school_readiness_assessment

Franklin County Department of Jobs and Family Services

School Readiness Assessment: A Review of the Literature

December 2007

RESEARCH AND REPORT PREPARATION:

Community Research Partners Roberta F. Garber, Executive Director

Gary Timko, Ph.D., Director of Research Services

L. Shon Bunkley, Ph.D., Research Associate

Consultant to CRP: Base Art Co.

Franklin County Department of Jobs and Family Services Douglas Lumpkin, Director

RESEARCH AND REPORT PREPARATION:

Community Research Partners Roberta F. Garber, Executive Director

Gary Timko, Ph.D., Director of Research and Evaluation Services

L. Shon Bunkley, Ph.D., Research Associate

Franklin County Department of Jobs and Family Services Douglas Lumpkins, Executive Director

Carmen Duckens, Assistant Policy Director

Contents

1. Introduction and Background 1

• Study Background 3

• Research Methodology 4

• Format of the Report 5

• Key Terms 6

2. The Debate over Assessing School Readiness in Young Children 9

• The Renewed Focus on School Readiness 10

• Why Assessing school Readiness in Young Children is Controversial 10

3. Best Practices in School Readiness Assessment 17

• Appropriate Uses of School Readiness Assessments 19

• Most Important Characteristics of an Assessment System 21

• The Ideal School Readiness Assessment Process 21

• Selecting an Instrument for Assessing School Readiness 22

4. Instruments for Assessing School Readiness in Young Children 21

• States’ Use of School Readiness Assessments 25

• Commonly Used Instruments and Their Alignment with Best Practices 30

• Properties of Commonly Used Instruments 35

5. Recommendations for Future Research 47

• Feasibility Study 49

References 51

Tables

Table1. States’ Policies Regarding School Readiness Assessment 27 Table 2. States’ Use of School Readiness Assessments 28 Table 3. How Commonly Used Screening and Assessment Instruments Align with 31 Best Practices Table 4. Properties of Commonly Used Screening and Assessment Instruments 35 Figure 1. Most Frequently Used Screening and Assessment Instruments 30

School Readiness Assessment: A Review of the Literature Page 1

Introduction and Background This study provides a review of current and past literature regarding definitions, best practices, and instruments related to assessing school readiness in young children. The study draws upon research findings, position statements, and other sources of information put forth by experts in the field of early childhood education. The intent of this study is to provide information that will inform future research and plans regarding the establishment of a more coordinated system of assessing school readiness among 3, 4, and 5-year olds in Franklin County, Ohio.

The following section introduces the study and includes descriptions of the:

• Study Background

• Research Methodology

• Format of the Report

• Key Terms Used in the Report

1

Introduction and Background


Study Background

Prekindergarten children’s preparedness for school has become a topic of interest in Franklin County, Ohio. However, school readiness among 3, 4, and 5-year olds in the county is currently assessed through a fragmented system, where several different instruments are being used to capture children’s progress in a variety of domains, including academic, social, emotional, and behavioral. The early childhood education system in Franklin County is also characterized by a smattering of early childhood centers that have activities with limited alignment to the curriculums and practices of kindergarten classrooms across the county.

Part of the difficulty in establishing a more coordinated system lies in the fact that Franklin County, like many other metropolitan areas nationally, has a decentralized system of early childhood education, which has one large school district, surrounded by several smaller school districts. Each district has its own policies, curriculums, and instruments for assessing young children’s preparedness and progress. Although the state of Ohio has several regulations, standards, and guidelines for providers of early childhood education that provide some amount of standardization, there is quite a bit of local discretion and flexibility with regard to how providers structure their programs and services to meet state standards.

On one hand, having such a decentralized and fragmented system lends itself well to school districts and early childhood education providers having the freedom to implement policies and practices that they deem appropriate for the children of their communities. At the same time, however, research (Horton & Bowman, 2002) has found that this type of disconnect between early childhood experiences and kindergarten expectations has the tendency to lead to children arriving in kindergarten classrooms unprepared for the expectations of the educational environment, and to hamper the potential for children’s future academic success. Plus, having such a defragmented system limits the continuity of instruction received by children and impedes the identification of community-wide trends related to young children’s preparedness for school.

These are only few of the issues that make it difficult to plan and develop more formal, coordinated systems of curriculum and assessment in Franklin County. This difficulty is further compounded by the fact that a limited number of children in Franklin County have access to early childhood education experiences, and even fewer have access to quality, early childhood education experiences. In fact, in the percentage of children in the U.S. ages 3–5 who attended center-based programs (i.e., day care centers, Head Start program, preschool, nursery school, prekindergarten, and other early childhood programs) decreased from 60 percent in 1999 to 57 percent in 2005 (National Center for Education Statistics, 2005). With so many children not having early childhood education experiences, school districts struggle to develop kindergarten classroom activities and readiness measures that will meet the needs of all children.

One of the few systematic measures that education professionals and practitioners in Franklin County use to gauge how well children’s level of preparedness will mesh with the level of curriculum and instruction being provided in kindergarten classrooms is the Kindergarten Readiness Assessment – Literacy (KRA-L), which assesses children’s literacy skills upon entrance into kindergarten. Unfortunately, the KRA-L’s focus on


literacy skills only provides limited information about children’s overall preparedness and capabilities, an issue that curtails the ability of kindergarten teachers to see, and plan instruction for, the full range of capabilities of the children that arrive in their classrooms. The National Reporting System (NRS) is another assessment used in Franklin County that can provide some information to kindergarten teachers about the capabilities and prior educational experiences of their children, but it is only administered to children that participate in Head Start programs. This makes it difficult to assess the preparedness of children that are not attending Head Start programs.

In recognition of these issues, several community stakeholders, including the Franklin County Department of Job and Family Services (FCDJFS), have become interested in developing a more coordinated system of school readiness assessment that can better align early childhood education experiences with kindergarten curriculum and instruction, and prepare children for kindergarten and future academic success. To this end, FCDJFS approached Community Research Partners (CRP) in 2007 about conducting preliminary research on national best practices and instruments used for school readiness assessment.

CRP is a unique nonprofit research center based in Columbus that strengthens Ohio communities through data, information and knowledge. CRP is a partnership of City of Columbus, United Way of Central Ohio, the John Glenn School of Public Affairs at The Ohio State University, and the Franklin County Commissioners. Since 2000, CRP has undertaken over 100 programs and projects in the areas of community data, applied and policy research, and program evaluation, both within and outside of Central Ohio, and across a wide range of program and policy areas. This report describes the findings of the research on school readiness assessment conducted by CRP on behalf of FCDJFS.

Research Methodology

Research design

The project began with CRP working with FCDJFS to identify the scope of the research to be conducted. Preliminary discussions led to the recognition that limited funds currently exist for carrying out a larger, more comprehensive study. Thus, the parameters of the current study have been limited to a review of best practices and instruments related to assessing school readiness in young children, instead of the inclusion of more rigorous methodologies that could reveal further information about the feasibility and appropriateness of the practices and instruments identified through this review. As a result, it is anticipated that the findings of this study will be used to help frame future research regarding how to establish a more structured and systematic approach to assessing school readiness in Franklin County.

Key research questions

The following research questions guided the study.

1. What are best practices for assessing the school readiness of 3, 4, and 5-year olds?

2. What instruments are currently being used across Franklin County, in the state of Ohio, and nationally to assess the school readiness of 3, 4, and 5-year olds that


align with identified best practices? What does research indicate are the most effective instruments for systematic assessment of school readiness?

3. What are the characteristics of the instruments identified, including their strengths and limitations (e.g., cycle of administration, duration of assessment, level of obtrusiveness, training required, domains measured, resources required, etc.)?

Research methodology

To identify best practices and instruments found to be useful for assessing school readiness among young children, CRP conducted an extensive review of current and past literature put forth by experts and professionals in the field of early childhood education. Sources of information included:

• Books

• Reports

• Position statements

• Periodicals

• Websites

Format of the Report

The report includes the following sections:

1. Introduction: background of the study, the research methodology, and the format of the report

2. The debate over assessing school readiness in young children: what has been learned about assessing school readiness among 3, 4, and 5-year olds

3. Best practices in assessing school readiness in young children: practices recommended by experts in the field of early childhood education for assessing school readiness among young children

4. Commonly used instruments for assessing school readiness in young children: descriptions of the properties of instruments commonly used across the U. S. to asses school readiness in young children, and how the instruments align with best practices

5. Recommendations for future research: suggestions for building upon the current research which will help to refine plans for implementing a more coordinated system of school readiness assessment in Franklin County


Key Terms Used in the Report1

• Checklists: require teachers or parents familiar with children to indicate how well a child can do specific tasks or knows certain content.

• Criterion-referenced: results of an individual’s performance are compared to a predetermined criterion or standard to determine whether the individual has met the standard.

• Direct assessments: an examiner asks children to perform certain tasks.

• Naturalistic observation: a teacher or other observer records children’s activities in their regular classroom setting

• Norm-referenced: an individual’s performance is compared to the performance of a peer group or sample.

• Psychometric properties: characteristics of instruments, such as reliability and validity that ensure that an instrument consistently measures what it was intended to measure.

• Reliability: consistency with which a test yields similar results over time, even when administered in different forms or by different examiners. Reliability is assessed on a scale from 0 to 1. A reliability score of .50 or below would raise serious questions about the value of the instrument.

Internal consistency/reliability: the degree to which individual test items are related

Inter-rater reliability: the degree to which different raters or observers give consistent estimates of the same phenomenon.

Split-half reliability: divides test items into two based on randomly selecting items and producing an estimate that is the correlation between the two total scores.

• Screening: brief child assessment that can be used to identify children with suspected disabilities or whoa re at risk of failing in school; further evaluation is required.

• Standardized assessment: a testing instrument that is administered, scored, and interpreted in a standard manner. It may be either norm-referenced or criterion referenced.

• Validity: the degree to which an instrument measures what it is supposed to measure.

Content validity: the extent to which the components of an instrument include the relevant content for the domain being measured.

Criterion validity: the degree to which an instrument correlates with other measures of the same domain or construct measured.

1 Source of definitions of key terms: U. S. Department of Education (2007). A review of methods and instruments used in state and local school readiness evaluations.


o Concurrent criterion validity: the extent to which a test correlates with an external criterion measured at the same time.

o Predictive criterion validity: an instrument’s ability to predict an individual’s performance in specific abilities.


The Debate over Assessing School Readiness in Young Children

An ongoing debate persists among researchers, experts, and practitioners in the field of early childhood education over what school readiness is and whether it should be assessed in young children. This section provides an overview of the debate, including:

• The Renewed Focus on School Readiness

• Why Assessing School Readiness in Young Children is Controversial

2


The Renewed Focus on School Readiness The recent focus on school readiness in young children has been influenced by several events in the field of education and research that have called into question whether our children are prepared for the expectations of school. The concept of school readiness gained notoriety with the implementation of a formal system of education in the U.S., but the concept recently began to receive greater scrutiny around 1989, when then President Bush issued the declaration that “by the year 2000 all children in America will start school ready to learn (Andrews & Slate, 2001; Snow, 2006).” In response, administrators and professionals began making changes to early childhood education settings that could help to ensure and assess progress towards achieving the goal. Other influences on the recent focus on the concept of school readiness include:

• Increased accountability in public schools and early care education settings that resulted in more rigorous, skill-driven educational settings

• No Child Left Behind legislation that led to a significant increase in testing children nationwide

• “High stakes” testing in the upper grades that contributed to the development of more formal curriculums in kindergarten classrooms

• Advances in research regarding children’s brain development which informed the public that early learning is critical to children’s learning and development (Newberger, 1997)

• Research findings which indicated that America’s children enter kindergarten less prepared for school than was hoped (National Center for Education Statistics, 2004; Pianta & LaParo, 2003).

An unfortunate consequence of these events is that the field of early childhood education changed dramatically. Kindergarten classrooms and other early childhood settings gradually became more structured, the use of standardized testing with children became more common, and the skills and knowledge young children needed to be prepared for school increased significantly. In light of this changing landscape and reports of America’s kindergarteners lacking the necessary skills for success, the issue of how school readiness is being defined and assessed has become a heated topic of debate.

Why Assessing School Readiness in Young Children is Controversial The controversy surrounding the measurement of school readiness in young children largely centers around two issues: defining school readiness and identifying the intended use of readiness assessments.


Another source of conflict among early childhood professionals is competing philosophies regarding the appropriateness of measuring school readiness in children. Some experts believe that children are ready for school just by virtue of their age and assessing their school readiness is unnecessary. Others believe that some kind of assessment needs to be performed to accurately gauge what children can do, and to plan instruction that meets the needs of all children. Evidence of such competing philosophies is the pendulum swing from testing children through standardized measures in the early 1990s to more recent attempts to assess children’s learning through more informal and less obtrusive methods, like teacher observations of children in naturally occurring activities (Horton & Bowman, 2002). Two of the more salient issues that make it difficult for early childhood professionals to agree on whether school readiness should be measured in children are: the difficulty in defining school readiness and concerns regarding the intended use of readiness assessments.

Difficulty defining school readiness

The problem of defining school readiness lies in the fact that early childhood education professionals themselves have not yet reached agreement on a consistent definition of school readiness (Graue, 2006; Keating, 2007; Snow, 2006; Maxwell & Clifford, 2004). Most definitions center largely on the skills and capabilities of children. For instance, Snow (2006) defines school readiness as, “the state of child competencies at the time of school entry that are important for later success ( p. 9),” and the National Governor’s Association Center for Best Practices (2005) similarly defines school readiness as expectations of how children will fare upon entry to kindergarten . Some definitions are context-specific and change depending upon what early childhood professionals deem appropriate for children to know and be able to do in certain situations. More recent definitions do not limit assessments of readiness to what children know and can do, and promote a more holistic view of children that takes into account a number of different influences on their learning and development (Aiona, 2005; Andrew & Slate, 2001; Bruner, Floyd, & Copeman, 2005; Graue, 1993; Lewitt & Baker, 1995; Snow, 2006).

Over time, however, experts have come to generally agree that children must possess certain capabilities before they enter school that will help them to experience future success in educational settings. The point of contention is the continued debate over the specific types and levels of skills children should possess. Without a firm definition of school readiness, it becomes very difficult to know what to assess and the best approach to assessment. The following perspectives regarding how children learn and what they should be prepared for helps to fuel the debate, and each viewpoint advances a slightly different approach to how school readiness is defined and measured.

• Maturationist model. Advocates of the maturationist model view school readiness as a biological issue, where children’s school readiness is a function of their age and level of cognitive, psychomotor, and emotional maturation. Some states’ decision to not subject prekindergarten children to school readiness testing supports the maturationist perspective (Andrews & Slate, 2001; Saluja, Scott-Little & Clifford, 2000; Snow, 2006).

• Environmentalist model. In the view of the environmentalist model, school readiness is understood as children’s acquisition of skills that they learn from early socialization experiences (Andrews & Slate, 2001; Graue, 1993). The


environmentalist perspective supports the inclusion of indicators of parental involvement in assessments of school readiness.

• Constructivist model. Supporters of the constructivist models see readiness as the degree to which children can learn tasks through interactions with more knowledgeable peers or adults (Andrews & Slate, 2001; Graue, 1993). This view encourages the involvement of parents, teachers, and other adults that are familiar with a child’s level of skill and development in assessment processes.

• Cumulative-skills model. The cumulative-skills model views school readiness as children’s possession of certain prerequisite skills that are necessary for learning a particular subject (Andrews & Slate, 2001). This perspective promotes educational policies like those that require assessments of children’s pre-academic skills upon entrance into kindergarten.

• Transactional, interactionist or ecological model. A view which supports seeing school readiness as an interaction between children’s developmental status and their environments. The transactional view has led to educational policies like those that support children’s transition into school and the alignment of prekindergarten programs with early learning programs (Andrews & Slate, 2001; Graue, 2006; Keating, 2007; NGA, 2005; Snow, 2006). The “Ready Child Equation” put forth by the School Readiness Indicators Initiative (KIDS COUNT, 2005) – a 17-state effort to develop statewide indicators of school readiness – supports a transactional view and advocates the consideration of four other major influences on children’s learning and development in assessments of readiness for school:

Ready families. Family contexts and home environments that foster early learning experiences and provide opportunities for growth and development. Indicators of ready families include the mother’s educational level, the number of births to teens, the prevalence of child abuse and neglect, and the number of children in foster care.

Ready communities. Community resources and supports that are made available to families with young children. Indicators of ready communities include the number of young children in poverty, availability of supports for families with infants and toddlers, and levels of lead poisoning.

Ready services. Quality, accessible, and affordable programs that have been found to be effective in influencing children’s development and school. The availability of health insurance, number of low birthweight infants, and access to prenatal care and immunizations are indicators of ready services.

Ready early learning settings and schools. Important aspects of prekindergarten programs and schools that affect children’s development and school success. Class size and fourth grade reading scores are considered indicators of ready schools.

The influence of these different perspectives has led to experts in the field of early childhood education coming to realize that there are several influences on children’s development that will differentially affect their level of preparedness for school. As Graue (2006) succinctly summarizes, “[the definition of school readiness] varies geographically, by the population it is applied to, it is a composite of different aspects of development, and there is variation in the degree to which specific dimensions are of


focus (p. 49).” As a result, defining and assessing school readiness has been made much more difficult.

Inappropriate use of school readiness assessments

The debate surrounding measuring school readiness in children is further complicated by the fact that early childhood practitioners tend to use assessment results for inappropriate and sometimes controversial purposes, such as preventing children from entering kindergarten, or moving on to first grade, and identifying children with disabilities (ELSTF, 2005; Graue, 2006; Keating, 2007). While some experts may advocate that using assessment results in such a way supports doing what is best for the child, others understand that there are often unintended consequence of using readiness assessments for such purposes, like children being permanently labeled and treated as slow or difficult learners (Horton & Bowman, 2002; Snow, 2006). That is why experts caution that prior to using a school readiness assessment, the intended use of the assessment results must be clear. Doing so is critical for determining the appropriate instrument, how information is gathered, and consequences of the assessments (Graue, 2006; Keating, 2007).

Maxwell & Clifford (2004), and other early childhood education experts (Gredler, 1992; Meisels, 1999 & 1987; Snow, 2006; Sosna & Mastergeorge, 2005) also offer the following precautions regarding the use of school readiness assessments:

• Each school readiness assessment tool is designed for a particular purpose. Using an instrument for purposes other than what it was intended can lead to results being interpreted and used incorrectly. Typically, school readiness assessments are used to guide instruction and planning, identify children in need of further diagnostic testing, and to conduct research and evaluation. Note that early childhood education professionals differentiate between screening instruments, or tools like school readiness assessments that are brief in nature and intended to provide superficial information about a child’s skills and knowledge, and assessment tools, or more comprehensive instruments that support follow-up, more in-depth examinations of a child’s developmental status.

• Each assessment tool is designed with a specific definition of school readiness. When the definition of school readiness is unclear, the more likely it is that an unsuitable assessment instrument is used and that the results are limited in their use. Experts advocate revisiting the goals of an educational program when deciding how to define and measure school readiness. For example, in an early childhood education setting that promotes the general well-being of children in multiple developmental domains, as does a program like Head Start, the definition of school readiness and the assessments used to measure it should focus on children’s development along several dimensions.

• Assessments are only as good as the people conducting them. If an assessor is unfamiliar with why the tool is being administered and the specific properties and requirements of administering it, the greater the likelihood that 1) the assessment is not conducted well, 2) the assessment is affected by assessor biases, and 3) the results are less meaningful.

• It cannot be assumed that an assessment given at one point in time reflects children’s status a short time later. Children’s growth and development occurs


rapidly and on an ongoing basis. What children know and are capable of will constantly change over time.

• School personnel tend to use screening tools and developmental assessment tools interchangeably and, therefore, inappropriately, when solely basing decisions about a child’s educational needs and potential for success on the results of a readiness test. Screening tools are usually paper-and-pencil tools that are brief in nature, easily administered by teachers and other caregivers, require little training, convenient to use in a variety of settings, and relatively inexpensive. Assessment tools, on the other hand, more often involve interviews, observations, and structured activities (tasks performed by children that demonstrate developmentally expected skills or behaviors), require more training and time to administer, and provide more detailed information that can be used for diagnosing problems and making decisions regarding how to individualize instruction.

• Screening tools alone do not accurately predict which children are likely to have significant future problems; such tools work best for children who happen to be at either the very high or very low range of performance on the tests. In fact, several school readiness instruments have been found to have limited and mixed predictive validity for measuring children’s potential for future school success. Without being certain that assessment results accurately gauge a child’s capabilities, the value and use of the results is limited, especially for individualizing instruction.


Best Practices in School Readiness Assessment

A number of guidelines have been established by national organizations, like the National Association for the Education of Young Children, and the U.S. Department of Education regarding appropriate practices for assessing the school readiness of young children. Researchers and practitioners have also identified several practices that have been found to be effective. Experts assert that, when the following best practices are carefully taken into consideration, the value of school readiness assessments is increased:

• Appropriate Uses of School Readiness Assessments

• Most Important Characteristics of an Assessment System

• The Ideal School Readiness Assessment Process

• Selecting an Instrument for Assessing School Readiness

3

Best Practices in School Readiness Assessment


Appropriate Uses of School Readiness Assessment School readiness assessment should…

• Benefit children and the adults who work with children. In addition to being beneficial for identifying children’s strengths and challenges, assessments should be relatively easy to administer, interpret, and use by adults conducting them. The more that an assessment is incorporated, to the degree possible, into a child and teacher’s daily routine, the better the chances that the assessment is administered appropriately and the results are accurate and useful (ELSTF, 2005; Ohio Department of Education, 2007; Sonsa & Mastergeorge, 2005; ).

• Be used for the purposes for which it is designed. School readiness assessments that are used for their intended purposes produce more accurate results and provide information that can be easily translated into classroom activities that enhance and improve children’s learning. Experts advise that screening tools are most appropriately used to provide cursory information about children’s knowledge and skills, and to identify children in need of additional assessment, while assessment tools are more suitable for identifying children’s specific educational needs and capabilities (ELSTF, 2005; Ohio Department of Education, 2007; Sonsa & Mastergeorge, 2005).

• Be valid and reliable. A school readiness assessment should effectively measure the aspect of development that it intends to assess (valid), and produce consistent results with each administration (reliable). It should also have properties (characteristics of an assessment tool, such as the intended purpose, targeted age ranges, and training and methods of administration required) that are in accordance with professional standards regarding assessment of young children put forth by national organizations, like NAEYC and the American Psychological Association (APA) (ELSTF, 2005; Ohio Department of Education, 2007; Sonsa & Mastergeorge, 2005; Vernon-Feagans & Blair, 2006). Psychometric ratings provide simple ratings of a tool’s validity and reliability, with scores typically ranging from a low of “0” to a high of “10-12.” Scores can be based upon an instrument having test-retest reliability (results are consistent with every administration of the instrument), inter-rater reliability (different raters come up with similar scores), internal consistency (instrument’s items are related), concurrent validity (extent to which a test correlates with an external criterion measured at the same time), predictive validity (accurately predicts future success), and a normative (standardized) sample (Sosna & Mastergeorge, 2005).

• Be age appropriate, using naturalistic observations to collect information as children interact in "real-life" situations. School readiness assessments should be appropriate for the ages of the children being assessed. Instruments that do not match a child’s developmental status can require the child to perform tasks that are not age-appropriate and consequently provide inaccurate and skewed results. Naturalistic observations, or informal, authentic assessments that happen as children are naturally engaged in problem solving, language, literacy, social, and other activities that demonstrate their skills are considered more age appropriate for children birth to

Commonly Used Instruments for Assessing School Readiness in Young Children

eight years of age, and viewed as being better suited for prekindergarten children’s level of development than more formal and standardized “table-top” assessments. However, there are several comprises made with the use of naturalistic observations, such as the limited ability to make comparisons of same-age children, results being affected by teacher and observer bias, and difficulty making group comparisons or determining group effects (ELSTF, 2005; Ohio Department of Education, 2007; Sonsa & Mastergeorge, 2005).

• Be holistic, collecting information on all developmental domains. The National Education Goals Panel (1997) has proposed that five domains of children’s learning and development that provide a more holistic perspective on the full range of a child’s capabilities, and the measurement of all five is important when assessing a child’s readiness for success in educational settings. (ELSTF, 2005; KIDS COUNT, 2005; NGEP, 1997; Ohio Department of Education, 2007; Sonsa & Mastergeorge, 2005)

Physical well-being and motor development (e.g., fine motor skills and coordination).

Social and emotional development (e.g., exhibiting positive social behaviors when interacting with their peers).

Approaches toward learning (e.g., levels of curiosity and independence and ability to follow directions).

Language development (e.g., size of vocabulary and ability to recognize the relationships between letters and sounds).

Cognition and general knowledge (e.g., ability to recognize basic shapes and problem solve).

• Be linguistically and culturally appropriate. At a minimum, a school readiness assessment should be available and administered in a child’s primary language. Assessments that do not take into account a child’s cultural background are less likely to demonstrate and capture his or her full range of capabilities (ELSTF, 2005; Ohio Department of Education, 2007; Sonsa & Mastergeorge, 2005; ).

• Collect information through a variety of processes and multiple sources. School readiness assessments should collect information in several different ways and tap into multiple sources of information regarding a child’s developmental status, including collections of children's work, observations of children, interviews with children, and parent reports. The greater the variety of methods and sources, the greater the likelihood that the assessment results provide an accurate and holistic view of what children know and can do (ELSTF, 2005; Ohio Department of Education, 2007; Sonsa & Mastergeorge, 2005).

• Be used to guide instruction and not to determine children's placement in school. Early childhood education professionals caution that screening tools are really designed to provide limited information about children’s learning and development and should not be used interchangeably with more comprehensive assessment tools. Experts caution that screenings should always be followed up by more comprehensive assessments that can fully inform decisions about a child’s developmental status and potential for future success. Readiness assessments should NOT be conducted to classify a child’s preparedness for inclusion in an educational


setting, or be used to exclude children from preschool or kindergarten. (ELSTF, 2005; Ohio Department of Education, 2007; Sonsa & Mastergeorge, 2005).

Most Important Characteristics of an Assessment System A survey of 25 national leaders in the field of early childhood education conducted by the Erikson Institute indicates that the following are the most important characteristics of an assessment system (Horton & Bowman, 2002):

• Matched curriculum/assessment. An assessment system should create a strong and useful connection between an early childhood education program’s curriculum and the instrument used to assess readiness.

• Teacher meetings. Weekly teacher meetings are advocated, in which parents and teachers can work together to promote and monitor children’s progress.

• Monitoring self-study. Annual or semi-annual self-studies in which assessments of the appropriateness and effectiveness of activities conducted in early childhood settings are undertaken for program evaluation purposes.

• Portfolios. It is recommended that portfolios be used to collect evidence of children’s skills and capabilities from a variety of sources on a daily or weekly basis.

• Developmental Screenings. Screenings for disabilities and developmental delays are to be conducted annually, and complemented by teacher observations.

• Parent evaluations. Parents should be involved in any assessment of children’s school readiness, as they help to provide information about children’s functioning in their home and community environments. It is recommended that information be collected from parents at least biannually.

• Teacher anecdotal records. Anecdotal records of children’s skills and progress made by teachers are only valuable if the teacher has received adequate training on how to take anecdotal notes and the use of the notes are incorporated into a larger assessment system.

• Teacher checklists. Teacher checklists are useful resources for helping teachers to focus in on specific areas of development, but they should not be used for formal assessment purposes.

• Computerized worksheets. Worksheets should NOT be a part of a school readiness assessment system.

The Ideal School Readiness Assessment Process The Early Learning Standards Task Force (ELSTF, 2005) and other experts in the field of early childhood education (NGEP, 1997; Ohio Department of Education, ; Sonsa & Mastergeorge, 2005) identify the following process as being ideal for conducting school readiness assessments:


1. Use only authentic curriculum-based scales to the greatest extent possible as the first stage in evaluating the early learning skills of children while they are participating in the educational settings.

2. Compile ongoing observation data for every child at least 2 times (preferably 3 times) per year, for example, September and May or September, January, and May to document the child’s progress over time. The frequency of monitoring is dependent on the progress the child is making.

3. Gather information from teachers, aides, parents, and other caregivers who know the child well and observe daily children’s naturally occurring thinking, language, social, motor, and self-control skills.

4. Watch, observe, and record each child’s strong and weak skills through daily/weekly observations.

5. Use a specific measure of early learning skills to probe further into areas that may require more in depth evaluation such as early literacy, reading, math, and general knowledge.

6. For children with developmental disabilities, use only measures that have been designed and field-validated for use with children having specific needs as the primary measurement tool.

7. Collect information on all children individually and as classroom groups to note changes overtime.

8. Incorporate information collected into teaching strategies, classroom activities and curricula materials at each time-point. Constructing the environment to encourage particular activities is an appropriate method of collecting data.

9. Use the information collected over time as records of the performance and progress of children to share with parents and for transition building with principals, the teacher’s of the following school year (i.e., kindergarten teachers or first grade teachers), and others.

Selecting an Instrument for Assessing School Readiness With children coming from different geographies, populations, and levels of development, it is extremely difficult to find and use an assessment tool that can 1) adequately measure all domains of children’s learning and development, 2) be administered easily using practices and instruments that match the cultural context of the settings in which children develop, and 3) provide accurate assessment results. Maxwell & Clifford (2004) provide some general guidelines regarding factors to consider when identifying school readiness instruments. They assert that, ideally, selecting an instrument is accomplished through the collaborative efforts of a team that includes administrators, teachers, families, and experts in the assessment of young children’s skills. The following key questions can help guide planning.

• What is your definition of school readiness? Is there interest in all five domains of development—physical well-being and motor development, social and emotional


development, approaches toward learning, language development, and cognitive development and general knowledge? If so, is information already collected on some domains (for example, health), or do the assessment tools need to cover all five domains? If the purpose of the assessment is to improve learning, does the content of the assessment match the curriculum content?

• What is your purpose or purposes for conducting school readiness assessments? Select an assessment tool or tools to match each of the purposes.

• What are the characteristics of the children to be assessed? How old are they? Do they speak languages besides English? What are their races or ethnicities? Do some have disabilities? In what part of the country do they live? The assessment tools selected should be designed to be used with children similar to the ones being assessed. The assessment tool should also include documented evidence of the characteristics of children on which the assessment was tested.

• What are the technical properties of the assessment? Is there evidence for adequate validity (the tool really measures what it claims to measure)? Is there evidence for adequate reliability (the tool produces similar results for a child, even when the assessment is conducted by different individuals).



There are several screening and assessment instruments commonly used for assessing school readiness in prekindergarten children. As the previous section illuminated, the instrument of choice differs according to a variety of factors, such as the age and primary language of the children being tested and the domains being measured. This section summarizes information about school readiness assessment instruments found to be commonly used in early childhood settings across the U.S., which can help to identify an instrument more suitable for assessing school readiness in Franklin County, including:

• States’ Use of School Readiness Assessments

• Commonly Used Instruments and Their Alignment with Best Practices

• Properties of Commonly Used Instruments

4


States’ Use of School Readiness Assessments States have differing policies regarding school readiness assessment. Many states require statewide assessment; some largely conduct local assessments, while others do not require school readiness assessment at all. Table 1 summarizes policies regarding school readiness assessment found during the national survey of state readiness initiatives conducted in 1999 by the National Center for Early Development and Learning (NCEDL) and SERVE (Saluja, Scott-Little, & Clifford, 2000), and the survey conducted in 2001 by the Erikson Institute of 25 national experts in the field of early childhood education (Horton & Bowman, 2002).

………… Table 1. States’ Policies Regarding School Readiness Assessment*

POLICIES NUMBER OF STATES STATES

States conduct screening or assessment 13

Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio Tennessee, Utah

State places assessment entirely under local control 11

Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, West Virginia and Wisconsin

Local schools conduct screening or assessment

5 Florida, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas

Some local school districts conduct assessments 26

Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Couth Dakota, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming

State is developing plans to implement statewide readiness assessment

16

Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Washington, Wyoming

Data are collected at the state level 8 Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Minnesota, Ohio, Vermont

State does not asses school readiness 6 Delaware, Hawaii*, Kansas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Virginia

Sources: Saluja, Scott-Little, & Clifford (2000). Readiness for school: A survey of state policies and definitions. Early Childhood Research and Practice. Online: http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v2n2/saluja.html. Horton, C. & Bowman, B. T. (2002). Child assessment at the preprimary level: Expert opinion and state trends. *Information may have changed since the findings of these surveys were reported.

Information is scarce that identifies specific school readiness assessments used in prekindergarten and kindergarten settings at the city and county level, including in central Ohio. Information about states use of school readiness assessments is more readily available through research like the surveys conducted by NCEDL and SERVE, and the Erikson Institute, and a more recent review of evaluations of state school readiness initiatives conducted by the U.S. Department of Education (2007). Neither the


surveys nor the review listed complete information about all school readiness assessments used in every state. Thus, Table 2 presents available information on several states’ school readiness assessments, including information from the state’s Department of Education website.

………… Table 2. States’ Use of School Readiness Assessments

STATE INSTRUMENTS & PRACTICES

Alabama • Alabama Learning Inventory • Data compiled at the local and state level • Administered by teachers to every public school kindergarten student within the

first 4 weeks of school • Measures pre-reading and quantitative concepts • Information used for instructional purposes

Alaska • Alaska Developmental Profile • Global measure used to provide summary information on each school to the state

Department of Education • Districts decide how to gather the information • Information will be used to determine patterns and identify areas with high need

Arkansas • Health and developmental screening is conducted on all children entering kindergarten

• Mandatory use of portfolios Arizona • Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test – Third Edition (PPVT-III)

California • Child Observation Form • Kindergarten Observation Tool • Transition to Kindergarten Form

Connecticut • Bracken Basic Concepts Scale –Revised • Social Skills Rating System (SSRS)

Delaware • Mandatory developmental screenings

Florida • Florida Kindergarten Readiness Screener (FLKRS) • Early Screening Inventory – Kindergarten (ESI-K) • Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) • All children entering kindergarten are assessed by their teachers within the first 3

weeks of school • Local districts can decide upon instruments, as long as they measure the 16

indicators outlined by the state Department of Education • Information is used to guide instruction

Georgia • Color Bears and Counting Bears • Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP) • Oral and Written Language Scales (OWLS) • Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test – Third Edition (PPVT-III) • Social Skills Rating System (SSRS) • Story and Print Concepts • Woodcock-Johnson III (W-J III)

Hawaii • Hawaii State School Readiness Assessment • Developed by the state Department of Education • System-level data is gathered on children’s readiness for schools and schools’

readiness for children Illinois • Mandatory developmental screenings

Iowa • High/Scope Preschool Child Observation Record (COR)

Kansas • Work Sampling System (WSS)

Kentucky • Battelle Developmental Inventory • Social Skills Rating System (SSRS)

Louisiana • Creative Curriculum Developmental Continuum for Ages 3 – 5 Assessment • Developing Skills Checklist (DSC) • Every kindergarten child is screened within 30 days of the first day of school (before

or after) • One of four state-identified instruments may be used • Information is used to guide instruction but is also collected at the state level



Maryland • Maryland Model for School Readiness (MMSR) • Work Sampling System (WSS) • Includes assessment, instruction, family communication, and articulation among

programs • Data used as a school improvement device and for instructional purposes

Michigan • High/Scope Preschool Child Observation Record (COR) • Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test – Third Edition (PPVT-III) • Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (Pre-CTOPP) • Woodcock-Johnson III (W-J III)

Minnesota • Work Sampling System (WSS) • Early childhood health and developmental screening

Missouri • Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test – Third Edition (PPVT-III) • Social Skills Rating System (SSRS) • Story and Print Concepts • Woodcock-Johnson III (W-J III)

Nebraska • High/Scope Preschool Child Observation Record (COR) • Creative Curriculum Developmental Continuum for Ages 3 – 5 Assessment • Work Sampling System (WSS)

Nevada • Preschool Language Scale – Fourth Edition (PLS-4)

New Jersey • Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test – Third Edition (PPVT-III) • Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (Pre-CTOPP) • Woodcock-Johnson III (W-J III)

New Mexico • All children undergo an initial screening upon entry to school

New York • High/Scope Preschool Child Observation Record (COR) • Teacher-Child Rating Scale (T-CRS) • All children are screened for health; English proficiency; and motor, cognitive, and

language development North Carolina • Bracken Basic Concepts Scale

• Color Bears and Counting Bears • High/Scope Preschool Child Observation Record (COR) • Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test – Third Edition (PPVT-III) • Pre-Language Assessment Scales (Pre-LAS 2000) • Social Skills Rating System (SSRS) • Story and Print Concepts • Woodcock-Johnson III (W-J III)

Ohio • Kindergarten Readiness Assessment – Literacy (KRA-L) • Get It, Got It, Go • California Preschool Social Competency Scale • All children undergo an initial screening upon entry to school

Oklahoma • Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test – Third Edition (PPVT-III) • Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (Pre-CTOPP) • Woodcock-Johnson III (W-J III)

South Carolina • Developmental Indicators for the Assessment of Learning – Third Edition (DIAL-R) • Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test – Third Edition (PPVT-III) • Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (Pre-CTOPP)

Pennsylvania • Basic School Skills Inventory • Developmental Observation Checklist System • Preschool and Kindergarten Behavior Scales (PKBS)

Tennessee • Brigance Diagnostic Inventory of Early Development –Revised • General screening is done of all students entering kindergarten • Information is used to guide instruction

Texas • Developmental Indicators for the Assessment of Learning – Third Edition (DIAL-R) • Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test (EOWPVT) • Get It! Got It! Go! • Receptive One-Word Vocabulary Test (ROWPVT)

Utah • All kindergarten children are assessed during the first 2 weeks of school • Information is used to guide instruction

Washington • Mandatory parent evaluations



West Virginia • Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test – Third Edition (PPVT-III) • Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (Pre-CTOPP) • Woodcock-Johnson III (W-J III)

Sources: Saluja, Scott-Little, & Clifford (2000). Readiness for school: A survey of state policies and definitions. Early Childhood Research and Practice. Online: http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v2n2/saluja.html; Florida Department of Education (2006). Online: http://www.fldoe.org/earlylearning/sruss.asp; Maxwell & Bryant (2000).; U.S. Department of Education (2007). A review of methods and instruments used in state and local school readiness evaluations.

Commonly Used Instruments and Their Alignment with Best Practices The review of evaluations of state school readiness initiatives conducted by the U.S. Department of Education (2007) indicates that several states use a battery, or series of instruments, and do not limt assessments of children’s skills and abilities to one source of information. The survey conducted by the Erikson Institute also indicates that most states have moved toward establishing relatively structured assessment systems that employ informal methods (Horton & Bowman, 2002). Figure 1 illustrates screening and assessment instruments most frequently used by states for assessing school readiness.

Figure 1. Most Frequently Used Screening and Assessment Instruments

27

9

7

9

13

5 56

5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Peab

ody

Pict

ure

Voc

abul

ary

Test

Soci

al S

kills

Rat

ing

Scal

e

Stor

y an

d Pr

int

Con

cept

s

Chi

ld O

bser

vatio

n Re

cord

Woo

dcoc

k-Jo

hnso

n III

Wor

k Sa

mpl

ing

Syst

em

Pres

choo

l Com

preh

ensiv

e Te

st o

fPh

onol

ogic

al P

roce

ssin

g

Cou

ntin

g Be

ars/

Col

or B

ears

Dev

elop

ing

Skills

Che

cklis

t

Num

ber

of E

valu

atio

n St

udie

s

Source: U.S. Department of Education (2007). A review of methods and instruments used in state and local school readiness evaluations.


Table 3 summarizes how well many of the commonly used screening and assessment instruments align with best practices regarding the assessment of school readiness listed above. Note that this list does not represent the exhaustive number of school readiness screening and assessment instruments available; only those that have been commonly referred to in literature regarding assessing school readiness among prekindergarten children. For more complete listings and descriptions of screening and assessment instruments used to assess children’s learning and development, consult the following publications:

• Child Trends (2004). Early childhood measure profiles. Online: http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/ECMeasures04/report.pdf.

• Early Learning Standards Task Force (2005). Early childhood assessment for children from birth to age 8 (Grade 3). Online: http://www.pde.state.pa.us/early_childhood/lib/early_childhood/Early_Childhood_Assessment_For_Children_From_Birth_to_Age_%85.pdf.

• National Child Care Information Center (2007). Child outcome assessment tools for early childhood education. Online: http://nccic.org/poptopics/childoutcome.pdf.

• Niemeyer, J. & Scott-Little, C. (2002). Assessing kindergarten children: A compendium of assessment instruments. Online: http://www.serve.org/_downloads/REL/Assessment/rdakcc.pdf.

• Ohio Department of Education (2007). Catalog of screening and assessment instruments for young children. Office of Early Learning and School Readiness.

• Sosna & Mastergeorge (2005). Compendium of screening tools for early childhood socio-emotional development. Online: http://www.first5caspecialneeds.org/documents/IPFMHI_CompendiumofScreeningTools.pdf.

………… Table 3. How Commonly Used Screening and Assessment Instruments Align with Best

Practices

INSTRUMENT

AG

E A

PPR

OPR

IATE

USE

S N

ATU

RA

LIST

IC

OB

SER

VA

TIO

NS

CU

LTU

RA

LLY

A

PPR

OPR

IATE

DA

TA C

OLL

ECTE

D

THR

OU

GH

M

ULT

IPLE

M

ETH

OD

S

DA

TA C

OLL

ECTE

D

FRO

M M

ULT

IPLE

C

AR

EGIV

ERS

MEA

SUR

ES

MU

LTIP

LE

DO

MA

INS

MA

TCH

ED W

ITH

C

UR

RIU

LUM

/ G

UID

ES

INST

RU

CTI

ON

VA

LID

AN

D

REL

IAB

LE

CO

ND

UC

TED

ON

AN

O

NG

OIN

G B

ASI

S

DA

TA C

OLL

ECTE

D

IND

IVID

UA

LLY

AN

D

AS

A G

RO

UP

1. Basic School Skills Inventory, Third Edition

X X X X

2. Battelle Developmental Inventory – Second Edition

X X X X X X

3. Bracken Basic Concepts Scale-Revised (BBCS-R)

X X X


INSTRUMENT

AG

E A

PPR

OPR

IATE

USE

S N

ATU

RA

LIST

IC

OB

SER

VA

TIO

NS

CU

LTU

RA

LLY

A

PPR

OPR

IATE

DA

TA C

OLL

ECTE

DTH

RO

UG

H

MU

LTIP

LE

MET

HO

DS

DA

TA C

OLL

ECTE

DFR

OM

MU

LTIP

LE

CA

REG

IVER

S

MEA

SUR

ES

MU

LTIP

LE

DO

MA

INS

MA

TCH

ED W

ITH

C

UR

RIC

ULU

M/

GU

IDES

IN

STR

UC

TIO

N

VA

LID

AN

D

REL

IAB

LE

CO

ND

UC

TED

ON

A

N O

NG

OIN

G

BA

SIS

DA

TA C

OLL

ECTE

DIN

DIV

IDU

ALL

Y

AN

D A

S A

GR

OU

P

4. Brigance Diagnostic Inventory of Early Development –Revised

X X X X X X X

5. California Preschool Social Competency Scale

X X

6. Color Bears and Counting Bears

X X

7. Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP)

X X

8. Creative Curriculum Developmental Continuum for Ages 3-5 Assessment

X X X

9. Developing Skills Checklist X X X X X X X

10. Developmental Indicators for the Assessment of Learning – Third Edition (DIAL-III)

X X X X X

11. Developmental Observation Checklist System

X X X X X

12. Devereux Early Childhood Assessment (DECA)

X X X X

13. Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS)

X

14. Early Screening Inventory – Kindergarten (ESI-K)

X X X X X


INSTRUMENT

AG

E A

PPR

OPR

IATE

USE

S N

ATU

RA

LIST

IC

OB

SER

VA

TIO

NS

CU

LTU

RA

LLY

A

PPR

OPR

IATE

DA

TA C

OLL

ECTE

D

THR

OU

GH

M

ULT

IPLE

M

ETH

OD

S

DA

TA C

OLL

ECTE

D

FRO

M M

ULT

IPLE

C

AR

EGIV

ERS

MEA

SUR

ES

MU

LTIP

LE

DO

MA

INS

MA

TCH

ED W

ITH

C

UR

RIU

LUM

/ G

UID

ES

INST

RU

CTI

ON

VA

LID

AN

D

REL

IAB

LE

CO

ND

UC

TED

ON

A

N O

NG

OIN

G

BA

SIS

DA

TA C

OLL

ECTE

D

IND

IVID

UA

LLY

AN

D

AS

A G

RO

UP

15. Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test (EOWPVT)

X X X

16. Galileo System for the Electronic Management of Learning (Galileo)

X X X X x

17. Gesell School Readiness Test (GSRT)

X

18. Get It! Got It! Go! X

19. Get Ready to Read! X X

20. High/Scope Preschool Child Observation Record (COR)

X X X X X X X

21. Learning Accomplishments Profile – Revised (LAP-R)

X X X X

22. Lollipop Test X

23. Metropolitan Readiness Test (MRT)

X X

24. Oral and Written Language Scale (OWLS)

X X

25. Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT)

X X X

26. Pre-Language Assessment Scales (Pre-LAS 2000)

X X

27. Phelps Kindergarten Readiness Scale

X X

28. Preschool and Kindergarten Behavior Scales (PKBS)

X X


INSTRUMENT

AG

E A

PPR

OPR

IATE

USE

S N

ATU

RA

LIST

IC

OB

SER

VA

TIO

NS

CU

LTU

RA

LLY

A

PPR

OPR

IATE

DA

TA C

OLL

ECTE

D

THR

OU

GH

M

ULT

IPLE

M

ETH

OD

S

DA

TA C

OLL

ECTE

D

FRO

M M

ULT

IPLE

C

AR

EGIV

ERS

MEA

SUR

ES

MU

LTIP

LE

DO

MA

INS

MA

TCH

ED W

ITH

C

UR

RC

IULU

M/

GU

IDES

IN

STR

UC

TIO

N

VA

LID

AN

D

REL

IAB

LE

CO

ND

UC

TED

ON

A

N O

NG

OIN

G

BA

SIS

DA

TA C

OLL

ECTE

D

IND

IVID

UA

LLY

AN

D

AS

A G

RO

UP

29. Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (Pre-CTOPP)

X

30. Preschool Individual Growth and Development Indicators (IGDIs)

X

31. Preschool Language Scale – Fourth Edition (PLS-4)

X X

32. Receptive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test (ROWPVT)

X X

33. Social Competence and Behavior Evaluation (SCBE)

X X

34. Social Skills Rating System (SRSS)

X X X X

35. Story and Print Concepts X X X

36. Teacher-Child Rating Scale (T-CRS)

X X

37. Teacher Rating of Oral Language and Literacy (TROLL)

X X X

38. Woodcock Johnson III (W-J III)

X X X

39. Work Sampling System X X X X X X X X

Sources: Shilady, A. L (2004). Choosing an appropriate assessment system. National Association for the Education of Young Children; Horton & Bowman (2002). Child assessment at the preprimary level: Expert opinion and state trends; U.S. Department of Education (2007). A review of methods and instruments used in state and local school readiness evaluations.; Magdalena, J. (2007). Development and psychometric properties of the Early Development Instrument (EDI): A measure of children's school readiness. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science. Online: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/ mi_qa3717/is_200701/ai_n19198202/print.


Properties of Commonly Used School Readiness Assessment Instruments Table 4 describes specific properties of the screening and assessment tools found to be commonly used in early childhood settings across the U.S listed above. Specific properties about the instruments that are described include:

• Type. Whether the instrument is a formal, standardized type of assessment (which are considered to be highly valid and reliable (.8 or above), are administered in a similar way each time (standardized), and have standards of comparison (norm-referenced, standards reference, and criterion-referenced) that guide the interpretation of results, or an informal, or naturalistic, authentic type of assessment (which typically do not adhere to standard conditions or use standard materials, have limited reliability (.5 to .6) and validity, and are considered to be criterion-referenced, where comparison is based upon a child’s own level of skill and knowledge versus a norm group).

• Purpose/Use. The intended purpose or use of the instrument, such as screening for initial readiness skills, or providing in-depth information about a child’s strengths and challenges. Also describes the intended use of the instrument.

• Focus. The domains of development and associated developmental skills that the instrument intends to assess, such as language, literacy, pre-academic, social, and cognitive skills.

• Age Range. The age range that the assessment tool is intended for.

• Administration. How the assessment is administered, including whether it is administered individually or as a group, the ease and duration of administration, and the methods used to collect data, such as observations, interviews, checklists, and structured activities/direct child assessment.

• Specific Features. Unique aspects of the assessment tool that are not mentioned in other areas, such as whether it can be used with children with disabilities, languages that the instrument is available in, and the specific training and credentials required for administration and interpretation of assessments.

• Accessibility. How the instrument can be accessed and its cost.

Information about the properties of the instruments listed has been taken from several different sources. As a result, consistent information about each instrument’s properties is not provided. Those properties about which information could not be found have not been included.


………… Table 4. Properties of Commonly Used Screening and Assessment Instruments

INSTRUMENT TYPE PURPOSE/USE FOCUS AGE

RANGE ADMINISTRATION SPECIFIC FEATURES ACCESSIBILITY

1. Basic School Skills Inventory, Third Edition

• Norm-referenced

• Instructional planning

• Basic knowledge

• Language

• Literacy

• Math

• Behavior

4 to 6.11 yrs

Time: 4-8 minutes

Methods: Direct child assessment with structured tasks, observations, checklists

Languages: English

Training: Formal training in assessment, familiarity with preschool classroom skills and behavioral/socio-emotional testing

Other: Bracken School Readiness Assessment (BSRA), an adapted version of the BBCS-R, is available for identifying school readiness

From: Pro-Ed, Inc. Publishing www.proedinc.com

2. Battelle Developmental Inventory – Second Edition

• Curriculum-referenced

• Norm-referenced

• Screening

• Tracking child outcomes

• Evaluation

• Cognitive

• Socio-emotional

• Language

• Health/physical

Infant through 7.11

Time: Screening 10-30 minutes; complete assessment 1-2 hrs Methods: Direct child assessment, teacher observation; parent interviews

Languages: English, Spanish

Training: Appropriate training and experience in administering the instrument, as well as knowledge and familiarity with children within the age range being assessed. Other: Provides adaptations for children with disabilities; the screening tool is an adaptation of the full measure.

From: Riverside Publishing www.riverpub.com

3. Bracken Basic Concepts Scale-Revised (BBCS-R)

• Norm-referenced

• Assess developmental performance

• Assess school readiness

• Cognitive

• Language

• Math

• Socio-emotional

• School readiness

2.6 to 8 yrs

Time: Untimed; ~ 30 minutes Methods: Direct child assessment


Training: Training in psychological testing interpretation; graduate training in measurement, guidance, individual psychological assessment, or special appraisal methods appropriate to a particular test.

From: Harcourt, Brace and Co. www.harcourt.com




4. Brigance Diagnostic Inventory of Early Development –II

• Criterion-referenced

• Assess developmental performance

• Identify strengths and weaknesses


• Preambulatory

• Gross and fine motor

• Self-help

• Speech/language

• Socio-emotional

• General knowledge

• Basic reading, writing, and math

0 to 6 yrs Time: less than an hour

Methods: Structured tasks, naturalistic teacher and parent observations, and interviews


Other: Brigance Preschool Screen-II screening tool available, which targets 3-4 yr olds

From: Curriculum Associates www.curriculumassociates.com Cost: $124

5. California Preschool Social Competency Scale

• Asses social adjustment in the classroom

• Socio-emotional

• School adjustment

Preschool age children

Time: 5-10 minutes

Easy: Methods: Teacher observation

Languages: English

Training: No training recommendations

From: Formerly published by Consulting Psychologists Press

6. Color Bears and Counting Bears

• Asses knowledge of colors and counting ability

• Conducting Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES)research

• Early literacy

• Numeracy

3 to 5 yrs Time: 5 minutes

Easy: Methods: Direct child assessment

Languages: English

Training: Paraprofessionals can be trained in about 15 minutes Other: Modified from the Color Concepts and Number Concepts tasks

From: Unpublished; used in FACES research www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/hs/faces/instruments/child_instru02/language_color.pdf

Cost: $

7. Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP)

• Norm-referenced

• Screening


• Conducting research

• Language 5 through 24.11 yrs

Time: 30 minutes

Easy: Methods: Direct child assessment

Languages: English

Training: Extensive training in assessment with an emphasis on phonological ability testing, test statistics scoring, and interpretation is recommended.

From: Pro-Ed, Inc www.proedinc.com




8. Creative Curriculum Developmental Continuum for Ages 3-5 Assessment


• Assessment

• Screening for delays

• Informing instruction



• Socio-emotional

• Physical

• Cognitive

• Language

3 to 5 yrs Time: Ongoing

Easy: Methods: Teacher observation of up to 25 children


Training: Publisher offers a self-paced training module series that offers guidance on how to conduct authentic assessments and how to use the creative curriculum assessment tool. Publisher also offers other training opportunities. Web and software training are also available.

From: Teaching Strategies, Inc. www.teachingstratergies.com

9. Developing Skills Checklist (DSC)

• Planning instruction

• Language

• Visual

• Auditory

• Math

• Memory

• Print and writing

• Socio-emotional

• Fine and gross motor movement

4 to 6 yrs Time: Untimed; 10-15 minutes for each of three testing sessions Easy: Methods: Direct child assessment , teacher observations, checklists, parent interview


Training: No specific training requirements.

From: CTB-McGraw Hill www.ctb.com

10. Developmental Indicators for the Assessment of Learning – Third Edition (DIAL-III)

• Norm-referenced

• Screening

• Identify children in need of further assessment

• Identify at-risk children

• Identify potentially advanced children


• Fine and gross motor

• Socio-emotional

• Language

• Cognition

• Self-help

3 yrs though second grade

Time: ~ 20-30 minutes

Easy: Yes Methods: Individually administered, teacher observation, checklist, structured tasks, parent questionnaire Cycle: One-time administration


Training: Formal, 4-hr DIAL-R training required Other: Also available as the Speed Dial, a brief screening tool

From: American Guidance Systems www.agsnet.com Cost: $309.95




11. Developmental Observation Checklist System

• Screening


• Language

• Cognitive

• Socio-emotional

• Motor movement

0 to 7 yrs Time: 30 minutes; 25-20 minutes to score all three checklists

Easy: Methods: Checklists, parent report

Languages: English

Training: Some training in administering and interpreting assessment instruments


12. Devereux Early Childhood Assessment Program (DECA)

• Standardized

• Norm-referenced

• Screening

• Assess behavioral concerns

• Treatment planning

• Socio-emotional 2-5 yrs Time: ~10 minutes

Easy: Yes – to learn and administer

Methods: Individual administration, teacher observation


Training: Training in interpretation

From: Kaplan Press [email protected]

Cost: $189.95

13. Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS)

• Monitor the development of pre-reading and early reading skills

• Literacy Time: Screener 10-15 minutes Methods: Individually administered

Languages: English

From: DIBELS website

http://dibels.uoregon.edu/

14. Early Screening Inventory – Kindergarten (ESI-K)

• Norm-referenced

• Measures ability to acquire new skills

• Screening

• Identify children in need of additional assessment

• Identify possibility of a learning problem

• Language

• Cognition

• Speech perception

3 through 6 yrs

Time: 15-20 minutes Easy: Yes – to learn and administer

Methods: Checklist, individually administered, quiet, distraction-free area

Languages: English, Spanish Training: Formal background in early childhood education

Other: for children with disabilities

From: Rebus Planning Associates 1-800-435-3085 or Pearson Early Learning Center Cost: $96.00

15. Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test (EOWPVT

• Norm-referenced

• Screening

• Monitoring growth

• Evaluating program effectiveness

• Language 2 through 18.11 yrs

Time: 10-15 minutes

Methods: Direct child assessment


Training: With training and supervision, it can be administered by someone without a relevant background.

From: Academic Therapy Publications www.academictherapy.com




16. Galileo System for the Electronic Management of Learning (Galileo)

• Promote learning • Approaches to Learning

• Creative Arts

• Early Math

• Fine and Gross Motor

• Language

• Literature

• Nature and science

• Physical Health

• Socio-Emotional

Birth to 10 Time: Ongoing

Methods: Teacher observation

Languages: English

From: Assessment Technology, Inc. www.ati-online.com

17. Gesell School Readiness Test (GSRT)

• Screening for readiness for kindergarten

• Writing

• Visual and motor coordination

• Verbal expressions

Infants, toddlers, preschoolers


Languages: English

18. Get It! Got It! Go!

• Monitoring change

• Literacy 2.5 to 5.5 yrs

Time: 5 minutes per test


Languages: English, Spanish only available for picture naming subsets Training: Basic familiarity with, and skill in administering standardized tests to young children

From: University of Minnesota, College of Education and Human Development http://ggg.umn.edu

19. Get Ready to Read!

• Screening • Literacy 4 yrs olds Time: 9.5 minutes Methods: Direct child assessment

Languages: English, Spanish Training: Standardized training is available

From: Pearson Early Learning www.pearsonassessments.com




20. High/Scope Preschool Child Observation Record (COR)


• Norm-referenced

• Identify skills and strengths


• Program evaluation

• Language

• Math

• Initiative

• Social relations

• Music and movement

2.5 to 6 yrs Time: Ongoing

Easy: Yes

Methods: Naturalistic teacher observation, checklist, parent reports Cycle:3 observations of each child

Languages: English

Training: Recommended 2-3 day COR training; week-ling courses and multiple-week courses are available by request

From: High/Scope Educational Research Foundation www.highscope.com Cost: $90

21. Learning Accomplishments Profile – Revised (LAP-R)



• Tracking children’s progress

• Cognitive

• Language

• Self-help

• Motor movement

• Social

3 to 6 yrs Time: Varies

Easy: Yes – to learn and administer



Training: A video on the LAP-R is available for purchase through Kaplan. Training is also available from the Chapel Hill Training Outreach Project and Kaplan.

From: Kaplan Press www.kaplanco.com

22. Lollipop Test • Identify readiness for school

• Recognition and identification of shapes, colors, pictures, letters, and numbers

Time: 15-20 minutes Easy: Relatively easy

Languages: English Training: Administered by trained examiners

From: Humanistic Learning http://www.humanicslearning.com/bookhtms/lollipop.htm Cost: $34.95

23. Metropolitan Readiness Test (MRT)

• Screening

• Identify readiness for school

• Literacy

• Cognition

3 to 6 yrs Time: 80 minutes

Methods: Group or individual administration

Languages: English

From: The Psychological Corporation www.psychcorp.com

24. Oral and Written Language Scale (OWLS)

• Norm-referenced

• Screening



• Cognitive

• Language

• Literacy

3 to 21 yrs Time: 15-40 minutes Methods: Direct child assessment

Languages: English Training: In psychological testing

From: Western Psychological Services http://portal.wpspublish.com/portal/page?_pageid=53,69501&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL Cost:: $395.00




25. Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test – Third Edition (PPVT-III)

• Norm-referenced

• Assessment

• Identify children with language differences

• Monitor receptive language

• Receptive vocabulary

• Cognition

2 yrs to adult

Time: ~ 11-12 minutes

Easy: Need background in psychometrics to interpret; easy to administer Methods: Individual administration, structured tasks

Languages: Spanish

Training: Familiarity with pyschometrics

Other: Can be used with children with language impairments, autism, cerebral palsy, or moderate disabilities

From: Pearson Assessment www.pearsonassessments.com or American Guidance Services www.agsnet.com Cost: $129.95

26. Pre-Language Assessment Scales (Pre-LAS 2000)

• Measuring oral language proficiency and pre-literacy skills

• Cognitive

• Language

• Literacy

4 yrs through first grade

Time: 10-15 minutes to administer the oral language component; 5-10 minutes for pre-literacy component Easy: Methods: Rating scale


Training: Experience in test administration

From: CTB/McGraw Hill www.ctb.com

27. Phelps Kindergarten Readiness Scale

• Screening • Identify readiness for school

• Verbal processing

• Perceptual

• Auditory

• Language

• Ability to compare and reproduce shapes

• Memory

Children entering kinder.

Time: 20 minutes

Easy: Relatively easy Cycle: Designed to be administered from the spring before a child enters kindergarten until the following fall.

Languages: English

From: Psychology Press/Holistic Education Press https://great-ideas.org/pk_price.htm

28. Preschool and Kindergarten Behavior Scales (PKBS)

• Screening



• Socio-emotional 3 to 6 yrs Time: 12 minutes


Training: Can be completed by anyone who knows the child well. Scoring and interpretation should be done by someone with knowledge of basic principles of educational and psychological testing. Training in understanding and assessing child behavioral and emotional problems is recommended.





29. Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (Pre-CTOPP)

• Norm-referenced

• Assessment • Early literacy 3 to 5 yrs Time: -45 minutes

Languages: English

Training: Not available

Other: The Pre-CTOPP was an unpublished evaluation tool. The parts that were published in August 2007 are marketed under the name Test of Preschool Early Literacy (TOPEL) and will be available through Pro-Ed. The TOPEL includes the definitional vocabulary (expressive), phonological awareness, and print knowledge components from the Pre-CTOPP.

From: Pro-Ed Publishing www.proedinc.com

30. Preschool Individual Growth and Development Indicators (IGDIs)

• Standardized test

• Assessment • Language

• Social

• Cognitive

• Motor

• Self-help

2.5 to 6 yrs Methods: Individual administration

Languages: English From: Center for Early Education Development http://ggg.umr.edu or Early Childhood Research Institute on Measuring Growth and Development www.getgotgo.net

31. Preschool Language Scale – Fourth Edition (PLS-4)

• Screening • Expressive and receptive language

Infant to 6.11 yrs

Time: 20-40 minutes



Training: Familiarity with the manual and with assessing young children is needed. Paraprofessionals can be trained to administer the instrument, but interpretation of results needs to be done by a clinician who has training and experience in diagnostic assessment.

From: The Psychological Corporation www.psychhorp,com




32. Receptive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test (ROWPVT)

• Norm-referenced

• Assessing the ability to understand the spoken and written vocabulary of others

• Language Infant through fourth grade

Time: 10-15 minutes



Training: Specialized training is needed. Assessors should have college-level work in psychology or counseling and work in testing or assessment, or they should be licensed in testing.

From: Academic Therapy Publications www.academictherapy.com

33. Social Competence and Behavior Evaluation (SCBE)

• Socio-emotional Methods: Teacher observation

Languages: English

Training: Manual provided From: Western Psychological Services (WPS) www.wpspublish.com

34. Social Skills Rating System (SRSS)

• Norm-referenced (for students with and without disabilities)

• Screening




• Socio-emotional

• Academic competence

3 yrs through kinder.

Time: 10-15 minutes per questionnaire

Methods: Teacher and parent rating scales

Languages: English.; Translated into Spanish for FACES research

Training: In psychological testing

From: Pearson Assessment www.pearsonassessments.com

35. Story and Print Concepts

• Assessing basic story concepts, print concepts, and the mechanics of reading

• Used in FACES research

• Language

• General knowledge and awareness

3 to 5 yrs

Languages: English; Translated in Spanish by FACES research team

From: Unpublished www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/hs/faces/instruments/child_instru02/language_story.pdf




36. Teacher-Child Rating Scale (T-CRS)

• Screening • Socio-emotional Kinder. through third grade

Time: 10 minutes Languages: English

Training: Manual provided From: Children’s Institute www.childrensinstitute.net

37. Teacher Rating of Oral Language and Literacy (TROLL)

• Language

• Reading

• Writing


Languages: Teacher can rate competence in English and in child’s native language Training: Manual provided

From: Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement www.ciera.org

38. Woodcock Johnson III (W-J III)

• Norm-referenced

• Screening




• Cognitive

• Math

• General knowledge

• Language

• Literacy

• Overall child development

2 to 90+ yrs

Time: 35-45 minutes


Languages: English

Training: Only trained personnel should administer the W-J III.

From: Riverside Publishing www.riverpub.com

39. Work Sampling System (WSS)


• Enhance teaching and learning

• Evaluate and track learning and progress

• Replace report cards and standardized tests


• Social –emotional

• Language

• Literacy

• Math

• Science

• Social studies

• Arts

• Health/physical

3 to 10 yrs Time: 15 minutes for checklists

Easy: Yes – to learn and administer Methods: Naturalistic teacher and parent observation, checklist, structured tasks, portfolios Cycle:3 times per year for each child


Training: On-site training available by request. Only trained professionals can administer the WSS.

From: Rebus Planning Associates 1-800-435-3085 or Pearson Early Learning Center www.pearsonearlylearning.com Cost: $67.00; $3.05 per student

Sources: Aiona, S. (2005). Assessing school readiness. Educational Perspectives, 38. Sosna & Mastergeorge (2005). Compendium of screening tools for early childhood socio-emotional development.; Ohio Department of Education (2007). Catalog of screening and assessment instruments for young children.; National Child Care Information Center (2007). Child outcome assessment tools for early childhood education.; Child Trends (2004). Early Childhood Measure Profiles.; ELSTF (2005). Early Childhood Assessment for Children from Birth to Age 8 (Grade 3). Niemeyer, J. & Scott-Little, C. (2002). Assessing kindergarten children: A compendium of assessment instruments.; and Shilady, A. L (2004). Choosing an appropriate assessment system. National Association for the Education of Young Children; U.S. Department of Education (2007). A review of methods and instruments used in state and local school readiness evaluations.; Magdalena, J. (2007). Development and psychometric properties of the Early Development Instrument (EDI): A measure of children's school readiness. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science. Online: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/ mi_qa3717/is_200701/ai_n19198202/print.


Recommendations for Future Research

The information contained in this review of literature is intended to be used to inform future research that will help to identify the most appropriate practices and instruments for conducting more systematic assessments of 3, 4, and 5-year olds in Franklin County. Thus, CRP does not advocate the use of any particular practice or instrument described in this report. Selecting a suitable system of school readiness assessment for Franklin County will be the decision of experts in the field of early childhood education and community stakeholders who understand the needs and challenges of children in central Ohio. This section concludes the report and describes the following recommendation for future research:

• Feasibility Study

5


Feasibility Study This review of literature in the field of research and early childhood education is intended to provide information about the most appropriate practices and instruments for assessing school readiness in prekindergarten children. Overall, the findings advocate giving careful thought to several considerations before implementing practices and instruments that assess children’s preparedness for school and potential future academic success. Doing so will help to ensure that assessment results accurately reflect children’s skills and capabilities, and are useful for guiding instruction. CRP does not promote the use of any particular practice or instrument identified through this review.

Instead, CRP recommends that additional, more in-depth research be conducted, which can help to identify practices and instruments that can be used to establish a more coordinated system of school readiness assessment in Franklin County. More specifically, CRP recommends that a follow-up feasibility study be conducted, in which the opinions and thoughts of early childhood educators are sought to determine which practices and instruments could feasibly be instituted in prekindergarten and kindergarten settings across Franklin County. The feasibility study would also help to identify practices and tools that accurately assess the preparedness of Franklin County’s children for school and their potential future success.


References Aiona, S. (2005). Assessing school readiness. Educational Perspectives, Vol. 38. Online:

http://www.hawaii.edu/edper/pages/vol38n1.html.

Andrews, S.P., & Slate, J.R. (2001). Prekindergarten programs: a review of the literature. Current Issues in Education. Online: http://cie.asu.edu/volume4/number5/index.html.

Bruner, C., Floyd, S., & Copeman, A. (2005). Seven Things Policy Makers Need to Know about School Readiness. Online: http://www.finebynine.org/pdf/7%20Things.pdf.

Graue, M. E. (1993). Ready for What? Constructing Meanings of Readiness for Kindergarten. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Graue, M. E. (2006). The answer is readiness – Now what is the question? Early Education and Development, 17(1), 43-54. Online: http://www.leaonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1207/s15566935eed1701_3

Keating, D. P. (2007). Formative evaluation of the Early Development Instrument: Progress and prospects. Early Education and Development, 18(3), 561-570.

Gredler, G. R. (1992). School Readiness: Assessment and Educational Issues. Brandon, VT: Clinical Psychology Publishing.

Gredler, G. R. (1997). Issues in early childhood screening and assessment. Psychology in the Schools, 34, 99-106.

Early Learning Standards Task Force (2005). Early childhood assessment for children from birth to age 8 (Grade 3). Online: http://www.pakeys.org/docs/EarlyChildhoodAssessment.pdf.

Horton, C. & Bowman, B.T. (2002). Child assessment at the preprimary level: Expert opinion and state trends. Occasional Paper. Online: http://www.erikson.edu/files/nonimages /horton-bowman.pdf.

KIDS COUNT (2005, February). Getting ready: Findings from the National School Readiness Indicators Initiative: a 17-state partnership. Prepared by KIDS COUNT Rhode Island. Online: http://www.gettingready.org.

Lewit, E.M. & Schuurmann Baker, L. (1995). School readiness. The future of children Critical Issues for Children and Youths 5(2). Online: http://www.futureofchildren.org/usr_doc/ vol5no2ART9.pdf.

Magdalena, J. (2007). Development and psychometric properties of the Early Development Instrument (EDI): A measure of children's school readiness. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 39(1), 1-22 Online: http://www.offordcentre.com/readiness/files/PUB.8.2006_Janus-Offord.pdf.

Maxwell, K. & Clifford, R. (2004). Research in review: School readiness assessment. Young Children. Online: http://www.journal.naeyc.org/btj/200401/Maxwell.pdf.

Meisels, S. J. (1999). Assessing Readiness. In R. Pianta & M. J. Cox (Eds.), The transition to kindergarten (pp. 39-66). Baltimore: Brookes.


Meisels (1987). Uses and abuses of developmental screening and school readiness testing. Young Children, 42(2), 46, 68-73.

Meisels, S. J. (1989). High-stakes testing in kindergarten. Educational Leadership, 46(7), 16-22.

National Association for the Education of Young Children (1995). School readiness: A position statement from the National Association for the Education of Young Children. Washington, D.C.: Author.

National Education Goals Panel (1997). Getting a good start in school. Washington, D.C.: Author.

National Governor’s Association (2005). Building the foundation for bright futures: Final report of the Task Force on School Readiness. Retrieved December 23, 2007 from http://www.nga.org.

Newberger, J. J. (1997). New brain development research – A wonderful window of opportunity to build public support for early childhood education! Young Children, 52, 4-9.

Niemeyer, J. & Scott-Little, C. (2002). Assessing kindergarten children: A compendium of assessment instruments. Online: http://www.serve.org/_downloads/REL/Assessment/rdakcc.pdf.

Ohio Department of Education (2007). Catalog of screening and assessment instruments for young children. Office of Early Learning and School Readiness.

Pianta, R. C. & LaParo, K. (2003). Improving early school success. Educational Leadership, pp-24-29.

Saluja, G., Scott-Little, C., & Clifford, R. (2000). Readiness for school: A survey of state policies and definitions. Early Childhood Research and Practice, 2, 2.

Shilady, A. L (2004). Choosing an appropriate assessment system. National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Snow, K. L. (2006). Measuring school readiness: Conceptual and practical considerations. Early Education and Development, 17(1), 7-41.

Sosna, T. & Mastergeorge, A. (2005). Compendium of screening tools for early childhood social-emotional development. Online: http://www.first5caspecialneeds.org/documents/IPFMHI_CompendiumofScreeningTools.pdf

U.S. Department of Education (2005). National Center for Education Statistics, National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES), "Early Childhood Program Participation" survey. Online: http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=78.

U.S. Department of Education (2002). National Center for Education Statistics. Early childhood longitudinal study - Kindergarten class of 1998-99 (ECLS-K): Psychometric Report for Kindergarten through First Grade. Working Paper Series.

U. S. Department of Education (2007). Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast at SERVE Center. A review of methods and instruments used in state and local school readiness evaluations. Online:


http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/30/ac/3d.pdf.

school_readiness_assessment

Documents