Tests and Decisions for the Handicapped: a Guide to Evaluation Under the New Laws

Abstract

Educational law is one thing; educational action is quite another. Between the two events, the passing of a law and the behavior of the school, must occur a chain of intermediate events: the interpretation of the law in terms of practice; the study of the feasibility of the interpretation; the successive adjustments, reorganizations, retrainings, and redesign of administrative procedures; the self-monitoring and reporting -the reality testing. Early in this process (if not before the law is written), there should be careful consideration of the law's provisions in terms of what is currently known. The present study seeks to be such a consideration, from a limited point of view, of P.L. 94-142. Of particular concern is Sec. 615-5c, which mandates that the participating states and their local agencies will develop: Procedures to assure that testing and evaluation materials and procedures utilized for the purposes of evaluation and placement of handicapped children will be selected and administered so as not to be racially or culturally discriminatory. Such materials or procedures shall be provided and administered in the child's native language or mode of communication, unless it clearly is not feasible to do so, and no single procedure shall be the sole criterion for determining an appropriate educational program for a child.

Teacher Decision Making in the Selection of Educational Programming Priorities for Severely Handicapped Children

“…Thus, in addition to the need to replicate such findings with special education professionals in other regions, it may be even more important to begin investigations into the processes of certain kinds of decision making and the qualitative improvement of those decisions where they appear to be at variance with best educational practice. As Page (1980) emphasized, this may require that substantial attention be paid to longitudinal monitoring of child outcomes as a function of various decisions.…”

“…Basic cognitive operations involved in any judgment task (e.g., Kaplan & Schwartz, 1975;Page, 1980) were not the intended focus of the investigation. Rather, the purpose was to begin to obtain insights concerning teacher attitudes toward the relative value or strength of various reasons which might be proposed to justify the choice of target behaviors, and to investigate how teachers are influenced by various sources of data when asked to select priority annual goals and instructional objectives for children who present severe developmental delay as well as multiple excess (problem) behaviors.…”

Learning Disability Discrepancy Formulas: Their Use in Actual Practice

“…Whether or not an obtained achievement level is indeed significantly different from the expected level is difficult to determine. High correlations between the particular intelligence and achievement tests used, statistical regression, test reliability problems, and standard errors of measurement in either IQ or achievement tests are commonly cited as artifacts which may affect the interpretation that an actual discrepancy exists between a pupil's achievement and his/her potential (Cone & Wilson, 1981;Page, 1980;Reynolds, 1981). Therefore, several formulas, or tables derived from formulas, have recently been suggested to account for the statistical properties of IQ and achievement tests in establishing the presence of a significant discrepancy for purposes of a learning disability diagnosis (Danielson & Bauer, 1978;Elliott, 1981;McLeod, 1979;Salvia & Clark, 1973;Shephard, 1980;Weller, 1980).…”

The Use of Estimated True Scores, Standard Errors of Measurement, and Confidence Intervals in Reporting Assessment Data

“…SeePage (1980) for a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of using truescore estimates in the identification of exceptional students. 4Any confidence interval, except the 100% confidence interval, can be constructed.…”