Evaluations
See all attachments
Runninghead:
ASSESSMENT EVALUATION 1
Assessment Evaluation 1
ASSESSMENT EVALUATION 1
Analysis of Diagnostic Assessments of Reading (DAR-2)
Summary of Assessment
DAR-2 is a comprehensive individual assessment of children’s strengths and weaknesses
in reading and language, and informs test administrators/examiners (teachers, specialists,
psychologists, etc.) of instructional interventions. DAR aids professionals in distinguishing
reading strengths and deficits at each grade level by concentrating on word recognition, oral
reading accuracy and fluency, silent reading comprehension, spelling, word meaning and
analysis, print and phonological awareness, letters, and sounds.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Assessment
The DAR is administered to students individually and untimed. Benchmarks for mastery
are provided for each test and their component parts. Untimed administration aids students with
disabilities and special needs that may struggle with reading proficiencies; the test has the ability
to separate known groups of children that may be expected to have different levels
of reading proficiency.
The weaknesses of the assessment include the limited reliability provided for some of the
DAR tests; studies have shown that ESL students typically scored lower than the control group.
DAR is not a true assessment of their oral or cognitive abilities in contexts of their own spoken
language.
Justification and Use of the Assessment
DAR meets the technical requirements for reliability and validity. Validity is proven
across contexts of content, criterion-related, and construct; validity supported that instrument
tested for intended purpose. It is reliable for providing professional educators with a
ASSESSMENT EVALUATION 1
comprehensive assessment of children’s strengths and weaknesses in reading and language and
informing instructional
interventions.
DATA COLLECTION FOR ASSESSMENT EVALUATIONS
Name of Instrument Diagnostic Assessments of Reading (DAR-2)
Author(s) of Instrument Florence G. Roswell. Jeanne S. Chall, Mary E. Curtis, Gail
Kearns.
Date of Publication 2006
Publisher PRO-ED
1. Describe the subtests (e.g., learning areas)
The learning areas include word recognition, oral reading accuracy and fluency, silent reading
comprehension, spell, word analysis and meaning, print and phonological awareness, letter
sounds.
2. Describe the age range.
Grade Levels: K-12
3. State the purpose of the instrument.
Designed to function as an assessment of individual reading ability for the DARTTS testing
and teaching program. It provides a comprehensive assessment of children’s strengths and
weaknesses in reading and language and informs instructional interventions.
4. Describe the examiner qualifications.
Qualified examiners: Teachers, Reading Specialists, school psychologists, diagnosticians
5. Describe the available scores.
Word Recognition, Oral Reading Accuracy and Fluency (optional), Silent
Reading
Comprehension, Spelling, Word Meaning, Print Awareness, Phonological Awareness, Letters
and Sounds, Word Analysis.
6. Describe the instrument’s technical data provided (i.e., validity, reliability, norms,
research).
Reliability coefficient ranges 0.66 to 0.90 across grade levels and subsets; validity proven
across contexts of content, criterion-related, and construct; validity supported that instrument
tested its intended purpose. Norm referenced standardization samples (N = 1,395 students in
Grades K-12 for Form A, and N = 1,440 students in Grades K-12 for Form B) with
standardization sample for Form A selected to be demographically representative of gender,
race/ethnicity, and geographic region.
7. Describe features of the instrument that provide well-designed and easy-to-follow
administration procedures.
Administrators are provided with an on-line Teaching Trial Strategies (TTS) for students.
Detailed directions for test administration and scoring are provided in the teacher’s manual. In
addition, test administrators are provided with a response record with directions for
administration, which includes a script for administering the test as well as recording and
scoring materials. Benchmarks for mastery are provided for each test and their component
parts. In addition, each lesson has explicit directions and a list of needed materials. All
teaching components also contain a student record form to record student responses.
javascript:__doLinkPostBack(”,’ss~~ZC%20%22DAR-2%22%7C%7Csl~~rl’,”);
javascript:__doLinkPostBack(”,’ss~~AR%20%22Roswell%2C%20Florence%20G.%22%7C%7Csl~~rl’,”);
javascript:__doLinkPostBack(”,’ss~~AR%20%22Chall%2C%20Jeanne%20S.%22%7C%7Csl~~rl’,”);
javascript:__doLinkPostBack(”,’ss~~AR%20%22Curtis%2C%20Mary%20E.%22%7C%7Csl~~rl’,”);
javascript:__doLinkPostBack(”,’ss~~AR%20%22Curtis%2C%20Mary%20E.%22%7C%7Csl~~rl’,”);
javascript:__doLinkPostBack(”,’ss~~AR%20%22Kearns%2C%20Gail%22%7C%7Csl~~rl’,”);
ASSESSMENT EVALUATION 1
8. State the approximate administration and scoring time.
Administration of the battery is untimed but takes approximately 40 minutes. Although
specific instructions are provided for adequate test administration, the time lapse necessary
between the pre- and post-assessments is not provided,
9. Describe features of the scoring procedures that are well designed and easy to follow.
Examiner provided with DAR ScoringPro software system with detailed instructions for
scoring provided in the teacher’s manual, and response record containing a detailed script for
recording and scoring. The TTS website contains instructions for accessing the appropriate
test for individual students. Teachers are given directions for scoring as well as guidelines for
interpreting and using the results.
10. Explain this instrument’s adaptation for students with limited English proficiency
None indicated. However, the instrument has the ability to separate known groups of children
that might be expected to have different levels of reading proficiency.
11. Explain the appropriateness of the instrument for use with children who have
disabilities.
None indicated; not differentiated for any specific group. However, administered untimed to
meet the needs of students with disabilities and special needs.
12. Describe the adaptation of the instrument for use with children who have special
needs.
None indicated; no adaptations indicated for any specific group.
13. Describe the strengths of the instrument.
Strengths include the positive internal consistency estimates that were obtained and the
criterion-related validity as demonstrated through the ability of the test to separate known
groups of children that might be expected to have different levels of reading proficiency.
14. State any weaknesses of the instrument.
(1) difficult to locate on-line resources with no specific Web address indicated in the resources
provided; (2) technical manual unclear on whether reported psychometrics are based on the 2nd
edition or an earlier version; (3) limited reliability provided for some of the DAR tests; and
(4) does not contain a factor analysis to provide a better understanding of the instrument’s
internal structure; (5) ESL typically score lower that the control group.
15. Additional comments, information, and observations:
Not appropriate for English as a Second Language (ESL) students; not true assessment of their
oral or cognitive abilities in contexts of their own spoken language.
Analysis of GORT-5
Summary of Assessment
GORT-5 is a reading assessment used to identify students with reading difficulty,
diagnose reading disabilities, determine strengths and weaknesses, and evaluate and document
students’ progress in reading. The test focuses on reading comprehension and oral fluency.
ASSESSMENT EVALUATION 1
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Assessment
The strengths of GORT-5 are in its validity and reliability. The assessment has strong
prediction evidence and construct-related evidence of validity across cultural contexts; the
assessment standardization for development of norms were designed and implemented to assure
representation across regions of the country, gender, and race. The assessment is highly reliable
with reliability coefficients for all age intervals exceeding 0.9. Administration, scoring, and
interpretation of the assessment is done so by trained professional examiners (i.e. teachers,
specialists, psychologist, diagnosticians).
While the instrument is an excellent diagnostic tool for making classification and
instructional decisions, evaluating student progress or intervention effectiveness, and conducting
research, it does not measure phonemic awareness or basic word recall, the underlying constructs
of reading. GORT-5 normative group was constructed to represent U.S. population across the
variables of geographic region, gender, race, ethnicity, parents’ education, household income,
and exceptionalities. However, GORT-5 does not have adaptations for students with special
needs or disabilities and there is no indication how they are represented in the norm group.
Justification and Use of the Assessment
Aforementioned, professional educators, psychologists, and diagnosticians can readily
depend on the results and interpretation of data from GORT-5 as a valid diagnostic tool for
identifying students with reading deficiencies, diagnosing reading disabilities, determining
strengths and weaknesses, and evaluating students’ progress in reading.
Name of Instrument GORT-5
Author(s) of Instrument J. Lee Wiederholt and Brian R. Bryant
Date of Publication 2012
Publisher PRO-ED
ASSESSMENT EVALUATION 1
1. Describe the subtests (e.g., learning areas)
Reading
2. Describe the age range.
Ages 6-23
3. State the purpose of the instrument.
‘Identify students with reading difficulty, diagnose reading disabilities, determine strengths
and weaknesses, and evaluate students’ progress in reading.
4. Describe the examiner qualifications.
Qualified examiners: teachers, school psychologists, and diagnosticians
5. Describe the available scores.
Oral Reading Index (Fluency [Rate, Accuracy, Total], Reading Comprehension
6. Describe the instrument’s technical data provided (i.e., validity, reliability, norms,
research).
Validity: Prediction evidence and construct-related evidence of validity across cultural
contexts; Reliability: Reliability coefficient for all age intervals exceeded 0.9. Norms:
Assessment Standardization: development of norms designed and implemented to assure
standardization of administration and scoring and sample selection to obtain representation
across regions of the country, gender, and race.
7. Describe features of the instrument that provide well-designed and easy-to-follow
administration procedures.
Administrator’s/Examiner’s manual includes information about how to administer and score
the test, interpretation of scores, and technical characteristics (norms, reliability, and validity).
A consumable examiner’s record booklet (for Form A or Form B), the examiner records
student time and miscues and asks and records responses to comprehension questions.
8. State the approximate administration and scoring time.
[20-30] minutes; Test has two parallel forms (A and B) each with 16 separate stories with five
comprehension questions following each story. Typically administered in 15-45 minutes
9. Describe features of the scoring procedures that are well designed and easy to follow.
Examiner manual includes information on scoring and interpretation of test score (Rate score
derived from the amount of time in seconds taken by a student to read a story aloud; accuracy
score derived from number of words student pronounces correctly when reading the passage.
fluency score determined by combining student’s Rate and Accuracy scores; comprehension
score determined by number of questions about the stories that the student answers correctly).
The Oral Reading Index (ORI) is a composite score formed by combining students’ Fluency
and Comprehension scaled scores.
10. Explain this instrument’s adaptation for students with limited English proficiency
None indicated; test designed to determine students with reading disabilities and evaluate
student progress.
11. Explain the appropriateness of the instrument for use with children who have
disabilities.
Normative group was matched to the U.S. population across the variables of geographic
region, gender, race, ethnicity, parents’ education, household income, and exceptionalities.
Test designed to determine students with reading disabilities and to evaluate student progress.
ASSESSMENT EVALUATION 1
12. Describe the adaptation of the instrument for use with children who have special
needs.
None indicated.
13. Describe the strengths of the instrument.
The instrument is an excellent diagnostic tool for making classification and instructional
decisions, evaluating student progress or intervention effectiveness, and conducting research to
determine the range of options using scaled scores as well as miscue analyses of oral reading.
14. State any weaknesses of the instrument.
Does not measure any underlying constructs of reading (e.g., phonemic awareness, basic word
recall).
15. Additional comments, information, and observations:
Administrators and users should not conduct the secondary analysis scoring (i.e., prosody
ratings and miscue analyses) if they have not received sufficient training.
Analysis of WIAT-III
Summary of Assessment
WIAT-III is an achievement assessment for primary and secondary students ages 4-0 through 19-
11 (Pre-Kindergarten through 12th grade). The individually administered comprehensive was
designed to measure the achievement levels of children in the areas of listening, speaking,
reading, writing and mathematics; it also advises the adult norms for ages 20 through 50. The
constructs of WIAT-III identify academic strengths and weaknesses, informs decision making
pertaining to eligibility of services, and devises recommendations for instruction and
intervention.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Assessment
Validity studies are consistent with professional practice and provide evidence for its
interpretations and uses. The developed norms norm samples were constructed to be nationally
representative of the U.S. population for each grade and age level, and total with students added
from special groups (e.g., specific learning disabilities, speech or language impairment,
intellectual disability, and developmental delay). Correlation studies with previous editions and
similar achievement tests (i.e. WPPSI-III, WISC-IV, WAIS-IV, WNV, and DAS-I) provide
ASSESSMENT EVALUATION 1
strong convergent evidence for interpretation of the subtests and composites; the assessment is
reliable for assessing the aforementioned objectives.
Although the WIAT-III is well constructed assessment for measuring the achievement of
children in listening, speaking, reading, writing, and mathematics, has representative norms, and
provides strong evidence of reliability and validity, it does not provide reliability and validity
evidence for the suggested use of the instrument to design instructional objectives and plan
interventions.
Justification and Use of the Assessment
The WIAT-III, being administered by experienced examiners and scored by experienced
and professional educators and diagnosticians, is able to provide a comprehensive and reliable
assessment of children’s strengths and weaknesses in the aforementioned areas and inform
instructional interventions for diverse student populations (e.g. different age group and cognitive
levels, specific learning disabilities, speech or language impairment, intellectual disability, and
developmental delays, etc.).
Name of Instrument WIAT-III.
Author(s) of Instrument Pearson
Date of Publication 2009
Publisher Pearson
1. Describe the subtests (e.g., learning areas)
Achievement: listening, speaking, reading, writing and mathematics
2. Describe the age range.
Ages 4-0 to 19-11: Pre-K to 2nd Grade
3. State the purpose of the instrument.
To measure the achievement of students’ in prekindergarten through Grade 12 in the areas of
listening, speaking, reading, writing and mathematics.
4. Describe the examiner qualifications.
Level B: Experienced examiner/teacher
ASSESSMENT EVALUATION 1
5. Describe the available scores.
The scores available include: Listening Comprehension, Early Reading Skills, Reading
Comprehension, Alphabet Writing Fluency, Sentence Composition, Word Reading, Essay
Composition, Pseudoword Decoding, Oral Reading and Oral Expression, Fluency, Spelling,
Math Problem Solving, Numerical Operations, Math Fluency (Addition, Subtraction,
Multiplication), 8 composite scores (Oral Language, Total Reading, Basic Reading, Reading
Comprehension and Fluency, Written Expression, Mathematics, Math Fluency, Total
Achievement).
6. Describe the instrument’s technical data provided (i.e., validity, reliability, norms,
research).
Three primary validity studies report content evidence, convergent evidence, and special group
studies; the studies are consistent with professional practice and provide validity evidence for
its interpretations and uses. The reliability coefficients for all subsets except Alphabet Writing
Fluency (AWF) are 0.8 and higher for the Fall sample and slightly lower for the Spring
sample; AWF had Fall sample of 0.69. The composite reliability is greater than 0.9 and
provides reliability evidence. Norms were developed with 2,775 students in Grades PK-12
with separate norms reported for Fall (N = 1,400) and Spring (N = 1,375); norm samples
constructed to be nationally representative of the U.S. population for each grade and age level,
and total with students added from special groups (e.g., specific learning disabilities, speech or
language impairment, intellectual disability, and developmental delay).
7. Describe features of the instrument that provide well-designed and easy-to-follow
administration procedures.
Q-global kit including examiner’s manual, technical manual CD, stimulus book,
scoring workbook, oral reading fluency book, word card, pseudo word card, audio CD’
materials provide an experienced examiner with a solid basis for administering this
assessment.
8. State the approximate administration and scoring time.
Administration time varies depending on the grade level of the student and the number of
subtests administered.; average administration time ranges from 1 minute to 17 minutes.
Average scoring time: about 40 minutes.
9. Describe features of the scoring procedures that are well designed and easy to follow.
Standardized scoring procedures are provided; scoring can be completed manually or with the
Scoring Assistant CD. Several scores are available for each subtest: standard scores, percentile
ranks, grade and age equivalents, normal curve equivalents, and stanines, and growth scale
values.
10. Explain this instrument’s adaptation for students with limited English proficiency
None indicated.
11. Explain the appropriateness of the instrument for use with children who have
disabilities.
Instrument appropriate for use with children who have disabilities.
12. Describe the adaptation of the instrument for use with children who have special
needs.
Students within special groups (e.g., specific learning disabilities, speech or language
impairment, intellectual disability, and developmental delay) added to representative norm.
ASSESSMENT EVALUATION 1
13. Describe the strengths of the instrument.
Assessment does provide a comprehensive assessment of children’s strengths and weaknesses
in reading and language and informs instructional interventions for a wide range of students.
The assessment instructions are clearly laid out in the examiner’s manual, it is easy to
administer, and the clearly written examiner’s manual provides the examiner with easy to use
tables for scoring,
14. State any weaknesses of the instrument.
Does not provide reliability and validity evidence for the suggested use of the instrument to
design instructional objectives and plan interventions. Indication of
15. Additional comments, information, and observations:
Click or tap here to enter text.
Analysis of Test of Early Reading Ability—Fourth Edition (TERA-IV)
Summary of Assessment
TERA-4 is still under review. The previous TERA assessment (TERA-3) ascertains that
the purpose of the assessment is to identify children who demonstrate reading development
significantly below their peers that may require interventions, to identify children’s individual
strengths and weaknesses, to provide documentation of children’s progress as a result of the
implemented intervention program, to serve as a measure of research for studying literacy
development in young children, and to be used in conjunction with other assessment techniques.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Assessment
Strengths of TERA-4 lie in its ease of administration, its use of tables, and scoring. It is
able to assess the aforementioned objectives, identify children’s strengths and weaknesses, and
be used as a measure of research. TERA is an assessment quick tool with individual nonclinical
administration, is able to supplement other formal and informal assessments for reading
development. and can screen for specific areas of strength and weaknesses in individual children.
Weaknesses may lie in the usage of non-clinical examiners to administer and score the
assessment. Experienced examiners with well-developed skills in administering, scoring, and
interpretation can be useful in providing data and interpretations to educators to provide students
ASSESSMENT EVALUATION 1
displaying weaknesses with early interventions. The instrument assesses conventions
(understanding the arbitrary conventions of reading and writing in English) and may be
inappropriate for students with limited English proficiency (i.e. ESL students).
Justification and Use of the Assessment
TERA has been in development since 1981, and revisions have been in accordance with
reviewers’ recommendations to increase the assessments validity and reliability. The authors,
taking reviewers recommendations into account, collected new normative data, addressed
appropriate demographic representation and conducted extensive reliability and validity studies,
and added them as per recommendations. The instrument is a reliable and valid source for
assessing individual children’s mastery of early reading skills and is useful in identifying the
scope and depth of reading development deficiencies.
DATA COLLECTION FOR ASSESSMENT EVALUATIONS
Name of Instrument Test of Early Reading Ability–Fourth Edition (TERA-4)
Author(s) of Instrument D. Kim Reid, Wayne P. Hresko, Donald D. Hammill
Date of Publication 2018
Publisher Pro-Ed
4. Describe the subtests (e.g., learning areas)
Reading
5. Describe the age range.
Ages 3-6 to 8-6.
6. State the purpose of the instrument.
Earlier versions were designed to assess children’s mastery of early developing reading skills,
help identify children who have significant problems in reading development, and to
determine the degree of their problems.
7. Describe the examiner qualifications.
Nonclinical staff can administer. However, authors strongly recommend that the examiner
have formal training in assessment with a basic understanding of testing statistics and general
procedures regarding test administration, scoring, and interpretation.
8. Describe the available scores.
Alphabet, Conventions, Meaning
9. Describe the instrument’s technical data provided (i.e., validity, reliability, norms,
research).
ASSESSMENT EVALUATION 1
Reviews for TERA-4 are pending. The previous edition (TERA-3): Norm sample well
matched to the general school-age population (gender, race, ethnicity, SES, disability, and
urban/rural) and representative of regions across the United States. Reliability coefficient
ranged from 0.8 to 0.91 or higher across all subtests and age groups. Reliability, validity, and
norm-referenced measures instill confidence that the test scores can be considered highly
reliable and valid.
10. Describe features of the instrument that provide well-designed and easy-to-follow
administration procedures.
The TERA-4 offers a quick tool, with easy one-to-one nonclinical administration, to
supplement other formal and informal assessments of development reading and can screen for
specific areas of strength and weaknesses in individual children. TERA provides
administrators with examiners’ manuals, record booklets (profile sheet with graphic
comparison across the three subtests, a graph to compare the Reading Quotient with other
comparable measures that might have been administered to the child). The examiner record
booklet has space for interpretation, comments, and diagnostic implications; the examiner can
note the testing conditions and the degree of validity under the recorded conditions.
11. State the approximate administration and scoring time.
Individual administration; 30-45 minutes
12. Describe features of the scoring procedures that are well designed and easy to follow.
The TERA-4 offers a quick tool, with easy one-to-one nonclinical administration and on-line
scoring available upon completion of assessment.
13. Explain this instrument’s adaptation for students with limited English proficiency
None indicated; test norm referenced across regions of the United States (i.e. gender, race,
ethnicity, SES, disability, and urban/rural). The instrument assesses conventions
(understanding the arbitrary conventions of reading and writing in English) and may be
inappropriate for students with limited English proficiency (i.e. ESL students).
14. Explain the appropriateness of the instrument for use with children who have
disabilities.
None indicated;
15. Describe the adaptation of the instrument for use with children who have special
needs.
None indicated
16. Describe the strengths of the instrument.
Strengths of TERA-4 lie in its ease of administration, its use of tables, and scoring. It is able
to assess the aforementioned objectives, identify children’s strengths and weaknesses, and be
used as a measure of research. TERA is an assessment quick tool
17. State any weaknesses of the instrument.
Weaknesses may lie in the usage of non-clinical examiners to administer and score the
assessment.
18. Additional comments, information, and observations:
Instrument is under review. Used review of TERA-3 to analyze the TERA-4 assessment.
ASSESSMENT EVALUATION 1
References
Pearson. (2009). Wechsler Individual Achievement Test–Third Edition. Retrieved from
https://search-ebscohost-
com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mmt&AN=test.3194&site=ehost-
live&scope=site
Reid, D. K., Hresko, W. P., & Hammill, D. D. (2018). Test of Early Reading Ability–Fourth
Edition. Retrieved
from https://search-ebscohost-
com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mmt&AN=test.11173&site=ehost-
live&scope=site
Reid, D. K., Hresko, W. P., & Hammill, D. D. (1981). Test of Early Reading Ability, Third
Edition. Retrieved from https://search-ebscohost-
com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mmt&AN=test.2309&site=ehost-
live&scope=site
Roswell, F. G., Chall, J. S., Curtis, M. E., & Kearns, G. (2006). Diagnostic Assessments of
Reading™, Second Edition. Retrieved from https://search-ebscohost-
com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mmt&AN=test.3028&site=ehost-
live&scope=site
Wiederholt, J. L., & Bryant, B. R. (2012). Gray Oral Reading Tests–Fifth Edition. Retrieved
from https://search-ebscohost-
com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mmt&AN=test.6455&site=ehost-
live&scope=site
https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mmt&AN=test.3194&site=ehost-live&scope=site
https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mmt&AN=test.3194&site=ehost-live&scope=site
https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mmt&AN=test.3194&site=ehost-live&scope=site
https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mmt&AN=test.11173&site=ehost-live&scope=site
https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mmt&AN=test.11173&site=ehost-live&scope=site
https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mmt&AN=test.11173&site=ehost-live&scope=site
https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mmt&AN=test.2309&site=ehost-live&scope=site
https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mmt&AN=test.2309&site=ehost-live&scope=site
https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mmt&AN=test.2309&site=ehost-live&scope=site
https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mmt&AN=test.3028&site=ehost-live&scope=site
https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mmt&AN=test.3028&site=ehost-live&scope=site
https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mmt&AN=test.3028&site=ehost-live&scope=site
from%20https:/search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mmt&AN=test.6455&site=ehost-live&scope=site
from%20https:/search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mmt&AN=test.6455&site=ehost-live&scope=site
from%20https:/search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mmt&AN=test.6455&site=ehost-live&scope=site
EDUC 622
Assessment Evaluation Instructions
Overview: The purpose of this assignment is to research, evaluate, and understand valid, reliable, fair, and appropriate assessment tools used in schools to screen, diagnose, and measure student academic achievement.
Critically analyze the measures, addressing strengths and weaknesses. There is a data collection template provided to ease the process of collecting information. This template is submitted with the assignment. Each critical analysis should include the following:
· A Summary of the assessment instrument with clear, specific information unique to the instrument, including the population who could be tested with the instrument.
· An analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the measure. There must be a minimum of 2 reasons to support each one.
· Justification for why the measurement would be an appropriate measure for different populations.
2.
Use a separate data collection template for each instrument. Save each as a Microsoft Word document labeled: instrumentname
NOTE: When submitting the evaluation, these separate templates must be compiled, along with all other items, into 1 Word document.
3. Other resources for research are listed in the syllabus and may be used in addition to Buros. If using the testing instrument manual, list it in the references. Buros is directly accessible through the
JLF library database
for your convenience.
Step 2 – Written Report
1. Organize and format each assessment instrument with the headings and subheadings outlined below. Do not write the questions or statements from the data collection template. Write in well-formed paragraphs that flow logically from one topic to the next.
2. Each instrument review should contain a minimum of 2 pages of content, including the data collection template, in addition to the cover page and reference page. Format the paper in current APA. The data collection template will be used as a chart in the report at the end of each instrument review.
3. The total paper (10 pages) should be presented in this order:
· Title Page (1 page)
· 8 Pages of Content
· Assessment Evaluation (AE) 1
· Completed AE 1 template
· AE 2
· Completed AE 2 template
· AE 3
· Completed AE 3 template
· AE 4
· Completed AE 4 template
· Reference Page (1 page) – All assessments should be referenced in current APA format.
4. Format each written assessment evaluation with the title, “Analysis of Assessment Name,” using the following headings.
· Summary of Assessment
· Strengths and Weaknesses of the Assessment
· Justification and Use of the Assessment
· Insert data collection template as a chart
Page 1 of 2
EDUC 622
Data Collection Template for Assessment Evaluations
Collect information about each instrument separately.
This form is used multiple times and is turned in with assignment, by inserting as a chart in the written report.
|
Name of Instrument |
Diagnostic Assessment of Reading (DAR-2) | ||||||||||||
|
Author(s) of Instrument |
Florence G. Roswell. Jeanne S. Chall, Mary E. Curtis, Gail Kearns. | ||||||||||||
|
Date of Publication |
2006 | ||||||||||||
|
Publisher |
PRO-ED | ||||||||||||
|
1. Describe the subtests (e.g., learning areas) |
|||||||||||||
| Click or tap here to enter text. | |||||||||||||
|
2. Describe the age range. |
|||||||||||||
|
3. State the purpose of the instrument. |
|||||||||||||
| Click or tap here to enter text. | |||||||||||||
|
4. Describe the examiner qualifications. |
|||||||||||||
|
5. Describe the available scores. |
|||||||||||||
|
6. Describe the instrument’s technical data provided (i.e., validity, reliability, norms, research). |
|||||||||||||
|
7. Describe features of the instrument that provide well-designed and easy-to-follow administration procedures. |
|||||||||||||
|
8. State the approximate administration and scoring time. |
|||||||||||||
|
9. Describe features of the scoring procedures that are well designed and easy to follow. |
|||||||||||||
|
10. Explain this instrument’s adaptation for students with limited English proficiency |
|||||||||||||
|
11. Explain the appropriateness of the instrument for use with children who have disabilities. |
|||||||||||||
|
12. Describe the adaptation of the instrument for use with children who have special needs. |
|||||||||||||
|
13. Describe the strengths of the instrument. |
|||||||||||||
|
14. State any weaknesses of the instrument. |
|||||||||||||
|
15. Additional comments, information, and observations: |
EDUC 622
Data Collection Template for Assessment Evaluations
Collect information about each instrument separately.
This form is used multiple times and is turned in with assignment, by inserting as a chart in the written report.
|
Name of Instrument |
GORT-5 | ||||||||||||
|
Author(s) of Instrument |
J. Lee Wiederholt and Brian R. Bryant | ||||||||||||
|
Date of Publication |
2012 | ||||||||||||
|
Publisher |
PRO-ED | ||||||||||||
|
1. Describe the subtests (e.g., learning areas) |
|||||||||||||
| Click or tap here to enter text. | |||||||||||||
|
2. Describe the age range. |
|||||||||||||
|
3. State the purpose of the instrument. |
|||||||||||||
| Click or tap here to enter text. | |||||||||||||
|
4. Describe the examiner qualifications. |
|||||||||||||
|
5. Describe the available scores. |
|||||||||||||
|
6. Describe the instrument’s technical data provided (i.e., validity, reliability, norms, research). |
|||||||||||||
|
7. Describe features of the instrument that provide well-designed and easy-to-follow administration procedures. |
|||||||||||||
|
8. State the approximate administration and scoring time. |
|||||||||||||
|
9. Describe features of the scoring procedures that are well designed and easy to follow. |
|||||||||||||
|
10. Explain this instrument’s adaptation for students with limited English proficiency |
|||||||||||||
|
11. Explain the appropriateness of the instrument for use with children who have disabilities. |
|||||||||||||
|
12. Describe the adaptation of the instrument for use with children who have special needs. |
|||||||||||||
|
13. Describe the strengths of the instrument. |
|||||||||||||
|
14. State any weaknesses of the instrument. |
|||||||||||||
|
15. Additional comments, information, and observations: |
EDUC 622
Data Collection Template for Assessment Evaluations
Collect information about each instrument separately.
This form is used multiple times and is turned in with assignment, by inserting as a chart in the written report.
|
Name of Instrument |
WIAT-III. | ||||||||||||
|
Author(s) of Instrument |
Pearson | ||||||||||||
|
Date of Publication |
2009 | ||||||||||||
|
Publisher |
|||||||||||||
|
1. Describe the subtests (e.g., learning areas) |
|||||||||||||
| Click or tap here to enter text. | |||||||||||||
|
2. Describe the age range. |
|||||||||||||
|
3. State the purpose of the instrument. |
|||||||||||||
| Click or tap here to enter text. | |||||||||||||
|
4. Describe the examiner qualifications. |
|||||||||||||
|
5. Describe the available scores. |
|||||||||||||
|
6. Describe the instrument’s technical data provided (i.e., validity, reliability, norms, research). |
|||||||||||||
|
7. Describe features of the instrument that provide well-designed and easy-to-follow administration procedures. |
|||||||||||||
|
8. State the approximate administration and scoring time. |
|||||||||||||
|
9. Describe features of the scoring procedures that are well designed and easy to follow. |
|||||||||||||
|
10. Explain this instrument’s adaptation for students with limited English proficiency |
|||||||||||||
|
11. Explain the appropriateness of the instrument for use with children who have disabilities. |
|||||||||||||
|
12. Describe the adaptation of the instrument for use with children who have special needs. |
|||||||||||||
|
13. Describe the strengths of the instrument. |
|||||||||||||
|
14. State any weaknesses of the instrument. |
|||||||||||||
|
15. Additional comments, information, and observations: |
EDUC 622
Data Collection Template for Assessment Evaluations
Collect information about each instrument separately.
This form is used multiple times and is turned in with assignment, by inserting as a chart in the written report.
|
Name of Instrument |
Test of Early Reading Ability—Fourth Edition (TERA-4) | ||||||||||||
|
Author(s) of Instrument |
D. Kim Reid, Wayne P. Hresko, Donald D. Hammill | ||||||||||||
|
Date of Publication |
2018 | ||||||||||||
|
Publisher |
PRO-ED | ||||||||||||
|
1. Describe the subtests (e.g., learning areas) |
|||||||||||||
| Click or tap here to enter text. | |||||||||||||
|
2. Describe the age range. |
|||||||||||||
|
3. State the purpose of the instrument. |
|||||||||||||
| Click or tap here to enter text. | |||||||||||||
|
4. Describe the examiner qualifications. |
|||||||||||||
|
5. Describe the available scores. |
|||||||||||||
|
6. Describe the instrument’s technical data provided (i.e., validity, reliability, norms, research). |
|||||||||||||
|
7. Describe features of the instrument that provide well-designed and easy-to-follow administration procedures. |
|||||||||||||
|
8. State the approximate administration and scoring time. |
|||||||||||||
|
9. Describe features of the scoring procedures that are well designed and easy to follow. |
|||||||||||||
|
10. Explain this instrument’s adaptation for students with limited English proficiency |
|||||||||||||
|
11. Explain the appropriateness of the instrument for use with children who have disabilities. |
|||||||||||||
|
12. Describe the adaptation of the instrument for use with children who have special needs. |
|||||||||||||
|
13. Describe the strengths of the instrument. |
|||||||||||||
|
14. State any weaknesses of the instrument. |
|||||||||||||
|
15. Additional comments, information, and observations: |