Examiner's Manual & Technical Report - Kaplanco.com

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Changes were made to the translation/adaptation as indicated by the results of these analyses toform the field test version of the Spanish LAP-D for the norming study.Item Analysis for the Norming StudyAfter the norming study was completed, analyses were conducted to examine item difficulty todetermine whether each item was appropriately placed on the LAP-D for both language versions.For each item on the LAP-D, the following calculations were performed for each languagegroup:• The number/percentage of children asked each item.• The number/percentage of children who scored correctly on each item (counting prebasalitems as correct and post-ceiling items as incorrect).• The number/percentage of those children administered each item who scored correctly(ignoring pre-basal and post-ceiling items).• The number/percentage of children in the corresponding chronological age range for eachitem who were administered the item and who scored correctly (ignoring pre-basal andpost-ceiling items).The results for the English and Spanish samples were compared to insure that the two languageversions of the LAP-D performed similarly. Additionally, the data from an English/Spanish fieldtest sample of more than 1000 children drawn from the Red-e Set Grow database were used toconfirm perceived patterns. Items where the number and/or percentage of children who correctlyanswered items appeared either inordinately high or low compared to surrounding items wereflagged.In order to preserve the correspondence between the English and Spanish versions of the LAP-D,changes in item placement were made only when it was deemed appropriate for both versions.The results of these analyses indicated that 23 (10%) of the items were placed incorrectly interms of difficulty level relative to other items in the subscale. Accordingly, the placement ofthese items was changed on the final version of the LAP-D, with 14 (6%) of items moved withina chronological age category and 9 (4%) moved to different age category.MethodsTo investigate the reliability and validity of the LAP-D, a sample representative of the UnitedStates was selected based on U.S. Census 2000 data (U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000; U. S.Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, March 2000). The project sample for thestandardization study included 2099 children ages 30 to 72 months old. Of these 2099 children,2022 were children with typical development, and 77 were children with professionallydiagnosed disabilities. The sample of atypically developing children was included to examinewhether the LAP-D could be used appropriately with children with disabilities. A stratified44
sampling procedure was used based on language, geographic region, age, race, gender, and typeof setting as described below.Geographic Distribution of Project SitesFour geographic areas were selected to represent the geographic regions of the United States:Northeast (Boston, Massachusetts), South (Orange and Wake Counties, North Carolina andMiami-Dade County, Florida), Central (Faribault Area, Minnesota), and Southwest (SanAntonio, Laredo, and Austin Areas, Texas). The site in the Northeast represented approximately5% of the sample (n = 91), while the remainder of the sample was fairly evenly distributedamong the other three geographic areas (South, 32.5%; Central, 32.0%; Southwest, 30.6%). Thedistribution of the sample by language and geographic region is illustrated in Table 2.Table 2. Distribution of Project Sample by Geographic Area and Language (N=2099)GeographicAreaEnglish Sample Spanish Sample Project Samplen % n % n %Northeast 0091 04.3 013 00.6 0104 004.9South 0330 15.7 352 16.8 0682 032.5Central 0354 16.9 317 15.1 0671 032.0Southwest 0349 16.6 293 14.0 0642 030.6Total 1124 53.5 975 46.5 2099 100.0Participant CharacteristicsAge and GenderChildren were recruited from the following seven age categories: 30-35 months, 36-41 months,42-47 months, 48-53 months, 54-59 months, 60-65 months, and 66-72 months. Table 3 showsthe distribution of the project sample by age for each language group and the total projectsample.Table 3. Mean Age (in months) and Standard Deviations by Age Category and Language for the ProjectSample (N=2099)English Sample Spanish Sample Total Project SampleAgeCategory n M SD n M SD N M SD30-35 months 100 33.1 001.6 78 32.3 01.7 178 32.7 01.736-41 months 124 38.7 001.7 92 38.9 01.7 216 38.8 01.742-47 months 180 44.9 001.7 124 44.8 01.6 304 44.8 01.748-53 months 181 50.6 001.9 200 50.6 01.7 381 50.6 1.854-59 months 217 56.7 001.6 184 56.6 01.7 401 56.6 01.745
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 50 and 51: sessions, one to three weeks apart,
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?