18.
The statement given below the
question is true in part. To make the
statement correct in whole requires that you identify the “subtest” as
“performance subtests” and that these include Picture Completion and Symbol Search
subtests as well.
19. The measure of cognitive ability most probably used in schools for
elementary ages is the WISC-III. Each of
the other measures have their own problems as an applicable measure. The Stanford-Benet IV is based on age norms
and not age equivalents as most other measures and may cause confusion. The K-ABC requires its administration by a school
psychologist and as such limits the application versus other tests. The Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive
Ability-Revised has the drawback of being overly comprehensive in result
regarding the large number of scores and profiles produced and requiring
excessive time to administer the test.
20. Initially the various
discrepancy analysis models for assessing possible learning disability could be
broken down into three classifications; Years Below Grade Level, Expectancy
Formulas and Standard Score. While each
model has its proponents and advantages, each has its own identifiable
problem. The Years Below Grade Level
format involves subtracting the grade score from the current grade
placement. If the resulting discrepancy
exceeds 2 years the position for a learning disability was assumed. The problem with this analysis is that it
assumes “average” grade placement and is based on grade equivalents which are
not equal-interval scores. Due to these
problems in the methodology, this model has fallen out of favor. Expectancy Formulas require the subtraction
of 5 years from standard measure mental age.
The resulting figure is the expectant grade level assumed. An achievement instrument is then used to
assess the student and an analysis is done comparing the expected grade level
with the assessed grade level. The major
limitation is that the current achievement is in grade equivalents, and is not
an equal interval score. Furthermore, this method does not consider reliability
of the instruments used. The third
method is the Standard Score. In this method an achievement test is
administered and the standard score is subtracted from the standard score of an
IQ test taken by the client. The
resulting difference is then compared to the standard deviations of both
tests. There are two primary problems
with this methodology; this method does not take into account measurement error
in either or both instruments and two, the higher the correlation between the
tests the lower the reliability of the discrepancy outcome. At present none of these methods are
recommended nor is there current agreement on which to use. Newer measures of ability and achievement
have built in procedures for discrepancy analysis. Some of these measures come with computer
programs to assist with scoring and discrepancy analysis. In the future self contained computer
analysis may be the preferred method of discrepancy analysis.
21. When addressing the
needs of a student who is culturally and linguistically diverse, the assessment
tool needs to be in the students primary language in the first place. The instrument should be norm balanced to
reflect the cultural background of the student.
Students with differing cultural backgrounds have different approaches
and references to questions and information presented in problems. At the same time, an instrument that is not
normed, age appropriate, to the student will be useless even if it does address
the student’s unique cultural, ethnic and linguistic background.
22. Both intellectual
performance and adaptive behavior of the subject student must be addressed to
ascertain a student’s current learning aptitude. When assessing the possibility
of a mental retardation disability both of these factors must be
addressed. A students adaptive behavior
at adequate or below average coupled with average range intellectual
performance may indicate either a learning or behavioral disorder. With both Intellectual performance and
adaptive behavior below average, an assessment of mental retardation disability
becomes a real possibility. Only with an
assessment of learning aptitude can these determinations be made.
23. In both the assessment of visual and auditory perceptual abilities
the physical impairment of either sight or hearing can be determined through
concrete testing. The student can see or
cannot see, can hear the sound or cannot hear the sound. In most instances a mechanical device can be
used to effect a correction of the impairment.
An assessment of educational achievement is usually compared against a
norm reference group and is subjective within a projected range of reliability.
24. Assessment of perceptual abilities traditionally has been
concentrated on either auditory or visual perception. Special education by definition addresses a
student as a whole entity. An individual
with interlocking and interrelating causes and effects. There is no one cause for a special education
finding. Assessment teams need to
examine the whole student, from cultural background to learning ability, to IQ,
to adaptive behavior. To limit
assessment of perceptual abilities to auditor or visual perception denies that
other aspects of perceptual abilities may have impact on how a student may
learn and function. All aspects of
perceptual abilities must be explored to determine their impact on how a
student processes information.
25. The most important thing that a special education teacher should be
aware of is that the student or client is a human being, not a lab rat. The minute we forget that we are dealing with
a living sentient being and we start treating that individual like an “it” we
loose sight of the fact that we are there to serve that individual and provide
assistance to them. Any assessment we
administer, is only valid for that instance.
The instrument provides us with a snapshot of the individual at that moment. The individual can be affected by emotional
turmoil, reacting to the physical setting, misunderstanding the material or be
in less than perfect physical health.
All these variables effect how the individual does in the
assessment. Likewise how we interpret
the results will have a major bearing on what we assess the individual as being
or having. All of this means that the
“snapshot” of the client may have been valid at that instance. But that snapshot is not the client. The client is a living, breathing human being
whose very being is as fluid and variable as all the factors influencing
them. Assessment is not a concrete fact,
it is an interpretation of collected information and our function is to assist
and help the client, not judge them.
No comments:
Post a Comment