Assessment Matrix Essay
Assessments are a vital tool that educators use to determine empirical strengthens and weaknesses of a student’s academic and behavioral ability to function. These assessments assist educators to plan and implement effective instruction that can facilitate deeper and higher student learning. It also helps educators to plan according to their students’ need and strengths on the academic content standard. The instruction is tailored upon their assessment results. There are varied forms of assessments that cater to the specific disability need of the student.
As educators we have to fully understand the assessment process so we can reiterate the information about the student’s functioning ability to parents, educators, administrators, and other school personnel. Based on the information provide a plan will be devised to the type of services the child will receive. The type of assessment that is given will provide pertinent data that will guide the educator in providing effective lessons to assist in positive and progressive growth of the student. On a daily basis educators are utilizing assessments to assist in identifying what a student knows and does not know.
It also helps educators in reteaching a skill, making accommodation, modifying a lesson to a level that a child will comprehend it better. Educators have to have knowledge of many types of assessment like informal, formal, summative, formative, criterion, and norm-referenced assessment. As a teacher become familiar with assessment they will be used in determining if a student requires further testing to identify a disability. In the field of Special Education assessment are used for the identification of a variety of disabilities with various age ranges.
A special education teacher will need to have knowledge of what assessment will identify the disability, score reading, and the vailidity and reliability of the assessment that will be used. Types of Assessments Matrix |Assessment Type |Characteristics |Reliability and |Scoring |Value and Limitations | | | |Validity | | | |Kaufman Assessment Battery|A standardized assessment tests |The KABC-II has a reliability |The scoring scales on the KABC each|It provides educational | |for Children |that assesses academic and |coefficient for core and supplementary|have a mean score of 100 and a |planning and placement based | | |cognitive development.
|subtests demonstrate its reliability. |standard deviation of 15. |the mean or average score of | | |The ages range from 2 years to 12. |The median reliability for the 3-6 age|As with most measures of IQ, a |100 and a standard deviation of| | |It comprises of four components: |band is . 85 (range . 69-. 92) and . 87 |score of 100 is in the normal or |15. | | |Sequential Processing scale |(range . 74-. 93) for 7-18. |average range. |A score of 100 is in the | | |Simultaneous Processing scale |Retest reliabilities of the scale |A score of 85 is one standard |average range. | | |Achievement scale |score ranged from 0. 72 to 0.
94 where |deviation below the norm score of | | | |Mental processing composite |retest stability increasing with age. |100. | | | | | |Test scores provide a valuation or | | | | | |functioning level of the child. | | |Woodcock Johnson III |Assesses students in intellectual |The test can demonstrate its validity |Raw scores are totaled and changed |It uses a pre/post measure of | | |abilities and academic achievement. |because it assesses scores can be used|into age and grade equivalents, |skill acquisition in the | | |Identification of student’s current|the purposes purpose of |percentile ranks, and discrepancy |Cognitive Abilities domains.
| | |strengths and weaknesses. |identification. |scores |All test items must be answered| | |Assesses for learning disabilities |The reliabilities scores are . 90+ for | |in order for scores to be | | |for special education services. |the average group. | |valid. | | |Ages range from 2 – 80+ |The individual score of . 80+ | |It does not take into | | |Composes of 22 areas of tests with |Both scores can assist in providing | |consideration the minority | | |five categories: |intervention services specifically on | |population and ELL students.
| | |Reading |the student’s need. | | | | |Oral language | | | | | |Math | | | | | |Written language | | | | | |Academic knowledge | | | | |Peabody Developmental |This assessment is used to assess |The high reliability of the results of|The PDMS-2 is a norm- and criterion|High reliability and validity | |Motor Scale |the gross and fine motor |the PDMS makes it the preferred test |referenced test. |have been reported of the | | |development of children. |for therapists and psychologists. |The reliability within each of the |PDMS-2 which has been updated | | |
It assists in determining An |The PDMS-FM-2 results were compared |fine motor sub-skills produced high|with new normative data | | |appropriate assessment for children|with scores on the Movement Assessment|ICC values that ranged from 0. 90 to|representative of the current | | |from age zero to eight. |Battery for Children (M-ABC). In |0. 97. |population. Reliability and | | |It composes of six subtests that |addition, the scores of the children | |validity in terms of gender, | | |assess related motor abilities that|with and without fine motor problems | |race, and other subgroups of | | |develop early in life: |were compared.
For the test-retest | |the normative sample. | | |Reflexes, Stationary (body control |reliability and the inter-rater | |In addition, more specific | | |and equilibrium) |reliability, correlation coefficients | |scoring criteria and | | |Locomotion, |varied from r = 0. 84 to r = 0. 99. | |illustrations were added. | | |Object Manipulation | | | | | |Grasping | | | | | |Visual-Motor Integration. | | | | |Stanford-Binet |The SBIS is a standardized |The composite score are consistent |The test composes of 10 subtest |The test offers limited | |Intelligence Scale |assessment that measures an |with the |scores.
|nonverbal content, provided | | |individual’s intelligence and |Coefficients ranging from . 95 to . 99 |The subtest scores combine to form |only scanty instructions on the| | |cognitive ability. Unlike most |across age levels. |four types of composite scores: |scoring some items, It is not | | |tests the SBIS can be used for | |factor index |an adequate measure of adult | | |individuals from ages | |domain |intelligence. | | |2 – 85+ years. | |abbreviated, and | | | |The SB5 provides | |full scale | | | |Comprehensive testing in five | |(each with scaled score means of | | | |factors of cognitive ability: | |100, SD of 15, score range 40?
160). | | | |Fluid Reasoning | | | | | |Knowledge | |Two subtests verbal/nonverbal | | | |Quantitative Reasoning | |There are two domain scales: | | | |Visual-Spatial Processing | |Nonverbal IQ (NVIQ) (five nonverbal| | | |Working Memory | |subtests) | | | |The SB5 can identify and predict | |Verbal IQ (VIQ) (five verbal | | | |learning disabilities in children | |subtests). | | | |as young as four. | |Two routing subtests combine to | | | | | |form the Abbreviated Battery IQ | | | | | |(ABIQ). | | | | | |Lastly, the Full Scale IQ (FSIQ) | | | | | |unite all 10 subtests.
| | | | | |The Change-Sensitive Scores (CSS) | | | | | |use item response theory scaling to| | | | | |convert the raw score totals on the| | | | | |composite scales are combined as | | | | | |criterion-referenced levels of | | | | | |ability. properties. | | | | | |Because the CSSs reference absolute| | | | | |levels of ability, they provide a | | | | | |way to create and manage an | | | | | |individual’s scores over time. | | |Vineland Adaptive Behavior|This assessment measures personal |The assessment is reliable in the |The scoring scale used is based on |The use is to evaluate a | |Scale |and social skills.
|diagnosing of an individual’s behavior|standard scores |child’s developmental level of | | |The ages range from preschool age |and social development. |Percentage ranking |socialization skills. Its only | | |to 18 years old. |The assessment has a low rating of |grade-equivalent scores, and |limitations are that it is not | | |The VABS measure five domains: |validity due to the low scores in |Adaptive level ability |useful in comparing children | | |Communication |other areas of the test. | |performance based on a | | |Daily Living Skills |Therefore it is not a good assessment | |longitudinal scale.
| | |Socialization |in assessing a child’s behavior and | | | | |Motor Skills, and |social development. | | | | |Maladaptive Behavior | | | | | |This tests aids in the diagnosing | | | | | |and classifying mental retardation,| | | | | |and other disorders. | | | | References Binet, A. , & Simon, T. (1916). The development of intelligence in children (E. Kit, Trans. ). Baltimore, MD:Williams & Wilkins. Gebhard, R. A. , Ottenbacher, J. K. , & Lane, J. S. (1994). Interrater Reliability of the Peabody Developmental Motor Scales: Fine Motor Scale. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, vol 48(Novemeber/December, 1994), pages 976-981.
University/College: University of California
Type of paper: Thesis/Dissertation Chapter
Date: 25 September 2016
Let us write you a custom essay sample on Assessment Matrix
for only $16.38 $13.9/page