Examiner's Manual & Technical Report - Kaplanco.com

More documents

Recommendations

Info

sessions, one to three weeks apart, to a sample of children representing various agegroups and including both normally and atypically developing children. Test-retestreliability was determined by examining the correlations between scores from the firstand second administrations by developmental domain and by age, separate within eachlanguage group. In addition, comparisons of the pattern of association for each languagegroup were made to examine whether the results were similar for the English and Spanishversions.• Interrater Reliability measures the extent to which different examiners agree in theirassessment of a single individual. The results of this instrument should reflect thedevelopmental skills of the child independent of the particular person administering theassessment, assuming proper procedures have been followed. In order to determine thelevel of interrater reliability, a sample of children was administered the LAP-D by twodifferent examiners in the same setting in consecutive sessions, one to three weeks apart.The sample of children in the interrater reliability study was representative of various agelevels and included children with typical and atypical development. Interrater reliabilitywas determined by examining the correlations for each developmental domain. Inaddition, comparisons of the pattern of association for each language group were made toexamine whether the results were similar for the two versions.In addition to the reliability and validity studies, normative scores for the LAP-D weredetermined based on the age groups. Five types of normative scores were calculated based on theentire study sample, excluding children with disabilities, with separate calculations conducted forthe English and Spanish versions including: 1) percentile ranks, 2) age-equivalent scores, 3) z-scores, 4) t-scores, and, 5) normal curve equivalents (NCE).Spanish Translation/Adaptation of the LAP-DTranslation/Adaptation. To translate/adapt the LAP-D into Spanish, the consensus method wasused, a multi-step process in which translators and reviewers reconcile differences and reachconsensus to achieve the best possible translation/adaptation. In this study, the consensus groupincluded the project co-directors, a primary translator, a technical editor, and a review committeerepresenting a total of seven different Spanish-speaking countries. The primary translator hadoverall responsibility for the translation. After completing the initial translation, a secondtranslator (technical editor) reviewed it for consistency of terms and phrases as well as grammarand spelling. Next, copies were distributed to a committee of reviewers composed of nativespeakers with knowledge and/or training in early childhood education or a related field. Thereview committee was asked to submit written comments as to whether the wording of thetranslation/adaptation accurately reflected the content and intent of the original instrument.Conference call meetings were held to reconcile differences and come to consensus on the pilottest version of the translated/adapted instrument.Pilot study. Once the translation/adaptation was completed, a pilot study was conducted with 92children in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The sample included 49 English-speaking children and43 Spanish-speaking children. Each child was administered the LAP-D in the appropriate42
language and the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-III (PPVT) or Test de Vocabulario enImagenes Peabody (TVIP). A series of analyses were conducted to determine the validity of thetranslation and the appropriateness of each item.• The patterns of association between chronological ages and raw scores on the LAP-D foreach language group were compared to determine whether the Spanish and Englishversions of the LAP-D were appropriately and similarly measuring changes associatedwith age.• The associations between the LAP-D and PPVT-III/TVIP raw scores were compared foreach language group to determine whether the Spanish and English versions of the LAP-D exhibited similar patterns of association relative to a criterion measure.• Differential item functioning analyses were conducted for each item on the two versionsof the LAP-D (English and Spanish) to determine whether any items were biased. Itemlevelcomparisons of the scores for the two different versions were made, adjusting fordifferences in ability based on the overall LAP-D scores.For the first set of analyses, correlations were computed between chronological age and rawscores on the LAP-D total and subscale scores for each language group. The results of thesecomparisons indicated that the correlations were similar for the two different versions of themeasure for the total scores (English r=.88, Spanish r=.96) and subscale scores (English r= .74-.90, Spanish r= .70-89), suggesting that the pilot versions of the LAP-D were appropriatelycapturing differences associated with age for both language groups.For the second set of analyses, correlations between the LAP-D subscale raw scores and PPVT-III/TVIP total raw scores were computed for the English and Spanish samples to examinewhether the Spanish version of the LAP-D was performing similarly to the English version basedon correspondence with an established criterion measure. These results suggested that the twoversions of the LAP-D were performing similarly on most subscales, with differences in themagnitude of the correlation for the two language groups of less than .20. The one exceptionwas the Letter Naming subscale in the Language domain, which exhibited a higher correlationfor the English sample (r=.87) than the Spanish sample (r=.60).For the third set of analyses examining differential item functioning, the proportion of childrenwith correct scores on each item was compared between the two language groups, adjusting forchildren’s overall level of functioning, in order to determine whether any items were biased. Thetotal sample was divided into three groups based on total LAP-D scores, the lower tercile (totalscore=31-94), the middle tercile (total score=95-158), and the upper tercile (total score=159-221), and the proportion of children with correct scores on each item was compared for theEnglish and Spanish samples. Similarly to the second set of analyses, the two language versionsperformed similarly on most items except for several items on the Letter Naming subscale in theLanguage domain. Approximately half of the items in this subscale exhibited substantialdifferences in the proportion of correct scores between the two age groups, and the Spanishtranslation of these items was re-examined for accuracy, consistency across different ethnicgroups, and item difficulty.43
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 48 and 49: of training and experience required
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:
Table B-12. Percentile Ranks for LA
Page 103 and 104:
Table B-14. Percentile Ranks for LA
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?