Factor Structure of the Devereux Early Childhood Assessment Clinical Form in Low-Income Hispanic American Bilingual Preschool Children

This study examined reliability and validity of the Devereux Early Childhood Assessment (DECA), based on samples of parents and teachers’ ratings of 1,145 entering kindergartners in the Southwest. Confirmatory factor analysis showed that DECA presented good reliability and validity for manifest variables, corroborating previous findings. Three latent variables (initiative, self-control, and attachment) substantiated reliability estimates but showed insufficient discriminant validity because of multicollinearity among latent variables. We recommended caution in interpreting and applying results of DECA assessments in practice because of a lack of discriminant validity. Thus, these findings addressed the need for researchers, educators, and policy makers to consider alternative instruments for early identification of social and emotional problems in young children until new research and a revised DECA model show evidence for the validity of outcomes.

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reliability and Validity of the Devereux Early Childhood Assessment (DECA) as a Function of Parent and Teacher Ratings

Barbu

Levine‐Donnerstein

Marx

et al. 2012

“…Nickerson and Fishman (2009) showed that the DESSA scores have strong evidence of convergent validity with measures of similar constructs, such as the scores of the Behavioral and Emotional Rating Scales-2 (BERS-2; Epstein, 2004) and the Behavior Assessment System for Children-2 (BASC-2; Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2004). To the best of our knowledge, no study has assessed convergent evidence of validity with outcomes important for school, or validated the interpretation of the DESSA scores, among lowincome children, although these associations have been evaluated using other measures and samples (e.g., Oades-Sese et al, 2010).…”

Section: The Teacher-rated Dessamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Social emotional competence supports children’s capacity to succeed in the face of poverty-rated challenges (Oades-Sese, Kaliski, & Weiss, 2010). Defined as the ability to work well socially and emotionally with others from diverse backgrounds and act in a responsible and respectful manner (Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, & Schellinger, 2011; Greenberg et al, 2003), social emotional competence predicts personal, social, and academic success among children, including those from low-income backgrounds (Elias, O’Brien, & Weissberg, 2006; Payton et al, 2008).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Preliminary Validation of the Teacher-Rated DESSA in a Low-Income, Kindergarten Sample

Doromal

Cottone

Kim

2017

This study investigated the measurement of social emotional competence in low-income youth by assessing the validity of responses derived from the widely used, teacher-rated Devereux Student Strengths Assessment (DESSA). Based on the five-component social emotional learning model proposed by the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning, the teacher-rated DESSA shows promise as an easy-to-administer, strengths-based assessment tool for teachers from low-income communities. In a sample of 313 kindergarten students from a southeastern city, three competing measurement models were tested (one-factor, correlated five-factor, and higher order five-factor) using confirmatory factor analyses. Results revealed that, relative to the one-factor model, the higher order five-factor framework had the best model-data fit, although the first-order factors were highly correlated with the second-order factor. Furthermore, zero-order correlations showed that the DESSA was associated with both direct and teacher-reported measures of school-related outcomes. Implications for practice and directions for future research are discussed.

“…The DECA assessments have a growing research base supporting their technical adequacy including examinations of both reliability and validity (e.g., Barbu, Levine-Donnerstein, Marx, & Yaden, 2012; LeBuffe & Shapiro, 2004; Lien & Carlson, 2009; Oades-Sese, Kaliski, & Weiss, 2010; Ogg, Brinkman, Dedrick, & Carlson, 2010). However, no information about the long-term stability of DECA or DECA-P2 could be located within the literature despite recommendations in the administration manual to collect ratings 3 times per year to monitor a preschooler’s social, emotional, and behavioral progress (LeBuffe & Naglieri, 2012).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

One-Year Stability of the Devereux Early Childhood Assessment for Preschoolers, Second Edition

Carlson

Voris

2017

The Devereux Early Childhood Assessment (DECA) and recently updated Devereux Early Childhood Assessment for Preschoolers, Second Edition (DECA-P2) are strength-based measures that can inform early intervention. Whereas the short-term psychometric properties of these parent rating scales are strong, little is known about their long-term stability. Study findings from a diverse Head Start sample (N = 282, DECA; N = 346, DECA-P2) revealed 12-month, test-retest reliability of protective factors (r = .65) to be equivalent on the DECA-P2 and the DECA. The stability of parent ratings of behavior concerns appears improved in the newer edition (r = .53 vs. r = .46). Additional consideration should be given to the stability of the DECA-P2 and its use as short-and long-term social, emotional, and behavioral intervention progress monitoring tool. Keywords protective factors, risk factors, young children, behavioral assessment A growing body of research supports the use of a strengths-based or dual-factor (i.e., risk and protective factors) approach to inform early intervention (e.g., Masten, 2014). A social-emotional rating scale for young children measuring protective factors and behavior concerns is the Devereux Early Childhood Assessment (DECA; LeBuffe & Naglieri, 1999) and its recent update, the Devereux Early Childhood Assessment for Preschoolers, Second Edition (DECA-P2; LeBuffe & Naglieri, 2012). Both include intervention manuals that link assessment results to evidencedbased interventions, consistent with calls in the literature to use assessment data to inform early intervention efforts (Snyder, Wixson, Talapatra, & Roach, 2008). The DECA assessments have a growing research base supporting their technical adequacy including examinations of both reliability and validity (e.g.