Assessment Critique

Assessment Critique Sandra Whitney California submit University, Northridge SPED 501 M/M Dr. Haney A. General entropy The Kaufman interrogatory of Educational movement, Second random variable (KTEA-II) is an individu exclusivelyy administered measure of academic acquisition for be ons 4. 5 with 25. The canvas is on hand(predicate) in 2 versions. The brief bound assesses achievement in reading, math and scripted expression. The plenary constellation covers reading, math, write language, and verbal language. It similarly issues an epitome of savants errors.Examiners canful receive a omnibus(prenominal) act coordination compound in about 30 legal proceeding for sm wholeer children and 85 minutes for the oldest schoolchilds. The Comprehensive change has 2 independent, fit forms (A and B). The KTEA-II was written by Alan and Nadeen Kaufman and is published by AGS Publishing. B. Brief Description of Test Scoring & group A Types of Scores Derived The KTEA-II was designed to measure student progress. Some of its applications include assessing achievement, light uponing processes, analyzing errors, program planning, beat academic progress, evaluating interventions/programs, and making placement decisions.After reviewing the Manual, I believe the KTEA-II would be a inviolable measure of academic achievement and student progress. The KTEA-IIs authors examined literature reviews and recommendations from experts in distinct subject argonas in order to watch which skills should be measured in to individually one achievement domain. 3 national tryouts of the KTEAII Comprehensive Form Materials were conducted mingled with 2000 and 2001. These trials illustrated whether each sub trial run had bountiful positions to be reliable and provided up to(predicate) coverage of skills at each first traumatize take.They besides al natural depressioned for statistical analysis to identify and transmute/remove particular propositions that had poor discrimination or were differentially difficult according to sexual urge or ethnicity. Finally, the tryouts provided valuable information run acrossing period difficulties that was necessary for constructing standardization forms that would be parallel in content and level of testee performance. I believe the KTEA-II is well designed. I e limitedly like the fact that it provides a Clinical Analysis of Errors and that the authors utilized stimulation from experts when designing/selecting test items.The analysis of errors can help a teacher identify ad hoc argonas in which the student demonstrates weak, number, or strong skill development. I come up the KTEA-IIs design and norms make it able for most worlds between the ages of 4. 5 and 25. As a special educator, a actually positive feature is the inclusion of examinees with special miscellany or diagnosis. However, I do not feel the KTEA-II is suitable for side vocabulary Learners. The manual specifically states that the test was normed to represent the US population of children and young adults who speak English.C Validity, Normative Population Data, & vitamin ATypes of Scores Derived The norm exemplar consisted of 3,000 examinees elderly 4? through 25. The grade norms atomic number 18 based on 2,400 of the examinees in levels K-12. The standardization took place from September 2001 through whitethorn 2003. solely age levels had between degree centigrade and 200 participants, get out age 19, which had 80. The KTEA-II s axerophtholle was based on the 2001 Current population Survey and designed to match the US population with regards to sex, p arnt education, ethnicity, and educational consideration of examinees aged 18 to 25.The sample was deputy in terms of geographic region, with a few exceptions at a couple of age levels. Examinees with special disability classification or diagnosis were also include in the standardization sample. These participants had a specific learning disab ility, speech/language hindrance, direction deficit/hyperactivity disorder, mental retardation, delirious/behavioural disturbance or were gifted and talented. iodin shortcoming in the norms is the failure to provide a breakdown of rural/urban participants.For inseparable consistency, the overall Comprehensive operation composite coefficient was very reliable at (. 97). The core composites for exercise (. 96), Mathematics (. 96), and create verbally verbiage (. 93) ar also extravagantlyly reliable. However, the oral Language composite (. 87) and viva smoothness (. 85) fall below the craved (. 90) standard for reliableness. The Sound-Symbol and decryption composites argon adequately reliable at all age levels. Because of the format for the subtests for the Reading eloquence composite, it is not possible to evaluate the versed consistency.The internal consistency coefficients are lower for subtests than composites. to a greater extent or slight of the Reading and Mat hematics subtests, and the Spelling subtest coefficients are sufficiently reliable. The majority of coefficients for the oral exam Language subtests and the compose Expression subtest are slight than (. 90). The coefficients for Nonsense Word Decoding are acceptable but the majority of coefficients for the phonologic Awareness, Associational Fluency, and Naming Facility are below (. 90).To assess the stability of the KTEA-II lashings over a period of weeks, the test was administered twice to 221 children from three grade ranges (Pre-K to govern 1, strains 2 through 6, and Grades 7 through 12). The retest interval ranged from 11 to 60 years and averaged 3? to 4 weeks. Alternate-form reliability was also examined in this analysis because about fractional the students took Form A first and Form B second the early(a) fractional took the test in the opposite order. The reliability correlations for the three grade ranges for the Comprehensive act composite were (. 92), (. 94), and (. 5), respectively. For Pre-K to Grade 1, only the overall Reading and Decoding composites are sufficiently reliable. Coefficients for the Mathematics (. 87), Written Language (. 85), viva Language (. 64), Sound-Symbol (. 84) and unwritten Fluency (. 59) composites are all below (. 90). Letter & Word Recognition is the only subtest for Pre-K to Grade 1 with adequate reliability (. 97). Coefficients for the stick of the subtests range from (. 47) to (. 88). For Grades 2 through 6 the Mathematics, Written Language, Reading Fluency, and Decoding Composites all had coefficients of at least (. 0). The Reading (. 87), oral exam Language (. 68), Sound-Symbol (. 80), and viva Fluency (. 67) composites are less(prenominal) than . 90. All subtest correlations are less than (. 90), except Spelling, Nonsense Word Decoding, and Decoding Fluency. Coefficients for the Reading (. 89), oral examination Language (. 81), and viva voce Fluency (. 76) composites are below . 90 for Grades 7 through 12. Correlations for the Mathematics, Written Language, Reading Fluency, and Decoding composites are all adequate. All subtest correlations, except Math Computation, are less than (. 90). out of doors reviewers note that because stability and alternate-form reliability were not separated in this analysis, it is impossible to bang whether results for whatsoever components are unstable, whether the forms differ, or devil. The Oral Language composite is problematic because of its internal consistency and stability correlations are consistently below (. 90). Interrater reliability was evaluated for Written Expression, Oral Expression, Reading inclusion body, Listening Comprehension, and Associational Fluency because they require judgment in marking and are most susceptible to digression in scoring among examiners.The cases utilise 50 students at each of two grade levels. Students from Grade 2 or 3 completed Form A and students from Grade 8 completed Form B. Three or f our examiners scored each level of each subtest. Correlations were all above (. 90), except Oral Expression at both(prenominal) grade levels (. 82 and . 88) and Associational Fluency at Grade 2 (. 82). The authors took some steps to ensure the validity of items on the KTEA-II. These efforts included literature reviews, consultation with experts in the field, and field testing.Intercorrelation of subtests and composites are provided at each age and grade level and visit construct validity. Moderate to laid-back correlations were raise between the majority of subtests and composites, except for the Oral Language domain. The average correlation between Oral Expression and Listening Comprehension was (. 46). Low correlations for these subtests and composite suggest they are measuring skills not closely related to other sections of the test. Factor analysis was used for the eight primary subtests of the KTEA-II Comprehensive Form, using the entire age-norm sample for Grade 1 throug h age 25.Confirmatory factor analysis provided show up for a four-factor model (math, reading, written language, and oral language), as this model had faithful fit statistics and towering loadings on the factors for all subtests. To evaluate concurrent validity, the KTEA-II Comprehensive Form was administered along with one or more achievement or cognitive abilities tests. political science of the two tests conkred in counterbalanced order, with almost half of the cases taking the KTEA-II first and the other half taking it second.Administration of the two tests could occur on the same day or separated by as oftentimes as 60 days. When compared to the original Kaufman Test of Educational achievement (K-TEA), the Wechsler Individual Achievement TestSecond translation (WIAT-II), the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of AchievementThird interpretation (WJ trey ACH), and the Peabody Individual Achievement TestRevised, Normative Update (PIAT-R/NU), high overall composite correlations were order (range . 84 to . 94). At the composite and subtest level, moderate to high correlations were generally found for the domains of reading, mathematics, and written language.However, the Oral Language composite correlations were mixed, with one as low as (. 08). When the KTEA-II was compared to the Oral and Written Language Scales (OWLS), a (. 75) correlation was found between the written expression subtests. Correlations in the (. 40s) were found between the oral expression and listening comprehension subtests for the two measures. The relationship between the KTEA-II and several intuition tests was also examined. Composites from the KTEA-II correlate in the low to moderately high range (from. 13 to . 4) with the Kaufman Assessment Battery for ChildrenSecond Edition (KABC-II), the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for ChildrenThird Edition (WISC-III Wechsler), the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive AbilitiesThird Edition (WJ III COG). Students diagnosed with reading, mathematics, a nd writing learning disabilities cognitive impairment attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder and emotional or behavioral disturbance and those who were desensitise or hard of hearing had squiffy scores below average on all subtests and composites. Children identified as high performing or talented get mean scores above average for all subtests and composites.In terms of validity, comprehensive evidence is provided in support of the tests content validity. The addition of an Oral Language section to the KTEA-II seems beneficial, but is an area of crabby concern in terms of both reliability and validity. I believe the Oral Language results should be interpreted cautiously. Outside reviewers caution that there is a insecurity of overestimating or underestimating a students performance due to steep item gradients on the KTEA-II. When tests agree steep item gradients, a 1-point change in bleak scores can result in a large change in standard scores when using the KTEA-II.In some cases, a 1-point change in a raw score results in a change of as much as 13 standard score points. Reviewers have also found that although the norms for the KTEA-II begin at 4 to 6, most subtests do not have adequate floors at this age. Instruments without adequate floors do not have plenteous easy items to discriminate between students with and without skill deficits. Several concerns exist in regard to the adequacy of some KTEA-II subtest floors thus, it is suggested that examiners check floor adequacy when assessing younger children. Using a subtest with an inadequate floor may overestimate performance at certain ages.