RESOURCES FOR MEASURING SERVICES AND OUTCOMES IN 

HEAD START PROGRAMS SERVING INFANTS AND TODDLERS 

April 2011 
RESOURCES FOR MEASURING SERVICES AND OUTCOMES IN 

HEAD START PROGRAMS SERVING INFANTS AND TODDLERS 

April 2011 

Prepared by: 

Ellen Eliason Kisker 

Kimberly Boller 

Charlotte Cabili 

Charles Nagatoshi 

Celina Kamler 

Cleopatra Jacobs Johnson 

Yange Xue 

Andrea Mraz Esposito 

Jamila Henderson 

Subuhi Asheer 

Christine Sciarrino 

Vinita Jethwani 

Teresa Zavitsky 

Melissa Ford 

John M. Love 

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 

Prepared for: 

Rachel Chazan Cohen 

Child Outcomes Research and Evaluation 

Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation 

Administration for Children and Families 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 
 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Summary of 2011 Updates 

The purpose of this resource document is to provide information about existing screening and 

assessment instruments designed for use with children under age 3 and their families, as well as 

instruments designed for assessing services provided by programs serving them. It is a living document 

to which information on new instruments is added so that new tools and approaches can be shared. The 

first update to this resource document occurred in 2011. 

The update consists of 29 updated and newly added instruments. In particular, we updated 16 

current profiles of instruments for which the publisher had made newer editions available by the 2010 

selection period. We added 13 instruments that were used in the Early Head Start Family and Child 

Experiences Survey (Baby FACES) and were more widely used among Early Head Start programs in 

recent years. 

Substantive updates are located in Appendix C and Section 3. Appendix C tabulates instrument 

characteristics and provides links to the updated and newly added individual instrument profiles. In 

Section 3, which summarizes the information described for each instrument, we have added text to 

specify how descriptions differ in the new and updated instruments. The main changes to the descriptive 

approach include richer, lengthier descriptions of the instrument. For example: 

•	 The Publisher section of the profile table includes a link to the instrument on the publisher's 

website, when available. 

•	 The instrument Description includes information about the stimuli and manipulatives used to aid 

administration. The Description also documents changes from the previous version of the 

instrument. 

•	 A section was added, Other Languages, to describe translations of the instrument. When available, 

details on the norming sample, reliability, validity, and English language equivalence or 

comparability are provided. 

•	 Content validity was expanded to include information related to literature reviews and factor 

analysis of items. 

•	 A section was added, Bias Analysis, to describe tests for whether instruments perform differently 

among subgroups (e.g., age, race/ethnicity, or spoken language) when differences are not expected. 
 

Abstract 

This document contains resources to help Head Start programs 

that serve pregnant women and families with infants and toddlers 

develop a performance measurement plan and carry out data 

collection that will support their continuous program improvement 

efforts. These performance measures activities should build upon 

existing screening and assessment activities required by the Head Start 

Program Performance Standards. This document discusses the 

importance and development of a comprehensive plan and presents 

profiles of instruments that may be useful to programs. Because we 

anticipate that it will be used under different circumstances for 

different purposes, we present the background information in a book 

format, and the entire document on a compact disk, to enable users to 

search for the sections and measures that apply to them. This format 

will also support the continued evolution of the document, which is 

intended to be a “living” document to which information on new 

instruments can be added, through which new tools and approaches 

can be shared, and in which other resources that individual programs 

find useful can be compiled. These materials will be most useful when 

used in consultation with an assessment expert. 

THE INCLUSION OF AN INSTRUMENT IN THIS RESOURCE 

DOCUMENT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE ENDORSEMENT OF 

THE INSTRUMENT BY THE AUTHORS, MATHEMATICA 

POLICY RESEARCH, OR THE U.S. GOVERNMENT. 
i 

 Table of 

Contents 

1. PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT 1 

2. FORMULATING A PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT PLAN 7 

3. INFORMATION INCLUDED FOR EACH INSTRUMENT 21 

REFERENCES 35 

APPENDIX A: 39 

WORKSHEET TO HELP DEVELOP A COMPREHENSIVE 

PLAN FOR GATHERING & ANALYZING DATA 

APPENDIX B: 43 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES FRAMEWORK FOR HEAD 

START PROGRAMS SERVING INFANTS AND TODDLERS 

APPENDIX C: 51 

LIST OF MEASURES USED IN THE NATIONAL EARLY 

HEAD START RESEARCH AND EVALUATION PROJECT 

PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT 

Section 1 

1 

H ead Start and later Early Head Start, as 

national laboratories for early 

childhood education, have been 

leaders in developing outcomes-oriented 

accountability. It began developing performance 

measures in 1995, partly to respond to the 

Government Performance and Results Act 

(GPRA) requirements. In 1997, the Office of 

Head Start launched the Family and Child 

Experiences Survey (FACES) to collect data on 

child and family outcomes, as well as program 

services and management systems, for a large 

Performance measurement includes data 

collection and aggregation activities that give 

staff members the opportunity to look at how 

their program is doing, that is, to determine 

whether they are providing the services they 

intend to provide and how children and families 

are faring. Program staff can use this 

information in planning for continuous 

program improvement activities, and it can be 

shared with stakeholders such as parents and 

funders. 
 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

nationally representative sample of children and 

families in Head Start programs (Administration 

on Children, Youth and Families 2001b). This 

study links the development of children and 

families with their experiences in Head Start. 

Following the reauthorization of Head Start in 

1998, Head Start programs were required to 

include child outcomes in their self-assessment 

process by 2003. 

In 2007, the Office of Head Start launched 

the Early Head Start Family and Child 

Experiences Survey (Baby FACES) to collect data 

on child and family outcomes, as well as 

program services and management systems, for 

a large nationally representative sample of Early 

Head Start programs and of enrolled newborn 

and 1-year-old children. This study, currently 

underway, links the development of children 

and families with their experiences in Early 

Head Start. Although Early Head Start programs 

have not been required to report child outcomes, 

many have started to try to define and measure 

outcomes, for several reasons. Some programs 

are doing so in conjunction with performance 

measurement in Head Start because they operate 

within Head Start programs. Some are 

responding to other funders’ requirements. 

Finally, some simply want to improve their 

services to families with infants and toddlers. In 

Spring 2001, the Early Head Start Technical 

Work Group recommended that the Office of 

Head Start move forward to develop 

performance measures for Head Start programs 

serving infants and toddlers (Early Head Start 

and Migrant Head Start programs) to support 

programs’ efforts. 

The development of performance measures 

for Head Start programs serving pregnant 

women and families with infants and toddlers 

has two purposes. These are (1) to create 

performance measures sensitive to the 

developmental stages from pregnancy to age 3 

that can be used at both national and local levels 

for learning about child and family experiences 

along with program services and management 

systems; and (2) to provide guidance to local 

programs in defining and measuring outcomes 

and using this information for continuous 

program improvement. 

To fulfill these purposes, the Head Start 

pyramid, representing the Head Start 

performance measures framework, was 

expanded to reflect the unique features of 

programs serving infants and toddlers (see 

Figure 1 and Appendix B). The ultimate goal of 

Head Start programs that serve pregnant women 

and families with infants and toddlers is the 

same as that of Head Start programs that serve 

preschool children—enhancing children’s 

competence. 1 The main outcomes supporting 

this ultimate goal—the blocks in the pyramid— 

have been expanded to reflect the central role of 

1 The Head Start goal, traditionally stated as children’s 

“social competence,” was shortened to “competence” 

because the interpretation of social competence in the Head 

Start pyramid has sometimes been narrower than was 

intended. Competence is the child’s everyday effectiveness 

in dealing with his or her present environment and later 

responsibilities in school and life. 
3 

relationships in supporting attainment of this 

goal in families with younger children (U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services 

[DHHS] 1994). Enhancing children’s growth 

and development, enhancing parent-child 

relationships, and strengthening families as 

primary nurturers of their children are outcomes 

that support the ultimate goal of enhancing 

children’s competence. Supporting these 

outcomes are objectives related to program 

services, including the objectives of providing 

children with individualized services, developing 

relationships with parents and children, and 

linking children and families to needed 

community services. The objective of ensuring 

well-managed programs that meet standards for 

high quality in supporting staff, providing early 

childhood environments, involving parents, and 

developing community partnerships serves as 

the foundation of the pyramid. The pyramid 

rests on the four cornerstones recommended by 

the Advisory Committee on Services for 

Families with Infants and Toddlers—staff 

development, child development, family 

development, and community building (DHHS 

1994). 

 

Figure 1 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR PROGRAMS SERVING INFANTS & TODDLERS 

ENHANCE 

children’s 

competence 

ENHANCE 

parent/child 

relationships 

STRENTHEN 

families 

ENHANCE 

children's growth 

and development 

PROVIDE 

children with 

individualized services 

DEVELOP 

relationships with 

parents and children 

LINK 

children and families 

with community services 

ENSURE well-managed programs that meet standards for high quality as they: 

SUPPORT 

staff 

CREATE 

child development 

environments 

INVOLVE 

parents 

DEVELOP 

strong community 

partners 

STAFF CHILD FAMILY COMMUNITY 

ULTIMATE OUTCOME 

OUTCOMES 

SERVICES 

MANAGEMENT 

SYSTEMS 

CORNERSTONES 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The national Early Head Start 

Research and Evaluation Project 

(EHSREP) studied early program 

implementation and impacts on children and 

families (see Box 1). From this study, we learned 

that each program operates with its own theory 

of change—that is, a theory explaining how the 

services they provide will improve the child and 

family outcomes they are focusing on to meet 

the needs of children and families in their 

community. Although all programs must 

implement all aspects of the pyramid, the ways 

that programs configure their management 

systems and program services (the bottom levels 

of the pyramid) vary widely. The specific child 

and family outcomes they focus on (the upper 

levels of the pyramid) also vary. As the program 

staff learns from continuous program 

improvement activities or as families’ needs 

change, programs’ theories of change may 

evolve. The evaluation showed that in general, 

patterns of program impacts reflected 

differences in theories of change. Home-based 

programs, which emphasized improving 

parenting and the home environment as an 

important path to improved child outcomes, had 

significant favorable impacts on parenting and 

child outcomes. Center-based programs, which 

emphasized direct services to children to 

improve outcomes, had favorable impacts on 

children and fewer significant impacts on 

parenting. The study also showed that programs 

that fully implemented key elements of the Head 

Start Program Performance Standards (elements 

related to all levels of the pyramid) had more 

favorable impacts on a wide range 

of outcomes than programs that 

were incompletely implemented 

(Administration for Children and Families 

2002). 

A theory of change is a belief or set of beliefs 

about how program services and other factors 

produce changes in the desired outcomes. The 

theory of change is the basis for designing and 

implementing program services. It may be 

explicit in program documents or staff 

discussions, or it may be implicit in the decisions 

of program designers and implementers. 

The pyramid provides a framework to help 

programs identify their own theory of change. 

Together, the pyramid and theory of change 

provide guidance for examining links between 

program services and outcomes to inform 

continuous program improvement activities. 

The performance measures framework is general 

and does not identify specific program services 

and outcomes that should be measured. 

Individual programs must identify specific 

services and outcomes based on their own 

theory of change and select appropriate 

instruments to fit their available resources. 

We do not recommend that programs 

collect data related to every element of the 

pyramid (at least to start with). We recommend 

that programs collect data related to each level of 

the pyramid (management systems, services, and 

outcomes), because having such information 

allows staff to link information on program 

characteristics and services with outcomes for 

4 
5 

children and families and to learn about both 

how well children and families are doing and 

how services might be improved to promote 

better outcomes. 

Selecting appropriate measures is an 

important and complex process. This document 

is intended to be a resource for programs 

undertaking this process. It includes both 

screening instruments and assessment 

instruments that may be useful to programs as 

they explore how to approach performance 

measurement. We attempted to identify a wide 

range of instruments and select those likely to be 

most useful to Head Start programs serving 

pregnant women and families with infants and 

toddlers, but there are useful tools that are not 

included in this review. For example, some kinds 

of assessment that are useful for individualizing 

services, such as portfolio assessment, are not 

included (Martin 1999). In addition, new 

measures are constantly emerging, and very 

recent measures may not be found here. Some 

programs may wish to use this resource 

document in consultation with an expert on 

screening and assessment to help them develop a 

plan and select instruments. (For more 

explanation of how we selected instruments for 

this resource document, see page 22.) 

This resource document will be most useful 

to programs if it is used in conjunction with a 

comprehensive plan for performance 

measurement. In the next section, we discuss the 

importance of developing a plan and the 

elements that make up such a plan. In the final 

section, we describe how instruments were 

selected for this resource document, explain the 

information provided for each instrument, and 

present profiles of instruments that may be 

useful to Head Start programs that serve 

pregnant women and families with infants and 

toddlers. 
 

Box 1
 

MAKING A DIFFERENCE IN THE LIVES OF INFANTS AND TODDLERS AND THEIR FAMILIES: THE
 

IMPACTS OF EARLY HEAD START 

A rigorous evaluation of Early Head Start services 

in 17 programs selected from the first groups of 

programs funded showed they had significant favorable 

impacts on a wide range of parent and child outcomes, 

some with implications for children’s later school 

success. Findings from the study (Making a Difference in 

the Lives of Infants and Toddlers and Their Families: The 

Impacts of Early Head Start), using data gathered when 

children were age 3 and had completed the program, 

show that the programs sustained and broadened the 

pattern of impacts reported when children were age 2 

(Building Their Futures: How Early Head Start Programs 

Are Enhancing the Lives of Infants and Toddlers in LowIncome Families, 2001). All Early Head Start evaluation 

reports are available online at 

[http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre]. 

Early Head Start Improved Outcomes. The 

national evaluation conducted by Mathematica Policy 

Research, Inc. and Columbia University’s Center for 

Children and Families at Teachers College, in 

collaboration with the Early Head Start Research 

Consortium, reported that 3-year-old Early Head Start 

children performed significantly better on measures of 

cognitive, language, and social-emotional development 

than a randomly assigned control group. While children 

who participated in Early Head Start performed better 

than their peers who did not receive Early Head Start on 

all aspects of development that were assessed, both 

groups lagged behind 2- and 3-year-old children 

nationally. This may, in part, be due to the fact that 

Early Head Start programs must reserve at least 10 

percent of their slots for children with disabilities, 

including those with developmental delays who score at 

the lower end of the distribution. Parents in Early Head 

Start scored significantly better than control group 

parents on measures of many aspects of the home 

environment and parenting behavior. Furthermore, 

Early Head Start programs enhanced parents’ progress 

toward self-sufficiency years. Early Head Start fathers 

benefited as well. Although the overall impacts of Early 

Head Start were generally modest, the pattern of 

favorable findings across outcomes in a wide range of 

key domains is promising. 

Full Implementation Was Important. The impacts 

on children and parents were consistent with the 

substantial difference the programs made in families’ 

receipt of services. Early Head Start families were 

significantly more likely than control families to receive 

a wide variety of services, but especially to receive 

intensive services, and to receive intensive services that 

focused on child development and parenting. 

Implementing the Head Start Performance 

Standards early and well is important for maximizing 

impacts on children and families. The research 

programs were systematically rated according to the 

extent to which they implemented key elements of the 

Performance Standards. Those that fully implemented 

the standards demonstrated a broader pattern of 

significant impacts than did the programs that did not 

reach full implementation during the evaluation period. 

Patterns of Impacts Were Consistent with 

Theories of Change. Analyses that compared the 

contribution of impacts on parenting when children 

were age 2 to impacts on child outcomes at age 3 in 

programs providing home-based or a mix of home- and 

center-based services generally provided support for the 

theories of change that staff in those programs 

described, with some of the effects of the program on 3

year-old children being associated with the effects on 

parenting when they were age 2. 

6 

­
FORMULATING A PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT PLAN 

Section 2 

7 

T he Head Start Program Performance 

Standards require programs to conduct 

screening and assessment activities and 

emphasize their importance for individualizing 

services and informing continuous program 

improvement. The performance standards allow 

considerable flexibility in how programs meet 

the requirements. In response to the 

requirements in the performance standards, 

Head Start programs serving pregnant women 

and families with infants and toddlers are 

already collecting data. Head Start programs 

serving pregnant women and families with 

infants and toddlers may use screening and 

assessment instruments for different purposes, 

including: 

• To Support Development and Learning. 

Child assessment results can tell caregivers 

and teachers what each child can do and 

what he or she is ready to learn next. Family 

or parent assessment results can help 

program staff identify family or parent 

strengths, needs, and concerns and tailor 

services to the family. Over time, assessment 
 8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

results can demonstrate how each child and 

family is progressing. Assessment results can 

also help staff communicate with family 

members about their children’s needs and 

progress, as well as their own needs and 

progress. This information can help staff 

individualize services and improve them 

over time. 

•	 To Identify Special Needs and Concerns. 

Because of the cost of in-depth assessments, 

screening is usually the first step in 

identifying special needs. Children or 

families for whom an in-depth assessment is 

indicated are often referred to a physician or 

other expert for a complete evaluation. 

Screening results provide the information 

needed for referrals to other agencies, such 

as Part C agencies, to obtain services for 

children with disabilities. 

•	 To Evaluate the Program and Monitor 

Trends. 

For this purpose, child and family screening 

and assessment data may be aggregated and 

used to inform continuous program 

improvement efforts. Program assessment 

data and feedback from Office of Head Start 

monitoring may also be used for this 

purpose. Aggregated screening and 

assessment results can inform staff about 

how well the program is meeting child, 

family, and community needs. 

Screening and assessment results for 

individual children, along with other 

information from parents and caregivers, are 

needed to help staff tailor services for those 

children. When the same instruments are used 

for all children in a program, aggregating data 

across families can provide a picture of how 

children and families in the program are doing 

overall. When this aggregate information on 

child and family outcomes is linked to 

information on services and other program 

characteristics, it can provide insights that are 

useful to staff members in their continuous 

program improvement efforts. Aggregating data 

provides a picture of how children and families 

and the program are doing (that is, it measures 

the program’s performance). Over time, 

aggregated data can be used to track changes in 

child and family functioning, which along with 

information about changes in program services 

or characteristics, can help staff learn about what 

works best for particular types of children and 

families. The aggregated information on how 

children and families in the program are doing 

can also be useful for meeting other funders’ 

reporting requirements. 

Screening. Screening is a generic term 

referring to activities designed to identify 

individuals who have a high probability of 

exhibiting delayed, abnormal, or problematic 

development. The screening is intended to 

identify problems at an early stage and identify 

individuals for whom further, in-depth 

assessment activities are needed. 

Assessment. Assessment is a generic term 

referring to procedures for obtaining systematic 

information on a child’s, parent’s, family’s, or 
9 

program’s strengths or needs. As noted in 

Chapter I, the Head Start Program Performance 

Standards focus on the child and family 

assessment purposes of identifying “(i) the 

child’s unique strengths and needs and the 

services appropriate to meet those needs; and (ii) 

the resources, priorities, and concerns of the 

family and the supports and services necessary 

to enhance the family’s capacity to meet the 

developmental needs of their child.” 

[See the Early Head Start National Resource 

Center’s Technical Assistance Paper # 4 for more 

detail on screening and assessment activities.] 

Performance measurement includes data 

collection and aggregation activities that give 

staff members the opportunity to look at how 

their program is doing, that is, to determine 

whether they are providing the services they 

intend to provide and to learn how children and 

families are faring. Program staff can use this 

information in planning for continuous 

program improvement activities, and it can be 

shared with stakeholders such as parents and 

funders. 

Screening results for individual children and 

families are useful for deciding whether further 

assessment is needed. Screening results can also 

be aggregated to provide information on the 

extent of potential problems in the population 

and the need for in-depth assessments among 

children and families overall. Aggregated 

screening results and information on referrals 

can inform a program as to whether these indepth assessments are happening if the 

program’s tracking system does not provide this 

information. 

Assessment results for individual children 

can be used for planning services; in addition, 

they can often be aggregated to provide broader 

information on child outcomes. Some 

approaches to assessment are valuable for 

individualizing services, but cannot be 

aggregated unless they are translated into 

another form. For example, portfolio assessment 

can be extremely useful for individualizing 

services for children, but unless a systematic way 

of coding the information is developed, the 

results cannot be aggregated. 

Programs face both a great opportunity and 

a significant challenge as they consider 

performance measurement. They have an 

opportunity to select instruments and collect 

data that best meet the needs of their families 

and their program, and they face the challenge of 

figuring out just what those instruments should 

be, how they should be administered, and how 

the information collected using those 

instruments should be analyzed. Meeting that 

challenge effectively requires programs to 

develop a plan that considers the purpose(s) for 

which the data will be used, what data are 

already being collected and additional data that 

need to be collected, and how data will be 

aggregated and analyzed for continuous 

program improvement. Taking the time to 

develop a comprehensive plan will help ensure 

that the program’s resources for the required 

ongoing screening and assessment of individual 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

children and families, as well as the 

new performance measurement and 

data aggregation activities, are used well 

and that the activities are as useful as possible. 

To formulate a comprehensive plan, 

programs need a clear understanding of why 

performance measurement is needed. What 

does the staff need to know to determine 

whether the program is achieving its intended 

outcomes and to individualize or optimize 

services for children and families? What 

information is essential? What, in addition, 

would be good to know? Some questions 

programs might consider to help reach this 

understanding are: 

•	 What are the program’s intended outcomes? 

What is the program trying to accomplish? 

•	 How will the program’s services influence 

these outcomes? What will the program do 

or provide for its families to achieve the 

desired outcomes? 

•	 What information does the program need 

for individual service planning? Is this 

information needed at enrollment? How 

often and at what times during the program 

is this information needed? What 

information is already being collected (such 

as HSFIS data, child and family 

screening/assessments) that can be used for 

this purpose? 

•	 What information does the program need 

for program planning? How often is this 

information needed? What information is 

already being collected (such as 

HSFIS data, PIR data, program selfassessment information) that can be 

used for this purpose? 

•	 How will the program know that staff are 

doing what they think they are doing? 

•	 How will the program know how well 

children and families are progressing? 

•	 Overall, are services implemented well? How 

will the program know services are being 

implemented well? 

•	 Is the program influencing the targeted 

outcomes across all families served? Are 

particular types of families benefiting more 

(or less)? 

•	 What information will help demonstrate to 

funders that the program is effective? 

•	 How will the program use the information 

gathered for program improvement? 

To make performance measurement 

activities as useful as possible, programs need a 

theory of change. This model, or theory of 

change, provides a framework for guiding the 

selection of individual instruments and for 

integrating information obtained from the 

selected instruments and other sources of 

information about a child and family. Such a 

model or theory of change simply specifies 

explicitly what child and family development 

outcomes the program is trying to improve and 

how the program’s services will influence those 

outcomes (comprehensive answers to the first 

two questions in the list above constitute a 

10 
 

theory of change).2 With such a model or theory 

of change, the staff can select instruments that 

will focus on measuring targeted outcomes and 

the key services designed to improve them. The 

program’s theory of change can also guide the 

interpretation of data at both the individual and 

program levels and decisions about what to do 

in response to the information. 

The performance measures pyramid, along 

with a theory of change, provides a framework 

for developing a program-specific 

comprehensive plan for performance 

measurement. We do not recommend that 

programs collect data related to every element of 

the pyramid (at least to start with). We 

recommend that programs collect some 

information related to each level of the pyramid 

(management systems, services, outcomes, and 

the ultimate outcome), because having such 

information allows staff to link information on 

program characteristics and services with 

outcomes for children and families and learn 

about both how well children and families are 

doing and how services might be improved to 

promote better outcomes. All plans should 

include measurement of child outcomes. 

The following example illustrates how the 

performance measures framework and an 

explicit theory of change can help program staff 

develop a comprehensive plan for gathering and 

analyzing information. A program that provides 

home-based services may have a theory of 

change that indicates that it is trying to improve 

child development outcomes indirectly by 

improving parenting and parent-child 

relationships. To accomplish this, it provides 

home visits in which staff members work with 

parents on specific parenting skills. The program 

may emphasize improving children’s language 

development and train home visitors to work 

with parents on activities they can do with their 

child to promote learning and language 

development, such as reading to them regularly 

and providing a home environment that 

supports learning and language development. 

Based on its theory of change and emphasis on 

language development, this program might give 

priority to selecting instruments that measure 

children’s language development (outcome), the 

frequency of parents’ reading to their child 

(outcome), support for language and learning in 

the home environment (outcome), the frequency 

and quality of home visitors’ interactions with 

families focused on children’s language 

development (services), and supervisory 

practices to support home visitors’ interactions 

with families (management system). Ideally, the 

data obtained with these instruments will 

indicate how children’s language development is 

progressing, provide insights into how parents’ 

progress in parenting skills may be promoting 

their children’s language development, 

illuminate how program services may be 

contributing to parents’ progress (and indirectly 

2 For an illustration of the application of the theory-of

change approach to identifying expected outcomes in Early 

Head Start, see the first report on program implementation 

of the national Early Head Start Research and Evaluation 

Project (EHSRE) (ACYF 1999, Chapter II). 

11 

­
 12

 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

to children’s language development), and 

indicate how home visitor supervision is 

supporting home visitors’ activities related to 

language development. The data may also 

provide insights into ways that home visitors’ 

activities with parents can be improved to 

enhance children’s language development 

further. 

A comprehensive plan for gathering and 

using data includes several important elements. 

The following questions indicate important 

elements that a comprehensive plan should 

include: 

•	 Does the plan include clearly stated 

purposes for gathering and using data? 

•	 What instruments will be used to gather 

information for individual service planning 

and aggregate performance measurement? 

•	 With which children or families will each 

instrument be used? 

•	 When and how often will each instrument 

be administered? 

•	 Who will administer each instrument, and 

what training will they receive? 

•	 How will the results of administering each 

instrument be recorded? 

•	 How will the results of each instrument be 

kept confidential? 

•	 How will the results be shared with parents? 

•	 How will results be used to plan services for 

individual children and families? Will they 

be used for referrals to other community 

service providers, such as Part C agencies? 

•	 Will the individual results be aggregated 

across children and families and analyzed 

for program planning? If so, how? 

•	 How will the results feed into continuous 

program improvement? 

•	 How will the results be reported to other 

stakeholders? 

•	 How will the plan be modified as you gain 

experience with it? 

Appendix A contains a worksheet that 

provides one way to summarize some of this 

information and that may be helpful as a 

component of a comprehensive plan. 

In developing a plan that is appropriate 

and feasible for its program, the staff needs to 

consider its priorities among information needs. 

Programs may not have the resources to gather 

and analyze all useful data, and staff members 

may not have experience with aggregating 

results from screening and assessment 

instruments. Although it is important for 

programs to create a comprehensive plan, it may 

be necessary, for guiding program activities, to 

identify priorities that are feasible with current 

resources and staff experience. As staff gain 

more experience with collecting and aggregating 

data, additional elements of the plan can be 

implemented (if resources are available). 

The kinds of resources that should be 

considered in developing and implementing a 

comprehensive plan for gathering and 

analyzing information include staff resources, 

technical resources, and financial resources. 
13 

Staff resources include the time that 

could be devoted to administering 

instruments and analyzing the results, as 

well as activities to build skills and obtain 

training. Technical resources include training 

and technical assistance, consultation, and 

computer hardware and software—as well as 

qualified personnel—to manage and analyze 

data. Financial resources include money to 

purchase needed materials, pay for additional 

training and technical assistance, and purchase 

computer hardware or software. 

In determining measurement priorities, 

programs should consider giving priority to 

instruments that together represent a balance 

across elements of the pyramid for Head Start 

programs serving pregnant women and families 

with infants and toddlers. As noted earlier, 

lower entries in the pyramid (program 

management and services) support the outcomes 

above them. Thus, information on program 

management and services along with 

information on child and family outcomes will 

provide greater insights into ways in which 

program services can be improved to promote 

better outcomes at both the individual and the 

program levels. First priority, however, should 

be given to measuring child outcomes. 

A comprehensive plan for gathering and 

analyzing data will be useful only if the staff is 

willing and able to implement it. In developing 

such a plan, program managers need to build 

support among staff members and prepare them 

to use the selected instruments. Involving key 

staff members who will implement 

the plan in its development may 

promote their “buy-in” to the new 

activities. Involving staff will also help to 

illuminate the questions that the program most 

needs to answer. In addition, providing enough 

training and time to administer the selected 

instruments may also help staff members 

embrace the new activities. Finally, involving 

staff members in interpreting and using the 

results will help them see how they are useful, 

motivate them to administer the instruments 

well, and enable them to help identify needed 

modifications to the plan. 

A key part of the development of a 

comprehensive plan is the selection of specific 

instruments that will be used. The checklist in 

Box 2 lists some questions to help the program 

staff identify instruments that will best meet its 

needs. In addition to these questions for 

considering individual instruments, it is 

important that, together, the selected 

instruments draw on multiple sources of 

information. To be useful for aggregating across 

families, they also need to be administered to all 

children or families (or the group of children or 

families for whom aggregated information is 

needed) in a consistent manner. 

In developing a comprehensive plan, care 

should be taken to prevent misuses of 

instruments. It is not appropriate to select a 

subset of items from an instrument, combine 

items from multiple instruments, or change the 

wording or response categories for items in an 
 14

 

 

 

 

 

 

instrument, because the abbreviated or changed 

instrument may not be reliable or valid. Some 

instruments, however, include official subscales 

or subtests that may be used alone. Only if the 

directions for using an instrument indicate that 

using just a sub-scale or subtest is appropriate 

should staff select and use parts of instruments. 

To prevent misuse, it is also important that staff 

members who will be administering an 

instrument and interpreting the results have 

sufficient knowledge and training to enable 

them to do so accurately and appropriately. Lack 

of knowledge and understanding of an 

instrument can lead to its misuse. 

While implementing a plan for gathering 

and analyzing data, a program may see the 

need for changes to the plan. The instruments 

selected initially may not work well (for 

example, requirements for administering them 

may be too difficult to meet or scoring may be 

too difficult), and different instruments may 

meet program needs better. The staff may also 

find that instruments selected initially do not 

provide all the information needed and that 

alternative or additional instruments may better 

meet the program’s needs. 

The development and implementation of a 

plan for gathering and analyzing data takes 

time. Figure 2 illustrates the development of a 

continuous improvement model in the Clayton 

Family Futures program in Denver, Colorado. It 

summarizes the steps that the program has taken 

to develop its model, the resources required, the 

timeframe for each step, and the implications of 

each step for the program. Over time, the 

program’s continuous improvement activities 

have grown as the staff has experienced the value 

of the information and asked more questions 

about program services and how children and 

families are doing. 

A plan for measuring outcomes can also be 

implemented at a broader level. Box 3 illustrates 

a statewide plan for collecting and analyzing 

data on a common set of performance measures. 

State Early Head Start Programs in Kansas have 

agreed to collect data on a common set of 

measures to support outcomes-based 

community planning. 
Box 2 

CHECKLIST TO HELP IDENTIFY APPROPRIATE SCREENING AND ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS 

Below are elements of screening and assessment instruments and their use that contribute to their usefulness for 

Head Start programs serving pregnant women and families with infants and toddlers. For each instrument under 

consideration, check the box beside each element that applies. The more boxes that are checked, the better is the 

match between the program’s needs and the instrument. 

Instruments 

The instrument measures what the program 

wants to know. 

The instrument was designed for the 

purpose for which it will be used. 

The instrument is appropriate for the 

cultural backgrounds of children/families 

who will be assessed. 

The reliability and validity of the instrument 

are sufficiently high for the purposes for 

which it will be used. 

Sufficient resources are available to obtain 

and use the instrument. 

It is feasible to administer the instrument 

according to the instrument developer’s 

directions. 

The instrument facilitates sharing 

information about children (or families) 

with staff and parents. 

Staff members who will administer the 

instrument have (or will receive) the training 

needed to administer and score the 

instrument correctly. 

The instrument is appropriate for children 

with disabilities (or their parents). 

It is feasible to administer the instrument in 

settings children (or families) are 

comfortable with. 

15 
 16

Figure 2 THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT MODEL 

CLAYTON FAMILY FUTURES EARLY HEAD START PROGRAM 

Frequently Asked 

Questions 

Will what works in one 

program system work in other 

areas? 

Ex. The system for providing 

Diet and Nutrition screenings 

was identified as very efficient. 

Could we apply this system to 

other program areas needing a 

similar process? 

What actions can we take in 

areas that are not reaching the 

benchmarks established? 

Several internal actions were 

taken to address the challenges 

in providing dental screenings. 

However, they did not 

produce the desired outcomes. 

In response, the health team 

created a strong community 

collaboration with the School 

of Dentistry that was 

extremely effective in 

connecting children to dental 

services. 

Developed by Chris 

Sciarrino, The Clayton 

Foundation, Denver, 

Colorado 

Consultation by Charmaine 

Lewis, Clayton Family 

Futures Early Head Start, 

Denver, Colorado 

Step One: Setting up tracking systems and monthly reporting formats for a limited number of outcomes (a 

good starting point is to ask, “Are we meeting the Performance Standards in all areas?”) 

Actions Resources Time 

Frame Program Implications 

• Identify what you want 

information about 

• Identify what is currently being 

tracked in those areas 

• Identify the data tracking forms 

that exist and/or that need to be 

created 

• Set up databases to support the 

collection of the information 

• Set up monthly summary 

reporting formats and ongoing 

deadlines for the report 

distribution 

• Analyze the budget— 

begin to allocate funds 

for supporting 

continuous 

improvement 

implementation (start 

small) 

• Designate existing 

and/or new staff to 

carry out the actions 

2-3 months • Questions about the 

link between reports 

and job performance 

• Training for 

supervisors to 

effectively utilize the 

reporting in 

supervision 

• Creation of meaningful 

dialogue about barriers 

encountered by staff in 

delivering quality 

services 

Step Two: Beginning to use inquiry and analysis as a method of self -evaluation, reflection, and program 

improvement 

Actions Resources Time 

Frame Program Implications 

• Disseminating summary reports 

to appropriate staff 

• Program leadership leads the 

way for team analysis by 

working with the creator of the 

reports to identify trends, issues, 

and strengths. 

• Monthly team analysis meetings 

are established with key staff 

responsible for supervision of 

program implementation areas. 

• Action plans are created with 

time lines to address identified 

areas of need and how reports 

will be used in supervision 

• Establishment of benchmarks 

for every outcome area 

• This model utilized 1 

FTE for supporting the 

development and 

ongoing 

implementation of the 

design 

• One formal meeting 

for the director to 

discuss the reports 

with the creator of the 

reports was established 

• A monthly 

administrative team 

meeting focused on 

analyzing the reports 

was established 

• Several informal 

discussions regarding 

implementation, 

analysis, and 

supervision strategies 

were needed to modify 

and adapt the 

approach 

1 year • Working with 

program coordinators 

to see reports as 

objective and 

representative of what 

families and children 

are receiving versus 

“what I have not 

done.” 

• Beginning to use a 

reflective process to 

create change 

• Ability to use tangible 

evidence is an 

opportunity to 

acknowledge and 

address needs 

• Creating pride in 

accomplishment of 

benchmarks 
17 

Figure 2 

Frequently Asked 

Questions 

Is it all about the numbers? 

Staff struggled with putting 

quality into numbers. 

Herein lies one of the basic 

challenges of the 

approach—how is it done 

so it is not seen as an 

either/or paradigm, either 

quality or accountability? It 

is a tendency to see these as 

opposing views. It is our 

belief that these are not 

separate concepts. Being 

able to provide consistent 

services (accountability) is 

basic to the quality and 

integrity of the program. It 

is the analysis of the data 

and how leadership is able 

to interpret its impact on 

quality that brings the 

process to life. 

Developed by Chris 

Sciarrino, The Clayton 

Foundation, Denver, 

Colorado 

Consultation by 

Charmaine Lewis, Clayton 

Family Futures Early Head 

Start, Denver, Colorado 

Step Three: Using Continuous Improvement data for program planning and communication with 

stakeholders 

Actions Resources Time 

Frame Program Implications 

• Utilize reports to draw 

conclusions and ask 

questions about the EHS 

experience for children and 

families. Link this 

information to reflective 

supervision with staff. 

• Reports collected over time 

are compared to 

demonstrate trends, 

highlight issues, program 

strengths and needs 

• Information is used in 

conjunction with yearly 

self-assessment and 

community needs 

assessment for program 

planning 

• Reports continue to be 

refined as adaptations 

needed present themselves. 

 Reports are summarized 

quarterly for 

dissemination to 

stakeholders 

• Meeting time 

• Staff commitment to a set of 

clearly articulated and shared 

values- 

 Quality-commitment to 

striving for excellence; 

doing the best possible job 

working toward a common 

vision 

 Accountabilitycommitment to a set of 

clear, well defined and high 

standards (i.e., performance

standards); demonstrating 

through action our ability 

to meet those standards 

 Openness and 

collaboration-commitment 

to and examination of 

diverse perspectives and 

engaging in group processes

and partnerships that help 

determine the path to high 

quality programs 

 Reflection- commitment to 

reviewing and dialoguing 

about current practices 

along with an acceptance of 

one’s personal 

responsibility in achieving 

high quality 

 Self-growth-dedication to 

each individual’s growth 

 Follow throughcommitment to making 

happen what is planned, 

expected, and desired 

ongoing • As coordinators 

become invested in 

and comfortable with 

the reports, they begin 

meeting together to 

ensure integration of 

Continuous 

Improvement efforts 

and to identify barriers 

to quality 

implementation of 

services. 

• Analyses discussions 

became more complex 

as staff began to ask 

more questions. 

• Having aggregated 

data readily available 

on a monthly basis 

allows for staff to easily 

answer 1.)Are we 

doing what we say we 

are doing? 2.) Are we 

accomplishing the 

outcomes we want to 

accomplish? 

• Creating a meaningful 

dialogue and sharing 

of outcomes 

information with 

governing boards, 

policy council, parents. 

Readily available 

outcome data allows 

for timely and accurate 

reports to funders 

Comments from staff: 

“Having information about outcomes reported to me has really helped me plan for my whole class and individual children.” 

“At first it felt vulnerable and scary that my job was out there in numbers, but now I realize how helpful it is to know just what is happening and 

how the reports help me to offer better services.” 

“We know we are ’walking our talk’.” 

“Rather than responding to a checklist for someone else, we are using the information with staff and for planning.” 
 

Box 3
 

AN EXAMPLE OF A STATEWIDE APPROACH TO MEASURING OUTCOMES FOR EARLY HEAD 

START 

Efforts to measure and report outcomes can be 

implemented at broader levels. In Kansas, for 

example, state Early Head Start programs developed 

and agreed to collect data on a core set of outcomes 

as part of a statewide system for assessing services for 

children and families. This system, called Connect 

Kansas, supports outcome-based community 

planning and community capacity building to create 

and sustain environments in which all Kansas 

children are safe, connected, nurtured, and supported 

by caring and involved adults and communities. 

Outcomes for Early Head Start programs were 

developed through four focus group discussions. 

These focus groups included a wide range of 

stakeholders, state administrators, federal 

Administration for Children and Families Region VII 

staff, Head Start Quality Improvement Center staff, 

Early Head Start directors, and parents. 

The following core outcomes will be measured 

consistently by 13 state Early Head Start grantees in 

32 counties. Families must be enrolled in Early Head 

Start for a minimum of 6 months to be included in 

outcomes measures. 

Outcome 1: Pregnant women and newborns thrive. 

___% of pregnant women who receive prenatal care 

within the first 45 days of enrollment 

___% of new mothers who deliver an infant weighing 

5.5 pounds or greater 

Outcome 2: Infants and children thrive. 

___% of teachers working on or having a minimum 

Child Development Associate (CDA) certificate 

Show Breakdown: 

___ are working on a CDA (any stage but not yet 

credentialed) 

___ have acquired a CDA 

___ have an AA/AS in ECE or related field 

___ have a BA/BS in ECE or related field 

___ have a MA/MS in ECE or related field 

___ have other degree, specify 

___ % of Early Head Start learning environments 

with a score of 5 or higher using the Thelma 

Harms Rating Scale (measured at entry, 6 

months, 1 year, and every year thereafter. Data 

should be taken from the last score.) 

___ % of Early Head Start children who are up-to

date on immunizations 

___ % of Early Head Start children who are up-to

date on well child checks/Kan Be Healthy 

Outcome 3: Children live in stable and supported 

families 

___ % of parents who demonstrate improved 

parenting skills (measured by the Parents as 

Teachers Parent Knowledge Questionnaire upon 

entry, 6 months, 1 year, and every year 

thereafter) 

___ % of enrolled families with one or more parents 

employed, enrolled in school, or attending a job 

training program 9 out of 12 months enrolled in 

Early Head Start Show Breakdown: 

___ less than 30 hours of employment 

___ greater than or equal to 30 hours of 

employment 

___ enrolled in school (part time or full time) 

___ attending a job training program 

___ % of families who have a supportive home 

environment for their child with a variety of 

learning experiences and materials (measured by 

the HOME upon entry, 6 months, 1 year, and 

every year thereafter. Data would be taken from 

the last score, middle half or higher. Data will not 

be collected on first time pregnant women until 

after the birth of the baby.) 

18 

­

­
19 

Box 3 

Outcome 4: Children enter school ready to learn. 

___ % of children without a diagnosed disability who 

demonstrate age-appropriate development in the 

three domains of: Intellectual, Social-Emotional, 

and Motor Skills (measured by the Parents as 

Teachers Developmental Milestone Checklist) 

___ % of children who demonstrate age-appropriate 

language (as measured by the Early 

Communication Indicator, Juniper Gardens) 

Other data needed for collection purposes only: 

1. Total # of children enrolled in EHS who are 

receiving child care services. 

2. Total # of non EHS children receiving quality 

child care services in EHS child care 

partnerships. 

3. 3% of children identified through screening for 

further intervention services. 

4. % of children with an IFSP, Individual Family 

Service Plan or IEP, Individual Education Plan, 

in place (IFSP/IEP denotes special services). 

For additional information contact: 

Carrie Hastings 

Acting Services & Access Manager 

Docking State Office Building 

915 SW Harrison 

Suite 580-W 

Topeka, KS 66612 

carrie.hastings@srs.ks.gov 

Karen Beckerman 

Assistant Director, Benefits & Services 

Docking State Office Building 

915 SW Harrison 

Suite 580-W 

Topeka, KS 66612 

karen.beckerman@srs.ks.gov 

Clarence Small 

Administration for Children and Families 

601 E. 12th Street, Room 276 

Kansas City, Missouri 64106 

816-426-3981 
 20
INFORMATION INCLUDED FOR EACH INSTRUMENT 

Section 3 

21 

T he purpose of this resource do is 

t

cument

o provide information, in one place, 

about existing screening and assessment 

instruments designed for use with children 

under age 3 and their families, as well as 

instruments designed for assessing services 

provided by programs serving them. Thus, we 

cast a broad net and include a wide range of 

screening and assessment tools of potential use 

to programs. Many of the instruments described 

are established instruments that yield a standard 

score that places the child’s performance in the 

context of other children of the same age. We 

also include some data collection tools that may 

be useful, such as implementation rating scales 

and questionnaires that include questions on 

family practices, health, and health care receipt 

from the national Early Head Start Research and 

Evaluation Project (EHSREP). 

We did not set strict inclusion criteria, but 

tried to provide information on a range of 

features for each instrument so programs can 

make informed decisions in selecting 

instruments. Each program must determine the 
 22

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

purposes for considering a particular instrument 

and evaluate how well the instrument fulfills 

those purposes. 

In general, because of their limited 

applicability for programs serving infants and 

toddlers, we did not include measures for which 

the lowest appropriate age for administration 

was older than 2 years. We made an exception 

for certain instruments, such as the Woodcock 

Johnson III and Peabody Picture Vocabulary 

Test, that Head Start programs sometimes use 

and that may be helpful for continuity when 

children go on to Head Start. 

We consulted multiple sources of 

information to identify instruments for 

inclusion in this resource document. For the 

2003 report, we looked at the National Early 

Head Start Research and Evaluation Project 

(EHSREP) to identify instruments used by the 

national and local research teams and 

instruments that research programs used. We 

held group discussions with Early Head Start 

program staff at the 2002 Birth to Three Institute 

to learn about screening and assessment tools 

they are using in their programs. Information 

was provided about screening and assessment 

tools that Early Head Start programs are 

currently using. We consulted with researchers 

and technical assistance experts. Finally, we 

conducted a literature review to identify 

instruments that are used widely and have been 

developed and/or normed within the past 15 

years, or after 1987. For the 2011 report, we 

updated current profiles of instruments if the 

publisher had made newer editions available by 

April 2010. We also added instruments that were 

used in the Early Head Start Family and Child 

Experiences Survey (Baby FACES) and were 

more widely used among Early Head Start 

programs in recent years. We developed a list of 

39 instruments, ranked them as high and lower 

priority, and gathered feedback from Baby 

FACES researchers and technical assistance 

experts to determine whether additional 

instruments should be considered or if currently 

listed instruments should be omitted. This 

process resulted in the selection of 29 measures 

(16 profiles from the 2003 report for updating; 

13 new measures requiring development of a 

profile). 

The instruments included in this document 

were developed for a variety purposes and by 

individuals from different disciplines. Thus, you 

may find that some instrument names are overly 

technical or offensive. In these cases, you may 

want to present the instruments to parents using 

a less technical name that describes what the 

instrument measures in terms that parents will 

understand. For example, you might want to 

refer to the Parent-Child Conflict Tactics Scale 

as a questionnaire on discipline and responses to 

children’s behavior. 

The screening and assessment instruments 

in this resource document are presented in three 

groups: (1) instruments for measuring child 

development; (2) instruments for measuring 

parenting, the home environment, and parent 

well-being; and (3) instruments for measuring 
 

program implementation and quality. Within 

each group, instruments are in alphabetical 

order. Summary tables listing the instruments 

are presented at the beginning of each group of 

instruments.3 This resource document is 

intended to be a living document that will be 

updated as new screening and assessment 

instruments are identified or become available. 

The first update to this resource document 

occurred in 2011. 

We gathered information about each 

instrument from different sources, depending on 

the type of instrument. For the more formal, 

copyrighted instruments, we relied primarily on 

the manuals or Web-based information available 

from the authors or their publishers. If we found 

a key research article about a formal instrument, 

we also reviewed it and included the pertinent 

information. For the more experimental, less 

formal instruments, we reviewed the instrument 

itself and the supporting material we were able 

to locate, such as research reports and published 

articles, reviews conducted by others, and 

personal communications with authors of the 

instruments. For some instruments, information 

included in the 2011 update is drawn from 

findings from the Baby FACES study. These are 

instruments that are more exploratory or that 

have not been used widely in research or in Early 

Head Start programs. Each entry includes a 

3 THE INCLUSION OF AN INSTRUMENT IN THIS 

RESOURCE DOCUMENT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE 

ENDORSEMENT OF THE INSTRUMENT BY THE 

AUTHORS, MATHEMATICA POLICY RESEARCH, OR 

THE U.S. GOVERNMENT. 

reference section that identifies the sources of 

information we used. 

Many of these instruments are grounded in 

developmental theory and research. Developers 

of standardized tests for children usually begin 

with their theory of how abilities develop and 

identify areas to be assessed. Then they create 

items to measure the identified areas and try 

them with children to determine whether the 

items discriminate among children by age. After 

a core set of items is identified, test developers 

often launch a large, nationally representative 

study to test the items and obtain statistical 

information about how the study participants 

performed on each item. From the study 

findings, the test developers determine the best 

set of items, develop rules about where to begin 

and end the test, and decide on procedures for 

converting raw scores (based on summing the 

number of items answered correctly or on the 

average rating across items on a rating scale) to 

norm-referenced scores. The norm-referenced 

scores take advantage of the nationally 

representative study and allow comparisons 

between how an individual child performed on 

the test and how children of the same age in the 

study performed. The nationally representative 

study also provides information about how the 

instrument works with diverse and low-income 

populations. 

Other types of research also provide 

important information about a screening or 

assessment instrument. Studies that use a new 

instrument in conjunction with established 

23 
 24

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

instruments that measure the same ability or 

skill provide information about whether the new 

instrument measures what it was intended to 

measure. Other studies compare how well the 

new instrument predicts children’s performance 

in a given skill area many years later. Because 

they take a long time to conduct, these studies 

are not available for very new instruments, but 

they can be valuable in evaluating an instrument 

administered when children are young. 

No screening or assessment instrument 

performs perfectly across all the dimensions 

practitioners and researchers believe are 

important (such as the statistical properties of 

the instrument or how easily the resulting 

information feeds back into individualized 

intervention planning) and for all the purposes 

for which the instrument may be used. We 

encourage you to weigh the information 

described for each instrument according to your 

program’s theory of change, your 

comprehensive plan for gathering and analyzing 

data, and the purposes for which you will use the 

information. Consultation with an expert may 

help you sort through this information and 

select screening and assessment instruments. 

The language that describes screening and 

assessment instruments is filled with jargon. Box 

4 defines the key terms used in this document. 

The rest of this chapter includes a summary 

of what you will find described for each 

instrument included in Appendix C of this 

resource document. Each entry includes a 

summary table and a more detailed description 

of the topics we identified as most useful for 

making comparisons across instruments. Note, 

profiles of instruments updated and added in 

2011 tend to be longer and include more 

descriptive information than the 2003 profiles. 

Each updated and new profile followed the 

descriptive guidelines below; however, for all but 

the Other Languages section we did not specify 

if information was not available. The topics in 

the summary table include: 

•	 Authors, Publisher, Ordering, and Initial 

Material Cost Information. This 

information will allow you to obtain the 

instruments. Instruments updated and 

added in 2011 include a link to the 

publisher's website and the instrument itself 

when available. Some publishers will provide 

an inspection copy of the materials for a 

short period of time at no charge. Some 

publishers require that only trained 

psychologists or other assessment 

professionals purchase and use the 

materials, because the content of the 

instruments must be kept confidential and 

the instruments must be administered and 

used in accordance with professional 

guidelines. We list the cost for the initial 

materials required to use the instruments. 

For some copyrighted materials, you will be 

required to purchase a score sheet for each 

screening or assessment you conduct. You 

may be able to negotiate with the publisher 

for a reduced price if you are buying in bulk. 
25 

Box 4 

BRIEF DEFINITIONS OF KEY TERMS 

Assessment. Assessment is a generic term referring to a 

variety of procedures for obtaining systematic information 

on a child’s, parent’s, family’s, or program’s strengths or 

needs. As noted in Chapter I, the Head Start Program 

Performance Standards focus on the child and family 

assessment purposes of identifying “(i) the child’s unique 

strengths and needs and the services appropriate to meet 

those needs; and (ii) the resources, priorities, and concerns 

of the family and the supports and services necessary to 

enhance the family’s capacity to meet the developmental 

needs of their child.” These two major purposes of 

assessment are sometimes described as providing 

information for individual diagnosis and program planning.

The purposes of a diagnostic assessment are to (1) identify 

whether an individual has special needs, (2) determine what

the problems are, (3) suggest the cause of the problems, 

and/or (4) propose strategies to address the problems 

(Meisels and Provence 1992). The purposes of an 

assessment for program planning are to (1) learn about an 

individual’s ability to perform particular tasks or achieve 

mastery of particular skills, and (2) design intervention 

activities for the individual that support the completion of 

tasks and mastery of skills over time. Depending on the 

purpose of the assessment process, it may include normreferenced tests; observations in the home, child care, early 

intervention, program, or school setting; interviews with 

family members, child care providers, or others who may 

provide important information about the individual; and 

ratings by adults knowledgeable about the child (including a

parent, caregiver, or teacher) (Sattler 1992). The 

performance standards also require programs to conduct an

“assessment of community strengths, needs, and resources,”

as well as an annual program self-assessment of 

“effectiveness and progress in meeting program goals and 

objectives and in implementing federal regulations.” 

Screening. Screening is made up of a set of activities 

designed to identify individuals who have a high probability

of exhibiting delayed, abnormal, or problematic 

development. The screening is intended to identify 

problems at an early stage and to use this information to 

flag individuals for further, in-depth assessment activities. 

Basal. A basal is established on a standardized test when 

the individual demonstrates that he or she successfully 

completes the first few items administered. On most 

standardized tests, the tester begins administering the 

items based on how old the individual is, starting later if 

the individual is older. If the individual passes the number 

of items specified in the test manual for establishing a 

basal, the tester is able to assume that the individual 

would have gotten all of the previous items correct and 

adds in the number of untested items to the correctly 

passed items administered to the individual. If the 

individual does not pass the specified number of items, 

the tester would administer earlier items until the 

prescribed number of items are passed or the tester 

reaches the start of the test. Using a basal rule saves time 

during the testing session and reduces fatigue. 

Ceiling. A ceiling is established on a standardized test 

when the individual demonstrates that he or she fails a 

few of the later items administered. On most standardized 

tests, the tester continues administering the items until a 

certain number (either in a row or a proportion, such as 

six out of eight in a row) are failed. If the individual fails 

the number of items specified in the test manual for 

establishing a ceiling, the tester ends the test and is able to 

assume that all later test items would be failed by that 

individual as well. This saves time during the testing 

session and reduces fatigue. 

Criterion-Referenced Test. This type of test compares an 

individual’s performance to an established measure of 

performance rather than to the performance of others. 

Criterion-referenced tests will usually include a measure 

of mastery, or how well a child is able to complete a task. 

For example, if a test required that a child identify all of 

the letters of the alphabet, that would be a criterionreferenced test. We would be able to describe the child’s 

mastery of the test by using statements such as, “The child 

is able to identify 80 percent of the letters in the alphabet.” 

Norm-Referenced Test. This type of test compares an 

individual’s performance to the performance of others on 

the same measure. Usually, the norms are developed from 

data collected from a large, nationally representative 

group of individuals. 
26 

Box 4 

BRIEF DEFINITIONS OF KEY TERMS (CONTINUED)

Reliability. Indicators of reliability tell how dependable an 

assessment or screening tool is for the purpose it is used. 

Reliable tools are stable over time and include items that 

measure the same thing in different ways. For tools that 

require standardized observation (for example, child care 

quality observations or ratings of children’s behavior), the 

scores obtained by two different, well-trained observers 

must be similar to be considered reliable. Statistical 

measures of reliability are typically reported as correlation 

coefficients, which range from 0 to 1.0, with a higher value 

reflecting greater reliability. Many researchers and test 

developers require that assessment and screening tools have 

reliability values of 0.7 or higher. For our summary 

descriptors, we adopted a criterion of 0.65, which reflects a 

rule of thumb commonly used in the field.

3 Typical 

indicators of reliability include measures of consistency of 

results and stability over time: 

• Internal consistency. If the individual items in an 

instrument tool measure the same thing (for example, 

they all assess motor ability or language development), 

the measure is considered to be internally consistent. 

One measure of internal consistency is split-half 

reliability. To demonstrate this, test developers and 

researchers test a group of individuals, then split the 

test items in half, usually by grouping the odd- and 

even-numbered items. If the two groupings of the test 

items are highly correlated with each other, the splithalf reliability is considered to be acceptable. Another 

measure of internal consistency reliability is based on 

the correlations among all of the individual test items. 

This index of internal consistency is called Cronbach’s 

alpha (named after the researcher who developed the 

statistical formula) 

Stability. By this measure, an assessment is reliable to the 

extent the procedure yields the same result on two different 

occasions. Test-retest reliability involves testing the same 

group of individuals at least twice, with a relatively short 

interval between assessments, usually no longer than a few 

days or weeks apart. The higher the test-retest reliability, 

the more stable the assessment tool is considered to be. 

Longer periods between administrations of the same 

assessment will reduce the reliability, partly because the 

individual’s situation (for example, skill) can be expected to 

change. Some assessment tools have two versions of the 

same test so that the same skills or behaviors can be 

assessed a second or third time (as in a pre-post or 

longitudinal study). In such cases, test developers include 

information on alternate form reliability. To demonstrate 

that both forms of the test are essentially equivalent, a 

random half of a large group of individuals is given one 

form of the test and the other half is given the other form. 

Alternate form reliability is demonstrated if the scores of 

the two groups are highly correlated. 

Reliability of administration. Another reliability 

consideration applies to assessment tools that require an 

observer to score a child’s or parent’s behavior or 

complete a rating or checklist describing the behavior 

observed. To use such assessments in evaluation, 

researchers and test developers want to be sure that these 

ratings can be made consistently. One index of 

consistency is the extent to which two trained observers 

obtain the same scores when they do their observations at 

the same time, although independently. This index is 

referred to as inter-rater reliability. It is usually reported 

either as the correlation between the scores or ratings 

obtained by the two observers or as the percentage of 

items on which the two agree. 

Representativeness of Norming Sample. Standardized 

screening and assessment tools provide information about 

how the children and parents in your program are doing 

compared to the group (or sample) of individuals the test 

developers or researchers included in their norming 

group. Knowing whether the norming sample was 

nationally representative or representative of the children 

or parents in your program is important in deciding 

whether to use a screening or assessment tool. Most test 

authors include this information in their manuals. In 

general, it is better if the norming sample includes 

individuals of the same age group that you will be 

assessing, as well as geographic and racial/ethnic diversity, 

so that the assessment results will be relevant to the 

families in your program. 
27 

Box 4 

BRIEF DEFINITIONS OF KEY TERMS (CONTINUED)

Validity. Indicators of a screening or assessment tool’s 

validity provide information about whether the tool 

measures what it is supposed to for the purpose it is 

being used. Several types of validity are commonly 

used: 

• Content validity. This indicator of validity 

provides information about whether the screening 

or assessment tool includes items that are a good 

representation of the area the tool is supposed to 

measure. There are no statistics associated with 

content validity. Instead, it is based on professional 

judgment from reviews of the items to verify that 

what they are measuring represents the domain of 

development that the developer intended them to 

measure and that they provide variety and a range 

of difficulty. A good manual will include a 

description of the procedures followed in ensuring 

that the content is appropriate and representative. 

• Criterion-related validity. Criterion-related 

validity indicates how well performance on the 

screening or assessment tool compares with a 

criterion, or an independent measure of what the 

assessment is designed to predict. The criterion 

measure can be obtained at about the same time or 

after some interval: 

– To establish concurrent validity, test 

developers and researchers administer the new 

screening or assessment tool as well as a 

similar, established tool to the same 

individuals within a few hours or days. If the 

correlation between the two measures is high, 

concurrent validity is established. Strict 

interpretations require concurrent validity to 

reach levels of .70 or higher, but as a rule of 

thumb, many researchers accept .50 or higher 

as acceptable.3 Sometimes concurrent validity 

is expressed in terms of percent agreement 

between the two measures. In this 

compendium, we consider 80 percent 

agreement or higher as acceptable. 

To establish predictive validity, researchers 

and test developers determine whether the 

screening or assessment tool conducted at one 

time point with a group of individuals is 

correlated with later functioning (these studies 

are often conducted over two to five years or 

more). If the correlation between the two 

measures obtained across the time interval is 

high, predictive validity is established. If, for 

example, a measure of vocabulary at age 3 is 

highly correlated with a test of reading ability 

in second grade, the vocabulary test could be 

said to have predictive validity. In some cases, 

researchers use other activities or events as the 

criterion, rather than another assessment. For 

example, predictive validity might be 

established by correlating age 3 vocabulary 

with children’s second-grade language report 

card grades. In general, the younger the child 

being assessed, the poorer the predictive 

validity. There is a long history of poor 

predictive validity among infant tests, with 

almost none meeting high levels of validity, 

such as .80. Researchers have advanced many 

explanations for this, including the important 

contributions of the different environments to 

which children are exposed. Because we know 

the predictive validity of infant and toddler 

assessment tools is low, in this compendium, 

we consider a correlation of .40 to be adequate 

for establishing predictive validity. 

–
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 28

Box 4
 BRIEF DEFINITIONS OF KEY TERMS (CONTINUED)

Scoring.

1 Alone, the scores from screening and assessment 

instruments (raw scores) have limited value. It is only when 

they are compared against a similar group (or norming 

sample) of children with known characteristics that a child’s 

score becomes meaningful. Because of this, instrument 

developers often provide the user with tables for converting 

raw scores into scores that are normed to a comparison 

sample. Below are some of the more frequently used 

normative scores: 

•	 Percentile rank. The percentile rank indicates a score’s 

relative ranking, in units 0 to 100, to other scores in the 

norming sample. A child whose score is at the 65th 

percentile has scored higher than 65 percent of the 

children in the norming sample. However, percentiles 

are not easily comparable to each other because the raw 

score difference between percentiles will vary 

depending on the percentiles’ location. The raw score 

differences between percentiles at the extreme ends of 

the percentile distribution are larger than raw score 

differences in the middle of the percentile distribution. 

•	 Stanine score. Like percentile ranks, stanine scores 

provide information on children’s performance relative 

to children in the norming sample, but without the 

restriction on comparing scores. Stanines divide the 

normal curve into nine intervals, with the lowest scores 

falling into the first stanine, the highest scores falling 

into the ninth stanine, and the fifth stanine straddling 

the midpoint of the distribution. Except for the two 

extreme stanines (the first and the ninth), each stanine 

is one-half of a standard deviation unit, and equal 

differences between two pairs of stanines represent 

equal differences in performance. A disadvantage of 

stanine scores is that they magnify small differences 

between raw scores that fall on either side of a point 

separating adjacent stanines. 

• Standardized score. Standardized scores express the 

difference between a raw score and the mean score in 

standard deviation units.2 Standard scores have the 

properties of the normal curve and maintain the 

absolute differences between the raw scores. Thus, 

the difference in performance between standard 

scores of 85 and 90 is the same as the difference 

between standard scores of 55 and 60. Three types of 

standard scores are often used: T-scores, quotients, 

and normal curve equivalents (NCEs). T-scores have 

a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10, while 

quotients have a mean of 100 and a standard 

deviation of 15, and NCEs have a mean of 50 and a 

standard deviation of 21.06. Most tests of cognitive 

abilities have a mean of 100 and a standard deviation 

of 15. For most standardized tests, we consider scores 

within 30 points of the mean (from 70 to 130) to be in 

the “normal” range. 

– Age-equivalent scores. An age-equivalent score is 

the average raw score of children at that age in 

the norming sample. The age-equivalent score 

corresponding to a child’s raw score provides 

information on the child’s level of performance 

in terms of the age at which that level of 

performance could be expected, based on the 

performance of children in the norming sample. 

– Sensitivity is a measure of an instrument’s ability 

to correctly identify persons with the disorder as 

having the disorder. 

– Specificity is a measure of an instrument’s ability 

to identify persons who do not have the disorder 

as not having the disorder. 

1 This discussion is important for interpreting scores from standardized instruments. Scores from other instruments can also be interpreted meaningfully if 

you can compare the performance of children or parents across two points in time (such as comparing scores at the beginning and end of their program 

experience. 

2 A standard deviation is a measure of the score’s dispersion or variability in a sample. The proportion of scores within a standard deviation unit of the mean 

score is known. For example, in a normal distribution, 68 percent of all the scores fall between one standard deviation below and one standard deviation 

above the mean. Thus, scores expressed in standard deviation units enable the user to understand how a child has performed relative to other children in the 

sample. 

3 Instruments updated and added in 2011 present uncorrected correlation coefficients. We state whether corrected coefficients are presented and if available, 

how corrections were made. 
29 

• Representativeness of Norming Sample. As 

described in Box 4, knowing whether the 

norming sample was nationally 

representative or representative of the 

children or parents in your program is 

important in deciding whether to use an 

instrument. Your screening and assessment 

plan will include the purpose for each 

screening and assessment. If you are 

interested in how the children in your 

program are performing compared with 

children nationally, you will want to choose 

an instrument with a nationally 

representative norming sample. 

• Knowing how children from low-income 

families in the norming sample performed 

compared with all children nationally can 

also be important for interpreting 

assessment results. For example, the Early 

Head Start Research and Evaluation study 

found that children’s standardized scores on 

the Bayley Mental Development Index 

decreased between 14 and 24 months of age 

and remained at the 24-month level at 36 

months. This pattern has also been found in 

other studies of low-income children and in 

the Bayley norming sample. In this case, the 

decrease in standardized scores reflects 

differences in the composition of the test at 

different ages. At 14 months of age, the 

Bayley does not include many items directly 

focused on language development. At 24 and 

36 months, the Bayley includes many items 

that tap language development. The decrease 

in standardized scores among low-income 

children as they get older indicates that lowincome children score less well compared to 

children nationally as language development 

becomes a more important part of the test. 

• Languages. We included the languages in 

which the instruments are available. Some 

instruments have unofficial translations 

used in the field, but we restricted our listing 

to the languages that are available from the 

authors or publishers. If you are planning to 

use an instrument to compare the children 

in your program with those in the 

instrument’s norming sample, using an 

unofficial translation or directly translating 

the instrument into another language will 

result in scores that may not be comparable 

to the norming sample scores. According to 

the strictest standards, such scores are not 

valid. 

• Type of Instrument. We categorized the 

child and parent instruments as one of three 

types: (1) direct child or parent instruments, 

in which a trained individual works one-on

one with the child or parent to administer 

the instrument; (2) observation, in which a 

trained individual observes the child or 

parent and either rates or scores the 

behaviors of interest; and (3) parent report 

or self-report, in which the parent reports 

about the child or himself or herself. These 

basic categories apply to most of the other 

areas we reviewed as well, such as quality of 

program services. As needed, we used 

­
 30

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

different descriptors to make our meaning 

as clear as possible. 

•	 Age Range and Administration Interval. 

We have included the age range for which 

the instrument is appropriate, as well as the 

recommended time between administrations 

of the instrument, if given. Some 

instruments are designed to be administered 

at regular intervals, and that information is 

also included. 

•	 Personnel, Training, Administration, and 

Scoring Requirements. We described 

whether the instrument requires 

administration by a consultant or expert 

with clinical training, a highly trained 

program staff member, or a clerical program 

staff member. We included an estimate of 

how much time a person at the level 

required would need to learn, conduct, and 

score the instrument. Some of the authors 

and publishers suggest that trainees have an 

administration reviewed by an experienced 

assessor. If so, we also included this 

requirement. Some of the authors and 

publishers offer group training on the use of 

their instruments, and we included that 

information and the cost of the training, if it 

is available. 

•	 Summary. We chose five key features of the 

instruments to include in the summary 

table. Each feature has descriptors 

numbered from 1 to 3. A descriptor of 1 

indicates a lack of information or lower-level 

performance on the feature, a descriptor of 3 

indicates a higher-level of performance, and 

2 is intermediate. We include this summary 

section to help you compare the features of 

the instruments, but do not consider this 

information as a recommendation of one 

instrument or another. Only you and your 

staff can decide which features are most 

important to you. The purposes of your 

screening and assessment must guide your 

choices about which instruments to use. The 

features we include in the summary section 

are: 

–		 Initial material cost: 1 (under $100), 2 

($100 to $200), 3 (more than $200). 

–		 Reliability: 1 (none described); 2 (all or 

mostly under .65); 3 (all or mostly .65 or 

higher). See Box 4 for a brief definition 

of the various types of reliability. We 

chose these groupings based on the 

prevalent rule of thumb researchers and 

assessment developers use. Other things 

being equal, the higher the reliability is, 

the better the instrument is. 

–		 Validity: 1 (none described); 2 (all or 

mostly under .5 for concurrent; all or 

mostly under .4 for predictive); 3 (all or 

mostly .5 or higher for concurrent; all or 

mostly .4 or higher for predictive). See 

Box 4 for a brief definition of the various 

types of validity. We chose these 

groupings based on the prevalent rules 

of thumb researchers and instrument 

developers use. Generally, the higher the 

validity is, the better. It is especially 
challenging to create instruments for 

infants and toddlers that strongly 

predict how the children will do as 

preschoolers. Therefore, the grouping 

for predictive validity reflects a less 

stringent criterion for the highest 

grouping. 

–	 Norming sample characteristics: 

1 (none described); 2 (older than 15 

years, not nationally representative or 

representative of the low-income 

population enrolled by Head Start 

programs serving infants and toddlers); 

3 (normed within past 15 years, 

nationally representative or 

representative of the low-income 

population enrolled by Head Start 

programs serving infants and toddlers). 

See Box 4 for a brief definition of 

representativeness of the norming 

sample. This section also includes 

information on the date that the 

norming sample was obtained. The 

more time that has elapsed since the 

norming sample was obtained, the less 

likely it is to be representative. Many 

authors/publishers re-norm their 

assessments every 10 to 12 years to keep 

them up-to-date. We chose 15 years as 

the critical time here. 

–	 Ease of administration and scoring: 

1 (not described); 2 (self-administered 

or administered and scored by someone 

with basic clerical skills); 

3 (administered and scored by a highly 

trained individual). The administration 

and scoring requirements for each 

instrument vary and these descriptors 

help you determine what is involved for 

these steps. 

The other topics included for each 

instrument are: 

•	 Description. This section provides an 

overview of what the instrument was 

designed to measure, the age range of 

individuals it may be used with, the number 

of items, how it is administered, and what 

types of information can be derived 

(including any scores and subscale scores). 

Instruments updated and added in 2011 

include information about the stimuli and 

manipulatives used to aid administration. 

They also include a description of changes 

from the previous version of the instrument. 

•	 Other Languages. Instruments updated and 

added in 2011 include this section to name 

and describe translations of the instrument. 

Detail on the norming sample, reliability, 

validity, and English language equivalence 

or comparability is provided when available 

and noted when it is unavailable. Unofficial 

translations of the instrument that are used 

in the field are not included. 

•	 Uses of Information. To help you match 

your intended purposes for an instrument 

with the results, we included a summary of 

how the information that comes from an 

instrument may be used. Some of the 

31 
 32

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

instruments are clearly designed for 

screening children, some for in-depth 

assessment, some for allowing comparisons 

to a national norming sample, some for 

parent education, and some for feeding back 

into individual intervention planning and 

continuous program improvement. 

•	 Reliability. Indicators of an instrument’s 

reliability help determine whether an 

instrument is dependable. For example, a 

dependable instrument is also stable, and the 

results would be similar if the instrument 

was administered to the same individual 

several times in a short period. Box 4 

summarizes key information about what to 

look for in reports of an instrument’s 

reliability. The types of reliability 

summarized in the resource document 

entries include: 

–		 Measures of internal consistency (splithalf reliability, internal consistency 

reliability) that indicate the extent to 

which the items in the instrument “hang 

together” and tell a coherent story about 

the child or adult’s functioning 

–		 Measures of stability (test-retest 

reliability, alternate form reliability) that 

indicate the extent to which the 

instrument yields the same results when 

used at different times or using a 

different form of the instrument (for 

those that have multiple forms) 

–		 Measures of the reliability of 

administration (inter-rater reliability) 

that indicate the extent to which two 

different observers or instrument 

administrators would interpret and 

record the information in the same way 

•	 Validity. Indicators of an instrument’s 

validity help determine whether the 

instrument really measures what it is 

supposed to for the purpose it is being used. 

For example, if an instrument is supposed to 

provide an estimate of a toddler’s language 

production, how the child performs on the 

instrument should be similar to how the 

child performs on another established 

instrument of language production. We 

summarize key information about what to 

look for in reports of an assessment’s 

validity in Box 4. The types of validity 

summarized in the resource document 

entries include: 

–		 Content validity, which relies on expert 

judgment to determine that an 

instrument actually measures what it is 

intended to measure. Instruments 

updated and added in 2011 also include 

information related to literature reviews 

and factor analysis of items. 

–		 Criterion-related validity, including 

concurrent validity, which indicates how 

well the instrument results relate to 

other information collected at the same 

time, and predictive validity, which 

indicates the extent to which the 

instrument results are related to later 

functioning. 
• Bias Analysis. Instruments updated and 

added in 2011 include this section 

describing tests for whether instruments 

perform differently among subgroups 

(e.g., age, race/ethnicity, or spoken 

language) when differences are not expected. 

The results of differential item functioning 

(DIF) analysis are included here. DIF 

examines whether subgroup responses to 

particular items are significantly different, 

and instrument developers may opt to retain 

or remove items in question. 

• Method of Scoring. Child screening and 

assessment instruments may be scored using 

a simple pass/fail point system, or they may 

use a broader range of response categories, 

such as whether the child usually exhibits a 

particular behavior, is just starting to show 

the behavior, or does not yet display the 

behavior. In this section, we summarize the 

response categories used in the instrument 

and the types of scores it is possible to 

compute. 

• Interpretability. Many instrument authors 

and publishers provide information about 

how to interpret what a score or range of 

scores means as to whether the child is 

functioning at the level expected for his or 

her age or whether additional information 

may be needed. These guidelines are helpful 

in making sense out of the results. In this 

section, we summarize what is available to 

help you interpret the information that 

comes from each instrument. 

• Training Support. In this section, we 

summarize what training in the use of the 

instrument the authors and publishers 

recommend. We also describe training 

materials, products, or sessions available. 

Some authors and publishers include a lot of 

information about how to prepare to 

administer their instruments, while others 

provide little. Some provide training 

videotapes or exercises as part of the 

purchase of the instrument. In this section, 

we summarize what the authors and 

publishers include to help you identify who 

needs to administer the instrument and the 

resources available for training them. 

• Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities. Some 

instruments are designed specifically to 

assess the abilities or performance of 

individuals with disabilities, but most are 

not. In this section, we describe adaptations 

or instructions the authors or publishers 

included for working with people with 

disabilities. 

• Report Preparation Support. Some 

instruments include summary sheets or 

software to help you prepare individual 

reports based on the results. These reports 

may be designed to help you customize the 

program for a given child or parent or to 

help you share information with parents. 

Some instruments also include 

recommendations on how to present reports 

to parents. 

33 
 

•	 References. In this section, we give the full 

citations for the instruments, manuals, and 

other sources of information we used to 

complete each entry. We also include 

citations for any other materials the 

authors/publishers make available about the 

instrument, such as training videotapes and 

computer scoring programs. 

The entries are organized alphabetically in 

three groups: (1) measures of child development; 

(2) measures of parenting, the home 

environment, and family well-being; and 

(3) measures of program implementation and 

quality. In front of each group of entries is a 

summary table that lists the instruments profiled 

in that section and summarizes their main 

features. 

34 
35 

References 

Administration for Children and Families. 

Information Memorandum: Using Child 

Outcomes in Program Self-Assessment. 

Publication no. ACYF-IM-HS-00-18. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services, August 2000. 

Administration for Children and Families. 

Making a Difference in the Lives of Infants and 

Toddlers and Their Families: The Impacts of 

Early Head Start. Volume I: Technical Report. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services, 2002. 

Administration on Children, Youth and 

Families. Building Their Futures: How Early 

Head Start Programs Are Enhancing the Lives of 

Infants and Toddlers in Low-Income Families. 

Volume I: Technical Report. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 

2001a. 

Administration on Children, Youth and 

Families. Head Start FACES: Longitudinal 

Findings on Program Performance, Third 

Progress Report. Washington, DC: U.S. 
 36

 

 

 

Department of Health and Human Services, 

2001b. 

Administration on Children, Youth and 

Families. Leading the Way: Characteristics and 

Early Experiences of Selected Early Head Start 

Programs. Volume I: Cross-Site Perspectives. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services, 1999. 

Andreassen, C., and P. Fletcher. Early 

Childhood Longitudinal Study, Birth Cohort 

(ECLS-B) Psychometric Report for the 2-Year 

Data Collection (NCES 2007-084). Washington, 

DC: National Center for Education Statistics, 

Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department 

of Education, 2007. 

Bayley, N. Bayley Scales of Infant 

Development, Second Edition, Manual. New 

York: The Psychological Corporation, Harcourt 

Brace & Company, 1993. 

Boller, K., S. Sprachman, and the Early Head 

Start Research Consortium. The Child-Caregiver 

Observation System Instructor's Manual. 

Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, 

1998. 

Bowman, Barbara T., M. Suzanne Donovan, 

and M. Susan Burns. Eager to Learn: Educating 

Our Preschoolers. Washington, DC: National 

Academy Press, 2000, pp. 233-260. 

Buss, A.H., and R. Plomin. Temperament: 

Early Developing Personality Traits. Hillsdale, 

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1984. 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

National Health Interview Survey. Available at 

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhis.htm. Accessed 

July 9, 2011. 

Early Head Start National Resource Center. 

Developmental Screening, Assessment, and 

Evaluation: Key Elements for Individualizing 

Curricula in Early Head Start Programs. 

Technical Assistance Paper #4. Washington, DC: 

ZERO TO THREE, undated. Available at 

http://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/hs/resources/E 

CLKC_Bookstore/PDFs/FinalTAP[1].pdf. 

Gilliam, Walter S., and Linda C. Mayes. 

“Clinical Assessment of Infants and Toddlers.” 

In Child and Adolescent Psychiatry: A 

Comprehensive Textbook (3rd Edition), edited by 

M. Lewis. Baltimore, MD: Lippincott, Williams, 

and Wilkins, 2002. 

Kontos, S., C. Howes, M. Shinn, and E. 

Galinsky. Quality in Family Child Care and 

Relative Care. New York: Teachers College 

Press, 1995. 

Luster, T., K. Rhoades, and B. Haas. "The 

Relation between Parental Values and Parenting 

Behavior: A Test of the Kohn Hypothesis." 

Marriage and the Family, vol. 51, 1989, pp. 139­

147. 

Martin, Sue. Take a Look: Observation and 

Portfolio Assessment in Early Childhood (2nd 

Edition). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley 

Publishing Company, 1999. 
McHale, Jean, Colleen O'Neal, So-Yun Lee, 

and Lisa Berlin. High Chair (Frustration) 

Assessment. Unpublished document, 1999. 

Meisels, Samuel J., and Sally Provence. 

Screening and Assessment: Guidelines for 

Identifying Young Disabled and Developmentally 

Vulnerable Children and Their Families. 

Washington, DC: ZERO TO THREE, 1992. 

Pearlin, L.I., and C. Schooler. "The Structure 

of Coping." Journal of Health and Social 

Behavior, vol. 22, 1978, pp. 337-356. 

Pianta, R.C. Student-Teacher Relationship 

Scale [STRS]. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment 

Resources, Inc., 2001. 

Ross, Catherine E., James Mirowsky, and 

Joan Huber. "Dividing Work, Sharing Work, 

and in Between: Marriage Patterns and 

Depression." American Sociological Review, vol. 

48, no. 6, 1983, pp. 809-823. 

Shaw, Daniel S., Kate Keenan, and Joan I. 

Vondra. "The Developmental Precursors of 

Antisocial Behavior: Ages 1-3." Developmental 

Psychology, vol. 30, 1994, pp. 355-364. 

Shepard, Lorrie, Sharon Lynn Kagan, and 

Emily Wurtz (eds.). Principles and 

Recommendations for Early Childhood 

Assessments. Submitted to the National 

Education Goals Panel by the Goal 1 Early 

Childhood Assessments Resource Group, 

January 1998. 

U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services. “Head Start Program: Final Rule.” 

Federal Register, vol. 61, no. 215, November 5, 

1996, pp. 57 186-57 2278. 

U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services. The Statement of the Advisory 

Committee on Services for Families with Infants 

and Toddlers. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services, 

September 1994. 

Vogel, Cheri A., Kimberly Boller, Yange 

Xue, Randall Blair, Nikki Aikens, Andrew 

Burwick, Yevgeny Shrago, Barbara Lepidus 

Carlton, Lara Kalb, Linda Mendenko, Judy 

Cannon, Sean Harrington, and Jillian Stein. 

Administration for Children and Families. 

Learning as We Go: A First Snapshot of Early 

Head Start Programs, Staff, Families, and 

Children. OPRE Report #2011-7. Washington, 

DC: Office of Planning, Research, and 

Evaluation, Administration for Children and 

Families, U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services. 2011. 

Wolverton, E. Dollie. “An Introduction to 

Developmental Screening in the Education 

Component.” National Head Start Bulletin, no. 

43, January/February 1993, pp. 3-4. 

Zill, Nicholas, and James Peterson. Behavior 

Problems Index (BPI). Washington, DC: Child 

Trends, Inc., 1985. 

37 
 38
WORKSHEET TO HELP DEVELOP A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 

FOR GATHERING AND ANALYZING DATA 

Appendix A 

39 

SUMMARY OF INFORMATION COLLECTED 

AND SCREENING/ASSESSMENT TOOLS 

USED BY YOUR HEAD START PROGRAM 

SERVING INFANTS AND TODDLERS 

Head Start programs serving pregnant 

women and families with infants and toddlers 

collect information for various purposes, using a 

variety of assessment tools or instruments. The 

table below provides a useful format for 

summarizing your program’s current or planned 

use of assessment tools and instruments and 

their purposes. 
 

When Administered: How Used: 

Scheduled 

Times After 

Enrollment 

At 

Specific 

Ages 

To Plan 

Individual 

Services 

To Create Aggregate Reports For: 

Instrument/Tool 

At 

Enrollment 

Under Certain 

Circumstances Varies Other 

Program 

Planning Funders PIR Other 

Screening/Assessing Children’s Development 

Assessing Parenting or Parent Mental Health Needs 

40 
When Administered: How Used: 

Scheduled 

Times After 

Enrollment 

At 

Specific 

Ages 

To Plan 

Individual 

Services 

To Create Aggregate Reports For: 

Instrument/Tool 

At 

Enrollment 

Under Certain 

Circumstances Varies Other 

Program 

Planning Funders PIR Other 

Assessing Family Social Service Needs 

Assessing Quality of Program Services 

Tracking Service Delivery 

41 
 

When Administered: How Used: 

Scheduled 

Times After 

Enrollment 

At 

Specific 

Ages 

To Plan 

Individual 

Services 

To Create Aggregate Reports For: 

Instrument/Tool 

At 

Enrollment 

Under Certain 

Circumstances Varies Other 

Program 

Planning Funders PIR Other 

Assessing Family Engagement/Satisfaction 

Assessing Overall Program Performance and/or Adherence to the Performance Standards 

Any Other Data Collection/Assessments 

42 
PERFORMANCE MEASURES FRAMEWORK FOR HEAD START 

PROGRAMS SERVING INFANTS AND TODDLERS 

Appendix B 

43 

s a national laboratory for early 

childhood education, Head Start has 

long emphasized continuous program 

improvement and has been a leader in 

developing outcomes-oriented accountability. 

Head Start began developing program 

performance measures in 1995, and in 1997 the 

Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES) 

was launched to collect data on the performance 

indicators, in part to be responsive to the 

Government Performance and Results Act 

(GPRA) requirements. Following the re

authorization of Head Start in 1998, Head Start 

programs were required to include child 

outcomes in their self-assessment process by 

2003. The child outcomes framework was 

updated in 2010 for 3- to 5-year-old children, 

which may be a useful resource to programs 

serving children from 0 to 5 years old. 

In 2007, the Early Head Start Family and 

Child Experiences Survey (Baby FACES) was 

launched to collect data on a representative 

sample of programs and two cohorts of children 

(newborns and 1-year-olds). Family and child 

A 

­
 44

 

 

 

 

 

 

outcomes are gathered throughout children's 

enrollment in the program, through age 3 (Vogel 

et al. 2011). Although Early Head Start programs 

have not been required to report child outcomes, 

many have started to define and measure 

outcomes, for several reasons. Some programs 

operate within Head Start programs and are 

doing so in conjunction with outcomes 

assessment in Head Start. Some programs are 

responding to the requirements of other funders. 

Yet others are acting out of a desire to improve 

their services to families with infants and 

toddlers. In Spring 2001, the Early Head Start 

Technical Work Group recommended that the 

Office of Head Start move forward to develop 

performance measures for Head Start programs 

serving infants and toddlers to support 

programs’ efforts. The framework presented in 

this document resulted from an iterative process 

during which a wide range of stakeholders were 

consulted. 

The Head Start performance measurement 

framework needed to be modified for infants 

and toddlers in order to be appropriate and 

useful for home-based, center-based, 

combination, and locally-designed programs, 

and it needed to take into account the full range 

of development over a much longer period, from 

pregnancy to age 3. 

The recent completion of the national Early 

Head Start Research and Evaluation Project 

(EHSREP) also makes the time ripe for 

developing a new performance measures 

framework. The pattern of program impacts by 

age 3 and variations in impacts by program 

approach (center-based, home-based, and mixed 

approaches) and key aspects of program 

implementation provide insights into ways that 

the Head Start framework must be adapted for 

programs serving families with infants and 

toddlers. 

Building the Pyramid 

The conceptual model underlying 

performance measures for Head Start programs 

serving infants and toddlers is based on the 

Head Start model (ACYF 2001), which was 

modified to reflect services for infants and 

toddlers. 

The Statement of the Advisory Committee 

on Services for Families with Infants and 

Toddlers recommended four cornerstones for 

Early Head Start: child development, family 

development, staff development, and 

community building (Administration on 

Children, Youth and Families 1994). Thus, the 

adapted pyramid rests on these cornerstones, 

and the elements of management systems related 

to each cornerstone. 

The overall goal of the base level of the 

pyramid is “ensuring well-managed programs 

that involve parents in decision-making.” This 

goal links the key elements in management 

systems that correspond to the four 

cornerstones. 

The services level of the pyramid has three 

main objectives: providing children with 
services, linking children and families to needed 

community services, and developing 

relationships with parents and children. 

Similarly, on the level of child and family 

outcomes, there are three main objectives: 

enhancing children’s growth and development, 

strengthening families as primary nurturers of 

their children, and enhancing parent-child 

relationships. Because it is through these 

relationships that strengthening families can 

support enhanced child outcomes and the 

ultimate goal of enhanced children’s 

competence, the objective of enhancing parentchild relationships was placed between the other 

two objectives on the outcomes level. 

Head Start programs serving pregnant 

women and families with infants and toddlers 

may provide center-based services, home-based 

services, or some combination of these, 

reflecting different family needs, different 

theories of change, and different emphases on 

certain services and outcomes. 

 


 


 

Figure 1 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR PROGRAMS SERVING INFANTS & TODDLERS
 

ULTIMATE OUTCOME 

OUTCOMES 

SERVICES 

MANAGEMENT 

SYSTEMS 

ENHANCE 

children’s 

competence 

ENHANCE 

parent/child 

relationships 

STRENTHEN 

families 

ENHANCE 

children's growth 

and development 

PROVIDE 

children with 

individualized services 

DEVELOP LINK 

relationships with 

parents and children 

children and families 

with community services 

ENSURE well-managed programs that meet standards for high quality as they: 

SUPPORT 

staff 

CREATE 

child development 

environments 

INVOLVE 

parents 

DEVELOP 

strong community 

partners 

STAFF CHILD FAMILY COMMUNITY CORNERSTONES
 

45 

 
 46

 

 

 

 

 

The pyramid for these programs was 

designed to encompass these key variations. 

When providing center-based services, 

programs emphasize the left side of the 

pyramid—they aim to improve children’s 

competence mainly by providing direct centerbased services to children to enhance their 

growth and development (and also provide 

services to strengthen families and improve 

parent-child relationships). When providing 

home-based services, programs emphasize the 

right side of the pyramid—they aim to improve 

children’s competence mainly by providing 

services to strengthen families and improve 

parent-child relationships (and also work with 

children directly during home visits and in 

parent-child group socialization activities). 

These variations in program emphases were 

reflected in the differences in impacts found in 

the national Early Head Start Research and 

Evaluation Project (EHSREP) (ACF 2002). 

Performance Measures Underlying the Main 

Objectives 

Underlying the main objective in each block 

in the pyramid are performance measures that 

represent key program goals under that objective 

(Figure 2). The program performance measures 

for Head Start programs serving infants and 

toddlers include selected performance measures 

from the Head Start framework, as well as new 

performance measures that reflect the special 

features of programs serving infants and 

toddlers, variations in program approaches, and 

lessons from the national evaluation and 

training and technical assistance efforts. The 

performance measures also reflect key 

requirements in the Head Start Program 

Performance Standards as well as elements from 

the Advisory Committee on Services for 

Families with Infants and Toddlers. 

Using The Program Performance Measures 

Framework 

The program performance measures 

framework for Head Start programs serving 

pregnant women and families with infants and 

toddlers is designed to support continuous 

program improvement efforts of individual 

programs, as well as those at the regional and 

national levels. At the individual program level, 

the framework, along with the program’s specific 

theory of change, can guide the development of 

plans for data collection to provide the program 

staff with important information on program 

strengths and weaknesses. This information can 

help focus program improvement efforts on 

areas where improvement may be needed most 

and in ways that may be most beneficial to the 

program. Information on strengths can be used 

to highlight program accomplishments and 

build support for the program among funders 

and key stakeholders. A Resources for Measuring 

Services and Outcomes is designed to support 

programs in these activities by providing 

information on creating an integrated plan and 

selecting measures. 
47 

References 

Administration for Children and Families. 

Making a Difference in the Lives of Infants and 

Toddlers and Their Families: The Impacts of 

Early Head Start. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services, 

June 2002. 

Administration for Children and Families. 

The Head Start Child Development and Early 

Learning Framework: Promoting Positive 

Outcomes in Early Childhood Programs Serving 

Children 3-5 Years Old. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services, 

December 2010. 

Administration on Children, Youth and 

Families. First Progress Report on the Head Start 

Program Performance Measures. Washington, 

DC: ACYF, May 1997. 

Administration on Children, Youth and 

Families. Head Start FACES: Longitudinal 

Findings on Program Performance, Third 

Progress Report. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services, 

January 2001. 

Administration on Children, Youth and 

Families. The Statement of the Advisory 

Committee on Services for Families with Infants 

and Toddlers. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services, 

1994. 

Head Start Program Performance Measures: 

Second Progress Report. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services, 

June 1998. 

Vogel, Cheri A., Kimberly Boller, Yange 

Xue, Randall Blair, Nikki Aikens, Andrew 

Burwick, Yevgeny Shrago, Barbara Lepidus 

Carlton, Lara Kalb, Linda Mendenko, Judy 

Cannon, Sean Harrington, and Jillian Stein. 

Administration for Children and Families. 

Learning As We Go: A First Snapshot of Early 

Head Start Programs, Staff, Families, and 

Children. OPRE Report #2011-7, Washington, 

DC. Office of Planning, Research, and 

Evaluation, Administration for Children and 

Families, U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services. 2011. 
 

Figure 2 PROGRAM PERFORMANCE MEASURES FOR HEAD START 

PROGRAMS SERVING INFANTS AND TODDLERS 

FOUNDATION: PROGRAM MANAGEMENT 

SYSTEMS 

Management systems (including program 

governance, planning, communication, recordkeeping and reporting, ongoing monitoring, 

self-assessment, human resources, and fiscal 

management) ensure well-managed programs 

that meet standards for high quality as they 

create nurturing child development 

environments, enhance child outcomes and 

promote positive parent-child interactions. 

1.		 Programs comply with Head Start 

regulations. 

2.		 Programs are well-managed operationally 

and financially 

3.		 Programs design and implement services to 

be responsive to the needs of families in the 

community. 

4.		 Programs conduct self-assessments that are 

used for continuous program improvement. 

Management Systems ensure well-managed 

programs with integrated systems to support 

staff in working effectively with parents and 

children. 

1.		 Programs employ qualified staff with the 

skills necessary to provide high-quality 

services. 

2.		 Programs support ongoing staff 

development, training, and mentoring. 

3.		 Programs support staff activities through 

ongoing reflective supervision. 

4.		 Programs promote staff retention and 

continuity. 

Ensure well-managed programs that meet 

standards for high quality as they develop 

collaborative relationships with community 

partners. 

1.		 Programs form partnerships with other 

community programs and organizations to 

support an integrated community-wide 

response to the needs of families with young 

children. 

2.		 Programs form partnerships and coordinate 

services with local Part C agencies. 

3.		 Programs form partnerships and coordinate 

services with community child care 

providers to meet the needs of families and 

enhance the quality of local child care 

services through the sharing of resources, 

training, and knowledge. 

4.		 Programs form partnerships and coordinate 

services with local health agencies and health 

care providers to meet the health-related 

needs of families. 

Management Systems ensure well-managed 

programs that meet standards for high quality as 

they involve parents. 

1.		 Parents are involved actively in program 

planning and decision making. 

2.		 Programs encourage and support fathers’ 

involvement in program planning, decisionmaking, and activities. 

PROGRAM SERVICES 

Programs develop individualized family 

partnership agreements with families and link 

children and families to comprehensive 

48 
49 

community services in order to meet their 

personal goals and self-sufficiency needs. 

1. Programs work collaboratively with families 

to identify their goals, strengths, and needed 

services, and offer them opportunities to 

develop and implement individualized 

family partnership agreements that take into 

account other family plans. 

2. Programs link parents with social service 

agencies to obtain needed services. 

3. Programs link parents with educational and 

employment agencies to obtain needed 

services. 

4. Programs link parents with physical and 

mental health care prevention and treatment 

services to obtain needed care. 

5. Programs link parents with needed prenatal 

care and education services. 

6. Programs help parents secure high-quality 

child care in order to work, attend school, or 

gain employment training. 

7. Programs help parents and children make a 

smooth transition to Head Start or other 

pre-school program. 

Program staff develop responsive and caring 

relationships with parents and children 

1. Staff form respectful and supportive 

relationships with parents through all 

aspects of service delivery. 

2. Staff form nurturing relationships with 

children in group-care settings or during 

home visits. 

3. Programs support and honor the home 

cultures and languages of families. 

Programs provide children with ageappropriate curricular experiences and 

individualized educational, health, and 

nutritional services 

1. Programs provide developmentally 

enriching educational environments in 

group-care settings and developmentally 

enriching parenting and child development 

services during home visits and group 

socializations. 

2. Programs link children with needed 

medical, dental, and mental health services. 

3. Programs link pregnant women with 

comprehensive prenatal health care and 

education. 

4. Programs provide children in group-care 

settings meals and snacks that meet their 

daily nutritional needs, and parents 

receiving home-based services receive 

information about meeting their children’s 

nutritional needs 

5. Programs provide individualized services for 

parents and children, including children 

with disabilities. 

EXPECTED OUTCOMES FOR CHILDREN AND 

FAMILIES 

Programs strengthen families as the primary 

nurturers of their children 
 50

 

1.		 Parents demonstrate increased knowledge of 

child development and awareness of their 

children’s developmental progress 

2.		 Parents enhance their self-concept and 

emotional well-being and experience less 

parenting stress. 

3.		 Parents make progress toward their 

educational, literacy, and employment goals. 

4.		 Adult family members strengthen their 

relationships and work together in caring for 

children. 

Programs support and enhance parent-child 

relationships 

1.		 Parents demonstrate more sensitivity and 

responsiveness in interactions with their 

children. 

2.		 Parents spend more time with their children 

in activities that stimulate their children’s 

development, such as reading to their 

children 

3.		 Parents provide home environments and 

experiences that are more supportive of their 

children’s development. 

Programs enhance children’s growth and 

development 

1.		 Children demonstrate improved 

communication, language, and emergent 

literacy skills. 

2.		 Children demonstrate improved general 

cognitive skills. 

3.		 Children demonstrate improved positive 

approaches toward learning, including 

improved attention skills. 

4.		 Children demonstrate improved social 

behavior, emotion regulation, and emotional 

well-being. 

5.		 Children demonstrate improved physical 

health and development. 

ULTIMATE GOAL: CHILDREN’S 

COMPETENCE 
List of Measures used in the National Early Head Start Research 

and Evaluation Project (EHSREP) and Early Head Start Family 

and Child Experiences Survey (Baby FACES) 

Appendix C 

51 
 52

List of Measures
 

Measure Type Construct EHSREP Baby FACES 

Ages and Stages Questionnaire-Third 

Edition (ASQ-3; Squires, Twombly, Bricker, 

and Potter, 2009) CH 

Screening tool for developmental 

delays in communication, gross 

motor, fine motor, personal-social, 

and problem solving 

X 

Achenbach System of Empirically-Based 

Assessment, Child Behavior Checklist, 

Aggressive subscale (Achenbach and 

Rescorla 2000) 

CH 

Aggressive behavior problems 

X 

Arnett Scale of Caregiver Behavior (Arnett, 

1989) CL Caregiver's sensitivity, harshness, and detachment X 

Bayley Behavioral Rating Scale (Bayley 

1993) CH 

Engagement of examiner, 

emotional regulation during 

assessment 

X X 

Bayley Scales of Infant Development-II, 

Mental Development Index (Bayley 

1993)**† 

CH 

Cognitive development 

X 

Beliefs Regarding Talking and Reading scale 

(Luster, Rhoades and Haas, 1989) F Parent's beliefs about talking and reading to children X 

Behavior Problems Index (BPI; Zill and 

Peterson, 1995) CH Parent report of child behavior X 

Brief Infant Toddler Social Emotional 

Assessment (BITSEA; Briggs-Gowan and 

Carter, 2006) 

CH 

Social-emotional development, 

behavior problems X 

Center for Epidemiological Studies ­

Depression Scale (CES-D; Radloff 1977) F Parent's depressive symptoms X 

Center for Epidemiological Studies ­

Depression Scale, short form (CES-D; Ross, 

Mirowsky et al., 1983) F 

Parent's depressive symptoms X (also 

administered to 

children's teachers 

and home visitors) 

Child-Caregiver Observation System (CCOS; Boller, Sprachman, and the Early 

Head Start Research Consortium 1998) 

CL 

Quality, frequency, and types of 

provider-child interactions X 

Classroom Assessment Scoring SystemToddler (CLASS-T; Pianta et al., 2010) CL Teacher-child interaction quality 

in toddler childcare classrooms X 

Composite International Diagnostic 

Inventories (CIDI) - Short Form, Major 

Depression, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, 

Alcohol Dependence, Drug Dependence 

(Nelson, Kessler, and Mroczek 1998 and 

World Health Organization 2002) 

F 

Parent's major depression, 

generalized anxiety disorder, 

alcohol abuse, and substance abuse X 

Confusion, Hubbub, and Order Scale 

(CHAOS; Mathney et al., 1995) F 

Level of confusion and 

disorganization in child's home 

environment 

X 

Discipline Vignettes 

F 

Parental use of reasoning and 

developmentally appropriate 

approaches in parent-child conflict 

situations 

X 
53 

 

Measure Type Construct EHSREP Baby FACES 

EAS Temperament Survey for Children 

(Buss and Plomin, 1984), selected items CH Temperament (emotionality and sociability) X 

Early Childhood Environmental Rating 

Scale-Revised (ECERS-R; Harms, Clifford, 

and Cryer 1998) 

CL 

Quality of the caregiving 

environment in center-based care X 

Early Communication Indicator (ECI; Luze 

et al., 2001; Carta et al., 2002; 2010) CH Expressive communication X 

Family Day Care Rating Scale (FDCRS; 

Harms and Clifford 1989)**† 

CL Quality of the caregiving 

environment in home-based care X 

Family Environment Scale, Conflict 

Subscale (Moos and Moos, 2002) F Family conflict X X 

High Chair (Frustration) Assessment (Shaw 

et al. 1994; McHale et al. 1999) F 

Parent’s Sensitivity, Detachment, 

Negative Regard/Hostility, Positive 

Regard, Distance/Approach 

X 

High Chair (Frustration) Assessment (Shaw 

et al. 1994; McHale et al. 1999) CH Child Distress 

X 

Home Observation for Measurement of the 

Environment (HOME), Infant/Toddler 

Form (Caldwell and Bradley, 1984)**† 

F 

Emotional Responsivity, Maternal 

Verbal-Social Skills, Support of 

Cognitive, Language, and Literacy 

Environment, Absence of Punitive 

Interactions, Internal Physical 

Environment, External 

Environment 

X 

Home Observation for Measurement of the 

Environment (HOME), Infant/Toddler 

Form (Caldwell and Bradley, 2003) 

F 

Quality of home environment, 

Reading and language activities, 

Emotional Responsivity, Support 

of Cognitive, Language and 

Literacy Environment, Maternal 

Verbal-Social Skills, Absence of 

Punitive Interactions 

X 

Home Observation for Measurement of the 

Environment (HOME), Preschool Form, 

NLSY version, selected items (Caldwell and 

Bradley, 2003 and Center for Human 

Resources Research, 2000) 

F 

Quality of home environment, 

Reading and language activities, 

Warmth, Support of Language and 

Learning, Internal Physical 

Environment, Harshness 

X 

Home Visit Rating Scale-Adapted (HOVRSA; Roggman et al., 2009) S, F Home-visiting quality and content, 

Visitor Strategies Quality, Visitor 

Effectiveness Quality 

X 

Infant/Toddler Environment Rating Scale 

(ITERS, Harms, Cryer, and Clifford 

1990)**† 

CL 

Quality of the caregiving 

environment in center-based care X 

Infant/Toddler Environment Rating Scale, 

Revised (ITERS-R, Harms et al., 2003)**† 

CL Quality of the caregiving 

environment in center-based care X 

Infant Toddler Social Emotional 

Assessment, Exposure to Violence Scale 

(ITSEA; Carter and Briggs-Gowan, 2000)**† 

CH 

Quality of the caregiving 

environment in center-based care X 

Knowledge of Infant Development 

Inventory (KIDI, MacPhee, 1981), selected 

items 

F 

Parent's knowledge of childrearing 

practices, developmental processes, 

and infant developmental norms 

and milestones 

X 
 54

 

Measure Type Construct EHSREP Baby FACES 

MacArthur Communicative Development 

Inventories (CDI), Vocabulary Short Form, 

Level I; Part II, Section A First 

Communicative Gestures; and Part II, 

Section B Games and Routines (MacArthur 

CDI Advisory Board 1997; and Fenson et al. 

2000a and b)**† 

CH 

Receptive vocabulary, productive 

vocabulary, use of gestures to 

communicate, parent-child 

communicative activities X 

MacArthur Communicative Development 

Inventories (CDI), Vocabulary Short Form, 

Level II; Part II, Question on Combining 

Words; and Section E. Complexity 

(MacArthur CDI Advisory Board 1997; 

Fenson et al. 2000a and b)**† 

CH 

Productive vocabulary, complexity 

of speech 

X 

MacArthur-Bates Communicative 

Development Inventory, English Toddler 

Short Form-Form A, (CDI; Fenson et al., 

2000), Spanish Toddler Short Form 

(Jackson-Maldanado et al., 2003)**† 

CH 

Vocabulary Comprehension, 

Vocabulary Production 

X 

Nursing Child Assessment Satellite Training 

(NCAST) Parent-Child Interaction 

Program, Teaching Scales (Barnard 1994; 

Sumner and Spietz 1994) 

F 

Parent total score 

X 

Nursing Child Assessment Satellite Training 

(NCAST) Parent-Child Interaction 

Program, Teaching Scales (Barnard 1994; 

Sumner and Spietz 1994) 

CH 

Child total score 

X 

Child's Health Status (CDC National Health 

Interview Survey) CH 

Child's health status 

X 

Parent-Caregiver Relationship Scale 

(selected items) (Elicker, et al. 1997) F Parent’s relationship with current nonrelative provider X X 

Parent-Caregiver Relationship Scale 

(selected items) (Elicker, et al., 1997) CL Caregiver’s relationship with parents 

X 

Parent-Child Interaction Rating Scales for 

the Two Bags Assessment-Child Scales 

(PCI; and Fletcher, 2007) 

F 

Parent behaviors, child behaviors, 

and dyadic interaction X 

Parental Modernity Scale (selected items) 

(Schaefer and Edgerton 1985) F 

Parent attitudes toward children 

and childrearing practices 

(traditional attitudes and practices; 

progressive attitudes and practices) 

X X 

Parental Modernity Scale (selected items) 

(Schaefer and Edgerton 1985) CL 

Caregiver attitudes toward 

children and childrearing practices 

(traditional attitudes and practices; 

progressive attitudes and practices) 

X 

Parenting Alliances Measure (PAM; Abidin 

and Konold, 1999) F 

Parents' perspective of how 

cooperative, communicative, and 

mutually respectful they are in 

their parenting relationship 

X 

Parenting Interactions with Children: 

Checklist of Observations Linked to 

Outcomes (PICCOLO; Cook and Roggman, 

2009; Roggman et al., 2009) 

F 

Positive parenting behaviors 

X 
55 

 

Measure Type Construct EHSREP Baby FACES 

Parenting Stress Index, Short Form (PSI-SF; 

Abidin, 1995), Parental Distress and ParentChild Dysfunctional Interaction Subscales F 

Parental distress, Parent-child 

dysfunctional interaction X X 

Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-III 

(PPVT-III; Dunn and Dunn 1997) or Test 

de Vocabulario en Imagenes Peabody 

(TVIP; Dunn, Padilla, Lugo, and Dunn, 

1986) 

CH 

Receptive language 

X 

Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-IV 

(PPVT-IV; Dunn and Dunn 2007) CH Receptive language X 

Preschool Language Scale, Fourth Edition 

(PLS-4; Zimmerman et al., 2002) CH Auditory comprehension, Expressive communication 

X 

Program Implementation Checklist and 

Rating Scales Developed for the National 

Early Head Start Research and Evaluation 

Project (ACF 2003) 

CL 

Implementation of program 

performance standards X X 

Provider Job Commitment (Kontos et al. 

1995) CL 

Provider’s commitment to child 

care as a profession X 

Provider Motivation (Kontos et al. 1995) CL Provider’s motivation for 

beginning child care work X 

Provider Views about Training (Kontos et 

al. 1995) CL 

Provider's views about the 

usefulness of training X 

Puzzle Challenge (Problem-Solving) Task 

(Brady-Smith et al. 2001) F 

Parent Supportive Presence, 

Quality of Assistance, Detachment, 

Intrusiveness 

X 

Puzzle Challenge (Problem-Solving) Task 

(Brady-Smith et al. 2001) CH Child Engagement of Parent, Persistence, Frustration with Task X 

Three-Bag Assessment (Semi-structured 

Play) (NICHD Study of Early Child Care 

1992; Ware et al. 1998; Brady-Smith et al. 

1999 and 2000) 

F 

Parent Supportiveness, Sensitivity, 

Positive Regard, Stimulation of 

Cognitive Development, 

Detachment, Intrusiveness, 

Negative Regard 

X 

Three-Bag Assessment (Semi-structured 

Play) (NICHD Study of Early Child Care 

1992; Ware et al. 1998; Brady-Smith et al. 

1999 and 2000) 

CH 

Child Engagement of Parent; 

Sustained Attention to Objects, 

Negativity Toward Parent X 

Student-Teacher Relationship Scale 

(Conflict and Closeness subscales) (Pianta 

2001) 

CH 

Conflict with child; Closeness 

toward child (provider report) X 

Mastery Scale (Pearlin and Schooler 1978) F Parent’s self-efficacy X 

Woodcock-Munoz Language Survey: 

Picture Vocabulary Test (Woodcock and 

Munoz-Sandeval 2001)**† 

F 

Parental language/cognition 

X 

Types are * CH - Child Measure, F - Family/Parent Measure, CL - Classroom Measure, S - Staff Measure 

**† A more recent version of the instrument is included in this resource document. 
 56
Child Development Instruments 

57 
 58
 

Screening 

or 

Assessment 

Domain Ease of 

Administration & 

Scoring 

Assessment 

Type 

Initial 

Material Cost Reliability

Norming 

Instrument C L S-E M O Age Range Validity Sample 

Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment A X X 1.5-5 years 3 2 3 3 3 3 

Child Development Instruments
 
 

Ages & Stages Questionnaires, Third Edition (ASQ-3) S X X X X 1-66 months 3 3 3 3 3 2 

Ages and Stages Questionnaires: Social-Emotional S X 3-66 months 3 2 3 3 2 3 

Assessment, Evaluation, and Programming System for Infants A X X X X 0-3 years 2,1,3 2 3 3 1 2 

and Children 

Batelle Development Inventory A X X X X 0-8 years 1,2,3 1 3 3 2 2 

Bayley Scales Of Infant And Toddler Development, Third A X X X X 1-42 months 1,2,3 3 3 3 3 3 

Edition (Bayley-III) 

Behavior Assessment System for Children, Second Edition A X X X 2-25 years 2,3 3 3 3 3 2 

(BASC-2) 

Brigance Inventory Of Early Development II Standardized A X X X X X 0-7 years 1,2,3 3 3 3 3 2 

(IED-II Standardized) 

Carey Temperament Scales A X 0-12 years 3 1 2 1 2 2 

Carolina Curriculum for Infants and Toddlers with Special A/S X X X X 0-2 years 2 1 1 1 1 3 

Needs Assessment Log II 

Denver II Development Screening Test S X X X 0-6 years 1,3 1 3 1 2 3 

Developmental Observation Checklist System S X X X X X 0-6 years 3 2 3 2 2 3 

Developmental Profile 3 (DP-3) A/S X X X X X 0-12 years 3 3 3 3 3 3 

Devereux Early Childhood Assessment For Infants And A/S X 1-36 months 2,3 2 3 3 3 3 

Toddlers (DECA-I/T) 

Early Communication Indicator (ECI) A X 0-3 years 2 1 3 3 3 3 

Early Coping Inventory A X 4-36 months 2 1 3 1 1 3 

Early Head Start Evaluation—Parent Interviews and Child A/S X X X X X 14,24,36 1,2,3 1 3 1 1 2,3 

Assessments months 

Early Learning Accomplishment Profile—Revised Edition A X X X X X 0-36 months 2 3 3 3 3 3 

Early Literacy Skills Assessment (ELSA) A X X 3-5 years 1 2 3 2 1 2 

Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test-4 (EOWPVT-4) A X 2-80 years 1 2 3 1 3 3 

Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory/Sutter-Eyberg Student S X 2-16 years 3 na 3 2 2 3 

Behavior Inventory-Revised 

Functional Emotional Assessment Scale A X 7-48 months 2,1 1 3 2 1 3 

Hawaii Early Learning Profile A X X X X X 0-36 months 1 1 1 1 1 3 

High/Scope Child Observation Record A X X X 30-72 2 2 3 2 1 3 

months 

High/Scope Child Observation Record for Infants and Toddlers A X X X X 1-36 months 2 2 3 3 1 3 

Humanics National Infant-Toddler Assessment A X X X X 0-3 years 2 1 1 1 1 2 

Infant-Toddler Developmental Assessment A X X X X X 0-42 months 2,3 3 3 3 2 3 

59 
 60

Screening 

or 

Assessment 

Domain 

Assessment 

Type 

Initial 

Material Cost 

Norming 

Sample 

Ease of 

Administration & 

Instrument C L S-E M O Age Range Reliability Validity Scoring 

Infant-Toddler Social And Emotional Assessment (ITSEA) and 

Brief Infant-Toddler Social and Emotional Assessment 

(BITSEA) 

A/S X 12-35 

months 

3 3 3 2 3 3 

Infant Toddler Symptom Checklist S X X 7-30 months 3 1 1 2 1 2 

Leiter International Performance Scale-Revised S/A X X 2-20 years 1 3 3 3 3 3 

Macarthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventories A/S X 8-37 months 3 2 3 3 2 3 

(CDIs)-Second Edition 

Mullen Scales of Early Learning A X X X 0-68 months 1 3 3 3 3 3 

The Ounce Scale A X X X X 0-42 months 2,3 2 2 2 1 2 

Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, Fourth Edition (PPVT-4) A X 2.5-90 years 1 3 3 1 3 3 

Preschool Language Scale, Fourth Edition (PLS-4) A X 0-6 years 11 1 3 3 3 3 3 

months 

Receptive-Expressive Emergent Language Test—2nd Ed. S X 0-3 years 1 1 3 1 2 3 

Rossetti Infant-Toddler Language Scale A X 0-3 years 1,2,3 1 1 1 1 3 

Temperament and Atypical Behavior Scale S/A X 11-71 3 1 3 1 3 2 

months 

Test de Vocabulario en Imagenes Peabody A X 2-18 years 1 2 3 1 2 3 

Test of Preschool Early Literacy (TOPEL) A X X 3-5 years 1 3 3 3 3 3 

Toddler Attachment Sort-45 (TAS-45) A X X 12-36 2 3 2,3 2 1 3 

months 

Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition A X X X X 0-90 years 3 2 3 3 3 3 

(VINELAND-II) 

Vineland Social-Emotional Early Childhood Scales A X0-5 years 3 1 3 3 2 3 

Woodcock-Johnson III Normative Update (WJ III NU) A X X X2 years-adult 1 3 3 3 3 3 

KEY 

Domains 

C = Cognitive, problem-solving 

L = Language, communication 

S-E = Social, emotional 

M = Motor, physical 

O = Other 

Assessment Type 

1 = Direct assessment 

2 = Observation 

3 = Parent/Teacher self report 

Initial Material Cost 

1 = Under $100 

2 = $100 to $200 

3 = More than $200 

Reliability 

1 = None described 

2 = Under .65 

3 = .65 or higher 

Validity 

1 = None described 

2 = Under .5 for concurrent; under .4 for predictive 

3 = .5 or higher for concurrent; .4 or higher for predictive 

Norming sample 

1 = None described 

2 = Older than 15 years, not nationally representative or representative of EHS population 

3 = Normed within past 15 years, nationally representative or representative of EHS population 

Ease of administration and scoring 

1 = Not described 

2 = Self-administered or administered and scored by someone with basic clerical skills 

3 = Administered and scored by a highly trained individual 

The information included in this table was drawn from the manuals or other resources available from the authors and publishers of the instruments. Individual users may have different experiences. 
ACHENBACH SYSTEM OF EMPIRICALLY BASED ASSESSMENT 

(ASEBA), 1999 

Authors: 

Thomas M. Achenbach and Leslie A. Rescorla 

Publisher: 

ASEBA 

(802) 656-8313 or 656-3456 

www.ASEBA.org 

Initial Material Cost: 

Preschool hand-scoring starter kit: $174 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: The 1999 

child behavioral checklist norming sample of 700 

children is nationally representative, but restricted to 

children with no major physical or mental disabilities 

and English-speaking parents. The 1,192 caregiverteacher norming sample is not nationally 

representative—989 caregivers from the 1997 norming 

sample augmented the 203 preschool caregiversteachers drawn from the 1999 sample. The language 

development survey sample consisted of 278 parents 

from the 1999 sample. 

Languages: 

English and Spanish (child behavioral checklist only) 

Type of Assessment: 

Parent and caregiver report 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 1.5 to 5 

years. No prescribed interval, but routine use is 

recommended. 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: 

Respondents should be able to read at the 5th grade 

level or higher and complete the forms in about 10 to 

15 minutes. The authors recommend that a person 

with graduate training and familiarity with the manual 

interpret and score the assessment. 

Summary: 

Initial Material Cost: 2 ($100 to $200) 

Reliability: 3 (.65 or higher, with some lower) 

Validity: 3 (.5 or higher for concurrent, with some 

lower) 

Norming Sample Characteristics: 3 (normed within 

past 15 years, nationally representative) 

Ease of Administration and Scoring: 3 (self

administered but scored by a highly trained individual) 

­

­

Description: The ASEBA uses information 

collected from parents and caregivers/teachers to 

assess the behavioral, emotional, and social 

functioning (including language development) of 

young children between the ages of 1.5 and 5 

years. To get a better understanding of how the 

child functions under different conditions, it is 

recommended that information be collected from 

more than one adult. The ASEBA consists of two 

self-administered reporting forms. The parent 

report consists of a 99-item child behavioral 

checklist (CBC) and a language development 

survey (LDS) that asks parents to provide the 

child’s best multi-word phrases and words the 

child uses from a list of 310 words The 

caregiver/teacher report (CTR) consists of a 99

item checklist similar to the CBC except 17 

family-specific items have been replaced with 

group situation items. The 99 items in the CBC 

are organized into seven syndromes and two 

broader groupings of syndromes, while the 99 

items in the CTR are organized into six of the 

CBC syndromes and the two broader groupings: 

61 
 62

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• Internalizing 

– Emotionally reactive 

– Anxious/depressive 

– Somatic complaints 

– Withdrawn 

• Externalizing 

– Attention problems 

– Aggressive behavior 

• Ungrouped (CBC only) 

– Sleep problem 

The items are also organized into five DSM 

(Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental 

Disorder)-oriented scales. 

Uses of Information: The results can be used 

to structure interviews with parents, identify areas 

for intervention, and evaluate intervention 

outcomes. 

Reliability: (1) Internal consistency reliability 

(Cronbach’s alpha): the alphas for the CBC scales 

ranged from .66 to .92 for the syndromes and .63 

to .86 for the DSM-oriented scales. The alphas 

were .89 and .92 for the two broader groupings 

(internalizing and externalizing syndromes) and 

.95 for the total score. The alphas for the CTR 

syndromes ranged from .52 to .96 and for the 

DSM-oriented scales from .68 to .93. The alphas 

were .89 and .96 for the internalizing and 

externalizing groupings and for the total score, 

.97. (2) Test-retest reliability, with an eight-day 

interval between tests: the correlations were .85 

and .76 for the CBC and CTR, respectively. Testretest studies on the LDS reported correlations 

greater or equal to .90. 

Validity: (1) Concurrent validity: The CBC 

correctly classified 84 percent of a sample of 

children (some of whom were diagnosed as having 

emotional/behavioral problems), and the CTR 

correctly classified 74 percent of the children. 

Studies reported correlation coefficients between 

the CBC problem syndromes and the Toddler 

Behavior Screening Inventory and the InfantToddler Social and Emotional Assessment ranging 

from .48 to .70. In 11 studies that compared 

parent LDS scores with those obtained by trained 

examiners using other measures, the correlations 

between the parent’s score and the trained 

examiner’s ranged from .56 to .87. Other studies 

found the level of LDS agreement with other 

measures of language development ranged from 

.47 to .94. (2) Predictive validity: An 11-year 

longitudinal study found that children identified 

by the LDS to have language development 

problems were more likely to have weak verbal 

skills at age 13. 

Method of Scoring: ASEBA can be hand or 

computer scored. Respondents complete the CBC 

and CTR by circling one of three responses and 

the LDS by circling the words the child uses 

spontaneously. The behavioral raw scores are 

derived by summing the response item values (0, 

1, or 2) for the syndrome scale, syndrome 

groupings, and total score. The raw score for the 

language development survey is the total number 

of circled words. The manual provides 
63 

instructions for converting raw scores into Tscores. 

Interpretability: Although the ASEBA 

provides the user with T-scores to compare a 

child’s performance against other children and the 

scoring forms classify scores as normal (under 93 

percent), borderline (93 to 97 percent), or clinical 

(over 97 percent), the authors recommend that 

the results be interpreted by someone with some 

graduate training. 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: The manual does 

not provide details about this, but suggests that 

persons rating children with disabilities compare 

the child’s behavior to their expectations of a 

typical same-age child. 

Training Support: None indicated, however, 

ASEBA was designed to be easy to use and some 

support may be available on the internet. 

Report Preparation Support: The manual 

shows a report generated by computer scoring 

software. 

References: 

Achenbach, Thomas M. and Leslie A. 

Rescorla. Manual for the ASEBA Preschool Forms 

and Profiles. ASEBA, Burlington, VT, 2000. 
 64

 

 

 

 

 

AGES & STAGES QUESTIONNAIRES, THIRD EDITION (ASQ-3), 

2009 (2011 Update) 

Authors: 

Jane Squires, Elizabeth Twombly, Diane Bricker, and 

LaWanda Potter 

Publisher: 

Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. 

(800) 638-3775 

http://www.pbrookes.com 

Instrument: 

http://www.brookespublishing.com/resourcecenter/screening-and-assessment/asq/asq-3/ 

http://agesandstages.com/ 

Initial Material Cost: 

ASQ-3 Starter Kit (includes 21 photocopiable print 

masters of the questionnaires and scoring sheets, CDROM with printable PDF questionnaires, User's Guide, 

Quick Start Guide): $249.95 

Spanish Starter Kit with an English User's Guide: 

$249.95 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: 

The sample represents English-speaking families from 

all 50 states and some U.S. territories and consists of 

15,138 children (47.4 percent female) between 1 and 66 

months of age. Children from both risk and non-risk 

populations are included. Families are educationally 

and economically diverse, and their ethnicities roughly 

match estimates from the 2007 U.S. Census. Data were 

collected between January 2004 and June 2008. The 

Spanish-speaking sample is described below (see Other 

Languages). 

Languages: 

English, Spanish 

Type of Assessment: 

Parent report 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

1 to 66 months of age; 21 age-specific questionnaires 

for use at 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 27, 

30, 33, 36, 42, 48, 54, and 60 months of age. Users may 

vary the interval to fit their needs. 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: Questionnaires are written at no higher 

than a grade 6 reading level so that parents may easily 

understand and administer. Each questionnaire takes 

10 to 15 minutes to administer and approximately 1 to 

5 minutes to score. Scoring and interpretation requires 

professionals or trained paraprofessionals. 

Brookes On Location, the professional development 

program of Brookes Publishing, offers onsite training 

for the ASQ-3 and ASQ:SE. Introduction seminars last 

1 to 2 days and cost $1,550 to $2,800 for up to 40 

attendees. Three-day train-the-trainer session costs 

include an individual registration fee ($895), User's 

Guides ($50 each), and lodging. Discounted fees may 

be available for group registrations of four or more. 

DVDs are available on using the ASQ-3 system in the 

context of a program home visit ($49.95) and on 

scoring and interpreting questionnaires ($49.95). 

Summary: 

Initial Material Cost: 3 (>$200)
 


Reliability: 3 (mostly .65 or higher)
 


Validity: 3 (concurrent, given in percentage, not 
 

correlation); 1 (predictive, none described)
 


Norming Sample Characteristics: 3 (normed within
 


past 15 years, nationally representative)
 


Ease of Administration and Scoring: 2 (self­


administered by parent and scored by trained staff
 


member or parent)
 


Description: The Ages & Stages 

Questionnaires, 3rd Edition (ASQ-3) is a series of 

21 parent-completed questionnaires to help screen 

infants and young children for developmental 

delays during their first 5.5 years. It is completed 

by parents or caregivers for children 1 to 66 

months of age. Each questionnaire includes 30 

developmental items and focuses on assessment of 
65 

five key developmental areas: Communication, 

Gross Motor, Fine Motor, Problem Solving, and 

Personal-Social. Communication addresses 

babbling, vocalizing, listening, and understanding; 

Gross Motor focuses on body movements, 

including arm, body, and leg; Fine Motor 

addresses finger movements; Problem Solving 

focuses on learning and playing with toys; and 

Personal-Social addresses social play and play 

with toys and other children. Parents rate each 

item as “Yes” the child does the behavior, 

“Sometimes,” and “Not Yet.” Items about 

behaviors that are challenging to describe (for 

example, putting beads on a string) include 

illustrations to help parents guide their responses. 

The items include a mix of skill ranges, including 

activities the child may not have tried before. 

Usually program or clinical staff work with 

parents to complete the questionnaires and 

encourage the parent to assist the child in trying 

an activity to see if they can do it (for example, if 

the child has not had the opportunity to draw a 

line, the parent or staff member might give the 

child a crayon and paper to see if she makes a 

line). The ASQ-3 also includes a section for 

parents to record general concerns and issues not 

captured by the questionnaire. One reviewer notes 

that the measure is a valuable screening tool for 

identifying potential developmental disabilities 

that are suspected in infants and young children 

but that it is not a standardized measure to be 

used for placement decisions for special education 

services (Hanig 2010). 

The ASQ-3 updates the second edition of the 

ASQ (Squires and Bricker 1999) to include a new 

standardization sample, new questionnaires 

administered to 2- and 9-month-olds, a new 

monitoring zone range to identify infants and 

children at risk of developmental delays but not 

scoring below cut-off points, open-ended 

questions, revised cut-off points, an updated 

User's Guide to facilitate use with diverse 

populations, and expanded administration 

windows. The authors and their colleagues are 

developing a version of the ASQ for children ages 

4 weeks to 39 months, called the ASQ: Inventory, 

designed to monitor children's development using 

one form. This would provide a way to scale the 

items and obtain scores that are more comparable 

to a traditional assessment with basals and 

ceilings. 

Other Languages: The Spanish questionnaires 

were field tested with Spanish-speaking parents in 

a number of states across the United States, 

including Arizona, Texas, and Washington, 

although authors do not report when the testing 

was conducted. Selected experts who work with 

Spanish-speaking children and families reviewed 

the second edition of the ASQ for accuracy and to 

determine if it would accommodate the variety of 

Spanish dialects spoken by families in the United 

States (for example, Nicaraguan, Mexican, 

Argentinean). The panel corrected translation 

errors and changed wording based on its review. 

Although separate cut-off points for the 

Spanish questionnaires were not empirically 

derived as for the English questionnaires, cut-off 

points are similar for the Spanish and English 

samples at risk for developmental delays. 
 66

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Uses of Information: The ASQ-3 provides 

comprehensive initial screening for developmental 

delays, monitoring and identification of areas in 

need of further assessment, and parent education 

about child development. It also fosters parent 

involvement. 

Reliability: (1) Internal consistency: 

Cronbach's alpha was reported for each 

developmental area among children 2 to 36 

months and 42 to 60 months, respectively: 

Communication (.57 to .80 and .66 to .83); Gross 

Motor (.57 to .87 and .68 to .73); Fine Motor (.51 

to .77 and .76 to .83); Problem Solving (.53 to .78 

and .70 to .78); and Personal-Social (.51 to .67 and 

.66 to .71). 

(2) Test-retest reliability: percentage 

agreement between administrations within a twoweek interval for 145 parents was 92 percent. 

Intraclass correlations ranged from .75 to .82. 

(3) Inter-rater reliability: percentage 

agreement between parents and trained examiners 

was 93 percent. Intraclass correlations by 

developmental area ranged from .43 

(Communication) to .69 (Personal-Social). 

Validity: (1) Content validity: revisions were 

made to items included in the third edition based 

on ASQ user feedback and statistical analyses, 

including item response theory (IRT) modeling. 

Items that did not fit a developmental model 

underwent review and revision. Revisions 

included item wording adjustments, clarifications 

to examples accompanying items, modification of 

item illustrations, and the addition of an item to 

the Communication developmental area to assist 

in identifying children who may have delays in 

expressive language. Items included in the Spanish 

version of the ASQ-3 underwent revision to 

correct translation errors in the second edition. 

Items were also reworded to mirror changes in 

items and format made in the ASQ-3 English 

version. 

(2) Concurrent validity: a sample of 579 

children was administered the ASQ-3 and Batelle 

Developmental Inventory (BDI) for classifications 

of typical development. Sensitivity between the 

ASQ-3 and BDI across all age groups (2 to 60 

months) and developmental areas was 86 percent 

and ranged from 85 percent (2- to 12-month 

questionnaires) to 89 percent (14- to 24-month 

questionnaire) for infants and toddlers. Sensitivity 

for older children 42 to 60 months was 83 percent. 

Specificity between the ASQ-3 and BDI across all 

age groups and developmental areas was 86 

percent and ranged from 78 percent (14- to 24­

month questionnaires) to 91 percent (2- to 12­

month questionnaires) for infants and toddlers 

and was 92 percent (42- to 60-month 

questionnaire) for older children. 

(3) Construct validity: the developmental area 

scores are strongly correlated with the overall 

ASQ-3 scores, with the coefficients ranging from 

.65 to .70. The correlations among the 

developmental area scores in the moderate range 

(.33 to .54). 

Bias Analysis: Parents and caregivers from the 

normative sample completed either paper 

questionnaires (n = 9,733) or web-based 
67 

questionnaires (n = 8,839). Statistical analyses, 

including IRT modeling, tested variations between 

the two types of questionnaires. Results indicated 

that 60 items out of 570 (10 percent) showed 

differential item functioning (DIF) and were 

equally distributed among all age intervals.1 

Within each developmental area, significant tvalues (which is a statistical test for DIF) for items 

that showed DIF were not all positive or negative, 

indicating no consistent pattern of differences 

between the same items on the paper and webbased questionnaires. 

Methods of Scoring: Parents provide one of 

three responses for each item in the ASQ-3 (i.e., 

yes, sometimes, not yet). Trained program staff or 

professionals convert item responses to point 

values and sum them for each developmental area. 

Interpretability: Scorers transfer identifying 

information, item responses, and scores for each 

developmental area to an Information Summary 

Sheet. The sheet provides age-based normative 

score ranges, to which developmental area scores 

are compared. Scores are then determined as 

above, close to, or below cut-off points. 

Professionals or paraprofessionals are required to 

provide feedback to parents who have completed 

the questionnaire. They may provide parents with 

immediate feedback if scoring is conducted on 

site. 

Training Support: The User's Guide contains 

complete instructions for each phase of the 

 

1 This analysis used the 19 intervals from 4 to 60 months. The 

2- and 9-month intervals were still under development. 

questionnaire. Brookes On Location, the 

professional development program of Brookes 

Publishing, offers onsite one-day introductory 

seminars for the ASQ-3 and/or ASQ:SE as well as 

three-day train-the-trainer seminars. Two DVDs 

provide guidance on using the ASQ-3 system in 

the context of a home visit and on scoring and 

interpreting questionnaires. Other support 

materials include guidelines for choosing referral 

criteria to determine if children need more 

extensive assessment or close monitoring or little 

or no monitoring as well as activities sheets with 

games and events that correspond to the ASQ-3 

age intervals. 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: No information 

available. 

Report Preparation Support: Program staff 

may retain Information Summary Sheets as a 

record of the child's performance on the ASQ-3 so 

that questionnaires may be returned to parents for 

reference. 
 68

 

 

 

References: 

Brookes Publishing Co. “Ages & Stages 

Questionnaires, Third Edition (ASQ-3).” 

Available at [http://www.agesandstages.com]. 

2009. 

Farrell, Jane, LaWanda Potter, and Arden 

Munkres. Ages and Stages Questionnaires on a 

Home Visit DVD. Baltimore: Brookes Publishing 

Co., 2007. 

Hanig, Kenneth M. “Review of the Ages & 

Stages Questionnaire: A Parent-Completed Child 

Monitoring System, Third Edition.” In The 

Eighteenth Mental Measurements Yearbook, edited 

by Robert A. Spies, Janet F. Carlson, and Kurt F. 

Geisinger. Lincoln, NE: The Buros Institute of 

Mental Measurements, 2010. 

Squires, Jane, and Diane Bricker. “Ages & 

Stages Questionnaires (ASQ): A Parent-Completed, 

Child-Monitoring System, Second Edition.” 

Baltimore: Brookes Publishing Co., 1999. 

Squires, Jane, Diane Bricker, Elizabeth 

Twombly, Robert Nickel, Jantina Clifford, 

Kimberly Murphy, Robert Hoselton, LaWanda 

Potter, Linda Mounts, and Jane Farrell. Ages & 

Stages English Questionnaires, Third Edition 

(ASQ-3): A Parent-Completed, Child-Monitoring 

System. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing 

Co., 2009. 

Squires, Jane, Diane Bricker, Elizabeth 

Twombly, Robert Nickel, Jantina Clifford, 

Kimberly Murphy, Robert Hoselton, LaWanda 

Potter, Linda Mounts, and Jane Farrell. Ages & 

Stages Spanish Questionnaires, Third Edition 

(ASQ-3): A Parent-Completed, Child-Monitoring 

System. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing 

Co., 2009. 

Squires, Jane, Elizabeth Twombly, Diane 

Bricker, and LaWanda Potter. ASQ-3 User's Guide, 

Third Edition. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes 

Publishing Co., 2009. 

Twombly, Elizabeth, and Jane Squires. ASQ-3 

Scoring and Referral DVD. Baltimore: Brookes 

Publishing Co., 2009. 
AGES AND STAGES QUESTIONNAIRES: SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL 

(ASQ:SE) A PARENT-COMPLETED, CHILD-MONITORING SYSTEM 

FOR SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL BEHAVIORS, 2002 

 

 

 

Authors: 

Jane Squires, Diane Bricker, and Elizabeth Twombly 

Publisher: 

Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. 


1-800-638-3775 

www.brookespublishing.com 	

Initial Material Cost: 

Questionnaires and User’s Guide: $125 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: 

Compared with 2000 Census figures, the normative 

sample underrepresents Caucasians and overrepresents 

individuals of mixed ethnicity and has higher 

percentage of well-educated mothers and low-income 

families. 

Languages: 

English and Spanish 

Type of Assessment: 

Parent report 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 3 to 66 

months; administered within 3 months of the target 

ages of 6, 12, 18, 24, and 30 months, and within 6 

months of the target ages of 36, 48, and 60 months 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 


Requirements: The ASQ:SE can be administered by 

parents, child care providers, and preschool teachers 

(10 to 15 minutes per questionnaire). Ideally, program 

staff will train parents on administering the ASQ:SE; 

training takes approximately 2 to 3 hours. Scoring 

should be done by a paraprofessional, and should only 

take a few minutes per questionnaire. 

Summary: 

Initial Material Cost: 2 ($100 to $200) 

Reliability: 3 (.65 or higher) 

Validity: 3 (.50 or higher) 

Norming Sample Characteristics: 2 (not nationally 

representative, normed within the past 15 years) 

Ease of Administration and Scoring: 3 (selfadministered by parent but scoring by paraprofessional 

recommended) 

Description: This series of eight parentcompleted questionnaires with 22 to 36 items in 

each questionnaire helps determine children’s 

progress in their social-emotional behavior. Each 

questionnaire can be used within 3 months of the 

target age (for the 6- through 30-month 

questionnaires) or 6 months of the target age (for 

the 36- through 60-month questionnaires). The 

questionnaires focus on seven behavioral areas: 

(1) self-regulation, (2) compliance, (3) 

communication, (4) adaptive functioning, (5) 

autonomy, (6) affect, and (7) interaction with 

people. Each questionnaire is written at a 5th- to 

6th-grade reading level. The ASQ:SE can be used 

to screen for social-emotional development 

problems at one point in time or to monitor a 

child repeatedly at different intervals. The 

publisher recommends that the ASQ:SE be used in 

conjunction with a developmental screening tool 

that provides information on the child’s 

communication, motor, and cognitive 

functioning. 

Uses of Information: The ASQ:SE was 

developed to complement the ASQ by providing 

information specifically addressing the social and 

emotional behavior of children ranging in age 

from 3 to 66 months. The ASQ:SE is a screening 

tool that helps practitioners identify infants and 

young children whose social or emotional 

69 
 70

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

development requires further evaluation to 

determine whether referral for intervention 

services is necessary. 

Reliability: (1) Internal consistency reliability 

(Cronbach’s alpha): the alphas for the 

questionnaires were .82 overall, .69 (6-month), .67 

(12-month), 18-month (.81); 24-month (.80); 30­

month (.88); 36-month (.89); 48-month (.91); 60­

month (.91). (2) Test-retest reliability, with one to 

three weeks between tests: percent agreement 

between scores by the same rater on two occasions 

is 94 percent. (3) Inter-rater reliability: no 

information available. 

Validity: (1) Concurrent validity: percent 

agreement of ASQ:SE with similar established 

tools ranged from 81 to 95 percent and was 93 

percent overall. (2) Predictive validity: no 

information available. 

Method of Scoring: Scoring can be done by 

paraprofessional or professional staff. Scoring 

options for the items in the ASQ:SE are “most of 

the time,” “sometimes,” and “rarely or never.” 

Each response is converted to a numerical value. 

The numerical values are totaled and compared 

with the empirically derived cutoff score (for that 

particular questionnaire interval) that indicates 

whether a child should receive further in-depth 

evaluation. The reproducible scoring sheets all 

include referral considerations that help 

determine whether the child needs further 

evaluation. 

Interpretability: An Information Summary 

Sheet is provided to assist program staff with 

scoring and summarizing assessment information 

and providing them with a summary of the child’s 

performance on the questionnaire. The 

Information Summary Sheet contains instructions 

for scoring the questionnaire, a chart indicating 

cutoff scores for referrals, and a list of 

considerations prior to making referrals to mental 

health professionals. Children whose scores are at 

or greater than the cutoff point should be 

considered for further evaluation or referral, and 

children with scores below the cutoff point can be 

monitored with another ASQ:SE in 6 to 12 

months. 

Training Support: The User’s Guide contains 

complete instructions for training on the ASQ:SE, 

setting up the assessment, and conducting it. It 

provides instructions for administering the 

questionnaires with sensitivity to children’s 

environmental, cultural, and social-emotional 

differences. Other support materials include 

compilation of detailed technical data on how the 

system was developed and tested, case examples, 

and creative activities and lists of social-emotional 

behaviors professionals can share with parents for 

use with each age group. The publisher also offers 

customized training seminars to provide guidance 

on using this assessment tool. 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: The ASQ:SE User’s 

Guide briefly mentions the importance of 

interpreting assessment information within the 

context of the specific child’s health, development, 

and family/cultural factors. The guide also 
71 

describes factors to consider before making a 

referral based on the ASQ:SE assessment. 

Report Preparation Support: None 

described. 

References: 

Squires, Jane, Diane Bricker, and Elizabeth 

Twombly. Ages And Stages Questionnaires: 

Social-Emotional (ASQ:SE), A Parent-Completed, 

Child-Monitoring System For Social-Emotional 

Behaviors. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing 

Co., 2002. 

Squires, Jane, Diane Bricker, and Elizabeth 

Twombly. Ages And Stages Questionnaires: 

Social-Emotional (ASQ:SE), A Parent-Completed, 

Child-Monitoring System For Social-Emotional 

Behaviors, User’s Guide. Baltimore: Paul H. 

Brookes Publishing Co., 2002. 

For information on continuing research and 

adjustments in cutoff points on the ASQ:SE, refer 

to http://www.brookespublishing.com/resource

center/screening-and-assessment/asq/asq-se/. 

­
 72

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

ASSESSMENT, EVALUATION, AND PROGRAMMING SYSTEM 

(AEPS) MEASUREMENT FOR BIRTH TO THREE YEARS, 1993
 

Authors:
 


Diane Bricker, Juliann Cripe, Kristine Slentz
 


Publisher:
 


Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
 


1-800-638-3775 
 

www.brookespublishing.com
 


Initial Material Cost:
 


AEPSTM Birth to Three set (Administration Guide, Test,
 


Curriculum for Birth to Three Years): $150
 


Representativeness of Norming Sample: No norming
 


sample.
 


Languages:
 


English1



Type of Assessment:
 


Observation, direct assessment (to elicit a behavior), 
 

and parent, caregiver, or therapist report
 


1 The first edition also has Spanish translations of the Family 

Interest Survey and the Family Report. 

Age Range and Administration Interval: Children
 


whose developmental age is 3 years or less. May be used
 


for children whose chronological age is 6 years or less.
 


Readministered at 3- or 4-month intervals.
 


Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring
 


Requirements: The AEPS can be used by both direct
 


service personnel and specialists. Administration time
 


may range from 1 to 2 hours for the initial assessment
 


and 15 to 30 minutes for subsequent assessments,
 


depending on the child’s level of functioning and the
 


user’s familiarity with the AESP and the child. 
 

Quarterly or yearly followups generally take half the 
 

time of the initial assessment.
 


Summary:
 


Initial Material Cost: 2 ($100 to $200)
 


Reliability: 3 (.65 or higher).
 


Validity: 3 (.5 or higher for content validity) Norming 
 

Sample Characteristics: 1 (none described)
 


Ease of Administration and Scoring: 2 (administered 
 

and scored by someone with basic clerical skills)
 


Description: The Assessment, Evaluation, 

and Programming System (AEPS) Measurement 

for Birth to Three Years is a criterion-referenced 

assessment tool that is designed to help early 

interventionists improve their assessments of the 

abilities and needs of young children who have 

disabilities or are at risk for developmental delays. 

The AEPS test was designed to be used in 

conjunction with the AEPS Curriculum for Birth 

to Three Years or other similar curricula. It covers 

the developmental progress of children's 

functional skills in six key domains (fine motor, 

gross motor, adaptive, cognitive, socialcommunication, and social development). Each 

domain is divided into strands, which consist of 

related groups of behavior divided into common 

categories. Each strand has a series of goals and 

discrete objectives that lead up to the goal. The 

strands, goals, and objectives are developmentally 

sequenced. Objectives and goals are either 

observed, elicited, or recorded based on parent, 

caregiver, or therapist report. 

The AEPS encourages family participation in 

the assessment through the use of family-focused 

materials, such as the family report, planning 
73 

guide, child progress record, and family interest 

survey. 

Uses of Information: The AEPS is an 

assessment/evaluation tool that is used to create 

individual evaluation programs and intervention 

plans, known as Individualized Educational 

Program/Individualized Family Service Plans 

(IEP/IFSP). The test is used to provide a baseline 

on the child’s functioning to help develop the 

intervention curriculum and to measure the 

child’s developmental progress over time. 

Reliability: Several research samples were 

drawn from children ages 2 months to 6 years in 

early intervention programs in Oregon, 

Washington, Idaho, and Arkansas, and 48 

interventionists in Vermont, Iowa, Oregon, and 

British Columbia. (1) Inter-rater reliability: 

Pearson product moment correlations for 

individual domains ranged from .71 for the Social 

Domain to .96 for the Gross Motor Domain. 

Mean correlation for all domains was .88. Total 

test score correlation was .97. (2) Test-retest 

reliability (1-2 week interval): Pearson Product 

Moment correlation for domains ranged from .77 

for the Social Domain to .95 for the Gross Motor 

Domain, with a correlation of .88 for all domains. 

Total test agreement was .95. 

Validity: (1) Congruent Validity: Pearson 

Product Moment correlations with the Bayley 

Scales of Infant Development Mental Age and 

Motor Age were .93 and .88, respectively. 

Correlation with the Gesell Developmental Scale 

Maturity Age scores was .51. 

Method of Scoring: Each of the six domains 

has a specific recording form. Items are marked as 

“pass consistently” (2), “inconsistent 

performance” (1), and “does not pass” (0). Specific 

criteria are provided for each goal and objective. 

In addition to scoring each of the items, a 

qualifying note is attached to each item goal and 

objective. Items are marked as “assistance 

provided” (A), “behavior interfered” (B), 

“reported assessment” (R), 

“modification/adaptation” (M), and “direct test” 

(D). 

Scoring can be done two ways: (1) a total 

score is computed for domains by counting the 

number of goals and objectives scored with a “2” 

in each domain. For the total frequency, the 

domain scores are added together. The number of 

“1” scores are computed in the same way. (2) The 

percentage of items scored with a “2” or “1” can 

also be calculated by dividing the total “2” scores 

by the total number of items in the domain and 

the total “1” scores by the total number of items in 

the domain. For an overall percent score, the total 

number of items scored with a “2” across the 

domains is multiplied by 2 and divided by 456 

(total number possible). 

The AEPS Family Interest Survey and AEPS 

Family Report, which are family-centered 

materials that can be used in conjunction with the 

AEPS Test, are completed by families and have 

separate scoring guidelines. 

Interpretability: No instructions provided. 

However, the scoring of the instrument will 

inform the interventionist how well the child is 
 74

 

 

performing the observed skill. The test results 

expand the quantity and quality of developmental 

information and help professionals develop IFSP 

or IEP goals and objectives. 

Training Support: “Brookes on Location” 

professional development seminar, AEPSTM: A 

Linked System of Assessment, Intervention, and 

Evaluation, is available through the publisher 

(www.brookespublishing.com/). 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: The AEPS was 

designed for use with populations of children who 

are at risk and who have disabilities. For children 

who have severe impairments, general 

modifications are required. For children with 

severe disabilities, the AEPS test objectives should 

be used more as goals, and the associated 

curricular programming steps as objectives. 

General adaptation guidelines are provided for 

children with visual, hearing, and motor 

impairments. 

Report Preparation Support: Data Recording 

Forms are provided for scoring tests, graphing 

results, tracking scores, and recording comments. 

A Child Progress Record is available to track 

progress on strand objectives. 

References: 

Cripe, Juliann, Kristine Slentz, and Diane 

Bricker. AEPS Curriculum for Birth to Three 

Years, Volume 2. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes 

Publishing Co., Inc., 1993. 
75 

BATTELLE DEVELOPMENTAL INVENTORY (BDI), 1984 

Authors: 

J. Newborg, J.R. Stock, & J. Wnek (initial 

development); J. Guidubaldi (pilot norming study); J.S. 

Svinicki (completion and standardization) 

Publisher: 

Riverside Publishing Co. 

800-323-9540 

www.riverpub.com 

Initial Material Cost: 

Examiner’s manual: $58 

Scoring booklets (15): $35 

Examiner’s manual for screening test: $56 Screening 

test booklets (30): $41 

Overview videotape: $58 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: National 

norming sample of 800 children from birth to 8 years 

of age, stratified according to geographical region, age, 

race, and gender; 75 percent urban and 25 percent 

rural; 28 test sites in 24 states. Distribution of sample 

closely represents the four major geographical regions 

of the United States. 

Languages: 

English 

Type of Assessment: Direct Child Assessment, 

Observation, and Parent Interview 

Age Range and Administration Interval: Birth to 8 

years. 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: Can be administered by 

paraprofessionals (“nonpsychologists”) and is intended 

for use by infant, preschool, primary, and special 

education teachers. Important that examiners have 

supervised practice in administering BDI for children 

with disabilities across age span. 

BDI Screening Test takes 10 to 15 minutes for children 

under 3 and over 5 years of age and 20 to 30 minutes 

for children between the ages of 3 and 5. The full BDI 

can be administered in about 1 hour for children under 

3 and over 5 years of age and in 1.5 to 2 hours for 

children between 3 and 5 years. 

Summary: 

Initial Material Cost: 1 (< $100) 

Reliability: 3 (test-retest, .65 or higher) 

Validity: 3 (.5 or higher for concurrent) 

Norming Sample Characteristics: 2 (older than 15 

years, nationally representative) 

Ease of Administration and Scoring: 2 (administered 

and scored by paraprofessionals) 

Description: The BDI assesses children from 

birth to 8 years of age on the following five 

domains: Personal-Social, Adaptive, Motor, 

Communication, and Cognitive. The BDI 

Screening test contains 96 items and represents a 

subset of the full battery, which is comprised of 

341 items. Within each domain, the items are 

assigned age levels and organized sequentially into 

subdomains. The BDI is norm-referenced and 

helps to identify young children with special needs 

and assess the functional abilities of these 

children, as well as children without special needs. 

Child diagnostic information for the full BDI is 

presented in the form of age equivalents, 

percentiles, and standard scores (that is, 

developmental quotients, z-scores, T-scores, and 

normal curve equivalents) for each of the major 

domains and subdomains. This information is 

available for the Screening Test as age equivalents 

and cutoff scores. 
 76

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Uses of Information: The BDI is primarily 

used for four purposes: (1) assessment and 

identification of children with special needs, (2) 

assessment of school readiness among children 

without special needs, (3) planning and providing 

educational instruction, and (4) evaluation of 

groups of children with special needs. 

Reliability: Test-retest (4-month interval) for 

the total test is .98 for children 0 to 5 and 18 to 23 

months old and .99 for children 6 to 11, 12 to 17, 

24 to 35, and 36 to 47 months old. 

Validity: (1) Content validity: The process for 

developing the BDI involved identifying skill areas 

to be assessed, selecting or developing the test 

items, and verifying the content validity of the 

results with review by content experts. (2) 

Construct validity: Factor analysis and the 

intercorrelations between the domains and 

subdomains supported the factorial validity and 

conceptual structure of the BDI. (3) Concurrent 

validity: Measures on the BDI relate well to other 

instruments, including the Vineland Social 

Maturity Scale (Doll 1965), and the 

Developmental Activities Screening Inventory 

(DASI; Dubose & Langley 1977), with correlations 

ranging from .78 to .94. While the BDI is not an 

intelligence test, it measures motor and language 

skills and is found to relate moderately well with 

the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale (S-B; Terman 

& Merrill 1960), with correlations ranging from 

.40 to .61. Validity tests were also conducted with 

the BDI Screening Test. The correlation between 

the total score on the Screening Test and that of 

the full battery is .99, indicating that performance 

on the Screening Test predicts performance on the 

full BDI. 

Method of Scoring: Items are scored on a 

three-point system, according to whether the child 

typically completes the item correctly (2), 

sometimes does so (1), or rarely or never 

completes the task, even if the child did not have 

the opportunity to respond (0). The number of 

allowed trials is presented separately with each 

item. If a child completes the item correctly on the 

first trial, he or she receives 2 points and can move 

on to the next item. Basal rules are established so 

that test items that are extremely easy for a child 

need not be administered, while ceiling rules 

ensure that items that are much too difficult are 

not administered. A child receives full credit, 2 

points per item, for all items that fall below the 

basal level. The subdomain raw scores for the full 

BDI battery are obtained by summing the 

individual item scores from the basal level 

through the ceiling level and then adding that 

total to the full credit sum (2 points per item) for 

items below the basal level. In contrast, for the 

Screening Test the basal and ceiling rules apply to 

each domain. Domain raw scores can be obtained 

by summing the subdomain raw scores, and a 

total raw score is obtained by summing the five 

domain raw scores. Once obtained, the raw scores 

are transferred to the Score Summary and Profile 

section in the Scoring Booklet. 

Interpretability: Tables are used to convert 

raw scores to percentile rank, age equivalent 

scores, and the following standard scores: zscores, T scores, deviation quotients, and normal 
77 

curve equivalents. The Screening Test cutoff 

scores for each age group are provided for three 

probability levels that correspond to 1.0, 1.5, and 

2.0 standard deviations below the mean. In 

interpreting the full BDI, standard scores are 

useful for decision making, percentile ranks are 

useful for reporting information to parents, and 

age equivalent scores may be required by federal, 

state, and local policies. Cutoffs are not provided 

for the full BDI, but the authors recommend 

following convention and treating standard scores 

that are 1.5 or more standard deviations below the 

mean as an indication of a performance deficit. 

BDI norms should not be used if the BDI has not 

been administered according to standard 

procedures. Five case studies on the interpretation 

of scores are presented in chapter 4 of the manual. 

Training Support: An overview videotape is 

available. 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: The BDI includes 

guidelines for assessing children with disabilities 

so that they are able to respond in a manner that is 

appropriate for them. Also, most of the items 

include standardized stimulus/response options 

for children with visual, hearing, neuromotor, or 

behavior/emotional needs. Children with special 

needs are scored according to the same criteria 

used to score children without disabilities. 

Adaptations are not made for children who have 

“no opportunity” for a response on an item due to 

handicapping conditions, because a score of 0 

reflects children’s actual level of functioning. 

Report Preparation Support: Guidelines for 

developing goals and objectives for children with 

special needs through the Individual Education 

Plans are found in chapter 5 of the manual. 

References: 

Doll, E.A. Vineland Social Maturity Scale. 

Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service, 

1965. 

DuBose, R.F. and M.B. Langley. 

Developmental Activities Screening 

Inventory. Hingham, MA: Teaching Resources 

Corporation, 1977. 

Newborg, Jean, John Stock, Linda Wnek, John 

Guidubaldi, and John Svinicki. Battelle 

Developmental Inventory with Recalibrated 

Technical Data and Norms: Examiner’s Manual. 

Riverside Publishing, 1984. 

Newborg, Jean, John Stock, Linda Wnek, John 

Guidubaldi, and John Svinicki. Battelle 

Developmental Inventory with Calibrated 

Technical Data and Norms: Screening Test. 

Riverside Publishing, 1984. 

Terman, L.M. and M.A. Merrill. StanfordBinet Intelligence Scale, Third Revision (Form L

M). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1960. 

­
 

 

 

 

 

 

BAYLEY SCALES OF INFANT AND TODDLER DEVELOPMENT, 

THIRD EDITION (BAYLEY-III), 2005 (2011 Update) 

Authors: 

Nancy Bayley 

Publisher: 

Pearson 

(800) 627-7271 

http://www.pearsonassessments.com 

Instrument: 

http://www.pearsonassessments.com/HAIWEB/Cultur 

es/en-us/Productdetail.htm?Pid=015-8027­

23X&Mode=summary 

Initial Material Cost: Complete Kit (includes 

Administration and Technical Manuals; 25 each of 

Cognitive, Language Composite, and Motor Composite 

Record Forms; Stimulus Book; Picture Book; 

Manipulative Set; 25 Social-Emotional and Adaptive 

Behavior Questionnaires; 25 Caregiver Report Forms; 

and Rolling Case): $950 

Representativeness of Norming Sample 1

: The norming 

sample for the Cognitive, Language Composite, and 

Motor Composite scales was a national, stratified 

sample of 1,700 children 1 to 42 months old (year not 

1 The Social-Emotional Scale was normed during the BayleyIII test development phase in spring 2003. The norming 

sample was a sample of 456 U.S. children 1 to 42 months old 

stratified by region, race/ethnicity, and parent education. The 

sample included eight age groups of approximately equal 

numbers of males and females, with 50 to 89 children per 

group. Children were excluded from the sample if they did 

not speak or understand English; had hearing or visual 

impairments; had developmental risk factors based on social, 

socioeconomic status, or parent education factors; or were 

taking medication that could affect test performance. 

The Adaptive Behavior Scale standardization, reliability, and 

validity evidence is based on the norming sample data of the 

Adaptive Behavior Assessment System-Second Edition, 

which included a stratified sample of 1,350 children 0 to 71 

months old divided into 13 groups of 3- to 5-month intervals 

of 100 children each, except for the oldest age group, which 

had 150 children. Each group included equal numbers of 

males and females. The sample was stratified by 

race/ethnicity and parent education level, and efforts were 

made to ensure that the sample was geographically 

representative. Children with special needs represented 2.88 

percent of the sample. 

specified). The sample included 100 children in each of
 


17 age groups (age group spanned between 1 and 4
 


month intervals). Based on the 2000 U.S. Census
 


Bureau's Current Population Survey, the sample was
 


stratified along the following variables: gender, region, 
 

race/ethnicity, and parent education. The children were 
 

recruited from health clinics, hospitals, child
 


development centers, churches, and other community
 


organizations and identified by professional recruiters. 
 

The initial sample was restricted to typically developing
 


children; then, a subgroup of children with special
 


needs who participated in test development trials
 


(about 10 percent of the sample) was included.
 


Languages:
 


English
 


Type of Assessment: Direct child assessment, 
 

observation, and caregiver report
 


Age Range and Administration Interval: 1 to 42
 


months old. Can be administered at 3-month intervals 
 

for infants less than 12 months of age and at 6-month
 


intervals for older children.
 


Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring
 


Requirements: Administered by a highly trained
 


program staff member. Trained individuals without
 


graduate or professional training in assessment may
 


administer and score the assessment under supervision.
 


Average administration time is 50 minutes for infants
 


up to 13 months old and 90 minutes for children 13
 


months old and older.
 


A training DVD and an interactive administration and 
 

scoring DVD are available for $61.20 and $90.75,
 


respectively.
 


Summary:
 


Initial Material Cost: 3 (> $200)
 


Reliability: 3 (mostly .65 or higher)
 


Validity: 3 (mostly .5 or higher for concurrent)
 


Norming Sample Characteristics: 3 (normed within the 
 

past 15 years, nationally
 


Ease of Administration and Scoring: 3 (administered 
 

and scored by a highly trained individual)
 


78 
79 

Description: The Bayley Scales of Infant and 

Toddler Development, Third Edition (Bayley-III) 

is an individually administered assessment that 

measures the developmental functioning of 

infants and children 1 to 42 months old. The 

measure presents children with situations and 

tasks designed to produce an observable set of 

behavioral responses that are assessed directly on 

the following scales: Cognitive Scale (91 items), 

Language Composite Scale (97 items) with 

Receptive and Expressive Language subscales, and 

Motor Composite Scale (138 items) with Fineand Gross-Motor subscales. The child's parent or 

primary caregiver completes two additional scales: 

Social-Emotional and Adaptive Behavior. The 

assessor completes a Behavior Observation 

Inventory at the conclusion of the assessment to 

determine how often behaviors, such as positive 

affect and cooperativeness, are observed during 

testing. The assessor asks the child's caregiver to 

rate the degree to which the child typically 

exhibits the behavior. Though not discussed here, 

a 15- to 25-minute screener is also available to 

assess cognitive, language, and motor 

development (Bayley-III Screening Test) for use in 

ongoing developmental screening. 

The Bayley-III updates the Bayley Scale for 

Infant Development-Second Edition (BSID-II), 

published in 1993, and divides the Mental Scale 

into Cognitive and Language Composite scales. 

The BSID-II Behavior Rating Scale was revised 

and replaced with the Social-Emotional and 

Adaptive Behavior scales. The Bayley-III adds new 

items to the Cognitive, Language Composite, and 

Motor Composite scales and includes the 

Behavior Observation Inventory to gauge whether 

a child's behavior during the assessment was 

representative of the child's typical conduct. The 

updated measure extends the floor and ceiling for 

each scale by including gifted children and 

children with or at risk of developmental 

challenges. Stimulus materials were updated and 

printed in color, and procedures were modified to 

increase ease of administration. In addition, the 

Bayley Short Form-Research Edition (BSF-R; 

Andreassen and Fletcher 2005), based on the 

BSID-II, was developed for the Early Childhood 

Longitudinal Study-Birth Cohort to provide an 

assessment that is less time-consuming than the 

full BSID-II but sufficiently comprehensive to 

capture adequately the development of infants and 

young children (West and Andreassen 2002). 

The Social-Emotional Scale comprises items 

assessing social-emotional competence and 

sensory processing; it is based on the Greenspan 

Social-Emotional Growth Chart: A Screening 

Questionnaire for Infants and Young Children 

(Greenspan 2004). The assessment measures 

functional emotional milestones. The Adaptive 

Behavior Scale, based on the Adaptive Behavior 

Assessment System-Second Edition (ABAS-II; 

Harrison 2003), assesses the attainment of 

adaptive behavior skills necessary for infants' and 

young children's development of independence. 

Other Languages: None. 

Uses of Information: The Bayley-III is used to 

identify areas of relative impairment or delay, 

develop curricula for interventions, and assess the 

outcome of such interventions. It is not a 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

diagnostic tool but rather indicates areas that 

might require further evaluation. The scales 

should not be used to assess a child's deficit in a 

specific skill area or to make a norm-referenced 

interpretation of scores for children with severe 

sensory or physical impairments. In addition, 

although some of the measure's items are similar 

to items on tests of school-age abilities, the 

Bayley-III is not an intelligence test. 

Reliability: (1) Internal consistency reliability: 

the author provided split-half reliability 

coefficients for the Cognitive, Language 

Composite, and Motor Composite scales on the 

entire norming sample. The coefficients for scores 

on the Cognitive Scale ranged from .79 to .97 

across the 17 age groups. The coefficients for 

scores on the Language Composite Scale ranged 

from .82 to .98 and, across its subscales, from .71 

to .97. For raw scores on the Motor Composite 

Scale, the coefficients ranged from .86 to .96 and, 

across its subscales, from .72 to .95. 

The author also estimated the internal 

consistency of the Cognitive, Language 

Composite, and Motor Composite scales with a 

clinical population of 668 children. For scores on 

the Cognitive Scale, coefficients ranged from .90 

to .99 across nine age groups. For the Language 

Composite Scale, reliability coefficients ranged 

from .74 to .99 across subscales. For the Motor 

Composite Scale, coefficients ranged from .84 to 

.99 across subscales. 

For the Social-Emotional and Adaptive 

Behavior scales, the internal consistency estimates 

come from the original measures' manuals, 

including the Greenspan Social-Emotional 

Growth Chart and ABAS-II. Reliability 

coefficients for the Greenspan Social-Emotional 

Growth Chart spanned across 8 age groups from 0 

to 42 months. Coefficients ranged from .83 to .94 

for the Social-Emotional items and from .76 to .91 

for the Sensory Processing items. Reliability 

coefficients for the ABAS-II spanned across 10 age 

groups from 0 to 47 months. Coefficients ranged 

from .86 to .98 for the total score (i.e., General 

Adaptive Composite) across age groups. For 

subscale scores, they ranged from .70 to .96 for the 

Conceptual domain, from .81 to .94 for the Social 

domain, and from .82 to .97 for the Practical 

domain (except for the scores of children 0 to 3 

months old at 0.65). For a sample of 246 children 

with developmental delays, motor impairments, 

language disorders, and biological risk factors, 

coefficients for the ABAS-II total score ranged 

from .97 to .99 while coefficients for the subscales 

ranged from .90 to .99. 

(2) Test-retest reliability: test-retest reliability 

is based on scores from the Cognitive, Language 

Composite, and Motor Composite scales in 197 

children 2 to 42 months old from the norming 

sample. The test-retest interval between 

administrations ranged from 2 to 15 days (mean = 

6). The correlations for scores on the Cognitive 

Scale ranged from .75 to .86 across four age 

groups. The correlations for scores on the 

Language Composite Scale ranged from .69 to .87 

and, for its subscales, from .63 to .84. The 

correlations for scores on the Motor Composite 

Scale ranged from .79 to .84 and, for its subscales, 

from .73 to .86. The author also presents 

80 
81 

correlations corrected for the variability of the 

standardization sample. No test-retest reliability 

information is reported for scores of the SocialEmotional Scale. The author assessed test-retest 

reliability of scores from the Adaptive Behavior 

Scale by using parent reports for 207 infants and 

toddlers 0 to 35 months old. The test-retest 

interval between administrations ranged from 2 

days to 5 weeks (mean = 12 days). The 

correlations for the total score ranged from .86 to 

.91 while correlations for subscale scores ranged 

from .81 to .90. 

(3) Inter-rater reliability: inter-rater reliability 

was assessed for the Adaptive Behavior Scale for a 

sample of 56 children 0 to 71 months old, each 

rated by two parents. The correlation for the total 

scores was .77. Correlations ranged from .69 to .83 

across domains. 

Validity: (1) Content validity: Expert 

consultation and a review of the literature guided 

development of the Cognitive, Language 

Composite, and Motor Composite scales. In 

addition, an advisory panel lent guidance 

throughout the development process. The author 

also consulted clinical measurement specialists 

and conducted focus groups and surveys. 

Development of the Bayley-III occurred in several 

stages with pilot and tryout studies. The 

developers of the ABAS-II established its set of 

daily independent living skills based on legal and 

professional concepts, standards, and regulations 

related to special education and developmental 

disability. A confirmatory factor analysis using the 

norming sample data supported a three-factor 

latent structure for the Cognitive, Language 

Composite, and Motor Composite scales (based 

on the root mean square error of approximation 

as the goodness-of-fit index). 

(2) Concurrent validity:

2 1

During 

standardization, the author compared the BayleyIII scores to scores on the following instruments: 

the BSID-II, Weschler Preschool and Primary 

Scale of Intelligence-Third Edition (WPPSI-III), 

Preschool Language Scale-Fourth Edition (PLS-4), 

and Peabody Developmental Motor Scales-Second 

Edition (PDMS-2). Separate samples were used 

for each combination of the Bayley-III with one 

other measure. Samples ranged from about 50 to 

100 children 0 to 42 months old (except for the 

WPPSI-III, which included children 28 to 42 

months old), and the test intervals ranged from 0 

to 28 days (mean = 5 to 6). The administration 

order of the assessments was counterbalanced, 

with the means compared across the two orders of 

administration. 

The correlations between scores on the 

Bayley-III Cognitive Scale and other cognitive 

measures were .60 for the BSID-II Mental Scale, 

.72 to .79 for the three WPPSI-III composite scales 

(Full, Verbal, and Performance IQs), and .57 for 

the PLS-4 Composite. Correlations between scores 

on the Bayley-III Language Composite Scale and 

other language measures were .71 for the BSID-II 

Mental Scale, .71 to .83 for the WPPSI-III 

composite scales, and .66 for the PLS-4 Composite 

with correlations of .62 and .68, respectively, with 

 

2 1

Correlations were corrected for the variability of the 

standardization sample. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the PLS-4 Receptive and Expressive 

communication subtest scores. The correlation 

between scores on the Bayley-III Motor 

Composite Scale and the PDMS-II Total Motor 

Quotient was .57 and, between the Bayley-III and 

PDMS-II fine- and gross-motor subtest scores, .59 

and .57, respectively. The correlation between the 

Bayley-III Social-Emotional Scale and BSID-II 

Behavior Rating Scale was .38. The author reports 

that the ABAS-II (the basis for the Bayley-III 

Adaptive Behavior Scale) and Vineland Adaptive 

Behavior Scale-Interview Edition (VABS) were 

administered to a sample of 45 typically 

developing children 1 to 69 months old (mean = 

34). The correlation between their scores on the 

two measures was .70. 

Correlations of Bayley-III composites and 

subscales with assessments measuring largely 

different skills range in magnitude, with some at 

the moderate level. The correlations for the 

Bayley-III Cognitive Scale scores were .40 and .38, 

respectively, with the BSID-II Motor and Behavior 

Rating scales and .45 with the PDMS-II total 

motor score. The correlations between scores on 

the Bayley-III Language Composite Scale and the 

BSID-II Motor and Behavior Rating scales were 

.47 and .37, respectively, and .45 with the PDMSII total motor score. The correlations between 

scores on the Bayley-III Motor Composite Scale 

and the BSID-II Mental and Behavior Rating 

scales were .44 and .31, respectively, .55 with the 

WPPSI-III, and .44 with the PLS-4 Composite. 

The correlations for the Bayley-III SocialEmotional Scale scores were .25 and .24, 

respectively, with the BSID-II Mental and Motor 

scales scores, .43 with the WPPSI-III, .23 with the 

PLS-4 Composite, and .25 with the PDMS-II total 

motor score. 

The author reports that the Bayley-III and 

ABAS-II were administered to a sample of 60 

children 5 to 37 months old, with a test interval of 

0 to 23 days (mean = 4). The correlations between 

scores on the Bayley-III scales and the ABAS-II 

General Adaptive Composite ranged from .25 to 

.36, except for the .04 correlation between the 

ABAS-II General Adaptive Composite score and 

the Social-Emotional scale. The ABAS-II and the 

Scales of Independent Behavior-Revised: Early 

Development Form (SIB-R), a brief 40-item 

assessment, were administered to a typically 

developing sample of 34 children 2 to 23 months 

old (mean = 14); the correlation between scores 

was .18. 

The author assessed the Bayley-III's ability to 

differentiate (not diagnose) between convenience 

samples of special populations and a group of 

typically developing children matched on gender, 

parent education level, race/ethnicity, and 

geographic region. Compared to scores for 

children without disabilities, the scores on all 

subscales and composites were significantly lower 

for the following groups: children with Down 

syndrome, children with pervasive development 

disorder, children with cerebral palsy, children 

with specific or suspected language impairment, 

and children at risk for developmental delay. 

Children with asphyxiation at birth scored 

significantly lower than children in the matched 

control group on all subscale and composite 

82 
83 

scores except for the Expressive Language 

subscale. Children with prenatal alcohol exposure 

had significantly lower scores on all subscales and 

composites except for the Motor Composite and 

its associated subscales. Children small for 

gestational age scored significantly lower on the 

Language Composite and Motor Composite and 

the Receptive Communication and Gross-Motor 

subscales. Children born prematurely or with low 

birth weight had significantly lower Motor 

Composite and Fine-Motor subscale scores. 

The author also examined the SocialEmotional scale scores. The percentage of children 

scoring two or more standard deviations below 

the mean was greater for the special population 

groups (4 to 67 percent) than for the control 

groups (0 to 3 percent). In terms of the ABAS-II, 

the author found significant differences for all skill 

areas and domains between the following groups 

of children and their matched controls: children 

with developmental delays, children with 

biological risk factors, children with motor and 

physical impairments, and children with receptive 

and/or expressive language disorders. 

(3) Predictive validity: analyses were 

conducted with the original Bayley Scales of Infant 

Development (BSID 1969), which included 

Mental and Motor scales. “. . .[T]he BSID at the 

scale level is generally not as predictive of later 

intellectual, language, or achievement 

performance as are specified subscales; however, 

the later in the preschool period (i.e., beyond two 

years) the BSID scores are obtained, the more 

predictive they are of later childhood functioning” 

(Bayley 1993). 

(4) Construct validity: intercorrelations 

between composite and subscale scores were .71 

between the Language Composite Scale and each 

subscale score (Receptive and Expressive 

Communication) and .69 and .71 between the 

Motor Composite Scale and its subscale scores 

(Fine and Gross Motor). Higher correlations were 

observed between the Cognitive Scale and 

Language Composite subscales than between the 

Cognitive Scale and Motor Composite subscales. 

The author concluded that the relationship 

between language and cognition was closer. 

Bias Analysis: During the test development 

process, potential item bias was assessed through 

expert review and statistical analyses, which led to 

the deletion of 30 items. The author tested an 

additional 120 black and Hispanic children to 

ensure adequate sample sizes for analyses of these 

groups. The analysis for differential item 

functioning (DIF) used the Mantel-Haenszel 

method, although the manual does not include the 

results. 

Methods of Scoring: Assessors who are not 

highly trained may score the assessment under 

supervision. For the Cognitive, Language 

Composite, and Motor Composite scales, items 

are scored as correct (1) or incorrect (0) 

depending on whether the child displayed the 

indicated action. The administration manual 

provides detailed scoring instructions for each 

item. The raw score is the sum of the child's 

correct points. All items below the basal are scored 
 84

 

 

 

 

as correct, and all above the ceiling as incorrect. 

The Social-Emotional Scale uses a six-point 

frequency rating (can't tell, none of the time, some 

of the time, half of the time, most of the time, all 

of the time). The raw score is the sum of behavior 

frequencies. The total for the first eight items 

provides a sensory processing score. The Adaptive 

Behavior Scale uses a four-point frequency rating 

(is not able, never when needed, sometimes when 

needed, always when needed) and provides the 

following scores: a subscale score for each of the 

10 skill areas; 3 domain area scores for the 

Conceptual, Social, and Practical domains; and a 

General Adaptive Composite score that is a sum 

of each child's scores across skill areas. The two 

ratings on the Behavior Observation Inventory by 

the assessor and caregiver are based on Likert-type 

scales for how often a behavior occurred during 

the observation (assessor rating) or how typical 

the behavior is (caregiver rating). While no 

scoring is completed, the qualitative comparisons 

are used with scores for intervention planning. 

Using the tables provided in the manual, the 

assessor may convert raw scores into scaled scores 

(ranging from 1 to 19), composite scores, and 

percentile ranks and may determine confidence 

intervals. For the Cognitive, Language Composite, 

and Motor Composite scales, the assessor may 

plot scores on a chart to detect growth over time 

and to calculate developmental age equivalents for 

delayed children. Scoring software is available for 

purchase from the publisher. 

Interpretability: Only persons with formal 

training in test administration should interpret 

the results of the Bayley-III. The technical manual 

provides detailed information on interpretation. 

Norms are available by age groups of varying 

intervals (e.g., 10 days to 3 months) to facilitate 

norm-referenced interpretation of performance 

during the period of infant and toddler 

development. The Behavior Observation 

Inventory, completed by the assessor at the 

conclusion of the assessment, provides qualitative 

information to parents and caregivers to help 

them interpret the child's performance and to 

facilitate intervention planning. 

Training Support: The Bayley-III may be 

purchased only by individuals highly trained in 

test administration and interpretation as 

evidenced by a doctoral degree, certification, or 

licensure. The administration manual provides 

detailed information on how to administer and 

score the assessment. A training DVD and an 

interactive administration and scoring DVD are 

available for purchase. A person with the above 

credentials may train and supervise others in 

administering and scoring the assessment. 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: The administration 

manual provides a detailed appendix of strategies 

for accommodating children with visual, hearing, 

and movement and motor impairments. For 

example, ambient noise should be reduced, and 

the assessor should speak clearly and naturally at 

an even pace for children with hearing 

impairments. 

Report Preparation Support: Scoring Assistant 

Software is available for purchase to produce child 
85 

reports for caregivers to help them interpret 

results for individual children. 

References: 

Albers, Craig A., and Adam J. Grieve. “Test 

Review: Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler 

Development-Third Edition.” Journal of 

Psychoeducational Assessment, vol. 25, no. 2, 2007, 

pp. 180-190. 

Andreassen, C., and P. Fletcher. “Early 

Childhood Longitudinal Study, Birth Cohort 

(ECLS-B) Methodology Report for the Nine-Month 

Data Collection (2001-02), Volume 1: Psychometric 

Characteristics.” Submitted to the U.S. 

Department of Education. Report No. (NCES 

2005-100). Washington, DC: National Center for 

Education Statistics, 2005. 

Bayley, Nancy. Bayley Scales of Infant 

Development-Second Edition Manual. San 

Antonio, TX: PsychCorp, 1993. 

Bayley, Nancy. Bayley Scales of Infant and 

Toddler Development-Third Edition: 

Administration Manual. San Antonio, TX: 

PsychCorp, 2006. 

Bayley, Nancy. Bayley Scales of Infant and 

Toddler Development-Third Edition: Technical 

Manual. San Antonio, TX: PsychCorp, 2006. 

Greenspan, S.I. Greenspan Social-Emotional 

Growth Chart: A Screening Questionnaire for 

Infants and Young Children. San Antonio, TX: 

Harcourt Assessment, 2004. 

Harrison, P.L., and T. Oakland. Adaptive 

Behavior Assessment System, Second Edition. San 

Antonio, TX: Psychcorp, Harcourt Assessment, 

2003. 

Pearson Assessments. “Bayley-III Enhanced 

Administration/Scoring Resource Interactive 

DVD.” Available at 

[http://pearsonassess.com/HAIWEB/Cultures/en

us/Productdetail.htm?Pid=015-8027

23X&Mode=detail&Leaf=accessory&dsrc=015

8027-612#ISBN2]. 2005. 

Pearson Assessments. “Bayley-III 

Fundamental Administration Video.” Available at 

[http://pearsonassess.com/HAIWEB/Cultures/en

us/Productdetail.htm?Pid=015-8027

23X&Mode=detail&Leaf=accessory&dsrc=015

8027-604#ISBN2]. 2005. 

Pearson Assessments. “Bayley-III Scoring 

Assistant® and PDA Administration Software.” 

Available at 

[http://pearsonassess.com/HAIWEB/Cultures/en

us/Productdetail.htm?Pid=015-8027

23X&Mode=detail&Leaf=software]. 2005. 

Tobin, Renee M., and Kathryn E. Hoff. 

“Review of the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler 

Development-Third Edition.” In The Seventeenth 

Mental Measurements Yearbook, edited by Kurt F. 

Geisinger, Robert A. Spies, Janet F. Carlson, and 

Barbara S. Plake. Lincoln, NE: The Buros Institute 

of Mental Measurements, 2007. 

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­
 

Venn, John J. “Review of the Bayley Scales of 

Infant and Toddler Development-Third Edition.” 

In The Seventeenth Mental Measurements 

Yearbook, edited by Kurt F. Geisinger, Robert A. 

Spies, Janet F. Carlson, and Barbara S. Plake. 

Lincoln, NE: The Buros Institute of Mental 

Measurements, 2007. 

West, J., and C. Andreassen. “Measuring Early 

Development in the Early Childhood Longitudinal 

Study-Birth Cohort.” Paper presented at the 

Selecting Measures for Young Children in Large 

Scale Surveys, Washington, DC: Research 

Network on Child and Family Well-Being and the 

Science and Ecology of Early Development, 2002. 

86 
87 

BEHAVIOR ASSESSMENT SYSTEM FOR CHILDREN, SECOND 

EDITION (BASC-2), 2004 (2011 Update) 

Authors: 

Cecil R. Reynolds and Randy W. Kamphaus 

Publisher: 

Pearson 

(800) 328-2560 

http://www.pearsonschool.com/ 

Instrument: 

http://www.pearsonassessments.com/HAIWEB/Cultur 

es/en-us/Productdetail.htm?Pid=PAa30000 

Initial Material Cost: 

BASC-2 Hand-Scored Starter Set (includes manual and 

25 hand-scored forms of Teacher Rating Scale, Parent 

Rating Scale, Self-Report of Personality, Parent 

Feedback Report, Structured Developmental History, 

Student Observation System, Training Video): $492.25 

Starter set with English and Spanish materials: $572.45 

BASC-2 ASSIST Scoring & Reporting Software Starter 

Sets range from $637.90 (English) to $998.75 (English 

and Spanish) 

Representativeness of Norming Sample1: 

The norming sample for the Teacher Rating Scales, 

Parent Rating Scales, and Self-Report of Personality 

included more than 13,000 2 to 18 year olds (400 were 

2 to 3 years old, and 650 were 4 to 5 years old). 

Assessments took place from 2002 to 2004. All age 

groups were half female and matched to targeted U.S. 

population estimates from the March 2001 Current 

Population Survey on socioeconomic status, race, and 

 

1 Authors also collected information from a clinical norming 

sample of 1,779 4 to 18 year olds whose parents had a clinical 

diagnosis or classification and from a sample of 19 to 21 year 

olds enrolled in special education classes (sample size not 

specified). 

geographic region. Children with an emotional or 

behavioral disturbance or language impairment were 

slightly oversampled. The Spanish speaking sample is 

described below (see Other Languages). 

Languages: 

English, Spanish 

Type of Assessment: 

Parent/teacher report, observation, and self-report 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

2 to 25 years old 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: Personnel administering the BASC-2 

vary with assessment type. Teachers administer the 

Teacher Rating Scale, which takes 10 to 15 minutes. 

Parents or guardians administer the Parent Rating 

Scale, which takes 10 to 20 minutes. A clinician 

administers the Student Observation System, which 

takes 15 minutes. 

Training videos and DVDs are available on the 

publisher's web site for $137.65. 

Scoring times vary with the use of paper forms or 

computer software. 

Summary: 

Initial Material Cost: 3 (>$200) 

Reliability: 3 (all .65 or higher) 

Validity: 3 (mostly .5 or higher for concurrent) 

Norming Sample Characteristics: 3 (normed within 

past 15 years, nationally representative) 

Ease of Administration and Scoring: 2 (administered by 

teacher, clinician, and/or parent- or self-reported; 

scored by teacher or clinician only) 

Description: The Behavior Assessment System 

for Children, Second Edition (BASC-2) evaluates 

the behavior of children and adults 2 to 25 years 

old. Information on children's behavior is 

triangulated from the perspective of self, teacher, 

and parent by using five types of assessments or 

components: the Teacher Rating Scale, Parent 

Rating Scale, Student Observation System, 

Structured Developmental History, and SelfReport of Personality (for 6 to 25 year olds only). 
 88

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Authors indicate that the components may be 

used individually or in combination. 

The Teacher and Parent Rating scales (TRS 

and PRS) measure adaptive and problem 

behaviors in the community, school, and home 

setting. They consist of forms for three age groups: 

preschool (2 to 5 years old), child (6 to 11 years 

old), and adolescent (12 to 21 years old). For 

preschool-age children, the TRS includes 100 

items and is administered by an adult caregiver or 

teacher who observes the child in a preschool 

setting and enjoys good rapport with the child. 

The PRS includes 134 items and is administered 

by the subject's parent or guardian by observing 

the child in a controlled setting (such as a 

clinician's office). Both the TRS and PRS are 

divided into Composite scales and Clinical and 

Adaptive scales. The four Composite scales for 

preschool-age children are Externalizing 

Problems, Internalizing Problems, and Adaptive 

Skills as well as the Behavioral Symptoms Index 

(BSI), which measures the broad level of problem 

behaviors. The Clinical scales include 

Hyperactivity, Aggression, Anxiety, Depression, 

Somatization, Attention Problems, Atypicality, 

and Withdrawal. The Adaptive scales include 

Adaptability, Social Skills, and Functional 

Communication. The PRS includes an additional 

Adaptive scale called Activities of Daily Living. 

The optional Content scales that help interpret the 

primary scales include Anger Control, Bullying, 

Development Social Disorders, Emotional SelfControl, Executive Functioning, Negative 

Emotionality and Resiliency. The Student 

Observation System (SOS) is a 14-item behavior 

checklist administered by a clinician that 

primarily documents a child's classroom 

behaviors, including teacher-child interaction. 

The Portable Observation System (which 

incorporates the SOS form) is a computer- or 

PDA-based program that facilitates observations 

for the SOS. The Structured Developmental 

History (SDH) has 19 sections, such as the 

respondent's background information about 

family, medical history, relationships, interests, 

behavior, and educational history. A parent or 

guardian may complete the SDH in the home, 

school, or clinic setting. The developmental 

history/background obtained by the SDH informs 

the diagnostic or treatment process as fully as 

possible. 

The BASC-2 updates the BASC (1992) with 

new content scales. The TRS and PRS now include 

Functional Communication, Activities of Daily 

Living, and Adaptability. The Self-Report of 

Personality includes Hyperactivity and Attention 

Problems. The BASC-2 also expands the age range 

and changes and some items. It includes a new 

college-level Self-Report of Personality, more 

detailed clinical norms, minor enhancements to 

the SDH, and technology-enhanced features such 

as the SOS for use with a laptop or PDA and 

optional scoring software. 

Other Languages: The PRS, Self-Report of 

Personality, and SDH are available in Spanish. 

Item order, content, and administration are the 

same as in the English version. The Spanishlanguage version norming sample for the PRS 

included 82 Hispanic preschool-age children and 
89 

229 Hispanic children and adolescents. The 

sample was approximately half female and mostly 

from the North Central and Western regions of 

the country. The median internal consistency 

reliability alpha for the PRS scales was .71 among 

preschoolers (lower than the median alphas 

obtained for the English form and sample). For 

the PRS Composite scales, alphas ranged from .79 

to .85 among preschool-age children. 

Intercorrelation coefficients were generally 

comparable between composites and scales of the 

PRS Spanish preschool forms and English 

preschool forms. 

Uses of Information: The BASC-2 may be 

used to help diagnose emotional and behavioral 

disorders, identify special needs and educational 

program placement, conduct research on child 

emotional and behavioral disorders, evaluate 

interventions and programs, determine whether a 

defendant's behavior was attributable to a 

disability, and plead testimonies for child custody 

cases. 

Reliability: 

1. Internal consistency reliability: Cronbach's 

alphas for the TRS were reported for 

Composite and scale scores. Among 2 to 3 

year olds, coefficients for the Composite scale 

coefficients ranged from .87 (Internalizing 

Problems) to .96 (BSI). The Clinical scale 

coefficients ranged from .75 (Anxiety) to .92 

(Aggression and Attention Problems). The 

Adaptive scale coefficients ranged from .79 

(Adaptability) to .87 (Social Skills). Among 4 

to 5 year olds, coefficients for the Composite 

scales ranged from .91 (Internalizing 

Problems) to .96 (BSI). Clinical scale 

coefficients ranged from .81 (Anxiety) to .93 

(Attention Problems). Adaptive scale 

coefficients ranged from .83 (Adaptability) to 

.88 (Social Skills). 

On the PRS among 2 to 3 year olds, 

Cronbach's alpha coefficients for Composite 

scale coefficients ranged from .85 

(Internalizing Problems) to .93 (Adaptive 

Skills and BSI). The Clinical scale coefficients 

ranged from .77 (Anxiety and Atypicality) to 

.86 (Attention Problems). The Adaptive scale 

coefficients ranged from .77 (Activities of 

Daily Living) to .88 (Social Skills). Among 4 to 

5 year olds, coefficients for the Composite 

scale coefficients ranged from .87 

(Internalizing Problems) to .93 (BSI). The 

Clinical scale coefficients ranged from .75 

(Atypicality) to .87 (Attention Problems). The 

Adaptive scale coefficients ranged from .70 

(Activities of Daily Living) to .85 (Social 

Skills). 

. Test-retest reliability: The TRS correlation 

coefficients for the preschool-age sample 

ranged from .83 to .92 for the Composite 

scales and from .72 to .92 for the primary 

scales. The tests were conducted with a sample 

of 69 preschoolers demographically similar to 

the norming sample, except that nearly half 

resided in the South. The same teacher scored 

the tests twice over an administration interval 

ranging from 8 to 65 days. 

2
 90

 

 

 

 

 

 

The PRS correlation coefficients for the 

preschool-age sample ranged from .79 to .86 

for the Composite scales and from .66 to .88 

for the Clinical and Adaptive scales. The same 

parent or guardian assessed 87 preschool-age 

children in the sample twice, with an interval 

of 9 to 70 days between ratings. The test-retest 

sample was demographically similar to the 

norming sample. 

3.		 Inter-rater reliability: for the preschool-age 

TRS, the interval between teacher ratings 

ranged from 0 to 62 days. The adjusted 

median reliability estimate was .65 and ranged 

from .40 to .80 for Composite, Clinical, and 

Adaptive scale scores. The preschool-age 

sample size was 74, and the median age was 52 

months. The group was demographically 

similar to the norming sample except that it 

was 68 percent male and more than half of the 

children resided in the Northeast. For the 

PRS, the interval between ratings ranged from 

0 to 70 days. The adjusted median was .77 and 

ranged from .72 to .86 for Composite, 

Clinical, and Adaptive subscale scores. The 

preschool-age sample of 87 was similar to the 

norming sample except that nearly half of the 

children resided in the South. 

Validity: 

1.		 Content validity: The authors used 

Confirmatory Factor Analysis to examine the 

TRS. Factor loadings were high across age 

levels for the Externalizing Problems factor 

(Hyperactivity, Aggression, and Conduct 

Problems) and Adaptive Skills factor. The 

Internalizing Problems factor loadings were in 

the middle to high range, with more variation 

across age groups. For the PRS, Covariance 

Structure Analysis factor loadings varied 

considerably across scales and age groups, 

although the Externalizing Problems 

composite had high factor loadings across age 

groups. 

2.		 Concurrent validity: the TRS and the 

Achenbach System of Empirically Based 

Assessment (ASEBA) Caregiver-Teacher 

Report form for ages 1.5 to 5 years were 

completed for 46 children. Correlation 

coefficients between the TRS Composites and 

the ASEBA scale raw scores ranged from .64 

(Internalizing Problems) to .82 (Externalizing 

Problems). Correlations between the BASC-2 

Clinical and Adaptive scales and ASEBA scale 

raw scores ranged from .02 (BASC-2 

Somatization with ASEBA Somatic 

Complaints) to .90 (BASC-2 Aggression with 

ASEBA Aggressive Behavior). 

The PRS and the ASEBA Child Behavior 

Checklist were completed for a sample of 53 2 

to 5 year olds. Correlation coefficients 

between the PRS Composites and the ASEBA 

scale raw scores ranged from .68 

(Internalizing Problems) to .83 (Externalizing 

Problems). Correlations between the BASC-2 

Clinical and Adaptive scales and the ASEBA 

scale raw scores ranged from .32 (BASC-2 

Anxiety with ASEBA Anxious/Depressed) to 

.79 (BASC-2 Hyperactivity with ASEBA 

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder). 
91 

In addition, the authors compared the 

preschool forms of the BASC-2 TRS and PRS 

to the original BASC TRS and PRS. Most 

coefficients were .90 or higher, with the 

exception of Anxiety (.89), Atypicality (.83), 

and Adaptability (.86) in the TRS and 

Adaptive Skills (.85), Atypicality (.76), 

Attention Problems (.78), and Adaptability 

(.84) in the PRS. 

3. Construct validity: correlations between the 

individual TRS and PRS scales for 

preschoolers measuring similar constructs 

were higher than those measuring distinct 

constructs.2 1

Correlations between PRS and 

TRS Composite scales ranged from .17 (PRS 

Internalizing Problems with TRS Internalizing 

Problems) to .52 (PRS Adaptive with TRS 

Adaptive). Correlations between PRS Clinical 

scales and TRS Clinical scales ranged from .17 

(PRS Depression with TRS Depression) to .43 

(PRS Attention Problems with TRS Attention 

Problems). Correlations between PRS 

Adaptive scales and TRS Adaptive scales 

ranged from .28 (PRS Adaptability with TRS 

Adaptability) to .59 (PRS Functional 

Communication with TRS Functional 

Communication). 

Bias Analysis: The authors removed fewer 

than five items from the TRS and PRS based on 

the results of partial correlations between 

 

2 1

Comparisons between scales with similar constructs are 

presented here. The manual also includes correlation 

coefficients between composites and scales of different 

constructs. 

individual items and the demographic groups 

being compared and results of Differential Item 

Functioning analysis. 

Methods of Scoring: The assessor hand scores 

paper versions of the PRS and TRS by summing 

the circled item response values, ranging from 0 

and 3. The manual describes how to convert raw 

scores into T scores and percentile rankings by 

using the norm tables and then describes how to 

enter scores onto a Summary Table that helps 

identify high, average, and low scores compared 

with the mean T scores. The BASC-2 ASSIST and 

ASSIST Plus software may be used to score the 

Teacher and Parent Rating scales. 

Interpretability: Assessors enter scores into a 

Summary Table that provides guidance on low or 

high scores and their meaning. Low or average 

scores are typical, and high scores are problematic. 

Training Support: The publisher sells training 

videos and DVDs as either part of the BASC-2 

Starter Set or separately. 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: Audio recordings of 

the items on the BASC-2 PRS are available for 

parents with reading problems. 

Report Preparation Support: The BASC-2 

ASSIST and ASSIST Plus software programs 

provide reports of the Teacher and Parent Rating 

scales. The programs generate profiles, calculate 

validity indices, identify strengths and weaknesses, 

and compute multirater comparisons. ASSIST 

Plus also reports on the optional Content scales 

and target behaviors for intervention and helps 
 

 

 

 

with diagnosis of possible disorders such as those 

in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental 

Disorders (DSM-IV-TR). Clinicians record 

Teacher and Parent Rating scale scores on Parent 

Feedback Reports and provide parents with an 

overview of the test process and scale content as 

well as with an interpretation of the child's scores. 

References: 

Pearson. BASC-2 ASSIST Scoring & Reporting 

Software. 2004. 

Pearson. BASC-2 Training Videos. 2004. 

Reynolds, Cecil R., and Randy W. Kamphaus. 

Behavior Assessment System for Children, Second 

Edition Manual. Circle Pines, MN: AGS 

Publishing, 2004. 

Stein, Stephanie. “Review of the Behavior 

Assessment System for Children, Second Edition.” 

In The Seventeenth Mental Measurements 

Yearbook, edited by Kurt F. Geisinger, Robert A. 

Spies, Janet F. Carlson, and Barbara S. Plake. 

Lincoln, NE: The Buros Institute of Mental 

Measurements, 2007. 

Watson, T.S., and Katherine Wickstrom. 

“Review of the Behavior Assessment System for 

Children, Second Edition” In The Seventeenth 

Mental Measurements Yearbook, edited by Kurt F. 

Geisinger, Robert A. Spies, Janet F. Carlson, and 

Barbara S. Plake. Lincoln, NE: The Buros Institute 

of Mental Measurements, 2007. 

92 
93 

BRIGANCE INVENTORY OF EARLY DEVELOPMENT II 

STANDARDIZED (IED-II STANDARDIZED), 20101 (2011 Update) 

Authors: 1

Albert H. Brigance and Frances Page Glascoe 

Publisher: 

Curriculum Associates 

(800) 225-0248 

http://www.curriculumassociates.com/default.asp 

Instrument: 

http://www.curriculumassociates.com/products/detail. 

asp?title=BrigIED2-CA 

Initial Material Cost: IED-II Standardized Kit 

(standardized assessments, Standardization and 

Validation Manual, 20 Record Books, testing 

accessories kit, canvas tote): $299 

No outside scoring is required. However, an IED-II 

Standardized scoring tool is available online for free. 

The Online Management System costs $129 or $159 for 

a 1-year license. 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: The IED-II 

Standardized was normed in 2003, using a sample of 

1,171 children age 0 to 5-years-old and older from 

public and private schools, day care centers, and 

preschools. Two-thirds of the sample was 3-years-old 

or younger. Based on the 2003 U.S. Census, the 

norming sample was stratified on ethnicity, parental 

education attainment, income level, location of 

residence (urban/suburban versus rural), and marital 

status of parent. The sample was approximately half 

male and included all four major geographic regions of 

the United States, with slightly lower representation 

from the North. 

 

1 The IED-II Standardized includes 44 assessments from the 

Inventory of Early Development II (IED II) that have been 

standardized. 

Languages: 

English 

Type of Assessment: 

Observation, parent interview, parent report, teacher 

report, and direct child assessment 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

Children age 0 to 7 years old 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: Administered by a teacher, school 

psychologist or developmental expert, or other early 

education professionals. 

The manual suggests that the assessor familiarize himor herself with the assessments and practice 

administration a few times before assessing a child. 

Specific directions accompany each assessment and 

should be closely followed. The publisher’s web site 

offers free e-training on how to administer and score 

the instrument and consists of 5 short video modules. 

If all the assessments are administered, the total time 

for administration is approximately 20 minutes for 

infants and 50 minutes for most 4- and 5-year-olds. 

Scoring time varies with the number of assessments 

administered. 

Summary: 

Initial Material Cost: 3 (>$200) 

Reliability: 3 (all .65 or higher) 

Validity: 3 (mostly .5 or higher for concurrent) 

Norming Sample Characteristics: 3 (normed within 

past 15 years, nationally representative) 

Ease of Administration and Scoring: 2 (administered 

and scored by a child development professional 

familiar with the instrument) 

Description: The Brigance Inventory of 

Early Development II Standardized (IED-II 

Standardized) measures children’s strengths and 

weaknesses across basic skill areas such as 

physical development, language development, 

early numeracy and emergent literacy skills, 

social-emotional development, and self-care 

daily living skills. The IED-II Standardized is 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

designed for use with children from birth to 7 

years old and may be administered by teachers, 

school psychologists, developmental experts, and 

other early education professionals. Each 

assessment includes directions specifying 

whether the assessment method is a parent 

interview, child observation, and/or 

performance (i.e., behaviors/actions elicited 

from children). Five domains cover 10 

subdomains, 8 composites, 44 assessments, and 

706 items. Assessments may be administered in 

any order, and assessors may select assessments 

from any domain for administration. The 

manual provides guidelines for determining 

which assessments to administer based on the 

child’s age and needs. Most are appropriate for 

preschool and kindergarten-age children, with 

four assessments used exclusively for infants and 

toddlers. Some assessments require 

manipulatives such as toys, objects to count, and 

colored blocks. These and other manipulatives 

such as pencils, scissors, and crayons are 

included in the Accessories Kit available from 

the publisher. 

The five domains are Physical Development, 

Language Development, Academic/Cognitive, 

Daily Living, and Social and Emotional 

Development. Physical Development 

subdomains include Fine-Motor Skills and 

Gross-Motor Skills (13 assessments and 149 

items). The Fine- Motor Skills subdomain 

includes a Drawing/Visual Motor Composite 

and a Writing Skills Composite. The GrossMotor Skills subdomain includes a 

Nonlocomotor Composite and a Locomotor 

Composite. Language Development subdomains 

are Receptive Language and Expressive 

Language (11 assessments and 180 items). 

Within the Receptive Language subdomain, the 

two composites are (1) Nouns and Early 

Listening and (2) Actions. Within the Expressive 

Language subdomain, the two composites are 

Isolated Skills and Contextual Skills. In the 

Academic/Cognitive domain, the two 

subdomains are Mathematical/General Concepts 

and Literacy (13 assessments and 236 items). In 

the Daily Living domain, the two subdomains 

are Self-Help and Prevocational (5 assessments 

and 64 items). In the Social and Emotional 

Development domain, the two subdomains are 

Play Skills and Behaviors and Engagement and 

Initiative Skills (2 assessments and 42 items). In 

the Self-Help subdomain and the SocialEmotional domain, there are 35 items each on 

the Parent’s Report Form and the Teacher’s 

Report and Scoring Form (one or the other is 

used, not both). 

Compared to the IED’s 2008 version, the 

current version offers more resources for users, 

including objectives for writing Individualized 

Education Programs (IEP) at the end of every 

assessment and new utilities such as online 

versions of the Self-Help subdomain and Social 

and Emotional Development domain (paper 

versions are available in the manual as well), the 

IED-II Standardized Scoring Tool, and a 

Chronological Age Calculator. 

Other Languages: Items were field tested in 

Spanish, but no IED-II Standardized Spanish 

94 
95 

language materials are available. Brigance 

Screens II, shorter assessments that cover some 

of the same skills as the IED-II Standardized, are 

available in Spanish. 

Uses of Information: Results may be used to 

identify and diagnose developmental delays or to 

make recommendations for additional testing. 

They also inform instruction and special 

education referral decisions as goals in an IEP. 

Reliability: 

1. Internal consistency reliability: Guttman 

Lambda coefficients for each composite, 

subdomain, and domain all exceeded .85. 

The total Adaptive Behavior coefficient, 

which is the sum of all five domains, was .99. 

2. Test-retest reliability: estimates are available 

from the 1991 standardization sample and 

2003 norming sample. The latter estimates 

are based on two administrations within one 

week for 36 children in the birth to 12 

month old group because new test items 

applied to this age group. Combined results 

from the two studies reveal coefficients 

ranging from .68 to .99 across age groups 

and domains. The composite Total Adaptive 

Behavior scores by age group ranged from 

.89 (61 months and older) to .95 (0 to 12 

months). 

3. Inter-rater reliability: in 1988, two teachers 

assessed 20 5- and 6-year-olds enrolled in an 

early intervention program. The 2003 study 

data augmented the earlier data, with 

combined results from both studies showing 

percentages of agreement ranging from 80 to 

96 percent across the five domains. 

Validity: 

1. Content validity for the IED-II Standardized 

is based on an extensive literature review by 

the author, collaboration with child 

development professionals from other states 

who helped with item selection, and field 

testing in 16 states. A factor analysis using 

varimax rotation conducted between the 

subdomains resulted in three factors: (1) 

Understanding and Expressing, (2) 

Movement and Social Activity, and (3) 

Academic/Preacademic. The analysis 

revealed the highest factor loadings between 

Contextual Skills and Understanding and 

Expressing (.88) and the lowest factor 

loadings between Drawing/Visual Motor 

and Movement and Social Activity (-.30). 

2. Concurrent validity: some 484 children from 

the standardization sample took several 

batteries of additional assessments to test for 

concurrent validity with each of the IED-II 

Standardized subdomains. Results were 

aggregated across age groups and reported 

as correlations between IED-II Standardized 

subdomains or domains and batteries of 

diagnostic measures. 

The Cognitive Skills battery consisted of the 

Bayley Scales of Infant Development and the 

cognitive portions of the Battelle 

Developmental Inventory. Children 2 years 

old and older also took the Slosson 
 96

 

 

 

Intelligence Test Revised (SIT-R). The 

aggregated cognitive skills battery (all ages) 

correlated at .88 with the IED-II 

Standardized Cognitive domain. 

For infants and toddlers, the Language 

Development and Adaptive Behavior battery 

included the Rosetti Infant Toddler 

Language Scale; Preschool Language Scale; 

Receptive-Expressive Emergent Language 

Test, second edition (REEL-2); Sequenced 

Inventory of Communication Development; 

Battelle Developmental Inventory Screening 

Test; or Communication Domain of the 

Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale. Parents 

of children 2 years old and older completed 

the Child Development Inventory (CDI). 

The receptive language battery (all ages) 

correlated at .64 with the IED-II 

Standardized Receptive Language 

subdomain. The expressive language battery 

(all ages) correlated at .54 with the IED-II 

Standardized Expressive Language 

subdomain. 

For Physical Development, infants and 

toddlers took either the motor domain of the 

Vineland or the motor domain of the Bayley 

Scales, motor portions of the Battelle, or the 

Alberta Infant Motor Scale. Children 2 years 

old and older took the CDI. The fine motor 

diagnostic battery (all ages) correlated at .74 

with the IED-II Standardized Fine Motor 

subdomain. The gross motor battery (all 

ages) correlated at .70 with the IED-II 

Standardized Gross Motor subdomain. 

For Social and Emotional Development, 

infants and toddlers took the Bayley Infant 

Behavior Record and Interaction Scale from 

the Rosetti and/or the Social domain from 

Vineland. The social and emotional battery 

(all ages) correlated at .51 with the IED-II 

Standardized Social and Emotional 

Development domain. 

The IED-II Standardized distinguishes 

between children with the following 

characteristics based on Chi-square 

significance testing between children with 

and without a characteristic: (1) premature 

birth, (2) psychosocial risk, (3) 

developmental disabilities, and (4) highly 

advanced development. Descriptive data 

show that standardized assessment scores 

increase with age, although no significance 

testing was conducted. Analysis of 

covariance analyses revealed performance 

differences between children with parents 

who had and had not completed high 

school. In addition, children who qualified 

for free and reduced-price lunch and/or 

Medicaid did not perform as well as children 

from higher-income families. 

3.		 Predictive validity: in the absence of studies 

on the IED-II Standardized, the author cites 

the measure’s predictive validity based on 

“high correlations” between Brigance 

Screens and measures of academic 

achievement, intelligence, language 

development, family environment, and 

teacher ratings six months to two years later. 
97 

4. Construct validity: the author evaluated 

intercorrelations between IED-II 

Standardized domains, composites, and 

broader skill areas that measured similar and 

different capabilities. Correlations ranged 

from .36 (Social and Emotional 

Development correlated with Writing) to 1.0 

(Total Physical Development correlated with 

Total Motor). 

Bias Analysis: No information available. 

Methods of Scoring: For each assessment, 

the assessor sums the total number of correct 

items in each assessment, including all items 

below the basal, to obtain a raw score. Raw 

scores are totaled by composite, subdomain, and 

domain on the Standardized Scoring Sheet. 

Appendix tables in the manual convert raw 

composite, subdomain, and domain scores into 

quotients, percentiles and age equivalents, and 

instructional ranges.2 1

If four or five domains are 

completed, a Total Adaptive Behavior score may 

be calculated by finding the median domain 

quotient among all quotients for all domains 

that have been computed. The Online 

Management System provides a Total Adaptive 

Score and standardized scores for domains, 

subdomains, and composites. 

Interpretability: Developmental profiles in 

individual children’s Record Books may be used 

to plot quotients for composite, subdomain, and 

domain scores. The assessor interprets the 

 

2 1

Instructional ranges are derived from age equivalents in 

months for the raw score ranges. 

plotted quotients by referring to a graph 

showing average ranges on the Standardized 

Scoring Sheet. Plotted quotients are within or 

outside the ranges. The results may be conveyed 

to parents and caregivers. Progress toward 

children’s mastery of assessed skills and 

objectives for meeting un-mastered skills may be 

tracked in Record Books or as part of a child’s 

IEP. The end of every assessment provides 

suggestions on how to phrase IEP goals with 

practitioners and parents. 

Training Support: The publisher offers free 

online training modules on how to administer 

and score the instrument. The modules 

comprise a five-video series called CA 101 that 

provides step-by-step instructions. 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: The manual 

includes suggested adaptations for children with 

motor impairment, hearing impairment, vision 

impairment, speech impairment, emotional 

disturbance, significant health problems, autism 

and developmental disorders, traumatic brain 

injury, and intellectual disabilities. 

Report Preparation Support: The Online 

Management System provides downloadable IEP 

goals, teacher and administrator reports and 

communications for families, and tools to meet 

reporting requirements for the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and statespecific content standards. 
 

References: 

Brigance, Albert H. Brigance Diagnostic 

Inventory of Early Development II. North 

Billerica, MA: Curriculum Associates, 2008. 

Brigance, Albert H. Brigance: Inventory of 

Early Development II, Standardized. North 

Billerica, MA: Curriculum Associates, 2010. 

Glascoe, Frances P. Brigance: Inventory of 

Early Development II, Standardization and 

Validation Manual. North Billerica, MA: 

Curriculum Associates, 2010. 

98 
 

 

CAREY TEMPERAMENT SCALES (CTS), 2000 

Authors: 

William B. Carey 

Publisher: 


Behavioral-Developmental Initiatives 

(800) 405-2313 	

www.b-di.com 	

Initial Material Cost: 

Specimen set: $60 (includes a sample of each of the five 

CTS questionnaires, with scoring and profile sheets, 

and the Test Manual) 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: 

Not nationally representative; it was normed on 

primarily a white middle class population living in the 

eastern United States. 

Languages: 

English 

Type of Assessment: 

Parent report 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

1 month to 12 years 

Questionnaires are available for the following age 

ranges: 1 to 4 months, 4 to 11 months, 1 to 2 years, 3 to 

7 years, 8 to 12 years 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 


Requirements: 

Intended for professional use by persons licensed or 

certified to provide care to children and their parents; 

administration time is 20 minutes and requires an early 

high school reading level; scoring time is 15 to 20 

minutes for hand scoring and 4 minutes for computer 

scoring; a professional is needed for scoring and 

interpretation. 

Summary:

Initial Material Cost: 1 (< $100) 

Reliability: 2 (all or mostly under .65) 

Validity: 1 (none described) 

Norming Sample Characteristics: 2 (not nationally 

representative, normed within the past 15 years) 

Ease of Administration and Scoring: 2 (self

administered, but scored by a professional) 

­

Description: The Carey Temperament Scales 

(CTS) are sets of items for obtaining parent report 

of a child’s temperament. It can be used in 

research and/or clinical practice. The CTS uses 75 

to 100 descriptions of behavior to assess the 9 New 

York Longitudinal Study characteristics of 

temperament: (1) activity level, (2) rhythmicity, 

(3) approach-withdrawal, (4) adaptability, (5) 

intensity, (6) mood, (7) attention span and 

persistence, (8) distractibility, and (9) sensory 

threshold. CTS is comprised of 5 different 

questionnaires, three of which are particularly 

relevant to Early Head Start programs. These are 

the Early Infant Temperament Questionnaire 

(EITQ) for infants ages 1 to 4 months, the Revised 

Infant Temperament Questionnaire (RITQ) for 

infants ages 4 to 8 months (and applicable, but not 

normed, for ages 9 to 11 months), and the Toddler 

Temperament Scale (TTS) for children ages 1 to 2 

years. The other two scales, the Behavioral Style 

Questionnaire (BSQ) and Middle Childhood 

Temperament Questionnaire (MCTQ) are for 

children ages 3 to 12. Each questionnaire contains 

up to 100 items that are rated on a 6-point scale of 

frequency ranging from almost never to almost 

always. These instruments are designed for 

caregivers who spend a substantial amount of time 

with the child being assessed. 

99 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Uses of Information: The CTS can help caregivers understand a child’s temperament and 

behavioral style. The scales can also be used by 

caregivers to help place a child in an environment 

more suitable to the child’s temperament or to 

adapt the environment (including the home and 

parenting strategies) to the child’s temperament. 

Temperament itself is not considered amenable to 

intervention. 

Reliability: (1) Internal consistency 

(Cronbach’s alphas): EITQ: scale ranged from .43 

to .76 (median = .62); RITQ: scale ranged from .49 

to .71 (median = .57); TTS: scale ranged from .53 

to .86 (median = .70); BSQ scale ranged from .47 

to .80 (median = .70); MCTQ scale ranged from 

.71 to .83 (median = .82). (2) Test-retest reliability: 

EITQ (20 day test interval): scale ranged from .64 

to .79 (median = .68); RITQ (25 day interval): 

scale ranged from .66 to .81 (median =.75); TTS (1 

month interval): scale ranged from .69 to .89 

(median = .81); BSQ (1 month interval): scale 

ranged from .67 to .94 (scale median = .81); 

MCTQ (75 day interval): scale ranged from .79 to 

.93 (median = .88). 

Validity: Literature on the clinical evidence 

for validity and appropriate use of temperament 

data in practice can be found in Coping with 

Children’s Temperament (1995), written by Carey 

and McDevitt or in Developmental-Behavioral 

Pediatrics (1992), edited by Levine, Carey, and 

Crocker. 

Method of Scoring: The CTS can be hand or 

computer scored. Items are tabulated to yield a 

category score for each of the nine areas, which 

are then compared to the norms for the category. 

If using the software, the Professional Report 

includes the temperament profile, raw and 

standardized scores, individualized interpretive 

report and validity checks for social desirability, 

missing data and ratings/perceptions 

discrepancies. The Caregiver Report contains the 

temperament profile and an interpretive report of 

scores written for the caregiver and personalized 

with the child's name and gender. 

Interpretability: Category scores for each of 

the nine areas can be compared to norms for the 

category. The manual gives instructions for 

interpreting the results, depending on whether or 

not the computer or manual scoring is used. In 

addition, the authors stress the importance of 

supplementing the results from the CTS with 

information gathered from interviews, 

observations, and other information collected by 

trained professionals. 

Training Support: CTS practice sets are 

available through the publisher. Individuals with 

questions may email publisher. 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: None described. 

However, a younger age questionnaire can be used 

for individuals with mild delays. 

Report Preparation Support: The manual 

states that the written report or profile should not 

be automatically given to caregivers because they 

may not have sufficient information about the 

limitations of the information. The professional 

should exercise his or her judgment when 

100 
101 

deciding whether or not to share the written 

report or 

References: 

Carey, William B. The Carey Temperament 

Scales Test Manual. Scottsdale, AZ: BehavioralDevelopmental Initiatives, 2000. 

Carey, W.B. and McDevitt, S.C. Coping With 

Children’s Temperament: A Guide for 

Professionals. New York: Basic Books, 1995. 

Levine, M.D., W.B. Carey, and A.C. Crocker. 

Developmental-Behavioral Pediatrics, 2nd ed. 

Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders, 1992. 
 

 

 

 

 

THE CAROLINA CURRICULUM FOR INFANTS AND TODDLERS 

WITH SPECIAL NEEDS (CCITSN), ASSESSMENT LOG, SECOND 

EDITION, 1991 

Authors: 

Nancy Johnson-Martin, Kenneth Jens, Susan 

Attermeier, and Bonnie Hacker. 

Publisher: 

Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. 

www.brookespublishing.com 

1-800-638-3775 

Initial Material Cost: 

$43 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: 

None (criterion-referenced) 

Languages: 

English 

Type of Assessment: 

Observation 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

0 to 2 developmental years with mild to severe special 

needs 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: 

Can be used by both professionals and
 


paraprofessionals. Effort made to avoid use of technical
 


jargon in materials to encourage broader usage. 
 

Requires informal observation period in which the
 


examiner can assess and score child in about 15 to 20
 


minutes. The Assessment Log is designed to be used in
 


conjunction with the Carolina Curriculum.
 


Summary:



Initial Material Cost: 1 (< $100)
 


Reliability: 1 (none described)
 


Validity: 1 (content validity only described)
 


Norming Sample Characteristics: 1 (none described)
 


Ease of Administration and Scoring: 3 (administered 
 

and scored by a professional or paraprofessional)
 


Description: The Carolina Curriculum for 

Infant and Toddlers with Special Needs (CCITSN) is designed for use with infants from birth to 

2 years developmental age who have mild to 

severe special needs. The curriculum covers 6 

developmental domains (cognition, 

communication, social/adaptation, fine motor, 

and gross motor) that are divided into 26 teaching 

areas (or sequences). CCITSN has an Assessment 

Log that enumerates 26 sequences and the specific 

skills under each sequence are ordered 

sequentially in terms of the expected development 

of children. The number of items a child is 

assessed on is at the discretion of a professional or 

paraprofessional, who administers the CCITSN 

Assessment Log through an informal observation 

of the parent-child interaction. This format is 

preferred to a more clinical, structured approach 

to assessment. 

Uses of Information: The CCITSN 

Assessment Log is used to identify the curriculum 

entry point, to inform the intervention plan, and 

to monitor progress in accomplishing the skills 

covered by the curriculum. 

Reliability: None described. 

Validity: Content validity: the selection of 

items for inclusion in the curriculum Assessment 

Log was accomplished through a review of normreferenced tests of development. A multidisciplinary panel of specialists helped in the final 

selection process. The curriculum was field tested 

in 22 intervention programs in North Carolina 

102 
103 

and in 10 national sites, and the interventionists 

found it to be useful both for assessing infants 

with disabilities and for developing their 

intervention programs. 

Method of Scoring: Behaviors on the 

question items are scored as either typical of the 

child (+), emergent (+-), or never observed (-). 

Once behaviors have been scored, the 

Developmental Progress Charts are used to chart 

assessment results and develop a profile of the 

child’s skills. There is a blank box on the 

Developmental Progress Chart to correspond to 

each item on the Assessment Log, which is 

colored in completely when an item is passed. If 

the skill is inconsistently performed or emerging, 

the space is partially colored in. 

Interpretability: Generally, a child’s 

performance can be assessed based on his or her 

performance of the three items after the first 

failure and the three items before the first success 

in each sequence. The Assessment Log then serves 

as a basis for intervention using the Curriculum 

Sequences by selecting the first activity the child 

failed or that was just emerging in each sequence. 

Training Support: “Brookes on Location” 

professional development seminar, Using The 

Carolina Curriculum to Assess and Intervene with 

Young Children with Special Needs, is available 

through the publisher. 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: The CCITSN is 

designed specifically to optimize the development 

of children with mild to severe special needs. 

Interventions, and their associated assessment, are 

tailored to the child’s impairment, and the 

standard approach will be modified if a 

handicapping condition makes it inappropriate. 

The curriculum has special needs options and 

adaptations available for those with vision, motor 

or hearing needs. 

Report Preparation Support: A profile of the 

child’s skills can be obtained by completing the 

Developmental Progress Chart. 

References: 

Johnson-Martin, Nancy, Kenneth Jens, Susan 

Attermeier, and Bonnie Hacker. 2001. The 

Carolina Curriculum for Infants and Toddlers 

with Special Needs, Second Edition. Baltimore, 

MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DENVER II DEVELOPMENT SCREENING TEST (DDST-II), 1989
 
 

Authors: 

William K. Frankenburg and J.B. Dodds 

Publisher: 

Denver Developmental Materials, Inc. 

1-800-419-4729 • 303-355-4729 

www.denverii.com 

Initial Material Cost: 

Denver II Test Kit (includes 100 forms, Screening 

Manual, and test items): $84 Training Video: $215 

(purchase) or $90/week (on-site rental) 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: 

The English version of the test was normed from 1987 

to 1989 on a quota sample of 2,096 English-speaking 

children in Colorado with no obvious special needs. 

These children were of varying ages (between 2 weeks 

and 6.5 years), levels of maternal education, places of 

residence and cultural backgrounds. The Denver 

norming sample is representative of Colorado children 

(from 1980 US Census), and slightly overrepresents 

Hispanic infants, and underrepresents African 

American infants. However, when comparing the 

Colorado average 90% norms with the theoretical US 

composite norms, there were no clinically significant 

differences. The DDST-II Spanish version was not 

normed on Spanish-speaking children, but is a direct 

translation. 

Languages: 

English and Spanish (translation of directions and test 

forms) 

Type of Assessment: 

Direct child assessment and parent report 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

Birth to 6 years 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: 

Administration of the DDST-II and scoring of the
 


DDST-II and PDQ-II require a professional or 
 

paraprofessional. The manual suggests that users 
 

carefully review the manual, review the training
 


videotape, and practice testing children of various age
 


groups in order to properly administer and interpret 
 

the DDST-II. A two-day training is also suggested. The
 


test takes 10 to 20 minutes to administer, and 1 to 2
 


minutes to score. The Prescreening Developmental
 


Questionnaire (PDQ-II) takes about 10 to 15 minutes
 


to complete.
 


Summary:



Initial Material Cost: 1 (< $100)
 


Reliability: 3 (both inter-rater and test-retest reliability
 


have high percent agreement)
 


Validity: 1 (none described)
 


Norming Sample Characteristics: 2 (not nationally 
 

representative)
 


Ease of Administration and Scoring: 3 (scoring the
 


DDST-II and the PDQ-II requires a highly trained
 


individual)
 


Description: The DDST-II is a 125-item 

standardized measure that is designed to 

determine whether a child’s development is within 

the normal range. It includes a set of questions for 

parents and tests for the child on twenty simple 

tasks and items that fall into four sectors: 

Personal-Social (25 items), Fine Motor Adaptive 

(29 items), Language (39 items), and Gross Motor 

(32 items). The number of items administered 

during an assessment will vary with the child’s age 

and ability. 

A Prescreening Developmental Questionnaire 

(PDQ-II) has been developed to help parents 

quickly identify whether their children need 

further assessment. The PDQ-II is a pre-screening 

consisting of 91 parent questions from the DDSTII. It was created for parents to complete easily 

and quickly to assess whether their children have 

104 
105 

non-normal scores and need to complete the full 

DDST-II. The PDQ-II was revised in 1998 and 

uses the norms developed for the DDST-II. The 

questionnaires are divided by age range (0 to 9 

months, 9 to 24 months, 2 to 4 years, and 4 to 6 

years). 

Uses of Information: The DDST-II is 

intended for use as a screening tool to detect 

developmental delays. The DDST-II provides a 

clinical impression of a child’s overall 

development and confirms suspected potential 

developmental difficulties with an objective 

measure. It can be used to determine how a child 

compares to other children and identify children 

for whom additional in-depth assessment should 

be conducted. The authors do not recommend 

using it to predict later development status, as an 

in-depth assessment of developmental 

functioning, or to plan individual intervention 

programs. 

Reliability: (1) Internal consistency reliability: 

no information available. (2) Test-retest reliability: 

89 percent agreement between test scores for a 7

to 10-day interval between test administrations by 

the same tester. (3) Inter-rater reliability: for the 

standardization sample, percentage agreement 

between examiners and a criterion observer 

(inter-rater reliability) ranged from 92 to 98 

percent. 

Validity: No information available 

Method of Scoring: The child’s responses are 

recorded as Pass or Fail on the score sheets. The 

responses are examined to see if they fall into or 

outside the normal expected range of success on 

that item for the child’s age (the child is either 

classified as normal range, suspect, or delayed). 

Interpretability: The DDST-II scoring 

process, which is described in the screening 

manual, requires that the individual test items be 

interpreted before the entire test is interpreted. 

The individual items are classified as: Advanced, 

Normal, Caution, Delayed, and No Opportunity. 

The category descriptors for the entire test 

include: Normal, Abnormal, Questionable, and 

Untestable. 

Training Support: It is suggested that 

screeners be properly trained and pass the 

proficiency test before using the DDST-II for 

clinical purposes. There is a two-day training 

workshop offered (and outlined in the technical 

manual). 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: None mentioned 

Report Preparation Support: None 

mentioned 

References: 

Frankenburg, William K. and J.B. Dobbs. 

Denver Developmental Screening Test IIScreening Manual. Denver: Denver 

Developmental Materials, 1990. 

Frankenburg, William K. and J.B. Dobbs. 

Denver Developmental Screening Test IITechnical Manual. Denver: Denver 

Developmental Materials, 1990. 

­
 

Frankenburg, William K. and J.B. Dobbs

Denver Developmental Screening Test IITraining Videotape. Denver: Denver 

Developmental Materials, 1993. 

. Personal correspondence with Beverly 

Bresnick, DDST-II technical expert and trainer, 

July 10, 2002. 

106 
107 

 

 

 

 

DEVELOPMENTAL OBSERVATION CHECKLIST SYSTEM (DOCS), 

1994 

Authors: 

Wayne Hresko, Shirley Miguel, Rita Sherbenou, and 

Steve Burton 

Publisher: 

Pro-ed 

(800) 897-3202 

http://www.proedinc.com/customer/productView.aspx 

?ID=826 

Initial Material Cost: 

Complete DOCS Kit: $129 (includes Examiner’s 

Manual, 25 Cumulative Profile/Record Forms, 25 

Developmental Checklist Profile/Record Forms, 25 

Adjustment Behavior Checklist Profile/Record Forms, 

and 25 Parent Stress and Support Checklist 

Profile/Record Forms) 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: 

DOCS was normed on more than 1,400 children ages 

birth through 6 years from more than 30 states. 

Although a random sampling procedure was not used, 

characteristics of the normative group approximate 

those for the 1990 U.S. Census data relative to gender, 

geographic region, race/ethnicity, and urban/rural 

residence. The tests were conducted between 

November 1989 and December 1992. 

Languages: 

English 

Type of Assessment: 

Parent or caregiver report 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

Birth to 6 years 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: 

Examiners should have some training in administering 

and interpreting assessment instruments. The 

instrument can be completed by a parent with a fourth 

grade reading level. It takes 30 minutes to complete and 

15 to 20 minutes to score all three checklists. 

Summary: 

Initial Material Cost: 2 ($100 to $200) 

Reliability: 3 (.65 or higher) 

Validity: 2 (about half of the coefficients were < .5; 

about half were > .5) 

Norming Sample Characteristics: 2 (not nationally 

representative) 

Ease of Administration and Scoring: 3 (self

administered and scored by a trained individual) 

­

Description: The Developmental Observation 

Checklist System (DOCS) is a three-part 

instrument to assess the development of very 

young children, their ability to adjust to their 

environment, and the level of stress and support 

in their environment. Part I uses the 

Developmental Checklist (DC), a parent report 

questionnaire, to assess the child’s general 

development in the areas of cognition, language, 

social, and motor domains. It is answered in a 

yes/no format. Part II uses the Adjustment 

Behavior Checklist (ABC) to screen for any 

problematic behaviors in the child’s ability to 

adapt to his/her environment. Part III uses the 

Parental Stress and Support Checklist (PSSC) to 

identify family stress regarding the child and 

support used to mediate the stressors. Both the 

ABC and the PSSC are scored on a 4-point Likerttype scale. 

Uses of Information: The DOCS is used to 

(1) identify infants and children with 

developmental delays or deficits in cognitive, 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

language, social, and motor abilities; (2) assess 

adjustment behavior; (3) determine levels of 

familial stress and support; (4) facilitate the proper 

professional referral for the child; (5) serve as a 

measurement device in research studies, (6) give 

direction to instructional practice, and (7) 

document educational progress. 

Reliability: (1) Internal consistency reliability 

(Cronbach alphas): the alphas for age groups 

between birth and 3 years old were in the mid to 

high .90s for the DC components, in the .80s for 

the ABC, and in the low to mid .90s for the PSSC. 

(2) Test-retest reliability (with a 14- to 21-day 

interval): coefficients for children ages 2 to 3 

ranged from .85 to .91 for the DC component and 

overall checklists and were .94 and .89 for the 

ABC and PSSC, respectively. (3) Inter-rater 

reliability: Parent to caregiver standard score 

reliability coefficients on the DC component and 

overall ranged from .91 to .94. 

Validity: (1) Concurrent validity: The DC 

component quotient scores correlation with the 

Bayley Scale for Infant Development, Expressive 

One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test (EOWPVT), 

Denver Developmental Screening Test-Revised, 

McCarthy, Receptive-Expressive Emergent 

Language Test (REEL), Test of Early Language 

Development-2 (TELD-2), Stanford Binet (SB4th), Slosson Intelligence Test-Revised (SIT-R), 

Test of Early Socioemotional Development 

(TOESD), and Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale 

ranged from .35 (Developmental Language 

Quotient, Developmental Cognition Quotient, 

and Developmental Cognition Quotient with the 

McCarthy) to .83 (Developmental Language 

Quotient with the TELD-2). The correlation of 

DC component quotient scores with the Parental 

Stress Inventory (PSI) ranged from -.72 to -.38. 

The correlations of the ABC and PSSC with the 

TOESD were .65 and .47, respectively. For the 

Vineland, the correlations with the ABC and the 

PSSC were .69 and .51, respectively. The 

correlations of the ABC and PSSC with the PSI 

were -.38 and -.72, respectively. The DOCS was 

also able to differentiate between children with 

normal development and those with 

developmental challenges. These validity tests 

were performed on children between the ages of 3 

and 6. (2) Predictive validity: no information 

available. 

Method of Scoring: To score the DC, the 

examiner needs to find the child’s basal and 

ceiling points. The basal is established when the 

parent or caregiver marks “Yes” for five items in a 

row, and the ceiling is established when the parent 

or caregiver marks “No” for five items in a row. 

The DC score is the sum of all of the items below 

the basal (including the five basal items) and the 

number of “Yes” responses above the basal and 

below the ceiling. The ABC and the PSSC have no 

basals or ceilings. Checkmarks in each column are 

weighted according to their placement in the scale 

(responses are assigned a number between 1 and 

4) and multiplied by a factor indicated on the 

response sheet. To compute a raw score for each 

checklist, the correct responses are summed. 

Using tables in the manual, the DC component 

checklist raw scores can be converted into 

108 
109 

percentiles, standard scores, quotients (a 

distribution with a mean of 100 and a standard 

deviation of 15), normal curve equivalents, and 

age-equivalents (the child’s performance age). The 

manual also has tables to convert the ABC and 

PSSC raw scores into percentiles and quotients. 

Interpretability: The manual provides 

guidelines for interpreting DOCS scores, as well as 

cautions about their limitations. In general, while 

low DOCS scores may indicate the presence of 

developmental or environmental issues, they do 

not provide information on the sources and 

nature of the issues. The examiner is advised to 

always consider other sources of information, but 

especially when the assessment has practical 

implications for the child. 

Training Support: None 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: Instructions are 

given for how to administer the instrument if the 

individual is blind, illiterate, or below a 4th-grade 

reading level. In addition, the norms provided are 

appropriate for normally developing children such 

as those used in the standardization sample. If an 

individual’s performance is to be compared with a 

more specific reference group (for example, deaf, 

retarded, or children older than 6), the authors 

state that the suitability of the DOCS for that 

group should be established before evaluating test 

performance. 

Report Preparation Support: There are 

instructions in the manual for how to share the 

results with others, including parents. 

References: 

Hresko, W.P., S.A. Miguel, R.J. Sherbenou, 

and S.D. Burton. Developmental Observation 

Checklist System: A Systems Approach to 

Assessing Very Young Children Examiner’s 

Manual. Pro-Ed: Austin, TX, 1994. 
 110

 

 

DEVELOPMENTAL PROFILE 3 (DP-3), 2007 (2011 Update)
 
 

Authors: 

Gerald D. Alpern, Ph.D. 

Publisher: 

Western Psychological Services 

(800) 648-8857 

http://portal.wpspublish.com 

Instrument: 

http://portal.wpspublish.com/portal/page?_pageid=53, 

186601&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL 

Initial Material Cost: 

Kit with unlimited-use scoring and interpretation CD 

(includes 25 Interview Forms, 25 Parent/Caregiver 

Checklists, manual, CD): $375 ($210 without CD) 

Spanish Interview Form (package of 10): $30 

Spanish Parent/Caregiver Checklist (package of 10): 

$30 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: 

The sample consisted of 2,216 children from the four 

major Census Bureau regions. Fifty-nine interviewers 

were recruited from 21 states across the four regions. 

Children's ages ranged from 0 to 12 years, 11 months, 

with approximately 67 percent age 5 years, 11 months 

or younger. The sample was half female and 

demographically similar to the U.S. population, based 

on 2005 Census data. 

Languages: 

English, Spanish 

Type of Assessment: 

Parent interview or self-report 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

From 0 to 12 years of age 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: The Interview Form is administered by 

someone familiar with psychological or educational 

testing or by a paraprofessional. The Parent/Caregiver 

Checklist should be completed by a caregiver who 

knows the child well and can read and comprehend at 

the grade 6 level. A clinician or a professional with 

training in child development, psychology, and/or 

education should undertake scoring and interpretation. 

Those administering the Interview Form should be 

familiar with the manual. The interview takes 20 to 40 

minutes. 

Summary: 

Initial Material Cost: 3 (>$200)
 


Reliability: 3 (mostly .65 or higher)
 


Validity: 3 (mostly .5 or higher for concurrent; all .4 or 
 

higher for predictive)
 


Norming Sample Characteristics: 3 (normed within
 


past 15 years, nationally representative)
 


Ease of Administration and Scoring: 3 (self­


administered or administered by someone with basic
 


clerical skills; scored by clinician or designated 
 

assessor)
 


Description: The Developmental Profile 3 

(DP-3) is both a screening tool and a diagnostic 

instrument designed to measure child 

development and functioning of children 0 to 12 

years of age. The DP-3 may be administered as 

either an interview or a parent checklist. The 

content in both formats is identical; however, the 

Interview Form question wording is slightly 

different, and the author favors the interview 

format because assessors may clarify questions 

throughout administration. The forms comprise 

five scales: Physical (35 items), Adaptive Behavior 

(37 items), Social-Emotional (36 items), Cognitive 

(38 items), and Communication (34 items). A 
111 

composite score called General Development 

(GD) is based on the five scales, although single 

scales may be administered because each scale was 

normed separately. On the Interview Form, each 

scale is adaptive such that items are arranged in 

order of developmental difficulty. The assessor 

must first calculate the child's chronological age 

and then find the correct item to start the 

interview based on the child's age. For children 

age 2 years and older, the assessor must obtain a 

basal level of five “yes” responses. If the assessor 

does not obtain the basal level, he or she tests 

backward from the start item until achieving five 

consecutive “yes” responses. The ceiling applies 

when five consecutive items are scored “no.” For 

the Parent/Caregiver Checklist, the respondent 

answers all questions. The DP-3 updates the DP-II 

(1980) with norm-based standard scores, a 

Parent/Caregiver Checklist, an expanded age 

range, updated item content and interpretation 

guidelines, suggestions of intervention activities, a 

scoring and interpretation software program, and 

an overall GD score. 

Other Languages: The Parent/Caregiver 

Checklist and Interview Form are available in 

Spanish. Information on the norming sample, 

reliability, validity, and English language 

equivalence and comparability is unavailable. 

Uses of Information: The DP-3 may be used 

as a screening tool for health care providers. It 

may also be used to measure a child's progress in 

outcomes over the year and for research purposes. 

The author suggests use of the DP-3 as a 

diagnostic instrument to determine eligibility for 

special education services or to plan an 

Individualized Education Program if 

supplemented with other information. 

Reliability: 

1. Internal consistency reliability: adjusted splithalf reliability estimates were reported for the 

Interview Form by using the standardization 

sample by year of age and subscale. For ages 0 

and 1 year, Pearson's correlations for 

subscales ranged from .84 to .93, and the 

composite GD score coefficient was .97. For 

ages 2 and 3 years, coefficients ranged from 

.82 to .88 for subscales, and the GD score 

coefficient and .95. For ages 4 and 5 years, 

coefficients ranged from .71 to .86 for 

subscales, and the GD score coefficient was 

.92. The report of internal consistency for the 

Parent/Caregiver Checklist used a combined 

sample of both typically developing and 

clinically diagnosed children from 0 to 12 

years of age (n = 432). Subscale score 

coefficients for ages 0 and 1 year ranged from 

.83 to .91, with the GD score at .97. 

Coefficients for ages 2 and 3 years ranged 

from .79 to .96, with the GD score at .98 and 

.96, respectively. For ages 4 and 5 years, 

coefficients ranged from .80 to .96, with the 

GD score at .96 and .97, respectively. 

2. Test-retest reliability: sixty-six parents from 

the standardization sample were interviewed a 

second time, with 13 to 18 days between 

administrations (average of two weeks). 

Correlation coefficients for subscale scores 
 112

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ranged from .81 to .88, and the GD score was 

.92. 

3.		 Inter-rater reliability: no information 

available. 

Validity: 

1.		 Content validity: Two exploratory common 

factor analyses—oblimin rotation and 

confirmatory factor analyses—indicated that 

items loaded primarily onto one main factor. 

Item response theory (Rasch model analyses) 

showed that the ranges of child ability and 

item difficulty for each scale were similar. For 

all scales, the range of person ability extends 

slightly below and slightly beyond the range of 

item difficulty, demonstrating that the items 

in all five scales dependably measure child 

development within the target skill range. 

2.		 Concurrent validity: the Interview Form scales 

were compared to scales of similar constructs 

in the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, 

Second Edition (Vineland II); Developmental 

Assessment of Young Children (DAYC); 

Peabody Developmental Motor scales, Second 

Edition (PDMS-2); and Preschool Language 

Scales, 4th Edition (PLS-4). All comparisons 

were conducted on subsets of the “clinical” 

sample (n = 398) of racially diverse children 

from 4 months to 12 years of age with preexisting developmental, behavioral, or 

emotional disorders. The sample had twice as 

many boys (consistent with higher rates of 

developmental disabilities among boys in the 

sample). Correlations between scales of 

similar constructs on the DP-3 subscales and 

Vineland II Adaptive Behavior Scales ranged 

from .68 (DP-3 Adaptive Behavior and 

Vineland II Daily Living Skills) to .85 (DP-3 

Physical and Vineland II Motor Skills), and 

the Vineland II Adaptive Behavior Composite 

correlated with the DP-3 GD at .81. 

Correlations between the same subscales on 

the DP-3 and DAYC ranged from .64 

(Adaptive Behavior) to .71 (Communication), 

and the DAYC and DP-3 GD scores 

correlated at .72. The Communication scale 

on the DP-3 correlated with the PLS-4 

Expressive Communication and Auditory 

Comprehension scales at .53 and .48, 

respectively. The DP-3 Physical scale 

correlated with PDMS-2, with coefficients of 

.56 for the PDMS-2 Grasping scale and .71 for 

the PDMS-2 Visual-Motor Integration scale. 

The DP-3 Parent/Caregiver Checklist scores 

were compared to scores on the Vineland II 

and Adaptive Behavior Assessment System, 

Second Edition (ABAS-II) among parents of 

99 typically developing and clinically 

diagnosed children. Correlations were similar 

to those of the Interview Form and the 

Vineland II, ranging from .61 (Vineland II 

Daily Living Skills and DP-3 Adaptive 

Behavior) to .78 (Vineland II Adaptive 

Behavior Composite and the DP-3 GD score). 

ABAS-II raw scores were available for 150 

typically developing children, from 3 to 12 

years of age, and correlations ranged from .45 

(DP-3 Physical with ABAS-II Social) to .87 
113 

(DP-3 Cognitive with ABAS-II Functional 

Academics). 

T-tests comparing the Interview Form and 

Parent/Caregiver Form standardization 

samples of children with samples of children 

with clinical problems (n = 398 and 56, 

respectively) showed significant differences 

for subscale and GD mean standard scores. 

Samples with clinical problems were further 

divided into groups, with one group of 

children with developmental delays, maternal 

drug use, mental retardation, and related 

disabilities and a second group with 

emotional, behavioral, and adjustment 

disorders. The second group also included 

children with speech and learning disabilities 

for Interview Form comparisons. As the 

author expected, the first group had lower 

scores across all scales and overall. Differences 

were significant among the Interview Form 

sample and non-significant among the 

Parent/Caregiver Form sample; the author 

attributed the non-significant differences to 

the small sample size. 

. Predictive validity: the original version of the 

Developmental Profile (1972) was used to 

predict 29 autistic children's functioning four 

to seven years later based on a questionnaire 

administered to mothers about their child's 

current level of functioning. Pearson product 

moment correlations between the DP and the 

parent's report were significant across all five 

scales, ranging from .43 to .61. 

3

4. Construct validity: the author correlated scale 

scores with each other and with the composite 

GD score. Correlation coefficients ranged 

from .39 (Physical and Communication) to 

.79 (Cognitive and GD score). All scales had a 

higher correlation with the composite GD 

score than with any of the other scales. 

Bias Analysis: No information available. 

Method of Scoring: A clinician or a 

professional with training in child development, 

psychology, and/or education scores the results. 

The scorer records a “yes” or “no” for each 

question on each form. For hand scoring of the 

Interview Form, raw scores are calculated by 

counting one point for each “yes” and one point 

for each item below the basal, whereas the 

Parent/Caregiver raw score consists of “yes” 

responses. Points are subtotaled for each scale. 

The raw scale scores are converted into standard 

scores for each scale with the use of reference 

tables in the manual. To calculate the GD score, 

scale scores are first summed; the scorer then uses 

corresponding tables in the manual to identify a 

converted score. Additional tables in the manual 

indicate 95 percent confidence intervals for 

standard scores, descriptive categories (i.e., 

Delayed, Below Average, Average, Above Average, 

or Well Above Average), percentile ranks, and age 

equivalents. As an alternative to hand scoring, the 

scorer may manually enter responses into the 

computer for scoring with the WPS Test Report 

scoring software. 

Interpretability: A Scoring/Profile form is 

used to interpret and convey test results to 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

parents. The scorer records raw scores (by scale 

only), standard scores, 95 percent confidence 

intervals, descriptive categories, percentile ranks, 

and age equivalents (by scale only) on the 

Scoring/Profile form. The scorer also plots on a 

graph standard scores for each scale and the GD 

score and records notes at the bottom of the page. 

The manual provides a detailed analysis of each 

scale if the clinician desires a more in-depth 

analysis of scale score patterns and/or an item 

analysis, instructions for integrating DP-3 results 

with information from other assessments and/or 

information obtained through remediation, and 

guidelines for interventions based on DP-3 results. 

The CD-ROM computer scoring program 

interprets scores with the following features: 

graphical representation, scale pattern analysis 

and scale-by-scale item analysis, and 

individualized intervention activities that address 

a child's weaknesses. 

Training Support: No information available. 

Adaptations/Special Instructions: No 

information available. 

Report Preparation Support: The CD-ROM 

computer scoring program produces a clinician 

report and a parent report. The clinician report 

includes summaries of raw scores by scale, 

standardized scores by scale, the confidence 

interval, the development range category, 

corresponding percentile, and age equivalent. It 

also provides a graphical depiction of the child's 

scores compared to standard score ranges as well 

as a scale interpretation and a list of suggested 

activities to develop each skill set. The parent 

report contains a description of the score range 

and descriptive category obtained for each scale 

and what it means to perform at each category 

level (Well Above Average, Above Average, 

Average, Below Average, or Delayed). The parent 

report also includes suggested home and family 

activities to develop skill sets. 

References: 

Alpern, Gerald D. Developmental Profile 3 

DP-3 Manual. Los Angeles: Western 

Psychological Services, 2007. 

Alpern, Gerald D. Unlimited-use Scoring and 

Interpretation CD. Los Angeles: Western 

Psychological Services, 2007. 

Flanagan, Rosemary and Carlen Henington. 

“Review of Developmental Profile 3.” In The 

Eighteenth Mental Measurements Yearbook, edited 

by Robert A. Spies, Janet F. Carlson, and Kurt F. 

Geisinger. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental 

Measurements, 2010. 

114 
115 

DEVEREUX EARLY CHILDHOOD ASSESSMENT FOR INFANTS 

AND TODDLERS (DECA-I/T), 2007 (2011 Update) 

Authors: 

Mary Mackrain, Paul LeBuffe, and Gregg Powell 

Publisher: 

Kaplan Early Learning Company 

(800) 334-2014 

http://www.kaplanco.com 

Instrument: 

http://www.kaplanco.com/store/trans/productDetailFo 

rm.asp?CatID=5|LT1045|0&CollID=37615 

Initial Material Cost: 

DECA-I/T Kit includes 50 record forms (20 Infant and 

30 Toddler), Strategies Guide, User Guide, Set of 5 

reproducible Parent Teacher Masters, 20 Parent 

Strategy Guides (For Now & Forever), 3 Adult 

Resilience Journals (Building Your Bounce), and Forms 

CD: $199.95 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: 

The standardization sample consists of 2,183 infants 

and toddlers between 4 weeks and 3 years of age (45 

percent infants and 55 percent toddlers).1 The sample 

closely represents the 2006 Statistical Abstract of the 

United States in terms of characteristics such as gender, 

region, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. 

Languages: 

English 

 

1 Infant was defined as age 4 weeks to 18 months and toddler 

as 18 months to 36 months. 

Type of Assessment: 

Observation and parent/caregiver report 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

4 weeks to 36 months, administered three times per 

year, with at least a 4-week interval between 

assessments by the same adult. 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: Administered by parents, adult family 

members, or teachers who are able to read at a grade 6 

level and have observed the child's behavior for a 

minimum of 2 hours per day, 2 days each week, over a 

period of 4 weeks. 

It takes 20 minutes to complete. Highly trained 

program members score, interpret, and translate 

standardized assessment instruments, standardized 

scores, and profiles. The DECA-I/T Scoring Program 

CD-ROM ($99.95) may also be used to score the 

assessment. It is sold separately from the kit. 

2-day DECA-I/T Implementation Training: $270 (early 

bird rate) or $300 (regular rate). 

Summary: 

Initial Material Cost: 2 ($100 to $200) 

Reliability: 3 (mostly .65 or higher). 

Validity: 3 (all .5 or higher for concurrent) 

Norming Sample Characteristics: 3 (normed within the 

past 15 years and nationally representative) 

Ease of Administration and Scoring: 3 (administered 

and scored by a highly trained individual) 

Description: The Devereaux Early Childhood 

Assessment for Infants and Toddlers (DECA-I/T) 

is an observation used by parents or child care 

staff. It measures protective factors, or 

characteristics of the individual or environment 

thought to temper the negative effects of stress 

and lead to positive behavioral and psychological 

outcomes in at-risk infants and toddlers age 1 year 

to 36 months. The DECA-I/T may also screen for 

risk in the social and emotional development of 

infants and toddlers. The instrument's two forms 

are designed for infants 1 to 18 months of age 

(DECA-I, 33 items) and toddlers 18 to 36 months 

of age (DECA-T, 36 items). The DECA-T is 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

modeled after the DECA (1999), which targets 2­

to 5-year-olds. 

The DECA-I has two protective factor scales 

(Initiative and Attachment/Relationships), and 

the DECA-T has three protective factor scales 

(Attachment/Relationships, Initiative, and SelfRegulation). The Initiative scale assesses the 

infant's or toddler's ability to use independent 

thought and actions (18 items on the DECA-I and 

11 items on the DECA-T), and the 

Attachment/Relationship scale assesses the 

relationship between the infant or toddler and 

significant adults (15 items on the DECA-I and 18 

items on the DECA-T). The 7-item SelfRegulation scale on the DECA-T assesses the 

toddler's ability to gain control of and manage 

emotions and sustain focus and attention. Both 

the DECA-I and DECA-T have a Total Protective 

Factors scale, which is a composite across the 

scales for each assessment; the scale provides an 

overall indication of the strength of the infant's or 

toddler's protective factors. 

Other Languages: The authors are developing 

a Spanish version of the DECA-I/T. 

Uses of Information: The DECA-I/T 

provides a profile of an infant's or toddler's social 

and emotional strengths and helps users identify 

children who may be experiencing social and 

emotional challenges. It is possible to compare 

scores between different raters for the same child 

in order to understand different child behavior 

across different environments. Programs may use 

the DECA-I/T to meet standards for social and 

emotional development of infants and toddlers, 

compare children's social and emotional health 

over time, and develop strength-based programs 

to foster children's healthy social and emotional 

growth. The DECA-I/T also provides researchers 

with a measure of self-protective factors. 

Reliability: 

1.		 Internal consistency: Cronbach's alpha 

coefficients for Total Protective Factors on the 

DECA-I ranged from .90 to .94 for parent 

raters (.80 to .92 for the individual scales) and 

.93 to .94 for teacher raters (.87 to .93 for the 

individual scales) across the four infant age 

groups (1 to 3 months; 3 to 6 months; 6 to 9 

months; and 9 to 18 months). For the DECAT (18 to 36 months), coefficients for Total 

Protective Factors were .94 for parent raters 

(.79 to .92 for the individual scales) and .95 for 

teacher raters (.83 to .94 for the individual 

scales). 

2.		 Test-retest reliability: the administration 

interval between parent and teacher rater 

administrations ranged from one to three 

days. Coefficients for Total Protective Factors 

on the DECA-I was .91 for parents (.86 to .94 

for the individual scales), .84 for teachers (.83 

to .84 for individual scales), and .85 for both 

parents and teachers. On the DECA-T, 

coefficients were .99 for parents (.92 to .99 for 

individual scales), .91 for teachers (.72 to .98 

for individual scales), and .97 for both parents 

and teachers. 

3.		 Inter-rater reliability: inter-rater reliability of 

one pair of teachers and parent raters for 

116 
117 

Total Protective Factors on the DECA-I was 

.68 for parents (.59 to .76 for the individual 

scales) and .72 for teachers (.64 to .71 for the 

individual scales). On the DECA-T, the 

coefficient for total protective factors was .70 

for parents (.62 to .72 for the individual 

scales) and .74 for teachers (.66 to .71 for the 

individual scales). 

Validity: 

1. Content validity: Items selected for the 

DECA-I/T were based on an extensive review 

of the literature on resilience; on focus groups 

with parents, teachers, and infant and early 

childhood mental health professionals; and on 

a review of infant and toddler social and 

emotional instruments. Reviewers noted that 

the literature review and assessment of other 

instruments need to be updated (Clark and 

McLellan 2010). Factor analysis procedures 

were used to select the items for each of the 

protective scales, resulting in a two-factor 

solution for infants and a three-factor solution 

for toddlers. The National Advisory Team and 

the Devereux Early Childhood Initiative 

(DECI) Research Advisory Board devised a 

naming convention for the factors that led to 

the current protective scales in each 

assessment. 

2. Concurrent validity: thirty-five toddlers age 2 

to 3 years were assessed with the original 

DECA and the DECA-T. Correlations 

between the DECA and DECA-T ranged from 

.83 (Initiative) to .91 (Total Protective 

Factors). 

Fifteen infants and 69 toddlers with identified 

emotional and behavioral problems were 

found to have significantly lower protective 

factor scale scores and significantly higher 

behavioral concern than a matched sample of 

children with no identified emotional and 

behavioral problems. The authors performed 

sensitivity analysis to investigate the 

proportion of children in the sample with 

identified emotional and behavioral problems 

who scored as Area of Need (see 

Interpretability section); they also performed 

specificity analysis to investigate the 

proportion of children in the community 

sample who scored as Typical or Strength. 

Analyses among infants showed that 

sensitivity for the identified sample ranged 

from 27 percent (Initiative) to 47 percent 

(Attachment/Relationships). Specificity was 

87 percent for each scale. Among toddlers, 

sensitivity for the identified sample ranged 

from 41 percent (Attachment/Relationships) 

to 57 percent (Total Protective Factors). 

Specificity ranged from 80 percent 

(Attachment/Relationships) to 87 percent 

(Initiative). 

. Construct validity: the authors reported 

findings consistent with DECA-I/T's 

theoretical construct. For both low- and highrisk children, higher protective factor scale 

scores were associated with better social and 

emotional health outcomes than were lower 

scores. 

3
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bias Analysis: Authors compared the mean 

scores between black and white infants and 

toddlers and between Hispanic and white infants 

and toddlers and concluded most mean score 

differences were negligible or small except for the 

Attachment/Relationships scale for Hispanics and 

whites, which had a medium mean score 

difference. 

Methods of Scoring: Raters complete the 

Record Form by indicating how often they 

observed the child performing particular 

behaviors in the past four weeks. For each item, 

they place a checkmark next to one of the 

following descriptors: never, rarely, occasionally, 

frequently, or very frequently. The DECA-I/T may 

be scored by using a Scoring Program CD-ROM, 

or a trained professional may score the assessment 

by hand. Hand scoring involves transferring the 

rater's checkmarks to a separate page of the 

Record Form, where corresponding boxes have 

raw score values that correspond to each rating: 

never = 0, rarely = 1, occasionally = 2, frequently = 

3, and very frequently = 4. The scale raw scores 

are calculated by adding the raw scores for all 

items in each scale. The raw scores are converted 

into t-scores and percentiles with the use of the 

Individual Child Profile, which graphically 

displays the child's score across the scales. 

Individual Child Profile forms differ for infants by 

age group (1 to 3 months, 3 to 6 months, 6 to 9 

months, and 9 to 18 months); therefore, it is 

important to select the appropriate profile based 

on the child's age. The Individual Child Profile 

provides separate sections for parent and teacher 

ratings. The User's Guide includes tables to help 

interpret the differences between scores on the 

scales by different raters and over time. 

Interpretability: Raw scores are converted 

into percentile scores, t-scores, or normal curve 

equivalents for interpretation and to compare 

ratings to typical scale scores. T-scores on the 

DECA-I/T range from 28 to 72 and are classified 

as Area of Need (40 or below), Typical (41 to 59), 

or Strength (60 and above). Scores should be 

interpreted in the context of other infant and 

toddler scores and cultural and family 

background. 

Training Support: Training support is 

available through the Devereux Early Childhood 

Initiative and includes introduction and basic 

implementation sessions as well as a train-thetrainer session. 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: No information 

available. 

Report Preparation Support: Individual 

Profiles graphically display results from the 

DECA-I/T scales. Several examples of DECA-I/T 

Individual Profiles are presented and interpreted, 

along with suggestions for an intervention plan. 

References: 

Clark, Jean N. “Review of the Devereux Early 

Childhood Assessment for Infants and Toddlers.” 

In The Eighteenth Mental Measurements 

Yearbook, edited by Robert A. Spies, Janet F. 

118 
119 

Carlson, and Kurt F. Geisinger. Lincoln, NE: The 

Buros Institute of Mental Measurements, 2010. 

Mackrain, Mary, and Paul LeBuffe. DECA-I/T 

CD Scoring Assistant. Lewisville, NC: Kaplan Early 

Learning Company, 2007. 

Mackrain, Mary, Paul LeBuffe, and Gregg 

Powell. Devereux Early Childhood Assessment for 

Infants and Toddlers User's Guide. Lewisville, NC: 

Kaplan Early Learning Company, 2007. 

McLellan, Mary J. “Review of the Devereux 

Early Childhood Assessment for Infants and 

Toddlers.” In The Eighteenth Mental 

Measurements Yearbook, edited by Robert A. 

Spies, Janet F. Carlson, and Kurt F. Geisinger. 

Lincoln, NE: The Buros Institute of Mental 

Measurements, 2010. 

Powell, Gregg, Mary Mackrain, and Paul 

LeBuffe. Devereux Early Childhood Assessment for 

Infants and Toddlers: Technical Manual. 

Lewisville, NC: Kaplan Early Learning 

Corporation, 2007. 

The Devereux Early Childhood Initiative. 

“Building Skills for School Success.” Available at 

[http://www.devereux.org/site/PageServer?pagena 

me=deci_index]. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EARLY COMMUNICATION INDICATOR (ECI), 2011 (2011 Update)
 
 

Authors: 

Gayle J. Luze, Deborah L. Linebarger, Charles R. 

Greenwood, Judith J. Carta, Dale Walker, Carol 

Leitschuh, and Jane B. Atwater 

Publisher: 

Juniper Gardens Children’s Project 

(913) 321-3143 

http://www.igdi.ku.edu 

Instrument: 

http://www.igdi.ku.edu/measures/ECI_Measures/ 

Initial Material Cost: Free; the publisher’s web site 

includes administration and coding guidelines, practice 

videos, certification videos, and scoring forms. 

Child Data System: $1 per child annually for early 

childhood education programs. 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: The norming 

study was conducted in 2010 with 5,883 children 6 

through 36 months old from Early Head Start 

programs in two Midwestern states (Greenwood et al. 

2010). The children lived in rural, urban, and suburban 

settings and were diverse with respect to race and 

ethnicity. Home languages were primarily English and 

Spanish. The sample also included children with special 

needs. 

Languages: 

English 

Type of Assessment: 

Observation 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

Birth through 3 years old. Administered every 3 

months. 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: Administered by highly trained and 

certified program staff members or researchers. 

Observers may be trained and certified in 4 to 6 hours 

to code the key skill communication elements, with 

each video taking about 30 minutes to code on average. 

Observers must attain at least 85 percent agreement 

(assessed annually) on an Observer Agreement Sheet 

that calculates inter-observer reliability. Within an 

organization, certified video coders may train others. 

Assessors (adult play partners) become certified by 

scoring at least 81 percent on the Administration 

Checklist (an 18-item checklist covering set up, 

administration, and ending the session) based on the 

observer’s rating. 

Child observations last for 6 minutes. 

Training materials for administering the ECI are 

available online for free and include training workshop 

PowerPoint slides, administration and scoring 

guidelines, and video demonstrations. Juniper Gardens 

Children’s Project researchers are also available for inperson training (cost available upon request). 

Summary: 

Initial Material Cost: 1 (< $100)
 


Reliability: 3 (all .65 or higher)
 


Validity: 3 (all .5 or higher for concurrent)
 


Norming Sample Characteristics: 3 (normed within
 


past 15 years and representative of children in Early
 


Head Start programs)
 


Ease of Administration and Scoring: 3 (administered 
 

and scored by a highly trained individual)
 


Description: The Early Communication 

Indicator (ECI) is an observation of 

communicative interactions with a child and a 

trained adult play partner. The ECI is part of a set 

of Individual Growth and Development Indicators 

(IGDI) for use by childcare practitioners to 

120 
121 

monitor children’s growth and development in 

key developmental areas. The other IGDIs 

measure social development, movement, problem 

solving, and parent-child interaction. The ECI is a 

play-based measure designed to elicit expressive 

communication among children from birth 

through 3 years old. A trained familiar adult (play 

partner) interacts with the child by using the 

standard ECI stimuli, including Fisher Price’s 

Little People Animal Farm or Little People Happy 

Home. The farm includes a Little People farmer, 

cow, sheep, horse, pig, chicken, rooster, and food 

cart. The doll house includes three Little People, a 

bed, table, two chairs, stroller, and play center. For 

ECI assessments, the developers recommend 

using the toys without sound. The play partner 

prepares for the assessment by following the 

administration instructions that detail the set up, 

selection of toys, and end of the session. The play 

partner encourages and supports the child’s 

communication without being directive. 

Observations of the play session may be live or 

videotaped. Using the ECI Recording Sheet, 

observers document how often four skill elements 

occur in one-minute intervals across the 

assessment’s six minutes. Skill elements include 

Gestures, Vocalizations, Single-Word Utterances, 

and Multiple-Word Utterances; together, these 

elements make up a Total Communication Score. 

The observer records the frequency of occurrence 

of each skill type in one-minute intervals. 

Other Languages: None. 

Uses of Information: Data from the ECI may 

be used to screen children’s expressive 

communication abilities, monitor children’s 

expressive communication progress, inform 

interventions, and educate parents. The data may 

also be used for program improvement and 

research purposes. 

Reliability: 

1. Internal consistency reliability: split-half 

reliability coefficients for the mean of all the 

child’s total communication scores was .89 

(Luze et al. 2001). The convenience sample 

included 50 infants and toddlers selected from 

five childcare centers in two cities; the infants 

and toddlers varied in race, gender, 

socioeconomic status, disability status, and 

mother’s education level. 

2. Test-retest reliability: analysis was conducted 

on 25 children from the pilot study who 

completed nine monthly ECI assessments. 

Test-retest coefficients (type not specified) for 

total communication was .89 (Greenwood et 

al. 2006). 

3. Inter-rater reliability: data are based on a 

composite sample from the study conducted by 

Luze et al (2001) and on pooled samples from 

three additional studies (n = 1,653) that 

included toddlers from 36 center- and homebased programs in Kansas; the toddlers were 

racially diverse and bilingual and came from 

predominantly low-income families 

(http://www.igdi.ku.edu/measures/ECI_Measur 

es/DetailsofECInormativestudysamples.htm). 

Data from 10 percent of the completed 

assessments were randomly selected to test 

inter-rater reliability. Two trained assessors 
 

 

 

 

 

coded each video. Average agreement was 90 

percent for overall communication and 81 

percent for gestures, 80 percent for 

vocalizations, 70 percent for single words, and 

72 percent for multiple words (Greenwood et 

al. 2010). 

Validity: 

1.		 Content validity: Luze et al. (2001) conducted 

a review of the communication and language 

development literature and of existing 

instruments to identify the four ECI skill 

elements as well as Social Attention (i.e., 

intentional and sustained gaze toward the play 

partner) and toys used in the observation 

(Fisher Price’s Little People Animal Farm or 

Little People Happy Home). Authors pilot 

tested 25 children from 5 through 36 months 

old from three child care programs. Social 

Attention was dropped from the ECI because 

it did not increase with age as expected. 

2.		 Concurrent validity: the ECI correlated with 

the Expressive Language subscale of the 

Preschool Language Scale at .62 and with the 

Caregiver Communication Measure at .51 

(Luze et al. 2001). 

3.		 Construct validity: results with the norming 

sample suggest that the ECI is sensitive to the 

change in onset of the key skill elements, 

pattern of growth, and outcomes for key skill 

elements at 36 months of age. 

Bias Analysis: Growth curve analyses 

indicated that children’s communication growth 

is not influenced by gender or the language 

spoken at home (Greenwood et al. 2010). 

Methods of Scoring: The observer adds the 

number of times that each skill element-Gestures, 

Vocalizations, and Single- and Multiple-Word 

Utterances-is observed across the six minutes and 

records the information on an ECI Recording 

Sheet. Total communication, the sum of the 

individual frequencies, is scored within and across 

skill elements. Each skill element is weighted 

differently when determining the Total 

Communication Score; that is, Single- and 

Multiple- Word Utterances receive a weight of 

two and three, respectively. Weights approximate 

an absolute estimate of the child’s total words 

during the assessment and are automatically 

applied when raw scores are entered into the 

Child Data System (the developer’s online data 

entry system). Alternatively, raw scores may be 

data entered, with the weights applied during 

analysis. 

Interpretability: No information available. 

Training Support: Training materials are 

available online and include administration 

guidelines; coding definitions; PowerPoint 

presentations from training workshops covering 

background, administration, scoring, and training 

of others; and videos to practice and code 

observations. The Juniper Gardens Children’s 

Project ECI researchers are also available for inperson training and provide ongoing training 

support as necessary. 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: Gestures and 

Vocalizations may be used with children whose 

speech is limited by developmental delays or 

122 
123 

disabilities. For children with physical disabilities, 

the authors recommend modifying the toys’ 

placement (e.g., move the toys closer, prop the 

child up to facilitate access to the toys). Adults 

may also move toys upon the request of the child 

(e.g., the child wants the horse to jump over the 

fence but cannot pick up the horse). For children 

with visual impairments, the play partner may 

identify the toy, orient the child to the toy, and 

allow the child to touch each toy to become 

familiar with it. The play partner may position 

him-/herself in front of children with hearing 

impairments-instead of sitting next to the childwith the toys placed between them in order to 

facilitate sign language and lip reading. For 

children with hearing aids or audio tuner, the play 

partner should choose the optimal position that 

enables the child to see and hear him/her. 

Report Preparation Support: ECI data 

entered into the Child Data System may be used 

to generate several types of progress reports, 

including reports for individual children, 

programs, or several programs. Office of Special 

Education Programs (OSEP) reports may also be 

generated to share information with parents, to 

monitor progress or program improvement, or to 

meet reporting requirements. 

References: 

Carta, Judith, Charles Greenwood, Dale 

Walker, and Jay Buzhardt. Using IGDIs: 

Monitoring Progress and Improving Intervention 

for Infants and Young Children. Baltimore: Paul 

H. Brookes Publishing Co., Inc., 2010. 

Greenwood, Charles R., Judith Carta, Dale 

Walker, Kere Hughes, and Mary Weathers. 

“Preliminary Investigations of the Application of 

the Early Communication Indicator (ECI) for 

Infants and Toddlers.” Journal of Early 

Intervention, vol. 28, no. 3, 2006, pp. 178-196. 

Greenwood, Charles R., Dale Walker, and Jay 

Buzhardt. “The Early Communication Indicator 

for Infants and Toddlers: Early Head Start Growth 

Norms from Two States.” Journal of Early 

Intervention, vol. 32, no. 5, 2010, pp. 310-334. 

Juniper Gardens Children’s Project. “Early 

Communication Indicator (ECI): Administration 

Guidelines.” Available at 

[http://www.igdi.ku.edu/training/ECI_training/E 

CI_Admininstration_Instructions-2005.pdf]. 

2005. 

Juniper Gardens Children’s Project. “ECI 

Certification Videos.” Available at 

[http://www.igdi.ku.edu/training/ECI_training/E 

CI_videos/index.htm]. 2009. 

Juniper Gardens Children’s Project. “IGDI 

Child Data System.” Available at 

[http://www.igdi.ku.edu/data_system/index.htm]. 

2009. 

Luze, Gayle J., Deborah L. Linebarger, Charles 

R. Greenwood, Judith J. Carta, Dale Walker, Carol 

Leitschuh, and Jane B. Atwater. “Developing a 

General Outcome Measure of Growth in the 

Expressive Communication of Infants and 

Toddlers.” School Psychology Review, vol. 30, no. 

3, 2001, pp. 383-406. 
 124

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EARLY COPING INVENTORY (ECI), 1988
 
 

Authors: 

Shirley Zeitlin, G. Gordon Williamson, and Margery 

Szczepanski 

Publisher: 

Scholastic Testing Service, Inc. 

www.ststesting.com 

1-800-642-6787 

Initial Material Cost: 

ECI Manual and 20 forms: $51 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: 

None described. 

Languages: 

English 

Type of Assessment: 

Observation 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

Children whose developmental age is between 4 and 36 

months 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: 

Nonprofessionals who are knowledgeable in infant 

development may administer and score the inventory. 

If observers are not familiar with the child, they should 

observe the child at least 3 times in different situations. 

Interpretation should be done by a professional with a 

background in early development and behavioral 

sciences. Administration time varies depending on the 

observer’s familiarity with the child. 

Summary: 

Initial Material Cost: 1 (< $100)
 


Reliability: Interrater: 3 (.65 or higher)
 


Validity: 1 (content validity only reported)
 


Norming Sample Characteristics: 1 (none described)
 


Ease of Administration and Scoring: 3 (may be
 


administered by a nonprofessional but scored by a
 


highly trained individual).
 


Description: The Early Coping Inventory 

(ECI) is an observation instrument used for 

assessing the coping-related behavior of children 

whose chronological or developmental age is 

between 4 and 36 months. The ECI’s 48 items are 

divided into 3 coping clusters: Sensorimotor 

Organization, Reactive Behavior, and SelfInitiated Behavior. Each item is rated on a fivepoint scale ranging from ineffective coping (1) to 

consistently effective coping across situations (5). 

Uses of Information: Analysis of a child’s 

scores on the instrument provides information 

about level of coping, style, and specific strengths 

and weaknesses. The findings can then be used to 

create educational and therapeutic interventions. 

In addition, the ECI can be used to involve 

parents in its use as a means of increasing 

knowledge of the child and communication with 

staff. The ECI can also be used to support staff 

development and training to increase observation 

skills, expand their domain of concern, facilitate 

teamwork, and measure child progress. The 

manual provides a chapter on how the ECI can be 

used for these purposes. 

Reliability:1 Reliability was established with a 

group of observers who completed the ECI after 

viewing videotapes of four young children twice, 

1 The reliability tests were conducted using the research 

version of the ECI, which had 54 items instead of 48 items in 

the current version. 
125 

with a 6-week interval between viewing. 

(1) Interrater reliability (using Guildford’s 

formula): At the first viewing, the reliability 

coefficients for the three coping clusters and the 

adaptive behavioral index ranged from .80 

(sensorimotor organization) to .94 (self-initiative 

behavior) and at the second viewing from .87 

(sensorimotor organization) to .93 (self-initiative 

behavior). The authors also tested for the level of 

agreement between the observers’ scores with the 

scores of an expert panel for each of the ECI items. 

The “concordance index” showed that the 

agreements in the item scores within each coping 

cluster ranged from a mean of 41 percent (reactive 

behavior) to a mean of 52 percent (sensorimotor 

organization). (2) Test-retest reliability (six-week 

interval): Friedman’s analysis of variance test was 

used to test for significant differences between 

ECI testretest scores for each child on the coping 

clusters and the adaptive behavioral index. The 

authors reported no statistical significant shift in 

scoring on 11 of the 16 tests. 

Validity: (1) Content validity: Item content 

and definitions of coping constructs were 

primarily derived from a review of the early 

childhood, coping-related literature. A panel of six 

judges then reviewed the selected items for fidelity 

to the coping constructs. The EIC was then 

administered to three different samples and the 

responses were factor analyzed. The results of the 

factor analysis provided the basis for creating the 

three coping clusters. 

Method of Scoring: Raw score totals are 

calculated for sensorimotor organization, reactive 

behavior, and self-initiated behavior by summing 

the items ratings scale numeric values. A table is 

used to convert the raw scores into Effectiveness 

scores, which can be plotted on the Coping Profile 

and used to compare the child’s level of 

effectiveness in the three categories. Another table 

converts the sum of the effectiveness scores into 

an Adaptive Behavior Index score. A list of six to 

eight of the Most and Least Adaptive Coping 

Behaviors is also compiled to aid intervention 

planning. 

Interpretability: Higher scores indicate the 

use of more effective coping behaviors in adapting 

to stresses in everyday living. The Adaptive 

Behavior Index indicates the child’s general level 

of effectiveness in using adaptive behaviors to 

cope and whether or not intervention is needed. 

The Coping Profile, which graphically displays the 

effectiveness scores, shows strengths and 

vulnerabilities in coping behavior. The authors 

recommend taking advantage of areas of strengths 

when planning intervention activities to increase 

competence in the weaker areas. In the same way, 

the list of the Most and Least Adaptive Coping 

Behaviors can also be used to develop the 

intervention plan. The manual provides a table 

that contains a descriptive interpretation for the 

Effectiveness and Adaptive Behavior Index 

numeric scores and several case studies to 

illustrate how to interpret the results. 

Training Support: Two examples are 

provided to illustrate use of the rating scale and 

three case studies are given on how to interpret 

the results. Appendix D of the manual also 
 

contains case studies on how to develop 

intervention plans. 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: Instructions are 

given in the manual on how to rate a child with a 

disability. 

Report Preparation Support: None. 

References: 

Zeitlin, Shirley, G. Gordon Williamson, and 

Margery Szczepanski. Early Coping Inventory: A 

Measure of Adaptive Behavior. Bensenville, 

Illinois: Scholastic Testing Service, 1988. 

126 
127 

EARLY HEAD START RESEARCH AND EVALUATION PROJECT (EHSREP) 

PARENT INTERVIEWS AND CHILD ASSESSMENTS, 1996 - 2001 

Authors: 

John Love and other project staff, in collaboration with 

the Early Head Start Research Consortium 

Publisher: 

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 

Contact Publications, 609-275-2350, 

jallen@mathematica-mpr.com. 

Lists of measures and copies of the interviews can be 

found at www.mathematica-mpr.com or 

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/ehs/ehs_resrch 

/index.html. 

Initial Material Cost: 

None 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: 

None described 

Languages: 

English, Spanish 

Type of Assessment: 

Parent report, observation, and direct child 

assessments 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

For child-related questions and assessments, prenatal 

through 36 months. 

For parent-related questions, all adults. 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: 

The requirements vary, depending on the particular 

measure. Some may be completed by parents and 

scored by a person with minimal training. Others must 

be administered and scored by a highly trained 

individual. 

Summary: 

Initial Material Cost: 1 (< $100) 

Reliability: 3 (.65 and higher) 

Validity: 1 (none described) 

Norming Sample Characteristics: 1 (none described) 

Ease of Administration and Scoring: 3 (some measures 

require administration and scoring by a highly trained 

individual) 

Description: The Parent Interviews (PIs), 

Father Interviews (FI), and Child Assessments 

(CA) developed for the national Early Head Start 

Research and Evaluation Project (EHSRE) were 

designed to include instruments that assess 

potential program effects on a variety of domains. 

The instruments included in each data collection 

interview/assessment were drawn from a variety 

of sources and include published instruments 

(many of them are described in individual entries 

in this resource guide), questions drawn from 

other large national surveys, and questions that 

were developed specifically for this study. 

The assessments used in the evaluation are 

summarized in table format at 

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/research/p 

roject/early-head-start-research-and-evaluation

project-ehsre-1996-2010. The table in Appendix C 

lists key child and family measures selected for the 

evaluation. In addition to scales and standardized 

tests, the interviews and assessments included a 

number of single items that are simple to 

administer and use for comparison with the 

national evaluation results. These include 

questions about bedtime routines, reading to 

children at bedtime, frequency of reading to 

­
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

children, and spanking. The interviews can be 

found at the web addresses listed above. 

The results of the evaluation (through age 3) 

are included in two reports and their appendices 

and are available at www.mathematica-mpr.com 

and 

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/ehs/ehs_r 

esrch/index.html. 

Uses of Information: The Early Head Start 

interviews and assessments can be used by 

programs to obtain a wide range of parent, child, 

and service use information useful for 

performance measurement that can be compared 

to the national study findings. For copyrighted 

instruments, programs must obtain permission to 

use the assessments and must pay for their use. 

Reliability: The technical appendices of the 

two reports include internal consistency reliability 

for all of the summary scores. As a general rule, 

summary scores were not included in the report if 

their reliability was not above .65. The single item 

questions do not require computing summary 

scores. 

Validity: The assessments were included in 

the evaluation because they had been used before 

in large studies and had demonstrated construct 

validity. Validity work based on the data collected 

was not reported in the two reports. 

Method of Scoring: Each assessment is scored 

according to the rules and advice from the 

assessment developers or publishers. Some 

required complex computer scoring programs and 

others could be scored by hand and were a simple 

percentage. Scoring procedures for each measure 

are summarized in the reports. The single item 

questions do not require computing summary 

scores. 

Interpretability: Some of the assessments 

were easily interpretable, while others required a 

well-trained individual. 

Training Support: As part of the evaluation 

project, in-depth training manuals were 

developed; these can be obtained by requesting 

them from Jackie Allen at jallen@mathematicampr.com. In addition to the manuals, interviewers 

and assessors attended a central training session 

and had to meet rigorous standards before 

administering the study instruments. 

Mathematica is not providing any training 

support for the measures. 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: Contact 

Mathematica for more information about how the 

protocols were adapted for use with individuals 

with disabilities. 

Report Preparation Support: None 

described. 

References: 

ACYF. “Building Their Futures: How Early 

Head Start Programs Are Enhancing the Lives of 

Infants and Toddlers in Low-Income Families. 

Volume I: Technical Report.” Washington, DC: 

Administration on Children, Youth and Families, 

2001. www.mathematica-mpr.com or 

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/ehs/ehs_r 

esrch/index.html. 

128 
129 

ACF. “Making a Difference in the Lives of 

Infants and Toddlers and Their Families: The 

Impacts of Early Head Start.” Washington, DC: 

Administration for Children and Families, June 

2002. www.mathematica-mpr.com or 

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/ehs/ehs_r 

esrch/index.html. 

Sprachman, S., C. DeSaw, L. Mendenko, M. 

Salem, K. Boller, and B. Kolln. “Early Head Start 

National Evaluation Data Collection Training 

Manual for 6-Month Parents Services Interview, 

14-Month Parent-Child Interview and 

Assessment, and Child Care Observations.” 

Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., 

December 1996. 

http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/ 
 130

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EARLY LEARNING ACCOMPLISHMENT PROFILE REVISED 

EDITION (E-LAP), 1995 

Authors: 

M. Elayne Glover, Jodi L. Preminger, Anne R. Sanford 

Publisher: 

Kaplan Press 

(800) 334-2014 

Initial Material Cost: 

Early Learning Accomplishment Profile (E-LAP) Kit: 

$335: Includes E-LAP Scoring Booklets, E-LAP 

Manual, and E-LAP Activity Cards, and Content and 

Overview Video. 

Demonstration Video (training) costs $66. 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: 

Research sample was representative of Year 2000 based 

on the 1995 US Census Bureau population projection. 

Sample included 285 children ages 2 to 44 months old, 

including children with typical and atypical 

development. A stratified sampling procedure was used 

based on geographic region, age, race, gender, and type 

of setting. Children were selected from child care 

centers, Early Head Start programs, and individual 

homes. The sample included a representative 

percentage of children with disabilities (reflecting the 

U.S. rates for children with disabilities – U.S. Census 

Bureau, 1995). The assessments were conducted 

between November 1999 and July 2000. 

Languages: 

English and Spanish 

Type of Assessment: 

Observation 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

0 to 36 months 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: 

In addition to having knowledge about the target 

population, a 2-day training workshop is suggested 

prior to using the E-LAP. It takes an experienced 

examiner at least an hour to administer the E-LAP and 

approximately 10 minutes per domain to score 

Summary: 

Initial Material Cost: 3 (> $200)
 


Reliability: 3 (.65 or higher for internal consistency, 
 

test-retest, and interrater reliability)
 


Validity: 3 (.5 or higher for concurrent validity)
 


Norming Sample Characteristics: 3 (nationally 
 

representative)
 


Ease of Administration and Scoring: 3 (administered 
 

and scored by a highly trained individual)
 


Description: The E-LAP is designed to help 

assess overall development of children with special 

needs functioning, based on developmental 

milestones focusing on the birth through 3-year 

age range. The E-LAP is a criterion-referenced 

tool that focuses on the following domains: Gross 

Motor, Fine Motor, Cognitive, Language, SelfHelp, and Social/Emotional skills. Items in the ELAP were drawn from various early childhood 

assessment instruments. 

Uses of Information: The E-LAP provides 

guidance to early childhood programs in 

assessment and programming for infants, young 

children, and children with special needs. 

Reliability: (1) Internal consistency reliability 

(Cronbach’s alpha) ranges from .84 to .98 for 

Gross Motor, with a total of .99; .90 to .96 for Fine 

Motor, with a total of .98; .96 to .97 for Cognitive, 

with a total of .99; .91 to .96 for Language, with a 

total of .98; .93 to .97 for Self-Help, with a total of 
131 

.98; and .87 to .91 for Social Emotional, with a 

total of .96. (2) Test-retest reliability was measured 

one to three weeks apart only for a small 

subsample of children (92). Correlations for the 

domains ranged from .96 to .99. (3) Inter-rater 

reliability correlation coefficients for the domains 

ranged from .96 to .99. 

Validity: (1) Concurrent validity was tested 

using the Mental and Motor Scales of the BSID-II 

(Bayley Scales of Infant Development). Results 

indicate a strong correlation (.90 to .97) between 

the E-LAP and BSID-II scored in each domain for 

the overall sample. In the 2- to 12-month sample, 

correlations ranged from .83 to .95, and in the 13

to 24-month sample, correlations ranged from .72 

to .88. Correlations in the 25- to 36-month sample 

were lower, ranging from .47 to .83. The manual 

mentions that this lower correlation, in addition 

to other analytical information, may indicate that 

the ELAP is a less effective assessment tool for 

older children. 

Method of Scoring: The examiner must first 

calculate the child’s chronological age (by 

months) to determine the appropriate starting 

point in each domain. Each item is marked with a 

plus (+) if the child exhibits the criterionreferenced behavior or a minus (-) if the skill is 

not demonstrated by the child. Examiners must 

establish a basal (8 consecutive items successfully 

completed) and a ceiling (3 errors out of 5 

consecutive items). All items prior to the basal are 

counted as correct. The raw score represents these 

items plus the number of items successfully 

completed in the domain up to the ceiling. The 

manual provides further guidelines for computing 

the raw score for the domain, and calculating the 

corresponding developmental age-range that the 

child falls within. It also suggests that any 

modifications of the procedures or use of adaptive 

equipment be included in the comments section 

of the scoring booklet in order to better 

understand a child’s skills. The Content and 

Overview video also includes information on 

scoring the E-LAP. 

Interpretability: E-LAP is a non-standardized 

test, and should be used in conjunction with 

norm-referenced assessments to determine 

whether or not a child has a disability. In 

computing scores, the manual also states that it is 

important for the examiner to be aware that the 

normative developmental age assigned to a 

specific item varies among research sources, and 

that developmental ages need to be viewed as 

approximate. Although the manual does not 

provide normed scores, it does provide means and 

standard deviations for the scores obtained in the 

various domains for the project sample (including 

both typical and atypical children) as well as the 

core sample (including only children with 

presumed typical development). 

Training Support: There is a demonstration 

video available to assist transdisciplinary teams 

with using the E-LAP. There are also individuals 

from the Chapel Hill Training-Outreach Project 

available for training on the E-LAP. Information 

on training can be obtained by calling 800-334

2014, ext.5100. 

­

­
 

 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: The manual 

suggests that in the case of children with 

disabilities, reports of diagnostic results should be 

used to provide information regarding the child’s 

developmental level of functioning (to help 

determine the appropriate point for beginning the 

assessment process). If that information is not 

available, the manual suggests that the assessor 

begin administering the E-LAP at half of the 

child’s chronological age, which would allow for 

the establishment of the basal. The manual 

assumes that the teacher will create appropriate 

developmental milestones for children with more 

involved disabilities, and if necessary, should 

appropriately modify these milestones into subobjectives for the child. 

Report Preparation Support: The 

information in the E-LAP recording procedures 

suggest that the absence of certain skills (as 

demonstrated through the assessment) should be 

incorporated into the child’s Individualized 

Family Service Plan (IFSP). 

References: 

Glover, Elayne M., Jodi L. Preminger, and 

Anne R. Sanford. Early Learning Accomplishment 

Profile Revised Edition (E-LAP). Lewisville, NC: 

Kaplan Press, 1995. 

Hardin, Belinda J., and Ellen S. PeisnerFeinberg. The Early Learning Accomplishment 

Profile (Early LAP) Examiner’s Manual and 

Reliability and Validity Technical Report. 

Lewisville, NC: Kaplan Press, 2001. 

132 
133 

EARLY LITERACY SKILLS ASSESSMENT (ELSA), 2005 (2011 Update) 

Authors: 

Andrea DeBruin-Parecki, Ph.D. 

Publisher: 

High/Scope Press 

(734) 485-2000 

http://www.highscope.org 

Instrument: 

http://www.highscope.org/Content.asp?ContentId=114 

Initial Material Cost: 

Complete kit: 2 copies of the book (Violet’s Adventure 

or Dante Grows Up), 1 User Guide, 2 scoring pads (60 

each, Score Sheet and Child Summary forms), 12 Class 

Summary forms, and 60 Family Report forms: $149.95. 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: 

No norming sample 

Languages: 

English, Spanish 

Type of Assessment: 

Direct child assessment 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

Ages 3 to 5, including kindergarteners. The developer 

recommends two administrations: once at the 

beginning of the school year and once at the end. 

Additional administrations should use the other of the 

two books (Violet’s Adventure or Dante Grows Up). 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: Administered by a teacher or other 

trained adult. The assessor should practice on a child 

ahead of time to become familiar with the story and 

questions. The publisher offers optional one- or twoday workshops on how to administer the assessment. 

Two-day workshop fees-Option 1: High/Scope 

contracts with an agency to train up to 25 teachers for a 

flat fee of $4,300 

Option 2: Tuition of $225 per participant 

Option 3: For up to 15 teachers, daily fee of $1,200 plus 

the High/Scope consultant’s travel expenses 

One-day workshops-Hosted by High/Scope at variable 

cost (schedule at 

http://www.highscope.org/Content.asp?ContentId=406) 

Scoring tutorial DVD available for purchase for $49.95. 

Summary: 

Initial Material Cost: 2 ($100 to $200) 

Reliability: 3 (mostly .65 or higher). 

Validity: 2 (mostly .5 or below for concurrent) 

Norming Sample Characteristics: 1 (no norming 

sample) 

Ease of Administration and Scoring: 2 (administered 

and scored by someone with basic familiarity with the 

test, usually a preschool teacher) 

Description: The Early Literacy Skills 

Assessment (ELSA) is an individually 

administered assessment for 3- to 5-year-olds that 

is designed to measure pre-literacy skills. The 

assessment is administered through a shared 

reading exercise, with questions asked about the 

story book used (Violet’s Adventure or Dante 

Grows Up). The ELSA consists of 23 items, with 

the following four subtests: Comprehension, 

Phonological Awareness, Alphabetic Principle, 

and Concepts About Print. The Comprehension 

skills subtest asks the child to guess what will 

happen next in the story, retell in order what 

happened at the end of the story, and make a 

personal connection to the story by relating 

characters or plot to real people or experiences. 

The Phonological Awareness subtest measures 

rhyming, segmentation, and phonemic awareness. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It asks the child to match words with similar 

ending sounds, orally divide words into syllable 

chunks, and identify and match initial sounds. 

The Alphabetic Principle subtest assesses "sense of 

word" by asking the child to identify a given word 

and indicate the first and last letters in the word. 

Concepts About Print are assessed through 

questions on how to hold the book, where the 

reader begins, and what direction to read the text. 

Other Languages: Spanish storybook versions 

of the ELSA, La Aventura de Violeta and El 

Cambio En Dante, perform similarly to the 

English storybooks based on factor analysis, 

suggesting that it is feasible to use the ELSA to 

study the emergent literacy skills of Spanishspeaking children and compare skills across 

distinct populations (Cheadle 2007). The factor 

analysis was conducted on a sample of 307 

Spanish-speaking preschool children whose 

average age was 4.5 years. The sample was half 

female, 10 percent had special needs, and 80 

percent had limited English proficiency. Results of 

the factor analysis supported the constructs for 

each subtest based on a variety of confirmatory 

factor analysis statistical tests, including the Chi 

Square Difference test, Comparative Fit Index, 

Tucker Lewis Index, and Root Mean Square Error 

of Approximation. The study reported high factor 

loadings and noted that items had adequate 

discrimination. 

Uses of Information: The ELSA is used to 

measure preschoolers’ early literacy skills and 

measure changes in these skills from the 

beginning to the end of the school year. Teachers 

may use the results of the assessment to determine 

children’s literacy levels and to inform instruction. 

Reliability: The developer pilot-tested the 

ELSA on a convenience sample of 630 preschool 

children (average age of 4 years) from three 

preschool sites in Florida, Maine, and Michigan. 

Children were primarily African American and 

white, just over half of the sample was male, and 

one-fourth had special needs. Scores were 

analyzed for children in fall 2003 (n = 565) and in 

spring 2004 (n = 513). Cheadle (2007) also tested 

the ELSA on samples of English-speaking 

children. The Dante Grows Up sample consisted 

of 535 preschool children (average age of about 

4.5 years), approximately half female, 6.2 percent 

special needs, and racially diverse (one-fourth 

Hispanic and black, respectively, and one-third 

white). The Violet’s Adventure sample consisted 

of 505 preschoolers (average age approximately 

4.5 years), half female, 3.7 percent special needs, 

and predominately white. For both groups, about 

one-third of the preschoolers were enrolled in 

Head Start programs. 

1.		 Internal consistency reliability: the developer 

reported Cronbach’s alphas by subtest and 

composite scores for fall and spring 

administrations. The composite score 

coefficients were .82 and .88 for the pre-test 

and post-test samples, respectively. Across 

subtests, coefficients ranged from .57 

(Phonological Awareness) to .76 (Alphabetic 

Principle) for the pre-test sample and from .67 

(Phonological Awareness) to .83 

(Comprehension) for the post-test sample. 

134 
135 

Cheadle (2007) analyzed scale scores with 

Cronbach’s alpha and item response theory 

(IRT) reliability coefficients for both the 

Dante Grows Up and Violet’s Adventure 

ELSA versions across the subtests and overall 

by pre-test and post-test periods. IRT 

reliability coefficients are reported here 

because scores were not normally distributed 

among the samples. For composite scores, 

pre-test and post-test IRT reliability estimates 

were .89 and .91, respectively. Across subtests, 

coefficients ranged from .81 to .96 for the pre

test sample and from .80 to .93 for the posttest sample. 

2. Test-retest reliability: no information 

available. 

3. Inter-rater reliability: no information 

available. 

Validity: 

1. Content validity: the developer asserts that 

content validity has been established by 

linking all items in the four subtests to key 

principles acknowledged in scientifically 

based literature. The developer conducted 

factor analysis based on data collected 

concurrently in the fall (for a subsample of 

213 children) that supported the development 

of the four subtests in the ELSA. The 

Concepts About Print factor analysis initially 

showed two distinct factors, although changes 

were made to correct for the factors. Cheadle 

(2007) conducted extensive factor analysis 

and found high factor loadings that 

demonstrated adequate item discrimination 

and consistent factor structures between preand post-testing. 

2. Concurrent validity: the developer correlated 

subtests of the ELSA Violet’s Adventure with 

the Get Ready to Read! (GRR) total score. The 

ELSA Phonological Awareness correlated with 

GRR at .53, the ELSA Alphabetic Principle 

and the GRR correlated at .64, and the ELSA 

Concepts About Print correlated with the 

GRR at .43. The total of the three subtests 

from ELSA correlated with the GRR total at 

.67. Cheadle (2007) correlated ELSA subtests 

with the Woodcock Johnson-III (WJ-III) (test 

not specified) and the Preschool 

Comprehensive Test of Phonological 

Processing (Pre-CTOPP). Coefficients were 

.74 for the WJ-III and the ELSA Alphabetic 

Principal and 1.0, .64, and .65 for the PreCTOPP and the ELSA Alphabetic Principal, 

Phonological Awareness, and Concepts About 

Print subtests, respectively. 

With respect to subgroup differences, the 

developer presents differences in mean ELSA 

scores by age and by disability status for each 

subtest. Chronological age was positively 

related to ELSA performance on the four 

subtests such that raw score means increased 

with age. For scores by disability status, 

typical children outperformed their peers with 

disabilities on all ELSA subtests except posttest comprehension. Cheadle (2007) indicates 

the English and Spanish versions of the 

assessment have floor effects such that 

­
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

versions inadequately distinguish younger 

children and children with weaker skills. 

Cheadle recommends assessing and scoring 

children age 45 months or older to reduce 

floor effects, especially among lower-skilled, 

disadvantaged populations. 

Methods of Scoring: The assessor scores the 

ELSA while reading the story and conducting the 

assessment. Raw scores are calculated by counting 

the number of correct responses to each item and 

then summing the scores by subtest and in total. 

Interpretability: Score summary sheets are 

available at the child and class levels. The Child 

Summary sheet indicates three levels that 

correspond to different raw score ranges for each 

subtest. The manual notes that the levels best 

correspond to activities in High/Scope's Growing 

Readers Early Literacy Curriculum, which 

provides differentiated early literacy lessons and 

activities for each content area and level. On the 

Class Summary sheet, the assessor enters each 

child's levels by subtest to plan leveled literacy 

activities and lessons. 

Training Support: The ELSA may be 

administered by a preschool teacher or other 

trained adult. The developer suggests one practice 

administration. The publisher offers optional oneor two-day workshops on how to administer the 

assessment. The one-day workshop is 

recommended in conjunction with the publisher's 

Growing Readers Early Literacy Curriculum twoday workshop. A scoring tutorial DVD is available 

for purchase online, and viewing is recommended 

to establish reliability and consistency across those 

scoring the assessment. 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: The ELSA may be 

administered in two sittings for children with 

special needs and/or English language learners. 

The assessor marks where in the story the child 

stopped and then uses the pictures to summarize 

the story up to that point before commencing with 

the second half of the story. 

Report Preparation Support: Information 

from the Child Summary sheet may be used to fill 

in the About Your Child as a Reader sheet, a tool 

to help interpret children's scores for parents. The 

manual provides scripted comments describing 

children's skills in English and Spanish for each of 

the three levels and by subtest; however, sharing 

actual scores or levels with parents is discouraged. 

References: 

Cheadle, Jacob E. “The Early Literacy Skills 

Assessment (ELSA) Psychometric Report for Both 

English and Spanish Versions.” Ypsilanti, MI: 

High/Scope Early Childhood Reading Institute, 

2007. 

DeBruin-Parecki, Andrea. Early Literacy Skills 

Assessment User Guide. Ypsilanti, MI: High/ Scope 

Press, 2005. 

DeBruin-Parecki, Andrea. ELSA (Spanish) 

Featuring El Cambio En Dante. Ypsilanti, MI: 

High/Scope Press, 2005. 

136 
DeBruin-Parecki, Andrea. ELSA (Spanish) 

Featuring La Aventura De Violeta. Ypsilanti, MI: 

High/Scope Press, 2005. 

Geisinger, K.F., and Linda L. Murphy. “Early 

Literacy Skills Assessment.” In The Seventeenth 

Mental Measurements Yearbook, edited by Kurt F. 

Geisinger, Robert A. Spies, Janet F. Carlson, and 

Barbara S. Plake. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of 

Mental Measurements, 2007. 

Scoring the ELSA: Establishing Reliability 

DVD. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope, 2005. 

137 
 138

 

 

 

EXPRESSIVE ONE-WORD PICTURE VOCABULARY TEST-4 

(EOWPVT-4), 2010 (2011 Update) 

Authors: 

Nancy Martin and Rick Brownell 

Publisher: 

Academic Therapy Publications 

(800) 422-7249 

http://www.academictherapy.com 

Instrument: 

http://www.academictherapy.com/detailATP.tpl?action 

=search&cart=%5bcart%5d&eqskudatarq=8543­

0&eqTitledatarq=Expressive%20OneWord%20Picture%20Vocabulary%20Test%20­

%204th%20Edition%20%28EOWPVT4%29&eqvendordatarq=ATP&bobby=%5Bbobby%5D 

&bob=%5Bbob%5D&TBL=%5bt 

Initial Material Cost: 

The EOWPVT-4 English Edition Test Kit with a 

manual, test plates, and 25 record forms, in a vinyl 

folder: $175. 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: 

The norms were based on a nationally representative 

sample of 2,394 individuals age 2 through 80+ years 

(highest age was 103), selected to match the population 

distribution of the U.S. Census. Testing was conducted 

at 84 sites in 26 states. The sample was stratified by 

region, metropolitan area, ethnicity, gender, and 

education level. The Spanish speaking sample is 

described below (see Other Languages). 

Languages: 

English, Spanish 

Type of Assessment: 

Direct child assessment 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

2 years to 80+ years 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: Administered by a highly trained 

program staff member. Assessors need to be 

professionally trained in assessing cognitive functions 

and planning remediation activities; they are typically 

school psychologists, speech pathologists, counselors, 

or rehabilitation specialists. The assessor should 

conduct several practice trials before administering the 

assessment. Individuals interpreting the results must be 

formally trained in psychometrics and the use of 

derived scores. 

The test is untimed and may be administered in 20 

minutes. Scoring takes about 5 minutes. 

Summary: 

Initial Material Cost: 2 ($100 to $200)
 


Reliability: 3 (all .65 or higher)
 


Validity: 1 (none described)
 


Norming Sample Characteristics: 3 (normed nationally 
 

within past 15 years)
 


Ease of Administration and Scoring: 3 (administered 
 

and scored by a highly trained individual)
 


Description: The Expressive One-Word 

Picture Vocabulary Test-4 (EOWPVT-4) is an 

individually administered adaptive test that 

measures English expressive vocabulary normed 

for age 2 through 80+ years. Assessors present 

color pictures one by one to a child; the child 

identifies the pictures orally. The measure 

includes 190 items ordered by increasing 

difficulty, with a basal of eight consecutive correct 

responses and a ceiling of six consecutive 

incorrect responses. The EOWPVT-4 was updated 

from its previous version to include national 

norms for adults age 80 years and older (the 

earlier version was normed for adults up to 18 

years, 11 months) and contains additional items to 

reflect the expanded age range. The first half of the 
139 

items are sequenced with difficulty indices for 

children age 2 through 12 years while the second 

half of the items are sequenced with difficulty 

indices for children older than 12 years. 

Other Languages: The EOWPVT-Spanish 

Bilingual Edition (SBE) was published in 2001 and 

normed on a national sample of Spanish-bilingual 

individuals 4 years old through 12 years, 11 

months; 50 percent of the sample had mothers 

with less than a high school diploma (Brownell 

2001). Record forms for the SBE include 

acceptable responses in both English and Spanish. 

The SBE basal and ceiling rules differ from the 

rules for the English Expressive One-Word 

Picture Vocabulary Test, 2000 Edition 

(EOWPVT). 

Uses of Information: The EOWPVT-4 

measures an individual's vocabulary, screens for 

early language delay in young children, identifies 

difficulties in reading or expressing words, 

assesses the English vocabulary of an English 

language learner, and, when administered 

alongside the Receptive One-Word Vocabulary 

Test (ROWPVT), measures expressive aphasia. 

The measure may also evaluate cognitive ability 

and intervention programs designed to increase 

vocabulary or improve reading comprehension. 

Reliability: 

1. Internal consistency reliability: Cronbach's 

alpha coefficients were calculated on norming 

sample participants and ranged from .94 to 

.95 for 2- to 5-year-olds. 

2. Test-retest reliability: the sample consisted of 

78 individuals evenly divided between 

genders, predominantly Caucasian and 

Hispanic, and varied in terms of educational 

achievement and geographic location (ages 

not reported). The correlations between the 

scores of two administrations (conducted with 

an average of 19 days between tests) were .98 

for the raw score and .97 for the standard 

score. 

3. Inter-rater reliability: not available for the 

EOWPVT-4. When two assessors 

administered the EOWPVT (2000) in a single 

testing session to a sample of 20 respondents 

age 3 to 17 years, the scores were correlated at 

.95. 

Validity: 

1. Content validity: developers used most of the 

items from the EOWPVT (2000) and added 

28 items. Based on expert opinion and 

recommendations, developers continued to 

include mostly nouns to ensure clarity and 

permit reliable use with older adults. The 

developers also included some gerunds, verbs, 

and modifiers. The new items were of varying 

difficulty in order to prevent floor effects for 

the youngest children. Developers used 

Classical Test Theory (CTT) and Item 

Response Theory (IRT) during the item 

selection process and eliminated four items 

based on analyses. 

2. Concurrent validity: EOWPVT-4 scores are 

distinguishable by age and disability status. 
 

 

 

 

Developers presented data through age 80 

showing that EOWPVT raw scores increase 

with age for 2 through 70 years. T-tests 

compared the standard scores of individuals 

identified with one or more types of 

disabilities to the matched sample means. All 

five disability groups (Attention Disability, 

Learning Disability, Reading Disability, 

Autism, and Language Impairment) scored 

significantly lower than the matched sample. 

Bias Analysis: Developers conducted an 

analysis of differential item functioning (DIF) 

using the Mantel-Haenzel procedure for the 

following subgroups-gender, urban versus rural 

residence, and race/ethnicity-and then assessed 

the significance by using the chi-square statistic. 

No EOWPVT-4 items were found to be biased or 

were eliminated based on this analysis. 

Methods of Scoring: Assessors score items on 

a pass/fail basis depending on the oral response 

given by the child. More than one answer may be 

acceptable. The raw score is the sum of correct 

responses, and all responses below the basal are 

counted as correct. Tables in the manual provide 

instructions for converting raw scores into ageadjusted standard scores, percentile ranks, and age 

equivalents. 

Interpretability: Developers indicate that an 

individual with formal training in psychometrics 

should interpret EOWPVT-4 scores. Scoring 

software made available by the publisher may be 

used only with the earlier English and SpanishBilingual editions of the EOWPVT, and a score 

difference analysis is available for children given 

both assessments. 

Training Support: The manual provides 

thorough instructions for administration and 

scoring of the assessment. 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: No information 

available. 

Report Preparation Support: The scoring 

software for the EOWPVT (2000) provides a 

summary report based on test results. 

References: 

Brownell, Rick. EOWPVT-ROWPVT Scoring 

Software. Novato, CA: Academic Therapy 

Publications, 2000. 

Brownell, Rick. Expressive One-Word Picture 

Vocabulary Test Manual: Third Edition. Novato, 

CA: Academic Therapy Publications, 2000. 

Brownell, Rick. Spanish-Bilingual Edition: 

Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test 

Manual. Novato, CA: Academic Therapy 

Publications, 2001. 

Martin, Nancy, and Rick Brownell. Expressive 

One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test-4 Manual. 

Novato, CA: Academic Therapy Publications, 

2010. 

140 
EYBERG CHILD BEHAVIOR INVENTORY (ECBI) AND SUTTER-EYBERG 

STUDENT BEHAVIOR INVENTORY-REVISED (SESBI-R), 1999 

Authors: 

Sheila Eyberg and Donna Pincus 

Publisher: 

Psychological Assessment Resources 

(800) 331-TEST 

www.parinc.com 

Initial Material Cost: 

Contact publisher for cost information 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: 

The ECBI is standardized on socio-economically 

diverse Caucasian families and families of other 

ethnicities with an equal representation of children 

between the ages of 2 and 16 years. The SESBI-R was 

originally standardized on lower-middle 


socioeconomic status (SES) preschoolers. Caution is 

given regarding the interpretation of cutoff scores in 

different geographical regions. 

Languages: 

English1 

 

1 Unofficially translated (by universities and other 

organizations) into Welsh, Australian, Spanish, German, 

Norwegian, French, and Chinese. 

Type of Assessment: 

Direct child assessment and parent report 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

2 to 16 years 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: Tests can be administered and scored 

by individuals who do not have clinical training. 

Completion of the forms requires at least a 6th grade 

reading level. Training requires familiarizing oneself 

with the manual and questionnaires. The ECBI and 

SESBI-R require 10 minutes each to complete and 

under 5 minutes each to score. Interpreting the scores 

requires graduate training in psychology, counseling, 

or a closely related field. 

Summary: 


Initial Material Cost: not available 


Reliability: 3 (.65 or higher) 


Validity: 2 (under .5 for concurrent validity and under 

.4 for predictive validity) 

Norming Sample Characteristics: 2 (not nationally 

representative) 

Ease of Administration and Scoring: 3 (self

administered and scored by someone with basic clerical 

skills, but interpreted by a highly trained individual) 

­

Description: The ECBI and SESBI-R are 

rating scales that assess the severity of conduct 

problems in children ages 2 through 16 years as 

well as the extent to which parents and teachers 

find the behaviors troublesome. The ECBI, which 

consists of 36 items, is completed by parents and 

assesses the frequency of disruptive behaviors 

occurring in the home. The SESBI-R, which 

consists of 38 items, is completed by teachers and 

is useful in the assessment of disruptive behaviors 

in the school setting. Each test provides an 

Intensity Raw Score and a Problem Raw Score. 

Uses of Information: Taken together, the 

ECBI and SESBI-R have multiple applications, 

including use as (1) screening measures in the 

clinical identification of children for the diagnosis 

and treatment of externalizing behavior problems, 

(2) screening measures in the identification of 

“high-risk” children for delinquency prevention 

programs, and (3) outcome measures in 

evaluations of treatment programs for conductdisordered children. 

141 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reliability: (1) Internal consistency reliability 

(Cronbach’s alpha): for the ECBI, .95 for the 

Intensity scale and .93 for the Problem scale. For 

the SESBI-R, .98 for the Intensity scale and .96 for 

the Problem Scale. The Intensity scale had a mean 

item-to-total correlation of .76, and the Problem 

scale had a mean item-to-total correlation of .65. 

(2) Test-retest reliability: for the ECBI, .75 to .86 

for the Intensity scale and .75 to .88 for the 

Problem scale. For the SESBI-R, .87 for the 

Intensity scale and .93 for the Problem scale. (3) 

Inter-rater reliability: for the ECBI, .86 for the 

Intensity scale and .79 for the Problem scale. For 

the SESBI-R, inter-rater reliability for the Intensity 

scale was in the .85 to .86 range for the Intensity 

scale and was .84 to .87 for the Problem scale. 

Validity: (1) Concurrent validity: for the 

ECBI, Problem and Intensity scores were 

significantly correlated with both the 

Externalizing scale (.67 and .75, respectively) and 

the Internalizing scale (.48 and .41, respectively) of 

the Child Behavior Checklist. Also, the ECBI was 

found to correlate significantly with the Parenting 

Stress Index (PSI): the ECBI Problem and 

Intensity scores were significantly correlated with 

the PSI Child Domain scores (.45 and .45, 

respectively). The scores obtained on the SESBI, 

SESBI-R, and the Revised Edition of the School 

Observation Scale (REDSOCS) in the regular 

classroom were significantly related to off-task 

and inappropriate behavior categories, but not to 

noncompliance. (2) Predictive validity: For the 

SESBI-R, correlations between scores and both the 

child’s number of school suspensions and the 

number of referrals to the school principal for 

conduct problems were .26 to .39 one year later 

and .21 to .36 two years later. 

Method of Scoring: Each behavior is rated on 

two scales: a 7-point Intensity scale assesses how 

often the behaviors currently occur in the home or 

school setting (1 means “never,” 4 means 

“sometimes,” and 7 means “always”) and a 

Problem scale (Yes/No) identifies whether the 

child’s behavior is problematic for the parent or 

teacher. Scores are computed by summing the 

Intensity scale scores on each page for pages 1 and 

2. Similarly, the number of “Yes” responses are 

summed to come up with a separate Problem scale 

total for pages 1 and 2. To obtain the Intensity 

Raw score, the Intensity scale scores from pages 1 

and 2 are summed. To obtain the Problem raw 

score, the Problem scale scores from pages 1 and 2 

are summed. 

Interpretability: Both the ECBI and SESBI-R 

are continuous in that higher scores on the scale 

indicate a greater level of conduct-disordered 

behavior and a greater impact on the parent or 

teacher. Comparison with normative data in 

Chapter 3 of the manual allows for more specific 

examination of the significance of scores, 

especially in cases where the cutoff score of either 

scale has been exceeded. T-score conversions for 

the raw scores are provided in the appendices of 

the manual (Appendices C, D, E, and F). T-score 

conversions for either of the scales that are greater 

than or equal to 60 are clinically significant. TScores below 60 are within the normal range. 

Caution is issued when interpreting SESBI-R 

142 
143 

cutoff scores because the author’s analyses with 

the SESBI-R suggest that for the kinds of 

behaviors assessed, there is wide variability both 

within and between geographic locations. 

Therefore, clinicians should adjust cutoff levels 

based on local norms as needed. 

Training Support: None described. 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: None described. 

Report Preparation Support: Two case 

studies are presented in the examiner’s manual. 

References: 

Eyberg, Sheila, and Donna Pincus. The ECBI 

& SESBI-R: Eyberg Child Behavior and SutterEyberg Student Behavior Inventory-Revised: 

Professional Manual. Odessa: Psychological 

Assessment Resources, 1999. 
 144

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FUNCTIONAL EMOTIONAL ASSESSMENT SCALE (FEAS), 2001
 
 

Authors: 

Stanley Greenspan, Georgia DeGangi and Serena 

Wieder 

Publisher: 

The Interdisciplinary Council on Developmental and 

Learning Disorders 

www.icdl.com 

Initial Material Cost: 

Text Book: $40 for ICDL members, $47 for nonmembers 

Additional protocol booklets: $8 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: 

None described. 

Languages: 

English 

Type of Assessment: 

Direct observation and possible direct child assessment 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

7 months to 4 years (research version); Six versions: 7-9 

months; 10-12 months; 13-18 months; 19-24 months; 

25-35 months; 3-4 years 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: Takes 15-20 minutes to administer. 

The examiner should be trained and experienced. The 

authors recommend videotaping the caregiver-child 

play interaction session. They advise that live scoring 

should not be attempted without first observing at least 

10 videotapes with at least an 80 percent reliability in 

scoring live and videotaped observations. 

Summary: 

Initial Material Cost: 1 (< $100)
 


Reliability: 3 (.65 or higher for inter-rater reliability; no
 


other reliability provided)
 


Validity: 2 (< .5 for concurrent)
 


Norming Sample Characteristics: 1 (none described)
 


Ease of Administration and Scoring: 3 (administered 
 

and scored by a highly trained individual)
 


Description: The Functional Emotional 

Assessment Scale (FEAS) provides a framework 

for observing and assessing a child’s emotional 

and social functioning in the context of the 

relationship with his or her caregiver as well as the 

caregiver’s capacity to support the child’s 

emotional development. The FEAS assesses the 

child on six levels of social and emotional 

development: (1) regulation and interest in the 

world, (2) forming relationships (attachment), (3) 

intentional two-way communications, (4) 

development of a complex sense of self, (5) 

representational capacity and elaboration of 

symbolic thinking, and (6) emotional thinking or 

development and expression of thematic play. 

There are two versions of the FEAS, a clinical 

version and a research version. The research 

FEAS, which evolved from the clinical FEAS, has 

cutoff scores to assist in interpreting the results 

and has been used to test for the scale’s validity 

and reliability. Each of these has versions that are 

designed for different age groups. In both 

versions, the caregiver (parent) is asked to play 

with his or her child as he/she might at home for 

15 minutes with 3 different types of 

developmentally appropriate toys: symbolic toys, 

tactile toys, and toys involving large movement 

activities. The examiner may also want to engage 

the child in play to attempt to elicit behaviors not 

observed during the caregiver-child play 
145 

interaction. Because considerable experience is 

needed to score the FEAS reliably in live 

observation sessions, the authors recommend that 

these unstructured play observations be 

videotaped and scored later. The scale should be 

used in conjunction with other instruments as 

part of an overall assessment. 

Uses of Information: The FEAS is intended 

to help clinicians identify critical areas deserving 

of further clinical inquiry. It can be used 

descriptively to profile children’s emotional, 

social, and related developmental capacities. It can 

also be used to diagnosis or screen for problems in 

children who are experiencing regulatory 

disorders, but not to formally diagnose specific 

disorders. 

Reliability: (1) Inter-rater reliability 

(Cronbach’s alpha): The alpha coefficients 

between pairs of observers viewing between 15 

and 46 videotaped caregiver-child interactions 

ranged from .90 to .92 for the caregiver scale and 

.90 to .98 for the child scale. The alphas between a 

pair of observers viewing 15 interactions, one 

coding the interactions live and the other a 

videotape of the interactions, were .83 for the 

caregiver scale and .89 for the child scale. 

Validity: Four non-nationally representative 

samples of young children between the ages of 7 

and 48 months, except when noted otherwise, 

were used to test for validity: (1) 197 normal 

children; (2) 190 children with regulatory 

disorder; (3) 41 children between the ages of 19 

and 48 months with pervasive developmental 

disorder; and (4) 40 multi-problem children. All 

of the samples had a larger proportion of boys, 

white, and middle-class children. (1) Construct 

validity:1 The scores obtained by normative and 

clinical samples of young children were compared 

using a discrimination index, t-tests, and analysis 

of variance. (2) Accuracy of cutoff scores (ranges 

for the different age groups): False normal errors 

for the total (child and caregiver) scale ranged 

from 5 to 28 percent, false delay errors ranged 

from 26 to 63 percent, specificity (probability 

correctly identifying a normal child) ranged from 

37 to 74 percent, and sensitivity (probability of 

correctly identifying a delayed child) ranged from 

74 to 95 percent. (3) Concurrent: Intercorrelations 

between the FEAS scores during symbolic and 

tactile play and two other instruments developed 

by the authors, the Test of Sensory Functions in 

Infants and the Test of Attention in Infants, were 

not significant. The authors interpret this to mean 

that the FEAS provides unique information. 

Method of Scoring: The clinical FEAS may be 

left unscored and used to provide a descriptive 

profile of the young child’s developmental 

capacities or to help systematize clinical thinking. 

The scale can also be used to rank each item as 

follows: capacity not present (0), capacity 

fleetingly present (1), capacity intermittently 

present (2), capacity present most of the time (3), 

capacity present all of the time in all 

circumstances (4), or no opportunity to observe 

capacity (not applicable). The ratings can then be 

 

1 Note that although the authors consider this information to 

reflect construct validity, the relationships described are 

consistent with the way concurrent validity is used 

throughout this resource guide. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

summed for each functioning area and divided by 

the functioning area’s maximum possible score to 

obtain a percentage. However, only some of the 

developmental functioning areas can be described 

quantitatively; the others should be described 

qualitatively. The research FEAS rates both the 

caregiver and the child on their mastery of the 

skill as follows: behavior is not seen or is observed 

only briefly (skill not mastered) (0), behavior is 

present some of the time or observed several times 

(skill partially mastered) (1), and behavior is 

consistently observed or observed many times 

(skill mastered) (2). The ratings can be summed to 

obtain category and subtest scores for the 

caregiver and category and subtest scores for the 

child, as well as a combined caregiver total score 

and a combined child total score. 

Interpretability: A developmental growth 

chart can be used to help assess the child’s 

functional developmental accomplishments over 

time based on information collected from the 

clinical FEAS. The research FEAS has cut-off 

scores that can be used to determine if parentchild interaction patterns are normal, at risk, or 

deficient. However, in interpreting both the 

clinical and research FEAS, the authors strongly 

recommend that the FEAS not be used alone, but 

as part of a comprehensive assessment of the 

caregiver-child relationship. 

Training Support: The author offers a 

training course for the FEAS. Information can be 

acquired by calling 301-320-6360 or by visiting 

http://www.icdl.com/. 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: None described. 

Report Preparation Support: None 

described. 

References: 

DeGangi, G. Pediatric Disorders of Regulation 

in Affect and Behavior. A Therapist’s Guide to 

Assessment and Treatment. San Diego, CA: 

Academic Press, 2000. 

146 
147 

HAWAII EARLY LEARNING PROFILE (HELP), 1997 

Authors: 

Stephanie Parks 

Publisher: 

VORT Corporation 

(650) 322-8282 

www.vort.com 

Initial Material Cost: 

Inside HELP: Administration and Reference Manual, $50 

HELP Family-Centered Interview (0-3), 

$25 (package of 25) 

HELP Strands (0-3), $3 each 

HELP Checklist (0-3), $3 each 

HELP Charts (0-3), $3 each 

HELP Activity Guide (0-3), $28 each 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: 

None described. 

Languages: 

English 

Type of Assessment: 

Direct child or parent assessment 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

0 to 36 months 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: HELP is for use by trained 

professionals. An initial direct assessment may last 

from 45 to 90 minutes, but in some cases may be 

completed in 15 to 20 minutes. Most of the scoring is 

done during the assessment. 

Summary: 

Initial Material Cost: 1 (< $100) 

Reliability: 1 (none described) 

Validity: 1 (none described) 

Norming Sample Characteristics: 1 (none described) 

Ease of Administration and Scoring: 3 (administered 

and scoring by a trained professional) 

Description: HELP is a curriculum-based 

assessment consisting of 685 developmental skills 

and behaviors covering six traditional child 

developmental domains: cognitive, language, 

gross motor, fine motor, social-emotional, and 

self-help. The developmental skills are organized 

by skill domains and, within skill domains, by 

“conceptual strands.” Within each strand, the 

skills are sequentially ordered by age. For the 

assessment, the examiner selects several 

developmental skills above and below the child’s 

approximate developmental age from each 

developmental domain and prepares 5 to 10 play 

or daily activities to elicit several skills 

concurrently. In addition to working with the 

child using the prepared activities, the examiner 

also observes the child’s environment and 

interviews the parents for information. 

Uses of Information: HELP can be used to 

identify needs, track growth and development, 

and develop plans for meeting objectives. It can be 

used to identify a child’s developmental skills and 

behaviors along multiple lines of development, the 

child’s developmental skill and behavior strengths 

and needs, physical and social environment 

factors affecting development, and the way 

development in one area may be affecting 

development in other areas. 

Reliability: None reported. 

Validity: Face and content validity tests were 

used to select and group the skills. The skills were 
 

 

 

 

 

selected from growth-and-development scales and 

standardized tests. An interdisciplinary team of 

pediatric therapists grouped the skills into strands 

and sequentially ordered them by age. No tests of 

concurrent or predictive validity reported. 

Method of Scoring: Behaviors are scored as 

“present,” “not present,” “emerging,” 

“atypical/dysfunctional,” or “not applicable.” 

HELP Strands or HELP Checklist can be used to 

record outcomes and track progress. Because it 

divides each domain into strands, HELP Strands is 

recommended for children with disabilities or 

more uneven development within a domain. 

Interpretability: Although the manual does 

not provide any exact rules or formulas for 

determining approximate developmental levels, it 

does provide general “rule of thumb” guidelines. 

The manual provides an explanation for a delay or 

atypical behavior for each skill area, along with 

appropriate interventions. 

Training Support: A 20-minute training 

video, Using HELP Effectively, can be purchased 

from VORT for $14.95. It is recommended that 

this video be used in conjunction with the Inside 

HELP. The instruction chapter of the Inside HELP 

manual can be found in the training section on the 

VORT web page. 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: Inside Help has 

examples of adjustments to accommodate specific 

disabilities and special needs when assessing skills 

and behaviors. 

Report Preparation Support: HELP Strands 

and HELP Checklist can be used to communicate 

the child’s progress to parents. 

References: 

Parks, Stephanie. Inside HELP: 

Administration and Reference Manual, 1997 

Revision. Palo Alto, CA: VORT Corporation, 

1999. 

VORT Corporation. Using HELP Effectively. 

Palo Alto, CA: VORT Corporation, 1994 

148 
149 

HIGH/SCOPE CHILD OBSERVATION RECORD (COR) FOR AGES 2 

1/2-6, 1999 

Authors: 

High/Scope Education Research Foundation 

Publisher: 

High/Scope Press 

(313) 485-2000 

press@highscope.org 

Initial Material Cost: 

COR Kit: $125 (includes a Manual, 25 Assessment 

Booklets, 4 sets of Anecdotal Notecards, 50 Parent 

Report) 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: 

No norming sample described. 

Languages: 

English and Spanish 

Type of Assessment: 

Observation 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

2 1/2 to 6 years; assessment is intended to be a full-year 

assessment usually done two to three times throughout 

the school year. 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: Training in COR for teachers and 

teaching assistants is recommended. For administering, 

the manual recommends focusing on a few children 

each day or two and writing notes on those children 

specifically. If done by hand, scoring takes 

approximately one hour. If done on computer, scoring 

is less than five minutes. 

Summary: 

Initial Material Cost: 2 ($100 to $200) 

Reliability: 3 (.65 or higher) 

Validity: 2 (majority of correlations are < .50) 

Norming Sample Characteristics: 1 (none described) 

Ease of Administration and Scoring: 2 (administered 

and scored by someone with basic skills) 

Description: With the COR, a trained teacher 

or observer assesses each child’s behavior and 

activities in six categories of development: (1) 

initiative, (2) social relations, (3) creative 

representation, (4) music and movement, (5) 

language and literacy, and (6) logic and 

mathematics. Over several months, the teacher 

writes brief, anecdotal notes describing examples 

of children’s behavior in these six categories. The 

teacher then uses these notes to rate the child's 

behavior on 30 five-level COR items within these 

categories. The COR can be administered at 

various points throughout the year to measure 

change over time, or at a single point in time to 

measure the current developmental level of a 

child. 

Uses of Information: The COR can be used 

to assess the educational progress of individual 

children or a group of children as a whole and the 

program’s curriculum’s contribution to children’s 

development. It can also be used to develop 

program plans that focus on specific areas of child 

development based on the outcomes of the 

assessment at the individual level. The results can 

also be shared with the next year’s program staff 

as well as parents. 

Reliability: (1) Internal consistency 

(Cronbach’s alphas): ranged from .80 to .93 for 

teachers and .72 to .91 for assistant teachers. 

(2) Inter-observer reliability (Pearson correlation 

coefficients): ranged from .61 to .72. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Validity: (1) Concurrent validity: correlations 

of the COR development categories with similar 

categories on the McCarthy Scales of Children’s 

Abilities ranged from .27 to .53. The correlations 

between the COR and all of the McCarthy Scale 

categories ranged from .27 to .66. 

Method of Scoring: Items are scored by the 

six categories. Using the anecdotal notes, the 

highest level of behavior that is characteristic of 

the child is checked. The levels go from one 

through five, with five being the highest score 

possible for each item. If scoring by hand, there is 

a formula to use; if scoring on the computer, the 

computer does it for you. 

Interpretability: The COR is meant to follow 

a child’s (or children’s) development over time, 

for instance, over the school year. 

Training Support: The COR manuals have 

written support with examples. However, 

High/Scope recommends that teachers participate 

in a two- or three-day workshop on the use of 

COR offered throughout the country. The training 

covers how to recognize developmentally 

significant behavior and describe it in anecdotal 

notes, how to select the item and item level that 

each anecdotal note represents, and how to report 

these results to parents and program officials. The 

training is $190 per person for two days, and $95 

per person for the additional computer-training 

day. Also, those individuals who go through 

training are given a practice CD, which is used as 

a follow-up/refresher once training has been 

completed. Training information and a schedule is 

available on the High/Scope web page, 

http://www.highscope.org/. 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: None described. 

Report Preparation Support: Parent Report 

Forms are included in the package and are used as 

the basis for discussion at parent conferences. 

References: 

High/Scope Educational Research 

Foundation. High/Scope Child Observation 

Record (COR) For Ages 2 1/2-6. Ypsilanti, MI: 

High/Scope Press, 1992. 

150 
151 

HIGH/SCOPE CHILD OBSERVATION RECORD FOR INFANTS AND 

TODDLERS (COR-IT), 2002 

Authors: 

High/Scope Educational Research Foundation 

Publisher: 

High/Scope Press 

(800) 407-7377 

www.highscope.org 

Initial Material Cost: 

COR-IT Kit (includes 3 Observation Items Booklets, 

User Guide, 25 Anecdote Forms, 25 Observations 

About Your Child Forms, 25 Parent Guides, 25 Child 

Information and Development Summary Forms, 5 

Group Summary Forms, and posters): $150 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: 

None described. 

Languages: 

English 

Type of Assessment: 

Observation 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

6 weeks to 3 years. Administer 2 to 3 times during a 

program year. 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: No special degrees are required to 

conduct the observation, however, it is recommended 

that the observer receive a two-day training by 

High/Scope and be in regular contact with the children 

being observed. The observer should do the 

observation over a period of several weeks or months 

and spend 30 to 60 minutes writing rough notes and 

transforming them into formal notes. 

Summary: 

Initial Material Cost: 2 ($100 to $200) 

Reliability: 3 (.65 and higher for both internal and 

inter-rater reliabilities) 

Validity: 3 (.5 and higher for concurrent validity) 

Norming Sample Characteristics: 1 (none described) 

Ease of Administration and Scoring: 3 (administered 

and scored by a trained individual) 

Description: The High/Scope Child 

Observation Record for Infants and Toddlers 

(COR-IT) enables the user to conduct an ongoing, 

comprehensive, systematic assessment in 

programs serving children from the ages of 6 

weeks to 3 years. COR-IT’s 28 items are divided 

into 6 categories: (1) sense of self, (2) social 

relations, (3) creative representation, (4) 

movement, (5) communication and language, and 

(6) exploration and early logic. Over weeks or 

months, the caregiver records brief, anecdotal 

notes describing examples of children’s behavior 

in these six categories. At the end of the 

observation period, which usually takes place over 

a period of weeks or months, the caregiver uses 

these notes to complete a development summary 

form. The COR-IT has a computer software 

version that allows individuals to use their 

computers to record and store observations and to 

generate COR scores and reports based on this 

information. 

Uses of Information: COR-IT provides an 

accurate assessment of a child’s development and 

abilities, which can be used to help programs plan 

activities for the child, to monitor the effects of 

these activities and the progress of the child, to 

assess the effectiveness of the program and its 

curriculum, and to provide a framework for 

communicating with parents about a child’s 

developmental needs. 
 

 

 

 

 

Reliability: (1) Internal consistency reliability 

(Cronbach alpha): The alpha for the entire 28­

item scale was .99, and the alphas for the six 

categories were .92 or .93. The alphas for the 28­

item scale for each age category were .94 for 

infants under 1 year, .95 for children 1 to 2 years, 

and .78 for children 2 to 3 years. (2) Inter-rater 

reliability: The Pearson correlations between two 

groups of observers were .93 for the overall scale 

and ranged from .83 to .91 for the six categories. 

Validity: (1) Concurrent: The correlations 

between COR-IT and the Bayley Mental and 

Motor Age Scores were .87 and .91, respectively. 

The correlations ranged from .88 to .92 between 

the six COR-IT categories and the motor age score 

and .83 to .90 between the categories and the 

mental age score. Since both the COR-IT and the 

Bayley scores are strongly influenced by the child’s 

age, the authors also tested for validity with the 

effects of age statistically removed the from the 

correlations. When they did this, they obtained 

correlations between the COR-IT scale and the 

mental and motor scores of .26 and .36 

respectively. 

Method of Scoring: The Observation Item 

manual provides 5 examples of typical behavior 

for each of the 28 items. For each item, the caregiver compares those examples with his/her notes 

to rank the child’s typical behavior of the item on 

a five-point scale from simple (1) to more 

complex (5) in the development summary form 

and also enters the highest level of behavior the 

child achieved. The form provides instructions to 

compute the average and composite scores. If the 

program requires a group summary, the caregiver 

completes the group summary form using the 

information on the children’s development 

summary form and follows the instructions on the 

form to compute the average and group growth 

scores. 

Interpretability: The results from the 

observations are intended to be used by both the 

care-giver and the program administrators. No 

descriptions are provided on how to interpret the 

results. 

Training Support: High/Scope recommends 

the caregiver attend a two-day workshop on the 

use of COR-IT, which is offered throughout the 

country. There is also a one-day training on the 

computer software. Information on the training 

schedule and topics are available on the 

High/Scope Website or by emailing: 

training@highscope.org. 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: Adaptations and 

special instructions are unnecessary as long as the 

child’s level of functioning is between ages 6 and 

36 months. However, High/Scope cautions that 

the reliability and the validity of the instrument 

with special needs populations have not been 

established. 

Report Preparation Support: An 

Observation About Your Child form can be used 

to prepare a report for parents. The COR-IT 

computer software allows for presentation of 

ratings in both graphic and narrative form. 

152 
References: 

High/Scope Educational Research 

Foundation. High/Scope Child Observation 

Record for Infants and Toddlers User Guide. 

Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press, 2002. 

153 
 154

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HUMANICS NATIONAL INFANT-TODDLER ASSESSMENT, 1994
 
 

Authors: 

Jane A. Caballero and Derek Whordley 

Publisher: 

Humanics Psychological Test Corp. 

(800) 874-8844 

(404) 874-1976 (fax) 

www.humanicslearning.com 

info@humanicslearning.com 

Initial Material Cost: 

Manual: $19 

Forms (25): $35 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: 

None. The authors recommend that each facility 

develop local norms and provides the formula to derive 

percentage rank. 

Languages: 

English 

Type of Assessment: 

Observation 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

0 to 3 years; four-month intervals are recommended 

between assessments, but the examiner can choose to 

deviate from this. 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: Can be administered by teachers or 

parents. Training to enhance observational skills is 

desirable, and some knowledge of child development 

concepts is required to understand the importance of 

assessment items. 

Summary: 

Initial Material Cost: 1 (< $100)
 


Reliability: 1 (none described)
 


Validity: 1 (none described)
 


Norming Sample Characteristics: 1 (none described)
 


Ease of Administration and Scoring: 2 (administered 
 

and scored by someone with basic clerical skills)
 


Description: The Humanics National Child 

Assessment Form (HNCAF) is a checklist of 90 

skills and behaviors exhibited by children during 

the first three years of life. The skills/behaviors 

are grouped into four broad categories—socialemotional, language, cognitive, and gross and 

fine motor development. The assessment lists 18 

skill/behavior items in each of these five areas, 

listed in the order they are likely to emerge. The 

assessment can be administered either through 

informal observations or through activities with 

the child. 

Uses of Information: HNCAF is designed 

for use by caregivers to identify the skills and 

behavior a child has, to screen for developmental 

or physical impairments, to plan learning 

experiences that facilitate further growth, and to 

monitor the child’s progress. HNCAF can also 

be used for parent training. 

Reliability: Not discussed. 

Validity: Not discussed. 

Method of Scoring: The child’s responses 

are scored by checking one of two boxes (occurs 

consistently or occurs occasionally) or, if the 

behavior is not present, by leaving the boxes 

unchecked. 

Interpretability: The manual discusses how 

the assessment results can be used to develop an 

individual profile and educational plan for the 
155 

child and has an example of how this might be 

done. 

Training Support: Not mentioned in the 

manual. The authors suggest reading Betty 

Rowen’s book, The Children We See (Holt, 

Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1973) for 

techniques for observing children’s behavior. 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: The manual 

describes areas of disabilities and indicators of 

these disabilities that may be observed while 

administering the assessment. 

Report Preparation Support: The manual 

provides an example of a completed report. 

References: 

Caballero, Jane and Derek Whordley. 

Humanics National Infant-Toddler Assessment 

Handbook: A User’s Guide for the Humanics 

National Child Assessment For Ages 0-3. 

Atlanta, GA: Humanics Psychological Test, 

Corp., 1994. 
 156

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INFANT-TODDLER DEVELOPMENTAL ASSESSMENT (IDA), 1995
 
 

Authors: 

Sally Provence, Joanna Erikson, Susan Vater, and Saro 

Palmeri 

Publisher: 

Riverside Publishing 

(800) 323-9540 

www.riverpub.com 

Initial Material Cost: 

IDA Complete Kit: $502 (includes 25 Parent Reporting 

Forms, Health Record Guides, and Record Forms, a 

Foundations and Study Guide, the Administration 

Manual, readings, and IDA Manipulative Kit in 

Carrying Case) Without Manipulative Kit and Carrying 

Case: $278 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: 

The research sample of 100 children between birth and 

3 years old is not nationally representative. 

Languages: 

English1 

1 The parent report is also available in Spanish. 

Type of Assessment: 

Parent report and observation 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

Birth to 42 months 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: 

A multidisciplinary team or a very well-trained 

clinician can administer the assessment. Training tapes 

are available. Administration and scoring times vary. 

Summary: 

Initial Material Cost: 3 (> $200)
 


Reliability: 3 (.65 or higher)
 


Validity: 3 (based on percent scoring agreement with
 


other instruments)
 


Norming Sample Characteristics: 2 (not nationally
 


representative)
 


Ease of Administration and Scoring: 3 (administered 
 

and scored by a highly trained individual)
 


Description: The Infant-Toddler 

Developmental Assessment (IDA) is designed to 

improve early identification of children birth to 3 

years of age who are developmentally at risk. 

There are six IDA phases that are designed to be 

conducted by a team of two or more professionals: 

(1) Referral & Pre-interview Data Gathering, (2) 

Initial Parent Interview, (3) Health Review, (4) 

Developmental Observation and Assessment, (5) 

Integration and Synthesis, and (6) Share Findings, 

Completion, and Report. Each phase develops 

from the preceding one and is completed only 

after team discussion and review. The 

Developmental Observation and Assessment 

Phase (Phase Four) uses the Provence Birth-toThree Developmental Profile, which provides a 

descriptive summary of a child’s developmental 

competencies. The entire assessment uses 

observation and parent reports of the child’s 

development along eight developmental domains: 

Gross Motor, Fine Motor, Relationship to 

Inanimate Objects (Cognitive), 

Language/Communication, Self-Help, 

Relationship to Persons, Emotions and Feeling 

States (affects), and Coping. The Provence Profile 

is to be used within the context of the full IDA 

rather than as an isolated test. Five forms are used 

to gather and record information: Parent Report, 
157 

Request for Health Information, Family 

Recording Guide, Health Recording Guide, and 

IDA Record. 

Uses of Information: The IDA helps 

determine the need for monitoring, consultation, 

intervention, or other services for the child and 

family and may be used to develop an 

Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP). 

Reliability: (1) Internal consistency reliability: 

alpha coefficients for the Provence domain scores 

range from .90 to .96 for ages 1 to 18 months and 

.77 to .96 for ages 19 to 36 months. (2) Test-retest 

reliability: no information available. (3) Inter-rater 

reliability: correlations between raters ranged 

from .91 to .95 for seven of the eight domains and 

.81 for the remaining domain 

(language/communication). 

Validity: (1) Concurrent validity: 

comparisons between the IDA and the Bayley 

Scales of Infant Development, Hawaii Early 

Learning Profile, Learning Accomplish Profile, 

and the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales 

showed that, of the items IDA had in common 

with those instruments, the percentage agreement 

on the developmental age ranged from 84 to 100 

percent. A comparison of the IDA with the Bayley 

and Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales in 

identifying children needing services found the 

IDA and Vineland had more similar outcomes. 

The IDA classified 51.6 percent of the children as 

needing services compared to 66.0 to 73.6 percent 

for the Vineland and 13.2 to 22.6 percent for the 

Bayley. Of 57 children referred to services by IDA 

practitioners, according to the receiving agencies, 

83 percent of the referrals were considered to be 

appropriate. (2) Predictive validity: no 

information available. 

Method of Scoring: The Provence Protocols 

behavioral items are marked “present and 

observed,” “not present or observed,” “reported 

present and not observed,” “reported not present,” 

“emerging,” or “refused.” The number of correct 

responses is used determine the child’s 

performance age, which is compared to the child’s 

chronological age to determine whether to rate the 

child’s development in the domain as “competent” 

or “of concern” and, if the latter, the degree of the 

delay. Using tables in the manual, the “Percentage 

Delay” can also be computed from the child’s 

observed performance age and the child’s 

chronological age, adjusted for prematurity. 

After obtaining the Provence Protocol score, 

the assessment team needs to take into account 

qualitative aspects of the child’s performance and 

performance on certain “marker” skills for the 

child’s age group to decide again whether the 

child’s development is “competent” or “of 

concern” and, if the latter, the level of concern. 

Interpretability: The manual provides a 

general guideline on how to interpret the results 

and what should follow based on the results. 

Training Support: Training materials are 

available to help professionals train others on the 

administration of the IDA. Materials consist of a 

Leader's Guide and three videos. These materials 

are not meant to be a "self-study" course for 

individuals trying to learn IDA. The Erikson 
 

 

 

Institute also provides training. For more training 

options, visit www.erikson.edu/. 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: IDA meets the 

criteria for assessment as required by the 

regulations for the Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act (IDEA). 

Report Preparation Support: The Manual 

gives instructions on how to share findings and 

develop a plan with parents in Phase Six, “Share 

Findings, Completion, and Report.” 

References: 

Provence, S., J. Erikson, S. Vater, and S. 

Palmeri. Infant-Toddler Developmental 

Assessment (IDA) Administration Manual. Itaska, 

IL: Riverside Publishing, 1995. 

http://www.erickson.edu/ 

158 
 

 

INFANT-TODDLER SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL ASSESSMENT (ITSEA) AND 

BRIEF INFANT-TODDLER SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL ASSESSMENT 

(BITSEA), 2006 (2011 Update) 

Authors: 

Alice S. Carter and Margaret J. Briggs-Gowan 

Publisher: 

Pearson Assessments 

(800) 627-7271 

http://www.pearsonassessments.com 

ITSEA Instrument: 

http://www.pearsonassessments.com/HAIWEB/Cultur 

es/en-us/Productdetail.htm?Pid=015-8007-387 

BITSEA Instrument: 

http://www.pearsonassessments.com/HAIWEB/Cultur 

es/en-us/Productdetail.htm?Pid=015-8007-352 

Initial Material Cost: 

ITSEA—Complete Kit with Scoring Assistant includes 

ITSEA Manual, 25 Parent Forms, 25 Childcare 

Provider Forms, Scoring Assistant: $223.35 

BITSEA—Kit includes BITSEA Manual, 25 Parent 

Forms, 25 Childcare Provider Forms: $107 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: 

The ITSEA norming sample was a national, stratified 

sample of 600 toddlers age 12 to 36 months. The 

sample consisted of four age groups, with 150 toddlers 

per group. Based on the 2002 U.S. Census, each age 

group was stratified along the following variables: 

gender, region, ethnicity, and parent education. The 

toddlers were recruited from Women, Infants, and 

Toddlers (WIC) program sites, doctor’s offices, 

apartment complexes, and community centers. The 

BITSEA was normed by using the same standardization 

sample. The French and Chinese speaking samples are 

described below (see Other Languages). 

Languages: 

English, French, Spanish, and Chinese 

Type of Assessment: Parent or toddler care provider 

report (self-administration) or direct parent assessment 

(structured interview) 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

12 through 35 months 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: Both the ITSEA and the BITSEA may 

be self-administered by parents or child care providers 

or administered and scored by teachers, clinicians, or 

professionals experienced with standardized tests and 

developmental and mental health training specific to 

working with toddlers and families. Parents may 

administer the assessments under the guidance of a 

qualified professional. A professional with training in 

standardized assessment interprets results, although 

parents and others not highly trained may interpret the 

assessment under supervision. 

ITSEA administration time is 20 to 30 minutes as a 

questionnaire and 35 to 45 minutes as an interview. 

The BITSEA Parent Form takes 5 to 7 minutes as a 

questionnaire and 7 to 10 minutes as an interview. 

Summary: 

Initial Material Cost: 3 (>$200) 

Reliability: 3 (mostly .65 or higher) 

Validity: 2 (mostly under .5 for concurrent); 1 (none 

described for predictive) 

Norming Sample Characteristics: 3 (normed within 

past 15 years and nationally representative) 

Ease of Administration and Scoring: 3 (self

administered or administered by a child care provider 

and scored by a trained individual) 

­

Description: The Infant-Toddler Social and 

Emotional Assessment (ITSEA) detects socialemotional and behavior problems and delays in 

the acquisition of competencies in toddlers 12 

through 35 months of age. Parents and child care 

providers observe toddlers in natural 

environments and answer questions on the Parent 

Form or the Childcare Provider Form.1 The 

1 The caregiver may complete a Childcare Provider Form as a 

self-conducted questionnaire to supplement the Parent Form. 

The Childcare Provider form is not normed and should be 

used only as a basis of comparison for loosely interpreting 

inter-rater agreement. 

159 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Parent Form may be administered as either a selfconducted questionnaire or a structured interview 

with questions read verbatim to parents. The 168­

item ITSEA measures four behavioral domains2 

that encompass 17 subscales: (1) Externalizing 

using activity/impulsivity, aggression/defiance, 

and peer aggression subscales (24 items); (2) 

Internalizing using depression/withdrawal, 

general anxiety, separation distress, and 

inhibition-to-novelty subscales (32 items); (3) 

Dysregulation using sleep, negative emotionality, 

eating, and sensory sensitivity subscales (34 

items); and (4) Competence using compliance, 

attention, imitation/play, mastery motivation, 

empathy, and prosocial peer relations subscales 

(37 items). Taken together, Externalizing, 

Internalizing, and Dysregulation are termed 

“Problem domains.” The ITSEA also includes 

three item clusters-Maladaptive (13 items), 

Atypical (8 items), and Social Relatedness (10 

items)-to identify more serious problems. Ten 

Individual Items of Clinical Significance do not 

belong to any subscale. The Maladaptive item 

cluster identifies behaviors related to trauma, tic 

disorders, trichotillomania, elimination problems, 

and pca. The Atypical item cluster identifies 

behaviors linked with autism spectrum disorders. 

The Social Relatedness item cluster categorizes 

deficits in competencies often associated with 

toddlers with autism spectrum disorders. In 

contrast to the ITSEA Parent Form, the Childcare 

Provider Form has one fewer item in the 

Dysregulation domain and does not include the 

2 All domains and item clusters except for Competence screen 

for potential problems. 

extra section of non-subscale items of clinical 

significance. The previous version of the ITSEA 

(1998) was updated with a more current norming 

sample, and Parent Form item sequencing was 

modified before collection of the norming data. 

The Brief Infant-Toddler Social and 

Emotional Assessment (BITSEA) is a short 42­

item version to screen for whether a toddler 

requires a more in-depth social-emotional 

evaluation. The age range is the same as the 

ITSEA: 12 months to 35 months, 30 days. The 

BITSEA consists of a Parent Form that may be 

completed as a self-administered questionnaire or 

read aloud verbatim as an interview with the 

parent. The BITSEA addresses the domains of 

Internalizing (8 items), Externalizing (6 items), 

and Dysregulation (8 items) as well as less 

common behaviors that may indicate autism 

spectrum disorders (17 items) or other 

psychopathologies (14 items). Eleven items also 

assess the acquisition of social-emotional 

competencies. Several items measure more than 

one domain. 

Other Languages: The ITSEA and BITSEA 

are available in Spanish for use with U.S. 

populations. The norming sample, reliability, 

validity, and English language equivalence for the 

Spanish versions are unavailable. The ITSEA is 

available in French and Chinese for use with the 

respective country populations. The reliability and 

validity of the French version were studied with a 

sample of French parents of 250 toddlers recruited 

from infant wellness clinics and childcare centers 

(Bracha et al. 2004). Confirmatory factor analyses 

160 
161 

validated the use of the ITSEA to detect toddler 

delays or deficits and assess social-emotional 

competency. Most subscales and all domains 

showed adequate intrascale reliability, but some 

gender and age effects on mean scores differed 

from those reported for the U.S. sample. Age 

effects were observed for Eating Problems, Sleep, 

and Inhibition to Novelty in the French sample, 

but not in the U.S. sample. For the French sample 

only, girls were rated higher than boys on both 

Negative Emotionality and Aggression/Defiance. 

The reliability and validity of the Chinese version 

of the ITSEA Parent Form were examined with a 

sample of 5,323 toddlers from 14 Chinese cities 

(Jianduan et al. 2009). Test-retest reliability 

ranged from .78 to .89. Internal consistency was 

reported with alpha coefficients ranging from .79 

to .88. Concurrent validity was also demonstrated 

with correlations between the Chinese ITSEA and 

two other Chinese assessments measuring similar 

constructs. Confirmatory factor analysis showed 

that the Chinese ITSEA could be used for reliably 

assessing the social-emotional problems and 

competencies of urban Chinese toddlers. 

Uses of Information: The ITSEA identifies 

toddlers who may have abnormal behaviors, 

psychopathology, or delayed competencies. To 

establish a toddler’s eligibility for services, the 

ITSEA should be supplemented by direct 

observation, additional assessment, and/or 

discussion with parents. The BITSEA is a shorter 

version of the ITSEA that determines whether a 

more in-depth social-emotional assessment is 

warranted. 

Reliability: 

1. Internal consistency: Cronbach’s alphas were 

reported by age group, gender, and domain 

for the ITSEA. Externalizing alpha coefficients 

were .88 for girls and .86 for boys and ranged 

from .66 to .79 across subscales, age groups, 

and gender. Internalizing coefficients were .85 

for both girls and boys and ranged from .52 to 

.73 across subscales, age groups, and gender. 

Dysregulation coefficients were .86 for both 

girls and boys and ranged from .62 to .83 

across subscales, age groups, and gender. 

Competence coefficients were .89 for girls and 

.90 for boys and ranged from .56 to .79 across 

subscales, age groups, and gender. More than 

half of the coefficients for the subscale 

exceeded .70. 

2. Test-retest reliability: ITSEA estimates were 

based on a sample of 84 parents assessed or 

interviewed by using the Parent Form within a 

two- to eight-day interval (mean of six days) 

between administrations. The ITSEA domain 

and subscale coefficients were .90 for 

Externalizing (.80 to .91 for the subscales), .85 

for Internalizing (.78 to .83 for the subscales), 

.91 for Dysregulation (.81 to .92 for the 

subscales), and .76 for Competence (.75 to .85 

for the subscales). The coefficients for the 

item clusters were .77 for Maladaptive, .64 for 

Social Relatedness, and .83 for Atypical. 

BITSEA estimates were based on the same 

sample of 84 toddlers over the same interval. 

Pearson’s correlation coefficients across 

toddler gender groups and domain scores 
 

 

 

 

 

 

were all above .80. Coefficients for the total 

Problem domain score (that is, an aggregate 

score for Internalizing, Externalizing, and 

Disregulation) and total Competence score 

were .92 and .82, respectively. 

3.		 Inter-rater reliability for the ITSEA: Intraclass 

Correlation Coefficients (ICC) to show 

agreement between 94 pairs of parents were 

.77 for Externalizing (.68 to .77 for the 

subscales), .72 for Internalizing (.51 to .73 for 

the subscales), .77 for Dysregulation (.61 to 

.81 for the subscales), and .79 for Competence 

(.51 to .83 for the subscales). More than half of 

the subscale scores exceeded .70. The ICCs for 

the item clusters were .70 for Maladaptive, .44 

for Social Relatedness, and .59 for Atypical. 

The BITSEA inter-rater sample of 94 pairs of 

parents showed ICCs for problem domain 

scores and Competence scores at .74 and .63, 

respectively. 

Validity: 

1.		 Content validity: For the original ITSEA 

(1998), the authors conducted an extensive 

literature search on social-emotional 

development and behaviors and explored 

existing measures for older toddlers. They 

developed a list of 200 items that were 

reviewed by toddler development 

professionals with expertise in socialemotional development. The experts 

suggested additional items to improve the 

instrument’s content coverage. The authors 

had previously conducted a confirmatory 

factor analysis on the domains and subscales 

of the measure (Briggs-Gowan and Carter 

2005). That analysis validated the structure of 

the instrument as hypothesized by the 

authors. The revised items underwent pilot 

testing and another revision to make them 

more understandable and user-friendly. The 

authors conducted three field tests to assess 

the preliminary reliability and validity of the 

measure and further refine the items. An 

expert panel also identified which items from 

the ITSEA should be included in the BITSEA 

(Geisinger and Murphy 2007). 

2.		 Concurrent validity:3 the ITSEA Parent Form 

was compared to the BITSEA as well as to 

several similar social-emotional assessments, 

including the Toddler Behavior Checklist 1.5­

5 (CBCL 1.5-5), the Ages and Stages SocialEmotional Questionnaires: Social Emotional 

(ASQ:SE), the Adaptive Behavior Assessment 

System: Second Edition (ABAS-II), and the 

Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler 

Development-Third Edition (Bayley-III). 

The ITSEA Problem domain scores that 

correlated with the BITSEA total Problem 

score ranged from .57 for Internalizing to .77 

for Dysregulation. The ITSEA Parent Form 

Competence domain correlated with the 

BITSEA total Competence score at .69 for 

3 Concurrent validity toddler samples were distinct for each 

measure comparison, although each sample was ethnically 

diverse and half female. The sample sizes for each 

comparison group are as follows: CBCL, n= 37 (12 to 17 

month olds were excluded); ASQ:SE, n= 57; ABAS-II, n= 52 

(of which only 6% were 18 to 23 month-olds); and Bayley-III, 

n= 112. 

162 
163 

girls and .77 for boys. The correlation 

coefficient between the ITSEA Externalizing 

domain and CBCL Externalizing composite 

was .41. Internalizing Problem scores from 

both assessments were correlated at .60. The 

ITSEA Dysregulation domain correlated with 

CBCL Internalizing and CBCL Externalizing 

composites at .44 and .39, respectively. The 

ASQ:SE total score and scores on the ITSEA 

Externalizing, Dysregulation, and 

Internalizing domains were correlated at .69, 

.53, and .34, respectively. The correlations 

between the ITSEA Competence domain and 

the Bayley-III Cognitive Assessment, 

Language Composite, and Social-Emotional 

subtest were .32, .33, and .48, respectively. The 

correlation coefficient between the ITSEA 

Competence domain and the General 

Adaptive Behavior composite on the ABAS-II 

was .52. Authors predicted low correlation 

coefficients between the ITSEA and other 

comparison measures based on different 

constructs. The ITSEA Problem domain 

scores and the Adaptive Behavior scores on 

the ABAS-II correlations were .06 for 

Externalizing, -.31 for Internalizing, and -.13 

for Dysregulation. The ASQ:SE total score and 

the ITSEA Competence domain were 

correlated at -.43. 

Authors compared the BITSEA to the 

ASQ:SE, CBCL, ABAS-II, and Bayley-III. The 

BITSEA total Problem score was correlated 

with the ASQ:SE total score at .55, CBCL 

Internalizing at .46, CBCL Externalizing at 

.47, and the CBCL total at .6. The BITSEA 

total Competence score correlated with the 

ABAS-II Social composite, Practical 

composite, and General Adaptive Composite 

at .56, .39, and .44, respectively. The BITSEA 

total Competence and the Bayley-III 

Cognitive Assessment, Language scale, and 

Social-Emotional scores had coefficients of 

.25, .32, and .51, respectively. To examine 

differences in measures, authors correlated 

the BITSEA total Problem score with the 

ABAS-II Practical, Social Skills, and 

Conceptual composites, which had 

coefficients of -.31, -.36, and -.36, respectively, 

and with the Bayley Social-Emotional, 

Cognitive Assessment, and Language scale, 

which correlated at -.27, -.28, and -.19. The 

BITSEA total Competence score correlated 

with the ASQ:SE total score at -.55 and with 

the CBCL Internalizing, Externalizing, and 

total scores at -.30, -.42, and -.38. 

Authors of the ITSEA and BITSEA examined 

differences between toddlers who were 

“typically developing” and toddlers with 

autism, delays, or premature birth or who had 

received a mental health service referral. 

Competence domain score differences 

distinguished all toddlers except those born 

prematurely, although the authors note that 

scores are adjusted for prematurity. The 

authors conducted research showing that, 

based on differences in Social Relatedness and 

Atypical item cluster scores, the ITSEA 

significantly differentiates autistic toddlers 

from those with a developmental delay and 

those developing typically. The BITSEA 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

distinguished autistic toddlers based on total 

Competence and total Problem score 

differences. 

3.		 Construct validity: intercorrelations between 

ITSEA subscale and domain scores ranged 

from .50 to .69 between Externalizing domain 

and associated subscales scores, from .34 to 

.42 for the Internalizing domain and 

subscales, from .32 to .47 for the 

Dysregulation domain and subscales, and 

from .62 to .69 for the Competence domain 

and subscales. Correlations were corrected by 

removing the subscale score from the raw 

domain score. Correlations among the 

Externalizing, Internalizing, and 

Dysregulation domains ranged from .43 to .53 

while correlations between the Competence 

domain and the other domains ranged from ­

.15 to -.27. 

Bias Analysis: No information available. 

Methods of Scoring: The ITSEA and the 

BITSEA are scored by professionals experienced 

in standardized testing and trained in 

developmental and mental health specific to 

toddlers and families. ITSEA and BITSEA items 

are rated on a three point scale: 0 = not 

true/rarely, 1 = somewhat true/sometimes, and 2 

= very true/often; caregivers may also select N = 

“no opportunity” if they did not observe the 

behavior. Before scoring the ITSEA, scorers code 

“no opportunity” responses as missing; the 

responses thus are not reflected in a toddler’s 

score. If a subscale exceeds a maximum number of 

missing items, then that subscale is not be scored. 

Seven items are recoded or “reverse scored” to 

ensure that the given problem or competence is 

appropriately captured. For example, the item Is 

able to wait for things he or she wants on the 

Negative Emotionality subscale is recoded so that 

a score of 0 becomes 2, a score of 1 remains 1, and 

a score of 2 becomes 0. The following scores may 

be calculated: domain scores, subscale scores, and 

item cluster scores. Domain scores equal the raw 

subscale scores divided by the number of subscales 

scored. Subscale and item cluster scores are 

calculated as means equal to the sum of item 

responses (i.e., 0, 1, or 2) divided by the total 

number of non-missing items for that subscale or 

item cluster. The manual provides tables to derive 

T scores for the domains and cut-points for the 

subscales and item clusters. Subscale scores may 

also be converted to percentile ranks. A Score 

Summary is used to record ITSEA scores and 

convey information to parents about a toddler’s 

performance (see Report Preparation Support). 

To score the BITSEA, the assessor transfers 

parent responses to a Score Summary Form and 

sums the Problem domain items and Competence 

items for total Problem and Competence scores. 

Unanswered items, including missing and no 

opportunity responses, do not count toward total 

Problem or Competence scores. The assessor 

records cut scores from the manual next to total 

scores on the Score Summary Form. The manual 

lists percentile rankings that correspond to a 

toddler’s total Competence and total Problem 

scores. 

164 
165 

Interpretability: The ITSEA should be 

interpreted by a professional who has received 

training in the administration and interpretation 

of psychometric tests or by parents or other 

caregivers with the help of a professional. Tables 

in the manual may be used to convert mean raw 

subscale scores into percentile rankings by age an

gender. Percentile rankings correspond to score 

ranges for each subscale. Subscale scores falling at

or below the 10th percentile are deemed to be in a

range “of concern.” The manual provides a table 

that lists the number of subscales falling into the 

range “of concern” for the normative sample by 

sex and age group. It provides a similar table for 

five clinical groups (autistic disorder, 

developmentally delayed, language delayed, 

mental health, premature/low-birth weight). 

Additional assessment or intervention may be 

warranted if a toddler receives more subscale 

scores in the “of concern” range than occur in the 

normative sample. If rated as occurring 

sometimes or often, 10 Individual Items of 

Clinical Significance (that do not pertain to any 

domain, subscale, or item cluster) warrant 

followup with the parents to assess the behaviors 

in more detail. The manual provides three case 

studies as examples of how to interpret the ITSEA

For the BITSEA, tables in the manual present 

percentile rankings that correspond to total raw 

scores by gender and age. High total Problem 

scores (at the 75th percentile or higher) and/or 

low scores (at the 15th percentile or lower) may 

indicate problems, delays, or deficits. Follow-up 

d 

. 

assessments are needed to determine clinical 

significance. 

Training Support: No information available. 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: If a toddler is 

unable to perform a particular behavior due to a 

constraint such as a physical limitation, the 

caregiver may rate the item as no opportunity 

instead of assigning 0 to that behavior. 

Report Preparation Support: The Score 

Summary Form for the ITSEA allows the assessor 

to record scores for each domain and subscale 

with the corresponding percentile range, item 

cluster scores (without corresponding 

percentiles), and comments. The assessor may 

also use checkboxes to indicate whether a subscale 

or item cluster score is “of concern.” The manual 

instructs assessors in how to hand-score the 

ITSEA by using the Parent Form Hand Scoring 

Template. Alternatively, the Scoring Assistant 

CD-ROM software program is available to 

generate score reports for each subscale, domain, 

and item cluster. The Score Summary Form for 

the BITSEA includes Problem domain and total 

Competence scores as well as percentile rankings 

and a checkbox where the assessor indicates a 

possible problem, delay, or deficit. 

References: 

Baxter, Abigail. “Review of the 

ITSEA/BITSEA: Infant-Toddler and Brief InfantToddler Social and Emotional Assessment.” In 

The Seventeenth Mental Measurements Yearbook, 

edited by Kurt F. Geisinger, Robert A. Spies, Janet 
 

 

F. Carlson, and Barbara S. Plake. Lincoln, NE: 

Buros Institute of Mental Measurements, 2007. 

Bracha, Z., F. Perez-Diaz, P. Gerardin, Y. 

Perriot, F. De La Rocque, M. Flament, M.C. 

Leroux, P. Reinert, P. Mazet, and A.S. Carter. “A 

French Adaptation of the Infant-Toddler Social 

and Emotional Assessment.” Infant Mental Health 

Journal, vol. 25, no. 2, 2004, pp. 117-129. 

Briggs-Gowan, Margaret J., and Alice S. 

Carter. BITSEA Brief Infant-Toddler Social and 

Emotional Assessment-Examiner’s Manual. San 

Antonio, TX: Pearson, 2006. 

Briggs-Gowan, Margaret J., and Alice S. 

Carter. “Preliminary Acceptability and 

Psychometrics of the Infant-Toddler Social and 

Emotional Assessment (ITSEA): A New AdultReport Questionnaire.” Infant Mental Health 

Journal, vol. 19, no. 4, 1998, pp. 422-445. 

Briggs-Gowan, M.J. and A.S. Carter. InfantToddler Social and Emotional Assessment/Brief 

Infant-Toddler Social and Emotional Assessment. 

San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment, Inc., 

2005. 

Carter, Alice, and Margaret Briggs-Gowan. 

ITSEA Scoring AssistantTM. San Antonio, TX: 

Pearson, 2005. 

Carter, Alice S., and Margaret J. BriggsGowan. ITSEA Infant-Toddler Social and 

Emotional Assessment-Examiner’s Manual. San 

Antonio, TX: Pearson, 2006. 

Jianduan, Z., W. Huishan, S. Shuhua, H. 

Xiaonan, L. Guoyan, L. Guangli, and S. Junxin. 

“Reliability and Validity of Standardized Chinese 

Version of Urban Infant-Toddler Social and 

Emotional Assessment.” Early Human 

Development, vol. 85, no. 5, 2009, pp. 331-336. 

Konold, Timothy R. “Review of the 

ITSEA/BITSEA: Infant-Toddler and Brief InfantToddler Social and Emotional Assessment.” In 

The Seventeenth Mental Measurements Yearbook, 

edited by Kurt F. Geisinger, Robert Spies, Janet F. 

Carlson, and Barbara S. Plake. Lincoln, NE: The 

Buros Institute of Mental Measurements, 2007. 

166 
INFANT/TODDLER SYMPTOM CHECKLIST (ITSC), 1995 

Authors: 

Georgia DeGangi, Susan Poisson, Ruth Sickel, and 

Andrea Santman Wiener 

Publisher: 

Therapy Skill Builders, a division of the Psychological 

Corporation 

800-872-1726 

Initial Material Cost: 

Complete set (Includes manual, 6 sets of 5 score sheets 

in 25 page pads and vinyl storage portfolio) $63 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: No norming 

sample. 

Languages: 

English 

Type of Assessment: 

Parent report or interview 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

7-30 months old 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: 

Administration time is 10 minutes, and it can be 

administered by the parent or by a paraprofessional. 

Special training is not required for administering the 

instrument; however, an understanding of the domains 

is critical for an accurate interpretation of findings. 

Scoring can be done in less than 10 minutes. 

Summary: 

Initial Material Cost: 1 (< $100) 

Reliability: 1 (none described) 

Validity: 2 (less than .5 for concurrent) 

Norming Sample Characteristics: 1 (none described) 

Ease of Administration and Scoring: 2 (self

administered or administered and scored by someone 

with basic clerical skills) 

­

Description: The Infant/Toddler Symptom 

Checklist (ITSC) is designed to screen 7 to 30

month-old infants and toddlers for sensory and 

regulatory disorders who are behaviorally 

problematic and show disturbances in sleep, 

feeding, state control, self-calming, and mood 

regulation. The checklist focuses on infant 

behavior in the following domains: (1) selfregulation, (2) attention, (3) sleep, (4) eating or 

feeding, (5) dressing, bathing, and touch, (6) 

movement, (7) listening and language, (8) looking 

and sight, and (9) attachment/emotional 

functioning. Questions are answered with a “never 

or sometimes,” “most times,” or “past.” The 

criterion-referenced ITSC checklist comes in six 

versions: a single short version for general 

screening purposes and five age-specific screens 

for both diagnostic and screening purposes: 7 to 9 

months, 10 to 12 months, 13 to 18 months, 19 to 

24 months, and 25 to 30 months. The authors 

recommend using other observation tools when 

using ITSC as a screening tool and traditional 

developmental tests when using it as a diagnostic 

tool. 

Uses of Information: The ITSC is used to 

determine whether a child may have a 

predisposition toward developing sensory 

integrative disorders, attention deficits, or 

emotional, behavioral, or learning difficulties, and 

whether further diagnosis is required. 

Reliability: None described. 

Validity: The research sample consisted of 

154 normal and 67 regulatory-disordered infants 

between 7 and 30 months who were primarily 

­

167 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

white and middle class. (1) Concurrent validity: 

Statistical tests were performed on correlations 

between scores on the ITSC and the Bayley Scales 

of Infant Development, Mental Scale; the Test of 

Sensory Functions in Infants (TSFI); and the Test 

of Attention in Infants (TAI) for a sample of 

normal infants and a sample of regulatory 

disorder infants. The results showed that 

correlations were statistically significant for the 

regulatory disorder infants and only a few of the 

correlations with the TSF and TIA subtests were 

significant for the normal infants, especially 

among the 7- to 9-month-olds. The authors 

concluded that the ITSC provided information 

that is distinct from that obtained by diagnostic 

measures, particularly for 10- to 30-month olds. 

The authors tested for construct validity to select 

the instrument items by performing t-tests on the 

difference between means obtained from a sample 

of regulatory disorder infants and a sample of 

normal infants. They also performed another test 

by comparing the scores of parents who did not 

express concern over their infant’s development 

with those of parents who did express concern 

and found that only one (out of 25) of the scores 

in the no concern group was above the at-risk 

cutoff score while all but two (out of 14) in the 

concern group had scores about the cutoff. The 

authors then performed diagnostic tests on infants 

in the concern group using the TSFI and the TIA 

and concluded that all 14 suffered from regulatory 

disorders. (2) Predictive validity: In a separate 

publication, the authors reported that 78 percent 

of infants identified by the ITSC as having 

problems were diagnosed with developmental or 

behavioral problems at 3 years of age using 

standardized measures such as the Child Behavior 

Checklist. 

Method of Scoring: The item responses are 

scored in the following manner: 0 points for 

“never or sometimes,” 1 point for “past,” and 2 

points for “most times” (a self-calming item is the 

only item that is scored differently due to different 

response categories). The points are then summed 

for the entire checklist. The total score is then 

compared to a normal score range for the 

appropriate age group. A protocol sheet is 

available to assist in the scoring of the instrument. 

Interpretability: The total checklist score is 

compared to the cutoff score for normal 

functioning infants and toddlers in the child’s age 

group. Children whose scores fall at or above the 

cutoff score are considered to be at risk of having 

a regulatory disorder and further diagnosis is 

warranted. 

Training Support: The manual includes case 

studies. 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: None described. 

Report Preparation Support: None 

described. 

References: 

DeGangi, Georgia A., Susan Poisson, Ruth Z. 

Sickel, and Andrea Santman Wiener. 

Infant/Toddler Symptom Checklist: A Screening 

Tool for Parents. San Antonio, TX: Therapy Skill 

Builders, Psychological Corporation, 1995. 

168 
169 

LEITER INTERNATIONAL PERFORMANCE SCALE-REVISED 

(LEITER-R), 1997 

Authors: 

Gale H. Roid and Lucy J. Miller 

Publisher: 

Stoelting Co. 

(630) 860-9700 

www.stoeltingco.com 

Initial Material Cost: 

Complete Leiter-R Kit: $850 (includes manual, 3 easel 

books, response cards, manipulatives, record forms, 

booklets, and carrying case) 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: 

The Leiter-R was standardized on 1,719 typical 

children and adolescents and 692 atypical children ages 

2 years to 20 years, 11 months using a national 

stratification plan based on 1993 U.S. Census statistics 

for age, gender, and socioeconomic status. Nationally 

representative proportions of children who are 

Caucasian, Hispanic-American, African-American, 

Asian-American, and Native American were included. 

Languages: 

English 

Type of Assessment: 

Direct child assessment 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

2 years to 20 years, 11 months 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: 

The Leiter-R should be administered by a trained 

individual who has received supervised training and 

practice. It should be interpreted by someone with 

graduate training in psychological assessment. 

Administration times for the Leiter-R range from 25 to 

40 minutes. 

Summary: 

Initial Material Cost: 3 ($200 or higher) 

Reliability: 3 (.65 or higher) 

Validity: 3 (concurrent .5 or higher, no information or 

predictive) 

Norming Sample Characteristics: 3 (normed within 

past 15 years, nationally representative) 

Ease of Administration and Scoring: 3 (administered 

and scored by a trained individual) 

Description: The Leiter-R is an individually 

administered nonverbal test designed to assess 

cognitive functions in children and adolescents. It 

was developed to provide a reliable and valid 

nonverbal measure of intellectual ability, memory, 

and attention that could be used to assess 

children, adolescents, and young adults who could 

not be reliably and validly tested using traditional 

intelligence tests. The Leiter-R consists of two 

groupings of subtests: (1) the Visualization and 

Reasoning (VR) Battery (10 subtests), and (2) the 

Attention and Memory (AM) Battery (10 subtests). It also includes four social-emotional rating 

scales (Examiner, Parent, Self, and Teacher) that 

provide behavioral observation information about 

the examinee. The majority of Leiter-R items 

require the child to move response cards into slots 

on the easel tray. Other items require arranging 

manipulatives (foam rubber shapes) and pointing 

to responses on the easel pictures. Starting points 

in the sub-tests are determined by the child’s age 

(there are three age groups for administration of 

the Leiter-R: 2-5, 6-10, and 11-20). 

Uses of Information: The Leiter-R can be 

used to help identify children with cognitive 

disabilities, to monitor small increments of 

improvements in cognitive abilities, and to 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

develop intervention strategies that address the 

identified disabilities. For initial screening 

purposes, four sub-tests in the VR Battery can be 

used to measure the child’s global intellectual level 

as part of a battery of other tests and assessments. 

The full VR Battery (six subtests for children ages 

2 to 5) can be used for identification, 

classification, and placement decisions. The AM 

Battery can be used for a comprehensive 

diagnostic assessment of attention and memory 

difficulties, neuropsychological evaluations, and 

evaluation of cognitive process deficits in learning 

disabilities or attention deficit disorders. 

Examiners have the option of using the VR and 

AM Batteries separately; however, the Batteries 

should be used together for a thorough cognitive 

assessment, particularly when it is expected that 

cognitive-process deficits in memory or attention 

are interfering with the accurate evaluation of 

global intellectual level. 

Reliability: (1) Internal consistency reliability 

(Cronbach’s alpha): for children age 2, alphas 

ranged from .71 to .94 across the VR Battery subtests and, for children ages 2 to 3, the alphas 

ranged from .77 to .89 for the AM Battery subtests. For children ages 2 to 5, the alphas ranged 

from .71 to .90 for the AM Battery special 

diagnostic scale, and the reliability coefficients 

from .94 to .99 for the composite rating scale, and 

.87 to .93 for IQ and composite scores. (2) Testretest reliability (with interval not reported): testretest correlations ranged from .61 to .95 across 

the VR Battery subtest and composite scores and 

.86 to .94 across the examiner rating scales and 

composite for children ages 2 to 5.1 (3) Inter-rater 

reliability: no information reported in the manual. 

Validity: (1) Concurrent validity: concurrent 

validity tests between the Leiter-R (Brief and Full 

Scale IQ) and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for 

Children (WISC-III) (Performance and Full Scale 

IQ) on children ages 6 to 16 resulted in 

correlations of .85 and .86. The reported tests 

between Leiter-R Full Scale IQ scores with other 

cognitive tests showed correlations that ranged 

from .38 to .66. Tests for accuracy on children 

ages 2 to 20 showed that a cut-point of 70 on the 

Leiter-R Full Scale IQ score correctly classified 

more than 80 percent of children with cognitive 

delays. The classification accuracy of the Leiter-R 

for identifying giftedness was not as good, and the 

manual recommends that the Leiter-R never be 

used in isolation to identify giftedness. 

(2) Predictive validity: no information available. 

Method of Scoring: The manual contains 

detailed scoring instructions. For most subtests, 

responses are scored as (0) Fail or incorrect, or 

(1) Pass or correct. Scoring criteria for each item 

are noted on the instruction page for each subtest. 

For some subtests, scoring requires counting the 

number of correct responses and the number of 

errors. Raw scores are typically obtained by 

summing correct responses. The raw scores on the 

subtests and rating scales are converted to scaled 

scores (with a mean of 10 and a standard 

deviation of 3) using a table provided in the 

manual. IQ scores are calculated from sums of 

1 No AM Battery retests were performed on children under 

the age of 6. 

170 
171 

subtest scaled scores and converted to IQ standard 

scores (with a mean of 100 and standard deviation 

of 15) using a table in the manual. Composite 

scores can also be obtained for Fluid Reasoning, 

Fundamental Visualization, Spatial Visualization, 

Attention, and Memory. In addition, the raw 

scores for each subtest and IQ can be converted to 

growth-scale scores that define a child’s domain of 

abilities in a metric that can reflect growth and be 

useful for treatment planning and measuring 

change over time. 

Interpretability: Only persons with graduate 

training in psychological testing and statistics 

should interpret the results of the Leiter-R. The 

manual also cautions that IQ scores from the 

Leiter-R should never be used in isolation and 

should be evaluated in the context of a wide 

variety of information about the child. The 

manual includes an extensive discussion of the 

interpretation of Leiter-R results and provides 

case studies to demonstrate the interpretation of 

scores. 

Training Support: None described. 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: The Leiter-R was 

specially developed to be used with children who 

could not be reliably and validly tested using 

traditional intelligence tests, including children 

with significant communication disorders, 

cognitive delays, English as a second language, 

hearing impairments, motor impairments, 

traumatic brain injury, attention-deficit disorder, 

and certain types of learning disabilities. The 

manual discusses adaptations to administration 

methods that may be needed for some children to 

establish that the child understands the nature of 

the task or to enable the child to communicate 

answers to test items within the capabilities they 

have. When such adaptations are made, growthscale scores that do not rely on normative 

comparisons should be used. 

Report Preparation Support: None 

described. 

References: 

Roid, Gale H., and Lucy J. Miller. Leiter 

International Performance Scale-Revised. Wood 

Dale, IL: Stoelting Co., 1995, 1997. 
 172

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MACARTHUR-BATES COMMUNICATIVE DEVELOPMENT 

INVENTORIES (CDIs)—SECOND EDITION, 2007 (2011 Update) 

Authors: 

Larry Fenson, Virginia A. Marchman, Philip S. Dale, J. 

Steven Reznick, Donna Thal, and Elizabeth Bates 

Publisher: 

Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company 

(800) 638-3775 

http://www.brookespublishing.com 

Instrument: 

http://www.brookespublishing.com/resourcecenter/screening-and-assessment/cdi/ 

Initial Material Cost: 

Complete Set of CDIs (Words and Gestures forms and
 


Words and Sentences forms), User's Guide and
 


Technical Manual, package of 20 of each form): $99.95
 


Complete Set of CDIs and CDI III, User's Guide:
 


$121.95 
 

CDI short forms available for purchase from authors:
 


$.35 each (http://www.sci.sdsu.edu/cdi/short_e.htm)
 


Representativeness of Norming Sample:1 

The updated 2007 norming sample for the CDIs 

(Words and Gestures, Words and Sentences) included 

2,550 children (8 to 30 months of age) in New Haven, 

Connecticut; San Diego, California; Seattle, 

Washington; Dallas, Texas; Madison, Wisconsin; New 

Orleans, Louisiana; Providence, Rhode Island; and 

Storrs, Connecticut. The sample contained equivalent 

numbers of boys and girls; included children from 

black, Hispanic, and Asian racial/ethnic groups; and 

collected information about birth order, maternal 

1 The short forms were normed on a convenience sample of 

1,379 primarily white infants and toddlers with parents who 

had high levels of education. Roughly 14 percent of infants 

and toddlers were exposed to a second language at home. 

Data were collected from New Haven, Connecticut; Seattle, 

Washington; and San Diego, California. 

education, and exposure to languages other than 

English. Compared with 2000 U.S. Census Bureau 

information, the sample included a higher percentage 

of white children and mothers with college diplomas. 

The CDI-III was normed separately with 356 children 

age 30 to 37 months from a university subject pool. The 

sample included a similar number of boys and girls, 

and maternal education levels were higher than for U.S. 

Census population data. The Spanish speaking sample 

is described below (see Other Languages). 

Languages: 

English, Spanish 

Type of Assessment: 

Parent report 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

8 to 37 months 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: Administered by a clerical program 

staff member 

Learning to administer CDIs requires less than one 

hour. They take 20 to 40 minutes for a parent to 

complete, and the short form takes 10 minutes. Hand 

scoring requires 20 to 30 minutes depending on age 

and language skill, although computer-based scoring 

programs are available. 

Summary: 

Initial Material Cost: 2 ($100 to $200)
 


Reliability: 3 (most .65 or higher)
 


Validity: 3 (most .5 or higher for concurrent; most .4 or
 


higher for predictive)
 


Norming Sample Characteristics: 2 (not nationally
 


representative)
 


Ease of Administration and Scoring: 3 (administered by
 


someone with basic clerical skills and scored and 
 

interpreted by a highly trained individual)
 


Description: The MacArthur-Bates 

Communicative Development Inventories (CDIs), 

Second Edition is a parent report measure of early 

language skills of children between 8 and 37 

months of age. The full tool consists of three 

inventories: (1) the CDI: Words and Gestures 

form (8 to 18 months); (2) the CDI: Words and 

Sentences form (16 to 30 months); and (3) the 
173 

CDI-III (30 to 37 months). Each form consists of 

several subtests. Short forms are available for the 

CDI: Vocabulary Checklist Level I (infant form) 

and Level II (toddler form). 

The original edition of the MacArthur 

Communicative Development Inventories was 

published in 1992 and consisted of two 

inventories: Words and Gestures and Words and 

Sentences. The updated edition of the MacArthurBates CDIs adds the CDI-III, an extension to 

capture information on children age 30 to 37 

months. The norming data for the CDI: Words 

and Gestures were expanded to include 17- and 

18-month-olds. The updated addition expands the 

information on administration, interpretation, 

and scoring procedure options. 

The CDI: Words and Gestures form assesses 

vocabulary production and comprehension and 

consists of two parts, each with several subtests 

(see Table 1 for subtest names and descriptions). 

Part I (Early Words) contains 429 items within 

four subtests and includes a 396-item Vocabulary 

Checklist divided into 19 semantic categories. Part 

II (Actions and Gestures) contains 63 items within 

five subtests. 

The CDI: Words and Sentences form assesses 

increased vocabulary production and grammar 

acquisition and consists of two parts (see Table 1 

for subtest names and descriptions). Part I (Words 

Children Use) contains 685 items within two 

subtests and includes a 680-item Vocabulary 

Checklist divided into 22 semantic categories. Part 

II (Sentences and Grammar) contains 113 items 

within six subtests. Parents must respond to a 

question about whether their child is combining 

words into sentences. If the response is no, two 

subtests (Examples or Complexity) need not be 

completed. 

CDI-III is an extension of the CDIs for 

children 30 through 37 months of age. It is a short, 

single-sheet tool that measures expressive 

vocabulary and grammar. The first component 

features a 100-item Vocabulary Checklist 

(including 45 words from the CDI: Words and 

Sentences form and 55 new words). The second 

component consists of 13 questions about the 

child’s word combinations (including 12 sentence 

pairs, of which 5 are drawn from the CDI: Words 

and Sentences form and 7 are new items). The 

third component consists of 12 questions, to be 

answered yes or no, that ask about various aspects 

of comprehension, semantics, and syntax. 
 

Subtest (number of items) Description Score 

CDI: Words and Gestures (Part I—Early Words) 

First Signs of Understanding (3 

items) 

General questions about early comprehension of 

familiar words and phrases 

Not described 

Phrases (28 items) Comprehension of everyday phrases and routines Phrases Understood 

Starting to Talk (2 items) Imitation and labeling Not described 

Vocabulary Checklist (396 items) Checklist organized into 19 semantic categories; 

response options are understands or understands 

and says 

Words Understood; Words 

Produced 

CDI: Words and Gestures (Part II—Actions and Gestures) 

First Communicative Gestures (12 

items) 

Checklist of intentional gestures Early Gestures; Total Gestures 

Games and Routines (6 items) Checklist of games the child plays, such as 

pattycake or peekaboo 

Early Gestures; Total Gestures 

Actions with Objects (17 items) Checklist of actions the child is able to perform, 

such as brushing teeth, combing hair, or eating 

with spoon or fork 

Later Gestures; Total Gestures 

Pretending to Be a Parent (13 items) Checklist of actions the child sometimes performs 

with stuffed animals or toys, such as putting them 

to bed or talking to them 

Later Gestures; Total Gestures 

Imitating Other Adult Actions (15 

items) 

Checklist of actions the child might try to imitate, 

such as cleaning with a broom, vacuuming, or 

washing dishes. 

Later Gestures; Total Gestures 

CDI: Words and Sentences (Part I—Words Children Use) 

Vocabulary Checklist (680 items) Checklist of words the child can say, organized 

into 22 semantic categories 

Words Produced 

How Children Use Words (5 items) Questions on the child’s use of language for past, 

future, and absent objects and people 

Not described 

CDI: Words and Sentences (Part II—Sentences and Grammar) 

Word Endings/Part I (4 items) Questions about the child’s use of language to 

refer to past, future, and absent objects and people 

that differ from questions in the How Children 

Use Words subtest; for example, the subtest 

includes questions about how the child uses the 

possessive 

Not described 

Word Forms (25 items) Checklist of irregular plural nouns and irregular 

past tense verbs 

Word Forms 

Word Endings/Part II (45 items) Checklist of over-regularized nouns and verbs Word Endings/Part II 

Combining (1 item) Question on whether the child can combine words 

into sentences 

Examples (1 item) Request for parent to provide up to 3 of the 

longest sentences uttered by the child 

Mean Length of the 3 Longest 

Sentences 

Complexity (37 items) Parents select one from a pair of sentences 

contrasting in complexity to indicate how their 

child currently speaks 

Complexity 

Table 1 CDI SUBTESTS AND SCORES 

174 

Source: Fenson et al. User’s Guide and Technical Manual, 2007. 
175 

Other Languages: A Spanish version of the 

CDIs and short forms is called the Inventarios, 

published with the manual in 2003. The 

Inventarios were normed on more than 2,000 

children in Mexico. The CDI-III is currently not 

available in Spanish. The CDI forms have also 

been adapted to 54 other country-specific 

languages such as Arabic, French, Finnish, and 

Mandarin (as spoken in Beijing, Singapore, and 

Taiwan). 

Uses of Information: The CDIs may be used 

to screen for delays in language development and 

to identify problematic skills. The authors also 

note that the CDIs can help formulate 

intervention strategies and evaluate treatment 

outcomes. 

Reliability: 

1. Internal consistency reliability: Cronbach’s 

alpha coefficients for scores from the CDI: 

Words and Gestures Total Gestures score had 

a reliability estimate of .88. The CDI: Words 

and Gestures Words Understood and Words 

Produced (on the Vocabulary Checklist) were 

.95 and .96, respectively. Within the 

Vocabulary Checklist, authors reported 

coefficients for semantic subcategories if they 

were below .70. The first semantic 

subcategory, Words about Time, had a 

coefficient of .65 for both Words Understood 

and Words Produced. The second semantic 

subcategory, Question Words, had 

coefficients of .68 and .56. In addition, scores 

for the Level I short form had a Cronbach’s 

alpha of .97. 

Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for scores from 

the CDI: Words and Sentences form were .86 

for the Words Produced scores and .95 for the 

Complexity scores (analyzed by using bound 

morphemes, functor words [i.e., words used 

for grammatical correctness such as “is,” 

“the,” or “a”], and complex sentences). 

Coefficients for semantic subcategories below 

.70 were Sound Effects and Animal Sounds 

(.65) and Connecting Words (.68). Scores for 

the Level II short forms A and B each 

demonstrated an internal consistency alpha of 

.99. 

2. Test-retest reliability: for the CDI: Words and 

Gestures, authors analyzed 137 test pairs 

(number and age range of children not 

provided) with an average interval of 1.4 

months between administrations through 12 

months of age. Correlations were in the .80s 

for both Words Produced and Words 

Understood except at 12 months, when scores 

were correlated at .60. Authors noted that the 

decrease could be attributable to 

developmental transitions that occur at 12 to 

13 months of age. Authors also correlated 

scores from the same forms by scale for longer 

administration intervals. On a sample of 62 

children assessed at age 8 to 10 months and at 

age 14 to 17 months, the CDI: Words and 

Gestures correlation between scores by major 

inventory. 

For CDI: Words and Sentences, vocabulary 

production correlated at .95 among 216 test 

pairs with an average interval of 1.4 months 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

between administrations. Authors also 

correlated scores from the same forms by scale 

for longer administration intervals. On a 

sample of 228 children age 16 to 24 months 

and age 22 to 30 months, the CDI: Words and 

Sentences correlated with itself at .71 for total 

vocabulary and at .62 for Complexity scores. 

Authors also correlated scores between the 

CDI: Words and Gestures form (for use up to 

18 months of age) and the CDI: Words and 

Sentences form (for use starting at 16 months 

of age) because some infants aged into the 

toddler group over the interval. The total 

vocabulary production correlation among 217 

children between 10 and 16 months old and 

between 16 and 25 months old was .69. 

The Level I short form yielded test-retest 

reliability estimates of .88 for Vocabulary 

Comprehension and .90 for Vocabulary 

Production based on a two-week interval and 

50 infants (Hanson 1994). The test-retest 

reliability estimates for the Level II short 

forms A and B Vocabulary Production among 

28 and 40 toddlers with a two-week interval 

were, respectively, .74 and .93. 

3.		 Inter-rater reliability: not applicable. 

Validity: 

1.		 Content Validity: The authors drew items for 

each subtest from the developmental literature 

and used parent suggestions in response to 

earlier versions of the assessment. Major 

domains for infants include Words 

Understood, Words Produced, and Actions. 

2.		 Concurrent validity: the authors correlated 

scores from the CDIs with several language 

measures. For CDI: Words and Gestures, the 

authors correlated scores from Words 

Produced with scores from the Language 

Sample NDW (Number of Different Words), 

the Preschool Language Scale (PLS-Revised), 

the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-III 

(PPVT-III), and the Reynell Developmental 

Language Scales (RDLS) Expressive subtest, 

with correlations ranging from .52 to .82 

between scores. For the CDI: Words and 

Sentences, the authors used the same 

measures as above as well as the Bayley Scales 

of Infant Development (Second Edition) 

Expressive Language subtest, the Expressive 

One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test 

(EOWPVT), and the Sequenced Inventory of 

Communication Development-Revised 

(SICD-R), with correlations ranging from .40 

to .88 between scores. Finally, for the CDI: 

Words and Gestures, the authors correlated 

scores from Words Understood to the Index 

of Productive Syntax, the PPVT-III, the RDLS 

Receptive, and the Language Sample NDW, 

with correlations ranging from .51 to .87. 

Scores from the CDI-III Vocabulary Checklist 

correlated at .63 with the Preschool Language 

Scale-3 (PLS-3) total score, .58 with the PLS-3 

Auditory Comprehension Score, and .47 with 

the PLS-3 Expressive Communication Score 

for a sample of 19 children (36 and 37 months 

of age). Correlations for scores of the Peabody 

Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised with the 

CDI-III Vocabulary Checklist, Sentences, and 

176 
177 

Using Language subtests were .50, .45, and 

.63, respectively, for a sample of 22 children 

(36 to 39 months of age). Two separate studies 

correlated scores from the CDI-III with scores 

from the McCarthy Scales, with correlations 

ranging from .44 to .62 in the first study of 85 

32- to 40-month-olds and from .52 to .56 in 

the second study of 113 3-year-olds. 

The Early Head Start Family and Child 

Experiences Survey, or Baby FACES study, is a 

nationally representative, longitudinal study 

of Early Head Start programs. Unpublished 

findings show correlations between the short 

form Vocabulary Production and Vocabulary 

Comprehension (toddler form) scores as 

reported by parents and program staff with 

the Ages & Stages Questionnaires, 3rd Edition 

(ASQ-3) Communication subscale and 

Preschool Language Scale, Fourth Edition 

(PLS-4) (C. Vogel, Personal Communication, 

June 2011). Short form Vocabulary 

Production scores and the ASQ-3 

Communication were correlated at .65 and .44 

for parents’ and staff’s short form reports, 

respectively. Short form Vocabulary 

Comprehension scores as reported by staff 

and the ASQ-3 Communication score were 

correlated at .30. Short form Vocabulary 

Production scores reported by parents and 

staff correlated with the PLS-4 scores from .23 

to .36. 

3. Construct validity: the authors provided 

intercorrelations for the CDI: Words and 

Gestures and CDI: Words and Sentences 

subtests. For the CDI: Words and Gestures, 

gestures were closely associated with 

vocabulary comprehension and moderately 

associated with vocabulary production. The 

Total Gestures scores correlated with Words 

Understood and Phrases Understood at .79 

and .77, respectively, whereas Total Gestures 

scores correlated with Words Produced at .59. 

Words Understood and Phrases Understood 

were correlated at .80. Within the CDI: Words 

and Sentences, vocabulary production was 

highly correlated with grammar. Words 

Produced was correlated with Word Forms, 

Complexity, and Mean Length of the Three 

Longest Sentences at .83, .82, and .78, 

respectively. 

Bias Analysis: No information available. 

Methods of Scoring: Parents’ response 

options vary by subtest. For example, for the 

Vocabulary Checklist, parents choose from 

response options of “understands” or 

“understands and says” words. In other parts, 

parents circle actions or gestures exhibited by 

their child or provide open-ended responses to 

questions about their child’s longest utterances. 

Scoring may be performed manually or by using 

an automated process. The User’s Guide and 

Technical Manual provide instructions for manual 

scoring and provide tables with percentile scores 

relative to age and gender. Scoring the inventories 

involves counting the number of marked items or 

affirmative responses by subtest. Thus, within an 

inventory, several subtests are combined to create 

a variety of composite scores (Table 1). 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For the CDI: Words and Gestures form, the 

assessor determines five potential raw scores. In 

the Vocabulary Checklist of Part I, for each of the 

22 semantic subcategories, items marked 

“understands” yield the Words Understood score, 

and those marked “understands and says” yield 

the Words Produced score (each has a maximum 

score of 396). Items marked “yes” in Part II, First 

Communicative Gestures and Games and 

Routines, are summed to yield the Early Gestures 

score (maximum score of 18) while those marked 

“yes” in the other Part II subtests of Actions with 

Objects, Pretending to Be a Parent, and Imitating 

Other Adult Actions make up the Later Gestures 

score (maximum score of 45). The Early Gestures 

and Later Gestures scores are summed for a Total 

Gestures score. 

For the CDI: Words and Sentences form, the 

items within each subtest are also summed to 

provide five potential raw scores (Table 1). In Part 

I, the assessor calculates the Words Produced raw 

score by counting items marked as “says” in each 

of the 19 semantic subcategories of the 

Vocabulary Checklist (maximum score of 680). 

Additional subtests such as Word Endings/Part I, 

Word Forms, and Word Endings/Part II are 

individually scored by counting all items marked 

“sometimes” and “often” and computing total 

scores for each. The Examples subtest is scored by 

calculating the number of morphemes in each of 

the three example sentences and obtaining a mean 

length-of-three-longest-sentences score, 

instructions for which are provided in the User’s 

Guide and Technical Manual. The Complexity 

subtest is scored by counting the number of items 

marked in the more complex of the two 

alternatives provided, yielding the Complexity 

score (maximum score of 37). 

The CDI-III is scored by computing raw total 

scores for each of its three subtests: (1) 

Vocabulary Checklist (maximum score 100), 

(2) Sentences (maximum score 12), and (3) Using 

Language (maximum score 12). Assessors then 

convert the raw total scores into percentiles for 

comparison with the norming tables provided in 

the User’s Guide and Technical Manual. Tables in 

the User’s Guide permit the conversion of raw 

scores into gender- and age-specific percentile 

rankings. 

The automated scoring process is completed 

by either machine scanning of original forms 

designed for use by image scanners (ranging in 

price from $100 to $3,000) or by the CDI Scoring 

Program’s entry of data at 

http://www.sci.sdsu.edu/cdi/. The program scores 

the English and Spanish forms as well as the short 

forms, calculates percentiles by using the raw 

scores, and generates child reports and parent 

letters. 

Interpretability: The User’s Guide and 

Technical Manual provide detailed instructions 

for interpreting the results of the CDI: Words and 

Gestures and CDI: Words and Sentences. For 

these forms as well as for the CDI-III, the normed 

percentile ranking allows the child’s performance 

to be compared to that of other children in the 

child’s age group. For the CDI: Words and 

Sentences form, the authors noted a ceiling effect 

for the Animal Sounds category within the 

178 
179 

Vocabulary Checklist but did not elaborate. Even 

though the measure may be self-administered and 

scored with use of the free downloadable 

automated program, the manual recommends that 

a clinician or a researcher interpret the results. 

Training Support: No information available. 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: The manual 

cautions against using the CDIs with 

developmentally delayed children whose 

chronological age exceeds the upper limits of the 

inventory. 

Report Preparation Support: An automated, 

free CDI scoring program is available at 

http://www.sci.sdsu.edu/cdi/. It generates child 

reports and parent letters for all forms and short 

forms of the inventory. 

References: 

Fenson, Larry, Virginia A. Marchman, Donna 

J. Thal, Philip S. Dale, J.S. Reznick, and Elizabeth 

Bates. MacArthur-Bates Communicative 

Development Inventories (CDIs), Second Edition. 

Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co., Inc., 

2007. 

Fenson, Larry, Virginia A. Marchman, Donna 

J. Thal, Philip S. Dale, J.S. Reznick, and Elizabeth 

Bates. MacArthur-Bates Communicative 

Development Inventories, User’s Guide and 

Technical Manual, Second Edition. Baltimore: Paul 

H. Brookes Publishing Co., 2007. 

Fenson, Larry, Steve Pethick, Connie Renda, 

and Jeffrey L. Cox. “Short-Form Versions of the 

MacArthur Communicative Development 

Inventories.” Applied Psycholinguistics, vol. 21, no. 

1, 2000, pp. 95-115. 

Hanson, J.S. “A Validation of the Short-Form 

Versions of the MacArthur Communicative 

Development Inventories.” Unpublished master’s 

thesis. San Diego, CA: San Diego State University, 

1994. 

Jackson-Maldonado, Donna, Elizabeth Bates, 

and Donna J. Thal. MacArthur Inventarios Del 

Desarrollo De Habilidades Comunicativas 

(Inventarios) (CDI-Spanish Edition). Baltimore: 

Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co., 2003. 
 

 

 

MULLEN SCALES OF EARLY LEARNING, AGS EDITION, 1995
 
 

Authors: 

Ellen M. Mullen 

Publisher: 

American Guidance Service, Inc. 

(800) 328-2560 

(800) 471-7220 (fax) 

Customerservice@agsnet.com 

Initial Material Cost: 

Mullen Kit (birth to 68 months): $636 

Mullen Scales, Upgrade for Infant Mullen (birth to 39 

months): $282 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: 

Nationally representative sample of 1,849 children ages 

2 days to 69 months with no known physical and 

mental disabilities and parents who spoke primarily 

English. Data on children in the northeast region was 

collected from 1981 to 1986 and from 1987 to 1989 for 

the south, west, north, and north central regions. 

Languages: 

English 

Type of Assessment: 

Direct child assessment (with some direct parent 

assessment) 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

0 to 68 months 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: 

For professionals with training or practical experience 

in the clinical assessment of infants and young 

children. The scales can be administered in 

approximately 15 minutes for 1-year-olds and 30 

minutes for 3-year-olds. 

Summary 

Initial Material Cost: 3 (> $200)
 


Reliability: 3 (.65 or higher)
 


Validity: 3 (.5 or higher concurrent validity)
 


Norming Sample Characteristics: 3 (nationally 
 

representative and mostly within the past 15 years)
 


Ease of Administration and Scoring: 3 (administered 
 

and scored by a highly trained individual)
 


Description: The Mullen Scales assess the 

cognitive functioning of young children from 

birth to 68 months. The assessment is based on 

the child’s responses to activities prepared by the 

examiner. Believing that a global intellectual 

performance measure may mask uneven cognitive 

development, the Mullen Scales measure five 

distinct skills, Gross Motor and four “cognitive” 

skills—Fine Motor, Visual Reception, Receptive 

Language, and Expressive Language. The gross 

motor scale is administered to children from birth 

to 33 months and the four “cognitive” scales are 

administered to children from birth to 68 months. 

The “cognitive” scores can be summarized into an 

Early Learning Composite (ELC) score. 

Uses of Information: Mullen scale scores can 

be used to identify children with special education 

needs who are eligible for further evaluation. The 

normative scores can also provide an objective 

means to identify weaknesses and strengths that 

underlie a child’s learning style for the purpose of 

designing individualized instructional plans that 

capitalize on the child’s strengths. 

Reliability: (1) Internal consistency reliability: 

the median internal consistency split-half 

coefficients (Guilford’s formula) for the five 

Mullen scales range from .75 to .83 and for the 

composite, .91. (2) Test-retest reliability (with a 1­

to 2-week interval between tests): for the Gross 

180 
181 

Motor Scale of the original Mullen scales, the 

correlation between tests was .96, and the median 

correlations on the “cognitive” scale were .84 

(with a range of .82 to .85) for children ages 1 to 

24 months and .76 (with a range of .71 to .79) for 

children ages 25 to 56 months. (3) Inter-rater 

reliability: correlations among raters ranged from 

.91 to .99 for age groups between 1 and 44 

months. 

Validity: (1) Concurrent validity: tests 

showed the Mullen scales to have stronger 

correlations with instruments that measured 

similar skills than those measuring different skills. 

The correlations of the Mullen ”cognitive” scales 

with the Bayley Mental Development Index 

(MDI) were higher (.53 to .59) than their 

correlations with the Bayley Psychomotor 

Development Index (PDI; .21 to .52). The ELC 

also was more strongly correlated with the MDI 

(.70) than with the PDI (.43). Conversely, the 

Mullen Gross Motor scale was more strongly 

correlated with the Bayley PDI (.76) than with the 

MDI (.30). Similarly, the Mullen Receptive 

Language scale had a higher correlation with the 

Preschool Language Assessment Auditory 

Comprehension (.85) than with Verbal Ability 

(.72), while the converse was true with the Mullen 

Expressive Language Scale (.72 for auditory and 

.80 for verbal). Finally, the Mullen Fine Motor 

scale was strongly correlated with the Peabody 

Fine Motor Scale, across four age groups of 

children between the ages of 6 and 36 months 

(correlations ranged from .65 to .82). (2) 

Predictive validity: no information available. 

Method of Scoring: The Item Administration 

Book provides instructions for scoring the items 

on the scales. Scoring is done on a record form 

containing a list of tasks or stimuli of possible 

responses for each assessment item. In most cases, 

the child receives a “1” for correct responses and 

“0” for incorrect responses. In some cases, the 

tester must sum the task scores to obtain the item 

scores. There are also cases where the item score 

can range from anywhere between 0 and 5. 

Scoring software (ASSIST) is available for 

purchase. 

Interpretability: The raw scores for each scale 

can be converted into age-adjusted normalized 

scores. The four “cognitive” skills T score can be 

further converted into a normalized ELC score, 

which has a mean of 100 and a standard deviation 

of 15. In addition, the scores can be used obtain 

the child’s percentile rank and age equivalent 

score, the age at which the child’s raw score is the 

median score. The manual provides instructions 

for interpreting these scores, taking into account 

variables that may influence them. The ASSIST 

software program converts raw scores into the 

normalized scores and provides interpretative 

information. 

Training Support: A training videotape can 

be purchased for $104.95. 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: None. 

Report Preparation Support: The manual 

provides three case studies as examples of how the 

Mullen Scales can be used and reported. The 
 

Mullen ASSIST computer software program 

provides an optional narrative report. 

References: 

Mullen, Eileen M. Mullen Scales of Early 

Learning. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance 

Services, Inc., 1995. 

182 
THE OUNCE SCALE, 2003 (2011 Update) 

Authors: 

Samuel J. Meisels, Dorothea B. Marsden, Amy Laura 

Dombro, Donna R. Weston, and Abigail M. Jewkes 

Publisher: 

Pearson Assessments 

(800) 627-7271 

http://www.pearsonassessments.com 

Instrument: 

http://www.pearsonassessments.com/HAIWEB/ 

Cultures/en-us/Productdetail.htm?Pid= 

PAaOunce&Mode=summary 

Initial Material Cost: 

Ounce English Administrator Kit (includes the 

Standards, User’s Guide, Reproducible Masters, and 

one of each Observation Record and Family Album): 

$131.75 

Ounce Online (includes online access to all Ounce 

products and introductory telephone training): $10.95 

per child for the first year (minimum of 10 children); in 

subsequent years, price depends on the number of 

participating children 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: 

No norming sample 

Languages: 

English, Spanish 

Type of Assessment: 

Observation and parent report 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

Birth to 42 months; the Observation Record may be 

completed for infants and toddlers over the course of 

eight age levels ranging from 4 to 6 months in length, 

with the goal of completing several observations per 

question by the end of the age level. 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: 

Parents, teachers, program staff, clinicians, and 

specialists may complete the Observation Record. 

Parents complete the Family Album, and program staff 

complete the Developmental Profiles. 

Training for the Ounce Online is available by 

conference call or on site in a computer laboratory. 

Summary: 

Initial Material Cost: 2 ($100 to $200) 

Reliability: 2 (half at or under .65) 

Validity: 2 (mostly under .5 for concurrent) 

Norming Sample Characteristics: 1 (no norming 

sample) 

Ease of Administration and Scoring: 2 (administered by 

someone with basic clerical skills) 

Description: The Ounce Scale is an 

observation used to evaluate infant and toddler 

development from birth to 3.5 years. It is made up 

of three elements: (1) the Observation Record, a 

tool for tracking growth and development that 

provides caregivers with (a) a focus for observing 

and documenting children’s daily behaviors and 

(b) data for making evaluations about 

development; (2) the Family Album, a structure 

that permits parents to learn about and record 

their child’s development by writing down what 

they see, using pictures and photographs, telling 

stories, and responding to observation questions 

similar to those in the caregiver’s Observation 

Record; and (3) the Developmental Profiles, rating 

scales for caregivers and other staff to evaluate 

each child’s observed development and progress 

as compared to developmental standards. The 

Ounce Scale is divided into eight age levels, each 

of which has its own Observation Record, Family 

Album, and Developmental Profile. From birth to 

12 months, age levels span 4-month periods. From 

183 
 

 

 

 

 

 

12 to 42 months, age levels span 6-month periods. 

If an infant or toddler is within four weeks of 

moving into the next age level, the caregiver 

should use the Observation Record for the 

subsequent age group. For infants born 

prematurely, the caregiver should use the child’s 

adjusted age until 2 years of age. 

The Ounce Scale is organized around six 

developmental areas: Personal Connections, 

Feelings about Self, Relationships with Other 

Children, Understanding and Communicating, 

Exploration and Problem Solving, and Movement 

and Coordination. For each area, the Observation 

Record includes two to three questions about the 

child’s behavior. The Developmental Profiles 

group the six developmental areas into four 

domains: social and emotional, communication 

and language, cognitive development, and 

physical development. 

Other Languages: The print versions of the 

Family Albums and the reproducible masters are 

available in Spanish. Information on the norming 

sample, reliability, validity, and English language 

equivalence is unavailable. 

Uses of Information: The Ounce Scale 

provides guidelines and standards for observing 

and interpreting young children’s growth and 

behavior. Programs may use outcomes for 

accountability reporting, and parents and 

caregivers may use information to plan curricula 

and engage in enriching activities and experiences 

with infants and toddlers. The scale may not be 

used as a screening tool. 

Reliability: 

1.		 Internal consistency reliability: Meisels and 

colleagues conducted a validation and 

reliability study of the Ounce Scale (2010) 

with a sample of 287 Early Head Start (EHS) 

children evenly distributed across eight age 

groups four to six months apart. Slightly more 

than half of the children were male, and most 

were black or Hispanic. Eleven percent of the 

group was identified as having special needs. 

The study authors calculated a general scale of 

internal reliability by using 11 items shared 

across the eight age groups (with a different 

number of items for each age group), resulting 

in a Cronbach’s alpha of .65. Reliability 

ranged from .19 to .89 when stratified by age 

group, with most groups showing reliabilities 

greater than .62. 

2.		 Test-retest reliability: no information 

available. 

3.		 Inter-rater reliability: not applicable. Meisels 

et al. (2010) explained that the nature of the 

test does not allow for truly independent 

observations because the Ounce Scale requires 

a high level of familiarity with the assessed 

child, and any co-teachers in the study 

combined their observations to produce 

Ounce ratings. 

Validity: 

1.		 Content validity: Developers used several 

methods to validate the content of the Ounce 

Scale. They reviewed over 100 books, 

instruments, and research materials and 

184 
185 

created prototypes of the Ounce Scale, which 

were revised after informal review by program 

directors, researchers, and other field experts. 

Developers also solicited input from two 

expert panel meetings and revised the 

instrument based on the panels’ feedback. 

Finally, they conducted two pilots and a year

long field test in more than a dozen early child 

care sites in six states and, to test and revise 

the scale, obtained feedback from program 

staff and families before finalizing the Ounce 

Scale. 

2. Concurrent validity: the needs development 

ratings for the Ounce Developmental Profiles 

correlated with age-standardized criterion 

measures from the Preschool Language Scale

4 (PLS-4) and Bayley Scales of Infant 

Development-II (Bayley-II), with coefficients 

ranging from -.28 to -.32 (coefficients were 

negative because a higher score on the needs 

development portion of the Ounce indicates 

higher risk). The Ounce Developmental 

Profiles also correlated with the Ages and 

Stages Questionnaire: Social-Emotional 

(ASQ:SE) scale scores at .47 for all age groups 

combined (higher scores on the ASQ:SE 

indicate higher risk). Among subsamples 

based on children’s ages and caregiver 

demographics, correlations were stronger for 

older children. The Developmental Profiles 

scores correlated well with the ASQ:SE for 4

and 24-month-olds and with the Bayley-II for 

8-month-olds. Correlations were otherwise 

weak for younger groups. 

Developers used Receiver Operating 

Characteristic Curve analysis to examine the 

sensitivity and specificity of the Ounce and 

the Bayley-II, PLS-4, and ASQ:SE. The Ounce 

and the other measures consistently identified 

children developing as expected based on 

specificity coefficients (.75 to .77 across 

measures) but less consistently identified 

children who need development based on 

sensitivity coefficients (.63 to .77 across 

measures). 

Bias Analysis: No information available. 

Methods of Scoring: Caregivers review the 

Observational Record and the Family Album and 

compare observations for the child to 

developmental standards, which provide examples 

of the behaviors that indicate each level of 

development. In the Developmental Profiles, they 

assess whether the child is developing typically by 

marking behaviors as “Developing as Expected” or 

“Needs Development” and recording comments 

in the available space. 

Interpretability: If all the behaviors within an 

area of development are marked “Needs 

Development,” the caregiver should consider 

providing additional support for the child in that 

area or pursuing additional assessment. 

Training Support: The publisher offers 

training for the Ounce Online by conference call 

or on site in a computer laboratory. The training 

familiarizes users with the technology and is 

available at either a beginner or advanced level. 

­

­

­
 

 

 

 

 

 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: For children with 

developmental delays or disabilities, the caregiver 

may choose to use an Observation Record for a 

younger age in order to capture what the child is 

able to do rather than merely identifying areas 

that need development. Developers note that 

parents and professionals should be advised of the 

decision to use an earlier record. 

Report Preparation Support: The caregiver 

uses the Observation Record, Family Album, and 

Developmental Profile ratings to complete a 

Summary Report of the child’s development and 

to set goals. Ounce Online is an electronic recordkeeping system for the Ounce Scale. It offers a 

Growth Report that allows teachers to track a 

child’s progress, generates Summary Reports to 

share with families, and includes a Group 

Planning section that helps teachers identify and 

group children based on their needs (i.e., whether 

child behavior was rated as “developing as 

expected” or “needs development”). Ounce 

Online offers Outcomes Reports that may be used 

to fulfill EHS reporting requirements for 

demographic groups and/or progress within 

specific domains. 

References: 

Dichtelmiller, Margo L. The Ounce Scale: Staff 

Development Manual. New York: Pearson Early 

Learning, 2003. 

Marsden, Dorothea B., Amy L. Dombro, and 

Margo L. Dichtelmiller. The Ounce Scale User’s 

Guide. New York: Pearson Early Learning, 2003. 

Meisels, Samuel J. “Development of the 

Ounce Scale.” Available at 

[http://www.pearsoned.com/RESRPTS_FOR_POS 

TING/ASSESSMENT_RESEARCH/AR9.%20ounc 

e_development.pdf]. 

Meisels, Samuel J., Amy L. Dombro, Dorothea 

B. Marsden, Donna R. Weston, and Abigail M. 

Jewkes. The Ounce Scale Standards for the 

Developmental Profiles. New York: Pearson Early 

Learning, 2003. 

Meisels, Samuel J., Dorothea B. Marsden, 

Amy L. Dombro, Donna R. Weston, and Abigail 

M. Jewkes. “Ounce Online.” Available at 

[http://www.ounceonline.com/]. 2003. 

Meisels, Samuel J., Dorothea B. Marsden, 

Amy L. Dombro, Donna R. Weston, and Abigail 

M. Jewkes. The Ounce Scale: An Infant/Toddler 

Observational Assessment. New York: Pearson 

Early Learning, 2003. 

Meisels, Samuel J., Xiaoli Wen, and Kristy 

Beachy-Quick. “Authentic Assessment for Infants 

and Toddlers: Exploring the Reliability and 

Validity of the Ounce Scale.” Applied 

Developmental Science, vol. 14, no. 2, 2010, pp. 55­

71. 

186 
187 

PEABODY PICTURE VOCABULARY TEST, FOURTH EDITION 

(PPVT-4), 2007 (2011 Update) 

Authors: 

Lloyd M. Dunn and Douglas M. Dunn 

Publisher: 

Pearson Assessments 

(800) 627-7271 

http://ags.pearsonassessments.com 

Instrument: 

http://psychcorp.pearsonassessments.com/HAIWEB/C 

ultures/en-us/Productdetail.htm?Pid=PAa30700 

Initial Material Cost: 

PPVT-4 Test Kit (includes Picture Easel, Manual, 25 

Record Forms, and Carrying Case): $220 for each form 

or $407 for both forms 

PPVT-4 ASSIST scoring CD-ROM Kit: $150 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: 

The norming sample consisted of a stratified random 

sample of 3,540 individuals age 2 years, 6 months to 

over 90 years (between 100 and 200 each at one-year 

interval for ages 2 to 22 years) selected to match the 

U.S. population proportionately on gender, 

race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, geographic 

region, and special education status. The sample was 

restricted to individuals proficient in English. A 

subsample of 2,003 students in kindergarten through 

grade 12, based on Census Bureau data on grade 

distribution, was used to establish grade norms. The 

assessments were conducted from fall 2005 to spring 

2006 at 320 sites nationwide. 

Languages: 

English 

Type of Assessment: 

Direct child assessment 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

2.5 to 90 years 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: 

Administered by a highly trained program staff 

member who should have a bachelor’s degree with 

coursework in measurement, be thoroughly familiar 

with the test materials, and be properly trained in 

administering and scoring the test. 

It takes 10 to 15 minutes to administer the 60 items to 

which average individuals respond. 

Summary: 

Initial Material Cost: 3 (>$200) 

Reliability: 3 (all .65 or higher) 

Validity: 1 (validity information not available on 

children 0 to 3 years) 

Norming Sample Characteristics: 3 (normed within 

past 15 years, nationally representative) 

Ease of Administration and Scoring: 3 (administered 

and scored by a highly trained individual) 

Description: The PPVT-4 is an individually 

administered adaptive assessment designed to 

measure the receptive (auditory) vocabulary level 

for standard English. It is appropriate for people 

between the ages of 2 years, 6 months and 90 years 

and above. It has two parallel forms, Forms A and 

B, each with age-based training practice items and 

228 test items grouped into 19 sets of 12 items, 

with the sets arranged in order of increasing 

difficulty. During the assessment, the assessor 

presents a stimulus word orally with a set of four 

color pictures on an easel and asks the respondent 

to identify the picture that best represents the 

word’s meaning. The assessor administers the 

item sets beginning at a predetermined ageappropriate start item until the basal and ceiling 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

sets are found. On average, individuals respond to 

5 item sets. The basal set is set 1 or the first item 

set in which the respondent makes one or no 

errors. The ceiling set is either the first item set in 

which the respondent makes eight or more errors 

or the end of the assessment. By not requiring 

reading, writing, or speaking on the part of the 

respondent, the PPVT-4 is useful in assessing 

young children and may be used successfully with 

individuals with disabilities. Average 

administration time is 10 to 15 minutes (for 5 sets 

of 12 items or 60 items). 

The previous version of the assessment, the 

PPVT-III (Dunn and Dunn 1997), is still used for 

research purposes. The publisher notes that the 

main updates to the PPVT-4 include colorized 

pictures with an increased balance of gender and 

racial diversity; more stimulus words, particularly 

at the floor and ceiling of the measure (easiest or 

most difficult); and growth scale value scoring, 

which may be used to measure a student’s 

progress over time. 

Other Languages: None. 

Uses of Information: The PPVT-4 measures 

receptive vocabulary in standard English. The 

publisher reports that the PPVT-4 may also be 

used to (1) measure an individual’s vocabulary 

growth and/or response to instruction; (2) 

diagnose reading difficulties; (3) measure 

language potential, non-readers’ development or 

impairments or written- or expressive-language 

difficulties or other impairments (e.g., aphasia); 

(4) screen for verbal development; (5) establish 

rapport with a respondent as an initial component 

in a larger battery of assessments; and (6) evaluate 

an English language learner’s extent of vocabulary 

(though it cannot provide a normative score for 

comparison for such individuals). 

Reliability: 

1.		 Internal consistency reliability: the SpearmanBrown split-half reliability (within forms) 

ranged from .89 to .97 for Form A scores and 

from .91 to .97 for Form B scores for those age 

2 years, 6 months to 24 years. Cronbach’s 

alpha for the same age groups ranged from .93 

to .98 for Form A scores and from .94 to .97 

for Form B scores. Calculations of split-half 

reliabilities were based on separate analysis of 

the odd and even items in a Rasch analysis. 

2.		 Test-retest reliability: correlation coefficients 

ranged from .91 to .94 between scores from 

the two administrations (with about a fourweek interval) for age 2 to 14 years (n = 340). 

3.		 Inter-rater reliability: no information 

available. 

Validity: 

1.		 Content validity: the pool of stimulus words 

appropriate for color picture illustration was 

culled mainly from Merriam-Webster’s 

Collegiate Dictionary (2003) and several 

editions of Webster’s New Collegiate 

Dictionary (1953, 1967, 1981) as well as from 

several other vocabulary or lexicographic 

resources. Stimulus words were grouped into 

20 content categories. The manual details the 

decisions guiding word selection and picture 

development for stimulus words and 

188 
189 

construction of the two parallel forms. The 

developers paid attention to colorization of 

the pictures for the PPVT-4 update, 

demonstrating sensitivity to demographic and 

disability issues. They gauged item difficulty 

by using classical and Rasch methods. The 

authors state that the word stimulus selection 

process provides qualitative evidence of the 

content validity of the PPVT-4 as a measure of 

standard American English receptive 

vocabulary. 

2. Concurrent validity: studies correlated the 

PPVT-4 with four instruments that measure 

expressive vocabulary, language ability, 

and/or reading achievement: the Expressive 

Vocabulary Test, Second Edition (EVT-2); the 

Comprehensive Assessment of Spoken 

Language (CASL); the Clinical Evaluation of 

Language Fundamentals, Fourth Edition 

(CELF-4); and the Group Reading Assessment 

and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE). In 

addition, the PPVT-4 was correlated with the 

PPVT-III. Assessments were administered on 

the same day, except for the PPVT-III, which 

was given up to 11 days later. Sample sizes 

ranged from 110 to 425 participants, except 

for the EVT-2, which used the same norming 

sample of 3,540. Sample participants ranged 

in age from 2 to 24 years but typically were 

elementary or middle school students. 

Correlations between the PPVT-4 and the 

EVT-2 ranged across grades from .80 to .84. 

Correlation coefficients with CASL subtest 

scores ranged from .37 to .77. Correlations 

with the CELF-4 language subtest scores 

ranged from .67 to .79. Correlations with the 

GRADE ranged across grades from .35 to .79 

on the total test scores and from .27 to .79 on 

vocabulary and comprehension composite 

scores. Correlations with the PPVT-III scores 

ranged across grades from .79 to .83. 

Developers examined the difference of PPVT

4 means among nine groups, including a 

giftedness group, a language delay and 

relevant disabilities group, and a non-clinical 

reference group from the norming sample 

(controlling for gender, race/ethnicity, and 

socioeconomic status). Results showed that all 

tests were statistically significant. 

3. Predictive validity: six studies have been 

conducted with the PPVT-R (the second 

version of the PPVT) and later achievement, 

language, and other assessment results. For 

respondents in preschool through grade 5, 

correlations ranged from .14 to .66. 

Bias Analysis: In pre-release trials, the 

developers conducted item bias analysis by using a 

Rasch-based method. They eliminated or revised 

and retested items that, during the first national 

tryouts, were determined to be biased with regard 

to gender, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, 

and region of the country; the publisher reports 

that it typically dropped from the assessment 

items determined to be biased during the second 

national trial. 

Methods of Scoring: The raw score is 

obtained by subtracting the total number of errors 

in all sets from the number of the last item in the 

­
 

 

 

 

 

 

individual’s ceiling set. Raw scores may be 

converted into age- or grade-normative or 

developmental scores as well as into a nonnormative growth scale value (GSV) score used to 

measure an individual’s improvement over time. 

Normative scores include standard scores (mean = 

100, standard deviation = 15), percentiles, normal 

curve equivalents (NCE), and stanines. 

Developmental scores include age and grade 

equivalent scores. Grade norms are available for 

kindergarten through grade 12. A series of tables 

permits the conversion of raw scores into GSV, 

normative, or developmental scores and 

corresponding confidence intervals. PPVT-4 

ASSIST is a scoring software program available for 

purchase that scores, converts scores, interprets 

results, and provides progress and group score 

reports. 

Interpretability: Only persons with formal 

training in psychological testing and statistics 

should interpret the results of the PPVT-4. The 

manual provides a brief description of each score 

and of its uses and limitations. Individuals may 

use GSV scores to compare PPVT-4 scores to the 

scores of previous PPVT administrations. 

Qualitative interpretations of incorrect answers 

may be conducted by using the classification of 

items by part of speech. 

Training Support: Pearson Assessments 

offers in-service training and content 

presentations, some in person and some online. 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: Given that it 

requires no reading or writing, the PPVT-4 may 

be administered to many groups with disabilities 

without any significant changes. The assessor’s 

manual describes various modifications that may 

be made when administering the assessment to 

groups with various disabilities, specifically deaf 

or hard-of-hearing respondents. Interpretation of 

results from the hearing-impaired population 

should be tentative; an expert on deafness notes 

that the norms and other standards have not been 

determined for the hearing-impaired. 

Report Preparation Support: The PPVT-4 

ASSIST scoring software program provides 

individual and group reports of score summaries, 

diagnostic analyses, and progress reports for users 

conducting repeated administrations. 

References: 

Dunn, Lloyd M., and Douglas M. Dunn. 

Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Fourth Edition 

Manual. Minneapolis, MN: Wascana Limited 

Partnership, 2007. 

Dunn, Lloyd M., and Leota M. Dunn. 

Examiner’s Manual for the Peabody Picture 

Vocabulary Test-Third Edition. Circle Pines, MN: 

American Guidance Service, Inc., 1997. 

Montgomery, Judy K. The Bridge of 

Vocabulary: Evidence-Based Activities for 

Academic Success. Minneapolis:, MN: Pearson 

Assessments, 2007. 

Pearson Assessments. “ASSIST: Automated 

System for Scoring and Interpreting Standardized 

Tests.” Available at 

[http://psychcorp.pearsonassessments.com/pai/ca 

/support/tchsupport/ppvtassist.htm]. 2006. 

190 
191 

PRESCHOOL LANGUAGE SCALE, FOURTH EDITION (PLS-4), 

20021 (2011 Update) 

Authors: 1

Irla Lee Zimmerman, Violette G. Steiner, Roberta Evatt 

Pond 

Publisher: 

Pearson Assessments 

(800) 627-7271 

www.pearsonassessments.com 

Instrument: 

http://www.pearsonassessments.com/HAIWEB/Cultur 

es/en-us/Productdetail.htm?Pid=015-8659-406 

Initial Material Cost: 

PLS-4 English Value Pack with Manipulatives (includes 

Examiner’s Manual, Picture Manual, 15 Record Forms, 

and 23 Manipulatives): $305 

PLS-4 Screening Test Kit (includes Stimulus Book/Test 

Manual with stimulus pages, technical information, 

administration and scoring directions, and 25 Record 

Forms for each age): $142 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: 

The PLS-4 was normed in 2002 by using 2000 Census 

Bureau figures for children age birth through 6 years. 

The norming sample included 1,534 children (75 to 110 

children for each age group, broken down by threemonth intervals in the first year and six-month 

intervals thereafter). The sample included equal 

numbers of males and females, various ethnic 

minorities (39.1 percent), children with disabilities 

 

1 The PLS-5 was made available in the summer of 2011. 

(13.2 percent), and bilingual speakers (3.4 percent) 

from 357 sites in 48 states. The Spanish speaking 

sample is described below (see Other Languages). 

Languages: 

English, Spanish 

Type of Assessment: 

Direct child assessment 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

Birth to 6 years, 11 months. Administered at threemonth intervals in the first year and six-month 

intervals for older children. 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: Administered by a consultant or expert 

with clinical training. Paraprofessional staff may be 

trained to administer the assessment. 

Requires 20 to 40 minutes to administer for infants 

birth to 11 months; 30 to 40 minutes for 1 to 3 years, 11 

months; and 25 to 45 minutes for 4 to 6 years, 11 

months. Screening test requires 5 to 10 minutes to 

administer. 

Summary: 

Initial Material Cost: 3 (>$200) 

Reliability: 3 (all .65 or higher) 

Validity: 3 (all .5 or higher for concurrent) 

Norming Sample Characteristics: 3 (normed within 

past 15 years, nationally representative) 

Ease of Administration and Scoring: 3 (administered 

and scored by highly trained individual) 

Description: The Preschool Language Scale, 

Fourth Edition (PLS-4) provides clinicians with a 

diagnostic instrument to evaluate language 

development and identify language disorders or 

delays among children from birth through age 6 

years, 11 months. The PLS-4 is an individually 

administered assessment that tests receptive and 

expressive language skills considered to be 

language precursors. The PLS-4 contains two 

clusters-Auditory Comprehension and Expressive 

Communication-and three supplemental 

measures (these measures are not incorporated 

into the test scores but are optional and provide 

additional information). The Auditory 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comprehension cluster measures a child’s ability 

to be attentive and respond to stimuli in the 

environment and to comprehend basic vocabulary 

or gestures. The Expressive Communication 

cluster focuses on social communication, 

expressive language skills, and vocal development. 

Both clusters include subtests (called tasks), with 4 

subtests for each three-month interval for age 

birth through 11 months and 12 

receptive/expressive tasks for each six-month 

interval for age 1 through 6 years. In total, the 

PLS-4 contains 68 items, with 2 to 8 items in each 

subtest. It includes the use of manipulatives (such 

as a ball, rattle, cups, and crackers) and easel 

administration (a Picture Manual); the assessor 

uses the objects or pictures as prescribed to 

observe the child’s reaction or response. The 

supplemental measures are the Articulation 

Screener (AS), Language Sample Checklist (LSC), 

and Caregiver Questionnaire (CQ). If a child 

between the ages of 2 years, 6 months and 6 years 

makes speech errors during testing, assessors may 

choose to administer the AS to determine if 

further articulation testing should be undertaken. 

The LSC evaluates the child’s language skills in 

conversational speech. The CQ is completed by 

the parents of infants and toddlers age birth to 3 

years to gather information on the child’s 

communication behavior at home, the needs of 

the family, and areas that parents would like to see 

addressed. 

The publisher’s web site also notes a PLS-4 

Screening Test that can be used to screen for a 

broad spectrum of speech and language skills in 

young children. Paraprofessionals or teachers’ 

aides may administer the PLS-4 Screening Test. 

The PLS-4 is similar to the PLS-3 in its design, 

subscales, and overall skills assessed. The PLS-4 

updated the standardization sample from 1980 

Census Bureau figures. Developers improved the 

scale’s age-appropriateness as well as the 

assessment floor and ceiling for two age groups: 

birth to 11 months and 5 through 6 years, 11 

months. The Auditory Comprehension and 

Expressive Communication clusters for these age 

groups are now grouped into four two-month 

subtests. 

Other Languages: A Spanish edition of the 

PLS-4 (Zimmerman, Steiner, and Pond, 2002) was 

normed in 2001 by using a different 

standardization sample of 1,188 Spanish-speaking 

children, of whom 51 percent were infants and 

toddlers age 0 through 3 years, 11 months. Eightyone percent came from homes where Mexican 

Spanish was spoken. The Spanish edition with its 

own manual is available separately on the 

publisher’s web site. The PLS-4 English and 

Spanish editions are similar in terms of concepts 

measured but are not equivalent forms of the 

assessment, and the scores on the two tests are not 

comparable. 

Reliability (Spanish version): 

1.		 Internal consistency: among infants and 

toddlers, Cronbach’s coefficient alphas ranged 

from .51 to .89 for Auditory Comprehension, 

.65 to .89 for Expressive Communication, and 

.72 to .94 for Total Language Scores. Among 

192 
193 

older children, coefficients ranged from .74 to 

.84 for Auditory Comprehension, .72 to .90 

for Expressive Communication, and .82 to .92 

for Total Language Scores. 

2. Test-retest reliability: the sample included 188 

children from the standardization sample age 

2 years to 5 years, 11 months. Administration 

intervals ranged from 2 to 14 days (mean = 7.7 

days). For toddlers age 2 years to 3 years, 11 

months, correlations for Auditory 

Comprehension and Expressive 

Communication ranged from .73 to .84 and 

from .84 to .87 for the Total Language Score. 

For older children, they ranged from .77 to .86 

for the clusters and .80 to .89 for the Total 

Language Score. 

3. Inter-rater reliability: certain Expressive 

Communication items require open-ended 

responses. To measure the reliability of ratings 

on these items, 10 elementary school teachers 

were trained to score an average of six 

protocols from each age group from birth 

through 6 years, 11 months and had three 

weeks of experience in using the PLS-4 

scoring rules. Inter-rater reliability was 

calculated for the full Expressive 

Communication cluster based on 100 

protocols each scored by 2 out of 10 teachers, 

with a resulting correlation of .99. 

Validity (Spanish version): 

1. Content validity: developers conducted a 

literature review and a content review and 

gathered feedback from a survey administered 

to clinicians who would potentially use the 

measure. Experts reviewed subtests for bias to 

ensure appropriateness for children from 

Spanish-speaking backgrounds, of varying 

socioeconomic status, and from different 

country regions. Developers also piloted the 

Spanish PLS-4 during a “tryout” in 15 states in 

2000 to test the PLS-4 on 218 children, of 

whom 54 percent were infants and toddlers. 

Nineteen additional children with language 

disorders were included. A second bias review 

conducted during the pilot ensured that 

changes made to the measure were 

appropriate. 

2. Concurrent validity: correlations with the 

previous version (PLS-3; 2- to 14-day intervals 

between administrations) were .67 for 

Auditory Comprehension scores and .71 for 

Expressive Communication scores for 104 

children age 2 through 6 years. Developers 

noted that the lower scores for the PLS-3 

resulted from the PLS-3 standardization 

sample’s reference to English speakers because 

of a shortage of Spanish speakers. Seventy 3

to 5-year-olds diagnosed with a language 

disorder were compared to 70 of their 

typically developing counterparts. Sensitivity 

and specificity of Total Language Scores were 

.91 and .63, respectively. Developers 

attributed the low specificity value to lower 

scores among typically developing children in 

the Spanish language standardization sample. 

­
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.		 Construct validity: correlation between 

Auditory Comprehension and Expressive 

Communication across ages was .66. 

Uses of Information: The PLS-4 may be used 

to assess language development and determine 

whether a child has a language disorder and, if so, 

whether the source of the disorder is auditory, 

expressive, or an overall problem. The resulting 

standard score and percentile ranks can also help 

determine the severity of the disorder and identify 

areas for in-depth testing before defining therapy 

goals. 

Reliability: 

1.		 Internal consistency reliability: for children 

from birth through 3 years, 11 months, 

Cronbach’s alphas ranged from .67 to .94 for 

Auditory Comprehension scores, from .73 to 

.95 for Expressive Communication scores, and 

from .81 to .97 for the Total Language Score 

across subtests and ages (age groups were split 

by three-month intervals under age 1 and by 

six-month intervals thereafter). Among older 

children, coefficients ranged from .66 to .92 

for Auditory Comprehension, .84 to .94 for 

Expressive Communication, and .86 to .96 

overall. 

2.		 Test-retest reliability: correlations between 

scores from two administrations (intervals of 

2 to 14 days) were based on 218 2- to 6-yearolds from the standardization sample. For 2­

through 3-year-olds (n = 102), correlations for 

Auditory Comprehension ranged from .87 to 

.95, from .82 to .94 for Expressive 

Communication, and from .90 to .97 for the 

Total Language Score. For older children, they 

ranged from .83 to .95 for subtests and from 

.80 to .89 for the Total Language Score. 

Correlations between scores from two 

administrations (intervals of 2 to 14 days) 

ranged from 0.85 to 0.91 for Auditory 

Comprehension, 0.82 to 0.94 for Expressive 

Communication, and 0.90 to 0.97 for total 

scores across age groups (divided by fivemonth intervals) based on 218 2- to 6-yearolds from the standardization sample. 

3.		 Inter-rater reliability: fifteen elementary 

school teachers were trained to score openended Expressive Communication items. 

They scored an average of six protocols from 

each age group from birth through 6 years, 11 

months and had three weeks of experience in 

using the PLS-4 scoring rules. Inter-rater 

reliability was calculated for the full 

Expressive Communication cluster based on 

100 protocols each scored by 2 out of 15 

scorers, with a resulting correlation of .99. 

Validity: 

1.		 Content validity: developers measured 

relevance and coverage of the content based 

on a literature review, a user survey, and 

content reviews. The PLS-3 tasks were 

modified by using research data, and speechlanguage pathologists developed new tasks 

and items. Developers used a “tryout” or pilot 

to test the PLS-4 on a national sample of 661 

children at 227 sites in 46 states. The tryout 

194 
195 

phase consisted of 229 subtests (tasks) for 

each age group as well as tasks from the PLS

3. To determine any aspects of the subtests 

that may affect children inappropriately, the 

pilot tested an additional 53 children with 

language disorders. Developers then revised 

or deleted specific subtests and their subitems 

once the results were collected from the bias 

review, statistical analyses, and examiner 

feedback. 

2. Concurrent validity: correlations with the 

previous version (PLS-3; 2- to 14-day intervals 

between administrations) were .65 for 

Auditory Comprehension scores and .79 for 

Expressive Communication scores for 104 2

through 6-year-olds. Thirty-seven infants 

birth to 11 months were administered the 

PLS-4 and the language strand of the Denver 

II in counterbalanced order on the same day. 

All the infants scored within the “normal” 

range on the Denver II and within one 

standard deviation of the mean on PLS-4. 

3. Construct validity: correlation between 

Auditory Comprehension and Expressive 

Communication across ages was .74. 

Bias Analysis: New or modified tasks were 

submitted to a panel of experts for two bias 

reviews to determine appropriateness for children 

from varied backgrounds (for example, 

socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and geographic 

region). 

Methods of Scoring: The assessor records the 

source/type of response to each item and marks it 

as correct or incorrect. To obtain a raw score, the 

assessor sums the items with a 1 (a correct 

response). A Total Language Score as well as 

Auditory Comprehension and Expressive 

Communication scores may be obtained. Raw 

scores may then be converted to standard scores, 

percentile ranks, and age equivalents. 

Interpretability: The Examiner’s Manual 

provides detailed information on the 

interpretation of scores as related to determining 

the severity of the disorder and the need for 

intervention. Using the task analyses (PLS-4 

Checklist and Profile), a clinician may evaluate the 

child’s strengths, emerging skills, and deficits. The 

Checklist groups PLS-4 subtests by age; the Profile 

groups subtests by the type of language skill 

tested. 

Training Support: No information available. 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: The Examiner’s 

Manual provides special instructions on 

administration for children with autism and other 

severe developmental delays, children with 

physical impairments (such as hearing and 

vision), and children who use sign language. For 

example, the instructions call for different start 

points depending on level of impairment or 

disability, splitting up administration of the 

assessment into short sessions, removing 

distracting elements from the room, or using 

gestures/pointing. While the Examiner’s Manual 

provides no special instructions for children who 

are English Language Learners (ELL), it offers 

­

­
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

some instructions for children from “nonmainstream” cultures. 

Report Preparation Support: Assessors may 

use the score graph on the front page of the 

Record Form to provide caregivers with a visual 

representation of a child’s scores. The Clinician’s 

Worksheet may be used to help summarize 

information from the assessment. The worksheet 

has three sections: assessment results, followup for 

child and family, and outcomes of additional 

assessment and training. The worksheet is 

designed to include information relevant to the 

development of the Individualized Family Service 

Plan. 

References: 

Flowerday, Terri. “Review of Preschool 

Language Scale, Fourth Edition.” In The Sixteenth 

Mental Measurements Yearbook, edited by Robert 

A. Spies and Barbara S. Plake. Lincoln, NE: The 

Buros Institute of Mental Measurements, 2005. 

Suen, Hoi K. “Review of Preschool Language 

Scale, Fourth Edition.” In The Sixteenth Mental 

Measurements Yearbook, edited by Robert A. Spies 

and Barbara S. Plake. Lincoln, NE: The Buros 

Institute of Mental Measurements, 2005. 

Zimmerman, Irla L., Violette G. Steiner, and 

Roberta E. Pond. PLS-3: Preschool Language Scale3. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological 

Corporation, 1992. 

Zimmerman, Irla L., Violette G. Steiner, and 

Roberta E. Pond. Preschool Language Scale-4: 

Picture Manual. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt 

Assessment, Inc., 2002. 

Zimmerman, Irla L., Violette G. Steiner, and 

Roberta E. Pond. Preschool Language Scale, Fourth 

Edition. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment, 

2002. 

Zimmerman, Irla L., Violette G. Steiner, and 

Roberta E. Pond. Preschool Language Scale, Fourth 

Edition, Examiner's Manual. San Antonio, TX: 

Harcourt Assessment, 2002. 

Zimmerman, Irla L., Violette G. Steiner, and 

Roberta E. Pond. Preschool Language Scale, Fourth 

Edition (PLS-4) Spanish Edition. San Antonio, TX: 

Harcourt Assessment, Inc., 2002. 

196 
197 

RECEPTIVE-EXPRESSIVE EMERGENT LANGUAGE TEST -

SECOND EDITION (REEL-2), 1991 

Authors: 

Kenneth R. Bzoch and Richard League 

Publisher: 

PRO-ED 

(800) 897-3202 

www.proedinc.com 

Initial Material Cost: 

REEL-2 Complete Kit: $86 (includes Examiner's 

Manual and 25 Profile/Test Forms) 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: 

Not representative, norming sample included only 

white infants. 

Languages: 

English 

Type of Assessment: 

Direct child assessment 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

0 to 3 years 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: It is possible for a consultant or expert 

with clinical training to learn to administer the REEL-2 

in two hours. The manual suggests that a trainee be 

observed by an individual with REEL-2 experience. 

Administration time per child is 10 to 15 minutes; 

scoring time is 5 minutes. 

Summary: 

Initial Material Cost: 1 (< $100) 

Reliability: 3 (.65 or higher) 

Validity: 1 (not available) 

Norming Sample Characteristics: 2 (only white infants 

included) 

Ease of Administration and Scoring: 3 (administered 

and scored by a clinician or expert with clinical 

training) 

Description: The REEL-2 assesses 

communication behaviors (receptive and 

expressive) of infants and toddlers from birth to 3 

years of age. The format is a 132-item checklist of 

language milestones, with 3 items contained in 

each of the 22 age intervals (age intervals vary 

from 1 to 3 months depending on the 

chronological age of the child). The examiner 

completes the checklist based on information 

provided by the child’s caregiver. Typically, more 

than three items need to be administered to obtain 

the ceiling age interval for the child (further 

details are provided in the “Method of Scoring” 

section below). The REEL-2 uses caregiver report 

to identify any major language problems. Scores 

derived from the REEL-2 include an Expressive 

Language Quotient, a Receptive Language 

Quotient and a Language Quotient. The REEL-2 is 

undergoing revision, and the publisher expects the 

third edition to be released in late 2003 or mid

2004. 

Uses of Information: The primary uses of the 

REEL-2 are to (1) provide descriptions of the 

developmental status of young children in the 

language area, (2) assist with setting intervention 

goals, and (3) serve as a screening instrument for 

medically and environmentally at-risk 

populations. The REEL-2 is also used to determine 

the extent to which interventions have changed 

the language status of individual children. 

Reliability: (1) Internal consistency reliability 

(Cronbach’s alpha):.98 for 0 to 11 months, .97 for 

12 to 23 months, and .95 for 24 to 36 months, with 

­
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

an average of .97. (2) Test-retest reliability: .90 to 

1.0. 

Validity: (1) Concurrent validity: studies 

showed that the REEL-2 relates well to normal 

expected levels of functioning (Eich, 1971). 

However, studies were completed on small 

samples with similar characteristics. (2) Predictive 

validity: no information available. 

Method of Scoring: The examiner uses the 

child’s chronological age to determine the age 

interval from which the questions should first be 

asked. Behaviors observed for each item are 

scored as either typical of the child (+), emergent 

(+-), or never observed (-). Scores are computed 

by summing the (+) responses. The examiner then 

determines the ceiling interval, which is the 

highest age interval receiving at least two (+) item 

scores. The results of the Receptive Language Age 

and the Expressive Language Age are combined to 

form the Combined Language Age. Then, each of 

these scores (the Receptive Language Age, 

Expressive Language Age, and the Combined 

Language Age) are respectively divided by the 

child’s chronological age and multiplied by 100 to 

obtain a Receptive Quotient, an Expressive 

Quotient, and a Language Quotient. 

Interpretability: The Examiner’s Manual 

includes average scores for the limited norming 

sample of children used to determine the validity 

of the REEL-2, but does not contain any overall 

score percentiles or cutoffs to guide interpretation 

of the REEL-2 scores. However, it does contain 

several interpretation guidelines, including the 

relationship between Receptive Language skills 

and hearing and nervous system disorders, as well 

as the relationship between delays in Receptive 

Language versus Expressive Language. It also 

includes suggestions for intervention strategies 

related to language stimulation. 

Training Support: None described. 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: None described. 

Report Preparation Support: The Examiner’s 

Manual contains general suggestions on how to 

present reports/recommendations to parents: (1) 

the interviewer should provide parents/caregivers 

with the REEL-2 manual and other relevant 

booklets; (2) information about the score should 

be accompanied by the interviewer’s explanation, 

which could include other interpretations and 

recommendations for intervention programs; and 

(3) the interviewer should avoid using technical 

language to explain the REEL-2 scores. 

References: 

Bzoch, Kenneth, and Richard League. 

Receptive-Expressive Emergent Language Test: A 

Method for Assessing the Language Skills of 

Infants, Second Edition. Austin: Pro-Ed, 1991. 

Bzoch, Kenneth, and Richard League. 

Receptive-Expressive Emergent Language Test: A 

Method for Assessing the Language Skills of 

Infants, Second Edition: Examiner’s Manual. 

Austin: Pro-Ed, 1991. 

Eich, W.F. A Validation Study for the REEL. 

(Unpublished manuscript), 1971. 

198 
THE ROSSETTI INFANT-TODDLER LANGUAGE SCALE: A 

MEASURE OF COMMUNICATION AND INTERACTION, 1990 

Authors: 	

Louis Rossetti 	

Publisher: 


LinguiSystems 

(800) 776-4332 	

www.linguisystems.com 	

Initial Material Cost: 

Complete kit: $70 (includes Examiner’s Manual plus 1 

package of forms, enough for 10 assessments) 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: 

Not representative. Tool is based on the research and 

experience of the author. 

Languages: 

English 

Type of Assessment: 

Because responses are elicited, observed, and reported, 

this measure is a combination of direct child 

assessment, observation, and parent report. 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

Birth to 3 years; administered based on child’s age in 3

month groupings. 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 


Requirements: Designed for someone with a 

background in clinical assessment of child 

development and language. Training requires 

familiarizing oneself with the manual and 

questionnaires. Administration of the test will vary 

depending on whether or not the Parent Questionnaire 

was filled out and mailed prior to the test day as well as 

the age of the child (approximately 45 minutes for each 

age interval). Scoring is done concurrently with the 

test. 

Summary: 

Initial Material Cost: 1 (< 100) 

Reliability: 1 (none described) 

Validity: 1 (none described) 

Norming Sample Characteristics: 1 (none described) 

Ease of Administration and Scoring: 3 (administered 

and scored by a clinician or expert with clinical 

training) 

­

Description: The Rossetti Infant-Toddler 

Language Scale assesses the language skills of 

children from birth through 3 years of age. The 

scale assesses preverbal and verbal areas of 

communication and interaction through direct 

observation and caregiver report. Areas assessed 

include (1) Interaction-Attachment (relationship 

between the caregiver and the infant), (2) 

Pragmatics (the way language is used to 

communicate and affect others), (3) Gestures, (4) 

Play (both individual and interactive), (5) 

Language Comprehension, and (6) Language 

Expression. The test consists of a parent 

questionnaire and an examiner’s evaluation form 

that address each of the 6 areas. The parent 

questionnaire allows the examiner to familiarize 

himself with the developmental concerns 

expressed by the parent and helps to determine 

the age level at which testing should begin. The 

examiner’s job is to establish both a baseline and 

ceiling developmental age by observing, eliciting, 

or using a caregiver’s report of various behaviors 

listed in each of the six developmental areas. 

Uses of Information: The primary use of the 

Rossetti Infant-Toddler Language Scale is the 

early detection of language delays in infants and 

toddlers. When assessment results indicate a child 

199 
 

 

 

needs early language intervention, a therapy 

program is developed with specific goals. 

Reliability: This measure has not been 

standardized, and there is no statistical 

information on it. 

Validity: This measure has not been 

standardized, and there is no statistical 

information on it. 

Method of Scoring: If a parent questionnaire 

is completed, the description of current skills 

helps to determine the age level at which testing 

should begin. Otherwise, the examiner uses the 

child’s chronological age to determine the age 

interval from which the questions should first be 

asked. A baseline and ceiling level of performance 

is established in each of the six developmental 

areas. To establish a baseline level (all items are 

mastered in the developmental area), the 

assessment is begun at six months below the 

child’s chronological age or suspected 

developmental level. Once a baseline level is 

established, testing proceeds forward until the 

child fails all items for a developmental area at a 

particular age range (ceiling level). Items are 

considered “passed” if the behavior in question is 

noted in one of the 3 following ways: (1) Observe 

(O); (2) Elicit (E); (3) Report (R). 

Interpretability: An individual baseline and 

ceiling age level for each of the six developmental 

areas may be reported in order to determine the 

child’s relative areas of strengths or weaknesses. In 

addition, an examiner can compute a global 

baseline and ceiling age level, which is the oldest 

age level at which the child mastered all items 

across all developmental areas. The global basal 

and ceiling can provide information about the 

child’s performance ability to compare to his/her 

chronological or adjusted age. 

Training Support: The examiner is free to 

call the publisher with questions related to the 

administering of the test. In addition, the manual 

has tips on how to elicit responses or when and 

where to look for them. 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: None 

Report Preparation Support: The Examiner’s 

Manual contains general suggestions on how to 

present reports and recommendations to parents. 

The examiner should (1) remain cautious of 

providing long-term predictions about the child’s 

potential and needs; (2) remain sensitive to the 

amount of detail that is offered during the initial 

conference; (3) schedule a second conference to go 

over the results in greater detail; (4) actively 

involve the caregivers in the conference as soon as 

possible and ask for feedback from the caregiver; 

and (5) present programming recommendations 

as options rather than requirements. 

References: 

Rossetti, Louis. The Rossetti Infant-Toddler 

Language Scale: A Measure of Communication 

and Interaction. East Moline, IL: LinguiSystems, 

1990. 

200 
201 

TEMPERAMENT AND ATYPICAL BEHAVIOR SCALE (TABS) – EARLY 

CHILDHOOD INDICATORS OF DEVELOPMENTAL DYSFUNCTION, 1999 

Authors: 

John T. Neisworth, Stephen J. Bagnato, John Salvia, 

and Frances M. Hunt. 

Publisher: 

Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. 

(800) 638-3775 

www.brookespublishing.com 

Initial Material Cost: 

Complete TABS System: $85 (includes the manual, a 

pad of Screeners, and a packet of Assessment Tools) 

Manual only: $40 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: 

621 children of diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds 

between ages of 11 and 71 months; 52 percent were 2 

years old or younger. Various geographic and 

socioeconomic conditions. Two separate samples were 

tested: children with disabilities and those without 

disabilities. Precisely representative normative samples 

were not necessary, because the occurrence of atypical 

behaviors in infants and young children is presumed to 

be unrelated to various demographic factors. 

Languages: 

English 

Type of Assessment: 

Parent report (a professional familiar with child’s 

behavior may also report) 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

11 to 71 months 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: Child’s parent(s) or a professional 

familiar with child’s behavior can administer the TABS 

Screener and Assessment Tool. Administration time 

per child is 5 minutes for the Screener and 15 minutes 

for the Assessment Tool. Total time for assessment, 

scoring and interpretation is 30 minutes for each child. 

Summary: 

Initial Material Cost: 1 (< $100) 

Reliability: 3 (.65 or higher) 

Validity: 1 (none described); content and construct 

validity are promising; concurrent and predictive 

validity not mentioned. 

Norming Sample Characteristics: 3 (normed within 

past 15 years, representative of population program 

works with). 

Ease of Administration and Scoring: 2 (administered by 

parent or professional who is familiar with child’s daily 

behavior) 

Description: The TABS assesses atypical 

temperament and self-regulatory behaviors 

among infants and young children ages 11 to 71 

months that may put them at risk for 

developmental delay. There are two components 

to the assessment: (1) a Screener, which is a onepage, 15-item checklist with “Yes” or “No” 

responses that is used to determine whether 

further assessment is needed and (2) an 

Assessment Tool, which is a 55-item checklist 

with “Yes,” “No” and “Need help” responses, used 

to obtain a total raw score, or the Temperament 

and Regulatory Index (TRI). Raw scores are also 

provided for the four subtests on the following 

behaviors: detached, hyper-sensitive/active, 

underreactive, and dysregulated. 

Uses of Information: The primary uses of the 

TABS are: (1) to serve as a screening tool and 

determine eligibility for particular services, (2) to 

identify serious developmentally dysfunctional 

behaviors early and intervene to reduce their 

occurrence, (3) to provide assistance to parents in 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

managing atypical behaviors, (4) to plan programs 

for education, treatment, and intervention, and 

(5) to evaluate program impacts and conduct 

research. 

Reliability: (1) Internal consistency 

(Cronbach’s alpha) for the TABS Screener is .83. 

(2) The corrected split-half reliability for the 

TABS is .95 for children with disabilities and for 

the pooled samples and .88 for children not at 

risk. 

Validity: Content validity has been ensured in 

two ways: (1) TABS items have been developed 

based on an extensive literature review that 

identified behaviors related to a number of infant 

and child disorders, and (2) the four factors 

underlying the TABS have shown promising 

results when tested statistically. There was no 

discussion of concurrent or predictive validity. 

Method of Scoring: In administering the 

Screener and the Assessment Tool, the examiner 

will have checked a “Yes” if a certain behavior is a 

current or recent problem and a “No” if the 

behavior is not a problem or does not apply 

because of the child’s age. In scoring the Screener, 

the examiner adds up the items that are checked 

“Yes” and that sum becomes the raw score, which 

serves as an estimate for the Temperament and 

Regulatory Index (TRI). Children who have raw 

scores of 1 or higher on the Screener should be 

assessed using the Assessment Tool, which more 

accurately calculates the TRI. There are three 

types of scores that can be derived from the TABS 

Assessment Tool: percentiles, standard scores, and 

normalized standard scores. Typically, the 

percentiles are the most practical tool for 

interpreting TABS results for parents, as well as 

for determining educational and treatment plans 

for children. 

Interpretability: The authors suggest that the 

child’s TRI score should be reported, interpreted 

and used for decision-making purposes, as the 

subtest scores tend to be less reliable than the 

complete TRI. A percentile means that a child has 

scored equal to or better than the respective 

percentage of children in the normative sample. 

For example, a percentile of 70 indicates that a 

child has a raw score equal to or better than 70 

percent of the sample on the TRI. The cutoff point 

for the TRI is 10. This means that children who 

score 10 or higher can most likely be classified as 

having atypical development, meaning they have 

difficulty with their temperament and selfregulation. Children with disabilities are more 

likely to earn higher raw scores (6+) while those 

without disabilities are more likely to earn lower 

raw scores (0 to 4). A child is at risk for atypical 

temperament and/or self-regulation if s/he has a 

TRI score between 5 and 9, because children with 

disabilities earn those scores equal to or more 

often than their non-disabled peers. 

Training Support: “Brookes on Location” 

professional development seminar, Using TABS to 

Identify Early Atypical Behavior is available 

through publisher. 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: None described, 

but the measure was normed with children with 

and without disabilities. 

202 
203 

Report Preparation Support: Chapter 6 

describes an early intervention program to 

address challenging behavior that was developed 

using research editions of TABS. A case study is 

also provided in this chapter to demonstrate how 

TABS might be used in an early intervention 

program of this nature. 

References: 

Neiswroth, John, Stephen Bagnato, John 

Salvia, and Frances Hunt. TABS Manual for the 

Temperament and Atypical Behavior Scale: Early 

Child Indicators of Developmental Dysfunction. 

Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co., 1999. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TEST DE VOCABULARIO EN IMAGENES PEABODY (TVIP), 1986
 
 

Authors: 

Lloyd M. Dunn, Eligio R. Padilla, Delia E. Lugo, and 

Leota M. Dunn 

Publisher: 

American Guidance Services 

(800) 328-2560 

www.agsnet.com 

Initial Material Cost: 

TVIP Test Kit: $119 (includes test easel, English or 

Spanish manual, and 25 record forms) 

TVIP Manual: $40 

25 Record Forms: $27 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: 

The norming sample consisted of monolingual, 

Spanish-speaking students in Latin America. Testing in 

Mexico took place between September 1981 and 

November 1982 and included 1,219 children from the 

public schools of Mexico with 20% coming from 

Mexico City. Testing in Puerto Rico took place between 

September 1982 and February 1983 and included 1,488 

children from Puerto Rico with 62.2% from the San 

Juan metropolitan area. To correct for unevenness of 

socioeconomic status (SES) representation, a weighting 

system was used to increase or decrease the 

contributions of each individual's score at each age, so 

as to fit the SES ratios established by the U.S. census 

statistics. 

Languages: 

Spanish (the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test is the 

English Version of this test) 

Type of Assessment: 

Direct child assessment 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

2 1/2 to 18 years 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: Although formal training in 

psychometrics is not required, the examiners should be 

thoroughly familiar with the test materials and welltrained in administering and scoring the test. It is 

extremely important that the examiner be proficient in 

correctly pronouncing each stimulus word. It takes 10 

to 15 minutes to administer. 

Summary: 

Initial Material Cost: 2 ($100 to $200)
 


Reliability: 3 (.65 or higher for internal consistency, 
 

test-retest and inter-rater not described)
 


Validity: 1 (validity information not available on
 


children from 0-3) 
 

Norming Sample Characteristics: 2 (older than 15
 


years, not nationally representative)
 


Ease of Administration and Scoring: 3 (administered 
 

and scored by a trained individual)
 


Description: The TVIP is based on the 

Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised (PPVTR) and includes 125 translated items to assess the 

vocabulary of Spanish-speaking and bilingual 

children. Items were selected through item 

analysis for their universality and appropriateness 

to Spanish-speaking communities. In the test, the 

examiner orally presents a stimulus word with a 

set of pictures and the test taker is asked to select 

the picture that best represents the word’s 

meaning. The examiner administers the items 

until the child’s “basal” and “ceiling” are found. 

The basal is the highest set of eight consecutive 

correct responses and the ceiling is the lowest set 

of eight consecutive responses containing six 

errors. Because it requires no reading or writing 

and is easy to administer, the TVIP is useful in 

assessing older toddlers and preschool children 

and is fair to persons with written-language 

problems and disabilities such as autism, 

withdrawn personalities, psychotic symptoms, 

severe cerebral palsy, and moderate visual 

disabilities. 

204 
205 

Uses of Information: The TVIP can be used 

to measure a child’s receptive or hearing 

vocabulary of single Spanish words. It may be 

used as a screening test of verbal ability or verbal 

intelligence when Spanish is the language of the 

home and community into which the child was 

born and when Spanish is, and has been, the 

primary language of instruction in the child’s 

program. It may also be used as an achievement 

test showing the extent of Spanish vocabulary 

acquisition. 

Reliability: (1) Internal consistency reliability 

(split-half reliability): the median correlation 

coefficient, corrected using the Spearman-Brown 

formula, was .93. For age 2_ to 3, the coefficient 

was .80. (2) Test-retest reliability: no information 

available. (3) Inter-rater reliability: no information 

available. 

Validity: (1) Concurrent validity: 

Correlations ranged from .25 to .59 between 

scores on the TVIP and the Kaufmann-ABC 

Global Scales and from .28 to .69 between the 

TVIP and the Kaufman-ABC Achievement Scale 

Subtests among children ages 3 to 6. The 

correlation between TVIP and the Habilidad 

General Ability test was .44 among children 

attending an urban private school in Puerto Rico. 

(2) Predictive validity: no information available. 

Method of Scoring: The raw score is obtained 

by subtracting the total number of errors between 

the basal and ceiling sets from the number 

associated with the highest item in the ceiling set. 

Using several tables, raw scores can be converted 

into different types of age-adjusted standardized 

scores using Mexican norms, Puerto Rican norms, 

or norms for a composite group. One table 

converts the raw score into a standard score. A 

second table converts the standard score into 

percentile rank, decile, and stanine. Finally, a third 

table converts the examinee’s raw score into the 

age equivalent performance. 

Interpretability: Only persons with graduate 

training in psychological testing and statistics who 

are familiar with the research literature on the 

language and cognitive development of Hispanic 

children should interpret the results of the TVIP. 

Training Support: None described. 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: Because no reading 

or writing is required, the TVIP can be 

administered to many groups with disabilities 

without any changes. 

Report Preparation Support: None 

described. 

References: 

Dunn, Lloyd M., Eligio R. Padilla, Delia E. 

Lugo, and Leota M. Dunn. Examiner’s Manual for 

the Test De Vocabulario en Imagenes Peabody: 

Adaptiacion Hispanoamericana. Circle Pines, 

MN: American Guidance Service, Inc., 1986. 

Dunn, Lloyd M., and Leota M. Dunn. 

Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised. Circle 

Pines, MN: American Guidance Service, Inc., 

1981. 
 206

 

 

 

 

TEST OF PRESCHOOL EARLY LITERACY (TOPEL), 2007 (2011 Update)
 
 

Authors: 

Christopher J. Lonigan, Richard K. Wagner, Joseph K. 

Torgesen, and Carol A. Rashotte 

Publisher: 

PRO-ED, Inc. 

(800) 897-3202 

http://www.proedinc.com 

Instrument: 

http://www.proedinc.com/customer/productView.aspx 

?ID=4020&SearchWord=topel 

Initial Material Cost: 

Complete kit (Examiner’s Manual, Picture Book, and 

25 Record Booklets in a storage box): $232 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: 

The norming sample consisted of 842 children, 

including 212 3-year-olds, 313 4-year-olds, and 317 5­

year-olds from 12 states tested in 2004. This 

convenience sample was based on assessors in the 

PRO-ED customer files who tested 20 children each. 

The norming sample closely approximates the U.S. 

population, based on the 2001 Census Bureau, for 

region, gender, race, Hispanic ethnicity, family income, 

parent education attainment, and exceptionality status 

(such as a language disorder, attentiondeficit/hyperactivity disorder, or a disability). 

Developers present age-stratified demographic 

variables that parallel national estimates. 

Languages: 

English 

Type of Assessment: 

Direct child assessment 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

3 through 5 years 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: 

Administered by a highly trained program staff 

member. The assessor should have knowledge of and 

experience in test administration, test scoring, and 

interpretation of norm-referenced results. Self-training 

involves reading the manual and practice by giving five 

trial administrations. 

The TOPEL takes approximately 30 minutes to 

administer. 

Summary: 

Initial Material Cost: 3 (>$200)
 


Reliability: 3 (all .65 or higher).
 


Validity: 3 (mostly .5 or higher for concurrent)
 


Norming Sample Characteristics: 3 (normed within
 


past 15 years, nationally representative)
 


Ease of Administration and Scoring: 3 (administered 
 

and scored by a highly trained individual)
 


Description: The TOPEL is an individually 

administered adaptive assessment of early literacy 

normed for 3- through 5-year-olds. The 

assessment consists of 98 items with three 

subtests: Print Knowledge (36 items), Definitional 

Vocabulary (35 items), and Phonological 

Awareness (27 items). The Print Knowledge 

subtest measures written language conventions 

and alphabet knowledge. The child points to, 

identifies, or says the sounds associated with 

letters, words, and aspects of print. The 

Definitional Vocabulary subtest measures a child’s 

single-word oral vocabulary and definitional 

vocabulary. The child identifies a picture and 

answers a question about the picture’s attributes. 

The Phonological Awareness subtest measures 

elision and blending abilities. The child says words 
207 

after being instructed to drop sounds (elision) and 

combines separate sounds into a word after 

listening to the sounds (blending). Each subtest 

contains item sets, which are groups of items 

assessing the same skill. The Print Knowledge and 

Phonological Awareness subtests contain several 

item sets, whereas the Definitional Vocabulary 

subtest contains one item set. The assessor 

administers all item sets within each subtest. All 

three subtests have a ceiling rule of three 

consecutive incorrect responses, which are applied 

to each item set within each subtest. 

Other Languages: The precursor to the 

TOPEL, the Preschool Comprehensive Test of 

Phonological and Print Processing (Pre-CTOPPP) 

(Lonigan et al. 2002; Lonigan 2002), includes a 

Spanish language version that has been used in 

some studies, although no information is available 

on the norming sample or equivalence with the 

English version of the Pre-CTOPPP. 

Uses of Information: The TOPEL is used to 

quantify and measure change over time in 

literacy-related abilities. The developers note that 

the assessment may also be used (1) to identify 

children at risk of having or developing literacyrelated problems and (2) to monitor progress in 

early literacy-related skills in response to an 

intervention or program. 

Reliability: 

1. Internal consistency reliability: Cronbach’s 

alphas were calculated for composite and 

subtest scores. The coefficient for the 3-year

old composite score was .95, and the 

coefficient for the Print Knowledge, 

Definitional Vocabulary, and Phonological 

Awareness subtests were .93, .94, and .86, 

respectively. 

2. Test-retest reliability: the sample consisted of 

45 3- to 5-year-olds from Mandan, North 

Dakota, who were primarily white and female. 

Test-retest reliability (with a two-week 

interval) of standard scores ranged from .81 to 

.89 on subtests and was .91 on the composite 

score. The authors noted but did not elaborate 

on a practice effect for the Phonological 

Awareness subtest. 

3. Inter-rater reliability: two trained assessors 

independently scored 30 randomly selected 

protocols from the normative sample. 

Reliability coefficients using standard scores 

for subtests and the composite ranged from 

.96 to .98. 

Validity: 

1. Content validity: TOPEL developers noted 

that the Print Knowledge and Phonological 

Awareness subtests were based on their 

research over the past decade. The 

Definitional Vocabulary subtest contained 

frequently used word items from several 

sources, such as word frequency guides, works 

of literature, popular fiction and non-fiction 

used in schools, and early vocabulary lists and 

analyses. Developers described various field 

tests with preschool-age children, generally 

from Florida, using an iterative process to 

reduce the pool of items. Items were removed 

­
 

 

 

 

 

 

or modified based on inconsistency of 

children’s response patterns, item difficulty 

level, or low correlations between items and 

total scores. Developers analyzed item validity 

and item difficulty of finalized subtests on the 

full normative sample. In 3-year-olds, median 

item discrimination coefficients ranged from 

.38 to .54. Median item difficulty, which 

reflects the percentage of children who passed 

a given item, ranged from .20 to .51. 

2.		 Concurrent validity: developers correlated 

scores on the three TOPEL subtests with 

scores on the Test of Early Reading AbilityThird Edition (TERA-3) Alphabet subtest, the 

TERA-3 Reading Quotient, the Expressive 

One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test-2000 

Edition (EOWPVT), the Get Ready to Read! 

Screening Tool, and the Comprehensive Test 

of Phonological Processing (CTOPP) Elision 

Blending Words subtests. The sample 

consisted of 154 3- to 5-year-olds from 

Tallahassee, Florida, of whom the majority 

was male (60 percent) and white (89 percent). 

Uncorrected correlations between the TOPEL 

Composite Early Literacy Index and the 

TERA-3 Reading Quotient and the Get Ready 

to Read! Screening Tool were 0.63 and 0.60, 

respectively. The TOPEL Print Knowledge 

subtest scores correlated .74 with the TERA-3 

Alphabet scores. The TOPEL Definitional 

Vocabulary subtest scores correlated .62 with 

the EOWPVT scores. The TOPEL 

Phonological Awareness subtest scores 

correlated .52 and .55 with the CTOPP Elision 

and the Blending of Words scores, 

respectively. In addition, the three individual 

TOPEL subtests were correlated with the 

TERA-3 Reading Quotient and Get Ready to 

Read!, with uncorrected coefficients ranging 

from .37 to .57. Developers also provided 

corrected correlations to account for the 

effects of restricted age range. 

With respect to subgroup differences, the 

authors examined age and Hispanic 

American-bilingual status in relation to 

TOPEL performance for the entire normative 

sample. Chronological age was positively 

related to TOPEL performance on the three 

subtests such that raw score means increased 

with age. Coefficients between subtest raw 

scores and age were .49, .54, and .56 for 

Phonological Awareness, Definitional 

Vocabulary, and Print Knowledge, 

respectively. Hispanic American-bilingual 

children demonstrated standard scores below 

the average range of 90 to 110 for Definitional 

Vocabulary, Phonological Awareness, and the 

composite score (mean = 82, 89, 84, 

respectively) and scores below the norming 

sample mean of 100 but within the normal 

range for Print Knowledge (mean = 92). 

Developers noted in the manual that belowaverage scores for Hispanic Americanbilingual children support the assessment’s 

validity. 

Bias Analysis: Three types of analyses were 

conducted to examine the impact on various 

groups of test takers: (1) Differential Item 

Functioning (DIF), (2) comparison of mean 

208 
209 

standard scores, and (3) internal consistency 

Cronbach’s alpha coefficients. DIF analysis was 

conducted on the entire normative sample of 3- to 

5-year-olds, and the comparison groups included 

gender, race (black versus non-black), and ethnic 

(Hispanic versus non-Hispanic) groups. 

Developers neither reported the groups favored in 

each item comparison nor removed any items 

based on DIF analyses, but they reported several 

other findings. In the DIF by gender analysis, one 

item in the Definitional Vocabulary subtest had a 

moderate effect size. In the DIF by race analysis, 

one item in the Print Knowledge subtest and one 

item in the Definitional Vocabulary subtest had 

moderate effect sizes. In the DIF by ethnicity 

analysis, four items in the Definitional Vocabulary 

subtest had moderate or large effect sizes. The 

mean standard scores by gender, race, and 

ethnicity were average, with standard scores 

ranging from 92 to 105 (within the normal range 

of 90 to 110), and developers concluded that the 

TOPEL is nonbiased in regard to gender, race, or 

ethnicity. Cronbach’s alphas were calculated for 

the composite and each subtest score by subgroup 

(male, female, white, black, and Hispanic) and 

ranged from .85 to .97. 

Methods of Scoring: Assessors code each 

correct response as “1” and each incorrect 

response as “0.” Raw scores reflect the total correct 

responses in all item sets to the last item in the 

ceiling. A total composite score (Composite Early 

Literacy Index) and subtest scores are computed. 

The manual includes appendices with conversions 

of raw scores into standard scores (mean of 100 

and standard deviation of 15) and percentile 

ranks. 

Interpretability: The manual includes 

extensive instructions for interpreting belowaverage, average, and above-average standard 

scores for the subtests and the composite measure 

as well as general information on what standard 

scores mean. Developers indicate that standard 

scores provide the clearest indication of a child’s 

performance on the TOPEL. The manual briefly 

discusses interpretations of raw scores and 

percentile ranks. 

Training Support: The manual provides 

information on the basic administration of the 

assessment. Developers recommend self-training 

by reading the manual and completing five test 

administrations to prepare for administration. 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: No information 

available. 

Report Preparation Support: No 

information available. 

References: 

Lonigan, Christopher J., Richard K. Wagner, 

Joseph K. Torgesen, and Carol A. Rashotte. 

Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological and 

Print Processing (Pre-CTOPPP). Florida State 

University, Tallahassee, FL: Department of 

Psychology, 2002. 

Lonigan, Christopher J., Richard K. Wagner, 

Joseph K. Torgesen, and Carol A. Rashotte. 
 

 

 

TOPEL: Test of Preschool Early Literacy. Austin, 

TX: PRO-ED, 2007. 

Lonigan, Christopher J., Richard K. Wagner, 

Joseph K. Torgesen, and Carol A. Rashotte. 

TOPEL: Test of Preschool Early Literacy 

Examiner’s Manual. Austin, TX: PRO-ED, 2007. 

Lonigan, C. J. “Pre-CTOPP Subtest Statistics 

for Preschool Comprehensive Test of 

Phonological and Print Processing by Age 

Group.” Available at 

[http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~lonigan/data.pdf], 2002. 

Madle, Ronald A. “Review of the Test of 

Preschool Early Literacy.” In The Eighteenth 

Mental Measurements Yearbook, edited by Robert 

A. Spies, Janet F. Carlson, and Kurt F. Geisinger. 

Lincoln, NE: The Buros Institute of Mental 

Measurements, 2010. 

Owens, Gretchen, and Claire Lenz. “Review of 

the Test of Preschool Early Literacy.” In The 

Eighteenth Mental Measurements Yearbook, edited 

by Robert A. Spies, Janet F. Carlson, and Kurt F. 

Geisinger. Lincoln, NE: The Buros Institute of 

Mental Measurements, 2010. 

210 
211 

TODDLER ATTACHMENT SORT-45 (TAS-45), 2004 (2011 Update) 

Authors: 

John Kirkland, David Bimler, Andrew Drawneek, 

Margaret McKim, and Axel Scholmerich 

Publisher:1  

NCAST Programs 

(206) 543-8528 

http://www.ncast.org 

Initial Material Cost: 

A computer-based scoring software program called the 

Toddler Observation Training System (TOTS) is 

available for free at http://www.suchandsuch.biz/tots/, 

although users are charged a fee for instructions and an 

access code. 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: 

No norming sample 

Languages: 

English 

Type of Assessment: 

Observation 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

12 through 36 months old. 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: Administered by highly trained field 

observers. 

 

1 The instrument and scoring system will not be made 

available until 2012. 

Susan Spieker and colleagues from the University of 

Washington provide TAS-45 training, which lasts 

about two days, plus an additional day and one-half to 

prepare for the training and to evaluate the group’s 

coding reliability. Training costs $1,000 to $1,500 per 

day plus travel costs, although the University of 

Washington should be contacted for exact rates. 

Trained and certified individuals may train others in a 

one-day training session. One study documented that 

training could be as few as 5 hours by using a combined 

format of computer-based and in-person group 

training (Andreasson et al. 2007). 

Observations last 60 to 90 minutes, and ratings 

conducted after the observation take about 10 to 20 

minutes. 

Summary: 

Initial Material Cost: 3 (>$200) 

Reliability: 2 (most under .65 for test-retest) and 3 

(most over .65 for inter-rater reliability) 

Validity: 2 (most under .5 for concurrent) 

Norming Sample Characteristics: 1 (no norming 

sample) 

Ease of Administration and Scoring: 3 (administered by 

a highly trained individual and scored by a computerbased software program) 

Description: The Toddler Attachment Sort

45 (TAS-45) is an observational measure designed 

to assess the quality of toddlers’ attachment to 

parents-the emotional bond that is the basis for a 

child’s sense of security. A trained observer 

completes the TAS-45 ratings privately outside the 

home after observing the parent and toddler in a 

home-based setting. 

The TAS-45 includes 45 descriptive 

statements that adhere to one of nine “hotspots,” 

or categories of behavior. Each of the 45 

statements among the nine hotspots appears 

twice, for a total of 90 statements. The 90 

statements are clustered into 30 sets of 3, for a 

total of 30 items. 

­
 

 

1

 

 

 

The nine hotspots are (1) Warm and Cuddly, 

(2) Cooperative, (3) Sociable, (4) Independent, (5) 

Attention Seeking, (6) Upset by Separation, (7) 

Avoids Others, (8) Demanding or Angry, and (9) 

Moody, Unsure, Unusual. The hotspots are 

related to patterns of secure and insecure parentchild attachment relationships that have been 

identified in the attachment literature: avoidant 

(A), secure (B), ambivalent (C), and disorganized 

(D) (Andreassen, Fletcher, and Park 2007). The 

TAS-45 removed statements and shortened the 

administration time of the Attachment Q Sort 

(AQS) for use in the birth cohort of the Early 

Childhood Longitudinal Study (Andreassen et al. 

2007).2 1

Other Languages: None. 

Uses of Information: Researchers may use 

TAS-45 data to classify children according to 

avoidant, secure, ambivalent, and disorganized 

styles of attachment and to examine the quality of 

parent-child relationships. 

Reliability: 

1.		 Internal consistency reliability: no 

information available. 

2.		 Test-retest reliability: Spieker et al. (2011) 

analyzed a sample of 23 racially diverse 

mother-toddler dyads enrolled in home-based 

2 The AQS rating process involves piling 90 cards, each with 

one descriptive statement, in two waves for a “nine-pile sort.” 

The first wave involves placing cards in three piles 

(statements that do, do not, and maybe apply), and the 

second wave involves separating each of the three piles into 

three more piles ranging from highly characteristic to highly 

uncharacteristic of the toddler. 

Early Head Start programs. The assessment 

interval ranged from six to eight months. 

Correlation coefficients for the Security Factor 

and Dependence Factor scores were .54 and 

.58, respectively. The disorganized (D) 

attachment category was correlated at .84. 

3.		 Inter-rater reliability: a TAS-45 co-author and 

another observer completed the TAS-45 for 11 

home visits to measure inter-rater reliability 

(Spieker et al. 2011). Pearson correlations for 

the Security Factor and Dependence Factor 

scores were .83 and .92, respectively. Pearson 

correlations for the nine hotspots ranged from 

.57 (Demanding or Angry) to .91 (Sociable, 

Independent, and Avoids Others). Observers 

reached 100 percent agreement on ABCD 

Classification scores. Items 14 and 30 have 

been reported as difficult to code (M. Oxford, 

personal communication, February 8, 2010). 

Validity: 

1.		 Content validity: Kirkland and colleagues 

(2004) collected AQS data sets from 

researchers in several countries and subjected 

the data to multidimensional scaling and facet 

cluster analysis to map the items onto eight 

dimensions. The resulting TAS-39 strongly 

associated 39 statements to the eight 

dimensions (i.e., hotspots). Field tests resulted 

in replacing statements to improve wording 

and ease of observation. On a separate set of 

42 statements characterizing disorganized 

attachment, the authors used 

multidimensional scaling and facet cluster 

analysis to identify 12 strongly associated 

212 
213 

statements, of which 6 were removed because 

they were less conducive to field observations. 

The remaining 6 statements were added to the 

TAS-39 to yield the TAS-45. 

2. Concurrent validity: Spieker et al. (2011) 

found significant correlations between TAS

45 D Classification scores and Secure Factor 

scores and other measures. TAS-45 D 

Classification scores were correlated with the 

2001 Brief Infant-Toddler Social and 

Emotional Assessment (BITSEA) Problem 

and Competence domain scores at .59 and 

.55, respectively, and with the Preschool 

Language Scale, Fourth Edition (PLS-4) 

Expressive and Receptive Communication 

scale scores at -.27 and -.43, respectively. D 

Classification scores also correlated with a 

measure of parent-child communication 

developed by Spieker et al. (2011) to measure 

verbal and non-verbal communication 

attempts and reciprocity by parents and 

toddlers. The correlation between D 

Classification scores and toddlers’ nonresponse to communication initiated by 

mothers was .30. TAS-45 Security Factor 

scores were correlated with BITSEA Problem 

and Competence domain scores at -.64 and 

.61, respectively, and with PLS-4 Expressive 

and Receptive Communication scale scores at 

.32 and .41, respectively. The coefficient 

between TAS-45 Security Factor scores and 

parent-child communicative reciprocity 

scores was .35. 

3. Construct validity: descriptive data from 

ECLS-B suggest that the TAS-45 yields similar 

patterns of attachment across attachment 

classifications-avoidant (A), secure (B), 

ambivalent (C), and disorganized (D)-as that 

found in the attachment literature 

(Andreasson et al. 2007). For example, the 

TAS-45 classified 16 percent of toddlers as A, 

and the attachment literature suggests 

approximately 15 to 20 percent of children 

may be classified as A. 

Methods of Scoring: For each item (i.e., set of 

three statements), the observer indicates which 

statement is “most true” of the toddler and which 

statement is “least true.” This forced ranking 

among the three statements is termed a trilemma. 

Rankings are entered into the Toddler 

Observation Training System (TOTS) computerbased software program, which generates several 

types of scores as well as attachment and hotspot 

score profiles. 

The TOTS program generates four types of 

scores: Traditional (or ABCD) Classification 

scores, Confidence scores, Security Factor scores, 

and Dependency Factor scores. Traditional 

classification scores are the child’s TAS-45 profile 

mapped onto to the ABCD attachment 

classification system. Confidence scores are an 

indicator of the distance between the TAS-45’s 

profiles and the traditional classification system. 

That is, the Confidence score is an indicator of 

how well the TAS-45 profile maps onto the 

traditional classification system. Confidence 

scores range from 0 to 1 with higher scores 

­

­
 

2

 

 

 

 

2

 

indicative of greater confidence in the TAS-45 

profile. The TAS-45’s Security Factor and 

Dependency Factor scores are generated by using 

the same published criterion sorts used by the 

AQS.3 The relationship between Security and 

Dependency factor scores may be indicative of the 

traditional ABCD classification system scores. For 

example, a low Security Factor score and a high 

Dependency Factor score may suggest traditional 

Attachment C (Andreasson et al. 2007). Security 

Factor scores and ABCD Classification scores are 

recommended for researchers examining toddler 

attachment (Andreasson et al. 2007). 

Interpretability: Attachment and hotspot 

score profiles provide snapshots of children’s 

attachment characteristics during the observation 

period. The hotspot profiles represent the child’s 

scores on the nine TAS-45 hotspots and indicate 

the degree to which the child displayed each of the 

nine behaviors during the observation period. 

Hotspot profile scores are used to show toddlers’ 

overall attachment security and may be plotted at 

different ages. The attachment profiles align 

scores on the hotspot profiles with the traditional 

ABCD attachment classification system and 

generate the child’s profile on the ABCD system. 

Training Support: Published studies have 

documented training methods on the TAS-45 

(Andreasson et al. 2007; Spieker et al. 2011). 

Formats used in the studies included computerbased training modules, in-person group 

trainings, and practice during pilot study home 

3 Waters et al. (1995) provide the criterion sorts for 

generating the Security and Dependency Factor scores. 

observations. Three computer-based training 

modules each conclude with a quiz that trainees 

need to pass with at least an 80 percent score. 

Modules cover an introduction to the TAS-45 and 

sorting, a review of items and their applications, 

and a review of video clips of children with 

different attachment characteristics. For the 

ECLS-B study, Kirkland calculated percentage 

agreement scores with his scores to ensure that 

they were reliable at 80 percent agreement 

(Andreasson et al. 2007). Spieker and colleagues 

(2011) compared pilot study ratings item by item 

and estimated inter-coder agreement. More 

recently, the University of Washington has 

provided group training by using a noncomputer-based format (S. Monahan, personal 

communication, June 8, 2011). This training 

involved self-administered practice exercises, inperson training that covered a review of the 

foundations of attachment theory and the nine 

TAS-45 hotspots, practice using the instrument 

with video clips of children, and two webinars 

after the training for review and practice. The 

training concluded with a reliability assessment in 

which trainees had to score at least 85 percent 

agreement with the trainer. 

Report Preparation Support: The TOTS 

program generates attachment and hotspot score 

profile reports for individual toddlers at different 

ages. Condon and Spieker (2008) suggest that 

discussions with parents about TAS-45 findings 

should focus on understanding children’s 

attachment strategies as part of families’ effort to 

214 
215 

create a nurturing relationship environment for 

their children. 

References: 

Andreassen, Carol, Philip Fletcher, and 

Jennifer Park. “Early Childhood Longitudinal 

Study, Birth Cohort (ECLS-B) Psychometric Report 

for the 2-Year Data Collection.” Report No. NCES 

2007-084. Washington, DC: National Center for 

Education Statistics, Institute of Education 

Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, 2007. 

Condon, Marie-Celeste, and Susan Spieker. 

“It’s More than a Measure: Reflections on a 

University-Early Head Start Partnership.” Infants 

& Young Children, vol. 21, no. 1, 2008, pp. 70-81. 

Kirkland, John, David Bimler, Andrea 

Drawneek, Margaret McKim, and Axel 

Scholmerich. “An Alternative Approach for the 

Analyses and Interpretation of Attachment Sort 

Items.” Early Childhood Development and Care, 

vol. 174, no. 7-8, 2004, pp. 701-719. 

Spieker, Susan, Elizabeth M. Nelson, and 

Marie-Celeste Condon. “Validity of the TAS-45 

Measure of Toddler-Parent Attachment: 

Preliminary Evidence from Early Head Start 

Families.” Attachment and Human Development, 

vol. 13, no. 1, 2011, pp. 69-90. 

Waters, Everett, and Kathleen E. Deane. 

“Defining and Assessing Individual Differences in 

Attachment Relationships: Q-Methodology and 

the Organization of Behavior in Infancy and Early 

Childhood.” Monographs of the Society for 

Research in Child Development, vol. 50, no. 1-2, 

1985, pp. 41-65. 

Waters, Everett, Brian E. Vaughn, German 

Posada, and Kiyomi Kondo-Ikemura. “Caregiving, 

Cultural, and Cognitive Perspectives on SecureBase Behavior and Working Models: New 

Growing Points of Attachment Research.” 

Monographs of the Society for Research in Child 

Development, vol. 60 (Serial No. 244), no. 2-3, 

1995. 
 216

 

 

 

 

VINELAND ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR SCALES, SECOND EDITION 

(VINELAND-II), 2005 (2011 Update) 

Authors: 

Sara S. Sparrow, Domenic V. Cicchetti, David A. Balla 

Publisher: 

NCS Pearson, Inc. 

(800) 627-7271 

http://www.pearsonassessments.com 

Instrument: 

http://www.pearsonassessments.com/HAIWEB/Cultur 

es/en-us/Productdetail.htm?Pid=VinelandII&Mode=summary 

Initial Material Cost: 

Vineland-II Survey Forms Starter Set (includes 10 

Survey Interview Forms, 10 Parent/Caregiver Rating 

Forms, 10 Survey Interview Reports to Parents, 10 

Survey Forms Reports to Caregivers, and 1 Survey 

Forms Manual): $162.30 

Vineland-II Survey Forms ASSIST Mac/Win (includes 

scoring and reporting software for the Survey Interview 

Form and the Parent/Caregiver Rating Form; for 

Windows and Macintosh): $269.70 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: 

The nationally representative norming sample includes 

3,695 individuals age birth through 90 years. Random 

sampling methods were used to select a sample that 

closely matched national norms in the Current 

Population Survey, March 2001 (including age, sex, 

geographic region, parent’s education, race/ethnic 

group, and community size). 

Languages: 

English, Spanish 

Type of Assessment: 

Parent/caregiver report 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

Birth through 90 years 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: 

Interviewers should have graduate-level education in 

psychology or social work as well as in individual 

assessment and test interpretation. Interviewers must 

read and study the Vineland-II Survey Forms Manual 

before administration (practice sessions 

recommended). 

Approximately 20 to 60 minutes to administer the 

Survey Interview Form and 15 to 30 minutes to score. 

A Vineland-II Training CD is available from the 

publisher for $110.10. 

Summary: 

Initial Material Cost: 2 ($100 to $200)
 


Reliability: 3 (mostly .65 or higher)
 


Validity: 3 (mostly .5 or higher for concurrent and
 


construct)
 


Norming Sample Characteristics: 3 (normed within
 


past 15 years, nationally representative)
 


Ease of Administration and Scoring: 3 (administered 
 

and scored by a highly trained individual)
 


Description: The Vineland-II Adaptive 

Behavior Scales (Vineland-II) measure personal 

and social skills from birth through age 90 and 

were designed to address special needs 

populations, including individuals with mental 

retardation, autism, and attentiondeficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). There are 

383 items in the Adaptive Behavior Composite, 

and 50 additional items on the Maladaptive 

Behavior Index. The scale may be administered by 

using the Survey Interview Form (a 

semistructured interview) or the Parent/Caregiver 

Rating Form (a rating scale). Using the 

semistructured interview format, the interviewer 
217 

asks general open-ended questions to the parent 

or caregiver relating to the child’s activities and 

behavior to ascertain key developmental 

milestones. The format requires the interviewer to 

design his or her own open-ended questions; 

therefore, it is critical that the interviewer has a 

thorough understanding of the test items as well 

as experience in conducting such interviews. 

Using the rating scale format, a parent or 

caregiver familiar with the behavior of the infant 

or child undergoing assessment rates a checklist of 

the individual’s skills. An Expanded Interview 

Form for infant and children birth through 5 years 

provides an in-depth alternative to the Survey 

Interview Form, with additional items. A Teacher 

Rating Form assesses adaptive behavior for 

children in day care, preschool, or school. The 

Vineland-II updates the previous version of the 

Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales (1984) with 

new norms, expanded age range, updated content, 

increased coverage of early childhood adaptive 

behavior, streamlined administration, and the 

Parent/Caregiver Rating Form. 

The Adaptive Behavior Composite comprises 

four domains: Communication, Daily Living 

Skills, Socialization, and Motor Skills. Each 

domain consists of subdomains. The 

Communication domain measures receptive, 

expressive, and written communication; the Daily 

Living Skills domain assesses personal, domestic, 

and community skills; the Socialization domain 

measures interpersonal relationships, play and 

leisure time, and coping skills; and the Motor 

Skills domain measures gross and fine motor 

skills. As an optional fifth domain for individuals 

age 3 through 90 years, the Maladaptive Behavior 

domain, includes subdomains for internalizing, 

externalizing, and other types of undesirable 

behavior. 

Other Languages: The Vineland-II includes a 

record booklet with a Spanish translation of the 

Survey Interview Form, which was used with 

Spanish-speaking respondents during the national 

standardization. Detail on the reliability, validity, 

and English language equivalence is not available. 

Uses of Information: The Vineland-II 

assesses an individual’s daily functioning. It may 

be used in educational and clinical diagnostic 

evaluations of developmental delays, in 

developmental evaluations of young children, for 

progress monitoring, and for program planning. It 

may also be used in research projects to determine 

the effects of various treatments or clinical 

interventions on adaptive functioning. 

Reliability: 

1. Internal consistency reliability: split-half 

reliability estimates using Spearman-Brown 

correlation coefficients for infants and 

toddlers birth through 36 months ranged 

from .79 (Daily Living Skills) to .95 

(Socialization) and from .95 to .98 among age 

groups for the Adaptive Behavior Composite. 

Coefficients for children age 4 and 5 years 

ranged from .83 (Motor Skills) to .93 

(Socialization) and to .97 for the Adaptive 

Behavior Composite.1 Cronbach’s alpha for 

 

1 Split-half reliability coefficients are corrected for half-test 

length by the Spearman-Brown formula. 
 

children age 3 through 5 years on the 
 

Maladaptive Behavior Index was .88.
 


2.		 Test-retest reliability: for children birth 

through 2 years, adaptive behavior domain 

ICCs ranged from .86 (Motor Skills) to .95 

(Communication); the Adaptive Behavior 

Composite ICC was .96 (with administration 

intervals ranging from 14 to 30 days [mean = 

18 days]). For children 3 through 6 years, 

adaptive behavior domain ICCs ranged from 

.88 (Socialization) to .90 (Communication and 

Daily Living Skills); the Adaptive Behavior 

Composite ICC was .94 (with administration 

intervals ranging from 14 to 30 days [mean = 

20.6 days]). For ages 3 through 5 years, the 

Maladaptive Behavior Index ICC was .89 

(with administration intervals ranging from 

14 to 30 days [mean = 20.5 days]). 

3.		 Inter-rater reliability: for a group of 152 

respondents (primarily parents) in which two 

respondents each completed the 

Parent/Caregiver Form for the same 

individuals, ICCs for children birth through 6 

years ranged from .61 (Daily Living Skills) to 

.82 (Motor Skills); the Adaptive Behavior 

Composite ICC was .80. The ICC on the 

Maladaptive Behavior Index for children age 3 

through 11 years was .81. ICCs were 

calculated among interviewer pairs who 

completed the Survey Interview Form for 

children birth through 6 years. Coefficients 

ranged from .58 (Socialization) to .82 (Daily 

Living Skills); the coefficient for the Adaptive 

Behavior Composite was .79. The ICC on the 

Maladaptive Behavior Index for children age 3 

through 11 was .83. 

Validity: 

1.		 Content validity: confirmatory factor analysis 

evaluated the fit of the model. For children 6 

years and younger, the Adaptive Behavior 

Composite is based on a four-factor solution 

that had a comparative fit index of .96. 

2.		 Concurrent validity: the Vineland-II was 

compared with the Vineland Adaptive 

Behavior Scales (1984); the Adaptive Behavior 

Assessment System, Second Edition (ABASII); and the Behavior Assessment System for 

Children, Second Edition (BASC-2). Between 

the Vineland-II and Vineland Adaptive 

Behavior Scales (1984) for children birth 

through 2 years, coefficients ranged from .65 

to .91 across the adaptive behavior domains; 

the coefficient was .82 for the Adaptive 

Behavior Composite. The coefficients ranged 

from .85 to .94 across the behavior domains 

for children 3 through 6 years; the coefficient 

was .91 on the Adaptive Behavior Composite. 

The coefficient between the composite scores 

on the Vineland-II and ABAS-II for children 

birth through 5 years was .63. 

The coefficient between the Vineland-II and 

BASC-2 for children 3 through 5 years was .45 

for the adaptive behavior composite scores, 

ranging from .35 to .59 across domains. The 

coefficient between the BASC-2 and 

Maladaptive Behavior Index was .53, ranging 

from .29 to .49 across domains. 

218 
219 

In terms of capturing subgroup differences, 

the Vineland-II was used as a measure of adaptive 

functioning to diagnose autism in children age 3 

through 16 years in groups with and without 

autism. Differences of more than two standard 

deviations between the Adaptive Behavior 

Composite and domain scores between groups 

were observed. 

3. Construct validity: adaptive behavior domain 

intercorrelation coefficients (ICCs) ranged 

from .56 (Communication and Motor Skills) 

to .65 (Communication and Socialization) for 

children 0 to 2 years old and from .61 

(Communication and Motor Skills) to .73 

(Daily Living Skills and Socialization) for 

children 3 to 6 years old. ICCs between 

adaptive behavior domains and the Adaptive 

Behavior Composite ranged from .82 to .87 

for 0- to 2-year-olds and from .83 to .88 for 3

to 6-year-olds. The identification of the 

adaptive behaviors and skills measured by the 

Vineland-II and the development of test 

content are closely linked to the instrument's 

theoretical structure. The structure of adaptive 

behavior functioning for the Vineland-II is 

supported by the Vineland Adaptive 

Behavioral Scales, the American Association 

of Mental Retardation (2002), the American 

Psychological Association (1996), and the 

National Academy of Sciences (2002). 

Bias Analysis: Using differential item 

functioning (DIF), the authors tested for 

measurement bias by sex, parental education, and 

ethnicity (adjusted for socioeconomic status and 

sex) at both the item and scale levels. Children 

with mothers who did not complete high school 

showed fewer adaptive behaviors on average than 

children whose mothers had at least a high school 

diploma, although the differences were described 

as small, with no other differences observed. 

Methods of Scoring: Items within the 

adaptive behavior subdomains are scored 

according to whether the item activity occurs 

usually (2), sometimes or partially (1), never (0), 

or don’t know (DK). The assessor must first 

identify basal and ceiling items as described in the 

Survey Forms Manual. The raw score is equal to 

the sum of 1 and 2 responses, plus the number of 

items before the basal item multiplied by two. If 

there are more than two DK and/or missing 

responses, then a subdomain score may not be 

obtained. The Maladaptive Behavior Index items 

are scored according to whether the item behavior 

occurs often (2), sometimes (1), or never (0) for 

the Problem Behaviors Parts 1 and 2. For the 

Problem Behaviors Part 2, items are also scored 

according to whether the behavior is severe (S) or 

moderate (M). Subdomain raw scores are the sum 

of items with a 1 or 2 response. Subdomain raw 

scores are added to obtain the Maladaptive 

Behavior Index raw score. Raw scores, v-scale 

scores (mean of 15 and standard deviation of 3), 

standard scores (mean of 100 and standard 

deviation of 15), percentile ranks, adaptive levels 

(low, moderately low, adequate, moderately high, 

and high), age equivalents, and stanines are 

available in the manual. Scores at high levels of 

adaptive functioning have poorer precision 

­
 

 

 

 

 

 

(higher standard errors of measurement) than at 

lower levels (Sattler and Hoge 2006), but Stein 

(2010) comments that given the Vineland-II’s 

focus on the assessment of clinical syndromes 

such as mental retardation and autism, the 

precision issue should not be a concern. 

Interpretability: The Vineland-II should be 

interpreted by professionals with graduate degrees 

and specialized training and experience in 

administering and interpreting assessments. The 

Survey Forms Manual contains a chapter with 

steps and examples on how to interpret children’s 

scores to identify children’s strengths and 

weaknesses and facilitate communications with 

parents and caregivers. 

Training Support: A Vineland-II Training 

CD is available from the publisher. 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: The Vineland-II 

was designed to address special needs populations, 

including individuals with mental retardation, 

autism, and ADHD. Administration instructions 

do not vary across groups. 

Report Preparation Support: The Score 

Report (in both the Survey Interview and 

Parent/Caregiver Rating forms) includes a Score 

Summary page, Score Profile page, and Pairwise 

Comparisons page. On the Score Summary page, 

the assessor records subdomain, domain, 

Adaptive Behavior Composite, and Maladaptive 

Behavior Index scores. On the Score Profile page, 

the assessor records domain standard scores or 

subdomain v-scale scores and their respective 

confidence intervals. The Pairwise Comparison 

page allows for statistical analyses of the score 

differences between pairs of subdomains and pairs 

of domains. The Survey Forms Manual includes 

steps to complete the comparisons. 

The Vineland-II ASSIST software calculates 

derived scores and produces reports, including the 

adaptive behavior score summary, domain and 

subdomain analyses, graphical profiles, narrative 

reports, and a caregiver letter. 

References: 

Pearson. Vineland-II ASSIST Scoring and 

Reporting Software. 2005. 

Pearson. Vineland-II Training CD. 2005 

Sattler, Jerome M. and Robert D. Hoge. 

Assessment of Children: Behavioral, Clinical, and 

Social Foundations. San Diego, CA: Jerome M. 

Sattler Publisher Inc., 2006. 

Sparrow, Sara S., David A. Balla, and Domenic 

V. Cicchetti. Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales. 

Bloomington, MN: Pearson Assessments, 1984. 

Sparrow, Sara S., Domenic V. Cicchetti, and 

David A. Balla. Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, 

Second Edition. Minneapolis, MN: Pearson 

Assessments, 2005. 

Sparrow, Sara S., Domenic V. Cicchetti, and 

David A. Balla. Vineland-II Adaptive Behavior 

Scales Record Booklet. Circle Pines, MN: AGS 

Publishing, 2005. 

Stein, Stephanie. “Review of the Vineland 

Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition 

220 
221 

(Vineland-II).” In The Eighteenth Mental 

Measurements Yearbook, edited by Robert A. 

Spies, Janet F. Carlson, and Kurt F. Geisinger. 

Lincoln, NE: The Buros Institute of Mental 

Measurements, 2010. 

Widaman, Keith F. “Review of the Vineland 

Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition 

(Vineland-II).” In The Eighteenth Mental 

Measurements Yearbook, edited by Robert A. 

Spies, Janet F. Carlson, and Kurt F. Geisinger. 

Lincoln, NE: The Buros Institute of Mental 

Measurements, 2010. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VINELAND SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL EARLY CHILDHOOD 

SCALES/VINELAND SEEC, 1998 

Authors: 

Sara S. Sparrow, David A. Balla, Domenic V. Cicchetti 

Publisher: 

AGS (American Guidance Service, Inc.) 

(800) 328-2560 

www.agsnet.com 

Initial Material Cost: 

Vineland SEEC Kit: $55 (includes Manual and 25 

Record Forms) Vineland SEEC ASSIST CD Kit: $200 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: 

Standardization norms based on the normative data 

used to develop the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales. 

The sample included 1,200 children from birth to 5 

years, 11 months selected to closely match the national 

norms in the 1980 U.S. census (including age, gender, 

geographic region, parent education, race/ethnic group, 

and community size). 

Languages: 

English (reports to parents also available in Spanish) 

Type of Assessment: 

Interviewer-assisted parent report 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

0 through 5 years, 11 months 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: Manual suggests that interviewers 

should have graduate education in early childhood 

development and training in interview techniques and 

experience in administering, scoring, and interpreting 

the Vineland SEEC Scales in practice sessions. Requires 

approximately 25 minutes to administer the 

assessment, and 10 to 15 minutes for scoring. 

Summary: 

Initial Material Cost: 1 (< $100)
 


Reliability: Internal Consistency and Test-Retest: 3 (.65
 


or higher)
 


Validity: 3 (.5 or higher for consistency)
 


Norming Sample Characteristics: 2 (older than 15
 


years, nationally representative)
 


Ease of Administration and Scoring: 3 (administered 
 

and scored by a highly trained individual)
 


Description: The Vineland SEEC Scales assess 

the social-emotional functioning of children from 

birth through 5 years, 11 months. Three scales, 

which combine into a Social-Emotional 

Composite, are used to evaluate a child’s ability to 

pay attention, understand emotional expression, 

cooperate with others, construct and observe 

relationships, and develop self-regulation 

behaviors. The three scales are: Interpersonal 

Relationships (44 items), Play and Leisure Time 

(44 items), and Coping Skills (34 Items). This 

assessment is administered as a semi-structured 

interview with the child’s parent or caregiver, in 

which the interviewer asks general open-ended 

questions relating to the child’s activities and 

behavior (these questions are designed by the 

interviewer) to ascertain key developmental 

milestones. Since this requires that the interviewer 

design his or her own open-ended questions, it is 

critical that the interviewer has a thorough 

understanding of the test items and experience in 

conducting this type of interview. 

Uses of Information: The Vineland SEEC can 

be used in educational and clinical settings to help 

identify developmental delays, plan and select 

appropriate activities for young children, and 

monitor developmental progress. The SEEC can 

also be used in research projects to determine the 

222 
223 

effects of various treatments or clinical 

interventions on young children’s socialemotional functioning. The manual suggests that 

in order to obtain a more comprehensive 

description of children’s development, it is useful 

to use the Vineland SEEC measures along with 

other measures of children’s physical, cognitive, 

language and adaptive skills. 

Reliability: The reliability statistics for 

children between 6 and 36 months indicate (1) 

Internal consistency (Spearman-Brown 

correlations): Interpersonal Relationships:.82 to 

.92; Play and Leisure Time:.72 to .96; Coping 

Skills: .87; and Composite:.89 to .97 (2) Test-retest 

reliability (interval ranged from 2 to 4 weeks and 

averaged 17 days): Interpersonal Relationships: 

.73; Play and Leisure Time: .74; Coping Skills: .54; 

and Composite: .77. (3) Inter-rater reliability 

(intervals ranged from 1 to 14 days and averaged 8 

days): .47 to .60. 

Validity: No validity studies are included in 

the manual for the Vineland SEEC. The manual 

states that since the item content and scale 

structure of the Vineland SEEC replicate the 

socialization domain of the Vineland Adaptive 

Behavior Scale (ABS), its results are generalizable 

to the SEEC. Concurrent validity studies on the 

Vineland ABS indicate correlations with similar 

established tools range from .51 to .65. 

Method of Scoring: Items in the SEEC are 

scored based on how often the child performs the 

specific activity. Options are: “usually performs,” 

“sometimes or partially performs,” “never 

performs,” “no opportunity for the child to 

perform,” and “don’t know if the child performs.” 

The Appendix of the SEEC contains scoring 

criteria for each of the scales. In addition, there is 

a software program—the Vineland SEEC ASSIST 

(Automated System for Scoring and Interpreting 

Standardized Tests)—available to help score and 

interpret the Vineland SEEC. The user can input 

raw scores or item scores to obtain a derived score 

and an interpretive report. 

Interpretability: The manual contains a 

chapter on interpretation of scores as well as case 

studies on how to interpret a child’s performance 

on the Vineland SEEC Scale. The manual includes 

age-based standard scores for 1-month intervals 

from birth through age 2, and at 2-month 

intervals from age 2 to age 5 years, 11 months. It is 

suggested that the Vineland SEEC Scale be 

implemented by professionals with graduate 

degrees and specialized training and experience in 

administering and interpreting early childhood 

assessments. 

Training Support: Dr. Sara S. Sparrow (one 

of the authors), is available to conduct 

professional workshops on effectively 

administering and interpreting the Vineland, but 

these must be specifically arranged with the 

publisher. 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: Individuals 

classified in special education categories were 

included in the standardization sample for the 

Vineland SEEC Scales. The manual also directs 

the interviewer to derive an adjusted age for those 

children who were born prematurely. There is 
 

limited information in the manual regarding 

adaptation for children with disabilities—the 

manual suggests that the interviewer should 

follow scoring guidelines and criteria while taking 

into account the specific disability (for example, a 

child may use sign language to perform some 

activity described in the items on the scale). 

Report Preparation Support: The Program 

Planning Report is meant to be used as an outline 

for recommended education and/or treatment 

plans. The Vineland SEEC ASSIST software 

produces reports on: personal information 

summary, score profile, score narrative, program 

planning profile, letter to parents (in English or 

Spanish), and recommended activities. 

References: 

Sparrow, Sara S., David A. Balla, and Domenic 

V. Cicchetti. Vineland Social-Emotional Early 

Childhood Scales/Vineland SEEC. Circle Pines, 

MN: American Guidance Service, Inc., 1998. 

Sparrow, Sara S., David A. Balla, and Domenic 

V. Cicchetti. Vineland SEEC ASSIST (Automated 

System for Scoring and Interpreting Standardized 

Tests). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance 

Service, Inc., 2001. 

224 
WOODCOCK-JOHNSON III NORMATIVE UPDATE (WJ III NU), 2007 

(2011 Update) 

Authors: 

Richard W. Woodcock, Kevin S. McGrew, and Nancy 

Mather 

Publisher: 

Riverside Publishing 

(800) 323-9540 

http://www.riverpub.com 

Instrument: 

http://www.riverpub.com/products/wjIIIComplete/ 

Initial Material Cost: 

WJ III NU Complete Battery (includes Cognitive 

Standard and Extended Test Books, Examiner’s 

Manual, Examiner’s Training Workbook, Audio 

Recording, 25 Test Records and 25 Response Booklets, 

5 Brief Intellectual Ability Test Records, Achievement 

Form A Standard and Extended Test Books, 

Examiner’s Manual, Examiner’s Training Workbook, 

Audio Recording, 25 Test Records and 25 Response 

Booklets, WJ III NU Compuscore and Profiles 

Program (Windows and Macintosh), NU Technical 

Manual, and Scoring Guides): $1,322 

WJ III NU Achievement Battery kit: $590 

WJ III NU Cognitive Abilities Battery kit: $887 

WJ III NU Tests of Achievement, Form C/Brief 

Battery: $379 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: 

The WJ III NU updates the normative data for the WJ

III and Batería III cognitive and achievement batteries. 


The updated norms are based on 8,782 of the 8,818 

individuals in the original WJ III sample. The 

preschool-age sample (children 2 to 5 years) included 

1,153 children. The authors weighted individual 

subjects to obtain a sample representative of the 2005 

census. The original sample came from 100 

geographically diverse U.S. communities. The 

developers stratified the sample by region, community 

size, gender, race, Hispanic/non-Hispanic background, 

foreign-/native-born, and school type. 

Languages: 

English, Spanish 

Type of Assessment: 

Direct child assessment 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

For 10 WJ-III Cognitive and 10 WJ-III Achievement 

tests, age 2 to adult; for 19 WJ-III Cognitive and 13 WJ

III Achievement tests, age 4 to adult; for the remaining 

tests, varies from school-age to adult. Achievement 

tests come in two equivalent forms to allow repeat 

administrations. 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: 

Administered by a highly trained program staff 

member. Assessors must provide evidence that they 

meet the highest standards required for administering 

educational and psychological tests. 

Each test takes approximately 5 to 10 minutes, with the 

Cognitive standard battery requiring 45 to 50 minutes 

and the Achievement requiring 60 to 70 minutes. A 

computer scoring program is required to generate 

scores. 

The publisher makes available training videos ($43) 

and workbooks ($14) and offers national and regional 

group training sessions as well as individual training 

sessions. Private training costs an average of $800 to 

$1,200 per day, not including the trainer’s travel 

expenses. 

Summary: 


Initial Material Cost: 3 (>$200) 


Reliability: 3 (mostly .65 or higher) 


Validity: 3 (all .5 or higher for preschool-age 


concurrent; mostly .4 or higher for preschool-/early 


elementary-age predictive) 


Norming Sample Characteristics: 3 (normed within the 


past 15 years, nationally representative) 


Ease of Administration and Scoring: 3 (administered 


and scored by a highly trained individual) 


­

­

Description: The Woodcock-Johnson III 

Normative Update (WJ III NU) comprises 

updated norms and norming procedures for two 

co-normed assessment batteries, the Woodcock225 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Abilities (WJ III 

COG) and the Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of 

Achievement (WJ III ACH). These instruments 

provide a comprehensive set of norm-referenced 

tests for measuring intellectual abilities and 

academic achievement in individuals age 2 years 

through adulthood. The administration materials 

remain the same as for the previous WJ III 

versions. The WJ III NU updates are incorporated 

into the Technical Manual and WJ III NU 

computer scoring program. The updated 

Technical Manual contains new validity 

information as well as new methods of analyzing 

intra-individual variation in cognitive and 

achievement performance. The WJ III NU 

Compuscore and Profiles Program includes new 

parent report and summary report options that 

present findings in terms of standard or 

proficiency scores. 

The WJ III COG consists of a standard battery 

of 10 tests, an extended battery of 10 tests (to 

provide in-depth assessment of different types of 

abilities), and 11 supplementary diagnostic tests 

(to pinpoint further any specific areas of weakness 

or strength). Five of the 10 standard COG tests 

may be used with children as young as 2 years of 

age and include (1) Verbal Comprehension, (2) 

Spatial Relations, (3) Sound Blending, (4) Concept 

Formation, and (5) Incomplete Words. Five of the 

10 extended-battery COG tests may be used with 

children as young as 2 years of age and include (1) 

General Information, (2) Retrieval Fluency, (3) 

Picture Recognition, (4) Memory for Words, and 

(5) Rapid Picture Naming. 

Standard- and extended-battery COG tests 

may be grouped to yield three overall categories of 

cluster scores: (1) Cognitive Performance clusters 

(Verbal Ability, Thinking Ability, and Cognitive 

Efficiency); (2) Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) 

Factor Clusters (Comprehension-Knowledge, 

Long-Term Retrieval, Visual-Spatial Thinking, 

Auditory Processing, Fluid Reasoning, Processing 

Speed, and Short-Term Memory); and (3) Clinical 

Clusters (Phonemic Awareness, Working 

Memory, Broad Attention, Cognitive Fluency, 

Executive Processes, Delayed Recall, and 

Knowledge). Given the limited number of tests 

used with children as young as 2 years of age, 

some cluster scores are not applicable to toddlers. 

The WJ III ACH consists of a standard battery 

of 12 tests and an extended battery of 10 tests (to 

provide in-depth assessment of an achievement 

area). Six of the 12 standard-battery ACH tests 

may be used with children as young as 2 years of 

age and include (1) Letter-Word Identification, 

(2) Story Recall, (3) Understanding Directions, (4) 

Spelling, (5) Passage Comprehension, and (6) 

Applied Problems. Four of the 10 extendedbattery ACH tests may be used with children as 

young as 2 years of age and include (1) Picture 

Vocabulary, (2) Oral Comprehension, (3) 

Quantitative Concepts, and (4) Academic 

Knowledge. 

The WJ III NU also introduces the WJ III 

Tests of Achievement Form C/Brief Battery (WJ 

III Form C/Brief Battery). It offers abbreviated 

achievement testing and scoring options for three 

achievement areas (Brief Reading, Brief Math, and 

226 
227 

Brief Writing). Brief Achievement and Brief 

Reading may be used on children as young as 2 

years of age. 

Across all batteries, the assessor may tailor the 

administration by selecting the tests that best tap 

the abilities and skills of interest for a particular 

child. Floor and ceiling effects have been observed 

on some WJ III tests with children age 2 years and 

5 years, 6 months (Bradley-Johnson and 

Durmusoglu 2005; Krasa 2007). 

Other Languages: The Batería III WoodcockMuñoz is a Spanish adaptation of the WJ III that 

allows for comprehensive assessment of 

intellectual ability (including bilingual and low 

verbal ability), specific cognitive abilities, 

scholastic aptitude, oral language, and academic 

achievement in individuals from age 2 to 90 years. 

The manual does not specify which tests may be 

used for children as young as 2 years of age. All of 

the WJ III tests have been translated or adapted 

into Spanish for the Batería III. For the Batería III 

Woodcock-Muñoz: Pruebas de Habilidades 

Cognitivas (Batería III COG), assessors may 

choose from six scales: (1) brief, (2) standard, (3) 

extended, (4) early development, (5) bilingual 

(with Diagnostic Supplement), and (6) low verbal 

(with Diagnostic Supplement). The Batería III 

Woodcock-Muñoz: Pruebas de Aprovechamiento 

(Batería III APROV) consists of five reading tests, 

four oral language tests, four mathematics tests, 

four written language tests, and four supplemental 

tests of academic language proficiency. The 

Comparative Language Index (CLI) may also be 

used to assess language dominance. The WJ III 

NU computer scoring program provides updated 

norms for the Batería III; in addition, a Spanish 

version of the Woodcock Interpretation and 

Instructional Interventions Program software is 

available (see Interpretability). Given that score 

scales are linked with those of the WJ III, 

individual scores on the Batería III may be 

compared directly to WJ III scores. Such 

comparability is useful for comparing children’s 

proficiency on assessed tasks in both Spanish and 

English. The computer scoring program may also 

compute children’s cognitive-academic language 

proficiency (CALP). 

The developers collected data from a 

calibration sample of 1,413 native Spanish 

speakers from various Spanish-speaking regions 

in the United States and abroad (279 were from 

nine U.S. states). These data were equated to WJ 

III norms, in that each task for each Batería III test 

is scaled according to the parallel WJ III test. 

Using Item Response Theory (IRT) methods, the 

developers equated Batería III test data to that of 

parallel tests on the WJ III, making the scores 

between the WJ III and Batería III directly 

comparable. Schrank et al. (2005) reported that 

confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) of the Batería 

III standardization data supported the measure’s 

CHC theory-based latent factor structure (one 

general factor and nine broad factors) with 

subsamples of 6- to 13-year-olds and 14- to 19

year-olds. Patterns and magnitudes of Batería III 

factor loadings demonstrated a latent factor 

structure similar to that of the WJ III. Batería III 

internal consistency reliability coefficients for 

scores approximating those of the WJ III norming 

­
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

sample. For 4- to 13-year-olds, coefficients ranged 

from .72 to .94 on cognitive battery tests and from 

.67 to .98 on achievement tests (Schrank et al. 

2005). 

Uses of Information: The WJ-III NU permits 

age- or grade-based norm-referenced 

interpretation for individual ability and 

achievement scores. The information may be used 

for diagnosis of academic strengths and 

weaknesses, educational programming, growth 

assessment, program evaluation, and research. 

Reliability: 

1.		 Internal consistency reliability: the developers 

calculated split-half reliability estimates for 

scores for all WJ III NU tests, except the timed 

tests and tests with multiple-point scoring 

systems, for which they conducted Rasch 

analysis procedures. For the 10 WJ III NU 

Tests of Cognitive Abilities that may be used 

with children as young as 2 years of age, 

reliability estimates for scores for children 2 

through 3 years of age ranged from .70 to .97, 

with most estimates at .80 or above. For the 19 

tests that may be used with children as young 

as 4 years of age, reliability estimates for 

scores for children age 4 through 5 years 

ranged from .78 to .98, except for Planning, 

which had reliability estimates ranging from 

.63 to .64. For the 10 WJ III NU Tests of 

Achievement that may be used with children 

as young as 2 years of age, reliability estimates 

for scores for 2- and 3-year-olds ranged from 

.56 to .98; most estimates were at .80 or above. 

For the 13 tests that may be used with 

children as young as 4 years of age, reliability 

estimates for scores for 4- and 5-year-olds 

ranged from .61 to .99; again, most estimates 

were at .80 or above. The publishers 

recommend the use of cluster scores (i.e., 

groups of items from two or more tests) 

because such scores demonstrate consistently 

higher reliability. 

2.		 Test-retest reliability: the authors reported 

test-retest reliability estimates for 15 WJ III 

cognitive and achievement tests, with intervals 

ranging from less than 1 year to more than 10 

years. For retest intervals between 1 and 2 

years, reliability estimates ranged from .57 to 

.91 for children age 2 to 7 years (most were 

above .80); for retest intervals from 3 to 10 

years with the same age group, estimates 

ranged from .35 to .90, with tests in the 

Thinking Abilities cluster exhibiting lower 

reliability estimates than those in the 

Acquired Knowledge cluster. In a second 

study conducted with 457 students 4 to 17 

years of age, researchers calculated the testretest reliability estimates of the 17 WJ III 

ACH tests and 16 clusters, with a retest 

interval of 1 year. For students age 4 through 7 

years, reliability coefficients across ages 

ranged from .59 to .92 for scores across the 

tests and from .74 to .96 for the clusters. 

3.		 Inter-rater reliability: no information available 

for infant/toddler or preschool-age groups. 

228 
229 

Validity: 

1. Content validity: the WJ III NU’s content 

rests on its adherence to the CHC theory of 

cognitive abilities for tests and clusters. 

Content was also designed to assess core 

curricular areas and areas specified in federal 

legislation. For the cognitive battery, experts 

developed test items to measure both narrow 

and broad abilities; each test is intended to 

measure a discrete narrow ability, and clusters 

of tests are meant to assess broad abilities. 

Achievement test items were developed to 

sample skills of oral language and academic 

achievement in reading, mathematics, written 

language, and curricular knowledge. The 

Technical Manual cites data demonstrating 

the growth and decline of cognitive and 

achievement abilities over the lifespan. 

The developers conducted two confirmatory 

factor analyses with the WJ III norming 

sample (N = 3,900). Results indicated that, for 

the WJ III COG, a latent factor model with 

one general factor (g) and seven broad factors 

provided the best fit among alternative 

models. Data analyses on the combined 

cognitive and achievement batteries showed 

that an expanded model with one general 

factor and nine broad factors, plus several 

narrow abilities, provided the most plausible 

fit. 

2. Concurrent validity: the WJ III NU Technical 

Manual cites positive correlations between the 

WJ III tests and clusters applicable to children 

as young as age 2 that measure similar 

constructs. The developers also found positive 

correlations between WJ III tests and clusters 

and other tests measuring similar constructs. 

Studies conducted with preschool-age samples 

found correlations ranging from .67 to .76 

between the WJ III General Intellectual 

Ability standard and extended scores with 

full-scale or composite scores from the 

Differential Ability Scales, Wechsler Preschool 

and Primary Scale of Intelligence-Revised, and 

Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale-Fourth 

Edition. These studies also reported 

correlations ranging from .60 to .67 between 

the WJ III Brief Intellectual Ability score and 

the full-scale or composite scores from the 

aptitude tests mentioned above. 

The WJ III NU Technical Manual presents 

median scores and standard deviations for 

selected WJ III NU clusters for the total 

norming sample (not broken down by age) 

and for 11 clinical samples comprising 

individuals with developmental, educational, 

and neuropsychological disabilities and gifted 

children and adolescents under age 19. 

Although statistical significance was not 

established, cluster score differences were 

observed across clinical groups. For example, 

gifted students’ median cluster scores ranged 

from 103 to 121 versus 99 to 101 for the total 

norming sample. 

3. Construct validity: the WJ III NU Technical 

Manual states that intercorrelations among 

tests and clusters measuring different abilities 

were lower than those between tests 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

measuring similar abilities. For example, 

correlations between the ComprehensionKnowledge tests of Verbal Comprehension, 

General Information, Picture Vocabulary, and 

Academic Knowledge with the Visual-Spatial 

tests of Spatial Relations and Picture 

Recognition ranged from .37 to .48 for 2- and 

3-year-olds and from .34 to .64 for 4- and 5­

year-olds. At the cluster level, 

intercorrelations among WJ III COG clusters 

typically ranged from .34 to .89 for 2- to 3­

year-olds. 

Bias Analysis: The developers conducted bias 

analyses during development of the WJ III to 

minimize potential bias related to gender, race, 

Hispanic origin, and disability status. First, 

experts reviewed items for potential bias and 

eliminated or revised all items identified as 

potentially biased. Next, selected items were 

subjected to differential item functioning (DIF) 

analyses conducted with the Rasch IRT model. 

The analyses focused on a pool of items from the 

WJ III COG Comprehension-Knowledge tests and 

the WJ III ACH Academic Knowledge test in view 

of the tests’ strong emphases on language and 

achievement influences. The items assessed 

vocabulary, general language development, 

general information, and curricular and general 

cultural knowledge. The results indicated that 

only a few items differed significantly between 

groups; expert reviewers flagged and removed one 

item. The other items were retained because of the 

possibility of spurious findings related to the 

number of statistical comparisons conducted. In 

addition, the developers conducted three 

multiple-group CFAs to examine latent factor 

structure invariance across groups. The latent 

factor structure of the WJ III was largely invariant 

between males and females, white and non-white 

students, and Hispanic and non-Hispanic 

students. An independent study supported the 

latent structural invariance of the WJ III for black 

and white students (Edwards and Oakland 2006). 

Methods of Scoring: The Examiner’s Manuals 

and the test easels (the flip books used for testing) 

summarize the general test and individual item 

scoring rules. The assessor indicates on the test 

record form whether the child passes or fails an 

item. The assessor computes raw scores by 

summing the number of correct responses and 

then enters the scores into the computer scoring 

program, which generates norm-referenced scores 

(computer scoring is required for the WJ III NU). 

Grade or age equivalents, instructional ranges, 

standard scores (deviation quotients), and 

percentile ranks may be computed for each test 

and cluster. Users may also compute relative 

proficiency indexes (RPI), which are ratios 

reflecting a child’s performance compared to the 

performance of the average child of the same age 

or grade. 

Interpretability: The Examiner’s Manuals 

provide information about how to interpret 

individual test scores, cluster scores, and 

discrepancies between scores in the cognitive and 

ability areas. The WJ III NU computer scoring 

program offers options for interpreting intraindividual profiles of cognitive abilities and 

230 
231 

achievement as well as ability-achievement 

discrepancies. The Woodcock Interpretation and 

Instructional Interventions Program software 

provides assistance with test interpretation by 

linking assessment results to evidence-based 

interventions and report writing. 

Training Support: The publisher makes 

available training videos and workbooks and 

offers national and regional group training 

sessions as well as individual training sessions. 

Technical support is also available by telephone 

and online. 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: The Examiner’s 

Manuals describe accommodations for testing 

individuals with various difficulties and 

impairments (including attention, behavioral, 

reading, hearing, visual, and physical disabilities). 

Report Preparation Support: The Woodcock 

Interpretation and Instructional Interventions 

Program software provides assistance with test 

interpretation by linking assessment results to 

evidence-based interventions and report writing. 

References: 

Bradley-Johnson, Sharon, and Gokce 

Durmusoglu. “Evaluation of Floors and Item 

Gradients for Reading and Math Tests for Young 

Children.” Journal of Psychoeducational 

Assessment, vol. 23, no. 3, 2005, pp. 262-278. 

Edwards, Oliver, and Thomas Oakland. 

“Factorial Invariance of Woodcock-Johnson III 

Scores for African Americans and Caucasian 

Americans.” Journal of Psychoeducational 

Assessment, vol. 24, no. 4, 2006, pp. 358-366. 

Krasa, Nancy. “Is the Woodcock-Johnson III a 

Test for All Seasons? Ceiling and Item Gradient 

Considerations in Its Use with Older Students.” 

Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, vol. 25, 

no. 1, 2007, pp. 3-16. 

Mather, Nancy, and Richard W. Woodcock. 

Examiner’s Manual. Woodcock-Johnson III Tests 

of Achievement. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing, 

2001. 

Mather, Nancy, and Richard W. Woodcock. 

Examiner’s Manual. Woodcock-Johnson III Tests 

of Cognitive Abilities. Itasca, IL: Riverside 

Publishing, 2001. 

McGrew, Kevin S., Fredrick A. Schrank, and 

Richard W. Woodcock. Technical Manual. 

Woodcock-Johnson III Normative Update. Rolling 

Meadows, IL: Riverside Publishing, 2007. 

McGrew, Kevin S., and Richard W. 

Woodcock. Technical Manual. Woodcock-Johnson 

III. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing, 2001. 

Munoz-Sandoval, A.F., Richard W. 

Woodcock, Kevin S. McGrew, and Nancy Mather. 

Batería III Woodcock-Muñoz: Pruebas De 

Aprovechamiento. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing, 

2005a. 

Munoz-Sandoval, Ana F., Richard W. 

Woodcock, Kevin S. McGrew, and Nancy Mather. 

Batería III Woodcock-Muñoz. Itasca, IL: Riverside 

Publishing, 2005b. 
 

 

Munoz-Sandoval, Ana F., Richard W. 

Woodcock, Kevin S. McGrew, and Nancy Mather. 

Batería III Woodcock-Muñoz: Pruebas De 

Habilidades Cognitivas. Itasca, IL: Riverside 

Publishing, 2005c. 

Schrank, F.A., and Richard W. Woodcock. WJ 

III Normative Update Compuscore and Profiles 

Program (Version 3.0) [Computer Software]. 

Woodcock-Johnson III. Rolling Meadows, IL: 

Riverside Publishing, 2007. 

Schrank, Fredrick A., Kevin S. McGrew, Mary 

L. Ruef, Criselda G. Alvarado, Ana F. MunozSandoval, and Richard W. Woodcock. “Overview 

and Technical Supplement (Batería III 

Woodcock-Muñoz Assessment Service Bulletin 

No. 1).” Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing, 2005. 

Schrank, Fredrick A., Barbara J. Wending, and 

Richard W. Woodcock. Woodcock Interpretation 

and Instructional Interventions Program. Rolling 

Meadows, IL: Riverside Publishing, 2007. 

Woodcock, Richard W., K.S. McGrew, and 

Nancy Mather. Woodcock-Johnson III. Rolling 

Meadows, IL: Riverside Publishing, 2007. 

Woodcock, Richard W., Kevin S. McGrew, 

and Nancy Mather. Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of 

Achievement. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside 

Publishing, 2007. 

Woodcock, Richard W., Kevin S. McGrew, 

and Nancy Mather. Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of 

Cognitive Abilities. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside 

Publishing, 2007. 

Woodcock, Richard W., Kevin S. McGrew, 

Nancy Mather, and Fredrick A. Schrank. 

Woodcock-Johnson III Diagnostic Supplement to 

the Tests of Cognitive Abilities. Rolling Meadows, 

IL: Riverside Publishing, 2007. 

Woodcock, Richard W., Kevin S. McGrew, 

Fredrick A. Schrank, and Nancy Mather. 

Woodcock-Johnson III Normative Update. Rolling 

Meadows, IL: Riverside Publishing, 2007. 

Woodcock, Richard W., Fredrick A. Schrank, 

Nancy Mather, and Kevin S. McGrew. WoodcockJohnson III Tests of Achievement, Form C/Brief 

Battery. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside 

Publishing, 2007. 

232 
233 

Parenting, the Home Environment, and Parent Well-Being 

Instruments 
 234
235 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2,3 1 1 1 1 2 

Unspecified 3 1 3 2 1 2 

Unspecified 3 1 3 3 1 2 

Unspecified 3 1 2 2 1 2 

0-3 years, ITHOME and 3-6 

years, EC

HOME 

2,3 1 3 2,3 1 2 

X 6-47 months 1,2 1 1 1 1 3 

Unspecified 1 1 3 2 1 3 

Unspecified 1 1 3 2 1 3 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Beck Anxiety Inventory S X 17-80 years 3 1 3 3 2 2 

Beck Depression Inventory-Second Edition S X 13-80 years 3 1 3 3 2 2 

Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression 

Scale S X 18+ years 3 1 2 3 1 2 

Child Abuse Potential Inventory S X X X Unspecified 3 2 3 2 1 2 

Composite International Diagnostic Interview A X Adults 3 2 3 3 1 3 

Conflict Tactics Scales, Parent-Child Version S X Unspecified 3 1 2 1 1 2 

Confusion, Hubbub, and Order Scale S X Unspecified 3 1 3 2 1 2 

Early Head Start National Evaluation 

Questionnaires 

NA X 

Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale S X 16+ years 3 1 1 3 1 2 

Family Environment Scale A X Unspecified 3 3 3 1 2 2 

Family Map of the Parenting Environment of 

Infants and Toddlers (IT-Family Map) and 

Family Map of the Parenting Environment in 

Early Childhood (EC-Family Map) 

0-3 years, ITFamily Map and 

3-5 years, EC

Family Map 

A X X X X

Family Needs Scale S X

Family Resource Scale S X

Family Support Scale S X

The Home Observation for Measurement of 

the Environment Inventory for 

Infants/Toddlers (IT-HOME) and Early 

Childhood (EC-HOME) 

A X X 

Infant-Toddler and Family Instrument S X X 

Kempe Family Stress Inventory S X 

Knowledge of Infant Development Inventory S X 

Nursing Child Assessment Teaching Scales A X 0-36 months 2 2 3 2 2 3 

 

 

Adult-Adolescent Parenting Inventory-2 S X X X 13+ years 3 2 3 3 3 2 

Screening 

or 

Assessment 

Domain Initial 

Material 

Cost 

Ease of 

Administration 

& Scoring 

Assessment 

Type 

Norming 

Instrument H P PE F O Age Range Reliability Validity Sample 

Parenting, the Home Environment, and Parent Well-Being Instrumentsa 

 

­

­

a The information included in this table was drawn from the manuals or other resources available from the authors and publishers of the instruments. Individual users may have 

different experiences. 
 236

 

Parental Modernity Scale 

Parenting Alliance Measure 

A 

A 

X 

X X 

Adults 

Adults 

3 

3 

1 

2 

3 

3 

3 

3 

1 

2 

2 

2 

Parenting Interactions with Children: 

Checklist of Observations Linked to Outcomes A X 1-3 years 2 1 3 2 1 3 

(PICCOLO) 

Parenting Stress Index S X 0-12 months 1 2 3 3 2 3 

Support Functions Scale S X Unspecified 3 1 2 2 1 2 

KEY 

Domains 

H = Home environment 

P = Parenting, parent-child 

relationship 

PE = Parent mental health 

F = Family functioning, support 

O = Other 

Assessment Type 

1 = Direct assessment 

2 = Observation 

3 = Parent/ self report 

Initial Material Cost 

1 = Under $100 

2 = $100 to $200 

3 = More than $200 

Reliability 

1 = None described 

2 = Under .65 

3 = .65 or higher 

Validity 

1 = None described 

2 = Under .5 for concurrent; under .4 for predictive 

3 = .5 or higher for concurrent; .4 or higher for predictive 

Validity 

1 = None described 

2 = Under .5 for concurrent; under .4 for predictive 

3 = .5 or higher for concurrent; .4 or higher for predictive 

Norming sample 

1 = None described 

2 = Older than 15 years, not nationally representative or representative of EHS population 

3 = Normed within past 15 years, nationally representative or representative of EHS population 

Ease of administration and scoring 

1 = Not described 

2 = Self-administered or administered and scored by someone with basic clerical skills 

3 = Administered and scored by a highly trained individual 
ADULT-ADOLESCENT PARENTING INVENTORY (AAPI-2), 1999 

Authors: 

Stephen J. Bavolek and Richard G. Keene 

Publisher: 

Family Development Resources, Inc. 

800-688-5822 

www.nurturingparenting.com/ 

-or

www.familydev.com 

Initial Material Cost: 

The AAPI-2 complete kit (includes the handbook, test 

forms A and B, Scoring Stencil for forms A and B, 

profiles (pkg. of 100), worksheets (pkg. Of 100): $122. 

Complete kit also available on CD-ROM for $186. 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: 

A non-randomly selected sample (that the authors 

describe as nationally representative) of adolescents 

and adults (abusive and non-abusive adults, abused and 

non-abused adolescents, and teen parents) referred by 

agencies from around the country using the original 

AAPI participated in the standardization of the AAPI

2. 

Languages: 

English and Spanish 

Type of Assessment: 

Self-report 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

Persons ages 13 and older 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: 

An individual can learn to score the assessment by 

reading the manual. No training is necessary. 

Approximately 20 minutes to administer. Written at a 

5th grade reading level. 

Summary: 

Initial Material Cost: 2 ($100 to $200) 

Reliability: 3 (.65 or higher) 

Validity: 3 (.5 or higher for concurrent/discriminant) 

Norming Sample Characteristics: 3 (normed within the 

past 15 years, nationally representative) 

Ease of Administration and Scoring: 2 (self

administered) 

­

­ ­

Description: The Adult-Adolescent Parenting 

Inventory (AAPI-2) is a 40-item questionnaire 

used to assess the parenting attitudes and child 

rearing practices of adolescents and adults. The 

purpose of the inventory is to determine the 

degree to which respondents agree or disagree 

with parenting behaviors and attitudes known to 

contribute to child abuse and neglect. Responses 

are given on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 

Strongly Agree, Agree, Uncertain, Disagree, to 

Strongly Disagree. Responses provide a standard 

for risk in five parenting constructs known to 

contribute to the maltreatment of children: (1) 

inappropriate parental expectations, (2) inability 

to demonstrate empathy towards children’s needs, 

(3) strong belief in the use of corporal 

punishment, (4) reversing parent-child family 

roles, and (5) oppressing children’s power and 

independence. The AAPI-2 comes in two alternate 

forms—A and B—to reduce the practice effect 

when repeating the inventory in a short time 

period. 

Uses of Information: Responses to the AAPI2 permit the identification of high-risk child 

rearing and parenting practices that could lead to 

physical or emotional abuse or neglect of children. 

In addition, the AAPI-2 is used to (1) provide 

pretest and posttest data to measure treatment 

237 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

effectiveness, (2) assess the parenting and child 

rearing attitudes of parents and adolescents prior 

to parenthood, (3) design specific treatment and 

intervention parenting education programs, (4) 

design nurturing experiences for parents and 

adolescents whose attitudes indicate a high risk 

for child maltreatment, and (5) screen foster 

parent applicants, child care staff, and volunteers 

for education and training purposes. 

Reliability: (1) Internal reliability: Reliability 

coefficients for the five parenting constructs using 

the Spearman-Brown formula ranged from .83 to 

.93 on Form A, .80 to .93 on Form B, and .87 to 

.96 on Forms A and B combined. The Cronbach 

alphas ranged from .80 to .92 on both Forms A 

and B and .86 to .96 on Forms A and B combined. 

Validity: (1) Content validity: Statements 

made by parents about children formed the basis 

of the inventory items. Professionals in the 

helping fields assigned items to one of the five 

parenting constructs and assessed items’ 

suitability for a Likert scale. (2) Construct validity: 

The authors provide factor analysis results that 

provide evidence for five underlying factors. (3) 

Criterion-related validity: A comparison between 

a group of abusive parents and a group of nonabusive parents (1,985 total sample size) found 

that abusive parents had mean scores on each of 

the parenting constructs that were statistically 

significantly lower than non-abusive parents. In 

general, males were also found to have lower 

scores than females, but there was no parentinggender interaction effect. The authors provide 

evidence that the AAPI-2 discriminates between 

abusive and non-abusive parents in samples of 

adults and in sample of adolescents. 

Method of Scoring: Scoring is completed by 

placing a stencil over the test items and recording 

the numerical value of each response (1-5 points). 

The numerical values are recorded on the profile 

worksheet for each of the five subscales. The 

values are summed to obtain the subscale total 

raw score. The AAPI-2 worksheet and table of 

norms located in the Handbook convert total raw 

scores to standard scores for developing a risk 

profile on the worksheet. The respondent’s 

attitudes in each of the five sub-scales can be 

compared with the parenting and child rearing 

attitudes of parents or adolescents. Tables convert 

raw scores to standard ten (sten) scores by gender 

(male or female), parental status (parents or nonparents), and age (adults or adolescents). 

Interpretability: The standard scores are 

plotted on the AAPI Parenting Profile, which 

provides an index of risk for abusive and/or 

neglecting behaviors. The sten scores on the 

Profile sheet range from 1 to 10. Low sten scores 

(1 to 4) generally indicate a high risk for 

practicing known abusive parenting practices; 

mid-range scores (4 to 7) represent the parenting 

attitudes of the general population; and high sten 

scores (7 to 10) indicate the expressed parenting 

attitudes reflect a nurturing, non-abusive 

parenting philosophy. The manual provides 

instructions for interpreting the scale’s total score 

and the subscale scores. 

238 
Training Support: Training workshops and 

training assistance is available. Call 828-681-8120 

or send an email to fnc@nurturingparenting.com. 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: The assessment can 

be administered orally to non-readers. 

Report Preparation Support: None described 

beyond the profiles. 

References: 

Bavolek, Stephen J. and Richard G. Keene. 

Adult-Adolescent Parenting Inventory AAPI-2 

Administration and Development Handbook. 

Park City, UT: Family Development Resources, 

Inc., 1999. 

239 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BECK ANXIETY INVENTORY (BAI), 1993
 
 

Authors: 

Aaron T. Beck and Robert A. Steer 

Publisher: 

The Psychological Corporation 

(800) 228-0752 

http://www.pearsonassessments.com/HAIWEB/Cultur 

es/en-us/Productdetail.htm?Pid=015-8018­

400&Mode=summary 

Initial Materials: 

Complete Kit: $66 (Includes Manual and 25 Record 

Forms) Spanish Record Forms (25/package): $35 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: 

Not nationally representative (the three normative 

samples of psychiatric outpatients were drawn from 

consecutive routine evaluations at the Center for 

Cognitive Therapy in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The 

total sample size was 1,086.) 

Languages: 

English and Spanish 

Type of Assessment: 

Self-report 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

17 through 80 years 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: The BAI may be administered and 

scored by paraprofessionals, but it should be used and 

interpreted only by professionals with appropriate 

clinical training and experience. The BAI requires 5 to 

10 minutes to complete when it is self-administered 

and 10 minutes when it is orally administered. 

Scoring takes 5 minutes. 

Summary: 

Initial Material Cost: 1 (< $100)
 


Reliability: 3 (.65 or higher)
 


Validity: 3 (.5 or higher for concurrent)
 


Norming Sample Characteristics: 2 (not nationally 
 

representative, normed within past 15 years)
 


Ease of Administration and Scoring: 2 (self­


administered; scored by someone with basic clerical
 


skills)
 


Description: The Beck Anxiety Inventory 

(BAI) is a 21-item scale that measures the severity 

of self-reported anxiety in adults and adolescents. 

It consists of descriptive statements of anxiety 

symptoms which are rated on a 4-point scale with 

the following correspondence: “Not at all” (0 

points); “Mildly; it did not bother me much” (1); 

“Moderately; it was very unpleasant, but I could 

stand it” (2); and “Severely; I could barely stand it” 

(3). 

Uses of Information: The Beck Anxiety 

Inventory was specifically designed to reduce the 

overlap between depression and anxiety scales by 

measuring anxiety symptoms shared minimally 

with those of depression. 

Reliability: (1) Internal consistency 

(Cronbach’s alpha) ranged from .92 to .94 for 

adults. The alphas for the Diagnostic and 

Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Third 

Edition—Revised (DSM-III-R) anxiety disorder 

groups ranged from .85 to .93. (2) Test-retest 

reliability (1-week interval): .75. Reliability of the 

BAI for adolescents has not been directly tested. 

Validity: (1) Concurrent validity: the 

correlation with the Hamilton Anxiety Rating 

Scale—Revised was .51. The correlation with the 

240 
241 

anxiety subscale of the Cognition Check List, 

which measures the frequency of dysfunctional 

cognitions related to anxiety, was also .51. The 

BAI is also significantly correlated with the Trait 

(.58) and State (.47) subscales of the State-Trait 

Anxiety Inventory (Form Y) and with the mean 7

day anxiety rating (.54) of the Weekly Record of 

Anxiety and Depression. Validity of the BAI for 

adolescents has not been directly tested. 

Method of Scoring: The BAI total score is the

sum of the ratings for the 21 symptoms. Each 

symptom is rated on a 4-point scale ranging from 

0 to 3. The maximum score is 63 points. The Beck 

Computer Scoring (BCS) program also scores and

interprets the BAI. 

Interpretability: According to the 1993 

Revisions of the BAI manual, total scores of 0 to 7 

reflect “Minimal level of anxiety”; scores of 8 to 15

indicate “Mild anxiety”; scores of 16 to 25 reflect 

“Moderate anxiety”; and scores of 26 to 63 

indicate “Severe anxiety.” Because a BAI total 

score yields only an estimate of the overall severity 

of anxiety being described by a person, the 

clinician interpreting the score should consider 

other aspects of the individual’s psychological 

functioning. 

Training Support: None described. 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: If an examinee 

needs help to complete the inventory, instructions 

are given in the manual for how to administer the 

inventory orally. 

Report Preparation Support: None 

described. 

References: 

Beck, Aaron T. and Robert A. Steer. Beck 

Anxiety Inventory Manual. San Antonio, TX: The 

Psychological Corporation Harcourt Brace & 

Company, 1993. 

­
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BECK DEPRESSION INVENTORY—SECOND EDITION (BDI-II), 

1996 

Authors: 

Aaron T. Beck, Robert A. Steer, and Gregory K. Brown 

Publisher: 

The Psychological Corporation 

(800) 228-0752 

www.psychcorp.com 

Initial Material Cost: 

Complete kit: $65 (includes manual and 25 record 

forms) 

Beck InterpreTrak: $50 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: 

Clinical and non-clinical sample of 500 outpatients 

from two urban and two rural psychiatric institutes 

Languages: 

English and Spanish (record forms only) 

Type of Assessment: 

Self-report 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

13 through 80 years 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: 

Requires only a few minutes to familiarize oneself with 

the inventory, 5 to 10 minutes to administer, and a few 

minutes to score. 

Summary: 

Initial Material Cost: 1 (< $100)
 


Reliability: Internal consistency and test-retest 
 

Reliability: 3 (.65 or higher)
 


Validity: 3 (Concurrent validity mostly above .5)
 


Norming Sample Characteristics: 2 (conducted within
 


past 15 years, not nationally representative)
 


Ease of Administration and Scoring: 2 (self­


administered)
 


Description: The Beck Depression Inventory 

(second edition) is a self-administered tool for 

screening and assessing the severity of depression 

in adolescents and adults. Twenty-one items 

assess the intensity of depression in diagnosed 

patients as well as detect possible depression in 

normal population. Each item is a list of four 

statements arranged in increasing severity about a 

particular symptom of depression. This version of 

the BDI is in compliance with DSM-IV criteria for 

depression, and the age range covered has been 

expanded to 13 to 80 years of age. 

Uses of Information: The BDI-II is an 

assessment of the severity of depression in 

psychiatrically diagnosed adults and adolescent 

patients aged 13 and older. It was developed as an 

indicator of the presence and degree of symptoms 

correlated with depression as defined in the DSMIV (including suicidality), not as an instrument 

for specifying a clinical diagnosis. It is also used 

extensively to monitor therapeutic progress. 

Reliability: (1) Internal consistency 

(Cronbach’s alpha) is .92 for clinical patients and 

.93 for non-clinical individuals. (2) Test-retest 

reliability is .93 (only for a small subsample of 

outpatients, tested with a one week lapse). 

Validity: (1) Concurrent validity: two 

comparisons between BDI-II and its previous 

version resulted in correlations of .93 and .84, the 

latter using the take-home form. Other tests found 

BDI-II to be correlated with the Beck 

Hopelessness Scale (.68), Scale for Suicide 

Ideation (.37), Beck Anxiety Inventory (.60), 

242 
 

243 

Hamilton Psychiatric Rating Scale for DepressionRevised (.71), and Hamilton Rating Scale for 

Anxiety - Revised (.47). 

Method of Scoring: Most items on the BDI-II 

are rated on a 4-point scale ranging from 0 to 3. 

Several items have seven response options to 

discern differences in behavior or motivation. The 

BDI-II is scored by adding the ratings for the 21 

items. The maximum total score is 63. 

Interpretability: The interpretation of the 

scores should be done by professionals who have 

appropriate training and experience. Clinical 

interpretation of total scores uses the following 

guidelines: 0 to 13 (minimal depression),1 14 to 19 

(mild depression), 20 to 28 (moderate depression), 

and 29 to 63 (severe depression). The Beck 

InterpreTrak software package offers a quick 

analysis of results for all of the Beck Scales 

(Depression, Anxiety, Hopelessness, and Suicidal 

Ideation) and then summarizes results in a single 

interpretive report with insights from Aaron T. 

Beck, M.D. IntepreTrak also helps monitor 

progress by generating longitudinal graphs and 

outcome ratings for each patient. 

1 Note that some research has shown that women who scored 

0 or 1 tend to exhibit similar behaviors to high scoring 

women when observed in parent-child play. This has been 

attributed to denial—healthy people experience and endure at 

least some symptoms of depression. 

Training Support: Minimal training is 

required for administering or scoring the scale. 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: For individuals 

with reading or concentration difficulties, the 

items may be read aloud by the examiner. The 

manual includes instructions for both oral and 

self-administration. The manual also includes 

brief guidelines on how to help patients with 

severe depression understand the range of 

responses to the questions. 

Report Preparation Support: The 

InterpreTrak software (available in CD-ROM or 

diskette) produces a comprehensive interpretive 

report. 

References: 

Beck, Aaron T., Gregory K. Brown, and 

Robert A. Steer. Beck Depression Inventory-II 

(BDI-II). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological 

Corporation, 1996. 

Beck, Aaron T. Beck InterpreTrak. San 

Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation, 

2000. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CENTER FOR EPIDEMIOLOGIC STUDIES DEPRESSION SCALE 

(CES-D), 1985 

Authors: 

L.S. Radloff 

Publisher: 

National Institute of Mental Health 

Initial Material Cost: 

None 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: 

Scale not normed. 

Languages: 

English 

Type of Assessment: 

Self-report 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

Intended for individuals over 18 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: 

No training is required. The scale takes about 10 

minutes to complete, and only a few minutes to score. 

Summary: 

Initial Material Cost: 1 (< $100)
 


Reliability: Internal consistency: 3 (.65 or higher); Test-
 

retest: 2 (< .65)
 


Validity: Concurrent: 3 (.5 or higher)
 


Norming Sample Characteristics: 1 (none described)
 


Ease of Administration and Scoring: 2 (self­


administered)
 


Description: The Center for Epidemiological 

Studies-Depression Scale (CES-D) is a 20-item 

instrument that can be self-administered or 

administered with minimal involvement by an 

interviewer. The instrument was developed by the 

National Institute of Mental Health to detect 

major or clinical depression in the general 

(nonpsychiatric) adult population (i.e., persons 

older than 18), specifically the frequency and 

duration of cognitive, affective, and behavioral 

depressive symptoms (within the past week). 

Uses of Information: The CES-D is used for 

initial screening of symptoms related to 

depression or psychological distress. However, 

because the CES-D does not assess the full-range 

of depression symptoms (for example, it does not 

assess suicidality) and because it assesses the 

occurrence of the symptoms during the past week, 

users are cautioned against relying on the CES-D 

exclusively. It has also been used extensively for 

research purposes to investigate levels of 

depression among the nonpsychiatric population. 

Reliability: (1) Internal consistency reliability 

(Cronbach’s alpha) ranged from .84 to .90 in field 

studies. (2) Test-retest reliability: Ranges from .51 

to .67 in 2- to 8-week intervals and .41 to .54 in 3­

to 12-month intervals. 

Validity: (1) Concurrent validity: studies have 

examined the degree to which CES-D scores are in 

agreement with other measures of depression. 

These studies found CES-D to have correlations 

ranging from .50s to .80s with the Hamilton rating 

scale, .30s to .80s with the Raskin rating scale, .40s 

to .50s with the Lubin Depression Adjective 

Checklist, .60s and .20s, respectively, with the 

Bradburn Affect Balance Scale’s Negative Affect 

and Positive Affect Scales, .50s with the Langner 

scale and .43 with the Cantril life satisfaction 

ladder. Discriminant validity tests found CES-D to 

be less successful in differentiating between 

244 
245 

depression and other types of emotional 

responses, such as anger, fear, and boredom. 

Method of Scoring: Respondents indicate the 

frequency or duration of time (in the past week) 

during which they have experienced certain 

feelings/situations. They circle a number between 

0 and 3; 0 indicates that the situation occurred 

“rarely or none of the time” (less than 1 day), 1 

indicates “some or a little of the time” (1 to 2 

days), 2 indicates “occasionally or a moderate 

amount of time” (3 to 4 days), and 3 indicates 

“most or all of the time” (5 to 7 days). After 

adjusting the scores for the four positive-feature 

items, the item scores are summed to obtain the 

total scale score. 

Interpretability: The possible range of total 

scores is from 0 to 60, with higher scores 

indicating greater distress. Radloff, the author of 

the scale, suggests that that a total score of 16 be 

used as the cutoff to indicate “case” depression. 

However, other studies have suggested that scores 

of 0 to 15.5 be interpreted to indicate that an 

individual is “not depressed”, 16 to 20.5 to 

indicate “mild depression”, 21 to 30.5 to indicate 

“moderate depression”, and 31 or higher to 

indicate “severe depression”. It is suggested that 

the scale be used only as an indicator of symptoms 

relating to depression, not as a means to clinically 

diagnose depression. Therefore, higher scores on 

the CES-D scale may indicate a need for further 

clinical tests/screenings. However, because of the 

CES-D’s limitations, a low score does not 

necessarily indicate the absence of clinical 

depression. 

Training Support: None described. 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: None described. 

Report Preparation Support: None 

described. 

References: 

Devins, Gerald M. and Carolee M. Orme. 

“Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression 

Scale.” In Test Critiques, edited by D.J. Keyser and 

R.C. Sweetland. Kansas City, MO: Test 

Corporation of America, 1985. 

Radloff, L.S. “The CES-D Scale: A Self-Report 

Depression Scale for Research in the General 

Population.” Applied Psychological Measurement, 

vol. 1, 1977, pp. 385-401. 
 

 

 

 

 

THE CHILD ABUSE POTENTIAL INVENTORY (CAP), SECOND 

EDITION, 1986 

Authors: 

Joel S. Milner 

Publisher: 

Psytec Corporation (815) 758-1415 

Initial Material Cost: 

CAP Inventory Manual: $30 

Interpretive Manual: $20 

Package of ten tests: $16 (also available in packages of 

25, 50, and 100) 

Hand-scoring templates: $50 

CAPSCORE computer scoring program: $195 

(software is currently being updated) 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: 

Not nationally representative 

Languages: 

English and Spanish 

Type of Assessment: 

Parent or caregiver self-report 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

Not applicable 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: 

A trained nonprofessional under the supervision of a 

qualified professional can administer the Inventory. 

However, interpretation should be done by a 

professionally trained social worker, counselor, 

psychologist, or other professional with advanced 

training in assessment and test interpretation. This 

inventory requires a 3rd grade reading level. It takes 20 

minutes to administer. Scoring can be done by 

computer or by hand. 

Summary: 

Initial Material Cost: 2 ($100 to $200) 


Reliability: 3 (.65 or higher) for 77-item CAP abuse 


scale 


Validity: 2 (.5 or higher for concurrent and < .4 for 


predictive) 


Norming Sample Characteristics: 1 (none described) 


Ease of Administration and Scoring: 2 (self­


administered, scored by a highly trained individual or 


computer program) 


Description: The CAP Inventory is a 160­

item questionnaire designed to assist in screening 

male and female parents or primary caregivers 

who are suspected of physical child abuse. The 

Inventory (Form VI) contains a total of 10 scales. 

The primary clinical scale is the 77-item physical 

child abuse scale. This abuse scale can be divided 

into six factor scales: distress, rigidity, 

unhappiness, problems with child and self, 

problems with family, and problems from others. 

In addition, the CAP Inventory contains three 

validity scales: the lie scale, the random response 

scale, and the inconsistency scale. The validity 

scales are used in various combinations to 

produce three response distortion indexes: the 

faking-good index, faking-bad index, and random 

response index. This instrument should always be 

used in conjunction with evaluation data from 

other sources, including interviews and other test 

data. 

Uses of Information: The CAP Inventory is 

intended to assist in the screening of suspected 

physical child abuse cases in social services 

agencies and similar settings. It can also be used as 

a screening tool for the selection of individuals 

who are at increased risk for physical child abuse, 

246 
247 

to assess clients prior to treatment, or for 

treatment or program evaluation purposes. 

Reliability: (1) Split-half reliability: Split-half 

reliabilities ranging from .93 to .98 and Kuder 

Richardson-20 coefficients ranging from .85 to .96 

have been reported for different gender, age, 

educational level, and ethnic groups. 

Validity: (1) Construct validity: The CAP 

abuse score is positively correlated (.48) with the 

amount of physical abuse in childhood. (2) 

Predictive validity: a significant correlation of .34 

was found between abuse scores and subsequent 

confirmed reports of abuse and neglect. 

Method of Scoring: Each item is answered in 

a forced-choice, agree-disagree format. Scoring 

can be done by hand or by computer using a 

computer-scoring program (CAPSCORE). The 

hand scoring approach uses a series of transparent 

scoring templates to generate the scale scores. The 

name of each CAP Inventory scale and the 

associated items to be scored are indicated on each 

template. For the Abuse Scale and six factor scales, 

weighted scores are then summed and scale scores 

are produced. For the Validity Scales, a 

nonweighted scoring procedure is used. 

The Response Distortion Index Scores are 

determined using the raw score totals of different 

pairs of the individual validity scales. A nonweighted scoring procedure is used for Special 

Scale Scores. To avoid errors, it is recommended 

that the CAPSCORE program be purchased and 

used to score the Inventory. It computes all of the 

above scores automatically. 

Interpretability: Interpretation rules for the 

validity scales, the response distortion indexes, the 

CAP abuse scale, and the six abuse factor scales 

are outlined in the Technical and the Interpretive 

Manuals. Cut-off scores are listed in the manual. 

The author recommends using a cut-off score of 

116, or 215 out of the possible 0 to 400 points, 

depending on the sensitivity and specificity 

required. The manual specifies that the 77-item 

abuse scale score, not individual factor scores, 

should be employed for the screening of physical 

child abusers. 

Training Support: None described. 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: None described. 

Report Preparation Support: None 

described. 

References: 

Milner, Joel S. The Child Abuse Potential 

Inventory: Manual (Second Edition). DeKalb, IL: 

Psytec, 1986. 

Milner, Joel S. An Interpretive Manual for The 

Child Abuse Potential Inventory. Webster, NC: 

Psytec, 1990. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

COMPOSITE INTERNATIONAL DIAGNOSTIC INTERVIEW (CIDI), 

1997 

Authors: 

World Health Organization 

Publisher: 

World Health Organization 

www.who.int/msa/cidi/ 

Initial Material Cost: 

Complete Package (includes lifetime and 12-month 

interviews, plus interviewer’s and trainer’s manual, 

Probe Flow Chart, and question specifications. Also 

includes the scoring and data entry programs for both 

interviews.): $150; 

CIDI Auto (The computerized version of the CIDI): 

$500 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: 

None described 

Languages: 

English, Spanish, French, Italian, Dutch, German, and 

Portuguese1 

1 Other language versions are in preparation. 

Type of Assessment: 

Self report 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

Adults who can read and write 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: 

Administration time is 75 minutes for the regular form; 

20 minutes for the short form. The instruments can be 

administered by a trained nonclinician and scored by a 

clerical individual. Computer scoring takes 20 minutes. 

Summary: 

Initial Material Cost: 2 ($100 to $200)
 


Reliability: Inter-rater: 3 (kappa .65 and higher), Test-
 

retest: 3 (kappa mostly .65 and higher)
 


Validity: Concurrent: 3 (mostly .5 and higher)
 


Norming Sample Characteristics: 1 (none described)
 


Ease of Administration and Scoring: 3 (administered 
 

and scored by a highly trained individual)
 


Description: The Composite International 

Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) is a comprehensive, 

fully-structured psychiatric diagnostic interview 

designed to be used by trained nonclinician 

interviewers to diagnose more than 40 mental 

disorders among adults from different cultures 

according to the definitions and criteria of both 

the International Classification of Diseases, 10th 

edition) (ICD-10) and the Diagnostic and 

Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th 

edition (DSM-IV) diagnostic systems for lifetime, 

last year, last 6 months, last month, and last 2 

weeks. The CIDI is available in lifetime and 12­

month versions, and in both paper and pencil and 

computer-administered forms. The latter version 

is suitable for self-administration by cooperative 

subjects. During a CIDI interview, respondents 

are asked closed-ended questions about symptoms 

of psychiatric disorders. Positive responses to 

some of the symptom questions are followed by 

questions from the Probe Flow Chart that 

determine whether the symptom is a possible 

psychiatric symptom (that is, it is clinically 

significant and is not due to medication, drugs or 

alcohol or to a physical illness or injury). Negative 

responses to symptom questions will often lead to 

later questions being skipped. If enough 

symptoms have been endorsed, and these 

symptoms occur in a pattern that suggests a 

diagnosis might be present, respondents are asked 

248 
 

 

249 

about the onset and the recency of the particular 

cluster of symptoms that they have endorsed. In 

addition to the CIDI, a shortened form exists, 

CIDI-SF, used for the period of the past 12 

months. Six DSM-IV mental disorders and two 

DSM-IIIR substance disorders are evaluated with 

the CIDI-SF: major depression, generalized 

anxiety, specific phobia, social phobia, 

agoraphobia, panic attack, alcohol dependence, 

and drug dependence. 

Uses of Information: The CIDI is used to 

determine whether or not a person is likely to 

suffer from a mental disorder. 

Reliability: (1) Inter-rater reliability: An 

intra-class kappa of 1.00. (2) Test-retest: Testretest (with a one-month interval) kappa 

coefficients for substance abuse disorders over the 

respondents’ lifetime using the Munich CIDI 

ranged from .55 (drug abuse) to .83 (alcohol 

abuse). The Brazilian CIDI yielded test-retest (no 

test interval provided) kappa coefficients ranging 

from .61 to 1.00 on all psychiatric and substance 

abuse/dependency disorders, except for alcohol 

abuse, which had a coefficient of .35. The kappas 

for simple phobia, social phobia, and agoraphobia 

over the respondents’ lifetimes were .46, .47, and 

.63, respectively, and, for generalized anxiety 

disorder, it was .53. 

Validity2

: 1Concurrent validity (referred to as 

“concordance validity” by authors): A comparison 

between the CIDI and the Structured Clinical 

2 1

Many of these studies were conducted using an earlier 

version of the CIDI. 

Interview for DMS-III-R (SCID) on simple 

phobia, social phobia, and agoraphobia disorders 

yielded kappa coefficients of .45, .62, and .63, 

respectively, and .35 on the lifetime generalized 

anxiety disorder. A comparison between the CIDI 

and the clinical DSM-III-R criteria checklist 

produced kappa coefficients of .84, .83, and .76 for 

depressive, psychoactive substance, and anxiety 

disorders, respectively, and .78 for all disorders. 

The canonical correlation coefficients between the 

CIDI and the Schedules for Clinical Assessment in 

Neuropsychiatry on anxiety and depressive 

disorders were .66 for lifetime disorders and .69 

for current disorders. Two studies, one that 

compared the CIDI-Auto with those of 

psychiatrists and the other that compared CIDIAuto with pairs of clinicians, found that CIDIAuto tended to identify more disorders than the 

mental professionals. The CIDI-Auto generated 

an average of 2.3 diagnoses of general disorders 

per subject compared to 1.3 diagnoses for 

psychiatrist and twice as many anxiety diagnoses 

than the clinicians. A kappa coefficient of .23 was 

obtained between the diagnoses of the CIDI and 

the psychiatrists. The CIDI-Auto sensitivity was 

above .85 for all anxiety disorders, except 

generalized anxiety disorder, which had a 

sensitivity of .29.3 2

Its specificity ranged from .47 to 

.99.4 3

The level of agreement between the CIDIAuto and the clinicians, as measured by intraclass 

3 2

Sensitivity is a measure of the instrument’s ability to 

correctly identify persons with the disorder as having the 

disorder. 

4 3

Specificity is a measure of the instrument’s ability to identify 

persons who do not have the disorder as not having the 

disorder. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

kappa, ranged from .02 to .81, with an overall 

kappa of .40. 

Method of Scoring: Scoring can be done 

manually or by using the computerized version of 

the CIDI, known as CIDI-Auto, which is an SPSSbased program. The CIDI-SF is scored manually 

by summing the number of positive responses to 

symptoms the respondent reported. The manual 

for scoring the CIDI-SF is available at the CIDI 

Website. 

Interpretability: No instructions were 

available for interpreting the CIDI. The CIDI-SF 

uses a probability-of-caseness score to indicate the 

likelihood that the respondent would meet the full 

diagnostic criteria if given the complete CIDI. 

Tables are used to convert CIDI-SF raw scores for 

each disorder into probability-of-caseness values 

that range from 0.0 to 1.0. Alternatively, the 

examiner can elect not to use the probability 

values and, instead, consider all probabilities 

greater than .50 to indicate that the respondent 

would be a CIDI case for that disorder. 

Training Support: Administration of the 

interview requires training on skip patterns, on 

the use of the Probe Flow Chart, in assembling 

lists of the endorsed symptoms for the onset and 

recency questions, and in the use of the data entry 

and scoring program. Training in administering 

this structured interview is conducted at nine 

WHO endorsed centers around the world. The 

WHO-CIDI Website URL is 

www.who.int/msa/cidi/. The cost is $1000. 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: None 

Report Preparation Support: None 

References: 

Robins, Lee N., John Wing, Hans Ulrich 

Wittchen, John E. Helzer, Thomas F. Babor, Jay 

Burke, Anne Farmer, Assen Jablenski, Roy 

Pickens, Darrel A. Regier, Norman Sartorius, 

Leland H. Towle. “The Composite International 

Diagnostic Interview: An Epidemiologic 

Instrument Suitable for Use in Conjunction With 

Different Diagnostic Systems and in Different 

Cultures.” Arch Gen Psychiatry, Vol. 45, Dec. 

1988, pp. 1069-1077. 

World Health Organization. Composite 

International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI), Core 

Version 2.1, Interviewer’s Manual. World Health 

Organization, January 1997. 

250 
251 

 

 

CONFLICT TACTICS SCALES, PARENT-CHILD VERSION (CTSPC), 

1998 

Authors: 

Murray A. Straus, Sherry L. Hamby, David Finkelhor, 

David W. Moore, & Desmond Runyan 

Publisher: 


Family Research Laboratory University of New 

Hampshire 

(603) 862-1888 

http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CTS_Application.htm 

Initial Material Cost: 

Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) Handbook: $25 (This 

350-page manual includes all versions of the CTS, 

most of the currently available CTS series 

publications, Spanish translations of the original 

CTS—Forms N and R, and other papers. The article 

in Child Abuse And Neglect (paper CTS17 on the 

above website) is the only manual for the CTSPC. 

However, there are other relevant articles such as 

CTS24 and CTS28.) 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: 

Not normed. 

Languages: 

English and French translations exist for the CTSPC. 

Other forms of the CTS may have other translations. 

Type of Assessment: 

Parent report (self-administration), but can also be 

administered in person or over the telephone (direct 

parent assessment). 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 


Parents of children 


Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: 

An individual with roughly a 6th grade reading level 

can complete the scales. The only training course is a 

4-hour workshop that Dr. Straus runs every year in 

connection with an annual conference on family 

violence research. Administration time is 10 to 15 

minutes if the entire scale is administered and 6 to 8 

minutes if the supplemental questions are omitted. 

Summary: 

Initial Material Cost: 1 (< $100) 

Reliability: 2 (under .65) 

Validity: 1 (statistics not provided) 

Norming Sample Characteristics: 1 (not described) 

Ease of Administration and Scoring: 2 (self

administered) 

­

Description: The Conflict Tactics Scales, 

Parent-Child Version (CTSPC) is intended to 

measure psychological and physical maltreatment 

and neglect of children by parents, as well as non

violent modes of discipline. It measures the extent 

to which a parent has carried out specific acts of 

physical and psychological aggression, regardless 

of whether the child was injured. Variables are 

measured on three scales: Non-Violent Discipline, 

Psychological Aggression, and Physical Assault, as 

well as supplemental scales that measure Weekly 

Discipline, Neglect, and Sexual Abuse. 

Uses of Information: The CTSPC may be 

used as a screening tool for child maltreatment or 

for evaluating prevention and treatment of 

­ physical and psychological maltreatment of 

children. 

Reliability: 1

(1) Internal reliability 

(Cronbach’s alphas): Overall Physical Assault 

Scale: .55; Psychological Aggression: .60; 

Nonviolent Discipline: .70; Neglect Scale: .22; 

1 Previous versions of the CTS were tested for reliability and 

validity. 
 

 

 

Severe Physical Assault Subscale: -.02. The authors 

attribute the low neglect and severe assault alphas 

to the infrequency of the events that make up the 

scales, thereby reducing the likelihood for high 

inter-item correlations. (2) Test-retest reliability is 

not yet available for the CTSPC. However, the 

test-retest reliability coefficients on the original 

CTS (test interval not specified) ranged from .49 

to .80. 

Validity:2 The authors tested for construct 

validity by examining the direction of the 

relationship between subscale scores and 

demographic characteristics associated with child 

maltreatment, such as age of parent, age of child, 

race/ethnicity, and gender of parent. The 

directions of the relationships were consistent 

with previous findings. 

Method of Scoring: Most of the scales can be 

scored four ways: (1) Annual prevalence, which 

measures whether one or more acts in the scale 

occurred during past year; (2) annual chronicity, 

which measures the number of times an act in a 

scale occurred among those who used that act; (3) 

ever prevalence, which measures if an act ever 

occurred; and (4) annual frequency, which 

measures the number of times an act occurred. To 

obtain the frequency, the midpoints for the 

response categories chosen by the participant are 

summed. 

Interpretability: Normative tables for the 

CTSPC have not yet been developed. 

Training Support: None described. 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: None described. 

Report Preparation Support: None 

described. 

References: 

Straus, M.A., S. L. Hamby, D. Finkelhor, D.W. 

Moore, and D. Runyan. “Identification of Child 

Maltreatment With the Parent-Child Conflict 

Tactics Scales: Development and Psychometric 

Data for a National Sample of American Parents.” 

Child Abuse & Neglect, vol. 22, no. 4. 1998. 

Straus, Murray A. “Scoring and Norms for the 

CTS2 and CTSPC. 

http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CTS28.pdf, 1998. 

Straus, Murray A. “Child-Report, AdultRecall, and Sibling Versions of the Revised 

Conflict Tactics Scales.” 

http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CTS24.pdf, 1999. 

2 Previous versions of the CTS were tested for reliability and 

validity. 

252 
 

CONFUSION, HUBBUB, AND ORDER SCALE (CHAOS), 1995 

Authors: 

Adam P. Matheny, Jr., Theodore D. Wachs, Jennifer L. 

Ludwig, and Kay Phillips 

Publisher: 

Child Development Unit 

Department Pediatrics 

University of Louisville Health Service Center 

Initial Material Cost: 


None. The scale is available in the Journal of Applied 

Developmental Psychology article cited below. 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: 

Instrument is not normed. 

Languages: 

English 

Type of Assessment: 

Parent report 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

Age of children not specified, but the assessment 

appears targeted for homes with infants and toddlers. 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: 

A caregiver or parent who is literate can answer the 15 

items. Scoring requires summing the responses given 

by the parent and takes under 5 minutes. 

Summary: 


Initial Material Cost: 1 (< $100) 


Reliability: 3 (.65 or higher) 

Validity: 2 (concurrent under .5) 

Norming Sample Characteristics: 1 (none described) 

Ease of Administration and Scoring: 2 (self

administered) 

­

Description: The CHAOS scale is a 

questionnaire filled out by parents that is designed 

to assess the level of confusion and 

disorganization in the child’s home environment. 

The questionnaire consists of 15 statements, to 

each of which a parent or caregiver assigns a 

number between 1 and 4 that correspond to the 

following: 1 = Very much like your own home; 2 = 

Somewhat like your own home; 3 = A little bit like 

your own home; 4 = Not at all like your own 

home. 

Uses of Information: The CHAOS scale 

screens for a chaotic home environment. High 

levels of chaos for at-risk children may warrant a 

more detailed environmental assessment to 

determine how and to what degree ongoing chaos 

is either compounding the effects of existing 

biosocial risks or attenuating the impact of 

corrective intervention. 

Reliability: 1

(1) Internal consistency 

(Cronbach’s alpha): For the entire scale, .79. (2) 

Test-retest reliability (12-month interval): for the 

total test score, .74. 

Validity:2 (1) Concurrent validity: the 

CHAOS scale was compared with the physical and 

social environment codes in the Purdue Home 

Simulation Inventory (PHSI), which are 

completed by trained observers. The authors 

report that the correlations between the CHAOS 

scale and several of the PHSI social environment 

1 These results are based on an earlier version of the CHAOS 

Scale that used a true-false scoring system. 

2 These results are based on an earlier version of the CHAOS 

Scale that used a true-false scoring system. 

253 
 

 

 

codes were significant (physical interference 

(correlation =-.36), number of known objects 

named (correlation =-.38), and ignores bids 

(correlation =.45)), and together, the PHSI social 

environment codes explained 59 percent of the 

variance in the CHAOS scores. The correlations 

between the CHAOS scale and several of the PHSI 

physical environment codes also were significant 

(number of siblings (correlation =.55) and 

number of rooms per person (correlation =-.33)), 

and together the PHSI physical environment 

codes explained 39 percent of the variance in the 

CHAOS scores. 

Method of Scoring: The statements are 

scored using a 4-point scoring system. A single 

score is derived from the CHAOS questionnaire 

by summing the responses for the 15 items. A 

higher score represents characteristics of a more 

chaotic, disorganized, and hurried home. 

Interpretability: The higher the score, the 

more chaotic a home is considered to be. 

Training Support: None described. 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: None described. 

Report Preparation Support: None 

described. 

References: 

Matheny, Adam P., Jr., Theodore D. Wachs, 

Jennifer L. Ludwig, and Kay Phillips. “Bringing 

Order Out of Chaos: Psychometric Characteristics 

of the Confusion, Hubbub, and Order Scale.” 

Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 

vol. 16, 1995, pp. 429-444. 

254 
 

 

EDINBURGH POSTNATAL DEPRESSION SCALE, 1987 

Authors: 

J.L. Cox, J.M. Holden, and R. Sagovsky 

Publisher: 

None. 

Initial Material Cost: 

None. A copy of the scale is available in Cox, J.L., 

Holden, J.M., & Sagovsky, R. “Detection of postnatal 

depression: Development of the 10-item Edinburgh 

Postnatal Depression Scale.” British Journal of 

Psychiatry, Vol. 150, 782-786, 1987. 

Representativeness of Norming/Research Sample: 

No norming sample 

Languages: 

English 

Type of Assessment: 

Self-report 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

Women of childbearing age 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: 

Administration time is 10 minutes; Scoring can be 

done in about 5 minutes. 

Summary: 

Initial Material Cost: 1 (< $100) 

Reliability: 1 (none described) 

Validity: 3 (.5 or higher) 

Norming Sample Characteristics: 1 (none described) 

Ease of Administration and Scoring: 2 (self

administered) 

­

Description: The Edinburgh Postnatal 

Depression Scale (EPDS) is a measurement tool 

that is used to screen for depression during the 

postpartum (postnatal) period. Mothers 

underline the response items that most closely 

reflect her feelings during the past week. 

Uses of Information: The EPDS is designed 

to detect women suffering from postnatal 

depression. It does not provide information on 

the severity of the depression. A respondent 

whose score is indicative of probable postnatal 

depression should have a comprehensive 

assessment. 

Reliability: None described. 

Validity: (1) Concurrent Validity: a 


validation study on British mothers found that a 

12.5 cutoff score identified over 80 percent of the 

mothers with major depression and about 50 

percent of the mothers with minor depression, 

and had a sensitivity value of 67.7 percent. 

Another study found a score of 9.5 or higher to 

be more appropriate for identifying depression 

among Chinese mothers. 

Method of Scoring: Responses are scored 

from 0 to 3 according to increased severity of the 

symptoms. Individual items are totaled to give 

an overall score. 

Interpretability: A score of 12 or more on 

EPDS or an affirmative answer on question 10 

(presence of suicidal thoughts) requires more 

thorough evaluation. 

Training Support: None described, but 

none seems to be needed. 


Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: None described. 

However, the instrument can quite easily be 

administered in an interview format, if mental 

255 
 

 

 

or physical disabilities make it difficult for a 

respondent to complete the instrument. 

Report Preparation Support: None 

described. 

References: 

Lee, DTS, and TKH Chung. “What should 

be done about postnatal depression in Hong 

Kong?” Hong Kong Medical Journal, Vol. 5, No. 

1, pp. 39-42, March 1999. 

Murray, Lynne and Andrew D. Carothers.
 

“The Validation of the Edinburgh Post-natal
 

Depression Scale on a Community Sample.” 
 

British Journal of Psychiatry Vol. 157, pp. 288­

290, 1990.
 

Warner, R., Appleby, L., Whitton, A., &
 

Faraghen, B. “Demographic and obstetric risk
 

factors for postnatal psychiatric morbidity.” 
 

British Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 168, 607-611,
 

1996.
 

256 
 

 

FAMILY ENVIRONMENT SCALE (FES), 1994 

Authors: 

Rudolf H. Moos and Bernice S. Moos 

Publisher: 

Mind Garden 

(650) 261-3500 

www.mindgarden.com 	

Initial Material Cost: 

Manual: $56 

Interpretative Report Forms: $1 each or $34 for 25 FES 

Item Booklets, 

Expectations and Ideal Forms: $2 each or $48 for 25; 

Real Form: $1 each or $32 for 25 

Scoring Key: $15 each 

Self-Scorable Answer Sheets: $1 each or $41 for 25 

Non-Paid Answer Sheets: $1 each or $16 for 25 

Self-Scorable Preview Kit: $57 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: 

Form R was normed on a sample of 1,432 normal 

families and 788 distressed families. The normal 

families were diverse in terms of geography, family 

type, race, and age. They also included 601 families that 

served as normal comparison groups in studies of 


alcoholic and depressed families.1 The distressed 

families had members who were alcohol abusers, 

depressed or psychiatric patients, family clinic patients, 

on probation or parole, and adolescents or younger 

children in crisis situations. Form I was normed on a 

sample of 591 individuals from varied family types, 

including normal and distressed individuals. No 

separate norming sample was drawn for Form E. Form 

E scores are normed using the Form R sample. Crosscultural normative samples are available from the 

translated and culturally adapted versions of the FES. 

Languages: 

English, Arabic, Chinese, Dutch, Estonian, French, 

German, Hebrew, Hindi, Italian, Japanese, Korean, 

Marathi, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish, and Swedish. 

Type of Assessment: 

Child (11 years or older) and parent report on family 

environment. 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

Not applicable. Focus is on the family environment. 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: 

Instructions for administering the FES are selfexplanatory and no training is required. It usually takes 

individuals 15 to 20 minutes to complete each of the 

three forms. It takes approximately 10 minutes to 

obtain raw scores for all 90 items. 

Summary: 


Initial Material Cost: 3 (> $200) 


Reliability: 3 (.65 or higher). 


Validity: 1 (concurrent not available). 


Norming Sample Characteristics: 2 (normed within 


past 15 years; diverse but not representative). 


Ease of Administration and Scoring: 2 (self

administered; scored by someone with basic clerical 

skills) 

­

1 See description section below for information on the 

different types of forms. 

Description: The Family Environment Scale 

(FES) is one of 10 Social Climate Scales, each 

assessing the climate in a different setting with 10 

subscales organized into three dimensions— 

relationship, personal growth, and system 

maintenance. The FES measures family social 

environment using three forms with 90 true-false 

items: (1) the Expectations Form (Form E) for 

information on expectations from a new family 

environment, (2) the Real Form (Form R) for 

information on perceptions of the current family 

environment, and (3) the Ideal form (Form I) for 

information on the preferred family environment. 

In addition, there is a 30-item pictorial children’s 

version for use with children between the ages of 5 

and 11. The FES is administered to family 

257 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

members as a paper- and pencil-inventory with 

true or false answers. 

Uses of Information: The FES can be used for 

the following purposes: (1) understanding 

problems in family functioning, (2) serving as a 

benchmark to evaluate the impact of an 

intervention, (3) providing feedback to families as 

a means to promote change, (4) evaluating how a 

family has been affected by a transition, life crisis 

or change (provided comparable information is 

available about the family prior to the event), (5) 

appraising and improving the family climate 

parents create, (6) strengthening families as 

cohesive units, (7) identifying risks for various 

problems, such as, depression, substance abuse, or 

family violence. 

Reliability: (1) Internal consistency 

(Cronbach’s alpha): the subscale alphas for Form 

R ranged from .61 for independence to .78 for 

cohesion, intellectual-cultural orientation, and 

moral-religious emphasis. No alphas were 

reported for Form I; however, the authors 

reported that they were similar to Form R alphas. 

(2) Test-retest reliability: The Form R subscale 

reliability coefficients ranged from .68 for 

independence to .86 for cohesion with a 2-month 

testing interval and .54 for independence to .91 for 

moral-religious with a 4-month testing interval. 

Validity: The authors reported, as evidence of 

construct validity, studies that found results on 

the FES subscales to be consistent with the results 

on other instruments measuring the same 

construct and the lack of a relationship with 

results on instruments measuring different 

constructs. These instruments included the Social 

Support Appraisals (SS-A; Vaux et al., 1986), the 

Social Support Questionnaire (Sarason, et al., 

1987), the Locke-Wallace Marital Adjustment 

Scale (Waring et al., 1981), the Spanier Dyadic 

Adjustment Scale (DAS; Abbott & Brody, 1985), 

the Parental Bonding Instrument (Sarason, et al., 

1987), the Family Assessment Device (FAD) and 

the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation 

Scales (FACES-II; Dickerson and Coyne, 1987), 

FACES-III (Edman, Cole, and Howard, 1990), the 

Structural Family Interaction Scale – revised 

(Perosa and Perosa, 1990), and the Family System 

Test (FAST; Feldman and Gehring, 1988), the 

Family Sculpture Test, and an adapted version of 

the Bowerman and Bahr Identification Scale 

(Russell, 1980). The authors did not report any 

statistics on the magnitude of the relationships. 

Method of Scoring: Individuals complete 

subscale questions with true or false answers on 

separate answer sheets by placing an X in the 

appropriate column. The examiner then uses a 

template to score the responses by summing the 

number of X’s in each column. When the FES is 

administered to more than one family member, 

the subscale raw scores for each family member 

are averaged in order to obtain the family’s mean 

raw score for each subscale. Tables are provided to 

assist the clinician in converting the raw score to a 

standard score. 

Interpretability: Subscale responses are 

compared to those of a group of normal families, 

using standard scores, which have a mean of 50 

and standard deviation of 10. The manual 

258 
259 

provides tables for converting Form R subscale 

and family incongruence raw scores into standard 

scores. The same table can be used to convert 

Form E raw scores into standard scores. Program 

staff with a basic knowledge of statistics can 

calculate equivalent percentiles based on the 

family’s standard scores, the mean, and the 

standard deviation. The manual provides case 

studies to help interpret the results. 

Training Support: None described 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: It is recommended 

that the FES be administered using tape-recorded 

or computerized instructions for those individuals 

who have short attention spans or cannot read at a 

sixth-grade level. It may also be helpful to 

administer the FES in individual interviews for 

poor functioning residents of treatment or 

residential care facilities. Some people will not be 

able to understand the questions, including 

children under the age of 11 and individuals who 

are mentally retarded, seriously impaired 

psychiatrically, or who suffer from a chronic brain 

disorder or cognitive dysfunction. 

Report Preparation Support: A sample 

narrative report is provided in order to help 

clinicians interpret the results from the FES. 

References: 

Abbott, D.A. & G.H. Brody. The relation of 

child age, gender and number of children to the 

marital adjustment of wives. Journal of Marriage 

and the Family, vol. 47, 1985, pp. 77-84. 

Dickerson, V.C. and J.C. Coyne. Family 

cohesion and control: A multitrait/multimethod 

study, Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, vol. 

13, 1987, pp. 275-285. 

Feldman, S.S. and T.M. Gehring. Changing 

perceptions of family cohesion and power across 

adolescence, Child Development, vol. 59, 1988, 

pp. 1034-1045. 

Moos, Rudolf and Bernice Moos. Family 

Environment Scale Manual: Development, 

Applications, Research, Third Edition. Palo Alto: 

Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc., 1994. 

Perosa, L.M. and S.L. Perosa. Convergent and 

discriminant validity for family self-report 

measures, Educational and Psychological 

Measurement, vol. 50, 1990, pp. 855-868. 

Russell, C. A methodological study of family 

cohesion and adaptability, Journal of Marital and 

Family Therapy, vol. 6, 1980, pp. 459-470. 

Sarason, B.R., et al. Interrelations of social 

support measures : Theoretical and practical 

implications. Journal of Personality and Social 

Psychology, vol. 52, 1987, pp. 813-832. 

Vaux, A., et al. The Social Support Appraisals 

(SS-A) Scale : Studies of reliability and validity. 

American Journal of Community Psychology, vol. 

14, 1986, pp. 195-219. 

Waring, E.M., et al. Dimensions of intimacy 

in marriage. Psychiatry, vol. 44, 1981, pp. 169-175. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FAMILY MAP OF THE PARENTING ENVIRONMENT OF INFANTS AND 

TODDLERS (IT-FAMILY MAP) AND FAMILY MAP OF THE PARENTING 

ENVIRONMENT IN EARLY CHILDHOOD (EC-FAMILY MAP) (2010) (2011 Update) 

Authors: 

Leanne Whiteside-Mansell, Robert H. Bradley, Nicola 

Burrow, and Patti Bokony 

Publisher: 

University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, 

Department of Family & Preventive Medicine 

(501) 686-7633 

http://familymedicine.uams.edu/FamilyMap 

Initial Material Cost: The IT- and EC-Family Map 

measures (Manual, Response Cards, and Observation 

Summary card) and manuals may be requested from 

developers (printing costs may apply). 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: 

No norming sample 

Languages: 

English, Spanish 

Type of Assessment: 

Parent interview and home observation 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

Birth to 5 years. Recommended for administration 

twice a year during fall and spring home visits. 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: Administered by Early Head Start and 

other early child care program staff members. 

Assessors should spend 5 to 10 hours studying the 

training manual and practicing administration. 

Developers recommend attendance at a one-day 

training session, although 4-hour trainings are also 

available for specialists with master’s degrees in areas 

such as social work and early childhood development. 

A training manual and video demonstration of the 

Family Map administration are available from the 

developer upon request. Web-based training materials 

are under development. 

The Family Map takes about 1 hour to administer and 

score. 

Summary: 

Initial Material Cost: 1 (< $100)
 


Reliability: 1 (none described for the IT-Family Map)
 


and 3 (mostly over 80 percent agreement for EC-
 

Family Map inter-rater reliability)
 


Validity: 1 (none described)
 


Norming Sample Characteristics: 1 (no norming
 


sample)
 


Ease of Administration and Scoring: 2 (self­


administered and scored by someone with basic
 


training)
 


Description: The Family Map of the 

Parenting Environment of Infants and Toddlers 

(IT-Family Map) the Parenting Environment in 

Early Childhood (EC-Family Map) measure 

family and home risk factors, needs, and strengths 

for children birth to 3 and 3 to 5 years of age, 

respectively. The Family Map is a parent interview 

and home observation used during home visits 

with families in Early Head Start and non-Head 

Start early child care settings. Response cards are 

available for assessors to prompt parents with 

possible responses for each question. Two related 

measures are under development: the Family Map 

of the Prenatal Environment for Mothers in Early 

Head Start programs and the Family Map for the 

Hearing-Impaired Child. 

The Family Map aligns with Head Start 

objectives and the targeted components of family 

life instrumental to child well-being. Broadly, it 

260 
261 

assesses physical and social conditions that 

children directly experience, family climate and 

context, and parental characteristics. The Family 

Map includes 11 subscales and an observation, 

with 114 (IT-Family Map) or 103 items (ECFamily Map). The subscales include 

Demographics, Routines, School Readiness, 

Monitoring, Environmental Safety, Family 

Cohesion (called Family Support and Conflict in 

the EC-Family Map), Discipline, Physical and 

Mental Health (called Healthy in the EC-Family 

Map), Basic Needs, Home and Car Safety, and 

Social Support and Integration (called Social 

Integration in the EC-Family Map). The 

observation at the end of the interview assesses 

Parenting Warmth and Discipline. 

Other Languages: The developer has 

translated the forms and response cards for the 

EC-Family MAP into Spanish. Information on the 

norming sample, validity, reliability, and English 

language equivalence is unavailable. 

Uses of Information: During routine home 

visits, Head Start professionals use the Family 

Map to identify strengths and concerns in family 

life related to children’s adaptive functioning to 

identify and target family goals (WhitesideMansell et al. 2007) and enhance the providerparent relationship (Whiteside-Mansell et al. 

2008a). It may also be used in the Head Start selfassessment and monitoring process, the detection 

of program impacts based on comparisons 

between fall and spring home visit results 

(Whiteside-Mansell et al. 2010; WhitesideMansell et al. 2008b), and the identification of 

areas to target for agency-wide intervention to 

reduce risk factors (e.g., food insecurity, physical 

safety issues, family conflict, harsh parenting 

practices, parental depression) and enhance 

protective factors associated with healthy 

development (e.g., availability of learning 

materials in the home, good monitoring and 

supervision, home safety). The IT-Family Map 

detects drug and substance abuse among 

household members and offers program members 

opportunities for support and resources; such 

resources may be particularly helpful to program 

providers because drug and alcohol use may be 

difficult to discuss and therefore identify (Bokony 

2010). 

Reliability: 

1. Internal consistency reliability: no 

information available. 

2. Test-retest reliability: no information 

available. 

3. Inter-rater reliability: teachers and research 

assistants implementing the IT-Family Map 

are currently being evaluated for inter-rater 

reliability (personal communication with 

Whiteside-Mansell 2011). For the EC-Family 

Map, teachers interviewed 20 parents, and 

data collectors interviewed the same parents 

two weeks later and achieved over 80 percent 

agreement among most of the 59 indicators 

(i.e., groups of items) assessed (WhitesideMansell et al. 2007). Three subscales 

contained indicators with less than 80 percent 

agreement. Within the Family Cohesion and 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Routines subscale, research assistants 

identified twice the number of families at risk 

for parenting stress and routines related to 

daily activities. Developers are enhancing 

Family Map training materials to address the 

low inter-rater reliability of the parenting 

stress indicators. Within Basic Needs, research 

assistants identified two additional at-risk 

families for food quality and poison 

accessibility. Within Environmental Safety, 

the teacher identified one additional family at 

risk of injury in the home. 

Validity: 

1.		 Content validity: for the EC-Family Map, 

content validity was demonstrated in a sample 

of 26 Head Start centers with over 1,105 

racially and ethnically diverse families by 

comparing the percentage of families at risk 

for a particular item to national estimates of 

similar risks (Whiteside-Mansell et al. 2007). 

For example, the EC-Family Map assessed 

about 60 percent of children living in poisonfree homes, whereas the 2003 Head Start 

Family and Child Experiences Study 

estimated that 69 percent lived in these 

conditions. The IT-Family Map is closely 

based on the EC-Family Map for 3- to 5-yearolds. For the IT-Family Map, developers 

reviewed the literature, conducted pilot 

testing, and gathered input and consulted with 

Early Head Start and Head Start program staff 

and parents and experts. 

2.		 Concurrent validity: the EC-Family Map 

discriminates between families who exhibit 

homelessness, housing instability, and food 

insecurity; families with mothers experiencing 

depression; children with chronic illness or 

inadequate sleep; and parents with chronic 

illness (Whiteside-Mansell et al. 2010a). With 

regard to drug abuse, families who report 

household members’ use of drugs and alcohol 

are at higher risk in all areas assessed by the 

EC-Family Map except for Nurturing 

Routines in the Routines subscale (ConnorsBurrow et al. 2010; Bokony et al. 2010). 

Bias Analysis: No information available. 

Methods of Scoring: The assessor scores the 

Family MAP during the home visit. The simple 

scoring system is intended to be flexible such that 

assessors determine which modules are used 

during the home visit (there are no subscale or 

total scores). Interview and observation items 

include different types of response scales. For 

example, the parent may respond “yes,” “no,” or 

“don’t know” when asked about an item or may 

provide a frequency for which the item occurs 

based on the response scale (e.g. “none” to “6 or 

more times” in the past week). Shaded responses 

on the form indicate the presence of a risk; nonshaded responses indicate no presence of a risk. 

Interpretability: The form includes 

instructions to the assessor on how to interpret 

responses for items and subitems in the shaded 

range and whether the assessor should target the 

subscale containing the item for goal-setting. For 

example, within Environmental Safety, a set of 

questions probes for home and neighborhood 

exposure to injuries. If the parent indicates the 

262 
263 

occurrence of any injury (responses are shaded), 

the assessor is instructed to consider targeting 

family goals to improve Environmental Safety 

outcomes. 

Training Support: IT-Family Map training 

materials under development include video 

examples and instructional material in printable 

and web-based formats. A training manual and 

video demonstration of EC-Family Map 

administration during a home visit are available 

from the developer upon request. An eight-hour 

training session is recommended for all staff 

administering the interview; however, a four-hour 

training session is available for specialists with 

master’s degrees in areas such as social work and 

early childhood development. Training topics 

emphasize the relationship between Head Start 

and families, how the home and parenting 

environment affect children’s learning ability, 

interview techniques, and the development of 

goals based on outcomes of the interview. 

Training costs include $750 per half day for 20 

participants in Little Rock, Arkansas. On-site 

training expenses also include the trainer’s travel 

expenses. The developer may be contacted about 

costs for full-day training sessions and other 

arrangements. 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: The Family Map 

for the Hearing-Impaired Child is under 

development and will include an additional 

subscale that assesses how parents manage 

technological and medical needs and stress related 

to a child’s hearing impairment. 

Report Preparation Support: A summary 

score sheet is in development. 

References: 

Bokony, Patti A., Nicola A. Conners-Burrow, 

Leanne Whiteside-Mansell, Danya Johnson, 

Lorraine McKelvey, and Robert H. Bradley. “The 

Family Map: A Tool for Understanding the Risks 

for Children in Families with Substance Abuse.” 

NHSA Dialog: A Research-to-Practice Journal for 

the Early Intervention Field, vol. 13, no. 3, 2010, 

pp. 192-197. 

Conners-Burrow, Nicola A., Danya Johnson, 

Leanne Whiteside-Mansell, Lorraine McKelvey, 

Patti A. Bokony, and Robert H. Bradley. 

“Protecting Young Children: Identifying Family 

Substance Use and Risks in the Home.” NHSA 

Dialog: A Research-to-Practice Journal for the 

Early Intervention Field, vol. 13, no. 3, 2010, pp. 

168-184. 

University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences. 

“Family Map of the Parenting Environment in 

Early Childhood.” Available at 

[http://familymedicine.uams.edu/FamilyMap/Abo 

ut]. 2008. 

Whiteside-Mansell, Leanne. Family Map of 

the Parenting Environment in Early Childhood 

Instructional Manual. Little Rock, AR: University 

of Arkansas Medical Sciences, 2008. 

Whiteside-Mansell, Leanne, Patti A. Bokony, 

Robert H. Bradley, and Nicola A. ConnersBurrow. “Family Assessments to Enhance the 

Parent-Teacher Partnership.” Paper presented to 
 

 

 

the Arkansas Early Childhood Association. Hot 

Springs, AR, October 2008a. 

Whiteside-Mansell, Leanne, Robert H. 

Bradley, Nicola A. Conners, and Patti A. Bokony. 

“The Family Map: Structured Interview to Identify 

Risks and Strengths in Head Start Families.” 

NHSA Dialog: A Research-to-Practice Journal for 

the Early Intervention Field, vol. 10, 2007, pp. 189­

209. 

Whiteside-Mansell, Leanne, Robert H. 

Bradley, Nicola A. Conners-Burrow, Patti A. 

Bokony, Carol A. Lee, D.M. Mclemore, Danya 

Johnson, and L. Sockwell. “Documenting Head 

Start Impacts with the Family Map.” Paper 

Symposium (Measurement Development) 

presented to the Head Start Research Conference. 

Washington, DC, June 2008b. 

Whiteside-Mansell, Leanne, Danya Johnson, 

Mary M. Aitken, Patti A. Bokony, Nicola A. 

Conners-Burrow, and Lorraine McKelvey. “Head 

Start and Unintended Injury: The Use of the 

Family Map Interview to Document Risk.” Early 

Childhood Education Journal, vol. 28, 2010, pp. 

33-41. 

Whiteside-Mansell, Leanne, Danya Johnson, 

Nicola A. Burrow, Lorraine McKelvey, and Robert 

H. Bradley. “Evidence of Validity of the Early 

Childhood Family Map: A Tool to Assess Risk and 

Strength in Head Start.” Poster presented to the 

Head Start Research Conference. Washington, 

DC, June 2010a. 

264 
265 

FAMILY NEEDS SCALE (FNS) 

Authors: 

Carl J. Dunst, Carolyn S. Cooper, Janet C. Weeldreyer, 

Kathy D. Snyder, and Joyce H. Chase 

Publisher: 

Brookline Books 

617-558-8010, 

800-666-BOOK 

www.brooklinebooks.com/ 

Initial Material Cost: 

Book: Enabling and Empowering Families, $25 

Scales (10): $10 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: 

No norming sample. 

Languages: 

English 

Type of Assessment: 

Parent self-report or report by other family member 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

Families of young children 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: 

Parent (or other family member) can complete the 

scale in 10 minutes. An early intervention practitioner 

can review the answers and interpret the scale, 

identifying places for concern, in under 10 minutes. 

Summary: 

Initial Material Cost: 1 (< $100) 

Reliability: 3 (.65 or higher) for internal and split-half 

reliability 

Validity: 2 (< .5 for total score ) 

Norming Sample Characteristics: 1 (none described) 

Ease of Administration and Scoring: 2 (self

administered) 

­

Description: The Family Needs Scale (FNS) is 

a 41-item scale that measures a family’s needs in 

nine areas (financial, food and shelter, vocation, 

child care, transportation, communication, etc.). 

The parent (or family member) rates each item of 

need on a 5-point scale that ranges from (1) 

almost never a need to (5) almost always a need. 

Uses of Information: The scale facilitates the 

identification of family needs and strengths. The 

results can be used to guide follow-up discussions 

to help clarify concerns and help define the 

precise nature of the family’s needs. The 

information can then be used to decide whether 

intervention is required and, if so, the type of 

intervention needed. The book provides a number 

of case studies to illustrate how the information 

can be used. 

Reliability: The research sample consisted of 

54 parents of pre- and elementary school aged 

children who were mentally challenged, 

handicapped, and developmentally at risk. 

(1) Internal reliability: coefficient alpha = .95; 

(2) Split-half reliability (using the SpearmanBrown formula) = .96. 

Validity: The authors tested for concurrent 

validity against a parent belief scale (Snyder et al. 

1986). The FNS total scale score was found to be 

significantly related to the well-being 

(correlation = .42), decision-making 

(correlation =. 40), and internal locus of control 

(correlation = .28) dimensions on the parent belief 

scale. 
 

 

 

Methods of Scoring: The parent (or family 

member) reports the constancy of a need by 

marking Not Applicable, Almost Never, Seldom, 

Sometimes, Often, and Almost Always for each 

item of need. 

Interpretability: Items rated Sometimes, 

Often, or Almost Always (a need) may indicate 

needs that are generally unmet, and thus provide a 

basis for further discussion to better understand 

the exact nature of the need. The book provides a 

Family Support Plan form and a Profile of Family 

Needs and Support form for the agency to use. 

The needs and support form can be used to record 

providers and the resources they are expected to 

provide to help the family address an identified 

need. The family support form enables the agency 

to mobilize resources to address needs and to 

monitor the progress of the intervention. 

Training Support: None described. However, 

a second book published by Brookline Books, 

entitled “Supporting and Strengthening Families: 

Methods, Strategies, and Practices”(Dunst et al. 

1994) is a collection of papers updating the 

thinking and practices described in “Enabling and 

Empowering Families,” and building and 

elaborating upon the model described in the 

earlier book. 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: None described. 

Report Preparation Support: None 

described. 

References: 

Dunst, Carl, Carol Trivette, and Angela Deal. 

Enabling and Empowering Families: Principles & 

Guidelines for Practice. Cambridge: Brookline 

Books, 1988. 

Dunst, Carl, Carol Trivette, and Angela Deal. 

Supporting and Strengthening Families: Methods, 

Strategies, and Practices. Newton: Brookline 

Books, 1994. 

Snyder, K.D., J.C. Weeldreyer, C.J. Dunst, and 

C.S. Cooper. Parent Self-Awareness Scale: 

Reliability and Validity. Unpublished scale. 

Morganton, NC: Family, Infant and Preschool 

Program at Western Carolina Center, 1986. 

266 
 

FAMILY RESOURCE SCALE (FRS), 1986 

Authors: 

Carl J. Dunst and Hope E. Leet 

Publisher: 

Brookline Books 

(617) 558-8010, 

(800) 666-BOOK 

www.brooklinebooks.com/ 

Initial Material Cost: 

Book: Enabling and Empowering Families, $25 

$10 per batch of 10 scales. 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: 

No norming sample. 

Languages: 

English 

Type of Assessment: 

Parent self-report or report by other family member 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

Families of young children 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: 

Parent (or other family member) can complete the 

scale in 10 minutes. An early intervention practitioner 

can review the answers and interpret the scale, 

identifying places for concern, in under 10 minutes. 

Summary: 

Initial Material Cost: 1 (< $100) 

Reliability: 3 (.65 or higher) for internal, split-half, and 

test-retest reliability 

Validity: 3 (.5 or higher for criterion validity for total 

score) 

Norming Sample Characteristics: 1 (none described) 

Ease of Administration and Scoring: 2 (self

administered) 

­

Description: The 31-item self-report Family 

Resource Scale (FRS) measures the adequacy of a 

family’s tangible and intangible resources using a 

five-point scale, ranging from (1) not at all 

adequate to (5) almost always adequate. The scale 

covers such resources as food, shelter, financial 

resources, transportation, health care, time to be 

with family, child care, and time for self; which are 

generally organized from the most to the least 

essential resource. A modified version of the scales 

for teenage mothers is available. 

Uses of Information: This scale determines 

the extent to which different types of resources are 

adequate in the households of young children. 

The lack of resources may be barriers to the 

family's involvement in their child’s program, as 

families with unmet basic needs may not have 

time or energy to participate actively in the child's 

program. The book provides a number of case 

studies to illustrate how the information can be 

used. 

Reliability: The research sample consisted of 

45 mothers of preschool retarded, handicapped, 

and developmentally at-risk children participating 

in an early intervention program. (1) Internal 

reliability (Cronbach’s alpha): .92; split-half 

reliability (using the Spearman-Brown formula): 

.95 (2) Test-retest reliability (2 to 3 month 

interval): .52. 

Validity: (1) Concurrent validity: both the 

personal well-being (Dunst 1986a) and maternal 

commitment (Dunst 1986b) measures were 

significantly related to the total scale score (.57 

and .63, respectively). 

267 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Method of Scoring: The parent (or family 

member) marks the extent to which each of the 

resources is adequate for his/her family by 

selecting one of the following responses: Does Not 

Apply, Not At All Adequate, Seldom Adequate, 

Sometimes Adequate, Usually Adequate, and 

Almost Always Adequate. 

Interpretability: Those items rated Not At All 

Adequate or Seldom Adequate may be evidence 

that these needs are not being met. They can 

provide a basis for exploring with the family the 

absence and need for these resources. 

Training Support: None. However, a second 

book published by Brookline Books, entitled 

Supporting and Strengthening Families: Methods, 

Strategies, and Practices is a collection of papers 

updating the ideas and practices described in 

Enabling and Empowering Families, and building 

and elaborating upon the model described in the 

earlier book. 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: None 

Report Preparation Support: The book 

provides a Family Support Plan form and a Profile 

of Family Needs and Support form for the agency 

to use. The needs and support form can be used to 

record providers and the resources they are 

expected to provide to help the family address an 

identified need. The family support form enables 

the agency to mobilize resources to address needs 

and to monitor the progress of the intervention. 

References: 

Dunst, C.J. A Short Form Scale for Measuring 

Parental Health and Well-Being. Unpublished 

manuscript. Morganton, NC: Family, Infant and 

Preschool Program at Western Carolina Center, 

1986a. 

Dunst, C.J. Measuring Parent Commitment to 

Professionally-Prescribed, Child-Level 

Interventions. Unpublished manuscript. 

Morganton, NC: Family, Infant and Preschool 

Program at Western Carolina Center, 1986b. 

Dunst, Carl, Carol Trivette, and Angela Deal. 

Enabling and Empowering Families: Principles & 

Guidelines for Practice. Cambridge: Brookline 

Books, 1988. 

Dunst, Carl, Carol Trivette, and Angela Deal. 

Supporting and Strengthening Families: Methods, 

Strategies, and Practices. Newton: Brookline 

Books, 1994. 

268 
 

 

FAMILY SUPPORT SCALE (FSS), 1986 

Authors: 

Carl J. Dunst, Carol M. Trivette, and Vicki Jenkins 

Publisher: 

Brookline Books 617-558-8010 

800-666-BOOK 

www.brooklinebooks.com 

Initial Material Cost: 

Book: Enabling and Empowering Families, $25 

$10 per batch of 10 scales 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: 

No norming sample 

Languages: 

English 

Type of Assessment: 

Parent self-report 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

Families of young children 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: 

Parent can complete the scale in 10 minutes. An early 

intervention practitioner can review the answers and 

interpret the scale, identifying places for concern, in 

under 10 minutes. 

Summary: 

Initial Material Cost: 1 (< $100) 

Reliability: 2 (.65 or higher for internal and split-half 

reliability; < .65 for test-retest reliability) 

Validity: 2 (< .5 for criterion validity) 

Norming Sample Characteristics: 1 (none described) 

Ease of Administration and Scoring: 2 (self

administered) 

­

Description: The self-report Family Support 

Scale (FSS) measures parents’ satisfaction with the 

support they receive in raising a young child. The 

scale consists of 18 items covering such sources of 

support as the immediate family, relatives, friends 

and others in the family’s social network, social 

organizations, and specialized and generic 

professional services. In addition, the scale 

provides 2 open items for parents to assess other 

sources of support not included in the 18 items. 

The parent rates each source of support on a 5

point Likert scale (ranging from not at all helpful 

(1) to extremely helpful (5)). 

Uses of Information: Providers can use the 

FSS scale results to identify the areas in a family’s 

support network that need to be strengthened or 

accessed to better meet the families’ needs. The 

results can also be used to initiate inquiries into 

issues related to the support network. The FSS 

might be useful as a pretest/posttest measure of 

perceived helpfulness of the program to the family 

(in relation to the family’s level of involvement in 

the program). The book provides a number of 

case studies to illustrate how the information can 

be used. 

Reliability: (1) Internal consistency reliability: 

coefficient alpha (on the 18-item scale) =.77; (2) 

Split-half reliability (using the Spearman-Brown 

formula): .75 (3) Test-retest reliability (1 month ­ interval): correlation was .75 for the average 

correlation among the 18 scale items and .91 for 

the total scale scores. Test-retest reliability (18 

month interval): correlation was .41 for the 18 

scale items and .47 for the total scale scores. 

Validity: (1) Criterion validity: The authors 

compared the results on the FSS scale to results on 

the Parent-Child Play Scale (Dunst 1986) and 

269 
 

 

 

 

 

 

selected subscales on the Questionnaire on 

Resources and Stress (Holroyd 1985). The FSS 

total scale score was consistently, but weakly, 

related to a number of parent and family 

outcomes, including personal well-being 

(correlation = .28), the integrity of the family unit 

(correlation = .18), parent perceptions of child 

behavior (correlation = .19), and opportunities to 

engage in parent-child play (correlation = .40) 

(Dunst 1985). 

Method of Scoring: The parent answers how 

helpful various sources of support have been in 

terms of raising his/her child(ren) by circling Not 

Available, Not At All Helpful, Sometimes Helpful, 

Generally Helpful, Very Helpful, and Extremely 

Helpful. 

Interpretability: A parent’s responses are 

used to open up discussion as to why they use or 

do not use various means of support and 

resources. The book provides a Family Support 

Plan form and a Profile of Family Needs and 

Support form for the agency to use. The needs and 

support form can be used to record the names of 

providers and the resources they are expected to 

provide to help the family address an identified 

need. The family support form enables the agency 

to mobilize resources to address needs and to 

monitor the progress of the intervention. 

Training Support: None described. However, 

a second book published by Brookline Books, 

entitled “Supporting & Strengthening Families: 

Methods Strategies and Practices” is a collection 

of papers updating the thinking and practices 

described in “Enabling and Empowering 

Families,” and building and elaborating upon the 

model described in the earlier book. 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: None described. 

Report Preparation Support: None 

described. 

References: 

Dunst, C.J. “Rethinking Early Intervention.” 

Analysis and Intervention Developmental 

Disabilities, vol. 5, 1985, pp. 165-201. 

Dunst, C.J. A Rating Scale for Assessing 

Parent-Child Play Opportunities. Unpublished 

scale. Morganton, NC: Family, Infant and 

Preschool Program at Western Carolina Center, 

1986. 

Dunst, Carl, Carol Trivette, and Angela Deal. 

Enabling and Empowering Families: Principles & 

Guidelines for Practice. Cambridge: Brookline 

Books, 1988. 

Dunst, Carl, Carol Trivette, and Angela Deal. 

Supporting and Strengthening Families: Methods, 

Strategies, and Practices. Newton: Brookline 

Books, 1994. 

Holroyd, J. Questionnaire on Resources and 

Stress Manual. Unpublished scale. Los Angeles: 

University of California, Neuropsychiatric 

Institute, Department of Psychiatric and 

Behavioral Sciences, 1985. 

270 
 

THE HOME OBSERVATION FOR MEASUREMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT 

INVENTORY FOR INFANTS/TODDLERS (IT-HOME) AND EARLY 

CHILDHOOD (EC-HOME), 2003 (2011 Update) 

Authors: 

Bettye M. Caldwell and Robert H. Bradley 

Publisher: 

University of Arkansas 

http://ualr.edu/case/index.php/home/home-inventory/ 

(501) 565-7627 

Initial Material Cost: 

Standard Manual $40, Infant Toddler forms $15 per 

pad, Early Childhood forms $25 per package of 50, 


Comprehensive Manual with information on all the 

inventories $50 

Materials for administering the HOME Inventory 

available by contacting lrcoulson@ualr.edu 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: 

No norming sample 

Languages: 

English 

Type of Assessment: 

Home observation and parent interview 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

Birth to age 3 years. The Early Childhood HOME 

Inventory is for children 3 to 6 years old. It may be 

administered at desired intervals. 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: Formal training is not required but is 

recommended. Training DVDs, interviews for use in 

training and recalibration, and scoring documentation 

entitled “Scoring Keys and Rationale” are available 

from Cooperative Extension Publications at 

http://learningstore.uwex.edu for $25. 

The HOME Inventories take between 45 and 90 

minutes to administer. 

Summary: 


Initial Material Cost: 1 (< $100) 


Reliability:

1 3 (all .65 and higher for inter-rater and 

internal consistency), 2 (mostly under .65 for testretest) 

Validity:

1 2 (less than .5 for concurrent), 3 (mostly .4 or 

higher for predictive) 

Norming Sample Characteristics: 1 (no norming 

sample) 

Ease of Administration and Scoring: 2 (administered by 

a highly trained individual; scored by someone with 

basic clerical skills) 

 

1 Reliability and validity information for the IT- and EC

HOME are based on the HOME Inventory Administration 

Manual (2001) and other studies of previous versions of the 

HOME. The 2003 manual provided no updated information. 

­

Description: The Home Observation for 

Measurement of the Environment (HOME) 

Inventory is designed to measure the quality and 

extent of stimulation available to a child in the 

home environment. The Infant/Toddler HOME 

Inventory (IT-HOME) comprises 45 items that 

provide information from the child’s perspective 

on stimuli found to affect children’s cognitive 

development. Assessors make observations during 

home visits when the child is awake and engaged 

in activities typical for that time of the day and 

conduct an interview with a parent or guardian. 

The IT-HOME is organized into six subscales: 

(1) Responsivity: the extent of responsiveness of 

the parent to the child; (2) Acceptance: parental 

acceptance of suboptimal behavior and avoidance 

of restriction and punishment; (3) Organization: 

including regularity and predictability of the 

environment; (4) Learning Materials: provision of 

appropriate play and learning materials; 

(5) Involvement: extent of parental involvement; 

and (6) Variety in daily stimulation. For the IT271 
 

 

1

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

HOME, 18 items are based on observation, 15 on 

interview, and 12 on either observation or 

interview. 

Separate inventories are available for early 

childhood (EC-HOME, age 3 to 6 years), middle 

childhood (MC-HOME, age 6 to 10 years), and 

early adolescence (EA-HOME, age 10 to 15 

years).2 The IT-, EC-, and MC-HOME versions 

have also been adapted for children with 

disabilities. The EC-HOME includes 55 items 

organized into eight subscales: (1) Learning 

Materials; (2) Language Stimulation: overt 

attempts to foment language development; (3) 

Physical Environment; (4) Responsivity of Parent 

to Child; (5) Academic Stimulation: parental 

involvement in child’s intellectual development; 

(6) Modeling: parents’ demonstration of desirable 

behaviors; (7) Variety in Daily Stimulation and 

Enrichment; and (8) Acceptance: parental 

acceptance of suboptimal behavior and avoidance 

of unnecessarily harsh restriction or punishment 

(same as subscale 2 on the IT-HOME). Twentyone items are based on observation, and 12 may 

be based on observation or interview. As with the 

IT-HOME, the EC-HOME is administered by a 

visitor to the family’s home at a pre-scheduled 

time when the child is awake and engaged in 

activities typical for that time of the day. The 2003 

IT- and EC-HOME were updated from the 2001 

versions, slightly re-ordering questions within 

subscales and including a structured interview 

2 This summary focuses on the IT-HOME and EC-HOME. 

While their items and subscale topics differ, the assessments 

for all age groups share a similar structure and involve similar 

administration and scoring protocols. 

format (versus informal administration of 

questions) and a training DVD. 

Child Care versions of the IT-HOME and ECHOME are also available. The Child Care HOME 

Inventory evaluates a family child care 

environment in a home setting, but adult 

caregivers such as babysitters, nannies, or daycare 

providers are the object of interest rather than 

parents or guardians. Items thus refer to a 

“caregiver” instead of a “parent.” The content of 

the assessment is otherwise identical. 

The Supplement to the HOME for 

Impoverished Families (SHIF) assesses the quality 

of the home environment of young children living 

in poor urban homes. The SHIF is a supplemental 

set of questions specific to low-income homes and 

should be used with the total HOME Inventory 

rather than as an independent assessment. The 20­

item SHIF takes approximately eight minutes to 

score and uses the same scoring procedures as the 

HOME Inventory. 

Other Languages: None. 

Uses of Information: The HOME Inventory 

identifies environments that do not stimulate the 

cognitive development of children and informs 

the development of interventions that benefit both 

caregiver and child. The HOME Inventory also 

measures change in both the family environment 

and the quality of parenting when interventions 

are implemented (Totsika and Sylva 2004). 

Reliability: 

1.		 Internal consistency reliability: Cronbach’s 

alphas were .84 for the IT-HOME and ranged 

272 
 

3 2

The analysis was performed on the 45 scale items that were 

part of a longer (72 items) version administered to a sample 

of 232 families in Syracuse, New York. 

273 

from .49 to .78 for the six subscales.3 2KuderRichardson coefficients were .89 for the 

inventory and ranged from .44 to .89 for the 

subscales. For a non-representative sample of 

73 poor urban families with a child age 3 years 

or younger, Kuder-Richardson coefficients 

obtained for the HOME Inventory and SHIF, 

respectively, were .80 and .63 (Ertem et al. 

1997). 

2. Test-retest reliability: Saudino and Plomin 

(1997) reported a coefficient of .94 on a 

normative sample at 12 months (with a twoweek interval). They also reported stability 

between 12 and 24 months at .64. Pearson and 

intraclass correlations measured the stability 

in IT-HOME scores between administrations 

overall and by subscale and by age group. 

3. Inter-rater reliability: the Kappa statistics for 

inter-rater reliability between teams of 

pediatricians and research assistants ranged 

from .76 to 1.0 for the HOME and .79 to 1.0 

for the SHIF. 

Validity:

1 

1. Concurrent validity: in a non-representative 

sample of 73 impoverished urban families, the 

Pearson correlation between the HOME 

Inventory and the SHIF was .69 and .55 and 

.42 between the HOME Inventory and the 

Nursing Child Assessment Feeding Scale 

(NCAFS) and the Nursing Child Assessment 

Teaching Scale (NCATS), respectively, and .49 

and .36 between the SHIF and the NCAFS and 

the NCATS (Ertem et al. 1997). 

The IT-HOME detects differences in home 

environments characterized by poverty and/or 

maternal learning disabilities (Keltner 1994), 

maternal responsiveness and provision of play 

stimulation subscales for mothers with 

psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia 

and depression (Goodman and Brumley 

1990), and aspects of the home potentially 

detrimental to medically fragile infants 

(Holditch-Davis et al. 2000). The IT-HOME 

does not detect differences in the cognitive 

development scores of infants with substanceabusing mothers and those with healthy 

mothers, although it is possible that the 

HOME scoring system is not sufficiently 

sensitive to pick up on individual differences 

in some samples of mothers (Howard et al. 

1995; Beckwith 1996). 

Predictive validity: IT-HOME scores 

administered at 6, 12, and 24 months were 

compared to the child’s scores on the Bayley 

Scales of Infant Development MDI at 12 

months, the Stanford-Binet at 36 and 54 

months, and the ITPA at 37 months. The IT

HOME was a better predictor of intelligence 

than the socioeconomic measures and was a 

stronger predictor for females and whites. The 

IT-HOME for low-birth weight and pre-term 

babies is an independent predictor of 

cognitive development among children age 2 

years and older (Weisglas-Kuperus et al. 1993; 

2.

­
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Molfese et al. 1996). HOME Inventory scores 

obtained for children age 2 years and older 

were more predictive of later cognitive 

development when correlated with mental 

measures than scores obtained earlier for 

infants 6 or 12 months old (Elardo et al. 1975; 

Bradley and Caldwell 1976; Bradley and 

Caldwell 1979; Bradley, Caldwell, and Rock 

1988). Findings from a National Institute of 

Child Health and Human Development 

(NICHD) study revealed that the IT- and ECHOME measures of maternal responsiveness 

and sensitivity (along with child gender and 

family income) were strong predictors of 

children’s later attachment patterns (NICHD 

Early Child Care Research Network 2001). 

Bias Analysis: Bradley et al. (1994) conducted 

a factor analysis to determine the suitability of the 

IT- and EC-HOME inventories for different 

ethnic groups. Using a sample of families of preterm infants, they concluded that the factor 

structures were in agreement with the 

organization of the items into subscales for the 

black and white samples, but less so for the 

Hispanic sample. Bradley et al. (1989) conducted a 

large longitudinal study on the relationship 

between HOME Inventory scores, socioeconomic 

status, and cognitive measures for three ethnic 

groups: whites, blacks, and Mexican Americans. 

Scores were well correlated with cognitive 

development for the white group, less so for the 

black group, and almost not at all for the Mexican 

American group. 

Methods of Scoring: The assessor enters a 

plus sign for each item if the behavior is observed 

or reported and a minus sign if it is not. Subscale 

and total inventory scores are derived by counting 

the number of plus signs. Scores are given at the 

time of observation, with no interpretation 

required after the visit. 

Interpretability: The summary sheet provides 

the scores that fall into the lowest quartile, the 

middle half, and the upper quartile. Homes with 

scores in the lowest quartile are considered 

environments that pose an increased risk to 

children’s development. However, the authors 

recommend that the interviewer take notes while 

chatting with the parent and/or record 

information gleaned from the ice-breaker 

questions on the child and the family in order to 

provide a context for interpreting the HOME 

Inventory scores. In addition, the assessor should 

pay attention to patterns across the subscales; such 

patterns may provide information for use in 

developing and structuring an intervention. For 

the sample of 73 poor urban families, the mean 

SHIF score was 15.5 with a standard deviation of 

2.8, although no information was provided on 

interpreting SHIF scores. 

Training Support: The authors and trainers 

offer workshops, and training DVDs are available 

from Cooperative Extension Publications at 

http://learningstore.uwex.edu. Information on the 

workshop and the DVDs is available from the 

authors. 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: The IT-, EC-, and 

274 
275 

MC-HOME versions have been adapted for 

children with disabilities. Versions of the 

Disability-adapted HOME are available for the 

three age groups for four categories of disabilities: 

Developmental Delay, Auditory Impairment, 

Visual Impairment, and Orthopedic Impairment. 

Separate instructions and new item definitions 

within each subsection accompany each version. 

Report Preparation Support: A summary 

sheet for recording background information on 

the family, subscale, and total inventory scores is 

available. 

References: 

Beckwith, L. “Measurement of the Early 

Rearing Environment: Caregiver-Child 

Interaction.” Report No. 166. Citeseer, 1996. 

Bradley, R.H., D.J. Mundfrom, L. Whiteside, 

P.H. Casey, and K. Barrett. “A Factor Analytic 

Study of the Infant-Toddler and Early Childhood 

Versions of the HOME Inventory Administered to 

White, Black, and Hispanic American Parents of 

Children Born Preterm.” Child Development, vol. 

65, no. 3, 1994, pp. 880-888. 

Caldwell, Bettye M., and Robert H. Bradley. 

HOME Inventory Administration Manual. Little 

Rock, AR: University of Arkansas for Medical 

Sciences and University of Arkansas at Little 

Rock, 2001. 

Caldwell, Bettye M., and Robert H. Bradley. 

HOME Inventory Administration Manual, 

Comprehensive Edition. Little Rock, AR: 

University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences and 

University of Arkansas at Little Rock, 2003. 

Caldwell, Bettye M., and Robert H. Bradley. 

Home Observation for Measurement of the 

Environment (HOME -Revised Edition). Little 

Rock, AR: University of Arkansas, 1984. 

Ertem, Ilgi O., Brian W.C. Forsyth, Abraham 

J. Avni-Singer, Lisa K. Damour, and Dominic V. 

Cicchetti. “Development of a Supplement to the 

HOME Scale for Children Living in Impoverished 

Urban Environments.” Developmental and 

Behavioral Pediatrics, vol. 18, no. 5, 1997, pp. 322

328. 

Goodman, S.H., and H.E. Brumley. 

“Schizophrenic and Depressed Mothers: 

Relational Deficits in Parenting.” Developmental 

Psychology, vol. 26, no.1, 1990, pp. 31-39. 

Holditch-Davis, D., E.M. Tesh, B.D. 

Goldman, M.S. Miles, and J. D’Auria. “Use of the 

HOME Inventory with Medically Fragile Infants.” 

Children’s Health Care, vol. 29, 2000, pp. 257-278. 

Howard, J., L. Beckwith, M. Espinosa, and R. 

Tyller. “Development of Infants Born to CocaineAbusing Women: Biologic/Maternal Influences.” 

Neurotoxicology and Teratology, vol. 17, no. 4, 

1995, pp. 403-411. 

Keltner, B. “Home Environments of Mothers 

with Mental Retardation.” Mental Retardation, 

vol. 32, no. 2, 1994, pp. 123-127. 

Molfese, J.V., L.F. DiLalla, and L. Lovelace. 

“Perinatal, Home Environment and Infant 

Measures as Successful Predictors of Preschool 

Cognitive and Verbal Abilities.” International 

Journal of Behavioral Development, vol. 19, no. 1, 

1996, pp. 101-119. 

­
 

 

Saudino, J.K., and R. Plomin. “Cognitive and 

Temperamental Mediators of Genetic 

Contributions to the Home Environment during 

Infancy.” Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, vol. 43, no. 1, 

1997, pp. 1-23. 

Totsika, Vasiliki, and Kathy Sylva. “The Home 

Observation for Measurement of the Environment 

Revisited.” Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 

vol. 9, no. 1, 2004, pp. 25-35. 

Weisglas-Kuperus, N., W. Baerts, M. 

Smrkovsky, and P.J J. Sauer. “Effects of Biological 

and Social Factors on the Cognitive Development 

of Very Low Birth Weight Children.” Pediatrics, 

vol. 92, no. 5, 1993, pp. 658-665. 

Weisglas-Kuperus, N., H.M. Koot, W. Baerts, 

W.P.F. Fetter, and P.J.J. Sauer. “Behaviour 

Problems of Very Low Birth Weight Children.” 

Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, vol. 

35, no. 5, 1993, pp. 406-416. 

276 
277 

INFANT-TODDLER AND FAMILY INSTRUMENT (ITFI), 2001 

Authors: 

Nancy H. Apfel and Sally Provence 

Publisher: 

Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. 

(800) 638-3775 

www.brookespublishing.com 

Initial Material Cost: 

ITFI instrument and manual package: $45 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: 

Not normed. Field test involved 55 Connecticut 

families with 59 children ages 6 to 36 months. 

Languages: 

English 

Type of Assessment: 

Direct parent and child assessment; structured child 

observation (parent report if observation not possible) 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

6 months to 3 years 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: Designed for home visitors. Can also be 

used by family practitioners, including 

paraprofessionals, who have varying levels of training. 

Preparation sessions for orientation and instructional 

purposes are strongly recommended. 

The Caregiver Interview and Developmental Map can 

be administered in two 45- to 60-minute sessions. One 

45- to 60-minute session is needed to share findings 

and develop a follow-up plan for the family. 

Summary: 

Initial Material Cost: 1 (< $100) 

Reliability: 1 (none described) 

Validity: 1 (none described) 

Norming Sample Characteristics: 1 (none described) 

Ease of Administration and Scoring: 3 (administered 

and scored by family service workers) 

Description: The ITFI helps family service 

providers assess the well-being of children 6 

months to 3 years of age and their families. It 

consists of four sections: the Caregiver Interview, 

Developmental Map, Checklist for Evaluating 

Concern, and the Plan for the Child and Family. 

The Caregiver Interview has 35 items related to 

home and family life, child health and safety, and 

family issues and concerns. The interview is 

conducted with the parent(s) or primary 

caregiver(s). The Developmental Map is an 

observation of infant-toddler behavior in the areas 

of gross and fine motor development, social and 

emotional development, language development, 

and coping and self-help development. It involves 

informally observing the child’s behavior and 

interaction with others, as well as playing with the 

child using an established set of testing materials. 

The Checklist for Evaluating Concern is 

completed by the interviewer after the visit in 

order to assess the family in the areas of home and 

family environment; child health, development 

and safety; and stressors in the child’s life. The 

interviewer rates concerns on a scale of 1 (low) to 

10 (high) and prioritizes concerns based on these 

ratings. The Plan for the Child and Family 

determines what steps may need to be taken in 

order to address the interviewer’s concerns about 

the needs of the family. 

Uses of Information: Family service 

providers can use the ITFI as a supplement to 

other assessments of child and family strengths 
 

 

 

 

 

and needs, specific child symptoms and stressors, 

and the caregiver’s ability to meet their child’s 

basic needs. It also helps service providers work 

with families to develop a support plan for 

meeting their needs. 

Reliability: None described. 

Validity: None described. 

Method of Scoring: Scoring is done on the 

three-part Checklist for Evaluating Concern, after 

the family service provider leaves the family’s 

home. The checklist summarizes the family 

provider’s impressions of family and child needs 

and strengths based on information from the 

Caregiver Interview, the Developmental Map, and 

observations of the caregiver-child interaction and 

the home environment. For each item in the 

checklist, the provider indicates whether the 

condition is present, is of concern, or if the 

provider is unsure of its presence. 

Interpretability: The interviewer uses the 

Checklist for Evaluating Concern Summary Sheet 

to rate the level of concern for the child and family 

from 1 (low) to 10 (high) and to list the family’s 

strengths and weaknesses. The ratings of concern 

from the Checklist for Evaluating Concern may 

determine how detailed a support plan is, when it 

is put into action, and how intense services should 

be. After the service provider has considered all of 

the information from the summary sheet, he or 

she is able to prioritize the concerns while keeping 

the child’s health, development, and safety as a top 

priority. The manual provides general guidelines 

and case studies on how to use information 

collected with the ITFI that can be used to 

prioritize needs and develop service plans. The 

guidelines are kept general to allow agencies and 

programs to incorporate the ITFI into their own 

protocol, purpose, and service. 

Training Support: “Brookes on Location” 

professional development seminar, Using ITFI to 

Evaluate Young Children and Their Families, is 

available through the publisher. 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: None described. 

Report Preparation Support: Case study 

examples are provided in which a case is 

presented, family strengths and vulnerabilities are 

highlighted, and an action plan for intervention is 

developed. 

References: 

Apfel, Nancy and Sally Provence. Manual for 

the Infant-Toddler and Family Instrument (ITFI). 

Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co., 

2001. 

278 
279 

THE KEMPE FAMILY STRESS INVENTORY (KFSI) 

Authors: 

Barton Schmitt and Claudia Carroll with assistance 

from Jane Gray 

Publisher: 

Authors 

http://www.ucdenver.edu/academics/colleges/medicals 

chool/departments/pediatrics/subs/can/Pages/ChildAb 

useNeglect.aspx 

Initial Material Cost: 

Free. The KFSI is not copyrighted and can be used at 

no charge and without the authors’ permission, but 

permission is needed to re-publish the measure; 

supplemental rating criteria are copyrighted. 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: 

None described. 

Languages: 

English 

Type of Assessment: 

Direct Parent Assessment 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

Not applicable. Focuses on parents of all ages. 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: Personnel need to have appropriate 

training or experience to conduct psychosocial 

interview, and must have specialized training to use 

supplemental rating criteria. 

Summary: 

Initial Material Cost: 1 (< $100) 

Reliability: Inter-rater: 3 (.65 or higher) 

Validity: 2 (< .4 for predictive) 

Norming Sample Characteristics: 1 (none described) 

Ease of Administration and Scoring: 3 (administered 

and scored by a highly trained individual). 

Description: The KSFI assesses parents’ risk 

for child maltreatment and/or caregiving 

difficulties. It is a 10-item rating scale that is 

completed after a through psychosocial interview 

with a trained professional. Service providers, 

such as home visitors, may also rate families based 

on the interactions they have had with them over 

a period of time (Korfmacher, Younge, and 

Michalek 1996). Items on the KSFI assess parents 

on a number of domains, such as psychiatric and 

criminal history, childhood history of care, 

emotional functioning, attitudes towards and 

perception of children, discipline of children, and 

level of stress in the parent’s life. Parents receive a 

raw score and are determined to be at low, 

moderate, or high risk, depending on the cut-offs 

established by the program administering the 

scale (see section on interpretability, below). 

Uses of Information: The KFSI is currently 

used with at-risk families as an integral part of the 

screening and assessment process for two homevisiting programs for families at-risk, the Hawaii 

Healthy Start and the nation-wide Healthy 

Families America program. It is primarily used as 

a second-level screening tool for mothers who are 

considered at risk based on a 15-item hospital 

chart review that assesses sociodemographic risk 

factors, such as maternal age and income. 

Reliability: (1) Inter-rater reliability: a 

Healthy Families America program site in Oregon 

collected data on 115 families, and notes from 

each of their psychosocial interviews were 

reviewed by independent raters. The reliability 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

correlation coefficient between raters on 

classifying parents into the low, mild, or severe 

risk categories was .93. (Katzev et al. 1997). 

Validity: Predictive validity: three studies that 

compared KFSI scores to child maltreatment 

based on hospital records, state child protection 

reports, and scores on the Child Abuse Potential 

Inventory have shown KFSI to have predictive 

validity (Murphy et al. 1985; Hawaii Department 

of Health 1992; and Katzev et al. 1997). Three 

studies of predictive validity were conducted using 

varying cut-off scores and time periods. Positive 

predictive validity reflected the percentage of 

mothers with high-risk scores who later 

maltreated their children, and ranged from 25 to 

52 in two of the studies. According to Korfmacher 

(2000), the low percentage (3 percent) in a third 

study may be an artifact of the study’s reliance on 

child protection reports to measure the incidence 

of maltreatment. Negative predictive validity 

measured the percentage of mothers with low-risk 

scores who demonstrated no future evidence of 

child maltreatment; it ranged from 85 to 100 

percent. The KFSI sensitivity, which is the 

percentage of maltreating mothers who were 

scored at high risk, ranged from 80 percent to 97 

percent across the three studies. The specificity, 

which is the percentage of non-maltreating 

mothers who were scored at low risk, ranged from 

21 to 89 percent. 

Method of Scoring: A three-point scale, 

ranging from low to high risk, is used to score 

both parents. Parents who receive a high-risk 

score are considered at risk for child 

maltreatment. Two methods have been employed 

in scoring the KFSI. Carroll (1978) used weighted 

scoring, in which items that were determined to 

be more immediate precedents to child abuse 

(such as violent outbursts and harsh punishment 

of child) were given higher scores, while lower 

weighting was given to items that were perceived 

to be less important in assessing immediate risk 

(such as parents’ history of child maltreatment, 

low self-esteem or isolation, and having an 

unwanted child). If a weighted scaling system is 

not used, items are assigned values according to 

whether there is no risk (0), risk (5), or high risk 

(10) of child maltreatment. The total score is 

obtained by summing the values assigned to each 

item, although the weighted system requires that 

examiners multiply raw scores by 2.5. Total scores 

range from 0 to 100. 

Interpretability: KFSI users have applied 

different cutoff scores based on their clinical 

judgment to identify at-risk parents. Carroll 

(1978) felt that scores above 30 were “concerning” 

and that scores above 70 were “particularly 

differentiating”; however, others have defined 

different cutoffs and have assigned labels (such as, 

low, medium and severe risk) to scores in a 

particular range. To aid in interpreting scores, 

Healthy Families America and the Family Stress 

Center have created and copyrighted 

supplemental rating criteria. 

Training Support: Individuals must 

participate in a specialized training on using the 

supplemental rating criteria, which have been 

280 
281 

copyrighted by Healthy Families America and the 

Family Stress Center. 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: None described. 

Report Preparation Support: None 

described. 

References: 

Carroll, C.A. “The social worker’s evaluation.” 

In The child protection team handbook, edited by 

B.D. Schmitt. New York: Garland STM Press, 

1978, pp. 83-108. 

Center on Child Abuse Prevention Research. 

Intensive home visitation: A randomized trial, 

follow-up, and risk assessment study of Hawaii’s 

Healthy Start program. Final report prepared for 

the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect. 

Chicago, IL: National Committee to Prevent Child 

Abuse, 1996. 

Hawaii Department of Health. Report to the 

16th Legislature, State of Hawaii, on House Bill 

#139, c.d. 1: Requesting review and 

recommendations from the Director of Health on 

the Healthy Start Program. Honolulu, HI: 

Maternal and Child Health Branch, Hawaii 

Department of Health, 1992. 

Katzev, A., T. Henderson, and C. Pratt. 

Predicting child maltreatment with the Kempe 

Family Stress Assessment. Document presented at 

HFA: Rethinking the Assessment Process working 

meeting. Chicago, IL: National Committee to 

Prevent Child Abuse, 1997. 

Korfmacher, J., P. Younge, and P. Michalek. 

Standardized assessment of child abuse risk: A 

review. Paper presented at 24th Annual Child 

Abuse and Neglect Symposium, Keystone, CO, 

1996. 

Korfmacher, Jon. The Kempe Family Stress 

Inventory: A review. Child Abuse and Neglect, 

vol. 24, 2000, pp. 129-140. 

Murphy, S., B. Orkow, and R.M. Nicola. 

Prenatal prediction of child abuse and neglect: A 

prospective study. Child Abuse & Neglect, vol. 9, 

1985, pp. 225-235. 
 

 

 

 

 

KNOWLEDGE OF INFANT DEVELOPMENT INVENTORY (KIDI), 

1981 

Authors: 

David MacPhee 

Publisher: 

Unpublished manuscript; available from Educational 

Testing Service 

(609) 734-5689 

www.ets.org/ 

Initial Material Cost: 

As of January 1998, the cost was $11, plus $3 shipping 

and handling to order this measure from the 

Educational Testing Service 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: 

Non-representative sample of pediatricians, Ph.D.s in 

child psychology, University of North Carolina 

undergraduate child psychology students, and mothers 

in Chapel Hill, NC. 

Languages: 

English 

Type of Assessment: 

Parent report 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

Parents of infants and young children 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: An individual with a 7th-grade reading 

level can complete the instrument. Administration time 

is 20 minutes; scoring time is 20 minutes. 

Summary: 

Initial Material Cost: 1 (< $100)
 


Reliability: 2 (some less than .65; others .65 or higher)
 


Validity: 1 (validity coefficients not reported)
 


Norming Sample Characteristics: 2 (not nationally
 


representative)
 


Ease of Administration and Scoring: 2 (self­


administered; scored by someone with basic clerical
 


skills)
 


Description: The Knowledge of Infant 

Development Inventory (KIDI) is a 75-item 

instrument that was designed to obtain 

comprehensive information on parents’ factual 

knowledge of parental practices, child 

developmental processes, and infant norms of 

behavior. The KIDI is designed to be easily 

accessible to persons with limited education and 

to be culturally neutral. The items can also be 

grouped into four non-exclusive general 

categories to obtain more specific information on 

a person’s knowledge on infant norms and 

milestones, principles of infant development, 

parenting, and health and safety. The KIDI Scale is 

accompanied by a 17-item questionnaire (the 

Catalog of Previous Experience, or COPE) 

assessing previous experience with infants to 

correlate with knowledge level assessed by KIDI. 

Uses of Information: The KIDI may be used 

as an indicator or a diagnostic tool for high-risk 

parents and also to evaluate parent education 

programs. 

Reliability: (1) Internal consistency reliability 

(Cronbach’s alpha): alphas were .67 and .55 for 

college students at pretest and posttest, 

respectively, .82 for parents, and .50 for 

professionals. The Guttman split-half coefficients 

were .60 and .57 for college students at pretest and 

posttest, respectively, .85 for mothers, and .59 for 

professionals. (2) Test-retest reliability: For 

parents (2-week interval), the correlation 

coefficients were .92 for the total score, .80 for 

282 
283 

attempted, and .91 for accuracy. For college 

students (4-month interval), the coefficients were 

.65 for the attempted and .47 for accuracy. 

Validity: (1) Content validity: The author 

conducted an extensive review of the relevant 

literature and the instrument has been reviewed 

by parents, pediatricians, and persons holding a 

Ph.D. in child psychology. (2) Construct validity: 

The manual reports the results of the initial 

validity studies conducted by the author. The 

results suggested that persons with more 

experience with or knowledge about infants were 

more confident in responding to the KIDI. 

However, persons with formal knowledge were 

more accurate in their responses than persons 

with informal knowledge. (3) Predictive validity: 

In another study, the author found parents of 

developmentally delayed children had 

significantly lower KIDI attempted and accuracy 

scores than parents of children with normal 

development. 

Method of Scoring: Each of the KIDI items is 

scored as right (+1), wrong (-1), or not sure (0) 

according to an answer key that is provided. Using 

formulas provided in the manual, three summary 

scores are then calculated: an attempted score 

(percent of items attempted, a measure of 

confidence), an accuracy score (percent correct of 

the attempted answers), and a total correct score 

(percent correct of all the KIDI items). If the user 

wishes, subscale scores can be calculated for the 

four general categories: (1) norms and milestone, 

(2) principles, (3) parenting, and (4) health and 

safety. 

Interpretability: No instructions provided. 

Training Support: None described. 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: None described. 

Report Preparation Support: None 

described. 

References: 

MacPhee, D. Manual: Knowledge of Infant 

Development Inventory. Unpublished 

manuscript, University of North Carolina, 1981. 

MacPhee, D. The Nature of Parents’ 

Experiences with and Knowledge About Infant 

Development. Paper presented at the Society for 

Research in Child Development, April 1983. 

MacPhee, D. The Relationship Between 

Children’s Delayed Development and Their 

Mothers’ Perceptions of Development. Paper 

presented at the Southwestern Society for 

Research in Human Development, March 1984. 

MacPhee, D. Mothers’ Acquisition and 

Reconstruction of Knowledge About Infancy. 

Paper presented at the Southwestern Society for 

Research in Human Development, March 1984. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NURSING CHILD ASSESSMENT SATELLITE TRAINING (NCAST) PARENT-CHILD 

INTERACTION PROGRAM 

NURSING CHILD ASSESSMENT TEACHING SCALE (NCATS), 2ND EDITION, 1995 

Authors: 

NCAST 

Publisher: 

NCAST 

(206) 543-8528 

www.ncast.org 

Initial Material Cost: 

Teaching set (includes teaching manual, scale pad, and 

teaching kit): $125 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: 

Diverse but non-random sample. Sample consists of 

approximately 2,100 observations sent in by persons 

across the United States learning to use the scale from 

around 1980 to 1995. 

Languages: 

English 

Type of Assessment: 

Observation 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

Birth to 36 months 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: 

Administered by a professional health care worker 

certified by NCAST as a learner or instructor. Usually 

administered in 1 to 6 minutes. 

Summary: 

Initial Material Cost: 2 ($100 to $200)
 


Reliability: 3 (some subscales fell below .65, although
 


most of the total scales exceeded .65)
 


Validity: 2 (< .5 for concurrent, < .4 for predictive)
 


Norming Sample Characteristics: 2 (not nationally 
 

representative)
 


Ease of Administration and Scoring: 3 (administered 
 

and scored by a highly trained individual)
 


Description: The Nursing Child Assessment 

Teaching Scale (NCATS) is used to assess the 

quality of the caregiver-child teaching interaction 

for children from birth to 3 years of age. The 73­

item teaching scale is organized into six subscales, 

four of which assess the caregiver’s behavior and 

two the child’s. The four caregiver subscales assess 

the caregiver’s sensitivity to cues, response to the 

child’s distress, fostering of social-emotional 

growth, and fostering of cognitive growth. The 

two child subscales assess the clarity of the child’s 

cues and responsiveness to the caregiver. 

Uses of Information: The teaching scale 

identifies areas of strengths and weaknesses in the 

caregiver-child teaching interaction. The results 

can be used to build the caregiver’s skills to 

facilitate the development of the child. 

Reliability: (1) Internal consistency reliability 

(Cronbach’s alpha): ranged from .52 to .80 on the 

caregiver subscales, .50 on the child’s clarity of 

cues, and .78 on the child’s responsiveness to 

parent subscales. The alphas for the total caregiver 

and child subscales were .87 and .81, respectively. 

(2) Test-retest reliability (with a 3- to 4-month 

interval between tests): .85 on the total parent 

score and .55 on the total infant score. 

Validity: (1) Concurrent validity: NCATS 

caregiver scores were tested for concurrent 

validity against the Home Observation for 

Measurement of the Environment (HOME) and 

the Bayley Scales of Infant Development. The 

correlations of the total NCATS scores with the 

total HOME score among children ages 1 to 36 

months, in three age groups, ranged from .41 to 

284 
285 

.44. The correlation of the total NCATS score with 

the Bayley Mental Development Index (MDI) and 

Bayley Psychomotor Development Index (PDI) 

were .28 and .34, respectively. In both cases, the 

caregiver scales, especially the social-emotional 

and cognitive growth subscales, were more 

strongly correlated with the HOME and Bayley. 

(2) Predictive validity: a test for predictive validity 

reported correlations of .23 and .34, respectively, 

between NCATS total scores taken at 3 and 10 

months and MDI scores, both statistically 

significant. The subscale correlations ranged from 

-.01 to .37. Correlations between the NCATS 

caregiver and total scores at 24 months with the 

Bayley MDI (at 24 months), Preschool Language 

(at 36 months), and WPPSI IQ (at 60 months) 

were stronger and more consistent than the 

correlations between the cognitive measures and 

NCATS scores at 12 months. 

Method of Scoring: During the teaching 

session, the observer goes through the 73-item 

scale and marks “yes” or “no” for each item 

depending upon whether or not the behavior was 

observed. The teaching manual provides the user 

with step-by-step scoring instructions. The user 

must calculate the totals for each subscale and the 

total score. The scores are compared to a table 

provided in the manual to determine whether the 

score falls under the 10 percentile cutoff score. 

Interpretability: The Teaching Manual 

provides step-by-step instructions on how to 

interpret scores using population norms. Tables 

that compare NCATS scores to the norms are 

provided. 

Training Support: To learn essential child 

care skills, users of NCATS are strongly 

recommended to view NCAST’s “Keys to 

Caregiving” video series. Workshops are also 

available through NCAST or NCAST certified 

instructors. The fee for NCAST’s workshops is 

$900, which covers training on assessing 

caregiver-child interaction. NCAST recommends 

that individuals view the “Keys to Caregiving” 

videos prior to attending NCAST training. 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: None. 

Report Preparation Support: General 

guidance is provided in the step-by-step 

instructions on the use of the teaching scale, 

including some suggestions on how to review and 

discuss any identified problems with caregivers 

and how to document an agreed upon 

prescription of practice/behavior by the 

caregivers. 

References: 

Summer, Georgina and Anita L. Spietz. 

NCAST Caregiver/Parent-Child Interaction 

Teaching Manual, 2nd Edition. Seattle, WA: 

NCAST Publications, University of Washington, 

June 1995. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PARENTAL MODERNITY SCALE, 1985 (2011 Update)
 
 

Authors: 

Earl S. Schaefer and Marianne Edgerton 

Publisher: 

None 

Initial Material Cost: 

None 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: 

No norming sample 

Languages: 

English 

Type of Assessment: 

Parent report 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

Parents of infants, toddlers, and elementary school 

children 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: No information available 

Summary: 

Initial Material Cost: 1 (< $100)
 


Reliability: 3 (mostly .65 or higher)
 


Validity: 3 (all .5 or higher for concurrent)
 


Norming Sample Characteristics: 1 (no norming
 


sample)
 


Ease of Administration and Scoring: 2 (self­


administered and/or administered and scored by
 


someone with basic clerical skills)
 


Description: The Parental Modernity Scale 

(Schaefer and Edgerton 1985) is a 30-item 

measure of parental beliefs that are classified as 

traditional and authoritarian or progressive and 

democratic. The scale was designed for use with 

parents of school-age children. Parents indicate 

whether they strongly disagree, mildly disagree, 

are not sure, mildly agree, or strongly agree with 

each item statement. Alternatively, the assessor 

may read the statements aloud and prompt the 

parent for a response. Eight items belong to the 

Progressive Beliefs subscale (6, 11, 13, 15, 20, 23, 

27, and 29), and the remaining 22 items belong to 

the Traditional Beliefs subscale. 

The Parental Modernity Scale was adapted for 

use with parents of toddlers in the Early Head 

Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (Baby 

FACES) and the Early Head Start Research and 

Evaluation Project (EHSREP). Ten items out of 30 

were selected for the two studies and then divided 

evenly between the two subscales. Traditional 

Beliefs included items 3, 5, 10, 21, and 28, and 

Progressive Beliefs included items 6, 13, 20, 23, 

and 29. 

Other Languages: None. 

Uses of Information: The Parental Modernity 

Scale and its adapted shorter form have been used 

to conduct longitudinal research on child care 

experiences in the National Institute of Child 

Health and Human Development’s Study of Early 

Child Care and Youth Development (NICHD 

SECCYD) in order to measure traditional and 

progressive parenting beliefs. Both forms have 

also been used in the Baby FACES study and the 

EHSREP. 

Reliability: 

1.		 Internal consistency reliability: research 

studies have published Cronbach’s alpha 

coefficients for the Parental Modernity Scale 

subscales. The Progressive Beliefs and 

Traditional Beliefs subscale coefficients were 

286 
287 

.68 and .73 (Administration for Children and 

Families 2002). Vogel and colleagues (2011) 

reported Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of .59 

and .58 for the adapted Traditional Beliefs and 

Progressive Beliefs subscales, respectively. 

2. Test-retest reliability: no information 

available. 

3. Inter-rater reliability: not applicable. 

Validity: 

1. Content validity: the authors correlated items 

about parental beliefs from a scale they had 

developed (the Parent as Educator Interview) 

with measures of kindergarten children’s 

academic competence. They selected the 30 

items significantly correlated with academic 

competence, of which more items were related 

to traditional, authoritarian beliefs because 

the items were more highly correlated with 

children’s academic competence. 

2. Concurrent validity: in a sample of 49 parents, 

the authors reported total parental modernity 

scores correlated with teacher ratings of child 

verbal intelligence at .50 and .51 for mothers 

and fathers, respectively, and at .55 combined. 

Bias Analysis: No information available. 

Methods of Scoring: Items on the Parental 

Modernity Scale are rated on a five-point scale 

ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly 

agree. The Progressive Beliefs subscale score is the 

sum of 8 items (6, 11, 13, 15, 20, 23, 27, 29), and 

the Traditional Beliefs subscale score is the sum of 

the 22 remaining items. The NICHD SECCYD 

researchers also computed a Total Traditional 

Beliefs score, which included the sum of the 

Traditional items and the reverse scores of 

Progressive items. 

Interpretability: Higher Progressive Beliefs 

scores reflect modern beliefs about childrearing 

and education. A higher Traditional Beliefs score 

reflects strict and conservative beliefs about 

childrearing and education. 

Training Support: No information available. 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: No information 

available. 

Report Preparation Support: No 

information available. 

References: 

Administration for Children and Families. 

“Making a Difference in the Lives of Infants and 

Toddlers and Their Families: The Impacts of Early 

Head Start. Volume II: Final Technical Report 

Appendixes.” Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Health and Human Services, 2002. 

Schaefer, Earl S., and Marianna Edgerton. 

“Parent and Child Correlates of Parental 

Modernity.” In Parental Belief Systems: The 

Psychological Consequences for Children, edited by 

I.E. Sigel. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1985. 
 

 

Vogel, Cheri A., Kimberly Boller, Yange Xue, 

Randall Blair, Nikki Aikens, Andrew Burwick, 

Yevgeny Shrago, Barbara L. Carlton, Lara Kalb, 

Linda Mendenko, Judy Cannon, Sean Harrington, 

and Jillian Stein. “Learning as We Go: A First 

Snapshot of Early Head Start Programs, Staff, 

Families, and Children.” Report No. 2011-7. 

Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research, 

and Evaluation, Administration for Children and 

Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, 2011. 

288 
PARENTING ALLIANCE MEASURE (PAM), 1999 (2011 Update) 

Authors: 

Richard R. Abidin and Timothy R. Konold 

Publisher: 

Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc. 

(800) 331-8378 

http://www4.parinc.com 

Instrument: 

http://www4.parinc.com/Products/Product.aspx?Pro 

ductID=PAM 

Initial Material Cost: 

PAM Introductory Kit (includes manual and 50 test 

forms for hand scoring): $150 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: 

The norming sample was collected in 1997 and 

included 1,224 parents of children 1 to 19 years old 

(mean age 10.9 years) from 15 states. Parent median 

income ranged from $40,001 to $50,000. The sample 

resembled 1992 U.S. Census Bureau projections for 

1997 with regard to ethnicity, parent marital status, 

and children’s gender. Normative data were derived 

separately for mothers (n = 879) and fathers (n = 345) 

based on significant differences in PAM scores 

(fathers scored higher). 

Languages: 

English 

Type of Assessment: 

Parent report 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

Parents of children 1 to 19 years old 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: 

Little training is required to administer and score the 

PAM. 

Authors recommend that assessors study the manual 

administration and scoring procedures and that 

someone with graduate-level training in psychology 

or a related field interpret the results. 

The PAM takes 5 to 8 minutes to complete and fewer 

than 5 minutes to score. 

Summary: 

Initial Material Cost: 2 ($100 to $200) 

Reliability: 3 (most .65 or higher) 

Validity: 3 (most .5 or higher for concurrent) 

Norming Sample Characteristics: 2 (older than 15 

years) 

Ease of Administration and Scoring: 2 (self

administered and scored by someone with basic 

clerical skills) 

­

Description: The Parenting Alliance Measure 

(PAM) is a self-administered questionnaire that 

measures the perceived strength of the 

childrearing alliance between parents. It includes 

20 items and may be administered to parents of 

children 1 to 19 years old. Although the PAM 

does not include subscales, the authors designed 

the PAM to reflect four dimensions of a positive 

parenting alliance as defined by Weissman and 

Cohen (1985) such that the parent (1) is invested 

in the child, (2) values the other parent’s 

involvement with the child, (3) respects the other 

parent’s judgment, and (4) wants to communicate 

with the other parent. 

Other Languages: None. 

Uses of Information: Clinicians working with 

families use the PAM to discern whether parents 

cooperate with each other to meet the needs of 

their children. Researchers may use the PAM to 

289 
 

 

 

 

 

assess the relationship between parental behaviors 

and the experiences and behaviors of children. 

Reliability: 

1.		 Internal consistency: The authors found 

Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of .96, .97, and 

.97 for fathers, mothers, and the total 

normative sample, respectively. 

2.		 Test-retest reliability: coefficients for 27 

fathers, 33 mothers, and all 60 parents were 

.63, .88, and .80, respectively, when the PAM 

was administered at a four- to six-week 

interval. 

3.		 Inter-rater reliability: not applicable. 

Validity: 

1.		 Content validity: the PAM is based on an 

earlier measure developed by the same 

authors (Parenting Alliance Inventory), with 

80 items developed by the authors and field 

experts. The authors field tested the 80-item 

measure with parents for readability and 

clarity, subjected items to expert review to rate 

whether they measured the intended 

construct, and reduced the measure to 30 

items based on ratings. The authors further 

reduced the number of items to 20 after 

conducting factor analysis with 512 racially 

and socioeconomically diverse parents in 

central Virginia. Principal Component 

Analyses, Maximum Likelihood Analyses, and 

Principal Axis Analyses conducted on 

mothers and fathers in the normative sample 

resulted in one- and two-factor solutions. The 

authors adopted the one-factor solution 

because factors were highly correlated and the 

second factor accounted for a small 

percentage of the score variance. 

2.		 Concurrent validity: the PAM scores were 

compared to scores on the Stress Index for 

Parents and Adolescents (SIPA) and the 

Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS) measuring 

marital relationship quality as well as to the 

Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation 

Scales III (FACES-III) Family Adaptability 

and Cohesion subscales. The authors included 

parents of adolescents in both the PAM 

norming sample (n = 713) and the SIPA 

norming sample (n = 64); the parents were 

primarily white, married, well educated, and 

reported higher incomes. The PAM and SIPA 

scores were correlated at -.55 for mothers and 

-.68 for fathers in the PAM norming sample 

and at -.72 for mothers and -.75 for fathers in 

the SIPA norming sample, indicating that 

higher parental stress was related to lowerquality parenting alliances. Among parents 

from the SIPA norming sample, the PAM and 

DAS scores correlated at .52 and .75 for 

mothers and fathers, respectively. The PAM 

and FACES-III Adaptability scores were 

correlated at .43 for fathers (correlation was 

non-significant for mothers), and the PAM 

and FACES-III Cohesion scores were 

correlated at .59 and .75 for mothers and 

fathers, respectively. The authors indicated 

that perceived parenting alliances and family 

cohesion and adaptability were more 

important to fathers’ view of their family. 

290 
291 

Authors compared the PAM scores to teacher 

ratings of children’s self-esteem and social 

competence, as measured by the Behavioral 

Academic Self-Esteem (BASE) measure and 

California Preschool Social Competency Scale 

(CPSCS) (n = 160 parents and 78 teachers). 

For mothers and fathers, the PAM and BASE 

scores correlated at .20 and .29, respectively. 

The PAM and CPSCS were correlated at .32 

for fathers (the relationship was non

significant for mothers, which, the authors 

suggested, could be attributable to mothers’ 

more consistent actions toward children 

regardless of the perceived parenting alliance). 

The authors reported statistically significant 

PAM score differences as measured by t-test 

comparisons and one-way analysis of variance 

between the normative sample and a clinical 

sample (n = 272 children 7 to 19 years old). 

Parents of children (1) without clinical 

diagnoses, (2) no history of receiving mental 

health services, and (3) no history of 

delinquent behavior had higher PAM scores 

than parents of children with clinical 

diagnoses or a history of mental health 

services or delinquency. Married parents had 

higher PAM scores regardless of whether their 

children were clinically diagnosed with a 

mental health disorder such as attention 

deficit hyperactivity disorder. 

Bias Analysis: No information available. 

Methods of Scoring: Parents rate each item 

on a five-point scale ranging from strongly agree 

to strongly disagree, and their responses are 

recorded on a carbon-copy sheet. The PAM Total 

raw score is the sum of the 20 item scores. If items 

are missing responses (up to two missing 

responses are allowed), then the manual provides 

instructions for computing an average raw score. 

Percentiles and T scores for mothers, fathers, and 

in total are included in the manual. 

Interpretability: The PAM Score Summary 

area on the scoring sheet indicates how percentile 

score ranges correspond to score interpretations: 

within normal limits, marginal, problematic, and 

dysfunctional. The manual includes case study 

examples for users interpreting the PAM; the case 

studies include family background, test results, 

and applications in family counseling settings. 

Training Support: None; the authors indicate 

that the PAM does not require formal training to 

administer and score. 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: A grade 3 reading 

level is required for parents to self-administer the 

PAM. However, items may be read aloud to 

parents who have difficulty reading. 

Report Preparation Support: The scoring 

sheet includes a PAM Score Summary area to 

record the total score, percentile, T score, and 

interpretation (within normal limits, marginal, 

problematic, dysfunctional). 

References: 

Abidin, Richard R., and Timothy R. Konold. 

PAM Parenting Alliance Measure Professional 

­
 

Manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment 

Resources, Inc., 1999. 

Carlson, Cindy I. “Review of the Parenting 

Alliance Measure.” In The Fifteenth Mental 

Measurements Yearbook, edited by Barbara S. 

Plake, James C. Impara, and Robert A. Spies. 

Lincoln, NE: The Buros Institute of Mental 

Measurements, 2003. 

Clarke, Mary M. “Review of the Parenting 

Alliance Measure.” In The Fifteenth Mental 

Measurements Yearbook, edited by Barbara S. 

Plake, James C. Impara, and Robert A. Spies. 

Lincoln, NE: The Buros Institute of Mental 

Measurements, 2003. 

Weissman, S.H., and R.S. Cohen. “The 

Parenting Alliance and Adolescence.” Adolescent 

Psychiatry, vol. 12, 1985, pp. 24-45. 

292 
293 

PARENTING INTERACTIONS WITH CHILDREN: CHECKLIST OF 

OBSERVATIONS LINKED TO OUTCOMES (PICCOLO), 2009 (2011 Update) 

Authors: 

Lori Roggman, Gina Cook, Mark Innocenti, Vonda 

Jump Norman, and Katie Christiansen 

Publisher: 

Utah State University, Center for Persons with 

Disabilities; available by contacting Lori Roggman or 

Mark Innocenti 

(435) 797-0091 or (435) 797-2006 

http://www.cpdusu.org/projects/piccolo/ 

Initial Material Cost: 

None; the measure and supporting materials are 

currently available free of charge from the authors. 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: 

No norming sample 

Languages: 

English 

Type of Assessment: 

Observation 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

1 through 3 years old 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: 

Administered by a highly trained program staff 

member or researcher 

Assessors receive group training from the authors or 

other experienced PICCOLO trainers. The authors 

recommend at least 1 day of training, which includes a 

2-hour period of observing and coding videos to 

demonstrate inter-rater reliability with the authors. 

Summary: 

Initial Material Cost: 1 (< $100) 

Reliability: 3 (most are .65 or higher) 

Validity: 2 (all under .4 for concurrent and predictive) 

Norming Sample Characteristics: 1 (no norming 

sample) 

Ease of Administration and Scoring: 3 (administered 

and scored by a highly trained individual) 

Description: The Parenting Interactions with 

Children: Checklist of Observations Linked to 

Outcomes (PICCOLO) is an observational tool 

designed to measure positive parenting behaviors 

as parents interact with their toddlers 1 through 3 

years old. The measure includes 29 items 

organized by four domains: (1) Affection (7 

items), (2) Responsiveness (7 items), (3) 

Encouragement of Autonomy (7 items), and (4) 

Teaching (8 items). The authors recommend 

administering the PICCOLO with videotaped 

parent-child interactions, particularly for research 

use, although it may be administered “live” with 

parents and toddlers. The authors also 

recommend that parents and toddlers interact 

with stimulating materials (e.g., books, puzzles, 

pretend-play toys) during the observation. The 

PICCOLO may be incorporated into observations 

of family routines or planned home visit activities. 

Furthermore, the Early Head Start Family and 

Child Experiences Survey (Vogel et al. 2001) 

applies the PICCOLO coding scheme to 

videotaped observations of the Two Bags Task, in 

which one bag contains a picture book and the 

other contains cooking- and food-related toys. 

Other Languages: None. 

Uses of Information: Coding the videos in 

the presence of a parent or program supervisor 

enables practitioners to highlight the behaviors 

that contributed to the ratings. Practitioners and 

program staff may use data from the PICCOLO to 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

provide feedback to families as part of parent 

education and continuous program improvement 

efforts. Others may use the data for research, 

evaluation, program monitoring, and 

development purposes. 

Reliability: 

1.		 Internal consistency reliability: Cronbach’s 

alpha was reported for each domain: Affection 

was .78, Responsiveness was .75, 

Encouragement was .77, and Teaching was 

.80. 

2.		 Test-retest reliability: Pearson’s correlation 

coefficients for the domains ranged from .39 

to .52 for a 10-month administration interval 

(14 to 24 months) and from .36 to .51 for a 12­

month interval (24 to 36 months). 

3.		 Inter-rater reliability: groups of at least three 

observers coded 2,300 videos, and the overall 

inter-rater reliability was .84 (coefficient type 

not specified). The inter-rater reliability 

analysis included data from an additional 

2,200 videotaped observations coded by at 

least two coders. Across more than 4,500 

videos, average percentage agreement was 

reported for each domain: Affection was 80 

percent, Responsiveness was 76 percent, 

Encouragement was 83 percent, and Teaching 

was 69 percent. 

Validity: 

1.		 Content validity: the PICCOLO was 

developed by using videotaped observations 

of parents and children engaged in the Three 

Bags Task. The initial set of PICCOLO items 

was drawn from a review of child 

development theory and constructs linked to 

child outcomes in Head Start, Early Head 

Start, low-income populations, observational 

measures of parent-child interactions, and 

other Head Start program materials. With the 

initial set of items identified, Head Start 

program staff and parent volunteers, along 

with untrained observers, reviewed the items 

to assess each item’s clarity and usefulness. 

The authors based final item selection on 

reliability and validity results from coded, 

videotaped observations and qualitative 

feedback from the coders and Head Start 

partners. A confirmatory factor analysis on 

the final instrument indicated that item 

loadings were in the moderate to high range, 

with .43 to .86 for Affection, .55 to .78 for 

Responsiveness, .62 to .70 for Encouragement, 

and .58 to .69 for Teaching. The authors asked 

practitioners in two Early Head Start 

programs and in one home visiting programall of whom were trained in the PICCOLO-to 

evaluate the degree of each item’s importance 

based on a three-point scale (“somewhat 

important” to “very important”). The average 

importance rating for the final set of 

PICCOLO items was 2.6 compared to 2.3 for 

the items eliminated from the measure. 

2.		 Concurrent validity: PICCOLO scores were 

correlated with several child outcomes.1 

Among 14-month-olds, Affection, 

Encouragement, and Teaching domain scores 

1 The PICCOLO technical report did not provide information 

on which versions of the measures were used (e.g., Peabody 

Picture Vocabulary Test, Fourth Edition or previous version). 

294 
were correlated with the cognitive 

development scale of the Scales of Infant 

Development Mental Development Index 

(MDI), and coefficients ranged from .12 to 

.14. Among 24-month-olds, all PICCOLO 

domain scores were correlated with the MDI, 

and coefficients ranged from .21 to .27. 

PICCOLO Affection, Encouragement, and 

Teaching domain scores were correlated with 

the emotion regulation scores on the Behavior 

Rating Scales (BRS) of the Bayley Scales of 

Infant Development-Second Edition, and 

coefficients ranged from .14 to .15. These 

three PICCOLO domains were also correlated 

with the aggression score on the Child 

Behavior Checklist (CBC) at -.12 for each. 

Scores on the PICCOLO Responsiveness, 

Encouragement, and Teaching domains were 

correlated with the Vocabulary Production 

scale on the Communication Development 

Inventories (CDIs), and coefficients ranged 

from .13 to .22. Among 36-month-olds, all 

PICCOLO domain scores were correlated 

with MDI, and coefficients ranged from .16 to 

.22. All PICCOLO domain scores at 36 

months were correlated with Peabody Picture 

Vocabulary Test (PPVT) scores, and 

coefficients ranged from .13 to .18. 

3. Predictive validity: PICCOLO scores were 

predictive of several child outcomes.1 

PICCOLO domain scores at 14 months were 

predictive of MDI scores at 24 months 

(correlation coefficients ranged from .19 to 

.27), CDIs scores at 24 months (.13 to .17), 

PPVT scores at 36 months (.16 to .22), PPVT 

scores at pre-kindergarten (.20 to .26), 

emergent literacy scores on the Woodcock 

Johnson Letter Word Identification test 

(WJLW) at pre-kindergarten (.15 to .17), and 

problem-solving scores on the Woodcock 

Johnson Applied Problems test (WJAP) in 

pre-kindergarten (.13 to .19). PICCOLO 

Affection scores at 14 months predicted BRS 

scores at 24 months at .12. PICCOLO domain 

scores at 24 months were predictive of MDI 

scores at 36 months (.18 to .28), PPVT scores 

at 36 months (.20 to .25), PPVT scores at pre

kindergarten (.24 to .30), WJLW scores at pre

kindergarten (.14 to .18), and WJAP scores at 

pre-kindergarten (.16 to .21). PICCOLO 

domain scores at 36 months were predictive 

of PPVT scores at pre-kindergarten (.22 to 

.27), WJLW scores at pre-kindergarten (.16 to 

.22), and WJAP scores at pre-kindergarten 

(.13 to .16). 

. Construct validity: PICCOLO domains are 

moderately to highly correlated with one 

another among toddlers 14 to 36 months old 

(n=1020 to 1616). Intercorrelation coefficients 

between Teaching and other domains 

(Affection, Responsiveness, and 

Encouragement) were lower (.40 to .60) than 

coefficients between Affection, 

Responsiveness, and Encouragement (.65 to 

.73). This pattern held across age groups. 

Bias Analysis: The authors tested inter-rater 

liability on a subsample of more than 500 videos 

f black, white, and Hispanic toddlers as a 

nction of the video coders’ race/ethnicity. Each 

4

re

o

fu

295 

­

­
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

video was first coded by an assessor of the same 

race/ethnicity as the toddler. Then, two or more 

coders of different race/ethnicities as both the 

toddler and the original coder observed and coded 

the same video. For example, a Hispanic toddler 

was first videotaped and coded by a Hispanic 

assessor and then coded by white and black 

assessors. Ratings were compared by using 

percentage agreement by domain (i.e., three 

comparisons per domain for each toddler 

race/ethnicity). Percentage agreement ranged 

from 60 percent (Encouragement, black 

toddler/coder compared to other coder ratings) to 

82 percent (Affection, white toddler/coder 

compared to other coder ratings), with the 

remaining comparisons ranging from 64 to 79 

percent. 

Methods of Scoring: Each item is scored as 

0 = absent (behavior not observed), 1 = barely 

(brief, minor, or emerging behavior observed), or 

2 = clearly (definite, strong, or frequent behavior 

observed). Assessors add scores for each item to 

calculate a domain score. No overall score is 

calculated. 

Interpretability: The authors provide a 

scoring grid that may be used to interpret domain 

scores by age. The grid summarizes scores 

indicative of high risk, moderate risk, and strength 

(e.g., low/no risk) for each domain such that risk 

corresponds to suboptimal toddler development. 

The scoring grid is helpful for identifying families’ 

strengths and areas that need improvement. 

Training Support: The authors are available 

to train researchers and practitioners in the 

PICCOLO, and group training is available. The 

PICCOLO project web site indicates that DVD 

training materials are forthcoming. 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: No information 

available. 

Report Preparation Support: No 

information available. 

References: 

Cook, Gina A., and Lori A. Roggman. 

“PICCOLO (Parenting Interactions with 

Children: Checklist of Observations Linked to 

Outcomes) Technical Report.” Logan, UT: Utah 

State University, 2009. 

Roggman, Lori A., Gina A. Cook, Mark S. 

Innocenti, Vonda K. Jump, and Katie 

Christiansen. “PICCOLO (Parenting Interactions 

with Children: Checklist of Observations Linked 

to Outcomes) User’s Guide.” Logan, UT: Utah 

State University, 2009. 

Vogel, Cheri A., Kimberly Boller, Yange Xue, 

Randall Blair, Nikki Aikens, Andrew Burwick, 

Yevgeny Shrago, Barbara L. Carlton, Lara Kalb, 

Linda Mendenko, Judy Cannon, Sean Harrington, 

and Jillian Stein. “Administration for Children 

and Families. Learning as We Go: A First 

Snapshot of Early Head Start Programs, Staff, 

Families, and Children. OPRE Report #2011-7.” 

Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research, 

and Evaluation, Administration for Children and 

Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, 2011. 

296 
PARENTING STRESS INDEX, THIRD EDITION (PSI), 1995 

Authors: 

Richard R. Abidin 

Publisher: 

Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc. 

(800) 331-8378 

www.parinc.com 

Initial Material Cost: 

PSI Long Form Kit: $131 (includes manual, 10 reusable 

item booklets, 25 hand-scorable answer sheet/profile 

forms) 

PSI Short Form Kit: $90 (includes manual, 25 hand

scorable questionnaire/profile forms) 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: 

The English version of the PSI was standardized with 

parents of children ranging from 1 month to 12 years 

(mean of 4.9). The non-random sample of parents 

included 2,633 mothers (ages ranging from 16 to 61, 

with a mean of 30.9) and 200 fathers (ages ranging 

from 18 to 65, with a mean of 32.1). The parents were 

recruited by clinic, school, or child care center staff and 

volunteered to participate in the norm sampling study. 

The Spanish version was normed on a sample of 223 

Hispanic parents. 

Languages: 

English, Spanish, French 

Type of Assessment: 

Parent report 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

For parents of children ages 1 month to 12 years 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: The manual states that an individual 

without formal training in psychology or social work 

can administer and score the PSI, but the interpretation 

of PSI scores requires someone with training in these or 

other related disciplines. Parent needs to have at least a 

5th grade education. The PSI long form takes 

approximately 20 to 30 minutes to complete. 

Summary 

Initial Material Cost: 2 ($100 to $200) 

Reliability: 3 (internal consistency and test-retest .65 or 

higher for both the Long and Short Forms) 

Validity: 3 (mostly .5 or higher for concurrent validity) 

Norming Sample Characteristics: 2 (not nationally 

representative) 

Ease of Administration and Scoring: 3 (no special 

administration requirements, scored by highly trained 

individual) 

­

Description: The purpose of the 120-item PSI 

is to produce a diagnostic profile of perceived 

child and parent stress. The PSI was developed 

based on the theory that total parental stress is a 

function of child and parent characteristics, as 

well as situational variables. It contains 13 subscales within 4 major domains: total stress, child 

domain, parent domain, and life stress. The total 

stress domain, which measures the level of stress 

in the parent-child relationship, is comprised of 

the child and parent domains. The child domain 

has six subscales that measure the child’s 

distractibility/hyperactivity, adaptability, 

reinforcement of the parenting experience, 

demandingness, mood, and acceptability. The 

remaining seven subscales make up the parent 

domain and measures: competence, isolation, 

attachment, health, feeling of role restriction, 

depression, and spousal support. The life stress 

domain measure sources of stress beyond the 

parent’s control. The PSI is also available in a 

297 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Short Form, which consists of a 36-item selfscoring questionnaire and profile. 

Uses of Information: Primary uses are 

screening for early identification, assessment for 

individual diagnosis (including informing therapy 

and counseling), pre-post measurement for 

effectiveness of intervention, and research for 

studying the effects of stress on parent-child 

interactions. 

Reliability: (1) Internal consistency 

(Cronbach’s alpha) for the PSI (Long Form) subscales ranged from .70 to .83 in the Child Domain, 

.70 to .84 in the Parent Domain, and was greater 

than .90 for the two domains and the Total Stress 

scale. Similar internal consistency alphas for the 

PSI were also established in a cross-cultural 

population study (Hauenstein, et al., 1987). In the 

PSI Short Form (PSI/SF) subscales, internal 

consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) was .85 in the 

Difficult Child, .80 in Parent-Child Dysfunctional 

Interaction, .87 in Parental Distress, and .91 in 

Total Stress. (2) Test-retest reliabilities (intervals 

between administrations of the PSI in these 

studies ranged from 3 weeks to 1 year) in the PSI 

Long Form ranged from .55 to .82 for the Child 

Domain, .69 to .91 for the Parent Domain, and .65 

to .96 for the Total Stress score. 

Validity: (1) Concurrent validity: the manual 

provides an abstract of studies that demonstrated 

concurrent validity by comparing PSI (Long 

Form) scores with those on other assessment 

instruments. Only a few of the abstracts provided 

validity statistics. The few that reported statistics 

found that the correlation between Total Stress 

and the Bayley Scale was .42 at 3 months and .66 

at 6 months. The correlation between child 

domain and negative behavior in hyperactive 

siblings relationships was .60, while its correlation 

with the 6 factors in the Family Impact 

Questionnaire ranged from .36 to .84. A study also 

reported correlations ranging from .65 to .77 

between life stress and the lack of formal support 

among parents of children with disabilities. 

Method of Scoring: The PSI contains a handscorable Answer Sheet on which basic 

demographic information and item responses are 

included. Most responses require the respondent 

to circle SA (strongly agree), A (agree), NS (not 

sure), D (disagree), or SD (strongly disagree) in 

response to the particular items. Addition and, if 

there are missing data, division skills are needed 

to obtain the raw scores. Using the profile form, 

which is part of the answering sheet, the scorer 

can obtain the percentile ranking for each subscale score. The respondent’s score can also be 

graphed on the profile form. Detailed information 

on scoring is provided in the Professional Manual. 

The PSI also offers a Software Portfolio, 

Windows software that allows you to administer 

either the 120-item PSI or the 36-item PSI Short 

Form on-screen or to enter item responses from 

the PSI or the PSI Short Form. The software 

automatically scores the item responses and 

generates a report. Reports can be edited onscreen. This updated software program contains 

modifications to the interpretive statements, 

empirically based cutoff scores, and reference lists 

of PSI research. 

298 
299 

Interpretability: The manual states that 

interpretation of the PSI scores requires someone 

who has graduate training in clinical, counseling, 

or educational psychology or in social work or a 

related field. Interpretation guidelines are 

discussed in the manual, and it is suggested that 

the individual reviewing and interpreting the 

results first interpret the Total Stress score, and 

then look at the Child Domain and Parent 

Domain scores and their subdomains scores to 

pinpoint the sources of stress. Throughout the 

interpretation guidelines in the manual, there are 

references to research literature. The 

interpretation section also includes five case 

illustrations profiling different parental and 

situational characteristics. 

Training Support: None mentioned in 

manual 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: While there are no 

explicit instructions for administering the PSI 

with parents of children with disabilities, the 

manual contains information on how the PSI may 

work with this population. Sections entitled 

“Families with Special-Needs Children” and 

“Disabilities and Illnesses” cites various research 

studies related to use of the PSI in families with 

children having some disabilities. These studies 

are summarized, and cover various disabilities 

including: autism, deafness, congenital heart 

disease, asthma, cystic fibrosis, and so forth. 

Report Preparation Support: The software 

generates a report. Two sample reports can be 

found at the publisher’s website: www.parinc.com. 

References: 

Abidin, Richard R. Parenting Stress Index, 

Third Edition. Odessa, FL: Psychological 

Assessment Resources, 1995. 

Hauenstein, E., S. Scarr, and Richard Abidin. 

Detecting Children At-risk for Developmental 

Delay: Efficacy of the Parenting Stress Index in a 

Non-American Culture. Unpublished manuscript. 

Charlottesville: University of Virginia, 1987. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SUPPORT FUNCTIONS SCALE (SFS), 1985
 
 

Authors: 

Carl J. Dunst and Carol M. Trivette 

Publisher: 

Brookline Books 

(617) 558-8010 or 

(800) 666-BOOK 

www.brooklinebooks.com/ 

Initial Material Cost: 

Book: Enabling and Empowering Families, $25 

$10 per batch of 10 score sheets. 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: 

No norming sample. The research sample consisted of 

121 parents of preschool mentally challenged, 

handicapped, and developmentally at-risk children. 

Languages: 

English 

Type of Assessment: 

Parent self-report 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

Families of young children 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: Parent (or caregiver) can complete the 

scale in 10 minutes. An early intervention practitioner 

can review the answers and interpret the scale, 

identifying places for concern, in under 10 minutes. 

Summary: 

Initial Material Cost: 1 (< $100)
 


Reliability: 2 (.65 or higher for internal, split-half, and 
 

test-retest reliability for individual items; < .65 for test-
 

retest reliability for total scale score)
 


Validity: 2 (< .5 for criterion validity)
 


Norming Sample Characteristics: 1 (none described)
 


Ease of Administration and Scoring: 2 (self­


administered)
 


Description: The self-report Support 

Functions Scale (SFS) measures the extent of 

parents’ needs for different types of support. The 

scale is available in both an extended (20-item) 

and short (12-item) version. Both versions ask 

parents to rate their need for financial, emotional, 

instrumental, and informational support on a fivepoint scale ranging from never (1) to quite often 

(5). 

Uses of Information: Providers can use the 

SFS results to guide follow-up discussions with 

parents to better understand their needs and to 

develop an intervention plan to address needs. 

The book provides a number of case studies to 

illustrate how the information can be used. 

Reliability: (1) Internal consistency reliability 

(Cronbach’s alpha): .87; split-half reliability (using 

the Spearman-Brown formula): .88; (2) Test-retest 

reliability (1-month interval): the average 

correlation among administrations for the 

individual items was .91; for the total scale score, 

the correlation among administrations was .62. 

Validity: (1) Concurrent validity: The authors 

compared the outcomes on the SFS scale to the 

outcomes on scales measuring family well-being 

(McCubbin et al.), personal well-being (Trivette 

and Dunst, 1985), and time demand on 

respondent (Dunst and Trivette, 1985). The total 

scores (20-item scale) proved to be the best 

predictor. Both family (correlation = .27) and 

personal (correlation = .33) well-being were 

300 
301 

significantly related to adequacy of support, 

whereas lack of support placed more time 

demands upon the respondent (correlation = 

.20). Financial support was the only factor score 

significantly related to family well-being 

(correlation = .27), whereas emotion (correlation 

= .17), child-related (correlation = .21), and 

instrumental (correlation = .29) support were 

significantly related to personal well-being. None 

of the factor scores were related to the personal 

time demands measure. 

Methods of Scoring: The parent or caregiver 

answers to what extent he or she feels a need for 

each type of assistance by marking Never, Once in 

a While, Sometimes, Often, and Quite Often. 

Interpretability: If the respondent rates an 

item as Sometimes, Often, or Quite Often (have a 

need), this may be taken as an indication that 

further interviewing (assessment) is necessary to 

determine the exact type of help that is needed but 

lacking. 

Training Support: None. However, a second 

book published by Brookline Books, entitled 

“Supporting & Strengthening Families: Methods 

Strategies and Practices” is a collection of papers 

updating the thinking and practices described in 

“Enabling and Empowering Families”, and 

building and elaborating upon the model 

described in the earlier book. 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: None, this measure 

was developed based on work with families with 

children who have disabilities. 

Report Preparation Support: The book 

provides a Family Support Plan form and a Profile 

of Family Needs and Support form for the agency 

to use. The needs and support form can be used to 

identify providers and record the resources they 

are expected to provide to help the family address 

an identified need. The family support form helps 

the agency to mobilize resources to address needs 

and to monitor the progress of the intervention. 

References: 

Dunst, Carl and Carol Trivette. Personal Time 

Commitment Scale: Reliability and Validity. 

Unpublished scale. Morganton, NC: Family, 

Infant and Preschool Program, 1985. 

Dunst, Carl, Carol Trivette, and Angela Deal. 

Enabling and Empowering Families: Principles & 

Guidelines for Practice. Cambridge: Brookline 

Books, 1988. 

Dunst, Carl, Carol Trivette, and Angela Deal. 

Supporting and Strengthening Families: Methods, 

Strategies, and Practices. Newton: Brookline 

Books, 1994. 

McCubbin, H.I., J.K. Comeau, and J.A. 

Harkins. “Family Inventory of Resources for 

Management.” In H.I. McCubbin and J.M. 

Patterson (eds.), Systematic Assessment of Family 

Stress, Resources, and Coping. St. Paul, MN: 

Family Stress and Coping Project, 1981, pp. 67-69. 

Trivette, Carol and Carl Dunst. Personal 

Well-Being Index: Reliability and Validity. 

Unpublished scale. Morganton, NC: Family, 

Infant and Preschool Program at Western 

Carolina Center, 1985. 

­
 302302
Program Implementation and Quality Instruments 

303 
 304304
305 

Arnett Caregiver Interaction Scale Child care quality 0-5.5 years 2 1 3 3 1 3 

Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) Toddler and Pre-K 

Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale-Revised 

Early Head Start Evaluation—Parent Services Interviews 

Family Child Care Environment Rating Scale-Revised Edition (FCCERS-R) 

Head Start Family Information System b 

Child care quality 

Child care quality 

Program services 

Child care quality 

Program services, 

including home visit 

documentation 

15-60 months 

2.5-5 years 

NA

0-12 years 

NA 

2 

2 

3 

2,3 

3 

3 

1 

1 

1 

1 

3 

3 

1 

3 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

3 

3 

1 

3 

3 

Home Visit Rating Scales (HOVRS) and Home Visit Rating Scales-Adapted 

(HOVRS-A) 

Infant/Toddler Environment Rating Scale Revised Edition (ITERS-R) 

National Association for the Education of Young Children Accreditation 

Criteria 

Program quality 

Child care quality 

Child care quality 

0-2 years 

0-2.5 years 

NA 

2 

2,3 

3 

1 

1 

1 

3 

3 

3 

1 

3 

NA 

1 

1 

NA 

3 

3 

1 

The Parent-Caregiver Relationship Scale (PCRS) 

Program Implementation Checklist and Rating Scales Developed for the 

National Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project 

Program Review Instrument for Systems Monitoring (PRISM), 2002 

Program quality 

Program quality 

Program quality 

2-24 months 

NA 

NA 

3 

3 

2,3 

1 

1 

1 

3 

1 

1 

2 

NA 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

3 

1 

Ease of 

Administration & 

Scoring 

Assessment 

Type 

Initial 

Material Cost 

Norming 

Instrument Domains Age Range Reliability Validity Sample 

KEY 

Assessment Type 

1 = Direct assessment 

2 = Observation 

3 = Parent/self report 

Initial Material Cost 

1 = Under $100 

2 = $100 to $200 

3 = More than $200 

Reliability 

1 = None described 

2 = Under .65 

3 = .65 or higher 

Validity 

1 = None described 

2 = Under .5 for concurrent; under .4 for predictive 

3 = .5 or higher for concurrent; .4 or higher for predictive 

Norming sample 

1 = None described 

2 = Older than 15 years, not nationally representative or representative of EHS population 

3 = Normed within past 15 years, nationally representative or representative of EHS population 

Ease of administration and scoring 

1 = Not described 

2 = Self-administered or administered and scored by someone with basic clerical skills 

3 = Administered and scored by a highly trained individual 

 

Program Implementation and Quality Instrumentsa 

a The information included in this table was drawn from the manuals or other resources available from the authors and publishers of the instruments. Individual users may have 
 

different experiences.
 


b The HSFIS is a management information system. It also includes measures of home-based service use and forms for tracking child and family outcomes.
 

 306

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

ARNETT CAREGIVER INTERACTION SCALE, 19891
 
 

Authors: 

Jeffery Arnett 

Publisher: 

None.
 


A copy of the scale can be found in Jaeger and Funk
 


(2001)
 


Cost: 

None 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: 

None described. 

Languages: 

English 

Type of Assessment: 

Observation 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

Caregivers of early childhood classes 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: 

To be a certified Arnett Caregiver Interaction Scale 

observer requires achieving a .70 inter-rater reliability 

coefficient for two consecutive visits. (Jaeger and 

Funk). No recommended length of observation. Arnett 

observed caregivers in two 45-minute sessions, while 

Jaeger and Funk observed caregivers in a 2.5-hour 

session. 

Summary: 

Initial Material Cost: 1 (< $100)
 


Reliability: Internal consistency and inter-rater
 


reliability: 3 (.65 or higher)
 


Validity: Concurrent: 3 (mostly .5 or higher)
 


Norming Sample Characteristics: 1 (none described)
 


Administration and Scoring: 3 (administered and 
 

scored by a highly trained individual)
 


1 The scale is also referred to as the Arnett Scale of Caregiver 

Behavior. 

Description: The 26-item Caregiver 

Interaction Scale assesses the quality and content 

of the teacher’s interactions with children. The 

scale was designed to provide information on 

various socialization practices that have been 

identified in research on parenting. The scale can 

be used without modification in both center and 

home-based settings. The items measure the 

emotional tone, discipline style, and 

responsiveness of the caregiver in the classroom. 

The items are usually organized into the following 

four sub-scales: (1) positive interaction (warm, 

enthusiastic, and developmentally appropriate 

behavior), (2) punitiveness (hostility, harshness, 

and use of threat), (3) detachment 

(uninvolvement and disinterest), and 

(4) permissiveness. 

Uses of Information: The scale can be used to 

assess caregiver’s interactions with children and 

their emotional tone and approach to engaging 

and disciplining children. 

Reliability: (1) Internal consistency: Layzer et 

al. obtained Cronbach alphas of .91 for 

warmth/responsiveness (positive interaction) and 

.90 for harshness (punitiveness), while Resnick 

and Zill obtained alphas for the total scale of .98 

for lead teachers and .93 for assistant teachers. 

Jaeger and Funk reported coefficients of .81 and 

higher for the sensitivity (positive interaction), 

punitiveness, and detachment subscales. (2) Interrater reliability: Jaeger and Funk reported interrater reliability coefficients ranging from .75 to .97 

between a certified observer and trainees. 

306 
307 

Validity: (1) Concurrent validity: Layzer et al. 

reported correlation coefficients of .43 to .67 

between the Arnett and the Early Childhood 

Environment Rating Scale (ECERS), Assessment 

Profile for Early Childhood Programs, and the 

Description of Preschool Practices. The authors 

did not expect the coefficients to be large because 

the Arnett scale focused more narrowly on an 

aspect of teacher behavior not directly measured 

by the other three observation instruments. 

However, Phillipsen et al. reported a correlation of 

.76 between the Arnett and the ECERS. 

Method of Scoring: The observer rates the 

extent to which the caregiver exhibits the behavior 

described in the item on a 4-point scale, ranging 

from not at all (1) to very much (4). Averages can 

be calculated for each subscale. 

Interpretability: Depending on the program’s 

needs, individual caregiver scores can be 

compared to the scores of other caregivers or the 

mean scores of a group of caregivers compared 

against the means of other groups of caregivers. 

Statistical tests have been frequently utilized to 

assess the differences between scores. 

Training Support: None described. 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: None described. 

Report Preparation Support: None 

described. 

References: 

Arnett, Jeffery. “Caregivers in Day-Care 

Centers: Does Training Matter?” Journal of 

Applied Developmental Psychology. Vol. 10, 1989, 

pp. 541-552. 

Jaeger, Elizabeth, and Suzanne Funk. The 

Philadelphia Child Care Quality Study: An 

Examination of Quality in Selected Early 

Education and Care Settings. Philadelphia: Saint 

Joseph’s University, October 2001. 

Layzer, Jean I., Barbara D. Goodson, and 

Marc Moss. Observational Study of Early 

Childhood Programs, Final Report, Volume I: Life 

in Preschool. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates, 

Inc., 1993. 

Phillipsen, Leslie, Debby Cryer, and Carollee 

Howes. “Classroom Process and Classroom 

Structure.” In Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes 

in Child Care Centers, edited by Suzanne W. 

Helburn. Denver: Department of Economics, 

Center for Research in Economics and Social 

Policy, University of Colorado at Denver, 1995, 

pp. 125-158. 

Resnick, Gary, and Nicholas Zill. Is Head Start 

Providing High-Quality Education Services? 

“Unpacking” Classroom Processes. Albuquerque, 

NM: Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research 

in Child Development, April 15-18, 1999. 

U.S. Department of Education. National 

Center for Education Statistics. Measuring the 

Quality of Program Environments in Head Start 

and Other Early Childhood Programs: A Review 

and Recommendations for Future Research, 

Working Paper No. 97-36, by John M. Love, Alicia 

Meckstroth, and Susan Sprachman. Jerry West, 

Project Officer. Washington, DC: 1997. 
 308

 

 

CLASSROOM ASSESSMENT SCORING SYSTEM (CLASS) 

TODDLER AND PRE-K, 2008 (2011 Update) 

Authors: 

Robert C. Pianta, Karen M. La Paro, and Bridget K. 

Hamre 

Publisher: 

Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. 

(800) 638-3775 

http://www.brookespublishing.com 

Instrument: 

http://www.brookespublishing.com/resourcecenter/screening-and-assessment/class/ 

Initial Material Cost: 

Toddler CLASS: Unpublished 

CLASS Pre-K Manual: $49.95; 10 booklets each with 

6 observations sheets and 1 scoring sheet: $28 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: 

No norming sample 

Languages: 

English 

Type of Assessment: 

Observation 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

Toddler CLASS is administered in classrooms to 

toddlers 15- to 36-months-old. CLASS Pre-K is 

administered in preschool classrooms. 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: Administered by a highly trained 

program staff member. Extensive training is required 

to achieve and maintain acceptable levels of reliability 

for CLASS results. 

CLASS Pre-K: Introductory training costs $210 per 

person or $2,000 for groups of 8 to 25 people. 

Observer training costs $670 per person for two days. 

On-site training for 7 to 15 people costs 

approximately $4,805 (material costs may be lower 

depending on the number of trainees). Observers 

recertify annually for $35. Three-day train-the-trainer 

sessions cost $2,100 per person or $6,000 for groups 

of 6 to 10 people. The costs above exclude personal 

travel and lodging (regional training) and trainer 

travel and lodging and costs associated with the host 

facility (on-site training). 

The CLASS takes at least 2 hours to administer and 

score. 

Summary: 

Initial Material Cost: 3 (> $200)
 


Reliability: 3 (mostly .65 or higher)
 


Validity: 2 (mostly under .5 for concurrent)
 


Norming Sample Characteristics: 1 (no norming
 


sample)
 


Ease of Administration and Scoring: 3 (administered 
 

and scored by a highly trained individual).
 


Description: The Classroom Assessment 

Scoring System (CLASS) is an observation tool 

for assessing child care classroom quality among 

classrooms with infants (Infant CLASS), 

toddlers 15 to 36 months old (Toddler CLASS), 

preschoolers (CLASS Pre-K), and students in 

kindergarten through grade 12 (CLASS K-3, 

CLASS Upper Elementary, and CLASS 

Secondary).1 Observations are conducted in 

person or by videotaping; results are tallied 

within scales on an Observation Sheet. 

Observers complete four observation cycles that 

1 The CLASS Upper Elementary and CLASS Secondary are 

in the pilot phase. The Infant CLASS and Toddler CLASS 

are under development. The Infant CLASS is not described 

because little information is available. 

308 
309 

take 20 minutes per cycle; they also take notes 

and require 10 minutes to score results. 

Observed practices and behaviors are scored as 

minimally to highly characteristic of the 

classroom on a rating scale of low (1, 2), mid (3, 

4, 5), and high (6, 7). 

The Toddler CLASS and CLASS Pre-K focus 

on the quality of interactions between teachers 

and children along three scales (termed domains 

by the authors): Emotional Support, Classroom 

Organization, and Instructional Support. Each 

scale includes several dimensions. Emotional 

Support dimensions are Positive Climate, 

Negative Climate, Teacher Sensitivity, and 

Regard for Child Perspectives. Classroom 

Organization dimensions are Behavior Guidance 

(Toddler CLASS) and Behavior Management, 

Productivity, and Instructional Learning 

Formats (CLASS Pre-K). Instructional Support 

dimensions are Quality of Feedback and 

Language Modeling in both CLASS versions as 

well as Facilitation of Learning and 

Development (Toddler CLASS) and Concept 

Development (CLASS Pre-K). 

Other Languages: None 

Uses of Information: Using a common 

metric and vocabulary, the Toddler CLASS and 

CLASS Pre-K standardize the description of the 

quality of the classroom environment across the 

early childhood period. Researchers may use the 

two measures to study classroom quality by 

focusing on administrators in order to assess 

their accountability to stakeholders and to 

undertake program planning and evaluation and 

by focusing on programs in order to provide 

teachers with feedback on improved 

instructional quality. 

Reliability:2 

 

1. Internal consistency reliability: The 

Emotional Support scale for the Toddler 

CLASS had a Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 

.88 (Thomason and La Paro 2009). 

Unpublished analyses from the nationally 

representative Baby FACES longitudinal 

study of 89 Early Head Start programs (Baby 

FACES study) (n = 220 classrooms with 2

year-olds) reported Cronbach's alpha 

coefficients of .79 (Classroom 

Organization), .84 (Emotional Support), and 

.95 (Instructional Support) (C. Vogel, 

Personal Communication, June 2011). 

2. Test-retest reliability: the stability of the 

CLASS Pre-K scales and their dimensions 

among the National Center for Early 

Development and Learning Multi-State 

 

2 Reliability and validity information is drawn from four 

studies. The Toddler CLASS observations were used in a 

2007 pilot study in a Southeastern state with 46 female 

teachers from 30 classrooms with 3 to 15 children and 1 to 

6 teachers per classroom (Thomason and La Paro 2009). 

The CLASS Pre-K was used in (1) the National Center for 

Early Development and Learning Multi-State 

Prekindergarten Study (NCEDL MS Pre-K) of 240 

randomly selected pre-kindergarten classrooms across six 

states, observed between 2001 and 2002; (2) the NCEDL 

State-Wide Early Education Programs (SWEEP) Study of 

500 randomly selected pre-kindergarten classrooms across 

five states, observed between 2003 and 2004; and (3) the 

MyTeachingPartner (MTP) Study of 164 classrooms from 

which teachers agreed to participate among randomly 

selected Virginia districts. 

­
 310

 

 

 

 

Prekindergarten Study (NCEDL MS Pre-K) 

classrooms are available within observations 

and across time periods. Scale correlations 

across the four cycles of the observation 

ranged from 0.86 (Instructional Support) to 

.91 (Emotional Support). Dimension 

coefficients ranged from .79 (Instructional 

Learning Formats) to .90 (Teacher 

Sensitivity). Over two consecutive days, scale 

coefficients ranged from .81 (Classroom 

Organization) to .86 (Instructional Support). 

Dimension coefficients ranged from .73 

(Productivity) to .85 (Teacher Sensitivity). 

Between fall and spring, dimension 

coefficients ranged from .25 (Quality of 

Feedback) to .64 (Behavior Management). 

3.		 Test-retest reliability: the stability of the 

CLASS Pre-K scales and their dimensions 

among the National Center for Early 

Development and Learning Multi-State 

Prekindergarten Study (NCEDL MS Pre-K) 

classrooms are available within observations 

and across time periods. Scale correlations 

across the four cycles of the observation 

ranged from 0.86 (Instructional Support) to 

.91 (Emotional Support). Dimension 

coefficients ranged from .79 (Instructional 

Learning Formats) to .90 (Teacher 

Sensitivity). Over two consecutive days, scale 

coefficients ranged from .81 (Classroom 

Organization) to .86 (Instructional Support). 

Dimension coefficients ranged from .73 

(Productivity) to .85 (Teacher Sensitivity). 

Between fall and spring, dimension 

coefficients ranged from .25 (Quality of 

Feedback) to .64 (Behavior Management). 

Validity:2 

1.		 Content validity: Development of the CLASS 

was based on literature reviews, focus 

groups, and pilot testing. Researchers also 

drew on the precursor to the CLASS, the 

Classroom Observation System (COS) for 

children in grades 1, 3, and 5. To inform the 

development of the Toddler CLASS, 

researchers reviewed existing measures 

(Infant/Toddler Environment Rating Scale, 

Caregiver Interaction Scale, and 

Observational Record of the Caregiving 

Environment), and infant and toddler 

experts reviewed Toddler CLASS itself. 

CLASS Pre-K development was supported 

by consultations with experts on classroom 

quality and teaching effectiveness and by 

pilot testing in the NCEDL MS Pre-K Study. 

Confirmatory factor analysis for the CLASS 

Pre-K investigated three factors representing 

Emotional Support, Classroom 

Organization, and Instructional Support. 

Analysis of the MTP Pre-K, NCEDL MS 

Pre-K, and the NCEDL State-Wide Early 

Education Program (SWEEP) studies 

showed factor loadings at or above .70 

except for two factor loading coefficients for 

Classroom Organization dimensions (.56 for 

Productivity from the MTP Pre-K Study and 

.66 for Instructional Learning Formats in the 

SWEEP Study). 

310 
311 

2. Confirmatory factor analysis for the CLASS 

Pre-K investigated three factors representing 

Emotional Support, Classroom 

Organization, and Instructional Support. 

Analysis of the MTP Pre-K, NCEDL MS 

Pre-K, and the NCEDL State-Wide Early 

Education Program (SWEEP) studies 

showed factor loadings at or above .70 

except for two factor loading coefficients for 

Classroom Organization dimensions (.56 for 

Productivity from the MTP Pre-K Study and 

.66 for Instructional Learning Formats in the 

SWEEP Study). 

3. Predictive Validity: combined results from 

the NCEDL MS Pre-K and SWEEP studies 

indicated that classroom quality is linked to 

student academic and social gains between 

fall and spring of the preschool year (Howes 

et al. 2008). The Instructional Support scale 

was the most robust predictor of growth. 

Classrooms in which the teacher promoted 

higher-order thinking and creativity and 

provided oral feedback (that is, higher 

Instructional Support scale scores) showed 

an increase in preschoolers' receptive and 

expressive language skills (effect sizes of .06 

and .07, respectively) based on Hierarchical 

Linear Modeling HLM analyses controlling 

for maternal education, ethnicity, and 

gender. Mashburn and colleagues (2008) 

showed that instructional quality, when 

controlling for pretest scores, child and 

family characteristics, and state, was 

positively associated with children's 

receptive language, expressive language, 

rhyming, applied problem solving, and letter 

naming. The quality of emotional 

interactions was positively related to the 

development of social competence and 

negatively related to the development of 

problem behaviors. 

4. Construct validity: Toddler CLASS 

researchers examined aspects of toddler 

development and observed toddler child 

care classrooms. Correlations were 

significant between measure dimensions and 

established correlates of classroom quality, 

including classroom ratings, program star 

ratings, teacher education level, teacher 

membership in a professional organization, 

group size, and teacher-child ratio. 

Bias Analysis: No information available. 

Methods of Scoring: Each dimension 

receives a score on a seven-point scale (1 = 

minimally characteristic to 7 = highly 

characteristic) for each of the four cycles in the 

observation. Composite scores for each 

dimension are average scores over the four 

cycles. Dimension composite scores within a 

scale are then averaged to yield a scale score that 

indicates whether interactions fall in the low, 

middle, or high range.3 Given that scoring relies 

on raters to conduct observations of long 

segments of instruction, scoring is highly 

subjective, and authors recommend that raters 

refer to the manual before giving scores. The 

 

3 For the Emotional Support scale, the Negative Climate 

dimension score must be reversed (subtract composite 

score from 8) before using it to calculate the scale score. 
 312

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

professional training program offered by the 

CLASS authors is needed to attain high levels of 

reliable scoring. 

Interpretability: The manual and CLASS 

training sessions provide extensive instruction in 

scoring practices and interpretation. The manual 

also includes examples of scores in each range. 

Higher scores for the scales indicate higherquality interactions between teachers and 

students. 

Training Support: Several training options 

are available for the CLASS Pre-K. Trainees 

attend regional trainings (schedule is available at 

classobservation.com) or host on-site trainings. 

Introductory training covers CLASS structure 

and uses, and it is offered in two-, four-, and sixhour sessions. Observer training familiarizes 

researchers and teachers with data collection 

practices and provides practice in observing and 

coding data through pre-recorded sessions and a 

reliability evaluation. Trainees are then certified 

to observe and code classrooms with the CLASS. 

Trainees must achieve an average 80 percent 

agreement (within one point) across five 

reliability DVDs, with at least two scores per 

scale correct across the five DVDs. Additional 

support is available for participants who do not 

pass the reliability evaluation at the end of the 

training period. Three-day train-the-trainer 

sessions teach individuals how to train other 

potential CLASS users. 

Subscriptions to the CLASS Video Library 

are available on classobservation.com. The 

library offers video clips illustrating high-quality 

teacher-student interactions and teaching 

examples in pre-kindergarten classrooms. 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: Not applicable. 

Report Preparation Support: No 

information available. 

References: 

Halle, Tamara, Jessica E. Vick Whittaker, 

and Rachel Anderson. “Quality in Early 

Childhood Care and Education Settings: A 

Compendium of Measures, Second Edition.” 

Washington, DC: Prepared by Child Trends for 

the Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 

Administration for Children and Families, U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services, 

2010. 

Howes, Carollee, Margaret Burchinal, 

Robert Pianta, Donna Bryant, Richard M. 

Clifford, and Oscar Barbarin. “Ready to Learn? 

Children's Pre-Academic Achievement in PreKindergarten Programs.” Early Childhood 

Research Quarterly, vol. 23, no. 1, 2008, pp. 27­

50. 

Mashburn, Andrew, Robert Pianta, Bridget 

K. Hamre, Jason T. Downer, Oscar Barbarin, 

Donna Bryant, Margaret Burchinal, Richard M. 

Clifford, Diane Early, and Carollee Howes. 

“Measures of Classroom Quality in 

Prekindergarten and Children's Development of 

Academic, Language, and Social Skills.” Child 

Development, vol. 79, no. 3, 2008, pp. 732-749. 

312 
Pianta, Robert C., Karen M. Paro, and Bridget 

K. Hamre. “The CLASS Elementary Video 

Library.” Available at 

[http://store.teachstone.org/class-video-library/]. 

Pianta, Robert C., Karen M. La Paro, and 

Bridget K. Hamre. Classroom Assessment Scoring 

System: Pre-K Manual. Baltimore: Brookes 

Publishing Co., 2008. 

Pianta, Robert C., Karen M. La Paro, and 

Bridget K. Hamre. Classroom Assessment Scoring 

System: Toddler Version. Unpublished. 

Thomason, A. C. and Karen M. La Paro. 

“Measuring the Quality of Teacher-Child 

Interactions in Toddler Child Care.” Early 

Education and Development, vol. 20, no. 2, 2009, 

pp. 285-304. 

313 
 314

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EARLY CHILDHOOD ENVIRONMENT RATING SCALE - Revised 

Edition (ECERS-R), 1998 

Authors: 

Thelma Harms, Richard M. Clifford, and Debby Cryer 

www.fpg.unc.edu 

Publisher: 

Teachers College Press 

www.teacherscollegepress.com 

1-800-575-6566 

Initial Material Cost: 

ECERS-R Assessment Scale: $13;
 


Video training: $59; 
 

Workbook: $4
 


Representativeness of Norming Sample: 

Research reported in manual does not include this 

information 

Languages: 

English1 

Type of Assessment: 

Observation, with some caregiver report 

1 Please contact Thelma Harms to obtain information about 

other official translations. 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

For classrooms enrolling children 2 1/2 to 5 years of 

age. 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: 

The individual administering the ECERS-R must read 

and practice the scale, and must also have knowledge of 

child development and educational implications. The 

authors recommend reviewers to have at least two 

practice observation sessions with an experienced 

ECERS-R trainer. Administration time ranges from 2 

hours to 5 hours depending on the scoring option 

selected for administering the assessment. 

Summary: 

Initial Material Cost: 1 (< $100)
 


Reliability: 3 (.65 or higher for internal consistency)
 


Validity: 1 (concurrent not available, predictive is
 


promising)
 


Norming Sample Characteristics: 1 (none described)
 


Ease of Administration and Scoring: 3 (administered 
 

and scored by a highly trained individual)
 


Description: The ECERS-R is designed to 

assess group programs for children of preschool 

age (2 1/2 to 5). It is a 43-item assessment tool 

rating scale organized into seven environmental 

subscales: Space and Furnishings, Personal Care 

Routines, Language-Reasoning, Activities, 

Interaction, Program Structure, and Parents and 

Staff. Each item has a number of quality 

indicators. The ECERS-R can be used in 

preschool, kindergarten, and child care 

classrooms. The original ECERS was revised to 

reflect changes in the early childhood field and to 

be more inclusive of children with disabilities and 

sensitive to cultural diversity. 

Uses of Information: The assessment can be 

used by program directors for supervision and 

program improvement, by teaching staff for selfassessment, by agency staff for monitoring, and in 

teacher training programs. 

Reliability: (1) Internal consistency 

(Cronbach’s alpha) ranged from .71 to .88 at the 

subscale level; the total scale internal consistency 

was .92. (2) Inter-observer reliability was .92 

(Pearson correlation) and .87 (Spearman 

correlation). 

Validity: Concurrent validity information is 

not available in the manual. However, the original 

version of the ECERS has been demonstrated to 

314 
315 

have good predictive validity (Peisner-Feinberg 

and Burchinal 1997), indicating that quality of 

center-based child care (measured using the 

ECERS-R) was related to preschool children’s 

concurrent cognitive and socioemotional 

development (measured using the Peabody 

Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised and the 

Woodcock-Johnson Tests of AchievementRevised). 

Method of Scoring: The scoring sheet records 

the ratings for quality indicators, items, subscale 

and total scores, as well as any observer 

comments. The indicators, which have 

Yes/No/Not applicable response choices, are used 

to score the items, which have scores ranging from 

1 (Inadequate) to 7 (Excellent). There are two 

ways to score the items. The manual provides 

detailed instructions on both scoring systems. The 

usual scoring system for each item is based on the 

number of the highest quality indicators with 

affirmative responses. Under the alternate scoring 

method, each indicator is individually scored 

(using the 1 to 7 range), which could extend the 

assessment time to a total of 4 to 5 hours. A 

Profile sheet is also provided to graphically display 

the scoring information, to compare areas of 

strengths and weaknesses, and to select items and 

subscales to target for improvement. The profiles 

for at least two observations can be plotted side by 

side to depict changes visually. Sample profile 

forms are available on the Frank Porter Graham 

Child Development Center website 

(www.fpg.unc.edu). 

Interpretability: Full instructions for using 

the scale, plus notes clarifying selected scale items 

are included. However, the manual provides no 

information about interpreting the results of the 

observation. 

Training Support: The assessment tool 

includes instructions for using the ECERS-R; a 

Video training package and workbook are also 

available. The website: www.fpg.unc.edu includes 

helpful information. 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: The revised version 

includes new items to assess program’s services 

for children with disabilities. However, the 

revision needs field-testing and standardization. 

Report Preparation Support: Not included in 

the manual. 

References: 

Harms, Thelma, Richard M. Clifford and 

Debby Cryer. Early Childhood Environment 

Rating Scale, Revised Edition. New York: Teachers 

College Press, 1998. 

Harms, Thelma and Debby Cryer. Early 

Childhood Environment Rating Scale Video 

Observations, Revised Edition. New York: 

Teachers College Press, 1999. 

Harms, Thelma and Debby Cryer. Early 

Childhood Environment Rating Scale Video 

Guide & Training Workbook, Revised Edition. 

New York: Teachers College Press, 1999. 
 316

 

Peisner-Feinberg, E., and M. Burchinal. 

“Relations Between Preschool Children’s Child 

Care Experiences and Concurrent Development: 

The Cost, Quality and Outcomes Study.” MerrillPalmer Quarterly, vol. 43, no. 3, 1997, pp. 451­

477. 

www.fpg.unc.edu 

316 
 

NATIONAL Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project 

(EHSRE) PARENT SERVICES INTERVIEWS, 1996 - 2001 

Authors: 

John Love and other project staff, in collaboration 

with the Early Head Start Research Consortium 

Publisher: 

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. Contact 

Publications, 609-275-2350, jallen@mathematica

mpr.com. The interviews can be found at 

www.mathematica-mpr.com or 

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/ehs/ehs_resrc 

h/index.html. 

Initial Material Cost: 

None 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: 

None described 

Languages: 

English, Spanish 

Type of Assessment: 

Parent report 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

For child-related questions, prenatal through 36 

months. 

For parent-related questions, all adults. 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: The questions were designed to be 

administered to parents by someone with basic 

interviewing skills. Very little scoring is required. 

Summary: 

Initial Material Cost: 1 (< $100) 

Reliability: 1 (none described) 

Validity: 1 (none described) 

Norming Sample Characteristics: 1 (none described) 

Ease of Administration and Scoring: 2 (administered 

by someone with basic interviewing skills) 

­

Description: The Parent Services Interviews 

(PSIs) developed for the national Early Head Start 

Research and Evaluation Project (EHSRE) were 

designed to include instruments that assess 

potential program effects on service needs and 

use, as well as outcomes related to economic self

sufficiency. The interview questions were drawn 

from a variety of sources and include published 

instruments, questions drawn from other large 

national surveys, and questions that were 

developed specifically for this study. They cover 

topics including: family goals, perceived needs and 

resources, employment, education and job 

training, child care, home visits, transportation, 

housing, social support, health status, health care 

services, case management, other family support 

services, and public assistance receipt. The 

interviews can be found on the web at the 

addresses listed above. 

The results of the evaluation (through age 3) 

are included in two reports and their appendices 

and are available at http://www.mathematica

mpr.com and 

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/ehs/ehs_r 

esrch/index.html. 

Uses of Information: The Early Head Start 

PSIs can be used by programs to obtain service use 

information that can be compared to the national 

study findings. The summary information on 

services obtained from parents in the PSI 

questions may be especially useful to programs 

that do not collect detailed service use information 

in a management information system. For 

copyrighted instruments, programs must obtain 

­ ­

317 
 318

 

 

 

 

permission to use the assessments and must pay 

for their use. 

Reliability: The technical appendices of the 

two reports include internal consistency reliability 

for summary scores. As a general rule, summary 

scores were not included in the report if their 

reliability was not above .65. Most measures in the 

PSI interviews were single questions and did not 

require computing summary scores. 

Validity: Many of the questions were 

included in the evaluation because they had been 

used before in large studies and had demonstrated 

construct validity. Validity work based on the data 

collected was not reported in the two reports. 

Method of Scoring: Most PSI measures were 

based on single questions and do not need 

scoring. Scoring procedures for any measure 

requiring scoring are summarized in the reports. 

Interpretability: The information obtained 

from the PSI questions is easily interpretable. 

Training Support: As part of the evaluation 

project, in-depth training manuals were 

developed; these can be obtained by requesting 

them from Jackie Allen at jallen@mathematicampr.com. In addition to the manuals, interviewers 

attended a central training session and had to 

meet rigorous standards before administering the 

study instruments. Mathematica is not providing 

any training support for the measures. 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: Contact 

Mathematica for more information about how the 

protocols were adapted for use with individuals 

with disabilities. 

Report Preparation Support: None 

described. 

References: 

ACYF. “Building Their Futures: How Early 

Head Start Programs Are Enhancing the Lives of 

Infants and Toddlers in Low-Income Families. 

Volume I: Technical Report.” Washington, DC: 

Administration on Children, Youth and Families, 

2001. www.mathematica-mpr.com or 

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/ehs/ehs_r 

esrch/index.html. 

ACF. “Making a Difference in the Lives of 

Infants and Toddlers and Their Families: The 

Impacts of Early Head Start.” Washington, DC: 

Administration for Children and Families, June 

2002. www.mathematica-mpr.comor 

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/ehs/ehs_r 

esrch/index.html. 

Sprachman, S., C. DeSaw, L. Mendenko, M. 

Salem, K. Boller, and B. Kolln. “Early Head Start 

National Evaluation Data Collection Training 

Manual for 6-Month Parents Services Interview, 

14-Month Parent-Child Interview and 

Assessment, and Child Care Observations.” 

Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., 

December 1996. 

www.mathematica-mpr.com 

318 
319 

FAMILY CHILD CARE ENVIRONMENT RATING SCALE-REVISED 

EDITION (FCCERS-R), 2007 (2011 Update) 

Authors: 

Thelma Harms, Debby Cryer, Richard M. Clifford 

Publisher: 

Teachers College Press 

(212) 678-3929 

http://www.tcpress.com 

Instrument: http://ers.fpg.unc.edu/node/111 

Initial Material Cost: 

FCCERS-R (includes Rating Scale, Score sheet, and 

Instructions): $20.95 (per unit) 

Spanish version of scale also available: $20.95 (per unit) 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: 

No norming sample 

Languages: 

English, Spanish 

Type of Assessment: Observation, with some direct 

caregiver interview questions 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

Birth to 12 years 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: Administered by a trained observer. 

The authors recommend that observers attend a 

training session (with at least two classroom practice 

observations) led by an experienced FCCERS-R trainer, 

followed by an inter-rater reliability comparison. 

Additional field practice observations may be 

necessary. 

A Video Observations DVD ($64) along with a Video 

Guide and Training Workbook ($4) are available for 

observers. Authors at the University of North Carolina, 

Chapel Hill provide a three-day training course on how 

to use the instrument and conduct assessments for 

$1,025. 

The FCCERS-R typically takes 3.5 hours (3- hour 

observation, 20 to 30 minutes of questions). If all 

indicators are rated beyond the quality level score 

assigned to an item, then the observation would take 3 

to 4 hours and questions would take 45 minutes. 

Summary: 

Initial Material Cost: 1 (< $100) 

Reliability: 3 (mostly .65 or higher) 

Validity: 1 (none described) 

Norming Sample Characteristics: 1 (no norming 

sample) 

Ease of Administration and Scoring: 3 (administered 

and scored by a highly trained individual) 

Description: The Family Child Care 

Environment Rating Scale-Revised Edition 

(FCCERS-R) is used to assess the quality of family 

child care programs serving children birth 

through 12 years. Trained observers such as 

researchers, licensing personnel, evaluators, and 

program staff may administer the scale by making 

in-person observations and administering a short 

provider interview. The FCCERS-R contains 38 

items, each of which consists of a set of numbered 

statements (indicators) about the child care 

environment, including the space, interaction, 

activities, schedules, and provisions for parents 

and providers. The 460 indicators are distributed 

among seven subscales: Space and Furnishings, 

Personal Care Routines, Listening and Talking, 

Activities, Interaction, Program Structure, and 

Parents and Provider. Each item is rated from 1 to 

7 with quality descriptors associated with the 

following levels: (1) inadequate (does not even 
 320

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

meet custodial care needs); (3) minimal (meets 

custodial needs and, to some extent, basic 

developmental needs); (5) good (meets 

developmental needs); and (7) excellent (highquality personalized care). 

The FCCERS-R was revised from the previous 

Family Daycare Rating Scale (FDCRS 1989), with 

several substantive and formatting changes. The 

FCCERS-R includes an additional subscale, 

Program Structure. Other changes include more 

culturally sensitive language, sample questions for 

difficult-to-observe indicators, and the 

replacement of several items with new ones that 

are more inclusive and address the needs of the 

full age range (instead of separate subitems for 

infants and older children). The earlier version 

also contained a separate supplementary subscale 

targeted to children with disabilities. In the 

revised version, the authors incorporated these 

indicators into the full scale and dropped the 

supplementary subscale. 

Other Languages: A Spanish translation of 

the FCCERS-R, Escala De Calificación Del 

Ambiente Ciudado Infantil En Familia-Edición 

Revisada, is available for purchase on the 

publisher’s web site and is listed as approved by 

the authors. Detail on the norming sample, 

reliability, validity, and English language 

equivalence is unavailable. 

Uses of Information: The authors indicate 

that the quality ratings from the FCCERS-R may 

be used in a wide variety of applications such as 

research, training, and technical assistance. Family 

child care providers may also use the FCCERS-R 

to conduct a self-assessment of program quality. 

Reliability: The authors conducted field tests 

across a sample of 45 family child care homes 

selected from six counties in central North 

Carolina, in a range of urban and rural settings. 

To ensure diverse representation, the sample was 

stratified by the star-quality ratings of the child 

care homes1 and the ages of children served. 

1.		 Internal consistency reliability: the 

Cronbach’s alpha for the full FCCERS-R scale 

was .9. The authors also present alphas by 

subscales: .71 (Space and Furnishings), .46 

(Personal Care Routines), .83 (Listening and 

Talking), .88 (Activities), .84 (Interaction), .62 

(Program Structure), and .39 (Parents and 

Provider). The authors recommend caution 

when interpreting the reliability of two 

subscales, Personal Care Routines and Parents 

and Provider; the alphas are lower, and items 

within the subscales may be measuring 

different concepts. 

2.		 Test-retest reliability: the two administrations 

had an 80.8 percentage agreement (.73 

correlation coefficient, type not stated) across 

a subset of 20 child care homes. The mean 

interval between tests was 14 weeks. 

3.		 Inter-rater reliability: the authors reported 88 

percent agreement across all items, with a 

weighted kappa of .71. The percent agreement 

1 The state has devised a rating system to guide families on 

the quality of each home; ratings range from one star (meets 

only basic licensing requirements) to five stars (meets 

increasingly difficult requirements). 

320 
321 

for the subscales ranged from 80 to 91 percent 

while the weighted kappas for the subscales 

ranged from .62 to .77. 

Validity: 

1. Content validity: the authors indicate that the 

FCCERS-R is based on four main sources: (1) 

research evidence from findings of the impact 

of child care environments on children’s 

health and development; (2) content 

comparison between the FDCRS and other 

assessment instruments for similar age groups 

and settings; (3) feedback solicited from 

FDCRS users in a questionnaire; and (4) the 

authors’ own experiences in using the scale. 

The authors also relied heavily on the 

experiences of and findings from focus groups 

conducted during revisions of the Early 

Childhood Environment Rating Scale and 

Infant/Toddler Environment Rating Scales, 

both of which are related instruments that 

focus on center-based settings, especially 

items related to diversity and inclusivity. 

Methods of Scoring: The assessor uses the 

score sheet to rate each item. Each indicator 

within an item is scored as Yes, No, or Not 

Applicable. Each item has a possible score of 1 to 

7: (1) inadequate (does not even meet custodial 

care needs); (3) minimal (meets custodial needs 

and, to some extent, basic developmental needs); 

(5) good (meets developmental needs); and (7) 

excellent (high-quality personalized care). The 

Training Guide and Workbook provides 

instructions on how to assign the ratings to each 

item. Users may calculate average subscale and 

total scale scores by summing the scores for each 

item and dividing by the number of items scored. 

The scoring sheet provides space for notes. 

Interpretability: The scale includes a Profile, 

which allows for a graphic representation of all 

items and subscales. Assessors may use the Profile 

to compare areas of strength and weakness within 

a program and to target items or subscales for 

improvement. 

Training Support: The authors recommend 

that observers attend a supervised training session 

(with at least two classroom practice observations 

lasting two to three hours each) led by an 

experienced FCCERS-R trainer, followed by an 

inter-rater reliability comparison. Additional field 

practice observations may be necessary. An 

interactive DVD/VHS of observations and an 

Instructor’s Guide and companion Training 

Guide and Workbook are used during training. 

These materials are available for purchase 

separately through the Publisher’s web site. 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: The manual 

instructs trained observers to ask the provider 

whether any children with disabilities are present 

in the facility before they begin their observations, 

but it does not require identification of the 

children. The Scale includes several indicators on 

Provisions for Children with Disabilities as part of 

the 38 items, with associated clarifications and 

questions for the provider. 
 322

 

Report Preparation Support: No 

information available. 

References: 

Harms, Thelma, and Richard M. Clifford. 

Family Day Care Rating Scale. New York: 

Teachers College Press, 1989. 

Harms, Thelma, and Debby Cryer. Video 

Guide and Training Workbook, Family Child Care 

Environment Rating Scale-Revised Edition. New 

York: Teachers College Press, 2007. 

Harms, Thelma, and Debby Cryer. Video 

Observations for the Family Child Care 

Environment Rating Scale-Revised Edition. New 

York: Teachers College Press, 2007. 

Harms, Thelma, Debby Cryer, and Richard M. 

Clifford. Family Child Care Environment Rating 

Scale-Revised Edition. New York: Teachers College 

Press, 2007. 

Harms, Thelma, Debby Cryer, Richard M. 

Clifford, and Ruy Burgos-Lovece. Escala De 

Calificación Del Ambiente Ciudado Infantil En 

Familia-Edición Revisada. New York: Teachers 

College Press, 2010. 

322 
323 

FAMILY DAY CARE RATING SCALE (FDCRS), 1989 

Authors: 

Thelma Harms and Richard M. Clifford 

www.fpg.unc.edu 

Publisher: 

Teachers College Press 

1-800-575-6566 

www.teacherscollegepress.com 

Initial Material Cost: 

FDCRS Assessment: $13 

Video Observations: $59 

Video Guide and Training Workbook: $4 

30 Scoring Sheets: $9 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: 

None described 

Languages: 

English1 

Type of Assessment: 

Observation and self-assessment by program staff 

 

1 The FDCRS has also been translated into French. Those 

interested may contact Thelma Harms at the address above. 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

From 0 - 5 years 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: 

Possible for supervisor, researcher, or trained day care 

provider to administer the FDCRS. Prior to 

administration, approximately 2 hours of reviewing the 

scale, 1 to 2 hours of video training, and two practice 

classroom observations (2 hours each) are 

recommended. FDCRS observation takes 

approximately 2 hours. 

Summary: 

Initial Material Cost: 1 (< $100) 

Reliability: 3 (.65 or higher) 

Validity: 1 (concurrent not available, predictive is 

promising) 

Norming Sample Characteristics: 1 (none described) 

Ease of Administration and Scoring: 3 (administered 

and scored by a highly trained individual) 

Description: The FDCRS is an adaptation of 

the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale 

ECERS (see ECERS-R review in this section), but 

focuses on the quality of family day care settings 

rather than center-based settings. The scale can be 

used by a supervisor, researcher, or trainer during 

an observation, or by a care provider as a selfassessment. The FDCRS contains 32 items 

organized in 6 subscales: Space and Furnishings 

for Care and Learning, Basic Care, Language and 

Reasoning, Learning Activities, Social 

Development, and Adult Needs. Each item is rated 

from 1 to 7 with quality descriptors associated 

with levels: (1) inadequate (does not even meet 

custodial care needs); (3) minimal (meets 

custodial needs, and to some extent, basic 

developmental needs); (5) good (meets 

developmental needs); and (7) excellent (high

quality personalized care). 

Uses of Information: The FDCRS was 

designed to be comprehensive, yet easy to use as 

part of supervision and monitoring by agency 

staff, self-evaluation by care providers, and also in 

research and program evaluation. 

Reliability: (1) Internal consistency reliability 

(Cronbach’s alpha) for the subscales: Space and 

Furnishings for Care and Learning (.86), Basic 

­

­
 324

 

 

 

 

 

Care (.90), Language and Reasoning (.90), 

Learning Activities (.93), Social Development 

(.83), and Adult Needs (.70); (2) Inter-rater 

reliability was .90 for individual items in studies 

reported by Howes and Stewart (1987) and Howes 

(1987). Reliability has been demonstrated for 

diverse groups in subsequent research. 

Validity: (1) Concurrent validity: information 

not available in the manual. However, studies 

showed that scores on the earlier versions of the 

FDCRS were highly correlated (.80) with home 

visitors’ ratings of family day care settings. The 

FDCRS is also related to caregiver education and 

child outcomes. 

Method of Scoring: The packet includes a 

Score Sheet, to record scores for individual items. 

The Profile sheet permits a graphic representation 

of the scoring information. It can be used to 

compare areas of strengths and weaknesses, and to 

select items and subscales to target for 

improvement. The profiles for at least two 

observations can be plotted side by side to depict 

changes in a family child care home over time or 

differences between settings visually. 

Interpretability: Full instructions for using 

the scale, plus notes clarifying selected scale items 

are included. However, the manual provides no 

information about interpreting the results of the 

observation. 

Training Support: Video Observations and a 

Video Guide and Training Workbook are 

available for an additional cost. This multimedia 

package demonstrates how to use the Family Day 

Care Rating Scale. Each training package contains 

an interactive videotape and an Instructor’s 

Guide, which explains how to present the various 

training activities and provides answers and 

explanations for any questions that may arise. A 

16-page Video Guide and Training Workbook 

contains training activities. The website: 

www.fpg.unc.edu also includes helpful 

information. 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: FDCRS includes 

Supplementary Items for Exceptional Children to 

be used when the facility enrolls a special needs 

child. 

Report Preparation Support: Not included in 

the manual. 

References: 

Harms, Thelma, and Richard M. Clifford. 

Family Day Care Rating Scale. New York: 

Teachers College Press, 1989. 

Harms, Thelma, and Richard M. Clifford. 

Family Day Care Rating Scale—Video Guide and 

Training Workbook. New York: Teachers College 

Press, 1993. 

Harms, Thelma, and Richard M. Clifford. 

Family Day Care Rating Scale—Video 

Observations. New York: Teachers College Press, 

1993. 

Howes, C. Inter-Observer Reliability for the 

Harms and Clifford Family Day Care Rating Scale. 

Personal Communication, 1987. 

324 
Howes, C. and P. Stewart. “Child’s Play with 

Adults, Toys, and Peers: An Examination of 

Family and Child Care Influences.” 

Developmental Psychology, vol. 23, 1987, pp. 423

430. 

www.fpg.unc.edu 

325 

­
 326

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HEAD START FAMILY INFORMATION SYSTEM (HSFIS) 4.3, 2001
 
 

Authors: 

Head Start Bureau 

www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ohs/index.html 

Publisher: 

Cleverex Systems, Inc. 

301-738-1122 

www.cleverex.com 

info@cleverex.com 

Initial Material Cost: 

HSFIS is available free of charge to Head Start 

programs. 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: 

None described. 

Languages: 

English, Spanish 

Type of Assessment: 

Management information system, including measures 

of family needs, center-based services, and home-based 

services, as well as features for tracking child and family 

outcomes. 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

For child-related information, prenatal to school age. 

For parent- and service-related questions, all adults. 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: 

Varies. HSFIS is a management information system 

designed for use in tracking services and outcomes. 

Summary: 

Initial Material Cost: 1 (< $100)
 


Reliability: 1 (none described)
 


Validity: 1 (none described)
 


Norming Sample Characteristics: 1 (none described)
 


Ease of Administration and Scoring: 3 (administered by
 


a trained individual)
 


Description: The Head Start Family 

Information System (HSFIS) is an automated case 

management record-keeping system. It is 

designed to collect, organize, maintain, and report 

on information at both the child and family level 

to assist agencies in managing and improving 

services. The next generation HSFIS, a new webbased system called PROMIS (Program Resources 

and Outcomes Management Information System), 

has been developed and is being piloted in early 

2003. It will include a module that can be used to 

track the progress and accomplishments of 

children in efforts to analyze and use data on child 

outcomes in program self-assessment and 

continuous improvement. It will be based on the 

framework set forth in ACF-HS-IM-00-18, “Using 

Child Outcomes in Program Self-Assessment.” 

Uses of Information: Information collected 

in HSFIS can help programs determine eligibility 

for enrollment, identify family service needs, 

provide program-level demographic statistics, 

track delivery of services to children and families, 

and track child and family outcomes. 

Reliability: Not applicable. 

Validity: Not applicable. 

Method of Scoring: Not applicable. 

Interpretability: Not applicable. 

Training Support: Cleverex Systems, Inc. 

(http://support.cleverex.com, or 1-800-473-4780) 

provides training and technical assistance in the 

use of HSFIS and PROMIS. Cleverex Systems 

provides instruction at its own computer 

326 
327 

laboratory in Rockville, Maryland and at local and 

regional training events. Training courses are 

offered at three levels—beginner, intermediate 

and advanced. Also, a 1-800 Help Desk provides 

technical assistance to users. Each Head Start 

Regional Office and Quality Improvement Center 

has a designated HSFIS liaison who can assist 

programs in obtaining automation funding and 

technical support. 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: None necessary. 

Report Preparation Support: The HSFIS 

software includes the capability of producing 

more than 200 pre-defined reports. An Ad-Hoc 

Report Builder has been developed in the system 

so that users can develop their own reports 

without additional training. In addition, advanced 

users can use Crystal Report software to develop 

more-sophisticated reports using HSFIS data. 

References: 

Angulo, Paulo. HSFIS Update. 

http://www1.cleverex.com/ShowArticle.asp?id=H 

SFIS1. February 2000. 

Gaidurgis, Andrew. Introducing PROMIS – 

Next Generation HSFIS. 

http://www1.cleverex.com/ShowArticle.asp?id=P 

ROMIS. May 2001. 
 328

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HOME VISIT RATING SCALES (HOVRS), 2008 AND HOME VISIT 

RATING SCALES-ADAPTED (HOVRS-A), 2009 (2011 Update) 

Authors: 

HOVRS: Lori Roggman, Gina Cook, Vonda K. Jump 

Norman, Katie Christiansen, Lisa Boyce, and Mark 

Innocenti 

HOVRS-A: Lori Roggman, Gina Cook, Vonda K. Jump 

Norman, Katie Christiansen, Lisa Boyce, Mark 

Innocenti, Nikki Aikens, Kimberly Boller, Diane 

Paulsell, and Kristin Hallgren 

Publisher: 

Brookes Publishing 

Phone (800) 638-3775 

http://www.brookespublishing.com 

Instrument: 

http://products.brookespublishing.com/Developmental 

-Parenting-P566.aspx 

Initial Material Cost: 

Developmental Parenting: A Guide for Early Childhood 

Practitioners (the appendix includes the measure): 

$26.95 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: 

No norming sample 

Languages: 

English 

Type of Assessment: 

Observation 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

0 to 24 months old 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements:1 

Training for experienced observers lasts 3.5 days. It 

requires reliability certification by watching videos of 

home visits and matching their ratings to the gold 

standard on each scale three times. 

Time to administer averages 1.5 hours during the home 

visit. Scoring time varies. 

Summary: 

Initial Material Cost: 1 (< $100)
 


Reliability: 3 (all .65 or higher)
 


Validity: 1 (none described)
 


Norming Sample Characteristics: 1 (no norming
 


sample)
 


Ease of Administration and Scoring: 3 (administered 
 

and scored by a highly trained individual)
 


1 Training requirements are based on training sessions that 

were conducted by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., in 

February 2009 for the Early Head Start Family and Child 

Experiences Survey (Vogel et al. 2011). 

Description: The Home Visit Rating Scales 

(HOVRS) is an observation tool that evaluates the 

quality of home visits by assessing home visitor 

responsiveness, non-intrusiveness, support of 

parent-child interaction, and parent and child 

engagement during the visit. It may be used in 

homes with infants (0 to 12 months old) and 

toddlers (12 to 24 months old). Observers watch 

the home visitor in person or in video recordings 

and complete ratings for seven items. At the end 

of the observation, the observer records an 

approximate percentage of time spent on each of 

the following types of activities: child-focused 

activities, parent-/family-focused activities, 

parent-child-focused activities, staff-family 

relationship-building activities, and crisis 

management activities. The HOVRS has two 

subscales: Home Visit Process Quality and Home 

Visit Effectiveness Quality. Home Visit Process 

Quality (four items) assesses the home visitor’s 

responsiveness to family, relationship with family, 

facilitation of parent-child interaction, and non328 
329 

intrusiveness. Home Visit Effectiveness Quality (3 

items) assesses parent-child interaction, parent 

engagement, and child engagement. 

The HOVRS was adapted in several ways for 

the Early Head Start Child and Family 

Experiences Study (Baby FACES) and was 

subsequently named the Home Visit Rating Scales 

Adapted (HOVRS-A). The HOVRS-A allows for 

observers without home-visiting or clinical 

experience with families to use the measure. It 

includes fewer scoring categories to facilitate 

inter-rater reliability and adapts two items. The 

Home Visitor Relationship with Family item was 

adapted to capture the home visitor’s engagement 

and relationship with the family and the family’s 

relationship with the home visitor. The last item, 

Child Engagement during Home Visit, was 

adapted for two versions: one for visits with 

infants up to 12 months old and one for visits with 

toddlers 12 to 24 months old (Vogel et al. 2011). 

Other Languages: None. 

Uses of Information: The HOVRS describes 

and evaluates strategies used in home-visiting 

interventions, such as Partnering with Families for 

Early Learning (PEEL) in Washington as part of 

the Early Learning Initiative (Hallgren et al. 2010). 

It is also used as a measure to describe homevisiting quality in the Early Head Start Family and 

Child Experiences Survey (Vogel et al. 2011). 

Reliability: 

1. Internal consistency: for the HOVRS, 

Roggman and colleagues (Roggman et al. 

2006) reported internal consistency 

reliabilities for Visit Process Quality and 

Home Visit Effectiveness Quality subscales at 

.65, and the overall quality score had a 

Cronbach’s alpha of .78. The internal 

consistency of the HOVRS-A as reported by 

Vogel and colleagues (2011) was .84 overall 

and .69 and .89 for the Home Visit 

Effectiveness Quality and Home Visitor 

Strategies subscales, respectively. 

The HOVRS-A was used to observe children 1 

week to 9 months old (average 3 months old) 

in 35 homes (Hallgren et al. 2010). Visits 

included a home visitor and the child’s 

primary caregiver. Forty-three percent of the 

home visits were conducted in Spanish; the 

rest were conducted in English. The 

Cronbach’s alphas for the total score, for the 

Home Visitor Strategies (i.e., Home Visit 

Process Quality), and for Participant 

Engagement (i.e., Home Visit Effectiveness 

Quality) were .87, .76, and .93, respectively. 

2. Test-retest reliability: no information 

available. 

3. Inter-rater reliability: no information 

available. 

Validity: 

1. Concurrent validity: the authors’ unpublished 

findings from 59 observations in two homebased Early Head Start sites show that the 

HOVRS Home Visit Process Quality score 

predicts scores on the Parenting Interactions 

with Children: Checklist of Observations 

Linked to Outcomes (PICCOLO) and Home 
 330

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Observation for Measurement of the 

Environment (HOME) Inventory (Roggman 

2008). 

2.		 Construct validity: the HOVRS-A overall and 

subscale scores correlated with features of the 

home visitors and the program (Vogel et al. 

2011). Authors reported results of Chi-square 

tests and F-tests for categorical and 

continuous variable significance testing, 

respectively. Higher HOVRS-A scores were 

related to whether the home visitor has a 

state-awarded credential, higher risk of 

depression and less job satisfaction, and fewer 

unfilled staff positions. More time spent 

during the visit on parent-child activities and 

the involvement of fewer children in the 

observation are related to higher HOVRS-A 

scores. 

Bias Analysis: No information available. 

Methods of Scoring: HOVRS items are rated 

on a seven-point scale, with the anchor points at 1 

(inadequate), 3 (adequate), 5 (good), and 7 

(excellent). Observers review whether most items 

are checked as 1, 3, 5, or 7 to determine an overall 

rating between 1 and 7. Ratings for the Home 

Visit Process Quality scales may be summed to 

derive an index of process quality, and the Home 

Visit Effectiveness Quality scales may likewise be 

summed to create an index of effectiveness 

quality. 

The HOVRS-A is rated on a five-point scale, 

with three anchor points at 1 (inadequate), 3 

(adequate), and 5 (good). One item in the Home 

Visitor-Family Relationship scale (Item 2: Home 

Visitor-Family Relationship) may be rated “yes” 

(1), “no” (0), or NA if family members other than 

the parent and child are not present during the 

home visit. Each anchor point is associated with 

indicators described in the manual. Observers use 

indicator instructions to determine ratings. For 

example, for an observer to assign a rating of 3, 

none of the indicators in anchor point 1 

(inadequate) may be checked, and all indicators 

under 3 (adequate) must be checked. To assign a 

rating of 4, none of the indicators in 1 

(inadequate) may be checked, all indicators under 

3 (adequate) must be observed, and at least half of 

the indicators under 5 (good) must be observed. 

An overall quality rating for the home visit is 

based on the observer’s judgment and ranges from 

1 (poor) to 5 (excellent). 

Interpretability: No information available. 

Training Support: HOVRS authors do not 

offer training. HOVRS-A authors provided 

training to accommodate research conducted for 

the Early Head Start Family and Child 

Experiences Survey (Vogel et al. 2011). 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: No information 

available. 

Report Preparation Support: No information 

available. 

References: 

Hallgren, Kristin, Kimberly Boller, and 

Dianne Paulsell. “Better Beginnings: Partnering 

with Families for Early Learning Home Visit 

330 
331 

Observations.” Report No. PP10-61. Princeton, 

NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., April 2010. 

Hallgren, Kristen, and Jillian Stein. “Baby 

FACES Home Visit Rating Scales-Adapted 

(HOVRS-A) Manual (unpublished).” Princeton, 

NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., December 

2009. 

Roggman, L.A., K. Christiansen, G.A. Cook, 

V.K. Jump, L.K. Boyce, and C.A. Peterson. “Home 

Visits: Measuring How They Work.” Paper 

presented at the Early Intervention Research 

Institute Mini-Conference. Logan, UT, 2006. 

Roggman, Lori. “Home Visit Observation 

Rating Scales (HVORS) Measurement Report” 

(unpublished report). 2008. 

Roggman, Lori, Lisa Boyce, and Mark 

Innocenti. Developmental Parenting: A Guide for 

Early Childhood Practitioners. Baltimore: Brookes 

Publishing, 2008. 

Roggman, Lori A., Gina A. Cook, Vonda 

Jump, Lisa K. Boyce, and Mark S. Innocenti. 

“Home Visit Rating Scales (HOVRS)” 

(unpublished manuscript). Logan, UT: Utah State 

University, 2006. 

Vogel, Cheri A., Kimberly Boller, Yange Xue, 

Randall Blair, Nikki Aikens, Andrew Burwick, 

Yevgeny Shrago, Barbara L. Carlton, Lara Kalb, 

Linda Mendenko, Judy Cannon, Sean Harrington, 

and Jillian Stein. “Learning as We Go: A First 

Snapshot of Early Head Start Programs, Staff, 

Families, and Children.” Report No. 2011-7. 

Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research, 

and Evaluation, Administration for Children and 

Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, 2011. 
 332

 

 

 

 

 

 

INFANT/TODDLER ENVIRONMENT RATING SCALE REVISED 

EDITION (ITERS-R), 2006 (2011 Update) 

Authors: 

Thelma Harms, Debby Cryer, and Richard M. Clifford 

Publisher: 

Teachers College Press 

(800) 575-6566 

http://www.teacherscollegepress.com 

Instrument: 

http://store.tcpress.com/0807746401.shtml 

Initial Material Cost: 

ITERS-R Expanded Score Sheet and Profile for 

photocopying: $20.95 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: 

No norming sample 

Languages: 

English, German, Japanese, and Spanish 

Type of Assessment: Observation, with some direct 

caregiver interview questions 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

For classrooms enrolling children from birth to 2.5 

years old 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: Administered by a trained observer. 

The authors recommend that observers attend a 

training session (with one or more practice 

observations) led by an experienced ITERS-R trainer. 

Researchers should contact the authors regarding 

training to evaluate inter-rater reliability. In addition, 

observers attending training should have knowledge of 

child development and educational implications (Frank 

Porter Graham Child Development Institute 2005). 

ITERS-R training (excluding travel) at the University of 

North Carolina (UNC) ranges from $1,025 to $2,000 

depending on the focus of the training. The Video 

Observations DVD is $64, and the Video Guide and 

Training Workbook is $4. 

Takes 2 to 5 hours depending on scoring option. The 

average administration time is 3.5 hours, including the 

staff interview. 

Summary: 

Initial Material Cost: 1 (< $100)
 


Reliability: 3 (most are .65 or higher)
 


Validity: 3 (concurrent, applies to the original ITERS,
 


which was given in percentage, not correlation.)
 


Norming Sample Characteristics: 1 (no norming
 


sample)
 


Ease of Administration and Scoring: 3 (administered 
 

and scored by a highly trained individual)
 


Description: The ITERS-R is a classroom 

assessment tool designed to measure the quality of 

group programs for infants and toddlers (birth to 

30 months) by collecting data through classroom 

observation and a staff interview. The assessment 

is a 39-item rating scale organized into seven 

environmental subscales: (1) Space and 

Furnishings (5 items), (2) Personal Care Routines 

(6 items), (3) Listening and Talking (3 items), (4) 

Activities (10 items), (5) Interaction (4 items), (6) 

Program Structure (4 items), and (7) Parents and 

Staff (7 items). The items in the first six subscales 

are referred to as child-related, and the items in 

the last subscale are referred to as parent-/staffrelated. Each item has several quality indicators, 

accounting for a total 467 Yes/No indicators. 

Reviewers caution against use of the assessment 

because it does not describe the validity of the 

measure in detail and instead relies on the validity 

research conducted on the 1990 version of the 

ITERS (Carey 2007; Kush 2007). 

332 
333 

The original ITERS (Harms et al. 1990) and 

the revised versions exhibit several differences. 

The ITERS-R (Harms et al. 2003) updated the 

scoring for indicators to reflect observed strengths 

and weaknesses within items; removed negative 

indicators from all levels except for level 1 

(Inadequate); lengthened the Notes for 

Clarification to enhance clarification; included 

culturally sensitive items and examples; added 

new items to some subscales (Listening and 

Talking, Activities, Program Structure, and 

Parents and Staff); combined items in the Space 

and Furnishings subscales in instances of apparent 

overlap; dropped two items from the Personal 

Care Routines subscale; and made more gradual 

the scaling of some items in the Personal Care 

Routines subscale. In addition, items appear on 

separate pages followed by the Notes for 

Clarification, and sample interview questions are 

included for difficult-to-observe indicators. The 

ITERS-R (Harms et al. 2006) features a new spiral 

binding, additional Notes for Clarification, and an 

Expanded Score Sheet, which includes notes and 

tables to assist with scoring. The items and 

indicators remain the same as in the 2003 version 

of the ITERS-R. 

Other Languages: Despite the availability of 

official versions of the ITERS-R in other languages 

(German, Japanese, and Spanish), no information 

is available in the manual or the authors’ web site 

regarding the development of the scales in those 

languages or investigations of comparability of 

scores with the English version. 

Uses of Information: The assessment may be 

used by program staff as a self-assessment tool 

and by outside observers for program monitoring, 

evaluation, development, and research. 

Reliability: Reliability studies apply to the 

ITERS-R (Harms et al. 2003). The items and 

indicators for the 2006 version of the ITERS-R are 

the same as for the 2003 version. 

1. Internal consistency reliability: the total scale 

internal consistency was .93, and the internal 

consistency for the child-related items (items 

1 through 32) was .92. Subscale internal 

consistency reliability ranged from .47 (Space 

and Furnishings) to .80 (Interaction), with 

four of the seven subscales at or above .70. 

2. Test-retest reliability: no information 

available. 

3. Inter-rater reliability: a two-phase pilot study 

conducted in 2001 and 2002 estimated the 

reliability of the 2003 version of the ITERS-R. 

The second study phase from which the 

reliability analysis was conducted included six 

trained observers who conducted 45 pairs of 

observations, each lasting about 3.5 hours 

(including the teacher report). Authors 

calculated interclass correlations, percentage 

agreement, and weighted Kappa statistics for 

inter-rater reliability. The interclass 

correlation was .92 for ratings based on the 

full scale as well as for the child-related items. 

Interclass correlations for ratings by subscale 

scores ranged from .67 (Personal Care 

Routines) to .92 (Parents and Staff). Authors 
 334

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

also calculated percentage agreement within 1 

point for paired observations. There was 

agreement within 1 point 85 percent of the 

time across the full scale and 83 percent of the 

time across the 32 child-related items. Item 

agreement within 1 point ranged from 64 

percent (Item 4: Room arrangement) to 98 

percent (Item 38: Evaluation of staff). The 

weighted Kappa statistic for the full scale was 

.58 and .55 for the child-related scale. Two of 

the weighted Kappa statistics were below .40 

(.14 for Item 9: Diapering/toileting and .20 for 

Item 11: Safety practices). Item 34 (Provisions 

for personal needs of staff) had the highest 

weighted Kappa statistics at .92. All Yes/No 

indicators achieved agreement of 91.7, and 

child-related indicators achieved agreement of 

90.3. Item 11 (Safety practices) was the only 

item with indicator agreement below 80 (79.1 

percent); and Item 35 (Staff professional 

needs) had the highest indicator agreement at 

97.4. 

Validity: 

1.		 Content validity: to aid in classifying and 

assessing quality, the revision of the ITERS 

was based on research evidence from several 

relevant fields (e.g., health and education), 

best practices from professionals, and 

practical constraints of real life in child care 

settings. The revision process used four 

sources: (1) research on development in the 

early years and results associated with the 

impact of child care environments on 

children’s health and development; (2) a 

comparison of the content of the original 

ITERS with similar assessments and with 

documents describing program quality; (3) 

feedback via web site questionnaires and focus 

groups of professionals familiar with the 

ITERS; and (4) use of the ITERS over a twoyear period by the co-authors and over 25 

trained assessors for the North Carolina Rated 

License Project. Research and development 

provided information on the range of scores 

for certain items in addition to item-level 

difficulty and validity. The content 

comparison identified items to be added or 

eliminated. Revision of the original scale was 

based on results from the first phase of the 

reliability pilot study (see Inter-rater 

reliability); results from the second phase of 

the study resulted in the improvement of 

items with weighted Kappa statistics below .50 

in order to improve reliability. The printed 

version of the scale specifies these changes. 

A 2009 study of 223 observed Early Head Start 

classrooms included a principal components 

factor analysis (Vogel et al. 2011). The onefactor analysis findings were similar to those 

of Bisceglia et al. (2009) in that one factor 

showed a global aspect of quality and high 

internal consistency (alpha = .88). Vogel et al. 

(2011) also found that a four-factor solution, 

including (1) Language/Interaction, (2) 

Activities, (3) Routines, and (4) 

Space/Furnishings, had alpha coefficients 

higher than .65 for each, which were more 

robust than established ITERS-R subscale 

coefficients. 

334 
335 

2. Concurrent validity: the authors state that 

concurrent validity was established with the 

original version of the ITERS, in which a test 

for concurrent validity found 83 percent 

agreement between the categorizations of the 

quality of infant and toddler programs in 12 

classrooms using the ITERS and expert 

evaluations. Given the similarity of the 

ITERS-R to the ITERS, studies on the ITERS

R have focused on the degree to which trained 

observers may continue to use the scale 

reliably (Harms et al. 2003). 

ITERS-R subscales were correlated with 

measures of child development outcomes by 

using data from 367 classrooms of 1-year-old 

children in the Early Head Start Family and 

Child Experiences Survey (Vogel et al. 2001). 

Significant negative correlations 

demonstrated that higher program quality was 

associated with lower child development 

scores. The ITERS-R Activities subscale and 

Communicative Development Inventory 

(CDI) Spanish Comprehension scores 

correlated at -.33, and the ITERS-R Listening 

and Talking subscale score correlated with the 

CDI English Comprehension score at -.14. 

Authors suggested that negative correlations 

could be related to the greater likelihood that 

high-quality teachers and classrooms serve 

children at lower levels of development. 

3. Predictive validity: the authors state that 

predictive validity was established with the 

original version of the ITERS. Given the 

similarity of the ITERS-R to the ITERS, 

studies on the ITERS-R have focused on the 

degree to which trained observers may 

continue to use the scale reliably (Harms et al. 

2003). 

4. Construct validity: in an analysis of 

classrooms (n = 211 to 223) with 1-year-old 

children, ITERS-R scores were correlated with 

classroom characteristics associated with 

classroom quality (Vogel et al. 2001). Total 

ITERS-R scores were positively correlated 

with teachers’ likelihood of returning to the 

classroom the following year (.20) and overall 

program implementation (.20). However, the 

authors were uncertain why total scores were 

correlated with teacher turnover (.15) and 

director/manager/coordinator turnover (.17) 

and negatively correlated with 

implementation of the family development 

cornerstone (deemed essential for program 

quality by the Advisory Committee on 

Services for Families with Infants and 

Toddlers) (-.22) and observed adult-child 

ratios (-.23). 

Methods of Scoring: The Expanded Score 

Sheet is used to record the ratings for quality 

indicators, items, subscale scores, and total scores 

as well as any observer comments. The indicators, 

which have Yes/No/Not Applicable (NA) 

response choices, are used to score the items from 

1 (Inadequate) to 7 (Excellent). Indicators fall 

under columns at the scale anchors 1, 3, 5, and 7. 

Items may be scored two ways as described in 

detail in the manual. Under the standard scoring 

option for each item, if any of the indicators in the 

­
 336

 

 

Inadequate column (or rating of 1) applies, the 

item is scored a 1. Higher item scores are 

determined by the number of indicators scored 

with a Yes response under each of the anchors, 3, 

5, and 7 (Exhibit 1). 

Under the alternative scoring method, each 

indicator is individually scored under each of the 

four anchors, potentially extending the assessment 

time to a total of four to five hours. This scoring 

method is often used when the observation 

focuses on providing detailed feedback to 

programs or teachers. 

Using either scoring method, subscale scores 

are calculated as the average rating across items 

for that subscale. The total score is calculated as 

the average item rating across all items. 

 

 

Exhibit 1 Item Scoring Based on Indicators for the ITERS-R 

Begin scoring the indicators 

under column 1 

(inadequate) 

Any indicator 

under column 

1 scored Yes 

At least half 

the indicators 

under column 

3 scored Yes 

All indicators 

under column 

3 scored Yes 

At least half 

the indicators 

under column 

5 scored Yes 

All indicators 

under column 

5 scored Yes 

At least half 

the indicators 

under column 

7 scored Yes 

All indicators 

under column 

7 scored Yes 

2 3 4 5 

(Minimal) (Good) 

6 7 

(Excellent) 

Any 

indicators 

under column 

1 scored No 

or NA 

Item Score 1 

(Inadequate) 

336 
337 

Interpretability: Resources available for 

interpretation of scores include the Profile and 

the authors’ web site. Observers must be 

thoroughly familiar with the ITERS-R. In 

addition, they are advised to be trained on the 

measure and demonstrate knowledge of child 

development and educational implications 

(Frank Porter Graham Child Development 

Institute 2005) before interpreting the results. 

Scoring information may be graphically 

displayed on the Profile to compare areas of 

strengths and weaknesses and to display items 

and subscales in need of improvement. The 

Profiles for two observations may be plotted side 

by side for visual depiction. A sample Profile 

appears in the manual along with blank Profile 

and Expanded Score Sheets for photocopying. In 

addition, the authors maintain an extensive web 

page (listed under Training Support) that 

answers questions about interpretability and use 

of the scale, and they have published a manual 

that goes beyond the information available in the 

instrument document. 

Training Support: Individuals 

administering the ITERS-R should be highly 

trained. Training tools for the ITERS-R include 

the administration instructions in the manual, 

training aids from the publisher’s web site, the 

All About the ITERS-R handbook, and in-person 

trainings. The Video Observations for ITERS-R, 

Instructor’s Guide, Video Guide, and Training 

Workbook are available for purchase on the 

publisher’s web site. The Video Observations for 

the ITERS-R DVD/VHS and the Instructor’s 

Guide demonstrate how to present training 

activities and answer frequently asked questions 

about the ITERS-R. In-person trainings are 

available during various times of the year. The 

authors’ web site 

(http://www.fpg.unc.edu/~ecers/) provides 

information on in-person training and links to 

additional Expanded Score Sheets, Profiles, and 

other useful information. Observers 

participating in training sessions should 

demonstrate knowledge of child development 

and educational implications (Frank Porter 

Graham Child Development Institute 2005). In 

addition, researchers should contact the authors 

about training that includes evaluating interrater reliability with the authors. It is expected 

that the authors will train individuals or groups 

using the ITERS-R and will establish inter-rater 

reliability with them. Training of trainers and 

group leader training are available as is direct 

training of assessors. For those using the 

measures on a regular basis, the authors 

recommend re-establishing inter-rater reliability 

with them annually. 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: Not applicable. 

Report Preparation Support: No 

information available. 

References: 

Bisceglia, R., M. Perlman, D. Schaack, and J. 

Jenkins. “Examining the Psychometric 

Properties of the Infant-Toddler Environment 

Rating Scale-Revised Edition in a High-Stakes 
 338

 

 

 

Context.” Early Childhood Research, vol. 24, 

2009, pp. 121-132. 

Carey, Karen. “Review of ITERS-R.” In The 

Seventeenth Mental Measurements Yearbook, 

edited by Kurt F. Geisinger, Robert A. Spies, 

Janet F. Carlson, and Barbara S. Plake. Lincoln, 

NE: The Buros Institute of Mental 

Measurements, 2007. 

Frank Porter Graham Child Development 

Institute. “Environment Rating Scales.” 

Available at [http://ers.fpg.unc.edu/]. 2005. 

Halle, Tamara, and Jessica Vick. “Quality in 

Early Childhood Care and Education Settings: A 

Compendium of Measures.” Submitted to the 

Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 

Administration for Children and Families, U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services. 

Washington, DC: Child Trends, November 

2007. 

Harms, Thelma, and Debby Cryer. 

Infant/Toddler Environment Rating Scale: Video 

Guide & Training Workbook. New York: 

Teachers College Press, 2003. 

Harms, Thelma, and Debby Cryer. Video 

Observations for the Infant/Toddler Environment 

Rating Scale, Revised Edition. New York: 

Teachers College Press, 2006. 

Harms, Thelma, Debby Cryer, and Richard 

M. Clifford. Infant/Toddler Environment Rating 

Scale, Revised Edition. New York: Teachers 

College Press, 2006. 

Harms, Thelma, Debby Cryer, and Richard 

M. Clifford. Infant/Toddler Environment Rating 

Scale, Revised Edition. New York: Teachers 

College Press, 2003. 

Harms, Thelma, Debby Cryer, and Richard 

M. Clifford. Infant/Toddler Environment Rating 

Scale. New York: Teachers College Press, 1990. 

Harms, Thelma, Debby Cyer, and Cathy 

Riley. All About the ITERS-R. Lewisville, NC: 

Kaplan Early Learning Company, 2004. 

Kush, Joseph C. “Review of ITERS-R.” In 

The Seventeenth Mental Measurements 

Yearbook, edited by Kurt F. Geisinger, Robert A. 

Spies, Janet F. Carlson, and Barbara S. Plake. 

Lincoln, NE: The Buros Institute of Mental 

Measurements, 2007. 

Vogel, Cheri A., Kimberly Boller, Yange 

Xue, Randall Blair, Nikki Aikens, Andrew 

Burwick, Yevgeny Shrago, Barbara Lepidus 

Carlton, Lara Kalb, Linda Mendenko, Judy 

Cannon, Sean Harrington, and Jillian Stein. 

Learning As We Go: A First Snapshot of Early 

Head Start Programs, Staff, Families, and 

Children. OPRE Report #2011-7. Washington, 

DC: Office of Planning, Research, and 

Evaluation, Administration for Children and 

Families, U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services, 2011. 

338 
339 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE EDUCATION OF YOUNG 

CHILDREN (NAEYC) ACCREDITATION CRITERIA, 1998 

Authors: 

National Association for the Education of Young 

Children (NAEYC) 

Publisher: 

NAEYC 

(202) 232-8777 or 

(800) 424-2460 

www.naeyc.org 

Initial Material Cost: 

Book: $15 

Accreditation fee varies by number of children: 60 or 

fewer children: $575 

61 to 120 children: $900 

121 to 240 children: $1,100 

241 to 360 children: $1,250 

$200 for each additional 120 children 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: 

Not applicable 

Languages: 

English 

Type of Assessment: 

Program staff self-report, reviewed by NAEYC 

validators if accreditation is pursued 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

Programs for young children of all ages. Accreditation 

good for 3 years. 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: 

Not applicable 

Summary: 

Initial Material Cost: 1 (< $100) 

Reliability: 3 (95 percent agreement among reviewers) 

Validity: Not applicable 

Norming Sample Characteristics: Not applicable 

Ease of Administration and Scoring: 1 (not described) 

Description: The NAEYC accreditation 

system is designed to assist early childhood 

program personnel in making real and lasting 

improvements in quality of care and education, 

and to recognize programs that are in substantial 

compliance with the criteria for high-quality 

programs. NAEYC evaluates programs on the 

basis of their: 

• Interaction among teachers and children 

• Teaching 

• Structure and processes used to facilitate the 

relationships among teachers and families 

• Staff qualification and professional 

development opportunities 

• Administration attention to the needs and 

desires of children, families, and staff 

• Level of staffing 

• Indoor and outdoor physical environment 

that facilitate learning 

• Health and safety standards and practices 

• Nutrition and food services 

• Evaluation of program effectiveness. 

NAEYC accreditation is a three-step process. 

The first step involves a self-evaluation, corrective 

actions, and completing the program description 

form that describes the program’s compliance 

with the NAEYC criteria. The second step 

involves an on-site visit by NAEYC-trained 

validators to validate the accuracy of the 

information on the program description form. 

The third step involves the accreditation decisionmaking process by a three-person commission. 
 340 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To be eligible for accreditation, the program 

must be licensed by the appropriate state/local 

agency or, if exempt from licensing, demonstrate 

compliance; serve at least 10 children younger 

than age 8; have at least two adults present at all 

times; and have been in operation for at least one 

year. 

Uses of Information: Accredited programs 

may advertise their compliance with NAEYC 

standards. NAEYC provides accredited programs 

with a copy of the Commission Decision Report 

and their original validated program description, 

promotional materials, and a certificate indicating 

the expiration date of the accreditation. NAEYC 

provides programs with “deferred accreditation,” 

along with the specific reason for the deferral and 

recommendations for improvement. Programs 

can use the information to make improvements 

and request an additional on-site validation. 

Reliability: NAEYC reports a 95 percent or 

higher agreement among commissioners 

reviewing the same program. 

Validity: None described. 

Method of Scoring: The three-person 

accreditation committee decides whether to grant 

accreditation or to defer accreditation until 

improvements can be made or additional 

information is obtained. The decision is based on 

the commissioners’ professional judgment and 

not on a point system. The commissioners review 

the validated program decision, taking into 

account the context in which a program is 

operating and the overall impact of varying 

degrees of compliance for each component. To 

achieve accreditation, 100 percent compliance is 

not required; however, the program needs to be in 

substantial compliance with the accreditation 

criteria. 

Interpretability: None described. 

Training Support: Consultation by telephone 

and the Accreditation Criteria & Procedures of the 

National Academy of Early Childhood Programs 

and the Guide to Accreditation. 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: Not applicable. 

Report Preparation Support: Not applicable. 

References: 

Accreditation Criteria and Procedures of the 

National Association for the Education of Young 

Children, 1998 Edition. Washington, DC: 

NAEYC. 

Guide to Accreditation by the National 

Association for the Education of Young Children, 

1998 Edition. Washington, DC: NAEYC. 

Bredekamp, Sue and Barbara Willer (Eds.). 

NAEYC Accreditation: A Decade of Learning and 

Years Ahead. Washington, DC: NAEYC, 1996. 

Ethiel, Nancy (Ed.). Reflections on NAEYC 

Accreditation: Lessons Learned and Goals for the 

Future. Washington, DC: NAEYC, 1996. 

340 
PARENT CAREGIVER RELATIONSHIP SCALE (PCRS), 1996 (2011 

Update) 

Authors: 

James Elicker, Illene C. Noppe, and Lloyd D. Noppe 

Publisher: 

James Elicker 

(765) 494-2938 

elickerj@purdue.edua 

Initial Material Cost: 

The PCRS includes 2 instruments: 1 Caregiver Scale 

and 1 Parent Scale. Instruments are available upon 

request from the authors at no charge. 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: 

No norming sample 

Languages: 

English 

Type of Assessment: 

Parent report or caregiver report 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

Parents and caregivers of children 2 to 24 months old 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: 

Administered by parents and caregivers. The PCRS 

takes 10 to 20 minutes to administer. 

No training required 

Summary: 

Initial Material Cost: 1 (< $100) 

Reliability: 3 (mostly .65 or higher) 

Validity: 2 (all under .5 for concurrent) 

Norming Sample Characteristics: 1 (no norming 

sample) 

Ease of Administration and Scoring: 2 (self

administered) 

­

Description: The Parent Caregiver 

Relationship Scale (PCRS) was designed to 

measure the quality of the relationship between 

parents and caregivers in infant and toddler child 

care settings from the perspective of parents and 

caregivers. The PCRS is targeted to parents and 

caregivers of children 2 to 24 months old. It 

consists of two parallel questionnaires, each with 

35 statements, about the parent-caregiver 

relationship; both a parent and the caregiver of the 

parent’s child complete the questionnaires. 

Respondents rate their level of agreement or 

disagreement with each statement on a five-point 

scale. The two versions of the questionnaire, one 

with statements about the relationship tailored to 

parents and one with similar statements targeted 

to caregivers, consist of the following subscales: 

(1) Trust/Confidence, (2) Collaboration, and (3) 

Affiliation (i.e., liking or friendship, in the Parent 

Scale) or Caring (in the Caregiver Scale). 

Other Languages: None. 

Uses of Information: The PCRS was designed 

to help researchers better understand the parentcaregiver relationship and to elucidate the 

perceptions of parents and caregivers about their 

relationships with each other. 

Reliability: The authors conducted a field 

study in four Midwestern cities, drawing a sample 

from family child care (51 parents and 52 

caregivers, yielding 42 respondent pairs) and 

center-based child care settings (73 parents and 41 

caregivers, yielding 73 respondent pairs). 

1. Internal consistency reliability: Cronbach’s 

alphas were .93 for the Parent Scale and .94 

341 
 342

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

for the Caregiver Scale. Alphas for the 

subscales ranged from .75 (Affiliation) to .91 

(Confidence) for the Parent Scale and from 

.84 (Caring) to .92 (Confidence) for the 

Caregiver Scale. 

2.		 Test-retest reliability: the authors calculated 

Pearson’s correlations for samples in both 

family and center-based settings, with 

administration intervals between two and four 

weeks. In the family child care setting, 

coefficients were .80 for the Parent Scale and 

.84 for the Caregiver Scale. In the center-based 

child care setting, coefficients were .69 for the 

Parent Scale and .71 for the Caregiver Scale. 

Authors also reported that the Pearson’s 

correlations for the subscales ranged from .59 

to .78 (respondents not specified). 

3.		 Inter-rater reliability: not applicable. 

Validity: 

1.		 Content validity: The authors conducted 

Principal Component Analysis (PCA) 

analyses on the full sample of 124 parents and 

125 caregivers from the field study in four 

Midwestern cities. The analyses produced two 

similar factors for the parent and caregiver 

scales. The authors interpreted the factors as 

confidence and collaboration. 

2.		 Concurrent validity: the authors correlated 

the total PCRS scores from Parent and 

Caregiver scales with several variables related 

to child care in respondent samples from 

center-based and family child care settings. In 

center-based settings, the authors found 

positive correlations between the Caregiver 

Scale total scores with several variables: .27 

(number of months in child care setting), .28 

(caregiver work satisfaction), .33 (child care 

group size), .39 (caregiver rating of parent 

involvement in the center), and .45 (caregiver 

ratings of mothers’ parenting skills). Parent 

Scale total scores were correlated at .27 with 

current hours per week in child care and .36 

with parents’ overall satisfaction with the 

child care arrangement. 

The authors also reported statistically 

significant correlations between the variables 

described above and PCRS subscales. In the 

center-based subsample among parent 

respondents, the number of hours per week in 

care was most highly correlated with the 

Affiliation subscale (.30), and parents’ 

satisfaction with child care was most highly 

correlated with the Collaboration subscale 

(.37). In the full sample of parent respondents, 

total time in all child care settings was 

negatively correlated with the parent 

Collaboration subscale (-.22). 

For caregiver respondents, several variables 

were significantly correlated with the 

Confidence subscale, all in the center-based 

sample: child care group size (.33), caregivers’ 

general perception of parents (.38), caregivers’ 

rating of mothers (.48), caregivers’ work 

satisfaction (.27), and number of hours per 

week in care (.25). Total time spent in child 

care settings was also significantly correlated 

with the Collaboration subscale. 

342 
343 

Bias Analysis: The authors used t-tests to 

compare family child care and center-based child 

care subsample means for the PCRS total and 

subscale scores. The parent rating on the Caring 

subscale by the family caregiver sample was 

significantly higher than the center-based 

caregiver sample. Moreover, tested variables 

associated with child care, such as number of 

months in a child care setting and child care 

group size, were non-significant in the family 

child care subsample. Authors suggest that the 

lack of findings among the family child care 

subsample may be attributable to differences in 

the family child care environment (such as 

scheduling flexibility, amount of parent-caregiver 

interaction, and duration in care). 

Methods of Scoring: Respondents (parents or 

caregivers) indicate their degree of agreement or 

disagreement with each questionnaire statement 

on a five-point scale: 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 

(strongly agree). Item responses may be summed 

within subscales to obtain subscale scores, and 

scores across all subscales may be summed for the 

total PCRS scores. 

Interpretability: The authors indicated that 

scores derived from the PCRS are intended to 

reflect the mutual perceptions of parents and 

caregivers about their relationships in terms of 

providing care for infants. Authors intend to 

develop a “dyadic measure” that allows results to 

be combined for interpretation. 

Training Support: No training required. 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: No information 

available. 

Report Preparation Support: No 

information available. 

References: 

Elicker, James, Illene C. Noppe, and Lloyd D. 

Noppe. The Parent-Caregiver Relationship Scale: 

Caregiver Version. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue 

University, 1996. 

Elicker, James, Illene C. Noppe, and Lloyd D. 

Noppe. The Parent-Caregiver Relationship Scale: 

Parent Version. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue 

University, 1996. 

Elicker, James, Illene C. Noppe, Lloyd D. 

Noppe, and Cheryl A. Fortner-Wood. “The 

Parent-Caregiver Relationship Scale: Rounding 

Out the Relationship System in Infant Child 

Care.” Early Education and Development, vol. 8, 

no. 1, January 1997, pp. 83-100. 
 344

 

 

 

 

 

PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLIST AND RATING SCALES 

DEVELOPED FOR THE NATIONAL EARLY HEAD START RESEARCH AND 

EVALUATION PROJECT, 1997 (2011 Update) 

Authors: 

Ellen Kisker, Diane Paulsell, John Love, and Helen 

Raikes 

Publisher: 

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.
 


Contact Publications, 609-275-2350,
 


jallen@mathematica-mpr.com, or visit the website,
 


www.mathematica-mpr.com
 


Initial Material Cost: 

None 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: 

No norming sample 

Languages: 

English 

Type of Assessment: 

Program staff self-report 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

Not applicable 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: 

Not applicable 

Summary: 

Initial Material Cost: 1 (< $100)
 


Reliability: 1 (no norming sample)
 


Validity: Content validity established in relation to
 


Head Start Program Performance Standards
 


Norming Sample Characteristics: 1 (no norming
 


sample)
 


Ease of Administration and Scoring: 3 (administered
 


and scored by a highly trained individual)
 


Description: The program implementation 

checklist and rating scales developed for the 

national Early Head Start Research and Evaluation 

project were designed to guide the collection and 

organization of information related to 25 key 

elements of the Head Start Program Performance 

Standards and Early Head Start program 

guidelines. The checklist can be used to guide the 

collection of information related to the key 

program elements, and the rating scales can be 

used to assess how fully the program has 

implemented each key element, how fully key 

program areas are being implemented, and how 

fully the program is being implemented overall. 

The checklist contains 39 general criteria with 

references to the performance standards, as well as 

specific indicators for each general criterion. 

Completing the checklist requires collecting 

information from staff, parents, and program 

records. There are five ratings scales, one each for 

early childhood development and health services, 

family partnerships, staff development, 

community partnerships, and management 

systems. Each rating scale has multiple 

dimensions with ratings from 1 to 5. A rating of 4 

indicates full implementation and a rating of 5 

indicates enhanced implementation. The 

nationally representative Baby FACES 

longitudinal study of 89 Early Head Start 

programs (Baby FACES study) adapted the rating 

scales in 2009 (C. Vogel, personal communication, 

June 2011). Items were modified, and the 

administration was structured as a selfadministered questionnaire to program directors. 

Other Languages: None. 

344 
345 

Uses of Information: The checklist and rating 

scales are intended to help Early Head Start 

programs serving pregnant women and families 

with infants and toddlers identify areas that need 

improvements in order to continue to provide 

high-quality comprehensive services that meet 

Head Start performance standards and other 

regulations. They may be useful for organizing 

information in preparation for the Office of Head 

Start monitoring visits. 

Reliability: Reliability has not been 

established in the usual sense. However, an 

informal assessment conducted by the Office of 

Head Start monitoring staff concluded that the 

assessments of "full" or "enhanced" 

implementation on these rating scales were 

consistent with results of in-depth monitoring 

conducted by the Office. 

Validity: Content validity was established by 

reviewing the specific criteria for determining the 

rating on each dimension with representatives of 

the Office of Head Start and the Early Head Start 

National Resource Center. A form of predictive 

validity was assessed in the national Early Head 

Start Research and Evaluation project, which 

found that programs that were rated as fully 

implemented achieved a stronger pattern of 

impacts on children and families (ACF 2003). 

On the adapted rating scales used in the Baby 

FACES study in 2009, program directors' selfratings were not always consistent with other 

information provided by programs in surveys and 

were not clearly associated with other indicators 

of program quality (C. Vogel, personal 

communication, June 2011). As a result, 

researchers collected information in 2010 in the 

form of survey items and assigned response ranges 

and cut points in consultation with the Office of 

Head Start. Administration results are not 

available at this time. 

Bias Analysis: None. 

Methods of Scoring: The Early Head Start 

evaluation team developed overall ratings of each 

area and for the program overall by having 

multiple team members rate each program 

independently, meet to discuss any discrepancies 

in ratings, and agree on a consensus rating for 

each dimension. The team also created summary 

ratings of each area and for the program overall. 

To be rated fully implemented overall, a program 

had to receive a rating of 4 or 5 on most 

dimensions rated. This process could be followed 

by program staff who wanted to develop summary 

ratings. For the Baby FACES study, each program 

director's area rating was an average of the 

individual area components. Construction of the 

overall program rating was based on an average of 

each area, with the child development area 

weighted twice as much as the others (as in the 

EHSREP). 

Interpretability: The results obtained from 

the ratings of program implementation are readily 

interpretable by programs serving families with 

infants and toddlers to show areas of 

programmatic strengths and weaknesses. Because 

the scales are tied to key dimensions of the 

performance standards, program management 
 346

 

 

and staff can see ways to focus program 

improvement efforts. 

Training Support: The Early Head Start 

evaluation's final implementation report, 

Pathways to Quality (ACF 2002) describes the use 

of the checklist and rating scales in the national 

Early Head Start Research and Evaluation project. 

Copies of the rating are available in the report. 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: Not applicable. 

Report Preparation Support: Not applicable. 

References: 

Administration for Children and Families. 

Pathways to Quality and Full Implementation in 

Early Head Start Programs. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services, 2003. 

346 
347 

PROGRAM REVIEW INSTRUMENT FOR SYSTEMS MONITORING 

(PRISM), 2002 

Authors: 

American Institute for Research 

Publisher: 

Head Start Bureau 

(866) 763-6481 

puborder@headstartinfo.org 

Initial Material Cost: 

No costs 

Representativeness of Norming Sample: 

Not applicable 

Languages: 

English 

Type of Assessment: 

Comprehensive qualitative and quantitative 

assessment of program-level activities 

Age Range and Administration Interval: 

For programs serving families with children birth to 

age 5. 

Personnel, Training, Administration, and Scoring 

Requirements: 

Administered by Head Start Bureau personnel for 

program monitoring; can be used by program staff 

for self-review 

Summary: 

Initial Material Cost: 1 (< $100) 

Reliability: 1 (none described) 

Validity: 1 (none described) 

Norming Sample Characteristics: 1 (none described) 

Ease of Administration and Scoring: 1 (none 

described) 

Description: The Program Review 

Instrument for Systems Monitoring (PRISM) is 

both the instrument and the process used by the 

Administration on Children, Youth and Families 

to monitor Head Start programs to ensure 

compliance with program performance standards 

and other applicable regulations. The PRISM 

instruments are based on 17 Core Questions—9 

that focus on program services and 8 that focus on 

management systems. The PRISM review team 

uses a variety of methods to learn about a 

program. The team members interview staff, 

parents, community partners, and Policy Council 

and governing body members, individually and in 

groups. They observe classrooms and family child 

care settings, and conduct home visits. They also 

complete fiscal, health and safety, and bus ride 

checklists. PRISM review decisions are done 

through consensus about the program quality. 

Uses of Information: The assessment is 

intended to help Head Start programs identify 

areas that need improvements in order to 

continue to provide high-quality comprehensive 

services that meet Head Start performance 

standards and other regulations. The exact 

remedies are left to the program. 

Reliability: Not described. 

Validity: Not described. 

Method of Scoring: Throughout the review 

visit, the PRISM review team, guided by the 

federal team leader, holds formal and informal 

briefings with grantee staff to report on 

information team members witnessed, heard, and 

read. During these briefings, the grantee staff 

members are able to provide input on the 

findings. At the end of the review, the review team 

holds an exit meeting and summarizes its findings 
 348

 

in three areas—Child Development and Health 

Services, Family and Community Partnerships, 

and Program Design and Management. The 

review team will meet to share and analyze 

information collected during the visit. The team 

will work toward building consensus on issues 

related to the Core Questions. The review team 

members will then draft a three-part report—one 

for each area—that summarizes the program’s 

strengths and areas of concerns, reviews decisions 

by Core Questions, and lists findings requiring 

corrective action. The team leader, after 

consulting with other Regional Office staff, will 

use the draft report to prepare the Official Report. 

Interpretability: No information. 

Training Support: The Head Start 

publication, Partnership for Quality: A Grantee 

Guide to PRISM 2002 discusses what PRISM is 

and the PRISM review process, and provides 

suggestions on what programs can do to prepare 

for the review. 

Adaptations/Special Instructions for 

Individuals with Disabilities: Not applicable. The 

PRISM review criteria include evaluation of areas 

related to services for children with disabilities. 

Report Preparation Support: Not applicable. 

References: 

PRISM: Program Review Instrument for 

Systems Monitoring of Head Start and Early Head 

Start Grantees—All Instruments. 

PRISM: Program Review Instrument for 

Systems Monitoring of Head Start and Early Head 

Start Grantees—Partnerships for Quality: A 

Grantee Guide to PRISM 2002. 

348