BRIGANCE - Inventory of Early Development II - Curriculum

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables and Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

CHAPTER 1: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

CHAPTER 2: . . General .Administration .Procedures .for .the .IED II .Standardized . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

CHAPTER 3: . . Specific .Administration .Procedures .for .the .IED II .Standardized . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

CHAPTER 4: . Interpreting .the IED II Standardized . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

CHAPTER 5: . . Using .the .IED II .in .Teaching .and .Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

CHAPTER 6: . . Standardization .of .the .IED II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

CHAPTER 7: . . Reliability .of .the .IED II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

CHAPTER 8: . . Validity .of .the .IED II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

APPENDIX I: Converting .Composite .Raw .Scores .to .Quotients .(with .SE

Ms .for .Banding .Raw .Scores) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

APPENDIX II: Converting .Quotients .to .Percentiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207

APPENDIX III: Converting .Composite .Raw .Scores .to .Age .Equivalents .(in .months) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208

APPENDIX IV: Head .Start .Outcomes .Framework .Mandated .Assessments, .Comparable .IED II Assessments, .and .BRIGANCE® Screens .Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217

APPENDIX V: Complete .List .of .Head .Start .Indicators .with .the .IED II .Standardized Record Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220

APPENDIX VI: Complete .List .of .Head .Start .Indicators .with .the .IED II Record Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237

IED II STANDARDIZED SCORING SHEET (Reproducible) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242

IED II DEVELOPMENTAL PROFILE (Reproducible) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250

BRIGANCE IED II • Curriculum Associates LLC • www.CurriculumAssociates.com • 800-225-0248

1

Chapter 1: Introduction

Until its revision in 2003, the Brigance® inventory of early Development was exclusively a criterion-referenced measure, widely used in curricular planning, assessment of school readiness skills, and in the development of Individualized Education Programs (IEPs). With the publication of the Brigance inventory of early Development ii (ieD ii), the test is also standardized and validated for children zero to seven years of age. Educational personnel can continue to obtain detailed information about children’s skill levels, but now they may also derive quotients, percentile ranks, and validated age equivalents. Thus the ieD ii can be used for diagnostic as well as classroom assessment, progress monitoring, and program evaluation. This manual focuses exclusively on the standardization and validation of the ieD ii and includes the norm tables (which are also embedded in the optional scoring software to make score derivation easier).

Overview

The ieD ii is designed to be administered by teachers, developmental and school psychologists, and other education and early childhood professionals. To meet their needs, the ieD ii produces a complete range of information on children’s developmental progress through distinct skill sequences as demonstrated under real-life, everyday conditions. Because it continues to be criterion-referenced, the ieD ii enables professionals to compare each child’s performance to mastery of specific skills.

The standardized portions enable professionals to compare children’s mastery of skills to that of other children of the same age. As a consequence, the ieD ii meets state and federal assessment requirements and can be used as the educational and adaptive behavior portion of a battery that identifies children with learning disabilities, developmental delays, language impairment, or other exceptionalities. Specifically, the standardized assessments in the ieD ii produce age equivalents, percentiles, and quotients needed for normative assessment of skills in daily living skills, fine motor, gross motor, social-emotional, prevocational abilities, self-help skills, language, academic/cognitive, and adaptive behavior.

The ieD ii identifies children’s strengths and weaknesses across skill areas. Consequently, the measure continues to be indispensable in the development of IEPs. By comparing performance across skill areas, it is possible to see whether children have, for example, strengths in specific aspects within developmental domains/skill areas (e.g., isolated expressive language skills but limitations in ability to use these skills in context) or across developmental domains/skill areas (e.g. strengths in academics but weaknesses in physical development areas).


2

The IED II enables examiners to determine where, within developmental progressions, children’s skills lie. For example, if they cannot demonstrate a higher-level skill such as identifying coin values, the IED II enables a view of prerequisites, such as identifying coin names, or even more basic skills, such as pointing to coins when named. This enables educators to decide precisely where to begin instruction in each skill area.

In summary, the IED II is designed to:

1. determine readiness for school; 2. track developmental progress; 3. provide a range of scores needed for documenting eligibility for special

education services; 4. enable a comparison of children’s skills within and across developmental

domains/skill areas in order to view strengths and weaknesses; 5. determine entry points for instruction; 6. assist with program evaluation.

Features of the IED II

j Is designed for children from birth to age seven.

j Can be administered and scored in about twenty to fifty-five minutes, depending on children’s ages.

j Measures children’s skills in a broad range of areas including physical development, language development, academic/cognitive, social and emotional development, daily living skills, and adaptive behavior.

j The IED II Standardized provides rich intradomain information about strengths and weaknesses via comparisons of:

• Fine- versus gross-motor skills and more specifically: drawing/visual motor skills versus writing skills; nonlocomotor skills such as standing and jumping versus locomotor skills such as crawling, walking, and running.

• Receptive versus expressive language skills including: receptive knowledge of nouns and early listening versus action words and concepts; isolated expressive language skills such as vocabulary and verbal memory versus actual conversational skills.

• Mathematical/general concepts versus literacy skills.

• Self-help versus prevocational skills.

• Play skills and group behavior versus one-on-one social-emotional skills.

j Continues to use a criterion-referenced approach to assessment in that, for all items, a complete sample of skills is measured (e.g., knowledge of all letters in the alphabet, shapes, and colors).


3

j Produces results that can be easily translated into instructional objectives.

j Enables teachers to identify a sequence of objectives and skill progressions for current instruction and instructional planning.

j Ensures applicability with children who may have a wide range of skills and abilities.

j Identifies current levels of performance including developmental strengths and weaknesses.

j Encourages comprehensive development of IEPs and the inclusion of goals and objectives in broad areas including prevocational, self-help, functional academics, and recreation.

j Facilitates task analysis—breaking skills into prerequisites, and chaining of steps needed for skill mastery.

j Offers norm-referenced interpretation through the IED II Standardized by enabling children’s performance within and across domains to be compared with that of other children across the country.

j Reduces duplication of effort in diagnostic evaluation by enabling results to be used as indicators of adaptive behavior and language skills.

j The IED II Standardized is easily scored by assigning a point value to each skill assessed. Total points for skills can be converted to quotients, percentiles, age equivalents or instructional ranges, depending on the examiner’s or program’s need for specific kinds of results.

j Allows completion by interview/observation for many of the items thus ensuring holistic assessment of children’s development.

j Was originally standardized on 1,156 children and was then restandardized in 2003 on a nationally representative sample 1,171 children from across the country.

j Standardized assessments have a high degree of internal consistency and test-retest and inter-rater reliability.

j Standardized assessments have substantial validity of various types. Correlates highly with criterion measures of academics and intelligence, and of language, social, and motor skills.

j Is effective for annual or more frequent updates of progress.

j Is useful in program evaluation and research on intervention, curricular effectiveness, and alternative settings.

j Combinations of standardized assessments can be used to generate an adaptive behavior composite for examiners and programs requiring such scores for eligibility, developmental monitoring, and program planning.

j Assesses school readiness by tapping predictors of school success.


4

The IED II Standardized Assessments

There are forty-four standardized assessments in the IED II. As shown in Table 1-1, the assessments cluster into five domains: physical development, language development, academic/cognitive, daily living, and social-emotional. At some ages, the five domains can be broken out into subdomains as follows:

1. Physical Development includes two subdomains: Fine-Motor Skills and Gross-Motor Skills. Fine-Motor Skills includes two composites: Drawing/Visual Motor and Writing skills. Gross-Motor Skills includes two composites: Nonlocomotor and Locomotor skills.

2. Language Development includes two subdomains: Receptive Language and Expressive Language. Within Receptive Language are two composites: Nouns and Early Listening (understanding of object names, adjectives, and prepositions) and Actions (understanding of verbs and ability to follow directions). Expressive Language includes two composites: Isolated Skills (discrete knowledge of verbs, nouns, descriptors, and verbal memory); and Contextual Skills (ability to share thoughts and desires through the use of grammar, pragmatics, articulation, and verbal fluency).

3. Academic/Cognitive includes two subdomains: Mathematical/General Concepts (e.g., colors, counting, money concepts), and Literacy.

4. Daily Living includes two subdomains: Self-help and Prevocational. 5. Social and Emotional Development includes two subdomains: Play Skills

and Behaviors and Engagement and Initiative skills.

The Total Adaptive Behavior is a summation of performance in physical development, language development, academic/cognitive, daily living, and social-emotional domains.


74

CHAPTER 7: Reliability of the IED II

Critical Concepts in Test Construction: Reliability

RELIABILITY refers to the consistency of children’s scores when tested by different people or at different times. Because no instrument is perfect, information about reliability reveals whether differences in scores are due to true differences in child performance versus chance error.

• Internalconsistency tells how well assessments relate to total composite, subdomain, or domain/skill area. This information supports the contention that specific types of assessments cluster into measures of unique aspects of child development.

• Standarderrorofmeasurement indicates how much scores are likely to differ if the test were readministered within a short time frame. This accounts for measurement error and provides a safeguard against placing undue emphasis on a single numerical score.

• Confidenceintervalsestimate the level at which we can be sure that the true score is within a certain range around the observed score. Confidence intervals serve as a method of accounting for measurement error when reporting scores.

• Test-retestreliability/Coefficientofstability answers the question, if you administer the IED II assessment several days to several weeks later to the same child, do you get roughly the same score?

• Inter-raterorinter-examinerreliability/Coefficientofgeneralizability tells whether roughly the same score is obtained if two different examiners retest the same child.

Internal Consistency

OrIgInal Internal COnsIstenCy researCh

The internal consistency of the IED was originally established in 1991 via a large standardization study. Coefficient alpha was produced for each task and section of the IED for the 1,156 participating children (all of whom were greater than 12 months of age and less than 7 years of age). The higher the value, the greater the consistency of items within each assessment. Table 7-1 shows the alpha coefficients for those assessments in the IED that are also in the IED II.


75

Table 7-1. Internal Consistency of the IeD (NA means that scales were either not administered or not applicable for the age range.)

AgE RAngE

IED Assessments13–24 months

25–36 months

37–48 months

49–60 months

61+ months Total

Early Fine-Motor Skills .99 .97 .97 .66 .60 .92Builds Tower with Blocks .93 .69 .92 .79 .61 .91Visual Motor Skills .75 .74 .85 .79 .73 .90Draws a Person .54 .79 .93 .90 .93 .89Drawing/VisualMotor .80 .80 .92 .78 .72 .90Prints Personal Data NA NA NA NA NA NAWrites Numerals in Sequence NA NA NA NA NA NAPrints Uppercase Letters in Sequence

NA NA NA NA NA NA

Quality of Printing NA NA NA NA NA NAWriting NA NA NA NA NA NAFINEMOTOR NA NA NA NA NA NAStanding Skills .79 .75 .71 .44 .45 .85Jumping and Hopping .72 .71 .82 .83 .76 .88Nonlocomotor .75 .73 .76 .63 .61 .86Early Gross Motor NA NA NA NA NA NAWalking and Running Skills .77 .83 .80 .80 .99 .94Stair-Climbing .93 .88 .83 .73 .42 .84Locomotor .90 .85 .81 .77 .71 .89GROSSMOTOR NA NA NA NA NA NATOTAL MOTOR NA NA NA NA NA NAEarly Receptive Language NA 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 .99Receptive Objects .86 .93 .96 NA .58 .93Body Parts NA .96 .98 .87 .75 .96NounsandEarlyListening .86 .96 .98 .94 .78 .96Verbal Concepts NA .90 .90 .90 .72 .92Follows Verbal Directions .88 .96 .88 NA .58 .93Receptive Verbs NA NA .97 .91 .60 .96Actions .88 .93 .89 .90 .63 .94RECEPTIVELANGUAGE .87 .95 .94 .90 .70 .95Expressive Objects .86 .93 .96 NA .58 .93Expressive Verbs NA NA .97 .91 .60 .96Repeats Sentences NA NA .98 .86 .77 .88IsolatedSkills .86 .93 .97 .88 .65 .92Early Expressive Language .84 .95 .98 .94 .69 .92Grammar and Pragmatics NA NA NA NA NA NAArticulation Rating NA NA NA NA NA NAVerbal Fluency Rating NA NA .51 .88 .82 .85ContextualSkills .84 .95 .74 .91 .76 .89EXPRESSIVELANGUAGE .85 .94 .86 .93 .70 .91TOTAL LAngUAgE .86 .94 .90 .91 .70 .93

(continues)


76

Age RAnge

IED Assessments13–24 months

25–36 months

37–48 months

49–60 months

61+ months Total

Number Concepts NA NA NA NA NA NARote Counting NA NA NA NA NA NAMoney NA NA NA NA NA NANumeral Comprehension NA NA NA NA NA NAOrdinal Position NA NA NA NA NA NAColor Knowledge NA NA 1.00 1.00 .52 .85Quantitative/General NA NA NA NA NA NAVisual Discrimination NA NA NA .34 NA .34Recites Alphabet NA NA NA .57 .41 .50Lowercase Letter Knowledge NA NA NA .98 .97 .98Sounds of Lowercase letters NA NA NA NA NA NAAuditory Discrimination NA NA NA NA NA NASurvival Sight Words NA NA NA NA NA NABasic Preprimer Vocabulary NA NA NA NA NA NAPrereading/Reading NA NA NA .63 .46 .55ACADeMIC/COgnITIVe NA NA NA NA NA NAEating .93 .75 .91 .99 .97 .92Dressing and Undressing .38 .92 .97 .67 .99 .79Toileting and Bathing .59 .92 .91 .88 .99 .86Self-Help .63 .86 .93 .85 .99 .86Work-Related .94 .94 .99 .87 .74 .90Personal Data Response .87 .88 .93 .97 .96 .95Prevocational .91 .89 .96 .92 .85 .93DAILY LIVIng .77 .87 .95 .88 .92 .90Play Skills and Behavior .95 .95 .99 .97 .70 .98Engagement and Initiative .97 .96 .96 .92 .89 .97SOCIAL-eMOTIOnAL .98 .98 .99 .97 .94 .99

2003 Standardization and Validation Study

Guttman scalability coefficients were produced for each composite, subdomain, and domain for the standardized assessments in the IED II. Guttman coefficients were used due to concerns about the limitations of Cronbach’s alpha in estimating the lower bounds of reliability (Guttman 1945; Green et al. 1977; Verhelst 2000). Guttman coefficients, like other models of assessing internal consistency, serve as an indicator that the assessments and their items are hierarchical, unidimensional, homogeneous measures of each skill measured. Coefficients are influenced by test length which explains the generally lower lambda values for composites and higher values for subdomains and domains. Internal consistency is also lowered when assessments sample a wider range of skills.

Table 7-1. Internal Consistency of the iEd (NA means that scales were either not administered or not applicable for the age range.) (continued)


77

Table 7-2. Internal Consistency of the iEd ii

Composites, Subdomains, and Domains for Standardized Assessments in the IeD II

guttman Lambda Coefficients

Drawing/Visual Motor .8590

Writing .9047

Fine-Motor Skills .9140

Nonlocomotor .9574

Locomotor .9558

Gross-Motor Skills .9555

TOTAL PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT .9494

Nouns and Early Listening .9324

Actions .9645

Receptive Language .9771

Isolated Skills .9730

Contextual Skills .9256

Expressive Language .9587

TOTAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT .9935

Mathematical/General Concepts .9257

Literacy .9588

ACADEMIC/COGNITIVE .9841

Self-help .9730

Prevocational .9315

DAILY LIVING .9765

Play Skills and Behaviors .9374

Engagement and Initiative .9544

SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL DEVELOPMENT .9634

TOTAL ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR Sum of Physical Development, Language Development, Academic/Cognitive, Daily Living, and Social and Emotional Development

.9905

Standard Error of Measurement and Confidence intervals

The standard error of measurement (SEM) accounts for fluctuations in reliability due to measurement error and illustrates how much a person’s observed score is likely to differ from his true score, particularly if the same test were administered multiple times. The standard error of measurement is used to build a confidence interval around the observed score. This enables a range to be computed that will include the true or actual score with a specified level of confidence.

For example, if a child has a score of 18 on an assessment with a standard error of measurement of 2, the standard error of measurement of 2 is used to place a confidence band of ± one standard error of measurement (18 ± 2) around the observed score. This is the 68% confidence level and thus it can be said that the true score would be in that range (16 – 20). Or we can say with 95% confidence that the child’s true score lies in an interval within two standard errors of measurement of the observed score (18 ± 4 = 14 – 22). Put another way, 95 times out of 100, the retest score would be between 14 and 22.


78

The SEM itself, when banding the observed score, functions as a confidence level of 68%. It is also possible to band the observed score with higher confidence levels, e.g., 90% or 95% as described in Chapter 3. All confidence intervals vary by the age of the child and the specific assessment. The SEMs for composite, subdomain, or domain/skill area of the standardized portions of the IED II are located in Appendix I within the table appropriate for each child’s age.

Test-Retest Reliability: Coefficient of Stability

Tests should produce roughly the same score even if children are tested several days to several weeks apart. If the two scores are identical, the correlation between them is 1.0. Given measurement error and the normal variability of children’s performance, perfect agreement is unlikely but nevertheless should be high, ideally .90 or higher). There is, even with the best tests, some variability across domains/skill areas (physical development skills are more inconsistently expressed and hence less reliable than language development, academic, or cognitive skills).

Substantial evidence for the test-retest reliability of the IED II comes from the initial standardization study in which the measure was administered twice to 1,156 children who were between 13 months of age and 7 years. For the 2003 standardization study, the test was administered twice within 1 week to 36 children between birth and 12 months of age (because all new test items for the IED II were concentrated at that age level). Results from both test-retest studies are presented in Table 7-3. The designation NA stands for not applicable/administered.

Table 7-3. Test-Retest Reliability of the IED II

Age RAnge

IED Assessments0–12

months13–24 months

25–36 months

37–48 months

49–60 months

61+ months Total

FINE MOTOR .93 .78 .77 .90 .84 .77 .83

GROSS MOTOR .99 .93 .84 .68 .98 .92 .91

PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT .95 .85 .80 .79 .91 .84 .85

RECEPTIVE LANGUAGE .97 .99 .99 .98 .85 .80 .92

EXPRESSIVE LANGUAGE .99 .99 .99 .98 .95 .96 .96

LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT .99 .99 .99 .98 .90 .88 .93

ACADEMIC/COGNITIVE NA NA 1.00 1.00 .82 .87 .92

DAILY LIVING .88 .99 1.00 .99 .99 1.00 .99

SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL DEVELOPMENT .83 .99 .99 .88 .99 .99 .99

TOTAL ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR .95 .94 .93 .91 .91 .89 .92


79

Inter-rater Reliability: Index of Generalizability

Tests should produce roughly the same score when children are tested by different examiners. This indicates that the test directions are sufficiently clear as to enable virtually identical administrations across the country. Often expressed as a percentage of agreement, inter-rater or inter-observer/examiner reliability should produce percentages of agreement of 80% or higher (or correlations of .90 or greater). High levels of agreement mean that the IED’s administration guidelines are generalizable across examiners.

Brulle and Ivarie (1988) assessed the inter-rater reliability of selected assessments from the IED by having two experienced teachers independently assess the same twenty children. The children were between five and six years of age and enrolled in an early intervention program. Overall, the IED performed well, with only five of its twenty-two assessments below the .60 level of agreement. For the 2003 study, inter-rater reliability was assessed by having a second examiner retest thirty-six children with select assessments from the IED II. Children were retested within one week. Shown in Table 7-4 are the combined results of both studies.

Table 7-4. Inter-rater Reliability

IED Assessments Observed Agreement

FINE-MOTOR SkILLS .88

GROSS-MOTOR SkILLS .87

PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT .88

RECEPTIVE LANGUAGE .98

EXPRESSIVE LANGUAGE .82

LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT .90

ACADEMIC/COGNITIVE .96

DAILY LIVING .93

SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL DEVELOPMENT .80

TOTAL ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR .89

Summary of Reliability Research

The IED II is a highly reliable tool. The overall scores have:

• a high degree of internal consistency (.85 – .99)• excellent test-retest reliability (.89 – .95)• outstanding inter-rater reliability (.82 – .96)


80

Critical Concepts in Test Construction: Validity

There are many types of validity:

• Content validity answers the question, “Do standardized assessments in the IED II capture the domains/skill areas and subdomains of development including readiness skills considered to be important by developmental researchers and educators?”

• Construct validity answers the question, “To what extent do IED II Standardized assessments measure unique dimensions of developmental and readiness skills?”

• Concurrent validity answers the question, “Does the IED II relate (correlate) to other comprehensive measures (such as tests of intelligence, achievement, language, etc.)?” Similarly, construct validity tells by correlations with other tests whether, for example, the IED II language items correlate with other language tests or whether their academic items correlate with tests of achievement.

• Discriminant validity answers the question, “Are there unique patterns of performance on the IED II that characterize children with developmental strengths or weaknesses?”

• Predictive validity answers the question, “Does the test given at the beginning of the school year predict future performance, such as at the end of the school year?”

Content Validity

DeVelopment anD original StanDarDization of the IED II

There is abundant support for the content validity of the IED II and for the applicability of its use in educational settings. The construction of the IED II (like its predecessors the IED and IED–R) was based on the author’s extensive reading of developmental and readiness literature and on collaboration with numerous other educators who assisted in item selection and field-testing within 16 States. Various authors of published reviews commented favorably about the content of the IED–R: “It appears that great care has been taken in selecting and arranging the skills to be evaluated. Even though the skills presented in this Inventory represent only a subset of the potential pool of behaviors that could be evaluated within the birth to age 7 range, they do constitute a broad cross section of the behaviors and skills associated with early childhood development” (Penfield, 1995). Carpenter (1995) commented that the IED–R is “a practical, informal tool to inventory a wide range of skills . . . [that fits] the needs of children with unique needs.” Wodrich (1997) noted that “the strength of the IED is its ability to identify a child’s pattern of strengths and weaknesses in several areas. The items are representative of a curriculum appropriate for an early childhood program and

CHAPTER 8: Validity of the IED II


81

thus are easily linked to instructional planning and intervention” (p. 55). For additional reviews and research on the value of the IED in curricular and IEP development, please see Chapter 5 in this manual.

2003 StanDarDization anD ValiDation StuDy

For the IED II, Albert Brigance updated and expanded the review of developmental literature, added items in some domains and ensured that the item sequences were correctly placed and known to be predictive of developmental outcome and school success. For the 2003 restandardization and validation, content validity was also evaluated by viewing the age-discriminating power of the standardized assessments in the IED II. Ideally, scores should increase as age increases so that children who fall below the average performance at their age level can be readily identified. There were significant differences in performance on the standardized assessments in the IED II based on age with the expected increases with age, as shown in Table 8-1.


82

Table 8-1. Ranges, Median Total Scores, and Standard Deviations on Total Raw Scores by Age for Standardized Assessments in the IED II

Age(in years and

months)

Raw Score Range

Median Total Score

Standard Deviation

0 months1 month2 months3 months4 months5 months6 months7 months8 months9 months10 months11 months

8–158–2111–2813–4016–4027–5628–5930–7631–7118–8559–8447–108

1013.519222835424648677381

3.3 3.6 4.0 6.2 5.9 7.6 9.813.012.018.5 9.214.3

12–13 months14–15 months16–17 months18–19 months20–21 months22–23 months

57–14760–14660–18249–21485–22197–285

8494.5105.5126130151

22.823.127.129.430.745.9

2-0 to 2-22-3 to 2-52-6 to 2-82-9 to 2-11

100–306104–324118–342160–417

160.5242256301

49.843.952.558.5

3-0 to 3-33-4 to 3-73-8 to 3-11

277–390295–440294–533

314401410

39.646.349.4

4-0 to 4-34-4 to 4-74-8 to 4-11

361–519393–516399–569

448482487

49.449.149.1

5-0 to 5-45-5 to 5-85-9 to 6-0

367–650423–660480–673

539555573

62.453.255.7

6-1 to 6-46-5 to 6-86-9 to 7-0

593–691638–704682–711

602642696

52.459.160.4


83

Construct Validity

2003 StanDarDIzatIon anD ValIDatIon StuDy

Construct validity was assessed by viewing relationships among IED II domains/skill areas, subdomains, and assessments, and the broader developmental realms into which they fall (i.e., verbal and nonverbal skills), as described in Chapter 1. The purpose of these analyses was to determine the extent to which the assessments are measures of unique dimensions of developmental and readiness skills. To assess this, intercorrelations between selected assessments in the IED II, as well as subdomains and domains/skill areas, were computed. The results are shown in Tables 8-2 and 8-3. High intercorrelations among assessments and subdomains applicable to very young children illustrate the overlapping nature of early developmental skills and the developmental trend of increasing skill acquisition across domains. Lower correlations on measures suitable for older children show that developmental skills diverge more sharply by twelve months of age. Overall, correlations are generally highest in assessments and domains/skill areas expected to have overlap (e.g., expressive and receptive language; gross-motor skills and self-help), but low enough among other assessments, indicating that each measures unique dimensions of development.


84

Table 8-2. Intercorrelations Between Standardized Assessments in the IED II and Subdomains/Domains/Skill Areas

Dra

win

g/

Vis

ual M

otor

Writ

ing

Fine

Mot

or

Non

loco

mot

or

Loco

mot

or

Gro

ss M

otor

TOTA

L PH

YSI

CA

L D

EVEL

OPM

ENT

Nou

ns a

nd E

arly

Li

sten

ing

Act

ions

Rece

ptiv

e La

ngua

ge

Isol

ated

Ski

lls

Con

text

ual S

kills

Early Fine-Motor Skills .7839 .1834 .6209 .5509 .8054 .7333 .6897 .6362 .4534 5825 .4469 .7082Block Tower Building .8990 .3773 .7901 .8035 .8332 .8516 .8411 .9281 .8190 .9073 .8366 .9029Visual Motor Skills .9218 .5213 .8730 .9102 .8692 .9171 .9187 .8843 .8821 .9017 .8618 .8950Draws a Person .7425 .6799 .8247 .7403 .6138 .6864 .7873 .6817 .8065 .7414 .8023 .6900Prints Personal Data .6212 .7556 .7773 .6875 .5347 .6150 .7277 .5710 .6849 .6244 .6905 .5938Writes Numerals in Sequence .4810 .9293 .7628 .5464 .4345 .4948 .6654 .4591 .5917 .5170 .5679 .5124Prints Uppercase Letters in Sequence

.3968 .9337 .7074 .4300 .3377 .3867 .5847 .3570 .4587 .4016 .4358 .3897

Quality of Printing .4276 .8994 .7123 .4974 .3943 .4497 .6158 .4010 .5188 .4523 .4932 .4574Early Gross-Motor Skills .6960 .1546 .5474 .4715 .7316 .6545 .6117 .5466 .3821 .4977 .3766 .6219Standing .8752 .5246 .8427 .9667 .8478 .9259 .9050 .8503 .8723 .8758 .8648 .8877Walking and Running .8878 .5279 .8528 .8933 .9283 .9481 .9209 .8644 .8699 .8842 .8386 .8911Jumping and Hopping .8271 .5412 .8177 .9606 .7973 .8913 .8750 .8280 .8584 .8561 .8478 .8467Stairs and Climbing .8670 .3539 .7573 .7687 .9377 .9044 .8457 .8480 .7295 .8221 .7253 .8635Early Receptive Language .9038 .2808 .7483 .7318 .9076 .8705 .8253 .8662 .6796 .8158 .6814 .9021Receptive Objects* .8777 .4430 .8063 .8570 .8305 .8712 .8594 .9804 .9227 .9795 .9367 .9263Receptive Verbal Concepts .8329 .6164 .8568 .8914 .7857 .8563 .8820 .8885 .9850 .9421 .9523 .8789Receptive Follows Verbal Directions .8935 .4755 .8323 .8810 .8398 .8867 .8814 .9146 .9213 .9359 .9023 .9084Receptive Verbs* .8400 .5429 .8273 .8672 .7853 .8464 .8604 .8972 .9847 .9476 .9694 .8826Body Parts .8789 .5140 .8403 .8595 .8305 .8722 .8796 .9765 .9220 .9766 .9314 .9284Early Expressive Language .9038 .2808 .7483 .7318 .9076 .8705 .8253 .8662 .6796 .8158 .6814 .9021Expressive Objects* .8554 .4951 .8154 .8698 .7936 .8527 .8564 .9447 .9485 .9655 .9835 .9064Expressive Verbs* .7968 .6014 .8252 .8512 .7311 .8055 .8409 .8384 .9572 .8990 .9626 .8381Expressive Repeats Sentences .7780 .6289 .8252 .8550 .7142 .7962 .8367 .8005 .9063 .8556 .9237 .8210Expressive Grammar and Pragmatics .7692 .6282 .8188 .8602 .7062 .7932 .8317 .8068 .8984 .8569 .9095 .8455Articulation Rating .8669 .4919 .8218 .8529 .8031 .8521 .8598 .9100 .9023 .9259 .9067 .9154Expressive Verbal Fluency Rating .6899 .5506 .7284 .7634 .6909 .7449 .7574 .7555 .8139 .7924 .7905 .7929Expressive Number Concepts .7932 .6313 .8366 8329 .7568 .8146 .8516 .8029 .8842 .8492 .8348 .8164Rote Counting .6660 .6894 .7770 7293 .6183 .6850 .7588 .6911 .7635 .7318 .7568 .7231Money .6171 .7821 .7869 7164 .5713 .6499 .7489 .6381 .7483 .6915 .7294 .6774Numeral Comprehension .6118 .7934 .7886 .6654 .5165 .5945 .7251 .5617 .7143 .6291 .7004 .5875Ordinal Position .5711 .8127 .7698 .6620 .5255 .5989 .7161 .5567 .7190 .6275 .6885 .6103Color Knowledge .8043 .5756 .8182 .8634 .7386 .8151 .8411 .8449 .9162 .8883 .9271 .8364Visual Discrimination .6646 .7722 .8148 .7707 .5804 .6773 .7774 .6544 .7814 .7143 .7759 .6905Recites Alphabet .6093 .6054 .6989 .6756 .5342 .6099 .6798 .6101 .6825 .6491 .6881 .6274Lowercase Letter Knowledge .5154 .7936 .7228 .5770 .4413 .5114 .6496 .4878 .6264 .5485 .6087 .5315Sounds of Lowercase Letters .3713 .8361 .6444 .4347 .3287 .3828 .5463 .3582 .4672 .4054 .4432 .4123Auditory Discrimination .5780 .7441 .7424 .6586 .5003 .5815 .6924 .5549 .6975 .6184 .6781 .5894Survival Sight Words .3782 .8099 .6368 .4494 .3503 .4025 .5508 .3659 .4751 .4133. .4560 .4165Basic Preprimer Vocabulary .3019 .7728 .5674 .3744 .2922 .3356 .4804 .2968 .3896 .3368 .3658 .3492Eating .8847 .3249 .7558 .7318 .9119 .8733 .8309 .7799 .6502 .7485 .6377 .8416Dressing and Undressing .8772 .5397 .8512 .8679 .8499 .8879 .8929 .8794 .8921 .9022 .8791 .8979Toileting and Bathing .7818 .5507 .7912 .8532 .7336 .8078 .8222 .8239 .9072 .8713 .9004 .8220Work-Related Skills .8714 .3236 .7462 .7357 .8715 .8491 .8145 .8487 .7105 .8157 .7106 .8619Personal Data Response .7908 .6242 .8316 .8136 .7133 .7792 .8328 .8387 .8879 .8739 .9006 .8350Play Skills and Behaviors .8605 .3665 .7587 .7474 .8563 .8441 .8195 .8546 .7448 .8320 .7569 .8691Engagement and Initiative .8445 .3070 .7200 .6639 .8577 .8117 .7825 .7485 .6127 .7142 .6014 .8039

*Assessments listed as Expressive/Receptive Objects and Expressive/Receptive Verbs (continues) in the IED II Standardized.


85

Expr

essi

ve

Lang

uage

TOTA

L LA

NG

UA

GE

DEV

ELO

PMEN

T

Mat

hem

atic

al/

Gen

eral

Con

cept

s

Lite

racy

AC

AD

EMIC

/C

OG

NIT

IVE

Self-

help

Prev

ocat

iona

l

DA

ILY L

IVIN

G

Play

Ski

lls a

nd

Beha

vior

s

Enga

gem

ent

and

Initi

ativ

e

SOC

IAL-

EMO

TIO

NA

L

TOTA

L A

DA

PTIV

E BE

HA

VIO

R

Early Fine-Motor Skills .5725 .5803 .3717 .2446 .3055 .6813 .7025 .7074 .7357 .9132 .8497 .6862Builds Tower with Blocks .8865 .9015 .7183 .5000 .6078 .8378 .8877 .8804 .8218 .7087 .8089 .8976Visual Motor Skills .8978 .9035 .8022 .6223 .7180 .8827 .8341 .8831 .7475 .6750 .7495 .9172Draws a Person .7731 .7585 .8472 .7613 .8238 .7257 .6452 .7083 .5480 .4297 .5201 .7525Prints Personal Data .6653 .6453 .7674 .7833 .8047 .6436 .5778 .6306 .5012 .3691 .4649 .6691Writes Numerals in Sequence .5577 .5374 .7637 .8933 .8705 .5211 .4681 .5107 .3676 .3128 .3600 .5851Prints Uppercase Letters in Sequence

.4265 .4143 .6025 .7608 .7237 .4066 .3660 .3988 .2852 .2433 .2796 .4773

Quality of Printing .4898 .4710 .6824 .8151 .7890 .4614 .3896 .4412 .3020 .2619 .2979 .5241Early Gross-Motor Skills .4935 .4977 .3133 .2062 .2574 .5978 .6106 .6181 .6491 .8449 .7673 .6008Standing .8963 .8885 .8408 .6541 .7538 .8938 .8075 .8780 .7274 .6657 .7333 .9022Walking and Running .8824 .8869 .8226 .6297 .7310 .8860 .8245 .8809 .7649 .7089 .7751 .9148Jumping and Hopping .8684 .8650 .8101 .6761 .7554 .8384 .7871 .8365 .7128 .6118 .7003 .8738Stairs and Climbing .8039 .8171 .6117 .4292 .5191 .8435 .8546 .8692 .8264 .7844 .8458 .8639Early Receptive Language .7951 .8097 .5655 .3745 .4662 .8206 .8520 .8546 .8506 .8984 .9115 .8624Receptive Objects .9555 .9725 .8087 .5730 .6900 .8750 .8739 .8961 .8027 .6619 .7765 .9327Receptive Verbal Concepts .9439 .9466 .9267 .7531 .8509 .8807 .8096 .8712 .7122 .5798 .6855 .9162Receptive Follows Verbal Directions .9274 .9357 .8078 .5905 .7006 .8709 .8899 .8899 .7864 .6715 .7711 .9221Receptive Verbs .9555 .9549 .8643 .6754 .7769 .8864 .8215 .8797 .7374 .6085 .7135 .9123Body Parts .9533 .9699 .8366 .6444 .7461 .8782 .8802 .9007 .8031 .6618 .7767 .9414Early Expressive Language .7951 .8097 .5655 .3745 .4662 .8206 .8520 .8546 .8506 .8984 .9115 .8624Expressive Objects .9742 .9732 .8558 .6385 .7505 .8737 .8507 .8852 .7706 .6167 .7370 .9217Expressive Verbs .9320 .9174 .8867 .7314 .8211 .8562 .7794 .8436 .7003 .5507 .6654 .8766Expressive Repeats Sentences .9017 .8797 .9120 .7676 .8542 .8213 .7502 .8104 .6474 .5083 .6147 .8514Expressive Grammar and Pragmatics .9041 .8815 .8690 .7716 .8399 .8274 .7723 .8236 .6828 .5176 .6400 .8575Articulation Rating .9331 .9327 .8206 .6292 .7305 .8698 .8708 .8917 .7883 .6358 .7561 .9141Verbal Fluency Rating .8112 .8040 .8255 .6481 .7430 .7470 .6833 .7374 .5878 .4860 .5692 .7832Number Concepts .8475 .8517 .8975 .7433 .8328 .8087 .7460 .8011 .6794 .5618 .6579 .8550Rote Counting .7608 .7477 .9158 .7743 .8591 .6888 .6647 .6952 .5729 .4591 .5482 .7511Money .7248 .7092 .8478 .8402 .8737 .7085 .6220 .6880 .5128 .4199 .4947 .7340Numeral Comprehension .6683 .6492 .8523 .8745 .8961 .6197 .5601 .6088 .4692 .3723 .4473 .6671Ordinal Position .6714 .6497 .8521 .8892 .9067 .6347 .5664 .6204 .4591 .3677 .4392 .6760Color Knowledge .9104 .9018 .9370 .7071 .8265 .8336 .7869 .8336 .6987 .5461 .6624 .8698Visual Discrimination .7578 .7367 .8778 .9024 .9253 .7031 .6442 .6946 .5392 .4145 .5080 .7462Recites Alphabet .6786 .6649 .7360 .7676 .7818 .6231 .6162 .6354 .5428 .3966 .5021 .6697Lowercase Letter Knowledge .5900 .5693 .7437 .8888 .8624 .5433 .4838 .6306 .3862 .3252 .3766 .5926Sounds of Lowercase Letters .4407 .4229 .6472 .8424 .7934 .4129 .3687 .4037 .2690 .2491 .2725 .4783Auditory Discrimination .6561 .6378 .7841 .8172 .8326 .6197 .5288 .5951 .4109 .3483 .4017 .6476Survival Sight Words .4501 .4315 .6276 .8509 .7927 .4231 .3749 .4124 .2656 .2469 .2694 .4842Basic Preprimer Vocabulary .3677 .3520 .5424 .7899 .7199 .3478 .3057 .3379 .1990 .1984 .2080 .4109Eating .7429 .7489 .5755 .4122 .4937 .8567 .8287 .8655 .8260 .8933 .8945 .8361Dressing and Undressing .9092 .9089 .8251 .6452 .7415 .9632 .8655 .9441 .7800 .6747 .7687 .9249Toileting and Bathing .8885 .8824 .8384 .6796 .7692 .9104 .7762 .8739 .6952 .5485 .6613 .8638Work-Related Skills .7946 .8094 .6252 .4314 .5260 .8337 .9608 .9100 .9083 .8161 .9088 .8655Personal Data Response .8943 .8865 .8648 .7490 .8231 .8274 .8436 .8549 .7179 .5608 .6804 .8701Play Skills and Behaviors .8249 .8321 .6668 .4699 .5668 .8404 .9159 .5668 1.0000 .8235 .9668 .8778Engagement and Initiative .7051 .7129 .5305 .3850 .4581 .7699 .7818 .7985 .8235 1.0000 .9411 .7988

Table 8-2. Intercorrelations Between Standardized Assessments in the IED II and Subdomains/Domains/Skill Areas (continued)


86

Table 8-3. Correlations Among Subdomains, Domains/Skill Areas, and Composites

Dra

win

g/

Vis

ual M

otor

Writ

ing

Fine

Mot

or

Non

loco

mot

or

Loco

mot

or

Gro

ss M

otor

TOTA

L M

OTO

R

Nou

ns a

nd E

arly

Li

sten

ing

Act

ions

Rece

ptiv

e La

ngua

ge

Isol

ated

Ski

lls

Con

text

ual S

kills

Drawing/Visual Motor 1.0000 .4941 .9137 .8841 .9435 .9541 .9590 .9275 .8587 .9214 .8535 .9525Writing .4941 1.0000 .8048 .5525 .4358 .4981 .6913 .4576 .5840 .5132 .5610 .5042Fine-Motor Skills .9137 .8048 1.0000 .8619 .8479 .8842 .9779 .8471 .8592 .8690 .8449 .8860Nonlocomotor .8841 .5525 .8619 1.0000 .8545 .9435 .9241 .8711 .8981 .8989 .8888 .9006Locomotor .9435 .4358 .8479 .8545 1.0000 .9784 .9315 .8897 .8065 .8776 .7883 .9265Gross-Motor Skills .9541 .4981 .8842 .9435 .9784 1.0000 .9624 .9146 .8723 .9180 .8570 .9499TOTAL PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT

.9590 .6913 .9779 .9241 .9315 .9624 1.0000 .9026 .8906 .9168 .8754 .9410

Nouns and Early Listening .9275 .4576 .8471 .8711 .8897 .9146 .9026 1.0000 .9132 .9888 .9221 .9625Actions .8587 .5840 .8592 .8981 .8065 .8723 .8906 .9132 1.0000 .9637 .9757 .9015Receptive Language .9214 .5132 .8690 .8989 .8776 .9180 .9168 .9888 .9637 1.0000 .9606 .9600Isolated Skills .8535 .5610 .8449 .8888 .7883 .8570 .8754 .9221 .9757 .9606 1.0000 .9020Contextual Skills .9525 .5042 .8860 .9006 .9265 .9499 .9410 .9625 .9015 .9600 .9020 1.0000Expressive Language .9181 .5501 .8840 .9161 .8685 .9190 .9259 .9628 .9674 .9843 .9819 .9674TOTAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT

.9235 .5318 .8791 .9102 .8769 .9220 .9245 .9810 .9692 .9968 .9740 .9671

Mathematical/General Concepts

.7849 .7488 .8859 .8571 .7201 .8008 .8741 .8047 .9077 .8589 .8990 .8230

Literacy .6012 .8931 .8279 .6896 .5278 .6114 .7555 .5860 .7198 .6469 .7039 .6335ACADEMIC/COGNITIVE .6980 .8654 .8811 .7829 .6253 .7108 .8310 .6965 .8224 .7568 .8090 .7339Self-help .9292 .5210 .8779 .8998 .9104 .9392 .9315 .9093 .9005 .9248 .8888 .9369Prevocational .9164 .4625 .8418 .8277 .8878 .8961 .8912 .9178 .8371 .9072 .8418 .9259DAILY LIVING .9465 .5082 .8837 .8903 .9229 .9435 .9368 .9354 .8949 .9398 .8901 .9552Play Skills and Behaviors .8605 .3665 .7587 .7474 .8563 .8441 .8195 .8546 .7448 .8320 .7569 .8691Engagement and Initiative .8445 .3070 .7200 .6639 .8577 .8117 .7825 .7485 .6127 .7142 .6014 .8039SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL DEVELOPMENT

.8931 .3566 .7764 .7444 .8966 .8685 .8408 .8464 .7198 .8175 .7219 .8800

TOTAL ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR .9645 .5901 .9343 .9219 .9334 .9627 .9748 .9661 .9340 .9743 .9271 .9808

(continues)


87

Table 8-3. Correlations Among Subdomains, Domains/Skill Areas, and Composites (continued)

Expr

essi

ve

Lang

uage

TOTA

L LA

NG

UA

GE

Self-

help

Prev

ocat

iona

l

DA

ILY L

IVIN

G

Play

Ski

lls a

nd

Beha

vior

s

Enga

gem

ent

and

Initi

ativ

e

SOC

IAL-

EMO

TIO

NA

L

TOTA

L A

DA

PTIV

E BE

HA

VIO

R

Drawing/Visual Motor .9181 .9235 .9292 .9164 .9465 .8605 .8445 .8931 .9645Writing .5501 .5318 .5210 .4625 .5082 .3665 .3070 .3566 .5901Fine-Motor Skills .8840 .8791 .8779 .8418 .8837 .7587 .7200 .7764 .9343Nonlocomotor .9161 .9102 .8998 .8227 .8903 .7474 .6639 .7444 .9219Locomotor .8685 .8769 .9104 .8878 .9229 .8563 .8577 .8966 .9334Gross-Motor Skills .9190 .9220 .9392 .8961 .9435 .8441 .8117 .8685 .9627TOTAL PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT

.9259 .9245 .9315 .8912 .9368 .8195 .7825 .8408 .9748

Nouns and Early Listening .9628 .9810 .9093 .9178 .9354 .8546 .7485 .8464 .9661Actions .9674 .9692 .9005 .8371 .8949 .7448 .6127 .7198 .9340Receptive Language .9843 .9968 .9248 .9072 .9398 .8320 .7142 .8175 .9743Isolated Skills .9819 .9740 .8888 .8418 .8901 .7569 .6014 .7219 .9271Contextual Skills .9674 .9671 .9369 .9259 .9552 .8691 .8039 .8800 .9808Expressive Language 1.0000 .9952 .9320 .8996 .9408 .8249 .7051 .8091 .9737TOTAL LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT

.9952 1.0000 .9316 .9073 .8439 .8321 .7129 .8170 .9778


.8881 .8754 .8233 .7674 .8191 .6668 .5305 .6363 .8712

Literacy .6905 .6691 .6398 .5859 .6319 .4699 .3850 .4535 .7007ACADEMIC/COGNITIVE .7962 .7775 .7377 .6809 .7310 .5668 .4581 .5441 .7956Self-help .9320 .9316 1.0000 .9029 .9821 .8404 .7699 .8475 .9609Prevocational .8996 .9073 .9029 1.0000 .9678 .9159 .7918 .9024 .9415DAILY LIVING .9408 .9439 .9821 .9678 1.0000 .8942 .7985 .8925 .9761Play Skills and Behaviors .8249 .8321 .8404 .9159 .8942 1.0000 .8235 .9668 .8778Engagement and Initiative .7051 .7129 .7699 .7918 .7985 .8235 1.0000 .9411 .7988SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL DEVELOPMENT

.8091 .8170 .8475 .9024 .8925 .9668 .9411 1.0000 .8828

TOTAL ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR .9737 .9778 .9609 .9415 .9761 .8778 .7988 .8828 1.0000


88

Factor Structure of the IED II

To view the relationships among subdomains and domains/skill areas, the IED II was subjected to a factor analysis with varimax rotation after controlling for the effects of age on relationships among variables (via outputting partial correlation coefficients and inputting these as the data matrix for analysis). This revealed a three-factor solution that accounted for 84% of the variance among subdomains. Table 8-4 shows the factor structure and the subdomains that load upon them. The first factor is Understanding and Expressing and includes skills in receptive and expressive language, quantitative concepts. and drawing. The second factor is Movement and Social Activity and includes locomotor, prevocational, and social-emotional skills. The third factor is Academic and includes writing, reading, receptive language, and nonlocomotor skills. Figures in boldface show the variables that loaded most heavily on each factor.

Table 8-4. Factor Analysis of IED II Subdomains

Subdomains

Factor 1— Understanding and Expressing

Factor 2— Movement and Social Activity

Factor 3— Academic/

Preacademic

Drawing/Visual Motor .74969 -.29969 -.02505

Writing .48354 .11072 .66952

Nonlocomotor Skills -.11061 -.08004 .68549

Locomotor Skills .14000 .81505 .07000

Nouns and Early Listening .64693 . 53487 .37508

Actions .52415 .39064 .60107

Isolated Skills .84085 .35498 .12571

Contextual Skills .87832 .17082 .27712


.76211 .38334 .44570

Literacy .55146 .16528 .76442

Self-help .35915 .43128 .50152

Prevocational .54604 .70838 .30559

Play Skills and Behaviors .18008 .85488 -.24193

Engagement and Initiative -.11661 .87103 .25591

Concurrent Validity

2003 REStanDaRDIzatIon anD ValIDatIon StuDIES

Concurrent validity shows the relationship, expressed as correlations, between a test and other measures with similar content. To establish these relationships, the IED II was administered alongside a range of concurrent measures described below. In addition, diagnostic test results were gathered on children who had been tested within the past six months. Of the 1,171 participants, 484 were administered assessments the IED II along with additional measures.


89

CritErion BAttEry. The battery included measures of cognitive skills, achievement, and language and adaptive behavior in addition to the age-appropriate assessments in the IED II.

Cognitive Skills. Infants and toddlers were administered measures of cognitive skills including the Mental Development Index of the Bayley Scales of Infant Development, the cognitive portions of the Battelle Developmental Inventory, or the Cattell Infant Intelligence Test. Children two years and older were administered the Slosson Intelligence Test–Revised (SIT–R) (Slosson, Nicholson, and Hibpshman 1991). The SIT–R is a measure of cognitive skills for children four through eighteen years of age. Its items were drawn from the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale and the Gesell Institute Child Behavioral Inventory. The SIT correlates highly with the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Revised (Clarke and Scagliotti 1989; Karnes and Oehler 1986), with the McCarthy Scale of Children’s Abilities (Bondy, Constantino, Norcross, and Sheslow 1984), and with the Stanford-Binet (.979), with which the average SIT score varies by an average of one point (Slosson, Jensen, and Armstrong 1985).

Achievement. Children aged two-and-a-half years and older were administered selected subtests from the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery–Revised: Tests of Achievement (WJRA) (Woodcock and Johnson 1990). These included the Letter-Word Identification subtest as an indicator of reading and reading readiness, the Applied Problems subtest as a measure of math and math readiness skills, and the Dictation subtest, a measure of graphomotor and written language skills. In combination, these assessments produce a Skills Cluster which serves as an overall indicator of academic achievement. The WJRA was standardized on 4,732 children from two to nine years of age using a sample carefully chosen to be representative of the U.S. population with respect to gender, race, occupational status, geographical region, and community (urban and suburban/rural). In numerous validation studies, the WJRA correlates highly with other diagnostic measures of achievement including the Diagnostic Achievement Battery, the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement and the Wide Range Achievement Test. The WJRA has also been validated for use with Spanish-speaking populations, with African Americans, and with children who have learning disabilities.

Language Development and Adaptive Behavior. Infants and toddlers were administered the Rosetti Infant Toddler Language Scale, the Preschool Language Scale, Receptive-Expressive Emergent Language Test-Second Edition (REEL-2), the Sequenced Inventory of Communication Development, the Battelle Developmental Inventory Screening Test or the Communication Domain of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale. Adaptive behavior was measured with the overall score from the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale, the socialization, total communication, and adaptive behavior subtests of the Battelle Developmental Inventory Screening Test and/or the Early Learning Accomplishment Profile. Parents of children two years of age and older were asked to complete the Child Development Inventory (CDI) (Ireton 1992), a parent-report measure of social, self-help, fine- and gross-motor skills, expressive and receptive language, and academics. Scores on the self-help assessment were used to measure adaptive


90

behavior while the two language assessments served as language measures. The CDI is a 1992 revision of the twenty-five-year-old Minnesota Child Development Inventory—a 270-item measure that produces two kinds of scores (age equivalents and pass/fail/advanced) for fine and gross motor, social, self-help, expressive and receptive language, and preacademic skills. The CDI was standardized (and restandardized) on more than 2,000 children who resided in suburban St. Paul—95% were Caucasian and the educational status was slightly above the national average. However, a number of validity studies illustrated the CDI’s effectiveness with other populations, including samples with African American, Hispanic, and lower socioeconomic-status individuals (Chaffee et al. 1990; Guerin and Gottfried 1987; Sturner et al. 1982). More recent validity studies conducted as a part of the 1992 revision showed the CDI to have high levels of predictive validity (correlations of .69 from CDIs administered at the beginning of kindergarten with achievement tests administered at the end of the year) (Ireton 1992). A concurrent validity study, using children between two years and five years old who met criteria for special education eligibility, confirmed their disabilities in 100% of cases (Ireton and Glascoe 1995).

Physical Development Infants and toddlers were administered either the motor domain of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, the PDI (motor) domain from the Bayley Scales, motor portions of the Battelle Developmental Inventory, or the Alberta Infant Motor Scale. The Child Development Inventory was used to measure fine- and gross-motor skills in children two years and older.

Social and Emotional Development The Infant Behavior Record from the Bayley Scales was used to assess social and emotional development in infants and toddlers, along with the Interaction Scale of the Rosetti Infant Toddler Language Scale, and/or the Social domain from the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale.

Teacher/Examiner Ratings. As a further check on the validity of the concurrent battery, diagnosticians were asked to state their perceptions of children’s performance. Examiners working with infants and toddlers were asked to rate children as below average, average, or above average. The teachers of kindergarten and first-grade participants were asked to rate children as above average, average, or as having difficulty with school tasks.

Results of the concurrent validation analyses are reported in Table 8-5. The results reveal that assessments in the IED II produced significant correlations with criterion measures, especially those of like content. These correlations illustrate the IED II assessments are a strong predictor of performance on other measures.


91

Table 8-5. Correlations Between the IED II and Other Diagnostic Measures*

IED II Domains physical Development

language Development

acaDemic/cognitive

Daily living

social and emotional

DevelopmentIED II subdomains Fine motor

gross motor

Receptive language

expressive language

Diagnostic measures

Fine Motor .74 .79 .66 .58 .82 .78 .56

Gross Motor .62 .70 .61 .50 .72 .66 .52

Receptive Language .61 .69 .64 .54 .74 .66 .54

Expressive Language .58 .64 .61 .54 .71 .62 .56

Cognition .70 .83 .79 .57 .88 .74 .58

Academics .64 .82 .79 .38 .87 .67 .40

Daily Living .68 .77 .66 .52 .78 .71 .52

Social and Emotional .52 .57 .44 .36 .57 .56 .51

Examiner Rating .30 .30 .34 .10 .41 .28 .11

*all correlations greater than .30 were significant at p < .05

Prior Research: Concurrent Validity

Although a number of studies have used the IED as part of a battery administered to children, only a few of these actively compared IED results to other measures. One study alluding to this (Rule et al. 1989) required teachers to indicate which skills children could correctly perform and then administered to the 25 children the IED. The authors note that there was a high positive correlation (although they did not specify the exact coefficient) between children’s skills and teachers’ estimated ratings of kindergarten children’s performance. Even so, the frequency of teacher error suggested that the IED added accuracy to teachers’ knowledge of which skills children had and had not mastered.

Because the BRIgAnCE® Screens are drawn from IED items, the many concurrent validation studies of the Screens also provide support for those assessments on the IED II shared with the BRIgAnCE Screens. To summarize, there are high and significant correlations between overall BRIgAnCE Screens scores and factors and measures of expressive and receptive language, intelligence and academic achievement (the better predictors of school success), and with teacher ratings (Glascoe 1996, 1997, 2002; Beer 1990; Rabinowitz 1989; Davis 1989; Mantzicopoulos and Jarvinen 1993; Mantzicopoulos 1999a, 2000).

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity is the ability of a test to identify children with developmental strengths or weaknesses. Typically, differences in scores and unique patterns of performance are expected for children with and without various risk factors, known learning problems, etc.


92

2003 RestandaRdization and Validation study

To assess the discriminant validity of the IED II, children were categorized into four groups: 1) those with and without a birth history of prematurity (correction for prematurity was applied when children were 24 or fewer months of age); 2) those with and without psychosocial risk; 3) those with and without known developmental disabilities; and 4) those with and without highly advanced development. Differences in performance between groups was assessed via a discriminant function analysis through which the assessments most predictive of group differences were elucidated. Table 8-6 shows the results of the discriminant function analysis (loading matrix of pooled correlation coefficients).

Table 8-6. Loading Matrix and Chi-Square Results from Discriminant Function Analyses Predicting Group Membership from ied ii standardized Assessments

IED II Assessments

Presence or Absence of Prematurity

Presence or Absence of

Psychosocial Risk

Presence or Absence of

Developmental Disabilities

Advanced Development versus Typical Development

χ2 = 30.37* χ2 = 25.16* χ2 = 12.65* χ2 = 16.05*

Fine Motor .88 .07 .34 .27

Gross Motor .79 .04 .31 .31

Receptive Language .96 .37 .15 .60

Expressive Language .91 .09 .63 .23

ACADEMIC NA .30 .14 .60

DAILY LIVING .69 .11 .43 .42

SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL .78 .03 .45 .30

*p < .05

additional discriminant Validity analyses

In order to consider the impact of factors that may affect test performance and/or development, a series of analyses of covariance were conducted. ANCOVA was used to adjust for age differences between groups. The comparisons and results are as follows:

1. In comparing children who are white versus other ethnicities, there were no differences in performance on assessments in the IED II [(F (2,1168) = 2.38, p = NS].

2. In comparing children whose parents did not complete high school versus those who did, there were significant differences in test results [(F (2,1168) = 22.96, p = 0001]. Children whose parents completed high school scored over 20 points more on the IED II assessments.

3. Children who qualified for Medicaid or the federal free/reduced lunch program, performed less well, by about 35 points overall, than children whose parents had higher levels of income [(F (2,1168) = 32.66, p = 0001].


93

Prior Research on discriminant Validity: Children with learning and other disabilities

Because the IED II includes assessments from the BrIgancE® Screens, discriminant validity research on the BrIgancE Screens reflects on the validity of the IED II. To summarize, children with and without learning disabilities, as well as those enrolled versus not enrolled in special education, score substantially differently on the BrIgancE Screens, as do children with and without mental health problems (Trout 1996; Bobo 1992; Murphy et al. 2000). There are also substantive differences in the performance of children with giftedness when compared to those with more average intellectual development (Mantzicopoulos 2000).

Predictive Validity

There are numerous predictive validity studies on the BrIgancE Screens all of which reflect on the IED II. To summarize, the six studies of the Screens’ predictive validity showed strong and high correlations six months to two years later with criterion measures of intelligence, academic achievement, family environment, and language development, as well as with teacher ratings (McClure and Benson 1984; Wenner 1988; Marquet 1987; Ellwein 1991; McCarthy 1994; Mantzicopoulos 1999b).

Summary of Validity Research

• The IED II has substantial content validity. Items selected by a pool of educators and psychologists were drawn from research and other measures. The standardized assessments in the IED II also demonstrates desirable age-related trends: younger children have lower scores than do older children administered the same assessments.

• Construct validity is substantial. The IED II contains a clear factor/domain structure that accounts for the majority of variance within scores and with minimal overlap among factors/domains.

• The IED II has excellent concurrent validity. Domains/skill areas, subdomains, and assessments are highly correlated with diagnostic measures of development, academics, intelligence, and teacher/examiner ratings.

• The IED II has a high degree of discriminant validity. Children with and without disabilities and risk factors for developmental problems including prematurity, score significantly differently on the standardized assessments in the IED II. In addition there are unique patterns of performance for unique groups.

• The IED II is nondiscriminatory with regard to ethnicity but is responsive to known psychosocial risk factors including parental level of education and poverty.

• The IED II’s predictive validity is evident in the strong relationship between those subtests also contained in the BrIgancE Screens and a variety of criterion measures administered six months to two years later.


Documents

BRIGANCE - Inventory of Early Development II - Curriculum