Examiner's Manual & Technical Report - Kaplanco.com

More documents

Recommendations

Info

of training and experience required for a reliable and accurate administration of anassessment. The evaluator should ensure that he/she has the necessary qualifications toperform this task.4. The evaluator should ensure that the assessment is administered according to theprocedures followed during the standardization process. In the case of the LAP-D, thismeans that the examiner should adhere to the general procedures specified in this manualand the specific procedures for each item as described in the Examiner’s Manual,including using the materials designed exclusively for use with the assessment. Anydeparture from these procedures is not suggested and will reduce the accuracy of theresults; if any occurs, it should be clearly reported in the communication of assessmentresults.5. The examiner must never coach or tutor the child prior to the administration of theassessment. Assessment materials should not be reproduced and presented to children outsidethe assessment situation.6. Parents should be clearly informed of the purpose of the evaluation, and they shoulddetermine who should share in the results of the assessment.7. The evaluator should respect the copyright of an assessment and should not modify orreproduce parts without the written approval of the publisher.8. The evaluator should respect the individual’s right to privacy.40
Overview of StudyChapter 5Methodology and Procedures for the LAP-DReliability and Validity StudyTo re-norm the LAP-D in English and establish norms in Spanish, a sample of 2099 childrenwere recruited to participate in the reliability and validity studies. Four types of studies wereconducted as described below.• Construct validity examines the extent to which an instrument functions as a coherentmeasure. Construct validity of the LAP-D was measured in four ways: 1) by examiningthe intercorrelations among different subscales of the LAP-D; 2) by determining theinternal consistency coefficients for the overall scale and for each subscale; 3) bycalculating the Standard Errors of Measurement for the overall scale and for eachsubscale by age group; and, 4) by examining the relations between chronological age anddevelopmental age for the overall scale and for each subscale. In addition, differentialitem functioning analyses were conducted for each item on the two versions of the LAP-D (English and Spanish) to determine whether any items were biased. Item-levelcomparisons of the scores for the two different versions were made, adjusting fordifferences in ability based on the scores on the criterion validity instruments.• Criterion Validity, also called concurrent validity, examines the correspondencebetween individual scores on an instrument with scores on a similar instrument. A sampleof children was administered both the LAP-D and one of two other norm-referencedinstruments (i.e., appropriate subscales from the Woodcock-Johnson Tests ofAchievement or the DIAL-3, a screening instrument) in two sessions in close proximity(1-3 weeks apart). Each child was administered both assessments in their primarylanguage only (English or Spanish). The children in this sample were representative of arange of age levels and included children with typical and atypical development, so thatcriterion validity could be examined overall as well as for these different groups. Theassociations between the scores on the two different measures, calculated separately foreach language group, were examined to determine whether children scored similarly onthe LAP-D and the criterion measure. In addition, comparisons of the pattern ofassociation for each language group were examined to determine if the patterns weresimilar.• Test-Retest Reliability indicates the extent to which scores on a measure are consistentfrom one time period to the next when administered by the same individual. Because theLAP-D measures a continuum of progressively more advanced developmental skills, thetest-retest reliability was measured over a short period of time so that any differencebetween administrations were more likely to reflect reliability rather than development.The LAP-D was administered and then re-administered by the same examiner in two41
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 38 and 39: Figure 5. Computing Raw ScoresDEVAG
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 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 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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?