Jennifer Johnson

1

• Jennifer Johnson
• Renee Hollan

2
Oral Language Assessments

• Brigance
• Woodcock-Johnson III
• Idea Proficiency Test (IPT)

3
Birgance

• Author(s) Albert H. Brigance
• Date 1998
• Publisher Curriculum Associates
• Cost 150.00

4
Description of the measure

• Purpose(s) of the measure Designed for use in
  elementary and middle schools. It can be a
  valuable resource in school programs emphasizing
  individualized instruction. It is also
  especially helpful in programs serving children
  with special needs.
• Type of measure Criterion-Referenced
• Content Area (s) assessed 1) Readiness 2)
  Speech 3) Functional Word Recognition 4) Oral
  Reading 5) Reading Comprehension 6) Word
  Analysis 7) Listening 8) Writing and
  Alphabetizing 9) Numbers and Computation and
  10) Measurement.
• Student requirements A.Language vocabulary
  B.Presentation mode verbal and doing C. Group
  or individual administration individual and some
  group. D.Time factors no time factor
• Tester requirements
• Necessary training there is no necessary
  training needed the test uses a direct approach.
  Administration time and other time requirements
  none noted Ease of use step by step guide.

5
Description of measure continued

• Test norms or other standards
• Type of reference the test is criterion
  referenced, as well as text-referenced.
• Age, grade, gender newborn-middle school, both
  male and female.
• Method of selection this information was not
  given.
• representative ness Standard norm, USA and
  Canada
• Size This assessment battery was standardized on
  a representative nationwide sample of 1,121
  children.
• Recency of norms This information was not given.
• Content domain All curricular domains are
  covered.
• Representative ness of item pool This
  information was not given.
• Completeness of item pool This information was
  not given.
• Appropriateness of tasks Wide range of task from
  birth to middle school.

6
More on description of the Brigance.

• Reliability
• Test-retest reliability Reliability in the lower
  grades was in the .85 range.
• Equivalent-form reliability This information was
  not given.
• Internal consistency This test does have
  internal consistency.
• Scorer reliability A score of 60 or higher at a
  given grade level indicates that the student will
  probably be successful at that grade level.
• Validity
• Content validity Based on a survey of teachers
  and popular textbooks.
• Criterion-related validity (predictive and or
  concurrent) The test is concurrent with 6
  studies.
• Construct validity This test does have construct
  validity..
• Results
• Types of scores or other results Inter-rater
  reliability, alternative forms reliability, and
  internal consistency measures were all also
  uniformly high.
• Standard error of measurement

7
Considerations in nonbiased assessment

• Is the norm group or other standard of comparison
  appropriate for the student in terms of race,
  ethnicity, culture, and gender? Yes I do believe
  that the comparisons are appropriate for all
  children.
• Are test items free from cultural bias? Yes I do
  believe that the test is free from cultural bias.
• Is the language of the measure appropriate for
  the student? Yes, the test comes in different
  languages.
• Does the measure bypass the limitations imposed
  by the disability? Yes, I do believe that this
  test takes into account the limitations imposed
  by a disability

8
Conclusion

• Does the tool fit the purpose of assessment? Yes,
  I do believe the tool fits the purpose for
  assessment.
• Is the tool appropriate for the student? Yes, the
  tool is appropriate for the student.
• Is the tool appropriate for the tester? Yes, I do
  believe that the test gives useful information to
  the tester about the functioning level of the
  child.
• Is the tool technically adequate? Yes I do
  believe the tool is technically adequate.
• Is the tool an efficient date-collection
  mechanism? Yes, I believe the tool is an
  efficient date-collection mechanism. The test is
  given in the Fall and Spring of the school year
  to look at the development and progress the child
  has made.

9
Woodcock-Johnson III

• Author(s) Nancy Mather, Richard W. Woodcock, and
  Nancy Mather
• Date 2001
• Publisher Riverside Publishing
• Cost 1015.50

10
Description of the measure

• Purpose(s) of the measure, as stated in the
  manual To determine the present status of an
  individuals academic strengths and weaknesses.
  Additionally, test results help determine how
  certain factors are affecting related aspects of
  development.
• Type of measure oral
• Content Area (s) assessed The test contains 22
  tests measuring five curricular areas- reading,
  mathematics, written language, oral language, and
  academic knowledge, and two auxiliary writing
  evaluation procedures.
• Student requirements
• Language English and Spanish
• Presentation mode All presentation is completed
  orally
• Group or individual administration individual
• Time factors 60 to 90 minutes to complete full
  battery. Less time when just doing oral
  language.
• Tester requirements
• Necessary training Trained and knowledgeable on
  assessment.
• Administration time and other time requirements
  Can be scheduled anytime during the day to
  accommodate individual needs. Breaks during the
  assessment is recommended to maximize
  performance.
• Ease of use The assessment is easy to
  administer.

11
More on Woodcock-Johnson III

• Test norms or other standards
• Type of reference norm reference
• If applicable, characteristics of norm group
• Age, grade, gender 24 months-90 years, male and
  female.
• Method of selection The selection of norm group
  was random.
• representative ness Northeast, Midwest, and
  Southwest.
• Size 8,818
• Recency of norms 2001
• If applicable description of curricular standards
• Content domain Oral language
• Representative ness of item pool Northeast,
  Midwest, and Southwest.
• Completeness of item pool White, black, American
  Indian, Asian and Pacific Islanders
• Appropriateness of tasks This depends on what
  the objective is for the test.

12
More on Woodcock-Johnson III

• Reliability
• Test-retest reliability lt 1yr to 10 years.
• Equivalent-form reliability This information was
  not given.
• Internal consistency this test does have
  internal consistency.
• Scorer reliability .81-.85
• Validity
• Content validity This was assessed through
  specification of a master test and cluster
  content revision blueprint.
• Criterion-related validity (predictive and or
  concurrent)
• Construct validity This test did have construct
  validity.
• Results
• Types of scores or other results
• Standard error of measurement

13
Considerations in nonbiased assessment

• Is the norm group or other standard of comparison
  appropriate for the student in terms of race,
  ethnicity, culture, and gender? Yes, I do believe
  a big sample of the population was taken into
  account when looking at the norm group.
• Are test items free from cultural bias? No I do
  not believe that any test can be free from
  cultural bias
• Is the language of the measure appropriate for
  the student? Yes, I do believe the test is
  appropriate for the student.
• Does the measure bypass the limitations imposed
  by the disability? Yes, I do believe that this
  measure bypasses the limitations imposed by a
  disability.

14
Conclusion

• Does the tool fit the purpose of assessment? Yes,
  the tool fits the purpose for assessment.
• Is the tool appropriate for the student? Yes, I
  believe that the tool is appropriate for the
  student.
• Is the tool appropriate for the tester? Yes, I
  believe the tool is appropriate for the tester.
• Is the tool technically adequate? Yes, I do
  believe the tool is technically adequate.
• Is the tool an efficient date-collection
  mechanism? Yes, I do believe that the tool is an
  efficient date-collection mechanism.

15
IPT Oral Test

• Author B. Amori, E. Dalton, P. Tighe
• Publisher Ballard and Tighe
• Date 2004
• Cost 147.00 in the base case, with add-ons
  going as high as 247.00

16
Description of the measure

• Purpose of the measure They are used for several
  purposes, including identification, designation,
  placement, and redesignation of LEP students. The
  results derived from the IPT Tests can be used to
  place students in language development programs,
  including the IDEA language development programs.
  Ballard Tighe provides detailed information
  that shows customers how they can use the results
  of the IPT to place students in various other
  instructional programs. However, the primary
  purpose of the IPT Tests is for LEP student
  identification, designation, and redesignation,
  and for overall program planning and evaluation.
• Type of Measure The IPT Tests are
  standardized, norm-referenced tests
• Content area assessed Test items are included
  to test both basic interpersonal communication
  skills (BICS) and cognitive academic language
  proficiency (CALP). The oral tests assess
  vocabulary, comprehension, syntax, and verbal
  expression. The reading tests assess vocabulary,
  vocabulary in context, reading for understanding,
  reading for life skills, and language usage. The
  writing tests assess student ability to generate
  writing that reflects common usage and academic
  grade-level standards.

17
More on description of the IPT

• Student requirements The administration
  procedures for the oral tests require that
  students be tested individually. In general, the
  test examiner asks a question or makes a
  statement that requires a response from the
  student. The test examiner marks the items
  correct or incorrect directly in the test booklet
  based on the student's response. Many of the test
  items require the use of Test Pictures in order
  to elicit a response from the student. In some
  cases, the student is asked to identify a
  vocabulary word depicted in the picture. In
  others, the student is asked to point to a
  particular item. These administration procedures
  require that students be able to see the
  pictures, hear the examiner, and point to or say
  the answer. Administration of the reading tests
  requires the student to be able to read the
  questions and mark the appropriate
  multiple-choice answer. The writing test requires
  test-takers to be able to read the task and
  provide several writing samples. Visual handicaps
  that hinder a student's ability to read the task
  would render the test unreliable. The IPT Tests
  are not designed to analyze students'
  articulatory competence, identify speech
  impediments, or determine physical hindrances to
  speech
• Tester Requirements It is imperative that the
  examiner be fluent in the language being tested.
  With proper training any school personnel can
  administer the test. The test is easy to
  administer as well as score with no complicated
  formulas. It takes about 15-25 minutes to
  administer the oral test, the reading test can
  take as long as 60 minutes, and 35 minutes for
  the writing.

18
More on ITP

• Test norm and standards The IPT Tests are
  standardized, norm-referenced tests.
• Characteristics of norm group IPT has a test
  for ages 3-5 and also one for grades k-12. The
  groups used for the norming were representative
  of the population within the norm US and Canada.
  Both male and female were used. This test was
  justrenormed, although they did not give a
  specific date.
• Reliability The reliability statistics for
  test-retest and alternate forms are provided in
  the Technical Manuals. The coefficients range
  from .83 to .91, indicating that this interactive
  test is working reliably. The scoring of the
  writing samples is guided by rubrics, and Ballard
  Tighe provide a training session to familiarize
  teachers with the procedure. The results of a
  study on inter-rater agreement are reported in
  the Technical Manual, and they indicate that
  exact agreement varies between 79 and 86. This
  is within acceptable standards of reliability for
  open-ended writing items. The procedures
  described above make the IPT tests standardized
  to the strictest technical definitions of the
  term.
• Validity All that was found was a statement
  stating it was in fact valid.
• Results This test can be used holistically and
  to examine the growth of children from year to
  year. There was a mention that children start at
  specific spots so that there is no extra unneeded
  testing involved. This indicated that there is a
  ceiling and a basal, although I am unaware of
  what they are.

19
More on ITP

• One thing that was very interesting was the vast
  array of correlated tests such as
  TESOL Standards, Assessment Standards for ELLs,
  as well as state tests from CA, AR, CO, HI, ID,
  MD, MO, OK, and VA.

20
Considerations in nonbiased assessment

• Is the norm group or other standard of comparison
  appropriate for the student in terms of race,
  ethnicity, culture, and gender? Yes I do believe
  that the comparisons are appropriate for all
  children.
• Are test items free from cultural bias? The test
  is free from cultural bias. Although I must say
  that they do not address other languages besides
  Spanish or English.
• Is the language of the measure appropriate for
  the student? If you are testing English or
  Spanish, then yes but any other language than
  no.
• Does the measure bypass the limitations imposed
  by the disability? Not really. This assessment,
  although they claim to make adaptations really is
  not the best test for specific disabilities such
  as hearing impaired or visually impaired.

21
Conclusion

• Does the tool fit the purpose of assessment? This
  depends on the individual purpose. For the
  purpose stated with in the test probably so.
• Is the tool appropriate for the student? Again
  this depends on the student. It would not be
  appropriate for a Asian student or a student with
  specific disabilities. I think this test is weak
  when it comes to children who have language
  problems like that of an AU child.
• Is the tool appropriate for the tester? I think
  that when used properly in the right setting this
  information can be very valuable.
• Is the tool technically adequate? Yes I do
  believe the tool is technically adequate.
• Is the tool an efficient date-collection
  mechanism? One of the things I like about this
  test is that it is given at two times during the
  year so that it is easy to see growth not only
  with a child but with the program. I also like
  that it can be used from year to year to
  establish growth on a larger scale.