A Review of Standardized Developmental Assessment Instruments for Young Children and Their Applicability for Children With Special Needs

Abstract

<jats:p>This article provides a review of contemporary instruments for the developmental assessment of children aged 0–4 years and their applicability for children with special needs. The issues involved in the developmental assessment of children with special needs are discussed, and, on the basis of these issues, various instruments are then evaluated.</jats:p><jats:p><jats:bold>Method:</jats:bold>A literature search was carried out for articles about or using standardized developmental assessment instruments for children aged 0–4 years.</jats:p><jats:p><jats:bold>Results:</jats:bold>Eighteen instruments were found, of which 2 were nonverbal and 2 were designed for motor-impaired children. The instruments varied in terms of their suitability for children with special needs.</jats:p><jats:p><jats:bold>Conclusion:</jats:bold>The range of instruments is limited, especially for children younger than 2 years of age. Instruments for children with motor or hearing/language impairments are available, but their psychometric properties need to be researched and improved. For children with a visual impairment, no appropriate instrument is currently available.</jats:p>

The Bayley-III-NL Special Needs Addition: A Suitable Developmental Assessment Instrument For Young Children With Special Needs

“…An underestimation of developmental level can occur, for example, if a child fails five items in a row (which is the ceiling rule of the Bayley-III) and, consequently, items higher up in the scale are not administered, even though the child might well have been able to obtain a positive score on these "more difficult" items. In cases of functional impairment and/or severe developmental delay, especially, there is no consensus about whether the assumption of ordinal development actually holds true (Visser, Ruiter, Van der Meulen, Ruijssenaars, & Timmerman, 2012).…”

“…However, many professionals indicate that suitable instruments are lacking (Groenveld, 1990;Neisworth & Bagnato, 2004;Skovgaard, Houmann, Landorph, & Christiansen, 2004;Snow & Van Hemel, 2008;Visser, Ruiter, Van der Meulen, Ruijssenaars, & Timmerman, 2012). Applying the standard procedures when testing children with a motor and/or visual impairment seriously threatens the validity of the test results.…”

“…As a consequence of the impairment(s), a child might not be able to show his or her abilities in the domain of interest during the standardized assessment of a developmental test (Hebbeler, Barton, & Mallik, 2008;Neisworth & Bagnato, 2004;Visser, Ruiter, Van der Meulen, Ruijssenaars, & Timmerman, 2012). For example, the child might not be able to manipulate the test materials, or just may need more time to deal with the material than a child without the physical impairment but with the same ability level.…”

“…It does not assess learning capacities and sensitivity to instruction, and consequently does not provide information that can be used as a basis for intervention planning (Bagnato, Neisworth, & Pretti-Frontczak, 2010; R. J. Kahn, 2000;Snow & Van Hemel, 2008;Visser, Ruiter, Van der Meulen, Ruijssenaars, & Timmerman, 2012). DA does provide this information (HesselsSchlatter, 2002;Lauchlan & Elliot, 2001;Tzuriel, 2000).…”

Learning Potential is Useful in Pre-schoolers with Fragile X and Down Syndrome

“…The assessment of children with special needs and/or young of age using instruments and methodologies developed for older children and/or adults present reliability and validity problems (Visser, Ruiter, van der Meulen, Ruijssenaars, & Timmerman, 2012). An alternative to the traditional psychometric approach has been to assess the potential for learning ( Lidz & Jepsen, 2003) in which a person, usually an adult expert, modifies -or mediates -the stimulus so that it can be registered more efficiently by the learner (Calero, 2004;Haywood & Lidz, 2007).…”