Examiner's Manual & Technical Report - Kaplanco.com

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Figure 5. Computing Raw ScoresDEVAGEJORGE # 1CA=54ITEMPre+/-DEVAGEJORGE #2CA=54ITEMPre+/-30DEVAGEJORGE #3CA=54ITEMPre+/-DEVAGEJORGE #4CA=5412 FM1 12 FW1 18 CM1 18 CC1 +12 FM2 15 FW2 24 CM2 24 CC2 −18 FM3 18 FW3 24 CM3 24 CC3 +18 FM4 24 FW4 24 CM4 24 CC4 −21 FM5 24 FW5 24 CM5 + 30 CC5 +24 FM6 30 FW6 36 CM6 + 36 CC6 +24 FM7 30 FW7 36 CM7 + 36 CC7 −30 FM8 30 FW8 42 CM8 − 36 CC8 +30 FM9 36 FW9 42 CM9 + 36 CC9 −30 FM10 36 FW10 + 48 CM10 + 42 CC10 −36 FM11 36 FW11 + 48 CM11 − 42 CC1136 FM12 42 FW12 + 48 CM12 + 42 CC1236 FM13 48 FW13 − 48 CM13 − 42 CC13 −36 FM14 48 FW14 + 54 CM14 − 48 CC1436 FM15 48 FW15 − 54 CM15 48 CC1542 FM16 54 FW16 − 54 CM16 54 CC16 −42 FM17 54 FW17 54 CM17 54 CC1742 FM18 54 FW18 54 CM18 60 CC1848 FM19 54 FW19 60 CM19 60 CC1948 FM20 54 FW20 60 CM20 60 CC2048 FM21 60 FW21 72 CM21 60 CC2154 FM22 + 60 FW22 72 CM22 66 CC2260 FM23 + 60 FW23 72 CM23 66 CC2360 FM24 + 66 FW24 72 CM24 66 CC2460 FM25 − 66 FW25 66 CC2566 FM26 − 66 FW26 72 CC2666 FM27 − 72 FW27 72 CC2772 FM28 72 FW28 72 CC2872 FW29 72 CC2972 FW30 72 CC3072 FW31 72 CC3172 CC3272 CC33Last item ceiling 27 Last item ceiling 16 Last item ceiling 14 Last item ceiling 10Subtract 3 Subtract 3 Subtract 4 Subtract 5Raw Score 24 Raw Score 13 Raw Score 10 Raw Score 5ITEMPre+/-
Types of Assessment ResultsStandard scores. The LAP-D yields two primary types of information. First, the LAP-Dprovides standard scores based on normative data, including percentile ranks, Z-scores, T-Scores, Normal Curve Equivalents (NCE), and age equivalent scores. These scores allow forcomparisons of skill levels between subscales/domains and help users understand a child’s skilldevelopment in comparison with other children of similar age and characteristics. Because of thediffering number of items in each subscale, raw scores cannot be compared from one subscale toanother in a meaningful way. However, standard scores use a common range regardless of thenumber of items or the developmental age range. For example, a standardized score enables theteacher to compare the similarity and/or difference between the child’s performance on onesubscale, such as Fine Motor: Writing to another subscale, such as Gross Motor Object:Movement.Standard scores are useful in determining broad areas or domains in which the child may behaving difficulty or in which a child excels. Such information may be useful in identifyingchildren with serious developmental delays or children needing special intervention. The LAP-Dprovides normative information about a child’s performance which, when used as a part of amulti-disciplinary assessment, may assist parents and professionals in making decisions aboutthe need for early intervention and the provision of special education and related services. Inaddition, such information may help teachers with planning and determining goals for classroominstruction.Specific developmental skill data. A second type of information that may be obtained fromLAP-D assessment results is specific developmental skill data. By reviewing the scoring ofindividual items within the subscales, the evaluator or teacher may identify skills a child hasmastered, emerging skills, and those skills that are beyond a child’s current developmental level.Items that were administered but not demonstrated by the child may serve as a basis foridentifying specific short-term objectives for the instructional program. The information derivedfrom the analysis of individual items may be converted into instructional objectives. Suchbehavioral descriptions derived or adapted from the assessment results provide an excellentfoundation for an individualized instructional program. Such information is also useful for thedevelopment of an Individual Education Program (IEP) or an Individualized Family Service Plan(IFSP) for children with disabilities. The LAP-D cards may be used for reinforcing skilldevelopment indicated in IEP or IFSP objectives.Completing the Scoring Summary & ProfileAll normative tables for standard scores are contained in the appendices of this manual. On theScoring Summary & Profile, columns have been provided for entering the percentile rank, ageequivalent, and standard z-scores, depending on which scores are desired on the summary. Thefollowing suggestions are provided to assist the examiner in completing the Scoring Summary &Profile. In addition, computer-based software is available that can generate all the information onthe Scoring Summary & Profile, as well as provide individualized goals and objectives forindividual children along with options for reports at the classroom, parent, and site levels. To31
Page 3 and 4: Initial DevelopmentDavid Wilson LeM
Page 6 and 7: About the AuthorsBelinda J. Hardin
Page 8 and 9: Interpreting LAP-D Profiles........
Page 10 and 11: validity, in English and Spanish?
Page 12 and 13: the LAP-D Third Edition is comprise
Page 15 and 16: Chapter 2Overview of the LAP-DThis
Page 17 and 18: egression procedures. This study ex
Page 19 and 20: Table 1. Subscales of the LAP-DDoma
Page 21: LAP-D Scoring Booklet. The Scoring
Page 24 and 25: ecomes inattentive or severely dist
Page 26 and 27: --When borrowing a month, borrow 30
Page 28 and 29: Determining Starting PointsOnce the
Page 30 and 31: Scoring Procedures RulesOnce the st
Page 32 and 33: Figure 3a. Determining the BasalJOR
Page 34 and 35: Ceiling RulesThe child’s ceiling
Page 36 and 37: Additional Scoring Rules1. Administ
Page 40 and 41: complete the Scoring Summary & Prof
Page 42 and 43: Figure 7: Shanika’s Scoring Summa
Page 44 and 45: Figure 9: Alan’s Scoring Summary
Page 46 and 47: Communicating Assessment Results to
Page 48 and 49: of training and experience required
Page 50 and 51: sessions, one to three weeks apart,
Page 52 and 53: Changes were made to the translatio
Page 54 and 55: 60-65 months 183 62.4 001.8 194 62.
Page 56 and 57: Table 6. Adults and Number of Child
Page 58 and 59: Prior to selection of the criterion
Page 60 and 61: additional 409 children (19.5%; n=2
Page 62 and 63: means, standard deviations, and cor
Page 64 and 65: • Comprehension30-35 months 99 08
Page 66 and 67: Table 12b. Internal Consistency of
Page 68 and 69: Table 13b. Standard Errors of Measu
Page 70 and 71: Test-retest reliability was determi
Page 72 and 73: speaking children, 8.62% were Black
Page 74 and 75: Table 17b. Means, Standard Deviatio
Page 76 and 77: Table 18b. Zero-order Correlations
Page 78 and 79: Table 20. Correlations Between LAP-
Page 80 and 81: Table 23 depicts the means, standar
Page 82 and 83: Age Equivalent ScoresAn age equival
Page 85 and 86: ReferencesAmerican Educational Rese
Page 87 and 88: Errata for theExaminer’s Manual &
Page 89 and 90:
Table A-1. Percentile Rank, NCE, t-
Page 91 and 92:
Table B-2. Percentile Ranks for LAP
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Table B-10. Percentile Ranks for LA
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
30-35 MONTHS 36-41 MONTHS 42-47 MON
Page 107 and 108:
30-35 MONTHS 36-41 MONTHS 42-47 MON
Page 109 and 110:
Table C-1. Percentile Ranks for LAP
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Table C-11. Percentile Ranks for LA
Page 121 and 122:
Table C-13. Percentile Ranks for LA
Page 123 and 124:
Table C-15. Percentile Ranks for To
Page 125:
Table C-16. Spanish Age Equivalents
show all

Examiner's Manual & Technical Report - Kaplanco.com

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?