The Course on Individual Cognitive Assessment

Alfonso, Vincent C.; Oakland, Thomas; LaRocca, Regina; Spanakos, Alexandra

doi:10.1080/02796015.2000.12085997

Cited by 44 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…School psychology practitioners also average 66.6 psychoeducational evaluations per year (Castillo, Curtis, & Gelley, 2012) and spend roughly 25% of their time administering tests for SLD eligibility determination (Benson et al, 2019). In addition, the majority of school psychology graduate students have taken a course on psychometrics prior to taking their assessment course (Alfonso et al, 2000). We were unable to locate any published materials on the typical education and training of special educators in norm-referenced assessment, and we are unaware of any training programs that require special education teachers to take a course dedicated to psychometrics.…”

Section: Silard and Wrightmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…School psychologists have multiple opportunities to administer standardized norm-referenced tests when learning to use these measures with the assumption that practice will improve their assessment fidelity (Loe et al, 2007). For instance, school psychology graduate students conduct seven or more administrations during their first assessment course on average (Alfonso, LaRocca, Oakland, & Spanakos, 2000; Lockwood & Farmer (in press); Oakland & Zimmerman, 1986). School psychology practitioners also average 66.6 psychoeducational evaluations per year (Castillo, Curtis, & Gelley, 2012) and spend roughly 25% of their time administering tests for SLD eligibility determination (Benson et al, 2019).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Teacher Trainees’ Administration and Scoring Errors on the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement

Lockwood

Sealander

Gross

et al. 2019

Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Achievement tests are used to make high-stakes (e.g., special education placement) decisions, and previous research on norm-referenced assessment suggests that errors are ubiquitous. In our study of 42 teacher trainees, utilizing five of the six core subtests of the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement, Third Edition (KTEA-3), we found that while most trainees make errors, they do not make a large number per person with the exception of a few error-prone trainees. In addition, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests indicated that reading comprehension was the most prone subtest to administration ( T = 120; p < .001) and clerical ( T = 45; p < .01) errors. However, subtests pairwise comparisons indicated nonsignificant differences between error rates across subtests. Based on these findings, we recommend that training programs focus extra attention on reading comprehension and remediating students who make a disproportionate number of errors. Implications for future research are also noted.

show abstract

Section: Silard and Wrightmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Teacher Trainees’ Administration and Scoring Errors on the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement

Lockwood

Sealander

Gross

et al. 2019

Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, to make decisions that are in the best interest of children, assessment personnel must also follow best practices when choosing instruments. As part of preparation programs in assessment, students are required to take courses in administering norm-referenced instruments (Alfonso, LaRocca, Oakland, & Spanakos, 2000). Typically included in these courses are specific discussions on the uses and purposes of assessment, norming populations, standardization, and the reliability and validity properties of instruments that are expected to be used during the evaluation process.…”

Section: Decision-making Processesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Decision-Making Practices During the Instrument Selection Process: The Choices We Make

Rueter

McWhorter

Delello

2018

Assessment for Effective Intervention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this article is to understand the decision-making processes by assessment personnel when choosing instruments to evaluate students with learning disabilities. Eight school personnel responsible for the evaluation of students in Texas participated in face-to-face, semistructured interviews. The instruments chosen were based on a variety of factors including the personnel’s basic knowledge and training on the use of the instruments, the culture and climate of the district, and the overall characteristics of the child being tested. The findings of this study suggested that assessment personnel encounter many decisions when evaluating children with learning disabilities. Implications from this study include the need for frequent support in encouraging reflective thinking and assessment training for those responsible for the important decisions regarding the identification and placement of students who are learning disabled.

show abstract

“…These assessment courses develop essential diagnostic skills, familiarize students with the assessment process, and foster a sense of professional identity (Oakland & Jimerson, 2006 ). The assessment courses have demonstrated having a long-lasting impact, with professionals’ practice remaining generally consistent with their training (Alfonso, LaRocca, Oakland, Spanakos, 2000 ; Sotelo-Dynega & Dixon, 2014 ; Wilson & Reschly, 1996 ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Q-interactive: Training Implications for Accuracy and Technology Integration

Corcoran

2021

Contemp School Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With the iPad-mediated cognitive assessment gaining popularity with school districts and the need for alternative modes for training and instruction during this COVID-19 pandemic, school psychology training programs will need to adapt to effectively train their students to be competent in administering, scoring, an interpreting cognitive assessment instruments. This manuscript describes a mixed methods study of graduate students learning both the traditional and digital format (Q-interactive) of the WISC-V, with the goal of improving training methods and reducing administration and scoring errors. Results indicated that more errors are made on the traditional format than on the digital format, but the errors that did occur on the digital format were on subtests that require clinical acumen. Q-interactive did not reduce errors related to more complex judgments and nuanced scoring. The participating graduate students were surveyed regarding their perceptions of each format, and they revealed a majority preference for the digital format. Training implications are discussed, and specific suggestions provided for how training programs may respond to our current situation by integrating Q-interactive into their assessment courses.

show abstract

The Course on Individual Cognitive Assessment

Cited by 44 publications

References 15 publications

Teacher Trainees’ Administration and Scoring Errors on the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement

Teacher Trainees’ Administration and Scoring Errors on the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement

Decision-Making Practices During the Instrument Selection Process: The Choices We Make

Q-interactive: Training Implications for Accuracy and Technology Integration

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About