jennifer johnson renee hollan

1. Jennifer Johnson Renee Hollan

2. Oral Language Assessments Brigance Woodcock-Johnson III Idea Proficiency Test (IPT)

3. Birgance Author(s) Albert H. Brigance Date 1998 Publisher Curriculum Associates Cost $150.00

4. Description of the measure Purpose(s) of the measure: Designed for use in elementary and middle schools. It can be a valuable resource in school programs emphasizing individualized instruction. It is also especially helpful in programs serving children with special needs. Type of measure: Criterion-Referenced Content Area (s) assessed: 1) Readiness; 2) Speech; 3) Functional Word Recognition; 4) Oral Reading; 5) Reading Comprehension; 6) Word Analysis; 7) Listening; 8) Writing and Alphabetizing; 9) Numbers and Computation; and 10) Measurement. Student requirements: A.Language: vocabulary B.Presentation mode: verbal and doing C. Group or individual administration: individual and some group. D.Time factors: no time factor Tester requirements *Necessary training: there is no necessary training needed the test uses a direct approach. *Administration time and other time requirements: none noted *Ease of use: step by step guide.

5. Description of measure continued� Test norms or other standards Type of reference: the test is criterion referenced, as well as text-referenced. Age, grade, gender: newborn-middle school, both male and female. Method of selection: this information was not given. representative ness: Standard norm, USA and Canada Size: This assessment battery was standardized on a representative nationwide sample of 1,121 children. Recency of norms: This information was not given. Content domain: All curricular domains are covered. Representative ness of item pool: This information was not given. Completeness of item pool: This information was not given. Appropriateness of tasks: Wide range of task from birth to middle school.

6. More on description of the Brigance�. Reliability Test-retest reliability: Reliability in the lower grades was in the .85 range. Equivalent-form reliability: This information was not given. Internal consistency: This test does have internal consistency. Scorer reliability: A score of 60% or higher at a given grade level indicates that the student will probably be successful at that grade level. Validity Content validity: Based on a survey of teachers and popular textbooks. Criterion-related validity (predictive and or concurrent): The test is concurrent with 6 studies. Construct validity: This test does have construct validity.. Results Types of scores or other results: Inter-rater reliability, alternative forms reliability, and internal consistency measures were all also uniformly high. Standard error of measurement

7. Considerations in nonbiased assessment Is the norm group or other standard of comparison appropriate for the student in terms of race, ethnicity, culture, and gender? Yes I do believe that the comparisons are appropriate for all children. Are test items free from cultural bias? Yes I do believe that the test is free from cultural bias. Is the language of the measure appropriate for the student? Yes, the test comes in different languages. Does the measure bypass the limitations imposed by the disability? Yes, I do believe that this test takes into account the limitations imposed by a disability

8. Conclusion Does the tool fit the purpose of assessment? Yes, I do believe the tool fits the purpose for assessment. Is the tool appropriate for the student? Yes, the tool is appropriate for the student. Is the tool appropriate for the tester? Yes, I do believe that the test gives useful information to the tester about the functioning level of the child. Is the tool technically adequate? Yes I do believe the tool is technically adequate. Is the tool an efficient date-collection mechanism? Yes, I believe the tool is an efficient date-collection mechanism. The test is given in the Fall and Spring of the school year to look at the development and progress the child has made.

9. Woodcock-Johnson III Author(s): Nancy Mather, Richard W. Woodcock, and Nancy Mather Date 2001 Publisher Riverside Publishing Cost $1015.50

10. Description of the measure Purpose(s) of the measure, as stated in the manual: To determine the present status of an individual�s academic strengths and weaknesses. Additionally, test results help determine how certain factors are affecting related aspects of development. Type of measure: oral Content Area (s) assessed: The test contains 22 tests measuring five curricular areas- reading, mathematics, written language, oral language, and academic knowledge, and two auxiliary writing evaluation procedures. Student requirements Language: English and Spanish Presentation mode: All presentation is completed orally Group or individual administration: individual Time factors: 60 to 90 minutes to complete full battery. Less time when just doing oral language. Tester requirements Necessary training: Trained and knowledgeable on assessment. Administration time and other time requirements: Can be scheduled anytime during the day to accommodate individual needs. Breaks during the assessment is recommended to maximize performance. Ease of use: The assessment is easy to administer.

11. More on Woodcock-Johnson III Test norms or other standards Type of reference: norm reference If applicable, characteristics of norm group Age, grade, gender: 24 months-90 years, male and female. Method of selection: The selection of norm group was random. representative ness: Northeast, Midwest, and Southwest. Size: 8,818 Recency of norms: 2001 If applicable description of curricular standards Content domain: Oral language Representative ness of item pool: Northeast, Midwest, and Southwest. Completeness of item pool: White, black, American Indian, Asian and Pacific Islanders Appropriateness of tasks: This depends on what the objective is for the test.

12. More on Woodcock-Johnson III Reliability Test-retest reliability: < 1yr to 10 years. Equivalent-form reliability: This information was not given. Internal consistency: this test does have internal consistency. Scorer reliability: .81-.85 Validity Content validity: This was assessed through specification of a master test and cluster content revision blueprint. Criterion-related validity (predictive and or concurrent) Construct validity: This test did have construct validity. Results Types of scores or other results Standard error of measurement

13. Considerations in nonbiased assessment Is the norm group or other standard of comparison appropriate for the student in terms of race, ethnicity, culture, and gender? Yes, I do believe a big sample of the population was taken into account when looking at the norm group. Are test items free from cultural bias? No I do not believe that any test can be free from cultural bias� Is the language of the measure appropriate for the student? Yes, I do believe the test is appropriate for the student. Does the measure bypass the limitations imposed by the disability? Yes, I do believe that this measure bypasses the limitations imposed by a disability.

14. Conclusion Does the tool fit the purpose of assessment? Yes, the tool fits the purpose for assessment. Is the tool appropriate for the student? Yes, I believe that the tool is appropriate for the student. Is the tool appropriate for the tester? Yes, I believe the tool is appropriate for the tester. Is the tool technically adequate? Yes, I do believe the tool is technically adequate. Is the tool an efficient date-collection mechanism? Yes, I do believe that the tool is an efficient date-collection mechanism.

15. IPT Oral Test Author: B. Amori, E. Dalton, P. Tighe Publisher: Ballard and Tighe Date 2004 Cost: $147.00 in the base case, with add-ons going as high as $247.00

16. Description of the measure Purpose of the measure: They are used for several purposes, including identification, designation, placement, and redesignation of LEP students. The results derived from the IPT Tests can be used to place students in language development programs, including the IDEA language development programs. Ballard & Tighe provides detailed information that shows customers how they can use the results of the IPT to place students in various other instructional programs. However, the primary purpose of the IPT Tests is for LEP student identification, designation, and redesignation, and for overall program planning and evaluation. Type of Measure: The IPT Tests are standardized, norm-referenced tests Content area assessed: Test items are included to test both basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS) and cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP). The oral tests assess vocabulary, comprehension, syntax, and verbal expression. The reading tests assess vocabulary, vocabulary in context, reading for understanding, reading for life skills, and language usage. The writing tests assess student ability to generate writing that reflects common usage and academic grade-level standards.

17. More on description of the IPT Student requirements: The administration procedures for the oral tests require that students be tested individually. In general, the test examiner asks a question or makes a statement that requires a response from the student. The test examiner marks the items correct or incorrect directly in the test booklet based on the student's response. Many of the test items require the use of Test Pictures in order to elicit a response from the student. In some cases, the student is asked to identify a vocabulary word depicted in the picture. In others, the student is asked to point to a particular item. These administration procedures require that students be able to see the pictures, hear the examiner, and point to or say the answer. Administration of the reading tests requires the student to be able to read the questions and mark the appropriate multiple-choice answer. The writing test requires test-takers to be able to read the task and provide several writing samples. Visual handicaps that hinder a student's ability to read the task would render the test unreliable. The IPT Tests are not designed to analyze students' articulatory competence, identify speech impediments, or determine physical hindrances to speech Tester Requirements: It is imperative that the examiner be fluent in the language being tested. With proper training any school personnel can administer the test. The test is easy to administer as well as score with no complicated formulas. It takes about 15-25 minutes to administer the oral test, the reading test can take as long as 60 minutes, and 35 minutes for the writing.

18. More on ITP Test norm and standards: The IPT Tests are standardized, norm-referenced tests. Characteristics of norm group: IPT has a test for ages 3-5 and also one for grades k-12. The groups used for the norming were representative of the population within the norm US and Canada. Both male and female were used. This test was justrenormed, although they did not give a specific date. Reliability: The reliability statistics for test-retest and alternate forms are provided in the Technical Manuals. The coefficients range from .83 to .91, indicating that this interactive test is working reliably. The scoring of the writing samples is guided by rubrics, and Ballard & Tighe provide a training session to familiarize teachers with the procedure. The results of a study on inter-rater agreement are reported in the Technical Manual, and they indicate that exact agreement varies between 79% and 86%. This is within acceptable standards of reliability for open-ended writing items. The procedures described above make the IPT tests standardized to the strictest technical definitions of the term. Validity: All that was found was a statement stating it was in fact valid. Results: This test can be used holistically and to examine the growth of children from year to year. There was a mention that children start at specific spots so that there is no extra unneeded testing involved. This indicated that there is a ceiling and a basal, although I am unaware of what they are.

19. More on ITP One thing that was very interesting was the vast array of correlated tests such as: TESOL�Standards, Assessment Standards for ELLs, as well as state tests from CA, AR, CO, HI, ID, MD, MO, OK, and VA.

20. Considerations in nonbiased assessment Is the norm group or other standard of comparison appropriate for the student in terms of race, ethnicity, culture, and gender? Yes I do believe that the comparisons are appropriate for all children. Are test items free from cultural bias? The test is free from cultural bias. Although I must say that they do not address other languages besides Spanish or English. Is the language of the measure appropriate for the student? If you are testing English or Spanish, then yes; but any other language than no. Does the measure bypass the limitations imposed by the disability? Not really. This assessment, although they claim to make adaptations really is not the best test for specific disabilities such as hearing impaired or visually impaired.

21. Conclusion Does the tool fit the purpose of assessment? This depends on the individual purpose. For the purpose stated with in the test probably so. Is the tool appropriate for the student? Again this depends on the student. It would not be appropriate for a Asian student or a student with specific disabilities. I think this test is weak when it comes to children who have language problems like that of an AU child. Is the tool appropriate for the tester? I think that when used properly in the right setting this information can be very valuable. Is the tool technically adequate? Yes I do believe the tool is technically adequate. Is the tool an efficient date-collection mechanism? One of the things I like about this test is that it is given at two times during the year so that it is easy to see growth not only with a child but with the program. I also like that it can be used from year to year to establish growth on a larger scale.