or household items are examples of materialsthat children will recognize from their natural environments. When assessment includes theactual or authentic activity with companion materials, the child is operating under more usualconditions and has experience performing similar tasks. For example, assessing a child’sadaptive skills during snack with all the familiar accompanying utensils, food items, andfurniture can help to obtain an accurate assessment of the child’s true ability.

Assessment tools. Select authentic assessment tools that bring together interdisciplinary and in-teragency teams (Losardo & Notari-Syverson, 2001; Slentz & Hyatt, 2008). Curriculum-basedtools connect assessment to programming and intervention planning (Macy & Bricker, 2006).Curriculum-based assessments allow teams to gather information from various sources, in-cluding parents and teachers. Another benefit is that they can be used to monitor individual andgroup progress. Bagnato, Neisworth, and Pretti-Frontczak (in press) recommend eight qualitystandards for selecting assessment tools to include (a) acceptability—the social aspects of usinga tool; (b) authenticity—contextual factors (e.g., everyday situations); (c) collaboration—thetool can be easily incorporated into interdisciplinary teamwork; (d) evidence—the tool hasbeen found through research and practice to be valid, reliable, and useful; (e) multiple factors—used to gather information about a child (e.g., various methods, individuals, situations, andtime points); (f) sensitivity—the tool is sensitive to child performance; (g) universality—children with special needs can be accommodated; and (h) utility—the extent the tool is usefulto parents and professionals. These eight standards are illustrated in Figure 1. Approximately100 different authentic and standard, norm-referenced assessments were rated using the eightstandards by over 1,000 assessment users in an online study. Results from the online surveyindicated that users identified authentic assessment as meeting more of the eight standardsthan the standardized, norm-referenced tests.

Downloaded By: [Macy, Marisa] At: 23:06 15 January 2010

4 MACY AND BAGNATO

FIGURE 1 Standards for judging assessment tools (from Bagnato et al., in press).

Location. Authentic assessment approaches reflect the ongoing experiences children may en-counter in their home, school, community, and other places where young children spendtime. Authentic assessment takes place during the real life conditions under which the targetbehaviors/skills are needed for the child to function. Young children are often more com-fortable and relaxed in familiar locations, and this will result in a more accurate assessment(Neisworth & Bagnato, 2004).

The R-E-A-L framework can be used by Head Start professionals to facilitate implementationof an authentic assessment approach. The foundation for assessment should be to measure skillsthat reflect what a child is capable of doing in genuine situations. Authentic assessment is usedto understand what children can do in naturalistic settings by using typical early childhoodexperiences to assess children. This is different from standardized, norm-referenced tests thatare often administered in a clinical setting, with structured and adult-directed procedures, bypeople who are unfamiliar to the child, and test discrete isolated tasks that are unrelated to thechild’s daily life. Given the questionable practice of using standardized, norm-referenced tests todetermine a child is eligible for IDEA special services, further research and analysis on assessment

Downloaded By: [Macy, Marisa] At: 23:06 15 January 2010

AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT 5

alternatives is necessary. The purpose of this study was to examine the technical adequacy ofauthentic assessment measures.

METHOD

Nine authentic measures were chosen through a review of literature and surveys of practitionersinvestigating the most commonly used measures in preschool and early intervention settings(Bagnato, Neisworth, & Munson, 1997; Bagnato et al., in press; Pretti-Frontczak, Kowalski, &Brown, 2002). To be included in our review, the authentic measure needed to have publishedresearch available. Other authentic measures were considered for inclusion (like the Develop-mental Continuum from Teaching Strategies); however, we did not find published research onthese measures. The following nine authentic measures are included in the study:

� Adaptive Behavior Assessment System (ABAS),� Assessment Evaluation and Programming System (AEPS),� Carolina Curriculum for Preschoolers with Special Needs (Carolina),� Child Observation Record (COR),� Developmental Observation Checklist System (DOCS),� Hawaii Early Learning Profile (HELP),� Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory (PEDI),� Transdisciplinary Play-Based Assessment (TPBA), and� Work Sampling System (WSS)/Ounce

Some measures had multiple editions (i.e., AEPS, Carolina, ABAS, COR, and TPBA).Table 1 offers information about these measures.

Research studies on the identified authentic assessments (i.e., ABAS, AEPS, Carolina, COR,DOCS, HELP, PEDI, TPBA, and WSS/Ounce) were reviewed in this synthesis. Research char-acteristics fell into two categories: accuracy (reliability) and effectiveness (validity, utility).Accuracy refers to the extent to which a tool identifies young children with disabilities. Thisincludes reliability of the measure (e.g., consistency across test items and the use of cutoff scoresin order for the tool to precisely or accurately measure a skill or behavior). Examples of accuracyinclude test-retest reliability, interrater reliability, intrarater reliability, and interitem consistency.

Effectiveness refers to the extent to which a tool successfully identifies young children withdisabilities. This includes the validity of the measure (i.e., including to what extent does the toolmeasure what it was designed to measure) and how it relates significantly to similar measures.Examples of effectiveness include predictive validity, concurrent validity, construct validity, testfloors, and item gradients. The next section describes our strategy for searching the literature basefor research studies on the accuracy and effectiveness of authentic assessment measures.

Search Strategy

Search Terms. Relevant published research studies were identified using the followingsearch terms: authentic assessment, testing, early intervention, preschool, early childhood, eligi-bility, pediatrics, disabilities, handicap identification, and referral. More general terms of specialschools, state programs resource, centers, and evaluations were also used.

Downloaded By: [Macy, Marisa] At: 23:06 15 January 2010

TAB

LE1

Nin

eA

uthe

ntic

Mea

sure

san

dT

heir

Cha

ract

eris

tics

Elig

ibili

tyA

geR

ange

Dom

ains

#of

Item

sSc

orin

gFe

atur

esFa

mily

Invo

lvem

ent

Feat

ures

AB

AS

Bir

thto

89ye

ars

5ra

ting

form

s

Com

mun

icat

ion,

Com

mun

ityU

se,F

unct

iona

lPr

e-A

cade

mic

s,Sc

hool

/Hom

eL

ivin

g,H

ealth

and

Safe

ty,L

eisu

re,

Self

-Car

e,Se

lf-D

irec

tion,

Soci

al,M

otor

(10)

Pare

ntFo

rm(B

-5):

241

Teac

her

Form

(2–5

):21

6

4-po

intr

atin

gsc

ale:

Pare

nt/P

rim

ary

Car

egiv

erfo

rmis

desi

gned

tobe

com

plet

edby

pare

nts

orot

her

prim

ary

care

give

rs.

Two

form

sar

eav

aila

ble:

Age

sbi

rth

to5

and

Age

s5–

21.

Prov

ides

norm

-re

fere

nced

scor

esba

sed

onag

e.

3=

Alw

ays

whe

nne

eded

2=

Som

etim

esw

hen

need

ed1

=N

ever

whe

nne

eded

0=

Isno

tabl

eIn

clud

esa

box

toch

eck

ifra

ter

gues

sed.

Incl

udes

sect

ion

for

rate

rto

mak

eco

mm

ents

rega

rdin

ga

spec

ific

item

.

AE

PSB

irth

to6

Ada

ptiv

e,C

ogni

tive,

Fine

Mot

or,G

ross

Mot

or,

Soci

al-C

omm

unic

atio

n,&

Soci

al(6

)

B-3

:249

3–6:

217

3-po

intr

atin

gsc

ale:

Fam

ilyR

epor

tallo

ws

pare

nts

tobe

invo

lved

inco

llect

ing

info

rmat

ion

and

list/p

rior

itize

area

sof

inte

rest

.

Prov

ides

cuto

ffsc

ores

byag

ein

terv

als.

2=

Con

sist

ently

mee

tscr

iteri

on1

=In

cons

iste

ntly

mee

tscr

iteri

on0

=D

oes

notm

eetc

rite

rion

Six

qual

ifyi

ngno

tes

Car

olin

aB

irth

topr

e-sc

hool

Cog

nitio

n,C

ogni

tion/

Com

mun

icat

ion,

Com

mun

icat

ion,

Pers

onal

-Soc

ial,

Fine

Mot

or,G

ross

Mot

or(6

)

B-2

:359

3-po

intr

atin

gsc

ale:

Fam

ilies

enco

urag

edto

bein

volv

edth

roug

hout

the

asse

ssm

enta

ndin

stru

ctio

npr

oces

s.

n/a

2–5:

400

(+)

Mas

tery

(+/−

)In

cons

iste

nt/e

mer

ging

skill

(−)

Una

ble

tope

rfor

msk

illQ

ualif

ying

note

s

6

Downloaded By: [Macy, Marisa] At: 23:06 15 January 2010

CO

R21

/ 2to

6In

itiat

ive,

Soci

alR

elat

ions

,C

reat

ive

Rep

rese

ntat

ion,

Mus

ican

dM

ovem

ent,

Lan

guag

ean

dL

itera

cy,

Mat

hem

atic

san

dSc

ienc

e(6

)

30ite

ms,

each

with

5le

vels

5-po

intr

atin

gsc

ale:

Five

desc

ript

ive

stat

emen

tsth

atre

pres

enta

rang

eof

func

tioni

ngfr

omve

rypo

orto

very

supe

rior

Fam

ilyR

epor

tis

avai

labl

eto

crea

tere

port

sfo

rpa

rent

sab

outt

heir

child

that

can

bedi

scus

sed

atpa

rent

conf

eren

ces

orho

me

visi

ts.

Pare

nts

are

able

tore

cord

note

sab

outt

hech

ildba

sed

onth

epa

rent

s’ob

serv

atio

nsof

the

child

’sbe

havi

orat

hom

eon

the

repo

rt.P

aren

tGui

deav

aila

ble

toex

plai

nth

eC

OR

and

for

pare

nts

tore

cord

anec

dote

sba

sed

onth

eC

OR

.

n/a

DO

CS

Bir

thto

6D

evel

opm

enta

lChe

cklis

t(D

C):

Lan

guag

e,So

cial

,M

otor

,Cog

nitio

n(4

)A

djus

tmen

tBeh

avio

rC

heck

list(

AB

C)

Pare

ntal

Stre

ssan

dSu

ppor

tC

heck

list(

PSSC

)

DC

:475

AB

C:2

5PS

SC:4

0

DC

:Rat

ers

chec

kY

esor

No

(Yes

=1;

No

=0)

AB

C:4

-poi

ntra

ting

scal

e:V

ery

muc

hlik

e,So

mew

hat

like,

Not

muc

hlik

e,N

otat

alll

ike

PSSC

:4-p

oint

ratin

gsc

ale:

Hig

hly

agre

e,So

mew

hat

agre

e,So

met

imes

agre

e,D

ono

tagr

ee

Pare

nts

are

view

edas

prim

ary

info

rman

ton

the

DC

ques

tionn

aire

.PSS

Cas

sess

espa

rent

alst

ress

,pa

rent

alsu

ppor

t,ch

ildad

apta

bilit

y,pa

rent

-chi

ldin

tera

ctio

n,an

den

viro

nmen

tali

mpa

ct.

Prov

ides

norm

-re

fere

nced

scor

esba

sed

onag

e.

(Con

tinu

edon

next

page

)

7

Downloaded By: [Macy, Marisa] At: 23:06 15 January 2010

TAB

LE1

Nin

eA

uthe

ntic

Mea

sure

san

dT

heir

Cha

ract

eris

tics

(Con

tinu

ed)

Elig

ibili

tyA

geR

ange

Dom

ains

#of

Item

sSc

orin

gFe

atur

esFa

mily

Invo

lvem

ent

Feat

ures

HE

LP

Bir

thto

6C

ogni

tion,

Fine

Mot

or,G

ross

Mot

or,L

angu

age,

Soci

alE

mot

iona

l,Se

lfH

elp

(6)

685

4-po

intr

atin

gsc

ale:

Mat

eria

lsav

aila

ble

toin

crea

sepa

rent

part

icip

atio

nin

the

asse

ssm

entp

roce

ss;

guid

elin

esfo

rin

clus

ion

ofpa

rent

inpu

tare

spre

adth

roug

hout

.

Prov

ides

age

rang

esfo

rsk

ills.

(+)

Skill

orbe

havi

oris

pres

ent

(−)

Skill

isno

tpre

sent

(+/−

)Sk

illap

pear

sto

beem

ergi

ng(A

)Sk

illor

beha

vior

isat

ypic

alor

dysf

unct

iona

lQ

ualif

ying

note

s

PED

I6

mon

ths

to71

/ 2

year

s

Self

-Car

eM

obili

tySo

cial

Func

tion

(3)

Func

tiona

lSk

ills:

197

Car

egiv

erA

ssis

tanc

e:20

Mod

ifica

tions

:20

Func

tiona

lSki

lls:0

=U

nabl

e,or

limite

din

capa

bilit

yto

perf

orm

item

inm

osts

ituat

ions

;1=

Cap

able

ofpe

rfor

min

gite

min

mos

tsitu

atio

ns

Opt

ions

for

adm

inis

trat

ion

incl

ude

pare

ntin

terv

iew

.Pr

ovid

esno

rm-

refe

renc

edsc

ores

.

Car

egiv

erA

ssis

tanc

e:In

depe

nden

t,Su

perv

ise/

Prom

pt/M

onito

r,M

inim

alas

sist

ance

,M

oder

ate

assi

stan

ce,

Max

imal

assi

stan

ce,T

otal

assi

stan

ceM

odifi

catio

ns:N

om

odifi

catio

ns,

Chi

ld-o

rien

ted,

Reh

abili

tatio

n,E

xten

sive

mod

ifica

tions

8

Downloaded By: [Macy, Marisa] At: 23:06 15 January 2010

TPB

AB

irth

to6

Cog

nitiv

e,So

cial

-Em

otio

nal,

Com

mun

icat

ion

and

Lan

guag

e,Se

nsor

imot

orD

evel

opm

ent

Alis

tof

deve

l-op

men

tal

skill

sob

serv

eddu

ring

play

Scor

ing

syst

em:

(+)

Skill

atag

ele

vela

ndhi

s/he

rsk

ills

are

qual

itativ

ely

stro

ng

Incl

udes

play

with

pare

ntin

the

asse

ssm

ents

eque

nce.

n/a

(−)

Skill

isbe

low

age

leve

lan

dte

amha

squ

alita

tive

conc

erns

(√ )N

eed

for

furt

her

obse

rvat

ion

and/

orte

stin

g(N

O)

No

oppo

rtun

ity(N

A)

Not

appl

icab

ledu

eto

age

ordi

sabi

lity

WSS

/Oun

ceW

SS:P

re-

Gra

de5

WSS

:Per

sona

land

Soci

alD

evel

opm

ent,

Lan

guag

ean

dL

itera

cy,M

athe

mat

ical

Thi

nkin

g,Sc

ient

ific

Thi

nkin

g,So

cial

Stud

ies,

The

Art

s,Ph

ysic

alD

evel

opm

ent&

Hea

lth(7

)

n/a

3ty

pes

ofra

tings

:N

otY

etIn

Proc

ess

Profi

cien

t

Oun

ce:C

onta

ins

aFa

mily

Alb

umel

emen

ttha

tis

used

byfa

mili

esto

colle

ctob

serv

atio

ns,p

hoto

s,an

dm

emen

tos

ofth

eir

child

’sgr

owth

and

deve

lopm

ent.

n/a

Oun

ce:

Bir

thto

31/ 2

Oun

ce:P

erso

nal

Con

nect

ions

,Fee

lings

Abo

utSe

lf,R

elat

ions

hips

with

Oth

erC

hild

ren,

Und

erst

andi

ngan

dC

omm

unic

atio

n,E

xplo

ratio

nan

dPr

oble

mSo

lvin

g,M

ovem

enta

ndC

oord

inat

ion

(6)

Not

e.A

BA

S=

Ada

ptiv

eB

ehav

ior

Ass

essm

ent

Syst

em;

AE

PS=

Ass

essm

ent

Eva

luat

ion

&Pr

ogra

mm

ing

Syst

em;

Car

olin

a=

Car

olin

aC

urri

culu

mfo

rIn

fant

s/To

ddle

rs/P

resc

hool

ers

with

Spec

ialN

eeds

;CO

R=

Chi

ldO

bser

vatio

nR

ecor

d;D

OC

S=

Dev

elop

men

talO

bser

vatio

nC

heck

listS

yste

m;H

EL

P=

Haw

aiiE

arly

Lea

rnin

gPr

ofile

;PE

DI=

Pedi

atri

cE

valu

atio

nof

Dis

abili

tyIn

vent

ory;

TPB

A=

Tra

nsdi

scip

linar

yPl

ay-B

ased

Ass

essm

ent;

WSS

/Oun

ce=

Wor

kSa

mpl

ing

Syst

em.

9

Downloaded By: [Macy, Marisa] At: 23:06 15 January 2010

10 MACY AND BAGNATO

The nine authentic assessments (i.e., ABAS, AEPS, Carolina, COR, DOCS, HELP, PEDI,TPBA, and WSS/Ounce) were also included within the search. The search was done broadly inthe fields of psychology, developmental disabilities, special education, allied health fields (speechand language therapy, physical therapy, occupational therapy), and as early intervention.

Sources. The primary databases included the following sources: CINAHL, Cochrane Li-brary, Digital Dissertations, Ebsco Host, Education Resource Information Center (ERIC), GoogleScholar, Health Source, Illumina, Medline, Ovid/Mental Measurements Yearbook Buros, Psycho-logical Abstracts (PsycINFO), and Social Sciences Citation Index. Additionally, we conductedselective searches of unpublished masters’ theses and doctoral dissertations. Hand searches ofselect journals and ancestral searches were also conducted.

Selection Criteria. The study had to meet the following criteria for inclusion: (a) researchedone or more of the selected authentic assessment measures; (b) involved the evaluation of youngchildren with disabilities or at risk for developing a disability due to environmental or biologicalrisk conditions; (c) examined the accuracy or effectiveness of the measure at testing infants,toddlers, and preschool children with disabilities; and (d) disseminated in a scientific and scholarlypublication, which included dissertation and thesis studies. This research synthesis was conductedas part of literature reviews and syntheses conducted at the Tracking, Referral and AssessmentCenter for Excellence (Dunst, Trivette, & Cutspe, 2002).

RESULTS

A total of 27 studies on authentic assessment were identified from the fields of child development,early intervention, psychology, special education, physical therapy, pediatrics, and behavioraldevelopment. The most studies were conducted on the AEPS. The following information ispresented in Table 2: total number of studies that met the inclusion criteria, years articles werepublished, age range included in the studies, and the total number of participants in study samples.

Participants

There were over 10,000 young children who participated in these research studies on authenticassessment. Children’s ages ranged from birth to 224 months. Children were identified withvarious disabilities, and there were several studies that included children without disabilitiesand children who were at risk for developing a disability. Table 3 shows child characteristicsthat include total sample size, mean age in months, age range in months, and child abilitycharacteristics.

Types of Studies

Each study reported in this synthesis examined some aspect of accuracy and/or effectivenessrelated to one or more of the authentic measures. We found the following types of studies:

Downloaded By: [Macy, Marisa] At: 23:06 15 January 2010

AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT 11

TABLE 2Research Studies on the Nine Measures

Tool # of Studies Publication Years Children’s Age Range (in Months) Sample Size (Children)

ABAS 2 2006–2007 33 to 216 151AEPS 9 1986–2008 0 to 72 2,897Carolina 1 2006 Mean age for the treatment

group was 4.5 months47

COR 3 1993–2005 48 to 68 4,902DOCS 5 1997–2005 1 to 72 2,000+HELP 2 1995–1996 22 to 34 29PEDI 2 1993–1998 36 to 224 50TPBA 4 1994–2003 6 to 46 74WSS/Ounce 1 2008 45 to 60 112

Note. ABAS = Adaptive Behavior Assessment System; AEPS = Assessment Evaluation & Programming System;Carolina = Carolina Curriculum for Infants/Toddlers/Preschoolers with Special Needs; COR = Child ObservationRecord; DOCS = Developmental Observation Checklist System; HELP = Hawaii Early Learning Profile; PEDI =Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory; TPBA = Transdisciplinary Play-Based Assessment; WSS/Ounce = WorkSampling System.

13 interitem/interrater reliability, 5 test–retest reliability, 5 sensitivity/specificity, 15 concurrentvalidity, 3 predictive validity, and 6 construct/criterion validity. Accuracy (reliability) and effec-tiveness (validity) of the research studies are identified in Table 4.

Reported Results

A total of 16 studies examined the accuracy of authentic measures. There were 20 studies thatexamined the effectiveness of authentic measures. The number of studies exceeds 27 becausesome studies examined accuracy and effectiveness. Table 5 incorporates results on the accuracyand effectiveness of authentic assessment measures.

DISCUSSION

Using authentic assessment to determine children eligible for IDEA services has the potential toimprove Head Start services for children (Bagnato, 2007; Grisham-Brown et al., 2008; Gulikers,Bastiaens, & Kirschner, 2004; Layton & Lock, 2007; Neisworth & Bagnato, 2004). In order toestablish whether or not a child was eligible for early intervention services, many of the studiesin our review had standardized, norm-referenced tests as a comparison from which to judge themerit of the authentic measures. This was the case for the majority of concurrent and constructsvalidity studies reviewed in this synthesis. McLean et al. (2004) suggest that one way to examineconstruct validity is to establish convergent validity by examining high positive correlations withother tests that measure the same constructs. Authentic assessments do not measure constructs inthe same way as standardized, norm-referenced tests. Instead of comparing authentic measures

Downloaded By: [Macy, Marisa] At: 23:06 15 January 2010

12 MACY AND BAGNATO

TABLE 3Research Studies with Participant Demographic Information

Author(s) and Year Sample Age Range Child(N = 27) Size in Months Characteristics

Anthony (2003) 10 6 to 46 Developmental delayBailey & Bricker (1986) 32 n/a Children with and without developmental delayBaird, Campbell, Ingram, &

Gomez (2001)13 11 to 47 Cri-du-Chat syndrome

Bricker, Bailey, & Slentz(1990)

335 2 to 72 Children with (mild, moderate, and severe) and without developmental delay,and at risk

Bricker, Yovanoff, Capt, &Allen (2003)

861 1 to 72 Children eligible and not eligible for early intervention/early childhoodspecial education

Bricker et al. (2008) 1,381 1 to 72 Same as aboveCalhoon (1997) 4 22 to 35 Language delayCody (1995) 25 22 to 34 Previously identified as delayed in the areas of behavior, cognition, and

languageDelGiudice, Brogna,

Romano, Paludetto, &Toscano (2006)

47 n/a Down syndrome

Di Pinto (2006) 60 60 to 216 ADHD (ADHD/PI; ADHD/C)Fantuzzo, Grim, & Montes

(2002)733/1,427 n/a Urban and low income

Friedli (1994) 20 n/a Children with and without developmental delayGilbert (1997) 100 1 to 72 Children with and without developmental delayHsia (1993) 82 36 to 72 Children with and without developmental delayKnox & Usen (1998) 10 45 to 224 Cerebral palsyMacy, Bricker, & Squires

(2005)68 6 to 36 Children eligible and not eligible for early intervention/early childhood

special educationMcKeating-Esterle, Bagnato,

Fevola, & Hawthorne(2007)

91 33 to 71 Developmental delay, autism, hearing impairment/deafness, Downsyndrome, MR, CP/muscular dystrophy, speech/language impairment,visual impairment/blindness, other health impairment, multiple disabilities

Meisels, Xue, & Shamblott(2008)

112 45.24 to 59.76 At risk; children with special needs whose IEPs indicated that they were inthe mild to moderate range (speech or physical impairment)

Morgan (2005) 32 4 to 60 Reactive attachment disorderMyers, McBride, & Peterson

(1996)40 7 to 36 Developmental delay

Noh (2005) 65 36 to 64 Children eligible and not eligible for early intervention/early childhoodspecial education

Sayers, Cowden, Newton,Warren, & Eason (1996)

4 n/a Down syndrome

Schweinhart, McNair,Barnes, & Larner (1993)

2,500 n/a Low income

Sekina & Fantuzzo (2005) 242 55 to 68 UrbanSher (2000) 20 36 to 67 Children eligible and not eligible for early intervention/early childhood

special educationSlentz (1986) 53 36 to 72 Children with and without developmental delayWright & Boschen (1993) 40 36 to 84 Cerebral palsy

Note. ABAS = Adaptive Behavior Assessment System; ADHD = Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder; AEPS =Assessment Evaluation & Programming System; Carolina = Carolina Curriculum for Infants/Toddlers/Preschoolerswith Special Needs; COR = Child Observation Record; CP = Cerebral Palsy; DOCS = Developmental ObservationChecklist System; HELP = Hawaii Early Learning Profile; IEP = Individualized Education Plan; MR = MentalRetardation; PEDI = Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory; TPBA = Transdisciplinary Play-Based Assessment;WSS/Ounce = Work Sampling System.

Downloaded By: [Macy, Marisa] At: 23:06 15 January 2010

AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT 13

TABLE 4Research Study Characteristics

Accuracy (Reliability) Effectiveness (Validity)

Interitema Sensitivitya Constructa

Author(s) and Year (N = 27) Test Interraterb Test-Retest Specificityb Concurrent Criterionb Predictive

Anthony (2003) TPBA xBailey & Bricker (1986) AEPS xb x xBaird, Campbell, Ingram, & Gomez

(2001)DOCS xa

Bricker, Bailey, & Slentz (1990) AEPS xb x xBricker, Yovanoff, Capt, & Allen

(2003)AEPS xa

xb

Bricker et al. (2008) AEPS xa

xb

Calhoon (1997) TPBA xCody (1995) AEPS xDelGiudice, Brogna, Romano,

Paludetto, & Toscano (2006)AEPS x

Di Pinto (2006) ABAS xFantuzzo, Grim, & Montes (2002) COR xa

Friedli (1994) TPBA xb x xGilbert (1997) DOCS xb xHsia (1993) AEPS xa xa

xb

Knox & Usen (1998) PEDI xa

Macy, Bricker, & Squires (2005) AEPS xb xa xxb

Meisels, Xue, & Shamblott, (2008) WSS x xMcKeating-Esterle, Bagnato, Fevola,

& Hawthorne (2007)ABAS x

Morgan (2005) DOCS xMyers, McBride, & Peterson (1996) TPBA xa

Noh (2005) AEPS xa xxb

Sayers, Cowden, Newton, Warren, &Eason (1996)

AEPS x

Schweinhart, McNair, Barnes, &Larner (1993)

COR xb x

Sekina, & Fantuzzo (2005) COR xa

Sher (2000) AEPS xb x xa

Slentz (1986) AEPS xa x x xa

xb

Wright & Boschen (1993) PEDI xa

xb

Note. ABAS = Adaptive Behavior Assessment System; AEPS = Assessment Evaluation & Programming System;Carolina = Carolina Curriculum for Infants/Toddlers/Preschoolers with Special Needs; COR = Child ObservationRecord; DOCS = Developmental Observation Checklist System; HELP = Hawaii Early Learning Profile; PEDI =Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory; TPBA = Transdisciplinary Play-Based Assessment; WSSS/Ounce =Work Sampling System.

Downloaded By: [Macy, Marisa] At: 23:06 15 January 2010

14 MACY AND BAGNATO

TABLE 5Reported Research Results

Author(s) and Year (N = 27) Reported Results

Anthony (2003) TPBA visual development guidelines were used by raters at Denver’s PLAYclinic and had positive interrater agreement results.

Bailey & Bricker (1986) AEPS correlation with the Gesell Developmental Schedule (Knobloch et al.,1980) was strong for the whole test but not individual areas. AEPS could besuccessfully administered in a reasonable amount of time.

Baird, Campbell, Ingram, & Gomez(2001)

DOCS may lack sensitivity in detecting variations in development.

Bricker, Bailey, & Slentz (1990) AEPS correlation across areas was r = .88 (p < .001).Bricker, Yovanoff, Capt, & Allen

(2003)AEPS newly established cutoff scores in the 2nd edition identified eligible

children accurately most of the time.Bricker et al. (2008) AEPS cutoff scores performed similarly to the Bricker et al. (2003) study. The

measure accurately identified the majority of children correctly.Calhoon (1997) Children performed better (i.e., higher scores) on the TPBA than the

conventional test, and the play-based assessment provided a richerdescription of children’s emerging skills.

Cody (1995) In the HELP study, the play age obtained from the authentic assessment washighly correlated with the Developmental Age Equivalent of theconventional assessment (i.e., BSID).

DelGiudice, Brogna, Romano,Paludetto, & Toscano (2006)

After 1 year, children in the Carolina condition made progress and had higherDQ than children in the comparison condition who made slight progress butimprovements were not statistically significant.

Di Pinto (2006) ABAS accurately documents poor social adaptive outcomes for children withADHD.

Fantuzzo, Grim, & Montes (2002) The study supports the use of the COR assessment method for low-incomeurban preschool children; however, a three-factor model should replace theproposed six-factor model.

Friedli (1994) TPBA had favorable test retest results, interrater agreement, and concurrentvalidity.

Gilbert (1997) Significant difference among raters was found: mothers rated the child’s skillshighest, the fathers next, and the teachers last. Differences among raters onthe DOCS may influence eligibility decisions.

Hsia (1993) The AEPS has strong interrater agreement at both domain (ranging from .87social to .94 adaptive) and total test (.90) levels. Strong relationship betweenindividual domain scores (.64 to .96) and total test (.98) when internalconsistency was examined. Findings also showed that the AEPS wassensitive to performance differences of children with delays.

Knox & Usen (1998) The PEDI is a useful tool for describing the area of functional delay in childrenwith cerebral palsy. It also appears to be sensitive to changes that wereobserved clinically.

Macy, Bricker, & Squires (2005) The AEPS accurately classified all eligible children and over 94% (n = 64/68)of the noneligible children. The overall sensitivity was 100%; specificitywas 89%. The AEPS used to determine eligibility was positively andsignificantly correlated with conventional eligibility measures. Finally, theobservers who scored the AEPS had strong agreement on observations madeabout child performance.

Meisels, Xue, & Shamblott (2008) Study found evidence for validity and reliability of WSS, suggesting thatWSHS accurately assesses language development, literacy, and mathematicsskills in young children.

(Continued on next page)

Downloaded By: [Macy, Marisa] At: 23:06 15 January 2010

AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT 15

TABLE 5Reported Research Results (Continued)

Author(s) and Year (N = 27) Reported Results

McKeating-Esterle, Bagnato, Fevola,& Hawthorne (2007)

ABAS-II is correlated with ratings of informed opinion when assessingchildren for early intervention.

Morgan (2005) Evidence supports the predictive validity of the DOCS-II in detecting RAD ina randomized sample.

Myers, McBride, & Peterson (1996) The overall mean number of days to complete the eligibility assessmentprocess took the group using the TPBA 22 days less than it took the groupusing a conventional test.

Noh (2005) The AEPS has satisfactory interrater reliability agreement in the cognitive andsocial domains. Strong relationship between individual domain scores anditems in the domains.

Sayers, Cowden, Newton, Warren, &Eason (1996)

When children’s scores increased on the gross motor domain of the HELP,they did the same for the PSI.

Schweinhart, McNair, Barnes, &Larner (1993)

The COR was found to be a psychometrically promising tool for theassessment of children’s development in developmentally appropriate earlychildhood programs. Also, the COR helped staff to understand earlychildhood development and curriculum and to prepare individualizededucation programs for their children.

Sekina, & Fantuzzo (2005) Univariate and multivariate results provide support for convergent anddivergent validity of the COR dimensions. Fifteen of the 18 variablesdifferentiated the three COR dimensions, particularly the COR Cognitiveand Social Engagement dimensions.

Sher (2000) Professionals using the AEPS were able to identify eligible children. Moderateinterrater reliability for the communication domain and high reliability forother domains.

Slentz (1986) Positive results of this study support the technical properties of the AEPS.Interrater agreement was very high at .94 for the entire test and ranged from.84 to .94 for the six domains. Results for two administrations of the AEPS(N = 18) revealed strong level of stability across time for the total test (.91),domain scores varied between high (fine motor .86, cognitive .91, socialcommunication .77) to moderate (social .50) to low stability (gross motor.07 and self-care .13). Internal consistency was strong for all domains exceptself-care. Concurrent validity was examined by comparing the AEPS withthe McCarthy (1972) and the Uniform Performance Assessment System(Haring, White, Edgar, Affleck, & Hayden, 1980) with mixed resultsranging from very weak to strong relationships between domains and scales.

Wright & Boschen (1993) Satisfactory information is provided to confirm the PEDI’s usefulness forclinical and research purposes with children with cerebral palsy.

Note. ABAS = Adaptive Behavior Assessment System; AEPS = Assessment Evaluation & Programming System;Carolina = Carolina Curriculum for Infants/Toddlers/Preschoolers with Special Needs; COR = Child ObservationRecord; DOCS = Developmental Observation Checklist System; HELP = Hawaii Early Learning Profile; PEDI =Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory; TPBA = Transdisciplinary Play-Based Assessment; WSS/Ounce = WorkSampling System.

with other good examples of authentic and linked eligibility assessment, many of the studies inour review made comparisons with nonlinked eligibility tests. For example, in the Macy, Bricker,and Squires (2005) study, the AEPS (curriculum linked measure) was compared with the BattelleDevelopmental Inventory (not linked to curriculum).

Downloaded By: [Macy, Marisa] At: 23:06 15 January 2010

16 MACY AND BAGNATO

Future research should continue not only to examine the accuracy and effectiveness of au-thentic measures but also to make comparisons using an external standard. Some examples ofexternal standards are (a) correct identification rates based on expert consensus, (b) the need forservices—service-based eligibility, and (c) probability of succeeding/progressing in Head Startor typical setting with typical peers without support services. Another area of research shouldstudy the effects of the initial eligibility assessment using authentic measures on child outcomesusing a longitudinal design. Cost–benefit studies need to be conducted on the use of authenticassessment practices used to determine children eligible for IDEA services. This type of evidencecould be helpful to policymakers when reauthorizing policies and updating eligibility assessmentguidelines.

Limitations

A number of authentic assessment measures are commercially available; however, we chose toexamine only these nine measures because they appeared most often in the professional literatureand by accounts from practitioners. Other authentic measures, like the Developmental Continuumfrom Teaching Strategies, were not included in this review because they did not meet our inclusioncriteria. For example, tools like the Developmental Continuum have conducted research studies;however, we were unable to locate these in journals and/or the databases we searched. Sometimespublishers maintain the results from studies for proprietary reasons and they are not available tothe public. The body of literature contained other publications related to authentic assessmentand we included only research studies that involved young children who were at risk or had adisability in the sample.

Authentic assessment can be used for designing a program for a child, creating interventions,and to evaluate the efficacy of a child’s individualized program. Not only does authentic as-sessment have potential to accurately identify children in need of services, it also has importantimplications beyond eligibility determination (Neisworth & Bagnato, 2004). Findings of thisstudy will help professionals to critically identify characteristics of authentic assessment researchfindings that influence the accurate and representative documentation of a young child’s earlyintervention eligibility assessment experience.

Head Start programs would benefit from an assessment approach that provides useful informa-tion linked to curriculum and instruction in order to serve children more efficiently. Additionally,an approach is needed that can monitor ongoing child performance (Downs & Strand, 2006;Grisham-Brown, Hallam, & Brookshire, 2006; Grisham-Brown et al., 2008; Hebbeler, Barton,& Mallik, 2008; Meisels, Liaw, Dorfman, & Nelson, 1995). Authentic assessment is a viable al-ternative to eligibility assessments that use standardized, norm-referenced tests (Bagnato, 2005,2007; Bagnato & Neisworth, 1992; Macy & Hoyt-Gonzales, 2007; McLean, 2005; Neisworth &Bagnato, 2004). An authentic assessment approach has growing support from early childhoodprofessional organizations (i.e., DEC and NAEYC) and from the literature base (Bagnato &Neisworth, 2005). The authentic assessment studies reported here in this research study are thefirst phase of research supporting the use of an authentic assessment approach for eligibilitydetermination. Although this foundation is a good start, more research is needed to continue toexplore authentic measures and approaches.

Downloaded By: [Macy, Marisa] At: 23:06 15 January 2010

AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT 17

REFERENCES

*Indicates studies used in the synthesis.**Indicates measures used in the synthesis.*Anthony, T. L. (2003). The inclusion of vision-development guidelines in the Transdisciplinary Play-Based Assessment:

A study of reliability and validity. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Denver, Denver, CO.Bagnato, S. J. (2005). The authentic alternative for assessment in early intervention: An emerging evidence-based practice.

Journal of Early Intervention, 28, 17–22.Bagnato, S. J. (2007). Authentic assessment for early childhood intervention best practices: The Guilford school practi-

tioner series. New York: Guilford.Bagnato, S. J., Macy, M., Salaway, J., & Lehman, C. (2007). Research foundations for conventional tests and testing

to ensure accurate and representative early intervention eligibility. Pittsburgh, PA: TRACE Center for Excellencein Early Childhood Assessment, Early Childhood Partnerships, Children’s Hospital/University of Pittsburgh, U.S.Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs, and Orelena Hawks Puckett Institute.

Bagnato, S. J., McKeating-Esterle, E., Fevola, A. F., Bartalomasi, M., & Neisworth, J. T. (2008). Valid use of clinicaljudgment (informed opinion) for early intervention eligibility: Evidence-base and practice characteristics. Infants andYoung Children, 21, 334–348.

Bagnato, S. J., & Neisworth, J. T. (1992). The case against intelligence testing in early intervention. Topics in EarlyChildhood Special Education, 12, 1–20.

Bagnato, S. J., & Neisworth, J. T. (1999). Collaboration and teamwork in assessment for early intervention. ComprehensivePsychiatric Assessment of Young Children, 8, 347–363.

Bagnato, S. J., & Neisworth J. T. (2005). DEC recommended practices: Assessment. In S. Sandall, M. L. Hemmeter, B.J. Smith, & M. McLean (Eds.), DEC recommended practices (pp. 45–50). Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

Bagnato, S. J., Neisworth, J. T., & Munson, S. (1997). LINKing assessment and early intervention. Baltimore, MD:Brookes.

Bagnato, S. J., Neisworth, J. T., & Pretti-Frontczak, K. L. (in press). LINKing assessment and early intervention (4th ed.).Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Bagnato, S. J., Smith-Jones, J., Matesa, M., & McKeating-Esterle, E. (2006). Research foundations for using clinicaljudgment (informed opinion) for early intervention eligibility determination. Cornerstones, 2(3), 1–14.

*Bailey, E., & Bricker, D. (1986). A psychometric study of a criterion-referenced assessment designed for infants andyoung children. Journal of the Division of Early Childhood, 10, 124–134.

*Baird, S. M., Campbell, D., Ingram, R., & Gomez, C. (2001). Young children with Cri-du-Chat: Genetic, developmental,and behavioral profiles. Infant-Toddler Intervention, 11, 1–14.

**Bricker, D. (Ed.). (1993). Assessment, evaluation, and programming system for infants and children (1st ed.). Baltimore,MD: Brookes.

**Bricker, D. (Ed.). (2002). Assessment, evaluation, and programming system for infants and children (2nd ed.).Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

*Bricker, D., Bailey, E., & Slentz, K. (1990). Reliability, validity, and utility of the Evaluation and Programming System:For infants and young children (EPS-I). Journal of Early Intervention, 14, 147–160.

*Bricker, D., Clifford, J., Yovanoff, P., Pretti-Frontczak, K., Waddell, M., Allen, D., et al. (2008). Eligibility determinationusing a curriculum-based assessment: A further examination. Journal of Early Intervention, 31, 3–21.

*Bricker, D., Yovanoff, P., Capt, B., & Allen, D. (2003). Use of a curriculum-based measure to corroborate eligibilitydecisions. Journal of Early Intervention, 26, 20–30.

*Calhoon, J. M. (1997). Comparison of assessment results between a formal standardized measure and a play-basedformat. Infant-Toddler Intervention: The Transdisciplinary Journal, 7, 201–214.

*Cody, D. A. (1995). Play assessment as a measure of cognitive ability in developmentally delayed preschoolers.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA.

Danaher, J. (2005). Eligibility policies and practices for young children under Part B of IDEA (NECTAC Notes No.15).Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina, FPG Child Development Institute, National Early ChildhoodTechnical Assistance Center.

*DelGiudice, E., Brogna, G., Romano, A., Paludetto, R., & Toscano, E. (2006). Early intervention for children with Downsyndrome in southern Italy: The role of parent-implemented developmental training. Infants & Young Children, 19,50–58.

Downloaded By: [Macy, Marisa] At: 23:06 15 January 2010

18 MACY AND BAGNATO

*Di Pinto, M. (2006). The ecological validity of the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Functioning (BRIEF) inattention deficit hyperactivity disorder: Predicting academic achievement and social adaptive behavior in the subtypesof ADHD. Dissertation Abstracts International, 67(03), 1696B. (UMI No. 3209793)

Downs, A., & Strand, P. S. (2006). Using assessment to improve the effectiveness of early childhood education. Journalof Child and Family Studies, 15, 671–680.

Dunst, C. J. (2002). Family-centered practices: Birth through high school. Journal of Special Education, 36(3), 139–147.Dunst, C. J., Trivette, C. M., & Cutspe, P. A. (2002). An evidence-based approach to documenting the characteristics

and consequences of early intervention practices. Centerscope, 1(2), 1–6. Retrieved July 11, 2009, from http://www.evidencebasepractices.org/centerscope/centerscopevol1no2.pdf

Dunst, C. J., & Hamby, D. W. (2004). States’ Part C eligibility definitions account for differences in the percent-age of children participating in early intervention programs. Snapshots, 1(4). Retrieved July 12, 2009, fromhttp://www.tracecenter.info/products.php

*Fantuzzo, D., Grim, S., & Montes, G. (2002). Generalization of the Child Observation Record: A validity study fordiverse samples of urban, low-income preschool children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 17, 106–125.

*Friedli, C. (1994). Transdisciplinary play-based assessment: A study of reliability and validity. Unpublished doctoraldissertation, University of Colorado, Denver, CO.

*Gilbert, S. L. (1997). Parent and teacher congruency on variations of a screening assessment: An examination (ReportNo. H023B50009). Auburn, AL: Auburn University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED413726)

Grisham-Brown, J., Hallam, R., & Brookshire, R. (2006). Using authentic assessment to evidence children’s progresstoward early learning standards. Early Childhood Education Journal, 34, 45–51.

Grisham-Brown, J., Hallam, R., & Pretti-Frontczak, K. L. (2008). Preparing Head Start personnel to use a curriculum-based assessment: An innovative practice in the “age of accountability.” Journal of Early Intervention, 30, 271–281.

Gulikers, T. M., Bastiaens, T. J., & Kirschner, P. A. (2004). A five-dimensional framework for authentic assessment.Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(3), 67–86.

Guralnick, M. J. (2006). Family influences on early development: Integrating the science of normative development,risk and disability, and intervention. In K. McCartney & D. Phillips (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of early childhooddevelopment (pp. 44–61). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

**Haley, S. M., Coster, W. J., Ludlow, L. H., Haltiwanger, J. T., & Andrellos, P. J. (1992). Pediatric Evaluation ofDisability Inventory (PEDI). Boston: New England Medical Center Hospitals, Inc.

**Harrison, P. L., & Oakland, T. (2003). Adaptive Behavior Assessment System-Second Edition. San Antonio, TX: ThePsychological Corporation.

Hebbeler, K., Barton, L. R., & Mallik, S. (2008). Assessment and accountability for programs serving young childrenwith disabilities. Exceptionality, 16, 48–63.

**High/Scope Educational Research Foundation. (2003). Preschool Child Observation Record–Second Edition. Ypsilanti,MI: High/Scope Press.

**Hresko, W. P., Miguel, S. A., Sherbenou, R. J., & Burton, S. D. (1994). Developmental Observation Checklist System.Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

*Hsia, T. (1993). Evaluating the psychometric properties of the Assessment, Evaluation, and Programming System forThree to Six Years: AEPS Test. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 108-446, 20 U.S.C. (2004).**Johnson-Martin, N. M., Attermeier, S. M., & Hacker, B. J. (2004). The Carolina curriculum for infants and toddlers

with special needs (3rd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.**Johnson-Martin, N. M., Hacker, B. J., & Attermeier, S. M. (2004). The Carolina curriculum for preschoolers with

special needs (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.Keilty, B., LaRocco, D. J., & Casell, F. B. (2009). Early interventionists’ reports of authentic assessment methods through

focus group research. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 28, 244–256.*Knox, V., & Usen, Y. (1998). Clinical review of the Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory. The British Journal of

Occupational Therapy, 63, 29–32.Layton, C. A., & Lock, R. H. (2007). Use authentic assessment techniques to fulfill the promise of No Child Left Behind.

Intervention in School & Clinic, 42, 169–173.**Linder, T. W. (1993). Transdisciplinary play-based assessment: A functional approach to working with young children.

Baltimore, MD: Brookes.Losardo, A., & Notari-Syverson, A. (2001). Alternative approaches to assessing young children. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Downloaded By: [Macy, Marisa] At: 23:06 15 January 2010

AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT 19

Macy, M., & Bricker, D. (2006). Practical applications for using curriculum-based assessment to create embedded learningopportunities for young children. Young Exceptional Children, 9(4), 12–21.

*Macy, M. G., Bricker, D. D., & Squires, J. K. (2005). Validity and reliability of a curriculum-based assessment approachto determine eligibility for part C services. Journal of Early Intervention, 28, 1–16.

Macy, M., & Hoyt-Gonzales, K. (2007). A linked system approach to early childhood special education eligibilityassessment. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 39(3), 40–44.

*McKeating-Esterle, E., Bagnato, S. J., Fevola, A., & Hawthorne, C. (2007). A comparison of clinical judgment (informedopinion) with performance-based assessment to document early intervention status. Unpublished master’s thesis,University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.

McLean, M. (2005). Using curriculum-based assessment to determine eligibility: Time for a paradigm shift? Journal ofEarly Intervention, 28, 23–27.

McLean, M., Bailey, D. B., & Wolery, M. (2004). Assessing infants and preschoolers with special needs (3rd ed.). UpperSaddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Meisels, S. J., Bickel, D. D., Nicholson, J., Xue, Y., & Atkins-Burnett, S. (2001). Trusting teachers’ judgments: A validitystudy of a curriculum-embedded performance assessment in kindergarten to grade 3. American Educational ResearchJournal, 38, 73–95.

**Meisels, S. J., Dombro, A. L., Marsden, D. B., Weston, D., & Jewkes, A. (2003). The Ounce Scale: An observationalassessment for infants, toddlers, and families. New York: Pearson Early Learning.

**Meisels, S. J., Jablon, J. R., Marsden, D. B., Dichtelmiller, M. L., & Dorfman, A. B. (2001). The Work Sampling System(4th ed.). New York: Pearson Early Learning.

Meisels, S. J., Liaw, F., Dorfman, A., & Nelson, R. F. (1995). The Work Sampling System: Reliability and validity of aperformance assessment for young children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 10, 277–296.

Meisels, S. J., Xue, Y., Bickel, D. D., Nicholson, J., & Atkins-Burnett, S. (2001). Parental reactions to authenticperformance assessment. Educational Assessment, 7, 61–85.

*Meisels, S. J., Xue, Y., & Shamblott, M. (2008). Assessing language, literacy, and mathematics skills with WorkSampling Head Start. Early Education and Development, 19, 963–981.

Morgan, F. T. (2005). Development of a measure to screen for reactive attachment disorder in children 0–5 years.Dissertation Abstracts International, 66(04), 2312B (UMI No. 3173576).

*Myers, C. L., McBride, S. L., & Peterson, C. A. (1996). Transdisciplinary, play-based assessment in early childhoodspecial education: An examination of social validity. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 16, 102–126.

National Association of School Psychologists. (2005). NASP position statement on early childhood assessment. Bethesda,MD: Author.

National Research Council. (2008). Early childhood assessment: Why, what, and how. Washington, DC: NationalAcademies Press.

Neisworth, J. T., & Bagnato, S. J. (2004). The mismeasure of young children: The authentic assessment alternative.Infants & Young Children, 17, 198–212.

*Noh, J. (2005). Examining the psychometric properties of the second edition of the Assessment, Evaluation, andProgramming System for three to six years: AEPS Test–Second Edition (3–6). Unpublished doctoral dissertation,University of Oregon, Eugene, OR.

**Parks, S., Furono, S., O’Reilly, K., Inatsuka, T., Hoska, C. M., & Zeisloft-Falbey, B. (1994). Hawaii early learningprofile (HELP). Palo Alto, CA: Vort.

Pretti-Frontczak, K., Kowalski, K., & Brown, R. D. (2002). Preschool teachers’ use of assessments and curricula: Astatewide examination. Exceptional Children, 69, 109–123.

*Sayers, L. K., Cowden, J. E., Newton, M., Warren, B., & Eason, B. (1996). Qualitative analysis of a pediatric strengthintervention on the developmental stepping movements of infants with Down syndrome. Adapted Physical ActivityQuarterly, 13, 247–268.

*Schweinhart, L. J., McNair, S., Barnes, H., & Larner, M. (1993). Observing young children in action to assess theirdevelopment: The High/Scope Child Observation Record study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53,445–454.

*Sekina, Y., & Fantuzzo, J. (2005). Validity of the Child Observation Record: An investigation of the relationship betweenCOR dimensions and social-emotional and cognitive outcomes for Head Start children. Journal of PsychoeducationalAssessment, 23, 242–261.

Downloaded By: [Macy, Marisa] At: 23:06 15 January 2010

20 MACY AND BAGNATO

Shakelford, J. (2002). Informed clinical opinion (NECTAC Note No. 10). Chapel Hill, NC: The University of NorthCarolina, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute, National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center.

Shakelford, J. (2006). State and jurisdictional eligibility definitions for infants and toddlers with disabilities under IDEA(NECTAC Note No. 21). Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina, Frank Porter Graham Child DevelopmentInstitute, National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center.

*Sher, N. (2000). Activity-based assessment: Facilitating curriculum linkage between eligibility evaluation and interven-tion. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR.

*Slentz, K. (1986). Evaluating the instructional needs of young children with handicaps: Psychometric adequacy of theEvaluation and Programming System-Assessment Level II. Dissertation Abstracts International, 47 (11), 4072A.

Slentz, K. L., & Hyatt, K. J. (2008). Best practices in applying curriculum-based assessment in early childhood. In A.Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (Vol. 2, pp. 519–534). Bethesda, MD: NationalAssociation of School Psychologists.

*Wright, F. V., & Boschen, K. (1993). The Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory (PEDI) validation of a newfunctional assessment outcome instrument. Canadian Journal of Rehabilitation, 7, 41–42.

Zigler, E., & Styfco, S. J. (2000). Pioneering steps (and fumbles) in developing a federal preschool intervention. Topicsin Early Childhood Special Education, 20, 67–70.

Downloaded By: [Macy, Marisa] At: 23:06 15 January 2010